Our position in complicating issue in amparo case for boy 'witness' for murders
Our position in complicating issue
in amparo case for boy 'witness' for murders
By BERTENI "TOTO" CATALUÑA CAUSING
Author of the book entitled "Simplified Libel Law in the Philippines"
During our hearing on March 8, 2013 for the Writ of Amparo case that we filed on behalf of newsman Jaime G. Aquino, his wife Ester Imus Aquino, and his minor son Jesting I. Aquino who Jaime insists to be being used to be a tool of political demolition job, an issue develop as to what to do with the Amparo Case considering that a Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Authority was already filed by one of the respondents, Akap Bata - Caritas.
The said petition of Akap Bata-Caritas sought to get authority from the RTC of Manila, Branch 29, for it to take custody over minor Jestin.
In the petition for the writ of amparo, Jaime seeks the liberty of his son from the hands of Akap Bata - Caritas.
HERE IS OUR POSITION.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Republic of the Philippines
Court of Appeals
Ma. Orosa St., Manila
JAIME G. AQUINO and
ESTER I. AQUINO for
their minor son JESTIN
IMUS AQUINO,
Petitioners,
- versus - No. ______________
NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (NBI),
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)
and AKAP-BATA CARITAS,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------x
Position
Paper
The
petitioners, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully file this Position Paper
addressing the issue on what to do after it turned out that there was that
Peitition for Involuntary Termination of Custody that was filed by respondent
AKAP BATA – CARITAS.
The Established
Points
The
following points are established.
First, this issue begins
from the fact that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is silent on what to do with
the amparo case if it turned out that there is a separate civil action that is
pending or that was filed.
Second, what the Rule
of the Writ of Amparo provides is in case there is a separate criminal case
that was filed in relation to the subject matter of the amparo case.
Third, Section 25 of the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo that says: “The Rules of Court shall apply
suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.”
Fourth, in the case Boac,
et al vs Cadapan, et al[1],
the Supreme Court said that the suppletory application of the Rules of Court is
limited only to the condition that if the application strengthens the Rule of
Amparo.
The Supreme Court said in
Rubrico, to wit:
The Solicitor General’s argument that the Rules of Court supplement the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo is misplaced.
The Rules of Court only find suppletory application in an amparo
proceeding if the Rules strengthen,
rather than weaken, the procedural efficacy of the writ. As it is, the Rule dispenses with dilatory
motions in view of the urgency in securing the life, liberty or security of the
aggrieved party. Suffice it to state
that a motion for execution is inconsistent with the extraordinary and
expeditious remedy being offered by an amparo proceeding.
Fifth, the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo is expressive that consolidation may be had only in case a
parallel case that has been filed is a criminal case.
This is clear in Section 23
thereof, to wit:
SEC. 23. Consolidation. – When a criminal action is filed subsequent to
the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with
the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent
to a petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to
apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
Sixth, Justice Marvic
Mario Victor Leonen wrote in his ponencia in the case De Lima vs Gatdula,[2]
which was an en banc case concurred in by all 14 other members of the Supreme
Court, that the amparo case can be consolidated in either a criminal or civil
case.
Justice Leonen, citing
Section 23 of the amparo rule, wrote as follows:
Parenthetically, the case may also be terminated through consolidation should
a subsequent case be filed – either criminal or civil.
Although the Leonen decision
was concurred in by all 14 other members of the Supreme Court, it collides with
Section 23 that he cited as footnote no. 31 of his ponencia. The collision is clear because if we read
Section 23 it expressly speaks only of a criminal case. If the Rule of Amparo intended to include
civil case where an amparo case may be consolidated, it could have easily
included the word “civil.”
Moreover, this statement in
the ponencia of Justice Leonen is a mere obiter dictum as it is not directly connected
with the issues of the same Gatdula case.
Seventh, the instant
amparo case presents two sets of issues: (1) the issues on the existence of
threats to life, liberty and security of the petitioners and their minor son; and
(2) the issues on whether or not the respondents, particularly respondent Akap
Bata-Caritas, shall free the child to the petitioners as parents.
Eighth, the Court of
Appeals can always exercise its power of supervision over the Regional Trial
Court, including the power to direct the lower court to conduct without delay the
summary hearing required for the amparo proceedings alongside the pending Petition
for Involuntary Termination of Custody and submit its recommendations to this CA
division constituted as the Amparo Court.
