Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 126 views

    Ocampo vs. Araya-Chua

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous QZ5u7O
    1) The petitioner Francisco Ocampo filed an administrative charge against respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua regarding a temporary protection order (TPO) issued in Ocampo's divorce case. 2) The TPO ordered Ocampo to turn over custody of his daughters to his wife, stay away from his wife's residence, refrain from harassing his wife and daughters, and provide monthly support. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case, finding that the respondent judge followed the law in issuing the TPO based on evidence of violence, and that implementation of court orders is not the judge's responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ocampo vs. Araya-Chua

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous QZ5u7O
    126 views2 pages
    1) The petitioner Francisco Ocampo filed an administrative charge against respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua regarding a temporary protection order (TPO) issued in Ocampo's divorce case. 2) The TPO ordered Ocampo to turn over custody of his daughters to his wife, stay away from his wife's residence, refrain from harassing his wife and daughters, and provide monthly support. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case, finding that the respondent judge followed the law in issuing the TPO based on evidence of violence, and that implementation of court orders is not the judge's responsibility.

    Original Description:

    ITL

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner Francisco Ocampo filed an administrative charge against respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua regarding a temporary protection order (TPO) issued in Ocampo's divorce case. 2) The TPO ordered Ocampo to turn over custody of his daughters to his wife, stay away from his wife's residence, refrain from harassing his wife and daughters, and provide monthly support. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case, finding that the respondent judge followed the law in issuing the TPO based on evidence of violence, and that implementation of court orders is not the judge's responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    126 views2 pages

    Ocampo vs. Araya-Chua

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous QZ5u7O
    1) The petitioner Francisco Ocampo filed an administrative charge against respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua regarding a temporary protection order (TPO) issued in Ocampo's divorce case. 2) The TPO ordered Ocampo to turn over custody of his daughters to his wife, stay away from his wife's residence, refrain from harassing his wife and daughters, and provide monthly support. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case, finding that the respondent judge followed the law in issuing the TPO based on evidence of violence, and that implementation of court orders is not the judge's responsibility.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Luis Jacob Retanan

    16-162
    Block C
    Ocampo vs. Arcaya-Chua
    A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 07-2630-RTJ
    April 23, 2010
    Doctrine:
    Temporary Protection Orders (TPOs),
    according to Sec. 15 of R.A. No. 9262,
    is issued by the court after ex parte
    determination that such order should be
    issued and shall order the immediate
    personal service of the TPO on the
    respondent by the court sheriff who may
    obtain
    the
    assistance
    of
    law
    enforcement agents for the service.
    Facts:
    Petitioner Francisco Ocampo was, on an
    Order issued by the respondent Judge
    Arcaya-Chua based on the agreement
    between the petitioner and his wife,
    directed to allow visitation rights for his
    wife over their minor daughters. But the
    petitioner filed a motion to dismiss this
    Order due to lack of jurisdiction as he
    and his wife is from Meycauayan,
    Bulacan and not from Makati City where
    the Order is issued. The respondent
    denied his motion to dismiss as the
    petitioner did not submit any evidence to
    support it.
    Petitioner
    filed
    a
    motion
    for
    reconsideration but was denied by the
    respondent. And on the same date, the
    respondent
    issued
    a
    Temporary
    Protection Order (TPO) obligating him
    (1) to turn over the custody of their two
    daughters to his wife, (2) to stay away
    from his wifes residence, (3) to refrain
    from harassing his wife and daughters,
    (4) to provide monthly support. He then

    filed a motion to rectify the TPO but was


    dismissed by the respondent.
    Petitioner filed an administrative charge
    against the respondent based on the
    claims that her issuance of the TPO is
    (1) unobservant of the fact that his
    period to file an Answer had not yet
    lapsed, (2) its enforcement was carried
    out in an intense manner, and (3) the
    ordered amount of financial support is
    without sufficient basis.
    Respondent, in defense, said that (1)
    the TPO that has been already applied
    months before in accordance with R.A.
    No. 9262 should be issued immediately
    after being determined to be so thus the
    respondent is not obliged to wait for the
    petitioners Answer, (2) the manner the
    Order was implemented falls under the
    responsibility of the sheriff, and (3) the
    directive to provide financial support is
    temporarily suspended.
    The petitioner however filed a Motion to
    Terminate
    proceedings
    when
    his
    daughters declared that they wanted to
    stay with their mother.
    Issues:
    (1) Whether or not the respondent is
    administratively liable?
    (a) Lack of Jurisdiction
    (b) Issuance of TPO
    (c) Implementation of TPO
    Ruling:
    (1) No, the Supreme Court dismissed
    the case, because the petitioner failed to
    provide substantial evidence as shown
    by Justice Salazar-Fernandos findings;
    (a)
    considering
    their
    estranged
    relationship, it is unlikely that his wife
    resides with him in Meycauayan and the
    fact that his wife maintains a residence

    in a condominium at Makati, (b) the


    issuance of TPO is in accordance with
    R.A. No. 9262 and justified by the
    evidence of violence submitted by the
    petitioners wife, and Article 164 of the
    Family Code that identifies their
    daughters as illegitimate (due to the fact
    that they are conceived w/o his written
    authorization [official identification as
    their father]) thereby their custody falls

    to their mother in accordance to Articles


    176 and 220 of the same code, (c) the
    alleged arrogant implementation is
    without basis and is no longer the
    responsibility of the respondent.

    You might also like