Title
Laput vs. Bernabe
Case
G.R. No. 34882
Decision Date
Feb 12, 1931
A law student sought to represent an accused in a Manila municipal court; the Supreme Court ruled non-lawyers may aid litigants under Section 34, treating the court as a justice of the peace court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195466)

Procedural and Factual Background

Salas was charged in the municipal court of the City of Manila. He executed and presented a written authorization appointing Laput to represent him. Laput, a law student and not a member of the bar, was denied permission by the respondent judge to act as counsel or otherwise aid in Salas’s defense. The petitioners sought issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to recognize and permit the representation.

Statutory and Organic Framework Cited

  • Judiciary Law, Act No. 136 (1901) — continued existing justice of the peace courts in Manila until organization of inferior civil and criminal tribunals.
  • Manila Charter, Act No. 183 (1901) — created municipal courts (with criminal jurisdiction) and justice of the peace courts (with civil jurisdiction); §40 required proceedings to conform to rules of the judiciary; §44 provided for appointment of justices and limited criminal jurisdiction of justices of the peace.
  • Code of Civil Procedure, Act No. 190 — §34 (as originally enacted) provided: a party in a justice of the peace court may litigate in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him, or with the aid of a lawyer; in other courts a party may litigate personally or by aid of a lawyer, and appearance must be personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. The section was later amended to insert provisions concerning procuradores judiciales.
  • Act No. 3107 (1923) amending the Administrative Code — created a Municipal Court for the City of Manila with three branches, vested it with the same jurisdiction and incidental powers as previously conferred upon municipal and justice of the peace courts of Manila, and repealed provisions relating to justice of the peace courts in Manila.
  • The Organic Act (as referenced by the Court) — classifies courts into Supreme Court, courts of first instance, and municipal courts.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether the municipal court of the City of Manila is a "court of a justice of the peace" within the meaning of §34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such that a party prosecuted in that municipal court may be represented by an agent or friend who is not a licensed lawyer.

Majority Holding

The Court held that the municipal court of the City of Manila was, for purposes of §34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to be treated as the successor to the justice of the peace court whose powers and jurisdiction were transferred to the municipal court. Consequently, it was error to refuse to allow Crispiniano V. Laput to act as an agent or friend to aid Catalino Salas in his defense. The writ of mandamus was granted; costs were denied.

Majority Reasoning

  • Chronology and legislative intent: When §34 was enacted, justice of the peace courts existed in Manila to which §34 plainly applied, allowing appearance by agent or friend. Later legislative reforms abolished the separate justice of the peace courts in Manila and consolidated their powers into the municipal court (Act No. 3107), explicitly transferring the same jurisdiction and incidental powers to the municipal court branches. The Court construed this transfer as carrying forward the procedural privileges that had been enjoyed in the justice of the peace courts.
  • Substance over form: The Court rejected a strict technical distinction between civil and criminal aspects for purposes of §34, noting the prosecution before the municipal court had civil features (i.e., the assessment of damages). Accordingly, the procedural allowance for an agent or friend should not be curtailed simply because the proceeding was denominated criminal.
  • Safeguards and policy considerations: The majority dismissed fears that permitting non‑lawyer agents would unduly embarrass the administration of justice, noting existing law required authorization for persons to appear for others in justice of the peace courts and municipal courts, subject to approval by the judge of first instance of the district. The Court expressed confidence that such safeguards would prevent unregulated practice by procuradores judiciales.

Dissenting Opinion — Principal Arguments

Justice Street (joined by Ostrand and Romualdez) dissented, advancing these principal points:

  • Textual distinction: §34 draws a clear contrast between "court of a justice of the peace" and "any other court." The dissent viewed the municipal court of Manila as falling within the latter category because it possesses powers beyond those of a justice of the peace court. Accordingly, the limitation that appearances in "any other court" must be personal or by a lawyer should apply.
  • Functional and contextual differences: The municipal court of Manila operates under conditions and with powers materially different from justice of the peace courts in the provinces; therefore, it is unreasonable to infer the legislatur

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms