Gentlemen:
Quoted
hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated
June 10, 1997.
IN
RE: NEED THAT LAW STUDENT PRACTICING UNDER RULE 138-A BE ACTUALLY SUPERVISED
DURING TRIAL (BAR MATTER NO. 730).
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.
Justice
Barredo asserts that a law student appearing before the trial court under Rule
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 appearance." 2
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.
IN
VIEW WHEREOF, we hold that 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.
Greetings!
TumugonBurahin