Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    Ferdinand Cruz vs. Alberto Mina GR No. 154207 April 27, 2007 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Diane Uy
    This case discusses the law student rule and the circumstances under which a law student may appear in court. The court held that (1) a law student may appear before inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant without supervision, as allowed under Section 34 of Rule 138; (2) when a criminal case is filed, the civil aspect is automatically instituted as well, so a private prosecutor may intervene; and (3) when appearing in regional trial courts or higher courts under Rule 138-A, a law student must be accompanied at all times by a supervising lawyer for the protection of parties and in the interest of justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ferdinand Cruz vs. Alberto Mina GR No. 154207 April 27, 2007 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Diane Uy
    67 views5 pages
    This case discusses the law student rule and the circumstances under which a law student may appear in court. The court held that (1) a law student may appear before inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant without supervision, as allowed under Section 34 of Rule 138; (2) when a criminal case is filed, the civil aspect is automatically instituted as well, so a private prosecutor may intervene; and (3) when appearing in regional trial courts or higher courts under Rule 138-A, a law student must be accompanied at all times by a supervising lawyer for the protection of parties and in the interest of justice.

    Original Description:

    PALE

    Original Title

    PALE 2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses the law student rule and the circumstances under which a law student may appear in court. The court held that (1) a law student may appear before inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant without supervision, as allowed under Section 34 of Rule 138; (2) when a criminal case is filed, the civil aspect is automatically instituted as well, so a private prosecutor may intervene; and (3) when appearing in regional trial courts or higher courts under Rule 138-A, a law student must be accompanied at all times by a supervising lawyer for the protection of parties and in the interest of justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    67 views5 pages

    Ferdinand Cruz vs. Alberto Mina GR No. 154207 April 27, 2007 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Diane Uy
    This case discusses the law student rule and the circumstances under which a law student may appear in court. The court held that (1) a law student may appear before inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant without supervision, as allowed under Section 34 of Rule 138; (2) when a criminal case is filed, the civil aspect is automatically instituted as well, so a private prosecutor may intervene; and (3) when appearing in regional trial courts or higher courts under Rule 138-A, a law student must be accompanied at all times by a supervising lawyer for the protection of parties and in the interest of justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

    LAW STUDENT RULE

    FERDINAND CRUZ
    GR No. 154207

    vs. ALBERTO MINA


    April 27, 2007

    FACTS:
    Petitioner filed a formal Entry of Appearance as private prosecutor for a criminal case for Gave
    Threats where his father, Mariano, is a complaining witness. Petitioner described himself as a third year law
    student, justifies his appearance as private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
    Court that a non-lawyer may appear before the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant. The
    petitioner furthermore avers that his appearance was with the prior conformity of the public prosecutor and a
    written authority of Mariano Cruz appointing him to be his agent in the prosecution of the said criminal case.
    MeTC denied the permission for the petitioner to appear on the ground that Circular No. 19 governing
    limited law student practice in conjunction with Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court (Law Student Practice
    Rule) should take precedence over the ruling of the Court laid down in Cantimbuhan; and set the case for
    continuation of trial. petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for
    Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order against the private respondent and the public
    respondent MeTC. RTC denied the issuance of the injunctive writ on the ground that the crime of Grave
    Threats, the subject of Criminal Case No. 00-1705, is one that can be prosecuted de oficio, there being no
    claim for civil indemnity, and that therefore, the intervention of a private prosecutor is not legally tenable.
    Petitioner filed an MR but was denied.
    ISSUE: (1.) Whether or not a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a
    party litigant
    (2.) Whether or not the case filed has no civil aspect which prevents the private prosecutor to
    intervene.
    HELD:
    (1.) Yes. The court a quo must have been confused by the fact that petitioner referred to himself as a law
    student in his entry of appearance. Rule 138-A should not have been used by the courts a quo in denying
    permission to act as private prosecutor against petitioner for the simple reason that Rule 138-A is not the
    basis for the petitioners appearance. Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts
    by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in Bar
    Matter No. 730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an agent or a friend of a
    party litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior courts.
    (2.) No. The basic rule applies in the instant case, such that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil
    action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with
    criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately
    or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. There being no reservation, waiver, nor prior
    institution of the civil aspect, it follows that the civil aspect arising from Grave Threats is deemed instituted
    with the criminal action, and, hence, the private prosecutor may rightfully intervene to prosecute the civil
    aspect.

    ANCHORIZ, Andrei Dominic D.

