Macariola v. Asuncion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Bernardita R. Macariola charged Judge Elias B. Asuncion with "acts unbecoming a judge." The charge stemmed from Civil Case No. 3010, a partition case involving properties left by Francisco Reyes. Macariola was the defendant, and other parties were plaintiffs. The respondent Judge rendered a decision on June 8, 1963, which became final. A project of partition was submitted and approved by the respondent Judge on October 23, 1963, despite not being signed by the parties themselves, based on counsel's assurance of authority. Lot 1184, adjudicated in the partition, was subdivided. A portion of Lot 1184-E was sold to Dr. Arcadio Galapon on July 31, 1964. On March 6, 1965, Dr. Galapon sold a portion of Lot 1184-E to respondent Judge Asuncion and his wife. On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and Galapon conveyed their interests in Lot 1184-E to "The Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc." (TRADERS), in which respondent Judge and his wife were stockholders and officers. Procedural History: Complainant Macariola alleged four causes of action: (1) violation of Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the New Civil Code for acquiring property in litigation; (2) violation of the Code of Commerce, R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft Act), Civil Service Rules, and Canons of Judicial Ethics for associating with TRADERS; (3) coddling an impostor (Dominador Arigpa Tan); and (4) culpable defiance of law and ethics. The investigating Justice recommended reprimand or warning for the first cause of action and warning for the second, with exoneration for the third and fourth. Separately, Macariola filed Civil Case No. 4234 seeking to annul the partition and subsequent conveyances. This case was dismissed against Judge Asuncion, awarding him damages. The decision in Civil Case No. 4234 was appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the complaint against respondent Judge Asuncion, who was by then an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Asuncion violated Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the New Civil Code by purchasing a portion of Lot No. 1184-E. Whether respondent Judge Asuncion violated Article 14 of the Code of Commerce, Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019, Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules, and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics by associating with Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. Whether respondent Judge Asuncion was guilty of coddling an impostor and acted in disregard of judicial decorum. Whether respondent Judge Asuncion was guilty of culpable defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found no violation of Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the New Civil Code. It also found no violation of Article 14 of the Code of Commerce, Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019, or Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules. However, it noted that the respondent's conduct was improper under Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. The respondent was exonerated on the third and fourth causes of action. The Court issued a reminder to the respondent to be more discreet in his private and business activities.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the New Civil Code: The Court held that Article 1491 prohibits the purchase of property during the pendency of litigation. In this case, the respondent Judge purchased a portion of Lot 1184-E on March 6, 1965, which was after the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 (rendered June 8, 1963) and the orders approving the project of partition (October 23, 1963, and November 11, 1963) had become final. Therefore, the property was no longer subject to litigation at the time of the purchase. Furthermore, the purchase was made from a third-party purchaser, Dr. Arcadio Galapon, not directly from the parties to the litigation. The Court also found no evidence that Dr. Galapon acted as a "dummy" for the respondent Judge. On the alleged violation of Article 14 of the Code of Commerce, R.A. 3019, Civil Service Rules, and Canons of Judicial Ethics: The Court ruled that Article 14 of the Code of Commerce, being political in nature, was abrogated upon the change of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and subsequently to the Republic of the Philippines, as there was no affirmative act to re-enact it. Regarding R.A. 3019, the Court found no evidence that the respondent Judge intervened in the business of Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. in his official capacity. The Court also held that the Civil Service Rules do not apply to members of the Judiciary. However, the Court emphasized that while no law was violated, the respondent's conduct was improper under Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which requires judges to abstain from making investments in enterprises likely to be involved in litigation in their courts and to avoid relations that might arouse suspicion of bias. The Court noted that the respondent and his wife withdrew from the corporation shortly after its incorporation, indicating an early realization of the impropriety. On the alleged coddling of an impostor and disregard for judicial decorum: The Court agreed with the Investigating Justice's recommendation for exoneration. The respondent denied knowing that Dominador Arigpa Tan was not a member of the bar, and the Court found no reason to disbelieve this assertion, as Tan had publicly represented himself as an attorney. The Court also stated that friendly relations with attorneys do not constitute a violation unless they influence official actuations, and there was no proof of such influence. On the alleged culpable defiance of law and disregard for ethics: Based on the findings for the other causes of action, the Court found no basis for these allegations and exonerated the respondent.
Main Doctrine
A judge's purchase of property that was previously litigated in his court does not violate Article 1491 of the Civil Code if the purchase occurs after the finality of the judgment and the approval of the project of partition, as the property is no longer considered subject to litigation. However, such conduct may still be improper under the Canons of Judicial Ethics if it creates an appearance of impropriety.