Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-68159 March 18, 1985
HOMOBONO ADAZA, petitioner,
vs.
ERNANDO PACANA, !R., respondent
ESCOL"N, J.:
The issues posed for determination in this petition for prohibition with praer for a writ of preliminar
in!unction and"or restrainin# order are$ %&' whether or not a provincial #overnor who was elected and
had (ualified as a Mambabatas Pambansa %MP' can e)ercise and dischar#e the functions of both
offices simultaneousl* and %+' whether or not a vice,#overnor who ran for the position of
Mambabatas Pambansa, but lost, can continue servin# as vice,#overnor and subse(uentl succeed
to the office of #overnor if the said office is vacated.
The factual bac-#round of the present controvers is as follows$
Petitioner .omobono A. Ada/a was elected #overnor of the province of Misamis 0riental in the
1anuar 23, &453 elections. .e too- his oath of office and started dischar#in# his duties as provincial
#overnor on March 2, &453. Elected vice,#overnor for said province in the same elections was
respondent 6ernando Pacana, 1r., who li-ewise (ualified for and assumed said office on March 2,
&453. 7nder the law, their respective terms of office would e)pire on March 2, &458.
0n March +9, &45:, respondent Pacana filed his certificate of candidac for the Ma &:, &45:
Batasan Pambansa elections* petitioner Ada/a followed suit on April +9, &45:. ;n the ensuin#
elections, petitioner won b placin# first amon# the candidates, while respondent lost.
Petitioner too- his oath of office as Mambabatas Pambansa on 1ul &4, &45:
1
and since then he has
dischar#ed the functions of said office.
0n 1ul +2, &45:, respondent too- his oath of office as #overnor of Misamis 0riental before President
6erdinand E. Marcos,
#
and started to perform the duties of #overnor on 1ul +<, &45:.
Claimin# to be the lawful occupant of the #overnor=s office, petitioner has brou#ht this petition to
e)clude respondent therefrom. .e ar#ues that he was elected to said office for a term of si) ears,
that he remains to be the #overnor of the province until his term e)pires on March 2, &458 as
provided b law, and that within the conte)t of the parliamentar sstem, as in 6rance, >reat Britain
and New ?ealand, a local elective official can hold the position to which he had been elected and
simultaneousl be an elected member of Parliament.
Petitioner further contends that respondent Pacana should be considered to have abandoned or
resi#ned from the position of vice,#overnor when he filed his certificate of candidac for the &45:
Batas Pambansa elections* and since respondent had reverted to the status of a mere private citi/en
after he lost in the Batas Pambansa elections, he could no lon#er continue to serve as vice,#overnor,
much less assume the office of #overnor.
&. The constitutional prohibition a#ainst a member of the Batasan Pambansa from holdin# an other
office or emploment in the #overnment durin# his tenure is clear and unambi#uous. @ection &3,
Article A;;; of the &492 Constitution provides as follows$
@ection &3 A member of the National Assembl %now Batasan Pambansa shall not hold an other office or
emploment in the #overnment or an subdivision, a#enc or instrumentalit thereof, includin#
#overnment owned or controlled corporations, durin# his tenure, e)cept that of prime minister or member
of the cabinet. ...
The lan#ua#e used in the above,cited section is plain, certain and free from ambi#uit. The onl
e)ceptions mentioned therein are the offices of prime minister and cabinet member. The wisdom or
e)pedienc of the said provision is a matter which is not within the province of the Court to determine.
A public office is a public trust.
$
;t is created for the interest and the benefit of the people. As such, a
holder thereof Bis sub!ect to such re#ulations and conditions as the law ma imposeB and Bhe cannot
complain of an restrictions which public polic ma dictate on his holdin# of more than one office.B
%

;t is therefore of no avail to petitioner that the sstem of #overnment in other states allows a local
elective official to act as an elected member of the parliament at the same time. The dictate of the
people in whom le#al soverei#nt lies is e)plicit. ;t provides no e)ceptions save the two offices
specificall cited in the above,(uoted constitutional provision. Thus, while it ma be said that within
the purel parliamentar sstem of #overnment no incompatibilit e)ists in the nature of the two
offices under consideration, as incompatibilit is understood in common law, the incompatibilit herein
present is one created b no less than the constitution itself. ;n the case at bar, there is no (uestion
that petitioner has ta-en his oath of office as an elected Mambabatas Pambansa and has been
dischar#in# his duties as such. ;n the li#ht of the oft,mentioned constitutional provision, this fact
operated to vacate his former post and he cannot now continue to occup the same, nor attempt to
dischar#e its functions.
