SC spokesman-UP law professor exchange on Estelito Mendoza letters

University of the Philippines College of Law professor Theodore O. Te wrote, via his Facebook page, an open letter last Sunday (Oct. 16) to the Supreme Court calling for transparency in a recent controversial reversal of a "final" decision after the high court received several letters from lawyer Estelito Mendoza. Over the weekend, Supreme Court spokesman Midas Marquez responded to the “practical suggestions" and “unsolicited advice" offered by the law professor. He asked that the Court be given "a chance to do what is right and best under the circumstances, including whether or not it sees fit for the parties to comment on the letter of Atty. Estelito Mendoza." But he didn't promise to disclose the contents of the Mendoza letter. The issue in question is the recent SC en banc resolution recalling the court’s earlier denial of Philippine Airlines (PAL)’s second motion to reconsider its ruling that over 1,400 cabin crew were illegally retrenched in 1998. Professor Te titled his Facebook note “May it please this Court," in reference to the usual opening line of litigators when addressing a court of law. This Note was “shared" on the Walls of at least 162 of Te’s Facebook friends as of Tuesday (Oct. 18). The following morning (Oct. 17), Marquez responded to Te’s letter. The professor thanked the court administrator’s prompt response and posted it on his Facebook Wall as another Note titled “Midas replies." Te is one of the “UP Law 37" whose letter last year calling for the resignation of a Supreme Court justice had the SC issuing them a “show cause order" why they should not be held in contempt of court. Last March, the SC issued a resolution admonishing former UP law dean Marvic Leonen (currently the government’s lead negotiator in peace talks with Muslim rebels); while the rest of the group, including Te, were “reminded" not stir public opinion while a case is pending. As regards the FASAP resolutions, Te zeroed in on the undisclosed contents of the letters written by PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza which pointed out “misapplications" of court rules which led the SC en banc (full court) to recall its Second Division’s otherwise “final" ruling. Te also made reference to a different letter Mendoza had sent which had something to do with the SC’s reversal last February of its decision regarding the cityhood of 16 former municipalities, much to the dismay of the League of Cities of the Philippines. Concurrently Court Administrator, Marquez exercises administrative supervision over courts nationwide, as well as over officers of the court – including lawyers such as Te. What follows is Te’s tête-à-tête with Marquez in full, together with editorial insertions in italics that put in layman terms some legalese lawyers are wont to use. May it please this Court, … by Ted Te on Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 10:50pm I hope this finds all of you well and that it finds the Chief Justice in less angry spirits since his Philippine Judges Association “fighting" speech. First off, I hope this does not land me another “show cause" resolution from the Court. I am, after all, simply taking the cue from an eminent practitioner who has openly admitted to writing four letters to the Court. And lest it be misinterpreted, I am not being sarcastic, I sincerely mean it – because if Atty. [Estelito] Mendoza can write four letters (in this one case; excluding others that he has already admitted to writing, say in the cityhood cases), then I do not see why you should begrudge me only my second letter to the Court. Second, please believe me when I say I have the best interests of the Court and the judiciary and the judicial system in mind and heart when I comment, criticize and, during the appropriate occasion, praise the Court. I am a lawyer and an officer of this Court. I took an oath which I take extremely seriously. And so I hope you will not take this the wrong way when I say that the Justices of the Court or its spokesperson do not have a monopoly of concern for the Court – even we, who criticize, do. A wise person said that it takes great love to criticize because criticism takes so much effort, as opposed to praise (or sycophancy), and you would not put so much effort in it if you did not love something that much. It is in that vein that I write to criticize, to comment and to disagree. Third, in the same vein that I have been offering unsolicited advise to the President, which he dislikes (and which dislike apparently the Chief Justice and his spokesman share), I would respectfully offer this bit. I absolutely understand the need for confidentiality of proceedings before the Court and I would be the first to defend it. However, when a litigant's counsel writes letters ex parte [outside court proceedings] to the Court on a matter that was currently pending and succeeds in getting the Court's attention and also its action, then I would respectfully submit that this is a matter sui generis [in a class of its own] which would perhaps justify a slight deviation from tradition and perhaps a bit more transparency. I thought it was necessary when the cityhood cases were being decided but since the Court did not seem to consider letter-writing by a litigant's counsel at that time irregular, I thought perhaps it would never be repeated again – in the words of the Court it was pro hac vice [for this case only]. Or so I thought. But now, it is no longer pro hac vice and perhaps has become a habit. It is in this spirit that I ask for more explanation and less indignation from the Court, through its spokesperson. A little more detail and transparency on the matters that led to the recall would be perhaps the best way for people to understand WHY these particular letters were so significant that it resulted in the Court “changing" its mind. I have been a lawyer long enough to know that it takes tremendous effort for the Court to change its mind; the Court's files are replete with MY own interventions (none of them in letter form though) pleading for the Court to change its mind, all to no avail. So, when the Court does change its mind – and yes, despite the technical characterization by the spokesperson, the Court did change its mind – it is something that lawyers take notice of, comment on and perhaps even disagree with. For me, engaged as I am in advocacy as well as academia, this would be of great personal and professional interest to me – that the Court has changed its mind, yet again. If I may offer some practical suggestions together with the unsolicited advise? 