Necess Orio

41. OCA v. Judge Necessario, et al.
Facts: In this case, the OCA created an audit team in order to investigate the
alleged irregularities alleged irregularities in the solemnization of marriages in
several branches of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) and Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in Cebu City. As part of their investigation, two lawyers of the OCA went
undercover in order to inquire how swift it was to get married within the Palace of
Justice in Cebu City. The investigation found that the different branches of the MTC
and RTC of Cebu City, through its court personnel, facilitates and fixes the process
of obtaining swift marriages. The OCA found that the most of the marriages
solemnized by respondent Judges were made questionable documents (i.e. joint
affidavit of cohabitation, alterations in the marriage licenses) and solemnized
without the required marriage licenses or pursuant to Art. 34 of the FC (exception to
the license requirement). The OCA also found that the joint affidavit of cohabitation
that were supposedly executed by the contracting parties, were pro forma. Thus,
the OCA submitted a memorandum to the SC regarding the matter. Such
memorandum was later treated by the SC as a formal administrative complaint
against respondents.
The OCA found respondent Judges Necessario, Acosta, and Rosales for gross
inefficiency or neglect of duty and for gross ignorance of the law whereas Judge
Tormis was found guilty for gross inefficency or neglect of duty.
For their part, respondent Judges invoked the presumption of regularity of public
documents and marriage licenses submitted to them. They argue that they are not
duty bound to verify the authenticity of the documents submitted to them such as
joint affidavits of cohabitation, marriage licenses, etc.
Issue: Whether respondent judges are guilty of gross neglect of duty and gross
ignorance of the law that would warrant their dismissal from service.
Held: Yes. The Judges actions warrant their dismissal. First, Judges Necessario,
Tormis and Rosales solemnized marriages even if the requirements submitted by the
couples were incomplete and of questionable character. Most of these documents
showed visible signs of tampering, erasures, corrections or superimpositions of
entries related to the parties place of residence. These included indistinguishable
features such as the font, font size, and ink of the computer-printed entries in the
marriage certificate and marriage license. These actions of the respondent judges
constitute gross inefficiency. In Vega v. Asdala, the Court held that inefficiency
implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance, and carelessness.
Second, the judges were also found guilty of neglect of duty regarding the payment
of solemnization fees. The Court, in Rodrigo-Ebron v. Adolfo, defined neglect of duty
as the failure to give ones attention to a task expected of him and it is gross when,
from the gravity of the offense or the frequency of instances, the offense is so
serious in its character as to endanger or threaten public welfare. The marriage
documents examined by the audit team show that corresponding official receipts for
the solemnization fee were missing or payment by batches was made for marriages
performed on different dates. The OCA emphasizes that the payment of the
solemnization fee starts off the whole marriage application process and even puts a
stamp of regularity on the process.
Third, Judges Necessario, Tormis, and Rosales also solemnized marriages where a
contracting party is a foreigner who did not submit a certificate of legal capacity to
marry from his or her embassy. What the foreigners submitted were mere affidavits
stating their capacity to marry. The irregularity in the certificates of legal capacity
that are required under Article 21 of the Family Code displayed the gross neglect of
duty of the judges. They should have been diligent in scrutinizing the documents
required for the marriage license issuance. Any irregularities would have been
prevented in the qualifications of parties to contract marriage.
Fourth, Judges Necessario, Acosta, and Tormis are likewise guilty of gross ignorance
of the law under Article 34 of the Family Code with respect to the marriages they
solemnized where legal impediments existed during cohabitation such as the
minority status of one party. The audit team cites in their Supplemental Report that
there were parties whose ages ranged from eighteen (18) to twenty-two (22) years
old who were married by mere submission of a pro forma joint affidavit of
cohabitation. These affidavits were notarized by the solemnizing judge himself or
herself.
Finally, positive testimonies were also given regarding the solemnization of
marriages of some couples where no marriage license was previously issued. The
contracting parties were made to fill up the application for a license on the same
day the marriage was solemnized.
The Court does not accept the arguments of the respondent judges that the
ascertainment of the validity of the marriage license is beyond the scope of the
duty of a solemnizing officer especially when there are glaring pieces of evidence
that point to the contrary. As correctly observed by the OCA, the presumption of
regularity accorded to a marriage license disappears the moment the marriage
documents do not appear regular on its face.
The judges gross ignorance of the law is also evident when they solemnized
marriages under Article 34 of the Family Code without the required qualifications
and with the existence of legal impediments such as minority of a party. Marriages
of exceptional character such as those made under Article 34 are, doubtless, the
exceptions to the rule on the indispensability of the formal requisite of a marriage
license. Under the rules of statutory construction, exceptions as a general rule
should be strictly but reasonably construed. The affidavits of cohabitation should
not be issued and accepted pro forma particularly in view of the settled rulings of
the Court on this matter. The five-year period of cohabitation should be one of a
perfect union valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of the
marriage contract. The parties should have been capacitated to marry each other
during the entire period and not only at the time of the marriage.
*With regard to the court personnel, the SC only suspended them from the service.

Necess Orio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Necess Orio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Necess Orio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

41. OCA v. Judge Necessario, et al.

You might also like