Case Digest: People vs. Villanueva

Case Digest: People vs. Villanueva
14 SCRA 109 (1965)


FACTS: 

On September 4, 1959, the 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. Said accused was represented by counsel de oficio, but later on replaced by counsel de parte. The complainant in the same case was represented by City AttorneyAriston 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.


ISSUE:

Whether or not the isolated appearance of Atty. Fule as private prosecutor constitutes practice of law.


RULING:

No. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice of the Peace Court as ah 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 Sail 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 Attorney of San Pablo. As such, there could be no possible conflict in the duties of Assistant City Attorney Fule us Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo and as private prosecutor in this criminal case. Furthermore, 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 action, 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 a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. Thus, the appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. And, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediate supervisor, the Secretary of Justice, to represent the complaint in the case at bar who is a relative. Decision affirmed.