US judge issues warrant for Ping

Amid Sen. Panfilo Lacson’s denials that such a hearing was set, the California Superior Court issued a bench warrant for his failure to appear as ordered.

Judge Barbara Miller fired off the warrant Wednesday when Lacson failed to show up for the 2 p.m. trial (5 a.m. Thursday in Manila). She noted that Lacson properly was served notice on Aug. 2 to explain how he would recompense California businesswoman Blanquita Pelaez $31,262 for business tort.

Judge Miller held the warrant in abeyance, however, giving Lacson’s lawyer one last chance to present him to court on Sept. 7. Otherwise, it would be served.

Akin to an arrest warrant, a bench warrant is one issued by a judge or court for the apprehension of an offender (see Research Notes below). Should Lacson fail to attend the next trial, the bench warrant can acquire federal scope, and he could be arrested in any US territory, according to Pelaez’s lawyer Rodel Rodis.

The minutes of the Aug. 17 proceedings read: "The Judgment Debtor, Panfilo M. Lacson failed to appear and the Court orders a Bench Warrant to be issued and service withheld pending his personal appearance with counsel Michael Cardoza at the next hearing on Wed., Sept. 7, 2005 at 2 p.m. in Dept. 1 of the Superior Court."

The case arose from a 2001 complaint of Filipino-American Pelaez that Lacson had refused to pay her supply of Smith & Wesson handcuffs to the Philippine National Police, which the senator once headed. Pelaez sued before the court in Alameda County, where her contract as Smith & Wesson sales agent was signed. Finding basis for business interference, the court ordered Lacson to compensate Pelaez $31,262 in actual and $3 million in punitive damages.

Lacson at first ignored the case. But when the payment ruling was issued in 2003, he hired American lawyers Cardoza and Barbara Zuñiga Zanger to appeal. Judge Ronald Sabraw of the California Superior Court affirmed on Oct. 27 that year that Lacson pay up the $31,262 (P1.72 million) for commissions that Pelaez lost, but dropped the $3-million punishment.

Lacson also appealed to charge Pelaez $38,000 (P2.09 million) for his attorneys’ fees. Judge Steven Brick, also of the Superior Court, denied it on June 30, 2005, ruling that Lacson was not a party to the contract between Pelaez and the PNP.

With all the appeals settled, Judge Miller on July 26, 2005 summoned Lacson to appear on Aug. 17 and state how he intends to pay the $31,262. He was also ordered to produce bank statements and lists of real property in his name or that of wife Alice Lacson, vehicle registrations, business books, salaries, stock certificates, and insurance policies.

Miller’s July 26 order ended with a "Notice to Judgment Debtor: If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order, you may be subject to arrest and punishment for contempt of court, and the court may make an order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney fees incurred by the judgment creditor in this proceeding."

The order was served Aug. 2 at Lacson’s office, where a staff lawyer tried to return it allegedly for not being an original. "Proof of service of notice" consequently was sent to court.

All this was reported in Gotcha, 15 Aug. 2005. On Aug. 17, the trial date, Lacson claimed in Feedback that he had "not received a subpoena from Judge Miller ... much less an arrest order should I refuse to attend a supposed hearing there. My US lawyer, Mr. Cardoza, has verified from the Alameda court, and informed me through Atty. Sig Fortun that such a subpoena was never issued. There is no court order compelling me to pay Pelaez P1.72 million."

Disputing Lacson, lawyer Rodis wrote: "I must say I was impressed at how disingenuous Sen. Lacson was in parsing his words to make sure he was precisely correct. Yes, he did not ‘receive a subpoena’ as he claimed. He was issued an Order of Examination signed by Judge Miller to appear in the Alameda County Superior Court on Aug. 17. Yes, there is ‘no arrest order’ (yet). There was a notice that such order may be issued if he fails to attend (as a bench warrant was issued). And yes, there was ‘no order from the court for him to pay Pelaez P1.72 million.’ The order was for him to pay $31,262."

Pelaez told The STAR yesterday, "If there was no such subpoena, how come Cardoza knew and even wrote to my lawyer about it? If there was no such scheduled hearing, how come a new female lawyer, Tiffany Dunlap, who took over from Zanger, appeared in court to say that Lacson was too busy to attend?"

In her complaint, Pelaez swore that Lacson withheld payment of the contract because she had refused his earlier wish, when aspiring to become PNP chief, for her to sue 123 officers.

* * *

RESEARCH NOTES: The Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1995) defines bench warrant as "a process that a court issues for the attachment or arrest of a person who has been held in contempt, indicted or has disobeyed a subpoena." Black’s Law Dictionary (Thomson, 8th edition) and Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co., NY, 3rd edition) hold similar definitions.

Information on California court cases can be found on the Internet. Using a search engine, go for instance to "Superior Court of California, County of Alameda." The website will guide you to court calendars or case summaries. It would be easier if you have basic entries on hand, such as Judge Miller’s Dept. 1 at the Rene C. Davidson Courthouse, or Case No. 2001-034470 (Pelaez, plaintiff vs Lacson, defendant).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]