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.
Categories: Constitutional Law 1

Mutuc was a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention (1970). His candidacy was
given due course by the COMELEC but he was prohibited from playing his campaign jingle on his
mobile units because this is an apparent violation of COMELECs band to purchase, produce,
request or distribute sample ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets such as pens, lighters, fans (of
whatever nature), flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches,
cigarettes, and the like, whether of domestic or foreign origin. It was COMELECs contention that
the jingle proposed to be used by petitioner is the recorded or taped voice of a singer and therefore
a tangible propaganda material (falling under and the likes category), under the above COMELEC
statute subject to confiscation.
HELD: 1. By virtue of Ejusdem Generis, general words following any enumeration must be of the
same class as those specifically referred to. It did contend, however, that one of its provisions
referred to above makes unlawful the distribution of electoral propaganda gadgets, mention being
made of pens, lighters, fans, flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats,
matches, and cigarettes, and concluding with the words and the like. For respondent Commission,
the last three words sufficed to justify such an order. We view the matter differently. What was done
cannot merit our approval under the well-known principle of ejusdem generis, the general words
following any enumeration being applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those
specifically referred to. It is quite apparent that what was contemplated in the Act was the
distribution of gadgets of the kind referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a favorable vote for
the candidate responsible for its distribution.
2. This is a curtailment of Freedom of Expression. The Constitution prohibits the abridgment of the
freedom of speech.
Manila Prince Hotel Vs GSIS
Supremacy of the Constitution Filipino First Policy National Patrimony Qualified Filipinos
Pursuant to the privatization program of the government, GSIS decided to sell 30-51% of the Manila
Hotel Corporation. Two bidders participated, MPH and Malaysian Firm Renong Berhad. MPHs bid
was at P41.58/per share while RBs bid was at P44.00/share. RB was the highest bidder hence it
was logically considered as the winning bidder but is yet to be declared so. Pending declaration,
MPH matches RBs bid and invoked the Filipino First policy enshrined under par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. 12
of the 1987 Constitution**, but GSIS refused to accept. In turn MPH filed a TRO to avoid the
perfection/consummation of the sale to RB.
RB then assailed the TRO issued in favor of MPH arguing among others that:
1. Par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. 12 of the 1987 Constitution needs an implementing law because it is merely a
statement of principle and policy (not self-executing);

2. Even if said passage is self-executing, Manila Hotel does not fall under national patrimony.

ISSUE: Whether or not RB should be admitted as the highest bidder and hence be proclaimed as
the legit buyer of shares.
HELD: No. MPH should be awarded the sale pursuant to Art 12 of the 1987 Const. This is in light of
the Filipino First Policy.
Par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. 12 of the 1987 Constitution is self executing. The Constitution is the
fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and
contract.
Manila Hotel falls under national patrimony. Patrimony in its plain and ordinary meaning pertains to
heritage. When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural
resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution could have very well used the term natural
resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. It also refers to our intelligence in arts,
sciences and letters. Therefore, we should develop not only our lands, forests, mines and other
natural resources but also the mental ability or faculty of our people. Note that, for more than 8
decades (9 now) Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to the triumphs and failures, loves and
frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence is impressed with public interest; its own historicity
associated with our struggle for sovereignty, independence and nationhood.
Herein resolved as well is the term Qualified Filipinos which not only pertains to individuals but to
corporations as well and other juridical entities/personalities. The term qualified Filipinos simply
means that preference shall be given to those citizens who can make a viable contribution to the
common good, because of credible competence and efficiency. It certainly does NOT mandate the
pampering and preferential treatment to Filipino citizens or organizations that are incompetent or
inefficient, since such an indiscriminate preference would be counter productive and inimical to the
common good.
In the granting of economic rights, privileges, and concessions, when a choice has to be made
between a qualified foreigner and a qualified Filipino, the latter shall be chosen over the former.
**Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency,
when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher
percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact
measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly
owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and
patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national
jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities.

Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the organization
andoperation of the governmental organs of the State and define the relations of
the state with theinhabitants of its territory (People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887, 897
[1922]). It may be recalled thatpolitical law embraces constitutional law, law of public
corporations, administrative law including thelaw on public officers and elections. Specifically,
Article 14 of the Code of Commerce partakes moreof the nature of an administrative law
because it regulates the conduct of certain public officers andemployees with respect to engaging in
business: hence, political in essence.

constitutional-law
The body or branch of law concerned with the study, interpretation, and application of a country
or states constitution, including the issues of governance, the powers of the branches and
levels of government, civil liberties, and civil rights.