0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
27 Ansichten2 Seiten
Private respondent filed for legal separation from petitioner on grounds of concubinage and petitioned for support payments. The court ruled that (1) a civil case for legal separation can proceed simultaneously with a related criminal case for concubinage, and (2) a decree of legal separation can be granted based on a preponderance of evidence and does not require a criminal conviction. The court further ruled that (3) the judge did not abuse discretion in ordering petitioner to pay pendente lite support, and (4) divergence of opinions between the judge and petitioner's counsel was not sufficient grounds for disqualification.
Private respondent filed for legal separation from petitioner on grounds of concubinage and petitioned for support payments. The court ruled that (1) a civil case for legal separation can proceed simultaneously with a related criminal case for concubinage, and (2) a decree of legal separation can be granted based on a preponderance of evidence and does not require a criminal conviction. The court further ruled that (3) the judge did not abuse discretion in ordering petitioner to pay pendente lite support, and (4) divergence of opinions between the judge and petitioner's counsel was not sufficient grounds for disqualification.
Private respondent filed for legal separation from petitioner on grounds of concubinage and petitioned for support payments. The court ruled that (1) a civil case for legal separation can proceed simultaneously with a related criminal case for concubinage, and (2) a decree of legal separation can be granted based on a preponderance of evidence and does not require a criminal conviction. The court further ruled that (3) the judge did not abuse discretion in ordering petitioner to pay pendente lite support, and (4) divergence of opinions between the judge and petitioner's counsel was not sufficient grounds for disqualification.
Respondent: Hon. Senen C. Penaranda (Presiding Judge) and Teresita C. Gandionco Topic: Legal Separation Grounds Summary: Private respondent (petitioners legal wife) filed a complaint for concubinage and legal separation with petition for support and payment of damages against petitioner. The Court ruled that the civil action for legal separation should not be suspended in view of the criminal case and the decree of legal separation may be issued upon proof by preponderance of evidence. Facts: Special action for certiorari to annul: 1.) Order of the respondent judge ordering petitioner to pay support pendente lite to private respondent (his wife) and their child 2.) Order denying petitioners motion to suspend hearings in the action for legal separation filed against him by private respondent; motion to inhibit respondent Judge from further hearing and trying the case Private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for legal separation on the ground of concubinage with a petition for support and payment of damages. (RTC) Private respondent also filed with the Municipal Trial Court a complaint against petitioner for concubinage. Private respondent applied for the provisional remedy of support pendente lite pending decision for legal separation. Respondent judge ordered the payment of support. Issues: 1. WoN the civil action for legal separation and incidents should be suspended in view of the criminal case for concubinage filed against petitioner NO o 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure a civil action for legal separation based on concubinage, may proceed ahead of, or simultaneously with, a criminal action for concubinage because said civil action is not one to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense 2. WoN the petitioner should first be convicted for concubinage before the action for legal separation can prosper or succeed (as the basis of the action for legal separation is his alleged offense of concubinage) NO o A decree of legal separation, on the ground of concubinage, may be issued upon proof by preponderance of evidence. o No criminal proceeding or conviction is necessary. 3. WoN the respondent judge erred in ordering the payment of support pendente lite NO o No proof of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge o Support pendente lite can be availed of in an action for legal separation and granted at the discretion of the judge 4. WoN the respondent Judge should be disqualified from hearing the case as the grant of support and denial of the motion to suspend hearings are taken by petitioner as a disregard of applicable laws and doctrines
NO o Divergence of opinions between a judge hearing a case and a partys counsel is not a sufficient ground to disqualify the judge from hearing the case.