Euston, we have another problem.

I've been pretty frustrated with the blog feature on multiply, and how it gets lost under the rubble of all the other things that I write about. So, I'm moving the blog section to wordpress.

My new blog is at http://nerveending.wordpress.com.

Recovered from the dusty archives of one of my old blogs. First published February 20, 2003.

---

I spoke too soon about the job thing. Things can be worse than they seem.

You send your resume around, hoping someone will call, and when they do you screw up the interview. Happened to me so many times I’m writing something about it.

A leading magazine chain called me the other morning to force me into their office that afternoon for an interview. If I didn’t show up, I might as well have said that I wasn’t interested in their magazine (or their money, for that matter). Do these people even have to ask? I had given them my résumé a month ago, asking for whatever position they thought would be most appropriate for my writing.Two weeks later they give a call for a preliminary interview. Two interviews later, I’m freezing my ass off for the better part of a half hour AFTER they scheduled this interview.

As it turns out, the people there were interested in having me as a gofer for their society magazine.

Work of this nature involves going around at parties asking society matrons for their favorite perfume while posing for a nameless photographer (read: me); prepping clothes for fashion shoots (like scrubbing down jeans and other faux aged items); and editing articles by people who can hardly spell, let alone put together two words to form a coherent idea.

“The editors are at a party, but should be here soon,” the receptionist says to thin air while brushing her nails for the fifteenth time. I assume she’s talking to me.

“I’m fine,” I reply. I’m such a bad liar.

I must have seen the entire staff of at least three magazines before I hear anything that resembles my name.

A classmate of mine from college has spotted me. A rare occasion these days. She herself was in this spot the last time I was here (more or less around two weeks ago). As her elevator opens, I note a cheerful wave from her. It’s the only smile I get all day.

They’ve turned off the air conditioning in the company lobby by the time they call my name. They haven’t turned off the air conditioning in the big boss’s office, which is where I’ve been ushered.

The big boss is shocked that I’m a man who happens to be very not gay. She then launches into a series of questions that in not so many words asks me what the hell was I doing there when I should be out somewhere making someone else richer.

“I don’t like sales.”
“You’re not going to be writing, that’s for sure.”
“I know. It’s grunt work.”
“Not really.”

Tense looks all around. My palms are sweating for the first time in an interview, despite this being the coldest interview I’d been in.

“So, why aren’t you in straight news,” the big boss asks me while perusing through my attached writing samples.

“I thought that all magazines could use a straight news approach,” I say with a smile.

The magazine that they wanted me to work for had zero straight news content. Half the pages were filled with society photos (who went to what party and so on) while the other half focused on weddings.

“We’ll call you,” they say after 30 minutes. Coldest and shortest interview.

I don't think I'll hold my breath.

---

I never did get that job. Good for me.

To begin, I really don't care who wins. On principle, I believe that seniors should refrain from participating in end-term campus politics. Enjoy the circus, as it were.

I was worrying about where to get BenGay for my aching muscles (committing yourself to the life of a gym rat is a bitch), when I ran into Ona outside the auditorium. She was taking part in that Human Rights program related to the protection of women and talking to several policemen of the PNP women's desk (I hate being politically correct, but the policemen were women). I wished her luck in her campaign as I wish all candidates luck. She then wailed to me about how particularly dirty this election season has been - black propaganda and all.

Come on, people! It's the first serious display of party-level politics on campus and we're responding how? 4A is making a "Republic"; Ralph is being Ralph by issuing a memo to everyone (snicker). A MEMO! Kulang na lang from: RVC to: all at cc: CLV; and everyone left and right is issuing an open letter: STM, Tin de los Reyes of the 4D "Junta"; and last of all, me. Perhaps it's because I miss my column in the Palladium. Whatever.

The open letters I've received so far have one theme in mind: they all decry the black propaganda on campus. I've got news for these people: all elections are dirty because politics in itself is dirty. Nothing is sacred when the objective of the activity is to win the hearts and minds of a people. I should know. My heart got broken many times when I ran for student office two years ago.

