G.R. No. 193225 - BBB vs. AAA

Case Summary (G.R. No. 193225)

Factual Background

BBB and AAA met in 1991 and began a serious relationship in 1996. AAA had a son, CCC, from a previous relationship; with BBB she bore two more children, DDD (born December 11, 1997) and EEE (born October 19, 2000). The parties married in civil rites on October 10, 2002, and subsequently amended the birth certificates of the children to reflect legitimation by virtue of the marriage. Their marriage was marked by repeated conflicts. BBB alleged that AAA exhibited irrational jealousy and that he left the family home to avoid confrontation, while AAA accused BBB of persistent womanizing and public humiliation by an alleged mistress, FFF. AAA further claimed that BBB displayed biased treatment against CCC, failed to meet financial obligations, and engaged in stalking through a third party, GGG, who allegedly monitored visitors and movements. Citing economic and psychological abuse, AAA applied for a Temporary Protection Order and later sought its conversion into a Permanent Protection Order under R.A. No. 9262.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC found that AAA had established good ground for relief and issued a Temporary Protection Order, later made permanent by its Decision dated August 14, 2007. The Permanent Protection Order prohibited BBB from stalking, harassing, verbally abusing, insulting or cursing AAA; from committing acts that cause mental or emotional anguish or publicly exposing AAA’s alleged extramarital relations; from exposing the minor children to an immoral environment including allowing FFF to be with them; and required BBB to permit supervised visitation once a month accompanied by the Court Sheriff at his expense. The RTC granted AAA permanent sole custody of the common children, ordered BBB to pay monthly support in the amount of Php 62,918.97, required him to stay at least one hundred meters away from the offended party and designated family members and places frequented by them, ordered him to post a bond of Php 300,000.00 to keep the peace under Section 23 of R.A. No. 9262, and awarded AAA Php 100,000.00 as attorneys fees and costs of litigation.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

BBB appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings and dispositions of the RTC insofar as they were supported by substantial evidence, concluding that BBB had subjected AAA and the children to psychological, emotional and economic abuses and that his public relationship with FFF supported AAA’s allegations of infidelity. The CA, citing Section 28 of R.A. No. 9262 and Article 213 of the Family Code, nonetheless remanded the case to the RTC to determine custody since the children were then older than seven years. The CA denied BBB’s motion for partial reconsideration in its August 3, 2010 Resolution.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

In his Rule 45 petition, BBB raised principally legal claims that the CA erred in affirming (a) the conversion of the Temporary Protection Order into a Permanent Protection Order; (b) the award of attorneys fees and costs to AAA; and (c) the requirement that he post a Php 300,000.00 bond to keep the peace. He also challenged the admission of text messages as unauthenticated evidence and argued that the award of support should be deleted because DDD and EEE were allegedly in his actual care and custody after AAA left to work abroad.

Petitioner’s Contentions

BBB chiefly reiterated factual assertions regarding his financial incapacity and denied the substance of AAA’s accusations. He contended that the text messages introduced by AAA were unauthenticated and therefore inadmissible. He further argued that the PPO had become moot because circumstances changed: he purportedly then had actual care and custody of DDD and EEE, and contact between the spouses was minimal. Finally, BBB informed the Court that he and AAA purportedly executed a Memorandum of Agreement concerning custody, parental authority and support.

Respondent’s Opposition

AAA maintained that BBB continued to violate the PPO, had not posted the required bond, had failed to pay the awarded attorneys fees and costs, and had not provided support for CCC, who the parties had caused to be legitimated. AAA asserted that she left the children under duress and for lack of financial support. Her counsel questioned the voluntariness of the MOA and reiterated that cases under R.A. No. 9262 are not proper subjects of compromise.

Supreme Court’s Conclusion on Compromise

The Supreme Court held that the petition was not a proper subject for resolution by compromise. The Court emphasized that cases involving acts constituting violence against women under R.A. No. 9262 are not susceptible to compromise, citing Section 23(d) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC and the Court’s decision in Garcia v. Drilon. The Court noted that AM No. 10-4-16-SC excludes from court-annexed mediation those matters governed by R.A. No. 9262, and therefore declined to dispose of the petition by enforcing the parties’ Memorandum of Agreement.

Supreme Court’s Review of Merits and Evidentiary Issues

The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the factual findings of the RTC and the CA and affirmed the issuance of the Permanent Protection Order except as to specific provisions relating to custody, visitation and support. The Court explained that several of BBB’s asserted errors invited a reexamination of factual findings, which is beyond the scope of a petition under Rule 45, Rules of Court, citing Padalhin v. Lavina. On the admissibility of the text messages, the Court applied Justice Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud, observing that BBB’s pleadings effectively admitted authorship of the messages and therefore rendered objections to authentication moot.

Filiation, Estoppel and Custody Considerations

The Court addressed BBB’s contention that CCC is not his biological son by holding that, having voluntarily acknowledged and caused legitimation, BBB was estopped under Article 1431 of the New Civil Code from denying the representation to the detriment of AAA and CCC. The Court ruled that collateral attack on legitimacy was improper in the present proceedings, citing Tison v. CA, and affirmed that CCC, like DDD and EEE, remained entitled to paternal support under Article 179 of the Family Code.

Disposition, Remand and Instructions to the Trial Court

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision dated November 6, 2009 and the CA Resolution dated August 3, 2010. The Court declared that the Permanent Protection Order dated August 14, 2007 stands in its entirety except items (d), (f), (g), (h) and (i), which concern who shall be granted custody of the three children, visitation arrangements, and the amount and manner of financial support. The case was remanded to the RTC for prompt determination, with directions that the trial court: (1) determine who between BBB and AAA shall exercise custody over CCC, DDD and EEE; (2) define how visitation shall be exercised; and (3) fix the amount and manner of financial support. The Court instructed the RTC to consider the children’s choices because they are all older than seven years and to weigh BBB’s resources and the necessities of AAA and the children pursuant to Articles 201 and 202 of the Family Code, noting that support may be adjusted proporti

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 193225)

Parties and Posture

BBB was the petitioner before the Supreme Court seeking review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Court of Appeals decision affirming a Permanent Protection Order issued by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 162.
AAA was the respondent who obtained a Temporary Protection Order and thereafter a Permanent Protection Order against BBB dated August 14, 2007.
The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dated November 6, 2009 and a Resolution dated August 3, 2010 in CA-G.R. CV No. 89581 which affirmed with modification the RTC decision and which BBB appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Facts

BBB and AAA began a serious relationship in 1996 and were civilly married on October 10, 2002.
AAA had a son, CCC, from a previous relationship and bore two more children with BBB, namely DDD (born December 11, 1997) and EEE (born October 19, 2000).
AAA alleged that BBB engaged in persistent womanizing and public conduct with a woman named FFF, which culminated in public insult and humiliation of AAA and caused emotional and psychological distress.
AAA alleged additional instances of verbal abuse, stalking through the use of a friend GGG, failure to pay household expenses and rent, and insufficient financial support leading her to work and incur loans.
AAA presented text messages and other proofs alleging verbal and psychological abuse by BBB, and the RTC initially granted a TPO which was later made permanent on August 14, 2007.
The RTC’s dispositive orders included granting AAA permanent sole custody of the children, allowing BBB supervised visitation once a month accompanied by the court sheriff, ordering BBB to pay monthly support in the amount of Php 62,918.97, ordering BBB to post bond in the amount of Php 300,000.00, and awarding AAA attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of Php 100,000.00.

Procedural History

AAA filed an application for a Temporary Protection Order and a Permanent Protection Order under R.A. No. 9262 before the RTC of Pasig City.
The RTC issued a TPO and thereafter a PPO on August 14, 2007, whose dispositive provisions were set out in the RTC decision.
BBB filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals which, by Decision dated November 6, 2009, affirmed the RTC’s factual findings and dispositions but remanded the issue of custody for further determination.
The Court of Appeals denied BBB’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration by Resolution dated August 3, 2010.
BBB filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court challenging the PPO, the award of attorneys’ fees and costs, the bond amount, admissibility of text messages, and the award of support.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision to make the TPO permanent.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation in favor of AAA.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s order requiring BBB to post an excessive bond to keep the peace.
Whether the RTC and the Court of Appeals correctly admitted into evidence the unauthenticated text messages adduced by AAA.
Whether the award of support should be deleted because DDD and EEE were allegedly under BBB’s actual care and custody after AAA left to work in the United States.

Contentions of Parties

BBB contended that the issuance of the PPO, the award of attorneys’ fees and costs, and the bond requirement lacked factual basis and that the texts were unauthenticated and thus inadmissible.
BBB further contended that subsequent events rendered the PPO moot because he asserted actual care and custody of DDD and EEE, and he invoked a Memorandum of Agreement said to resolve custody and support.
AAA countered that BBB raised predominantly factual issues beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition and that BBB conti