Gatmaytan, Chapter 5

Kindly share with your classmates, these will be the remaining topics until the end of the
course:
I. Areas of Law
Political Law
- Definition: 1. People v. Perfecto 43 Phil. 887 (1922);
2. Macariola v. Asuncion A.M. No. 133-J, May 31, 1982
Civil Law
Definition: Arturo Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines – Comments and Jurisprudence
(1990) Volume 1, page 4
Criminal Law
- Definition: 3. Lacson v. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 128096, Jan. 20, 1999;
4. Hernandez v. Albano, G.R. N o. L-19272, January 25, 1967
5. U.S. v. Taylor, G.R. No. 9726. December 8, 1914, 28 Phil 599, 604
Commercial Law
- Definition: Jose C. Vitug, Commercial Laws and Jurisprudence Vol. 1 (2006), page 1.
Law on Taxation
Labor Law
- Definition:
Labor Standards – 6. Mariveles Shipyard Corp. v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 144134,
November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 573
Labor Relations – C.A. Azucena, Jr., The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Vol II
(2007), page 10.
Remedial Law
- Definition: 7. Bustos v. Lucero, GR No. L-2068, October 20, 1948, 81 Phil. 640
Legal Ethics
- Definition: Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics (2009), page 2, citing G.A.
Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 8 (1949)
II. Judicial Review

- Gatmaytan, Chapter 4
- Bernas, 935-949; 952;962-964
- Const., Art. VIII, §1, ¶2
- 8. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
- 9.Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra
- 10.Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973, November 8, 2016
II. Case Law and Precedent

- Civil Code, Art. 8
- 11. Caltex vs. Palomar, G.R. L-19650, September 29, 1966
- 12.Spouses Gauvain vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97973, January 27, 1992
- 13.Barrera vs. Barrera, G.R. No. L-31589, July 31, 1970
Stare Decisis
-13.Villena vs. Sps. Chavez, G.R. No. 148126, November 10, 2003
-14. Olaguer vs. Military Commission No. 34, G.R. No. L-54558, May 22,1987
Res Judicata
-15.Development Bank of the Philippines vs La Campaña Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 137694, January 17, 2005
Law of the Case
-16. Sps. Sy vs Young, G.R. No. 169214, June 19, 2013
IV. Supreme Court Decision

V. Dissenting Opinion
VI. Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum

VII. Authorities
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-18463 October 4, 1922
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
GREGORIO PERFECTOR, defendant-appellant.
Alfonso E. Mendoza and the appellant in behalf of the latter.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellee.
MALCOLM, J.:
The important question is here squarely presented of whether article 256 of the Spanish Penal
Code, punishing "Any person who, by . . . writing, shall defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the
Crown or other person in authority . . .," is still in force.
About August 20, 1920, the Secretary of the Philippine Senate, Fernando M. Guerrero, discovered
that certain documents which constituted the records of testimony given by witnesses in the
investigation of oil companies, had disappeared from his office. Shortly thereafter, the Philippine
Senate, having been called into special session by the Governor-General, the Secretary for the
Senate informed that body of the loss of the documents and of the steps taken by him to discover
the guilty party. The day following the convening of the Senate, September 7, 1920, the newspaper
La Nacion, edited by Mr. Gregorio Perfecto, published an article reading as follows:
Half a month has elapsed since the discovery, for the first time, of the scandalous robbery of records
which were kept and preserved in the iron safe of the Senate, yet up to this time there is not the
slightest indication that the author or authors of the crime will ever be discovered.
To find them, it would not, perhaps, be necessary to go out of the Senate itself, and the persons in
charge of the investigation of the case would not have to display great skill in order to succeed in
their undertaking, unless they should encounter the insuperable obstacle of official concealment.
In that case, every investigation to be made would be but a mere comedy and nothing more.
After all, the perpetration of the robbery, especially under the circumstances that have surrounded it,
does not surprise us at all.
The execution of the crime was but the natural effect of the environment of the place in which it was
committed.
How 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 robbery? How may?
The author or authors of the robbery of the records from the said iron safe of the Senate have,
perhaps, but followed the example of certain Senators who secured their election through fraud and
robbery.
The Philippine Senate, in its session of September 9, 1920, adopted a resolution authorizing its
committee on elections and privileges to report as to the action which should be taken with reference
to the article published in La Nacion. On September 15, 1920, the Senate adopted a resolution
authorizing the President of the Senate to indorse to the Attorney-General, for his study and
corresponding action, all the papers referring to the case of the newspaper La Nacion and its editor,
Mr. Gregorio Perfecto. As a result, an information was filed in the municipal court of the City of
Manila by an assistant city fiscal, in which the editorial in question was set out and in which it was
alleged that the same constituted a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. The defendant
Gregorio Perfecto was found guilty in the municipal court and again in the Court of First Instance of
Manila.
During the course of the trial in the Court of First Instance, after the prosecution had rested, the
defense moved for the dismissal of the case. On the subject of whether or not article 256 of the
Penal Code, under which the information was presented, is in force, the trial judge, the Honorable
George R. Harvey, said:
This antiquated provision was doubtless incorporated into the Penal Code of Spain for the protection
of the Ministers of the Crown and other representatives of the King against free speech and action
by Spanish subjects. A severe punishment was prescribed because it was doubtless considered a
much more serious offense to insult the King's representative than to insult an ordinary individual.
This provision, with almost all the other articles of that Code, was extended to the Philippine Islands
when under the dominion of Spain because the King's subject in the Philippines might defame,
abuse or insult the Ministers of the Crown or other representatives of His Majesty. We now have no
Ministers of the Crown or other persons in authority in the Philippines representing the King of Spain,
and said provision, with other articles of the Penal Code, had apparently passed into "innocuous
desuetude," but the Supreme Corut of the Philippine Islands has, by a majority decision, held that
said article 256 is the law of the land to-day. . . .
The Helbig case is a precedent which, by the rule of stare decisis, is binding upon this court until
otherwise determined by proper authority.
In the decision rendered by the same judge, he concluded with the following language:
In the United States such publications are usually not punishable as criminal offense, and little
importance is attached to them, because they are generally the result of political controversy and are
usually regarded as more or less colored or exaggerated. Attacks of this character upon a legislative
body are not punishable, under the Libel Law. Although such publications are reprehensible, yet this
court feels some aversion to the application of the provision of law under which this case was filed.
Our Penal Code has come to us from the Spanish regime. Article 256 of that Code prescribes
punishment for persons who use insulting language about Ministers of the Crown or other "authority."
The King of Spain doubtless left the need of such protection to his ministers and others in authority
in the Philippines as well as in Spain. Hence, the article referred to was made applicable here.
Notwithstanding the change of sovereignty, our Supreme Court, in a majority decision, has held that
this provision is still in force, and that one who made an insulting remark about the President of the
United States was punishable under it. (U.S. vs. Helbig, supra.) If it applicable in that case, it would
appear to be applicable in this case. Hence, said article 256 must be enforced, without fear or favor,
until it shall be repealed or superseded by other legislation, or until the Supreme Court shall
otherwise determine.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the court finds the defendant guilty as charged 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 prescribed by law, and to pay the costs of both
instances.
The fifteen errors assigned by the defendant and appellant, reenforced by an extensive brief, and
eloquent oral argument made in his own behalf and by his learned counsel, all reduce themselves to
the pertinent and decisive question which was announced in the beginning of this decision.
