Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Ralph P. Tua vs. Hon. Cesar A.

Mangrobang and Rosana Honrado-Tua


GR No. 170701
FACTS:
Respondent Rosana Honrado-Tua filed protection order with the RTC
against her husband Ralph Tua. She contends that her husband threatened
to cause her and her children physical harm, deprived of custody and access
to her children and deprived of financial support. RTC issued TPO, effective
for 30 days.
Then, hearing for permanent protection is set. Petitioner commented to
respondents petition with Urgent Petition to lift the TPO. Petioner denied the
respondents allegation and alleged that he had been maintaining separate
abode since November 2004 and that respondent is mentally,
psychologically, spiritually and morally unfit to keep the children in her
custody. Petitioner contended that the issuance of TPO is unconstitutional for
being violative of due process of 1987 Constitution.
Without any wait for resolution of his comment on the petition and
motion to lift TPO, petition filed with CA a petition for certiorari with prayer
for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction and hold departure order assailing the TPO.
The CA issued TRO to temporarily enjoin the parties from enforcing the
assailed TPO. Petitioner later filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Writ of
Preliminary Injunction with Manifestation. A hearing was conducted on the
motion. Petition is denied for lack of merit and upheld the TPO.
Thus, petitioner files this petition.
ISSUES:
Whether or not CA erred in finding a manner contrary to establish rules
and jurisprudence that respondent committed no grave abuse of discretion
when it issued the TPO without observing due process.

Whether or not CA refused to rule on constitutionality of RA 9262 has


decided the case not in accordance with established laws and jurisprudence
considering that contrary to its finding the constitutionality of RA 9262 is the
lis mota of the case.

RULING:
We find that since petitioner is assiling the validity of RA 9262, the
constitutionality of said law must first be decided upon. The petitioner
particularly directs his attack on Sec. 5 of RA 9262, the ex parte issuance of
TPO.
The SC ruled a protection order is an order issued to prevent further
acts of violence against women and their children. Since time is of the
essence in cases of VAWC if further violence is to be prevented, the court is
authorized to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle but brfore notice and hearing
when the life is in jeopardy and there is reasonable ground to believe that
the order is necessary to protect the victim.
The grant of TPO ex parte cannot be challenged as a violative of right
to due process. Here, the procedural due process must yield to the
necessities of protecting vital public interests, like protection of women and
their children from violence.
After TPO is issued ex parte notice is immediately given to respondednt
for him to file opposition within 5 days from receipt thereof.
Hence, the respondent judge is only acting in accordance with RA 9262
without any grave abuse of discretion.
It is settled doctrine thatb there is grave abuse of discretion when
there is a capricuouc and whimsical exercise of judgment is equivalent of
lack of jurisdiction, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so
patent and gross s9 as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
We find that the CA did not err when it found no grave abuse of
discretion committed by the RTC in issuance of TPO.