support pendente

7/17/2019 Support Pendente

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/support-pendente 1/10

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 175279-80 June 5, 2013

SUSAN LM-LUA, Petitioner,vs.!ANLO ". LUA, Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

#LLARAMA, JR., J.:

In this petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$, petitioner see%s to set aside theDecision& dated 'pril (), ())* and Resolution( dated October (*, ())* of the !ourt of 'ppeals +!'dis-issin her petition for conte-pt +!'/0.R. SP No. )&&$# and rantin respondent1s petition forcertiorari +!'/0.R. SP No. )&2&$.

The factual bac%round is as follo"s3

On Septe-ber 2, ())2,2 petitioner Susan 4i-/4ua filed an action for the declaration of nullit5 of her-arriae "ith respondent Danilo 6. 4ua, doc%eted as !ivil !ase No. !7/(82#* of the ReionalTrial !ourt +RT! of !ebu !it5, 7ranch &#.

In her pra5er for support pendente lite for herself and her t"o children, petitioner souht the a-ountofP$)),))).)) as -onthl5 support, citin respondent9s hue earnins fro- salaries and dividends in

several co-panies and businesses here and abroad.#

'fter due hearin, :ude Raphael 7. 6rastor;a, Sr. issued an Order $ dated March 2&, ())# rantinsupport pendente lite, as follo"s3

Fro- the evidence alread5 adduced b5 the parties, the a-ount of T"o <undred Fift5 +P($),))).))Thousand Pesos "ould be sufficient to ta%e care of the needs of the plaintiff. This a-ount e=cludesthe One hundred thirt5/five +P&2$,))).)) Thousand Pesos for -edical attendance e=pensesneeded b5 plaintiff for the operation of both her e5es "hich is de-andable upon the conduct of suchoperation. The a-ounts alread5 e=tended to the t"o +( children, bein a co--endable act ofdefendant, should be continued b5 hi- considerin the vast financial resources at his disposal.

'ccordin to 'rt. ()2 of the Fa-il5 !ode, support is de-andable fro- the ti-e plaintiff needed thesaid support but is pa5able onl5 fro- the date of >udicial de-and. Since the instant co-plaint "asfiled on )2 Septe-ber ())2, the a-ount of T"o <undred Fift5 +P($),))).)) Thousand should bepaid b5 defendant to plaintiff retroactivel5 to such date until the hearin of the support pendentelite. P($),))).)) = ? correspondin to the seven +? -onths that lapsed fro- Septe-ber, ())2 toMarch ())# "ould tanta-ount to a total of One Million Seven <undred Fift5 +P&,?$),))).))Thousand Pesos. Thereafter, startin the -onth of 'pril ())#, until other"ise ordered b5 this !ourt,defendant is ordered to pa5 a -onthl5 support of T"o <undred Fift5 Thousand +P($),))).)) Pesospa5able "ithin the first five +$ da5s of each correspondin -onth pursuant to the third pararaph of

'rt. ()2 of the Fa-il5 !ode of the Philippines. The -onthl5 support of P($),))).)) is "ithoutpre>udice to an5 increase or decrease thereof that this !ourt -a5 rant plaintiff as the circu-stances-a5 "arrant i.e. dependin on the proof sub-itted b5 the parties durin the proceedins for the-ain action for support.*

Respondent filed a -otion for reconsideration,? assertin that petitioner is not entitled to spousalsupport considerin that she does not -aintain for herself a separate d"ellin fro- their childrenand respondent has continued to support the fa-il5 for their sustenance and "ell/bein inaccordance "ith fa-il59s social and financial standin. 's to the P($),))).)) ranted b5 the trialcourt as -onthl5 support pendente lite, as "ell as theP&,?$),))).)) retroactive support, respondentfound it unconscionable and be5ond the intend-ent of the la" for not havin considered the needsof the respondent.

In its Ma5 &2, ())# Order, the trial court stated that the March 2&, ())# Order had beco-e final ande=ecutor5 since respondent9s -otion for reconsideration is treated as a -ere scrap of paper forviolation of the threeda5 notice period under Section #, Rule &$ of the &88? Rules of !ivil Procedure,

as a-ended, and therefore did not interrupt the runnin of the period to appeal. Respondent "as

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_175279_2013.html#fnt1


















iven ten +&) da5s to sho" cause "h5 he should not be held in conte-pt of the court fordisreardin the March 2&, ())# order rantin support pendente lite.@

<is second -otion for reconsideration havin been denied, respondent filed a petition for certiorari inthe !'.

On 'pril &(, ())$, the !' rendered its Decision,8 findin -erit in respondent9s contention that thetrial court ravel5 abused its discretion in rantin P($),))).)) -onthl5 support to petitioner "ithoutevidence to prove his actual inco-e. The said court thus decreed3

A<RFOR, foreoin pre-ises considered, this petition is iven due course. The assailedOrders dated March 2&, ())#, Ma5 &2, ())#, :une #, ())# and :une &@, ())# of the Reional Trial!ourt, 7ranch &#, !ebu !it5 issued in !ivil !ase No. !7 No. (82#* entitled BSusan 4i- 4uaversus Danilo 6. 4uaB are hereb5 nullified and set aside and instead a ne" one is entered orderinherein petitioner3

a to pa5 private respondent a -onthl5 support pendente lite of P&&$,))).)) beinnin the-onth of 'pril ())$ and ever5 -onth thereafter "ithin the first five +$ da5s thereofC

b to pa5 the private respondent the a-ount of P&&$,))).)) a -onth -ultiplied b5 thenu-ber of -onths startin fro- Septe-ber ())2 until March ())$ less than the a-ountsupposedl5 iven b5 petitioner to the private respondent as her and their t"o +( children-onthl5 supportC and

c to pa5 the costs.

SO ORDRD.&)

Neither of the parties appealed this decision of the !'. In a !o-pliance&& dated :une (@, ())$,respondent attached a cop5 of a chec% he issued in the a-ount of P&*(,*$&.8) pa5able to

petitioner. Respondent e=plained that, as decreed in the !' decision, he deducted fro- the a-ountof support in arrears +Septe-ber 2, ())2 to March ())$ ordered b5 the !' // P(,&@$,))).)) //plus P#*),))).)) +'pril, Ma5, :une and :ul5 ())$, totalinP(,*#$,))).)), the advances iven b5hi- to his children and petitioner in the su- of P(,#@(,2#@.&* +"ith attached photocopies ofreceiptsbillins.

In her !o--ent to !o-pliance "ith Motion for Issuance of a Arit of =ecution,&( petitioner assertedthat none of the e=penses deducted b5 respondent -a5 be chareable as part of the -onthl5support conte-plated b5 the !' in !'/0.R. SP No. @#?#).

On Septe-ber (?, ())$, the trial court issued an Order &2 rantin petitioner9s -otion for issuance ofa "rit of e=ecution as it re>ected respondent9s interpretation of the !' decision. Respondent filed a

-otion for reconsideration and subseEuentl5 also filed a -otion for inhibition of :ude Raphael 7.6rastor;a, Sr. On Nove-ber ($, ())$, :ude 6rastor;a, Sr. issued an Order &# den5in both -otions.

A<RFOR, in vie" of the foreoin pre-ises, both -otions are DNID. Since a second -otionfor reconsideration is prohibited under the Rules, this denial has attained finalit5C let, therefore, a "ritof e=ecution be issued in favor of plaintiff as aainst defendant for the accu-ulated support inarrears pendente lite.

Notif5 both parties of this Order.

SO ORDRD.&$

Since respondent still failed and refused to pa5 the support in arrears pendente lite, petitioner filed inthe !' a Petition for !onte-pt of !ourt "ith Da-aes, doc%eted as !'/0.R. SP No. )&&$# +BSusan4i- 4ua versus Danilo 6. 4uaB. Respondent, on the other hand, filed !'/0.R. SP No. )&2&$, aPetition for !ertiorari under Rule *$ of the Rules of !ourt +BDanilo 6. 4ua versus <on. Raphael 7.6rastor;a, Sr., in his capacit5 as Presidin :ude of Reional Trial !ourt of !ebu, 7ranch &#, andSusan 4i- 4uaB. The t"o cases "ere consolidated.

75 Decision dated 'pril (), ())*, the !' set aside the assailed orders of the trial court, as follo"s3

A<RFOR, >ud-ent is hereb5 rendered3

a DISMISSIN0, for lac% of -erit, the case of Petition for !onte-pt of !ourt "ith Da-aesfiled b5 Susan 4i- 4ua aainst Danilo 6. 4ua "ith doc%et no. SP. !'/0R No. )&&$#C






















b 0R'NTIN0 Danilo 6. 4ua9s Petition for !ertiorari doc%eted as SP. !'/0R No. )&2&$.!onseEuentl5, the assailed Orders dated (? Septe-ber ())$ and ($ Nove-ber ())$ of theReional Trial !ourt, 7ranch &#, !ebu !it5 issued in !ivil !ase No. !7/(82#* entitledBSusan 4i- 4ua versus Danilo 6. 4ua, are hereb5 N44IFID and ST 'SID, and instead ane" one is entered3

i. ORDRIN0 the deduction of the a-ount of PhP(,#@(,2#@.&* plus 8#*,#*$.*#, or atotal of PhP2,#(@,@&2.@) fro- the current total support in arrears of Danilo 6. 4ua tohis "ife, Susan 4i- 4ua and their t"o +( childrenC

ii. ORDRIN0 Danilo 6. 4ua to resu-e pa5-ent of his -onthl5 support ofPhP&&$,))).)) pesos startin fro- the ti-e pa5-ent of this a-ount "as deferred b5hi- sub>ect to the deductions afore-entioned.

iii. DIR!TIN0 the issuance of a per-anent "rit of preli-inar5 in>unction.

