Cavin Jhon M.

Cabarlo
Legal Research

1-Wigmore

Borja-Manzano vs. Sanchez

354 SCRA 1, March 8, 2001
Statement of the Case:
In a sworn Complaint Affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator on May 12,
1999, complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano charges respondent Judge Roque
Sanchez with gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing the marriage of the formers
husband David Manzano and another woman named Luzviminda Payao, who were
both bound by prior existing marriages.
Facts of the Case:
Complainant avers that she was the lawful wife of the late David Manzano with marriage
contracted on May 21, 1966 in a church wedding in Caloocan City. However, on March
22, 1993, her husband entered into another marriage with Luzviminda Payao before the
respondent Judge of the Municipal Trial Court who claims no knowledge that Manzano
is legally bound by a prior marriage. The Judge claimed that his knowledge is limited
only to the cohabitation of Manzano and Payao for seven years which is manifested in
their joint affidavits. However, the separate affidavits expressly stated that they were
both bound by prior existing marriages. Further, the marriage contract presented to the
respondent indicated that they were both separated. From which facts, respondent
alleged that the subsequent marriage is legal by virtue of Article 34 of the Family Code
thus asking for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of merit.
Issue:
Whether or not the complaint was valid asserting that respondent Judge demonstrated
gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized the marriage
Ruling:
Yes. The Judge demonstrated a gross negligence of the law when he solemnized the
bigamous marriage. He cannot deny knowledge of the previous marriage as the fact
was stated in the separate affidavits subscribed and sworn by Manzano and Payao.
Also, the marriage contract stated that both were separated. As for the Article 34 of the
Family Code, the fact that both were cohabiting for seven years is immaterial and an
impediment to the subsequent ones as legal separation does not sever the marital tie,
much less authorize the parties to remarry. The separation of the previous couple is only
a ground for exemption of the marriage license but not a justification of the Judge to
solemnize the subsequent marriage. Thus, the maxim ignorance of the law excuses no
one has special application to judges who should be the embodiment of competence,
integrity and independence.
Disposition:
Accordingly, the recommendation of the Court Administrator was adopted with
modification increasing the fine imposed upon respondent Judge from P2,000 to
P20,000.