However, to focus on the mudslinging is only looking at the small picture. What warms the heart is that so many people now care about the school. The Constitution is really working, and everyone is getting a legal workout, especially the CEJA people. In fact, I heard a CEJA member say that drafting the decision was harder than class.

Now, with all dirty campaign posters, and all the mudslinging, and with my aching muscles, I am pissed. I am so pissed I am going to vote against everyone who's asked for my vote. In other words, I am going to write down the following as write-ins for the elections:

President: Michael Vincent Mate - a charismatic President without a butt and a growing belly.
EVP: Avelino Tolentino III - tell me this doesn't make sense.
IVP: Clifton Sawit - we can finally place a Gestapo!
Treasurer: Francis Acero - MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I know where the money is
SecGen: Iya Buzeta - the better to cover my tracks MWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

I'll vote ABSTAIN for the batch reps. You don't need reps. I've done more reps than they have (20 reps, 2 sets).

Carthago delenda est.

When I first found out about Bridget Jones and her diary, I thought that it was the most amazing thing. Here was something that was so honest about how contradictory women can be and yet so lovable in the end. Anyway, I absolutely HATE posting viral email on my blog: I think it's intellectual dishonesty. However, this one, which I found on Janice's blog, which she in turn found from another blog, is excellent.

At any rate, the author of this email is currently unknown to me. Please let me know if you have any idea who the author is so that I may shower thanks and praise.

Hours spent at work: 14.2 (v. good); billable hours: 5.7 (v. bad); minutes spent staring out window: 97 (needs improvement); minutes spent mentally reliving conversations and imagining what I should have said instead of what I did say: 46 (excellent); no. of times let ringing phone go to voice mail: 2 (v. bad, College of Law lecturer said this was sign of professional incompetence, but calls were from mother, so okay).

8:00 a.m.
Leave for work feeling energised, confident. Yesterday, managed to soothe clients, appease opposing counsel, and impress partners at work. Practice will now operate as efficient, well-oiled machine. Only nagging issue is opinion letter, which is two weeks late. Two weeks is not very long. Anyway, opinion has been researched. Mostly researched. Must simply look up a few more cases, put thoughts into writing. Very easy. Will be finished by 10:30 a.m. at latest

8:45 a.m.
Arrive at work. Listen to repeated voice mail messages from disgruntled client. Review two letters from angry opposing counsel. Note that senior lawyer has entirely redrafted the letter I wrote. Learn that Court of Appeal did not accept bundles because pages numbered in improper manner. Feel dismal and deflated. Stare out window. Consume engineered food bar for breakfast.

10:30 a.m.
Have spent last hour returning voice mail messagesby leaving voicemail messages. Will start opinion letter now. Will be finished by noon, no problem.

12:00 p.m.
Opinion letter not finished. Cannot decide whether to address client by first name. Must go to Aerobox class at 1:00p.m. to relieve stress and promote fitness. Have missed last seven classes because of work. No job is worth sacrificing my health. Must go to Aerobox class.

2:00 p.m.
Missed Aerobox class because of last-minute meeting with very important new client. Am introduced as junior lawyer who will be working on the file. Client amazed, asks how such a young girl can possibly be lawyer. Grin frantically while trying to think of charming but assertive response. Saved by senior lawyer, who steps in to sing my praises as top-notch organiser of discovery documents. (After all, hard to justify junior lawyer's fee if clients believe she is merely the coffee and copy girl). Client promises to send over 57 boxes of documents straight away.

4:00 p.m.
Come out from hiding spot behind the 57 boxes of documents. Inform senior lawyer that, despite my numerous emphatic promises, opinion letter is not quite finished. Explain that the warranty issue has turned out to be more complex than originally thought. Babble on about complex law of warranty generally. Pause awkwardly. Senior lawyer stares blankly, then says, "It's not a warranty, it's a guarantee." Am incompetent, cannot be proper lawyer.

