Written by Quennie Sereno/THE RED CHRONICLES; Layout by Jed Naval/THE RED CHRONICLES
“You can never learn less, you can only learn more,” R. Buckminster Fuller once said. Reading cases can be laborious, especially when there is a tsunami of cases assigned by law professors. But for aspiring lawyers, it is not really a matter of choice; it is a must. After all, lawyers are duty-bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability to keep abreast of legal developments lest they be held accountable for ignorance of the law. Here are a few decisions recently promulgated by the Supreme Court that a law student ought to know:
Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018
Foreign divorce
This case involves a Filipina who was previously married to a Japanese national. She filed for divorce before the Japanese courts, which granted her petition. She then sought, before the Philippine courts, the recognition of the divorce decree issued by a foreign court. The core issue is: Does a Filipino citizen have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law – which prohibits absolute divorce – after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment against her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry? The Supreme Court, in ruling in favor of the Filipina, applied Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code:
“The purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country where it was rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. It is a corrective measure to address an anomaly where the Filipino spouse is tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her country. Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be without a husband or wife.”
Indisputably, the 1987 Constitution proclaims marriage as an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family. Nothing is truer than the words of the Supreme Court: “Marriage, being a mutual and shared commitment between two parties, cannot possibly be productive of any good to the society where one is considered released from the marital bond while the other remains bound to it.”
Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021
Molina doctrine abandoned
After over two decades, the High Court finally abandoned its restrictive and rigid rule on the nullity of marriage, which proved to be intrusive to the right to liberty, autonomy, and human dignity. Psychological incapacity, as law students know, is a ground for voiding marriages. The guidelines, laid down in the infamous Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina promulgated in 1997, were likened to a “straitjacket, forcing all sizes to fit and be bound by it.”
In this landmark case, the Court, which has until now been inconsistent in the requirement of an expert witness, categorically declared that “psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion.” It added, “There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality, called ‘personality structure,’ which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermine the family. The spouse’s personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations.”
It is further declared that psychological incapacity is “incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense.” The incapacity contemplated under the law “is so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple’s respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage.”
In the words of the Supreme Court, “Marriage is not compulsory when in love; neither does it create love.” This case law is a recognition by no less than the High Court of the reality of the existence of decaying, if not rotten, marriages because there are persons who are truly psychologically incapable of being in a marriage.
XXX v. People, G.R. No. 250219, March 1, 2023
Marital infidelity is psychological violence
In the realm of women’s and children’s rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of a man who cohabited with and impregnated another woman, thereby abandoning his wife and nine-year-old daughter and causing psychological trauma to the minor. In other words, marital infidelity is a form of psychological violence that is punishable under Republic Act No. 9262 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004.
The elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 are: 1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; 2) the woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender; 3) the offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and 4) the anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar to such acts or omissions.
In keeping with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women to which the Philippines is a party, this jurisprudential pronouncement is an affirmation that violence against women and children has many faces – physical, sexual, psychological, and economic. Unfaithfulness is one of them.
Re: Disturbing Social Media Post of Lawyers/Law Professors, A.M. No. 21-06-20-SC, April 11, 2023
Homophobic undertones are violative of the CPR
What began as a private conversation among five lawyers turned into a public fiasco. Initiating the homophobic conversation in a Facebook thread, a lawyer claimed that he successfully prosecuted a criminal case against a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, who cursed and accused him of being a bigot, and described the judge as “effeminate.” The other four lawyers chimed in, continuing the homophobic undertones and perpetuating the unwarranted stereotype pinned against members of the LGBTQIA+ community.
The esteemed Court found the five lawyers administratively liable under Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. “The lawyers’ right to privacy, especially when it comes to their social media account, is limited. They cannot use this right as a shield against any liability,” the Court said. It further warned, “Inappropriate, disrespectful, and defamatory language of lawyers, even in the private sphere, are still within the reach of this Court’s disciplinary authority. It is not a defense that the discriminatory language was uttered in what was seemingly intended to be private exchanges among the macho men.”
Four of the five lawyers were reprimanded. One of them equated homosexual judges with corrupt ones and made a sweeping statement about the mental fitness of judges, whom the Court found to have not displayed the slightest hint of remorse for being the only one who had not acknowledged his participation in the conversation, and worse, was a professor, was sanctioned with a fine of P25,000.00.
The Court reminded that the principles of non-discrimination and equality are enshrined in the Philippine Constitution and laws – constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of expression, Republic Act No. 11313, or the Safe Spaces Act, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to name a few. As such, bound by the Lawyer’s Oath, every member of the legal profession is bound to observe and abide by them. “There is no room for such stereotypes in conversations among lawyers.”
Conclusion
These are some of the many decisions that the Supreme Court issues every year. As long as humans exist, societies will change; as societies change, so do laws. The expanse of jurisprudence is a testament to the ever-changing values of human culture. The Supreme Court has abandoned antiquated doctrines, amended rigid guidelines, and introduced new concepts in the past and will continue to do so. As the old adage goes, “Nothing is constant in this world except change.”