G.R. No. 255299 . March 08, 2023.
AAA255299, PETITIONER, VS. XXX255299, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner AAA255299 and respondent XXX255299, a German national, were married in 2007. AAA255299 alleged that during their marriage, XXX255299 had several affairs. In May 2013, he became indifferent and shouted insults at her. On June 2, 2013, AAA255299 discovered XXX255299 with another woman in their master’s bedroom. When she demanded the woman leave, XXX255299 insisted she stay as his girlfriend, claimed they were separated, berated and threatened AAA255299, and forcefully dragged her out of their residence, causing her injury. AAA255299 sought police assistance, leading to XXX255299’s arrest and the filing of criminal complaints for concubinage and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). She also obtained a barangay protection order.
On June 7, 2013, AAA255299 filed a Petition for a protection order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) on June 10, 2013, which was extended several times during trial. On March 2, 2016, the RTC issued a Decision converting the TPO into a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) and ordering XXX255299 to provide monthly support of PHP 100,000.00. The PPO provisions included prohibitions against threats and harassment, a stay-away order, and removal of XXX255299 from specified residences, including a property in Shaw and a penthouse unit in Asiana.
Both parties filed Motions for Reconsideration. XXX255299 argued the PPO violated his property rights and sought reduction of support. AAA255299 sought increased support. The RTC denied both motions on July 4, 2016. XXX255299 filed a Notice of Appeal, which AAA255299 opposed, arguing it was filed out of time because a Motion for Reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children (A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC) and thus did not toll the appeal period. The RTC approved the appeal, reasoning that since AAA255299 also filed a Motion for Reconsideration, fairness required allowing XXX255299’s appeal.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision with modification, removing the Asiana property from the PPO’s coverage. Both parties moved for reconsideration; the CA denied both. AAA255299 filed the present Petition, arguing the CA erred in modifying the PPO to exclude the Asiana property and in giving due course to XXX255299’s appeal, which she claimed was filed out of time. XXX255299 countered that the appeal was timely and that including his properties in the PPO violated his property rights.

ISSUE

1. Whether the instant Petition should be dismissed for AAA255299’s failure to attach material portions of the record.
2. Whether the lower courts erred in giving due course to XXX255299’s appeal.
3. Whether the CA erred in modifying the PPO to exclude the property located in Asiana.

RULING

1. No, the Petition should not be dismissed. While Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court state that failure to attach material portions of the record is a ground for dismissal, the Court has relaxed this rule in the interest of substantial justice, especially when the missing documents are already before the Court. Here, the assailed CA Decision and Resolution, as well as the RTC Decision, were attached to the Petition. The core issues revolve around the application of procedural rules and the parameters of the PPO, which can be resolved based on the submitted pleadings and attachments. Dismissal on this technical ground is not warranted.
2. No, the lower courts did not err in giving due course to XXX255299’s appeal. While Section 31 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC provides that any aggrieved party may appeal within fifteen days from notice of the final order or judgment, and a motion for reconsideration is generally a prohibited pleading, the RTC acted within its discretion in approving the appeal. The RTC justified its action based on fairness and due process, noting that AAA255299 herself filed a Motion for Reconsideration, thereby acknowledging the propriety of such a pleading in the case. Jurisprudence establishes that courts may relax procedural rules to serve substantial justice. The RTC’s approval of the appeal, under the specific circumstances, was not a grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the CA properly acquired jurisdiction over the appeal and ruled on the merits.
3. No, the CA did not err in modifying the PPO. The CA correctly excluded the Asiana property from the PPO’s coverage. AAA255299 claimed she needed access to this property due to her work as a flight attendant. However, the evidence showed she had already abandoned the Asiana property and was evicted therefrom by XXX255299. The PPO under R.A. No. 9262 is intended to safeguard victims from further harm and ensure their safety, not to grant property rights or allocate residences based on convenience. The law allows the court to direct the respondent to stay away from the petitioner’s residence, school, place of employment, or any specified place frequented by the petitioner and their children. Given that AAA255299 was no longer residing in or frequenting the Asiana property, including it in the PPO was unnecessary for her protection. The modification by the CA was proper to align the PPO with its protective purpose without unduly infringing on property rights where no factual basis for inclusion existed. The PPO provisions regarding the Shaw property and other protective measures remained in effect.