Case Summary (G.R. No. 170701)
Petitioner’s Allegations
Petitioner denied all claims of abuse, asserted separation since November 2004, and accused respondent of moral impropriety and verbal threats. He challenged the constitutionality of RA 9262, arguing that the ex parte issuance of the TPO violated his right to due process.
Respondent’s Claims and Affidavit
Respondent alleged multiple incidents of violence and intimidation, including:
- Petitioner cocking a gun and pointing it to his head to dissuade her from legal separation proceedings.
- Forcing the children to eat contaminated food.
- Threatening a crying child with a belt.
- Physical assault by grabbing her nape and pushing her onto a bed.
- Forcible taking of their children from her home on May 4, 2005.
Key Dates
• May 20, 2005: Filing of petition for protection order before RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 0464-05.
• May 23, 2005: RTC issues TPO effective thirty days.
• June 9, 2005: Scheduled hearing for Permanent Protection Order (PPO).
• October 28, 2005: Court of Appeals (CA) decision upholding the TPO.
• January 22, 2014: Supreme Court decision affirming the CA.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution (due process, separation of powers).
• Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), particularly Sections 5 (acts of violence), 14 (Barangay Protection Orders), and 15 (Temporary Protection Orders).
Procedural History
Respondent secured a TPO ex parte from the RTC. Petitioner filed a comment and an urgent motion to lift the TPO, then elevated the matter to the CA via certiorari, seeking preliminary injunction and challenging RA 9262’s constitutionality. The CA issued a temporary restraining order, conducted hearings, and ultimately denied petitioner’s petition for lack of merit, upholding the RTC’s TPO.
Issues
- Whether the ex parte issuance of a TPO under Section 15 RA 9262 violates due process.
- Whether RA 9262’s grant of authority to courts and barangay officials to issue protection orders constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
- Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the May 23, 2005 TPO.
Constitutionality of Ex Parte TPO Provision
The Supreme Court reaffirmed Garcia v. Drilon: a Temporary Protection Order is analogous to a writ of preliminary attachment, justifying ex parte issuance when imminent harm threatens life, limb, or property. Procedural due process is satisfied by requiring a verified petition with affidavits, immediate service on the respondent, and a hearing within 30 days. The constitutionally protected opportunity to be heard exists through written opposition and accompanying affidavits.
Delegation of Legislative Power to Courts and Barangay Officials
The authority granted to trial courts and punong barangays to issue protection orders is a valid exercise of legislative power under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution. Courts act in their judicial capacity to adjudicate justiciable rights; barangay officials perform an executive function to maintain public order under the Local Government Code. No prohibited delegation arises.
Validity of the Temporary Protection Order
Under Section 15 RA 9262, the court may issue a TPO upon ex parte determination of necessity. Respondent’s allegations—gun intimidation, forced feeding of contaminated food, physical threats, and deprivation of financial support and custody—fit
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 170701)
Facts of the Case
- Rossana Honrado-Tua (respondent) and Ralph P. Tua (petitioner) married on January 10, 1998 in Makati City.
- They have three minor children: Joshua Raphael (b. February 9, 1999), Jesse Ruth Lois (b. June 27, 2000), and Jezreel Abigail (b. December 25, 2001).
- On May 20, 2005, respondent filed a Verified Petition with the RTC of Imus, Cavite (Civil Case No. 0464-05) under RA 9262 for herself and her children, seeking a protection order against petitioner.
- Allegations in the petition and attached affidavit included:
- Petitioner cocked a gun and pointed it to his head to dissuade respondent from pursuing legal separation.
- Petitioner threatened and inflicted emotional and physical harm on respondent and the children.
- He fed the children fried chicken already chewed and spat out by the youngest.
- He threatened a crying child with a belt and deprived respondent of financial support.
- On May 4, 2005, petitioner and companions forcibly took the children from respondent’s new home.
- On May 23, 2005, the RTC issued a 30-day Temporary Protection Order (TPO) directing:
- Petitioner to refrain from physical, verbal, emotional abuse and all forms of harassment.
- A 100-meter exclusion from respondent’s residence, school, workplace, and other frequented places.
- Immediate delivery of the three minor children to respondent for temporary custody.
- Law enforcement to enforce the order.
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a Comment and Urgent Motion to Lift the TPO, denying allegations and claiming respondent’s impropriety, mental unfitness, and violations of their written custody agreement.
- Without awaiting RTC action, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari and prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction, injunction against enforcement of the TPO, and a hold departure order.
- On June 9, 2005, the CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining enforcement of the RTC’s May 23, 2005 TPO.
- Petitioner later moved for a preliminary injunction to restrain all RTC proceedings.
- A hearing on the motion was held by the CA.
- On October 28, 2005, the CA denied the petition for certiorari and upheld the RTC’s TPO for lack of merit (CA-G.R. SP No. 89939).
- Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising due process and constitutionality issues under RA 9262.
Issues Presented
- Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in upholding the RTC’s TPO dated May 23, 2005 without observing due process and basic rights.
- Whether the CA erred in refusing to rule on the con