Previous 6 / 23 Next

protection order for the benefit of her child. By this clear statutory provision, Mendenilla had the requisite personality to file a petition for the issuance of a protection order in favor of Maria Sheila. I.C Petitioner claims, however, that Maria Sheila's prior filing of a criminal complaint precluded Mendenilla's subsequent filing of a petition for the issuance of a protection order. He capitalizes on the second paragraph of Section 8, as well as on Section 33 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC,[53] the procedural rules issued by this Court governing proceedings under the Anti-VAWC Law. Section 8 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC reads: Section 8. Who may file petition. — A petition for protection order may be filed by any of the following: (a) The offended party; (b) Parents or guardians of the offended party; (c) Ascendants, descendants or collateral relatives of the offended party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity; (d) Officers or social workers of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or social workers of local government units (LGUs); (e) Police officers, preferably those in charge of women and children's desks; (f) Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawad; (g) lawyer, counselor, therapist or healthcare provider of the petitioner; or (h) At least two concerned, responsible citizens of the place where the violence against women and their children occurred and who have personal knowledge of the offense committed. The filing of a petition for protection order by the offended parly suspends the right of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions. A petition filed by the offended party after the filing of a similar petition by an authorized party shall not be dismissed but shall be consolidated with the petition filed earlier. (Emphasis supplied) Section 33 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC reads: Section 33. When petition may proceed separately from or be deemed instituted with criminal action. — (a) An offended party may file a petition for protection order ahead of a criminal action arising from the same act. The same shall proceed separately from the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Pavlow v. Mendenilla

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 181489

Division: PH Supreme Court Second Division

Date of decision: Abr 19, 2017

Year of decision: 2017

GBV Case Type

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

Nature of the case: A petition for the issuance of a protection order was filed by Mendenilla, the mother of the victim against the American citizen husband of the victim. Barely three (3) months into their marriage, the victim filed a complaint against her husband for slight physical injuries and thereafter filed an amended complaint to include maltreatment in relation to the Anti-VAWC Law as a ground. The husband further assailed the personality of the mother of the victim to file for a TPO. The Court ruled that the mother of a victim of acts of violence against women and their children is expressly given personality by Section 9(b) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (the Anti-VAWC Law), to file a civil action petitioning for the issuance of a protection order for her child. In filing such a petition, she avails of a remedy that is distinct from the criminal action under Section 5 of the same law. The mere filing of such a criminal complaint, without the subsequent filing of an information in court, does not occasion litis pendentia or res judicata that precludes the filing of a petition for the issuance of a protection order. Hence, the CA’s decision affirming the RTC’s decision in issuing a TPO in favor of the victim is affirmed by the Court and thereby denying the claims of the husband.

Summary of outcome: The Court ruled that the mother of a victim of acts of violence against women and their children is expressly given personality by Section 9(b) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (the Anti-VAWC Law), to file a civil action petitioning for the issuance of a protection order for her child. In filing such a petition, she avails of a remedy that is distinct from the criminal action under Section 5 of the same law. The mere filing of such a criminal complaint, without the subsequent filing of an information in court, does not occasion litis pendentia or res judicata that precludes the filing of a petition for the issuance of a protection order. Hence, the CA’s decision affirming the RTC’s decision in issuing a TPO in favor of the victim is affirmed by the Court and thereby denying the claims of the husband.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Affected Sector

Women

Ponente: LEONEN, J,

Long title: STEVEN R. PAVLOW, PETITIONER, VS. CHERRY L. MENDENILLA, RESPONDENT.

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 14.570688

Longitude: 121.027166

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

STEVEN R. PAVLOW.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

Pavlow v. Mendenilla

Primary Documents

Notifications