REQUIREMENT OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER

1. PENTECOSTES VS MARASIGAN

FACTS:Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan (respondent), Clerk of Court VI of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabacan, North
Cotabato, stands administratively charged with grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming a public officer for the loss of a motorcycle-subject matter of a
criminal case which was placed under his care and custody.

The administrative case against respondent stemmed from a sworn affidavit-complaint 1 filed on November 11, 2004 by Rolly Pentecostes (Pentecostes), the
owner of a Kawasaki motorcycle, which was recovered by members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Mlang, North Cotabato from suspected
carnappers against whom a criminal case for carnapping, Criminal Case No. 1010, was lodged at Branch 22, RTC, Kabacan, North Cotabato.

On the order of the trial court, the chief of police of Mlang, North Cotabato turned over the motorcycle to respondent who acknowledged receipt thereof on
August 1, 1995. After the conduct of hearings to determine the true owner of the motorcycle, the trial court issued an Order 2 of November 15, 2000 for its
release to Pentecostes. Pentecostes immediately asked respondent to release the motorcycle to him. Respondent, however, told him to wait and come
back repeatedly from 2001 up to the filing of the complaint.

In his Comment3 filed on February 9, 2005, respondent gave the following explanation: After the motorcycle was delivered to him by the Mlang chief of police
on August 1, 1995, he requested Alex Pedroso, a utility worker, to inspect the engine, chassis, and make, after which he issued an acknowledgement
receipt thereof. He thereafter instructed Pedroso to bring the motorcycle to the Kabacan police station for which he (respondent) prepared a receipt. He
and Pedroso visited and inspected the motorcycle every time a hearing on the criminal case was conducted. When the court finally ordered the release of
the motorcycle to Pentecostes on November 15, 2000, the latter refused to receive it, claiming that it was already "cannibalized" and unserviceable. From
that time on until 2003, Pentecostes harassed him, demanding that he be responsible for reconditioning the vehicle. During the latter part of 2004, upon
the advice of the executive judge, he accompanied Pentecostes to the Kabacan police station only to discover that the motorcycle was missing.

ISSUES: WON R is guilty of misconduct

HELD: YES. Clerks of court are essential and ranking officers of our judicial system who perform delicate functions vital to the prompt and proper
administration of justice.17 Their duties include the efficient recording, filing and management of court records and, as previously pointed out, the
safekeeping of exhibits and public property committed to their charge.

Clearly, they play a key role in the complement of the court and cannot be permitted to slacken on their jobs under one pretext or another. 18 They cannot err
without affecting the integrity of the court or the efficient administration of justice.19

The same responsibility bears upon all court personnel in view of their exalted positions as keepers of public faith. 20 The exacting standards of ethics and
morality imposed upon court employees are reflective of the premium placed on the image of the court of justice, and that image is necessarily mirrored in
the conduct, official or otherwise, of court personnel. 21 It becomes the imperative and sacred duty of everyone charged with the dispensation of justice,
from the judge to the lowliest clerk, to maintain the courts good name and standing as true temples of justice. 22

By transferring Pentecostes motorcycle without authority, respondent failed to give premium to his avowed duty of keeping it under his care and possession.
He must, therefore, suffer the consequences of his act or omission, which is akin to misconduct.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action; more particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer. 23 The misconduct is
grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proved by
substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple, as in this case.

The Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999) classifies simple misconduct as a less
grave offense, punishable by suspension of One Month and One Day to Six Months. Considering that this is respondents first offense and no taint of bad
faith has been shown by his actuations, a 15-day suspension without pay is deemed appropriate.

Clerk of Court Hermenegildo Marasigan (R), is found guilty of Simple Misconduct. He is SUSPENDED for 15 days without pay, with a stern WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

2. PENTECOSTES VS MARASIGAN

FACTS: Father Aquino alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified two documents committed as follows:

(1) He made it appear that he had notarized the "Affidavit-Complaint" of one Joseph B. Acorda entering the same as "Doc. No. 1213, Page No. 243, Book III,
Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998".

(2) He also made it appear that he had notarized the "Affidavit-Complaint" of one Remigio B. Domingo entering the same as "Doc. No. 1214, Page 243, Book
III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998.

Father Aquino further alleged that on June 23 and July 26, 1999, Atty. Angel Beltran, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, certified that none of the
above entries appear in the Notarial Register of Atty. Pascua; that the last entry therein was Document No. 1200 executed on December 28, 1998; and
that, therefore, he could not have notarized Documents Nos. 1213 and 1214 on December 10, 1998. In his comment on the letter-complaint dated
September 4, 1999, Atty. Pascua admitted having notarized the two documents on December 10, 1998, but they were not entered in his Notarial Register
due to the oversight of his legal secretary, Lyn Elsie C. Patli, whose affidavit was attached to his comment.

