SC to husbands: Your infidelity, unjustified absence, failure to support are grounds for marriage nullity

BY REY G. PANALIGAN

Aug 29, 2024 01:24 PM

  

---

A husband’s “infidelity, failure to give support to his wife and children, and unjustified absence from his family are all indicative that he is not cognizant of the duties and responsibilities of a husband and father.”

Thus, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the marriage in 1984 between the husband, Alfredo, and wife, Leonora, should be voided on the ground of psychological incapacity.

The ruling was contained in a decision that was promulgated last April 17 and posted on the SC’s website – sc.judiciary.gov.ph – on Thursday, Aug. 29 under GR No 242363.  It was written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen. 

The SC decision granted the petition of Leonora as it reversed the rulings issued by both the Court of Appeals (CA) and the regional trial court (RTC).

Case records show that Alfredo and Leonora separated in 1994 after 10 years of marriage.

When Leonora found that Alfredo married another woman, she filed a case for bigamy against her husband.  But the case was archived because Alfredo could not be located.

Alfredo was a police officer.  He was dismissed from the service because of the bigamy case. 

The records also show that Alfredo married another woman in 2000.

Leonora said that Alfredo abandoned his family and did not provide any financial support.

She underwent a psychological evaluation and the psychologist concluded that Alfredo was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations. 

On Dec. 27, 2017, the RTC dismissed the nullity of marriage case filed by Leonora. The trial court ruled that the pieces of evidence presented to prove Alfredo’s subsequent marriages were insufficient.

The RTC said that assuming Alfredo had two subsequent marriages, it also establishes infidelity which is sufficient to prove psychological incapacity.

It also said that there should be other circumstances and situations showing Alfredo's actions and inactions to show his aberrant attitudes and behavioral patterns demonstrating his total personality and his psychological illness.

When Leonora’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC, she appealed before the CA which, in effect, affirmed the trial court’s ruling due to a technicality.  She then elevated her case to the SC.

The SC said:

“Based on the facts, respondent (Alfredo) left his family in 1994 and appears to have contracted marriage several times, with different women. He never gave financial support to his children and only visited them once, for less than an hour. These indicate that respondent did not understand his obligations as a husband and father. 

“To restate, the gravity of respondent's personality disorder is shown by his lack of recognition that he has responsibilities to his wife and children. His personality disorder appears to have been fostered by how he was raised by his family as ‘he was deprived of appropriate parental supervision and guidance’ and ‘his parents' lenient and tolerable attitude encouraged him to become extremely assertive.’  This shows that there is juridical antecedence. His psychological incapacity developed during his formative years and existed prior to his marriage to petitioner (Leonora).

“The incurability of respondent's personality disorder was also explained by the psychologist when he stated in his judicial affidavit that those who are diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder  ‘strongly deny that they are mentally ill, reject the idea of seeking professional help and therefore refuse any form of psychiatric treatment.’

“Accordingly, the Petition is granted. The May 31, 2018 and Oct. 2, 2018 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 155807 are reversed and set aside. The marriage of petitioner Leonora… and private respondent Alfredo… is void on the ground of psychological incapacity. So ordered.”

Philippine Constitution ‘recognizes women’

BY REY G. PANALIGAN

Mar 5, 2024 01:01 PM 

The Philippines’ 1987 Constitution did better than the Constitutions of other countries in recognizing women.

“Our Constitution has done better because we have in Article 2, Section 14, the wording that the state shall ensure not only a passive act, the fundamental equality before the law of women and men,” said Acting Chief Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen in an inspiration speech at the start of the judiciary’s celebration of Women’s Month this March.

“The order of women and men rather than men and women is a conscious decision of the Constitutional Commission when it wrote the Constitution,” Leonen pointed out.

Section 14, Article 2 of the Constitution states: “The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.”

The judiciary, led by the SC, started its celebration of Women’s Month last Monday, March 4, during its flag-raising ceremony.

In his message, Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, co-chairperson of the SC’s Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary (CGRJ), said that “out of nearly 2,000 judges, 55 percent are women -- a testament to our commitment to inclusivity, meritocracy, and diversity.”

Lopez said that it would also give so much benefit to have more female magistrates in the SC. “I know that this would no longer be a distant reality because we have Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Maria Filomena D. Singh trailblazing a path towards an even more diverse court,” he said. Justices Javier and Singh are the only two female jurists in the 15-member SC.

Reacting to Lopez’s statement, Javier said the 13 other SC justices never once made them feel diminished. They are “all progressive men, [who] always heard, respected, and listened to our voices.”

