4 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

IN RE JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO Ex Rel. Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the the government for redress of grievances as guaranteed by the Constitution (Section 4, Article
Philippines III) and in accordance with the [Constitution’s provisions on the] accountability of public
A.M. No. 93-7-696-0. February 21, 1995. officials." The constitutional rights invoked by him afford no justification for repetitious
by Abuda, Kenneth litigation of the same causes and issues, for insulting lawyers, judges, court employees; and
other persons, for abusing the processes and rules of the courts, wasting their time, and
FACTS: bringing them into disrepute and disrespect.
Borromeo obtained loans and credit accommodations from UCPB, Trader’s Royal The Supreme Court found it fitting to reiterate certain matters as to the judiciary
Bank and Security Bank, to secure which he constituted mortgages over immovable belonging hence:
to him, or members of his family, or third persons. He failed to pay these obligations, and when
The judicial system in this jurisdiction allows for several levels of litigation, i.e., the
demands were made for him to do so, laid down his own terms for their satisfaction which
presentation of evidence by the parties — a trial or hearing in the first instance — as well as a
were quite inconsistent with those agreed upon with his obliges or prescribed by law. When
review of the judgments of lower courts by higher tribunals, generally by consideration anew
the banks refused to let him have his was, he brought suits right and left, successively, if not
and ventilation of the factual and legal issues through briefs or memoranda. The procedure for
contemporaneously, against the said banks, its offices, and even the lawyers who represented
review is fixed by law, and is in the very nature of things, exclusive to the courts.
the banks in the actions brought by or against him. He sued as well, the public prosecutors, the
judges of the Trial Courts, and the Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court who After the procedures and processes for lawsuits have been undergone, and the modes
at one time or another, rendered a judgment, resolution or order adverse to him, as well as the of review set by law have been exhausted, or terminated, no further ventilation of the same
Clerks of Court and other Court employees signing the notices thereof. In aggregate, he has subject matter is allowed. To be sure, there may be, on the part of the losing parties, continuing
initiated or spawned in different fora the astounding number of no less than 50 original or disagreement with the verdict but, it is not their will, but the Court's, which must prevail; and,
review proceedings, civil, criminal, and administrative. to repeat, public policy demands that at some definite time, the issues must be laid to rest and
the court's dispositions thereon accorded absolute finality.
Joaquin T. Borromeo, non-lawyer that he is, has, in the span of 16-year period for
some reason ventured to represent himself, whether warranted or otherwise, in numerous Once the Supreme Court has spoken, there the matter must rest. Its decision should
original and review proceedings (civil, criminal, and administrative) with disastrous results. not and cannot be appealed to or reviewed by any other entity, much less reversed or modified
This led him to compose and circulate many scurrilous and outlandish statements against on the ground that it is tainted by error in its findings of fact or conclusions of law, flawed in its
courts, judges and their employees, as well as his adversaries -- one to his mind among a logic or language, or otherwise erroneous in some other respect.
substantial number being Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, for whom he dedicated a circular
calling for Narvasa's impeachment for being a "tyrant" -- for which he is now being called to Should judgments of lower courts — which may normally be subject to review by
account. higher tribunals — become final and executory before, or without, exhaustion of all recourse of
appeal, they, too, become inviolable, impervious to modification. They may, then, no longer be
The Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) addressed a letter reviewed, or in any way modified directly or indirectly, by a higher court, not even by the
to the Supreme Court quoting Borromeo's defamatory remarks against the SC and the judiciary, Supreme Court, much less by any other official, branch or department of Government.
and strongly urging the SC to impose the attendant sanctions.
No other entity or official of the Government, not the prosecution or investigation
The matter was then docketed as a proceeding for contempt. Borromeo contends, service or any other branch; nor any functionary thereof, has competence to review a judicial
inter alia, that it was necessary that the Chief Justice and other members of the SC should order or decision — whether final and executory or not — and pronounce it erroneous so as to
inhibit "since they cannot be the accused and judge at the same time." lay the basis for a criminal or administrative complaint for rendering an unjust judgment or
order. That prerogative belongs to the courts alone.
ISSUE:
Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or
WON Borromeo should be held in contempt of court? (YES)
factors. They should not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative
RULING: sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their
duties and functions. Hence it is a sound rule, which must be recognized independently of
Upon the indubitable facts on record, there can scarcely be any doubt of Borromeo's statute that judges are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction
guilt of contempt, for abuse of and interference with judicial rules and processes, gross
and in good faith.
disrespect to courts and judges and improper conduct directly impeding, obstructing and
degrading the administration of justice. ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN, NELSON B. MALANA, and ROBERT V. LUCILA vs. HON.
Superficial was his other contention that in making the allegations claimed to be NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR. Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court of Parañaque,
