A.M. No.

133-J May 31, 1982

BERNARDITA R. MACARIOLA, complainan,
!".
#ONORABLE ELIA$ B. A$%NCION, J&'() o* +) Co&, o* -i," In"anc) o* L)y), ,)"pon')n.
-ac"
Civil Case No. 3010 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte was a complaint for partition fled by plaintis
!inforosa ". #ales$ et al.$ a%ainst #ernardita ". &acariola$ defendant$ concernin% the properties left by the
deceased Francisco "eyes$ the common father of the plainti and defendant.
'n (une )$ 1*+3$ a decision was rendered by respondent (ud%e ,suncion in Civil Case 3010$ the decision in
civil case 3010 became fnal for lac- of an appeal$ and on 'ctober 1+$ 1*+3$ a pro.ect of partition was
submitted and was then approved dated 'ctober /3$ 1*+3.
Lot 11)012$ which is one of the lots sub.ected to partition$ was sold on (uly 31$ 1*+0 to 3r. ,rcadio 4alapon.
'n &arch +$ 1*+5$ 3r. ,rcadio 4alapon and his wife sold a portion of Lot 11)012 to (ud%e ,suncion and his
wife$ 6ictoria !. ,suncion$ which particular portion was declared by the latter for ta7ation purposes.
'n ,u%ust 31$ 1*++$ spouses ,suncion and spouses 4alapon conveyed their respective shares and interest
in Lot 11)012 to 89he 9raders &anufacturin% and Fishin% Industries Inc.8 (ud%e ,suncion and his wife
6ictoria !. ,suncion$ was the :resident and &rs. ,suncion as the secretary of the said ;9",32"!<.
Complainant #ernardita ". &acariola fled on ,u%ust *$ 1*+) the instant complaint dated ,u%ust +$ 1*+)
alle%in% that respondent (ud%e ,suncion violated ,rticle 10*1$ para%raph 5$ of the New Civil Code in
ac=uirin% by purchase a portion of Lot No. 11)012 which was one of those properties involved in Civil Case
No. 3010 decided by him> that he li-ewise violated ,rticle 10$ para%raphs I and 5 of the Code of
Commerce$ !ection 3$ para%raph ?$ of ".,. 301*$ otherwise -nown as the ,nti14raft and Corrupt :ractices
,ct$
I""&)
@'N respondent (ud%e violated the said provisions and committed 8acts unbecomin% a .ud%e.8
#)l'
1. In 6iolation to ,rticle 10*1$ :ar 5 of the New Civil CodeA
9he prohibition in the aforesaid ,rticle applies only to the sale or assi%nment of the property which is the
sub.ect of liti%ation to the persons dis=ualifed therein. @e have already ruled that 8... for the prohibition to
operate$ the sale or assi%nment of the property must ta-e place durin% the pendency of the liti%ation
involvin% the property8.
In the case at bar$ when the respondent (ud%e purchased on &arch +$ 1*+5 a portion of Lot 11)012$ the
decision in Civil Case No. 3010 which he rendered on (une )$ 1*+3 was already fnal because none of the
parties therein fled an appeal within the re%lementary period> hence$ the lot in =uestion was no lon%er
sub.ect of the liti%ation.
/. In 6iolation to ,rticle 10$ para%raphs 1 and 5 of the Code of CommerceA
It is our considered view that althou%h the foretasted provision is incorporated in the Code of Commerce
which is part of the commercial laws of the :hilippines$ it$ however$ parta-es of the nature of a political law
as it re%ulates the relationship between the %overnment and certain public oBcers and employees$ li-e
.ustices and .ud%es.
:olitical Law has been defned as that branch of public law which deals with the or%aniCation and operation
of the %overnmental or%ans of the !tate and defne the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its
territory. It may be recalled that political law embraces constitutional law$ law of public corporations$
administrative law includin% the law on public oBcers and elections. !pecifcally$ ,rticle 10 of the Code of
Commerce parta-es more of the nature of an administrative law because it re%ulates the conduct of
certain public oBcers and employees with respect to en%a%in% in businessA hence$ political in essence.
