DISBARMENT & DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS

Rule 139-B
Section 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys
may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the
facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of
the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts. chanrobles
virtua law library
.
The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or by a
Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper
charges against erring attorneys including those in the government service; Provided, however,
that all charges against Justices of the Court of Tax Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, and Judges
of the Court of Tax Appeals and lower courts, even if lawyers are jointly charged with them,
shall be filed with the Supreme Court; Provided, further, that charges filed against Justices and
Judges before the IBP, including those filed prior to their appointment in the Judiciary, shall
immediately be forwarded to the Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication.
Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the
IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapters who shall forthwith transmit the same
to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an investigator. (As amended by
Bar Matter No. 1960).
A. PROCEEDINGS IN THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sec. 2. National Grievance Investigator. - The Board of Governors shall appoint from among IBP
members an Investigator or, when special circumstances so warrant, a panel of three(3)
investigators to investigate the complaint All Investigators shall take an oath of office in the
form prescribed by the Board of Governors. A copy of the Investigator's appointment and oath
shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.
An Investigator may be disqualified by reason of relationship within the fourth
degree of consanguinity or affinity to any of the parties or their counsel,
pecuniary interest, personal bias, or his having acted as counsel for either
party, unless the parties sign and enter upon the record their written consent to
his acting as such Investigator. Where the Investigator does not disqualify
himself, a party may appeal to the IBP Board of Governors, which by majority vote
of the members present, there being a quorum, may order his disqualification.
Any Investigator may also be removed for cause, after due hearing, by the vote of
at least six (6) members of the IBP Board Governors. The decision of the Board of
Governors in all cases of disqualification or removal shall be final.
Sec. 3. Duties of the National Grievance Investigator. - The National Grievance Investigators
shall investigate all complaint against members of the Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP
Board of Governors.
Sec. 4. Chapter assistance to complainant. - The proper IBP Chapter may assist the complainant(s)
in
the
preparation
and
filing
of
his
complaint(s).
chanrobles virtua law library
Sec. 5. Service or dismissal. - If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator
shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same
within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action, or if
the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious,
the same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A copy of the
resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and the Supreme Court which may review
the case motu proprio or upon timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days from notice
of
the
dismissal
of
the
complainant.
No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute
the
same.
Sec. 6. Verification and service of answer. - The answer shall be verified. The original and five

(5) legible copies of the answer shall be filed with the Investigator, with proof of service of a
copy thereof on the complainant or his counsel.
Sec. 7. Administrative counsel. - The IBP Board of Governors shall appoint a suitable member of
the Integrated Bar as counsel to assist the complainant or the respondent during the
investigation in case of need for such assistance.
Sec. 8. Investigation. - Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the
Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall
have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given full
opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf and be heard by himself and
counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation
shall
proceed
ex
parte.
The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of its
commencement unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior application.
Willfull failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the
Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of court. The corresponding charge
shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors which shall require the
alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may
thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this
Rule for hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall, as far as practicable, be
terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors
shall within like period fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations, which `shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action and
if
warranted,
the
imposition
of
penalty.
Sec. 9. Depositions. - Depositions may be taken in accordance with the Rules of Court with leave
of
the
investigator(s).
chanrobles
virtua
law
library
Within the Philippines, depositions may be taken before any member of the Board of Governors,
the President of any Chapter, or any officer authorized by law to administer oaths.
Depositions may be taken outside the Philippines before a diplomatic or consular representative
of the Philippine Government or before any person agreed upon by the parties or designated by the
Board
of
Governors.
Any suitable members of the Integrated Bar in the place where a deposition shall be taken may be
designated by the Investigator to assist the complainant or the respondent in taking a
deposition.
Sec. 10. Report of Investigator. - Not later than thirty (30) days from the termination of the
investigation, the Investigator shall submit a report containing his findings of fact and
recommendations to the IBP Board of Governors, together with the stenographic notes and the
transcripts thereof and all the evidence presented during the investigation. The submission of
the report need not await the transcription of the stenographic notes, it being sufficient that
the report reproduce substantially from the Investigator's personal notes any relevant and
pertinent
testimonies.
Sec. 11. Defects. - No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or in the proceeding or the
Investigator's Report shall be considered as substantial unless the Board of Governors, upon
considering the whole record, finds that such defect has resulted or may result in a miscarriage
of justice, in which event the Board shall take such remedial action as the circumstance may
warrant, including invalidation of the entire proceedings. chanrobles virtua law library
Sec. 12. View and decision by the Board of Governors. (a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of
Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with
his report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and
shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based.
It shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the
next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator's Report
(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines
that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it
shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which,

