Volume IX, Issue No. 35 July-September 2007

Transcription

E
E
xx
cc
ee
ll
ll
ee
nn
cc
ee
ii
nn
tt
hh
ee
JJ
uu
dd
ii
cc
ii
aa
rr
yy
IN E S
IPP
IL
O
UR
PH
ES
PI N
IP
L
July to September 2007
IC IAL
EMY
I
C
H
T HE P
ME
LI
N
BATA
S AT BAYA
OF
JUD
S U PR E
REP UB
C
E
IP P
IN
R
P HIL
E M E C OU
AD
PR
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
NEWS
AC
U
T
S
July-September 2007
2007
July-September
T O F THE
Volume IX, Issue No. 35
2
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
REGULAR ACADEMIC
PROGRAMS
A. NEW APPOINTMENTS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
FOR COURT ATTORNEYS
The Continuing Legal Education Program for Court
Attorneys is a two-day program which highlights
on the topics of Agrarian Reform, Updates on Labor
Law, Consitutional Law and Family Law, and
Review of Decisions and Resolutions of the Civil
Service Commission, other Quasi-judicial Agencies
and the Ombudsman. The program for the
Cagayan De Oro Court of Appeals Attorneys was
held on July 10 to 11, 2007, at Dynasty Court Hotel,
Cagayan De Oro City, with forty-seven (47)
participants. The Cebu Court of Appeals Attorneys
attended the same program on July 31 to August 2,
2007, at Montebello Villa Hotel comprising fortythree (43) participants.
REGION I
Hon. Jennifer A. Pilar
RTC Br. 32, Agoo, La Union
REGION IV
Hon. Ramiro R. Geronimo
RTC Br. 81, Romblon, Romblon
Hon. Honorio E. Guanlao, Jr.
RTC Br. 29, San Pablo City, Laguna
Hon. Albert A. Kalalo
RTC Br. 4, Batangas City
Hon. Leopoldo Mario P. Legazpi
RTC Br. 49, Puerto Prinsesa City, Palawan
Hon. Agripino G. Morga
RTC Br. 32, San Pablo City, Laguna
REGION X
Hon. Victor A. Canoy
RTC Br. 29, Surigao City
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
ORIENTATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOP
FOR NEWLY APPOINTED JUDGES
The 48th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly
Appointed Judges conducted on July 17 to 26, 2007 at
the PHILJA Development Center, Tagaytay City,
had a total of forty-nine (49) judges in attendance.
There were eight (8) new appointees to the Regional
Trial Court; two (2) new appointees to the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities; fifteen (15) new
appointees to the Municipal Trial Court; nineteen
(19) new appointees to the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court; and one(1) new appointee to the Shari’a
Circuit Court. Four (4) judges were promoted to
the Regional Trial Court.
IN
CITIES
REGION IX
Hon. Ivan C. Mendoza, Jr.
MTCC Br. 2, Zamboanga City
REGION X
Hon. Cesar P. Bordalba
MTCC Br. 1, Surigao City
REGION I
Hon. Joseph C. Añonuevo
MTC Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
Below are the participants of the 48th Orientation SeminarWorkshop for Newly Appointed Judges with PHILJA lecturer
Sandiganbayan Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval.
July-September 2007
2007
July-September
3
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
NEWS
Hon. Rosalinda S. Medinaceli-Gepigon
MTC Bolinao, Pangasinan
Hon. Fervyn C. Pinzon
MTC Anda, Pangasinan
Hon. Pauline O. Badol-Salve
MTC Balungao, Pangasinan
REGION II
Hon. Nympha D. Abbacan
MTC Lubuagan, Kalinga Apayao
REGION III
Hon. Felino Z. Elefante
MTC Sta. Maria, Bulacan
Hon. Fernando Y. Guerrero, Jr.
MTC Gen. Tinio, Nueva Ecija
Hon. Nathanael A. Ramos
MTC Bongabon, Nueva Ecija
REGION IV
Hon. Walter Inocencio V. Arreza
MTC Pitogo, Quezon
Hon. Benno L. Bonifacio
MTC Macalelon, Quezon
Hon. Rosario Ester B. Orda-Caise
MTC Alaminos, Laguna
REGION X
Hon. Grace Monica Z. Lariba
MTC Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental
Hon. Lou A. Nueva
MTC Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur
REGION XI
Hon. Angelita A. Alfonso-Tumanda
MTC San Isidro, Davao Oriental
REGION XII
Hon. Rainera P. Osua
MTC Midsayap, North Cotabato
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
REGION I
Hon. Crisma R. Vismanos-Nabua
5th MCTC Urbiztondo-Basista, Pangasinan
Hon. Rusty M. Naya
3rd MCTC Agular-Bugallon, Pangasinan
Hon. Mervin Jovito S. Samadan
8th MCTC Alcala-Bautista, Pangasinan
REGION II
Hon. Sergio T. Angnganay, Jr.
14th MCTC Luna-Pudtol, Apayao
Hon. Marcos C. Diasen, Jr.
1st MCTC Tinglayan-Tanudan, Kalinga Apayao
REGION III
Hon. Ma. Cristina M. Pizarro
2nd MCTC Orani-Samal, Bataan
Hon. Emmanuel A. Silva
3rd MCTC Orion-Pilar, Bataan
Hon. Elenita D. Pascua-Sennido
2nd MCTC Gen. M. Natividad-Llanera, Nueva Ecija
REGION IV
Hon. Edwin B. Buffe
6th MCTC San Agustin-Imelda, Romblon
Hon. Arnel B. Caparros
7th MCTC Atimonan-Plaridel, Quezon
Hon. Ma. Theresa M. Navarro
3rd MCTC El Nido-Gaudencia E. Abordo, Palawan
Hon. Donna B. Pascual
1st MCTC Luisiana-Cavinti, Laguna
Hon. Glenn D. Santos
1st MCTC San Andres-Calatrava, Romblon
REGION VII
Hon. Antonio Manuel A. Alcantara
4th MCTC La Libertad-Villahermoso, Negros Oriental
REGION X
Hon. Exequil L. Dagala
8th MCTC Dapa-Socorro, Surigao del Norte
REGION XI
Hon. Renato V. Tampac
MCTC Surallah-Lake Sebu, South Cotabato
REGION XII
Hon. Ottowa B. Abinal
8th MCTC Molundo-Lumba-Bayabao-Maguing,
Lanao del Sur
Hon. Aldohnne R. Umpa
4th MCTC Malabang-Balbagan-Sulta-GumanderKapatagan, Lanao del Sur
Hon. Alexander B. Yarra
5th MCTC Pinagkawayanan-Alamada, North Cotabato
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS
Hon. Omar A. Taher
SCC Pikit, Cotabato
B.
PROMOTIONS
NCJR
Hon. Wilhelmina T. Melanio-Arcega
RTC Br. 5, Manila
(Continued on NEXT page)
4
PHILJA NEWS
Hon. Petronilo A. Sulla, Jr.
RTC Br. 110, Pasay City
Hon. Alberico B. Umali
RTC Br. 138, Makati City
REGION III
Hon. Primo G. Sio, Jr.
RTC Br. 23, Cabanatuan City, Nueva City
REGION IV
Hon. Winston V. Baldos
RTC Br. 41, Pinamalayan, Mindoro Oriental
Appointed Judges was held on August 21 to 30, 2007,
at the PHILJA Development Center, Tagaytay City.
In attendance were twenty-nine (29) judges
comprising eight (8) new appointees to the Regional
Trial Court, one (1) new appointee to the
Metropolitan Trial Court, one (1) new appointee to
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, seven (7) new
appointees to the Municipal Trial Court, eleven (11)
new appointees to the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
and one (1) promoted judge to the Regional Trial
Court.
A. NEW APPOINTMENTS
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Hon. Monique Ignacio-Quisumbing
RTC Br. 209, Mandaluyong City
Below are the participants of the 49th Orientation SeminarWorkshop for Newly Appointed Judges with PHILJA
lecturer Sandiganbayan Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval and
Retired Court of Appeals Justice Hilarion L. Aquino
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
REGION II
Hon. Rogelio P. Corpuz
RTC Br. 27, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
Hon. Merianthe Pacita M. Zuraek
RTC Br. 29, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
REGION III
Hon. Richard A. Paradeza
RTC Br. 72, Olongapo City
Hon. Raymond C. Viray
RTC Br. 75, Olongapo City
REGION IV
Hon. Manuelito O. Caballes
RTC Boac, Marinduque
REGION VII
Hon. Douglas Arturo C. Marigomen
RTC Br. 5, Cebu City
REGION IX
Hon. Romeo T. Descallar
RTC Br. 19, Pagadian City
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Hon. Ronald B. Moreno
MeTC Br. 64, Makati City
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
IN
CITIES
REGION VII
Hon. Ma. Josefa C. Pinza-Ramos
MTCC, Danao City, Cebu
REGION IV
Hon. Edgardo P. Balquiedra
MTC Gasan, Marinduque
July-September 2007
2007
July-September
Hon. Jose M. De La Santa, Jr.
MTC Buenavista, Marinduque
Hon. Margarette A. D. Aspacio
MTC Dolores, Quezon
Hon. Maria Luisa L.G. Betic
MTC Tiaong, Quezon
Hon. Wilfredo G. Oca
MTC Real, Quezon
Hon. Nickie G. Tamparong
MTC Mauban, Quezon
Hon. Maria May S. Zafranco-Redor
MTC Pagbilao, Quezon
REGION IV
Hon. Emmanuel Q. Artazo
4th MCTC Taytay-San Vicente, Palawan
Hon. Lovelle Moana R. Hitosis
2nd MCTC, Coron-Busuanga, Palawan
Hon. Manolito Y. Gumarang
6th MCTC, Siniloan-Famy, Laguna
Hon. Lutgardo P. Huerto
3rd MCTC, Nagcarlan-Rizal, Laguna
Hon. Conrado M. Jamolin
7th MCTC, Sta. Maria-Mabitac, Laguna
Hon. Julian D. Jison
2nd MCTC, Magdalena-Liliw-Majayjay, Laguna
Hon. Alberto L. Vizcocho
4th MCTC, Infanta-Gen. Nakar, Quezon
Hon. Leopoldo S. Lopez
1st MCTC, Pililia-Jala-Jala, Rizal
REGION VI
Hon. Gonzalo S. Espa
3rd MCTC, Sara-Ajuy-Lemery, Iloilo City
REGION X
Hon. Ignacio B. Macarine
9th MCTC, Gen. Luna-Pilar, Surigao del Norte
REGION XI
Hon. Marlo C. Brasales
1st MCTC Norala-T’boli-Sto. Niño, South Cotabato
B.
PROMOTIONS
5
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
NEWS
SEMINAR-WORKSHOP FOR EXECUTIVE JUDGES
AND VICE-EXECUTIVE JUDGES
The Seminar-Workshop for Executive Judges and
Vice-Executive Judges of Regions 4 and 5 was held on
August 7 to 9, 2007, at the College of St. Benilde
Hotel, Malate, Manila. A total of fifty-seven (57)
participants attended, comprising thirty-seven (37)
Executive Judges and twenty (20) Vice-Executive
Judges. The Seminar-Workshop for Executive Judges
and Vice-Executive Judges of Regions 1, 2 and 3 was
conducted on September 4 to 6, 2007, at the Legend
International Hotel, Subic Bay Free Port, Zambales.
A total of sixty-five (65) participants attended the
said program comprising twenty (20) Executive
Judges and forty (40) Vice-Executive Judges.
Among the lectures delivered in this three-day
seminar-workshop are the following: Selection and
Appointment of Executive Judges; General and
Specific Powers, Prerogatives and Duties of
Executive Judges in Judicial Supervision; Executive
Leadership; Caseflow Management; Human
Behavior and Human Relations in Organization;
Media Management Relations; Transparency and
Good Governance; Corruption in the Judiciary;
Inherent Powers (Contempt, Subpoena and / or
Enforcement); and Issuance of Judicial Writs and
Warrants (Including Freeze Order under AMLA and
Rules on Forfeiture). Towards the end of the
seminar-workshop, a Dialogue with the Court
Administrator took place which addressed pertinent
work issues of the Judges.
RJCEP
The Academy conducted the Regional Judicial
Career Enhancement Program (Level 5) for the Judges of
the Regional Trial Courts and First Level Courts of the 5th
Judicial Region on September 12 to 14, 2007, at the
Casablanca Hotel, Peñaranda St., Legazpi City. A
total of one hundred seven (107) participants
attended the program.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
REGION VI
Hon. Domingo D. Diamante
RTC Br. 67, Guimbal, Iloilo
Topics discussed include Bench and Bar
Relations; Media Management and Relations with
Media; Special Civil Actions; Management of Courts
and of Court Personnel; Emerging Trends and
Issues in Jurisprudence – Commercial Law; Civil
Law and Criminal Law; and the Human Security
Act.
6
PHILJA NEWS
14TH PRE-JUDICATURE PROGRAM
The 14th Pre-Judicature Program conducted on
September 17 to 27, 2007, at the Cebu Grand Hotel,
Cebu City was attended by a total of twenty-two
(22) participants from Manila, Albay, Roxas, Cebu
and Dumaguete City. The following attendees took
the examination and completed the program:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Atty. Paterno C. Belciña, Jr.
Atty. Leilanie T. Braza-Oro
Atty. Petronio V. Elesterio
Atty. Kit S. Enriquez
Atty. Jorge L. Gabriente
Atty. Catherine Annabelle L. Hermoso
Atty. Angelito C. Inocencio
Atty. Myrna V. Limbaga
Atty. Carlo P. Loreto
Atty. Anna Marie P. Militante
Atty. Rosemarie S. Pabatao
Atty. Clairon B. Pañares
Atty. Ma. Theresa A. Peñera
Atty. Mendulfo C. Pintor, Jr.
Atty. Jose A. Santos III
Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas
Atty. Alfredo J. Sipalay
Atty. Jonnah John B. Ungab
Atty. Generoso Alejo P. Villareal
Atty. Leilani Trinidad L. Villarino
This ten-day program covered, among others:
The Code of Judicial Conduct and the Behaviour
of a Judge: Rules, Canons and Case Studies;
Updates on Family Laws; Developments in
Appellate Procedures; Crimes Punished by the
Revised Penal Code; Crimes Punished Under
Special Laws; Contemporary Approaches to
Advance Legal Research; Court-Annexed
Mediation and Enhanced Court Involvement in the
Mediation Process; Basic Principles of Mediation
and Arbitration; ADR Law and Arbitration;
Environmental Law; International Human Rights
Law and Domestic Enforcement and
Implementation; Caseflow Management; Legal
Reasoning; Computation of Penalties and the
Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law;
The Trial Complex; Judicial Writing; and Moot
Court.
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
5TH ORIENTATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOP
FOR NEWLY APPOINTED CLERKS OF COURT
Appointed Clerks of Court was conducted on
September 25 to 27, 2007, at Hotel Fortuna, Cebu
City. The thirty-four (34) clerks of court of the First
Level Courts of Regions VI, VII and VIII who
attended the three-day program were:
REGION VI
Atty. Ruby Remedios V. Abelgos-Espera
RTC OCC San Jose, Antique
Atty. Bernie C. Alfon
RTC Br. 16, Roxas City, Capiz
Atty. Nenita V. Alquizar
RTC Br. 48,Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Atty. Cherrie Mae F. Azagra
RTC Br. 19, Roxas City, Capiz
Atty. Martin Raymund B. Carmona
RTC Br. 59, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental
Atty. Mateo C. Hachuela
RTC Br. 24, Iloilo City, Iloilo
Atty. Clarence G. Zerrudo
RTC Br. 33, Iloilo City, Iloilo
REGION VII
Atty. Cynthia Albarracin-Cañete
Atty. Lucily S. Bathan-Francisco
Atty. Ricardo A. Boligao, Jr.
Atty. Julius A. Biliran
RTC OCC Tagbilaran City
Atty. Beth Nectarine G. Catacutan-Andora
RTC Br. 39, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
Atty. Julito N. Lumusad
Atty. Eva Fel C. Pacurib
RTC Br. 46, Siquijor
Atty. Ma. Corazon S. Perez
Atty. Leah P. Villarubia
RTC Br. 36, Dumaguete City
REGION VIII
Atty. Shirley Joyce O. Bohol
RTC Br. 31, Calbayog City, Samar
Atty. Goldie Liza Cesista-Hermano
RTC Br. 42, Balangiga, Eastern Samar
July-September 2007
2007
July-September
SPECIAL FOCUS
PROGRAMS
Atty. Terso Y. Ducentes
RTC Br. 15, Burauen, Leyte
Atty. Erwin James B. Fabriga
RTC Br. 12, Ormoc City
Atty. Mayumi M. Gorme-Amora
RTC Br. 24, Maasin, Southern Leyte
Atty. Angelo M. Raagas
RTC Br. 1, Borongan, Eastern Samar
Atty. Dherlee Herrera Rivas
RTC Br. 30, Basey, Samar
Atty. Claire C. Sablan
RTC Br. 38, Gamay, Northern Samar
7
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
NEWS
IN
ASIAN JUSTICES FORUM
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
CITIES
Atty. Rodolfo Richard P. Balisnomo
MTCC Sipalay City
REGION VII
Atty. Rodillo B. Fernandez
MTCC Br. 6, Cebu City
REGION VI
Atty. Moises G. Nifras, Jr.
MTC Hinigaran, Negros Occidental
Atty. Ma. Lorda M. Santizo
MTC San Joaquin, Iloilo
REGION VIII
Atty. Manolita G. Fernandez
MTC Baybay, Leyte
Atty. Alejandrita B. Granados
MTC Leyte, Leyte
Atty. Lilian T. Talbo
MTC Marabut, Samar
REGION VII
Atty. Gertrudes B. Romero
MCTC Loay-Albuquerque-Baclayon, Bohol
Atty. Rhoel Ariel J. Villagonzalo
MCTC Domanjog-Ronda, Cebu
REGION VIII
Atty. Jaime S. Sabandal, Jr.
MCTC Paranjas-San Sebastian, Samar
Foreign and Local Presentors of the
Asian Justices Forum on the
Environment with Chief Justice
Reynato S. Puno.
The Asian Justices Forum on the Environment with
the theme “Sharing Experience to Strengthen
Environmental Adjudicaton in Asia,” was held on July
5 to 6, 2007 at the Edsa Shangri-la Hotel, Ortigas
Centre, Mandaluyong City. The participants on the
first day comprise sixteen (16) foreign delegates and
seventy-one (71) local delegates. Second day
participants comprise sixteen (16) foreign delegates
and forty-one (41) local delegates.
Among the interesting sessions of the program
were Specialized Judicial Forums for Adjudicating
Environmental Cases; Innovative Procedures and Practices
in Adjudicating Environmental Cases; Applying
Appropriate Remedies in Redressing Environmental Harm;
Framework for Strengthening Environmental Adjudication
in the Philippines; Strengthening Judicial Capacity on
Environment; and Regional Cooperation on Strengthening
Institutional Arrangements.
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno’s Keynote Address
entitled, “Under One Haven, Above One Earth,”
underscored the important role of judges in the
adjudication of environmental cases and emphasized
the need of the independent judiciary and judicial
process to boldly and fearlessly implement and
enforce international and national laws related to
environmental protection. The Chief Justice
likewise, timely cited the findings of experts on the
chilling effects of climate change.
8
PHILJA NEWS
SEMINAR-WORKSHOP
ON LEGAL WRITING AND LEGAL RESEARCH
The Seminar-Workshops on Legal Writing and Legal
Research for Court of Tax Appeals Attorneys and
for two (2) batches of Sandiganbayan Attorneys
were conducted at separate dates on July 11 to 13,
2007, September 3 to 5, 2007, and September 10 to
12, 2007, respectively, at the SEAMO Innotech,
Diliman, Quezon City. This project was made
possible through the support of the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID)
and the Rule of Law Effectiveness (ROLE).
A total of fifty-six (56) attorneys attended the
sessions on English Proficiency; Judicial Standards
and Style in Decision Making; Editing; and
Methods of Legal Research. Their skills were
further enhanced in the workshops on Legal
Dispute and Conflicting Claims; Drafting of
Decisions/Resolutions and Legal Research.
ORIENTATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN
THE FAMILY CODE AND THE
CODE OF MUSLIM PERSONAL LAWS
The Orientation Seminar-Workshop on Comparative
Analysis Between the Family Code and the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws was conducted in two (2) batches
during the third quarter of the year.
Thirty-seven (37) participants attended the
seminar-workshop on July 16 to 18, 2007, at the
Montebello Villa Hotel, Banilad, Cebu City. Forty
(40) participants attended the seminar-workshop
on August 14 to 16, 2007, at the Golden Pine Hotel,
Baguio City.
The topics covered were Comparative Studies
on the Family Code and the Muslim Personal Laws,
on Civil and Islamic Laws on Succession, and on
Civil and Islamic Laws on Persons and Family
Relations; Comparative Analysis on Civil and
Islamic Laws on Procedure and Evidence as well
as on Marriage and Divorce Under the Family Code
and Muslim Code. There was likewise, an
interesting discussion on the Right Responses to
Age-Old Problems of Mindanao and the
Autonomous Region.
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON
ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND
LAWS ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN
In partnership with the European Commission,
the Department of Social Welfare and Development,
the Department of Justice, the Department of the
Interior and Local Government, and the Alternative
Law Groups, three (3) batches of the SeminarWorkshop on Access to Justice and Laws on Women and
Children for Judges and Court Personnel of First Level
Courts were conducted by the Academy this quarter.
This activity is a training program aimed to
sensitize municipal trial court judges and court
personnel on the Barangay Justice System and laws
affecting women and children.
The participants of the three (3) batches comprise
a total of one hundred twenty-seven (127) FirstLevel Court judges and selected court personnel.
The dates and venues of the seminar-workshop were
July 23 to July 25, 2007, at the College of St. Benilde
Hotel, Malate, Manila; August 20 to 22, 2007, at
the Grand Men Seng Hotel, Davao City; and
September 26 to 28, 2007, at the Sarabia Manor
Hotel and Convention Center, Iloilo City.
SEMINAR ON ELECTION LAWS FOR
JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT
PHILJA, in partnership with the United States
and International Foundation of Election Systems
(IFES), conducted the Seminar on Election Laws for
Judges and Clerks of Court on August 2, 2007, at the
Traders Hotel Manila, Pasay City, with a total of
seventy-two (72) participants in attendance .
Differentiating between acceptable and
unacceptable pleadings in election cases;
distinguishing between the spheres of jurisdiction
and competence of the courts and of the
Commission on Elections in election cases; relating
provisions of election law and election rules to the
disputes frequently referred to the courts for
disposition; and identifying techniques for the
speedy resolution of election cases, were the lessons
learned by the participants in this activity.
This activity covered substantial lectures on
Election Contests and Election Offenses and
July-September 2007
2007
July-September
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
NEWS
From the Chancellor’
Chancellor’ss Desk
comprehensive discussion of the pertinent
COMELEC Rules of Procedure; COMELEC
Issuances; Omnibus Election Code; Supreme Court
Rulings; Voters Registration Act of 1996 (R.A. No.
8189) and Jurisdiction of RTC and First-Level
Courts.
JUDGE-TO-JUDGE DIALOGUE
In partnership with the Program Management
Office (PMO), Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA), and American Bar Association-Rule of Law
Initiative (ABA-ROLI), the Academy conducted the
Judge-to-Judge Dialogue on the Power of the Judge: Taking
Control of the Courtroom on August 2, 2007, at the
Traders Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City. There
were forty-eight (48) Executive and Vice-Executive
Judges of first and second level courts of the
National Capital Judicial Region who participated.
SEMINAR-WORKSHOP FOR
EXECUTIVE JUDGES, PROSECUTORS
AND LAW ENFORCERS ON DRUGS LAW
Batch two of the Seminar-Workshop for Judges,
Prosecutors and Law Enforcers on Drugs Law was
conducted in partnership with the Dangerous
Drugs Board (DDB) on August 8 to 10, 2007, at
the Tagaytay Country Hotel, Tagaytay City. A total
of ninety-five (95) selected National Capital Judicial
Region Drugs and Family Court judges, as well as
their prosecutors, attended the seminar-workshop.
With the aim to coordinate and integrate the
overall efforts of the Criminal Justice System (CJS)
especially in the field of prosecution and criminal
investigation, this activity particularly updated the
participants on the classification of drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals as
listed in the 1961, 1971 and 1988 law conventions
on narcotic drugs, psychothropic substances and
the illicit traffic thereof; on R.A. No. 9165 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations; and on the
DDB Regulations. The sessions were likewise aimed
at identifying problems encountered in prosecuting
drug related cases and solutions to the same, and
enhancing knowledge on evidence handling and
gathering, as well as search and seizure.
(Continued from page 1)
own seminar-workshops. A Judge-to-Judge
Dialogue emphasizing judges’ control of the
courtroom had also its share of attention. We
held continuing legal education programs for
court attorneys of the Court of Appeals in
Cagayan de Oro and Cebu; Legal Writing and
Legal Research for those of the Court of Tax
Appeals; and gender sensitivity for those of the
Sandiganbayan. Records Management, Control
and Archiving trainings were commenced which
we hope would improve the recording system in
all offices. To these should be added e-Caseflow
Management, begun in Pasay City, to help in the
tracking of cases from filing to disposition.
Many of these activities were undertaken with
the help of development partners, for which we
are truly grateful, to which should be added the
seminar-workshop on Access to Justice and Laws
on Women and Children for Judges and Court
Personnel of first level courts.
We also focused on Election Laws and the Drugs
Law. A new topic on the comparative analysis
between the Family Code and the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws was addressed. It is hoped that
the efforts of the Shari’a and Islamic Jurisprudence
Department would help in promoting peace
efforts in Mindanao.
ADR continues to be a landmark reform project
not only by way of expansion of Court-Annexed
Mediation (CAM) in all judicial regions but also
in the enhancement of Appellate Court Mediation
and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR). We now
have 117 PMC Units; 1 ACM Unit, soon to be
expanded to three (3); and five (5) JDR Units,
with one more to be added soon.
Advocacies on the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel continue to be pursued. Soon, we hope
to be able to cover the entire country with the
help of our partners.
We trust that the New Rulings and Doctrinal
Reminders in the PHILJA Bulletin are serving
their purpose. Our Consultant, Justice Minerva
Gonzaga Reyes, is now monitoring the exercise.
We forge ahead, confident that problems will be
solved and challenges met. The pursuit of
excellence in the judiciary through quality
judicial education needs the support of all.
9
10
PHILJA NEWS
ON MEDIATION
BASIC MEDIATION COURSE
The Basic Mediation Course (Tuguegarao Mediation
Program) was conducted on August 13 to 16, 2007,
at the Hotel Ivory and Convention Center,
Tuguegarao City. A total of twenty-seven (27)
participants attended this program.
Lecture topics discussed were: The Philippine
Judicial System: An Overview; Legal versus
Problem-Solving Mindsets; Mediation as Essentially
Assisted Negotiation; Conflict Management and
Dispute Resolution;
Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) and Court-Annexed Mediation
(CAM); Overview / Fundamentals of
Communications; The Stages of Mediation and
Communication Skills which includes six (6) stages;
The Rules and Guidelines on the Mediation Fees;
The Administrative and Procedural Aspects of
Court-Annexed; Writing Compromise Agreements;
Ethics in Mediation which includes a) The Mediator
as an Officer of the Court and b) The Mediator An
a Professional Mediator; and The Grievance
Machinery in Court-Annexed Mediation.
FAMILY COURT MEDIATION SEMINAR
In partnership with the Philippine Mediation
Center (PMC), in coordination with the United
States Agency for International Development
(USAID), and The Asia Foundation (TAF), PHILJA
conducted four (4) batches of Family Court Mediation
Seminar in the third quarter of the year.
The four (4) batches were held on August 23 to
25, 2007 at the Coral Room, The Pearl Manila Hotel,
Manila; August 29 to 31, 2007 at the Hotel Veniz,
Baguio City; September 5 to 7, 2007, at the Cebu
Grand Hotel, Cebu City; and September 12 to 14,
2007 at the Grand Men Seng Hotel, Davao City,
respectively. A total of one hundred twenty (120)
selected mediator-participants from all judicial
regions, attended the said program.
The sessions focused on enhancing skills of
participants on mediation of Family Court cases,
specifically addressing Ethical Dilemmas, Gender
and Child Sensitivity
and Compromise
Agreements.
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
JDR
In collaboration with the National Judicial
Institute Canada-JURIS Project, three (3) batches
of the Forum on Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) were
conducted for judges on July 17, 2007, at the
Executive Lounge, Makati City Hall, Makati City,
for court personnel on July 19, 2007, at the ELibrary, Asian Institute Management, Makati City
and for lawyers on August 3, 2007, at the AIM
Conference Center.
Two (2) batches of the Bench and Bar Dialogue on
Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR), were likewise,
conducted this quarter on August 7, 2007, at the
AIM Conference Center, Electronic Library Room,
Makati City and on September 19, 2007, at the
Makati Sports Club, Inc., Makati City.
CONVENTIONS
METCJAP
PHILJA, in coordination with the Metropolitan
and City Judges Association of the Philippines
(MeTCJAP), conducted their 9th Convention Seminar
on September 25 to 28, 2007, at the Hotel Supreme
Convention Plaza, Baguio City, with the theme,
“Justice in Action Strengthening the Nation.” A
total of one hundred forty-four (144) participants
attended the convention-seminar.
JUDICIAL MOVES
Supreme Court
Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes
appointed on July 25, 2007
Court of Appeals
Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante
appointed on August 8, 2007
Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier
appointed on August 29, 2007
July-September 2007
NEWPHILJA
RULINGS
OF THE SUPREME COUR
T
COURT
NEWS
11
LABOR LAW
Urolithiasis is a compensable sickness
Section 1(b), Rule III implementing P.D. No.
626, as amended, provides:
For the sickness and the resulting disability
or death to be compensable, the sickness must
be the result of an occupational disease listed
under Annex “A” of these Rules with the
conditions set therein satisfied, otherwise, proof
must be shown that the risk of contracting the
disease is increased by the working conditions.
Under the above Rule, for Merlita’s sickness and
resulting disability to be compensable, there must
be proof that (a) her sickness was the result of an
occupational disease listed under Annex “A” of the
Rules of Employees’ Compensation, or (b) the risk
of contracting the disease was increased by her
working conditions. This means that if the
claimant’s illness or disease is not included in Annex
“A,” then he is entitled to compensation only if he
can prove that the risk of contracting the illness or
disease was increased by his working conditions.
The law does not require that the connection be
established with absolute certainty or that a direct
causal relation be shown. It is enough that the
theory upon which the claim is based is probable.
Probability, not certainty, is the touchstone.
Pertinently, the Court stated in the case of
Employees’ Compensation Commission v. Court of
Appeals:
Despite the abandonment of the
presumption of compensability established by
the old law, the present law has not ceased to be
an employees’ compensation law or a social
legislation; hence, the liberality of the law in
favor of the working man and woman still
prevails, and the official agency charged by law
to implement the constitutional guarantee of
social justice should adopt a liberal attitude in
favor of the employee in deciding claims for
compensability, especially in light of the
compassionate policy towards labor which the
1987 Constitution vivifies and enhances.
Elsewise stated, a humanitarian impulse,
dictated by no less than the Constitution itself
under the social justice policy, calls for a liberal
and sympathetic approach to legitimate appeals
of disabled public servants; or that all doubts to
the right to compensation must be resolved in
favor of the employee or laborer. Verily, the
policy is to extend the applicability of the law
on employees’ compensation to as many
employees who can avail of the benefits
thereunder.
Concededly, Merlita’s illness, urolithiasis, is not
among those listed in the table of occupational
diseases embodied in Annex “A” of the Rules on
Employees’ Compensation. Nevertheless, the Court
agrees with the Court of Appeals in its finding that
Merlita was able to prove by substantial evidence
that her working conditions increased the risk of
contracting the disease. Substantial evidence is the
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify the
conclusion.
(Tinga, J., Government Service Insurance System
v. Merlita Pentecostes substituted by Jaime R.
Pentecostes, G.R. No. 154385, August 24, 2007)
CRIMINAL LAW
Parole; definition of; consequences thereof; grant
thereof does not extinguished civil liability
Parole refers to the conditional release of an
offender from a correctional institution after he
serves the minimum term of his prison sentence.
The grant thereof does not extinguish the criminal
liability of the offender. Parole is not one of the
modes of totally extinguishing criminal liability
under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code. Inclusio
unius est exclusio alterius.
Similarly, accused-appellant’s release on parole
did not extinguish his civil liability. Article 113 of
the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability.
– Except in case of extinction of his civil liability
as provided in the next preceding article, the
offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy
the civil liability resulting from the crime
committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that
he has served his sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not
been required to serve the same by reason of
amnesty, pardon commutation of sentence or
any other reason.
Thus, accused-appellant’s civil liability subsists
despite his release on parole.
(Corona, J., People of the Philippines v. Victoriano
M. Abesamis, G.R. No. 140985, August 28, 2007)
12
NEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COUR
T
COURT
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
REMEDIAL LAW
The Court of Appeals cannot reverse and set aside
a decision of the Secretary of Justice and substitute
its own judgment
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which
provides:
Section 1. Who may file petition. – Any
person interested under a deed, will, contract
or other written instrument, whose rights are
affected by a statute, executive order or
regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation may, before breach or
violation thereof, bring an action in the
appropriate Regional Trial Court to of his rights
or duties thereunder determine any question
of construction or validity arising, and for a
declaration.
The power to reverse and set aside partakes of
an appellate jurisdiction which the CA does not
have over judgments of the Secretary of Justice
exercising quasi-judicial functions.
There is a whale of a difference between the CA’s
power of review in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction and its original jurisdiction over
petitions for certiorari as that filed by the respondent
in CA-G.R. SP No. 74094. Certiorari power is limited
to questions of jurisdiction and grave abuse of
discretion only. Wisdom or error of judgment on
the part of the Secretary of Justice in arriving at his
conclusions of fact and law which is proper in an
appeal cannot legitimately be the subject of review
in a petition for certiorari before the CA because
the decision of the Secretary of Justice is not
appealable to the CA.
(Garcia, J., Nace Sue P. Buan v. Francisco T.
Matugas, G.R. No. 161179, August 7, 2007)
Jurisdiction over reformation of instruments
We hold that being an action for reformation
of instruments, petitioner’s complaint necessarily
falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court pursuant to Section 1, Rule 63 of the 1997
An action for the reformation of an
instrument, to quiet title to real property or
remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate
ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code,
may be brought under this Rule.
As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, any
disagreement as to the nature of the parties’
relationship which would require first an
amendment or reformation of their contract is an
issue which the courts may and can resolve
without the need of the expertise and specialized
knowledge of the HLURB.
(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., Frabelle Fishing
Corporation v. The Philippine American Life
Insurance Company, PHILAM Properties
Corporation and PERF Realty Corporation, G.R.
No. 158560, August 17, 2007)
PHILJA Upcoming Activities (continued)
Date
Nov. 8-9
Nov. 8-10
Nov. 12
Nov. 13-22
Nov. 13-15
Nov. 16
Nov. 20-22
Nov. 21-23
Nov. 27-29
Nov. 27-29
Nov. 27-29
Dec. 4-6
Dec. 5-7
Dec. 5-7
Dec. 11-13
Seminars / Activities
Seminar-Workshop on CEDAW, Gender Sensitivity,
and the Courts for SC Attorneys
National Convention-Seminar of PTLJI
Video Conference on The Rule on the Writ of Amparo
50th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges
Orientation-Worshop on the Code of Conduct
for Negros Occidental Court Personnel
Judge to Judge Dialogue
for Bulacan Court Personnel
Seminar-Workshop on Drugs Law for Judges,
Prosecutors and Law Enforcers
Multi-Sectoral Seminar-Workshop on Agrarian Justice
for the Province of Iloilo
for Selected Court Personnel of Region VIII
2nd Convention and Seminar of the COSTRAPHIL
RJCEP (Level 5) for RTC and First-Level Trial Court Judges
of Region X
Seminar-Workshop on Drugs Law for Judges,
Prosecutors and Law Enforcers
Personal Security Training for Judges
8th Orientation Seminar-Workshop
for Newly Appointed Clerks of Court (Mindanao)
Venue
Training Center,
Supreme Court, Manila
Zamboanga City
Manila/Cebu City/Davao City
PHILJA, Tagaytay City
Grand Regal Hotel,
Bacolod City
Tacloban City
Malolos, Bulacan
Fort Ilocandia Resort,
Laoag City
Iloilo City
Leyte Park Resort Hotel,
Tacloban City
DAP, Tagaytay City
Dynasty Court Hotel,
Cagayan de Oro City
Tagaytay Country Hotel,
Tagaytay City
PHILJA , Tagaytay City
Crown Regency Hotel,
Davao City
July-September 2007
DOCTRINAL
REMINDERS
PHILJA NEWS
13
POLITICAL LAW
Act of State Doctrine; definition of
The classic American statement of the act of state
doctrine, which appears to have taken root in
England as early as 1674, and began to emerge in
American jurisprudence in the late eighteenth and
early nineteenth centuries, is found in Underhill v.
Hernandez, where Chief Justice Fuller said for a
unanimous Court:
Every sovereign state is bound to respect
the independence of every other state, and the
courts of one country will not sit in judgment
on the acts of the government of another,
done within its territory. Redress of grievances
by reason of such acts must be obtained
through the means open to be availed of by
sovereign powers as between themselves.
The act of state doctrine is one of the methods
by which States prevent their national courts from
deciding disputes which relate to the internal affairs
of another State, the other two being immunity
and non-justiciability. It is an avoidance technique
that is directly related to a State’s obligation to
respect the independence and equality of other
States by not requiring them to submit to
adjudication in a national court or to settlement of
their disputes without their consent. It requires
the forum court to exercise restraint in the
adjudication of disputes relating to legislative or
other governmental acts which a foreign State has
performed within its territorial limits.
(Tinga, J., Presidential Commission on Good
Government and Magtanggol C. Gunigundo, in
his capacity as Chairman thereof v. Sandiganbayan
and Officeco Holdings, N.V., G.R. No. 124772,
August 14, 2007)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Powers of the Ombudsman are not merely
recommendatory
In Estarija v. Ranada, the Supreme Court
reiterated its pronouncements in Ledesma and went
on to categorically state:
x x x [T]he Constitution does not restrict
the powers of the Ombudsman in Section 13,
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, but allows
the Legislature to enact a law that would spell
out the powers of the Ombudsman. Through
the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6770, specifically
Section 15, par. 3, the lawmakers gave the
Ombudsman such powers to sanction erring
officials and employees, except members of
Congress, and the Judiciary. To conclude, we
hold that Sections 15, 21, 22 and 25 of Republic
Act No. 6770 are constitutionally sound. The
powers of the Ombudsman are not merely
recommendatory. His office was given teeth
to render this constitutional body not merely
functional but also effective. Thus, we hold
that under Republic Act No. 6770 and the 1987
Constitution, the Ombudsman has the
constitutional power to directly remove from
government service an erring public official
other than a member of Congress and the
Judiciary.
(Garcia, J., Commission on Audit, Regional Office
No. 13, Butuan City v. Agapito A. Hinampas and
Emmanuel J. Cabanos, G.R. No. 158672, August 7,
2007)
LABOR LAW
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
(CIAC); jurisdiction of
Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 1008,
or the Construction Industry Arbitration Law, provides:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. — The CIAC shall
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over
disputes arising from, or connected with,
contracts entered into by parties involved in
construction in the Philippines, whether the
dispute arises before or after the completion
of the contract, or after the abandonment or
breach thereof. These disputes may involve
government or private contracts. For the Board
to acquire jurisdiction, the parties to a dispute must
agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.
The jurisdiction of the CIAC may include
but is not limited to violation of specifications
for materials and workmanship; violation of
the terms of agreement; interpretation and/
or application of contractual provisions;
amount of damages and penalties;
commencement time and delays; maintenance
and defects; payment default of employer or
contractor and changes in contract cost.
14
DOCTRINAL REMINDERS
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
LABOR LAW (continued)
Excluded from the coverage of this law are
disputes arising from employer-employee
relationships which shall continue to be
covered by the Labor Code of the Philippines.
Corollarily, Section 1, Article III of the Rules of
Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration provides
that recourse to the CIAC may be availed of
whenever a contract contains a clause for the
submission of a future controversy to arbitration,
thus:
Section 1. Submission to CIAC Jurisdiction.
— An arbitration clause in a construction
contract or a submission to arbitration of a
construction dispute shall be deemed an
agreement to submit an existing or future
controversy
to
CIAC
jurisdiction,
notwithstanding the reference to a different
arbitration institution or arbitral body in such
contract or submission. When a contract
contains a clause for the submission of a future
controversy to arbitration, it is not necessary
for the parties to enter into a submission
agreement before the claimant may invoke the
jurisdiction of CIAC.
Clearly then, the CIAC has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from or
connected with construction contracts entered into
by parties that have agreed to submit their dispute
to voluntary arbitration.
(Nachura, J., Licomcen Incorporated v. Foundation
Specialists, Inc., G.R. No. 169678, August 21, 2007)
CIVIL LAW
Article 36 of the Family Code Interpreted
It is worthy to emphasize that Article 36
contemplates downright incapacity or inability to
take cognizance of and assume the basic marital
obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty,
much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.
As this Court repeatedly declares, Article 36 of the
Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce
law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes
thereof manifest themselves. It refers to a serious
psychological illness afflicting a party even before
the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so
grave and so permanent as to deprive one of
awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
matrimonial bond one is about to assume. These
marital obligations are those provided under
Articles 68 to 71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family
Code.
Neither should Article 36 be equated with legal
separation, in which the grounds need not be
rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical
violence, moral pressure, moral corruption, civil
interdiction, drug addiction, sexual infidelity, and
abandonment, and the like. At best the evidence
presented by petitioner refers only to grounds for
legal separation, not for declaring a marriage void.
(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., Rosa Yap Paras v. Justo J.
Paras, G.R. No. 147824, August 2, 2007)
Fortuitous Event; definition of; robbery is not
considered a fortuitous event
Fortuitous events by definition are
extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable.
It is therefore, not enough that the event should
not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is
commonly believed but it must be one impossible
to foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee
the happening is not impossibility to foresee the
same.
To constitute a fortuitous event, the following
elements must concur: (a) the cause of the
unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the
failure of the debtor to comply with obligations
must be independent of human will; (b) it must be
impossible to foresee the event that constitutes the
caso fortuito or, if it can be foreseen, it must be
impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must be such
as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill
obligations in a normal manner; and, (d) the
obligor must be free from any participation in the
aggravation of the injury or loss.
The burden of proving that the loss was due
to a fortuitous event rests on him who invokes
it. And, in order for a fortuitous event to exempt
one from liability, it is necessary that one has
committed no negligence or misconduct that may
have occasioned the loss.
It has been held that an act of God cannot be
invoked to protect a person who has failed to take
steps to forestall the possible adverse consequences
of such a loss. One’s negligence may have
concurred with an act of God in producing damage
and injury to another; nonetheless, showing that
July-September 2007
15
DOCTRINAL
REMINDERS
PHILJA NEWS
CIVIL LAW (continued)
the immediate or proximate cause of the damage or
injury was a fortuitous event would not exempt
one from liability. When the effect is found to be
partly the result of a person’s participation —
whether by active intervention, neglect or failure
to act — the whole occurrence is humanized and
removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.
Petitioner Sicam had testified that there was a
security guard in their pawnshop at the time of the
robbery. He likewise testified that when he started
the pawnshop business in 1983, he thought of
opening a vault with the nearby bank for the
purpose of safekeeping the valuables but was
discouraged by the Central Bank since pawned
articles should only be stored in a vault inside the
pawnshop. The very measures which petitioners
had allegedly adopted show that to them the
possibility of robbery was not only foreseeable, but
actually foreseen and anticipated. Petitioner Sicam’s
testimony, in effect, contradicts petitioners’ defense
of fortuitous event.
Moreover, petitioners failed to show that they
were free from any negligence by which the loss of
the pawned jewelry may have been occasioned.
Robbery per se, just like carnapping, is not a
fortuitous event. It does not foreclose the possibility
of negligence on the part of herein petitioners.
(Austria-Martinez, J., Roberto C. Sicam and Agencia
de R.C. Sicam, Inc. v. Lulu V. Jorge and Cesar Jorge,
G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007)
Differences between a Contract of Sale and a
Contract to Sell
The following are the differences between a
Contract OF Sale and a Contract TO Sell: (a) In a
Contract OF Sale, the non-payment of the price is
a resolutory condition which extinguishes the
transaction that, for a time, existed and discharges
the obligations created thereunder; in a Contract
TO Sell, full payment of the purchase price is a
positive suspensive condition, failure of which is
not a breach but an event that prevents the
obligation of the vendor to convey title from
becoming effective; (b) In the first, title over the
property generally passes to the buyer upon
delivery; in the second, ownership is retained by
the seller, regardless of delivery and is not to pass
until full payment of the price; and (c) In the first,
after delivery has been made, the seller has lost
ownership and cannot recover it unless the contract
is resolved or rescinded; in the second, since the
seller retains ownership, despite delivery, he is
enforcing and not rescinding the contract if he
seeks to oust the buyer for failure to pay.
(Quisumbing, J., Florante Vidad, Sr., Arlene VidadAbsalon and Florante Vidad, Jr. v. Elpidio Tayamen
and Laurena Tayamen, G.R. No. 160554, August
24, 2007.)
REMEDIAL LAW
Appeals from decisions in administrative
disciplinary cases of the Ombudsman; Certiorari
under Rule 65 cannot be a substitute for the
remedy of appeal; appeal and certiorari are
mutually exclusive and not alternative or
successive.
Appeals from decisions in administrative
disciplinary cases of the Office of the Ombudsman
should be taken to the CA by way of petition for
review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended. Rule 43 which prescribes
the manner of appeal from quasi-judicial agencies,
such as the Ombudsman, was formulated precisely
to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure
for quasi-judicial agencies. Thus, certiorari under
Rule 65 will not lie, as appeal under Rule 43 is an
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Petitioner failed to file an appeal with the CA
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the assailed
decision. As noted by the CA, she filed her petition
for certiorari only after 52 days from receiving the
denial of her motion for reconsideration by the
Ombudsman. Such remedy cannot prosper as
certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be resorted to as a
substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. The
remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually
exclusive and not alternative or successive.
As explained by the Court in David v. Cordova,
x x x a petition for certiorari cannot be a
substitute for an appeal from a lower court
decision. Where appeal is available to an
aggrieved party, the action for certiorari will
not be entertained. The remedies of appeal
(including petitions for review) and certiorari
are mutually exclusive, not alternative or
successive. Hence, certiorari is not and cannot
16
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
DOCTRINAL REMINDERS
REMEDIAL LAW (continued)
be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one’s
own negligence or error in one’s choice of
remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. One
of the requisites of certiorari is that there be
no available appeal or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy. Where an appeal is
available, certiorari will not prosper, even if
the ground therefor is grave abuse of
discretion. (Emphasis supplied)
(Austria-Martinez, J., Corazon C. Balbastro v. Nestor
Junio, Brian Casasola, Kent Huegula, Jason Martin
Jardiniano, Joebert Espulgar, Prudencio Macalalag,
Cyril Ponclara, Edilzar Amaller, Melvin Mondejar and
Francis Soron, G.R. No. 154678, July 17, 2007)
Final judgment; immutable and unalterable
It is a settled doctrine that a decision, after it
becomes final, becomes immutable and unalterable.
Thus, the court loses jurisdiction to amend, modify,
or alter a final judgment and is left only with the
jurisdiction to execute and enforce it. Any
amendment or alteration which substantially affects
a final and executory judgment is null and void
for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire
proceedings held for that purpose.
(Velasco, Jr., J. Resurrecion Obra v. Sps. Victoriano
Badua and Myrna Badua, Sps. Juanito Baltores and
Flordeliza Baltores, Sps. Isabelo Badua and Prescila
Badua, Sps. Jose Balanon and Shirley Balanon, Sps.
Orlando Badua and Marita Badua and Sps. Leoncio
Badua and Juvy Badua, G.R. No. 149125, August
9, 2007)
Issue of ownership raised as an incident in
ejectment cases; MTC has jurisdiction
To settle the matter, the Court then expressly
ruled that:
[B]y virtue of the express mandate set forth
in Section 33(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
inferior courts have jurisdiction to resolve the
question of ownership raised as an incident
in an ejectment case where a determination
thereof is necessary for a proper and complete
adjudication of the issue of possession.
As it now stands, therefore, the MTC has
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases on forcible
entry and unlawful detainer regardless of whether
said cases involve questions of ownership or even
if the issue of possession cannot be determined
without resolving the question of ownership.
This ruling however is subject to the condition
that the lower court’s adjudication of ownership
in the forcible entry or unlawful detainer case is
merely provisional and the Court’s affirmance of
the lower court’s decision would not bar or
prejudice an action between the same parties
involving title to the property.
Finding that the MTCC erred in dismissing
petitioner’s complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, the Court deems it proper to remand
the case to the MTCC for it to rule on the merits of
the complaint for forcible entry.
(Austria-Martinez, J., Go Ke Chong, Jr. v. Mariano
M. Chan, G.R. No. 153791, August 24, 2007.)
Venue for actions for revival of judgment
Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that after the lapse of five (5)
years from entry of judgment and before it is barred
by the statute of limitations, a final and executory
judgment or order may be enforced by action. The
Rule does not specify in which court the action for
revival of judgment should be filed.
In Aldeguer v. Gemelo, the Court held that:
x x x an action upon a judgment must be
brought either in the same court where said
judgment was rendered or in the place where
the plaintiff or defendant resides, or in any
other place designated by the statutes which
treat of the venue of actions in general.
(Emphasis supplied)
but emphasized that other provisions in the rules
of procedure which fix the venue of actions in
general must be considered.
Under the present Rules of Court, Sections 1
and 2 of Rule 4 provide:
Section 1. Venue of real actions. - Actions
affecting title to or possession of real property,
or interest therein, shall be commenced and
tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real
property involved, or a portion thereof, is
situated.
xxx
July-September 2007
DOCTRINAL
REMINDERS
PHILJA NEWS
17
Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions. - All other
actions may be commenced and tried where
the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of the
principal defendants resides, or in the case of
a non-resident defendant where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff.
Thus, the proper venue depends on the
determination of whether the present action for
revival of judgment is a real action or a personal
action.
(Austria-Martinez, J., Adelaida Infante v. Aran
Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 156596, August 24, 2007.)
Complaint must allege the assessed value of the
real property subject of the complaint
In no uncertain terms, the Court has already
held that a complaint must allege the assessed value
of the real property subject of the complaint or the
interest thereon to determine which court has
jurisdiction over the action. This is because the
nature of the action and which court has original
and exclusive jurisdiction over the same is
determined by the material allegations of the
complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the
plaintiff and the law in effect when the action is
filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to some or all of the claims asserted therein.
In this case, the complaint denominated as
“Recovery of Portion of Registered Land with
Compensation and Damages,” reads:
1. That plaintiffs are the only direct and
legitimate heirs of the late Juan dela Cruz,
who died intestate on February 3, 1977, and
are all residents of Centro, Piat, Cagayan;
xxx
4. That plaintiffs inherited from x x x Juan dela
Cruz x x x a certain parcel of land x x x
containing an area of 13,111 square meters.
5. That sometime in the mid-1960’s, a house was
erected on the north-west portion of the
aforedescribed lot x x x.
xxx
7. That since plaintiffs and defendant were
neighbors, the latter being the admitted
owner of the adjoining lot, the former ’s
occupancy of said house by defendant was
only due to the tolerance of herein plaintiffs;
8. That plaintiffs, in the latter period of 1993,
then demanded the removal of the subject
house for the purpose of constructing a
commercial building and which herein
defendant refused and in fact now claims
ownership of the portion in which said
house stands;
9. That repeated demands relative to the
removal of the subject house were hence
made but which landed on deaf ears;
10. That a survey of the property as owned by
herein plaintiffs clearly establishes that the
subject house is occupying Four Hundred
(400) square meters thereof at the northwest portion thereof, as per the approved
survey plan in the records of the Bureau of
Lands.
Nowhere in said complaint was the assessed
value of the subject property ever mentioned.
There is therefore no showing on the face of the
complaint that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction
over the action of the respondents. Indeed, absent
any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value
of the property, it cannot be determined whether
the RTC or the MTC has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the petitioner’s action. The courts
cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market
value of the land.
Jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon
the answer of the defendant or even upon
agreement, waiver or acquiescence of the parties.
Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court over the nature
of the action and the subject matter thereof cannot
be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the
court or upon a motion to dismiss for, otherwise,
the question of jurisdiction would depend almost
entirely on the defendant.
Considering that the respondents failed to
allege in their complaint the assessed value of the
subject property, the RTC seriously erred in
denying the motion to dismiss. Consequently, all
proceedings in the RTC are null and void, and the
CA erred in affirming the RTC.
( Austria-Martinez, J., Victorino Quinagoran v.
Court of Appeals and The Heirs of Juan de la Cruz,
G.R. No. 155179, August 24, 2007)
18
DOCTRINAL REMINDERS
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
Petition for annulment of judgment, nature of;
grounds to annul
A petition for annulment of judgment is an
extraordinary action. By virtue of its exceptional
character, the action is restricted exclusively to the
grounds specified in the Rules, namely: extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The rationale for
the restriction is to prevent the extraordinary action
from being used by a losing party to make a
complete farce of a duly promulgated decision that
has long become final and executory.
Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment
of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the defending party or over the subject
matter of the claim. Where the court has
jurisdiction over the defendant and over the subject
matter of the case, its decision will not be voided
on the ground of absence of jurisdiction. Here,
there is no dispute that the trial court has
jurisdiction over the case for eminent domain.
It is settled that once jurisdiction has been
acquired, it is not lost until the court shall have
disposed of the case in its entirety. As earlier
mentioned, on October 5, 1995, the trial court issued
an Entry of Judgment of its Resolution of August
31, 1995 which attained finality. It is clear that from
the inception of Civil Case No. 2737-O until October
5, 1995 when the Entry of Judgment was issued,
the trial court retained its jurisdiction over the case.
Verily, when the questioned Resolution was issued
on August 31, 1995, the trial court acted with
jurisdiction. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in
granting respondent’s petition for annulment of
judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. Spouses Eulogio Morales
and Rosalia Arzadon, petitioners, v. Subic Shipyard
and Engineering, Inc., G.R. No. 148206, August
24, 2007.)
Demurrer to evidence; when granted
Demurrer to evidence authorizes a judgment
on the merits of the case without the defendant
having to submit evidence on his part as he would
ordinarily have to do, if plaintiff’s evidence shows
that he is not entitled to the relief sought.
Demurrer, therefore, is an aid or instrument for
the expeditious termination of an action, similar
to a motion to dismiss, which the court or tribunal
may either grant or deny.
A demurrer to evidence may be issued when,
upon the facts adduced and the applicable law, the
plaintiff has shown no right to relief. Where the
totality of plaintiff’s evidence, together with such
inferences and conclusions as may reasonably be
drawn therefrom, does not warrant recovery
against the defendant, a demurrer to evidence
should be sustained. A demurrer to evidence is
likewise sustainable when, admitting every proven
fact favorable to the plaintiff and indulging in his
favor all conclusions fairly and reasonably inferable
therefrom, the plaintiff has failed to make out one
or more of the material elements of his case, or when
there is no evidence to support an allegation
necessary to his claim. It should be sustained where
the plaintiff’s evidence is prima facie insufficient for a
recovery.
(Nachura, J., Erlinda B. Dandoy, represented by her
Attorney-in-Fact, Rey Anthony M. Naria v. Court
of Appeals, Hon. Thelma A. Ponferrada, in her
capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, and Nerissa
Lopez, G.R. No. 150089, August 28, 2007.)
Summary judgment; when allowed
We examined the records and found that
summary judgment is in order. Under Section 3,
Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, summary judgment
may be allowed where, save for the amount of
damages, there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. Summary or accelerated
judgment is a procedural technique aimed at
weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early
stage of the litigation, thereby avoiding the expense
of time involved in a trial. Even if the pleadings
appear, on their face, to raise issues, summary
judgment may still ensue as a matter of law if the
affidavits, depositions and admissions show that
such issues are not genuine. The presence or
absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact
determines, at bottom, the propriety of summary
judgment. A genuine issue, as opposed to fictitious
or contrived one, is an issue of fact that requires
the presentation of evidence. To the moving party
rests the onus of demonstrating the absence of any
genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the
complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to
constitute a genuine issue for trial. In Estrada v.
Consolacion, the Court stated that when the moving
July-September 2007
DOCTRINAL
REMINDERS
PHILJA NEWS
19
party is a defending party, his pleadings,
depositions or affidavits must show that his
defenses or denials are sufficient to defeat the
claimant’s claim. The affidavits or depositions shall
show that there is no defense to the cause of action
or the cause of action has no merits, as the case
may be. In fine, in proceedings for summary
judgment, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff
to prove the cause of action and to show that the
defense is interposed solely for the purpose of delay.
After the plaintiff discharges its burden, the
defendants has the burden to show facts sufficient
to entitle him to defend.
(Garcia, J., Edward T. Marcelo, Marcelo Fiberglass
Corporation, Phil-Asia Agro Industries Corp.,
Philippine Special Services Corp., Provident
International Resources Corp., Marcelo Chemical
and Pigment Copr., Farmers Fertilizer Corp.,
Insular Rubber Co., Inc., Hydronics Corporation
of the Philippines, Marcelo Rubber and Latex
Products, Inc., Polaris Marketing Corp., H. Marcelo
Steel Corp., Philippine Casino Operators Corp., and
Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corp. v. Sandiganbayan
and the Presidential Commission on Good
Government, G.R. No. 156605, August 28, 2007)
Sequestration; sequestration is akin to the
provisional remedy of preliminary attachment or
receivership
The Court elucidated on the power of the PCGG
to issue sequestration orders in Bataan Shipyard &
Engineering Company, Inc. v. Presidential Commission on
Good Government. The Court held:
By the clear terms of the law, the power of
the PCGG to sequester property claimed to be
“ill-gotten” means to place or cause to be
placed under its possession or control said
property, or any building or office wherein
any such property and records pertaining
thereto may be found, including “business
enterprises and entities,”– for the purpose
of preventing the destruction, concealment
or dissipation of, and otherwise conserving
and preserving, the same – until it can be
determined, through appropriate judicial
proceedings, whether the property was in
truth “ill- gotten,” i.e., acquired through or
as a result of improper or illegal use of or the
conversion of funds belonging to the
Government or any of its branches,
instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or
financial institutions, or by taking undue
advantage of official position, authority,
relationship, connection or influence,
resulting in unjust enrichment of the
ostensible owner and grave damage and
prejudice to the State. And this, too, is the
sense in which the term is commonly
understood in other jurisdictions.
The Court further held:
As thus described, sequestration, freezing
and provisional takeover are akin to the
provisional remedy of preliminary
attachment, or receivership. By attachment,
a sheriff seizes property of a defendant in a
civil suit so that it may stand as security for
the satisfaction of any judgment that may
be obtained, and not disposed of, or
dissipated, or lost intentionally or otherwise,
pending the action. By receivership,
property, real or personal, which is subject
of litigation, is placed in the possession and
control of a receiver appointed by the Court,
who shall conserve it pending final
determination of the title or right of
possession over it. x x x
A sequestration order is similar to the
provisional remedy of Receivership under Rule 59
of the Rules of Court. The PCGG may thus exercise
only powers of administration over the property
or business sequestered or provisionally taken over
so as to bring and defend actions in its own name;
receive rents; collect debts due; pay outstanding
debts; and generally do such other acts and things
as may be necessary to fulfill its mission as
conservator and administrator.
(Austria-Martinez, J., Pacific Basin Securities Co.
Inc. v. Oriental Petroleum and Minerals Corp., and
Equitable Banking Corp., G.R. No. 143972, August
31, 2007)
20
RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
SUPREME COURT
RESOLUTION of the COURT En Banc dated August
28, 2007, on A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC
RE:
REVISED UPGRADING SCHEDULE OF THE
LEGAL FEES IN THE SUPREME COURT AND
THE LOWER COURTS UNDER RULE 141 OF
THE RULES OF COURT
Acting on the proposed guidelines submitted by
the Office of the Court Administrator pursuant to the
Resolution dated July 3, 2007, the Court RESOLVED to:
(a) ADOPT the attached Guidelines in the
Implementation of Section 1 of Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court, as Amended;
(b) DIRECT the implementation of Section 1 of
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended, in
all collegiate courts and, as designated pilottesting areas, all lower courts in the National
Capital Judicial Region and in Cebu City,
Mandaue City, and Lapu-Lapu City; and
(c) REQUIRE the Office of the Court
Administrator to submit on or before
December 10, 2007 a written report on the
pilot-testing of the amended rule and its
implementing guidelines.
Upon effectivity of this Resolution, all resolutions,
orders and circulars of this Court, which are
inconsistent therewith, are repealed or modified
accordingly.
This Resolution shall take effect on September 3,
2007.
August 28, 2007.
(Sgd.) REYNATO S. PUNO, CJ, QUISUMBING (on leave),
YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO
MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, REYES, JJ.
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES
IN
THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 1 OF
RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT,
AS AMENDED
Pursuant to the Resolution dated April 17, 2007 in
A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC amending Section I of Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court, the following guidelines for the
payment of fees, its modes and effects are hereby
adopted:
Section 1. Payment of Fees. - Upon filing of any
initiatory pleading, all prescribed fees such as but not
limited to filing fees accruing to the Judiciary
Development Fund and Special Allowance for the
Judiciary Fund, and other fees accruing to the Legal
Research Fund, Victim Compensation Fund and
Mediation Fund, shall be paid in full, provided that, in
petitions for rehabilitation under the Interim Rules of
Procedure on Corporate Governance, filing fees in
excess of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php100,000.00) may be paid on a staggered basis,
subject to the provisions of Section 2 hereof, in
accordance with the schedule provided under the
Resolution of the Court in A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC dated
September 19,2006.
Sec. 2. Modes of Payment. - The filing fees may be paid
in cash or check, as follows:
(a) Cash Payment:
(1) Fees not accruing to the Judiciary Development
Fund or Special Allowance for the Judiciary
Fund such as but not limited to the Legal
Research Fee, Victim Compensation Fee,
Mediation Fee, and Cadastral Fee.
