Romulo Cantimbuhan, Malana, Lucila vs.
Judge Cruz Issue:
& Fiscal Quilatan
Facts:
Petitioner Cantimbuhan filed separate
criminal complaints against two police officers for
less serious physical injuries in the municipal court of
Paranaque.
Petitioners Malana and Lucila, were the
senior law students of the UP, assisting the needy
clients in the office of legal aid. They filed their
separate appearances as friends of complainant
petitioner Cantimbuhan which was opposed by
Fiscal Quilatan and sustained by Judge Cruz and
disallowed the appearances if petitioner Malana and
Lucila, as private prosecutors in said criminal cases.
The motion for reconsideration of the petitioners
was also denied.
It was contended by the respondents that
pursuant to Sec. 4 and 15 of Rule 110 of ROC, the
fiscal is empowered to determine who shall be the
private prosecutor and the exercise of the offended
party to intervene is subject to the direction and
control of the fiscal and that his appearance requires
the prior approval of the fiscal.
The basis of the petitioner on the other hand
is section 34 of Rule 138 of the ROC which provides
that in the court of the 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 the aid of an attorney, and his appearance
must be either personal or by a duly authorized
member of the bar.
W/N Malana and Lucila are allowed to
appear as friends of party litigant Cantimbuhan.
Held:
Yes, there is merit in the petition.
The court held that pursuant to Sec. 34 Rule
138 ROC in a municipal court a party may conduct
his litigation in person with the aid of an agent
appointed by him for that purpose.
In the case of Laput vs. Bernade, a law
student was allowed to represent the accused in a
case pending before the Manila Municipal Court,
who was charged for damages to properly through
reckless imprudence.
Further, the court held that the permission
of the fiscal is not necessary for one to enter his
appearance as private prosecutors because 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 participate,
whether he be a lawyer or not. 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. Furthermore, the court held
that if a non-lawyer can appear as defense council or
as friend of the accused in a case before the MTC,
with more reason that he allowed to appear as
private prosecutor under the supervision and control
of their fiscal.
Wherefore, the orders issued by the
respondent Judge disallowing the appearances of
petitioners Malana and Lucila were set aside and
Judge Cruz was ordered to allow the appearance and
intervention of Malana and Lucila as friends of
Cantimbuhan.