Volume XV, Issue No. 59 July-September 2013

Comments

Transcription

Volume XV, Issue No. 59 July-September 2013
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
ISSN 2244-5862
From the Chancellor’s Desk
With just a few months left in 2013, PHILJA continued with
several orientation seminar-workshops for newly appointed
Judges (66th and 67th) and for sheriffs and process servers
(2nd), both held at the PHILJA Training Center (PTC),
Tagaytay; and also for clerks of court (26th) which was
conducted in Lahug, Cebu City. I am happy to note that the
PTC, which has been operating for close to two years, has
been fully booked and busy with the holding of most of our
ongoing programs such as the Judicial Career Enhancement
Program (JCEP) for the RTC and First Level Court Judges of
Region V and RTC Judges of Region I; the Career
Enhancement Program for First Level Clerks of Court of
Region III (Batches 1 and 2); and the Career Development
Program for Court Legal Researchers of Regions X and XI.
The Personal Security Training for Judges (Batches 1 and 2)
was likewise held at the PTC along with the Work
Orientation Skills Enhancement Seminar (WOSES) for the
Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit staff and the Judicial
Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute
Resolution (skills-based course).
In addition to these activities at the PTC, PHILJA also
delivered some of its programs to other regions such as
the 31st Pre-Judicature Program (PJP) held in General Santos
City; the Career Enhancement Program for Region VI
conducted in Bacolod City; the Seminar-Workshop on
Strengthening Judicial Integrity and the Rule of Law for
Executive Judges and Single Sala Court Judges of Regions I
and II; and the Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs
Law for Judges, Prosecutors, and Law Enforcers of the First
Judicial Region, which were both held in Laoag City.
The Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial
Integrity and the Rule of Law for Executive Judges and
Single Sala Court Judges for Regions VI to IX and the
Increasing Judicial Efficiency: Seminar-Workshop for Judges
on the Effective Use of the Benchbook for Philippine Trial
Courts (revised and expanded) for Regions VI to IX (Batch
3) were consecutively held in Cebu City, as was the
Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court
Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children (for Judges of
Region VII). The Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws
Relating to Court Technology for Judges in Region X was
conducted in Cagayan de Oro City.
Our staff also assisted in the mounting of three big
convention-seminars for this period such as the First
General Assembly and Seminar of the Association of Clerks
of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs held in Intramuros, Manila,
which had for its theme Delineating and Strengthening the
Role of the Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs in the
Management and Operation of the Courts Geared Towards
Strong and Unified Administrators of the Second Level
Courts; the 15 th Convention and Seminar of the
Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines
with the theme E 3 j = Enhancing Electronic and
Environmental Justice which took place in Roxas City; and
the 11th National Convention and Seminar of the RTC Clerks
of Court Association of the Philippines, with the theme
Clerks of Court In Pursuit of Excellence which was conducted
in Boracay.
Several activities were also held in the National Capital
Region (NCR), such as the Competency Enhancement
Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases
Involving Children given to selected single-sala court judges
from Luzon; the Stakeholders’ Consultation Workshop and
Presentation of the First Draft of the Helpbook on
Combating Human Trafficking in the Philippines; the
Ceremonial Turnover of the Final Draft of the Proposed
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Knowledge Sharing
on Laws, Rules, and Trends on Asset Forfeiture and
Management, all of which were held in Manila. The
Seminar-Workshop on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence
on Intellectual Property for Special Commercial Court
Judges in the NCR and Selected Attorneys of the Supreme
Court and Court of Appeals was held in Makati City.
(Next page)
2
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
From the Chancellor’s Desk
Contents
(Continued from page 1)
From the Chancellor’s Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Trainings, Programs and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
New Rulings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Doctrinal Reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Resolutions
A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
A.M. No. 13-7-144-RTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
A.M. No. 11-10-03-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
Orders
Memorandum Order No. 25-2013 . . . . . . . . . .
28
Memorandum Order No. 30-2013 . . . . . . . . . .
28
Circulars
OCA Cir. No. 78-2013 – Submission of Report
on Any Lawsuits Filed or Pending Against the
Argentine Republic Before Any Court in the
Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
OCA Cir. No. 80-2013 – Report on Cases
Involving Violation of RA No. 9208 as amended
by RA No. 10364 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
OCA Cir. No. 83-2013 – Submission of Monthly
Report of Cases Using the Approved New
Forms Under A.C. No. 81-2012 in Addition to
the Monthly Report of Cases Under A.C. No.
4-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
OCA Cir. No. 84-2013 – Inventory of HoldDeparture Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
OCA Cir. No. 87-2013 – Court Resolution dated
June 4, 2013 in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC . . . . . . . . . . .
31
OCA Cir. No. 94-2013 – Designation of EJs and
Vice EJs Pursuant to Administrative Order
No. 111-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
OCA Cir. No. 97-2013 – Guidelines for eRaffle in
Quezon City Trial Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
OCA Cir. No. 99-2013 – A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC . . .
33
OCA Cir. No. 100-2013 – Exemption from OCA
Circular No. 83-2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
OCA Cir. No. 101-2013 – Implementation of
Sections 2 and 3 of RA No. 10158 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
OCA Cir. No. 103-2013 – Guidelines in the
Implementation of the Automated Payroll
System in the Single-Sala RTCs Outside the NCJR
and the MTCs in All Judicial Regions . . . . . . . . . . .
34
OCA Cir. No. 107-2013 – New Guidelines on Jail
Visitation and Inspection (A.M. No. 07-3-02-SC)..
35
OCA Cir. No. 109-2013 – Cover Letter for Copies
of Orders, Decisions and Other Documents
Submitted by Lower Courts to the OCA . . . . . .
37
Upcoming PHILJA Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
PHILJA also continued to support the Court’s
Enhanced Justice on Wheels (E-JOW) Program with the
conduct of its Information Dissemination component
through a Dialogue among Barangay and Court Officials
during the EJOW caravans in the cities of Surigao, Butuan,
General Santos, and in the municipality of Polomolok,
South Cotabato, all in Mindanao; and in the City of San
Pablo in Laguna.
The Academy, through the Philippine Mediation
Center Office (PMCO), held a number of activities in
support of Alternative Dispute Resolution such as: a
refresher/advanced course for Court-Annexed Mediators
for the Isabela and Tuguegarao Mediation Programs in
Cauayan City, Isabela; South Cotabato, Sarangani, and
General Santos City Mediation Programs in General
Santos City; and the Davao Mediation Program in Davao
City. An orientation and screening of prospective
mediators and PMC unit staff as well as a pre-internship
orientation and meeting with judges, clerks of court,
branch clerks of court, mediation trainees and PMC unit
staff were also held in Legazpi City for the Albay Mediation
Program, and in Sorsogon City for the Sorsogon Mediation
Program. A basic mediation course for these two
mediation programs was also held in Legazpi City. An
orientation of clerks of court and branch clerks of court
on Judicial Dispute Resolution was conducted in Laguna.
We likewise continued taking note of new rulings of
the Supreme Court and kept up with the reminders on
doctrinal rulings, as well as the newly issued Court orders,
resolutions, and circulars posted on our website http://
philja.judiciary.gov.ph. We also took note of new OCA
circulars.
In closing, I would like to thank our ever-dependable
officials and staff, our brilliant corps of professors and
lecturers, as well as our reliable program partners for
giving their best to the Academy. Special thanks, too, to
the Chief Justice and the Court En Banc for their
unrelenting support for all our programs and activities.
All the best.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Chancellor
3
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
TRAININGS, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Ceremonial Turnover of the Final Draft of the
Proposed Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
In a special En Banc session on September 3, 2013,the
Court En Banc led by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A.
Sereno accepted the submission by the Core
Committee of the National Conference for the
Revision of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the final
draft of the proposed revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
The ceremonial turnover was witnessed by the Court
En Banc and attended by selected members of the
Judiciary, the Core Committee members, Topical
Working Group members, institutions and individuals
who have shared their resources, expertise,
competence, and commitment in the drafting of the
proposed revised rules.
In the same event, the Chief Justice awarded
plaques of recognition to partner institutions, namely,
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, University of
the Philippines Law Center, PHILJA, Ateneo de Manila
University School of Law, Office of the Solicitor General,
and SC Office of the Chief Attorney; the Core
Committee members, the members of the Topical
Working Groups; and the Support Staff of the National
Conference for the Revision of the Rules of Civil
Procedure as commendation for their invaluable
contributions in achieving the goals of the national
conference. Certificates of recognition were also
awarded to the delegates of the national conference
comprising leading justices, judges, academicians, law
practitioners and legal luminaries, for sharing their
views and expertise, and for working extended hours
to ensure full discussion of the draft rules.
RTD: Knowledge Sharing on Laws, Rules and
Trends on Asset Forfeiture and Management
A Knowledge Sharing on Laws, Rules and Trends on
Asset Forfeiture and Management was conducted by
PHILJA on August 23, 2013, in partnership with the
United States (U.S.) Department of Justice–Criminal
Division, OPDAT. The knowledge sharing, by way of a
roundtable discussion (RTD) and a focus group discussion
(FGD) workshop attended by 12 judges from the NCJR
and Region IV, aimed to re-apprise the judges and other
stakeholders of the various laws, rules, jurisprudence
and developments on asset forfeiture and
management; to familiarize them with the country’s
current state as regards the implementation of asset
recovery efforts and the various challenges that must
be addressed in order to improve the present system;
and to expose them to the best practices being observed
outside the country, the U.S. in particular.
The RTD focused on the following topics: Philippine
Laws, Rules on Asset Forfeiture and Management;
Emerging Trends on Asset Forfeiture and Management:
The Philippine Perspective; and Emerging Trends on
Asset Forfeiture and Management: The International
Perspective. From the discussions emerged the most
problematic issue in asset forfeiture–the lack of an
effective asset management system or regime for
forfeited assets. Suggestions on how to improve the
current asset management system in the Philippines
surfaced during the discussions such as for PHILJA to
consider coming up with best practices rules for
managing assets that should be developed within the
judiciary in the absence of a clear legal regime for asset
management of forfeited assets.
Informations gathered from the judges and other
stakeholders regarding the challenges they face in asset
forfeiture and management and the various existing
problem areas in handling anti-money laundering and
other financial crime cases during the FGD workshop
will be used as bases for the training curriculum of the
Seminar-Workshop on Combating Money Laundering
and Other Financial Crimes in the Philippines.
