People Vs Villanueva

People vs.
Villanueva (14 SCRA 111)
Facts:
 Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged Simplicio Villanueva with the Crime of
Malicious Mischief before the Justice of the Peace Court of said municipality.
 The complainant in the same case was represented by City Attorney Ariston Fule
of San Pablo City, having entered his appearance as private prosecutor, after securing
the permission of the Secretary of Justice.
 The condition of his appearance as such, was that every time he would appear at
the trial of the case, he would be considered on official leave of absence, and
that he would not receive any payment for his services. The appearance of City
Attorney Fule as private prosecutor was questioned by the counsel for the
accused, invoking the case of Aquino, et al. vs. Blanco, et al ., wherein it was ruled that
"when an attorney had been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or
City Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to engage in private
law practice." Counsel then argued that the JP Court in entertaining the appearance of
City Attorney Fule in the case is a violation of the above ruling.
 In January 1961, counsel for the accused presented a "Motion to Inhibit Fiscal Fule
from Acting as Private Prosecutor in this Case” this time invoking Section 32, Rule
27, now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys
from practicing.
 Counsel claims that City Attorney Fule falls under this limitation.
 The JP Court ruled on the motion by upholding the right of Fule to appear and further
stating that he (Fule) was not actually enagaged in private law practice.
 The said decision of JP was appealed to the CFI of Laguna:
Sec. 31, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court provides that in the court of a justice of the peace a party
may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that
purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice of
the Peace Court as an agent or friend of the offended party. It does not appear that he
was being paid for his services or that his appearance was in a professional capacity.
As Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo he had no control or intervention whatsoever in the
prosecution of crimes committed in the municipality of Alaminos, Laguna, because the
prosecution of criminal cases coming from Alaminos are handled by the Office of the Provincial
Fiscal and not by the City Attornev of San Pablo. There could be no possible conflict in the
duties of Assistant City Attorney Fule as Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo and as private
prosecutor in this criminal case. On the other hand, as already pointed out, the offended party
in this criminal case had a right to be represented by an agent or a friend to protect
her rights in the civil action which was impliedly instituted together with the criminal
action.
 Fule may appear before the Justice of the Peace Court of Alaminos, Laguna as private
prosecutor in this criminal case as an agent or a friend of the offended party.
Issue: WON Atty. Fule violated Section 35, Rule 138, RRC, which bars certain attorneys from
practicing
Ruling: The isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice within
the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than an isolated appearance,
for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same
kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise.
Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or
habitually holding one's self out to the public, as customarily and demanding
payment for such services.
The appearance as counsel on one occasion is not conclusive as determinative of

engagement in the private practice of law.
The OSG noted that essentially, the word private practice of law implies that one must have
presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and
that his professional services are available to the public for a compensation, as a
source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services.
For one thing, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by
his immediate superior, the Secretary of Justice, to represent the complainant in the case at
bar, who is a relative.

People Vs Villanueva

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Villanueva

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Villanueva

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs.

Villanueva (14 SCRA 111)

The appearance as counsel on one occasion is not conclusive as determinative of

You might also like