Court Observation

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT 137 & 148, MAKATI CITY

Darlene B Ganub I-C | Legal Research | September 25, 2016

Court Observation 1:
Date and Time of Observation: September 1, 2016 Thursday, 8:30am
Court: Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region Judicial Region Branch 137,
Makati
Presiding Judge: Hon. Ethel V. Mercado-Gutay
Public Prosecutor: ACP Joseph Patrick Byron M. Bathan
PAO Lawyer: Atty. Jonathan O. Bajeta
Branch Clerk of Court: Neil Hector Duenas
Branch Interpreter: Antonina Bernardino
Branch Stenographer: Adrian Garcia
Proceeding Observed: Continuation of Trial of a Criminal Case for Violation of R.A.
No. 8799 Sec. (24) The Securities Regulation Code (Prohibitions And Fraud,
Manipulation And Insider Trading)
Status: Presentation of the 5th witness – Erlinda Dela Cruz, Atty. Ferdinand Sales and
Rio Go Baluyot. (Present that day was only Erlinda Dela Cruz)
Criminal Case No: CR-14-1770 People of the Philippines v Clint Louie Tanginan, Clyde
Ablanque, Frederick Gumboc et.al,
Note: The two (2) other accused who are yet to be arraigned to date, namely Clint
Louie Tanginan and Frederick Gumboc remained at large
Private Complainants: SPCM Reynaldo L. Almatra, SPCM Feliciano Largo, PCM
Amando Basilio Jr., PCO Reynaldo Leyson, PCB Cherrie H. Villamor.
Defense Counsel for Accused, R. Alvarez y Alonzo: Atty. Alvin Zamora
Defense Counsel for Accused, W. Ortiz y Pinataron: Atty. Christian Marko
Cabahug
Defense Counsel for all bonded accused except for accused W. Ortiz, and R.
Alvarez: Atty. Randel Ty
Observations:

It was my first time to be in court and to observe an actual court proceeding (also my
first to visit the infamous Makati City Hall). I was very excited the night before and so I
woke up at 5am the following day, hopped on Uber and quickly arrived in Makati City
Regional Trial Court at 6am. I came with Bai Saudia Shayla, Hannah Marie and Tristan
Lean. We all came looking like dignified law students. We waited outside a convenience
store since the Makati City hall was not yet open when we arrived. After about one and
a half hour, we excitedly entered the building and lined up for the elevators. The
building was abuzz on a Thursday morning just about every city hall was filled with
people from all walks of life. The elevators did not work as they should, and so we had
to use the emergency exit stairs to move up and down the building. We somehow did
not feel any discomfort (even while wearing heals in tackling the flights of stairs that
morning). We soon arrived in the Courtroom office of Branch 137 after exercising our
hamstring muscles. We complied with the usual courtesies of asking the permission
from the court clerk to allow us to sit and observe on the cases to be heard on that day.

Minutes later, we were already ushered inside the courtroom. The courtroom was very
small, much smaller and less impressive than I expected. I ended up sitting next to a pile
of papers (papers that looked like old cases, pleadings and what-have-you stacked up to
about half of my height 5 ft.). The next thing I realized was that I actually sat next to a
policeman who escorted a man who was on handcuffs. The hearing started with a short
solemn prayer. The first case heard that day was Criminal Case No CR-14-1770. I observed
the direct examination of the prosecution’s witness, Erlinda Dela Cruz 31 years old, a

1
lawyer and a Securities Counsel of SEC Since November 2015. Her job was to review
applications and review adequacy and sufficiency of registration papers. According to
her testimony, Jaira Security Systems did not exist in the record books of Securities and
Exchange Commission. Her testimony was challenged by the opposing counsel saying
that she did not make the effort to verify the existence of the records in an offsite facility
of SEC where documents are kept. The cross examination went on and focused around
Section 24 of RA 8799 which says, “It shall be unlawful for any person acting for himself
or through a dealer or broker, directly or indirectly: (a) To create a false or misleading
appearance of active trading in any listed security traded in an Exchange of any other
trading market (hereafter referred to purposes of this Chapter as "Exchange". I took
notes about his interview of the witness regarding the absence of registration records
and the statement that that the defendant gave regarding the offenses in question. I also
observed defense counsel’s motion for marking the documents from the witness as one
of the exhibits. A discussion among the judge and the attorneys ensued regarding the
continuation of the hearing with the representative from SEC presenting the documents
sought for in the hearing.

