G.R. No. 219715 . December 06, 2021.
EDWARD CUMIGAD Y DE CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. AAA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Spouses Edward Cumigad (petitioner) and AAA (respondent) were married in 2006 and had a child, BBB. In late 2008, respondent discovered petitioner’s extramarital affair, after which petitioner abandoned his family, taking and later selling their commonly owned Toyota Revo. He cohabited with another woman and had two children with her. Petitioner initially provided monthly financial support of P8,500.00, increased to P10,500.00 in 2009. In 2010, petitioner won a Toyota Vios in a raffle and sold it a year later. Respondent, earning a monthly salary of P31,500.00, requested additional support for BBB’s education, which petitioner refused, claiming his support was sufficient given his position as a bank manager with a basic monthly salary of P80,000.00. Petitioner had minimal contact with BBB. Respondent, suffering emotionally, was diagnosed with dysthymia. On December 18, 2012, respondent filed a Petition for a Permanent Protection Order under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), seeking sufficient support and an accounting of the car sales. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition, ordering petitioner to provide sufficient support, directing his employer to deduct one-third of his earnings for remittance, and requiring him to account for the sale of the car. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the support award was excessive, that deductions should only come from his basic salary excluding allowances, that respondent shared the obligation to support their child, that the child’s expenses were inflated, and that respondent was estopped from questioning the car sale.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s Permanent Protection Order, which directed the deduction of one-third of all petitioner’s earnings, including allowances, for spousal and child support, and required an accounting for the sale of community property.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court held that the Permanent Protection Order was properly issued under Republic Act No. 9262 . Petitioner’s acts of abandonment, refusal to provide adequate support, and deprivation of the use and enjoyment of community property constituted economic abuse under the law. The award of support equivalent to one-third of petitioner’s income was deemed just and reasonable, considering his financial means (gross monthly income of P102,000.00), the needs of the child (average monthly expenses of P60,702.00), and respondent’s lesser income (P31,500.00). The Court clarified that “salary or income” under Section 8(g) of Republic Act No. 9262 includes allowances and other benefits, as these form part of an employee’s earnings. The order for petitioner to account for the sale of the Toyota Revo was upheld as the vehicle was part of the absolute community of property, and petitioner failed to prove respondent’s consent to the sale or that she received her share. The Court emphasized that protection orders under Republic Act No. 9262 are intended to safeguard victims from further harm and provide necessary relief, including economic support.