Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices : January 2012

Monday, January 30, 2012

Lorna Schofield, One of National Law Journal’s 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers and Nominee for Federal District Court Judge, Southern District of NY

"x x x.

SHE’S been hailed as a Super Lawyer, referenced as one of the top trial attorneys in the nation, and the National Law Journal named her as one of the 50 most influential minority lawyers in the US.

Fil-Am Attorney Lorna Schofield, a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton in New York City, has pretty much done it all inside and outside a courtroom -- from representing star clients like Rosie O’Donnell, to prosecuting African American radicals, to winning million-dollar lawsuits on behalf of her clients. Schofield, who was also the first Asian-American President of the American Bar Association (ABA), has solidified her spot as a one of the top attorneys in the nation.

Easy choice

It’s easy to see why a New York Senator, a Congresswoman from California and several national organizations gushed over her qualifications, when NY Senator Charles Schumer recommended Schofield to President Barack Obama, to serve as a federal district court judge for the Southern District of New York.

“As a top-flight lawyer and former Assistant US Attorney, Schofield has had a distinguished legal career and would make a fantastic judge,” said Schumer in a statement on his website.

“When I select judges, I always look for three things – excellence, diversity, and moderation – and Schofield exemplifies all of these qualities. I’m pleased to recommend her to President Obama for the Southern District Bench.”

Praise came from all directions since the news broke, from professional organizations like the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) and the Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), nationally recognized community groups The National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA) and KAYA: Filipino Americans for Progress.

Even Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), released a statement applauding Senator Schumer’s decision to recommend Schofield to the White House as a potential nominee for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

“Lorna Schofield is an exceptional candidate, whose nomination would be a positive step towards addressing the glaring need for greater diversity in New York’s judiciary,” said Congresswoman Chu.

If nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the US Senate, Schofield will become the first Filipino-American in the history of the United States to serve as a federal judge.

Each organizations preached, not only about Schofield’s stellar qualifications, but also about the importance of diversity in the federal judicial level.

“It’s important for people who are involved in the justice system – lawyers, litigants and judges – to see lawyers of every type leading the profession,” said Schofield to The College Magazine at Indiana University, her alma mater.

“The message is that our legal system is open and accessible to all, whether they come as advocates or litigants. Because the world we live in is diverse, and becoming increasingly so. We can learn from each other. Every unique perspective brings something valuable to the table.”

This unique perspective, that Schofield can bring, is the reason why so many organizations and individuals have applauded Sen. Schumer’s recommendation. The numbers don’t lie. In the New York City area, ten percent of the population is Asian Pacific American yet of the over 90 active and senior Article III judges currently serving the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, none is Asian Pacific American in the Southern District and only one is Asian Pacific American in the Eastern District, according to the NAPABA and AAJC.

Schofield not only brings a diverse background, but also strength from a resilient upbringing, which has propelled to the top of her profession.

Personal life, education and career

Schofield’s mother was Priscilla Tiangco Schofield, and she was from Batangas, Philippines.

After marrying a US Serviceman, Lorna was born in Fort Wayne, Indiana and grew up in New Haven, Indiana.

Her father had left the family when she was only three years old and her mother, rather than going back to the Philippines, stayed in the midwest to raise her daughter.

“My mother came to the United States because of her idealism about the country that had saved hers during World War II, and remained here, I believe, because of the stigma and shame she would have suffered had she returned to the Philippines as a divorced woman,” Schofield told The College Magazine at Indiana University. “She was a pharmacist and stressed achievement, independence and self-sufficiency as essential values.”

Schofield excelled in school. As a double-major in German and English, she graduated from Indiana University magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa.

She went on to earn her law degree from New York University Law School where she served as an editor of the NYU Law Review.

While working for the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York as an Assistant US Attorney in the Criminal Division, she handled several cases involving commercial or financial fraud. According to her bio, during the height of the Iran-Contra scandal, she prosecuted 10 arms dealers, who were charged with defrauding the US Government to sell arms to Iran.

Success and the possibility of making history

She joined Debevoise & Plimpton where she became a partner in 1991.

At Debevoise & Plimpton, she specializes in General Commercial Litigation; White Collar Criminal Defense/Internal Investigations; Bankruptcy Litigation; and Class Actions.

