Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANC A.M. No. MTJ-92-706 March 29, 1995LUPO ALMODIEL ATIENA, complainant, vs.JUD!E "RANCISCO ". #RILLANTES, JR., M$%ro&o'(%a) Tr(a' Co*r%, #ra)ch 2+, Ma)('a, respondent. ,UIASON, J.:This is a complaint by upo A. Atien!a for "ross #mmorality and Appearance of #mpropriety a$ainst %ud$e &rancisco Brillantes, %r., Presidin$ %ud$e of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch '(, Manila.Complainant alle$es that he has t)o children )ith *olanda +e Castro, )ho are livin$ to$ether at No. ,- "ala.y /treet, Bel0Air /ubdivision, Ma1ati, Metro Manila. 2e stays in said house, )hich he purchased in 3456, )henever he is in Manila.#n +ecember 3443, upon openin$ the door to his bedroom, he sa) respondent sleepin$ on his 7complainant8s9 bed. :pon in;uiry, he )as told by the houseboy that respondent had been cohabitin$)ith +e Castro. Complainant did not bother to )a1e up respondent and instead left the house after $ivin$ instructions to his houseboy to ta1e care of his children.Thereafter, respondent prevented him from visitin$ his children and even alienated the affection of his children for him.Complainant claims that respondent is married to one and 3443 s)orn statements of assets and liabilities. &urthermore, he alle$es that respondent caused his arrest on %anuary 3,, 344', after he had a heated ar$ument )ith +e Castro inside the latter8s office.&or his part, respondent alle$es that complainant )as not married to +e Castro and that the filin$ of the administrative action )as related to complainant8s claim on the Bel0Air residence, )hich )as disputed by +e Castro.Respondent denies that he caused complainant8s arrest and claims that he )as even a )itness to the )ithdra)al of the complaint for "rave /lander filed by +e Castro a$ainst complainant. Accordin$ to him, it )as the sister of +e Castro )ho called the police to arrest complainant.Respondent also denies havin$ been married to =n$1i1o, althou$h he admits havin$ five children )ith her. 2e alle$es that )hile he and =n$1i1o )ent throu$h a marria$e ceremony before a Nueva Eci?a to)n mayor on April '@, 34>@, the same )as not a valid marria$e for lac1 of a marria$e license.:pon the re;uest of the parents of =n$1i1o, respondent )ent throu$h another marria$e ceremony )ith her in Manila on %une @, 34>@. A$ain, neither party applied for a marria$e license. =n$1i1o abandoned respondent 36 years a$o, leavin$ their children to his care and custody as a sin$le parent.Respondent claims that )hen he married +e Castro in civil rites in os An$eles, California on +ecember -, 3443, he believed, in all $ood faith and for all le$al intents and purposes, that he )as sin$le because his first marria$e )as solemni!ed )ithout a license.:nder the &amily Code, there must be a ?udicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marria$e before a party thereto can enter into a second marria$e. Article -( of said Code providesAThe absolute nullity of a previous marria$e may be invo1ed for the purposes of remarria$e on the basis solely of a final ?ud$ment declarin$ such previous marria$e void.Respondent ar$ues that the provision of Article -( of the &amily Code does not apply to him considerin$ that his first marria$e too1 place in 34>@ and )as $overned by the Civil Code of the PhilippinesB )hile the second marria$e too1 place in 3443 and $overned by the &amily Code.Article -( is applicable to remarria$es entered into after the effectivity of the &amily Code on Au$ust ,, 3455 re$ardless of the date of the first marria$e. Besides, under Article '@> of the &amily Code, said Article is $iven Cretroactive effect insofar as it does not pre?udice or impair vested or ac;uired ri$hts in accordance )ith the Civil Code or other la)s.C This is particularly true )ith Article -(, )hich is a rule of procedure. Respondent has not sho)n any vested ri$ht that )as impaired by the application of Article -( to his case.The fact that procedural statutes may someho) affect the liti$ants8 ri$hts may not preclude their retroactive application to pendin$ actions. The retroactive application of procedural la)s is not violative of any ri$ht of a person )ho may feel that he is adversely affected 7"re$orio v. Court of Appeals, '> /CRA ''4 D34>5E9. The reason is that as a $eneral rule no vested ri$ht may attach to, nor arise from, procedural la)s 7Billones v. Court of #ndustrial Relations, 3- /CRA >6- D34>@E9.Respondent is the last person allo)ed to invo1e $ood faith. 2e made a moc1ery of the institution of marria$e and employed deceit to be able to cohabit )ith a )oman, )ho be$et him five children.Respondent passed the Bar e.aminations in 34>' and )as admitted to the practice of la) in 34>,. At the time he )ent throu$h the t)o marria$e ceremonies )ith =n$1i1o, he )as already a la)yer. *et, he never secured any marria$e license. Any la) student )ould 1no) that a marria$e license is necessary before one can $et married. Respondent )as $iven an opportunity to correct the fla) in his first marria$e )hen he and =n$1i1o )ere married for the second time. 2is failure to secure a marria$e license on these t)o occasions betrays his sinister motives and bad faith.#t is evident that respondent failed to meet the standard of moral fitness for membership in the le$al profession.Fhile the deceit employed by respondent e.isted prior to his appointment as a Metropolitan Trial %ud$e, his immoral and ille$al act of cohabitin$ )ith +e Castro be$an and continued )hen he )as already in the ?udiciary.The Code of %udicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a ?ud$e must be free of a )hiff of impropriety, not only )ith respect to his performance of his ?udicial duties but also as to his behavior as a private individual. There is no duality of morality. A public fi$ure is also ?ud$ed by his private life.A ?ud$e, in order to promote public confidence in the inte$rity and impartiality of the ?udiciary, must behave )ith propriety at all times, in the performance of his ?udicial duties and in his everyday life. These are ?udicial $uideposts too self0evident to be overloo1ed. No position e.acts a $reater demand on moral ri$hteousness and upri$htness of an individual than a seat in the ?udiciary 7#mbin$ v. Tion$!on, ''4 /CRA >4( D344-E9.F2ERE&=RE, respondent is +#/M#//E+ from the service )ith forfeiture of all leave and retirementbenefits and )ith pre?udice to reappointment in any branch, instrumentality, or a$ency of the $overnment, includin$ $overnment0o)ned and controlled corporations. This decision is immediately e.ecutory./= =R+ERE+.Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,Kapunan, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., conc