TINA MARIE L. SABADO, FOR HERSELF AND HER MINOR CHILDREN, JANA MARIE L. SABADO AND JASTINE MARIE L. SABADO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. JAY VILLANUEVA SABADO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
GARCIA, R.R. J.:
dated January 30, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 136, Makati
City in Civil Case No. 12-963 directing respondent-appellant Jay
Villanueva Sabado to stay away from petitioner-appellee Tina Marie L.
Sabado at a distance of 200 meters and to grant monthly support of
P100,000.00 to appellee and their minor children, namely: Jana Marie and
Jastine Marie, both surnamed Sabado, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment in favor of the petitioner
Tina Marie Leaño Sabado and issues a Permanent Protection Order:1. Ordering respondent Jay Villanueva Sabado to stay away at a distance of 200 meters from the petitioner;
2. Ordering respondent to grant support to the petitioner and
the children Jana Marie and Jastine Marie, both surnamed Sabado, in the
amount of P100,000 per month.IT IS SO ORDERED.[2]
THE FACTS
This case stemmed from a Petition for Temporary and Permanent Protection Order, Support and Support Pendente Lite[3]
filed by petitioner-appellee Tina Marie L. Sabado against
respondent-appellant Jay Villanueva Sabado. It was alleged that on July
24, 1999, appellee and appellant were married at Nuestra Sra. De Gracia
Parish, Guadalupe, Makati City.[4]
Out of said marriage, they begot two (2) children, namely: Jana Marie
who was born on March 2, 2000 and Jastine Marie who was born on July 3,
2005. Appellant is gainfully employed as a Ship Captain in Epsilon
Maritime Services, Inc. with an estimated monthly income of US$6,500.
Appellee, on the other hand, is employed in Metrobank but her salary is
insufficient to support the two (2) children who are studying in a
private school in Makati City. The spouses acquired real properties
during their marriage, to wit: a parcel of land containing an area of
100 square meters situated in Mandaluyong City and covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 20321[5] and a condominium unit[6] at California Garden Square with a total contract price of P1.65 Million.
It was further alleged that during the first few years of
their marriage, appellant and appellee often quarreled even during the
course of appellee’s pregnancy over petty things such as the PBA
basketball team that they support, food, movies and the like. Appellant
always wanted to be in control and was irritated that appellee had her
own opinions. Appellant would also have fits of jealousy and without any
basis accused appellee of having an affair with another man. Sometime
in June 2011, appellee and her minor children were kicked out by
appellant from their conjugal home. They were merely told to transfer to
appellee’s mother’s house in Makati City. Appellant also humiliated
appellee in public by shouting “maghiwalay na tayo” in the presence of
her officemates and demanded that they have their marriage annulled.
Appellee also discovered that appellant was philandering and dissipating
their community funds for the benefit of appellant’s mistress.
Appellant abandoned appellee and the children and even deprived them of
sufficient financial support. Appellant’s daughter Jana even wrote a
letter[7] asking appellant why
he left the family and likewise requested from him financial
assistance. Appellant drastically reduced the allotment from US$4,000 to
US$2,500 starting in February 2012 despite the fact that his earning
based on his last contract was US$6,500. Likewise, appellant has not
visited the children since February 15, 2012 and has completely
abandoned them thereafter. Consequently, the children are already
becoming anxious and insecure especially in school. During the birthday
of their youngest daughter on July 23, 2012, appellant did not even show
up nor made a call. Appellee also tried to talk to her mother-in-law
seeking support from appellant but according to her, she has no power
over her son’s dealings. Appellee tried several times to contact
appellant and exerted efforts trying to persuade him to settle their
financial problem amicably but to no avail. In view of appellant’s
abandonment and undue disregard of the children, appellee suffered
psychological and emotional abuse. The petition thus prayed for the
court a quo to issue a Temporary Protection Order (TPO)
directing appellant to stay away from appellee and desist from publicly
humiliating her and other forms of abuse, to grant support to appellee
and their minor children in the amount of P120,000.00, to order the
employer of appellant to automatically remit P120,000.00 a month of his
salary to appellee and to eventually issue a Permanent Protection Order
(PPO).
On October 22, 2012, a Temporary Protection Order (TPO)
effective for a period of thirty (30) days from service, subject to
automatic renewal thereafter, was issued by the court a quo
after finding a reasonable ground that an imminent danger of violence
against appellee exists or is about to occur. The decretal portion of
the Order reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court issues the following Temporary Protection
Order (effective for a period of 30 days from service on the respondent
and deemed automatically renewed every 30 days thereafter until the
disposition of this case):The Court orders JAY VILLANUEVA SABADO to stay away at a
distance of 200 meters from petitioner Tina Marie L. Sabado and desist
from publicly humiliating her and other forms of abuse.The respondent is given five days from notice within which to file opposition.
IF THE RESPONDENT APPEARS WITHOUT COUNSEL ON THE DATE OF THE
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AND HEARING ON THE MERITS ON THE ISSUANCE OF A
PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER, WHICH IS HEREBY SET ON JANUARY 17, 2013 AT
3:00 O’CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON, THE COURT SHALL NOT RESCHEDULE NOR
POSTPONE THE PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AND HEARING BUT SHALL APPOINT A
LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT AND IMMEDIATELY PROCEED WITH THE HEARING.IF THE RESPONDENT FAILS TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF THE PRELIMINARY
CONFERENCE AND HEARING ON THE MERITS DESPITE PROPER NOTICE, THE COURT
SHALL ALLOW EX PARTE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE PETITIONER
AND RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE ON
RECORD. NO DELEGATION OF THE RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE SHALL BE ALLOWED.The Court directs the immediate issuance of the corresponding notice.
SO ORDERED.[8]
On several occasions, the petition and the TPO were served upon
appellant but to no avail. The court sheriff also tried to serve the
same to the office of appellant’s employer but he was merely informed
that appellant was abroad. On November 16, 2012, at around 4:05 p.m.,
appellant’s counsel Atty. Gary O. Palmero received the copy of the
petition and TPO.[9]
On January 17, 2013, an Entry of Appearance with Opposition to the Issuance of Permanent Protection Order[10]
was filed by appellant alleging that he was merely a Chief Officer and
not a Captain of Epsilon Maritime Services, Inc. Appellant and appellee
have four (4) properties which were bought from their income. While they
have disagreements on some things, the same never went to physically
hurting each other or even threats of hurting each other. Neither did he
humiliate appellee in public nor in the presence of her officemates.
Appellant also denied that he always wanted to be in control. In fact,
the rights over the condominium unit and the parking lot are under the
name of appellee. Appellant has also been a good husband and father to
his family. He has been working hard as a seaman in order to provide for
the family and to be able to send the children to a good school.
Appellant has continuously supported his family. As such, there was no
basis for the issuance of the TPO and a PPO.
On January 25, 2013, the court a quo issued an Order[11]
denying admission of appellant’s Opposition since the same was
belatedly filed, or nearly two (2) months after the issuance of the TPO.
Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 04-10-11-SC (Secs. 15 [c], 21 and
22[b]) provides that if appellant fails to timely file an answer or
opposition within a non-extendible period of five (5) days, the Court on
its own motion shall issue the corresponding order as may be warranted
by the facts alleged in the petition. In this case, appellant’s counsel
received the petition and signed the TPO issued by the court a quo. However, the Opposition was filed two (2) months thereafter.
In the assailed Decision[12] dated January 30, 2013, the court a quo ruled
in favor of appellee and made permanent the TPO previously issued. It
was held that appellant has already waived his right to oppose the
petition, hence, appellee is entitled to a permanent protection order.
Appellant subjected appellee to psychological and emotional abuse and
deprived the family of sufficient financial support. As such, appellant
is directed to stay away at a distance of 200 meters from appellee and
to grant her monthly support as well as the two (2) children in the
amount of P100,000.00. The pertinent portions of the Decision read:
On October 22, 2012, the Court issued the following Temporary Protection Order:
Petitioner Tina Marie L. Sabado has filed a petition for temporary and permanent protection order, support and support pendente lite.
