Cruz vs. Mijares

Facts:

Petitioner Ferdinand A. Cruz (plaintiff in the underlying litigation), a fourth-year law student, sought on March 5, 2002 to enter his appearance personally in Civil Case No. 01-0410 (Abatement of Nuisance) pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 108, Pasay City. He relied on Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court to justify his personal appearance as a non-lawyer party litigant. The private respondent in the RTC case was Benjamin Mina, Jr.; the public respondent here is Judge Priscilla Mijares, presiding judge of RTC Branch 108.

At the pre-trial the trial judge required Cruz to secure written permission from the Court Administrator before allowing him to appear, and thereafter allowed defense counsel Atty. Stanley Cabrera to present a Motion to Dismiss (which Cruz opposed). During the pre-trial Judge Mijares made a remark to the effect, "Hay naku, masama `yung marunong pa sa Huwes. Ok ?" On March 6, 2002 Cruz filed a Manifestation and Motion to Inhibit, asserting that the judge’s remark manifested partiality and that she should voluntarily inhibit herself.

By Order dated April 19, 2002 the trial judge denied the motion to inhibit. On May 10, 2002 the judge denied Cruz’s appearance pro se, citing his failure to comply with the requisites of Rule 138-A (the Law Student Practice Rule), and noting Cruz’s failure to submit promised documents and jurisprudence. Cruz moved for reconsideration, arguing that his right to appear was based on Section 34, Rule 138 (not Rule 138-A), but the judge denied reconsideration in an Order dated July 31, 2002.

On August 16, 2002 Cruz filed directly with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule 65, with a prayer for a preliminary injunction, assailing the RTC resolutions that (1) denied his appearance as party litigant and (2) refused the judge’s voluntary inhibition. The petition raised (a) whether the Supreme Court should entertain the Rule 65 petition directly, and (b) whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying Cruz’s personal appearance and in refusing to inhibit. No writ of preliminary injunction issued. The Court noted that petitions for extraordinary writs against RTCs are ordinarily filed with the Court of Appeals but accepted the petition because it involved the p...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• May the Supreme Court, acting under Rule 65, directly entertain a petition for extraordinary writs challenging an RTC order, or is the Court of Appeals the proper forum?
• Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it (a) denied petitioner Cruz’s appearance as a party litigant and (b) refused to volun...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)