Atty. Dimatulac, of counsel, at the little-known firm of Dimatulac and Calaboso personally took quasi-cognizance of a “feeler” sent by a prominent law firm. He was asked if he would undertake, on a secret subcontract, to defend the famous Filipino soccer team called the Azkals in a sexual harassment suit.
As usual, Atty. D preferred to play golf instead, so he desisted from serious legal research and asked his favorite junior partner Y to do the deed.
Y, when he was studying for the bar, had been given as a study aid a theoretical MCQ that he thought applied to the case. He subsequently informed Atty. Dimatulac that the sexual harassment suit ought to be dismissed for “failure to state a cause of action.”
Atty. D’s reaction: “Unjust vexation” lang?
Continue reading “The Dimatulac Files – Sexual harassment and the Azkals”
The following instructions – from a post on FB – seem applicable to cell phones bought and in use in the USA. But some of the instructions (on IMEI and reserve battery power) likely work globally. The instructions on how to report theft raise a suggestion on how to deter theft worldwide.
4 Things you might not have known about your Cell Phone
(This should be printed and kept in your car, purse, and wallet.)
There are a few things that can be done in times of grave emergencies. Your mobile phone can actually be a life saver or an emergency tool for survival.
Continue reading “Cell phone emergency and how to deter theft”
This is a fictional story of a greedy lobby gone bad. Some parts of the story are either not true or cannot be proved to be true. But the story seems to make sense.
Some foreign investors, sensing that they can put one over the Filipino public, bribed certain legislators and other officials to approve a law that would generate gargantuan profits. For the investors, the bribes were an ordinary cost of doing business to be more than covered by anticipated profits.
Continue reading “1984 in 2011, or How Moore’s Law will break the bank”
Luxury on the keyboards
A dispute between Sec. Carandang and Rep. Magsaysay leaves one undisputed fact. The folks in the Palace like Mac for their laptops. I don’t know about the hapless citizen who can barely afford to go to an internet café to do research, but surely public monies are better spent on generic laptops at half the price. Unfortunately, the matter is a “political question,” so it seems we have to wait for redress. It’s a tough world out there, but at least they have Macs.
PS: On public funds aspects, ABS-CBN reports.
Strained and strange logic
A broadsheet columnist, Mr. Doronila, doesn’t like the investigation of poll fraud in 2004 and 2007. He believes it is the investigation that damages the integrity of elections. Huh? If you suspect a wrong, do you damage the integrity of the right by investigating?
Continue reading “Laptop luxury and strained logic”
Here’s Theodore Te’s take on the Garcia plea deal. If he is right, the deal was made with grave abuse of discretion, i.e., it is void.
The question: Who has standing to petition for the annullment or declaration of nullity of the plea bargain? The soldiers of the country?
One lady Justice has likened the “UP 37” to the little boy who saw that the emperor had no clothes. A news report seems to suggest that the Supreme Court plans to cite the UP 37 for indirect contempt. Yet, there is jurisprudence to the effect that indirect contempt is similar to a criminal action (see bar review note below).
According to Jose Midas Marquez, SC spokesperson, “lawyers are barred from making public statements that tend to influence public opinion while a case is pending.” But since Marquez is a lawyer, and a case (either the original Vinuya case, or the associated plagiarism case) is pending, it seems he is himself barred from making public statements. So, what gives?
Two deadly serious questions: What happened to presumption of innocence? Or the right to remain silent?
Bar review notes:
What is the nature of the action in indirect contempt?
It is similar to a criminal action, with doubt resolved in favor of the person charged. Concepcion v Gonzales, 1962.
Bar review definitions:
Contempt of court: Disregard of or disobedience to the orders of a court, or interruption of its proceedings by disorderly conduct or procedure.
- Direct contempt: when committed in the presence of near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings. It is adjudged summarily, and while it is not appealable, it can be controlled by certiorari or prohibition. Sec. 2, Rule 71.
- Indirect contempt: When not direct. It covers: (a) misbehavior of an officer of a court; (b) disobedience or resistance to a lawful writ; (c) interference in a court proceeding; (d) improper conduct that degrades the administration of justice; (e) impersonating an officer of a court; (f) failure to obey a subpoena; (g) rescue of a person or property in legis custodia. It is appealable, but requires a bond. The appeal stays the execution of the contempt judgment.
- Civil contempt: Failure to do something ordered to be done for the benefit of a party.
- Criminal contempt: Conduct directed against the authority and dignity of the court, or the doing of a duly forbidden act. Perkins v Dir of Prisons.
Excerpts from the Philippine Constitution:
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Art. III, Sec. 17.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved… Art. III, Sec. 14(2)
This is a comment on the plagiarism controversy at the Supreme Court, where there is a majority view and a dissent by two.
It is to support the idea that there is plagiarism by negligence; or in the alternative, that the failure to correct is delayed plagiarism.
Think about it for a moment. Certainly there is no such thing as theft by negligence. But there is a form of theft where you keep what had at first innocently come into your possession. Continue reading “Why it is plagiarism without a Corrigendum”