CASE #2

[AMT NO. MTJ-92-706 March 29, 1995]

LUPO ALMODIEL ATIENZA, complainant, vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO F. BRILLANTES, JR., Metropolitan
Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila, respondent.

FACTS:
On December 1991, petitioner Atienza witnessed respondent Judge Brillantes sleeping on the
petitioner’s. Petitioner states that he and Yolanda De Castro had two children out of wedlock and
that De Castro and their children reside in this residence which petitioner had purchased in 1987.
Petitioner was informed by a house boy that respondent had been cohabiting with De Castro.
Petitioner then filed this complaint against respondent for Gross Immorality and Appearance of
Impropriety on the basis that respondent is (1) married to one Zenaida Ongkiko, and (2) he has
five children with Onkiko.
Respondent then alleged that petitioner is not married to De Castro. Furthermore, respondent
denied that he was married to Ongkiko, since their marriage ceremony on April 25, 1965 was
invalid for the lack of a marriage license. They then remarried on June 5, 1965 but again failed to
secure a marriage license. Moreover, Ongkiko had abandoned respondent 17 years ago and left
him with the custody of their five children.
Respondent then claims that since his first marriage was formed without a license that his second
marriage with De Castro on December 4, 1991 was of good faith.
However, Article 40 of the Family Code states that there must be a declaration of nullity of a
previous marriage before a party can re-marry.
Respondent argues that Family Code does not apply to him as his first marriage took place in
1965 whereas Article 40 of the Family code was effective on August 3, 1988.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not respondent’s marriage to Ongkiko falls under Article 40 of the Family
Code.
2. Whether or not respondent is guilty of Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety.
RULING:
1. Article 40 of the Family Code is applicable to all remarriages entered into after the family
code’s effectivity on August 3, 1988.
2. Respondent does not meet the standard of moral fitness for membership in the legal
profession and, as such, has been dismissed from service with all benefits forfeited and
 with prejudice to reappointment to any branch, instrumentality, or agency of the
government.
ANALYSIS/APPLICATION:
Taking into consideration Article 256 of the Family code, stating therein that the article is given
retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the civil code or other laws, respondent’s initial marriage to one Ongkiko is
governed by the family code despite having taken place before its enactment.
With regards to the second issue, respondent, being a member of the Philippine bar as well as a
Metropolitan Trial Judge, was given no excuse as to his failure to acquire a marriage license and
therefore mocks the institution of marriage. The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the
conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to his
performance of his judicial duties but also as to his behavior as a private individual.
CONCLUSION:
The Court orders that respondent be dismissed from his service as a member of the judiciary,
stricken from all of his retirement benefits, and is given prejudice from reappointment to any
branch, agency, or instrumentality of the government.
LAWS/PROVISIONS:
Executive Order No. 209 or the Family Code

Article 40 - The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for the purposes of
remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.
Article 256 - This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair
vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.