Philippines News and Information - Pinoy.com.ph

Pinoy Recipes

Opinion

The Professor I Thought I Learned Nothing

The Professor I Thought I Learned Nothing[1]

One of the most difficult acceptances that we have to make is the truth of the fact that we have committed a mistake. Well, I am guilty as charged of this grave abuse of discretion and/or wanton palpable mistake or error (as we law students would like to call it) by adjudging that one of my law professors is simply wasting our time by just being too nice and nonchalant in class, joking all the time (though most of his jokes makes us laugh our hearts out), putting a classmate called for recitation on spotlight to entertain us, asking a classmate to go to the legal aid clinic to look for the meaning of a word found in one of the SCRA cases assigned to us and basically by just asking simple questions (like the place/s you have traveled or would want to travel) only for the one reciting to realize that the place where he/she has been or would want to be is the place of the event of the case he would want you to recite on. I wonder then, why he could not just simply asks you to recite on a particular assigned case. Why does he need to have a lot of introductions ( like the personal life of the person reciting, his/her love life ( which is the fave topic), places he/she has been or would want to travel, whether she has rode a plane or not, undergraduate course, school etc.) when we law students live up to that old cliché that “time is gold”. He takes note of the “ums” and the “ahs” of the person reciting, asks another classmate to tabulate them (which most of the time is Celine, Joan or Jan in our class), sums them all up and laughs at the fact that in about 10 minutes or less, there are about 50 t0 60 “ums” and “ahs” delivered. He allows a classmate who is not prepared to tell him that he/she is sick and would want to go to the clinic and escape with so much ease and comfort that dreadful fact of not being able to read the assigned case and recite on it (I’m also guilty of this =). He throws a lot of questions and doctrines regarding a particular case of conflict of laws, yet he does not answer them. My cases are full of written questions unanswered by him which makes it more difficult to understand the topic and the foreign SC decisions that I read. To sum it all up, this professor is so unlikely of my other professors whom I’d rather be absent and be called for recitation the next meeting than be called that day and be caught unprepared and endure the consequence of being shouted at and embarrassed in front of my other classmates. Most of our professors at UST would not allow a student with flimsy reasons to evade a recitation or if you are a student endowed with so much confidence (or perhaps arrogance), to tell a professor that you are not prepared, they would not hesitate nor think twice to simply give you a 60 or even a 50 for recitation coupled with anger or simply a smug smile and worst to have the impression on you of a student unbecoming of a lawyer someday and simply fail you at their discretion. I guess I am used to the conventional way of professors calling us everyday to test our knowledge of doctrines and principles of the law and thereafter follow it with supplemental discussions for us to better understand and appreciate the law. Every meeting with most of our professors is formal and serious, the ideal classroom ambiance of every educational institution whose purpose is to educate and teach students of a particular erudition. That is why this professor who is so lax inside the classroom is a blatant contradiction of that “old school” ambiance I am used to. I have made a lot of blunders and faux pas in my life. The numbers I can’t even imagine. My own boo-boos start from little things like a wrong word blunted which caused a rift with a friend, insensitivity, paranoia, which led eventually to bigger oversights and muddles like an iniquitous manner of uttering a phrase which hurt a few important people in my life, inadvertent omissions of gestures of appreciation and regard for love ones, betrayal and pride which caused a failed relationship, the wanton act of non-forgiveness and deliberate intent to hurt an old love which is probably a unilateral conclusion of a closure long deprived of me and a lot more which would probably take eternity to ponder on. I am aware that as long as a breathe, everyday is an opportunity of committing more and more errors of judgment, haphazard decisions and premeditated, non premeditated or perhaps even accidental occasions of hurting people close to my heart or perhaps even strangers in my life. Going back, the reason why I was ranting on this is because it was yesterday, March 15, 2007 to be exact, that I realized and admitted a blunder and a sin, an occasion which is not a frequent thought my mind entertains. I was thinking twice of attending my conflict of law class yesterday thinking that an hour would be again wasted by an entertainment uncalled for these days as the final exams is forthcoming. Well, one of my admissions of mistake is that I am glad I did attended class. What I felt and realized in an hour’s time is my second admission of a very glaring grave abuse of discretion, misjudgment on my part of a professor whom I felt earlier on to have been parting no knowledge on us, particularly me as his student and the patently barefaced reality that he has imparted more than that of what he is obligated and paid for to teach us. He cited the case of Eastern Insurance in which he amusingly told us that he wonders if students ever noticed that in that particular case, the Supreme Court was discussing and analyzing what came first, a train or an automobile. Our