ARTICLE VI - LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

SECTION 14
(49) RAUL VILLEGAS VS VALENTINO LEGASPI
113 SCRA 39 – Political Law – The Legislative Department – Appearance in
Court by a Congressman
FACTS: This case is a consolidation of two cases involving the issue of whether
or not a member of Congress may appear before the regular courts as counsel
for ordinary litigants.
Case 1
In September 1979, Raul Villegas filed a civil case against spouses Vera
Cruz et al before the Court of First Instance (CFI) Cebu. The Vera Cruz spouses
filed their answer to the complaint and they were represented by Valentino
Legaspi, then a member of the Batasang Pambansa. Villegas then challenged the
representation made by Legaspi as counsel for the spouses on the ground that
it is unconstitutional; as pointed out by Villegas “no member of the Batasang
Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any court without appellate
jurisdiction”. The presiding judge however overruled Villegas’ challenged and
proceeded with the trial. The judge said that CFIs have appellate jurisdiction.
Case 2
In July 1979, Edgardo Reyes filed a civil case against N. V. Verenigde
Buinzenfabrieken Excelsior-De Maas, a corporation, before CFI Rizal. Estanisalo
Fernandez appeared as counsel for the corporation. Reyes questions the
appearance of Fernandez as counsel for the corporation on the same ground
invoked in Case 1 because Fernandez is also a member of the Batasang
Pambansa.
ISSUE: Whether or not the said members, Estanislao Fernandez and Valentino
Legaspi, of the Batasang Pambansa may appear as counsels before the said CFIs.
HELD: No. Members of Congress are prohibited to appear as counsel
berfore CFI’s acting in their original jurisdiction. CFI’s have dual personalities.
They can be courts of general original jurisdiction (courts of origin) or appellate
courts depending on the case that they took cognizance of. In the cases at bar,
CFI Cebu and CFI Rizal acted as a courts of general original jurisdiction. Both
cases were not elevated to the said CFIs from any lower courts. Thus, the CFIs
in the case at bar are “courts without appellate jurisdiction”.
NOTE: Under Section 14, Article VI of the 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 government-owned 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.
Appearance of the legislator is now barred before all courts of justice,
regardless of rank, composition, or jurisdiction. The disqualification also applies
to the revived Electoral Tribunal and to all administrative bodies, like the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations
Commission. Courts martial and military tribunals, being administrative
agencies, are included.
(From https://www.senate.gov.ph/senators/terms.asp, accessed
09/17/2014)