6/21/2016 A.M.No.

133J

TodayisTuesday,June21,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

A.M.No.133JMay31,1982

BERNARDITAR.MACARIOLA,complainant,
vs.
HONORABLEELIASB.ASUNCION,JudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLeyte,respondent.

MAKASIAR,J:

InaverifiedcomplaintdatedAugust6,1968BernarditaR.MacariolachargedrespondentJudgeEliasB.
AsuncionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLeyte,nowAssociateJusticeoftheCourtofAppeals,with"acts
unbecomingajudge."

ThefactualsettingofthecaseisstatedinthereportdatedMay27,1971ofthenAssociateJusticeCeciliaMuoz
PalmaoftheCourtofAppealsnowretiredAssociateJusticeoftheSupremeCourt,towhomthiscasewas
referredonOctober28,1968forinvestigation,thus:

CivilCaseNo.3010oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLeytewasacomplaintforpartitionfiledby
SinforosaR.Bales,LuzR.Bakunawa,AnacoritaReyes,RupertoReyes,AdelaReyes,andPriscilla
Reyes,plaintiffs,againstBernarditaR.Macariola,defendant,concerningthepropertiesleftbythe
deceasedFranciscoReyes,thecommonfatheroftheplaintiffanddefendant.

Inherdefensestothecomplaintforpartition,Mrs.Macariolaallegedamongotherthingsthata)
plaintiffSinforosaR.BaleswasnotadaughterofthedeceasedFranciscoReyesb)theonlylegal
heirsofthedeceasedweredefendantMacariola,shebeingtheonlyoffspringofthefirstmarriageof
FranciscoReyeswithFelisaEspiras,andtheremainingplaintiffswhowerethechildrenofthe
deceasedbyhissecondmarriagewithIreneOndezc)thepropertiesleftbythedeceasedwereall
theconjugalpropertiesofthelatterandhisfirstwife,FelisaEspiras,andnopropertieswereacquired
bythedeceasedduringhissecondmarriaged)iftherewasanypartitiontobemade,thoseconjugal
propertiesshouldfirstbepartitionedintotwoparts,andonepartistobeadjudicatedsolelyto
defendantitbeingtheshareofthelatter'sdeceasedmother,FelisaEspiras,andtheotherhalfwhich
istheshareofthedeceasedFranciscoReyeswastobedividedequallyamonghischildrenbyhis
twomarriages.

OnJune8,1963,adecisionwasrenderedbyrespondentJudgeAsuncioninCivilCase3010,the
dispositiveportionofwhichreads:

INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOINGCONSIDERATIONS,theCourt,uponapreponderance
ofevidence,findsandsoholds,andherebyrendersjudgment(1)Declaringtheplaintiffs
LuzR.Bakunawa,AnacoritaReyes,RupertoReyes,AdelaReyesandPriscillaReyesas
theonlychildrenlegitimatedbythesubsequentmarriageofFranciscoReyesDiazto
IreneOndez(2)DeclaringtheplaintiffSinforosaR.Balestohavebeenanillegitimate
childofFranciscoReyesDiaz(3)DeclaringLotsNos.4474,4475,4892,5265,4803,
4581,4506and1/4ofLot1145asbelongingtotheconjugalpartnershipofthespouses
FranciscoReyesDiazandFelisaEspiras(4)DeclaringLotNo.2304and1/4ofLotNo.
3416asbelongingtothespousesFranciscoReyesDiazandIreneOndezincommon
partnership(5)Declaringthat1/2ofLotNo.1184asbelongingexclusivelytothe
deceasedFranciscoReyesDiaz(6)DeclaringthedefendantBernarditaR.Macariola,
beingtheonlylegalandforcedheirofhermotherFelisaEspiras,astheexclusiveowner
ofonehalfofeachofLotsNos.4474,4475,4892,5265,4803,4581,4506andthe
remainingonehalf(1/2)ofeachofsaidLotsNos.4474,4475,4892,5265,4803,4581,
4506andonehalf(1/2)ofonefourth(1/4)ofLotNo.1154asbelongingtotheestateof
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/may1982/am_133_j_1982.html 1/11
6/21/2016 A.M.No.133J

FranciscoReyesDiaz(7)DeclaringIreneOndeztobetheexclusiveownerofonehalf
(1/2)ofLotNo.2304andonehalf(1/2)ofonefourth(1/4)ofLotNo.3416the
remainingonehalf(1/2)ofLot2304andtheremainingonehalf(1/2)ofonefourth(1/4)
ofLotNo.3416asbelongingtotheestateofFranciscoReyesDiaz(8)Directingthe
divisionorpartitionoftheestateofFranciscoReyesDiazinsuchamannerastogiveor
granttoIreneOndez,assurvivingwidowofFranciscoReyesDiaz,ahereditaryshareof.
onetwelfth(1/12)ofthewholeestateofFranciscoReyesDiaz(Art.996inrelationto
Art.892,par2,NewCivilCode),andtheremainingportionoftheestatetobedivided
amongtheplaintiffsSinforosaR.Bales,LuzR.Bakunawa,AnacoritaReyes,Ruperto
Reyes,AdelaReyes,PriscillaReyesanddefendantBernarditaR.Macariola,insucha
waythattheextentofthetotalshareofplaintiffSinforosaR.Balesinthehereditary
estateshallnotexceedtheequivalentoftwofifth(2/5)ofthetotalshareofanyoreach
oftheotherplaintiffsandthedefendant(Art.983,NewCivilCode),eachofthelatterto
receiveequalsharesfromthehereditaryestate,(Ramirezvs.Bautista,14Phil.528
Diancinvs.BishopofJaro,O.G.[3rdEd.]p.33)(9)Directingtheparties,withinthirty
daysafterthisjudgmentshallhavebecomefinaltosubmittothiscourt,forapprovala
projectofpartitionofthehereditaryestateintheproportionaboveindicated,andinsuch
mannerasthepartiesmay,byagreement,deemedconvenientandequitabletothem
takingintoconsiderationthelocation,kind,quality,natureandvalueoftheproperties
involved(10)DirectingtheplaintiffSinforosaR.BalesanddefendantBernarditaR.
Macariolatopaythecostsofthissuit,intheproportionofonethird(1/3)bythefirst
namedandtwothirds(2/3)bythesecondnamedand(I1)Dismissingallotherclaims
oftheparties[pp2729ofExh.C].

