UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

School of Law and Governance

College of Law

LEGAL PROFESSION
Judge Amy Rose Soler-Rellin

BY:
BEVERLY ROSE DE LA CRUZ
ANGELOU GARCIA
MIKKO GABRIEL LANGBID
RAYMUND NINO MENDOZA
ANGEL PHYLLIS PRIAS
JIMI SINGCO
KRIS ELLEN TAUCAN

3. Distinguish law student practice from pro se representation.

LAW STUDENT PRACTICE FROM A PRO SE REPRESENTATION

The difference between a law student practice from a pro se representation is that in the former, it is when
a law student may appear in courts with a direct supervision from a lawyer, while the latter refers to the
appearance of a non-lawyer as a party representing himself, thus a law student may appear in his personal
capacity without direct supervision and control from a lawyer.

In Law Student Practice, under Rule 138-A, 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. The appearance of which shall be under the direct supervision and
control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school.

In Pro Se legal representation, Rule 138, Section 34, 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. An
individual may represent himself in any case to which he is a party in a court of law instead of being
represented by a lawyer. The individual litigant may personally do everything in the course of proceedings
from commencement to the termination of the litigation. Under this rule, 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.
4. Research and digest two cases involving law student practice.

G.R. No. L-51813-14 November 29, 1983

ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN, NELSON B. MALANA, and ROBERT V. LUCILA, petitioners,

vs.
HON. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court of Parañaque, Metro
Manila, and FISCAL LEODEGARIO C. QUILATAN, respondents.

FACTS:

Appeal from the Order, dated August 16, 1979, of respondent Judge Nicanor J. Cruz, Jr., of the then
Municipal Court of Parañaque, Metro Manila, disallowing the appearances of petitioners Nelson B. Malana
and Robert V. Lucila as private prosecutors in Criminal Cases Nos. 58549 and 58550, both for less serious
physical injuries, filed against Pat. Danilo San Antonio and Pat. Rodolfo Diaz, respectively, as well as the
Order, dated September 4, 1979, denying the motion for reconsideration holding, among others, that "the
fiscal's claim that appearances of friends of party-litigants should be allowed only in places where there is
a scarcity of legal practitioner, to be well founded. For, if we are to allow non-members of the bar to appear
in court and prosecute cases or defend litigants in the guise of being friends of the litigants, then the
requirement of membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the additional requirement of paying
professional taxes for a lawyer to appear in court, would be put to naught. "

Petitioner Romulo Cantimbuhan filed separate criminal complaints against Patrolmen Danilo San Antonio
and Rodolfo Diaz for less serious physical injuries, respectively, and were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos.
58549 and 58550 in the then Municipal Court of Parañaque, Metro Manila.
Petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert V. Lucila, were senior law students of the U.P.assistance to the
needy clients in the Office of the Legal Aid. Thus, petitioners Malana and Lucila filed their separate
appearances, as friends of complainant-petitioner Cantimbuhan. Herein respondent Fiscal Leodegario C.
Quilatan opposed the appearances of said petitioners, and respondent judge, sustained the respondent fiscal
and disallowed the appearances of petitioners Malana and Lucila, as private prosecutors in said criminal
cases.

The basis of the petition is Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, respondents
argued that pursuant to Sections 4 and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, it is the fiscal who is empowered
to determine who shall be the private prosecutor as was done by respondent fiscal when he objected to the
appearances of petitioners Malana and Lucila.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the orders of respondent judge, dated August 16, 1979 and September 4, 1979, were in plain
violation of Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and/or were issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

RULING:

In the case of Laput vs. Bernabe, 55 Phil. 621, a law student was allowed to represent the accused in a case
pending before the Municipal Court, the City Court of Manila, who was charged for damages to property
through reckless imprudence.

The permission of the fiscal is not necessary for one to enter his appearance as private prosecutor. If the
fiscal desires the active participation of the private prosecutor, he can just manifest to the court that the
private prosecutor, with its approval, will conduct the prosecution of the case under his supervision and
control.

Petitioner Cantimbuhan, as the offended party, did not expressly waive the civil action nor reserve his right
to institute it separately and, therefore, the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted in said criminal cases.
Thus, said complainant Romulo Cantimbuhan has personal interest in the success of the civil action and, in
the prosecution of the same, he cannot be deprived of his right to be assisted by a friend who is not a lawyer.
G.R. No. 154464 September 11, 2008

FERDINAND A. CRUZ, petitioner,

vs.
JUDGE PRISCILLA MIJARES, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay, Metro
Manila, public respondent. BENJAMIN MINA, JR., private respondent.

FACTS:

On March 5, 2002, Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) sought permission to enter his appearance for and on his
behalf, before the RTC of Pasay City, as the plaintiff in a civil case. Petitioner, a fourth year law student,
anchors his claim on Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court that a non-lawyer may appear before any
court and conduct his litigation personally.

During the pre-trial, Judge Priscilla Mijares (public respondent) required the petitioner to secure a written
permission from the Court Administrator before he could be allowed to appear as counsel for himself, a
party-litigant. Atty. Stanley Cabrera, counsel for Benjamin Mina, Jr. (private respondent), filed a Motion
to Dismiss instead of a pre-trial brief to which petitioner Cruz strongly objected alleging that a Motion to
Dismiss is not allowed after the Answer had been filed.

In an Order dated April 19, 2002, the trial court held that the petitioner’s appearance was denied for his to
submit the promised document and jurisprudence, and for his failure to satisfy the requirements or
conditions under Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court.

In a motion for reconsideration, petitioner reiterated that the basis of his appearance was not Rule 138-A,
but Section 34 of Rule 138. He contended that the two Rules were distinct and are applicable to different
circumstances, but the respondent judge denied the same, still invoking Rule 138-A, in an Order dated July
31, 2002.

On August 16, 2002, the petitioner directly filed with this Court, the instant petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent court acted was right when it denied the appearance of the petitioner as party
litigant.

RULING:

In resolving the issue, Rule 138-A and Rule 138, Section 34 have to be distinguished.

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

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.

The respondent court held that the petitioner could not appear for himself and on his behalf because of his
failure to comply with Rule 138-A. He failed to prove on record that he is enrolled in a recognized school's
clinical legal education program and is under supervision of an attorney duly accredited by the law school.

However, the petitioner insisted that the basis of his appearance was under Section 34 of Rule 138, which
is different from Rule 138-A which 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.

From the clear language of this provision of the Rules, it will have to be conceded that Cruz as plaintiff,
at his own instance, can personally conduct the litigation of the civil case. He would then be acting not
as a counsel or lawyer, but as a party exercising his right to represent himself.

The trial court must have been misled by the fact that the petitioner is a law student and must, therefore,
be subject to the conditions of the Law Student Practice Rule. It erred in applying Rule 138-A, when
the basis of the petitioner's claim is Section 34 of Rule 138. The former rule provides for conditions
when a law student may appear in courts, while the latter rule allows the appearance of a non-lawyer
as a party representing himself.

The case at bar involves a civil case, with the petitioner as plaintiff therein. Thus, a party litigant in a
civil case, who insists that he can, without a lawyer's assistance, effectively undertake the successful
pursuit of his claim, may be given the chance to do so. In this case, petitioner alleges that he is a law
student and impliedly asserts that he has the competence to litigate the case himself.