9/2/2015

ApiagvsCantero:MTJ951070:February12,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

THIRDDIVISION

[A.M.No.MTJ951070.February12,1997]

MARIA APIAG, TERESITA CANTERO SECUROM and GLICERIO CANTERO,

complainants,vs.JUDGEESMERALDOG.CANTERO,respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:

Judges ought to be more learned than witty, more reverend than plausible, and more
advisedthanconfident.Aboveallthings,integrityistheirportionandpropervirtue.[1]
TheeminentFrancisBaconwrotetheforegoingexhortationsome400yearsago.Today,it
isstillrelevantandquotable.Bythenatureoftheirfunctions,judgesarereveredasmodelsof
integrity, wisdom, decorum, competence and propriety. Human as they are, however,
magistrates do have their own weaknesses, frailties, mistakes and even indiscretions. In the
casebeforeus,respondentJudgeEsmeraldoG.Canterowaschargedadministrativelyinthe
twilight of his government service, as a result of a failed love affair that happened some 46
years ago. After an otherwise unblemished record, he would have reached the compulsory
retirementageof70yearsonAugust8,1997haddeathnotintervenedafewmonthsagoon
September26,1996.Notwithstandinghisdeath,thisCourtstillresolvedtoruleonthiscase,as
itmayaffecthisretirementbenefits.
AntecedentFacts
Inalettercomplaint[2] dated November 10, 1993, Maria Apiag Cantero with her daughter
Teresita A. Cantero Sacurom and son Glicerio A. Cantero charged the respondent, Judge
EsmeraldoG.CanterooftheMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtofPinamungajanAloquinsan,Cebu,
with gross misconduct for allegedly having committed bigamy and falsification of public
documents.
After receipt of the respondent's Comment, the Court on February 5, 1996, referred this
case[3] to Executive Judge Gualberto P. Delgado of the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City,
Cebu for investigation, report and recommendation. The latter submitted his Report and
Recommendation[4] dated July 26, 1996. Thereafter, the Court referred this case also to the
OfficeoftheCourtAdministrator[5]forevaluation,reportandrecommendation.
Accordingtothecomplainants:
"SometimeinAugust11,1947,defendant(shouldberespondent)andplaintiff(shouldbecomplainant)
MariaApiag,joinedtogetherinholymatrimonyinmarriageafterhavinglivedtogetherashusbandand
wifewhereintheybegotadaughterwhowasbornonJune19,1947,whomtheynamed:TeresitaA.
CanteroandthenonOctober29,1953,GlicerioA.Canterowasborn.Thereafter,defendantleftthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_mtj_95_1070.htm

1/10

9/2/2015

ApiagvsCantero:MTJ951070:February12,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

conjugalhomewithoutanyapparentcause,andleavingtheplaintiffMariaApiagtoraisethetwo
childrenwithhermeagerincomeasapublicschoolteacheratHinundayan,SouthernLeyte.Plaintiffs
sufferedalotafterdefendantabandonedthemfornoreasonwhatsoever.Forseveralyears,defendantwas
neverheardofandhiswhereaboutunknown.
Fewyearsago,defendantsurfacedatHinundayan,SouthernLeyte,whereupon,plaintiffsbeggedfor
support,however,theywereignoredbydefendant.xxx"[6]
OnSeptember21,1993,complainants,throughAtty.RedentorG.Guyala,wrotealetterto
respondentasfollows:
"JudgeEsmeraldoCantero
Pinamungajan,Cebu
DearJudgeCantero:
Wearewritinginbehalfofyourlegalwife,MariaApiag,andyourtwolegitimatechildrenbyher,
Teresita(Mrs.Sacurom)andGlicerio.
Itappearsthatsometimeinthe1950'sforreasonsknownonlytoyou,youleftyourconjugalhomeat
Hinundayan,SouthernLeyte,andabandonedwithoutanymeansofsupportyoursaidwifeandchildren.
Sincethenanduptonow,theyhavenotseenorheardfromyou.
Theywouldwishnowthatyoudothemrightbylivinguptoyourdutyashusbandandfathertothem,
particularlythatexpresslyprovidedunderArt.68andArt.195oftheFamilyCode(Art.109and195of
theCivilCode)inrelationtoArt.203ofthesameCode.
Youwillpleaseconsiderthisletterasaformaldemandformaintenanceandsupportforthreeofthem,
andarequestthattheybeproperlyinstitutedandnamedasyourcompulsoryheirsandlegalbeneficiaries
inalllegaldocumentsnowonfileandtobefiledwiththeSupremeCourtandotheragenciesorofficesas
mayberequiredunderapplicablelaws,suchas,theinsurance(GSIS)andretirementlaws.
Wehopethismattercanbeamicablysettledamongyou,yourwifeandchildren,withouthavingtoresort
tojudicialrecourse.
Verytrulyyours,
(SGD.)REDENTORG.GUYALA"[7]
Theletterelicitednoactionorresponsefromtherespondent.Subsequently,complainants
learnedthatrespondentJudgehadanotherfamily.Intheirownwords,
"xxxTheplaintiffslateronlearnedthatdefendanthasanotherwifebythenameofNievesC.Ygay,a
PublicSchoolteacherfromTagao,Pinamungajan,Cebu.Accordingtosomedocumentsobtainedby
plaintiffs,thehereindefendantandNievesC.Ygayhavechildrenoftheirown,namedasfollowswith
theirdateofbirths:NoralynY.CanteroMay19,1968EllenY.CanteroFebruary4,1970ErwinY.
CanteroApril29,1979OnofreY.CanteroJune10,1977andDesirieVicY.CanteroDecember
2,1981.
ItwasshockingtothesensesthatinallofthepublicdocumentsrequiredofdefendantJudgeCanteroto
befiledwiththeSupremeCourtsuchashisswornstatementofassetsandliabilities,hispersonaldata
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_mtj_95_1070.htm

2/10

9/2/2015

ApiagvsCantero:MTJ951070:February12,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