contumacious, he "was exercising his rights of freedom of speech, of expression, and to petition Metro Manila, and FISCAL LEODEGARIO C. QUILATAN
Page 1 of 4
 4 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
G.R. Nos. L-51813-14. November 29, 1983. the litigant may be aided by a friend or agent or by an attorney. However, RTC, he can
by Agbon, Ervin be aided only by an attorney.
Under the said rule, it clearly provides that in the municipal court a party
FACTS:
may conduct his litigation in person with the aid of an agent appointed by him for the
 Petitioner Romulo Cantimbuhan filed separate criminal complaints against purpose.
Patrolmen Danilo San Antonio and Rodolfo Diaz for less serious physical injuries.
Thus, in the case of Laput vs. Bernabe, a law student was allowed to
 Petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert V. Lucila were senior law students of the represent the accused in a case pending before the then Municipal Court, the City
U.P. College of Law where they were required to render legal assistance to the Court of Manila, who was charged for damages to property through reckless
needy clients in the Office of the Legal Aid. imprudence.
 Thus petitioners Malana and Lucila filed their separate appearances, as friends of The permission of the fiscal is not necessary for the law does not impose this
complainant-petitioner Cantimbuhan. condition. What the fiscal can do, if he wants to handle the case personally is to
disallow the private prosecutor's participation, whether he be a lawyer or not, in the
 Herein respondent Fiscal Quilatan opposed the appearances of said petitioners,
trial of the case. On the other hand, if the fiscal desires the active participation of the
and respondent judge sustained the respondent fiscal and disallowed the
private prosecutor, he can just manifest to the court that the private prosecutor, with
appearances of petitioners. Subsequently denying the latter’s MR.
its approval, will conduct the prosecution of the case under his supervision and
 It is the submission of the respondents that pursuant to Sections 4 and 15, Rule control.
110 of the Rules of Court, it is the fiscal who is empowered to determine who
Here, petitioner Cantimbuhan did not expressly waive the civil action nor
shall be the private prosecutor.
reserve his right to institute it separately and, therefore, the civil action is deemed
 Hence, this petition. impliedly instituted in said criminal cases. Thus, said complainant Romulo
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 friend
ISSUE: who is not a lawyer.
WON petitioners, as law students and non-member of the IBP, should be Orders issued by respondent judge which disallowed the appearances of
allowed to appear in behalf of the complainant Cantimbuhan? (YES) petitioners are hereby SET ASIDE and respondent judge is hereby ordered to ALLOW
the appearance and intervention of petitioners Malana and Lucila as friends of
Romulo Cantimbuhan.
RULING:
Basis of this petition is Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which
states:
SEC. 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 that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other
court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney,
FERDINAND A. CRUZ vs. ALBERTO MINA, HON. ELEUTERIO F. GUERRERO and
and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of
HON. ZENAIDA LAGUILLES
the bar.
G.R. No. 154207. April 27, 2007.
Thus, a non-member of the Philippine Bar — a party to an action is by Baqueros, Meryll Sheena
authorized to appear in court and conduct his own case; and, in the inferior courts,
FACTS:
Page 2 of 4
 4 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
 Cruz (petitioner) filed before the MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as private o nowhere does the law provide that the crime of Grave Threats has no
prosecutor, in Criminal Case for Grave Threats, his father, Mariano Cruz, is the civil aspect
complaining witness.
o Bar Matter No. 730 dated June 10, 1997 expressly provides for the
 Petitioner described himself as a 3rd year law student and justifies his appearance of a non-lawyer before the inferior courts, as an agent or
appearance as private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the friend of a party litigant, even without the supervision of a member of the
Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court En Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, bar.
Jr.
 Pending the resolution of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration before the
 that a non-lawyer may appear before the inferior courts as an agent or friend RTC, the petitioner filed a
of a party litigant.
 Second Motion for Reconsideration seeking the reversal of the Denial Order
 The petitioner furthermore avers that his appearance was with the prior of the said court, on the strength of Bar Matter No. 730, and
conformity of the public prosecutor and a written authority of Mariano Cruz
appointing him to be his agent in the prosecution of the said criminal case.  a Motion to Hold In Abeyance the Trial of Criminal Case No. 00-1705 pending
the outcome of the certiorari proceedings before the RTC.
 The MeTC then issued an order which denied permission for petitioner to appear
as private prosecutor on the ground that Circular No. 19 governing limited law  The RTC issued its Order denying the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
student practice in conjunction with Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court (Law  MeTC then issued an order denying the petitioner’s Second Motion for
Student Practice Rule) should take precedence over the ruling of the Court laid Reconsideration and his Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Trial on the ground that
down in Cantimbuhan; and set the case for continuation of trial. the RTC had already denied the Entry of Appearance of petitioner before the
 Petitioner filed before the MeTC a Motion for Reconsideration seeking to reverse MeTC.
the such Order alleging that Rule 138-A, or the Law Student Practice Rule, does
not have the effect of superseding Section 34 of Rule 138, for the authority to
interpret the rule is the source itself of the rule, which is the Supreme Court ISSUE:
alone. WON the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an inferior court as an agent or
 Thereafter, the MeTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration. friend of a party litigant? (YES)

