Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
RULING:
We find that since petitioner is assiling the validity of RA 9262, the
constitutionality of said law must first be decided upon. The petitioner
particularly directs his attack on Sec. 5 of RA 9262, the ex parte issuance of
TPO.
The SC ruled a protection order is an order issued to prevent further
acts of violence against women and their children. Since time is of the
essence in cases of VAWC if further violence is to be prevented, the court is
authorized to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle but brfore notice and hearing
when the life is in jeopardy and there is reasonable ground to believe that
the order is necessary to protect the victim.
The grant of TPO ex parte cannot be challenged as a violative of right
to due process. Here, the procedural due process must yield to the
necessities of protecting vital public interests, like protection of women and
their children from violence.
After TPO is issued ex parte notice is immediately given to respondednt
for him to file opposition within 5 days from receipt thereof.
Hence, the respondent judge is only acting in accordance with RA 9262
without any grave abuse of discretion.
It is settled doctrine thatb there is grave abuse of discretion when
there is a capricuouc and whimsical exercise of judgment is equivalent of
lack of jurisdiction, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so
patent and gross s9 as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
We find that the CA did not err when it found no grave abuse of
discretion committed by the RTC in issuance of TPO.