LAWYERS IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

I. Alternative Dispute Resolution Concepts

As the Philippine judiciary continues to battle with hundreds of thousands of cases

pending before it, the Supreme Court of the Philippines through the Justice Reform Initiatives
Support (JURIS) Project promotes the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms
to help de-clog the court dockets.

Latest figures show that while there are 702,147 pending cases in the country, excluding
those at the Supreme Court level, there are only 1,453 judges who can review and act on them. A
Philippine judge therefore handles an average of almost 500 cases, the number of which
continues to increase with about 50,000 new cases filed each year.

ADR is an abbreviation that stands for ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’. It refers to all
those methods of solving disputes which are alternatives for litigation in the courts or simply
means settling disputes outside of the courtroom. It refers to a variety of processes that help
parties resolve disputes without a trial. Typical ADR processes include mediation (Court-
Annexed Mediation- CAM), arbitration, neutral evaluation, and Judicial Dispute Resolution.

The ADR system in the Philippines, which is based on a sixty-year old law (Republic Act
No. 876, or the Arbitration Law), was mostly overlooked as a viable means of settling disputes
outside the court system because of three major factors: (1) its focus on arbitration as the sole
ADR vehicle; (2) the exemption of labor disputes to settlement under ADR; and (3) the lack of
supporting laws and policies to strengthen the ADR system. The expansion of the ADR system,
due to the enactment of Republic Act No. 9285 in 2004, may be considered a long-overdue
recognition of the need to declog court dockets, to improve the system of administering justice in
the country, and to introduce speedy dispute resolution as a means of facilitating economic
growth in the country.

The Philippines has several laws governing ADR which particularly defines the
procedure to settle certain disputes. The following are the governing laws in ADR:

a. Republic Act No. 9285   (The ADR Act of 2004)          

An act to institutionalize the use of an alternative dispute resolution system in the

philippines and to establish the office for alternative dispute resolution, and for other
purposes - created to encourage and actively promote the use of alternative dispute resolution
(adr) as an important means to achieve speedy and impartial justice and declog court dockets

1
 wherein the state shall provide means for the use of adr as an efficient tool and an alternative
procedure for the resolution of appropriate cases.

b. Republic Act no. 876 (The Arbitration Law) (Domestic Arbitration-1953)

An act to authorize the making of arbitration and submission agreements, to provide

for the appointment of arbitrators and the procedure for arbitration in civil controversies, and
for other purposes

c. A.M. No. 07-11-08 (Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution)

d. Uncitral Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration

It was adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on

June 21, 1985 which provides for a uniformity of law on arbitral procedures.

e. Executive Order No. 1008 ( Construction Industry Arbitration law) creating an arbitration
machinery in the construction industry of the Philippines
It has jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or connected with, contracts entered
into by parties involved in construction in the Philippines. This may involve government
or private contracts.

Our courts encourage the use of ADR to resolve conflict as can be observe from the
series of laws passed pertaining to ADR because it offers many benefits not only to the
conflicting parties but also to the courts, some of which are:

a. It helps declog court dockets and reduces the load on an overburdened court system;
b. It is expeditious than the court litigations. It speeds settlement.
c. It avoids expensive litigation fees as ADR is less expensive solution for all parties than
any other ways of resolving disputes. It saves money
d. It avoids the slow-paced court proceedings and the rigid and adversarial system of
courts;
e. ADR processes and outcomes focus on what is important to the parties and to the other
people involved;
f. ADR can help people to resolve a dispute before it becomes so big that a court or tribunal
becomes involved.
g. ADR can be very flexible and can be used for almost any kind of dispute; and
h. It often results in creative solutions, longer-lasting outcomes, greater satisfaction, and
improved relationships.

2
 Hence, ADR is highly encouraged in settling disputes instead of resorting to tedious and
arbitral proceedings.

II. Different Approaches in ADR

The commonly used ADR methods are arbitration, mediation and conciliation. These
three are primarily resorted to by parties as an expedient and cost-effective ways of settling
disputes.

A. Arbitration

Arbitration has been defined under the ADR Act as a voluntary dispute resolution process
in which one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the agreement of the parties
resolve a dispute by rendering an award. It is a non-adversarial settlement wherein the parties are
free to choose the arbitrators that will compose the tribunal, the procedure to be followed in the
proceedings, the venue of arbitration, and the substantive law that will govern the proceedings.

