2.

People vs Villanueva
G.R. No. L-19450   May 27, 1965
(A City Attorney, while on leave, appeared as unpaid private prosecutor
for his relative – is it equal to private practice)

FACTS:

City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City appeared as private prosecutor in behalf of his relative, after he was
able to secure permission from the Secretary of Justice. The conditions of his appearance were that every time he
appears at trial, he was considered on official leave of absence, and that he would not receive payments for his
services.

The defense questioned his appearance invoking Section 32, Rule 27, now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules of
Court, which bars certain attorneys from practicing. The defense claims that City Attorney Fule falls under this
limitation. The rule provides that:

"no judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the office of the
Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give
professional advice to clients."

ISSUE: Whether or not City Attorney Ariston Fule engaged in private practice.

RULING:

NO, City Attorney Ariston Fule did not engaged in private practice.

The Supreme Court held:

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.

In this case, City Attorney Fule’s appearance were isolated, it was approved by the Secretary of Justice, and
he did not receive compensation thereof.

Therefore, City Attorney Ariston Fule did not engaged in private practice.