One of her most famous trials was the successful defense of celebrity Rosie O’Donnell in a $100-million lawsuit brought by the former publishers of Rosie Magazine.

With such a stellar litigate career, now, several of those organizations are awaiting to see if she is able to take that next step as a federal judge and make history.

“If confirmed by the US Senate, she would make history,” said NaFFAA national chair Ed Navarra. “Given that Asian Americans are significantly underrepresented in the federal judiciary, her addition would greatly enhance the judiciary’s diversity.”

“We are confident that Ms. Schofield’s life experience will be inspiring and immensely enriching to the US District Court,” said Gloria Caoile, a civil rights advocate from Nevada.

(www.asianjournal.com)

(LA Weekend Jan 28-31, 2012 Sec A pg.10)

x x x."

Friday, January 27, 2012

As demands for justice grow, UN must usher in new era of respect for the law – Ban

"x x x.

19 January 2012 –

The United Nations must respond as the demands for justice around the world grow, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today, calling for ushering in a new era of respect for the rule of law.

“We have to create a world where the rule of law, social justice, accountability and a culture of prevention will be the foundations of sustainable development and durable peace,” Mr. Ban stated in his remarks to the Security Council meeting on the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict settings.

“It will take commitment from the international community and the Security Council to see that justice is done where justice is due,” he added.

There is no silencing this cry for justice. Repression only raises the volume.

Mr. Ban noted that today’s debate, organized by the South African presidency of the Council, comes at a time of “breathtaking” political change driven by peoples’ calls for accountability, transparency and the rule of law.

x x x."

Rules of American justice: a tale of three cases - Salon.com

"x x x.

The Rules of American Justice are quite clear:

(1) If you are a high-ranking government official who commits war crimes, you will receive full-scale immunity, both civil and criminal, and will have the American President demand that all citizens Look Forward, Not Backward.

(2) If you are a low-ranking member of the military, you will receive relatively trivial punishments in order to protect higher-ranking officials and cast the appearance of accountability.

(3) If you are a victim of American war crimes, you are a non-person with no legal rights or even any entitlement to see the inside of a courtroom.

(4) If you talk publicly about any of these war crimes, you have committed the Gravest Crime — you are guilty of espionage – and will have the full weight of the American criminal justice system come crashing down upon you.

x x x."

When to Hire a Lawyer for Business Matters (and when to Do it Yourself)! | SBA.gov Community

"x x x.

Here are some guidelines to help you know which legal business issues you can probably handle independently and when it’s really time to retain a lawyer.

Legal Issues You Can Handle on Your Own

This is not an exhaustive list, but it covers items you can probably take care of on your own, and government resources that can help.

1. Naming your business and claiming a trademark – The process of naming a business isn’t as simple as just picking a name and running with it. If you choose any name other than your own, you’ll need to file a “Doing Business As” Name. This guide explains how to: Register your Fictitious or “Doing Business As” Name. You should also check to see whether your choice for a URL (domain name) has been claimed already. You can do this on your own by searching the public WHOIS databaseof domain names. Once you have a unique domain name, follow these steps to claim it.

You can also search for and claim a trademark on your own. Use the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s trademark search tool to see if a similar name, or a variation of it, is trademarked. You can even claim a trademark yourself online. This blog explains how: Protect your Invention or Product - Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright Explained.

2. Legal structure for your business – Entering into a partnership agreement or forming an LLC can be done without legal assistance. You can also use the services of an online broker such as LegalZoom, MyCorporation, or The Company Corporation. These guides explain what you need to do:

3. Filing and registering the paperwork to start a business – Most of the legal steps involved in starting a business can be handled without the help of a lawyer. This includes applying for the right licenses and permits, registering your business for tax purposes, and applying for an Employer Identification Number (EIN). This step-by-step guide from SBA.gov explains what you need to do.

4. Creating contracts and non-disclosure agreements (NDA) – Customer contracts, partner or vendor agreements, and NDAs can all be prepared without the assistance of a lawyer. These blogs explain how:

5. Creating buy-sell agreements – If you are in a business partnership or an LLC with multiple owners, you’ll need a buy-sell agreement in place to protect you, in case a co-owner dies or wants to transfer ownership. Read more in: Buy-Sell Agreements – Does my Business Really Need One?