It will be noted in the first place that the trial judge considered himself bound to follow the rule
announced in the case of United States vs. Helbig (R. G. No. 14705, 1 not published). In that case,
the accused was charged with having said, "To hell with the President and his proclamations, or
words to that effect," in violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. He was found guilty in a judgment
rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila and again on appeal to the Supreme Court, with
the writer of the instant decision dissenting on two principal grounds: (1) That the accused was
deprived of the constitutional right of cross-examination, and (2) that article 256 of the Spanish Penal
Code is no longer in force. Subsequently, on a motion of reconsideration, the court, being of the
opinion that the Court of First Instance had committed a prejudicial error in depriving the accused of
his right to cross-examine a principal witness, set aside the judgment affirming the judgment
appealed from and ordered the return of the record to the court of origin for the celebration of a new
trial. Whether such a trial was actually had, is not known, but at least, the record in the Helbig case
has never again been elevated to this court.
There may perchance exist some doubt as to the authority of the decision in the Helbig case, in view
of the circumstances above described. This much, however, is certain: The facts of the Helbig case
and the case before 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. Not only this, but a new
point which, under the facts, could not have been considered in the Helbig case, is, in the Perfecto
case, urged upon the court. And, finally, as is apparent to all, the appellate court is not restrained, as
was the trial court, by strict adherence to a former decision. We much prefer to resolve the question
before us unhindered by references to the Helbig decision.
This is one of those cases on which a variety of opinions all leading to the same result can be had. A
majority of the court are of the opinion that the Philippine Libel Law, Act No. 277, has had the effect
of repealing so much of article 256 of the Penal Code as relates to written defamation, abuse, or
insult, and that under the information and the facts, the defendant is neither guilty of a violation of
article 256 of the Penal Code, nor of the Libel Law. The view of the Chief Justice is that the accused
should be acquitted for the reason that the facts alleged in the information do not constitute a
violation of article 156 of the Penal Code. Three members of the court believe that article 256 was
abrogated completely by the change from Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and
is inconsistent with democratic principles of government.
Without prejudice to the right of any member of the court to explain his position, we will discuss the
two main points just mentioned.
1. Effect of the Philippine Libel Law, Act No. 277, on article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code. — The
Libel Law, Act No. 277, was enacted by the Philippine Commission shortly after organization of this
legislative body. Section 1 defines libel as a "malicious defamation, expressed either in writing,
printing, or by signs or pictures, or the like, or public theatrical exhibitions, tending to blacken the
memory of one who is dead or to impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation, or publish the alleged or
natural deffects of one who is alive, and thereby expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule."
Section 13 provides that "All laws and parts of laws now in force, so far as the same may be in
conflict herewith, are hereby repealed. . . ."
That parts of laws in force in 1901 when the Libel Law took effect, were in conflict therewith, and that
the Libel Law abrogated certain portion of the Spanish Penal Code, cannot be gainsaid. Title X of
Book II of the Penal Code, covering the subjects of calumny and insults, must have been particularly
affected by the Libel Law. Indeed, in the early case of Pardo de Tavera vs. Garcia Valdez ([1902], 1.
Phil., 468), the Supreme Court spoke of the Libel Law as "reforming the preexisting Spanish law on
the subject of calumnia and injuria." Recently, specific attention was given to the effect of the Libel
Law on the provisions of the Penal Code, dealing with calumny and insults, and it was found that
those provisions of the Penal Code on the subject of calumny and insults in which the elements of
writing an publicity entered, were abrogated by the Libel Law. (People vs. Castro [1922], p. 842,
ante.)
The Libel Law 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 published an article, naturally in writing, which may
have had the tendency to impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation of members of the Philippine
Senate, thereby possibly exposing them to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, which is exactly libel,
as defined by the Libel Law. Sir J. F. Stephen is authority for the statement that a libel is indictable
when defaming a "body of persons definite and small enough for individual members to be
recognized as such, in or by means of anything capable of being a libel." (Digest of Criminal Law,
art. 267.) But in the United States, while it may be proper to prosecute criminally the author of a libel
charging a legislator with corruption, criticisms, no matter how severe, on a legislature, are within the
range of the liberty of the press, unless the intention and effect be seditious. (3 Wharton's Criminal
Law, p. 2131.) With these facts and legal principles in mind, recall that article 256 begins: Any
person who, by . . . writing, shall defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person
in authority," etc.
The Libel Law is a complete and comprehensive law on the subject of libel. The well-known rule of
statutory construction is, that where the later statute clearly covers the old subject-matter of
antecedent acts, and it plainly appears to have been the purpose of the legislature to give
expression in it to the whole law on the subject, previous laws are held to be repealed by necessary
implication. (1 Lewis' Sutherland Statutory Construction, p. 465.) For identical reasons, it is evident
that Act No. 277 had the effect so much of this article as punishes defamation, abuse, or insults by
writing.
Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, the Treason and Sedition Law, may also have affected
article 256, but as to this point, it is not necessary to make a pronouncement.
2. Effect of the change from Spanish to Amercian sevoreignty over the Philippines on article 256 of
the Spanish Penal Code. — Appellant's main proposition in the lower court and again energetically
pressed in the appellate court was that article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is not now in force
because abrogated by the change from Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and
because inconsistent with democratic principles of government. This view was indirectly favored by
the trial judge, and, as before stated, is the opinion of three members of this court.
Article 256 is found in Chapter V of title III of Book II of the Spanish Penal Code. Title I of Book II
punishes the crimes of treason, crimes that endanger the peace or independence of the state,
crimes against international law, and the crime of piracy. Title II of the same book punishes the
crimes of lese majeste, crimes against the Cortes and its members and against the council of
ministers, crimes against the form of government, and crimes committed on the occasion of the
exercise of rights guaranteed by the fundamental laws of the state, including crime against religion
and worship. Title III of the same Book, in which article 256 is found, punishes the crimes of
rebellion, sedition, assaults upon persons in authority, and their agents, and contempts, insults,
injurias, and threats against persons in authority, and insults, injurias, and threats against their
agents and other public officers, the last being the title to Chapter V. The first two articles in Chapter
V define and punish the offense of contempt committed by any one who shall be word or deed
defame, abuse, insult, or threathen a minister of the crown, or any person in authority. The with an
article condemning challenges to fight duels intervening, comes article 256, now being weighed in
the balance. It reads as follows: "Any person who, by word, deed, or writing, shall defame, abuse, or
insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in authority, while engaged in the performance of
official duties, or by reason of such performance, provided that the offensive minister or person, or
the offensive writing be not addressed to him, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor," — that is,
the defamation, abuse, or insult of any Minister of the Crown of the Monarchy of Spain (for there
could not be a Minister of the Crown in the United States of America), or other person in authority in
the Monarchy of Spain.
It cannot admit of doubt that all those provisions of the Spanish Penal Code having to do with such
subjects as treason, lese majeste, religion and worship, rebellion, sedition, and contempts of
ministers of the crown, are not longer in force. Our present task, 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 United States
and the characteristics and institutions of the American Government.
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. "Political" is here used to denominate the laws regulating
the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. (American Insurance Co. vs. Canter
[1828], 1 Pet., 511; Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Co. vs. McGlinn [1885], 114 U.S., 542;
Roa vs. Collector of Customs [1912], 23 Phil., 315.) Mr. Justice Field of the United States Supreme
Court stated the obvious when in the course of his opinion in the case of Chicago, Rock Island and
Pacific Railway Co. vs. McGlinn, supra, he said: "As a matter of course, all laws, ordinances and
regulations in conflict with the political character, institutions and Constitution of the new government
are at once displaced. Thus, upon a cession of political jurisdiction and legislative power — and the
latter is involved in the former — to the United States, the laws of the country in support of an
established religion or abridging the freedom of the press, or authorizing cruel and unusual
punishments, and he like, would at once cease to be of obligatory force without any declaration to
that effect." To quote again from the United States Supreme Court: "It cannot be admitted that the
King of Spain could, by treaty or otherwise, impart to the United States any of his royal prerogatives;
and much less can it be admitted that they have capacity to receive or power to exercise them.
