A.M. No.

MTJ-99-1211 (January 28, 2000)

Zenaida S. BESO (Complainant) v Judge Juan DAGUMAN (Respondent)

SUBJECT MATTER PONENTE

Authority of Solemnizing Officer (Art. 7) Ynares-Santiago

RECITE READY

This administrative complaint, the respondent judge was charged with NEGLECT OF DUTY
(A. 23) and ABUSE OF AUTHORITY (Aa. 7&8).
Zenaida had her marriage with Bernardito A. Yman solemnized by Judge Daguman on August
28, 1997 in Calbayog City. However, after the marriage, Bernardito abandoned Zenaida for
unknown reasons. This roused her suspicion, so she went to the City Civil Register in
Calbayog City. To her surprise, her marriage was not registered with the said office.
Because of this, she inquired with Judge Daguman regarding the said problem. The judge
replied that all copies of the Marriage Contract were taken by Bernardito and, thus, he was not
able to retain any copy at all, to the second surprise of Zenaida.
Hence, Zenaida file a complaint against Judge Daguman for:
(1) Solemnizing marriage outside his jurisdiction;
(2) Negligence in not retaining a copy and registering the marriage before the
office of the Local Civil Registrar
Respondent judge counterclaimed: on the first complaint, he averred that he was physically
indisposed to report to his station. And that due to unfavorable circumstances, he made a
prudential judgement to solemnize the marriage in his residence, otherwise, it would be long
before the marriage would be solemnized to the prejudice of the contracting parties. He further
added that since Zenaida was an OFW, she deserved to be exempted from the ordinary
procedure, leaning on the liberality of the law.
On the second complaint, he claimed that, after giving Bernardito a copy, he lost the
remaining copies in just a few days, notwithstanding a diligent search for the said documents.
That to protect public interest, he filed a case to recover custody of the missing copies in the
City of Marikina at the failure of which he would confer with the Civil Registrar for possible
registration of reconstituted copies of said documents.
ISSUE

W/N respondent judge committed NEGLIGENCE OF DUTY and ABUSE OF

AUTHORITY?
RULING

YES. Adopting the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, SC held that the
respondent abused his authority when he solemnized marriage outside the jurisdiction of his
court contrary to Art. 7, when the circumstances surrounding the marriage were not within the
exemptions mentioned in Art. 8; that respondent neglected his duty when he failed to furnish
copies to both contracting parties and to register the marriage with the office of the Local Civil
Registrar. Respondent also neglected his duty when he failed to register the marriage with the
Local Civil Registry contrary to the provision of Art. 23.
DOCTRINE

Art. 7 vests the judge with the authority to solemnize marriage only within his jurisdiction and
no further, unless the circumstances be availing of those exemptions mentioned in Art 8 and
nothing else.