G.R. No. L-2209-CTJ August 27, 1981
ABDON SEGUISABAL, complainant, vs. HON. JOSE R. CABRERA, City Judge of Toledo City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Abdon Seguisabal charged City Judge Jose R. Cabrera with gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. The charges stemmed from the judge having solemnized the marriage of Jaime Sayson and Marlyn Jagonoy on April 14, 1978, without the requisite marriage license as mandated by Article 53 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, the judge failed to transmit a copy of the signed marriage contract to the Local Civil Registrar within the 15-day period required by Article 68 of the same Code. Certifications from the Local Civil Registrar confirmed the non-transmittal of the contract.
In his comment, respondent Judge admitted to the acts. He explained that the parties appeared at noon without a license because the civil registrar’s office was closed. Noting the bride was three months pregnant and with parents present, he solemnized the marriage but instructed them to return with the license in the afternoon, which they did not do. The papers were subsequently misplaced. About a year later, the widow, whose husband had died in military action, sought proof of marriage to claim benefits. The Local Civil Registrar refused to issue a license due to the unfulfilled Family Planning seminar requirement. Sympathizing with the widow, the judge then issued the marriage contract to facilitate her claim for benefits.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for solemnizing a marriage without a license and failing to transmit the marriage contract to the civil registrar.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Court found his admissions sufficient to establish the charges. By solemnizing a marriage without the mandatory marriage license, he clearly violated Article 53(4) of the Civil Code, as the marriage did not fall under any exceptional category where a license is not required. His failure to transmit the contract within the statutory period also constituted a breach of his duty under Article 68.
The defense of good faith and sympathy for the widow was rejected. As a judicial officer, he is held to a standard of knowing and strictly complying with the law. Personal feelings cannot justify dispensing with legal requisites. However, considering his long service of over 27 years in the judiciary and his pending retirement application due to a heart ailment, the Court mitigated the penalty. He was found guilty of gross neglect of duty and fined an amount equivalent to three months’ salary, to be deducted from his retirement gratuity.