GR L 19450; (May, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On September 4, 1959, Simplicio Villanueva was charged with Malicious Mischief before the Justice of the Peace (JP) Court of Alaminos, Laguna. The complainant was represented by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City as private prosecutor, after he secured permission from the Secretary of Justice. The conditions were that he would be on official leave when appearing and would receive no payment. The defense counsel objected to Fule’s appearance, citing the Aquino vs. Blanco case which ruled that appointed Assistant Provincial or City Fiscals cease to engage in private law practice. The JP Court sustained Fule’s appearance. The defense then filed a “Motion to Inhibit Fiscal Fule,” invoking Section 32, Rule 27 (now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court), which bars certain attorneys from practicing. The JP Court again upheld Fule’s right to appear, stating he was not engaged in private law practice. This order was appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Laguna, which dismissed the appeal, holding that Fule could appear as an agent or friend of the offended party to protect her interests in the civil action impliedly instituted with the criminal case, as he was not being paid and had no conflict with his duties as Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo, a different jurisdiction. The CFI decision is the subject of this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether City Attorney Ariston Fule, by appearing as a private prosecutor in a criminal case before the Justice of the Peace Court, engaged in the private practice of law in violation of statutory prohibitions.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that the isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute “private practice” within the meaning of Section 32, Rule 127 (now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court). Practice of law implies frequent, customary, or habitual holding out of one’s services to the public for compensation as a source of livelihood. An isolated appearance, especially when done with permission from the Secretary of Justice, without payment, and as a favor to a relative (the complainant), does not fall under this prohibition. The Court found no conflict with his official duties, as the case was in a different municipality outside his jurisdiction as City Attorney of San Pablo.