LAW STUDENT RULE Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated
RULE 138-A June 10, 1997.

Law Student Practice Rule IN RE: NEED THAT LAW STUDENT PRACTICING UNDER RULE 138-A BE
ACTUALLY SUPERVISED DURING TRIAL (BAR MATTER NO. 730).
Section 1. Conditions for student practice. — A law student who has successfully
completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is The issue in this Consulta is whether a law student who appears before the court under
enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal education program approved by the the Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A) should be accompanied by a member of
Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or the bar during the trial. This issue was raised by retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio
administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent P. Barredo, counsel for the defendant in Civil Case No. BCV-92-11 entitled Irene A.
clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school. Caliwara v. Roger T. Catbagan filed before the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite.

Section 2. Appearance. — The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, The records show that the plaintiff in civil Case No. BCV-92-11 was represented by Mr.
shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of Cornelio Carmona, Jr., an intern at the Office of Legal Aid, UP-College of Law (UP-
the Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, OLA). Mr. Carmona conducted hearings and completed the presentation of the
briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed by the supervising plaintiff's evidence-in-chief without the presence of a supervising lawyer. Justice
attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic. 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,
Section 3. Privileged communications. — The Rules safeguarding privileged Presiding Judge Edelwina Pastoral issued an Order requiring Mr. Carmona to be
communications between attorney and client shall apply to similar communications accompanied by a supervising lawyer on the next hearing. In compliance with said
made to or received by the law student, acting for the legal clinic. 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.
Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. — The law student shall comply with
the standards of professional conduct governing members of the Bar. Failure of an
attorney to provide adequate supervision of student practice may be a ground for Justice Barredo asserts that a law student appearing before the trial court under Rule
disciplinary action. (Circular No. 19, dated December 19, 1986). 138-A should be accompanied by a supervising lawyer. 1 On the other hand, 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
RULE 138, SECTION 34 : appearance." 2
Section 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 the purpose, or with the aid an attorney. In any other court, a party may For the guidance of the bench and bar, we hold that a law student appearing before the
conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be Regional Trial Court under Rule 138-A should at all times be accompanied by a
either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. supervising lawyer. Section 2 of Rule 138-A provides.

BAR MATTER NO. 730 June 13, 1997

Sec. 2. Appearance. — The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall the parties and in the interest of justice, the requirement for appearances in
be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the regional trial courts and higher courts is more stringent.
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 The Law Student Practice Rule is only an exception to the rule. Hence, the presiding
and in behalf of the legal clinic. 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 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 The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where
rationale behind the Law Student Practice Rule, to wit: 3 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
1. to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of justice as a 138 provides;
result of incompetence or inexperience of law students, who,
not having as yet passed the test of professional Sec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. — In the court of a justice of the
competence, are presumably not fully equipped to act a peace, a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or
counsels on their own; 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
2. to provide a mechanism by which the accredited law attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized
school clinic may be able to protect itself from any potential member of the bar.
vicarious liability arising from some culpable action by their
law students; and 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.
3. to ensure consistency with the fundamental principle that
no person is allowed to practice a particular profession IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hold that a law student appearing before the Regional Trial
without possessing the qualifications, particularly a license, Court under the authority of Rule 138-A must be under the direct control and
as required by law. 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
The matter of allowing a law student to appear before the court unaccompanied by a all his appearance.
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 Padilla and Francisco, J.J., on leave.
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
 Republic of the Philippines However, in an Order dated February 1, 2002, the MeTC denied permission for
SUPREME COURT petitioner to appear as private prosecutor on the ground that Circular No. 19 governing
Baguio City 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
THIRD DIVISION in Cantimbuhan; and set the case for continuation of trial.3

G.R. No. 154207             April 27, 2007 On February 13, 2002, petitioner filed before the MeTC a Motion for Reconsideration
seeking to reverse the February 1, 2002 Order alleging that Rule 138-A, or the Law
Student Practice Rule, does not have the effect of superseding Section 34 of Rule 138,
FERDINAND A. CRUZ, Petitioner, for the authority to interpret the rule is the source itself of the rule, which is the Supreme
vs. Court alone.
ALBERTO MINA, HON. ELEUTERIO F. GUERRERO and HON. ZENAIDA
LAGUILLES, Respondents.
In an Order dated March 4, 2002, the MeTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
DECISION
On April 2, 2002, the petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: against the private respondent and the public respondent MeTC.

Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, After hearing the prayer for preliminary injunction to restrain public respondent MeTC
grounded on pure questions of law, with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction assailing the Judge from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 00-1705 pending the Certiorari
Resolution dated May 3, 2002 promulgated by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch proceedings, the RTC, in a Resolution dated May 3, 2002, resolved to deny the
116, Pasay City, in Civil Case No. 02-0137, which denied the issuance of a writ of issuance of an injunctive writ on the ground that the crime of Grave Threats, the subject
preliminary injunction against the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 45, Pasay of Criminal Case No. 00-1705, is one that can be prosecuted de oficio, there being no
City, in Criminal Case No. 00-1705;1 and the RTC’s Order dated June 5, 2002 denying claim for civil indemnity, and that therefore, the intervention of a private prosecutor is
the Motion for Reconsideration. No writ of preliminary injunction was issued by this not legally tenable.
Court.
On May 9, 2002, the petitioner filed before the RTC a Motion for Reconsideration. The
The antecedents: petitioner argues that nowhere does the law provide that the crime of Grave Threats
has no civil aspect. And last, petitioner cites Bar Matter No. 730 dated June 10, 1997
On September 25, 2000, Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) filed before the MeTC a formal which expressly provides for the appearance of a non-lawyer before the inferior courts,
Entry of Appearance, as private prosecutor, in Criminal Case No. 00-1705 for Grave as an agent or friend of a party litigant, even without the supervision of a member of the
Threats, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is the complaining witness. bar.

