This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-01-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Court cannot go along with complainant's above posture. Respondent judge, in granting provisional custody over Geoffrey, Jr. in favor of his mother, Eltesa, did not disregard the res judicata rule. The more appropriate description of the legal situation engendered by the March 15, 2011 Order issued amidst the persistent plea of the child not to be returned to his father, is that respondent judge exhibited fidelity to jurisprudential command to accord primacy to the welfare and interest of a minor child. As it were, the matter of custody, to borrow from Espiritu v. Court of Appeals,[12] "is not permanent and unalterable [and] can always be re-examined and adjusted." And as aptly observed in a separate opinion in Dacasin v. Dacasin,[13] a custody agreement can never be regarded as "permanent and unbending," the simple reason being that the situation of the parents and even of the child can change, such that sticking to the agreed arrangement would no longer be to the latter's best interest. In a very real sense, then, a judgment involving the custody of a minor child cannot be accorded the force and effect of res judicata. | |||||
|
2004-10-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Only the most compelling of reasons, such as the mother's unfitness to exercise sole parental authority, shall justify her deprivation of parental authority and the award of custody to someone else.[30] In the past, the following grounds have been considered ample justification to deprive a mother of custody and parental authority: neglect or abandonment,[31] unemployment, immorality,[32] habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity, and affliction with a communicable disease. | |||||
|
2003-10-02 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| As to the opinions of defense expert witness Dr. Bandonill, it is important to note that the testimony of expert witnesses must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it.[25] It has been said of expert testimonies - | |||||