4
Stakeholders’ Consultation Workshop
and Presentation of the First Helpbook
on Combating Human Trafficking
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
First General Assembly and Seminar
of the Association of Clerks of Court
and Ex Officio Sheriffs
On July 11 to 12, 2013, the PHILJA, in partnership with the
Association of Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs (ACCES),
conducted the First General Assembly and Seminar of
the Association of Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs
pursuant to OCA Circular No. 60A-2013. The association’s
president, Atty. Engracio M. Escasinas, Jr., gave the
opening address. The Chief Justice was the guest of honor
and Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez was the
guest speaker to 74 clerks of court and ex officio sheriffs
who attended the activity.
A Stakeholders’ Consultation Workshop and
Presentation of the First Draft of the Helpbook on
Combating Human Trafficking in the Philippines was
conducted by PHILJA on August 13, 2013, in
partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice–
Criminal Division, OPDAT. Aside from the presentation
of the first draft of the helpbook, the activity gathered
comments and recommendations that would be
consolidated and evaluated for integration in the
second draft of the helpbook. In attendance were 26
participants composed of selected judges, prosecutors
and representatives from government agencies with
experience in handling trafficking cases (i.e.,
Department of Justice, Department of Social Welfare
and Development, Department of Foreign Affairs,
National Bureau of Investigation, Philippine Center on
Transnational Crime, Council for the Welfare of
Children, Philippine Commission on Women,
International Justice Mission, and Bureau of
Immigration).
The helpbook is a by-product of seminar-workshops
and roundtable discussions conducted back in 2012.
Significant learnings and recommendations from all
these activities were integrated and written in a
helpbook that will serve as a guide to all stakeholders
of trafficking cases. The following chapters have been
written thus far: General Introduction and Situationer
on Trafficking in the Philippines, Investigation,
Prosecution, Judicial Process, Victims and Witnesses,
and The Role of the Civil Society.
The seminar component provided lecture sessions in
response to the need of clerks of court and ex officio sheriffs
to foster sound values, strengthen commitment to public
service, enhance court management and human resource
skills, and gain clarification on certain topics. Topics
discussed were issues and concerns in extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings under Act No. 3135 and under
Rule 141 which covered problems in the disbursement of
the Sheriff Trust Fund, withdrawal/cancellation of
complaints, problems regarding the new rules on pauper
litigants represented by the Public Attorney’s Office, and
requirements in the withdrawal of cash bonds and rental
deposits.
Seminar-Workshop
on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence
on Intellectual Property
On July 25 to 26, 2013, PHILJA conducted the SeminarWorkshop on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence on
Intellectual Property for Special Commercial Court
Judges in the NCJR and selected SC and CA Attorneys,
in partnership with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
The seminar-workshop, the first in the series on
substantive laws and jurisprudence on intellectual
property, was attended by 75 participants who were
apprised on how to access IPO assistance in trials involving
highly technical evidence or matters and topics on
trademarks; copyrights; intellectual property rights
violations; cybercrime investigation; patents, industrial
designs, utility models; and TRO/preliminary injunctions
and other remedies with the end goal of enhancing the
capacity of judges and court attorneys for the effective,
efficient and expeditious disposition of intellectual
property cases. Group workshops were facilitated to
assess participants’ learnings from the lectures.
5
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
Orientation
66th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed
Judges
Date: July 2 to 11, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 47 newly appointed judges, namely:
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Hon. Elisa R. Sarmiento-Flores
RTC, Br. 71, Pasig City
REGION I
Hon. Marita B. Balloguing
RTC, Br. 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur
REGION III
Hon. Jude Erwin U. Alaba
RTC, Br. 91, Baler, Aurora
Hon. Crisostomo J. Dañguilan
RTC, Br. 21, MaIolos City, Bulacan
Hon. Johnmuel Romano Ritzard D. Mendoza
RTC, Br. 26, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
REGION V
Hon. Vivencio Gregorio G. Atutubo III
RTC, Br. 32, Pili, Camarines Sur
REGION VI
Hon. Therese Blanche A. Bolunia
RTC, Br. 47, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
REGION VIII
Hon. Eligio P. Petilla
RTC, Br. 42, Tacloban City, Leyte
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Hon. Allan B. Ariola
MeTC, Br. 46, Pasay City
Hon. Alberto N. Azarcon III
MeTC, Br. 63, Makati. City
Hon. Juvenal N. Bella
MeTC, Br. 39, Quezon City
Hon. Bernard P. Bernal
MeTC, Br. 74, Taguig City
Hon. Ma. Concepcion A. Billones
MeTC, Br. 62, Makati City
Hon. Dolly Rose R. Bolante-Prado
MeTC, Br. 97, Mandaluyong City
Hon. Ma. Maureen T. Concepcion-Dy
MeTC, Br. 2, Manila
Hon. Joel Socrates S. Lopena
MeTC, Br. 33, Quezon City
Hon. John Benedict D. Medina
MeTC, Br. 96, Mandaluyong City
Hon. Ruth S. Pasion-Ramos
MeTC, Br. 99, Mandaluyong City
Hon. Anne Perpetual S. Rivera-Sia
MeTC, Br. 12, Manila
Hon. Lady Rochelle S. Saymo-Llabres
MeTC, Br. 50, Caloocan City
Hon. Eduardo C. Solangon, Jr.
MeTC, Br. 98, Mandaluyong City
Hon. James T. Sy
MeTC, Br. 76, Marikina City
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
IN
CITIES
REGION III
Hon. Jose V. Covarrubias III
MTCC, Br. 1, Meycauayan City, Bulacan
REGION V
Hon. Michael A. Balmaceda
MTCC, Br. 1, Sorsogon City, Sorsogon
Hon. Ma. Luzy B. Torres-Clasio
MTCC, Br. 2, Iriga City, Camarines Sur
REGION VI
Hon. Anne Beatrice A. Balmaceda
MTCC, Br. 1, Iloilo City
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
REGION II
Hon. Remalie C. Corbe-Cardenas
MTC, Diffun, Quirino
REGION III
Hon. Romeo Carmelito C. Conge
MTC, Pulilan, Bulacan
Hon. Marjorie W. Maranan-Dempsey
MTC, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
REGION II
Hon. Donabel A. Balot
1st MCTC: Aglipay-Saguday, Quirino
Hon. Queenie A. Mallillin
1st MCTC: Claveria-Sta. Praxedes, Cagayan
REGION III
Hon. Richard G. Evangelista
2nd MCTC: Mexico-San Luis, Pampanga
Hon. Rebecca A. Guillen-Ubaña
2nd MCTC: Masinloc-Palauig, Zambales
Hon. Jonald E. Hernandez
2nd MCTC: Maria Aurora-Dipaculao, Aurora
Hon. Jo Anne D.C. Malaton
1st MCTC: Casiguran-Dilasag-Dinalongan, Aurora
Hon. Rochelle S. Manuel
6th MCTC: Mabalacat-Magalang, Pampanga
6
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
Hon. Maria Belinda C. Rama
1st MCTC: Sta. Ana-Candaba, Pampanga
Hon. Jacqueline R. Suing
3rd MCTC: Botolan-Cabangan, Zambales
Hon. Edith Cynthia A. Wee
3rd MCTC: Baler-San Luis, Aurora
REGION V
Hon. Joveliza P. Palo-Soriano
6th MCTC: Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur
REGION VI
Hon. Maria Theresa P. Aldon
6th MCTC: Pandan-Libertad-Caluya, Antique
Hon. Jerson F. Almalbis
4th MCTC: Dumarao-Cuartero, Capiz
Hon. Janette Mae J. Dillomes
3rd MCTC: Patnongon-Bugasong-Valderrama, Antique
Hon. Lunel J. Gabayoyo
2nd MCTC: Sibalom-San Remigio-Belison, Antique
Hon. Wilfredo P. Paciente, Jr.
4th MCTC: Makato-Tangalan, Aklan
REGION IX
Hon. Nimfa C. Padao
3rd MCTC: Sindangan-Bacungan-Ponot, Zamboanga del
Norte
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
REGION IX
Hon. Alberto O. Romoros
First Shari’a District 1: Jolo, Sulu
67th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed
Judges
Date: August 6 to 15, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 35 newly appointed judges, namely:
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Hon. Mariam G. Bien
RTC, Br. 153, Pasig City
Hon. Achilles Aristotle Apolinario C. Bulauitan
RTC, Br. 154, Pasig City
Hon. Joy N. Casihan-Dumlao
RTC, Br. 262, Pasig City
Hon. Bibiano G. Colasito
RTC, Br. 50, Manila
Hon. Maximo M. De Leon
RTC, Br. 143, Makati City
Hon. Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama
RTC, Br. 79, Quezon City
Hon. Marlina M. Manuel
RTC, Br. 25, Manila
Hon. Glenda C. Marin
RTC, Br. 124, Caloocan City
Hon. Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito
RTC, Br. 5, Manila
Hon. Manuel B. Sta. Cruz, Jr.
RTC, Br. 226, Quezon City
Hon. Josefino A. Subia
RTC, Br. 138, Makati City
Hon. Janice R. Yulo-Antero
RTC, Br. 16, Manila
REGION III
Hon. Christine Marie C. Capule
RTC, Br. 48, City of San Fernando, Pampanga
Hon. Mary Jane B. Dacara-Buenaventura
RTC, Br. 43, City of San Fernando, Pampanga
Hon. Emmanuel A. Silva
RTC, Br. 4, Mariveles, Bataan
Hon. Trese D. Wenceslao
RTC, Br. 28, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
REGION V
Hon. Evan D. Dizon
RTC, Br. 40, Daet, Camarines Norte
REGION VI
Hon. Rosario Ester B. Orda-Caise
RTC, Br. 48, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
REGION VII
Hon. Mercedita G. Dadole-Ygnacio
RTC, Br. 28, Mandaue City, Cebu
REGION VIII
Hon. Nathaniel E. Baldono
RTC, Br. 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar
Hon. Girlie M. Borrel-Yu
RTC, Br. 35, Ormoc City, Leyte
Hon. Evelyn P. Riños-Lesigues
RTC, Br. 43, Tacloban City, Leyte
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
IN
CITIES
REGION VI
Hon. Dialinda S. Dominguez
MTCC, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental
REGION VII
Hon. Maria Corazon C. Gadugdug
MTCC, Br. 2, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
REGION VIII
Hon. Rene D. Romero, Jr.
