Macariola vs Judge Asuncion

Case Digest

Facts:
Having a dispute over their late father’s land the wives and
children trial ensued by Judges Asuncion to determine each of
their inheritance. Judge Asuncion approved of the partition
project and finalized it on 1963.

One of the land lots(Lot 1184 - E) was sold to a said Dr.

Arcadio Galapon, who also sold it to Judge Asuncion and they
conveyed their interest and shares in the lot to an industry
where Asuncion was a high ranking officer. Macariola filed a
complaint with “acts of unbecoming a judge” for buying
property involved in a civil case he had decided.
 Purchasing a lot where he was involved in *Civil Case 3010*
 Violated anti-graft and corrupt practices act by being
involved in commerce
 Culpable defiance of the law and disregard for ethics

Therein which is against the Article 1491 5 of the New Civil

Code and the Code of Commerce Article 14 paragraph 1 & 5
stating that in his profession. . .

“he cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or juridical

action, either in person or through the mediation of
another” (New Civil Code)

“he should not engage into commerce if he/she is a Justice of

supreme court, judges and officials of the department of
public prosecution in active service” (Code of Commerce)

The court ruled that the case be dismissed, the Supreme

Court however admonished Judge Asuncion to be more discreet
in his personal transactions

Issue:
Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated such provisions of
the Civil Code and the Code of Commerce.
Held:
Asuncion’s case was dismissed because the Code commerce
Macariola referred to has been long abrogated during the
transition of sovereignty, from Spain to U.S and now to Current
Philippine government.

People vs. Perfecto

It is general principle of the public law that on acquisition of
territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are
totally abrogated.

Judge Asuncion is then reminded of the Canon 3 of Canon of

Juridical Ethics “A judge’s official conduct should be free from
the appearance of improperty and his personal behavior, not
only upon the bench and in performance of juridical duties, but
also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.”