REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Branch 69

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION

FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF THE MINOR
CHILD, THOMAS PEPPERS

ANTHONY PETERS
Complainant Spec. Pro. Case No.
169696969
-   - versus -
FOR: Petition for
PEPPER PETERS Habeas Corpus
Respondent

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

ANSWER

Respondent, by counsel, unto the Honorable Court,

respectfully alleges the following:

ADMISSIONS and DENIALS

(1)   Par. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the petition are ADMITTED.

(2)   Par. 8, 9 and 10 are DENIED for want of knowledge

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof.

(3)   Subject to Special and Affirmative Defenses hereafter

set forth in this Answer, Par. 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
25 are specifically DENIED for want of knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent re-pleads all the foregoing allegations and

further allege that:

(4)   The petition is not proper. In the case of Johanna

Sombong vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 111876. January

1
31, 1996, the Supreme Court explains the nature and
application of the writ of habeas corpus in relation to custody
of minors as follows:

“In passing on the writ in a child custody case, the court

deals with a matter of an equitable nature. Not bound by
any mere legal right of parent or guardian, the court gives
his or her claim to the custody of the child due weight as a
claim founded on human nature and considered generally
equitable and just. Therefore, these cases are decided, not
on the legal right of the petitioner to be relieved from
unlawful imprisonment or detention, as in the case of
adults, but on the courts view of the best interests of those
whose welfare requires that they be in custody of one
person or another. Hence, the court is not bound to deliver
a child into the custody of any claimant or of any person,
but should, in the consideration of the facts, leave it in such
custody as its welfare at the time appears to require. In
short, the child’s welfare is the supreme consideration.

Considering that the child’s welfare is an all-important

factor in custody cases, the Child and Youth Welfare Code1,
unequivocally provides that in all questions regarding the
care and custody, among others, of the child, his welfare
shall be the paramount consideration.2 In the same vein, the
Family Code authorizes the courts to, if the welfare of the
child so demands, deprive the parents concerned of
parental authority over the child or adopt such measures as
may be proper under the circumstances.3

The foregoing principles considered, the grant of the writ in

the instant case will all depend on the concurrence of the
following requisites: (1) that the petitioner has the right of
custody over the minor; (2) that the rightful custody of the
minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the
respondent; and (3) that it is to the best interest of the minor
concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of
the respondent.”4

It is impliedly assumed that the respondent holds the

right of custody over Thomas. A child under seven (7) years
of age shall not be separated from his mother, which is
consequently based on the basic need of a child for his mother’s
care, attention and support. Even if Thomas is now nine (9)
years of age, he is still a minor. His best interest is to be under
the care of his mother especially when his father is not able to
put in the work as to the care and support he needs aside from
the financial aspect.

(5)   The education of Thomas is being prioritized. The

allegation of the petitioner as to the absences of Thomas in De
La Salle Santiago Zobel, the learning institution he formerly

                                                                                                               
1 Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended.
2 Id., Article 8.
3 Family Code of the Philippines, Art. 231.
4 Johanna Sombong vs. Court of Appeals et. al., G.R. No. 111876. January 31, 1996

2
attended cannot hold in this case either. Since June 2015,
Thomas has been homeschooled by respondent through the
assistance of the International British-Singaporean Academy
(IBSA) Homeschool Programme which offers a world-class, open
curriculum, based on British English, Humanities and
Religious Education, Singapore Math and Science. His
enrollment and school performance records are hereby attached
as Annexes “A” and “B” respectively.

(6)   The presentation of the 2015 school records of

Thomas are insignificant as he is no longer enrolled in the said
institution. Moreover, he was informed and even consented to
the school transfer as evidenced by a Facebook Messenger
conversation between the parties – attached as Annex “C”, and
signed the transfer records – attached as Annex “D” – of
Thomas from De La Salle Santiago Zobel to International
British-Singaporean Academy. But due to his busy schedule as
a lawyer, it might be possible that he may have forgotten his
son has a new school.

