A.M. No. MTJ-95-1070. February 12, 1997
MARIA APIAG, TERESITA CANTERO SECUROM and GLICERIO CANTERO, complainants, vs. JUDGE ESMERALDO G. CANTERO, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, Maria Apiag and her children Teresita and Glicerio, charged respondent Judge Esmeraldo G. Cantero with gross misconduct for alleged bigamy and falsification of public documents. They alleged that the judge contracted marriage with Maria Apiag in 1947, with whom he had two children, before abandoning them. Decades later, they discovered the judge had established another family with Nieves C. Ygay, representing her as his lawful wife in his sworn statements of assets, personal data sheets, and GSIS records. They formally demanded support, which the judge ignored.
The respondent judge admitted the 1947 marriage contract but claimed it was a sham ceremony orchestrated by their parents when he was only 20, without his free consent, following Maria Apiag’s pregnancy. He asserted he later lawfully married Nieves Ygay. The complainants countered that the judge had acknowledged the children from the first union in his income tax returns. The investigating judge found the first marriage valid and the respondent’s defense of a “dramatized” marriage unconvincing.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Esmeraldo G. Cantero is administratively liable for gross misconduct.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge was administratively liable, but the case was dismissed due to his intervening death. The Court found the judge’s defense of a “dramatized” marriage legally untenable. A marriage solemnized by a duly authorized solemnizing officer is presumed valid. The judge’s subsequent cohabitation with another woman and his official representations of that relationship, while his first marriage was undissolved, constituted gross misconduct. His acts displayed a lack of the integrity, propriety, and moral uprightness required of a magistrate. Furthermore, his failure to support his children from the first marriage, despite acknowledging them, constituted neglect of a fundamental family duty.
The legal logic is that a judge’s official conduct must be beyond reproach, and personal behavior reflecting disregard for the law erodes public confidence in the judiciary. The judge’s actions violated the exacting standards of judicial ethics. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended dismissal. However, the Court noted the respondent’s otherwise unblemished record and the fact that he had reached compulsory retirement age and had died before the promulgation of this decision. While the infraction warranted penalty, his death rendered the imposition of a disciplinary sanction moot. The dismissal of the case, however, does not exonerate him; it merely closes the administrative proceeding. The case was dismissed.