1 general principles

7/18/2019 1 General Principles

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 1/25

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

G.R. No. L-18463 October 4, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

GREGORIO PERFETOR, defendant-appellant.

Alfonso E. Mendoza and the appellant in behalf of the latter.

Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellee.

!ALOL!, J.:

The important question is here squarely presented of whether article 256 of the Spanish Penal

Code, punishin !"ny person who, #y . . . writin, shall defame, a#use, or insult any $inister of the

Crown or other person in authority . . .,! is still in force.

"#out "uust 2%, &'2%, the Secretary of the Philippine Senate, (ernando $. )uerrero, discovered

that certain documents which constituted the records of testimony iven #y witnesses in the

investiation of oil companies, had disappeared from his office. Shortly thereafter, the Philippine

Senate, havin #een called into special session #y the )overnor-)eneral, the Secretary for the

Senate informed that #ody of the loss of the documents and of the steps ta*en #y him to discover

the uilty party. The day followin the convenin of the Senate, Septem#er +, &'2%, the

newspaper La Nacion, edited #y $r. )reorio Perfecto, pu#lished an article readin as follows

alf a month has elapsed since the discovery, for the first time, of the scandalous ro##ery of

records which were *ept and preserved in the iron safe of the Senate, yet up to this time

there is not the slihtest indication that the author or authors of the crime will ever #ediscovered.

To find them, it would not, perhaps, #e necessary to o out of the Sente itself, and the

persons in chare of the investiation of the case would not have to display reat s*ill in

order to succeed in their underta*in, unless they should encounter the insupera#le o#stacle

of offical concealment.

n that case, every investiation to #e made would #e #ut a mere comedy and nothin more.

"fter all, the perpetration of the ro##ery, especially under the circumstances that have

surrounded it, does not surprise us at all.

The e/ecution of the crime was #ut the natural effect of the environment of the place in which

it was committed.

ow many of the present Senators can say without remorse in their conscience and with

serenity of mind, that they do not owe their victory to electoral ro##ery0 ow may0



The author or authors of the ro##ery of the records from the said iron safe of the Senate

have, perhaps, #ut followed the e/ample of certain Senators who secured their election

throuh fraud and ro##ery.

The Philippine Senate, in its session of Septem#er ', &'2%, adopted a resolution authori1in its

committee on elections and privilees to report as to the action which should #e ta*en with referenceto the article pu#lished inLa Nacion. n Septem#er &5, &'2%, the Senate adopted a resolution

authori1in the President of the Senate to indorse to the "ttorney-)eneral, for his study and

correspondin action, all the papers referrin to the case of the newspaper La Nacion and its editor,

$r. )reorio Perfecto. "s a result, an information was filed in the municipal court of the City of

$anila #y an assistant city fiscal, in which the editorial in question was set out and in which it was

alleed that the same constituted a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. The defendant

)reorio Perfecto was found uilty in the municipal court and aain in the Court of (irst nstance of

$anila.

3urin the course of the trial in the Court of (irst nstance, after the prosecution had rested, the

defense moved for the dismissal of the case. n the su#4ect of whether or not article 256 of thePenal Code, under which the information was presented, is in force, the trial 4ude, the onora#le

)eore . arvey, said

This antiquated provision was dou#tless incorporated into the Penal Code of Spain for the

protection of the $inisters of the Crown and other representatives of the in aainst free

speech and action #y Spanish su#4ects. " severe punishment was prescri#ed #ecause it was

dou#tless considered a much more serious offense to insult the in7s representative than to

insult an ordinary individual. This provision, with almost all the other articles of that Code,

was e/tended to the Philippine slands when under the dominion of Spain #ecause the

in7s su#4ect in the Philippines miht defame, a#use or insult the $inisters of the Crown or

other representatives of is $a4esty. 8e now have no $inisters of the Crown or other persons in authority in the Philippines representin the in of Spain, and said provision,

with other articles of the Penal Code, had apparently passed into !innocuous desuetude,! #ut

the Supreme Corut of the Philippine slands has, #y a ma4ority decision, held that said article

256 is the law of the land to-day. . . .

The el#i case is a precedent which, #y the rule of stare decisis, is #indin upon this court

until otherwise determined #y proper authority.

n the decision rendered #y the same 4ude, he concluded with the followin lanuae

n the 9nited States such pu#lications are usually not punisha#le as criminal offense, andlittle importance is attached to them, #ecause they are enerally the result of political

controversy and are usually rearded as more or less colored or e/aerated. "ttac*s of this

character upon a leislative #ody are not punisha#le, under the :i#el :aw. "lthouh such

pu#lications are reprehensi#le, yet this court feels some aversion to the application of the

provision of law under which this case was filed. ur Penal Code has come to us from the

Spanish reime. "rticle 256 of that Code prescri#es punishment for persons who use

insultin lanuae a#out $inisters of the Crown or other !authority.! The in of Spain



dou#tless left the need of such protection to his ministers and others in authority in the

Philippines as well as in Spain. ence, the article referred to was made applica#le here.

;otwithstandin the chane of sovereinty, our Supreme Court, in a ma4ority decision, has

held that this provision is still in force, and that one who made an insultin remar* a#out the

President of the 9nited States was punisha#le under it. <9.S. vs. el#i, supra.= f it

applica#le in that case, it would appear to #e applica#le in this case. ence, said article 256must #e enforced, without fear or favor, until it shall #e repealed or superseded #y other

leislation, or until the Supreme Court shall otherwise determine.

n view of the foreoin considerations, the court finds the defendant uilty as chared in the

information and under article 256 of their Penal Code sentences him to suffer two months

and one day of arresto mayor and the accessory penalties prescri#ed #y law, and to pay the

costs of #oth instances.

The fifteen errors assined #y the defendant and appellant, reenforced #y an e/tensive #rief, and

eloquent oral arument made in his own #ehalf and #y his learned counsel, all reduce themselves to

the pertinent and decisive question which was announced in the #einnin of this decision.

t will #e noted in the first place that the trial 4ude considered himself #ound to follow the rule

announced in the case of 9nited States vs. el#i <. ). ;o. &>+%5, & not pu#lished=. n that case,

the accused was chared with havin said, !To hell with the President and his proclamations, or

words to that effect,! in violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. e was found uilty in a 4udment

rendered #y the Court of (irst nstance of $anila and aain on appeal to the Supreme Court, with

the writer of the instant decision dissentin on two principal rounds <&= That the accused was

deprived of the constitutional riht of cross-e/amination, and <2= that article 256 of the Spanish Penal

Code is no loner in force. Su#sequently, on a motion of reconsideration, the court, #ein of the

opinion that the Court of (irst nstance had committed a pre4udicial error in deprivin the accused of

his riht to cross-e/amine a principal witness, set aside the 4udment affirmin the 4udmentappealed from and ordered the return of the record to the court of oriin for the cele#ration of a new

trial. 8hether such a trial was actually had, is not *nown, #ut at least, the record in the el#i case

has never aain #een elevated to this court.

There may perchance e/ist some dou#t as to the authority of the decision in the el#i case, in view

of the circumstances a#ove descri#ed. This much, however, is certain The facts of the el#i case

and the case #efore us, which we may term the Perfecto case, are different, for in the first case there

was an oral defamation, while in the second there is a written defamation. ;ot only this, #ut a new

point which, under the facts, could not have #een considered in the el#i case, is, in the Perfecto

case, ured upon the court. "nd, finally, as is apparent to all, the appellate court is not restrained, as

was the trial court, #y strict adherence to a former decision. 8e much prefer to resolve the question#efore us unhindered #y references to the el#i decision.

This is one of those cases on which a variety of opinions all leadin to the same result can #e had. "

ma4ority of the court are of the opinion that the Philippine :i#el :aw, "ct ;o. 2++, has had the effect

of repealin so much of article 256 of the Penal Code as relates to written defamation, a#use, or

insult, and that under the information and the facts, the defendant is neither uilty of a violation of

article 256 of the Penal Code, nor of the :i#el :aw. The view of the Chief ?ustice is that the accused



should #e acquitted for the reason that the facts alleed in the information do not constitute a

violation of article &56 of the Penal Code. Three mem#ers of the court #elieve that article 256 was

a#roated completely #y the chane from Spanish to "merican sovereinty over the Philippines and

is inconsistent with democratic principles of overnment.

8ithout pre4udice to the riht of any mem#er of the court to e/plain his position, we will discuss thetwo main points 4ust mentioned.

&. Effect of the hilippine Libel La!" Act No. #$$" on article #%& of the 'panish enal (ode .

@ The :i#el :aw, "ct ;o. 2++, was enacted #y the Philippine Commission shortly after

orani1ation of this leislative #ody. Section & defines li#el as a !malicious defamation,

e/pressed either in writin, printin, or #y sins or pictures, or the li*e, or pu#lic theatrical

e/hi#itions, tendin to #lac*en the memory of one who is dead or to impeach the honesty,

virtue, or reputation, or pu#lish the alleed or natural deffects of one who is alive, and

there#y e/pose him to pu#lic hatred, contempt or ridicule.! Section &A provides that !"ll laws

and parts of laws now in force, so far as the same may #e in conflict herewith, are here#y

repealed. . . .!

That parts of laws in force in &'%& when the :i#el :aw too* effect, were in conflict therewith, and that

the :i#el :aw a#roated certain portion of the Spanish Penal Code, cannot #e ainsaid. Title B of

oo* of the Penal Code, coverin the su#4ects of calumny and insults, must have #een particularly

affected #y the :i#el :aw. ndeed, in the early case of Pardo de Tavera vs. )arcia Dalde1 <E&'%2F, &.

Phil., >6G=, the Supreme Court spo*e of the :i#el :aw as ! reformin) the pree/istin Spanish law on

the su#4ect of calumnia and in*uria.! ecently, specific attention was iven to the effect of the :i#el

:aw on the provisions of the Penal Code, dealin with calumny and insults, and it was found that

those provisions of the Penal Code on the su#4ect of calumny and insults in which the elements of

writin an pu#licity entered, were a#roated #y the :i#el :aw. <People vs. Castro E&'22F, p.

G>2, ante.=

The :i#el :aw must have had the same result on other provisions of the Penal Code, as for instance

article 256.

The facts here are that the editor of a newspaper pu#lished an article, naturally in writin, which may

have had the tendency to impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation of mem#ers of the Philippine

Senate, there#y possi#ly e/posin them to pu#lic hatred, contempt, or ridicule, which is e/actly li#el,

as defined #y the :i#el :aw. Sir ?. (. Stephen is authority for the statement that a li#el is indicta#le

when defamin a !#ody of persons definite and small enouh for individual mem#ers to #e

reconi1ed as such, in or #y means of anythin capa#le of #ein a li#el.! <3iest of Criminal :aw,

art. 26+.= ut in the 9nited States, while it may #e proper to prosecute criminally the author of a li#elcharin a leislator with corruption, criticisms, no matter how severe, on a leislature, are within the

rane of the li#erty of the press, unless the intention and effect #e seditious. <A 8harton7s Criminal

:aw, p. 2&A&.= 8ith these facts and leal principles in mind, recall that article 256 #eins "ny

person who, #y . . .!ritin) , shall defame, a#use, or insult any $inister of the Crown or other person

in authority,! etc.



The :i#el :aw is a complete and comprehensive law on the su#4ect of li#el. The well-*nown rule of

statutory construction is, that where the later statute clearly covers the old su#4ect-matter of

antecedent acts, and it plainly appears to have #een the purpose of the leislature to ive

e/pression in it to the whole law on the su#4ect, previous laws are held to #e repealed #y necessary

implication. <& :ewis7 Sutherland Statutory Construction, p. >65.= (or identical reasons, it is evident

that "ct ;o. 2++ had the effect so much of this article as punishes defamation, a#use, or insults #ywritin.

"ct ;o. 2'2 of the Philippine Commission, the Treason and Sedition :aw, may also have affected

article 256, #ut as to this point, it is not necessary to ma*e a pronouncement.

2. Effect of the chan)e from 'panish to Amercian sevorei)nty over the hilippine son article

#%& of the 'panish enal (ode. @ "ppellant7s main proposition in the lower court and aain

eneretically pressed in the appellate court was that article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is

not now in force #ecause a#roated #y the chane from Spanish to "merican sovereinty

over the Philippines and #ecause inconsistent with democratic principles of overnment. This

view was indirectly favored #y the trial 4ude, and, as #efore stated, is the opinion of threemem#ers of this court.

"rticle 256 is found in Chapter D of title of oo* of the Spanish Penal Code. Title of oo*

punishes the crimes of treason, crimes that endaner the peace or independence of the state,

crimes aainst international law, and the crime of piracy. Title of the same #oo* punishes the

crimes of lese ma*este, crimes aainst the (ortesand its mem#ers and aainst the council of

ministers, crimes aainst the form of overnment, and crimes committed on the occasion of the

e/ercise of rihts uaranteed #y the fundamental laws of the state, includin crime aainst reliion

and worship. Title of the same oo*, in which article 256 is found, punishes the crimes of

re#ellion, sedition, assaults upon persons in authority, and their aents, and contempts,

insults, in*urias, and threats aainst persons in authority, and insults, in*urias, and threats aainsttheir aents and other pu#lic officers, the last #ein the title to Chapter D. The first two articles in

Chapter D define and punish the offense of contempt committed #y any one who shall #e word or

deed defame, a#use, insult, or threathen a minister of the crown, or any person in authority. The with

an article condemnin challenes to fiht duels intervenin, comes article 256, now #ein weihed in

the #alance. t reads as follows !"ny person who, #y word, deed, or writin, shall defame, a#use, or

insult any Minister of the (ro!n or other person in authority , while enaed in the performance of

official duties, or #y reason of such performance, provided that the offensive minister or person, or

the offensive writin #e not addressed to him, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor ,! @ that is,

the defamation, a#use, or insult of any Minister of the (ro!n of the Monarchy of 'pain <for there

could not #e a $inister of the Crown in the 9nited States of "merica=, or other person in authority in

the Monarchy of 'pain.

t cannot admit of dou#t that all those provisions of the Spanish Penal Code havin to do with such

su#4ects as treason, lese ma*este, reliion and worship, re#ellion, sedition, and contempts of

ministers of the crown, are not loner in force. ur present tas*, therefore, is a determination of

whether article 256 has met the same fate, or, more specifically stated, whether it is in the nature of

a municipal law or political law, and is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the 9nited States

and the characteristics and institutions of the "merican )overnment.



t is a eneral principle of the pu#lic law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations

of the ceded reion are totally a#roated. !Political! is here used to denominate the laws reulatin

the relations sustained #y the inha#itants to the soverein. <"merican nsurance Co. vs. Canter

E&G2GF, & Pet., 5&&H Chicao, oc* sland and Pacific ailway Co. vs. $c)linn E&GG5F, &&> 9.S., 5>2H

oa vs. Collector of Customs E&'&2F, 2A Phil., A&5.= $r. ?ustice (ield of the 9nited States Supreme

Court stated the o#vious when in the course of his opinion in the case of Chicao, oc* sland andPacific ailway Co. vs. $c)linn, supra, he said !"s a matter of course, all laws, ordinances and

reulations in conflict with the political character, institutions and Constitution of the new overnment

are at once displaced. Thus, upon a cession of political 4urisdiction and leislative power @ and the

latter is involved in the former @ to the 9nited States, the la!s of the country in support of an

esta#lished reliion or abrid)in) the freedom of the press, or authori1in cruel and unusual

punishments, and he li+e" !ould at once cease to be of obli)atory force without any declaration to

that effect.! To quote aain from the 9nited States Supreme Court ! ,t cannot be admitted that the

in) of 'pain could" by treaty or other!ise" impart to the nited 'tates any of his royal prero)atives H

and much less can it #e admitted that they have capacity to receive or power to e/ercise them.

Ivery nation acquirin territory, #y treaty or otherwise, must hold it su#4ect to the Constitution and

laws of its own overnment, and not accordin to those of the overnment cedin it.!<Pollard vs. aan E&G>5F, A os., 2&%.=

n "merican occupation of the Philippines, #y instructions of the President to the $ilitary

Commander dated $ay 2G, &G'G, and #y proclamation of the latter, the municipal laws of the

conquered territory affectin private rihts of person and property and providin for the punishment

of crime were nominally continued in force in so far as they were compati#le with the new order of

thins. ut President $cinley, in his instructions to )eneral $erritt, was careful to say !The first

effect of the military occupation of the enemy7s territory is the severance of the former political

relation of the inha#itants and the esta#lishment of a new political power.! (rom that day to this, the

ordinarily it has #een ta*en for ranted that the provisions under consideration were still effective. To

paraphrase the lanuae of the 9nited States Supreme Court in 8eems vs. 9nited States <E&'&%F,2&+ 9. S., A>'=, there was not and could not #e, e/cept as precise questions were presented, a

careful consideration of the codal provisions and a determination of the e/tent to which they

accorded with or were repunant to the !/)reat principles of liberty and la!/ !hich had been /made

the basis of our )overnmental system./ ! ut when the question has #een squarely raised, the

appellate court has #een forced on occasion to hold certain portions of the Spanish codes repunant

t democratic institutions and "merican constitutional principles. <9.S. vs. Sweet E&'%&F, & Phil., &GH

9.S.vs. alcorta E&'&AF, 25 Phil., 2+AH 9.S. vs. alcorta E&'&AF, 25 Phil., 5AAH

8eems vs. 9.S., supra.=

The nature of the overnment which has #een set up in the Philippines under "merican sovereinty

was outlined #y President $cinley in that $ana Charta of Philippine li#erty, his instructions to theCommission, of "pril +, &'%%. n part, the President said

n all the forms of overnment and administrative provisions which they are authori1ed to

prescri#e, the Commission should #ear in mind that he overnment which they are

esta#lishin is desined not for our satisfaction or for the e/pression of our theoretical views,

#ut for the happiness, peace, and prosperity of the people of the Philippine slands, and the

measures adopted should #e made to conform to their customs, their ha#its, and even their



pre4udices, to the fullest e/tent consistent with the accomplishment of the indispensa#le

requisites of 4ust and effective overnment. "t the same time the Commission should #ear in

mind, and the people of the ,slands should be made plainly to understand" that there are

certain )reat principles of )overnment !hich have been made the basis of our )overnmental

system" !hich !e deem essential to the rule of la! and the maintenance of individual

freedom" and of !hich they have" unfortunately" been denied the e0perience possessed by us1 that there are also certain practical rules of )overnment !hich !e have found to be

essential to the preservation of these )reat principles of liberty and la!" and that these

principles and these rules of )overnment must be established and maintained in their islands

for the sa+e of their liberty and happiness, however much they may conflict with the customs

or laws of procedure with which they are familiar. t is evident that the most enlithened

thouht of the Philippine slands fully appreciates the importance of these principles and

rules, and they will inevita#ly within a short time command universal assent.

The courts have naturally ta*en the same view. $r. ?ustice Illiott, spea*in for our Supreme Court,

in the case of 9nited States vs. ull <E&'&%F, &5 Phil., +=, said !The President and Conress framed

the overnment on the model with which "merican are familiar, and which has proven #est adaptedfor the advancement of the pu#lic interests and the protection of individual rihts and privilees.!

Therefore, it has come with somewhat of a shoc* to hear the statement made that the happiness,

peace, and prosperity of the people of the Philippine slands and their customs, ha#its, and

pre4udices, to follow the lanuae of President $cinley, demand o#eisance to authority, and royal

protection for that authority.

"ccordin to our view, article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted #y the )overnment of

Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the representatives of the in. 8ith the chane of

sovereinty, a new overnment, and a new theory of overnment, as set up in the Philippines. t was

in no sense a continuation of the old, althouh merely for convenience certain of the e/istininstitutions and laws were continued. The demands which the new overnment made, and ma*es,

on the individual citi1en are li*ewise different. ;o loner is there a $inister of the Crown or a person

in authority of such e/alted position that the citi1en must spea* of him only with #ated #reath. !,n the

eye of our (onstitution and la!s" every man is a soverei)n" a ruler and a freeman" and has e2ual

ri)hts !ith every other man. 8e have no ran* or station, e/cept that of respecta#ility and intellience

as opposed to indecency and inorance, and the door to this ran* stands open to every man to

freely enter and a#ide therein, if he is qualified, and whether he is qualified or not depends upon the

life and character and attainments and conduct of each person for himself. Ivery man may lawfully

do what he will, so lon as it is notmalum in se or malum prohibitum or does not infrine upon the

qually sacred rihts of others.! <State vs.Shepherd E&'%AF, &++ $o., 2%5H '' ". S. ., 62>.=

t is true that in Inland, from which so many of the laws and institutions of the 9nited States are

derived, there were once statutes of scandalum ma)natum, under which words which would not #e

actiona#le if spo*en of an ordinary su#4ect were made actiona#le if spo*en of a peer of the realm or

of any of the reat officers of the Crown, without proof of any special damae. The Crown of

Inland, unfortunately, too* a view less tolerant that that of other sovereins, as for instance, the

Imperors "uustus, Caesar, and Ti#erius. These Inlish statutes have, however, lon since,

#ecome o#solete, while in the 9nited States, the offense of scandalum ma)natum is not *nown. n



the early days of the "merican epu#lic, a sedition law was enacted, ma*in it an offense to li#el the

)overnment, the Conress, or the President of the 9nited States, #ut the law met with so much

popular disapproval, that it was soon repealed. !,n this country no distinction as to persons is

reco)nized , and in practice a person holdin a hih office is rearded as a taret at whom any

person may let fly his poisonous words. ih official position, instead of affordin immunity from

slanderous and li#elous chares, seems rather to #e rearded as ma*in his character free plunder for any one who desires to create a senation #y attac*in it.! <;ewell, Slander and :i#el, Ad ed., p.

2>5H Sillars vs. Collier E&G'%F, &5& $ass., 5%H 6 :.."., 6G%.=

"rticle 256 of the Penal Code is contrary to the enius and fundamental principles of the "merican

character and system of overnment. The ulf which separates this article from the spirit which

inspires all penal leislation of "merican oriin, is as wide as that which separates a monarchy from

a democratic epu#lic li*e that of the 9nited States. This article was crowded out #y implication as

soon as the 9nited States esta#lished its authority in the Philippine slands. Penalties out of all

proportion to the ravity of the offense, rounded in a distorted monarchical conception of the nature

of political authority, as opposed to the "merican conception of the protection of the interests of the

pu#lic, have #een o#literated #y the present system of overnment in the slands.3a!ph4l.net

(rom an entirely different point of view, it must #e noted that this article punishes contempts aainst

e/ecutive officials, althouh its terms are #road enouh to cover the entire official class. Punishment

for contempt of non-4udicial officers has no place in a overnment #ased upon "merican principles.

ur official class is not, as in monarchies, an aent of some authority reater than the people #ut it

is an aent and servant of the people themselves. These officials are only entitled to respect and

o#edience when they are actin within the scope of their authority and 4urisdiction. The "merican

system of overnment is calculated to enforce respect and o#edience where such respect and

o#edience is due, #ut never does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an official

position #y mandate of the people any official halo, which calls for drastic punishment for

contemptuous remar*s.

The crime of lese ma*este disappeared in the Philippines with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris.

$inisters of the Crown have no place under the "merican fla.

To summari1e, the result is, that all the mem#ers of the court are of the opinion, althouh for different

reasons, that the 4udment should #e reversed and the defendant and appellant acquitted, with

costs de officio. So ordered.



A.!. No. 133-" !#$ 31, 1982

%ERNARDITA R. !AARIOLA, complainant,

vs.

HONORA%LE ELIAS %. AS&NION, "'()e o* t+e o'rt o* Frt It#ce o* Le$te, respondent.

!A/ASIAR, J:

n a verified complaint dated "uust 6, &'6G ernardita . $acariola chared respondent ?ude

Ilias . "suncion of the Court of (irst nstance of :eyte, now "ssociate ?ustice of the Court of

"ppeals, with !acts un#ecomin a 4ude.!

The factual settin of the case is stated in the report dated $ay 2+, &'+& of then "ssociate ?ustice

Cecilia $uJo1 Palma of the Court of "ppeals now retired "ssociate ?ustice of the Supreme Court, to

whom this case was referred on cto#er 2G, &'6G for investiation, thus

Civil Case ;o. A%&% of the Court of (irst nstance of :eyte was a complaint for

partition filed #y Sinforosa . ales, :u1 . a*unawa, "nacorita eyes, uperto

eyes, "dela eyes, and Priscilla eyes, plaintiffs, aainst ernardita . $acariola,

defendant, concernin the properties left #y the deceased (rancisco eyes, the

common father of the plaintiff and defendant.

n her defenses to the complaint for partition, $rs. $acariola alleed amon other

thins thatH a= plaintiff Sinforosa . ales was not a dauhter of the deceased

(rancisco eyesH #= the only leal heirs of the deceased were defendant $acariola,

she #ein the only offsprin of the first marriae of (rancisco eyes with (elisaIspiras, and the remainin plaintiffs who were the children of the deceased #y his

second marriae with rene nde1H c= the properties left #y the deceased were all the

con4ual properties of the latter and his first wife, (elisa Ispiras, and no properties

were acquired #y the deceased durin his second marriaeH d= if there was any

partition to #e made, those con4ual properties should first #e partitioned into two

parts, and one part is to #e ad4udicated solely to defendant it #ein the share of the

latter7s deceased mother, (elisa Ispiras, and the other half which is the share of the

deceased (rancisco eyes was to #e divided equally amon his children #y his two

marriaes.

n ?une G, &'6A, a decision was rendered #y respondent ?ude "suncion in CivilCase A%&%, the dispositive portion of which reads

; DI8 ( TI (I);) C;S3I"T;S, the Court, upon

a preponderance of evidence, finds and so holds, and here#y renders

4udment <&= 3eclarin the plaintiffs :u1 . a*unawa, "nacorita

eyes, uperto eyes, "dela eyes and Priscilla eyes as the only

children leitimated #y the su#sequent marriae of (rancisco eyes



3ia1 to rene nde1H <2= 3eclarin the plaintiff Sinforosa . ales to

have #een an illeitimate child of (rancisco eyes 3ia1H <A= 3eclarin

:ots ;os. >>+>, >>+5, >G'2, 5265, >G%A, >5G&, >5%6 and &K> of :ot

&&>5 as #elonin to the con4ual partnership of the spouses

(rancisco eyes 3ia1 and (elisa IspirasH <>= 3eclarin :ot ;o. 2A%>

and &K> of :ot ;o. A>&6 as #elonin to the spouses (ranciscoeyes 3ia1 and rene nde1 in common partnershipH <5= 3eclarin

that &K2 of :ot ;o. &&G> as #elonin e/clusively to the deceased

(rancisco eyes 3ia1H <6= 3eclarin the defendant ernardita .

$acariola, #ein the only leal and forced heir of her mother (elisa

Ispiras, as the e/clusive owner of one-half of each of :ots ;os.

>>+>, >>+5, >G'2, 5265, >G%A, >5G&, >5%6H and the remainin one-

half <&K2= of each of said :ots ;os. >>+>, >>+5, >G'2, 5265, >G%A,

>5G&, >5%6 and one-half <&K2= of one-fourth <&K>= of :ot ;o. &&5> as

#elonin to the estate of (rancisco eyes 3ia1H <+= 3eclarin rene

nde1 to #e the e/clusive owner of one-half <&K2= of :ot ;o. 2A%>

and one-half <&K2= of one-fourth <&K>= of :ot ;o. A>&6H the remaininone-half <&K2= of :ot 2A%> and the remainin one-half <&K2= of one-

fourth <&K>= of :ot ;o. A>&6 as #elonin to the estate of (rancisco

eyes 3ia1H <G= 3irectin the division or partition of the estate of

(rancisco eyes 3ia1 in such a manner as to ive or rant to rene

nde1, as survivin widow of (rancisco eyes 3ia1, a hereditary

share of. one-twelfth <&K&2= of the whole estate of (rancisco eyes

3ia1 <"rt. ''6 in relation to "rt. G'2, par 2, ;ew Civil Code=, and the

remainin portion of the estate to #e divided amon the plaintiffs

Sinforosa . ales, :u1 . a*unawa, "nacorita eyes, uperto

eyes, "dela eyes, Priscilla eyes and defendant ernardita .

$acariola, in such a way that the e/tent of the total share of plaintiff Sinforosa . ales in the hereditary estate shall not e/ceed the

equivalent of two-fifth <2K5= of the total share of any or each of the

other plaintiffs and the defendant <"rt. 'GA, ;ew Civil Code=, each of

the latter to receive equal shares from the hereditary estate, <amire1

vs. autista, &> Phil. 52GH 3iancin vs. ishop of ?aro, .). EArd Id.F

p. AA=H <'= 3irectin the parties, within thirty days after this 4udment

shall have #ecome final to su#mit to this court, for approval a pro4ect

of partition of the hereditary estate in the proportion a#ove indicated,

and in such manner as the parties may, #y areement, deemed

convenient and equita#le to them ta*in into consideration the

location, *ind, quality, nature and value of the properties involvedH<&%= 3irectin the plaintiff Sinforosa . ales and defendant

ernardita . $acariola to pay the costs of this suit, in the proportion

of one-third <&KA= #y the first named and two-thirds <2KA= #y the

second namedH and < &= 3ismissin all other claims of the parties Epp

2+-2' of I/h. CF.



The decision in civil case A%&% #ecame final for lac* of an appeal, and on cto#er

&6, &'6A, a pro4ect of partition was su#mitted to ?ude "suncion which is mar*ed

I/h. ". ;otwithstandin the fact that the pro4ect of partition was not sined #y the

parties themselves #ut only #y the respective counsel of plaintiffs and defendant,

?ude "suncion approved it in his rder dated cto#er 2A, &'6A, which for

convenience is quoted hereunder in full

The parties, throuh their respective counsels, presented to this

Court for approval the followin pro4ect of partition

C$IS ;8, the plaintiffs and the defendant in the a#ove-entitled

case, to this onora#le Court respectfully su#mit the followin Pro4ect

of Partition

l. The whole of :ots ;os. &&5>, 2A%> and >5%6 shall #elon

e/clusively to ernardita eyes $acariolaH

2. " portion of :ot ;o. A>&6 consistin of 2,A+A.>' square meters

alon the eastern part of the lot shall #e awarded li*ewise to

ernardita . $acariolaH

A. :ots ;os. >G%A, >G'2 and 5265 shall #e awarded to Sinforosa

eyes alesH

>. " portion of :ot ;o. A>&6 consistin of &,GA>.55 square meters

alon the western part of the lot shall li*ewise #e awarded to

Sinforosa eyes-alesH

5. :ots ;os. >>+> and >>+5 shall #e divided equally amon :u1

eyes a*unawa, "nacorita eyes, uperto eyes, "dela eyes

and Priscilla eyes in equal sharesH

6. :ot ;o. &&G> and the remainin portion of :ot ;o. A>&6 after ta*in

the portions awarded under item <2= and <>= a#ove shall #e awarded

to :u1 eyes a*unawa, "nacorita eyes, uperto eyes, "dela

eyes and Priscilla eyes in equal shares, provided, however that

the remainin portion of :ot ;o. A>&6 shall #elon e/clusively to

Priscilla eyes.

8II(I, it is respectfully prayed that the Pro4ect of Partition

indicated a#ove which is made in accordance with the decision of the

onora#le Court #e approved.

Taclo#an City, cto#er &6, &'6A.

<S)3= ;("C "$ "tty. for the 3efendant Taclo#an City



<S)3= LTC ". T:ITI "tty. for the Plaintiff Taclo#an City

8hile the Court thouht it more desira#le for all the parties to have

sined this Pro4ect of Partition, nevertheless, upon assurance of #oth

counsels of the respective parties to this Court that the Pro4ect of

Partition, as a#ove- quoted, had #een made after a conference andareement of the plaintiffs and the defendant approvin the a#ove

Pro4ect of Partition, and that #oth lawyers had represented to the

Court that they are iven full authority to sin #y themselves the

Pro4ect of Partition, the Court, therefore, findin the a#ove-quoted

Pro4ect of Partition to #e in accordance with law, here#y approves the

same. The parties, therefore, are directed to e/ecute such papers,

documents or instrument sufficient in form and su#stance for the

vestin of the rihts, interests and participations which were

ad4udicated to the respective parties, as outlined in the Pro4ect of

Partition and the delivery of the respective properties ad4udicated to

each one in view of said Pro4ect of Partition, and to perform suchother acts as are leal and necessary to effectuate the said Pro4ect of

Partition.

S 3II3.

)iven in Taclo#an City, this 2Ard day of cto#er, &'6A.

<S)3= I:"S . "S9;C; ?ude

IB. .

The a#ove rder of cto#er 2A, &'6A, was amended on ;ovem#er &&, &'6A, only for

the purpose of ivin authority to the eister of 3eeds of the Province of :eyte to

issue the correspondin transfer certificates of title to the respective ad4udicatees in

conformity with the pro4ect of partition <see I/h. 9=.

ne of the properties mentioned in the pro4ect of partition was :ot &&G> or rather

one-half thereof with an area of &5,&62.5 sq. meters. This lot, which accordin to the

decision was the e/clusive property of the deceased (rancisco eyes, was

ad4udicated in said pro4ect of partition to the plaintiffs :u1, "nacorita uperto, "dela,

and Priscilla all surnamed eyes in equal shares, and when the pro4ect of partition

was approved #y the trial court the ad4udicatees caused :ot &&G> to #e su#dividedinto five lots denominated as :ot &&G>-" to &&G>-I inclusive <I/h. D=.

:ot &&G>-3 was conveyed to Inriqueta 3. "nota, a stenorapher in ?ude "suncion7s

court <I/hs. (, (-& and D-&=, while :ot &&G>-I which had an area of 2,&+2.5556 sq.

meters was sold on ?uly A&, &'6> to 3r. "rcadio )alapon <I/h. 2= who was issued

transfer certificate of title ;o. 2AAG of the eister of 3eeds of the city of Taclo#an

<I/h. &2=.



n $arch 6, &'65, 3r. "rcadio )alapon and his wife Sold a portion of :ot &&G>-I

with an area of around &,A%6 sq. meters to ?ude "suncion and his wife, Dictoria S.

"suncion <I/h. &&=, which particular portion was declared #y the latter for ta/ation

purposes <I/h. (=.

n "uust A&, &'66, spouses "suncion and spouses )alapon conveyed their respective shares and interest in :ot &&G>-I to !The Traders $anufacturin and

(ishin ndustries nc.! <I/it &5 M &6=. "t the time of said sale the stoc*holders of the

corporation were 3ominador "ripa Tan, umilia ?alandoni Tan, ?aime "ripa Tan,

?ude "suncion, and the latter7s wife, Dictoria S. "suncion, with ?ude "suncion as

the President and $rs. "suncion as the secretary <I/hs. I-> to I-+=. The "rticles of

ncorporation of !The Traders $anufacturin and (ishin ndustries, nc.! which we

shall henceforth refer to as !T"3IS! were reistered with the Securities and

I/chane Commission only on ?anuary ', &'6+ <I/h. I= Epp. A+G-AG5, rec.F.

Complainant ernardita . $acariola filed on "uust ', &'6G the instant complaint dated "uust 6,

&'6G allein four causes of action, to wit E&F that respondent ?ude "suncion violated "rticle &>'&,pararaph 5, of the ;ew Civil Code in acquirin #y purchase a portion of :ot ;o. &&G>-I which was

one of those properties involved in Civil Case ;o. A%&% decided #y himH E2F that he li*ewise violated

"rticle &>, pararaphs and 5 of the Code of Commerce, Section A, pararaph , of .". A%&',

otherwise *nown as the "nti-)raft and Corrupt Practices "ct, Section &2, ule BD of the Civil

Service ules, and Canon 25 of the Canons of ?udicial Ithics, #y associatin himself with the

Traders $anufacturin and (ishin ndustries, nc., as a stoc*holder and a ran*in officer while he

was a 4ude of the Court of (irst nstance of :eyteH EAF that respondent was uilty of coddlin an

impostor and acted in disreard of 4udicial decorum #y closely fraterni1in with a certain 3ominador

"ripa Tan who openly and pu#licly advertised himself as a practisin attorney when in truth and in

fact his name does not appear in the olls of "ttorneys and is not a mem#er of the Philippine arH

and E>F that there was a culpa#le defiance of the law and utter disreard for ethics #y respondent?ude <pp. &-+, rec.=.

espondent ?ude "suncion filed on Septem#er 2>, &'6G his answer to which a reply was filed on

cto#er &6, &'6G #y herein complainant. n ur resolution of cto#er 2G, &'6G, 8e referred this

case to then ?ustice Cecilia $uJo1 Palma of the Court of "ppeals, for investiation, report and

recommendation. "fter hearin, the said nvestiatin ?ustice su#mitted her report dated $ay 2+,

&'+& recommendin that respondent ?ude should #e reprimanded or warned in connection with the

first cause of action alleed in the complaint, and for the second cause of action, respondent should

#e warned in case of a findin that he is prohi#ited under the law to enae in #usiness. n the third

and fourth causes of action, ?ustice Palma recommended that respondent ?ude #e e/onerated.

The records also reveal that on or a#out ;ovem#er ' or &&, &'6G <pp. >G&, >++, rec.=, complainant

herein instituted an action #efore the Court of (irst nstance of :eyte, entitled !5ernardita R.

Macariola" plaintiff" versus 'inforosa R. 5ales" et al ., defendants,! which was doc*eted as Civil Case

;o. >2A5, see*in the annulment of the pro4ect of partition made pursuant to the decision in Civil

Case ;o. A%&% and the two orders issued #y respondent ?ude approvin the same, as well as the

partition of the estate and the su#sequent conveyances with damaes. t appears, however, that

some defendants were dropped from the civil case. (or one, the case aainst 3r. "rcadio )alapon



was dismissed #ecause he was no loner a real party in interest when Civil Case ;o. >2A> was

filed, havin already conveyed on $arch 6, &'65 a portion of lot &&G>-I to respondent ?ude and on

"uust A&, &'66 the remainder was sold to the Traders $anufacturin and (ishin ndustries, nc.

Similarly, the case aainst defendant Dictoria "suncion was dismissed on the round that she was

no loner a real party in interest at the time the aforesaid Civil Case ;o. >2A> was filed as the

portion of :ot &&G> acquired #y her and respondent ?ude from 3r. "rcadio )alapon was alreadysold on "uust A&, &'66 to the Traders $anufacturin and (ishin industries, nc. :i*ewise, the

cases aainst defendants Serafin P. amento, Catalina Ca#us, en arra1a )o, ?esus Pere1,

Traders $anufacturin and (ishin ndustries, nc., "lfredo . Celestial and Pilar P. Celestial,

:eopoldo Petilla and emedios Petilla, Salvador "nota and Inriqueta "nota and "tty. Lotico ".

Tolete were dismissed with the conformity of complainant herein, plaintiff therein, and her counsel.

n ;ovem#er 2, &'+%, ?ude ?ose 3. ;epomuceno of the Court of (irst nstance of :eyte, who was

directed and authori1ed on ?une 2, &'6' #y the then Secretary <now $inister= of ?ustice and now

$inister of ;ational 3efense ?uan Ponce Inrile to hear and decide Civil Case ;o. >2A>, rendered a

decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows

". ; TI C"SI ")";ST ?93)I I:"S . "S9;C;

<&= declarin that only ranch D of the Court of (irst nstance of :eyte has

4urisdiction to ta*e coni1ance of the issue of the leality and validity of the Pro4ect of

Partition EI/hi#it !!F and the two rders EI/hi#its !C! and !C- A!F approvin the

partitionH

<2= dismissin the complaint aainst ?ude Ilias . "suncionH

<A= ad4udin the plaintiff, $rs. ernardita . $acariola to pay defendant ?ude Ilias

. "suncion,

<a= the sum of (9 9;3I3 T9S";3 PISS EP>%%,%%%.%%F

for moral damaesH

<#= the sum of T8 9;3I3 T9S";3 PISS EP2%%,%%%.%%&

for e/emplary damaesH

<c= the sum of ((TN T9S";3 PISS EP5%,%%%.%%F for nominal

damaesH and

<d= he sum of TI; T9S";3 PISS EP%,%%%.%%F for "ttorney7s(ees.

. ; TI C"SI ")";ST TI 3I(I;3";T $"O9T"

D::"S;, ( ISI:( ";3 ( TI IS ( TI

3ICI"SI3 )I"3 D::"S; @



<&= 3ismissin the complaint aainst the defendants $ariquita Dillasin and the heirs

of the deceased )erardo DillasinH

<2= 3irectin the plaintiff to pay the defendants $ariquita Dillasin and the heirs of

)erardo Dillasin the cost of the suit.

C. ; TI C"SI ")";ST TI 3I(I;3";T S;(S" .

":IS, IT ":., 8 8II P:";T((S ; CD: C"SI ;. A%&%

@

<&= 3ismissin the complaint aainst defendants Sinforosa . ales, "dela . errer,

Priscilla . Solis, :u1 . a*unawa, "nacorita . In and uperto . eyes.

3. ; TI C"SI ")";ST 3I(I;3";T ;("C "$ @

<&= 3ismissin the complaint aainst onifacio amoH

<2= 3irectin the plaintiff to pay the defendant onifacio amo the cost of the suit.

S 3II3 Epp. 5A&-5AA, rec.F

t is further disclosed #y the record that the aforesaid decision was elevated to the Court of "ppeals

upon perfection of the appeal on (e#ruary 22, &'+&.

8I find that there is no merit in the contention of complainant ernardita . $acariola, under her

first cause of action, that respondent ?ude Ilias . "suncion violated "rticle &>'&, pararaph 5, of the ;ew Civil Code in acquirin #y purchase a portion of :ot ;o. &&G>-I which was one of those

properties involved in Civil Case ;o. A%&%. 7That "rticle provides

"rticle &>'&. The followin persons cannot acquire #y purchase, even at a pu#lic or

4udicial action, either in person or throuh the mediation of another

/// /// ///

<5= ?ustices, 4udes, prosecutin attorneys, cler*s of superior and inferior courts, and

other officers and employees connected with the administration of 4ustice, the

property and rihts in litiation or levied upon an e/ecution #efore the court withinwhose 4urisdiction or territory they e/ercise their respective functionsH this prohi#ition

includes the act of acquirin #y assinment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect

to the property and rihts which may #e the o#4ect of any litiation in which they may

ta*e part #y virtue of their profession Eemphasis suppliedF.

The prohi#ition in the aforesaid "rticle applies only to the sale or assinment of the property which is

the su#4ect of litiation to the persons disqualified therein. 8I have already ruled that !... for the



prohi#ition to operate, the sale or assinment of the property must ta*e place durin) the pendency of

the litiation involvin the property! <The 3irector of :ands vs. "#a#a et al., GG SC" 5&A, 5&'

E&'+'F, osario vda. de :ai vs. Court of "ppeals, G6 SC" 6>&, 6>6 E&'+GF=.

n the case at #ar, when the respondent ?ude purchased on March &" 36&% a portion of :ot &&G>-I,

the decision in Civil Case ;o. A%&% which he rendered on 7une 8" 36&9 was already final #ecausenone of the parties therein filed an appeal within the relementary periodH hence, the lot in question

was no loner su#4ect of the litiation. $oreover, at the time of the sale on $arch 6, &'65,

respondent7s order dated :ctober #9" 36&9 and the amended order dated November 33"

36&9 approvin the cto#er &6, &'6A pro4ect of partition made pursuant to the ?une G, &'6A

decision, had lon #ecome final for there was no appeal from said orders.

(urthermore, respondent ?ude did not #uy the lot in question on $arch 6, &'65 directly from the

plaintiffs in Civil Case ;o. A%&% #ut from 3r. "rcadio )alapon who earlier purchased on 7uly 93"

36&; :ot &&G>-I from three of the plaintiffs, namely, Priscilla eyes, "dela eyes, and :u1 .

a*unawa after the finality of the decision in Civil Case ;o. A%&%. t may #e recalled that :ot &&G> or

more specifically one-half thereof was ad4udicated in equal shares to Priscilla eyes, "dela eyes,:u1 a*unawa, uperto eyes and "nacorita eyes in the pro4ect of partition, and the same was

su#divided into five lots denominated as :ot &&G>-" to &&G>-I. "s aforestated, :ot &&G>-I was sold

on ?uly A&, &'6> to 3r. )alapon for which he was issued TCT ;o. 2AAG #y the eister of 3eeds of

Taclo#an City, and on $arch 6, &'65 he sold a portion of said lot to respondent ?ude and his wife

who declared the same for ta/ation purposes only. The su#sequent sale on Au)ust 93" 36&& #y

spouses "suncion and spouses )alapon of their respective shares and interest in said :ot &&G>-I to

the Traders $anufacturin and (ishin ndustries, nc., in which respondent was the president and

his wife was the secretary, too* place lon after the finality of the decision in Civil Case ;o. A%&% and

of the su#sequent two aforesaid orders therein approvin the pro4ect of partition.

8hile it appears that complainant herein filed on or a#out November 6 or 33" 36&8 an action #eforethe Court of (irst nstance of :eyte doc*eted as Civil Case ;o. >2A>, see*in to annul the pro4ect of

partition and the two orders approvin the same, as well as the partition of the estate and the

su#sequent conveyances, the same, however, is of no moment.

The fact remains that respondent ?ude purchased on $arch 6, &'65 a portion of :ot &&G>-I from

3r. "rcadio )alaponH hence, after the finality of the decision which he rendered on 7une 8" 36&9 in

Civil Case ;o. A%&% and his two questioned orders dated cto#er 2A, &'6A and ;ovem#er &&, &'6A.

Therefore, the property was no loner su#4ect of litiation.

The su#sequent filin on ;ovem#er ', or &&, &'6G of Civil Case ;o. >2A> can no loner alter,

chane or affect the aforesaid facts @ that the questioned sale to respondent ?ude, now Court of "ppeals ?ustice, was effected and consummated lon after the finality of the aforesaid decision or

orders.

Consequently, the sale of a portion of :ot &&G>-I to respondent ?ude havin ta*en place over one

year after the finality of the decision in Civil Case ;o. A%&% as well as the two orders approvin the

pro4ect of partition, and not durin the pendency of the litiation, there was no violation of pararaph

5, "rticle &>'& of the ;ew Civil Code.



t is also arued #y complainant herein that the sale on ?uly A&, &'6> of :ot &&G>-I to 3r. "rcadio

)alapon #y Priscilla eyes, "dela eyes and :u1 . a*unawa was only a mere scheme to conceal

the illeal and unethical transfer of said lot to respondent ?ude as a consideration for the approval

of the pro4ect of partition. n this connection, 8e aree with the findins of the nvestiatin ?ustice

thus

"nd so we are now confronted with this all-important question whether or not the

acquisition #y respondent of a portion of :ot &&G>-I and the su#sequent transfer of

the whole lot to !T"3IS! of which respondent was the President and his wife the

Secretary, was intimately related to the rder of respondent approvin the pro4ect of

partition, I/h. ".

espondent vehemently denies any interest or participation in the transactions

#etween the eyeses and the )alapons concernin :ot &&G>-I, and he insists that

there is no evidence whatsoever to show that 3r. )alapon had acted, in the purchase

of :ot &&G>-I, in mediation for him and his wife. <See p. &> of espondent7s

$emorandum=.

/// /// ///

n this point, aree with respondent that there is no evidence in the record showin

that 3r. "rcadio )alapon acted as a mere !dummy! of respondent in acquirin :ot

&&G>-I from the eyeses. 3r. )alapon appeared to this investiator as a respecta#le

citi1en, credi#le and sincere, and #elieve him when he testified that he #ouht :ot

&&G>-I in ood faith and for valua#le consideration from the eyeses without any

intervention of, or previous understandin with ?ude "suncion <pp. A'&- A'>, rec.=.

n the contention of complainant herein that respondent ?ude acted illeally in approvin thepro4ect of partition althouh it was not sined #y the parties, 8e quote with approval the findins of

the nvestiatin ?ustice, as follows

&. aree with complainant that respondent should have required the sinature of the

parties more particularly that of $rs. $acariola on the pro4ect of partition su#mitted to

him for approvalH however, whatever error was committed #y respondent in that

respect was done in ood faith as accordin to ?ude "suncion he was assured #y

"tty. onifacio amo, the counsel of record of $rs. $acariola, That he was

authori1ed #y his client to su#mit said pro4ect of partition, <See I/h. and tsn p. 2>,

?anuary 2%, &'6'=. 8hile it is true that such written authority if there was any, was

not presented #y respondent in evidence, nor did "tty. amo appear to corro#oratethe statement of respondent, his affidavit #ein the only one that was presented as

respondent7s I/h. &%, certain actuations of $rs. $acariola lead this investiator to

#elieve that she *new the contents of the pro4ect of partition, I/h. ", and that she

ave her conformity thereto. refer to the followin documents

&= I/h. ' @ Certified true copy of CT ;o. &'52% coverin :ot &&5> of the Taclo#an

Cadastral Survey in which the deceased (rancisco eyes holds a !&K> share! <I/h.



'-a=. n tills certificate of title the rder dated ;ovem#er &&, &'6A, <I/h. 9=

approvin the pro4ect of partition was duly entered and reistered on ;ovem#er 26,

&'6A <I/h. '-3=H

2= I/h. + @ Certified copy of a deed of a#solute sale e/ecuted #y ernardita eyes

$acariola on:ctober ##" 36&9, conveyin to 3r. ector 3ecena the one-fourth shareof the late (rancisco eyes-3ia1 in :ot &&5>. n this deed of sale the vendee stated

that she was the a#solute owner of said one-fourth share, the same havin #een

ad4udicated to her as her share in the estate of her father (rancisco eyes 3ia1 as

per decision of the Court of (irst nstance of :eyte under case ;o. A%&% <I/h. +-"=.

The deed of sale was duly reistered and annotated at the #ac* of CT &'52% on

3ecem#er A, &'6A <see I/h. '-e=.

n connection with the a#ovementioned documents it is to #e noted that in the pro4ect

of partition dated cto#er &6, &'6A, which was approved #y respondent on cto#er

2A, &'6A, followed #y an amendin rder on ;ovem#er &&, &'6A, :ot &&5> or rather

&K> thereof was ad4udicated to $rs. $acariola. t is this &K> share in :ot &&5> whichcomplainant sold to 3r. 3ecena on cto#er 22, &'6A, several days after the

preparation of the pro4ect of partition.

Counsel for complainant stresses the view, however, that the latter sold her one-

fourth share in :ot &&5> #y virtue of the decision in Civil Case A%&% and not #ecause

of the pro4ect of partition, I/h. ". Such contention is a#surd #ecause from the

decision, I/h. C, it is clear that one-half of one- fourth of :ot &&5> #eloned to the

estate of (rancisco eyes 3ia1 while the other half of said one-fourth was the share

of complainant7s mother, (elisa IspirasH in other words, the decision did not

ad4udicate the whole of the one-fourth of :ot &&5> to the herein complainant <see

I/hs. C-A M C->=. Complainant #ecame the owner of the entire one-fourth of :ot&&5> only #y means of the pro4ect of partition, I/h. ". Therefore, if $rs. $acariola

sold :ot &&5> on cto#er 22, &'6A, it was for no other reason than that she was wen

aware of the distri#ution of the properties of her deceased father as per I/hs. " and

. t is also sinificant at this point to state that $rs. $acariola admitted durin the

cross-e/amination that she went to Taclo#an City in connection with the sale of :ot

&&5> to 3r. 3ecena <tsn p. '2, ;ovem#er 2G, &'6G= from which we can deduce that

she could not have #een *ept inorant of the proceedins in civil case A%&% relative

to the pro4ect of partition.

Complainant also assails the pro4ect of partition #ecause accordin to her the

properties ad4udicated to her were insinificant lots and the least valua#le.Complainant, however, did not present any direct and positive evidence to prove the

alleed ross inequalities in the choice and distri#ution of the real properties when

she could have easily done so #y presentin evidence on the area, location, *ind, the

assessed and mar*et value of said properties. 8ithout such evidence there is

nothin in the record to show that there were inequalities in the distri#ution of the

properties of complainant7s father <pp. AG6AG', rec.=.



