Primary Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case against Judge Esmeraldo G. Cantero, ruling that his personal misconduct did not directly relate to his judicial duties and therefore did not constitute gross misconduct in office. However, the Court emphasized that his personal behavior fell short of the ethical standards expected of a judge.

Background

The case stems from a failed love affair between Judge Esmeraldo G. Cantero and Maria Apiag, who married in 1947 and had two children. Judge Cantero later abandoned his family and married another woman, Nieves Ygay, without legally annulling his first marriage. The complainants accused him of bigamy and falsification of public documents, as he had listed Nieves Ygay as his spouse in official documents.

Facts

• 1. Judge Cantero married Maria Apiag in 1947 and had two children with her.
• 2. He abandoned his family and married Nieves Ygay without annulling his first marriage.
• 3. In official documents, he listed Nieves Ygay as his spouse, leading to accusations of falsification.
• 4. The complainants sought support and recognition as his legal heirs.
• 5. Judge Cantero claimed his first marriage was void and that he had no obligation to annul it.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Judge Cantero committed bigamy by marrying Nieves Ygay without annulling his first marriage.
• 2. He falsified public documents by misrepresenting his marital status.
• 3. He failed to provide support to his first family.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Judge Cantero committed bigamy by marrying Nieves Ygay without annulling his first marriage.
• 2. He falsified public documents by misrepresenting his marital status.
• 3. He failed to provide support to his first family.

Issues

• 1. Whether Judge Cantero committed gross misconduct by abandoning his first family and marrying another woman without annulling his first marriage.
• 2. Whether he falsified public documents by misrepresenting his marital status.
• 3. Whether his actions warranted administrative sanctions.

Ruling

• 1. Whether Judge Cantero committed gross misconduct by abandoning his first family and marrying another woman without annulling his first marriage.
• 2. Whether he falsified public documents by misrepresenting his marital status.
• 3. Whether his actions warranted administrative sanctions.

Doctrines

• 1. Misconduct in Office: Misconduct must directly relate to the performance of official duties. Personal misconduct does not constitute gross misconduct in office.
• 2. Void Marriages: A marriage that is void ab initio does not require a judicial declaration of nullity to be considered invalid.
• 3. Good Faith Defense: A public officer acting in good faith cannot be held liable for falsification of public documents.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Judges ought to be more learned than witty, more reverend than plausible, and more advised than confident. Above all things, integrity is their portion and proper virtue." – Francis Bacon
• 2. "The personal behavior of a judge, not only upon the bench but also in his everyday life, should be above reproach and free from the appearance of impropriety."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Odayat vs. Amante (77 SCRA 338): Established that a void marriage does not require a judicial declaration of nullity.
• 2. Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy (143 SCRA 499): Held that a judicial declaration of nullity is required for void marriages under the Family Code.
• 3. Abadilla vs. Tabliran Jr. (249 SCRA 447): Recognized that cohabiting with another while still legally married constitutes gross immoral conduct.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article 40 of the Family Code: Requires a judicial declaration of nullity for void marriages before remarriage.
• 2. Article 68 and Article 195 of the Family Code: Pertain to the duty of spouses to support each other and their children.