She alleges that she is the wife of respondent Jay Villanueva Sabado
and that they have two minor children, namely: Jana Marie, 12 years old
and Jastine 7 years old.
x x x
Petitioner alleges that she and respondent are now separated
because the latter abandoned her and her two minor children in June
2011. While they were living together, petitioner and respondent often
quarreled. Respondent is very jealous, accusing petitioner of having an
affair with another man when it was respondent who was philandering and
dissipating their community funds. Respondent subjected petitioner to
psychological and emotional abuse and deprived petitioner of sufficient
support. Respondent has not visited the children since February 15, 2012
and has completely abandoned petitioners and totally deprived them of
financial support. As a result of deprivation of support, the children
are becoming anxious and insecure, especially in school. The petitioner
is suffering psychological and emotional harm. Petitioner suffers from
serious anxiety, loss of self-esteem and became ill, prompting her to
seek medical help.After carefully evaluating the allegations in support of the
petition, the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to
believe that an imminent danger of violence against the petitioner
exists or is about to occur.WHEREFORE, the Court issues the following Temporary Protection
Order (effective for a period of 30 days from service on the respondent
and deemed automatically renewed every 30 days thereafter until the
disposition of this case):The Court orders JAY VILLANUEVA SABADO to stay away at a
distance of 200 meters from petitioner Tina Marie L. Sabado and desist
from publicly humiliating her and other forms of abuse.
x x x
On January 25, 2013, the Court issued the following Order denying admission to respondent’s Opposition:
Respondent was served with summons, through his counsel, on
November 16, 2012 xxx . But he filed his Opposition only on January 17,
2013, nearly two months after.It is significant that his counsel signed the Temporary
Protection Order in this case xxx. By so doing, he (respondent) was
bound to file his opposition within the five-day period. Certainly, his
counsel knew the legal effect of signing the TPO.
x x x
In view of all the foregoing, with respondent having waived his
right to oppose the petition, the Court finds petitioner to be entitled
to a permanent protection order.[13]
Aggrieved, appellant filed the instant appeal raising the following Assignment of Errors,[14] to wit:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN ISSUING THE PROTECTION ORDER SINCE APPELLEE FAILED TO PROVE THE NECESSITY THEREOF.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
DIRECTING APPELLANT TO GIVE SUPPORT SINCE APPELLEE FAILED TO PROVE THE
AMOUNT OF SUPPORT NEEDED AND THE CAPACITY OF APPELLANT TO PROVIDE THE
SAME.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE DESPITE THE IMPROPER SERVICE OF SUMMONS.
THE ISSUE
The pivotal issues that need to be resolved in this appeal are whether or not the court a quo
gravely erred in issuing the Permanent Protection Order directing
appellant to stay away from his wife appellee and in ordering him to
give monthly financial support for his wife and children.
THE RULING
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Appellant contends that
appellee’s claim for support has no basis since she is the one who has
full control of the community property. Appellee has also been the
allottee of appellant’s salary whenever he goes on deployment overseas.
The contract of employment also reflects the salary and benefits
received by appellant from his employment as a Chief Officer and not as a
Ship Captain. He has continuously supported the family, especially the
children. Furthermore, there was improper service of summons since the
same was not served personally upon appellant nor by substituted
service. Jurisdiction upon the person of appellant was thus not acquired
by the court a quo.
We are not persuaded.
We sustain the court a quo’s finding that indeed there was no improper service of summons upon appellant. In GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. vs. Principe[15],
the Supreme Court held that when a party is represented by a counsel in
an action in court, notices of all kinds, including motions and
pleadings of all parties and all orders of the court must be served on
his counsel. Notice to counsel is notice to the client. In the case at
bench, the records show that appellant’s counsel received the copy of
the petition filed by appellee and even signed the TPO. Appellant was
thus duly apprised of the petition filed against him and was not
deprived of his right to present his side of the case. It appears,
however, that the opposition to the petition was filed by appellant only
two (2) months after the service of the petition and the TPO, or beyond
the non-extendible five(5)-day reglementary period. The court a quo
cannot thus be faulted for denying admission of appellant’s opposition.
Anent the propriety of the issuance of the PPO in favor of
appellee, the same is warranted under the circumstances of the case.
