The Court of Appeals (CA) has overturned part of a protection order that a General Santos City Family Court issued in favor of a wife.
The original order required her husband, a police officer, and his lover to end their relationship and stay at least 100 meters apart.
The CA, however, kept the other parts of the order. It said there was enough evidence of physical and psychological abuse to justify protecting the wife.
The court also said the amount the husband must pay for child support is appropriate.
But the CA ruled that telling the husband and his lover to stay away from each other went too far. It said a protection order is meant to protect victims from harm, not to control the personal relationships of adults.
The husband had challenged the order, saying there was no proof of abuse and that the support amount did not consider his finances or the fact that his wife also works. He also said the rule forcing him and his lover to stay apart limited his right to travel.
In its March 26 decision, the CA said the order to end the relationship “exceed[s] the ambit of the protection order.”
The court explained that protection orders under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act are meant to keep women and children safe, not to police adult relationships.
The court clarified that it was not ignoring the Family Court’s finding that the husband’s relationship caused emotional harm to his wife. But any protections must be directly related to preventing further violence or abuse.
The decision cited earlier cases where courts limited a protection order to acts that cause psychological harm, rather than trying to end a relationship.
In this case, the Family Court had gone beyond that by forbidding the husband and his lover from being together, even when no direct threat to the wife or children existed.
The CA said “a protection order is not a tool to break up a relationship.”