Title
Albano vs. Gapusan
Case
A.M. No. 1022-MJ
Decision Date
May 7, 1976
Judge Gapusan censured for notarizing void spousal separation agreement; allegations of influencing judicial decisions dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 1022-MJ)

Facts:

  1. Background of the Case:

    • Redentor Albano filed a verified complaint on August 18, 1975, against Municipal Judge Patrocinio C. Gapusan of Dumalneg and Adams, Ilocos Norte.
    • The complaint alleged two main charges:
      (1) Incompetence and ignorance of the law for preparing and notarizing a document providing for the personal separation of spouses and the extrajudicial liquidation of their conjugal partnership.
      (2) Allegedly influencing Judge Zacarias A. Crispin of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte in deciding two criminal cases.
  2. Details of the Notarized Document:

    • In 1941, five years before his appointment to the bench, Judge Gapusan notarized a document for the personal separation of spouses Valentina Andres and Guillermo Maligta.
    • The document included a stipulation that if either spouse committed adultery or concubinage, the other would refrain from filing legal action.
    • Judge Gapusan denied drafting the agreement, stating that the spouses had been separated for a long time, and the wife had children with her paramour. He claimed the agreement aimed to prevent violent incidents between the spouses.
  3. Alleged Influence on Judge Crispin:

    • Albano accused Judge Gapusan of influencing Judge Crispin in two criminal cases:
      • Criminal Case No. 102-III: People vs. Freddie Gapusan Gamboa et al. (acquittal of defendants for frustrated murder).
      • Criminal Case No. 70-III: Conviction of Albano for double frustrated murder with triple attempted murder.
    • Albano alleged that Freddie Gapusan, an accused in one case and a complainant in the other, was a relative of Judge Gapusan.
    • Judge Gapusan admitted being close to Judge Crispin due to their professional association but denied influencing the decisions.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Marriage and Family as Inviolable Institutions:

    • Marriage is not merely a contract but an inviolable social institution. The family is a basic social institution protected by public policy.
    • Any contract for personal separation or extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership is void under Article 221 of the Civil Code.
  2. Role of Notaries in Upholding the Law:

    • Notaries must not facilitate the disintegration of marriage and family by notarizing documents that subvert these institutions.
    • Judge Gapusan's notarization of the void agreement warranted censure as a member of the bar.
  3. Burden of Proof in Allegations of Influence:

    • Allegations of judicial influence must be supported by solid evidence, not mere suspicion or conjecture.
    • Fraternization between judges is not inherently unethical or illegal unless proven to result in unjust decisions.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.