A.M. No. MTJ-92-710.

June 19, 2003]

PEDRITA M. HARAYO, complainant, v. JUDGE MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES, respondent.

Complainant Pedrita M. Harayo, former clerk-stenographer, Municipal Trial WHEREFORE, the recommendations of
Court, Minglanilla, Cebu, in a sworn complaint dated 15 September 1992, Investigating Judges Generoso Juaban and
charged respondent Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores, Presiding Judge of the same Galicano Arriesgado are APPROVED,
court, with grave misconduct for (a) dismissing for monetary consideration particularly exonerating respondent Judge
Crim. Case No. 2307 for violation of PD No. 18661 and Crim. Case No. 2308 Mamerto Y. Coliflores of the charges against
for violation of RA No. 6425;2 (b) assigning Court Aide Jose M. Agosto as him, with the exception of his act of signing
domestic helper and driver of respondents passenger jeepney; (c) solemnizing the three (3) marriage contracts without
illegal marriages and collecting fees therefor; (d) allowing her name the required marriage licenses for which the
(complainants) to be placed as witness in a marriage contract by forging her Court finds him administratively liable and
signature; (e) falsifying the date when he signed the verification portion of the is ORDERED suspended immediately for one
complaint and the joint affidavit of the arresting officers in Crim. Case No. (1) month and to pay a fine equivalent to
2388; and, (f) changing for monetary consideration the joint affidavit of two (2) months salary which shall be
arresting officers Jerome Abatayo, Erasmo Gako and Eugene Hernani relative withheld from his retirement benefits when
to Crim. Cases Nos. 2307 and 2308. he retires.

On the matter of the illegal marriage, charged in the complaint, respondent

claimed that he desisted from officiating the marriages upon discovery that
the documents were not complete despite assurances by complainant to the
contrary.
On 11 May 1993 the Court again passed a resolution referring the instant case
to Executive Judge Generoso Juaban of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu, for
investigation, report and recommendation. In his report, Judge Juaban
recommended that respondent be exonerated on the first and third charges,
i.e., that he dismissed cases for monetary consideration, and that he utilized
Court Aide Jose Agosto as his domestic helper and personal driver. However,
on the charge that he performed illegal marriages, Judge Juaban
recommended that respondent be admonished and his salary equivalent to
one (1) or two (2) months be suspended for having signed three (3) marriage
contracts before the corresponding marriage licenses were obtained by the
parties. Judge Juaban reported that
While there is no hard proof that respondent Judge demanded money in the solemnization of these marriages, suspicion is strong that there could be some monetary consideration. The investigator now seems to dou

n an En Banc resolution dated 30 May 1995, the Supreme Court noted that the
report of Judge Juaban failed to address certain key issues which were likewise
raised in the complaint, namely: (a) that respondent allowed complainants
name to be placed as witness in the marriage contract signed by Emmanuel
Plantar and Elizabeth Nacor on 10 May 1989 by forging her signature; (b) that
he falsified the date when he signed the verification portion of the complaint
and the joint affidavit of the arresting officers in Crim. Case No. 2388 by
making it appear that he was in the office and signed the documents on 15
August 1992 when in fact it was only on 20 August 1992 that he went to the
court and signed the same; and, (c) that for monetary consideration, he
changed the joint affidavit of the arresting officers in order to lay the
groundwork for the dismissal of Crim. Cases Nos. 2307 and 2308.

In partial compliance with the Courts directive, the NBI through Regional Director Florencio Villarin submitted a report on 2 November 1995 which contained its findings and conclusions on the examination of the ma

On the charge that respondent judge allowed the forging of complainants

signature in the marriage contract x x x x no sufficient proof was adduced that
respondent judge had personal knowledge, much less, allowed the commission
of the forgery. While it is true that the NBI result impliedly reported a forgery,
however, the same cannot be directly pointed to respondent
On the charge that respondent Judge solemnized civil marriages for exorbitant
fees without the requisite marriage license, the records would reveal that on
three (3) different occasions he had indeed signed marriage contracts, which
were undated as to the time the marriages were solemnized and with the
space provided for the license number left blank.

In his comment, respondent Judge denied having solemnized marriages

without a license. He explained that in the first instance involving the marriage
between Didier and Basan, he signed the marriage contract only after
assurances were made by complainant that the papers were in order but
collected said documents back and kept them inside his drawer soon after
learning that the marriage license was indeed missing. In the other two (2)
instances, he also denied having officiated at the marriage between Bin
Osman and Librea and that of Cabreros and Batto when informed that the
contracting parties could not produce their respective marriage licenses.
Indeed, there is nothing in the records that would indicate that respondent
had in fact solemnized the marriages without the mandated license. After all,
who could best prove the existence of this fact other than the contracting
parties themselves? Nonetheless, there is an inescapable showing that in at
least three (3) different occasions respondent Judge actually signed the
marriage contracts, admittedly prior to the issuance of the licenses.
Silverio v. Republic
October 22, 2007 (GR. No. 174689)
On November 26, 2002, Silverio field a petition for
the change of his first name “Rommel Jacinto” to
“Mely” and his sex from male to female in his birth
certificate in the RTC of Manila, Branch 8, for reason reassignment.
of his sex reassignment. He alleged that he is a male
transsexual, he is anatomically male but thinks and
acts like a female. The Regional Trial Court ruled in
favor of him, explaining that it is consonance with
the principle of justice and equality. The Republic,
through the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the
Court of Appeals alleging that there is no law
allowing change of name by reason of sex alteration.
Petitioner filed a reconsideration but was denied.
Hence, this petition.
WON change in name and
sex in birth certificate are
allowed by reason of sex
No. A change of name is a privilege and not
a right. It may be allowed in cases where
the name is ridiculous, tainted with
dishonor, or difficult to pronounce or write;
a nickname is habitually used; or if the
change will avoid confusion. The
petitioner’s basis of the change of his name
is that he intends his first name compatible
with the sex he thought he transformed
himself into thru surgery. The Court says
that his true name does not prejudice him
at all, and no law allows the change of entry
in the birth certificate as to sex on the
ground of sex reassignment. The Court
denied the petition.
A.M. No. P-99-1312 July 31, 2002

ERMELINDA ESCLEO, complainant, 

vs.

MARITESS DORADO, Court Stenographer II, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City, respondent.

Before this Court is an administrative complaint instituted by Ms Ermelinda Escleo against Ms Maritess Dorado, Court Stenographer II, Branch 22, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), 
Makati City. Respondent is alleged to have solicited from complainant’s sister the amount of P2,000.00 as down payment of an unauthorized "facilitation fee" to expedite the latter’s 
marriage.

Complainant narrates that on January 8, 1998, her sister, Ma.  The law prescribes certain requirements for a valid marriage 
Phoebe Q. Carbon went to the City Hall of Makati to secure a  license to issue.10 By agreeing to make it appear that 
marriage license. Ms. Carbon was then engaged to a Korean  complainant’s sister and her fiancé complied with these 
citizen. She approached respondent who asked her to fill up some  requirements, specifically by the antedating of the marriage  For abetting the circumvention of the legal 
forms and to pay the amount of P5,000.00. After some bargaining,  license, respondent abetted the circumvention of the law. Worse,  requirements in the issuance of a marriage 
the amount was reduced to P4,000.00. Ms Carbon made a down  she did this for a fee. If respondent believes such to be an act of  license, respondent is guilty of Simple Misconduct 
payment of P2,000.00, and was informed that the marriage  kindness, she certainly has a skewed notion of charity. punishable by suspension for one (1) month and 
ceremony was scheduled for January 12, 1998 at 1:30 p.m. one (1) day to six (6) months. This appearing to 
be her first offense, a one month and one day 
suspension is deemed sufficient as her penalty.
Upon returning home, Ms. Carbon informed complainant of the  Clearly, respondent may be held for her acts although they do  WHEREFORE, respondent Maritess M. Dorado is 
arrangements. Finding the amount paid by her sister exorbitant,  not involve her functions as stenographer. The Code of Conduct  found guilty of Simple Misconduct and 
complainant went to respondent’s office the following day. She  and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and  is SUSPENDED for a period of ONE (1) MONTH 
demanded that respondent return the down payment of P2,000.00  Employees11 mandates all public officials and employees "to  AND ONE (1) DAY, without pay. She 
and the document evidencing the legal capacity of her sister’s  refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good  is WARNED that a repetition of the same or 
fiancé to marry, which had been given to respondent for  customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public  similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
processing. Respondent, however, refused to return the money and  interest."12 The conduct especially of court personnel must 
the document allegedly because she had given them to a certain  always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy 
Caloy of Imus, Cavite. burden of responsibility as to let them be free of any suspicion 
that may taint the judiciary.
A shouting match ensued between the parties. The commotion 
caught the attention of respondent’s superior, MeTC Judge Estella 
Bernabe, who inquired as to the cause of the argument. 
Complainant explained to the Judge the events that had just 
transpired. Judge Bernabe informed complainant that no fees are 
supposed to be charged for the solemnization of marriage and 
instructed her to put her complaint in writing. Judge Bernabe 
referred complainant to MeTC Executive Judge Leticia Ulibarri.

Directed to file an answer, respondent submitted an affidavit 
vehemently denying the charges. She related that on January 8, 
1998, while she was busy transcribing her stenographic notes, a 
certain Ma. Phoebe Q. Carbon, together with her foreigner-fiancé, 
approached her. Ms. Carbon sought her assistance on how they 
could be married at the soonest possible time without having to 
await the lapse of the 10-day period of publication of their 
application for a marriage license. Ms. Carbon explained that the 
urgency of the wedding was due to the fact that they were already 
deemed overstaying in the country. Since respondent was allegedly 
busy at work, she directed Ms Carbon to proceed to the Office of 
the Local Civil Registrar to secure a marriage license and to return 
to her only after she already had in her possession the necessary 
document. Since Ms. Carbon, then almost in tears, was quite 
insistent in her request for assistance, respondent decided to seek 
the help of a friend from Cavite in securing a marriage license for 
Ms Carbon and her fiancé.