Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > August 1981 Decisions > A.M. No. 2209-CTJ August 27, 1981 - ABDON SEGUISABAL v. JOSE R. CABRERA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. 2209-CTJ. August 27, 1981.]

ABDON SEGUISABAL, Complainant, v. HON. JOSE R. CABRERA, City Judge of Toledo City, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent City Judge was charged with grave misconduct in office and gross ignorance of the law, for having solemnized marriage without the requisite marriage license pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code and for having failed to submit a copy of the marriage contract within fifteen (15) days from date of solemnization required by Article 68 of the same Code. In his comment, respondent Judge explained that he solemnized the marriage without the Marriage License because he presumed that the papers were in order and he failed to transmit the copy of the marriage contract as required because the papers left in his office were lost in the mass of paper work. He further averred that he issued the marriage contract in good faith, sympathy and fairness to the widow whose husband died in an encounter with Muslim rebels.

Holding that in view of the admissions made, no formal investigation is necessary, the Supreme Court ruled that: (a) respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty; (b) his defense of good faith is unavailing and (c) his feeling of sympathy and fairness cannot serve as a license to dispense with legal requisites. However, considering respondent’s twenty-seven (27) years and seven (7) months service in the Judiciary and his application for retirement under R.A. No. 5095 due to schemic heart ailment, administrative sanction is mitigated to a fine of three (3) months salary, to be deducted from his gratuity.

Respondent fined.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; CITY JUDGE; GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY; SOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGE WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE AND FAILURE TO TRANSMIT COPY OF MARRIAGE CONTRACT TO LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR; CASE AT BAR. — Respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty for solemnizing the marriage of Jaime Sayson and Marlyn Jagonoy on 14 April 1978 without requiring the essential pre-requisite of a marriage license which had undoubtedly transgressed Article 53(4) of the Civil Code in the absence of any showing that the subject marriage falls under marriages of exceptional character wherein a license is not mandatorily required, and for having failed to transmit to the Local Civil Registrar of Toledo City, within fifteen (15) days from the date of solemnization of the marriage in question, a copy of the marriage contract duly signed by him as the solemnizing officer and by the contracting parties, for which he was remiss in his duty under Article 68 of the Civil Code.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DEFENSE OF GOOD FAITH, SYMPATHY AND FAIRNESS; UNAVAILING IN CASE AT BAR. — A judicial officer is expected to know the law on the solemnization of marriages and the defense of good faith, interposed by Respondent. for having solemnized the marriage in question without the requisite marriage license, is unavailing, neither could his feeling of "sympathy and fairness to the widow Marlyn Jagonoy" whose husband, a draftee in the Philippines died in an encounter with the Muslim rebels, serve as a license for respondent Judge to deliberately transgress or dispense with legal requisites.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION; MITIGATED BY LENGTH OF SERVICE AND RETIREMENT. — Respondent Judge’s twenty-seven (27) years and seven (7) months of service in the Judiciary and his application for retirement under Republic Act No. 5095 due to schemic heart ailment, mitigated the corresponding administrative sanction to a fine equivalent to three (3) months salary, the same to be deducted from his gratuity upon his retirement from the service.


D E C I S I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


In his verified Complaint filed on 18 June 1979, Abdon Seguisabal has charged City Judge Jose R. Cabrera of Toledo City with gross misconduct in office and gross ignorance of the law for having solemnized, on 14 April 1978, the marriage of Jaime Sayson and Marlyn Jagonoy without the requisite marriage license pursuant to Article 53 of the Civil Code, and for having failed to transmit a copy of the marriage contract, signed by him and the parties, to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Toledo City within fifteen (15) days from the date of solemnization as mandatorily required by Article 68 of the same Code.cralawnad

That respondent actually solemnized said marriage without the requisite license, is shown by the marriage contract issued to the contracting parties (Annexes "C", "C-1"). The failure to transmit a copy of the marriage contract to the Local Civil Registrar is substantiated by the Certifications, both issued on 5 June 1979, by the Local Civil Registrar of Toledo City (Annex "A" and "B").

Required to comment, respondent Judge explained:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On April 14, 1978 at around 12:00 o’clock noon, Jaime Sayson and Marlyn Jagonoy accompanied by the mother of Jaime Sayson, the father of Marlyn Jagonoy and several others appeared before my Office bringing with them a Marriage Contract to be solemnized in marriage. I asked them for their Marriage License but they told me that the Local Civil Registrar of Toledo City cannot issue the same because the one in-charge was not in his Office, it being already 12:00 o’clock noon. The bride-to-be was three months pregnant.

Presuming that the papers were in order inasmuch as the parents were present, I solemnized the marriage but told the parties to come back in the afternoon together with the Marriage License. The parties did not come in the afternoon and the papers left in my office were lost in the mass of paper works attendant in the Office of the City Judge, in fact, I have virtually forgotten about it myself.

Sometime in May 1979, about a year after, a crying girl bringing with her a child appeared before me in my office and I identified her as Marlyn Jagonoy. She informed me that her husband, Jaime Sayson, who was a draftee in the Philippine Army died in an encounter with the Muslim rebels in Maguindanao and subsequently died. The army authorities will give her the benefits if and when she can prove that she was actually married to the said Jaime Sayson. In sympathy and fairness to Marlyn Jagonoy whose marriage I actually solemnized, I searched for the papers and found them. I told the father of Marlyn to go to the Local Civil Registrar’s Office in order that Marriage License be issued to her which he did but came back and told me that the Local Civil Registrar will not receive the papers and will not issue the Marriage License for the reason that the parties have not attended the Family Planning Seminar required by law before Marriage License may be issued. Believing that Family Planning was no longer necessary inasmuch as Jaime Sayson was already dead, I issued to them the Marriage Contract in order that they can enjoy the benefits accruing Jaime Sayson who died a hero’s death in the service of the flag of the Republic. In issuing the Marriage Contract, I had done it in good faith and in sympathy and in fairness to the widow, Marlyn Jagonoy, whom I believe is entitled to the benefits she could not enjoy it simply because of the technicality of the law. The issuance of the Marriage Contract made everybody happy. The parents of the boy and the parents of the girl were satisfied and are not even a party to this Complaint" (Rollo, pp. 9-10).

Respondent Judge further averred that the complainant herein was obviously ill-motivated and resorted to this administrative action out of spite because he had, on 24 November 1978, dismissed Criminal Case No. A-1712 for Alarm and Scandal filed by complainant against a certain Marcelo Rizal, and that complainant is the accused in Criminal Case No. A-1907 for Qualified Theft pending before respondent’s Court.

Considering the admissions made by respondent, and as observed in the Memorandum Report dated 22 October 1980 submitted by Deputy Court Administrator, Leo D. Medialdea, concurred in by Court Administrator, Justice Lorenzo Relova, there was no more need for a formal investigation to determine the administrative liability of respondent Judge. Respondent must be held guilty of the charge filed for in solemnizing the marriage of Jaime Sayson and Marlyn Jagonoy on 14 April 1978 without requiring the essential pre-requisite of a marriage license, respondent had undoubtedly transgressed Article 53(4) of the Civil Code in the absence of any showing that the subject marriage falls under marriages of an exceptional character wherein a license is not mandatorily required. Respondent was likewise remiss in his duty under Article 68 of the Civil Code to transmit to the Local Civil Registrar of Toledo City, within fifteen (15) days from the date of solemnization of the marriage in question, a copy of the marriage contract duly signed by him as the solemnizing officer and by the contracting parties.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The defense of good faith interposed by respondent is unavailing. As a judicial officer, he is expected to know the law on the solemnization of marriages. His feeling of "sympathy and fairness to the widow, Marlyn Jagonoy" cannot serve as a license for him to deliberately transgress or dispense with legal requisites.

In view, however, of respondent’s twenty-seven (27) years and seven (7) months of service in the Judiciary, and considering that he has applied for retirement under Republic Act No. 5095 due to schemic heart ailment, we have mitigated the corresponding administrative sanction.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Judge to be guilty of gross neglect of duty, he shall pay a fine equivalent to three (3) months salary, the same to be deducted from his gratuity upon his retirement from the service.

A copy of this Decision should be attached to his personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47691 August 5, 1981 - CONSOLACION F. RELENTE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50405-06 August 5, 1981 - VICENTA P. TOLENTINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 2269-MJ August 10, 1981 - JESUS A. TAPALES v. MACARIO BALCON

  • A.M. No. 2507-CFI August 10, 1981 - RICARDO B. MOYA v. RICARDO TENSUAN

  • G.R. No. L-28805 August 10, 1981 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION SUPERVISORS’ UNION v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35363 August 10, 1981 - TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38095 August 10, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS MELENDRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52056 August 10, 1981 - BONIFACIO DE LEON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1608 August 14, 1981 - MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA v. SEGUNDINO D. MANIWANG

  • G.R. No. L-26848 August 17, 1981 - CARIDAD O. DE GALLEGO v. LAND AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-31402 August 17, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO C. HIPOLITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50142 August 17, 1981 - JOSE E. BARRAMEDA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50633 August 17, 1981 - CALASIAO FARMERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56627 August 17, 1981 - CEBU STEVEDORING COMPANY, INC. v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49793 August 20, 1981 - EMETERIO IPAPO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 791-MJ August 27, 1981 - DIOSDADO B. PAALA v. ALBERTO REGINO

  • A.M. No. P-1657 August 27, 1981 - BARTOLOME MACARAEG v. OSCAR BERMUDEZ

  • A.C. No. L-1797-CCC August 27, 1981 - WARLITO MENDOZA v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • A.M. No. 2209-CTJ August 27, 1981 - ABDON SEGUISABAL v. JOSE R. CABRERA

  • G.R. No. L-57439 August 27, 1981 - J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO, ET AL. v. EDGAR GUEVARA

  • A.C. No. 1053 August 31, 1981 - SANTA PANGAN v. DIONISIO RAMOS

  • A.M. No. 1155-CAR August 31, 1981 - IN RE: CLAIM OF CAR JUDGE ALFREDO L. NOEL

  • A.M. No. 1270-RET August 31, 1981 - IN RE: RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF CITY JUDGE ALEJANDRO GALANG, JR.

  • A.M. No. 1893-MJ August 31, 1981 - EDGARDO S. CABANGON v. JAIME L. VALEÑA

  • A.M. No. 2001-CFI August 31, 1981 - PABLO DOMINGO v. JESUS M. ELBINIAS

  • A.M. No. 2224-CFI August 31, 1981 - EDNA BAGUYO v. OSCAR LEVISTE

  • A.M. No. 2360-MJ August 31, 1981 - TEODORICO MARFIL, ET AL. v. ORLANDO CUACHON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 2426-CFI August 31, 1981 - ALEJANDRO BALATBAT v. JESUS DE VEGA

  • G.R. No. L-30434 August 31, 1981 - FELOMENA FABIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32746 August 31, 1981 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINA C. CAPAROSSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33052 August 31, 1981 - ANGEL R. QUIMPO v. LEONCIO MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36896 August 31, 1981 - USEAEA, ET AL. v. USEA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37251 August 31, 1981 - CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49336 August 31, 1981 - PROVINCE OF ABRA v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-50688 August 31, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME PINGKIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51370 August 31, 1981 - AMADO IZON, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-52043 August 31, 1981 - TOMMY REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52737 August 31, 1981 - DAVID Q. SANDALO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52793 August 31, 1981 - FELIPE M. SEVILLEJA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52797 August 31, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELO UMAGUING

  • G.R. No. L-55028 August 31, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TEJADA

  • G.R. No. L-56587 August 31, 1981 - BENJAMIN Y. GOLEZ, ET AL. v. TOMAS LEONIDAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57069 August 31, 1981 - IN RE: ABDON A. ARRIBA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.