MACARIOLA V ASUNCION

FACTS

Reyes siblings filed a complaint for partition against Macariola, concerning the
properties left by their common father, Francisco Reyes. Asuncion was the judge who
rendered the decision, which became final for lack of an appeal. A project of partition
was submitted to Judge Asuncion after the finality of the decision. This project of
partition was only signed by the counsel of the parties, who assured the judge that
they were given authorization to do so.
One of the properties in the project of partition was Lot 1184, which was subdivided
into 5 lots. One of these lots (Lot 1184-D) was sold to Anota, a stenographer of the
court, while another (Lot 1184-E) was sold to Dr. Galapon, who later on sold a
portion of the same lot to Judge Asuncion and his wife. A year after, spouses
Asuncion and Dr. Galapon sold their respective shares over the lot to Traders
Manufacturing and Fishing Industries. At the time of the sale, Judge Asuncion and
his wife were both stockholders, with Judge Asuncion as President and his wife as
secretary of said company.
A year after the company’s registration with the SEC, Macariola filed a complaint
against Judge Asuncion alleging: • that he violated Art. 1491 (5) of the Civil Code in
acquiring a portion of the lot, which was one of those properties involved in the
partition case; and • that he violated Art 14 (1 and 5) of the Code of Commerce, Sec 3
(H) of RA 3019, Sec 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules, and Canon 25 of
the Canons of Judicial Ethics by associating himself with a private company while he
was a judge of the CFI of Leyte. This case was referred to Justice Palma of the CA for
investigation, report and recommendation. After hearing, the said Investigating
Justice recommended that Judge Asuncion should be reprimanded or warned in
connection with the complaints filed against him.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated Art 1491 (5) of the Civil Code in acquiring
by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E, which was among those properties involved in
the partition case.

2. Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated Art 14 (1 and 5) of the Code of Commerce,
Sec 3 (H) of RA 3019, Sec 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of
the Canons of Judicial Ethics when he associated himself with Traders
Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., as stockholder and a ranking officer

HELD

1. NO. Although Art 1491 (5) of the Civil Code prohibits justices, judges among others
from acquiring by purchase the property and rights in litigation or levied upon
an execution before the court, the SC has ruled, however, that for the prohibition to
operate, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency
of the litigation involving the property. In this case, when Judge Asuncion purchased
a portion of Lot 1184-E, the decision in the partition case was already final because
none of the parties filed an appeal within the reglementary period. Thus, the lot in
question was no longer subject of the litigation. Moreover, Judge Asuncion did NOT
buy the lot directly from the plaintiffs in the partition case but from Dr. Galapon,
who earlier purchased the lot from the plaintiffs. The subsequent sale from Dr.
Galapon to Judge Asuncion is NOT a scheme to conceal the illegal and unethical
transfer of said lot as a consideration for the approval of the project of partition. As
pointed out by the Investigating Justice, there is no evidence in the record showing
that Dr. Galapon acted as a mere dummy of Judge Asuncion. In fact, Dr. Galapon
appeared to be a respectable citizen, credible and sincere, having bought the subject
lot in good faith and for valuable consideration, without any intervention of Judge
Asuncion.
Although Judge Asuncion did NOT violate Art 1491 (5) of the Civil Code, it was
IMPROPER for him to have acquired the lot in question. Canon 3 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics requires that judges’ official conduct should be free from the
appearance of impropriety. It was unwise and indiscreet on the part of Judge
Asuncion to have purchased the property that was or had been in litigation in his
court and caused it to be transferred to a corporation of which he and his wife were
ranking officers at the time of such transfer. His actuations must not cause doubt and
mistrust in the uprightness of his administration of justice.
2. NO. Art 14 (1 and 5) of the Code of Commerce prohibits justices of the SC, judges
and officials of the department of public prosecution in active service from engaging
in commerce, either in person or proxy or from holding any office or have an direct,
administrative or financial intervention in commercial or industrial companies
within the limits of the territory in which they discharge their duties. However, this
Code is the Spanish Code of Commerce of 1885, which was extended to the
Philippines by a Royal Decree. Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US
to the Philippines, Art 14 of the Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been
abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the
former sovereign are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted
by affirmative act of the new sovereign. There appears to be no affirmative act that
continued the effectivity of said provision.
Sec 3 (H) of RA 3019 provides for instances when public officers are considered to
have committed corrupt practices, which include having financial or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he
intervenes or takes part in his official capacity or in which he is prohibited by the
Constitution or by any law from having any interest. Judge Asuncion cannot be held
liable under said provision because there is no showing that he participated or
intervened in his official capacity in the business or transactions of Traders
Manufacturing. In this case, the business of the corporation in which he participated
has obviously no relation to his judicial office.
Sec 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules does NOT apply to members of the
Judiciary, who are covered under RA 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948) and Art X (7) of the
1973 Constitution. Under Sec 67 of RA 296, the power to remove or dismiss judges is
vested in the President of the Philippines, not in the CSC, and only on 2 grounds—
serious misconduct and inefficiency. Under the 1973 Constitution, only the SC
can discipline judges of the inferior courts as well as other personnel of the Judiciary.
Judges cannot be considered as subordinate civil service officers or employees
because the Commissioner of the CSC is not the head of the Judiciary department.
Moreover, only permanent officers in the classified service are subject to the
jurisdiction of the CSC. Judges, however, are not within this classification, as they are
considered to be non-competitive or unclassified service of the government as a
Presidential appointee.
Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics reminds judges to abstain from making
personal investments in enterprises, which are apt to be involved in litigation in his
court. Judge Asuncion and his wife, however, had withdrawn from the corporation
and sold their shares to third parties only 22 days after its incorporation, which
indicates that Judge Asuncion realized that their interest in the corporation
contravenes said Canon. The Court even commended the spouses for such act.
 Constitutional Law. Political Law.
 Effects of Cession.

MACARIOLA v. ASUNCION
114 SCRA 77

FACTS:

On August 6, 1968, petitioner, Bernadita Macariola charged

respondent Judge Elias Asuncion of CFI of Leyte, now Associate
Justice of CA, with “acts unbecoming of a judge” when the latter
purchased a property which was previously the subject of litigation
on which he rendered the decision. Respondent and his wife were
also members of Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc.
to which their shares and interests in said property were conveyed.
According to the petitioner, respondent allegedly violated Article
1491 (5) of the New Civil Code and Article 14 (1) and (5) of Code of
Commerce, Sec. 3 of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Sec. 12
XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of Canons of Judicial
Ethics.

ISSUE:

Is Article 14 of the Code of Commerce still in force?

HELD:

Article 14 partakes of the nature of a political law as it regulates the

relationship between the government and certain public officers and
employees like justices and judges. Said provision must be deemed
to have been abrogated because where there is a change of
sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign are
automatically abrogated. As such, Article 14 is not in force. The
respondent is not found to have violated the articles invoked by the
petitioner but he was advised by the Court to be more discreet in his
private and business activities.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. -Frederic Bastiat

MACARIOLA VS. ASUNCION, 114 SCRA 77

Posted by kaye lee on 7:44 AM

Macariola Vs. Asuncion 114 SCRA 77

Facts:    

On June 8, 1963, respondent Judge Elias Asuncion rendered a decision in

Civil Case 3010 final for lack of an appeal.

On October 16, 1963, a project of partition was submitted to Judge

Asuncion. The project of partition of lots was not signed by the parties
themselves but only by the respective counsel of plaintiffs and petitioner
Bernardita R. Macariola. The Judge approved it in his order dated October
23, 1963.

One of the lots in the project of partition was Lot 1184, which was
subdivided into 5 lots denominated as Lot 1184 A – E. Dr. Arcadio
Galapon bought Lot 1184-E on July 31, 1964, who was issued transfer of
certificate of Title No, 2338 of the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City. On
March 6, 1965, Galapon sold a portion of the lot to Judge Asuncion and
his wife.

On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and Galapon conveyed their

respective shares and interest inn Lot 1184-E to the Traders
Manufacturing & Fishing Industries Inc. Judge Asuncion was the President
and his wife Victoria was the Secretary. The Asuncions and Galapons were
also the stockholder of the corporation.

Respondent Macariola charged Judge Asuncion with "Acts unbecoming a

Judge" for violating the following provisions: Article 1491, par. 5 of the
New Civil Code, Article 14, par. 1 & 5 of the Code of Commerce, Sec. 3
par H of RA 3019 also known as the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practice Act.,
Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons
of Judicial Ethics.

On November 2, 1970 a certain Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno dismissed

the complaints filed against Asuncion.

Issue: 

Whether or Not the respondent Judge violated the mentioned provisions.

Ruling: 

No. Judge Asuncion did not violate the mentioned provisions constituting
of "Acts unbecoming a Judge" but was reminded to be more discreet in
his private and business activities.

Respondent Judge did not buy the lot 1184-E directly on the plaintiffs in
Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr. Galapon who earlier purchased the lot
from 3 of the plaintiffs. When the Asuncion bought the lot on March 6,
1965 from Dr. Galapon after the finality of the decision which he rendered
on June 8, 1963 in Civil Case No 3010 and his two orders dated October
and November, 1963. The said property was no longer the subject of
litigation.

In the case at bar, Article 14 of Code of Commerce has no legal and

binding effect and cannot apply to the respondent. Upon the sovereignty
from the Spain to the US and to the Republic of the Philippines, Art. 14 of
this Code of Commerce, which sourced from the Spanish Code of
Commerce, appears to have been abrogated because whenever there is a
change in the sovereignty, political laws of the former sovereign are
automatically abrogated, unless they are reenacted by Affirmative Act of
the New Sovereign.

Asuncion cannot also be held liable under the par. H, Sec. 3 of RA 3019,
citing that the public officers cannot partake in any business in connection
with this office, or intervened or take part in his official capacity. The
Judge and his wife had withdrawn on January 31, 1967 from the
corporation and sold their respective shares to 3rd parties, and it appears
that the corporation did not benefit in any case filed by or against it in
court as there was no case filed in the different branches of the Court of
First Instance from the time of the drafting of the Articles of Incorporation
of the corporation on March 12, 1966 up to its incorporation on January 9,
1967. The Judge realized early that their interest in the corporation
contravenes against Canon 25.