together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme
Court
for
final
action.
(c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction
imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition,
reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing
such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the
complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen
(15) days from notice of the Boards resolution, the Supreme Court orders
otherwise.
(d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be given to all
parties through their counsel. A copy of the same shall be transmitted to the
Supreme Court.
B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT
Sec. 13. Supreme Court Investigators. - In proceedings initiated motu proprio by the Supreme
Court in other proceedings when the interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer
the case for investigation to the Solicitor General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or
judge of a lower court, in which case, the investigation shall proceed in the same manner
provided in Sections 6 to 11 hereof, save that the review report of the investigation shall be
conducted directly by the Supreme Court.chanrobles virtualawlibrary
Sec. 14. Report of the Solicitor General or other Court designated investigator. - Based upon the
evidence adduced at the investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator designated by
the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme Court a resolution containing his findings of fact
and recommendations together the record and all the evidence presented in the investigation for
the final action of the Supreme Court.
C. COMMON PROVISIONS
Sec. 15. Suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court. - After receipt of respondent's answer or
lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme Court, motu proprio, or at the instance of the IBP
Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the Investigator, may suspend an attorney from the
practice of his profession for any of the causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the
pendency of the investigation until such suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court. chanrobles
virtua law library
Sec. 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court. - The Court of
Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named
in Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the Supreme Court in the case.
Sec. 17. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court, further proceedings in
Supreme Court. - Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court shall
forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full
statement of the facts upon which the same was based. Upon receipt of such certified copy and
statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the case and may revoke, shorten
or extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as the facts may warrant.
Sec. 18. Confidentiality. - Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential.
However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other
cases.
Sec. 19. Expenses. - All reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in relation to disciplinary
and disbarment proceedings are lawful charges forthwith the parties may be taxed as costs.
chanrobles
virtua
law
library
Sec. 20. Effectivity and Transitory Provision. - This Rule shall take effect on June 1, 1988 and
shall supersede the present Rule 139 entitled "DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF ATTORNEYS". All cases
pending investigation by the Office of the Solicitor General shall be transferred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors for investigation and disposition as
provided in this Rule except those cases where the investigation has been substantially
completed. (Bar Matter No. 356, Resolution dated April 13, 1988).
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

PREAMBLE
chan robles virtual law library
An honorable competent and independent judiciary exists to administer justice and thus promote
the unity of the country, the stability of government, and the well-being of the people.cralaw.
CANON 1
A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY
AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
chan robles virtual law library
RULE 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.chanrobles
virtualawlibrary
RULE 1.02 - A
virtualawlibrary

judge

should

administer

justice

impartially

and

without

delay.chanrobles

RULE 1.03. - A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the independence of the
judiciary and should forthwith resist any pressure from whatever source intended to influence the
performance of official functions.

CANON 2
A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY
AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY
IN ALL ACTIVITIES

RULE 2.01 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity
and
impartiality
of
the
judiciary.
chan
robles
virtual
law
library

RULE 2.02 - A judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory.

RULE 2.03 - A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial
conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the
private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are
in a special position to influence the judge.

RULE 2.04 - A judge should refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.
CANON 3
A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL
DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY
AND DILIGENCE

ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.

RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the
applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.

RULE 3.03 - A judge shall maintain order and proper decorum in the court.

RULE 3.04 - A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the
inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should
avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts,
instead of the courts for the litigants.

RULE 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the
required periods.
RULE 3.06 - While a judge may, to promote justice, prevent waste of time or clear up some
obscurity, properly intervene in the presentation of evidence during the trial, it should always
be borne in mind that undue interference may prevent the proper presentation of the cause or the
ascertainment of truth.
RULE 3.07 - A judge should abstain from making public comments on any pending or impending case
and should require similar restraint on the part of court personnel.

ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

RULE 3.08 - A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain

professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative
functions or other judges and court personnel.
RULE 3.09 - A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and
efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of
public service and fidelity.
RULE 3.10 - A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or
court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.
RULE 3.11 - A judge should appoint commissioners, receivers, trustees, guardians, administrators
and others strictly on the basis of merit and qualifications, avoiding nepotism and favoritism.
Unless otherwise allowed by law, the same criteria should be observed in recommending appointment
of court personnel. Where the payment of compensation is allowed, it should be reasonable and
commensurate with the fair value of services rendered.