Thedecisionincivilcase3010becamefinalforlackofanappeal,andonOctober16,1963,a
projectofpartitionwassubmittedtoJudgeAsuncionwhichismarkedExh.A.Notwithstandingthe
factthattheprojectofpartitionwasnotsignedbythepartiesthemselvesbutonlybytherespective
counselofplaintiffsanddefendant,JudgeAsuncionapproveditinhisOrderdatedOctober23,1963,
whichforconvenienceisquotedhereunderinfull:

Theparties,throughtheirrespectivecounsels,presentedtothisCourtforapprovalthe
followingprojectofpartition:

COMESNOW,theplaintiffsandthedefendantintheaboveentitledcase,tothis
HonorableCourtrespectfullysubmitthefollowingProjectofPartition:

l.ThewholeofLotsNos.1154,2304and4506shallbelongexclusivelytoBernardita
ReyesMacariola

2.AportionofLotNo.3416consistingof2,373.49squaremetersalongtheeasternpart
ofthelotshallbeawardedlikewisetoBernarditaR.Macariola

3.LotsNos.4803,4892and5265shallbeawardedtoSinforosaReyesBales

4.AportionofLotNo.3416consistingof1,834.55squaremetersalongthewesternpart
ofthelotshalllikewisebeawardedtoSinforosaReyesBales

5.LotsNos.4474and4475shallbedividedequallyamongLuzReyesBakunawa,
AnacoritaReyes,RupertoReyes,AdelaReyesandPriscillaReyesinequalshares

6.LotNo.1184andtheremainingportionofLotNo.3416aftertakingtheportions
awardedunderitem(2)and(4)aboveshallbeawardedtoLuzReyesBakunawa,
AnacoritaReyes,RupertoReyes,AdelaReyesandPriscillaReyesinequalshares,
provided,howeverthattheremainingportionofLotNo.3416shallbelongexclusivelyto
PriscillaReyes.

WHEREFORE,itisrespectfullyprayedthattheProjectofPartitionindicatedabovewhich
ismadeinaccordancewiththedecisionoftheHonorableCourtbeapproved.

TaclobanCity,October16,1963.

(SGD)BONIFACIORAMOAtty.fortheDefendantTaclobanCity

(SGD)ZOTICOA.TOLETEAtty.forthePlaintiffTaclobanCity

WhiletheCourtthoughtitmoredesirableforallthepartiestohavesignedthisProjectof
Partition,nevertheless,uponassuranceofbothcounselsoftherespectivepartiestothis

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/may1982/am_133_j_1982.html 2/11
6/21/2016 A.M.No.133J

CourtthattheProjectofPartition,asabovequoted,hadbeenmadeafteraconference
andagreementoftheplaintiffsandthedefendantapprovingtheaboveProjectof
Partition,andthatbothlawyershadrepresentedtotheCourtthattheyaregivenfull
authoritytosignbythemselvestheProjectofPartition,theCourt,therefore,findingthe
abovequotedProjectofPartitiontobeinaccordancewithlaw,herebyapprovesthe
same.Theparties,therefore,aredirectedtoexecutesuchpapers,documentsor
instrumentsufficientinformandsubstanceforthevestingoftherights,interestsand
participationswhichwereadjudicatedtotherespectiveparties,asoutlinedintheProject
ofPartitionandthedeliveryoftherespectivepropertiesadjudicatedtoeachoneinview
ofsaidProjectofPartition,andtoperformsuchotheractsasarelegalandnecessaryto
effectuatethesaidProjectofPartition.

SOORDERED.

GiveninTaclobanCity,this23rddayofOctober,1963.

(SGD)ELIASB.ASUNCIONJudge

EXH.B.

TheaboveOrderofOctober23,1963,wasamendedonNovember11,1963,onlyforthepurposeof
givingauthoritytotheRegisterofDeedsoftheProvinceofLeytetoissuethecorrespondingtransfer
certificatesoftitletotherespectiveadjudicateesinconformitywiththeprojectofpartition(seeExh.
U).

OneofthepropertiesmentionedintheprojectofpartitionwasLot1184orratheronehalfthereof
withanareaof15,162.5sq.meters.Thislot,whichaccordingtothedecisionwastheexclusive
propertyofthedeceasedFranciscoReyes,wasadjudicatedinsaidprojectofpartitiontotheplaintiffs
Luz,AnacoritaRuperto,Adela,andPriscillaallsurnamedReyesinequalshares,andwhenthe
projectofpartitionwasapprovedbythetrialcourttheadjudicateescausedLot1184tobesubdivided
intofivelotsdenominatedasLot1184Ato1184Einclusive(Exh.V).

Lot1184DwasconveyedtoEnriquetaD.Anota,astenographerinJudgeAsuncion'scourt(Exhs.F,
F1andV1),whileLot1184Ewhichhadanareaof2,172.5556sq.meterswassoldonJuly31,
1964toDr.ArcadioGalapon(Exh.2)whowasissuedtransfercertificateoftitleNo.2338ofthe
RegisterofDeedsofthecityofTacloban(Exh.12).

OnMarch6,1965,Dr.ArcadioGalaponandhiswifeSoldaportionofLot1184Ewithanareaof
around1,306sq.meterstoJudgeAsuncionandhiswife,VictoriaS.Asuncion(Exh.11),which
particularportionwasdeclaredbythelatterfortaxationpurposes(Exh.F).

OnAugust31,1966,spousesAsuncionandspousesGalaponconveyedtheirrespectivesharesand
interestinLot1184Eto"TheTradersManufacturingandFishingIndustriesInc."(Exit15&16).At
thetimeofsaidsalethestockholdersofthecorporationwereDominadorArigpaTan,Humilia
JalandoniTan,JaimeArigpaTan,JudgeAsuncion,andthelatter'swife,VictoriaS.Asuncion,with
JudgeAsuncionasthePresidentandMrs.Asuncionasthesecretary(Exhs.E4toE7).TheArticles
ofIncorporationof"TheTradersManufacturingandFishingIndustries,Inc."whichweshall
henceforthrefertoas"TRADERS"wereregisteredwiththeSecuritiesandExchangeCommission
onlyonJanuary9,1967(Exh.E)[pp.378385,rec.].

ComplainantBernarditaR.MacariolafiledonAugust9,1968theinstantcomplaintdatedAugust6,1968alleging
fourcausesofaction,towit:[1]thatrespondentJudgeAsuncionviolatedArticle1491,paragraph5,oftheNew
CivilCodeinacquiringbypurchaseaportionofLotNo.1184EwhichwasoneofthosepropertiesinvolvedinCivil
CaseNo.3010decidedbyhim[2]thathelikewiseviolatedArticle14,paragraphsIand5oftheCodeof
Commerce,Section3,paragraphH,ofR.A.3019,otherwiseknownastheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct,
Section12,RuleXVIIIoftheCivilServiceRules,andCanon25oftheCanonsofJudicialEthics,byassociating
himselfwiththeTradersManufacturingandFishingIndustries,Inc.,asastockholderandarankingofficerwhile
hewasajudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLeyte[3]thatrespondentwasguiltyofcoddlinganimpostorand
actedindisregardofjudicialdecorumbycloselyfraternizingwithacertainDominadorArigpaTanwhoopenlyand
publiclyadvertisedhimselfasapractisingattorneywhenintruthandinfacthisnamedoesnotappearintheRolls
ofAttorneysandisnotamemberofthePhilippineBarand[4]thattherewasaculpabledefianceofthelawand
utterdisregardforethicsbyrespondentJudge(pp.17,rec.).

RespondentJudgeAsuncionfiledonSeptember24,1968hisanswertowhichareplywasfiledonOctober16,
1968byhereincomplainant.InOurresolutionofOctober28,1968,WereferredthiscasetothenJusticeCecilia
MuozPalmaoftheCourtofAppeals,forinvestigation,reportandrecommendation.Afterhearing,thesaid
InvestigatingJusticesubmittedherreportdatedMay27,1971recommendingthatrespondentJudgeshouldbe

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/may1982/am_133_j_1982.html 3/11
6/21/2016 A.M.No.133J

reprimandedorwarnedinconnectionwiththefirstcauseofactionallegedinthecomplaint,andforthesecond
causeofaction,respondentshouldbewarnedincaseofafindingthatheisprohibitedunderthelawtoengagein
business.Onthethirdandfourthcausesofaction,JusticePalmarecommendedthatrespondentJudgebe
exonerated.

TherecordsalsorevealthatonoraboutNovember9or11,1968(pp.481,477,rec.),complainantherein
institutedanactionbeforetheCourtofFirstInstanceofLeyte,entitled"BernarditaR.Macariola,plaintiff,versus
SinforosaR.Bales,etal.,defendants,"whichwasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.4235,seekingtheannulmentofthe
projectofpartitionmadepursuanttothedecisioninCivilCaseNo.3010andthetwoordersissuedbyrespondent
Judgeapprovingthesame,aswellasthepartitionoftheestateandthesubsequentconveyanceswithdamages.
Itappears,however,thatsomedefendantsweredroppedfromthecivilcase.Forone,thecaseagainstDr.
ArcadioGalaponwasdismissedbecausehewasnolongerarealpartyininterestwhenCivilCaseNo.4234was
filed,havingalreadyconveyedonMarch6,1965aportionoflot1184EtorespondentJudgeandonAugust31,
1966theremainderwassoldtotheTradersManufacturingandFishingIndustries,Inc.Similarly,thecaseagainst
defendantVictoriaAsuncionwasdismissedonthegroundthatshewasnolongerarealpartyininterestatthe
timetheaforesaidCivilCaseNo.4234wasfiledastheportionofLot1184acquiredbyherandrespondentJudge
fromDr.ArcadioGalaponwasalreadysoldonAugust31,1966totheTradersManufacturingandFishing
industries,Inc.Likewise,thecasesagainstdefendantsSerafinP.Ramento,CatalinaCabus,BenBarrazaGo,
JesusPerez,TradersManufacturingandFishingIndustries,Inc.,AlfredoR.CelestialandPilarP.Celestial,
LeopoldoPetillaandRemediosPetilla,SalvadorAnotaandEnriquetaAnotaandAtty.ZoticoA.Toletewere
dismissedwiththeconformityofcomplainantherein,plaintifftherein,andhercounsel.

OnNovember2,1970,JudgeJoseD.NepomucenooftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLeyte,whowasdirectedand
authorizedonJune2,1969bythethenSecretary(nowMinister)ofJusticeandnowMinisterofNationalDefense
JuanPonceEnriletohearanddecideCivilCaseNo.4234,renderedadecision,thedispositiveportionofwhich
readsasfollows:

A.INTHECASEAGAINSTJUDGEELIASB.ASUNCION

(1)declaringthatonlyBranchIVoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLeytehasjurisdictiontotake
cognizanceoftheissueofthelegalityandvalidityoftheProjectofPartition[Exhibit"B"]andthetwo
Orders[Exhibits"C"and"C3"]approvingthepartition

(2)dismissingthecomplaintagainstJudgeEliasB.Asuncion

(3)adjudgingtheplaintiff,Mrs.BernarditaR.MacariolatopaydefendantJudgeEliasB.Asuncion,

(a)thesumofFOURHUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS[P400,000.00]formoraldamages

(b)thesumofTWOHUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS[P200,000.001forexemplary
damages

(c)thesumofFIFTYTHOUSANDPESOS[P50,000.00]fornominaldamagesand

(d)hesumofTENTHOUSANDPESOS[PI0,000.00]forAttorney'sFees.

B.INTHECASEAGAINSTTHEDEFENDANTMARIQUITAVILLASIN,FORHERSELF
ANDFORTHEHEIRSOFTHEDECEASEDGERARDOVILLASIN

(1)DismissingthecomplaintagainstthedefendantsMariquitaVillasinandtheheirsofthedeceased
GerardoVillasin

(2)DirectingtheplaintifftopaythedefendantsMariquitaVillasinandtheheirsofGerardoVillasinthe
costofthesuit.

C.INTHECASEAGAINSTTHEDEFENDANTSINFOROSAR.BALES,ETAL.,WHO
WEREPLAINTIFFSINCIVILCASENO.3010

(1)DismissingthecomplaintagainstdefendantsSinforosaR.Bales,AdelaR.Herrer,PriscillaR.
Solis,LuzR.Bakunawa,AnacoritaR.EngandRupertoO.Reyes.

D.INTHECASEAGAINSTDEFENDANTBONIFACIORAMO

(1)DismissingthecomplaintagainstBonifacioRamo

(2)DirectingtheplaintifftopaythedefendantBonifacioRamothecostofthesuit.

SOORDERED[pp.531533,rec.]

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/may1982/am_133_j_1982.html 4/11
6/21/2016 A.M.No.133J

ItisfurtherdisclosedbytherecordthattheaforesaiddecisionwaselevatedtotheCourtofAppealsupon
perfectionoftheappealonFebruary22,1971.

WEfindthatthereisnomeritinthecontentionofcomplainantBernarditaR.Macariola,underherfirstcauseof
action,thatrespondentJudgeEliasB.AsuncionviolatedArticle1491,paragraph5,oftheNewCivilCodein
acquiringbypurchaseaportionofLotNo.1184EwhichwasoneofthosepropertiesinvolvedinCivilCaseNo.
3010.'ThatArticleprovides:

Article1491.Thefollowingpersonscannotacquirebypurchase,evenatapublicorjudicialaction,
eitherinpersonorthroughthemediationofanother:

xxxxxxxxx

(5)Justices,judges,prosecutingattorneys,clerksofsuperiorandinferiorcourts,andotherofficers
andemployeesconnectedwiththeadministrationofjustice,thepropertyandrightsinlitigationor
levieduponanexecutionbeforethecourtwithinwhosejurisdictionorterritorytheyexercisetheir
respectivefunctionsthisprohibitionincludestheactofacquiringbyassignmentandshallapplyto
lawyers,withrespecttothepropertyandrightswhichmaybetheobjectofanylitigationinwhichthey
maytakepartbyvirtueoftheirprofession[emphasissupplied].

TheprohibitionintheaforesaidArticleappliesonlytothesaleorassignmentofthepropertywhichisthesubject
oflitigationtothepersonsdisqualifiedtherein.WEhavealreadyruledthat"...fortheprohibitiontooperate,the
saleorassignmentofthepropertymusttakeplaceduringthependencyofthelitigationinvolvingtheproperty"
(TheDirectorofLandsvs.Ababaetal.,88SCRA513,519[1979],Rosariovda.deLaigvs.CourtofAppeals,86
SCRA641,646[1978]).

