THIRD DIVISION conjugal home without any apparent cause, and leaving the

plaintiff Maria Apiag to raise the two children with her meager
[A.M. No. MTJ-95-1070. February 12, 1997] income as a public school teacher at Hinundayan, Southern
Leyte. Plaintiffs suffered a lot after defendant abandoned them
MARIA APIAG, TERESITA CANTERO SECUROM and for no reason whatsoever. For several years, defendant was
GLICERIO CANTERO, complainants, vs. JUDGE never heard of and his whereabout unknown.
ESMERALDO G. CANTERO, respondent.
Few years ago, defendant surfaced at Hinundayan, Southern
DECISION Leyte, whereupon, plaintiffs begged for support, however,
they were ignored by defendant. x x x"
PANGANIBAN, J.:
On September 21, 1993, complainants, through Atty. Redentor
G. Guyala, wrote a letter to respondent as follows:
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. "Judge Esmeraldo Cantero

The eminent Francis Bacon wrote the foregoing exhortation Pinamungajan, Cebu
some 400 years ago. Today, it is still relevant and quotable. By
the nature of their functions, judges are revered as models of Dear Judge Cantero:
integrity, wisdom, decorum, competence and propriety.
Human as they are, however, magistrates do have their own We are writing in behalf of your legal wife, Maria Apiag, and
weaknesses, frailties, mistakes and even indiscretions. In the your two legitimate children by her, Teresita (Mrs. Sacurom)
case before us, respondent Judge Esmeraldo G. Cantero was and Glicerio.
charged administratively in the twilight of his government
service, as a result of a failed love affair that happened some It appears that sometime in the 1950's for reasons known only
46 years ago. After an otherwise unblemished record, he to you, you left your conjugal home at Hinundayan, Southern
would have reached the compulsory retirement age of 70 years Leyte, and abandoned without any means of support your said
on August 8, 1997 had death not intervened a few months ago wife and children. Since then and up to now, they have not
on September 26, 1996. Notwithstanding his death, this Court seen or heard from you.
still resolved to rule on this case, as it may affect his
retirement benefits. They would wish now that you do them right by living up to
your duty as husband and father to them, particularly that
Antecedent Facts expressly provided under Art. 68 and Art. 195 of the Family
Code (Art. 109 and 195 of the Civil Code) in relation to Art.
In a letter-complaint dated November 10, 1993, Maria Apiag 203 of the same Code.
Cantero with her daughter Teresita A. Cantero Sacurom and
son Glicerio A. Cantero charged the respondent, Judge You will please consider this letter as a formal demand for
Esmeraldo G. Cantero of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of maintenance and support for three of them, and a request that
Pinamungajan-Aloquinsan, Cebu, with gross misconduct for they be properly instituted and named as your compulsory
allegedly having committed bigamy and falsification of public heirs and legal beneficiaries in all legal documents now on file
documents. and to be filed with the Supreme Court and other agencies or
offices as may be required under applicable laws, such as, the
After receipt of the respondent's Comment, the Court on insurance (GSIS) and retirement laws.
February 5, 1996, referred this case to Executive Judge
Gualberto P. Delgado of the Regional Trial Court of Toledo We hope this matter can be amicably settled among you, your
City, Cebu for investigation, report and recommendation. The wife and children, without having to resort to judicial
latter submitted his Report and Recommendation dated July recourse.
26, 1996. Thereafter, the Court referred this case also to the
Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and Very truly yours,
recommendation.
(SGD.) REDENTOR G. GUYALA"
According to the complainants:
The letter elicited no action or response from the respondent.
"Sometime in August 11, 1947, defendant (should be Subsequently, complainants learned that respondent Judge had
respondent) and plaintiff (should be complainant) Maria another family. In their own words,
Apiag, joined together in holy matrimony in marriage after
having lived together as husband and wife wherein they begot
a daughter who was born on June 19, 1947, whom they "x x x The plaintiffs later on learned that defendant has
named: Teresita A. Cantero; and then on October 29, 1953, another wife by the name of Nieves C. Ygay, a Public School
Glicerio A. Cantero was born. Thereafter, defendant left the teacher from Tagao, Pinamungajan, Cebu. According to some
documents obtained by plaintiffs, the herein defendant and examination in the year 1960, that is 14 years after the affair
Nieves C. Ygay have children of their own, named as follows of 1947; that in 1964, respondent was first connected in the
with their date of births: Noralyn Y. Cantero -- May 19, 1968; government service as Comelec Registrar of the Commission
Ellen Y. Cantero -- February 4, 1970; Erwin Y. Cantero -- on Elections, assigned at Pinamungajan, Cebu(,) that is 16
April 29, 1979; Onofre Y. Cantero -- June 10, 1977; and years after the affair of 1947; that in the year 1982, respondent
Desirie Vic Y. Cantero -- December 2, 1981. was appointed as CLAO lawyer, now PAO, of the Department
of Justice, that is 35 years after the after the affair of 1947; and
It was shocking to the senses that in all of the public finally, on October 3, 1989, respondent was appointed to the
documents required of defendant Judge Cantero to be filed Judiciary as Municipal Circuit Trial Judge (MCTC) of the
with the Supreme Court such as his sworn statement of assets Municipalities of Pinamungajan and Aloguinsan, province of
and liabilities, his personal data sheet (SC Form P. 001), Cebu, that is 42 years from August 11, 1947; that respondent
income tax returns and his insurance policy with the is (sic) already 32 years in the government service up to the
Government Service Insurance System, defendant present time with more than 6 years in the Judiciary; that
misrepresented himself as being married to Nieves C. Ygay, respondent is already 69 years old, having been born on
with whom he contracted a second marriage. The truth of the August 8, 1927, and retirable by next year if God willing; that
matter is that defendant is married to plaintiff Maria Apiag respondent has served in the government service for the last
with whom they have two legitimate children, namely: 32 years, faithfully, honestly and judiciously without any
Teresita A. Cantero and Glicerio A. Cantero." complaint whatsoever, except this instant case; that respondent
as member of the Judiciary, has live-up (sic) to the standard
The respondent Judge, in his Comment, explained his side as required by the (sic) member (sic) of the bar and judiciary;
follows: that the charges against the respondent were all based or
rooted from the incedent (sic) that happened on August 11,
1947 and no other; that the complainants are morally dishonest
"x x x I admit the existence and form of Annex 'A' of the said in filing the instant (case) just now, an elapsed (sic) of almost
complaint, but vehemently deny the validity of its due 42 years and knowing that respondent (is) retirable by next
execution, for the truth of the matter is that such alleged year, 1997; that this actuation is very suspicious, and
marriage was only dramatized at the instance of our parents intriguing;
just to shot (sic) their wishes and purposes on the matter,
without my consent freely given. As a matter of fact, I was
only called by my parents to go home to our town at xxx xxx xxx
Hinundayan, Southern Leyte to attend party celebration of my
sister's birthday from Iligan City, without patently knowing I That complainant Maria Apiag has been living together with
was made to appear (in) a certain drama marriage and we were another man during her public service as public school teacher
forced to acknowledge our signatures appearing in the duly and have begotten a child, name (sic) Manuel Apiag and
prepared marriage contract(.) That was 46 years ago when I respondent promised (sic) the Honorable Court to furnish a
was yet 20 years of age, and at my second year high school complete paper regarding this case in order to enlighten the
days." Honorable (Court) that, he who seek (sic) justice must seek
justice with cleab (sic) hand;
Furthermore, Judge Cantero related that:
That respondent did not file any annullment (sic) or judicial
"x x x sometime in the year 1947, when both respondent and declaration (of nullity) of the alleged marriage because it is the
complainant, Maria Apiag were still in their early age and in contention and honest belief, all the way, that the said
their second year high school days, they were engaged in a marriage was void from the beginning, and as such nothing is
