Rejoinder to March 19 Postscript

MANILA, Philippines - In his Postscript column of today, Mr. Federico D. Pascual Jr. has come out with his libelous comment about me (which he titled Going to the dogs). Although he did not name me in the column, I am the only UE alumnus among the contenders for the vacancy. The allusion is indubitable.

I would have let the comment easily pass because public officials, judges included, are not supposed to be too sensitive. I would have been content to let the comment pass because it was premised on an absolute falsehood and it was something that the solid reputation that I have established in the judicial and legal circles would have sufficed to combat. But family members and friends from so many places have barraged me with one clear message, that I should not let the comment pass because it comes at a time when my name has been submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council to the President for consideration for the vacancy of Justice Adolfo Azcuna.

Mr. Pascual makes the very unfair and defamatory statement that “a justice whose integrity I have always doubted is a top contender for the vacancy.”

To begin with, I do not know Mr. Pascual personally. I have never met him in person. I do not read his column. He is a complete stranger to me as I am to him. His statement in his column that he personally knew me “to be not upright” is unfounded because the cause of his judgment is hearsay. If he was the true journalist that he pretends to be, he should be honest enough to say that he did not know me personally. He has no right to be judgmental of my personal and professional integrity.

Secondly, Mr. Pascual has referred to a case “we had filed against his relatives in Pasay City” in which I allegedly used my “fraternal ties and influence over (my) fellow judge in maneuvering the case to favor his relatives.”

Let me expose another falsehood he has committed. He is referring to an ejectment case filed by the family of his wife against the sister of my mother-in-law whom I represented as attorney. The case dragged on for several years due to causes not attributable only to me or to my client. Upon his return from self-exile in the USA, Mr. Pascual charged me for allegedly influencing the trial judge to delay the disposition of the case. He brought the charges in the Office of the Court Administrator because I had meanwhile been appointed an RTC Judge in Quezon City. I replied to the charges by simply pointing out that the trial judge should himself explain why the case had dragged on and that the complaint did not refer to my actuations as a judge. The Court Administrator immediately dismissed the case because the allegations did not involve a judicial act or omission.

Thirdly, his imputation that I influenced the trial judge to favor my relative in that case with the use of my “fraternal ties” is false and wild. The falsehood starts from the fact that I did not know the trial judge from Adam. Neither did the trial judge and I have any ties, be it membership in any socio-civic, religious, professional or school organization or otherwise, that might have brought us closer to one another. At the time I represented a party in that case, I was only a very young lawyer and I could not have exerted any influence on a trial judge much more senior in the legal profession. At least, that was how I looked at the trial judge who was visibly much older than I was. The trial judge and I studied in different law schools. We had not crossed paths before that case came to be. Lastly, the case was even ultimately decided by the trial judge entirely in favor of the relatives of Mr. Pascual and against the party I used to represent.

I assure Mr. Pascual that I was ethical during the 13 years that I practiced law. I advocated my clients’ causes with competence, not by influence.

I can only surmise on what might have impelled Mr. Pascual to charge me so falsely early in my judicial career and what now impels him to rehash the discredited and imaginary charges at this crucial stage of my judicial career. It is plain and mindless vindictiveness. Mr. Pascual seems bent on making my life uncomfortable just to please his in-laws. In so doing, he has sacrificed his detachment as a journalist and accepted whatever rubbish was fed to him about the events of the case by his wife and her relatives.

Fourthly, Mr. Pascual has mentioned his declining the award to him from the UE alumni because he would “not stand on the same stage with the judge whom I personally knew to be not upright.” Sad for him to decline an award from his fellow alumni if he well deserved it. But he should not use me as a pretext to justify his guilt feeling of not deserving the award.

I need only to tell him, however, that that award to me from the UE alumni was not the last. Other awards came my way from the UE alumni and from the UE herself. In fact, the UE recognized me as one of her 60 most outstanding alumni when she celebrated her 60th anniversary. The recognition came after a thorough search and screening conducted by a committee of outstanding alumni and dedicated school officials whose reputation and integrity were beyond reproach. Mr. Pascual should ask himself this question: Would the alma mater and the alumni award an unworthy alumnus several times?

During my long service in the Judiciary, I have received rare recognition from the Foundation for Judicial Excellence thrice. In 2000, I was separately recognized for writing the Best Decision in Civil Law and the Best Decision in Criminal Law, distinct awards that were unprecedented for being accorded to the same judge in the same year. In 2002, I was honored as one of the three Outstanding RTC Judges of the Philippines by the Foundation for Judicial Excellence. Does Mr. Pascual think that his biased opinion of me could overcome the judgment of the very honorable personages who composed the awarding Foundation for Judicial Excellence?

Fifthly, it is not my intention to engage any journalist of Mr. Pascual’s stature in a fight I cannot win. Yet, I must complain to the editor-in-chief of The Philippine STAR that Mr. Pascual’s lack of ethics in maligning my good name and reputation based on falsehood and innuendo should not go unchecked. — Justice LUCAS P. BERSAMIN, Court of Appeals