29.1 Seguisabal Vs Cabrera Digest
29.1 Seguisabal Vs Cabrera Digest
29.1 Seguisabal Vs Cabrera Digest
Facts:
Complainant charged Respondent for gross misconduct and gross Ignorance for solemnizing Jaime
Sayson and Marlyn Jagonoys marriage without the requisite marriage license and for failing to transmit a
copy of the signed married contract to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Toledo City within fifteen
days from date of Solemnization; proved by the marriage contract issued to the contracting parties. On
April 14, 1978, Jaime Sayson and a three months pregnant Marlyn Jagonoy, accompanied by the mother
of the former, the father of the latter, and several others, appeared before Respondent bringing a marriage
contract for them to be solemnized. Respondent allegedly asked them for their Marriage License, upon
which they said that the Local Civil Registrar could not issue the same because the one in charge was not
in his office; Respondent allegedly presumed papers were in order and so proceeded with the
solemnization, but told them to return in the afternoon with the Marriage License. The parties did not
return in the afternoon and the papers were allegedly lost and forgotten by Respondent. On May 1979,
Marlyn Jagonoy, now with child, appeared before Respondent and informed him that her husband,a
draftee in the Philippine Army, was killed in action against the Muslim rebels in Maguindanao. She will
be awarded the benefits by the army if and when she can prove she was actually married to him.
Respondent then searched for the papers and found them, and told the father of Marlyn to go to the Local
Civil Registrars Office to get the Marriage license, though the father returned saying that the couple
lacked the Family Planning Seminar required by law before the issuance of a Marriage License. Believing
that it was no longer necessary due to Jaime Saysons death, Respondent issued the Marriage Contract so
that she may enjoy the benefits accruing Jaime who died a heros death. Act was allegedly done in
good faith by the Respondent and in sympathy to the situation of Marlyn. Respondent further averred
that Complainant was ill motivated and filed this action out of spite because of Respondent dismissing A
previous case filed by complainant and that Complainant is the accused in a case pending in Respondents
Court.
Issue/Held:
Does Respondents alleged good faith exempt him from the liability of his actions? NO
Rationale:
Court ruled that without requiring the essential pre-requisite of a marriage license, respondent had
undoubtedly transgressed article 53(4) of the Civil Code. Respondent also failed to transmit a copy of the
marriage contract duly signed by him and the contracting parties to the Local Civil Registrar within
15 days, violating Article 68 of the Civil Code. His defense of good faith was found by the Court as
unavailing. As a judicial officer, he is expected to know the law on the solemnization, and his feeling of
sympathy cannot serve as valid reason for him to ignore these legal requisites.
Mitigating Circumstance: His 27 years of service, and the fact that he was retiring due to his heart
ailment.
DOCTRINE: