7/27/2019 1. Macariola v. Asuncion, Case Digest

1/1

Macariola v. Asuncion

A.M. No. 133-J, May 31, 1982

Ponente: Justice Makasiar

Facts:In a complaint dated August 6, 1968, petitioner charged respondent judge with acts unbecoming a judge. Years

before, respondent judge ruled on a petition for partition involving petitioner and other parties. This decision becamefinal, and in October 16, 1963, a project for partition was submitted to respondent judge which he approved. One of

the properties was conveyed to a stenographer in respondent judges court, and another was sold to a doctor. In

1965, the doctor sold portion of the lot to respondent judge, and in 1966 conveyed their shares and interest in the lot

to a trading company, of which they were heads. Petitioner alleges that respondent violated the law by purchasing a

lot in a case decided by him, and that he was violating the ethical code by being a ranking officer of a company

while being a judge. In 1970, the complaint was dismissed.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent judge acted ethically.

Held:

No. The prohibition applies only to property which is the subject of litigation to the persons disqualified in (1491).

The prohibition must take place during the pendency of hte litigation involving the property. Here, the purchase was

made in 1965, while the decision was rendered in 1963 (which became final). Furthermore, respondent judge did notbuy the lot directly, but from the doctor. But such actions were improper. Concerning the allegation of violating the

Code of Commerce (TRADERS), although it is part of commercial law, it partakes of the nature of a political lawas it regulates the relationship between public officers and government. Political law has been defined as dealing

with the organization of the governmental organs of the State and defines state relations with its inhabitants.

Specifically, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce partakes more of the nature of an administrative law because it

regulates the conduct of certain public officers and employees with respect to engaging in business: hence, political

in essence. Upon transfer of sovereignty, political laws of the former sovereign are automatically abrogated, unless

re-affirmed positively. Since no affirmative act was done, Article 14 has no legal effect. There is no showing that

respondent participated in the purchase in his official capacity. Furthermore, there is no provision in the 1935 and

1973 Constitutions prohibiting members of the Judiciary from engaging or having interest in lawful business.