Joe Pallugna
PARENTAL authority and custody and visitation rights are common issues that arise when a couple separate and go into litigation. In most cases, the mother is granted custody of minor children and the father is ordered to provide financial support to the child and he is given visitation rights on weekends or on certain months of the year.
That is a normal grant because when the father is ordered to support the child, it becomes unfair and unreasonable that he cannot anymore see nor bond with the child that he is ordered to support.
In one unique case, however, visitation rights was denied even if financial support was ordered for the father to provide.
This is the case of Manny who married Cherith in 2005. A child was born that same year and in 2010, Cherith filed for and obtained a Temporary Protection Order from the RTC. Manny was also ordered to provide P5,000 monthly support to the minor child. The court though granted him visitation rights every weekend.
Cherith questioned with the Court of Appeals the grant of visitation rights to Manny contending that Manny did not ask for it in any pleading filed in court. The CA denied Cherith’s petition, so she filed a certiorari action with the Supreme Court, which ruled granting Cherith’s petition saying: “It is well-settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by the party to a case. The rationale for the rule was explained in DBP versus Teslon (569 Phil. 137), viz: Due process considerations justify this requirement. It is improper to enter an order which exceeds the scope of the relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice which affords the opposing party an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposed relief. The fundamental purpose of the requirement that allegations of a complaint must provide the measure of recovery is to prevent surprise to the defendant.
“For the same reason, this protection against surprises granted to defendant should also be available to petitioners. Verily, both parties to a suit are entitled to due process against unforeseen and arbitrary judgments. The very essence of due process is the ‘sporting idea of fair play’ which forbids the grant of reliefs on matters where a party to the suit was not given an opportunity to be heard.
“The records show that Manny did not pray for visitation rights. While he was present during the hearing for the issuance of a TPO and PPO, he neither manifested nor filed for any pleading which would indicate that he was asking for such relief.”
So, in the end, Manny was denied any visitation rights of the minor child he was ordered to support financially. Clearly, it was the fault of the lawyer who failed to properly move for such relief in his pleadings. And the lawyer’s fault would legally bind the client.
This is evidently a technical defect but it resulted in loss of Manny’s visitation rights. He can, however, file another petition in court particularly praying for such visitation rights, independent of the petition filed by Cherith.
And if you review the history of the case, you can observe that the child was born in 2005 and the TPO case was filed by Cherith in 2010, when the child was five years old. This case of Cherith Bucal versus Manny Bucal (G.R. No. 206957, June 17, 2015) was decided in 2015, or when the child is already 10 years old and, most probably, the issue of visitation rights have long ago been internally resolved by the parties.
Such is the unfortunate circumstance in this case.
E-mail: ajpallugna@gmail.com
