ZENAIDA S. BESO vs. Judge JUAN DAGUMAN, MCTC, Sta. Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan, Samar ,A.M. No. 99-1211 January 28, 2000

Case Digest

ZENAIDA S. BESO vs. Judge JUAN DAGUMAN, MCTC, Sta. Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan, Samar ,A.M. No. 99-1211 January 28, 2000

Facts: In this administrative complaint, respondent Judge stands charged with Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority. In a Complaint-Affidavit dated December 12, 1997, Zenaida S. Beso charged Judge Juan J. Daguman, Jr. with solemnizing marriage outside of his jurisdiction and of negligence in not retaining a copy and not registering the marriage contract with the office of the Local Registrar

Held: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in an evaluation report dated August 11, 1998 found that respondent Judge ". . . committed non-feasance in office" and recommended that he be fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a warning that the commission of the same or future acts will be dealt with more severely pointing out that: 

As presiding judge of the MCTC Sta. Margarita Tarangnan-Pagsanjan, Samar, the authority to solemnize marriage is only limited to those municipalities under his jurisdiction. Clearly, Calbayog City is no longer within his area of jurisdiction. 

Additionally, there are only three instances, as provided by Article 8 of the Family Code, wherein a marriage may be solemnized by a judge outside his chamber[s] or at a place other than his sala, to wit: 

(1) when either or both of the contracting parties is at the point of death; 

(2) when the residence of either party is located in a remote place; 

(3) where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect. 

The foregoing circumstances are unavailing in the instant case. 

Moreover, as solemnizing officer, respondent Judge neglected his duty when failed to register the marriage of complainant to Bernardito Yman. 

Such duty is entrusted upon him pursuant to Article 23 of the Family Code which provides: 

It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties the original of the marriage certificate referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificate not later than fifteen days after the marriage, to the local civil register of the place where the marriage was solemnized. . . 

It is clearly evident from the foregoing that not only has the respondent Judge committed non-feasance in office, he also undermined the very foundation of marriage which is the basic social institution in our society whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law. Granting that respondent Judge indeed failed to locate the duplicate and triplicate copies of the marriage certificate, he should have exerted more effort to locate or reconstitute the same. As a holder of such a sensitive position, he is expected to be conscientious in handling official documents. His imputation that the missing copies of the marriage certificate were taken by Bernardito Yman is based merely on conjectures and does not deserve consideration for being devoid of proof. 

After a careful and thorough examination of the evidence, the Court finds the evaluation report of the OCA well-taken. 

With regard to the solemnization of marriage, Article 7 of the Family Code provides, among others, that — 

Art. 7. Marriage my be solemnized by: 

(1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction; . . . (Emphasis ours) 

In relation thereto, Article 8 of the same statute mandates that: 

Art. 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the counsel-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted at the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or were both parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect. (Emphasis ours) 

As the above-quoted provision clearly states, a marriage can be held outside the judge's chambers or courtroom only in the following instances: 1.] at the point of death; 2.] in remote places in accordance with Article 29, or 3.] upon the request of both parties in writing in a sworn statement to this effect. 

In this case, there is no pretense that either complainant Beso or her fiancé Yman was at the point of death or in a remote place. Neither was there a sworn written request made by the contracting parties to respondent Judge that the marriage be solemnized outside his chambers or at a place other than his sala. What, in fact, appears on record is that respondent Judge was prompted more by urgency to solemnize the marriage of Beso and Yman because complainant was "[a]n overseas worker, who, respondent realized deserved more than ordinary official attention under present Government policy." Respondent Judge further avers that in solemnizing the marriage in question, "[h]e believed in good faith that by doing so he was leaning on the side of liberality of the law so that it may not be too expensive and complicated for citizens to get married." 

If at all, the reasons proffered by respondent Judge to justify his hurried solemnization of the marriage in this case only tends to degrade the revered position enjoined by marriage in the hierarchy of social institutions in the country. They also betray respondent's cavalier proclivity on its significance in our culture which is more disposed towards an extended period of engagement prior to marriage and frowns upon hasty, ill-advised and ill-timed marital unions. 

An elementary regard for the sacredness of laws — let alone that enacted in order to preserve so sacrosanct an inviolable social institution as marriage — and the stability of judicial doctrines laid down by superior authority should have given respondent judge pause and made him more vigilant in the exercise of his authority and the performance of his duties as a solemnizing officer. A judge is, furthermore, presumed to know the constitutional limits of the authority or jurisdiction of his court.6 Thus respondent Judge should be reminded that — 

A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his ordinary to marry the faithful, is authorized to do so only within the area of the diocese or place allowed by is 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 specific jurisdictions may officiate 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.7

Considering that respondents Judge's jurisdiction covers the municipality of Sta. Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan, Samar only, he was not clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in the City of Calbayog.8

Furthermore, from the nature of marriage, aside from the mandate that a judge should exercise extra care in the exercise of his authority and the performance of his duties in its solemnization, he is likewise commanded to observance extra precautions to ensure that the event is properly documented in accordance with Article 23 of the Family Code which states in no uncertain terms that — 

Art. 23. — It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties, the original of the marriage contract referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificate not later than fifteen days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was solemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizing officer transmitting copies of the marriage certificate. The solemnizing officer shall retain in his file the quadruplicate copy of the marriage certificate, the original of the marriage license and, in proper cases, the affidavit of the contracting party regarding the solemnization of the marriage in a place other than those mentioned in Article 8. (Emphasis supplied) 

In view of the foregoing, we agree with the evaluation of the OCA that respondent Judge was less than conscientious in handling official documents. A judge is charged with exercising extra care in ensuring that the records of the cases and official documents in his custody are intact. There is no justification for missing records save fortuitous events.9 However, the records show that the loss was occasioned by carelessness on respondent Judge's part. This Court reiterates that judges must adopt a system of record management and organize their dockets in order to bolster the prompt and efficient dispatch of business.10 It is, in fact, incumbent upon him to devise an efficient recording and filing system in his court because he is after all the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions.11

In the evaluation report, the OCA recommended that respondent Judge be fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. This Court adopts the recommendation of the OCA.1âwphi1.nêt 

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, respondent Judge is hereby FINED Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely.