In connection with: Section 14, Article VI, 1987 Constitution

No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally

appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral
Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall
he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in
any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any governmentowned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office.
He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for
his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of
his office.
Petitioner:

EUGENIO J. PUYAT, ERWIN L. CHIONGBIAN, EDGARDO P. REYES, ANTONIO G.

PUYAT, JAIME R. BLANCO, RAFAEL R. RECTO and REYNALDO L. LARDIZABAL,

Respondents:

HON. SIXTO T. J. DE GUZMAN, JR., as Associate Commissioner of the Securities &

Exchange Commission, EUSTAQUIO T. C. ACERO, R. G. VILDZIUS, ENRIQUE M.
BELO, MANUEL G. ABELLO, SERVILLANO DOLINA, JUANITO MERCADO and
ESTANISLAO A. FERNANDEZ

Facts:

In May 14, 1979, Eugenio Puyat and his group were elected as directors of the
International Pipe Industries. The election was subsequently questioned by Eustaquio
Acero (Puyats rival) claiming that the votes were not properly counted hence he filed
a quo warranto case before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on May 25,
1979. Prior to Aceros filing of the case, Estanislao Fernandez, then a member of the
Interim Batasang Pambansa purchased ten shares of stock of IPI from a member of
Aceros group and during a conference held by SEC Commissioner Sixto de Guzman,
Jr. (from May 25-31, 1979) to have the parties confer with each other, Fernandez
entered his appearance as counsel for Acero.
Puyat objected as he argued that it is unconstitutional for an assemblyman to appear as
counsel (to anyone) before any administrative body (such as the SEC). This being
cleared, Fernandez inhibited himself from appearing as counsel for Acero. He instead
filed an Urgent Motion for Intervention in the said SEC case for him to intervene, not as a
counsel, but as a legal owner of IPI shares and as a person who has a legal interest in
the matter in litigation. The SEC Commissioner granted the motion and in effect granting
Fernandez leave to intervene.

Issue:

WON Assemblyman Fernandez, as a then stockholder of IPI may intervene in the SEC
Case without violating Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution
o Meaning: whether or not Assemblyman Fernandez, can appear and intervene in the
SEC case without violating the constitutional provision that an assemblyman must
not appear as counsel, before an administrative body

Ruling:

No, Fernandez cannot appear before the SEC body under the guise that he is not
appearing as a counsel. Even though he is a stockholder and that he has a legal interest
in the matter in litigation he is still barred from appearing. He bought the a mere P200.00
worth of stock in IPI, representing ten shares out of 262,843 outstanding shares before
the litigation took place.
During the conference he presented himself as counsel for respondent but because it is
clearly stated that he cannot do so, under the constitution, he instead presented himself
as a party of interest which is clearly a workaround and is clearly an act after the fact.
A mere workaround to get himself involved in the litigation. What could not be done
directly could not likewise be done indirectly.

There has been an indirect "appearance as counsel before ... an administrative body"
and that is a circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition. Hence, Respondent
Commissioner's Order is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The TRO heretofore
issued is hereby made PERMANENT.