Voluntary appearance

This is another case of the Anti Violence against Women and Children Law (Anti VAWCI Law). The main question raised and resolved here concerns the enforcement of the Temporary Protection Order (TPO) and the Permanent Protection Order (PPO) issued by the Court. This is the case of Naty and Ray.

Naty and Ray have been married for more than 14 years with two children, aged 13 years and 8 years. Naty is a bank employee while Ray works overseas as a ship captain with a monthly income of $6,500. During their marriage, they acquired real properties in a suburban city and a condominium unit in California, USA. But they would often quarrel over petty things even when Naty was already pregnant, especially because Ray would easily get irritated if Naty would answer him and express her own opinions. Ray would also accuse Naty of having an affair with other men and would become jealous even if he had no basis for such accusations.

Their quarrels deteriorated until Ray kicked out Naty and the children from their conjugal home and told them to stay at Naty’s mother’s place. Ray also publicly humiliated Naty by telling her “maghiwalay na tayo” in front of her officemates as he demanded the annulment of their marriage. Then Ray also spent their community funds on his mistress. The $4,000 monthly allotment given to Naty and the children was reduced to $2,500 as Ray also stopped visiting their children. Naty tried to contact Ray numerous times to settle their differences but her efforts proved futile. Even her mother-in-law, to whom Naty reached out, refused to intervene. As a result of Ray’s abandonment, Naty suffered psychological and emotional abuse.

Thus, Naty filed a Petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the issuance of a TPO, the grant of P120,000.00 monthly support to be remitted automatically by Ray’s employer and eventual issuance of a PPO. The RTC issued the TPO in favor of Naty effective for a period of 30 days from the service of the TPO on Ray, to be automatically renewed every 30 days thereafter until the disposition of the case. The court also ordered Ray to stay away at a distance of 200 meters from Naty and desist from publicly humiliating her and other forms of abuse. Ray was given five days from notice to file opposition.

Despite several attempts by the Court Sheriff to personally serve the summons and the TPO to Ray at his address and at his employer’s address, they were not received because Ray was abroad. But after about a month, Attorney Larry Primero, counsel of Ray in another case, got and received a copy of the Order and the Petition.

Two months after receiving the copy of the order and the TPO, Atty Primero as counsel of Ray filed an Entry of Appearance with Opposition to the issuance of the PPO, alleging that Ray was merely a chief officer and not a ship captain, that Ray and Naty acquired four properties during their marriage and that the condominium unit with a parking slot is in the name of Naty.

In said Opposition, Ray also denied that he humiliated Naty in public and that he is a good provider for his family as he sent his children to good schools. In fact, his Certificate of Salary and Allowance show that Naty is still the named allottee who received remittances in the Philippines. Thus, Ray’s lawyer prayed for the lifting of the TPO; the denial of the issuance of a PPO; the determination of the amount of support, and support pendent lite; and that he be relieved from posting a bond.

The RTC, however, denied the admission of Ray’s Opposition for having been belatedly filed two months after the issuance of the TPO because under Supreme Court Administrative Matter (AM) No. 04-10-11-SC, Ray only has a non-extendible period of five days within which to file his answer or opposition. His failure to do so allowed the court to issue the corresponding order as warranted by the facts alleged in the Petition. Thus, the filing of Ray’s opposition is already too late and the RTC already issued a PPO in favor of Naty, ordering Ray to stay away from her at a distance of 200 meters so that Naty and the children would not be subjected to psychological and emotional abuse anymore. The RTC also ordered Ray to pay a monthly support of P100,000 which Ray did not pay.

On appeal by Ray, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the findings of the RTC. It held that there was no improper service of summons because the notice received by counsel representing a party in an action in court is equivalent to notice to the party himself. Ray still appealed the CA ruling to the Supreme Court (SC).

The SC ruled that while the CA is really correct in ruling that notice to counsel is equivalent to notice to client, said notice however must be notice to the counsel of record. In this case, Atty. Primero was not Ray’s counsel of record. He was Ray’s counsel in a separate criminal case filed against Ray for violation of RA 9262 pending in another branch. Therefore, Ray has no counsel of record yet in this case.

Even then, Ray voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the RTC in this case when he filed the Entry of Appearance with Opposition to the issuance of a PPO. By seeking affirmative relief in his Opposition without objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial court, he thereby voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction. There is voluntary appearance when a party, without directly assailing the court’s lack of jurisdiction, seeks affirmative relief from the court. His voluntary appearance thus cured the defect in the service of the summons. The trial court therefore acquired jurisdiction over Ray through his voluntary appearance. Thus the Permanent Protection Order requiring Ray to stay away from Naty at a distance of 200 meters and to give Naty and her children monthly support of P100,000 is affirmed (Sabado vs.Sabado etc., G.R. L-214270, May 12, 2021).