(7)   The travels of defendant, where she brought her son

along to Uzbekistan and Mindoro has not affected the quality of
his education. Aside from the fact that he is homeschooled, the
defendant believes that traveling at a young age is an excellent
way to educate her son about the world, its different people and
cultures, as well as to expand his horizons and understanding
of his environment.

(8)   The defendant is not in a relationship with

another man, and she is not hiding Thomas with his
assistance. The allegation of the petitioners as to the
cohabitation of defendant with a certain Romeo Lanchrot is
baseless. Romeo is only a friend of the defendant, and it can be
gleaned in the same Instagram account that petitioner has cited
as a source that Romeo is in a long-time relationship with
another woman who is not the defendant.

(9)   The alleged moral laxity of defendant does not

prove parental neglect or incompetence. It has been held
that under certain circumstances, the immoral conduct of the
mother may constitute a compelling reason to deprive her of
the custody of her child or children. But in the case of Jocelyn
Pablo-Gualberto v. Crisanto Rafaelito Gualberto, G.R. No.
154994, G.R. No. 156254, June 28, 2005, the Supreme Court
gave light to the said issue:

“x x x sexual preference or moral laxity alone does not prove

parental neglect or incompetence. Not even the fact that a
mother is a prostitute or has been unfaithful to her husband
would render her unfit to have custody of her minor child.To
deprive the wife of custody, the husband must clearly establish
that her moral lapses have had an adverse effect on the welfare

3
 of the child or have distracted the offending spouse from
exercising proper parental care.”5

Aside from the baseless allegations against the morality of

defendant, petitioner was not able to prove in his petition that
defendant was not exercising the proper parental care for
Thomas.

(10)   It is overwhelmingly alarming that petitioner never

mentioned in his petition what truly led respondent to abruptly
take in to her own custody the person of Thomas, and only cited
previous school records of the same, as well as social media
posts of which he has neither confirmed nor fact-checked.

(11)   It also bears stressing to mention that petitioner

never stated anything regarding the physical condition of
Thomas, and the actual situation of the same in the custody of
the petitioner.

(12)   Section 14 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC otherwise

known as the Proposed Rule On Custody Of Minors And Writ
Of Habeas Corpus in Relation To Custody Of Minors provides
that:

"Section 14. Factors to consider in determining custody. - In

awarding custody, the court shall consider the best
interests of the minor and shall give paramount
consideration to his material and moral welfare. The best
interests of the minor refer to the totality of the
circumstances and conditions as are most congenial to the
survival, protection, and feelings of security of the minor
encouraging to his physical, psychological and emotional
development. It also means the least detrimental available
alternative for safeguarding the growth and development of
the minor. The court shall also consider the following:

x x x (b) The desire and ability of one parent to foster

an open and loving relationship between the minor
and the other parent;

(c) The health, safety and welfare of the minor; x x x

(f) Habitual use of alcohol, dangerous drugs or

regulated substances; x x x

(h) The most suitable physical, emotional, spiritual,

psychological and educational environment for the
holistic development and growth of the minor; x x x"

(13)   Petitioner is actually a habitual drinker. During

the times when Thomas was with petitioner, it was not himself
who is taking care of the children but it was his old and
ailing parents. Petitioner spends most of his hours in the law
                                                                                                               
5Jocelyn Pablo-Gualberto v. Crisanto Rafaelito Gualberto, G.R. No. 154994, G.R. No.
156254, June 28, 2005

4
firm. Upon arriving home, he would spend his free time drinking
rather than taking care of his son. This has led to Thomas not
getting enough attention and care which he needs from his
father.

(14)   Whenever defendant met with petitioner, she would

always smell alcohol from the latter. And when she reminded
him as to the negative effects of his behavior to their son, he
would immediately shut her down by bringing up his financial
advantage over her as to taking care of Thomas.

