LUPO ALMODIEL ATIENZA, complainant,

vs.
JUDGE FRANCISCO F. BRILLANTES, JR., Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 28,
Manila, respondent.

Facts:
This is a complaint by Lupo A. Atienza for Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety
against Judge Francisco Brillantes, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch
20, Manila.

Complainant alleges that he has two children with De Castro who stays in Bel Air Subdivision,
Makati, Manila in the house he bought in 1987 and stayed while he is in Manila. Sometime in
1991 he saw Respondent Judge sleeping on his bed. Upon inquiry, he was told by the houseboy
that respondent was cohabiting with her wife, Yolanda De Castro. Complainant further alleged
that respondent was married to a certain Zenaida Ongkiko and begot five children.

In response, respondent Brillantes alleged that complainant Atienza was not married to De
Castro. He also denied having been married to Zenaida Ongkiko, however admitted having five
children with her. He stated that his marriage with Ongkiko was not valid since there was no
marriage license albeit having celebrated two separate marriage ceremonies (Nueva Ecija and
Manila in the same year). Further, Brillantes claimed that when he married De Castro in civil
rites in LA, California, he believed in all good faith of its intent and purpose.

Issue:
Whether or not Article 40 of the Family Code which requires judicial declaration of nullity of
previous marriage for purpose of remarriage shall apply?

Held / Rationale:
Article 40 of the Family Code provides that a Judicial Declaration of Nullity is required before a
party can enter into second marriage. The said Code took effect only on August 3, 1988 and the
marriages that respondent contracted were in 1965 and in 1991. However, the Court ruled that
the provisions of this code shall apply regardless of the date of the marriage. As a general rule
provided in Article 4 of the NCC, "Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is
provided." One of the exceptions is Art 256 of the Family Code. Under Article 256 of the Family
Code, "this Code shall have retroactive effect in so far as it does not prejudice or impair vested or
acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws”. This is particularly true with
ART. 40 which is a rule of procedure. As a general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise
from, procedural laws. Respondent has not shown any vested right that was impaired by the
application of Art. 40 to his case.
Respondent is the last person allowed to invoke good faith. He made a mockery of the institution
of marriage and employed deceit to be able to cohabit with a woman.

WHEREFORE, respondent is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all leave and
retirement benefits and with prejudice to reappointment in any branch, instrumentality, or agency
of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations. This decision is
immediately executory.