Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Villanueva G.R. No. L-19450 Digest

    Uploaded by

    carol anne
    1K views1 page
    City Attorney Ariston Fule represented Simplicio Villanueva in a malicious mischief case before a justice of the peace court with permission from the Secretary of Justice. The defense argued this violated rules barring certain attorneys from private practice. However, the court found Fule's isolated appearance did not constitute private practice as defined by precedent. Private practice requires frequent or habitual legal services for payment. As Fule received no payment and had permission, he did not violate the rules.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Villanueva G.R. No. L-19450 digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    City Attorney Ariston Fule represented Simplicio Villanueva in a malicious mischief case before a justice of the peace court with permission from the Secretary of Justice. The defense argued this violated rules barring certain attorneys from private practice. However, the court found Fule's isolated appearance did not constitute private practice as defined by precedent. Private practice requires frequent or habitual legal services for payment. As Fule received no payment and had permission, he did not violate the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Villanueva G.R. No. L-19450 Digest

    Uploaded by

    carol anne
    City Attorney Ariston Fule represented Simplicio Villanueva in a malicious mischief case before a justice of the peace court with permission from the Secretary of Justice. The defense argued this violated rules barring certain attorneys from private practice. However, the court found Fule's isolated appearance did not constitute private practice as defined by precedent. Private practice requires frequent or habitual legal services for payment. As Fule received no payment and had permission, he did not violate the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-19450 May 27, 1965


    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
    vs.
    SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant.
    Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
    Magno T. Buese for defendant-appellant.

    FACTS:

    Simplicio Villanueva was charged with Malicious Mischief before the justice of the Peace Court of Alaminos,
    Laguna. He was represented by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City as private prosecutor after securing
    the permission of the Secretary of Justice. The condition was that he would be considered on official LOA and
    would not receive any payment for his services every time he appears at the trial of the case.

    This was questioned by the counsel for the accused, arguing that the JP court, in entertaining the appearance of
    City Attorney Fule in the case, is a violation of the ruling in Aquino et al. vs. Blanco, et al. which 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." The counsel also invoked Section 32, Rule 27,
    now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Atty. Fule violated sec. 32 of Rule 127, now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rulesof Court, which bars
    certain attorneys from practicing.

    LEGAL PRINCIPLE:

    Section 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. — No judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of
    the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional
    advice to clients.

    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.

    APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE:

    In this case, 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 (State vs.
    Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan. 864, 42 LRA, M.S. 768). 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 (State vs. Bryan, 4 S.E. 522, 98 N.C. 644, 647). The appearance as counsel on one
    occasion is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law.

    CONCLUSION:

    City Attorney Fule did not violate Sec. 32 of Rule 127, now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, which bars
    certain attorneys from practicing. The term private practice of law does not apply to this case. Moreover, he was
    given permission by his immediate superior. It was clear that he did not receive any payment and was considered
    on official LOA as a consequence of appearing at the trial of the accused.

    You might also like