Illegal in some jurisdictions

Note that ambulance chasers do not advise victims to file criminal charges but, rather, civil action for damages. Why? Because there is no money in representing an injured person if the only objective is to send to prison the person who caused the injury. The money is in the civil action where the judge (or jury) makes a pronouncement as to an amount to compensate the injured party. For his professional fee, the lawyer gets a percentage of the amount.

In other words, for the ambulance chaser, the law suit is not so much about justice but the amount of professional fee he will get if he wins the case for his client. It is, therefore, quite usual for an ambulance chasing lawyer to ask for an exorbitant amount of money in the complaint. It is also quite usual to exaggerate the injury by claiming that the victim suffered mental anguish, shock, anxiety and other analogous state in order to recover moral damages over and above the compensatory damages.

Ambulance chasing is, therefore, illegal in some jurisdictions.

Butt of jokes

Urban Dictionary has a picturesque definition:

A mental disease infecting lawyers, attorneys and others in the legal profession. Symptoms to be on the watch for include:

1) Hurrying to disaster sites to offer legal assistance, and:

2) Advertising heavily on television commercials, often using self-degrading nicknames such as “The Strong Arm”.

Then, there’s this joke:

Two lawyers met at a cocktail party late one night.

“How’s business?” asked the first.

“Rotten,” replied the other. “Yesterday, I chased an ambulance for twenty miles. When I finally caught up to it, there were already two other lawyer hanging on to the bumper.”

No, the new law does not define a new crime, a.k.a. internet libel. It merely says that libel, as already defined in the Revised Penal Code, may also be committed online.

No, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 does not say that citizens, including journalists, cannot criticize politicians and government officials whether online, on print or on the air. There is a world of difference between libel and criticism. If you’re not a lawyer and you have no time to dissect the nitty gritty of statutory construction, there’s only one thing you need to know to avoid the commission of libel — criticize a specific act or acts, never the person. Calling someone names is libelous. But calling someone out, Tito Sotto, for instance, for committing plagiarism, especially when the evidence is publicly documented, or calling Sotto’s anti-RH Bill arguments benighted, illogical and medieval is not libelous.

The full text of R.A. 10175.

Sottofied: “Plagiarizing content from bloggers but passively aggressively denying any relevance of said-blogger, claiming they also ripped off that what they posted.”

And then, there’s sottonism which is defined as 1. the act of avoiding originality at all costs or 2. something copy pasted or Google translated.

*Cheers*

The NZ Catholic Bishops objects (it’s an organization; ergo, singular — ‘wag na umangal).

*Facepalm*

Reference: New Zealand Herald

But the striking off the record is accompanied by a threat to come up with a bill to “regulate” blogging in the Philippines — a move supported by the Senate President, Juan Ponce Enrile.

The Senate President said, “Magpanukala tayo ng batas at ilagay natin doon kung ano ang mga karapatan ng mga may blogs para sa ganoon ay maliwanag.” (Let us make a law and let us put there the rights of those with blogs so it’s clear.) [Rappler]

I’m taking this in “context.”

Karapatan (right) is two-pronged. Once rights are enumerated, what’s not enumerated is not a right. And in the context of recent events, it would be very naive to presume that this will be something in our favor. I’m already expecting a witch hunt.

Surprising? From one perspective, no, not really. Marcos did the same move in the past — with a mass media (no internet and blogs back in the 70s) that was critical of him. So this is just a repeat performance. The Senate is now following the Marcos playbook step by step. And why not? The Senate President was Marcos’ Secretary of Defense. He is well versed with Marcos’ tactics.

I don’t know how to explain it anymore. Creativity on the internet grew because it was allowed to grow at its own pace. Without intervention. But that’s not their concern, is it? This is really an image and ego issue — ayaw mapahiya because there’s the next election to look forward to. It isn’t blogs that need watching, it is the commission of cyber crimes. I get plagiarized almost everyday, sometimes, even by major dailies (Bulletin, case in point). And I fight tooth and nail to get plagiarists’ websites shut down or, at the very least, have the stolen materials taken down from their sites. But how do people who have no experience with what it’s like even begin to comprehend? And they have — what — staff like Villacorta et al? The staff will tell them which is which and what is what? You know very well how Pinoy plagiarists will now quote Sotto.

BUT.

This isn’t between JPE and me, or Sotto and me. This is between them and a world, my world right now, a world they seem unable to fathom, not for lack of intelligence (at least in JPE’s case) but just because naunahan na ng ego at machismo.

