Case Facts ISSUE HELD

VAWC filed by Rossanna Honrado-Tua WON: (WON: RTC SC affirmed CAs upholding
along with her (3) minor children: failed to observe due RTCs issuance of TPO.
a) Joshua Raphael process of law in
b) Jesse Ruth Lois issuing the TPO?) Ratio:
c) Jezreel Abigail the alleged acts of petitioner
against his husband Ralph Tua WON: Sec. 15 of among others, i.e., he cocked
VAWC is the gun and pointed the same
Threat of physical harm, deprivation of unconstitutional as it to his head in order to
custody and access to her minor children, deprives due process convince respondent not to
and that of financial support of the law? proceed with the legal
separation case; feeding his
Cocked gun was pointed by Ralph to Ans: NO other children with the food
Rosanna to convince her not to proceed which another child spat out;
Tua v. Mangrobang with Legal Separation that Rosanna filed and threatening the crying
(Due Process and previously; fed the children of a chewed SECTION 15. child with a belt to stop him
Ex Parte issuance and spat out chicken by youngest daughter; Temporary Protection from crying which was
of TPO; withholding financial support; Ralph with Orders. Temporary repeatedly done; and holding
opportunity to be companions went to Rosannas new home Protection Orders respondent by her nape when
heard in the judicial and forcibly took the children and refused (TPOs) refers to the he got furious that she was
hearing/trial) to give them back to her etc. protection order issued asking him not to come often
by the court on the to their conjugal home and
RTC: issued a Temporary Protection Order date of filing of the hold office thereat after their
Hindi party with pursuant to VAWC with effectivity for 30 application after ex agreed separation and
your ex days from the date of receipt against parte determination threatening her of
Ralph Tua that such order should withholding half of the
Ex Parte: be issued. A court may financial support for the
with respect to or in Local enforcement/peace officers ordered grant in a TPO any, kids, while not conclusive,
the interests of one by the court to enforce the TPO some or all of the are enough bases for the
side only or of an immediately and to use necessary force and reliefs mentioned in issuance of a TPO.
interested outside measures under the law to implement the this Act and shall be Petitioner's actions would
party. order effective for thirty (30) fall under the enumeration of
days. The court shall Section 5, more particularly,
Ralph Lua then filed in the RTC an urgent schedule a hearing on paragraphs a, d, e (2), f, h,
motion to lift TPO alleging that it was the issuance of a and i.
Rosanna who did the misdeeds and even [Permanent Protection
entertaining another man (Rebendor Order] PPO prior to or
Zuniga) stating that Rosanna is mentally, on the date of the
psychologically, spiritually, and morally expiration of the TPO.
unfit to keep the children in her custody The court shall order
the immediate
Lua also contended that TPO issuance is personal service of the
unconstitutional for being violative of the TPO on the respondent
due process clause of the Consti by the court sheriff
who may obtain the
While the motion is pending in RTC R. assistance of law
Ex parte means that Lua filed a writ of preliminary injunction enforcement agents for
the respondent need and/or TRO re- implementation by peace the service. The TPO
not be notified or be officers of TPO issued by RTC shall include notice of
present in the the date of the hearing
hearing for the At first, CA issued a TRO re- on the merits of the
issuance of the TPO. implementation TPO while hearing the writ issuance of a PPO.
Thus, it is within the of preliminary injunction filed by R. Lua
courts discretion,
based on the petition Then on Oct. 28, 2005, CA denied the writ RULES RE filing
and the affidavit of preliminary injunction for it is bereft of TPO
attached thereto, to merit thus upholding the TPO issued by the For ex parte what is
determine that the RTC required is the
 violent acts against verification (writing,
women and their CAs reason: signed, verified) of the
children for the victim of allegations
issuance of a TPO In so ruling, the CA found that the petition and that there is an
have been filed by respondent under RA 9262 is still imminent/immediate
committed. pending before the RTC; thus, the factual danger to the life, limb
matters raised therein could not be or property of the
passed upon in the petition for certiorari victim and that there is
filed with it. The CA noted that during the reasonable ground to
essence of due pendency of the herein proceedings, believe that the order
process = petitioner filed an urgent motion to quash is necessary to protect
reasonable warrant issued by the RTC and which the victim
opportunity to be matter could not also be a subject of this
heard petition which assails the TPO dated May Upon issuance of Ex
23, 2005 and that the motion to quash Parte TPO, the court
should have been filed with the RTC. promulgates a notice
to the respondent to
file opposition within
The CA found that the TPO dated May 23, 5 days from service
2005 was validly issued by the RTC and (opportunity to be
found no grave abuse of discretion in the heard)
issuance thereof as the same were in
complete accord with the provision of RA It is clear from the
9262. foregoing rules that
the respondent of a
Ralph Lua: VAWC is unconstitutional petition for protection
order should be
Petitioner particularly directs his apprised of the charges
constitutional attack on Section 15 of RA imputed to him and
9262 contending that had there been no ex afforded an
parte issuance of the TPO, he would have opportunity to present
been afforded due process of law and had his side. x x x. The
properly presented his side on the matter; essence of due
that the questioned provision simply process = reasonable
encourages arbitrary enforcement repulsive opportunity to be
to basic constitutional rights which affects heard; may be heard
his life, liberty and property. also through
pleadings. Where
opportunity to be
heard, either through
oral arguments or
pleadings, is accorded,
there is no denial of
procedural due
process.