Lawyers' pleadings like motions that border on "incivility and intemperate ascriptions" are not allowed before a court of justice.

In a resolution, the Sandiganbayan said most pleadings rely on "grace and fluidity of language" to "enthrall and enlighten" a court. 

With its declarations, the anti-graft court warned the lawyer of former Quezon City mayor Herbert "Bistek" Constantine M. Bautista to be careful in the tone and language used in making pleadings. 

"It is not a rare occasion that a counsel's zealous plea for a cause would jump right off the page, invigorating arguments that can persuade and convince. The tone initially set in the motion haplessly does strike a sensitive chord, bordering as it does, on incivility and intemperate ascriptions on the 'irregularity' allegedly committed by the court and its various 'prevarications,'" the court said in its April 8, 2024 resolution.

"The prosecution need not even call out these unfortunate inferences as they are palpably perceptible in the pleading. Whether such language be attributed to the cause the counsel has, the court will simply let them pass without resonance in thought or action, for now," it said. 

Bautista, who is facing a graft charge together with then city administrator Aldrin C. Cuña, filed a motion for partial reconsideration on the court's March 8, 2024 resolution which denied his motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence.

The motion sought the permission of the court to file a demurrer to evidence which would challenge the alleged weakness of the prosecution's evidence to sustain a conviction.

The court dismissed the motion with a ruling that "sufficiency of evidence is inevitably found."

Bautista and Cuña were indicted over the payment made to Geodata Solutions, Inc. amounting to P32,107,912.5 for the procurement of online occupational permitting and tracking system. The prosecution said that no appropriate ordinance was given by the Sangguniang Bayan for the project, and there was no complete delivery of the products procured.

Bautista's lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration

In denying the motion, the court said that even the prosecution cannot turn a blind eye to the "strong words" Bautista's lawyer used in questioning the court's resolution. 

The motion accused the anti-graft court of looking into matters it "should not look into," giving attention to an "irrelevant question," and making "no ruling or analysis" of the evidence of the prosecution, among other things.

Despite the strong assertions made by Bautista's lawyer, the anti-graft court remained firm in its earlier resolution and said that arguments will be best heard during the presentation of defense evidence.

"The court cannot infuse accused Bautista's arguments into the resolution when proof on these points is yet to be proffered," the court said.

The resolution was written by Seventh Division Chairperson Associate Justice Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta. Associate Justices Zaldy V. Trespeses and Georgina D. Hidalgo concurred.

Bautista and Cuña are also facing a separate graft charge before the Sandiganbayan over the P25,342,359.25 payment made to Cygnet Energy and Power Asia, Inc. 

The prosecution alleged that Bautista and Cuña made the full payment to Cygnet for the Supply and Installation of Solar Power System and Waterproofing Works for Civic Center Building. However, it said, Cygnet was not entitled to the said amount due to its failure to get the Net Metering System from the Manila Electric Company which is a requirement of the Supply and Delivery Agreement.