Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-92-706)
Factual Background
Atienza discovered Respondent sleeping in his bedroom with De Castro in December 1991. He left without confronting Brillantes but later was prevented from visiting his children and alleged that Brillantes alienated their affections. Atienza also claimed that Brillantes caused his arrest on January 13, 1992, following an argument with De Castro, and that De Castro had filed—then withdrawn—a grave slander complaint against him.
Respondent’s Denials and Position
Brillantes denied cohabiting with De Castro in a marital sense and asserted that the administrative complaint was motivated by Atienza’s property dispute with De Castro. He disavowed causing Atienza’s arrest, attributing it to De Castro’s sister. He admitted two wedding ceremonies with Ongkiko but insisted both lacked valid marriage licenses, rendering him single in good faith when he remarried De Castro in 1991.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Respondent’s marriages without license constituted absolute nullity under the Family Code, invalidating his good-faith belief of singleness.
- Whether the cohabitation with De Castro and deceit in marital status amount to gross immorality and appearance of impropriety under the Code of Judicial Ethics.
- Appropriate administrative sanction for a judge whose private conduct may undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Applicable Law
The 1987 Constitution demands integrity and impartiality in the judiciary. The Family Code’s Article 40 provides that absolute nullity of a previous marriage for purposes of remarriage requires a final judgment. Article 256 grants retroactive effect to procedural provisions not impairing vested rights. The Code of Judicial Ethics prohibits any conduct that casts doubt on a judge’s honesty, diligence, or impartiality.
Analysis on Marriage Validity
Article 40 applies to all remarriages after August 3, 1988, regardless of when the first marriage occurred, and its retroactivity to procedural matters does not violate vested rights (Billones v. CIR; Gregorio v. CA). Respondent failed to obtain a license in both 1965 ceremonies and never secured a judicial declaration of nullity before his 1991 marriage to De Castro. His claim of good faith is untenable given his legal training and awareness of the license requirement.
Moral Fitness and Deceit
By deliberately marrying without license to conceal his marital status, Respondent demonstrated bad faith and deceit. His actions mock the institution of marriage and reflect a failure to adhere to basic legal and ethical standards. This conduct—dating from before but continuing into his judicial tenure—fal
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-92-706)
Background
- En banc administrative complaint filed by Lupo A. Atienza under A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, decided March 29, 1995.
- Complaint alleges gross immorality and appearance of impropriety against Judge Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr., presiding judge of the MTC, Branch 20, Manila.
- Decision penned by Justice Quiason, with concurrence of the entire Court.
Facts of the Case
- Complainant Lupo Atienza and Yolanda De Castro have two children and share residence at No. 34 Galaxy Street, Bel-Air Subdivision, Makati.
- Complainant purchased the house in 1987 and stays there when in Manila.
- In December 1991, complainant opened his bedroom door to find respondent sleeping in his bed.
- Houseboy informed complainant that respondent had been cohabiting with De Castro.
- Complainant left the premises without confronting respondent, instructing the houseboy to care for his children.
- Afterward, respondent allegedly prevented complainant from visiting his children and alienated their affection.
- Complainant further asserts respondent caused his arrest on January 13, 1992, following a heated argument with De Castro inside her office.
Complainant’s Allegations
- Gross immorality: illicit cohabitation of a sitting judge with a woman who is not his wife.
- Appearance of impropriety: respondent’s conduct undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
- Bigamy or false marital status: respondent is married to Zenaida Ongkiko with five children, as shown in his 1986 and 1991 sworn statements of assets and liabilities.
- Abuse of judicial process: causing complainant’s arrest to intimidate and alienate him from his children.
Respondent’s Defenses
- Denies marriage to De Castro, contending no legal union existed between them.
- Asserts the complaint stems from a property dispute over the Bel-Air residence.
- Denies responsibility for com