AT A GLANCE:

Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, recognizes economic abuse as one of the forms of violence against women and their children. In Edward Cumigad y De Castro v. AAA, G.R. No. 219715, December 06, 2021, the Supreme Court provided that economic abuse refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent.

What is Economic Abuse?

Under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9262, violence against women and their children is defined as:

“any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.”

Republic Act No. 9262 recognizes physical violence, sexual violence, psychological violence, and economic abuse as forms of violence against women and their children.

What Acts Constitute Economic Abuse?

Section 3(a)(D) of Republic Act No. 9262, economic abuse refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. Withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
2. Deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;
3. Destroying household property;
4. Controlling the victims’ own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties. 

How Does the Supreme Court Define Economic Abuse?

In Edward Cumigad y De Castro v. AAA, G.R. No. 219715, December 06, 2021, the Supreme Court explained: 

Economic abuse refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent. It cripples the financial freedom of the woman and her child by depriving them of financial support; preventing them from being gainfully employed; destroying or denying them of use and enjoyment of household property; or controlling their money or property. Economic abuse may be perpetrated to degrade the victims’ dignity, to subjugate their will, or to control their conduct

Can Deprivation of Financial Support Constitute Economic Abuse?

Yes.Section 5(e)(2) of Republic Act No. 9262 provides that violence against women and their children may be committed through depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman’s children insufficient financial support.

The Supreme Court has likewise recognized that the deprivation or denial of sufficient financial support to the woman and her child is an act of violence penalized under Republic Act No. 9262 and is deemed a continuing offense.

In Celso M.F.L. Melgar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 223477, February 14, 2018, the Petitioner, Celso M.F.L. Melgar , was a man charged under Republic Act No. 9262 for failing to provide financial support to his child, who was then just a year old. He and his partner, the woman victim, subsequently entered into a compromise agreement in which his property would answer for the support-in-arrears of their son from 2001 to 2010. However, the case was revived when the man sold the property, and he was found guilty of violating Section 5(e). In affirming the conviction, this Court found that he failed to support his child and his former partner, his intent to evade his obligation made clearer when he sold his property despite the compromise agreement.

Similarly, in Esteban Donato Reyes v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 232678, July 3, 2019, the Supreme Court found the Petitioner Esteban Donato Reyes guilty of economic abuse for deliberately refusing to provide financial support to his wife and their children despite being gainfully employed.

Economic abuse, however, is not limited to the absolute refusal to provide financial support, and may likewise involve deliberately providing insufficient financial support. This was also explained by the Supreme Court in Melgar v. People of the Philippines, to wit: 

“Economic abuse is not only the absolute refusal to provide financial support, but also the act of deliberately providing the woman’s children insufficient financial support. Thus, the financial support must be sufficient to meet the needs of the woman and her child, considering the resources and means of the one obliged to provide.”

How is the Amount of Support Determined?

Under Article 194 of the Family Code, support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. 

The obligation to give support becomes a matter of right if filiation is not disputed. The amount of support shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to the necessities of the recipient. Support may be reduced or increased proportionately,” depending on the recipient’s needs and the giver’s means. (Melgar v. People of the Philippines)

However, the award of support must be based on sufficient evidence showing the financial capacity of the persons obliged to give support and the expenses incurred by the person entitled to receive it. For instance, the proper and reasonable amount of support may be determined and granted if it was established that the respondent was earning from numerous business endeavors or enjoying more than sufficient income. A petitioner must likewise establish the amounts required for the basic needs of the family. (Melgar v. People of the Philippines)

Economic Abuse as a Means of Financial Control

Economic abuse is not confined to the withholding of financial support. It may also take the form of controlling a woman’s access to money, employment, property, or other financial resources.

In Christian Pantonial Acharon v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 224946, November 09, 2021, the Supreme Court provided concrete examples of economic abuse, citing the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), a non-profit organization based in the United States of America to improve legislation dealing with domestic violence. 

The NCADV enumerates the different types of economic abuse as follows:

1. Interfering with the victim’s work performance through harassing activities, such as frequent phone calls or unannounced visits;
2. Denying the victim access to money or the means of obtaining it, to the point that he/she is entirely dependent on the abuser for food, clothing and shelter;
3. Refusing to allow the victim to work or attend school, or engaging in activities that make it impossible for the victim to do so;
4. Intentionally withholding necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, personal hygiene products, or medication;
5. Stealing from the victim, defrauding their money or assets, and/or exploiting the victim’s financial resources or property for personal gain;
6. Requiring justification for any money spent and punishing the victim with physical, sexual or emotional abuse;
7. Stealing or destroying the victim’s personal belongings;
8. Forbidding a victim from maintaining a personal bank account;
9. Threatening to out an LGBTQ victim in their workplace;
10. Refusing to pay the victim court-ordered child or spousal support; or
11. Forcing their victim to obtain credit, then ruining the victim’s credit rating or future ability to obtain credit.

Similar to the foregoing, the Court in the same case also cited the Battered Women’s Support Services, another non-profit organization in the United States, which also enumerated the various ways by which women are economically abused, as follows:

1. Controlling paychecks and bank accounts;
2. Stealing from her;
3. Preventing the woman from accessing transportation;
4. Determining how money is spent;
5. Deciding where the woman will work;
6. Preventing the woman from working through isolation tactics;
7. Outright forbidding the woman to work;
8. Forcing the woman to work in family business with little or no pay;
9. Forcing the woman to become pregnant;
10. Preventing the woman from accessing child care;
11. Harassing the woman at her workplace to the extent that the job is lost;
12. Controlling property decisions;
13. Destroying the woman’s credit rating by using credit cards, lines of credit, without permission or filing all financial contracts (lease, credit cards, utilities, etc.) in the woman’s name and failing to make payments on time or at all;
14. Forcing women to turn over government benefit payments including child tax benefits;
15. Using his income for his individual interests while her income is used to maintain the family collective interests;
16. “Giving” her all the “control” of the financial decision for the family then criticizing her decisions and/or having unrealistic understanding of what things cost;
17. Forbidding her to attend school or upgrading programs.

These examples are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of acts that constitute economic abuse, but to highlight that there are different possible scenarios in which control of the woman is obtained through finances. As well, the foregoing examples are used to impress that mere failure to pay financial support does not constitute economic abuse contemplated by Republic Act No. 9262.

Reliefs and Remedies

Concomitant to penalizing economic abuse, Republic Act No. 9262 affords reliefs and remedies necessary to safeguard the victims from further risk and violence and to grant other necessary reliefs. A protection order may be issued to protect the victims from further harm, minimize any disruption in their daily lives, and facilitate opportunity and ability to regain control of their lives.(Melgar v. People of the Philippines)

Read also: Protection Orders under RA 9262

Click here to subscribe to our newsletter

Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.

All rights reserved.