Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UDIC IAL
E M E C OU E
J
PR R
AC
IN
U
IP P
AD
S
P HIL
EMY
REP UB
ES
S U PR E
IN E S
PI N
IPP
ME
IP
BATA N
LI
IL
S AT BAYA
I O
L
PH
OF
C
H UR
T HE P T O F THE
E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
J
u
d
i
c
i
a
r
y
2 PHILJA NEWS PHILJA Bulletin
Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law “Constitution and Peace: Lessons from Peace
for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of Agreements” – A Roundtable Discussion
Regions IX, X, XI, and XII
Development Partners: Conciliation Resources
Development Partners: DDB International Alert, Ateneo Law School
Date: April 5 to 7, 2011 Date: April 15, 2011
Venue: Royal Mandaya Hotel, Davao City Venue: En Banc Conference Room, Supreme Court,
Participants: 134 comprising RTC and SHCC judges, Manila
prosecutors and law enforcers of Regions 9 to 12 Participants: 14 comprising Supreme Court and Court
of Appeals justices, PHILJA officials and Academic
Convention and Seminar and Election of Council Curricular Departments chairpersons,
Officers of the Sheriffs’ Confederation of the representatives from International Alert and other
Philippines (SCOPHIL) guests
Theme: Tapat sa Tungkulin, Sapat na Kaalaman, Susi Seminar-Workshop on the Rule of Procedure for
sa Pagbabago Small Claims Cases for NCJR and Luzon
Date: April 5 to 7, 2011
Venue: Ibalong Center for Recreation, Legazpi Terminal Development Partners: USAID, ABA-ROLI
Compound, Bitano, Legazpi City Date: April 26, 2011
Participants: 689 court sheriffs Venue: Traders Hotel, Pasay City
Participants: 44 comprising MeTC, MTC, and MCTC
Third Seminar-Workshop on the Special Rules judges and clerks of court of NCJR and Luzon Regions
of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution
Multi-Sectoral Capacity Building on
Date: April 12 to 14, 2011
Environmental Laws and the Rules of Procedure
Venue: Montebello Villa Hotel, Cebu City
for Environmental Cases
Participants: 29 RTC judges from Regions 3, 6, 7, and 8
Development Partners: DENR, USAID, United States-
Eighth National Convention and Election of Department of the Interior, PMO
Officers of the Process Servers Association of Date: April 27 to 29, 2011
the Philippines (PROSAPHIL) Venue: Imperial Palace Suites, Quezon City
Theme: The Role of Process Servers in the Speedy Participants: 96 comprising RTC and MTCC judges and
Administration of Justice branch clerks of court, prosecutors, PAO lawyers,
Date: April 13 to 15, 2011 representatives from DENR, BFAR, PCG, PNP, LGU,
Venue: Brokenshire Resort and Convention Center, NGO of CALABARZON Region
Madapo, Davao City Date: May 25 to 27, 2011
Participants: 414 process servers Venue: Holiday Inn Clark, Pampanga
Participants: 89 comprising RTC and MTCC judges and
Seminar-Workshop on Land Valuation and Just branch clerks of court, prosecutors, PAO lawyers,
Compensation for Special Agrarian Court representatives from BFAR, PCG, Federation of Philippine
Judges Industries, and PNP of Region 3
New Ruling This does not mean, however, that a DNA testing
order will be issued as a matter of right if, during the
hearing, the said conditions are established.
REMEDIAL LAW
In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA
Law on Evidence–DNA Evidence; DNA testing testing order, there must be a show cause hearing
order. wherein the applicant must first present sufficient
evidence to establish a prima facie case or a reasonable
The Rule on DNA Evidence was enacted to guide possibility of paternity or “good cause” for the holding
the Bench and the Bar for the introduction and use of of the test. In these states, a court order for blood
DNA evidence in the judicial system. It provides the testing is considered a “search,” which, under their
“prescribed parameters on the requisite elements for Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded by a
reliability and validity (i.e., the proper procedures, finding of probable cause in order to be valid. Hence,
protocols, necessary laboratory reports, etc.), the the requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable
possible sources of error, the available objections to possibility, was imposed in civil actions as a
the admission of DNA test results as evidence as well counterpart of a finding of probable cause. The
as the probative value of DNA evidence.” It seeks “to Supreme Court of Louisiana eloquently explained –
ensure that the evidence gathered, using various
methods of DNA analysis, is utilized effectively and Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal,
properly, [and] shall not be misused and/or abused the constitutional prohibition against
and, more importantly, shall continue to ensure that unreasonable searches and seizures is still
applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient
DNA analysis serves justice and protects, rather than
justification under the particular factual
prejudice the public.” circumstances of the case must be made before
Not surprisingly, Section 4 of the Rule on DNA a court may order a compulsory blood test.
Courts in various jurisdictions have differed
Evidence merely provides for conditions that are aimed
regarding the kind of procedures which are
to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the DNA required, but those jurisdictions have almost
testing. Section 4 states: universally found that a preliminary showing
must be made before a court can constitutionally
SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. – The order compulsory blood testing in paternity
appropriate court may, at any time, either motu cases. We agree, and find that, as a preliminary
proprio or on application of any person who has a matter, before the court may issue an order for
legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a compulsory blood testing, the moving party must
DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due show that there is a reasonable possibility of
hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in
of the following: which paternity is contested and a party to the
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test,
the case; a show cause hearing must be held in which the
court can determine whether there is sufficient
(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously evidence to establish a prima facie case which
subjected to the type of DNA testing now warrants issuance of a court order for blood
requested; or (ii) was previously subjected testing.
to DNA testing, but the results may require
confirmation for good reasons; The same condition precedent should be applied
in our jurisdiction to protect the putative father from
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid
mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on
technique;
the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable
to produce new information that is relevant possibility of paternity.
to the proper resolution of the case; and
Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the issuance of a DNA testing order remains
the court may consider as potentially discretionary upon the court. The court may, for
affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA
example, consider whether there is absolute necessity
testing.
for the DNA testing. If there is already preponderance
This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test
without need of a prior court order, at the behest result would only be corroborative, the court may, in
of any party, including law enforcement agencies, its discretion, disallow a DNA testing.
before a suit or proceeding is commenced.
(Nachura, J., Jesse U. Lucas v. Jesus S. Lucas, G.R. No. 190710,
June 6, 2011.)
April-June 2011 PHILJA NEWS
NEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT 7
Doctrinal Reminders by law.” Apparently, the Civil Service Law echoes this
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (continued) constitutional edict of security of tenure of the
employee, who enjoys permanence of employment. employees in the civil service. Thus, Section 46 (a) of
The rule is still that casual employment will cease the Civil Service Law provides that “no officer or
automatically at the end of the period unless renewed employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or
as stated in the Plantilla of Casual Employment. dismissed except for cause as provided by law after
Casual employees may also be terminated anytime due process.” [Emphases supplied]
though subject to certain conditions or qualifications (Mendoza, J., Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office Board of
with reference to the abovequoted CSC Form No. 001. Directors and Reynaldo P. Martin v. Marie Jean C. Lapid, G.R.
Thus, they may be laid off anytime before the No. 191940, April 12, 2011.)
expiration of the employment period provided any of
the following occurs: (1) when their services are no Misconduct; definition of; distinguished from
longer needed; (2) funds are no longer available; (3) conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
the project has already been completed/finished; or service.
(4) their performance are below par.
In Manuel v. Calimag, Jr., the Court emphatically
Equally important, they are entitled to due ruled:
process especially if they are to be removed for more
serious causes or for causes other than the reasons In order to be considered as “misconduct,” the
mentioned in CSC Form No. 001. This is pursuant to act must have a “direct relation to and be
Section 2, Article IX(B) of the Constitution and Section connected with the performance of his official
duties amounting either to maladministration or
46 of the Civil Service Law. The reason for this is that
willful, intentional neglect or failure to discharge
their termination from the service could carry a the duties of the office. Misconduct in office has
penalty affecting their rights and future employment been authoritatively defined by Justice Tuazon
in the government. in Lacson v. Lopez in these words: “Misconduct in
office has a definite and well-understood legal
In the case at bench, the action of petitioners meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a
clearly violated Lapid’s basic rights as a casual misconduct such as affects his performance of
employee. As pointed out by the CSC itself, Lapid was his duties as an officer and not such only as
NEVER formally charged with the administrative affects his character as a private individual. In
offenses of Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties such cases, it has been said at all times, it is
and Grave Misconduct. According to the CSC, the necessary to separate the character of the man
Formal Charge, was even unsigned, and it from the character of the officer x x x. It is settled
categorically stated that PCSO failed to observe due that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance
warranting removal from office of an officer must
process.
have direct relation to and be connected with
Lapid moved for the reconsideration of Resolution the performance of official duties amounting
No. 340. In Resolution No. 401, Series of 2005, the Board either to maladministration or willful, intentional
neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the
of Directors of PCSO, upon the recommendation of
office x x x. More specifically, in Buenaventura v.
the Assistant General Manager for Online Lottery Benedicto, an administrative proceeding against
Sector and the Manager of the Northern and Central a judge of the court of first instance, the present
Luzon, denied said motion for reconsideration. It was Chief Justice defines misconduct as referring ‘to
only in the said resolution that it was belatedly stated a transgression of some established and definite
that her services was no longer needed per the list of rule of action, more particularly, unlawful
Plantilla of Casual Appointment. This was an empty behavior or gross negligence by the public
statement, however, as this was not substantiated. officer.’” [Emphasis ours, citations excluded]
Section 3(2), Article XIII of the Constitution In Cabalitan v. Department of Agrarian Reform, the
guarantees the rights of all workers not just in terms Court sustained the ruling of the CSC that the offense
of self-organization, collective bargaining, peaceful committed by the employee in selling fake Unified
concerted activities, the right to strike with Vehicular Volume Program exemption cards to his
qualifications, humane conditions of work, and a officemates during office hours was not grave
living wage but also to security of tenure. Likewise, misconduct, but conduct prejudicial to the best
Section 2(3), Article IX-B of the Constitution provides interest of the service. In Mariano v. Roxas, the Court
that “no officer or employee of the civil service shall held that the offense committed by a CA employee in
be removed or suspended except for cause provided forging some receipts to avoid her private contractual
obligations was not misconduct but conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service because
April-June 2011 PHILJA NEWS
NEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT 9
(a) Serious misconduct or wilful disobedience by Liberal construction of the Rules of Court does not
the employee of the lawful orders of his apply to land registration cases. Indeed, to further
employer or representative in connection underscore the mandatory character of these
with his work. jurisdictional requirements, the Rules of Court do not
However, wilful disobedience of the employer’s apply to land registration cases. In all cases where the
lawful orders, as a just cause for dismissal of an
(Continued on next page)
10 NEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT PHILJA Bulletin
PHILJA Bulletin
authority of the courts to proceed is conferred by a Certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed
statute, and when the manner of obtaining jurisdiction by the party; verification; pleadings that require
is prescribed by a statute, the mode of proceeding is verification.
mandatory, and must be strictly complied with, or In Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court
the proceeding will be utterly void. When the trial pointed out that:
court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, it
lacks authority over the whole case and all its aspects. A party’s failure to sign the certification against
All the proceedings before the trial court, including forum shopping is different from the party’s
its order granting the petition for reconstitution, are failure to sign personally the verification. The
certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed
void for lack of jurisdiction.
by the party, and not by counsel. The certification
(Carpio, J., Bienvenido Castillo v. Republic of the Philippines, of counsel renders the petition defective.
G.R. No. 182980, June 22, 2011.)
On the other hand, the requirement on
verification of a pleading is a formal and not a
CRIMINAL LAW jurisdictional requisite. It is intended simply to
secure an assurance that what are alleged in the
Probable cause; definition of. pleading are true and correct and not the product
of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal that the pleading is filed in good faith. The party
information, has been defined as such facts as are need not sign the verification. A party’s
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime representative, lawyer or any person who
has been committed and that respondent is probably personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in
guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. Probable the pleading may sign the verification.
cause is meant such set of facts and circumstances, In the case before us, we stress that as a general
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent rule, a pleading need not be verified, unless there is a
man to believe that the offense charged in the law or rule specifically requiring the same. Examples
Information, or any offense included therein, has been of pleadings that require verification are: (1) all
committed by the person sought to be arrested. In pleadings filed in civil cases under the 1991 Revised
determining probable cause, the average person Rules on Summary Procedure; (2) petition for review
weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to from the Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court
the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he raising only questions of law under Rule 41, Section 2;
has no technical knowledge. He relies on common (3) petition for review of the decision of the Regional
sense. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest Trial Court to the Court of Appeals under Rule 42,
on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime Section 1; (4) petition for review from quasi-judicial
has been committed and that it was committed by the bodies to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, Section
accused. Probable cause demands more than bare 5; (5) petition for review before the Supreme Court
suspicion, but it requires less than evidence that would under Rule 45, Section 1; (6) petition for annulment of
justify a conviction. judgments or final orders and resolutions under Rule
A finding of probable cause does not require an 47, Section 4; (7) complaint for injunction under Rule
inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to 58, Section 4; (8) application for preliminary injunction
secure a conviction. It is enough that the act or or temporary restraining order under Rule 58, Section
omission complained of constitutes the offense 4; (9) application for appointment of a receiver under
charged. The term does not mean “actual and positive Rule 59, Section 1; (10) application for support pendente
cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. It is lite under Rule 61, Section 1; (11) petition for certiorari
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. A trial against the judgments, final orders or resolutions of
is intended precisely for the reception of prosecution constitutional commissions under Rule 64, Section 2;
evidence in support of the charge. The court is tasked (12) petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under
to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on Rule 65, Sections 1 to 3; (13) petition for quo warranto
the evidence presented by the parties at a trial on the under Rule 66, Section 1; (14) complaint for
merits. expropriation under Rule 67, Section 1; (15) petition
for indirect contempt under Rule 71, Section 4, all from
(Nachura, J., Clay & Feather International, Inc., Raul O. Arambulo, the 1997 Rules of Court; (16) all complaints or petitions
and Adam E. Jimenez III (for themselves and for Clay and Feather
Int’l., Inc. v. Alexander T. Lichaytoo and Clifford T. Lichaytoo, involving intra-corporate controversies under the
G.R. No. 193105, May 30, 2011.) Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra-Corporate
April-June 2011 PHILJA NEWS
NEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT 11
In addition, verification, like in most cases (e) Other similar land problems of grave
required by the rules of procedure, is a formal, not urgency and magnitude.
