People vs.

Villanueva
14 SCRA 109

FACTS:
A charge for Malicious Mischief was filed against Simplicio Villanueva by the Chief of
Police of Alaminos, Laguna on September 4, 1959, before the Justice of the Peace
Court of said municipality. The complainant in this case was represented by Attorney
Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, who has entered his appearance as a private
prosecutor, after having been allowed by the Secretary of Justice. Fule states that his
appearance at the trial would be considered as an official leave of absence therefore,
he would not receive payment for his services.

The counsel for the accused questioned City Attorney Fule’s appearance as private
prosecutor invoking the case of Aquino, et al. vs. Blanco, et al., L-1532, November 28,
1947, wherein the Court ruled that “when an attorney had been appointed to the
position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of
law, he ceased to engage in private law practice." He further argued that the Justice of
Peace violated such ruling in allowing Fule’s appearance in the case. However, the JP
issued and order sustaining the legality of the latter’s appearance as a private
prosecutor.

Thereafter, counsel for the accused invoked Section 32, Rule 27 (now Section 35, Rule
138), of the Revised Rules of Court which bars certain attorneys from practice, in his
motion to inhibit Fiscal Fule from acting as “private prosecutor” in the case. The JP ruled
on the negative and maintained that Fule was not “actually” engaged in private law
practice. This was appealed to the CFI of Laguna, and the same was not granted.

ISSUE:
(a) Whether or not Asst. City Prosecutor Fule’s appearance in the case constitutes a
violation of Section 32, Rule 27, of the Revised Rules of Court.

RULING:
The Court held that Fule’s appearance did not constitute private practice within the
meaning and contemplation of the rules as alleged by counsel for the accused. In State
vs. Cotner, it was said that practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists
in frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. Meanwhile, in
the case of State vs. Bryan, for practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has
been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one's self out to the public, as
customarily and demanding payment for such services.
In an observation made by the Solicitor General it is worth noting that, “…the word
private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active
and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are
available to the public for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in
consideration of his said services.” Thus, Fule’s appearance on one occasion is not
determinative of engagement in the private practice of law.

Sec. 31, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court provides that in the court of a justice of the
peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend
appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In light of the
circumstances, the Supreme Court agrees with the decision of the CFI of Laguna in
holding that Fule appeared in the Justice of the Peace Court as an agent or friend of the
offended party and that he was not being paid for his services as it was not in his
professional capacity. Moreover, as Asst. City Prosecutor of San Pablo he would have
had no control over the prosecution of crimes in Alaminos as the Office of the Provincial
Fiscal would handle such cases.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CFI of Laguna.