View full case

RODOLFO G. NAVARRO v. JUDGE HERNANDO C. DOMAGTOY

## FACTS:

The complaint in this administrative case was filed by the Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G. Navarro against Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy. The complainant presented evidence of two specific acts committed by the respondent judge. The first act involved solemnizing the wedding between Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga, despite knowing that the groom was separated from his first wife. The second act alleged that the respondent judge performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario outside his court's jurisdiction. Although the respondent judge's office and jurisdiction were in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte, the wedding was done at the respondent judge's residence in Dapa, which was outside his jurisdictional area. The complaint was not referred for investigation, and the pleadings submitted were considered sufficient for resolution. The marriage contract between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga indicated that Tagadan's civil status was "separated," yet the wedding ceremony was still performed by the respondent judge. In his defense, the respondent judge presented a joint affidavit claiming that his absent first wife was presumed dead, but the court disagreed with his interpretation of Article 41 of the Family Code.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the solemnization of marriage between Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga by the respondent judge, knowing that the former was merely separated from his first wife, constituted gross misconduct and ignorance of the law.

  2. Whether the respondent judge acted within his legal authority when he solemnized the marriage of Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario outside his court's jurisdiction.

RULING

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy committed a legal error by solemnizing the marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga, despite the existing marriage of Gaspar Tagadan, which had not been legally dissolved. The Court noted that a legal presumption of death sufficient for remarriage requires a summary proceeding, which was not undertaken.

  2. In regards to the second issue, the Court found that Judge Domagtoy lacked legal authority to solemnize the marriage of Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario outside his jurisdiction, as specified under Article 7 of the Family Code. The solemnization did not meet the exceptions outlined in Article 8, therefore demonstrating another instance of ignorance of the law.

As a result, Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy was suspended for six months and issued a stern warning against the repetition of similar acts.

PRINCIPLES

  1. Ignorance of the Law: Judges are expected to exhibit more than a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural norms; gross ignorance of the law, especially in clear and elementary principles, can lead to administrative sanctions.

  2. Authority of the Solemnizing Officer: Marriages must be solemnized by officers with the authoritative jurisdiction as specified under the law. Deviations without legal grounds can result in administrative liabilities but do not necessarily affect the validity of marriage.

  3. Legal Presumption of Death: The presumption of death adequate to remarry requires judicial affirmation through summary proceedings, absent which any subsequent marriage entered is considered bigamous and void.

  4. Venue of Marriage Solemnization: While exceptions exist for solemnizing marriages outside designated venues, judicial officers must adhere precisely to the conditions specified in legal provisions to utilize such exceptions.