Estacio v. Estacio
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Victoria Estacio filed a petition for a permanent protection order under Republic Act No. 9262 against her husband, Roberto Estacio, alleging acts of violence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an ex-parte Temporary Protection Order (TPO) which included a stay-away directive from Victoria and their common children. Roberto denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim. The RTC modified the TPO, specifying the children by name and imposing a two-kilometer radius stay-away directive. The TPO was extended multiple times. Subsequently, the RTC made the TPO permanent. Procedural History: Roberto appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the inclusion of his adult children in the protection order and the two-kilometer radius. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, ruling that Section 8(d) of Republic Act No. 9262 allows the inclusion of designated family or household members, including adult children, and that Victoria's testimony showed Roberto used their children to harass her. The CA also found that the children were subjected to psychological violence and that the two-kilometer radius was within the court's discretion. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision making the protection order permanent. The Petition: Roberto filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that his adult children should not be included in the stay-away directive as they are over 18 years old and not covered by the definition of 'children' under Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 9262. He contended that such a directive should be a separate determination and that restorative justice principles should preserve family relations. The Supreme Court is asked to resolve whether the adult children may be included in the stay-away directive.
Issue(s)
Whether the adult children of Roberto Estacio and Ma. Victoria Estacio may be included in the stay-away directive under the Permanent Protection Order issued pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, considering the nature of psychological violence and coercive control. Whether the inclusion of adult children in a protection order requires their consent, and the implications for restorative justice and the family as a social institution; also, regarding the amendment of the protection order.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari, affirming the Court of Appeals' Decision. The Permanent Protection Order was amended to include a provision requiring Roberto Estacio to undergo professional counseling and for the Regional Trial Court to monitor his progress. The Order shall not be lifted or amended without the consent of the respondent and upon satisfaction of the court through expert testimony that the petitioner is no longer a danger.
Ratio Decidendi
On the inclusion of adult children in a protection order and the nature of psychological violence and coercive control: The Court held that Republic Act No. 9262 does not distinguish children by age. Section 8(d) refers to "designated family or household member[s]," and Section 4(c) defines "members of the family" to include "children" regardless of age. The law mandates liberal construction to achieve its objectives. Roberto used their children to indirectly harass Victoria, constituting psychological violence and coercive control, justifying their inclusion to safeguard Victoria. Coercive control is a form of psychological violence involving a pattern of behavior to dominate a partner. Roberto's actions, such as verbally and physically abusing Victoria in front of their children and using the children to send demeaning messages, exemplify coercive control. This indirect harassment was sufficient basis for their inclusion in the stay-away directive. On the consent of adult children, the application of restorative justice, the family as a social institution, and the amendment of the protection order: The Court clarified that the consent requirement applies only to reliefs not specifically enumerated in the law. The stay-away directive under Section 8(d) is a specific relief, so the consent of the adult children was not a prerequisite. Roberto's reliance on restorative justice and the family as a basic social institution was misplaced. While the Rule promotes restorative justice, this includes both victim protection and offender rehabilitation. The primary objective is to prevent continuous harm. The State's regard for the family does not equate to tolerating violence. The Court amended the Permanent Protection Order to require Roberto to undergo professional counseling, with the RTC to approve an intervention program and monitor its progress. The Order can only be lifted or amended upon motion by the parties or their children, with Victoria's consent, and upon the court being satisfied through expert testimony that Roberto is no longer a danger.
Main Doctrine
Adult children of a victim of domestic violence may be included in a stay-away directive under a protection order issued pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, even if they are no longer minors, if their inclusion is necessary to prevent further acts of violence or harassment against the victim, particularly when the offender uses the children to indirectly inflict psychological violence or coercive control upon the victim.