PART ONE
JUDGE LACUROM VS ATTY. JACOBA, A.C. No. 5921, March 10, 2006
Facts: The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff Alejandro R.
Veneracion ("Veneracion") in a civil case for unlawful detainer against defendant
Federico Barrientos ("Barrientos"). The Municipal Trial Court of Cabanatuan City
rendered judgment in favor of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the Regional Trial
Court. The case was raffled to Branch 30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting as pairing
judge. On 29 June 2001, Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution ("Resolution") reversing the
earlier judgments rendered in favor of Veneracion. Veneracion’s counsel filed a Motion
for Reconsideration (with Request for Inhibition) dated 30 July 2001. Pertinent portions
of which read:
II. PREFATORY STATEMENT
This RESOLUTION of REVERSAL is an ABHORRENT NULLITY as it is entirely
DEVOID of factual and legal basis. It is a Legal MONSTROSITY in the sense that the
Honorable REGIONAL TRIAL COURT acted as if it were the DARAB (Dept. of Agrarian
Reform ADJUDICATION BOARD)! x x x HOW HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE! The mistakes
are very patent and glaring! x x x
xxxx
III. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION
1. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge ERRED in Peremptorily and Suddenly
Reversing the Findings of the Lower Court Judge and the Regular RTC Presiding Judge
xxx
The defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and after a very questionable SHORT
period of time, came this STUNNING and SUDDEN REVERSAL. Without any legal or
factual basis, the Hon. Pairing Judge simply and peremptorily REVERSED two (2)
decisions in favor of the plaintiff. This is highly questionable, if not suspicious, hence, this
Motion for Reconsideration.
xxxx
[The Resolution] assumes FACTS that have not been established and presumes FACTS
not part of the records of the case, all "loaded" in favor of the alleged "TENANT." Clearly,
the RESOLUTION is an INSULT to the Judiciary and an ANACHRONISM in the Judicial
Process. Need we say more?
xxxx
4. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge ERRED in Holding That the Defendant
is Entitled to a Homelot, and That the Residential LOT in Question is That Homelot:
THIS ERROR IS STUPENDOUS and a real BONER. Where did the Honorable PAIRING
JUDGE base this conclusion? x x x This HORRENDOUS MISTAKE must be corrected
here and now!
xxxx
6. The Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge ERRED Grievously in Holding and
Declaring that The [court] A QUO Erroneously Took Cognizance of the Case and That It
Had No Jurisdiction over the Subject-Matter:
Another HORRIBLE ERROR! Even an average Law Student knows that JURISDICTION
is determined by the averments of the COMPLAINT and not by the averments in the
answer! This is backed up by a Litany of Cases!
xxxx
7. FINALLY, the Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge Ridiculously ERRED in
Ordering the Defendant To Pay P10,000.00 to the Plaintiff As Payment for Plaintiff’s
HOUSE: THIS IS the Last STRAW, but it is also the Best ILLUSTRATION of the Manifold
GLARING ERRORS committed by the Hon. Pairing Court Judge.
xxxx
This Order of the Court for the plaintiff to sell his RESIDENTIAL HOUSE to the
defendant for the ridiculously LOW price of P10,000.00 best illustrates the Long Line of
Faulty reasonings and ERRONEOUS conclusions of the Hon. Pairing Court Presiding
Judge. Like the proverbial MONSTER, the Monstrous Resolution should be slain on sight.
Issue: Whether or not defendant is guilty of Code of Professional Responsibility
particularly Canon 11.
Held. Yes. No doubt, the language contained in the 30 July 2001 motion greatly exceeded
the vigor required of Jacoba to defend ably his client’s cause. We recall his use of the
following words and phrases: abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous
mistake, horrible error, boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an anachronism in the
judicial process. Even Velasco-Jacoba acknowledged that the words created "a
cacophonic picture of total and utter disrespect." Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer,
both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and
through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. However, even the most
hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack made by the 30 July 2001
motion on Judge Lacurom’s Resolution.
PART TWO
As a student of law I agree to the proposition that “Lawyers appearing in court
should be required to wear a court gown”. Lawyers should be presentable to his/her
client or to the public to gain respect. Further, lawyers should wear the court gown the
same as the justices as symbol of their professionalism. Furthermore, the lawyer should
wear court gown to show their integrity and dignity to their profession. Furthermore, the
lawyer should wear their court gown not only to show respect to his client but also to
his/her colleagues and the judiciary. Furthermore, the lawyer should wear the court
gown to remind him/her that this gown show that it is the only the privilege can wear it.
To these, a lawyer should be required to wear a court gown to remind him/her that there
is always a boundary of all his undertakings in court and in public.
