ORDA vs.
CA - With that, a modified decision was rendered
*WON THE CA MAY REFER A PETITION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS ORIGINALLY FILED WITH IT
TO THE RTC FOR A FULL-BLOWN TRIAL DUE
TO CONFLICTING FACTS PRESENTED BY THE
PARTIES.
- Gil Galang filed a petition for habeas corpus
with RTC San Pablo to regain custody of his
minor daughter (Joyce), who continued
staying with her maternal grandparents.
- The petition was dismissed bec. Petitioners
moved to Bataan from which Writ of Habeas
Corpus to be issued by the trial court may
not be enforced against them.
- Galang filed the same petition with CA
arguing that he is the surviving parent of is
daughter.
-Petitioners argued that Galang abandoned
his wife and daughter; that Galang had no
source of income to support the child; that
custody be awarded to them.
- CA REMAND THE CASE TO RTC SAN PABLO
FOR THE CONDUCT OF A FULL-BLOWN TRIAL
OF THE FACTS ALLEGED BY THE PARTIES.
- The case was scheduled for trial in the RTC.
- Petitioners noted that only the order of
dismissal of the case was recorded.
- When the trial court requested the copy of
records from CA, the CA said that no records
may be remanded to RTC since the lower
court did not also give the record to them.
- Petitioners filed a Motion for Clarification.
- the case is not an appeal but an
original action;
- case was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction .
- SC entertained the petition for habeas
corpus in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction over such case.
- Petitioners were confused to the courts
order of remanding the case to lower court.
- Courts order sis not mean of remanding
the records but remanding the case for
appropriate action.
- No records can be transmitted back to the
lower court simply bec. No records were
elevated in that the case was filed as an
original action.
- Petitioners argued that they were not given
an opportunity to answer the petition.
REFERRING the case to RTC San Pablo for
trial.
- Separate MRs.
- CA opined that petitioners had never been
brought to the jurisdiction of the lower court;
that the order of dismissal issued had
already become final and executory. But,
when a new petition for habeas corpus was
filed, a new proceeding was commenced in
which the court acquired jurisdiction over the
persons of petitioners upon the latter filing of
an Answer in 1988.
- CA has vested authority to try and decide
habeas corpus cases concurrent with the
RTCs (BP 129).
- BP 129 provides the basis for the SC to
refer the case to the lower court for trial on
merits.
- In assigning a new number to the referred
case did not require the Galang to pay the
prescribed docketing fee (already paid).
- The parties just needed to reproduce the
pleading they filed before the RTC.
- Petitioners assignment of errors:
- CA has no authority to refer the case
to RTC for trial;
- CAs order to reproduce all the
pleadings that the parties filed;
- CAs order to assign a new case
number without requiring Galang to
pay the docket fee therefor.
- (MERITORIOUS)
- BP 129 merely provide that the CA and RTC,
respectively, exercise original jurisdiction to
issue writs of habeas corpus, among others.
(not authority given to CA to remand or refer
a petition for habeas corpus to RTC).
- CA is given the power to receive evidence
and perform any and all acts necessary to
resolve factual issues raised in cases falling
within its original jurisdiction.
- CA should not have remanded or referred
the petition for habeas corpus to the trial
court, but should have conducted a trial or
hearing to receive evidence.
- The Revised Internal Rules of the CA is
silent as to whether or not the hearing may
be delegated.
- The CA is wrong in remanding and later on
in referring the original petition for habeas
corpus filed with it to the RTC. It should have
conducted a reception of evidence.
- A special proceeding for custody of minors
should have been conducted rather than
remanding or referring the case to the RTC.