276775 Teresita P. De Guzman, et al. Vs. Commission on Audit — Official PDF

Decision id G.R. No. 276775 concerns[;] done in person without the intervention of another{;] direct from one person to another{;] originating in or proceeding from a single person...”°° Rule 138, Section 34 also distinguishes between an agent or a friend and an attorney, with the former being allowed to appear only in the municipal courts,°’ which further evinces the dual intent of the Rules to limit the representation of litigants by non-lawyers to the municipal courts only, and to require litigants in all other courts to conduct their litigation either by themselves, without any representation at all, or through a member of the Philippine Bar. In Santos v. Judge Lacurom,* We sanctioned a regional trial court judge who allowed the pro se appearance of a non-lawyer party who was already represented by counsel: 36 37 58 59 WEBS! Torcino, 219 Phil. 224, 229-231 (1985) [ 211 Phil. 373, 378 (1983) [Per J. Relov 331 Phil. 239 (2006) [Per J. Carpio, Third Div Td, at 249-250, The Rules [of Court] recognize the right of an individual to represent himself in any case in which he is'a party. The Rules state that a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and that his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the Bar. The individual litigant may personally do everything in the progress of the action from commencement to the termination of the litigation. A party’s representation on his own behalf is not considered to be a practice of law as “one does not practice law by acting for himself, any more than he practices medicine by. rendering first aid to himself.” Therefore, Santos can conduct the litigation of the cases personally. Santos is not engaged in the practice of law if he represents himself in cases in which he is a party. By conducting the litigation of his own cases, Santos acts not as a counsel or lawyer but as a party exercising his right to represent himself. Certainly, Santos does not become a counsel or lawyer by exercising such right. The Court, however, notes the use of the disjunctive word “or” under the Rules, signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from each of the other things enumerated, to mean that a party must choose between self-representation or being represented by a member of the bar. During the course of the proceedings, a party should not be allowed to shift from one form of representation to another. Otherwise, this would lead to contusion, not only for the other party, but for the court as well. Ifa party, originally represented by counsel, would later decide to represent himself, the prudent course of action is to dispense with the services of a and prosecute or defend the case personally. For the orderly administration of justice, respondent judge should not have allowed Santos to litigatu perscnatly because Santos was already represented by counsel. Respondent judge should have required Santos to choose between self-representation or being represented by counsel.°? (Emphasis supplied) n (1993). Cruz v. Hon. Mijares, 586 Phil. 433, 441-443 (2068) [Per Gotierrez, ER’S THIRD: NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, UNABRIDGED 1686 3, Nachura, Third Division]; Bulacan v. irst Division}; Cantimbuhan v. Hon. Cruz,