(2) Initial deposit of One Thousand Pesos
(Php1,000.00) to defray actual travel expenses
in the service of summons, subpoena and other
court processes.
(b) Cash or Check Payment:
(1) Fees accruing to the Judiciary Development
Fund amounting to Five Thousand Pesos
(Php5,000.00) or less.
(2) Fees accruing to the Special Allowance for the
Judiciary Fund amounting to Five Thousand
Pesos (Php5,000.00) or less.
(c) Check Payment:
(1) Fees accruing to the Judiciary Development
Fund exceeding Five Thousand Pesos
(Php5,000.00).
(2) Fees accruing to the Special Allowance for the
Judiciary Fund exceeding Five Thousand
Pesos (Php5,000.00).
Check payments may be in the form of personal,
company or manager’s check, provided that, if the
amount exceeds Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00),
it shall be paid in manager’s check.
Sec. 3. When payment is made in check. - All checks
shall be crossed. No postdated, altered, or third-party
check shall be accepted. Only checks in the account
name of the lawyer (or law firm) or the party
July-September 2007
RESOLUTIONS,
ORDERS AND CIRCULARS
PHILJA NEWS
21
RESOLUTION on A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC (continued)
(individual or corporate) filing an action shall be
accepted.
The fees accruing to the Judiciary Development
Fund or the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund
shall be paid in separate checks payable to the
“Supreme Court, Judiciary Development Fund
Account” or to the “Supreme Court, Special
Allowance for the Judiciary Fund Account,”
respectively. The docket number, title of the case, and
the court where the case was filed shall be indicated
in the dorsal/back portion of the check.
The official receipts issued for payment by check
shall be stamped with the following notation:
“Payment Credited Only Upon Check Being Cleared.”
The official receipts shall reflect accurately the name
of the party on whose behalf the payment is made, the
docket number and title of the case, the amount paid
in words and in figures, the check number, the name
of the bank and the branch where the checking account
is maintained. The official receipt must be duly signed
by the Clerk of Court. Pending clearance of the check,
the Clerk of Court retains the official receipt and issues
a certified true copy thereof to the payor.
Sec. 4. When check is dishonored. - Upon receipt of the
notice of dishonor of the check from the depository
bank by the Supreme Court, the Fiscal Management
and Budget Office (FMBO) shall inform in writing the
Clerk of Court concerned within five (5) days from
receipt of the notice of dishonor. In multiple-sala courts,
the Clerk of Court shall inform in writing the Branch
Clerk of Court where the case was raffled of the
dishonor of the check within twenty-four (24) hours
from receipt of the notice.
The court shall forthwith issue an order
dismissing the case, in consonance with Section 3 of
Rule 17. Upon the dismissal of the case, the official
receipt is automatically considered cancelled. No
motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal
shall be entertained. The dismissal of the case shall be
without prejudice to the filing of a case against the
drawer of the dishonored check.
Sec. 5. Duty of the Clerk of Court, Officer-in-Charge or
Accountable Officer. - The Clerk of Court, the Officerin-Charge in the Office of the Clerk of Court, or the
duly authorized accountable officer designated in
writing shall strictly observe the procedural
guidelines in the collection of fees accruing to the
Judiciary Development Fund and the Special
Allowance for the Judiciary Fund, provided under
Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 dated
August 20, 2004.
Sec. 6. Submission of Monthly Report. - The Clerk of
Court shall accomplish a Monthly Report of Dismissed
Cases due to Dishonored Checks using Form LF-1 (a
copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “A”) to be
submitted to the Accounting Division, Financial
Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator
within ten (10) days after the end of each month,
attaching thereto the certified true copies of the
following documents:
(a) cancelled official receipts;
(b) deposit slips;
(c) monthly report of collections and deposits of
check; and
(d) court orders dismissing the case.
In the Cashbooks and Monthly Reports of the
Judiciary Development Fund and the Special
Allowance for the Judiciary Fund, two sub-columns
bearing the headings “Checks Received” and “Cleared
as of (date) “shall be added under the column of
“Official Receipt/Remittance Advice.”
Sec. 7. Judicial Nature of Assessment and Collection of
Docket Fees. - Matters relating to the propriety and
correctness of the assessment and collection of docket
fees are judicial in nature and should only be
determined by the regular courts, pursuant to the
Resolution of the Court dated March 8, 2005 in A.M.
No. 05-3-03-0.
Sec. 8. Refund of Filing Fees. - The refund of filing fees
paid to the court on account of orders issued by the
judges shall be referred to the Chief Justice through
the Court Administrator, pursuant to the Resolution
of the Court dated October 12,2005 in A.M. No. 05-9256-MeTC.
Sec. 9. Effectivity. - These Guidelines shall take effect
on October 1, 2007 in designated areas as the Court,
by resolution, may direct.
Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.
Issued this 28th day of August 2007.
22
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
SUPREME COURT
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 118-2007
RE:
TO: ALL PRESIDING JUSTICES AND CLERKS OF
COURT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,
SANDIGANBAYAN, AND COURT OF TAX
APPEALS AND ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS
OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS,
METROPOLITAN
TRIAL
COURTS,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND SHARI’A
CIRCUIT COURTS
DESIGNATION OF THE DIVISIONS OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS TO HANDLE CASES
INVOLVING THE CRIMES OF TERRORISM
OR
CONSPIRACY
TO
COMMIT
TERRORISM AND ALL MATTERS
INCIDENT TO THE SAID CRIMES
Whereas, Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise
known as the Human Security Act of 2007, vests the
Court of Appeals with authority to act upon judicial
matters in the implementation of the provisions
thereof;
Whereas, the Human Security Act itself requires
the designation by the Supreme Court of specific
divisions of the Court of Appeals to handle cases
involving the crimes of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism and all matters incident to the said
crimes; and
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THE DISPOSAL AND/
OR DESTRUCTION OF COURT
RECORDS, PAPERS AND EXHIBITS
1.
Whereas, there is need now to designate the
specific divisions of the Court of Appeals which shall
handle the cases mentioned to ensure that in the
implementation of the Human Security Act, respect
for human rights, which shall be absolute and
protected at all times, shall not be prejudiced as
expressed in Section 2 thereof;
(a) Naturalization cases;
(b) Big land cases;
(c) Precedent-setting cases without records in the
Supreme Court;
Now, Therefore, in the interest of the expeditious
and efficient administration of justice, the following
Divisions of the Court of Appeals, referred to as the
Authorizing Divisions, are hereby designated to
handle cases involving the crimes of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism and all matters
incident to the said crimes:
1.
Metropolitan Manila and Luzon - The First,
Second and Third Divisions;
2.
Visayas - The Eighteenth, Nineteenth and
Twentieth Divisions; and
3.
Mindanao - The Twenty-First, TwentySecond and Twenty-Third Divisions.
This Administrative Order shall take effect
immediately.
(d) Death Penalty cases; and
(e) Criminal cases where the Board of Pardons
and Parole may require certain documents,
important court exhibits, extended
resolutions resolving motions for
reconsideration, and the like…
The phrase “court records, papers and
exhibits” refers to basic pleadings and various
supporting papers, documents and exhibits
attached to the expediente or rollo but do not cover
decisions of terminated cases. These decisions
must still be maintained in the archives of the
respective courts to preserve the repositorial value
of judicial statements set forth therein;
2.
After the last day of the retention period, a request
for authority to dispose of and/or to destroy court
records, papers, and exhibits shall be filed with
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), using
the prescribed form (Form 1). The request shall be
acted upon by the Court Administrator within
thirty (30) days from receipt hereof;
3.
Notices of the intention to dispose of and/or
destroy court records, papers and exhibits must
July 16, 2007.
(Sgd.) PUNO, CJ, QUISUMBING (Chairman, 2 nd
Division), YNARES-SANTIAGO (Chairman, 3 rd
Division), JJ.
(Per Revised A.M. No. 99-12-88-SC)
The court records, papers and exhibits subject of
the disposal and/or destruction must pertain to
cases terminated for at least seven (7) years,
EXCEPT the following, which shall remain in the
office storage of every court, to wit:
July-September 2007
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
23
A.O. No. 120-2007 (continued)
be posted for at least thirty (30) days from date of
receipt of the approval of the Office of the Court
Administrator of the authority to dispose of and/
or destroy the court records, papers and exhibits,
at the main entrances of three (3) conspicuous
public places such as the Hall of Justice, Provincial
Capitol, City or Municipal Hall, and the Post Office;
4.
5.
Corresponding notices relative to such disposal
and/or destruction of court records, papers and
exhibits shall be sent to the parties and/or counsel
of record who may wish to retrieve documents/
evidence from said court records at least thirty
(30) days prior to the date of actual disposal and/
or destruction;
The disposal and/or destruction must be carried
out after the expiration of thirty (30) days as
provided in the preceding paragraph, and shall
be undertaken by selling or burning the court
records, papers and exhibits, or by some other
practicable manner;
6.
The sale or burning shall be conducted in the
presence of the Presiding Justice/Executive Judge/
Presiding Judge, the Clerk of Court and the
representative from the Commission on Audit;
7.
The Clerk of Court shall issue the corresponding
official receipt to the buyer of the disposed court
records, papers, or exhibits, and the amount
collected therefor shall be recorded in a separate
report of collection specifying the nature of the
income;
8.
The Clerk of Court shall remit to the Judiciary
Development Fund the proceeds from the sale
under a separate Remittance Advice to the credit
of the court involved with notice of such
remittance furnished the Office of the Court
Administrator;
9.
Within thirty (30) days after the disposal and/or
destruction of court records, papers, and exhibits
in accordance with the preceding procedures, the
Clerk of Court shall prepare a Disposal Report duly
noted by the Presiding Justice/Executive Judge/
Presiding Judge, and submit the same to the Office
of the Court Administrator;
10. The Disposal Report must specify the: (a) court
records, papers, and exhibits disposed of and/or
destroyed, (b) compliance with the basic
requirements for the disposal and/or destruction
of said court records, papers and exhibits, and (c)
facts concerning the exhaustive efforts by the court
concerned to notify the parties and/or counsel of
records as prescribed in paragraph 4 hereof; and
11. Non-submission of the Disposal Report shall be
subject to administrative sanctions as the Court
may appropriately impose.
The provisions of this Administrative Order shall
not be applicable to court records, papers and exhibits
where there is a specific law providing the disposal
and/or destruction thereof.
Strict observance of the above rules/procedures
is hereby enjoined.
This Administrative Order amends or otherwise
supersedes Administrative Order No. 13 dated April
29, 1981, and such other orders, circulars and other
issuances inconsistent herewith.
July 25, 2007.
(Sgd.) REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
24
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
SUPREME COURT
GUIDELINES ON THE SOLEMNIZATION OF
MARRIAGE BY THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
WHEREAS, marriage under the Constitution, is
an inviolable social institution and the foundation of
the family and shall be protected by the State (Section
2, Article XV, 1987 Constitution);
WHEREAS, the Family Code likewise provides that
the nature, consequences and incidents of marriage
are governed by law and not subject to any stipulation
(Article 1, Family Code);
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has declared that
the State has surrounded marriage with safeguards
to “monitor its purity, continuity and permanence”; 1
WHEREAS, for the above purposes, there is a need
to lay down rules to enable solemnizing authorities of
the Judiciary to secure and safeguard the sanctity of
marriage as a social institution;
NOW, THEREFORE, the following Guidelines on
the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the
Judiciary are hereby promulgated:
A. Justices of the Supreme Court and other appellate
courts and Judges of the Regional Trial Courts,
Metropolitan Trial Courts,Municipal Trial Courts
in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts
Section 1. Authority of solemnizing officer. a.
Incumbent Justices of the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court
of Tax Appeals have authority to solemnize
marriages in any part of the Philippines,
regardless of the venue, provided the requisites
of the law are complied with;2 and
b. Judges of the Regional Trial Courts,
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have authority
to solemnize marriages within the court’s
jurisdiction.3
Sec. 2. Raffle of requests for solemnization of
marriages in multiple-sala courts. - Requests for
solemnization of marriages submitted to first and
_____________________________
1. Jimenez v. Republic, L-127900, August 31, 1960, 109 Phil 273.
2. Navarro v. Judge Domagtoy, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088, July 19,
1996, 259 SCRA 129.
3. Article 7, Family Code; Navarro v. Judge Domagtoy, ibid.
second level courts in stations with two or more
branches shall be governed by the rules and
procedures in the raffle of cases prescribed by
existing resolutions and issuances. Raffle of
requests shall be effected upon payment of the
appropriate legal fees.
Sec. 3. Venue of marriage ceremony solemnized by
Judges. - As a general rule, a marriage shall be
solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge
or in open court except in the following instances:
a.
A marriage contracted at the point of death
or solemnized in a remote place under Article
29 of the Family Code; or
b. A marriage where both parties submit a
written request to the solemnizing officer that
the marriage be solemnized at a house or place
designated by them in a sworn statement to
this effect.
Sec. 4. Duties of solemnizing officer before the
performance of marriage ceremony. - Before
performing the marriage ceremony, the
solemnizing officer shall:
a.
Ensure that the parties appear personally and
are the same contracting parties to the
marriage;
b. Personally interview the contracting parties
and examine the documents submitted to
ascertain if there is compliance with the
essential and formal requisites of marriage
under the Family Code; and
c.
Personally examine the marriage license
presented, unless a marriage license is not
required under the relevant provisions of the
Family Code, to determine the authenticity,
completeness and validity of the said license;
In the event that either or both of the
contracting parties be citizens of a foreign country,
the solemnizing officer shall also examine the
certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage
issued by the respective diplomatic or consular
officials and attached to the marriage license.
Sec. 5. Other duties of solemnizing officer before
the solemnization of the marriage in legal
ratification of cohabitation. - In the case of a
marriage effecting legal ratification of
cohabitation, the solemnizing officer shall (a)
personally interview the contracting parties to
determine their qualifications to many; (b)
personally examine the affidavit of the contracting
July-September 2007
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
25
parties as to the fact of having lived together as
husband and wife for at least five [5] years and
the absence of any legal impediments to marry
each other; and (c) execute a sworn statement
showing compliance with (a) and (b) and that the
solemnizing officer found no legal impediment to
the marriage.
Sec. 6. Duty of solemnizing officer during the
solemnization of the marriage. - The solemnizing
officer shall require the contracting parties to
personally declare before him and in the presence
of not less than two witnesses of legal age that the
said parties take each other as husband and wife.
Sec. 7. Duties of solemnizing officer after
solemnization of the marriage. - After performing
the marriage ceremony, the solemnizing officer
shall:
a.
Ensure that the marriage certificate is
properly accomplished and has the complete
entries, i.e., (1) the declaration that the
contracting parties take each other as husband
and wife; (2) the true and correct information
and statements required under Article 22 of
the Family Code; (3) it is signed by the
contracting parties and their witnesses; and
(4) it is attested by him;
b. See to it that the marriage is properly
documented in accordance with Article 23 of
the Family Code, as follows:
(1) By furnishing either of the contracting
parties with the original of the marriage
certificate referred to in Article 6 of the
Family Code;
(2) By transmitting the duplicate and
triplicate copies of the marriage certificate
not later than fifteen (15) days after the
marriage to the local civil registrar of the
place where the marriage was solemnized;
and
(3) By retaining in the court’s files (1) the
quadruplicate copy of the marriage
certificate, (2) the original of the marriage
license, and, in proper cases, (3) the
affidavit of the contracting parties
regarding the solemnization of the
marriage in a place other than the Justice’s/
judge’s chambers or in open court.
