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 FI…

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.” (p. 25, Rollo)

Records show that on April 6, 1979, 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 Paranaque,
Metro Manila.

Petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert V. Lucila, in
1979, were senior law students of the U. P. College of Law where, as part
of the curriculum of the university
they were required to render legal assistance to the needy clients in the
Office of the Legal Aid.  Thus, in August
1979, 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, in
an Order dated August 16, 1979, sustained the respondent fiscal and disallowed the appearances of petitioners Malana
and Lucila, as private prosecutors in said
criminal cases.  Likewise, on September
4, 1979, respondent
Judge issued an order denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Hence, this petition for certiorari,
mandamus and prohibition with prayers, among others, that the Orders of
respondent judge, dated August 16, 1979 and September 4, 1979, be set aside as they are 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.  Upon motion, the Court, on November 8, 1979,
issued a temporary restraining order “enjoining respondent judge and all
persons acting for and in his behalf from conducting any proceedings in Criminal
Cases Nos. 58549 (People of the Philippines vs. Danilo
San Antonio) and 58559 (People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Diaz) of the
Municipal Court of Paranaque Metro Manila on November
15, 1979 as scheduled or on any such dates as may be fixed by said respondent
judge.”

Basis of this petition is
Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which
states:

“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.”

Thus, a non-member of the
Philippine Bar – a party to an
action is authorized to appear in court and conduct his own case; and, in the
inferior courts, the litigant may be aided by a friend or agent or by an attorney. 
However, in the Courts of First Instance, now Regional Trial Courts, he
can be aided only by an
attorney.

On the other hand, it is
the submission of the respondents 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.  Sections 4
and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provide:

“SEC. 4.  Who
must prosecute criminal actions.  – All criminal actions
either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control of the fiscal.

“x x x                         x x
x                             x
x x

“SEC. 15.  Intervention of the offended party in criminal action.  – Unless the offended party has waived the
civil action or expressly reserved the right to institute it separately from
the criminal action, and subject to the provisions of section 4 hereof, he may
intervene, personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of the offense.”

And, they contend that the exercise by
the offended party to intervene is subject to the direction and control of the
fiscal and that his appearance, no less than his active conduct of the case
later on, requires the prior approval of the fiscal.

We find merit in the petition. 
Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, clearly provides that in the
municipal court a party may conduct his litigation in person with the aid of an
agent appointed by him for the purpose. 
Thus, 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 then Municipal Court, the
City Court of Manila, who was charged for damages to property through reckless
impru­dence. “It is accordingly our view that error was committed in the municipal
court in not allowing Crispiniano V. Laput to act as
an agent or friend of Catalino Salas to aid the
latter in conducting his defense.” The permission of the fiscal is not
necessary for one to enter his
appearance as private prosecutor.  In the
first place, the law does not impose this condition.  What the fiscal can do, if he wants to handle
the case personally is to disallow the private prosecutor’s parti­cipation,
whether he be a lawyer or not, in the trial of the case.  On the other hand, 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.  Further, We may add
that if a non-lawyer can appear as defense counsel or as friend of the
accused in a case before the municipal trial court, with more reason should he
be allowed to appear as private prosecutor under the supervision and control of
the trial fiscal.

In the two criminal cases
filed before the Municipal Court of Parañaque,
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.

WHEREFORE, the Orders issued by respondent judge dated
August 16, 1979 and September 4, 1979 which disallowed the appearances of
petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert V. Lucila as friends of party-litigant peti­tioner Romulo Cantimbuhan, are hereby SET ASIDE and respondent judge is hereby ordered to ALLOW the appearance and intervention of petitioners Malana
and Lucila as friends of Romulo
Cantimbuhan. 
Accordingly, the temporary restraining order issued on November 8, 1979 is LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad
Santos, Plana, Escolin, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.,
concur.

Teehankee and De Castro, JJ., joined J. Melencio-Herrera
in her dissenting opinion.

Aquino, J., I dissent.  Senior Law students
should study their lessons and prepare for the bar.  They have no business appearing in court.

Melencio-Herrera,J., dissents in a separate opinion.