ATIENZA VS BRILLANTES, JR.

ATIENZA VS BRILLANTES, JR.

234 SCRA 1

AM NO MTJ-92-706

Date: March 29, 1995

Complainant: Lupo Almodiel Atienza

Respondent: Judge Francisco F. Brillantes Jr.

I. FACTS: Respondent Judge Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr. was charged by petitioner Lupo Almodiel
Atienza for Gross Immorality & Appearance of Impropriety. Francisco is allegedly cohabiting with
Yolanda De Castro & thereafter married in civil rites in Los Angeles, California on December 4,
1991 while in a subsisting marriage with Zenaida Ongkiko. Lupo claims that Francisco is married
to Zenaida Ongkiko, whom he has five children as appearing on his 1986 & 1991 sworn
statements of assets and liabilities. However, he denied having been married to Ongkiko,
although he admits having five children with her. He alleges that while he & Ongkiko went
through two marriage ceremonies. First was before a Nueva Ecija town mayor on April 25, 1965
and second in Manila on June 5, 1965. Neither party applied for marriage license on both
marriage ceremonies.

Respondent claims that when he married De Castro, he believed, in all good faith & for all legal
intents & purposes that he was single because his first marriage was solemnized without a
license.

II. ISSUE: Whether or not Brillantes is guilty of Gross Immorality & Appearance of Impropriety.

III. RULING:

The court held that respondent is the last person allowed to invoke good faith. He made a
mockery of the institution of marriage & employed deceit to be able to cohabit with a woman,
who beget him five children. Respondent passed the Bar Examinations in 1962 & was admitted to
the practice of law in 1963. 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. Therefore, respondent is dismissed from the service.

IV: PRINCIPLE/ DOCTRINE/ RATIO:

 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 judicial duties but also as to his behavior as a
private individual. A public figure is also judged by his private life. No position exacts a
greater demand on moral righteousness & uprightness of an individual than a seat in a
judiciary (Imbing v Tiongzon, 229 SCRA 690 [1994])