A.M. No. MTJ-92-706 - Atienza vs. Brillantes, Jr.

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-92-706)

Allegations by the Complainant

Complainant alleges that he and Yolanda De Castro had two children and that De Castro and those children resided at his Bel‑Air house, which he purchased in 1987 and where he stayed when in Manila. On a December 1991 morning he discovered respondent asleep in his bedroom. The houseboy told him respondent had been cohabiting with De Castro. Complainant claims that after this incident respondent prevented him from visiting his children and alienated their affection. He also asserts respondent was married to Zenaida Ongkiko (as reflected in respondent’s 1986 and 1991 sworn statements of assets and liabilities) and further claims respondent caused his arrest on January 13, 1992 following a heated argument with De Castro.

Respondent’s Defense

Respondent denied several material allegations: he maintained that complainant was not married to De Castro and suggested the complaint was motivated by the property dispute over the Bel‑Air residence. Respondent denied causing petitioner’s arrest and stated he even witnessed the withdrawal of De Castro’s grave slander complaint; he attributed the actual call to the police to De Castro’s sister. Concerning marital status, respondent admitted fathering five children with Zenaida Ongkiko but denied a valid marriage to her, explaining that he and Ongkiko underwent two ceremonies in 1965 (one before a Nueva Ecija town mayor on April 25, and a later ceremony in Manila on June 5) without obtaining a marriage license on either occasion. Ongkiko allegedly abandoned him some 19 years earlier. Respondent asserted that when he married De Castro in civil rites in Los Angeles on December 4, 1991 he honestly believed himself to be single, because his first marriage had been solemnized without a license.

Legal Issues Presented

The complaint raises two interrelated legal questions: (1) whether respondent’s relationship and alleged cohabitation with De Castro while he was a sitting judge constituted gross immorality and an appearance of impropriety sufficient to warrant disciplinary action; and (2) whether respondent’s purported 1991 marriage to De Castro was valid in light of his prior 1965 marriage to Ongkiko that lacked a marriage license, and whether Article 40 of the Family Code—requiring a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void as a predicate to remarriage—applies to a case where the earlier marriage predated the Family Code’s effectivity.

Court’s Analysis — Applicability and Retroactivity of Article 40, Family Code

The Court examined Article 40 of the Family Code, which provides that absolute nullity of a prior marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage only on the basis of a final judgment declaring the prior marriage void. The Court held Article 40 applicable to remarriages entered into after the Family Code’s effectivity (August 3, 1988), regardless of the date of the first marriage. The Court applied Article 256 of the Family Code, which grants the Code retroactive effect “insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.” The Court characterized Article 40 as a rule of procedure and held that procedural statutes may be applied retroactively where they do not prejudice vested rights. To support this position the Court relied on prior jurisprudence recognizing that no vested right normally attaches to procedural laws (citing Gregorio v. Court of Appeals and Billones v. Court of Industrial Relations). The respondent failed to demonstrate any vested right that would be impaired by applying Article 40 to his case; consequently Article 40 governed the validity of the 1991 remarriage.

Court’s Assessment of Respondent’s Claim of Good Faith

The Court rejected respondent’s invocation of good faith. It emphasized respondent’s professional background—he passed the Bar in 1962 and was admitted to the practice of law in 1963—which, the Court reasoned, made him particularly aware of the requirement of a marriage license. Respondent’s failure to secure a license in both 1965 ceremonies, and his subsequent remarriage abroad without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior union, was viewed as deliberate and deceitful. The Court concluded respondent’s conduct constituted a willful evasion of the legal requisites for valid marriage and therefore could not be excused by asserted ignorance or good faith.

Judicial Ethics, Moral Fitness and Public Confidence

The Court evaluated the respondent’s privat

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-92-706)

Procedural Identification and Citation

Reporter citation: 312 Phil. 939, En Banc.
Administrative matter number: A.M. No. MTJ-92-706.
Date of decision: March 29, 1995.
Opinion by: QUIASON, J.
Nature of proceeding: Administrative complaint for Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety against a sitting judge (Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 20, Manila).
Disposition: Dismissal from 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; decision immediately executory.
Justices concurring: Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, and Francisco, JJ.

Parties and Roles

Complainant: Lupo A. Atienza.
- Alleged victim of respondent's conduct concerning his household and children.
Respondent: Judge Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr., Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 20, Manila.
- Alleged to have engaged in cohabitation, deceit in marital status, and actions leading to complainant’s arrest.
Other persons referenced:
- Yolanda De Castro: Mother of two children allegedly fathered by complainant and alleged cohabitant with respondent.
- Houseboy: Witness of respondent sleeping in complainant’s bed and informant to complainant.
- Zenaida Ongkiko: Woman alleged by complainant to be respondent’s wife and mother of respondent’s five children; respondent admits to having five children with her.
- Sister of De Castro: Alleged by respondent to have called the police leading to complainant’s arrest.
- Parents of Ongkiko: Requested a second marriage ceremony between respondent and Ongkiko.

Factual Background — Complainant’s Allegations

Residence and family:
- Complainant and Yolanda De Castro have two children.
- The family allegedly lived together at No. 34 Galaxy Street, Bel-Air Subdivision, Makati, Metro Manila.
- Complainant purchased the house in 1987 and stays there when in Manila.
Incident in December 1991:
- Complainant, upon opening the door to his bedroom, saw respondent sleeping on his bed.
- The houseboy told complainant that respondent had been cohabiting with De Castro.
- Complainant did not wake respondent; he left the house after instructing the houseboy to care for his children.
Subsequent conduct alleged:
- Respondent allegedly prevented complainant from visiting his children and alienated the children’s affection for him.
Marital-status allegation:
- Complainant claims respondent is married to Zenaida Ongkiko and has five children with her, as appearing in respondent’s 1986 and 1991 sworn statements of assets and liabilities.
Arrest allegation:
- Complainant alleges respondent caused his arrest on January 13, 1992, after a heated argument between complainant and De Castro inside De Castro’s office.

Respondent’s Account and Defenses

Relationship to De Castro:
- Respondent asserts complainant was not married to De Castro.
- Respondent contends the administrative action was connected to a dispute over complainant’s claim on the Bel-Air residence, which was disputed by De Castro.
Arrest denial:
- Respondent denies causing complainant’s arrest.
- He states that he was a witness to the withdrawal of a complaint for Grave Slander filed by De Castro against complainant.
- Respondent alleges that it was De Castro’s sister who called the police to arrest complainant.
Marital history and claim of good faith:
- Respondent denies having been married to Ongkiko but admits having five children with her.
- Recites two marriage ceremonies with Ongkiko:
  - April 25, 1965: Ceremony before a Nueva Ecija town mayor; respondent contends the marriage was not valid for lack of a marriage license.
  - June 5, 1965: Another ceremony in Manila at the request of Ongkiko’s parents; again, no marriage license was obtained.
- Ongkiko allegedly abandoned respondent 19 years prior to the decision, leaving the children to his care as a single parent.
- Respondent claims that when he married De Castro in civil rites in Los Angeles, California on December 4, 1991, he believed in good faith that he was single because his first marriage had been solemnized without a license.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether respondent’s prior ceremonial marriages to Ongkiko (without license) precluded him from validly marrying De Castro on December 4, 1991, without first obtaining a judicial declaration of the nullity of the prior marriage.
Whether Article 40 of the Family Code and Article 256’s retroactivity provision apply to respondent’s circumstances.
Whether respondent’s conduct constitutes gross immorality and appearance of impropriety warranting administrative sanction, including dismissal.
Whether respondent may invoke good faith to justify remarriage without annulment or judicial declaration of nullity.

Relevant Statutory and Doctrinal Law (as cited in the decision)

Family Code, Article 40 (quoted as provided):
- "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."
Family Code, Article 256:
- Provides that certain provisions (including Article 40) are given "retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice