FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 201043. June 16, 2014.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Armed

Forces of the Philippines Finance Center (AFPFC), petitioner,
vs. DAISY R. YAHON, respondent.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

which seeks to nullify and set aside the Decision 1 dated November 29, 2011
and Resolution 2 dated March 9, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Mindanao
Station in CA-G.R. SP No. 02953-MIN. The CA affirmed the orders and
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 22
granting temporary and permanent protection orders, and denying the
motion to lift the said temporary protection order (TPO).
Daisy R. Yahon (respondent) filed a petition for the issuance of
protection order under the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, 3
otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children
Act of 2004," against her husband, S/Sgt. Charles A. Yahon (S/Sgt. Yahon),
an enlisted personnel of the Philippine Army who retired in January 2006.
Respondent and S/Sgt. Yahon were married on June 8, 2003. The couple did
not have any child but respondent has a daughter with her previous live-in
partner.
On September 28, 2006, the RTC issued a TPO, as follows:
Finding the herein petition for the Issuance of Protection Order to
be sufficient in form and substance and to prevent great and
irreparable injury to the petitioner, a TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER
is forthwith issued to respondent, S/SGT. CHARLES A. YAHON directing
him to do the following acts: EAcCHI

1. Respondent is enjoined from threatening to commit or

committing further acts of physical abuse and violence
against the petitioner;

2. To stay away at a distance of at least 500 meters from

petitioner, her residence or her place of work;

3. To refrain from harassing, annoying, intimidating,

contacting or communicating with petitioner;

4. Respondent is prohibited from using or possessing any

firearm or deadly weapon on occasions not related to his
job;

5. To provide reasonable financial spousal support to the

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 petitioner.

The Local Police Officers and the Barangay Officials through the
Chairman in the area where the petitioner and respondent live at
Poblacion, Claveria, Misamis Oriental and Bobuntogan, Jasaan, Misamis
Oriental are directed to respond to any request for assistance from the
petitioner for the implementation of this order. They are also directed
to accompany the petitioner to their conjugal abode at Purok 2,
Bobuntogan, Jasaan, Misamis Oriental to get her personal belongings in
order to insure the safety of the petitioner.
The Deputy Sheriff of this Court is ordered to immediately serve
the Temporary Protection Order (TPO) upon the respondent personally
and to seek and obtain the assistance of law enforcement agents, if
needed, for purposes of effecting the smooth implementation of this
order. ITCHSa

In the meantime, let copy of this order and petition be served

upon the respondent for him to file an OPPOSITION within a period of
five (5) days from receipt hereof and let a Preliminary Conference and
hearing on the merits be set on October 17, 2006 at 2:00 o'clock in the
afternoon.
To insure that petitioner can receive a fair share of
respondent's retirement and other benefits, the following
agencies thru their heads are directed to WITHHOLD any
retirement, pension and other benefits of respondent, S/SGT.
CHARLES A. YAHON , a member of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines assigned at 4ID, Camp Evangelista, Patag, Cagayan de Oro
City until further orders from the court:

1. Commanding General/Officer of the Finance Center of the

Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp Emilio Aguinaldo,
Quezon City;

2. The Management of RSBS, Camp Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon

City;
3. The Regional Manager of PAG-IBIG, Mortola St., Cagayan
de Oro City.

VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER IS PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

IF THE RESPONDENT APPEARS WITHOUT COUNSEL ON THE DATE
OF THE PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AND HEARING ON THE MERITS OF
THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER, THE COURT
SHALL NOT RESCHEDULE OR POSTPONE THE PRELIMINARY
CONFERENCE AND HEARING BUT SHALL APPOINT A LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT AND IMMEDIATELY PROCEED WITH THE SAID HEARING.
HCEISc

IF THE RESPONDENT FAILS TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF THE

PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AND HEARING ON THE MERITS DESPITE
PROPER NOTICE, THE COURT SHALL ALLOW EX-PARTE PRESENTATION
OF EVIDENCE BY THE PETITIONER AND RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE
BASIS OF THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD. NO
DELEGATION OF THE RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE SHALL BE ALLOWED.
SO ORDERED. 4 (Emphasis supplied.)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 S/Sgt. Yahon, having been personally served with copy of the TPO,
appeared during the scheduled pre-trial but informed the court that he did
not yet have a counsel and requested for time to hire his own counsel.
However, he did not hire a counsel nor file an opposition or answer to the
petition. Because of his failure to appear in the subsequent hearings of the
case, the RTC allowed the ex-parte presentation of evidence to determine
the necessity of issuance of a Permanent Protection Order (PPO).
Meanwhile, as prayed for by respondent who manifested that S/Sgt.
Yahon deliberately refused to give her spousal support as directed in the
TPO (she claimed that she had no source of livelihood since he had told her
to resign from her job and concentrate on keeping their house), the RTC
issued another order directing S/Sgt. Yahon to give respondent spousal
support in the amount of P4,000.00 per month and fifty percent (50%) of his
retirement benefits which shall be automatically deducted and given directly
to respondent. 5
In her testimony, respondent also said that S/Sgt. Yahon never
complied with the TPO as he continued making threats and inflicting physical
abuse on her person, and failed to give her spousal support as ordered by
the court.
On July 23, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision, 6 as follows: EDSAac

After careful review and scrutiny of the evidence presented in

this case, this court finds that there is a need to permanently protect
the applicant, Daisy R, Yahon from further acts of violence that might
be committed by respondent against her. Evidences showed that
respondent who was a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
assigned at the Headquarters 4ID Camp Evangelista, Cagayan de Oro
City had been repeatedly inflicting physical, verbal, emotional and
economic abuse and violence upon the petitioner. Respondent in
several instances had slapped, mauled and punched petitioner causing
her physical harm. Exhibits G and D are medical certificates showing
physical injuries suffered by petitioner inflicted by the respondent at
instances of their marital altercations. Respondent at the height of his
anger often poked a gun on petitioner and threatened to massacre her
and her child causing them to flee for their lives and sought refuge
from other people. He had demanded sex from petitioner at an
unreasonable time when she was sick and chilling and when refused
poked a gun at her. Several police blotters were offered as evidence by
petitioner documenting the incidents when she was subjected to
respondent's ill temper and ill treatment. Verbally, petitioner was not
spared from respondent's abuses by shouting at her that he was
wishing she would die and he would celebrate if it happens and by
calling and sending her threatening text messages. These incidents
had caused petitioner great psychological trauma causing her [to] fear
for her life and these forced her to seek refuge from the court for
protection. Economically, petitioner was also deprived by respondent of
her spousal support despite order of the court directing him to give a
monthly support of Php4,000.00. In view of the foregoing, this court
finds a need to protect the life of the petitioner not only physically but
also emotionally and psychologically.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Based on the evidence presented, both oral and documentary,
and there being no controverting evidence presented by respondent,
this Court finds that the applicant has established her case by
preponderance of evidence.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
GRANTING the petition, thus, pursuant to Sec. 30 of A.M. No. 04-10-1-
SC, let a PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER be issued immediately and
respondent, S/Sgt. CHARLES A. YAHON is ordered to give to petitioner,
DAISY R. YAHON the amount of FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (Php4,000.00)
per month by way of spousal support.
Pursuant to the order of the court dated February 6, 2007,
respondent, S/Sgt. Charles A. Yahon is directed to give it to
petitioner 50% of whatever retirement benefits and other
claims that may be due or released to him from the
government and the said share of petitioner shall be
automatically deducted from respondent's benefits and claims
and be given directly to the petitioner, Daisy R. Yahon.
Let copy of this decision be sent to the Commanding
General/Officer of Finance Center of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, Camp Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City; the Management of
RSBS, Camp Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City and the Regional Manager
of PAG-IBIG, Mortola St., Cagayan de Oro City for their guidance and
strict compliance.
SO ORDERED. 7 (Emphasis supplied.)
Herein petitioner Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center
(AFPFC), assisted by the Office of the Judge Advocate General (OTJAG), AFP,
filed before the RTC a Manifestation and Motion (To Lift Temporary
Protection Order Against the AFP) 8 dated November 10, 2008. Stating that it
was making a limited and special appearance, petitioner manifested that on
August 29, 2008, it furnished the AFP Pension and Gratuity Management
Center (PGMC) copy of the TPO for appropriate action. The PGMC, on
September 2, 2008, requested the Chief, AFPFC the temporary withholding
of the thirty-six (36) Months Lump Sum (MLS) due to S/Sgt. Yahon.
Thereafter, on October 29, 2008, PGMC forwarded a letter to the Chief of
Staff, AFP for the OTJAG for appropriate action on the TPO, and requesting
for legal opinion as to the propriety of releasing the 36 MLS of S/Sgt. Yahon.
Petitioner informed the RTC that S/Sgt. Yahon's check representing his 36
MLS had been processed and is ready for payment by the AFPFC, but to date
said check has not been claimed by respondent. DTISaH

