OBJECTIVES:
Discuss the facts of the case
Spot the relevant issue
Discuss the application of Article 40 of the
Family Code to the case.
Discuss retroactive effect of the Family Code
(Art. 257)
Discuss the ruling of the Supreme Court.
OVERVIEW
Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court.
Gross Immorality and Impropriety.
People involve:
Atienza Complainant
Judge Brillantes, Jr. Respondent
De Castro live in partner of Atienza and
mother of his two children
Ongkiko Wife of Brillantes, Jr. in his first
marriage
The Houseboy
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENT
Article 40 of the said Code is not applicable
to him.
1st marriage took place in 1965 (governed by
Civil Code)
2nd marriage took place in 1991 (governed by
Family Code)
ISSUES:
WON article 40 of the Family Code is
applicable to the subsequent marriage
entered into by the respondent.
WON Respondents acts constitute a gross
immorality and impropriety, thus making him
morally unfit member in the legal profession.
HELD:
Yes. Article 40 is applicable to remarriages
entered into after the effectivity of the Family
Code on August 3, 1988 regardless of the
date of the first marriage.
under Article 256 of the FC, said article is
given retroactive effect insofar as it does not
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights
in accordance with Civil Code or other laws.
OBJECTIVES:
Discuss the facts of the case
Spot relevant issue
Discuss the application of Article 40 of the
Family Code to the case.
Discuss retroactive effect of the Family Code
(Art. 257)
Discuss the ruling of the Supreme Court.