MTCC, Ormoc City, Leyte
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
REGION VIII
Hon. Estefanie R. Plaza
MTC, Burauen, Leyte
7
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
REGION VII
Hon. Ma. Katrina C. Gonzalez-Pasicaran
2nd MCTC: Bindoy-Manjuyod-Ayungon, Negros Oriental
Hon. Yvette Christine R. Labrador-Soleng
13th MCTC: Loay-Albuquerque-Baclayon, Bohol
Hon. Leah P. Villarubia
1st MCTC: Pamplona-Amlan-San Jose, Negros Oriental
Tranne L. Digao-Ferrer
RTC, Br. 28, Mandaue City, Cebu
Florence Ed T. Obial-Kadusale
RTC, Br. 45, Bais City, Negros Oriental
Nyassa N. Orquillas
RTC, Br. 46, Larena, Siquijor
Boy C. Tecson
RTC, Br. 26, Argao, Cebu
REGION VIII
Hon. Terso Y. Ducentes
1st MCTC: Macrohon-Padre Burgos-Limasawa
Southern Leyte
Hon. Allan Sixto DG Estudillo
3rd MCTC: Gandara-Matuguinao, San Jorge, Samar
Hon. Fiel l. Marmita
4th MCTC: San Julian-Sulat, Eastern Samar
Hon. Gorgonia Pineda-Encina
9th MCTC: Capul-San Vicente, Northern Samar
Hon. Ruberna B. Quibal
4th MCTC: Catubig-Las Navas, Northern Samar
Hon. Ritchie B. Reyes
8th MCTC: Daram-Zumarraga, Samar
REGION VIII
Liza T. Caintic
RTC, Br. 23, Allen, Northern Samar
Marc Anito L. Camarines
RTC, Br. 41, Gandara, Samar
Melinda L. Docena
RTC, Br. 24, Maasin, Southern Leyte
Raul S. Villanobos
RTC, Br. 31, Calbayog City, Samar
26th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed
Clerks of Court
REGION XI
Ruby Jane S. Peña-Careña
RTC, Br. 21, Bansalan, Davao Del Sur
Date: July 30 to August 2, 2013
Venue: Harolds Hotel, Lahug, Cebu City
Participants: 53 newly appointed clerks of court, namely:
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
REGION V
Ruben F. Mission V
RTC, Br. 16, Tabaco, Albay
Indira P. Napicol
RTC, OCC, Daet, Camarines Norte
Fe Cecelia B. Turiano
RTC, Br. 35, Iriga City, Camarines Sur
Doreen Ann C. Savilla
RTC, Br. 39, Daet, Camarines Norte
REGION VI
Warme P. Araneta
RTC, Br. 25, Iloilo City, Iloilo
Melinaire L. Jalipa
RTC, Br. 34, Iloilo City, Iloilo
Gerald John G. Joven
RTC, Br. 44, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Dale D. Pascua
RTC, Br. 53, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
REGION VII
Cheryl L. Baquial-Gamas
RTC, Br. 1, Tagbilaran City, Bohol
REGION X
Detchie D. Casals
RTC, Br. 3, Butuan City
Kathryn A. Galarrita
RTC, Br. 39, Cagayan De Oro City
REGION XII
Ofelia P. Cabahug
RTC, Br. 18, Midsayap, North Cotabato
Lennie Ann C. Cerdana
RTC, Br. 20, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat
Joel Batua M. Macaraya, Jr.
RTC, OCC, Iligan City, Lanao Del Norte
Lailane T. Mastura
RTC, Br. 15, Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
REGION VII
Liezel N. Gedorio
MTCC, OCC, Mandaue City
REGION VIII
Ronaldo C. Bachao
MTCC , Catbalogan City
Edwin K. Cabello
MTCC, OCC, Tacloban City
REGION IX
Mary Jean J. Eisma
MTCC, OCC, Zamboanga City
Luzminda S. Mercado
MTCC, Br. 1, Dipolog City
IN
CITIES
8
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
REGION X
Cecil G. Paasa
MTCC, Br. 4, Cagayan De Oro City
Joan A. Torralba
MTCC, Br. 1, Butuan City
REGION XII
Zolaica B. Baruang
MTCC, Br. 3, Iligan City
Analyn P. Dimaporo
MTCC, Br. 4, Iligan City
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
REGION V
David G. Ebo, Jr.
MTC, San Andres, Catanduanes
REGION VI
Evagenia F. Delloso
MTC, Hinobaan, Negros Occidental
Ivy B. Jocsing
MTC, Oton, Iloilo
REGION VIII
Lorelei V. Amantillo
MTC, Marabut, Samar
Leonor C. Echano
MTC, Laoang, Northern Samar
Emily S. Mercado
MTC, Liloan, Southern Leyte
Thelma A. Pagatpatan
MTC, Tolosa, Leyte
REGION X
Zacarias M. Balingkit
MTC, Alubijid, Misamis Oriental
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
Candelaria S. Raro
12th MCTC: Lila-Loboc, Bohol
REGION VIII
Angelina T. Abe
10th MCTC: Merida-Isabel, Leyte
Marietta L. De Leon
5th MCTC: Mondragon-San Roque, Northern Samar
Virginia O. Montopar
9TH MCTC: Capul-San Vicente, Northern Samar
REGION XI
Edith S. Chavez
2nd MCTC: Hagonoy-Matanao, Davao Del Sur
2nd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed
Sheriffs and Process Servers
Date: July 24 to 26, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 71 newly appointed sheriffs and process
servers, namely:
A. SHERIFFS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Ritchie M. Arciaga
RTC, Br. 256, Muntinlupa City
Vladimir T. Cos
RTC, OCC, Parañaque City
Mark Vincent O. Lamano
RTC, OCC, Manila
Christopher P. Mendoza
RTC, OCC, Manila
Edwin C. Pueca
RTC, OCC, Manila
REGION VI
Remyden S. Peralta
5th MCTC: Culasi-Sebaste, Antique
Annel C. Fajarillo
4th MCTC: Dumarao-Cuartero, Capiz
REGION I
Felmer J. Abrigado
RTC, Br. 17, Batac, lIocos Norte
Corsini Alvin B. Barbadillo
RTC, Br. 1, Bangued, Abra
Liberty Joy M. Guarin
RTC, Br. 39, Lingayen, Pangasinan
Russell Blair S. Nabua
RTC, Br. 42, Dagupan City, Pangasinan
Rex Ian B. Villalobos
RTC, Br. 71, Candon City, lIocos Sur
Gilbert Ernesto P. Yalao III
RTC, Br. 18, Batac, Ilocos Norte
REGION VII
Marigrace L. Batingal
1st MCTC: Cortes-Antequera-Maribojoc, Bohol
Henry P. Cañete, Jr.
7th MCTC: Liloan-Compostela, Cebu
REGION II
Bernardo A. Abela
RTC, Br. 13, Basco, Batanes
Froilan P. Dulnuan
RTC, Br. 15, Alfonso Lista, Ifugao
REGION V
Filipinas F. Aquino
1st MCTC: Ragay-Del Gallego, Camarines Sur
Magin P. Salipot
5th MCTC: Dimasalang-Palanas-Uson, Masbate
Maria T. Tejerero
1st MCTC: Bato-San Miguel, Catanduanes
9
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
Chester Aries B. Galera
RTC, Br. 27, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
Nelson A. Marcha
RTC, Br. 5, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
REGION III
Lemuel J. Agar
RTC, Br. 28, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
George P. Clemente
RTC, Br. 67, Paniqui, Tarlac
Leo D. Dacion
RTC, OCC, Guagua, Pampanga
Rodolfo C. Parungao, Jr.
RTC, Br. 23, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
REGION IV
Marvin N. Raciles
RTC, Br. 69, Binangonan, Rizal
REGION V
Carmen Imelda P. Ante
RTC, Br. 5, Legazpi City, Albay
Luciano O. Apolinar, Jr.
RTC, Br. 1, Legazpi City, Albay
Gregorio C. Borrega
RTC, Br. 42, Virac, Catanduanes
Mitchell D. Bulanon
RTC, Br. 61, Naga City, Camarines Sur
Jose P. Codia, Jr.
RTC, OCC, Legazpi City, Albay
Noel R. Gonzales
RTC, OCC, Naga City, Camarines Sur
Hermie Jesus E. Intia
RTC, Br. 24, Naga City, Camarines Sur
Joseph S. Lopez
RTC, Br. 10, Legazpi City, Albay
Teresa P. Robrigado
RTC, Br. 13, Ligao City, Albay
Jesusa E. Taduran
RTC, OCC, Pili, Camarines Sur
Emilio C. Yuson
RTC, Br. 27, Naga City, Camarines Sur
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Marvin F. Calma
MeTC, Br. 14, Manila
Rio C. Carbonell
MeTC, Br. 90, Parañaque City
Rolando S. Escobar
MeTC, Br. 92, Marikina City
Oneil P. Santos
MeTC, Br. 83, Caloocan City
Veneru Paul N. Santos
MeTC, Br. 89, Parañaque City
Conrado R. Serzo
MeTC, Br. 87, Parañaque City
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
IN
CITIES
REGION III
Mark Anthony R. Llacuna
MTCC, Br. 3, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan
Jomar M. Salando
MTCC, Br. 2, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan
REGION IV
Lance Carmelo R. Fortu
MTCC, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro
REGION V
Benjie A. Paaño
MTCC, Br. 3, Naga City, Camarines Sur
Regino S. Revina, Jr.
MTCC, OCC, Iriga City, Camarines Sur
B. PROCESS SERVERS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Fortunato L. Doroteo, Jr.
RTC, OCC, Manila
Joel U. Evilla
RTC, Br. 136, Makati City
REGION I
Arsenio Antonio R. Atud
RTC, OCC, Vigan City, lIocos Sur
Gilbert L. Evangelista
RTC, OCC, Baguio City
Ruben V. Severino
RTC, OCC, Tayug, Pangasinan
REGION II
Alexander N. Imperial
RTC, Br. 13, Basco, Batanes
William F. Jandoc
RTC, OCC, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya
Jacob H. Lunag
RTC, Br. 14, Lagawe, Ifugao
REGION III
Christopher B. Cale
RTC, Br. 5, Dinalupihan, Bataan
Martin Barry P. Magno
RTC, Br. 76, Malolos City, Bulacan
REGION IV
Ruby Ann E. Masalunga
RTC, Br. 12, Lipa City, Batangas
10
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
REGION III
Eronze P. Sablayan
3rd MCTC: Laur-Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija
REGION V
Romel S. Pujol
RTC, Br. 6, Legazpi City, Albay
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Rodolfo L. Antiquera
MeTC, Br. 89, Parañaque City
Richard G. De Mesa
MeTC, Br. 84, Caloocan City
Godofredo B. Oleza
MeTC, Br. 90, Parañaque City
Reynaldo E. Pabale
MeTC, OCC, Caloocan City
Michael Arman A. Ramos
MeTC, Br. 83, Caloocan City
Reymar L. Saloma
MeTC , Br. 92, Marikina City
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
Pre-Judicature Program
31st Pre-Judicature Program
Date: September 2 to 13, 2013
Venue: East Asia Royale Hotel, General Santos City
Participants: 36 lawyers, namely:
IN
CITIES
REGION II
Rosemary D. Perico
MTCC, Cauayan City, Isabela
REGION III
Jorge A. Adriano
MTCC, OCC, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
Josegani R. Clemente
MTCC, Br. 3, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan
Joerey D. Fernando
MTCC, Br. 2, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan
REGION V
Jesusa Dalhia O. Malaya
MTCC, Br. 2, Iriga City, Camarines Sur
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
REGION III
Andrew A. Toledo
MTC, Rizal, Nueva Ecija
Roy T. Vargas
MTC, Balagtas, Bulacan
REGION IV
Orlando D. Biong
MTC, Lucban, Quezon
REGION V
Isidro J. Guerrero
MTC, Virac, Catanduanes
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
REGION I
Gilbert B. Manzano
4th MCTC: Manabo-Boliney-Tubo-Luba, Abra
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Mary Anne L. Academia
Arlyn Joy C. Allosa-Alaba
Joy Balayon-Mariano
Venchito M. Bangayan
Anthony A. Barluado
Engracio S. Bautista
Jerome C. Beatisola
Jose C. Blanza, Jr.
