Take a Break: The Unfair Professor

Photo: Diabolic Preacher, Creative Commons, Flickr

A first year law student sulkily came out of his classroom. A friend, who was already a senior, saw him and asked what the problem was.

"My professor drilled me for thirty minutes while the others who were called recited for only two minutes," The freshman answered. "He's so unfair!"

"No, he's not unfair. He's arbitrary." Said the senior.

"What's the difference?"

"Arbitrary means he's unfair with a law degree."

Harvey Birdman, Attorney-at-Law

Once a third-rate superhero, Harvey Birdman is now a third-rate lawyer trying like hell to get by in a fancy law firm. As an attorney, he represents his fellow former Hanna-Barbera cartoon stars, in a variety of strange cases. Here is one clip where he visits Shaggy and Scooby in jail.

The Ten Commandments (For 1st Year Law Students)

Photo: Mickelodeon, Creative Commons, Flickr

1. Thou shalt always remember that thy teacher is a man of many moods. Be inconspicuous when he is angry, And laugh when he cracks jokes.

2. Thou shalt not be a wiseass when reciting.

3. Thou shalt not take a single subject for granted.

4. Thou shalt use thy cut wisely.

5. Thou shalt prepare for thy recitations, lest thou art mistaken for a fool when thou art called.

6. Thou shalt not cram for thy exams.

7. Thou shalt not brag that law school is easy until after thy midterm results cometh.

8. Thou shalt not bear false answers to thy neighbor.

9. Thou shalt covet thy beadle's friendship. It is he who holdeth much information.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's answers. Thrice cursed is he who gets caught cheating.

Stuck on an escalator

We have already seen what happens if you get stuck in an elevator. Here is a video about getting stuck on an escalator.

Forfeiture of Bail Bond

Q: The accused in a criminal case failed to appear in person before the court. Accordingly, the trial court declared his bail forfeited. The trial court gave the bondsmen a 30-day period to produce the accused or a reasonable explanation for their non-production. However, two years had passed from the time the court ordered the forfeiture and still no judgment had been rendered against the bondsmen for the amount of the bail. Instead, an order of execution was issued and the property was put up for sale and was awarded to the highest bidders in good faith.

Can the bondsmen still go after the property, on the ground that the trial court did not render a judgment against them?


A: Yes.

Section 21, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure clearly provides for the procedure to be followed before a bail bond may be forfeited and a judgment on the bond rendered against the surety. There are two requisites before the trial court judge may rule adversely against the bondsmen in cases when the accused fails to appear in court. First, the non-appearance by the accused is cause for the judge to summarily declare the bond as forfeited. Second, the bondsmen, after the summary forfeiture of the bond, are given 30 days within which to produce the principal and to show cause why a judgment should not be rendered against them for the amount of the bond.

It is only after this 30-day period (during which the bondsmen are afforded the opportunity to be heard by the trial court) that the trial court may render a judgment on the bond against the bondsmen. Judgment against the bondsmen cannot be entered unless such judgment is preceded by the order of forfeiture and an opportunity given to the bondsmen to produce the accused or to adduce satisfactory reason for their inability to do so.

In this case, no such judgment was ever issued and neither has an amount been fixed for which the bondsmen may be held liable. The law was not strictly observed and this violated the bondsmen’s right to procedural due process.

The issue of good faith in buying the property at the auction sale is not material. Since the execution and sale of the land was invalid, the basis for which title to the land had been issued has no more leg to stand on.


Case: Mendoza v. Alarma, G.R. No. 151970, May 7, 2008.
Photo: Jackson West, Creative Commons, Flickr

Handwriting Speaks Volumes (?)

Every elections, graphologists (people who study and analyze handwriting especially in relation to human psychology) take center stage in order to analyze handwriting of presidential wannabes. This year is no exception.

Here is an interesting article from LA Times about the presidentiables' signatures.


Mind you, graphology is not an exact science. But if you are interested about what your handwriting tells about you, you may want to check here: www.handwritingwizard.com.

"Substitution" of Counsel

Q: ATTY RC, a party's original counsel of record, did not appeal the Labor Arbiter's decision. However, ATTY VS filed a notice of entry of appearance as the party's counsel of record and filed an appeal from the Labor Arbiter's Decision without complying with Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (i.e. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party).

Was the substitution invalid, thereby making the Labor Arbiter's Decision final?


A: No.

A party may have two or more lawyers working in collaboration in a given litigation. Substitution of counsel should not be presumed from the mere filing of a notice of appearance of a new lawyer. The fact that a second attorney enters his appearance for the same party does not necessarily raise the presumption that the authority of the first attorney has been withdrawn. The entry of appearance of ATTY VS should not give rise to the presumption that ATTY RC withdrew his appearance as counsel in the absence of a formal withdrawal of appearance. ATTY VS should only be treated as collaborating counsel despite his appearance as “the new counsel of record.”


Case: San Miguel Corp. v. Pontillas, G.R. No. 155178, May 7, 2008.
Photo: · YeahjaleaH ·, Creative Commons, Flickr