A.M. No. RTJ-10-2223. August 30, 2017. MS. FLORITA PALMA and MS. FILIPINA MERCADO, Complainants, vs. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO, Regional Trial Court, Br. 14, Davao City (then of Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Br. 4, Davao City), JUDGE VIRGILIO G. MURCIA, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Br. 2, and Clerk of Court MA. FLORIDA C. OMELIO, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Office of the Clerk of Court, both of the Island Garden City of Samal, Respondents.
FACTS

Complainants Florita Palma and Filipina Mercado sent emails to the Supreme Court alleging a “marriage scam” in Davao City involving Judges George Omelio and Rufino Ferraris. Palma specifically complained about Judge Omelio and his wife, Clerk of Court Florida Omelio, regarding the solemnization of a marriage for a certain “Echevarria.” An investigating team from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) was dispatched. Initial checks at the MTCC in Davao City revealed no record of such a marriage. However, further investigation at the Island Garden City of Samal uncovered a marriage contract for Julius Regor Echevarria and Khristine Marie Duo, solemnized on February 28, 2008, and signed by Judge Virgilio Murcia.
The team interviewed the groom, Julius Echevarria, who insisted that Judge Omelio had solemnized the marriage at his residence and even provided wedding photographs. He expressed surprise upon being shown the marriage contract bearing Judge Murcia’s signature. His mother, Tita Echevarria, corroborated that Judge Omelio and his wife were present at the ceremony. She explained that after the ceremony, the Omelios took the documents for processing, and the signed contract was returned to them later. Judge Murcia, when confronted, admitted the signature was his but claimed he was meticulous and would only sign with the parties present, though he could not specifically recall this marriage.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge George Omelio and Judge Virgilio Murcia are administratively liable for gross misconduct in relation to the solemnization of the marriage of Echevarria and Duo.

RULING

Yes, both judges are guilty of gross misconduct. The Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to establish that Judge Omelio presided over a marriage ceremony without the requisite authority, as he was not the solemnizing officer on record. His actions constituted deceit and gross misrepresentation, undermining public confidence in the judiciary. The Court rejected his defense of denial, giving more weight to the consistent and credible testimonies of the groom and his mother, who had no motive to falsely accuse him.
For Judge Murcia, the Court found his claim of meticulousness incompatible with the proven facts. His signature on a marriage contract for a ceremony he did not officiate, based on documents likely facilitated by the Omelios, demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the solemn duties of a judge. By signing the contract without ensuring the parties were present before him as required by law, he participated in a fraudulent scheme that rendered the marriage void. This act constituted gross misconduct, defined as a transgression of established rules through a wrongful, improper, or unlawful motive. The offense is a serious charge under the Rules of Court. Judge Omelio was fined ₱40,000.00, to be deducted from his accrued leave credits, while Judge Murcia was directly fined the same amount. The case against Clerk of Court Florida Omelio was dismissed due to her passing during the pendency of the case.