Other aspects of business ownership that can be handled without a lawyer include hiring employees or, independent contractors.

When it’s Time to Retain a Lawyer

While a lawyer and eager online brokers will be willing to help you with any of the items listed above, it may well be beneficial to bring in an attorney for more complex issues. These can include:

1. Forming a corporation - While you can often take care of the formation of a legal business entity such as an LLC or business partnership without legal help, forming a corporation with shareholders and a board is a more complex process. Articles of incorporation can be filed without lawyers, but the administrative side of managing the complex tax and legal requirements often requires the services of a corporate attorney.

2. Filing a Patent - Patents are expensive and time consuming. It can take years to get one approved. That’s why so often see “patent pending” messaging in the marketplace. So unless you are in the pharmaceutical or biotech industries, consider whether patenting your product actually gives you a major market advantage. Consult a patent attorney to help you evaluate your product and understand what rights you will achieve.

3. Litigation – This can include dealing with lawsuits by current or former employees or customers, discrimination or harassment lawsuits, environmental lawsuits, government investigations for legal violations, etc.

4. Buying or Selling a Business – Lawyers can help with negotiating sales agreements, lease agreements, and more.

Still have questions? Post them in the SBA Community Discussion Boards and be sure to subscribe to the Business Law Advisor blog.

Related Articles

About the Author

Caron Beesley is a small business owner, a writer, and marketing communications consultant. Caron works with the SBA.gov team to promote essential government resources that help entrepreneurs and small business owners start-up, grow and succeed."

The Globalization of American Law Firms – A Quick Guide to Attorney Immigration

"x x x.

This article focuses on non-immigrant visas (temporary visas as opposed to permanent residency visas typically known as “green cards”) since they are what firms typically seek for lawyers they are recruiting.

The H-1B visa
The H-1B is the main work visa for university-educated professionals. The 65,000 allotted H-1B visas can be claimed up to six months before each new fiscal year begins on October 1st. 20,000 extra visas are available to those receiving advanced degrees in the US (such as JD and LLM degrees) and universities and certain non-profit employers are exempt from the quotas. Applicants must be paid the prevailing wage for similarly employed professionals in the same metro area and employers must document they have the ability to pay the salary. If a lawyer is being recruited in to a position requiring a license, the license must be in hand before the application can be approved. Note that states vary significantly when it comes to foreign lawyers qualifying to take the bar exam and gain a license.

A foreign lawyer coming to the US to practice the lawyer’s home country law as a foreign legal consultant would only need to demonstrate he or she is qualified to practice that nation’s law.

H-1Bs can be extended for up to six years.

Treaty visas
Another popular visa strategy for hiring a foreign lawyer is to apply based on a treaty between the US and the lawyer’s home country.

Canadian and Mexican lawyers can apply for TN visas based on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). There are few restrictions except that a lawyer must be licensed either in the US or in the home country and the lawyer needs an employer sponsor in the US. There is no limit on the number of TNs that can be issued in a year and an applicant can apply for issuance of the TN classification on the spot at a US port of entry (usually at an airport or a land crossing).

Australian lawyers can apply for E-3 visas. The requirements for the E-3 are essentially the same as for the H-1B visa including possessing a license or showing that all requirements for licensure have been met except for providing a visa. Nationals of Singapore and Chile are granted a special H-1B visa category of their own with an annual allocation of over 5,000 visas.

And national of more than 50 countries are eligible for E-1 and E-2 visas. E-1 treaty trader visas are available to people from a country with a commercial trade treaty with the US who are engaged in trade between the US and the treaty country. Trade in services, such as legal services, is a permitted form of trade under the E-1 category. The employer must be majority-owned by nationals of the treaty country (and green card holders or dual citizens in the US don’t count). This then means that the E-1 is basically only available to foreign law firms with offices in the US or instances where a lawyer has her own practice and is contracting services out to other firms. The E-1 also requires a substantial volume of trade between the US and the treaty country. This might not be a problem for a US branch office of a foreign law firm as long as it can demonstrate that the majority of the work involves matters involving the treaty country.

E-2 treaty investor visas are based on the making of a substantial investment in a commercial enterprise in the US. Like the E-1, the majority of the ownership has to be in the hands of nationals of the treaty company. E-2 status is tied to the size of the investment. US immigration rules do not specify a dollar amount to qualify for the E-2, though if a foreign firm can demonstrate it has a business plan and can document adequate capital to run the office, this often will satisfy a consular officer.

The E-1 and E-2 are available to executives, managers and essential skills employees. This would normally include partners and attorneys with supervisory responsibilities. It would also include associates who have skill sets difficult to find in a local market.

Treaty visas generally have no limits on time.

Transfer cases
Law firms transferring in attorneys from an overseas office can take advantage of the L-1 intra-company transfer visa.

L-1 visa applicants must have a year of work in the last three with the transferring employer, the US and foreign officers must be related (i.e. a branch office, subsidiary, parent or have common ownership). The attorney must be joining in an executive, managerial or specialized knowledge capacity and if the business is a start up, the employer must show adequate capitalization.

To meet the executive, managerial or specialized knowledge requirement, the firm will want to show that the attorney will be managing paralegals and, if applicable, other attorneys. Attorneys who manage a “function” can also qualify even if no personnel are being managed. Attorney with unusual specialties and skill sets can also qualify as specialized knowledge employees if the firm can show that it would be impractical to find someone in the local market with a similar expertise.

To meet the requirement for a qualifying relationship, traditional branch offices are normally fine as are typical law firm partnerships and corporate structures where each office is owned 100% by the partnership or the corporation. Problems may arise, however, if the US and the foreign office operate under the same name but have different ownership structures. Many firms have offices that operate under the same name, but are independently owned and merely part of an alliance. These types of relationships will also not qualify.

L visas can be secured for five years (for specialized knowledge employees) or seven year (for executives and managers).

Visitors
Sometimes going through the complicated application process to obtain a work visa may not be necessary and an attorney can enter as a B-1 business visitor if he or she is coming over for a few days, weeks or months.

The applicant can be coming in for a variety of reasons including

Participating in seminars, conventions and conferences
Consulting with business associates or clients
Assisting clients negotiating contracts
Engaging in independent research
Board of directors and partnership meetings and related activities
Assisting investor clients scoping out investment opportunities and engaging in startup activities
Attending trade shows

The B-1 applicant must also be prepared to demonstrate permanent employment, meaningful business or financial connections, close family ties, or social or cultural associations, which will indicate a strong inducement to return to the country of origin. And the applicant should show a salary from abroad and adequate resources to demonstrate that there is no need to work illegally in the US.

Applicants from 27 highly developed countries that have no problems with visa overstays can qualify in the visa Waiver Program which allows applicants to enter the US for up to 90 days without obtaining a visa stamp. Extensions of stay for visa Waiver entrants are not permitted.

O-1 Extraordinary Ability Applicants
Attorneys who can demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in their field of business can potentially qualify for O-1 visas. Applicants need to show that they have reached the top of their field either in the US, internationally or in the applicant’s home country.

O-1s need to show a single one time accomplishment demonstrating extraordinary ability or evidence showing a combination of at least three lesser types of evidence (such as making important contributions in one’s field or being employed in a critical capacity for an organization with a distinguished reputation).

Conclusion
Firms interested in bringing on foreign lawyers need to be prepared to overcome often-frustrating visa requirements. Prior to the recession, more firms were pursuing international talent than today, but the trend toward globalization will certainly march on which will not doubt drive demand to hire overseas lawyers.

x x x."

Lawyer ads

"x x x.

The ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services isproposing changes to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (pdf) to take into account, among other things, the status of law blogs and social networks.

Rule 7.1 (Attorney Advertising) and Comment 1 to the rule currently provide:

A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.
Comment [1] : This Rule governs all communications about a lawyer's services, including advertising permitted by Rule 7.2. Whatever means are used by a lawyer to communicate with a potential client about the lawyer or the lawyer's services to make known a lawyer's services, statements about them must be truthful.

x x x."

See - http://kevin.lexblog.com/2012/01/articles/blog-law-and-ethics/aba-committee-state-ethics-rules-on-advertising-may-not-apply-to-blogs-and-social-networking/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KevinOKeefe%2FRealLawyersHaveBlogs+%28Real+Lawyers+Have+Blogs%29

No consensus needed on 'standard of proof' - RAPPLER - Philippine News | Multimedia | Citizen Journalism | Social Media

"x x x.

