Philippine lawyers and the IBP

[JonPalawan]

6 hours ago, robert k said:

Right! And I say the OP has proven his point and it's time to look at stopping the bleeding.

There is another dimension to this. The defense contract with the law firm says such things as "The Firm shall prepare and file . . ." and "In all stages of the Firms' management of the matter at hand . . ." Problem is, the firm has dissolved itself, it no longer exists, and now one overworked lawyer (no longer part of the firm) will defend me instead of four. Any chance that the Firm owes me a refund?

Edited November 11, 2016 by JonPalawan
added detail regarding the single lawyer now defending me.

[robert k]

7 hours ago, JonPalawan said:

There is another dimension to this. The defense contract with the law firm says such things as "The Firm shall prepare and file . . ." and "In all stages of the Firms' management of the matter at hand . . ." Problem is, the firm has dissolved itself, it no longer exists, and now one overworked lawyer (no longer part of the firm) will defend me instead of four. Any chance that the Firm owes me a refund?

I think you have every right to sue your lawyers. If you do sue your lawyers, let me know how it turns out in a few years and how much it cost.

Maybe each one of your (deadbeat) lawyers will file a nuisance lawsuit against you after that. It wouldn't cost them much because they "own the store" when it comes to legal matters.

You haven't answered any of my questions such as do you expect the court to find for you in the accident?

I have another question that others would probably like to know. Didn't you have motor vehicle insurance? Why is it you are dealing with this and not your insurance company? Do you need to sue your insurance company also?

[JonPalawan]

3 hours ago, robert k said:

 

How much is your time worth? Not much. And, I do think this is a worthwhile cause to let it be known that we foreigners don't like being taken advantage of. If I pay now, word will get around that you can make high demands and expect either a golden egg now, or a smaller golden egg later plus the schadenfreude of knowing that the foreigner had to pay big attorney fees. No, I want to win this case, then charge the van owner with malicious prosecution. His case is very weak:

• The investigating officer in one place says that I was driving, in another place that my vehicle was unattended. The latter is true
• The court says in one place that the date was Jan 13, in another place Feb 13. Prosecutor has to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. How can I have been driving an unattended vehicle? How can the mishap occur on two different dates?
• THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 116 Arraignment and Plea Section 6.    Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel. — Before arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in person or has employed a counsel of his choice, the court must assign a counsel de oficio to defend him. (6a)  Never happened, I was never so informed.
• Lawyer tells me that estimates are not admissible as evidence.
• It appears, though I'm not sure, that the court lost my original Counter Affidavit.

You admit you did the damage here, do you expect the court to find for you? That the plaintiff is willing to settle for less than I offered two and a half years ago doesn't suggest the plaintiff is exercising a form of extortion? Doesn't my long ago offer give an indication of my good intentions, and his refusal, only to later change his mind, suggest his bad intentions? Why didn't he accept my offer back then instead of causing all this trouble?

I think you have every right to sue your lawyers. I have no intention of suing my lawyers. There is a well described procedure for filing a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Didn't you have motor vehicle insurance? Yes

Why is it you are dealing with this and not your insurance company? I'm dealing with the case brought against me. I don't know why the insurance companies aren't involved. My lawyer suggested that the van owner is double dipping, ie, he already collected on insurance and now he's trying to get more from me.

Do you need to sue your insurance company also? Maybe, but the suit is pressing me now.

But back to my original question: Who is responsible for defending me, the law firm with whom I have a contract, or the lawyer who quit the firm, and now says he's too busy to deal with me? Monday I'll go to the law firm and suggest that they're responsible for my defense.

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by JonPalawan
spelling correction

[robert k]

4 minutes ago, JonPalawan said:

How much is your time worth? Not much. And, I do think this is a worthwhile cause to let it be known that we foreigners don't like being taken advantage of. If I pay now, word will get around that you can make high demands and expect either a golden egg now, or a smaller golden egg later plus the schadenfreude of knowing that the foreigner had to pay big attorney fees. No, I want to win this case, then charge the van owner with malicious prosecution. His case is very weak:

• The investigating officer in one place says that I was driving, in another place that my vehicle was unattended. The latter is true
• The court says in one place that the date was Jan 13, in another place Feb 13. Prosecutor has to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. How can I have been driving an unattended vehicle? How can the mishap occur on two different dates?
• THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 116 Arraignment and Plea Section 6.    Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel. — Before arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in person or has employed a counsel of his choice, the court must assign a counsel de oficio to defend him. (6a)  Never happened, I was never so informed.
• Lawyer tells me that estimates are not admissible as evidence.
• It appears, though I'm not sure, that the court lost my original Counter Affidavit.

You admit you did the damage here, do you expect the court to find for you? That the plaintiff is willing to settle for less than I offered two and a half years ago doesn't suggest the plaintiff is exercising a form of extortion? Doesn't my long ago offer give an indication of my good intentions, and his refusal, only to later change his mind, suggest his bad intentions? Why didn't he accept my offer back then instead of causing all this trouble?

I think you have every right to sue your lawyers. I have no intention of suing my lawyers. There is a well described procedure for filing a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Didn't you have motor vehicle insurance? Yes

Why is it you are dealing with this and not your insurance company? I'm dealing with the case brought against me. I don't know why the insurance companies aren't involved. My lawyer suggested that the van owner is double dipping, ie, he already collected on insurance and now he's trying to get more from me.