And, yes, I have to say “they” because I see no one among the senators who’s openly questioning the posturings of Sotto. Even Miriam Santiago, from whom I expected more, was defending him.

The obvious thing is that they haven’t got a clue what they’re getting into. And I’m not about to enlighten them. What they sow, they will reap. In time. In a very short time.

*Updated @11.42 p.m.

But that’s not the worst part. From the same linked report:

Meanwhile, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago also came to Sotto’s defense over the plagiarism issue.

“Speechwriter must have overlooked/forgot to include the word ‘allegedly’. But this is not the academe where plagiarism is a mortal sin. We should give leeway in politics, as long as later on the source is acknowledged.” she said.

Wow, so we bloggers hold a higher standard. In the world of blogs, sources are linked, especially in case of blockquotes. And not as an afterthought but in real time.

Why, Senator Santiago, I believe that is an admission that the Senate has a lower ethical standard than the academe.

Though Akin said Monday that he understands that women can become pregnant from rape, he also said that his main mistake was using the word “legitimate,” not implying that rape can’t result in pregnancy. The word he meant to use, he told Mike Huckabee on Monday, is “forcible.” [Yahoo! News]

Does one really have to qualify rape as forcible? In other words, is there really any other kind? Except in case of statutory rape where consent may have been freely given, whether the victim was conscious or unconscious at the time of the rape, the act itself would be an act of force — physically or mentally, or both — because the only thing that allows for the rape to be committed is by overpowering the victim, i.e., rendering the victim helpless. If that’s not force… is there a different English dictionary out there?

Damn politicians.

But back to Akin… he did apologize which really doesn’t make him a smarter or better human being but more along the lines of… really desperate to stay in the senatorial race.

It’s just a blog and has no copyright, says Sotto. [PDI]

Mr. Sotto (regretfully or not, I cannot address you as “Senator” nor “Honorable” as that would be a disgrace to the title and the salutation), it’s sad that you became a senator — a lawmaker — without even knowing the most basic of all legal principles. Ignorance of the law is no excuse from compliance therewith. And you are clearly ignorant of intellectual property law. What a sad irony.

Enough said.

I said it was the wrong way to argue because civil marriage grants legal rights and statuses, and these are the very things denied to same-sex couples, not the right to love and happiness which is within everyone’s reach with or without marriage.

Here’s another proof to affirm my previous statement. From The Wall Street Journal Law blog:

Edie Windsor filed a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act in 2010, after the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer. (The two were married in Canada in 2007.)

Ms. Spyer left her all her property to Ms. Windsor. Typically, an estate passes between spouses without a federal estate tax, but because DOMA only recognizes marriages as between a man and a woman, Ms. Windsor was assessed more than $363,000.

Fortunately for Ms. Windsor, the case landed in the sala of a judge who understands the law and who ruled in her favor.

In short, whether or not same-sex marriage is declared legal is an issue that affects property relations between same-sex couples as well as their right to inherit from one another.

Facts

Employee was incorrigible, habitually tardy, often absent and, worse, willfully disobedient on more than one occasion. He was eventually dismissed after he stopped reporting for work following the receipt of a memorandum from the employer giving him 24 hours to “explain.”

Noteworthy portions of the decision

1. Security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution but it is not an absolute rule and cannot be used as a legal shield by an employee who has exhibited habitual tardiness and absenteeism, and willful disobedience.

2. Citing Merin v. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 171790, October 17, 2008), the Supreme Court expounds on the principle of “totality of infractions”:

The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses committed by petitioner should not be taken singly and separately. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other. While it may be true that petitioner was penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee’s past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty.

3. The employer, however, is not exempt from observing due process for every infraction. The Supreme Court found the memorandum asking for a written explanation within 24 hours to be unreasonable.

… there is no indication that Graphics, Inc. [employer] issued a second notice, informing the petitioner of his dismissal. The respondents admit that Graphics, Inc. decided to terminate the petitioner’s employment after he ceased reporting for work from the time he received the memorandum requiring him to explain and subsequent to his failure to submit a written explanation. However, there is nothing on record showing that Graphics, Inc. placed its decision to dismiss in writing and that a copy thereof was sent to the petitioner.

And, on that basis, the Supreme Court ordered the employer to pay the dismissed employee the fixed amount of P30,000.00 if the dismissal was for a just cause but there is lack of due process.

Wow. The employee was habitually tardy and absent, he was often willfully disobedient, he stopped reporting for work rather than explain his side… and he had the audacity to sue his employer and WON P30,000.00 in damages. Amazing shit.