Defeating the purpose

This is another case involving R.A. 9262 otherwise known as the “Anti Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004”. The issue here concerns the visitation rights of the erring husband. This is the case of Jim and Linda.

When Jim met Linda at a social gathering of some friends, it was a case of “love at first sight”. The two became close to each other right away and after several months of courtship and frequent dates, they became sweethearts. Their intimate relationship eventually resulted in the pregnancy of Linda thereby forcing them to tie the knot when Linda was already five months in the family way.

They moved at Jim’s residence and four months after their wedding, Linda gave birth to a baby girl whom they christened Daisy. Not long after the birth of Daisy, their romantic and intimate relationship started to erode as they get to know more of each other’s traits and weaknesses. Linda gradually found out that Jim was more of an alcoholic than a loving and caring husband and father. He was always mad and very violent, and would even shout hurtful words at her. Worse of all he failed in his responsibility of financially supporting her and Daisy thus forcing her to seek employment.

Linda nevertheless tried her best to preserve their marital relationship, but Jim’s demeanor affected her health up to the extent of causing her to suffer dizziness and difficulty of breathing during one of their stormy confrontation. And so about five years after their marriage, Linda could no longer bear cohabiting with Jim. She left the house of Jim together with Daisy and stayed with her family.

Immediately thereafter she also filed a Petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the Issuance of a Protection Order based on R.A.9262. She asked the RTC to initially issue a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) (a) prohibiting Jim from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with her, directly or indirectly; (b) ordering a law enforcement officer and court personnel to accompany her to the residence of Jim to supervise the removal of her personal belongings in order to ensure her personal safety; (c) directing Jim and/or his family members to stay away from her or any of her designated family or household member at a distance specified by the court, and to stay away from the residence, school, place of employment or any specified place frequented by her or any of her designated family or household member; (d) enjoining Jim from threatening to commit or committing further acts of violence against her and any of her family and household member; (e) granting her custody and charge of Daisy until further orders of the court; (f) ordering Jim to absolutely desist and refrain from imposing any restraint on her personal liberty and from taking away from her custody and care of Daisy; and (g) directing Jim to provide support to her and Daisy.

At the proceedings, Jim personally appeared but did not file pleadings nor oppose her petition. So the RTC issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) granting the reliefs prayed for by Linda in her petition effective for a period of 30 days. Subsequently and before the expiration of such period, the RTC issued a Permanent Protection Order granting Linda’s petition. It also ordered Jim to provide support to Daisy in the amount of P5,000 and at the same time gave him the right to be with Daisy ordering Linda to bring their daughter to a designated restaurant at 9am every Saturday where she will be picked up by Jim and be returned in the same place the following day, Sunday, at 5 pm.

Linda sought a reversal of the grant of this visitation rights to Jim. She argued that there was no prayer in her petition for such visitation rights, nor did Jim ask for it. Besides she contended that continuing Daisy’s weekly visits with her father defeated the purpose of the protection order granted to them as it will make her and the child vulnerable to the abuse from which they sought protection. The RTC, and subsequently the Court of Appeals, denied Linda’s prayer to cancel the visitation rights. Were the RTC and the CA correct?

No. Courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by a party to a case. In this case, Jim did not ask for visitation rights. While he was present during the hearing for the issuance of the TPO and the PPO, he neither manifested nor filed any pleading which would indicate that he was seeking such relief.

Neither was it shown that Linda sought the award of visitation rights for her husband. In fact her petition specifically prayed that Jim be prohibited from harassing, annoying, contacting or otherwise communicating with her directly or indirectly, from imposing any restraint on her personal liberty and from taking from her, the custody and care of Daisy. Linda also asked that Jim be ordered to stay away from her and any of her designated family or household members.  By granting Jim the visitation rights, the purpose of the protection order would be defeated. If Daisy would be turned over to Jim during weekends, he may be able to harass, annoy, and directly or indirectly communicate and threaten to commit or actually commit acts of violence against Linda or any of her family or household member (Bucal vs. Bucal, G.R. 2006957, June 17, 2015).

*   *   *

E-mail:[email protected]