EDWIN A. ACEBEDO v. EDDIE P.

ARQUERO
399 SCRA 10 (2003)
Position in the
uprightness.

judiciary

requires

greater

moral

righteousness

and

Edwin A. Acebedo charged Eddie P. Arquero, Process Server of the Municipal

Trial Court (MTC) of Brookes Point, Palawan for immorality, alleging that his
wife, Dedje Irader Acebedo, a former stenographer of the MTC Brookes Point,
and Arquero unlawfully and scandalously cohabited as husband and wife.
Arquero claimed that Acebedo himself had been cohabitating with another
woman. Based on Arqueros testimony, he justified his having a relationship
with Irader solely on the written document purportedly a Kasunduan
or agreement entered into by Acebedo and Irader, consenting to and giving
freedom to either of them to seek any partner and to live with him or her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Arquero should be held guilty of immorality
HELD:
Arqueros justification fails. Being an employee of the judiciary, Arquero
ought to have known that the Kasunduan had absolutely no force and effect
on the validity of the marriage between Acebedo and Irader. Article 1 of the
Family Code provides that marriage is an inviolable social institution whose
nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to
stipulation. It is an institution of public order or policy, governed by rules
established by law which cannot be made inoperative by the stipulation of
the parties.
Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position
exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an
individual than in the judiciary. That is why the Court has firmly laid down
exacting standards of morality and decency expected of those in the service
of the judiciary.
Their conduct, not to mention behavior, is circumscribed with the
heavy burden of responsibility, characterized by, among other things,
propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the publics respect and
confidence in the judicial service. It must befree from any whiff of
impropriety, not only with respect to their duties in the judicial branch but
also to their behavior outside the court as private individuals
Arqueros act of having illicit relations with Irader is, within the purview of
Section 46 (5) of Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292,
otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, a disgraceful and
immoral conduct.

Hermosisima VS CA
103 Phil 629 Civil Law Torts and Damages Breach of Promise to Marry
Moral Damages

In 1950, Soledad Cagigas, 33 years old (then a school teacher, later she
became an insurance underwriter), and Francisco Hermosisima, 23 years old
(apprentice ship pilot), fell in love with each other. Since 1953, both had a
refular intimate and sexual affair with each other. In 1954, Soledad got
pregnant. Francisco then promised to marry Soledad. In June 1954, Soledad
gave birth to a baby girl. The next month, Francisco got married but with a
different woman named Romanita Perez.
Subsequently, Soledad filed an action against Francisco for the latter to
recognize his daughter with Soledad and for damages due to Franciscos
breach of his promise to marry Soledad. The trial court ruled in favor of
Soledad. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court and
even increased the award of damages. The Court of Appeals reasoned that
Francisco is liable for damages because he seduced Soledad. He exploited
the love of Soledad for him in order to satisfy his sexual desires that being,
the award of moral damages is proper.
ISSUE: Whether or not moral damages are recoverable under our laws for
breach of promise to marry.
HELD: No. Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se. The
Court of Appeals based its award of damages on Article 2219 of the Civil
Code which says in part that Moral damages may be recovered from (3)
Seduction, xxx However, it must be noted that the Seduction being
contemplated in the said Civil Code provision is the same Seduction being
contemplated in Article 337 and 338 of the Revised Penal Code. Such
seduction is not present in this case.
Further, it cannot be said that Francisco morally seduced (in lieu of criminal
seduction) Soledad given the circumstances of this case. Soledad was 10
years older than Francisco. Soledad had a better job experience and a better
job overall than Francisco who was a mere apprentice. Further still, it was
admitted by Soledad herself that she surrendered herself to Francisco and
that she wanted to bind by having a fruit of their engagement even before
they had the benefit of clergy.

Wassmer Vs Velez
PERSONS Case Digest on Wassmer vs Velez:Facts:Francisco Velez and Beatriz
Wassmer are to be wed because of their mutual promise of love witheach
other on September 4,1952. Francisco left for Cagayan De Oro two days
before thewedding,leaving
her a note that the weddings postponed because his mother opposes it. The day
before the wedding, he sent a telegram stating that he will comeback for the
wedding but he never did.Beatriz filed for damages, and judgment was
rendered ordering defendant to pay actual(P2,000.00),moral(P25,000.00)
and exemplary(P2,500.00) damages. Defendant now asserts that the
judgmentagainst him is contrary to law, given that there is no provision in
the Civil Code authorizing an action forbreach of promise to marry.
Issue: Whether or not breach of promise to marry is actionable.
Held: No it is not actionable for there is no provision in the Civil Code but the
case is not a mere breachof promise to marry. Francisco must still be
punished for the damages in accordance with Article 21 of the Civil
Code.Ratio: The SC perpetuated that though breach of promise to marry is
not actionable because there is noprovision in the Civil Code , the defendants
act is still punishable under Article 21 of the Civil Code which states that any person

who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary tomorals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
The defendantacted contrary to Article 21 because he was reckless and
oppressive in calling the wedding off daysbefore even if everything was
already arranged for.

Cosca Vs Palaypayon
COSCA VS PALAYPAYON JRFACTScomplainant allege that respondent judge
solemnized marriages even witout theformalrequisite of a marriage lcense.
So several couples were able to get married by the expedientof paying the
marriage fees to respondent secretary Baroy, Clerk of Court of
municipalitytrial court in Tinambac, Camarines Sur, despite the absence of a
marriage license. Inaddition, respondent judge did not sign their marriage
contracts and did not indicate thedates solemnization, the reason being that
he allegedly had to wait for the licenses to besubmitted by the parties which
was usually seven days after the ceremony. Also, themarriage contracts were
ot filed with the local civil registrar.
ISSUES: WON the marriages solemnized by respondent judge are valid
HELD. on the charge regarding illegal marriages, the Family Code pertinently
provides that theformal requisites of marriages, among others, a valid
marriahe license. Complementarily,it declares that the absence of any of the
essential and formal requisites shall generallyrender the marriages void ab
initio and that while an irregularity in the formal requisitesshall not affect the
validity of the marriages, the parties responsible for the irregularityshall be
civilly, criminally and administratively liable.