Abadilla v. Tabiliran, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ma. Blyth B. Abadilla, a Clerk of Court, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. for gross immorality, deceitful conduct, and corruption. The complainant alleged that the respondent scandalously cohabited with Priscilla Q. Baybayan while his marriage to Teresita Banzuela was still subsisting, eventually marrying Baybayan in 1986 by falsely claiming to be 'single'. It was further alleged that the respondent registered three children born of this union as 'legitimate' despite their adulterous origin. Additionally, the respondent was accused of charging exorbitant fees for notarial services and accepting bribes, including a bag of fish and squid, and charging P500.00 for preparing an affidavit of desistance in a case pending in his own court. Procedural History: The Supreme Court referred the case to Executive Judge Jesus O. Angeles of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dipolog City, for investigation. The Investigating Judge found the respondent guilty of two counts of corruption: acting as a notary public and collecting fees without proper accounting, and preparing an affidavit of desistance for a fee. However, the Investigating Judge recommended exoneration on the charges of immorality and deceit, reasoning that the second marriage might be valid under Article 83(2) of the Civil Code and that the registration of children was not sufficiently proven to be deceitful. The Petition: The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court En Banc for final review. The respondent argued that his cohabitation was not immoral because his first wife had abandoned the family home in 1966 and was presumed dead under Article 390 of the Civil Code. He further contended that the notarial fees were used to subsidize office expenses due to inadequate municipal appropriations. The complainant maintained that the respondent's actions constituted a mockery of the sanctity of marriage and the integrity of the judiciary.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent is guilty of gross immorality for cohabiting with Priscilla Baybayan during the subsistence of his first marriage. Whether the respondent committed deceitful conduct by registering his illegitimate children as legitimate issues. Whether the respondent is guilty of corruption for failing to account for notarial fees and for preparing an affidavit of desistance for a fee.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. guilty of gross immorality, deceitful conduct and corruption and, consequently, orders his dismissal from the service. Such dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in the government-service, all without prejudice to criminal or civil liability.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found the respondent guilty of gross immorality. Although the respondent claimed his first wife disappeared in 1966, the records established that he began cohabiting and begetting children with Priscilla Baybayan as early as 1970. Under Article 390 of the Civil Code, a seven-year absence is required to presume death for all purposes; since only four years had passed by 1970, the respondent had no legal basis to presume his wife dead. His open cohabitation while his first marriage was valid and subsisting constitutes a mockery of the inviolability of marriage. Such conduct violates the high standards of morality required of the law profession and the judiciary. On Issue 2: The respondent committed deceitful conduct by registering his three children with Priscilla Baybayan as 'legitimate'. Under Article 269 of the Civil Code and Article 177 of the Family Code, only natural children—those born to parents who were not disqualified by any impediment to marry at the time of conception—can be legitimated. Because the respondent was legally married to Teresita Banzuela when these children were born (1970, 1971, and 1975), the children were born of adulterous relations and could never be legitimated. As a judge and lawyer, the respondent's act of causing false entries in birth certificates was intentionally misleading and detrimental to his legitimate children. On Issue 3: The respondent is guilty of corruption on two counts. First, while Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges may act as Ex-Officio Notaries Public in the absence of regular notaries, Section 252 of the Notarial Law mandates that they account for all fees as government funds. The respondent's failure to turn over these fees to the municipal treasurer, claiming they were used for office supplies without providing an accounting, raised a presumption of personal use. Second, the respondent prepared an affidavit of desistance in a rape case pending in his own sala and collected P500.00 for the service. This act constitutes a grave violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court emphasizes that the basis of human society is marriage, an institution in which the public is deeply interested. Consequently, a judge who cohabits with a woman other than his legal wife before the legal presumption of death of the first spouse arises commits gross immorality. Furthermore, the Court clarifies that legitimation is strictly limited to natural children; children born of adulterous relations cannot be legitimated by a subsequent marriage. Lastly, judges acting as Ex-Officio Notaries Public are mandated by Section 252 of the Notarial Law to account for all fees as government funds, and failure to do so constitutes corruption.