MACARIOLA vs.
ASUNCION 114 SCRA 77 In the case at bar, Article 14 of Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and
FACTS:
On June 8, 1963, respondent Judge Elias Asuncion rendered a decision in Civil Case 3010
final for lack of an appeal.
On October 16, 1963, a project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion. The project
of partition of lots was not signed by the parties themselves but only by the respective
counsel of plaintiffs and petitioner Bernardita R. Macariola. The Judge approved it in his
order dated October 23, 1963.
One of the lots in the project of partition was Lot 1184, which was subdivided into 5 lots
denominated as Lot 1184 A – E. Dr. Arcadio Galapon bought Lot 1184-E on July 31, 1964,
who was issued transfer of certificate of Title No, 2338 of the Register of Deeds of Tacloban
City. On March 6, 1965, Galapon sold a portion of the lot to Judge Asuncion and his wife.
On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and Galapon conveyed their respective shares
and interest inn Lot 1184-E to the Traders Manufacturing & Fishing Industries Inc. Judge
Asuncion was the President and his wife Victoria was the Secretary. The Asuncions and
Galapons were also the stockholder of the corporation.
Respondent Macariola charged Judge Asuncion with "Acts unbecoming a Judge" for
violating the following provisions: Article 1491, par. 5 of the New Civil Code, Article 14, par.
1 & 5 of the Code of Commerce, Sec. 3 par H of RA 3019 also known as the Anti-Graft &
Corrupt Practice Act., Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics.
On November 2, 1970 a certain Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno dismissed the complaints
filed against Asuncion.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not the respondent Judge violated the mentioned provisions.
RULING:
No. Judge Asuncion did not violate the mentioned provisions constituting of "Acts
unbecoming a Judge" but was reminded to be more discreet in his private and business
activities.
Respondent Judge did not buy the lot 1184-E directly on the plaintiffs in Civil Case No.
3010 but from Dr. Galapon who earlier purchased the lot from 3 of the plaintiffs. When the
Asuncion bought the lot on March 6, 1965 from Dr. Galapon after the finality of the decision
which he rendered on June 8, 1963 in Civil Case No 3010 and his two orders dated October
and November, 1963. The said property was no longer the subject of litigation.
cannot apply to the respondent. Upon the sovereignty from the Spain to the US and to the
Republic of the Philippines, Art. 14 of this Code of Commerce, which sourced from the
Spanish Code of Commerce, appears to have been abrogated because whenever there is
a change in the sovereignty, political laws of the former sovereign are automatically
abrogated, unless they are reenacted by Affirmative Act of the New Sovereign.
Asuncion cannot also be held liable under the par. H, Sec. 3 of RA 3019, citing that the
public officers cannot partake in any business in connection with this office, or intervened
or take part in his official capacity. The Judge and his wife had withdrawn on January 31,
1967 from the corporation and sold their respective shares to 3rd parties, and it appears
that the corporation did not benefit in any case filed by or against it in court as there was
no case filed in the different branches of the Court of First Instance from the time of the
drafting of the Articles of Incorporation of the corporation on March 12, 1966 up to its
incorporation on January 9, 1967. The Judge realized early that their interest in the
corporation contravenes against Canon 25.
_____________________________
In 1963, Bernardita Macariola and her step sister and other kins (Priscilla Reyes et al) had
a dispute over their inheritance involving parcels of land located in Leyte. A trial ensued
and Judge Elias Macariola, after determining the legibility of the parties to inherit rendered
a decision in the civil case. Thereafter, the counsels of the parties submitted a project
partition reflecting the preference of the parties. The project partition was, however,
unsigned by Macariola. But her lawyer assured Asuncion that he is duly authorized by
Macariola as counsel. The judge then approved the project partition. The decision became
final in 1963 as well.
Reyes et al sold some of their shares to Arcadio Galapon, who later sold the property to
Judge Asuncion in 1965.
In August 1968, Macariola filed a complaint against Judge Asuncion with “acts unbecoming
a judge” on the ground that he bought a property (formerly owned by Macariola) which was
involved in a civil case decided by him; this act by Asuncion is averred by Macariola to be
against Art. 1491, par. 5 of the Civil Code which provides:
“Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or
judicial action, either in person or through the mediation of another:
xxx xxx xxx
“(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”.
Also, Macariola said that Asuncion’s act tainted his earlier judgment. Macariola said that
the project partition was unsigned by her and that what was given to her in the partition
were insignificant portions of the parcels of land.

Further, Macariola alleged that the act of Asuncion engaging in commerce is said to be a
violation of pars. 1 and 5, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges in active
service (among others) to do so within the limits of the place where they discharge their
duties.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated the said Civil Code provision.
2. Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated the said Code of Commerce provision.

HELD:
1. No. The prohibition only applies if the litigation is under pendency. The judge bought the
property in 1965 – 2 years after his decision became final. Further, Asuncion did not buy
the property directly from any of the parties since the property was directly bought by
Galapon, who then sold the property to Asuncion. There was no showing that Galapon
acted as a “dummy” of Asuncion.

Also, Macariola did not show proof that there was a gross inequality in the partition; or that
what she got were insignificant portions of the land.

The Supreme Court however admonished Judge Asuncion to be more discreet in his
personal transactions.

2. No. Article 14 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, effective August 1888) of the Code
of Commerce, prohibiting judges from engaging in commerce was political in nature and
so was automatically abrogated with the end of Spanish rule in the country (Change of
Sovereignty to the US by virtue of cession, 1898 – Treaty of Paris).