Judge Suspended for Gross Ignorance in Nullity of Marriage Cases

The Supreme Court has reminded all judges that speed in disposing cases must never come at the expense of due process and procedural integrity. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Justalero (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2424, January 18, 2023), the Court suspended a Regional Trial Court judge for one year without pay for gross ignorance of the law and procedure, and gross misconduct, arising from irregularities in handling nullity of marriage cases and in solemnizing marriages.

The Case Against Judge Justalero

Judge Globert J. Justalero was the Presiding Judge of Branch 32, RTC Iloilo City, and was also designated as Assisting Judge of Branch 66, RTC Barotac Viejo. A judicial audit revealed that he decided nullity of marriage cases with unusual speed—some within six months—but with numerous procedural irregularities.

Among the findings: the Office of the Solicitor General was not furnished copies of orders and notices; proceedings continued despite the OSG's non-appearance; no collusion reports were submitted; and orders to conduct collusion investigations were issued on the same day as the investigation reports themselves. In some cases, decisions were rendered even without answers, collusion reports, formal offers of evidence, or memoranda in the records.

The audit also found irregularities in Judge Justalero's solemnization of marriages at the RTC of Barotac Viejo. He solemnized marriages without authority under his designation, notarized affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriages he later solemnized, and allowed mere community tax certificates as proof of identity.

The Issue

The sole issue was whether Judge Justalero should be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure, gross misconduct, and incompetence.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Judge Justalero guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and gross misconduct. The Court emphasized that judges must be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence, and that a magistrate who displays utter lack of familiarity with the rules erodes public confidence in the courts.

The Court noted specific violations of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. Judge Justalero failed to verify the residency requirement for jurisdiction, even when marriage certificates showed addresses different from those stated in the petitions. He also failed to furnish the OSG and public prosecutor with copies of petitions as required, and committed numerous other procedural lapses.

On the marriage solemnization issue, the Court held that Judge Justalero's designation as Assisting Judge did not vest him with authority to solemnize marriages. The Court also cited the ruling in Tupal v. Judge Rojo that judges cannot notarize affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize, because doing so compromises their objectivity in examining the requirements for marriage.

The Penalty

Although the Office of the Court Administrator recommended dismissal, the Court imposed the lesser penalty of suspension for one year without pay, considering that Judge Justalero had no prior administrative liability and had a heavy caseload. The Court sternly warned that repetition of the same or similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Speed must not compromise due process. Judges are mandated to resolve cases promptly, but not at the expense of the fundamental requirements of due process and procedural rules.
• Jurisdictional requirements are mandatory. In nullity of marriage cases, the petitioner must have resided in the province or city where the petition is filed for at least six months prior to filing. Judges must verify jurisdictional allegations.
• The OSG and public prosecutor must be furnished copies. Their participation is crucial to protect the State's interest in marriage cases.
• Judges cannot notarize affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize. This violates the Rules on Notarial Practice and compromises the judge's objectivity.
• Solemnizing marriages requires proper authority. Judges designated only to hear cases cannot solemnize marriages unless such authority is expressly granted.

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