Bernadita Macariola vs
Elias Asuncion
G.R. No 11477
Facts:
On June 8, 1963, Judge Elias
Asuncion was the presiding judge in Civil Case No. 3010 for partition. Among
the parties there was Bernadita Macariola. On June 8, 1863, respondent Judge
rendered a decision, which became final for lack of appeal. On October 16,
1963, a project partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion which he approved in
an order dated Oct. 23, 1963, later amended on Nov. 11, 1963.
On March 6, 1965, a portion of
the land was purchased by Judge Asuncion and his wife through Dr. Arcadio
Galapon in which the said portion was one of the subjects of Civil Case No.
3010.
Upon knowing this, the
petitioner charged Judge Asuncion in the CFI of Leyte with “act oof unbecoming
a judge.” She alleged that Asuncion violated Art 1491, par 5 of the New Civil
Code; Art 14, par 1 and 5 of the Code of Commerce; Sec 3 par H of R.A. 3019;
Sec 12, Rule XVIII of Civil Service Rules, and Cannon 25 of the Cannons of
Judicial Ethics.
Issues:
Whether or not Judge Asuncion is
liable for violating the following laws: Art 1491, par 5 of the New Civil Code;
Art 14, par 1 and 5 of the Code of Commerce; Sec 3 par H of R.A. 3019; Sec 12,
Rule XVIII of Civil Service Rules, and Cannon 25 of the Cannons of Judicial Ethics.
Issue:
Whether or not civil laws are
easily abrogated in the change of sovereignty
Ruling:
The case certain holds many
issues in which the court have to resolve hand in hand. On the first issue
regarding Art 1491 of the NCC, it only applies to the sale or assignment of the
property which is the subject of litigation to the person disqualified therein.
Having the Civil Case No. 3010 been decided and have final judgment, the
property in question is no longer subject for litigation when the respondent
bought it on March 6, 1965, the case had been decided on June 8n1963 and the
project of partition having been long over settled.
Moreover, the respondent did not
buy the lot directly from the plaintiffs but from Dr. Galapon who Purchases the
lot on July 31, 1964.
On the contention that the
respondent violated Sec. 12 Rule 18 of the Civil Service Rule, the court held
that particular section does not apply to the judiciary. The court also held
that the complaint against ethics and violation on disregard of judicial decorum
was groundless.
Upon issue regarding the Code of
Commerce, the court used the principle that upon change of sovereignty, the
political laws of the former sovereign country, whether compatible or not with
those new sovereign is abrogated automatically unless expressly enacted by the
new sovereign. The Code of Commerce being political law of a former sovereign
was abrogated from the time that their was new sovereign, the Republic of the
Philippines.
Thus, the Supreme Court held
that Judge Asuncion did not violate any law in acquiring the parce of land.