32 KEUPPERS V.
MURCIA (Aplasca) violation of RA 6714, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best
April 3, 2018 | Bersamin, J. | Article 7 & 8 Family Code (Civ)
Petitioner: Rosalinda M. Keuppers, complainant.
Respondents: Judge Virgilio G. Murcia, MTC Branch 2 Island Garden City of
Sama, respondent.
SUMMARY: Complainant Rosalinda Keuppers filed a complaint against Judge
Murcia alleging that she went to the LCRO in Davao City on May 12 2008 to apply
for a marriage license because thet wanted to get married before her partner goes
to Germany on May 22. The LCRO employee told them that it would be impossible
due to mandatory 10-day posting of the application. The employee advised them
to go to DLS Travel and Tours. In the DLS Office, they were assured by the owner
that would be able immediately get a marriage certificate in exchange for a higher
fee. On May 19, respondent Judge solemnized their marriage in the premises of
DLS. The following day, they picked up the documents but were surprised to find
some erroneous entries: (1) Office of MTC Judge Murcia in Samal City as place of
solemnization; (2) May 8 as the day of application for the marriage license; (3)
They appeared before Civil Registrar Mario Tizon. Judge Murcia admitted that he
solemnized the marriage but pointed out that he was not aware that the
documents were spurious.
W/N the respondent Judge is liable for grave misconduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service for solemnizing the marriage of the complainant and her
husband outside his territorial jurisdiction. YES. The Family Code provides that
(Doctrine) marriage may be solemnized by any incumbent member of the
judiciary within the court's jurisdiction and that the marriage shall be solemnized
publicly in the chamber of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or
temple or in the office of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case
may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted on the point
of death or in remote places x x x or where both of the parties request the
solemnizing officer in writing x x x. Respondent Judge was guilty of grave, not
simple, misconduct because he had at the very least the wilful intent to violate the
Family Code on the venue of a marriage solemnized by a judge, and to flagrantly
disregard the relevant rules for such solemnization set forth in the law.
FACTS:
1. This administrative case from indorsement of the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate
action the records of the case initiated by affidavit-complaint by complainant
Rosalinda Keuppers against Judge Murcia, charging him with estafa,
interest of the service.
2. In the complaint, Keuppers alleged that she and her husband Peter
Keuppers went to Local Civil Registrar’s Office (LCRO) in Davao City on
May 12, 2008 to apply for a marriage license because they wanted to get
married before Peter goes to Germany On May 22, 200. Julie Gasatan, an
employee of LCRO, told them that it would be impossible to solemnize their
marriage before May 22 because of the mandatory 10-day posting of the
application for marriage license. Julie advised them to go to DLS Travel and
Tours to look for a person that can help them. In the office of DLS, Lorna
Siega, the owner, told the couple that she had to charge a higher marriage
processing fee than that collected in the City Hall (Php 600). Lorna assured
them that would immediately get the original as well as the NSO copies of
the marriage certificate, and required them to fill up forms, but were
instructed to leave the address and other information blank. The couple
paid Php 15,750 to Lorna to cover the fees of the solemnizing Judge, the
certification fee, the security fee, the City Hall fee, the service fee. Lorna
later on confimed the date, time and place of the solemnization of the
marriage.
3. She also claimed that respondent Judge Murcia solemnized the marriage
on May 19, 2008 in the premises of DLS, and the staff of DLS handed to
them a copy of the marriage certificate for their signatures. On the following
day, they went back to DLS to pick up the documents, but were surprised to
find erroneous entries in the marriage certification and on the application for
marriage license:
a. “Office of the MTC Judge, Island Garden City of Samal” as the
place of solemnization
b. A statement in the application stating that they applied for the
marriage license on May 8, 2008
c. A statement in the application stating that appeared before Mario
Tizon, the Civil Registrar of Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur.
4. Judge Murcia stated in his comment that he had no knowledge of how
complainant processed and secured the documents; denied personally
knowing the complainant and the person she mentioned; and insisted that
he only met her at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. He also
asserted that the documents necessary for a valid marriage were duly
prepared, and claimed that he was entitled to the presumption of regularity
in the performance of his duties considering that the documents were
issued by appropriate government agencies. He denied receiving any
amount for solemnizing the marriage, and pointed out that he had not been
aware if any of the documents submitted was spurious.
5. The OCA recommended the complaint to the court and Investigating Justice
Sempio Diy reported and recommended the following:
a. Evidence showed that the marriage was held only in the premises
of DLS, and was solemnized by respondent Judge.
 b. Respondent admitted that he indeed solemnized the marriage 4. Article 8 of the Family Code contains the limiting phrase and not elsewhere,
outside his jurisdiction, bolstered by his own admission that he which emphasizes that the place of the solemnization of a marriage by a
solemnized the marriage at DLS Travel and Tours, and not in his judge like him should only be in his office or courtroom. The only exceptions
territorial jurisdiction. to the limitation are when the marriage was to be contracted on the point of
c. However, respondent had no hand in the preparation and death of one or both of the complainant and her husband, or in remote
processing of the documents pertaining to the marriage. place in accordance with Article 29 of the Family Code or where both of the
d. Family Code clearly states that a marriage can be held outside the complainant and her husband had requested him as the solemnizing officer
judge's chambers or courtroom only in the following instances: 1.] in writing to solemnize the marriage at a house or place designated by them
at the point of death; 2.] in remote places in accordance with in their sworn statement to that effect.
Article 29; or 3.] upon the request of both parties in writing in a 5. Misconduct consists in the transgression of some established and definite
sworn statement to this effect. rule of action, or, more particularly, in an unlawful behavior or gross
e. Recommendation: respondent be meted a fine of ₱5,000.00 with negligence by the public officer. It implies wrongful intention, and must not
STERN WARNING be a mere error of judgment. Respondent Judge was guilty of grave, not
simple, misconduct because he had at the very least the wilful intent to
ISSUE/S: violate the Family Code on the venue of a marriage solemnized by a judge,
W/N the respondent Judge is liable for grave misconduct prejudicial to the best and to flagrantly disregard the relevant rules for such solemnization set forth
interest of the service for solemnizing the marriage of the complainant and her in the law.
husband outside his territorial jurisdiction, and in the office premises of the DLS Tour
and Travel in Davao City. YES. DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and HOLDS respondent JUDGE VIRGILIO G.
MURCIA, the former Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2,
RATIO: in the Island Garden City Samal, Davao del Norte GUILTY of GRAVE
1. Article 7 of the Family Code provides: MISCONDUCT and CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
a. Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:(1) Any incumbent SERVICE; and ACCORDINGLY, DECLARES as forfeited all his retirement benefits,
member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction; xxx except his accrued leaves, with prejudice to his appointment in government service.
2. In solemnizing the marriage of the complainant and her husband in the
office premises of the DLS in Davao City despite the foregoing provision of
the Family Code disallows solemnizing the marriage in a venue other than
the judge's courtroom or chambers
a. Article 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the
chamber of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or
temple or in the office of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul,
as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of
marriages contracted on the point of death or in remote places in
accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both of the
parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in by which case
the marriage may be solemnized at a house or placed designated
by them in a sworn statement to that effect.
3. Respondent Judge's explanation of having done so only out of pity for the
complainant after she has supposedly claimed that her German fiancé was
soon returning to Germany and wanted to bring with him the certified copy
of the marriage certificate din not diminish his liability, but instead
highlighted his dismissive and cavalier attitude towards express statutory
requirements instituted to secure the solemnization of marriages from
abuse.