Can a husband be sued automatically in court for failure, inability to give financial support to wife?

A husband’s failure or inability to provide financial support to his wife does not automatically lead to his criminal prosecution for violation of the law on violence against women, the Supreme Court (SC) said. Citing the Family Code, the SC said: “The obligation to provide support is imposed by the law mutually upon both spouses. The obligation is not a one-way street for the husband to support his wife.” It said: “The wife has the identical obligation to provide support to her husband. The law certainly did not intend to impose a heavier burden on the husband to provide support for his wife, or institutionalize criminal prosecution as a measure to enforce support from him.” The SC ruling was contained in a decision written by Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan.  It reversed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) ruling which affirmed the trial court’s order that imposed a two to six years imprisonment on the husband for violation of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004. The names of the persons involved in the decision were redacted by the SC. Based on the SC decision, the spouses were married in 2002.  They lived together and rented a house until 2004 when the husband left the country to work abroad as a seafarer. The husband initially remitted part of his salary to his wife but stopped doing so after a few months.  He told his wife to live with his parents in the province but she refused. The wife had a “sari-sari” store but when the store closed, she worked as a freelance massage therapist.  The spouses did not have any children. On complaint of the wife, a criminal case was filed in court against the husband in 2016 for alleged violation of RA 9262.  The charge stated that the husband “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit psychological violence and economic abuse upon his wife, by then and there abandoning her and denying her financial support, thereby causing substantial, mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to his wife, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.” In his defense, the husband testified that he was only forced to marry his wife.  He said he worked as a seafarer from 2004 to 2007 and initially sent remittances to his wife. He said he had to stop sending money to his wife because his parents became sick with cancer.  He also said he did not inform his wife because he had been traumatized by their frequent fights. Upon his return in 2007, he worked as an instructor.  He admitted he did not contact his wife or send financial support. In 2017, the trial court convicted the husband. On top of the prison term, he was ordered to pay a fine of P100,000 and to undergo psychological counselling. In 2019, the CA denied the husband’s appeal.  The CA ruled that the husband’s decision to stop providing financial support and communicating with his wife caused her pain and psychological suffering. It said that while the husband claimed that he was merely forced to marry her, he still had the marital obligation to render love and support to her. Undaunted, the husband challenged the CA’s decision before the SC which declared: “In this case, the wife never even tried to reach out to her husband or asked him to provide her financial support. She did not try to communicate with him despite learning that he was already back in the country. “If she truly needed financial support, it is only expected based on human experience that she would have at least exerted efforts to obtain it. The fact that she did not do anything whatsoever to get support prior to filing this criminal case casts serious doubt on her claim that she needed it. “The CA in its assailed decision appeared to convict the husband simply because he was gainfully employed as a seafarer and instructor but did not send financial support to his wife. “This was an unfair ruling which mistakenly tended to establish a unilateral and not a reciprocal obligation of support between the spouses. It was also based on the erroneous presumption that the wife was dependent solely on the husband to provide her with a dignified life. She was portrayed without any basis as a helpless and incapable person with no choice but to wait idly for 13 years to receive financial support from her estranged husband. “Although RA 9262 was enacted to protect women, it did not intend to limit or discount their capacity to provide for and support themselves. “The law cannot presume that women are weak and disadvantaged victims. The wife was a person fully capable of providing for herself. She was gainfully employed as a massage therapist and owner of a sari-sari store. She was not a destitute victim who had no choice but to depend on her husband's money to live. “It would be gravely erroneous to interpret and apply the law in a manner that will perpetuate gender disparities that should not exist. “Wherefore, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby granted. The decision dated Sept. 12, 2019 and the resolution dated Feb.11, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA GR CR No. 41438 are reversed and set aside.  Petitioner (the husband) is acquitted of the crime charged. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.”