Petitioner Vs Vs Respondent: First Division
Petitioner Vs Vs Respondent: First Division
cdasiaonline.com
the marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the
solemnizing of cer the authority to solemnize a marriage. Respondent judge did not
possess such authority when he solemnized the marriage of petitioner. In this respect,
respondent judge acted in gross ignorance of the law.
3. JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT CANNOT EXONERATE
THEM FROM DISCIPLINARY ACTION; CASE AT BAR. Respondent judge cannot be
exculpated despite the Af davit of Desistance led by petitioner. This Court has
consistently held in a catena of cases that the withdrawal of the complaint does not
necessarily have the legal effect of exonerating respondent from disciplinary action.
Otherwise, the prompt and fair administration of justice, as well as the discipline of court
personnel, would be undermined. Disciplinary actions of this nature do not involve purely
private or personal matters. They can not be made to depend upon the will of every
complainant who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act. We cannot be
bound by the unilateral act of a complainant in a matter which involves the Court's
constitutional power to discipline judges. Otherwise, that power may be put to naught,
undermine the trust character of a public of ce and impair the integrity and dignity of this
Court as a disciplining authority.
DECISION
PUNO , J :
p
Petitioner Mercedita Mata Araes charges respondent judge with Gross Ignorance of the
Law via a sworn Letter-Complaint dated 23 May 2001. Respondent is the Presiding Judge
of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur. Petitioner alleges that on 17
February 2000, respondent judge solemnized her marriage to her late groom Dominador B.
Orobia without the requisite marriage license and at Nabua, Camarines Sur which is
outside his territorial jurisdiction.
They lived together as husband and wife on the strength of this marriage until her husband
passed away. However, since the marriage was a nullity, petitioner's right to inherit the
"vast properties" left by Orobia was not recognized. She was likewise deprived of receiving
the pensions of Orobia, a retired Commodore of the Philippine Navy.
Petitioner prays that sanctions be imposed against respondent judge for his illegal acts
and unethical misrepresentations which allegedly caused her so much hardships,
embarrassment and sufferings.
On 28 May 2001, the case was referred by the Of ce of the Chief Justice to then Acting
Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepao for appropriate action. On 8 June 2001, the Of ce
of the Court Administrator required respondent judge to comment.
In his Comment dated 5 July 2001, respondent judge averred that he was requested by a
certain Juan Arroyo on 15 February 2000 to solemnize the marriage of the parties on 17
February 2000. Having been assured that all the documents to the marriage were
complete, he agreed to solemnize the marriage in his sala at the Municipal Trial Court of
Balatan, Camarines Sur. However, on 17 February 2000, Arroyo informed him that Orobia
had a dif culty walking and could not stand the rigors of travelling to Balatan which is
located almost 25 kilometers from his residence in Nabua. Arroyo then requested if
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016
cdasiaonline.com
respondent judge could solemnize the marriage in Nabua, to which request he acceded.
ETDaIC
Respondent judge further avers that before he started the ceremony, he carefully examined
the documents submitted to him by petitioner. When he discovered that the parties did not
possess the requisite marriage license, he refused to solemnize the marriage and
suggested its resetting to another date. However, due to the earnest pleas of the parties,
the in ux of visitors, and the delivery of provisions for the occasion, he proceeded to
solemnize the marriage out of human compassion. He also feared that if he reset the
wedding, it might aggravate the physical condition of Orobia who just suffered from a
stroke. After the solemnization, he reiterated the necessity for the marriage license and
admonished the parties that their failure to give it would render the marriage void.
Petitioner and Orobia assured respondent judge that they would give the license to him in
the afternoon of that same day. When they failed to comply, respondent judge followed it
up with Arroyo but the latter only gave him the same reassurance that the marriage license
would be delivered to his sala at the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur.
Respondent judge vigorously denies that he told the contracting parties that their marriage
is valid despite the absence of a marriage license. He attributes the hardships and
embarrassment suffered by the petitioner as due to her own fault and negligence.
On 12 September 2001, petitioner led her Af davit of Desistance dated 28 August 2001
with the Of ce of the Court Administrator. She attested that respondent judge initially
refused to solemnize her marriage due to the want of a duly issued marriage license and
that it was because of her prodding and reassurances that he eventually solemnized the
same. She confessed that she led this administrative case out of rage. However, after
reading the Comment led by respondent judge, she realized her own shortcomings and is
now bothered by her conscience.
Reviewing the records of the case, it appears that petitioner and Orobia led their
Application for Marriage License on 5 January 2000. It was stamped in this Application
that the marriage license shall be issued on 17 January 2000. However, neither petitioner
nor Orobia claimed it.
It also appears that the Of ce of the Civil Registrar General issued a Certi cation that it
has no record of such marriage that allegedly took place on 17 February 2000. Likewise,
the Of ce of the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur issued another Certi cation
dated 7 May 2001 that it cannot issue a true copy of the Marriage Contract of the parties
since it has no record of their marriage.
On 8 May 2001, petitioner sought the assistance of respondent judge so the latter could
communicate with the Of ce of the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur for the
issuance of her marriage license. Respondent judge wrote the Local Civil Registrar of
Nabua, Camarines Sur. In a letter dated 9 May 2001, a Clerk of said of ce, Grace T.
Escobal, informed respondent judge that their of ce cannot issue the marriage license due
to the failure of Orobia to submit the Death Certificate of his previous spouse.
The Of ce of the Court Administrator, in its Report and Recommendation dated 15
November 2000, found the respondent judge guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a
duly issued marriage license and for doing so outside his territorial jurisdiction. A ne of
P5,000.00 was recommended to be imposed on respondent judge.
We agree.
Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, or B.P. 129, the authority of the regional
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016
cdasiaonline.com
trial court judges and judges of inferior courts to solemnize marriages is con ned to their
territorial jurisdiction as defined by the Supreme Court.
The case at bar is not without precedent. In Navarro vs. Domagtoy, 1 respondent judge held
of ce and had jurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica-Burgos,
Surigao del Norte. However, he solemnized a wedding at his residence in the municipality
of Dapa, Surigao del Norte which did not fall within the jurisdictional area of the
municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos. We held that:
HCacDE
"A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local ordinance to marry the
faithful is authorized to do so only within the area or diocese or place allowed by
his Bishop. An appellate court Justice or a Justice of this Court has jurisdiction
over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages, regardless of the venue, as
long as the requisites of the law are complied with. However, judges who are
appointed to speci c jurisdictions, may of ciate in weddings only within said
areas and not beyond. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his court's
jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in
Article 3, which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may subject
the officiating official to administrative liability." 2 (Italics supplied.)
In said case, we suspended respondent judge for six (6) months on the ground that his act
of solemnizing a marriage outside his jurisdiction constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
We further held that:
"The judiciary should be composed of persons who, if not experts, are at least,
pro cient in the law they are sworn to apply, more than the ordinary laymen. They
should be skilled and competent in understanding and applying the law. It is
imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles like the ones
involved in the instant case. . . . While magistrates may at times make mistakes in
judgment, for which they are not penalized, the respondent judge exhibited
ignorance of elementary provisions of law, in an area which has greatly
prejudiced the status of married persons." 3
In the case at bar, the territorial jurisdiction of respondent judge is limited to the
municipality of Balatan, Camarines Sur. His act of solemnizing the marriage of petitioner
and Orobia in Nabua, Camarines Sur therefore is contrary to law and subjects him to
administrative liability. His act may not amount to gross ignorance of the law for he
allegedly solemnized the marriage out of human compassion but nonetheless, he cannot
avoid liability for violating the law on marriage.
Respondent judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite
marriage license. In People vs. Lara, 4 we held that a marriage which preceded the issuance
of the marriage license is void, and that the subsequent issuance of such license cannot
render valid or even add an iota of validity to the marriage. Except in cases provided by law,
it is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing of cer the authority to solemnize a
marriage. Respondent judge did not possess such authority when he solemnized the
marriage of petitioner. In this respect, respondent judge acted in gross ignorance of the
law.
Respondent judge cannot be exculpated despite the Af davit of Desistance led by
petitioner. This Court has consistently held in a catena of cases that the withdrawal of the
complaint does not necessarily have the legal effect of exonerating respondent from
disciplinary action. Otherwise, the prompt and fair administration of justice, as well as the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016
cdasiaonline.com
ESCcaT
cdasiaonline.com