Cumigad v. AAA
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Edward Cumigad (Edward) and AAA, married in 2006 with one child, BBB, experienced marital deterioration in late 2008 when AAA discovered Edward's extramarital affair. Edward subsequently abandoned AAA and their newborn child, taking and later selling their jointly owned vehicle, and cohabited with another woman with whom he had two children. Despite providing some financial support for BBB, which he later increased, Edward also sold a raffle-won vehicle and ignored AAA's requests for BBB's educational support, deeming her tuition request excessive despite his substantial income as a branch manager. AAA, with her modest salary, had to seek family assistance for their son's support. Edward's emotional neglect was evident through his rare visits and disinterest in BBB's milestones, while the public display of his affair caused AAA emotional distress, leading to a diagnosis of dysthymia. 2. Procedural History: On December 18, 2012, AAA filed a Petition for Issuance of Permanent Protection Order against Edward under Republic Act No. 9262, seeking sufficient child support and an accounting of the sold vehicles, alongside a separate criminal case. Edward denied the accusations, attributing marital breakdown to AAA's immaturity and financial insecurity, while asserting his continued support and attempts to visit their son. On May 15, 2014, the Regional Trial Court granted the Petition, ordering Edward to provide sufficient support, directing his employer to deduct one-third of his earnings for remittance to AAA and BBB, and to account for the vehicle sales, finding him guilty of psychological and economic abuse. Edward appealed, arguing the support was excessive and unreasonable, and that AAA consented to the car sale. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on April 27, 2015, ruling Edward's actions constituted economic abuse, and denied his motion for reconsideration on July 30, 2015. 3. The Petition: Edward Cumigad filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' decision. He contended that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering a one-third deduction from his entire income, including allowances, for child support, arguing that Section 8(g) of Republic Act No. 9262 only permits deductions from income or salary, excluding job-necessary allowances. He further claimed his net income was insufficient for his personal expenses and existing obligations, and that AAA shared the responsibility of support. Edward also disputed their son's alleged monthly expenses as excessive, maintaining that P10,500.00 was sufficient, and argued that AAA was estopped from claiming proceeds from the car sale due to the passage of time. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions, but modified the Permanent Protection Order to clarify the directives for support and accounting.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering petitioner Edward Cumigad y De Castro and his employer to withhold and deduct one-third of everything that he receives, including allowances, and to automatically remit the amount to respondent AAA. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering petitioner Edward Cumigad y De Castro to account for the sale of the vehicles.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' April 27, 2015 Decision and July 30, 2015 Resolution are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The Regional Trial Court's May 15, 2014 Permanent Protection Order is AMENDED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue regarding the deduction of support: The Court held that Section 8(g) of Republic Act No. 9262 requires the employer to deduct an "appropriate percentage of the income or salary" of the offender. The use of the disjunctive "or" indicates that the court may choose between the offender's salary and income from which support should be deducted. Salary was defined as compensation for services rendered, while income encompasses salary, bonuses, allowances, and other benefits. Therefore, allowances and other benefits granted by the employer are included in the computation of "income or salary" for the purpose of determining support under RA 9262. The Court found that the P10,500.00 monthly support previously provided was insufficient given BBB's documented monthly expenses of P60,702.00, and Edward's higher earning capacity. The Court also rejected Edward's claim that his net income was insufficient, noting that AAA had to seek financial assistance from her family and that the support award was proportionate to their respective means. On the second issue regarding the accounting for the sale of vehicles: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that Edward must account for the sale of the commonly owned vehicles. Section 8(k) of Republic Act No. 9262 grants courts the discretion to provide other forms of relief deemed necessary to protect the petitioner. Vehicles are considered household property, and their sale must redound to the benefit of the respondent and her child. The Court found the order for accounting to be proper and reasonable, considering Edward's means and his child's needs.
Main Doctrine
The term "income or salary" under Section 8(g) of Republic Act No. 9262, in the context of ordering an employer to deduct support from an offender's earnings, includes allowances and other benefits, not just basic salary, to ensure sufficient financial support for the victim and her child. Furthermore, an order for the offender to account for the sale of commonly owned vehicles is a proper relief under Section 8(k) of the same Act to protect the victim.