G.R. No. 239215, July 12, 2022
RANDY MICHAEL KNUTSON, ACTING ON BEHALF OF MINOR RHUBY SIBAL KNUTSON, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ELISA R. SARMIENTO-FLORES, IN HER CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 69, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TAGUIG CITY, AND ROSALINA SIBAL KNUTSON, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Randy Michael Knutson, an American citizen, filed a petition under Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) on behalf of his minor daughter, Rhuby, against her mother, respondent Rosalina Sibal Knutson. Randy alleged that Rosalina subjected Rhuby to physical and psychological violence, including pulling her hair, slapping her, and threatening her with a knife. He further claimed Rosalina created a harmful environment by engaging in gambling, drug use, and illicit affairs, often leaving Rhuby with strangers. Randy sought temporary and permanent protection orders and custody of Rhuby.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition. It ruled that RA 9262 does not allow a father to apply for protection orders against the mother of their child. The RTC reasoned that the law defines the offender as a male person (e.g., husband, former husband, or dating partner) and the victim as a woman or her child. Consequently, a mother cannot be considered an “offender” under the law, and a father is not a “woman victim of violence” entitled to its remedies. The RTC relied on the case of Ocampo v. Arcaya-Chua.

ISSUE

Whether a father can file a petition for protection and custody orders under RA 9262 on behalf of a child against the child’s mother.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the RTC order, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that RA 9262 must be interpreted in a gender-neutral manner with respect to the perpetrator when the victim is a child. The law’s primary intent is to address violence committed against women and children. Section 3(a) of RA 9262 explicitly 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.” The phrase “any person” is all-encompassing and is not restricted by the gender-specific relationships enumerated for adult victims. When the victim is the child, the offender can be “any person,” which logically includes the child’s mother.
The Court clarified that the Ocampo precedent, which barred a husband from seeking relief against his wife, is confined to situations where the petitioner is an adult male claiming to be a direct victim. It does not apply when the petition is filed on behalf of a child victim. To rule otherwise would create an absurd and dangerous gap in the law’s protection, leaving a child without recourse under RA 9262 if the abuser is the mother. The law’s provisions on protection and custody orders are precisely designed to safeguard the child’s best interests, which is the paramount consideration. Therefore, Randy, as the father acting on behalf of his abused daughter Rhuby, has the legal standing to invoke RA 9262 to secure protective and custody orders against the mother.