Sabado v. Sabado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Tina Marie L. Sabado (Tina) filed a Petition for Temporary and Permanent Protection Order, Support, and Support Pendente Lite against her husband, petitioner Jay Villanueva Sabado (Jay). Tina alleged that Jay was a controlling husband who frequently quarreled with her, accused her of infidelity without basis, and publicly humiliated her. She further claimed that Jay abandoned her and their two minor children, reducing their financial support and ceasing to visit them, causing her psychological and emotional abuse. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) on October 22, 2012, ordering Jay to stay 200 meters away from Tina and desist from humiliating her. Attempts to personally serve the summons, petition, and TPO on Jay were unsuccessful as he was reportedly abroad for work. However, on November 16, 2012, Atty. Gary O. Palmero, counsel for Jay in a separate criminal case for violation of RA 9262, received a copy of the Order and Petition. Jay, through counsel, filed an Entry of Appearance with Opposition to the Issuance of Permanent Protection Order on January 17, 2013, asserting he was a good provider and that his remittances were still being received by Tina. The RTC denied Jay's opposition for being belatedly filed, as it was filed beyond the five-day non-extendible period under Administrative Matter (AM) No. 04-10-11-SC. Consequently, the RTC issued a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) on January 30, 2013, ordering Jay to stay 200 meters away from Tina and their children and to pay monthly support of P100,000.00. The Petition: The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Jay appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of the service of summons, arguing that personal service was impossible as he was abroad and that substituted or extraterritorial service was not resorted to. He also contended that the Sheriff's Return was defective.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner, considering the validity of service of summons and the petitioner's subsequent actions. Whether the Permanent Protection Order was properly issued, considering the timeliness of the opposition and the evidence of abuse and lack of support. Whether the award of support was proper, considering the evidence presented and the petitioner's financial capacity.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that while the service of summons on Atty. Palmero was not valid as he was not Jay's counsel of record in the protection order case, Jay voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court by filing an Entry of Appearance with Opposition and seeking affirmative relief without objecting to the court's jurisdiction. This voluntary appearance cured the defect in the service of summons. Consequently, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction and could proceed with the case, leading to the issuance of the Permanent Protection Order and the award of support.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and service of summons, and voluntary submission to jurisdiction: The Court clarified that while personal service of a TPO is required due to its urgency, it is not the sole means of acquiring jurisdiction. The Rules of Court on service of summons remain suppletorily applicable. Although initial attempts at personal service were unsuccessful, the Court found that the petitioner voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court by filing an "Entry of Appearance with Opposition to the Issuance of Permanent Protection Order" seeking affirmative relief without objecting to jurisdiction. This act waived any defect in the service of summons, relying on jurisprudence such as Alvarez v. The Former 12th Division Court of Appeals and G.V. Florida Transport, Inc. v. Tiara Commercial Corporation. On the issuance of the Permanent Protection Order and the procedural timeliness of the opposition: The Court upheld the RTC's decision to issue the Permanent Protection Order, noting that the petitioner's opposition was filed beyond the five-day non-extendible period prescribed by AM No. 04-10-11-SC. This procedural lapse meant that the petitioner waived his opportunity to oppose the petition on its merits at the initial stage, and the court was justified in proceeding based on the allegations in the petition and the evidence presented. The Court reiterated that a protection order is a substantive relief, not a mere procedural mechanism, as stated in Pavlow v. Mendenilla. On the award of support and the justification for the Permanent Protection Order: Given the valid acquisition of jurisdiction and the untimely opposition, the RTC was correct in issuing the Permanent Protection Order and awarding monthly support. The Court found that the petitioner subjected the respondent to psychological and emotional abuse and deprivation of financial support, justifying the protection order and the P100,000.00 monthly support awarded to the respondent and their minor children. The CA correctly affirmed these findings.
Main Doctrine
Jurisdiction over the person of the respondent in a petition for Temporary Protection Order (TPO) or Permanent Protection Order (PPO) under Republic Act No. 9262 can be acquired through valid service of summons or through voluntary appearance, which cures any defect in the service of summons.