G.R. No. 154464. September 11, 2008.
FERDINAND A. CRUZ, Petitioner, versus JUDGE PRISCILLA MIJARES, Public Respondent, and BENJAMIN MINA, JR., Private Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ferdinand A. Cruz, a fourth-year law student and plaintiff in Civil Case No. 01-0410 for Abatement of Nuisance before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 108, Pasay City, sought to appear for himself as a party litigant under Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. During pre-trial, Judge Priscilla Mijares required him to secure written permission from the Court Administrator and made a remark perceived as derogatory: “Hay naku, masama ‘yung marunong pa sa Huwes. Ok?” Cruz filed a Motion for Inhibition, alleging bias. Judge Mijares denied the motion and also denied Cruz’s appearance, holding that he failed to comply with Rule 138-A (Law Student Practice Rule), which requires enrollment in a clinical legal education program and supervision by an attorney. Cruz filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing he relied on Section 34, Rule 138, not Rule 138-A, but it was denied. Cruz directly filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the Supreme Court, challenging the denial of his appearance and the judge’s refusal to inhibit.

ISSUE

1. Whether the extraordinary writs under Rule 65 may issue.
2. Whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in:
a. Denying petitioner’s appearance as a party litigant.
b. Refusing the judge’s voluntary inhibition.

RULING

1. On the Issuance of Extraordinary Writs: The Supreme Court, while having concurrent jurisdiction with lower courts to issue writs, emphasizes that petitions under Rule 65 against RTCs should generally be filed with the Court of Appeals to observe judicial hierarchy. However, the Court took cognizance of this case due to the need to interpret Section 34, Rule 138 and Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, cautioning petitioner against directly filing such petitions in the future.
2. On the Denial of Petitioner’s Appearance: The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. Section 34, Rule 138 explicitly allows a party to conduct litigation personally in any court, and this right is distinct from Rule 138-A. Rule 138-A governs law students appearing for indigent clients under supervision, while Section 34 permits a non-lawyer party to represent himself. The trial court erred in applying Rule 138-A to petitioner, who sought to appear as a party litigant, not as a law student under the clinical program. The Court clarified that Rule 138-A did not repeal Section 34, Rule 138, and a law student as a party litigant may represent himself under the latter provision.
3. On the Refusal to Inhibit: The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the judge’s refusal to voluntarily inhibit. The remark made during pre-trial, while unfortunate, did not conclusively prove bias or partiality. The judge’s denial was based on the insufficiency of allegations, and there was no evidence of prejudgment or misconduct warranting mandatory inhibition.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Petition was PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the RTC were MODIFIED. The RTC, Branch 108, Pasay City, was DIRECTED to ADMIT the Entry of Appearance of petitioner in Civil Case No. 01-0410 as a party litigant. No pronouncement as to costs.