ELECTIVE PRACTICUM I

PRINCE DAVE C. SANTIAGO

Juris Doctor – 3

Andres Bonifacio College

School of Law
______________________________________________________________________________

COURT OBSERVATIONS
______________________________________________________________________________

Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Branch 2

Presiding Judge: HON. KENNETH P. ROSAL

Civil Case
LHU Lending Corporation vs. Ricarda I. Matabalan, et al.
Collection of Sum of Money

The Presiding Judge called for the case of the Collection of Sum of Money
for the continuation of Cross-examination of Defendant’s Initial Witness. The LHU
Lending Corporation, herein referred to as LHU as Petitioner, filed the case against
Ricarda I. Matabalan, herein defendant, for the collection of sum of money which
was erroneously paid through the issuance of check. Matabalan presented her
personal records as to the payment of her debts through checks however it does
not match with the records submitted to the courts which marked as evidence.
The Presiding Judge refused to admit the records presented by Matabalan
because it was not marked and be admissible as evidence as to the payments
made by the latter.

As I have observed in the proceedings, the court interpreted and clarified

it to the defendant regarding the nature of the case and what would be the
possible liabilities she may incur if she fails to defend herself before the court upon
the presentation of her documentary evidences. The defendant herein who is
age 60 or more was unable to submit substantial proof as to the records of the
payments she made to the plaintiff. In my own view, the Presiding Judge keeps
on pushing the defendant to review her records so that she could present it well
in court. However, due to her age, the defendant fails to present the same. The
mood inside the court was dim as we are hearing out the defendant’s argument.
The Presiding Judge made a decision to move to set the case for another hearing
in order to give the defendant due time in the presentation of her evidences.

Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Branch 1

Presiding Judge: HON. CHAD M. PALER

 Criminal Case
People of the Philippines vs. Marlyn Castillon
 Grave Oral Defamation

This case was filed when herein private complainant accuse Marlyn/Marlen
Castillon for which the latter called her “borikat” or bitch in front of the public. The
accused herein Castillon plead not guilty. The private complainant, however, was
willing to submit the case for mediation which was set and ordered by the court.

I have observed on the face of the private complainant that she felt disgusted
for being called derogatory statements from a person whom she barely knows. I
realized that not all injured parties in the case are willing to pursue the case and
is willing to submit the case to mediation for easy reconciliation between her and
the accused.

Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 8

Presiding Judge: HON. RIC S. BASTASA

 Criminal Case
People of the Philippines vs. Jayson Merecido, et al.
Theft

This is a case of Pre-trial Conference against herein accused Jasyon

Merecido alias “Jongjong” together with the other accused namely Padao,
Lomoljo, and Real. The case was filed when the private complainant, named
Daryl James Sabanal who was not present in court, duly represented by Noli Alvis,
hired Merecido and other men to deliver the harvested coconut to a client.
However, the accused did not delivered the crops but instead allegedly stole the
same for their own benefit. During the conference, the accused filed an Affidavit
of Desistance without coercion or duress since the prosecution is prohibited to
move for the dismissal of the case. According to the accused, they are willing to
settle the civil aspects of the case amicably and shall post a cash bond with the
value of ten thousand pesos (10,000) which would give rise to the dismissal of the
case.

My observation during the proceedings was when the counsel of each

parties were giving their advice if they are still willing to pursue the case since
other remedy is available to them by amicably settle the issue for its dismissal. The
Presiding Judge encouraged the parties to resort on amicable settlement In order
to lessen the time on the litigation of the case and to avoid unnecessary expenses
and effort to the parties. As to our experience during the observation, it was
entertaining to learn the court procedure because the Presiding Judge was
generous in giving informative details of the case and what would be the
remedies available to the parties.\
  Criminal Case
People of the Philippines vs. Marlyn Castillon
Grave Physical Injuries

This case was ordered dismissed by the Presiding Judge on the ground of violation
of the right to speedy trial. The accused prayed for the dismissal of the case
because of the whimsical act of the private complainant, Alanano with a
residence in Municipality of Polanco, in appearing befiore the court to delay the
litigation.

I was able to observe that the Presiding Judge is not hesitant to dismiss the case
after being shown to him that the private complainant through his counsel
intentionally delays the litigation by not appearing before the court for hearing. I
have remembered under the Rules of Court that the accused may move for the
dismissal of the case if the private complainant fails to appear before the court.
This is something very important in the disposition of cases in order not to delay
the parties in their claims and not to hamper their personal interests in the case.

OVERALL OBSERVATION

As I appear before each court I visited, I was able to observe that the
counsel of each party looks very prepared in the presentation of their affidavits
followed with their arguments. The Presiding Judges do have different
personalities in handling each case. Some are very observant to the rules, some
are very aggressive in pursuing the witnesses to tell the truth, and some are very
lenient in asking more facts from the parties. What I wanted for our judicial system
to improve is mediation proceedings if ever available to the parties. In this way,
the case will not be delayed in a way that finances, time and effort to the
interested parties will be lessen as reconciliation will be resorted easily.

I have also observed that the Rules of Court are very much hectic to be
observed but it also provides remedies in favour of the accused. Hectic as I may
say but we should never forget the maxim of dura lex sed lex which emphasizes
that the “the law is harsh but it is the law.” Our Procedural Law can sometimes be
harsh to a party but it is something we need to value in order to uphold adequate
fairness and justice in every case. I can see in the acts of our Judges that they still
value the principle of humanity in encouraging amicable settlement among the
parties.
______________________________________________________________________________

PHILADELPHIA
Movie Review / Reaction Paper

______________________________________________________________________________

This was a 1998 Hollywood movie made ten years after an epidemic
disease called Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) was discovered. Andrew
Becket is a prominent lawyer in Philadelphia, starred by Tom Hanks, was hired by
one of the biggest company to handle big case. However, Becket was
terminated by the company after finding out that he suffered from an HI virus.
Because of his dismay and frustrations, he filed a case before the court to fight for
his right with the disease he suffers which should not be the basis of his termination.

To review the movie, Becket did not represent himself in the case in order
to protect his image being a prominent lawyer in Philadelphia. It was shown that
his capacity in the legal profession was tainted with failures when he started
suffering the virus that inflicted him. I believe that he could no longer defend
himself before the court and could fail to manifest his arguments that his disease
should not be the basis on his termination. If I were Andrew Becket, I would also
choose on not to represent myself in the case. The fight of HIV stigma is not only
my fight but is also a fight for those who are discriminated because of being
different. Becket was only concerned not only of his reputation but also of his
family.