Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19450)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Simplicio Villanueva, G.R. No. L-19450. May 27, 1965, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paredes, J., writing for the Court.On September 4, 1959 the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna charged Simplicio Villanueva with malicious mischief before the Justice of the Peace (JP) Court of Alaminos. Villanueva was initially represented by counsel de oficio and later by counsel de parte. The offended party (the complainant) was represented at the JP by City Attorney Ariston D. Fule of San Pablo City, who entered as a private prosecutor after securing permission from the Secretary of Justice; his leave was conditioned on being on official leave when appearing and on receiving no compensation.
Defense counsel objected to Fule’s appearance, invoking Aquino et al. v. Blanco, 79 Phil. 647 and Section 32, Rule 127 (now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules) as barring certain public attorneys from private practice. The JP Court, by order of December 17, 1960, sustained the legality of Fule’s appearance. On January 4, 1961 the accused moved to inhibit Fule under the cited Rule; the JP again ruled Fule could appear and was not engaged in private practice.
The accused appealed the JP’s order to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Laguna, presided by Judge Hilarion U. Jarencio. On December 20, 1961 the CFI dismissed the appeal and held that (a) the offended party’s civil action was impliedly instituted with the criminal action, (b) Sec. 31, Rule 127 permits a party in a JP court to be represented by an agent or friend, and (c) Fule appeared as such an agent or friend, not in a professional compensated capacity, and his duties as Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo did not conflict with prosecutorial duties in Alaminos (which fall to the Provincial Fiscal). The CFI therefore affirmed the JP.
The CFI decision was brought to the Supreme Court by appeal; the Supreme Court considered whether Fule’s isolated appearance as private prosecutor...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did City Attorney Ariston D. Fule’s appearance as private prosecutor in the JP Court of Alaminos constitute prohibited private practice under Section 32, Rule 127 (now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules)?
- Could Fule properly appear in the JP Court as an agent or friend of the offended party under Section 31, Rule 127, given the circumstances (no compensation, Secretary of Justice’s permission, and s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)