G.R. No. 168852 - Go-Tan vs. Spouses Tan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 168852)

Petitioner

Sharica Mari L. Go‑Tan filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order alleging that her husband, Steven, in conspiracy with his parents (respondents), committed verbal, psychological and economic abuses in violation of specified provisions of R.A. No. 9262.

Respondents

Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan opposed inclusion as respondents on the ground that parents‑in‑law are not covered by R.A. No. 9262 and that the RTC therefore lacked personal jurisdiction over them. They maintained that the statute defines the offender by particular relational ties to the victim (e.g., spouse, former spouse, dating partner).

Key Dates and Procedural History

Marriage of petitioner and Steven: April 18, 1999; two children born of the marriage.
Petition for TPO filed: January 12, 2005; RTC granted a temporary protective order: January 25, 2005.
Respondents filed Motion to Dismiss: February 7, 2005.
RTC dismissed the petition as to respondents: March 7, 2005 (citing expressio unius est exclusio alterius).
Verified Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner: March 16, 2005; denied by RTC: July 11, 2005.
Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court (Rule 45) followed; Supreme Court decision grants relief in part.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary statutory provision: Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti‑Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), including Sections 3, 4, 5, 8 and 47. Applicable constitution for judicial review: the 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered in 2008; instruction to apply the 1987 Constitution is noted).

Facts Alleged by Petitioner (as pleaded)

Petitioner alleged that Steven and respondents conspired to subject her to repeated verbal, emotional, psychological and economic abuses, including inadequate financial support, harassment aimed at evicting her from the family home, and other conduct enumerated in Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262.

Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss and RTC Resolutions

Respondents contended statutory exclusion of in‑laws from R.A. No. 9262 coverage; the RTC dismissed the petition against respondents, applying the expressio unius est exclusio alterius maxim because the statute identifies specific relational ties and does not expressly include parents‑in‑law. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, finding that including respondents would be a strained interpretation.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (parents‑in‑law) may be included in a petition for issuance of a protective order in accordance with R.A. No. 9262.

Petitioner’s Arguments to the Supreme Court

Petitioner urged a liberal construction of R.A. No. 9262 (per Section 4), invoked Section 47’s suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) to R.A. No. 9262, and argued that the RPC principle of conspiracy (Article 8) permits treating respondents as principals if they acted in concert with Steven. Petitioner also asserted that respondents are necessary or indispensable parties for complete adjudication.

Respondents’ Arguments to the Supreme Court

Respondents maintained that Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 limits the offender‑victim relationship to spouses, former spouses, or persons with sexual or dating relationships; they argued that any determination of conspiracy involves factual findings inappropriate for resolution in a Rule 45 petition and that including in‑laws is legally impermissible.

Statutory Text Considerations (Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 47 of R.A. No. 9262)

Section 3 defines the covered forms of violence and states the offender is a person related by marriage, former marriage, or sexual/dating relationship (or with whom the victim has a common child).
Section 4 mandates liberal construction to promote protection and safety of victims.
Section 5 expressly contemplates commission of acts “personally or through another,” thereby recognizing third‑party participation in perpetrating violence.
Section 8 provides that protection orders may restrain a respondent from acting “personally or through another” and may bar indirect communications.
Section 47 expressly provides that the RPC and other applicable laws shall have suppletory application for purposes of the Act.

Suppletory Application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)

The Supreme Court emphasized Section 47’s express statement that the RPC shall have suppletory application to R.A. No. 9262. Article 10 of the RPC (offenses under special laws are subject to the RPC’s supplementary application unless the special law provides otherwise) corroborates this approach. The Court noted precedents where RPC principles were applied suppletorily to special laws when the special law was silent on particular matters.

Precedents Cited on Suppletory Application

The Court relied on established precedents applying RPC provisions suppletorily to special laws: People v. Moreno; People v. Li Wai Cheung; People v. Chowdury; Yu v. People; and Ladonga v. People. These cases demonstrate the Court’s practice of applying RPC rules (e.g., subsidiary penalty, service of sentences, definitions of principals/accomplices/accessories, and conspiracy) by analogy where special laws lack specific provisions.

Application of the Principle of Conspiracy (Article 8 RPC) to R.A. No. 9262

Given the suppletory role of the RPC and the absence of a contrary provision in R.A. No. 9262, the Court held that the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied to R.A. No. 9262. When conspiracy or action in concert to effectuate a criminal design is established, each conspirator is treated as a principal and the precise manner or degree of each participant’s involvement becomes secondary.

Statutory Support for Liability Through Another and Relief Against Third Parties

Sections 5(h) and 8(a), (b) of R.A. No. 9262 expressly recognize that an offender may cause harm “personally or through another” and that protection orders may proscribe conduct “personally or through another” an

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 168852)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenging two RTC resolutions: the March 7, 2005 Resolution (dismissing the petition as to respondents) and the July 11, 2005 Resolution (denying reconsideration) in RTC, Branch 94, Quezon City, Civil Case No. Q-05-54536.
Petition raises a pure question of law: whether respondents, as parents‑in‑law, may be included in a petition for issuance of a protective order under R.A. No. 9262 (Anti‑Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004).
The Court GRANTED the petition and PARTLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE the RTC Resolutions insofar as they dismissed the petition against respondents.

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Sharica Mari L. Go‑Tan (hereafter "petitioner").
Respondents: Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (parents‑in‑law of petitioner).
Other related party: Steven L. Tan (petitioner’s husband and co‑respondent in the underlying petition before the RTC).
Note: The Court of Appeals was impleaded in the petition but its name was deleted from the title pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Factual Background

Petitioner and Steven L. Tan were married on April 18, 1999.
Two female children were born of the marriage: Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise.
On January 12, 2005, petitioner filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against Steven and respondents, alleging verbal, psychological and economic abuses, and invoking violations of specified paragraphs of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262.
On January 25, 2005, the RTC issued an Order/Notice granting petitioner’s prayer for a TPO.

RTC Proceedings and Resolutions

February 7, 2005: Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss with Opposition to the Issuance of Permanent Protection Order Ad Cautelam and Comment on the Petition, arguing lack of jurisdiction over their persons because parents‑in‑law are not covered by R.A. No. 9262.
February 28, 2005: Petitioner filed a Comment on Opposition to respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, urging a liberal interpretation of R.A. No. 9262 to include respondents.
March 7, 2005: RTC issued a Resolution dismissing the case as to respondents on the ground that parents‑in‑law are not included/covered under R.A. No. 9262, applying the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
March 16, 2005: Petitioner filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration, arguing for the doctrine of necessary implication and broader justice and due process.
April 8, 2005: Respondents filed a Comment on the Verified Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating that in‑laws are not included and that conspiracy allegations require factual determination not proper in the present context.
July 11, 2005: RTC issued a Resolution denying petitioner’s Verified Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating that including respondents would be a strained interpretation.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan, parents‑in‑law of petitioner, may be included as respondents in a petition for the issuance of a protective order under R.A. No. 9262.

Petitioner’s Contentions

R.A. No. 9262 must be understood in light of Section 47 which provides for the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), enabling application of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC.
Steven and respondents acted in community of design and purpose (conspiracy) in: giving insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring petitioner to be ejected from the family home; and repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally and physically.
Respondents should be included as indispensable or necessary parties for complete resolution of the case.

Respondents’ Contentions

Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 explicitly prescribes the offender’s relationship to the victim (wife, former wife, or woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child), excluding parents‑in‑law.
Allegations of conspiracy implicate factual questions inappropriate for resolution in a Rule 45 petition.
Respondents cannot be deemed indispensable or necessary parties; their presence is unnecessary and illegal under the statutory scheme which does not include in‑laws as offenders.

Statutory Provisions Cited and Their Textual Effect

Section 3, R.A. No. 9262: Defines "violence against women and their children" and specifies the relational scope of the offender (wife, former wife, sexual or dating relationship, common child).
Section 4, R.A. No. 9262: Mandates that the Act be liberally construed to promote protection and safety of victims.
Section 5, R.A. No. 9262: Enumerat