Branch 6 - Family Court, City of Batac

29/06/2026

SUPREME COURT SLAPS HUSBAND WITH UP TO 8 YEARS IN PRISON FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE

The Supreme Court (SC) has convicted a husband of psychological violence under Republic Act No. 9262 after finding that his extramarital affair caused severe mental and emotional suffering to his wife, leading her to attempt su***de.

In a 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the SC's Second Division sentenced the husband to suffer the penalty of up to eight years in prison for violating Section 5(i) of the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act.

The victim married the accused in 1999. They were gifted with two children. Their marital problems began in October 2009 when the victim started to notice that the accused would come home very late at night.

Up until 2010, the complainant received a text message from the husband telling her that he will not return home anymore and would like to start a new life alone. He even told her not to call him anymore. She also received another message from him informing her that he will file a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage to finalize their separation.

The wife later pleaded to the accused to come back and try anew, which the latter ignored. The accused sent another message telling her that he wanted to see their sons, but the children should only be accompanied by their house helpers. The victim agreed: the accused was eventually allowed to see their children.

Upon arriving home, one of the house helpers who accompanied the children relayed a message to AAA that she should stop hoping for him to come home as he had another wife already.

Due to the information she received, her suspicion against her husband grew. To confirm this, she asked for help from her brother and a private detective to conduct a surveillance on her husband.

As a result of the surveillance, she found out that the accused was always with another woman, one of the salespersons in their convenience store. This prompted her to file a criminal case for psychological violence against her husband, claiming that she suffered mental and emotional torture to the extent that she even attempted to commit su***de due to her depression.

For his part, the accused denied all the allegations against him. He claimed that he never abandoned their children, but he had no opportunity whatsoever to see them again as the wife prevented him from doing so. He also denied the allegations of marital infidelity. In support of his denial, he stated that he, together with his supposed paramour, was acquitted in a separate case of concubinage filed by the complainant.

The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused, noting that the prosecution was able to prove marital infidelity, which caused emotional suffering to the wife. The Court of Appeals eventually affirmed the lower court's decision. This prompted the accused to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court ruled that marital infidelity constitutes a form of psychological violence punishable under Republic Act No. 9262. It explained that marital infidelity not only violates the vows of faithfulness and commitment in marriage but also inflicts severe psychological and emotional harm on the aggrieved spouse and their children.

The high court emphasized that marital infidelity, particularly when it causes mental and emotional suffering to the innocent spouse, cannot be condoned. It said such acts are contrary to the constitutional principle of the inviolability of marriage and public policy and are penalized under the law.

It underscored that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the violation of Section 5(1) of Republic Act No. 9262. The Court gave great credence to the psychological assessment made of the complainant, which revealed that she suffered mental and emotional suffering that manifested through depression and self-harm.

It reiterated that marital infidelity in itself is not what VAWC punishes but the psychological violence that caused mental or emotional suffering to the wife, noting that the mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct element in the commission of the offense.

The highest bench meted out the penalty of up to 8 years imprisonment against the accused. He is also ordered to pay a fine of PHP 100,000 and indemnify the victim with PHP 30,000 as moral damages.

22/05/2026

"ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE IS NOT HOSTILE TO MARRIAGE"

The Supreme Court (SC), speaking through Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, held that Article 36 of the Family Code, which recognizes psychological incapacity as a ground for marital nullification, is not hostile to marriage but rather serves as a protective means to strengthen the institution of marital bonds.

This came after the High Court declared null and void the marriage of a husband and wife who claimed they were unhappy throughout their almost 30 years of marriage, after finding both parties psychologically incapacitated to comply with their marital obligations.

It noted that compelling spouses to remain bound in a union that, from the start, functioned as a psychological cage rather than a shared life of freedom and meaning does not strengthen marriage. It instead transforms marriage into a site of quiet misery.

"The law protects the institution of marriage not by insisting on its preservation at all costs but by distinguishing, true marriages from, those that, from their inception, lacked the essential psychological foundations for mutual commitment, intimacy, and shared life." the Supreme Court added.

