EUGENIO J. PUYAT, ERWIN L. CHIONGBIAN, EDGARDO P. REYES, ANTONIO G. PUYAT, JAIME R. BLANCO, RAFAEL R. RECTO and REYNALDO L. LARDIZABAL, petitioners, vs.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, respondents.

G.R. No. L-51122 March 25, 1982

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

FACTS: On March 14, 1979, an election for the Directors of the International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) was held. The said Directors were classified as the Puyat Group and the Acero Group. The former group won the Directorship and the management of the said private entity. After eleven days, the Acero Group instituted a quo warranto proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding the election of the Directors. The Acero Group claimed that the stockholders’ votes were not properly counted. At the conferences of the parties with the SEC Commissioner De Guzman , the Puyat Group then claimed that Justice Estanislao Fernandez, then a member of the interim BatasangPambansa, orally entered his appearance as counsel for the respondent Acero Group which the former group objected on the ground that no Assemblyman could “appear as counsel before . . . any administrative body” as provided in Article VIII, Section 11 of the then governing 1973 Constitution. The SEC, in this case, is an administrative body. Due to that instance, Assemblyman Fernandez did not continue his appearance as counsel for the respondent Acero Group. On May 31, 1979, when the SEC case was called, it was turned out that: a) on May 15, 1979, upon request of the Acero Group, Assemblyman Fernandez purchased ten (10) shares of stock for IPI for him to be qualified to run as a Director; b) the Deed of Sale was notarized only on May 30, 1979 and thus, was sought to be registered on the said date; and c) Assemblyman filed an Urgent Motion for Intervention in the SEC case after the notarization of his stock’s purchase alleging that he has a legal right to do so as a stockholder of the said private entity. On a later date, the SEC granted such motion. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not Assemblyman Fernandez’s intervention in the SEC case appearing as counsel before an administrative body is in contravention of the Constitutional provision.

HELD: Yes, Assemblyman Fernandez’s intervention in the SEC case appearing as counsel before an administrative body is in contravention of the Constitutional provision.

The Court held that the intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in SEC. No. 1747 falls within the ambit of the prohibition contained in Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution. An act which the Constitution directly prohibits may not be done by indirection or by a general legislative act which is intended to accomplish the objects specifically or impliedly prohibited, and thus, upholding such intervention would make the Constitutional provision ineffective.

In the instant case, Assemblyman Fernandez purchased stocks only right after the contested election of directors; after the quo warranto had been filed before the SEC; and one day before the scheduled hearing of the case. What is more aggravating is the fact that he had signified his intention to appear as counsel for the respondent Acero. Upon realizing, perhaps, of the validity of the objection of the petitioner in the intervention, he then just ‘intervene’ in the case as a person having legal interest in the said litigation.

Also, the Court held that the ‘intervention’ was just an afterthought to enable him to appear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity other than being a counsel for the respondent.