G.R. No. 179267 June 25, 2013
JESUS C. GARCIA, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court-Branch 41, Bacolod City, and ROSALIE JAYPE-GARCIA, for herself and on behalf of minor children, namely: JO-ANN, JOSEPH EDUARD, JESSE ANTHONE, all surnamed GARCIA, Respondents.
TOPIC: RAISE A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY
FACTS:
1. Private respondent Rosalie Jaype-Garcia filed a petition before the RTC Bacolod a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Jesus C. Garcia, pursuant to R.A. 9262 or An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes. (VAWC)
2. Rosalie claimed to be a victim of physical, emotional, psychological, and economic violence, being threatened of deprivation of custody of her children and of financial support and also a victim of marital infidelity on the part of the petitioner; the latter having an affair with Robinson's bank manager, who was the godmother of their children.
3. The TPO was granted.
4. Private respondent filed another application for the issuance of a TPO ex parte, claiming that petitioner Garcia continued to deprive them of financial support; failed to faithfully comply with the TPO; and committed new acts of harassment against her and their children.
5. The trial court issued a modified TPO and extended the same when the petitioner failed to comment on why the TPO should not be modified.
6. After having received a copy of the foregoing Order, the petitioner no longer submitted the required comment to private respondent's motion for renewal of the TPO arguing that it would only be an "exercise in futility."
7. During the civil case's pendency, petitioner filed before the CA a petition for prohibition with prayer for injunction and TRO challenging:
(1) the constitutionality of the RA 9262 for violating the due process and equal protection clauses, and
(2) the validity of the modified TPO for being an unwanted product of an invalid law.
8. The CA issued a 60-day TRO on the enforcement of the TPO, the amended but however, denied the petition for failure to raise the issue of constitutionality in his pleadings before the trial court and the petition for prohibition to annul protection orders issued by the trial court constituted collateral attack on said law.
9. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Thus, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the theory that the issue of constitutionality was not raised at the earliest opportunity and that the petition constitutes a collateral attack on the validity of the law.
RULING:
NO. The decision of CA is affirmed.
As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity so that if not raised in the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised in the trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal. Courts will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.
Re: Failure to attack R.A. 9262’s constitutionality before
RTC of Bacolod City
|
Petitioner Garcia |
Supreme Court |
|
The Family Court has
limited authority and jurisdiction that is "inadequate to tackle the complex issue of constitutionality. |
Under R.A. 8369, otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997," family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of domestic violence against women and children. To achieve harmony with the said law, Section 7 of R.A. 9262 now provides that Regional Trial Courts as a Family The court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their children under this law. In the absence of such court in the place where the offense was committed, the case shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was committed at the option of the complainant. |
The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in the Supreme Court, but in all RTCs.
The RTCs have the authority embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law. Thus, RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute.
As enunciated in J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. CA, the Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue.
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
x x x
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
Thus, the issue of the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 could have been raised at the earliest opportunity in his Opposition to the petition for protection order before the RTC of Bacolod City, which had jurisdiction to determine the same, subject to the review of this Court.
Comments
Post a Comment