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 Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211)

Allegations Against Respondent

In a Complaint-Affidavit filed on December 12, 1997, Beso accused Judge Daguman of solemnizing her marriage to Bernardito A. Yman outside of his territorial jurisdiction and failing to retain and register the marriage contract. Beso described circumstances surrounding her marriage ceremony conducted on August 28, 1997, at the judge's residence in Calbayog City, to which she and her fiancé had rushed due to time constraints related to her overseas employment.

Respondent's Defense

Judge Daguman, in his comment, admitted to solemnizing the marriage outside of his jurisdiction due to several pressing factors. He asserted that he was unable to attend to his official duties in Sta. Margarita due to physical indisposition on that day. He noted the urgency of the situation, claiming it would be costly and complicated for the couple to find another solemnizing officer on short notice. The judge acknowledged that all necessary marriage documents were in order and intended to streamline the process for Beso, who was an overseas worker.

Circumstances Surrounding Registration

The judge also addressed the failure to register the marriage, attributing it to circumstances beyond his control. He claimed that after providing the marriage certificate to Yman, he left remaining copies on his desk for future registration, which subsequently went missing. According to the judge, Yman suggested that Beso had taken the copies, elaborating an argument that Beso may have absconded with the documentation.

Evaluation by the Office of the Court Administrator

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported its findings regarding the case, stating that Judge Daguman had committed non-feasance in office due to the unauthorized solemnization and failure to properly register the marriage. The OCA cited the relevant provisions within the Family Code that limited a judge's authority to solemnize marriages to their designated jurisdiction and outlined specific instances where a marriage could be solemnized outside the courtroom.

Legal Basis for Administrative Liability

Under Article 7 and Article 8 of the Family Code, a marriage can only be solemnized by an incumbent member of the judiciary within their court's jurisdiction, with specific allowances for extraordinary circumstances not present in this case. Moreover, the judge has a clear obligation under Article 23 of the Family Code t

...continue reading

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