+. The second proposition advanced b petitioner is that respondent Pacana, as a mere private
citi/en, had no ri#ht to assume the #overnorship left vacant b petitioner=s election to the Batasan
Pambansa. .e maintains that respondent should be considered as havin# abandoned or resi#ned
from the vice,#overnorship when he filed his certificate of candidac for the Batas Pambansa
elections. The point pressed runs afoul of Batas Pambansa Bl#. 849, the law #overnin# the election
of members of the Batasan Pambansa on Ma &:, &45:, @ection &2%+' of which specificall provides
that B#overnors, maors, members of the various san##unian# or baran#a officials shall, upon filin#
a certificate of candidac, be considered on forced leave of absence from office.B ;ndubitabl,
respondent falls within the covera#e of this provision, considerin# that at the time he filed his
certificate of candidac for the &45: Batasan Pambansa election he was a member of the
@an##unian# Panlalawi#an as provided in @ections +3: and +3< of Batas Pambansa Bl#. 229,
5

otherwise -nown as the Cocal >overnment Code. The reason the position of vice,#overnor was not
included in @ection &2%+' of BP Bl#. 849 is e)plained b the followin# interchan#e between
Assemblmen @an 1uan and Davide durin# the deliberations on said le#islation$
MR. DAA;DE. ;f ; was able to #et correctl the proposed amendment it would cover onl #overnors and
members of the different san##uniansE Maor, #overnorsE
MR. @AN 17AN. >overnors, maors, members of the various san##unian or baran#a officials. A vice,
#overnor is a member of the @an##unian Panlalawi#an.
MR. DAA;DE. All. Fh don=t we instead use the word, BCocal officialsE
MR. @AN 17AN. Fell, Mr. @pea-er, our humble representation ...
MR. DAA;DE. And, secondl, wh don=t we include the vice,#overnor, the vice,maorsE
MR. @AN 17AN. Because the are members of the @an##unians, Mr. @pea-er. The are covered b the
provision on members of san##unian. %Record of Proceedin#s, 6ebruar +3, &45:, p. 4+, Rollo'
Thus, when respondent reassumed the position of vice,#overnor after the Batas Pambansa elections,
he was actin# within the law. .is succession to the #overnorship was e(uall le#al and valid, the
same bein# in accordance with @ection +3:%+' %a' of the same Cocal >overnment Code, which reads
as follows$
@ECT;0N +3:. Powers, Duties and Privile#es$
&' ) ) )
+' .e shall$
a' Assume the office of the #overnor for the une)pired term of the latter in the cases provided for in
@ection :5, para#raph &
6
of this Code*
F.ERE60RE, the instant petition is hereb dismissed. No costs.
@0 0RDERED.
Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la
uente, Cuevas an! Ala"pa#, JJ., concur.
ernan!o, C.J., an! A$a! %antos, J., took no part.

oo&'o&()
oo&'o&()
& E)h. B9B, Resp., p. 54, Rollo.
+ E)h. B5B, Resp., p. 43, Rollo.
2 @ec. &, Art. G;;;, &492 Constitution.
: :+ Am. 1ur. 4+8.
< @ec. +3:. Powers, Duties and Privile#es$
&' The vice,#overnor shall be an e),officio member of the @an##unian# Panlalawi#an with all the ri#hts, duties and privile#es of an member
thereof*
@ection +3<. Composition$
&' )))
+' The @an##unian# Panlalawi#an shall be composed of the #overnor, vice,#overnor, elective members of said san##unians, and the
president of the Hatipunan# Panlalawi#an, etc. ...
8 @ection :5, par. &, BP Bl#. 229 reads$
@ec. :5. Permanent Aacanc in the 0ffice of the >overnor, Cit or Municipal Maor I %&' ;n case a permanent vacanc arises when a
#overnor, cit or municipal maor refuses to assume office, fails to (ualif* dies, or is removed from office, voluntaril resi#ns or is otherwise
permanentl incapacitated to dischar#e the functions of his office, the vice,#overnor, cit or municipal vice,maor, as the case ma be, shall
assume the office for the une)pired term of the former.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-511## March #5, 198#
EUGEN"O !. PU*AT, ER+"N L. CH"ONGB"AN, EDGARDO P. RE*ES, ANTON"O G. PU*AT, !A"ME
R. BLANCO, RAAEL R. RECTO a', RE*NALDO L. LARD"ZABAL, petitioners,
vs.
HON. S"-TO T. !. DE GUZMAN, !R., a) A))oc.a&( Co//.)).o'(r o0 &h( S(c1r.&.() 2 E3cha'4(
Co//.)).o', EUSTA5U"O T. C. ACERO, R. G. 6"LDZ"US, ENR"5UE M. BELO, MANUEL G.
