JUVY N. COSCA, EDMUNDO B. PERALTA, RAMON C. SAMBO, and APOLLO A. VILLAMORA, complainants, v. HON. LUCIO P. PALAYPAYON, JR., Presiding Judge, and NELIA B. ESMERALDA-BAROY, Clerk of Court II, respondents.
A.M. No. MTJ-92-721. September 30, 1994.
Facts:
Complainants Juvy n. Cosca, Edmund B. Eralta, Ramon C. Sambo, and Apollo Villamora, are Stenographer I, Interpreter I, Cler II, and Process Server, respectively, of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Respondents Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. and Nelia B. Esmeralda-Baroy are respectively the Presiding Judge and Clerk of Court II of the same court.
In administrative complaint filed with the Office of the Court Administrator on October 5, 1992, herein respondents were charged with the following offenses, to wit: (1) illegal solemnization of marriage; (2) falsification of the monthly reports of cases; (3) bribery in consideration of an appointment in the court; (4) non-issuance of receipt for cash bond received; (5) infidelity in the custody of detained prisoners; and (6) requiring payment of filing fees from exempted entities.
Complainants alleged that respondent judge solemnized marriages even without the requisite marriage licenses. Thus, the following couples were able o get married by the simple expedient of paying the marriage fees to respondent Baroy, despite the absence of a marriage license. In addition, respondent judge did not sign their marriage contracts and did not indicate the date of solemnization, the reason being that he allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to be submitted by the parties which was usually several days after the ceremony. The marriage contracts were not filed with the local civil registrar.
It is alleged that respondent judge made it appear that he solemnized seven (7) marriages in the month of July, 1992, when in truth he did not do so or at most those marriages were null and void; that respondents likewise made it appear that they have notarized only six (6) documents for July, 1992, but the Notarial Registrar will show that there were notarized during that month; and that respondents reported a notarial fee of only P 18.50 for each document, although in fact they collected P 20.00 therefore and failed to account for the difference.
Issue:
Whether or not private respondent are guilty of violating the provision of Article 4 of the Family Code.
Held:
On the charge regarding illegal marriages, the Family Code patiently provides that the formal requisites of marriage are, inter alia, a valid marriage license except in the cases provided for therein. Complementarily, it declares that the absence of any of the essential requisites shall generally render the marriage void ab initio and that, while and irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage, the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.
The civil aspect is addressed to the contracting parties and those affected by the illegal marriages, and what the court provides for pertains to the administrative liability of respondents, all without prejudice to their criminal responsibility. The Revised Penal Code provides that priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law.This is of course, within the province of the prosecutorial agencies of the Government.
