Gender and Sensitivity Case Digests

Alanis Hi v. CA
1. What is the ratio est leges anima of Article 364 of NCC and Article 2-16 of 1987
Constitution on the use of surnamsaes of a legitimate child: to ensure the fundamental
equality of women and men before the law, a legitimate child is entitled to use either
parent's surname as a last name
2. What is the appeal of Alannis III: wished to remove his father’s surname and use his
mother’s maiden name as it was what he had been using since childhood and indicated in his
school records; he likewise wished to change the name “Anacleto” to “Abdulhamid” for the
same reasons.
3. What did the Regional Trial Court rule in Alanis Hi v CA: denied his petition holding that
the petitioner failed to prove grounds that would warrant change of name
4. What did the Court of Appeals rule in Alanis v CA: Affirmed the ruling of the RTC
5. What are the issues in Alanis v CA: (i) W/N Alanis has established a recognized ground for
name change; (ii) W/N legitimate children have the right to use their mother’s surnames as
their surnames
6. What statutes guarantees the fundamental equality of women and men before the law: Article
2-14 of the 1987 Constitution; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW)
7. What shall the courts ensure according to Republic Act No 7192: Courts, like all other
government departments and agencies, must ensure the fundamental equality of women and n
before the law.
8. Why did the Regional Trial Court gravely erred when it held that legitimate children cannot
use their mothers’ surnames: The word "principally" as used in the codal-provision is not
equivalent to "exclusively"
so that there is no legal obstacle if a legitimate or legitimated child should choose to
use the surname of its mother to which it is equally entitled.
9. Why is the trial court's reasoning further encoded patriarchy into our system: If a surname
is significant for identifying a person's ancestry, interpreting the laws to mean that a
marital child's surname must identify only the paternal line renders the mother and her
family invisible. This, in turn, entrenches the patriarchy and with it, antiquated gender
roles: the father, as dominant, in public; and the mother, as a supporter, in private.

HRET v. Panga-Vega
1. What did Atty. Daisy Panga-Vega requested to the HRET: requested authority to avail of the
15 days of special leave benefit under the ''Magna Carta of Women," on February 7-11, 14-
18, and 21-25, 2011, but not to exceed two months, to undergo hysterectomy
2. What resolution did HRET issued: issued a resolution which directed Panga-Vega to consume
her 2- month special leave given her need for prolonged rest following her hysterectomy,
and in view of a pending investigation on her alleged alteration or tampering one minutes
of the meeting that could subject her to more stress
3. What was the ruling of the CSC: that she only needed to present a medical certificate
attesting her physical fitness to return to work and need not exhaust the full leave she
applied for under RA No. 9710.
4. What did the Court of Appeals rule: that nothing in RA No. 9710 precludes the suppletory
application of the rules on maternity leave to the special leave benefit under RA No. 9710.
5. What are the issues in HRET v. Panga-Vega: (i) Whether or not the rules on maternity leave
under the Labor Code have suppletory application; (ii) Whether or not Panga-Vega complied
with the conditions set forth by RA No, 9710 and the CSC guidelines for her return to work?
6. Why does the rules on maternity leave on the Labor Code have suppletory application:
special leave benefit should be liberally interpreted to support the female employee so as
to give her further means to afford her needs, may it be gynecological, physical, or
psychological, for a holistic recuperation.
7. Why did Panga Vega complied with all the conditions set forth in the CSC guidelines: The
R.A. 9710 and the CSC guidelines do not require that the entire special leave applied for
be consumed. However, there are certain conditions that must be satisfied
8. What are the conditions to complied with to return to work: Under the CSC Guidelines, a
total hysterectomy is classified as a major surgical procedure requiring a minimum period
 of recuperation of three weeks to a maximum period of two months. Aside from observing this
time frame, the employee, before she can return to work, shall present a medical
certificate signed by her attending surgeon that she is physically fit to assume the duties
of her position

Ordona v. Local Civil Registrar

1. What does Articles 2 and 16 of CEDAW provide on the role of state parties: take all
appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws,
regulations, customs, and practices which constitute discrimination against women; take all
appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to
marriage and family relations and in particular, shall ensure, on a basis of equality of
men and women.
2. What happened when petition Ordona returned to the Philippines: returned to the Philippines
and gave birth to a son. In the Certificate of Live Birth, the child was given the name
“Alrich Paul Ordoña Fulgueras” with “Allan Demen Fulgueras” as the purported father.
3. What did Ordona petitioned to the RTC: filed with the RTC, a rule 108 petition, seeking the
following corrections:
1) Change of last name of her son from Fulgueras to Ordoña (her maiden name)
2) Deletion of entries in the paternal information as provided in Nos. 13 to 17.
4. Why did the RTC denied the petition: The trial court states that Alrich Paul is an
illegitimate child since he was conceived and born outside a valid marriage. They also
noted that, in the birth certificate, Allan
had expressly recognized Alrich as his illegitimate child when he affixed his signature in
the
Affidavit of Acknowledgment.
5. What did the Court of Appeals rule: The appellate court explains that Alrich is legitimate
since he was
born during the marriage of his parents. During the latter’s birth, petitioner was still
married to
Ariel.
6. What is the issue on Ordona v CA: W/N a change of name of the child of the petitioner may
be granted? (NO)
7. Why is the change of name of the child of the petitioner not granted: t granted: The Court
strongly emphasizes that a direct action to impugn the legitimacy of a child must be
brought by the proper parties and within the period limited by law. Petitioner’s
declaration in the birth certificate and in the Rule 108 petition that Alrich Paul is
illegitimate runs contrary to Article 167 of the FC.
8. What does Article 167 strongly prohibit: Art. 167 of the FC absolutely prohibits the mother
from impugning or declaring against the legitimacy of her child. This runs counter to the
provisions (Article 2 and Article 16) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to which the Philippines is a state party.
9. Why is the petitioner’s declaration against the legitimacy of Alrich consistent with CEDAW:
Petitioner’s declaration against the legitimacy of Alrich Paul is in conformity with the
provisions of CEDAW but is prohibited under our national law. Matters of legitimacy and
filiation involve not only rights in the child’s favor but also obligations or burdens to
which he may possibly be subjected to.

Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company v. NLRC

1. What is unlawful according to Article 136 of the Labor Code: unlawful for an employer to
require a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman shall not get
married or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married a woman shall be
deemed resigned or separated to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate a woman by reason
of marriage
2. What did petitioner Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company sought for: sought relief
through a writ of certiorari, alleging the concealment of civil status and defalcation of
company funds as
grounds for terminating the services of respondent employee, Grace de Guzman.
3. What did Grace de Guzman argued: termination was motivated by her contracting a marriage,
which was
prohibited by PT & T's company policies.
 4. What was offered to de Guzman on September 2, 1991: was offered a position as a
probationary employee with a 150-day probationary period. In her job application form, she
stated that she was single, despite having married on May 26, 1991.
5. What was pursued by PT and T: Upon discovering the discrepancy, PT & T sent a memorandum
requiring an explanation, citing its policy against employing married women. De Guzman
explained that she was not aware of the policy and had not deliberately hidden her true
civil status.
6. To whom did the labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor: ruled in favor of De Guzman,
declaring her illegal dismissal. Ordered her reinstatement, back wages, and cost of living
allowances (COLA).
7. What are the issues in PT and T Company v NLRC: (i) WON PT & T's policy against employing
married women violated Article 136 of the Labor Code; (ii) WON De Guzman's termination was
justified based on dishonesty and
misappropriation of funds.
8. What is the legislative intent of RA 7192: affords women equal opportunities with men to
act and to enter into contracts, and for appointment, admission, training, graduation, and
commissioning in all military or similar schools of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
the Philippine National Police
9. How did PT and T’s policy violated the labor code: PT & T's policy against employing
married women was declared void, violating Article 136 of the Labor Code which explicitly
prohibits discrimination merely by reason of
the marriage of a female employee.
10. Why was De Guzman’s termination not justified based on dishonesty and misappropriation of
funds: Contrary to petitioner's assertion that it dismissed private respondent from
employment on account of her dishonesty, the record discloses clearly that her ties with
the company were dissolved principally because of the company's policy that married women
are not qualified for employment in PT & T, and not merely because of her supposed acts of
dishonesty.

Imbong v. Ochoa
1. Is Article 2-15 of the 1987 Constitution self-executory: Section 15, Article II of the
Constitution is not self-executory, it being a mere statement of the administration's
principle and policy.
2. How did the court view RH Law in the case of Imbong v Ochoa: RH Law is an enhancement
measure to fortify and make effective the current laws on contraception, women's health and
population control.
3. What did petitioner James Imbong argued on involuntary servitude and the RH Law:
Petitioners claim the RH Law violates the constitutional provision on involuntary
servitude. They argue that medical practitioners are subjected to involuntary servitude as
they are compelled to provide 48 hours of pro bono services for indigent women to be
accredited under the PhilHealth program.

4. What did Section 17 of RA 9710 emphasized: mandated the State to provide comprehensive
health services and programs for women, including family planning and sex education.
5. What is the legislative intent of RH Law: was enacted to provide Filipinos, especially the
poor and the marginalized, access and information to the full range of modern family
planning methods.
6. Argument of petitioners: the government-sponsored contraception program, the very essence
of the RH Law, violates the right to health of women and the sanctity of life.nn
7. What are the issues in Imbong v Ochoa: W/N RH Law is unconstitutional since runs in
contrary to involuntary servitude of pro bono services for indigent women; W/H RH Law
impairs women’s health
8. Why is there no involuntary servitude in RH Law: the practice of medicine is imbued with
public interest and it is the power and duty of the State to control and regulate it. The
court notes that the notion of involuntary servitude implies the presence of force,
threats, intimidation, or coercion, which is not present in the assailed provision. The
court emphasizes that conscientious objectors are exempt from this provision if their
 religious beliefs and convictions do not allow them to render reproductive health service,
pro bono or otherwise.
9. Why does RH Law does not impair Women’s health: Stated differently, the RH Law is an
enhancement measure to fortify and make effective the current laws on contraception,
women's health and population control. Stated differently, the provision in Section 9 of
the RH Law covering the inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices,
injectables, and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning
products and supplies by the National Drug Formulary in the EDL is not mandatory.

RPB v. Philippines
1. What did the CEDAW Committee affirm with regards to stereotyping women’s rights to a fair
trial: that all criminal proceedings involving rape and other sexual offences are conducted
free from prejudices or stereotypical notions regarding the victim’s gender, age and
disability.
2. How did the CEDAW Committee view rape: rape constitutes a violation of women’s right to
personal security and autonomy and bodily integrity
3. What is the background of RPB v Philippines: case of sexual violence against a disabled
woman, who was mute and had a hearing disability; She was 17 at the time of the offence in
2006, therefore a child, when she was raped by her neighbour; She reported the rape, with
the assistance of her sister, who translated for her using sign language. R.P.B. was
interviewed by a male police officer.
4. What did the medicolegal report state in RPB v Philippines: confirmed “blunt penetrating
trauma” to R.P.B.’s genital area.
5. What was charged to the perpetrator in RPB v Philippines: with qualified rape “by the
circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, night-time
6. What circumstance were problematic in the criminal proceedings of RPB v Philippines: RPB
was not given translator support to enable to support in the investigation; trial court
relied on rape myths; questioned R.P.B.’s credibility because, in its view, she had not
responded to the attack in the manner expected
7. How did the trial court relied on rape myths: it is easy to make an accusation of rape, but
it is difficult to prove, but more difficult for the accused person, although innocent, to
disprove; That because normally only two persons are present, the accused and the
complainant, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution
8. What did the CEDAW Committee affirmed with regards to stereotyping and its affects to
women’s rights to a fair trial: that stereotyping affects women’s right to a fair trial and
urged the state party to ensure that all criminal proceedings involving rape and other
sexual offences are conducted free from prejudices or stereotypical notions regarding the
victim’s gender, age and disability.

Vertido v. People of the Philippines

1. What did Karen Vertido alleged in Vertido v People: Alleged that she was raped by Jose
Custodio (former president of Davao City Chamber of Commerce and Industry
2. What court of action did Vertido pursued relative to the alleged rape: Vertido reported the
incident to the police and underwent a medical and legal examination within 24 hours
3. What testimonies were considered: AN EXPERT IN VICTIMOLOGY AND RAPE TRAUMA, Dr. Oñate,
testified that author was suffering from PTSD as a result of a rape, 18 months prior to
testifying; ROOM BOY FROM THE MOTEL, testified NOT hearing any shouts or commotion; MOTEL
SECURITY OFFICER, testified NOT receiving any reports of an incident on the night of the
rape; ACCUSED, also testified that the sex was consensual
4. What did Judge Europa of RTC argued: IT IS EASY TO MAKE AN ACCUSATION OF RAPE; IT IS
DIFFICULT TO PROVE BUT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE PERSON ACCUSED, THOUGH INNOCENT, TO DISPROV
5. Explain the intrinsic value of rape: ONLY 2 PERSONS ARE INVOLVED, THE TESTIMONY
OF THE COMPLAINANT MUST BE SCRUTINIZED WITHEXTREME CAUTION
 6. What is the issue in Vertido v. People: acquitting the perpetrator is a violating her right
to non-discrimination and that the State failed to ensure women are protected against
discrimination by public authorities, including the Judiciary.
7. What does Article 2 c, d, f contemplate: the defendant’s acquittal is a violation of the
positive obligations of the state to protect her, to refrain from discriminating against
women and to take appropriate measures to modify or abolish practices that discriminate
women

