G.R. No. 165166 - Gotardo vs. Buling

On September 6, 1995, Divina Buling (respondent) filed a complaint for compulsory recognition and support pendente lite against Charles Gotardo (petitioner) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maasin, Southern Leyte, Branch 25.
The complaint alleged that the petitioner is the father of her minor son, Gliffze O. Buling.
The petitioner denied paternity in his answer.

Respondent and petitioner met in December 1992 at their workplace, Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, Maasin branch.
Courting started in third week of December 1992; they became sweethearts by last week of January 1993.
The petitioner showed affection with greeting cards on special occasions; sexual relations began around September 1993 in the petitioner’s rented room.
The petitioner rented the room from March 1993 to August 1994 where sexual encounters took place about twice monthly, increasing in frequency by June 1994.
Respondent discovered pregnancy on August 8, 1994; petitioner was initially happy and planned marriage, including applying for a marriage license.
Petitioner later backed out, causing respondent to file a breach of promise to marry claim, later amicably settled.
Respondent gave birth to Gliffze on March 9, 1995. Petitioner failed to recognize or support the child.

The respondent demanded recognition and support by letter dated July 24, 1995; petitioner did not respond.
The RTC granted P2,000.00 monthly support pendente lite upon respondent’s motion, retroactive from March 1995.
Trial on merits proceeded; respondent and witness Rodulfo Lopez testified to establish relationship and paternity.
Petitioner denied paternity, asserting he first had sexual contact only in the first week of August 1994, claiming pregnancy period impossible.

In its June 25, 2002 decision, the RTC dismissed the complaint due to insufficient evidence of filiation.
RTC found inconsistencies in respondent’s testimony on first sexual contact (September 1993 vs. last week January 1993) and motive to continue relations despite rejecting marriage proposal.
RTC ordered respondent to return support pendente lite payments and imposed attorney’s fees of P10,000.00.

Respondent appealed the RTC decision to the CA.
On March 5, 2004, the CA set aside the RTC ruling, finding the respondent’s inconsistencies were honest mistakes due to misunderstanding questions.
CA ruled the petitioner and respondent had sexual relations prior to August 1994 and remanded recognition and support, reinstating P2,000.00 monthly support.
The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on July 27, 2004.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45, contesting the CA rulings.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in setting aside the RTC’s findings and ordering the petitioner to recognize and support his minor son.