Case Digest (G.R. No. 219715)
Facts:
Edward Cumigad y De Castro v. AAA, G.R. No. 219715, December 06, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Edward Cumigad y De Castro (Edward) and respondent AAA were married in 2006 and had one child, BBB. A few years into the marriage, AAA discovered Edward's extramarital relationship in late 2008; Edward then abandoned AAA and their newborn, took their commonly owned Toyota Revo and later sold it, and cohabited with his paramour with whom he had two more children (2010 and 2011). Edward continued sending monthly support for BBB, initially P8,500 and later P10,500. Around 2010–2011 Edward won a Toyota Vios and later sold that vehicle as well.
AAA repeatedly sought greater financial support for BBB. In March–April 2012 she asked Edward to help pay BBB’s tuition (P61,350); Edward refused and maintained the P10,500 monthly support was adequate. AAA, earning about P31,500 monthly and relying on family assistance, believed that the amount was insufficient for her son’s needs. On December 18, 2012, AAA filed a Petition for Issuance of Permanent Protection Order under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), asking among other reliefs that Edward be directed to provide sufficient support and account for the sale of the cars; she also filed a separate criminal case under RA 9262.
In an Order dated May 15, 2014, the Regional Trial Court (Branch 207, Muntinlupa City) granted the Petition and found Edward guilty of psychological and economic abuse. The RTC ordered Edward to provide sufficient support to AAA and their son and directed his employer, Metrobank, to deduct one-third of everything he receives and remit it to AAA and BBB; it further ordered Edward to account for the sale of the community car, reserving other issues for separate proceedings. Edward appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Seventeenth Division, in a Decision dated April 27, 2015, affirmed the RTC. The CA found that Edward’s abandonment, refusal to provide adequate support, and deprivation of the use of absolute community property constituted economic abuse under RA 9262; it noted petitioner’s gross monthly income at about P102,000 and computed BBB’s average monthly expenses at P60,702, concluding that withholding one-third of Edward’s income was proper. A motion for reconsideration was denied in a July 30, 2015 Resolution.
On October 2, 2015, Edward filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, contesting (1) the order directing him and his employer to withhold one-third of “everything that he receives,” arguing that only basic salary should be subject to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ordering petitioner and his employer to withhold and deduct one‑third of everything that he receives, including allowances, and to remit the amount to respondent and their child?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ordering petitioner to account for the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)