Title
Supreme Court
Garcia vs. Drilon
Case
G.R. No. 179267
Decision Date
Jun 25, 2013
Petitioner challenged R.A. 9262's constitutionality after a TPO was issued against him. SC upheld the law, ruling it valid under equal protection, due process, and family protection principles, dismissing claims of undue delegation of judicial power.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 179267)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Statutory and legal background
    • Republic Act No. 9262 (RA 9262) took effect on March 27, 2004, defining and criminalizing violence against women and their children (VAWC), providing protection orders from barangay officials and courts, and prescribing duties of local officials.
    • Section 14 of RA 9262 authorizes Punong Barangay or any available Barangay Kagawad to issue a 15-day Barangay Protection Order (BPO) ex parte, while Section 15 provides for 30-day Temporary Protection Orders (TPO) from the courts pending a hearing for a Permanent Protection Order (PPO).
  • Private respondent’s allegations and petition
    • On March 23, 2006, Rosalie Jaype-Garcia filed a verified petition for a TPO under RA 9262, claiming physical, psychological, emotional, and economic violence by her husband, petitioner Jesus C. Garcia, including isolation, threats, physical assaults that caused bruises and bleeding, and a suicide attempt on December 17, 2005.
    • She alleged deprivation of custody threats, financial support refusal, control over businesses and properties, and harassment of their three children—Jo-Ann (17), Jessie Anthone (6), and Joseph Eduard (3).
  • Procedural history before the RTC and CA
    • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City issued and repeatedly amended or renewed TPOs from March through September 2006, ordering respondent to remove personal belongings, stay away 1,000 meters, surrender firearms, provide financial support and bond, allow vehicle use, and bar property disposition.
    • Petitioner filed an Opposition and motions to modify the TPO; concurrently, he filed a petition for prohibition with injunction and TRO before the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 26, 2006, challenging RA 9262’s constitutionality and seeking to enjoin the TPOs.
    • On January 24, 2007, the CA dismissed the prohibition petition for failure to raise the constitutional issue at the earliest opportunity and as a collateral attack on a valid law; its denial of reconsideration was resolved on August 14, 2007.

Issues:

  • Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for prohibition on the ground that the issue of constitutionality was not raised at the earliest opportunity and constituted a collateral attack on the law?
  • Does RA 9262 violate the Equal Protection Clause by providing remedies only to women and not to men similarly situated?
  • Does RA 9262 infringe the Due Process Clause by authorizing ex parte protection orders and summary procedures?
  • Does the statute violate the constitutional policy to protect the family as a basic social institution?
  • Does RA 9262 constitute an undue delegation of judicial power to barangay officials?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.