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, Jud ! o" #$! Cou%# o" &'%(# I)(#a)*! o" L!y#!, respondent.

MA+ASIAR, J: In a verified complaint dated August , !" # Bernardita R. Macariola charged respondent $udge Elias B. Asuncion of the Court of %irst Instance of &e'te, no( Associate $ustice of the Court of Appeals, (ith )acts unbecoming a *udge.) +he factual setting of the case is stated in the report dated Ma' ,-, !"-! of then Associate $ustice Cecilia Mu.o/ Palma of the Court of Appeals no( retired Associate $ustice of the 0upreme Court, to (hom this case (as referred on 1ctober ,#, !" # for investigation, thus2 Civil Case No. 34!4 of the Court of %irst Instance of &e'te (as a complaint for partition filed b' 0inforosa R. Bales, &u/ R. Ba5una(a, Anacorita Re'es, Ruperto Re'es, Adela Re'es, and Priscilla Re'es, plaintiffs, against Bernardita R. Macariola, defendant, concerning the properties left b' the deceased %rancisco Re'es, the common father of the plaintiff and defendant. In her defenses to the complaint for partition, Mrs. Macariola alleged among other things that6 a7 plaintiff 0inforosa R. Bales (as not a daughter of the deceased %rancisco Re'es6 b7 the onl' legal heirs of the deceased (ere defendant Macariola, she being the onl' offspring of the first marriage of %rancisco Re'es (ith %elisa Espiras, and the remaining plaintiffs (ho (ere the children of the deceased b' his second marriage (ith Irene 1nde/6 c7 the properties left b' the deceased (ere all the con*ugal properties of the latter and his first (ife, %elisa Espiras, and no properties (ere ac8uired b' the deceased during his second marriage6 d7 if there (as an' partition to be made, those con*ugal properties should first be partitioned into t(o parts, and one part is to be ad*udicated solel' to defendant it being the share of the latter9s deceased mother, %elisa Espiras, and the other half (hich is the share of the deceased %rancisco Re'es (as to be divided e8uall' among his children b' his t(o marriages. 1n $une #, !" 3, a decision (as rendered b' respondent $udge Asuncion in Civil Case 34!4, the dispositive portion of (hich reads2 IN :IE; 1% +<E %1RE=1IN= C1N0I>ERA+I1N0, the Court, upon a preponderance of evidence, finds and so holds, and hereb' renders *udgment ?!7 >eclaring the plaintiffs &u/ R. Ba5una(a, Anacorita Re'es, Ruperto Re'es, Adela Re'es and Priscilla Re'es as the onl' children legitimated b' the subse8uent marriage of %rancisco Re'es >ia/ to Irene 1nde/6 ?,7 >eclaring the plaintiff 0inforosa R. Bales to have been an illegitimate child of %rancisco Re'es >ia/6 ?37 >eclaring &ots Nos. @@-@, @@-A, @#",, A, A, @#43, @A#!, @A4 and !B@ of &ot !!@A as belonging to the con*ugal partnership of the spouses %rancisco Re'es >ia/ and %elisa Espiras6 ?@7 >eclaring &ot No. ,34@ and !B@ of &ot No. 3@! as belonging to the spouses %rancisco Re'es >ia/ and Irene 1nde/ in common partnership6 ?A7 >eclaring that !B, of &ot No. !!#@ as belonging eCclusivel' to the deceased %rancisco Re'es >ia/6 ? 7 >eclaring the defendant Bernardita R. Macariola, being the onl' legal and forced heir of her mother %elisa Espiras, as the eCclusive o(ner of

oneDhalf of each of &ots Nos. @@-@, @@-A, @#",, A, A, @#43, @A#!, @A4 6 and the remaining oneDhalf ?!B,7 of each of said &ots Nos. @@-@, @@-A, @#",, A, A, @#43, @A#!, @A4 and oneDhalf ?!B,7 of oneDfourth ?!B@7 of &ot No. !!A@ as belonging to the estate of %rancisco Re'es >ia/6 ?-7 >eclaring Irene 1nde/ to be the eCclusive o(ner of oneDhalf ?!B,7 of &ot No. ,34@ and oneDhalf ?!B,7 of oneDfourth ?!B@7 of &ot No. 3@! 6 the remaining oneDhalf ?!B,7 of &ot ,34@ and the remaining oneDhalf ?!B,7 of oneDfourth ?!B@7 of &ot No. 3@! as belonging to the estate of %rancisco Re'es >ia/6 ?#7 >irecting the division or partition of the estate of %rancisco Re'es >ia/ in such a manner as to give or grant to Irene 1nde/, as surviving (ido( of %rancisco Re'es >ia/, a hereditar' share of. oneDt(elfth ?!B!,7 of the (hole estate of %rancisco Re'es >ia/ ?Art. "" in relation to Art. #",, par ,, Ne( Civil Code7, and the remaining portion of the estate to be divided among the plaintiffs 0inforosa R. Bales, &u/ R. Ba5una(a, Anacorita Re'es, Ruperto Re'es, Adela Re'es, Priscilla Re'es and defendant Bernardita R. Macariola, in such a (a' that the eCtent of the total share of plaintiff 0inforosa R. Bales in the hereditar' estate shall not eCceed the e8uivalent of t(oDfifth ?,BA7 of the total share of an' or each of the other plaintiffs and the defendant ?Art. "#3, Ne( Civil Code7, each of the latter to receive e8ual shares from the hereditar' estate, ?Ramire/ vs. Bautista, !@ Phil. A,#6 >iancin vs. Bishop of $aro, 1.=. E3rd Ed.F p. 3376 ?"7 >irecting the parties, (ithin thirt' da's after this *udgment shall have become final to submit to this court, for approval a pro*ect of partition of the hereditar' estate in the proportion above indicated, and in such manner as the parties ma', b' agreement, deemed convenient and e8uitable to them ta5ing into consideration the location, 5ind, 8ualit', nature and value of the properties involved6 ?!47 >irecting the plaintiff 0inforosa R. Bales and defendant Bernardita R. Macariola to pa' the costs of this suit, in the proportion of oneDthird ?!B37 b' the first named and t(oDthirds ?,B37 b' the second named6 and ?I !7 >ismissing all other claims of the parties Epp ,-D," of ECh. CF. +he decision in civil case 34!4 became final for lac5 of an appeal, and on 1ctober ! , !" 3, a pro*ect of partition (as submitted to $udge Asuncion (hich is mar5ed ECh. A. Not(ithstanding the fact that the pro*ect of partition (as not signed b' the parties themselves but onl' b' the respective counsel of plaintiffs and defendant, $udge Asuncion approved it in his 1rder dated 1ctober ,3, !" 3, (hich for convenience is 8uoted hereunder in full2 +he parties, through their respective counsels, presented to this Court for approval the follo(ing pro*ect of partition2 C1ME0 N1;, the plaintiffs and the defendant in the aboveDentitled case, to this <onorable Court respectfull' submit the follo(ing Pro*ect of Partition2 l. +he (hole of &ots Nos. !!A@, ,34@ and @A4 shall belong eCclusivel' to Bernardita Re'es Macariola6 ,. A portion of &ot No. 3@! consisting of ,,3-3.@" s8uare meters along the eastern part of the lot shall be a(arded li5e(ise to Bernardita R. Macariola6 3. &ots Nos. @#43, @#", and A, A shall be a(arded to 0inforosa Re'es Bales6 @. A portion of &ot No. 3@! consisting of !,#3@.AA s8uare meters along the (estern part of the lot shall li5e(ise be a(arded to 0inforosa Re'esDBales6 A. &ots Nos. @@-@ and @@-A shall be divided e8uall' among &u/ Re'es Ba5una(a, Anacorita Re'es, Ruperto Re'es, Adela Re'es and Priscilla Re'es in e8ual shares6 . &ot No. !!#@ and the remaining portion of &ot No. 3@! after ta5ing the portions a(arded under item ?,7 and ?@7 above shall be a(arded to &u/ Re'es Ba5una(a, Anacorita Re'es, Ruperto Re'es, Adela Re'es and Priscilla Re'es in e8ual shares,

