Case Digest (G.R. No. 53869)
Facts:
Raul A. Villegas v. Valentino L. Legaspi, et al., G.R. No. L-53869, and Eugenio J. Puyat, et al. v. Hon. Sixto T. J. De Guzman, et al., G.R. No. L-51928, March 25, 1982, Supreme Court En Banc, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.In G.R. No. L-53869, Raul A. Villegas filed a complaint for annulment of bank checks and damages against Brigida Vera Cruz (joined by her husband Jose Vera Cruz) and Primitivo Cania, Jr. before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu, Branch XVI (Civil Case No. 431-L). The private respondents filed an Answer dated October 11, 1979 through their counsel, Assemblyman Valentino L. Legaspi, a member of the Batasang Pambansa. Villegas challenged Legaspi’s appearance on the ground that Section 11, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution barred a member of the National Assembly from appearing as counsel before courts inferior to a court with appellate jurisdiction. The presiding judge, Hon. Ceferino E. Dulay, inhibited himself because Legaspi had been counsel for Judge Dulay’s wife in other cases; the case was re-raffled and re-docketed as Civil Case No. R-18857 and assigned to Branch II, presided by Judge Francisco P. Burgos.
Judge Burgos denied the motion to disqualify Legaspi by Order dated February 27, 1980 and likewise denied reconsideration; petitioners then resorted to certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, and this Court issued an ex parte temporary restraining order on May 22, 1980 enjoining the respondent Court from further action in Civil Case No. R-18857.
In G.R. No. L-51928, Edgardo P. Reyes filed Civil Case No. 33739 on July 3, 1979 before the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig), Branch XXI, to annul a purported sale of shares in International Pipe Industries Corporation. Assemblyman Estanislao A. Fernandez entered his appearance for defendant Excelsior; this appearance was likewise questioned under Section 11, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution. L-51928 was initially presented as a supplemental petition to L-51122 but the Court ordered it docketed separately and later resolved it jointly with L-53869.
Both cases present the common question whether members of the Batasang Pambansa may appear as counsel before Courts of First Instance. Although the actions were filed before an amendment to Section 11 was ratified on April 7, 1981, the Court applied the amended provision to the pending litig...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are members of the Batasang Pambansa prohibited from appearing as counsel before Courts of First Instance under Section 11, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution (as amended)?
- If so, does that prohibition extend to appearances before Courts of First Instance when those courts are exercising original jurisdiction (i.e., may Assemblymen appear as counsel only when the CFI is...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)