View full case

JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA

FACTS:

On March 23, 2006, Rosalie Jaype-Garcia filed, for herself and on behalf of her minor children, a verified petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City seeking a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Jesus C. Garcia, pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262. Rosalie claimed she suffered physical abuse, emotional, psychological, and economic violence due to her husband's marital infidelity, coupled with threats of depriving her of custody of their children and financial support. Rosalie and Jesus were married in 2002 and had three children. Rosalie described herself as a diligent and loyal wife, but highlighted her husband's controlling and dominant behavior, his restrictions on her personal growth, and his frequent outbursts of jealousy. The situation worsened when Jesus began an affair with a bank manager, which he bragged about and admitted to Rosalie. The affair led to physical confrontations, posting emotional turmoil, and even incidents of abuse towards their children. Rosalie's emotional distress culminated in a suicide attempt on December 17, 2005, which Jesus failed to address compassionately. Additionally, Jesus controlled the family businesses and restricted Rosalie's access to the family assets and financial information, creating further economic dependency and denial of support. The RTC, finding imminent danger of violence, issued a TPO on March 24, 2006, effective for 30 days, mandating Jesus to leave the conjugal home, maintain distance from Rosalie and the children, relinquish firearms, and provide financial support. Despite repeated extensions and modifications of the TPO, including additional support for Rosalie's needs and children’s education, Jesus sought to oppose and modify the orders. He claimed procedural violations and sought the cancellation or reduction of financial requirements. During the pendency of the case in the RTC, Jesus filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the constitutionality of R.A. 9262, asserting that it violated due process and equal protection clauses. However, the appellate court dismissed the petition, leading Jesus to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court for resolution on constitutional grounds.

ISSUES:

I. Whether the issue of constitutionality of R.A. 9262 was not raised at the earliest opportunity, constituting a collateral attack on the validity of the law.

II. Whether R.A. 9262 is discriminatory, unjust, and violative of the equal protection clause.

III. Whether R.A. 9262 violates the due process clause of the Constitution.

IV. Whether R.A. 9262 contradicts the policy of the State to protect the family as a basic social institution.

V. Whether R.A. 9262 involves an undue delegation of judicial power to barangay officials.

  • Equal protection clause Legislation can validly classify persons as long as the classification is reasonable, based on substantial distinctions, germane to the purpose of the law, not limited to existing conditions, and applies equally to each member of the class.

  • Due process Adequate notice and opportunity to be heard are fundamental components of due process. Procedures, including those of protective orders, should ensure such opportunities are available.

  • Public order and family protection Laws targeting violence against women and children aim to protect the family unit and can enforce measures such as protection orders without infringing on rights unjustly.

  • Delegation of power The delegation of functions, such as the issuance of BPOs to barangay officials, fits within their executive duty to enforce laws and maintain order, and does not constitute an undue delegation of judicial power.

RULING:

I. The issue of constitutionality of R.A. 9262 could have been raised at the earliest opportunity in the RTC of Bacolod City, which had jurisdiction to determine the same. The appellate court correctly dismissed the petition for prohibition.

II. R.A. 9262 is not discriminatory, unjust, or violative of the equal protection clause. The law rests on substantial distinctions, is germane to the purpose of the law, and applies equally to all members involved.

III. R.A. 9262 does not violate the due process clause. The processes for issuing Temporary Protection Orders (TPOs) ensure sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard for respondents.

IV. R.A. 9262 aligns with the policy of the State to protect the family by aiming to safeguard women and children from violence.

V. There is no undue delegation of judicial power to barangay officials. The issuance of Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs) is an executive duty consistent with the enforcement of law and public order, not a judicial function.