white tablets, which made her feel dizzy. She contended that she could not disobey petitioner for fear of being hit and
maltreated.[21]
On August 25, 2005, Makati Assistant City Prosecutor Romel S. Odronia (Assistant City Prosecutor Odronia) issued
a resolution dismissing Maria Sheila's criminal complaint, holding that Maria Sheila failed to substantiate her
allegations.[22]
Following this, on August 26, 2015, Mendenilla filed with the Quezon City Regional Trial Court a Petition [23] for Maria
Sheila's benefit, praying for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order or Permanent Protection Order under the
Anti-VAWC Law. This Petition was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-05-56169.
In her petition, Mendenilla recalled the same ordeal recounted by Maria Sheila in her own criminal complaint.
Mendenilla added that she had been aware of her daughter's ordeal and that on July 21, 2005, Maria Sheila was
admitted to St. Agnes General Hospital for injuries borne by Pavlow's alleged acts of violence. [24]
On August 31, 2005, Judge Giron-Dizon issued a Temporary Protection Order[25] in favor of Maria Sheila. Issued
along with this Order was a Summons[26] addressed to Pavlow.
In a Sheriff's Report with Clarification dated September 8, 2005, [27] Deputy Sheriff Arturo M. Velasco (Deputy Sheriff
Velasco) recounted that when service of summons with the Temporary Protection Order attached was attempted on
September 7, 2005, Pavlow was out of the country.[28] Thus, summons was served instead through his employee,
Tolentino, who also resided at Pavlow's own residence in Unit 1503, Grand Tower Condominium, 150 L.P. Leviste
St., Makati City.[29]
On September 13, 2005, Pavlow filed Omnibus Motions[30] praying for the dismissal of Mendenilla's petition, the
reconsideration of the issuance of the Temporary Protection Order, and the suspension of the enforcement of the
Temporary Protection Order. He raised as principal ground the Regional Trial Court's supposed lack of jurisdiction
over his person as summons was purportedly not properly served on him.[31]
In the Order dated December 6, 2005,[32] Judge Giron-Dizon denied Pavlow's motion to dismiss, reasoning that
substituted service of summons sufficed since the case filed by Mendenilla was an action in personam because
Pavlow was out of the country during the service of summons.[33]
Following Judge Giron-Dizon's denial of Pavlow's motion for reconsideration, Pavlow filed a Petition for
Certiorari[34] before the Court of Appeals. He charged Judge Giron-Dizon with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to
dismiss Mendenilla's Petition despite the alleged improper service of summons on him.[35] Petitioner further reasoned
that Mendenilla lacked personality to file her Petition [36] and that her filing of a petition only after Assistant City
Prosecutor Odronia dismissed Maria Sheila's criminal complaint was considered forum shopping.[37]
In its assailed October 17, 2007 Decision,[38] the Court of Appeals dismissed Pavlow's Petition for Certiorari. Likewise,
the Court of Appeals denied Pavlow's motion for reconsideration in its assailed January 25, 2008 Resolution.[39]
Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari [40] was filed.
This petition concerns substantially the same issues as those before the Court of Appeals:
First, whether respondent Cherry L. Mendenilla had personality to file a petition for the issuance of a protection order
under Section 8 of the Anti-VAWC Law[41] for the benefit of her daughter, Maria Sheila Mendenilla Pavlow;
Second, whether respondent Mendenilla engaged in forum shopping by filing a petition for the issuance of a
protection order after a criminal complaint under the Anti-VAWC Law was dismissed by the prosecutor; and
Finally, whether summons was properly served on petitioner Steven R. Pavlow and jurisdiction over his person was
validly acquired.
We sustain the ruling of the Court of Appeals and deny the Petition.
I