The issues in the Petition
for Involuntary Termination of Parental Custody are intertwined with the prayer
of amparo libertad that the petitioners pray in the amparo case for their child
to be freed from the custody of the respondents. A reading of the petition for involuntary
termination of custody shows that respondent Akap Bata-Caritas is alleging that
petitioner Jaime G. Aquino maltreated minor Jestin Imus Aquino. In the amparo petition, petitioner Jaime G.
Aquino is insisting that the allegations of maltreatment are false. Thus, on this particular set of issues, the contentions
are diametrically opposing each other.
Moreover, it is established
and admitted by respondent Akap Bata-Caritas, the petitioner in the said
Petition, that the child is in its possession and custody.
Ninth, what has been
delegated can no longer be delegated. If
the Supreme Court has already delegated the Court of Appeals, 17th Division, as
the Amparo Court, the same division of the CA can no longer delegate further to
the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 29) this power to hear the instant amparo
case.
Tenth, the amparo
case must be resolved right away or in the most immediate possible means.
Eleventh, both the
petition for the writ of amparo and the petiiton for involuntary termination of
custody of the parents are special proceedings that there is no prohibition for
the two petitions to be consolidated.
Twelfth, the RTC of
Manila, Branch 29, has acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the Petition for
Involuntary Termination of Custody.
This exclusive jurisdiction cannot
be ousted from the RTC by the Court of Appeals even if it invokes its powers
granted unto it by this amparo case.
The Position of
the Petitioners
Taking cue from the above
established points of facts and laws or rules, the petitioners recommend the
hereunder position.
The
Court of Appeals proceeds with the instant amparo proceedings dealing only on
the aspect of determining the existence of threats to life, liberty and
security of the petitioners and their minor son Jestin Aquino and make a partial judgment on the
existence or not of the threats to life, liberty and security of the
petitioners.
Let the RTC of Manila,
Branch 29, proceed with the Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental
Authority subject to appeal by any proper party.
To give propriety to this
arrangement, the petitioners undertake that they consent to the consolidation into
the RTC case of their prayer for the amparo libertad.
The petitioners also take
the position that this consolidation with the consent of the petitioners is
consistent with the general rule of consolidation of cases whose issues are
intertwined with each other.
Further, the petitioners
posit that this suppletory application of the general rule on consolidation of
cases results in the strengthening of the instant amparo case and authorized by
the obiter dictum in the ponencia of
Justice Leonon stated in the Gatdula
case above.
The petitioners are also
taking the position that the two sets of issues and prayers in their amparo
petition are separable from each other in the sense that one can be resolved
independent of each other.
The amparo court can verily
resolve these issues on threats to life, liberty and security of the petitioners
and their minor son independently of the issue of whether or not respondent
Akap Bata-Caritas, a private entity, shall free the kid to the custody of the
petitioners.
To
give more legal effect to this position of the petitioners, they undertake that
they will enter appearance and join as parties in the same petition pending now
at the Manila RTC, Branch 29, where the initial hearing, as manifested by
respondent Akap Bata-Caritas during the March 8, 2013 hearing before this
Court, was set for March 21, 2013.
Hence, this position is
being submitted.
The Prayer
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of
the Honorable Court of Appeals that instant Position Paper be admitted and
considered in the resolution of the issue stated above.
Other
reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for. Manila, February 18, 2013.
ALAB NG
MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM)
Ground Floor, National Press Club Bldg.,
No. 1 Magallanes Drive, Intramuros, Manila
RENTA PE CAUSING
SABARRE CASTRO & ASSOCIATES
Unit
1, 2368 JB Roxas St. corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila
By:
BERTENI CATALUÑA
CAUSING
IBP No. 876498 / Manila IV / 10-01-2013
PTR No. 1435314 / Manila / 10-01-2013
Roll No. 60944 / MCLE No. IV -0007338 / 08-10-2012
Cc:
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Taft
Avenue, Manila
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Padre
Faura St., Manila
AKAP BATA-CARITAS
Caritas Manila Compound,
2002 Jesus St., Pandacan,
Manila
Comments