Cruz v. Mijares FACTS: Ferdinand A.

. Cruz was the plaintiff in a civil case for Abatement of Nuisance pending in the sala of respondent judge. He sought permission to enter his appearance for and on his behalf. o Claim anchored on Sec. 34, Rule 138: a non- lawyer may appear before any court and conduct his litigation personally. During the pre-trial, Judge Mijares required petitioner to secure written permission from the Court Administrator before he could be allowed to appear as counsel for himself. Counsel for the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner objected, alleging that an MTD is not allowed after the Answer has been filed. Respondent judge remarked, Hay naku, masama yung marunong pa sa Huwes. Ok? Petitioner filed a manifestation and motion to inhibit: there was partiality on the part of respondent judge as can be seen from her contumacious remarks. Motion denied. MR denied. Cruzs appearance was also denied as he failed to submit the document required by Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court. MR: basis of his appearance was Rule 138, Sec. 34, not Rule 138-A. o 138 applicable to any non-lawyer; o 138-A specifically for law students. MR denied, still invoking Rule 138-A. Hence, this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. ISSUES + RULING: Does the SC have jurisdiction to entertain the petition? YES. SC has concurrent jurisdiction with RTC and CA to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and injunction. This concurrence does not mean that the petitioner has absolute freedom to choose where the petition will be filed. o Still has to give due regard to the judicial hierarchy. o Thus, petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against RTCs should be filed with the CA. Only in exceptional cases and for compelling reasons may the SC take cognizance of petitions directly filed before it. SC assumes jurisdiction over this petition as it concerns the interpretation of Sec. 34, Rule 138 and Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court. Petitioner is cautioned not to continue his practice of filing directly with the SC. What rule applies in the case of petitioner, Rule 138 or 138-A? Rule 138.

Rule 138 Attorneys and Admission to Bar Section 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 the purpose, or with the aid 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. Rule 138-A Law Student Practice Rule 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. Section 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. Court agrees with petitioner that the basis of his appearance is Rule 138, not 138-A. As plaintiff, he can personally conduct the litigation of the case. He would be acting not as counsel or lawyer, but as a party exercising his right to represent himself. The fact that petition is a law student does not mean that the applicable rule is always 138-A. Again, he seeks to represent himself. TCs conclusion that 138-A superseded 138 is incorrect. It is an addendum to the instances when a non-lawyer may appear in courts.

Should respondent judge inhibit herself? NO. Her hay naku statement is not enough to show arbitrariness and prejudice. In fact, petitioners administrative case against respondent judge for violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics was dismissed for lack of merit. Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applies. DISPOSITION: Petition partially granted.