(15)   It is through petitioner’s habitual drunkenness

that caused him to physically hurt his son. During their trip
to Uzbekistan, while bathing Thomas, respondent came to know
that he had several scratches and bruises on his body. This
prompted her to have Thomas medically examined immediately
after their arrival in Manila and prior to their trip to Mindoro. A
copy of the medical certificate issued by the resident attending
physician of the Philippine General Hospital is attached hereto
as Annex “E”.

(16)   Upon inquiry as to how and who inflicted the injuries,

Thomas narrated that the injuries were inflicted by “his dad.”
Thomas stated that there were several occasions wherein
petitioner threw objects at him, hit him and slapped him
whenever he is drunk. He also told defendant that his
grandparents were not able to protect him from the drunken
attacks of his father due to their old age and sickly state.

(17)   Knowledge of this matter prompted the respondent to

ascertain the stories Thomas had told her. Respondents asked
several individuals such as housemaids and drivers. Onay
Little, one of the housemaids of petitioner, affirmed the
narrations of Thomas. Little has been living with the family of
the petitioner for the past three years, and her testimony is
likewise manifested in the aforementioned sworn statement
marked as Annex “F.”

(18)   Aside from being a habitual drinker, petitioner even

withheld the minor Thomas from respondent and avoided the
calls and persistent contacts from the respondent whenever the
same was under his custody. This increased defendant’s anxiety
and worrying as to her minor child. The respondent respectfully
submits to the Court the fact that she is a mother, and she
needs to ensure that her child is safe and secure.

(19)   Respondent immediately took custody of Thomas

when she found out that herein petitioner is continuously
unable to perform his responsibility as a father despite their
earlier agreements which were very much unfavorable to
defendant as the mother of the child in the first place.

5
 (20)   Petitioner’s claim that herein respondent maliciously
took the child for a vacation was a spiteful lie as respondent was
never able to talk to the petitioner personally at that time since
the arrangement was between respondent and petitioner’s
parents alone.

(21)   That on April 15, 2015, it was upon the insistence of

the parents of the petitioner that she take the child as they are
finding it difficult to care for the same due to their old age and
ailing health.

(22)   Respondent informed the petitioner as to what

transpired between herself and her in-laws through Facebook
Messenger. However, the screenshots of the conversation that
petitioner presented to the court are heavily edited. The full
transcript and screenshots of the online conversation between
the parties are attached as Annexes “G” and “H” respectively.

(23)   There was no agreement for respondent to return the

child on June 14, 2015, as it was understood that she would
take care of Thomas from that point therein due to his parents’
incapacity to do the same, his habitual drunkenness, his
cruelty towards Thomas, and his lack of time to foster the care
and support needed from a parent because of his profession.

(24)   Respondent maintains that she is also more capable

to provide for her son. She works online by maintaining her
personal blog and Youtube channel under the brand name
“Peppered With Love” as a writer and content creator. Her
income is sufficient to support the education of Thomas as well
as their daily expenses as evidence by her latest income tax
return, herein attached as Annex “I.” Screenshots of
respondent’s blog site and channels are herein attached as
Annex “J” to further support her claims. As defendant works
online and manages her own work hours, defendant is able to
prioritize taking care of Thomas, and attending to his needs.

(25)   Defendant has the right to keep her minor son in her
custody, the writ of habeas corpus prayed for by petitioner has
no leg to stand on. A writ of habeas corpus may be issued only
when the “rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto,” in which such a situation does not
apply in the petition herein.

(26)   In light of the foregoing facts and laws, it is clear

that the petitioner’s custody is not for the best interest of
the child. The best interest of Thomas will be fulfilled under
the care of his mother, respondent herein.

6
 COUNTER-PETITION

(27)   Subsections (b),(c),(g),(h) of Sec. 24 of the Proposed

Rule on Custody of Minors and Habeas Corpus provide for
clear and strict rules in determining proper custody of a child.

The circumstances that the child is exposed to are

prejudicial to him. Respondent anchors her defense on two
grounds; 1. That the physical abuse against Thomas is an
apparent ground to deprive the petitioner of his right to custody
over the same; and 2. That the act of the petitioner in of being
a habitual drunkard is not conducive for the well-being of the
child.

