The Supreme Court has granted the petition of Garry B. Go and decreed his legal separation from Lynn Y. Chan-Go, ruling that Garry was able to prove that Lynn's acts constituted "grossly abusive conduct" under Article 55(1) of the Family Code of the Philippines. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Regional Trial Court decision that had granted the decree of legal separation.
The Case
Sometime in the year 2000, Garry met Lynn while he was working in his sister's textile store. At that time, Lynn was working as an assistant general manager of the Parts Division of Mitsubishi Mandaue, Cebu. They became lovers and decided to live together, and on March 29, 2003, they were married at Sacred Heart Parish, Cebu City. Their marriage produced two children: Sofia Trinity Chan Go, born on November 5, 2004; and Samantha Nicole Chan Go, born on March 13, 2007.
To support their family, Lynn ventured into selling coffee, but they still encountered financial problems. This led Garry to take up nursing with the plan to move his family abroad. He started his studies in 2004, which ended in 2007. From July 2007 to March 2009, he had his on-the-job training in Butuan City. His plans of working abroad fell through, so he went back to Cebu to work at Mandaue Compressed Gasses Corporation until August 2009. He then left for Davao City and worked at the Davao Industrial Compressed Gases Corporation.
Garry alleged that he experienced different forms of abusive conduct from Lynn. He claimed Lynn refused to provide help when he suffered a toothache requiring a root canal operation; that Lynn told friends at a party she wanted to cut off his penis since they were no longer having sex; and that Lynn would share their personal problems with his friends and relatives, twisting the facts to portray him negatively. He said Lynn refused marriage counseling, and they separated in fact around June 2008. Garry filed a petition for legal separation with urgent application for visitorial rights against Lynn on the ground of grossly abusive conduct.
Garry presented the testimonies of his brother, Ricky Go, and his friend, Ryan Uy. Lynn, in response, alleged that during her pregnancy with their second child, Garry said they should abort the child in front of her mother and sister, and that Garry became irritable and would come home late. She also raised issues about the support Garry sent from Davao.
The Issue
The question the Court framed was whether Garry was able to prove "grossly abusive conduct" as a ground to allow his legal separation from Lynn under Article 55(1) of the Family Code.
The Ruling
The Court held that acts constituting "grossly abusive conduct" pertain to acts committed by a spouse against the other spouse, the latter's child, or their common child which result in a hostile and intimidating environment for the other spouse, their children, and common children, with the determination made by the courts on a case-to-case basis.
Applying this to the case, the Court found that Garry's allegations against Lynn satisfy the existence of a hostile and intimidating environment for Garry. The Court found that Lynn's treatment of Garry subjected him to always taking Lynn's lead, that Garry made numerous attempts to save the marriage through counseling and interventions which were made futile, and that the testimonies of his witnesses supported the existence of a hostile environment as reflected by Lynn's controlling attitude. Taken together, the Court found that Garry was able to prove that Lynn's acts constituted "grossly abusive conduct" under the Family Code.
In its disposition, the Court ruled: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED." The Decision dated July 19, 2018 and the Resolution dated November 21, 2018 of the Court of Appeals were reversed and set aside, and the Decision dated March 1, 2017 and the Order dated June 16, 2017 of Branch 33, Regional Trial Court, Davao City, were reinstated. The Court decreed the legal separation of Garry B. Go and Lynn Y. Chan-Go with all the legal effects attendant thereto, particularly the dissolution and liquidation of their property regime, and remanded the case to the RTC for the dissolution and liquidation of their property regime and the determination of custody and support of their common children.
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 243647
- Married on March 29, 2003 at Sacred Heart Parish, Cebu City
- Sofia Trinity Chan Go born on November 5, 2004
- Samantha Nicole Chan Go born on March 13, 2007
- Garry's nursing studies: 2004 to 2007
- On-the-job training in Butuan City: July 2007 to March 2009
- Separated in fact around June 2008
- Salary in Davao: PHP 30,000.00; promised remittance PHP 20,000.00; amounts received decreased from PHP 17,000.00 to PHP 15,000.00 then PHP 10,000.00
- RTC Decision: March 1, 2017; RTC Order: June 16, 2017
- CA Decision: July 19, 2018; CA Resolution: November 21, 2018
The Court's Reasoning
The Court, drawing on its discussion in the cited cases and on the Code Committee's understanding and commentaries on "grossly abusive conduct" referred to in Article 55(1) of the Family Code, as well as observations from other jurisdictions, arrived at a clarified definition of the term as acts resulting in a hostile and intimidating environment. The Court explained that this definition is consistent with the State's constitutional obligation to protect marriages as a basic social institution.
Finding that Lynn's controlling attitude and treatment created such an environment, and that Garry's efforts to save the marriage were rendered futile, the Court concluded that the ground for legal separation was proven. It reiterated that the Constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution, and that with the enactment of the Family Code, the legislature has defined marriage and the family, spelled out the corresponding legal effects, imposed the limitations that affect married and family life, and prescribed the grounds for legal separation.
Source: Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 243647, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.