JUVY COSCA v. HON.
LUCIO PALAYPAYON
A.M. No. MTJ-92-721 September 30, 1994
PER CURIAM, J.:
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 to 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.
RULING:
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.
LUPO ALMODIEL ATIENZA v. JUDGE FRANSISCO BRILLANTES
A.M. No. MTJ-92-706 March 29, 1995
QUIASON, J.:
FACTS:
Lupo Almodiel Atienza filed an administrative case against Judge
Brillantes for Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety.
Complainant alleges that he has two children with Yolanda De
Castro, who are living together at a subdivision in Makati, which he
purchased in 1987. One day, he caught the respondent asleep in his
bedroom. He asked the houseboy about him and the latter said that
the judge had been cohabiting with De Castro. Atienza did not bother
to wake up the respondent instead asked the houseboy to take care of
his two children.
After that, the respondent prevented him from visiting his child and
has alienated the affection of his children. The Complainant also
claims that the respondent is married to Zenaida Ongkiko.
The judge denies having been married to Ongkiko because their
marriage was celebrated twice without marriage license, therefore,
his marriage to De Castro in civil rights in Los Angeles, California was
because he believed in good faith and for all legal purposes, that his
first marriage was solemnized without marriage license.
He further argues that Article 40 of the Family Code is not applicable
in his case because his first marriage in 1965 was governed by the
Civil Code and the 2nd relationship was 1991 under the Family Code.
No retroactive Effect.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the absence of marriage license of his previous
marriage justifi3es his act to cohabit with De Castro
RULING:
Respondent passed the Bar examinations in 1962 and was admitted to
the practice of law in 1963. At the time he went through the two
marriage ceremonies with Ongkiko, he was already a lawyer. Yet, he
never secured any marriage license. Any law student would know that
a marriage license is necessary before one can get married.
Respondent was given an opportunity to correct the flaw in his first
marriage when he and Ongkiko were married for the second time. His
failure to secure a marriage license on these two occasions betrays
his sinister motives and bad faith.
Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the
effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 regardless of the
date of the first marriage. Besides, under Article 256 of the
Family Code, said Article is given “retroactive effect insofar as it does
not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with
the Civil Code or other laws.” This is particularly true with Article 40,
which is a rule of procedure. Respondent has not shown any vested
right that was impaired by the application of Article 40 to his case.
