Legal Ethics

People of the Philippines vs Simplicio Villanueva

Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.

image_printPrint this!

G.R. No. L-19450 – 121 Phil. 894 – 14 SCRA 109 – Legal Ethics – Practice of Law; Private Practice of Law – Isolated Appearance of a Public Prosecutor

In 1959, Simplicio Villanueva was charged with Malicious Mischief in Alaminos, Laguna. In that case, the private offended party asked his lawyer friend, Ariston Fule, to prosecute the case. Apparently, Fule was the fiscal in San Pablo, Laguna. Villanueva opposed the appearance of Fule as counsel for the offended party as he said that according to the Rules of Court 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ariston Fule is engaged in private law practice.

HELD: No. 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. In the case at bar, Fule is not being compensated but rather he’s doing it for free for his friend who happened to be the offended party. 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. Further, the fact that the Secretary of Justice APPROVED Fule’s appearance for his friend should be given credence.

Read full text.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply