Ensuring Child Support: Income vs. Salary in Economic Abuse Cases

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

Imagine a scenario where a parent deliberately withholds or provides insufficient financial support for their child, impacting the child’s basic needs and well-being. This situation highlights the critical issue of economic abuse, a form of violence addressed by Republic Act No. 9262 (RA 9262), also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. The Supreme Court case of Edward Cumigad v. AAA delves into the nuances of this law, specifically focusing on what constitutes “income or salary” when determining financial support in cases of economic abuse. The case underscores how courts interpret the law to protect vulnerable parties from financial neglect and ensure children receive adequate resources for their development.

Legal Framework: Understanding Economic Abuse and RA 9262

Economic abuse, as defined under RA 9262, encompasses actions that control or limit a woman’s or her child’s financial independence and well-being. This can manifest as:

• Withholding financial support.
• Preventing a person from engaging in legitimate employment.
• Depriving someone of the use and enjoyment of jointly owned property.
• Controlling a victim’s money or properties.

These acts are considered forms of violence under the law, aimed at subjugating the victim’s will and controlling their conduct. The law recognizes the need to protect women and children from such abuse by providing legal remedies, including protection orders that can mandate financial support.

A key provision in RA 9262 is Section 8(g), which empowers courts to issue protection orders directing the abuser to provide financial support to the woman and/or her child. The law explicitly states:

“Notwithstanding other laws to the contrary, the court shall order an appropriate percentage of the income or salary of the respondent to be withheld regularly by the respondent’s employer for the same to be automatically remitted directly to the woman.”

This provision ensures that support is consistently provided by mandating the employer to directly remit a portion of the offender’s earnings to the victim. The question that often arises is: what exactly is included in “income or salary?”

Example: Imagine a husband who earns a substantial salary but refuses to provide sufficient funds for his child’s education, healthcare, and basic needs. Even if he provides a small amount, if it is disproportionate to his income and the child’s needs, it can be considered economic abuse under RA 9262.

Case Breakdown: Edward Cumigad v. AAA

The case of Edward Cumigad v. AAA revolves around a petition for a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) filed by AAA against her husband, Edward Cumigad, under RA 9262. The facts of the case are as follows:

• Edward and AAA were married and had a child, BBB.
• Edward had an extramarital affair and abandoned AAA and their child.
• AAA filed a petition for a PPO, seeking sufficient support for herself and BBB.
• The lower courts granted the PPO, ordering Edward to provide support and directing his employer to deduct one-third of his earnings.

Edward appealed, arguing that the support amount was excessive and should only be based on his basic salary, excluding allowances. He contended that his allowances were necessary for his job and should not be considered part of his income for support purposes.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. Justice Leonen, writing for the Court, emphasized the intent of RA 9262 to protect victims of economic abuse and ensure they receive adequate support. The Court stated:

“The use of ‘or’ signifies that the court may choose between the offender’s salary and income from which spousal or child support should be deducted.”

The Court clarified that while “salary” typically refers to a fixed compensation excluding allowances, “income” is a broader term that encompasses various sources of revenue, including allowances, bonuses, and other emoluments. The Court found that the lower courts did not err in including Edward’s allowances when computing the amount of support. The Court further reasoned:

“Salary is but a component of income. And because Republic Act No. 9262 provides that the support can be obtained from income or salary, we affirm the amount of financial support indicated in the protection order, which includes the petitioner’s allowances.”

The Supreme Court also upheld the order for Edward to account for the sale of the vehicles, emphasizing the court’s discretion to provide reliefs necessary to protect the petitioner’s safety and welfare.

Practical Implications: What This Means for Future Cases

The Cumigad v. AAA case has significant implications for future cases involving economic abuse under RA 9262. It clarifies that courts have the authority to consider an offender’s total income, including allowances and other benefits, when determining the appropriate amount of financial support. This ruling ensures that victims receive sufficient resources to meet their needs and are not limited by a narrow interpretation of “salary.”

Key Lessons:

• Broad Interpretation of Income: Courts can consider all sources of income, not just basic salary, when determining financial support.
• Protection Orders: RA 9262 provides robust remedies, including support enforcement through employer withholding.
• Economic Abuse as Violence: Depriving or insufficiently providing financial support is a form of violence punishable under the law.

Advice for Individuals: If you are experiencing economic abuse, seek legal assistance to file for a protection order and ensure your rights are protected. Document all instances of financial control or deprivation to support your case.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What constitutes economic abuse under RA 9262?

A: Economic abuse includes actions that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent, such as withholding financial support, preventing employment, or controlling money and property.

Q: Can allowances be included when calculating financial support?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court has clarified that “income” includes not just salary but also allowances, bonuses, and other forms of remuneration.

Q: What is a Permanent Protection Order (PPO)?

A: A PPO is a court order issued under RA 9262 to prevent further acts of violence against a woman or her child. It can include various reliefs, such as financial support, custody arrangements, and restrictions on the abuser’s contact with the victim.

Q: What should I do if my employer is not complying with a support order?

A: Failure to comply with a support order can result in indirect contempt of court. You should seek legal assistance to enforce the order and hold the employer accountable.

Q: How is the amount of financial support determined?

A: The amount of support is determined based on the needs of the recipient and the resources of the person obliged to provide support. Courts consider factors such as income, expenses, and the child’s needs.

Q: Can a support order be modified?

A: Yes, support orders can be modified based on changes in circumstances, such as an increase or decrease in income or the recipient’s needs.

Q: Is economic abuse a criminal offense?

A: Yes, violating Section 5 of RA 9262, which includes economic abuse, is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment and fines.

ASG Law specializes in family law and RA 9262 cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.