Every nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the Constitution and
laws of its own government, and not according to those of the government ceding it." (Pollard vs.
Hagan [1845], 3 Hos., 210.)
On American occupation of the Philippines, by instructions of the President to the Military
Commander dated May 28, 1898, and by proclamation of the latter, the municipal laws of the
conquered territory affecting private rights of person and property and providing for the punishment
of crime were nominally continued in force in so far as they were compatible with the new order of
things. But President McKinley, in his instructions to General Merritt, was careful to say: "The first
effect of the military occupation of the enemy's territory is the severance of the former political
relation of the inhabitants and the establishment of a new political power." From that day to this, the
ordinarily it has been taken for granted that the provisions under consideration were still effective. To
paraphrase the language of the United States Supreme Court in Weems vs. United States ([1910],
217 U. S., 349), there was not and could not be, except as precise questions were presented, a
careful consideration of the codal provisions and a determination of the extent to which they
accorded with or were repugnant to the "'great principles of liberty and law' which had been 'made
the basis of our governmental system.' " But when the question has been squarely raised, the
appellate court has been forced on occasion to hold certain portions of the Spanish codes repugnant
t democratic institutions and American constitutional principles. (U.S. vs. Sweet [1901], 1 Phil., 18;
U.S. vs. Balcorta [1913], 25 Phil., 273; U.S. vs. Balcorta [1913], 25 Phil., 533; Weems vs. U.S.,
supra.)
The nature of the government which has been set up in the Philippines under American sovereignty
was outlined by President McKinley in that Magna Charta of Philippine liberty, his instructions to the
Commission, of April 7, 1900. In part, the President said:
In all the forms of government and administrative provisions which they are authorized to prescribe,
the Commission should bear in mind that he government which they are establishing is designed not
for our satisfaction or for the expression of our theoretical views, but for the happiness, peace, and
prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands, and the measures adopted should be made to
conform to their customs, their habits, and even their prejudices, to the fullest extent consistent with
the accomplishment of the indispensable requisites of just and effective government. At the same
time the Commission should bear in mind, and the people of the Islands should be made plainly to
understand, that there are certain great principles of government which have been made the basis of
our governmental system, which we deem essential to the rule of law and the maintenance of
individual freedom, and of which they have, unfortunately, been denied the experience possessed by
us; that there are also certain practical rules of government which we have found to be essential to
the preservation of these great principles of liberty and law, and that these principles and these rules
of government must be established and maintained in their islands for the sake of their liberty and
happiness, however much they may conflict with the customs or laws of procedure with which they
are familiar. It is evident that the most enlightened thought of the Philippine Islands fully appreciates
the importance of these principles and rules, and they will inevitably within a short time command
universal assent.
The courts have naturally taken the same view. Mr. Justice Elliott, speaking for our Supreme Court,
in the case of United States vs. Bull ([1910], 15 Phil., 7), said: "The President and Congress framed
the government on the model with which American are familiar, and which has proven best adapted
for the advancement of the public interests and the protection of individual rights and privileges."
Therefore, it has come with somewhat of a shock to hear the statement made that the happiness,
peace, and prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands and their customs, habits, and
prejudices, to follow the language of President McKinley, demand obeisance to authority, and royal
protection for that authority.
According to our view, article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted by the Government of
Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the representatives of the King. With the change of
sovereignty, a new government, and a new theory of government, as set up in the Philippines. It was
in no sense a continuation of the old, although merely for convenience certain of the existing
institutions and laws were continued. The demands which the new government made, and makes,
on the individual citizen are likewise different. No longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person
in authority of such exalted position that the citizen must speak of him only with bated breath. "In the
eye of our Constitution and laws, every man is a sovereign, a ruler and a freeman, and has equal
rights with every other man. We have no rank or station, except that of respectability and intelligence
as opposed to indecency and ignorance, and the door to this rank stands open to every man to
freely enter and abide 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. Every man may lawfully
do what he will, so long as it is not malum in se or malum prohibitum or does not infringe upon the
equally sacred rights of others." (State vs. Shepherd [1903], 177 Mo., 205; 99 A. S. R., 624.)
It is true that in England, from which so many of the laws and institutions of the United States are
derived, there were once statutes of scandalum magnatum, under which words which would not be
actionable if spoken of an ordinary subject were made actionable if spoken of a peer of the realm or
of any of the great officers of the Crown, without proof of any special damage. The Crown of
England, unfortunately, took a view less tolerant that that of other sovereigns, as for instance, the
Emperors Augustus, Caesar, and Tiberius. These English statutes have, however, long since,
become obsolete, while in the United States, the offense of scandalum magnatum is not known. In
the early days of the American Republic, a sedition law was enacted, making it an offense to libel the
Government, the Congress, or the President of the United States, but the law met with so much
popular disapproval, that it was soon repealed. "In this country no distinction as to persons is
recognized, and in practice a person holding a high office is regarded as a target at whom any
person may let fly his poisonous words. High official position, instead of affording immunity from
slanderous and libelous charges, seems rather to be regarded as making his character free plunder
for any one who desires to create a senation by attacking it." (Newell, Slander and Libel, 3d ed., p.
245; Sillars vs. Collier [1890], 151 Mass., 50; 6 L.R.A., 680.)
Article 256 of the Penal Code is contrary to the genius and fundamental principles of the American
character and system of government. The gulf which separates this article from the spirit which
inspires all penal legislation of American origin, is as wide as that which separates a monarchy from
a democratic Republic like that of the United States. This article was crowded out by implication as
soon as the United States established its authority in the Philippine Islands. Penalties out of all
proportion to the gravity of the offense, grounded in a distorted monarchical conception of the nature
of political authority, as opposed to the American conception of the protection of the interests of the
public, have been obliterated by the present system of government in the Islands.
From an entirely different point of view, it must be noted that this article punishes contempts against
executive officials, although its terms are broad enough to cover the entire official class. Punishment
for contempt of non-judicial officers has no place in a government based upon American principles.
Our official class is not, as in monarchies, an agent of some authority greater than the people but it is
an agent and servant of the people themselves. These officials are only entitled to respect and
obedience when they are acting within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction. The American
system of government is calculated to enforce respect and obedience where such respect and
obedience is due, but never does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an official
position by mandate of the people any official halo, which calls for drastic punishment for
contemptuous remarks.
The crime of lese majeste disappeared in the Philippines with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris.
Ministers of the Crown have no place under the American flag.
To summarize, the result is, that all the members of the court are of the opinion, although for different
reasons, that the judgment should be reversed and the defendant and appellant acquitted, with costs
de officio. So ordered.
Ostrand and Johns, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
ARAULLO, C.J., concurring:
I concur with the dispositive part of the foregoing decision, that is, with the acquittal of the accused,
for the sole reason that the facts alleged in the information do not constitute a violation of article 256
of the Penal Code; for although that article is in force with respect to calumny, injuria, or insult, by
deed or word, against an authority in the performance of his duties or by reason thereof, outside of
his presence, it is repealed by the Libel Law in so far as it refers to calumny, injuria, or insult
committed against an authority by writing or printing, as was that inserted in the said information.
ROMUALDEZ, J., concurring:
I concur with the result. I believe that the responsibility of the accused has not been shown either
under article 256 of the Penal Code or under the Libel Law.
I am of the opinion that article 256 of the Penal Code is still in force, except as it refers to "Ministers
of the Crown," whom we do not have in our Government, and to calumny, injuria, or insult, by writing
or printing, committed against an authority in the performance of his duties or by reason thereof,
which portion was repealed by the Libel Law.
Johnson, Street, Avanceña and Villamor, JJ., conc
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. 133-J May 31, 1982
BERNARDITA R. MACARIOLA, complainant,
vs.
HONORABLE ELIAS B. ASUNCION, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, respondent.
MAKASIAR, J:
In a verified complaint dated August 6, 1968 Bernardita R. Macariola charged respondent Judge
Elias B. Asuncion of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, now Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeals, with "acts unbecoming a judge."
The factual setting of the case is stated in the report dated May 27, 1971 of then Associate Justice
Cecilia Muñoz Palma of the Court of Appeals now retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, to
whom this case was referred on October 28, 1968 for investigation, thus:
Civil Case No. 3010 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte was a complaint for partition filed by
Sinforosa R. Bales, Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes, and Priscilla
Reyes, plaintiffs, against Bernardita R. Macariola, defendant, concerning the properties left by the
deceased Francisco Reyes, the common father of the plaintiff and defendant.
In her defenses to the complaint for partition, Mrs. Macariola alleged among other things that; a)
plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales was not a daughter of the deceased Francisco Reyes; b) the only legal
heirs of the deceased were defendant Macariola, she being the only offspring of the first marriage of
Francisco Reyes with Felisa Espiras, and the remaining plaintiffs who were the children of the
deceased by his second marriage with Irene Ondez; c) the properties left by the deceased were all
the conjugal properties of the latter and his first wife, Felisa Espiras, and no properties were
acquired by the deceased during his second marriage; d) if there was any partition to be made,
those conjugal properties should first be partitioned into two parts, and one part is to be adjudicated
solely to defendant it being the share of the latter's deceased mother, Felisa Espiras, and the other
half which is the share of the deceased Francisco Reyes was to be divided equally among his
children by his two marriages.
On June 8, 1963, a decision was rendered by respondent Judge Asuncion in Civil Case 3010, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court, upon a preponderance of evidence,
finds and so holds, and hereby renders judgment (1) Declaring the plaintiffs Luz R. Bakunawa,
Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes and Priscilla Reyes as the only children legitimated
by the subsequent marriage of Francisco Reyes Diaz to Irene Ondez; (2) Declaring the plaintiff
Sinforosa R. Bales to have been an illegitimate child of Francisco Reyes Diaz; (3) Declaring Lots
Nos. 4474, 4475, 4892, 5265, 4803, 4581, 4506 and 1/4 of Lot 1145 as belonging to the conjugal
partnership of the spouses Francisco Reyes Diaz and Felisa Espiras; (4) Declaring Lot No. 2304 and
1/4 of Lot No. 3416 as belonging to the spouses Francisco Reyes Diaz and Irene Ondez in common
partnership; (5) Declaring that 1/2 of Lot No. 1184 as belonging exclusively to the deceased
Francisco Reyes Diaz; (6) Declaring the defendant Bernardita R. Macariola, being the only legal and
forced heir of her mother Felisa Espiras, as the exclusive owner of one-half of each of Lots Nos.
4474, 4475, 4892, 5265, 4803, 4581, 4506; and the remaining one-half (1/2) of each of said Lots
Nos. 4474, 4475, 4892, 5265, 4803, 4581, 4506 and one-half (1/2) of one-fourth (1/4) of Lot No.
1154 as belonging to the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz; (7) Declaring Irene Ondez to be the
exclusive owner of one-half (1/2) of Lot No. 2304 and one-half (1/2) of one-fourth (1/4) of Lot No.
3416; the remaining one-half (1/2) of Lot 2304 and the remaining one-half (1/2) of one-fourth (1/4) of
Lot No. 3416 as belonging to the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz; (8) Directing the division or
partition of the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz in such a manner as to give or grant to Irene Ondez,
as surviving widow of Francisco Reyes Diaz, a hereditary share of. one-twelfth (1/12) of the whole
estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz (Art. 996 in relation to Art. 892, par 2, New Civil Code), and the
remaining portion of the estate to be divided among the plaintiffs Sinforosa R. Bales, Luz R.
Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes, Priscilla Reyes and defendant
Bernardita R. Macariola, in such a way that the extent of the total share of plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales
in the hereditary estate shall not exceed the equivalent of two-fifth (2/5) of the total share of any or
each of the other plaintiffs and the defendant (Art. 983, New Civil Code), each of the latter to receive
equal shares from the hereditary estate, (Ramirez vs. Bautista, 14 Phil. 528; Diancin vs. Bishop of
Jaro, O.G. [3rd Ed.] p. 33); (9) Directing the parties, within thirty days after this judgment shall have
become final to submit to this court, for approval a project of partition of the hereditary estate in the
proportion above indicated, and in such manner as the parties may, by agreement, deemed
convenient and equitable to them taking into consideration the location, kind, quality, nature and
value of the properties involved; (10) Directing the plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales and defendant
Bernardita R. Macariola to pay the costs of this suit, in the proportion of one-third (1/3) by the first
named and two-thirds (2/3) by the second named; and (I 1) Dismissing all other claims of the parties
[pp 27-29 of Exh. C].
The decision in civil case 3010 became final for lack of an appeal, and on October 16, 1963, a
project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion which is marked Exh. A. Notwithstanding the
fact that the project of partition was not signed by the parties themselves but only by the respective
counsel of plaintiffs and defendant, Judge Asuncion approved it in his Order dated October 23, 1963,
which for convenience is quoted hereunder in full:
The parties, through their respective counsels, presented to this Court for approval the following
project of partition:
COMES NOW, the plaintiffs and the defendant in the above-entitled case, to this Honorable Court
respectfully submit the following Project of Partition:
l. The whole of Lots Nos. 1154, 2304 and 4506 shall belong exclusively to Bernardita Reyes
Macariola;
2. A portion of Lot No. 3416 consisting of 2,373.49 square meters along the eastern part of the lot
shall be awarded likewise to Bernardita R. Macariola;
3. Lots Nos. 4803, 4892 and 5265 shall be awarded to Sinforosa Reyes Bales;
4. A portion of Lot No. 3416 consisting of 1,834.55 square meters along the western part of the lot
shall likewise be awarded to Sinforosa Reyes-Bales;
5. Lots Nos. 4474 and 4475 shall be divided equally among Luz Reyes Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes,
Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes and Priscilla Reyes in equal shares;
6. Lot No. 1184 and the remaining portion of Lot No. 3416 after taking the portions awarded under
item (2) and (4) above shall be awarded to Luz Reyes Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes,
Adela Reyes and Priscilla Reyes in equal shares, provided, however that the remaining portion of
Lot No. 3416 shall belong exclusively to Priscilla Reyes.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Project of Partition indicated above which is made in
accordance with the decision of the Honorable Court be approved.
Tacloban City, October 16, 1963.
(SGD) BONIFACIO RAMO Atty. for the Defendant Tacloban City
(SGD) ZOTICO A. TOLETE Atty. for the Plaintiff Tacloban City
While the Court thought it more desirable for all the parties to have signed this Project of Partition,
nevertheless, upon assurance of both counsels of the respective parties to this Court that the Project
of Partition, as above- quoted, had been made after a conference and agreement of the plaintiffs and
the defendant approving the above Project of Partition, and that both lawyers had represented to the
Court that they are given full authority to sign by themselves the Project of Partition, the Court,
therefore, finding the above-quoted Project of Partition to be in accordance with law, hereby
approves the same. The parties, therefore, are directed to execute such papers, documents or
instrument sufficient in form and substance for the vesting of the rights, interests and participations
which were adjudicated to the respective parties, as outlined in the Project of Partition and the
delivery of the respective properties adjudicated to each one in view of said Project of Partition, and
to perform such other acts as are legal and necessary to effectuate the said Project of Partition.
SO ORDERED.
Given in Tacloban City, this 23rd day of October, 1963.
(SGD) ELIAS B. ASUNCION Judge
EXH. B.
