A.M. No. CA-04-39 - Flores vs. Adefuin-De la Cruz

From November 1981 to June 1982, the child was under the care and custody of the mother.
During this period, the petitioner exercised visitorial rights by taking the child out on Saturdays and returning her to the respondent’s residence on Saturday evenings.

On June 21, 1982, the petitioner visited the respondent’s house to take the child for a visit with the agreement that she would be returned by nightfall.
The child was not returned to the respondent after this visit, prompting legal action regarding custody.

On August 24, 1982, the respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Special Proceedings No. 9784) to recover custody of her acknowledged natural child.
On August 26, 1982, the petitioner filed a separate petition for custody of the minor in the same court (Special Proceedings No. 9788).
The respondent moved to dismiss the petitioner’s case on the ground of litis pendens because of the pending habeas corpus case; the motion was initially denied.
The petitioner eventually abandoned the prosecution of his custody petition, leading to its dismissal on October 26, 1983, by Judge Rizalina Bonifacio Vera.

On September 9, 1982, a hearing in Special Proceedings No. 9784, presided over by Judge Santiago Ranada, resulted in the parties agreeing to a custody arrangement whereby the petitioner would have custody of the child for seven (7) days every other week.
Judge Ranada issued an order implementing this agreement, specifying that the petitioner would take custody every other week (every Friday morning pickup and return the following Friday morning) with immediate effect and with the understanding that the primary custody remained with the respondent.

On May 24, 1983, the petitioner filed an urgent ex parte petition for a writ of preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court, Branch CLVIII, seeking to prevent the respondent from taking the minor child abroad (specifically to the United States).
On May 30, 1983, at the hearing, the respondent’s counsel moved for the withdrawal of the habeas corpus petition on grounds that it had become moot due to the child’s production before Judge Ranada and the existing custody order.
Respondent Judge Wilfredo Cainglet granted the withdrawal and, considering the pending related custody action (Special Proceedings No. 9788) and the petitioner’s abandonment thereof, denied the petitioner’s urgent ex parte petition for a preliminary injunction.
The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for reconsideration regarding the denial, which was also dismissed for lack of factual and legal justification.

On June 3, 1983, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with an application for a preliminary injunction before the Intermediate Appellate Court to question the May 30, 1983, order and the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
The Intermediate Appellate Court dismissed the petition for certiorari on August 5, 1983.
The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the adverse ruling was reaffirmed on August 17, 1983, leading to the final denial of the petition.

Whether the order of the respondent Judge dated May 30, 1983, dismissing the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction, was issued with grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the allowance of the voluntary withdrawal of the habeas corpus petition was proper and justified under the circumstances.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the custody of his minor child, Margaux H. Hontiveros, considering the existing agreement and subsequent developments.
Whether the petitioner’s abandonment of his own custody petition (Special Proceedings No. 9788) affects his claim to the child’s custody.