Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

MORENO v.

BERNABE
Complainant: Marilou Nama Moreno
Respondent: Judge Jose Bernabe, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasig, Metro Manila
LEGAL BASIS/PROVISIONS:
Art 3 (2) FC: The formal requisites of marriage are: ... (2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for
in Chapter 2 of this Title;
Art 4: The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as
stated in Art 35 (2).
Art 35 (3) FC: The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: ... (3) Those solemnized without license,
except those covered the preceding Chapter;
Art 3 CC: Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.

FACTS:
Marilou Nama Moreno filed a complaint against Judge Jose Bernabe for grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law.
Oct 4, 1993: Marilou alleges that she and Marcelo Moreno were married before Judge Bernabe. She further states that the Bernabe
assured her that the marriage contract will be released 10 days after the said date. She visited the office of Bernabe on Oct
15 only to find out that she could not get the marriage contract because the office of the Local Civil Registrar failed to issue a
marriage license. She claims that Bernabe connived with the relatives of Marcelo to deceive her.
Bernabe denied the allegation. He contends that:
(1) the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig has actually prepared the marriage license but it was not released due to the subsequent
objection of the father of Marcelo;
(2) he did not violate the law; in good faith, he solemnized the marriage as he was moved by the desire to help a begging
complainant who wanted some kind of reassurance/ security due to her pregnant condition;
(3) in order to pacify Marilou, Marcelo requested Bernabe to perform marriage ceremony, with express assurance that the marriage
license was definitely forthcoming since necessary documents were complete;
(4) the contracting parties were not known to him; and
(5) both parties, particularly Marilou, were fully instructed of the effects of a marriage performed w/o the required marriage license.

Judge Villarama of RTC Pasig recommended the dismissal of the complaint against the respondent for failure of complainant to
appear in scheduled hearings and on the basis of her sisters sinumpaang salaysay that Marilou has left for Singapore and
expressly withdrew her complaint. Bernabe was also issued a stern warning for solemnizing a marriage w/o license.
The memorandum containing RTC Pasig recommendation was then referred to the Office of the Court Administrator.

ISSUES: (1) WON the marriage of Marilou and Marcelo Moreno was valid
Ruling: NO. Accdg to Art 35 (3) of FC, a marriage would be void if it is solemnized without a marriage license. Also, as stated and
echoed in Art 3 and 4 of FC, a valid marriage license is a formal requisite of marriage and an absence of such makes a marriage
void. In the case at bar, Marcelos express assurance that their marriage license would soon follow was in vain. Marilou and
Marcelo got married without having a license; hence, their marriage is void.

(2) WON Judge Bernabe committed grave misconduct and gross ignorance of law:
Ruling: YES. Judge Bernabe solemnized the marriage of Marilou and Marcelo despite them having no marriage license. In doing so,
he failed to live up to his promise to be faithful to the law, as provided in Circular No. 13 of 1987 which enjoins judges ...to
be the living personification of justice and the Rule of Law... Moreover, accdg to Art 3 of CC, ignorance of the law excuses
no one from compliance therewith. Therefore, even if the respondent claimed having good faith in solemnizing the said
marriage, this only serves to mitigate his liability but not exonerate him completely. Good intentions could never justify
violation of the law.
COURT DECISION: SC concurs w/ the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, that Judge Bernabe
displayed his ignorance of the law is held liable for this misconduct. Furthermore, despite the withdrawal of complaint against the
respondent, SC may not be divested of its jurisdiction to investigate the truth of the matter alleged in the complaint. The court has an
interest in the conduct of members of the Judiciary and in improving the delivery of justice to the people. Wherefore, premises
considered, the respondent is ordered to pay a fine of P10,000 and sternly warned that a repetition of the same acts will be dealt
more severely.

Вам также может понравиться