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

PUYAT, JAIME R. BLANCO, RAFAEL R. RECTO and REYNALDO L.

LARDIZABAL, petitioners, 
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, respondents.

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

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

Topic: Article VI Sec 14 (Prohibitions–Lawyer Legislators & Conflict of Interests)

“No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear

as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial
and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested
financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any
government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office.
He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his
pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.”

Facts:

On May 14, 1979, International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI), a private

corporation, held an election of its Board of Directors. The Puyat Group consisted of the
petitioners (excluding Lardizabal) while the Acero Group is composed of the
respondents (except Hon. De Guzman, Abello and Fernandez).

The Acero Group filed a petition before the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) questioning the validity of the said election claiming that
stockholders' votes were not properly counted.

Justice Estanislao A. Fernandez, a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa,

has appeared as counsel for respondent Acero at conferences with SEC. It was
discovered that Fernandez has purchased from Augusto A. Morales ten (10) shares of
stock of IPI for P200.00 on May 15, 1979, upon Acero’s request to qualify him to run for
election as a Director.

The deed of sale was notarized only on 30 May 1979. He then filed on 31 May an
Urgent Motion for Intervention claiming legal interest in the matter in litigation, which
motion was granted by the SEC Commissioner.

.
Issue: Whether or not Assemblyman Fernandez in intervening in the SEC Case,
appears as counsel before an administrative body violating Section 11, Article VIII, 1973
Constitution?

Ruling:

YES. The Court held that there has been an indirect "appearance as counsel before an
administrative body" in this case in violation of Section 11, Article VIII, 1973
Constitution.

Section 11 states that:

No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any

court without appellate jurisdiction, before any court in any civil case wherein
the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof is the
adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein any officer or employee of the
Government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office, or
before any administrative body.

Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be interested financially in any contract

with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any government-
owned or controlled corporation, during his term of office. He shall not accept
employment to intervene in any cause or matter where he may be called to act
on account of his office. (Emphasis supplied)

Although it may seem theoretically that Fernandez was only protecting his
ownership and not the respondents, who have legal counsels, the fact that he acquired
only 10 out of the 262,843 outstanding shares 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 on May 31,
1979 is contrary to the same.

The Court believes that the purchase was to enable him to appear actively in the
proceedings in some other capacity.

He has also signified his intention to appear as counsel for respondent

Eustaquio T. C. Acero but which was objected to by petitioners thus he claimed legal
interest being a stockholder and he appeared as a counsel for defendant Excelsior, co-
defendant of respondent Acero in a separate case

Thus, 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.