In ARBITRATION, a neutral person called an “ARBITRATOR” hears arguments and

evidence from each side and then decides the outcome of the dispute. Arbitration is less formal
than a trial, and the rules of evidence are often relaxed. Arbitration may be either “binding” or
“nonbinding”. Binding arbitration means that the parties waive their right to a trial and agree to
accept the arbitrator’s decision as final. Generally, there is no right to appeal an arbitrator’s
decision. Nonbinding arbitration means that the parties are free to request a trial if they do not
accept the arbitrator’s decision

Cases for Which Arbitration May Be Appropriate

Arbitration is best for cases where the parties want another person to decide the outcome
of their dispute for them but would like to avoid the formality, time, and expense of a trial. It
may also be appropriate for complex matters where the parties want a decision-maker who has
training or experience in the subject matter of the dispute.

Cases for Which Arbitration May Not Be Appropriate

If parties want to retain control over how their dispute is resolved, arbitration, particularly
binding arbitration is not appropriate. In binding arbitration, the parties generally cannot appeal
the arbitrator’s award, even if it is not supported by the evidence or the law. Even in non-
binding arbitration, if a party request a trial and does not receive a more favorable result at trial
than in arbitration, there may be penalties.

B. Mediation

3
 Another form of ADR is mediation which includes conciliation. Mediation, under the
ADR Act, is defined as a voluntary process in which a mediator, selected by the disputing parties
facilitates communication and negotiation and assists the parties, in reaching a voluntary
agreement regarding a dispute. Unlike an arbitrator, however, a mediator selected by the parties
usually does not have the power to compel the parties to accept a recommended solution.
Nevertheless, the parties may agree in the settlement agreement that the mediator shall become a
sole arbitrator for the dispute and shall treat the settlement agreement as an arbitral award.
Although parties have the freedom to agree to submit their disputes to these alternative dispute
resolution methods, it must be noted that not all subject matters of disputes may be resolved
through these means. Section 6 of the ADR Act provides for exceptions to the application of the
Act. In general, resort to ADR methods cannot be had if the dispute involves matters which are,
as the law provides, not subject to compromise.

In MEDIATION, an impartial person called a “mediator helps the parties try to reach a
mutually acceptable resolution of the dispute. The mediator does not decide the dispute but
helps the parties communicate so they can try to settle the dispute themselves. Mediation leaves
control of the outcome with the parties.

Cases in general are referred to Court Annexed Mediation before proceeding with the
pre-trial conference. During the Court Annexed Mediation, a trained and accredited mediator
assists the parties in exploring avenues for a settlement. If the parties did not arrive at a
settlement, Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) commences but if the parties arrived at a
settlement, a mediator’s report attaching a Compromise Agreement duly signed by the parties
and the designated mediator will be submitted to the Court and the same will serve as basis for
the rendition of a judgment wherein ordinarily, the Court will issue a Judgement Based on
Compromise Agreement terminating the case if the court found that the stipulations contained in
the said Compromise Agreement is not contrary to customs, morals and public policy.

Cases for Which Mediation May Be Appropriate

MEDIATION may be particularly useful when parties have a relationship they want to
preserve. So when family members, neighbors or business partners have a dispute, mediation
my by the ADR process to use. Mediation is also effective when emotions are getting in the way
of resolution. An effective mediator can hear the parties out and help them communicate with
each other in an effective and non-destructive manner.

Cases for Which Mediation May Not Be Appropriate

Mediation may not be effective if one of the parties is unwilling to cooperate or

compromise. Mediation may also not be effective if one of the parties has significant advantage

4
in power over the other. Therefore, it may not be a good choice if the parties have a history of
abuse or victimization.

Two Types of Mediation

1. COURT-REFERRED MEDIATION – means mediation ordered by a court to be

conducted in accordance with the Agreement of the Parties when an action is prematurely
commenced

2. COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION (COURT ANNEXED MEDIATION (CAM)-

A M No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA (Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded
Coverage of Court-Annexed Mediation) - means any mediation process conducted under the
auspices of the court, after such court has acquired jurisdiction of the dispute.

C. Conciliation

Under Section 7 of the ADR Law, the term “mediation” shall include “conciliation”.
Thus, for purposes of ADR Law, conciliation is part of the mediation process.

Conciliation is the process where the third party assists the parties to resolve their dispute
by agreement. A conciliator may do this by expressing an opinion about the merits of the dispute
to help the parties to reach a settlement. Conciliation is a compromise settlement with the
assistance of a Conciliator.

D. Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR)

If the parties do not settle during the mediation proceedings in the Court Annexed
Mediation, in the Philippine Mediation Center, Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) commences
herein the judge acts as a mediator and neutral evaluator who actively assist and facilitates
negotiations among the parties for them to settle their disputes.

If during the JDR proceedings, parties do not settle, the Court conducting the JDR, will
issue an Order referring the case to the Office of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle to other Courts
to continue the court litigation.

Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) is governed by A.M. No. 11-1-6- SC-PHILJA and is
promulgated pursuant to the ADR Act of 2004.

5
 Together with court-annexed mediation, JDR is intended to put an end to pending
litigation through a compromise agreement and help unclog court dockets in the country. Cases
covered by CAM are also subject to JDR.

E. Neutral Evaluation

In NEUTRAL EVALUATION, each party gets a chance to present the case to a neutral
person called an “EVALUATOR”. The evaluator then gives an opinion on the strengths and
weaknesses of each party’s evidence and arguments and bout how the disputes could be
resolved. The evaluator is often an expert in the subject matter of the dispute. Although the
evaluator’s opinion is not binding, the parties typically use it as a basis for trying to negotiate a
resolution of the dispute.

Cases for Which Neutral Evaluation May Be Appropriate

Neutral evaluation may be most appropriate in cases in which there are technical issues
that require special expertise to resolve or the only significant issue in the case is the amount of
damages.

Cases for Which Mediation May Not Be Appropriate

Neutral evaluation may not be appropriate when there are significant personal or
emotional barriers to resolving the dispute.

III. Role of Lawyers in ADR

One of the resolutions issued by the Supreme Court relative to ADR which dictates the
proper demeanour of parties’ counsel is A.M. No. 04-3-05-SC, “Re: Guidelines for Parties
Counsel in Court-Annexed Mediation Cases”.

As stated in the guideline, litigation is based on the attitude that disputes involve rights
and remedies that are fought through the adversarial system of justice for which lawyers have
been specially trained for. When litigation is shifted to mediation, a different attitude is called for
that would view the dispute as a problem-solving opportunity for lawyers to assist the parties
resolve their differences in ways that are productive for their future lives.

It is important to stress that the lawyer’s role as counsel for a party radically changes as
the mode of dispute resolution shifts from adjudication to mediation. The premise must be
accepted that counsel must drop his combative role in adjudication and view his new role in

6
mediation as a collaborator with the other counsel in working together toward the common goal
of helping their clients resolve their differences to their mutual advantage. Whereas he is clearly
dominant in judicial trials, he must now accept a less directive role to allow the parties more
opportunities to craft their own agreement. He must shift gears and accept the role of an adviser
or consultant.

After understanding and accepting his new role in the mediation process, he must help
the client also comprehend and appreciate the mediation process and its benefits, as well as the
client’s greater personal responsibility for the success of mediation in resolving the dispute.

Preparation for Participation in Mediation

Upon receipt from the trial court of the order to proceed to mediation, counsel shall
confer and discuss with his client the following:

a. The mediation process as essentially a negotiation between the parties assisted by their
respective counsel, and facilitated by a mediator, stressing its difference from litigation,
its advantage and benefits, the client’s heightened role in mediation and responsibility for
its success and explaining the new role of the lawyer.

b. The substance of the upcoming mediation, such as:

i. The substantive issues involved in their dispute with the other party and their
prioritization in terms of importance to client.
ii. Study of the other sides position in relation to the issues with a view to
understanding the underlying fears, concerns and needs underneath said position.
iii. Information or facts to be gathered or sought from the other side or to be
exchanged that are necessary for informed decision making.
iv. Possible bargaining options but stressing the need to be open-minded about other
possibilities.
v. The best, worst, and most likely alternatives to a negotiated agreement.

Participation in the Mediation Sessions

During the initial mediation session (before the court-accredited mediator) when the
mediator introduces the parties to the process of mediation, it is helpful for the lawyers to give
support to the mediator so that their clients fully understand the rules and processes of mediation.

To contribute to the success of mediation, the lawyers must allow their clients to take
responsibility for making decisions during the negotiations within the mediation process. The
lawyers must restrain themselves from dominating the process and instead allow their clients to

7
take the initiative in discussions and create various options that are relevant to their own personal
interests.

However, if the client is unable to bargain effectively and it appears that he is on the
short-end of the power imbalance, and the mediator is not doing enough to even up this
imbalance, the lawyer may have to take a somewhat more active role in the process.

Where necessary, a lawyer may ask for a recess, as often as may be necessary, in order to
give advice or suggestions to client in private.

Should mediation before the court-accredited mediator fail, and the case is referred back
to the Court, the lawyer may have to take a more active role during the mediation proceedings
before the judge.

Assistance in Preparing a Compromise Agreement or Withdrawal of Complaint and Satisfaction

of Claim

The lawyers shall assist the mediator in putting in writing the terms of the compromise
agreement that the parties have entered into and seeing to it that they are not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy so that the same may be approved by the
trial court for a judgment based upon a compromise.

The lawyers shall pay particular attention to issues of voluntary compliance with what
has been agreed upon or otherwise, to issues of enforcement.

Where applicable, the lawyers shall assist in the preparation of a manifestation of mutual
satisfaction of claims and counterclaims as basis for the court to issue and order of dismissal.

Role of Lawyers to Other Approaches of ADR

The court did not issue any other administrative circular with regard to the other forms of
ADR which is not court-connected. But what is expected from a lawyer during any kind of ADR
is that the lawyers will counsel clients about the merits of ADR processes, advocate for and
accompany them in these processes, and review and help implement the agreements that clients
make in ADR. In some cases, lawyers later may argue in court against the enforceability of
agreements created in ADR. Lawyers may act as either third-party neutrals or as partisan
advocates for clients. Finally, lawyers are often in a professional relationship with each other
when participating in ADR processes.

IV. Ethical Considerations in ADR

8
 Lawyers take increased participation during ADR and most of the time it has generated a
number of complex questions about their professional responsibilities. Some of the emerging
ethical issues relate to:

a. Client counseling and Conflicts of interest,

b. Confidentiality, and
c. Duties of good faith and candor

Client Counseling and Conflict of Interest

Every lawyer ought to have an ethical obligation to counsel clients about the multiple
ways of resolving problems and planning transactions and included in such is the advocacy of
resorting to ADR instead of going through a full-blown trial.

The Code of Professional Responsibility specifically states:

Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it
will admit of a fair settlement.
Rule 15.04 A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator, or arbitrator in settling disputes.

This is in line with Section 23 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides:

Section 23 Authority of attorneys to bind clients – Attorneys have authority to bind their
clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals,
and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without special authority,
compromise their client’s litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client’s claim but the
full amount in cash.

The decision whether to pursue ADR should be made by clients, rather than attorneys, is
not only because of the risks and potential benefits to clients, but because lawyers are likely to
have a conflict of interest as to this issue. The reason that the decision to seek ADR must come
from the client and not from the lawyer is the possibility that a conflict of interest may arise
because resorting to ADR requires less attorney time than traditional means of dispute resolution,

9
lawyers who are paid on an hourly basis will lose money. During the counseling, the lawyer must
advise the client in good faith of the advantages, disadvantages and availability of dispute
resolution processes that might be appropriate in pursuing the objectives of the client. In that
process, the lawyer may be tempted to not fully inform or advocate the client to pursue ADR
since resorting to a tedious litigation process which will involve more attorneys’ fees. The
lawyer then violates Rule 1.03 of the CPR for instilling barratry and Rule 1.04 for not advocating
ADR when amicable settlement is possible.

Moreover, lawyers are only allowed to compromise for their clients when there is a
special authority to do so as stated in Section 23 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Such is
required so as not to adversely affect the interest of the client in a certain claim. In the case of
Melendrez v. Decena, (176 SCRA 662), counsel, in his professional capacity, entered into a
compromise agreement concerning the civil liability of accused without the consent and approval
of the complainants and received a partial amount as an advance payment and did not inform the
latter about this. And even after the counsel was confronted, he still did not turn over the money.
Respondent’s failure to turn over to spouses the partial payment underscores his lack of honesty
and candor in dealing with his clients.

The CPR further requires the counsel to help in the speedy disposition of cases and help
to declog court dockets and reduce the load on an overburdened court system. This is provided in
Rule 12.04 of the CPR which states that:

Rule 12.04 A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of judgement or
misuse Court cases.

