Puyat v De Guzman subsequently questioned by Eustaquio Acero (Puyat’s rival)

113 SCRA 31 1982 claiming that the votes were not properly counted – hence he
Petitioner: E. Puyat, E. Chiongbian, E. Reyes, A. Puyat, J.
Blanco, R. Recto, R. Lardizabal
Respondent: Hon. Sixto De Guzman, Associate Commissioner
of SEC, et. al.
Ponente: Melecio-Herrera, J.
Date Promulgated: March 25, 1892
DOCTRINE:
Sec. 11, Article 8 of the 1973 Constitution
No member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any
court without appellate jurisdiction.
Before any court in any civil case wherein the Governement or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party… or
before any administrative body.
SECTION 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may
personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies.
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any
contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its
subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter
before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he
may be called upon to act on account of his office.
Recit-Ready Digests (Only facts no ISSUE or RULING)
In May 1979, Eugenio Puyat and his group were elected as
directors of the International Pipe Industries. The election was
filed a quo warranto case before the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on May 25, 1979. Prior to Acero’s filing of
the case, Estanislao Fernandez, then a member of the Interim
Batasang Pambansa purchased ten shares of stock of IPI from a
member of Acero’s group. And during a conference held by
SEC Commissioner Sixto de Guzman, Jr. (from May 25-31,
1979) to confer between both parties, Estanislao Fernandez
entered his appearance as counsel for Acero.
Puyat objected as he argued that it is unconstitutional for an
assemblyman to appear as counsel (to anyone) before any
administrative body (such as the SEC).
This being cleared, Fernandez inhibited himself from appearing
as counsel for Acero. He 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 a legal interest in the matter in litigation. The SEC
Commissioner granted the motion and in effect granting
Fernandez leave to intervene.
FACTS
On May 14, 1979, Puyat along with the other six petitioners
were elected (Puyat Group) as well as Eustaquio Acero and the
four other respondents (Acero Group) as directors of the
International Pipe Industries Corportation (IPI).
On May 25, 1979, the Acero group instituted a quo warranto
proceeding to the Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC)
alleging that the votes of the stockholders were improperly
counted.
Enter Justice Fernandez, who was then a member of the
Interim Batasang Pambansa, as the counsel for the Acero
Group, respondent.
Puyat Group accused that Fernandez’s intervention was a
violation of Sec. 11 of Article 8 of the 1973 Consitution (Sec.
14, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution)
Thereafter, it was learned that prior to the filing of the case,
Justice Fernandez purchased 10 shares of stock of the IPI.
On May 31, 1979, Fernandez then filed an Urgent Motion for
Intervention with regard to the SEC case as a party of interest
being the owner of 10 shares of stock. SEC granted the motion
on the basis of Fernandez owning 10 shares.
This order triggered the petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
with Preliminary Injunction.
ISSUE
Whether or not Assemblyman Fernandez in his capacity as a
stockholder of IPI has the power to intervene in the SEC Case.
HELD
No. The Court ruled that by virtues of the Motion for
Intervention, Assemblyman Fernandez cannot be said as
appearing as a counsel but as an owner concerned for the
protection of his shares. Although the fact remains that he has
manifested intention to be Acero’s counsel before buying 10
shares of stock of IPI. It appears that the intervention was filed
so as to enable Fernandez to still appear in the proceedings
although not as counsel. The Court finds that there will be a
circumvention of the constitution as Fernandez will be
indirectly appearing as counsel to Acero.
By intervening in the SEC case, Assemblyman Fernandez was
violating Sec 14, Art. VI of the Constitution considering that
SEC is an administrative body and that he is a member of the
Batasang Pambansa
Respondent commissioner's order granting Atty. Estanislao
A. Fernandez leave to intervene in SEC Case No. 1747 is
hereby reversed and set aside. The Temporary Restraining
Order heretofore issued is hereby made permanent.