Other side of the Causing case-6

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

 

Yesterday I asked a hypothetical question whether Lopez and Pugoy have sadistic tendencies. Why this conjecture? Well, their sworn statements uniformly say that Nico had “installed several persons to stay therein and until now, these persons are still there enjoying the comfort of the subject Townhouse.”

Sadism is getting satisfaction in the suffering of others. How could they consider living in a townhouse without water or electricity “enjoying” in comfort? Where did they study? What moral philosophy shaped their values?

We can imagine their pride and sense of satisfaction and accomplishment that they were able to force the Causings to leave the apartment without going through the legal processes. We can likewise picture Olivia beaming with her pyrrhic victory and enjoying the thought that she had won again by using force rather than law. She must have been satisfied with the handiwork of her factotum Lopez and legal adviser Pugoy, until this case was filed and they began resorting to words that would make their deed not only legal but even compassionate. Isn’t that crafty, even cowardly?

Do Lopez and Pugoy have electricity and water connections in their houses? Would they be content without them?

Their answer is important because it reveals a state of mind of a person who would consider the actual, physical and psychological misery of another as comfortable living to the extent that they would not feel any compunction in depriving their victims of these essential elements of humane existence. Don’t people’s words and actions reveal their values?

This portion of their defense is really unnecessary and uncalled for. On the other hand, it exposes a callousness that explains why they consider they had done no harm to Nico and family (even gave water in containers) when they followed orders. Of course, they can justify that they were observers, but Lopez is the alter-ego of Olivia and Pugoy is Olivia’s lawyer.

Lopez claims that the case against her was filed to harass her because she represents Olivia Yanson. She conveniently downplays her role in this plot to oust the Causings outside the rule of law.

Lopez represents Olivia; that already carries a plenitude of authority of the person represented. Lopez, by her own words, when she filed the complaint against Nico Causing, is the attorney-in-fact of Olivia, the legal persona of Olivia, the alter ego of her boss. She was in effect, Olivia Yanson being there overseeing that the order was complied with.

Lopez had even the gall to declare that they just disconnected water and electricity but Nico and his family were not prevented from staying there. Can she stay in that apartment without water and electricity and tell the world she is comfortable and happy and not terrorized, deprived and distressed? Or would she not leave immediately like the Causings, or any other sane person, getting out so fast they had to leave their belongings behind?

Only when she can truthfully say she is happy under primitive living conditions in a city and a mere onlooker can she swear the accusations against her are baseless, unfounded and unwarranted. Did she not triumphantly report immediately to Olivia, “mission accomplished” and felt proud of what was done? Olivia probably was happy with that as she was satisfied forcing her four children into a state of constant distress.

Since Pugoy echoes Lopez (or vice-versa), what about him? Need we say more? I can understand because there are lawyers who feel proud and mighty winning a case than fighting for justice. It is a hollow victory albeit profitable. It is said since ancient times that the end does not justify the means. In this case, the end and the means are not justified.

I raised issues for Lopez and Pugoy that they might like to respond to. They have filed their counter-affidavits but my commentaries are from a different perspective, the human and reasonable view consistent with our being people with feelings and a sense of moral justice. Mine is not a court of law but of public opinion, my comments not just “in the interest of substantial justice” that they pleaded with the City Prosecutor, but the essence of justice that in the words of Shakespeare, “blesses him that gives and him that takes.”

Continued on December 3.