professor glaringly told us that we law students tend to ignore the fact of fun in studying and reading the long line of cases assigned to us that we fail to notice such an interesting trivia only because we are more concerned of the literal facts of the case coupled with resentment of being assigned volumes of cases and wondering how we can remember each of them when we are called to recite without jumbling and twisting their facts altogether. I realized then how correct he can be. Personally, I complained a lot for having to be assigned long line of cases, concentrate on the literal facts of the case and rely to digested cases which in his words are “done by some unreliable individual” by reason of which I fail to truly appreciate and understand the case. The supposed fun of learning is replaced by irritation, impatience, frustration and exasperation bundled in one which is definitely a deadly malevolent attitude in the study of law. Such mind-set is one of the hindrances of becoming a good first-class A.T.T.Y. someday. Next thing he told us was how to see problems as opportunities just like how the old genius folks thought of improving their big boxed rotary type television set with colorful ones with remote control nowadays with which we can simply sit back, relax and enjoy all the more one of the modes of entertainment technology offers. He cited next the famous Globe Telecom case regarding interconnection problems. In this case, Globe was accused by Smart, another telecommunications provider, of manipulating their cable connections as to give its subscribers a hard time connecting with another provider thus discouraging patronage over other providers and causing interconnection problems which is an unfriendly competition in a free market. He interrelated this case about our stance as law students. That being a law student in pursuit of communal and equity justice, we must couple our flowery words with responsible actions. That if we believe that we can make a change in the real obscure boorish world out there, it has to start with each one of us, it has to start now. He told us that when he went here to Manila from Baguio to continue his law studies, he was optimistic and was hoping to be held in awe and amazement by students here whom he expects to be more intelligent, more diverse and more broadminded. Students here in Manila gives an impression to students in the provinces that being educated here gives them an edge just like an old provincialism thought that a life here in Manila is always a far-off better life than in the province. He corrected this misconception and notion by telling us that we should not be too proud to feel that we will be graduating students of the Faculty of Civil Law of UST. That being graduates of UST is not a reason to be arrogant, conceited and over-confident because we have not accomplished much enough to act as if we have reached the other side of the world effortlessly. There is still the preparation for the Bar Examinations and the agony of waiting for its results. And even if we did make it to the Bar, take our oath and sign the roll of attorneys to be full pledged lawyers, it does not stop there. He encouraged us to give vindication of the fact that we are Thomasians by words and deeds simultaneously. He advanced the theory, of which I agree without any hesitation, that it is not the name of the school that we should be proud of but it should be us making the school proud. It is only when we try to harmoniously incorporate Thomasian principles and philosophies in our way of living and emulates the same can we be proud of being students of UST and only then can we be rightful to be called true Thomasians. He reminded us that when we decided to enter the university to embark on the challenge of dissecting the intricacies of our law, we have committed ourselves to this and thus, we must not forget that commitment. We are committed to keep an open-mind and freethinking outlook with a vow to promote social justice. He told us to be reminiscent of how interesting our field of study is and that there should never be regret or resentment in reading as it is in reading that we acquaint ourselves with new fascinating words which should be one of our motivations of learning and expanding our knowledge, comprehension and familiarity with the principles of law so as to encounter no difficulty on its application. His speech of wisdom which started with his reminiscing of the good old days when it still was the song “Manila Manila” famous then, recapitulation of the fact of low technology in his time to recognition of how high tech it is at present, citation of “Ali Mall” as the only mall two decades ago in comparison of the big malls of our generation and with UST being at par with other schools for having SM San Lazaro(“,), ended though with his affirmation of regard for the students’ incessant optimism to adapt to the continuous never-ending changes of time. I was wrong to think that our professor, whose manner, method and point of view with regard to the study of law is atypical than the conventional way of teaching, is unjustly squandering my self declared sacred time. I am humbled by my professor’s challenge and for this realization, I will be forever grateful to him. For being and giving inspiration, thank you *Atty. Rene B. Gorospe.[2]

[1] Author of the above is an incoming 4^th yr law student of the Faculty of Civil Law, UST, Supreme Lady Archon of the Lex Aequitas Sorority, the proud wife of Atty. Angelo Carig and a mom to our little Joshua

[2] Atty. Rene B. Gorospe has been a member of the Faculty of Civil Law, UST for 30 yrs now, Adviser of the prestigious Law Review, a mentor, a friend and the adviser of the Lex Aequitas Sorority.