MODIFY THE SOCIAL

What does Article 5a contemplate:

AND CULTURAL
W
PATTERNS OF CONDUCT OF MEN
AND WOMEN, WITH A VIEW TO
ACHIEVING THE ELIMINATION OF
PREJUDICES AND CUSTOMARY AND
ALL OTHER PRACTICES WHICH ARE
BASED ON THE IDEA OF THE
INFERIORITY OR THE
SUPERIORITY OF EITHER OF THE
SEXES OR ON STEREOTYPED ROLES
FOR MEN AND
WOME
Lakpue v. Belga

1. What does Section 2 of RA 7192 contemplate: The State recognizes the role of women in
nation-building and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
The State shall provide women rights and opportunities equal to that of men.
 2. Who is Tropical Biological Phils: a subsidiary of Lakpue Group of Companies, hired Ma.
Lourdes Belga as a bookkeeper and was subsequently promoted to assistant cashier.
3. What happened to Belga in the Lakpue case: illegally dismissed by her employer mainly
because of her concealment of pregnancy. It begs the question as to how one can conceal a
full-term pregnancy given that it would be noticeable how it grows bigger each day.
4. What did Tropical Biological Phils argue: alleged that Belga concealed her pregnancy from
the company; not applying for leave and her absence disrupted financial transactions.
5. What are the grounds of illegal dismissal in the case of Lakpue: (1) absence without
official leave for 16 days; (2) dishonesty for concealing her pregnancy; and (3)
insubordination for deliberate refusal to comply to memoranda sent.
6. Whom did the Labor arbiter ruled: ruled in favor of Belga finding that she was illegally
dismissed.
7. What did the NLRC ruled: reversed the findings of labor arbiter
8. What did the Court of Appeals rendered: rendered decision in favor of Belga upon filing of
petition for certiorari
9. What is the issue on Lakpue v Belga: W/N the respondent was illegally dismissed (YES)
10. What is misconduct of transgression: a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment
11. Why must the charge of disobedience fail: it was physically impossible for Belga to report
for work and explain her absence, as ordered
12. How did the Tropical failed to observe the two notice requirement: mandates the provision
of two written notices to the employee: first, the notice which describes the alleged
violation (the NTE), and second, the notice of decision on the administrative case.
13. What is the entitlement of Belga: entitled to be reinstated to her former or equivalent
position and to
the payment of full back wages from the time she was illegally dismissed until her actual
reinstatement.

Silverio v. Republic
1. Why is sex an essential factor of marriage and family relations: a part of a person’s legal
capacity and civil status. Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a
historical record of the facts as they existed at the time of birth. Thus, the sex of a
person is determined at birth,
2. Define sex in Silverio v Republic: "the sum of peculiarities of structure and function that
distinguish a male from a female" or "the distinction between male and female." Female is
"the sex that produces ova or bears young" and male is "the sex that has organs to produce
spermatozoa for fertilizing ova."
3. Explain name change as administrative in nature: In sum, the remedy and the proceedings
regulating change of first name are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial. RA
9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed, such as
the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, and the change will avoid confusion.
4. What is the issue in the case of Silverio: WON petitioner is entitled to the relief asked
for, which is for his name, Rommel Jacito, be changed to Mely, and his gender change from
Male to Female. (NO)
5. Why is the petition for change of name not meritorious: RA 9048 does not sanction a change
of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing
petitioner’s first name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications in the
civil registry and the public interest. In this case, he failed to show, or even allege,
any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true and official name. In sum,
the petition in the trial court in so far as it prayed for the change of petitioner’s first
name was not within that court’s primary jurisdiction as the petition should have been
filed with the local civil registrar concerned, assuming it could be legally done.
6. Why is the petition for change of sex not meritorious: It is a substantial change for which
the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The birth certificate of
petitioner contained no error. All entries therein, including those corresponding to his
first name and sex, were all correct. No correction is necessary.
7. Why is the argument on the ground of equity not meritorious: It is not. The changes sought
by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging legal and public policy consequences.
 8. Why is Article 9 of NCC not applicable: It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code
mandates that "[n]o judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the
silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law." However, it is not a license for courts to
engage in judicial legislation. The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law,
not to make or amend it.

Cagandahan v. Republic
1. What did respondent Cagandahan file: Filed a petition for correction of entries in birth
certificate before RTC Branch 33
2. What did respondent Cagandahan alleged in the filing of the petition: she was registered as
female in the Certificate of Live birth but while growing up developed secondary male
characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a
condition where persons afflicted possess both male and female characteristics
3. What did the regional trial court ruled: granted the name change from Jennifer to Jeff;
changing the gender to Male
4. What are the arguments of the Solicitor General: Trial Court erred as it failed to meet the
requirement of the Rules of Court; Rule 108 of the ROC does not allow change of sex or
gender in birth certificate; medical condition such as Congential Hyperplasia does not make
one male
5. What did the Supreme Court rule with regards to intersex: There is preponderant biological
support for considering him as being male; sexual development in this cases of intersex
persons makes gender classification inconclusive at birth; it is at maturity that gender of
such persons is fixed
6. What did the Supreme Court rule with regards to the absence of law: In the absence of law,
the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a matter so innately private as one’s
sexuality and lifestyle preferences; respondent has human right to pursuit happiness since
he has intersex anatomy
7. Is a change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court a matter of judicial discretion:
not a matter of right but of judicial discretion; the Court granted the respondent’s name
change

Ang Ladlad Party v. COMELEC

1. What does Article 3 Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution state: equal protection clause
guarantees that no
person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is
enjoyed by
other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances.
2. What does Freedom of express constitute: freedom applies not only to those that are
favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb
3. What is Ang Ladlad: an organization representing individuals who identify themselves as
lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transgendered individuals (LGBTs). The organization was
incorporated in2003 and initially applied for registration with the COMELEC in 2006, which
was denied due to a lack of substantial membership base.
4. What did Ladlad argued on its 2009 petition: the LGBT community is marginalized and
underrepresented, facing discrimination and violence due to societal attitudes. During the
proceedings before the COMELEC, Ang Ladlad presented evidence of its national membership
base and platform of governance, emphasizing the need for representation of the LGBT
community in the political process.
5. What is the respond of COMELEC on the 2009 petition: that Ang Ladlad tolerates and
advocates for sexual immorality which in turn offends religious beliefs. COMELEC likewise
cited certain provisions from the Civil Code and the RPC, claiming that Ang Ladlad is
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
6. What did the OSG rule: contended that there was no legal basis for the COMELEC's
allegations of immorality against Ang Ladlad.
7. What did CHR rule: filed a motion to intervene or to appear as amicus curiae in the case.
The CHR argued that the denial of Ang Ladlad's petition on moral grounds violated
constitutional guarantees against the establishment of religion, as well as the rights to
privacy, freedom of OSspeech and assembly, and equal protection of laws.
8. What is the issue in Ang Ladlad v COMELEC: WON the COMELEC erred in refusing to accredit
Ang Ladlad as a party-list organization
 9. What did the court rule in Ang Bagong Bayani v COMELEC: emphasized that the enumeration of
marginalized sectors is not exclusive. The key factor is not whether a sector is explicitly
mentioned but whether an organization meets the constitutional and statutory requirements
under RA 7941 for party-list registration.
10. What did the SC rule on free speech: Absent any compelling state interest, it is not for
the COMELEC or this Court to impose its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the
COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting
an approved message ordiscouraging a disfavored one.

1. What is the intermediate strict scrutiny test: To survive intermediate scrutiny, the law
must not only further an important governmental interest and be substantially related to
that interest, but the justification for the classification must be genuine and must not
depend on broad generalizations
2. What are the requirements for intermediate strict scrutiny test:
- (1) The history of invidious discrimination against the class burdened by the
legislation;
- (2) Whether the characteristics that distinguish the class indicate a typical class
member's ability to contribute to society
- (3) Whether the distinguishing characteristic is "immutable" or beyond the class
members' control;44 and
- (4) The political power of the subject class.

11. What did the European Court of Human Rights emphasized on human rights: Political ideas
that challenge the existing order and whose realization is advocated by peaceful means must
be afforded a proper opportunity of expression through the exercise of the right of
association, even if such ideas may seem shocking or unacceptable to the authorities or the
majority of the population.

Garcia v. Drilon
1. What is the legislative intent of RA 9262: provides for protection orders from the barangay
and the courts to prevent further acts of VAWC. It outlines the duties and responsibilities
of various officials in responding to complaints of VAWC or requests for assistance.
2. What is the challenge placed on the constitutionality of RA 9262: A husband is now before
the Court assailing the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 as being violative of the equal
protection and due process clauses, and an undue delegation of judicial power to barangay
officials.
3. What did Rosalie Garcia filed before the RTC: filed a verified petition before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO)
against her husband, Jesus C. Garcia, pursuant to R.A. 9262. She claimed to be a victim of
physical abuse; emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a result of marital
infidelity on the part of petitioner, with threats of deprivation of custody of her
children and of financial support.
4. What did petitioner Jesus Garcia filed: During the pendency of the civil case, the
petitioner filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the
constitutionality of R.A. 9262 and the validity of the modified TPO issued in the civil
case.
5. Why does Garcia v Drilon based on a valid classification: RA 9262 is based on a valid
classification and did not violate the equal protection clause by favoring women over men
as victims of violence and abuse. The equal protection clause allows classification, which
should be reasonable, based on substantial distinctions, germane to the
purpose of the law, not limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally to each
member of the class.
6. How did RA 9262 satisfy the substantial difference requirement: unequal power relationship
between women and men, the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of
violence, and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real
differences justifying the classification under the law.
7. How did RA 9262 satisfy the requirement on the germane purpose of law: 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
8. Classification is not limiting: to future conditions as well, for as long as the safety and
security of women and their children are threatened by violence and abuse. R.A. 9262
applies equally to all women and children who suffer violence and abuse.
9. What is the purpose of the protection order: The purpose of the protection order is to
safeguard the offended parties from further harm, minimize any disruption in their daily
life, and facilitate the opportunity and ability to regain control of their life.
10. When is the TPO issued: The court is authorized to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle but
before notice and hearing when the life, limb, or property of the victim is in jeopardy and
there is reasonable ground to believe that the order is necessary to protect the victim
from the immediate and imminent danger of VAWC or to prevent such violence, which is about
to recur.
11. What is the requirement in protection orders: to verify the allegations in the petition,
but also to attach her witnesses’ affidavits to the petition.

Del Monte v. Velasco

1. Who is Lolita Velasco: was employed by Del Monte on October 21, 1976, as a seasonal
employee, and was regularized on May 1, 1977. She was assigned as Field Laborer. During her
employment, she incurred various periods of absences, and was given written warning
regarding absences without permission.
2. Why was Velasco terminated: due to her failing to appear on those dates of hearing on
violation of absences without leave. Del Monte Terminated her employment on January 10,
1995.
3. What did Velasco asserted in her case for illegal dismissal: asserting that she was
suffering from a
pregnancy-borne urinary tract infection, which was the reason for her alleged absences. She
retorted that he had applied for leave to Prima Ybanez, her supervisor, for the dates
August 15-18 and went to the company hospital for checkup,
4. What did the Labor Arbiter rule: dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, stating that
she was an incorrigible absentee, that she failed to file leaves of absence, and that she
was not able to justify her failure to appear during the scheduled hearings, and failed to
explain her absences.
5. Why did NLRC reversed the decision of Labor Arbiter: that she was indeed illegally
dismissed. It held that as per company rules, employees may make a subsequent justification
of her absenteeism, which Velasco was able to do. Petitioner Del Monte also admitted that
the fact that respondent had been pregnant, negating any assertion that she failed to give
any explanation to her absences. Del Monte also admitted that she has received hospital
records showing the cause of her absences.
6. Whom did the CA rule: Ruled in favor of Velasco
7. How did Del Monte argue using Flflex v NLRC: if the Medical Certificate fails to refer to a
specific period of
employee’s absence, then such absences are not supported by competent proof, and considered
unjustified.
8. What is the issue to be resolved in Del Monte v Velasco: W/N Velasco was illegally
terminated
9. Why it did not constitute gross habital neglect: Her being pregnant at the time these
absences were incurred is not questioned and is even admitted by respondent. Medical and
health reports abundantly disclose that during the first trimester of pregnancy, expectant
mothers are plagued with morning sickness, frequent urination, vomiting and fatigue all of
which the complainant was similarly plagued with.
10. What medical condition did the Court takes notice: takes judicial notice of the fact that
the condition of asthmatic bronchitis may be intermittent, in contrast to pregnancy which
is a continuing condition accompanied by various symptoms and related illnesses.

People v. Amarela
1. What is the Maria Clara Doctrine (Women’s Honor Doctrine): provides the presumption that
“women especially Filipinos would not admit that they have been abused unless that abuse
had happened. This doctrine implies that the testimony of the alleged victim by itself may
be sufficient to sustain a condition. (People v Tano)
 2. What was the plaintiff doing at the beginning: Plaintiff AAA was watching a beauty contest
with her aunt when she went to the restroom to urinate and she was not able to reach the
comfort room because Amarela stopped her along the way
3. How was the conduct of rape conducted: Amarela pulled AAA to the daycare and punched her in
the abdomen making her weak; Amarela undressed and put his penis inside AAA’s vagina; three
men came to AAA’s rescue as she shouted for help; AAA’s rescuers have bad intentions; AAA
fled to Dumandan’s house who brought her to Racho’s residence since her aunt was not at
home; Racho inserted his penis to AAA; AAA told her mother on the incident and reported to
the police
4. What did the RTC rule: Appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt
5. What the CA rule: appellants argue that the testimony of the victim does not conform to
shared knowledge and ordinary human experience; only material testimony on record was that
of the victim
6. What is the credibility of witnesses rule: (I) giving highest respect to the RTC; (ii)
absence of any substantial reason that would justify the reversal of RTC’s assessment and
conclusions; (iii) rule is applied if CA concurred with the RTC
7. Why did the SC acquit Racho and Amarela: proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; AAA’s
version of the story in her affidavit differs materially from her court testimony; AAA
could not have easily identified AMarela in the dark as she only saw him for the first
time; testimony lacks material details on how she was brought under the stage against her
will; medical findings do not corroborate physical injuries and are inconclusive to signs
of forcd entry
- In the end, what needs to be stressed here is that a conviction in a criminal case must
be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt or moral certainty that the accused is
guilty. Absolute guarantee of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict a person of a
criminal charge but there must, at least, be moral certainty on each element essential
to constitute the offense and on the responsibility of the offender. Thus, the
prosecution has the primordial duty to present its case with clarity and persuasion, to
the end that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion.
8. How is the Maria Clara doctrine applied in the case: does not put the accused at an unfair
disadvantage but also results in a travesty of justice; it is not impossible for an assumed
victim to merely fabricate stories of her abuse; it would be unfair to convict a man of
rape committed against a woman who after giving him the impression though her unexplainable
tacit consent and allowing him to have sexual contact with her changed her mind in the
middle and charged him with rape; Gone are the days when in the cases of abuse, a woman
needs to be credible and when she does not fit the mold there is a propensity of
discrediting her as witness

Dinamling v. People
1. Who is Ricky Dinamling: a policeman who was in a 5-year relationship with AAA; they had
2 common children aged 4 and 2
2. What was the first incident of psychological violence: Dinamling went to AAA’s boarding
house after a drinking session and tried to evict her; he left the boarding house with
the older child, leaving only the baby behind
3. What is Dinamling’s history of past abuse: Dinamling had a history of physically abusing
AAA; AAA reported this to the police she was told it was finally a problem
4. What was the second incident of psychological violence: Dinamling arrived att CCC’s
house where AAA was staying; AAA was physically assaulted and publicly humiliated
5. What was the aftermath of Dinamling’s actions: AAA suffered a miscarriage and was
hospitalized for four days
6. What was the criminal charge to Dinamling: Section 5i in relation to Section 6f of RA
9262
7. What did the RTC rule: Dinamling was guilty of both charges
8. What did the CA rule: Affirmed the ruling of the RTC and modified the penalty by
applying ISLaw
9. What is the issue of Dinamling v. People: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of
violating RA 9262
10. What are the elements of psychological violence:
(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;
 (2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman
with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a
woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman's child
or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or
without the family abode;
(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish;
and
(4) The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation,
repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody
of minor children or access to the children or similar such acts or
omissions

11. Is the accused guilty of psychological violence: And to establish mental or emotional
anguish, it is necessary to present the testimony of the victim as such experiences are
personal to this party. All of this was complied with in the case at bar.
12. What are the aggravating circumstance in the case: pregnancy or the presence of the
woman's child are aggravating circumstances which increase the imposable penalty, thus,
they must be alleged and proven with competent evidence for the penalty to be properly
imposed

Araza v. People
1. When did Araza and AAA have marital issues: marital issues until Araza went to Zamboanga
City in February 2007 for their networking business, Boardwalk.
2. What change of behavior did AAA noticed to Jaime Araza: She received a text message from
certain individuals named Edna and Ann, who informed her that Araza was having an affair
with a woman named Tessie Luy Fabillar (Fabillar) The wife confirmed this when she went to
Zamboanga.
3. What did AAA sought with the help of NBI: sought the help of the NBI to search for Araza
and found out that he had returned to live with Fabillar. She received text messages from
Fabillar, using different numbers, telling her that Araza was sick and needed money for
medication, and even threatening to kill Araza
4. What was the presumption of AAA: Araza was held captive against his will by Fabillar
5. What did NBI investigation found relative to the petition for habeas corpus: found out that
Araza left their conjugal abode on his own volition and has been living with Fabillar as
husband and wife; three children were born out of cohabitation
6. What did the RTC rule: found that all the elements of the crime of violence against women
under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 were satisfied.
7. What did CA rule: Araza’s reconsideration was denied
8. What are the issues in Araza v People: Whether or not Araza is guilty of violating RA 9262
or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (VAWC) by committing
psychological violence upon his wife through engaging in a marital infidelity which has
caused an emotional anguish and mental suffering on the part of the wife; Whether or not
committing a marital infidelity of the husband is a psychological abuse or violence which
is penalized under of RA 9262?
9. Why Araza is guilty of violating RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004 (VAWC) by committing psychological violence upon his wife through
engaging in a marital infidelity which has caused an emotional anguish and mental suffering
on the part of the wife?
- The Court agreed with the ruling of CA that Araza committed psychological violence upon
his wife by committing marital infidelity.
- This infidelity caused his wife to suffer emotional anguish and mental suffering.
- Psychological violence is an indispensable element of violation of Section 5(i) of
R.A.No. 9262.24.
- Emotional anguish and mental suffering, which are personal to the complainant, are
equally essential elements.
- The law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the
psychological violence done by her abuser.
- The law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven.
- The prosecution has established Araza’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt by proving that he
committed psychological violence upon his wife by committing marital infidelity.
 - AAA’s testimony was strong and credible and was supported by the testimony of Dr.
Lindain, who was presented as an expert witness.

Acharon v. People
1. What was sent to Christian when Christian left for Brunei: They had a debt of P85,000, of
which P71,000 was sent to Christian.
2. What was the complaint against Christian: Christian has a paramour; AAA filed a complaint
of violence against women, stating that Acharon’s actions caused mental or emotional
anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to her, by denying financial support.
3. What did the RTC rule: found Christian guilty due to his failure to maintain open
communication with his wife, having a paramour while in Brunei, and neglecting his legal
obligation to extend financial support
4. What did the CA rule: Christian’s failure to provide financial support, especially for the
payment of the loan they used to send him to Brunei, constitutes economic abuse.
5. How did the Court defined denial: refusal to satisfy a request or desire; act of not
allowing someone to do or have something
6. How did the Court defined failure: fact of not doing something (one) should have done
7. What is the nature of act punished by Section 5i of RA 9262: it must be intentional
8. What is the nature of physical element of offense under Section 5i of RA 9262: willful
denial of financial support
9. What is the nature of mental element of offense under Section 5i of RA 9262: intention to
inflict mental or emotional anguish upon the woman
10. What elements must concur for the liability of violating Section 5i of RA 9262 be
convicted: concurrence of mental element and physical element
11. What are the elements of psychological violence:
The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children.
The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender or is a woman with whom the
offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender
has a common child.
The offender willfully refuses to give or consciously denies the woman and/or her child or
children financial support that is legally due her and/or her child or children.
The offender denied the woman and/or her child or children financial support to cause the
woman and/or her child or children mental or emotional anguish.
12. What evidence is necessary for the conviction of Section 5i of RA 9262: the evidence must
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to cause the victim mental or
emotional anguish, or public ridicule or humiliation through the denial of — not the mere
failure or inability to provide — financial support, which thereby resulted into
psychological violence.
13. Why is the accused not guilty of Section 5i of RA 9262: Section 5(i), although a special
penal law, is a
mala in se Thus, criminal intent must be established before a conviction may be had. In
other words, to be punishable by Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262, it must ultimately be proven
that the accused had the intent of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon the woman,
thereby inflicting psychological violence upon her, with the willful denial of financial
support being the means selected by the accused to accomplish said purpose. Mere failure to
provide financial support is not punishable by R.A. 9262.
14. In the cases of Melgar and Reyes—it was held that a charge for Section 5i includes and
charge for Section 5e and denial for financial support is sufficient to support a
conviction for violation of Section 5e, is Acharon liable? NO. Melgar and Reyes are
abandoned. It was wrong to interpret Section 5(e) to mean that denial of financialsupport
PER SE or BY ITSELF is already a criminal violation. The language of Section 5( e) is
clear: the denial of
financial support, to be punishable, must have the “purpose or effect of controlling or
restricting the woman’s
movement or conduct.” To be sure, Section 5(e) uses the word “deprive” which, like the use
of the word “denial” in
Section 5(i), connotes willfulness and intention. The denial or deprivation of financial
support under Section 5( e) is therefore, an intentional act that has, for its purpose, to
control or restrict the woman’s movement or conduct. The
 willful deprivation of financial support, therefore, is the actus reus of the offense,
while the mens rea
is the intention to control or restrict the woman’s conduct.

Calingasan v. People
1. What are the general facts of Calingasan v. People: provided the private complainant and
their child financial support and that his subsequent failure to do so was due to
circumstances beyond his control. The accused was arrested in Canada and incarcerated for
almost six (6) years. When he was released from prison, the accused tried to look for a
permanent job but was not able to find one. He had since then relied upon the support and
help of his siblings
2. What is the issue in Calingasan v People: Whether Calingasan is guilty of violating Section
5 (i) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act.
3. Why was Calingasan acquitted: prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Calingasan willfully denied financial support, causing mental and emotional anguish.
4. Is failure or inability to provide financial support a criminal act punishable under the
law: failure or inability to provide financial support per se is not a criminal act
punishable under the law.
5. What must concur for the accused be liable for financial support: there must be a
concurrence between intent, freedom, and intelligence to deliberately deny financial
support for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish.
6. Why Calingasan cannot be convicted under Section 5e of RA 9262: the deprivation of
financial support must be for the purpose of controlling or restricting the woman's or her
child's actions or decisions, which was not proven in this case.

XXX v People
1. What is the version of the prosecution: Petitioner drove YYY and her four children out of
the house. YYY’s daughters reported that petitioner was always drunk and introduced Pearl
Manto as their aunt. Pearl Manto was living with them in their house.
2. What is the version of the defense: Petitioner denied having an extramarital or any
romantic affair with Pearl. Petitioner alleged that the reason why he and YYY fought was
the mismanagement by the latter of the family resources. Petitioner denied driving his wife
and his children away from their conjugal home.
3. What is the ruling of RTC: The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.
4. What is the ruling of CA: The CA concurred with the RTC that all the elements of the
offense charged were duly
established by the prosecution. There is no doubt that petitioner inflicted psychological
violence upon his wife when he evicted her and their children from their conjugal home and
when he maintained an extramarital affair with Pearl in their conjugal home where they
lived as a couple. The said acts caused mental and emotional anguish, public ridicule and
humiliation to YYY.
5. What are the elements of psychological violence:
• The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children
• The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the
offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender
has a common child. As for the woman's child or children, they may be legitimate or
illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode
• The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and
• The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and
emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the
children or similar such acts or omissions.
6. What did the court rule with regards to the first and second elements: The first and second
elements of the offense are uncontested. The offended party is a woman and her child or
children. YYY is the wife of petitioner with whom they have five children. One of their
children, AAA, testified in court about the infidelity of her father and how his mistress
lived with them in her parents' conjugal home.
7. What did the court rule with regards to the third and fourth elements: elements, it is duly
established that petitioner committed psychological violence through marital infidelity and
 public ridicule or humiliation, which caused mental anguish and emotional suffering upon
his wife.
8. What must be necessary to prove the element of psychological violence (Calaogan v People):
it is necessary to show proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i)
or similar such acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to
present the testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party.

AAA v. BBB
1. What did BBB start working: BBB started working in Singapore as a chef and acquired
permanent resident status in September 2008
2. What are the allegations of AAA: BBB sent little to no financial support, compelling AAA to
work extra hours and take on additional jobs. BBB was accused of virtual abandonment,
mistreatment, and physical and sexual violence. BBB allegedly started an affair with a
Singaporean woman named Lisel Mok.
3. What is the argument of AAA at the SC: AAA argues that mental and emotional anguish is an
essential element of the offense charged against BBB, which is experienced by her wherever
she goes.
4. How is the jurisdiction of the court determined in Morillo v People: [T]he jurisdiction of the
court is determined by the averments of the complaint or Information, in relation to the law
prevailing at the time of the filing of the complaint or Information, and the penalty provided by law
for the crime charged at the time of its commission. Thus, when a case involves a proper
interpretation of the rules and jurisprudence with respect to the jurisdiction of courts to entertain
complaints filed therewith, it deals with a question of law that can be properly brought to this
Court under Rule 45
5. What is the issue in AAA v BBB: whether or not Philippine courts are deprived of
territorial jurisdiction over a criminal charge of psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262
when committed through marital infidelity and the alleged illicit relationship took place
outside the Philippines
6. Why do Philippine courts have jurisdiction on psychological violence under RA 9262:
Philippine courts have jurisdiction over psychological violence under R.A. No. 9262 because
what the law punishes is the violence against women and their children, not the marital
infidelity per se.
7. What are the essential elements of psychological violence:
 The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children.

