Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 203 views

    Legal Memorandum

    Uploaded by

    Juris Poet
    This document is a memorandum submitted to the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding an administrative case against Judge Francisco Brillantes for gross immorality and the appearance of impropriety. The memorandum alleges that Judge Brillantes cohabited with Yolanda De Castro while married to another woman, Zenaida Ongkiko, with whom he has five children. It further argues that Judge Brillantes failed to meet the standards of moral fitness required for membership in the legal profession by making a mockery of marriage through deceit and continuing his immoral cohabitation with De Castro while serving as a judge. The memorandum requests that Judge Brillantes be dismissed from service with loss of benefits due to his failure to uphold the code of judicial

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Legal Memorandum

    Uploaded by

    Juris Poet
    203 views4 pages
    This document is a memorandum submitted to the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding an administrative case against Judge Francisco Brillantes for gross immorality and the appearance of impropriety. The memorandum alleges that Judge Brillantes cohabited with Yolanda De Castro while married to another woman, Zenaida Ongkiko, with whom he has five children. It further argues that Judge Brillantes failed to meet the standards of moral fitness required for membership in the legal profession by making a mockery of marriage through deceit and continuing his immoral cohabitation with De Castro while serving as a judge. The memorandum requests that Judge Brillantes be dismissed from service with loss of benefits due to his failure to uphold the code of judicial

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a memorandum submitted to the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding an administrative case against Judge Francisco Brillantes for gross immorality and the appearance of impropriety. The memorandum alleges that Judge Brillantes cohabited with Yolanda De Castro while married to another woman, Zenaida Ongkiko, with whom he has five children. It further argues that Judge Brillantes failed to meet the standards of moral fitness required for membership in the legal profession by making a mockery of marriage through deceit and continuing his immoral cohabitation with De Castro while serving as a judge. The memorandum requests that Judge Brillantes be dismissed from service with loss of benefits due to his failure to uphold the code of judicial

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    203 views4 pages

    Legal Memorandum

    Uploaded by

    Juris Poet
    This document is a memorandum submitted to the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding an administrative case against Judge Francisco Brillantes for gross immorality and the appearance of impropriety. The memorandum alleges that Judge Brillantes cohabited with Yolanda De Castro while married to another woman, Zenaida Ongkiko, with whom he has five children. It further argues that Judge Brillantes failed to meet the standards of moral fitness required for membership in the legal profession by making a mockery of marriage through deceit and continuing his immoral cohabitation with De Castro while serving as a judge. The memorandum requests that Judge Brillantes be dismissed from service with loss of benefits due to his failure to uphold the code of judicial

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The key takeaways are that the respondent judge is accused of immoral and illegal acts including cohabiting with another woman while still married to his first wife and deceiving both women, as well as preventing the complainant from seeing his children.

    The main allegations made against the respondent judge are that he cohabited with Yolanda De Castro while still married to his first wife Zenaida Ongkiko, and that he caused the arrest of the complainant after an argument with De Castro.

    The respondent judge's defenses are that his first marriage to Zenaida Ongkiko was invalid due to lack of a marriage license, and that he believed in good faith he was single when he married De Castro in 1991. He also denies preventing the complainant from seeing his children.

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila City

    LUPO ALMODIEL ATIENZA


    Complainant,
    -versus-

    ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. L2235


    For: Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety

    JUDGE FRANCISCO F. BRILLANTES, JR., Metropolitan Trial Court,


    Branch 28, Manila,
    Respondent.
    x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
    MEMORANDUM

    COME NOW COMPLAINANT, through the undersigned counsel,


    unto this Honorable Supreme Court most respectfully submit and present
    this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:
    THE PARTIES
    1. Complainat Lupo A. Atienza is of legal age, married, and residing on
    No. 34 Galaxy Street, Bel-Air Subdivision, Makati, Metro Manila, where he
    may be served with legal processes and notices issued by this Honorable
    Court;
    2. Defendant Judge Francisco F. Brillantes is of legal age and residing on
    123 Binibini Street, Quezon City, and may be served with legal processes
    and other judicial notices thereto.

    I.

    FACTUAL BACKGROUND

    1. Complainant alleges that he has two children with Yolanda De Castro,


    who are living together at No. 34 Galaxy Street, Bel-Air Subdivision,
    Makati, Metro Manila. He stays in said house, which he purchased in 1987,
    whenever he is in Manila.

    2. In December 1991, upon opening the door to his bedroom,


    Complainant saw respondent sleeping on his (complainant's) bed. Upon
    inquiry, he was told by the houseboy that respondent had been cohabiting
    with De Castro. Complainant did not bother to wake up respondent and
    instead left the house after giving instructions to his houseboy to take care of
    his children.
    3. Thereafter, respondent prevented him from visiting his children and
    even alienated the affection of his children for him.
    4. Complainant claims that respondent is married to one Zenaida
    Ongkiko with whom he
    has five children, as appearing in his 1986 and
    1991 sworn statements of assets and liabilities. Furthermore, he alleges that
    respondent caused his arrest on January 13, 1992, after he had a heated
    argument with De Castro inside the latter's office.
    5. On the other hand, Respondent alleges that complainant was not
    married to De Castro and that the filing of the administrative action was
    related to complainant's claim on the Bel-Air residence, which was disputed
    by De Castro.
    6. Respondent also denies having been married to Ongkiko, although he
    admits having five children with her. He alleges that while he and Ongkiko
    went through a marriage ceremony before a Nueva Ecija town mayor on
    April 25, 1965, the same was not a valid marriage for lack of a marriage
    license. Upon the request of the parents of Ongkiko, respondent went
    through another marriage ceremony with her in Manila on June 5, 1965.
    Again, neither party applied for a marriage license. Ongkiko abandoned
    respondent 17 years ago, leaving their children to his care and custody as a
    single parent.
    7. Respondent 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 was solemnized without a license.

    II.

    ISSUES OF THE CASE

    A. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE FAILED


    TO MEET THE STANDARD OF MORAL FITNESS FOR
    MEMBERSHIP IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION.

    B. ARGUMENTS
    A. Yes, the respondent judge failed to meet the standards of moral fitness
    for membership in the legal profession for the the following reasons
    1. 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.
    It must be noted by the Honorable Court that Respondent 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.

    2. The judges immoral and illegal act of cohabiting with De Castro


    began and continued when he was already in the judiciary.
    It must also be noted by the court that 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 judiciary1

    PRAYER
    1

    Imbing v. Tiongzon, 229 SCRA 690


    3

    WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that


    this Honorable Supreme Court that respondent judge be 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
    Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being
    prayed for.
    Respectfully submitted.
    Makati City for Manila City, Philippines. July 10, 2014.

    By:
    ATTY. TOMAS T. ARANETA
    IBP Lifetime No. 67891; 5/10/2005
    PTR No. 44568; 1/10/2011
    Roll of Attorney No. 2005-001023
    MCLE Compliance No. III
    000899

    Copy Furnished:
    ATTY. JOHN A. ALONZO
    Counsel for Petitioner
    Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium,
    Espana, Manila

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy