REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION

ILOILO CITY,

BRANCH __

GEOVANNI M. MERCADO,

Petitioner,

- versus -SP.PROC.No. ______________

For: HABEAS CORPUS WITH PRAYER FOR CUSTODY AND JOINT PARENTAL AUTHORITY;

ANDREA C. GOLINGAY,

Respondent.

x-----------------------------------------------x

PETITION

PETITIONER, by counsel respectfully alleges that:

1. Petitioner GEOVANNI M. MERCADO (hereafter referred to as Petitioner for brevity) is of legal age, Filipino, married and with residential address at Luna St., Lapaz, Iloilo City.

1. Respondent ANDREA C. MERCADO (hereafter referred to as Respondent for brevity) is likewise Filipino, of legal age, married and with residential address at Brgy. San Isidro, Jaro Iloilo City , where she may be served with summons and processes from the Honorable Court.

1. Petitioner and Respondent are spouses, having been married under Catholic rites on December 23, 2005 at the St. Clements Church, Lapaz, Iloilo City.

A copy of the parties Certificate of Marriage is hereto attached as Annex A and made an integral part hereof.

1. Petitioner and Respondent begot one child, namely Rizalee G. Mercado, 5 years old, having been born on April 1, 2009.

Copies of the childrens Certificate of Live Birth are hereto attached as Annex B and made integral parts hereof.

5.Since the time of their marriage, the Respondent has always been a supportive father to their daughter, providing his family with a comfortable life by working as the Chief Engineer of Atlantic Construction Company in Iloilo City. Although charged with the task of being the provider in the family, the Respondent still sees to it that he spends the necessary quality time with their children, There was even a time that the Petitioner braved heavy storm and flood just to come home in time to have dinner with the children and spend quality time with them.

6.The Respondent on the other hand, struggled to adjust to married life. She unforgivingly maintains a carefree disposition and prioritizes her friends and social life over her family. In the process, Respondent has failed to take good care of their children. Worse, Respondent has neglected the childrens health and well-being and even exposed the children to life-threatening situations.

7.The Respondent often leaves the children alone with little and at times without adult supervision.

a.Sometime in 2013, the Respondent went to Hongkong for a one-week vacation leaving her daughter to the care to her mother, Mrs. Leticia C. Golingay. On September 3, 2013, while the respondent was on vacation, Rizalee was hit by a passenger car in fron of her grandmothers house. Petitoner then, received a call from her mother, Mrs. Maricar Mercado, that his daughter was confined at Iloilo Mission Hospital, suffering from serious physical injuries. Immediately the petioner filed a leave of absence and attended to his child.

b.On another occasion, when the Petitioner visited his daughter at the Respondents house, Rizalee was swimming alone in the swimming pool without somebody to look after her.

8.The Respondent does not care if the child sleep or eat on time or if they are getting enough sleep or proper nutrition. She spends so much time chatting in the internet or watching television or hanging out with her friends that she neglects to perform her obligations to her daugter.

a.Respondent would always keep to her room, in front of the computer, chatting with her friends. This has been Respondents routine, so much so, that she often neglects feeding their children on time. The children would always eat past meal times because she is too busy to be bothered.

b.Respondent never picks her daughter at school and leaves everything on the maid to attend latters school affairs and meetings.

9. The Respondent also refuses to give the children the proper medical attention necessary to ensure their proper development. She rationalizes that any sickness or injury that the children may have will heal naturally.

a.The Respondent was so much a believer of natural methods of healing that she refuses to apply even common medication when the children would get sick, not even when the child is burning with fever. In fact the Respondent refused to get the children vaccine for immunization and it was only when the Petitioner and the Respondent had a huge fight over it that the Respondent was forced to have the children vaccinated.

10.Finally, the Respondents lack of love and care for her children is manifested by her failure to take time out to teach and educate her children during their cognitive years. She would lock herself inside the office room in the third floor so that the children could not bother her.

a.Respondent would delegate the task of teaching the chil basic lessons and skills to the maids even though the maids themselves lacked training.

11.What is apparent is that, since the marriage, the Respondent refuses to change her lifestyle for the children, or for family life for that matter. She expects the children to adjust to her lifestyle even if it means sleep deprivation, undernourishment and poor mental and psychological growth. The environment that the Respondent has created for her children is overly inimical to their health and well-being that the best interests of both children are best served if they stay with the Petitioner, with temporary visitational rights from the Respondent.

12.The Petitioner and the Respondent admittedly married in haste. But while the Petitioner has taught himself to accept the situation and adjust to married life and to being a family man, the Respondent continued to maintain a single and carefreelife, prioritizing mostly her personal and selfish interests, instead those of her child. It is as if, she refuses to recognize and perform her responsibilities as a mother.

13.Due to Respondents extreme obsession for chatting over the internet, Petitioner suspected that Respondent was engaging in extra-marital affairs. He would often get jealous and they often fight about it. While the Petitioner is adamant that they should not fight in front of the children, Respondent would most of the time start a fight for the children to see, which, needless to say, causes emotional scars on the children.

