Sirang Haligi – What Really Makes a Father a Good Father Of The Family
In Philippine society, the father is supposed to be the breadwinner of the family – the supposed haligi ng tahanan or pillar of the household. But is it really just the father that has the obligation to support?
The Family Code of the Philippines recognizes the joint responsibility of the spouses to support the family. This means that there may be a reasonable expectation for both spouses to provide support to each other and the family. The burden to support is not dependent on one of the spouses alone.
In the case of Acharon vs. People, the Supreme Court discussed the joint obligation of spouses for support.
“...the obligation to support is imposed mutually upon the spouses. In other words, both the husband and the wife have the obligation to give support to each other.”
The Supreme Court further discussed that while there is a joint obligation, when the wife fails to provide support, it results in civil liability only. As to the husband, the same results to both civil and criminal liability. A civil case for support or a criminal case for denial of financial support pursuant to Section 5(e) or 5(i) of R.A. 9262 may be filed against the male spouse.
When the husband pays for the majority of a loan undertaken by the spouses together, he cannot be held liable for denial of financial support since the spouses were obliged to pay from the community property.
In order for criminal liability to attach, the spouse or partner must willfully or consciously deny financial support. When there is proof that the spouse or partner has successfully provided financial support and eventually stopped due to illness or lack of gainful income beyond their control, there may be no willful or conscious denial of support given the extenuating circumstances.
Considering that support is imposed mutually upon the spouses, how much support should be given by the male spouse?
The Family Code provides that, “support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.”
As to the amount, it shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to the necessities of the recipient and it may be reduced or increased proportionately.
As an example, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Cumigad vs. AAA that it is proper for a bank manager who has a salary of over Php 100,000.00 to provide one third (1/3) of his salary as support for his legitimate child instead of the Php 10,500.00 he has been giving.
Further, in Paterno vs. Paterno, the Supreme Court gave merit to the reduction of support from the father considering that the marriage between the spouses was dissolved and their legitimate children had reached the age of majority.
On 29 August 2023, House Bill No. 8987 or the “Paternal Child Support Responsibility Act of 2023” was filed in Congress wherein an imposition as to the amount of paternal child support was made. The bill proposes that at least 10% of the father’s salary be imposed as the minimum amount of paternal child support. It seeks to further mandate that support per child shall not be lower than Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) per month. A penalty of imprisonment or fine as the case may be is likewise imposed on any person who willfully fails to pay paternal child support.
In any case, the law recognizes the duty of spouses to support each other and the duty of parents to provide and support their children.
Arts. 68, 70, and 195 of the Family Code
Christian Pantonial Acharon vs. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 224946. November 9, 2021.
Art. 194, Family Code
Arts. 201 and 202, Family Code
Edward Cumigad vs. AAA, G.R. No. 219715. December 06, 2021.
Simon Paterno vs. Dina Marie Lomongo Paterno, G.R. No. 213687. January 08, 2020.
