l awphil

Today is Monday, June 18, 2012

Search
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
E !"#

A.M. No. MTJ-92-706 March 29, 1995
LUPO ALMODIEL ATIENA, co$plainant,
%s&
JUD!E "RANCISCO ". #RILLANTES, JR., M$%ro&o'(%a) Tr(a' Co*r%, #ra)ch 2+, Ma)('a, respondent.

,UIASON, J.:
This is a co$plaint by 'upo "& "tien(a for )ross *$$orality and "ppearance of *$propriety a+ainst Jud+e ,rancisco !rillantes,
Jr&, Presidin+ Jud+e of the Metropolitan Trial #ourt, !ranch 20, Manila&
#o$plainant alle+es that he has two children with -olanda .e #astro, who are li%in+ to+ether at o& /0 )ala1y Street, !el2"ir
Subdi%ision, Ma3ati, Metro Manila& 4e stays in said house, which he purchased in 1586, whene%er he is in Manila&
*n .ece$ber 1551, upon openin+ the door to his bedroo$, he saw respondent sleepin+ on his 7co$plainant8s9 bed& :pon in;uiry,
he was told by the houseboy that respondent had been cohabitin+ with .e #astro& #o$plainant did not bother to wa3e up
respondent and instead left the house after +i%in+ instructions to his houseboy to ta3e care of his children&
Thereafter, respondent pre%ented hi$ fro$ %isitin+ his children and e%en alienated the affection of his children for hi$&
#o$plainant clai$s that respondent is $arried to one <enaida =n+3i3o with who$ he has fi%e children, as appearin+ in his 158>
and 1551 sworn state$ents of assets and liabilities& ,urther$ore, he alle+es that respondent caused his arrest on January 1/,
1552, after he had a heated ar+u$ent with .e #astro inside the latter8s office&
,or his part, respondent alle+es that co$plainant was not $arried to .e #astro and that the filin+ of the ad$inistrati%e action was
related to co$plainant8s clai$ on the !el2"ir residence, which was disputed by .e #astro&
Respondent denies that he caused co$plainant8s arrest and clai$s that he was e%en a witness to the withdrawal of the co$plaint
for )ra%e Slander filed by .e #astro a+ainst co$plainant& "ccordin+ to hi$, it was the sister of .e #astro who called the police
to arrest co$plainant&
Respondent also denies ha%in+ been $arried to =n+3i3o, althou+h he ad$its ha%in+ fi%e children with her& 4e alle+es that while
he and =n+3i3o went throu+h a $arria+e cere$ony before a ue%a Eci?a town $ayor on "pril 2@, 15>@, the sa$e was not a
%alid $arria+e for lac3 of a $arria+e license& :pon the re;uest of the parents of =n+3i3o, respondent went throu+h another
$arria+e cere$ony with her in Manila on June @, 15>@& "+ain, neither party applied for a $arria+e license& =n+3i3o abandoned
respondent 16 years a+o, lea%in+ their children to his care and custody as a sin+le parent&
Respondent clai$s that when he $arried .e #astro in ci%il rites in 'os "n+eles, #alifornia on .ece$ber 0, 1551, he belie%ed, in
all +ood faith and for all le+al intents and purposes, that he was sin+le because his first $arria+e was sole$ni(ed without a
license&
:nder the ,a$ily #ode, there $ust be a ?udicial declaration of the nullity of a pre%ious $arria+e before a party thereto can enter
into a second $arria+e& "rticle 00 of said #ode pro%idesA
The absolute nullity of a pre%ious $arria+e $ay be in%o3ed for the purposes of re$arria+e on the basis
solely of a final ?ud+$ent declarin+ such pre%ious $arria+e %oid&
Respondent ar+ues that the pro%ision of "rticle 00 of the ,a$ily #ode does not apply to hi$ considerin+ that his first $arria+e
too3 place in 15>@ and was +o%erned by the #i%il #ode of the PhilippinesB while the second $arria+e too3 place in 1551 and
+o%erned by the ,a$ily #ode&
"rticle 00 is applicable to re$arria+es entered into after the effecti%ity of the ,a$ily #ode on "u+ust /, 1588 re+ardless of the
date of the first $arria+e& !esides, under "rticle 2@> of the ,a$ily #ode, said "rticle is +i%en Cretroacti%e effect insofar as it does
not pre?udice or i$pair %ested or ac;uired ri+hts in accordance with the #i%il #ode or other laws&C This is particularly true with
"rticle 00, which is a rule of procedure& Respondent has not shown any %ested ri+ht that was i$paired by the application of
"rticle 00 to his case&
The fact that procedural statutes $ay so$ehow affect the liti+ants8 ri+hts $ay not preclude their retroacti%e application to
pendin+ actions& The retroacti%e application of procedural laws is not %iolati%e of any ri+ht of a person who $ay feel that he is
ad%ersely affected 7)re+orio %& #ourt of "ppeals, 2> S#R" 225 D15>8E9& The reason is that as a +eneral rule no %ested ri+ht $ay
attach to, nor arise fro$, procedural laws 7!illones %& #ourt of *ndustrial Relations, 10 S#R" >60 D15>@E9&
Respondent is the last person allowed to in%o3e +ood faith& 4e $ade a $oc3ery of the institution of $arria+e and e$ployed
deceit to be able to cohabit with a wo$an, who be+et hi$ fi%e children&
Respondent passed the !ar e1a$inations in 15>2 and was ad$itted to the practice of law in 15>/& "t the ti$e he went throu+h
the two $arria+e cere$onies with =n+3i3o, he was already a lawyer& -et, he ne%er secured any $arria+e license& "ny law
student would 3now that a $arria+e license is necessary before one can +et $arried& Respondent was +i%en an opportunity to
correct the flaw in his first $arria+e when he and =n+3i3o were $arried for the second ti$e& 4is failure to secure a $arria+e
license on these two occasions betrays his sinister $oti%es and bad faith&
*t is e%ident that respondent failed to $eet the standard of $oral fitness for $e$bership in the le+al profession&
Fhile the deceit e$ployed by respondent e1isted prior to his appoint$ent as a Metropolitan Trial Jud+e, his i$$oral and ille+al
act of cohabitin+ with .e #astro be+an and continued when he was already in the ?udiciary&
The #ode of Judicial Ethics $andates that the conduct of a ?ud+e $ust be free of a whiff of i$propriety, not only with respect to
his perfor$ance of his ?udicial duties but also as to his beha%ior as a pri%ate indi%idual& There is no duality of $orality& " public
fi+ure is also ?ud+ed by his pri%ate life& " ?ud+e, in order to pro$ote public confidence in the inte+rity and i$partiality of the
?udiciary, $ust beha%e with propriety at all ti$es, in the perfor$ance of his ?udicial duties and in his e%eryday life& These are
?udicial +uideposts too self2e%ident to be o%erloo3ed& o position e1acts a +reater de$and on $oral ri+hteousness and
upri+htness of an indi%idual than a seat in the ?udiciary 7*$bin+ %& Tion+(on, 225 S#R" >50 D1550E9&
F4ERE,=RE, respondent is .*SM*SSE. fro$ the ser%ice with forfeiture of all lea%e and retire$ent benefits and with pre?udice
to reappoint$ent in any branch, instru$entality, or a+ency of the +o%ern$ent, includin+ +o%ern$ent2owned and controlled
corporations& This decision is i$$ediately e1ecutory&
S= =R.ERE.&
Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza and
Francisco, JJ., concur.
The 'awphil Pro?ect 2 "rellano 'aw ,oundation