It’s Mendoza mystique, not any trial technique

Nonpareil lawyer Estelito Mendoza’s reaction to the letter titled “Special treatment, courtesy of law practice’s biggest gun” (Opinion, 9/2/15), had me rolling my eyes! More than anything else, he said his success as a law practitioner rests on “persuasive pleading, mustering in the effort all of the learning and experience I have acquired in my more than 60 years of law practice…” He spoke of sharing “the product of my experience” and delivering inspirational lectures to law students on ethics and trial techniques,” etc.

I say, more than any trial technique, it’s really the Mendoza mystique! There is no serious quarrel about his brilliance as a lawyer. What really stands out like a sore thumb in his wealth of experience is his enviable easy access to the corridors—nay, chambers—of judicial power!

Students like us were taught in legal ethics that it is inappropriate to write letters to judges and justices. Every plea has to be done in proper form and with notice to the adverse party. Otherwise, it becomes suspect and gives the impression that gapang (a backroom or under-the-table deal) is at work!

Among all law practitioners in the country, Mendoza is also the most-known regular letter-writer to the Supreme Court justices! Others may have written similar letters, even so, none ever got the time or day like Mendoza almost always does. It’s a good thing the Inquirer never missed the chance to expose and inform the public about such anomalies.

And why the Supreme Court willingly suffers such unethical backdoor maneuvers and is moved so easily where Mendoza is concerned is even a greater mystery. The public has yet to hear the Court reprimand Mendoza and tell him to quit blindsiding his opponents.

—GABRIELLE MICHELLE M. AGUILLERA, [email protected]