22/05/2026

SUPREME COURT: PATERNITY PROOF REQUIRED FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT UNDER VAWC LAW

The Supreme Court (SC) held that competent proof of paternity is a primary basis for demanding financial support, as it cleared a man charged with violence against women and their children (VAWC) for refusing to provide financial support to a child not proven to be his.

In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division reversed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), which found the accused guilty of economic abuse under Sec 5(i) Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2024 (Anti-VAWC Act).

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a woman against her former boyfriend, accusing him of refusing to provide financial support for her child.

The accused consistently denied he was the father, claiming that the child was born only eight months after they last had s*xual relations. Although they discussed undergoing DNA testing to settle the issue of paternity, no test was conducted because they could not agree on who would pay for it.

During trial, the woman presented the child’s birth certificate as evidence. However, the portion indicating the father’s name was marked “N/A” and left unsigned. The woman also admitted in court that the accused refused to give financial support because he doubted that he was the child’s father.

The RTC convicted the accused, giving more weight to the woman’s testimony than the accused’s denial. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, ruling that proof of paternity is not an element of the crime. This paved the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In reversing his conviction, the high court gave merit to the petition after it found that the prosecution failed to establish two out of the four elements that would find an accused guilty of a VAWC offense — that the accused and the aggrieved woman have a common child, and that the accused deliberately refused to provide financial aid to the child to inflict mental or emotional anguish on the aggrieved woman.

It explained that to convict a person for economic abuse under Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act, the prosecution must show that: (1) the victim is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the offender’s wife or partner, or someone with whom the offender has a common child; (3) the offender refused to give financial support due; and (4) the refusal was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.

In this case, the SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove two essential elements: that the accused and the woman share a common child, and that the refusal to provide support was done to inflict psychological harm.

“Here (aggrieved woman) admitted before the trial court that (accused) did not give her financial support due to (child’s) uncertain lineage,” the Supreme Court said.

“In fact, she disclosed that (accused) offered to divide the expenses should the child be subjected to DNA testing, but it was her and her father who refused to bear a portion thereof,” it added.

The highest bench noted, that the accused “did not willfully refuse to provide financial support” just to inflict psychological harm to the aggrieved party. It added that the child’s birth certificate presented at trial did not include the father’s name, with only an “N/A” indicated in the document. It was also unsigned.

22/05/2026

04/05/2026

For FC - 6, Batac City, our schedule will be:

May 4, 2026, Monday – WFH
May 5 to May 8, 2026, Tuesday to Friday – Onsite
May 11 to May 14, 2026, Monday to Thursday – Onsite
May 15, 2026, Friday – WFH
May 18, 2026, Monday – WFH
May 19 to May 22, 2026, Tuesday to Friday – Onsite
May 25 to May 28, 2026, Tuesday to Friday – Onsite
May 29, 2026, Monday – WFH

For inquiries, please text or call: 0956 914 1839 or send email at [email protected]

The Judiciary adopts flexible work arrangements and energy conservation measures starting March 9, 2026 in Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 issued by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

In the Memo, the (SC) observes a four-day on-site and one-day work-from-home (WFH) work arrangement, citing Friday as the generally observed WFH day and provided that at least 25% of the employees in each office or division shall report on-site every Friday, as determined by the head of office or division, to ensure continuity of operations.

The Office of the Chief Justice, the Office of the Senior Associate Justice, the Offices of the Associate Justices, the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division of the Fiscal Management and Budget Office, the Docket-Receiving Section of the Judicial Records Office, the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) with respect to its essential staff, and the Office of the Judiciary Marshals are excluded from this work arrangement, and shall maintain the regular work arrangements.

The Court of Appeals (CA) shall observe the same work arrangements prescribed for the SC, provided that on Fridays, at least 25% of the employees in each office or division shall report on-site, and, at least, three Justices comprising one division, on a rotation basis, shall be available to act on urgent matters, including petitions for extraordinary writs and petitions and motions in connection with Republic Act No. 9160, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, as amended.

Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals shall continue to observe a full five-day on-site workweek, without special work arrangement.

The First- and Second- Level Courts shall likewise observe a four-day on-site and one-day WFH arrangement.