 Petitioner then filed before the RTC a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with
Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order against the RULING:
private respondent and the public respondent MeTC.
The MeTC was directed to admit the Entry of Appearance of petitioner in
 After hearing the prayer for preliminary injunction to restrain public respondent Criminal Case No. 00-1705 as a private prosecutor under the direct control and
MeTC Judge from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 00-1705 pending the supervision of the public prosecutor.
Certiorari proceedings, the RTC, in a Resolution, resolved to deny the issuance of
an injunctive writ on the ground that the crime of Grave Threats, the subject of The courts a quo held that the Law Student Practice Rule as encapsulated in
Criminal Case, is one that can be prosecuted de oficio, there being no claim for Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, prohibits the petitioner, as a law student, from
civil indemnity, and that therefore, the intervention of a private prosecutor is not entering his appearance in behalf of his father, the private complainant in the criminal
legally tenable. case without the supervision of an attorney duly accredited by the law school.

 Petitioner filed before the RTC a Motion for Reconsideration. The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior
court, where the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law
 Petitioner argues that: student may appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer.
Section 34, Rule 138 provides:

Page 3 of 4
 4 PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Sec. 34. By whom litigation is 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 that purpose, or with the aid of 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.
Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend
of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar.
There is really no problem as to the application of Section 34 of Rule 138 and
Rule 138-A. In the former, the appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a
party litigant, is expressly allowed, while the latter rule provides for conditions when
a law student, not as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, may appear before the
courts.
Petitioner expressly anchored his appearance on Section 34 of Rule 138. The
court a quo must have been confused by the fact that petitioner referred to himself as
a law student in his entry of appearance. Rule 138-A should not have been used by the
courts a quo in denying permission to act as private prosecutor against petitioner for
the simple reason that Rule 138-A is not the basis for the petitioner’s appearance.
Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a
non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As
succinctly clarified in Bar Matter No. 730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law
student may appear, as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, without the supervision
of a lawyer before inferior courts.

Page 4 of 4