Villegas vs Legaspi ETHICS

Villegas vs. Legaspi (del Rosario) Facts: This case was a consolidation of 2 cases involving the 1973 Constitutional provision that “No member of the National Assembly shall appear before any court inferior to a court with appellate jurisdiction” (Art. VIII Sec. 11). st In the 1 case: Villegas filed a complaint for annulment of bank checks and damages against spouses Vera Cruz. Legaspi, an Assemblyman from Cebu, filed an answer as their counsel. The Judge (Judge Dulay) of the CFI of Cebu inhibited himself from the proceedings because Legaspi was also his wife’s lawyer in 2 cases. The case was reraffled and the new Judge (Judge Burgos) denied the disqualification of Legaspi. nd 2 case: Reyes filed a case against Maas for the annulment of the sale of Excelsior shares in a company. Reyes claimed that the same shares had already been sold to him. Assemblyman Fernandez entered his appearance as counsel for Excelsior. The appearance of Fernandez was questioned on the ground of the Constitutional provision – Section 11, Art. 8, 1973 Constitution. The novel issue for determination is whether or not members of the Batasang Pambansa, like Attorneys Valentino L. Legaspi and Estanislao A. Fernandez, can appear as counsel before Courts of First Instance. Issue: W/N members of the Batasang Pambansa can appear as counsel before CFIs. Held: NO. 1. The 1935 and 1973 Constitutions were compared by the Court because the cases were filed before the 1973 Consitution. The court nevertheless resolved the cases under the amended provision. In the 1935 Constitution, only members of the Commission on Appointments were barred from appearing as counsel before any court inferior to a collegiate court of appellate jurisdiction. While the 1973 provision barred all members of the Batasang Pambansa from appearing as counsel in any court without appellate jurisdiction. What is prohibited is the appearance as counsel before any court without appellate jurisdiction. Appearance as counsel is a voluntary submission to a court’s jurisdiction by an advising lawyer professionally engaged to represent and plead the cause of another. There is no question that in both cases both Assemblymen are appearing as counsel; they represent and plead the cause of another before a court of justice. 2. Furthermore, the court discussed if CFIs are courts with appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is the jurisdiction to review the judgment of an inferior court. The jurisdiction of CFIs is of 2 kinds: original and appellate. Pursuant to the Judiciary Act, CFIs can be courts with appellate jurisdiction. By the wording of the amendment to the 1973 Constitution, CFIs no longer fall within the ambit of the prohibition. However, in the cases at bar the CFIs took cognizance of the cases in their exclusive original jurisdiction and not appellate one. As a result, both Assemblymen are still barred from appearing as counsel before said courts. The courts looked at the purpose behind the prohibition, which was to remove any possibility of undue influence or use of office for personal gain and to ensure the trial’s impartiality. The possible influence of an Assemblyman on a CFI judge is diminished when the CFI acts in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction because the decision being appealed in this situation has the presumption of regularity and correctness in its favor. Thus, to give effect to the Constitutional prohibition, appearance by Assemblymen before CFIs should be limited to cases wherein the CFIs exercise their appellate jurisdiction, not original.