Judicial Ethics: Judge Fined P20,000 for Solemnizing Bigamous Marriage

A Judge's Duty to Know the Law on Marriage

When a judge officiates a marriage, the law expects more than just reading the vows. A judge must verify that the parties are legally free to marry. A 2001 Supreme Court ruling reminds us just how seriously the Court takes this duty, especially when a judge solemnizes a marriage he should have known was void.

In Borja-Manzano v. Sanchez (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329, March 8, 2001), the Court held a municipal trial court judge liable for gross ignorance of the law for officiating a bigamous marriage. The case is a clear lesson for judges and a useful guide for the public on the requirements of a valid marriage.

The Facts of the Case

Herminia Borja-Manzano was the lawful wife of David Manzano, whom she married in 1966. They had four children. In 1993, however, David contracted another marriage with Luzviminda Payao, this time before Judge Roque R. Sanchez of the Municipal Trial Court of Infanta, Pangasinan.

The problem? Both David and Luzviminda were still married to other people. The marriage contract itself stated that both parties were "separated." In their separate affidavits, which they swore to before the judge himself, they admitted having prior existing marriages.

When the judge was confronted with a complaint, he argued that he did not know David was legally married. He said he relied on the couple's joint affidavit claiming they had lived together for seven years without the benefit of marriage. He invoked Article 34 of the Family Code, which allows marriage without a license for couples who have cohabited for at least five years.

The Issue: Did the Judge Err?

The Supreme Court found merit in the complaint. The central question was whether the judge could validly rely on Article 34 of the Family Code to solemnize the marriage despite the parties' prior existing marriages.

The Court answered with a clear no.

The Ruling: Article 34 Does Not Apply

Article 34 of the Family Code provides an exemption from the marriage license requirement. It applies to a man and woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and who have no legal impediment to marry each other.

The Court enumerated the requisites for this provision to apply:

• The couple must have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years;
• They must have no legal impediment to marry each other;
• The absence of legal impediment must exist at the time of the marriage;
• They must execute an affidavit stating these facts; and
• The solemnizing officer must swear that he ascertained their qualifications and found no legal impediment.

In this case, not all requirements were met. Both David and Luzviminda had subsisting prior marriages. Their affidavits expressly admitted this fact. A prior existing marriage is a diriment impediment that makes any subsequent marriage void.

The Court stressed that a long separation from a spouse does not dissolve the marriage. Even a decree of legal separation does not sever the marriage bond. The same holds true, and even more so, for a mere de facto separation.

Likewise, cohabiting with another person for five years or more does not erase a subsisting marriage. It only serves as a ground for exemption from the marriage license requirement—nothing more.

Gross Ignorance of the Law

The Court ruled that the judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law. He knew or ought to have known that a subsisting previous marriage was a legal impediment. He could not deny knowledge because the parties' prior marriages were clearly stated in affidavits sworn before him.

The Court emphasized that the maxim "ignorance of the law excuses no one" applies with special force to judges. Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges must embody competence, integrity, and independence. When the law transgressed is simple and elementary, failing to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

The Court increased the recommended fine from P2,000 to P20,000, with a warning that a repetition of the same act would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• A prior marriage is an absolute bar to a new marriage. Separation, whether de facto or even legal, does not dissolve the marriage bond. Only a valid divorce or annulment can remove the impediment.
• Article 34 of the Family Code is not a loophole. The license exemption for long-time cohabitants applies only when both parties have no legal impediment to marry each other. It cannot cure a bigamous situation.
• Judges must verify qualifications before solemnizing marriages. A judge who fails to check for legal impediments—or ignores clear evidence of them—faces administrative liability, including fines and possible dismissal.
• Affidavits are not a shield. A solemnizing officer cannot rely on self-serving affidavits when the parties' own statements reveal a subsisting prior marriage.
• For the public: Before marrying again, ensure that any prior marriage has been properly dissolved by a court decree. Otherwise, the second marriage is void, and the parties may face criminal liability for bigamy.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.