RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, complainant, v. JUDGE HERNANDO DOMAGTOY, respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088. July 19, 1996.
Facts:
On September 27, 1994, respondent judge solemnized the marriage between Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga despite the knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his first wife. It is also alleged that he performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma D. del Rosario outside his courts jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. in relation to the charges against him, respondent judge seeks exculpation from his act of having solemnized the marriage between Gaspar Tagadan, a married man separated from his wife , and Arlyn F. Borga by stating that he merely relied in the affidavit issued by the Municipal trial Judge of Basey, Samar, confirming the fact that Mr. Tagadan and his wife have not seen each other for almost seven years. With respect to the second charge, he maintains that in solemnizing the marriage between Sumaylo and del Rosario, he did not violate Article 7, paragraph I of the Family code which states that: “Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction”; and that Article 8 thereof applies to the case in question.
Issue:
Whether or not the acts of Judge Domagtoy exhibits gross misconduct, inefficiency in office and ignorance of the law.
Held:
In the first allegation, Gaspar Tagdan did not institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of his first wife’s presumptive death. Absent this judicial declaration, he remains married to Ida Penaranda. Whether wittingly, or unwittingly, it was manifest error on the part of respondent judge to have accepted the joint affidavit submitted by the groom. Such neglect or ignorance of the law has resulted in a bigamous, and therefore void, marriage.
In as much as respondent judge’s jurisdiction covers the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, he was also not clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in Dapa, Surigao del Norte. By citing Article 8 and the exceptions therein as grounds for the exercise of his misplaced authority, respondent judge again demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basic principles of civil law
Because of the respondent’s failure to apply the legal principles applicable in these cases, the Court finds respondent to have acted in gross ignorance of the law because of this he is suspended for a period of six months.
