9/23/2016

A.M.No.991211

TodayisFriday,September23,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
A.M.No.991211January28,2000
(FormerlyOCAIPINo.98471MTJ)
ZENAIDAS.BESO,complainant,
vs.
JudgeJUANDAGUMAN,MCTC,Sta.MargaritaTaranganPagsanjan,Samar,respondent.
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
Inthisadministrativecomplaint,respondentJudgestandschargedwithNeglectofDutyandAbuseofAuthority.In
a ComplaintAffidavit dated December 12, 1997, Zenaida S. Beso charged Judge Juan J. Daguman, Jr. with
solemnizingmarriageoutsideofhisjurisdictionandofnegligenceinnotretainingacopyandnotregisteringthe
marriagecontractwiththeofficeoftheLocalRegistraralleging
a.ThatonAugust28,1997,Iandmyfiancee(sic)BERNARDITOA.YMANgotmarriedandourmarriage
was solemnized by judge (sic) Juan Daguman in his residence of J.P.R. Subdivision in Calbayog City,
Samar...
b. That the ceremony was attended by PACIFICO MAGHACOT who acted as our principal sponsor and
spousesRAMONDEANandTERESITADEAN...
c.Thatafterourwedding,myhusbandBERNARDITOYMANabandonedmewithoutanyreasonatall
d.ThatIsmellsomethingfishysowhatIdidwasIwenttoCalbayogCityandwrotetheCityCivilRegistrar
toinquiremyMarriageContract
e.Thattomysurprise,IwasinformedbytheLocalCivilRegistrarofCalbayogCitythatmymarriagewas
notregistered...
f.ThatuponadvisementoftheLocalCivilRegistrarIwroteJudgeJuanDaguman,toinquire
g. That to my second surprise, I was informed by Judge Daguman that all the copies of the Marriage
ContractweretakenbyOloy(BernarditoA.Yman)
h.ThatnotcopywasretainedbyJudgeDaguman
i.ThatIbelievethattherespondentjudgecommittedactsprejudicialtomyinterestsuchas:
1.Solemnizingourmarriageoutsidehisjurisdiction
2.NegligenceinnotretainingacopyandnotregisteringourmarriagebeforetheofficeoftheLocal
CivilRegistrar.
TheAffidavitComplaintwasthereafterreferredtorespondentJudgeforcomment.
InhisComment,respondentJudgeaverredthat:
1. The civil marriage of complainant Zenaida Beso and Bernardito Yman had to be solemnized by
respondentinCalbayogCitythoughoutsidehisterritoryasmunicipalJudgeofSta.Margarita,Samardue
tothefollowingandpressingcircumstances:
1.1.OnAugust28,1997respondentwasphysicallyindisposedandunabletoreporttohisstationin
Sta. Margita. In the forenoon of that date, without prior appointment, complainant Beso and Mr.
Yman unexpectedly came to the residence of respondent in said City, urgently requesting the
celebration of their marriage right then and there,first, because complainants said she must leave
thatsamedaytobeabletoflyfromManilaforabroadasscheduledsecond,thatforthepartiesto
gotoanothertownforthemarriagewouldbeexpensiveandwouldentailseriousproblemsoffinding
asolemnizingofficerandanotherpairofwitnessesorsponsors,whileinfactformerUndersecretary
Pacifico Maghacot, Sangguniang Panglunsod [member] Ramon Dean were already with them as
sponsorsthird, if they failed to get married on August 28, 1997, complainant would be out of the
countryforalongperiodandtheirmarriagelicensewouldlapseandnecessitateanotherpublication
ofnoticefourth,ifthepartiesgobeyondtheirplansforthescheduledmarriage,complainantfeared
itwouldcomplicateheremploymentabroadand,last,allotheralternativesastodateandvenueof
marriagewereconsideredimpracticablebytheparties
1.2.Thecontractingpartieswerereadywiththedesiredcocuments(sic)foravalidmarriage,which
respondentfoundallinorder.
1 w p h i1 .n t

