G.R. No. 193225 February 9, 2015
BBB, Petitioner, vs. AAA, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner BBB and respondent AAA were married in 2002 after a relationship that began in 1996. AAA had a child, CCC, from a previous relationship, and together they had two children, DDD and EEE. Their relationship was tumultuous. AAA alleged that BBB was incessantly womanizing, had a mistress named FFF who publicly humiliated her, and that BBB treated CCC differently from their biological children. She also claimed BBB stalked her and the children, failed to pay rentals forcing her to move out, and was remiss in his financial support, compelling her to work and borrow money. BBB alleged that AAA’s irrational jealousy caused their arguments and that he left the family home to avoid animosity. AAA filed for a Protection Order under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) and later a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) against BBB, which included prohibitions against abuse, granted AAA sole custody of the children, ordered BBB to provide monthly support, pay attorney’s fees, and post a peace bond. BBB appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s findings of psychological, emotional, and economic abuse but remanded the issue of custody for proper determination as the children were over seven years old. BBB filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA committed error in affirming the RTC’s decision to make the TPO permanent.
2. Whether the CA committed error in affirming the RTC’s award of attorney’s fees and cost of litigation in favor of AAA.
3. Whether the CA committed error in affirming the RTC’s order requiring BBB to post an excessive amount of bond to keep the peace.
4. Whether the CA and the RTC correctly admitted into evidence the unauthenticated text messages adduced by AAA.
5. Whether the award of support should be deleted as the spouses’ common biological children, DDD and EEE, are already under BBB’s actual care and custody since August 2010 when AAA left to work as a nurse in the United States.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed CA Decision and Resolution with MODIFICATION regarding custody and support.
1. On the PPO: The Court found no error. The RTC and CA’s factual findings that BBB committed acts constituting psychological, emotional, and economic violence under R.A. 9262 were supported by evidence. BBB’s acts of marital infidelity, public humiliation, verbal abuse, differential treatment of CCC, stalking, and failure to provide adequate support constituted violence under the law. The PPO was proper.
2. On Attorney’s Fees and Costs: The award was proper. Attorney’s fees are recoverable when a party is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect its interest, as provided in the Civil Code. BBB’s acts forced AAA to seek judicial protection.
3. On the Peace Bond: The order for BBB to post a ₱300,000 bond was proper. Section 23 of R.A. 9262 authorizes the court to require a bond to keep the peace, with the amount based on the court’s discretion considering the circumstances to ensure compliance.
4. On the Text Messages: The Court did not rule directly on admissibility in this resolution but noted that factual findings of the lower courts on the evidence are generally binding. BBB’s challenge to the text messages was a factual issue not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition.
5. On Custody and Support: The Court modified the CA’s decision. Regarding custody, the CA correctly ordered a remand to the RTC to determine custody, considering the children were over seven years old, pursuant to Article 213 of the Family Code. Regarding support, the obligation to provide support is demandable from the time AAA needed it for sustenance. The fact that AAA later worked abroad and BBB had actual custody of DDD and EEE did not automatically extinguish his support obligation. The RTC must determine the current support needs based on the children’s best interests and the parties’ current circumstances. BBB’s support obligation to CCC, his legitimated child, remained.
The PPO was upheld, and the case was remanded to the RTC for determination of custody and support in light of current circumstances.