In single-sala courts, Presiding Judges may adopt either of the following on-site work schedules: (1) on-site work from Monday to Thursday, with Friday designated as the WFH day, or (2) on-site work from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday designated as the WFH day; Provided that pairing courts shall not be on WFH schedule on the same day.

In multiple-sala courts, the four-day on-site and one-day WFH arrangement shall be implemented alternately. Within the same week, odd-numbered branches shall initially report on-site from Monday to Thursday, with Friday designated as the WFH day, while even-numbered branches shall report on-site from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday designated as the WFH day. In the following week, the schedules shall be reversed (i.e., the odd-numbered branches shall report on-site from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday as the WFH day, while the even-numbered branches shall report on-site from Monday to Thursday, with Friday as the WFH day.) This alternating schedule shall continue every week until the four-day workweek arrangement is lifted.

The flexible work arrangements prescribed in Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 shall commence on March 9, 2026, and shall remain in force until modified or lifted by the SC.

Read the full text of Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161689

04/05/2026

SUPREME COURT ACQUITS BOYFRIEND IN VAWC CASE, SAYS COMPLAINT STEMMED FROM MERE LOVERS' QUARREL

The Supreme Court (SC) voting 3-2 has acquitted a man accused of psychological violence for allegedly threatening to kill his girlfriend if she refused to engage in s*xual in*******se, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient proof of mental and emotional anguish on the part of the complainant.

In a 21-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC's Third Division reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) finding the accused guilty of violation of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act).

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the girlfriend, who alleged that she received text messages from the accused demanding that they engage in s*xual in*******se, threatening to kill her if she refused.

The complainant alleged that she was emotionally abused by the accused throughout their almost four years of relationship. She narrated how the accused blackmailed her whenever she would not do his bidding. The accused would also threaten to post her n**e photos and their s*x video.

Unable to bear the burden any longer, the complainant sought the help of the police authorities as the accused demanded money from her in exchange for not uploading their s*x video. In response, the police officers organized an entrapment operation, but it did not materialize because the accused failed to meet up with her. The police conducted a second entrapment operation, during which the suspect was arrested after receiving Php2,000.

This prompted the complainant to file criminal cases for grave threats under Article 282 and violation of RA 9262 or the Anti-VAWC Law. The accused denied the allegations. He alleged that while he is working as an OFW in Taiwan, the complainant supposedly had another boyfriend. She apologized to him and promised not to cheat again.

The accused denied psychologically abusing the victim, claiming that the criminal complaints were filed out of vengeance. He alleged that the victim's parents sought revenge due to their disapproval of the relationship.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the accused for violating Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act, highlighting that all the elements of psychological violence were proven by the prosecution. The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the said decision, paving the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In acquitting the accused, the SC ruled that the complainant failed to sufficiently prove that she suffered mental or emotional anguish. It emphasized that there is no sufficient proof that the accused acted purposefully and knowingly, with intent to alarm or cause substantial emotional or psychological distress to the victim.

The Court did not give great credence to the complainant’s testimony, noting that her actions appeared inconsistent with her claims. It pointed out that after allegedly receiving threatening text messages, she did not exhibit substantial distress, as shown by her willingness to ride the motorcycle with the accused.

"Her behavior after receiving the text messages does not show there was substantial distress on her part. For one, AAA even boarded [the accused]'s motorcycle shortly after the incident. If, indeed, AAA was afraid for her life, she would not have boarded the motorcycle, considering that she was already with the police officers during the alleged entrapment operations."

Upon reviewing the text messages, the High Court found no clear intent on the part of the accused to cause mental anguish to the complainant. It noted that their exchanges showed the accused was still asking and making plans for a s*xual encounter, while also requesting a shirt as a gift.

"These circumstances imply, if not show, that the two were in good terms at the time of the conversation and lend more credence to the conclusion that the two text messages sent by the accused were out of anger and not out of a specific intent to cause distress," the Supreme Court said.

It took into account the Instagram posts of the victim with the caption "Nagmahal, nasaktan, nagpakulong," alluding to the imprisonment of the accused. In another post, she posted a photograph of the accused in his jail cell with the statement, "Diba ang saya mo na. Lol," which, according to the court, is not a normal behavior of a victim of abuse.

