[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":313},["ShallowReactive",2],{"case-digest-all":3},[4],{"id":5,"title":6,"author":7,"author_name":8,"body":9,"category":286,"cover":287,"date_created":291,"date_updated":291,"description":292,"draft":293,"excerpt":288,"extension":294,"featured":293,"meta":295,"navigation":296,"path":297,"read_time":298,"seo":299,"seo_description":300,"seo_title":301,"slug":302,"stem":303,"tags":304,"__hash__":312},"caseDigest\u002F001-father-file-vawc-case-child-abused-by-mother.md","Fathers may File Case on Behalf of Abused Children against Abusive Mothers","john-rey-roxas-codilla","Atty. John Rey Roxas Codilla",{"type":10,"value":11,"toc":269},"minimark",[12,32,35,40,43,46,55,58,70,75,90,93,97,100,104,109,113,120,124,136,143,149,155,160,163,168,172,175,184,188,194,212,221,228,231,235,240,248,251,256,260],[13,14,15,16,20,21,27,28,31],"p",{},"The Supreme Court ",[17,18,19],"em",{},"En Banc"," in the case of ",[22,23,24],"strong",{},[17,25,26],{},"Randy Michael Knutson, acting on behalf of minor Rhuby Sibal Knutson, v. Hon. Ludyson Catubag and Rosalina Sibal Knutson (G.R. No. 239215, 12 July 2022),"," penned by Justice Mario V. Lopez, made an emphasis that mothers who abuse their children can be offenders under the ",[17,29,30],{},"Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act",", and fathers can apply for remedies under the law on behalf of the abused children.",[13,33,34],{},"The Court stressed that Republic Act No. 9262 of the VAC Act allows the father to apply for protection and custody orders against the mother who is alleged to have committed violence against their child. Logically, a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under RA No. 9262 is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children.",[36,37,39],"h2",{"id":38},"i-factual-backdrop","I. FACTUAL BACKDROP",[13,41,42],{},"In 2005, Randy Michael Knutson (Randy), an American citizen, met Rosalina Sibal Knutson (Rosalina) in Singapore. They got married and had a daughter named Rhuby Sibal Knutson (Rhuby). However, Randy and Rosalina became estranged after he discovered her extra-marital affairs. Anyhow, Randy supported Rosalina and Rhuby.",[13,44,45],{},"Thereafter, Rosalina got hooked in casinos, spent weeks in gambling dens and left Rhuby under the care of strangers, incurred large debts from casino financiers prompting her to sell the house and lot, condominium unit, and vehicles that Randy provided for the family. Rosalina then rented an apartment and got herself a boyfriend. Randy advised Rosalina to be discreet in her illicit affairs because it is not good for Rhuby to see her mother with another man.",[13,47,48],{},[22,49,50,51],{},"Later, Randy discovered that Rosalina maltreated her own mother in Rhuby's presence. ",[52,53,54],"u",{},"Rosalina also hurt Rhuby by pulling her hair, slapping her face and knocking her head. One time, Rosalina pointed a knife at Rhuby and threatened to kill her. Rosalina even texted Randy about her plan to kill their daughter and commit suicide.",[13,56,57],{},"Randy reported the matter to the police station but the authorities explained that they cannot assist him in domestic issues. Afterwards, Rosalina sent Randy her naked pictures with a message that he would not see that body again. Meantime, the neighbors of Rosalina complained about noisy parties and pot sessions in her apartment. The lessor even terminated the lease after marijuana plants were confiscated in the premises.",[13,59,60,61,64,65],{},"In 2017, ",[22,62,63],{},"Randy, on behalf of minor Rhuby, filed against Rosalina a petition under RA No. 9262 for the issuance of Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders (TPPO)"," before RTC-Taguig. ",[22,66,67],{},[52,68,69],{},"Randy averred that Rosalina placed Rhuby in a harmful environment deleterious to her physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development.",[71,72,74],"h3",{"id":73},"a-rtcs-dismissal-of-the-petition","A. RTC'S DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION",[13,76,77,80,81,86,87],{},[22,78,79],{},"RTC dismissed the petition explaining that protection and custody orders in RA No. 9262 cannot be issued against a mother who allegedly abused her own child."," The RTC ratiocinated that the child's mother cannot be considered as an offender under the law. Moreover, the remedies are not available to the father because he is not a \"woman victim of violence\". The lower court cited the ruling in ",[22,82,83],{},[17,84,85],{},"Ocampo v. Arcaya-Chua (633 Phil. 79, 2010)"," that a ",[22,88,89],{},"protection order cannot be issued in favor of a husband against his wife.",[13,91,92],{},"Randy moved for a reconsideration and argued that RA No. 9262 used the term \"any person\" which is not limited to male offenders. The law must be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children. The RTC subsequently denied Randy's motion. The lower court reasoned that the provision of the law does not apply to a situation where it was the mother herself who had committed violent and abusive acts against her own child.",[71,94,96],{"id":95},"b-the-petition-for-certiorari-before-the-supreme-court","B. THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT",[13,98,99],{},"Randy directly filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in dismissing the application for protection and custody orders. Randy contended that he availed of these remedies on behalf of his daughter, who is a victim of violence in the hands of her own mother. Furthermore, Randy maintained that RA No. 9262 does not limit the offender to a male person and the legislative intent is to provide all possible protection