Do you need to sue your insurance company also? Maybe, but the suit is pressing me now.

But back to my original question: Who is responsible for defending me, the law firm with whom I have a contract, or the lawyer who quit the firm, and now says he's too busy to deal with me? Monday I'll go to the law firm and suggest that they're responsible for my defense.

 

I wonder why you are quoting rules of criminal procedure? This is a civil case, is it not? I think in civil cases a preponderance of the evidence is the more likely standard.

http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2011/09/preponderance-of-evidence-gr-no-175021.html

I just completed a lawsuit where my brother and I settled. I didn't get the punitive I wanted, sadly. I had a lawyer who wasn't working hard for our best interest and I could have fired him and started over and got my punitive but it would have cost another two years of my direct attention. As it is, it's costing the other side $2,500,000 USD not including attorneys fees. I don't think it was worth 6 years of my attention but I believe the principle was worth it. I completed another suit 3 years ago where my attorney told me he wasn't going to ruin his working relationship with the opposing lawyers by making them mad. He quit and I carried on the suit myself, won some, and lost some.

I think you are well shut of your lawyers if they are mixing criminal and civil law together. I think that since you couldn't recognize them doing so, you should take a step back and look at what you really do know? There are some quite nasty surprises in law for the unwary.

[Dave Hounddriver]

1 hour ago, JonPalawan said:

No, I want to win this case

I had a very stubborn friend, who also paid a lot of money to lawyers in Philippines.  He was determined to do what it took and pay what it took to win his case.  Unfortunately he passed away before he was even close to winning and the lawyers just smiled and dropped the case, but kept the money he had paid.  He was 68 when he passed away.  How much time have you got?  

EDIT:  I should add that he told his wife, and all of his friends, that the most important thing in his life was winning that case and he made his wife promise that she would continue with the case using every penny he left her and she said:  "Yes dear" and all his friends said "Sure Geoff".  But he is long dead and the case is long forgotten.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Dave Hounddriver

[JonPalawan]

49 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

I had a very stubborn friend

When I was 19 the overdrive in my Austin-Healey 3000 Mk III failed and I was determined to fix it myself. I bought the service manual from the BMC dealer who said "the next O/D unit we take apart will be the first one". Well, I took it apart, decided I could improve the hydraulics, and from then onward was able to use it to fill the gaping ratio hole between second and third gears by split-shifting. More recently I saw a more socially relevant issue: the product insert sheet for a drug Ketesse had a contraindication, in one place "should not be used" and in another place "must not be used", but both for the identical condition. Should and must are the difference between relative and absolute contraindications. I visited an NIH website for guidance, where absolute contraindication was defined "A procedure or medicine that falls under this category should be avoided." Should, really? How can "should" in any way imply absolute? After some back and forth, they finally agreed to change "should" to "must" in their definition. I'm now working on the drug manufacturer, that'll be a harder task. I voted for Bernie in the primaries, and was heart-broken to see what the DNC did to him. We should leave the planet better than when we arrived, no chance of that happening now. Yeah, I'm stubborn, is that such a bad thing? How much time do I have left? If you know, please don't tell me, I don't wanna know.

[JonPalawan]

2 hours ago, robert k said:

I wonder why you are quoting rules of criminal procedure? This is a civil case, is it not?      

This is a criminal case against me.

I think you are well shut of your lawyers . . . I don't understand.

[robert k]

2 minutes ago, JonPalawan said:

This is a criminal case against me.

I think you are well shut of your lawyers . . . I don't understand.

"I'm being sued by a van driver whose van I damaged." From your original post. This would seem to indicate it is a civil matter. When you say "I don't understand" as quoted above, I think you are understating.

I will try again. You do not want to try to mix civil and criminal law together. If it is a lawsuit, it is a civil matter. I gave you the link for Preponderance of the Evidence, a far lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Under preponderance of the evidence, all of the bobbing and weaving about report dates weighs very little. The date of the report doesn't mean you didn't do it, nor does it guarantee that you did do it so it is basically meaningless.

"I'm being sued by a van driver whose van I damaged." If the van driver or his lawyer walk in to court with that statement in a lawsuit, it is pretty much over, only thing left is to determine the damages you owe. This also shows you are uninformed. I'm not trying to be mean here, I'm honestly trying to suggest that discretion may be the better part of valor here.

I believe you proved your point that you are not a pushover! If in fact you did damage the van, settle for the uninflated damages so everyone can see how reasonable you are without appearing weak.

[JonPalawan]

23 minutes ago, robert k said:

"I'm being sued by a van driver whose van I damaged." From your original post. This would seem to indicate it is a civil matter.

I misspoke when I said "I'm being sued . . .". The van driver (I'm not sure he's the owner, as his wife is listed as the owner, so he may not have standing if she's the sole owner) went to the prosecutor, and the case against me is criminal, "Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property".

I know you're not being mean, I'm not either. But I truly don't understand "I think you are well shut of your lawyers . . ."

[robert k]

Frankly, I give up. I can only try to help based on what you describe and all I posted was based on what you were telling. At this point all I'm going to do is wish you good luck.