The Importance of DSWD Involvement in Philippine Adoption Cases

A.M. No. RTJ-96-1362, July 18, 1997

Adoption is a deeply personal and legally intricate process aimed at providing a stable and loving home for children in need. However, when proper procedures are bypassed, the very welfare of the child the law seeks to protect is put in jeopardy. This case highlights the critical role of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in adoption proceedings in the Philippines, emphasizing that adherence to legal protocols is non-negotiable to safeguard the child’s best interests.

In this case, a judge and a social welfare officer were found to have circumvented the required DSWD involvement in an adoption case. This resulted in an adoption decree that was legally flawed and potentially detrimental to the child’s well-being. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder of the importance of following established procedures and the consequences of failing to do so.

Legal Framework for Adoption in the Philippines

The legal framework governing adoption in the Philippines is primarily based on Presidential Decree No. 603, also known as “The Child and Youth Welfare Code.” Article 33 of this decree is particularly crucial, as it mandates the involvement of the DSWD in adoption cases. This article explicitly states:

“No petition for adoption shall be granted unless the Department of Social Welfare, or the Social Work and Counselling Division, in case of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, has made a case study of the child to be adopted, his natural parents as well as the prospective adopting parents, and has submitted its report and recommendations on the matter to the court hearing such petition. The Department of Social Welfare shall intervene on behalf of the child if it finds, after such case study, that the petition should be denied.”

To further reinforce this requirement, the Supreme Court issued Circular No. 12, dated October 2, 1986, directing Regional Trial Courts to notify the DSWD of any pending adoption cases and to strictly comply with Article 33. The circular also specifies that court social workers should coordinate with the DSWD in preparing and submitting case studies.

These legal provisions are designed to ensure that adoptions are conducted responsibly and ethically, with the child’s welfare as the paramount concern. The DSWD’s involvement provides an independent assessment of the suitability of the adoptive parents and the circumstances surrounding the child’s adoption.

Case Summary: DSWD vs. Judge Belen and Elma P. Vedaña

The case revolves around the adoption of a minor, Zhedell Bernardo Ibea, by her naturalized American citizen relatives, the spouses Desiderio Soriano and Aurora Bernardo-Soriano. The adoption petition was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, and assigned to Branch 38, presided over by Judge Antonio M. Belen. Social Welfare Officer II Elma P. Vedaña, from the Office of the Clerk of Court, was also involved in the proceedings.

The DSWD filed an administrative complaint against Judge Belen and Ms. Vedaña, alleging that the adoption decree was issued without proper DSWD involvement. Specifically, the DSWD claimed that it had no record of the adoption case and that Judge Belen never ordered a home and child study report from the DSWD. Furthermore, it was alleged that Ms. Vedaña asked for money from the adopting parents to expedite the process.

The key events and allegations are summarized below:

• Spouses Soriano filed a petition to adopt their niece, Zhedell.
• Judge Belen granted the petition, citing a supposed DSWD report.
• The DSWD had no record of the case and filed a complaint.
• It was alleged that Vedaña solicited money from the adoptive parents.

Judge Belen defended his actions by claiming that he instructed Ms. Vedaña to conduct the necessary studies as part of her duties. Ms. Vedaña, in turn, stated that she was never directed to coordinate with the DSWD and denied soliciting money. However, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that both respondents had violated Article 33 of Presidential Decree No. 603 and Circular No. 12 of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that Judge Belen should have notified the DSWD at the outset of the adoption proceedings and ensured that proper coordination took place. It also noted that Ms. Vedaña had overstepped her role by independently conducting the case study without DSWD involvement.

As the Court stated: “By respondent’s failure to do so, he may well have wittingly or unwittingly placed in jeopardy the welfare and future of the child whose adoption was under consideration.”

Ultimately, Judge Belen was censured, and Ms. Vedaña was reprimanded for their respective roles in the procedural lapses. The Court, however, acknowledged that Judge Belen acted in good faith, believing that Ms. Vedaña was coordinating with the DSWD. The allegation of corruption against Ms. Vedaña was also not substantiated.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

This case serves as a crucial reminder to judges, social workers, and prospective adoptive parents of the importance of strictly adhering to the legal requirements for adoption in the Philippines. Failure to involve the DSWD in the adoption process can lead to legal complications, delays, and, most importantly, jeopardize the welfare of the child.

The ruling reinforces the DSWD’s central role in ensuring that adoptions are conducted ethically and in the best interests of the child. It also highlights the need for clear communication and coordination between the courts, social workers, and the DSWD throughout the adoption process.

Key Lessons

• Judges must notify the DSWD of all adoption cases at the outset.
• Social workers must coordinate with the DSWD in conducting case studies.
• Adoption decrees issued without DSWD involvement may be deemed invalid.
• Prospective adoptive parents should ensure that all legal requirements are met.
• Child’s welfare is the paramount consideration in all adoption proceedings.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is the role of the DSWD in adoption cases?

A: The DSWD is responsible for conducting case studies of the child, the natural parents, and the prospective adoptive parents. They submit a report and recommendations to the court to ensure the adoption is in the child’s best interest.

Q: What happens if the DSWD is not involved in an adoption case?

A: If the DSWD is not involved, the adoption decree may be considered invalid, and the adoption process may have to be restarted.

Q: What should I do if I suspect corruption or irregularities in an adoption case?

A: You should immediately report your concerns to the DSWD, the Office of the Court Administrator, or other relevant authorities.

Q: What are the qualifications for becoming an adoptive parent in the Philippines?

A: The qualifications vary but generally include being of legal age, possessing good moral character, being financially stable, and being capable of providing a loving and nurturing environment for the child.

Q: How long does the adoption process typically take in the Philippines?

A: The duration of the adoption process can vary depending on the complexity of the case and the workload of the relevant agencies and courts. It can take anywhere from several months to a few years.

ASG Law specializes in Family Law, including adoption proceedings. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.