In Jacinto J. Bagaporo v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court reiterated that contracting a second marriage without a judicial declaration of presumptive death for an absent first spouse constitutes bigamy. This ruling underscores the necessity of obtaining a court judgment to protect individuals from bigamy charges and reinforces the state’s interest in preserving marital stability. The decision clarifies that good faith belief in a spouse’s death is insufficient; a formal declaration is legally required.

When a Second Marriage Leads to Legal Jeopardy: Examining the Requirement for Presumptive Death

The case of Jacinto Bagaporo revolves around his conviction for bigamy. Bagaporo married Milagros Lumas in 1991 while still legally married to Dennia Dumlao from a 1986 marriage, without the first marriage being annulled or legally dissolved. He was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and his subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA) due to his counsel’s failure to file the required appellant’s brief. Bagaporo then filed a “Petition for Relief from Resolution or Judgment in Case Entry was Already Ordered,” claiming gross negligence on his counsel’s part, which was also denied. The central legal question is whether Bagaporo’s second marriage, contracted without a judicial declaration of presumptive death for his first wife, constitutes bigamy, and whether his counsel’s negligence can be a valid ground for reopening the case.

The Supreme Court addressed the procedural issues first. It affirmed the CA’s decision to treat Bagaporo’s petition as one for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, which is not an available remedy in the CA. The Court emphasized that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint, regardless of the plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief sought. Citing Spouses Mesina v. Meer, the Court reiterated that Rule 38 applies only to municipal/metropolitan and regional trial courts, not to appellate courts like the CA.

Bagaporo argued that his petition was based on his counsel’s gross negligence, providing a distinct remedy outside the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that while it does provide relief in cases of manifest gross negligence of counsel, such relief must be sought through legally established modes, such as a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 or a Rule 45 petition on a question of law. Bagaporo’s attempt to withdraw his notice of appeal to file a motion for reconsideration before the RTC was deemed forum shopping, especially since he did not inform the CA of these actions.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that clients are bound by their counsel’s actions. As stated in Mendoza v. Court of Appeals:

x x x The doctrinal rule is that negligence of the counsel binds the client because, otherwise, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and [prove] that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, or experienced, or learned.

The Court clarified that the exception to this rule applies only when counsel’s actions are grossly negligent, resulting in serious injustice, and depriving the client of due process. In Bagaporo’s case, the Court found that he had his day in court and was ably represented during the trial. Therefore, the negligence of his counsel, while unfortunate, did not warrant the nullification of the decision.

Addressing the substantive issue of bigamy, the Court affirmed that all elements of the crime were proven. Bagaporo contracted a second marriage without a judicial declaration that his absent spouse from the first marriage was presumptively dead. According to Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code:

Bigamy. – The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.

Bagaporo argued that the prosecution should have proven his absent wife was still alive during his second marriage. The Court rejected this argument, citing Manuel v. People of the Philippines, which held that a judicial declaration of presumptive death is essential for good faith and to negate criminal intent. The Court in Manuel explained:

x x x Such judicial declaration also constitutes proof that the petitioner acted in good faith, and would negate criminal intent on his part when he married the private complainant and, as a consequence, he could not be held guilty of bigamy in such case. The petitioner, however, failed to discharge his burden.

The requirement of a judicial declaration protects individuals from bigamy charges and serves the state’s interest in maintaining stable marital relationships. As such, the Supreme Court denied Bagaporo’s petition, upholding the CA’s resolutions and reinforcing the necessity of obtaining a judicial declaration of presumptive death before contracting a subsequent marriage.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Jacinto Bagaporo committed bigamy by contracting a second marriage without a judicial declaration of presumptive death for his absent first wife.
What is the significance of a judicial declaration of presumptive death?	A judicial declaration of presumptive death serves as proof of good faith, negating criminal intent in cases of bigamy, and protects the individual from potential charges. It also aligns with the state’s interest in maintaining stable marital relationships.
Can negligence of counsel be a valid ground for reopening a case?	Generally, clients are bound by their counsel’s actions, but an exception exists when counsel’s actions are grossly negligent, resulting in serious injustice and deprivation of due process. In this case, the Court found that while there may have been negligence, it was not considered as such.
What is the remedy when a counsel is grossly negligent?	Relief may be sought through legally established modes, such as a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 or a Rule 45 petition on a question of law.
What does the Revised Penal Code say about bigamy?	Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code states that contracting a second marriage before the first has been legally dissolved or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead through a proper judgment constitutes bigamy.
What is the role of the State in marriage?	The State has an interest in protecting and strengthening the family as a basic autonomous social institution, and thus, sets requirements for marriage and its dissolution.
Why is a good faith belief not enough to avoid a bigamy charge?	The law requires objective proof, not subjective belief, that the first marriage has been terminated. This objective proof is achieved through a judicial declaration of presumptive death.
What rule of court governs petition for relief?	Rule 38 of the Rules of Court governs petition for relief.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bagaporo v. People reinforces the importance of adhering to legal processes when dealing with marital matters, especially the presumption of death. It serves as a reminder that personal beliefs cannot substitute legal requirements when contracting subsequent marriages.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Jacinto J. Bagaporo, G.R. No. 211829, January 30, 2019