That Girl with a Dirty Old Man

When I was sitting awhile ago in Avon, there was this not so beautiful but not so ugly girl who shouted, “Where is the Vixen watch?” She caught everyone’s attention even me on my serenest state. I thought she was alone but there came an old Japanese guy. I thought of them as father and daughter buying her daughter’s luxuries. But their features were well...can obviously be doubted. There wasn’t even a hint of similar features. Usually, Japanese has a strong blood that their sire could almost get all of their features. True, I have friends who are half-Japanese and they all look like Japanese. Then i went inside to find my mom, but what I found was her who’s calling him “Darling Toshi”. I almost puke at how she sweetly enunciated those words. My gosh! They are lovers! She’s too young, my age I think. And the guy, my granddad’s age I think. Then I realized, it’s all because of money, the root of all evil. It’s not love, it is? Disparity has nothing to do with this. The girl was wearing super short dress with her cleavage smiling brightly. I don’t want to prejudice her but by mere looking at her acts, no doubt, she’s one of those: those who don’t believe in fairy tales of love, those who make themselves the antagonist of their own story personally written by God.

That Pretty Lady with a Dirty Old Man

When I was sitting awhile ago in Avon, there was this not so beautiful but not so ugly girl who shouted, “Where is the Vixen watch?” She caught everyone’s attention even me on my serenest state. I thought she was alone but there came an old Japanese guy. I thought of them as father and daughter buying her daughter’s luxuries. But their features were well...can obviously be doubted. There wasn’t even a hint of similar features. Usually, Japanese has a strong blood that their sire could almost get all of their features. True, I have friends who are half-Japanese and they all look like Japanese. Then i went inside to find my mom, but what I found was her who’s calling him “Darling Toshi”. I almost puke at how she sweetly enunciated those words. My gosh! They are lovers! She’s too young, my age I think. And the guy, my granddad’s age I think. Then I realized, it’s all because of money, the root of all evil. It’s not love, it is? Disparity has nothing to do with this. The girl was wearing super short dress with her cleavage smiling brightly. I don’t want to prejudice her but by mere looking at her acts, no doubt, she’s one of those: those who don’t believe in fairy tales of love, those who make themselves the antagonist of their own story personally written by God.

Si Crim Law I Prof

Si Crim Law I Prof

Last week, I was really heartbroken by my Criminal Law I professor's very encouraging comments. Ok, to be fair with him, I failed his mid term exam and only 14 had luckily passed his bloody examination. Although I got a high grade on essay part, I wasn't lucky on the MCQ part and that was 60%.

So here's what he exactly told us: "Yung mga hindi pumasa, alam niyo na sa sarili niyo kung anung dapat niyong gawin. Magdesisyon na kayo kung itutuloy niyo pa." Ouch! It went straight to my heart boy! I know that wasn't too harsh compared to other terror law professors. But Criminal Law is a bar subject!

But I am just starting. Why in the world wide web would I allow him to stop me from wanting to put an ATTY. on my name and serve the country and make my parents proud?

Yes I failed... but I am not a loser to just give up and give him the last laugh. I just have to be tough and endure the pain on his way of encouragement.

Macariola v. Asuncion Case Digest

Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77, May 31, 1982
(En Banc), J. Makasiar

Facts: When the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 rendered by respondent Hon. Judge Elias B. Asuncion of Court of First Instance of Leyte became final on June 8, 1863 for lack of an appeal, a project of partition was submitted to him which he later approved in an Order dated October 23, 1963. Among the parties thereto was complainant Bernardita R. Macariola.

One of the properties mentioned in the project of partition was Lot 1184. This lot according to the decision rendered by Judge Asuncion was adjudicated to the plaintiffs Reyes in equal shares subdividing Lot 1184 into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E.

On July 31, 1964 Lot 1184-E was sold to Dr. Arcadio Galapon who later sold a portion of Lot 1184-E to Judge Asuncion and his wife Victoria Asuncion. Thereafter spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon conveyed their respective shares and interests in Lot 1184-E to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. wherein Judge Asuncion was the president.

Macariola then filed an instant complaint on August 9, 1968 docketed as Civil Case No. 4234 in the CFI of Leyte against Judge Asuncion with "acts unbecoming a judge" alleging that Judge Asuncion in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E violated Article 1491 par. 5 of the New Civil Code, Art. 14, pars. 1 and 5 of the Code of Commerce, Sec. 3 par. H of R.A. 3019, Sec. 12 Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

On November 2, 1970, Judge Jose Nepomuceno of the CFI of Leyte rendered a decision dismissing the complaints against Judge Asuncion.

After the investigation, report and recommendation conducted by Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma of the Court of Appeals, she recommended on her decision dated March 27, 1971 that Judge Asuncion be exonerated.


Issue: Does Judge Asuncion, now Associate Justice of Court of Appeals violated any law in acquiring by purchase a parcel of Lot 1184-E which he previously decided in a Civil Case No. 3010 and his engagement in business by joining a private corporation during his incumbency as a judge of the CFI of Leyte constitute an "act unbecoming of a judge"?


Ruling: No. The respondent Judge Asuncion's actuation does not constitute of an "act unbecoming of a judge." But he is reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities.

SC ruled that the prohibition in Article 1491 par. 5 of the New Civil Code applies only to operate, the sale or assignment of the property during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. Respondent judge purchased a portion of Lot 1184-E on March 6, 1965, the 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 to litigation. Furthermore, Judge Asuncion did not buy the lot in question directly from the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr. Arcadio Galapon who earlier purchased Lot1184-E from the plaintiffs Reyes after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010.

SC stated that upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US and later on from the US to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of 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. There appears no enabling or affirmative act that continued the effectivity of the aforestated provision of the Code of Commerce, consequently, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the respondent Judge Asuncion.

Respondent Judge cannot also be held liable to par. H, Section 3 of R.A. 3019 because the business of the corporation in which respondent participated had obviously no relation or connection with his judicial office.

SC stated that respondent judge and his wife deserve the commendation for their immediate withdrawal from the firm 22 days after its incorporation realizing that their interest contravenes the Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

De Leon v. Esguerra Case Digest

De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602, August, 31, 1987
(En Banc), J. Melencio-Herrera

Facts: On May 17, 1982, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was elected Barangay Captain together with the other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Muncipality of Taytay, Province of Rizal in a Barangay election held under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222, otherwise known as Barangay Election Act of 1982.

On February 9, 1987, petitioner De Leon received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 but signed by respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra on February 8, 1987 designating respondent Florentino G. Magno as Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores and the other respondents as members of Barangay Council of the same Barangay and Municipality.

Petitoners prayed to the Supreme Court that the subject Memoranda of February 8, 1987 be declared null and void and that respondents be prohibited by taking over their positions of Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen.

Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP Blg. 222), their terms of office shall be six years which shall commence on June 7, 1988 and shall continue until their successors shall have elected and shall have qualified. It was also their position that with the ratification of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, respondent OIC Governor no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their successors.

On the other hand, respondents contend that the terms of office of elective and appointive officials were abolished and that petitioners continued in office by virtue of Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional Constitution and not because their term of six years had not yet expired; and that the provision in the Barangay Election Act fixing the term of office of Barangay officials to six years must be deemed to have been repealed for being inconsistent with Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional Constitution.


Issue: Whether or not the designation of respondents to replace petitioners was validly made during the one-year period which ended on Feb 25, 1987.


Ruling: Supreme Court declared that the Memoranda issued by respondent OIC Gov on Feb 8, 1987 designating respondents as Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal has no legal force and effect.

The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on Feb 2, 1987, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have superseded. Having become inoperative, respondent OIC Gov could no longer rely on Sec 2, Art 3, thereof to designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners. Relevantly, Sec 8, Art 1 of the 1987 Constitution further provides in part:

"Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years x x x."

Until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by aw, therefore, the term of office of 6 years provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern.