Case Digest (G.R. No. 152423) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On December 7, 2011, Ma. Victoria Estacio y Santos filed a petition for a permanent protection order under Republic Act No. 9262 before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 194, accompanied by an urgent prayer for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO). She alleged that her husband, Roberto Estacio y Salvosa, had committed physical, economic, and psychological violence against her and used their three common children—Manuel Roberto, Maria Katrina Ann, and Sharlene Mae—all of whom were adults at the time—to harass her. The RTC issued an ex parte TPO directing Roberto to remove himself from the family home in Marcelo Green Village, stay away from Victoria, their children, and other household members within a court-specified radius, cease any contact or harassment, and surrender any firearms. Roberto denied the allegations, counterclaimed for damages, and opposed the TPO. The RTC modified and extended the TPO during trial and, on February 20, 2013, made the order permanen... Case Digest (G.R. No. 152423) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the parties
- Roberto Estacio y Salvosa (husband/petitioner) and Ma. Victoria Estacio y Santos (wife/respondent) married on January 2, 1978.
- They have three children—Manuel Roberto, Maria Katrina Ann, and Sharlene Mae—all of whom were adults at the time of the controversy.
- Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court
- On December 7, 2011, respondent filed a petition for a permanent protection order under Republic Act No. 9262, with an urgent prayer for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO).
- The RTC issued an ex parte TPO barring petitioner from:
- Threatening or committing acts of violence, harassing or communicating with respondent or her relatives/friends by any means;
- Residing at or near respondent’s address;
- Coming within specified distances of respondent, her children, and household members;
- Possessing firearms, with surrender for disposition.
- In his Answer, petitioner denied allegations and counterclaimed for damages and fees.
- Modification and extension of the protection order
- On January 18, 2012, the RTC denied petitioner’s reliefs and modified the TPO to:
- Clarify prohibited means of communication;
- Name the adult children and household help as protected persons;
- Specify a two-kilometer stay-away radius from respondent, her children, and household members, and 500 meters from village gates;
- Retain weapons surrender.
- The modified order was extended multiple times during trial.
- On February 20, 2013, the RTC made the TPO permanent.
- Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- Petitioner appealed but did not oppose the permanent order; he challenged:
- Inclusion of adult children, arguing “children” under Section 3(h) of RA 9262 covers only those under 18 or incapable of self-care;
- The two-kilometer radius as excessive.
- On March 19, 2014, the CA affirmed, holding:
- Section 8(d) of RA 9262 authorizes inclusion of “any designated family or household member,” as amplified by Rule on VAWC’s definition of “family members”;
- Evidence showed petitioner used their children to harass respondent, constituting psychological violence;
- The stay-away distance lies within the court’s discretion and was not abused.
- Petition for review on certiorari
- Petitioner argued:
- Section 3(h) limits “children” to minors or incapacitated persons; adult children cannot be covered;
- Inclusion of adult children severs family relations and conflicts with restorative justice and family-protecting state policy;
- Designated family members must consent under Rule Section 11.
- Respondent maintained:
- Legislative intent and statutory text permit any family members, including adult children;
- Undisputed evidence of harassment via the children;
- Consent requirement applies only to catch-all reliefs, not to specific reliefs like stay-away directives.
Issues:
- Whether adult children may be included in the stay-away directive under the Permanent Protection Order issued pursuant to RA 9262.
- Whether the two-kilometer stay-away radius is excessive or constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)