AM MTJ 15 1860; (April, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-15-1860. April 3, 2018. ROSILANDA M. KEUPPERS, Complainant, vs. JUDGE VIRGILIO G. MURCIA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, ISLAND GARDEN CITY OF SAMAL, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rosilanda Keuppers and her husband sought to expedite their marriage before his departure abroad. An employee of the Davao City Local Civil Registrar referred them to a travel agency, DLS Travel and Tours, which facilitated the process for a fee. Respondent Judge Virgilio G. Murcia, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Island Garden City of Samal, solemnized the marriage on May 19, 2008, within the premises of the said travel agency in Davao City. The subsequently issued marriage certificate contained erroneous entries, including stating the place of solemnization as the Judge’s office in Samal. The complainant charged the judge with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
In his defense, Judge Murcia denied any personal knowledge of the processing of the documents or receiving any payment. He claimed he merely solemnized the marriage assigned to him, relying on the presumption of regularity of the submitted documents, and met the complainant only during the ceremony itself. He asserted he did not alter the marriage certificate.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Virgilio G. Murcia is administratively liable for solemnizing a marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction.
RULING
Yes, the respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The legal logic is anchored on a clear violation of the Family Code. Article 7 explicitly provides that marriages may be solemnized by, among others, judges within the court’s jurisdiction. By solemnizing the marriage in Davao City, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of his court in the Island Garden City of Samal, Judge Murcia acted without legal authority. His act was not a mere error in judgment but a willful disregard of a specific legal rule.
The Court rejected his defense of good faith and reliance on the presumption of regularity. As a judge, he bears the affirmative duty to ensure the legality of the marriages he solemnizes, including verifying the jurisdictional requirement. His failure to do so, compounded by the fact that this was his second similar offense, demonstrated a flagrant violation of his duties. The proper penalty would have been dismissal. However, due to his intervening retirement, the Court imposed the forfeiture of all his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.