Under Section 11, Rule IV of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) for Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as “The Anti-Violence
Against Women and their Children Act of 2004”, a protection order is an
order issued under the Act for the purpose of preventing further acts of
violence against a woman or her child. The relief granted under a
protection order should serve the purpose of safeguarding the
victim-survivor from further harm, minimizing any disruption in the
victim-survivor’s daily life, and facilitating the opportunity and
ability of the victim-survivor to independently regain control over her
life. Section 11 of Rule IV is quoted:
SECTION 11. Protection Order. — The victim-survivor may obtain
the remedy of a protection order from the barangay or from the court. A
protection order is an order issued under the Act for the purpose of
preventing further acts of violence against a woman or her child
specified in Section 7 of these Rules and granting other necessary
reliefs. The relief granted under a protection order should serve the
purpose of safeguarding the victim-survivor from further harm,
minimizing any disruption in the victim-survivor’s daily life, and
facilitating the opportunity and ability of the victim-survivor to
independently regain control over her life. The provisions of the
protection order shall be enforced by law enforcement agencies. The
protection order that may be issued by the barangay shall be known as a
Barangay Protection Order (BPO). The protection order that may be issued
by the court may be a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) or a Permanent
Protection Order (PPO).
Section 18 of the same Rule IV further provides that a permanent
protection order (PPO) refers to protection order issued by the court
after notice and hearing. In case the respondent fails to appear despite
proper notice, the court shall allow ex parte presentation of
the evidence by the applicant and render judgment on the basis of the
evidence presented. The court shall allow the introduction of any
history of abusive conduct of a respondent even if the same was not
directed against the applicant or the person for whom the application is
made. The pertinent portions of Section 18 of Rule IV reads:
SECTION 18. Permanent Protection Order. — Permanent Protection
Order (PPO) refers to protection order issued by the court after notice
and hearing.Respondent’s non-appearance despite proper notice, or his/her
lack of a lawyer, or the non-availability of his/her lawyer, shall not
be a ground for rescheduling or postponing the hearing on the merits of
the issuance of a PPO. If the respondent appears without counsel on the
date of the hearing on the PPO, the court shall appoint a lawyer for the
respondent and immediately proceed with the hearing. In case the
respondent fails to appear despite proper notice, the court shall allow ex parte
presentation of the evidence by the applicant and render judgment on
the basis of the evidence presented. The court shall allow the
introduction of any history of abusive conduct of a respondent even if
the same was not directed against the applicant or the person for whom
the application is made.
x x x
In this case, appellant failed to appear during the scheduled date of hearing. Consequently, appellee was allowed to present ex parte
her evidence in order to prove the allegations in the petition. It was
duly established that appellee was subjected by appellant to
psychological and emotional abuse when the latter publicly humiliated
her and threatened her of separation. In fact, appellant abandoned his
family and support to the children was drastically reduced. These facts
were even stated in the letter[16]
written by appellant’s daughter Jana. Appellee and the children were
also kicked out of the family home. These acts then on the part of
appellant were found by the court a quo as sufficient to justify the issuance of the PPO.
All told, this Court finds no compelling reason to veer from the assailed ruling of the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated January 30, 2013 is AFFIRMED.
De Guia-Salvador (Chairperson) and Bueser, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 33-35.
[2] Rollo, p. 35.
[3] Records, pp. 1-10.
[4] Vide: Certificate of Marriage, Annex “A” to the Petition, Records, p. 11.
[5] Annex “E-1” to the Petition, Records, pp. 16-17.
[6] Vide: Certification dated October 2, 2012, Annex “E” to the Petition, Records, p. 15.
[7] Annex “G” to the Petition, Rollo, p. 19.
[8] Records, p. 22.
[9] Vide: Sheriff’s Return dated November 19, 2012, Records, p. 24.
[10] Records, pp. 25-44.
[11] Records, p. 131.
[12] Supra at note 1.
[13] Rollo, pp. 33-35.
[14] Rollo, p. 20.
[15] G.R. No. 141484, November 11, 2005.
[16] Annex “G” to the Petition, Rollo, p. 19.