CAN A MISTRESS BE HELD LIABLE UNDER RA 9262?

Date Published:
  1. [NO RECOMMENDED CITATION]
  2. PJP UNDOCKETED: This content is yet to be be peer reviewed and has not yet received any favorable recommendation for citation. It may or may not be queued up for citation recommendation or peer review. Caution is advised.
  3. For immediate action on requests, comments, concerns, suggestions, and other forms of feedback, please message us on Facebook at www.m.me/projectjuris.
Read more about this: ATTY. SINGZON, Reeza (2015), "COMMENTARY: Can a mistress be held liable under the law?," found at https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/opinion/content/520678/commentary-can-a-mistress-be-held-liable-under-the-law.

Atty. Reeza Singzon is a trial lawyer specializing in family law and civil law. For questions or comments, she may be reached at reeza.singzon@gmail.com.
What then are a wife's remedies under the law? What if the mistress is feisty and manipulative by nature, and feels emboldened---even justified---to poison the marriage because the husband told her he doesn’t love his wife anymore? What if the mistress calls or sends text messages to the wife to taunt her about the affair, or uses the Internet to harass the wife through indelicate messages or comments, or posts intimate photos of herself and the cheating husband? What if a lover harasses a married woman and her family because she failed to fulfill her promise that they would run away together into the sunset and be a real couple forever and ever? What if he accosts the woman's husband, or creates scandal outside her home, or forces his way inside the house to confront her? Does the law give an aggrieved spouse any recourse against such a paramour yet still preserve the family?

There are many remedies under the law, depending on the desired result. To make a troublesome third party pay for their indiscretion and disruptive conduct, an aggrieved spouse may file a civil case for damages against the mistress or lover alone (no need to include the guilty spouse). The basis for such a complaint is Article 26 of the Civil Code which gives the offended party a cause of action for a third party’s meddling with, or disturbing, a person's private life or family relations. This cause of action is commonly called "alienation of affection." It seeks compensation for a third party’s malicious act of estranging a person from his/her lawfully wedded spouse or family.

In addition to the civil case for the payment of damages, there are several criminal cases an aggrieved spouse may file to seek imprisonment of a troublesome mistress or lover. For malicious comments or posts on the Internet that tend to dishonor or ridicule the offended spouse, a criminal complaint for libel may be filed. If found guilty, the libelous paramour may be imprisoned or ordered to pay a fine, or both. For disruptive mistresses or lovers who create public disturbances outside the spouses' home or near the person of the spouses or their family, a police officer may be called to arrest the offending paramour on the spot. A criminal complaint for alarms and scandal may thereafter be filed against such a troublesome mistress or lover.

If a paramour should threaten the spouses or their family (think “Fatal Attraction"), a criminal complaint for grave threats may be filed. A charge of trespassing may also be filed if the offender has entered the family home uninvited. If the trespassing paramour boiled the family pet in a pot as Glenn Close did in the movie, or otherwise harmed any animal in the family home, an additional criminal charge may be filed against her/him for violation of the Animal Welfare Act (RA 8485). If a homicidal paramour attacks anyone in the family with a weapon, as Glenn Close did in the film (are you starting to fear mistresses now?), he/she may be charged with either attempted murder or attempted homicide.

But these are extreme circumstances. Let's dial it down a little and assume the most commonly-occuring scenarios in Filipino extramarital affairs. If, during a confrontation, the mistress or lover speaks harshly to the aggrieved spouse in a manner that shames or ridicules the latter, the offender may be charged with slander (oral defamation). If there is spitting at the innocent spouse, or slapping, or shoving, the charge is slander by deed. If harder physical blows are involved, the offending paramour may be charged with either serious, less serious, or slight physical injuries, depending on the injuries sustained by the offended spouse.

Even if the mistress or lover creates only minor disturbances that merely cause annoyance, such as calling or texting the innocent spouse, or harmlessly stalking from a distance, a criminal charge for unjust vexation may still be filed by the offended spouse. If a mistress receives an allowance or fancy gifts from a cheating husband, or if she is housed, clothed, and fed by him, the aggrieved wife may want to test the law by filing a criminal case of prostitution against such mistress. Under the law, any woman who, for money or profit, habitually indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct is deemed to be a prostitute.

In any case, an aggrieved spouse may also file a civil complaint to recover any real or personal property given by his/her unfaithful spouse to a mistress or lover. This includes houses, condo units, cars, jewelry, cash, etc. Such properties are part of the conjugal assets and may not be given away without the consent of both spouses.
When faced with infidelity and the subsequent disruptive behavior of a paramour, aggrieved spouses may have recourse to various legal remedies to protect their rights and seek redress. These remedies can be categorized into civil and criminal actions.

The following are civil remedies available:
  1. An aggrieved spouse may file a civil case against the paramour for interfering with their marital relationship. This cause of action seeks compensation for the emotional and financial damages caused by the paramour's actions. This is based on alienation of affection.
  2. If the paramour has received property from the unfaithful spouse, the aggrieved spouse may file a civil case to recover these assets, as they are generally considered conjugal property. This is based on the law on community of property.
The following are remedies available under criminal law:
  1. The law on defamation for malicious comments or posts that harm the reputation of the aggrieved spouse; thus, criminal charges for libel or slander may be filed.
  2. The law on public disturbance for disruptive behavior that causes public disturbance may lead to criminal charges such as alarms and scandal.
  3. The law on threats if the paramour threatens the safety of the aggrieved spouse or their family; thus, a criminal complaint for grave threats may be filed.
  4. The law on trespassing if the paramour enters the family home uninvited; thus, a charge for trespassing may be appropriate.
  5. The law on animal welfare if the paramour harms any animals in the family home; thus, criminal charges for violating animal welfare laws may be filed.
  6. The law on physical injuries if harm is caused by the paramour; thus, it may result in criminal charges such as assault or battery.
  7. The law on prostitution if the paramour is receiving financial benefits from the unfaithful spouse; thus, a criminal charge of prostitution may be considered.
  8. The law on unjust vexation for minor disturbances such as stalking or harassment; thus, a criminal charge for unjust vexation may be pursued.

Republic Act (RA) No. 9262, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, allows the application of conspiracy.[1] Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to violations of said law. Once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.[2]

[1] GO-TAN v. SPOUSES TAN, 588 Phil. 532 (G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008) [Per AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: THIRD DIVISION]

[2] CITATIONS made by the Supreme Court: “Ladonga v. People, supra note 22; People v. Felipe, G.R. No. 142505, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 146, 176; People v. Julianda, Jr., G.R. No. 128886, November 23, 2001, 370 SCRA 448, 469; People v. Quinicio, G.R. No. 142430, September 13, 2001, 365 SCRA 252, 266.”