The above Order of October 23, 1963, was amended on November 11, 1963, only for the purpose of
giving authority to the Register of Deeds of the Province of Leyte to issue the corresponding transfer
certificates of title to the respective adjudicatees in conformity with the project of partition (see Exh.
U).
One of the properties mentioned in the project of partition was Lot 1184 or rather one-half thereof
with an area of 15,162.5 sq. meters. This lot, which according to the decision was the exclusive
property of the deceased Francisco Reyes, was adjudicated in said project of partition to the
plaintiffs Luz, Anacorita Ruperto, Adela, and Priscilla all surnamed Reyes in equal shares, and when
the project of partition was approved by the trial court the adjudicatees caused Lot 1184 to be
subdivided into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E inclusive (Exh. V).
Lot 1184-D was conveyed to Enriqueta D. Anota, a stenographer in Judge Asuncion's court (Exhs. F,
F-1 and V-1), while Lot 1184-E which had an area of 2,172.5556 sq. meters was sold on July 31,
1964 to Dr. Arcadio Galapon (Exh. 2) who was issued transfer certificate of title No. 2338 of the
Register of Deeds of the city of Tacloban (Exh. 12).
On March 6, 1965, Dr. Arcadio Galapon and his wife Sold a portion of Lot 1184-E with an area of
around 1,306 sq. meters to Judge Asuncion and his wife, Victoria S. Asuncion (Exh. 11), which
particular portion was declared by the latter for taxation purposes (Exh. F).
On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon conveyed their respective shares and
interest in Lot 1184-E to "The Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc." (Exit 15 & 16). At
the time of said sale the stockholders of the corporation were Dominador Arigpa Tan, Humilia
Jalandoni Tan, Jaime Arigpa Tan, Judge Asuncion, and the latter's wife, Victoria S. Asuncion, with
Judge Asuncion as the President and Mrs. Asuncion as the secretary (Exhs. E-4 to E-7). The Articles
of Incorporation of "The Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc." which we shall
henceforth refer to as "TRADERS" were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
only on January 9, 1967 (Exh. E) [pp. 378-385, rec.].
Complainant Bernardita R. Macariola filed on August 9, 1968 the instant complaint dated August 6,
1968 alleging four causes of action, to wit: [1] that respondent Judge Asuncion violated Article 1491,
paragraph 5, of the New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E which was
one of those properties involved in Civil Case No. 3010 decided by him; [2] that he likewise violated
Article 14, paragraphs I and 5 of the Code of Commerce, Section 3, paragraph H, of R.A. 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil
Service Rules, and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, by associating himself with the
Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., as a stockholder and a ranking officer while he
was a judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte; [3] that respondent was guilty of coddling an
impostor and acted in disregard of judicial decorum by closely fraternizing with a certain Dominador
Arigpa Tan who openly and publicly advertised himself as a practising attorney when in truth and in
fact his name does not appear in the Rolls of Attorneys and is not a member of the Philippine Bar;
and [4] that there was a culpable defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics by respondent
Judge (pp. 1-7, rec.).
Respondent Judge Asuncion filed on September 24, 1968 his answer to which a reply was filed on
October 16, 1968 by herein complainant. In Our resolution of October 28, 1968, We referred this
case to then Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma of the Court of Appeals, for investigation, report and
recommendation. After hearing, the said Investigating Justice submitted her report dated May 27,
1971 recommending that respondent Judge should be reprimanded or warned in connection with the
first cause of action alleged in the complaint, and for the second cause of action, respondent should
be warned in case of a finding that he is prohibited under the law to engage in business. On the third
and fourth causes of action, Justice Palma recommended that respondent Judge be exonerated.
The records also reveal that on or about November 9 or 11, 1968 (pp. 481, 477, rec.), complainant
herein instituted an action before the Court of First Instance of Leyte, entitled "Bernardita R.
Macariola, plaintiff, versus Sinforosa R. Bales, et al., defendants," which was docketed as Civil Case
No. 4235, seeking the annulment of the project of partition made pursuant to the decision in Civil
Case No. 3010 and the two orders issued by respondent Judge approving the same, as well as the
partition of the estate and the subsequent conveyances with damages. It appears, however, that
some defendants were dropped from the civil case. For one, the case against Dr. Arcadio Galapon
was dismissed because he was no longer a real party in interest when Civil Case No. 4234 was
filed, having already conveyed on March 6, 1965 a portion of lot 1184-E to respondent Judge and on
August 31, 1966 the remainder was sold to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc.
Similarly, the case against defendant Victoria Asuncion was dismissed on the ground that she was
no longer a real party in interest at the time the aforesaid Civil Case No. 4234 was filed as the
portion of Lot 1184 acquired by her and respondent Judge from Dr. Arcadio Galapon was already
sold on August 31, 1966 to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing industries, Inc. Likewise, the
cases against defendants Serafin P. Ramento, Catalina Cabus, Ben Barraza Go, Jesus Perez,
Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., Alfredo R. Celestial and Pilar P. Celestial,
Leopoldo Petilla and Remedios Petilla, Salvador Anota and Enriqueta Anota and Atty. Zotico A.
Tolete were dismissed with the conformity of complainant herein, plaintiff therein, and her counsel.
On November 2, 1970, Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, who was
directed and authorized on June 2, 1969 by the then Secretary (now Minister) of Justice and now
Minister of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile to hear and decide Civil Case No. 4234, rendered a
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
A. IN THE CASE AGAINST JUDGE ELIAS B. ASUNCION
(1) declaring that only Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Leyte has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the issue of the legality and validity of the Project of Partition [Exhibit "B"] and the two
Orders [Exhibits "C" and "C- 3"] approving the partition;
(2) dismissing the complaint against Judge Elias B. Asuncion;
(3) adjudging the plaintiff, Mrs. Bernardita R. Macariola to pay defendant Judge Elias B. Asuncion,
(a) the sum of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [P400,000.00] for moral damages;
(b) the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [P200,000.001 for exemplary damages;
(c) the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS [P50,000.00] for nominal damages; and
(d) he sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS [PI0,000.00] for Attorney's Fees.
B. IN THE CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT MARIQUITA VILLASIN, FOR HERSELF AND FOR
THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED GERARDO VILLASIN —
(1) Dismissing the complaint against the defendants Mariquita Villasin and the heirs of the deceased
Gerardo Villasin;
(2) Directing the plaintiff to pay the defendants Mariquita Villasin and the heirs of Gerardo Villasin the
cost of the suit.
C. IN THE CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT SINFOROSA R. BALES, ET AL., WHO WERE
PLAINTIFFS IN CIVIL CASE NO. 3010 —
(1) Dismissing the complaint against defendants Sinforosa R. Bales, Adela R. Herrer, Priscilla R.
Solis, Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita R. Eng and Ruperto O. Reyes.
D. IN THE CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT BONIFACIO RAMO —
(1) Dismissing the complaint against Bonifacio Ramo;
(2) Directing the plaintiff to pay the defendant Bonifacio Ramo the cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED [pp. 531-533, rec.]
It is further disclosed by the record that the aforesaid decision was elevated to the Court of Appeals
upon perfection of the appeal on February 22, 1971.
I
WE find that there is no merit in the contention of complainant Bernardita R. Macariola, under her
first cause of action, that respondent Judge Elias B. Asuncion violated Article 1491, paragraph 5, of
the New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E which was one of those
properties involved in Civil Case No. 3010. 'That Article 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 [emphasis supplied].
The prohibition in the aforesaid Article applies only to the sale or assignment of the property which is
the subject of litigation to the persons disqualified therein. WE have already ruled that "... for the
prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of
the litigation involving the property" (The Director of Lands vs. Ababa et al., 88 SCRA 513, 519
[1979], Rosario vda. de Laig vs. Court of Appeals, 86 SCRA 641, 646 [1978]).
In the case at bar, when the respondent Judge purchased on March 6, 1965 a portion of Lot 1184-E,
the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 which he rendered on June 8, 1963 was already final because
none of the parties therein filed an appeal within the reglementary period; hence, the lot in question
was no longer subject of the litigation. Moreover, at the time of the sale on March 6, 1965,
respondent's order dated October 23, 1963 and the amended order dated November 11, 1963
approving the October 16, 1963 project of partition made pursuant to the June 8, 1963 decision, had
long become final for there was no appeal from said orders.
Furthermore, respondent Judge did not buy the lot in question on March 6, 1965 directly from the
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr. Arcadio Galapon who earlier purchased on July 31,
1964 Lot 1184-E from three of the plaintiffs, namely, Priscilla Reyes, Adela Reyes, and Luz R.
Bakunawa after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010. It may be recalled that Lot 1184 or
more specifically one-half thereof was adjudicated in equal shares to Priscilla Reyes, Adela Reyes,
Luz Bakunawa, Ruperto Reyes and Anacorita Reyes in the project of partition, and the same was
subdivided into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E. As aforestated, Lot 1184-E was sold
on July 31, 1964 to Dr. Galapon for which he was issued TCT No. 2338 by the Register of Deeds of
Tacloban City, and on March 6, 1965 he sold a portion of said lot to respondent Judge and his wife
who declared the same for taxation purposes only. The subsequent sale on August 31, 1966 by
spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon of their respective shares and interest in said Lot 1184-E to
the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., in which respondent was the president and
his wife was the secretary, took place long after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 and
of the subsequent two aforesaid orders therein approving the project of partition.
While it appears that complainant herein filed on or about November 9 or 11, 1968 an action before
the Court of First Instance of Leyte docketed as Civil Case No. 4234, seeking to annul the project of
partition and the two orders approving the same, as well as the partition of the estate and the
subsequent conveyances, the same, however, is of no moment.
The fact remains that respondent Judge purchased on March 6, 1965 a portion of Lot 1184-E from
Dr. Arcadio Galapon; hence, after the finality of the decision which he rendered on June 8, 1963 in
Civil Case No. 3010 and his two questioned orders dated October 23, 1963 and November 11, 1963.
Therefore, the property was no longer subject of litigation.
The subsequent filing on November 9, or 11, 1968 of Civil Case No. 4234 can no longer alter,
change or affect the aforesaid facts — that the questioned sale to respondent Judge, now Court of
Appeals Justice, was effected and consummated long after the finality of the aforesaid decision or
orders.
Consequently, the sale of a portion of Lot 1184-E to respondent Judge having taken place over one
year after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 as well as the two orders approving the
project of partition, and not during the pendency of the litigation, there was no violation of paragraph
5, Article 1491 of the New Civil Code.
It is also argued by complainant herein that the sale on July 31, 1964 of Lot 1184-E to Dr. Arcadio
Galapon by Priscilla Reyes, Adela Reyes and Luz R. Bakunawa was only a mere scheme to conceal
the illegal and unethical transfer of said lot to respondent Judge as a consideration for the approval
of the project of partition. In this connection, We agree with the findings of the Investigating Justice
thus:
And so we are now confronted with this all-important question whether or not the acquisition by
respondent of a portion of Lot 1184-E and the subsequent transfer of the whole lot to "TRADERS" of
which respondent was the President and his wife the Secretary, was intimately related to the Order
of respondent approving the project of partition, Exh. A.
Respondent vehemently denies any interest or participation in the transactions between the
Reyeses and the Galapons concerning Lot 1184-E, and he insists that there is no evidence
whatsoever to show that Dr. Galapon had acted, in the purchase of Lot 1184-E, in mediation for him
and his wife. (See p. 14 of Respondent's Memorandum).
xxx xxx xxx
On this point, I agree with respondent that there is no evidence in the record showing that Dr.
Arcadio Galapon acted as a mere "dummy" of respondent in acquiring Lot 1184-E from the Reyeses.
Dr. Galapon appeared to this investigator as a respectable citizen, credible and sincere, and I
believe him when he testified that he bought Lot 1184-E in good faith and for valuable consideration
from the Reyeses without any intervention of, or previous understanding with Judge Asuncion (pp.
391- 394, rec.).
On the contention of complainant herein that respondent Judge acted illegally in approving the
project of partition although it was not signed by the parties, We quote with approval the findings of
the Investigating Justice, as follows:
1. I agree with complainant that respondent should have required the signature of the parties more
particularly that of Mrs. Macariola on the project of partition submitted to him for approval; however,
whatever error was committed by respondent in that respect was done in good faith as according to
Judge Asuncion he was assured by Atty. Bonifacio Ramo, the counsel of record of Mrs. Macariola,
That he was authorized by his client to submit said project of partition, (See Exh. B and tsn p. 24,
January 20, 1969). While it is true that such written authority if there was any, was not presented by
respondent in evidence, nor did Atty. Ramo appear to corroborate the statement of respondent, his
affidavit being the only one that was presented as respondent's Exh. 10, certain actuations of Mrs.
Macariola lead this investigator to believe that she knew the contents of the project of partition, Exh.
A, and that she gave her conformity thereto. I refer to the following documents:
1) Exh. 9 — Certified true copy of OCT No. 19520 covering Lot 1154 of the Tacloban Cadastral
Survey in which the deceased Francisco Reyes holds a "1/4 share" (Exh. 9-a). On tills certificate of
title the Order dated November 11, 1963, (Exh. U) approving the project of partition was duly entered
and registered on November 26, 1963 (Exh. 9-D);
2) Exh. 7 — Certified copy of a deed of absolute sale executed by Bernardita Reyes Macariola on
October 22, 1963, conveying to Dr. Hector Decena the one-fourth share of the late Francisco Reyes-
Diaz in Lot 1154. In this deed of sale the vendee stated that she was the absolute owner of said one-
fourth share, the same having been adjudicated to her as her share in the estate of her father
Francisco Reyes Diaz as per decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte under case No. 3010
(Exh. 7-A). The deed of sale was duly registered and annotated at the back of OCT 19520 on
December 3, 1963 (see Exh. 9-e).
In connection with the abovementioned documents it is to be noted that in the project of partition
dated October 16, 1963, which was approved by respondent on October 23, 1963, followed by an
amending Order on November 11, 1963, Lot 1154 or rather 1/4 thereof was adjudicated to Mrs.
Macariola. It is this 1/4 share in Lot 1154 which complainant sold to Dr. Decena on October 22, 1963,
several days after the preparation of the project of partition.
Counsel for complainant stresses the view, however, that the latter sold her one-fourth share in Lot
1154 by virtue of the decision in Civil Case 3010 and not because of the project of partition, Exh. A.
Such contention is absurd because from the decision, Exh. C, it is clear that one-half of one- fourth
of Lot 1154 belonged to the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz while the other half of said one-fourth
was the share of complainant's mother, Felisa Espiras; in other words, the decision did not
adjudicate the whole of the one-fourth of Lot 1154 to the herein complainant (see Exhs. C-3 & C-4).
Complainant became the owner of the entire one-fourth of Lot 1154 only by means of the project of
partition, Exh. A. Therefore, if Mrs. Macariola sold Lot 1154 on October 22, 1963, it was for no other
reason than that she was wen aware of the distribution of the properties of her deceased father as
per Exhs. A and B. It is also significant at this point to state that Mrs. Macariola admitted during the
cross-examination that she went to Tacloban City in connection with the sale of Lot 1154 to Dr.
Decena (tsn p. 92, November 28, 1968) from which we can deduce that she could not have been
kept ignorant of the proceedings in civil case 3010 relative to the project of partition.
Complainant also assails the project of partition because according to her the properties adjudicated
to her were insignificant lots and the least valuable. Complainant, however, did not present any
direct and positive evidence to prove the alleged gross inequalities in the choice and distribution of
the real properties when she could have easily done so by presenting evidence on the area,
location, kind, the assessed and market value of said properties. Without such evidence there is
nothing in the record to show that there were inequalities in the distribution of the properties of
complainant's father (pp. 386389, rec.).
Finally, while it is. true that respondent Judge did not violate paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the New
Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E which was in litigation in his court, it was,
however, improper for him to have acquired the same. He should be reminded of Canon 3 of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics which requires that: "A judge's official conduct should be free from the
appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the
performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach." And as
aptly observed by the Investigating Justice: "... 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 been in
litigation in his court and caused it to be transferred to a corporation of which he and his wife were
ranking officers at the time of such transfer. One who occupies an exalted position in the judiciary
has the duty and responsibility of maintaining the faith and trust of the citizenry in the courts of
justice, so that not only must he be truly honest and just, but his actuations must be such as not give
cause for doubt and mistrust in the uprightness of his administration of justice. In this particular case
of respondent, he cannot deny that the transactions over Lot 1184-E are damaging and render his
actuations open to suspicion and distrust. Even if respondent honestly believed that Lot 1184-E was
no longer in litigation in his court and that he was purchasing it from a third person and not from the
parties to the litigation, he should nonetheless have refrained from buying it for himself and
transferring it to a corporation in which he and his wife were financially involved, to avoid possible
suspicion that his acquisition was related in one way or another to his official actuations in civil case
3010. The conduct of respondent gave cause for the litigants in civil case 3010, the lawyers
practising in his court, and the public in general to doubt the honesty and fairness of his actuations
and the integrity of our courts of justice" (pp. 395396, rec.).
II
With respect to the second cause of action, the complainant alleged that respondent Judge violated
paragraphs 1 and 5, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce when he associated himself with the
Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. as a stockholder and a ranking officer, said
corporation having been organized to engage in business. Said Article provides that:
Article 14 — The following cannot engage in commerce, either in person or by proxy, 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 discharge their duties:
1. Justices of the Supreme Court, judges and officials of the department of public prosecution in
active service. This provision shall not be applicable to mayors, municipal judges, and municipal
prosecuting attorneys nor to those who by chance are temporarily discharging the functions of judge
or prosecuting attorney.
xxx xxx xxx
5. Those who by virtue of laws or special provisions may not engage in commerce in a determinate
territory.
It is Our considered view that although the aforestated provision is incorporated in the Code of
Commerce which is part of the commercial laws of the Philippines, it, however, partakes of the
nature of a political law as it regulates the relationship between the government and certain public
officers and employees, like justices and judges.
Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the organization and
operation of the governmental organs of the State and define the relations of the state with the
inhabitants of its territory (People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922]). It may be recalled that
political law embraces constitutional law, law of public corporations, administrative law including the
law on public officers and elections. 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.
It is significant to note that the present Code of Commerce is the Spanish Code of Commerce of
1885, with some modifications made by the "Commission de Codificacion de las Provincias de
Ultramar," which was extended to the Philippines by the Royal Decree of August 6, 1888, and took
effect as law in this jurisdiction on December 1, 1888.
Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on from the United States
to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of this Code of Commerce must be deemed to have
been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former
sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated,
unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.
Thus, We held in Roa vs. Collector of Customs (23 Phil. 315, 330, 311 [1912]) that:
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).
While municipal laws of the newly acquired territory not in conflict with the, laws of the new
sovereign continue in force without the express assent or affirmative act of the conqueror, the
political laws do not. (Halleck's Int. Law, chap. 34, par. 14). However, such political laws of the prior
sovereignty as are not in conflict with the constitution or institutions of the new sovereign, may be
continued in force if the conqueror shall so declare by affirmative act of the commander-in-chief
during the war, or by Congress in time of peace. (Ely's Administrator vs. United States, 171 U.S. 220,
43 L. Ed. 142). In the case of American and Ocean Ins. Cos. vs. 356 Bales of Cotton (1 Pet. [26
U.S.] 511, 542, 7 L. Ed. 242), Chief Justice Marshall said:
On such transfer (by cession) of territory, it has never been held that the relations of the inhabitants
with each other undergo any change. Their relations with their former sovereign are dissolved, and
new relations are created between them and the government which has acquired their territory. The
same act which transfers their country, transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it; and the law
which may be denominated political, is necessarily changed, although that which regulates the
intercourse and general conduct of individuals, remains in force, until altered by the newly- created
power of the State.
Likewise, in 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. "
There appears no enabling or affirmative act that continued the effectivity of the aforestated
provision of the Code of Commerce after the change of sovereignty from Spain to the United States
and then to the Republic of the Philippines. Consequently, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce has
no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the respondent, then Judge of the Court of First
Instance, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.
It is also argued by complainant herein that respondent Judge violated paragraph H, Section 3 of
Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which provides
that:
Sec. 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:
xxx xxx xxx
(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction
in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is
prohibited by the Constitution or by any Iaw from having any interest.
Respondent Judge cannot be held liable under the aforestated paragraph because there is no
showing that respondent participated or intervened in his official capacity in the business or
transactions of the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. In the case at bar, the
business of the corporation in which respondent participated has obviously no relation or connection
with his judicial office. The business of said corporation is not that kind where respondent intervenes
or takes part in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance. As was held in one case
involving the application of Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code which has a similar prohibition on
public officers against directly or indirectly becoming interested in any contract or business in which it
is his official duty to intervene, "(I)t is not enough to be a public official to be subject to this crime; it is
necessary that by reason of his office, he has to intervene in said contracts or transactions; and,
hence, the official who intervenes in contracts or transactions which have no relation to his office
cannot commit this crime.' (People vs. Meneses, C.A. 40 O.G. 11th Supp. 134, cited by Justice
Ramon C. Aquino; Revised Penal Code, p. 1174, Vol. 11 [1976]).
It does not appear also from the records that the aforesaid corporation gained any undue advantage
in its business operations by reason of respondent's financial involvement in it, or that the
corporation benefited in one way or another in any case filed by or against it in court. It is undisputed
that there was no case filed in the different branches of the Court of First Instance of Leyte in which
the corporation was either party plaintiff or defendant except Civil Case No. 4234 entitled "Bernardita
R. Macariola, plaintiff, versus Sinforosa O. Bales, et al.," wherein the complainant herein sought to
recover Lot 1184-E from the aforesaid corporation. It must be noted, however, that Civil Case No.
4234 was filed only on November 9 or 11, 1968 and decided on November 2, 1970 by CFI Judge
Jose D. Nepomuceno when respondent Judge was no longer connected with the corporation, having
disposed of his interest therein on January 31, 1967.
Furthermore, respondent is not liable under the same paragraph because there is no provision in
both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions of the Philippines, nor is there an existing law expressly
prohibiting members of the Judiciary from engaging or having interest in any lawful business.
It may be pointed out that Republic Act No. 296, as amended, also known as the Judiciary Act of
1948, does not contain any prohibition to that effect. As a matter of fact, under Section 77 of said
law, municipal judges may engage in teaching or other vocation not involving the practice of law after
office hours but with the permission of the district judge concerned.
Likewise, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges from engaging in commerce is,
as heretofore stated, deemed abrogated automatically upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to
America, because it is political in nature.
Moreover, the prohibition in paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the New Civil Code against the purchase by
judges of a property in litigation before the court within whose jurisdiction they perform their duties,
cannot apply to respondent Judge because the sale of the lot in question to him took place after the
finality of his decision in Civil Case No. 3010 as well as his two orders approving the project of
partition; hence, the property was no longer subject of litigation.
