Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court C r i m i n a l C a s e N o . 0 0 - 1 7 0 5 f o r G ra v e T h r e a t s , w h e r e h i s fa t h e r , M a r i a n o
Baguio City
Cruz, is the complaining witness.
 
   
THIRD DIVISION
  T h e p e t i t i o n e r , de s c r i b i n g h i m s e l f a s a t h i r d y e a r l a w s t u d e n t, j u s t i f i e s h i s
 
F E R D I N A N D A. C R U Z ,   G . R. N o. 1 5 4 2 0 7 a p p e a r a n c e a s p r i v a t e p r o s e c u t o r o n t h e b a s e s o f S e c t i o n 3 4 o f R u le 1 3 8 o f
Petitioner,     t h e R u l e s o f C o u r t a n d t he r u l i n g o f t h e C o u r t   E n B a n c   i n   C a n t i m b u h a n   v .
     
    Present: J u d g e C r u z, J r . [ 2 ]   t h a t a n o n - l a w ye r m a y a p p e a r b e f o re t h e i n f e r i o r c o u r t s
   
- versus -   YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., a s a n a g e n t o r f r i e n d o f a p a r t y l i t i g a n t.   T h e p e t i t i o n e r f u r t he r m o r e a v e r s
    Chairperson,
    AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, that his appearance was with the prior conformity of the public prosecutor
    CALLEJO, SR., a n d a w r i t t e n au t h o r i t y o f M a r i a n o C r u z a p p o i n t i n g h i m t o b e h i s ag e n t i n
ALBERTO MINA,   CHICO-NAZARIO, and
HON. ELEUTERIO F   NACHURA, JJ. t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f t he s a i d c r i m i n a l c a se .
GUERRERO and HON.    
Z E N A I D A L A G U I L L E S,   Promulgated:  
Respondents.   A p r i l 2 7, 2 0 0 7
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x  However, in an Order dated February 1, 2002, the MeTC denied
  permission for petitioner to appear as private prosecutor on the ground
D E C I S I O N 
  t h a t C i r c u l a r N o . 1 9 g o ve r n i n g l i m i t e d l a w s t u d e n t p r a c t i c e i n c o n j u n c t i o n
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
with Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court (Law Student Practice Rule) should
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the
t a k e p r ec e d e n c e o v e r t h e r u l i n g o f t h e C o u r t l a i d d o w n i n   C a n t i m b u h a n ;
R u l e s o f C o u r t , g r o u n d e d o n p u r e q ue s t i o n s o f l a w , w i t h P r a y e r f o r
a n d s e t t h e ca s e f o r c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t r i a l . [ 3 ]
Preliminary Injunction assailing the Resolution dated May 3, 2002  
p r o m u l g a t e d b y t h e R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t ( R T C ), B r a n c h 1 1 6 , P a s a y C i t y, O n F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 2 0 0 2, p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d b e f o r e t h e   M e T C   a M o t i o n
i n C i v i l C a s e N o. 0 2 - 0 1 3 7, w h i c h d e n i e d t h e i s s u a n c e o f a w r i t o f f o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s e e k i n g t o r e v e r s e t he F e b r u a r y 1 , 2 0 0 2 O r d e r
p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e M e t r o p o l i t a n T r i a l C o u r t ( Me T C ) , a l l e g i n g t h a t R u l e 1 3 8 - A, o r t h e L a w S t u d e n t P r a c t i c e R u l e, d o e s n o t h a v e
B r a n c h 4 5, P a s a y C i t y , i n C r i m i na l C a s e N o . 0 0 - 1 7 0 5 ; [ 1 ]   a n d t h e R T C s t h e e f f ec t o f s u p e r s e d i n g S e c t i o n 3 4 o f R u l e 1 3 8, f o r t h e au t h o r i t y t o
O r d e r d a t e d J u n e 5 , 2 0 0 2 d e n y i n g t h e M o t i o n f o r R e c o n s i d e ra t i o n .   N o w r i t i n t e r p r e t t h e r u l e i s t h e s o u r c e i t s e l f o f t h e r u l e, w h i c h i s t h e S u p r e m e
o f p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n wa s i s s u e d b y t h i s C o u r t . C o u r t a l o n e.

