16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Teial Problems Fnvolving Nom Appearance ‘Ina Pre-Trial Conference {present his edo, He ean then invoke his right vo procedural dus process". Appropriately. in granting the relict saoght in the Flores casa, the Supreme Court also declared that as & Judgment by defasit-may smonnt to a positive and cot dtrable injustico to the defendant i i preferable to leave ‘enough opportunity open for posible eng of the order of Aetauit before procooding with the reception of plaintiff's tevidence and tho rendition ofthe decision and for this reason the court should adopt a earofl and iboal examination ofthe rounds upon which the defendane may sel to set i aside, [a Order that the rules and procedures ray not be misused and abused as instruments for the denial of substantial jsticn = Indeed, where dafendant declared "in defaull. for non appearance at the pretrial conference has » meritorions Gefense, It should ‘be allowed to present evidence to ‘substantiate those defenses and fr this purpose, itis best that the trial courts give both parties every chance o fighe thet ‘ive fairly and in tho open, without raort Lo technieality." Correspondingly, unless it clearly appears thatthe reopening ofthe case is intended for delay, cours shoud be liberal in set ting aside orders of default for default jadgment is frowned a 000 Flores «s. Boeneamin, ab, L-5818, Dee 17, 1976, 24 scram 236 * Zenith insurance Corp. vs, Pala Conga de Sagar, si, 197005, May 24, 1062; Pwd ve Cour of Appeal ‘i, Spe 30,1978 7 SCRA 326, oid, VOL. 114, MAY 31, 1982 n “Macoriola vx. Anuncion ‘Adin Case No, 189. May 1, 1982." BERNARDITA R, MACARIOLA, complainant, us HONORABLE BLIASB, ASUNCION, Judge ofthe Court of First Instance of Leyte, respondent. edge: Sales The prodiition to adges from acouting proper sicrn pation apples only there the ste takes pla daring the pendency ofthe digation ~The prob the aforesaid Arde Epples only tothe slew essignmar of te property which eto Sbjct of gation to the persone dual therm. WE have ‘Srey ruled that "x x x for the proibien to operat, ce sae se Seignnct ofthe property tun ae pce daring the pendency Of ‘ho gation iveving the property ‘Some; Same: Reypondent jg ali not acquire property at bar tring the probed ped —In the case ot ban, Whe the Poop ent Jadge purchased on Moreh 1965 «potion of Lot 2164-5 ehe ecision Cs Case No, SOLO which he rebar on Jane, 15 wae ready aa! becnuse sone of the partion therein fd an appecl ‘vitin the rehmontary period. hence, ch lot ln quation was 50 longer suboctof the Benton. Moreover atte Gn ofthe cle on March 6 1988, respondent's order Gated October 38 1989 and the ‘mended ode datad November 1, 1059 approving the Otaber 16, 1068 project af partion made parent to the June 8, 1869 de! son, bad long become itl fr ere was no eppai rom onder, Some; Same: Ineapacty of jugs 10 acquire property involved in ete before ir rla does na ey where paper es ota {ule from on of the partes othe ase. Purthermore, repent Sudge not bs the tin question on March 6, 1008 deel from. {he plant in iv Cave Nox 2010 but fom Drs Arca Galan ‘eho ealor purchase on July 31,1964 Lot 1186 Kom tee of he Palos, namely, Praca Raye, Ades. Saye, and Laz $Bakunsra after the inality ofthe sedisnn in Civil Case NO, 9010.1 may be rcald that Lot i164 or mare specially one-half bert tra ajazated in equal shares io Prslla Reyes, Adela Reyes, Laz akuagws, Rupeco Heyes and Anaceria Reyes project of pa Like same was rabid into five nt dnonnge ae Lak Tea elise = ENBANC,48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED “Macuriota va Asuncion “Same: Same; Some‘ fst rns tat coponot puchacol on Mave i »perton of ke 64 rom Dr So Golan huwe fear tbe finely of the decison whch bo ‘euler on June & 1857 In ii Case No 010 ands two quer {or onde dated October 13, 1968 aid November 11, 158. ‘Therefore the property wasn longer abject of gntion. Sem: Respondent acted n god faith im approving projet of orton witha the signature of the partes veheve the lujore Paniected that they wert eushorized to ign the some bythe Ghtnta tagre with complainant that rerpondent show have re ‘ied ee stave of the partie more particulary that of Mrs Saceroia on te projec of partition sted to bin fr approval however, whatever eer was commited by yeepoodaot i at repoct wan done in od fit us according to Jade Azuncion be ter sosued by Atty Botlacio Hara, the counsel of record of Mrs Metros chat he was achorzd by his ine to mics projct ‘ot pretion, (i xh Band ton p24 Jpary 20,1969), Whe is true that nach weten authority tore was any, was nt presented Uprespontne inevidence, nora Atty, Ramo appear to ccrraberate eceuement of respondent, Ris adfavit being tae only ane Cat tres prevented os rnpendents Exh, 1 tain stanton of Mrs Mcarols aad ths investigator to bebve Ut she knew the com fants ofthe project partition Exh, ad Gh abe gave Ber eon- formity thee, Same: White a judge may nat have acquired property in lig tion tofore Aim inthe techn sence i as however, proper for fi fo have dane so under the Canons of Jill Bthiex~Firaly, ‘wile tb ue that respondent Jadge dd ot vile passer 8, Tre 491 ofthe New Civ Cde in eing by purcese @ portion rot 118448 which wat im Begin in scour, was, however nproper for ht have seqird the sam, He shoud be reminded tr Canon 9 of te Canons of Jill Ubi whch requires that "A Jide’ ofl conduct shouldbe fee from the appeacance of roby, and he personal bei, poten upon the Dench id in Fretperiormance of Jota dotine, but aso thin everyday ie, hou be beyond seprosch” And as aptly obser by he In ‘rovigeing Justice “rit was unwise and inert on te part of ‘epondent to ave purchased o acquire a portion of ples of ro Day that nator bed been tigation i is cour and eased to Pe tnsferre ts corpration of whieh be and hs wife were ranking Cicer e he Lime ef sch tranafar: One who occupies am eae VoL: 114, MAY'31, 1982, 9 —Hacariols ve. Asuncion pstion nto Juda has eo ty and respon of main. Bipthctata aod tose eth teery in tho courts of sti vost. rr ace he uly hones and jot but hg eration 0s be ‘nae not pve cage for doe and mtr he opeighae of BREUER ation uffustin lati pari cms espondent, ‘Sifotdony Ube th transactions over LoL ISEE are damage Fender his etontions open to suspicion and strut. Some; Adminitrative Laas Pub fcr Consiuionat Low: ‘he provision ofthe Can of Conimore insapecitatng Judges and “pees ac othr public offers from engaging In Bosc part of epee tau te ly Our conndered Vow that altough che Moret peovsion athe Cade of Commerce which ESSE i commercial lave ofthe Pllpeines, I, however. a tees of the nvare ofa ple! law ose regaates he rlationtip eescos he government and certs publ offers and employes, estos and jue. Some: Same: Same: Same’ “Polea! Law” defined ~ Palisa! ‘Law hes bon dfn Uae reach of ple Iw wish deals with {i ctgamation apd operation ofthe goveramantal orga of he Bee Za dtioed the lao ofthe nate wth te inhabitant of ke itary (Pople ve. Perec, 49 Pal ST, 897 (2922). Te may be ‘Eye pola! aw eres casatiuional aw, lw of public “portions edminceatie nw including the aw on pub offers SEPitkioos, Special, Ari 14 of the Code of Commer pat TESS rhe tule of an edminsrative tw becnsse ‘eulatoy the conc aferain publ offers and employees wit pes to engnging in business benc, poled in entenc, Same; Same Same; Sams States: Are 14 f thé Code of Come mere probing crtin bie oles fom engaging in business TESS fe poten n nature and hax ured been ube with i mer of sverige from Spa othe United Stator end ater to ihe Republi of the Phkppnen Upon the seette of sorely ffom Space o the Una Senos sod axon fom the itd States {the Repatie of tie Pilipines, tee 14 of this Cade of Com ‘heroes be ered oars bon abrogated case where bere ‘gg of soveraymiy. the poleal laws of the former sovereian, SRR Compatible ot soc ih Chore che ew sowed f0 tomatial abrogated alos they are expressly reanacted By a Frative at ofthe now sovern80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED. TOT acarita oe, Ananeion Some Same Samst Sem. Same Sams—Thare appears 20 soabling of affzmative act chat continved the flcevey of the “STorestated provision of the Code of Commaren after the change of Soversigniy from Spain ta the United States and thon to the Roputie of she Piipines Consoquanty, Arlee 14 ofthe Cod of Commerce has no legal sod binding fle and eat apy Lo Use ‘epondent, then Jodge ofthe Court of Fret Instance no Asoc Sakon of the Gourtel Appeals ‘Sem: Ant-Graft a A judg cannot be held guilty of veating ‘the AntiGafe Lau whore thee no showing tha he intervened tt Ihe business or troneatons of @ commer firm ~Heopondent Fudge cast be el able onda the aforestated aregeaph because {hee ene showing tht eopendent participated cr nurvened i is ‘fea capacity in the business or wanousions of the Trade ‘Manfecring and Fishing Indusees, Tne. Te the case at ba, the ‘buns of the corporates i whit responder pricpata has ob ‘oulynerelaton or connection wit ijl office Te business ‘teil corporation ig nat tat lind wher respondent intervenes or the par In is eapacty ae Judge of the Cour of First Instance As ines hei in one cae involving th application of Article 216 of the [Reviond Penal Cade which hava slr prohtition on ube olicere ‘guint directly or lndrectly becoming Interested in any contrac bsinene in wich i he offical duty to intervene, “tie not fnoagh to bet pub offical to be sabject to this crime: i i Secnsay Ut hy segson of is fig, he has vo ntervene nea on: {act or transactions; and ne, the fia who intervenes incom (Gacte or temnactions which have ration tos fice cena commit hiner Same Sema: Seme—It dove wot appear als fom the records thatthe sforesndeorporgion glad any ondoe adigze inte ‘busines epee by rion of reeguedens omen In fy or tnt te corporation banal oe way or another in any ‘asf ty or agaiat in cour, Ie nlp that thee was ne ef inthe diferent beaabes ofthe Cour of Fest Instance of jue which the corporation mas alter pay paint or defen dint except Civ Cone Ne 4¢ ented "Bornardita ®. Maca, ‘lant, vests Sinforom 0. Bale, a." wherein the complainant eis soup to recover Lot 1184 from the fora orpoetion. {emt be notg, omer thet Ciel Cse No 204 was Hed only November @ or 11, 1968 tnd decided on Noverber 2, 1970 by CPI Judge Jose D. Nepormaceno when respondent Jodgs was no longer VOL. 114, MAY 51, 1982 a1 ‘Macariols os Avancion Cometed with the corporstion, Saving depos of bis therit on Jamuary I, 107 Some: Constitutions Laws Judges are aot prohibited from cnwouing ot having any nies n any lel business Pothier ‘hore tespondant ts not lable under the same parngraph ecase Thor eno provision tn both the 1995 ad 1973 Contattions ofthe Prilppites, nr ir there an existing law expreniy prohibiting foenbor of he Judcary from eneaping or having ncetest in any UGefalbusines, Same; Same; Sams-—Nt ray be poled out tbat Republe Act ‘No. 286 as amended, so known as te Juicy Act of 148, dows ot contain any pronibition co that effect. Asa mate fst, under ‘fston 7 of sad ln, mancpal dges may engage in teachings ‘tbr ovation not involving the practical aur ofc ours bat ‘tithe permasin of the see jodgeeoncerned Sime: Adimibisiratve Laur Pub Offers AntiGrfe Law: int Seeice Although Cit Service mpations prot publi of fiers from engaging in business aithout prior uhority of is Arpuromen Kee elation of such administrative rae doesnot cm Shute lation ofthe Ane-Gret Lau —To ado, alhoagh See tion 1: Rae XVII ofthe Cv SovieRales made parsunt othe hat Service Act of 868 pebuie am officer or employe in tho il Servis fron engaging inn rtate business, vocation, or prfer lomo be connected with any commeriak eit agrclera ei ‘ust uncertain withost » wetten pecasin fom the head Aleparcmont the sume however, may 20 fall win the purview of pareprape hy Section 9 ofthe AnteGrat and Corupt Practices Act [ESstoe th ne portion of sid paragraph speaks of prohibition by theCon-itton or won sy publ offer rom having any inbest Ineny bases and not by mere admnstative rule or regulation ‘Tham a solaiom of he aforesaid rule by any officer o employe the cl sari, tha engaging in provate basins without 8 we tn prmanon from the Depariane Head may at eanainte erate ‘sodcorpt practice 8 dina byl Same Same: Same Same’ The Section 12 ofthe Civil Servis Act ant Bom ofthe lal SeneeRale and Reputation