Garrido vs. Garrido
Garrido vs. Garrido
Garrido vs. Garrido
GARRIDO
Facts:
Held:
Facts:
Petitioner Cruz sought permission to enter his appearance for and on his
behalf, before the RTC in a civil case for Abatement of Nuisance. Petitioner, a
fourth year law student, anchors his claim on Section 34 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court that a nonlawyer may appear before any court and conduct his
litigation personally.
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, a partylitigant. Atty. Stanley Cabrera,
counsel for Benjamin Mina, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss instead of a pretrial
brief to which petitioner Cruz vehemently objected alleging that a Motion to
Dismiss is not allowed after the Answer had been filed. Judge Mijares then
remarked, Hay naku, masama yung marunong pa sa Huwes. Ok? and
proceeded to hear the pending Motion to Dismiss and calendared the next
hearing. Petitioner Cruz filed a Manifestation and Motion to Inhibit, praying for
the voluntary inhibition of Judge Mijares. The Motion alleged that expected
partiality on the part of the respondent judge in the conduct of the trial could
be inferred from the contumacious remarks of Judge Mijares during the pre-
trial. It asserts that the judge, in uttering an uncalled for remark, reflects a
negative frame of mind, which engenders the belief that justice will not be
served.
In an Order, Judge Mijares denied the motion for inhibition stating that
throwing tenuous allegations of partiality based on the said remark is not
enough to warrant her voluntary inhibition, considering that it was said even
prior to the start of pretrial. Petitioner filed a MR of the said order.
Judge Mijares denied the motion with finality. In the same Order, the
trial court held that for the failure of petitioner Cruz to submit the promised
document and jurisprudence, and for his failure to satisfy the requirements or
conditions under Rule 138A of the Rules of Court, his appearance was denied.
In MR, petitioner reiterated that the basis of his appearance was not Rule
138A, 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 138A. Petitioner filed this case with
SC.
Issue:
W/N respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the appearance of the petitioner as
party litigant and when the judge refused to inhibit herself from trying the case
Held:
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 138A, when the basis of the petitioners
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 nonlawyer as a party representing himself.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs LEONCIO SANTOCILDES,
JR.QUISUMBING,
Facts:
On February 17, 1992, appellant was charged with the crime of rape of a girl
less than nine (9) years old, committed on December 28, 1991, in the town of
Barangay San Luis, San Joaquin, Iloilo. Upon arraignment, appellant entered a
plea of not guilty. Trial ensued and the prosecution presented as its witnesses
the victim, her mother, her six (6) year-old playmate, and the medico-legal
officer who examined the victim. The Court finds the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentences him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua together its accessory penalty. Appellant contends that
he was represented during trial by a person named Gualberto C. Ompong, who
for all intents and purposes acted as his counsel and even conducted the direct
examination and cross-examinations of the witnesses. On appeal, however,
appellant secured the services of a new lawyer, Atty. Igmedio S. Prado, Jr., who
discovered that Gualberto C. Ompong is actually not a member of the
bar. Further verification with the Office of the Bar Confidant confirmed this
fact.
Appellant therefore argues that his deprivation of the right to counsel should
necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime charged.
Issue:
Is the petitioner entitled to a new trial?
Held:
Judgement set aside and case remanded for new trial. Being represented by a
non-lawyer is a denial of due process.