14.Respondent, on many occasions, threatened to leave the house because of their constant fights over Respondents extra-marital activities and on how to raise their children properly. Then, on October 3, 2013, while the Petitioner was at the cemetery, the Respondent decided to leave the household for good, bringing the two children with her.

15.Since then, Respondent had forbidden Petitioner from seeing their common children. January 30, 2014, the Petitioner, with his mother, went to Respondents house in Pototan to see the children. In the brief moment that the Petitioner saw his children, he noticed right away that their youngest child had scratches on his face which had scarred already. Petitioner surmised that this was caused by the harsh way that the Respondent normally treats their children, especially so since the Respondent has long nails and refuses to cut them.

16.It was then clear that the Respondent wishes to deprive the Petitioner of his right to the care and custody over the children. In fact, had he not stood his ground and insisted on seeing his children that day, the Respondent would not allow him see his children. Respondent even called security guards to make sure that the Petitioner does not take the children away. The Respondent claims that since she is the mother of the children, the latter should stay only with her.

17.Article 211 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides that, the father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their common children. Parents right to custody over their children is likewise enshrined in law. Article 220 of the Family Code provides that parents and individuals exercising parental authority over their unemancipated children are entitled, among other rights, to keep them in their company. In legal contemplation, the true nature of the parent-child relationship encompasses much more than the implication of ascendancy of one and obedience by the other. As explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Santos, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122906, February 7, 2002 to wit:

The right of custody accorded to parents springs from the exercise of parental authority. Parental authority or patria potestas in Roman Law is the juridical institution whereby parents rightfully assume control and protection of their unemancipated children to the extent required by the latters needs. It is a mass of rights and obligations which the law grants to parents for the purpose of the childrens physical preservation and development, as well as the cultivation of their intellect and the education of their heart and senses. As regards parental authority, there is no power, but a task; no complex of rights, but a sum of duties; no sovereignty but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor. (Emphasis supplied)

18. Thus, parental authority and responsibility are inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced except in cases authorized by law. The right attached to parental authority, being purely personal, the law allows a waiver of parental authority only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a childrens home or an orphan institution.

19.Evidently, Petitioner has been unjustly and unlawfully deprived by Respondent of his vested right of parental authority over histwo children and has been ruthlessly deprived of his childrens company.

20.Thus, in view of the above-mentioned circumstances, Petitioner should immediately be allowed to have the company of their common children and to have their custody to make up for the time he had been deprived of their company. The Honorable Court should likewise order that the parties equally share parental authority and custody over their minor children.

21.The Respondent has the means and the capacity to bring the children out of the country to the extreme prejudice of, and injustice, to herein Petitioner. It is thus prayed that the Honorable Court immediately issue a Hold Departure Order to prevent either of the parties from bringing the children out of the country without the consent of the other parent and the Honorable Court.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully prays that the Honorable Court:

0. Issue an Order to the Respondent to bring the minor children Rizalee Mercado to this Honorable Court at the hour and date to be set by this Honorable Court and, that immediately thereafter, order that the custody of the minor be turned over to herein Petitioner to allow him to make up for the lost time with his child.

0. Issue an Order awarding custody of their children to the Petitioner, with regular visitational rights to the Respondent, or directing the Respondent to allow Petitioner equal parental authority over their minor children.

0. Issue a Hold Departure Order addressed to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, directing it not to allow the departure of Rizalle Mercado from the Philippines without the permission of the Petitioner and this Honorable Court.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.

Iloilo City, March 15, 2015 .

ATTY. LAURENCE SUSAN P. ORTIZ

Counsel for Petitioner

#03 Lopez, Jaena St., Jaro, Iloilo City

Roll of Attorney No. 44661

PTR No. 22334, Iloilo City, January 17, 2014

IBP No. 44556, Iloilo City, January 10, 2014

MCLE Compliance No. VI-010489

Republic of the Philippines)

Iloilo City) S.S.

x--------------------------------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, GEOVANNI M. MERCADO, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. I am the petitioner in the above-captioned case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing petition;

3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records in my possession;

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;

5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;

6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

GEOVANNI M. MERCADO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 15th day of March 2015 at Iloilo City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his TIN: 78464638 issued in Iloilo City.

WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL on the day, year and place first above written.

ATTY. LAURENCE SUSAN P. ORTIZ

Notary Public for and in the

City and Province of Iloilo

Commission Serial. No. 1989

Valid until December 31, 2015

#03 Lopez, Jaena St., Jaro, Iloilo City

Roll of Attorney No. 44661

PTR No. 22334, Iloilo City, January 17, 2014

IBP No. 44556, Iloilo City, January 10, 2014

MCLE Compliance No. VI-010489

Doc. No. : Page No. ; Book No. ; Series of 2015.