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.
FACTS

Complainant Bernardita R. Macariola charged respondent Judge Elias B. Asuncion with “acts unbecoming a judge.” The case stemmed from Civil Case No. 3010 for partition, where Judge Asuncion rendered a decision on June 8, 1963. The decision became final, and a project of partition was submitted and approved by the judge on October 23, 1963. Subsequently, Lot 1184, a property involved in the partition, was adjudicated to the plaintiffs. On March 6, 1965, a deed of sale was executed conveying a portion of this lot to “The Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc.,” a corporation where Judge Asuncion and his wife were among the incorporators and stockholders. The complainant alleged that the judge violated the prohibition against a judge engaging in private business and acquiring property in litigation before his court.
Further allegations included that the judge associated with a certain Dominador Arigpa Tan, who was allegedly not a lawyer but who acted as counsel in the partition case, and that the judge’s wife acted as a godmother to Tan’s child. The complainant argued these acts constituted impropriety and warranted disciplinary action.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Asuncion is administratively liable for: (1) acquiring a property that was previously in litigation in his court and engaging in business; and (2) maintaining social relations with a person who represented himself as an attorney.

RULING

The Court found the respondent not administratively liable but issued a reminder for greater discretion. On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent did not violate any specific law. The property was acquired by purchase from the adjudicatees after the finality of the decision and the approval of the partition. At the time of purchase, the property was no longer in litigation. The constitutional prohibition against judges engaging in private business was not yet in effect at the time of the incorporation in 1965. While the old Code of Civil Procedure prohibited judges from engaging in private business, the Court found no evidence that the respondent actively managed the corporation; mere investment and being a stockholder did not per se constitute “private business” under the applicable law at that time.
On the second issue, the Court found no evidence that the respondent’s social relations with Dominador Arigpa Tan influenced his official actions. Tan publicly represented himself as a lawyer, and the respondent, like any reasonable person, accepted this representation at face value. The act of the judge’s wife being a godmother, while potentially undesirable to avoid suspicion, did not in itself violate judicial ethics absent proof that it clouded the judge’s impartiality in official matters. The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct must be above suspicion, but on the facts presented, no clear bias or partiality was demonstrated. Consequently, the respondent was REMINDED to be more discreet in his private and business activities to uphold the judiciary’s integrity.