Republic of the
AGNES GAMBOA-HIRSCH G.R. No. 174485
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS Promulgated:
and FRANKLIN HARVEY HIRSCH,
Respondents. July 11, 2007
R E S O LU T I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 which seeks to set aside the June 8, 2006 Decision
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 94329, which granted private
respondent Franklin Harvey Hirsch (Franklin) joint custody with petitioner
Agnes Gamboa-Hirsch (Agnes) of their minor daughter Simone Noelle Hirsch
(Simone); and the August 3, 2006 CA Resolution
denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. Petitioner
also prays for the issuance of a temporary restraining order/injunction
preventing the execution and implementation of the assailed
Franklin and Agnes were married on
Petitioner now comes before this Court
praying that we set aside the
The Court of Appeals seriously erred and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ruled upon, granted, and decided the matter of custody x x x during the May 26, 2006 hearing conducted on the petition for writ of habeas corpus in relation to and with custody of a minor under A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC, C.A.-GR SP. No. 94329, as no reception of evidence to support said decision was had thereon, and the honorable court merely based its decision on mere conjectures and presumptions.
The Court of Appeals seriously erred and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the motion for reconsideration filed by [petitioner Agnes] and only made addendums thereon appertaining to the custody aspect in its Decision that the same is deemed necessary for the protection of the interest of the child and a mere temporary arrangement while the case involving the herein parties are pending before the Regional Trial Court x x x quite contrary to its pronouncements during the May 26, 2006 hearing when the matter of custody was insisted upon by [respondent Franklin].
The Court of Appeals seriously erred and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it granted joint custody in utter disregard of the provisions of the Family Code, as to minors seven (7) years of age and below, in relation to the jurisprudence and pronouncements laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court on the matter of the said provision.
Acting on the petition, this Court
This petition has merit.
The CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted joint custody of the minor child to both parents.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration (emphasis supplied). The Child and Youth Welfare Code, in the same way, unequivocally provides that in all questions regarding the care and custody, among others, of the child, his/her welfare shall be the paramount consideration.
The so-called tender-age presumption under Article 213 of the Family Code may be overcome only by compelling evidence of the mothers unfitness. The mother is declared unsuitable to have custody of her children in one or more of the following instances: neglect, abandonment, unemployment, immorality, habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity, or affliction with a communicable disease. Here, the mother was not shown to be unsuitable or grossly incapable of caring for her minor child. All told, no compelling reason has been adduced to wrench the child from the mothers custody.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition
is GIVEN DUE COURSE. The June 8, 2006 Decision and
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
 Rollo, pp. 3-51.
 Supra note 1, at 18-19.
 Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Art. 31, Sec. 1; cited in Pablo-Gualberto v. Gualberto, G.R. No. 154994,
Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, Art. 8; cited in Salientes v.
Abanilla, G.R. No. 162734,
 Supra note 5, at 476.