The petitioner, describing himself as a third year law student, justifies his appearance Pending the resolution of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC, the
as private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and petitioner filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration dated June 7, 2002 with the MeTC
the ruling of the Court En Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr.2 that a non-lawyer seeking the reversal of the March 4, 2002 Denial Order of the said court, on the
may appear before the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant. The strength of Bar Matter No. 730, and a Motion to Hold In Abeyance the Trial dated June
petitioner furthermore avers that his appearance was with the prior conformity of the 10, 2002 of Criminal Case No. 00-1705 pending the outcome of the certiorari
public prosecutor and a written authority of Mariano Cruz appointing him to be his agent proceedings before the RTC.
in the prosecution of the said criminal case.
On June 5, 2002, the RTC issued its Order denying the petitioner’s Motion for PROVIDING FOR THE APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS BEFORE THE LOWER
Reconsideration. COURTS (MTC’S).4

Likewise, in an Order dated June 13, 2002, the MeTC denied the petitioner’s Second This Court, in exceptional cases, and for compelling reasons, or if warranted by the
Motion for Reconsideration and his Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Trial on the ground nature of the issues reviewed, may take cognizance of petitions filed directly before it.5
that the RTC had already denied the Entry of Appearance of petitioner before the
MeTC. Considering that this case involves the interpretation, clarification, and implementation
of Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Bar Matter No. 730, Circular No. 19
On July 30, 2002, the petitioner directly filed with this Court, the instant Petition and governing law student practice and Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, and the ruling of
assigns the following errors: the Court in Cantimbuhan, the Court takes cognizance of herein petition.

I. The basic question is whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an
inferior court as an agent or friend of a party litigant.
the respondent regional trial court abused its discretion when it resolved to deny the
prayer for the writ of injunction of the herein petitioner despite petitioner having The courts a quo held that the Law Student Practice Rule as encapsulated in Rule 138-
established the necessity of granting the writ; 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
II. the supervision of an attorney duly accredited by the law school.

THE RESPONDENT TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, TANTAMOUNT TO Rule 138-A or the Law Student Practice Rule, provides:
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, WHEN IT RESOLVED TO DENY THE PRAYER FOR
THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND THE SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR RULE 138-A
RECONSIDERATION OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER ON THE BASIS THAT [GRAVE] LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
THREATS HAS NO CIVIL ASPECT, FOR THE SAID BASIS OF DENIAL IS NOT IN
ACCORD WITH THE LAW; Section 1. Conditions for Student Practice. – A law student who has successfully
completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is
III. enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal education program approved by the
Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or
THE RESPONDENT METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent
WHEN IT DENIED THE MOTION TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE TRIAL, WHEN WHAT clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.
WAS DENIED BY THE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IS THE ISSUANCE
OF THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and WHEN THE RESPONDENT Sec. 2. Appearance. – The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IS YET TO DECIDE ON THE MERITS OF THE PETITION be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the
FOR CERTIORARI; Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs,
memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed by the supervising attorney for
IV. and in behalf of the legal clinic.

THE RESPONDENT COURT[s] ARE CLEARLY IGNORING THE LAW WHEN THEY However, in Resolution6 dated June 10, 1997 in Bar Matter No. 730, the Court En Banc
PATENTLY REFUSED TO HEED TO [sic] THE CLEAR MANDATE OF THE LAPUT, clarified:
CANTIMBUHAN AND BULACAN CASES, AS WELL AS BAR MATTER NO. 730,
The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer
the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in
appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer. Section 34, Rule Bar Matter No. 730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an
138 provides: agent or a friend of a party litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior
courts.
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 Petitioner further argues that the RTC erroneously held that, by its very nature, no civil
by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may liability may flow from the crime of Grave Threats, and, for this reason, the intervention
conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be of a private prosecutor is not possible.
either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
It is clear from the RTC Decision that no such conclusion had been intended by the
Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party RTC. In denying the issuance of the injunctive court, the RTC stated in its Decision that
without the supervision of a member of the bar.7 (Emphasis supplied) there was no claim for civil liability by the private complainant for damages, and that the
records of the case do not provide for a claim for indemnity; and that therefore,
The phrase "In the court of a justice of the peace" in Bar Matter No. 730 is petitioner’s appearance as private prosecutor appears to be legally untenable.
subsequently changed to "In the court of a municipality" as it now appears in Section 34
of Rule 138, thus:8 Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable except in instances when no actual damage results from an offense,
SEC. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. — In the Court of a municipality a party may such as espionage, violation of neutrality, flight to an enemy country, and crime against
conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for popular representation.9 The basic rule applies in the instant case, such that when a
that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from
litigation personally or by aid of an attorney and his appearance must be either the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with criminal action, unless the offended
personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. (Emphasis supplied) party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the
civil action prior to the criminal action.10
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 The petitioner is correct in stating that there being no reservation, waiver, nor prior
of the Rules of Court, the term "Municipal Trial Courts" as used in these Rules shall institution of the civil aspect in Criminal Case No. 00-1705, it follows that the civil aspect
include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial arising from Grave Threats is deemed instituted with the criminal action, and, hence,
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. the private prosecutor may rightfully intervene to prosecute the civil aspect.

