IN RE: NEED THAT LAW STUDENT BE ACTUALLY SUPERVISED (Bar Matter No.

70)

Facts:
The issue in this Consulta is whether a law student who appears before the court under the Law Student
Practice Rule (Rule 138-A) should be accompanied by a member of the bar during the trial. This issue was
raised by retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio P. Barredo, counsel for the defendant in Civil Case No.
BCV-92-11 entitled Irene A. Caliwara v. Roger T. Catbagan filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Bacoor, Cavite.
The records show that the plaintiff in civil Case No. BCV-92-11 was represented by Mr. Cornelio Carmona,
Jr., an intern at the Office of Legal Aid, UP-College of Law (UP-OLA). Mr. Carmona conducted hearings
and completed the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence-in-chief without the presence of a supervising
lawyer. Justice Barredo questioned the appearance of Mr. Carmona during the hearing because the latter
was not accompanied by a duly accredited lawyer. On December 15, 1994, Presiding Judge Edelwina
Pastoral issued an Order requiring Mr. Carmona to be accompanied by a supervising lawyer on the next
hearing. In compliance with said Order, UP-OLA and the Secretary of Justice executed a Memorandum of
Agreement directing Atty. Catubao and Atty. Legayada of the Public Attorney's Office to supervise Mr.
Carmona during the subsequent hearings.

Petitioner’s contention:
UP-OLA, through its Director, Atty. Alfredo F. Tadiar, submits that "the matter of allowing a law intern to
appear unaccompanied by a duly accredited supervising lawyer should be . . . left to the sound discretion
of the court after having made at least one supervised appearance."

Respondent’s contention:
Justice Barredo asserts that a law student appearing before the trial court under Rule 138-A should
be accompanied by a supervising lawyer.

Issue:
Whether a law student who appears before the court under the Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A)
should be accompanied by a member of the bar during the trial.

Ruling:
Yes, a law student appearing before the Regional Trial Court under the authority of Rule 138-A must be
under the direct control and supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited
by the law school and that said law student must be accompanied by a supervising lawyer in all his
appearance.
For the guidance of the bench and bar, we hold that a law student appearing before the Regional Trial Court
under Rule 138-A should at all times be accompanied by a supervising lawyer. Section 2 of Rule 138-A
provides.
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
the by supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.
The phrase "direct supervision and control" requires no less than the physical presence of the supervising
lawyer during the hearing. This is in accordance with the threefold rationale behind the Law Student
Practice Rule, to wit: 3
1. to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of justice as a result of incompetence or inexperience of law
students, who, not having as yet passed the test of professional competence, are presumably not fully
equipped to act a counsels on their own;
2. to provide a mechanism by which the accredited law school clinic may be able to protect itself from any
potential vicarious liability arising from some culpable action by their law students; and
3. to ensure consistency with the fundamental principle that no person is allowed to practice a particular
profession without possessing the qualifications, particularly a license, as required by law.
The matter of allowing a law student to appear before the court unaccompanied by a supervising lawyer
cannot be left to the discretion of the presiding judge. The rule clearly states that the appearance of the law
student shall be under the direct control and supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
duly accredited by law schools. The rule must be strictly construed because public policy demands that
legal work should be entrusted only to those who possess tested qualifications, are sworn to observe the
rules and ethics of the legal profession and subject to judicial disciplinary control. 4 We said in Bulacan v.
Torcino: 5
Court procedures are often technical and may prove like snares to the ignorant or the unwary. In the past,
our law has allowed non-lawyers to appear for party litigants in places where duly authorized members of
the bar are not available (U.S. vs. Bacansas, 6 Phil. 539). For relatively simple litigation before municipal
courts, the Rules still allow a more educated or capable person in behalf of a litigant who cannot get a
lawyer. But for the protection of the parties and in the interest of justice, the requirement for appearances
in regional trial courts and higher courts is more stringent.
The Law Student Practice Rule is only an exception to the rule. Hence, the presiding judge should see to it
that the law student appearing before the court is properly guided and supervised by a member of the bar.
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;
Section 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.