Marilou Nama Moreno, complainant versus Judge Jose C. Bernabe, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 72, Pasig, Metro Manila, respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-94-963 July 14, 1995
Facts:
Marilou Nama Moreno filed this complaint against Judge Jose C. Bernabe of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 72, Pasig, Metro Manila for grave misconduct and gross ignorance of law.
Complainant alleges that on October 4, 1993, she and Marcelo Moreno were married before respondent Judge Bernabe. She avers that respondent Judge assured her that the marriage contract will be released ten days after October 4, 1993. When she visited the office of the Judge, she found out that she could not get the marriage contract because the Office of the Local Civil Registrar failed to issue a marriage license. She claims that respondent Judge connived with the relatives of Marcelo Moreno to deceive her.
Respondent denies that he conspired with the relatives of Marcelo Moreno to solemnize the marriage for the purpose of deceiving the complainant. Respondent contends that: 1) the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig actually prepared the marriage license but it was not released due to the subsequent objection of the father of Marcelo Moreno; 2) he, in good faith, solemnized the marriage as he was moved only by a desire to help a begging and pleading complainant who wanted some kind of assurance or security due to her pregnant condition; 3) in order to pacify complainant, Marcelo Moreno requested him to perform the marriage ceremony with the express assurance that the marriage license was definitely forthcoming; 4) that the contracting parties were not known to him; and 5) that both parties, were fully appraised of the effects of a marriage performed without the required marriage license.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent be held liable for misconduct for solemnizing a marriage without a marriage license.
Held:
Respondent, by his own admission that he solemnized the marriage between complainant and Marcelo Moreno without the required marriage license, has dismally failed to live up to his commitment to be the “embodiment of competence, integrity and independence” and to his promise to be “faithful to the law.”
Respondent cannot hide behind his claim of good faith and Christian motives which, at most, would serve only to mitigate his liability but not exonerate him completely. Good intentions could never justify violation of the law.