    24

    PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

    LAW STUDENT RULE


    BAR MATTER NO. 730 June 13, 1997
    FACTS
    Mr. Cornelio Carmona, Jr., an intern at the Office of Legal Aid, UP-College of Law (UP-OLA)
    represented the plaintiff in the civil case No. BCV-92-11. He conducted hearings and completed the
    presentation of the plaintiff's evidence without the presence of a supervising lawyer. Justice Barredo
    questioned the appearance of Mr. Carmona during the hearing because the latter was not accompanied by a
    duly accredited lawyer. Presiding Judge Edelwina Pastoral issued an Order requiring Mr. Carmona to be
    accompanied by a supervising lawyer on the next hearing. In compliance with said Order, UP-OLA and the
    Secretary of Justice executed a Memorandum of Agreement directing Atty. Catubao and Atty. Legayada of
    the Public Attorney's Office to supervise Mr. Carmona during the subsequent hearings. UP-OLA, on the
    other hand submits that "the matter of allowing a law intern to appear unaccompanied by a duly accredited
    supervising lawyer should be . . . left to the sound discretion of the court after having made at least one
    supervised appearance."
    ISSUE:

    Whether a law student who appears before the court under the Law Student Practice Rule (Rule
    138-A) should be accompanied by a member of the bar during the trial.

    HELD:
    Yes. A law student appearing before the Regional Trial Court under Rule 138-A should at all times
    be accompanied by a supervising lawyer. Section 2 of Rule 138-A provides.
    Section 2. Appearance. The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall be under the
    direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the
    law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed the
    by supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.
    The phrase "direct supervision and control" requires no less than the physical presence of the
    supervising lawyer during the hearing. . The rule must be strictly construed because public policy demands
    that legal work should be entrusted only to those who possess tested qualifications, are sworn to observe the
    rules and ethics of the legal profession and subject to judicial disciplinary control. In said in Bulacan v.
    Torcino, the court said For relatively simple litigation before municipal courts, the Rules still allow a more
    educated or capable person in behalf of a litigant who cannot get a lawyer. But for the protection of the
    parties and in the interest of justice, the requirement for appearances in regional trial courts and higher courts
    is more stringent.

    ANTALAN, Carlo Mayo P.

    25

    PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

    LAW STUDENT RULE


    IMELDA Y. MADERADA vs Judge ERNESTO H. MEDIODEA
    A.M. No. MTJ-02-1459. October 14, 2003
    FACTS
    Imelda Y. Maderada, a clerk of court, fied a complaint against Judge Ernesto H. Mediodea . In the
    Complaint, the judge was charged with gross ignorance of the law amounting to grave misconduct for failing
    to observe and apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in Civil Case No. 252. Prior to the said case,
    Maderada filed an action for forcible entry with a prayer for preliminary injunction, temporary restraining
    order (TRO) and damages where respondent Judge was designated to hear and try the case. Maderada filed a
    petition for Inhibition of Judge Mediodea after the three motions of the Maderada praying for a judgment be
    rendered were denied by Judge Mediodea. Maderada in the said case appeared as counsel for herself and her
    co-plaintiff.
    However, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended, along with a recommendation that
    the Judge be fined, that complainant Maderada be also fined in the amount of P1,000 for appearing as
    counsel without authority from this Court, with a stern warning that any similar infraction in the future would
    be dealt with more severely. According to the OCA, officials and employees of the judiciary must devote
    their full time to government service to ensure the efficient and speedy administration of justice. Although
    they are not absolutely prohibited from engaging in a vocation or a profession, they should do so only with
    prior approval of this Court. The OCA added that engaging in any private business, vocation or profession
    without prior approval of the Court is tantamount to moonlighting, which amounts to malfeasance in office.
    ISSUE: Whether Maderada can appear as counsel for herself and her co-plaintiffs.
    HELD
    Complainant was not customarily or habitually holding herself out to the public as a lawyer. Neither
    was she demanding payment for such services. Hence, she cannot be said to be in the practice of law. . The
    right of complainant to litigate her case personally cannot be taken away from her. Her being an employee of
    the judiciary does not remove from her the right to proceedings inpropria persona or to selfrepresentation. However, it was also clearly established that complainant had appeared on behalf of her coplaintiff in the case below, for which act the former cannot be completely exonerated. Representing oneself
    is different from appearing on behalf of someone else.
    The raison detre for allowing litigants to represent themselves in court will not apply when a person is
    already appearing for another party. Obviously, because she was already defending the rights of another
    person when she appeared for her co-plaintiff, it cannot be argued that complainant was merely protecting
    her rights. That their rights may be interrelated will not give complainant authority to appear in court. The
    undeniable fact remains that she and her co-plaintiff are two distinct individuals. The former may be
    impairing the efficiency of public service once she appears for the latter without permission from this Court.

    ANTALAN, Carlo Mayo P.

