Beso v. Daguman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Zenaida S. Beso charged respondent Judge Juan Daguman with Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority for allegedly solemnizing her marriage to Bernardito A. Yman outside his jurisdiction and for failing to retain a copy and register the marriage contract. Procedural History: The complaint-affidavit was filed, and the respondent judge was required to comment. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the case and found the respondent judge guilty of non-feasance in office, recommending a fine of P5,000.00 with a warning. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the OCA's evaluation report.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Juan Daguman committed Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority by solemnizing a marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction. Whether respondent Judge Juan Daguman committed Neglect of Duty by failing to retain a copy and register the marriage contract.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Juan Daguman liable for Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority. He was fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar infractions would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of solemnizing marriage outside jurisdiction: The Court held that respondent Judge Daguman committed Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority by solemnizing the marriage in Calbayog City, which is outside his territorial jurisdiction as Municipal Judge of Sta. Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan, Samar. Article 7 of the Family Code clearly states that a judge may solemnize marriages only within their court's jurisdiction. Article 8 provides exceptions, such as when a party is at the point of death, in a remote place, or upon a written request in a sworn statement, none of which were present in this case. The respondent's justifications, including the complainant being an overseas worker and the desire for liberality of the law, were deemed insufficient to override the clear mandate of the law. Judges are not permitted to resort to shortcuts not provided for by law, especially in matters as significant as marriage solemnization. On the issue of failure to register the marriage contract: The Court found that respondent Judge Daguman also neglected his duty to register the marriage contract as mandated by Article 23 of the Family Code. This article explicitly requires the solemnizing officer to furnish the original marriage certificate to the contracting parties and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies to the local civil registrar within fifteen days after the marriage. The respondent's explanation that the copies were lost after being left on his desk and that the husband might have taken them was not given credence. The Court emphasized that judges are expected to be conscientious in handling official documents and that the loss of records, unless due to fortuitous events, indicates carelessness. The imputation of fault to the husband was based on conjecture and lacked proof. The respondent should have exerted more effort to locate or reconstitute the missing documents, adopting a proper system of record management.
Main Doctrine
A judge who solemnizes a marriage outside of his territorial jurisdiction without the presence of the legal exceptions provided by law, and who fails to properly register the marriage contract, is liable for Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority, notwithstanding his claims of liberality of the law or circumstances beyond his control, as judges are expected to be more circumspect and diligent in the performance of their duties.