Lopez said “the increasing trend to appoint more and more women to appellate court positions is also very promising.”  However, he emphasized that “the participation of women in nation-building remains an area that needs stronger advocacy and support.”

Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, co-chair of the CGRJ, acknowledged the Court’s consistent efforts in supporting women's month and helping realize the lofty ambitions it aims to achieve.

He cited the five-year Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 or the SPJI. “As a core principle in the SPJI, the Court intends to pursue efforts that would ultimately further its desire to foster a culture of inclusivity,” he pointed out.

He also cited the theme of the Women’s Month 2024: “WE for Gender Equality and Inclusive Society.” He pointed out that the “’WE’ stands for women and everyone.”

“This means that all of us are called to contribute to nation-building and that it is only through our collective efforts that we can truly achieve an inclusive society,” he said.

Justice Javier emphasized that “Gender Equality and Inclusive Society is the Court delivering justice on behalf of women and children who are victims of violence as it is you encouraging your wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and the women in your lives to pursue their personal goals and dreams.”

“It is women and men enjoying equal rights and privileges under the law as it is all of us consciously using gender-fair language, observing gender-fair etiquette, and abandoning gender stereotypes in all our dealings, especially in the Court,” she added. 
Acting Chief Justice Leonen (Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo is on official leave of absence) congratulated the CGRJ’s efforts.

“Sooner or later, I hope that we can graduate from gender responsiveness to gender justice,” Leonen said.

Also, in line with the SC’s celebration of Women’s Month, officials and employees were encourage to wear purple office attire on all Mondays of the month of March.

Earlier, during the flag ceremony at the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice Singh rallied the country’s women “to never give up and speak up for your rights and for what you believe that you deserve.”

“Needless to say, a woman does not have to be a particular advocate of feminism or women’s rights. By birth right, kailangan tinataguyod natin ang isa’t isa (we need to promote or endorse each other),” she said.

 

SC: Lawyers are guardians of law to serve people

BY REY G. PANALIGAN

Jul 10, 2023 05:42 PM

  

---

The country’s lawyers, “regardless of the roles they play, are first and foremost the guardians of law and officers of the court who are called to serve the people,” the Supreme Court (SC) declared.

Through Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC also reminded lawyers that “public service takes precedence over any monetary consideration.”

Gaerlan was guest speaker during the recent induction of the board of officers of the La Union chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and welcome rites for new members of the bench and the bar.

In his message, Justice Gaerlan said that lawyering “is a lifelong calling that constitutes our very core as human beings.”

In a press statement, the SC’s public information office (PIO) said that Gaerlan reminded IBP members “the importance of the Code of Responsibility for Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which replaced the 34-year-old Code of Professional Responsibility.”

It said that Gaerlan described that the CPRA -- which is “a more comprehensive and responsive guide on the conduct of lawyers in their interactions with clients, colleagues, courts, agencies, and society in general -- is in line with the SC’s initiative to promote ethical responsibility as a component in accomplishing one of its targeted outcomes of efficiency under the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022 to 2027.”

Those present during the affair in Bauang, La Union reaffirmed their commitment as they recited the revised Lawyer’s Oath, the PIO also said.

Gaerlan, who is the vice-chairperson of the SC’s sub-committee for the revision of the old CPR, reiterated that the SC remains steadfast in its commitment to promote ethical responsibility as he called on the IBP’s cooperation in upholding the integrity of the legal profession.

He also reminded those appointed to the courts that “they are held to higher standards of conduct in the performance of their duties and even in their daily personal lives.”

SC sets work skeds for courts in areas under Covid-19 Alert Levels 1 and 2

BY REY G. PANALIGAN

  

---

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered a 50 to 75 percent workforce from April 25 to April 30 in courts in areas under Covid-19 Alert Levels 1 and 2 as identified by the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF).

In a circular, Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva said that while face-to-face hearings “are given priority,” trial court judges are allowed to conduct fully remote video conferencing for court proceedings for at least three times a week.

With clearance from Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, Villanueva said that courts are physically open starting at 8 a.m., Saturday duty and night courts are not allowed, and pleadings and other documents may be filed or served through registered mail or through accredited couriers.

“All health and safety protocols against Covid-19 prescribed by the Court and the Office of the Court Administration (OCA), as well as those required by the IATF and the Department of Health, shall be complied with whatever is the Alert Level of a particular area,” Villanueva also said in his circular to judges.

Also, he said that “court personnel who are not scheduled to report to the court/office shall be considered under a work-from-home arrangement, wherein their official time for work will be in accordance with what is prescribed in OCA Circular No. 09-2015.”

Those working from home should make sure that their communication lines are always open, he also said.

Based on IATF, the OCA said areas under Alert Level 1 in Luzon are National Capital Region (NCR); Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR): Abra, Apayao, Kalinga, Mountain Province, Baguio City, Benguet (Buguias, Sablan and Tublay), Ifugao (Alfonso Lista [Potia], Kiangan, Lagawe, Lamut);

Region 1: Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union, Pangasinan, Dagupan City; Region 2: Batanes, Cagayan, Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, City of Santiago; Region 3: Aurora, Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales, Angeles City, Olongapo City;

Region 4A: Batangas, Cavite, Laguna, Rizal, Lucena City, Quezon Province (Alabat, Atimonan, Candelaria, City of Tayabas, Dolores, Gumaca, Lucban, Mauban, Padre Burgos, Pagbilao, Perez, Plaridel, Polillo, Quezon,.Sampaloc, San Antonio, Sariaya, Tiaong, Unisan);

Region 4B: Marinduque, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental Mindoro, Romblon, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan (Cagayancillo, Culion, El Nido [Bacuit], Kalayaan); and, Region 5: Albay, Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Sorsogon, Naga City, Camarines Norte (Basud, Capalonga, Daet, San Vicente, Talisay), Masbate (Balud, Batuan, City of Masbate, Mandaon, Milagros, San Fernando).

In the Visayas, areas under Alert Level 1 Region 6: Aklan, Capiz, Guimaras, Iloilo Province, Bacolod City, Iloilo City; Antique (Anini-y, Barbaza, San Jose, Sebaste, Tobias Fornier [Dao]), Negros Occidental (Cadiz City, Candoni, City of Himamaylan, City of Talisay, City of Victorias, Enrique B. Magalona [Saravia], Ilog, La Carlota City, Murcia, Ponteverde, Pulupandan, Sagay City, San Enrique, Silay City, Valladolid);

Region 7: Siquijor, Cebu City, Lapu-Lapu City, Mandaue City, Bohol (Alburquerque, Balilihan, Batuan, Calape, Corella, Dimiao, Duero, Garcia Hernandez, Jagna, Lila, Loay, Loboc, Maribojoc, Pres. Carlos P. Garcia [Pitogo], San Isidro, San Miguel, Sevilla, Sikatuna, Tagbilaran City), Cebu Province (Alboy, Borbon, City of Naga, City of Talisay, Oslob, Pilar, Poro, Santander, Tudela), Negros Oriental (Amlan [Ayuquitan], Bacong, Dauin, Dumaguete City, Valencia Luzurriaga], Zamboanguita);

Region 8: Biliran, Eastern Samar, Northern Samar, Southern Leyte, Ormoc City, Tacloban City, Leyte (Abuyog, Albuera, Bato, Barugo, City of Baybay, Dulag, Hindang, Inopacan, Javier [Bugho], La Paz, Leyte, Matag-ob, Matalom, Palo, Pastrana, Tabontabon, Tunga, Villaba), Samar [Western Samar] (City of Catbalogan, marabut, Mpotiong, Pagsanghan, Paranas [Wright], San Sebastian, Talalora, Tarangnan, Zumarraga).

In Mindanao, areas under Alert Level 1 are: Region 9: Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga Sibugay, City of Isabela, Zamboanga City;

Region 10: Bukidnon, Camiguin, Misamis Occidental, Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte (Bacolod, Baroy, Kauswagan, Kolambugan, Lala Linamon, Tubod);

Region 11: Davao Oriental, Davao City, Davao de Oro (Mawab, Montevista, Nabunturan, New Bataan), Davao del Norte (Braulio E. Dujali, Island Garden City of Samal, Santo Tomas), Davao del Sur (Padada), Davao Occidental (Don Marcelino, Malita, Santa Maria);

Region 12: South Cotabato, General Santos City, Cotabato [North Cotabato] (Antipas, Arakan, City of Kidapawan, Kabacan, President Roxas), Sarangani (Maitum), Sultan Kudarat (Bagumbayan, City of Tacurong, Kalamansig, Lebak, President Quirino);

Region 13 (CARAGA): Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur, Butuan City, Dinagat Islands (Cagdianao, Dinagat, Libjo [Albor], Loreto, Tubajon);

Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM): Lanao del Sur, Cotabato City, Maguindano (South Upi, Upi), Sulu (Hadji Panglima Tahil [Marunggas]; and Tawi-Tawi (Turtle Islands).

Areas under Alert Level 2, except in provinces where certain cities or municipalities have been placed under Alert Level 1, are Luzon: Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR): Benguet, Ifugao;

Region 4A: Quezon Province; Region 4B: Palawan; and, Region 5: Camarines Norte, Masbate.

