A.C. No. 6297 - Parinas vs. Paguinto

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6297)

Factual Background

Respondent filed a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus before RTC‑Caloocan on March 24, 2011, seeking production of and return of custody over her biological daughter, Criselda. Respondent identified three known addresses for petitioner (two residential addresses in Caloocan and Quezon City, and an office address at the Ombudsman/Sandiganbayan complex). RTC‑Caloocan issued an initial writ on March 25, 2011 directing production of the child. The sheriff had difficulty effecting personal service at the earliest hearings; on March 29, 2011 copies of the petition and writ were left at petitioner’s Caloocan residence. Petitioner did not appear at hearings. On March 31, 2011 petitioner filed a petition for guardianship over Criselda in RTC‑Quezon City; respondent moved to dismiss on grounds including litis pendentia. Respondent also filed a criminal complaint for kidnapping on June 3, 2011. RTC‑Quezon City dismissed the guardianship petition on July 12, 2011 because of the pending habeas corpus in RTC‑Caloocan. RTC‑Caloocan later issued an alias writ on August 8, 2011 and the sheriff personally served petitioner in Quezon City during preliminary investigation proceedings on August 10, 2011. Petitioner moved to quash the writ and to dismiss, alleging lack of personal service and hence lack of jurisdiction by RTC‑Caloocan.

Procedural History

The trial court (RTC‑Caloocan) denied petitioner’s omnibus motion on January 20, 2012, reasoning that service of the writ operates to vest the court with jurisdiction over the respondent and need not be limited to service at a single enumerated address. Petitioner elevated the matter by a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition on May 17, 2013, directing RTC‑Caloocan to proceed with the habeas corpus matter, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Resolution dated December 27, 2013). Petitioner then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, seeking reversal and injunctive relief.

Issues Presented

Whether RTC‑Caloocan had jurisdiction to hear and decide the habeas corpus petition concerning custody of a minor residing in Quezon City.
Whether RTC‑Caloocan validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and over the person of the minor through the service of the writ in Quezon City.
Whether service of summons is required under the applicable custody/habeas corpus rules and whether service effected as it was here was sufficient to vest jurisdiction.

Relevant Legal Provisions and Standards

Section 20 of A.M. No. 03‑04‑04‑SC: establishes that a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court; the writ shall be enforceable within the judicial region to which the Family Court belongs; the petition may be filed with regular courts in the absence of a family court judge or where no family court exists; the writ may be made returnable to a family or regular court within the region where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be found; upon return the court shall decide custody issues.
Section 3 of A.M. No. 03‑04‑04‑SC: provides where petitions for custody of minors (distinct from habeas corpus petitions) shall be filed — in the family court of the province or city where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be found.
BP Blg. 129, Section 13: delineates judicial regions; Caloocan City and Quezon City are within the same judicial region (National Capital Judicial Region), enabling inter‑regional enforcement within that region.
Saulo v. Cruz (105 Phil. 315): holds that a writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhat comparable to a summons in ordinary civil actions; by service of the writ the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.
Rule 102, Rules of Court: procedural vehicle for habeas corpus petitions.
Rule 45, Rules of Court: governs petitions for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Venue and Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA and RTC rulings, holding that RTC‑Caloocan properly took cognizance of the habeas corpus petition. The Court emphasized that Section 20 makes the writ enforceable within the judicial region of the issuing family court; consequently, a habeas corpus petition may be filed with any proper RTC within the judicial region where enforcement is sought. Given that Caloocan and Quezon City belong to the National Capital Judicial Region under BP 129, a petition filed in RTC‑Caloocan could validly be enforced in Quezon City. The Court distinguished Section 3 (which concerns cust

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 6297)

Nature of the Case

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with prayer for injunctive relief filed in the Supreme Court.
Challenge to the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated May 17, 2013 and its Resolution dated December 27, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 123759.
Central question: whether the Regional Trial Court, Branch 130 in Caloocan City (RTC-Caloocan) had jurisdiction to hear and decide a special civil action for writ of habeas corpus involving custody of a minor residing in Quezon City, and whether the RTC-Caloocan validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner and the person of the minor, Criselda M. Cada (Criselda).
Secondary question: enforceability of the writ issued by RTC-Caloocan when the petitioner was purportedly served a copy of the writ in Quezon City.

