Republic of the PhilippinesMUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIESFourth Judicial RegionProvince of Oriental MindoroCITY OF CALAPAN-oOo-

MA. ELLAINE KRIS RUBIO DIOMAMPO, Petitioner,

CIVIL CASE NO. 1832

-versus- -for- ISSUANCE OF PEMANENTJOSE RIO C. SABANAL, PROTECTION ORDER UNDER Respondent. R.A. NO. 9262 (VAWC)

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

OPPOSITION(To the Petition for Issuance of Temporary Protection Order)

The Respondent, through Counsel, most respectfully states that:

1. The undersigned received the Petition last 28 August 2015;2. Thus he still has today to file this Opposition;3. That Respondent vehemently objects to the issuance of the Temporary Protection;4. That the Respondent never hurt the Petitioner as alleged in the Petition;5. That, what transpired last 26 August 2015 is just a simple argument because Respondent caught the Petitioner of having a secret cellphone;6. That sadly, when confronted why she has a secret cellphone, the Petitioner was evasive and that led the Respondent to be suspicious of the Petitioner;7. That Respondent was a good provider for the family. He and the Petitioner are jointly working towards the welfare of their family;8. That in fact, when the father of the Petitioner got sick, the Respondent immediately allowed the father of the Petitioner to stay in their rented house in Brgy. Tawiran, Calapan City and they adjusted by moving to Bulusan, Calapan City at the house of the Respondents family;9. That it was the Petitioner who has inflicted emotional harm to the Respondent by using a secret cellphone. Early this year, the Petitioner throw a cellphone at the Respondent in front of one of their child, Jharel Dale because the Respondent was asking something that the Petitioner cannot answer;10. That after the incident, the Respondent just kept mum on the matter for the benefit of forging a stronger family;11. That no violence was committed by the Respondent and it is not true that the medical certificate was with the Respondent. It is indeed odd why would the Petitioner claim that the possession of the Respondent when she is the one who availed of the same. At any rate, she could get another copy of the same;12. That as to the police blotter, it is just an incident report. Any person can go to the police and claim that the incident transpired. In fact no investigation was conducted. Hence, the police blotter is nothing but a self-serving evidence;13. That the Respondent was never charged of being a poor provider. In fact, Respondent, aside from working at the Provincial Engineering Office also has sidelines particularly being involved in land surveying. The family even afforded vacations abroad for recreation and bonding;14. That the Respondent believes that family comes first. It will be detrimental to their two children[footnoteRef:1] should their father will not be allowed to see them and to sensationalize a very trivial marital misunderstanding; [1: Annexes 1 and 2.]

15. That the Petitioner has no basis as to her claim of moral damages for she was not able to substantiate the same. Only general claims were made;16. That no ground also for the claim for exemplary damage because the Respondent was never been charged before of any crime and is maintaining his innocence;

PRAYER

Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed for that;

1. That this Petition be denied for lack of merit;2. That all collateral prayers in connection with this Petition protection be also denied;

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro. 02 September 2015.