provided, ho(ever that the remaining portion of &ot No. 3@! shall belong eCclusivel' to Priscilla Re'es. ;<ERE%1RE, it is respectfull' pra'ed that the Pro*ect of Partition indicated above (hich is made in accordance (ith the decision of the <onorable Court be approved. +acloban Cit', 1ctober ! , !" 3. ?0=>7 B1NI%ACI1 RAM1 Att'. for the >efendant +acloban Cit' ?0=>7 G1+IC1 A. +1&E+E Att'. for the Plaintiff +acloban Cit' ;hile the Court thought it more desirable for all the parties to have signed this Pro*ect of Partition, nevertheless, upon assurance of both counsels of the respective parties to this Court that the Pro*ect of Partition, as aboveD 8uoted, had been made after a conference and agreement of the plaintiffs and the defendant approving the above Pro*ect of Partition, and that both la('ers had represented to the Court that the' are given full authorit' to sign b' themselves the Pro*ect of Partition, the Court, therefore, finding the aboveD8uoted Pro*ect of Partition to be in accordance (ith la(, hereb' approves the same. +he parties, therefore, are directed to eCecute such papers, documents or instrument sufficient in form and substance for the vesting of the rights, interests and participations (hich (ere ad*udicated to the respective parties, as outlined in the Pro*ect of Partition and the deliver' of the respective properties ad*udicated to each one in vie( of said Pro*ect of Partition, and to perform such other acts as are legal and necessar' to effectuate the said Pro*ect of Partition. 01 1R>ERE>. =iven in +acloban Cit', this ,3rd da' of 1ctober, !" 3. ?0=>7 E&IA0 B. A0HNCI1N $udge EI<. B. +he above 1rder of 1ctober ,3, !" 3, (as amended on November !!, !" 3, onl' for the purpose of giving authorit' to the Register of >eeds of the Province of &e'te to issue the corresponding transfer certificates of title to the respective ad*udicatees in conformit' (ith the pro*ect of partition ?see ECh. H7. 1ne of the properties mentioned in the pro*ect of partition (as &ot !!#@ or rather oneDhalf thereof (ith an area of !A,! ,.A s8. meters. +his lot, (hich according to the decision (as the eCclusive propert' of the deceased %rancisco Re'es, (as ad*udicated in said pro*ect of partition to the plaintiffs &u/, Anacorita Ruperto, Adela, and Priscilla all surnamed Re'es in e8ual shares, and (hen the pro*ect of partition (as approved b' the trial court the ad*udicatees caused &ot !!#@ to be subdivided into five lots denominated as &ot !!#@DA to !!#@DE inclusive ?ECh. :7. &ot !!#@D> (as conve'ed to Enri8ueta >. Anota, a stenographer in $udge Asuncion9s court ?EChs. %, %D! and :D!7, (hile &ot !!#@DE (hich had an area of ,,!-,.AAA s8. meters (as sold on $ul' 3!, !" @ to >r. Arcadio =alapon ?ECh. ,7 (ho (as issued transfer certificate of title No. ,33# of the Register of >eeds of the cit' of +acloban ?ECh. !,7. 1n March , !" A, >r. Arcadio =alapon and his (ife 0old a portion of &ot !!#@DE (ith an area of around !,34 s8. meters to $udge Asuncion and his (ife, :ictoria 0. Asuncion ?ECh. !!7, (hich particular portion (as declared b' the latter for taCation purposes ?ECh. %7. 1n August 3!, !" , spouses Asuncion and spouses =alapon conve'ed their respective shares and interest in &ot !!#@DE to )+he +raders Manufacturing and %ishing Industries Inc.) ?ECit !A J ! 7. At

