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.