SC: Punishment that humiliates, belittles children not justified

Cruel or degrading forms of punishment, made even in the alleged best interest of the child, are not justified, the Supreme Court said in a decision.

“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’,” the Supreme Court said in a decision on a case involving a couple who made humiliating remarks against the 14-year-old partner of their child in 2004.

The decision was penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

“A person who debases, degrades, or demeans the child’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being can be held liable for damages,” the high court said.

In a 21-page decision promulgated on April 26, the SC dismissed the couple’s petition assailing a decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals that found them jointly and severally liable for damages for “harassing, intimidating, and spreading false and malicious rumors” against their child’s female partner and her parents.

Instead, the Supreme Court affirmed with modification the resolution and ordered the couple to pay jointly and severally P30,000 as moral damages, P20,000 as exemplary damages, and P30,000 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

The court also imposed a legal interest rate of 6% per annum until the finality of the decision.

“The exemplary damages are awarded not only to compensate respondents but more importantly to remind the petitioners of their fundamental duty as parents, not only to rear our youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character but also to serve as role models,” the Supreme Court said.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court said it is duty-bound to respect the findings of the lower courts as these were already final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal.

The case

According to the court, the couple had disapproved of the victim’s relationship with their son and often frequented their school to prevent the two from getting closer.

The court said the mother showed her dislike by dropping snide remarks against the victim in the presence of her classmates and schoolmates. The mother also called the victim “malanding babae” (flirty) and “makati ang laman” (promiscuous) on multiple occasions.

To avoid contact with the couple, the victim and her parents no longer participated in school activities. However, the couple started spreading rumors among other parents and students, claiming that the female child had been praying on boys since grade school.

The court said the victim developed depression and dropped her extracurricular activities, leading to the loss of her status as an honor student and student leader. Further, it said the victim attempted to commit suicide.

For their part, the couple said they admonished the victim for committing acts “unbecoming of a student leader” such as sitting on the lap of their son inside the classroom.

However, the Supreme Court said that the petitioners do not have any parental authority over the victim.

“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,” the high court said.

“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,” it added. —KBK, GMA Integrated News