1.3. Complainant bride is an accredited Filipino overseas worker, who, respondent realized,
deservedmorethanordinaryofficialattentionunderpresentGovernmentpolicy.
2.Atthetimerespondentsolemnizedthemarriageinquestion,hebelievedingoodfaiththatbysodoing
hewasleaningonthesideofliberalityofthelawsothatitmaybenotbetooexpensiveandcomplicatedfor
citizenstogetmarried.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/am_mtj991211_2000.html

1/4

9/23/2016

A.M.No.991211

3. Another point brought up in the complaint was the failure of registration of the duplicate and triplicate
copiesofthemarriagecertificate,whichfailurewasalsooccasionedbythefollowingcircumstancesbeyond
thecontrolofrespondent:
3.1.Afterhandlingtothehusbandthefirstcopyofthemarriagecertificate,respondentleftthethree
remainingcopiesontopofthedeskinhisprivateofficewherethemarriageceremonieswereheld,
intendinglatertoregistertheduplicateandtriplicatecopiesandtokeeptheforth(sic)inhisoffice.
3.2.Afterafewdaysfollowingthewedding,respondentgatheredallthepapersrelatingtothesaid
marriagebutnotwithstandingdiligentsearchinthepremisesandprivatefiles,allthethreelastcopies
of the certificate were missing. Promptly, respondent invited by subpoena . . . . Mr. Yman to shed
lightonthemissingdocumentsandhesaidhesawcomplainantBesoputthecopiesofthemarriage
certificateinherbagduringtheweddingparty.Unfortunately,itwastoolatetocontractcomplainant
foraconfirmationofMr.Yman'sclaim.
3.3. Considering the futility of contracting complainant now that she is out of the country, a
reasonableconclusioncanbedrawnonthebasisoftheestablishedfactssofarinthisdispute.Ifwe
believe the claim of complainant that after August 28, 1997 marriage her husband, Mr. Yman,
abandonedherwithoutanyreason...butthatsaidhusbandadmitted"hehadanothergirlbythe
nameofLITADANGUYAN"...itseemsreasonablyclearwhoofthetwomarriagecontractingparties
probablyabscondedwiththemissingcopiesofthemarriagecertificate.
3.4.Underthefactsabovestated,respondenthasnootherrecoursebuttoprotectthepublicinterest
by trying all possible means to recover custody of the missing documents in some amicable way
during the expected hearing of the above mentioned civil case in the City of Marikina, failing to do
which said respondent would confer with the Civil Registrar General for possible registration of
reconstitutedcopiesofsaiddocuments.
TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator(OCA)inanevaluationreportdatedAugust11,1998foundthatrespondent
Judge ". . . committed nonfeasance 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
pointingoutthat:
As presiding judge of the MCTC Sta. Margarita TarangnanPagsanjan, Samar, the authority to solemnize
marriage is only limited to those municipalities under his jurisdiction. Clearly, Calbayog City is no longer
withinhisareaofjurisdiction.
Additionally,thereareonlythreeinstances,asprovidedbyArticle8oftheFamilyCode,whereinamarriage
maybesolemnizedbyajudgeoutsidehischamber[s]orataplaceotherthanhissala,towit:
(1)wheneitherorbothofthecontractingpartiesisatthepointofdeath
(2)whentheresidenceofeitherpartyislocatedinaremoteplace
(3) where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage
maybesolemnizedatahouseorplacedesignatedbytheminaswornstatementtothateffect.
Theforegoingcircumstancesareunavailingintheinstantcase.
Moreover,assolemnizingofficer,respondentJudgeneglectedhisdutywhenfailedtoregisterthemarriage
ofcomplainanttoBernarditoYman.
SuchdutyisentrusteduponhimpursuanttoArticle23oftheFamilyCodewhichprovides:
Itshallbethedutyofthepersonsolemnizingthemarriagetofurnisheitherofthecontractingparties
theoriginalofthemarriagecertificatereferredtoinArticle6andtosendtheduplicateandtriplicate
copiesofthecertificatenotlaterthanfifteendaysafterthemarriage,tothelocalcivilregisterofthe
placewherethemarriagewassolemnized....(emphasisours)
ItisclearlyevidentfromtheforegoingthatnotonlyhastherespondentJudgecommittednonfeasancein
office,healsounderminedtheveryfoundationofmarriagewhichisthebasicsocialinstitutioninoursociety
whosenature,consequencesandincidentsaregovernedbylaw.GrantingthatrespondentJudgeindeed
failedtolocatetheduplicateandtriplicatecopiesofthemarriagecertificate,heshouldhaveexertedmore
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
considerationforbeingdevoidofproof.
Afteracarefulandthoroughexaminationoftheevidence,theCourtfindstheevaluationreportoftheOCAwell
taken.
Jimenez v. Republic1 underscores the importance of marriage as a social institution thus: "[M]arriage in this
countryisaninstitutioninwhichthecommunityisdeeplyinterested.Thestatehassurroundeditwithsafeguards
to maintain its purity, continuity and permanence. The security and stability of the state are largely dependent
uponit.Itistheinterestanddutyofeachandeverymemberofthecommunitytopreventthebringingabouta
conditionthatwouldshakeitsfoundationanduntimelyleadtoitsdestruction."
Withregardtothesolemnizationofmarriage,Article7oftheFamilyCodeprovides,amongothers,that
Art.7.Marriagemybesolemnizedby:
(1)Anyincumbentmemberofthejudiciarywithinthecourt'sjurisdiction...(Emphasisours)
Inrelationthereto,Article8ofthesamestatutemandatesthat:
Art. 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the
church,chapelortemple,orintheofficeofthecounselgeneral,consulorviceconsul,asthecasemaybe,
and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted at the point of death or in remote places in
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/am_mtj991211_2000.html

