Feedback: Lawyer Estelito Mendoza responds to 'legal luminary'

Lawyer Estelito Mendoza, the 80-year-old, 50-year veteran of the Philippine Bar, defender of former presidents Marcos, Estrada, and now Arroyo, responds to a profile written by GMANews.TV reporter Sophie Dedace: Dear Ms. Dedace: I express appreciation for your write-up of the interview last Monday, October 11, 2010, at the Manila Pavilion. I would like to comment on one point. It is regrettable that the “legal luminary" you referred to declined to be named. Nor does he identify the cases. Yet, he makes the serious observation “that my career in the legal profession will be marked by pulling strings through well-established connections". If I were to trivialize the observation, I would simply say, “Inggit ka lang." But I take it seriously. In the practice of law, the most public is the practice of litigation lawyers. Trials are open to the public. Appellate practice likewise. And all are well documented. In the case of appellate decisions, particularly the Supreme Court, they are published in the Philippine Reports and the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA). If a lawyer is a sham, he is easily exposed. The most public trial case I tried is the Erap impeachment case. The proceedings were not only public but televised nationwide. My appearances in the appellate courts, particularly before the Supreme Court, are marked principally by arguments made in open hearings. Indeed, many of the delicate cases I have won, especially on motions for reconsideration, were rendered after oral arguments were heard. At the oral arguments, the lawyers are subjected to questions by all the members of the Court. No other lawyer has perhaps appeared before the Supreme Court on more occasions and subjected to more intense questioning by its members. What is regrettable about some of my colleagues in the bar is that when they do not achieve what they aspire for, they make excuses at the expense of others. The most lamentable is when they lose cases, they tell their clients that the Judge who decided the case was “bought" (which is most unfair to the court); it now appears that another reason is that the other lawyer is “well connected". The records of the cases which I have won will bear out that the cases were won because of the compelling evidence, the force of the arguments, and when allowed, in the oral arguments. I must ask for your indulgence should there be a tinge of immodesty in my response. Thank you and best regards. Very truly yours, Estelito P. Mendoza