Hence, the lawyer must not resort to improper use of technicalities of the legal
proceeding and as much as possible help the courts to expedite the litigation of a case. And,
ADR is one of the forms to comply with that duty of the lawyer to the court. In the case of
Jesalva et. al vs Bautista (105 Phil 348), the court ruled that the law does not limit compromise to
cases about to be filed or cases already pending in courts. The compromise may be effected even
after final judgment is impliedly authorized by Article 2040 of the Civil Code. And, even though
the attorneys’ fees are already determined in a final judgement, and thereafter that final
judgement a compromise is agreed upon and the attorneys’ fees as determined will be reduced by
the agreement, the court ruled:

The rights of lawyers to the fees due them for services in a litigation cannot have
a higher standing than the rights of the clients or the parties themselves. Lawyers' rights
may not be invoked by some of the parties as a ground for disapproving the compromise.
The lawyer affected can enforce his rights in a proper proceeding in accordance with the
Rules, but said rights may not be used to prevent the approval of the compromise.

10
 It is imperative therefore that if there is a chance to compromise, the lawyer must
encourage his client to an amicable settlement instead of going through a long process of
litigation.

Confidentiality

Aside from conflict of interest, another ethical consideration to a lawyer who engaged in
ADR is the confidentiality issues most especially to those who have participated in the mediation
process. The primary question is in case the ADR became unsuccessful, can a lawyer who has
acted either as a mediator, arbitrator, counsel of the party, third party neutral or even just an
advocate in an ADR process represent a party in litigation. Republic Act No. 9285 provides:

Section 9 Confidentiality of Information. - Information obtained through mediation

proceedings shall be subject to the following principles and guidelines:
(a) Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential.

(b) A party, a mediator, or a nonparty participant may refuse to disclose and may
prevent any other person from disclosing a mediation communication.

(c) Confidential Information shall not be subject to discovery and shall be inadmissible
if any adversarial proceeding, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, However, evidence
or information that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does not become
inadmissible or protected from discovery solely by reason of its use in a mediation

(d) In such an adversarial proceeding, the following persons involved or previously

involved in a mediation may not be compelled to disclose confidential information
obtained during mediation: (1) the parties to the dispute; (2) the mediator or
mediators; (3) The counsel for the parties; (4) the nonparty participants; (5) any
persons hired or engaged in connection with the mediation as secretary,
stenographer, clerk or assistant; and (6) any other person who obtains or possesses
confidential information by reason of his/her profession.

(e) The protections of this Act shall continue to apply even of a mediator is found to
have failed to act impartially.

(f) A mediator may not be called to testify to provide information gathered in mediation.
A mediator who is wrongfully subpoenaed shall be reimbursed the full cost of his
attorney's fees and related expenses.

11
 It is therefore prohibited to use the confidential information which may adversely affect
the parties who engaged in mediation if the process failed to attain its purpose. But these
information may be subjected to waiver of confidentiality and exceptions as provided also in RA
No. 9285.

In one foreign jurisprudence entitled Poly Software International, Inc vs Su, 880 F. Supp.
1487, federal court disqualified an attorney from representing a party against another party who
had been a co-participant in a previous mediation involving a similar issue. In the first case, the
two parties (together) were accused of appropriating software from another company and the
attorney involved in the second case was the mediator. During the mediation the mediator clearly
had access to information from all parties, including in all likelihood, some information about
who had actually been responsible for the "theft" of the software codes. In the second case, the
former partners in the prior mediation were engaged in a similar dispute, this time one of them
accusing the other of appropriating the software documentation. The court based its
disqualification ruling by reasoning, by analogy, from Rule 1.9 of Model Rules of Professional
Conduct that like an attorney "who has formerly represented a client in a matter [and who should
therefore] not thereafter represent another person in the same or substantially related matter in
which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, a
mediator should not represent someone who had previously been a party in a mediation. Note
that the court treated the prior mediation as being analogous to a prior representation, when what
occurred functionally, was the learning of confidential information during the mediation which
could have been used adversely against one of the parties (who had, at least during the
mediation, trusted that the mediator would not only keep the information confidential but not use
it against him).

Therefore, lawyers should refrain from using for their ill motive the information derived
from the ADR process.

Duties of Good Faith and Candor

In line with counseling, the lawyer must advise the client who is a layman to the
intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. Therefore, the
lawyer must always seek to establish which is the better recourse for a client, whether to pursue
litigation or to resort to ADR. The CPR provides:

12
 Rule 15.05 A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on
the merits and probable results of the client’s case, neither overstating nor understating the
prospects on the case.