Sec. 8. Other duties of solemnizing officer after the
solemnization of the marriage where marriage
license is not required.- In cases of marriage in articulo
mortis or a marriage in a remote or distant area
referred to under Articles 27 and 28, respectively,
of the Family Code, the solemnizing officer shall
prepare an affidavit stating the following:
(a) That the marriage was performed in articulo
mortis or that the residence of either party,
specifying the barrio or barangay, is so located
that there are no means of transportation to
enable such party to appear personally before
the local civil registrar;
(b) That the necessary steps were taken to
ascertain the ages and relationship of the
contracting parties; and
(c) That there are no legal impediments to the
marriage.
The solemnizing officer (a) shall execute the
affidavit before the local civil registrar or any
other person legally authorized to administer
oaths; and (b) shall file or send the original of the
affidavit, together with a legible copy of the
marriage contract, to the local civil registrar of
the municipality where it was performed within
the period of thirty [30] days after the
performance of the marriage.
Sec. 9. Recording of marriages solemnized and
safekeeping of documents. a.
The solemnizing shall cause to be kept in the
court a record book of all marriages
solemnized. Marriages conducted shall be
entered sequentially and each entry shall set
forth the names of the contracting parties,
their respective nationalities and current
actual places of residence, the date of marriage
and the date of the marriage license.
b. The solemnizing officer shall cause to be filed
in the court the quadruplicate copy of the
marriage certificate, the original of the
marriage license, the certificate of legal
capacity when one or both parties are
foreigners or a copy thereof, and, when
applicable, the affidavit of the contracting
parties regarding the request for change in
the venue for the marriage. All documents
pertaining the request for change in the venue
for the marriage. All documents pertaining
to a marriage shall be kept in one file which
file shall be properly labeled, catalogued and
their integrity and safety secured.
26
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
B. Judges of the Shari’a District Courts and Shari’a
Circuit Courts
Sec. 10. Authority to Solemnize Marriages. a.
Incumbent Judges of the Shari’a District Courts
and Shari’a Circuit Courts and any person
designated by the judge, should the proper
wali (guardian for marriage refuse without
justifiable reason, to authorize the
solemnization, shall have authority to
solemnize marriages within the court’s
jurisdiction (Article 18, Code of Muslim
Personal Laws).
Sec. 11. Venue of the Marriage Ceremony. - The
marriage shall be solemnized publicly in any
mosque, office of the Shari‘a judge, office of the
District or Circuit Registrar, residence of the bride
or her wali, or at any other suitable place agreed
upon by the parties (Article 19, Code of Muslim
Personal Laws).
Sec. 12. Marriages among Muslims without
marriage license. - Marriages among Muslims may
be performed validly without the necessity of a
marriage license, provided that they are
solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites
or practices. (Article 33, Family Code).
Sec. 13. Duties of the solemnizing officer before the
marriage ceremony. - Before performing the
marriage ceremony, the solemnizing officer shall:
a.
Ensure that the parties appearing personally
before him are the same contracting parties
to the marriage to be solemnized; and
b. Personally interview the contracting parties
to satisfy himself that the essential requisites
for the marriage prescribed by Article 15,
Code of Muslim Personal Laws, are present.
Sec. 14. Other duties of the solemnizing officer before
the marriage ceremony. - In case where one of the
contracting parties is a female who though less
than fifteen (15) but not below twelve (12) years
of age has attained puberty, the solemnizing officer
shall check whether or not, upon petition of a
proper wali, an order has been issued by a judge of
the Shari‘a District Court for the solemnization of
the marriage (Article 16, Code of Muslim Personal
Laws).
Sec. 15. Duty of the solemnizing officer during the
marriage ceremony. - The solemnizing officer shall
ensure that the ijab (offer) and the qabul (acceptance)
in marriage are (a) declared publicly in his presence
and of two (2) competent witnesses; (b) set forth in
an instrument (in triplicate) signed or marked by
the contracting parties and the said witnesses; and
that the declaration is attested by him (Article 17,
Code of Muslim Personal Laws).
Sec. 16. Duty of the solemnizing officer after the
marriage ceremony. - The solemnizing officer shall
(a) give one copy of the declaration to the
contracting parties; (b) send another copy of the
declaration to the Circuit Registrar; and (c) keep
the third copy (Article 17, Code of Muslim Personal
Laws).
C. Miscellaneous Common Provisions
Sec. 17. Cases not covered by the Guidelines. - In all
other cases not covered by the Guidelines, the
solemnizing officer shall comply and act in
accordance with the requirements prescribed by
the relevant provisions of the Family Code, the
Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines,
and Sections 37-45, Republic Act No. 3631 or the
Marriage Law Act of 1929.
Sec. 18. Fees for the Solemnization of Marriages. For the performance of marriage ceremony and
issuance of marriage certificate and subject
further to the provisions of A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC
(16 August 2004) the legal fees in the following
amounts shall be collected:
(a) For marriages solemnized by Justices of the
Supreme Court and other appellate courts –
Three hundred (Php300.00) pesos;
(b) For marriages solemnized by Judges of the
Regional Trial Courts and Shari’a District
Courts – Three hundred (Php300.00) pesos;
and
(c) For marriages solemnized by Judges of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts;
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and Shari’a
Circuit Courts – Three hundred (Php300.00)
pesos.
All fees collected for the solemnization of
marriage shall accrue to the Judiciary
Development Fund.
Sec. 19. Payment of legal fees in Philippine legal
tender. - All fees shall be paid in Philippine
currency and such fees collected shall be properly
officially receipted.
July-September 2007
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
Sec. 20. Unauthorized demand for and receipt of
marriage solemnization fees. - The demand for or
solicitation, collection or receipt of fees for the
solemnization of any marriage in excess of the
amounts stated herein shall be considered a
violation of these Guidelines and shall subject the
solemnizing authority to administrative
disciplinary measures.4
Sec. 21. Facilitation of marriage ceremony. - Any
judge or employee of the court who, alone or with
the connivance of other court personnel or third
persons not employed by the court, intervenes so
that the marriage of contracting parties is
facilitated or performed despite lack of or without
the necessary supporting documents, or performs
other acts that tends to cause the solemnization of
the marriage with undue baste shall be subjected
to appropriate administrative disciplinary
proceedings.
Sec. 22. Reporting of marriages solemnized. - All
marriages solemnized shall be duly entered and
indicated in the monthly report of cases to be
accomplished by the solemnizing officer.
Sec. 23. Posting of the Guidelines. - All Executive
Judges/Presiding Judges shall post copies of these
Guidelines (a) in conspicuous places in their
respective Halls of Justice or courthouses; and (b)
on the bulletin board of each court at the entrance
to the courtroom.
Sec.24. Violations of the Guidelines. - Violations of
any of the provisions of the Guidelines shall be
ground for the appropriate administrative
disciplinary proceedings.
Sec. 25. Repealing clause. - The provisions of
administrative orders, circulars and other
issuances of the Supreme Court inconsistent
herewith are deemed amended or revoked.
Sec. 26. Effectivity. - These Guidelines shall take
effect immediately.
August 9, 2007.
Chief Justice
_____________________________
4. Dysico v. Dacumos, A.M. No. MTJ-94-999, September 23,
1996; 262 SCRA 274.
27
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 74-2007
RE:
ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION
4(B) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7877 AND
SECTIONS 6, 7, 8 OF A.M. NO. 03-03-13-SC
BY THE EXECUTIVE JUDGES OF ALL TRIAL
COURTS
WHEREAS, Section 4(b) of the Republic Act No,
7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) mandates
each employer or head of office to create a Committee
on Decorum and Investigation (CODI) for sexual
harassment cases, to increase awareness; prevent
incidents of sexual harassment; and to conduct
investigation of acts allegedly constituting sexual
harassment;
WHEREAS, to implement Section 4(b) of Republic
Act No. 7877, the Supreme Court promulgated the
resolution dated December 14, 2004 in A.M. No. 0303-13-SC providing for the Rule on Administrative
Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on
Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary, Section 6 of which
mandates, among others, that in all trial courts, the
Executive Judges shall appoint the members of their
CODI;
WHEREAS, Section 7 of the said Rules provides
that in the case of multi-sala courts, the CODI shall be
composed of the Executive Judge as Chairperson; the
Clerk of Court as Vice-Chairperson; and one
representative each from the employees’ associations
duly accredited by the Office of the Court
Administrator;
WHEREAS, Section 8 of the same Rule, as amended
by the Resolution of the Court En Banc on March 7,
2006, provides as follows:
Sec. 8. Jurisdiction, powers and responsibilities
of CODIs- The CODI shall have jurisdiction
over all complaints for sexual harassment
committed by official and employees of the
Judiciary, except those against Judges of regular and
special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals,
Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals ,which shall
fundamentally adhere to the, proceedings laid down in
Section 3 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
WHEREAS, the CODI shall receive the complaint,
investigate its allegations, and submit report and
recommendation to the proper court authority as
provided for in Section 18 of the Rule;
WHEREAS, the Office of the Court Administrator
clustered the first and second level single sala-courts
28
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
A.C. No. 74-2007 (continued)
to facilitate the organization of the Committee on
Decorum and Investigation. Said clustering is herein
attached as Annex “A”1 and made an integral part
hereof;
WHEREAS, the guidelines for the organization of
the CODI as adopted in the En Banc resolution dated
July 11, 2006 states:
(1) The single first level courts including the
Shari’a Circuit Court shall be clustered to
the RTC exercising administrative
supervision over the area where the
concerned first level court is located. They
shall be under the CODI for multi-sala
lower courts;
(2) RTC single sala courts and the Shari’a
District Courts shall be clustered to the
nearest RTC multi-sala court or RTC single
sala court as the case may be, as contained
in the abovementioned Annex “A”.
The CODI in these clustered courts shall be
composed of the Executive Judge of the RTC
multiple sala court where the RTC single
sala is clustered who shall be the
Chairperson.
In case the clustered courts are both RTC
single sala courts, the Chairperson shall be
the Presiding Judge who is the most senior
in the Judiciary if there are two or more, then
the Presiding Judge most senior in age.
The Clerk of Court of the multiple sala court
or the Clerk of Court of the Chairperson in
case of the clustered single-sala courts shall
be the vice-chairperson; and one
representative each from the employees’
associations duly accredited by the Office of
the Court Administrator.
NOW THEREFORE, Executive Judges of all trial
courts are hereby directed to submit to the Office of
the Court Administrator on or before September 30,
2007: (1) a report on their compliance with Section 4(b)
of the Republic Act No. 7877 and Section 6, 7, and 8 of
A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC and (2) the list of the members of
their respective CODIs.
Issued this 26th day of June 2007.
(Sgd.) PUNO, CJ, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIAMARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA,
TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, JJ.
1. Annex “A”- CLUSTERING SCHEME
Single Sala Stations
RTC, Branch 58, Bucay, Abra
RTC, Branch 64, Buguias, Benguet
RTC, Branch 19, Bangui, Ilocos Norte
RTC, Branch 24, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur
RTC, Branch 25, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur
RTC, Branch 34, Balaoan, La Union
RTC, Branch 50, Villasis, Pangasinan
RTC, Branch 53, Rosales, Pangasinan
RTC, Branch 70, Burgos, Pangasinan
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
Nearest RTC Stations
RTC, Bangued
RTC, La Trinidad, Benguet
RTC, Laoag City
RTC, Vigan City
RTC, Candon City
RTC, San Fernando City, La Union
RTC, Branch 53, Rosales, Pangasinan
RTC, Branch 50, Villasis, Pangasinan
RTC, Alaminos City
SECOND JUDICIAL REGION
RTC, Branch 11, Tuao, Cagayan
RTC, Tuguegarao City
RTC, Branch 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan
RTC, Branch 33, Ballesteros, Cagayan
RTC, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan
RTC, Branch 13, Basco, Batanes
RTC, Aparri, Cagayan
RTC, Branch 14, Lagawe, Ifugao
RTC, Branch 34, Banaue, Ifugao
RTC, Branch 34, Banaue, Ifugao
RTC, Branch 14, Lagawe, Ifugao
RTC, Branch 15, Alfonso Lista, Ifugao
RTC, Santiago City
RTC, Branch 22, Cabagan, Isabela
RTC, Ilagan, Isabela
RTC, Branch 23, Roxas, Isabela
RTC, Ilagan, Isabela
RTC, Branch 24, Echague, Isabela
RTC, Santiago City
July-September 2007
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
29
SECOND JUDICIAL REGION (continued)
RTC, Branch 25, Tabuk, Kalinga
RTC, Tuguegarao City
RTC, Branch 26, Luna, Apayao
RTC, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino
RTC, Cabarroguis, Quirino
THIRD JUDICIAL REGION
RTC, Branch 4, Mariveles, Bataan
RTC, Balanga City
RTC, Branch 5, Dinalupihan, Bataan
RTC, Balanga City
RTC, Branch 40, Palayan City, Nueva Ecija
RTC, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
RTC, Branch 66, Capas, Tarlac
RTC, Tarlac City
RTC, Branch 67, Paniqui, Tarlac
RTC, Branch 68, Camiling, Tarlac
RTC, Branch 68, Camiling, Tarlac
RTC, Branch 67, Paniqui, Tarlac
FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
RTC, Branch 5, Lemery, Batangas
RTC, Branch 86, Taal, Batangas
RTC, Branch 86, Taal, Batangas
RTC, Branch 5, Lemery, Batangas
RTC, Branch 14, Nasugbu, Batangas
RTC, Balayan, Batangas
RTC, Branch 87, Rosario, Batangas
RTC, Lipa City, Batangas
RTC, Branch 15, Naic, Cavite
RTC, Cavite City
RTC, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, Cavite
RTC, Imus, Cavite
RTC, Branch 90, Dasmariñas, Cavite
RTC, Imus, Cavite
RTC, Branch 23, Trece Martires City
RTC, Cavite City
RTC, Branch 33, Siniloan, Laguna
RTC, Sta. Cruz, Laguna
RTC, Branch 43, Roxas, Mindoro Oriental
RTC, Pinamalayan, Mindoro Oriental
RTC, Branch 44, Mamburao, Mindoro Occidental
RTC, San Jose, Mindoro Occidental
RTC, Branch 95, Roxas, Palawan
RTC, Puerto Princesa City
RTC, Branch 63, Calauag, Quezon
RTC, Gumaca, Quezon
RTC, Branch 64, Mauban, Quezon
RTC, Lucena City
RTC, Branch 65, Infanta, Quezon
RTC, Lucena City
RTC, Branch 81, Romblon, Romblon
RTC, Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon
RTC, Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon
RTC, Branch 81, Romblon, Romblon
FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION
RTC, Branch 63, Calabanga, Camarines Sur
RTC, Naga City
RTC, Branch 64, Labo, Camarines Norte
RTC, Daet, Camarines Norte
RTC, Branch 49, Cataingan, Masbate
RTC, Masbate City
RTC, Branch 50, San Jacinto, Masbate
RTC, Masbate City
RTC, Branch 54, Gubat, Sorsogon
RTC, Sorsogon City
RTC, Branch 55, Irosin, Sorsogon
RTC, Branch 65, Bulan, Sorsogon
SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION
RTC, Branch 13, Culasi, Antique
RTC, Branch 64, Bugasong, Antique
RTC, Branch 64, Bugasong, Antique
RTC, Branch 13, Culasi, Antique
RTC, Branch 66, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo
RTC, Branch 68, Dumangas, Iloilo
RTC, Branch 67, Guimbal, Iloilo
RTC, Iloilo City
RTC, Branch 68, Dumangas, Iloilo
RTC, Iloilo City
RTC, Branch 65, Jordan, Guimaras
RTC, Iloilo City
RTC, Branch 60, Cadiz City, Negros Occidental
RTC, Silay City
RTC, Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental RTC, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental
30
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION (continued)
RTC, Branch 62, Bago City, Negros Occidental
RTC, Branch 63, La Carlota City
RTC, Branch 63, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental
RTC, Branch 62, Bago City
SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION
RTC, Branch 50, Loay, Bohol
RTC, Tagbilaran City
RTC, Branch 51, Carmen, Bohol
RTC, Branch 52, Talibon, Bohol
RTC, Branch 52, Talibon, Bohol
RTC, Branch 51, Carmen, Bohol
RTC, Branch 25, Danao City, Cebu
RTC, Bogo, Cebu
