Puyat V De Guzman

G.R No. L-51122; March 25, 1982

Facts:

International Pipe Industries Corporation held an election which resulted

to the Puyat group with 6 directors winning. The Acero group with only 5
members who won questioned the result of the said election and instituted
a quo warranto proceeding before the SEC. Puyat group claims that
Estanislao Fernandez, which is an assemblyman at the time orally entered
his appearance as a counsel for the Acero group. Later on, Fernandez
purchased shares of stock from IPI thus, he was allowed to intervene in the
SEC case as he was now a party in interest on the case by virtue of him
being a shareholder.

Issue:

Whether or not the intervention of Fernandez in the SEC case is in effect

appearing as a counsel.

Ruling:

Yes, Supreme Court ruled, that Fernandez’s intervention can be counted as

in effect appearing as a counsel, albeit in an indirect way. His appearance
therefore before an administrative body is in violation of the Constitution.
Court reasoned that before he moved to intervene in the case, he already
signified his intention to appear as a counsel for Acero. These facts
according to the court constitutes an indirect appearance as counsel before
an administrative body. Sec. 11, Art. VIII of the 1973 Constitution provides
that; “No member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before
any administrative body”. Supreme Court further provides that 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. Therefore, the intervention by Fernandez falls
within the ambit of the prohibition contained in Sec. 11, Art. VIII of the
Constitution.