G.R. No. 170701 - Tua vs. Mangrobang

On May 20, 2005, respondent Rossana Honrado-Tua filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite (Branch 22) Civil Case No. 0464-05, a Verified Petition under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) for herself and on behalf of her three minor children, seeking a protection order against her husband, petitioner Ralph P. Tua.
Respondent alleged abusive conduct by petitioner, including threats of physical harm to control her actions, deprivation of custody and access to their children, and threats to withhold financial support.

Petitioner cocked a gun and pointed it at his own head to dissuade respondent from pursuing a legal separation.
He forced the children to eat food spat out by the youngest child, threatened a crying child with a belt, physically assaulted respondent by grabbing her nape and pushing her, and on May 4, 2005 allegedly abducted the children from respondent’s home.

On May 23, 2005, Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang issued an ex parte TPO effective for 30 days, enjoining petitioner from committing or threatening harm, contacting respondent or their children, ordering him to stay 100 meters away from their residence and to deliver temporary custody of the children to respondent, and setting a hearing for a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) on June 9, 2005.
Petitioner filed a Comment in RTC denying allegations, claiming respondent’s moral unfitness, and asserting that the TPO violated his due process rights.

Without awaiting the RTC’s resolution of his Comment, petitioner elevated the matter to the CA via petition for certiorari, praying for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or TRO to enjoin enforcement of the TPO.
On June 9, 2005, the CA issued a TRO enjoining enforcement of the TPO; subsequently, after hearing, on October 28, 2005, the CA denied the petition for lack of merit and upheld the TPO.

Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA’s decision and raising two main issues regarding alleged due process violations/grave abuse of discretion and the constitutionality of RA 9262.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion and violated petitioner’s due process rights by upholding the ex parte TPO issued without his prior notice or hearing.
Whether the CA erred in refusing to rule on the constitutionality of RA 9262, particularly Section 15 authorizing ex parte Temporary Protection Orders.