donot - ty to members ofthe Judiciary ~On the contention of complinen thot eoponont Jue voted Section 1, Rule XVI ofthe Ci ‘Strvce Rule, We bold tht te il Serves Act of 1859 UL. No.82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘Macariala vs Asoncion 2260) and the Civil Service Rules promulgated thereunder, par teuley Section 12 of Belo XVILE. do not sppiy to the momo of the Jaditary. Under ss Section 12: "No office cr ezploye sal ‘gaged dvctly In any private businoon, voto, or pofesion ot Ie connected wenn camel era mgeltral or Indetat sidering without x writen permission frm the Head of Depar- fonts a. emus be phase atte ote! tat respondent be Inga member ofthe Judy leceverd by Repube Act No. 296,48 ‘mended, othersae Known asthe Judeary Act of 1948 and hy See ton, Arts X, 1979 Coneitation, ‘Same: Same: Same Same: Judges ar nt offices or empleyect subject” tothe diplinary authority of the Chil Serice Commission Hiowever, jadges canner bo sonderd as subordiate {varie officers or elope sujet othe dncinaryaathor: 1 ofthe Commissioner of Cv Seve fr, curtain, the Corie oper isnot toe hand ofthe Jia! Department to whlch they Tlang, The Revise Admiastatve Cod Section 8) sh the Gi ‘Sevie Law isl state thn th Cl Jase nth department heed {Use Supreme Cour fee RA. No, 2260 1060 and under the {Ts Constiation the Jodsary it nly ota second branch of the government Sec, Art X. 1979 Contetion) Beside vil ton of Section 12. Role XVIII cannot be considered ars ground for ‘dsciptiney ation against jas benuaeto recognise the name {pplcableto then, woud be ndaing another ground forthe dncipine Gf judges and, as wforestted, Section 87 of the Judiciary Act ‘ecognlaes oly wa grounds for har removal namely, snus ‘misconduct aod inticians. Some: Same Same Some Only permanent officers in the lasifled sersce arate tothe uration of the Cl Service Commissioner Judge donot all der thin category Theres 50 {qoeton thats Judge belong tothe noncompeiive o oles Seviee of the governmnect as a Presieniel apeinter end {hoefre pot covered Wy the sfereaid provision Ws have ard Fale hat "x x in interpreting Section 10 of Republe Act No. 2200, we emphasized that unly permanent ofcrs ad employes ‘who belong othe elsif servi come under the exchsve erode {Gono th Carmiasonr af iil Servi ‘Some: Being an offer of « busine corporation i wilativ of ‘he Canons of adil Bites Hossver, inthe ease at bar respon VoL. 114, MAY 31, 1982 83 “Hacariole bx Asuneton on jug nd hs wif sold heir shares lead witht shot tne ‘fer aquisition a commendable aet-WE ate not. Bower, oe Mrinal of the fact hat reqpondent Judge und his wife had ‘ce onJnanry 31 197 fom he led conn a {Eid unc eaective share to hed parti, ait appear io chat the eferettd corporation dié mot ip anyeay beni tn any cae fed by orapune To court x there weno case Hd tn Un ferent anche of te Curt of First Intaneof Leto fom tee tthe ‘ralling ofthe ees of Tncorportion of te corporation oo March 12 106, up toitencarporstion on Jeouar 1967, the eventual ‘rthreval frepondent on Jnr 3,107 frm sid crpraton ‘echclpoeal or sl by respond soi wl of ht hares In he Conpertion oa 22 days sher the ncorpration a he corporation Inalcte shat eepedentrsliang Ut ory tha thr inert nthe ‘epertion emtavenes de frei Cunon 25, Tesponont Je nD hr fe tnerlore Gearve commendation fortis Inet trhdrayal om the cata Ke ieorperetion abd bor i bare Inet ey or gaion. ‘Same: Is but neural fora judge t believe that operon who publety holds himoc out as on "Attomeat Law” 3 a bona file frember of the Bar."'The respondent nies rowing st miner Arigp ‘Tam was sepostor’ aed lame Chat all he toe he Bbved tat the tir mass tone fide ember of Un a. 1 fee'vo reac for dshliovng this assrion of reapondent. Tt has tren chown by coplainaat that Dominedor Arigpe Pus represented ims pully a tn sttorben low to tho extent of putting up = ‘Simboard wit his name and Ue words "Atirncy-ataw’ [Ex J [SMUT to inicate har ice and wos but natural fr respondent Sid enygerean forthe matie to have acopod that statement on ‘te face val Persanda, C5: Barredo, J: vote with tee Agulan, Agito, J: | vote for epondnt's unqualified exoneraton.84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Abad Santon, J oolkno part eco "Took no pat ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court, Acts ‘unbecominga judge. "The facts are sated inthe opinion af the Court. MAKASIAR, J. In. verified complaint dated August 6, 1968 Bernardi Macarilx charged respondent Judge Elias B. Asuncion of the Court of First Initance of Leyte, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, with acts inbacoming judge” "Tho factual setting ofthe case is stated in the report dated May 27, 1971 of then Associate Justice Coeiia Munoz Palma of the Court of Appeals now retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, to whom this case was referred on Octeber 28, 1968 for Investigation, thus: ‘Clu Cate No. 9010 af the Court of Fest Ensance of yee was complaint for partition fed by Sinforea 1. Bal, Laz” R. Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Raperto Reyes, Adela Reyes, and Pricils Rayes paints, gains Berardita R.Macarila Stew dant concerning Ue properties by Oe dacnsed Francisco Reyes {he common father fhe paint and dlendant Inher dafenses to the complaint fr pation, Mrs. Macao stleged among tie things tht al pana Sinforos fe Bale ae ‘otis daughter of the docnsed Francis Reyes the only lag Iie of the denned were defendant Macaron, he being the only offspring of tho fee mariage of Prancaco Heyes with Felise Espira, an the rimaising plaintiffs who were the cidre ofthe eee by nsec marge nih ee Ode te proper lofty the deesaed ware al the corjueal properties of the latter and ‘sist wie Eoin Expr, and no properses were acquired by the deceased during his cond mariage, thee was any partion to Macarala vx. Asuncion VoL. 114, MAY 31, 1982 85 ~ Mecarola va Awuncion ‘be mad, thoes conjogal properties should lat be partitioned nto to parts and one pats tobe adjudeatd sce to defendant be- Ing the share of te later’sGeesnsed mater Pel Pspira, an the ther fal which eto sare of the deceased Francisco Reyes was Dedividd oyalyanong biseblees by hs two mariges "On June 81968, «decison was rendered by rospondont Jade Anuncon in il Case S010, the deposit pertin of which rade “tN VIEW OP THE FOREGOING, CONSIDERA. "THONS, the Cour, upon a propndeeunc of evidence, ds and qe bold nd herby renders fet) Declaring the pair {is oc Baka, Anacorta Reyes Ruperto Reyes, Adela Tepes end Priscila Reyer ast ony chides egitimated by {he Suboaguenttacrage of Francieco Kayes Diss to Irene ‘Oden Declaring the plait lnforoee Bales co bave {ons legtinnte ci of Franeisco Reyes Di) Declaing ete No re te, 6, tad A oe 1165 35 belanging to the ‘perinership of ‘Bounec Prancioce Reyes Dia and Flea Epa (6 Dearing Ne. 2304 and tie of Lot No. 9416 on belonging to the spousee Francco Rayer Diez and Irene Onder in common Peep) Decarog thot U2 of Lat No. 18¢as belonging ‘Exchsley tothe evened Francie Heyes Dix (6) Declaring {he defendant Bernarlea RMacarola. being the ony leg 1s fore ber of he ncher Prlisa ples asthe exchonve ‘Swner af oneal of each of Lats Nes. 4474 8478, 4892, 5265, ‘hos, 4561480: andthe remaining verbal 1) ofeach of {au Lots Noe, #474, 496, 4892, 6265, 408, 4581, 4506 and ‘She tal (U2 of one fourth 1} of Lot No 1164 belonging to {he esate of Francie Reyes ies: (7) Declaring ese Ondez tele the exclusive owner of coe Half (1/2 of Lat No 2806 asd fe bal (of onefourth U4 of Lot No. 2416; te malig neha (1/2) of Loe S804 andthe ramaiing oneal 121 f etourth 1/4 of Lot No. S436 as beloaging to Ue estate of Francisco Reyes Dat () Dieting te eivision or parton of {he evtse of Freneisc Heyes Diaz in suche manne 286 ENE Shean to Tene Onde as srvivng wi of Franca eyes Dist ahredtay share of one twefth (1/12 of the whol esate rancaco Reyes Dias (Art 06 in elation to Ar. 99, per 2. ‘New Chil Col andthe reining portion ofthe extate to be viol antag tho plies Sinforsa PR. Tale, Laz Re Bokuneva, Anecorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes ric Neyer end deendane Berardca Re, Macaril, sch86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Macorola va. Asuncion ny thas to extent of he al share of pil Sinfoona Re Bates nthe breary cette ballot exc he uate of lwofith (6) ofthe total share of ty er each ofthe otbor fs andthe defondan (Art 98, New Cl Cae) cach of {ihe ater co recs equal ses frsn the border coat (Raster vs, Bautia 14 Phi 526; Dinan ve, Bisby of fare 9.6. [86 Bay p. 891 (Directing the partie, within they ays afer chi Judgment shall have beeome fina submit to {is court for approval e project of paritin of tho henry ‘stat Inthe proportion sbovendettal and in seh manner te he partes muy, by apreanent, dotted tenvenient ad quale to thom aking nto conidruion the locaton kin ‘quay, nature an vale of the properties involved. 10 Diese ‘ng ho pli Sinforoce RBar nod dtendantHermarica Macariaa to pay’ the cots af hi sulin the peaperton of ‘ne third (i) by the ret nema and words 2 oy te se ‘ied med a1) Dims al othe lit othe pis lop. 27200 Exh Ch, “The decison in ii ease 3010 became final for Mack ofan 2p anon October 6, 1968, project of partition was sbi 0 Fuge Asuncion which s marked Bah, A. Netnithtaniing te fac ‘hat tho projet ef parton wes not signe bythe partie thence bt ey bythe ecpctive cose of plan ad defendant, Judge ‘Asuncion approved sin is Order dated October 25, 1968, shot ‘conveniences quot eeundor fall “The partis through their respective coun, presenta tathis Court lr approval he elomng poe of paseton “COMES NOW, the palais andthe defendant in {im aboveensted case, to tis Honorable Court rope fly submit the alowing Projct of Paciione 3, The whale of Late Nos. 1354, 2304 and 4506 shal balng exeosvly to Bernardin Reyes Macarala “A porion of Lat No, $16 consinting a 2973.48, square meter lang the eastern part oft fot chal be ‘ard ewe a Beran R Macarale "2, Lots Nos. 03, 492 and S285 sal be avarded to Sinfros Heyes Dale “LA putionaf Lot No, 16 consating of 1.88485, VOL. 114, MAY 31, 1982 87 ~~ “Bavaria ve: Asuncion Ueniee be amarded to Saforca eyes ale Lots Nos 4424 and 4475 sll be avid sql ly among Lue Rages Bakunava, Anacorta Rees, per (Rayon, Adela ayer and. Prvila Reyer in etal ares "Lot No, 1184 and the emaining potion of Lot No a4i6ater inking the portions nearded cae em) ‘(above chal be warded to Reyes Bena, ‘Amacorta Reyes, Muperto Reyes, Adda” Reyer and ‘Praca eyes im eq share, pevite, however that {he remaining portion of Lot No. S416 shall along ex ‘indy vo Pic ayes, "WHEREFORE, i x sompectaly prayed that the Projet of Partin ndeated abve whieh mde nae dace withthe dca ofthe Honorable Cont be ap proved “Teloban Cts, October 18,1963. {SGD} BONIFACIORAMO ‘Auy for ths Delendent ‘Taclobun hy 6p) Z0TI¢0 A.TOLETE, ‘Aly. forthe Plinit, “reloben City ‘While the Cour thought it mae desrablefr che pat iso have sig this Project of Parton, never anon of both corsa of the respective pares fo thi ‘Cour thatthe Projet of Parton, a ovequoed ad bes Td sia conte edna ofthe paar pee crt wus ely eared sn regstred oe Nove 2 ‘estes ey Ea 1— Celi oy of kab aca seclards ayes October 2z, ft, conveying DE RTA iconeurth are thee Eaten Reyes Ser tia dead of cols vende stated toc abe was areas of mid ean save, the ane avin Doe aaa recta er sare inte ete of fain Pancico sa oo ln of he Coto Pt Tatas of Lane rege Reet Boia ea a The en of le woe aly rete aa ae te tac of OCT 1060009 eset #108 ee Ease.96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED “Macorala ve Asuncion “In conection with the abovementioned documenta i sto be soted tat i the project of prtton dated October 16 198% which tere approved byompondant on Octoer 291963, flowed by an Snending Order on November 11, 1069, Lot 1254 or rather 14 Shr en etd Mr Macro Th sein ot 164 whieh complainant cold to Dr. Decea on Octber 22,1963, several day afer be preperation of te project of periin. Coon for complainant stresses the view, however thatthe lator ald er ooeourth share fn Lat 1164 by vite ofthe deiion ‘Civ Cae 010 and not meaus ofthe project of partition Eh. A ‘Such contention absurd because trom the decision, Exh: Cie ee atone half of one ourth of Lot 1184 banged tote orale of ‘rancigo Reyes Dat whe the oor half of cid ene fourth was te ‘hare of complainant's mothe, Felise Espira in other words, the te hole cl dstebuton of the real properties Whar se could ave ‘tay dane by preneting evidence 0 te are loaton kin, tho ‘assed and marie vlue of sid properties. Without rec evidence ‘hare ls otng nthe ecord ta show that there wee equalities ‘the cstributin ofthe properties of complainant's athe fp. 888- 88,1 Finally, while it is true that respondent Judgo did not violate paragraph 5, Article 1481 of the New Civil Code in ac quiring by purchase e portion of Lot 11848. which was in [tigation in his court, ie was, however impeoper for hin bo Ihave acquired the same, Hfe should be reminded of Canon 8 of| ‘VOL, 114, MAY 3, 1982 7 “Macaviola vx Asuncion {he Canons of Joc Ethics which requires that: “A jode’s Mc 'comdut shold be fee from Ue appearance f sey, ond persoalYehavor, not ony upon the bench Tel inthe performance of judicial dates, bat elon Biever {ny fossa be beyond rpranch.” And as aptly observed SOR Imvengating Sunder itwas unwise and ‘Baers on te part of respondent to have prchaeed or a= Ait pertonof «piece of property that was kad ben in {Rigntion nh cour and cased cto be transiered tw cor ee af which be ad his wile were ranking officers atthe Rn of moh transfer: One mbo scupos an ele ponion in the judelry aw the duty and responsibility of maintaining A el aa rot of tho eitzenry the ecurts of juste, s0 that not ony snus he be tly onest and jst but Bs act tone most be such as nt give cause for doubt aid mistrust {aMpeiehinoes of his administration af justice. tn his par uN hoe of respondent he eat deny tht the teen [River Loc 180 are damaging and vende his wtuaions hes {a suspicion snd distrust, Even if respondent honey eit that Lot 1I8CE wat'no longer in Hugation in his Run's thc he wes purchasing fom a ted person abd Seam che pares tothe tigation, be should nonetheless seein rom bing for hms and wansfering ito ‘Peporaion in whieh head Kis fo were Tinanily iva 23 te evel postle suspicion that his uequiston wes rated {Sone nay or aneter to isola acruntions io el case b\0, The camdt of respondent gave nose for he Iiigants Sei cate 010, che lnwyersprectsng nhs court, and che Srbticin general to doubt the onset and fairer of isn ‘Eibion and tne integrity of oor cours of usa” (pp. 995- 2 u With respec ote son caus ofan the oman leged that respondent Judge violated paragraphs 1 and 8. ‘Kntsie of the Cade of Commerce when he associated hime inth the Traders Mantfectaring and Fishing Industries, te. os stockholder and a ranking officer, sid corporation having ede ongenized to engage in business. Sad Article provides that98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘Macariala vx Anuncion “Adis 14 ~ The following snnaotengig in commerce, elcber in person by proxy, nae ca bony ie have ey dine, ‘sUminstrativ,o nancial ntaremtlo ie emeralds) ‘compari wit th limits of the este, provi town in ‘shih they iuege ei dato 1, Justi of hg Ssprome Cour, judges ad fics tte depart of ie omens see Tat feovion al nx be appctie vo mayors, neal dg, {a nip pose sonny oor ta thos she ‘ance are temporarily discharging the functions of jue ee procoutingetodney. "6. Those who by virue of lows of special provisions ‘nay po engage in commerce na determinate att Its Ourevasidred view that although the aforestated pro vison is incorporated in the Code of Commence whichis part of ‘the commercial lnws ofthe Philippines, i, however, partakes of tho aature of & political law as it regulates the relationship between che government and certain public officers ad employees, ike justices and judges. Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which dais with che organization and operation ofthe govern mental organs ofthe State and define the relations of the sate ‘with the habitants ofits tart (People vs, Perfect, 43 Phil 887,892 [1922). Tt may be recalled tht poitiall w braces constitutional law, law of publie corporations, ad- ministrative law incioding he law on public officers and elec: tons. Specially. Article 14 of i Code of Commerce par takes more of the nature of an administrative law bocates it regulates the conduct of certain public officers and employees Sth rapt to engeng = usnes hence polite! ‘is significant to note chat the present Code of Commerce ls the Spanish Code of Commerce of 1885, with some modiice tons made by che "Comision de Codiieaion de is Provincins de Ultzamar,” which was extended to the Philippines by the Royal Doors of August 6 1888, and tok effect ala inthis Jrisdiction on December 1, 1886 VOL. 114; MAY 31, 1982 99 “acariata vx Asuncion ‘Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain 0 the United ‘Sutoy and later on fromthe United States co the Republic of {he Philippines, Article 14 of this Code of Commerce must be Goumed fo have been abrogated bocause where there is change Gf sovereignty, the polical laws of the former soversign, ‘thetber compatible or not with those ofthe new sovereiaare otomatically abrogated, unlese they are expresely re-enacted Dy alirmativeact ofthe now soversign "Thus, We held in Ros vs, Collector of Customs 23 PBL S15, 330, 811 19129 thats ae pt a ei ee a ee mr ee ieee sittin cen ene ieseattgaran coach saris ara mere apes one ene eh ssa canteen Cretan areata See are nent ieee eae ar errr moet satunge ce eopemmpen itera are araue ea EaeGevtline otto lt “om sic rer (by Esso) of tery, ti never ‘own el that te atone af the inhabitants wich enh ober oitege any, change, Tae reasons wth chair former overgn are seslve, and em Fltions are crested betwee {fom and the government which nas eogired tei erty ‘The sane act which trance their country, tanaiee the ‘iene of tae who remind chew which ay be ‘Seance poltca i neoeerly chang, although thet Sthich regulate the intercourse and general conduct of In {Tviduleremeine sn fore, onl altered by the newly-created ower fe Stat Likewise, in People vs. Perfecto (43 Phi. 887, 897 1922), ‘this Court stated that: "It is @ general principle ofthe public100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED TOO lara Asuncion Jaw that on sequisition of territory the previous political rela Hons ofthe ceded region are totally abrogate. ‘There appears no enabling or afimative act chat continued the effectivity of the aforestatd provision ofthe Code af Com merce after the change of soversignty fom Spain the ‘United States and thon to the Republic of the Philippines. Con scquontly, Article 14 ofthe Cide of Commerce at no legal and Dinding effect and cannot apply to the respondent, then Judge of the Court of Firs Instance, now Associate Justice of the Courtof Appeal. 