DISQUALIFICATION

RULE 3.12 - A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might
reasonably
be
questioned.
These
cases
include
among
others,
proceedings
where:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or
matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their
association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein;

(c) the judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;

(d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree
or to counsel within the fourth degree;
(e) the judge knows the judge's spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee,
creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceeding.
In every instance, the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition.cralaw.

REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION

RULE 3.13 - A judge disqualified by the terms of rule 3.12 may, instead of withdrawing from the
proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of disqualification. If, bases on such disclosure,
the parties and lawyers independently of judge's participation, all agree in writing that the
reason for the inhibition is immaterial or insubstantial, the judge may then participate in the
proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record
of the proceeding.
CANON 5
A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE EXTRA-JUDICIAL
ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK
OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL DUTIES
ADVOCATIONAL, CIVIC AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES
RULE 5.01 - A judge may engage in the following activities provided that they do not interfere
with
the
performance
of
judicial
duties
or
detract
from
the
dignity
of
the
court:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) write, teach and speak on non-legal subjects;

(b) engage in the arts, sports, and other special recreational activities;
(c) participate in civic and charitable activities;
(d) serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of a non-profit or non-political
educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization.
FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES
chan robles virtual law library
RULE 5.02 - A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealing that tend to reflect
adversely on the court's impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial
activities or increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. A
judge should so manage investments and other financial interests as to minimize the number of
cases giving grounds for disqualifications.

RULE 5.03 - Subject to the provisions of the proceeding rule, a judge may hold and manage
investments but should not serve as officer, director, manager or advisor, or employee of any
business except as director of a family business of the judge.chanrobles virtualawlibrary

RULE 5.04 - A judge or any immediate member of the family shall not accept a gift, bequest,
factor or loan from any one except as may be allowed by law.

RULE 5.05 - No information acquired in a judicial capacity shall be sued or disclosed by a judge
in any financial dealing or for any other purpose not related to judicial activities.
FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES
RULE 5.06 - A judge should not serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other
fiduciary, except for the estate, trusts, or person of a member of the immediate family, and then
only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. "Member
of immediate family" shall be limited to the spouse and relatives within the second degree of
consanguinity. As a family, a judge shall not:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) serve in proceedings that might come before the court of said judge; or
(b) act as such contrary to rules 5.02 to 5.05.

PRACTICE OF LAW AND OTHER PROFESSION

RULE 5.07 - A judge shall not engage in the private practice of law. Unless prohibited by the
Constitution or law, a judge may engage in the practice of any other profession provided that
such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with judicial functions.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

RULE 5.08 - A judge

virtualawlibrary

shall

make

full

financial

disclosure

as

required

by

law.chanrobles

RULE 5.09 - A judge shall not accept appointment or designation to any agency performing quasijudicial or administrative functions.cralaw.
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
chan robles virtual law library
RULE 5.10 - A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. But to avoid
suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not make political speeches, contribute to
party funds, publicly endorse candidates for political office or participate in other partisan
political activities.chanrobles virtualawlibrary
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
chan robles virtual law library
All judges shall strictly comply with this Code.cralaw.
DATE OF EFFECTIVITY

This Code, promulgated on 5 September 1989, shall take effect on 20 October 1989

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Baguio City

THIRD DIVISION

FERDINAND A. CRUZ,

G.R. No. 154207

Petitioner,

Present:

- versus -

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,

Chairperson,

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

CALLEJO, SR.,

ALBERTO MINA,

CHICO-NAZARIO, and

HON. ELEUTERIO F

NACHURA, JJ.

GUERRERO and HON.

ZENAIDA LAGUILLES,

Promulgated:

Respondents.

April 27, 2007

x----------------------------------------x

DECISION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, grounded on pure questions
of law, with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction assailing the Resolution dated May 3, 2002 promulgated by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 116, Pasay City, in Civil Case No. 02-0137, which denied the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction against the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 45, Pasay City, in Criminal Case No. 001705;1[ 1 ] and the RTCs Order dated June 5, 2002 denying the Motion for Reconsideration. No writ of preliminary
injunction was issued by this Court.

The antecedents:

On September 25, 2000, Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) filed before the MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as
private prosecutor, in Criminal Case No. 00-1705 for Grave Threats, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is the
complaining witness.

The petitioner, describing 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 and the ruling of the Court En Banc in

Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr.2[ 2 ] 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.

