24/10/2026
LAW AND BEHOLD: IF A FATHER WITHHOLDS FINANCIAL SUPPORT BECAUSE HE HAS NOT SEEN THE CHILD, IS THIS VAWC?
By: Atty. Lj Ramos
Yes. If a father withholds financial support because he has not seen the child, he may be held liable for violence against women and children.
A few weeks ago, a controversial statement was given by someone let’s call “Spongebob’s Best Friend”. When asked whether he still provides financial support to his child, he said, “Yung last bigay ko rin is 2017. Nahinto na rin. Hindi ko nakikita e, paano ko ibibigay?”.
This mindset is not unique to him. Many fathers operate under this assumption that their obligation to provide support can be made conditional - that they must see the kid first, have interaction, etc. However, due to complex relationship dynamics, such contact may not always be possible or in the best interest of the child. For instance, where a relationship has dissolved due to physical abuse, infidelity, or similar issues, compelling the parties to interact could prove mentally and emotionally harmful to the child.
First and foremost, the father has the civil liability to support the child as governed by the Family Code, no question about that. If he will not comply, the mother may go to court and file a civil case to ensure that she and the child will get the support that they deserve. The courts may enforce judgment through garnishing wages, or auctioning the father’s property, if he still refuses.
Can the father also have criminal liability? This is where it gets tricky. The current general rule based on jurisprudence is that a father who does not provide financial support to his child is not automatically criminally liable. Mere failure or inability to provide financial support does not by itself establish criminal liability. However, there are specific scenarios where a father withholding financial support can be a criminal act.
In the landmark case of Acharon v. People (G.R. No. 224946, November 09, 2021), the Supreme Court explained the scenarios where withholding financial support is considered as economic abuse under R.A. 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women and Children Act (Anti-VAWC). Our discussion will focus on the economic abuse under Sec. 5(e) of the said act.
In Acharon, the Supreme Court clarified that for deprivation of financial support to rise to a level that would make a person criminally liable under Section 5(e), R.A. 9262, there must be allegation and proof that it was made with the intent to control or restrict the woman's and/or her child's or her children's actions.
The elements of a violation of Section 5(e) of R.A. 9262, insofar as it deals with deprivation of financial support, are therefore:
(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, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman's child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode;
(3) The offender either (a) deprived or (b) threatened to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or (c) deliberately provided the woman's children insufficient financial support;
(4) The offender committed any or all of the acts under the third element for the purpose of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct.
Applied to this case, fathers who intentionally withhold financial support unless they can see their children may be held criminally liable under these elements. First, the offended party is the mother and her child. Second, the mother may be the father’s wife, or someone with whom he has a common child. Third, the father is deliberately depriving financial support legally due to his family.
The most crucial is the fourth element. If it can be proven that the father is deliberately withholding financial support to force the mother to show him the kid, or to force the kid to spend time with him, or threatening to withhold financial support unless he has a portion of the custody of the child, then it may satisfy the element of “controlling the woman or child’s movement or conduct”.
To be violative of Sec. 5(e), the actus reus or guilty act, is “to withhold or threaten to deprive financial support legally due to the woman and/or child”, while the mens rea or the guilty intention is “to control or restrict the woman's and/or her child's or her children's actions or decisions”.
To summarize, fathers shouldn’t make excuses not to provide for their children, regardless of their relationship with the mother. In this world full of Patricks, at least be a John Lloyd.
Read our other Law and Behold articles at: https://www.cagelaw.com/category/law-and-behold/
(Disclaimer: This material is provided for general legal information only and is not a substitute for legal advice. Its application depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the firm, its partners, or its associates.)