jurisdictional, requirement, and mainly intended to Administrative agencies, like the COSLAP, are
secure an assurance that matters which are alleged tribunals of limited jurisdiction that can only wield
are done in good faith or are true and correct and not powers which are specifically granted to it by its
of mere speculation. When circumstances warrant, enabling statute. Under Section 3 of E.O. No. 561, the
the court may simply order the correction of COSLAP has two options in acting on a land dispute or
unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict problem lodged before it, to wit: (a) refer the matter to
compliance with the rules in order that the ends of the agency having appropriate jurisdiction for
justice may thereby be served. settlement/resolution; or (b) assume jurisdiction if the
(Leonardo-De Castro, J., Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Jocelyn Catubig, matter is one of those enumerated in paragraph 2 (a) to
G.R. No. 175512, May 30, 2011.) (e) of the law, if such case is critical and explosive in
nature, taking into account the large number of parties
Jurisdiction of the Commission on the Settlement involved, the presence or emergence of social unrest,
of Land Problems (COSLAP). or other similar critical situations requiring immediate
action. In resolving whether to assume jurisdiction
The COSLAP was created by virtue of Executive
over a case or to refer the same to the particular agency
Order (E.O.) No. 561, issued on September 21, 1979,
concerned, the COSLAP has to consider the nature or
by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. It is an
classification of the land involved, the parties to the
administrative body established as a means of
case, the nature of the questions raised, and the need
providing a mechanism for the expeditious
for immediate and urgent action thereon to prevent
settlement of land problems among small settlers,
injuries to persons and damage or destruction to
landowners and members of the cultural minorities
property. The law does not vest jurisdiction on the
to avoid social unrest.
COSLAP over any land dispute or problem.
Section 3 of E.O. No. 561 specifically enumerates
In the instant case, the COSLAP has no jurisdiction
the instances when the COSLAP can exercise its
over the subject matter of respondents’ complaint. The
adjudicatory functions:
present case does not fall under any of the cases
SEC. 3. Powers and Functions. – The Commission enumerated under Section 3, paragraph 2(a) to (e) of
shall have the following powers and functions: E.O. No. 561. The dispute between the parties is not
critical and explosive in nature, nor does it involve a
xxxx
large number of parties, nor is there a presence or
2. Refer and follow up for immediate emergence of social tension or unrest. It can also hardly
action by the agency having be characterized as involving a critical situation that
appropriate jurisdiction any land requires immediate action.
problem or dispute referred to the
Commission: Provided, That the It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal,
Commission may, in the following including a quasi-judicial officer or government agency,
cases, assume jurisdiction and
resolve land problems or disputes (Continued on next page)
12 NEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT PHILJA Bulletin
PHILJA Bulletin
*
No mediation fees shall be collected from the accused.
April-June 2011 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS
PHILJA NEWS 15
OCA CIRCULAR. NO. 51-2011 (continued) Annex “A” of A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA
OCA CIRCULAR. NO. 51-2011 (continued) 1.2 The Three Stages of Diversion
Simply stated, court diversion is a three-stage
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES process. The first stage is the Court-Annexed Mediation
SUPREME COURT (CAM) where the judge refers the parties to the
Manila Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) for the mediation
TO: 1. ALL COURTS WHERE PHILIPPINE of their dispute by trained and accredited mediators.
MEDIATION CENTER UNITS HAVE BEEN Upon failing to secure a settlement of the dispute
ESTABLISHED. during the first stage, a second attempt is made at the
2. ALL COURTS IN THE PROVINCES OF JDR stage. There, the JDR judge sequentially becomes a
PAMPANGA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, BENGUET, mediator-conciliator-early neutral evaluator in a
LA UNION, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, MAKATI CITY, continuing effort to secure a settlement. Still failing
AND SUCH OTHER AREAS TO BE ESTABLISHED that second attempt, the mediator-judge must turn
FOR JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION (JDR) over the case to another judge (a new one by raffle or
[FORMERLY UNDER THE JUSTICE REFORM nearest/pair judge) who will try the unsettled case.
INITIATIVES SUPPORT (JURIS) PROJECT] The trial judge shall continue with the pre-trial proper
and, thereafter, proceed to try and decide the case.
SUBJECT: CONSOLIDATED AND REVISED
GUIDELINES1 TO IMPLEMENT THE EXPANDED The third stage is during the appeal where covered
COVERAGE OF COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION cases are referred to the PMC-Appeals Court Mediation
(CAM) AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ACM) unit for mediation.
(JDR) The ultimate common end of both the
PART ONE Katarungang Pambarangay Law and Court-Annexed
GENERAL PROVISIONS AND COVERAGE Mediation is to restore the role of the judiciary as the
forum of last recourse to be resorted to only after all
Concept of court diversion of pending cases prior earnest efforts to arrive at private
accommodation and resolution of disputes have failed.
The diversion of pending court cases both to Court-
Annexed Mediation (CAM) and to Judicial Dispute Rationale for expanded mediation jurisdiction over
Resolution (JDR) is plainly intended to put an end to the civil liability for more serious offenses
pending litigation through a compromise agreement
of the parties and thereby help solve the ever-pressing Deterrence, which is achieved from a consistent
problem of court docket congestion. It is also intended and swift imposition of the appropriate penalty
to empower the parties to resolve their own disputes imposed for the crime committed, is the principle upon
and give practical effect to the State Policy expressly which societal security rests. It is for this reason that
stated in the ADR Act of 2004 (RA No. 9285), to wit: Article 2034 of the Civil Code provides that:
to actively promote party autonomy in the resolution There may be a compromise upon the civil liability arising
from the offense, but such compromise shall not
of disputes or the freedom of the parties to make their
extinguish the public action for the imposition of the
own arrangement to resolve disputes. Towards this
legal penalty.
end, the State shall encourage and actively promote
the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as It is significantly important to note that the above-
an important means to achieve speedy and impartial quoted statutory provision does not restrict the crime
justice and de-clog court dockets. mentioned to the gravity of the imposable penalty as
a condition for allowing a compromise agreement to
1.1 Indigenous ADR under CAM be reached on the civil liability arising from the crime.
Presumably, therefore, the allowed compromise of civil
Such State Policy promoting party autonomy
liability applies to all crimes, subject only to the policy
would necessarily include recognition of indigenous
considerations of deterrence variables arising from the
modes of dispute resolution.
celerity, certainty and severity of punishment actually
imposed.2
1
Consolidation entailed the integration of the original Expansion of mediation jurisdiction over less
guidelines separately governing Court-Annexed Mediation grave felonies (punishable by correctional penalties
(CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR), together with
all their respective amendments and revisions into a single
consolidated guidelines that will supplant said earlier 2
issuances that are in conflict or inconsistent with these The English Utilitarian posits that of the three variables,
consolidated guidelines. severity of penalty is the least important.
April-June 2011 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS
PHILJA NEWS 17
OCA CIRCULAR. NO. 51-2011 (continued) thereof for the appropriate action of the court, without
waiting for resolution of the unsettled part.
Sanctions In relation to the unsettled part of the dispute, the
The court, upon recommendation of the Mediator, court shall proceed to conduct JDR proceedings in
may impose sanctions upon a party who fails to accordance with PART THREE hereof where JDR is
appear before the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) available.
Unit as directed by the referring judge, or upon any
person who engages in abusive conduct during PART THREE
mediation proceedings, as provided for in the Rules of JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Court as part of the Pre-Trial and other issuances of
the Supreme Court, including, but not limited to I. Mandate
censure, reprimand, contempt, requiring the absent Unless otherwise directed by the Supreme Court,
party to reimburse the appearing party his costs, all judges who have undergone orientation in JDR
including attorney’s fees for that day up to treble such procedures and completed their training in mediation,
costs, payable on or before the date of the re-scheduled conciliation and neutral evaluation, are authorized to
setting. Sanctions may also be imposed by the referring conduct JDR proceedings in accordance with these
judge upon his own initiative or upon motion of the guidelines for the settlement of disputes pending in
interested party. their courts, after the parties failed to settle their
Upon justifiable cause duly proved in the hearing disputes during Court-Annexed Mediation at the
called on the motion to reconsider filed by the absent Philippine Mediation Center Units (PMCU).
party, concurred in by the concerned mediator, the
sanctions imposed may be lifted or set aside in the II. Procedure
sound discretion of the referring judge.