1 is also argued by complainant herein that respondent Judge violavd peragraph H, Section 3 of Republic Act No. ‘06, otherwise hnown as tho Anu-Graft and Corrupt Prac ‘tons Act, which provides that: ‘Se. Corp practions of public offers In adition to ctor omieios of pers lead peralinad by exising lam, the flowing shal costae earrpe pasties of any publ ler apd are hereby declared to be walt “Diy nds Aeving Sal pecniy with which he Intervene or takee Partin fl eapclty rin which bei pried bythe Contation or by any aw ‘Hom having any itret." Respondent Judge cannot be eld liable under the forested paragraph cause there ia no showing that ‘respondent participated or intervened in Rs official eapacity the business or trananctions of the Traders Manbfactaring and Fishing Industrie, Inc, Inthe case et ba, the business of the ‘corporation in which respondent partieipated has obviously no ‘elation or connection with his judicial office. The business of ‘ald corporation isnot that Kind where respondent intervenes for takes parti he capacity as Judge of the Court of Fest In- ‘tanoe, As was beld in one careinvolving the application of Ar tee 216 of the Revised Penal Code which has simlar prohib- tion on public officers ageinst directly or indrectly becoming Interested in any contractor business In which iti his oficial VOL. 114, MAY 31, 1082 101 “Macariala ox Asuncion ddty to intervene, “le is not enough tobe a public official to be subject ta this crime: a necessary that by reason of his of fice. ho as to intervene in eid contracts or transactions: and, freee, the offiiel who intervenes in contacts or transactions ‘which have no relation to hs office cannot comm chis crime" People vs. Meneses, CA. 40 OG. 11th Supp. 136, cited by ‘Justice Ramon C. Aquine: Revised Penal Code, p. 1174, Vo. {1 uate). 1 does not appear also from the records that the aforesaid corporation gained any undue advantage nits business opera: lone by reason of repondent’ financial involvement i oF that the corporation benefited in one way or another in ay ‘ace filed by or against iv in court, Ie is undiputed that there ‘ras no case fled inthe diferent branches of the Court of First Trstance of Layte in which the corperaton was elther party Plain or defendant except Civil Case No. 4234 entited "Ber. hardite R, Macarola,pltatif, voreas Sinforosa O, Bales, et iy wherein the complainant herein sought to recover Lot TSA from the aloresuid corporation. It must be noted, however, shat Civil Case No, 4284 was filed only on November ‘or 11, 1968 and decided on Novermbor 2, 1870 by CFI Judge ‘Jone D. Nepomuceno when respondent Judge was no longer onneced withthe corporation, having disposed of his incerest {herein on January 31,1967 Furthermore, respondent is not liable under the same paragrapk because there i no provision in both the 1996 and, Yo73 Constitutions of the Philipines, nor is there at existing fav expressly prohibiting members of the Judiciary from gaging or having interest in any lawl business, Te mty be pointed out that Republic Act No. 286, 28 amend dy aloe known as the Judiciary Actof 184, does not contain fey prohibition to that effect As a matter of fact, under Sac fon 77 of sid law, municipal jodges may engage in each brother vocation not involving the practice of law after office ‘hours but with the permission of the district judge concerned. Likewise, Article 14 of the Cade of Commerce which pro- hibits judges from engaging in commerce is, as heretofore Stated, deemed abrogeted automatically upon the transter of102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘acariola ve Asuncion soars rom Spin Amarin, este pat Moreov, the probibition in paragraph 6, Artie 1491 of the New Civil Cade agaist the porate by judges of reper {yin ltgntion before the cure within wBosejradztion ey ppform their Gutes, cannie spply to respondent Judge sauce the ale of the Int in question fo hi took place aftr ‘be finaly of his desi a Civil Case No, $020 aswell as is {oo orders approving the project of partition: hene, the pro party war nolongsr abject gation Tn adaiion, although Section 12, Rule XVIL ofthe Civ Service Rules ne pursuant to the Civil Service Act of 1988 prohibit anllicer or employee the cil service from nga fig in any ovate busines, vocation, or preston o be ct tied wich any commer credit pico deta Uodertaking without 8 wetten permission from the hed of departments the stm, weve mia ht fall within Ch pur ‘tof paragraph, Seton of the Ant-raft ane Cortapt Procices Act becaise the last portion of sald peragraph puke of 2 pronation by the Conttuttn or lao OF ‘ble officer rom aving any interest in any business and nt Biya more administrative rue or regulation’ Thus, «violation che aforesaid ule by anos or erploee inte el se “they mening In pate an witht a ween ‘eral from the Department Head may nat consttate talk andcorpt practice as defined by ln (nthe contention of conspainnt tat respondent Jud vind Section 12, Rae RVI ofthe Cie Seven, We od that ie Civil Serica Act of 1969 (LA. No. 2260) athe Civ Serve Rales promulgated thereunder, psticlly See tion 12 of lise XVIII, de no spply to tho members Of the Sodiiny: Under sid Satin 12+" No cific or employes shal ‘ug dry in any private business, oration, or profession rhein hey cnr eat gral steal undertaking wichost = writen ‘rom the Head of Department x x. a Te muct be oma atthe outst that expondent being meer of he Fodiary, ts eovered by Repobic At No. 296, VOL. 184, MAY 31, 1982 103 ‘acoriola va Asuncion {eamonded, otherwige kaown asthe Judiciary Set of 1948 and by Section 7, Arie X, 1873 Constittion, ‘Under Section 67 of said law, the powér to remove or smi judges was then vested ia tho President of tho PtP ‘ine ont br te Comissioner of Civil