There is really no problem as to the application of Section 34 of Rule 138 and Rule WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution and Order of the
138-A. In the former, the appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a party Regional Trial Court, Branch 116, Pasay City are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
litigant, is expressly allowed, while the latter rule provides for conditions when a law Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 45, Pasay City is DIRECTED to ADMIT the Entry of
student, not as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, may appear before the courts. Appearance of petitioner in Criminal Case No. 00-1705 as a private prosecutor under
the direct control and supervision of the public prosecutor.
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 No pronouncement as to costs.
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 SO ORDERED.
the simple reason that Rule 138-A is not the basis for the petitioner’s appearance.
 SECOND DIVISION Respondent, this time engulfed with anger in a raising voice said:

ADM. CASE NO. 5737             October 25, 2004 Appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna; x x x.

FERDINAND A. CRUZ, complainant, Respondent’s imputations were uncalled for and the latter’s act of compelling the court
vs. to ask complainant whether he is a lawyer or not was intended to malign him before the
ATTY. STANLEY CABRERA, respondent. public, inasmuch as respondent knew that complainant is not a lawyer, having
appeared for and in his behalf as a party litigant in prior cases; respondent’s
RESOLUTION imputations of complainant’s 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
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: "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
In an administrative complaint dated July 7, 2002, Ferdinand A. Cruz charges Atty. the public.
Stanley Cabrera with misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant claims that respondent’s display of improper attitude, arrogance,
Complainant alleges that he is a fourth year law student; since the latter part of 2001, misbehavior, misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer
he instituted several actions against his neighbors; he appeared for and in his behalf in of the court, before the public and the court, was a patent transgression of the very
his own cases; he met respondent who acted as the counsel of his neighbors; during a ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold in their dealings with society and corresponding
hearing on January 14, 2002, in one case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 112, appropriate penalty or sanctions for the said administrative violations should be
Pasay City, presided by Judge Caridad Cuerdo, the following exchange transpired: imposed on the respondent.

xxx xxx So, may we know your honor, if he is a lawyer or not? In his Comment, respondent contends that the complaint filed against him is a vicious
scheme to dissuade him from appearing as counsel for the Mina family against whom
The Court having been inhibited by the respondent from hearing the case, complainant had filed several civil and criminal cases including him to further
replied: complainant’s illegal practice of law; complainant’s complaint occurred during a judicial
proceeding wherein complainant was able to represent himself considering that he was
appearing in barong tagalog thus the presiding judge was misled when she issued an
You are asking for my inhibition and yet you want me to rule on his order stating "[i]n today’s hearing both lawyers appeared;" because of which,
appearance xxx xxx. respondent stated: "Your honor I would like to manifest that this counsel (referring to
complainant) who represents the plaintiff in this case is not a lawyer," to which
Thereafter, the respondent said: complainant replied: "The counsel very well know that I am not yet a lawyer;" the
reason he informed the court that complainant is not a lawyer was because the
presiding judge did not know that complainant is not a lawyer and complainant did not
Because your honor, he (pertaining to the complainant) is
inform the presiding judge that he is not a lawyer when he stated: "for the plaintiff your
misrepresenting himself to be a lawyer!
honor;" he stated "pumasa ka muna" out of indignation because of complainant’s
temerity in misrepresenting himself as lawyer; it is surprising that the City Prosecutor of
To this the complainant remarked: Pasay City filed a complaint for oral defamation against him considering that in a
precedent case the Supreme Court stated: "It is a settled principle in this jurisdiction
"Your Honor, I’m not xxx xxx." that statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged
(Navarrete vs. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 540);" in another malicious prosecution later Unjust Vexation under Criminal Cases Nos. 02-1031 and No. 02-2136
being perpetuated by the complainant against the Mina family pending before Judge respectively, pending trial before MTC Branch 45, Pasay City.
Priscilla Mijares of RTC Branch 108, Pasay City, they were able to prohibit the
appearance of complainant as counsel for himself as authenticated by an Order of Likewise respondent did not refute complainant’s allegation that in 1979 he was held in
Judge Priscilla Mijares which allegedly stated among other; to wit: contempt and was not allowed to practice law for seven years by the Supreme Court in
the administrative case filed against him by Emilia E. Andres on December 14, 1979
In connection with Ferdinand A. Cruz’s motion to appear as counsel, the docketed as A.M. L-585 for his fondness in using contumacious language in his dealing
motion is likewise denied, movant not having satisfied the requirements and with others.
conditions under Rule 138-A, Sections 1 and 2.
From the facts obtaining, it is apparent that the utterance hurled by the respondent in
Respondent alleges that when complainant filed an administrative case against Judge the manner, substance and tone of his voice which was not refuted by him "that appear
Priscilla Mijares when said Judge stated in Tagalog in open court "Hay naku masama ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna" in whatever manner it was uttered are in itself not only
yung marunong pa sa Huwes! OK?" the same was dismissed by the Honorable Court’s abusive but insulting specially on the part of law students who have not yet taken nor
Third Division which stated among others: "That the questioned remarks of respondent passed the bar examination required of them.
were uttered more out of frustration and in reaction to complainant’s actuations and
taking into account that complainant is not yet a lawyer but was already lecturing the Respondent should have been more discreet and cautious in informing the court if it
court on a matter which is not even a point of discussion was sheer arrogance on the was his purpose relative to complainant’s appearance in court; although the latter
part of the complainant." Respondent prays that the complaint against him be appeared only in his behalf but not for others if he had complied with the requirements
dismissed for lack of merit. of Rule 138 (Sections 1 and 3) of the Rules of Court.

The administrative case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for Respondent should have been more temperate in making utterances in his professional
investigation, report and recommendation. dealings so as not to offend the sensitivities of the other party as in this case.