Judicial proceedings shall be divided into two
Duration of Mediation in the PMC stages: (1) from the filing of a complaint to the conduct
of CAM and JDR during the pre-trial stage, and (2) pre-
The Mediator shall have a period of not exceeding trial proper to trial and judgment. The judge to whom
30 days to complete the mediation process. Such period the case has been originally raffled, who shall be called
shall be computed from the date when the parties first the JDR Judge, shall preside over the first stage. The
appeared for the initial conference as stated in the judge, who shall be called the trial judge, shall preside
Order to appear. An extended period of another 30 over the second stage.
days may be granted by the court, upon motion filed
by the Mediator, with the conformity of the parties. At the initial stage of the pre-trial conference, the
JDR judge briefs the parties and counsels of the CAM
Suspension of periods and JDR processes. Thereafter, he issues an Order of
Referral of the case to CAM and directs the parties and
The period during which the case is undergoing their counsels to proceed to the PMCU bringing with
mediation shall be excluded from the regular and them a copy of the Order of Referral. The JDR judge
mandatory periods for trial and rendition of judgment shall include in said Order, or in another Order, the
in ordinary cases and in cases under summary pre-setting of the case for JDR not earlier than 45 days
proceedings. from the time the parties first personally appear at
the PMCU so that JDR will be conducted immediately
Settlement
if the parties do not settle at CAM.
If full settlement of the dispute is reached, the
All incidents or motions filed during the first stage
parties, assisted by their respective counsels, shall
shall be dealt with by the JDR judge. If JDR is not
draft the compromise agreement which shall be
conducted because of the failure of the parties to appear,
submitted to the court for judgment upon compromise
the JDR judge may impose the appropriate sanctions
or other appropriate action. Where compliance is
and shall continue with the proceedings of the case.
forthwith made, the parties shall instead submit a
satisfaction of claims or a mutual withdrawal of the If the parties do not settle their dispute at CAM,
case and, thereafter, the court shall enter an order the parties and their counsels shall appear at the preset
dismissing the case. date before the JDR judge, who will then conduct the
JDR process as mediator, neutral evaluator and/or
If partial settlement is reached, the parties shall,
conciliator in order to actively assist and facilitate
with the assistance of counsel, submit the terms
(Continued on next page)
20 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS PHILJA Bulletin
PHILJA Bulletin
OCA CIRCULAR. NO. 51-2011 (continued) 3. Family Courts – Unless otherwise agreed upon as
provided below, the JDR proceedings in areas where
negotiations among the parties for them to settle their only one court is designated as a family court, shall be
dispute. As mediator and conciliator, the judge conducted by a judge of another branch through raffle.
facilitates the settlement discussions between the However, if there is another family court in the same
parties and tries to reconcile their differences. As a area, the family court to whom the case was originally
neutral evaluator, the judge assesses the relative raffled shall conduct JDR proceedings and if no
strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case and settlement is reached, the other family court shall
makes a non-binding and impartial evaluation of the conduct the pre-trial proper and trial.
chances of each party’s success in the case. On the Notwithstanding the foregoing, before
basis of such neutral evaluation, the judge persuades commencement of the JDR proceedings, the parties
the parties to a fair and mutually acceptable may file a joint written motion requesting that the
settlement of their dispute. family court to which the case was originally raffled
The JDR judge shall not preside over the trial of shall conduct the JDR proceedings and trial.
the case15 when the parties did not settle their dispute Despite the non-mediatable nature of the principal
at JDR. case, like annulment of marriage, other issues such as
custody of children, support, visitation, property
III. Courts relations and guardianship, may be referred to CAM
1. Multiple Sala Court – If the case is not resolved and JDR to limit the issues for trial.
during JDR, it shall be raffled to another branch for
the pre-trial proper16 up to judgment. 4. Commercial, Intellectual Property, and
Environmental Courts – Unless otherwise agreed upon
For cases with pending applications for as provided below, the JDR proceedings in areas where
restraining orders/preliminary injunctions, the judge only one court is designated as commercial/intellectual
to whom the case was raffled shall rule on the said property/environmental court, hereafter referred to
applications. During the pre-trial stage, the judge refers as special court, shall be conducted by another judge
the case to CAM, but if the parties do not settle at CAM, through raffle and not by the judge of the special court.
the case will be raffled to another branch for JDR. If Where settlement is not reached, the judge of the
the parties do not settle at JDR, the case will be returned special court shall be the trial judge. Any incident or
to the branch that ruled on the applications for the motion filed before the pre-trial stage shall be dealt
pre-trial proper and up to judgment.17 with by the special court that shall refer the case to
CAM.
2. Single Sala Court – Unless otherwise agreed upon
as provided below, the JDR proceedings will be Notwithstanding the foregoing, before
conducted by the judge of the pair court, if any, commencement of the JDR proceedings, the parties
otherwise, by the judge of the nearest court as may file a joint written motion requesting that the
determined by the concerned Executive Judge. The JDR special courts to which the case was originally raffled
proceedings shall be conducted at the station where shall conduct the JDR proceedings and trial.
the case was originally filed. The result of the JDR
proceedings shall be referred to the court of origin for IV. JDR During Trial
appropriate action, e.g., approval of the compromise Cases may be referred to JDR even during the trial
agreement, trial, etc. stage upon written motion of one or both parties
Notwithstanding the foregoing, before the indicating willingness to discuss a possible
commencement of the JDR proceedings, the parties compromise. If the motion is granted, the trial shall be
may file a joint written motion requesting that the suspended18 and the case referred to JDR, which shall
court of origin conduct the JDR proceedings and trial. be conducted by another judge through raffle in
multiple sala courts.
