Dean Jorge Bocobo Rocks
I have been spying on his website for the past few months. Today, I found a real gem. I'd like to quote it here so I will remember it forever.
"In my opinion, the Supreme Court is infallible because it is never final. Judicial infallibility rests on perpetual corrigibility-the habit of self-correction based on new evidence and reflection, the same mental habit of redaction demanded by the scientific method. This is the metaphysics of the Law-it can never be unmated from the jealous truth. Or else, restless will roam and rage that sympathetic conscience and penetrating intelligence in the people, which survive mere Supreme Courts. "Nothing is settled until it is right." Justice Frederick Douglass says, "Nothing is final but justice, liberty and humanity." For all and from all, I say. "
See his complete article here.
Monday, August 04, 2003
Sunday, July 27, 2003
The on-going coup d'etat against the Philippine Government will be blogged in http://ruleofforce.blogspot.com. Access now.
Thursday, July 24, 2003
This Lawyer is a Jock
You know you haven't been exercising for a long time when you step into a sports shop, you look around and you're shocked by the price of rubber shoes. It's PHP 4,000 (about US$75) a pop for a new pair of Nike cross training. Goodness! The last pair I bought was a Grosby First Five for a then pricey PHP 500 (at PHP 20 to US$1 about US$20). But then I realized that was three Michael Jordan retirements ago. Rubberworld, maker of Grosby shoes and the lone Philippine shoe maker to brave the multinational dominance in the industry, has gone belly up. There are no more Philippine brand rubber shoes in the market and nothing sells below PHP 2,000 (US$38).
Nonetheless, my arthritis has given me no choice but to go back to my first love. A sharp pain on the right knee has reminded me of my mortality. It has been bugging me for days and no diversions of any sort can take my attention away from the sting. As a result, I've limped my way up and down city hall and have found myself in embarassing situations. Indeed, it can be quite uncomfortable when you drag your foot around and an old lady asks and you respond "Arthritis ho. Kayo rin ba may Arthritis?" ("Arthritis. Do you have Arthritis yourself?"). Indeed, my years of physical inactivity have started to collect their dues. My excuse: too much work in the office. Looking back, the most rigorous form of exercise I've had for the last twelve years was speeding through three flights of stairs to beat Judge Raul de Leon's 8:30 am rollcall to avoid getting fined.
Pain has a way of altering behavior. Thus, I decided to go back to the activities of my youth. Before law, politics and literature, there was basketball. Atoy Co was the icon of the age. I was a shooting guard, adept at doing no-look passes, behind-the-back dribbles and devil-may-care drives. I trained with the best street thugs of our district where most basketball games ended with a bonus boxing match. I took early morning jogs and played the hoops afternoons and evenings. I pumped iron and even used improvised weights wrapped around my legs to improve my jump.
Unfortunately, my basketball career took no longer than five minutes. During the San Beda High School try-outs for the Red Cubs in 1983, I took the honor of being the first to drive against the young and towering Benjie Paras. My lay-up got blocked so hard I thought the ball exploded. Benjie Paras would later become the highest paid professional basketball player in the Philippines and I, a bit shaken by the insult, would settle to being a highly-charging notary public.
Alas, the Benjie-Paras-block-shot-of-a-lifetime is not going to deter me from going back to my jock days -- not the memories, not the state of the shoe industry and most certainly not the pile of lawyerly work on my desk. With Yoyoy Villame's CD in the background --"mag-exercise tayo tuwing umaga, tuwing umaga, tuwing umaga.." -- I'm back to being a jock.
You know you haven't been exercising for a long time when you step into a sports shop, you look around and you're shocked by the price of rubber shoes. It's PHP 4,000 (about US$75) a pop for a new pair of Nike cross training. Goodness! The last pair I bought was a Grosby First Five for a then pricey PHP 500 (at PHP 20 to US$1 about US$20). But then I realized that was three Michael Jordan retirements ago. Rubberworld, maker of Grosby shoes and the lone Philippine shoe maker to brave the multinational dominance in the industry, has gone belly up. There are no more Philippine brand rubber shoes in the market and nothing sells below PHP 2,000 (US$38).
Nonetheless, my arthritis has given me no choice but to go back to my first love. A sharp pain on the right knee has reminded me of my mortality. It has been bugging me for days and no diversions of any sort can take my attention away from the sting. As a result, I've limped my way up and down city hall and have found myself in embarassing situations. Indeed, it can be quite uncomfortable when you drag your foot around and an old lady asks and you respond "Arthritis ho. Kayo rin ba may Arthritis?" ("Arthritis. Do you have Arthritis yourself?"). Indeed, my years of physical inactivity have started to collect their dues. My excuse: too much work in the office. Looking back, the most rigorous form of exercise I've had for the last twelve years was speeding through three flights of stairs to beat Judge Raul de Leon's 8:30 am rollcall to avoid getting fined.
Pain has a way of altering behavior. Thus, I decided to go back to the activities of my youth. Before law, politics and literature, there was basketball. Atoy Co was the icon of the age. I was a shooting guard, adept at doing no-look passes, behind-the-back dribbles and devil-may-care drives. I trained with the best street thugs of our district where most basketball games ended with a bonus boxing match. I took early morning jogs and played the hoops afternoons and evenings. I pumped iron and even used improvised weights wrapped around my legs to improve my jump.
Unfortunately, my basketball career took no longer than five minutes. During the San Beda High School try-outs for the Red Cubs in 1983, I took the honor of being the first to drive against the young and towering Benjie Paras. My lay-up got blocked so hard I thought the ball exploded. Benjie Paras would later become the highest paid professional basketball player in the Philippines and I, a bit shaken by the insult, would settle to being a highly-charging notary public.
Alas, the Benjie-Paras-block-shot-of-a-lifetime is not going to deter me from going back to my jock days -- not the memories, not the state of the shoe industry and most certainly not the pile of lawyerly work on my desk. With Yoyoy Villame's CD in the background --"mag-exercise tayo tuwing umaga, tuwing umaga, tuwing umaga.." -- I'm back to being a jock.
Friday, June 13, 2003
ALAN PAGUIA'S CATCH 22
While doing the rounds on the Filipiniana section of National Bookstore today, I chanced upon Prof. Alan Paguia's booklet "Rule of Law or Rule of Force" which to my impression is an attempt to do a scholarly study on the legitimacy of the succession of President Arroyo. The booklet contains the materials on the case and is selling for PHP 75.00
Prof. Alan Paguia argues in his little booklet that the ouster of Erap which the Philippine Supreme Court ruled as valid in the case Estrada v. Arroyo is a triumph of the Rule of Force over the Rule of Law and exhorts the people to restore the Rule of Law, presumably, by bringing back Erap to power. He doesn't say this explicitly but that's the only way you can interpret the lines that go -- the people should decide blah blah blah.
Nice try. Good politics. Bad lawyering.
Doesn't our Constitution say that the Supreme Court is the supreme interpreter of the law of the land? I can still hear Fr. Bernas, S.J., one of ONLY two living experts in Constitutional Law the other being Justice V.V. Mendoza, lecturing that judicial power is the prerogative of the Supreme Court to decide rightly or wrongly over legal issues and still be right. What does that mean? It means that in our constitutional system of government whatever the Supreme Court says over a legal issue, be it logical and lucid decision or arbitrary word salad, is the last word on the matter. The rule of law compels us to obey what the Supreme Court says. That's why some years back when Prof. Alan Paguia lost a big case in the Supreme Court, he published an advertisement appealing to God Almighty to reverse the Supreme Court. In other words, if you lose a case in the Supreme Court, there is no place to appeal anymore but Heaven. If the Supreme Court says, for example, that lunatics can be lawyers, nobody can argue against that. Not the President. Not Congress. It's the law. Hell, we have many lawyer lunatics selling little booklets of their own.
It is the Supreme Court's interpretation that Arroyo's succession is legitimate. Erap resigned, albeit constructively. It is a ruling that will probably be remembered as one of the ugliest, if not the ugliest. But the Supreme Court Justices could have just written the lyrics of "Impossible Dream" to support the decision and Fr. Bernas would have said it's the exercise of judicial power -- rightly or wrongly -- it is right. That's the law. It's final. There is no appeal to a higher court. So how can the ruling of the Supreme Court be a triumph of the rule of force?
By exhorting the "people" to restore the Rule of Law, presumably, by doing another EDSA 3, Prof. Paguia is exhorting them to use the Rule of Force. So if the little booklet succeeds in persuading the people to "restore" the Rule of Law, it would be a triumph of the Rule of Force. That's why I am saying the little booklet is good politics but bad lawyering. It is really tricky. The best among us would have fallen for it too. I guess Prof. Alan Paguia has lost a little faith because today he is not appealing to God Almighty. Instead, he is appealing to the "people".
My late friend playwright Wilfrido Ma. Guerero used to say that the difference between art and propaganda is truth. Art, because it is grounded on the truth, lasts forever. Propaganda, because it is intended to support a single political persuasion, is forgotten as soon as a new order is established. The little booklet is nothing but propaganda masquerading as legal scholarship. It is a great disappointment to the people once they learn that they have just been duped into buying the center piece of Erap's press kit written by a man who goes around carrying the title "Ateneo Professor", as if he has the last word on the subject.
While doing the rounds on the Filipiniana section of National Bookstore today, I chanced upon Prof. Alan Paguia's booklet "Rule of Law or Rule of Force" which to my impression is an attempt to do a scholarly study on the legitimacy of the succession of President Arroyo. The booklet contains the materials on the case and is selling for PHP 75.00
Prof. Alan Paguia argues in his little booklet that the ouster of Erap which the Philippine Supreme Court ruled as valid in the case Estrada v. Arroyo is a triumph of the Rule of Force over the Rule of Law and exhorts the people to restore the Rule of Law, presumably, by bringing back Erap to power. He doesn't say this explicitly but that's the only way you can interpret the lines that go -- the people should decide blah blah blah.
Nice try. Good politics. Bad lawyering.
Doesn't our Constitution say that the Supreme Court is the supreme interpreter of the law of the land? I can still hear Fr. Bernas, S.J., one of ONLY two living experts in Constitutional Law the other being Justice V.V. Mendoza, lecturing that judicial power is the prerogative of the Supreme Court to decide rightly or wrongly over legal issues and still be right. What does that mean? It means that in our constitutional system of government whatever the Supreme Court says over a legal issue, be it logical and lucid decision or arbitrary word salad, is the last word on the matter. The rule of law compels us to obey what the Supreme Court says. That's why some years back when Prof. Alan Paguia lost a big case in the Supreme Court, he published an advertisement appealing to God Almighty to reverse the Supreme Court. In other words, if you lose a case in the Supreme Court, there is no place to appeal anymore but Heaven. If the Supreme Court says, for example, that lunatics can be lawyers, nobody can argue against that. Not the President. Not Congress. It's the law. Hell, we have many lawyer lunatics selling little booklets of their own.
It is the Supreme Court's interpretation that Arroyo's succession is legitimate. Erap resigned, albeit constructively. It is a ruling that will probably be remembered as one of the ugliest, if not the ugliest. But the Supreme Court Justices could have just written the lyrics of "Impossible Dream" to support the decision and Fr. Bernas would have said it's the exercise of judicial power -- rightly or wrongly -- it is right. That's the law. It's final. There is no appeal to a higher court. So how can the ruling of the Supreme Court be a triumph of the rule of force?
By exhorting the "people" to restore the Rule of Law, presumably, by doing another EDSA 3, Prof. Paguia is exhorting them to use the Rule of Force. So if the little booklet succeeds in persuading the people to "restore" the Rule of Law, it would be a triumph of the Rule of Force. That's why I am saying the little booklet is good politics but bad lawyering. It is really tricky. The best among us would have fallen for it too. I guess Prof. Alan Paguia has lost a little faith because today he is not appealing to God Almighty. Instead, he is appealing to the "people".
My late friend playwright Wilfrido Ma. Guerero used to say that the difference between art and propaganda is truth. Art, because it is grounded on the truth, lasts forever. Propaganda, because it is intended to support a single political persuasion, is forgotten as soon as a new order is established. The little booklet is nothing but propaganda masquerading as legal scholarship. It is a great disappointment to the people once they learn that they have just been duped into buying the center piece of Erap's press kit written by a man who goes around carrying the title "Ateneo Professor", as if he has the last word on the subject.
Saturday, June 07, 2003
Introducing our Greatest Hits Page
In June 1991, the month I went to Ateneo Law School, I was dead sure I wanted to be a lawyer. But lawyering for me -- as it is now -- is always subservient to my pursuit of my passion for writing. No doubt, I've had many moments experiencing the power of the written word. What a feeling it is to find that truth lurks in legal opinions, court pleadings and legal briefs. But nothing can compare to the many "highs" I had blogging "La Vida Lawyer" for this site. My Best of Lawyerly Yours page is where I will keep these moments. There are little gems there that I treasure. I hope you find one you can like.
In June 1991, the month I went to Ateneo Law School, I was dead sure I wanted to be a lawyer. But lawyering for me -- as it is now -- is always subservient to my pursuit of my passion for writing. No doubt, I've had many moments experiencing the power of the written word. What a feeling it is to find that truth lurks in legal opinions, court pleadings and legal briefs. But nothing can compare to the many "highs" I had blogging "La Vida Lawyer" for this site. My Best of Lawyerly Yours page is where I will keep these moments. There are little gems there that I treasure. I hope you find one you can like.
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
Blog Headers in Search of a Body
I'm a having a little difficulty writing a full essay lately. But let me list down some ideas that that's been brewing in the hope that they develop into art (nyah nyah):
The Frank Chavez on my list.
1. What no Frank Chavez in my Top Ten? I met the legendary trial lawyer yesterday and was quite impressed with his resolve. A client of mine has decided to secure his services to do the back-breaking trial work in a set of related cases (22 as of 1996) in which I serve as the chief pleading writer. Then, it occurred to me -- how can I miss him in my Top Ten? The truth is I never saw him in action before. I do remember him very well as the Solicitor General of Cory Aquino who successfully defended the government policy to pay creditors first before spending on education when the constitutionality of the policy was challenged before the Supreme Court. Recently, he pleaded the case of Fraport in the government case to annul the contract for the award of building the new airport. I hope to write about the man's antics when he enters the courtroom for these cases that have shaped my carreer in its early years.
