Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Identify 5 fields of Law:

Criminal Law
Commercial Law
Civil Law
Tax Law
?

Identify 1 lawyer for the specific field of law mentioned in no.2:


1.Criminal Law- Atty. Allan Orvien P. Geotina is a criminal law practitioner employed in the MGVBCP Law
Firm. He is a seasoned veteran who has been in practice for more than 19 years. One of his pioneer fields
is the field of criminal law. When asked what made him choose such. He claimed that it was not his own
personal choice but was because of the cases which he was assigned to during his initial practice.

Atty Geotina cited the necessary skills needed in the particular field of criminal law. A criminal lawyer:
1. Must be very articulate;
2. Must be able to withstand pressure;
3. Must be humble enough to accept that you do not have the monopoly of knowledge, and;
4. Must have a good rapport with everyone because connections are everything in the practice of
law

Atty. Geotina’s typical workday usually begins the night before—studying the case to be tackled
the day after. This is to prevent being “fooled” by lawyers who are fond of bluffing in cases and to become
aware to the important facts of the case. The next day usually begins with preparations for court hearings,
attending these hearings and going home around 4:00 in the afternoon. Atty. Geotina usually spends less
time in the office to avoid stress—one of the main causes of his health problems.

Atty. Geotina admitted that there are several challenges that he faces every day in his practice.
Things like convincing clients that he is doing what is best for them, balancing his personal rapport with
the opposing party and the client’s needs and impressing the judge that his cause is just and more
preferable to that of the other party.

According to Atty. Geotina, there are three types of clients: (1) the demanding clients, (2) the
silent clients, and (3) the dependent clients. The demanding ones usually do not pay well and need to be
convinced that they are not the only clients being served. The silent ones require that you earn their trust
and show that you are very diligent to their cause to ensure their cooperation. Lastly, the dependent ones
are those that place all their faith that the lawyer will do what is necessary. In dealing with clients,
professionalism is of utmost importance. However, that does not mean that he cannot refer a disliked
client to another lawyer—one of the benefits of working in a law firm with several lawyers.

Law school only prepares students in passing the bar according to Atty. Geotina. It does not
prepare them for the harsh realities of the actual practice itself. There are several inconsistencies in what
is being taught in theorem and what is actually happening in actual practice. Some of these inconsistencies
include delaying a client’s cause for money, propositions with the judge, and chambering among others.
Atty. Geotina also shared some tips for law students. Reading recent jurisprudence, answering
bar reviewer questions as preparation in to practice writing well. Penmanship is very important both in
the study and the actual practice of law. However, working and learning is not everything. Having fun is
also equally important. Finding the perfect balance between those two is the key to success in law school
and actual practice. Should you be faced with failures or hurdles, always tell yourself that they are merely
reminders that you need to work or study harder. Learn from your or other people’s mistakes. Learn and
Laugh. Atty. Geotina’s mentors—Atty. Mercado and Atty. Joseph taught him that.

Everything happens for a reason. That is Atty. Geotina’s mantra in his everyday dealings in the
practice. He trusts his gut feeling and has full faith in the machinations of God—believing that all will be
well when you place your faith in Him.

Court Observation- 6 cases

Court Observation
RTC Branch 53, Lapu-Lapu City
December 11, 2019, 2:00 PM (Wednesday)

We had our court observation on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at the RTC Branch 53,
Lapu-Lapu City at 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM. Hon. Judge Rosario Sistosa-Singco was enthusiastic to
have us and more than happy to help us understand the proceedings. Interestingly, most, if not
all, of the lawyers present in the courtroom are alumni of USC College of Law. Judge Sistosa-
Singco acknowledged us before the proceedings started and reminded them to do well since we,
aspiring lawyers from the same school, are watching. We were thrilled to witness our admirable
alumni in action, however, during the proceedings, my team and I share the same sentiment that
real courtroom action is different from the courtroom drama we expected. Of the 12 proceedings,
I will discuss about the three which my group and I think stood out from the rest - cases in which
we learned so much from.

