Case Digest (G.R. No. 170701)
Facts:
Ralph P. Tua v. Hon. Cesar A. Mangrobang; Rossana Honrado‑Tua, G.R. No. 170701, January 22, 2014, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.On May 20, 2005, respondent Rossana Honrado‑Tua filed a verified petition for a protection order under Republic Act No. 9262 (RA 9262) against her husband, petitioner Ralph P. Tua, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite; the petition alleged multiple acts of violence and threats against her and their three minor children and was docketed as Civil Case No. 0464‑05 (raffled to Branch 22). Attached to the petition was an affidavit recounting episodes the respondent described as physical threats, emotional abuse, deprivation of custody and financial support, and an alleged forcible taking of the children on May 4, 2005.
On May 23, 2005, Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang of Branch 22 issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) effective thirty days, directing among other things that the respondent be given temporary custody of the children and ordering respondent Ralph Tua to stay away and to desist from harassing or threatening the family. Petitioner Ralph Tua filed a Comment and an Urgent Motion to Lift the TPO in the RTC, denying the allegations, asserting that he had been living separately since November 2004, and contending that the issuance of the TPO violated due process.
Before the RTC resolved his motion, petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) by filing a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order and other reliefs, assailing only the May 23, 2005 TPO. On June 9, 2005, the CA issued a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the TPO. After hearings and motions in the CA, the CA, in CA‑G.R. SP No. 89939, issued a decision dated October 28, 2005 denying petitioner’s certiorari petition for lack of merit and upholding the RTC’s TPO as valid and not a product of grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner elevated the case by filing a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the CA decision, principally arguing that the ex parte issuance of the TPO under Section 15 o...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion and deny petitioner due process when it issued the Temporary Protection Order dated May 23, 2005 under Section 15 of RA 9262?
- Was the CA correct in refusing to rule on the constitutionality of provisions of RA 9262, and if not, is Section 15 (and the statutory scheme authorizing ex parte TPOs and barangay protec...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)