Nicole, look at what you’ve done (1)

ENQUIRY
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Nicole, look at what you’ve done (1)
Sunday, 03 22, 2009

I found this long letter slipped through the door to my office, with a note requesting that it be inserted (no pun intended) in my space in The Daily Tribune:

Dear Nicole,

I address you by your nom de plaisir because that is how the entire Philippines knew you, instead of the lady from Zamboanga who hogged the headlines three years ago (has it been that long already? - my, my, how time flies!) in a celebrated “rape” case committed by a Yankee serviceman who thought he was having a good time when he dumped you by the roadside, semen stains in parts of your body, your undergarments still around your legs, after he had his fun.

I would not know whether you still go by that name by now, as you savour your newfound freedom in anonymity somewhere in the land of the brave.

Our macho hearts cheered for you when you showed us how brave you were during the trial (you had wanted to see your “abuser” get the death penalty, don’t you remember?) and, sure enough, you secured a conviction. You were brave enough to stay within the country within three years after that conviction, and fight the appeal from the decision convicting your rapist. But, alas, you were not brave enough to carry on the fight until the very end.

Or, rather, you were brave enough to have executed an affidavit the contents, meanings, and intentions of which are as varied and numerous as the individuals who care to dissect it. And you are gone, possibly forever, nowhere to tell us what you really intend with the affidavit. If, by chance, you read this letter, do tell us:

Were you really raped or not? Did you recant or not? Were you paid to execute that affidavit? Do you think that affidavit is enough to acquit your alleged rapist? Do you realize that you may be monkeying around with the Philippine justice system? Are you really gone for good, never again to cause the furor you have inflicted on us all? Did you have the fate of the VFA in mind when you made a sudden change in tune? Did you sign the affidavit knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently? Are you sure you were not drunk when you signed the affidavit, like the same state you now claim you were in on that accursed and fateful night in Subic?

I’d like to ask many more questions and answer them myself, but I’m sure my answers would just be as speculative(?) as yours.

But what is certain is that your affidavit and your departure for the land of the brave has caused a lot of trouble to many.

For one, let us take the trouble that the lawyers in the law firm that prepared and notarized your affidavit will have to grapple with.

I heard your lawyer (or to be precise, your ex-lawyer) rightly say that the lawyers in the law firm that drafted your affidavit may possibly be haled to the disciplinary processes of the legal profession. She could be referring to the enforcement of this ethical canon decreeing thus: “A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of a controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel, and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law.” (Canon 9, Canons of Professional Ethics - ABA).

Lawyer Ursua probably had in mind Canon 8 of our own Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that “A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues,” or the sacrosanct phrase in the Lawyers’ Oath avowing “good fidelity” in one’s conduct as a lawyer.

I’m sorry if all these lawyerese seems to bewilder you, but then, you yourself showed an admirable ease with lawyerly lingo in that affidavit. My dear Nicole, you even came out like a lawyer for the defense!

The rule governing communicating with adverse parties has a reason, and it is a simple one. Let me quote this one from Professional Responsibility 1985 by Aronson, Devine & Fisch: “The rule is to prohibit lawyers form taking advantage of litigants who are presented by counsel. It has always been a recognized rule of conduct, regardless of any written rule, that a lawyer should avoid dealing with clients of other lawyers. This is for the protection of the client. A client who has selected counsel is entitled at all times to the advice and guidance of such counsel selected. If lawyers representing adverse interests seek to compromise or settle matters directly with litigants represented by counsel, then they are ignoring the relationship that exists for the protection of the litigants.”

Lawyer Ursua is to be commended for her valiant pro bono efforts at fighting for your rights. Never mind the shabby treatment she got when her services were terminated. Ursua has earned everyone’s respect and admiration.

But going after the lawyers who prepared and notarized your affidavit should already be beyond lawyer Ursua. It is a taxing exercise, if you ask me, to initiate and prosecute a charge against a fellow member of the legal profession. Let the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, motu proprio initiate and prosecute the proper charges against the erring lawyers.

Nicole, with all due respect, let me say that you probably had the best of intentions in executing the affidavit, and flee to where you think you can forget that “harrowing” experience. After all, who does not want to forget?

But the nation will not forget. (To be continued)

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The Daily Tribune © 2009