EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 193719, March 21, 2017 ]
SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. MARIETTA D.
ZAMORANOS, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
JARDELEZA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari[1] challenges the Amended Decision[2] dated August 31, 2010 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 01945-MIN, which affirmed the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
dismissing petitioner's administrative complaint against respondent.
I
Petitioner Samson R. Pacasum (Pacasum) and respondent Atty. Marietta D. Zamoranos (Zamoranos) were married
on December 28, 1992.[3] However, Pacasum discovered that Zamoranos was previously married to one Jesus De
Guzman (De Guzman) on July 30, 1982.[4] On December 14, 2004, Pacasum filed an administrative complaint for
disgraceful and immoral conduct against Zamoranos on the ground that she had contracted a bigamous marriage. [5]
In her answer to the complaint, Zamoranos raised as a defense the dissolution of her previous marriage under the
Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (the Muslim Code). [6] Prior to her marriage with De Guzman, she
had converted to Islam. In 1983, however, she and De Guzman divorced, as evidenced by the Decree of
Divorce[7] issued by Presiding Judge Kaudri L. Jainul of the Shari'a Circuit Court of Isabela, Basilan in Case No. 40792.[8]
The CSC dismissed the complaint because Pacasum failed to assail the existence, much less validity, of the Decree
of Divorce. The CSC ruled that since Zamoranos' supposedly subsisting marriage with De Guzman is the sole basis
for Pacasum's charge of immorality, the existence of the Decree of Divorce is fatal to Pacasum's
complaint.[9] Pacasum moved for reconsideration, but this was denied by the CSC. [10]
On appeal, the CA initially granted the petition.[11] The CA relied on the judicial admissions of Zamoranos in the
various cases between her and Pacasum. In multiple pleadings, Zamoranos had stated that she was a Roman
Catholic. On reconsideration, however, the CA corrected itself and admitted error in applying the admissions made in
1999 to the previous marriage contracted in 1982. The pleadings showed that the admissions were made "during and
after [Zamoranos'] marriage to Pacasum."[12] It recognized as undisputed the fact that the previous marriage between
Zamoranos and De Guzman was solemnized and entered into under Muslim rites. The CA held that "a collateral
attack against [the Decree of Divorce], much less one embedded merely as an incident to an administrative complaint
lodged before a mere quasi-judicial tribunal such as the [CSC], cannot be countenanced x x x." [13]
Pacasum then filed this petition for review on certiorari arguing that the Shari'a court had no jurisdiction to dissolve
Zamoranos' first marriage. Consequently, her marriage to Pacasum was bigamous.
II
The Muslim Code recognizes divorce in marriages between Muslims, and mixed marriages wherein only the male
party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or the Muslim Code in any part of
the Philippines.[14] At present, this is the only law in the Philippines that allows domestic divorce. [15]
There are seven modes of effecting divorce under the Muslim Code, namely: 1) repudiation of the wife by the
husband (talaq); 2) vow of continence by the husband (ila); 3) injurious assimilation of the wife by the husband
(zihar); 4) acts of imprecation (lian); 5) redemption by the wife (khul'); 6) exercise by the wife of the delegated right to
repudiate (tafwld); or 7) judicial decree (faskh).[16] The divorce becomes irrevocable after observance of a period of
waiting called idda,[17] the duration of which is three monthly courses after termination of the marriage by
divorce.[18] Once irrevocable, the divorce has the following effects: the severance of the marriage bond and, as a
consequence, the spouses may contract another marriage; loss of the spouses' mutual rights of inheritance;