In addition, although Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules made pursuant to the Civil
Service Act of 1959 prohibits an officer or employee in the civil service from engaging 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, the same, however,
may not fall within the purview of paragraph h, Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
because the last portion of said paragraph speaks of a prohibition by the Constitution or law on any
public officer from having any interest in any business and not by a mere administrative rule or
regulation. Thus, a violation of the aforesaid rule by any officer or employee in the civil service, that
is, engaging in private business without a written permission from the Department Head may not
constitute graft and corrupt practice as defined by law.
On the contention of complainant that respondent Judge violated Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil
Service Rules, We hold that the Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. No. 2260) and the Civil Service Rules
promulgated thereunder, particularly Section 12 of Rule XVIII, do not apply to the members of the
Judiciary. Under said Section 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 ..."
It must be emphasized at the outset that respondent, being a member of the Judiciary, is covered by
Republic Act No. 296, as amended, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948 and by Section 7,
Article X, 1973 Constitution.
Under Section 67 of said law, the power to remove or dismiss judges was then vested in the
President of the Philippines, not in the Commissioner of Civil Service, and only on two grounds,
namely, serious misconduct and inefficiency, and upon the recommendation of the Supreme Court,
which alone is authorized, upon its own motion, or upon information of the Secretary (now Minister)
of Justice to conduct the corresponding investigation. Clearly, the aforesaid section defines the
grounds and prescribes the special procedure for the discipline of judges.
And under Sections 5, 6 and 7, Article X of the 1973 Constitution, only the Supreme Court can
discipline judges of inferior courts as well as other personnel of the Judiciary.
It is true that under Section 33 of the Civil Service Act of 1959: "The Commissioner may, for ...
violation of the existing Civil Service Law and rules or of reasonable office regulations, or in the
interest of the service, remove any subordinate officer or employee from the service, demote him in
rank, suspend him for not more than one year without pay or fine him in an amount not exceeding
six months' salary." Thus, a violation of Section 12 of Rule XVIII is a ground for disciplinary action
against civil service officers and employees.
However, judges cannot be considered as subordinate civil service officers or employees subject to
the disciplinary authority of the Commissioner of Civil Service; for, certainly, the Commissioner is not
the head of the Judicial Department to which they belong. The Revised Administrative Code (Section
89) and the Civil Service Law itself state that the Chief Justice is the department head of the
Supreme Court (Sec. 20, R.A. No. 2260) [1959]); and under the 1973 Constitution, the Judiciary is
the only other or second branch of the government (Sec. 1, Art. X, 1973 Constitution). Besides, a
violation of Section 12, Rule XVIII cannot be considered as a ground for disciplinary action against
judges because to recognize the same as applicable to them, would be adding another ground for
the discipline of judges and, as aforestated, Section 67 of the Judiciary Act recognizes only two
grounds for their removal, namely, serious misconduct and inefficiency.
Moreover, under Section 16(i) of the Civil Service Act of 1959, it is the Commissioner of Civil Service
who has original and exclusive jurisdiction "(T)o decide, within one hundred twenty days, after
submission to it, all administrative cases against permanent officers and employees in the
competitive service, and, except as provided by law, to have final authority to pass upon their
removal, separation, and suspension and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline, and
efficiency of such officers and employees; and prescribe standards, guidelines and regulations
governing the administration of discipline" (emphasis supplied). There is no question that a judge
belong to the non-competitive or unclassified service of the government as a Presidential appointee
and is therefore not covered by the aforesaid provision. WE have already ruled that "... in interpreting
Section 16(i) of Republic Act No. 2260, we emphasized that only permanent officers and employees
who belong to the classified service come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
Civil Service" (Villaluz vs. Zaldivar, 15 SCRA 710,713 [1965], Ang-Angco vs. Castillo, 9 SCRA 619
[1963]).
Although the actuation of respondent Judge in engaging in private business by joining the Traders
Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. as a stockholder and a ranking officer, is not violative of
the provissions of Article 14 of the Code of Commerce and Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act as well as Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules promulgated pursuant to
the Civil Service Act of 1959, the impropriety of the same is clearly unquestionable because Canon
25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics expressly declares that:
A judge should abstain from making personal investments in enterprises which are apt to be involved
in litigation in his court; and, after his 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 the administration of his judicial duties. ...
WE are not, however, unmindful of the fact that respondent Judge and his wife had withdrawn on
January 31, 1967 from the aforesaid corporation and sold their respective shares to third parties,
and it appears also that the aforesaid corporation did not in anyway 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 of
Leyte 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, and the eventual withdrawal of respondent on
January 31, 1967 from said corporation. Such disposal or sale by respondent and his wife of their
shares in the corporation only 22 days after the incorporation of the corporation, indicates that
respondent realized that early that their interest in the corporation contravenes the aforesaid Canon
25. Respondent Judge and his wife therefore deserve the commendation for their immediate
withdrawal from the firm after its incorporation and before it became involved in any court litigation
III
With respect to the third and fourth causes of action, complainant alleged that respondent was guilty
of coddling an impostor and acted in disregard of judicial decorum, and that there was culpable
defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics. WE agree, however, with the recommendation of
the Investigating Justice that respondent Judge be exonerated because the aforesaid causes of
action are groundless, and WE quote the pertinent portion of her report which reads as follows:
The basis for complainant's third cause of action is the claim that respondent associated and closely
fraternized with Dominador Arigpa Tan who openly and publicly advertised himself as a practising
attorney (see Exhs. I, I-1 and J) when in truth and in fact said Dominador Arigpa Tan does not
appear in the Roll of Attorneys and is not a member of the Philippine Bar as certified to in Exh. K.
The "respondent denies knowing that Dominador Arigpa Tan was an "impostor" and claims that all
the time he believed that the latter was a bona fide member of the bar. I see no reason for
disbelieving this assertion of respondent. It has been shown by complainant that Dominador Arigpa
Tan represented himself publicly as an attorney-at-law to the extent of putting up a signboard with
his name and the words "Attorney-at Law" (Exh. I and 1- 1) to indicate his office, and it was but
natural for respondent and any person for that matter to have accepted that statement on its face
value. "Now with respect to the allegation of complainant that respondent is guilty of fraternizing with
Dominador Arigpa Tan to the extent of permitting his wife to be a godmother of Mr. Tan's child at
baptism (Exh. M & M-1), that fact even if true did not render respondent guilty of violating any canon
of judicial ethics as long as his friendly relations with Dominador A. Tan and family did not influence
his official actuations as a judge where said persons were concerned. There is no tangible
convincing proof that herein respondent gave any undue privileges in his court to Dominador Arigpa
Tan or that the latter benefitted in his practice of law from his personal relations with respondent, or
that he used his influence, if he had any, on the Judges of the other branches of the Court to favor
said Dominador Tan.
Of course it is highly desirable for a member of the judiciary to refrain as much as possible from
maintaining close friendly relations with practising attorneys and litigants in his court so as to avoid
suspicion 'that his social or business relations or friendship constitute an element in determining his
judicial course" (par. 30, Canons of Judicial Ethics), but if a Judge does have social relations, that in
itself would not constitute a ground for disciplinary action unless it be clearly shown that his social
relations be clouded his official actuations with bias and partiality in favor of his friends (pp. 403-405,
rec.).
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 be reminded 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 OF APPEALS IS
HEREBY REMINDED TO BE MORE DISCREET IN HIS PRIVATE AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, JJ.,
concur.
Concepcion Jr., J., is on leave.
Fernando, C.J., Abad Santos and Esolin JJ., took no part.

Gatmaytan, Chapter 5

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Gatmaytan, Chapter 5

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Kindly share with your classmates, these will be the remaining topics until the end of the

II. Judicial Review

II. Case Law and Precedent

IV. Supreme Court Decision

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum

Вам также может понравиться