Upload
mynameisliane
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 2/25
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
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 3/25
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
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 4/25
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.
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 5/25
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.
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 6/25
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
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 7/25
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
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 8/25
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.
$inisters of the Crown have no place under the "merican fla.
To summari1e, the result is, that all the mem#ers of the court are of the opinion, althouh for different
reasons, that the 4udment should #e reversed and the defendant and appellant acquitted, with
costs de officio. So ordered.
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 9/25
A.!. No. 133-" !#$ 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
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 10/25
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 . $acariola to pay the costs of this suit, in the proportion
of one-third <&KA= #y the first named and two-thirds <2KA= #y the
second namedH and < &= 3ismissin all other claims of the parties Epp
2+-2' of I/h. CF.
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 11/25
The decision in civil case A%&% #ecame final for lac* of an appeal, and on cto#er
&6, &'6A, a pro4ect of partition was su#mitted to ?ude "suncion which is mar*ed
I/h. ". ;otwithstandin the fact that the pro4ect of partition was not sined #y the
parties themselves #ut only #y the respective counsel of plaintiffs and defendant,
?ude "suncion approved it in his rder dated cto#er 2A, &'6A, which for
convenience is quoted hereunder in full
The parties, throuh their respective counsels, presented to this
Court for approval the followin pro4ect of partition
C$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
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 12/25
<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=.
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 13/25
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
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 14/25
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; @
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 15/25
<&= 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
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 16/25
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.
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 17/25
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.
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 18/25
'-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.=.
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 19/25
(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.
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 20/25
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,
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 21/25
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=.
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 22/25
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
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 23/25
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 24/25
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.
7/18/2019 1 General Principles
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-general-principles 25/25
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.