Petitioner further asserted that while it has initially discharged its

obligation under the TPO, the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over the
military institution due to lack of summons, and hence the AFPFC cannot be
bound by the said court order. Additionally, petitioner contended that the
AFPFC is not a party-in-interest and is a complete stranger to the
proceedings before the RTC on the issuance of TPO/PPO. Not being
impleaded in the case, petitioner lamented that it was not afforded due
process and it was thus improper to issue execution against the AFPFC.
Consequently, petitioner emphasized its position that the AFPFC cannot be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 directed to comply with the TPO without violating its right to procedural due
process.
In its Order 9 dated December 17, 2008, the RTC denied the aforesaid
motion for having been filed out of time. It noted that the September 28,
2006 TPO and July 23, 2007 Decision granting Permanent Protection Order
(PPO) to respondent had long become final and executory. DHATcE

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied under the

RTC's Order 10 dated March 6, 2009.
On May 27, 2009, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA
praying for the nullification of the aforesaid orders and decision insofar as it
directs the AFPFC to automatically deduct from S/Sgt. Yahon's retirement
and pension benefits and directly give the same to respondent as spousal
support, allegedly issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. TaEIAS

Respondent filed her Comment with Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary

Injunction, manifesting that there is no information as to whether S/Sgt.
Yahon already received his retirement benefit and that the latter has
repeatedly violated the TPO, particularly on the provision of spousal support.
After due hearing, the CA's Twenty-Second Division issued a Resolution
11 granting respondent's application, viz.:
Upon perusal of the respective pleadings filed by the parties, the
Court finds meritorious private respondent's application for the
issuance of an injunctive relief. While the 36-month lump sum
retirement benefits of S/Sgt. Charles A. Yahon has already been given
to him, yet as admitted by petitioner itself, the monthly pension after
the mentioned retirement benefits has not yet been released to him. It
appears that the release of such pension could render ineffectual the
eventual ruling of the Court in this Petition.
aATCDI

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING , let a WRIT OF PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION issue enjoining the Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance
Center, its employees, agents, representatives, and any all persons
acting on its behalf, from releasing the remaining pension that may be
due to S/Sgt. Charles A. Yahon.
SO ORDERED. 12 TcCDIS

By Decision dated November 29, 2011, the CA denied the petition for
certiorari and affirmed the assailed orders and decision of the RTC. The CA
likewise denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
In this petition, the question of law presented is whether petitioner
military institution may be ordered to automatically deduct a percentage
from the retirement benefits of its enlisted personnel, and to give the same
directly to the latter's lawful wife as spousal support in compliance with a
protection order issued by the RTC pursuant to R.A. No. 9262.
A protection order is an order issued by the court to prevent further
acts of violence against women and their children, their family or household
members, and to grant other necessary relief. Its purpose is to safeguard the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 offended parties from further harm, minimize any disruption in their daily life
and facilitate the opportunity and ability to regain control of their life. 13 The
protection orders issued by the court may be a Temporary Protection Order
(TPO) or a Permanent Protection Order (PPO), while a protection order that
may be issued by the barangay shall be known as a Barangay Protection
Order (BPO). 14
Section 8 of R.A. No. 9262 enumerates the reliefs that may be included
in the TPO, PPO or BPO, to wit:
(a) Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or
committing, personally or through another, any of the acts mentioned
in Section 5 of this Act;
(b) Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying,
telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the
petitioner, directly or indirectly; HDTSCc

(c) Removal and exclusion of the respondent from the residence

of the petitioner, regardless of ownership of the residence, either
temporarily for the purpose of protecting the petitioner, or
permanently where no property rights are violated, and if respondent
must remove personal effects from the residence, the court shall
direct a law enforcement agent to accompany the respondent to the
residence, remain there until respondent has gathered his things and
escort respondent from the residence;
(d) Directing the respondent to stay away from petitioner and any
designated family or household member at a distance specified by
the court, and to stay away from the residence, school, place of
employment, or any specified place frequented by the petitioner and
any designated family or household member;
(e) Directing lawful possession and use by petitioner of an
automobile and other essential personal effects, regardless of
ownership, and directing the appropriate law enforcement officer to
accompany the petitioner to the residence of the parties to ensure
that the petitioner is safely restored to the possession of the
automobile and other essential personal effects, or to supervise the
petitioner's or respondent's removal of personal belongings;
(f) Granting a temporary or permanent custody of a child/children
to the petitioner;
(g) Directing the respondent to provide support to the woman
and/or her child if entitled to legal support. Notwithstanding other
laws to the contrary, the court shall order an appropriate
percentage of the income or salary of the respondent to be
withheld regularly by the respondent's employer for the same
to be automatically remitted directly to the woman. Failure to
remit and/or withhold or any delay in the remittance of
support to the woman and/or her child without justifiable
cause shall render the respondent or his employer liable for
indirect contempt of court;

(h) Prohibition of the respondent from any use or possession of

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 any firearm or deadly weapon and order him to surrender the same to
the court for appropriate disposition by the court, including
revocation of license and disqualification to apply for any license to
use or possess a firearm. If the offender is a law enforcement agent,
the court shall order the offender to surrender his firearm and shall
direct the appropriate authority to investigate on the offender and
take appropriate action on matter;
(i) Restitution for actual damages caused by the violence inflicted,
including, but not limited to, property damage, medical expenses,
child care expenses and loss of income; ETDHaC

(j) Directing the DSWD or any appropriate agency to provide

petitioner temporary shelter and other social services that the
petitioner may need; and
(k) Provision of such other forms of relief as the court deems
necessary to protect and provide for the safety of the petitioner and
any designated family or household member, provided petitioner and
any designated family or household member consents to such relief.
(Emphasis supplied.)

Petitioner argues that it cannot comply with the RTC's directive for the
automatic deduction of 50% from S/Sgt. Yahon's retirement benefits and
pension to be given directly to respondent, as it contravenes an explicit
mandate under the law governing the retirement and separation of military
personnel. DETcAH

The assailed provision is found in Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1638,

15 which states:
Section 31. The benefits authorized under this Decree,
except as provided herein, shall not be subject to attachment,
garnishment, levy, execution or any tax whatsoever; neither
shall they be assigned, ceded, or conveyed to any third person:
Provided, That if a retired or separated officer or enlisted man who is
entitled to any benefit under this Decree has unsettled money and/or
property accountabilities incurred while in the active service, not more
than fifty per centum of the pension gratuity or other payment due
such officer or enlisted man or his survivors under this Decree may be
withheld and be applied to settle such accountabilities. (Emphasis
supplied.) aHcACT

A similar provision is found in R.A. No. 8291, otherwise known as the

"Government Service Insurance System Act of 1997," which reads:
SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. — . . .
xxx xxx xxx
The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well as the
benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the benefits under this Act
shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, execution, levy or
other processes issued by the courts, quasi-judicial agencies or
administrative bodies including Commission on Audit (COA)
disallowances and from all financial obligations of the members,
including his pecuniary accountability arising from or caused or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 occasioned by his exercise or performance of his official functions or
duties, or incurred relative to or in connection with his position or work
except when his monetary liability, contractual or otherwise, is in favor
of the GSIS.
In Sarmiento v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 16 we held that a court
order directing the Philippine National Bank to refrain from releasing to
petitioner all his retirement benefits and to deliver one-half of such
monetary benefits to plaintiff as the latter's conjugal share is illegal and
improper, as it violates Section 26 of CA 186 (old GSIS Law) which exempts
retirement benefits from execution.
The foregoing exemptions have been incorporated in the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended, which governs execution of judgments and
court orders. Section 13 of Rule 39 enumerates those properties which are
exempt from execution:
SEC. 13. Property exempt from execution. — Except as
otherwise expressly provided by law, the following property, and
no other, shall be exempt from execution:
xxx xxx xxx
(l) The right to receive legal support, or money or property
obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity from the
Government; (Emphasis supplied.) IHAcCS

It is basic in statutory construction that in case of irreconcilable conflict

between two laws, the later enactment must prevail, being the more recent
expression of legislative will. 17 Statutes must be so construed and
harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of
jurisprudence. 18 However, if several laws cannot be harmonized, the earlier
statute must yield to the later enactment. The later law is the latest
expression of the legislative will. 19
We hold that Section 8 (g) of R.A. No. 9262, being a later enactment,
should be construed as laying down an exception to the general rule above-
stated that retirement benefits are exempt from execution. The law itself
declares that the court shall order the withholding of a percentage of the
income or salary of the respondent by the employer, which shall be
automatically remitted directly to the woman "[n]otwithstanding other laws
to the contrary."
Petitioner further contends that the directive under the TPO to
segregate a portion of S/Sgt. Yahon's retirement benefits was illegal because
said moneys remain as public funds, citing the case of Pacific Products v.
Ong. 20 In that case, this Court sustained the CA when it held that the
garnishment of the amount of P10,500 payable to BML Trading and Supply
while it was still in the possession of the Bureau of Telecommunications was
illegal and therefore, null and void. The CA therein relied on the previous
rulings in Director of Commerce and Industry v. Concepcion 21 and Avendaño
v. Alikpala, et al. 22 wherein this Court declared null and void the
garnishment of the salaries of government employees.
Citing the two aforementioned cases, we thus declared in Pacific
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Products:
A rule, which has never been seriously questioned, is that money
in the hands of public officers, although it may be due government
employees, is not liable to the creditors of these employees in the
process of garnishment. One reason is, that the State, by virtue of its
sovereignty may not be sued in its own courts except by express
authorization by the Legislature, and to subject its officers to
garnishment would be to permit indirectly what is prohibited directly.
Another reason is that moneys sought to be garnished, as long as they
remain in the hands of the disbursing officer of the Government,
belong to the latter, although the defendant in garnishment may be
entitled to a specific portion thereof. And still another reason which
covers both of the foregoing is that every consideration of public policy
forbids it. 23
We disagree.
Section 8 (g) of R.A. No. 9262 used the general term "employer," which
includes in its coverage the military institution, S/Sgt. Yahon's employer.
Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Thus,
Section 8 (g) applies to all employers, whether private or government.
It bears stressing that Section 8 (g) providing for spousal and child
support, is a support enforcement legislation. In the United States,
provisions of the Child Support Enforcement Act 24 allow garnishment of
certain federal funds where the intended recipient has failed to satisfy a
legal obligation of child support. As these provisions were designed "to avoid
sovereign immunity problems" and provide that "moneys payable by the
Government to any individual are subject to child support enforcement
proceedings," the law is clearly intended to "create a limited waiver of
sovereign immunity so that state courts could issue valid orders directed
against Government agencies attaching funds in their possession." 25
This Court has already ruled that R.A. No. 9262 is constitutional and
does not violate the equal protection clause. In Garcia v. Drilon 26 the issue
of constitutionality was raised by a husband after the latter failed to obtain
an injunction from the CA to enjoin the implementation of a protection order
issued against him by the RTC. We ruled that R.A. No. 9262 rests on real
substantial distinctions which justify the classification under the law: the
unequal power relationship between women and men; the fact that women
are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread bias
and prejudice against women. DIECTc

We further held in Garcia that the classification is germane to the

purpose of the law, viz.:
The distinction between men and women is germane to the
purpose of R.A. 9262, which is to address violence committed against
women and children, spelled out in its Declaration of Policy, as follows:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared
that the State values the dignity of women and children and
guarantees full respect for human rights. The State also
recognizes the need to protect the family and its members
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 particularly women and children, from violence and threats to
their personal safety and security.
Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address
violence committed against women and children in keeping with
the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution
and the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child and other
international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is
a party. 27
Under R.A. No. 9262, the provision of spousal and child support
specifically address one form of violence committed against women —
economic abuse.
D."Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make
a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the
following: CEHcSI

1. Withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim

from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or
activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on
valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family
Code;
2. Deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources
and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or
property owned in common;
3. Destroying household property;
4. Controlling the victims' own money or properties or solely
controlling the conjugal money or properties. 28
The relief provided in Section 8 (g) thus fulfills the objective of
restoring the dignity of women who are victims of domestic violence and
provide them continued protection against threats to their personal safety
and security.
"The scope of reliefs in protection orders is broadened to ensure that
the victim or offended party is afforded all the remedies necessary to curtail
access by a perpetrator to the victim. This serves to safeguard the victim
from greater risk of violence; to accord the victim and any designated family
or household member safety in the family residence, and to prevent the
perpetrator from committing acts that jeopardize the employment and
support of the victim. It also enables the court to award temporary custody
of minor children to protect the children from violence, to prevent their
abduction by the perpetrator and to ensure their financial support." 29
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision
dated November 29, 2011 and Resolution dated March 9, 2012 of the Court
of Appeals Mindanao Station in CA-G.R. SP No. 02953-MIN are AFFIRMED
and UPHELD.
No costs. CcADHI

SO ORDERED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo , pp. 36-45. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate
Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles
concurring.
2. Id. at 46-47.

3. AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN,

PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING
PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
4. Id. at 63-64.
5. Id. at 76.

6. Id. at 75-80. Penned by Presiding Justice Francisco L. Calingin.

7. Id. at 78-79.
8. Id. at 65-72.
9. Id. at 73-74.
10. Id. at 88.

11. CA rollo, pp. 222-223.

12. Id. at 223.

13. Sec. 4 (o), A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on Violence Against Women and Their
Children).
14. Sec. 11, Rule IV, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9262.
15. Issued on September 10, 1979.

16. 237 Phil. 106, 112-113 (1987).

17. Magno v. Commission on Elections , 439 Phil. 339, 347 (2002), citing Philippine
National Bank v. Cruz, 259 Phil. 696, 701-702 (1989).
18. Valera v. Tuazon, 80 Phil. 823 (1948).
19. Eraña v. Vergel de Dios, 85 Phil. 17 (1947); City of Naga vs. Agna, 71 SCRA 176
(1976).

20. 260 Phil. 583 (1990).

21. 43 Phil. 384 (1922).

22. 120 Phil. 1331 (1964).

23. Supra note 20, at 591.

24. 42 USCS. § 659(a).

25. See Rose v. Rose, et al., 481 U.S. 619 (1987).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 26. G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013, 699 SCRA 352.

27. Id. at 421.

28. Sec. 3, R.A. No. 9262.

29. RATIONALE OF THE PROPOSED RULE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND

THEIR CHILDREN.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com