Professional Documents
Culture Documents
starting 2007. During the 2010 visit, Geoffrey agreed to leave their son with Eltesa, provided she
return him to her by January 9, 2011. Because Eltesa did not comply with her promise, Geoffrey
filed a case against her for violation of RA 7610. And a petition for issuance of writ of habeas
corpus, which fell on the sala of Judge Sarmiento.
Geoffrey later on filed a case against Judge Sarmiento making him liable, among others, for gross
ignorance of the law, when he gave provisional custody of Geoffrey Jr to Eltesa, despite the fact
that there is already a judgment based on compromise agreement wherein Geoffrey was
awarded custody over his son.
Judge Sarmiento denied all the allegations. Sarmiento deferred judgment on Geoffreys motion to
await the report of the social worker who conducted the case study report and subsequently
denied complainants motion for reconsideration upon receipt of the report which recommended
that Geoffrey Jr stay with his mother. The reports noted that (1) complainant always leaves him
(Geoffrey Jr) to the care of his older half-brother or his fathers girlfriends; (2) he was at one time
sent out of the house by one of complainants girlfriends and he had to stay in the garage alone;
and (3) he never wanted to stay with complainant whom he feared and who once locked him in
his room without food. In their respective reports, Dr. Obra and Dr. Saycon, a psychiatrist, both
strongly recommended that custody over Geoffrey, Jr. be given to Eltesa.
Issue: Should Judge Sarmiento be held liable for gross ignorance of the law, when he gave
provisional custody of Geoffrey Jr to Eltesa, despite the fact that there is already a judgment
based on compromise agreement over the custody of the son?
Ruling: NO. The SC held that Judge Sarmiento, in granting provisional custody over Geoffrey, Jr.
in favor of his mother, Eltesa, did not disregard the res judicata rule. The respondent Judge
merely exhibited fidelity to jurisprudential command to accord primacy to the welfare and
interest of a minor child.
The matter of custody is not permanent and unalterable. If the parent who was given custody
suffers a future character change and becomes unfit, the matter of custody can always be reexamined and adjusted. To be sure, the welfare, the best interests, the benefit, and the good of
the child must be determined as of the time that either parent is chosen to be the custodian.
(Espiritu v. Court of Appeals)
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 latters 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. (Dacasin v. Dacasin)