The judge appeared to have things well under control in her courtroom and kept the
proceedings moving forward efficiently. She spoke clearly and distinctly so that
everyone in the courtroom could hear. However, she displayed some impatience in her
comments and facial expressions when the defense attorney, fumbled about during
cross examination. Her frustration was understandable.

The prosecutor provided a big contrast to the defense attorney as he was confident and
brusque. He did not shuffle papers or take long pauses during questioning to consult his
notes. He simply asked questions in a very direct and concise way. The prosecutor
looked very professional in a barong. His appearance in no way detracted from his
performance.

The prosecutor seemed to be asking the witness leading questions to which the counsel
of the defendant interrupted every so often during the cross examination. I found this
to be just how I imagined a court action be between opposing counsels. The hearing was
cut in the middle because the judge allowed the defendants to wait for one of the
counsels who was late. The judge gave a second call, for the 2nd counsel. I noticed later,
that present counsel of one of the defendants was having a discreet talk with the accused
(by whispering). The other counsel whom we waited for did not arrive.

2
Court Observation 2:
Date and Time of Observation: September 16, 2016 Friday, 9:00am
Court: Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region Judicial Region Branch 148,
Makati
Presiding Judge: Hon. Andres Bartolome Soriano
Public Prosecutor: Pros Victor R. Aguba
PAO Lawyer: Atty. Junerick N. Binuluan
Branch Clerk of Court: Maria Rhodora Malabang-Peralta
Branch Interpreter: Noel Dela Cuesta
Branch Stenographer: Mary Jenelyn Vasquez
Proceeding Observed: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Appeal
Civil Case No: 16-091 DMCI Project Developers Inc. vs Simon Nichole Rodriguez, and
all Persons Claiming Rights under him
Parties: DMCI Project Developers, Inc Represented by : MD PECSON Law (Atty.
George Ian T. Balubar); Simon Nichole Rodriguez Represented by: Atty. Rolando Cruz
Sibal
Observations:

This time, I was not as excited in my second court observation, and so I came in at
around 8am in the Makati City Regional Trial Court by myself. I was not as anxious and
clueless as the first time I visited a courtroom which was comforting for me. I was in
Branch 148, this time for a Civil Case. The voluminous pile of papers are still
conspicuously seen stacked up on both sides from the entrance door of the courtroom.
(I’m starting to think that this must be the norm in Makati RTC, as they lack space to
store the old cases with the limited space of the courtrooms). Hung outside the
courtroom entrance doors are the usual “No Firearms allowed inside. PLEASE turn off
(Silent Mode) your Cellphones” sign. The court interpreter and the stenographers are
on the same spot, (the interpreter on the left side of the judge and the stenographer
seated in front of a table near the presiding judge).

The courtroom I selected for observation had a small group of people milling about
outside, most of them men and women in business suits. Obviously there to witness the
trial, I also believed that a few of the people standing outside the room were slated to be
witnesses in the case.

Silently, I no longer anticipated to witness a hard-core courtroom drama. The one I’ve
witnessed that day was a judicial dispute resolution (definitely not the usual courtroom
drama in my current TV-Series obsession, “How to Get Away with Murder”). The new
process, called a Judicial Dispute Resolution, which entails a practical way of resolving
cases through mediation and compromise, is now being highly-encouraged and
practiced by the courts.

In this hearing I learned some of the lawyer’s role in mediation. Among the many roles
are the following. The premise must be accepted that counsel must drop his combative
role in adjudication and view his new role in mediation as a collaborator with the other
counsel in working together toward the common goal of helping their clients resolve
their differences to their mutual advantage. In preparation for mediation, the counsel
shall discuss the client the nature and process of mediation, its advantages and benefits,
the client’s heightened role and responsibility for its success, which includes generating

3
various options for the settlement of the case. His participation is to contribute to the
success of mediation. The lawyer must allow their clients to make responsibility for
making decisions during the negotiations within the mediation process.

In this specific case, the mediation proper that happened among the mediator, parties
and lawyers, resulted in a compromise agreement and mutually settled the interests of
both parties.

The court observation activity didn’t literally give me a blast but it was quite eventful
and exciting enough as a new learning experience of a wanna-be lawyer like me. I no
longer stayed on to hear all the cases slated for the day as I had to report to work after
lunch that day. I immediately left after I got my court appearance certificate from the
friendly court personnel who kindly accommodated me during the visit. I later realized
that I left my school ID!

4
Appendix A:

Court Visit 1 RTC Makati Branch 137

Court Visit 2 RTC Makati Branch 148