 The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the
offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender
has a common child.
 The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish.
 The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and
emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the
children or similar such acts or omissions.

8. What is the nature of venue in criminal cases: In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional.
The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is
an essential element of jurisdiction. (Trenas v People)

Knutson v Flores

1. What is the background of Knutson case: Randy Michael Knutson (Randy), an American Citizen,
met Rosalina Siba Knutson (Rosalina) in Singapore. They got married and had a daughter
named Rhuby. The family lived in the Philippines. Randy and Rosalina became estranged after
he discovered her extra-marital affairs, but Randy supported Rosalina and Rhuby.
2. What were the vices of Rosalina: Rosalina got hooked in casinos and incurred large debts
from casino financiers prompting her to sell the house and lot, condominium unit, and
vehicles that Randy provided for the family. Rosalina got hooked in casinos and incurred
large debts from casino financiers prompting her to sell the house and lot, condominium
unit, and vehicles that Randy provided for the family.
 3. What did Randy file on behalf of minor Ruby: Rosalina got hooked in casinos and incurred
large debts from casino financiers prompting her to sell the house and lot, condominium
unit, and vehicles that Randy provided for the family.
4. What were the arguments of Randy: Rosalina placed Rhuby in a harmful environment
deleterious to her physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development.
5. What was the ruling of the RTC: It ratiocinated that the child’s mother cannot be
considered as an offender under the law. Moreover, the remedies are not available to the
father because he is not a “woman victim of violence”.
6. Whether the father can avail of the remedies under RA No. 9262 on behalf of his minor child
against the mother’s violent and abusive acts: In Garcia vs. Drilon, Section 9(b) of RA No.
9262 explicitly allows “parents or guardians of the offended party” to file a petition for
protection orders. The statute categorically used the word “parents” which pertains to the
father and the mother of the woman or child victim. Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non
Indiget. The law speaks in clear language and no explanation is required. There is no
occasion for the Court to interpret but only to apply the law when it is not ambiguous.
Similarly, the statute did not qualify on who between the parents of the victim may apply
for protection orders. Ubi lex non distinguit, nee nos distinguere debemus. When the law
does not distinguish, the courts must not distinguish. There is no question that the
offended party is Rhuby, a minor child, who allegedly experienced violence and abuse. Thus,
Randy may assist Rhuby in filing the petition as the parent of the offended party.
7. How does RA 9262 define violence against women and children: any act or a series of acts
committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman
with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a
common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without
the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological
harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault,
coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty
8. Why does RA No. 9262 covers a situation where the mother committed violent and abusive acts
against her own child: As defined above, VAWC may likewise be committed “against a woman
with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship.” Clearly, the use of the
gender-neutral word “person” who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman
encompasses even lesbian relationships. Moreover, while the law provides that the offender
be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Go tan v. Spouses Tan)

Go Tan v. Tan

1. What is the background of the case: Sharica Mari Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven Tan were
married and have two female children. Barely six years into the marriage, petitioner filed
a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against
Steven and her parents-in-law, herein respondents, before the RTC. She alleged that Steven,
in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon
her in violation of R.A. No. 9262.
2. What are the actions of the RTC: RTC granted the petition and issued a TPO; The RTC
dismissed the case as to respondents on the ground that, being the parents-in-law of the
petitioner, they were not included/covered as respondents under R.A. No. 9262.
3. What is the issue of Go Tan v Tan: Whether or not respondents parents-in-law of petitioner,
may be included in the petition for the Issuance of a Protective Order in accordance with
R.A. NO. 9262.
4. Define VAWC: [v]iolence against women and their children” as any act or a series of acts
committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman
with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a
common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without
the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological
 harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault,
coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty
5. Does the RPC have suppletory application: For purposes of this Act, the Revised Penal Code
and other applicable laws, shall have suppletory application. (Section 47 of RA 9262)
6. Is conspiracy applied in the case of Go Tan v Tan: For once conspiracy or action in concert
to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators,
and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary,
since all the conspirators are principals. It must be further noted that Section 5 of R.A.
No. 9262 expressly recognizes that the acts of violence against women and their children
may be committed by an offender through another

Estacio v. Estacio

1. What is the background of the case: Estacio and Victoria where married since 1978 and have
3 chldren
2. What did Victoria Estacio file: permanent protection order against Roberto for alleged acts
of violence and harassment
3. What did the RTC Grant: The Regional Trial Court issued temporary protection order which
was modified into prohibition from communicating with Victoria and their children and
staying away from their residence and surrendering any firarams
4. What was the appeal of Roberto: permanent protection order that the inclusion of their
adult children under the 2-km radius is excessive; claimed that the term children refers to
only below the age of 18 years old
5. What was the ruling of the Court of Appeals: The Court of Appeals ruled that the inclusion
of children was justified based on the evidence of psychological violence and harassment
committed by Roberto through his children; children under the law is not limited to minors
and can include adult children
6. What is restorative justice: seeks to obtain reparation for the victim; reconciliation of
the offender, the offended and the community; and reassurance to the offender that he/she
can be reintegrated into society
7. What is the purpose of protection orders: family preservation; dual purpose of safeguarding
the victim and providing treatment for the offender.
8. What was amended in the case of Estacio: include a provision requiring petitioner Roberto
Estacio y Salvosa to receive professional counseling from an agency or professional with
shown expertise and experience in anger management and other forms of intervention to
address his penchant for psychological coercion and other forms of violence.
9. When would the lifting of protection order be lifted: allowed with the consent of Victoria
and upon satisfying the court through expert testimony that Roberto is no longer a danger
to the protected persons