sheet(SCFormP.001),incometaxreturnsandhisinsurancepolicywiththeGovernmentService
InsuranceSystem,defendantmisrepresentedhimselfasbeingmarriedtoNievesC.Ygay,withwhomhe
contractedasecondmarriage.ThetruthofthematteristhatdefendantismarriedtoplaintiffMariaApiag
withwhomtheyhavetwolegitimatechildren,namely:TeresitaA.CanteroandGlicerioA.Cantero."[8]
TherespondentJudge,inhisComment,explainedhissideasfollows:
"xxxIadmittheexistenceandformofAnnex'A'ofthesaidcomplaint,butvehementlydenythe
validityofitsdueexecution,forthetruthofthematteristhatsuchallegedmarriagewasonlydramatized
attheinstanceofourparentsjusttoshot(sic)theirwishesandpurposesonthematter,withoutmy
consentfreelygiven.Asamatteroffact,Iwasonlycalledbymyparentstogohometoourtownat
Hinundayan,SouthernLeytetoattendpartycelebrationofmysister'sbirthdayfromIliganCity,without
patentlyknowingIwasmadetoappear(in)acertaindramamarriageandwewereforcedtoacknowledge
oursignaturesappearinginthedulypreparedmarriagecontract(.)Thatwas46yearsagowhenIwasyet
20yearsofage,andatmysecondyearhighschooldays."[9]
Furthermore,JudgeCanterorelatedthat:
"xxxsometimeintheyear1947,whenbothrespondentandcomplainant,MariaApiagwerestillintheir
earlyageandintheirsecondyearhighschooldays,theywereengagedinalovelyaffairwhichresulted
tothepregnancyofthesaidcomplainant,andthenandtheregavebirthtoachild,namedTeresitaApiag,
having(been)bornoutofwedlockonJune19,1947,nowMrs.TeresitaSacurom,oneofthe
complainants.Thatinordertosavenameandshame,parentsofboththerespondentandthecomplainant
cametoanagreementtoallowtherespondent,andthecomplainant(to)getmarriedinthe(sic)name,but
nottolivetogetherashusband,wifeforbeingcloserelatives,therebyforcingtherespondenttoappearin
amarriageaffairwhereallthepertinentmarriagepaperswereallready(sic)prepared(sic),andduly
signedbysomebodythatafterthesaidaffairbothrespondentandthecomplainantimmediately
separatedeachother(sic)withoutlivingtogetherashusband,andwifeevenforaday,norhaving
establishedaconjugalhome.Fromthattimerespondentandthecomplainanthavenevermeteachother
norhaving(sic)communicated(with)eachotherforthelast40yearsthatrespondentcontinuedhis
studiesatCebuCity,andeventuallybecamememberofthePhilippineBar,havingpassedthebar
examinationintheyear1960,thatis14yearsaftertheaffairof1947thatin1964,respondentwasfirst
connectedinthegovernmentserviceasComelecRegistraroftheCommissiononElections,assignedat
Pinamungajan,Cebu(,)thatis16yearsaftertheaffairof1947thatintheyear1982,respondentwas
appointedasCLAOlawyer,nowPAO,oftheDepartmentofJustice,thatis35yearsaftertheafterthe
affairof1947andfinally,onOctober3,1989,respondentwasappointedtotheJudiciaryasMunicipal
CircuitTrialJudge(MCTC)oftheMunicipalitiesofPinamungajanandAloguinsan,provinceofCebu,
thatis42yearsfromAugust11,1947thatrespondentis(sic)already32yearsinthegovernmentservice
uptothepresenttimewithmorethan6yearsintheJudiciarythatrespondentisalready69yearsold,
havingbeenbornonAugust8,1927,andretirablebynextyearifGodwillingthatrespondenthas
servedinthegovernmentserviceforthelast32years,faithfully,honestlyandjudiciouslywithoutany
complaintwhatsoever,exceptthisinstantcasethatrespondentasmemberoftheJudiciary,hasliveup
(sic)tothestandardrequiredbythe(sic)member(sic)ofthebarandjudiciarythatthechargesagainst
therespondentwereallbasedorrootedfromtheincedent(sic)thathappenedonAugust11,1947andno
otherthatthecomplainantsaremorallydishonestinfilingtheinstant(case)justnow,anelapsed(sic)of
almost42yearsandknowingthatrespondent(is)retirablebynextyear,1997thatthisactuationisvery
suspicious,andintriguing
xxxxxxxxx
ThatcomplainantMariaApiaghasbeenlivingtogetherwithanothermanduringherpublicserviceas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_mtj_95_1070.htm

3/10

9/2/2015

ApiagvsCantero:MTJ951070:February12,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

publicschoolteacherandhavebegottenachild,name(sic)ManuelApiagandrespondentpromised(sic)
theHonorableCourttofurnishacompletepaperregardingthiscaseinordertoenlightentheHonorable
(Court)that,hewhoseek(sic)justicemustseekjusticewithcleab(sic)hand
Thatrespondentdidnotfileanyannullment(sic)orjudicialdeclaration(ofnullity)ofthealleged
marriagebecauseitisthecontentionandhonestbelief,alltheway,thatthesaidmarriagewasvoidfrom
thebeginning,andassuchnothingistobevoidedornullified,andtodosowillbeinconsistentwiththe
standoftherespondentthatthisinstantcase(was)simplyfiledformoneyconsiderationasreflectedin
theirletterofdemand(t)hatasamatteroffact,respondentandthecomplainanthavealreadysigneda
compromised(sic)agreement,copyofwhichhereto(sic)attachedasAnnex'1',statingamongother
thingsthatrespondentwillgiveamonthlyallowancetoTerecita(sic)Sacurominthe(amount)of
P4,000.00andthecomplainantwillwithdrawtheircomplaintfromtheSupremeCourt.,andthat
respondenthadalreadygiventhesaidallowanceforthreeconsecutivemonthsplustheamountof
P25,000.00fortheirAttorneytowithdrawthecase,andthatrespondentstop(sic)themonthlyallowance
untilsuchtimethecomplainantwillactuallywithdrawtheinstantcase,andwithoutknowledgeofthe
respondent,complainantproceeded(sic)theircomplaintaftertheelapsed(sic)ofthree(3)years."[10]
RelevantportionsofsaidcompromiseagreementwhichwasexecutedsometimeinMarch
1994 by Esmeraldo C. Cantero and Teresita C. Sacurom and witnessed by Maria Apiag and
LeovegardoSacuromarereproducedthus:
"ThatthisCOMPROMISEAGREEMENTisexecutedandenteredintobyESMERALDOC.
CANTERO,oflegalage,married,Filipino,andwithresidenceandpostaladdressatPinamungajan,
Cebu,Philippines,otherwisecalledastheFIRSTPARTY,andTERESITAC.SACUROM,alsooflegal
age,married,Filipino,representinghermotherandherbrother,andaresidence(sic)of133AJ.Ramos
Street,CaloocanCity,afterhavingdulyswirn(sic)toinaccordancewithlawdoherebydeposeandsay:
1.ThattheFirstPartyispresentlyaMunicipalCircuitTrialJudgeofPinamungajanAloguinsan,Cebu,is
chargedbySecondPartyforMisconductbeforetheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratoroftheSupreme
Courtnowpendingaction
2.Thatthepartieshavecame(sic)toagreementtohavethesaidcasesettledamicablyintheinterestof
familyunityandreconciliation,andarrivedatcompromiseagreementbasedonlawofequity,asfollows:
(a)Thatbothpartieshaveagreedvoluntarily,theSecondPartywillgetONEFOURTH
(1/4)oftheretirementthattheFirstwillreceivefromtheGSIS,andtherestofitwillbefor
theFirstParty
(b)ThattheSecondPartyandhisbrotherwillbeincludedasoneofthebeneficiariesofthe
FirstParty,incaseofdeath
(c)ThattheSecondpartyandhisonlybrotherwillinheritthepropertiesoftheFirstparty
inheritedfromhisparents
(d)ThattheSecondParty,representingherbrother,isauthorizedtoreceiveandcollect
P4,000.00,monthlyoutofthesecondchecksalaryoftheFirstParty(Thesecondhalfsalary
only)
3.ThatitwasfurthervoluntarilyagreedthattheSecondPartywillcausethewithdrawalandtheoutright
dismissalofthesaidpendingcasefiledbyherandhermother
4.Thatitwasalsoagreedthattheaboveagreement,shallneverbeeffectiveandenforceableunlessthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_mtj_95_1070.htm

4/10

9/2/2015

ApiagvsCantero:MTJ951070:February12,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

saidcasewillbewithdrawnanddismiss(sic)fromtheSupremeCourt,andsaiddismissalbereceivedby
theFirstParty,otherwisetheaboveagreementisvoidfromthebeginningandtheSecondPartymust
desistfromfurtherclaining(sic)andfilingcivilabd(sic)criminalliabilities.
5.Thatthisagreementisexecutedvoluntarily,ingoodfaith,andintheinterestofgoodwilland
reconciliationandbothpartiesis(sic)dutyboundtofollowfaithfullyandreligiously."[11]
Inlinewiththeforegoing,therespondentwrotealetterdated14March,1994addressedto
theGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem(GSIS)designatingTeresitaCanteroSacuromand
GlicerioCanteroasadditionalbeneficiariesinhislifeinsurancepolicy.[12]
TheIssues
TherespondentJudgeformulatedthefollowing"issues":
"1.Thatthefirstmarriagewiththecomplainant,MariaApiagonAugust11,1947isvoid
2.TheabsenceofhisfirstwifecomplainantMariaApiagformorethanseven(7)yearsraisethe
presumptionthatsheisalreadydead,thattherewasnoneedforanyjudicialdeclaration
3.ThechargeofGraveMisconductisnotapplicabletohimbecauseassumingthathecommittedthe
offense,hewasnotyetamemberofthejudiciary
4.ThecrimeofBigamyandFalsificationhadalreadyprescribed
5.Thechargeshavenobasisinfactandinlaw."[13]
ReportandRecommendationofInvestigatingJudgeandCourtAdministrator
InvestigatingJudgeGualbertoP.Delgadorecommendedinhisreportthat:
"Afteracarefulperusaloftheevidencesubmittedbytheparties,thisOfficefindsrespondentGuiltyof
thecrimeofGraveMisconduct(BigamyandFalsificationofPublicDocuments)however,considering
hislengthofserviceinthegovernment,itisrecommendedthathebesuspendedforone(1)yearwithout
pay."[14]
TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratoralsosubmitteditsreport[15]recommendingrespondent
Judge'sdismissal,asfollows:
"Afteracarefulreviewofallthedocumentsonfileinthiscase,wefindnocogentreasontodisturbthe
findingsoftheinvestigatingjudge.
Extantfromtherecordsofthecaseandasadmittedbyrespondent,hewasmarriedtocomplainantMaria
ApiagonAugust11,1947andhave(sic)two(2)childrenwithher.Respondent'scontentionthatsuch
marriagewasinjestandassumingthatitwasvalid,ithaslostitsvalidityonthegroundthattheynever
metagainnorhavecommunicatedwitheachotherforthelast40yearscannotbegivena(sic)scant
consideration.Respondent'sargumentthathewasnotyetalawyer,muchmore,amemberofthebench
whenhecontractedhisfirstmarriagewiththecomplainant,isunavailingforhavingstudiedlawandhad
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_mtj_95_1070.htm

5/10

9/2/2015

ApiagvsCantero:MTJ951070:February12,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