Inthecaseatbar,whentherespondentJudgepurchasedonMarch6,1965aportionofLot1184E,thedecision
inCivilCaseNo.3010whichherenderedonJune8,1963wasalreadyfinalbecausenoneofthepartiestherein
filedanappealwithinthereglementaryperiodhence,thelotinquestionwasnolongersubjectofthelitigation.
Moreover,atthetimeofthesaleonMarch6,1965,respondent'sorderdatedOctober23,1963andthe
amendedorderdatedNovember11,1963approvingtheOctober16,1963projectofpartitionmadepursuantto
theJune8,1963decision,hadlongbecomefinalfortherewasnoappealfromsaidorders.

Furthermore,respondentJudgedidnotbuythelotinquestiononMarch6,1965directlyfromtheplaintiffsinCivil
CaseNo.3010butfromDr.ArcadioGalaponwhoearlierpurchasedonJuly31,1964Lot1184Efromthreeof
theplaintiffs,namely,PriscillaReyes,AdelaReyes,andLuzR.BakunawaafterthefinalityofthedecisioninCivil
CaseNo.3010.ItmayberecalledthatLot1184ormorespecificallyonehalfthereofwasadjudicatedinequal
sharestoPriscillaReyes,AdelaReyes,LuzBakunawa,RupertoReyesandAnacoritaReyesintheprojectof
partition,andthesamewassubdividedintofivelotsdenominatedasLot1184Ato1184E.Asaforestated,Lot
1184EwassoldonJuly31,1964toDr.GalaponforwhichhewasissuedTCTNo.2338bytheRegisterofDeeds
ofTaclobanCity,andonMarch6,1965hesoldaportionofsaidlottorespondentJudgeandhiswifewho
declaredthesamefortaxationpurposesonly.ThesubsequentsaleonAugust31,1966byspousesAsuncionand
spousesGalaponoftheirrespectivesharesandinterestinsaidLot1184EtotheTradersManufacturingand
FishingIndustries,Inc.,inwhichrespondentwasthepresidentandhiswifewasthesecretary,tookplacelong
afterthefinalityofthedecisioninCivilCaseNo.3010andofthesubsequenttwoaforesaidorderstherein
approvingtheprojectofpartition.

WhileitappearsthatcomplainanthereinfiledonoraboutNovember9or11,1968anactionbeforetheCourtof
FirstInstanceofLeytedocketedasCivilCaseNo.4234,seekingtoannultheprojectofpartitionandthetwo
ordersapprovingthesame,aswellasthepartitionoftheestateandthesubsequentconveyances,thesame,
however,isofnomoment.

ThefactremainsthatrespondentJudgepurchasedonMarch6,1965aportionofLot1184EfromDr.Arcadio
Galaponhence,afterthefinalityofthedecisionwhichherenderedonJune8,1963inCivilCaseNo.3010and
histwoquestionedordersdatedOctober23,1963andNovember11,1963.Therefore,thepropertywasno
longersubjectoflitigation.

ThesubsequentfilingonNovember9,or11,1968ofCivilCaseNo.4234cannolongeralter,changeoraffectthe
aforesaidfactsthatthequestionedsaletorespondentJudge,nowCourtofAppealsJustice,waseffectedand
consummatedlongafterthefinalityoftheaforesaiddecisionororders.

Consequently,thesaleofaportionofLot1184EtorespondentJudgehavingtakenplaceoveroneyearafterthe
finalityofthedecisioninCivilCaseNo.3010aswellasthetwoordersapprovingtheprojectofpartition,andnot
duringthependencyofthelitigation,therewasnoviolationofparagraph5,Article1491oftheNewCivilCode.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/may1982/am_133_j_1982.html 5/11
6/21/2016 A.M.No.133J

ItisalsoarguedbycomplainanthereinthatthesaleonJuly31,1964ofLot1184EtoDr.ArcadioGalaponby
PriscillaReyes,AdelaReyesandLuzR.Bakunawawasonlyamereschemetoconcealtheillegalandunethical
transferofsaidlottorespondentJudgeasaconsiderationfortheapprovaloftheprojectofpartition.Inthis
connection,WeagreewiththefindingsoftheInvestigatingJusticethus:

Andsowearenowconfrontedwiththisallimportantquestionwhetherornottheacquisitionby
respondentofaportionofLot1184Eandthesubsequenttransferofthewholelotto"TRADERS"of
whichrespondentwasthePresidentandhiswifetheSecretary,wasintimatelyrelatedtotheOrderof
respondentapprovingtheprojectofpartition,Exh.A.

RespondentvehementlydeniesanyinterestorparticipationinthetransactionsbetweentheReyeses
andtheGalaponsconcerningLot1184E,andheinsiststhatthereisnoevidencewhatsoeverto
showthatDr.Galaponhadacted,inthepurchaseofLot1184E,inmediationforhimandhiswife.
(Seep.14ofRespondent'sMemorandum).

xxxxxxxxx

Onthispoint,IagreewithrespondentthatthereisnoevidenceintherecordshowingthatDr.
ArcadioGalaponactedasamere"dummy"ofrespondentinacquiringLot1184EfromtheReyeses.
Dr.Galaponappearedtothisinvestigatorasarespectablecitizen,credibleandsincere,andIbelieve
himwhenhetestifiedthatheboughtLot1184Eingoodfaithandforvaluableconsiderationfromthe
Reyeseswithoutanyinterventionof,orpreviousunderstandingwithJudgeAsuncion(pp.391394,
rec.).

OnthecontentionofcomplainanthereinthatrespondentJudgeactedillegallyinapprovingtheprojectofpartition
althoughitwasnotsignedbytheparties,WequotewithapprovalthefindingsoftheInvestigatingJustice,as
follows:

1.Iagreewithcomplainantthatrespondentshouldhaverequiredthesignatureofthepartiesmore
particularlythatofMrs.Macariolaontheprojectofpartitionsubmittedtohimforapprovalhowever,
whatevererrorwascommittedbyrespondentinthatrespectwasdoneingoodfaithasaccordingto
JudgeAsuncionhewasassuredbyAtty.BonifacioRamo,thecounselofrecordofMrs.Macariola,
Thathewasauthorizedbyhisclienttosubmitsaidprojectofpartition,(SeeExh.Bandtsnp.24,
January20,1969).Whileitistruethatsuchwrittenauthorityiftherewasany,wasnotpresentedby
respondentinevidence,nordidAtty.Ramoappeartocorroboratethestatementofrespondent,his
affidavitbeingtheonlyonethatwaspresentedasrespondent'sExh.10,certainactuationsofMrs.
Macariolaleadthisinvestigatortobelievethatsheknewthecontentsoftheprojectofpartition,Exh.
A,andthatshegaveherconformitythereto.Irefertothefollowingdocuments:

1)Exh.9CertifiedtruecopyofOCTNo.19520coveringLot1154oftheTaclobanCadastral
SurveyinwhichthedeceasedFranciscoReyesholdsa"1/4share"(Exh.9a).Ontillscertificateof
titletheOrderdatedNovember11,1963,(Exh.U)approvingtheprojectofpartitionwasdulyentered
andregisteredonNovember26,1963(Exh.9D)

2)Exh.7CertifiedcopyofadeedofabsolutesaleexecutedbyBernarditaReyesMacariolaon
October22,1963,conveyingtoDr.HectorDecenatheonefourthshareofthelateFranciscoReyes
DiazinLot1154.Inthisdeedofsalethevendeestatedthatshewastheabsoluteownerofsaidone
fourthshare,thesamehavingbeenadjudicatedtoherashershareintheestateofherfather
FranciscoReyesDiazasperdecisionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLeyteundercaseNo.3010
(Exh.7A).ThedeedofsalewasdulyregisteredandannotatedatthebackofOCT19520on
December3,1963(seeExh.9e).

Inconnectionwiththeabovementioneddocumentsitistobenotedthatintheprojectofpartition
datedOctober16,1963,whichwasapprovedbyrespondentonOctober23,1963,followedbyan
amendingOrderonNovember11,1963,Lot1154orrather1/4thereofwasadjudicatedtoMrs.
Macariola.Itisthis1/4shareinLot1154whichcomplainantsoldtoDr.DecenaonOctober22,1963,
severaldaysafterthepreparationoftheprojectofpartition.

Counselforcomplainantstressestheview,however,thatthelattersoldheronefourthshareinLot
1154byvirtueofthedecisioninCivilCase3010andnotbecauseoftheprojectofpartition,Exh.A.
Suchcontentionisabsurdbecausefromthedecision,Exh.C,itisclearthatonehalfofonefourthof
Lot1154belongedtotheestateofFranciscoReyesDiazwhiletheotherhalfofsaidonefourthwas
theshareofcomplainant'smother,FelisaEspirasinotherwords,thedecisiondidnotadjudicatethe
wholeoftheonefourthofLot1154tothehereincomplainant(seeExhs.C3&C4).Complainant
becametheowneroftheentireonefourthofLot1154onlybymeansoftheprojectofpartition,Exh.
A.Therefore,ifMrs.MacariolasoldLot1154onOctober22,1963,itwasfornootherreasonthan
thatshewaswenawareofthedistributionofthepropertiesofherdeceasedfatherasperExhs.A
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/may1982/am_133_j_1982.html 6/11
6/21/2016 A.M.No.133J

andB.ItisalsosignificantatthispointtostatethatMrs.Macariolaadmittedduringthecross
examinationthatshewenttoTaclobanCityinconnectionwiththesaleofLot1154toDr.Decena(tsn
p.92,November28,1968)fromwhichwecandeducethatshecouldnothavebeenkeptignorantof
theproceedingsincivilcase3010relativetotheprojectofpartition.

Complainantalsoassailstheprojectofpartitionbecauseaccordingtoherthepropertiesadjudicated
toherwereinsignificantlotsandtheleastvaluable.Complainant,however,didnotpresentanydirect
andpositiveevidencetoprovetheallegedgrossinequalitiesinthechoiceanddistributionofthereal
propertieswhenshecouldhaveeasilydonesobypresentingevidenceonthearea,location,kind,
theassessedandmarketvalueofsaidproperties.Withoutsuchevidencethereisnothinginthe
recordtoshowthattherewereinequalitiesinthedistributionofthepropertiesofcomplainant'sfather
(pp.386389,rec.).

Finally,whileitis.truethatrespondentJudgedidnotviolateparagraph5,Article1491oftheNewCivilCodein
acquiringbypurchaseaportionofLot1184Ewhichwasinlitigationinhiscourt,itwas,however,improperfor
himtohaveacquiredthesame.HeshouldberemindedofCanon3oftheCanonsofJudicialEthicswhich
requiresthat:"Ajudge'sofficialconductshouldbefreefromtheappearanceofimpropriety,andhispersonal
behavior,notonlyuponthebenchandintheperformanceofjudicialduties,butalsoinhiseverydaylife,should
bebeyondreproach."AndasaptlyobservedbytheInvestigatingJustice:"...itwasunwiseandindiscreetonthe
partofrespondenttohavepurchasedoracquiredaportionofapieceofpropertythatwasorhadbeenin
litigationinhiscourtandcausedittobetransferredtoacorporationofwhichheandhiswifewererankingofficers
atthetimeofsuchtransfer.Onewhooccupiesanexaltedpositioninthejudiciaryhasthedutyandresponsibility
ofmaintainingthefaithandtrustofthecitizenryinthecourtsofjustice,sothatnotonlymusthebetrulyhonest
andjust,buthisactuationsmustbesuchasnotgivecausefordoubtandmistrustintheuprightnessofhis
administrationofjustice.Inthisparticularcaseofrespondent,hecannotdenythatthetransactionsoverLot1184
Earedamagingandrenderhisactuationsopentosuspicionanddistrust.Evenifrespondenthonestlybelieved
thatLot1184Ewasnolongerinlitigationinhiscourtandthathewaspurchasingitfromathirdpersonandnot
fromthepartiestothelitigation,heshouldnonethelesshaverefrainedfrombuyingitforhimselfandtransferringit
toacorporationinwhichheandhiswifewerefinanciallyinvolved,toavoidpossiblesuspicionthathisacquisition
wasrelatedinonewayoranothertohisofficialactuationsincivilcase3010.Theconductofrespondentgave
causeforthelitigantsincivilcase3010,thelawyerspractisinginhiscourt,andthepublicingeneraltodoubtthe
honestyandfairnessofhisactuationsandtheintegrityofourcourtsofjustice"(pp.395396,rec.).

II

Withrespecttothesecondcauseofaction,thecomplainantallegedthatrespondentJudgeviolatedparagraphs1
and5,Article14oftheCodeofCommercewhenheassociatedhimselfwiththeTradersManufacturingand
FishingIndustries,Inc.asastockholderandarankingofficer,saidcorporationhavingbeenorganizedtoengage
inbusiness.SaidArticleprovidesthat:

Article14Thefollowingcannotengageincommerce,eitherinpersonorbyproxy,norcanthey
holdanyofficeorhaveanydirect,administrative,orfinancialinterventionincommercialorindustrial
companieswithinthelimitsofthedistricts,provinces,ortownsinwhichtheydischargetheirduties:

1.JusticesoftheSupremeCourt,judgesandofficialsofthedepartmentofpublicprosecutionin
activeservice.Thisprovisionshallnotbeapplicabletomayors,municipaljudges,andmunicipal
prosecutingattorneysnortothosewhobychancearetemporarilydischargingthefunctionsofjudge
orprosecutingattorney.

xxxxxxxxx

5.Thosewhobyvirtueoflawsorspecialprovisionsmaynotengageincommerceinadeterminate
territory.

ItisOurconsideredviewthatalthoughtheaforestatedprovisionisincorporatedintheCodeofCommercewhich
ispartofthecommerciallawsofthePhilippines,it,however,partakesofthenatureofapoliticallawasit
regulatestherelationshipbetweenthegovernmentandcertainpublicofficersandemployees,likejusticesand
judges.