Tumamak v. Tumamak is a case for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage. It was


supposed to be a continuation of the presentation of petitioner's evidence, yet, the petitioner
herself was not present. Counsel for petitioner was in attendance, nonetheless, the proceeding
could not possibly make progress without the petitioner. Apparently, the proceeding has been
delayed and rescheduled repeatedly but the court has not received receipts of acknowledgement
from said parties so Judge Sistosa-Singco conveyed her dismay and warned the counsel that his
client’s case may be dismissed if she does not appear on the next hearing. We realized how
valuable the Court’s time is and as lawyers, counsel for each party must aid the court in its duty
in the administration of justice.

Mario Ando, et. al. was a presentation of the second witness in a declaration of heirship.
Mr. Ando sat on the witness stand while his counsel asked him to verify the documents to be
presented as evidence. The lawyer was very assertive and he spoke in his courtroom voice. We
thought, this would be an exciting part. The proceeding initially went smoothly but when Judge
Sistosa-Singco asked to see the documents being presented as she was not given copies thereof,
assessed the documents and found out that they were merely photocopies. The lawyer tried to
convince the Judge to admit such documents as evidence and the dialogue between them went
on for sometime. The Counsel approached the bench and whispered something to her but Judge
Sistosa-Singco was firm not to shirk from her duty in applying the Rules of Court regarding the
admission of evidence. Eventually, the counsel retired from their argument and conceded, after
all, the Judge was correct. Dura lex, sed lex. Judge Sistosa-Singco reminded counsel that the
Rules of Courts regarding admission of evidence is clear and there is no room for interpretation
for the court’s primary duty is to apply the law when the law is not vague. We could not agree
more because the law could not be any clearer. Undoubtly, admitting incompetent pieces of
evidence in court is prejudicial to the party and doing so would defeat the reason behind the rule.

People v. Cabalican is a criminal proceeding of Lascivious Conduct under Sec. 5(b) of


RA 7610. This was the last and the longest proceeding we observed that day as it involves a
direct examination of the Psychologist who attended to the victim. The Fiscal was surprisingly
benign. He was the complete opposite of what we imagined what a Fiscal is. The proceeding was
supposed to be a cross-examination of the private complainant, the victim herself, an innocent
10-year old child. She was sitting on the bench right behind us with her parents. The accused,
their neighbor, was also present in the courtroom but we never saw him. When we looked at the
child, we can tell how terrified she was to sit on the witness stand for she saw the lengthy
questioning of the lawyers to the witnesses of the previous proceedings. The Fiscal may be
friendly and harmless but counsel for the defendant might ask questions detrimental to the child’s
mental health. Judge Sistosa-Singco was concerned that the proceeding might cause to trigger
the child’s trauma for she has already recovered. The Judge asked the child herself whether or
not she wants to listen during her Psychologist’s direct examination and she chose to stay outside
with her mother. This is definitely the kind of innocence you want to protect as a lawyer.

The Fiscal then proceeded and called the psychologist to step on the bench. He first
established her credibility as an expert witness and he goes on to ask her questions about her
expert opinion on the child’s mental condition. The Fiscal asked strategic questions while the
expert witness gave her answers in a straightforward manner as if she really knows what she was
saying. Well, she was her witness. However, we were a disappointed to see the defendant's
counsel seemingly passive during the entire proceeding. Judge Sistosa-Singco herself was
fidgety and edgy on her bench just like the rest of us. She asked the Counsel if he wants to
perused the certifications which the witness presented to establish her expertise on the subject
but he said “No need, Your Honor.” Clearly, the questions were in favor of the plaintiff but he did
not even have a single objection. Judge Sistosa-Singco was restless and uneasy like she wants
to cross-examine the witness herself. She even stood up and looked at the certifications as well
as the psychological reports the witness had. We are no lawyers but we think he must at least
ask one question on behalf of her client to make certain the witness’ credibility. Or maybe the
movies were wrong when they say that the first rule of thumb is to discredit the witness. Whichever
it is, we think he must do something that might help his client’s case.