becomeamemberoftheBarin1960,heknowsthatthemarriagecannotbedissolvedwithoutajudicial
declarationofdeath.Respondent'ssecondmarriagewithNievesYgaywasthereforebigamousforitwas
contractedduringtheexistenceofapreviousmarriage.
Wearelikewisenotpersuadedbytheassertionoftherespondentthathecannotbeheldliablefor
misconductonthegroundthathewasnotyetalawyernorajudgewhentheact(s)complainedofwere
committed.Theinfractionhecommittedcontinuedfromthetimehebecamealawyerin1960tothetime
hewasappointedasajudgeinOctober23,1989.Thisisacontinuingoffense(anunlawfulactperformed
continuouslyoroverandoveragain,LawDictionary,RobertE.Rothenberg).Hecanthereforebeheld
liableforhismisdeeds.
Onthechargeoffalsification,itwasshownwithclarityinhisPersonalDataSheetforJudges,Sworn
StatementofAssets,LiabilitiesandNetworth,IncomeTaxReturn(pp.99102,rollo),thathehad
committedamisrepresentationbystatingthereinthathisspouseisNievesYgayand(had)eight(8)
children(withher)whichisfarfrom(the)truththathiswifeisMariaApiagwithwhomhehadtwo(2)
children.
Asidefromtheadmission,theuntenablelineofdefensebytherespondentpresupposestheimpositionof
anadministrativesanctionforthechargesfiledagainsthim.'Ajudge'sactuationofcohabitingwith
anotherwhenhismarriagewasstillvalidandsubsistinghiswifehavingbeenallegedlyabsentforfour
yearsonlyconstitutesgrossimmoralconduct'(Abadillavs.TabiliranJr.,249SCRA447).Itisevident
thatrespondentfailedtomeetthestandardofmoralfitnessformembershipinthelegalprofession.While
deceitemployedbyrespondent,existedpriortohisappointmentasaxxxJudge,hisimmoralandillegal
actofcohabitingwithxxxbeganandcontinuedwhenhewasalreadyinthejudiciary.Ajudge,inorder
topromotepublicconfidenceintheintegrityandimpartialityofthejudiciary,mustbehavewith
proprietyatalltimes,intheperformanceofhisjudicialdutiesandinhiseverydaylife.Thesearejudicial
guidepostto(sic)selfevidenttobeoverlooked.Nopositionexactsagreaterdemandonmoral
righteousnessanduprightnessofanindividualthanaseatinthejudiciary(Atienzavs.Brilliantes,Jr.,
243SCRA3233).
ACCORDINGLY,itisrespectfullyrecommendedthatrespondentjudgebeDISMISSEDfromthe
servicewithforfeitureofallleaveandretirementbenefitsandwithprejudicetoreappointmentinany
branch,instrumentalityoragencyofthegovernment,includinggovernmentownedandcontrolled
corporations."
As earlier indicated, respondent Judge died on September 27, 1996 while this case was
stillbeingdeliberateduponbythisCourt.
TheCourt'sRuling
In spite of his death, this Court decided to resolve this case on the merits, in view of the
foregoingrecommendationoftheOCAwhich,ifaffirmedbythisCourt,wouldmeanforfeitureof
thedeathandretirementoftherespondent.
GrossMisconductNotApplicable
The misconduct imputed by the complainants against the judge comprises the following:
abandonmentofhisfirstwifeandchildren,failingtogivesupport,marryingforthesecondtime
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_mtj_95_1070.htm

6/10

9/2/2015

ApiagvsCantero:MTJ951070:February12,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

withouthavingfirstobtainedajudicialdeclarationofnullityofhisfirstmarriage,andfalsification
ofpublicdocuments.Misconduct,asagroundforadministrativeaction,hasaspecificmeaning
inlaw.
"'Misconductinofficehasdefiniteandwellunderstoodlegalmeaning.Byuniformlegaldefinition,
itisamisconductsuchasaffectshisperformanceofhisdutiesasanofficerandnotsuchonlyas
affectshischaracterasaprivateindividual.Insuchcases,ithasbeensaidatalltimes,itisnecessary
toseparatethecharacterofmanfromthecharacterofanofficer.xxxItissettledthatmisconduct,
misfeasance,ormalfeasancewarrantingremovalfromofficeofanofficer,musthavedirectrelation
toandbeconnectedwiththeperformanceofofficialdutiesxxx.'Morespecifically,in
Buenaventuravs.Benedicto,anadministrativeproceedingagainstajudgeofthecourtoffirst
instance,thepresentChiefJusticedefinesmisconductasreferring'toatransgressionofsome
establishedanddefiniteruleofaction,moreparticularlyunlawfulbehaviororgrossnegligenceby
thepublicofficer.'ThatistoabidebytheauthoritativedoctrineassetforthintheleadingcaseofIn
reHorilleno,adecisionpennedbyJusticeMalcolm,whichrequiresthatinorderforserious
misconducttobeshown,theremustbe'reliableevidenceshowingthatthejudicialactscomplained
ofwerecorruptorinspiredbyanintentiontoviolatethelaworwereinpersistentdisregardofwell
knownlegalrules.'"[16]
TheactsimputedagainstrespondentJudgeCanteroclearlypertaintohispersonallifeand
havenodirectrelationtohisjudicialfunction.Neitherdothesemisdeedsdirectlyrelatetothe
discharge of his official responsibilities. Therefore, said acts cannot be deemed misconduct
muchlessgrossmisconductinoffice.ForanyoftheaforementionedactsofJudgeCantero"xx
x (t)o warrant disciplinary action, the act of the judge must have a direct relation to the
performanceofhisofficialduties.Itisnecessarytoseparatethecharacterofthemanfromthe
characteroftheofficer."[17]
NullityofPriorMarriage
It is not disputed that respondent did not obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his
marriage to Maria Apiag prior to marrying Nieves C. Ygay. He argued however that the first
marriage was void and that there was no need to have the same judicially declared void,
pursuant to jurisprudence then prevailing. In the en banc case of Odayat vs. Amante,[18]
complainant charged Amante, a clerk of court, with oppression, immorality and falsification of
public document. The complainant Odayat alleged among others " x x x that respondent is
cohabitingwithoneBeatrizJornada,withwhomhebegotmanychildren,evenwhilehisspouse
FilomenaAbellaisstillalivexxx."Inordertorebutthechargeofimmorality,Amante"xxx
presentedinevidencethecertification(ofthe)xxxLocalCivilRegistrarxxxattestingthatxx
x Filomena Abella was married to one Eliseo Portales on February 16, 1948. Respondent's
contentionisthathismarriagewithFilomenaAbellawasvoidabinitio,becauseofherprevious
marriagewithsaidEliseoPortales."ThisCourtruledthat"FilomenaAbella'smarriagewiththe
respondentwasvoidabinitiounderArticle80[4]oftheNewCivilCode,andnojudicialdecree
isnecessarytoestablishtheinvalidityofvoidmarriages."[19]
Now, per current jurisprudence, "a marriage though void still needs x x x a judicial
declaration of such fact"[20] before any party thereto "can marry again otherwise, the second
marriage will also be void."[21] This was expressly provided under Article 40[22] of the Family
Code.However,themarriageofJudgeCanterotoNievesYgaytookplaceandalltheirchildren
were born before the promulgation of Wiegel vs. SempioDiy and before the effectivity of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_mtj_95_1070.htm

