Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares, complainant, versus Justice Onofre A. Villaluz (retired), respondent.
Adm. Case No. 4431 June 19, 1997
Facts:
Complainant Judge Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares is the presiding judge in Pasay City while respondent Onofre A. Villaluz, a retired Justice of the Court of Appeals, is a consult at the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission.
Judge Mijares is actually widowed by the death of her first husband, Primitivo Mijares. She obtained a decree declaring her husband presumptively dead, after an absence of 16 years. Thus, she got married to respondent in a civil wedding on January 7, 1994 before Judge Myrna Lim Verano.
They (complainant and respondent) knew each other when the latter, who was at that time the Presiding Judge of the Criminal Circuit Court in Pasig, was trying a murder case involving the death of the son of Mijares.
During their marriage, complainant judge discovered that respondent was having an illicit affair with another woman. Respondent denied such rather he uttered harsh words to the complainant judge. As a result, they lived separately and did not get in touch with one another and the respondent did not bother to apologize for what happened.
Through Judge Ramon Makasiar, complainant knew that respondent married Lydia Geraldez. Complainant then filed a complaint against respondent for disbarment for the latter immorally and bigamously entered into a second marriage while having a subsisting marriage and distorted the truth by stating his civil status as single.
In his defense, he contended that his marriage to the complainant judge was a “sham marriage”; that he voluntarily signed the marriage contract to help her in the administrative case for immorality filed against her by her legal researcher. Likewise, he maintained that when he contracted his marriage with complainant, he had a subsisting marriage with his first wife because the decision declaring the annulment of such marriage had not yet become final and executory or published.
Judge Purisima the found respondent guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct and later on affirmed by the Court.
Issue:
a. Whether or not marriage of complainant and respondent valid
b. Whether or not the marriage of complainant and respondent was a sham marriage
Ruling:
a. Yes. It was a valid marriage. All the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage under Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Code were satisfied and complied. Given the circumstance that he was facing criminal case for bigamy and assuming for the sake of argument that the judgment in civil case declaring the annulment of marriage between respondent and the first wife had not attained complete finality, the marriage between complainant and respondent is not void but only voidable.
b. As to the issue that it was a “sham” marriage is too incredible to deserve serious consideration. Thus, former Justice Onofre Villaluz is found guilty of immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility; he is hereby suspended from practice of law for two years with the specific warning.