It is si%nifcant to note that the present Code of Commerce is the !panish Code of Commerce of 1))5$ with
some modifcations made by the 8Commission de Codifcacion de las :rovincias de Dltramar$8 which was
e7tended to the :hilippines by the "oyal 3ecree of ,u%ust +$ 1)))$ and too- eect as law in this
.urisdiction on 3ecember 1$ 1))).
Dpon the transfer of soverei%nty from !pain to the Dnited !tates and later on from the Dnited !tates to the
"epublic of the :hilippines$ ,rticle 10 of this Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abro%ated
because where there is chan%e of soverei%nty$ the political laws of the former soverei%n$ whether
compatible or not with those of the new soverei%n$ are automatically abro%ated$ unless they are e7pressly
re1enacted by aBrmative act of the new soverei%n.
#y well1settled public law$ upon the cession of territory by one nation to another$ either followin% a
con=uest or otherwise$ ... those laws which are political in their nature and pertain to the prero%atives of
the former %overnment immediately cease upon the transfer of soverei%nty.
9here appears no enablin% or aBrmative act that continued the eectivity of the aforestated provision of
the Code of Commerce after the chan%e of soverei%nty from !pain to the Dnited !tates and then to the
"epublic of the :hilippines. Conse=uently$ ,rticle 10 of the Code of Commerce has no le%al and bindin%
eect and cannot apply to the respondent$ then (ud%e of the Court of First Instance$ now ,ssociate (ustice
of the Court of ,ppeals.
3. In violation to :ara%raph ?$ !ection 3 of "epublic ,ct No. 301*$ the ,nti14raft and Corrupt :ractices
,ctA
"espondent (ud%e cannot be held liable under the aforestated para%raph because there is no showin% that
respondent participated or intervened in his oBcial capacity in the business or transactions of the 9raders
&anufacturin% and Fishin% Industries$ Inc.
In the case at bar$ the business of the corporation in which respondent participated has obviously no
relation or connection with his .udicial oBce. 9he business of said corporation is not that -ind where
respondent intervenes or ta-es part in his capacity as (ud%e of the Court of First Instance.
It does not appear also from the records that the aforesaid corporation %ained any undue advanta%e in its
business operations by reason of respondentEs fnancial involvement in it$ or that the corporation benefted
in one way or another in any case fled by or a%ainst it in court.
Furthermore$ respondent is not liable under the same para%raph because there is no provision in both the
1*35 and 1*F3 Constitutions of the :hilippines$ nor is there an e7istin% law e7pressly prohibitin% members
of the (udiciary from en%a%in% or havin% interest in any lawful business.
It may be pointed out that "epublic ,ct No. /*+$ as amended$ also -nown as the (udiciary ,ct of 1*0)$
does not contain any prohibition to that eect. ,s a matter of fact$ under !ection FF of said law$ municipal
.ud%es may en%a%e in teachin% or other vocation not involvin% the practice of law after oBce hours but
with the permission of the district .ud%e concerned.
In conclusion$ while respondent (ud%e ,suncion$ now ,ssociate (ustice of the Court of ,ppeals$ did not
violate any law in ac=uirin% by purchase a parcel of land which was in liti%ation in his court and in
en%a%in% in business by .oinin% a private corporation durin% his incumbency as .ud%e of the Court of First
Instance of Leyte$ he should be reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities$
because his conduct as a member of the (udiciary must not only be characteriCed with propriety but must
always be above suspicion.
NotesA
1. @hen there is chan%e in soverei%nty$ :olitical Law is abro%ated.
/. If the court appreciated Code of Commerce as as :D"2 Commercial and &ercantile Law then it will
still be enforceable.
3. #ut the court appreciated it as a :olitical in nature$ and then it has no le%al bindin%. G3urin% the
!panish 2raH
0. "ulin%A ,suncion is not liable a%ainst ,rt 10 of Code of Commerce bein% unenforceable.
Constitutional Law is the balance between the three powers of the state with the 3 safe%uarded ri%hts of
the #ill of "i%hts