Series, and oly on two Bitonde, namics, serious rlsconduct and fueffcieey, and on the recommendation of the Suprete Court, which alone Teautherzed. upon its own motion, or upon information of Secretary now Minister of Sustie to conduct the corespon: ‘Sing investigation, Cleaty, tbe sforesed section defines the founds and prescribes te special procedare forthe discipline of judges ‘And under Sections 5, 6 and 7, Arle X of the 1978 Con stitution, only the Supreme Couet ean discipline judge ofl [rior courts as well as other personnel of the dudiiry 1¢ is tue that under Section 83 ofthe Civil Servico Act of 1900, "The Commaiscioner may, for x x vielation of the ex Ieting Civil Service Lawe and rules of of reaponable office ‘etl cdans or fa the interest ofthe sorvice, remove any’ subor- ‘Hite efter or employee from the service, demote him i ‘an suapend im for not more than one year without Bay or Har him'in an amount aot excooding six months’ salary” "Thus, a violation of Section 12 of Rule XVIIT isa ground for ‘Gectplnary action againat civil service oficers and employes “However, judges cannat be considred as subordinate cis ‘sevice oficers or employees subject to. the, disciplinary Sithority of the Commissioner of Civil Secvie; for, certain, {he Camminsioner is not the sa of the Judicial Deparcment {a which they belong. The Revised Administrative Code (See- (Ron aah and tne Civii Service Law ita tate chat the Chiof ‘Jostce the department bead ofthe Supreme Court (See 20 Ten No 2260) 1980); and under the 1978 Constiction, the ‘odilary is the only other or second branch of the government Gon Art X, 1079 Conatitaion). Besides violation of Seo {ioe 1b, Rule XVILI cannot be considered as « ground for ldisipinary. action against judges becrese to recognize the tren applicable to them would be adding another ground far the discipline of judiee and, ns afoestated, Section OT of104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED “Macariola va Asuncion tne Judiciary Act recognizes only two grounds for their Femoval, namely, stone misconduct and inofiieny. Moreover, under Section 1) of the Civil Service Act of 1968, f(s the Commissioner of Civil Service wh has original ‘and exelosve jurisdiction "To decide, within one hundred trey days, after submission to it, all administrative cases ‘against permanent officers endemployees in the competitive Service, and excepts provided by fav, to have final authority to pass upon their removal, separation, and suspension and upon all maters relating to the conduct discipline, and eff ‘lene of euch officers nd employees: and proseribe standards, (guidelines and regulations governing the administration of ‘iscpline” (alice supplied). There no question chat a jude belong to the non-competitive or unclassified service of the government as a Presidential appointee and is therefore not Eovered by the aforesaid provision. WE have alresdy ruled hae "x x in interpreting Section 16) of Republic Act No. 2260, we emphasized that only permanent officers and ‘employes who belong t the classified service come under the faclosive jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Civil Service” [Wilaue va, Zakiver, 15 SCHA 710,713 1965), Ang-Angeo v8. Castille, SCRA 619 1803). ‘Although the actuation of respondent Judge in engaging in private business by Joiting the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing faduotees, Ine, ae stockholder and a ranking officer, is not violative ofthe proviesions of Article 14 of the Code of Coramerce and Section stv of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Aet at well ts Seecon 12, Rule RVILE of the Civil ‘Seeviee Rules promulgated pursuant to dhe Civil Service Act ‘of 1980, the impropriety ofthe same is clearly unquestionable bbecause Canon 25 0f the Canons of Judicial Ethies expreesy eclares thot: “judge should abstain fram making personal investments ‘ouerprtee which are apt to bo involved in elation in i eour; id (thor hie soceasion to the bench, e should not retain ch ‘estmentspreviouly rade longer toes a period sufficient enable Tim Lo dapowe of them withovt serons lows. Tee desable that be ‘hous fara roegnably posible, rec from ll elaions which ‘Toul pormaly tnd to aouve te suspicion chat such lations warp VOL. 114, MAY 31, 1982 105 ‘rine lament or prvent hs impart ltd of minim be ‘ministerial ten 2 3 WE are not, however, unminfl ofthe fact that respondent uago and his wife had wittdrawn on January 31, 1967 from The Cforsald corporation ad tld thor respective shares to hind partie, aod appears alo thatthe aforesaid corporation Gano in anyway bevel in any ease filed by or against i in hart as there was no case led in the different branchos ofthe Court of iret Instance of Layte from te time of the drafting Grito Actes of Incorporation of the corporation on March 12 1966, up to its inearporation on January 9.1967, and che ‘Neatual withdrawal of respondent on January 31,1967 from Sis corporation Such disposal or saleby respondent and his ‘Sie of ter shares in the corporation only 22 days ater thei TEigorauon of the corporation, indicates that, respondent ‘rllzed that early that thelr intrest in Uh corporation co Tavenes the aforesaid Canon 25. Respondent Judge and his ‘Nie therefore deserve he commendation for thir immediate ‘Tithdrawal from the fiem alter its incorporation and before it Tecame involved inany court litigation. a With respect tothe shied and fourth causes of action, com: plinant alleged that respondent was guilty of eoddling an ist vntar and acted in disregard of judicial decorum, and that here was culpable defiance ofthe law and utter disregard for Ginies WIS agree, however, with the recommendation of the fvestigating Justice that respondent Juuige be exonerated Timed de sforenaid cauees of action av groundless, and WE) uote the pertinent portion of her report which reads fallow: the basis for compliinan's ted enue of as is oe la hac rtpndantaesacatodand cooly teri wits Dominade ‘Rata han wo open and pablaly advertised Piel aba pacts Taye Baha: and) whan in truth and fact sid [Be saree toa Ten done not appear the Rolf Atserneys and [no tre of Use Pipe Bar corti tin