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

FACTS

Spouses Edward Cumigad and AAA were married in 2006 and had a child, BBB. In late 2008, AAA discovered Edward’s extramarital affair with his former girlfriend. Edward then abandoned AAA and their newborn child, taking and later selling their commonly owned Toyota Revo. He cohabited with his paramour and had two children with her. Edward provided monthly financial support for BBB, initially P8,500.00, increased to P10,500.00 in 2009. In 2010, Edward won a Toyota Vios in a raffle and sold it a year later. AAA, earning a monthly salary of P31,500.00, requested additional support for BBB’s education, but Edward refused, claiming his existing support was sufficient despite his position as a bank manager with a basic monthly salary of P80,000.00 excluding bonuses and allowances. Edward had minimal contact with BBB. AAA, emotionally affected, was diagnosed with dysthymia. On December 18, 2012, AAA filed a Petition for a Permanent Protection Order under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), praying for sufficient support and an accounting of the sale of the cars. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition, ordering Edward to provide sufficient support to AAA and their son, directing his employer to deduct and remit one-third of everything he receives, and requiring him to account for the sale of the car belonging to the community property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order. Edward filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the support award was excessive, that only his basic salary should be subject to deduction (excluding allowances), that AAA shared the responsibility of support, that BBB’s expenses were excessive, and that AAA was estopped from questioning the car sale.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s Permanent Protection Order, specifically: (1) in directing the deduction of one-third of everything petitioner receives, including allowances, as support; (2) in determining the amount of support as excessive and unreasonable; and (3) in ordering petitioner to account for the sale of the commonly owned vehicle.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court held that:
1. Economic abuse under Republic Act No. 9262 includes deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial support. Edward’s acts of abandoning his family, refusing to provide adequate support, and depriving them of the use and enjoyment of community property constituted economic abuse, warranting the issuance of a Permanent Protection Order.
2. The award of support equivalent to one-third of petitioner’s income is proper. Support includes everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation. The amount of support is based on the needs of the recipient and the resources of the obligor. Given Edward’s substantial income (monthly gross of P102,000.00) and BBB’s needs (average monthly expenses of P60,702.00), the award is reasonable. Allowances form part of income and are included in the computation of support.
3. The order for the employer to deduct and remit the support is in accordance with Section 8(g) of Republic Act No. 9262 . The law authorizes the court to direct the offender’s employer to withhold a percentage of the offender’s income or salary for support.
4. Petitioner is ordered to account for the sale of the Toyota Revo. The vehicle, acquired during the marriage, is part of the absolute community property. Edward failed to prove AAA’s consent to the sale or that she received her share of the proceeds. His obligation to account for community property subsists.
5. The separate criminal case for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 does not bar the petition for a protection order. A petition for a protection order is independent of any criminal action and may be granted based on preponderance of evidence.