2/4

9/23/2016

A.M.No.991211

accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or were both parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in
whichcasethemarriagemaybesolemnizedatahouseorplacedesignatedbytheminaswornstatement
tothateffect.(Emphasisours)
Astheabovequotedprovisionclearlystates,amarriagecanbeheldoutsidethejudge'schambersorcourtroom
onlyinthefollowinginstances:1.]atthepointofdeath2.]inremoteplacesinaccordancewithArticle29,or3.]
upontherequestofbothpartiesinwritinginaswornstatementtothiseffect.
Inthiscase,thereisnopretensethateithercomplainantBesoorherfiancYmanwasatthepointofdeathorin
aremoteplace.NeitherwasthereaswornwrittenrequestmadebythecontractingpartiestorespondentJudge
thatthemarriagebesolemnizedoutsidehischambersorataplaceotherthanhissala.What,infact,appearson
record is that respondent Judge was prompted more by urgency to solemnize the marriage of Beso and Yman
becausecomplainantwas"[a]noverseasworker,who,respondentrealizeddeservedmorethanordinaryofficial
attentionunderpresentGovernmentpolicy."RespondentJudgefurtheraversthatinsolemnizingthemarriagein
question,"[h]ebelievedingoodfaiththatbydoingsohewasleaningonthesideofliberalityofthelawsothatit
maynotbetooexpensiveandcomplicatedforcitizenstogetmarried."
Apersonpresidingoveracourtoflawmustnotonlyapplythelawbutmustalsoliveandabidebyitandrender
justiceatalltimeswithoutresortingtoshortcutsclearlyuncalledfor.2Ajudgeisnotonlyboundbyoathtoapply
thelaw3hemustalsobeconscientiousandthoroughindoingso.4Certainly,judges,bytheverydelicatenature
oftheirofficeshouldbemorecircumspectintheperformanceoftheirduties.5
Ifatall,thereasonsprofferedbyrespondentJudgetojustifyhishurriedsolemnizationofthemarriageinthiscase
only tends to degrade the revered position enjoined by marriage in the hierarchy of social institutions in the
country.Theyalsobetrayrespondent'scavalierproclivityonitssignificanceinourculturewhichismoredisposed
towards an extended period of engagement prior to marriage and frowns upon hasty, illadvised and illtimed
maritalunions.
Anelementaryregardforthesacrednessoflawsletalonethatenactedinordertopreservesosacrosanctan
inviolable social institution as marriage and the stability of judicial doctrines laid down by superior authority
shouldhavegivenrespondentjudgepauseandmadehimmorevigilantintheexerciseofhisauthorityandthe
performanceofhisdutiesasasolemnizingofficer.Ajudgeis,furthermore,presumedtoknowtheconstitutional
limitsoftheauthorityorjurisdictionofhiscourt.6ThusrespondentJudgeshouldberemindedthat
Apriestwhoiscommissionedandallowedbyhisordinarytomarrythefaithful,isauthorizedtodosoonly
withintheareaofthedioceseorplaceallowedbyisBishop.AnappellatecourtjusticeoraJusticeofthis
CourthasjurisdictionovertheentirePhilippinestosolemnizemarriages,regardlessofthevenue,aslong
astherequisitesofthelawarecompliedwith.However,Judgeswhoareappointedtospecificjurisdictions
may officiate in weddings only within said areas and not beyond. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage
outsidehiscourt'sjurisdiction,thereisaresultantirregularityintheformalrequisitelaiddowninArticle3,
whichwhileitmaynotaffectthevalidityofthemarriage,maysubjecttheofficiatingofficialtoadministrative
liability.7
ConsideringthatrespondentsJudge'sjurisdictioncoversthemunicipalityofSta.MargaritaTaranganPagsanjan,
Samaronly,hewasnotclothedwithauthoritytosolemnizeamarriageintheCityofCalbayog.8
Furthermore,fromthenatureofmarriage,asidefromthemandatethatajudgeshouldexerciseextracareinthe
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
theFamilyCodewhichstatesinnouncertaintermsthat
Art. 23. It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting
parties,theoriginalofthemarriagecontractreferredtoinArticle6andtosendtheduplicateandtriplicate
copiesofthecertificatenotlaterthanfifteendaysafterthemarriage,tothelocalcivilregistraroftheplace
where the marriage was solemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the
solemnizingofficertransmittingcopiesofthemarriagecertificate.Thesolemnizingofficershallretaininhis
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
thanthosementionedinArticle8.(Emphasissupplied)
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
recordsofthecasesandofficialdocumentsinhiscustodyareintact.Thereisnojustificationformissingrecords
savefortuitousevents.9However,therecordsshowthatthelosswasoccasionedbycarelessnessonrespondent
Judge's part. This Court reiterates that judges must adopt a system of record management and organize their
docketsinordertobolsterthepromptandefficientdispatchofbusiness.10 It is, in fact, incumbent upon him to
deviseanefficientrecordingandfilingsysteminhiscourtbecauseheisafteralltheonedirectlyresponsiblefor
theproperdischargeofhisofficialfunctions.11
In the evaluation report, the OCA recommended that respondent Judge be fined Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00)andwarnedthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractswillbedealtwithmoreseverely.ThisCourt
adoptstherecommendationoftheOCA.
1 w p h i1 .n t

