SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 385 8/14/24, 6:42 PM

VOL. 385, JULY 31, 2002 527

Berin vs. Barte

*
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1443. July 31, 2002.

JOSIE BERIN and MERLY ALORRO, complainants, vs.

JUDGE FELIXBERTO P. BARTE, Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, Hamtic, Antique, respondent.

Courts; Judges; The peopleÊs confidence in the judicial system

is founded not only on the competence and diligence of the
members of the bench, but also on their integrity and moral
uprightness·they must not only be „good judges‰ but must also
appear to be „good persons.‰·The peopleÊs confidence in the
judicial system is founded not only on the competence and
diligence of the members of the bench, but also on their integrity
and moral uprightness. He must not only be honest but also
appear to be so. He must not only be a „good judge,‰ he must also
appear to be a „good person.‰
Same; Same; Rule 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
supplies the void left by the abrogation of Art. 14 of the Spanish
Code of Commerce; It is not good for judges to engage in business
except only to the extent allowed by Rule 5.03 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.·Article 14 of the Code of Commerce prohibits
members of the judiciary and prosecutors from engaging in
commerce within their jurisdiction. It provides: * * * However, in

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

528

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000191506d2d6a5aff5ae4000d00d40059004a/p/APQ482/?username=Guest Page 1 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 385 8/14/24, 6:42 PM

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Berin vs. Barte

Macariola v. Asuncion, it was held that Art. 14 is in the nature of

political law and since it was extended to this country by Spain it
was necessarily abrogated upon the change of sovereignty from
Spain to the United States. Nevertheless, the Court admonished a
judge who had been found to have engaged in business „to be
more discreet in his private and business activities, because his
conduct as a member of the Judiciary must not only be
characterized by propriety but must always be above suspicion.‰
After the decision in Macariola v. Asuncion, this Court adopted
the Code of Judicial Conduct, which took effect on October 20,
1989, the pertinent provision of which states: Rule 5.02.·A judge
shall refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to
reflect adversely on the courtÊs impartiality, interfere with the
proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvement
with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. A judge
should so manage investments and other financial interests as to
minimize the number of cases giving grounds for disqualification.
This provision thus supplies the void left by the abrogation of Art.
14 of the Spanish Code of Commerce. Indeed, it is not good for
judges to engage in business except only to the extent allowed by
Rule 5.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides: Subject
to the provisions of the preceding rule, a judge may hold and
manage investments but should not serve as an officer, director,
manager, advisor, or employee of any business except as director
of a family business of the judge.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Grave and Serious Misconduct.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a complaint for grave and serious misconduct filed

by Josie Berin and Merly Alorro against Judge Felixberto
P. Barte, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court (MCTC), Hamtic, Tobias Fornier and Anini-y,
Antique.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000191506d2d6a5aff5ae4000d00d40059004a/p/APQ482/?username=Guest Page 2 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 385 8/14/24, 6:42 PM

Complainants Josie Berin and Merly Alorro are real

estate agents. They allege that sometime during the last
week of January 2001, respondent judge invited them to
his office and asked them to look for a vendor of a lot for
sale in Antique because the Manila Mission of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Inc. wanted to buy a
site for its church in Antique.
Complainants claim that they found a vendor, Eleanor
M. Checa-Santos, who owned a lot consisting of 4,000
square meters,

529

VOL. 385, JULY 31, 2002 529

Berin vs. Barte

known as Lot 5555-B, Psd-06-000304 and located in Barrio

Caridad, Municipality of Now, Hamtic, Antique, which she
was willing to sell; that they told respondent judge about
the lot; that respondent judge informed them three days
later that the Church was willing to pay P2.3 million for
the lot; that respondent judge agreed that complainants
would each receive a commission of P100,000.00 in case the
sale took place; and that respondent judge would receive
the money from the vendee and then deliver the share of
each of the complainants. Complainants said they wanted
to have the agreement in writing, but respondent judge
refused, saying, „Do you have no trust in your Judge
Barte?‰ This is the reason there is no written agreement of
the transaction between them.
Complainants alleged that the sale was consummated
and respondent judge received the purchase price, but,
despite demands made by them for the payment of their
commission, respondent judge gave them only P10,000.00
each, telling them to „take it or leave it.‰ Hence, this
complaint.
In his Comment, dated August 23, 2001, and
Supplemental Comment, dated August 27, 2001,
respondent judge denied the charges against him. He
denied that he ever invited the complainants to his office in
January 2001 and told them of the desire of the Church to
buy a lot in Antique. According to him, as early as January