Until now, senator-judges and members of the defense and prosecution panels disagree on what standard of proof must be used in the impeachment trial.

Enrile himself has repeatedly said that "clear, convincing evidence" is needed to convict Corona, while Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago proposed "overwhelming preponderance of evidence."

The prosecution panel, however, likens the trial to an administrative case, which would only require "substantial evidence" of wrongdoing committed by a public official.

The defense claims it should be treated like a criminal case and is asking for "proof beyond reasonable doubt."

No caucus

Lawyers earlier told Rappler that the lack of consensus on what standard of proof would be followed in the trial has caused confusion in the proceedings.

UP Law Prof. Theodore Te said, "It's amazing that we could proceed to trial with 3 different theories…the Senate has not really defined what they're looking for."

He recommended that Enrile take the "extra step" of calling on his colleagues to "step back and see if we're all on the same page." Te said it would be "futile" in the end if the prosecution presents evidence that the Senate is not looking for.

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago herself proposed the holding of a caucus to settle the issue.

But Enrile did not appear interested. "They're not bound by any standard," Enrile said. "For all I know, they might not be interested to hear any evidence and just make a decision. I cannot tell them how to decide."

Meanwhile, Enrile reminded his fellow senator-judges to stay calm during the proceedings.

"I would like to caution my colleagues to exercise greater civility in dealing with the witnesses, with the lawyers on both sides, as well as with one another in the Senate," said Enrile. He was referring to Santiago's outburst last Thursday.

But he added he understands her situation. "She is suffering from some ailment. If you are in that condition, your threshold of stress is very shallow." -Rappler.com

x x x."

The lawyers’ ‘ultimate fac’ | Inquirer Opinion

"x x x.

If the legal minutiae have begun to test everybody’s patience, it is because the lawyers fail to see that it is the Filipino public they have to woo. That is not surprising.

One titan of the law, Joseph Story, had long ago likened the law to “a jealous mistress, [who] requires a long and constant courtship … not to be won by trifling favors, but by lavish homage.” Another, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., pursued the metaphor: “…a mistress only to be wooed with sustained and lonely passion, only to be won by straining all the faculties by which man is likest to a god.”

If I suddenly recall these classic quotes, it is not because the impeachment lawyers have displayed godlike virtuosity but rather because I have often heard them say “ultimate fac.” Each time the imagination runs amuck.

Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Gregorio Honasan have provoked a deep debate on the constitutional nature of the impeachment process. Is it a criminal proceeding that demands the strictest safeguards for the rights of the accused, including the highest standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”? Or is it a mere administrative process where the rules are relaxed and the evidentiary standard is merely “substantive evidence”?

I agree that the issue is important, but I feel that, whichever way it goes, it will not make much of a difference. In the end, each senator-judge will be applying the legal tests according to their own lights, hopefully illumined by the public’s. Consider the following:

First, Senator Honasan asked an apparently simple but very loaded question: Does the person being impeached enjoy the right to be “presumed innocent until the contrary is proved”? The answer from both sides was a categorical “Yes.” But that question was actually tricky because the Constitution limits the right solely to “criminal prosecutions.” Yet when the question was posed, could anyone have answered, “No, it doesn’t apply”? For the defense, of course, it is in their interest to invoke the presumption of innocence. But for the prosecution, it was simply inconceivable for Rep. Niel Tupas to have disavowed the presumption, first as a matter of law (in which case we stretch the constitutional text to cover non-criminal trials as well) but even more as a matter of public opinion. My former student Niel had no choice but to say “Yes, it applies.” In the end, the presumption can be invoked just the same, whether impeachment is criminal or not. The big debate didn’t settle this question. Common sense and fairness did, as I assume Senator Honasan intended.

Second, several of the articles of impeachment rest on pure questions of law that will not rise or fall on the basis of evidentiary tests. Was Renato Corona a midnight Chief Justice? To imply that all must be considered under a standard of evidence obscures the key questions that demand little evidence, only a judgment as to law.