    26

    PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

    LAW STUDENT RULE


    VICTORIANO BULACAN vs FAUSTINO TORCINO and FELIPA TORCINO
    G.R. No. L-44388 January 30, 1985
    FACTS
    A complaint for forcible entry and damages with preliminary mandatory injunction was filed with
    the Municipal Court of Baybay, Leyte by Victoriano Bulacan against Faustino Torcino and Felipa Torcino.
    The complaint was signed by Nicolas Nues, Jr., "Friend counsel for the Plaintiff". Due to the failure of the
    parties to settle their case amicably, the court rendered a decision ordering the Torcinos to demolish and
    remove the portion of their house which was illegally constructed on the land of the plaintiff. The Torcinos
    appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance of Leyte.
    On September 18, 1973, the appellants Torcinos filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
    ground that the complaint was not signed by the plaintiff or by an admitted attorney, and therefore must be
    considered as sham and false. The Court of First Instance of Leyte denied the motion to dismiss. A motion
    for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals sustained the decision on the ground
    that no testimonial or oral evidence was presented by the parties and, therefore, no factual matters are in
    issue in the appeal.
    ISSUE:

    Whether a non-member of the BAR, a friend of the plaintiff, can be designated to prepare and sign
    a complaint for the plaintiff.

    HELD
    Yes. Under the facts of this case the applicable provision is Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of
    Court which states:
    SEC. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. In the Court of a municipality a party may conduct his
    litigation in person with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an
    attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney and his
    appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
    The Rules are clear. In municipal courts, the litigant may be assisted by a friend, agent, or an
    attorney. However, in cases before the regional trial court, the litigant must be aided by a duly authorized
    member of the bar. The rule invoked by the Torcinos, invoke Section 5, Rule 7, applies only to cases filed
    with the regional trial court and not to cases before a municipal court. In the case before us, the complaint
    was verified by the party litigant himself. In the verification, the plaintiff specifically stated that he had
    caused Mr. Nues to conduct the litigation and to sign the complaint in Ms behalf, indicating his awareness
    that Nues in not a registered lawyer. There is, therefore, added justification for the pleading to be admitted
    rather than dismissed.

    ANTALAN, Carlo Mayo P.

    27

    PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

    LAW STUDENT RULE


    ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN et al. vs HON. NICANOR J. CRUZ et al.
    G.R. No. L-51813-14 November 29, 1983
    FACTS
    In the criminal cases (less serious physical injuries) People of the Philippines vs. Danilo San
    AntonioPeople of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Diaz, Petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert V. Lucila,
    senior law students of the U.P.assistance to the needy clients in the Office of the Legal Aid filed their
    separate appearances, as friends of complainant-petitioner Cantimbuhan. . Herein respondent Fiscal
    Leodegario C. Quilatan opposed the appearances of said petitioners, and respondent judge Cruz of then
    Municipal Court of Paraaque, Metro Manila, in an Order, sustained the respondent fiscal and disallowed the
    appearances of petitioners Malana and Lucila, as private prosecutors in said criminal cases. Likewise,
    respondent Judge issued an order denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition
    for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with prayers, among others, that the Orders of respondent judge, be
    set aside as they are in plain violation of Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and/or were issued with
    grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand, respondents invoked sections
    4 and 15 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. They contend that the exercise by the offended party to intervene is
    subject to the direction and control of the fiscal and that his appearance, no less than his active conduct of the
    case later on, requires the prior approval of the fiscal.
    ISSUE:

    Whether or not law students can appear and represent complainants in a criminal case before the
    Municipal Trial Court.

    HELD
    Yes. We find merit in the petition. Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, clearly provides that
    in the municipal court a party may conduct his litigation in person with the aid of an agent appointed by him
    for the purpose. In Laput vs. Bernabe, a law student was allowed to represent the accused in a case pending
    before the then Municipal Court, the City Court of Manila, who was charged for damages to property
    through reckless imprudence. "It is accordingly our view that error was committed in the municipal court in
    not allowing Crispiniano V. Laput to act as an agent or friend of Catalino Salas to aid the latter in conducting
    his defense." The permission of the fiscal is not necessary for one to enter his appearance as private
    prosecutor. In the first place, the law does not impose this condition. What the fiscal can do, if he wants to
    handle the case personally is to disallow the private prosecutor's participation, whether he be a lawyer or not,
    in the trial of the case
    In the two criminal cases filed before the Municipal Court of Paraaque, Petitioner Cantimbuhan did
    not expressly waive the civil action nor reserve his right to institute it separately thus he has personal interest
    in the success of the civil action and, in the prosecution of the same, he cannot be deprived of his right to be
    assisted by a friend who is not a lawyer.

    ANTALAN, Carlo Mayo P.

    28

    You might also like