Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court
Branch __
Quezon City

XXX
for herself, and in behalf of minor child
YYY
Petitioner,

-versus- Civil Case No. 111

For: Application for Protection Order
R.A. 9262

UUU,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT AND OPPOSITION

(RE: Application for Temporary Protection Order)

RESPONDETS, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most

respectfully states:

1. This is filed pursuant to the court order to submit a written

comment within five (5) days from receipts of the order dated Janaury 11,
1990.

2. Respondent received the copy of the said order last September

13, 1981, the fifth day to file this Comment and Opposition shall expire on
Juanary 18, 1990.

3. To be entitled to the relief sought for, petitioner must have a

valid ground to file the remedy as provided by law. The grounds for the
TPO/Temporary Protection Order based on Sec. 8 and 15 of Republic Act
No. 9262 “Violence against women and their children” are as follows:

SECTION 8. Protection Orders.- A protection order is

an order issued under this act for the purpose of preventing
 further acts of violence against a woman or her child
specified in Section 5 of this Act and granting other
necessary relief. The relief granted under a protection order
serve the purpose of safeguarding the victim from further
harm, minimizing any disruption in the victim's daily life, and
facilitating the opportunity and ability of the victim to
independently regain control over her life. The provisions of
the protection order shall be enforced by law enforcement
agencies. The protection orders that may be issued under
this Act are the barangay protection order (BPO), temporary
protection order (TPO) and permanent protection order
(PPO).

SECTION 15. Temporary Protection Orders. –

Temporary Protection Orders (TPOs) refers to the protection
order issued by the court on the date of filing of the
application after ex parte determination that such order
should be issued. A court may grant in a TPO any, some or
all of the reliefs mentioned in this Act and shall be effective
for thirty (30) days. The court shall schedule a hearing on the
issuance of a PPO prior to or on the date of the expiration of
the TPO. The court shall order the immediate personal
service of the TPO on the respondent by the court sheriff who
may obtain the assistance of law enforcement agents for the
service. The TPO shall include notice of the date of the
hearing on the merits of the issuance of a PPO.

4. Petitioner, upon filing this provision of the protection order,

anchors its entitlement and lists its arguments on the principal case of
hearsay testimonial evidences and self-serving arguments.

5. This Petition is pure imaginary accusation of the petitioner to

submit herself to the mercy of this Honorable Court. The fact remains that
petitioner was the one who is unfaithful and incurred series of
discriminatory act against the respondents.

6. With all due respect, Respondents do not find any cogent

reason for this Honorable Court to issue a Temporary Protection Order.
Hence, they respectfully pray that this Honorable Court dismiss the instant
Petition.

7. In support thereof, Respondents makes the following

submissions:
 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

I
The application for a Temporary Protection Order is groundless
because there was no apparent situation wherein respondent committed
series of acts against the petitioner that resulted in physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of
such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty.

DISCUSSION

I. THERE WAS DELIBERATE

MISREPRESENTATION ON THE
PART OF THE PETITIONER TO
EFFECT A VALID CASE FOR
VIOLATION OF RA 9262 AND
ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY
PROTECTION ORDER.

8. We do not agree with the petitioner narration of facts and her

denial of the real events that transcribed between their marriage lives.

The facts are the following:

9. On ______, respondent and petitioner got married, and on

____, their son _____ was born. After giving birth, petitioner confided and
she suffered a Post-partum depression. Respondent on the other hand
offered that they seek professional help to which petitioner refused.

10. After two years of marriage, in the year ______ the petitioner
and respondent made a carrier shift. Respondent applied to a corporate
role, while petitioner was employed at Abbott Philippines. Both of them
were busy making a living in their respective carrier.

11. Last November _____, petitioner confessed to her husband

herein respondent that she is no longer happy in their marriage.
Respondent tried to illicit accurate information about what his wife was told.
But petitioner refused to discuss the reason behind of her being not happy
in their married lives.

12. In the morning of ____________, respondent borrowed the

cellular phone of the petitioner. While in the middle of using his wife phone
a message suddenly appear which read “I Love You” from a sender
marked only as “ww”.

13. Respondent was appalled and curious on what he read. He

further checked the conversation thread with the sender “ww”. Respondent
was shocked of all the revelation he read including the detail hotel room
rendezvous indicating a sexual relationship.

14. Respondent eventually confronted the petitioner of what he

discovered, but despite persistent and serious prodding, petitioner would
not reveal the identity of her paramour. In order to subside the tension,
respondent went to Japan where he stayed for a week without
communication when the petitioner. And upon return from Japan the
petitioner continued to refused to give details of her love affair and to to
point that his wife was to sour and distant to him.

15. On February, respondent left their conjugal home upon the

request of the petitioner for space and to be able to reflect on their
relationship.

16. The fact remains that during the time that they were living
separately, respondent never stopped fixing their marriage for the sake of
their son. Attached is the exchange of conversation showing respondent is
trying to save their marriage EXHIBIT “”

17. As a matter of fact, petitioner created a group chat in the Viber

message. This conversation proves that respondent is very much willing to
save their marriage. To quote, ------------------------- (- explained his side,
how emotional he is, being betrayed but willing to save his family, but he
didn’t see that was to feel so sorry for what he did” EXHIBIT “”

18. Respondent continue to express his love towards his wife, but
the petitioner were so distant and avoiding a serious conversation.
Attached EXHIBIT “”

19. Instead of fixing their marriage, petitioner threatens the

respondent to file an instant protection order and to conceal his illicit affair.
Attached is the EXHIBIT “”

20. Eventually petitioner hired a psychologist to assist her in the

process of filing an annulment case and herein respondent participated
under protest. Respondent participated in the process to ensure that his
side would be clearly and categorically be heard.
 21. And for the custody of the child, respondent agreed to the term
and condition of the herein petitioner that the child will be under respondent
custody and care ONLY during Sundays. Respondent because of longing
to be with his child pleaded that he gets more time to spend with but such
proposition did not materialized because according to the petitioner the
child needs stability.

22. Petitioner makes a scenario in order that their child becomes

more distant to the herein respondent. This became more apparent when
petitioner and her family decided to book a trip for Batanees on the day of
son birthday. Respondent disagree with the said planned trip because the
said scheduled trip is without his consent. Respondent was bypass in
celebrating his son’s birthday.

23. On Date, respondent informed the petitioner that he wanted

Son to sleep overnight with him. Date was son 4th birthday. It was at that
time that petitioner told respondent that they had scheduled trip to Batanes
from date without respondent permission. Respondent verbalized his
objection and said he does not agree to son leaving and insisted that son
will sleep overnight as requested. However, petitioner eventually said that if
son will not be able to go back with her in the evening of date, then she will
not allow respondent to get son in the morning that was Sunday, which was
respondent usual day with son for the past 56 months. Respondent was
then forced to agree to let son go back in the evening.

23. That because of the said event, in the evening of date, together
with respondent parents had a confrontation with the petitioner who was
with her parents too. Contrary to the representation of the petitioner that
there was a threat and physical harm, respondent gave the child to the
petitioner after a minute of heated argument. There was no commotion that
happened that verbal altercation only last for less than two minutes.

24. The following day date, respondent tried to communicate to

herein petitioner of the whereabouts if their child but of no avail. Petitioner
deliberately hides the child from her father and prevented the latter to see
and talk to his child.

25. After ten days from concealing the child to his father,
respondent was surprised because he received a Barangay Protection
Order dated. The allegation made by her wife were purely serf serving and
against his person. Respondent never had a chance to explain his side and
to present a valid arguments regarding the malicious allegation of the
herein petitioner wife.
 26. That due to respondent were not given a chance to see his
child the father of the herein respondent filed a Barangay complaint last
date. Copy of the complaint is hereto attached and marked as EXHIBIT “”.
Petitioner continuously evaded the said summons instead file a written
comment to the Barangay Official stating amongst other her self-serving
accusations to the herein respondent and his family.

27. While the fact remains, respondent is the real victim of the
manipulative misrepresentation of the petitioner in asking a favorable
decision of this Honorable Court. Respondent is trying to protect the best
interest of his child against his unfaithful and dishonest wife.

28. The allegation of the herein petitioner regarding threats to her

life and the series of text messages are all hearsay and unfounded
conclusions. The series of text messages sent to herein petitioner is due to
the fact that he has no communication to his son. Respondent is trying to
know the situation of his son, but petitioner deliberately hides his son and
worst, making a scenario to conceal the real events of her having an affair.

29. For three years herein petitioner was only given an opportunity
to take care of his child every Sunday of the week. And for that three years
there are no incident of physical harm or emotional distraction made by the
respondent to the petitioner. All the allegations of the petitioner are lies.

28. It is suffice to state that there was no physical, sexual,

psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of
such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty done by respondent against the petitioner.

29. It is the herein respondent that was being deprived to see and
be with his child.

30. Thus, apparent visitation right cannot be arbitrarily curtailed or

denied. Even when the parents are estranged and their affection for each
other is lost, their attachment to and feeling for their offspring remain
unchanged. Neither the law nor the courts allow this affinity to suffer,
absent any real, grave or imminent threat to the well-being of the child1.

31. Hence, due to these numerous substantial facts and legal

grounds, Respondent respectfully submits that this Honorable Court
dismiss the instant petition for Temporary Protection Order.

1
Briones vs. Miguel 440 SCRA 455 (2004)
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondents respectfully pray

that this Honorable Court dismiss the instant petition for Temporary
Protection Order.

All other reliefs as are just and deemed equitable are also prayed for.

Quezon City.

By the Counsel for Respondents:

Counsel for Petitioner