FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390. April 11, 2002]
MERCEDITA MATA ARAÑES, petitioner, vs. JUDGE
SALVADOR M. OCCIANO, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO,
J.:
Petitioner Mercedita Mata
Arañes 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 Office of the Chief Justice to then Acting Court
Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño for appropriate action. On 8 June 2001, the
Office 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 difficulty 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 respondent judge could solemnize
the marriage in Nabua, to which request he acceded.
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 influx 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 filed her Affidavit of Desistance dated 28 August 2001 with the
Office 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 filed this
administrative case out of rage. However, after reading the Comment filed 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 filed 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
Office of the Civil Registrar General issued a Certification that it has no
record of such marriage that allegedly took place on 17 February 2000.
Likewise, the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur
issued another Certification 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 Office 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 office, Grace T. Escobal, informed respondent judge that their office
cannot issue the marriage license due to the failure of Orobia to submit the
Death Certificate of his previous spouse.
The Office 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 fine 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 trial
court judges and judges of inferior courts to solemnize marriages is confined
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 office 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:
“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 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.”[2] (Emphasis
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, proficient 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. x x x 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 officer 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 Affidavit of Desistance filed 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.[5] 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
office and impair the integrity and dignity of this Court as a disciplining
authority.[6]
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Salvador M. Occiano,
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur, is
fined P5,000.00 pesos with a
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future
will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.,
concur.