SO ORDRD.&*

The appellate court said that the trial court should not have co-pletel5 disrearded the e=pensesincurred b5 respondent consistin of the purchase and -aintenance of the t"o cars, pa5-ent oftuition fees, travel e=penses, and the credit card purchases involvin roceries, dr5 oods andboo%s, "hich certainl5 inured to the benefit not onl5 of the t"o children, but their -other +petitioneras "ell. It held that respondent9s act of deferrin the -onthl5 support ad>uded in !'/0.R. SP No.@#?#) "as not contu-acious as it "as anchored on valid and >ustifiable reasons. Respondent saidhe >ust "anted the issue of "hether to deduct his advances be settled first in vie" of the differentinterpretation b5 the trial court of the appellate court9s decision in !'/0.R. SP No. @#?#). It alsonoted the lac% of contribution fro- the petitioner in the >oint obliation of spouses to support theirchildren.

Petitioner filed a -otion for reconsideration but it "as denied b5 the !'.

<ence, this petition raisin the follo"in errors alleedl5 co--itted b5 the !'3

I.

T< <ONOR'74 !ORT RRD IN NOT FINDIN0 RSPONDNT 0I4T6 OFINDIR!T !ONTMPT.

II.

T< <ONOR'74 !ORT RRD IN ORDRIN0 T< DD!TION OF T< 'MONTOF P<P(,#@(,2#@.&* P4S 8#*,#*$.*#, OR ' TOT'4 OF P<P2,#(@,@&2.@) FROM T<

!RRNT TOT'4 SPPORT IN 'RR'RS OF T< RSPONDNT TO T< PTITIONR 'ND T<IR !<I4DRN.&?

The -ain issue is "hether certain e=penses alread5 incurred b5 the respondent -a5 be deductedfro- the total support in arrears o"in to petitioner and her children pursuant to the Decision dated

'pril &(, ())$ in !'/0.R. SP No. @#?#).

The pertinent provision of the Fa-il5 !ode of the Philippines provides3

'rticle &8#. Support co-prises ever5thin indispensable for sustenance, d"ellin, clothin, -edicalattendance, education and transportation, in %eepin "ith the financial capacit5 of the fa-il5.

The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to in the precedin pararaph shallinclude his schoolin or trainin for so-e profession, trade or vocation, even be5ond the ae of-a>orit5. Transportation shall include e=penses in oin to and fro- school, or to and fro- place of"or%. +-phasis supplied.

Petitioner arues that it "as patentl5 erroneous for the !' to have allo"ed the deduction of thevalue of the t"o cars and their -aintenance costs fro- the support in arrears, as these ite-s are notindispensable to the sustenance of the fa-il5 or in %eepin the- alive. She points out that in theDecision in !'/0.R. SP No. @#?#), the !' alread5 considered the said ite-s "hich it dee-edchareable to respondent, "hile the -onthl5 support pendente lite +P&&$,))).)) "as fi=ed on thebasis of the docu-entar5 evidence of respondent9s alleed inco-e fro- various businesses andpetitioner9s testi-on5 that she needed P&&2,))).)) for the -aintenance of the household and other-iscellaneous e=penses e=cludin the P&2$,))).)) -edical attendance e=penses of petitioner.








Respondent, on the other hand, contends that disallo"in the sub>ect deductions "ould result inun>ust enrich-ent, thus -a%in hi- pa5 for the sa-e obliation t"ice. Since petitioner and thechildren resided in one residence, the roceries and dr5 oods purchased b5 the children usinrespondent9s credit card, totallinP$8#,&$&.$@ for the period Septe-ber ())2 to :une ())$ "ere notconsu-ed b5 the children alone but shared "ith their -other. 's to the Vol%s"aen 7eetle and7MA 2&*i respondent bouht for his dauhter 'nelli Su;anne 4ua and Daniel R5an 4ua,

respectivel5, these, too, are to be considered advances for support, in %eepin "ith the financialcapacit5 of the fa-il5. Respondent stressed that bein children of parents belonin to the upper/class societ5, 'nelli and Daniel R5an had never in their entire life co--uted fro- one place toanother, nor do the5 eat their -eals at BcarinderiasB. <ence, the cars and their -aintenance areindispensable to the children9s da5/to/da5 livin, the value of "hich "ere properl5 deducted fro- thearrearaes in support pendente lite ordered b5 the trial and appellate courts.

