Thursday, October 20, 2016

ORDA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 92625; December 26, 1990

FACTS:

Private Respondent Gil Galang (Gil) filed a case with the Trial court of San Pablo City in order to regain custody of his minor daughter who was staying with her maternal grandparents, petitioner’s herein. Her mother had already died when the case was initiated. The Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioners, Orda, had moved to Bataan, hence the court lost jurisdiction. Subsequently, Gil commenced an original action for habeas corpus with the Court of Appeals over his minor daughter. The Court of Appeals, finding that based of the arguments presented by both parties, a full blown trial is required, accordingly, the CA issued the assailed order remanding the case to the RTC of San Pablo City. The Court of appeals later clarified the order as a “referral” of the case to the RTC because it was an original case submitted to it.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals may refer a petition for habeas corpus originally filed with it to the Regional Trial Court for a full-blown trial due to conflicting facts presented by the parties.

HELD:

NO. While the case requires a full-blown trial of the facts, the same should be done in the context of the special proceedings for custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court, and not a remand or referral of the original action for a writ of habeas corpus filed with the respondent court. Parenthetically, the proper venue in this action is the place where the petitioner therein resides.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolutions of the respondent Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE and a new one is rendered DISMISSING the petition for habeas corpus WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing by private respondent of the appropriate special proceedings to gain custody of his minor child.

No comments:

Post a Comment