Testing Supreme Court Logic on Computer Circuits
2. Speaking of the Fraport case, I really want to find the time to figure out the validity of the logic in that decision. My Logic teacher Fr. Tomas O'Shaughnnessy S.J., a ver pleasant Irishman, taught us how to test the validity of arguments using computer circuits.It was fun employing it on propagandists masquerading us know-it-all columnists back in college. I swear you could easily spot the non-sequiturs. The system was so simple then. If the logic was valid, the light bulb will light up. If not, it stays dead. If only I can recover my notes from way back then. But take a look at this argument from the Fraport Case decided by the Supreme Court: The winning bidder did not have money to bid on the project. Therefore, the award to the winning bidder is void. Sounds logical to me. Although I still can't understand why they were ruled as unqualified after they have already successfully completed the airport. I don't know how that will fit in Fr. O'Shaughnessy's logic computer circuits.
New Law for Small Enterpreneurs
3. I found a new law which exempts businesses with less than PHP 3 Million in assets (not counting the land and eqiuipment) from income taxes and the Minimum Wage Law. The law is called the Barangay Micro Business Enterprise Act of 2002 signed by the President on November 13, 2002. The law includes all business including professionals.What a boost for the small players like us.
Alan Paguia Strikes Again
4. Ateneo Professor Alan Paguia argues that Erap is still President. Years ago, Prof. Paguia published a full page ad in the nation's leading newspapers appealing to "God Almighty" to reverse a Supreme Court decision that extended the appeal period of fifteen (15) days in favor of an adverse party. Prof. Paguia is my new Man from La Mancha. I, however, wish that he spend his time on more relevant passions.
Solo Practice and Holidays
5. I used to love holidays. When I was an employee, holidays meant no work, but same pay. So I spent holidays doing stuff that I couldn't do because of my work. I went around the malls, bought books, watched movies, take pictures and surf the web. Now, that I am my employer, I'm beginning to hate holidays. Holidays mean less time to do work that pays. I can't go to hearings, so can't bill appearance fees. I can't meet up with clients to close deals, so I don't get commissions. I can't follow up bills of clinets. I can't ask assistants to do paperwork. The trouble is, deadlines don't admit holidays as excuses. So I end up working even harder on holidays. No mallings, no books, no movies, no pictures, no web.
I'm a having a little difficulty writing a full essay lately. But let me list down some ideas that that's been brewing in the hope that they develop into art (nyah nyah):
The Frank Chavez on my list.
1. What no Frank Chavez in my Top Ten? I met the legendary trial lawyer yesterday and was quite impressed with his resolve. A client of mine has decided to secure his services to do the back-breaking trial work in a set of related cases (22 as of 1996) in which I serve as the chief pleading writer. Then, it occurred to me -- how can I miss him in my Top Ten? The truth is I never saw him in action before. I do remember him very well as the Solicitor General of Cory Aquino who successfully defended the government policy to pay creditors first before spending on education when the constitutionality of the policy was challenged before the Supreme Court. Recently, he pleaded the case of Fraport in the government case to annul the contract for the award of building the new airport. I hope to write about the man's antics when he enters the courtroom for these cases that have shaped my carreer in its early years.
Testing Supreme Court Logic on Computer Circuits
2. Speaking of the Fraport case, I really want to find the time to figure out the validity of the logic in that decision. My Logic teacher Fr. Tomas O'Shaughnnessy S.J., a ver pleasant Irishman, taught us how to test the validity of arguments using computer circuits.It was fun employing it on propagandists masquerading us know-it-all columnists back in college. I swear you could easily spot the non-sequiturs. The system was so simple then. If the logic was valid, the light bulb will light up. If not, it stays dead. If only I can recover my notes from way back then. But take a look at this argument from the Fraport Case decided by the Supreme Court: The winning bidder did not have money to bid on the project. Therefore, the award to the winning bidder is void. Sounds logical to me. Although I still can't understand why they were ruled as unqualified after they have already successfully completed the airport. I don't know how that will fit in Fr. O'Shaughnessy's logic computer circuits.
New Law for Small Enterpreneurs
3. I found a new law which exempts businesses with less than PHP 3 Million in assets (not counting the land and eqiuipment) from income taxes and the Minimum Wage Law. The law is called the Barangay Micro Business Enterprise Act of 2002 signed by the President on November 13, 2002. The law includes all business including professionals.What a boost for the small players like us.
Alan Paguia Strikes Again
4. Ateneo Professor Alan Paguia argues that Erap is still President. Years ago, Prof. Paguia published a full page ad in the nation's leading newspapers appealing to "God Almighty" to reverse a Supreme Court decision that extended the appeal period of fifteen (15) days in favor of an adverse party. Prof. Paguia is my new Man from La Mancha. I, however, wish that he spend his time on more relevant passions.
Solo Practice and Holidays
5. I used to love holidays. When I was an employee, holidays meant no work, but same pay. So I spent holidays doing stuff that I couldn't do because of my work. I went around the malls, bought books, watched movies, take pictures and surf the web. Now, that I am my employer, I'm beginning to hate holidays. Holidays mean less time to do work that pays. I can't go to hearings, so can't bill appearance fees. I can't meet up with clients to close deals, so I don't get commissions. I can't follow up bills of clinets. I can't ask assistants to do paperwork. The trouble is, deadlines don't admit holidays as excuses. So I end up working even harder on holidays. No mallings, no books, no movies, no pictures, no web.
Saturday, April 12, 2003
I may be one of the last few persons in the world to have seen"Chicago" the movie. Nonetheless, I take note of it here because it has given me a sort of rallying cry for my various court room predicaments.
Lawyer Billy Flyn, sings,
"Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?"
I have always maintained a court room emphasis on form and method. Substance -- it's either you have it or you don't. It takes care of itself. But form and method separates the mediocre from the great trial lawyers.The great trial lawyers have clear and entertaining ways of presenting their cases. They don't bore their audience. They work on the premise that it is all show business. They take care of the little details. Their words are precise. Their hand movements are coordinated. And because they are natural actors, they don't look like they're acting. That is why they win. So I am going to indulge a little here and post the lyrics of "Razzle Dazzle" just so I won't forget. I am a lawyer and I am in show business.
Lyrics of RAZZLE DAZZLE
from the Movie "Chicago"
BAILIFF(Spoken)
Mr. Flynn, his honor is here
BILLY(Spoken)
Thank you. Just a moment.
You ready?
ROXIE(Spoken)
Oh Billy, I'm scared.
BILLY(Spoken)
Roxie, you got nothing to worry about.
It's all a circus, kid. A three ring circus.
These trials- the wholeworld- all show business.
But kid, you're working with a star, the biggest!
(Singing)
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they;ll never catch wise!
Give 'em the old
BILLY AND COMPANY
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous
BILLY
Row after row will crow vociferous
BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em
BILLY
How can they hear the truth above the roar?
BILLY AND COMPANY
Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,
BILLY
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!
BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler
Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance
Though you are stiffer than a girder
They let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance
Give 'em the old
Razzle Dazzle
BILLY
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act that's unassailable
They'll wait a year 'till you're available!
BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old
Double whammy
BILLY
Daze and dizzy'em
Show 'em the first rate sorcerer you are
BILLY AND COMPANY
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you got no talents?
BILLY
Razzle dazzle 'em
COMPANY
Razzle dazzle 'em
BILLY
Razzle dazzle 'em
BILLY AND COMPANY
And they'll make you a star!
Lawyer Billy Flyn, sings,
"Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?"
I have always maintained a court room emphasis on form and method. Substance -- it's either you have it or you don't. It takes care of itself. But form and method separates the mediocre from the great trial lawyers.The great trial lawyers have clear and entertaining ways of presenting their cases. They don't bore their audience. They work on the premise that it is all show business. They take care of the little details. Their words are precise. Their hand movements are coordinated. And because they are natural actors, they don't look like they're acting. That is why they win. So I am going to indulge a little here and post the lyrics of "Razzle Dazzle" just so I won't forget. I am a lawyer and I am in show business.
Lyrics of RAZZLE DAZZLE
from the Movie "Chicago"
BAILIFF(Spoken)
Mr. Flynn, his honor is here
BILLY(Spoken)
Thank you. Just a moment.
You ready?
ROXIE(Spoken)
Oh Billy, I'm scared.
BILLY(Spoken)
Roxie, you got nothing to worry about.
It's all a circus, kid. A three ring circus.
These trials- the wholeworld- all show business.
But kid, you're working with a star, the biggest!
(Singing)
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they;ll never catch wise!
Give 'em the old
BILLY AND COMPANY
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous
BILLY
Row after row will crow vociferous
BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em
BILLY
How can they hear the truth above the roar?
BILLY AND COMPANY
Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,
BILLY
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!
BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler
Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance
Though you are stiffer than a girder
They let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance
Give 'em the old
Razzle Dazzle
BILLY
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act that's unassailable
They'll wait a year 'till you're available!
BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old
Double whammy
BILLY
Daze and dizzy'em
Show 'em the first rate sorcerer you are
BILLY AND COMPANY
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you got no talents?
BILLY
Razzle dazzle 'em
COMPANY
Razzle dazzle 'em
BILLY
Razzle dazzle 'em
BILLY AND COMPANY
And they'll make you a star!
Monday, April 07, 2003
ON PREPARATION
Sun Tzu says,
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
In the film Philadelphia, the lawyer played by Denzel Washington had a unique way of asking his client to explain to him the case being brought to him for litigation. After a brief description of the problem, he would ask the client to repeat the story to him with a nice tag line, "Okay, now explain your story to me like a were a six year old."
Denzel's character emphasizes the importance of a thorough knowledge of the facts of the case from the point of view of the client. The lawyer should be able to draw out from the client all concepts, stories, emotions, motivations in the client's story in order for the lawyer to understand the complete picture. Otherwise, a missing fact here and there can lead to disaster in the courtroom.
Sun Tzu, however, further states that knowledge of the enemy is just as important as knowing yourself. If you only know yourself and not the enemy, then you will only mean half your battles.
My teacher of Statutory Construction, Jose Jesus Laurel, former SEC Commissioner and Dean of Lyceum School of Law, often taught us that the rules of statutory construction always marched in pairs. His best example is the rule, "Dura Lex Sed Lex" which means, " The law may be hard, but that is the law." The rule emphasizes the need for the strict obedience to the letter of the law. However, the rule has an anti-thesis in the rule which says "Ratio est legis anima; mutata legis ratione mutatur et lexatio" which means the “Reason is the soul of law; when that reason is changed, the law also changed." Thus, every time a lawyer throws me the "Dura Lex…" maxim, I throw him back the "Ratio Legis” edict and always, I know the show is not going to be over just yet. This bit of lawyerly wisdom has always kept me on my toes. For even if I know I have the best argument any lawyer can think of for my case, I know the other side can always throw back an opposing argument that can be equally as strong. It is important to know your arguments. But it is equally important to know the arguments of the other side. Sun Tzu suggests that research should always be done on both sides of the conflict to ensure complete victory.
Atty. J. J Laurel’s idea works well for legal arguments. But the law is just one side of the case. It is likewise important to know how the other side will present its case to the facts in issue. The importance of knowing the side of the enemy has been underscored by Sun Tzu’s treatment of a complete chapter on spies in the Art of War. This leads us to the point that when the facts of the case are critical to a case, it may well be of great value to hire detectives to help do research on the facts as viewed from the other side.
The matter of hiring detectives is often thought of in marital cases where evidence of adultery, for example, are presented in pictures of the respondent going inside a motel with the lover. However, detectives can also be of use in commercial litigation where a missing piece of a puzzle cannot be obtained but through vigorous intelligence work.
As an apprentice in a Makati law firm, I had a chance to handle a case involving a bank, which credited a dollar remittance to a couple in the amount of USD 100,000. Our client was the recipient bank and the crediting bank sued us because it turned out that the remittance was only for USD 1,000. The couple withdrew the amount from our bank and ran away with the money. The only issue was which bank should bear the cost of the mistake. As if to complicate things for our client, it had lost its copy of the wire transfer indicating the amount and the. bank officer handling the account killed himself before the whole thing became a major banking scandal. The partner handling the case thus hired a detective who for days rummaged through trash of the other bank and discovered to our amusement a photocopy of the wire transfer instructions to our bank for USD 100,000. The photocopy was then used as basis for a subpoena to obtain the original from the bank. Our client won the case with the Regional Trial Court and the principal basis of the appeal of the other side was whether the subpoena was issued properly.
Maintaining knowledge of the story and of the evidence of the case is habit that pays well to cultivate. As a young lawyer, I was once asked to file a Motion for the Lifting of a Hold Departure Order against a client accused of Estafa. The client once had his cancer treated in the United States, which necessitated an annual check up. Thus, he needed to leave which can only be allowed with the Court's permission. The judge required that I present a Filipino doctor to testify that the check up should be done abroad. Our client had a difficult time obtaining an appointment with his doctor, so I asked him to answer questions writing. I later converted the response into an affidavit form and asked my client to have the doctor sign it before filing the same with the court before the hearing.
The doctor arrived just before the case was to be called. As everything was reduced to the affidavit, I asked him to prepare for cross-examination, which I surmised would be a breeze considering that he was a doctor about to testify on a medical matter of his expertise. But to my shock, just as the case was called, the doctor said, "We have a problem. It was my son who signed this affidavit."
Thinking as I rose from my seat, I decided not to have the witness identify the affidavit as a basis for the testimony. Instead, I conducted a complete direct examination using only the affidavit as a guide. I thought we were successful in presenting the case. Unfortunately, the cross-examination lingered on the affidavit and then he was asked the question that I was hoping would not be asked. "Did you sign this affidavit?" The doctor had to tell the truth and my motion was denied. It was my most embarrassing day as a lawyer.
Until the present, I keep thinking that if only I had met this doctor even for ten minutes, the disaster could not have happened. I should have interviewed the witness myself. I should have asked the witness if he was the one who signed the affidavit. I should have known a lot of things. Indeed, the very essence of preparation in litigation is knowing the facts and the law from all sides.
Sun Tzu says,
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
In the film Philadelphia, the lawyer played by Denzel Washington had a unique way of asking his client to explain to him the case being brought to him for litigation. After a brief description of the problem, he would ask the client to repeat the story to him with a nice tag line, "Okay, now explain your story to me like a were a six year old."
Denzel's character emphasizes the importance of a thorough knowledge of the facts of the case from the point of view of the client. The lawyer should be able to draw out from the client all concepts, stories, emotions, motivations in the client's story in order for the lawyer to understand the complete picture. Otherwise, a missing fact here and there can lead to disaster in the courtroom.
Sun Tzu, however, further states that knowledge of the enemy is just as important as knowing yourself. If you only know yourself and not the enemy, then you will only mean half your battles.
My teacher of Statutory Construction, Jose Jesus Laurel, former SEC Commissioner and Dean of Lyceum School of Law, often taught us that the rules of statutory construction always marched in pairs. His best example is the rule, "Dura Lex Sed Lex" which means, " The law may be hard, but that is the law." The rule emphasizes the need for the strict obedience to the letter of the law. However, the rule has an anti-thesis in the rule which says "Ratio est legis anima; mutata legis ratione mutatur et lexatio" which means the “Reason is the soul of law; when that reason is changed, the law also changed." Thus, every time a lawyer throws me the "Dura Lex…" maxim, I throw him back the "Ratio Legis” edict and always, I know the show is not going to be over just yet. This bit of lawyerly wisdom has always kept me on my toes. For even if I know I have the best argument any lawyer can think of for my case, I know the other side can always throw back an opposing argument that can be equally as strong. It is important to know your arguments. But it is equally important to know the arguments of the other side. Sun Tzu suggests that research should always be done on both sides of the conflict to ensure complete victory.
Atty. J. J Laurel’s idea works well for legal arguments. But the law is just one side of the case. It is likewise important to know how the other side will present its case to the facts in issue. The importance of knowing the side of the enemy has been underscored by Sun Tzu’s treatment of a complete chapter on spies in the Art of War. This leads us to the point that when the facts of the case are critical to a case, it may well be of great value to hire detectives to help do research on the facts as viewed from the other side.
The matter of hiring detectives is often thought of in marital cases where evidence of adultery, for example, are presented in pictures of the respondent going inside a motel with the lover. However, detectives can also be of use in commercial litigation where a missing piece of a puzzle cannot be obtained but through vigorous intelligence work.
As an apprentice in a Makati law firm, I had a chance to handle a case involving a bank, which credited a dollar remittance to a couple in the amount of USD 100,000. Our client was the recipient bank and the crediting bank sued us because it turned out that the remittance was only for USD 1,000. The couple withdrew the amount from our bank and ran away with the money. The only issue was which bank should bear the cost of the mistake. As if to complicate things for our client, it had lost its copy of the wire transfer indicating the amount and the. bank officer handling the account killed himself before the whole thing became a major banking scandal. The partner handling the case thus hired a detective who for days rummaged through trash of the other bank and discovered to our amusement a photocopy of the wire transfer instructions to our bank for USD 100,000. The photocopy was then used as basis for a subpoena to obtain the original from the bank. Our client won the case with the Regional Trial Court and the principal basis of the appeal of the other side was whether the subpoena was issued properly.
Maintaining knowledge of the story and of the evidence of the case is habit that pays well to cultivate. As a young lawyer, I was once asked to file a Motion for the Lifting of a Hold Departure Order against a client accused of Estafa. The client once had his cancer treated in the United States, which necessitated an annual check up. Thus, he needed to leave which can only be allowed with the Court's permission. The judge required that I present a Filipino doctor to testify that the check up should be done abroad. Our client had a difficult time obtaining an appointment with his doctor, so I asked him to answer questions writing. I later converted the response into an affidavit form and asked my client to have the doctor sign it before filing the same with the court before the hearing.
The doctor arrived just before the case was to be called. As everything was reduced to the affidavit, I asked him to prepare for cross-examination, which I surmised would be a breeze considering that he was a doctor about to testify on a medical matter of his expertise. But to my shock, just as the case was called, the doctor said, "We have a problem. It was my son who signed this affidavit."
Thinking as I rose from my seat, I decided not to have the witness identify the affidavit as a basis for the testimony. Instead, I conducted a complete direct examination using only the affidavit as a guide. I thought we were successful in presenting the case. Unfortunately, the cross-examination lingered on the affidavit and then he was asked the question that I was hoping would not be asked. "Did you sign this affidavit?" The doctor had to tell the truth and my motion was denied. It was my most embarrassing day as a lawyer.
Until the present, I keep thinking that if only I had met this doctor even for ten minutes, the disaster could not have happened. I should have interviewed the witness myself. I should have asked the witness if he was the one who signed the affidavit. I should have known a lot of things. Indeed, the very essence of preparation in litigation is knowing the facts and the law from all sides.
Saturday, March 22, 2003
THE WAR IS ILLEGAL, SO WHAT?
The UN Charter sanctions only one kind of war: defensive war. But there is nothing which can support Bush's and Blair's thesis that this Iraqi invasion is a defensive action. As far as I can remember, when we say "defense", it means someone is on the offense. Does anyone see Saddam or Iraqis doing any "offense"? In basketball, when we say defense, it means the other team has the ball and it is going to shoot into your goal. Defense means you have to block the shot. Does anybody see Saddam even dribbling a ball? George W. Bush has thrown away all formal constraints for starting a war. No need for Congress to declare war. No need for UN resolutions. No need for the Security Council to approve.Too bad, Tony Blair's oratorical skills are being wasted in this endeavor. I shudder in the thought that these two have an ex-deal of some sorts for going into this war.
The last time the US did something like this, they got sued in the International Court of Justice. The case is a landmark decision in Public International Law, entitled "Nicaragua vs. US." Briefly, it is about the US government's logistical support to the rebels of the Sandinista Government of Nicaragua. Nicaragua claims that the US was engaging in an offensive war against Nicaragua by supporting the rebels. The ICJ said "guilty." The UN General Assembly affirmed the verdict. But no award was ever given in favor of Nicaragua and the US insisted on its lawyerly defense that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction over the case. Many years hence, "Nicaragua vs. US" is just a textbook case and the US is at it again. And the US claims it is defending democracy, yeah right.
I really wish Al Gore won that election. Too bad, he has to settle for that board seat in Apple while this George Bush is acting dictator of the world who finally found something to do.
The UN Charter sanctions only one kind of war: defensive war. But there is nothing which can support Bush's and Blair's thesis that this Iraqi invasion is a defensive action. As far as I can remember, when we say "defense", it means someone is on the offense. Does anyone see Saddam or Iraqis doing any "offense"? In basketball, when we say defense, it means the other team has the ball and it is going to shoot into your goal. Defense means you have to block the shot. Does anybody see Saddam even dribbling a ball? George W. Bush has thrown away all formal constraints for starting a war. No need for Congress to declare war. No need for UN resolutions. No need for the Security Council to approve.Too bad, Tony Blair's oratorical skills are being wasted in this endeavor. I shudder in the thought that these two have an ex-deal of some sorts for going into this war.
The last time the US did something like this, they got sued in the International Court of Justice. The case is a landmark decision in Public International Law, entitled "Nicaragua vs. US." Briefly, it is about the US government's logistical support to the rebels of the Sandinista Government of Nicaragua. Nicaragua claims that the US was engaging in an offensive war against Nicaragua by supporting the rebels. The ICJ said "guilty." The UN General Assembly affirmed the verdict. But no award was ever given in favor of Nicaragua and the US insisted on its lawyerly defense that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction over the case. Many years hence, "Nicaragua vs. US" is just a textbook case and the US is at it again. And the US claims it is defending democracy, yeah right.
I really wish Al Gore won that election. Too bad, he has to settle for that board seat in Apple while this George Bush is acting dictator of the world who finally found something to do.
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
THE LAWYER AND SUN TZU'S THE ART OF WAR
(work in progress)
In one of his engaging torts and damages classes, aviation lawyer, Jose Claro Tesoro once remarked that the only time that he will be handicapped to work is when he becomes insane. A lawyer can be blind, deaf, mute, and dumb, but so long as he can think, he can work. Lawyering is a thinking man's profession.
Thinking precedes any lawyerly action for any work brought to his desk. Time, effort and resources will only be put to waste if action precedes thinking. Errors abound in unplanned actions. Thus, thinking occupies ninety percent (90%) of the lawyer's time. The rest are spent reading, writing and speaking -- activities that can be delegated to somebody else after content and strategy have been developed.
Lawyerly thinking requires more than a mastery of the law. Even if one has mastered the Rules of Civil Procedure, it doesn't necessarily mean he can win a case. Mastery of the rules of chess is not mastery of the game of chess. The study of the law teaches the lawyer how to file and litigate a case. But it doesn't teach him how to win. How does one therefore become a master of the game of law?
To study litigation beyond the rules but in respect of strategy and technique is the beginning of lawyerly success. Sadly, there is no textbook for strategy available for today's lawyer. There are specific treatises on cross-examination, legal writing, and argumentation, but these only address particular tools of the profession. None provides global insights into lawyerly advocacy.
If war is a metaphor for conflict, then Sun Tzu's "Art of War" provides the best insights on strategy for any conflict, be it a game or profession. As a military text, Sun Tzu's "Art of War" provides a paradigm for warfare that has not been overthrown in its 2.400 years of existence. When read in the context of legal conflict, "Art of War" is a gold mine of ideas, which can be readily applied. Let us therefore read "Art of War" and relate its context to the lawyer and hopefully elevate our standards in the game and profession of litigation.
"Estimate
17. All warfare is based on deception."
Litigation is warfare. When two people sue each other, they don't sue to make love. They sue to defend their interest and destroy the interest of the other. The classic situation in any litigation is that of one party complaining and the other responding to the complaint. The judge is there to see if the complaint is valid and if the response is deficient to determine which among the parties should pay. It is a battle of wits.Words are the bullets.
If the goal is to win the war, truth should be thrown out of the window. Deception is the strategy: Deception within the bounds of the law. The law prohibits false statements in court. But the law doesn't prohibit incomplete statements. The law allows selective emphasis. The law allows silence. If a lawyer were to win a case, he should emphasize his strenghts and be silent on his weaknesses. These are all elements of persuasion, essentially deceptive, but within the bounds of the law. The truth is for the court to decide.Thus, the master of deception is the master of litigation.
"Waging War
3. Victory is the main object of war. If this is long delayed, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. When troops attack cities, their strenghts will be exhausted.
4.When the army engages in protracted campaigns, the resources of the state will not suffice.
5. When your weapons are dulled and ardour dumped, your strenght exhausted and treasure spent, neighboring rulers will take advantage of your distress to act. And even though you have consellors, none will be able to lay good plans for the future.
6. Thus, while we have heard of blundering swiftness in war, we have not yet seen a clever operation that was prolonged."
There is no point in engaging in a long protracted litigation. Litigation is expensive. It costs a lot of time and money. The Rules of Procedure favor delay. Thus, when commencing a suit, the lawyer should design it to achieve its objectives in the shortest possible time and with the least expense to the client. Most Filipino lawyers are not conscious about this principle and clients can hardly be expected to know better. Filipino lawyers think cases are cash cows. Thus. cases move in circles and take long to finish. As a result, litigants lose a lot of time and money and eventually lose trust in the system.
The easiest way out of a case is to compromise. A bad compromise at the beginnning of the case is often better than a winning decision 10 years later. Thus, a good lawyer will design his case to achieve the best compromise at the earliest possible time.
(More to follow)
(work in progress)
In one of his engaging torts and damages classes, aviation lawyer, Jose Claro Tesoro once remarked that the only time that he will be handicapped to work is when he becomes insane. A lawyer can be blind, deaf, mute, and dumb, but so long as he can think, he can work. Lawyering is a thinking man's profession.
Thinking precedes any lawyerly action for any work brought to his desk. Time, effort and resources will only be put to waste if action precedes thinking. Errors abound in unplanned actions. Thus, thinking occupies ninety percent (90%) of the lawyer's time. The rest are spent reading, writing and speaking -- activities that can be delegated to somebody else after content and strategy have been developed.
Lawyerly thinking requires more than a mastery of the law. Even if one has mastered the Rules of Civil Procedure, it doesn't necessarily mean he can win a case. Mastery of the rules of chess is not mastery of the game of chess. The study of the law teaches the lawyer how to file and litigate a case. But it doesn't teach him how to win. How does one therefore become a master of the game of law?
To study litigation beyond the rules but in respect of strategy and technique is the beginning of lawyerly success. Sadly, there is no textbook for strategy available for today's lawyer. There are specific treatises on cross-examination, legal writing, and argumentation, but these only address particular tools of the profession. None provides global insights into lawyerly advocacy.
If war is a metaphor for conflict, then Sun Tzu's "Art of War" provides the best insights on strategy for any conflict, be it a game or profession. As a military text, Sun Tzu's "Art of War" provides a paradigm for warfare that has not been overthrown in its 2.400 years of existence. When read in the context of legal conflict, "Art of War" is a gold mine of ideas, which can be readily applied. Let us therefore read "Art of War" and relate its context to the lawyer and hopefully elevate our standards in the game and profession of litigation.
"Estimate
17. All warfare is based on deception."
Litigation is warfare. When two people sue each other, they don't sue to make love. They sue to defend their interest and destroy the interest of the other. The classic situation in any litigation is that of one party complaining and the other responding to the complaint. The judge is there to see if the complaint is valid and if the response is deficient to determine which among the parties should pay. It is a battle of wits.Words are the bullets.
If the goal is to win the war, truth should be thrown out of the window. Deception is the strategy: Deception within the bounds of the law. The law prohibits false statements in court. But the law doesn't prohibit incomplete statements. The law allows selective emphasis. The law allows silence. If a lawyer were to win a case, he should emphasize his strenghts and be silent on his weaknesses. These are all elements of persuasion, essentially deceptive, but within the bounds of the law. The truth is for the court to decide.Thus, the master of deception is the master of litigation.
"Waging War
3. Victory is the main object of war. If this is long delayed, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. When troops attack cities, their strenghts will be exhausted.
4.When the army engages in protracted campaigns, the resources of the state will not suffice.