In a report, dated March 4, 2004, IBP Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro recommended On April 16, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution to annul and set
respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months for aside the recommendation of the investigating commissioner and to approve the
violating Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: dismissal of the case for lack of merit.

A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is Prefatorily, we note that the IBP Board of Governors failed to observe the procedural
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. requirements of Sec. 12 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on review and decision by
the Board of Governors which states:
In her report, Commissioner Navarro stated:
SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. – (a) Every case
After going over the evidence submitted by the parties, the undersigned noted heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors
that respondent’s averment that the utterances he made in open court is (sic) upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his
privileged communication does not hold water for the same was (sic) not report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and
relevant to the issue of the case in question under trial before the said court. shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based.
It shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the
Respondent did not refute the fact that the same utterances he made in open court next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator’s report.
against the complainant had been the basis for his indictment of Oral Defamation and (Emphasis supplied)
In Teodosio vs. Nava,1 the Court stressed the important function of the requirement that In Maderada vs. Mediodea,6 this Court expounded on the foregoing provision, thus:
the decision of the Board of Governors state the facts and the reasons on which it is
based, which is akin to what is required of the decisions of courts of record, thus: This provision means that in a litigation, parties may personally do everything
during its progress -- from its commencement to its termination. When they,
For aside from informing the parties the reason for the decision to enable them however, act as their own attorneys, they are restricted to the same rules of
to point out to the appellate court the findings with which they are not in evidence and procedure as those qualified to practice law; otherwise,
agreement, in case any of them decides to appeal the decision, it is also an ignorance would be unjustifiably rewarded. Individuals have long been
assurance that the judge, or the Board of Governors in this case, reached his permitted to manage, prosecute and defend their own actions; and when they
judgment through the process of legal reasoning.2 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
In this case, the Board of Governors’ resolution absolving respondent of any rendering first aid to himself."
misconduct does not contain any findings of facts or law upon which it based its ruling.
Ordinarily, non-compliance with the rule would result in the remand of the case. The practice of law, though impossible to define exactly, involves the exercise of a
Nonetheless, where the controversy has been pending resolution for quite sometime profession or vocation usually for gain, mainly as attorney by acting in a representative
and the issues involved could be resolved on the basis of the records on appeal, the capacity and as counsel by rendering legal advise to others. Private practice has been
Court has opted to resolve the case in the interest of justice and speedy disposition of defined by this Court as follows:
cases.3 This case falls within the exception.
x x x. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent
We hold that respondent’s outburst of "appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna" does or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it
not amount to a violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 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
Based on the facts of this case, such outburst came about when respondent pointed of the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General from engaging in
out to the trial court that complainant is not a lawyer to correct the judge’s impression of private practice] has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding
complainant’s appearance, inasmuch as the judge, in her Order of January 14, 2002, one's self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such
noted that complainant is a lawyer.4 Such single outburst, though uncalled for, is not of services. x x x.
such magnitude as to warrant respondent’s 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 Clearly, in appearing for herself, complainant was not customarily or habitually
has been said that lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said in holding herself out to the public as a lawyer. Neither was she demanding
the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for payment for such services. Hence, she cannot be said to be in the practice of
the court to condone even contemptuous language.5 law.7

Nonetheless, we remind respondent that complainant is not precluded from litigating On the other hand, all lawyers should take heed that lawyers are licensed officers of the
personally his cases. A party’s right to conduct litigation personally is recognized by courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar
Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.
Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain
SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. -- In the court of a justice of the peace the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and
a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend fairly.8 Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be
appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of
court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial
and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member forum.9
of the bar.
WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Atty. Stanley Cabrera for misconduct in violation of the Records show that on April 6, 1979, petitioner Romulo Cantimbuhan filed separate
Code of Professional Responsibility is DISMISSED for lack of merit. He is, however, admonished to be criminal complaints against Patrolmen Danilo San Antonio and Rodolfo Diaz for less
more circumspect in the performance of his duties as an officer of the court
serious physical injuries, respectively, and were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos.
58549 and 58550 in the then Municipal Court of Parañaque, Metro Manila.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert V. Lucila, in 1979, were senior law students of
Manila
the U.P.assistance to the needy clients in the Office of the Legal Aid. Thus, in August
1979, petitioners Malana and Lucila filed their separate appearances, as friends of
EN BANC complainant-petitioner Cantimbuhan. Herein respondent Fiscal Leodegario C. Quilatan
opposed the appearances of said petitioners, and respondent judge, in an Order dated
G.R. No. L-51813-14 November 29, 1983 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, 1979, respondent Judge issued an order denying petitioners' motion
ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN, NELSON B. MALANA, and ROBERT V. for reconsideration.
LUCILA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court of Hence, this petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with prayers, among
Parañaque, Metro Manila, and FISCAL LEODEGARIO C. QUILATAN, respondents. others, that the Orders of respondent judge, dated August 16, 1979 and September 4,
1979, be set aside as they are in plain violation of Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court and/or were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
Froilan M. Bacungan and Alfredo F. Tadiar for petitioners. 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
The Solicitor General for respondents. behalf from conducting any proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. 58549 (People of the
Philippines vs. Danilo San Antonio) and 58559 (People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo
Diaz) of the Municipal Court of Parañaque, Metro Manila on November 15, 1979 as
scheduled or on any such dates as may be fixed by said respondent judge.
RELOVA, J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1
Basis of this petition is Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which states: têñ.
£îhqwâ£
Appeal from the Order, dated August 16, 1979, of respondent Judge Nicanor J. Cruz,
Jr., of the then Municipal Court of Parañaque, Metro Manila, disallowing the
appearances of petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert V. Lucila as private SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. — In the court of a justice of
prosecutors in Criminal Cases Nos. 58549 and 58550, both for less serious physical the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of
injuries, filed against Pat. Danilo San Antonio and Pat. Rodolfo Diaz, respectively, as an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid
well as the Order, dated September 4, 1979, denying the motion for reconsideration of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation
holding, among others, that "the fiscal's claim that appearances of friends of party- personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be
litigants should be allowed only in places where there is a scarcity of legal practitioner, either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
to be well founded. For, if we are to allow non-members of the bar to appear in court
and prosecute cases or defend litigants in the guise of being friends of the litigants, Thus, a non-member of the Philippine Bar — a party to an action is authorized to
then the requirement of membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the appear in court and conduct his own case; and, in the inferior courts, the litigant may be
additional requirement of paying professional taxes for a lawyer to appear in court, aided by a friend or agent or by an attorney. However, in the Courts of First Instance,
would be put to naught. " (p. 25, Rollo) now Regional Trial Courts, he can be aided only by an attorney.
On the other hand, it is the submission of the respondents that pursuant to Sections 4 In the two criminal cases filed before the Municipal Court of Parañaque, petitioner
and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, it is the fiscal who is empowered to determine Cantimbuhan, as the offended party, did not expressly waive the civil action nor reserve
who shall be the private prosecutor as was done by respondent fiscal when he objected his right to institute it separately and, therefore, the civil action is deemed impliedly
to the appearances of petitioners Malana and Lucila. Sections 4 and 15, Rule 110 of instituted in said criminal cases. Thus, said complainant Romulo Cantimbuhan has
the Rules of Court provide: têñ.£îhqw⣠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 who is not a lawyer.
SEC. 4.  Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All criminal actions
either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted WHEREFORE, the Orders issued by respondent judge dated August 16, 1979 and
under the direction and control of the fiscal. September 4, 1979 which disallowed the appearances of petitioners Nelson B. Malana
and Robert V. Lucila as friends of party-litigant petitioner Romulo Cantimbuhan. are
xxx xxx xxx 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.
Accordingly, the temporary restraining order issued on November 8, 1979 is LIFTED.
SEC. 15. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. —
Unless the offended party has waived the civil action or expressly
reserved the right to institute it separately from the criminal action, SO ORDERED.1äwphï1.ñët
and subject to the provisions of section 4 hereof, he may intervene,
personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of the offense. Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Plana, Escolin and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
And, they contend that the exercise by the offended party to intervene is subject to the
direction and control of the fiscal and that his appearance, no less than his active
conduct of the case later on, requires the prior approval of the fiscal.

We find merit in the petition. Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, clearly
provides that in the municipal court a party may conduct his litigation in person with the
aid of an agent appointed by him for the purpose. Thus, in the case of Laput vs.
Bernabe, 55 Phil. 621, a law student was allowed to represent the accused in a case
pending before the then Municipal Court, the City Court of Manila, who was charged for
damages to property through reckless imprudence. "It is accordingly our view that error
was committed in the municipal court in not allowing Crispiniano V. Laput to act as an
agent or friend of Catalino Salas to aid the latter in conducting his defense." The
permission of the fiscal is not necessary for one to enter his appearance as private
prosecutor. In the first place, 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
participation, whether he be a lawyer or not, in the trial of the case. 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. Further, We may add that if
a non-lawyer can appear as defense counsel or as friend of the accused in a case
before the municipal trial court, with more reason should he be allowed to appear as
private prosecutor under the supervision and control of the trial fiscal.
 Republic of the Philippines IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day
SUPREME COURT of August, 1972 at Baybay, Leyte.
Manila
s/VICTORIANO BULACAN
FIRST DIVISION
t/VICTORIANO BULACAN
G.R. No. L-44388 January 30, 1985
Plaintiff
VICTORIANO BULACAN, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FAUSTINO TORCINO and FELIPA TORCINO, defendants-appellants.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 4th day of August,
1972 at Baybay, Leyte by Victoriano Bulacan with his Res. Cert. No.
A-930280 dated Aug. 4, 1972 issued at Baybay, Leyte.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
s/NICOLAS P. NUÑES, JR
The issue before us is whether or not a complaint for forcible entry and detainer should
be dismissed by a municipal court on the ground that the plaintiff knowingly asked a t/NICOLAS P. NUÑES, JR.
non-member of the bar to sign and file it for him.
Ntary Public
A complaint for forcible entry and damages with preliminary mandatory injunction was
filed with the Municipal Court of Baybay, Leyte by Victoriano Bulacan against Faustino
Torcino and Felipa Torcino. The complaint was signed by Nicolas Nuñes, Jr., "Friend Until December 31st, 1972
counsel for the Plaintiff" but was verified by the plaintiff-appellee himself. The
verification reads: Doc. No. 344

I, VICTORIANO BULACAN, of legal age, Filipino, married and a Page No. 56

resident of Baybay, Leyte after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law thereby depose and say: Book No. VII

