Scribd
Upload
475 views2 pages

Bulacan V Torcino

Victoriano Bulacan filed a complaint against Faustino and Felipa Torcino in municipal court over a property dispute. The municipal court ruled in favor of Bulacan, finding the Torcinos had illegally constructed part of their house on Bulacan's land. The Torcinos appealed to the Court of First Instance. They filed a motion to dismiss arguing the complaint was irregular because it was signed by Bulacan's "friend counsel" rather than a lawyer. However, the rules allow non-lawyers to represent parties in municipal court. Only in higher courts like the Court of First Instance must parties be represented by a licensed lawyer. Therefore, the complaint was validly filed and the motion to dismiss

Uploaded by

Vic Rabaya
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
475 views2 pages

Bulacan V Torcino

Victoriano Bulacan filed a complaint against Faustino and Felipa Torcino in municipal court over a property dispute. The municipal court ruled in favor of Bulacan, finding the Torcinos had illegally constructed part of their house on Bulacan's land. The Torcinos appealed to the Court of First Instance. They filed a motion to dismiss arguing the complaint was irregular because it was signed by Bulacan's "friend counsel" rather than a lawyer. However, the rules allow non-lawyers to represent parties in municipal court. Only in higher courts like the Court of First Instance must parties be represented by a licensed lawyer. Therefore, the complaint was validly filed and the motion to dismiss

Uploaded by

Vic Rabaya
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/ 2

Bulacan v Torcino

Facts
A complaint for forcible entry and damages with preliminary mandatory injunction was filed with
the Municipal Court of Baybay, Leyte by Victoriano Bulacan against Faustino Torcino and Felipa
Torcino. The complaint was signed by Nicolas Nuñes, Jr., "Friend counsel for the Plaintiff" but
was verified by the plaintiff-appellee himself
When the defendants-appellants filed their answer, they did not question the fact that the
complaint was signed by Nicolas Nuñes, Jr
Due to the failure of the parties to settle their case amicably, the court rendered a decision
ordering the Torcinos to demolish and remove the portion of their house which was illegally
constructed on the land of the plaintiff. The municipal court stated that there is no doubt that
Victoriano Bulacan is the owner and has been in possession of Lot No. 5998 and that the lot of
the defendants-appellants is on the eastern portion of said lot. The court found that the Torcinos
constructed a residential house which unfortunately encroached on the lot of the plaintiff.

The Torcinos appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance of Leyte
Torcino filed a motion to dismiss on the motion that it was not signed by a person not a member
to the bar
appellee Bulacan opposed the motion and alleged that the motion to dismiss was not filed on
time and the defenses therein were not pleaded in the answer in the municipal court and
therefore, are deemed waived and may not be raised for the first time on appeal in the Court of
First Instance. The opposition also stated that the complaint substantially conforms to the Rule.
motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit
Hence, this petition
Issue:
WON the complaint was irregular because the complaint was not signed a person not a
member to the bar.
Held. No.
SEC. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. — In the Court of a municipality a party may
conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that
purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation
personally or by aid of an attorney and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly
authorized member of the bar." (Emphasis supplied)

The Rules are clear. In municipal courts, the litigant may be assisted by a friend, agent, or an
attorney. However, in cases before the regional trial court, the litigant must be aided by a duly
authorized member of the bar. The rule invoked by the Torcinos applies only to cases filed with
the regional trial court and not to cases before a municipal court.
Court procedures are often technical and may prove like snares to the ignorant or the unwary. In
the past, our law has allowed non-lawyers to appear for party litigants in places where duly
authorized members of the bar are not available. (U.S. v. Bacansas, 6 Phil. 539). For relatively
simple litigation before municipal courts, the Rules still allow a more educated or capable
person to appear in behalf of a litigant who cannot get a lawyer. But for the protection of the
parties and in the interest of justice, the requirement for appearances in regional trial courts and
higher courts is more stringent.

You might also like