5. When your weapons are dulled and ardour dumped, your strenght exhausted and treasure spent, neighboring rulers will take advantage of your distress to act. And even though you have consellors, none will be able to lay good plans for the future.
6. Thus, while we have heard of blundering swiftness in war, we have not yet seen a clever operation that was prolonged."
There is no point in engaging in a long protracted litigation. Litigation is expensive. It costs a lot of time and money. The Rules of Procedure favor delay. Thus, when commencing a suit, the lawyer should design it to achieve its objectives in the shortest possible time and with the least expense to the client. Most Filipino lawyers are not conscious about this principle and clients can hardly be expected to know better. Filipino lawyers think cases are cash cows. Thus. cases move in circles and take long to finish. As a result, litigants lose a lot of time and money and eventually lose trust in the system.
The easiest way out of a case is to compromise. A bad compromise at the beginnning of the case is often better than a winning decision 10 years later. Thus, a good lawyer will design his case to achieve the best compromise at the earliest possible time.
(More to follow)
Sunday, February 23, 2003
CHANGING LANES
I recently watched Changing Lanes, a suspense thriller starring Samuel Jackson and Ben Affleck. The film's premise revolves around one morning when lawyer Ben Affleck meets a traffic accident with beleagured litigant Samuel Jackson. As a result of the incident, Asfleck inadvertently leaves a very important document with Samuel whom Affleck leaves to be in ocurt on time. Of course, Samuel was too late for his hearing. As a result, the judge hearing his family case allows his ex-wife and kids to move to another state where parental visits are impossible.The two play a little war as Affleck tries to recover the document with all his lawyerly wit and connections and Samuel tries to get even and make Affleck's life misearble by being a little murderous like removing the screws in the front tires of Affleck's BMW.
The film attempts to bring the premise to the ethical level when it is later revealed that the document appears to have been signed by a rich old man on his death bed under the influence of Affleck. The document also happens to turn over the control of multi-million dollar foundation to Affleck's bosses. So Affleck's partners suggest that the document be re-printed and the old man's signature for another document be used instead. Affleck bulks. The moral dilemna is now whether Mr. Affleck should present a forged document in court as he appears to be losing his little war with Samuel. Mr. Senior Partner gives him a little speech that it is okay to do it because in the end he does more good than bad. Of course, Affleck decides too late as the Senior Partner submits the forged document anyway without Affleck knowing it.
After watching this film, I was disturbed by this message: It is okay to do bad as long as in the end you do more good. All of a sudden, ethics has become a question of quantity; plus or minus, credit or debit, or withdrawal or deposit. This proposition, of course,
presents a world view that morality is a numbers game and ignores that fact that morality is always grounded on higher values. Nobody can play math with faith, love and hope. How would you like to tell your wife that since you only cheated her for one year and you've been faithful for four years, ultimately you love her more? Isn't the question really whether you love her or you don't? Are you good or are you evil? If you choose good, you don't choose anything else. There is a fundamental option to do good.
Changing Lanes is a well-made film. Unfortunately, people who are longing for spiritual nourishment will get a little doze of poison here.
I recently watched Changing Lanes, a suspense thriller starring Samuel Jackson and Ben Affleck. The film's premise revolves around one morning when lawyer Ben Affleck meets a traffic accident with beleagured litigant Samuel Jackson. As a result of the incident, Asfleck inadvertently leaves a very important document with Samuel whom Affleck leaves to be in ocurt on time. Of course, Samuel was too late for his hearing. As a result, the judge hearing his family case allows his ex-wife and kids to move to another state where parental visits are impossible.The two play a little war as Affleck tries to recover the document with all his lawyerly wit and connections and Samuel tries to get even and make Affleck's life misearble by being a little murderous like removing the screws in the front tires of Affleck's BMW.
The film attempts to bring the premise to the ethical level when it is later revealed that the document appears to have been signed by a rich old man on his death bed under the influence of Affleck. The document also happens to turn over the control of multi-million dollar foundation to Affleck's bosses. So Affleck's partners suggest that the document be re-printed and the old man's signature for another document be used instead. Affleck bulks. The moral dilemna is now whether Mr. Affleck should present a forged document in court as he appears to be losing his little war with Samuel. Mr. Senior Partner gives him a little speech that it is okay to do it because in the end he does more good than bad. Of course, Affleck decides too late as the Senior Partner submits the forged document anyway without Affleck knowing it.
After watching this film, I was disturbed by this message: It is okay to do bad as long as in the end you do more good. All of a sudden, ethics has become a question of quantity; plus or minus, credit or debit, or withdrawal or deposit. This proposition, of course,
presents a world view that morality is a numbers game and ignores that fact that morality is always grounded on higher values. Nobody can play math with faith, love and hope. How would you like to tell your wife that since you only cheated her for one year and you've been faithful for four years, ultimately you love her more? Isn't the question really whether you love her or you don't? Are you good or are you evil? If you choose good, you don't choose anything else. There is a fundamental option to do good.
Changing Lanes is a well-made film. Unfortunately, people who are longing for spiritual nourishment will get a little doze of poison here.
Monday, January 13, 2003
TEN BEST LAWYERS IN THE PHILIPPINES TODAY
In my seven years in the profession, I have seen hundreds of lawyers in action. I saw them negotiating, writing, appearing in court, pleading with authority, and doing everything they can to help their clients get out of bad situations. I have come to the conclusion that good lawyering is a matter of having good lawyer habits. The lawyers with the best instincts, and consequently the one who can best deliver legal service, are the ones with the best habits. They are the lawyers who have made excellence a habit of mind. They are very careful with their clients' interests and very creative. They can compete with the best lawyers of the world. I kept a tab all these years. If you are a lawyer and you are not here, it's either I haven't met you or you still haven't made the grade. Here is my Top Ten.
NUMBER 10.
Francisco Ed. Lim
He pitched in for one week in my Evidence class and ran the classes like it were a military drill. We were expected to think on our feet, remember the fine points of the cases and laws, and speak out clearly. But I was more impressed when we worked with him in the multi-billion peso merger of PLDT and Smart. Precision of thought, clarity in language, a strong conviction for his advocacy -- he exhibited them all. A partner in the fabled ACCRA Law, he also runs a regular column on law in a national newspaper. His expertise appears to be corporate disputes.
NUMBER 9.
Nicanor Gatmaitan
This lawyer has a client who owed my client millions. He filed a case against us and prevented us from foreclosing on his clients' property. During the trial, he seamlessly made a clear presentation of his client's case, that I myself was convinced that he had case. He had no notes and he memorized each detail of our piles of documentary evidence. I spent sleepless nights on this man, thinking just how to get my client out of this fix. Now that I've given up the case, I say hats off to this man. He has a very good reputation as a trial lawyer. By the way, he is blind.
NUMBER 8
Saklolo Leano
He is considered as one of the few experts in aviation law and is constantly battling the world's best lawyers in this field. I had the privilege of working with him in the multi-billion peso construction arbitration case against a French contractor and would forever be in awe of this great lawyer. Sak was our hitman against the French's expert witness, a lawyer-engineer with very impressive academic and professional credentials. Sak cross-examined the expert witness like a cook peeling off the skin of an onion. He was subtle, precise, organized, logical and persuasive. The French tried his best to live up to his client's expectations but he was no match. At one high point of the cross-examination, Sak, with his pleasant and clear voice told the witness, "Mr. Smith, I am very sorry to say this but you do not have the slightest respect for the Philippine courts." We won PHP 700 million in that case.
NUMBER 7
MARIO BAUTISTA
Long before the nation witnessed the prowess of this lawyer during the direct examination of the prosecution's star witness in the Erap Impeachment trial, Mario Bautista's good reputation as a litigation lawyer has been well known among business circles in the Philippines. His law firm Poblador Bautista & Reyes is the counsel of choice of the Ayalas, the Philippines most successful and enduring business empire, and many other big companies in the Philippines. In the late nineties when a group of foreign banks was contemplating on filing a class suit against SGV, the biggest accounting firm in the Philippines formerly affiliated with Andersen Consulting, Mr. Bautista was the counsel for SGV. Thus, it came as no surprise then that Mr. Bautista was given the rare privilege of presenting the most important witness in the impeachment trial before a nation in denial. In spite of the lack of time to prepare, Mr. Bautista litigation instinct served him well. Mr. Bautista weathered every objection that the prosecution raised and made a clear and convincing story.
NUMBER 6
TOMAS DEL CASTILLO
Atty. Del Castillo is the perfect marriage of lawyerly form and substance. An expert in libel, he is the defender of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the nation's most widely circulated newspaper, in all its libel cases. Mr. Del Castillo goes to trial in great looking suits, speaks in deep baritone and is always prepared. I saw him in action in defense of Hilarion Henares, the nation's favorite columnist, against a powerful lawyer businessman, whom Mr. Henares called "a monkey of foreign interests" and "small dick Romulo". Atty. del Castillo's defense was that the description is not a personal attack but a political statement against imperialism in the Philippines. Mr. Henares also called Mr. Romulo "small dick" because he is a short guy and his nickname happens to be Dick. Alas, Mr. Henares was acquitted.
NUMBER 5
ANTONIO A PICAZO
Here I should make a disclaimer. I worked for this great laywer practically my entire professional life. However, I believe this also makes my assessment credible. Atty. Picazo is the investment banking and corporate lawyer of choice of all major investment and commercial banks in the Philippines. In the days of Bancom, reportedly the first investmnet bank in the Philippines, Atty. Picazo served as senior legal counsel. After the break-up of Bancom, he subsequently headed the legal department of Unionbank and thereafter, co-founded the legendary PECABAR LAW OFFICE, together with Johnny Ponce Enrile, Renato Cayetano and Antonio Bautista. In 1987, Atty. Picazo bolted from PECABAR and founded Bautista Picazo Buyco Tan & Fider (later Atty. Bautista will build his own firm). As the managing partner of Picazolaw, he led the legal team that helped Metro Pacific purchase Fort Bonifacio, a prime real estate land in the heart of Metro Manila. The deal was worth billions of pesos and was considered the deal of the century. During the height of the Initial Public Offering (IPO) days of the Philippine Stock Market, 10 out of 15 IPO's in a year were handled by Atty. Picazo's Law Office. Atty. Picazo's good work habits, vast experience in corporate and banking law, and legal brilliance is unquestionable that rightfully earns him a place in my Top Ten.
NUMBER 4
MARIO ONGKIKO
The last big case that this great lawyer handled was the phenomenal indictment of Hubert Webb, a senator's son, in the trials involving the killing of a mother and her daughters, a teen-ager and a four-year old. Mr. Ongkiko had presented a perfect alibi -- Hubert Webb was in the United States when the killing took place. He was able to support the alibi with tons of evidence, pictures, video clips, receipts, passport stamps, and the like. The judge, however, looked at this evidence with suspicion that the senator could have had a hand in their spurious prodution. The case is now on appeal and observers believe that Mr. Ongkiko will score an upset when the case is reviewed by the higher courts. Mr. Ongkiko always taught his lawyers the maxim "assume that you will lose." Thus, his trial technique is always cautious and very careful with what goes into the record. His presentatiom is very thorough and his trial and argumentation skills beyond compare. He is hands down the best trial lawyer there is in the Philippines today.
NUMBER 3
TONY CARPIO, FRANCISCO VILLARAZA AND AVELINO CRUZ
The above lawyers belong to the most powerful law firm in the Philippines today. Individually, they can land on any one's top ten, but together, the three lawyers are best known for building a formidable private legal institution which easily puts them on a three way tie for number 3. The group's star first shone after Mr. Carpio got appointed as presidential legal counsel by Pres. Fidel V. Ramos. Villaraza and Cruz were left to mind the Firm as Tony Carpio led business to the Firm's door. In the six years that Mr. Ramos was president, Villaraza and Cruz handled many intricate and complicated legal projects. Being brilliant minds in their own right, coupled with a bevy of young and agressive associates, most of which graduated with honors from the nation's top law schools, at their disposal, Carpio Villaraza and Cruz met the challenge of being at the prime spot of the Philippine legal world. Upon the election of Joseph Estrada, the three re-gouped and re-emerged in the impeachment proceedings with their most seasoned litigator, Simeon Marcelo, leading the attack as he conducted the direct examination of the whistle blower and star witness Ilocos Governor Luis Singson. Now, in the era of Pres. Gloria Macapagal, Tony Carpio sits as the youngest member of the Supreme Court and is certain to outlive everyone in the 15-man court and to become Chief Justice one day. Avelino Cruz is the Chief Legal Counsel of the President. Simeon Marcelo is serving seven years as Ombudsman. Only Francisco Villaraza is left to hold the fort. But having a key person in the most powerful offices of the Philippines, the Firm can dare say that it can solve any legal problem endorsed to it for appropriate action.
NUMBER TWO
PROSPERO CRESCINI
I have always maintained that lawyers are like guns. Some guns you use for keeping your house protected. Some guns you use for big battles.In this regard, Atty. Cresicini is a bazooka.He is a veteran slugger of the court room. No flashes. No frills. Just pure legal brilliance and hard work. The fighter of hopeless causes, his most famous client is Congressman Jalosjos, the congressman who had sex with an 11 year old girl and was convicted of statutory rape. That case was tough and only Atty. Crescini had the guts to fight it out to the end. Nowadays, Atty. Crescini is the trial lawyer of former Philippine President Joseph Estrada. If Erap didn't stand a chance with his former lawyers, Atty. Crescini might just be Erap's beacon of hope. Atty. Crescini has mastered the science of of litigation, the elements of style, and the winning ways. His trial technique can be compared to Clarence Darrow. Hands down, he is the Philippines's number 2 best lawyer.
NUMBER 1
ESTELITO MENDOZA
It is a testament to this lawyer's great abilities that it has been 17 years since the Marcoses were thrown out of power and the Philippine Government, with all its resources, consultants and thousands of lawyers, has yet to win a single conviction against any of the members Marcos family or cronies.His grasp of Philippine law in most areas of practice is deep, considering that he served for many years as Pres.Marcos's chief lawyer. As Pres. Joseph Estrada's impeachment lawyer, he showed very fine lawyerly habits under the most extreme pressure ever imaginable. It is also a testament to his abilites that most of his law clerks are now members of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or are occupying chief offices in the Philippine Government. In normal trials, Atty. Mendoza's presence can best be described as electric and bring people to the gallery as if trials were a boxing match. It is no wonder that Atty. Mendoza handles only the most important cases of the most important personalities in the Philippines today.