4:45 p.m.
Telephone call from opposing counsel, requesting adjournment. Remind opposing counsel that this is fourth such request. Point out that I had once asked for indulgence and been denied, thus causing me to work inhumane hours. Opposing counsel appalled by my disrespectful attitude, says it is contrary to Rules of Professional Conduct. Am cruel and possibly unprofessional person, cannot be proper lawyer.

5:00 p.m.
Telephone call from second opposing counsel, requesting adjournment. Thinking of Rules of Professional Conduct, I agree. Opposing counsel amazed, says I am most agreeable person he has dealt with all month. Am pushover, cannot be proper lawyer.

8:30 p.m.
Last remaining non-lawyer friend calls to ask whether I got tickets to upcoming show as promised. Pause. Consider how to get out of promise. Speak with bright, bossy tone: "Yes, yes, I did assume responsibility for that matter. However, you undertook to advise me as to whether we would be joined by third parties. As that undertaking was left unfulfilled, I reasonably believed that my responsibilities had been waived." Friend, disgusted, hangs up. Feel pang of guilt. Feel pang of emptiness because once-vibrant social life has died. Stare out window. Decide pangs are related to hunger. Consume engineered food bar for dinner. Read back issues of The Lawyer.

10:00 p.m.
Must complete opinion letter. Will not, under any circumstances, leave work until opinion letter is beautiful, finished product.

11:00 p.m.
Opinion letter almost done. Have written succinct introductory paragraph, and set out convenient headings. Must just insert actual opinion. Could work until 2:00 a.m. to get it done. Much better, though, to arrive very early next morning, when mind will be fresh and rejuvenated. In fact, going home is in client's best interests; assuredly I will work more efficiently tomorrow. Take taxi home. Realise I have forgotten office password for credit charge. Must pay driver with change. Driver annoyed, refuses to give receipt.

3:30 a.m.
Unable to sleep. Too worried about how to claim taxi fare without benefit of taxi receipt. Wonder if time spent worrying about this can be recorded to any file...

My wife forwarded to me a message from the Pinoylaw mailing list about a recent decision that went against The Medical City for a botched surgery that occurred more than twenty years ago. In Professional Services Inc., v. Sps. Agana (G.R. No. 126297, January 31, 2007),  a patient brought about a malpractice suit against two doctors and the hospital in which she convalesced after surgeons left two pieces of gauze in her abdominal cavity following cancer surgery. In finding for the patient, the Supreme Court ruled that in such a case, only the lead surgeon is responsible for the negligent acts of surgeons brought in for a consult or assistance during a surgery, as it is his responsibility to make sure that all foreign objects are removed from the body before closing surgery, and that as regards to hospitals and medical malpractice cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians, such that in this case the hospital must be considered to be secondarily liable for the mistakes of doctors operating under it.

What to me is interesting about this and other medical malpractice cases is that the patients who suffer from the incompetence of trigger-happy surgeons often have to wait a substantial amount of time before they can receive adequate relief. In this case, the spouses Aganas filed suit in 1984, and through legal maneuvering, it has taken more than twenty two years for the case to finally reach finality. The patient in this case died in 1986, and I seriously doubt whether the monetary award in this case is sufficient to soothe the pain of protracted litigation. I also doubt whether the award is enough for hospitals nationwide to consider remedial measures sufficient to prevent such an occurrence from happening again. What hurts most is that despite efforts by the judiciary to streamline case disposition, all one needs is a determined litigant and protracted litigation is a guarantee.

I’ve noticed that a significant amount of standard operating procedure in other countries develops through time as a compilation of knowledge with regard to tort avoidance. In this country, all that matters is statutory compliance, and damn the torpedoes with regard to negligence and other torts. Maybe the exemplary damages being imposed by courts nowadays aren’t enough. It’s a thesis topic, I’m sure.

Another case that grabbed my attention recently was that of PCGG v. Desierto (G. R. No. 135213, January 22, 2007). I won’t go into the details of the case but suffice it to say that a unanimous court on Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 overturned a decision of Desierto dismissing a complaint against several Marcos henchmen. The Office of the Ombudsman seems to be a pretty lonely position to me. It’s a damned if you do damned if you don’t kind of thing. If you’re a strict Ombudsman who refuses to proceed with a case unless it’s airtight, then you’re the kind of Ombudsman that lets people get away with graft and corruption. If you prosecute people left and right, you’re a witch hunter with an axe to grind, damned whatever the law may say. Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales comes to mind as an example of the latter. That being said, I think we should hold public officials to a higher standard, and a review of the investigatory process in the Office of the Ombudsman is in order.

Also of interest is First Aqua Traders, Inc., v. Bank of the Philippine Islands (G.R. No. 154034, February 5, 2007), which affirms the ruling in Neypes v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 141524, 14 September 2005), holding that a party-litigant has a fresh period of fifteen days from the receipt of the denial of a motion for reconsideration or new trial within which to perfect an appeal (this ruling is a departure from the old rule that the filing of a motion for reconsideration or new trial merely suspends the running of the period within which an appeal must be filed).

In basketball terms, instead of calling a ball that is almost intercepted and goes out of bounds as an incident that merely puts the ball out of bounds, the new rule places such an incident on the level of a ball deliberately kicked out of bounds that necessitates the resetting of the shot clock.

I personally like this new rule. It makes for easier recitation in class. Now all one has to remember is that you have fifteen days from the last order denying all available remedies within one court within which to perfect one’s appeal, even if the perfection of the appeal means filing a document that is only one page long. Sometimes, an appeal isn't just a matter of filing that document - it takes a renewed commitment on the part of the litigant to even more protracted litigation.

Today, I got email from my favorite young lawyer-activist, Tanya Lat, who always seems to have her head and heart in the right place at the right time. She warns, citing Conrad de Quiros, of an Anti-Terror Bill that is designed to strike fear into the heart of any student activist (now known as a *gasp* - terror cell) threatening to bomb some state-run school once again because he spent all night spraying agitprop slogans all over the Metro instead of studying for tomorrow's exams. This actually happened more than once in college, and I think the students were happier not for the added security (hassle!) but for the fact that we had yet another day of loafing around in our hands without the attendant academic responsibility.

No matter what the motivation, I think a Benjamin Franklin quote is appropriate: "A people who are willing to sacrifice individual liberty for security deserve to gain nothing and lose both." In college, when we acquiesced to the added "security measures" to prevent any "untoward incidents", we lost a lot of the vibe that had kept the place humming - the avenues for interaction between students, faculty, and other students were some of the most intimate and interactive I'd ever witnessed in a school - changed for the worse. In the end, the administration kept twiddling its thumbs waiting for the bomb that never came and the students... found other ways to interact outside campus.

Seriously, I hope the political leadership today gets a close look at what's happening in the United States - the terror "threat" is mostly right-wing media hype, and a creation of Karl Rove. With the backlash against neoconservatism right now threatening to spill over into the next US elections, those who want to play the US patsy card may want to think twice (and this is an often used refrain in any society dealing with the US) = what the US wants now isn't what it will want tomorrow (because it is a democracy, and people in a democracy have a right to change their minds 180 degrees on a subject especially if they've been as misled as they have been for the past six years). Call the Bush administration on its pledge of support for "positive" legislation now, be in the doghouse in less than a year, after the Presidents Spouses Clinton retake the White House. Smells like a snafu waiting to happen to me.

I wonder what the self-interest cards involved have to show in all of this, and if the military will want to play its hand before the current warmongers in Washington exit stage left (Haven't they already though? The Democrat-controlled Congress, after years of pointless partisan bickering, now refuses to do anything that comes from George's mouth). I also wonder if this is a political trade-off for the quiet acquiesence of the Palace to the Senate's further belt-tightening measures in the 2007 budget. It certainly has all the signs - lose a little income now (from the reallocations) to gain much more later (off conversion in the long-awaited upgrade package from Uncle Sam, which by the way is bound to last longer than reallocated larceny).

If this is a concession toward the military for their continued support throughout what may be a difficult election period (to keep the results sufficiently skewed, considering how unpopular GMA continues to be), I think eggs may land on faces quite faster than you can say Humpy Dumpy. Don't say I didn't warn y'all.