ABELLO, SER6"LLANO DOL"NA, !UAN"TO MERCADO a', ESTAN"SLAO A. ERNANDEZ,
respondents.

MELENC"O-HERRERA, J.:
This suit for certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminar ;n!unction is poised a#ainst the 0rder of
respondent Associate Commissioner of the @ecurities and E)chan#e Commission J@ECK #rantin#
Assemblman Estanislao A. 6ernande/ leave to intervene in @EC Case No. &9:9.
A (uestion of novel import is in issue. 6or its resolution, the followin# dates and alle#ations are bein#
#iven and made$
aK Ma# &',&()(. An election for the eleven Directors of the ;nternational Pipe ;ndustries Corporation
J;P;K a private corporation, was held. Those in char#e ruled that the followin# were elected as
Directors$
Eu#enio 1. Puat Eusta(uio T.C. Acero
Erwin C. Chion#bian R. >. Aild/ius
Ed#ardo P. Rees Enri(ue M. Belo
Antonio >. Puat @ervillano Dolina
1aime R. Blanco 1uanito Mercado
Rafael R. Recto
Those named on the left list ma be called the Puat >roup* those on the ri#ht, the Acero >roup.
Thus, the Puat >roup would be in control of the Board and of the mana#ement of ;P;.
bK Ma# *+, &()(. The Acero >roup instituted at the @ecurities and E)chan#e Commission J@ECK quo
,arranto proceedin#s, doc-eted as Case No. &9:9 Jthe @EC CaseK, (uestionin# the election of Ma
&:, &494. The Acero >roup claimed that the stoc-holders= votes were not properl counted.
cK Ma# *+--&, &()(. The Puat >roup claims that at conferences of the parties with respondent @EC
Commissioner de >u/man, 1ustice Estanislao A. 6ernande/, then a member of the ;nterim Batasan#
Pambansa, orall entered his appearance as counsel for respondent Acero to which the Puat >roup
ob!ected on Constitutional #rounds. @ection &&, Article A;;;, of the &492 Constitution, then in force,
provided that no Assemblman could Bappear as counsel before ... an administrative bodB, and
@EC was an administrative bod. ;ncidentall, the same prohibition was maintained b the April 9,
&45& plebiscite. The cited Constitutional prohibition bein# clear, Assemblman 6ernande/ did not
continue his appearance for respondent Acero.
dK Ma# -&, &()(. Fhen the @EC Case was called, it turned out that$
JiK 0n Ma &<, &494, Assemblman Estanislao A. 6ernande/ had purchased from Au#usto A. Morales ten
J&3K shares of stoc- of ;P; for P+33.33 upon re(uest of respondent Acero to (ualif him to run for election
as a Director.
JiiK The deed of sale, however, was notari/ed onl on Ma 23, &494 and was sou#ht to be re#istered on
said date.
JiiiK 0n Ma 2&, &494, the da followin# the notari/ation of Assemblman 6ernande/= purchase, the latter
had filed an 7r#ent Motion for ;ntervention in the @EC Case as the owner of ten J&3K ;P; shares alle#in#
le#al interest in the matter in liti#ation.
eK Jul# &), &()(. The @EC #ranted leave to intervene on the basis of Att. 6ernande/= ownership of
the said ten shares.
1
;t is this 0rder allowin# intervention that precipitated the instant petition for
certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminar ;n!unction.
fK Jul# -, &()(. Ed#ardo P. Rees instituted a case before the Court of 6irst ;nstance of Ri/al JPasi#K,
Branch GG;, a#ainst N.A. Aereni#de Buein/enfabrie-en E)celsior I De Maas and respondent
Eusta(uio T. C. Acero and others, to annul the sale of E)celsior=s shares in the ;P; to respondent
Acero JCC No. 22924K. ;n that case, Assemblman 6ernande/ appeared as counsel for defendant
E)celsior ;n C,<&4+5, we ruled that Assemblman 6ernande/ could not appear as counsel in a case
ori#inall filed with a Court of 6irst ;nstance as in such situation the Court would be one Bwithout
appellate !urisdiction.B
0n @eptember :, &494, the Court en $anc issued a temporar Restrainin# 0rder en!oinin#
respondent @EC Associate Commissioner from allowin# the participation as an intervenor, of
respondent Assemblman Estanislao 6ernande/ at the proceedin#s in the @EC Case.
The @olicitor >eneral, in his Comment for respondent Commissioner, supports the stand of the latter
in allowin# intervention. The Court en $anc, on November 8, &494, resolved to consider the Comment
as an Answer to the Petition.
The issue which will be resolved is whether or not Assemblman 6ernande/, as a then stoc-holder of
;P; ma intervene in the @EC Case without violatin# @ection &&, Article A;;; of the Constitution, which,
as amended, now reads$
@EC. &&.