"Thus, the foregoing circumstances all give rise to the conclusion that the case of AAA and ### is not one for psychological violence but merely that of a private quarrel between the couple, not within the ambit of what is sought to be punished by Republic Act 9262," the Supreme Court added.

27/04/2026

SUPREME COURT GRANTS HUSBAND LEGAL SEPARATION PETITION OVER WIFE’S ABUSIVE CONDUCT

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that grossly abusive conduct of a spouse against the other spouse is a ground for legal separation of a married couple.

In a 16-page ruling authored by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., the SC's Second Division granted the petition for legal separation filed by a husband on the ground of the grossly abusive conduct of his wife, noting that such behavior is a recognized ground under Article 55(1) of the Family Code.

Sometime in the year 2000, the husband and wife met. They eventually became lovers and decided to live together. Their marriage resulted in the birth of their two children. During their marriage, the husband alleged that he would experience different forms of abusive conduct from the wife.

He alleged that the wife oversaw their finances while he was still studying nursing. In another instance, the husband alleged that the wife told their friends in a party they both attended that she wanted to cut off the husband's p***s since they were no longer having s*x.

To resolve their misunderstanding, the husband suggested that they seek marriage counseling, which the wife allegedly refused. As a result, they got separated. However, the husband later decided to reconcile in order to give their relationship another chance. Nonetheless, the wife became more difficult to handle and became increasingly selfish. This prompted the husband to file a legal separation case.

In his petition, the husband cited nine grounds of “grossly abusive conduct.” These were his wife’s refusal to provide help with his toothache; acts of maligning his reputation; refusal to seek marriage counseling; doing things without his knowledge; craving more money; not liking his friends and prohibiting him from seeing them; being a closed-minded person who believes she is always right; and manipulating their children and using them to compel him to provide more support.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the verified petition for legal separation, as it held that the husband was able to prove the existence of grossly abusive conduct with prima facie evidence based on the aggregate behavior of the wife. Among other things, the trial court cited the couple’s frequent quarrels and disagreement over their finances and personality differences, which made their relationship miserably unbearable for the husband.

But the same was reversed by the Court of Appeals as it ruled that the issues raised by the couple were frivolous and commonly exist with married couples. Also, it said the conduct raised by both parties is neither grave nor abusive and is not beyond repair or incurable. This prompted the husband to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In ruling in favor of the husband's petition, the high court noted that the husband’s allegations against his wife “satisfy the existence of a hostile and intimidating environment” for the former. It said that the wife’s treatment of her husband prevented him from always taking her lead.

“Moreover, there were numerous attempts made by (the husband) to save their marriage through counseling and interventions, which were nonetheless made futile. Furthermore, the testimonies of his witnesses further support the existence of a hostile environment as reflected by (the wife’s) controlling attitude,” the Supreme Court said.

It explained that grossly abusive conduct are acts that result in a hostile and intimidating environment for the other spouse, their children, and common children.

However, the SC also said the determination of whether grossly abusive conduct exists as a ground for legal separation must be determined by the courts on a case-to-case basis taking into consideration the facts and evidence in each case.

"A grant of a decree of legal separation under the Family Code does not sever the marriage of the parties, nor affect their marital status. The same only involves a ‘bed-and-board separation’ of the spouses considering how our jurisdiction does not allow absolute divorce.”

The SC ruled that the husband was able to prove that his wife’s acts constituted "grossly abusive conduct" under the Family Code. With its ruling that reversed the CA, the SC remanded the case to the RTC “for the dissolution and liquidation of their property regime pursuant to Article 63 of the Family Code.”

"As a final note, we reiterate that our Constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution. The Constitution itself, however, does not establish the parameters of state protection to marriage and the family, as it remains the province of the legislature to define all legal aspects of marriage and prescribe the strategy and the modalities to protect it and put into operation the constitutional provisions that protect the same," it added.

