A.M. No. MTJ-15-1860 - Keuppers vs. Murcia

The administrative case was initiated by complainant Rosilanda M. Keuppers against respondent Judge Virgilio G. Murcia, who was the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, in the Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte.
The complaint, filed by affidavit on June 6, 2008, charged the judge with estafa; violation of Republic Act No. 6713; and grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The case was endorsed by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for proper action, as evidenced by the first indorsement dated November 4, 2009.

The couple, Rosilanda and her husband Peter Keuppers, sought to expedite their marriage before Peter’s departure to Germany on May 22, 2008.
Procedures for obtaining a marriage license were initiated at the Local Civil Registrar’s Office (LCRO) of Davao City.

An LCRO employee, Julie Gasatan, explained that the usual process would not allow a marriage before the required 10-day posting period.
Gasatan advised the couple to contact DLS Travel and Tours Corporation for assistance.

At the office of DLS Travel and Tours in Sandawa, Matina, Davao City, the owner, Lorna Siega, informed the couple that her fees were higher than the standard P600.00 charged at the City Hall and that she could expedite the process.

The couple was asked to complete forms with some fields intentionally left blank.
They paid P15,750.00, which was purported to cover various fees including those for the solemnizing judge, certification, security, City Hall processing, service, and passport fees.
Siega later confirmed the scheduled date, time, and place for the marriage ceremony.

Respondent Judge Murphy solemnized the marriage on May 19, 2008 at the premises of DLS Travel and Tours in Davao City, not in his designated territorial jurisdiction (Island Garden City of Samal).
After the ceremony, the couple received a copy of the marriage certificate for their signatures.
Subsequent review of the marriage documents revealed erroneous entries:

The certificate incorrectly stated “Office of the MTCC Judge, Island Garden City of Samal” as the venue.
The marriage license application erroneously indicated that the license was obtained in Sta. Cruz, Davao City on May 8, 2008, rather than at DLS Travel and Tours on May 12, 2008.
There was a false reference to having appeared before Mario Tizon, the Civil Registrar of Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur.

Claimed no prior personal knowledge of the complainant or those who assisted her, asserting he only met her at the time of the marriage solemnization.
Asserted that all documents were duly prepared and that the marriage certificate was merely a copy based on the submitted documents.
Denied receiving any payment for performing the solemnization and maintained that the erroneous entries were not his doing since he did not prepare them.
Reiterated that the couple had voluntarily signed the marriage certificate in the presence of the necessary parties and filed it in the appropriate LCRO.

Following the OCA’s recommendation, the case was referred to the Court of Appeals in Cagayan de Oro City for a full investigation by Investigating Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
The investigation confirmed through:

Testimonies of several witnesses who affirmed that the marriage was solemnized at the DLS Travel and Tours premises in Davao City.
An ocular inspection which verified that the building inspected was indeed the venue where the marriage took place.

Respondent admitted that he did solemnize the marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction, acknowledging that he acted out of pity for the couple due to the urgency of their situation.

Article 7 of the Family Code, which designates that a marriage may be solemnized only by a judge within the proper territorial jurisdiction.
Article 8 of the Family Code, which restricts the venue for solemnization to:

The judge’s chambers or courtroom.
Open court or designated religious premises.
Exceptions allowed only in cases such as contracts on the point of death, remote areas under Article 29, or where both parties submit a sworn written request specifying an alternative venue.

The case record also indicates that respondent’s previous charge in a similar matter (Palma v. Judge George E. Omelio) had resulted in findings of gross misconduct and a fine of P40,000.00.

Based on the findings, the Investigating Justice recommended that the respondent be sanctioned for solemnizing the marriage outside of his jurisdiction.
The recommended penalty was a fine of P5,000.00 accompanied by a stern warning that any repetition of this offense would result in more severe consequences.

Whether respondent Judge Virgilio G. Murcia was liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by solemnizing the marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction.
Whether his actions, performed in the premises of a private establishment (DLS Travel and Tours) rather than his designated office, constituted a clear violation of Articles 7 and 8 of the Family Code.
Whether the excuse of acting out of pity for the couple could justify his departure from procedural and statutory requirements in the solemnization of marriages.