That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case; that I have caused Series of 1972
the above complaint to be prepared by Nicolas P. Nuñes, Jr. and that
I have voluntarily asked, sought and requested his aid to file, claim,
prosecute, and defend in court my civil case against the defendants When the defendants-appellants filed their answer, they did not question the fact that
Faustino Torcino et al or others in connection with this case at the the complaint was signed by Nicolas Nuñes, Jr.
Municipal Court of Baybay, Leyte; that I have read and known the
contents thereon and the allegations therein are true and correct to On February 10, 1973, the municipal court issued the following order:
my own knowledge.
 The contending parties are given one week time to submit the 1. That the plaintiff and the defendants hereby agree to relocate the
proposed compromise agreement in connection with his case. defendants' land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Number T-
8133 which is hereto attached.
Failure to do so will constrain this court to render judgment on the
basis of the ocular inspection conducted sometime on December, 2. That should the findings of the Geodetic Engineer be that the
1972. present construction particularly the wallings is beyond the lot of the
said defendants as defined and described in Transfer Certificate of
Due to the failure of the parties to settle their case amicably, the court rendered a Title No. T-8133 then the defendants win remove any portion of the
decision ordering the Torcinos to demolish and remove the portion of their house which wallings that maybe inside the land of the plaintiff and vacate from
was illegally constructed on the land of the plaintiff The municipal court stated that there the premises encroached. However, should the findings of the
is no doubt that Victoriano Bulacan is the owner and has been in possession of Lot No. Geodetic Engineer be that the walling constructed by the defendants
5998 and that the lot of the defendants-appellants is on the eastern portion of said lot. does not encroach even an inch on the land of the plaintiff then the
The court found that the Torcinos constructed a residential house which unfortunately plaintiff hereby agrees to the dismissal of the present case.
encroached on the lot of the plaintiff.
3. That should the Geodetic Engineer finds out that the defendants
The Torcinos appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance of Leyte. has encroach the land of the plaintiff the defendants will be the one
who will pay for the services of the Goedetic Engineer and should the
findings be that no encroachment were made by the defendants, then
On September 18, 1973, the appellants Torcinos filed a motion to dismiss the complaint the plaintiff should shoulder the expenses of the relocation survey.
on the ground that the complaint was not signed by the plaintiff or by an admitted
attorney, and therefore must be considered as sham and false.
4. That parties hereby agree that Geodetic Engineer Jaime Kudera
be appointed by the Honorable Court to conduct and execute the
Four days later, another motion to dismiss the complaint was filed with the additional relocation survey.
discussion that the fact that the complaint is verified, does not in itself cure the defect
obtaining in the complaint.
5. That plaintiff and defendants hereby agree to waive the claims and
counterclaims for damages.
On September 24, 1973, appellee Bulacan opposed the motion and alleged that the
motion to dismiss was not filed on time and the defenses therein were not pleaded in
the answer in the municipal court and therefore, are deemed waived and may not be WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the Honorable
raised for the first time on appeal in the Court of First Instance. The opposition also Court renders judgment on the basis of the above stipulation of facts.
stated that the complaint substantially conforms to the Rule.
The stipulation of facts was signed by plaintiff Victoriano Bulacan, his new counsel Atty.
On September 24, 1973, the Court of First Instance of Leyte denied the motion to Diego A. Cala defendants Faustino and Felipa Torcino, and their counsel Gerardo A.
dismiss. A motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Pabello

On December 7, 1973, when the case was called for continuance, the parties The court issued an order directing surveyor Jaime Kudera to conduct the relocation
presented to the court a stipulation of facts which states and which we quote verbatim: work on the basis of the stipulation.

COME NOW, the plaintiff and the defendants duly assisted by their On December 17, 1983, Kudera submitted his report and on the basis of his findings,
respective counsel and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully the Court of First Instance of Leyte affirmed the decision of the municipal court.
submits the following stipulation of facts, to wit:
The defendants appealed the case to the Court of Appeals and assigned two errors: may be taken if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted. (Emphasis
supplied)
I
Under the facts of this case, however, the applicable provision is Section 34, Rule 138
THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION TO of the Rules of Court which states:
DISMISS FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS AND IN
NOT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT. SEC. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. — In the Court of a municipality a party may
conduct his litigation in person with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for
II 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. (Emphasis supplied)
THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECIDING THE CASE
AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND IN AFFIRMING
THE DECISION OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT ON THE DECISION The Rules are clear. In municipal courts, the litigant may be assisted by a friend, agent,
APPEALED FROM. or an attorney. However, in cases before the regional trial court, the litigant must be
aided by a duly authorized member of the bar. The rule invoked by the Torcinos applies
only to cases filed with the regional trial court and not to cases before a municipal court.
The Court of Appeals in a resolution dated August 7, 1976 certified the appeal to us on
the ground that no testimonial or oral evidence was presented by the parties and,
therefore, no factual matters are in issue in the appeal. In the case of Cantimbuhan v. Cruz, Jr. (126 SCRA 190) we decided a similar issue
and allowed the appearance of two senior law students as friends of the complainant-
petitioner Cantimbuhan to prosecute the case before the sala of Judge Nicanor J. Cruz,
We affirm the decision of the lower court. Jr., of the Municipal Court of Parañaque.

The Torcinos allege that the complaint is irregular as it was signed not by the plaintiff Similarly, in the case of Laput v. Bernabe (55 Phil. 621) a law student was allowed to
but by one who was not a member of the bar and who designated himself merely as represent the accused in a case pending before the City Court of Manila.
"Friend counsel for the Plaintiff." The appellants argue that the municipal court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case. They invoke Section 5, Rule 7 which states:
Court procedures are often technical and may prove like shares to the ignorant or the
unwary. In the past, our law has allowed non-lawyers to appear for party litigants in
SEC. 5. Signature and address.—Every pleading of a party places where duly authorized members of the bar are not available. (U.S. v. Bacansas,
represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of 6 Phil. 539). For relatively simple litigation before municipal courts, the Rules still allow
record in his individual name, whose address shall be stated A party a more educated or capable person to appear in behalf of a litigant who cannot get a
who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his pleading and lawyer. But for the protection of the parties and in the interest of justice, the
state his address. Except when otherwise specifically provided by requirement for appearances in regional trial courts and higher courts is more stringent.
rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by
affidavit. The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him
that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, In the case before us, the complaint was verified by the party litigant himself. In the
information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is verification, the plaintiff specifically stated that he had caused Mr. Nuñes to conduct the
not interposed for delay. If a pleading is not signed or is signed with litigation and to sign the complaint in Ms behalf, indicating his awareness that Nuñes in
intent to defeat the purpose of this rule, it may be stricken out as not a registered lawyer. There is, therefore, added justification for the pleading to be
sham and false and the action may proceed as though the pleading admitted rather than dismissed. As the lower court has cited:
had not been served. For a willful violation of this rule an attorney
may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action. Similar action
 So it has been held that, where a pleading is not signed by the Whereas, there is a need to amend the provisions of Rule 138-A to ensure access to
attorney as required, but is verified by the party, substantial rights justice of the marginalized sectors, to enhance learning opportunities of law students, to
have not been affected and the defect may be disregarded as against instill among them the value of legal professional social responsibility, and to prepare
a motion to strike. (71 C.J.S. 954- 955) them for the practice of law;

Rules of pleading, practise, and procedure must be liberally

construed so as to protect the rights and interests of the ties. As we Whereas, there is a need to institutionalize clinical legal education program in all law
stated in Paulino v. Court of Appeals (80 SCRA 257): schools in order to enhance, improve, and streamline law student practice, and regulate
their limited practice of law; and
xxx xxx xxx

Whereas, to produce practice-ready lawyers, the completion of clinical legal education

... pleadings, as well as remedial laws, should be construed liberally,
courses must be a prerequisite to take the bar examinations as provided in Section 5 of
in order that litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their
Rule 138.
respective claims, and that a possible denial of substantial justice,
due to legal technicalities, may be avoided. ...

Now, therefore, the Supreme Court En Banc hereby adopts and promulgates the
The Torcinos try to impugn the results of the relocation survey. We agree with the
Revised Law Student Practice Rule.
appellee that the appellants are now estopped on this issue because they themselves
prayed in the stipulation of facts that the findings of the geodetic engineer would be
bases for the decision of the court of first instance. We see no error, much less any
grave abuse of discretion, in the lower courts' findings that the house of the Torcinos The Revised Rule shall take effect at the start of the Academic Year 2020-2021
encroached on the lot of Victoriano Bulacan. following its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED.

A.M. NO. 19-03-24-SC

SO ORDERED.
RULE 138-A

LAW STUDENT PRACTICE

Section 1. Coverage. – This rule shall cover the limited practice of law by students
Amended Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, Law Student Practice (A.M. No. 19-03- certified herein. The limited practice of law covers appearances, drafting, and
24-SC) submission of pleadings and documents before trial and appellate courts and quasi-
judicial and administrative bodies, assistance in mediation and other alternative modes
of dispute resolution, legal counselling and advice, and such other activities that may
be covered by the Clinical Legal Education Program of the law school as herein
Whereas, pursuant to the provisions of Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987
provided.
Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to adopt and promulgate rules
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and
legal assistance to the underprivileged; Section 2. Definition of Terms. –
(a) Clinical Legal Education Program is an experiential, interactive and reflective credit- (b) Level 2 certification, for law students currently enrolled for the second semester of
earning teaching course with the objectives of providing law students with practical their third-year law courses, Provided however, where a student fails to complete all
knowledge, skills and values necessary for the application of the law, delivery of legal their third-year law courses, the Level 2 certification shall be deemed automatically
services and promotion of social justice and public interest, especially to the revoked.
marginalized, while inculcating in the students the values of ethical lawyering and public
service. It consists of learning activities covered by this Rule undertaken in either a 1)
law clinic or an 2) externship, which shall incorporate the teaching of legal theory and The certification issued shall be valid until the student has completed the required
doctrines, practical skills, as well as legal ethics. number of courses in the clinical legal education program to complete the law degree,
unless sooner revoked for grounds stated herein.

(b) Externship is part of the clinical legal educational program if: (a) it allows students to
engage in legal work for the marginalized sectors or for the promotion of social justice Section 4. Practice Areas of Law Student Practitioners. – Subject to the supervision
and public interest, and b) it is undertaken with any of the following: i) the courts, the and approval, of a supervising lawyer, a certified law student practitioner may:
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), government offices; and (ii) law school-
recognized non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
For Level 1 certification
(c) Law Clinic refers to an office or center which is a component of the law school’s
clinical legal education program that renders legal assistance and services as herein
provided to eligible persons, groups, and/or communities. (1) Interview prospective clients;

(d) Law Student Practitioner is a law student certified under Section 3 of this Rule. (2) Give legal advice to the client;

(e) Supervising Lawyer refers to a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing who (3) Negotiate for and on behalf of the client;
is authorized by the law school to supervise the law student practitioner under this
Rule.
(4) Draft legal documents such as affidavits, compromise agreements, contracts,
demand letter, position papers, and the like;
Section 3. Eligibility Requirements of Law Student Practitioners. – No law student shall
be permitted to engage in any of the activities under the Clinical Legal Education
Program of a law school unless the law student has applied for and secured the (5) Represent eligible parties before quasi-judicial or administrative bodies;
following certifications:

(6) Provide public legal orientation; and

(a) Level 1 certification, for law students who have successfully completed their first-
year law courses; and/or
(7) Assist in public interest advocacies for policy formulation and implementation.
For Level 2 certification The Level 1 certification issued under this provision shall be valid before all courts,
quasi-judicial and administrative bodies within the judicial region where the school is
located.
(1) Perform all activities under Level 1 Certification;

Level 2 Certification
(2) Assist in the taking of depositions and/or preparing judicial affidavits of witnesses;

Within ten (10) days from receipt of the application, the Executive Judge of the RTC
(3) Appear on behalf of the client at any stage of the proceedings or trial, before any shall (a) evaluate the application together with its attachments, and (b) recommend to
court, quasi-judicial or administrative body; the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) the approval and issuance of the
certification. If the Executive Judge finds the application to be incomplete, the law
school shall be notified and required to comply with the requirements within five (5)
days from receipt of notice.
(4) In criminal cases, subject to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court, to appear on behalf of a government agency in the prosecution of criminal
actions; and
The Level 2 certification issued under this provision shall be valid before all courts,
quasi-judicial, and administrative bodies.
(5) In appealed cases, to prepare the pleadings required in the case.
Section 6. Duties of Law Student Practitioners. – Acting under a certification, the law
student shall:
Section 5. Certification Application Requirements. – The law student must submit a
duly-accomplished application form under oath in three (3) copies, accompanied by
proof of payment of the necessary legal and filing fees.
(a) Observe the provisions of Section 24(b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court;

The law school, through the dean or the authorized representative, shall submit to the
Office of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) having jurisdiction over (b) Be prohibited from using information acquired in one’s capacity as a law student
the territory where the law school is located, the duly-accomplished application form practitioner for personal or commercial gain;
together with an endorsement under oath.

(c) Perform the duties and responsibilities to the best of one’s abilities as a law student
Level 1 Certification practitioner; and

The Executive Judge of the RTC shall evaluate, approve, and issue the certification (d) Strictly observe the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
within ten (10) days from receipt of the application.

Section 7. Use of Law Student Practitioner’s Name. – A law student practitioner may
sign briefs, pleadings, letters, and other similar documents which the student has
produced under the direction of the supervising lawyer, indicating the law student Section 10. Qualification of Supervising Lawyers. – A supervising lawyer under this
practitioner’s certificate number as required under this Rule. Rule shall be a member of the bar in good standing.

Section 8. Law Student Practitioner’s Oath/Affirmation. – A law student who has been Section 11. Duties of Supervising Lawyers. – The following are the duties of a
issued a certificate under this Rule must, before performing the activities allowed supervising lawyer:
herein, take an oath in the following form:

(a) Supervise such number of certified law student practitioners as far as practicable;
"I, (name), having been granted a certificate of law student practice by the Supreme
court under Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and (b) Personally appear with the law student practitioner in all cases pending before the
obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will second-level courts and in all other cases the supervising lawyer determines that his or
do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly her presence is required;
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the
same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a certified
law student practitioner according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to the parties I represent; and I impose upon (c) Assume personal responsibility for any work performed by the certified law student
myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of practitioner while under his or her supervision;
evasion. So help me God."

(d) Assist and advise the certified law student practitioner in the activities authorized by
Section 9. Duties of Law Schools. – The law school, through its dean or authorized these rules and review such activities with the certified law student practitioner, all to
representative, must: the extent required for the proper practical training of the certified law student
practitioner and the protection of the client;

(a) Develop and adopt a Clinical Legal Education Program;

(e) Read, approve, and personally sign any pleadings, briefs or other similar documents
prepared by the certified law student practitioner prior to the filing thereof, and read and
approve any documents which shall be prepared by the certified law student
(b) Develop and establish at least one law clinic in its school; practitioner for execution by the eligible party; and

(c) Endorse qualified students for certification as law student practitioner under this (f) Provide the level of supervision to the certified law student practitioner required by
Rule. Such endorsement shall constitute as a certification that the dean or authorized these rules.
representative knows that the applicant is a student enrolled in the Clinical Legal
Education Course, possesses good moral character, and has met the requirements of
Section 3 of this Rule; and
Section 12. Clinical Faculty. – Law schools shall have such number of faculty members
to teach clinical legal education courses as may be necessary to comply with this Rule.
(d) Ensure compliance by law student practitioners and supervising lawyers with the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Section 13. Sanctions. – (a) Without prejudice to existing laws, rules, regulations, and 19-03-24-SC dated June 25, 2019 shall apply to bar examination applicants
circulars, the following shall be considered as unauthorized practice of law by a certified commencing the 2023 bar examinations.
law student practitioner –

June 25, 2019, Manila, Philippines.

i. Engaging in any of the acts provided in Section 4 of this Rule without the necessary
certification or without the consent and supervision of the supervising lawyer;

ii. Making false representations in the application for certification;

iii. Using an expired certification to engage in the limited practice of law under this Rule;

iv. Rendering legal services outside the scope of practice areas allowed under Section
4 of this Rule;

v. Asking for or receiving payment or compensation for services rendered under the
Clinical Legal Education Program as provided in this Rule; and

vi. Such other analogous circumstances.

Unauthorized practice of law shall be ground for revocation of the law student
practitioner’s certification and/or disqualification for a law student from taking the bar
examination for a period to be determined by the Supreme Court.

(b) The above provisions notwithstanding, any act constituting a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility shall subject the supervising lawyer, Clinical Legal
Education Program head, and/or law school dean to disciplinary action, as the
circumstances may warrant.

Section 14. Effectivity. – This rule shall take effect at the start of Academic year 2020-
2021 following its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. The
requirements under second paragraph of Section 5, Rule 138 as amended by A.M. No.