People v. Xxx
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner XXX was charged with violation of Section 5(e)(2) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) for committing economic abuse by deliberately depriving his wife AAA and their child BBB of financial support to control his wife's conduct. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and ordered him to pay a fine, undergo counseling, and provide monthly support of PHP 15,000.00 to AAA and BBB, including unpaid accumulated support from March 2013. Procedural History: Petitioner moved for partial reconsideration of the RTC Decision regarding his civil liability, citing unemployment and inability to pay support. The RTC denied the motion. Petitioner appealed the civil aspect to the Court of Appeals (CA). Meanwhile, AAA filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution Pending Appeal for both future and accumulated support. The CA partially granted the motion, allowing execution pending appeal only for future monthly support of PHP 15,000.00, citing Rule 39, Section 2 of the Rules of Court and finding that dire financial need was not a sufficient reason for executing support in arrears. The CA later denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner assailed the CA Resolutions before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion. He argued that the CA erred in applying Rule 39, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, that an action for support is not automatically included in a VAWC case, that the support awarded was based on a contract, that his financial capacity had diminished, and that the civil liability was subject to his appeal. He also sought a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting private respondent's motion for execution pending appeal insofar as it ordered petitioner to pay future monthly support. Whether judgments for support in cases involving Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) are immediately executory and enforceable pending appeal.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated May 31, 2021, and April 18, 2022, in CA-G.R. CV No. 114839, are affirmed as to the partial grant of the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution Pending Appeal filed by AAA.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in granting execution pending appeal for future support: The Court held that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The CA correctly identified that execution pending appeal requires three conditions: a motion, a good reason, and the reason stated in a special order. While the CA initially cited Rule 39, Section 2, the Court clarified that judgments for support in VAWC cases are immediately executory under A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC and Rule 39, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. These provisions do not require a "good reason" for execution pending appeal, unlike Rule 39, Section 2, because such judgments are declared immediately executory. The RTC's award of support, being a relief under Section 11(h) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, is akin to a protection order and thus falls under Rule 39, Section 4, which mandates immediate enforceability and non-stay by appeal unless otherwise ordered by the trial court. On the issue of whether judgments for support in VAWC cases are immediately executory: The Court affirmed that judgments for support in VAWC cases are immediately executory. Section 8 of RA 9262 provides for protection orders, including directing the respondent to provide support. Section 22 of RA 9262 makes these provisions applicable to criminal cases involving VAWC, and the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted. Furthermore, A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, the "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children," explicitly states in Sections 30 and 31 that judgments granting permanent protection orders and other reliefs, including support, shall be immediately executory, and appeals shall not stay their enforcement. This is consistent with Rule 39, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, which declares judgments for support as immediately executory. The CA's partial grant of execution pending appeal for future support was therefore proper, as it aligns with the immediate executory nature of such awards in VAWC cases.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in partially granting the motion for execution pending appeal for future support, as judgments awarding support in cases involving Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) are immediately executory under A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC and Rule 39, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, although the appellate court may, in its discretion, suspend or modify such awards.