Macariola vs Asuncion

Facts:
On August 6, 1968 Bernardita Macariola filed an administrative complaint against Judge Asuncion of CFI
Leyte (now CA Justice) with "acts unbecoming a judge. The complaint stemmed from a partition case
filed by the Reyes siblings against Macariola concerning properties left by the deceased Francisco Reyes,
the common father of the parties. Judge Asuncion, before whom the case was filed, issued the partition
order. The decision order became final and the property was partitioned. One of the properties in the
partition was Lot 1184 which was subdivided into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E. Lot
1184-E was sold to Dr. Arcadio Galapon. Less than a year later, Dr. Galapon and his wife sold a portion of
Lot 1184-E to Judge Asuncion and his wife, Victoria S. Asuncion. Subsequently, spouses Asuncion and
spouses Galapon conveyed their respective interest in Lot 1184-E to The Traders Manufacturing and
Fishing Industries Inc., (Traders) of which Judge Asuncion is the President and his wife is the secretary.
Bernardita Macariola alleges that Judge Asuncion violated (a) Article 1491(5) of the New Civil Code in
acquiring by purchase a portion of the property involved in a case decided by him; (b) the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, the Civil Service Rules, and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, by
associating himself with Traders as a stockholder and a ranking officer while he was a judge.
Issue:
1.) Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated Article 1491 paragraph 5 of The New Civil Code?
Held:
There was no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the New Civil Code. The prohibition in the said
Article applies only to the sale or assignment of the property which is the subject of litigation to the
persons disqualified therein. For the prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the property must
take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property.
When Judge Asuncion purchased the subject property, the decision was already final because none of the
parties filed an appeal within the prescribed period; hence, the lot in question was no longer subject of the
litigation. Furthermore, the judge did not buy the lot directly from the plaintiffs in the case but from Dr.
Galapon who earlier purchased the same from plaintiffs after the finality of the decision.

Philippine Bar Association vs. COMELEC

140 SCRA 455
January 7, 1986
FACTS:
11 petitions were filed for prohibition against the enforcement of BP 883 which calls for special national
elections on February 7, 1986 (Snap elections) for the offices of President and Vice President of the
Philippines. BP 883 in conflict with the constitution in that it allows the President to continue holding
office after the calling of the special election.
Senator Pelaez submits that President Marcos letter of conditional resignation did not create the actual
vacancy required in Section 9, Article 7 of the Constitution which could be the basis of the holding of a
special election for President and Vice President earlier than the regular elections for such positions in
1987. The letter states that the President is: irrevocably vacat(ing) the position of President effective only
when the election is held and after the winner is proclaimed and qualified as President by taking his oath
office ten (10) days after his proclamation.
The unified opposition, rather than insist on strict compliance with the cited constitutional provision that
the incumbent President actually resign, vacate his office and turn it over to the Speaker of the Batasang
Pambansa as acting President, their standard bearers have not filed any suit or petition in intervention for
the purpose nor repudiated the scheduled election. They have not insisted that President Marcos vacate his
office, so long as the election is clean, fair and honest.
ISSUE:
Is BP 883 unconstitutional, and should the Supreme Court therefore stop and prohibit the holding of the
elections
HELD:
The petitions in these cases are dismissed and the prayer for the issuance of an injunction restraining
respondents from holding the election on February 7, 1986, in as much as there are less than the required
10 votes to declare BP 883 unconstitutional.
The events that have transpired since December 3,as the Court did not issue any restraining order, have
turned the issue into a political question (from the purely justiciable issue of the questioned
constitutionality of the act due to the lack of the actual vacancy of the Presidents office) which can be
truly decided only by the people in their sovereign capacity at the scheduled election, since there is no
issue more political than the election. The Court cannot stand in the way of letting the people decide
through their ballot, either to give the incumbent president a new mandate or to elect a new president.

Lim vs Pacquing
The petition in G.R. No. 115044 was dismissed by the First Division of this Court on 01 September 1994
based on a finding that there was "no abuse of discretion, much less lack of or excess of jurisdiction, on
the part of respondent judge [Pacquing]", in issuing the questioned orders.
The order dated 28 march 1994 was in turn issued upon motion by ADC for execution of a final judgment
rendered on 9 September 1988 which ordered the Manila Mayor to immediately issue to ADC the
permit/license to operate the jai-alai in Manila, under Manila Ordinance No. 7065.
On 15 September 1994, respondent Associated Development Corporation (ADC) filed a petition for
prohibition, mandamus, injunction and damages with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Manila against petitioner Guingona and then GAB
chairman Sumulong, docketed as Civil Case No. 94-71656, seeking to prevent GAB from withdrawing
the provisional authority that had earlier been granted to ADC
In an En Banc Resolution dated 20 September 1994, this Court referred G.R. No. 115044 to the Court En
Banc and required the respondents therein to comment on the aforementioned motions.
Judge Reyes on 19 October 1994 issued another order, this time, granting ADC a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction against Guingona and GAB to compel them to issue in favor of ADC the authority
to operate jai-alai.
On 25 October 1994, in G.R. No. 117263, this Court granted petitioner's motion for leave to file
supplemental petition and to admit attached supplemental petition with urgent prayer for restraining order.
The Court further required respondents to file their comment on the petition and supplemental petition
with urgent prayer for restraining order.
ISSUE:
W/N P.D. No. 771 is violative of the EQUAL PROTECTION and NON-IMPAIRMENT clauses of the
Constitution.
HELD:
NO. P.D. No. 771 is VALID AND CONSTITUTIONAL.
Presumption against unconstitutionality. There is nothing on record to show or even suggest that PD No.
771 has been repealed, altered or amended by any subsequent law or presidential issuance (when the
executive still exercised legislative powers).
Neither can it be tenably stated that the issue of the continued existence of ADCs franchise by reason of
the unconstitutionality of PD No. 771 was settled in G.R. No. 115044, for the decision of the Courts First
Division in said case, aside from not being final, cannot have the effect of nullifying PD No. 771 as
unconstitutional, since only the Court En Banc has that power under Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the
Constitution.
And on the question of whether or not the government is estopped from contesting ADCs possession of a
valid franchise, the well-settled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors, if
any, of its officials or agents. (Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 90)