PoliticalLawhasbeendefinedasthatbranchofpubliclawwhichdealswiththeorganizationandoperationofthe
governmentalorgansoftheStateanddefinetherelationsofthestatewiththeinhabitantsofitsterritory(People
vs.Perfecto,43Phil.887,897[1922]).Itmayberecalledthatpoliticallawembracesconstitutionallaw,lawof
publiccorporations,administrativelawincludingthelawonpublicofficersandelections.Specifically,Article14of
theCodeofCommercepartakesmoreofthenatureofanadministrativelawbecauseitregulatestheconductof
certainpublicofficersandemployeeswithrespecttoengaginginbusiness:hence,politicalinessence.

ItissignificanttonotethatthepresentCodeofCommerceistheSpanishCodeofCommerceof1885,withsome

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/may1982/am_133_j_1982.html 7/11
6/21/2016 A.M.No.133J

modificationsmadebythe"CommissiondeCodificaciondelasProvinciasdeUltramar,"whichwasextendedto
thePhilippinesbytheRoyalDecreeofAugust6,1888,andtookeffectaslawinthisjurisdictiononDecember1,
1888.

UponthetransferofsovereigntyfromSpaintotheUnitedStatesandlateronfromtheUnitedStatestothe
RepublicofthePhilippines,Article14ofthisCodeofCommercemustbedeemedtohavebeenabrogated
becausewherethereischangeofsovereignty,thepoliticallawsoftheformersovereign,whethercompatibleor
notwiththoseofthenewsovereign,areautomaticallyabrogated,unlesstheyareexpresslyreenactedby
affirmativeactofthenewsovereign.

Thus,WeheldinRoavs.CollectorofCustoms(23Phil.315,330,311[1912])that:

Bywellsettledpubliclaw,uponthecessionofterritorybyonenationtoanother,eitherfollowinga
conquestorotherwise,...thoselawswhicharepoliticalintheirnatureandpertaintotheprerogatives
oftheformergovernmentimmediatelyceaseuponthetransferofsovereignty.(Opinion,Atty.Gen.,
July10,1899).

Whilemunicipallawsofthenewlyacquiredterritorynotinconflictwiththe,lawsofthenewsovereign
continueinforcewithouttheexpressassentoraffirmativeactoftheconqueror,thepoliticallawsdo
not.(Halleck'sInt.Law,chap.34,par.14).However,suchpoliticallawsofthepriorsovereigntyas
arenotinconflictwiththeconstitutionorinstitutionsofthenewsovereign,maybecontinuedinforce
iftheconquerorshallsodeclarebyaffirmativeactofthecommanderinchiefduringthewar,orby
Congressintimeofpeace.(Ely'sAdministratorvs.UnitedStates,171U.S.220,43L.Ed.142).Inthe
caseofAmericanandOceanIns.Cos.vs.356BalesofCotton(1Pet.[26U.S.]511,542,7L.Ed.
242),ChiefJusticeMarshallsaid:

Onsuchtransfer(bycession)ofterritory,ithasneverbeenheldthattherelationsofthe
inhabitantswitheachotherundergoanychange.Theirrelationswiththeirformer
sovereignaredissolved,andnewrelationsarecreatedbetweenthemandthe
governmentwhichhasacquiredtheirterritory.Thesameactwhichtransferstheir
country,transferstheallegianceofthosewhoremaininitandthelawwhichmaybe
denominatedpolitical,isnecessarilychanged,althoughthatwhichregulatesthe
intercourseandgeneralconductofindividuals,remainsinforce,untilalteredbythe
newlycreatedpoweroftheState.

Likewise,inPeoplevs.Perfecto(43Phil.887,897[1922]),thisCourtstatedthat:"Itisageneralprincipleofthe
publiclawthatonacquisitionofterritorythepreviouspoliticalrelationsofthecededregionaretotallyabrogated."

ThereappearsnoenablingoraffirmativeactthatcontinuedtheeffectivityoftheaforestatedprovisionoftheCode
ofCommerceafterthechangeofsovereigntyfromSpaintotheUnitedStatesandthentotheRepublicofthe
Philippines.Consequently,Article14oftheCodeofCommercehasnolegalandbindingeffectandcannotapply
totherespondent,thenJudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstance,nowAssociateJusticeoftheCourtofAppeals.

ItisalsoarguedbycomplainanthereinthatrespondentJudgeviolatedparagraphH,Section3ofRepublicAct
No.3019,otherwiseknownastheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct,whichprovidesthat:

Sec.3.Corruptpracticesofpublicofficers.Inadditiontoactsoromissionsofpublicofficers
alreadypenalizedbyexistinglaw,thefollowingshallconstitutecorruptpracticesofanypublicofficer
andareherebydeclaredtobeunlawful:

xxxxxxxxx

(h)Directlyorindirectlyhavingfinancialorpecuniaryinterestinanybusiness,contractor
transactioninconnectionwithwhichheintervenesortakespartinhisofficialcapacity,or
inwhichheisprohibitedbytheConstitutionorbyanyIawfromhavinganyinterest.

RespondentJudgecannotbeheldliableundertheaforestatedparagraphbecausethereisnoshowingthat
respondentparticipatedorintervenedinhisofficialcapacityinthebusinessortransactionsoftheTraders
ManufacturingandFishingIndustries,Inc.Inthecaseatbar,thebusinessofthecorporationinwhichrespondent
participatedhasobviouslynorelationorconnectionwithhisjudicialoffice.Thebusinessofsaidcorporationisnot
thatkindwhererespondentintervenesortakespartinhiscapacityasJudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstance.Aswas
heldinonecaseinvolvingtheapplicationofArticle216oftheRevisedPenalCodewhichhasasimilarprohibition
onpublicofficersagainstdirectlyorindirectlybecominginterestedinanycontractorbusinessinwhichitishis
officialdutytointervene,"(I)tisnotenoughtobeapublicofficialtobesubjecttothiscrimeitisnecessarythatby
reasonofhisoffice,hehastointerveneinsaidcontractsortransactionsand,hence,theofficialwhointervenes
incontractsortransactionswhichhavenorelationtohisofficecannotcommitthiscrime.'(Peoplevs.Meneses,
C.A.40O.G.11thSupp.134,citedbyJusticeRamonC.AquinoRevisedPenalCode,p.1174,Vol.11[1976]).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/may1982/am_133_j_1982.html 8/11
6/21/2016 A.M.No.133J

Itdoesnotappearalsofromtherecordsthattheaforesaidcorporationgainedanyundueadvantageinits
businessoperationsbyreasonofrespondent'sfinancialinvolvementinit,orthatthecorporationbenefitedinone
wayoranotherinanycasefiledbyoragainstitincourt.Itisundisputedthattherewasnocasefiledinthe
differentbranchesoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLeyteinwhichthecorporationwaseitherpartyplaintiffor
defendantexceptCivilCaseNo.4234entitled"BernarditaR.Macariola,plaintiff,versusSinforosaO.Bales,et
al.,"whereinthecomplainanthereinsoughttorecoverLot1184Efromtheaforesaidcorporation.Itmustbe
noted,however,thatCivilCaseNo.4234wasfiledonlyonNovember9or11,1968anddecidedonNovember2,
1970byCFIJudgeJoseD.NepomucenowhenrespondentJudgewasnolongerconnectedwiththecorporation,
havingdisposedofhisinterestthereinonJanuary31,1967.

