Title
Beso vs. Daguman
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211
Decision Date
Jan 28, 2000
Judge Daguman solemnized a marriage outside his jurisdiction, failed to register it, and lost marriage documents, leading to administrative penalties for neglect and abuse of authority.

Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • An administrative complaint was filed by Zenaida S. Beso charging Judge Juan Daguman with neglect of duty and abuse of authority.
    • The complaint centered on two main allegations:
      • Solemnizing a marriage outside of his jurisdiction.
      • Negligently failing to retain and register the marriage contract as required.
  • Chronology and Transaction of the Marriage
    • On August 28, 1997, Zenaida Beso and her fiancé, Bernardito A. Yman, were married.
      • The marriage was solemnized by Judge Daguman at his residence in J.P.R. Subdivision, Calbayog City, Samar.
      • The ceremony was attended by key individuals including Pacifico Maghacot (acting as sponsor) and spouses Ramon Dean and Teresita Dean.
    • Subsequent developments included:
      • Beso alleging that after the wedding, her husband abandoned her without explanation.
      • Her discovery that, upon inquiry with the City Civil Registrar of Calbayog City, the marriage was never registered.
  • Allegations Regarding the Marriage Certificate
    • Beso claimed that the marriage certificate was not retained by the judge and was never registered.
    • Judge Daguman, in his comment on the complaint, stated that:
      • All copies of the marriage contract had been taken by Bernardito Yman.
      • The failure to secure and register the duplicate and triplicate copies was an unintended consequence.
  • Respondent Judge’s Justifications and Circumstances
    • Judge Daguman presented several reasons for his actions, including:
      • He was physically indisposed on the morning of August 28, 1997, and therefore unable to report to his station in Sta. Margarita, Samar.
      • The complainants unexpectedly visited his Calbayog City residence, urgently requesting the marriage to be solemnized because:
        • The complainant needed to leave the same day for an overseas flight from Manila.
ii. Arranging a ceremony in another town would incur additional expenses and complications (finding an available solemnizing officer and additional witnesses or sponsors). iii. There was a risk that the marriage license would lapse, necessitating further publication of notice. iv. The complainant feared delays would negatively impact her employment abroad.
  • All other viable alternatives regarding the timing and venue of the marriage were deemed impracticable.
  • He noted that the contracting parties presented all necessary documents which, in his assessment, were in proper order.
  • The complainant, being an accredited Filipino overseas worker, merited special consideration under government policy.
  • Issues Arising from the Handling of the Marriage Certificate
    • After solemnizing the marriage, the judge:
      • Furnished the husband with the first copy of the marriage certificate.
      • Left the remaining three copies on the desk in his private office with the intention to register them later.
    • The subsequent disappearance of the three copies:
      • A diligent search was conducted days later, but the copies were missing.
      • Upon investigation and a subpoena issued to Bernardito Yman, it was claimed that Beso had taken the copies in her bag during the wedding reception.
      • The inability to confirm this claim, particularly with Beso being out of the country, compounded the issue.
  • Evaluation by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
    • An evaluation report dated August 11, 1998, determined that Judge Daguman had committed non-feasance in office.
    • The report recommended:
      • A fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).
      • A stern warning that any repetition of similar or related acts would be met with more severe sanctions.
    • The evaluation report underscored several deficiencies, including:
      • The improper location of marriage solemnization, as Calbayog City was outside Judge Daguman’s jurisdiction (his authority being limited to Sta. Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan, Samar).
      • The failure to comply with the requisites under Article 23 of the Family Code, which mandates the retention and timely registration of the duplicate and triplicate copies of the marriage certificate.
  • Legal and Procedural Context
    • Relevant provisions of the Family Code were highlighted:
      • Article 7, stipulating that marriage may be solemnized by any incumbent judge within his jurisdiction.
      • Article 8, establishing that marriages must be solemnized publicly in designated venues such as a judge’s chambers, church, or other statutory places, except in specific circumstances (e.g., imminent death, remote locations, or upon a written request by both parties).
      • Article 23, imposing the duty on the solemnizing officer to furnish the original marriage certificate to the contracting parties and send the duplicate and triplicate copies to the local civil registrar within fifteen days after the marriage.
    • The facts showed that none of the exceptions justifying an out-of-court solemnization were present in this case.

Issues:

  • Jurisdictional Validity
    • Whether Judge Daguman, by solemnizing the marriage in Calbayog City, exceeded his territorial jurisdiction as he is assigned to Sta. Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan, Samar.
  • Compliance with Procedural Requirements
    • Whether the failure to retain and register the duplicate and triplicate copies of the marriage certificate amounted to neglect of duty constituting non-feasance in office.
  • Impact on the Integrity of the Marriage Institution
    • Whether the judge’s actions, including the unauthorized venue of the marriage and the mishandling of official records, undermined the formality and sanctity of marriage as a basic social institution.
  • Validity of the Respondent’s Justifications
    • Whether the reasons proffered by Judge Daguman concerning urgency, physical indisposition, and special treatment for an overseas worker are legally tenable in excusing his deviations from statutory requirements.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms