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
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 (Puyat’s 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 Acero’s filing, Estanislao Fernandez,
a then member of the Interim Batasang
Pambansa purchased 10 shares of stock of
IPI from a member of Acero’s 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
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 Commissioner’s
action
ACCUSATION:
 Assemblyman Fernandez’s 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
an 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.