On a slightly positive note, the counsel for the defendant jot down questions and prepared
himself for interpellation, however, it was almost 5 PM when the Fiscal finished his direct
examination which means he has to ask his questions on the next proceeding sometime in March
2020. We were honestly dispirited. We wonder what kind of questions he might ask the witness
and how this proceeding might prosper. Anyway, Judge Sistosa-Singco expressed her concern
about the child’s mental health and asked the expert witness whether or not it be good for the
child to be put on the witness stand and she answered in the negative. It was ordered that the
child be cross-examined not in public to protect her. We met the child and her mother outside the
Hall of Justice enjoying a juicy slice of pineapple from a fruit vendor so we joined them. Her mother
was all smiles to us when we told her daughter “amping” and they went home. It’s been a long
day for all of us

In DRB Holdings, Inc. vs. Noemi N. Chida, et al. it was a case revolving around the issue
on cancellation of adverse claims and was on the initial status of presenting the Petitioner’s
evidence. The case was a lively one in which the lawyers of both sides interacted in a manner as
if they were not adversaries but close companions. The lawyer for the petitioner even slapped the
back of his adversary as a fun gesture and Honorable Judge Rosario Sistosa-Singco was visibly
entertained during that particular exchange between the two lawyers. During the litigation of this
case, it is observed that the lawyer for the respondent was very vocal on the right of his client’s
to pursue and manifest an opinion on the cancellation of the case. As mentioned by the lawyer
for the respondent, it was unjust and unfair for the case to be withdrawn as the respondents
already made efforts in pursuant to the case, thus spending financial resources not knowing that
in the upcoming time it would just be cancelled. On the other hand, the lawyer for the petitioner
was straight forward in stating that his clients wanted to stop the case at the earliest possible
moment and even opposed of the opinion prayed for by the respondent’s side as it would only
delay the case. Since the case was to be withdrawn, the only possible remedy to ease the pain
incurred by the respondent’s was to voice or vent out their grief through a legal opinion on the
cancellation of the case. Such was decided by Hon. Judge Rosario Sistosa-Singco that the
respondents shall be entitled to a legal opinion on the matter of cancellation of adverse claims.

There were several different cases. 2 Criminal cases were herd one was PP VS JUNIEL
REGIS SUNGAHID/ A detainee for illegal possession of (0.20g) of Dangerous Drugs, which initial
presentation of evidence for the prosecution. with the examination of witness Mr Pusat Nunez. As
we observed while the council was questioning the witness of the procedures conducted in
apprehending the said accused. there is a difficulty in translating to the witness the questions.

This was also the problem of the preceding case PP VS CHEN KA YU. The respondents
council barrage the witness with multiple questions in English and as we observe the witness
found it hard to put in to words the actual scenario or facts that happen during the enactment of
surveillance and how he found a confidential witness. As to what i have understood this may
cause confusion but i trust in translating the testimony of the witness it will be clear. We also
observe that the presiding judge was strict on procedure and due process . And many of the
lawyers present when asked cannot give a direct answer without going through files. We believe
now that in the profession of law preparedness is the key in a successful career and with good
communication skills as it is imperative to the profession of law.

As stated above, the team shares the same sentiment that real courtroom action is
different from the courtroom drama that we expected. There’s not much drama, really. For us,
argument is the soul of litigation. It’s what makes the courtroom alive though not really dramatic
at all times. Litigating involves making tiny decisions that have a profound effect on what kind of
lawyer one will be. During the proceedings, we observed that litigation is the perfect avenue where
a lawyer could truly master his craft which is his/her professional personality. It is where he/she
could find what kind of voice to use or what style he/she will have when making arguments. We
also think that litigation is where a lawyer could really feel good and victorious when making a
good argument.
Litigation in movies are really just for movies, the experience we had during the hearing
was indeed a very different reality than those portrayed in films. The atmosphere was too friendly
which was opposed to the expectation of a tense and thrilling court hearing. The lack of drama
and emotion made it monotonous. The lack of audio on the part of the counsels during the hearing
made it harder to comprehend or even acquire the gist of the case being discussed. It would have
been appreciated if their volume was a bit more than what was given, people would have had an
easier time comprehending what was happening. It was only during the final cases in which I was
able to understand and could recall as during this time the room had already been emptied by a
huge number of people thus creating a clearer transcription of what occurred at the moment.
Other than the lack of drama and audible voice of the counsels, it was a wholesome experience.

