G.R. No. 172813 ; July 20, 2006
Ivy Joan P. Reyes-Tabujara, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Ernesto A. Tabujara III, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ivy Joan P. Reyes-Tabujara and private respondent Ernesto A. Tabujara III are married with a son, Carlos Iñigo. After marital discord, an incident on 15 March 2006 led to private respondent taking the child and allegedly assaulting petitioner, subsequently barring her from seeing their son or returning to the conjugal home. Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus before the Quezon City RTC to compel the production of their child. The case was initially raffled to Branch 102, which issued an order directing the respondent to produce the child. The case was later consolidated with other pending cases (including a petition for nullity of marriage and a case under R.A. 9262) before RTC Branch 86.
Presiding Judge Teodoro Bay of Branch 86 issued an Order dated 31 May 2006, which, among other things, directed the respondent to bring the child to court on a future hearing date but allowed the child to remain in the respondent’s custody pending resolution of the custody issue. Petitioner filed motions challenging this order. Subsequently, Pairing Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala issued an Order dated 1 June 2006, which essentially granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the child’s immediate production. The Court of Appeals, via Resolutions dated 2 June 2006 and 7 June 2006, restrained the enforcement of Judge Asdala’s 31 May 2006 Order and nullified her 1 June 2006 Order.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly nullified the 1 June 2006 Order issued by Pairing Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala in the consolidated habeas corpus proceeding.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s resolutions. The core legal principle is the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference, which mandates that a court should not interfere with the proceedings of a co-equal court having concurrent jurisdiction over the same case. The habeas corpus petition was validly consolidated with the other related cases before RTC Branch 86 by an order from the original branch (Branch 102). Consequently, Branch 86 acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the habeas corpus matter.
When Pairing Judge Gonzales-Asdala issued the 1 June 2006 Order, she effectively assumed authority over a case already under the jurisdiction of Branch 86’s presiding judge, Judge Bay, who had previously issued a substantive order on the same matter. This constituted an improper interference. A pairing judge’s authority is limited to acting on urgent matters to prevent a miscarriage of justice when the presiding judge is unavailable, not to revisit or overturn the presiding judge’s extant orders. Since Judge Bay’s 31 May 2006 Order was a considered resolution directing a future hearing for the child’s production, there was no extreme urgency requiring a pairing judge’s intervention. Therefore, the Court of Appeals properly annulled the 1 June 2006 Order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.