Title: Lupo A Atienza V.

Judge Francico Brillantes, Presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial

Court, Branch 28, Manila for the case of
Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety
Facts:
Lupo Atienza filed for Gross Immorality and Appearance Impropriety to Judge Francisco Brillantes.
Complainant saw the respondent sleeping in his bed at his house at Bel Air Subd, Makati which he
bought in 1987 and found out that the respondent is cohabiting with his wife.
Complainant alleges that respondent is married to one Zenaida Ongkiko and has 5 children as shown
on his 1986 and 1991 SALN.
Respondent alleges that he has 5 children but denies being married to Ongkiko they went 2 marriage
ceremony, that was on April 25, 1965 and on June 5, 1965 but they didn’t applied for marriage license
and that the respondent is also not married to De Castro.
Respondent claims that he and De Castro married on Dec 4, 1991 in Los Angeles, California.
Under Family Code, there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage before a
party thereto can enter into a second marriage.
Respondent argues that the provision of Art 40 of the Family Code does not apply to him
considering his first marriage took place in 1965 and was governed by the Civil Code of the Phi. while
his 2nd marriage took place in 1991 and governed by the Family Code.
Art. 40. Of the Family Code- The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on
the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.

Republic Act No. 8533 February 23, 1998 AN ACT AMENDING TITLE I, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 39 OF EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 209, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, NULLIFYING THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
FOR ACTION OR DEFENSES GROUNDED ON PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

July 6, 1978 E.O No. 209 The family Code of the Phi. created

Art. 39. The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity shall not prescribe. However, in case of marriage
celebrated before the effectivity of this Code and falling under Article 36, such action or defense shall prescribe in ten
years after this Code shall taken effect. (As amended by Executive Order 227) (n)

Issue:
Whether or not Brillantes is guilty of immorality and appearance of impropriety for contracting a
second marriage while in an exising marriage.

Ruling:
The court held that respondent is the last person allowed to invoke good faith. He made a mockery of
the institution of marriage and employed deceit to be able to cohabit with a woman, who beget him
five children. 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 ad faith. It is evident that respondent failed to meet the
standards of moral fitness for membership in legal profession. As such, respondent is dismissed from
service.
Title: PHILIPPINE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
vs COMMISSION ON AUDIT, DIR. RODULFO ARIESGA (Dir of the COA)

Facts:

The petitioners filed a petition against the Commission on Audit regarding the conduct of an audit
survey pursuant to COA office Order No. 2003051.

COAs primary function to examine, audit and settle all accounts and expenditures of the funds and
properties of the Philippine government.

The petitioner argues that they are not a government corporation that subject to audit by respondent
COA. For the ff grounds:

 Even though they were created by special legislation in 1905 as there was no general
law then existing under w/c it may be organized or incorporated, it exercises no
governmental functions
 Nowhere in its charter is it indicated that it is a public corporation
 They are not exempted from tax
 Employees are covered by SSS and not through GSIS.
 Petitioner does not receive any form of financial assistance from the government
 The petitioner has no power to make arrests or serve processes
 No gov’t appointee or representative sits on the board of trustees
 The decision of the petitioner is not subject to the approval or control by any govt
agency

The respondents contend that since the petitioner is a “body politic” created by virtue of a special
legislation and endowed with a govtal purpose, then, undubitably, The COA may audit the financial
activities of the petitioner.

Issue:

WON the PHILIPPINE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS is a

government corporation that is subjected to COA audit?

Ruling:

The court held that test to determine whether a corporation is govt owned or controlled, or private in
nature is simple the following:

 Is it created by its own charter for the exercise of a public function or by incorporation under
the general corporation?
 Employees are under the jurisdiction of the CSC?
 Employees are covered by GSIS?