Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329)
Facts:
In Herminia Borja-Manzano v. Judge Roque R. Sanchez, the petitioner, Herminia Borja-Manzano, filed a sworn complaint‐affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator on May 12, 1999, charging Municipal Trial Court Judge Roque R. Sanchez of gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing a void and bigamous marriage. Petitioner had been lawfully married to the late David Manzano on May 21, 1966 in Caloocan City and bore him four children. Unbeknownst to her, Manzano contracted a second marriage with Luzviminda Payao on March 22, 1993 before respondent Judge Sanchez in Infanta, Pangasinan. The marriage contract itself indicated that both Manzano and Payao were “separated.” In his Comment, Judge Sanchez claimed he believed the couple had been cohabiting for seven years without benefit of marriage and relied on their joint affidavit. Upon invitation of the Supreme Court on October 25, 2000, the judge filed a Manifestation attaCase Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329)
Facts:
- Parties and Complaint
- Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano was the lawful wife of the late David Manzano, married on 21 May 1966 in Caloocan City, with four children born of that marriage.
- Respondent Judge Roque R. Sanchez, Municipal Trial Court of Infanta, Pangasinan, officiated a purported marriage on 22 March 1993 between David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao.
- Allegations of Bigamy and Proceedings
- On 12 May 1999, Herminia filed a sworn Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator, charging Judge Sanchez with gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing a void and bigamous marriage.
- Judge Sanchez’s Comment claimed he believed the parties were merely cohabiting for seven years and unaware of any valid impediment; he later produced separate affidavits of Manzano and Payao showing they professed estrangement from their prior spouses.
- Administrative Recommendation and Court Action
- The Court Administrator recommended a finding of gross ignorance of the law and a P2,000 fine.
- The Supreme Court required manifestations for resolution on the pleadings; Herminia agreed, and Judge Sanchez reiterated his plea and submitted additional affidavits.
- The Court resolved to adopt the recommendation with modification, increasing the fine to P20,000.
Issues:
- Did Judge Sanchez commit gross ignorance of the law by solemnizing a marriage void for bigamy?
- Were the requisites of Article 34 of the Family Code (ratification of cohabitation) satisfied, thus justifying the solemnization?
- Can long-term cohabitation or de facto separation dissolve a prior valid marriage and remove the impediment to remarriage?
- Does ignorance of a simple and elementary law excuse a judicial officer under the Code of Judicial Conduct?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)