View full case

FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. JUDGE PRISCILLA MIJARES

FACTS:

Ferdinand A. Cruz, a fourth year law student, filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the Supreme Court. The petition assailed the Resolutions of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 108, Pasay City, which denied Cruz's appearance as a party litigant and the refusal of Judge Priscilla Mijares to voluntarily inhibit herself from trying the case. Cruz sought permission to appear before the RTC as the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 01-0410 for Abatement of Nuisance, citing Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. During the pre-trial, Judge Mijares required Cruz to secure written permission from the Court Administrator before he could appear as counsel for himself. Atty. Stanley Cabrera, counsel for the defendant, filed a Motion to Dismiss instead of a pre-trial brief, to which Cruz objected. Judge Mijares heard the Motion to Dismiss and scheduled the next hearing. Cruz filed a Manifestation and Motion to Inhibit, alleging expected partiality on the part of Judge Mijares based on her contumacious remarks during the pre-trial. Judge Mijares denied the motion for inhibition, stating that the remark was not enough to warrant her voluntary inhibition. Cruz filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. The trial court held that Cruz's appearance was denied for his failure to submit the required document and jurisprudence and failure to satisfy the conditions under Rule 138-A. Cruz filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that his appearance was based on Section 34 of Rule 138, not Rule 138-A. The motion was denied, invoking Rule 138-A. Cruz directly filed the present petition before the Supreme Court, raising issues about the denial of his appearance and the refusal to inhibit, as well as the interpretation of Rule 138, Section 34 and Rule 138-A.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus may issue.

  2. Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion when it denied the appearance of the petitioner as a party litigant and when the judge refused to inhibit herself from trying the case.

RULING:

  1. The court has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and injunction. However, the general rule is that petitions for the extraordinary writs should be filed with the Court of Appeals. This is in accordance with the principle of judicial hierarchy. Only in exceptional cases and for compelling reasons, or if warranted by the nature of the issues, may the Supreme Court take cognizance of petitions filed directly. In this case, since it involves the interpretation of specific rules of court, the Court takes cognizance of the petition. However, the petitioner is cautioned not to continue filing directly before the Supreme Court if the issue can be resolved by the Court of Appeals.

  2. The court proceeds to interpret Rule 138, Section 34, and Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court. Rule 138-A, also known as the Law Student Practice Rule, sets the conditions for law students to practice. It requires that a law student must have successfully completed the third year of the four-year prescribed law curriculum and must be enrolled in a recognized law school. On the other hand, Rule 138, Section 34 allows non-lawyers to appear before any court and conduct their litigation personally.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The court has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals to issue extraordinary writs. However, petitions should be filed with the Court of Appeals unless exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons exist.

  • The principle of judicial hierarchy requires that petitions be filed with the appropriate court. The Supreme Court should only take cognizance of petitions directly filed if exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons exist.

  • Rule 138, Section 34 of the Rules of Court allows non-lawyers to appear before any court and conduct their litigation personally.

  • Rule 138-A, or the Law Student Practice Rule, sets the conditions for law students to practice. It requires the completion of the third year of the prescribed law curriculum and enrollment in a recognized law school.