G.R. No. 239215

G.R. No. 239215, July 12, 2022,
♦ Decision, Lopez, [J]
♦ Separate Dissenting Opinion, Gesmundo, [CJ]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Leonen, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Concurrence Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Zalameda, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Singh, [J]

RANDY MICHAEL KNUTSON, ACTING ON BEHALF OF MINOR RHUBY SIBAL KNUTSON, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ELISA R. SARMIENTO-FLORES, IN HER CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 69, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TAGUIG CITY, AND ROSALINA SIBAL KNUTSON, RESPONDENTS.

The judicial quest to discern who may be offenders as defined in a penal statute is at times abstruse in itself. One such instance is whether Republic Act (RA) No. 9262,1 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, allows the father to apply for protection and custody orders against the mother who is alleged to have committed violence against their child.

In 2005, Randy Michael Knutson (Randy), an American citizen, met Rosalina Sibal Knutson (Rosalina) in Singapore. They got married and had a daughter named Rhuby Sibal Knutson (Rhuby). In 2011, the family lived in the Philippines. However, Randy and Rosalina became estranged after he discovered her extra-marital affairs. Anyhow, Randy supported Rosalina and Rhuby. Thereafter, Rosalina got hooked in casinos. Randy learned that Rosalina spent weeks in gambling dens and left Rhuby under the care of strangers. Worse, Rosalina incurred large debts from casino financiers prompting her to sell the house and lot, condominium unit, and vehicles that Randy provided for the family. Rosalina then rented an apartment and got herself a boyfriend. Randy advised Rosalina to be discreet in her illicit affairs because it is not good for Rhuby to see her mother with another man. Later, Randy discovered that Rosalina maltreated her own mother in Rhuby's presence. Rosalina also hurt Rhuby by pulling her hair, slapping her face and knocking her head. One time, Rosalina pointed a knife at Rhuby and threatened to kill her. Rosalina even texted Randy about her plan to kill their daughter and commit suicide. Randy reported the matter to the police station but the authorities explained that they cannot assist him in domestic issues. Afterwards, Rosalina sent Randy her naked pictures with a message that he would not see that body again. Meantime, the neighbors of Rosalina complained about noisy parties and pot sessions in her apartment. The lessor even terminated the lease after marijuana plants were confiscated in the premises.2 On December 7, 2017, Randy, on behalf of minor Rhuby, filed against Rosalina a petition under RA No. 9262 for the issuance of Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders before the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 69 (RTC) docketed as JDRC Case No. 313. Randy averred that Rosalina placed Rhuby in a harmful environment deleterious to her physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development.3

In an Order4 dated January 10, 2018, the RTC dismissed the petition explaining that protection and custody orders in RA No. 9262 cannot be issued against a mother who allegedly abused her own child. The RTC ratiocinated that the child's mother cannot be considered as an offender under the law. Moreover, the remedies are not available to the father because he is not a "woman victim of violence." The RTC cited the ruling in Ocampo v. Arcaya-Chua5 (Ocampo) that a protection order cannot be issued in favor of a husband against his wife,6 thus:

Randy moved for a reconsideration8 and argued that RA No. 9262 used the term "any person" which is not limited to male offenders. The law must be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children. In an Order9 dated March 14, 2018, the RTC denied the motion and reiterated that RA No. 9262 does not apply to a situation where the mother committed violence against her own child. The RTC expounded that the word "children" should not be isolated with the term "women" because the title of the law used the conjunction "and" which denotes joinder of words, phrases, and clauses. As such, the children being protected refer to those under the care of the woman victim of violence,10 viz.:

Aggrieved, Randy directly filed a Petition for Certiorari12 before the Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in dismissing the application for protection and custody orders. Randy contends that he availed of these remedies on behalf of his daughter, who is a victim of violence in the hands of her own mother. Furthermore, Randy maintains that RA No. 9262 does not limit the offender to a male person and the legislative intent is to provide all possible protection to children.13

The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive but shared with the Court of Appeals (CA) and the RTC.14 However, this concurrence of jurisdiction does not give a party unbridled freedom to choose the venue of action. The policy on the hierarchy of courts adjures the Court from dealing with causes that are also well within the competence of the CA and the RTC to resolve.15 This Court is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform its constitutional functions.16 The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is both a constitutional imperative and a filtering mechanism to enable the Court to focus on more important matters.17 Corollarily, the Court's jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should generally be exercised with respect to actions or proceedings before the CA, or before constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or agencies whose acts for some reason or another are not controllable by the CA.18

However, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule and is subject to recognized exceptions, to wit: (a) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time; (b) when the issues involved are of transcendental importance; (c) cases of first impression where no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower courts on the matter; (d) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court; (e) where exigency in certain situations necessitate urgency in the resolution of the cases; (f) the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ; (g) when petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of respondents' acts in violation of their right to freedom of expression; and (h) the petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.19

Here, circumstances exist to justify direct recourse to this Court. The case presents an issue of first impression, i.e., whether the father can avail of the remedies under RA No. 9262 on behalf of his minor child against the mother's violent and abusive acts. To be sure, there is no definite ruling yet on this question to serve as a guidepost for future cases.20 Also, the interests of justice and public welfare demand the resolution of the controversy because it will benefit not only the parties but also children similarly situated. More importantly, the petition raises a pure question of law and does not involve an examination of facts and probative value of evidence.21 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.

RA No. 9262 allows the father of the offended party to apply for protection and custody orders.

In Garcia v. Drilon22 (Garcia), the Court pointed out that the Congress excluded men as victims under RA No. 9262. The legislative intent is to limit the protection against violence to women and children only. The classification rests on substantial distinctions because women and children are vulnerable victims of abuse compared to men.23 The difference in treatment is consistent with the declared policy of the law to value the dignity of women and children, and protect them from violence and threats to their personal safety and security.24 In that case, the Court likewise upheld the constitutionality of the remedies of protection and custody orders to prevent further acts of violence committed by the offender against women and their children.25 Inarguably, the offended parties under the law are only women and children. Nevertheless, it is improper to conclude that the law denies a father of these remedies solely because of his gender or that he is not a "woman victim of violence."

Section 9 (b)26 of RA No. 9262 explicitly allows "parents or guardians of the offended party" to file a petition for protection orders. The exact provision was incorporated in Section 12 (b)27 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9262 and Section 8 (b)28 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC,29 or the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children. The statute categorically used the word "parents" which pertains to the father and the mother of the woman or child victim. Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non Indiget. The law speaks in clear language and no explanation is required.30 There is no occasion for the Court to interpret but only to apply the law when it is not ambiguous.31 Similarly, the statute did not qualify on who between the parents of the victim may apply for protection orders. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus. When the law does not distinguish, the courts must not distinguish.32

In any event, A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC states that the Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory manner to petitions for protection orders.33 Under Section 5, Rule 3 of Rules of Court, "[a] minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem." In this case, the title of the petition for issuance of a protection order is unequivocal, to wit: "RANDY MICHAEL KNUTSON acting on behalf of minor RHUBY SIBAL KNUTSON, Petitioner, -versus- ROSALINA SIBAL KNUTSON, Respondent."34 There is no question that the offended party is Rhuby, a minor child, who allegedly experienced violence and abuse. Thus, Randy may assist Rhuby in filing the petition as the parent of the offended party.

Contrary to the RTC's theory, the ruling in Ocampo is inapplicable. In that case, respondent judge issued a protection order directing the common law wife to stay away from her common law husband's house and office. Respondent judge also granted the father provisional custody of his minor daughter. The Investigating Justice found that the protection order is justified with respect to the minor daughter but not to the common law husband. Under the law, a protection order cannot be issued in favor of the husband against the wife. The Investigating Justice explained that the "TPO against [the wife], insofar as it directed the latter to stay away from the home and office of [the husband], to cease and desist from harassing, intimidating or threatening [the husband] and to refrain from acts of commission or omission that create an unreasonable risk to the health, safety or welfare of [the husband], was anomalous."35 However, the Investigating Justice clarified that there is justification to award the temporary custody of the minor daughter to the father. There is substantial evidence that the protection order in favor of the minor daughter was necessary and would serve her paramount interest. The psychological evaluation report and the statements of material witnesses all confi1med that the mother has not been a good influence to her daughter. The Court sustained these factual findings and adopted the recommendation of the Investigating Justice that respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.36

On the other hand, Randy is not asking for a protection order in his favor. As intimated earlier, Randy filed the petition on behalf of their minor daughter Rhuby. The petition is principally and directly for the protection of the minor child and not the father. Admittedly, Randy also asked for the temporary custody of their daughter because the mother was allegedly unfit. Yet, the RTC did not evaluate the case whether the mother may be divested of custody over the child. The RTC ignored the evidence on the pretext that the father is not allowed to apply for protection and custody orders because he is not a woman victim of violence. On this point, the Court finds grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC that amounted to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perfo1m a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.37 As in Ocampo, the RTC should have examined the evidence on record and made a prima facie determination as to the ideal person to whom the temporary custody of the child should be awarded. The best interest of the child should be the primordial and paramount concern.

RA No. 9262 covers a situation where the mother committed violent and abusive acts against her own child.(awÞhi(

Section 3 (a) of RA 9262 defines violence against women and their children as "any act or a 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 a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty." The law criminalizes acts of violence against women and their children perpetrated by women's intimate partners, i.e., husband; former husband; or any person who has or had sexual or dating relationship with the woman, or with whom the woman has a common child. However, the Court in Garcia emphasized that the law does not single out the husband or father as the culprit. The statute used the gender-neutral word "person" as the offender which embraces any person of either sex. The offender may also include other persons who conspired to commit the violence, thus:

As defined above, VAWC may likewise be committed "against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship." Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word "person" who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships. Moreover, while the law provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Thus, in the case of Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan [588 Phil. 532 (2008)], the parents-in-law of Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan, the victim, were held to be proper respondents in the case filed by the latter upon the allegation that they and their son (Go-Tan's husband) had community of design and purpose in tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring her to be ejected from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally and physically.38 (Emphases supplied)

Differently stated, the fact that a social legislation affords special protection to a particular sector does not automatically suggest that its members are excluded from violating such law. This is not the first time that social legislations in the Philippines with penal character used the phrase "any person" to describe who may be offenders. There are parallel provisions in RA No. 7610,39 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,40 RA No. 7277,41 as amended by RA No. 9442,42 or the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons,43 RA No. 8042,44 as amended by RA No. 10022,45 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,46 RA No. 4670,47 or the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers,48 RA No. 9433,49 or the Magna Carta for Public Social Workers,50 and RA No. 7305,51 or the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers.52 In other words, identification or association with such groups will not exempt their members from criminal liability. A child 16 years old and above who acted with discernment may still be charged with violation of RA No. 7610 if he induces or coerces another child to perform in obscene exhibitions. A person with disability is likewise criminally liable under RA No. 7277, as amended, if he discriminates or publicly ridicules another person suffering from restriction, impairment, or a different ability. The same is true with a migrant worker who engages in the act of illegal recruitment punished under RA No. 8042, as amended. Lastly, a public school teacher, a public social worker, or a public health worker who interferes or prevents similar professionals in the exercise of their rights and performance of their duties are criminally liable.

Logically, a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under RA No. 9262 is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children. In this case, however, the RTC dismissed Randy's petition for protection orders on behalf of his minor daughter on the ground that the mother cannot be considered as an offender under the law. To restate, the policy of RA No. 9262 is to guarantee full respect for human rights. Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a party.

Specifically, Section 3 (2), Article XV of the 1987 Constitution espoused the State to defend "[t]he right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development; x x x." Also, Article 25 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights advocated that "[m]otherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection." Further, the Philippines as a state party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child has the following international commitments, to wit:

The RTC maintained its position that the child's mother is not included as one of the offenders under RA No. 9262 anchored on the interpretation based merely on the title of the law. To recall, the RTC explained that the word "children" should not be isolated with the term "women" because the title of the law used the conjunction "and" which denotes joinder of phrases and clauses. As such, the children being protected refer to those under the care of the woman victim of violence. Yet, the penal provisions under Section 5 of RA No. 9262 do away with the conjunctive word "and" and used the disjunctive term "or" that signals disassociation or independence, thus:

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 Court will not shirk its bounden duty to interpret the law in keeping with the cardinal principle that in enacting a statute, the legislature intended right and justice to prevail.57

FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The Orders dated January 10, 2018 and March 14, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 69 in JDRC Case No. 313 are SET ASIDE. Let a PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER be issued immediately.

Hernando, Inting, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, and Marquez, JJ., concur.