"Ignoratia legis non excusat."

Ignoratia legis non excusat.  

These case digests are for the personal consumption of the blogger and review of other law students who may also find use for it.  

It is also the opinion of the blogger to (sometimes) state the issue first as this helps narrow down the facts of the digest to essentials.

May this blog be of help to you.


Tuesday, August 9, 2011

BESO VS. DAGUMAN

BESO VS. DAGUMAN

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211, January 28, 2000

Complainant: Zenaida S. Beso

Respondent: Judge Juan Daguman, MCTC, Sta. Margarita-Tarangan, Pagsanjan, Samar

Ponente: J. Ynares-Santiago


Facts:

Judge stands charged with Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority by Beso.  In the Complaint-Affidavit dated December 12, 1997, the complainant charged judge 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 Civil Registrar with the following facts:

(a) On August 28, 1997, the complainant and complainant’s fiancĂ©e, Bernardito A. Yman, got married under the solemnization of the respondent in the respondent’s residence in Calbayog City, Samar;

(b) That after the wedding, Yman abandoned the complainant;

(c) That when Yman left, the complainant inquired to the City Civil Registrar to inquire regarding her Marriage Contract.  The complainant found out that her marriage was not registered;

(d) The complainant wrote to the respondent to inquire and the former found out that all the copies were taken by Yman and no copy was retained by the respondent.

The respondent averred with the following rationale:

(a) Respondent solemnized the marriage because of the urgent request of the complainant and Yman.  He also believed that being a Filipino overseas worker, the complainant deserved more than ordinary official attention under present Government policy;

(b) Respondent was also leaning on the side of liberality of the law so that it may be not too expensive and complicated for citizens to get married;

(c) Respondent’s failure to file the marriage contract was beyond his control because Yman absconded with the missing copies of the marriage certificate.

(d) Respondent, however, tried to recover custody of the missing documents.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in an evaluation report dated, August 11, 1998 found the respondent Judge “…committed non-feasance in office” and recommended that he be fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000).

Issues:

The issues raised in this complaint are:

(1) Whether or not the respondent solemnized a marriage outside of his jurisdiction; and

(2) Whether or not the respondent committed negligence by not retaining a copy and not registering the complainant’s marriage before the office of the Local Civil Registrar.

 

Held:

(1) Yes.  The judge solemnized a marriage outside of his jurisdiction. Article 7 of the Family Code provides that marriage may be solemnized by, “Any incumbent member of the judiciary with the court’s jurisdiction”.  In relation thereto, according to Article 8 of the Family Code, there are only three instances with which a judge may solemnize a marriage outside of his jurisdiction:

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

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

(1.3) 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.

In this case, non of the three instances is present. 

(2) Yes.  The judge committed negligence.  Pursuant to Article 23 of the Family code, such duty to register the marriage is the respondent’s duty.  The same article provides, “It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage… to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificate not later than fifteen (15) 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.”.

The recommendation of the OCA stands.

No comments:

Post a Comment