EDUARDO L. RAYO, PETITIONER, VS. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION AND HONORABLE BRANCH 226 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENTS.
CARANDANG, J.:
On February 2, 2004, petitioner filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing the validity/constitutionality of the provision of Section 7 of Act No. 3135. Said petition has its roots from a foreclosure sale of a parcel of land with improvements [covered by TCT No. 55452] in favor of respondent Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation. Claiming to be an assignee of the foreclosed property, petitioner filed a Complaint for Nullification of Real Estate Contract and Extra-judicial Foreclosure Sale, now pending before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 83.
Petitioner admitted that he is in possession of the subject property but because of his fear that  an ex-parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 would   be    filed  by respondent, petitioner instituted a petition for Declaratory Relief, raffled before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 226, assailing the validity of Section 7 of Act No 3135.
In a hearing set on March 15, 2004, petitioner appeared without counsel. Despite manifestation from the petitioner that he is appearing for himself, public respondent court directed petitioner to engage the services of a counsel or should petitioner insist to represent himself, to obtain a written authority from the Supreme Court to act as counsel for and in his own behalf. Petitioner filed a written motion seeking reconsideration, however, it was denied through the court’s Order dated  July 18 2004. Hence, the present petition for certiorari assailing the trial court’s order not allowing petitioner to conduct the litigation by himself.
Petitioner is not precluded from litigating personally his case. His right to conduct litigation personally is recognized under Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:
“SEC. 34 By whom litigation 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.”
In the case of Nera vs. The Auditor General2, the Honorable Supreme Court held:
“ x x x . There is nothing in the Constitution that says a party in a non-criminal proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that without such representation he will not be bound by such proceedings. The assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable. The legal profession was not engrafted in the due process clause such that without the participation of its members the safeguard is deemed ignored or violated. The ordinary citizen is not that helpless that he cannot validly act at all except only with a lawyer at his side. x x x “
Guided by the above-cited provision of the law and of the existing jurisprudence as well, We conclude that a non-member of the Philippine Bar, like the petitioner, is allowed to conduct his own litigation by himself. Public respondent’s order directing petitioner to obtain from the Honorable Supreme Court a written authority allowing him to act as counsel for himself is therefore without basis.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Orders dated March 15, 2004 and June 18, 2004 are SET ASIDE. Public respondent is hereby directed to act on the petition for Declaratory Relief and to allow petitioner to represent himself during court proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Dacudao, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.