The public consideration of the “ethical duty” began with the unsettling trend that
attempted to portray the failure to use, or attempt to use, ADR processes as a breach of the
professional standard of care had by an attorney. In one speech it was said that, “ADR methods,
and mediation in specific, are more likely than not to settle cases at the cost and risk equivalent
of deposition. If a bad result follows at trial (even just the cost, expense and risk of trial), it is
more likely than not that the result could have been avoided by engaging in mediation. The
failure to attempt to avoid the bad result by engaging in mediation thus had foreseeable expenses
or bad result occurring at trial. After all, if a summary judgment motion had an 80% chance of
success, wouldn’t you make the motion—or at least advise your client about the option?” by
resorting to ADR, the savings to the client consist not only of financial, but emotional and social
resources. Attorneys owe their clients a duty to consider such things in the conduct of their cases.

V. Application of ADR to Other Countries

Dispute resolution in the Philippines evolved from both indigenous traditions and legal
systems adopted from western models such that most of our ADR processes are in common with
those processes adopted by other countries. In the US, they recognize American Bar Association
of Professional Conduct as standard in the proper conduct of lawyers in the practicing
profession. There are provisions in the ABA which primarily relates to ADR namely:
a. Rule 1.07 – Conflict of Interest
b. Rule 1.12 Former Judge or Abitrator
c. Rule 2.2 Intermediary

In some European Countries like the Czech Republic, there is no definition of ADR.
ADR in the meaning of ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION comprises special methods
and processes of settling disputes by means other than litigation. Arbitration, Mediation and
Concilliation are defined and set out by the relevant legal acts. Czech legislation defines
mediation in terms of penal, commercial, family and civil matters.

In Slovakia, there is also no definitive definition of ADR in their legal code. There are
various laws, however, which cover out-of-court resolution of disputes either through mediation
or arbitration.

13
 Hungary, on the other hand, defines mediation to be a special non-litigious procedure
conducted in accordance with the Act (see below the responsibilities) to provide an alternative to
court proceedings in order to resolve conflicts and disputes where the parties involved
voluntarily submit the case to a neutral third party (the mediator) in order to reach a settlement in
the process and lay the ensuing agreement down in writing.

Those are some of the countries who also acknowledge the importance of ADR in settling
out of court a certain dispute among the parties which is essentially the same to the Philippines.

VI. Conclusion and Recommendation

ADR is a process resorted into by parties in order to settle a dispute out of court and
which as mentioned above offers several benefits not only in terms of financial but also in the
success rate of the outcome desired by the parties. Relationships among the parties are also
preserved in ADR. It does not only help the parties but also the court since the case, if settled in
ADR will not add up anymore in the file of cases already intact in the court. These benefits are
the reason that court encourages and even mandates that ADR be incorporated in our judicial
process. And in that, the lawyer plays various roles in the ADR administration whether he be a
counsel of the party, an advocate, mediator, arbitrator or a third party neutral. He must observe
proper professional conduct in any role he will take during the ADR process and must see to it
that he complies with the various laws relative to ADR. He must observe good faith and candor
in counseling his clients and not commit any conflict of interest in case the ADR fails to serve its
purpose.
Therefore, the group recommends that in order to fully define the responsibility of the
lawyers in any form of ADR, the court must provide more definitive administrative matters
(AM) which will state the role of lawyers before, during and after each form of ADR because at
present only mediation has such AM. The court must also provide specific ethical standards or
rules that will state the extent of involvement of a lawyer after the ADR process fail to serve its
purpose, through that the interest of the parties involved in the mediation will be protected.

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Republic Act No. 9285. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. April 2,
2004
 Republic Act No. 876. The Arbitration Law. June 19, 1953
 A.M. No. 07-11-08. Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution.
September 1, 2009
 A.M. No. 04-3-05-SC. Re: Guidelines for Parties Counsel in Court-Annexed
Mediation Cases. Mrach 9, 2004.
 Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. “Ethuics in Alternative Dispute Resolution: New Issue,
No Answers from the Adversary Conception of Lawyer’s Responsibilities”. 1997.
Georgetown University Law Center.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1744
 Nolan-Haley, Jacqueline et.al. “ADR and the Professional Responsibility of
Lawyers”. 2001. Fordham Urban Law Journal. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj
 Pandey, Durgeshk. “Role For Lawyers in ADR”. 2015.
https://www.slideshare.net/DurgeshkPandey/role-for-lawyers-in-adr
 California Courts The Judicial Branch of California. “ADR Types & Benefits”.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/3074.htm

15