Case Digest (G.R. No. 212058)
Facts:
In Puyat et al. v. de Guzman et al., petitioners Eugenio J. Puyat, Erwin L. Chiongbian, Edgardo P. Reyes, Antonio G. Puyat, Jaime R. Blanco, Rafael R. Recto and Reynaldo L. Lardizabal contested the Order of Associate Commissioner Sixto T. J. de Guzman, Jr. of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) dated July 17, 1979, which granted Assemblyman Estanislao A. Fernandez leave to intervene in SEC Quo Warranto Case No. 1747. On May 14, 1979, the stockholders of International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) held an election for eleven directors, producing two rival slates—the Puyat Group and the Acero Group. On May 25, 1979, the Acero Group filed quo warranto proceedings before the SEC, alleging improper vote counting. During subsequent conferences, Assemblyman Fernandez attempted to appear as counsel for the Acero Group but withdrew in light of Section 11, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution, which then prohibited Assemblymen from appearing before administrative bodies. TheCase Digest (G.R. No. 212058)
Facts:
- IPI Board Election and Quo Warranto Proceeding
- May 14, 1979 – Election of eleven directors of International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI), resulting in the “Puyat Group” (Eugenio J. Puyat et al.) and the “Acero Group” (Eustaquio T.C. Acero et al.) each claiming victory.
- May 25, 1979 – The Acero Group filed SEC Case No. 1747 (quo warranto) before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), alleging improper vote counting.
- Assemblyman Fernandez’s Attempted Appearance
- May 25–31, 1979 – At SEC conferences Commissioner de Guzman, Assemblyman Estanislao A. Fernandez orally entered his appearance as counsel for Acero; the Puyat Group objected under Section 11, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution (prohibiting an Assemblyman from appearing as counsel before any administrative body). Fernandez then withdrew his counsel appearance.
- May 31, 1979 – Fernandez purchased 10 shares of IPI (from Augusto A. Morales for ₱200.00) to qualify for director’s election; deed notarized May 30. On May 31, he filed an Urgent Motion for Intervention in SEC Case No. 1747 as a stockholder.
- SEC and Related Judicial Actions
- July 17, 1979 – SEC Associate Commissioner de Guzman granted Fernandez leave to intervene based on his ten-share ownership.
- July 3, 1979 – In CFI Rizal Branch XXI (CC No. 33739), Fernandez appeared as counsel for a defendant in an IPI-share dispute; in L-51928 this Court ruled an Assemblyman cannot appear as counsel in a Court of First Instance case.
- September 4, 1979 – The Court en banc issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining enforcement of the SEC Order allowing Fernandez’s intervention; Solicitor General supported the SEC Commissioner’s allowance. November 6, 1979 – The Court resolved to treat the Solicitor General’s Comment as respondent’s Answer.
Issues:
- Whether Assemblyman Fernandez’s intervention in SEC Case No. 1747 constitutes an indirect “appearance as counsel” before an administrative body in violation of Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution.
- Whether, apart from the constitutional prohibition, stockholders in general may intervene in SEC proceedings relating to intra-corporate controversies (not necessary to resolve).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)