Ricky was a law graduate belonging to a well to do family while Elsa finished banking and finance and was working in a bank when the two met and fell in love with each other. After a whirlwind courtship lasting about six months Ricky and Elsa tied the knot. Elsa quit her job to become a full time housewife while Ricky concentrated on his trading, fishpond and restaurant business. Two years into the marriage, they begot three boys, the first two being twins.
During the first five years of marriage, all went well until Ricky became a drug dependent. He sought various treatments and was confined in drug rehabilitation centers by order of the court. Ricky’s drug dependence lasted for six years during which he went in and out of drug rehabilitation centers and underwent various treatments. Finally, the court issued an order declaring him "drug free". Still Elsa believed that Ricky was not fully rehabilitated. According to their sons who were by then on their early teens, Ricky became hot headed and would drive their van recklessly. Sometimes he would poke a gun on his own head and asked them who they love more, mom or dad. According to Elsa, Ricky’s drug dependence worsened and it became difficult to live with him as he was always irritable and violent, inflicting physical harm on her. So Elsa and the three children left Ricky and transferred to the house of her sister.
Ricky thus filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking custody of their sons. Elsa opposed this citing his drug dependence. At the initial hearing of the case, both parties agreed that they undergo psychiatric and psychological examination by a psychiatrist of their common choice and that the results of the examination shall be the sole basis of the court in deciding the custody petition. In the meantime, Ricky could have visitation rights every Saturday and Sunday during which he would fetch the children at 9a.m. and return them at 5 p.m.
The results of the psychiatric evaluation by the psychiatrist shows that based on the criteria for cure in drug addiction, Ricky can no yet be considered as completely cured. So using this evaluation, the court awarded the custody of the three children to Elsa, giving only visitation rights to Ricky. Ricky did not like the order. He questioned it before the SC. He contended, among others, that even if the parties have already agreed to submit the case for decision based on the psychiatric evaluation, the court should have conducted a trial to determine the factual issues involving custody.
Was Ricky correct?
The SC said, yes.
In controversies involving the care, custody and control of their minor children, the contending parents stand on equal footing before the court who shall make the selection according to the best interest of the child. The child, if over 7 years of age may be permitted to choose which parent he/she prefers to live with, but the court is not bound by such choice if the parent so chosen is unfit. In all cases, the sole and foremost consideration is the physical, educational, social and moral welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the respective resources as well as the social and moral situations of the opposing parents.
So in this case, the lower court should have conducted a trial notwithstanding the agreement of the parties to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the psychiatric report of the psychiatrist chosen by both which is insufficient to justify the decision.
While Ricky may have a history of drug dependence, the records are inadequate as to his moral, financial and social well being. The result of the psychiatric evaluation showing that he is not "completely cured" may render him unfit to take custody of the children, but there is no evidence to show that Ricky is unfit to provide the children with adequate support, education as well as moral and intellectual development. Moreover, the children in this case were 14 and 15 years, yet the court did not ascertain their choice as to which parent they want to live with. These inadequacies could have been remedied by an exhaustive trial probing the accuracy of the report and the capacity of both parties to raise their children. So the case should be returned to the lower court for trial (Laxamana vs. Laxamana G.R.144763, September 3, 2002).