(28)   First, Physical abuse is a patent violation of the

petitioner’s obligation to rear and care for the child. Art. 231 of
the Family Code states:

“Art. 231. The court in an action filed for the purpose in a

related case may also suspend parental authority if the parent
or the person exercising the same:

(1) Treats the child with excessive harshness or cruelty;

xxx

The grounds enumerated above are deemed to include

cases which have resulted from culpable negligence of
the parent or the person exercising parental authority.

If the degree of seriousness so warrants, or the welfare

of the child so demands, the court shall deprive the
guilty party of parental authority or adopt such other
measures as may be proper under the circumstances.

The suspension or deprivation may be revoked and the

parental authority revived in a case filed for the purpose or in
the same proceeding if the court finds that the cause therefor
has ceased and will not be repeated.”6

(29)   Based from the foregoing provision of law, it goes with

saying that the physical abuse to the child would constitute
excessive harshness and cruelty. Petitioner, being the person
exercising parental authority, may be deprived of his parental
authority over the child by reason of his culpable negligence in
inflicting injuries to the child, and not providing the necessary
protection needed to secure his safety and well-being. Pieces of
evidence presented as exhibits clearly show that the child was
physically abused while in the custody of the petitioner.

(30)   Moreover, the act of the petitioner in leaving the child

to the care of his ailing parents is prejudicial to the best interest
                                                                                                               
6 See note 3.

7
of the child. His parents are in not in prime condition in order
to take care of Thomas.

(31)   In conclusion, given that there is physical and abuse

towards the child, petitioner should be deprived of his parental
authority over the child. Moreover, the poor condition of the
child under the custody of his father is not of his best interest,
and is causing a negative impact over his growth and
development.

8
 RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises seriously considered, it is prayed

that the instant petition be DISMISSED that a favorable
judgment be issued on the counter petition for the respondent
to retain sole custody over the child.

Respondent likewise pray for such other equitable and

just relief under these premises.

Quezon City, 4th day of February 2019.

FERDINAND PADORNES
Delgado Lanzarrote Tang Law Offices
Counsel for the Respondent
Until June 2019
PTR No. 98765 / 01-08-17 / Quezon City
IBP No. 56789 / 01-14-17 / Quezon City
Attorney’s Roll No. 98765 4321
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020571 July 9, 2018

Copy furnish:

BUBOY OZAWA
Counsel for the Petitioner
Quebal Naval and Padrones Law Offices
Quezon City, Philippines

Office of the City Prosecutor

Quezon City, Philippines

9
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
Quezon City................................ ) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, PEPPER PETERS, of legal age, married and a resident

of Quezon City, after being sworn in accordance with law,
hereby depose and say:

1.  That I am the Respondent in the above-entitled case;

2.  That I have caused the preparation of the above Answer

and I have read the same and knows the contents
thereof;

3.  That the allegations contained therein are true and

correct of my own personal knowledge.

4.  That I further certify that I have not theretofore

commenced any other action or proceeding or filed any
claim involving the same issues or matter in any court,
tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending
therein;

5.  If I should thereafter learn that the same or similar

action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I undertake to
report such fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
court or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn
certification contemplated herein have been filed.

10
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 4th day of February 2019 at Quezon City, Philippines.
.

PEPPER PETERS
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 4th day of

February 2019 at Quezon City, Philippines.

ATTY. NOTHARHEE PABLING

Notary Public for Quezon City
#26 Matimtiman St., Teacher’s Village
Diliman, Quezon City
Appointment No. 555, Until Dec. 31, 2019
IBP No. 123456; 01/11/11— Quezon City
PTR No. 1234567; 01/21/11— Quezon City
Roll No. 14344; 1/21/11
MCLE No. I - 001234; 1/11/11
MCLE No. II – 005678; 1/11/11
Serial No. of Commission A-111

Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. I;
Series of 2019

11