Just to show you how useless the criminal versus administrative debate is, let me ask you: Does one need to feel betrayed “beyond a reasonable doubt”? It’s simply absurd to talk about the breach of public trust in this context.

Third, the big debate doesn’t determine the “appreciation” of the evidence. It can’t tell us what truth the senator-judges will read from the evidence. How much evidence establishes truth beyond a reasonable doubt, that is to say, with moral certainty about the truth or falsity of an allegation? Every senator-judge will have his or her own threshold of moral certainty. Some are easily convinced, others not. Some are instinctively distrustful (“diskumpyado”), others more sanguine and unsuspecting. In other words, we repose too much trust in the power of words to confine and “cabin” what is essentially the intuitive judgment of human beings. At a more theoretical level, that in fact was the central insight of Holmes’ “Legal Realism”: “Certainty is an illusion and repose is not the destiny of man.”

Finally, contrast the questioning by the parties’ counsels and that by the non-lawyer senators. In addition to Senator Honasan’s which I had earlier discussed, recall how Sen. Ralph Recto grilled Bureau of Internal Revenue chief Kim Henares. Until then, for over an hour, the private prosecutor wasted everybody’s time on a detailed questioning to prove facts already admitted by the defense (and for which further proof was utterly superfluous), or about points on which Henares couldn’t conceivably testify (“beyond her competence”). Yet it was Senator Recto who elicited from Henares not just the key facts so that Corona’s tax returns could be examined by the Senate, but likewise the nuance that Corona might have made tax payments not reflected in the BIR records.

It is time to do what the Senate and the opposing camps should have done at the outset: sit down and hold the equivalent of a “pre-trial” to streamline the flow of the trial. Mercifully but not surprisingly, it was Santiago who has come to the rescue, and called on both parties to put their cards on the table for all to see.

Had this been done sooner, we could have precluded the pathetic scene last week, when the prosecution wanted to open the trial with the second article of impeachment (corruption) while the defense had its guns ready to defend on the first (midnight Chief Justice). We could have saved ourselves that excruciating hour-wait for Corona’s tax returns, in the first place uncontested by opposing counsel. We could have saved ourselves the exasperation of watching documents “marked in evidence,” akin to watching grass grow.

For the lawyers, the ultimate fact is that it is the Filipino people whom they are wooing. That is apparently lost on some prosecution counsels who act like being boring is actually a seduction strategy.

* * *

Comments to passionforreason@gmail.com"

Pattern of undervaluation | Inquirer Opinion

"x x x.

Just as curious as the wide divergence in the valuations of his real properties in official documents is that Corona was reporting only one condo unit up to 2009. The number rose to four only in his 2010 SALN, and yet his wife bought one in 2004 and a third one in 2008. Maybe the Chief Justice is just as ignorant of the law as many ordinary government employees who leave out from the SALN properties owned by their spouses, in the honest but erroneous belief that since they are not in government, reporting their assets is not required. If ignorance excuses no one, what about the highest magistrate of the land?

There are other items in Corona’s SALNs that cry out for explanations. For one thing, Corona reported that he took out an P11-million cash advance in 2003 from a corporation owned by his wife’s family. He carried this liability (in diminishing amounts) until 2009 when it was down to P3 million. The funny thing is that the corporation, Basa-Guidote Enterprises, was dissolved in 2003. A relative of his wife is asking who approved the loan. And who received the payments since the firm was no more?

During all those years that the Coronas were paying off the loan and acquiring condominiums, Corona was earning not more than P620,000 per annum. His wife was unemployed until 2007 when she was appointed to the board of John Hay Management Corp. Their combined income from 2006 to 2010, based on their tax records, was about P14.35 million. Take away taxes, living expenses and loan payment, and there would be hardly any money left to amortize the condos they bought on installment.

Corona said in his 2010 SALN that they sold two lots to pay off the loans on the Taguig condos. There are records showing they sold those lots for a total of P26 million in 2010. However, Revenue Commissioner Kim Henares said in her testimony on Thursday that the sale of the La Vista lot worth P18 million to Corona’s daughter was fictitious, since the daughter didn’t have the capacity to buy such an expensive property.

Corona’s lawyers say everything will be explained in due time. The nation waits with bated breath."