Case Digest (G.R. No. 175279-80)
Facts:
In Susan Lim-Lua v. Danilo Y. Lua, G.R. Nos. 175279-80, June 05, 2013, the Supreme Court First Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court, resolved a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari from consolidated proceedings in the Court of Appeals.Petitioner Susan Lim‑Lua filed on September 3, 2003 a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage (Civil Case No. CEB‑29346, RTC Cebu City, Branch 14) and prayed for support pendente lite for herself and two children, originally asking P500,000.00 monthly. After hearings the trial court (Judge Raphael B. Yrastorza, Sr.) ordered on March 31, 2004 monthly support pendente lite of P250,000.00 and retroactive support to the filing date, plus a P135,000.00 allocation for petitioner’s medical attendance when needed. Respondent Danilo Y. Lua moved for reconsideration; the trial court treated his first motion as defective for lack of proper notice and, after denying a second motion, ordered him to show cause for contempt for failing to comply.
Respondent sought relief in the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for certiorari (CA‑G.R. SP No. 84740 / later cited as CA‑G.R. SP No. 01315 in consolidated matters). On April 12, 2005 the CA found that the trial court had abused its discretion in fixing P250,000.00 without adequate proof and reduced monthly support to P115,000.00 and directed computation of arrears from September 2003 to March 2005 less amounts allegedly given by respondent. Respondent did not appeal that CA decision.
In compliance with the CA mandate (June 28, 2005), respondent submitted a check and an accounting showing he had deducted advances and expenditures for the children (including the purchase and maintenance of two cars, credit‑card charges, tuition and travel) from the support in arrears, totaling P2,482,348.16, and later presented additional alleged advances totaling P946,465.64 (grand total P3,428,813.80). Petitioner objected and the RTC, by Order dated September 27, 2005, granted a writ of execution for the arrears and rejected respondent’s deductions; Judge Yrastorza denied motions for reconsideration and for inhibition on November 25, 2005.
Petitioner then filed in the CA a petition for contempt (CA‑G.R. SP No. 01154), while respondent filed a petition for certiorari (CA‑G.R. SP No. 01315) assailing the RTC orders; the CA consolidated both matters. By Decision dated April 20, 2006 the CA dismissed the contempt case and granted respondent’s certiorari, nullifying the RTC orders and allowing the full deductions totaling P3,428,813.80 from the arrears, ordering respondent to resume monthly payments of P115,000.00 and directing issuance of a permanent writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied.
Petitioner brought this Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the CA...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was respondent Danilo Y. Lua guilty of indirect contempt for deferring payment of support pendente lite?
- May respondent deduct the listed expenditures (including car purchases and various credit‑card and maintenance charges) from the support pendente lite in arrears as the Cour...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)