Update:
Check out www.legal500.com. The list they have of the leading practitioners in the Philippines are expanded. Some of my Top Ten not are there. They missed Nicanor Gatmaytan, Carpio, Villraza and Cruz and Prospero Crescini. But I maintain them here.
Also, the liigation group of my former law firm PICAZO BUYCO TAN FIDER & SANTOS landed on the top of Property and Construction practice areas (after all these years) and even made it to the list of Dispute Resolution practice area (after being ignored for a long time). The principal reason is the big construction arbitration case we handled last year for a property giant. Well, that's cool.
Legal500 also cited several of the partners of the firm for their excellent work such as Purisimo Buyco for dispute resolution, Alex Erlito Fider for Telecommunications, Gemma Santos for mergers and acquisition, Estrellita Gacutan for banking and Cynthia Literegalde de la Paz for capital markets. Actually, if they had investigated further, they would have realized that the other partners of the firm also deserved a spot in each of the practice areas. If I were to add a second list of Top Ten if will be filled up by partners from PICAZO. But then again, people will probably think I'm not being objective.
In my seven years in the profession, I have seen hundreds of lawyers in action. I saw them negotiating, writing, appearing in court, pleading with authority, and doing everything they can to help their clients get out of bad situations. I have come to the conclusion that good lawyering is a matter of having good lawyer habits. The lawyers with the best instincts, and consequently the one who can best deliver legal service, are the ones with the best habits. They are the lawyers who have made excellence a habit of mind. They are very careful with their clients' interests and very creative. They can compete with the best lawyers of the world. I kept a tab all these years. If you are a lawyer and you are not here, it's either I haven't met you or you still haven't made the grade. Here is my Top Ten.
NUMBER 10.
Francisco Ed. Lim
He pitched in for one week in my Evidence class and ran the classes like it were a military drill. We were expected to think on our feet, remember the fine points of the cases and laws, and speak out clearly. But I was more impressed when we worked with him in the multi-billion peso merger of PLDT and Smart. Precision of thought, clarity in language, a strong conviction for his advocacy -- he exhibited them all. A partner in the fabled ACCRA Law, he also runs a regular column on law in a national newspaper. His expertise appears to be corporate disputes.
NUMBER 9.
Nicanor Gatmaitan
This lawyer has a client who owed my client millions. He filed a case against us and prevented us from foreclosing on his clients' property. During the trial, he seamlessly made a clear presentation of his client's case, that I myself was convinced that he had case. He had no notes and he memorized each detail of our piles of documentary evidence. I spent sleepless nights on this man, thinking just how to get my client out of this fix. Now that I've given up the case, I say hats off to this man. He has a very good reputation as a trial lawyer. By the way, he is blind.
NUMBER 8
Saklolo Leano
He is considered as one of the few experts in aviation law and is constantly battling the world's best lawyers in this field. I had the privilege of working with him in the multi-billion peso construction arbitration case against a French contractor and would forever be in awe of this great lawyer. Sak was our hitman against the French's expert witness, a lawyer-engineer with very impressive academic and professional credentials. Sak cross-examined the expert witness like a cook peeling off the skin of an onion. He was subtle, precise, organized, logical and persuasive. The French tried his best to live up to his client's expectations but he was no match. At one high point of the cross-examination, Sak, with his pleasant and clear voice told the witness, "Mr. Smith, I am very sorry to say this but you do not have the slightest respect for the Philippine courts." We won PHP 700 million in that case.
NUMBER 7
MARIO BAUTISTA
Long before the nation witnessed the prowess of this lawyer during the direct examination of the prosecution's star witness in the Erap Impeachment trial, Mario Bautista's good reputation as a litigation lawyer has been well known among business circles in the Philippines. His law firm Poblador Bautista & Reyes is the counsel of choice of the Ayalas, the Philippines most successful and enduring business empire, and many other big companies in the Philippines. In the late nineties when a group of foreign banks was contemplating on filing a class suit against SGV, the biggest accounting firm in the Philippines formerly affiliated with Andersen Consulting, Mr. Bautista was the counsel for SGV. Thus, it came as no surprise then that Mr. Bautista was given the rare privilege of presenting the most important witness in the impeachment trial before a nation in denial. In spite of the lack of time to prepare, Mr. Bautista litigation instinct served him well. Mr. Bautista weathered every objection that the prosecution raised and made a clear and convincing story.
NUMBER 6
TOMAS DEL CASTILLO
Atty. Del Castillo is the perfect marriage of lawyerly form and substance. An expert in libel, he is the defender of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the nation's most widely circulated newspaper, in all its libel cases. Mr. Del Castillo goes to trial in great looking suits, speaks in deep baritone and is always prepared. I saw him in action in defense of Hilarion Henares, the nation's favorite columnist, against a powerful lawyer businessman, whom Mr. Henares called "a monkey of foreign interests" and "small dick Romulo". Atty. del Castillo's defense was that the description is not a personal attack but a political statement against imperialism in the Philippines. Mr. Henares also called Mr. Romulo "small dick" because he is a short guy and his nickname happens to be Dick. Alas, Mr. Henares was acquitted.
NUMBER 5
ANTONIO A PICAZO
Here I should make a disclaimer. I worked for this great laywer practically my entire professional life. However, I believe this also makes my assessment credible. Atty. Picazo is the investment banking and corporate lawyer of choice of all major investment and commercial banks in the Philippines. In the days of Bancom, reportedly the first investmnet bank in the Philippines, Atty. Picazo served as senior legal counsel. After the break-up of Bancom, he subsequently headed the legal department of Unionbank and thereafter, co-founded the legendary PECABAR LAW OFFICE, together with Johnny Ponce Enrile, Renato Cayetano and Antonio Bautista. In 1987, Atty. Picazo bolted from PECABAR and founded Bautista Picazo Buyco Tan & Fider (later Atty. Bautista will build his own firm). As the managing partner of Picazolaw, he led the legal team that helped Metro Pacific purchase Fort Bonifacio, a prime real estate land in the heart of Metro Manila. The deal was worth billions of pesos and was considered the deal of the century. During the height of the Initial Public Offering (IPO) days of the Philippine Stock Market, 10 out of 15 IPO's in a year were handled by Atty. Picazo's Law Office. Atty. Picazo's good work habits, vast experience in corporate and banking law, and legal brilliance is unquestionable that rightfully earns him a place in my Top Ten.
NUMBER 4
MARIO ONGKIKO
The last big case that this great lawyer handled was the phenomenal indictment of Hubert Webb, a senator's son, in the trials involving the killing of a mother and her daughters, a teen-ager and a four-year old. Mr. Ongkiko had presented a perfect alibi -- Hubert Webb was in the United States when the killing took place. He was able to support the alibi with tons of evidence, pictures, video clips, receipts, passport stamps, and the like. The judge, however, looked at this evidence with suspicion that the senator could have had a hand in their spurious prodution. The case is now on appeal and observers believe that Mr. Ongkiko will score an upset when the case is reviewed by the higher courts. Mr. Ongkiko always taught his lawyers the maxim "assume that you will lose." Thus, his trial technique is always cautious and very careful with what goes into the record. His presentatiom is very thorough and his trial and argumentation skills beyond compare. He is hands down the best trial lawyer there is in the Philippines today.
NUMBER 3
TONY CARPIO, FRANCISCO VILLARAZA AND AVELINO CRUZ
The above lawyers belong to the most powerful law firm in the Philippines today. Individually, they can land on any one's top ten, but together, the three lawyers are best known for building a formidable private legal institution which easily puts them on a three way tie for number 3. The group's star first shone after Mr. Carpio got appointed as presidential legal counsel by Pres. Fidel V. Ramos. Villaraza and Cruz were left to mind the Firm as Tony Carpio led business to the Firm's door. In the six years that Mr. Ramos was president, Villaraza and Cruz handled many intricate and complicated legal projects. Being brilliant minds in their own right, coupled with a bevy of young and agressive associates, most of which graduated with honors from the nation's top law schools, at their disposal, Carpio Villaraza and Cruz met the challenge of being at the prime spot of the Philippine legal world. Upon the election of Joseph Estrada, the three re-gouped and re-emerged in the impeachment proceedings with their most seasoned litigator, Simeon Marcelo, leading the attack as he conducted the direct examination of the whistle blower and star witness Ilocos Governor Luis Singson. Now, in the era of Pres. Gloria Macapagal, Tony Carpio sits as the youngest member of the Supreme Court and is certain to outlive everyone in the 15-man court and to become Chief Justice one day. Avelino Cruz is the Chief Legal Counsel of the President. Simeon Marcelo is serving seven years as Ombudsman. Only Francisco Villaraza is left to hold the fort. But having a key person in the most powerful offices of the Philippines, the Firm can dare say that it can solve any legal problem endorsed to it for appropriate action.
NUMBER TWO
PROSPERO CRESCINI
I have always maintained that lawyers are like guns. Some guns you use for keeping your house protected. Some guns you use for big battles.In this regard, Atty. Cresicini is a bazooka.He is a veteran slugger of the court room. No flashes. No frills. Just pure legal brilliance and hard work. The fighter of hopeless causes, his most famous client is Congressman Jalosjos, the congressman who had sex with an 11 year old girl and was convicted of statutory rape. That case was tough and only Atty. Crescini had the guts to fight it out to the end. Nowadays, Atty. Crescini is the trial lawyer of former Philippine President Joseph Estrada. If Erap didn't stand a chance with his former lawyers, Atty. Crescini might just be Erap's beacon of hope. Atty. Crescini has mastered the science of of litigation, the elements of style, and the winning ways. His trial technique can be compared to Clarence Darrow. Hands down, he is the Philippines's number 2 best lawyer.
NUMBER 1
ESTELITO MENDOZA
It is a testament to this lawyer's great abilities that it has been 17 years since the Marcoses were thrown out of power and the Philippine Government, with all its resources, consultants and thousands of lawyers, has yet to win a single conviction against any of the members Marcos family or cronies.His grasp of Philippine law in most areas of practice is deep, considering that he served for many years as Pres.Marcos's chief lawyer. As Pres. Joseph Estrada's impeachment lawyer, he showed very fine lawyerly habits under the most extreme pressure ever imaginable. It is also a testament to his abilites that most of his law clerks are now members of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or are occupying chief offices in the Philippine Government. In normal trials, Atty. Mendoza's presence can best be described as electric and bring people to the gallery as if trials were a boxing match. It is no wonder that Atty. Mendoza handles only the most important cases of the most important personalities in the Philippines today.
Update:
Check out www.legal500.com. The list they have of the leading practitioners in the Philippines are expanded. Some of my Top Ten not are there. They missed Nicanor Gatmaytan, Carpio, Villraza and Cruz and Prospero Crescini. But I maintain them here.
Also, the liigation group of my former law firm PICAZO BUYCO TAN FIDER & SANTOS landed on the top of Property and Construction practice areas (after all these years) and even made it to the list of Dispute Resolution practice area (after being ignored for a long time). The principal reason is the big construction arbitration case we handled last year for a property giant. Well, that's cool.
Legal500 also cited several of the partners of the firm for their excellent work such as Purisimo Buyco for dispute resolution, Alex Erlito Fider for Telecommunications, Gemma Santos for mergers and acquisition, Estrellita Gacutan for banking and Cynthia Literegalde de la Paz for capital markets. Actually, if they had investigated further, they would have realized that the other partners of the firm also deserved a spot in each of the practice areas. If I were to add a second list of Top Ten if will be filled up by partners from PICAZO. But then again, people will probably think I'm not being objective.
Monday, January 06, 2003
On My Own
Today, I tendered my resignation from the Firm. Seven years -- that is the exact time that it took me to decide I had enough. In that seven years, I grew from an over-eager, idealistic, hungry and aggressive young lawyer to an over-eager, idealistic, hungry and aggressive old lawyer.
My apprenticeship is done. I had the great privilege of working for a top gun Makati law firm and learning the tricks of the trade. I learned why law practice is different from law school. I learned that law and justice are two different paradigms. No mas. Tapos na. Henceforth, I am only working for myself. Like Kobe Bryant graduating from high school, I am now in the play for pay league. Like the Tans resigning from a Mcdonald's restaurant, I am resigning to put up Jollibee. I am no longer employed and vow never to be employed again.
I am joining a Bey Blade tournament with my two sons. I am bringing my wife to see Lord of the Rings. I am going to write my first law book. I am going to teach my first law school class. I am going to get paid by my own client. I am going to be my own lawyer. It is going to be great.
So help me God.
Today, I tendered my resignation from the Firm. Seven years -- that is the exact time that it took me to decide I had enough. In that seven years, I grew from an over-eager, idealistic, hungry and aggressive young lawyer to an over-eager, idealistic, hungry and aggressive old lawyer.
My apprenticeship is done. I had the great privilege of working for a top gun Makati law firm and learning the tricks of the trade. I learned why law practice is different from law school. I learned that law and justice are two different paradigms. No mas. Tapos na. Henceforth, I am only working for myself. Like Kobe Bryant graduating from high school, I am now in the play for pay league. Like the Tans resigning from a Mcdonald's restaurant, I am resigning to put up Jollibee. I am no longer employed and vow never to be employed again.
I am joining a Bey Blade tournament with my two sons. I am bringing my wife to see Lord of the Rings. I am going to write my first law book. I am going to teach my first law school class. I am going to get paid by my own client. I am going to be my own lawyer. It is going to be great.
So help me God.
Thursday, January 02, 2003
Monday, November 18, 2002
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
I have just finished reading John Berendt's modern classic "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil", a non-fiction account about the town of Savannah, Georgia. I once borrowed the tape of the movie version in which John Cussack starred but I fell asleep midway into the opening sequences. I had totally forgotten about the movie until I chanced upon a nice hardbound copy of the book at a local bookstore and realized the book is a lot better than the movie.
