Puyat vs.

De
Guzman
GR No. L-51122
March 25, 1982

Facts:
Petitioners Eugenio Puyat et. al., file a suit for Certiorari and Prohibition
with Preliminary Injunction against the Order of respondent Honorable
Sixto De Guzman, Associate Commissioner of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) granting Assemblyman Estanislao
Fernandez leave to intervene in the SEC quo warranto proceedings.
Furthermore, on May 14, 1979, an election for 11 Directors of the
International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) was held, consisting of
Puyat Group and Acero Group. However, the Acero Group instituted at
the SEC a quo warranto proceedings questioning the election. Prior to the
filing of Acero Group, Assemblyman purchased 10 shares of stock of IPI.
During conferences of the parties, Assemblyman Fernandez orally
entered his appearance as counsel for respondent Acero, but of which,
Puyat group claimed to be in violation of Section 11, Article VIII of the
1973 Constitution, that is why, Fernandez inhibited himself as council for
Acero and instead file a leave fo intervene in said SEC case.

Issue:
Whether or not Assemblyman Fernandez, as a then stockholder of IPI,
intervening in the SEC Case violates Section 11, Article VIII of the
Constitution.

Ruling:
Yes, Fernandez leave to intervene in the SEC case, although a stockholder
of IPI, violates Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution because before
he moved to intervene, he had signified his intention to appear as counsel
for respondent Acero. Sec 11, Article VIII of the Constitution provides
that "No member of the Batasang Pambansa, shall appear as counsel
before any court without appellate jurisdiction,... or before any
administrative body." Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that there
has been indirect appearance as counsel before an administrative body,
that the intervention was as afterthought to enable Fernandez to appear
actively in the proceedings in some other capacity. Hence, respondent De
Guzman's order is reversed and set aside and the TRO is made
permanent.