's a -atter of la", the a-ount of support "hich those related b5 -arriae and fa-il5 relationship isenerall5 oblied to ive each other shall be in proportion to the resources or -eans of the iver andto the needs of the recipient.&@ Such support co-prises ever5thin indispensable for sustenance,d"ellin, clothin, -edical attendance, education and transportation, in %eepin "ith the financialcapacit5 of the fa-il5.

pon receipt of a verified petition for declaration of absolute nullit5 of void -arriae or for annul-entof voidable -arriae, or for leal separation, and at an5 ti-e durin the proceedin, the court, -otuproprio or upon verified application of an5 of the parties, uardian or desinated custodian, -a5te-poraril5 rant support pendente lite prior to the rendition of >ud-ent or final order.&8 7ecause ofits provisional nature, a court does not need to delve full5 into the -erits of the case before it cansettle an application for this relief. 'll that a court is tas%ed to do is deter-ine the %ind and a-ount of evidence "hich -a5 suffice to enable it to >ustl5 resolve the application. It is enouh that the facts beestablished b5 affidavits or other docu-entar5 evidence appearin in the record.()

In this case, the a-ount of -onthl5 support pendente lite for petitioner and her t"o children "asdeter-ined after due hearin and sub-ission of docu-entar5 evidence b5 the parties. 'lthouh thea-ount fi=ed b5 the trial court "as reduced on appeal, it is clear that the -onthl5 support pendente

lite of P&&$,))).)) ordered b5 the !' "as intended pri-aril5 for the sustenance of petitioner and her children, e.., food, clothin, salaries of drivers and house helpers, and other household e=penses.Petitioner9s testi-on5 also -entioned the cost of reular therap5 for her scoliosis andvita-ins-edicines.

'TT6. GOS'3

= = = =

H <o" -uch do 5ou spend for 5our food and 5our t"o +( children ever5 -onth

' Presentl5, Sir

'TT6. GOS'3

6es.

' For the food alone, I spend not over P

#),))).)) to P$),))).)) a -onth for the food alone.

= = = =

'TT6. GOS'3

H Ahat other e=penses do 5ou incur in livin in that place

' The nor-al household and the nor-al e=penses for a fa-il5 to have a decent livin, Sir.

H <o" -uch other e=penses do 5ou incur

AITNSS3

' For other e=penses, is around over a P&)),))).)), Sir.

H Ah5 do 5ou incur that -uch a-ount

' For the clothin for the three +2 of us, for the vita-ins and -edicines. 'nd also I a- havin aspecial therap5 to straihten -5 bac% because I a- scoliotic. I a- advised b5 the Doctor to hire a











driver, but I cannot still afford it no". 7ecause -5 e5esiht is not reliable for drivin. 'nd I still needanother househelp to acco-pan5 -e "henever I o -ar%etin because for -5 ae, I cannot carr5an5-ore heav5 loads.

= = = =

'TT6. F4ORS3

= = = =

H On the issue of the food for 5ou and the t"o +( children, 5ou -entioned P#),))).))to P$),))).))

' 6es, for the food alone.

H O%a5, "hat other possible e=penses that 5ou "ould li%e to include in those t"o +( ite-s 6ou-entioned of a driver, a- I correct

' 6es, I -iht need t"o +( drivers, Sir for -e and -5 children.

H O%a5. <o" -uch "ould 5ou li%e possibl5 to pa5 for those t"o +( drivers

' I thin% P&),))).)) a -onth for one +& driver. So I need t"o +( drivers. 'nd I need anotherhousehelp.

H 6ou need another househelp. The househelp no"ada5s "ould chare 5ou so-ethinbet"een P2,))).)) toP#,))).)). That9s EuiteJ

' Riht no", -5 househelp is receivin P@,))).)). I need another "hich I "ill ive a co-pensationof P$,))).)).

H Other than that, do 5ou still have other e=penses

' M5 clothin.

!ORT3

<o" about the schoolin for 5our children

AITNSS3

' The schoolin is shouldered b5 -5 husband, 6our <onor.

!ORT3

ver5thin

' 6es, 6our <onor.

= = = =

'TT6. F4ORS3

H Mada- "itness, let us tal% of the present needs. = = =. Ahat else, "hat specific need that 5ou"ould li%e to add so I can tell -5 client, the defendant.

AITNSS3

' I need to have an operation both of -5 e5es. I also need a special therap5 for -5 bac% because Ia- scoliotic, three +2 ti-es a "ee%.

H That is ver5 reasonable. KALould 5ou care to please repeat that

' Therap5 for -5 scoliotic bac% and then also for the operation both of -5 e5es. 'nd I a- alsota%in so-e vita-ins fro- e=cel that "ill cost P(),))).)) a -onth.



H O%a5. 4et9s have piece b5 piece. <ave 5ou as%ed the Doctor ho" -uch "ould it cost 5ou for theoperation of that scoliotic

' 6es before because I "as alread5 due last 5ear. 7efore, this e5e "ill cost P*),))).)) and theother e5esP?$,))).)).

H So for both e5es, 5ou are tal%in of P*),))).)) plus P?$,))).)) is P&2$,))).))

' 6es.

