Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 637 views

    Navarro V Domagtoy

    Uploaded by

    G S
    Respondent judge is accused of two acts of misconduct. First, he solemnized the marriage of Gaspar Tagadan, who was still legally married, relying only on an affidavit claiming the prior marriage had ended. Second, he performed a marriage in a location outside of his court's jurisdiction. The court found the respondent exhibited gross ignorance of the law in both cases. He failed to require legal documentation ending the prior marriage and performed a marriage outside his jurisdiction. As a result, the respondent judge was suspended for six months.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Navarro V Domagtoy

    Uploaded by

    G S
    637 views1 page
    Respondent judge is accused of two acts of misconduct. First, he solemnized the marriage of Gaspar Tagadan, who was still legally married, relying only on an affidavit claiming the prior marriage had ended. Second, he performed a marriage in a location outside of his court's jurisdiction. The court found the respondent exhibited gross ignorance of the law in both cases. He failed to require legal documentation ending the prior marriage and performed a marriage outside his jurisdiction. As a result, the respondent judge was suspended for six months.

    Original Description:

    Persons and family relations; digest

    Original Title

    Navarro v Domagtoy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Respondent judge is accused of two acts of misconduct. First, he solemnized the marriage of Gaspar Tagadan, who was still legally married, relying only on an affidavit claiming the prior marriage had ended. Second, he performed a marriage in a location outside of his court's jurisdiction. The court found the respondent exhibited gross ignorance of the law in both cases. He failed to require legal documentation ending the prior marriage and performed a marriage outside his jurisdiction. As a result, the respondent judge was suspended for six months.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    637 views1 page

    Navarro V Domagtoy

    Uploaded by

    G S
    Respondent judge is accused of two acts of misconduct. First, he solemnized the marriage of Gaspar Tagadan, who was still legally married, relying only on an affidavit claiming the prior marriage had ended. Second, he performed a marriage in a location outside of his court's jurisdiction. The court found the respondent exhibited gross ignorance of the law in both cases. He failed to require legal documentation ending the prior marriage and performed a marriage outside his jurisdiction. As a result, the respondent judge was suspended for six months.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    A.M. No.

    MTJ-96-1088 July 19, 1996


    RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, complainant, v. JUDGE HERNANDO C. DOMAGTOY, respondent
    Ponente: Romero, J (Second Division ruling)

    Facts:

    Navarro is the Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. He has submitted evidence in relation to two specific acts
    committed by respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy, which, he contends, exhibits gross
    misconduct as well as inefficiency in office and ignorance of the law.

    The first allegation is that on September 27, 1994, respondent judge solemnized the marriage between Gaspar A.
    Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga despite the knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his first wife.

    It is also alleged that he performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma D. del
    Rosario outside his court’s jurisdiction on October 27, 1994.

    In relation to the charges against him, respondent judge seeks exculpation from his act of having solemnized the
    marriage between Gaspar Tagadan, a married man separated from his wife , and Arlyn F. Borga by stating that he
    merely relied in the affidavit issued by the Municipal trial Judge of Basey, Samar, confirming the fact that Mr. Tagadan
    and his wife have not seen each other for almost seven years. With respect to the second charge, he maintains that
    in solemnizing the marriage between Sumaylo and del Rosario, he did not violate Article 7, paragraph I of the Family
    code which states that: “Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the
    court’s jurisdiction”; and that Article 8 thereof applies to the case in question.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the acts of the respondent exhibits gross misconduct, inefficiency in office and ignorance of the law.

    Ruling:

    In the first allegation, Gaspar Tagdan did not institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of his first wife’s
    presumptive death. Absent this judicial declaration, he remains married to Ida Penaranda. Whether wittingly, or
    unwittingly, it was manifest error on the part of respondent judge to have accepted the joint affidavit submitted by
    the groom. Such neglect or ignorance of the law has resulted in a bigamous, and therefore void, marriage.

    In as much as respondent judge’s jurisdiction covers the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, he was also not
    clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in Dapa, Surigao del Norte. By citing Article 8 and the exceptions
    therein as grounds for the exercise of his misplaced authority, respondent judge again demonstrated a lack of
    understanding of the basic principles of civil law

    Because of the respondent’s failure to apply the legal principles applicable in these cases, the Court finds respondent
    to have acted in gross ignorance of the law because of this he is suspended for a period of six months.

    You might also like