Previous 5 / 33 Next

from receipt of the Temporary Protection Order by his counsel, otherwise be declared in Indirect Contempt of Court; b) Respondent shall make an accounting or list of furniture and equipment in the conjugal house in Pitimini St., Capitolville Subdivision, Bacolod City within 24 hours from receipt of the Temporary Protection Order by his counsel; c) Ordering the Chief of the Women's Desk of the Bacolod City Police Headquarters to remove Respondent from the conjugal dwelling within eight (8) hours from receipt of the Temporary Protection Order by his counsel, and that he cannot return until 48 hours after the petitioners have left, so that the petitioner Rosalie and her representatives can remove things from the conjugal home and make an inventory of the household furniture, equipment and other things in the conjugal home, which shall be submitted to the Court. d) Deliver full financial support of Php200,000.00 and Php50,000.00 for rental and Php25,000.00 for clothes of the three petitioners (sic) children within 24 hours from receipt of the Temporary Protection Order by his counsel, otherwise be declared in indirect contempt of Court; e) That respondent surrender his two firearms and all unlicensed firearms to the Clerk of Court within 24 hours from receipt of the Temporary Protection Order by his counsel; f) That respondent shall pay petitioner educational expenses of the children upon presentation of proof of payment of such expenses.23 Claiming that petitioner continued to deprive them of financial support; failed to faithfully comply with the TPO; and committed new acts of harassment against her and their children, private respondent filed another application24 for the issuance of a TPO ex parte. She alleged inter alia that petitioner contrived a replevin suit against himself by J-Bros Trading, Inc., of which the latter was purportedly no longer president, with the end in view of recovering the Nissan Patrol and Starex Van used by private respondent and the children. A writ of replevin was served upon private respondent by a group of six or seven policemen with long firearms that scared the two small boys, Jessie Anthone and Joseph Eduard.25 While Joseph Eduard, then three years old, was driven to school, two men allegedly attempted to kidnap him, which incident traumatized the boy resulting in his refusal to go back to school. On another occasion, petitioner allegedly grabbed their daughter, Jo-Ann, by the arm and threatened her.26 The incident was reported to the police, and Jo-Ann subsequently filed a criminal complaint against her father for violation of R.A. 7610, also known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act." Aside from the replevin suit, petitioner's lawyers initiated the filing by the housemaids working at the conjugal home of a complaint for kidnapping and illegal detention against private respondent. This came about after private respondent, armed with a TPO, went to said home to get her and her children's belongings. Finding some of her things inside a housemaid's (Sheryl Jamola) bag in the maids' room, private respondent filed a case for qualified theft against Jamola.27 On August 23, 2006, the RTC issued a TPO,28 effective for thirty (30) days, which reads as follows: Respondent (petitioner herein), Jesus Chua Garcia, is hereby:

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Garcia v. Drilon

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 179267

Date of decision: Jun 25, 2013

Year of decision: 2013

GBV Case Type

Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (VAWC)

Nature of the case: A married woman, 45 years of age who belongs to the middle-class women, together with her 17 years old girl child, 6 years old and 3 years old boy children were abused by the accused who is the husband and the father of the victims respectively, physically, emotionally, psychological and economically and thus the private complainant for herself and in behalf of her children filed a verified petition before the RTC of Bacolod for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband as result of marital infidelity on the part of the accused with threats of deprivation of custody of her children and of financial support. Meanwhile, the accused belatedly questioned the constitutionality of RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004 of which the Supreme Court outrightly denied for the reason that the said law does not violate the equal protection clause of Article III of the Constitution nor is violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. Therefore, the TPO was then renewed and extended for 30 days and the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the accused challenging the validity / constitutionality of RA 9262 was denied for lack of merit.

Summary of outcome: Re: Temporary Protection Order: The same is renewed and extended for thirty (30) days. Re: Review on Certiorari (Challenging the validty / constitutionality of RA 9262: Denied for lack of merit.

Ration: No concrete evidence and convincing arguments were presented by petitioner to warrant a declaration of the unconstitutionality of R.A. 9262. In reiteration of Justice Puno's obsevation that "the history of the women's movement against domestic violence shows that one of its most difficult struggles was the fight against the violence of law itself. If we keep that in mind, law will not again be a hindrance to the struggle of women for equality but will be its fulfillment." Hence, the constitutionality of RA 9262 is sustained.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Affected Sector

Women

Ponente: PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Long title: JESUS C. GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court-Branch 41, Bacolod City, and ROSALIE JAYPE-GARCIA, for herself and in behalf of minor children, namely: JO-ANN, JOSEPH EDUARD, JESSE ANTHONE, all surnamed GARCIA, Respondents.

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 10.65916

Longitude: 122.967445

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

GARCIA V. DRILON.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

Garcia v. Drilon

Primary Documents

Notifications