ISSUES: WON R is guilty of misconduct

HELD: YES. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe the utmost care to comply
with the formalities and the basic requirement in the performance of their duties.

Under the notarial law, "the notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged
before him, the person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, xxx xxx. The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument the page or pages of his register on
which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries" (Sec. 246, Article V, Title IV, Chapter II of the Revised Administrative Code).

Failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law is a ground for
 revocation of his commission (Sec. 249, Article VI). Atty. Pascua claims that the omission was not intentional but due to oversight of his staff. Whichever is
the case, Atty. Pascua cannot escape liability. His failure to enter into his notarial register the documents that he admittedly notarized is a dereliction of
duty on his part as a notary public and he is bound by the acts of his staff.

After a close review of the records of this case, we resolve to adopt the findings of facts and conclusion of law by the Office of the Bar Confidant. We find Atty.
Pascua guilty of misconduct in the performance of his duties for failing to register in his Notarial Register the affidavit-complaints of Joseph B. Acorda and
Remigio B. Domingo. "Misconduct" generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional
purpose.4 The term, however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent. 5 The penalty to be imposed for such act of misconduct committed
by a lawyer is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. Considering that this is Atty. Pascua's first offense, we believe that the imposition of a three-
month suspension from the practice of law upon him is in order. Likewise, since his offense is a ground for revocation of notarial commission, the same
should also be imposed upon him.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Edwin Pascua is declared GUILTY of misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. His notarial commission, if still existing, is ordered REVOKED.

3. ACHACOSO VS CA
4. BERNARDO VS MEJIA
FACTS: petition for review of Administrative Case No. 2984 with plea for reinstatement in the practice of law filed by Ismael F. Mejia (Mejia) who is already
seventy-one years old and barred from the practice of law for fifteen years.

ANTECEDENTS: On January 23, 1987, Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained attorney, Ismael F. Mejia, of the following administrative offenses:

1) misappropriating and converting to his personal use:

2) falsification of certain documents, to wit:

3) issuing a check, knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in payment of a loan obtained from Bernardo in the amount of P50,000.00, and
thereafter, replacing said check with others known also to be insufficiently funded.1

SC: (July 29, 1992 - Decision Per Curiam)

--> GUILTY of all the charges against him

--> PENALTY: DISBARMENT

Pending finality of this judgment, and effective immediately, Atty. Ismael F. Mejia is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law

On June 1, 1999, Mejia filed a Petition praying that he be allowed to reengage in the practice of law. On July 6, 1999, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a
Resolution denying the petition for reinstatement.

On January 23, 2007, Mejia filed the present petition for review of Administrative Case No. 2984 with a plea for reinstatement in the practice of law. No
comment or opposition was filed against the petition.2

ISSUE: WON IT IS PROPER TO GRANT REINSTATEMENT DESPITE DISBARMENT

HELD: YES.
Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the sound discretion of the Court. The action will depend on whether
or not the Court decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will continue to be preserved even with the applicants
reentry as a counselor at law. The applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character,
a fit and proper person to practice law. The Court will take into consideration the applicants character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature
and character of the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the
disbarment and the application for reinstatement.3

The Court is inclined to grant the present petition. Fifteen years has passed since Mejia was punished with the severe penalty of disbarment. Although
the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejias disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is already of advanced years. While the age
of the petitioner and the length of time during which he has endured the ignominy of disbarment are not the sole measure in allowing a petition for
reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has been attributed to him, and
he has shown remorse. Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this experience, and his punishment has lasted long enough. Thus, while the Court is ever
mindful of its duty to discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its purpose. After all,
penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders.

We reiterate, however, and remind petitioner that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental
fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the continuing requirements for enjoying
the privilege to practice law.4

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys by Ismael F. Mejia is hereby GRANTED.
REHABILITATION FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT AND GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
PASSING THE BAR AND THE PRACTICE OF LAW
12. CRUZ VS CABRERA
FACTS: In an administrative complaint dated July 7, 2002, Ferdinand A. Cruz charges Atty. Stanley Cabrera with misconduct in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
respondents imputations of complainants misrepresentation as a lawyer was patently with malice to discredit his honor, with the intention to threaten him not to
appear anymore in cases respondent was handling; the manner, substance, tone of voice and how the words "appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna!"
were uttered were totally with the intention to annoy, vex and humiliate, malign, ridicule, incriminate and discredit complainant before the public
respondents display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before
the public and the court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold in their dealings with society and corresponding
appropriate penalty or sanctions for the said administrative violations should be imposed on the respondent.
IBP: recommended respondents suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
From the facts obtaining, it is apparent that the utterance hurled by the respondent in the manner, substance and tone of his voice which was not refuted by him
 "that appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna" in whatever manner it was uttered are in itself not only abusive but insulting specially on the part of law
students who have not yet taken nor passed the bar examination required of them.
Respondent should have been more discreet and cautious in informing the court if it was his purpose relative to complainants appearance in court; although
the latter appeared only in his behalf but not for others if he had complied with the requirements of Rule 138 (Sections 1 and 3) of the Rules of Court.
Respondent should have been more temperate in making utterances in his professional dealings so as not to offend the sensitivities of the other party as
in this case.
IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS: Resolution to annul and set aside the recommendation of the investigating commissioner and to approve the dismissal of the
case for lack of merit.
ISSUE: 1. WON R IS GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF RULE 8.01 OF CPR
2. PRACTICE OF LAW
HELD: 1. NO. respondents outburst of "appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna" does not amount to a violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Based on the facts of this case, such outburst came about when respondent pointed out to the trial court that complainant is not a lawyer to correct the judges
impression of complainants appearance, inasmuch as the judge, in her Order of January 14, 2002, noted that complainant is a lawyer. 4 Such single
outburst, though uncalled for, is not of such magnitude as to warrant respondents suspension or reproof. It is but a product of impulsiveness or the heat
of the moment in the course of an argument between them. It has been said that lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said in the
heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to condone even contemptuous language. 5
2. Nonetheless, we remind respondent that complainant is not precluded from litigating personally his cases. A partys right to conduct litigation personally is
recognized by Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
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,
and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
MADERADA VS. MEDIODEA: This provision means that in a litigation, parties may personally do everything during its progress -- from its commencement to
its termination. When they, however, act as their own attorneys, they are restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as those qualified to
practice law; otherwise, ignorance would be unjustifiably rewarded. Individuals have long been permitted to manage, prosecute and defend their own
actions; and when they do so, they are not considered to be in the practice of law. "One does not practice law by acting for himself any more than he
practices medicine by rendering first aid to himself."

PRACTICE OF LAW: The practice of law, though impossible to define exactly, involves the exercise of a profession or vocation usually for gain, mainly as
attorney by acting in a representative capacity and as counsel by rendering legal advise to others. Private practice has been defined by this Court as follows:

x x x. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other
words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute [referring to the prohibition for judges and other officials or
employees of the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General from engaging in private practice] has been interpreted as customarily or
habitually holding one's self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. x x x.

Clearly, in appearing for herself, complainant was not customarily or habitually holding herself out to the public as a lawyer. Neither was she
demanding payment for such services. Hence, she cannot be said to be in the practice of law.7

All lawyers should take heed that lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom
peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated
to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.8 Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic,
it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in
the dignity of judicial forum.9

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Atty. Stanley Cabrera for misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility is DISMISSED for
lack of merit. He is, however, admonished to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as an officer of the court.
WHAT IS THE PRACTICE OF LAW?
14. AGUIRRE VS RANA

FACTS: Aguirre ("complainant") filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. Complainant charged respondent with unauthorized
practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.

On 22 May 2001, the Court issued a resolution allowing respondent to take the lawyers oath but disallowed him from signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is
cleared of the charges against him.

PETITION:

P: while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers ("MBEC") of
Mandaon, Masbate. Complainant further alleges that respondent filed with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection to the
Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent represented himself as "counsel for and
in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan," and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan ("Bunan").

violation of law: respondent is a municipal government employee, being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is
not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative body.

grave misconduct and misrepresentation: acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate George Bunan ("Bunan") without the latter engaging respondents
services. respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.

COMMENT:

R: admits that Bunan sought his "specific assistance" to represent him before the MBEC. Respondent claims that "he decided to assist and advice Bunan, not
as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law." Respondent admits signing the 19 May 2001 pleading that objected to the inclusion of certain votes in
the canvassing. He explains, however, that he did not sign the pleading as a lawyer or represented himself as an "attorney" in the pleading.

employment as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan: he submitted his resignation on 11 May 2001 which was allegedly accepted on the same date. He
submitted a copy of the Certification of Receipt of Revocable Resignation dated 28 May 2001 signed by Vice-Mayor Napoleon Relox. Respondent further
claims that the complaint is politically motivated considering that complainant is the daughter of Silvestre Aguirre, the losing candidate for mayor of
Mandaon, Masbate. Respondent prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
REPLY:
P: on 19 May 2001 Emily Estipona-Hao ("Estipona-Hao") filed a petition for proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor. Respondent signed as counsel for
Estipona-Hao in this petition. When respondent appeared as counsel before the MBEC, complainant questioned his appearance on two grounds: (1)
respondent had not taken his oath as a lawyer; and (2) he was an employee of the government.

