People vs. Villanueva

Case Digest: People vs. Villanueva

14 SCRA 109 (1965)

FACTS:

Villanueva was charged with the crime of Malicious Mischief, before the Justice of the Peace Court at the Alaminos, Laguna. 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 Atty. Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, appearing as private-prosecutor, with a permission from the Secretary of Justice. As a condition, during trial he would be considered on official leave of absence, and will 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. The appearance of Asst. Pros. Fule in the Court as an agent or friend of the offended party. His appearance was not being paid. As Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo he had no jurisdiction in the prosecution of crimes committed in the municipality of Alaminos, Laguna, rather it is handled by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, and no possible conflict in his duties, and also, his appearance does not constitute private practice, within the contemplation of the Rules. 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, his appearance is not conclusive as an engagement in the private practice of law. Considering also that he had been given permission by the Secretary of Justice.

Decision affirmed.