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

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-15-1860)

Factual Background

The complainant and her fiancé sought a marriage license at the Davao City Local Civil Registrar but were told the mandatory 10-day posting would make timely solemnization before the fiancé’s departure impossible. They were referred to DLS Travel and Tours, where they were induced to pay P15,750 for purported processing and related fees. DLS Travel staff prepared documents, instructed the couple to leave some fields blank, and confirmed the date, time, and place for the wedding. On May 19, 2008, respondent Judge Murcia solemnized the marriage at the DLS Travel premises in Davao City. The couple later discovered that the marriage certificate and application contained erroneous entries—specifically, that the place of solemnization was stated as “Office of the MTCC Judge, Island Garden City of Samal,” and that the license application contained incorrect dates and names of civil registrars—contrary to the actual venue and circumstances.

Respondent’s Position

Respondent denied involvement in the preparation and processing of the marriage documents and asserted he only met the parties at the time of solemnization. He claimed the solemnization had been assigned to him and that the documents presented were issued by appropriate government agencies, thereby invoking the presumption of regularity in his official actions. He denied receiving payment and maintained that he merely performed the ministerial act of solemnization based on the documents submitted, and that he did not alter the entries in the marriage certificate.

Investigating Justice’s Findings and Recommendation

The Investigating Justice conducted witness examinations and an ocular inspection of the DLS Travel premises, concluding that the marriage was in fact solemnized there by respondent. Respondent admitted solemnizing the marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction and stated he did so out of pity for the couple’s urgency. Witness testimony established that DLS Travel staff prepared and supplied the entries in the marriage contract, including misstatements about the place and other particulars. The Investigating Justice found that none of the statutory exceptions in Article 8 of the Family Code (point of death, remote place under Article 29, or a sworn written request of the parties) applied. While noting that respondent had no hand in document preparation, the Investigating Justice concluded respondent nonetheless solemnized a marriage outside his jurisdiction in violation of the Family Code and recommended a fine of P5,000 with a stern warning.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether respondent Judge was liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for solemnizing a marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction and in circumstances not falling within the Family Code exceptions.

Supreme Court’s Ruling and Reasoning

The Court found respondent guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The ruling rested on the following points, all drawn from the record and relevant statutory provisions:

Article 7 of the Family Code limits the authority of judges to solemnize marriages to within the court’s jurisdiction; Article 8 prescribes the permissible venues for judicial solemnization and contains the restricting phrase “and not elsewhere,” with only specified exceptions (in articulo mortis, remote places under Article 29, or upon a sworn written request of the parties).
Respondent solemnized the marriage at DLS Travel in Davao City, which was outside his territorial jurisdiction (Island Garden City of Samal), and neither of the Family Code exceptions applied.
Respondent admitted the extrajudicial venue and conceded he acted out of pity to accommodate the couple’s urgency—an admission that demonstrated awareness of the sanctionable nature of the act and undercut any claim of inadvertence or lack of knowledge.
By agreeing to perform the marriage at an office unrelated to his judicial duties and permitting misstatements regarding the venue, respondent violated the letter and spirit of Articles 7 and 8, thereby trivializing the solemnity

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-15-1860)

Case Caption and Nature of the Proceeding

Administrative matter before the Supreme Court (En Banc) originated from an indorsement dated November 4, 2009 by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao referring the complete records of an affidavit-complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action.
The complaint was filed by Rosilanda Maningo Keuppers against Judge Virgilio G. Murcia, then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte.
Charges brought: estafa; violation of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees); and grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The case docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-15-1860 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-2224-MTJ), decided April 3, 2018.

Procedural History and Referrals

Complaint affidavit executed by complainant on June 6, 2008 and indorsed to OCA on November 4, 2009.
OCA referred the complaint to the Court of Appeals in Cagayan de Oro City for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The investigation was initially assigned to Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and later re-assigned to Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy due to a transfer.
Investigating Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy submitted her report and recommendation on August 10, 2012.
The Supreme Court received and acted upon the investigative record and recommendations, culminating in the En Banc decision.

Facts as Alleged by the Complainant

On May 12, 2008, complainant and her husband Peter Keuppers went to the Local Civil Registrar’s Office (LCRO) of Davao City to apply for a marriage license in view of Peter’s impending departure for Germany on May 22, 2008.
LCRO employee Julie Gasatan advised the couple that the mandatory 10-day posting requirement made it virtually impossible to solemnize the marriage before May 22, 2008, and gave them a note advising them to seek assistance at DLS Travel and Tours Corporation (DLS Travel and Tours) in Sandawa, Matina, Davao City.
At DLS Travel and Tours the couple dealt with owner Lorna Siega, who said her processing fees would be higher than the standard P600.00 and assured immediate receipt of original and NSO copies of the marriage certificate.
Siega required the couple to fill up forms but instructed them to leave address and other information blank. The couple paid P15,750.00 to Siega, said to cover fees for the solemnizing judge, certification, security, City Hall, service, and passport.
Siega later confirmed date, time, and place of solemnization. Respondent Judge solemnized the marriage on May 19, 2008 at DLS Travel and Tours premises in Davao City.
On May 20, 2008 the couple found erroneous entries in the marriage certificate and in the application for marriage license, including: (a) the certificate stating “Office of the MTCC Judge, Island Garden City of Samal” as place of solemnization though solemnization occurred at DLS Travel and Tours, Davao City; (b) the application stating that they applied for marriage license in Sta. Cruz, Davao City on May 8, 2008 though they applied on May 12, 2008 at DLS Travel and Tours; and (c) an untrue statement that they had appeared before Mario Tizon, Civil Registrar of Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur.

Respondent’s Position and Comment

In his comment dated February 2, 2010, respondent professed no knowledge of how the complainant processed and secured the marriage documents and denied personal acquaintance with the complainant or third parties she consulted.
He insisted he met the couple only at the time of solemnization and that the solemnization had been assigned to him; he claimed documents necessary for a valid marriage were duly prepared and submitted by appropriate government agencies.
Respondent claimed entitlement to the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties and argued he should not be blamed for erroneous entries because they were copied from the marriage license and other submitted documents; he asserted he did not prepare the certificate and merely performed the ministerial act of solemnizing the marriage.
He denied receiving any amount for solemnizing the marriage and said he was unaware if any submitted documents were spurious. He recalled the parties freely and voluntarily signed the certificate of marriage, which was the same document filed with the Local Civil Registrar’s Office of Davao City.

Evidence Gathered During Investigation

Several complainant witnesses affirmed the marriage was held in the premises of DLS Travel and Tours and solemnized by respondent.
Investigating Justice conducted an ocular inspection of the DLS Travel and Tours premises and confirmed that the location depicted in photographic exhibits (Exhibits “G”, “G-1”, “G-2”, “G-3”, “G-4”, and “G-5”) where respondent is seen solemnizing a wedding matched the physical premises inspected.
Testimony of DLS Travel and Tours owner Lorna Siega: her establishment processed the documents; specific employees prepared the certificate of marriage and marriage contract; entries in the marriage contract were supplied based on the marriage license; her offi