to children.",[36,101,103],{"id":102},"ii-issue","II. ISSUE",[13,105,106],{},[17,107,108],{},"May Randy, on behalf of his daughter Rhuby, apply for protection and custody orders against the mother Rosalina who is alleged to have committed violence against their child?",[36,110,112],{"id":111},"iii-supreme-court-ruling","III. SUPREME COURT RULING",[13,114,115],{},[22,116,117],{},[52,118,119],{},"YES. RANDY, ON BEHALF OF HIS DAUGHTER RHUBY, MAY APPLY FOR PROTECTION AND CUSTODY ORDERS AGAINST THE MOTHER ROSALINA WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED VIOLENCE AGAINST THEIR CHILD.",[71,121,123],{"id":122},"a-ra-no-9262-allows-the-father-of-the-offended-party-to-apply-for-protection-and-custody-orders","A. RA No. 9262 allows the father of the offended party to apply for protection and custody orders",[13,125,126,127,132,133],{},"In ",[22,128,129],{},[17,130,131],{},"Garcia v. Drilon (712 Phil. 44, 2013)",", the Court stressed that the offended parties under the law are inarguably only women and children. It pointed out that the Congress excluded men as victims under RA No. 9262. The legislative intent is to limit the protection against violence to women and children only. The classification rests on substantial distinctions because women and children are vulnerable victims of abuse compared to men. The difference in treatment is consistent with the declared policy of the law to value the dignity of women and children, and protect them from violence and threats to their personal safety and security. ",[22,134,135],{},"In that case, the Court likewise upheld the constitutionality of the remedies of protection and custody orders to prevent further acts of violence committed by the offender against women and their children.",[13,137,138],{},[22,139,140],{},[52,141,142],{},"Nevertheless, it is improper to conclude that the law denies a father of these remedies solely because of his gender or that he is not a \"woman victim of violence\".",[13,144,145,148],{},[22,146,147],{},"Section 9 (b) of RA No. 9262"," explicitly allows \"parents or guardians of the offended party\" to file a petition for protection orders. The exact provision was incorporated in Section 12 (b) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9262 and Section 8 (b) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC or the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children.",[13,150,151,154],{},[22,152,153],{},"The statute categorically used the word \"parents\" which pertains to the father and the mother of the woman or child victim."," Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non Indiget. The law speaks in clear language and no explanation is required. There is no occasion for the Court to interpret but only to apply the law when it is not ambiguous.",[13,156,157],{},[22,158,159],{},"Similarly, the statute did not qualify on who between the parents of the victim may apply for protection orders. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus. When the law does not distinguish, the courts must not distinguish.",[13,161,162],{},"In any event, A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC states that the Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory manner to petitions for protection orders. Under Section 5, Rule 3 of Rules of Court, \"a minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem\".",[13,164,165],{},[22,166,167],{},"In this case, Randy, acting on behalf of minor Rhuby, who allegedly experienced violence and abuse brought the petition before the court. Thus, Randy may assist Rhuby in filing the petition as the parent of the offended party.",[71,169,171],{"id":170},"b-the-ruling-in-ocampo-v-arcaya-chua-is-inapplicable-in-this-case","B. The ruling in Ocampo v. Arcaya-Chua is inapplicable in this case.",[13,173,174],{},"Contrary to the RTC's theory, the ruling in Ocampo is inapplicable. In that case, respondent judge issued a protection order directing the common law wife to stay away from her common law husband's house and office. Respondent judge also granted the father provisional custody of his minor daughter. The Investigating Justice found that the protection order is justified with respect to the minor daughter but not to the common law husband. Under the law, a protection order cannot be issued in favor of the husband against the wife.",[13,176,177],{},[22,178,179,180,183],{},"Here, ",[52,181,182],{},"Randy is not asking for a protection order in his favor",". As intimated, Randy filed the petition on behalf of their minor daughter Rhuby. The petition is principally and directly for the protection of the minor child and not the father.",[71,185,187],{"id":186},"c-ra-no-9262-covers-a-situation-where-the-mother-committed-violent-and-abusive-acts-against-her-own-child","C. RA No. 9262 covers a situation where the mother committed violent and abusive acts against her own child.",[13,189,190,193],{},[22,191,192],{},"Section 3(a) of RA 9262"," defines violence against women and their children as \"any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.