Nature and Procedural History
This is a petition for review on certiorari with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction assailing the Resolution of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 116, Pasay City, in Civil Case No. 02-0137, which denied the issuance of a writ of a preliminary injunction against the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 45, Pasay City, in Criminal Case No. 00-1705; and the RTC’s Order dated June 5, 2002, denying the Motion for Reconsideration
Case Facts
Ferdinand Cruz, a third-year law student, filed his formal Entry of Appearance before the MeTC as private prosecutor in a criminal case for Grave Threats where his father is a complaining witness.
He justified his appearance as a private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and the ruling of the Court En Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr. that a non-lawyer may appear before the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant.
However, the MeTC denied permission for the petitioner to appear as a private prosecutor 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.
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration contending that Rule 138-A, or the Law Student Practice Rule, does not have the effect of superseding Section 34 of Rule 138.
The Motion for Reconsideration was denied, hence, the 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.
The RTC denied the prayer, on the ground that the crime involved can be prosecuted de oficio, there being no claim for civil indemnity, thus the intervention of a private prosecutor is not legally tenable.
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration contending that the law does not state the crime of Grave Threats has no civil aspect.
The Motion for Reconsideration was also denied, hence, this petition is filed before the Supreme Court raising the following issue.
Issue
Whether a law student may appear before the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant.
Held
Yes. In Bar Matter No. 730, the Court En Banc clarified:
The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer.
Section 34, Rule 138 provides:
Sec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. – In the court of a justice of the peace, 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.
Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar.
Hence, the Court directed the MeTC to admit the Appearance of the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 00-1705 as a private prosecutor under the direct control and supervision of the public prosecutor.
References
The LawPhil Project. (2007, April 27). G.R. No. 154207. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_154207_2007.html