WHEREFORE,inviewofalltheforegoing,respondentJudgeisherebyFINEDFiveThousandPesos(P5,000.00)
andSTERNLYWARNEDthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilarinfractionswillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Puno,KapunanandPardo,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1109Phil273[1960].
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/am_mtj991211_2000.html

3/4

9/23/2016

A.M.No.991211

2Ortizv.Palaypon,234SCRA391[1994].
3CaramResourcesCorp.v.Contreras,237SCRA724[1994].
4Benjamin,Sr.v.Alaba,261SCRA429[1996].
5Galvezv.Eduardo,252SCRA570[1996].
6Guiebv.Fontanilla,247SCRA348[1995].
7Navarrov.Domagtoy,259SCRA129[1996],citingArt.4FamilyCode:italicssupplied.
8SeeSempioDiyA.V.HandbookOnTheFamilyCodeOfThePhilippines,1988ed.,p.70.
9Sabitsanav.Villamor,202SCRA435[1991]:citingLongboanv.Polig,186SCRA567[1990].
10Bernardov.JudgeAmeliaA.Fabros,AMNo,MTJ991189,12May1999.
11OCAv.JudgeFranciscoD.Villanueva,279SCRA267[1997],citingAgcaoiliv.Ramos,229SCRA705

[1994]seealsoOCAv.RTCJudgeAmelitaDKBenedicto,296SCRA62[1998]MamamayanngZapoteI.
Bacoor,Cavitev.Balderain,265SCRA360[1996]Celinov.Abrogar,245SCRA304[1995].
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/am_mtj991211_2000.html

4/4