PUNISHMENTS that humiliate or degrade a child, even if given imposed in the best interest, are not justified.
This is contained in a ruling of the Supreme Court’s Second Division on a case involving parents who issued humiliating remarks in 2004, against the then 14-year girlfriend of their child, in efforts to prevent the two from getting closer.
In a 21-page decision dated April 26 but made public only on August 3, the High Court junked the couple’s petition assailing the July 11, 2017 decision and Oct. 26, 2017 resolution of the Court of Appeals that found them jointly and severally liable for “harassing, intimidating, and spreading false and malicious rumors” against their child’s female partner as well as her parents.
The SC affirmed the appellate court’s findings that the parents were determined in preventing their son and other students from getting closer to the respondent’s minor daughter by dropping snide remarks against her, calling the girl a flirt, a woman with loose morals, and allegedly “makati ang laman” or sexually aggressive.” The remarks were made within earshot of her peers, teachers and parents, making her feel harassed, intimidated and exposed to public ridicule and humiliation, the SC said.
With this, the SC found the couple’s actions contrary to morals, good customs or public policy and violative of the minor and her parents under Article 26 of the Civil Code.
“The best interest of a child cannot justify forms of cruel or degrading punishment which conflict with a child’s human dignity, including punishment which belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares, or ridicules a child. A person who debases, degrades, or demeans the child’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being can be held liable for damages,” read part of the decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
“Here, publicly calling an impressionable 14-year-old with defamatory words such as “makati ang laman,” “malandi,” and “hindi matino” in front of her peers, teachers, and parents is undoubtedly a harsh, degrading, and humiliating experience to which no child should ever be subjected,” it added.
The SC said the couple exposed her to public ridicule, causing the latter mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation.
It added she even attempted to commit suicide.
The SC also ordered the couple to pay P30,000 as moral damages, P20,000 as exemplary damages, and P30,000 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, with an interest rate of 6 percent per annum until the amount is fully paid.
In defense, the couple said they only admonished her for committing acts unbecoming of a student leader, such as sitting on the lap of their son even inside the classroom.
But the SC held firm that they do not have any parental authority or even legal guardianship over her.
“While parents and legal guardians are bestowed with the right and duty to provide direction to a child, a child must still be accorded equal and inalienable rights, consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. In this regard, evolving capacities must not be seen as “an excuse for authoritarian practices that restrict children’s autonomy and self-expression and which have traditionally been justified by pointing to [a child’s] relative immaturity,” but rather as a “positive and enabling process,” the SC explained.
Thus, it said, the best interest of a child cannot justify forms of cruel or degrading punishment which conflict with a child’s human dignity, including punishment which belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules a child.
Concurring with the decision are Associate Justices Antonio Kho Jr., Samuel Gaerlan, Jhosep Lopez and Mario Lopez.
