Reyes-Tabujara v. Tabujara
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ivy Joan P. Reyes-Tabujara and private respondent Ernesto A. Tabujara III were married on November 26, 2000, and had a son, Carlos Iñigo, born on July 5, 2002. Their relationship deteriorated shortly after the marriage, leading to frequent quarrels. On March 15, 2006, an altercation occurred wherein the private respondent allegedly prevented the petitioner from taking their son, Carlos Iñigo, from their conjugal home, physically assaulted her, and then left with the child. Since this incident, the petitioner has been unable to see her son or return to their conjugal home. Procedural History: Following the March 15, 2006 incident, the petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 102, seeking the production of their son. The RTC issued an order directing the private respondent to produce the child. Subsequently, the petitioner moved to consolidate this case with a pending case before RTC, Quezon City, Branch 86, concerning violations of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). RTC Branch 86, through Judge Teodoro Bay, issued an order on May 31, 2006, granting custody of Carlos Iñigo to the private respondent pending further resolution and extending a temporary protection order. The petitioner sought reconsideration, and the matter was referred to Pairing Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala. Judge Gonzales-Asdala issued an order on May 31, 2006, directing the production of the child on June 1, 2006, and subsequently issued an order on June 1, 2006, declaring the private respondent in contempt and issuing a bench warrant for his arrest due to non-compliance. The private respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to restrain Judge Gonzales-Asdala's actions. The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution on June 2, 2006, restraining the implementation of the May 31, 2006 order, and another Resolution on June 7, 2006, setting aside the June 1, 2006 order. The Petition: This case is a Petition for Certiorari filed with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated June 2, 2006, and June 7, 2006. The petitioner argues that Judge Gonzales-Asdala acted within her jurisdiction as a pairing judge. She also contends that the Court of Appeals' restraining order and subsequent resolution were rendered moot by prior events, as the orders sought to be restrained had already been issued and served. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the private respondent violated Article 213 of the Family Code by separating the child from her and that Judge Bay's order granting custody to the private respondent lacked legal and factual basis. The petitioner seeks to have the writ of habeas corpus immediately effected, arguing she is entitled to sole custody of their son.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolutions. Whether the Court of Appeals' Resolutions had become moot and academic. Whether the writ of habeas corpus must be immediately effected for the production of the minor child. Whether Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala acted within her jurisdiction as Pairing Judge.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated June 2, 2006, and June 7, 2006. The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that its Resolutions were not moot. The Court also ruled that the motion for the production of the minor child should be resolved by the trial court which had acquired jurisdiction over the habeas corpus case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. It reiterated the definition of grave abuse of discretion as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or an arbitrary or despotic manner of acting due to passion or personal hostility. The Court found that the CA's Resolutions were not issued whimsically or capriciously. The CA issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent private respondent from suffering irreparable injury should its subsequent decision not sustain the validity of Judge Gonzales-Asdala's May 31, 2006 Order, which was poised to find private respondent in contempt and issue a bench warrant. The CA's action was deemed proper to maintain the status quo while it resolved the validity of the challenged order. On the mootness of the Court of Appeals' Resolutions: The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioner's contention that the CA's Resolutions had become moot. While acknowledging that some acts, like the issuance of a bench warrant, might have already occurred, the Court noted that the sheriff's return did not show that the arrest had been implemented. More importantly, the CA's Resolutions still served to restrain Judge Gonzales-Asdala from compelling private respondent to turn over custody of the child and from taking further action on the consolidated cases before the RTC. Therefore, the Resolutions were not rendered useless and still had operative effect. On the immediate effectuation of the writ of habeas corpus and the production of the minor child: The Supreme Court held that it could not direct the CA to effect the writ of habeas corpus by ordering the production of the minor. The Court reiterated that the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and the trial courts have concurrent jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving the custody of minors. However, once a trial court acquires jurisdiction over such a petition, it is not lost and continues until the case is terminated. Therefore, any motion for the production of the minor child should be resolved by the trial court that had already acquired jurisdiction, which in this case was RTC, Branch 102, and subsequently consolidated with Branch 86. The Court noted that Judge Bay had already scheduled a hearing for this purpose. On Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala's jurisdiction as Pairing Judge: The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in its assessment of this matter. The private respondent argued that Judge Gonzales-Asdala exceeded her authority as a pairing judge because Judge Bay was still performing his duties on May 31, 2006, the date she issued her order. The CA's Resolutions, by restraining the implementation of Judge Gonzales-Asdala's orders, implicitly addressed the potential jurisdictional issues surrounding her actions as a pairing judge, and the Supreme Court found no reason to overturn the CA's findings on this point.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals which restrained the implementation of a trial court judge's order and set aside another order, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court also clarified that while trial courts, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court have concurrent jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving minors, jurisdiction once acquired by a trial court is not lost and subsequent motions regarding the child's production should be resolved by that court.