G.R. No. L-45330 - Canete vs. Court of Appeals

The parties were married on November 26, 2000, at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, Intramuros, Manila, and their conjugal union produced a son, Carlos IAigo, born on July 5, 2002.
The marital relationship quickly deteriorated due to frequent squabbles even after the birth of their son.
Despite their marital discord, both parties initially continued residing in their conjugal home in Capitol Homes, Quezon City.

Since March 11, 2006, petitioner had relocated to her sister’s residence in Brixton Hills, Quezon City, while awaiting the return of their mother from abroad.
On March 14, 2006, private respondent removed the minor, Carlos IAigo, from the petitioner’s care.
The following day, petitioner was informed by private respondent that he would relinquish some documents; expecting for them to be related to their separation, she complied by preparing to leave with Carlos IAigo.
Disputes escalated when private respondent refused to allow petitioner to take the child, verbally abused her, physically assaulted her by hitting and choking her, and then left with the child, effectively barring petitioner from having access to him.
Petitioner immediately sought medical attention for her injuries and filed a report regarding the incident.

In response to being separated from her son, petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, to compel private respondent to produce Carlos IAigo before the court.
The initial order from the RTC, Branch 102 (dated May 23, 2006), directed private respondent to produce the minor as part of the hearing proceedings scheduled on May 25, 2006.
At the hearing, private respondent claimed the child was vacationing at Tagaytay Highlands and stated he was informed of the court order only on the evening of March 24, 2006.
Petitioner then consolidated the habeas corpus case with a pending case before RTC, Branch 86, regarding the violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.

On May 25, 2006, petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the hearing of the writ on May 26, 2006, which eventually led Presiding Judge Teodoro Bay of RTC, Branch 86, to issue an order on May 31, 2006.

The order granted the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus for Carlos IAigo while also extending the Temporary Protection Order and directing private respondent to produce the child on a set future date.

An Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for partial reconsideration was subsequently filed by petitioner concerning the portion granting private respondent custody of Carlos IAigo, allegedly in violation of Article 213 of the Family Code.
Acting on the motion, Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala, the Pairing Judge of Branch 86, issued an order on May 31, 2006, requiring private respondent to produce the minor on June 1, 2006, and warning that failure would result in the issuance of a bench warrant and potential contempt proceedings.
Private respondent failed to appear on June 1, 2006, leading to his declaration in contempt and the issuance of a bench warrant.

Private respondent, aggrieved by these actions, filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction.

The petition aimed to enjoin Judge Gonzales-Asdala from executing the disputed orders, including the bench warrant and directing custody of the minor.

On June 2, 2006, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution restraining the implementation of Judge Gonzales-Asdala’s order.
Another Resolution followed on June 7, 2006, which set aside and nullified the June 1, 2006 order.
Petitioner contended that the orders had already been implemented (or were moot) and reiterated her claim for sole custody based on Article 213 of the Family Code.

Petitioner admitted that the Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court was filed without first seeking reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ Resolutions, relying on precedents which allowed such filing when the issue was essentially legal or when a prior motion would have been futile.
The case also raised significant jurisdictional issues, particularly concerning which court had the authority over habeas corpus cases and custody issues, given that multiple courts (RTC, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court) had already entertained related proceedings.

Whether Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala, acting as the Pairing Judge of Branch 86, exceeded her jurisdiction by issuing the orders (dated May 31 and June 1, 2006), including the issuance of a bench warrant for private respondent’s failure to comply.

The petitioner argued that these orders were erroneously issued in the absence of the Presiding Judge and that the Court of Appeals’ Resolutions improperly restrained them.

Whether the issuance of a bench warrant, the imposition of continued custody on private respondent, and the subsequent temporary restraining orders were legally proper and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioner claimed that these actions violated Article 213 of the Family Code, which protects a child’s right to remain with the mother under certain conditions.
Private respondent contended that the procedural format was correct and that his right to question the judge’s orders before a higher court was intact.

Whether the acts aimed to be restrained by the Court of Appeals’ Resolutions had already been effectively implemented, thereby rendering the TRO moot.

Petitioner maintained that the orders had already taken effect, particularly given the physical service of Judge Gonzales-Asdala’s orders.
Private respondent argued that the actions were not fully implemented, retaining his procedural rights.

The issue of forum shopping and whether petitioner, by pursuing simultaneous actions in different courts (civil case and habeas corpus petition), sought to circumvent judicial rules on concurrent jurisdiction.

This raised questions about whether the RTC’s consolidated proceedings had exclusivity over the habeas corpus petition, and about the potential for conflicting orders issued by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.