From time to time certain audios recorded in different instances of the Power of attorney, such as formalizations, lawsuits or hearings on labor claims. Some are comical, others more serious. A recording recorded a few days ago is part of the latter, where a magistrate confronted the plaintiff attorney after the first interrupted the arguments of the second.
–
The story was born in a trial hearing held on March 26 in the 1st Labor Court of First Instance of Santiago, in the middle of a lawsuit filed by a former employee of Codelco that he sought to annul the dismissal he suffered in 2019 under the cause of the company’s needs, among other actions.
The audio, viralized on social networks and available in public records of the Judiciary, reveals a mess between the complainant’s lawyer, Nicolas Marquez, and the magistrate Emma Novoa.
As can be heard, at times when the observations to the test rendered, Márquez expressed his appreciations when he was interrupted by the judge.
For context, when the incident occurred lawyer Márquez had been making his observations to the test for about 7 minutes, while first the defendant had at least 14 minutes to do so. Even Márquez should have reminded the judge that he had not made his observations, when she he was already preparing to set a date to deliver the ruling.
Listen to the controversial moment:
Novoa: Lawyer, we are ready now. This is one test observationWe’re not making a plea in court, nothing. So, we would be ready with your plea… with your observation.
Márquez: No magistrate, I’m not ready. The truth is that the colleague (of the counterpart) had his time, he had no interruptions, I am observing the test. I’m pointing out the points …
Novoa: But the time is the same. If your colleague had 10 minutes, you cannot have 50. Do you understand me? You have to be a bit objective.
Márquez: Of course, magistrate. But, he didn’t tell me how old he was at the beginning. Let me continue …
Novoa: So, two more minutes and you cut it and it’s over no more; and you make the corresponding claim wherever you want. Two more minutes.
Márquez: Judge, I feel at a disadvantage in this situation. The truth is that it makes me at a legal disadvantage. And worst of all is that my client is the one who is affected.
Novoa: Oyyy, excuse me. Yeah, well, the important thing is that you feel at a disadvantage. Make the corresponding claim, then, because you feel disadvantaged and you feel very violated in your fundamental rights.
Marquez: Of course. They are not mine, they are the client’s.
Novoa: Okay, perfect, then the violation of fundamental rights. You speak what you want … (audio cuts out).
Márquez: I don’t listen to her. Magistrate, I am not listening to you.
Novoa: Go on with your statement, then… (the audio cuts off again).
Márquez: Magistrate, I am not listening to you.
Novoa: Oops, I feel violated in my rights. They don’t listen to me.
Márquez: Magistrate, you are mocking
Novoa: Ah, I’m going to have to disqualify myself and do the trial again then. Do you consider that we are making fun?
Marquez: He is making fun, of course. Magistrate, it is not the idea that let’s go viral.
Novoa: Ah, are you recording all this? Are you threatening me?
At that point, the magistrate became even more angry with the situation and the discussion turned. towards the recording of hearings. While Novoa accused Márquez of recording what happened, the lawyer pointed out that it was the same court that was doing it.
Thus, the conflict between the magistrate and the lawyer continued to grow, to the point that Novoa told Márquez that, in case the audio of the hearing went viral, she was going to “feel very threatened”.
Novoa: He is threatening me that he is going to record me, that’s doing me.
Marquez: It is not a threat. You are putting …
Novoa: Oh yeah, well in any case I’m being very threatened and you are recording me. If you record and this goes viral, I’m going to feel very threatened. I am explaining that I am threatened and my rights are violated because you are threatening me that you are going to make it viral.
Márquez: Magistrate, the truth is that I have not threatened you. It is all recorded by you …
Novoa: You want me to inform the Judicial Branch and the Public Ministry.
Márquez: So if there are threats, you will have to make the corresponding complaints, magistrate.
Novoa: Yes, I am going to do it (laughs). Do not worry
All this motivated Márquez to actually request the magistrate to be disabled from the cause, which was welcomed by Novoa to avoid questioning the future ruling.
“Not a problem,” Novoa said.
Seconds before the end of the hearing, the lawyer representing Codelco asked the judge not to disqualify herself, since in his opinion “everything went well”.
“No, everything did not go well, colleague,” Márquez replied. So finally Novoa was disabled.
“I had lost interest”
In conversation with BioBioChile, the lawyer Nicolás Márquez commented on what happened and described the event as strange.
“Legally, it is clear that he showed an inclination contrary to the interests of my client, which I had to defend. I was super respectful with her, and the judge’s decision to accept the cause of disability (…) is because admitted that she was not endowed with impartiality that is required to solve the case ”, assured the professional.
Márquez explained that what happened “was strange. At the trial we had a couple of minor discussions (…) when the judge estimated that the 7 minutes you’ve been talking to her felt like 50, for me I had lost interest in my case“.
Finally, he added that for the moment has not ruled out resorting to a disciplinary complaint against the magistrate.
BioBioChile contacted by email with the communications area of the Power of attorney to know the opinion of the magistrate, the court or the institution as a whole before the viralization of the audio. After the publication of this note, it was replied that there will be no pronouncement in this regard.
– .
