BERNARDITA R. MACARIOLA v. HONORABLE ELIAS B.

ASUNCION

Adm. Case No. 133-J. May 31, 1982

MAKASIAR, J

FACTS:

The case at bar started with Civil Case No. 3010, a complaint for partition of properties
among the children of the deceased Francisco Reyes against Bernardita Macariola. Judge
Elias B. Asuncion was in charge of litigation and making the final decision on the said
inheritance case. The ruling on the Project Partition was only signed by the counsel of the
parties, who assured the judge that they were given authorization to do so.

Part of the Project Partition was property Lot 1184 that was divided into 5 lots denominated
as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E. After the transfer certificates of title was awarded, some of the
lots were sold to Enrique Anota (stenographer in Judge Asuncion’s court) and Dr. Arcadio
Galapon. Part of Lot 1184-E with an area of around 1,306 sq. meters was sold to Judge
Asuncion and his wife, Victoria S. Asuncion. A year after, the spouses Judge Asuncion and
Dr. Galapon sold their shares on lot 1184 to The Traders Manufacturing and Fishing
Industries Inc. During that period both Judge Asuncion and his wife were part of the
stockholders of the said corporation.

A couple of days after the corporation was registered to SEC, Judge Asuncion and his wife
withdrawn and sold their shares to a third-party person.

In August 9, 1968, the complainant Bernardita Macariola filed a complaint to Judge Elias
Asuncion with acts unbecoming a judge for the following accusations:

o Violation of Article 14, paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Code of Commerce,

o Section 3, paragraph H, of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
o Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules
o Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics

In relation to his association with the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., as
a stockholder and a ranking officer while he was a judge of the Court of First Instance of
Leyte.

 Violation of Article 1491, paragraph 5, of the New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase
a portion of Lot No. 1184-E which was one of those properties involved in Civil Case
No. 3010 decided by him;
 Culpable defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics

ISSUE:

Whether or not the actions of Judge Asuncion merits for acts of unbecoming a judge for
violating paragraphs 1 and 5 of Article 14 of the Code of Commerce because of his
association with the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc.?
HELD:

NO. The court considered view that although the aforestated provision is incorporated in
the Code of Commerce which is part of the commercial laws of the Philippines, it, however,
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.

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.

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.

The court finds no merit in the contention of complainant Bernardita R. Macariola, under her
first cause of action, that respondent Judge Elias B. Asuncion violated Article 1491,
paragraph 5, of the New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E
which was one of those properties involved in Civil Case No. 3010. When the respondent
Judge purchased on March 6, 1965 a portion of Lot 1184-E, the decision in Civil Case No.
3010 which he rendered on June 8, 1963 was already final because none of the parties
therein filed an appeal within the reglementary period; hence, the lot in question was no
longer subject of the litigation.

True that respondent Judge did not violate paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the New Civil Code
in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E which was in litigation in his court, it was,
however, improper for him to have acquired the same. He should be reminded of Canon 3 of
the Canons of Judicial Ethics which requires that: "A judge's official conduct should be free
from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench
and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond
reproach."

LAUREL v. MISA

G.R. No. L-200 March 28, 1946

BENGZON, J

FACTS:

A petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed by Laurel Anastacio. The petitioner was a
Filipino citizen who was caught by the American Army for his active collaboration with the
Japanese during the Japanese occupation and was detained as political prisoner, charged of
treason. However, the petitioner contest that there was constitutional violation because it is
(a) discriminatory in nature; (b) unlawful delegation of legislative powers; and (c)
retroactive in operation.

When General Douglas Mc Arthur arrived, he announced his purpose to hold the political
prisoners in restraint for the duration of the war, where after they shall be turned over to
the Philippine Government for its judgment upon their respective cases. Considering the
conditions of peace and order, and the safety of the prisoners, the President, promulgated
Executive Order No. 65 suspending article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, for not more than
thirty days, with regard to said detainees or internees. Then, the Congress approved
Commonwealth Act. No. 682, establishing the People's Court and the Office of Special
Prosecutors for the prosecution and trial of crimes against national security committed
during the second World War.