My creative writing teacher, NVM Gonzalez, always told us that it was always necessary to put local color in one's work because it is what defines good literature. True enough, the book is steaming with local color. It has great characters and a setting that makes me want to pack up and migrate to the US of A. The little lawyerly story about the trial of an antique collector who killed his gay lover was just a bonus. It is just a detail in a small corner in this large mural of an enchanting town peopled with high society hob-nobbers, hustlers, cross-dressers, hotshot lawyers and prosecutors, coffee shop weirdos, lounge musicians and voodoo practitioners. It is also quite a riot that the story ends with an acquittal of the antique collector (after three mistrials) that was won, perhaps not by the lawyers, but by the voodoo practitioner!
Who was it who said that great art always leaves you with a wound that never heals? I have been so fascinated with this book that I even used the town's name in a corporation I incorporated for a cousin "Savannah Holdings. Corporation." I have also proposed a deal with a client about historical restoration of landmark places in the Philippines. No takers yet But who knows? The book will sit along well with my most cherished editions of "The Godfather" by Mario Puzo and "Love in the Time of Cholera" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
I have just finished reading John Berendt's modern classic "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil", a non-fiction account about the town of Savannah, Georgia. I once borrowed the tape of the movie version in which John Cussack starred but I fell asleep midway into the opening sequences. I had totally forgotten about the movie until I chanced upon a nice hardbound copy of the book at a local bookstore and realized the book is a lot better than the movie.
My creative writing teacher, NVM Gonzalez, always told us that it was always necessary to put local color in one's work because it is what defines good literature. True enough, the book is steaming with local color. It has great characters and a setting that makes me want to pack up and migrate to the US of A. The little lawyerly story about the trial of an antique collector who killed his gay lover was just a bonus. It is just a detail in a small corner in this large mural of an enchanting town peopled with high society hob-nobbers, hustlers, cross-dressers, hotshot lawyers and prosecutors, coffee shop weirdos, lounge musicians and voodoo practitioners. It is also quite a riot that the story ends with an acquittal of the antique collector (after three mistrials) that was won, perhaps not by the lawyers, but by the voodoo practitioner!
Who was it who said that great art always leaves you with a wound that never heals? I have been so fascinated with this book that I even used the town's name in a corporation I incorporated for a cousin "Savannah Holdings. Corporation." I have also proposed a deal with a client about historical restoration of landmark places in the Philippines. No takers yet But who knows? The book will sit along well with my most cherished editions of "The Godfather" by Mario Puzo and "Love in the Time of Cholera" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
Wednesday, October 16, 2002
On Being in Government
We have recently been appointed as legal consultant for the National Food Authority. The appointment allows for free practice outside the NFA; thus, we will be insulated from the financial constraints usually associated with a government job. It does not mean, however, that it is going to be a free ride. There is much work to do. We have to help run the law department of a PHP 7 Billion corporation that controls the food supply of the Philippines. On top of these, we have to deal with stuff like protocol -- i.e., before we can talk to Mr. C, we have to talk to Mr. A and then to Mr. B-- and a resident auditor from the Commission on Audit. Well, that will keep us honest.
It is quite interesting to know that in spite of the fact that the pay is low, being in givernment requires having to deal with regulations as expansive as outer space -- from rules that prohibit the use of photocopying machines unless your bring your own paper to laws that require the filing of a statement of net worth the violation of which can send one to jail.On top of that being in government compels me to do the thing I dread the most -- riding an elevator run by the government. All these years, I've managed to avoid using government elevators by taking the stairway. The fear springs from my impression that government buildings in the Philippines are poorly maintained, if at all. There is no budget for that or if there was, it was used for something else or by someone else.Thus, government elevators are rickety, shaky and noisy -- you can almost hear the cables snap. I dread government elevators so much that I had gone as high as the sixth floor using the stairway. Unfortunately for me, the NFA office is in the 10th floor and I don't think I'm physically fit for that kind of action.
But I sincerely hope that this stint will be spiritually fulfilling. As I reported for work this week, for example, I was just in time to help out in a case that involves millions of government money -- these are millions of pesos that would be use to buy cheap rice for the people -- not a bad way to start this budding career, isn't it? Not bad at all. I hope that compensates for all the cruel things I have done as a commercial law and labor litigation lawyer -- like firing hundreds of people. I regretted that so much that I'm beginning to think that there is a special place in hell for labor lawyers who fired poeple for a living -- something like a government elevator that keeps going up and down with an operator with a radio that keeps on playing Ted Ito songs. Maybe being in government is my salvation. It is just queer that it looks very much like the hell that I imagined.
We have recently been appointed as legal consultant for the National Food Authority. The appointment allows for free practice outside the NFA; thus, we will be insulated from the financial constraints usually associated with a government job. It does not mean, however, that it is going to be a free ride. There is much work to do. We have to help run the law department of a PHP 7 Billion corporation that controls the food supply of the Philippines. On top of these, we have to deal with stuff like protocol -- i.e., before we can talk to Mr. C, we have to talk to Mr. A and then to Mr. B-- and a resident auditor from the Commission on Audit. Well, that will keep us honest.
It is quite interesting to know that in spite of the fact that the pay is low, being in givernment requires having to deal with regulations as expansive as outer space -- from rules that prohibit the use of photocopying machines unless your bring your own paper to laws that require the filing of a statement of net worth the violation of which can send one to jail.On top of that being in government compels me to do the thing I dread the most -- riding an elevator run by the government. All these years, I've managed to avoid using government elevators by taking the stairway. The fear springs from my impression that government buildings in the Philippines are poorly maintained, if at all. There is no budget for that or if there was, it was used for something else or by someone else.Thus, government elevators are rickety, shaky and noisy -- you can almost hear the cables snap. I dread government elevators so much that I had gone as high as the sixth floor using the stairway. Unfortunately for me, the NFA office is in the 10th floor and I don't think I'm physically fit for that kind of action.
But I sincerely hope that this stint will be spiritually fulfilling. As I reported for work this week, for example, I was just in time to help out in a case that involves millions of government money -- these are millions of pesos that would be use to buy cheap rice for the people -- not a bad way to start this budding career, isn't it? Not bad at all. I hope that compensates for all the cruel things I have done as a commercial law and labor litigation lawyer -- like firing hundreds of people. I regretted that so much that I'm beginning to think that there is a special place in hell for labor lawyers who fired poeple for a living -- something like a government elevator that keeps going up and down with an operator with a radio that keeps on playing Ted Ito songs. Maybe being in government is my salvation. It is just queer that it looks very much like the hell that I imagined.
Wednesday, September 18, 2002
Businessweek's Idea No. 23 is called "Don't Kill All the Trial Lawyers" written by Mike France. His thesis in this article is given that regulators and politicians have failed in their duty to protect the investing public from corporate crooks, it is up to the lawyers to put the hurt on corporate miscreants.
Reading this article made me realize how powerful the legal profession is in society. While the lawyers have contributed much to the corporate mess that the US is experiencing nowadays, it is also the lawyers who have the power to put some order into it. That is why history has this sort of love-hate relationship with lawyers. Nowadays, it is on the love side because the lawyers are the ones pushing corporate America to reform (what with the hundred of class action suits being filed left and right and the threatening millions of damages). But people seem to have forgotten that it was also the lawyers (along with the executives and accountants) who conceived and implemented the grand scale fraud in the Enron scam.
Why is this so? In the Ateneo Law School where I studied, there was an attempt to teach law along with Christian values. They thought this was possible by adding some one unit subjects like Theology and the Law and Social Philosophy to the regular law curriculum. The academic thinking is that the law is merely a technical tool, which is value free. Thus, value education should be separately taught through a separate subject.
The idea had some sense. Unfortunately, there was an open resentment to it because the one-unit subjects were eating up the students' time for the law subjects that students believed were more important. Further, the professors could not teach values on a one-hour a week format. I do not know what happened to the Ateneo after that but I know what happened to me.
In my almost seven years of practice three things I've learned as a lawyer trying to make sense of chaotic legal order:
1. A lawyer cannot be rigid about his values.
The Philippine system is so corrupt that if one were to be strict about his values, he'll never accomplish anything. One of these days, some values have to waiver. To achieve legal purposes, one favor or another that will compromise one's value has to be made. That's how it is.
2. A lawyer should know the limits of compromise.
There is a hierarchy of values and lawyers must always make sure that this hierarchy of what is more important is firm in their minds. For example, I am willing to part with some cash just so my case would be set early in the court calendar, but I am not willing to pay a judge for my client to win. That is where I draw the line. The logic is simple; my client will have no use for me if my case is always at the bottom of the heap. I owe the client that much to make sure my case gets priority. But I am not going to pay someone to win. I don’t play that way.
3. Hope.
How can one tell that he has compromised too little or too much? No one can tell. Very often in making the moral decisions that have the interplay of the two principles above, the lawyer will be faced with a dilemma. Failure, morally and financially, is a nagging fear. A lawyer's only salvation is his hope that he is doing the right thing.
Relating the principles above calls to mind the story of St. Thomas More. A successful lawyer in his time, his biographers took note of his practical shrewdness and his being responsible for, among others, the banning of heretical books and the execution of authors who had heretical beliefs. But Thomas found occasion to draw his limits when he was made to choose between loyalty to his king or his God. The stakes were high. King Henry VIII wanted to validate his second marriage to Anne Boleyn. To complete the King's desire to do this, he needed Thomas to take the Oath of Supremacy which meant that the King of England was supreme in the Church of England. More's dilemma was to take the oath that would have repudiated papal supremacy over the Church of England or mince the words of the oath to please King Henry VIII and retain his power and wealth like what the rest of England did. But to Thomas, what was being asked from him was more than just an oath but a repudiation of his own conscience and the truth. All Thomas had to do to retain this power and glory was to profess the King of England as the head of the Catholic Church in England. But to Thomas the obvious fact was that only the Bishop of Rome had the sacred mandate from Christ Himself to run the Church, through succession of Peter. Thomas knew as fact that only God could appoint the head of His Church and this had already been done once, there could not be two heads. Thus, he refused to take the oath. To him, this one oath that the King wanted him to make did not have a price. The King convicted him of treason and had him beheaded.
St. Thomas More is considered the patron saint of all lawyers. Reading and writing about him makes me proud to be a lawyer. The Ateneo simply should have taught us the life of St. Thomas More and it would have solved the problem of values education in law school. Values in lawyering? St. Thomas More's last words said all that was needed to be said, "The King's good servant, but God's first."
Monday, September 16, 2002
THE "S" WORD
Businessweek's Idea No 2 is called "The Mea Culpa Defense" written by Mike France. The article is straight forward in suggesting that businesses should be ready to admit liability if they have committed a wrong. The boxed summary says it well, "The instinctive reaction of executives in times of scandal is to deny, deny, deny -- then clam up. In many cases, the smarter response is a heartfelt apology." .
After reading the article, I remembered the dozens of cases that I've handled that shouldn't have reached my desk had the client only thought of saying the "S" word. Unfortunately, common business sense looks upon the "S" word as a sign of weakness that precludes any semblance of defense in the event of litigation. This is, of course, legally sound as an apology can amount to a confession of liability and no lawyer would be happy to accept a case where he has little room to maneuver a dismissal.
There is a story, however, of a Filipino immigrant in the US who was a victim of medical malpractice that caused him to lose his two fingers. He approached a lot of lawyers in the US who declined to accept his case allegedly because no doctor would testify against a fellow doctor. Yet, he struggled to find that lawyer, knowing deep in his heart that there is someone who can fight his just cause for him in that foreign land. True enough, after a long time, his son found the doctor-lawyer who was even willing to take it on a contingency basis. After months of litigation, they were awarded a hefty sum for the malpractice. The man felt vindicated not only because he succeeded in his quest to find justice for his predicament but also because he was able to prove that all the previous lawyers he consulted were wrong about his case.
Then right after the decision was handed down, the guilty doctor approached his former patient and said, "I'm sorry."
And then the patient cried, "All these years, that is all that I wanted to hear from you."
Until now, as the story is being recounted to me by the man, he gets misty eyed.
This is concrete proof that the "S" word is not really a bad idea. In the world of torts, the apology is the wild card that can throw a quick spin in any litigation. If things work well, the case can be settled with not a penny spent because of the apology. If things don't, then the apology can be a blank check payable to bearer. It takes character and a strong sense of justice to make that decision. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find any man of that make nowadays.
Businessweek's Idea No 2 is called "The Mea Culpa Defense" written by Mike France. The article is straight forward in suggesting that businesses should be ready to admit liability if they have committed a wrong. The boxed summary says it well, "The instinctive reaction of executives in times of scandal is to deny, deny, deny -- then clam up. In many cases, the smarter response is a heartfelt apology." .
After reading the article, I remembered the dozens of cases that I've handled that shouldn't have reached my desk had the client only thought of saying the "S" word. Unfortunately, common business sense looks upon the "S" word as a sign of weakness that precludes any semblance of defense in the event of litigation. This is, of course, legally sound as an apology can amount to a confession of liability and no lawyer would be happy to accept a case where he has little room to maneuver a dismissal.
There is a story, however, of a Filipino immigrant in the US who was a victim of medical malpractice that caused him to lose his two fingers. He approached a lot of lawyers in the US who declined to accept his case allegedly because no doctor would testify against a fellow doctor. Yet, he struggled to find that lawyer, knowing deep in his heart that there is someone who can fight his just cause for him in that foreign land. True enough, after a long time, his son found the doctor-lawyer who was even willing to take it on a contingency basis. After months of litigation, they were awarded a hefty sum for the malpractice. The man felt vindicated not only because he succeeded in his quest to find justice for his predicament but also because he was able to prove that all the previous lawyers he consulted were wrong about his case.
Then right after the decision was handed down, the guilty doctor approached his former patient and said, "I'm sorry."
And then the patient cried, "All these years, that is all that I wanted to hear from you."
Until now, as the story is being recounted to me by the man, he gets misty eyed.
This is concrete proof that the "S" word is not really a bad idea. In the world of torts, the apology is the wild card that can throw a quick spin in any litigation. If things work well, the case can be settled with not a penny spent because of the apology. If things don't, then the apology can be a blank check payable to bearer. It takes character and a strong sense of justice to make that decision. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find any man of that make nowadays.