RTC, Branch 26, Argao, Cebu
RTC, Branch 62, Oslob, Cebu
RTC, Branch 62, Oslob, Cebu
RTC, Argao, Cebu
RTC, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu
RTC, Toledo City
RTC, Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu
RTC, Danao City
RTC, Branch 45, Bais City, Negros Oriental
RTC, Tanjay, Negros Oriental
RTC, Branch 63, Bayawan City, Negros Oriental
RTC, Bais City
RTC, Branch 64, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental
RTC, Bais City
RTC, Branch 43, Tanjay, Negros Oriental
RTC, Branch 45, Bais City
RTC, Branch 46, Larena, Siquijor
RTC, Dumaguete City
EIGHTH JUDICIAL REGION
RTC, Branch 3, Guiuan, Eastern, Samar
RTC, Borongan, Eastern Samar
RTC, Branch 4, Dolores, Eastern Samar
RTC, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar
RTC, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar
RTC, Branch 4, Dolores, Eastern Samar
RTC, Branch 10, Abuyog, Leyte
RTC, Tacloban City
RTC, Branch 11, Calubian, Leyte
RTC, Carigara, Leyte
RTC, Branch 14, Baybay, Leyte
RTC, Ormoc City
RTC, Branch 15, Burauen, Leyte
RTC, Tacloban City
RTC, Branch 17, Palompon, Leyte
RTC, Ormoc City
RTC, Branch 18, Hilongos, Southern, Leyte
RTC, Maasin City
RTC, Branch 16, Naval, Biliran
RTC, Branch 37, Caibiran, Biliran
RTC, Branch 37, Caibiran, Biliran
RTC, Branch 16, Naval, Biliran
RTC, Branch 23, Allen, Northern Samar
RTC, Catarman, Northern Samar
RTC, Branch 38, Gamay, Northern Samar
RTC, Laoang, Northern Samar
(unorganized sala)
RTC, Branch 26, San Juan, Southern Leyte
RTC, Branch 39, Sogod, Southern Leyte
RTC, Branch 39, Sogod, Southern Leyte
RTC, San Juan, Southern Leyte
RTC, Branch 30, Basey, Samar
RTC, Tacloban City
RTC, Branch 33, Calbiga, Samar
RTC, Catbalogan, Samar
RTC, Branch 40, Tarangnan, Samar
RTC, Catbalogan, Samar
RTC, Branch 41, Gandara, Samar
RTC, Calbayog City
NINTH JUDICIAL REGION
RTC, Branch 3, Jolo, Sulu
These three (3) courts can be clustered
RTC, Branch 4, Parang, Sulu
as they are holding office and
RTC, Branch 25, Siasi, Sulu
Court sessions at Jolo, Sulu
RTC, Branch 5, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi
RTC, Zamboanga City
RTC, Branch 26, Sapa Sapa, Tawi-Tawi
RTC, Zamboanga City
(unorganized sala)
RTC, Branch 11, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte
RTC, Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte
RTC, Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte
RTC, Branch 11, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte
July-September 2007
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
NINTH JUDICIAL REGION (continued)
RTC, Branch 27, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte
RTC, Zamboanga City
RTC, Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur
RTC, Branch 30, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur
RTC, Branch 29, San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur
RTC, Pagadian City
RTC, Branch 30, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur
RTC, Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur
RTC, Branch 24, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay
RTC, Pagadian City
TENTH JUDICIAL REGION
RTC, Branch 34, Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte
RTC, Butuan City
RTC, Branch 6, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur
RTC, Branch 7, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur
RTC, Branch 7, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur
RTC, Branch 6, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur
RTC, Branch 11, Manalo Fortich, Bukidnon
RTC, Malaybalay City
RTC, Branch 16, Tangub City, Misamis Occidental
RTC, Ozamis City
RTC, Branch 36, Calamba, Misamis Occidental
RTC, Oroquieta City
RTC, Branch 44, Initao, Misamis Oriental
RTC, Cagayan de Oro City
RTC, Branch 28, Mambajao, Camiguin
RTC, Cagayan de Oro City
RTC, Branch 31, Dapa, Surigao del Norte
RTC, Surigao City
RTC, Branch 32, Dinagat Island, Surigao del Norte
RTC, Surigao City
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION
RTC, Branch 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley
RTC, Tagum City
RTC, Branch 7, Baganga, Davao Oriental
RTC, Mati, Davao Oriental
RTC, Branch 32, Lupon, Davao Oriental
RTC, Mati, Davao Oriental
RTC, Branch 21, Bansalan, Davao del Sur
RTC, Digos City
RTC, Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato
RTC, Koronadal City
RTC, Branch 39, Polomolok, South Cotabato
RTC, General Santos City
RTC, Branch 38, Alabel, Sarangani
RTC, General Santos City
RTC, Branch 28, Lianga, Surigao del Sur
RTC, Tandag, Bislig City, Surigao del Sur
RTC, Branch 29, Bislig City, Surigao del Sur
RTC, Branch 28, Lianga, Surigao del Sur
RTC, Branch 41, Cantilan, Surigao del Sur
RTC, Tandag, Surigao del Sur
TWELFTH JUDICIAL REGION
RTC, Branch 7, Tubod, Lanao del Norte
RTC, Branch 21, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte
RTC, Branch 21, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte
RTC, Branch 7, Tubod, Lanao del Norte
RTC, Branch 15, Shariff Aguak, (Maganoy),
RTC, Cotabato City
Maguindanao
RTC, Branch 19, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat
RTC, Branch 20, Tacurong City
RTC, Branch 20, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat
RTC, Branch 25, Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat
(unorganized)
SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT
1. Shari’a District Court, Jolo, Sulu
2. Shari’a District Court, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi
3. Shari’a District Court, Zamboanga City
4. Shari’a District Court, Marawi City
5. Shari’a District Court, Cotabato City
RTC STATION
All RTCs in Sulu Province
RTC, Zamboanga City
RTC, Zamboanga City
RTC, Marawi City
RTC, Cotabato City
31
32
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
SUPREME COURT
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 76-2007
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT/
BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT /OFFICERS-INCHARGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS,
METROPOLITAN
TRIAL
COURTS,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND SHARI’A
CIRCUIT COURTS
SUBJECT: SUBMISSION
OF
SEMESTRAL
DOCKET INVENTORY REPORT
For the purpose of determining the actual number
of cases and monitoring the status of each case filed
with the lower courts, all judges are required to conduct
a physical inventory of cases at the time of assumption
and every semester thereafter and regularly submit a
report thereon to the Office of the Court Administrator.
The judge and the clerk of court shall examine each
case record and initial the last page thereof. They shall
prepare a tabulation of all pending cases at the time of
the assumption of the judge or at the end of each
semestral period, as the case may be, including all cases
filed and disposed of (archived cases, cases transferred
to other branches/salas and decided cases) during the
semester being reported.
The following guidelines shall be observed:
Section 1. Who shall and when to conduct the
physical inventory of cases and which cases to
include. a.
Newly Appointed Judges
At any time during the immersion program,
the judge and his/her clerk of court shall
conduct a physical inventory of cases covering
the cases pending at the time of his/her
assumption. This shall include all cases filed
and disposed of (archived cases, cases
transferred to other branches/salas and
decided cases) prior to his/her assumption but
which were not reported in the previous
Semestral Docket Inventory.
b. All Judges (including newly appointed and
designated as acting and assisting judges who
try and decide cases)
Every: (1) presiding judge; (2) newly appointed
judge; and (3) judges designated as acting or
assisting judge to try and decide cases shall
conduct the physical inventory of cases, which
shall cover all cases pending at the end of June
and December of each year including all cases
filed and disposed of (archived cases, cases
transferred to other branches/salas and
decided cases) during the semester.
Sec. 2. When to submit Docket Inventory Reports. The report shall be submitted to the Statistical
Reports Division, Court Management Office: (1)
within one [1] month after the immersion
program period – for newly appointed judges; and
(2) not later than the first week of February and
the first week of August of each year – for all judges,
including newly appointed judges.
However, newly appointed judges who
assumed administrative functions either in the
month of June or December shall conduct the
inventory under the provisions of Section 1(b).
Sec. 3. Contents of the report and certification. - The
tabulation shall contain the following information:
(1) case number; (2) case title; (3) nature of the case;
(4) date filed/raffled; (5) date of pre-trial (in civil
cases) or arraignment (in criminal cases); (6) date
of initial trial; (7) last trial or court action taken
and date thereof; (8) date submitted for decision;
and (9) judge to whom the case is assigned.
The report shall be jointly certified under oath
by the trial judge and his/her clerk of court or
branch clerk of court or officer-in-charge concerned
after personally examining the record of each case
and initialing the last page thereof. The actual
inclusive dates when the inventory was conducted
shall be indicated in the certification.
Sec. 4. Official form and joint certification. - The
official form shall be as follows:
July-September 2007
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
33
The tabulation shall be subscribed and sworn
to by the judge and his/her clerk of court/branch
clerk of court or officer-in-charge concerned
before the Executive Judge or Vice Executive Judge,
or in case of unavailability of both, before the
Presiding Judge of the station nearest to his/her
court. Should the distance or mode of
transportation be such as to make it impracticable
to swear before the aforesaid judges, the
declaration under oath may be done before a
public prosecutor or a notary public, in this order.
Sec. 5. No modification allowed. - No modification
of the prescribed form shall be made by either the
judge or the clerk of court.
Sec. 6. Period for inventory. - Judges may devote
one (1) week of each semester for the conduct of
the physical inventory and preparation of the
semestral docket inventory report. Trials need not
be scheduled during the period.
Sec. 7. Sanctions.- Non-submission of the
Semestral Docket Inventory Report and failure to
submit complete and accurate reports shall
warrant the withholding of the salaries of the
judge/s and clerks of court/branch clerks of court/
officers-in-charge concerned, without prejudice
to whatever administrative sanction the Supreme
Court may impose on them or criminal action
which may be filed against them.
Sec. 8. Repealing Clause. - This Administrative
Circular revokes Administrative Circulars Nos.
1 dated January 28, 1988 [Item No.1], 10-94 dated
June 29, 1994, 17-94 dated November 14, 1994 and
2-2001 dated January 2, 2001 and other issuances
inconsistent with this issuance.
Sec. 9. Effectivity Clause. - This Administrative
Circular shall take effect immediately and the
herein prescribed form shall be used starting the
Semestral Docket Inventory Report for the period
July to December 2007.
For strict compliance.
August 31, 2007.
Chief Justice
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 09-2007
RE:
ENJOINING ALL OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIARY TO
STRICTLY OBSERVE THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST GAMBLING OR ENGAGING IN
OTHER FORMS OF GAMBLING WITHIN
COURT PREMISES
Whereas, the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel
provides that any act of impropriety committed by
court personnel “immeasurably affects the honor and
dignity of the Judiciary and the people’s confidence in
it;”
Whereas, the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees directs
public officials and employees to refrain from doing
acts contrary to good morals and good customs;
Whereas, the Supreme Court has always enjoined
court employees to adhere to the exacting standards
of morality and decency in their professional as well
as private conduct in order to preserve the good name
and integrity of the courts of justice;
Whereas, the Court has received reports that court
employees have been observed gambling or engaging
in other forms of gambling within court premises (not
only in covert places but also in areas which could be
easily sighted by other personnel and the transacting
public);
Whereas, studies show that gambling is a
manipulative and ruinous means of exploiting the
individual’s weaknesses, his misplaced belief in and
reliance on luck or “suerte;” and his misapprehension
of the role of skill in playing the game;
Whereas, the Court has ruled that “gambling is
xxx absolutely forbidden at court premises during
office hours;” and that it “generates unwholesome
consequences on the gambler as it diverts his attention
from the more important responsibilities of his job;”1
and
Whereas, in an instance where court employees’
were apprehended engaged in a card game within the
judge’s chambers which game allegedly did not
involve monetary bets, the Court still imposed
disciplinary sanctions on the erring personnel on the
ground that such act violated norms of public
_____________________________
1. Re: Amado T. Resma, et al., A.M. No. P-2387, May 13, 1981
(104 SCRA 336); Paiste v. Mementa, A.M. No. P-03-1697,
October 1, 2003 (412 SCRA 403).
34
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
M.C. No. 09-2007 (continued)
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
accountability;2
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 67-2007
Now, therefore, all officials and employees of all
courts under the Judiciary (from the Supreme Court
to the first and second level courts) are enjoined to
strictly heed the prohibition against gambling or
engaging in other forms of gambling within court
premises. In order to maintain the highest level of
ethical conduct and morals in the Judiciary, gambling
and any forms thereof, regardless of whether or not
they involve monetary bets, shall not be allowed,
tolerated or condoned.
TO: ALL CLERKS OF COURT/OFFICERSIN-CHARGE OF THE FIRST AND SECOND
LEVEL COURTS
The appropriate administrative disciplinary
action shall be taken against any court official or
employee caught gambling or engaging in any form of
gambling within court premises (whether such
gambling activities occur during working days or
weekends/holidays; or during office hours or beyond
office hours).
In the Supreme Court, the Chief of Staff of the Office
of the Chief Justice and the respective Judicial Staff
Heads of the Offices of the Associate Justices, the Court
Administrator, the Clerk of Court and Division Clerks
of Court, the Chiefs of Offices of the different offices,
the Chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy, and
the Judicial and Bar Council Executive Committee
Chairman shall ensure that personnel in their offices
shall comply fully and faithfully with the policy
proscribing gambling and any forms thereof within
court premises. They shall adopt such measures as
may be necessary to prevent the commission of all
forms of gambling within their areas of supervision.
The respective Presiding Justices of the Court of
Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals,
insofar as their courts are concerned, and the Court
Administrator, with regard to the lower courts, shall
see to the implementation of this Memorandum
Circular.
Issued this 18th day of June 2007.
Chief Justice
_____________________________
2. Judge Albano-Madrid v. Apolonio, et al., A.M. No. P-01-15l7,
February 7, 2003 (397 SCRA 120).
SUBJECT: EXEMPTION OF THE INDIGENT
CLIENTS
OF
THE
PUBLIC
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (PAO) FROM
THE PAYMENT OF DOCKET AND
OTHER FEES
Quoted hereunder for the information and
guidance of all concerned are the pertinent provisions
of Republic Act No. 9406 entitled “An Act
Reorganizing and Strengthening the Public
Attorney’s Office (PAO), amending for the purpose
pertinent provisions of Executive Order No. 292,
otherwise known as the ‘Administrative Code of
1987,’ as amended, granting special allowance to
PAO officials and lawyers, and providing funds
therefor,” which took effect on April 15, 2007, to wit:
“Sec.2. Section 14 xxx is hereby further amended
to read as follows:
‘Sec. 14. Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). - xxx
“The PAO shall be the principal law office of
the Government in extending free legal
assistance to indigent persons in criminal,
civil, labor, administrative and other quasijudicial cases.” (Emphasis underlined)
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 6. New sections xxx
xxx xxx xxx
“Sec. 16.D. Exemption from Fees and Costs of
the Suit. -The clients of the PAO shall be
exempt from payment of docket and other fees
incidental to instituting an action in court and
other quasi-judicial bodies, as an original
proceeding or on appeal.
The costs of the suit, attorney’s fees and
contingent fees imposed upon the adversary
of the PAO clients after a successful litigation
shall be deposited in the National Treasury
as trust fund and shall be disbursed for
special allowances of authorized officials and
lawyers of the PAO.”(Emphasis underlined)
However, the entitlement to the exemption from
the payment of docket and other fees shall be subject
to the conditions prescribed under Section 19, Rule
141 of the Revised Rules of Court.
