AAA255299 v. XXX255299
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: AAA255299, a Filipina, and XXX255299, a German national, were married on January 13, 2007. During their marriage, AAA255299 alleged that XXX255299 engaged in multiple affairs and later became indifferent and verbally abusive. On June 2, 2013, AAA255299 discovered XXX255299 with another woman in their residence. When AAA255299 demanded the other woman leave, XXX255299 insisted she stay, declared they were separated, verbally abused and threatened AAA255299, and then forcibly dragged her out, causing injury. This led to the filing of criminal complaints for concubinage and violation of Republic Act No. 9262 against XXX255299. Fearing further abuse, AAA255299 obtained a barangay protection order before filing a petition for a temporary protection order (TPO) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on June 7, 2013. 2. Procedural History: The RTC issued a TPO on June 10, 2013, which was extended during the proceedings. On March 2, 2016, the RTC issued a Decision converting the TPO into a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) and directing XXX255299 to provide monthly support of P100,000.00, among other prohibitions and exclusions. Both parties moved for reconsideration; XXX255299 challenged the PPO's effect on his property rights and sought a reduction in support, while AAA255299 sought an increase in support. The RTC denied both motions on July 4, 2016. XXX255299 filed a Notice of Appeal, which the RTC approved on September 1, 2016, despite AAA255299's opposition that the appeal was out of time due to the prohibited nature of the motion for reconsideration under A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC. The case records were forwarded to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its Decision dated February 18, 2019, denied XXX255299's appeal and affirmed the RTC's PPO with modification regarding specific property exclusions. Both parties moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution dated September 17, 2020. 3. The Petition: AAA255299 filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution. She argues that the CA erred in modifying the PPO, contending that XXX255299's appeal should not have been given due course as it was filed out of time. She also asserts that her job as a flight attendant necessitates the inclusion of a specific penthouse unit in the PPO, as she requires a place to stay in Metro Manila between flights. XXX255299, in his Comment, prays for the dismissal of the petition, arguing that AAA255299 failed to attach material portions of the record, that his appeal was not out of time, that the grant of two residences is a luxury not contemplated by R.A. No. 9262, and that the inclusion of his properties in the PPO violates his property rights.
Issue(s)
Whether the Petition should be dismissed for failure to attach material portions of the record. Whether the lower courts erred in giving due course to XXX255299's appeal. Whether the CA erred in modifying the Permanent Protection Order by excluding the property located at █████████████ in ███████.
Ruling
The Petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed in toto. The Permanent Protection Order issued by the RTC is modified as specified in the dispositive portion of the Supreme Court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the Petition for failure to attach material portions of the record: The Court ruled that AAA255299 was able to attach sufficient portions of the record to support her claims, including the CA Decision and Resolution, her Motion for Reconsideration, and the RTC Decision. Furthermore, even if there were deficiencies, the Supreme Court had access to the entire record and could resolve the case on its merits. The Court reiterated the guidelines from E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. v. Francisco and Galvez v. Court of Appeals regarding the attachment of material portions of the record, emphasizing that only relevant documents are required and that substantial justice may be served even with minor procedural lapses. On giving due course to XXX255299's appeal: The Court found that XXX255299's Notice of Appeal was filed out of time because his motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC and did not toll the appeal period. However, the Court noted that AAA255299 also filed a motion for reconsideration, which was likewise a prohibited pleading. Citing Brown-Araneta v. Araneta, the Court held that procedural rules should not frustrate justice. In this case, fairness and substantial justice dictated that XXX255299's appeal be given due course because AAA255299 had also resorted to the same prohibited remedy, making both parties equally at fault for the delay. The Court emphasized that allowing the appeal did not prejudice AAA255299 as the PPO's effectivity was not stayed. On the modification of the Permanent Protection Order: The Court affirmed the CA's modification excluding the property at █████████████ from the PPO. The Court found no evidence that AAA255299 actually resided there or was evicted. Evidence such as the unit being uninhabited, unpaid association dues, lack of water consumption, and information from the building receptionist indicated that AAA255299 had abandoned the property. The Court stated that a protection order's purpose is to curtail the perpetrator's access to the victim, and this purpose would not be served if the victim no longer resided in the property. AAA255299's claim of needing the property for layovers between international flights was also dismissed, especially since she declared she had retired from her employment.
Main Doctrine
A prohibited pleading, such as a motion for reconsideration of a protection order under A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, does not toll the period for filing an appeal. However, in the interest of substantial justice and fairness, an appeal filed out of time may be given due course if the offended party also resorted to a prohibited remedy, thereby creating a situation where both parties are equally at fault for the delay.