Anda di halaman 1dari 4

1/14/2015

ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly

211Phil.373

ENBANC
[G.R.No.L5181314,November29,1983]
ROMULOCANTIMBUHAN,NELSONB.MALANA,ANDROBERTV.
LUCILA,PETITIONERS,VS.HON.NICANORJ.CRUZ,JR.,
PRESIDINGJUDGEOFTHEMUNICIPALCOURTOF
PARAAQUE,METROMANILA,ANDFISCALLEODEGARIOC.
QUILATAN,RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
RELOVA,J.:

AppealfromtheOrder,datedAugust16,1979,ofrespondentJudgeNicanorJ.
Cruz,Jr.,ofthethenMunicipalCourtofParaaque,MetroManila,disallow
ingthe
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,aswellastheOrder,datedSeptember4,1979,denyingthemotionfor
reconsiderationholding,amongothers,that"thefiscal'sclaimthatappearancesof
friendsofpartylitigantsshouldbeallowedonlyinplaceswherethereisascarcity
oflegalpractitioner,tobewellfounded.For,ifwearetoallownonmembersofthe
bartoappearincourtandprosecutecasesordefendlitigantsintheguiseofbeing
friendsofthelitigants,thentherequirementofmember
shipintheIntegratedBarof
the Philippines and the additional requirement of paying professional taxes for a
lawyertoappearincourt,wouldbeputtonaught."(p.25,Rollo)
Records show that on April 6, 1979, petitioner Romulo Cantimbuhan filed
separate criminal complaints against Patrolmen Danilo San Antonio and Rodolfo
Diazforlessseriousphysicalinjuries,respectively,andweredocketedasCriminal
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
universitytheywererequiredtorenderlegalassistancetotheneedyclientsinthe
OfficeoftheLegalAid.Thus,inAugust1979,petitionersMalanaandLucila filed
their separate appearances, as friends of complainantpetitioner Cantimbuhan.
HereinrespondentFiscalLeodegarioC.Quilatanopposedtheappearancesofsaid
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,
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/25936

1/4

1/14/2015

ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly

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
September4,1979,besetasideastheyareinplainviolationofSection34,Rule
138 of the Rules of Court and/or were issued with grave abuse of discretion
amount
ing 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(PeopleofthePhilippinesvs.DaniloSanAntonio)and58559(People
of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Diaz) of the Municipal Court of Paranaque Metro
ManilaonNovember15,1979asscheduledoronanysuchdatesasmaybefixed
bysaidrespondentjudge."
BasisofthispetitionisSection34,Rule138oftheRulesofCourtwhichstates:
"SEC.34.Bywhomlitigationconducted.Inthecourtofajustice
of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the
aidofanagentorfriendappointedbyhimforthatpurpose,orwith
theaidofanattorney.Inanyothercourt,apartymayconducthis
litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance
mustbeeitherpersonalorbyadulyauthorizedmemberofthebar."

Thus,anonmemberofthePhilippineBarapartytoanactionisauthorizedto
appear in court and conduct his own case and, in the inferior courts, the litigant
maybeaidedbyafriendoragentorbyanattorney.However,intheCourtsofFirst
Instance,nowRegionalTrialCourts,hecanbeaidedonlybyanattorney.
On the other hand, it is the submission of the respondents that pursuant to
Sections4and15,Rule110oftheRulesofCourt,itisthefiscalwhoisempowered
todeterminewhoshallbetheprivatepro
secutoraswasdonebyrespondentfiscal
whenheobjectedtotheappearancesofpetitionersMalanaandLucila.Sections4
and15,Rule110oftheRulesofCourtprovide:
"SEC.4.Whomustprosecutecriminalactions.Allcriminalactions
either commenced by complaint or by information shall be
prosecutedunderthedirectionandcontrolofthefiscal.
"xxxxxxxxx
"SEC. 15. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action.
Unless the offended party has waived the civil action or expressly
reservedtherighttoinstituteitseparatelyfromthecriminalaction,
andsubjecttotheprovisionsofsection4hereof,hemayintervene,
personallyorbyattorney,intheprosecutionoftheoffense."

And,theycontendthattheexercisebytheoffendedpartytointerveneissubjectto
the direction and control of the fiscal and that his appearance, no less than his
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/25936

2/4

1/14/2015

ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly

activeconductofthecaselateron,requiresthepriorapprovalofthefiscal.
Wefindmeritinthepetition.Section34,Rule138oftheRulesofCourt,clearly
providesthatinthemunicipalcourtapartymayconducthislitigationinpersonwith
theaidofanagentappointedbyhimforthepurpose.Thus,inthecaseofLaput
vs.Bernabe,55Phil.621,alawstudentwasallowedtorepresenttheaccusedina
case pending before the then Municipal Court, the City Court of Manila, who was
charged for damages to property through reckless impru
dence. "It is accordingly
ourviewthaterrorwascommittedinthemunicipalcourtinnotallowingCrispiniano
V.LaputtoactasanagentorfriendofCatalinoSalastoaidthelatterinconducting
his defense." The permission of the fiscal is not necessary for one to enter his
appearanceasprivateprosecutor.Inthefirstplace,thelawdoesnotimposethis
condition.What the fiscal can do, if he wants to handle the case personally is to
disallowtheprivateprosecutor'sparti
cipation,whetherhebealawyerornot,inthe
trialofthecase.Ontheotherhand,ifthefiscaldesirestheactiveparticipationof
theprivateprosecutor,hecanjustmanifesttothecourtthattheprivateprosecutor,
withitsapproval,willconducttheprosecutionofthecaseunderhissupervisionand
control.Further,Wemayaddthatifanonlawyercanappearasdefensecounsel
or as friend of the accused in a case before the municipal trial court, with more
reasonshouldhebeallowedtoappearasprivateprosecutorunderthesupervision
andcontrolofthetrialfiscal.
In the two criminal cases filed before the Municipal Court of Paraaque,
petitioner Cantimbuhan, as the offended party, did not expressly waive the civil
actionnorreservehisrighttoinstituteitseparatelyand,therefore,thecivilactionis
deemedimpliedlyinstitutedinsaidcriminalcases.Thus,saidcomplainantRomulo
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
friendwhoisnotalawyer.
WHEREFORE,theOrdersissuedbyrespondentjudgedatedAugust16,1979
andSeptember4,1979whichdisallowedtheappearancesofpetitionersNelsonB.
Malana and Robert V. Lucila as friends of partylitigant peti
tioner Romulo
Cantimbuhan, are hereby SETASIDEandrespondentjudgeis hereby ordered to
ALLOW the appearance and intervention of petitioners Malana and Lucila as
friends of Romulo Cantimbuhan. Accordingly, the temporary restraining order
issuedonNovember8,1979isLIFTED.
SOORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Plana,
Escolin,andGutierrez,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
Teehankee and De Castro, JJ., joined J. MelencioHerrera in her dissenting
opinion.
Aquino, J., I dissent. Senior Law students should study their lessons and
prepareforthebar.Theyhavenobusinessappearingincourt.
MelencioHerrera,J.,dissentsinaseparateopinion.

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/25936

3/4

1/14/2015

ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly

DISSENTINGOPINION
MELENCIOHERRERA,J.:

Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that it is "a
party" who may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend
appointed by him for that purpose in the Court of a Justice of the Peace Romulo
Cantimbuhan,asthecomplainingwitnessinCriminalCasesNos.58549and58550
ofthethenMunicipalCourtofParanaque,MetroManila,isnota"party"withinthe
meaningofthesaidRule.Thepartiesinacriminalcasearetheaccusedandthe
People. A complaining witness or an offended party only intervenes in a criminal
actioninrespectofthecivilliability.ThecaseofLaputandSalasvs.Bernabe,55
Phil.621,isauthorityonlyinrespectoftheaccused,asa"party",inacriminalcase.
Sections 4 and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, being the more specific
provisions in respect of criminal cases, should take precedence over Section 34,
Rule 138 and should be controlling (Bagatsing vs. Hon. Ramirez, 74 SCRA 306
[1976]).Section 4 provides that all criminal actions shall be prosecu
ted under the
direction and control of the Fiscal, while Sec
tion 15 specifically provides that the
offendedpartymayintervene, personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of the
offense.
I vote, therefore, to uphold the Order of respondent Municipal Judge, dated
August16,1979,disallowingtheappear
ancesofpetitionersasprivateprosecutors
intheabovementionedcriminalcases.

Source:SupremeCourtELibrary
Thispagewasdynamicallygenerated
bytheELibraryContentManagementSystem(ELibCMS)

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/25936

4/4