macariola vs asuncion 114 scra 77 guide

8/12/2019 Macariola vs Asuncion 114 SCRA 77 Guide

1/11

Macariola Vs Asuncion 114 SCRA 77; Civil Case 3010

Ponente Felix Makasiar

June 8, 1963 Judge Elias DecisionNo one appealed

October 16, 1963 Project For Partation, signed by respective

counsels of plaintiffs and petitioner (Bernadita R. Macariola)

October 23, 1963 Judge Elias Macariola Approved the

One of the lots was L1184 which is subdivided in to five (5)lots

denomated as L1184 A-E

July 31 1964 Dr.Arcadio Galaponbought lot L1184-E, with

certificate title no.2338

March 6, 1965- Galapon sold a portion to Judge Asuncion and

his wife. (1,306 sqm)

August 31, 1966 Conveyed their interest in L1184-E and

shares in Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, INC.

Judge Asuncion was the president, Wife Victoria secretary,

Galapon was a stock holder as well.

August 6, 1968 Macariola Charged Judge Assuncion of acts

unbecoming of a judge

September 24, 1968 Assuncion Replies


2/11

May 27, 1968 Justice Palma recommends Assuncion to be

reprimanded on 1st

and 2nd

cause, and exonerated on the 3rd

and 4th

.

November 2, 1970, Judge Nepomuceno Dismissed the

complaint against Assuncion, 400K moral damages, 200k

exemplary damages, 50K nominal damages, 10k attorneys

fees.

Macariola is the only legal Heir to Francisco Reyes in his

first marriage with Felisa Espiras. It was a matter of who

has legal claims to the lot, Macariola owned most of it by

being the only heir to Felisa Espiras.

Sinforosa Bales (not to exceed 2/5, illegitimate), Luz

Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Adela Reyes, Priscilla Reyes.


3/11

SC DECISION

Article 1491,p.5 New Civil Code - Art. 1491. The following

persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or

judicial auction, either in person or through the

mediation of another:

(5)Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior

courts, and other officers and employees connected with the

administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied

upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory

they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act

of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to

the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in

which they may take part by virtue of their profession.

- Must take place during the pendency of the litigation

- The case was final because the lack of Appeal

- Judge Assuncion did not purchase the lot from the

Macariola

-Improper for him to acquire the lot, unwise , indiscreet


4/11


5/11

those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are

expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign

- Article 14 Code of Commerce which

prohibits judges in engaging in commerce

is deem abrogated automatically upon

transfer of sovereignty from Spain to

America because it is political in Nature

-

- People vs. Perfecto (43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922]), this Court stated

that: "It is a general principle of the public law that on

acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the

ceded region are totally abrogated. "

- By well-settled public law, upon the cession of territory by one

nation to another, either following a conquest or otherwise, ...

those laws which are political in their nature and pertain to the

prerogatives of the former government immediately cease upon

the transfer of sovereignty. (Opinion, Atty. Gen., July 10, 1899).


6/11

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of R.A 3019

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition

to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized

by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt

practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to

be unlawful:

(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request,

without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable

time on any matter pending before him for the purpose

of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person

interested in the matter some pecuniary or material

benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring hisown interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or

discriminating against any other interested party.

- Assuncion cannot be held liable under the

aforestated paragraph because there is no showingthat the respondent participated or intervened IN

HIS OFFICIAL capacityin the business or

transactions of TraManuFishingIndust.INC


7/11

- -aforesaid corporation did not gained undue

advantage

- No provision in the 1937 or 1973 constitution or

existing laws expressly prohibiting judges or

members of the judiciary from engaging or having

interest in any lawful businesses.

- The purchase was made long after a final decision

of the civil case 3010 was deemed final as well as

two orders approving the project of partition, NO

LONGER SUBJECT to LITIGATION


8/11

Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules which

provides that:Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business,

vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural

or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of

Department: Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute in the case of those

officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire

time be at the disposal of the Government: Provided, further, That if an employee

is granted permission to engage, in outside activities, the time so devoted outside

of office hours should be fixed by the chief of the agency to the end that it will not

impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or employee: And provided, finally,

That no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by an officer or

employee, which do not involve any real or apparent conflict between his private

interests and public duties, or in any way influence him in the discharge of his

duties, and heshall not take part in the management of the enterprise or become an officeror member of the board of directors.

- The prohibition should be in a law or part of the

constitution and not merely an administrative rule or

regulation.

- Assuncion is a Member of the Judiciary and is covered by

R.A 296, as amended, JUDICIARY ACT of 1948 and by

Section 7, article 10 1973, Constitution.

- The power to remove judges was then vested in the

President and not the Civil Service Comission on the

grounds of misconduct and inefficiency,


9/11

- Only members of the classified service, permanent, are

under the jurisdiction of the CSS

-


10/11

25. Personal investments and Relations, Canon of Judicial

Ethics

A Judge should abstain from making personal investments in enterpriseswhich are apt to be involved in litigation in his court; and, after

accession to the bench, he should not retain such investments

previously made, longer than a period sufficient to enable him to

dispose of them without serious loss. It is desirable that he should, so

far as reasonably possible, refrain from all relations which would

normally tend to arouse the suspicion that such relations warp or bias

his judgment, or prevent his impartial attitude of mind in theadministration of his judicial duties.chanrobles virtual law library

It is highly improper for a judge to utilize information coming to him in a

juridical capacity for purposes of speculation and it detracts from the

public confidence in his integrity and the soundness of judicial judgment

for him at any time to become a speculative investor upon the hazard of

a margin

-deserved commendation for withdrawal from the firm

and before it became involved in any court litigation

- It is not illegal, as long as the friendly relation between

Dominador Tan and Elias Asuncion did not influence his

official actuations as a judge where said persons areconcerned.

- No tangible proof,


11/11

DECISION

In conclusion, while respondent Judge Asuncion, now

Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, did not violate

any law in acquiring by purchase a parcel of land which

was in litigation in his court and in engaging in business

by joining a private corporation during his incumbency as

judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, he should bereminded to be more discreet in his private and business

activities, because his conduct as a member of the

Judiciary must not only be characterized with propriety

but must always be above suspicion. WHEREFORE, THE

RESPONDENT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OFAPPEALS IS HEREBY REMINDED TO BE MORE DISCREET IN

HIS PRIVATE AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

macariola vs asuncion 114 scra 77 guide

Documents