No Member of the Batasan# Pambansa shall appear as counsel before an court without appellate
!urisdiction.
before an court in an civil case wherein the >overnment, or an subdivision, a#enc, or instrumentalit
thereof is the adverse part,
or in an criminal case wherein an officer or emploee of the >overnment is accused of an offense
committed in relation to his office,
or $e.ore an# a!"inistrative $o!#.
Neither shall he, directl or indirectl be interested financiall in an contract with, or in an franchise or
special privile#e #ranted b the >overnment, or an subdivision, a#enc or instrumentalit thereof,
includin# an #overnment,owned or controlled corporation, durin# his term of office.
.e shall not accept emploment to intervene in an cause or matter where he ma be called to act on
account of his office. JEmphasis suppliedK
Fhat reall has to be resolved is whether or not, in intervenin# in the @EC Case, Assemblman
6ernande/ is, in effect, appearin# as counsel, albeit indirectl, before an administrative bod in
contravention of the Constitutional provision.
0rdinaril, b virtue of the Motion for ;ntervention, Assemblman 6ernande/ cannot be said to be
appearin# as counsel. 0stensibl, he is not appearin# on behalf of another, althou#h he is !oinin# the
cause of the private respondents. .is appearance could theoreticall be for the protection of his
ownership of ten J&3K shares of ;P; in respect of the matter in liti#ation and not for the protection of the
petitioners nor respondents who have their respective capable and respected counsel.
.owever, certain salient circumstances militate a#ainst the intervention of Assemblman 6ernande/
in the @EC Case. .e had ac(uired a mere P+33.33 worth of stoc- in ;P;, representin# ten shares out
of +8+,5:2 outstandin# shares. .e ac(uired them Bafter the factB that is, on Ma 23, &494, after the
contested election of Directors on Ma &:, &494, after the quo ,arranto suit had been filed on Ma
+<, &494 before @EC and one da before the scheduled hearin# of the case before the @EC on Ma
2&, &494. And what is more, before he moved to intervene, he had si#nified his intention to appear as
counsel for respondent Eusta(uio T. C. Acero,
#
but which was ob!ected to b petitioners. Reali/in#,
perhaps, the validit of the ob!ection, he decided, instead, to BinterveneB on the #round of le#al
interest in the matter under liti#ation. And it mabe noted that in the case filed before the Ri/al Court
of 6irst ;nstance JC,<&4+5K, he appeared as counsel for defendant E)celsior, co,defendant of
respondent Acero therein.
7nder those facts and circumstances, we are constrained to find that there has been an indirect
Bappearance as counsel before ... an administrative bodB and, in our opinion, that is a circumvention
of the Constitutional prohibition. The BinterventionB was an afterthou#ht to enable him to appear
activel in the proceedin#s in some other capacit. To believe the avowed purpose, that is, to enable
him eventuall to vote and to be elected as Director in the event of an unfavorable outcome of the
@EC Case would be pure naivete. .e would still appear as counsel indirectl.
A rulin# upholdin# the BinterventionB would ma-e the constitutional provision ineffective. All an
Assemblman need do, if he wants to influence an administrative bod is to ac(uire a minimal
participation in the BinterestB of the client and then BinterveneB in the proceedin#s. That which the
Constitution directl prohibits ma not be done b indirection or b a #eneral le#islative act which is
intended to accomplish the ob!ects specificall or impliedl prohibited.
$
;n brief, we hold that the intervention of Assemblman 6ernande/ in @EC. No. &9:9 falls within the
ambit of the prohibition contained in @ection &&, Article A;;; of the Constitution.
0ur resolution of this case should not be construed as, absent the (uestion of the constitutional
prohibition a#ainst members of the Batasan, allowin# an stoc-holder, or an number of stoc-holders,
in a corporation to intervene in an controvers before the @EC relatin# to intra,corporate matters. A
resolution of that (uestion is not necessar in this case.
F.ERE60RE, respondent Commissioner=s 0rder #rantin# Att. Estanislao A. 6ernande/ leave to
intervene in @EC Case No. &9:9 is hereb reversed and set aside. The temporar Restrainin# 0rder
heretofore issued is hereb made permanent.
No costs.
@0 0RDERED.
ernan!o, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., ernan!ez, Guerrero, A$a! %antos, De
Castro, /ricta, Plana an! /scolin, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., took no part.
0arre!o, J., 1 reserve "# vote.


oo&'o&()
& p. +2, Rollo.
+ p. 8, 1$i!.
2 Am. Di#est, +d Dicennial Ed., Aol. <, citin# At-inson vs. Board, etc., &35 P. &3:8.