1. Upload the four letters of Atty. Mendoza, the FASAP resolution and perhaps the Court's deliberations on the letters to the SC website so that the Chief Justice’s suggestion for everyone to read first before criticizing may become meaningful. 2. A clearer, less emotional, more sober and certainly less combative statement from the Court detailing the proceedings that led to the recall may perhaps be issued to lay to rest any questions that would have arisen from Atty. Mendoza’s actions. 3. For those of us who have felt the “wrath" of some members of the Court for daring to write a letter to the Chief Justice, perhaps a brief assurance that Atty. Mendoza's letters are not the same as the one we wrote would help those of us who are confused at the different treatment we got. In times like these, when things about the law and the Court are unclear even to lawyers, there is a burden that rests on the Court to lead, to enlighten, to clarify and, perhaps in this situation, to explain. Only then could we ensure that the Court's role of dispensing justice fairly, which carries with it the perception that it is dispensing justice fairly, is discharged. Thus, more than fighting speeches, perhaps what is needed would be clearer words and more sober disclosures. Allow me to end by reiterating my assurances that we share a common interest at ensuring the most fair, the most clear, the most transparent (under the circumstances), the most just Court because our people deserve no less. Yours most respectfully, Theodore O. Te Midas Marquez Replies... by Ted Te on Monday, October 17, 2011 at 9:01pm I must thank Atty. Midas for his quick reply to my online letter, as I know he does not have a [Facebook] page (at least not officially, he he he; perhaps he has one incognito – the better to monitor all the posts). Here is his reply to my earlier Note. My comments later... ------ 17 October 2011 Dear Prof. Ted: Let me first thank you for your letter although I am not sure if you would like me to refer it to Chief Justice Renato C. Corona or to the Court en banc. But taking it from your statement that “[i]t is in this spirit that I ask for more explanation and less indignation from the Court, through its spokesperson," let me offer you this initial response. Personally, I seriously doubt if this will land you a “show cause" order from the Court. This well-written letter is much different from your first letter together with the UP Law Dean and professors, which, among others, made it appear that all the signatories therein actually signed it. That, however, is an entirely different issue and should not muddle the issue at hand. Allow me to make a few comments on this instant letter of yours. While the general rule is that the Court will only act on motions filed before it, the Court has, in a number of instances in the past, acted on letters filed by litigants and their counsel alike, the subjects thereof ranging from a prayer for the lifting of the disbarment of a lawyer to the early resolution of a case, among others. In fact, in this FASAP case itself, the Court acted on letters from FASAP members themselves. In the Hacienda Luisita case, the Court likewise acted on the letters coming from the farmers. As we both know, the FASAP case has now been brought before the Court en banc and as a matter of propriety, I, as the Spokesperson and Court Administrator of the Court, will have to defer any comments as to what the banc may or will do. My initial query however revealed that the Court, at first instance and upon an initial assessment, acted right away on what appears to be a “misapplication" of its rules as to which Division should resolve the pending second motion for reconsideration. Thus, upon realizing this, it immediately acted to remedy the situation. I personally believe that such action of the Court regarding the matter is far better than sweeping the apparent mistake under the rug, and ignoring it as if nothing happened. Since the Court en banc, as aforementioned, has already taken cognizance of the case, may I appeal to everyone to give the banc a chance to do what is right and best under the circumstances, including whether or not it sees fit for the parties to comment on the letter of Atty. Estelito Mendoza. Perhaps, FASAP can also file a motion to comment on the said letter, should it be so minded. [Eds. note: FASAP has asked the SC to make public Mendoza’s letters.] Your “practical suggestions together with the unsolicited advise" are nonetheless all very well taken. Again, let me know if you would want this letter brought to the attention of the Chief Justice or to the Court en banc. Just a word more. The “fighting" speech of the Chief Justice before the Philippine Judges Association has nothing to do with the FASAP case. The Chief Justice has, since 2008, inhibited from the said case. His speech is quite obviously directed to the proposed “impounding" of the Supreme Court’s budget which has been in the headlines since the middle of this year, not to mention the incessant threats of impeachment hurled against the justices for just anything and everything they do. The Chief Justice, I believe, just wants those concerned to know that everything does not go unnoticed, and shall be dealt with accordingly at the appropriate time. Let me end with my assurances that I, too, in my more than twenty years of service here in the Court, have since worked hard to give the people “the most fair, the most clear, the most transparent (under the circumstances) [and] the most just Court." I shall do no less this time. With my highest esteem, Midas - Annotation by MARLON ANTHONY TONSON/HS, GMA News