15
Parties will be more spontaneous once they are assured that
the JDR judge will not be the one to try the case. This is so If settlement is reached during JDR, the JDR court
because, the JDR judge may have elicited confidential shall take appropriate action thereon, i.e., approval/
information that may create bias and partiality that could affect disapproval of the compromise agreement. If
the judgment. settlement is not reached at JDR, the case shall be
16
Rule 18, Sec. 2, paragraphs b, c, d, e, f, g, and i. returned to the referring court for continuation of trial.
17
Includes post-judgment proceedings, e.g., motion for
reconsideration, execution, etc. 18
Paragraph 1, Article 2030 of the Civil Code.
April-June 2011 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS
PHILJA NEWS 21
OCA CIRCULAR. NO. 51-2011 (continued) All revenues of the PMC Office from sources other
than the mediation fees above shall form part of its
In particular, they shall perform the following Special ADR Fund (SAF), which shall be administered
functions: and disbursed by PHILJA in accordance with the
existing guidelines approved by the Supreme Court.
1. Help their clients comprehend the mediation
process and its benefits and allow them to assume II. Collection of Mediation Fees
greater personal responsibility in making (Section 9 of Rule 141, A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC)
decisions for the success of mediation in resolving
the dispute. A. Trial Courts
2. Discuss with their clients the following: The Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Courts
and the First Level Courts shall collect the amount of
• The substantive issues involved in the FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) upon the filing of
dispute. the following:
• Prioritization of resolution in terms of
(1) Complaint or an Answer with a mediatable
importance to client. permissive counterclaim or cross-claim, complaint-
• Understanding the position of the other side in-intervention, third-party complaint, fourth-
and the underlying fears, concerns, and party complaint, etc., in civil cases, a Petition, an
needs underneath that position. Opposition, and a Creditors’ Claim in Special
• Need for more information or facts to be Proceedings;
gathered or exchanged with the other side for (2) Complaint/Information for offenses with
informed decision making. maximum imposable penalty of prision correccional
• Possible bargaining options but stressing in its maximum period or six years imprisonment,
the need to be open-minded about other except where the civil liability is reserved or is
possibilities. subject of a separate action;
• The best, worst, and most likely (3) Complaint/Information for estafa, theft, and libel
alternatives to a negotiated agreement. cases, except where the civil liability is reserved
or is subject of a separate action;
3. Assist in preparing a compromise agreement that
is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, (4) Complaint/Information for Quasi-Offenses under
public order, or public policy so that the same Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code;
may be approved by the court, paying particular
attention to issues of voluntary compliance of (5) Intellectual Property cases;
what have been agreed upon, or otherwise to (6) Commercial or corporate cases; and
issues of enforcement in case of breach.
(7) Environmental cases.
4. Assist, wherever applicable, in the preparation
of a manifestation of satisfaction of claims and The Clerks of Court of the First Level Courts shall
mutual withdrawal of complaint and collect the amount of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00)
counterclaim as basis for the court to issue an upon the filing of a Notice of Appeal with the Regional
order of dismissal. Trial Court.
The Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Court
PART FIVE shall collect the amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS
SC-PHILJA-PMC MEDIATION TRUST FUND (P1,000.00) upon the filing of a Notice of Appeal with
the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan.
I. Creation of Trust Fund
The Mediation Fees collected and collectible, B. Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals
pursuant to Section 9, Rule 141, as amended, of the The Clerks of Court of the Court of Appeals and
Rules of Court, and all income therefrom shall Court of Tax Appeals shall collect the amount of ONE
constitute a special fund, to be known as the SC- THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) upon the filing of a
PHILJA-PMC Mediation Trust Fund, which shall be mediatable case, petition, special civil action, a
administered and disbursed in accordance with comment/answer to the petition or action, and the
guidelines set by court issuances, for purposes appellee’s brief. The Clerk of Court of the Court of Tax
enumerated in Section 9, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules
of Court. (Continued on next page)
24 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS PHILJA Bulletin
PHILJA Bulletin
OCA CIRCULAR. NO. 51-2011 (continued) The Fund shall be managed by PHILJA subject to
accounting and auditing rules and regulations.
