Mercado vs. Lopena

Facts:

Petitioners are Ma. Sugar M. Mercado (joined by her parents, spouses Reynaldo and Yolanda Mercado). Private respondents are family members and associates of petitioner Mercado’s estranged husband—primarily Kristofer Jay I. Go (her husband), his parents Peter and Esther Go, other relatives and friends—and public respondents are several judges and prosecutors who presided over or handled the multiple actions between the parties, together with Vitaliano Aguirre II (in his capacity as Secretary of Justice) and Donald Lee (Chief, Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City).

The dispute springs from an acrimonious domestic separation between Mercado and Go that produced a flurry of civil and criminal actions filed by both sides. Beginning in late 2015, Go filed (among others) a Petition for Habeas Corpus with Custody of the children (Civil Case No. R‑QZN‑15‑08943, RTC Branch 86) and criminal complaints (e.g., libel, physical injuries, unjust vexation), some of which were later dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) for lack of probable cause. From February 2016 private respondents filed additional complaints including allegations under the Cybercrime Prevention Act and indirect contempt actions; some were dismissed for lack of probable cause while others remained pending.

Conversely, on November 5, 2015, petitioner Mercado filed an urgent petition for a Temporary and/or Permanent Protection Order (TPO/PPO) under the Anti‑Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (R.A. No. 9262) (Civil Case No. R‑QZN‑15‑10201, also raffled to RTC Branch 86). On February 19, 2016 the RTC granted a PPO in Mercado’s favor; the Court of Appeals denied Go’s appeal (CA decision dated March 3, 2017) and a subsequent Rule 45 petition (G.R. No. 232206) was denied by resolution on October 2, 2017. Mercado also filed criminal complaints under R.A. No. 9262 that were dismissed by the OCP for insufficiency of evidence.

Claiming that the various suits filed against them were Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) designed to harass and coerce them (including to yield custody), petitioners sought relief in the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 (the present petition), praying inter alia that the subject cases be declared SLAPP, for injunctive relief restraining further proceedings, for immediate dismissal of those cases, and for amendment of the Court’s Rule on Violence Against Women and Children (A.M. No. 04‑10‑11‑SC) to include anti‑SLAPP provisions.

Private respondents opposed the petition as procedurally defective, accused petitioners of forum‑shopping, and maintained the actions had factual and legal bases; public respondents (through the OSG) likewise argued the petition was premature, that plain, speedy, adequate remedi...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Is the petition for certiorari/prohibition under Rule 65 procedurally proper and timely, including compliance with the Rules’ requirement to state material dates and exhaustion of plain, speedy, and adequate remedies?
• May petitioners invoke the Court’s rule‑making power (to extend SLAPP protections) through a Rule 65 petition?
• Did public respondents commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the subject cases despite the issu...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)