Case Summary (G.R. No. 154598)
Factual Background and Initial Proceedings
Petitioner and respondent married in 1998 and had one child in 1999. After respondent’s repeated absences and neglect, she left with the child on December 7, 2001, stating she was relocating to Basilan. Petitioner’s search efforts and a barangay certification failed to locate them. An initial habeas corpus petition in the Makati Family Court was dismissed, leading petitioner to file before the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals’ Jurisdictional Rationale
Citing RA 8369’s grant of “exclusive original jurisdiction” to family courts over custody-related habeas corpus, the CA concluded that BP 129 and RA 7902 were impliedly repealed insofar as they permitted the CA to issue nationwide writs in custody cases.
Petitioner’s Jurisdictional Concern
Petitioner maintained that exclusive family court jurisdiction would frustrate relief when the child’s location is transient or outside the territorial reach of a single family court, leaving no effective remedy against wrongful custody withholding.
Solicitor General’s Intervention and New Rule
The Solicitor General noted that A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (effective May 15, 2003) Section 20 allows filing of a custody-related habeas corpus petition with the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals and renders any granted writ enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, thereby addressing territorial limitations.
Supreme Court’s Holding on Concurrent Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court ruled that RA 8369 did not divest the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of their constitutional and statutory powers to issue writs of habeas corpus in custody-of-minors cases. Jurisdiction over such petitions is therefore concurrent: family courts exercise original jurisdiction within their regions; appellate courts exercise original jurisdiction with nationwide enforceability.
Legislative Intent and Welfare of the Child
Emphasizing the State’s duty to protect and promote child welfare under the 1987 Constitution and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Court held that a literal, exclusive reading of RA 8369 would contravene the law’s spirit. Concurrent jurisdiction ensures timely and effective relief without infringing on child privacy or well-being.
Statutory Construction and Precedents
Invoking Floresca v. Philex Mining Corp. (136 SCRA 141 [1985]), the Court applied the maxim that statutes should be harmonized and implied repeals are disfavored. Absent clear legislative intent to el
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 154598)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Richard Brian Thornton, an American, and respondent Adelfa Francisco Thornton, a Filipino, were married on August 28, 1998 in Manila.
- In 1999, respondent gave birth to their daughter, Sequeira Jennifer Delle Francisco Thornton.
- After three years of marriage, respondent grew restless as a housewife and resumed work as a guest relations officer in a nightclub, often leaving her daughter with household help.
- On December 7, 2001, respondent departed the family home with the minor child without notifying petitioner, claiming they were going to Sta. Clara, Lamitan, Basilan Province.
- Petitioner’s initial search in Basilan yielded no trace; a barangay certification confirmed respondent no longer resided there.
- Telephone records indicated respondent’s possible presence in Cavite, Nueva Ecija, Metro Manila, and other provinces.
Procedural History
- Petitioner first filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Family Court of Makati City; it was dismissed, presumably for lack of jurisdiction.
- He then filed a second petition before the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. SP No. 70501), seeking a nationwide writ of habeas corpus.
- On July 5, 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and insufficient substance.
Issue
- Whether Republic Act No. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997), which vested exclusive original jurisdiction in family courts over habeas corpus petitions related to custody of minors, impliedly repealed the writ-issuing jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals (under B.P. 129 and RA 7902) and of the Supreme Court in such cases.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
- Held that Section 5 of RA 8369 grants family court