Appeals shall also collect the amount of ONE B. Deposit of the Mediation Fund
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) for the appeal from
the decision of a CTA Division to the CTA En Banc. The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) has
already closed the SC PHILJA TRUST FUND Peso
Provided that, in all cases, a pauper litigant shall Current Account No. 3472-1001-30 as of March 30,
be exempt from contributing to the Mediation Fund. 2009. Hence, all mediation fees collected are to be
Despite such exemption, the court shall provide that deposited solely under SC PHILJA PMC Rule 141 Peso
the unpaid contribution to the Mediation Fund shall Current Account (CA) No. 3472-1000-08.20
be considered a lien on any monetary award in a
judgment favorable to the pauper litigant. IV. Mediation Fee, Mediator’s Fee and Mediation
And, provided further, that an accused-appellant Fund, distinguished
shall also be exempt from contributing to the The mediation fee is the amount collected from the
Mediation Fund. parties. The amount is added to the mediation fund
The amount collected shall be receipted and from where disbursements are made for the authorized
separated as part of a special fund, to be known as the expenditures stated above. The mediation fee is not
“Mediation Fund,” and shall accrue to the SC-PHILJA- collected for mediation services rendered or to be
PMC Fund, disbursements from which are and shall rendered. It is intended as a contribution to promote
be pursuant to guidelines approved by the Supreme mediation. The mediator’s fee is the authorized amount
Court. paid from the mediation fund for services rendered by
a mediator.
The Fund shall be utilized for the promotion of
court-annexed mediation and other relevant modes PART SIX
of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), training of THE PHILIPPINE MEDIATION CENTER OFFICE
mediators, payment of mediator’s fees, and operating (PMCO)
expenses for technical assistance and organizations/ AND MEDIATION CENTER UNITS
individuals, transportation/communication expenses, (A.M. No. 33-2008, February 12, 2008)
photocopying, supplies and equipment, expense
allowance, and miscellaneous expenses, whenever I. Philippine Mediation Center Office and PMC
necessary, subject to auditing rules and regulations. Units
In view thereof, the mediation fees shall not form part
of the Judicial Development Fund (JDF) under PD No. The Philippine Mediation Center Office shall
1949 nor of the special allowances granted to justices primarily be responsible for the expansion,
and judges under Republic Act No. 9227. development, implementation, monitoring, and
sustainability of SC ADR mechanisms, namely:
III. Utilization and Disbursement a. Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM)
(A.M. No. 05-3-25-SC-PHILJA, dated April 26,
2005) b. Appellate Court Mediation (ACM)
A. Purpose and Utilization of the Mediation Fund c. Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR)
The Fund shall be used for: d. Mobile Court-Annexed Mediation (MCAM)
a. Establishment of PMC Units; e. Court-Annexed Arbitration (CAA) and other
Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms
b. Training seminars/workshops/internship
programs for Mediators; The PMCO shall likewise be primarily tasked with
the organization of PMC units, as it may deem
c. Payment of Mediators’ Fees, including the necessary, throughout the country. It shall be under
PMC Unit Staff; the operational control of and supervision of PHILJA,
d. Payment of operating expenses; in coordination with the Office of the Court
Administrator, through the Executive Judges.
e. Advocacy and promotion of court-annexed
mediation and other relevant modes of
ADR;
f. Such other expenses as authorized by 20
OCA Circular No. 28-2009, dated April 13, 2009.
Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
April-June 2011 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS
PHILJA NEWS 25
a. Mediation Planning and Research Division a. Develop and promulgate rules and regulations
that it may deem necessary, subject to the
b. Mediation Resource Management Division approval of the Supreme Court, upon
recommendation of the Executive Committee and
c. Mediation Education, Training and
the PHILJA Board of Trustees;
Monitoring Division
b. Implement, in coordination with the Office of the
e) Mediation Center Units, composition
Court Administrator, rules and policies of the
a. Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) Supreme Court on ADR mechanisms, namely,
Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM), Appellate
• Mediation Staff Officer V Court Mediation (ACM), Judicial Dispute
• Mediation Staff Assistant II Resolution ( JDR), Mobile Court-Annexed
Mediation (MCAM), and eventually Court-
• Mediation Aide Annexed Arbitration (CAA) and other Alternative
Dispute Resolution mechanisms;
• Accredited Mediators
c. Establish such PMC Units as may be necessary;
21
Court En Banc Resolution, dated June 3, 2008, under A.M.
No. 08-2-5-SC-PHILJA. d. Provide a system for the recruitment, screening,
training, and accreditation of Mediators;
22
Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr., PHILJA [Vice] Chancellor,
changed to Justice Marina L. Buzon, Executive Secretary, e. Monitor and evaluate the performance of
per Board Resolution No. 08-18, dated May 15, 2008, of the Mediators, such as in settling disputes and in
PHILJA Board of Trustees.
(Continued on next page)
26 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS PHILJA Bulletin
PHILJA Bulletin
Annex “B”
April-June 2011 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS
PHILJA NEWS 27