[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
63 views3 pages

Laput V Bernabe

The case of Laput vs. Bernabe involves a petition for a writ of mandamus to allow a non-attorney, Crispiniano V. Laput, to represent an accused person in a municipal court. The court ruled that the municipal court retains the rights of justice of the peace courts, allowing for representation by non-attorneys, and thus granted the writ. The decision emphasizes the continuity of legal provisions regarding representation in municipal courts despite their broader jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

alejandriarodsheen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
63 views3 pages

Laput V Bernabe

The case of Laput vs. Bernabe involves a petition for a writ of mandamus to allow a non-attorney, Crispiniano V. Laput, to represent an accused person in a municipal court. The court ruled that the municipal court retains the rights of justice of the peace courts, allowing for representation by non-attorneys, and thus granted the writ. The decision emphasizes the continuity of legal provisions regarding representation in municipal courts despite their broader jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

alejandriarodsheen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Laput vs. Bernabe, 55 Phil.

621

FACTS:

The case at bar a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the judge of the first

branch of the municipal court of the City of Manila to recognize the right of an

accused person to avail himself of the services of an agent or friend, not a licensed

attorney-at-law, to aid him in the litigation.

 It appears from the pleadings that Catalino Salas was charged in the

municipal court of the City of Manila with the crime of damage to property

through reckless imprudence.

 Thereupon, Salas authorized Crispiniano V. Laput to represent him in the

case.

 Laput, is a law student and, accordingly, not a recognized member of the

Philippine Bar.

 The written appointment of Laput was duly presented in court, but the

respondent judge before whom the case was to be tried refused to allow

Laput to act as the counsel of Salas.

 Hence, this petition for a writ of mandamus.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Laput is an applicable agent to represent the litigant despite

not being a member of the Philippine Bar.


Whether the Manila Municipal Court qualifies as a “court of a justice of the

peace” under § 34 of the Code, thereby allowing representation by a non-attorney

agent.

HELD:

While the question appears simple, in order to resolve it properly there must be

before us a chronological statement of the applicable law:

 Judiciary Act No. 136 (1901): Maintained the existing Justice of the Peace (JP)

courts in Manila with their full jurisdiction until a law created new inferior

civil/criminal tribunals.

 Manila Charter, Act No. 183 (1901): Created municipal courts (criminal

jurisdiction) and JP courts (civil jurisdiction). The Charter mandated that

municipal courts follow judiciary rules applicable across the Islands.

 Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190, 1901) Sec. 34: Allowed parties in JP

courts to litigate personally or with an agent or friend (non-attorney), while in

“any other court” appearances required a lawyer.

 Act No. 3107 (1923): Abolished JP courts in Manila, consolidating their civil

and criminal jurisdiction into a Municipal Court with branches, retaining “the

same jurisdiction…and incidental powers” of the old JP courts. Section 2476

(JP courts) was repealed.


 Since Sec. 34 applied to JP courts at the time of enactment—and Municipal

Court inherited JP courts’ civil jurisdiction and powers—Sec. 34 should

logically continue to apply to the Municipal Court in those respects.

 Formal distinctions would be “unduly technical”: Although Municipal Courts

have broader jurisdiction (criminal and civil), they belong to the same tier of

judicial hierarchy (only courts recognized by the Organic Act are Supreme

Court, Courts of First Instance, and Municipal Courts). The Court noted even

criminal cases may have civil components (e.g. damage assessment).

 Accordingly, Section 34 applied, and denial of Laput’s representation was

erroneous. The writ was granted without costs.

You might also like