GR No 193225

BBB vs AAA

GR No 193225         February 9, 2015

Facts:

            BBB and AAA were in a relationship; out of which was born two children. Apparently, AAA had a child borne from a previous relationship, named CCC. BBB and AAA married in civil rights and the birth certificates of the children, including CCC were amended to change their civil status legitimated by virtue of the said marriage. However, the marriage life for the two did not work well as BBB was allegedly womanizing, while AAA was allegedly being overly jealous. BBB was alleged also to have biases over DDD and EEE despite his promise to treat CCC as his own.

            Extremely hurt by these, AAA lived temporarily at a friend’s house with the children, leaving their conjugal home. AAA then found out that BBB was not paying the rentals due to the condominium unit they were occupying. It compelled AAA to find work to support family. AAA filed an application for issuance of TPO against BBB for the latter’s economic and psychological abuse inflicted on AAA.

            RTC issued a TPO against BBB. Upon appeal, CA affirmed the factual findings of the RTC. Hence, BBB comes to the Supreme Court to file a petition for review on certiorari. During the pendency of the case, though, BBB managed to let AAA sign a compromise agreement for the exercise of parental authority over, and support of DDD and EEE. Counsel for AAA though pointed out that AAA signed the MOA while emotionally distressed and without the lawyer’s advice and guidance.

Issue:

            WON compromise agreement may be upheld; WON BBB be issued a PPO.

Held:

            The petition is not a proper subject of a compromise agreement.

            Alleging psychological violence and economic abuse, AAA anchored her application of issuance of a TPO and PPO on the basis of the provisions of RA No 9262 which was issued by RTC and affirmed by the CA. The rules, however, intend that cases filed under the provisions of RA No 9262 be not subject to compromise agreements.

Section 23 (c) of AM No 4-10-11-SC explicitly prohibits compromise on any act constituting the crime of violence against women. On the other hand, the same administrative memorandum directs referral to mediation of all issues under the Family Code and other laws in relation to support, custody, visitation, property relations and guardianship of minor children, excepting therefrom those covered by RA No 9262.

The RTC and CA found substantial evidence and did not commit reversible errors when they issued the PPO against BBB. Events, which took place after the issuance of PPO, do not erase the fact that psychological, emotional and economic abuses were committed by BBB against AAA.

Under Section 16 of RA No 9262, a PPO shall be effective until revoked by the court upon the application of the person in whose favor the order was issued. Pending the resolution of the case, both parties executed an MOA, upon which basis compromise was sought to be rendered. However, this only urges the court to examine the factual circumstances during such agreement.

Hence, the case is remanded to RTC. In order to put finality on the principal query, Court held that the issuance of PPO was valid.