SC: Financial support not solely husband’s duty

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a husband’s failure or inability to provide financial support to his wife does not automatically lead to his criminal prosecution for violation of the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act.

In a decision written by Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC ruled that under the law – in this case, Republic Act 9262 – the obligation to provide support is imposed “mutually upon both spouses” and is not a “one-way street for the husband to support his wife.”

The decision added that the wife has an “identical obligation” to provide support to her husband as the law “did not intend to impose a heavier burden on the husband to provide support” or “institutionalize criminal prosecution as a measure to enforce support from him.”

This ruling by the SC reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed a trial court’s order in a case that imposed a two- to six-year prison term on a husband for violation of RA 9262.

Records of the case showed that the spouses married in 2002, lived together and rented a house. In 2004, the husband left the country to work as a seafarer and initially remitted part of his monthly salary to his wife.

But the financial support stopped after a few months as the husband told his wife to live with his parents in the province, which she refused to do. The spouses did not have any children.

For the next 13 years, the spouses did not communicate with each other and the husband did not send any support to the wife, forcing her to work as a freelance massage therapist after her sari-sari store closed permanently.

In 2016, the wife filed the criminal case in court, accusing the husband of violating RA 9262 and stating that he “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit[ted] psychological violence and economic abuse” upon her.

The complaint also stated that by “abandoning her and denying her financial support,” the husband caused “substantial mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to his wife.”

In his defense, the husband testified that he was only forced to marry his wife and admitted that he had stopped sending money to her because his parents had contracted cancer.

He also told the court that he did not inform his wife that he would stop the remittances because he was allegedly traumatized by their frequent fights.

Upon his return to the country in 2007, he worked as an instructor and admitted not contacting his wife or sending her financial support.

In 2017, the trial court convicted the husband and ordered him to pay a fine of P100,000 and to undergo psychological counselling, on top of the prison term.

In 2019, the CA denied the husband’s appeal, ruling that his decision to stop communicating with his wife and providing her financial support “undeniably caused her pain and psychological suffering.”

It said that even if the husband has claimed that he was only forced to marry his wife, he still had the marital obligation to “render love and support to her.”

This led the husband to challenge the CA decision before the SC.

Based on the SC decision, the wife never tried to reach out to her husband or ask him to provide her financial support, either.

“The fact that she did not do anything whatsoever to get support prior to filing this criminal case casts serious doubt on her claim that she needed it,” the SC said, adding that she would have otherwise exerted efforts to obtain the support from her husband.

The High Court also described the CA ruling as “unfair” as it “mistakenly tended to establish a unilateral and not a reciprocal obligation of support between the spouses.”

It said the CA decision was based on the “erroneous presumption that the wife was dependent solely on the husband to provide her with a dignified life.”

Furthermore, the SC dubbed as “dubious” the wife’s intentions in immediately filing a criminal case before attempting to obtain financial support.