In the Visayas, areas under Alert Level 2 are Region 6: Antique, Negros Occidental; Region 7: Bohol, Cebu Province, Negros Oriental; and, Region 8: Leyte, Samar [Western Samar].

In Mindanao, under Alert Level 2 are Region 10: Lanao del Norte; Region 11: Davao de Oro, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Occidental; Region 12: Cotabato [North Cotabato], Sultan Kudarat; and,
Region 13 (CARAGA): Dinagat Islands; and, Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM): Basilan, Maguindanao, Sulu; Tawi-Tawi.

SC: Senior citizens’ 20% discount covers funeral, burial expenses

BY REY G. PANALIGAN

Mar 16, 2023 

  

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the statutorily mandated 20 percent discount for senior citizens covers funeral and burial expenses.

The mandatory discount is provided for under Republic Act No. 7432, the Senior Citizens Act of 1992, as amended by RA Nos. 9257 and 9994 which expanded the coverage of the discount.

A copy of the SC decision, written by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, was not available as of posting.  The SC’s public information office (PIO) issued a summary of the decision.

In ruling that funeral and burial services are covered by the 20 percent discount, the PIO said that the SC “emphasized that the Senior Citizens Act is a law created to grant a bundle of benefits in favor of senior citizens or those at least 60 years old, giving flesh to the declared policy of motivating senior citizens to contribute to nation building and encouraging their families and communities to reaffirm the Filipino tradition of caring for the senior citizens.”

The PIO said “the SC noted that both RA 9257 and RA 9994, in amending RA 7432, do not provide for an exact definition of the term ‘funeral and burial services.’”

“Notably, the said laws likewise do not limit the scope of the services falling under ‘funeral and burial services,’” it said.

It said that “the Court added that as pointed out by Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier in her Concurring Opinion that it would be unreasonable to infer that Congress intended to differentiate between the deceased’s final solace for the purpose of granting the 20% discount absent a clear legislative intent to the contrary.”

“The Court said that based on the definition of the term ‘burial’ as it is commonly understood, ‘burial service’ pertains to any service offered or provided in connection with the final disposition, entombment, or interment of human remains,” the PIO said.

Thus, the PIO said “the SC held that it follows that burial services necessarily include interment services, such as digging the land for the deceased person’s grave, its concreting, and other services being done during the actual burial.”

“This conclusion, said the Court, was supported by the IRRs (Implementing Rules and Regulations) which prescribe the guidelines in the application of the 20% discount on funeral and burial services in that a comparison of the IRRs of RA 9257 and RA 9994 shows that the two are substantially the same,” it said.

“The exception is that Section 6 of the IRR of RA 9994 expounded on the term ‘other related services’ by including a sample list of ‘services’ and excluding obituary publication and cost of memorial plot,” it also said.

But the PIO said: “The Court ruled that the enumeration in Section 6 is not exclusive. It stressed that the phrase ‘other related services’ does not refer only to the enumerated examples so as to exclude interment services.

“The Court maintained that this interpretation was in keeping with the policies and objectives of the law, particularly of RA 9994 which echoes Section 4, Article XV of the Constitution declaring that it is the duty of the family to take care of its elderly members while the state may design programs of social security for them,” it said.

The SC decision granted the petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

The petition challenged the 2018 ruling of the Cagayan de Oro City regional trial court (RTC) which excluded funeral and burial services from the coverage of the senior citizens’ discount.

The RTC ruling was handed down on the case filed by Pryce Corporation, Inc., a firm engaged in the business of selling memorial lots and offering interment services.  The firm claimed that interment service is not among the services entitled to the 20 percent senior citizens’ discount.

The RTC ruled that the IRR of RA 9994 only mentioned the services of purchase of casket or urn, embalming, hospital morgue, and transport of the body to the intended burial site.

Specifically, the RTC held that the digging of land for the grave of the deceased, the concreting of the gravesite, and the other services done during the actual burial are not subject to the discount.

In granting the government’s petition, the PIO said “the Court found that the exclusion by the RTC of interment services from the coverage of the 20 percent senior citizen discount is not provided under the law, and that the IRR, which does not explicitly exclude interment services, cannot be interpreted to support the lower court’s Resolution.”

The SC stressed that “a law cannot be amended by a mere regulation, and the administrative agency issuing the regulation may not enlarge, alter, or restrict the provisions of the law it administers,” the PIO also said in its summary.

It said the SC’s decision on the petition, docketed as Republic vs. Pryce Corporation, Inc. under GR No. 243133, will be uploaded at its website – sc.judiciary.gov.ph – once available.