G.R. No. 234660 - Spouses Magdalino Gabun and Carol Gabun, Nora A. Lopez, and Marcelino Alfonso vs. Winston Clark Stolk, Sr.

Respondent Winston Clark Stolk, Sr. filed a verified petition for habeas corpus seeking absolute and permanent custody over his minor son, Winston Clark Daen Stolk, Jr. (Winston).
Respondent and Winston’s mother, Catherine Alfonso Daen, cohabited in Florida, USA for more than four years without marriage. Catherine returned to the Philippines and gave birth to Winston on July 22, 2007, but died hours after delivery.
Petitioners Spouses Magdalino and Carol Gabun, Nora A. Lopez, and Marcelino Alfonso (collateral grandparents/actual custodians related to Winston’s maternal line) took custody of Winston after Catherine’s death.

Respondent alleged he intended to assume custody and that Winston’s birth certificate listed him as father.
The RTC allowed DNA testing at respondent’s expense; St. Luke’s Medical Center found a 99.9997% probability of paternity; Dr. Raymundo W. Lo testified and confirmed the parentage report.
The RTC (Decision, April 22, 2014) granted the petition and awarded custody to respondent, relying on Articles 212 and 213 of the Family Code and giving little weight to respondent’s alleged criminal/deportation history.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration arguing: Articles 214 and 216 (not 212 and 213) apply because the parents were not married; respondent’s alleged criminal history and problems with authorities make him unfit; Winston’s preference to stay with petitioners must be respected; a DSWD case study is required under A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (Rule on Custody of Minors).
The RTC denied reconsideration (Order, Nov. 4, 2014).

Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal on November 24, 2014. The RTC dismissed the appeal (Order, Dec. 7, 2014) for nonpayment of docket fees within the reglementary period under Rule 41, Section 13.
The RTC declared the April 22, 2014 Decision final and executory on November 28, 2014 (Order, Dec. 11, 2014).

Petitioners sought reconsideration of the December 7, 2014 Order and manifested that service of the November 4, 2014 Order was improperly made on Nora (a party) on November 14, 2014, instead of on counsel; their counsel received the Order only on December 3, 2014 per postal certification.
Petitioners argued the 15-day period should be reckoned from counsel’s receipt (Dec. 3), hence their Nov. 24 Notice of Appeal and Nov. 27 payment were timely even under a shorter reckoning.
The RTC (Order, Aug. 26, 2016) held the dismissal of the appeal immutable; a later motion for reconsideration was denied as a prohibited second MR (Order, May 19, 2017).

Petitioners filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari on July 28, 2017 seeking, inter alia, nullification of the RTC Decision and orders, recall of the writ, a DSWD case study, HDO, lifting of warrants, and award of custody to them.
The CA dismissed the petition as time-barred (Resolution, Aug. 23, 2017): Rule 65’s 60-day period should run from denial of the first MR (receipt of the Aug. 26, 2016 Order on Mar. 9, 2017), and the July 28 filing was late; it also held the RTC Decision final and executory for late docket-fee payment and for filing beyond 48 hours (Rule 41, Sec. 3).
Petitioners’ MR was denied (Resolution, Oct. 9, 2017).

Petitioners assailed the CA’s dismissal and the RTC’s rulings, invoking grave abuse of discretion and the best-interest-of-the-child standard; they urged relaxation of procedural rules and challenged RTC’s application of Articles 212 and 213 instead of 176, 214, and 216; they stressed Winston’s written preference to remain with them and sought a DSWD case study and HDO.
Respondent countered that the RTC Decision was final and that the RTC properly exercised discretion in awarding custody.
The Supreme Court issued a TRO and HDO preventing Winston from leaving the Philippines (Resolution, Nov. 22, 2017).

Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioners’ Rule 65 petition as time-barred and in refusing to relax procedural rules given the best interest of the minor and alleged grave jurisdictional errors by the RTC.
Whether the RTC gravely erred in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for nonpayment of docket fees within the reglementary period and in treating the decision as final and executory.
Whether the correct period to appeal a habeas corpus case involving custody of a minor is 15 days under the Rule on Custody of Minors (Sec. 19) rather than 48 hours under Rule 41, Section 3.
Whether service of the RTC’s November 4, 2014 Order on a party (Nora) instead of on counsel was valid for reckoning appeal periods under Rule 13, Section 2.
Whether payment of appellate docket fees must be simultaneous with filing the notice of appeal, or whether both may be separately performed within the appeal period.

Whether the RTC erred in awarding custody to respondent based solely on paternity and by applying Articles 212 and 213 rather than Articles 176, 214, and 216 of the Family Code.
Whether the RTC should have ordered and considered a DSWD case study and applied the factors under Section 14 of the Rule on Custody of Minors, including the child’s preference and circumstances affecting welfare, safety, and development.
Whether exceptions to immutability of judgments and relaxation of rules should apply in light of the best-interest-of-the-child doctrine and parens patriae.