Maderafa Vs Mideodea
Uploaded by
TeacherEliMaderafa Vs Mideodea
Uploaded by
TeacherEliCase digest
Imelda Y. Maderada v.Judge Ernesto H. Mediodea
Facts: Maderada, the Clerk of Court in 12th MCTC, charged against Judge Ernesto H. Mediodea of the
MCTC with ―gross ignorance of the law amounting to grave misconduct‖ for failing ―to observe and
apply the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure‖ in a civil case. On Sep. 7, 2001, a criminal case of
Forcible Entry was charged against Maderada, and was presided over by Judge Erlinda Tersol. Due to
Maderada‘s occupation as clerk of court, Tersol inhibited herself. During the case, the opposing \party
questions the appearance of Maderada as the cousel of herself and her co-plaintiff in the criminal case.
Respondent Judge refutes Maderada‘s assertion that she appeared as counsel on her own behalf
because she could not afford the services of a lawyer that it does not follow that her occupation as Clerk
is not enough to pay for the services of counsel. Furthermore, Mediodea alleges that Maderada did not
secure authority from this Court to appear as counsel, and that she failed to file her leave of absence
every time she appeared in court. OCA recommended that respondent judge be fined, however,
Maderada is also at fault for not seeking approval of the court to appear as counsel.
Issue: Is the appearance of Maderada as counsel valid?
Held: Yes. The OCA recommends Maderada to be fined for engaging in a private vocation or profession
when she appeared on her own behalf in court, the necessary implication was the she was in the
practice of law. A party has right to conduct litigation personally is recognized by law, sec. 34 of Rule 138
of the Rules of Court. When the individuals do litigate they are not considered to be in the practice of
law. Maderada, in appearing for herself, not to the public as a lawyer nor demanding payment for it—
therefore, she cannot be in the practice of law. However, what is prohibited is, appearing as the counsel
for her coplaintiff. It no longer follows the raison d’etre of protecting one’s own rights.
