Case Digest (G.R. No. 179267)
Facts:
Jesus C. Garcia v. The Honorable Ray Alan T. Drilon, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court‑Branch 41, Bacolod City, and Rosalie Jaype‑Garcia, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court En Banc, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.On March 23, 2006 Rosalie Jaype‑Garcia (private respondent) filed a verified petition under R.A. No. 9262 (the Anti‑Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, Bacolod City (a Family Court), seeking a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Jesus C. Garcia (petitioner). She alleged repeated physical, psychological and economic abuse arising from petitioner’s infidelity, threats, physical assaults on her and their daughter, an attempted suicide by the petitioner’s wife, and deprivation of financial information and support. The RTC granted an ex parte TPO on March 24, 2006 and subsequently issued amended and renewed TPOs (April 24, May 24, August 23, 2006 and extensions), granting broad reliefs including removal from the conjugal dwelling, stay‑away and no‑contact directives, surrender of firearms, provisional monetary support, preservation of conjugal assets, mandatory accounting and an onerous bond to keep the peace, and retention of certain vehicles by the petitioners.
Petitioner filed oppositions and motions to modify the TPOs in the RTC but also filed a special civil action for prohibition (with prayers for injunction and a TRO) before the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging: (a) the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262 (alleged violations of due process and equal protection), and (b) validity of the TPOs issued thereunder. The CA granted a 60‑day TRO on May 26, 2006 but on January 24, 2007 dismissed the petition for prohibition for petitioner's failure to raise the constitutional challenge at the earliest opportunity in the RTC and because the petition constituted a collateral attack on interlocutory orders. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on August 14, 2007.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), assailing the CA ruling and arguing that R.A. No. 9262 is unconstitutional under the equal protection and due process clauses and that it effec...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioner’s petition for prohibition on the ground that the constitutional challenge to R.A. No. 9262 was not raised at the earliest opportunity and that the petition constituted a collateral attack?
- Does R.A. No. 9262 violate the Equal Protection Clause by limiting statutory remedies to women and children and excluding men in similar situations?
- Does R.A. No. 9262 violate the Due Process Clause by permitting ex parte issuance of temporary protection orders that, petitioner claims, strip respondents of family, property and other rights without adequate notice and hearing?
- Does R.A. No. 9262 offend the Constitution’s policy to protect the family as a basic social institution?
- Does R.A. No. 9262 effect an undue delegation of judicial po...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)