The Supreme Court (SC) has rendered a landmark decision upholding the right of the father to apply for protection and custody orders for his child against the mother who is alleged to have committed violence against their child as contemplated under Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004.
In an 18-page en banc decision authored by Associate Justice Mario Lopez, the SC granted the petition filed by Randy Michael Knutson, an American citizen seeking the reversal of the ruling issued by the Taguig City Regional Trial Court, which junked his petition for the
issuance of temporary protection and permanent protection orders on behalf of his daughter.
The SC declared that contrary to the trial court’s ruling, RA 9262 allows the father of the offended party to apply for protection orders.
The high court stressed that although it previously ruled in Garcia v. Drilon (Garcia case) that the Congress excluded men as victims under R.A. 9262 as its legislative intent is to limit the protection against violence to women and children only, it is still “improper to conclude” that the law denies a father of the remedies provided under the law solely because of his gender or that he is not a “woman victim of violence.”
The SC noted that Section 9 (b) of R.A. 9262 allows “parents or guardians of the offended party” to file a petition for protection orders.
Court records showed that Knutson met her wife, Rosalina in Singapore in 2005, got married and had a daughter. In 2011, the family lived in the country but the couple became estranged after the petitioner discovered her extra-marital affairs.
Despite their separation, the petitioner provided financial support to his wife and daughter. But the petitioner said his wife got hooked in casinos and would oftentimes leave her daughter under the care of strangers.
Rosalina also incurred large debts from casino financiers prompting her to sell the house and lot, condominium unit, and vehicles that he provided for the family. His wife ended up renting an apartment and entered into a romantic relationship with another man.
The petitioners also found out that her daughter was being maltreated by her mother.
One time, the petitioner claimed his wife pointed a knife at her daughter and threatened to kill her.
He recalled that her wife even texted him about her plan to kill their daughter and to commit suicide.
Randy reported the matter to the police station, but the authorities explained that they cannot assist him in domestic issues.
Afterwards, the petitioner said his wife sent her daughter’s naked pictures with a message that he would not see her body again.
Their neighbors also would also complain about noisy parties and pot sessions in her apartment,
The apartment’s owner eventually terminated the lease agreement after marijuana plants were confiscated in the premises.
This prompted the petitioner to seek redress before the trial court on December 7, 2017 on behalf of his minor child by filing a petition under R.A. No. 9262 for the issuance of a temporary and permanent protection orders before the Taguig RTC.
In his petitioner, the petition said her wife placed Rhuby in a harmful environment deleterious to her physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development
However, the Taguig RTC dismiss the petition in an order issued on January 10, 2018, saying that R.A. 9262 cannot be issued against a mother who allegedly abused her own child.
The trial court explained that the child’s mother cannot be an offender under the law.
Besides, the trial court said the remedies are not available to the father because he is not a “woman victim of violence” based on the law.
His motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court, reiterating that R.A. 9262 does not apply to a situation where the mother committed violence against her own child.
This prompted the petitioner to elevate the issue before the SC on the ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
The petitioner argued that R.A. 9262 does not limit the offender to a male person and the legislative intent is to provide all possible protection to children.
Although the petitioner should have brought the issue before the Court of Appeals based on the doctrine principle of hierarchy of courts, the SC emphasized that it decided to take jurisdiction over the issue “in the interest of justice and public welfare.”
It said the resolution of the issue will benefit not only the parties but also children similarly situated.
“Hence, it is an opportune time for this Court to answer the novel query with far-reaching implications on whether the father may apply for protection and custody orders against the mother who is alleged to have committed violence against their child,” the SC pointed out.
In ruling against the mother, the SC said that Section 3 (a) of R.A. 9262 defines violence against women and their children as “any act or series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had sexual or dating relationship , or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate…which result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse…”
But the said provision used the gender-neutral word “person” as the offender, “which embraces any person of either sex.”
“Logically, a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under R.A. No. 9262 is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children.
The SC held that upholding the trial court’s ruling will weaken R.A. 9262 since it will remove from its coverage cases where the mother herself is the abuse of her child.
It also branded as “discriminatory” the trial court’s position that children who suffered abuse from the hands of their own mothers may invoke other laws except R.A. 9262 is discriminatory.
“In sum, the Court refuses to be an instrument of injustice and public mischief perpetrated against vulnerable sectors of the society such as children victims of violence,” the SC stressed.
“The Court will not shirk its bounded duty to interpret the law in keeping with the cardinal principle that in enacting a statue, the legislature intended right and justice to prevail,” it added.
Nine associate justices concurred with the ruling which include Marvic Leonen, Ramon Paul Hernando, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Henri Jean Paul Inting, Samuel Gaerlan, Ricardo Rosario, Jhosep Lopez, Japar Dimaampao, and Jose Midas Marquez.
Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo together with Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguiao, Rodil Zalameda, Antonio Kho, Jr. and Maria Filomena Singh, dissented from the majority opinion.
