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

Randy Michael Knutson, on behalf of his minor daughter Rhuby, filed a petition against the child’s mother, Rosalina Sibal Knutson, under Republic Act No. 9262 (The Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Taguig City. The petition sought the issuance of Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders based on allegations of abuse committed by the mother against her own child. The RTC dismissed the petition, ruling that a protection order under R.A. No. 9262 cannot be issued against a mother for alleged acts against her own child. Aggrieved, Randy filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the RTC’s dismissal order; and (2) Whether a mother can be considered an “offender” under R.A. No. 9262 for alleged violent acts against her own child.

RULING

In his Separate Dissenting Opinion, Chief Justice Gesmundo disagreed with the majority’s grant of the petition. On procedure, he opined that certiorari was an improper remedy because the RTC’s dismissal order was a final order, making an appeal the correct recourse. While appeals on pure questions of law may be taken directly to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition, a petition for certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The Chief Justice noted the majority did not indicate if the petition was filed within the reglementary period for an appeal, a critical jurisdictional point. Although he acknowledged the case presented a novel issue, he maintained that the Court could only treat the certiorari petition as an appeal if it was timely filed.
On the substantive issue, Chief Justice Gesmundo dissented from the majority’s interpretation that R.A. No. 9262 covers a mother as an offender against her own child. A textual analysis of Section 3 of the law defines the violence as acts committed “by any person” against “a woman” with whom he has or had a specified relationship, or “against her child.” The structure of the provision indicates the “child” referred to is the child of the woman victim. The offender is the person who has the relationship with that woman. Therefore, when the child is the offended party, the statute contemplates that the offender is a person other than the child’s mother. The legislative intent, gleaned from congressional deliberations, supports this reading, as the law was designed to protect children of women victims from the perpetrators of violence against those women. For situations where a parent abuses their own child, the proper remedy lies under other laws like the Rule on Custody of Minors or Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). Consequently, he voted to remand the case to the trial court for proceedings under the appropriate custody rules.