Cruz v. Mijares (& Mina) J.

Nachura (Third Division) | 11 September 2008 TOPIC: Jurisdiction SC Facts:

March 2002: Ferdinand Cruz sought permission from the RTC Pasay City to enter his appearance for & on his behalf as plaintiff in a case for Abatement of Nuisance. Cruz is a 4th-year law student, and anchors his claim on Sec. 34, Rule 138 (Attorneys & Admission to the Bar), which provides that a non-lawyer may appear before any court and personally conduct his litigation. During pre-trial: Judge Mijares required Cruz to obtain written permission from the Court Administrator. Counsel for defendant (Benjamin Mina) filed a motion to dismiss instead of a pre-trial brief. Cruz objected: a motion to dismiss is not allowed after the Answer had been filed. But, Judge Mijares disregarded Cruzs objection (Hay naku, masama yung marunong sa huwes. Ok?), and proceeded to hear the pending motion to dismiss and scheduled the next hearing. Cruz: filed a Manifestation and Motion to Inhibit, praying for the voluntary inhibition of Judge Mijares. Cruz alleged that Mijares exhibited partiality in favor of Mina, given her contumacious remarks during pre-trial. Judge Mijares denied Cruzs Motion to Inhibit: Cruzs allegations were insufficient to merit her voluntary inhibition. Her remarks had actually been made before pre-trial. Mijares also held that his appearance was denied, since Cruz failed to submit the required written permission and jurisprudence, and since he failed to satisfy the conditions under Rule 138-A (Law Student Practice Rule; originated from SC Circular No. 19, effective 18 December 1986). Cruz filed MR: the basis of his appearance was not Rule 138-A, but Sec. 34, Rule 138. Different rules applicable to different circumstances! This was denied. Cruz then filed the present petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, & Mandamus, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

Issues/Held: (1) Whether the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus (Rule 65) may issue

SC shares concurrent jurisdiction with the RTCs and the CA with respect to the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, injunction & mandamus. But, judicial hierarchy must be considered. It follows that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against the RTCs should be filed with the CA. Judicial hierarchy: determinative of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. This will only be disregarded given the existence of exceptional or compelling circumstances like in this case! SC will take cognizance since this case involves the interpretation of Sec. 34, Rule 138 & Rule 138-A.

(2) Whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the appearance of Cruz as party litigant, & when Mijares refused to inhibit herself

Rule 138-A (paraphrased): a law student who has completed 3 out of 4 years of the prescribed law curriculum & is enrolled in a recognized schools clinical legal education program approved by the SC may appear before any trial court in any case to represent indigent clients (Sec. 1); the appearance of such law student shall be under the direct supervision & control of a member of the IBP duly accredited by the law school (Sec. 2) Sec. 34, Rule 138 (paraphrased): 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, or with the aid of an attorney; in any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the Bar These are 2 distinct rules! Under Sec. 34, Rule 138: the individual litigant may personally do everything in the course of proceedings from commencement to the termination of the litigation at his own risk! Cruz would be acting not as a counsel or lawyer, but as a party exercising his right to represent himself. RTC must have been misled by the fact that Cruz is a law student when it applied Rule 138-A, which provides for conditions when a law student may appear in courts. Rule 138 was not superseded by Rule 138-A by virtue of SC Circ. No. 19. No repeal! Guidelines for limited law student practice intended as an addendum to the instances when a non-lawyer may appear in courts incorporated to ROC through Rule 138-A. The right to counsel may not be waived during trial (as guaranteed by the Constitution), but since case at bar involves a case civil in nature, and Cruz is plaintiff therein, this rule may be relaxed. A party litigant in a civil case who insists that he can, without a lawyers assistance, effectively undertake the successful pursuit of his claim, may be given the chance to do so. Also, Bar Matter 730: by virtue of Sec. 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, without need of the supervision of a lawyer, before inferior courts. On voluntary inhibition of Mijares: insufficient ground! SC already dismissed the administrative case filed by

Cruz against Mijares on the basis of the remarks she had made. No grave abuse of discretion on the part of Mijares when she did not inihibit herself. In a Motion for Inhibition, ground for bias must be proven by clear & convincing evidence. Voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience, and addressed to the sound discretion of the judge.