PUYAT VS DE GUZMAN

NO. L-51122 | MARCH 25, 1982 | EN BANC | APPEARANCE IN COURT

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE EUGENIO PUYAT, ET. AL.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT HON. SIXTO T. J. DE GUZMAN, JR. as Associate Commissioner of the Securities
& Exchange Commission and others.
SUMMARY: A suit for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction is poised against the Order of
respondent Assoc. Commissioner of SEC granting Assemblyman Estanislao A. Fernandez leave to intervene
in SEC Case No. 1747
DOCTRINE: Appearance in Court
CHARACTERS:
FACTS:

On May 14, 1979, Puyat and his group

were elected as directors of the
International Pipe Industreis (IPI)

The
election
was
subsequently
questioned by Acero (Puyats rival)
claiming that the votes were not
properly counted hence he filed a quo
warranto proceeding before the SEC on
May 25, 1979

Prior to Aceros filing, Estanislao

Fernandez, a then member of the
Interim Batasang Pambansa purchased
10 shares of stock of IPI from a
member of Aceros group. And during a
conference held by SEC Commissioner
De Guzman (from May 25-31, 1979) to
have the parties confer with each
other, Estanislao Fernandez entered his
appearance as counsel for Acero

Puyat objected to his representation

arguing that it is unconstitutional for an
assemblyman to appear as counsel (to
anyone) before any administrative
body (such as the SEC).

Fernandez
inhibited
himself from
appearing as counsel for Acero

Fernandez instead filed an Urgent

Motion for Intervention in the said SEC
case for him to intervene not as a
counsel but as a legal owner of IPI
shares and as a person who has legal
interest in the matter in litigation

SEC Commissioner granted the motion

in effect granting Fernandez leave to
intervene

Puyat
moved
to
question
Commissioners action
ACCUSATION:

Assemblyman Fernandezs intervention

in SEC Case No. 1747 falls within the
ambit of the prohibition contained in
Section 11, Article VIII of the
Constitution
DEFENSE:

Ostensibly, he is not appearing on

behalf of another, although he is
joining the cause of the private
respondents

His appearance is for the protection of

his ownership of 10 shares of IPI in
respect of the matter in litigation and
for the protection of the petitioners nor
respondents who have their respective
capable and respected counsel
ARGUMENTS:

Fernandez had acquired a mere Php

200 worth of stock in IPI, representing
10 shares out of 262, 843 outstanding
shares which he acquired on May 30,
1979 after the contested election of
Directors on May 14, 1979, after the
quo warranto suit had been filed on
May 25, 1979 before SEC and one day
before the scheduled hearing of the
case before the SEC in May 31, 1979

Before he moved to intervene, he had

signified his intention to appear as
counsel for respondent Acero
ISSUE:

W/N Fernandez, acting as a stockholder

of IPI, can appear and intervene in the
SEC
case
without
violating
the
constitutional
provision
that
an
assemblyman must not appear as
counsel in such courts or bodies
RULING:

No. Fernandez cannot appear before

the SEC body under the guise that he is
not appearing as counsel. Grant of
intervention reversed.
DOCTRINE:

Appearance in court
RATIO:

Even
though
Fernandez
is
a
stockholder and he has a legal interest
in the matter in litigation he is still
barred from appearing. He bought the
stock before the litigation took place.
During the conference he presented
himself as counsel but because it is
clearly stated that he cannot do so

under the constitution he instead

presented himself as a party of interest
which is clearly a work around and is
clearly an act after the fact. A mere
work around to get himself involved in
the litigation. What could not be done
directly could not be likewise done
indirectly.