Macariola vs Asuncion, supra

114 SCRA 77

FACTS:

On October 16, 1963, a project of partition of a lots were 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.

One of the lots in the project of partition was bought by Dr. Arcadio Galapon on July 31, 1964.
On March 6, 1965, Galapon sold the lot to Judge Asuncion and his wife.

On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and Galapon conveyed their respective shares and
interest in the bought lot to the Traders Manufacturing & Fishing Industries Inc. where Judge
Asuncion was the President and his wife Victoria was the Secretary. The Asuncions and
Galapons were also the stockholders 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.

ISSUE:

WON Judge Asuncion was guilty of “Acts unbecoming to a judge”

RULING/HELD:

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 said lot Dr. Galapon who earlier purchased the lot from 3 of
the plaintiffs. When the Asuncion bought the lot from Dr. Galapon the said property was no
longer the subject of litigation.

Article 14 of the Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the
respondent. Upon the sovereignty from 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 re-enacted by Affirmative Act of the New Sovereign.
The Judge and his wife had withdrawn on January 31, 1967 from the corporation and sold their
respective shares, and it appears that the corporation did not benefit in any case filed by or
against it in court. The Judge realized early that their interest in the corporation contravenes
against Canon 25.

MACARIOLA v. ASUNCION
114 SCRA 77

FACTS:
On August 6, 1968, petitioner, Bernadita Macariola charged respondent Judge Elias Asuncion of CFI of
Leyte, now Associate Justice of CA, with “acts unbecoming of a judge” when the latter purchased a
property which was previously the subject of litigation on which he rendered the decision. Respondent
and his wife were also members of Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. to which their
shares and interests in said property were conveyed. According to the petitioner, respondent allegedly
violated Article 1491 (5) of the New Civil Code and Article 14 (1) and (5) of Code of Commerce, Sec. 3 of
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Sec. 12 XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of Canons of
Judicial Ethics.

ISSUE:
Is Article 14 of the Code of Commerce still in force?

HELD:
Article 14 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. Said provision must be
deemed to have been abrogated because where there is a change of sovereignty, the political laws of
the former sovereign are automatically abrogated. As such, Article 14 is not in force. The respondent is
not found to have violated the articles invoked by the petitioner but he was advised by the Court to be
more discreet in his private and business activities.