G.R. No. 154598 - Thornton vs. Thornton

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154598)

Procedural History

Petitioner first filed a petition for habeas corpus in the designated Family Court in Makati City, which was dismissed. Petitioner thereafter sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency in substance, concluding that Republic Act No. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) vested exclusive original jurisdiction over habeas corpus in relation to custody of minors in Family Courts, thereby impliedly repealing earlier statutory grants of nationwide habeas corpus jurisdiction to the CA (Batas Pambansa 129 and RA 7902). Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Facts Material to Jurisdictional Question

Respondent frequently left the child in the care of household help and socialized outside the marital home. On the date of departure she failed to notify petitioner and gave the servants a Basilan destination. Subsequent investigation by petitioner and the barangay showed respondent was not residing in the stated Basilan barangay; petitioner then relied on cellphone billing showing movements across multiple provinces, suggesting uncertain and potentially transient whereabouts of the minor.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether RA 8369’s grant of “exclusive original jurisdiction” to Family Courts over petitions for habeas corpus in relation to custody of minors stripped the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of their authority to issue writs of habeas corpus enforceable nationwide in custody-of-minor cases, or whether appellate courts retain concurrent jurisdiction in circumstances warranting nationwide enforcement.

Applicable Law and Rules

RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997), Sec. 5(b): grants Family Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus in relation to custody of minors.
Batas Pambansa (BP) 129 and RA 7902: previously conferred jurisdiction on the CA to issue writs of habeas corpus enforceable nationwide.
Rule 102, Revised Rules of Court (procedural expression for habeas corpus authority and territorial scope).
A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors), Sec. 20: prescribes filing and territorial enforceability rules for habeas corpus petitions involving minors and expressly allows filing with Family Courts, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court, with nationwide enforceability if granted by the appellate courts.

Court of Appeals’ Reasoning (as reviewed)

The CA interpreted the term “exclusive” in RA 8369 literally and concluded that the Family Courts were the sole tribunal empowered to hear and issue writs of habeas corpus in custody-of-minor cases. The CA viewed this exclusivity as impliedly repealing previous statutory grants of habeas corpus jurisdiction to the CA (BP 129 and RA 7902). The CA rejected arguments based on expediency or practical need for nationwide enforcement as insufficient to confer jurisdiction where the statute purportedly established exclusivity.

Solicitor General’s Position and the A.M. Rule

The Solicitor General argued that Sec. 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC resolves the jurisdictional dispute by permitting petitions for writs of habeas corpus to be filed in the Family Court, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court, with the appellate courts’ writs enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The Solicitor General emphasized the paramount consideration of the child’s welfare and noted that allowing appellate-court relief in cases where the minor’s whereabouts are uncertain will better serve the child’s interests and will not unduly prejudice privacy given the ex parte nature of many habeas corpus petitions.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of “Exclusive” Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s literal reading of “exclusive.” It held that a literal interpretation producing practical injustice—leaving parents or guardians without an effective remedy when a minor’s location is transient or uncertain—cannot be permitted where the legislative purpose and constitutional mandates point to protecting the child’s welfare. The Court read RA 8369 in harmony with existing statutes and rules, concluding that Family Courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction within their territorial ambit but do not oust the concurrent authority of the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to issue writs enforceable nationwide where appropriate.

Precedent and Principles of Statutory Construction Applied

The Court relied on established principles that implied repeal is disfavored: two statutes must be absolutely incompatible before an implied repeal is found. The Court invoked precedent (Floresca) illustrating that statutes using the word “exclusive” have been construed to allow selective resort to other forums when justice, constitutional guarantees, or statutory intent so require. The Court emphasized harmonization of statutes and the presumption that the legislature knew and intended consistency with preexisting laws and constitutional mandates.

Constitutional and Policy Considerations

Applying the 1987 Constitution’s mandate to protect the rights and promote the welfare of children, and recognizing the State’s duty und

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 154598)

Case Caption, Citation and Procedural History

Title as printed in the source: "IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS RICHARD BRIAN THORNTON for and in behalf of the minor child SEQUEIRA JENNIFER DELLE FRANCISCO THORNTON petitioner, vs. ADELFA FRANCISCO THORNTON, respondent."
Supreme Court citation: 480 Phil. 224; 102 OG No. 10, 1389 (March 6, 2006).
G.R. No.: 154598; Decision date at appellate level: Court of Appeals resolution dated July 5, 2002 in CA G.R. SP No. 70501 (dismissed petition for habeas corpus).
Supreme Court action: Petition for review under Rule 45; Decision penned by Justice Corona; case G.R. No. 154598 decided August 16, 2004.
Court of Appeals panel for the dismissed petition: Resolution penned by Associate Justice Hilarion A. Aquino, concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Regalado E. Maambong.
Final disposition by the Supreme Court: Petition granted; the petition for habeas corpus in CA-G.R.-SP-No. 70501 reinstated and remanded to the Court of Appeals, Sixteenth Division.
Concurring and other justices: Panganiban (Chairman) and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur; Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. was on leave.

Facts as Found in the Record

Parties: Petitioner Richard Brian Thornton (an American) acting for and on behalf of the minor child Sequeira Jennifer Delle Francisco Thornton; Respondent Adelfa Francisco Thornton (a Filipino).
Marriage: Petitioner and respondent were married on August 28, 1998 at the Catholic Evangelical Church, United Nations Avenue, Manila.
Child: A baby girl, Sequeira Jennifer Delle Francisco Thornton, was born approximately one year after marriage.
Marital difficulties and conduct of respondent:
- After about three years, respondent became restless and bored as a housewife and wished to return to work as a guest relations officer in a nightclub with freedom to go out with friends.
- When petitioner was out of the country, respondent was often out with friends, leaving the child in the care of the househelp.
- Petitioner admonished respondent for irresponsibility but respondent persisted.
Disappearance and initial search:
- On December 7, 2001, respondent left the family home with the child without notifying petitioner.
- Respondent told the servants she was taking the child to Purok Marikit, Sta. Clara, Lamitan, Basilan Province.
- Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the designated Family Court in Makati City; that petition was dismissed, apparently because of the allegation that the child was in Basilan (outside that Family Court's territorial jurisdiction).
- Petitioner personally went to Basilan but did not find respondent or the child. The barangay office of Sta. Clara, Lamitan, Basilan issued a certification that respondent was no longer residing there.
- Petitioner ceased his search when he obtained respondent’s cellular phone bills showing calls made from multiple places including Cavite, Nueva Ecija, Metro Manila and other provinces.
Subsequent procedural steps:
- Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Court of Appeals because the Court of Appeals can issue a writ enforceable throughout the Philippines.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency in substance, reasoning that RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) gave Family Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus related to custody of minors and therefore implicitly repealed BP 129 and RA 7902 insofar as the Court of Appeals’ habeas corpus jurisdiction was concerned.

Questions Presented / Issues

Primary legal issue: Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors in light of RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) which grants Family Courts "exclusive original jurisdiction" over petitions for habeas corpus in relation to custody of children.
Subsidiary issues:
- Whether RA 8369 impliedly repealed BP 129 (Batas Pambansa 129, Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) and RA 7902 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, 1995) insofar as the power of the Court of Appeals to issue writs of habeas corpus is concerned.
- Whether, in practical terms, conferring exclusive jurisdiction only on Family Courts would leave petitioners without effective remedy when minors' locations are uncertain or transient.
- Whether Section 20 of the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, effective May 15, 2003) affects or renders moot the jurisdictional question.

Statutory and Rule Provisions Considered

RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997):
- Section 5: Jurisdiction of Family Court; subsection (b) enumerates "Petition for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter" and uses the term "exclusive original jurisdiction."
BP 129 (1981) Section 9(1): Granted the Intermediate Appellate Court (Court of Appeals) jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
RA 7902 (1995): Re-stated the conferment of jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals to issue writs of habeas corpus.
Rule 102, Section 1 (Rules of Court): Procedural expression of the Court of Appeals' power to issue the writ and the enforceability of such writs.
Section 2, Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court (quoted in the decision): Provides that the writ may be granted by the Supreme Court or any member thereof, or by the Court of Appeals or any member thereof "in the instances authorized by law," and if so granted shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines; contrasts grant by Court of First Instance enforceable only within judicial district.
A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (effective May 15, 2003) — Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors:
- Section 20: A verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court and the writ shall be enforceable within its judicial region; the petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any of its members and, if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines; the writ may be made returnable to a Family Court or regular court within the region where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be found for hearing and decision on the merits.
Constitutional provision noted: Article VIII, Section 5 — Supreme Cour