1. People vs.

Villanueva

Facts:
 Herein respondent, Simpliciano Villanueva was charged with the crime of Malicious
Mischief.
 Said accused was represented by counsel de oficio (the counsel appointed by the court
to represent and defend the accused in case he cannot afford to employ one himself),
but later replaced by counsel de parte (a private counsel, secured by him, without
intervention of the government (at his own will and choice)).
 The complainant in the same case was represented by City Attorney Ariston Fule, whose
appearance was questioned by the counsel of the accused, stating that it violated Sec.
32 of Rule 127 now Sec. 35, Rule 138, revised Rules of Court.

Issue:
 Whether or not the isolated appearance of Atty. Fule as private prosecutor constitutes
practice of law which in turn makes Fule violating Sec. 32 of Rule 127 now Sec. 35, Rule
138, revised Rules of Court. (NO)

Ruling:

Practice of law, to fall within the prohibition of statute, has been interpreted as habitually
holding oneself out to the public, as a lawyer, and demanding payment for such services. The
appearance as counsel on one occasion is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the
private practice of law.

Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice of the Peace Court as an agent or friend of
the offended party. It does not appear that he was being paid for his services or that his
appearance was in a professional capacity.

Furthermore, the isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice,
within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than an isolated
appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same
kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the
prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding oneself out to
the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. Thus, the appearance as
counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private
practice of law. And, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given
permission by his immediate supervisor, the Secretary of Justice, to represent the complaint in
the case at bar who is a relative. Decision affirmed.