G.R. No. 80391 - Limbona vs. Mangelin

On May 6, 2012, at approximately 11:40 AM, petitioners-spouses Rozelle Raymond Martin ("Raymart") and Claudine Margaret Santiago ("Claudine") arrived at Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 (NAIA 3) on a Cebu Pacific flight from a vacation.
Upon waiting for their baggage, they were informed it was offloaded and transferred to a different flight.
Petitioners filed a complaint at the Cebu Pacific complaint desk. While doing so, they noticed a man taking photos of Claudine with his cellphone.
Raymart confronted the man, identified later as Ramon “Mon” Tulfo, who then allegedly punched and kicked Raymart, leading to a physical fight.
Claudine approached and was allegedly kicked and pushed against the counter by Mon Tulfo. Raymart rushed to defend her; a man named Edoardo Benjamin Atilano joined the brawl.
Airport security intervened promptly, stopping the fight and bringing the parties to the Airport Police Department for investigation.

Days after the incident, respondents Raffy Tulfo, Ben Tulfo, and Erwin Tulfo (Mon's brothers) made public statements on their TV program, including comments, expletives, and retaliation threats against the petitioners.
Disturbed by these threats, petitioners filed for the issuance of a writ of amparo on May 11, 2012 before RTC Quezon City, Branch 219, docketed as SP No. Q-12-71275.

On May 23, 2012, Erwin Tulfo filed a Motion to Deny Issuance of Protection Order and/or Dismiss the Petition Motu Proprio, which petitioners opposed as a prohibited pleading.
On May 24, 2012, Presiding Judge Bayani Vargas granted a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) in favor of petitioners and directed respondents to file their return/answer.
Respondents, through Ben Tulfo, contended that their statements carried no actual threat but were expressions of strong sentiments defending their brother.
Judge Vargas submitted the case for resolution on June 29, 2012 but retired on July 11, 2012.
Acting Presiding Judge Maria Filomena Singh took over the case.

On August 6, 2012, RTC, via Judge Singh, dismissed the writ of amparo petition and dissolved the TPO.
The court ruled that the writ of amparo under the present rules applies only to cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof, not the present facts.
Despite the objection to the May 23, 2012 Motion as a prohibited pleading, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the case as outside the rule’s scope.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, denied on January 7, 2013, prompting this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the petitioners’ writ of amparo petition on grounds that the petition did not involve extrajudicial killings or enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

Whether the May 23, 2012 Motion to Dismiss was a prohibited pleading and if the RTC erred in considering it.