Case Digest (G.R. No. 182367) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In February 2008, Cherryl B. Dolina filed a petition for a temporary protection order against Glenn D. Vallecera in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City under P.O. 2008-02-07. Dolina alleged woman and child abuse under Republic Act (R.A.) 9262, which addresses violence against women and their children. Along with her complaint, Dolina handwritten included a request for financial support from Vallecera for their purported child, citing the child's Certificate of Live Birth which identified Vallecera as the father. In response, Vallecera opposed the petition, contending that Dolina's motion was fundamentally a demand for financial support rather than a plea for protection. He denied paternity, claimed that his signature on the Certificate of Live Birth was forged, and insisted that he did not live with Dolina, negating the basis for a protective order. After conducting a hearing on March 13, 2008, the RTC dismissed Dolina's petition, asserting that there wa
... Case Digest (G.R. No. 182367) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Background of the Case
In February 2008, petitioner Cherryl B. Dolina filed a petition with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary protection order against respondent Glenn D. Vallecera before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City. The petition was filed under Republic Act (R.A.) 9262, also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act. Dolina alleged that Vallecera had committed acts of abuse against her and their child.
Prayer for Financial Support
In addition to seeking a protection order, Dolina included a handwritten prayer in the pro-forma complaint, requesting financial support from Vallecera for their child. She based this request on the child's Certificate of Live Birth, which listed Vallecera as the father. Dolina also asked the court to order Vallecera's employer, Philippine Airlines, to withhold a portion of his salary for child support.
Vallecera's Defense
Vallecera opposed the petition, arguing that it was primarily a claim for financial support rather than a genuine case of abuse. He denied being the father of the child, claiming that the signature on the Certificate of Live Birth was not his. Vallecera also asserted that he had never lived with Dolina, making a protection order unnecessary. He characterized the petition as a harassment suit aimed at forcing him to acknowledge the child and provide financial support.
RTC's Decision
On March 13, 2008, the RTC dismissed Dolina's petition, ruling that there was no prior judgment establishing the filiation of the child or granting the right to support. The court emphasized that Dolina needed to first file a petition for compulsory recognition of the child before seeking support. Dolina's motion for reconsideration was denied on April 4, 2008, prompting her to file a petition for review directly with the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The sole issue presented in this case is whether the RTC correctly dismissed Dolina's action for a temporary protection order and denied her application for temporary support for her child.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)