Chat thrills

Seems looks like it's not just the fratboy Law students in danger of having their lives turned upside down as a result of the hazing death of Horacio Castillo, their neophyte.

The public has been riveted with accounts of Horacio's body being driven to the hospital then left unattended, his future fraternity brothers leaving the country and coming back, senior members being pilloried by opposing counsel in unrelated proceedings and counter-suits consequently being filed. What a circus!

But it's not yet over; here comes the Senate investigation. (Let's not get into the matter of how the Senate will fine-tune the existing law against hazing – I haven't the patience to even read it).

From testimonies this week, it seems like even lawyers will likely land in hot water. These lawyers, probably newly initiated into the legal fraternity but still deeply steeped in their university fraternity dogma, were dragged into a Facebook chat with 30 other fratmates. From then on, it was downhill.

Unfortunately, the code of omerta followed by the frat wasn't as strict as the Mafia's, and all the details of the chat were delivered to the prosecution.

(Note to self: Leave chatroom whenever things start to go hoary, and don't stay by the wayside, transfixed by salacious details. Better note to self: Stop riding along juvenile chats and contributing inane and/or lame thoughts. People who don't know you might think that's the real you).

These lawyers had deigned to advise their junior brothers, impressionable Law students, along the veins of "deny everything" and "tell no one." There were also instructions to clean up the scene, scrub out traces, avoid detection. Uh-oh. I can already expect the disciplinary action to be taken by the bereaved parents of Horacio. Disbarment proceedings in the Supreme Court, coming up!

One might argue they were giving legal advice and hence, it was privileged communication, enjoying attorney-client privilege. That argument might work to prevent revelation, but here, the cat's already out of the bag, purring in the Senate floor.

The Justices would probably take a dim view of members of the legal profession proffering legal advice that, as categorized already by Chief Superintendent Joel Coronel and a couple of senators, basically amounts to obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence.

The lawyers probably thought they were safe in the midst of their own. But a tattletale was in their midst.

That reminds me of this senator's sister who had a meltdown in a chatgroup. The sister (although it could have well been the senator) started by insulting fellow lawyers for their lack of intelligence, lack of doctoral degrees, and lack of academic pedigree, and promptly descended unto bad hairstyles, and lack of gorgeous looks.

Then she threatened a police report for terrorist leanings, but quickly disappeared from the scene when she was counter-threatened with a report to Dutch authorities. I kept screenshots for posterity, knowing it would be great for laughs decades down the road. (I can let curious fans read the discourse for a small fee, of course.)

I was also aghast after a thread I was following and commenting on was submitted for disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer who said unflattering remarks against a doctor. There I was, quickly checking whether my peanut gallery impulses had translated into something equally reprehensible.

(Final note to self: Stop being lulled by the privacy of a chatroom and the comfort of friends chattering around. At the end of the day, basic decency should guide one's actions. You never know when your chat's going to pop up in court!) [email protected]