G.R. No. 182367 ; December 15, 2010
CHERRYL B. DOLINA, Petitioner, vs. GLENN D. VALLECERA, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Cherryl B. Dolina filed a petition for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against respondent Glenn D. Vallecera under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act). In her pro-forma complaint, she added a handwritten prayer for financial support for their child, citing the child’s Certificate of Live Birth that listed Vallecera as the father. She also sought an order directing Vallecera’s employer to withhold support from his salary. Vallecera opposed, denying paternity, claiming the signature on the birth certificate was not his, and asserting the suit was a harassment to force acknowledgment and support. He also contended a protection order was unnecessary as he never lived with Dolina.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition. It ruled that no prior judgment establishing the child’s filiation and right to support existed to serve as a basis for compelling support. The RTC, in denying Dolina’s motion for reconsideration, admonished her to first file a petition for compulsory recognition of her child as a prerequisite for support. Dolina elevated the case directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC correctly dismissed Dolina’s action for a TPO and denied her application for temporary support for her child.

RULING

Yes, the RTC correctly dismissed the action. The Supreme Court held that Dolina filed the wrong remedy to obtain support. The object of R.A. 9262 is the protection and safety of victims of abuse or violence. While a protection order can include a grant of legal support, this presupposes entitlement to both a protection order and support. The RTC found Dolina’s claim of abuse unsubstantiated, as she and her child never lived with Vallecera, revealing the true object was to secure financial support. To be entitled to support, filiation must first be established in a proper action if it is not admitted or acknowledged. Since Vallecera vigorously denied paternity, Dolina’s child, claimed to be illegitimate, is not entitled to support until filiation is duly proved. The child’s remedy is to file, through the mother, a judicial action for compulsory recognition or a direct action for support where the issue of filiation can be integrated and resolved. The Court noted the RTC should not have dismissed the entire case solely on the lack of a filiation declaration, as the main issue of alleged violence remained, but Dolina’s failure to raise this error on review lent credence to the conclusion that the petition’s real purpose was to obtain support. The petition was denied, and the RTC orders were affirmed.