In People v. Jansen,[124] this Court held that:
…the solemnizing officer is not duty-bound to investigate whether or not a marriage license has been duly and regularly issued by the local civil registrar. All the solemnizing officer needs to know is that the license has been issued by the competent official, and it may be presumed from the issuance of the license that said official has fulfilled the duty to ascertain whether the contracting parties had fulfilled the requirements of law.
However, this Court also said in Sevilla v. Cardenas,[125] that “the presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.” The visible superimpositions on the marriage licenses should have alerted the solemnizing judges to the irregularity of the issuance.
It follows also that although Article 21 of the Family Code requires the submission of the certificate from the embassy of the foreign party to the local registrar for acquiring a marriage license, the judges should have been more diligent in reviewing the parties’ documents and qualifications. As noted by the OCA, the absence of the required certificates coupled with the presence of mere affidavits should have aroused suspicion as to the regularity of the marriage license issuance.
The judges’ gross ignorance of the law is also evident when they solemnized marriages under Article 34 of the Family Code without the required qualifications and with the existence of legal impediments such as minority of a party. Marriages of exceptional character such as those made under Article 34 are, doubtless, the exceptions to the rule on the indispensability of the formal requisite of a marriage license.[126] Under the rules of statutory construction, exceptions as a general rule should be strictly but reasonably construed.[127] The affidavits of cohabitation should not be issued and accepted pro forma particularly in view of the settled rulings of the Court on this matter. The five-year period of cohabitation should be one of a perfect union valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of the marriage contract.[128] The parties should have been capacitated to marry each other during the entire period and not only at the time of the marriage.[129]
To elaborate further on the gravity of the acts and omissions of the respondents, the Family Code provides the requisites for a valid marriage:
Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. (53a, 55a)
Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).
A defect in any of the essential requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. (n)
The absence of a marriage license will clearly render a marriage void ab initio.[130] The actions of the judges have raised a very alarming issue regarding the validity of the marriages they solemnized since they did not follow the proper procedure or check the required documents and qualifications. In Aranes v. Judge Salvador Occiano,[131] the Court said that a marriage solemnized without a marriage license is void and the subsequent issuance of the license cannot render valid or add even an iota of validity to the marriage. It is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage and the act of solemnizing the marriage without a license constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
As held by this Court in Navarro v. Domagtoy:
The judiciary should be composed of persons who, if not experts are at least proficient in the law they are sworn to apply, more than the ordinary layman. 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. It is not too much to expect them to know and apply the law intelligently.
x x x
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondents:
- Judge Anatalio S. Necessario, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cebu City, GUILTY of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty and of gross ignorance of the law and that he be DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE
with forfeiture of his retirement benefits, except leave credits, if
any, and that he be disqualified from reinstatement or appointment to
any public office, including government-owned or -controlled
corporation;
- Judge Gil R. Acosta, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3, Cebu City, GUILTY of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty and of gross ignorance of the law and that he be DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE
with forfeiture of his retirement benefits, except leave credits, if
any, and that he be disqualified from reinstatement or appointment to
any public office, including government-owned or -controlled
corporation;
- Judge Rosabella M. Tormis, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Cebu City, GUILTY of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty and of gross ignorance of the law and that she would have been DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE
with forfeiture of her retirement benefits, except leave credits, if
any, and disqualified from reinstatement or appointment to any public
office, including government-owned or -controlled corporation, had she not been previously dismissed from service in A.M. No. MTJ-12-1817 (Formerly A.M. No. 09-2-30-MTCC);
- Judge Edgemelo C. Rosales, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 8, Cebu City, GUILTY of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty and of gross ignorance of the law and that he be DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE
with forfeiture of his retirement benefits, except leave credits, if
any, and that he be disqualified from reinstatement or appointment to
any public office, including government-owned or -controlled
corporation;
- Helen Mongaya, Court Interpreter, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Cebu City, GUILTY of violating Section 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and that she be DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE
with forfeiture of her retirement benefits, except leave credits, if
any, and that she be disqualified from reinstatement or appointment to
any public office, including government-owned or -controlled
corporation;
- Rhona F. Rodriguez, Administrative Officer I, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, GUILTY
of gross misconduct for Section 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for
Court Personnel and for inducing Maricel Albater to falsify the
application for marriage and that she be DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE
with forfeiture of her retirement benefits, except leave credits, if
any, and that she be disqualified from reinstatement or appointment to
any public office, including government-owned or -controlled
corporation;
- Desiderio S. Aranas, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3, Cebu City, GUILTY of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and that he be SUSPENDED without pay for a period of six (6) months with a warning that a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely;
- Rebecca Alesna, Court Interpreter, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Cebu City, GUILTY of
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and of
violating Section 2(b), Canon III of the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel and that she be SUSPENDED without pay for a period of six (6) months with a warning that a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely;
- Celeste Retuya, Clerk III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 6, Cebu City, and Emma Valencia, Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Cebu City, GUILTY of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and of violating Section 2(b), Canon III of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and that they be ADMONISHED with a warning that a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely;
The complaints against Judge Geraldine Faith A. Econg, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Cebu City; Corazon P. Retuya, Court Stenographer, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 6, Cebu City; and Marilou Cabañez, Court Stenographer, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The case against Judge Rosabella M. Tormis, including the sworn statements of Celerina Plaza and Crisanto dela Cerna, should be REFERRED to the Office of the Bar Confidant for the purpose of initiating disbarment proceedings against the judge.
The Honorable Mayors of Barili, Cebu and Liloan, Cebu, are to be furnished copies of the Supplemental Report dated 14 August 2007 and are ADVISED to conduct an investigation with respect to the statements of Filomena C. Lopez, Civil Registrar of Barili, Cebu, and Bonita I. Pilones, Civil Registrar of Liloan, Cebu, regarding the processing of marriage licenses and to take the necessary action as the findings of the investigation may warrant.
Let a copy of this Decision be included in the respondents’ files that are with the Office of the Bar Confidant and distributed to all courts and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
No comments:
Post a Comment