Macariola v. Asuncion A.M. No.

133-J, May 31, 1982

Ponente: Justice Makasiar
Facts: In a complaint dated August 6, 1968, petitioner charged respondent judge with “acts
unbecoming a judge.” Years before, respondent judge ruled on a petition for partition involving
petitioner and other parties. This decision became final, and in October 16, 1963, a project for
partition was submitted to respondent judge which he approved. One of the properties was
conveyed to a stenographer in respondent judge’s court, and another was sold to a doctor. In
1965, the doctor sold portion of the lot to respondent judge, and in 1966 conveyed their shares
and interest in the lot to a trading company, of which they were heads. Petitioner alleges that
respondent violated the law by purchasing a lot in a case decided by him, and that he was
violating the ethical code by being a ranking officer of a company while being a judge. In 1970,
the complaint was dismissed.
Issue: Whether or not respondent judge acted ethically.

Held: No. The prohibition applies only to property which is the subject of litigation to the
persons disqualified in (1491). The prohibition must take place during the pendency of hte
litigation involving the property. Here, the purchase was made in 1965, while the decision was
rendered in 1963 (which became final). Furthermore, respondent judge did not buy the lot
directly, but from the doctor. But such actions were improper. Concerning the allegation of
violating the Code of Commerce (“TRADERS”), although it is part of commercial law, it partakes
of the nature of a political law as it regulates the relationship between public officers and
government. Political law has been defined as dealing with the organization of the governmental
organs of the State and defines state relations with its inhabitants. Specifically, Article 14 of the
Code of Commerce partakes more of the nature of an administrative law because it regulates
the conduct of certain public officers and employees with respect to engaging in business:
hence, political in essence. Upon transfer of sovereignty, political laws of the former sovereign
are automatically abrogated, unless re-affirmed positively. Since no affirmative act was done,
Article 14 has no legal effect. There is no showing that respondent participated in the purchase
in his official capacity. Furthermore, there is no provision in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions
prohibiting members of the Judiciary from engaging or having interest in lawful business.