the time of said sale the stoc5holders of the corporation (ere >ominador Arigpa +an, <umilia $alandoni +an, $aime Arigpa +an, $udge Asuncion, and the latter9s (ife, :ictoria 0. Asuncion, (ith $udge Asuncion as the President and Mrs. Asuncion as the secretar' ?EChs. ED@ to ED-7. +he Articles of Incorporation of )+he +raders Manufacturing and %ishing Industries, Inc.) (hich (e shall henceforth refer to as )+RA>ER0) (ere registered (ith the 0ecurities and ECchange Commission onl' on $anuar' ", !" - ?ECh. E7 Epp. 3-#D3#A, rec.F. Complainant Bernardita R. Macariola filed on August ", !" # the instant complaint dated August , !" # alleging four causes of action, to (it2 E!F that respondent $udge Asuncion violated Article !@"!, paragraph A, of the Ne( Civil Code in ac8uiring b' purchase a portion of &ot No. !!#@DE (hich (as one of those properties involved in Civil Case No. 34!4 decided b' him6 E,F that he li5e(ise violated Article !@, paragraphs I and A of the Code of Commerce, 0ection 3, paragraph <, of R.A. 34!", other(ise 5no(n as the AntiD=raft and Corrupt Practices Act, 0ection !,, Rule I:III of the Civil 0ervice Rules, and Canon ,A of the Canons of $udicial Ethics, b' associating himself (ith the +raders Manufacturing and %ishing Industries, Inc., as a stoc5holder and a ran5ing officer (hile he (as a *udge of the Court of %irst Instance of &e'te6 E3F that respondent (as guilt' of coddling an impostor and acted in disregard of *udicial decorum b' closel' fraterni/ing (ith a certain >ominador Arigpa +an (ho openl' and publicl' advertised himself as a practising attorne' (hen in truth and in fact his name does not appear in the Rolls of Attorne's and is not a member of the Philippine Bar6 and E@F that there (as a culpable defiance of the la( and utter disregard for ethics b' respondent $udge ?pp. !D-, rec.7. Respondent $udge Asuncion filed on 0eptember ,@, !" # his ans(er to (hich a repl' (as filed on 1ctober ! , !" # b' herein complainant. In 1ur resolution of 1ctober ,#, !" #, ;e referred this case to then $ustice Cecilia Mu.o/ Palma of the Court of Appeals, for investigation, report and recommendation. After hearing, the said Investigating $ustice submitted her report dated Ma' ,-, !"-! recommending that respondent $udge should be reprimanded or (arned in connection (ith the first cause of action alleged in the complaint, and for the second cause of action, respondent should be (arned in case of a finding that he is prohibited under the la( to engage in business. 1n the third and fourth causes of action, $ustice Palma recommended that respondent $udge be eConerated. +he records also reveal that on or about November " or !!, !" # ?pp. @#!, @--, rec.7, complainant herein instituted an action before the Court of %irst Instance of &e'te, entitled )Bernardita R. Macariola, plaintiff, versus Sinforosa R. Bales, et al., defendants,) (hich (as doc5eted as Civil Case No. @,3A, see5ing the annulment of the pro*ect of partition made pursuant to the decision in Civil Case No. 34!4 and the t(o orders issued b' respondent $udge approving the same, as (ell as the partition of the estate and the subse8uent conve'ances (ith damages. It appears, ho(ever, that some defendants (ere dropped from the civil case. %or one, the case against >r. Arcadio =alapon (as dismissed because he (as no longer a real part' in interest (hen Civil Case No. @,3@ (as filed, having alread' conve'ed on March , !" A a portion of lot !!#@DE to respondent $udge and on August 3!, !" the remainder (as sold to the +raders Manufacturing and %ishing Industries, Inc. 0imilarl', the case against defendant :ictoria Asuncion (as dismissed on the ground that she (as no longer a real part' in interest at the time the aforesaid Civil Case No. @,3@ (as filed as the portion of &ot !!#@ ac8uired b' her and respondent $udge from >r. Arcadio =alapon (as alread' sold on August 3!, !" to the +raders Manufacturing and %ishing industries, Inc. &i5e(ise, the cases against defendants 0erafin P. Ramento, Catalina Cabus, Ben Barra/a =o, $esus Pere/, +raders Manufacturing and %ishing Industries, Inc., Alfredo R. Celestial and Pilar P. Celestial, &eopoldo Petilla and Remedios Petilla, 0alvador Anota and Enri8ueta Anota and Att'. Gotico A. +olete (ere dismissed (ith the conformit' of complainant herein, plaintiff therein, and her counsel. 1n November ,, !"-4, $udge $ose >. Nepomuceno of the Court of %irst Instance of &e'te, (ho (as directed and authori/ed on $une ,, !" " b' the then 0ecretar' ?no( Minister7 of $ustice and no( Minister of National >efense $uan Ponce Enrile to hear and decide Civil Case No. @,3@, rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of (hich reads as follo(s2 A. IN +<E CA0E A=AIN0+ $H>=E E&IA0 B. A0HNCI1N ?!7 declaring that onl' Branch I: of the Court of %irst Instance of &e'te has *urisdiction to ta5e cogni/ance of the issue of the legalit' and validit' of the Pro*ect of Partition EEChibit )B)F and the t(o 1rders EEChibits )C) and )CD 3)F approving the partition6 ?,7 dismissing the complaint against $udge Elias B. Asuncion6

?37 ad*udging the plaintiff, Mrs. Bernardita R. Macariola to pa' defendant $udge Elias B. Asuncion, ?a7 the sum of %1HR <HN>RE> +<1H0AN> PE010 EP@44,444.44F for moral damages6 ?b7 the sum of +;1 <HN>RE> +<1H0AN> PE010 EP,44,444.44! for eCemplar' damages6 ?c7 the sum of %I%+K +<1H0AN> PE010 EPA4,444.44F for nominal damages6 and ?d7 he sum of +EN +<1H0AN> PE010 EPI4,444.44F for Attorne'9s %ees. B. IN +<E CA0E A=AIN0+ +<E >E%EN>AN+ MARILHI+A :I&&A0IN, %1R <ER0E&% AN> %1R +<E <EIR0 1% +<E >ECEA0E> =ERAR>1 :I&&A0IN M ?!7 >ismissing the complaint against the defendants Mari8uita :illasin and the heirs of the deceased =erardo :illasin6 ?,7 >irecting the plaintiff to pa' the defendants Mari8uita :illasin and the heirs of =erardo :illasin the cost of the suit. C. IN +<E CA0E A=AIN0+ +<E >E%EN>AN+ 0IN%1R10A R. BA&E0, E+ A&., ;<1 ;ERE P&AIN+I%%0 IN CI:I& CA0E N1. 34!4 M ?!7 >ismissing the complaint against defendants 0inforosa R. Bales, Adela R. <errer, Priscilla R. 0olis, &u/ R. Ba5una(a, Anacorita R. Eng and Ruperto 1. Re'es. >. IN +<E CA0E A=AIN0+ >E%EN>AN+ B1NI%ACI1 RAM1 M ?!7 >ismissing the complaint against Bonifacio Ramo6 ?,7 >irecting the plaintiff to pa' the defendant Bonifacio Ramo the cost of the suit. 01 1R>ERE> Epp. A3!DA33, rec.F It is further disclosed b' the record that the aforesaid decision (as elevated to the Court of Appeals upon perfection of the appeal on %ebruar' ,,, !"-!. I ;E find that there is no merit in the contention of complainant Bernardita R. Macariola, under her first cause of action, that respondent $udge Elias B. Asuncion violated Article !@"!, paragraph A, of the Ne( Civil Code in ac8uiring b' purchase a portion of &ot No. !!#@DE (hich (as one of those properties involved in Civil Case No. 34!4. 9+hat Article provides2 Article !@"!. +he follo(ing persons cannot ac8uire b' purchase, even at a public or *udicial action, either in person or through the mediation of another2 CCC CCC CCC ?A7 $ustices, *udges, prosecuting attorne's, cler5s of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and emplo'ees connected (ith the administration of *ustice, the propert' and rights in litigation or levied upon an eCecution before the court (ithin (hose *urisdiction or territor' the' eCercise their respective functions6 this prohibition includes the act of ac8uiring b' assignment and shall appl' to la('ers, (ith respect to the propert' and rights (hich ma' be the ob*ect of an' litigation in (hich the' ma' ta5e part b' virtue of their profession Eemphasis suppliedF.

+he prohibition in the aforesaid Article applies onl' to the sale or assignment of the propert' (hich is the sub*ect of litigation to the persons dis8ualified therein. ;E have alread' ruled that )... for the prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the propert' must ta5e place during the pendency of the litigation involving the propert') ?+he >irector of &ands vs. Ababa et al., ## 0CRA A!3, A!" E!"-"F, Rosario vda. de &aig vs. Court of Appeals, # 0CRA @!, @ E!"-#F7. In the case at bar, (hen the respondent $udge purchased on March 6, 1965 a portion of &ot !!#@DE, the decision in Civil Case No. 34!4 (hich he rendered on June 8, 196 (as alread' final because none of the parties therein filed an appeal (ithin the reglementar' period6 hence, the lot in 8uestion (as no longer sub*ect of the litigation. Moreover, at the time of the sale on March , !" A, respondent9s order dated !cto"er # , 196 and the amended order dated $ove%"er 11, 196 approving the 1ctober ! , !" 3 pro*ect of partition made pursuant to the $une #, !" 3 decision, had long become final for there (as no appeal from said orders. %urthermore, respondent $udge did not bu' the lot in 8uestion on March , !" A directl' from the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 34!4 but from >r. Arcadio =alapon (ho earlier purchased on July 1, 196& &ot !!#@DE from three of the plaintiffs, namel', Priscilla Re'es, Adela Re'es, and &u/ R. Ba5una(a after the finalit' of the decision in Civil Case No. 34!4. It ma' be recalled that &ot !!#@ or more specificall' oneDhalf thereof (as ad*udicated in e8ual shares to Priscilla Re'es, Adela Re'es, &u/ Ba5una(a, Ruperto Re'es and Anacorita Re'es in the pro*ect of partition, and the same (as subdivided into five lots denominated as &ot !!#@DA to !!#@DE. As aforestated, &ot !!#@DE (as sold on $ul' 3!, !" @ to >r. =alapon for (hich he (as issued +C+ No. ,33# b' the Register of >eeds of +acloban Cit', and on March , !" A he sold a portion of said lot to respondent $udge and his (ife (ho declared the same for taCation purposes onl'. +he subse8uent sale on 'ugust 1, 1966 b' spouses Asuncion and spouses =alapon of their respective shares and interest in said &ot !!#@DE to the +raders Manufacturing and %ishing Industries, Inc., in (hich respondent (as the president and his (ife (as the secretar', too5 place long after the finalit' of the decision in Civil Case No. 34!4 and of the subse8uent t(o aforesaid orders therein approving the pro*ect of partition. ;hile it appears that complainant herein filed on or about $ove%"er 9 or 11, 1968 an action before the Court of %irst Instance of &e'te doc5eted as Civil Case No. @,3@, see5ing to annul the pro*ect of partition and the t(o orders approving the same, as (ell as the partition of the estate and the subse8uent conve'ances, the same, ho(ever, is of no moment. +he fact remains that respondent $udge purchased on March , !" A a portion of &ot !!#@DE from >r. Arcadio =alapon6 hence, after the finalit' of the decision (hich he rendered on June 8, 196 in Civil Case No. 34!4 and his t(o 8uestioned orders dated 1ctober ,3, !" 3 and November !!, !" 3. +herefore, the propert' (as no longer sub*ect of litigation. +he subse8uent filing on November ", or !!, !" # of Civil Case No. @,3@ can no longer alter, change or affect the aforesaid facts M that the 8uestioned sale to respondent $udge, no( Court of Appeals $ustice, (as effected and consummated long after the finalit' of the aforesaid decision or orders. Conse8uentl', the sale of a portion of &ot !!#@DE to respondent $udge having ta5en place over one 'ear after the finalit' of the decision in Civil Case No. 34!4 as (ell as the t(o orders approving the pro*ect of partition, and not during the pendenc' of the litigation, there (as no violation of paragraph A, Article !@"! of the Ne( Civil Code. It is also argued b' complainant herein that the sale on $ul' 3!, !" @ of &ot !!#@DE to >r. Arcadio =alapon b' Priscilla Re'es, Adela Re'es and &u/ R. Ba5una(a (as onl' a mere scheme to conceal the illegal and unethical transfer of said lot to respondent $udge as a consideration for the approval of the pro*ect of partition. In this connection, ;e agree (ith the findings of the Investigating $ustice thus2 And so (e are no( confronted (ith this allDimportant 8uestion (hether or not the ac8uisition b' respondent of a portion of &ot !!#@DE and the subse8uent transfer of the (hole lot to )+RA>ER0) of (hich respondent (as the President and his (ife the 0ecretar', (as intimatel' related to the 1rder of respondent approving the pro*ect of partition, ECh. A. Respondent vehementl' denies an' interest or participation in the transactions bet(een the Re'eses and the =alapons concerning &ot !!#@DE, and he insists that there is no evidence (hatsoever to sho( that >r. =alapon had acted, in the purchase of &ot !!#@DE, in mediation for him and his (ife. ?0ee p. !@ of Respondent9s Memorandum7.

CCC CCC CCC 1n this point, I agree (ith respondent that there is no evidence in the record sho(ing that >r. Arcadio =alapon acted as a mere )dumm') of respondent in ac8uiring &ot !!#@DE from the Re'eses. >r. =alapon appeared to this investigator as a respectable citi/en, credible and sincere, and I believe him (hen he testified that he bought &ot !!#@DE in good faith and for valuable consideration from the Re'eses (ithout an' intervention of, or previous understanding (ith $udge Asuncion ?pp. 3"!D 3"@, rec.7. 1n the contention of complainant herein that respondent $udge acted illegall' in approving the pro*ect of partition although it (as not signed b' the parties, ;e 8uote (ith approval the findings of the Investigating $ustice, as follo(s2 !. I agree (ith complainant that respondent should have re8uired the signature of the parties more particularl' that of Mrs. Macariola on the pro*ect of partition submitted to him for approval6 ho(ever, (hatever error (as committed b' respondent in that respect (as done in good faith as according to $udge Asuncion he (as assured b' Att'. Bonifacio Ramo, the counsel of record of Mrs. Macariola, +hat he (as authori/ed b' his client to submit said pro*ect of partition, ?0ee ECh. B and tsn p. ,@, $anuar' ,4, !" "7. ;hile it is true that such (ritten authorit' if there (as an', (as not presented b' respondent in evidence, nor did Att'. Ramo appear to corroborate the statement of respondent, his affidavit being the onl' one that (as presented as respondent9s ECh. !4, certain actuations of Mrs. Macariola lead this investigator to believe that she 5ne( the contents of the pro*ect of partition, ECh. A, and that she gave her conformit' thereto. I refer to the follo(ing documents2 !7 ECh. " M Certified true cop' of 1C+ No. !"A,4 covering &ot !!A@ of the +acloban Cadastral 0urve' in (hich the deceased %rancisco Re'es holds a )!B@ share) ?ECh. "Da7. 1n tills certificate of title the 1rder dated November !!, !" 3, ?ECh. H7 approving the pro*ect of partition (as dul' entered and registered on November , , !" 3 ?ECh. "D>76 ,7 ECh. - M Certified cop' of a deed of absolute sale eCecuted b' Bernardita Re'es Macariola on!cto"er ##, 196 , conve'ing to >r. <ector >ecena the oneDfourth share of the late %rancisco Re'esD>ia/ in &ot !!A@. In this deed of sale the vendee stated that she (as the absolute o(ner of said oneDfourth share, the same having been ad*udicated to her as her share in the estate of her father %rancisco Re'es >ia/ as per decision of the Court of %irst Instance of &e'te under case No. 34!4 ?ECh. -DA7. +he deed of sale (as dul' registered and annotated at the bac5 of 1C+ !"A,4 on >ecember 3, !" 3 ?see ECh. "De7. In connection (ith the abovementioned documents it is to be noted that in the pro*ect of partition dated 1ctober ! , !" 3, (hich (as approved b' respondent on 1ctober ,3, !" 3, follo(ed b' an amending 1rder on November !!, !" 3, &ot !!A@ or rather !B@ thereof (as ad*udicated to Mrs. Macariola. It is this !B@ share in &ot !!A@ (hich complainant sold to >r. >ecena on 1ctober ,,, !" 3, several da's after the preparation of the pro*ect of partition. Counsel for complainant stresses the vie(, ho(ever, that the latter sold her oneDfourth share in &ot !!A@ b' virtue of the decision in Civil Case 34!4 and not because of the pro*ect of partition, ECh. A. 0uch contention is absurd because from the decision, ECh. C, it is clear that oneDhalf of oneD fourth of &ot !!A@ belonged to the estate of %rancisco Re'es >ia/ (hile the other half of said oneDfourth (as the share of complainant9s mother, %elisa Espiras6 in other (ords, the decision did not ad*udicate the (hole of the oneDfourth of &ot !!A@ to the herein complainant ?see EChs. CD3 J CD@7. Complainant became the o(ner of the entire oneDfourth of &ot !!A@ onl' b' means of the pro*ect of partition, ECh. A. +herefore, if Mrs. Macariola sold &ot !!A@ on 1ctober ,,, !" 3, it (as for no other reason than that she (as (en a(are of the distribution of the properties of her deceased father as per EChs. A and B. It is also significant at this point to state that Mrs. Macariola admitted during the crossDeCamination that she (ent to +acloban Cit' in connection (ith the sale of &ot !!A@ to >r. >ecena ?tsn p. ",, November ,#, !" #7 from (hich (e can deduce that she could not have been 5ept ignorant of the proceedings in civil case 34!4 relative to the pro*ect of partition.

Complainant also assails the pro*ect of partition because according to her the properties ad*udicated to her (ere insignificant lots and the least valuable. Complainant, ho(ever, did not present an' direct and positive evidence to prove the alleged gross ine8ualities in the choice and distribution of the real properties (hen she could have easil' done so b' presenting evidence on the area, location, 5ind, the assessed and mar5et value of said properties. ;ithout such evidence there is nothing in the record to sho( that there (ere ine8ualities in the distribution of the properties of complainant9s father ?pp. 3# 3#", rec.7. %inall', (hile it is. true that respondent $udge did not violate paragraph A, Article !@"! of the Ne( Civil Code in ac8uiring b' purchase a portion of &ot !!#@DE (hich (as in litigation in his court, it (as, ho(ever, improper for him to have ac8uired the same. <e should be reminded of Canon 3 of the Canons of $udicial Ethics (hich re8uires that2 )A *udge9s official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriet', and his personal behavior, not onl' upon the bench and in the performance of *udicial duties, but also in his ever'da' life, should be be'ond reproach.) And as aptl' observed b' the Investigating $ustice2 )... it (as un(ise and indiscreet on the part of respondent to have purchased or ac8uired a portion of a piece of propert' that (as or had been in litigation in his court and caused it to be transferred to a corporation of (hich he and his (ife (ere ran5ing officers at the time of such transfer. 1ne (ho occupies an eCalted position in the *udiciar' has the dut' and responsibilit' of maintaining the faith and trust of the citi/enr' in the courts of *ustice, so that not onl' must he be trul' honest and *ust, but his actuations must be such as not give cause for doubt and mistrust in the uprightness of his administration of *ustice. In this particular case of respondent, he cannot den' that the transactions over &ot !!#@DE are damaging and render his actuations open to suspicion and distrust. Even if respondent honestl' believed that &ot !!#@DE (as no longer in litigation in his court and that he (as purchasing it from a third person and not from the parties to the litigation, he should nonetheless have refrained from bu'ing it for himself and transferring it to a corporation in (hich he and his (ife (ere financiall' involved, to avoid possible suspicion that his ac8uisition (as related in one (a' or another to his official actuations in civil case 34!4. +he conduct of respondent gave cause for the litigants in civil case 34!4, the la('ers practising in his court, and the public in general to doubt the honest' and fairness of his actuations and the integrit' of our courts of *ustice) ?pp. 3"A3" , rec.7. II ;ith respect to the second cause of action, the complainant alleged that respondent $udge violated paragraphs ! and A, Article !@ of the Code of Commerce (hen he associated himself (ith the +raders Manufacturing and %ishing Industries, Inc. as a stoc5holder and a ran5ing officer, said corporation having been organi/ed to engage in business. 0aid Article provides that2 Article !@ M +he follo(ing cannot engage in commerce, either in person or b' proC', nor can the' hold an' office or have an' direct, administrative, or financial intervention in commercial or industrial companies (ithin the limits of the districts, provinces, or to(ns in (hich the' discharge their duties2 !. $ustices of the 0upreme Court, *udges and officials of the department of public prosecution in active service. +his provision shall not be applicable to ma'ors, municipal *udges, and municipal prosecuting attorne's nor to those (ho b' chance are temporaril' discharging the functions of *udge or prosecuting attorne'. CCC CCC CCC A. +hose (ho b' virtue of la(s or special provisions ma' not engage in commerce in a determinate territor'. It is 1ur considered vie( that although the aforestated provision is incorporated in the Code of Commerce (hich is part of the commercial la(s of the Philippines, it, ho(ever, parta5es of the nature of a political la( as it regulates the relationship bet(een the government and certain public officers and emplo'ees, li5e *ustices and *udges. Political &a( has been defined as that branch of public la( (hich deals (ith the organi/ation and operation of the governmental organs of the 0tate and define the relations of the state (ith the inhabitants of its territor' ?People vs. Perfecto, @3 Phil. ##-, #"- E!",,F7. It ma' be recalled that political la( embraces constitutional la(, la( of public corporations, administrative la( including the la( on public officers and elections. 0pecificall', Article !@ of the Code

of Commerce parta5es more of the nature of an administrative la( because it regulates the conduct of certain public officers and emplo'ees (ith respect to engaging in business2 hence, political in essence. It is significant to note that the present Code of Commerce is the 0panish Code of Commerce of !##A, (ith some modifications made b' the )Commission de Codificacion de las Provincias de Hltramar,) (hich (as eCtended to the Philippines b' the Ro'al >ecree of August , !###, and too5 effect as la( in this *urisdiction on >ecember !, !###. Hpon the transfer of sovereignt' from 0pain to the Hnited 0tates and later on from the Hnited 0tates to the Republic of the Philippines, Article !@ of this Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because (here there is change of sovereignt', the political la(s of the former sovereign, (hether compatible or not (ith those of the ne( sovereign, are automaticall' abrogated, unless the' are eCpressl' reDenacted b' affirmative act of the ne( sovereign. +hus, ;e held in Roa vs. (ollector of (usto%s ?,3 Phil. 3!A, 334, 3!! E!"!,F7 that2 B' (ellDsettled public la(, upon the cession of territor' b' one nation to another, either follo(ing a con8uest or other(ise, ... those la(s (hich are political in their nature and pertain to the prerogatives of the former government immediatel' cease upon the transfer of sovereignt'. ?1pinion, Att'. =en., $ul' !4, !#""7. ;hile municipal la(s of the ne(l' ac8uired territor' not in conflict (ith the, la(s of the ne( sovereign continue in force (ithout the eCpress assent or affirmative act of the con8ueror, the political la(s do not. ?<allec59s Int. &a(, chap. 3@, par. !@7. <o(ever, such political la(s of the prior sovereignt' as are not in conflict (ith the constitution or institutions of the ne( sovereign, ma' be continued in force if the con8ueror shall so declare b' affirmative act of the commanderDinDchief during the (ar, or b' Congress in time of peace. ?El'9s Administrator vs. Hnited 0tates, !-! H.0. ,,4, @3 &. Ed. !@,7. In the case of American and 1cean Ins. Cos. vs. 3A Bales of Cotton ?! Pet. E, H.0.F A!!, A@,, - &. Ed. ,@,7, Chief $ustice Marshall said2 1n such transfer ?b' cession7 of territor', it has never been held that the relations of the inhabitants (ith each other undergo an' change. +heir relations (ith their former sovereign are dissolved, and ne( relations are created bet(een them and the government (hich has ac8uired their territor'. +he same act (hich transfers their countr', transfers the allegiance of those (ho remain in it6 and the la( (hich ma' be denominated political, is necessaril' changed, although that (hich regulates the intercourse and general conduct of individuals, remains in force, until altered b' the ne(l'D created po(er of the 0tate. &i5e(ise, in )eople vs. )erfecto ?@3 Phil. ##-, #"- E!",,F7, this Court stated that2 )It is a general principle of the public la( that on ac8uisition of territor' the previous political relations of the ceded region are totall' abrogated. ) +here appears no enabling or affirmative act that continued the effectivit' of the aforestated provision of the Code of Commerce after the change of sovereignt' from 0pain to the Hnited 0tates and then to the Republic of the Philippines. Conse8uentl', Article !@ of the Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot appl' to the respondent, then $udge of the Court of %irst Instance, no( Associate $ustice of the Court of Appeals. It is also argued b' complainant herein that respondent $udge violated paragraph <, 0ection 3 of Republic Act No. 34!", other(ise 5no(n as the AntiD=raft and Corrupt Practices Act, (hich provides that2 0ec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. M In addition to acts or omissions of public officers alread' penali/ed b' eCisting la(, the follo(ing shall constitute corrupt practices of an' public officer and are hereb' declared to be unla(ful2 CCC CCC CCC ?h7 >irectl' or indirectl' having financial or pecuniar' interest in an' business, contract or transaction in connection (ith (hich he intervenes or ta5es part in his

official capacit', or in (hich he is prohibited b' the Constitution or b' an' Ia( from having an' interest. Respondent $udge cannot be held liable under the aforestated paragraph because there is no sho(ing that respondent participated or intervened in his official capacit' in the business or transactions of the +raders Manufacturing and %ishing Industries, Inc. In the case at bar, the business of the corporation in (hich respondent participated has obviousl' no relation or connection (ith his *udicial office. +he business of said corporation is not that 5ind (here respondent intervenes or ta5es part in his capacit' as $udge of the Court of %irst Instance. As (as held in one case involving the application of Article ,! of the Revised Penal Code (hich has a similar prohibition on public officers against directl' or indirectl' becoming interested in an' contract or business in (hich it is his official dut' to intervene, )?I7t is not enough to be a public official to be sub*ect to this crime6 it is necessar' that b' reason of his office, he has to intervene in said contracts or transactions6 and, hence, the official (ho intervenes in contracts or transactions (hich have no relation to his office cannot commit this crime.9 ?People vs. Meneses, C.A. @4 1.=. !!th 0upp. !3@, cited b' $ustice Ramon C. A8uino6 Revised Penal Code, p. !!-@, :ol. !! E!"- F7. It does not appear also from the records that the aforesaid corporation gained an' undue advantage in its business operations b' reason of respondent9s financial involvement in it, or that the corporation benefited in one (a' or another in an' case filed b' or against it in court. It is undisputed that there (as no case filed in the different branches of the Court of %irst Instance of &e'te in (hich the corporation (as either part' plaintiff or defendant eCcept Civil Case No. @,3@ entitled )Bernardita R. Macariola, plaintiff, versus Sinforosa !. Bales, et al.,* (herein the complainant herein sought to recover &ot !!#@DE from the aforesaid corporation. It must be noted, ho(ever, that Civil Case No. @,3@ (as filed onl' on November " or !!, !" # and decided on November ,, !"-4 b' C%I $udge $ose >. Nepomuceno (hen respondent $udge (as no longer connected (ith the corporation, having disposed of his interest therein on $anuar' 3!, !" -. %urthermore, respondent is not liable under the same paragraph because there is no provision in both the !"3A and !"-3 Constitutions of the Philippines, nor is there an eCisting la( eCpressl' prohibiting members of the $udiciar' from engaging or having interest in an' la(ful business. It ma' be pointed out that Republic Act No. ," , as amended, also 5no(n as the $udiciar' Act of !"@#, does not contain an' prohibition to that effect. As a matter of fact, under 0ection -- of said la(, municipal *udges ma' engage in teaching or other vocation not involving the practice of la( after office hours but (ith the permission of the district *udge concerned. &i5e(ise, Article !@ of the Code of Commerce (hich prohibits *udges from engaging in commerce is, as heretofore stated, deemed abrogated automaticall' upon the transfer of sovereignt' from 0pain to America, because it is political in nature. Moreover, the prohibition in paragraph A, Article !@"! of the Ne( Civil Code against the purchase b' *udges of a propert' in litigation before the court (ithin (hose *urisdiction the' perform their duties, cannot appl' to respondent $udge because the sale of the lot in 8uestion to him too5 place after the finalit' of his decision in Civil Case No. 34!4 as (ell as his t(o orders approving the pro*ect of partition6 hence, the propert' (as no longer sub*ect of litigation. In addition, although 0ection !,, Rule I:III of the Civil 0ervice Rules made pursuant to the Civil 0ervice Act of !"A" prohibits an officer or emplo'ee in the civil service from engaging in an' private business, vocation, or profession or be connected (ith an' commercial, credit, agricultural or industrial underta5ing (ithout a (ritten permission from the head of department, the same, ho(ever, ma' not fall (ithin the purvie( of paragraph h, 0ection 3 of the AntiD=raft and Corrupt Practices Act because the last portion of said paragraph spea5s of a prohibition b' the (onstitution or la+ on an' public officer from having an' interest in an' business and not b' a mere administrative rule or regulation. +hus, a violation of the aforesaid rule b' an' officer or emplo'ee in the civil service, that is, engaging in private business (ithout a (ritten permission from the >epartment <ead ma' not constitute graft and corrupt practice as defined b' la(. 1n the contention of complainant that respondent $udge violated 0ection !,, Rule I:III of the Civil 0ervice Rules, ;e hold that the Civil 0ervice Act of !"A" ?R.A. No. ,, 47 and the Civil 0ervice Rules promulgated thereunder, particularl' 0ection !, of Rule I:III, do not appl' to the members of the $udiciar'. Hnder said 0ection !,2 )No officer or emplo'ee shall engage directl' in an' private business, vocation, or profession or be connected (ith an'

commercial, credit, agricultural or industrial underta5ing (ithout a (ritten permission from the <ead of >epartment ...) It must be emphasi/ed at the outset that respondent, being a member of the $udiciar', is covered b' Republic Act No. ," , as amended, other(ise 5no(n as the $udiciar' Act of !"@# and b' 0ection -, Article I, !"-3 Constitution. Hnder 0ection - of said la(, the po(er to remove or dismiss *udges (as then vested in the President of the Philippines, not in the Commissioner of Civil 0ervice, and onl' on t(o grounds, namel', serious misconduct and inefficienc', and upon the recommendation of the 0upreme Court, (hich alone is authori/ed, upon its o(n motion, or upon information of the 0ecretar' ?no( Minister7 of $ustice to conduct the corresponding investigation. Clearl', the aforesaid section defines the grounds and prescribes the special procedure for the discipline of *udges. And under 0ections A, and -, Article I of the !"-3 Constitution, onl' the 0upreme Court can discipline *udges of inferior courts as (ell as other personnel of the $udiciar'. It is true that under 0ection 33 of the Civil 0ervice Act of !"A"2 )+he Commissioner ma', for ... violation of the eCisting Civil 0ervice &a( and rules or of reasonable office regulations, or in the interest of the service, remove an' subordinate officer or emplo'ee from the service, demote him in ran5, suspend him for not more than one 'ear (ithout pa' or fine him in an amount not eCceeding siC months9 salar'.) +hus, a violation of 0ection !, of Rule I:III is a ground for disciplinar' action against civil service officers and emplo'ees. <o(ever, *udges cannot be considered as subordinate civil service officers or emplo'ees sub*ect to the disciplinar' authorit' of the Commissioner of Civil 0ervice6 for, certainl', the Commissioner is not the head of the $udicial >epartment to (hich the' belong. +he Revised Administrative Code ?0ection #"7 and the Civil 0ervice &a( itself state that the Chief $ustice is the department head of the 0upreme Court ?0ec. ,4, R.A. No. ,, 47 E!"A"F76 and under the !"-3 Constitution, the $udiciar' is the onl' other or second branch of the government ?0ec. !, Art. I, !"-3 Constitution7. Besides, a violation of 0ection !,, Rule I:III cannot be considered as a ground for disciplinar' action against *udges because to recogni/e the same as applicable to them, (ould be adding another ground for the discipline of *udges and, as aforestated, 0ection - of the $udiciar' Act recogni/es onl' t(o grounds for their removal, namel', serious misconduct and inefficienc'. Moreover, under 0ection ! ?i7 of the Civil 0ervice Act of !"A", it is the Commissioner of Civil 0ervice (ho has original and eCclusive *urisdiction )?+7o decide, (ithin one hundred t(ent' da's, after submission to it, all administrative cases against per%anent officers and e%ployees in the co%petitive service, and, eCcept as provided b' la(, to have final authorit' to pass upon their removal, separation, and suspension and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline, and efficienc' of such officers and emplo'ees6 and prescribe standards, guidelines and regulations governing the administration of discipline) ?emphasis supplied7. +here is no 8uestion that a *udge belong to the nonDcompetitive or unclassified service of the government as a Presidential appointee and is therefore not covered b' the aforesaid provision. ;E have alread' ruled that )... in interpreting 0ection ! ?i7 of Republic Act No. ,, 4, (e emphasi/ed that onl' permanent officers and emplo'ees (ho belong to the classified service come under the eCclusive *urisdiction of the Commissioner of Civil 0ervice) ?:illalu/ vs. Galdivar, !A 0CRA -!4,-!3 E!" AF, AngD Angco vs. Castillo, " 0CRA !" E!" 3F7. Although the actuation of respondent $udge in engaging in private business b' *oining the +raders Manufacturing and %ishing Industries, Inc. as a stoc5holder and a ran5ing officer, is not violative of the provissions of Article !@ of the Code of Commerce and 0ection 3?h7 of the AntiD=raft and Corrupt Practices Act as (ell as 0ection !,, Rule I:III of the Civil 0ervice Rules promulgated pursuant to the Civil 0ervice Act of !"A", the impropriet' of the same is clearl' un8uestionable because Canon ,A of the Canons of $udicial Ethics eCpressl' declares that2 A *udge should abstain from ma5ing personal investments in enterprises (hich are apt to be involved in litigation in his court6 and, after his accession to the bench, he should not retain such investments previousl' made, longer than a period sufficient to enable him to dispose of them (ithout serious loss. It is desirable that he should, so far as reasonabl' possible, refrain from all relations (hich (ould normall' tend to arouse the suspicion that such relations (arp or bias his *udgment, or prevent his impartial attitude of mind in the administration of his *udicial duties. ... ;E are not, ho(ever, unmindful of the fact that respondent $udge and his (ife had (ithdra(n on $anuar' 3!, !" from the aforesaid corporation and sold their respective shares to third parties, and it appears also that the aforesaid