R: the instant administrative case is "motivated mainly by political vendetta."

OBCS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

respondent indeed appeared before the MBEC as counsel for Bunan in the May 2001 elections. The minutes of the MBEC proceedings show that respondent
actively participated in the proceedings. respondent appeared in the MBEC proceedings even before he took the lawyers oath on 22 May 2001.
respondents misconduct casts a serious doubt on his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. respondents unauthorized practice of law is a ground to
deny his admission to the practice of law.

The OBC therefore recommends that respondent be denied admission to the Philippine Bar.

OTHER CHARGES: complainant failed to cite a law which respondent allegedly violated when he appeared as counsel for Bunan while he was a government
employee. Respondent resigned as secretary and his resignation was accepted. Likewise, respondent was authorized by Bunan to represent him before
the MBEC.
ISSUE: WON R WAS ENGAGED IN AN UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW & DOES NOT DESERVE ADMISSION TO PH BAR
HELD: YES. YES.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveyancing. In
general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law, incorporation services, assessment and condemnation
services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and
insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice,
as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of
facts and conditions.
"practice of law" means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in
the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of
service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.
respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do so.
Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent called himself "counsel" knowing fully well that he was not a member of
the Bar. Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he had no authority to practice law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of
the Philippine Bar.3
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly
ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public
trust4 since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The
practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law
without a license.5
The regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably strict. respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyers oath. However, it is the
signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing
the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law.8Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to
be performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys. 9
Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001. However, the records show that respondent appeared as counsel for Bunan prior to 22 May 2001, before
respondent took the lawyers oath. In the pleading entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office
of Vice-Mayor dated 19 May 2001, respondent signed as "counsel for George Bunan." In the first paragraph of the same pleading respondent stated that
he was the "(U)ndersigned Counsel for, and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, GEORGE T. BUNAN." Bunan himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May
2001 that he had "authorized Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to represent him" before the MBEC and similar bodies.

On 14 May 2001, mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao also "retained" respondent as her counsel. On the same date, 14 May 2001, Erly D. Hao
informed the MBEC that "Atty. Edwin L. Rana has been authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the legal counsel of the party and the candidate of the said
party." Respondent himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he was entering his "appearance as counsel for Mayoralty Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao
and for the REFORMA LM-PPC." On 19 May 2001, respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in the petition filed before the MBEC praying for the
proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate.

All these happened even before respondent took the lawyers oath. Clearly, respondent engaged in the practice of law without being a member of the Philippine
Bar.
CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF LAW: the evidence does not support the charge that respondent acted as counsel for a client while serving as secretary of the
Sangguniang Bayan.
CHARGE OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND MISREPRESENTATION: evidence shows that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to represent him as his
counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies. While there was no misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had no authority to practice law.
WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the Philippine Bar.
LAW STUDENT PRACTICE (RULE 138-A)
19. CRUZ VS MINA

FACTS: On September 25, 2000, Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) filed before the MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as private prosecutor, in Criminal
Case No. 00-1705 for Grave Threats, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is the complaining witness.

The petitioner, describing himself as a third year law student, justifies his appearance as private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court En Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr.2 that a non-lawyer may appear before the inferior courts as an agent or
friend of a party litigant. The petitioner furthermore avers that his appearance was with the prior 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.

However, in an Order dated February 1, 2002, the MeTC denied permission for petitioner to appear as private prosecutor on the ground that Circular No.
19 governing limited law student practice in conjunction with Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court (Law Student Practice Rule) should take precedence over the
ruling of the Court laid down in Cantimbuhan; and set the case for continuation of trial.3 mtc denied mr and 2nd mr

Rtc denied, denied mr

ISSUE: whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party litigant.
HELD:
 The courts a quo held that the Law Student Practice Rule as encapsulated in Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, prohibits the petitioner, as a law student,
from entering his appearance in behalf of his father, the private complainant in the criminal case without the supervision of an attorney duly accredited by the
law school.

However, in Resolution6 dated June 10, 1997 in Bar Matter No. 730, the Court En Banc clarified:

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 student may appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer. Section 34, Rule 138 provides:

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. 7 (Emphasis
supplied)

The phrase "In the court of a justice of the peace" in Bar Matter No. 730 is subsequently changed to "In the court of a municipality" as it now appears in
Section 34 of Rule 138, thus:8

which is the prevailing rule at the time the petitioner filed his Entry of Appearance with the MeTC on September 25, 2000. No real distinction exists for
under Section 6, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, the term "Municipal Trial Courts" as used in these Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

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 petitioners 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.