Parties

Petitioner: Ma. Hazelina A. Tujan-Militante, acting in behalf of the minor Criselda M. Cada.
Respondent: Raquel M. Cada-Deapera.
Trial Court respondents named in appellate caption included Hon. Judge Raymundo Vallega, Presiding Judge of RTC Caloocan, Branch 130, and Sheriff Jun S. Pangilinan, Branch Sheriff of RTC Caloocan, Branch 130 (per CA docketing note).

Factual Background

March 24, 2011: Respondent Raquel M. Cada-Deapera filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus before RTC-Caloocan, docketed as Special Civil Action Case No. C-4344, seeking the immediate issuance of the writ directing petitioner to produce Criselda and to return custody to respondent.
Respondent stated three known addresses where petitioner could be served: (1) 24 Bangkal St., Amparo Village, Novaliches, Caloocan City; (2) 118B K9 Street, Kamias, Quezon City; and (3) petitioner’s office at the Ombudsman-Office of the Special Prosecutor, Sandiganbayan Centennial Building, Commonwealth Avenue cor. Batasan Road, Quezon City.
March 25, 2011: RTC-Caloocan issued a writ of habeas corpus, ordering petitioner to bring Criselda to court on March 28, 2011.
Sheriff attempted personal service several times but initially failed to personally serve petitioner copies of the habeas corpus petition and writ.
March 29, 2011: Sheriff left copies of the court processes at petitioner’s Caloocan residence; this was witnessed by respondent’s counsel and barangay officials.
Petitioner did not appear at the scheduled hearings before RTC-Caloocan.
March 31, 2011: Petitioner filed a Petition for Guardianship over Criselda before RTC, Branch 89, Quezon City (RTC-Quezon City).
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the guardianship petition on the ground of litis pendentia among others.
June 3, 2011: Respondent filed a criminal case for kidnapping before the Office of the City Prosecutor in Quezon City against petitioner and her counsel.
July 12, 2011: RTC-Quezon City granted respondent’s motion and dismissed the guardianship case due to the pendency of the habeas corpus petition before RTC-Caloocan.
August 4, 2011: Respondent moved for the ex parte issuance of an alias writ of habeas corpus before RTC-Caloocan; the trial court granted the motion on August 8, 2011.
August 8, 2011 order directed the Sheriff to serve the alias writ upon petitioner at the Office of the Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City on August 10, 2011.
The Sheriff served petitioner the August 8, 2011 Order and the Alias Writ during the preliminary investigation of the kidnapping case (service in Quezon City).
Petitioner, appearing specially, moved to quash the writ and moved for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition before RTC-Caloocan, claiming lack of personal service and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over her and the minor.

Procedural History

RTC-Caloocan: On January 20, 2012, denied petitioner’s omnibus motion (motion to quash alias writ; motion to dismiss), relying on Saulo v. Brig. Gen. Cruz and reasoning that a writ of habeas corpus functions comparably to a summons such that service of the writ gives the court jurisdiction over the respondent. The court held personal service was effected albeit in Quezon City and directed petitioner to appear with the minor on February 10, 2012.
CA: Petitioner filed certiorari with the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated May 17, 2013, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit and directed RTC-Caloocan to proceed with Spec. Proc. Case No. C-4344 for Habeas Corpus, giving utmost consideration to the best interest of the nearly 14-year old child. CA relied on the fact that respondent filed before the designated Family Court in Caloocan City, and on a barangay certification that petitioner was a bona fide resident of Brgy. 179, Caloocan City and a medical certificate (April 1, 2011) indicating Criselda’s address as "Amparo Village, KC."
CA held that service of summons is not required under Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (Rules on Custody of Minors and Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors) and that the rules on summons in ordinary civil actions do not apply to petitions for writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by CA in its Resolution dated December 27, 2013.
Supreme Court: Petitioner filed petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Supreme Court rendered decision on July 28, 2014, denying the petition and affirming the CA Decision and Resolution. Notice of judgment was issued indicating the decision was received August 29, 2014 by the Court’s office.

Issues Presented

Whether RTC-Caloocan had territorial/jurisdictional authority to entertain and decide the habeas corpus petition involving a minor residing in Quezon City.
Whether RTC-Caloocan validly acquired jurisdiction ove