Thursday, September 05, 2002
LIVIN' LA VIDA LAWYER
Businessweek's New Idea No. 19 is called "Rethinking the Rat Race" written by Diane Brady. The idea is to give the workers more flexible time at work, to focus more on the results and not on hours spent on the office. Given that new technology has given everyone the opportunity to be productive even if he is at home with the family, the idea of allowing the worker to balance his time with work and life will result in more productivity. In addition to this, the idea is also to give workers more vacation time to allow them to refresh more often and not be overburdened by work.
I think this is the best idea in this Businessweek series. I am particularly concerned that I may have become too workaholic to enjoy life. My typical day usually starts at 5:30 am to check email, do routine paper work and pleadings. I do this at home with our home computer. I have breakfast with the kids and my wife at 8:00 am and I'm off to work at 9:00 am. If there are hearings I have to attend, everything gets pushed back so I can be in court at 8:30 am.
The entire morning is then spent either on hearings or meetings. Lunch gives me time to grab a magazine or surf the web while eating, assuming that there are no lunch meetings with clients. Then, I'm back on my desk at 2:00 pm for what I call the "Assault from All Sides". This is because I have to juggle with phone calls from the land line and the cellular phone, follow up from bosses and co-lawyers barging in through the front door, email popping in through the LAN, and text messages being received by my GSM cellular phone.
Everything subsides at around 5:00 pm when I take a break for snack. At 5:30 pm onwards, the real hard paperwork and research is done. If I'm fast, it's all over at 8:30 pm during which I go home to have dinner with my wife who often has already eaten by that time. If, however, work is still not finished by 8:30 pm, the time extends all the way to the wee hours of the morning. I only break off for an hour so I can go home and finish the work in our home computer.
In the last three years, the longest break I took was seven (7) working days on Paternity Leave to take care of my newly born second son Hans. Although we are allowed 15 calendar days of leave with pay every year, I haven't used it at all. I don’t know why. I guess I'm enjoying myself too much.
You think I have a problem? Take a look at the other lawyers of the Firm. Some of my co-lawyers work all the way to 11:00 pm or midnight on a daily basis and are back at 8:00 am the following day. Most have not taken longer leaves than I have. In my seven years in the Firm, I was able to take short breaks to date, court my wife-to-be, get married, and have kids. Some guys here have not found time to do that. As a result they've gone past their forties and they're still single and unattached. This is not to say that they are unhappy or are less of a human being than anyone. This is just to say that this is the kind life the lawyers in our Firm live.
But looking at how I've been all these years, I know I've missed a lot of things with my family because of work. My favorite grandmother died two weeks ago. My deepest regret is that I didn't find time to visit her in the faraway province of Calatagan Batangas in all the three years that she wished to see me with my kids when she was still alive. When she was buried last weekend, I brought my kids along to witness the interment. But I guess she's no longer around to appreciate that.
It is true, nobody in his deathbed ever wished to have spent more time in the office. Life is short. We can't spend it all working. We can't spend it all having fun either. That's an awful deal. But it doesn’t get better than that.
The old work paradigm is to spend most of our quality hours at work. Who was it who said that life is like a game of cigars. If you smoke the most number of cigars, you win and your prize is a box of cigars. Isn't that much like the work ethic that we have lived? Work hard in the game of life. If you win, you get more work.That doesn't sound like a fair game, does it?
Now in the information age, the "in" thing is to spend more quality time with our families. Who cares if you've won the biggest case in the world, if you can’t even play with your kids (worse if you can't even have time to have a kid?) What is there to be happy about at the end of a long day when all you come home to is still your work? Work hard. That's ok. But live life. That's the only way to play this game. I am a non-smoker but if you have to compare life with a game of cigars, I think the object of the game is not to smoke the most number of cigars. And the prize is the game itself.
Businessweek's New Idea No. 19 is called "Rethinking the Rat Race" written by Diane Brady. The idea is to give the workers more flexible time at work, to focus more on the results and not on hours spent on the office. Given that new technology has given everyone the opportunity to be productive even if he is at home with the family, the idea of allowing the worker to balance his time with work and life will result in more productivity. In addition to this, the idea is also to give workers more vacation time to allow them to refresh more often and not be overburdened by work.
I think this is the best idea in this Businessweek series. I am particularly concerned that I may have become too workaholic to enjoy life. My typical day usually starts at 5:30 am to check email, do routine paper work and pleadings. I do this at home with our home computer. I have breakfast with the kids and my wife at 8:00 am and I'm off to work at 9:00 am. If there are hearings I have to attend, everything gets pushed back so I can be in court at 8:30 am.
The entire morning is then spent either on hearings or meetings. Lunch gives me time to grab a magazine or surf the web while eating, assuming that there are no lunch meetings with clients. Then, I'm back on my desk at 2:00 pm for what I call the "Assault from All Sides". This is because I have to juggle with phone calls from the land line and the cellular phone, follow up from bosses and co-lawyers barging in through the front door, email popping in through the LAN, and text messages being received by my GSM cellular phone.
Everything subsides at around 5:00 pm when I take a break for snack. At 5:30 pm onwards, the real hard paperwork and research is done. If I'm fast, it's all over at 8:30 pm during which I go home to have dinner with my wife who often has already eaten by that time. If, however, work is still not finished by 8:30 pm, the time extends all the way to the wee hours of the morning. I only break off for an hour so I can go home and finish the work in our home computer.
In the last three years, the longest break I took was seven (7) working days on Paternity Leave to take care of my newly born second son Hans. Although we are allowed 15 calendar days of leave with pay every year, I haven't used it at all. I don’t know why. I guess I'm enjoying myself too much.
You think I have a problem? Take a look at the other lawyers of the Firm. Some of my co-lawyers work all the way to 11:00 pm or midnight on a daily basis and are back at 8:00 am the following day. Most have not taken longer leaves than I have. In my seven years in the Firm, I was able to take short breaks to date, court my wife-to-be, get married, and have kids. Some guys here have not found time to do that. As a result they've gone past their forties and they're still single and unattached. This is not to say that they are unhappy or are less of a human being than anyone. This is just to say that this is the kind life the lawyers in our Firm live.
But looking at how I've been all these years, I know I've missed a lot of things with my family because of work. My favorite grandmother died two weeks ago. My deepest regret is that I didn't find time to visit her in the faraway province of Calatagan Batangas in all the three years that she wished to see me with my kids when she was still alive. When she was buried last weekend, I brought my kids along to witness the interment. But I guess she's no longer around to appreciate that.
It is true, nobody in his deathbed ever wished to have spent more time in the office. Life is short. We can't spend it all working. We can't spend it all having fun either. That's an awful deal. But it doesn’t get better than that.
The old work paradigm is to spend most of our quality hours at work. Who was it who said that life is like a game of cigars. If you smoke the most number of cigars, you win and your prize is a box of cigars. Isn't that much like the work ethic that we have lived? Work hard in the game of life. If you win, you get more work.That doesn't sound like a fair game, does it?
Now in the information age, the "in" thing is to spend more quality time with our families. Who cares if you've won the biggest case in the world, if you can’t even play with your kids (worse if you can't even have time to have a kid?) What is there to be happy about at the end of a long day when all you come home to is still your work? Work hard. That's ok. But live life. That's the only way to play this game. I am a non-smoker but if you have to compare life with a game of cigars, I think the object of the game is not to smoke the most number of cigars. And the prize is the game itself.
Monday, August 26, 2002
PROFIT WITH HONOR
Businessweek came out recently with a special edition entitled "25 Ideas for a Changing World". The issue is very interesting so I was quick to get my copy and read the pages with the thought that the thing can give me enough material to blog about for the next few weeks. Unfortunately, the website edition is gone. So I can’t link to it.
Nevertheless, Idea No. 1 is called, "After Enron: The Ideal Corporation" written by John A. Byrne. According to the article, with the Enron fall out, corporations will go back to the values of trust, transparency and accountability. Corporations will acknowledge that a company's viability now depends less on making the numbers at any cost and more on the integrity and trustworthiness of its practices.
Well, frankly speaking, I didn't know that this is a new idea. The Enron culture was and will always be considered an anomaly in corporate governance and investor relations. The values have always been there, except that unscrupulous individuals have gotten away with messing up with it for a few years. But now that the law caught up with them, we are quite happy to know that values have been affirmed. For indeed, what every corporation boils down to is that other people's money are entrusted to certain people in order that they can make it grow. In every relationship involving that sort of transaction, we are talking about not just making that money grow but also doing it with the knowledge that it should be done with the values of trust, accountability and transparency.
I didn't go through business school (my college degree is one for philosophy and my law degree is not exactly a business degree although now I only practice mostly commercial law). However, I imagine that every business course should have a course on Business Ethics -- and I am not just talking about how not to pirate business.
Business Ethics should always be grounded on the maxim "Profit with Honor." In the Philippines, sadly only one company used to live this ethos -- San Miguel Corporation in the time of the late Andres Soriano, Jr. During his time, San Miguel Corporation was never involved in any tax case and it did not have labor problems. Its investors were happy - in fact too happy that it was too hard for the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos not to resist to acquire it through a forcible takeover during martial law.
Profit with Honor. That means money through honorable means. No deception. No misrepresentation. Full disclosure. No cheating on your workers. No cheating on your investors. No cheating on your consumers. What's so new about that?
Businessweek came out recently with a special edition entitled "25 Ideas for a Changing World". The issue is very interesting so I was quick to get my copy and read the pages with the thought that the thing can give me enough material to blog about for the next few weeks. Unfortunately, the website edition is gone. So I can’t link to it.
Nevertheless, Idea No. 1 is called, "After Enron: The Ideal Corporation" written by John A. Byrne. According to the article, with the Enron fall out, corporations will go back to the values of trust, transparency and accountability. Corporations will acknowledge that a company's viability now depends less on making the numbers at any cost and more on the integrity and trustworthiness of its practices.
Well, frankly speaking, I didn't know that this is a new idea. The Enron culture was and will always be considered an anomaly in corporate governance and investor relations. The values have always been there, except that unscrupulous individuals have gotten away with messing up with it for a few years. But now that the law caught up with them, we are quite happy to know that values have been affirmed. For indeed, what every corporation boils down to is that other people's money are entrusted to certain people in order that they can make it grow. In every relationship involving that sort of transaction, we are talking about not just making that money grow but also doing it with the knowledge that it should be done with the values of trust, accountability and transparency.
I didn't go through business school (my college degree is one for philosophy and my law degree is not exactly a business degree although now I only practice mostly commercial law). However, I imagine that every business course should have a course on Business Ethics -- and I am not just talking about how not to pirate business.
Business Ethics should always be grounded on the maxim "Profit with Honor." In the Philippines, sadly only one company used to live this ethos -- San Miguel Corporation in the time of the late Andres Soriano, Jr. During his time, San Miguel Corporation was never involved in any tax case and it did not have labor problems. Its investors were happy - in fact too happy that it was too hard for the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos not to resist to acquire it through a forcible takeover during martial law.
Profit with Honor. That means money through honorable means. No deception. No misrepresentation. Full disclosure. No cheating on your workers. No cheating on your investors. No cheating on your consumers. What's so new about that?
Friday, August 16, 2002
Tuesday, August 06, 2002
Rx for hiding your wealth
1. Why?
A. You're afraid of the taxman.
B. You don't want your spouse to know.
C. You don't want your creditors to know.
D. You've got many cases filed in court.
E. You don't want kidnappers to know.
E. Some of the above.
F. All of the above.
2. How?
A. Put your wealth in a friend's name -- Efficiency rating: Ok. Risk rating: Poor. Your friend can die on you. Also, your friend can forget about you.
B. Put your wealth in a relative's name. Ratings: same as above. Additional disadvantage, you can't sue your mom.
C. Establish a holding company. Ratings: Your best bet. No risk. You are your holding company. Corporations can outlive you. No loss of efficiency. You sign your company's checks. Creditors at your door? Just sign your endorsement at the back of the stocks, enter in the books and its free from credit vultures.
Recommendation: Personal holding company
Do it yourself: www.sec.gov.ph
1. Why?
A. You're afraid of the taxman.
B. You don't want your spouse to know.
C. You don't want your creditors to know.
D. You've got many cases filed in court.
E. You don't want kidnappers to know.
E. Some of the above.
F. All of the above.
2. How?
A. Put your wealth in a friend's name -- Efficiency rating: Ok. Risk rating: Poor. Your friend can die on you. Also, your friend can forget about you.
B. Put your wealth in a relative's name. Ratings: same as above. Additional disadvantage, you can't sue your mom.
C. Establish a holding company. Ratings: Your best bet. No risk. You are your holding company. Corporations can outlive you. No loss of efficiency. You sign your company's checks. Creditors at your door? Just sign your endorsement at the back of the stocks, enter in the books and its free from credit vultures.
Recommendation: Personal holding company
Do it yourself: www.sec.gov.ph
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Lawyerly yours wins first disbarment case
I received today the ruling of the Committee on Bar Discipline dismissing the charges of unethical conduct filed against me by a rich businessman who lost a case that I worked on as a junior lawyer. I hate that guy. He filed all the cases he could file against my client and when there was nothing else to file, he filed a case against me.
Of course, there was no doubt on my mind that I would win that case. But I suffered from just the thought that I was being disbarred. This time I wasn't just the lawyer for the accused -- I was the accused. Days and nights I worried about the outcome of the case. I didn't know a thing outside of my profession. What was I to do if I lost? Worse, cheapskate that I am, I was my own lawyer. My boss (who was included in the suit) reviewed my work but since he was suffering the same anxiety I was suffering, I couldn't really trust him. I remember when the deadline for writing our answer approached, I couldn't write a single word. Gone was the legendary pleading writer that I fancied myself to be. I was the lawyer who could churn out pages and pages of law in a few minutes. I was the lawyer who quoted Shakespeare in his pleadings and got away with it. But for the case that involved my career, I was mute. I didn't know a single law. Indeed, the hardest pleading to write was the pleading I wrote for myself.
I'm glad I survived that -- and how. Now, it's pay back time. I am going to sue this guy and I will make sure he suffers the same ordeal I went through. See you in court you filthy businessman. May God have mercy on your soul.
I received today the ruling of the Committee on Bar Discipline dismissing the charges of unethical conduct filed against me by a rich businessman who lost a case that I worked on as a junior lawyer. I hate that guy. He filed all the cases he could file against my client and when there was nothing else to file, he filed a case against me.
Of course, there was no doubt on my mind that I would win that case. But I suffered from just the thought that I was being disbarred. This time I wasn't just the lawyer for the accused -- I was the accused. Days and nights I worried about the outcome of the case. I didn't know a thing outside of my profession. What was I to do if I lost? Worse, cheapskate that I am, I was my own lawyer. My boss (who was included in the suit) reviewed my work but since he was suffering the same anxiety I was suffering, I couldn't really trust him. I remember when the deadline for writing our answer approached, I couldn't write a single word. Gone was the legendary pleading writer that I fancied myself to be. I was the lawyer who could churn out pages and pages of law in a few minutes. I was the lawyer who quoted Shakespeare in his pleadings and got away with it. But for the case that involved my career, I was mute. I didn't know a single law. Indeed, the hardest pleading to write was the pleading I wrote for myself.
I'm glad I survived that -- and how. Now, it's pay back time. I am going to sue this guy and I will make sure he suffers the same ordeal I went through. See you in court you filthy businessman. May God have mercy on your soul.
Friday, July 26, 2002
No Hope in Concepts: The Reason I Stay Away from the Stock Market
I have to credit my metaphysics teacher Rev. Fr. Roque Ferriols, S.J., who instilled in me the habit of asking "Meron ba?" In English, the nearest translation I can think of is "Is it there?" Does it exist or is it just hot air? The habit is based on the principle that there exists a reality. And human beings that we are, we nestle in reality. That's where we live. But there are a lot of non-truths out there that deceive us in to believing what is not reality.
And these non-truths are not necessarily lies or accounting scams. Non-truths can be innocent things like concepts. Concepts are products of our minds. They come out of our minds based on our experience of reality but concepts are not reality. The function of concepts is to point us to reality. If we say moon, for example, we have a concept of the moon. But the word moon itself is not reality. The real moon is up in the sky. To be fascinated with the moon, is to be fascinated with reality. That looks okay. But to be fascinated with concepts -- such as earnings per share -- is to be fascinated with nothing. That is not okay.
The stock market is one place where everything is concepts -- and not just concepts but concepts of concepts of concepts. Take the concept of debt to equity ratio for example. It looks simple. Conventional wisdom tells us that a company with a high debt to equity ratio means it has more debts than capital. This means a large part of its costs will be interest payments. A company with low equity ratio is one with less debts than capital. Interest might not be eating up its profits that much. So which one has better prospect of making more profits?
Dig deeper and see where the labyrinth of concepts bring you. Debts: What does the company owe? Well -- loans from banks, advances from stockholders, bonds, commercial papers, promissory notes, purchases on credit, etc… still with me? What is capital? Money, property, goodwill? How do you value this money? Based on inflation? How do you value property? Based on market conditions? What is the market condition? Then, we realize a lot of things are not really clear. How does one classify, for example, between a debt and equity. Preferred shares -- is that equity or debt. Convertible bonds -- is it debt or equity. What about warrants or option contracts. Then we find out that a lot of the underlying items are based on opinions and opinions no matter where they are coming from are not truths. So we ask, is it really there? Meron ba?
Just look at the moon. No matter what the people say, you are sure it is there. Unlike the stock market, the moon is not susceptible to the whims of the crowd. In the stock market, if the crowd believes there is a value, everything goes up. If the crowd believes there is no value, everything goes down. Then, creative accountants and corporate honchos with appetites for large sums of money (and everyone in the stock market has that appetite) start playing around with the concepts and masquerade losses with profits until they are caught. Then, everything crumbles. People realize all they really had was concepts -- concepts of concepts of concepts.
I never thought of playing with the stock market crowd. There are many people way ahead me who drumbeat the perceptions of this crowd. No hope it putting one over them. No hope in concepts.
So, I stay away from the stock market. The truth is hard to find there -- with or without accounting scams.
I have to credit my metaphysics teacher Rev. Fr. Roque Ferriols, S.J., who instilled in me the habit of asking "Meron ba?" In English, the nearest translation I can think of is "Is it there?" Does it exist or is it just hot air? The habit is based on the principle that there exists a reality. And human beings that we are, we nestle in reality. That's where we live. But there are a lot of non-truths out there that deceive us in to believing what is not reality.
And these non-truths are not necessarily lies or accounting scams. Non-truths can be innocent things like concepts. Concepts are products of our minds. They come out of our minds based on our experience of reality but concepts are not reality. The function of concepts is to point us to reality. If we say moon, for example, we have a concept of the moon. But the word moon itself is not reality. The real moon is up in the sky. To be fascinated with the moon, is to be fascinated with reality. That looks okay. But to be fascinated with concepts -- such as earnings per share -- is to be fascinated with nothing. That is not okay.
The stock market is one place where everything is concepts -- and not just concepts but concepts of concepts of concepts. Take the concept of debt to equity ratio for example. It looks simple. Conventional wisdom tells us that a company with a high debt to equity ratio means it has more debts than capital. This means a large part of its costs will be interest payments. A company with low equity ratio is one with less debts than capital. Interest might not be eating up its profits that much. So which one has better prospect of making more profits?
Dig deeper and see where the labyrinth of concepts bring you. Debts: What does the company owe? Well -- loans from banks, advances from stockholders, bonds, commercial papers, promissory notes, purchases on credit, etc… still with me? What is capital? Money, property, goodwill? How do you value this money? Based on inflation? How do you value property? Based on market conditions? What is the market condition? Then, we realize a lot of things are not really clear. How does one classify, for example, between a debt and equity. Preferred shares -- is that equity or debt. Convertible bonds -- is it debt or equity. What about warrants or option contracts. Then we find out that a lot of the underlying items are based on opinions and opinions no matter where they are coming from are not truths. So we ask, is it really there? Meron ba?
Just look at the moon. No matter what the people say, you are sure it is there. Unlike the stock market, the moon is not susceptible to the whims of the crowd. In the stock market, if the crowd believes there is a value, everything goes up. If the crowd believes there is no value, everything goes down. Then, creative accountants and corporate honchos with appetites for large sums of money (and everyone in the stock market has that appetite) start playing around with the concepts and masquerade losses with profits until they are caught. Then, everything crumbles. People realize all they really had was concepts -- concepts of concepts of concepts.
I never thought of playing with the stock market crowd. There are many people way ahead me who drumbeat the perceptions of this crowd. No hope it putting one over them. No hope in concepts.
So, I stay away from the stock market. The truth is hard to find there -- with or without accounting scams.
Tuesday, July 23, 2002
OOPS SORRY. Aceron.net is on back up mode pending re-installation by our regular service provider cyberwings.com.
If your are looking for aceron.net email please go here.
If you are looking for Jerryl's site, please come back later. It is currently off-line.
If you are looking for www.ilovetoread.net please also come back later as it is likewise in offline mode.
What you're reading now is my site www.aceron.net/~marvin.I am one of the members of the Aceron Family of Oriental . Mindoro, Philippines.
If your are looking for aceron.net email please go here.
If you are looking for Jerryl's site, please come back later. It is currently off-line.
If you are looking for www.ilovetoread.net please also come back later as it is likewise in offline mode.
What you're reading now is my site www.aceron.net/~marvin.I am one of the members of the Aceron Family of Oriental . Mindoro, Philippines.
Friday, July 05, 2002
LAW IS A RELIGION BUT AN INFERIOR ONE AT THAT
Just to clarify my earlier post that would seem that I am professing some sort of cult for lawyers, I believe that even if law is considered a religion it is an inferior one at that. Why? Simple -- it bears no message of hope. Law is confined to the hear and now. Law has no answer if you ask about the after life. I remember in civil law class, our eminent Prof. and former Court of Appeals Justice Hector Hofilena asked if the body of a deceased can be considered property? We were all aghast at how casually the law would classify things between property and non-property. Death means you become a corpse susceptible for appropriation. Law offers no salvation beyond the here and now.
Which brings us to the point: why do we tie our lives to the law when it has no message of hope? Why do we insist that our legal system be free from religious color when by doing so we offer our citizens nothing to look forward to but the cold concepts of classification and segregation.
It is a sad society that has nothing that binds itself but the religion of the law.
Just to clarify my earlier post that would seem that I am professing some sort of cult for lawyers, I believe that even if law is considered a religion it is an inferior one at that. Why? Simple -- it bears no message of hope. Law is confined to the hear and now. Law has no answer if you ask about the after life. I remember in civil law class, our eminent Prof. and former Court of Appeals Justice Hector Hofilena asked if the body of a deceased can be considered property? We were all aghast at how casually the law would classify things between property and non-property. Death means you become a corpse susceptible for appropriation. Law offers no salvation beyond the here and now.
Which brings us to the point: why do we tie our lives to the law when it has no message of hope? Why do we insist that our legal system be free from religious color when by doing so we offer our citizens nothing to look forward to but the cold concepts of classification and segregation.
It is a sad society that has nothing that binds itself but the religion of the law.
Saturday, June 29, 2002
Law is a Religion
Recently, a US Federal Appeals Court ruled that the US Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the addition of the phrase "under God" in 1954 by Congress which makes it an "endosement of religion". The full CNN story is found here..
The ruling stems from a provision of the US Bill of Rights that can also be found in the Philippine Bill of Rights which states something like "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In layman's terms, it simply menas that the state should not favor one religion over another and neither should the state prohibit the exercise of anyone's religion. There is a history that went with the crafting of this provision. But the bottomline is the conviction that in the modern society no man should be killed for believing that the world is round.
But what is religion? My theology and philosophy teachers used to say that the word comes from the latin term "religare" which means to be tied down to something. Thus, you can say religion is what one believes he is tied down to. This involves a creed -- what one believes in. For Catholics, this is the Apostle's Creed. I believe in God the Father Almighty creator of heaven and earth...
Religion has a code --the moral behavior expected from a believer of the creed --e.g., no premarital sex, practise monogamy, Thou shall not steal, etc. And religion has a cult -- the rituals that the believer goes through everyday of his life to nurture his creed and code. Go to mass. Go to confessions. Take Holy Communion, etc.
Going through this definition, law qualifies as a religion. It's creed is the constitution, the supreme law that defines the principles that society believes will make it happy. It's code is the various statutes that seek to enforce the supreme law of the land in the everyday detail of life. Law encompasses every aspect of life that there is no way to run away from it. You won't believe it, but there is even a law governing cockfighting. Law is cult -- everyday thousands go to the court room -- the church of the law -- to hear judges and lawyers preach about what the law means to ordinary people. We have ceremonies that signal the effectivity of the law, the signing of the bills, the banging of the gavel, the implementation of lethal injection. Law is a religion. Society is tied to the law.
So the joke is on this US Federal Court. By upholding the non-establishment clause of the US Constitution by prohibiting the US pledge of allegiance, it unwittingly violated the same clause by establishing, as it were, the Religion of the Law.
Recently, a US Federal Appeals Court ruled that the US Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the addition of the phrase "under God" in 1954 by Congress which makes it an "endosement of religion". The full CNN story is found here..
The ruling stems from a provision of the US Bill of Rights that can also be found in the Philippine Bill of Rights which states something like "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In layman's terms, it simply menas that the state should not favor one religion over another and neither should the state prohibit the exercise of anyone's religion. There is a history that went with the crafting of this provision. But the bottomline is the conviction that in the modern society no man should be killed for believing that the world is round.
But what is religion? My theology and philosophy teachers used to say that the word comes from the latin term "religare" which means to be tied down to something. Thus, you can say religion is what one believes he is tied down to. This involves a creed -- what one believes in. For Catholics, this is the Apostle's Creed. I believe in God the Father Almighty creator of heaven and earth...
Religion has a code --the moral behavior expected from a believer of the creed --e.g., no premarital sex, practise monogamy, Thou shall not steal, etc. And religion has a cult -- the rituals that the believer goes through everyday of his life to nurture his creed and code. Go to mass. Go to confessions. Take Holy Communion, etc.
Going through this definition, law qualifies as a religion. It's creed is the constitution, the supreme law that defines the principles that society believes will make it happy. It's code is the various statutes that seek to enforce the supreme law of the land in the everyday detail of life. Law encompasses every aspect of life that there is no way to run away from it. You won't believe it, but there is even a law governing cockfighting. Law is cult -- everyday thousands go to the court room -- the church of the law -- to hear judges and lawyers preach about what the law means to ordinary people. We have ceremonies that signal the effectivity of the law, the signing of the bills, the banging of the gavel, the implementation of lethal injection. Law is a religion. Society is tied to the law.
So the joke is on this US Federal Court. By upholding the non-establishment clause of the US Constitution by prohibiting the US pledge of allegiance, it unwittingly violated the same clause by establishing, as it were, the Religion of the Law.
Sunday, June 23, 2002
GOOD NEWS
It is now possible to incorporate online. Check out SEC.gov.ph. Click here.
Who needs lawyers?
BAD NEWS
It's so difficult. Not even this lawyer could do it.
People still need lawyers ( he he he)
It is now possible to incorporate online. Check out SEC.gov.ph. Click here.
Who needs lawyers?
BAD NEWS
It's so difficult. Not even this lawyer could do it.
People still need lawyers ( he he he)
Monday, June 17, 2002
CNN.com reports that after a six-week trial and 10 days of deliberations, jurors convicted Andersen for obstructing justice when it destroyed Enron Corp. documents while on notice of a federal investigation. Andersen had claimed that the documents were destroyed as part of its housekeeping duties and not as a ruse to keep Enron documents away from the regulators. This ho-hum defense was thrown out by the jurors as they voted to convict Andersen of the crime. Thus, Andersen now faces up to 5 years probation plus a $500,000 fine. But the worse is yet to come as a class action suit is underway to compensate thousands of American investors who have suffered damages for Andersen's actions.
Full text of the news here.
Monday, June 03, 2002
Thanks to Renaissance Girl for sending some traffic to this site. Unfortunately, my current workload prevents me from making any good blog probably for the next few weeks. Check out the archives for our past blogs if you have time to kill. For useful links to legal sites on the web, refer to the list on our left margin. Happy browsing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)