Dead before the trial begins

In a paid advertisement (Inquirer, 12/13/11), the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) bewailed the “undermining… of the institutions and pillars of justice…” through President Aquino’s unrelenting siege of the Supreme Court. But coming from the IBP, that sounded a tad hypocritical.

Being a member of the IBP of long standing to know whereof we speak, we say the IBP should have also expressed “deep concern” about the “special treatment” lawyer Estelito Mendoza has been enjoying in the courts of the land. The running joke has been that if you ever have the misfortune of having to cross swords with Mendoza in any court or tribunal, you are as good as dead even before the trial begins!

We cannot comprehend why Mendoza is being permitted to write “personal letters” to magistrates and get away with such unorthodox ways. Usually done ex parte, i.e., without the knowledge of the other party, the letters are nothing less than blatant attempts to influence magistrates behind the backs of the opposing lawyers, and therefore more alarmingly undermine the dispensation of impartial justice in this country.

Supreme Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez explained that it is not only Mendoza who does that. “Letters” to the magistrates, written by other litigants, are quite common, he said.

The truth of the matter is, those “letters” are very rare and usually written by the parties themselves, not by their legal counsels, in a desperate effort to have their side heard (as if their lawyers had done a sloppy job to drive home the point); and being laymen, their exaggeration and exasperation are charitably excused. But more often than not, those “letters” are just “noted” (legalese for “pigeon-holed”)—and seldom acted upon (and if at all, the other parties are given the opportunity to comment thereon).

But Mendoza has no problem writing and signing his own letters on his office stationery, and the opposing lawyers do not even know what hit them! In the wake of the latest fracas over his “letter-writing” habits, Mendoza dissembled that there was nothing secret about his letters and, with due diligence, their contents were discoverable or knowable to both parties. He, of course, skirted the issue which is: Why does he have a sense of entitlement?

We are flustered whenever laymen ask us why this is still happening. Are they the only ones who have the common sense to see that it’s a raw deal for the rest of the law practitioners? The worst part is, why has the IBP remained exceptionally silent about such an aberrant practice—to the egregious prejudice of the others who enjoy no such “privilege” and merely desire to play fair and square? How could it have abided such superciliousness and hubris being flaunted right before its eyes this long? Alas, to date, we still have to see the IBP protesting such “special treatment.”—STEPHEN L. MONSANTO, Monsanto Law Office,

Loyola Heights, Quezon City; [email protected]