Venue. – The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their children under this law. In the absence of such court in the place where the offense was committed, the case shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was committed at the option of the complainant.
NOTES AND CASES:
R.A. 9262 applies to a foreigner who resides in the Philippines. – “XX, considering that respondent is currently living in the Philippines, we find strength in petitioner’s claim that the Territoriality Principle in criminal law, in relation to Article 14 of the New Civil Code, applies to the instant case, which provides that “”[p]enal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principle of public international law and to treaty stipulations.” On this score, it is indisputable that the alleged continuing acts of respondent refusing to support his child with petitioner is committed here in the Philippines as all of the parties herein are residents of the Province of Cebu.”[1]
RTC acting as Family Court has jurisdiction to decide constitutionality of R.A. 9262. – In Garcia vs. Drilon[2], one of the issues raised was the authority of the RTC as a Family Court to decide the constitutionality of Republic Act 9262. This after the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for injunction and prohibition filed by the petitioner to praying that the CA declare RA 9262 unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for petitioner’s failure to raise the constitutionality of the law before the RTC at the earliest opportunity. The petitioner reasoned out that his failure to raise the issue of constitutionality of the law before the RTC was that, as a Family Court, the latter has limited authority and jurisdiction that is inadequate to tackle the issue of constitutionality. The Court ruled otherwise:
“At the outset, it must be stressed that Family Court are special courts, of the same level as Regional Trial Court. Under R.A. 8369, otherwise known as the “Family Courts Act of 1997”, family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of domestic violence against women and children. In accordance with said law, the Supreme Court designated from among the branches of the Regional Trial Courts at least one Family Court in each of several key cities identified. To achieve harmony with the first mentioned law, Section 7 of R.A. 9262 now provides that Regional Trial Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of VAWC defined under the law, viz:
SEC. 7. Venue. – The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their children. In the absence of such court in the place where the offense was committed, the case shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was committed at the option of the complainant. (Emphasis supplied)
Inspite of its designation as a family court, the RTC of Bacolod City remains possessed of authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases whether civil, criminal, special proceedings, land registration, guardianship, naturalization, admiralty or insolvency. It is settled that RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute, “this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to fundamental law”. The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not in this Court, but in all RTCs. We said in J.M. Tuason and Co. Inc, v. CA that “[p]lainly the Constitution contemplates that inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue.” Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads in part as follows:
SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
x x x
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
- All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.,
x x x x
Thus, contrary to the posturing of petitioner, the issue of constitutionality of R.A. 9262 could have been raised at the earliest opportunity in his Opposition to the petition for protection order before the RTC of Bacolod City, which had jurisdiction to determine the same, subject to the review of this Court.
Section 20 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children, lays down a new kind of procedure requiring the respondent to file an opposition to the petition and not an answer. Thus:
SEC. 20. Opposition to petition. – (a) the respondent may file an opposition to the petition which he himself shall verify. It must be accompanied by the affidavit of witnesses and shall show cause why a temporary or permanent protection order should not be issued.
(b) Respondent shall not include in the opposition any counterclaim, crossclaim or third-party complaint, but any cause of action which could be the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (Emphasis supplied)
We cannot subscribe to the theory of petitioner that, since a counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint are to be excluded from the opposition, the issue of constitutionality cannot likewise be raised therein. A counterclaim is defined any claim for money or other relief which a defending party may have against an opposing party. A cross-claim, on the other hand, is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counter-claim therein. Finally, a third-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent’s claim. As pointed out by Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, the unconstitutionality of a statute is not a cause of action that could be the subject of counterclaim, cross-claim or a third-party complaint, Therefore, it is not prohibited from being raised in the opposition in view of the familiar maxim expressio unius est excusio alterius.
Moreover, it cannot be denied that this issue affects the resolution of the case a quo the right of private respondent to a protection order is founded solely on the very statute the validity of which is being attacked by petitioner who has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. The alleged unconstitutionality of R.A. 9262 is, for all intents and purposes, a valid cause for the non-issuance of a protection order.
That the proceedings in Civil Case No. 06-979 are summary in nature should not have deterred petitioner from raising the same in his Opposition. The question relative to the constitutionality of a statute is one of law which does not need to be supported by evidence. Be that as it may, Section 25. Of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC nonetheless allows the conduct of a hearing to determine legal issues, among others, viz:
SEC, 25. Order for further hearing. – In case the court determines the need for further hearing, it may issue an order containing the following:
- Facts undisputed and admitted;
- Factual and legal issues to be resolved;
- Evidence, including objects and documents that have been marked and will be presented;
- Names of witnesses who will be ordered to present their testimonies in the form of affidavits; and
- Schedule of the presentation of evidence by both parties which shall be done in one day, to the extent possible, within the 30-day period of the effectivity of the temporary protection order issued. (Emphasis supplied)
To obviate potential dangers that may arise concomitant to the conduct of a hearing when necessary, Section 26 (b) of A.M. no. 04-10-11-SC provides that if a temporary protection order issued is due to expire, the trial court may extend or renew the said order for a period of thirty (30) days each time until final judgment is rendered. It may likewise modify the extended or renewed temporary protection order as may be necessary to meet the needs of the parties. With the private respondent given ample protection, petitioner could proceed to litigate the constitutional issues, without necessarily running afoul of the very purpose for the adoption of the rules on summary procedure.” (Citations omitted)
[1] Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014
[2] G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013