EUGENIO J. PUYAT, ERWIN L. CHIONGBIAN, EDGARDO P. REYES, ANTONIO G.

PUYAT,
JAIME R. BLANCO, RAFAEL R. RECTO and REYNALDO L. LARDIZABAL
vs
HON. SIXTO T. J. DE GUZMAN, JR., as Associate Commissioner of the Securities & Exchange
Commission, EUSTAQUIO T. C. ACERO, R. G. VILDZIUS, ENRIQUE M.BELO, MANUEL G.
ABELLO, SERVILLANO DOLINA, JUANITO MERCADO and ESTANISLAO A. FERNANDEZ
G.R. No. L-51122 March 25, 1982 Melecio-Herrera
Legal Ethics: Unlawful Schemes, Immoral or Deceitful Conduct

DOCTRINE:
A ruling upholding the "intervention" would make the constitutional provision ineffective. All an
Assemblyman need do, if he wants to influence an administrative body is to acquire a minimal
participation in the "interest" of the client and then "intervene" in the proceedings. That which the
Constitution directly prohibits may not be done by indirection or by a general legislative act which is
intended to accomplish the objects specifically or impliedly prohibited.
FACTS:
An election for the eleven Directors of the International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) a private corporation,
was held. They were named and in the end the Puyat Group was assigned to control the Board and handle the
management of IPI but the Acero Group contends that the stockholder’s votes were not properly counted so
they instituted quo warranto proceedings Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Case No. 1747. During
the conferences, Justice Estanislao Fernandez, who was a member of the interim Batasang Pambansa, appeared as
counsel for the Acero Group which the Puyat Group objected to on Constitutional grounds (Article VIII,
Section 11 of the 1973 Constitution). He could not appear as counsel because he was an assemblyman. From
then on, he stopped being counsel. Fernandez though bought shares in IPI and wanted to intervene as a
stockholder with legal interest in the proceedings which was allowed by Commissioner De Guzman. Puyat Group
wants to prohibit through this case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Assemblyman Fernandez, as a then stockholder of IPI may intervene in the SEC Case without
violating Section 11. NO
DECISION:
WHEREFORE, 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.
HELD:
The purchase of shares was done after the fact (quo warranto proceedings) and was a way to circumvent the
prohibition in Section 11, not allowing an assemblyman to appear as counsel for these proceedings. While, he
does have legal interest now that he has some shares, he would still be intervening indirectly as counsel for the
Acero group. This is an unlawful scheme to tip the scales in Acero Group’s favor and is conduct unbecoming
for a Justice like Estanislao Fernandez