PROTECTION OR PRETENSE?
A Father's Silent Fight for Truth
By: Atty. Rhenelle Mae O. Operario
This is not the story of a violent man. This is the story of a father who, despite his own silent battles, chose love over anger, restraint over rage, and compassion over cruelty. The Respondent stands accused of acts he never committed, words he never said, blows he never dealt, threats he never made.
He is a man diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Not a perfect man, but a man who fights each day to be better for his family. And even in his lowest moments, he never raised a hand, never became the monster he is now being painted to be. Pain may have lived in him, but he never passed that pain on to the woman he once called his wife, or to the children who remain the light of his life.
Throughout their years together, he worked hard to provide. There was always food on the table, a roof over their heads, and school fees paid, quiet acts of love that went unnoticed, but never unfelt. Even after separation, he continued to give what he could, not out of obligation, but out of an undying sense of responsibility as a father.
And now, to be accused of violence? Of abuse? To be cast as a danger to the very people he has only ever wanted to protect? If there was anything that broke the sanctity of their marriage and tore their family apart, it was neither anger nor abuse, it was betrayal. For while he remained faithful to his vows, it was the Complainant who strayed, who sought the arms of another man while the Respondent struggled to hold the family together. He did not destroy their home, he watched it crumble despite his efforts to keep it standing.
The law demands proof, not pain disguised as evidence. It asks not for stories told in anger, but for truth grounded in fact. As our courts have long held, mere accusations, no matter how passionately delivered, do not amount to proof. And suspicion, no matter how dramatic, is not justice.
The Respondent is not a threat. He has never been. And he never will be. He is simply a father. Flawed, yes; but, never cruel. Misunderstood, perhaps; but, never abusive. His only plea is to be seen for who he truly is, not for the shadow others would cast upon him.
Mary filed a VAWC case against her husband, Jim, on the grounds of alleged physical and economic abuse. In her Complaint, Mary stated that she was physically assaulted by Jim after a heated argument in the wee hours of the morning by pinning her down in bed and hitting her shin with his head, causing Jim to sustain a broken nose that needed medical attention. She stated that the violent behavior of Jim could be traced to his long existing mental condition, Bipolar Disorder. Mary further narrated that she was deprived economic opportunities. She stated that she was not allowed by Jim to resign from her role at the furniture business which led her to discreetly apply with banking institutions to secure employment. Mary also alleged that she did not receive any salary from the furniture business despite being a part of the same. With all these, Mary prayed that Jim be held liable for violating the VAWC law. In addition, she also prayed for the issuance of Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders.
In response, Jim countered that contrary to the claims made by Mary, the truth of the matter is that it was Mary who attacked and hit his nose with her knee during that fateful incident. Said attack left him bleeding profusely and in excruciating pain. The fact that Jim sustained broken nose was even admitted by Mary in her pleadings and in open court. The doctor who conducted the surgery on Jim's nose was likewise presented as a witness.
Jim denies all allegations of violence. While it is true that he has been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, there was never any history of physical aggression or abusive behavior towards Mary or their children. Jim acknowledged his personal challenges but maintains that he has consistently made efforts to manage his condition and prioritize the well-being of his family. In fact, throughout their relationship, there were no reported incidents of physical harm, threats, or intimidation. This is because despite experiencing emotional difficulties, Jim did not direct any harm, physical or otherwise, toward Mary or their children, for whom he continues to express care and responsibility.
Throughout their years together, Jim worked hard to provide. There was always food on the table, a roof over their heads, and school fees paid. Even after separation, he continued to give what he could, not out of obligation, but out of an undying sense of responsibility as a father.
Jim also emphasized that he is not a threat. He has never been. And he never will be. He is simply a father. Flawed, yes; but, never cruel. Misunderstood, perhaps; but, never abusive.
According to him, if there was anything that broke and tore their family apart, it was neither anger nor abuse. It was betrayal. For while he remained faithful to his vows, it was Mary who strayed, who sought the arms of another man while he struggled to hold the family together. He did not destroy their home; he watched it crumble despite his efforts to keep it standing.
In the course of the proceedings, the spouses entered into a Compromise Agreement concerning two main points: (1) Custody and Visitation Rights; and (2) Support. This was approved by the Court.
Despite Jim’s unwavering adherence to the terms of their agreement, Mary, in stark contrast, deliberately chose to defy the Court-approved Order. She concealed the whereabouts of their children, an act not only of betrayal but of blatant contempt for the legal process. Thereafter, the trial proceeded.
It is noteworthy to state that during trial, Mary failed to present any evidence to back-up her claims. Her accusations stood hollow and unsubstantiated. On the other hand, Jim came forward with compelling and controverting evidence, and firmly established the truth behind his account, thereby casting serious doubt on Mary's narrative.
After trial on the merits, the Court ruled to deny the reliefs sought by Mary. The Court ratiocinated that “the allegations of Petitioner are mere conjectures absent any clear evidence and cannot be considered by the Court.”
The Court also found that Mary was not prevented by Jim from any opportunity for her to earn her own income. By her own categorical admission in her Amended Petition for Permanent Protection Order (With Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Protection Order), Mary was the one who joined Jim’s furniture business as co-owner in charge of a large part of the business. Mary never controverted the claim of Jim that the furniture business was ran by both of them and that the same was a primary source of income that supported their family’s expenses. Given that the furniture business supported the expenses of their family, it is thus logical to conclude that the profit arising out of this business forms part of the family funds. And considering further that Mary admitted to having access to the family funds, it would therefore be contradictory for her to claim that she was not compensated for her work in their furniture business.
In a striking turn of events, the Court gave greater weight to Jim’s narrative, ultimately dismissing the case and denying Mary’s plea for a Permanent Protection Order.
Unsatisfied, Mary elevated the case to the Court of Appeals where it is currently pending. And so the pivotal question arises: Will the Court of Appeals overturn the RTC’s ruling and vindicate Mary’s narrative, or will it uphold the decision in full, once again favoring Jim’s account?
Another question to ponder on, can Mary still seek a Permanent Protection Order while violating the Custody Agreement with Jim as duly approved by the Court? We are of the opinion that while the right to seek protection through a PPO is independent and separate from compliance with a custody agreement, there are important legal and practical implications to consider. Just like in this case, Mary’s violation of the Compromise Agreement definitely affected her credibility, especially that she miserably failed to present clear evidence of the alleged abuse, threats, and harassment.
This case is a powerful example of how complicated and emotional family disputes can become, and how easily the search for protection can be misused as a weapon rather than a shield. At its core, this is not just about allegations and legal technicalities. It is about truth, character, and integrity. The trial court, after carefully weighing the evidence, saw through the inconsistencies and recognized the absence of credible proof. Still, the battle continues, now elevated to the Court of Appeals. As the process unfolds, one can only hope that the higher court, too, will look beyond the noise and remain steadfast in what the law ultimately demands: facts over fiction, proof over presumption, and justice over sentiment. Because in the end, what is at stake is more than a legal victory, it is a father’s name, a family’s truth, and the principle that justice must remain blind, but never deaf to the evidence.