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, the father of minor Rhuby, filed a petition for a protection order on behalf of his daughter against her mother, respondent Rosalina Sibal Knutson. He alleged that the child was being abused by her mother following the estrangement of the spouses. After allegedly receiving no assistance from the police, he invoked Republic Act No. 9262 , the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, and its implementing Rule.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petition. It erroneously interpreted the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children as being available only to women for their own protection or on behalf of their children. The trial court concluded that the father, not being a woman, could not avail himself of the remedies under RA 9262. This prompted the petitioner to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether a father may file a petition for a protection order under RA 9262 on behalf of his minor child who is allegedly a victim of abuse by the mother.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court En Banc reversed the RTC’s ruling and granted the petition, issuing a Temporary Protection Order. The ponencia, with which Justice Lazaro-Javier concurred, clarified that the trial court fundamentally mis-framed the legal issue. The core question was not whether a father is entitled to invoke the Rule for his own benefit, but whether an allegedly abused child’s father may seek a protection order on behalf of the child.
The legal logic is anchored on a correct reading of the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children, specifically Section 8, which enumerates who may apply for a protection order. The applicant need not be the victim personally. The provision explicitly allows applications by the offended party’s parents, guardians, or other legal custodians. This is consistent with general legal principles, such as Article 220(6) of the Family Code, which grants parents the right and duty to represent their children in all matters affecting the children’s interests. Furthermore, Rule 3, Section 3 of the Rules of Court recognizes the capacity of litigation guardians to sue on behalf of their wards.
RA 9262 addresses relational abuse within a domestic or intimate setting. The law’s protective mantle extends to children, and the procedural rule provides the mechanism for securing that protection. The right to apply for that protection is not exclusive to women. A parent, including a father, acting in a representative capacity for the child, is a proper party to initiate the proceedings. The trial court’s restrictive interpretation was therefore a reversible error. The Court’s ruling ensures that the protective mechanisms of RA 9262 are accessible to all legitimate representatives of an abused child, irrespective of the applicant’s gender, to prevent further harm.