Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    AFP v. YAHON

    Uploaded by

    JM Guevarra
    The Republic of the Philippines represented by the Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center (AFPFC) petitioned to lift a temporary protection order granted to Daisy Yahon against her husband, an AFP member. The AFPFC argued it was not subject to the court's order as it was not directly impleaded in the case. However, the court ruled that under Section 8(g) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act, the term "employer" includes the government. As a support enforcement measure, the law allows garnishment of government funds to satisfy legal support obligations. Therefore, the petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    AFP v. YAHON

    Uploaded by

    JM Guevarra
    42 views4 pages
    The Republic of the Philippines represented by the Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center (AFPFC) petitioned to lift a temporary protection order granted to Daisy Yahon against her husband, an AFP member. The AFPFC argued it was not subject to the court's order as it was not directly impleaded in the case. However, the court ruled that under Section 8(g) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act, the term "employer" includes the government. As a support enforcement measure, the law allows garnishment of government funds to satisfy legal support obligations. Therefore, the petition was denied.

    Original Description:

    T

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Republic of the Philippines represented by the Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center (AFPFC) petitioned to lift a temporary protection order granted to Daisy Yahon against her husband, an AFP member. The AFPFC argued it was not subject to the court's order as it was not directly impleaded in the case. However, the court ruled that under Section 8(g) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act, the term "employer" includes the government. As a support enforcement measure, the law allows garnishment of government funds to satisfy legal support obligations. Therefore, the petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    42 views4 pages

    AFP v. YAHON

    Uploaded by

    JM Guevarra
    The Republic of the Philippines represented by the Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center (AFPFC) petitioned to lift a temporary protection order granted to Daisy Yahon against her husband, an AFP member. The AFPFC argued it was not subject to the court's order as it was not directly impleaded in the case. However, the court ruled that under Section 8(g) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act, the term "employer" includes the government. As a support enforcement measure, the law allows garnishment of government funds to satisfy legal support obligations. Therefore, the petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    REPUBLIC​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​PHILIPPINES,​ ​represented​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Armed​ ​Forces​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Philippines

    Finance​ ​Center​ ​(AFPFC)​ ​v.​ ​DAISY​ ​R.​ ​YAHON

    FACTS:
    Daisy​ ​Yahon,​ ​petitioner,​ ​filed​ ​for​ ​a​ ​temporary​ ​protection​ ​order​ ​against​ ​her​ ​husband,​ ​S/Sgt.​ ​Charles
    A.​ ​Yahon​ ​(Sgt.​ ​Yahon),​ ​under​ ​the​ ​provisions​ ​of​ ​RA​ ​9262​ ​(Protection​ ​Against​ ​Women​ ​and
    Children),with​ ​this,​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​ordered​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​to​ ​withhold​ ​any​ ​retirement,​ ​pension,​ ​and​ ​other
    benefits​ ​due​ ​to​ ​her​ ​husband​ ​for​ ​the ​ ​ensurance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​fair​ ​share​ ​supposedly​ ​accorded​ ​to
    respondent.​ ​Meanwhile,​ ​Sgt.​ ​Yahon​ ​was​ ​also​ ​obliged​ ​to​ ​give​ ​her​ ​a​ ​monthly​ ​allowance​ ​of​ ​4,000​ ​for
    Spousal​ ​Support.​ ​However,​ ​Sgt.​ ​Yahon​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​comply​ ​with​ ​these​ ​obligations.​ ​Subsequently,​ ​the
    court​ ​granted​ ​a​ ​Permanent​ ​Protection​ ​Order​ ​to​ ​the​ ​respondent​ ​as​ ​ ​evidence​ ​proved​ ​that​ ​Sgt.​ ​Yahon
    had​ ​continuosly​ ​threatened​ ​her​ ​with​ ​deliberate​ ​acts​ ​of​ ​intimidation​ ​and​ ​threatening​ ​words.
    Petitioner​ ​then​ ​filed​ ​a​ ​manifestation​ ​and​ ​motion​ ​to​ ​lift​ ​TPO​ ​against​ ​them,​ ​stating​ ​that​ ​that​ ​it​ ​was
    making​ ​a​ ​limited​ ​and​ ​special​ ​appearance.​ ​Petitioner​ ​informed​ ​the​ ​RTC​ ​that​ ​S/Sgt.​ ​Yahon’s​ ​check
    representing​ ​his​ ​36​ ​MLS​ ​had​ ​been​ ​processed​ ​and​ ​is​ ​ready​ ​for​ ​payment​ ​by​ ​the​ ​AFPFC,​ ​but​ ​to​ ​date
    said​ ​check​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​claimed​ ​by​ ​respondent.
    Petitioner​ ​further​ ​asserted​ ​that​ ​while​ ​it​ ​has​ ​initially​ ​discharged​ ​its​ ​obligation​ ​under​ ​the​ ​TPO,​ ​the​ ​RTC
    had​ ​not​ ​acquired​ ​jurisdiction​ ​over​ ​the​ ​military​ ​institution​ ​due​ ​to​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​summons,​ ​and​ ​hence​ ​the
    AFPFC​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​bound​ ​by​ ​the​ ​said​ ​court​ ​order.​ ​Additionally,​ ​petitioner​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​AFPFC
    is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​party-in-interest​ ​and​ ​is​ ​a​ ​complete​ ​stranger​ ​to​ ​the​ ​proceedings​ ​before​ ​the​ ​RTC​ ​on​ ​the
    issuance​ ​of​ ​TPO/PPO.​ ​Not​ ​being​ ​impleaded​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case,​ ​petitioner​ ​lamented​ ​that​ ​it​ ​was​ ​not​ ​afforded
    due​ ​process​ ​and​ ​it​ ​was​ ​thus​ ​improper​ ​to​ ​issue​ ​execution​ ​against​ ​the​ ​AFPFC.​ ​Consequently,
    petitioner​ ​emphasized​ ​its​ ​position​ ​that​ ​the​ ​AFPFC​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​directed​ ​to​ ​comply​ ​with​ ​the​ ​TPO​ ​without
    violating​ ​its​ ​right​ ​to​ ​procedural​ ​due​ ​process.

    **Sec​ ​8​ ​RA​ ​9262​ ​(g)**


    (g)​ ​Directing​ ​the​ ​respondent​ ​to​ ​provide​ ​support​ ​to​ ​the​ ​woman​ ​and/or​ ​her​ ​child​ ​if​ ​entitled​ ​to​ ​legal
    support.​ ​Notwithstanding​ ​other​ ​laws​ ​to​ ​the​ ​contrary,​ ​the​ ​court​ ​shall​ ​order​ ​an​ ​appropriate​ ​percentage
    of​ ​the​ ​income​ ​or​ ​salary​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondent​ ​to​ ​be​ ​withheld​ ​regularly​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondent's​ ​employer​ ​for
    the​ ​same​ ​to​ ​be​ ​automatically​ ​remitted​ ​directly​ ​to​ ​the​ ​woman.​ ​Failure​ ​to​ ​remit​ ​and/or​ ​withhold​ ​or​ ​any
    delay​ ​in​ ​the​ ​remittance​ ​of​ ​support​ ​to​ ​the​ ​woman​ ​and/or​ ​her​ ​child​ ​without​ ​justifiable​ ​cause​ ​shall
    render​ ​the​ ​respondent​ ​or​ ​his​ ​employer​ ​liable​ ​for​ ​indirect​ ​contempt​ ​of​ ​court

    ISSUE:
    WON​ ​the​ ​word​ ​"employer"​ ​includes​ ​the​ ​AFP​ ​(gov't)

    HELD:
    Section​ ​8(g)​ ​of​ ​R.A.​ ​No.​ ​9262​ ​used​ ​the​ ​general​ ​term​ ​"employer,"​ ​which​ ​includes​ ​in​ ​its​ ​coverage​ ​the
    military​ ​institution,​ ​S/Sgt.​ ​Yahon’s​ ​employer.​ ​Where​ ​the​ ​law​ ​does​ ​not​ ​distinguish,​ ​courts​ ​should​ ​not
    distinguish.​ ​Thus,​ ​Section​ ​8(g)​ ​applies​ ​to​ ​all​ ​employers,​ ​whether​ ​private​ ​or​ ​government.

    It​ ​bears​ ​stressing​ ​that​ ​Section​ ​8(g)​ ​providing​ ​for​ ​spousal​ ​and​ ​child​ ​support,​ ​is​ ​a​ ​support​ ​enforcement
    legislation.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States,​ ​provisions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Child​ ​Support​ ​Enforcement​ ​Act24​ ​allow
    garnishment​ ​of​ ​certain​ ​federal​ ​funds​ ​where​ ​the​ ​intended​ ​recipient​ ​has​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​satisfy​ ​a​ ​legal
    obligation​ ​of​ ​child​ ​support.​ ​As​ ​these​ ​provisions​ ​were​ ​designed​ ​"to​ ​avoid​ ​sovereign​ ​immunity
    problems"​ ​and​ ​provide​ ​that​ ​"moneys​ ​payable​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​to​ ​any​ ​individual​ ​are​ ​subject​ ​to
    child​ ​support​ ​enforcement​ ​proceedings,"​ ​the​ ​law​ ​is​ ​clearly​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​"create​ ​a​ ​limited​ ​waiver​ ​of
    sovereign​ ​immunity​ ​so​ ​that​ ​state​ ​courts​ ​could​ ​issue​ ​valid​ ​orders​ ​directed​ ​against​ ​Government
    agencies​ ​attaching​ ​funds​ ​in​ ​their​ ​possession."

    Petition​ ​is​ ​DENIED​ ​for​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​bearing

    You might also like