Castillo Vda. De Mijares v. Villaluz (1997) | A.C. No.

4431 | June 19, 1997

Complainant: PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES

Respondent: JUSTICE ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

SUMMARY: Former collegiate court justice Villaluz married trial court judge Castillo via de Mijares. Their marriage was short-lived as the
complainant questioned her husband’s fidelity; she learned later on that his husband has already married another woman. The evidence
points to the deceit and immoral conduct made by Villaluz by making a mockery out of marriage. The Supreme Court found him guilty of the
charges and suspended him from the practice of law for two years.

DOCTRINE: Code of Professional Responsibility: CANON 1, Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. CANON 7, Rule 7.03. - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether
in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

FACTS:
• Complainant is a trial court judge, while respondent former Justice Onofre A. Villaluz is a consultant at the Presidential Anti Crime
Commission (PACC) headed by Vice-President Joseph E. Estrada
• Complainant sought for the declaration of presumptive death following the death of her husband
• On 07 January 1994, complainant got married to the respondent.
o Later that day the went to the respondent’s condominium and two hours later, complainant answered the phone therein.
o At the other end of the line was a woman offending her with insulting remarks.
• The said phone call resulted into a quarrel between the newlyweds.
• Since then, the complainant and respondent have been living separately. Respondent never got in touch with her and did not even
bother to apologize for what happened.
• In a bible-sharing activity, complainant learned from Judge Makasiar that he solemnized the marriage between respondent former
Justice Villaluz and a certain Lydia Geraldez.
o The subsequent marriage was dated 10 May 1994 as evidenced by their marriage contract.
• According to the respondent, his marriage with complainant was a sham marriage made to help complainant with an administrative
case filed against her.
o In addition, he stated that his marriage with Librada Pea, his first wife, was subsisting because the Decision declaring the
annulment of such marriage had not yet become final and executory.

ISSUES + RULING
1. Whether or not the respondent is guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct - YES!
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
▪ Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
• He has made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
o Complainant and respondent contracted was a valid marriage is borne out by law and the evidence.
o At the time of his marriage to herein complainant, the decision of the court annulling his marriage to his first wife,
Librada Pea, had not yet attained finality.
o Respondent married another woman after making a false statement in his application for marriage license that his
previous marriage had been annulled.
• He was a Justice of the Court of Appeals who cannot but have been fully aware of the consequence of a marriage
celebrated with all the necessary legal requisites.
• The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of good moral character.
This qualification is not only a condition precedent for admission to the practice of law; its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.

1
RESOLUTION: Justice Onofre A. Villaluz, GUILTY of immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years effective upon notice hereof, with the specific WARNING that a more
severe penalty shall be imposed should he commit the same or a similar offense hereafter.