COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION AND JUDICIAL

DISPUTES RESOLUTION
What is Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM)?

CAM is a voluntary process conducted under the auspices of the court by referring the parties to
the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) Unit for the settlement of their dispute, assisted by a
Mediator accredited by the Supreme Court.

What are the cases subject to CAM?

The following cases shall be referred to CAM:

1. All civil cases, except those which by law may not be compromised (Article 2035, New
Civil Code);
2. Special proceedings for the settlement of estates;
3. The civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code;
4. The civil aspect of criminal cases where the imposable penalty does not exceed six years
imprisonment and the offended party is a private person; and
5. The civil aspect of theft (not qualified theft), estafa (not syndicated or large scale estafa),
and libel.

What is Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR)?

JDR is a process whereby the judge (called the JDR Judge) employs conciliation, mediation or
early neutral evaluation in order to settle a case at the pre-trial stage.  In the event the JDR fails,
then another judge (called the trial judge) shall proceed to hear and decide the case.

What are the cases subject to JDR?

The following cases shall be referred to JDR by Judges in areas declared as JDR sites:

1. All cases which were not successfully settled in CAM;

2. All appealed cases from the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the First Level Courts:
o over civil cases and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, under Section 33,
paragraph (1) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980;
o over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer under Section 33, paragraph (2)
of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980;
o over civil cases involving title to or possession of real property or an interest
therein under Section 33, paragraph (3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980; and
o over a habeas corpus case decided by the judge of the first level court, in the
absence of all the Regional Trial Court judges in the province or city, that are
 brought up on appeal from the special jurisdiction granted to the first level courts
under Section 35 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.

What are the cases that cannot be referred to CAM and JDR?

The following cases shall not be referred to CAM and JDR:

1. Civil cases which by law cannot be compromised, as follows:

o The civil status of persons;
o The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
o Any ground for legal separation;
o Future support;
o The jurisdiction of courts; and
o Future legitime.
2. Civil aspect of non-mediatable criminal cases;
3. Petitions for Habeas Corpus;
4. All cases under Republic Act No. 9262 (Violence against Women and Children); and
5. Cases with pending application for Restraining Orders/Preliminary Injunctions.

However, in cases covered in numbers 1, 4 and 5 where the parties inform the court that they
have agreed to undergo mediation on some aspects thereof, e.g., custody of minor children,
separation of property, or support pendente lite, the court shall refer them to mediation.

What is Mediation Fee?

The mediation fee is the amount collected by the Clerk of Court from the filing of civil cases and
private complainant in criminal cases.

What is Mediation Fund?

Mediation fund is the totality of the mediation fees, receipted and separated as a special fund,
known as the SC-PHILJA-PMC Mediation Trust Fund, which is managed by the Philippine
Judicial Academy (PHILJA), subject to accounting and auditing rules and regulations.

How much is collected as Mediation Fee?

In the Regional Trial Courts and the First-Level Courts, the Clerks of Court shall collect the
amount of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) upon the filing of the following:

1. Complaint or an Answer with a mediatable permissive counterclaim or cross-claim,

complaint-in-intervention, third-party complaint, fourth-party complaint, etc., in civil
cases, a Petition, an Opposition, and a Creditors’ Claim in Special Proceedings;
 2. Complaint/Information for offenses with maximum imposable penalty of prision
correccional in its maximum period or six years imprisonment, except where the civil
liability is reserved or is subject of a separate action;
3. Complaint/Information for estafa, theft, and libel cases, except where the civil liability is
reserved or is subject of a separate action;
4. Complaint/Information for Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code;
5. Intellectual Property cases;
6. Commercial or corporate cases; and
7. Environmental cases

The Clerks of Court of the First Level Courts shall collect the amount of FIVE HUNDRED
PESOS (P500.00) upon the filing of a Notice of Appeal with the Regional Trial Court.

The Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Court shall collect the amount of ONE THOUSAND
PESOS (P1,000.00) upon the filing of a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals or the
Sandiganbayan.

In the Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals, the Clerks of Court shall collect the amount
of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) upon the filing of a mediatable case, petition, special
civil action, a comment/answer to the petition or action, and the appellee’s brief. The Clerk of
Court of the Court of Tax Appeals shall also collect the amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS
(P1,000.00) for the appeal from the decision of a CTA Division to the CTA En Banc.

Why is Mediation Fee collected even in areas where there are no PMC Units?

The mediation fee is intended as a contribution to promote mediation. It is not collected for
mediation services rendered or to be rendered.

Are there any exemptions from payment of Mediation Fees?

Yes, the following are exempted from paying mediation fees:

1. Pauper litigants as determined by the Court. However, despite such exemption, the court
shall provide that the unpaid contribution to the Mediation Fund shall be considered a
lien on any monetary award in a judgment favorable to the pauper litigant.
2. Accused/accused-appellant.
3. The Republic of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities are exempt from
paying the legal fees provided in the rule.  Local Governments and Government-Owned
or Controlled Corporations (GOCC) with or without independent charters are not exempt
from paying such fees.
However, all court actions, criminal or civil, instituted at the instance of the provincial,
 city or municipal treasurer or assessor under Sec. 280 of the Local Government Code of
1991 shall be exempt from the payment of Court and Sheriff’s Fees.
4. Tenant-Farmer, agricultural lessee or tiller, settler or amortizing owner-cultivator (P.D.
No. 946, Sec. 16, June 17, 1976).
5. Indigent Clients of the Public Attorney’s Office (OCA Circular No. 121-2007, Dec. 11,
2007).
6. Clients of the National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) and of Legal Aide Offices in
the Local Chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (OCA Circular No. 137-2009,
October 7, 2009).

What is the purpose of the Mediation Fund?

The Fund shall be used for:

1. Establishment of PMC Units;

2. Training seminars/ workshops/ internship programs for Mediators;
3. Payment of Mediators’ Fees;
4. Compensation of the PMC Unit Staff;
5. Payment of operating expenses;
6. Advocacy and promotion of court-annexed mediation and other relevant modes of ADR;
and
7. Such other expenses as authorized by Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

The Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (Revised Rules)

introduced significant amendments to the rules on pre-trial.
Nature and Proceedings

Under the Revised Rules, the following shall be done during the pre-trial hearing: marking of
evidence, comparison of original evidence vis-à-vis copies, stipulations regarding the
faithfulness of the reproductions and the genuineness and due execution of the adverse parties’
evidence, reservation of testimonial evidence not available at the pre-trial by giving the name or
position and the nature of the testimony of the proposed witness, and reservation of documentary
and other object evidence by giving a particular description of the evidence.

Issuance of Pre-trial Notice

The clerk of court is now directed to issue the pre-trial notice motu proprio and without need of
motion by the plaintiff.
Failure to Appear

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide that failure of the plaintiff to appear at pre-trial
without a valid cause is a ground for dismissal of the action with prejudice unless otherwise
ordered by the court; while a similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow
the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
The Revised Rules maintained these provisions and further provided that failure of plaintiff’s or
defendant’s counsel to appear, as the case may be, will have the same consequences.

The Revised Rules also provide that in case of failure of a party and his/her counsel to attend the
pre-trial without just cause and despite due notice, the party waives any objections to the
faithfulness of the reproductions marked, or their genuineness and due execution. In addition,
failure of a party and/or counsel to bring the evidence required shall now be deemed a waiver of
the presentation of such evidence.

Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR)

CAM and JDR, which were previously scheduled before pre-trial, are now scheduled after pre-
trial. The parties are given a non-extendible period of 30 calendar days to finish the mandatory
CAM. If the parties fail to agree during the CAM, the court will determine if settlement is still
possible and refer the case for JDR. If the case is referred to JDR, the case will be raffled to
another court that will conduct the JDR. JDR is to be conducted within a non-extendible period
of 15 calendar days from notice of failure of the CAM. If JDR fails, trial before the original court
shall proceed on the dates agreed upon during pre-trial. Previously, the JDR was conducted by
the court where the case was filed and only referred to another court for trial when the JDR fails.

Judgment after Pre-trial

Another notable change is the power of the judge to motu proprio render judgment after pre-trial
when: (1) there are no controverted facts; (2) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (3)
there is absence of any issue; or (4) the answer fails to tender an issue. This is without prejudice
to a party moving for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34 or summary judgment under Rule
35. The pre-trial order shall indicate that the case shall be submitted for summary judgment or
judgment on the pleadings without need of position papers or memoranda. In such cases,
judgment shall be rendered within 90 calendar days from termination of the pre-trial. The order
of the court to submit the case for judgment pursuant to this rule shall not be subject to appeal or
certiorari.

Effectivity

The Revised Rules apply to cases filed after 01 May 2020 and to those already pending as of 01
May 2020, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, application thereof would not be
feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed
shall govern.
CAM and JDR

The Guidelines divide judicial proceedings into two stages, namely: (a) from the filing of a
complaint up to the conduct of CAM and JDR during the pre-trial stage; and (b) from the pre-
trial proper up to trial and judgment.

In both CAM and JDR, the court or any party may move to sanction a party who fails to appear
or any person who engages in abusive conduct during the proceedings.  Sanctions may include
censure, reprimand, contempt or requiring the absent party to reimburse up to treble the cost of
the appearing party.

A representative of a party who is unable to attend in person must be fully authorized to appear,
negotiate and enter into a compromise without need of further approval by or notification to the
authorizing party. With respect to corporations, partnerships, or other juridical entities, the
representative must also be a ranking corporate officer.

The Guidelines emphasize that both CAM and JDR are confidential. Any information or
communication made or received is inadmissible as evidence in any other proceeding.  JDR
judges and all court personnel or any other person present during the proceeding are prohibited
from passing information obtained in the course of conciliation and early neutral evaluation to
the trial judge or to any other person.

CAM Procedure

Under the Guidelines, the CAM procedure is:

1. Upon filing the last pleading, the judge orders the parties to appear before the PMC Unit.

2.  The parties shall select an acceptable accredited mediator. Otherwise, the mediator shall be
chosen by lot.

3.  The mediator starts the mediation and explains the mediation process.

4.  With the consent of both sides, the mediator may hold separate caucuses and/or joint
conferences with them.

5.  If no settlement is reached at the end of the mediation period, the case is returned to the
referring judge.

6.  The mediator has 30 days from the initial conference to complete the mediation process,
extendible for another 30 days upon motion to be filed by the mediator, with the conformity of
the parties.
7.  If full settlement is reached, the parties shall draft the compromise agreement for approval by
the court.  If compliance has been made, the court shall dismiss the case upon the submission by
the parties of a satisfaction of claim or a mutual withdrawal of the case.

If partial settlement is reached, the parties will submit its terms for appropriate action by the
court, without waiting for resolution of the unsettled part.  The court will conduct JDR for the
unsettled part of the dispute.

JDR Procedure

Under the Guidelines, the JDR procedure is:

1.  The JDR judge first refers the case to CAM but also pre-sets the JDR conference not earlier
than 45 days from the parties’ first mediation appearance.

First-level courts such as Metropolitan Trial Courts and Regional Trial Courts have 30 days from
the first JDR conference to complete the process.  Second-level courts such as Regional Trial
Courts exercising its appellate jurisdiction have 60 days to complete the process.

In criminal cases where a settlement has been reached on the civil aspect but the period of
payment in accordance with the terms of settlement exceeds one year, the case may be archived
upon motion of the prosecution, with notice to the other party and with approval by the judge.

2.  The judge to whom the case was assigned by raffle shall be the JDR judge. He shall preside
over the first stage and resolve all incidents or motions filed during this stage.  If the case is not
resolved during JDR, it shall be raffled to another judge for the second stage.  As a general rule,
the JDR judge shall not preside over the trial of the case.  However, the parties may jointly
request in writing that the case be tried by the JDR judge.

3.  In single-sala courts, the parties may file a joint written motion requesting the court of origin
to conduct the JDR and trial. Otherwise the JDR will be conducted by the judge of the pair court
or, if none, by the judge of the nearest court at the station where the case was originally filed.
The result of the JDR shall be referred to the court of origin for appropriate action, e.g., approval
of the compromise agreement or trial.
4.  In areas where only one court is designated as a family court, the parties may file a joint
written motion requesting the family court to which the case was originally raffled to conduct the
JDR and trial. Otherwise, the JDR shall be conducted by a judge of another branch through
raffle.  If there is another family court in the same area, the family court to whom the case was
originally raffled shall conduct JDR and, if no settlement is reached, the other family court shall
conduct the pre-trial proper and trial.

5.  In areas where only one court is designated as

commercial/intellectual property/environmental court (“special court”), unless otherwise agreed
upon by the parties, the JDR shall be conducted by another judge through raffle and not by the
judge of the special court. Where there is no settlement, the judge of the special court shall be the
trial judge.  Any incident or motion filed before the pre-trial stage shall be dealt with by the
special court that referred the case to CAM.
6.  Cases may be referred to JDR even during trial, upon written motion of one or both parties.
The JDR judge may either be (a) another judge through raffle in multiple-sala courts; or (b) the
nearest court (or pair court, if any) regardless of the level of the latter court in single sala courts.

7.  If the dispute is fully settled, the parties will submit the compromise agreement for approval
by the court.  If there has been compliance, the court shall dismiss the case upon submission by
the parties of a satisfaction of claims or a mutual withdrawal of the parties’ respective claims and
counterclaims.

In case of partial settlement, the compromise may be submitted to the court for approval and
rendition of a judgment upon partial compromise, which may be immediately enforced by
execution.

In criminal cases, if settlement is reached on the civil aspect thereof, the parties shall submit the
compromise agreement for appropriate action by the court.  Action on the criminal aspect of the
case will be determined by the Public Prosecutor, subject to the appropriate action of the court.

The Revised Rules on Court-Annexed Mediation and

Judicial Dispute Resolution
 
This is the first part of a two-part article on CAM and JDR. This part of the article will discuss
the expanded coverage of CAM and JDR. The CAM and JDR procedures will be discussed in the
October issue.
On January 11, 2011, the Philippine Supreme Court approved new guidelines to expand the
coverage of court-annexed mediation (CAM) and judicial dispute resolution (JDR)
[“Guidelines”]. The Guidelines were issued through Resolution A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA .

The Guidelines adopted the policy of diverting court cases to CAM and JDR to “put an end to
pending litigation through a compromise agreement of the parties and thereby help solve the
ever-pressing problem of court docket congestion.”  While recognizing that criminal cases may
not be compromised, this policy strongly indicates that the ultimate objective of CAM and JDR
is to end all litigation, not merely its civil aspect.
The Guidelines are empowers the parties to resolve their own disputes and give practical effect
to the State policy in Rep. Act No. 9285 (The ADR Act of 2004) “to actively promote party
autonomy in the resolution of disputes or the freedom of the parties to make their own
arrangement to resolve disputes” (Sec. 2).  The reference to RA 9285 is interesting because the
Act does not cover court-annexed mediation (Sec. 7).  Moreover, the mandatory nature of CAM
and JDR and the restriction of the parties’ ability to choose their mediators makes CAM and JDR
somehow inconsistent with the idea that in an alternative dispute resolution system, the parties
have the freedom to determine how their dispute should be resolved.

Three stages of diversion

The Guidelines define three stages of court diversion, namely: CAM, JDR and Appeals Court
Mediation (ACM).  Each was previously covered by a separate Supreme Court issuance, which
somehow made it difficult to see that they were meant to complement each other.  The
Guidelines now clarify that CAM, JDR and ACM have the same objective and that they are
merely different stages of a comprehensive dispute resolution process aimed at abating or ending
court-docket congestion.

1.  During CAM, the first stage of court diversion, the judge refers the parties to the Philippine
Mediation Center (PMC) for the mediation of their dispute by trained and accredited mediators.

2.  If CAM fails, the second stage, called the JDR, is undertaken by the JDR judge, acting as a
mediator-conciliator-early neutral evaluator.[1]
3.  The third stage is during appeal, where covered cases are referred to ACM.

Expanded jurisdiction

In addition to consolidating the existing CAM and JDR rules, the Guidelines covers the civil
aspect of less grave felonies punishable by correctional penalties not exceeding six years
imprisonment, where the offended party is a private person.[2]
The purpose is for the court diversion process to achieve a greater impact.  The expansion to less
grave offenses is needed since civil cases constitute only a small 16 percent of all cases filed in
court, while special proceedings constitute even a smaller 7.6 percent.  Since correctional
penalties are intended for rehabilitation and correction of the offender, there is no reason why
crimes punishable by correctional penalties may not be compromised, as to their civil aspect. 
However, it is not clear if the Guidelines applies to the civil aspect of criminal cases that are
governed by special laws, although punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years.  In a
strict sense, the term “less grave felonies” applies to crimes under the Revised Penal Code but
not crimes governed by special laws.
Despite the non-mediatable nature of the principal action, like annulment of marriage, other
issues such as custody of children, support, visitation, property relations and guardianship may
be referred to CAM and JDR to limit the issues for trial.

Role of lawyers
Finally, the Guidelines define the role of lawyers in CAM and JDR as that of adviser and
consultant to their clients.  They are encouraged to drop their combative role in the adjudicative
process and to give up their dominant role in judicial trials, in order to allow the parties more
opportunities to craft their own agreement.

The JDR judge acts as a mediator, neutral evaluator and/or conciliator. As mediator and
conciliator, he facilitates the settlement discussions between the parties and tries to reconcile
their differences. As a neutral evaluator, he assesses the relative strengths and weaknesses of
each party’s case, makes a non-binding and impartial evaluation of the chances of each party’s
success in the case, and persuades the parties to a fair and mutually acceptable settlement of their
dispute.

The other cases subject to mandatory CAM/JDR are:

1. All civil cases and the civil liability of criminal cases covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure, including the civil liability for violation of B.P. 22, except cases which may
not be compromised.
2. Special proceedings for the settlement of estates.
3. All civil and criminal cases filed with a certificate to file action issued by the Punong
Barangay or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo under the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law.
4. The civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
5. The civil aspect of estafa, theft and libel.

(6)  All civil cases, probate proceedings, forcible entry and unlawful, cases involving title to or
possession of real property or an interest therein, and habeas corpus cases decided by the first
level courts in the absence of the Regional Trial Court judge, brought on appeal from the
exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts.