A.M. No. P-58 June 2, 1977
PEDRO ODAYAT, complainant, vs. DEMETRIO AMANTE, respondent.

FACTS

In a verified amended letter-complaint dated March 10, 1973, Pedro Odayat charged Atty. Demetrio Z. Amante, Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Basey, Samar, with oppression, immorality, and falsification of a public document. The charges stemmed from a land dispute where respondent allegedly grabbed a portion of complainant’s property, respondent’s cohabitation with Beatriz Jornada despite his marriage to Filomena Abella, and his alleged false representation of being single in an official information sheet for his appointment.
The Supreme Court referred the administrative matter for investigation to Executive Judge Segundo M. Zosa. During the investigation, the complainant acquiesced to dropping the charge of oppression, conceding it was a boundary dispute more proper for a civil action. The investigation thus proceeded solely on the charges of immorality and falsification.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Demetrio Amante should be held administratively liable for immorality and falsification of a public document.

RULING

The Court exonerated respondent Demetrio Amante from all charges. On the charge of immorality, the evidence established that respondent’s first marriage to Filomena Abella was void ab initio. Respondent presented a certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Pateros, Rizal, proving that Filomena Abella was previously married to Eliseo Portales on February 16, 1948. Her subsequent marriage to respondent on October 16, 1948, was bigamous and therefore void under Article 80(4) of the New Civil Code. No judicial decree is required to establish the invalidity of a void marriage. Consequently, respondent was legally free to contract a subsequent marriage. His union with Beatriz Jornada in 1964 did not constitute immoral cohabitation, as his first marriage was legally non-existent from the start.
Regarding the falsification charge, the investigator found the complainant failed to substantiate the allegation. The document in question, the information sheet, was examined and clearly showed that respondent had truthfully entered “Married” in the civil status item, contrary to the complainant’s claim that he represented himself as single. There was no evidence of any material misrepresentation. The investigator’s findings and recommendation, being supported by the evidence and consistent with law, were adopted by the Court. Respondent was thus absolved of all administrative charges.