However, in an Order dated February 1, 2002, the MeTC denied permission for petitioner to appear as 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; and set the case for continuation of trial.3[ 3 ]

On February 13, 2002, petitioner filed before the MeTC a Motion for Reconsideration seeking to reverse the
February 1, 2002 Order alleging that Rule 138-A, or the Law Student Practice Rule, does not have the effect of
superseding Section 34 of Rule 138, for the authority to interpret the rule is the source itself of the rule, which is the
Supreme Court alone.

In an Order dated March 4, 2002, the MeTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

On April 2, 2002, 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.

After hearing the prayer for preliminary injunction to restrain public respondent MeTC Judge from
proceeding with Criminal Case No. 00-1705 pending the Certiorari proceedings, the RTC, in a Resolution dated May
3, 2002, resolved to deny the issuance of an 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.

On May 9, 2002, the petitioner filed before the RTC a Motion for Reconsideration. The petitioner argues that
nowhere does the law provide that the crime of Grave Threats has no civil aspect. And last, petitioner cites Bar

2
3

Matter No. 730 dated June 10, 1997 which expressly provides for the appearance of a non-lawyer before the inferior
courts, as an agent or friend of a party litigant, even without the supervision of a member of the bar.

Pending the resolution of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC, the petitioner filed a
Second Motion for Reconsideration dated June 7, 2002 with the MeTC seeking the reversal of the March 4, 2002
Denial Order of the said court, on the strength of Bar Matter No. 730, and a Motion to Hold In Abeyance the Trial
dated June 10, 2002 of Criminal Case No. 00-1705 pending the outcome of the certiorari proceedings before the
RTC.
On June 5, 2002, the RTC issued its Order denying the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.

Likewise, in an Order dated June 13, 2002, the MeTC denied the petitioners Second Motion for
Reconsideration and his Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Trial on the ground that the RTC had already denied the
Entry of Appearance of petitioner before the MeTC.

On July 30, 2002, the petitioner directly filed with this Court, the instant Petition and assigns the following
errors:

I.

THE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT RESOLVED TO DENY
THE PRAYER FOR THE WRIT OF INJUNCTION OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER DESPITE PETITIONER
HAVING ESTABLISHED THE NECESSITY OF GRANTING THE WRIT;

II.

THE RESPONDENT TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, TANTAMOUNT TO IGNORANCE OF THE
LAW, WHEN IT RESOLVED TO DENY THE PRAYER FOR THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
THE SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER ON THE BASIS
THAT [GRAVE] THREATS HAS NO CIVIL ASPECT, FOR THE SAID BASIS OF DENIAL IS NOT IN
ACCORD WITH THE LAW;

III.

THE RESPONDENT METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE
MOTION TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE TRIAL, WHEN WHAT WAS DENIED BY THE RESPONDENT REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT IS THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND WHEN THE
RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IS YET TO DECIDE ON THE MERITS OF THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI;

IV.

THE RESPONDENT COURT[S] ARE CLEARLY IGNORING THE LAW WHEN THEY PATENTLY REFUSED
TO HEED TO [sic] THE CLEAR MANDATE OF THE LAPUT, CANTIMBUHAN AND BULACAN CASES, AS
WELL AS BAR MATTER NO. 730, PROVIDING FOR THE APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS BEFORE THE
LOWER COURTS (MTCS).4[ 4 ]

This Court, in exceptional cases, and for compelling reasons, or if warranted by the nature of the issues reviewed,
may take cognizance of petitions filed directly before it.5[ 5 ]

Considering that this case involves the interpretation, clarification, and implementation of Section 34, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, Bar Matter No. 730, Circular No. 19 governing law student practice and Rule 138-A of the Rules
of Court, and the ruling of the Court in Cantimbuhan, the Court takes cognizance of herein petition.

The basic question is whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an inferior court as an
agent or friend of a party litigant.

The courts a quo held that the Law Student Practice Rule as encapsulated in Rule 138-A of the Rules of
Court, prohibits the petitioner, as a law student, from entering his appearance in behalf of his father, the private
complainant in the criminal case without the supervision of an attorney duly accredited by the law school.

Rule 138-A or the Law Student Practice Rule, provides:

4
5

RULE 138-A

LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE

Section 1.
Conditions for Student Practice. A law student who has successfully
completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a
recognized law school's clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme Court, may
appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case before any trial court,
tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law
school.

Sec. 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 by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.

