Practice question
Can a prohibited counsel appearance necessarily be legalized merely by relabeling it an intervention designed to evade the restriction?
- No; Puyat rejects such circumvention on its facts
- Yes; every new label defeats the Constitution
- Yes; any minimal share purchase always permits counsel work
- Only the client’s signature matters
- Only the time of day matters
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution ArticleVI Section14: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Puyat v De Guzman, GRL-51122, March25,1982, MAIN opinion, anti-circumvention holding under predecessor constitutional provision, read with current ArticleVI Section14: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/mar1982/gr_l-51122_1982.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.