Lucia Lingan vs Flormante Lingan for Support

In 1980, Flormante Lingan married Lucia Lingan. They begot 3 children namely Lauris, Ricci and
Darell, ages 30, 21 and 10 respectively. In 2005, Flormante retired from the Philippine Army, he left his
family in Lamitan to live with another woman in Nueva Visacaya and since then, has not been regularly
giving support to Lucia and their children. Lucia by herself alone could not support the children. Hence,
Lucia filed a complaint under RA 9262 on the grounds of economic abuse.

On 12 Feb 10, RTC, Br 1 of Isabela Basilan issued a decision in favor of Lucia Lingan, issuing
Permanent Protection Order and at the same time enjoined PGMC to withhold 50% of the monthly
pension due retired husband, Florante Lingan, the said amount to be given directly by check to Lucia
Lingan (Ref a).

Section 8 (g) of RA 7610 or the Anti-Violence Againts Woman and their Children Act, provides
that:

SECTION 8. Protection Orders.- A protection order is an order issued under this act for the purpose of
preventing further acts of violence against a woman or her child specified in Section 5 of this Act and
granting other necessary relief. The relief granted under a protection order serve the purpose of
safeguarding the victim from further harm, minimizing any disruption in the victim's daily life, and
facilitating the opportunity and ability of the victim to independently regain control over her life.

(g) Directing the respondent to provide support to the woman and/or her child if
entitled to legal support. Notwithstanding other laws to the contrary, the court shall order an
appropriate percentage of the income or salary of the respondent to be withheld regularly by
the respondent's employer for the same to be automatically remitted directly to the woman.
Failure to remit and/or withhold or any delay in the remittance of support to the woman and/or
her child without justifiable cause shall render the respondent or his employer liable for indirect
contempt of court;

On 13 Jul 10, PGMC, assisted by OTJAG, filed a Manifestation with RTC, Br. 1 arguing that: a)
PGMC is a non-party to the case; and b) PGMC is prohibited by PD 1638 (New Retirement Law of Military
Personnel) to release retirement benefits to persons other than the retiree himself.

Section 31. The benefits authorized under this Decree, except as provided herein, shall
not be subject to attachment, garnishment, levy, execution or any tax whatsoever; neither shall
they be assigned, ceded, or conveyed to any third person: Provided, That if a retired or
separated officer or enlisted man who is entitled to any benefit under this Decree has unsettled
money and/or property accountabilities incurred while in the active service, not more than fifty
per centum of the pension gratuity or other payment due such officer or enlisted or his survivors
under this Decree may be withheld and be applied to settle such accountabilities.
 On 23 Apr 11, RTC Br 1 denied PGMC’s motion/manifestation; hence, this Office filed a petition
to the Court of Appeals but was dismissed on grounds of technicality, particularly failure to tender
payment of docket fees by the PGMC.

On 09 May 12, PGMC, thru this Office, filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court,
docketed GR Nr 201292.

On 01 Aug 18, the Supreme Court promulgated a decision denying PGMC’s petition, declaring
that RTC may validly order PGMC to withhold benefits of Floramante Lingan and remit the same directly
to Lucia Lingan. (Ref c).

The Supreme Court cited a 2014 case of Republic vs Yahon as bases citing that the retirement
benefits can be automatically deducted for purposes of support of the legal spouse in compliance with
the protection order issued under the provision of the law. (RA 9262 on Anti-Violence Against Women
and their Children Act of 2004)

On 30 Aug 18, this OTJAG requested the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to make
representation for the AFP in filing a Motion for Reconsideration on the above decision.

On 06 Sept 18, OSG filed on Motion for Reconsideration on behalf of PGMC with principal
argument that the retirement and pension benefits of military personnel are exempt from execution
and garnishment, and cannot be conveyed to another person for purposes of support, such as that
prayed for by respondent Lucia Perez-Lingan.