Anda di halaman 1dari 1

Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr. G.R. No.

L-51122, March 25, 1982 Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Political Law Facts: After an election for the Directors of the International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) was held, one group, the respondent Acero group, instituted at the SEC quo warranto proceedings, questioning the election. Justice Estanislao Fernandez, then a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa, entered his appearanc e as counsel for respondent Acero to which the petitioner, Puyat group, objected on Constitutional ground that no Assemblyman could appear as counsel before any administrative body, and SEC was an administrative body. Assemblyman Fernandez di d not continue his appearance for respondent Acero. Assemblyman Fernandez had purchased 10 shares of IPI for P200.00 upon request of respondent Acero. Following the notarization of Assemblyman Fernandez purchase, he filed a motion for intervention in the SEC case as the owner of 10 IPI shares alleging legal interest in the matter in litigation. The SEC granted leave to i ntervene on the basis of Fernandez ownership of the said 10 shares. Issue: Whether or not Assemblyman Fernandez, as a stockholder of IPI, may interv ene in the SEC case without violating Sec. 11, Art. VIII (now Sec. 14, Art. VI) of the Constitution Held: Ordinarily, by virtue of the motion for intervention, Assemblyman Fernande z cannot be said to be appearing as counsel. Ostensibly, he is not appearing on behalf of another, although he is joining the cause of the private respondents. His appearance could theoretically be for the protection of his ownership of 10 shares of IPI in respect of the matter in litigation. However, certain salient circumstances militate against the intervention of Asse mblyman Fernandez in the SEC case. He had acquired a mere P200.00 worth of stock in IPI, representing 10 shares out of 262,843 outstanding shares. He acquired t hem after the fact that is, after the contested election of directors, after the q uo warranto suit had been filed before the SEC and 1 day before the scheduled he aring of the case before the SEC. And what is more, before he moved to intervene , he had signified his intention to appear as counsel for respondent Acero, but which was objected to by petitioners. Realizing, perhaps, the validity of the ob jection, he decided, instead, to intervene on the ground of legal interest in th e matter under litigation. Under those facts and circumstances, the Court is constrained to find that there has been an indirect appearance as counsel before an administrative body. In th e opinion of the Court, that is a circumvention of the Constitutional prohibitio n contained in Sec. 11, Art. VIII (now Sec. 14, Art. VI). The intervention was a n afterthought to enable him to appear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai