Seguisabal vs Cabrera

Dale Tudtud Law100 B5

Facts:

Complainant charged Respondent for gross misconduct and gross Ignorance for solemnizing Jaime
Sayson and Marlyn Jagonoys marriage without the requisite marriage license and for failing to transmit a
copy of the signed married contract to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Toledo City within fifteen
days from date of Solemnization; proved by the marriage contract issued to the contracting parties. On
April 14, 1978, Jaime Sayson and a three months pregnant Marlyn Jagonoy, accompanied by the mother
of the former, the father of the latter, and several others, appeared before Respondent bringing a marriage
contract for them to be solemnized. Respondent allegedly asked them for their Marriage License, upon
which they said that the Local Civil Registrar could not issue the same because the one in charge was not
in his office; Respondent allegedly presumed papers were in order and so proceeded with the
solemnization, but told them to return in the afternoon with the Marriage License. The parties did not
return in the afternoon and the papers were allegedly lost and forgotten by Respondent. On May 1979,
Marlyn Jagonoy, now with child, appeared before Respondent and informed him that her husband,a
draftee in the Philippine Army, was killed in action against the Muslim rebels in Maguindanao. She will
be awarded the benefits by the army if and when she can prove she was actually married to him.
Respondent then searched for the papers and found them, and told the father of Marlyn to go to the Local
Civil Registrars Office to get the Marriage license, though the father returned saying that the couple
lacked the Family Planning Seminar required by law before the issuance of a Marriage License. Believing
that it was no longer necessary due to Jaime Saysons death, Respondent issued the Marriage Contract so
that she may enjoy the benefits accruing Jaime who died a heros death. Act was allegedly done in
good faith by the Respondent and in sympathy to the situation of Marlyn. Respondent further averred
that Complainant was ill motivated and filed this action out of spite because of Respondent dismissing A
previous case filed by complainant and that Complainant is the accused in a case pending in Respondents
Court.

Issue/Held:

Does Respondents alleged good faith exempt him from the liability of his actions? NO

Rationale:

Court ruled that without requiring the essential pre-requisite of a marriage license, respondent had
undoubtedly transgressed article 53(4) of the Civil Code. Respondent also failed to transmit a copy of the
marriage contract duly signed by him and the contracting parties to the Local Civil Registrar within

15 days, violating Article 68 of the Civil Code. His defense of good faith was found by the Court as
unavailing. As a judicial officer, he is expected to know the law on the solemnization, and his feeling of
sympathy cannot serve as valid reason for him to ignore these legal requisites.

Mitigating Circumstance: His 27 years of service, and the fact that he was retiring due to his heart
ailment.
DOCTRINE:

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF

COURTS; CITY JUDGE; GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY; SOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGE
WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE AND FAILURE TO TRANSMIT COPY OF MARRIAGE
CONTRACT TO LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR; CASE AT BAR. Respondent is guilty of gross
neglect of duty for solemnizing the marriage of Jaime Sayson and Marlyn Jagonoy on 14 April 1978
without requiring the essential pre-requisite of a marriage license which had undoubtedly transgressed
Article 53(4) of the Civil Code in the absence of any showing that the subject marriage falls under
marriages of exceptional character wherein a license is not mandatorily required, and for having failed to
transmit to the Local Civil Registrar of Toledo City, within fifteen (15) days from the date of
solemnization of the marriage in question, a copy of the marriage contract duly signed by him as the
solemnizing officer and by the contracting parties, for which he was remiss in his duty under Article 68 of
the Civil Code.