View full case

REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO

FACTS:

Judge Remegio V. Rojo of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental was complained against for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and gross ignorance of the law. The complaint alleged that Judge Rojo conducted "package marriages" without the required marriage license, instead notarizing affidavits of cohabitation and issuing them to the contracting parties. The Office of the Court Administrator found Judge Rojo guilty of violating Circular No. 1-90 and recommended a fine of P9,000 and a stern warning.

In performing marriage ceremonies, Judge Rojo failed to personally interview the contracting parties and examine their submitted requirements, including a marriage license. He notarized affidavits of cohabitation without certifying that lawyers or notaries public were lacking in his court's territorial jurisdiction. Judge Rojo also failed to comply with the requirements for exempting parties from the marriage license requirement, as he did not personally examine the affidavit and execute a sworn statement regarding the parties' qualifications to marry and the absence of legal impediments.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the judge can notarize the affidavit of cohabitation of the parties whose marriage he will solemnize.

  2. Whether or not the judge's notarization of the affidavit of cohabitation violates Circular No. 1-90.

  3. Whether Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90 by notarizing affidavits of cohabitation that were not connected with his official function and duty to solemnize marriages.

  4. Whether Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90 by not certifying that lawyers or notaries public are lacking in Bacolod City.

  5. Whether Judge Rojo violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by not requiring the signatories of the affidavits to present competent evidence of identity.

  6. Whether or not the actions of Judge Rojo in notarizing affidavits of cohabitation without strictly complying with the requirements of the law are in violation of the ethical requirements for judges.

RULING:

  1. No, the judge cannot notarize the affidavit of cohabitation of the parties whose marriage he will solemnize. Affidavits of cohabitation are documents not connected to the judge's official duty of solemnizing marriages. The judge's only duty regarding the affidavit of cohabitation is to examine whether the parties have indeed lived together for at least five years without any legal impediment to marry.

  2. Yes, the judge's notarization of the affidavit of cohabitation violates Circular No. 1-90, which prohibits municipal trial court judges from notarizing private documents unrelated to their functions as judges. The affidavit of cohabitation is considered a private document until notarized, and notarization converts it into a public document. By notarizing the affidavit of cohabitation, the judge notarized private documents that are not connected to his official duty of solemnizing marriages and violated Circular No. 1-90.

  3. The court finds Judge Rojo guilty of violating the ethical requirements for judges by notarizing affidavits of cohabitation without strictly complying with the requirements of the law. As a result, he is suspended from office without salary and other benefits for six (6) months.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The judge's duty as a solemnizing officer is to examine the affidavit of cohabitation and ascertain the parties' qualifications to marry, rather than notarizing the affidavit.

  • Affidavits of cohabitation are documents not connected with the judge's official duty of solemnizing marriages.

  • Circular No. 1-90 prohibits judges from notarizing private documents unrelated to their functions as judges.

  • Notarization of an affidavit of cohabitation converts it from being a private document into a public document.

  • Violating Circular No. 1-90 by notarizing documents not connected with the judge's official functions and duties is a violation of the circular.

  • Failure to certify that lawyers or notaries public are lacking in the municipality or circuit of the judge's court constitutes a violation of Circular No. 1-90.

  • Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public must personally know the signatory to the document or require the signatory to present a competent evidence of identity.

  • Good faith is a defense against charges of gross ignorance of the law, but only within the parameters of tolerable judgment. It does not apply where the issues are simple and the applicable legal principles evident and basic.

  • Violating basic legal principles and procedures is considered gross ignorance of the law, which is a lack of integrity according to the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

  • Sanctions for gross ignorance of the law can include dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits, suspension from office without salary and other benefits for a period of time, or a fine.

  • Judges should strictly comply with the requirements of the law and act with caution with respect to affidavits of cohabitation.

  • Similar breaches of ethical requirements by judges will be dealt with strictly.