G.R. No. L-64982 October 23, 1984
ALEJANDRO B. HONTIVEROS, JR., petitioner, vs. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, Third Special Cases Division, HON. WILFREDO G. CAINGLET in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch CLVIII, RTC and BRENDA M. HERNANDO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alejandro Hontiveros, Jr. and private respondent Brenda Hernando are the parents of an acknowledged natural child, Margaux. In August 1982, Hernando filed a petition for habeas corpus to recover custody after Hontiveros failed to return the child following a visit. During the proceedings, the parties agreed to a shared custody arrangement, which was formalized in a court order dated September 9, 1982. This order granted primary custody to the mother, with the father having visitation rights for seven days every other week.
Subsequently, in May 1983, Hontiveros filed an urgent petition for a writ of preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court to prevent Hernando from taking the child to the United States. During the hearing, Hernando moved to withdraw the original habeas corpus petition, arguing it had become moot due to the existing custody order. Respondent Judge Cainglet granted the withdrawal and, consequently, denied the ancillary petition for injunction. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed this order.

ISSUE

The primary issues are whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the withdrawal of the habeas corpus petition and denying the injunction, and whether the petitioner is entitled to custody of the minor child.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the procedural issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge. The withdrawal of the habeas corpus petition was the petitioner’s prerogative, and the denial of the ancillary injunction was proper as the main action was withdrawn. The Court noted that Hontiveros had an alternative remedy: he could have filed his injunction petition in the separate custody case (Special Proceedings No. 9788) he had initiated but subsequently abandoned, leading to its dismissal for lack of prosecution. His failure to pursue that avenue precluded relief via certiorari.
On the substantive custody issue, the Court applied Article 363 of the Civil Code and Article 17 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603), which establish that the child’s welfare is paramount. For children under seven years old (under five per P.D. 603), no mother shall be separated from her child absent compelling reasons. The Court found Hernando possessed a clear legal right to custody, as Hontiveros failed to substantiate any compelling reason for reversal, especially since he abandoned his own custody case, foreclosing a factual determination on the mother’s fitness. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.