Sherwin P.

Maganda
1st Year BL5-A
Civil Law 1 - Persons

Atienza vs. Brillantes

A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, March 29, 1995
Ponente: QUIASON, J.:

Principle in Law: Non-Retroactivity of Laws

Facts:

Lupo Almodiel Atienza filed an administrative case against Judge Brillantes for Gross Immorality
and Appearance of Impropriety.

It was alleged by Atienza that Brillantes has been cohabiting with Yolanda de Castro (with whom
Atienza had 2 children) when he was already married to Zenaida Ongkiko with whom he has 5 children.
In December 1991, Atienza caught the respondent sleeping on his bed in his purchased house at No. 34
Galaxy Street, Bel-Air Subdivision, Makati, Metro Manila. He asked the houseboy about him and the
latter said that the judge had been cohabiting with De Castro. Atienza did not bother to wake up the
respondent instead asked the houseboy to take care of his two children.

Thereafter, Brillantes prevented him from visiting his children and even alienated the affection
of his children from him. Complainant Atienza also alleged that respondent caused his arrest on January
13, 1992, after he had a heated argument with De Castro inside the latter’s office.

Brillantes, who became a lawyer in 1963, denied having been married to Ongkiko although he
admitted having 5 children with her. He alleges that while he and Ongkiko went through a marriage
ceremony twice, first in April 25, 1965 before a Nueva Ecija town mayor and second in June 5, 1965 in
Manila, both were not a valid marriage for lack of a marriage license. Respondent Brillantes claims that
when he married De Castro in civil rites in Los Angeles, California on December 4, 1991, he believed, in
all good faith and for all legal intents and purposes, that he was single because his first marriage to
Ongkiko was solemnized without a marriage license.

Brillantes argues that the provision of Art. 40 of the Family Code does not apply to him
considering that his first marriage with Ongkiko took place in 1965 and was governed by the Civil Code
of the Philippines while the second marriage with De Castro which took place in 1991 was governed by
the Family Code.

Issue:

(1) Whether Article 40 of the Family Code that required nullity of previous marriage for purpose
of remarriage does not apply to him retroactively; and,
(2) Is the absence of a marriage license of his previous marriage justifies his act to cohabit with
Yolanda De Castro?
Ruling:

(1) No, it is applicable. Article 40 of the Family Code is applicable to remarriages entered into
after the effectivity of the Family Code in 1988 regardless of the date of the first marriage.
As a general rule, provided in Article 4 of the New Civil Code, laws shall have no retroactive
effect unless the contrary is provided. Besides, under Article 256 of the Family Code, said
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."

As a general rule, no vested right may arise from procedural laws. Respondent has not
shown any vested right that was impaired by the application of Article 40 to his case. Article
40 is a rule of procedure, hence it has no vested right and therefore cannot be violative of
rights vested in other laws. Therefore, it has retroactive effect and is thus applicable to
respondent's marriage to Ongkiko in 1965.

(2) No it is not justifiable because 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. There is no duality of
morality. A public figure is also judged by his private life. A judge, in order to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at
all times, in the performance of his judicial duties and in his everyday life. These are judicial
guideposts too self-evident to be overlooked. No position exacts a greater demand on moral
righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary (Imbing v.
Tiongzon 229 SCRA 690 [1994]).

Brillantes passed the Bar examinations in 1962 and was admitted to the practice of law in
1963. At the time he went through the two marriage ceremonies with Ongkiko, he was
already a lawyer. Yet, he never secured any marriage license. Any law student would know
that a marriage license is necessary before one can get married. Respondent was given an
opportunity to correct the flaw in his first marriage when he and Ongkiko were married for
the second time. His failure to secure a marriage license on these two occasions betrays his
sinister motives and bad faith. It is evident that respondent failed to meet the standard of
moral fitness for membership in the legal profession.

Conclusion:

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.