July-September 2007
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
Thus, the indigent client of PAO shall execute an
affidavit stating (a) that his gross income and that of
his immediate family do not exceed an amount double
the monthly minimum wage of an employee; and (b)
that the indigent client does not own real property
with a fair market value, as stated in the appended
current tax declaration, of more than three hundred
thousand (Php300,000.00) pesos.
The affidavit of the indigent client shall be
supported by an affidavit of a disinterested person
attesting to the truth of the former.
July 12, 2007.
(Sgd.) CHRISTOPHER O. LOCK
Court Administrator
TO: ALL CLERKS OF COURT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF
TAX APPEALS AND THE FIRST AND
SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: REVISED UPGRADING OF SCHEDULE
OF THE LEGAL FEES IN THE SUPREME
COURT AND THE LOWER COURTS
UNDER RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF
COURT
On May 29, 2007, Administrative Circular No. 602007 was issued to implement the resolution dated
April 17, 2007 of the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 07-204-SC which Amended Section 1 of Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court. The said resolution is supposed to take
effect on July 2, 2007.
However, on July 3, 2007, the Court En Banc issued
another resolution which Resolved to HOLD IN
ABEYANCE the new modes of payment of legal fees
beginning July 2, 2007 as approved in the resolution
dated April 17, 2007, pending submission by the Office
of the Court Administrator of the Implementing
Guidelines thereon.
For your information and guidance.
July 12, 2007.
Court Administrator
35
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE
SUBJECT: COPY FURNISHED THE LEGAL AND
PROSECUTION SERVICE (LPS) OF THE
PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY (PDEA) WITH ALL COURT
ORDERS, RESOLUTIONS, AND
DECISIONS ON DRUG CASES
In the effort of the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) to prepare for prosecution or cause the
filing of appropriate criminal and civil cases for
violation of all laws on dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, and other similar
controlled substances pursuant to Section 84(h) of
Republic Act No. 9165, the said government agency
through its Legal and Prosecution Service (LPS) is
requesting that it be furnished with all copies of all
court orders, resolutions and decisions on drug cases,
all for purposes of improving its system of tracking,
monitoring, and checking the status of drug cases.
Henceforth, you are DIRECTED to furnish the
abovementioned agency with all court orders,
resolutions and decisions on drug cases at the following
address:
LEGAL AND PROSECUTION SERVICE
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
2F PDEA Building, NIA Northsite Road
Pinyahan, Quezon City
July 25, 2007.
Court Administrator
TO: ALL JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,
SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, AND JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND
SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: INTERIM
PROCEDURE
FOR
ADDRESSING AND HANDLING
THREATS AGAINST JUSTICES AND
JUDGES
36
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
OCA Cir. No. 78-2007 (continued)
The Supreme Court, through its Committee on
Security (Committee) has undertaken the Judicial
Security Project to address the recent spate of killings
and other acts of violence against trial court judges,
and the matter of judicial security in general.
In coordination with the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) and with the assistance of the US
through the Rule of Law Effectiveness (ROLE) Project,
the Committee has been drafting the Court Security
and Emergency Procedure Manuals for the Supreme
Court and the entire Judiciary. The matter of
instituting protocols or procedures for addressing and
handling threats to the safety of Justices and Judges is
included in these Manuals.
Pending the final submission and approval of said
Manuals, the Committee has resolved to adopt an
interim procedure to address these aforementioned
threats. The Committee has resolved to designate
Deputy Court Administrator Reuben P. De la Cruz and
Atty. Allan C. Contado of the NBI as the contact
persons in the event a Justice or a Judge is confronted
with such threats. Atty. Contado is the NBI’s Liaison
Officer to the Supreme Court for the Task Force for
Judiciary Protection.
TO: ALL PRESIDING JUDGES OF THE
REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURTS,
METROPOLITAN
TRIAL
COURTS,
TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES AND MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE
“HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007”
Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the
“Human Security Act of 2007” took effect on July 15,
2007. The law defines terrorism and conspiracy to
commit terrorism, and prescribes the functions of,
among others, the law enforcement authorities, the
concerned agencies under the Department of Justice
and the different courts under the Judiciary.
All judges of the courts mentioned herein are
advised to peruse and analyze the provisions of the
“Human Security Act of 2007.” Particular attention
should be given to the following provisions which
relate to the functions and responsibilities of the
courts under the circumstances described therein:
1.
“Sec. 17. Proscription of Terrorist
Organizations, Association, or Group of
Persons. - Any organization, association, or
group of persons organized for the purpose of
engaging in terrorism, or which, although not
organized for that purpose, actually uses the
acts to terrorize mentioned in [the] Act or to
sow and create a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace in order to coerce the government
to give in to an unlawful demand shall, upon
application of the Department of Justice before
a competent Regional Trial Court, with due
notice and opportunity to be heard given to
the organization, association, or group of
persons concerned, be declared as a terrorist
and outlawed organization, association, or
group of persons by the said Regional Trial
Court.”
2.
“Sec. 18. Period of Detention Without Judicial
Warrant of Arrest. - The provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrary
notwithstanding, any police or law
enforcement personnel, who, having been
duly authorized in writing by the AntiTerrorism Council has taken custody of a
person charged with or suspected of the crime
of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to
commit terrorism shall, without incurring
Their contact details are:
Hon. Reuben P. De la Cruz
Deputy Court Administrator
3/F Old Main Building
Supreme Court
Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila
(02) 5257143; 0918-9635491
Atty. Allan C. Contado
Chief, Anti-Graft Division and Liaison Officer
Task Force on Judiciary Protection
National Bureau of Investigation
Taft Avenue, Manila
(02) 5238231 local 3424 and 3467;
0917-9777442; 0919-5887817
Please be guided accordingly.
16 August 2007.
Court Administrator
July-September 2007
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
any criminal liability for delay in the delivery
of detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities, deliver said charged or suspected
person to the proper judicial authority within
a period of three (3) days counted from the
moment the said charged or suspected person
has been apprehended or arrested, detained,
and taken into custody by the said police, or
law enforcement personnel: Provided, That the
arrest of those suspected of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism
must result from the surveillance under
Section 7 and examination of bank deposits
under Section 27 of [the] Act.”
“The police or law enforcement personnel
concerned shall, before detaining the person
suspected of the crime of terrorism, present
him or her before any judge at the latter’s
residence or office nearest the place where the
arrest took place at any time of the day or
night. It shall be the duty of the judge; among
other things, to ascertain the identity of the
police or law enforcement personnel and the
person or persons they have arrested and
presented before him or her, to inquire of them
the reasons why they have arrested the
person and determine by questioning and
personal observation whether or not the
suspect has been subjected to any physical,
moral or psychological torture by whom and
why. The judge shall then submit a written
report of what he/she had observed when the
subject was brought before him to the proper
court that has jurisdiction over the case of the
person thus arrested.”
the police or law enforcement personnel who
fails to not and any judge as provided in the
preceding paragraph.”
3.
“Sec. 19. Period of Detention in the Event of an
Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack. - In the
event of an actual or imminent terrorist
attack, suspects may not be detained for more
than three (3) days without the written
approval of a municipal, city, provincial or
regional official of a Human Rights
Commission or judge of the municipal,
regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a
justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the
place of the arrest. If the arrest is made during
Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office
hours, the arresting police or law enforcement
personnel shall bring the person thus arrested
to the residence of any of the officials
mentioned above that is nearest the place
where the accused was arrested. The approval
in writing of any of the said officials shall be
secured by the police or law enforcement
personnel concerned within five (5) days after
the date of the detention of the persons
concerned: Provided, however, That within three
(3) days after the detention of the suspects,
whose connection with the terror attack or
threat is not established, shall be released
immediately.”
4.
“Sec. 20. Penalty for Failure to Deliver Suspect
to the Proper Judicial Authority within Three
Days. - The penalty of ten (10) years and one
(1) day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment
shall be imposed upon any police or law
enforcement personnel who has apprehended
or arrested, detained and taken custody of a
of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism and fails to deliver such charged or
suspected person to the proper judicial
authority within the period of three (3) days.”
5.
“Sec. 26. Restriction on Travel.- In cases where
evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person
charged with the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism is entitled to
bail and is granted the same, the court, upon
application by the prosecutor, shall limit the
right of travel of the accused to within the
municipality or city where he resides or
where the case is pending, in the interest of
national security and public safety, consistent
“The judge shall forthwith submit his/her
report within three (3) calendar days from the
time the suspect was brought to his/her
residence or office.”
“Immediately after taking custody of a
of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism, the police or law enforcement
personnel shall notify in writing the judge of
the court nearest the place of apprehension or
arrest: Provided, That where the arrest is made
during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after
office hours, the written notice shall be served
at the residence of the judge nearest the place
where the accused was arrested. The penalty
of ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon
37
38
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
OCA Cir. No. 79-2007 (continued)
Court of Appeals to allow the person accused
of the crime of terrorism or of the crime of
conspiracy to commit terrorism to withdraw
such sums from sequestered or frozen
deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets
and records as may be necessary for the
regular sustenance of his/her family or to use
any of his/her property that has been seized,
sequestered or frozen for legitimate purposes
while his/her case is pending shall suffer the
penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve
(12) years of imprisonment.”
with Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution.
Travel outside of said municipality or city,
without the authorization of the court, shall
be deemed a violation of the terms and
conditions of his bail, which shall then be
forfeited as provided under the Rules of Court.
He/she may also be placed under house
arrest by order of the court at his or her usual
place of residence. While under house arrest,
he or she may not use telephones, cell phones,
e-mails, computers, the internet or other
means of communications with people
outside the residence until otherwise ordered
by the court.
7.
“Sec. 40. Nature of Seized, Sequestered and
Frozen Bank Deposits, Placements, Trust
Accounts, Assets and Records. - The seized,
sequestered and frozen bank deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets and records
belonging to a person suspected of or charged
with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism shall be deemed as property
held in trust by the bank or financial
institution for such person and the
government during the pendency of the
investigation of the person suspected of or
during the pendency of the trial of the person
charged with any of the said crimes, as the
case may be and their use or disposition while
the case is pending shall be subject to the
approval of the court before which the case or
cases are pending.”
8.
“Sec. 41. Disposition of the Seized, Sequestered
and Frozen Bank Deposits, Placements, Trust
Accounts, Assets and Records. - If the person
suspected of or charged with the crime of
is found, after his investigation, to be innocent
by the investigating body, or is acquitted, after
his arraignment or his case is dismissed before
his arraignment by a competent court, the
seizure, sequestration and freezing of his bank
and records shall forthwith be deemed lifted
by the investigating body or by the competent
court, as the case may be, and his bank
and records shall be deemed released from
such seizure, sequestration and freezing, and
shall be restored concerned without any
further action on his part. The filing of any
appeal on motion for reconsideration shall not
state the release of said funds from seizure,
sequestration and freezing.”
The restrictions abovementioned shall be
terminated upon the acquittal of the accused
or of the dismissal of the case filed against him
or earlier upon the discretion of the court on
motion of the prosecutor or of the accused.”
6.
“Sec. 39. Seizure and Sequestration. - The
deposits and their outstanding balances,
placements, trust accounts, assets, and records
in any bank or financial institution, moneys,
businesses,
transportation
and
communication equipment, supplies and other
implements, and property of whatever kind
and nature belonging: (1) to any person
suspected of or charged before a competent
Regional Trial Court for the crime of terrorism
or the crime of conspiracy to commit
terrorism; (2) to a judicially declared and
outlawed organization, association, or group
of persons; or (3) to a member of such
organization, association, or group of persons
shall be seized, sequestered, and frozen in
order to prevent their use, transfer, or
conveyance for purposes that are inimical to
the safety and security of the people or
injurious to the interest of the State.”
“The accused or a person suspected of may
withdraw such sums as may be reasonably
needed by the monthly needs of his family
including the services of his or her counsel and
his or her family’s medical needs upon
approval of the court. He or she may also use
any of his property that is under seizure or
sequestration or frozen because of his/her
indictment as a terrorist upon permission of
the court for any legitimate reason.”
“Any person who unjustifiably refuses to
follow the order of the proper division of the
July-September 2007
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
“If the person charged with the crime of
is convicted by a final judgment of a competent
trial court, his seized, sequestered and frozen
bank deposits, placements, trust accounts,
assets and records shall be automatically
forfeited in favor of the government.”
“Upon his or her acquittal or the
dismissal of the charges against him or her,
the amount of Five hundred thousand pesos
(Php500,000.00) a day for the period in which
his properties, assets or funds were seized
shall be paid to him on the concept of
liquidated damages. The amount shall be
taken from the appropriations of the police or
law enforcement agency that caused the filing
of the enumerated charges against him/her.”
9.
“Sec. 48. Continuous Trial. - In cases of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism,
the judge shall set the case for continuous trial
on a daily basis from Monday to Friday or
other short-term trial calendar so as to ensure
speedy trial.”
Court Administrator
LOWER
COURT
SUBJECT: STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF PART
V ITEM 2b OF THE AMENDED
REVISED
ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR
NO.
50-2001
ESTABLISHING
THE
MERIT
SELECTION AND PROMOTION PLAN
FOR THE LOWER COURTS
For the information and guidance of all concerned,
quoted hereunder is Part V. Item 2b of the Amended
Revised Administrative Circular No. 50-2001
Establishing the Merit Selection and Promotion Plan
(MSPP) for the Lower Courts:
V.
PROCEDURE
xxx
b.
Notify the Clerk of Court to post notices of
vacancies.
Within five (5) days from notification, the
Clerk of Court shall post notices of
vacancies to be filled in three (3) conspicuous
places in the court’s premises for ten (10)
working calendar days. The notice shall
specify the qualification standards and
requirements for the position.
Within two (2) months from the expiration
of the ten-day period of posting, the
following guidelines shall be observed:
a.
The Presiding Judge or Acting Presiding
Judge shall submit all applications, with or
without recommendation, to the Executive
Judge.
b.
The Executive Judge shall indorse all
applications, with or without
recommendation, to OAS-OCA within five
(5) days from receipt thereof.
It has been brought to our attention that some
applicants for the vacant positions in the lower courts
still submit applications even after the lapse of two
(2) months from the expiration of the ten-day period
of posting.
August 17, 2007.
AND
Publication of Vacant Positions
xxx
For information and guidance.
TO: ALL JUDGES
PERSONNEL
2.
39
In order to expedite the processing of
appointments, Part V. Sec. 2b of the Amended Revised
Administrative Circular No. 50-2001 Establishing the
Merit Selection and Promotion Plan (MSPP) for the
Lower Courts as stated above shall be strictly
implemented.
Henceforth, all applications received by the
Executive Judge/Presiding Judge for those filed in the
lower courts and by the Office of Administrative
Services, Office of the Court Administrator for those
directly filed in the Supreme Court after the aforesaid
two-month period shall no longer be entertained.
This Circular shall take effect immediately.
Manila, Philippines.
10 September 2007.
Court Administrator
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
PRIVATE
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
OR UNAUTHORIZED USE TO AVOID
PAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE OR
IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.
3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial Building
Padre Faura St. cor. Taft Ave., Manila, Philippines
1000
2007 Upcoming PHILJA Events

Volume IX, Issue No. 35 July-September 2007

Transcription

Similar documents

for sub-lease

RTC ISPF Client

An Effective Method of Sharing Heterogeneous Components of

Volume XIV, Issue No. 56 October

Volume XV, Issue No. 57 January-March 2013

Volume XII, Issue No. 48 October-December 2010

Volume XV, Issue No. 59 July-September 2013

2014-03-06-PR-6753-ETR-CRS-514_es 1.35MB 2015

Volume X, Issue No. 39 July-September 2008