G.R. No. 113087 June 27, 1994
REBECCO PANLILIO, ERLINDA PANLILIO and JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSEFINA G. SALONGA, Presiding Judge of RTC, Makati Branch 149 and FE V. FEDERIS, respondents.

FACTS

Michael Lancelot F. Panlilio, born on July 7, 1990, is the natural child of petitioner Jose Marcel E. Panlilio and private respondent Fe V. Federis. Petitioners Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio are the grandparents. On December 14, 1993, the grandparents initiated special proceedings in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naic, Cavite (Branch 15) seeking termination of the mother’s parental authority and their appointment as guardians ad litem of the minor, alleging the mother’s cruelty, moral depravity, and gross neglect. On December 16, 1993, the Cavite court issued an order appointing the grandparents as guardians ad litem pending determination of the case. On December 22, 1993, the natural mother, Fe V. Federis, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the RTC of Makati (Branch 149) to regain custody of the child, alleging petitioners detained the child after a visit and refused to return him despite demands. The Makati court issued the writ on December 23, 1993. Petitioners moved to dismiss the habeas corpus petition on grounds of litis pendentia and lack of cause of action, while the mother moved to dismiss the Cavite case on grounds of improper venue and prejudicial question. On January 7, 1994, the Makati judge made a verbal order to produce the child, prompting petitioners to file the instant petition with a plea for a restraining order, which the Supreme Court granted.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 149) acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining and issuing orders in the habeas corpus case, despite the prior assumption of jurisdiction by the Regional Trial Court of Cavite (Branch 15) in the special proceedings for termination of parental authority and the appointment of guardians ad litem.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Makati court’s assumption of authority over the habeas corpus case was tantamount to defeating the order of the Cavite court and violated the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference among co-equal courts. The Cavite court first acquired jurisdiction over the custody issue through the special proceedings for termination of parental authority and the appointment of guardians ad litem. The existence of this anterior suit, interwoven with the habeas corpus proceeding, divested the Makati court of jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus petition. The proper remedy for the mother’s grievances regarding the appointment order or her claims under the Family Code (such as parental authority over an illegitimate child and the general rule against separating a child under seven from the mother) was to address them within the Cavite case or through appeal, not by filing a separate action in another co-equal court. The Supreme Court directed the dismissal of the habeas corpus case and made the temporary restraining order permanent.