(inally, while it is. true that respondent ?ude did not violate pararaph 5, "rticle &>'& of the ;ew

Civil Code in acquirin #y purchase a portion of :ot &&G>-I which was in litiation in his court, it was,

however, improper for him to have acquired the same. e should #e reminded of Canon A of the

Canons of ?udicial Ithics which requires that !" 4ude7s official conduct should #e free from the

appearance of impropriety, and his personal #ehavior, not only upon the #ench and in the

performance of 4udicial duties, #ut also in his everyday life, should #e #eyond reproach.! "nd asaptly o#served #y the nvestiatin ?ustice !... it was unwise and indiscreet on the part of

respondent to have purchased or acquired a portion of a piece of property that was or had #een in

litiation in his court and caused it to #e transferred to a corporation of which he and his wife were

ran*in officers at the time of such transfer. ne who occupies an e/alted position in the 4udiciary

has the duty and responsi#ility of maintainin the faith and trust of the citi1enry in the courts of

4ustice, so that not only must he #e truly honest and 4ust, #ut his actuations must #e such as not ive

cause for dou#t and mistrust in the uprihtness of his administration of 4ustice. n this particular case

of respondent, he cannot deny that the transactions over :ot &&G>-I are damain and render his

actuations open to suspicion and distrust. Iven if respondent honestly #elieved that :ot &&G>-I was

no loner in litiation in his court and that he was purchasin it from a third person and not from the

parties to the litiation, he should nonetheless have refrained from #uyin it for himself andtransferrin it to a corporation in which he and his wife were financially involved, to avoid possi#le

suspicion that his acquisition was related in one way or another to his official actuations in civil case

A%&%. The conduct of respondent ave cause for the litiants in civil case A%&%, the lawyers

practisin in his court, and the pu#lic in eneral to dou#t the honesty and fairness of his actuations

and the interity of our courts of 4ustice! <pp. A'5A'6, rec.=.

8ith respect to the second cause of action, the complainant alleed that respondent ?ude violated

pararaphs & and 5, "rticle &> of the Code of Commerce when he associated himself with the

Traders $anufacturin and (ishin ndustries, nc. as a stoc*holder and a ran*in officer, saidcorporation havin #een orani1ed to enae in #usiness. Said "rticle provides that

"rticle &> @ The followin cannot enae in commerce, either in person or #y pro/y,

nor can they hold any office or have any direct, administrative, or financial

intervention in commercial or industrial companies within the limits of the districts,

provinces, or towns in which they dischare their duties

&. ?ustices of the Supreme Court, 4udes and officials of the department of pu#lic

prosecution in active service. This provision shall not #e applica#le to mayors,

municipal 4udes, and municipal prosecutin attorneys nor to those who #y chance

are temporarily discharin the functions of 4ude or prosecutin attorney.

/// /// ///

5. Those who #y virtue of laws or special provisions may not enae in commerce in

a determinate territory.



t is ur considered view that althouh the aforestated provision is incorporated in the Code of

Commerce which is part of the commercial laws of the Philippines, it, however, parta*es of the

nature of a political law as it reulates the relationship #etween the overnment and certain pu#lic

officers and employees, li*e 4ustices and 4udes.

Political :aw has #een defined as that #ranch of pu#lic law which deals with the orani1ation andoperation of the overnmental orans of the State and define the relations of the state with the

inha#itants of its territory <People vs. Perfecto, >A Phil. GG+, G'+ E&'22F=. t may #e recalled that

political law em#races constitutional law, law of pu#lic corporations, administrative law includin the

law on pu#lic officers and elections. Specifically, "rticle &> of the Code of Commerce parta*es more

of the nature of an administrative law #ecause it reulates the conduct of certain pu#lic officers and

employees with respect to enain in #usiness hence, political in essence.

t is sinificant to note that the present Code of Commerce is the Spanish Code of Commerce of

&GG5, with some modifications made #y the !Commission de Codificacion de las Provincias de

9ltramar,! which was e/tended to the Philippines #y the oyal 3ecree of "uust 6, &GGG, and too*

effect as law in this 4urisdiction on 3ecem#er &, &GGG.

9pon the transfer of sovereinty from Spain to the 9nited States and later on from the 9nited States

to the epu#lic of the Philippines, "rticle &> of this Code of Commerce must #e deemed to have

#een a#roated #ecause where there is chane of sovereinty, the political laws of the former

soverein, whether compati#le or not with those of the new soverein, are automatically a#roated,

unless they are e/pressly re-enacted #y affirmative act of the new soverein.

Thus, 8e held in Roa vs. (ollector of (ustoms <2A Phil. A&5, AA%, A&& E&'&2F= that

y well-settled pu#lic law, upon the cession of territory #y one nation to another,

either followin a conquest or otherwise, ... those laws which are political in their nature and pertain to the preroatives of the former overnment immediately cease

upon the transfer of sovereinty. <pinion, "tty. )en., ?uly &%, &G''=.

8hile municipal laws of the newly acquired territory not in conflict with the, laws of

the new soverein continue in force without the e/press assent or affirmative act of

the conqueror, the political laws do not. <allec*7s nt. :aw, chap. A>, par. &>=.

owever, such political laws of the prior sovereinty as are not in conflict with the

constitution or institutions of the new soverein, may #e continued in force if the

conqueror shall so declare #y affirmative act of the commander-in-chief durin the

war, or #y Conress in time of peace. <Ily7s "dministrator vs. 9nited States, &+& 9.S.

22%, >A :. Id. &>2=. n the case of "merican and cean ns. Cos. vs. A56 ales of Cotton <& Pet. E26 9.S.F 5&&, 5>2, + :. Id. 2>2=, Chief ?ustice $arshall said

n such transfer <#y cession= of territory, it has never #een held that

the relations of the inha#itants with each other undero any chane.

Their relations with their former soverein are dissolved, and new

relations are created #etween them and the overnment which has

acquired their territory. The same act which transfers their country,



transfers the alleiance of those who remain in itH and the law which

may #e denominated political, is necessarily chaned, althouh that

which reulates the intercourse and eneral conduct of individuals,

remains in force, until altered #y the newly- created power of the

State.

:i*ewise, in eople vs. erfecto <>A Phil. GG+, G'+ E&'22F=, this Court stated that !t is a eneral

principle of the pu#lic law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded

reion are totally a#roated. !

There appears no ena#lin or affirmative act that continued the effectivity of the aforestated

provision of the Code of Commerce after the chane of sovereinty from Spain to the 9nited States

and then to the epu#lic of the Philippines. Consequently, "rticle &> of the Code of Commerce has

no leal and #indin effect and cannot apply to the respondent, then ?ude of the Court of (irst

nstance, now "ssociate ?ustice of the Court of "ppeals.

t is also arued #y complainant herein that respondent ?ude violated pararaph , Section A of epu#lic "ct ;o. A%&', otherwise *nown as the "nti-)raft and Corrupt Practices "ct, which provides

that

Sec. A. Corrupt practices of pu#lic officers. @ n addition to acts or omissions of

pu#lic officers already penali1ed #y e/istin law, the followin shall constitute corrupt

practices of any pu#lic officer and are here#y declared to #e unlawful

/// /// ///

<h= 3irectly or indirectly havin financial or pecuniary interest in any

#usiness, contract or transaction in connection with which heintervenes or ta*es part in his official capacity, or in which he is

prohi#ited #y the Constitution or #y any aw from havin any interest.

espondent ?ude cannot #e held lia#le under the aforestated pararaph #ecause there is no

showin that respondent participated or intervened in his official capacity in the #usiness or

transactions of the Traders $anufacturin and (ishin ndustries, nc. n the case at #ar, the

#usiness of the corporation in which respondent participated has o#viously no relation or connection

with his 4udicial office. The #usiness of said corporation is not that *ind where respondent intervenes

or ta*es part in his capacity as ?ude of the Court of (irst nstance. "s was held in one case

involvin the application of "rticle 2&6 of the evised Penal Code which has a similar prohi#ition on

pu#lic officers aainst directly or indirectly #ecomin interested in any contract or #usiness in which itis his official duty to intervene, !<=t is not enouh to #e a pu#lic official to #e su#4ect to this crimeH it is

necessary that #y reason of his office, he has to intervene in said contracts or transactionsH and,

hence, the official who intervenes in contracts or transactions which have no relation to his office

cannot commit this crime.7 <People vs. $eneses, C.". >% .). &&th Supp. &A>, cited #y ?ustice

amon C. "quinoH evised Penal Code, p. &&+>, Dol. && E&'+6F=.



t does not appear also from the records that the aforesaid corporation ained any undue advantae

in its #usiness operations #y reason of respondent7s financial involvement in it, or that the

corporation #enefited in one way or another in any case filed #y or aainst it in court. t is undisputed

that there was no case filed in the different #ranches of the Court of (irst nstance of :eyte in which

the corporation was either party plaintiff or defendant e/cept Civil Case ;o. >2A> entitled ! 5ernardita

R. Macariola" plaintiff" versus 'inforosa :. 5ales" et al."< wherein the complainant herein souht torecover :ot &&G>-I from the aforesaid corporation. t must #e noted, however, that Civil Case ;o.

>2A> was filed only on ;ovem#er ' or &&, &'6G and decided on ;ovem#er 2, &'+% #y C( ?ude

?ose 3. ;epomuceno when respondent ?ude was no loner connected with the corporation, havin

disposed of his interest therein on ?anuary A&, &'6+.

(urthermore, respondent is not lia#le under the same pararaph #ecause there is no provision in

#oth the &'A5 and &'+A Constitutions of the Philippines, nor is there an e/istin law e/pressly

prohi#itin mem#ers of the ?udiciary from enain or havin interest in any lawful #usiness.

t may #e pointed out that epu#lic "ct ;o. 2'6, as amended, also *nown as the ?udiciary "ct of

&'>G, does not contain any prohi#ition to that effect. "s a matter of fact, under Section ++ of saidlaw, municipal 4udes may enae in teachin or other vocation not involvin the practice of law after

office hours #ut with the permission of the district 4ude concerned.

:i*ewise, "rticle &> of the Code of Commerce which prohi#its 4udes from enain in commerce is,

as heretofore stated, deemed a#roated automatically upon the transfer of sovereinty from Spain to

"merica, #ecause it is political in nature.

$oreover, the prohi#ition in pararaph 5, "rticle &>'& of the ;ew Civil Code aainst the purchase #y

4udes of a property in litiation #efore the court within whose 4urisdiction they perform their duties,

cannot apply to respondent ?ude #ecause the sale of the lot in question to him too* place after the

finality of his decision in Civil Case ;o. A%&% as well as his two orders approvin the pro4ect of partitionH hence, the property was no loner su#4ect of litiation.

n addition, althouh Section &2, ule BD of the Civil Service ules made pursuant to the Civil

Service "ct of &'5' prohi#its an officer or employee in the civil service from enain in any private

#usiness, vocation, or profession or #e connected with any commercial, credit, aricultural or

industrial underta*in without a written permission from the head of department, the same, however,

may not fall within the purview of pararaph h, Section A of the "nti-)raft and Corrupt Practices "ct

#ecause the last portion of said pararaph spea*s of a prohi#ition #y the (onstitution or la! on any

pu#lic officer from havin any interest in any #usiness and not #y a mere administrative rule or

reulation. Thus, a violation of the aforesaid rule #y any officer or employee in the civil service, that

is, enain in private #usiness without a written permission from the 3epartment ead may notconstitute raft and corrupt practice as defined #y law.

n the contention of complainant that respondent ?ude violated Section &2, ule BD of the Civil

Service ules, 8e hold that the Civil Service "ct of &'5' <.". ;o. 226%= and the Civil Service ules

promulated thereunder, particularly Section &2 of ule BD, do not apply to the mem#ers of the

?udiciary. 9nder said Section &2 !;o officer or employee shall enae directly in any private



Civil Service! <Dillalu1 vs. Laldivar, &5 SC" +&%,+&A E&'65F, "n-"nco vs. Castillo, ' SC" 6&'

E&'6AF=.

"lthouh the actuation of respondent ?ude in enain in private #usiness #y 4oinin the Traders

$anufacturin and (ishin ndustries, nc. as a stoc*holder and a ran*in officer, is not violative of

the provissions of "rticle &> of the Code of Commerce and Section A<h= of the "nti-)raft and CorruptPractices "ct as well as Section &2, ule BD of the Civil Service ules promulated pursuant to

the Civil Service "ct of &'5', the impropriety of the same is clearly unquestiona#le #ecause Canon

25 of the Canons of ?udicial Ithics e/pressly declares that

" 4ude should a#stain from ma*in personal investments in enterprises which are

apt to #e involved in litiation in his courtH and, after his accession to the #ench, he

should not retain such investments previously made, loner than a period sufficient

to ena#le him to dispose of them without serious loss. t is desira#le that he should,

so far as reasona#ly possi#le, refrain from all relations which would normally tend to

arouse the suspicion that such relations warp or #ias his 4udment, or prevent his

impartial attitude of mind in the administration of his 4udicial duties. ...

8I are not, however, unmindful of the fact that respondent ?ude and his wife had withdrawn on

?anuary A&, &'6+ from the aforesaid corporation and sold their respective shares to third parties,

and it appears also that the aforesaid corporation did not in anyway #enefit in any case filed #y or

aainst it in court as there was no case filed in the different #ranches of the Court of (irst nstance of

:eyte from the time of the draftin of the "rticles of ncorporation of the corporation on $arch &2,

&'66, up to its incorporation on ?anuary ', &'6+, and the eventual withdrawal of respondent on

?anuary A&, &'6+ from said corporation. Such disposal or sale #y respondent and his wife of their

shares in the corporation only 22 days after the incorporation of the corporation, indicates that

respondent reali1ed that early that their interest in the corporation contravenes the aforesaid Canon

25. espondent ?ude and his wife therefore deserve the commendation for their immediatewithdrawal from the firm after its incorporation and #efore it #ecame involved in any court litiation

8ith respect to the third and fourth causes of action, complainant alleed that respondent was uilty

of coddlin an impostor and acted in disreard of 4udicial decorum, and that there was culpa#le

defiance of the law and utter disreard for ethics. 8I aree, however, with the recommendation of

the nvestiatin ?ustice that respondent ?ude #e e/onerated #ecause the aforesaid causes of

action are roundless, and 8I quote the pertinent portion of her report which reads as follows

The #asis for complainant7s third cause of action is the claim that respondentassociated and closely fraterni1ed with 3ominador "ripa Tan who openly and

pu#licly advertised himself as a practisin attorney <see I/hs. , -& and ?= when in

truth and in fact said 3ominador "ripa Tan does not appear in the oll of "ttorneys

and is not a mem#er of the Philippine ar as certified to in I/h. .

The !respondent denies *nowin that 3ominador "ripa Tan was an !impostor! and

claims that all the time he #elieved that the latter was a bona fide mem#er of the #ar.



see no reason for dis#elievin this assertion of respondent. t has #een shown #y

complainant that 3ominador "ripa Tan represented himself pu#licly as an attorney-

at-law to the e/tent of puttin up a sin#oard with his name and the words !"ttorney-

at :aw! <I/h. and &- &= to indicate his office, and it was #ut natural for respondent

and any person for that matter to have accepted that statement on its face value.

!;ow with respect to the alleation of complainant that respondent is uilty of fraterni1in with 3ominador "ripa Tan to the e/tent of permittin his wife to #e a

odmother of $r. Tan7s child at #aptism <I/h. $ M $-&=, that fact even if true did not

render respondent uilty of violatin any canon of 4udicial ethics as lon as his

friendly relations with 3ominador ". Tan and family did not influence his official

actuations as a 4ude where said persons were concerned. There is no tani#le

convincin proof that herein respondent ave any undue privilees in his court to

3ominador "ripa Tan or that the latter #enefitted in his practice of law from his

personal relations with respondent, or that he used his influence, if he had any, on

the ?udes of the other #ranches of the Court to favor said 3ominador Tan.

f course it is hihly desira#le for a mem#er of the 4udiciary to refrain as much aspossi#le from maintainin close friendly relations with practisin attorneys and

litiants in his court so as to avoid suspicion 7that his social or #usiness relations or

friendship constitute an element in determinin his 4udicial course! <par. A%, Canons

of ?udicial Ithics=, #ut if a ?ude does have social relations, that in itself would not

constitute a round for disciplinary action unless it #e clearly shown that his social

relations #e clouded his official actuations with #ias and partiality in favor of his

friends <pp. >%A->%5, rec.=.

n conclusion, while respondent ?ude "suncion, now "ssociate ?ustice of the Court of "ppeals, did

not violate any law in acquirin #y purchase a parcel of land which was in litiation in his court and in

enain in #usiness #y 4oinin a private corporation durin his incum#ency as 4ude of the Court of (irst nstance of :eyte, he should #e reminded to #e more discreet in his private and #usiness

activities, #ecause his conduct as a mem#er of the ?udiciary must not only #e characteri1ed with

propriety #ut must always #e a#ove suspicion.

8II(I, TI ISP;3I;T "SSC"TI ?9STCI ( TI C9T ( "PPI":S S

IIN I$;3I3 T I $I 3SCIIT ; S PD"TI ";3 9S;ISS "CTDTIS.

1 general principles

Documents