For UP boast, judge draws SC reprimand
By Leila Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:21:00 07/14/2008
Filed Under: Judiciary (system of justice)
MANILA, Philippines—Just because you are a University of the Philippines (UP) law graduate doesn’t make you smarter than others. So says the Supreme Court, in effect.
Saying no school had monopoly of knowledge of the law, the high court reprimanded a Calamba City Regional Trial Court judge who told a lawyer that since the latter did not graduate from the UP College of Law, he and the judge could not be equals.
Reprimand
The court sanctioned Judge Medel Belen with a reprimand after finding him guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge, and warned him that he would be sanctioned more severely if he repeated such an act.
The lawyer, Melvin Mane, had filed a complaint against Belen over the judge’s remarks but later withdrew the complaint, saying he filed it because of his impulsiveness.
But the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) pursued the administrative proceedings against Belen.
In its June 30 decision penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, the high court said a lawyer’s competence should not be judged based on the law school he went to.
“An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law,” the court said.
“By hurdling the bar examinations which this court administers, taking the lawyer’s oath, and signing the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge his functions and duties as an officer of the court, irrespective of where he obtained his law degree,” the court added.
“For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on the basis of his alma mater is clearly an engagement in an argument of ad hominem.”
Proud MLQU alumnus
Mane’s complaint cited the transcript of a Feb. 27, 2006, proceedings in court in which Belen asked him if he graduated from the UP College of Law. Mane said he graduated from Manuel L. Quezon University and was proud of it.
Belen replied: “Then you’re not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a saying and I know this, not all law students are created equal, not all law schools are created equal, not all lawyers are created equal despite what the Supreme Being [said] that we all are created equal in His form and substance.”
Explaining to the OCA the circumstances behind their court exchange, Belen said Mane had filed a motion for Belen to inhibit himself in a case and that the motion contained a direct assault on his integrity and dignity.
‘Insulting, unwarranted’
Belen said the motion implied that an earlier order he had issued was not based on the merits of the case.
The judge also objected to Mane’s request for the unedited transcripts of court proceedings, saying it implied that the court was illegally and unethically changing the transcripts.
The OCA, in its findings, noted that Belen did not deny the exchange with Mane and said the judge’s “insulting statements” that questioned Mane’s capability because the lawyer did not graduate from UP was “unwarranted and inexcusable.”
The OCA said that though the statements could be attributed to human frailty, judges should use courteous language and be patient and temperate.
Befitting a gentleman
The high court said the OCA’s findings were well-taken and cited more portions of court transcripts in which Belen asked if Mane was taught in MLQU about a certain principle of law. He even directed a court employee to show the lawyer the judge’s statements of assets and liabilities, among others.
The court said a judge should address the merits of the case and not the counsel’s person. It added that if he felt his integrity and dignity was assaulted, the judge did the correct thing in directing Mane to state why the latter should not be cited for contempt.
But the judge went out of bounds when he “engaged in a supercilious legal and personal discourse.”
“This court has reminded members of the bench that even in the face of boorish behavior from those they deal with, they ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court,” it said.
|