lovely affair which resulted to the pregnancy of the said to be voided or nullified, and to do so will be inconsistent with
complainant, and then and there gave birth to a child, named the stand of the respondent; that this instant case (was) simply
Teresita Apiag, having (been) born out of wedlock on June 19, filed for money consideration as reflected in their letter of
1947, now Mrs. Teresita Sacurom, one of the complainants. demand; (t)hat as a matter of fact, respondent and the
That in order to save name and shame, parents of both the complainant have already signed a compromised (sic)
respondent and the complainant came to an agreement to agreement, copy of which hereto (sic) attached as Annex '1',
allow the respondent, and the complainant (to) get married in stating among other things that respondent will give a monthly
the (sic) name, but not to live together as husband, wife for allowance to Terecita (sic) Sacurom in the (amount) of
being close relatives, thereby forcing the respondent to appear P4,000.00 and the complainant will withdraw their complaint
in a marriage affair where all the pertinent marriage papers from the Supreme Court., and that respondent had already
were all ready (sic) prepared (sic), and duly signed by given the said allowance for three consecutive months plus the
somebody; that after the said affair both respondent and the amount of P25,000.00 for their Attorney to withdraw the case,
complainant immediately separated each other (sic) without and that respondent stop (sic) the monthly allowance until
living together as husband, and wife even for a day, nor having such time the complainant will actually withdraw the instant
established a conjugal home. From that time respondent and case, and without knowledge of the respondent, complainant
the complainant have never met each other nor having (sic) proceeded (sic) their complaint after the elapsed (sic) of three
communicated (with) each other for the last 40 years; that (3) years."
respondent continued his studies at Cebu City, and eventually
became member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar
Relevant portions of said compromise agreement which was In line with the foregoing, the respondent wrote a letter dated
executed sometime in March 1994 by Esmeraldo C. Cantero 14 March, 1994 addressed to the Government Service
and Teresita C. Sacurom and witnessed by Maria Apiag and Insurance System (GSIS) designating Teresita Cantero
Leovegardo Sacurom are reproduced thus: Sacurom and Glicerio Cantero as additional beneficiaries in
his life insurance policy.
"That this COMPROMISE AGREEMENT is executed and
entered into by ESMERALDO C. CANTERO, of legal age, The Issues
married, Filipino, and with residence and postal address at
Pinamungajan, Cebu, Philippines, otherwise called as the The respondent Judge formulated the following "issues":
FIRST PARTY, and TERESITA C. SACUROM, also of legal
age, married, Filipino, representing her mother and her "1. That the first marriage with the complainant, Maria
brother, and a residence (sic) of 133-A J. Ramos Street, Apiag on August 11, 1947 is void;
Caloocan City, after having duly swirn (sic) to in accordance
with law do hereby depose and say:
2. The absence of his first wife complainant Maria Apiag
for more than seven (7) years raise the presumption that
1. That the First Party is presently a Municipal Circuit Trial she is already dead, that there was no need for any
Judge of Pinamungajan-Aloguinsan, Cebu, is charged by judicial declaration;
Second Party for Misconduct before the Office of the Court
Administrator of the Supreme Court now pending action;
3. The charge of Grave Misconduct is not applicable to
him because assuming that he committed the offense, he
2. That the parties have came (sic) to agreement to have the was not yet a member of the judiciary;
said case settled amicably in the interest of family unity and
reconciliation, and arrived at compromise agreement based on
law of equity, as follows: 4. The crime of Bigamy and Falsification had already
prescribed;
(a) That both parties have agreed voluntarily,
the Second Party will get ONE FOURTH (1/4) 5. The charges have no basis in fact and in law."
of the retirement that the First will receive
from the GSIS, and the rest of it will be for the Report and Recommendation of Investigating Judge and
First Party; Court Administrator

(b) That the Second Party and his brother will Investigating Judge Gualberto P. Delgado recommended in his
be included as one of the beneficiaries of the report that:
First Party, in case of death;
"After a careful perusal of the evidence submitted by the
(c) That the Second party and his only parties, this Office finds respondent Guilty of the crime of
brother will inherit the properties of the First Grave Misconduct (Bigamy and Falsification of Public
party inherited from his parents; Documents) however, considering his length of service in the
government, it is recommended that he be suspended for one
(d) That the Second Party, representing her (1) year without pay."
brother, is authorized to receive and collect
P4,000.00, monthly out of the second check The Office of the Court Administrator also submitted its report
salary of the First Party (The second half recommending respondent Judge's dismissal, as follows:
salary only);
"After a careful review of all the documents on file in this
3. That it was further voluntarily agreed that the Second Party case, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the
will cause the withdrawal and the outright dismissal of the investigating judge.
said pending case filed by her and her mother;
Extant from the records of the case and as admitted by
4. That it was also agreed that the above agreement, shall respondent, he was married to complainant Maria Apiag on
never be effective and enforceable unless the said case will be August 11, 1947 and have (sic) two (2) children with her.
withdrawn and dismiss (sic) from the Supreme Court, and said Respondent's contention that such marriage was in jest and
dismissal be received by the First Party, otherwise the above- assuming that it was valid, it has lost its validity on the ground
agreement is void from the beginning; and the Second Party that they never met again nor have communicated with each
must desist from further claining (sic) and filing civil abd (sic) other for the last 40 years cannot be given a (sic) scant
criminal liabilities. consideration. Respondent's argument that he was not yet a
lawyer, much more, a member of the bench when he
5. That this agreement is executed voluntarily, in good faith, contracted his first marriage with the complainant, is
and in the interest of good will and reconciliation and both unavailing for having studied law and had become a member
parties is (sic) duty bound to follow faithfully and religiously." of the Bar in 1960, he knows that the marriage cannot be
dissolved without a judicial declaration of death. Respondent's OCA which, if affirmed by this Court, would mean forfeiture
second marriage with Nieves Ygay was therefore bigamous of the death and retirement of the respondent.
for it was contracted during the existence of a previous
marriage. Gross Misconduct Not Applicable