Litigation or Trial practices in general are the battlefields of lawyers, in a metaphorical


sense is where a lawyer duels with another lawyer equipped with arguments and logic. In litigation,
this is where a lawyer may establish himself in this noble and legal profession. It is to be expected
that both counsels would pursue efforts that would portray their client’s utmost wishes and claims
in such a conduct that would secure their respective victory in court. The lawyer must always be
in consideration for his client’s will and in order to comply with such a daunting and heavy task,
he must always be prepared and vocal on his part. In the observed proceeding, it was not the
show of drama and emotion that one would expect to occur in a litigation process. An extreme
mildness or lack of intensity was the nature of the court for the initial cases and unfortunately
made it a bit boring for the audience present. It must be noted however, that despite the boring
nature of the observed proceeding it shall not blind us on the true objective of litigation which is
the attainment of justice and rights starved by the parties. Therefore, a boring litigation or trial
should not be the basis for critique as the one true goal for such due process is the acquisition of
justice deserved by the parties or clients.

To be successful in litigation, a lawyer has to be darn good with arguments - it means


making an argument, not getting into one. Being good in making arguments means identifying the
issues. You cannot possibly defend your client without knowing what issues you are trying to
solve first. A good litigator also knows how to make arguments on both sides of an issue. As what
Tyrion Lannister once said, “You need to take your enemy’s side if you’re going to see things the
way they do. And you’re going to see things the way they do if you’re going to anticipate their
actions, respond effectively and beat them.” - Litigation is just as that. You need to anticipate what
your adversary might say. A good litigator is therefore, agile.

It is a fact that in litigation, the person litigating must be fully equipped with the knowledge
and skills required to succeed in such an onerous area of the legal profession. To generalize the
skills required by a litigator, he/she must be fully developed on the knowledgeable aspect or
intellectual aspect of the law. The second general skill required to thrive in such environment
would be one’s ability to prepare and organize the necessary information for the furtherance of
his arguments. One must be great in arguing to persuade the judge or refute the claims of the
other litigant and only through an intense preparation can such clamour be a reality in the brutal
field of law.

Developing the skill of legal argument starts in law school. As what the lawyers we have
interviewed said, law school may not fully prepare us for litigation and lawyering in general but it
will definitely provide us the knowledge we need in the real world. Before we can make a good
argument, we need the legal knowledge and that’s what we are here for in law school. We got it
from reading books and cases as well as from listening to our professors’ lectures. The nerve-
wracking Socratic Method is also one of the best methods to prepare us for litigation. Yes, it’s
causing anxiety to every law student but no one becomes a great lawyer without going through a
rigid training. As law students, we need to trust the process. It’s pleasurable to see a litigator
making a good argument, now we wonder how it feels like to actually make a good argument?

There must be a surge of power. A lawyer does not become a good litigator overnight.
What we witnessed inside that courtroom is years of studying the law and years of building their
identity as a lawyer. We think that law school is our chance to experiment. The above mentioned
skills and necessities can be obtained and developed during the initial stages of law school as
one would need it to survive the monster that is the latter. Through oral recitations or socratic
dialogues, a law student will have his work cut out for him/her if he does no preparations in relation
to the class. 4 years of a gruelling training that consists of reading, comprehending, distilling, and
oral recitations would subsequently develop the competencies needed in litigation. Law school
and Litigation are practically the same with the only difference that there should be no errors and
maximum effort be given in litigations as the rights of their clients may be impaired. An individual
who properly executes the necessary skill during the student aspect of his law career would result
to a battle ready individual upon entry to the world of litigation.

“It’s more than just the book.” - Words to ponder from Hon. Judge Rosario Sistosa-Singco.
All students enter law school with a certain amount of idealism of what a lawyer does but one can
never imagine until they step inside a courtroom. Indeed, lawyering is more than just the
voluminous and stocky books we read in law school. Lawyering is a craft refined and improved
through experience. Without a doubt, our court observation has given life to the words we read
and concretizes the theories we learned inside the classroom; It has served to be our initial
baptism as aspiring lawyers. In general, we believe that this court observation was a valuable
insight into the real legal action of civil and criminal proceedings.

Вам также может понравиться