Ea.106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED carols 0 Asanelon “The “venpondent doses Kooning that Dowden Avia Tea vas an inpottr and instal th in be beled Eat Rikewans own fe mento tba face eno dint tng ths spr of repent. eh bcs sho by compan {GE Dewamadoe age Tan repronta Milt publ gy 00 ‘Stora fotiseatet of puting pa soar th ame nd oe word ‘atereyst ah an oat bi ‘ie andr mes toa far Rapondent any person fo at ‘ater folaveacepid that nse ont ieee ‘Now with spect oto allegation of oman tht eon densi of teasing wth Dinar Kapaa he {entef peming hs wo be» guancher of Tan eal at Uepunorh Mo Mat cs en uta ede apne ent guity of viating any can of Jacl teams he Sandy roan with Domina A Tat and amy bt aun hn fal unto ara jade wher sid persons tere cor {erin Theeis no ange caring poo that Ben rnp sve any ures loge nears Dosinadr Arg ano {int dh tter bonita eis pencte flaw om peso el ‘Siew pone or tht se inf ea an the gr uf he olner beaches of the Coat 10 favor ail Dosinador Ten “Of ears is highly detable fra mba ft jay to refiin ar much we posible from ntsng lowe riendlyrlacions Wich practising stéorney an igants im his court soa to aid eepiton “chet hie seca or sine raatons or feadship com ‘Sitio na shsment in determining his Judilal courae™ (par 80, stone of Judea Eee, bu Judge doe have socal relations, ft in teclf would noc cone w ground for dcpinary nti legs i be clearly how tthe soil rls bclowded is ical acusthooe with fms an partyin favor of ls ends” ip. ‘408, 0) In conclusion, while respondent Judge Asuncion, now Associate Justice ofthe Court of Appeals, did not violate any {aw in acquiring by purchase a paresl of land which was in litigation in his ear and in engaging in busines by joining 3 private corporation during his Incumbency as judge of the Court of Prst Instance of Leyte, e sbould be retin to be mare dscrest in his private aud business activites, because fis conduct x9 4 mumnber of the Jadieiary must. not only be VOL. 114, MAY a1, 1982 107 ‘Mocariola vx Asuncion ‘haructerized with propriety but must always bo above susp WHEREFORE, THE KESPONDENT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE COUNT-OF APPEALS IS HEREBY REMINDED 10 BE MORE DISCREET IN HIS PRIVAT AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, SOOKDERED, Teohanhes, Guervera, De Castr, Melencio Herrera, Plana Vasques, Relovaand Gutteres, J, cone, -Fermand C4, ook no pat Barredo, 1 vote with destice Aquino. Aquina J | voue for respondent's unqualified exonere Concepeion, Jr: on anv Abe! Santos and Bscolin, no pats Respondent reminded tobe mare discreet in hie private and ‘busines octvitie. Nover—A judge is che visible representation of lew and justice, Acts, auch as poking a gun, throws an indelible stain fon che Judiciary. FonacierAbano uc Ancheta, 107 SCRA 538, Undue delay in deciding tnd registration case and scbmit- ting flsiied verification of disposition of eae requires i postion of penalty equivalent to 3 months’ salary as fine Womboiot oe Garcia, 107 SCRA 594.) [A judge who imposed excessive bail bond is fined the ‘quivalent of two mouths salary. [Suaga ve Salud 108 SCKA 231)108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Macavlola ve. Asuncion Charge that trial judge ered In diomissing a esta ‘based om non-payment of lense rental is without legal basis Complainant wo isa member of tho Bar should inctond be the ‘one investigated for posible improper conduet for making his Insses sign that they are abl for esta if thay Talad to pay their rent-(Dela Cruz vs De Leon 1088CRA 74) ‘A judge may only noterize documents conected with the exercise of his offical duties, (Borre vs Moya, 100 SCRA 314) ‘Executive Judge should seo tit Una stnographic notes are talon during the rife of cases. Wlorre vs. Moya, 100 SCRA, 314) -Meanbers ofthe bench shold refrain from any conduct that ‘would in aay way give rise to a suspicion, whether unfounded ‘ret, that exhibits more concern for those blessed with a fluence. UAzurpado vs, Buenviaia 82 SCRA 368} "The minimuin requirements before a judge meybe had gul ty of misconduct are: (a) the ebarge against him must be ‘established by convincing proof (bl the records must show es free from any doubt a ease hich eompole the imposition of Aiseiplinary ection (Cabillo ve Celi, 88 SCRA 620) In an administrative case, before a judge is disciplined for rave misconduct or any grever offense, there must be due in ‘estigation of the charges and that competent evidence should be presented egainst him. (Raguiza es. Castaneda Jr, 81 SCHA 235) ‘Malfensance in office cannot be charged excopt for breach of «positive statutory duty oF for the performance of a discre tionary act with an improper for corrupt motive. (Valdezo ve Valera, 81 SCRA 246,) Charges of misconduct agsinst judges should be proven by leer ani conviaeing evidence (People vs Rodrigues, 81 SCRA, 208) be. VOL. 114, MAY st, 1982 109) Cabata vx, Domi ‘Adm, Case No.9. May, 1082 LYDIA CABATU, complainant, vt EDGARDO C. DOM. INGO, respondent, Attomeys Dishermont cage agsingt a luyer for alee im morality 1s domissed there being no witness 10 prove the ‘large Tha ate bad to beat for baring on thee scans, he {rst on not thing place as subpoenas for bth complainant ad eopondet were eturocd uncial The Report went on o state "Deepa eeipt by complainant and br cove af the ode setng (be eta for beara on October 13,196, belle One appear. Ine ‘ee, rom inet complaint was fed in 1967 upto Ue prevent {le thre hs 08 bee any move onthe part meant pa oe arcmin. Tis fairly evident that se hat lost intrest it ing the case" As oe the he record iceset TaD ke pre ate dred eG ced we "tation onthe envelope: "adrace moved to USA. no frwarding siren Bareedo, J. 1 vee with ustee Abad Santos bad Santos, Je 1 vote or provisional sia, ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court, Disb. ment, "The acs are stated in Uh opinion of the Court FERNANDO, CJ. ‘The fitness of respondent Edgardo C. Domingo to remain a ‘member of the Philippine Ber was agsailed in tis complaint {or disbarment filed by Lydia Cebata, wer alleged Uae not withstanding the fact that his marrage with complainant was + SECOND DIVISION,