01/04/2026

For FC - 6, Batac City, our schedule will be:

April 6, 2026, Monday – WFH
April 7 to April 10, 2026, Tuesday to Friday – Onsite

April 13 to April16,2026, Monday to Thursday – Onsite
April 17,2026, Friday – WFH

April 20, 2026, Monday – WFH
April 21 to April 24, 2026, Tuesday to Friday – Onsite

April 27 to April 30, 2026, Tuesday to Friday – Onsite

For inquiries, please text or call: 0956 914 1839 or send email at [email protected]

The Judiciary adopts flexible work arrangements and energy conservation measures starting March 9, 2026 in Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 issued by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

In the Memo, the (SC) observes a four-day on-site and one-day work-from-home (WFH) work arrangement, citing Friday as the generally observed WFH day and provided that at least 25% of the employees in each office or division shall report on-site every Friday, as determined by the head of office or division, to ensure continuity of operations.

The Office of the Chief Justice, the Office of the Senior Associate Justice, the Offices of the Associate Justices, the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division of the Fiscal Management and Budget Office, the Docket-Receiving Section of the Judicial Records Office, the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) with respect to its essential staff, and the Office of the Judiciary Marshals are excluded from this work arrangement, and shall maintain the regular work arrangements.

The Court of Appeals (CA) shall observe the same work arrangements prescribed for the SC, provided that on Fridays, at least 25% of the employees in each office or division shall report on-site, and, at least, three Justices comprising one division, on a rotation basis, shall be available to act on urgent matters, including petitions for extraordinary writs and petitions and motions in connection with Republic Act No. 9160, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, as amended.

Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals shall continue to observe a full five-day on-site workweek, without special work arrangement.

The First- and Second- Level Courts shall likewise observe a four-day on-site and one-day WFH arrangement.

In single-sala courts, Presiding Judges may adopt either of the following on-site work schedules: (1) on-site work from Monday to Thursday, with Friday designated as the WFH day, or (2) on-site work from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday designated as the WFH day; Provided that pairing courts shall not be on WFH schedule on the same day.

In multiple-sala courts, the four-day on-site and one-day WFH arrangement shall be implemented alternately. Within the same week, odd-numbered branches shall initially report on-site from Monday to Thursday, with Friday designated as the WFH day, while even-numbered branches shall report on-site from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday designated as the WFH day. In the following week, the schedules shall be reversed (i.e., the odd-numbered branches shall report on-site from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday as the WFH day, while the even-numbered branches shall report on-site from Monday to Thursday, with Friday as the WFH day.) This alternating schedule shall continue every week until the four-day workweek arrangement is lifted.

The flexible work arrangements prescribed in Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 shall commence on March 9, 2026, and shall remain in force until modified or lifted by the SC.

Read the full text of Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161689

01/04/2026

In 𝐗𝐗𝐗 𝐯. 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬, 𝐆.𝐑. 𝐍𝐨. 𝟐𝟓𝟐𝟕𝟑𝟗, 𝐀𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐥 𝟏𝟔, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒, the SC held that in determining whether marital infidelity caused psychological violence under RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, the question to be asked therefore is this: did the wife or her child suffer mental or emotional anguish due to the acts committed by the offender? If the answer is yes, then the third element already exists. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙪𝙨𝙗𝙖𝙣𝙙'𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙤𝙧 𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙨𝙝 𝙪𝙥𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙛𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙙 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙮 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙙 𝙪𝙥𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙪𝙨𝙗𝙖𝙣𝙙'𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮.

While We agree with Acharon that the crimes penalized under Sec. 5(i) are mala in se and not mala prohibita, thereby requiring specific criminal intent, We hereby hold that in instances of marital infidelity, the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is already satisfied at the moment the perpetrator commits the act of marital infidelity. This finds basis in the fact that marital infidelity is inherently immoral and depraved under prevailing societal, cultural, and religious norms. In the normal course of human behavior, an aggrieved wife will never approve of a rogue and wandering husband, and vice versa. The same line of reasoning just cannot be applied in cases of willful denial of financial support. In other words, marital infidelity, divorced from its legal connotations, is an act which is essentially wrong in itself. To pose a rhetoric, what else could adulterers have expected to cause upon their spouse when they committed an act of unfaithfulness, aside from mental and emotional pain?