Part Three
FIVE years ago, the High Tribunal confirmed an anomaly involving resolutions of petitions for annulment involving a provincial court judge.
The case originated from reports by the Local Civil Registrars (LCRs) of Manila and Quezon City to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The LCRs said they have received an alarming number of decisions, resolutions and orders on annulment of marriage cases issued by Judge Cader P. Indar, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 14 in Cotabato City and acting presiding judge of the RTC Branch 15 in Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao.
The Court has established that Indar issued decisions on numerous annulment of marriage cases when, in fact, he did not conduct any judicial proceedings on the cases.
Worst, it was discovered that the decisions were issued without even the filing of the petitions by concerned parties.
The Court held that Indar made it appear in his decisions that the annulment cases complied with the stringent
requirements of the Rules of Court and the strict statutory and jurisprudential conditions for voiding marriages, when quite the contrary is true, violating Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3 mandates that a judge perform official duties honestly.
Anomaly discovered
AS discovered by the OCA’s audit team, the list of cases submitted by the LCRs of Manila and Quezon City does not, appear in the records of cases received, pending or disposed of by Indar.
The cases do not, likewise, exist in the docket books of the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC in Cotabato.
The audit team also noted the case numbers on the list are not within the series of case numbers recorded in the docket books of either RTC in Shariff Aguak or the RTC in Cotabato.
Based on the verification of the records of the trial court, there was nothing to show that proceedings were applied on the questioned annulment cases.
“There was nothing in the records to show that (1) petitions were filed; (2) docket fees were paid; (3) the parties were notified of hearings; (4) hearings were calendared and actually held; (5) stenographic notes of the proceedings were taken; and (6) the cases were submitted for decision,” the decision read.
Dismissals
IN April 2012 the Court found Indar guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty, and ordered his dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits due him.
He was, likewise, disbarred for violation of Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and his name ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
In 2015 the SC also dismissed from the service Judge Alan Flores, presiding judge of the RTC Branch 7 in Tubod, Lanao del Norte. Flores, who was also former acting presiding judge of RTC Branch 21 in Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, was dismissed for taking cognizance of, and deciding cases on annulment of marriage even if said cases were beyond territorial jurisdiction of the courts he presided.
The Court also dismissed in 2012 Presiding Judge (RTC in Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67) Liberty O. Castañeda for alarming and indiscriminate granting of petitions for nullity and annulment of marriage.
‘Scandalous and disturbing’
CASTAÑEDA’S dismissal came following the conduct of an audit by the OCA that showed she granted the extremely high total of 410 petitions for annulment of marriage and legal separation in 2010 alone.
The Court described as “scandalous and disturbing” the haste with which she disposed of such cases.
Based on the findings of the Court, Castañeda allowed the petitions for nullity of marriage or annulment to prosper despite the impropriety of venue; resolving petitions despite nonpayment of docket fees; failure to furnish the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Office of the Public Prosecutor (OPP) copies of the petition, which under the rules must be done within five days from the date of its filing; and several other violations of the AM 02-11-10.
A Court insider also said the OCA is currently investigating four trial court judges in Cavite for similar offenses.
Divorce pushed
MANY Filipinos are divided on the divorce issue, with the Catholic Church strongly opposing it.
For Lorna Kapunan, a well-known family lawyer, it is already about time to pass a law allowing divorce as a legal option for married couples wanting to separate.
“[Divorce] is definitely cheaper, because the process will be shorter and faster,” she said.
Kapunan said she does not share the position of the Catholic Church that divorce would destroy the sanctity of marriage and the foundation of the family.
“I am for divorce, because double standard naman ang society natin, ang nakikinabang diyan eh ’yung mga husband na nagkaka-mistress, Wala namang divorce, kaya ’di mahiwalayan ng mga babae ang mga asawa nila. [I am for divorce because our society has double-standards against women. The only people who would benefit from this are philandering husbands. There’s no divorce, hence, women can’t break away from spousal relations],” Kapunan said.
She also noted that divorce is not new to the Philippines, since it was allowed during the American and Japanese occupation.
Records would show that during the Japanese Occupation, the late Vice President Arturo Tolentino managed to get a divorce on September 15, 1943, on the grounds of desertion and abandonment by his wife, Consuelo David.
However, the option was removed in 1950, following the implementation of the Civil Code.
New chapter
FOR Jessica Siquijor-Magbanua of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), it does not matter whether it is divorce or annulment.
Both will have the end-result, that is, “parties acquiring the status of being unmarried or single,” Siquijor-Magbanua said.
For Liza (not her real name), it’s a road she has long taken.
Liza was married for almost seven years, before she finally decided to leave her husband in 2012 and eventually filed an annulment petition. “It was because of his psychological incapacity to handle responsibilities of a husband,” she told the BusinessMirror. “It took me a while to realize it, since as a wife, I tried to understand his shortcomings. But, I guess, it was just too grave that I decided I couldn’t take it and, hence, I left him.”
Liza has so far spent P150,000 for the process, and the cost is expected to reach up to P200,000 until its final resolution.
“I really look forward to finally getting my annulment. Once a woman marries, you carry your husband’s name,” Liza said. “[That] is good if you are in a happy
marriage. But it you are separated and wants to get out of the marriage, it is a dilemma for women, because you will always carry your ex-husband’s name.”
Liza said she is looking forward to getting back her maiden name and start a new chapter in her life.
To be continued