= = = =

H 6ou tal% of therap5

' 6es.

H So ho" -uch is that

' 'round P$,))).)) a "ee%.(&

's to the financial capacit5 of the respondent, it is be5ond doubt that he can solel5 provide for thesubsistence, education, transportation, health-edical needs and recreational activities of hischildren, as "ell as those of petitioner "ho "as then une-plo5ed and a full/ti-e house"ife. Despitethis, respondent9s counsel -anifested durin the sa-e hearin that respondent "as "illin to rantthe a-ount of onl5 P?$,))).)) as -onthl5 support pendente lite both for the children and petitioneras spousal support. Thouh the receipts of e=penses sub-itted in court un-ista%abl5 sho" ho"-uch respondent lavished on his children, it appears that the -atter of spousal support "as adifferent -atter altoether. Re>ectin petitioner9s pra5er for P$)),))).)) -onthl5 support and findinthe P?$,))).)) -onthl5 support offered b5 respondent as insufficient, the trial court fi=ed the-onthl5 support pendente lite at P($),))).)). <o"ever, since the supposed inco-e in -ill ions of

respondent "as based -erel5 on the alleations of petitioner in her co-plaint and reistrationdocu-ents of various corporations "hich respondent insisted are o"ned not b5 hi- but his parentsand siblins, the !' reduced the a-ount of support pendente lite to P&&$,))).)), "hich rulin "asno loner Euestioned b5 both parties.

!ontrovers5 bet"een the parties resurfaced "hen respondent9s co-pliance "ith the final !'decision indicated that he deducted fro- the total a-ount in arrears +P(,*#$,))).)) the su-of P(,#@(,2#@.&*, representin the value of the t"o cars for the children, their cost of -aintenanceand advances iven to petitioner and his children. Respondent e=plained that the deductions "ere-ade consistent "ith the fallo of the !' Decision in !'/0.R. SP No. @#?#) orderin hi- to pa5support pendente lite in arrears less the a-ount supposedl5 iven b5 hi- to petitioner as her andtheir t"o children9s -onthl5 support.

The follo"in is a su--ar5 of the sub>ect deductions under !o-pliance dated :une (@, ())$, dul5supported b5 receipts((3

!ar purchases for 'nelli Su;anne / Php&,2$),))).))

and Daniel R5an / *&2,#?(.@*

!ar Maintenance fees of 'nelli /Su;anne

$&,(2(.$)

!redit card state-ents of Daniel R5an / 2#@,*@(.(@

!ar Maintenance fees of Daniel R5an / &&@,8*).$(

Php(,#@(,2#@.&*

'fter the trial court disallo"ed the foreoin deductions, respondent filed a -otion forreconsideration further assertin that the follo"in a-ounts, li%e"ise "ith supportin receipts, beconsidered as additional advances iven to petitioner and the children(23

Medical e=penses of Susan 4i-/4ua Php #(,#$).?&

Dental =penses of Daniel R5an &&,$)).))

Travel e=penses of Susan 4i-/4ua &#,*&&.&$











!redit card purchases of 'nelliSu;anne

#)@,@8&.)@

Salon and travel e=penses of 'nelliSu;anne

@?,&&(.?)

School e=penses of Daniel R5an 4ua (*),8)).))

!ash iven to Daniel and 'nelli &(&,))).))

TOT'4 / Php 8#*,#*$.*#

0R'ND TOT'4 / Php 2,#(@,@&2.@)

The !', in rulin for the respondent said that all the foreoin e=penses alread5 incurred b5 therespondent should, in eEuit5, be considered advances "hich -a5 be properl5 deducted fro- thesupport in arrears due to the petitioner and the t"o children. Said court also noted the absence ofpetitioner9s contribution to the >oint obliation of support for their children.

Ae reverse in part the decision of the !'.

:udicial deter-ination of support pendente lite in cases of leal separation and petitions fordeclaration of nullit5 or annul-ent of -arriae are uided b5 the follo"in provisions of the Rule onProvisional Orders(#

Sec. (. Spousal Support.In deter-inin support for the spouses, the court -a5 be uided b5 thefollo"in rules3

+a In the absence of adeEuate provisions in a "ritten aree-ent bet"een the spouses, thespouses -a5 be supported fro- the properties of the absolute co--unit5 or the con>ual

partnership.

+b The court -a5 a"ard support to either spouse in such a-ount and for such period of ti-eas the court -a5 dee- >ust and reasonable based on their standard of livin durin the-arriae.

+c The court -a5 li%e"ise consider the follo"in factors3 +& "hether the spouse see%insupport is the custodian of a child "hose circu-stances -a%e it appropriate for that spousenot to see% outside e-plo5-entC +( the ti-e necessar5 to acEuire sufficient education andtrainin to enable the spouse see%in support to find appropriate e-plo5-ent, and thatspouse9s future earnin capacit5C +2 the duration of the -arriaeC +# the co-parativefinancial resources of the spouses, includin their co-parative earnin abilities in the labor

-ar%etC +$ the needs and obliations of each spouseC +* the contribution of each spouse tothe -arriae, includin services rendered in ho-e/-a%in, child care, education, and careerbuildin of the other spouseC +? the ae and health of the spousesC +@ the ph5sical ande-otional conditions of the spousesC +8 the abilit5 of the supportin spouse to ive support,ta%in into account that spouse9s earnin capacit5, earned and unearned inco-e, assets,and standard of livinC and +&) an5 other factor the court -a5 dee- >ust and eEuitable.

+d The Fa-il5 !ourt -a5 direct the deduction of the provisional support fro- the salar5 ofthe spouse.

Sec. 2. !hild Support.The co--on children of the spouses shall be supported fro- the propertiesof the absolute co--unit5 or the con>ual partnership.

Sub>ect to the sound discretion of the court, either parent or both -a5 be ordered to ive an a-ountnecessar5 for the support, -aintenance, and education of the child. It shall be in proportion to theresources or -eans of the iver and to the necessities of the recipient.

In deter-inin the a-ount of provisional support, the court -a5 li%e"ise consider the follo"infactors3 +& the financial resources of the custodial and non/custodial parent and those of the childC+( the ph5sical and e-otional health of the child and his or her special needs and aptitudesC +2 thestandard of livin the child has been accusto-ed toC +# the non/-onetar5 contributions that theparents "ill -a%e to"ard the care and "ell/bein of the child.

The Fa-il5 !ourt -a5 direct the deduction of the provisional support fro- the salar5 of the parent.





Since the a-ount of -onthl5 support pendente lite as fi=ed b5 the !' "as not appealed b5 eitherpart5, there is no controvers5 as to its sufficienc5 and reasonableness. The dispute concerns thedeductions -ade b5 respondent in settlin the support in arrears.

On the issue of creditin of -one5 pa5-ents or e=penses aainst accrued support, "e find asrelevant the follo"in rulins b5 S courts.

In 7radford v. Futrell,($ appellant souht revie" of the decision of the !ircuit !ourt "hich found hi- inarrears "ith his child support pa5-ents and entered a decree in favor of appellee "ife. <eco-plained that in deter-inin the arrearae fiure, he should have been allo"ed full credit for all-one5 and ite-s of personal propert5 iven b5 hi- to the children the-selves, even thouh hereferred to the- as ifts. The !ourt of 'ppeals of Mar5land ruled that in the suit to deter-ine a-ountof arrears due the divorced "ife under decree for support of -inor children, the husband +appellant"as not entitled to credit for chec%s "hich he had clearl5 desinated as ifts, nor "as he entitled tocredit for an auto-obile iven to the oldest son or a television set iven to the children. Thus, if thechildren re-ain in the custod5 of the -other, the father is not entitled to credit for -one5 paid directl5to the children if such "as paid "ithout an5 relation to the decree.

In the absence of so-e findin of consent b5 the -other, -ost courts refuse to allo" a husband todictate ho" he "ill -eet the reEuire-ents for support pa5-ents "hen the -ode of pa5-ent is fi=edb5 a decree of court. Thus he "ill not be credited for pa5-ents -ade "hen he unnecessaril5interposed hi-self as a volunteer and -ade pa5-ents direct to the children of his o"n accord. Aillsv. 7a%er, (&# S. A. (d ?#@ +Mo. &8#@C Opensha" v. Opensha", #( P. (d &8& +tah &82$. In thelatter case the court said in part3 BThe pa5-ents to the children the-selves do not appear to havebeen -ade as pa5-ents upon ali-on5, but "ere rather the result of his fatherl5 interest in the"elfare of those children. Ae do not believe he should be per-itted to chare the- to plaintiff. 75 sodoin he "ould be deter-inin for Mrs. Opensha" the -anner in "hich she should e=pend herallo"ances. It is a ver5 eas5 thin for children to sa5 their -other "ill not ive the- -one5,especiall5 as the5 -a5 reali;e that such a plea is effective in attainin their ends. If she is nottreatin the- riht the courts are open to the father for redress.B(*

In Martin, :r. v. Martin,(? the Supre-e !ourt of Aashinton held that a father, "ho is reEuired b5 adivorce decree to -a%e child support pa5-ents directl5 to the -other, cannot clai- credit forpa5-ents voluntaril5 -ade directl5 to the children. <o"ever, special considerations of an eEuitablenature -a5 >ustif5 a court in creditin such pa5-ents on his indebtedness to the -other, "hen suchcan be done "ithout in>ustice to her.

The eneral rule is to the effect that "hen a father is reEuired b5 a divorce decree to pa5 to the-other -one5 for the support of their dependent children and the unpaid and accrued install-entsbeco-e >ud-ents in her favor, he cannot, as a -atter of la", clai- credit on account of pa5-entsvoluntaril5 -ade directl5 to the children. oon v. oon, supraC 7ris v. 7ris, supra. <o"ever,special considerations of an eEuitable nature -a5 >ustif5 a court in creditin such pa5-ents on hisindebtedness to the -other, "hen that can be done "ithout in>ustice to her. 7ris v. 7ris, supra.

The courts are >ustifiabl5 reluctant to la5 do"n an5 eneral rules as to "hen such credits -a5 beallo"ed.(@ +-phasis supplied.

<ere, the !' should not have allo"ed all the e=penses incurred b5 respondent to be creditedaainst the accrued support pendente lite. 's earlier -entioned, the -onthl5 support pendente literanted b5 the trial court "as intended pri-aril5 for food, household e=penses such as salaries ofdrivers and house helpers, and also petitioner9s scoliosis therap5 sessions. <ence, the value of t"oe=pensive cars bouht b5 respondent for his children plus their -aintenance cost, travel e=penses of petitioner and 'nelli, purchases throuh credit card of ite-s other than roceries and dr5 oods+clothin should have been disallo"ed, as these bear no relation to the >ud-ent a"ardin supportpendente lite. Ahile it is true that the dispositive portion of the e=ecutor5 decision in !'/0.R. SP No.@#?#) ordered herein respondent to pa5 the support in arrears Bless than the a-ount supposedl5iven b5 petitioner to the private respondent as her and their t"o +( children -onthl5 support,B the

deductions should be li-ited to those basic needs and e=penses considered b5 the trial andappellate courts. The assailed rulin of the !' allo"in hue deductions fro- the accrued -onthl5support of petitioner and her children, "hile correct insofar as it co--ends the enerosit5 of therespondent to his children, is clearl5 inconsistent "ith the e=ecutor5 decision in !'/0.R. SP No.@#?#). More i-portant, it co-pletel5 inores the unfair conseEuences to petitioner "hosesustenance and "ell/bein, "as iven due reard b5 the trial and appellate courts. This is evidentfro- the March 2&, ())# Order rantin support pendente lite to petitioner and her children, "henthe trial court observed3

Ahile there is evidence to the effect that defendant is ivin so-e for-s of financial assistance tohis t"o +( children via their credit cards and pa5in for their school e=penses, the sa-e is, ho"ever,devoid of an5 for- of spousal support to the plaintiff, for, at this point in ti-e, "hile the action for

nullit5 of -arriae is still to be heard, it is incu-bent upon the defendant, considerin the ph5sical













and financial condition of the plaintiff and the over"hel-in capacit5 of defendant, to e=tend supportunto the latter. = = =(8

On appeal, "hile the Decision in !'/0.R. SP No. @#?#) reduced the a-ount of -onthl5 supportfi=ed b5 the trial court, it nevertheless held that considerin respondent9s financial resources, it is butfair and >ust that he ive a -onthl5 support for the sustenance and basic necessities of petitioner

and his children. This "ould i-pl5 that an5 a-ount respondent see%s to be credited as -onthl5support should onl5 cover those incurred for sustenance and household e=penses. 1avvphi1

In the case at bar, records clearl5 sho" and in fact has been ad-itted b5 petitioner that aside fro-pa5in the e=penses of their t"o +( children9s schoolin, he ave his t"o +( children t"o +( carsand credit cards of "hich the e=penses for various ite-s na-el53 clothes, rocer5 ite-s and repairsof their cars "ere chareable to hi- "hich totaled an a-ount of -ore than One <undred Thousand+P&)),))).)) for each of the- and considerin that as testified b5 the private respondent that sheneeds the total a-ount of P&&2,))).)) for the -aintenance of the household and other-iscellaneous e=penses and considerin further that petitioner can afford to bu5 cars for his t"o +(children, and to pa5 the e=penses incurred b5 the- "hich are chareable to hi- throuh the creditcards he provided the- in the a-ount of P&)),))).)) each, it is but fair and >ust that the -onthl5

support pendente lite for his "ife, herein private respondent, be fi=ed as of the present in the a-ountof P&&$,))).)) "hich "ould be sufficient enouh to ta%e care of the household and other needs.This -onthl5 support pendente lite to private respondent in the a-ount of P&&$,))).)) e=cludes thea-ount of One <undred Thirt5Five +P&2$,))).)) Thousand Pesos for -edical attendancee=penses needed b5 private respondent for the operation of both her e5es "hich is de-andableupon the conduct of such operation. 4i%e"ise, this -onthl5 support ofP&&$,))).)) is "ithoutpre>udice to an5 increase or decrease thereof that the trial court -a5 rant private respondent as thecircu-stances -a5 "arrant i.e. dependin on the proof sub-itted b5 the parties durin theproceedins for the -ain action for support.

The a-ounts alread5 e=tended to the t"o +( children, bein a co--endable act of petitioner,should be continued b5 hi- considerin the vast financial resources at his disposal.2) +-phasissupplied.

'ccordinl5, onl5 the follo"in e=penses of respondent -a5 be allo"ed as deductions fro- theaccrued support pendente lite for petitioner and her children3

1âwphi1

Medical e=penses of Susan 4i-/4ua Php #(,#$).?&

Dental =penses of Daniel R5an &&,$)).))

!redit card purchases of 'nelli 2*$,(@(.()

+0roceries and Dr5 0oods!redit !ard purchases of Daniel R5an

((@,@*8.2@

TOT'4 P$% &'8,102.29

's to the conte-pt chare, "e sustain the !' in holdin that respondent is not uilt5 of indirectconte-pt.

!onte-pt of court is defined as a disobedience to the court b5 actin in opposition to its authorit5, >ustice, and dinit5. It sinifies not onl5 a "illful disreard or disobedience of the court9s order, butsuch conduct "hich tends to brin the authorit5 of the court and the ad-inistration of la" intodisrepute or, in so-e -anner, to i-pede the due ad-inistration of >ustice.2& To constitute conte-pt,the act -ust be done "illfull5 and for an illeiti-ate or i-proper purpose.2( The ood faith, or lac% ofit, of the alleed conte-nor should be considered.22

Respondent ad-ittedl5 ceased or suspended the ivin of -onthl5 support pendente lite ranted b5the trial court, "hich is i--ediatel5 e=ecutor5. <o"ever, "e aree "ith the !' that respondent9s act"as not contu-acious considerin that he had not been re-iss in actuall5 providin for the needs ofhis children. It is a -atter of record that respondent continued shoulderin the full cost of theireducation and even be5ond their basic necessities in %eepin "ith the fa-il59s social status.Moreover, respondent believed in ood faith that the trial and appellate courts, upon eEuitablerounds, "ould allo" hi- to offset the substantial a-ounts he had spent or paid directl5 to hischildren.

Respondent co-plains that petitioner is ver5 -uch capacitated to enerate inco-e on her o"nbecause she presentl5 -aintains a boutiEue at the '5ala !enter Mall in !ebu !it5 and at the sa-eti-e enaes in the business of lendin -one5. <e also clai-s that the t"o children have finishedtheir education and are no" e-plo5ed in the fa-il5 business earnin their o"n salaries.














Suffice it to state that the -atter of increase or reduction of support should be sub-itted to the trialcourt in "hich the action for declaration for nullit5 of -arriae "as filed, as this !ourt is not a trier offacts. The a-ount of support -a5 be reduced or increased proportionatel5 accordin to thereduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources or -eans of the personoblied to support.2# 's "e held in 'dvincula v. 'dvincula2$

J:ud-ent for support does not beco-e final. The riht to support is of such nature that itsallo"ance is essentiall5 provisionalC for durin the entire period that a need5 part5 is entitled tosupport, his or her ali-on5 -a5 be -odified or altered, in accordance "ith his increased ordecreased needs, and "ith the -eans of the iver. It cannot be rearded as sub>ect to finaldeter-ination.2*

A<RFOR, the petition is P'RT46 0R'NTD. The Decision dated 'pril (), ())* of the !ourt of 'ppeals in !'/0.R. SP Nos. )&&$# and )&2&$ is hereb5 MODIFID to read as follo"s3

BA<RFOR, >ud-ent is hereb5 rendered3

a DISMISSIN0, for lac% of -erit, the case of Petition for !onte-pt of !ourt "ith Da-aes

filed b5 Susan 4i- 4ua aainst Danilo 6. 4ua "ith doc%et no. SP. !'/0.R. No. )&&$#C

b 0R'NTIN0 IN P'RT Danilo 6. 4ua1s Petition for !ertiorari doc%eted as SP. !'/0.R. No.)&2&$. !onseEuentl5, the assailed Orders dated (? Septe-ber ())$ and ($ Nove-ber())$ of the Reional Trial !ourt, 7ranch &#, !ebu !it5 issued in !ivil !ase No. !7/(82#*entitled BSusan 4i- 4ua versus Danilo 6. 4ua, are hereb5 N44IFID and ST 'SID, andinstead a ne" one is entered3

i. ORDRIN0 the deduction of the a-ount of Php *#@,&)(.(8 fro- the supportpendente lite in arrears of Danilo 6. 4ua to his "ife, Susan 4i- 4ua and their t"o +(childrenC

ii. ORDRIN0 Danilo 6. 4ua to resu-e pa5-ent of his -onthl5 support ofPhP&&$,))).)) pesos startin fro- the ti-e pa5-ent of this a-ount "as deferred b5hi- sub>ect to the deduction afore-entioned.

iii. DIR!TIN0 the i--ediate e=ecution of this >ud-ent.

SO ORDRD.B

No pronounce-ent as to costs.

SO ORDRD.









support pendente

Documents