corporation did not in an'(a' benefit in an' case filed b' or against it in court as there (as no case filed in the different branches of the Court of %irst Instance of &e'te from the time of the drafting of the Articles of Incorporation of the corporation on March !,, !" , up to its incorporation on $anuar' ", !" -, and the eventual (ithdra(al of respondent on $anuar' 3!, !" - from said corporation. 0uch disposal or sale b' respondent and his (ife of their shares in the corporation onl' ,, da's after the incorporation of the corporation, indicates that respondent reali/ed that earl' that their interest in the corporation contravenes the aforesaid Canon ,A. Respondent $udge and his (ife therefore deserve the commendation for their immediate (ithdra(al from the firm after its incorporation and before it became involved in an' court litigation III ;ith respect to the third and fourth causes of action, complainant alleged that respondent (as guilt' of coddling an impostor and acted in disregard of *udicial decorum, and that there (as culpable defiance of the la( and utter disregard for ethics. ;E agree, ho(ever, (ith the recommendation of the Investigating $ustice that respondent $udge be eConerated because the aforesaid causes of action are groundless, and ;E 8uote the pertinent portion of her report (hich reads as follo(s2 +he basis for complainant9s third cause of action is the claim that respondent associated and closel' fraterni/ed (ith >ominador Arigpa +an (ho openl' and publicl' advertised himself as a practising attorne' ?see EChs. I, ID! and $7 (hen in truth and in fact said >ominador Arigpa +an does not appear in the Roll of Attorne's and is not a member of the Philippine Bar as certified to in ECh. N. +he )respondent denies 5no(ing that >ominador Arigpa +an (as an )impostor) and claims that all the time he believed that the latter (as a "ona fide member of the bar. I see no reason for disbelieving this assertion of respondent. It has been sho(n b' complainant that >ominador Arigpa +an represented himself publicl' as an attorne'DatDla( to the eCtent of putting up a signboard (ith his name and the (ords )Attorne'Dat &a() ?ECh. I and !D !7 to indicate his office, and it (as but natural for respondent and an' person for that matter to have accepted that statement on its face value. )No( (ith respect to the allegation of complainant that respondent is guilt' of fraterni/ing (ith >ominador Arigpa +an to the eCtent of permitting his (ife to be a godmother of Mr. +an9s child at baptism ?ECh. M J MD!7, that fact even if true did not render respondent guilt' of violating an' canon of *udicial ethics as long as his friendl' relations (ith >ominador A. +an and famil' did not influence his official actuations as a *udge (here said persons (ere concerned. +here is no tangible convincing proof that herein respondent gave an' undue privileges in his court to >ominador Arigpa +an or that the latter benefitted in his practice of la( from his personal relations (ith respondent, or that he used his influence, if he had an', on the $udges of the other branches of the Court to favor said >ominador +an. 1f course it is highl' desirable for a member of the *udiciar' to refrain as much as possible from maintaining close friendl' relations (ith practising attorne's and litigants in his court so as to avoid suspicion 9that his social or business relations or friendship constitute an element in determining his *udicial course) ?par. 34, Canons of $udicial Ethics7, but if a $udge does have social relations, that in itself (ould not constitute a ground for disciplinar' action unless it be clearl' sho(n that his social relations be clouded his official actuations (ith bias and partialit' in favor of his friends ?pp. @43D@4A, rec.7. In conclusion, (hile respondent $udge Asuncion, no( Associate $ustice of the Court of Appeals, did not violate an' la( in ac8uiring b' purchase a parcel of land (hich (as in litigation in his court and in engaging in business b' *oining a private corporation during his incumbenc' as *udge of the Court of %irst Instance of &e'te, he should be reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities, because his conduct as a member of the $udiciar' must not onl' be characteri/ed (ith propriet' but must al(a's be above suspicion. ;<ERE%1RE, +<E RE0P1N>EN+ A001CIA+E $H0+ICE 1% +<E C1HR+ 1% APPEA&0 I0 <EREBK REMIN>E> +1 BE M1RE >I0CREE+ IN <I0 PRI:A+E AN> BH0INE00 AC+I:I+IE0. 01 1R>ERE>. ,eehan-ee, .uerrero, /e (astro, Melencio01errera, )lana, 2as3ue4, Relova and .utierre4, JJ., concur.

(oncepcion Jr., J., is on leave. 5ernando, (.J., '"ad Santos and 6solin JJ., too- no part.

S!,a%a#! O,')'o)(

A-UINO, J., concurring and dissenting2 I vote for respondent9s un8ualified eConeration. BARREDO, J., concurring and dissenting2 I vote (ith $ustice A8uino.

S!,a%a#! O,')'o)( A-UINO, J., concurring and dissenting2 I vote for respondent9s un8ualified eConeration. BARREDO, J., concurring and dissenting2 I vote (ith $ustice A8uino.

+he &a(phil Pro*ect D Arellano &a( %oundation