 
The antecedents: I n a n O r d e r d a te d   M a r c h 4 , 2 0 0 2 , t h e   M e T C   d e n i e d t h e M o t i o n f o r
  R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n.
O n   S e p t e m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 0 , F e r d i n a n d A. C r uz ( p e t i t i o n e r ) f i l e d b e f o r e On April 2, 2002, the petitioner f i le d before the RTC a Petition
the MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as private prosecutor, in for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and
T e m p o r a r y R e s t r a i n i n g O r d e r a g a i n s t t h e p r i v a te r e s p o n d e n t a n d t h e Likewise, in an O r de r dated June 1 3, 2002, the MeTC denied the

public respondent MeTC. petitioners Second Motion for Reconsideration and his Motion to Hold in

  Abeyance the Trial on the ground that the RTC had already denied the

A f t e r h e a r i n g t h e p r a y e r f o r p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n t o re s t r a i n E n t r y o f A p p e a r a n c e o f p e t i t i o n e r b e f o r e t he   M e T C.

p u b l i c r e s p o n d e n t   M e T C   J u d g e f r o m p r o c e e d i n g w i t h C r i m i n a l C a s e N o.  

0 0 - 1 7 0 5 p e n d i n g t h e   C e r t i o r a r i   p r o c e e d i n g s , t he R T C , i n a R e s o l u t i o n O n   J u l y 3 0, 2 0 0 2 , t h e p e t i t i o n e r d i re c t l y f i l e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t , t h e i n s t a n t

d a t e d M a y 3 , 2 0 0 2, r e s o l v e d t o d e n y t h e i s s u a n ce o f a n i n j u n c t i v e w r i t o n P e t i t i o n a n d a s s i g n s t h e f o l l o w i n g er r o r s :
 
t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e c r i m e o f G r a v e T h r e a t s, t h e s u b j e c t o f C r i m i n a l C a s e I.
 
N o . 0 0 - 1 7 0 5 , i s o n e t h a t c a n b e p r o s e c u t e d   d e o f i c i o ,   t h e r e b e i n g n o cl a i m
THE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ABUSED
f o r c i v i l i n d e m n i t y , a n d t ha t t h e r e f o r e , t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f a p r i v a t e ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT RESOLVED TO DENY THE
PRAYER FOR THE WRIT OF INJUNCTION OF THE
p r o s e c u t o r i s n o t l e ga l l y t e n a b l e . HEREIN PETITIONER DESPITE PETITIONER HAVING
ESTABLISHED THE NECESSITY OF GRANTING THE
  WRIT;
II.
O n   M a y 9 , 2 0 0 2 , t h e p e t i t i o ne r f i l e d b e f o r e t h e R T C a M o t i o n f o r
 
R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n.   T h e p e t i t i o n e r a r g u e s t h a t n o w h e r e d o e s t h e l a w p r o v i d e THE RESPONDENT TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION, TANTAMOUNT TO IGNORANCE OF THE
that the crime of Grave Threats has no civil aspect.  And last, petitioner LAW, WHEN IT RESOLVED TO DENY THE PRAYER
FOR THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
c i t e s B a r M a t t e r N o . 7 3 0 d a t e d   J u n e 1 0 , 1 9 9 7   w h i c h e x p r e s s l y p r o v i de s f o r THE SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f a n o n - l a w ye r b e f o r e t h e i n f e r i o r c o u r t s , a s a n a g e n t o r OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER ON THE BASIS THAT
[GRAVE] THREATS HAS NO CIVIL ASPECT, FOR THE
f r i e n d o f a p a r t y l i t i g a n t , e v e n w i t h o u t t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f a me m b e r o f t h e SAID BASIS OF DENIAL IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH
THE LAW;
bar. III.
 
  THE RESPONDENT METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT ABUSED
P e n d i n g t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e f o r e g o i n g M o t i o n f o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n b e f o re ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE MOTION TO
H O L D I N A B E Y A N C E T R I A L, W H E N W H A T W A S
t h e R T C , t h e p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a S e c o n d M o t i o n f o r R e c o n s i de r a t i o n d a t e d DENIED BY THE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT IS THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF
J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 2 w i t h t h e   M e T C   s e e k i n g t h e re v e r s a l o f t h e M a r c h 4 , 2 0 0 2 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND WHEN THE
RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IS YET TO
D e n i a l O r d e r o f t he s a i d c o u r t , o n t h e s t r e n g t h o f B a r Ma t t e r N o. 7 3 0, a n d DECIDE ON THE MERITS OF THE PETITION
a M o t i o n t o H o l d I n A b e y a n c e t h e T r i a l d a t e d J u ne 1 0 , 2 0 0 2 o f C r i m i n a l FOR CERTIORARI;
I V.
C a s e N o. 0 0 - 1 7 0 5 p e n d i n g t he o u t c o m e o f t h e   c e r t i o r a r i   p r o c e e d i n g s  
THE RESPONDENT COURT[S] ARE CLEARLY IGNORING THE
before the RTC. LAW WHEN THEY PATENTLY REFUSED TO HEED
T O   [ s i c ]   T H E C L E A R M A N D A T E O F T H E L A P U T,
On June 5, 2002, the RTC issued its Order denying the petitioners Motion
CANTIMBUHAN AND BULACAN CASES, AS WELL AS
f o r R e c o n s i d e ra t i o n . B A R M A T T E R N O . 7 3 0, P R O V I D I N G F O R T H E
APPEARANCE OF N O N - L AW Y E R S BEFORE THE
  LOWER COURTS (MTCS).[4]
 S e c . 2 .   A p p e a r a n c e .   T h e a p p ea r a n c e o f t h e l a w
  s t u d e n t a u t h o r i z e d b y t h i s r u l e, s h a l l b e u n d e r t h e d i r e c t
s u p e r v i s i o n a n d c o n t r o l o f a m e m b e r o f t h e I n t e g r a te d B a r
T h i s C o u r t , i n e x c e p t i o na l c a s e s , a n d f o r c o m pe l l i n g r e a s o n s , o r i f
o f t h e   P h i l i p p i n e s   d u l y a c c r e d i t e d b y t h e l a w s c h o o l. A n y
w a r r a n t e d b y t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i s s u e s r e v i e w e d , m a y t a k e c o g n iz a n c e o f a n d a l l p l e a d i n g s, m o t i o n s , b r i e f s, m e m o r a n d a o r o t h e r
p a p e r s t o b e f i le d , m u s t b e s i g n e d b y t h e s u p e r v i s i n g
petitions filed directly before it.[5] a t t o r n e y f o r a n d i n b e h a l f o f t h e l e g a l c l i n ic .
 
 
 
C o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t h i s c a s e i n v o l v e s t h e i n t e r p r e ta t i o n , c l a r i f i c a t i o n, a n d
H o w e v e r , i n R e s o l u t i o n [ 6 ]   d a t e d   J u n e 1 0 , 1 9 9 7   i n B a r M a t t e r N o. 7 3 0, t he
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f S e c t i o n 3 4 , R u l e 1 3 8 o f t h e R u l e s o f C o u r t , B a r M a t te r
Court En Banc clarified:
N o . 7 3 0, C i r c u l a r N o . 1 9 g o v e r n i n g l a w s t u d e n t p r a c t i c e a n d R u l e 1 3 8 - A  
T h e r u l e , h o w e v e r, i s d i f f e r e n t i f t h e l a w s t u d e n t
o f t h e R u l e s o f C o u r t , a n d t he r u l i n g o f t h e C o u r t i n   C a n t i m b u h a n , t h e
a p p e a r s b e f o r e a n i n f e r i o r c o u r t, w h e r e t h e i s s u e s a n d
C o u r t t a k e s c o g n i z a n c e o f h e r e i n p e t i t i o n. p r o c e d u r e a r e r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e.   I n i n f e r i o r c o u r t s, a
law student may appear in his personal capacity
  w i t h o u t t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f a l a w y e r.   S e c t i o n 3 4 , R u l e
138 provides:
T h e b a s i c q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r, a l a w s t u d e n t , m a y a p p ea r  
before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party litigant. Sec. 34. By whom litigation is
conducted. - In the court of a justice of
  t h e p e a c e , a p a r t y m a y co n d u c t h i s
l i t i g a t i o n i n p e r s o n , w i t h t h e ai d o f a n
The courts a quo  held that the Law Student Practice Rule as encapsulated a g e n t o r f r i e n d ap p o i n t e d b y h i m f o r t h a t
p u r p o s e , o r w i t h t h e a i d o f an a t t o r n e y.   I n
in Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, prohibits the petitioner, as a law any other court, a party may conduct his
s t u d e n t , f r o m e n t e r i n g h i s a p p e a r a n c e i n b e h a l f o f h i s f a t h e r , t h e p r i v a te litigation personally or by aid of an
a t t o r n e y , a n d h i s ap p e a r a n c e m u s t b e e i t h e r
c o m p l a i n a n t i n t h e c r i m i n a l c a s e w i t h o u t t he s u p e r v i s i o n o f a n a t t o r n e y p e r s o n a l o r b y a d u l y au t h o r i z e d m e m b e r
of the bar.
d u l y a c c re d i t e d b y t h e l a w s c h o o l .  
Thus, a law student may appear before an
  inferior court as an agent or friend of a party without
Rule 138-A or the Law Student Practice Rule, provides: the supervision of a member of the bar. [7](Emphasis
  supplied)
RULE 138-A  
  T h e p h r a s e I n t he c o u r t o f a j u s t i c e o f t h e pe a c e i n B a r M a t te r N o.
LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
  7 3 0 i s s u b s e q u e n t l y c ha n g e d t o I n t h e c o u r t o f a m u n i c i pa l i t y a s i t n o w
S e c t i o n 1 .   C o n d i t i o n s f o r S t u d e n t P r a c t i c e.   A l a w
s t u d e n t w h o h a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t e d h i s 3 r d y ea r o f t h e a p p e a r s i n S e c t i o n 3 4 o f R u l e 1 3 8, t h u s : [ 8 ]
r e g u l a r f o u r - y e a r p r e s c r i b e d l a w c u r r ic u l u m a n d i s  
e n r o l l e d i n a re c o g n i z e d l a w s c h o o l ' s c l i n i c a l l e g a l S E C . 3 4.   B y w h o m l i t i g a t i o n i s c o n d u c te d .   I n t h e
e d u c a t i o n p r o g ra m a p p r o v e d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t, m a y C o u r t o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y   a p a r t y m a y co n d u c t h i s
a p p e a r w i t h o u t c o m p e n s a t i o n i n a n y c i v i l, c r i m i n a l o r litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c a s e b e f o r e a n y t r i a l c o u r t , t r i b u n a l, b o a r d a p p o i n t e d b y h i m f o r t h a t p u r p o se , o r w i t h t h e a i d o f a n
o r o f f i c e r, t o r e p r e s e n t i n d i g e n t c l i e n t s a c c e p t e d b y t h e a t t o r n e y . I n a n y o t he r c o u r t , a p a r t y m a y c o n d uc t h i s
legal clinic of the law school. litigation personally or by aid of an attorney and his
 
 a p p e a r a n c e m u s t b e e i t h e r pe r s o n a l o r b y a d u l y a u t h o r i z e d
m e m b e r o f t h e ba r . ( E m p h a s i s s u p p l i e d ) I t i s c l e a r f r o m t h e R T C D e c i s i o n t h a t n o s u c h c o nc l u s i o n h a d

w h i c h i s t h e p r e va i l i n g r u l e a t t h e t i m e t h e p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d h i s E n t r y o f b e e n i n t e n de d b y t h e R T C.   I n d e n y i n g t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e i n j u n c t i v e c o u r t,

A p p e a r a n c e w i t h t h e   M e T C   o n   S e p t e m b e r 2 5, 2 0 0 0.   N o r e a l d i s t i n c t i o n t h e R T C s t a t e d i n i t s D e c i s i o n t h a t t h e r e w a s n o cl a i m f o r c i v i l l i a b i l i t y

e x i s t s f o r u n d e r S e c t i o n 6 , R u l e 5 o f t h e R u l e s o f C o u r t, t h e t e r m b y t h e p r i v a t e co m p l a i n a n t f o r d a m a g e s , a n d t h a t t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e ca s e

" M u n i c i p a l T r i a l C o u r t s " a s u s e d i n t h e s e R u l e s s h a l l i nc l u d e M e t r o p o l i t a n d o n o t p r o v i d e f o r a c l a i m f o r i n d e m n i t y ; a n d t h a t t h e r e f o re , p e t i t i o n e r s

T r i a l C o u r t s , M u n i c i p a l T r i a l C o u r t s i n C i t i e s , M u n i c i p a l T r i a l C o u r t s, a p p e a r a n c e a s p r i v a t e p r o s e c u t o r a p p e a r s t o b e le g a l l y u n t e n a b l e.

a n d M u n i c i p a l C i r c u i t T r i a l C o u r t s.  

T h e r e i s r e a l l y n o p r o b l e m a s t o t h e a p p l i ca t i o n o f S e c t i o n 3 4 o f U n d e r A r t i c l e 1 0 0 o f t h e R e v i s e d P e n a l C o d e, e v e r y p e r s o n c r i m i n a l l y

R u l e 1 3 8 a n d R u l e 1 3 8 - A .   I n t h e f o r m e r, t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f a n o n - l a w y e r, l i a b l e f o r a f e l o n y i s a l s o c i v i l l y l i a b l e e xc e p t i n i n s t a n c e s w h e n n o a c t u a l

as an agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly allowed, while the d a m a g e r e s u l t s f r o m a n o f f e n s e, s u c h a s e s p i o n a g e, v i o l a t i o n o f n e u t r a l i t y ,

l a t t e r r u l e p r o v i d e s f o r c o n d i t i o n s w h e n a l a w s t u d e n t, n o t a s a n a g e n t o r a f l i g h t t o a n e n e m y c o u n t r y, a n d c r i m e a g a i n s t p o p u l a r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .
[9]
f r i e n d o f a p a r t y l i t i g a n t , m a y a p p e a r b e f o re t h e c o u r t s .   T h e b a s i c r u l e a p p l i e s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e, s u c h t h a t w h e n a cr i m i n a l

  a c t i o n i s i n s t i t u t e d , t he c i v i l a c t i o n f o r t h e r e c o v e r y o f c i v i l l i a b i l i t y

P e t i t i o n e r e x p r e s s l y a n c h o r e d h i s a p p e a ra n c e o n S e c t i o n 3 4 o f R u l e a r i s i n g f r o m t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d s h a l l b e de e m e d i n s t i t u t e d w i t h c r i m i n a l

138. The court a quo must have been confused by the fact that petitioner a c t i o n , u n l e s s t he o f f e n d e d p a r t y w a i v e s t h e c i v i l a c t i o n, r e s e r v e s t h e

r e f e r r e d t o h i m s e l f a s a l a w s t u d e n t i n h i s e n t r y o f ap p e a r a n c e .   R u l e 1 3 8 - r i g h t t o i n s t i t u t e i t s e p a r a t e l y o r i n s t i t u t e s t h e c i v i l ac t i o n p r i o r t o t h e

A should not have been used by the courts a quo  in denying permission to c r i m i n a l ac t i o n . [ 1 0 ]

a c t a s p r i v a t e p r o s e c u t o r a g a i n s t pe t i t i o n e r f o r t h e s i m p l e r e a s o n t h a t R u l e T h e p e t i t i o n e r i s co r r e c t i n s t a t i n g t h a t t h e r e b e i n g n o r e s e r v a t i o n , w a i v e r,

1 3 8 - A i s n o t t h e b a s i s f o r t h e pe t i t i o n e r s a p p e a r a nc e . n o r p r i o r i n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e c i v i l a s p e c t i n C r i m i n a l C a s e N o. 0 0 - 1 7 0 5, i t

  f o l l o w s t h a t t h e c i v i l a s p e c t a r i s i n g f r o m G r a v e T h re a t s i s d e e m e d

S e c t i o n 3 4, R u l e 1 3 8 i s c l e a r t h a t a p p e a ra n c e b e f o r e t h e i n fe r i o r c o u r t s b y i n s t i t u t e d w i t h t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n, a n d , h e n ce , t h e p r i v a t e p r o s e c u t o r ma y

a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law r i g h t f u l l y i n t e r v e n e t o p r o se c u t e t h e c i v i l a s pe c t .

s t u d e n t . A s s u c c i n c t l y c l a r i f i e d i n B a r M a t t e r N o. 7 3 0, b y v i r t u e o f S e c t i o n  

3 4 , R u l e 1 3 8, a l a w s t u d e n t m a y a p p e a r, a s a n a g e n t o r a f r i e n d o f a pa r t y WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The a s s a i le d

l i t i g a n t , w i t h o u t t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f a l a w y e r b e f o r e i n f e r i o r co u r t s . Resolution and Order of the Regional Trial C o u r t, Branch

P e t i t i o n e r f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e R T C e r r o n e o u s l y h e l d t ha t , b y i t s v e r y 1 1 6 ,   P a s a y   C i t y   a r e   R E V E R S E D   a n d   S E T A S I D E .   T h e M e t r o p o l i t a n T r ia l

n a t u r e , n o c i v i l l i a b i l i t y m a y f l o w f r o m t h e c r i m e o f G r a v e T h r e a t s, a n d , Court, Branch 4 5,   P a s a y   C i t y is DIRECTED to ADMIT the Entry of

for this reason, the intervention of a private prosecutor is not possible. Appearance of petitioner in Criminal Case No. 00-1705 as a private

  prosecutor under the direct control and supervision of t he public

prosecutor.
N o p r o n o u n c e m e n t a s t o c o s t s.

S O O R D E R E D.