Furthermore,respondentisnotliableunderthesameparagraphbecausethereisnoprovisioninboththe1935
and1973ConstitutionsofthePhilippines,noristhereanexistinglawexpresslyprohibitingmembersofthe
Judiciaryfromengagingorhavinginterestinanylawfulbusiness.

ItmaybepointedoutthatRepublicActNo.296,asamended,alsoknownastheJudiciaryActof1948,doesnot
containanyprohibitiontothateffect.Asamatteroffact,underSection77ofsaidlaw,municipaljudgesmay
engageinteachingorothervocationnotinvolvingthepracticeoflawafterofficehoursbutwiththepermissionof
thedistrictjudgeconcerned.

Likewise,Article14oftheCodeofCommercewhichprohibitsjudgesfromengagingincommerceis,as
heretoforestated,deemedabrogatedautomaticallyuponthetransferofsovereigntyfromSpaintoAmerica,
becauseitispoliticalinnature.

Moreover,theprohibitioninparagraph5,Article1491oftheNewCivilCodeagainstthepurchasebyjudgesofa
propertyinlitigationbeforethecourtwithinwhosejurisdictiontheyperformtheirduties,cannotapplyto
respondentJudgebecausethesaleofthelotinquestiontohimtookplaceafterthefinalityofhisdecisioninCivil
CaseNo.3010aswellashistwoordersapprovingtheprojectofpartitionhence,thepropertywasnolonger
subjectoflitigation.

Inaddition,althoughSection12,RuleXVIIIoftheCivilServiceRulesmadepursuanttotheCivilServiceActof
1959prohibitsanofficeroremployeeinthecivilservicefromengaginginanyprivatebusiness,vocation,or
professionorbeconnectedwithanycommercial,credit,agriculturalorindustrialundertakingwithoutawritten
permissionfromtheheadofdepartment,thesame,however,maynotfallwithinthepurviewofparagraphh,
Section3oftheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesActbecausethelastportionofsaidparagraphspeaksofa
prohibitionbytheConstitutionorlawonanypublicofficerfromhavinganyinterestinanybusinessandnotbya
mereadministrativeruleorregulation.Thus,aviolationoftheaforesaidrulebyanyofficeroremployeeinthecivil
service,thatis,engaginginprivatebusinesswithoutawrittenpermissionfromtheDepartmentHeadmaynot
constitutegraftandcorruptpracticeasdefinedbylaw.

OnthecontentionofcomplainantthatrespondentJudgeviolatedSection12,RuleXVIIIoftheCivilServiceRules,
WeholdthattheCivilServiceActof1959(R.A.No.2260)andtheCivilServiceRulespromulgatedthereunder,
particularlySection12ofRuleXVIII,donotapplytothemembersoftheJudiciary.UndersaidSection12:"No
officeroremployeeshallengagedirectlyinanyprivatebusiness,vocation,orprofessionorbeconnectedwithany
commercial,credit,agriculturalorindustrialundertakingwithoutawrittenpermissionfromtheHeadof
Department..."

Itmustbeemphasizedattheoutsetthatrespondent,beingamemberoftheJudiciary,iscoveredbyRepublicAct
No.296,asamended,otherwiseknownastheJudiciaryActof1948andbySection7,ArticleX,1973
Constitution.

UnderSection67ofsaidlaw,thepowertoremoveordismissjudgeswasthenvestedinthePresidentofthe
Philippines,notintheCommissionerofCivilService,andonlyontwogrounds,namely,seriousmisconductand
inefficiency,andupontherecommendationoftheSupremeCourt,whichaloneisauthorized,uponitsownmotion,
oruponinformationoftheSecretary(nowMinister)ofJusticetoconductthecorrespondinginvestigation.Clearly,
theaforesaidsectiondefinesthegroundsandprescribesthespecialprocedureforthedisciplineofjudges.

AndunderSections5,6and7,ArticleXofthe1973Constitution,onlytheSupremeCourtcandisciplinejudgesof
inferiorcourtsaswellasotherpersonneloftheJudiciary.

ItistruethatunderSection33oftheCivilServiceActof1959:"TheCommissionermay,for...violationofthe
existingCivilServiceLawandrulesorofreasonableofficeregulations,orintheinterestoftheservice,remove
anysubordinateofficeroremployeefromtheservice,demotehiminrank,suspendhimfornotmorethanone
yearwithoutpayorfinehiminanamountnotexceedingsixmonths'salary."Thus,aviolationofSection12of
RuleXVIIIisagroundfordisciplinaryactionagainstcivilserviceofficersandemployees.

However,judgescannotbeconsideredassubordinatecivilserviceofficersoremployeessubjecttothe
disciplinaryauthorityoftheCommissionerofCivilServicefor,certainly,theCommissionerisnottheheadofthe

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/may1982/am_133_j_1982.html 9/11
6/21/2016 A.M.No.133J

JudicialDepartmenttowhichtheybelong.TheRevisedAdministrativeCode(Section89)andtheCivilService
LawitselfstatethattheChiefJusticeisthedepartmentheadoftheSupremeCourt(Sec.20,R.A.No.2260)
[1959])andunderthe1973Constitution,theJudiciaryistheonlyotherorsecondbranchofthegovernment
(Sec.1,Art.X,1973Constitution).Besides,aviolationofSection12,RuleXVIIIcannotbeconsideredasa
groundfordisciplinaryactionagainstjudgesbecausetorecognizethesameasapplicabletothem,wouldbe
addinganothergroundforthedisciplineofjudgesand,asaforestated,Section67oftheJudiciaryActrecognizes
onlytwogroundsfortheirremoval,namely,seriousmisconductandinefficiency.

Moreover,underSection16(i)oftheCivilServiceActof1959,itistheCommissionerofCivilServicewhohas
originalandexclusivejurisdiction"(T)odecide,withinonehundredtwentydays,aftersubmissiontoit,all
administrativecasesagainstpermanentofficersandemployeesinthecompetitiveservice,and,exceptas
providedbylaw,tohavefinalauthoritytopassupontheirremoval,separation,andsuspensionanduponall
mattersrelatingtotheconduct,discipline,andefficiencyofsuchofficersandemployeesandprescribe
standards,guidelinesandregulationsgoverningtheadministrationofdiscipline"(emphasissupplied).Thereisno
questionthatajudgebelongtothenoncompetitiveorunclassifiedserviceofthegovernmentasaPresidential
appointeeandisthereforenotcoveredbytheaforesaidprovision.WEhavealreadyruledthat"...ininterpreting
Section16(i)ofRepublicActNo.2260,weemphasizedthatonlypermanentofficersandemployeeswhobelong
totheclassifiedservicecomeundertheexclusivejurisdictionoftheCommissionerofCivilService"(Villaluzvs.
Zaldivar,15SCRA710,713[1965],AngAngcovs.Castillo,9SCRA619[1963]).

AlthoughtheactuationofrespondentJudgeinengaginginprivatebusinessbyjoiningtheTradersManufacturing
andFishingIndustries,Inc.asastockholderandarankingofficer,isnotviolativeoftheprovissionsofArticle14of
theCodeofCommerceandSection3(h)oftheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesActaswellasSection12,Rule
XVIIIoftheCivilServiceRulespromulgatedpursuanttotheCivilServiceActof1959,theimproprietyofthesame
isclearlyunquestionablebecauseCanon25oftheCanonsofJudicialEthicsexpresslydeclaresthat:

Ajudgeshouldabstainfrommakingpersonalinvestmentsinenterpriseswhichareapttobeinvolved
inlitigationinhiscourtand,afterhisaccessiontothebench,heshouldnotretainsuchinvestments
previouslymade,longerthanaperiodsufficienttoenablehimtodisposeofthemwithoutserious
loss.Itisdesirablethatheshould,sofarasreasonablypossible,refrainfromallrelationswhich
wouldnormallytendtoarousethesuspicionthatsuchrelationswarporbiashisjudgment,orprevent
hisimpartialattitudeofmindintheadministrationofhisjudicialduties....

WEarenot,however,unmindfulofthefactthatrespondentJudgeandhiswifehadwithdrawnonJanuary31,
1967fromtheaforesaidcorporationandsoldtheirrespectivesharestothirdparties,anditappearsalsothatthe
aforesaidcorporationdidnotinanywaybenefitinanycasefiledbyoragainstitincourtastherewasnocasefiled
inthedifferentbranchesoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLeytefromthetimeofthedraftingoftheArticlesof
IncorporationofthecorporationonMarch12,1966,uptoitsincorporationonJanuary9,1967,andtheeventual
withdrawalofrespondentonJanuary31,1967fromsaidcorporation.Suchdisposalorsalebyrespondentand
hiswifeoftheirsharesinthecorporationonly22daysaftertheincorporationofthecorporation,indicatesthat
respondentrealizedthatearlythattheirinterestinthecorporationcontravenestheaforesaidCanon25.
RespondentJudgeandhiswifethereforedeservethecommendationfortheirimmediatewithdrawalfromthefirm
afteritsincorporationandbeforeitbecameinvolvedinanycourtlitigation

III

Withrespecttothethirdandfourthcausesofaction,complainantallegedthatrespondentwasguiltyofcoddling
animpostorandactedindisregardofjudicialdecorum,andthattherewasculpabledefianceofthelawandutter
disregardforethics.WEagree,however,withtherecommendationoftheInvestigatingJusticethatrespondent
Judgebeexoneratedbecausetheaforesaidcausesofactionaregroundless,andWEquotethepertinentportion
ofherreportwhichreadsasfollows:

Thebasisforcomplainant'sthirdcauseofactionistheclaimthatrespondentassociatedandclosely
fraternizedwithDominadorArigpaTanwhoopenlyandpubliclyadvertisedhimselfasapractising
attorney(seeExhs.I,I1andJ)whenintruthandinfactsaidDominadorArigpaTandoesnot
appearintheRollofAttorneysandisnotamemberofthePhilippineBarascertifiedtoinExh.K.

The"respondentdeniesknowingthatDominadorArigpaTanwasan"impostor"andclaimsthatall
thetimehebelievedthatthelatterwasabonafidememberofthebar.Iseenoreasonfor
disbelievingthisassertionofrespondent.IthasbeenshownbycomplainantthatDominadorArigpa
Tanrepresentedhimselfpubliclyasanattorneyatlawtotheextentofputtingupasignboardwithhis
nameandthewords"AttorneyatLaw"(Exh.Iand11)toindicatehisoffice,anditwasbutnatural
forrespondentandanypersonforthatmattertohaveacceptedthatstatementonitsfacevalue.
"Nowwithrespecttotheallegationofcomplainantthatrespondentisguiltyoffraternizingwith
DominadorArigpaTantotheextentofpermittinghiswifetobeagodmotherofMr.Tan'schildat
baptism(Exh.M&M1),thatfacteveniftruedidnotrenderrespondentguiltyofviolatinganycanon
ofjudicialethicsaslongashisfriendlyrelationswithDominadorA.Tanandfamilydidnotinfluence
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/may1982/am_133_j_1982.html 10/11
6/21/2016 A.M.No.133J

hisofficialactuationsasajudgewheresaidpersonswereconcerned.Thereisnotangibleconvincing
proofthathereinrespondentgaveanyundueprivilegesinhiscourttoDominadorArigpaTanorthat
thelatterbenefittedinhispracticeoflawfromhispersonalrelationswithrespondent,orthatheused
hisinfluence,ifhehadany,ontheJudgesoftheotherbranchesoftheCourttofavorsaid
DominadorTan.

Ofcourseitishighlydesirableforamemberofthejudiciarytorefrainasmuchaspossiblefrom
maintainingclosefriendlyrelationswithpractisingattorneysandlitigantsinhiscourtsoastoavoid
suspicion'thathissocialorbusinessrelationsorfriendshipconstituteanelementindetermininghis
judicialcourse"(par.30,CanonsofJudicialEthics),butifaJudgedoeshavesocialrelations,thatin
itselfwouldnotconstituteagroundfordisciplinaryactionunlessitbeclearlyshownthathissocial
relationsbecloudedhisofficialactuationswithbiasandpartialityinfavorofhisfriends(pp.403405,
rec.).

Inconclusion,whilerespondentJudgeAsuncion,nowAssociateJusticeoftheCourtofAppeals,didnotviolate
anylawinacquiringbypurchaseaparceloflandwhichwasinlitigationinhiscourtandinengaginginbusiness
byjoiningaprivatecorporationduringhisincumbencyasjudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLeyte,heshould
beremindedtobemorediscreetinhisprivateandbusinessactivities,becausehisconductasamemberofthe
Judiciarymustnotonlybecharacterizedwithproprietybutmustalwaysbeabovesuspicion.

WHEREFORE,THERESPONDENTASSOCIATEJUSTICEOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALSISHEREBY
REMINDEDTOBEMOREDISCREETINHISPRIVATEANDBUSINESSACTIVITIES.

SOORDERED.

Teehankee,Guerrero,DeCastro,MelencioHerrera,Plana,Vasquez,RelovaandGutierrez,JJ.,concur.

ConcepcionJr.,J.,isonleave.

Fernando,C.J.,AbadSantosandEsolinJJ.,tooknopart.

SeparateOpinions

AQUINO,J.,concurringanddissenting:

Ivoteforrespondent'sunqualifiedexoneration.

BARREDO,J.,concurringanddissenting:

IvotewithJusticeAquino.

SeparateOpinions

AQUINO,J.,concurringanddissenting:

Ivoteforrespondent'sunqualifiedexoneration.

BARREDO,J.,concurringanddissenting:

IvotewithJusticeAquino.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/may1982/am_133_j_1982.html 11/11