Case Digest (G.R. No. 51122)
Facts:
Puyat et al. v. De Guzman et al., G.R. No. L-51122, March 25, 1982, the Supreme Court En Banc, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (the Puyat Group) were declared the elected directors of International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) after a May 14, 1979 directors’ election; respondents included Eustaquio T. C. Acero and several others (the Acero Group) and Estanislao A. Fernandez, who was then an Assemblyman of the Interim Batasang Pambansa. Hon. Sixto T. J. De Guzman, Jr. is the Associate Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) whose order is challenged.
On May 25, 1979, the Acero Group filed quo warranto proceedings with the SEC (docketed SEC Case No. 1747) contesting the May 14 election on grounds of improper vote-counting. During May 25–31, 1979, Fernandez allegedly entered his appearance orally as counsel for Acero at conferences before Associate Commissioner De Guzman, which the Puyat Group objected to under Section 11, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution (then in force), prohibiting Assemblymen from appearing as counsel before administrative bodies. Fernandez did not pursue that role after the objection.
Facts later showed that Fernandez had purchased ten shares of IPI stock (for P200.00) on May 15, 1979, but the deed was notarized only on May 30, 1979; he filed an Urgent Motion for Intervention in the SEC Case on May 31, 1979, asserting his share ownership gave him a legal interest to intervene. On July 17, 1979, the SEC granted Fernandez leave to intervene. Petitioners sought certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to annul that Order.
Separately, on July 3, 1979, Edgardo P. Reyes filed a civil case in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (CC No. 33739) seeking to annul a sale of shares; Fernandez appeared there as counsel for one defendant. On September 4, 1979, the Supreme Court en banc issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Associate Commissioner De Guzman from permitting Fernandez to participate in SEC Case No. 1747. The Solicitor General filed a Comment supporting the Commissioner, which the Court treated as an Answer ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Assemblyman Estanislao A. Fernandez’s intervention in SEC Case No. 1747 violate the prohibition in Section 11, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution against a Member of the Batasang Pambansa appearing as counsel before an administrative body or accepting employment to intervene where he may be called to act on account of his office?
- Should the SEC Associate Commissioner’s Order granting Fernandez leave to intervene be set aside and the tem...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)