7/10

9/2/2015

ApiagvsCantero:MTJ951070:February12,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

FamilyCode.Hence,thedoctrineinOdayatvs.Amanteappliesinfavorofrespondent.
Ontheotherhand,thechargeoffalsificationwillnotprospereitherbecauseitisbasedon
afindingofguiltinthebigamycharge.Since,asshownintheprecedingdiscussion,thebigamy
charge cannot stand, so too must the accusation of falsification fail. Furthermore, the
respondentjudge'sbeliefingoodfaiththathisfirstmarriagewasvoidshowshislackofmalice
in filling up these public documents, a valid defense in a charge of falsification of public
document,[23]whichmustbeappreciatedinhisfavor.
PersonalConductofaJudge
However, the absence of a finding of criminal liability on his part does not preclude this
Court from finding him administratively liable for his indiscretion, which would have merited
disciplinary action from this Court had death not intervened. In deciding this case, the Court
emphasizes that "(t)he personal behavior of a judge, not only upon the bench but also in his
everyday life, should be above reproach and free from the appearance of impropriety. He
shouldmaintainhighethicalprinciplesandsenseofproprietywithoutwhichhecannotpreserve
the faith of the people in the judiciary, so indispensable in an orderly society. For the judicial
office circumscribes the personal conduct of a judge and imposes a number of restrictions
thereon, which he has to observe faithfully as the price he has to pay for accepting and
occupyinganexaltedpositionintheadministrationofjustice."[24]Itisagainstthisstandardthat
wemustgaugethepublicandprivatelifeofJudgeCantero.
Theconductoftherespondentjudgeinhispersonallifefallsshortofthisstandardbecause
the record reveals he had two families. The record also shows that he did not attend to the
needs,supportandeducationofhischildrenofhisfirstmarriage.Suchisconductunbecoming
a trial magistrate. Thus, the late Judge Cantero "violated Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial
Ethicswhichmandatesthat'[a]judge'sofficialconductshouldbefreefromtheappearanceof
impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of
judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach,' and Canon 2 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that '[a] judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearanceofimproprietyinallactivities.'"[25]
APenaltyofSuspensionisWarranted
Finally,theCourtalsoscrutinizedthewholeofrespondent'srecord.Otherthanthiscase,
wefoundnotraceofwrongdoinginthedischargeofhisjudicialfunctionsfromthetimeofhis
appointmentuptothefilingofthisadministrativecase,andhastoallappearanceslivedupto
the stringent standards embodied in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Considering his otherwise
untarnished32yearsingovernmentservice,[26]thisCourtisinclinedtotreathimwithleniency.
Manisnotperfect.Atonetimeoranother,hemaycommitamistake.Butweshouldnot
lookonlyathissin.Weshouldalsoconsidertheman'ssincerityinhisrepentance,hisgenuine
effortatrestitutionandhiseventualtriumphinthereformationofhislife.
Thisrespondentshouldnotbejudgedsolelyandfinallybywhattookplacesome46years
ago. He may have committed an indiscretion in the past. But having repented for it, such
youthful mistake should not forever haunt him and should not totally destroy his career and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_mtj_95_1070.htm

8/10

9/2/2015

ApiagvsCantero:MTJ951070:February12,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

renderinutilehisotherwiseunblemishedrecord.Indeed,itshouldnotdemolishcompletelywhat
hebuiltinhispubliclifesincethen.Muchlessshoulditabsolutelydeprivehimand/orhisheirs
oftherewardsandfruitsofhislonganddedicatedserviceingovernment.Forthesereasons,
dismissalfromserviceasrecommendedbytheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorwouldbetoo
harsh.
However, we also cannot just gloss over the fact that he was remiss in attending to the
needs of his children of his first marriage children whose filiation he did not deny. He
neglectedthemandrefusedtosupportthemuntiltheycameupwiththisadministrativecharge.
Forsuchconduct,thisCourtwouldhaveimposedapenalty.Butinviewofhisdeathpriortothe
promulgationofthisDecision,dismissalofthecaseisnowinorder.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thiscaseisherebyDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,C.J.,(Chairman),Davide,Jr.,MeloandFrancisco,JJ.,concur.
[1] Bacon, Francis (15611626), Essays: Of

Judicature. See also Handbook for Judges, p. 276, The American

JudicatureSociety,1975.
[2]Rollo,pp.67.
[3]Ibid.,p.21.
[4]Ibid.,pp.138143.
[5]Ibid.,p.149.
[6]MemorandumforPlaintiffs,pp.23Rollo,pp.104105.
[7]Ibid,pp.12Rollo,pp.103104.
[8]Ibid,pp.23Rollo,pp.104105
[9]CommentfortheRespondent,p.1Rollo,p.13.
[10]MemorandumfortheRespondent,pp.13Rollo,pp.5254.
[11]Rollo,p.51.
[12]Ibid,p.115.
[13]SeeEvaluation,Report,andRecommendationoftheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator,p.3Rollo,p.152.
[14]Rollo,p.143.
[15]pp.58Rollo,pp.154156.
[16]Amoscovs. Magro, 73 SCRA 107, pp.108109, September 30, 1976 citing Lacson vs. Roque, 92 Phil. 456,

(1953),Buenaventuravs.Benedicto,38SCRA71,March27,1971,andInreImpeachmentofHorilleno,43
Phil.212,(1922).
[17]Babatiovs. Tan, 157 SCRA 277, p. 280, January 22, 1988 citing Salcedo vs. Inting, 91 SCRA 19, June 29,

1979.
[18]77SCRA338,June2,1977.
[19]Odayatvs.Amante,77SCRA338,341,June2,1977
[20]Wiegelvs.SempioDiy,143SCRA499,501,August19,1986.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/am_mtj_95_1070.htm

9/10