REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Branch 10, Davao City

LEO B. ESCALANTE Jr.,

Petitioner,

- versus - SP.PROC.No. 1234321

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

JULIE ANN ESCALANTE,

Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------x

PETITION

PETITIONER, by counsel respectfully alleges that:

1. Petitioner Leo B. Escalante Jr., (hereafter referred to as

“Petitioner” for brevity) is of legal age, Filipino, married and with
residential address at 119 Yellowsubmarine St, Golden Dragon
Village, Matina, Davao City.

2. Respondent Julie Ann Escalante (hereafter referred to as

“Respondent” for brevity) is likewise Filipino, of legal age, married and
with residential address at 28 Happy Glenn St, San Pedro Village,
Buhangin, Davao City, where she may be served with summons and
processes from the Honorable Court.

3. Petitioner and Respondent are spouses, having been

married under Catholic rites on February 14, 2015 at Pearl Farm Beach
Resort , Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte.

A copy of the parties’ Certificate of Marriage is hereto attached

as Annex “A” and made an integral part hereof.

4. Petitioner and Respondent begot two children, namely

Cesar John, 5 years old, having been born on August 12, 2015 ; Glene,
2 years old, having been born on January 25 , 2018

Copies of the children’s Certificates of Live Birth are hereto

attached as Annexes “B” and “C”, respectively, and made integral
parts hereof.

5. Sometime at the end of 2017, the two found out that the
Respondent was pregnant. Although the Petitioner realized the shame
that the Respondent will endure as soon as the news that she got
pregnant out of wedlock comes out, Petitioner himself was confused
because he could not know for sure if he was the father of the child,
since the Respondent was dating and was having pre-marital sex with
other men at that time.

6. Meetings were had between the families of the Petitioner

and the Respondent. In order to keep the peace between both their
families, Petitioner and the Respondent finally decided to get married.

8. Since the time of their marriage, the Petitioner has always

been a supportive father to their children, providing his family with a
comfortable life by working as the CEO of ESCALANTE
CONSTRUCTION. 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.

9. 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 children’s health and well-being and
even exposed the children to life-threatening situations.

10. The Respondent often leaves the children alone with little
and at times without adult supervision. The children are mere toddlers
and accidents are bound to happen when they are left alone, even for
just a brief period of time.

11. The Respondent does not care if the children 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 children.

12. 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.

13. Finally, the Respondent’s 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.

14. 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

2
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 visitorial rights
from the Respondent.

15. 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 carefree life, prioritizing
mostly her personal and selfish interests, instead those of her children.
It is as if, she refuses to recognize and perform her responsibilities as
a mother.

17. Respondent, on many occasions, threatened to leave the

house because of their constant fights over Respondent’s extra-marital
activities and on how to raise their children properly. Then, on
November 1, 2013, while the Petitioner was at the cemetery, the
Respondent decided to leave the household for good, bringing the two
children with her.

18. Since then, Respondent had forbidden Petitioner from

seeing their common children. On September 2, 2019, the Petitioner,
with his mother, went to Respondent’s house in Buhangin, Davao City
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.

19. 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.

20. 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 Appeals1, to wit:

1G.R. No. 113054, March 16, 1995.

3
 “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
latter’s needs. It is a mass of rights and obligations
which the law grants to parents for the purpose of the
children’s 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)

21. 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 children’s home
or an orphan institution.2

22. 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 children’s
company.

23. 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.

24. 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:

1. Issue an Order to the Respondent to bring the minor

children Cesar John Escalante and Josef Escalante 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

2Tonog vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122906, February 7, 2002.

4
over to herein Petitioner to allow him to make up for the lost time with
his children.

2. 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.

3. Issue a Hold Departure Order addressed to the Bureau of

Immigration and Deportation, directing it not to allow the departure of
Cesar John Escalante and Josef Escalante 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.

Davao City, February 5, 2020.

FOR:
INOK and NOLASCO LAW OFFICE
Roxas Ave., Davao City

By:

ATTY. ERICK JAY N. INOK

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Notary Public / Roll of Attorneys No. 420696
Notarial Commission Serial No. 2019-420-2020
Commission Expires on December 31, 2020
IBP No. 030524; 01/10/2020; Davao City
PTR No. 1760152C; 01/04/2020; Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. VI–0012697 – 09/19/2019
Tel Nos. (082) 225-2066; (082) 241-2945
Email Address: ERICKSKIE23@yahoo.com
Legal Office, Commission on Audit R.O XI, Davao City

5
 VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, LEO B. ESCALANTE Jr., of legal age, single, and with

address at 119 Yellowsubmarine St, Golden Dragon Village, Matina,
Davao City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
do hereby depose that:

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

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition for

Habeas Corpus filed before this Honorable Court;

3. I have read and understood the same and all allegations

therein are true, correct, and of my own personal knowledge
and/or based on authentic documents;

4. I hereby certify that: (a) I have not commenced any other

action or proceeding involving the same issues thereto with
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency (b) if there is any
action or proceeding involving the same issues which is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any tribunal or agency, we will state the status thereof; (d)
should we learn hereafter that a similar action or proceeding
involving the same issues is filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any tribunal or agency, I
will report that fact within five (5) days from knowledge thereof
to this Honorable Court and to the court where the original
pleading had been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this 5th day of

February, the City of Davao.

LEO B. ESCALANTE Jr.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 5th day of

February 2020, in the City of Davao, affiant personally appearing
before me and having been identified by his competent evidence
of.identity; TIN No; 431-234-445 bearing his name, photograph, and
signature.

6
Doc. No. __ ; ATTY. ERICK JAY N. INOK
Page No. ___ ; Notary Public / Roll of Attorneys No. 420696
Book No. __ ; Notarial Commission Serial No. 2019-420-2020
Series of 2020. Commission Expires on December 31, 2020
IBP No. 030524; 01/10/2020; Davao City
PTR No. 1760152C; 01/04/2020; Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. VI–0012697 – 09/19/2019
Tel Nos. (082) 225-2066; (082) 241-2945
Email Address: ERICKSKIE23@yahoo.com
Legal Office, Commission on Audit R.O XI, Davao City