We are likewise not persuaded by the assertion of the The misconduct imputed by the complainants against the
respondent that he cannot be held liable for misconduct on the judge comprises the following: abandonment of his first wife
ground that he was not yet a lawyer nor a judge when the and children, failing to give support, marrying for the second
act(s) complained of were committed. The infraction he time without having first obtained a judicial declaration of
committed continued from the time he became a lawyer in nullity of his first marriage, and falsification of public
1960 to the time he was appointed as a judge in October 23, documents. Misconduct, as a ground for administrative action,
1989. This is a continuing offense (an unlawful act performed has a specific meaning in law.
continuously or over and over again, Law Dictionary, Robert
E. Rothenberg). He can therefore be held liable for his "'Misconduct in office has definite and well understood
misdeeds. legal meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a
misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties
On the charge of falsification, it was shown with clarity in his as an officer and not such only as affects his character as
Personal Data Sheet for Judges, Sworn Statement of Assets, a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all
Liabilities and Networth, Income Tax Return (pp. 99-102, times, it is necessary to separate the character of man
rollo), that he had committed a misrepresentation by stating from the character of an officer. x x x It is settled that
therein that his spouse is Nieves Ygay and (had) eight (8) misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting
children (with her) which is far from (the) truth that his wife is removal from office of an officer, must have direct
Maria Apiag with whom he had two (2) children. relation to and be connected with the performance of
official duties x x x .' More specifically, in Buenaventura
Aside from the admission, the untenable line of defense by the vs. Benedicto, an administrative proceeding against a
respondent presupposes the imposition of an administrative judge of the court of first instance, the present Chief
sanction for the charges filed against him. 'A judge's actuation Justice defines misconduct as referring 'to a
of cohabiting with another when his marriage was still valid transgression of some established and definite rule of
and subsisting - his wife having been allegedly absent for four action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross
years only — constitutes gross immoral conduct' (Abadilla vs. negligence by the public officer.' That is to abide by the
Tabiliran Jr., 249 SCRA 447). It is evident that respondent authoritative doctrine as set forth in the leading case of
failed to meet the standard of moral fitness for membership in In re Horilleno, a decision penned by Justice Malcolm,
the legal profession. While deceit employed by respondent, which requires that in order for serious misconduct to be
existed prior to his appointment as a x x x Judge, his immoral shown, there must be 'reliable evidence showing that the
and illegal act of cohabiting with x x x began and continued judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by
when he was already in the judiciary. A judge, in order to an intention to violate the law or were in persistent
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of disregard of well-known legal rules.'"
the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times, in the
performance of his judicial duties and in his everyday life. The acts imputed against respondent Judge Cantero clearly
These are judicial guidepost to(sic) self-evident to be pertain to his personal life and have no direct relation to his
overlooked. No position exacts a greater demand on moral judicial function. Neither do these misdeeds directly relate to
righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the discharge of his official responsibilities. Therefore, said
the judiciary (Atienza vs. Brilliantes, Jr., 243 SCRA 32-33). acts cannot be deemed misconduct much less gross
misconduct in office. For any of the aforementioned acts of
ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully recommended that Judge Cantero" x x x (t)o warrant disciplinary action, the act
respondent judge be DISMISSED from the service with of the judge must have a direct relation to the performance of
forfeiture of all leave and retirement benefits and with his official duties. It is necessary to separate the character of
prejudice to re-appointment in any branch, instrumentality or the man from the character of the officer."
agency of the government, including government-owned and
controlled corporations." Nullity of Prior Marriage