\"",[13,195,196,197],{},"The law criminalizes acts of violence against women and their children perpetrated by women's intimate partners, i.e., husband; former husband; or any person who has or had sexual or dating relationship with the woman, or with whom the woman has a common child. ",[22,198,199,200,203,204,207,208,211],{},"However, the Court in ",[17,201,202],{},"Garcia"," emphasized that the law ",[52,205,206],{},"does not single out the husband or father as the culprit",". The statute used the ",[52,209,210],{},"gender-neutral word \"person\""," as the offender which embraces any person of either sex. The offender may also include other persons who conspired to commit the violence.",[13,213,214,215,220],{},"Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word \"person\" who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships. Moreover, while the law provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Thus, in the case of ",[22,216,217],{},[17,218,219],{},"Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan (588 Phil. 532, 2008),"," the parents-in-law of Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan, the victim, were held to be proper respondents in the case filed by the latter upon the allegation that they and their son (Go-Tan's husband) had community of design and purpose in tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring her to be ejected from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally and physically.",[13,222,223],{},[22,224,225],{},[52,226,227],{},"Logically, a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under RA No. 9262 is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children.",[13,229,230],{},"In this case, however, the RTC dismissed Randy's petition for protection orders on behalf of his minor daughter on the ground that the mother cannot be considered as an offender under the law. To restate, the policy of RA No. 9262 is to guarantee full respect for human rights. Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a party.",[71,232,234],{"id":233},"d-ra-9262-mandates-that-the-law-shall-be-liberally-construed-to-promote-the-protection-and-safety-of-victims-of-violence-against-women-and-their-children","D. RA 9262 mandates that the law \"shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children\".",[13,236,237],{},[22,238,239],{},"Section 4 of RA No. 9262 mandates that the law \"shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children.\"",[13,241,242,243],{},"Obviously, the RTC's restrictive interpretation requiring that the mother and her child to be victims of violence before they may be entitled to the remedies of protection and custody orders will frustrate the policy of the law to afford special attention to women and children as usual victims of violence and abuse. ",[22,244,245],{},[52,246,247],{},"The approach will weaken the law and remove from its coverage instances where the mother herself is the abuser of her child.",[13,249,250],{},"The cramping stance negates not only the plain letters of the law and the clear legislative intent as to who may be offenders but also downgrades the country's avowed international commitment to eliminate all forms of violence against children including those perpetrated by their parents. The RTC's consoling statement that children who suffered abuse from the hands of their own mothers may invoke other laws except RA No. 9262 is discriminatory. The supposed reassurance is an outright denial of effective legal measures to address the seriousness and urgency of the situation. Suffice it to say that only RA No. 9262 created the innovative remedies of protection and custody orders. Other laws have no mechanisms to prevent further acts of violence against the child.",[13,252,253],{},[22,254,255],{},"In sum, the Court refuses to be an instrument of injustice and public mischief perpetrated against vulnerable sectors of the society such as children victims of violence. The Court will not shirk its bounden duty to interpret the law in keeping with the cardinal principle that in enacting a statute, the legislature intended right and justice to prevail.",[36,257,259],{"id":258},"need-legal-guidance-on-vawc-or-child-protection-matters","Need Legal Guidance on VAWC or Child Protection Matters?",[13,261,262,263,268],{},"Codilla Law provides counsel to individuals, families, and businesses navigating complex legal questions across family law, property, criminal defense, contracts, labor, and civil claims.\nSchedule a confidential consultation through this page or send an inquiry to ",[264,265,267],"a",{"href":266},"mailto:contactus@codillalaw.com","contactus@codillalaw.com",".",{"title":270,"searchDepth":271,"depth":271,"links":272},"",2,[273,278,279,285],{"id":38,"depth":271,"text":39,"children":274},[275,277],{"id":73,"depth":276,"text":74},3,{"id":95,"depth":276,"text":96},{"id":102,"depth":271,"text":103},{"id":111,"depth":271,"text":112,"children":280},[281,282,283,284],{"id":122,"depth":276,"text":123},{"id":170,"depth":276,"text":171},{"id":186,"depth":276,"text":187},{"id":233,"depth":276,"text":234},{"id":258,"depth":271,"text":259},"family-law",{"id":288,"filename_download":288,"width":289,"height":290},null,2400,1600,"2026-07-02","The Supreme Court En Banc in the case of Randy Michael Knutson, acting on behalf of minor Rhuby Sibal Knutson, v. Hon. Ludyson Catubag and Rosalina Sibal Knutson (G.R. No. 239215, 12 July 2022), penned by Justice Mario V. Lopez, made an emphasis that mothers who abuse their children can be offenders under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act, and fathers can apply for remedies under the law on behalf of the abused children.",false,"md",{"isPublished":296},true,"\u002F001-father-file-vawc-case-child-abused-by-mother",8,{"title":6,"description":292},"Case digest on Randy Knutson v. Hon. Catubag, where the Supreme Court ruled fathers may seek RA 9262 protection orders for children abused by their mothers.","Case Digest Knutson v. Catubag on RA 9262 and VAWC","father-file-vawc-case-child-abused-by-mother","001-father-file-vawc-case-child-abused-by-mother",[305,306,307,286,308,309,310,311],"vawc","ra-9262","anti-vawc-act","child-protection","protection-orders","knutson-v-catubag","supreme-court","gphTWe0Pz2W8RUJ_SNpo7o524LJbqmuHp2M5Qf7Js54",1783068444957]