SEMINAR ON WRITS OF RESTRAINT

FACT PATTERN

Mr. AAA and Ms. BBB are not married but have been in a common-law relationship, as
defined by the Family Code, for ten years. They have tried for the last nine years to have
a child but have failed, with BBB having several miscarriages. On their tenth year (2017),
AAA and BBB split, but not after discovering that BBB is pregnant. AAA leaves BBB
nonetheless and does not provide any material or other support to her during her entire
pregnancy. It is BBBs parents, YYY and ZZZ who support BBB during the entire period
of her pregnancy. In the meantime, AAA takes up with a new girlfriend, XXX.

Carrying the baby to full term, BBB delivers but suffers a severe stroke during delivery;
at some point, she suffers from massive blood loss which affects her and her son, CCC.
The doctors perform an emergency caesarean section to deliver CCC but discover that
due to blood loss, both BBB and CCC are now in a vegetative state.

YYY and ZZZ consult their doctors to find out the prognosis for both BBB and CCC.
They are told that BBB is not brain dead because while she cannot think, speak or
respond to commands, there is a high possibility that she may be aware of her
surroundings. According to their doctors, BBB has non-cognitive functions and breathing
and circulation remain relatively intact; she breathes on her own and blinks occasionally,
although not in response to stimulus. BBB is fed through a feeding tube that sends
nutrients direct to her stomach. On the other hand, CCC has severe impairment to his
cognitive functions and is on a respirator, unable to breathe on his own; because BBB
cannot produce milk, CCC has to be fed with milk from donors. Doctors tell YYY and
ZZZ that even if CCC survives, he will have severe cognitive impairment.

AAA finds out that BBB has delivered and that there have been complications. He asks to
see her and CCC but is refused by BBBs parents. AAA consults with his own doctors
and asks about BBBs and CCCs condition and prognosis for both. He is given a
different picture. He is told that BBB is not in a persistent vegetative state but can get
better with therapy; cognitive functions will also improve with therapy. As for CCC,
however, AAA is given the same prognosis.

BBBs parents decide that they do not want her to suffer any longer and ask about
termination of the feeding of BBB by withdrawing the feeding tube from BBB; the
parents are told that without the feeding tube, BBB will certainly starve and die. BBBs
parents also do not want CCC to continue suffering and also are considering removal of
the respirator from CCC and the stopping of feeding.

AAA finds out about this plan and files suit before the RTC to stop YYY and ZZZ. He
files a petition for prohibition and injunction with application for preliminary injunction,
preliminary mandatory injunction and TRO. He specifically asks for the following,
among others:
 a. A TRO to stop YYY and ZZZ from continuing with their plans to
withdraw the feeding from BBB and CCC and the withdrawal of the
respirator from CCC;
b. A preliminary injunction to stop the same acts upon the expiration of the
TRO and during the pendency of the case;
c. A permanent injunction to forever restrain YYY and ZZZ from
performing the acts that would kill both BBB and CCC;
d. A preliminary mandatory injunction to compel YYY and ZZZ to allow
him to see BBB and CCC.

The Executive Judge issues a 24-hour TRO, stopping YYY and ZZZ from their plans and
sets a summary hearing to determine if the TRO should be extended to 20 days. During
the hearing, lawyers for YYY and ZZZ object to AAAs petition on the following
grounds:

Standing to sue: He and BBB are not married; he abandoned BBB; because CCC
is illegitimate, BBB has exclusive rights over CCC; in her incapacity, YYY and
ZZZ, as parents, have substitute parental authority.
No clear, legal right to the reliefs demanded: He has no rights over CCC and
BBB; he is not the spouse nor does he have parental authority;
No grave or irreparable injury to be caused to him: He has abandoned BBB and
CCC;
No urgency: There have been no actions taken yet; simply plans being discussed.
A TRO or injunction would be premature.

You are the Executive Judge. How would you decide on AAAs application for TRO,
considering the opposition of YYY and ZZZ. Be ready to discuss.