However, in Resolution6[ 6 ] dated June 10, 1997 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. 7[ 7 ] (Emphasis supplied)

6
7

The phrase In the court of a justice of the peace in Bar Matter No. 730 is subsequently changed to In the
court of a municipality as it now appears in Section 34 of Rule 138, thus: 8[ 8 ]

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. (Emphasis supplied)
which is the prevailing rule at the time the petitioner filed his Entry of Appearance with the MeTC on September 25,
2000. No real distinction exists for under Section 6, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, the term "Municipal Trial Courts" as
used in these Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
There is really no problem as to the application of Section 34 of Rule 138 and Rule 138-A. In the former, the
appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly allowed, while the latter rule
provides for conditions when a law student, not as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, may appear before the
courts.

Petitioner expressly anchored his appearance on Section 34 of Rule 138. 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.
Petitioner further argues that the RTC erroneously held that, by its very nature, no civil liability may flow
from the crime of Grave Threats, and, for this reason, the intervention of a private prosecutor is not possible.

It is clear from the RTC Decision that no such conclusion had been intended by the RTC. In denying the
issuance of the injunctive court, the RTC stated in its Decision that there was no claim for civil liability by the private
complainant for damages, and that the records of the case do not provide for a claim for indemnity; and that
therefore, petitioners appearance as private prosecutor appears to be legally untenable.

Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable
except in instances when no actual damage results from an offense, such as espionage, violation of neutrality, flight
to an enemy country, and crime against popular representation. 9[ 9 ] 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. 10[ 1 0 ]

The petitioner is correct in stating that there being no reservation, waiver, nor prior institution of the civil
aspect in Criminal Case No. 00-1705, 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.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution and Order of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 116, Pasay City are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 45, Pasay City is
DIRECTED to ADMIT the Entry of Appearance of petitioner in Criminal Case No. 00-1705 as a private prosecutor
under the direct control and supervision of the public prosecutor.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

BAR MATTER NO. 730 June 13, 1997

Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 10, 1997.
IN RE: NEED THAT LAW STUDENT PRACTICING UNDER RULE 138-A BE ACTUALLY SUPERVISED DURING TRIAL (BAR
MATTER NO. 730).
The issue in this Consulta is 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. This issue was raised by retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio P.

9
10

Barredo, counsel for the defendant in Civil Case No. BCV-92-11 entitled Irene A. Caliwara v. Roger T. Catbagan filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite.
The records show that the plaintiff in civil Case No. BCV-92-11 was represented by Mr. Cornelio Carmona, Jr., an intern at the Office
of Legal Aid, UP-College of Law (UP-OLA). Mr. Carmona conducted hearings and completed the presentation of the plaintiff's
evidence-in-chief 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. On December 15, 1994, 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.
Justice Barredo asserts that a law student appearing before the trial court under Rule 138-A should be accompanied by a
supervising lawyer. 1 On the other hand, UP-OLA, through its Director, Atty. Alfredo F. Tadiar, 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." 2
For the guidance of the bench and bar, we hold that 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.
This is in accordance with the threefold rationale behind the Law Student Practice Rule, to wit: 3
1. to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of justice as a result of incompetence or inexperience of
law students, who, not having as yet passed the test of professional competence, are presumably not
fully equipped to act a counsels on their own;
2. to provide a mechanism by which the accredited law school clinic may be able to protect itself from
any potential vicarious liability arising from some culpable action by their law students; and
3. to ensure consistency with the fundamental principle that no person is allowed to practice a
particular profession without possessing the qualifications, particularly a license, as required by law.
The matter of allowing a law student to appear before the court unaccompanied by a supervising lawyer cannot be left to the
discretion of the presiding judge. The rule clearly states that the appearance of the law student shall be under the direct control and
supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by law schools. 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. 4 We said in Bulacan v. Torcino: 5
Court procedures are often technical and may prove like snares to the ignorant or the unwary. In the past, our law has
allowed non-lawyers to appear for party litigants in places where duly authorized members of the bar are not available
(U.S. vs. Bacansas, 6 Phil. 539). 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.
The Law Student Practice Rule is only an exception to the rule. Hence, the presiding judge should see to it that the law student
appearing before the court is properly guided and supervised by a member of the bar.
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;
Section 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.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hold that a law student appearing before the Regional Trial Court under the authority of Rule 138-A must
be under the direct control and supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school
and that said law student must be accompanied by a supervising lawyer in all his appearance.
Padilla and Francisco, J.J., on leave.