GR 214270; (May, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 214270, May 12, 2021
Jay V. Sabado, Petitioner, vs. Tina Marie L. Sabado, for herself and her minor children, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Tina Marie L. Sabado filed a Petition for Temporary and Permanent Protection Order, Support and Support Pendente Lite against her husband, petitioner Jay V. Sabado, under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act). Tina alleged that Jay subjected her to psychological and emotional abuse, public humiliation, and deprivation of financial support, and that he abandoned her and their two minor children. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) directing Jay to stay away from Tina at a distance of 200 meters. Several attempts to personally serve the summons, petition, and TPO on Jay at his address and his employer’s office were unsuccessful. However, on November 16, 2012, Atty. Gary O. Palmero, Jay’s counsel in a related criminal case, received a copy of the Order and Petition. Jay filed an Entry of Appearance with Opposition to the Issuance of Permanent Protection Order on January 17, 2013, seeking to lift the TPO and deny the PPO, and to determine support. The RTC denied admission of Jay’s opposition for being filed beyond the non-extendible five-day period under the rules, and subsequently issued a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) ordering Jay to stay away from Tina and their children and to pay monthly support of P100,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision. Jay appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing improper service of summons and lack of jurisdiction over his person.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner, Jay V. Sabado.
RULING
Yes, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction over the respondent in a petition for protection orders under R.A. No. 9262 can be acquired through any of the means of serving summons under the Rules of Court, which apply suppletorily. More importantly, the Court held that Jay voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. His counsel’s receipt of the court’s Order and Petition was considered notice to Jay himself. Furthermore, by filing an Opposition that sought affirmative relief (lifting of the TPO, denial of the PPO, and determination of support) without raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction over his person, Jay voluntarily appeared and participated in the proceedings. Consequently, he is estopped from questioning the court’s jurisdiction. The petition was denied, and the assailed CA Decision affirming the RTC’s PPO was affirmed.