REYES-TABUJARA vs CA, 209 SCRA 362

[G.R. NO. 172813 : July 20, 2006]

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner alleges that she and private respondent were married on 26 November 2000 at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, Intramuros, Manila. Their union was blessed with a son, Carlos Iñigo, who was born on 5 July 2002. Apparently, the couple's marital bliss was only short-lived for immediately after their wedding, their relationship was already beset by frequent squabbles which persisted even after the birth of their son. Despite their problems, petitioner and private respondent, together with their son, stayed at their conjugal home.

On 14 March 2006, private respondent picked up Carlos Iñigo, who was with petitioner at that time. The following day, petitioner notified private respondent that she would fetch the child since she and her sister decided to go to San Fernando, Pampanga. Private respondent allegedly asked her to wait for him at their conjugal abode as he had something to give her. Thinking that private respondent was going to hand over to her the documents pertaining to their separation, petitioner acceded to his request. While waiting for private respondent, petitioner decided to bring her and Carlos Iñigo's clothes to the car so they could leave as soon as private respondent arrived. Much to petitioner's surprise, however, private respondent refused to allow her to take their child. Petitioner has never seen her son and has been barred by private respondent from going back to their conjugal home. Left with no recourse and prompted by her longing to see her son Carlos Iñigo, petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus with the RTC, Quezon City, to compel private respondent to produce their son before the court. Finding the Petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the same is hereby given due course.

On the scheduled hearing, private respondent appeared before the court without child Carlos Iñigo.  Petitioner's counsel moved for the consolidation of this case with that pending before the RTC, for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 or the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 then the motion was granted by the court. 

On 31 May 2006, petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Order Respondent to Comply with the Writ of Habeas Corpus with Urgent Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Order dated 31 May 2006. The Motion for partial reconsideration pertained to that portion of Judge Bay's Order granting private respondent continued custody over Carlos Iñigo in alleged violation of Article 213 of the Family Code stating:

Art. 213. In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the court. The court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over seven years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit. No child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.

This motion was referred by the branch clerk of court to Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala, Pairing Judge of Branch 86, because Judge Bay was to go on official leave. Acting on said Motion, Judge Gonzales-Asdala issued to Order to produce the person of minor Carlos Iñigo R. Tabujara before the Session Hall. As it turned out, private respondent failed to appear before Judge Gonzales-Asdala. Consequently, through the Order dated 1 June 2006, he was declared in contempt of court and a bench warrant for his arrest was issued.

Aggrieved by the Order, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals praying for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin Judge Gonzales-Asdala from: issuing a bench warrant against private respondent; implementing her Order of 31 May 2006; requiring private respondent to turn over custody of Carlos Iñigo to petitioner.

On 2 June 2006, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution restraining the implementation of Judge Gonzales-Asdala's Order of 31 May 2006. Later, another Resolution was issued by the Court of Appeals setting aside and nullifying the 1 June 2006 Order of Judge Gonzales-Asdala.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the impugned Resolutions to retrain the RTC decision to arrest the private respondent for contempt.

HELD:

No grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. The assailed Resolutions were not issued whimsically nor capriciously. As alleged in the Petition before the Court of Appeals, Judge Gonzales-Asdala was poised to find private respondent in contempt of court and to issue a bench warrant for his arrest should he fail to comply with her Order dated 31 May 2006. Bearing in mind that the validity of said Order has yet to be resolved by the Court of Appeals, it was only proper that the temporary restraining order was issued; otherwise, private respondent would have suffered irreparable injury should the Court of Appeals decide not to sustain the validity of the 31 May 2006 Order.

But this Court disagree with the CA's reasoning because it will result in an iniquitous situation, leaving individuals like petitioner without legal recourse in obtaining custody of their children. Individuals who do not know the whereabouts of minors they are looking for would be helpless since they cannot seek redress from family courts whose writs are enforceable only in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Thus, if a minor is being transferred from one place to another, which seems to be the case here, the petitioner in a habeas corpus case will be left without legal remedy.

An examination of the records reveals the measures that the parties herein have undertaken to have custody of their only child. Thus, while petitioner has continuously pressed on to regain custody of Carlos Iñigo, private respondent has been steadfast in ensuring that the minor child stays with him. If only to protect Carlos Iñigo from the ill-effects of this virtual tug-of-war between his parents, and to allow the Court of Appeals to proceed with the resolution of the Petition for Certiorari filed by private respondent, this Court deems it proper to give due course to this Petition.

The primordial consideration is the welfare and best interests of the child. We rule therefore that RA 8369 did not divest the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving the custody of minors.

In this case, it appears from the sheriff's return dated 5 June 2006 that Judge Gonzales-Asdala's Order of 1 June 2006 was indeed served upon private respondent at his office in Makati City, as well as at his father's house in UP Diliman, Quezon City, and yet it is not shown that his arrest had been implemented. Clearly then, the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals had not become useless as alleged by petitioner.

It is clear from the foregoing that the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases. As the Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed by petitioner before the trial court, the latter has acquired jurisdiction over the petition to the exclusion of all others.

In view of this, the petitioner's motion for the production of the minor Carlos Iñigo should be resolved by the trial court. Parenthetically, Judge Bay had already acted on a similar motion filed by petitioner and had, in fact, set the hearing of the consolidated cases on 14 July 2006 during which time private respondent should present Carlos Iñigo before the trial court.