THIRDDIVISION

FERDINANDA.CRUZ,332EdangSt.,
PasayCity,
Petitioner,

versus

JUDGEPRISCILLAMIJARES,
PresidingJudge,RegionalTrialCourt,
Branch108,PasayCity,MetroManila,
PublicRespondent.

BENJAMINMINA,JR.,332EdangSt.,
PasayCity,
PrivateRespondent.

G.R.No.154464

Present:

TINGA,J.,*
CHICONAZARIO,
ActingChairperson,
VELASCO,JR.,*

NACHURA,and
REYES,JJ.

Promulgated:

September11,2008

xx

DECISION

NACHURA,J.:

ThisisaPetitionforCertiorari,ProhibitionandMandamus,withprayerfortheissuanceof

awritofpreliminaryinjunctionunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.Itwasdirectlyfiledwiththis
[1]
[2]
CourtassailingtheResolutionsdatedMay10,2002 andJuly31,2002 oftheRegionalTrial
Court(RTC),Branch108,PasayCity,whichdeniedtheappearanceoftheplaintiffFerdinandA.
Cruz,hereinpetitioner,aspartylitigant,andtherefusalofthepublicrespondent,JudgePriscilla
Mijares,tovoluntarilyinhibitherselffromtryingthecase.Nowritofpreliminaryinjunctionwas
issuedbythisCourt.

Theantecedents:

OnMarch5,2002,FerdinandA.Cruz(petitioner)soughtpermissiontoenterhisappearancefor
andonhisbehalf,beforetheRTC,Branch108,PasayCity,astheplaintiffinCivilCaseNo.01
0410, for Abatement of Nuisance. Petitioner, a fourth year law student, anchors his claim on
[3]
Section34ofRule138oftheRulesofCourt thatanonlawyermayappearbeforeanycourt
andconducthislitigationpersonally.


During the pretrial, Judge Priscilla Mijares required the petitioner to secure a written
permission from the Court Administrator before he could be allowed to appear as counsel for
himself,apartylitigant.Atty.StanleyCabrera,counselforBenjaminMina,Jr.,filedaMotionto
Dismiss instead of a pretrial brief to which petitioner Cruz vehemently objected alleging that a
MotiontoDismissisnotallowedaftertheAnswerhadbeenfiled.JudgeMijaresthenremarked,
Haynaku,masamayungmarunongpasaHuwes.Ok?andproceededtohearthependingMotion
toDismissandcalendaredthenexthearingonMay2,2002.

[4]
OnMarch6,2002,petitionerCruzfiledaManifestationandMotiontoInhibit, praying
forthevoluntaryinhibitionofJudgeMijares.TheMotionallegedthatexpectedpartialityonthe
partoftherespondentjudgeintheconductofthetrialcouldbeinferredfromthecontumacious
remarksofJudgeMijaresduringthepretrial.Itassertsthatthejudge,inutteringanuncalledfor
remark, reflects a negative frame of mind, which engenders the belief that justice will not be
[5]
served.

[6]
InanOrder datedApril19,2002,JudgeMijaresdeniedthemotionforinhibitionstating
thatthrowingtenuousallegationsofpartialitybasedonthesaidremarkisnotenoughtowarrant
hervoluntaryinhibition,consideringthatitwassaidevenpriortothestartofpretrial.Petitioner
[7]
filedamotionforreconsideration ofthesaidorder.

[8]
OnMay10,2002,JudgeMijaresdeniedthemotionwithfinality. InthesameOrder,the
trial court held that for the failure of petitioner Cruz to submit the promised document and
jurisprudence,andforhisfailuretosatisfytherequirementsorconditionsunderRule138Aofthe
RulesofCourt,hisappearancewasdenied.

[9]
Inamotionforreconsideration, petitionerreiteratedthatthebasisofhisappearancewas
notRule138A,butSection34ofRule138.HecontendedthatthetwoRulesweredistinctandare
applicable to different circumstances, but the respondent judge denied the same, still invoking
[10]
Rule138A,inanOrder
datedJuly31,2002.

