THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant.

G.. N!. L-"#$%&

Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Magno T. Buese for defendant-appellant.
Paredes, J.:
On September 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged Simplicio illanue!a "ith the Crime of #alicious
#ischief before the $ustice of the Peace Court of said municipalit%& Said accused "as represented b% counsel de officio but later
on replaced b% counsel de parte& 'he complainant in the same case "as represented b% Cit% Attorne% Ariston (ule of San Pablo
Cit%, ha!ing entered his appearance as pri!ate prosecutor, after securing the permission of the Secretar% of $ustice& 'he
condition of his appearance as such, "as that e!er% time he "ould appear at the trial of the case, he "ould be considered on
official lea!e of absence, and that he "ould not recei!e an% pa%ment for his ser!ices& 'he appearance of Cit% Attorne% (ule as
pri!ate prosecutor "as )uestioned b% the counsel for the accused, in!o*ing the case of Aquino, et al. vs. Blanco, et al., L+15,-,
.o!& -/, 1940, "herein it "as ruled that 1"hen an attorne% had been appointed to the position of Assistant Pro!incial (iscal or
Cit% (iscal and therein )ualified, b% operation of la", he ceased to engage in pri!ate la" practice&1 Counsel then argued that the
$P Court in entertaining the appearance of Cit% Attorne% (ule in the case is a !iolation of the abo!e ruling& On 2ecember 10,
1934 the $P issued an order sustaining the legalit% of the appearance of Cit% Attorne% (ule&
5nder date of $anuar% 4, 1931, counsel for the accused presented a 1#otion to 6nhibit (iscal (ule from Acting as Pri!ate
Prosecutor in this Case,1 this time in!o*ing Section ,-, 7ule -0, no" Sec& ,5, 7ule 1,/, 7e!ised 7ules of Court, "hich bars
certain attorne%s from practicing& Counsel claims that Cit% Attorne% (ule falls under this limitation& 'he $P Court ruled on the
motion b% upholding the right of (ule to appear and further stating that he 8(ule9 "as not actuall% engaged in pri!ate la"
practice& 'his Order "as appealed to the C(6 of Laguna, presided b% the :on& :ilarion 5& $arencio, "hich rendered ;udgment
on 2ecember -4, 1931, the pertinent portions of "hich read:
'he present case is one for malicious mischief& 'here being no reser!ation b% the offended part% of the ci!il liabilit%, the ci!il
action "as deemed impliedl% instituted "ith the criminal action& 'he offended part% had, therefore, the right to inter!ene in the
case and be represented b% a legal counsel because of her interest in the ci!il liabilit% of the accused&
Sec& ,1, 7ule 1-0 of the 7ules of Court pro!ides that in the court of a ;ustice of the peace a part% ma% conduct his litigation in
person, "ith the aid of an agent or friend appointed b% him for that purpose, or "ith the aid of an attorne%& Assistant Cit%
Attorne% (ule appeared in the $ustice of the Peace Court as an agent or friend of the offended part%& 6t does not appear that he
"as being paid for his ser!ices or that his appearance "as in a professional capacit%& As Assistant Cit% Attorne% of San Pablo he
had no control or inter!ention "hatsoe!er in the prosecution of crimes committed in the municipalit% of Alaminos, Laguna,
because the prosecution of criminal cases coming from Alaminos are handled b% the Office of the Pro!incial (iscal and not b%
the Cit% Attorne! of San Pablo& 'here could be no possible conflict in the duties of Assistant Cit% Attorne% (ule as Assistant Cit%
Attorne% of San Pablo and as pri!ate prosecutor in this criminal case& On the other hand, as alread% pointed out, the offended
part% in this criminal case had a right to be represented b% an agent or a friend to protect her rights in the ci!il action "hich "as
impliedl% instituted together "ith the criminal action&
6n !ie" of the foregoing, this Court holds that Asst& Cit% Attorne% Ariston 2& (ule ma% appear before the $ustice of the Peace
Court of Alaminos, Laguna as pri!ate prosecutor in this criminal case as an agent or a friend of the offended part%&
<:=7=(O7=, the appeal from the order of the $ustice of the Peace Court of Alaminos, Laguna, allo"ing the apprearance of
Ariston 2& (ule as pri!ate prosecutor is dismissed, "ithout costs&
'he abo!e decision is the sub;ect of the instant proceeding&
'he appeal should be dismissed, for patentl% being "ithout merits&
Aside from the considerations ad!anced b% the learned trial ;udge, heretofore reproduced, and "hich "e consider plausible, the
fallac% of the theor% of defense counsel lies in his confused interpretation of Section ,- of 7ule 1-0 8no" Sec& ,5, 7ule 1,/,
7e!ised 7ules9, "hich pro!ides that 1no ;udge or other official or emplo%ee of the superior courts or of the office of the Solicitor
>eneral, shall engage in pri!ate practice as a member of the bar or gi!e professional ad!ice to clients&1 :e claims that Cit%
Attorne% (ule, in appearing as pri!ate prosecutor in the case "as engaging in pri!ate practice& <e belie!e that the isolated
appearance of Cit% Attorne% (ule did not constitute pri!ate practice "ithin the meaning and contemplation of the 7ules&
Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in fre)uent or customar% actions, a succession of acts of the same
*ind& 6n other "ords, it is fre)uent habitual e?ercise 8State !s& Cotner, 1-0, p& 1, /0 @an& /34, 4- L7A, #&S& 03/9& Practice of la"
to fall "ithin the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customaril% or habituall% holding oneAs self out to the public, as
customaril% and demanding pa%ment for such ser!ices 8State !s& Br%an, 4 S&=& 5--, 9/ .&C& 344, 3409& 'he appearance as
counsel on one occasion is not conclusi!e as determinati!e of engagement in the pri!ate practice of la"& 'he follo"ing
obser!ation of the Solicitor >eneral is note"orth%:
=ssentiall%, the "ord pri!ate practice of la" implies that one must ha!e presented himself to be in the acti!e and continued
practice of the legal profession and that his professional ser!ices are a!ailable to the public for a compensation, as a source of
his li!elihood or in consideration of his said ser!ices&
(or one thing, it has ne!er been refuted that Cit% Attorne% (ule had been gi!en permission b% his immediate superior, the
Secretar% of $ustice, to represent the complainant in the case at bar, "ho is a relati!e&
CO.(O7#ABLC <6': ALL ':= (O7=>O6.>, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereb% affirmed, in all respects,
"ith costs against appellant h)D!&
*** The Supree !ourt held that the isolate appearance of !it" Attorne" #ule did not constitute private practice
$ithin the eaning and conteplation of the %ules. &ractice is ore than an isolated appearance, for it consists of frequents
or custoar" actions, a succession of facts of the sae 'ind or frequent ha(itual e)ercise. &ractice of la$ to fall $ithin the
prohi(ition of statute has (een interpreted as custoaril" or ha(ituall" holding one*s self out to the pu(lic, as custoaril"
and deanding pa"ent for such services. The ere appearance as counsel on one occasion is not conclusive as
deterinative of engageent in the private practice of la$. +t is also
$orth noted that, it has never (een refuted that !it" Attorne" #ule had (een given perission (" his iediate superior to
represent the coplainant in the case at (ar, $ho is a relative.