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000191506d2d6a5aff5ae4000d00d40059004a/p/APQ482/?username=Guest Page 3 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 385 8/14/24, 6:42 PM

25, 2001, the Church had already purchased the same land
described in the complaint and the vendee had already paid
50% of the sale price to the vendor, as evidenced by a
Closing Certificate showing that the payment took place at
the Metrobank, San Jose, Antique Branch on said date.
Complainants said the Deed of Sale was notarized on
February 12, 2001.
Respondent judge likewise denied that he agreed to pay
complainants P100,000.00 each as commission for the sale.
But he said that, sometime in November 1999, complainant
Merly Alorro, whom he considered his friend, learned from
complainant Josie Berin that the lot in question was up for
sale, and Alorro told him about it. Based on such
information, respondent judge said he was able to facilitate
the sale of the land after almost two (2) years of hard work.
Since he was able to realize some amount from the sale, he
decided to give complainants a share for the information
they gave him, although they never contributed to the
success of the

530

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Berin vs. Barte

transaction. He gave complainant Berin P7,000.00 and

Merly Alorro P12,000.00.
Respondent judge contended that he cannot be held
liable in this administrative proceeding since the act
complained of does not pertain to the performance of his
official function as judge. He further1 contended that the
case of Teofilo Gil v. Eufronio Son, which involved the
dismissal of a judge for refusing to acknowledge and repay
a loan of P15,000.00 which was acquired in return for a
favor for employment, is inapplicable to this case because
his transaction was an open and honest one, compared to
the „secret deal‰ involved in the Gil case.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agrees that
respondent judge cannot be held liable for refusing to honor
his obligation under the alleged contract on the ground
that the same has no relation to his official duties as a
judge and does not amount either to maladministration or

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000191506d2d6a5aff5ae4000d00d40059004a/p/APQ482/?username=Guest Page 4 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 385 8/14/24, 6:42 PM

willful intentional neglect and failure to discharge the

duties of a judge. However, it believes that respondent is
liable for violation of Canon 5, Rule 5.02 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and recommends accordingly that he be
fined P5,000.00.
The recommendation is on the main well taken.
The peopleÊs confidence in the judicial system is founded
not only on the competence and diligence of the members of
the bench, but also on their integrity and moral
uprightness. He must not only be honest but also appear to
be so. He must not only be 2 a „good judge,‰ he must also
appear to be a „good person.‰
Whether the sale of the property was effected through
the efforts of complainants making them entitled to a
commission is a matter that should be threshed out in a
judicial proceeding. Our concern in this case is whether
respondent judge committed an impropriety in acting as a
broker in the sale of a real estate, for which he admits
receiving a commission.

_______________

1 241 SCRA 467 (1995).

2 Dawa v. De Asa, 292 SCRA 703 (1998).

531

VOL. 385, JULY 31, 2002 531

Berin vs. Barte

Article 14 of the Code of Commerce prohibits members of

the judiciary and prosecutors from engaging in commerce
within their jurisdiction. It provides:

ART. 14. The following cannot engage in commerce, either in

person or by proxy, nor can they hold any office or have any direct,
administrative, or financial intervention in commercial or
industrial companies within the limits of the districts, provinces,
or towns in which they discharge their duties:
1. Justices of the Supreme Court, judges and officials of the
department of public prosecution in active service. This provision
shall not be applicable to mayors, municipal judges, and

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000191506d2d6a5aff5ae4000d00d40059004a/p/APQ482/?username=Guest Page 5 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 385 8/14/24, 6:42 PM

municipal prosecuting attorneys nor those who by chance are

temporarily discharging the functions of judge or prosecuting
attorney.
....
5. Those who by virtue of laws or special provisions may not
engage in commerce in a determinate territory.
3
However, in Macariola v. Asuncion, it was held that Art.
14 is in the nature of political law and since it was
extended to this country by Spain it was necessarily
abrogated upon the change of sovereignty from Spain to the
United States. Nevertheless, the Court admonished a judge
who had been found to have engaged in business „to be
more discreet in his private and business activities,
because his conduct as a member of the Judiciary must not
only be characterized
4
by propriety but must always be
above suspicion.‰
After the decision in Macariola v. Asuncion, this Court
adopted the Code of Judicial Conduct, which took effect on
October 20, 1989, the pertinent provision of which states:

Rule 5.02.·A judge shall refrain from financial and business

dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the courtÊs impartiality,
interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities, or
increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come
before the court. A judge should so manage investments and other
financial interests as to minimize the number of cases giving
grounds for disqualification.

_______________

3 114 SCRA 77 (1982).

4 Id. at 106-107.

532

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Berin vs. Barte

This provision thus supplies the void left by the abrogation

of Art. 14 of the Spanish Code of Commerce. Indeed, it is
not good for judges to engage in business except only to the

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000191506d2d6a5aff5ae4000d00d40059004a/p/APQ482/?username=Guest Page 6 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 385 8/14/24, 6:42 PM

extent allowed by Rule 5.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct

which provides:

Subject to the provisions of the preceding rule, a judge may hold

and manage investments but should not serve as an officer,
director, manager, advisor, or employee of any business except as
director of a family business of the judge.

As the OCA observed:

By allowing himself to act as agent in the sale of the subject

property, respondent judge has increased the possibility of his
disqualification to act as an impartial judge in the event that a
dispute involving the said contract of sale arises. Also, the
possibility that the parties to the sale might plead before his court
is not remote and his business dealings with them might [not
only] create suspicion as to his fairness but also to [his ability to]
render it in a manner that is free from any suspicion as to its
fairness and impartiality, and also as to the judgeÊs integrity
(Martinez vs. Gironella, 65 SCRA 245). One who occupies an
exalted position in the administration of justice must pay a high
price for the honor bestowed upon him, for his private as well as
his official conduct must at all times be free from the appearance
of impropriety (Jugueta vs. Boncaros, 60 SCRA 27).

A similar complaint is pending before this Court against

respondent judge arising from the sale, also to the Manila
Mission Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Inc.,
of three pieces of real estate in Antique, one of which is the
property owned by Eleanor Checa-Santos involved in 5
this
case. The complainant there is Editha O. Catbagan. This
case appears to be the first offense of respondent judge.
Since that case is still pending investigation, it cannot be
considered in fixing the penalty in this case.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Felixberto P. Barte is
found GUILTY of violation of Canon 5.02 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and, considering this to be his first
offense, is hereby FINED in the amount of P2,000.00, with
the ADMONITION to him to be more

_______________

5 Editha O. Catbagan v. Judge Felixberto P. Barte, OCA IPI No. 01-

1119-MTJ.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000191506d2d6a5aff5ae4000d00d40059004a/p/APQ482/?username=Guest Page 7 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 385 8/14/24, 6:42 PM

533

VOL. 385, JULY 31, 2002 533

Camarote vs. Glorioso

discreet and prudent in his private dealings as in his

judicial duties. A repetition of a similar infraction will be
sanctioned more severely.
SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Quisumbing and Corona, JJ.,

concur.

Respondent meted a P2,000 fine, with admonition for

violation of Canon 5.02 of Code of Judicial Conduct.

Notes.·The conduct of a judge, whether official or

private, must be beyond reproach and above suspicion·a
member of the bench must not only be a good judge but
must also be a good person. (Simbajon vs. Esteban, 312
SCRA 192 [1999])
When a member of the bench serves as administrator of
the properties of private individuals, he runs the risk of
losing his neutrality and impartiality, especially when the
interest of his principal conflicts with that of the litigant
who comes before his court. (Carual vs. Brusala, 317 SCRA
54 [1999])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000191506d2d6a5aff5ae4000d00d40059004a/p/APQ482/?username=Guest Page 8 of 8