Karl Rigo E.

Andrino JDIII PRACTICUM I

Reaction Paper on Court Observations

I was always fixated on the thought that court litigation was a hostile exchange
of law principles and arguments between two lawyers. That idea changed when we were
tasked to observe Regional Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts in the Ninth Judicial
Region.

In the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, we observed a criminal case and a civil
case, People vs Cleofe B Tayasan and Lhu Lending Corp. for violation of BP 22 vs Ricarda
L. Matabalan et al. for collection of sum of money, respectively in the Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities Branch 2. In the criminal case, the lawyers were Atty. John Elumba for
the defendant and Atty. Emerald Pacho and Atty. Lester Abog for the prosecution. In
this court litigation, it was somehow of a submissive litigation and it was far from my
imagination of what would happen in the four corners of the courtroom. The lawyers
were just asking questions to the witness without any objections to the cross
examination of the witness. Actually, I was delighted to know that courts have a mild
and calm aura unlike in law school that is like a battlefield between the law professors
and students. Following the criminal case, was the case of Lhu Lending Corp vs Ricarda
Matabalan, this case has another tone to it wherein the witness/defendant was
uncertain and confusing in presenting her evidence. Judge Rosal was clearly irritable
towards the witness for presenting evidence that was not offered in court. The case then
was to another schedule to present the evidence again. Most of the time in the MTCC it
was a calming experience, knowing that when we become lawyers it not be as dreadful
from the ones I imagined.
In the Regional Trial Court Branch 8 presided by Judge Ric S. Bastasa, the cases
we observed were Jeanie Po Cuesta vs Dan Santos et al. for recovery of possession and
damages and the case of People vs PO3 Juvie Morito Dalogdog for violation of Sec. 28 of
RA 10591 etc. The first case was direct examination of the witness with regards to the
disputed land. Still it was the same feeling as that of a municipal court, it was just two
lawyers asking the witness about matters related to the case. On the other hand, in the
criminal case the witnessed was asked of the events that took place during the arrest of
the accused. At first the witness was uncooperative to answer the questions from
Prosecutor Lynbert Lo. Apparently, the witness was afraid of the accused because
according to him they were friends of the accused. Eventually, he finally answered the
questions with the assurance that there is no reason to be scared of. The case was then
scheduled for another time for another witness.
We also observed inquest proceedings. We observed an inquest proceeding for a
violation of PD 1602 also known as Illegal Gambling Act. Prosecutor Jose Rex Ortega
was the investigating prosecutor, he asked both the police officer that apprehended the
accused and the accused. The proceeding was similar to what the book says. The
prosecutor just asked whether or not there has been a valid warrantless arrest and there
was probable cause to detain the accused. In reality, it was a quick proceeding at
approximately 5 minutes it was already done. In my mind, I thought it would take at
least 30 minutes or more because a lot of questions would be asked but that was just
in my mind.
Along with our court observations, we were tasked to observe proceedings in the
Philippine Mediation Center. We had already observed mediation proceedings in our
Alternative Dispute Resolution subject during the preceding school year. In the
mediation of the case of Francisco D. Salomon et al. vs Preciana Reambonanza-Adriatico
et al for specific performance, declaration of ownership and damages. In such
proceedings, the mediator would hear out the two sides and would offer his
recommendations. In that particular case, the parties successfully came to an
agreement to settle it without litigation. It was a memorable experience wherein our
judicial system tries to resolve matters without going to trial. In my observations, as
long as both parties cooperate and hear out each other there is always a high probability
of reconciliation.
In my observations, our judicial system is functioning to what it is supposed to
do and that is for the speedy and fair trial of cases. There is nothing I would change in
our judicial system for it is perfect in my eyes for the attainment of justice. The court
observation we had was an insightful and inspiring experience for us as aspiring
lawyers. The Philippine Judicial System will always be here to protect and enforce the
laws of our dear beloved country.