Robert M.

Ramirez
CEU SLAJ
Basic Legal Ethics

Last July 4, 2014, I observed the actual proceedings in the court together with my classmate Alex
as a requirement in our Legal Ethics class. The objective is to acquaint ourselves in the true state
of an actual proceeding and that to relate this to the canons of professional ethics and the code of
professional responsibility. We visited the Regional Trial Court of Makati City and observed the
proceedings conducted in Branch 56 presided by honorable Judge Bonifacio Pascua.

I arrived at 8:15 in the morning and the lawyers were already in the courtroom. The schedule of
the hearing is at 8:30 in the morning, thus I observed that the lawyers are punctual thereby
following one of the Canons of Professional ethics on punctuality and expedition which states
that
It is the duty of the lawyer not only to his client, but also to the
courts and to the public to be punctual in attendance and to be
concise and direct in the trial and disposition of causes.

In Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Also, under rule 11.02, a lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings. These were properly
observed by the lawyers in the courtroom.

Fifteen minutes gone by and I am very excited to witness the actual proceedings, but I am still
waiting for my classmate who was stuck in traffic and the Judge to arrive in the courtroom.
While waiting, I also observed that the lawyers are properly attired, thus observing Rule 11.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Men are in barong while the ladies are in their proper
suit.

It is already nine in the morning and my classmate is now sitting beside me but were still
waiting for the judge to arrive. Thus, I couldnt avoid asking, Is the canon and the code of
professional ethics on punctuality only apply to lawyers and not to the judges?

At 9:20 in the morning, judge is now in the courtroom together with some court personnel, and
the hearing started. First case is a civil case between the Department of Health who was
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General and JD Legazpi Inc who were represented by
the two young lawyers. Since it is on a Friday, the court calls it a motion day. The first motion
to resolve is the motion to set the hearing on an earlier date. I was hoping that the first case will
only last for few minutes, but to my surprise it lasted for more than an hour. The case is about the
awarding of bid to contractors for Dr. Jose Fabella Hospital, JD Legazpi is asking for an earlier
date of hearing as the TRO granted by the court will expire two days before the scheduled
hearing and thus they are afraid that the Bids and Awards Committee might award the bid to
another contractor during the two day period and thus making their case moot and academic.
During the hearing, at first I observed that the young lawyer in the name of Atty. Patricia
Alvarez is a little bit nervous when the judge asked her why their motion should be granted while
the solicitor who is already on advanced age is more relaxed. However, in the course of the
proceeding, I observed that the young lawyer has every answer to the questions of the presiding
judge and for every objection of the solicitor. It only shows that the young lawyer is really
prepared and thus followed Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states
that

A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist
in the speedy and efficient administration of justice

Also under this is rule 12.01,

A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately
prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence
he will adduce and the order of its profference. He should also be
ready with the original documents for comparison with the copies.

The above canons were religiously followed by both counsels, though in the end the motion of
the young lawyer was denied.

Another Canon which I think were observed by the counsels is Canon 8:

A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

The counsels are properly addressing each other, and as a matter fact before the hearing started,
they were discussing some political issues confronting our nation but never delved into
something that will stir the situation and compromise their courtesy with their colleagues.

The next case is a criminal case of robbery which is on the stage of arraignment. We were
surprised by this case when it read the information against the accused, the thing involved only
worth P3,500 but hes already in jail for a month and that will still stay longer as the next hearing
is set on August 26. During the hearing, counsel for the accused, the Public Attorney was not in
attendance, thus, the judge for purposes of arraignment asked one of the lawyers inside the
courtroom to explain the information to the accused. The lawyer assigned by the judge did not
refuse and thus I think followed Canon 14 A lawyer shall not refuse services to the needy.
After the explanation of the lawyer in a language known to the accused, the accused pleaded not
guilty.

The next case is a criminal case of estafa, here, the accused asked for a permit to travel abroad to
visit her ailing sister in San Francisco, California, USA. The judge asked for the cash bond and
the prosecution to comment. The prosecutor did not object for humanitarian reasons, thus she
was granted permit to travel from July 8 to August 24.

In the course of the proceedings, overall, the judge is fair in dealing with the cases except for I
think that he must be punctual in the performance of his duties and recognized that the time of
the litigants, witnessess and the lawyers is of value.