160. [Digest] Bobanovic v. Montes

Bobanovic v. Montes G.R. No. 71370 7 July 1986 J. Alampay Apo Slobodan Bobanovic and Dianne Elizabeth Cunninham Bobanovic petitioners responden Hon. Sylvia P. Montes, in her capacity as Minister of Social Services and Development

ts summary The Australian spouses Bobanovic filed a petition for the adoption of Filipino

minor child Adam Christopher. The Makati RTC thus ordered the Ministry of Social Services & Development to conduct a case study of the child, his natural parents, and the adopting parents. However, the MDSS failed to do this, so the RTC ordered its Court Social Worker to make the case study. The Court Social Worker rendered a report recommending favorable action on the petition; on this basis, the RTC granted the petition for adoption, which attained finality. When the spouses tried to leave the PH with their newly adopted son, however, the MDSS Minister Montes refused to issue a travel clearance to Adam Christopher, on the ground that she could not be assured of the child’s well-being and the parents’ fitness, since the MDSS had been denied the opportunity to conduct a case study. The Court disagreed, finding that there had been proper service and publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Neither does the MDSS allege any error in the Social Worker’s report to justify its refusal to issue the clearance, aside from its insistence that it should have been allowed to conduct the case study. The spouses are thus entitled to the writ of mandamus.

facts of the case

In November 1984, petitioner spouses Bobanovic filed a petition before the Makati RTC to adopt the minor Adam Christopher Sales. Slobodan and Dianne Bobanovic were both Australian citizens residing permanently in Melbourne, Australia, and temporarily in Bel-Air, Makati. Upon the filing of the petition, the Makati RTC issued an order setting the case for hearing. The order also directed that first, it be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks, and second, that a copy thereof be served upon the Ministry of Social Services and Development, such that it can conduct a social case study of Adam Christopher as well as his natural and adopting parents, and submit a report and recommendation on the matter at least a week before the date of the hearing. The RTC also directed the MSSD to intervene in the child’s behalf if it finds that the petition should be denied. At the initial hearing, however, the MSSD failed to comply with the order: no case study was conducted regarding Adam Christopher and his natural and adopting parents; neither did the Ministry submit any report or recommendation or at all intervene in the case. Due to the MSSD’s inaction, a social worker assigned to the Makati RTC conducted the requisite case study, resulting in a report recommending favorable action on the petition for adoption. Consequently, in January 1985, judgment was rendered granting the adoption of Adam Christopher. The RTC found, based on the evidence presented, that petitioners have been certified to be of good moral character, without any derogatory records in the Philippines as well as in their country. They are both physically and mentally fit to adopt, and, as Australian citizens, are allowed by the laws of their country to adopt a Filipino child. Petitioners have cared for and love the child as their own, and are aware of the responsibilities attached to the petition. In total, 1

they were found to be physically, emotionally, and financially capable to rear the child. Since no appeal was brought, a certificate of finality of the order granting the adoption was issued. With Adam Christopher now in tow, petitioners applied for a travel clearance with the MSSD in order that they may travel to Australia with their adopted son. However, respondent Minister declined to issue the travel clearance, on the ground that prior to the initial hearing of the adoption case, she was allegedly not furnished with a copy of the petition for adoption nor with the court order requiring the MSSD to make a case study. She claims that the MSSD was denied the opportunity to conduct the case study as required by law, and thus, she had no basis to determine whether petitioners met the eligibility criteria set forth in the Australian Procedures Relating to Placement of Children from Other Countries for Adoption. Since she was not assured that the adopted Filipino child would be in good hands, she concluded that mandamus would not lie to compel her to issue the travel clearance requested. Despite this, the spouses Bobanovic filed a petition for mandamus, praying that respondent be directed to issue the travel clearance to their son Adam Christopher. In response, respondent Minister appears to insist that the MSSD is the only agency authorized under the law to conduct the case study, and no adoption case can be properly acted upon by the courts if no referral to the MSSD is made of the case for study, report, and recommendation.

issue

Whether the MSSD had validly refused to issue a travel clearance to the spouses Bobanovic, on the ground that it had been unable to conduct a case study during the adoption proceedings. — NO. There had been proper service and publication of the order, precluding the MSSD’s argument that it had been deprived of the right to intervene. Neither does the MSSD allege that the Court Social Worker’s report was erroneous, incorrect, or faulty in any way. In any case, it would have been more expeditious to just verify the Social Worker’s report.

ratio

(1) The order had been duly served upon MSSD and published in a newspaper of general circulation, precluding the respondent Minister’s claim that the MSSD had been deprived of its right to intervene. The MSSD offers only its own certification that it did not receive a copy of the petition and the order. But the Makati RTC had clearly passed upon the Minister’s claim in its decision, stating: “The records show that the MSSD was served a copy of the petition which was published in the Filipino Times for 3 consecutive weeks, through the Court Social Worker, who is authorized to receive and act for MSSD xxx.” Hence, MSSD’s certification does not suffice to disturb the lower court’s factual findings. (2) The MSSD does not allege that the Court Social Worker’s report was erroneous, incorrect, or faulty in any way. The MSSD did not appeal the order granting the adoption. Moreover, in all its pleadings, the MSSD has not once insinuated that the Social Worker’s report was in any way erroneous, incorrect or faulty. Respondent seems only to stubbornly insist and maintain that the prerogative to make a case study pertains exclusively to the MSSD. Neither has it shown any specific fact or circumstance warranting the denial of the travel clearance. Absent any proof that prejudice would be caused to the Adam Christopher if he joins his adoptive parents, the MSSD should be faulted for declining to issue the travel clearance. 2

(3) The MSSD should have just verified the correctness of the case study prepared and submitted by the Court Social Worker. This could have been done in a matter of days, instead of causing petitioners to resort to judicial relief. In closing, the Court reminded the respondent of its ruling in Malkinsons v. Agrava, where it stated: xxx [A]doption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the interest and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration...are designed to provide homes, parental care and education for unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give them the protection of society and family in the person of the adopter against well as to allow childless couples or persons to experience the joys of parenthood and give them legally a child in the person of the adopted for the manifestation of their natural parental instincts. Every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate objectives of the law. Hence, courts should extend the widest latitude of sympathy and assistance in matters related to the adoption of children or to acts designed to provide homes, love, care, and education for unfortunate children. The writ of mandamus is hereby granted, and the respondent Minister is directed to issue the requisite travel clearance to Adam Christopher Bobanovic.

3