Post

Macariola v. Asuncion

Posted Updated
By Anonymous
6 min read
Macariola v. Asuncion

Case Title and Citation

Bernardita R. Macariola, complainant, vs. Honorable Elias B. Asuncion, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, respondent.
A.M. No. 133-J, May 31, 1982
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Justice Makasiar

Facts

  • In a verified complaint dated 1968-08-06, Bernardita R. Macariola charged Judge Elias B. Asuncion of acts unbecoming a judge, drawing on a background tied to Civil Case No. 3010 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte (partition of Francisco Reyes Diaz’s estate).
  • The Court of Appeals referred the matter for investigation to Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma on 1968-10-28; Justice Palma issued her report on 1971-05-27.
  • Civil Case No. 3010 involved a partition dispute among heirs of Francisco Reyes Diaz and related properties. The 1963 decision by Judge Asuncion and the subsequent 1963 project of partition, plus the 1963 orders approving the project, determined ownership shares among the heirs and spouses.
  • Lot 1184 (or half thereof) was adjudicated in the partition and subsequently subdivided into Lot 1184-A to 1184-E; Lot 1184-E was later conveyed to Dr. Arcadio Galapon (1964-07-31), who then sold a portion to Judge Asuncion (1965-03-06).
  • On 1966-08-31, Judge Asuncion and Dr. Galapon conveyed their respective shares in Lot 1184-E to Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. (TRADERS), in which Asuncion and his wife held positions, though TRADERS’ incorporation was not registered with the SEC until 1967-01-09.
  • The complainant filed Civil Case No. 4235 in Leyte CFI (1968-11-09/11) seeking annulment of the partition project and related conveyances, though several defendants were later dismissed.
  • On 1970-11-02, Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno of Leyte CFI decided Civil Case No. 4234, dismissing the complaint against Asuncion and awarding damages to Asuncion and others; this decision was appealed and ultimately elevated to the Court of Appeals.
  • The Investigating Justice found: (i) no proven violation of Article 1491, paragraph 5, by purchasing a portion of Lot 1184-E during litigation; (ii) no violation of Article 14 of the Code of Commerce or RA 3019 by associating with TRADERS; (iii) no culpable defiance of the law or impropriety in fraternizing with an alleged impostor; and (iv) no basis to find gross ethical violations.
  • The Investigating Justice noted issues of propriety in the 1963 project of partition approval and highlighted Canon 25, urging discretion in private investments by judges. The record also shows respondent’s withdrawal from TRADERS and sale of his and his wife’s shares before TRADERS’ involvement in any litigated matters.

Issues

  1. Whether respondent violated Article 1491, paragraph 5, of the New Civil Code by acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E that was in litigation in Civil Case No. 3010.
  2. Whether respondent violated Article 14 of the Code of Commerce, RA 3019, Civil Service Rules, and Canon 25 by associating with Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. as a stockholder and officer while a judge.
  3. Whether respondent engaged in coddling an impostor and disregarded judicial decorum by fraternizing with Dominador Arigpa Tan.
  4. Whether respondent’s conduct showed culpable defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics.

Ruling

  1. No — the purchase occurred after the finality of the June 1963 decision and the October 1963/November 1963 orders approving the partition; the lot was no longer subject to litigation at the time of the sale to the respondent.
  2. No — Article 14 of the Code of Commerce is deemed abrogated after the change of sovereignty; there was no proven interference by respondent in TRADERS’ affairs, and RA 3019, Civil Service Rules, and related provisions do not establish liability under the circumstances; however, the impropriety of private investment by a judge remains.
  3. No — there is no sufficient evidence that respondent’s social relations with Dominador Arigpa Tan influenced his official acts; fraternization alone did not establish a disciplinary violation.
  4. No — the record does not demonstrate culpable defiance of law or ethical disregard; however, Canon 25 requires caution and propriety.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • The prohibition in Article 1491, paragraph 5 applies to purchases of property in litigation only if the sale occurs during pendency of the litigation; here, the sale to respondent occurred after finality of the dispositive decision and subsequent orders (1963), and after Galapon’s earlier acquisition (1964), making the property no longer subject to litigation.
  • Article 14 of the Code of Commerce has been held to be abrogated with the transfer of sovereignty, and thus cannot bind the respondent in this context; likewise, RA 3019 and Civil Service Rule XVIII do not attach to judges in the same way they do to non-judicial civil servants, given the 1973 Constitution and the Judiciary Act structure.
  • Canon 25 imposes a duty of propriety and avoidance of appearances of impropriety; even though respondent and his wife withdrew from TRADERS shortly after its incorporation, the court emphasized the need for discretion to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
  • The Investigating Justice’s conclusions regarding the third and fourth causes of action reflect that social ties with an attorney not listed on the Roll of Attorneys did not, by themselves, demonstrate bias or misconduct absent tangible influence on official actions.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Adherence to the pendency rule: prohibited acquisitions must occur during litigation; purchases after final judgments are not prohibited by Article 1491, paragraph 5.
  • Abrogation of political-law provisions: sovereignty changes can render prior political laws inapplicable unless expressly retained.
  • Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics: judges should avoid investments or relationships that could appear to bias judicial actions; public confidence in the judiciary requires discretion in private business connections.
  • Distinction between disqualifying conduct and mere social relations: social relations with attorneys or laypersons do not automatically translate into disciplinary liability unless they prove bias or influence in judicial acts.

Disposition

  • The respondent, now an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, is reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities. The petition against him was denied to the extent of finding no statutory violation; the ethical admonition stands as a preventive measure to preserve public confidence in the judiciary.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Separate Opinion AQUINO, J., concurring and dissenting: I vote for respondent’s unqualified exoneration.
  • Separate Opinion BARREDO, J., concurring and dissenting: I vote with Justice Aquino.

Significance / Notes

  • Clarifies the application of the pendency rule under Article 1491, paragraph 5, in the context of a judge acquiring property after final judgments in a related case.
  • Reiterates that sovereignty changes nullify certain colonial-era political laws, such as Article 14 of the Code of Commerce, in relation to public officers.
  • Affirms that while RA 3019 and Civil Service Rules may be inapplicable to judges in this setting, canonical ethics (Canon 25) remains a substantive discipline on judicial behavior.
  • Emphasizes the court’s emphasis on maintaining decorum and avoiding appearances of impropriety in the private holdings and relationships of members of the judiciary.
Judicial Ethics Code of Commerce Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act Civil Service Rules Canon 25
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.