Dabalos v. Regioal Trial Court

1. What was the charge to Karlo Dabalos: charged with violation of Section 5A of RA 9262
before the Angeles City RTC
2. What acts of Dabalos were considered as felonious: used personal violence by pulling her
hair, punching her back, shoulder and left eye, thereby demeaning and degrading the
complainant’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being
3. What did Dabalos argue in his defense: he was no longer in a dating relationship rendering
RA 9262 inapplicable
4. Why did RTC denied Dabalos’ motion: since the parties had admitted that they had a prior
dating relationship, the infliction of slight physical injuries constituted an act of
violence against women and their children under RA 9262
5. What are the issues raised in Dabalos v RTC: (i) W/N RTC has jurisdiction over offense;
(ii) W/N RA 9262 should be construed in favor of the accused
6. What are the elements of the crime of VAWC: (i) offender has or had a sexual and dating
relationship; (ii) offender commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the
woman; (iii) harassment causes substantial and emotional distress (Ang v. CA)
 7. Why does the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense: relationship. It is immaterial whether
the relationship had ceased
for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such a
relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed
8. Why is RA 9262 not construed in a manner that will favor the accused: there is no ambiguity
in RA 9262 that will necessitate the rule of lenity; degree of physical harm under RA 9262
and Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code are the
same, there is sufficient justification for prescribing a higher penalty for the former.
legislative intent is to purposely impose a more severe sanction on the offenders whose
violent act/s physically harm women with whom they have or had a sexual or dating
relationship,

Tua v Mangarobang

1. Why did Rossana Tua filed a protection order: claims that Ralph Tua physically threatened
her and their children; deprived her of custody and access to children and threatened to
withhold financial support
2. What was the action pursued by Rossana Tua: filed a Verified petition for the issuance of a
protection order against her husband Ralph Tua citing allegations of abusive conduct,
threats, deprivation of custody and access to children and withholding of financial support
3. What is the essence of the TPO issued by RTC Imus Cavite: refrain from committing and
threatening physical, verbal and emotional harm against the respondent and their children
restraining him from contacting the respondent; temporary custody of children is to be
given to Rosanna
4. What is the petition for certiorari of Ralph with the Court of Appeals: Ralph argues that
the TPO violated his right to due process and that the law authorizing the issuance of the
TPO was unconstitutional
5. What are the alleged acts of the petitioner that a TPO was given: cocked the gun and
pointed the same to his head in order to convince respondent not to proceed with the legal
separation case; feeding his other children with the food which another child spat out; and
threatening the crying child with a belt to stop him from crying which was repeatedly done;
and holding respondent by her nape
6. Why was the exparte issuance did not violate the TPO: was validly issued based on the
allegations of abuse and threats made by the petitioner. The court found no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC in issuing the TPO.
7. What is the purpose of the protection order: to ensure that the victim or offended party is
afforded all the remedies necessary to curtail access by a perpetrator to the victim;
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.
(Garcia v Drilon)
8. Why can’t the grant of a TPO cannot be challenged constitutionally: a constitutional
commonplace that the ordinary requirements of procedural due process must yield to the
necessities of protecting vital public interests, among which is protection of women and
children from violence and threats to their personal safety and security.

Pavalow v. Mednenilla

1. What petition did Cherry Mendenilla file: filed a petition for a protection order against
Steven, Maria’s husband; alleged that Pavlow had been physically and psychologically
abusing her daughter
2. What was the center of Pavlow’s motion to dismiss: argued that Medenilla lacked the
personality to file the petition and engaged in forum shopping; summons were not proper
3. Why was the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction on the case: The Rules of Court
suppletorily apply in proceedings relating to the Anti-VAWC Law. Among the provisions of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that continue to govern proceedings under the Anti-VAWC
Law are those on substituted service of summons.
 4. Did the RTC of Quezon grant the TPO: A temporary protection order was issued in favor of
Maria Sheila.
5. What did the Court of Appeals rule: that Mendenilla had personality to file a petition for
the issuance of a protection order to benefit her daughter. It was equally ruled that
Mendenilla did not engage in forum shopping despite the prosecutor's prior dismissal of a
criminal complaint filed by Maria Sheila against petitioner for slight physical injuries
and maltreatment in relation to the Anti-VAWC Law.
6. Why did the court ruled in favor of Mendenilla: The Court held that Mendenilla had the
personality to file the petition for a protection order on behalf of her daughter, as
explicitly provided in the law. The mother of a victim of acts of violence against women
and their children is expressly given personality to file a petition for the issuance of a
protection order by Section 9 (b) of the Anti-VAWC Law. (only suspended when the victim
has filed it herself) The victim's mother as is the case with respondent Mendenilla is
explicitly given the capacity to apply for a protection order for the benefit of her child.
7. What does Section 33 of Am No. 4-10-11 state: When petition may proceed separately from or
be deemed instituted with criminal action. (a) An offended party may file a petition for
protection order ahead of a criminal action arising from the same act.
8. What is the test of res judicata in Yap v Chua: To determine whether a party violated the
rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to ask is whether the elements of
litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in another; otherwise stated, the test for determining forum shopping is whether
in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of
action, and reliefs sought.
9. Are factfinding investigations and preliminary investigation under the scope of res
judicata: fact-finding investigations and preliminary investigation could not be the basis
of res judicata,or of forum shopping. (Enchas v. Agustin) the doctrine of res judicata
applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of
administrative powers. Administrative powers here refer to those purely administrative in
nature, as opposed to administrative proceedings that take on a quasi-judicial character

Republic v. Yahon

1. What did Daisy Yahon filed: petition for the issuance of protection order under VAWC
2. What is the effect of the TPO petitioned by Daisy: directed Sergeant Charles Yahon to
refrain from committing acts of physical abuse and violence against Daisy Yahon and stay
away from her and provide reasonable financial spousal support
3. What did the RTC ruled relative to support: granted the petition for Yahon to provide
spousal support to Daisy Yahon; deduction of 50% of Sergeant Yahon’s retirement benefits
4. Why was the exparte presentation of evidence allowed by RTC: Yahon personally served with
the TPO but failed to hire a counsel or file an opposition; RTC allowed ex-parte
presentation to determine the necessity of a permanent protection order
5. What did the Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center contend: filed a motion to lift
the TPO against the AFP arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the military
institution and the AFPFC cannot be bound by the court order
6. Why was the grant of PPO granted: SGT Yahon had repeatedly inflicted physical, verbal,
emotional and economic abuse of daisy
7. Why can the military institution can be ordered to automatically deduct a portion of
retirement benefits as spousal support in compliance with a protection order issued by the
RTC: The directive to withhold a portion of retirement benefits as spousal support is not
illegal and falls within the exemptions provided by law. The Act is a support enforcement
legislation, and the military institution can be ordered to comply with the court order.
8. What does Section 8g of RA 9262 allow: allows for the withholding of an appropriate
percentage of the income or salary of the respondent to be remitted directly to the woman
entitled to support.
9. Why is Yahoon’s retirement benefits was illegal: said moneys remain as public funds, citing
the case of Pacific Products v. Ong. 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.
10. Why is Garcia v. Drilon valid: 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.