On August 16, 2002, the petitioner directly filed with this Court, the instant petition and
assignsthefollowingerrors:

assignsthefollowingerrors:

I.

THE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED AND ABUSED ITS
DISCRETIONWHENITDENIEDTHEAPPEARANCEOFTHEPETITIONER,FORANDIN
THE LATTERS BEHALF, IN CIVIL CASE NO. 010401 [sic] CONTRARY TO RULE 138,
SECTION34OFTHERULESOFCOURT,PROVIDINGFORTHEAPPEARANCEOFNON
LAWYERSASAPARTYLITIGANT

II.

THERESPONDENTCOURTGRAVELYERREDANDABUSEDITSDISCRETIONWHENIT
DID NOT VOLUNTARILY INHIBIT DESPITE THE ADVENT OF JURISPRUDENCE [sic]
THAT SUCH AN INHIBITION IS PROPER TO PRESERVE THE PEOPLES FAITH AND
CONFIDENCETOTHECOURTS.

The core issues raised before the Court are: (1) whether the extraordinary writs of
certiorari,prohibitionandmandamusunderRule65ofthe1997RulesofCourtmayissueand(2)
whethertherespondentcourtactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessof
jurisdiction when it denied the appearance of the petitioner as party litigant and when the judge
refusedtoinhibitherselffromtryingthecase.

ThisCourtsjurisdictiontoissuewritsofcertiorari,prohibition,mandamusandinjunctionis
not exclusive it has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals. This
concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as an absolute, unrestrained freedom to
[11]
choose the court where the application therefor will be directed.
A becoming regard of the
judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs
[12]
against the RTCs should be filed with the Court of Appeals.
The hierarchy of courts is
determinative of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs and only in
exceptionalcasesandforcompellingreasons,orifwarrantedbythenatureoftheissuesreviewed,
[13]
maythisCourttakecognizanceofpetitionsfileddirectlybeforeit.

Considering,however,thatthiscaseinvolvestheinterpretationofSection34,Rule138and
Rule138AoftheRulesofCourt,theCourttakescognizanceofhereinpetition.Nonetheless,the
petitioner is cautioned not to continue his practice of filing directly before this Court petitions
underRule65whentheissueraisedcanberesolvedwithdispatchbytheCourtofAppeals.We
will not tolerate litigants who make a mockery of the judicial hierarchy as it necessarily delays
moreimportantconcernsbeforeus.


Inresolvingthesecondissue,acomparativereadingofRule138,Section34andRule138Ais
necessary.

Rule138A,ortheLawStudentPracticeRule,provides:

RULE138A

LAWSTUDENTPRACTICERULE

Section1.ConditionsforStudentPractice.Alawstudentwhohassuccessfullycompletedhis3rd
year of the regular fouryear prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law
school's clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without
compensationinanycivil,criminaloradministrativecasebeforeanytrialcourt,tribunal,boardor
officer,torepresentindigentclientsacceptedbythelegalclinicofthelawschool.

Sec.2.Appearance.Theappearanceofthelawstudentauthorizedbythisrule,shallbeunderthe
direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly
accreditedbythelawschool.Anyandallpleadings,motions,briefs,memorandaorotherpapers
tobefiled,mustbesignedbythesupervisingattorneyforandinbehalfofthelegalclinic.

Therespondentcourtheldthatthepetitionercouldnotappearforhimselfandonhisbehalf
becauseofhisfailuretocomplywithRule138A.Indenyingpetitionersappearance,thecourta
quoterselyfindsrefugeinthefactthat,onDecember18,1986,thisCourtissuedCircularNo.19,
which eventually became Rule 138A, and the failure of Cruz to prove on record that he is
enrolledinarecognizedschoolsclinicallegaleducationprogramandisundersupervisionofan
attorneydulyaccreditedbythelawschool.

However, the petitioner insisted that the basis of his appearance was Section 34 of Rule 138,
whichprovides:

Sec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. In the court of a justice of the peace, a party may
conducthislitigationinperson,withtheaidofanagentorfriendappointedbyhimforthatpurpose,
orwiththeaidofanattorney.Inanyothercourt,apartymayconducthislitigationpersonally
orbyaidofanattorney,andhisappearancemustbeeitherpersonalorbyadulyauthorizedmember
ofthebar.

andisaruledistinctfromRule138A.

FromtheclearlanguageofthisprovisionoftheRules,itwillhavetobeconcededthatthe
contentionofthepetitionerhasmerit.Itrecognizestherightofanindividualtorepresenthimself
in any case to which he is a party. The Rules state that a party may conduct his litigation
personallyorwiththeaidofanattorney,andthathisappearancemusteitherbepersonalorbya

personallyorwiththeaidofanattorney,andthathisappearancemusteitherbepersonalorbya
duly authorized member of the Bar.The individual litigant may personally do everything in the
[14]
course of proceedings from commencement to the termination of the litigation.
Considering
that a party personally conducting his litigation is restricted to the same rules of evidence and
[15]
procedureasthosequalifiedtopracticelaw,
petitioner, not being a lawyer himself, runs the
riskoffallingintothesnaresandhazardsofhisownignorance.Therefore,Cruzasplaintiff,athis
owninstance,canpersonallyconductthelitigationofCivilCaseNo.010410.Hewouldthenbe
actingnotasacounselorlawyer,butasapartyexercisinghisrighttorepresenthimself.

The trial court must have been misled by the fact that the petitioner is a law student and
must,therefore,besubjecttotheconditionsoftheLawStudentPracticeRule.Iterredinapplying
Rule 138A, when the basis of the petitioners claim is Section 34 of Rule 138. The former rule
providesforconditionswhenalawstudentmayappearincourts,whilethelatterruleallowsthe
appearanceofanonlawyerasapartyrepresentinghimself.

TheconclusionofthetrialcourtthatRule138AsupersededRule138byvirtueofCircular
No.19ismisplaced.TheCourtneverintendedtorepealRule138whenitreleasedtheguidelines
forlimitedlawstudentpractice.Infact,itwasintendedasanaddendumtotheinstanceswhena
nonlawyermayappearincourtsandwasincorporatedtotheRulesofCourtthroughRule138A.

It may be relevant to recall that, in respect to the constitutional right of an accused to be

[16]
heard by himself and counsel,
this Court has held that during the trial, the right to counsel
[17]
[18]
cannot be waived.
The rationale for this ruling was articulated in People v. Holgado,
wherewedeclaredthateventhemostintelligentoreducatedmanmayhavenoskillinthescience
of law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and without counsel, he may be convicted not
becauseheisguiltybutbecausehedoesnotknowhowtoestablishhisinnocence.

Thecaseatbarinvolvesacivilcase,withthepetitionerasplaintifftherein.The solicitous
concern that the Constitution accords the accused in a criminal prosecution obviously does not
obtain in a civil case. Thus, 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
chancetodoso.Inthiscase,petitionerallegesthatheisalawstudentandimpliedlyassertsthathe
hasthecompetencetolitigatethecasehimself.Evidently,heisawareoftheperilsincidenttothis
decision.


In addition, it was subsequently clarified in Bar Matter 730, that by virtue of Section 34,
Rule138,alawstudentmayappearasanagentorafriendofapartylitigant,withoutneedofthe
supervisionofalawyer,beforeinferiorcourts.Here,wehavealawstudentwho,aspartylitigant,
wishestorepresenthimselfincourt.Weshouldgranthiswish.

Additionally, however, petitioner contends that the respondent judge committed manifest
biasandpartialitybyrulingthatthereisnovalidgroundforhervoluntaryinhibitiondespiteher
allegednegativedemeanorduringthepretrialwhenshesaid:Haynaku,masamayungmarunong
pa sa Huwes. Ok? Petitioner avers that by denying his motion, the respondent judge already
manifested conduct indicative of arbitrariness and prejudice, causing petitioners and his co
plaintiffslossoffaithandconfidenceintherespondentsimpartiality.

Wedonotagree.

[19]
Itmustbenotedthatbecauseofthisincident,thepetitionerfiledanadministrativecase
againsttherespondentforviolationoftheCanonsofJudicialEthics,whichwedismissedforlack
ofmeritonSeptember15,2002.WenowadopttheCourtsfindingsoffactintheadministrative
caseandrulethattherewasnograveabuseofdiscretiononthepartofJudgeMijareswhenshedid
notinhibitherselffromthetrialofthecase.

InaMotionforInhibition,themovantmustprovethegroundforbiasandprejudicebyclear
[20]
and convincing evidence to disqualify a judge from participating in a particular trial,
as
voluntaryinhibitionisprimarilyamatterofconscienceandaddressedtothesounddiscretionof
thejudge.Thedecisiononwhethersheshouldinhibitherselfmustbebasedonherrationaland
[21]
logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case before her.
Absent clear and
convincingproofofgraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartofthejudge,thisCourtwillruleinfavor
ofthepresumptionthatofficialdutyhasbeenregularlyperformed.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Resolution and

OrderoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch108,PasayCityareMODIFIED.RegionalTrialCourt,
Branch108,PasayCityisDIRECTEDtoADMITtheEntryofAppearanceofpetitionerinCivil
CaseNo.010410asapartylitigant.


Nopronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson

RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Acting Chairperson's
Attestation,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
*Designated additional members in lieu of Associate Justices Consuelo YnaresSantiago and Ma. AliciaAustriaMartinez per Special
OrderNo.517datedAugust27,2008.
[1]
Rollo,pp.3435.
[2]
Id.at4345.

[3]
Section31Rule138.Bywhomlitigationconducted.Inthecourtofjusticeofthepeaceapartymayconducthislitigationinperson,
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
conducthislitigationpersonallyorbyaidofanattorney,andhisappearancemustbeeitherpersonalorbyadulyauthorizedmemberof
thebar.
[4]
ManifestationandMotiontoInhibit,rollo,pp.2930.

[5]
Rollo,p.30.
[6]
Id.at31.
[7]
AnnexDofthePetition,id.at3233.
[8]
Rollo,pp.3435.
[9]
AnnexFofthePetition,id.at3642.
[10]
AnnexGofthePetition,id.at4345.
[11]
Peoplev.Cuaresma,G.R.No.67787,April18,1989,172SCRA415,423424.
[12]
LigangmgaBarangayNationalv.CityMayorofManila,465Phil.529,543(2004).
[13]
Cruzv.Mina,G.R.No.154207,April27,2007,522SCRA382,386UnitedLaboratories,Inc.v.Isip,G.R.No.163858,June28,
2005,461SCRA574,593ArkTravelExpress,Inc.v.Abrogar,457Phil.189,202(2003).
[14]
Santosv.Lacurom,A.M.No.RTJ041823,August28,2006,499SCRA639,648649.
[15]
Maderadav.Mediodea,459Phil.701,716717(2003).
[16]
CONSTITUTION,Art.III,Sec.14(2).
[17]
Floresv.Ruiz,179Phil.351,355(1979).
[18]
86Phil.752(1950).
[19]
FerdinandCruzv.JudgePriscillaMijares,OCAIPINo.021452RTJ,
[20]
Peoplev.Ong,G.R.Nos.16213039,May5,2006,489SCRA679,688.
[21]
Abrajanov.HeirsofAugustoF.Salas,Jr.,G.R.No.158895,February16,2006,482SCRA476,487.