As earlier indicated, respondent Judge died on September 27, It is not disputed that respondent did not obtain a judicial
1996 while this case was still being deliberated upon by this declaration of nullity of his marriage to Maria Apiag prior to
Court. marrying Nieves C. Ygay. He argued however that the first
marriage was void and that there was no need to have the
The Court's Ruling same judicially declared void, pursuant to jurisprudence then
prevailing. In the en banc case of Odayat vs. Amante,
In spite of his death, this Court decided to resolve this case on complainant charged Amante, a clerk of court, with
the merits, in view of the foregoing recommendation of the oppression, immorality and falsification of public document.
The complainant Odayat alleged among others " x x x that
respondent is cohabiting with one Beatriz Jornada, with whom
he begot many children, even while his spouse Filomena and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the
Abella is still alive x x x." In order to rebut the charge of performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life,
immorality, Amante " x x x presented in evidence the should be beyond reproach,' and Canon 2 of the Code of
certification (of the) x x x Local Civil Registrar x x x attesting Judicial Conduct which provides that '[a] judge should avoid
that x x x Filomena Abella was married to one Eliseo Portales impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
on February 16, 1948. Respondent's contention is that his activities.'"
marriage with Filomena Abella was void ab initio, because of
her previous marriage with said Eliseo Portales." This Court A Penalty of Suspension is Warranted
ruled that "Filomena Abella's marriage with the respondent
was void ab initio under Article 80 [4] of the New Civil Code, Finally, the Court also scrutinized the whole of respondent's
and no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity record. Other than this case, we found no trace of wrongdoing
of void marriages." in the discharge of his judicial functions from the time of his
appointment up to the filing of this administrative case, and
Now, per current jurisprudence, "a marriage though void still has to all appearances lived up to the stringent standards
needs x x x a judicial declaration of such fact" before any embodied in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Considering his
party thereto "can marry again; otherwise, the second marriage otherwise untarnished 32 years in government service, this
will also be void." This was expressly provided under Article Court is inclined to treat him with leniency.
40 of the Family Code. However, the marriage of Judge
Cantero to Nieves Ygay took place and all their children were Man is not perfect. At one time or another, he may commit a
born before the promulgation of Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy and mistake. But we should not look only at his sin. We should
before the effectivity of the Family Code. Hence, the doctrine also consider the man's sincerity in his repentance, his genuine
in Odayat vs. Amante applies in favor of respondent. effort at restitution and his eventual triumph in the reformation
of his life.
On the other hand, the charge of falsification will not prosper
either because it is based on a finding of guilt in the bigamy This respondent should not be judged solely and finally by
charge. Since, as shown in the preceding discussion, the what took place some 46 years ago. He may have committed
bigamy charge cannot stand, so too must the accusation of an indiscretion in the past. But having repented for it, such
falsification fail. Furthermore, the respondent judge's belief in youthful mistake should not forever haunt him and should not
good faith that his first marriage was void shows his lack of totally destroy his career and render inutile his otherwise
malice in filling up these public documents, a valid defense in unblemished record. Indeed, it should not demolish
a charge of falsification of public document, which must be completely what he built in his public life since then. Much
appreciated in his favor. less should it absolutely deprive him and/or his heirs of the
rewards and fruits of his long and dedicated service in
Personal Conduct of a Judge government. For these reasons, dismissal from service as
recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator would
However, the absence of a finding of criminal liability on his be too harsh.
part does not preclude this Court from finding him
administratively liable for his indiscretion, which would have However, we also cannot just gloss over the fact that he was
merited disciplinary action from this Court had death not remiss in attending to the needs of his children of his first
intervened. In deciding this case, the Court emphasizes that marriage -- children whose filiation he did not deny. He
"(t)he personal behavior of a judge, not only upon the bench neglected them and refused to support them until they came up
but also in his everyday life, should be above reproach and with this administrative charge. For such conduct, this Court
free from the appearance of impropriety. He should maintain would have imposed a penalty. But in view of his death prior
high ethical principles and sense of propriety without which he to the promulgation of this Decision, dismissal of the case is
cannot preserve the faith of the people in the judiciary, so now in order.
indispensable in an orderly society. For the judicial office
circumscribes the personal conduct of a judge and imposes a WHEREFORE, premises considered, this case is hereby
number of restrictions thereon, which he has to observe DISMISSED.
faithfully as the price he has to pay for accepting and
occupying an exalted position in the administration of justice."
It is against this standard that we must gauge the public and SO ORDERED.
private life of Judge Cantero.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo and Francisco,
The conduct of the respondent judge in his personal life falls JJ., concur.
short of this standard because the record reveals he had two
families. The record also shows that he did not attend to the Bacon, Francis (1561-1626), Essays: Of Judicature. See also
needs, support and education of his children of his first Handbook for Judges, p. 276, The American Judicature
marriage. Such is conduct unbecoming a trial magistrate. Society, 1975.
Thus, the late Judge Cantero "violated Canon 3 of the Canons
of Judicial Ethics which mandates that '[a] judge's official Rollo, pp. 6-7.
conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety,
Ibid., p. 21. Alfonso vs. Juanson, 228 SCRA 239, 254-255, December 7,
1993.
Ibid., pp. 138-143.
Except perhaps his occasional ungrammatical language and
Ibid., p. 149. typographical errors.

Memorandum for Plaintiffs, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 104-105.

Ibid, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 103-104.

Ibid, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 104-105

Comment for the Respondent, p. 1; Rollo, p. 13.

Memorandum for the Respondent, pp. 1-3; Rollo, pp. 52-54.

Rollo, p. 51.

Ibid, p. 115.

See Evaluation, Report, and Recommendation of the Office of

Rollo, p. 143.

pp. 5-8; Rollo, pp. 154-156.

Amosco vs. Magro, 73 SCRA 107, pp.108-109, September 30,

Babatio vs. Tan, 157 SCRA 277, p. 280, January 22, 1988;
citing Salcedo vs. Inting, 91 SCRA 19, June 29, 1979.

77 SCRA 338, June 2, 1977.

Odayat vs. Amante, 77 SCRA 338, 341, June 2, 1977

Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy, 143 SCRA 499, 501, August 19, 1986.

Sempio-Diy, Alicia V., The Family Code of the Philippines, p.

"The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked

Reyes, Luis B., Criminal Law, p. 211, Thirteenth Edition,

Agpalo, Ruben, Legal Ethics, p. 465, Fourth Edition, 1989;