Case Digest No.

Bernardita Macariola vs. Hon. Elias B. Asuncion

A.M. No. 133-J, May 31, 1982, J. Makasiar

Facts:
A partition case was filed by private complainants on May 27, 1971 in the Court
of First Instance of Leyte against Petitioner Bernardita Macariola concerning the
properties left by deceased Francisco Reyes, common father of the parties of the
partition case. On October 16, 1963, a project of partition was submitted by both
parties through their legal counsels to respondent Judge Asuncion. The submitted
project of partition was approved by respondent Judge on October 23, 1963 in its
Order despite the fact that the said partition was only signed by the legal counsels of
both parties and not the parties themselves. The Order was later amended on
November 11, 1963 only for the purpose of giving authority to the Register of Deeds
to issue the transfer certificate of title (TCT) to the respective parties in conformity with
the project of partition.

One of the properties disputed in the project of partition, was subdivided by the
private complainants into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E. Lot 1184-E
was sold by one of the private complainants to a certain Dr. Arcadio Galapon with TCT
No. 2338 on July 31, 1964.

On March 6, 1965, Dr. Arcadio Galapon and his wife sold a portion of Lot 1184-
E to respondent Judge Asuncion and his wife, which was then conveyed to “The
Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc.”, on August 31, 1966, to which at
the time of sale, Spouses Asuncion and Spouses Galapon were stockholders of the
said corporation.

Two years after the last conveyance of Lot 1184-E, Petitioner Macariola
instituted a complaint against respondent Judge Asuncion alleging that respondent
Judge Asuncion violated paragraphs 1 and 5, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce
when he associated himself with the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries,
Inc. as a stockholder and a ranking officer, said corporation having been organized to
engage in business. The cited provision prohibits justices and judges from engaging
in commerce within the limits of jurisdiction in which they discharge their duties.

The case was referred in the Court of Appeals, the Investigating Justice
recommended that responded Judge should be warned on the acts complained of him
and should not engage in business as prohibited under the law.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent Judge Asuncion is liable under paragraphs 1 and 4,

Article 14 of the Code of Commerce for the engaging in commerce within the limits of
his jurisdiction
Ruling:

No, respondent Judge Asuncion should not be liable under paragraphs 1 and
4, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce.

Although the mentioned provision is incorporated in a Code of Commerce which

is a commercial law of the Philippines, it, however partakes a nature of a political law
as it regulates the relationship between the government and certain public officers and
employees, like justices and judges. 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.

It is significant to note that the present Code of Commerce is the Spanish Code
of Commerce of 1885, with some modifications made by the "Commission de
Codificacion de las Provincias de Ultramar," which was extended to the Philippines by
the Royal Decree of August 6, 1888, and took effect as law in this jurisdiction on
December 1, 1888.

Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on
from the United States to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of this Code of
Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change
of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not
with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are
expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.