Jo Ann M. Burgos
Arturo C. Cloma
Eldred D. Cole
Rebecca G. Dardo-Seredrica
Sara Z. Duterte
Tomas C. Falgui II
Leannierose R. Fenis-Sucatre
Jose Jerry L. Fulgar
Franklin M. Gacal, Jr.
Chalmer C. Gevieso
Jose Mariano Constantino G. Gonzalez
Maria Primarisa C. Guipo
Carolyn D. Lorenzo-Tanudtanud
Prince S. Losaria
Ariel V. Macahilos
Marife R. Macasocol-Alegre
Leonard B. Mann
Ramon R. Melliza
Joyce K. Mirabueno
Rafael O. Montilla
Pinky D. Ortega
Vicente T. Peña
Rosendo A. Roque
Catharine S. Sespeñe
Gemma B. Tady
Caroline Anne Z. Tajon
Carmela Mae M. Tunguia
Felipe E. Macaldo, Jr. (3 days only)
11
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP)
JCEP for Judges
Date: July 17 to 19, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 88 RTC and First Level Court Judges of Region V
Date: August 14 to 16, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 31 RTC Judges of Region I
Career Enhancement Program (CEP)
CEP for First Level Clerks of Court
Date: August 27 to 28, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 52 MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of court of
Region III (Batch 1)
Date: August 29 to 30, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 46 MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of court of
Region III (Batch 2)
Date: September 11 to 12, 2013
Venue: L’Fisher Hotel, Bacolod City
Participants: 83 MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of court of
Region VI
Personal Security Training for Judges
Date: July 3 to 5, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 54 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges
Date: September 3 to 5, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 40 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges
Information Dissemination Through a Dialogue between
Barangay Officials and Court Officials
Date: July 4, 2013
Venue: Surigao City Cultural Center, Surigao City
Participants: 112 barangay officials of Surigao City
Date: July 5, 2013
Venue: Doña Ynez Convention Center, Butuan City
Participants: 274 barangay officials of Butuan City
Date: August 23, 2013
Venue: San Pablo City Central Elementary School,
San Pablo City, Laguna
Participants: 185 barangay officials of San Pablo City
Date: September 26, 2013
Venue: Notre Dame of Dadiangas University,
General Santos City
Participants: 203 barangay officials of City of General Santos
CDP for Court Legal Researchers
Date: September 27, 2013
Venue: Municipal Gym, Polomolok, South Cotabato
Participants: 253 barangay officials of Municipality of
Polomolok
Date: July 24 to 25, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 45 RTC and MTCC legal researchers of Region X
Seminar Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and
Rule of Law for Executive Judges and Single Sala Court
Judges
Date: September 18 to 19, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 37 RTC and MTCC legal researchers of Region XI
Date: July 10 to 11, 2013
Venue: Fort Ilocandia Hotel, Laoag City
Participants: 31 executive and single sala court judges of
Regions I and II
Career Development Program (CDP)
Special Focus Programs
Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court
Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children
Date: July 3 to 5, 2013
Venue: The Bayleaf Intramuros, Manila
Participants: 37 judges, clerks of court/OIC, court social
workers, court interpreters, prosecutors and PAO lawyers
of selected single sala courts in Luzon
Date: September 4 to 6, 2013
Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu City
Participants: 40 judges, clerks of court/OIC, court
interpreters, prosecutors and PAO lawyers of Regions VI
and VII
Date: August 6 to 7, 2013
Venue: Marco Polo Plaza Hotel, Cebu City
Participants: 28 executive judges of Regions VI, VII, VIII
and IX and single sala court judges of Regions IX
Seminar-Workshop on Substantive Laws and
Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property for Special
Commercial Court Judges in the National Capital Judicial
Region and Selected Attorneys of the Supreme Court and
Court of Appeals
Date: July 25 to 26, 2013
Venue: Holiday Inn and Suites Makati, Makati City
Participants: 75 judges, SC and CA attorneys, IPO hearing
officers and observer
12
Stakeholders’ Consultation Workshop and Presentation
of the First Draft of the Helpbook on Combating Human
Trafficking in the Philippines
Date: August 13, 2013
Venue: Diamond Hotel, Manila
Participants: 26 selected judges of NCJR, and
representatives from DOJ, DSWD, DFA, NBI, BI, Council for
the Welfare of Children (CWC), Philippine Commission on
Women (PCW), International Justice Mission (IJM),
Commission on Filipino Overseas, and Philippine Center on
Transnational Crime
Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges,
Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of the First Judicial Region
Date: August 13 to 15, 2013
Venue: Fort Ilocandia Hotel, Laoag City
Participants: 78 RTC judges, prosecutors and law enforcers
of Region I
Ceremonial Turnover of the Final Draft of the Proposed
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
Date: September 3, 2013
Venue: En Banc Session Hall, Supreme Court, Manila
Participants: 190 SC and CTA justices; OCA, PHILJA and OCAT
officials; members of the Committee on the Revision of
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Core Committee and the
Topical Working Groups; judges; representatives from COA,
OGCC, OSG, PALS, UPLC, IBP and SC-PIO; Core Committee
Secretariat and PHILJA Secretariat
Increasing Judicial Efficiency: Seminar-Workshop for
Judges on the Effective Use of the Benchbook for Philippine
Trial Courts (Revised and Expanded) for Regions VI to IX
(Batch 3)
Date: September 12, 2013
Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu City
Participants: 42 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges of
Regions VI to IX
Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws Relating to Court
Technology for Judges in the Tenth Judicial Region
Date: September 18 to 19, 2013
Venue: Pryce Plaza Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City
Participants: 35 RTC, MTCC and MTC judges of Region X
Roundtable Discussion
Knowledge Sharing on Laws, Rules and Trends on Asset
Forfeiture and Management
Date: August 23, 2013
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
Venue: Diamond Hotel, Manila
Participants: 12 selected judges
Convention-Seminar
17th National Convention and Seminar of the Sheriffs
Confederation of the Philippines (SCOPHIL)
Theme: Meeting New Challenges Towards Judicial
Independence and Upholding the Rule of Law
Date: April 16 to 18, 2013
Venue: Baguio Convention Center, Baguio City
Participants: 849 sheriffs
The Elected National Officers and Board of Directors are:
NATIONAL OFFICERS
Patermoscio G. Labayani, President
Eduardo L. Bolima, Executive Vice President
Felino G. Lacanlalay, Treasurer
Fernando Loncion, Auditor
Fernando R. Regino, Secretary-General
Romeo Pascua, Vice President for Luzon
Erly Martir, Vice President for Visayas
Reynaldo Taleon, Vice President for Mindanao
Arnulfo O. Lim, Vice President for NCJR
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Fernando M. Austria, Director-Region I
Maximiano C. Corsino, Director-Region II
Roy Mendones, Director-Region III
Elmer Baltazar, Director-Region IV
Jessica Maxilinda A. Ibarreta, Director-Region V
Nigel Jalea, Director-Region VI
Melvin Destura, Director-Region VII
Melito Malate, Director-Region VIII
Victoriano Prado III, Director-Region IX
Teresito Estenzo, Director-Region X
Roberto Esguerra, Director-Region XI
Angel C. Ancheta, Director-CARAGA
1st General Assembly and Seminar of the Association of
Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs
Theme: Delineating and Strengthening the Role of the
Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs in the Management
and Operation of the Courts Geared Towards a Strong and
Unified Administrators of the Second Level Courts
Date: July 11 to 12, 2013
Venue: The Bayleaf Intramuros, Manila
Participants: 74 clerks of court and ex officio sheriffs
13
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
15th Convention and Seminar of the Metropolitan and City
Judges Association of the Philippines (MeTCJAP)
Theme: E3j = Enhancing Electronic and Environmental
Justice
Date: September 18 to 20, 2013
Venue: El Circulo Convention Center, Roxas City
Participants: 116 MeTC judges
11th National Convention and Seminar of the RTC Clerks of
Court Association of the Philippines (RTC-COCAP)
Theme: Clerks of Court in Pursuit of Excellence
Date: September 24 to 26, 2013
Venue: Crown Regency Resort and Convention Center
Boracay Island, Aklan
Participants: 255 RTC clerks of court
Participants: 49 judges, clerks of court/branch clerks of
court, mediation trainees and PMCU staff
Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators
Isabela and Tuguegarao Mediation Programs
Date: September 4 to 5, 2013
Venue: Hotel Andrea, Cauayan City, Isabela
Participants: 27 mediators
South Cotabato, Sarangani, and General Santos City
Mediation Programs
Date: September 17 to 18, 2013
Venue: Phela Grande Hotel, General Santos City
Participants: 24 mediators
Davao Mediation Program
Date: September 19 to 20, 2013
Venue: Grand Regal Hotel, Davao City
Participants: 25 mediators
On ADR/Mediation/JDR
Faculty Workshop for the Judicial Settlement Conference for
Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-Based Course)
Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators and
PMC Unit Staff
Albay Mediation Program
Date: July 1 to 2, 2013
Venue: Halls of Justice of Ligao City and Legazpi City, Albay
Participants: 34 mediators and staff applicants
Sorsogon Mediation Program
Date: July 3 to 4, 2013
Venue: Halls of Justice of Sorsogon City and Irosin, Sorsogon
Participants: 39 mediators and staff applicants
Date: July 11 to 12, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 63 PMCU staff
Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial
Dispute Resolution (Skills-Based Course)
Date: July 30 to August 2, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 64 judges
Basic Mediation Course
Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court
on Judicial Dispute Resolution
Albay and Sorsogon Mediation Programs
Date: July 22 to 25, 2013
Venue: Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City, Albay
Participants: 41 mediation trainees
Date: September 12, 2013
Venue: La Vista Pansol Resort, Calamba, Laguna
Participants: 47 clerks of court and branch clerks of court
Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges,
Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees
and PMCU Staff
Albay Mediation Program
Date: July 25, 2013
Venue: Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City, Albay
Participants: 85 judges, clerks of court/branch clerks of
court, mediation trainees and PMCU staff
Sorsogon Mediation Program
Date: July 26, 2013
Venue: Sorsogon Paradise Hotel and Resort, Sorsogon City
Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys and
Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute Resolution
Date: September 12, 2013
Venue: La Vista Pansol Resort, Calamba, Laguna
Participants: 59 prosecutors, public attorneys and IBP/law
practitioners
Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar for
Philippine Mediation Center Unit Staff
Date: July 11 to 12, 2013
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 63 PMCU staff
14
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (seated, center) with participants of the 66th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly
Appointed Judges held on July 2–11, 2013, at the PTC, Tagaytay City.
Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (seated, center) with participants of the 67th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly
Appointed Judges held on August 6–15, 2013, at the PTC, Tagaytay City.
Deputy Court Administrator Thelma C. Bahia (seated, center) with participants of the 2nd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly
Appointed Sheriffs and Process Servers held on July 24–26, 2013, at the PTC, Tagaytay City.
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
15
PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna (seated, center) with participants of the Roundtable Discussion: Knowledge Sharing on Laws,
Rules and Trends on Asset Forfeiture and Management held on August 23, 2013, at the Diamond Hotel, Manila.
Participants of the Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children held on July
3–5, 2013, at The Bayleaf Intramuros, Manila.
16
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
evidence and in giving due consideration to petitioner’s
written statement as there is no constitutional impediment
to its admissibility.
Constitutional Law
Non-admissibility of admission or confession of guilt
applicable only in custodial interrogations.
The constitutional proscription against the admissibility of
admission or confession of guilt obtained in violation of
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, as correctly
observed by the CA and the OSG, is applicable only in
custodial interrogation.
Custodial interrogation means any questioning
initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action in any significant manner. Indeed, a person under
custodial investigation is guaranteed certain rights which
attach upon the commencement thereof, viz: (1) to remain
silent, (2) to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice, and (3) to be informed of the
two other rights above. In the present case, while it is
undisputed that petitioner gave an uncounselled written
statement regarding an anomaly discovered in the branch
he managed, the following are clear: (1) the questioning
was not initiated by a law enforcement authority but merely
by an internal affairs manager of the bank; and, (2)
petitioner was neither arrested nor restrained of his liberty
in any significant manner during the questioning. Clearly,
petitioner cannot be said to be under custodial investigation
and to have been deprived of the constitutional prerogative
during the taking of his written statement.
Moreover, in Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, we
declared that the right to counsel “applies only to
admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those
made in an administrative investigation.” Amplifying further
on the matter, the Court made clear in the recent case of
Carbonel v. Civil Service Commission:
However, it must be remembered that the right to
counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is
meant to protect a suspect during custodial
investigation. Thus, the exclusionary rule under
paragraph (2), Section 12 of the Bill of Rights
applies only to admissions made in a criminal
investigation but not to those made in an
administrative investigation.
Here, petitioner’s written statement was given during
an administrative inquiry conducted by his employer in
connection with an anomaly/irregularity he allegedly
committed in the course of his employment. No error can
therefore be attributed to the courts below in admitting in
Del Castillo, J., Carlos L. Tanenggee v. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 179448, June 26, 2013.
Commercial Law
Insurance companies must investigate within two
years from effectivity of the policy those they insure.
Section 48 of the Insurance Code, serves a noble purpose,
as it regulates the actions of both the insurer and the
insured. Under the provision, an insurer is given two years—
from the effectivity of a life insurance contract and while
the insured is alive—to discover or prove that the policy is
void ab initio or is rescindable by reason of the fraudulent
concealment or misrepresentation of the insured or his
agent. After the two-year period lapses, or when the
insured dies within the period, the insurer must make good
on the policy, even though the policy was obtained by fraud,
concealment, or misrepresentation. This is not to say that
insurance fraud must be rewarded, but that insurers who
recklessly and indiscriminately solicit and obtain business
must be penalized, for such recklessness and lack of
discrimination ultimately work to the detriment of bona
fide takers of insurance and the public in general.
Section 48 regulates both the actions of the insurers
and prospective takers of life insurance. It gives insurers
enough time to inquire whether the policy was obtained by
fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation; on the other
hand, it forewarns scheming individuals that their attempts
at insurance fraud would be timely uncovered — thus
deterring them from venturing into such nefarious
enterprise. At the same time, legitimate policy holders
are absolutely protected from unwarranted denial of their
claims or delay in the collection of insurance proceeds
occasioned by allegations of fraud, concealment, or
misrepresentation by insurers, claims which may no longer
be set up after the two-year period expires as ordained
under the law.
Thus, the self-regulating feature of Section 48 lies in
the fact that both the insurer and the insured are given the
assurance that any dishonest scheme to obtain life
insurance would be exposed, and attempts at unduly
denying a claim would be struck down. Life insurance policies
that pass the statutory two-year period are essentially
treated as legitimate and beyond question, and the
individuals who wield them are made secure by the thought
that they will be paid promptly upon claim. In this manner,
Section 48 contributes to the stability of the insurance
industry.
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
New Rulings
Commercial Law (continued)
Section 48 prevents a situation where the insurer
knowingly continues to accept annual premium payments
on life insurance, only to later on deny a claim on the policy
on specious claims of fraudulent concealment and
misrepresentation, such as what obtains in the instant case.
Thus, instead of conducting at the first instance an
investigation into the circumstances surrounding the
issuance of Insurance Policy No. 747411 which would have
timely exposed the supposed flaws and irregularities
attending it as it now professes, petitioner appears to have
turned a blind eye and opted instead to continue collecting
the premiums on the policy. For nearly three years,
petitioner collected the premiums and devoted the same
to its own profit. It cannot now deny the claim when it is
called to account. Section 48 must be applied to it with full
force and effect.
Del Castillo, J., Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation v. Cresencia
P. Aban, G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013.
Civil Law
Determination of legal heirs must be made in a special
proceeding/s case and not in a suit for recovery of
ownership and possession.
Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of
who are the legal heirs of the deceased must be
made in the proper special proceedings in court,
and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of
ownership and possession of property. This must
take precedence over the action for recovery of
possession and ownership. The Court has
consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make
a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the
reason that such a declaration can only be made in
a special proceeding. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the
1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined
as one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention
or redress of a wrong while a special proceeding is
a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status,
a right, or a particular fact. It is then decisively clear
that the declaration of heirship can be made only
in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners
17
here are seeking the establishment of a status or
right.
In the early case of Litam, et al. v. Rivera, this Court
ruled that the declaration of heirship must be made
in a special proceeding, and not in an independent
civil action. This doctrine was reiterated in Solivio
v. Court of Appeals x x x:
In the more recent case of Milagros
Joaquino v. Lourdes Reyes, the Court
reiterated its ruling that matters relating
to the rights of filiation and heirship must
be ventilated in the proper probate court
in a special proceeding instituted precisely
for the purpose of determining such rights.
Citing the case of Agapay v. Palang, this
Court held that the status of an illegitimate
child who claimed to be an heir to a
decedent’s estate could not be adjudicated
in an ordinary civil action which, as in
this case, was for the recovery of property.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied;
citations omitted)
By way of exception, the need to institute a separate
special proceeding for the determination of heirship may
be dispensed with for the sake of practicality, as when the
parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue
to the trial court and already presented their evidence
regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC had
consequently rendered judgment thereon, or when a
special proceeding had been instituted but had been finally
closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened.
In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions, or those
of similar nature, appear to exist. Hence, there lies the
need to institute the proper special proceeding in order to
determine the heirship of the parties involved, ultimately
resulting to the dismissal of Civil Case No. T-2246.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon, namely, Alvaro Ypon,
Erudita Y. Baron, Cicero Ypon, Wilson Ypon, Victor Ypon, and Hinidino Y.
Peñalosa v. Gaudioso Ponteras Ricaforte a.k.a “Gaudioso E. Ypon,” and
The Register of Deeds of Toledo City, G.R. No. 198680, July 8, 2013.
Execution by motion within five years; exception.
The Rules of Court provide that a final and executory
judgment may be executed by motion within five years
from the date of its entry or by an action after the lapse of
five years and before prescription sets in. This Court,
however, allows exceptions when execution may be made
by motion even after the lapse of five years. These
exceptions have one common denominator: the delay is
caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment obligor
and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage.
(Next page)
18
Doctrinal Reminders
Civil Law (continued)
In Camacho v. Court of Appeals, we held that where
the delays were occasioned by the judgment debtor’s own
initiatives and for her advantage as well as beyond the
judgment creditor’s control, the five-year period allowed
for enforcement of the judgment by motion is deemed to
have been effectively interrupted or suspended.
In the present case, there is no dispute that RCBC seeks
to enforce the decision which became final and executory
on April 15, 1994. This decision orders Serra to execute
and deliver the proper deed of sale in favor of RCBC.
However, to evade his obligation to RCBC, Serra transferred
the property to his mother Ablao, who then transferred it
to Liok. Serra’s action prompted RCBC to file the Annulment
case. Clearly, the delay in the execution of the decision was
caused by Serra for his own advantage. Thus, the pendency
of the Annulment case effectively suspended the five-year
period to enforce through a motion the decision in the
Specific Performance case. Since the decision in the
Annulment case attained finality on March 3, 2009 and
RCBC’s motion for execution was filed on August 25, 2011,
RCBC’s motion is deemed filed within the five-year period
for enforcement of a decision through a motion.
This Court has reiterated that the purpose of prescribing
time limitations for enforcing judgments is to prevent
parties from sleeping on their rights. Far from sleeping on
its rights, RCBC has pursued persistently its action against
Serra in accordance with law. On the other hand, Serra has
continued to evade his obligation by raising issues of
technicality. While strict compliance with the rules of
procedure is desired, liberal interpretation is warranted in
cases where a strict enforcement of the rules will not serve
the ends of justice.
Carpio, J., Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Federico A. Serra,
G.R. No. 203241, July 10, 2013.
Laches defined.
Case law defines laches as the “failure to assert a right for
an unreasonable and unexplained length of time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert
it has either abandoned or declined to assert it.”
Records disclose that the Andrades took 14 years
before filing their complaint for reconveyance in 1997. The
argument that they did not know about the subject
transaction is clearly belied by the facts on record. It is
undisputed that Proceso, Jr. was a co-vendee in the subject
deed of sale, while Henry was an instrumental witness to
the Deed of Assignment and Option to Buy both dated July
26, 1983. Likewise, Rosario’s sons, Proceso, Jr. and Andrew,
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
did not question the execution of the subject deed of sale
made by their mother to Bobby. These incidents can but
only lead to the conclusion that they were well-aware of
the subject transaction and yet only pursued their claim 14
years after the sale was executed.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., Bobby Tan v. Grace Andrade, Proceso Andrade, Jr.,
Charity A. Santiago, Henry Andrade, Andrew Andrade, Jasmin Blaza,
Glory Andrade, Miriam Rose Andrade, and Joseph Andrade, G.R. No.
171904 and Grace Andrade, Charity A. Santiago, Henry Andrade, Andrew
Andrade, Jasmin Blaza, Miriam Rose Andrade, and Joseph Andrade v.
Bobby Tan, G.R. No. 172017, August 7, 2013.
Land Registration Law
Rules on the disposition of public lands or lands of the
public domain.
Rules relative to the disposition of public land or lands of the
public domain, namely:
(1) As a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian
Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to
the State and are inalienable. Lands that are not
clearly under private ownership are also presumed
to belong to the State and, therefore, may not be
alienated or disposed;
(2) The following are excepted from the general rule,
to wit:
(a) Agricultural lands of the public domain are
rendered alienable and disposable through any
of the exclusive modes enumerated under
Section 11 of the Public Land Act. If the mode
is judicial confirmation of imperfect title under
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, the
agricultural land subject of the application
needs only to be classified as alienable and
disposable as of the time of the application,
provided the applicant’s possession and
occupation of the land dated back to June 12,
1945, or earlier. Thereby, a conclusive
presumption that the applicant has performed
all the conditions essential to a government
grant arises, and the applicant becomes the
owner of the land by virtue of an imperfect or
incomplete title. By legal fiction, the land has
already ceased to be part of the public domain
and has become private property.
(b) Lands of the public domain subsequently
classified or declared as no longer intended for
public use or for the development of national
wealth are removed from the sphere of public
dominion and are considered converted into
19
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
Doctrinal Reminders
Land Registration Law (continued)
patrimonial lands or lands of private ownership
that may be alienated or disposed through
any of the modes of acquiring ownership
under the Civil Code. If the mode of acquisition
is prescription, whether ordinary or
extraordinary, proof that the land has been
already converted to private ownership prior
to the requisite acquisitive prescriptive period
is a condition sine qua non in observance of
the law (Article 1113, Civil Code) that property
of the State not patrimonial in character shall
not be the object of prescription.
To reiterate, then, the petitioners failed to present
sufficient evidence to establish that they and their
predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land
since June 12, 1945. Without satisfying the requisite
character and period of possession–possession and
occupation that is open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious since June 12, 1945, or earlier–the land cannot
be considered ipso jure converted to private property even
upon the subsequent declaration of it as alienable and
disposable. Prescription never began to run against the
State, such that the land has remained ineligible for
registration under Section 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree. Likewise, the land continues to be
ineligible for land registration under Section 14(2) of the
Property Registration Decree unless Congress enacts a law
or the President issues a proclamation declaring the land
as no longer intended for public service or for the
development of the national wealth.
Bersamin, J., Heirs of Mario Malabanan, (Represented by Sally A.
Malabanan), v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179987, September
3, 2013.
Act No. 3344 applies to sale of unregistered lands.
Act No. 3344, as amended, provides for the system of
recording of transactions over unregistered real estate.
Act No. 3344 expressly declares that any registration made
shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better
right. The question to be resolved therefore is: who between
petitioners and respondent has a better right to the
disputed lot?
Respondent has a better right to the lot.
The sale to respondent Juanito was executed on September
2, 1981 via an unnotarized deed of sale, while the sale to
petitioners was made via a notarized document only on
October 17, 1991, or 10 years thereafter. Thus, Juanito
who was the first buyer has a better right to the lot, while
the subsequent sale to petitioners is null and void, because
when it was made, the seller Garcia was no longer the
owner of the lot. Nemo dat quod non habet.
The fact that the sale to Juanito was not notarized
does not alter anything, since the sale between him and
Garcia remains valid nonetheless. Notarization, or the
requirement of a public document under the Civil Code, is
only for convenience, and not for validity or enforceability.
And because it remained valid as between Juanito and
Garcia, the latter no longer had the right to sell the lot to
petitioners, for his ownership thereof had ceased.
Nor can petitioners’ registration of their purchase have
any effect on Juanito’s rights. The mere registration of a
sale in one’s favor does not give him any right over the land
if the vendor was no longer the owner of the land, having
previously sold the same to another even if the earlier sale
was unrecorded. Neither could it validate the purchase
thereof by petitioners, which is null and void. Registration
does not vest title; it is merely the evidence of such title.
Our land registration laws do not give the holder any better
title than what he actually has.
Specifically, it was held in Radiowealth Finance Co. v.
Palileo that:
Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments
affecting unregistered lands is ‘without prejudice
to a third party with a better right.’ The aforequoted
phrase has been held by this Court to mean that the
mere registration of a sale in one’s favor does not
give him any right over the land if the vendor was
not anymore the owner of the land having
previously sold the same to somebody else even if
the earlier sale was unrecorded.
Del Castillo, J., Spouses Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. and Ma. Rosario
M. Sabitsana v. Juanito F. Muertegui, represented by his Attorney-inFact Domingo A. Muertegui, Jr., G.R. No. 181359, August 5, 2013.
Criminal Law
Bigamous marriage; declaration of nullity of the first
marriage required before a valid subsequent marriage
can be contracted.
It has been held in a number of cases that a judicial
declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent
marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a
bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is
when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during
the subsistence of a valid marriage. Parties to the marriage
should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity,
(Next page)
20
Doctrinal Reminders
Criminal Law (continued)
for the same must be submitted to the judgment of
competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage
is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is
no such declaration, the presumption is that the marriage
exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage
before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage
assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. If we allow
respondent’s line of defense and the CA’s ratiocination, a
person who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution
by immediately filing a petition for the declaration of nullity
of his earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision
is rendered therein before anyone institutes a complaint
against him.
Respondent, likewise, claims that there are more
reasons to quash the information against him, because he
obtained the declaration of nullity of marriage before the
filing of the complaint for bigamy against him. Again, we
cannot sustain such contention. In addition to the discussion
above, settled is the rule that criminal culpability attaches
to the offender upon the commission of the offense and
from that instant, liability appends to him until extinguished
as provided by law and that the time of filing of the criminal
complaint or information is material only for determining
prescription.
Peralta, J., People of the Philippines v. Edgardo V. Odtuhan, G.R. No.
191566, July 17, 2013.
Mere act of issuing a worthless check constitutes the
offense punishable by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or
a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for
payment. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the mere act
of issuing a worthless check. The law did not look either at
the actual ownership of the check or of the account against
which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of
the drawee, maker or issuer. The thrust of the law is to
prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them
into circulation.
Even if the trial court in the civil case declares Asia
Trust Bank liable for the unlawful garnishment of
petitioners’ savings account, petitioners cannot be
automatically adjudged free from criminal liability for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, because the mere
issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds to support the checks is in itself the
offense.
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
Furthermore, three notices of dishonor were sent to
petitioners, who then, should have immediately funded the
check. When they did not, their liabilities under the
bouncing checks law attached. Such liability cannot be
affected by the alleged prejudicial question because their
failure to fund the check upon notice of dishonour is itself
the offense.
Perez, J., Spouses Argovan and Florida Gaditano v. San Miguel
Corporation, G.R. No. 188767, July 24, 2013.
Remedial Law
Attachment lien; length of time within which it
continues to subsist.
By its nature, preliminary attachment, under Rule 57 of
the Rules of Court (Rule 57), is an ancillary remedy applied
for not for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to
realize upon the relief sought and expected to be granted
in the main or principal action; it is a measure auxiliary or
incidental to the main action. As such, it is available during
its pendency which may be resorted to by a litigant to
preserve and protect certain rights and interests during
the interim, awaiting the ultimate effects of a final
judgment in the case. In addition, attachment is also availed
of in order to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual
or constructive seizure of the property in those instances
where personal or substituted service of summons on the
defendant cannot be effected.
In this relation, while the provisions of Rule 57 are silent
on the length of time within which an attachment lien shall
continue to subsist after the rendition of a final judgment,
jurisprudence dictates that the said lien continues until the
debt is paid, or the sale is had under execution issued on
the judgment or until the judgment is satisfied, or the
attachment discharged or vacated in the same manner
provided by law.
Applying these principles, the Court finds that the
discharge of the writ of preliminary attachment against
the properties of Sps. Lazaro was improper.
Records indicate that while the parties have entered
into a compromise agreement which had already been
approved by the RTC in its January 5, 2007 Amended
Decision, the obligations thereunder have yet to be fully
complied with – particularly, the payment of the total
compromise amount of P2,351,064.80. Hence, given that
the foregoing debt remains unpaid, the attachment of Sps.
Lazaro’s properties should have continued to subsist.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., Alfredo C. Lim, Jr. v. Spouses Tito S. Lazaro and
Carmen T. Lazaro, G.R. No. 185734, July 3, 2013.
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
Legal Ethics
High standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing required in the practice of
law.
This Court has repeatedly emphasized that the practice of
law is imbued with public interest and that “a lawyer owes
substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his
brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation,
and takes part in one of the most important functions of
the State – the administration of justice – as an officer of
the court.” Accordingly, “[l]awyers are bound to maintain
not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.”
Respondent has fallen dismally and disturbingly short
of the high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and
fair dealing required of him. Quite the contrary, he
employed his knowledge and skill of the law as well as took
advantage of the credulity of petitioners to secure undue
gains for himself and to inflict serious damage on others.
He did so over the course of several years in a sustained
and unrelenting fashion and outdid his previous wrongdoing
with even greater, more detestable offenses. He has hardly
shown any remorse. From how he has conducted himself in
these proceedings, he is all but averse to rectifying his ways
and assuaging complainants’ plight. Respondent even
foisted upon the IBP and this Court his duplicity by
repeatedly absenting himself from the IBP’s hearings
without justifiable reasons. He also vexed this Court to
admit his Appeal despite his own failure to comply with the
much extended period given to him, thus inviting the Court
to be a party in delaying complainants’ cause. For all his
perversity, respondent deserves none of this Court’s
clemency.
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT,
having clearly violated the Canons of Professional
Responsibility through his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful
conduct, is DISBARRED and his name ordered STRICKEN
from the Roll of Attorneys.
Per Curiam, Lilia Tabang and Concepcion Tabang v. Atty. Glenn C. Gacott,
A.C. No. 6490 [Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1054], July 9, 2013.
Two concepts of attorney’s fees.
Two concepts of attorney’s fees – ordinary and
extraordinary. In its ordinary sense, it is the reasonable
compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services
rendered. In its extraordinary concept, it is awarded by
the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing
party as indemnity for damages. Although both concepts
are similar in some respects, they differ from each other,
as further explained below:
21
The attorney’s fee which a court may, in proper
cases, award to a winning litigant is, strictly
speaking, an item of damages. It differs from that
which a client pays his counsel for the latter ’s
professional services. However, the two concepts
have many things in common that a treatment of
the subject is necessary. The award that the court
may grant to a successful party by way of attorney’s
fee is an indemnity for damages sustained by him
in prosecuting or defending, through counsel, his
cause in court. It may be decreed in favor of the
party, not his lawyer, in any of the instances
authorized by law. On the other hand, the attorney’s
fee which a client pays his counsel refers to the
compensation for the latter’s services. The losing
party against whom damages by way of attorney’s
fees may be assessed is not bound by, nor is his
liability dependent upon, the fee arrangement of
the prevailing party with his lawyer. The amount
stipulated in such fee arrangement may, however,
be taken into account by the court in fixing the
amount of counsel fees as an element of damages.
The fee as an item of damages belongs to the party
litigant and not to his lawyer. It forms part of his
judgment recoveries against the losing party. The
client and his lawyer may, however, agree that
whatever attorney’s fee as an element of damages
the court may award shall pertain to the lawyer as
his compensation or as part thereof. In such a case,
the court upon proper motion may require the
losing party to pay such fee directly to the lawyer
of the prevailing party.
The two concepts of attorney’s fees are similar in
other respects. They both require, as a prerequisite
to their grant, the intervention of or the rendition
of professional services by a lawyer. As a client
may not be held liable for counsel fees in favor of
his lawyer who never rendered services, so too may
a party be not held liable for attorney’s fees as
damages in favor of the winning party who enforced
his rights without the assistance of counsel.
Moreover, both fees are subject to judicial control
and modification. And the rules governing the
determination of their reasonable amount are
applicable in one as in the other. [Emphases and
underscoring supplied]
In the case at bench, the attorney’s fees being claimed
by the petitioner refers to the compensation for professional
services rendered, and not as indemnity for damages. He is
demanding payment from respondents for having
successfully handled the civil case filed by Chong against
Spouses de Guzman. The award of attorney’s fees by the
RTC in the amount of P10,000 in favor of Spouses de
Guzman, which was subsequently affirmed by the CA and
this Court, is of no moment. The said award, made in its
(Next page)
22
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
Doctrinal Reminders
Legal Ethics (continued)
extraordinary concept as indemnity for damages, forms
part of the judgment recoverable against the losing party
and is to be paid directly to Spouses de Guzman (substituted
by respondents) and not to petitioner. Thus, to grant
petitioner’s motion to determine attorney’s fees would not
result in a double award of attorney’s fees. And, contrary
to the RTC ruling, there would be no amendment of a final
and executory decision or variance in judgment.
Mendoza, J., Francisco L. Rosario, Jr. v. Lellani de Guzman, Arleen de
Guzman, Philip Ryan de Guzman, and Rosella de Guzman-Bautista,
G.R. No. 191247, July 10, 2013.
Relationship between attorney and his client.
The relationship between an attorney and his client is one
imbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this light,
clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful
of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree
of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is
expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and
competence to the case, regardless of its importance and
whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. Canon 17, and
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code embody
these quintessential directives and thus, respectively state:
CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
Conversely, a lawyer’s negligence in fulfilling his duties
subjects him to disciplinary action. While such negligence
or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the Court
has consistently held that the lawyer’s mere failure to
perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation.
Applying these principles to the present case, the Court
finds that respondent failed to exercise the required
diligence in handling complainant’s cause.
Records show that he failed to justify his absence during
the scheduled preliminary conference hearing in Civil Case
No. 1972 which led the same to be immediately submitted
for decision. As correctly observed by the Investigating
Commissioner, respondent could have exercised ordinary
diligence by inquiring from the court as to whether the said
hearing would push through, especially so since it was only
tentatively set and considering further that he was yet to
confer with the opposing counsel. The fact that respondent
had an important commitment during that day hardly
exculpates him from his omission since the prudent course
of action would have been for him to send a substitute
counsel to appear on his behalf. In fact, he should have
been more circumspect to ensure that the aforesaid hearing
would not have been left unattended in view of its adverse
consequences, i.e., that the defendant’s failure to appear
at the preliminary conference already entitles the plaintiff
to a judgment. Indeed, second-guessing the conduct of the
proceedings, much less without any contingent measure,
exhibits respondent’s inexcusable lack of care and diligence
in managing his client’s cause.
Perlas-Bernabe, J. Josefina Caranza vda. De Saldivar v. Atty. Ramon SG
Cabanes, Jr., A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013.
C ANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
xxxx
RULE 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
RULE 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed
of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client ’s request for
information.
Case law further illumines that a lawyer’s duty of
competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing
the cases entrusted to the counsel’s care or giving sound
legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the
client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled
hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required
pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable
dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for
the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.
OCA Circular No. 109-2013
(continued from page 37)
courts to the Office of the Court Administrator,
all concerned are DIRECTED to attach a COVER
LETTER as a supplemental document to indicate the
reason/s why the same are being furnished the
Office.
Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.
September 5, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
23
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
the Island of Sibuyan, Province of Romblon, to
be stationed at the Municipality of Cajidiocan
and denominated as Branch 106, RTC,
Cajidiocan, Romblon;
b. AUTHORIZE Branch 106, RTC, Cajidiocan,
Romblon to exercise territorial jurisdiction
over the Municipalities of Cajidiocan,
Magdiwang and San Fernando, all in the
province of Romblon;
A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC
EN BANC NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
c.
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a
Resolution dated JULY 30, 2013, which reads as follows:
“A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC (Re: Proposed Rules on E-filing)
and A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC (Re: Proposed Rule for the
Efficient Use of Paper). — The Court Resolved to APPROVE
the proposal that all administrative circulars and orders,
memorandum circulars and orders, and all other similar
documents, will be delivered to each Justice in any of the
following file formats, at his or her option:
–
–
–
Electronic PDF file (by e-mail);
Print (hard) copy; or
Both electronic and print copies.
In this connection, all interested Members of this Court
who are interested in receiving electronic PDF files of these
documents must formally submit their e-mail addresses to
the Clerk of Court.”
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Branch 81, with seat at Romblon –
over the Municipalities of Romblon,
Corcuera, Concepcion, Banton, San
Agustin and Sta. Maria (Imelda)
Branch 106, with seat at Cajidiocan –
over the Municipalities of Cajidiocan,
Magdiwang and San Fernando
d. ORDER the transfer to Branch 106, RTC,
Cajidiocan, Romblon, of all newly filed cases
and all pending cases which have not yet
reached the pre-trial stage in civil cases or
where the accused have not yet been
arraigned in criminal cases originating from
the Municipalities of Cajidiocan, Magdiwang
and San Fernando, and filed with Branch 81,
RTC, Romblon, Romblon;
e. CREATE the following positions in the Personnel
Services Itemization of the said RTC to
conform with the Staffing Pattern of the RTC,
to wit:
No. of
Position/s
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
A.M. No. 13-7-144-RTC
EN BANC NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a
Resolution dated JULY 30, 2013, which reads as follows:
“A.M. No. 13-7-144-RTC (Re: Creation of One
Additional Regional Trial Court [RTC] Branch in the Island
of Sibuyan, Province of Romblon, to be Denominated as
Branch 106 and Stationed at the Municipality of Cajidiocan).
— The Court Resolved, upon the recommendation of the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), to
a. IMPLEMENT Republic Act No. 10300 by
creating one additional branch of the RTC in
AMEND paragraph 1 of Administrative Order
No. 7, to read as follows:
f.
Position Titles
RTC Judge
Clerk of Court VI
Court Legal Researcher II
Interpreter III
Court Stenographer III
Sheriff IV
Data Entry Machine Operator II
Clerk III
Process Server
Utility Worker I
Salary
Grade
29
25
15
12
12
12
8
6
5
1
DIRECT the Office of the Administrative Services,
OCA, to SUBMIT to the Department of Budget
and Management (DBM) the newly created
positions to be included in the Personnel Services
Itemization (PSI) of the RTC for inclusion in the
General Appropriations Act for funding purposes;
(Next page)
24
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
A.M. No. 13-7-144-RTC (continued)
g. DIRECT the Financial Management Office,
OCA, to SUBMIT thereafter to the DBM the
funding requirements for the full
implementation of Republic Act No. 10300;
h. DIRECT the DBM to RELEASE the
Supplemental Allotment Release Order
(SARO) and the corresponding Notice of Cash
Allocation (NCA) for the full implementation
of Republic Act No. 10300;
i.
HOLD IN ABEYANCE the organization of
Branch 106, RTC, Cajidiocan, Romblon until
such time that the DBM has released the SARO
and the corresponding NCA for the full
operation of the subject court; and
j.
ORDER the amendment of all court records
to conform with this development.”
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
A.M. No. 11-10-03-O
EN BANC
RE: LETTER DATED APRIL 18, 2011 OF CHIEF PUBLIC
ATTORNEY PERSIDA RUEDA ACOSTA REQUESTING
EXEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT OF SHERIFF’S
EXPENSES
Promulgated:
July 30, 2013
x————————————————————————x
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
This case stemmed from the February 7, 2011 letter1 of
Attorney Persida V. Rueda-Acosta (Atty. Acosta), Chief
Public Attorney of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), to
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In the said
letter, Atty. Acosta sought a clarification as to the
exemption of PAO’s clients from the payment of sheriff’s
expenses, alleging that PAO’s clients in its Regional Office
in Region VII are being charged with the payment of
sheriff’s expenses in the amount of P1,000 upon the filing
1
Rollo, pp. 5–6.
of a civil action in court. She claimed that sheriff’s expenses
should not be exacted from PAO’s clients since Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 94062 (RA No. 9406) specifically exempts
them from the payment of docket and other fees incidental
to instituting an action in court and other quasi-judicial
bodies.
In its letter3 dated March 23, 2011 to Atty. Acosta, the
OCA clarified that PAO’s clients, notwithstanding their
exemption under Section 6 of RA No. 9406 from payment
of “docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action
in court,” are not exempted from the payment of sheriff’s
expenses. The OCA explained that sheriff’s expenses, strictly
speaking, are not considered as “legal fees” under Rule
141 of the Rules of Court since they are not payable to the
government; they are payable to the sheriff/process server
to defray his travel expenses in serving court processes in
relation to the litigant’s case.
In her letter4 dated April 18, 2011 to the OCA, Atty.
Acosta maintained that, while sheriff’s expenses may not
be strictly considered as a legal fee, they are nevertheless
considered as a fee which is incidental to the filing of an
action in court and, hence, should not be exacted from
PAO’s clients. She pointed out that the imposition of sheriff’s
expenses on PAO’s clients would render the latter’s
exemption from payment of docket and other fees under
Section 6 of RA No. 9406 nugatory. Considering that the
matter involves an interpretation of RA No. 9406, Atty.
Acosta requested that the same be referred to the Court
en banc for resolution.
In its report and recommendation5 dated September
14, 2011, the OCA maintained its position that PAO’s clients
are not exempted from the payment of sheriff’s expenses;
it stressed that the P1,000 sheriff’s expenses are not the
same as the sheriff’s fee fixed by Section 10, Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court and, hence, not covered by the
exemption granted to PAO’s clients under RA No. 9406.
The OCA further alleged that the grant of exemption to
PAO’s clients from the payment of sheriff’s expenses
amounts to disbursement of public funds for the protection
of private interests. Accordingly, the OCA recommended
that Atty. Acosta’s request for exemption of PAO’s clients
from payment of sheriff’s expenses be denied.
2
An Act Reorganizing and Strengthening the Public
Attorney’s Office (PAO), Amending for the Purpose the
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.
3
Rollo, pp. 15–16.
4
Id. at 19–21.
5
Id. at 1–4.
25
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
A.M. No. 11-10-03-O (continued)
Adopting the recommendation of the OCA, the Court
en banc issued Resolution6 dated November 22, 2011 which
denied Atty. Acosta’s request for exemption from the
payment of sheriff’s expenses.
On January 2, 2012, Atty. Acosta sought a
reconsideration7 of the Court’s Resolution dated November
22, 2011, which the Court en banc referred to the OCA for
appropriate action. In its report and recommendation8
dated March 22, 2012, the OCA averred that the exemption
of PAO’s clients from payment of legal fees is not an absolute
rule and that the Court is not precluded from providing
limitations thereto. Thus, the OCA recommended the denial
of Atty. Acosta’s motion for reconsideration.
On April 24, 2012, the Court en banc issued a
Resolution9 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by Atty. Acosta.
if there are extraordinarily persuasive reasons therefor,
and upon express leave of court first obtained.13
Ordinarily, the Court would have dismissed outright
Atty. Acosta’s second motion for reconsideration. However,
for reasons to be discussed at length later, there is a need
to give due course to the instant petition in order to reassess
and clarify the Court’s pronouncement in our Resolutions
dated November 22, 2011 and April 24, 2012.
In any case, it bears stressing that what is involved in
this case is the Court’s administrative power to determine
its policy vis-à-vis the exaction of legal fees from the
litigants. The Court’s policy determination respecting
administrative matters must not be unnecessarily bound
by procedural considerations. Surely, a rule of procedure
may not debilitate the Court and render inutile its power of
administration and supervision over court procedures.
At the core of this case is the proper interpretation of
Section 6 of RA No. 9406 which, in part, reads:
SEC. 6. New sections are hereby inserted in Chapter
5, Title III, Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, to
read as follows:
Unperturbed, Atty. Acosta filed a motion for leave to
file a second motion for reconsideration10 and a Second
Motion for Reconsideration11 of the Court’s Resolution
dated April 24, 2012, alleging that the imposition of sheriff’s
expenses on PAO’s clients is contrary to the language, intent
and spirit of Section 6 of RA No. 9406 since sheriff’s expenses
are considered as fees “incidental to instituting an action
in court.” Further, she claimed that the said imposition on
PAO’s clients would hinder their access to the courts
contrary to the mandate of Section 11, Article III of the
Constitution.
xxxx
SEC. 16-D. Exemption from Fees and Costs
of the Suit – The clients of 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.
After a conscientious review of the contrasting legal
disquisitions set forth in this case, the Court still finds the
instant petition devoid of merit.
At the outset, it bears stressing that this is already the
third attempt of Atty. Acosta to obtain from this Court a
declaration exempting PAO’s clients from the payment of
sheriff’s fees – the initial request therefor and the
subsequent motion for reconsideration having been denied
by this Court. As a rule, a second motion for reconsideration
is a prohibited pleading.12 This rule, however, is not cast in
stone. A second motion for reconsideration may be allowed
6
Id. at 24.
7
Id. at 25–43.
8
Id. at 84–87.
9
Id. at 88.
10
Id. at 89–98.
11
Id. at 99–123.
12
Section 2, Rule 52 in relation to Section 4, Rule 56 of the
RULES OF COURT.
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 ours)
The OCA maintains that sheriff’s expenses are not
covered by the exemption granted to PAO’s clients under
RA No. 9406 since the same are not considered as a legal
fee under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Stated differently,
the OCA asserts that the exemption provided for under RA
No. 9406 only covers the legal fees enumerated under Rule
141 of the Rules of Court.
The court agrees.
13
See Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco, 324
Phil. 483, 489 (1996).
(Next page)
26
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
A.M. No. 11-10-03-O (continued)
authorized persons in the service of summons,
subpoena and other court processes that would be
issued relative to the trial of the case. In case the
initial deposit of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000)
is not sufficient, then the plaintiff or petitioner shall
be required to make an additional deposit. The
sheriff, process server or other court authorized
person shall submit to the court for its approval a
statement of the estimated travel expenses for
service of summons and court processes. Once
approved, the Clerk of Court shall release the money
to said sheriff or process server. After service, a
statement of liquidation shall be submitted to the
court for approval. After rendition of judgment by
the court, any excess from the deposit shall be
returned to the party who made the deposit.
It is a well-settled principle of legal hermeneutics that
words of a statute will be interpreted in their natural, plain
and ordinary acceptation and signification, unless it is
evident that the legislature intended a technical or special
legal meaning to those words. The intention of the
lawmakers–who are, ordinarily, untrained philologists and
lexicographers–to use statutory phraseology in such a
manner is always presumed.14
That Section 6 of RA No. 9406 exempts PAO’s clients
from the payment of “docket and other fees incidental to
instituting an action in court and other quasi-judicial bodies”
is beyond cavil. However, contrary to Atty. Acosta’s claim,
a plain reading of the said provision clearly shows that the
exemption granted to PAO’s clients cannot be extended to
the payment of sheriff’s expenses; the exemption is
specifically limited to the payment of fees, i.e., docket and
other fees incidental to instituting an action.
The term “fees” is defined as a charge fixed by law or
by an institution for certain privileges or services.15 Viewed
from this context, the phrase “docket and other fees
incidental to instituting an action” refers to the totality of
the legal fees imposed under Rule 14116 of the Rules of
Court. In particular, it includes filing or docket fees, appeal
fees, fees for issuance of provisional remedies, mediation
fees, sheriff’s fees, stenographer’s fees and commissioner’s
fees.17 These are the fees that are exacted for the services
rendered by the court in connection with the action
instituted before it.
Sheriff’s expenses, however, cannot be classified as a
“fee” within the purview of the exemption granted to PAO’s
clients under Section 6 of RA No. 9406. Sheriff’s expenses
are provided for under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, viz:
x x x x (Emphasis ours)
Sheriff’s expenses are not exacted for any service
rendered by the court; they are the amount deposited to
the Clerk of Court upon filing of the complaint to defray the
actual travel expenses of the sheriff, process server or other
court-authorized persons in the service of summons,
subpoena and other court processes that would be issued
relative to the trial of the case. It is not the same as sheriff’s
fees under Section 10,18 Rule 141 of the Rules of Court,
18
S EC . 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS and other persons
serving processes. –
a.
For serving summons and copy of complaint, for each
defendant, TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200);
b.
For serving subpoenas in civil action or OTHER
proceedings, for each witness to be served, ONE
HUNDRED PESOS (P100);
c.
For executing a writ of attachment against the
property of defendant, FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500)
per defendant;
d.
For serving and implementing a temporary restraining
order, or writ of injunction, preliminary or final, of
any court, THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P300) per
defendant;
e.
For executing a writ of replevin, FIVE HUNDRED PESOS
(P500);
f.
For filing bonds or other instruments of indemnity or
security in provisional remedies, for each bond or
instrument, ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P100);
g.
For executing a writ or process to place a party in
possession of real PROPERTY OR estates, THREE
HUNDRED PESOS (P300) per property;
h.
For SERVICES RELATING TO THE POSTING AND
PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER RULE 39
(EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF
JUDGMENTS) AND IN EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF
MORTGAGE BY SHERIFF OR NOTARY PUBLIC besides
the cost of publication, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY
PESOS (P150);
S EC . 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS and other
persons serving processes. –
xxxx
In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, the
amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000) shall be
deposited with the Clerk of Court upon filing of the
complaint to defray the actual travel expenses of
the sheriff, process server or other court14
People v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. No. 167304,
August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 49, 65.
15
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, p. 833.
16
As amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC which took effect on
August 16, 2004.
17
Re: Request of National Committee on Legal Aid to Exempt
Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing, Docket and Other Fees,
A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 350.
27
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
A.M. No. 11-10-03-O (continued)
which refers to those imposed by the court for services
rendered to a party incident to the proceedings before it.
Thus, in In Re: Exemption of Cooperatives from
Payment of Court and Sheriff’s Fees Payable to the
Government in Actions Brought Under RA No. 6938,19 the
Court clarified that sheriff’s expenses are not considered
as legal fees, ratiocinating that:
The difference in the treatment between the sheriff’s
fees and the sheriff’s expenses in relation with the
exemption enjoyed by cooperatives is further
demonstrated by the wording of Section 10, Rule
141, which uses “fees” in delineating the
enumeration in the first paragraph, and “expenses”
in qualifying the subsequent paragraphs of this
provision. The intention to make a distinction
between the two charges is clear; otherwise, the
Rules would not have used different designations.
Likewise, the difference between the two terms is
highlighted by a consideration of the phraseology
in the first sentence of the second paragraph of
Section 10, Rule 141, which uses the clause “in
addition to the fees hereinabove fixed,” thereby
unequivocally indicating that sheriff’s expenses are
separate charges on top of the sheriff’s fees. (Italics
supplied)
The Court, however, is not unmindful of the
predicament of PAO’s clients. In exempting PAO’s clients
from paying docket and other legal fees, RA No. 9406
intended to ensure that the indigents and the less
i.
For taking inventory of goods levied upon when the
inventory is ordered by the court, THREE HUNDRED
PESOS (P300) per day or actual inventory;
j.
For levying on execution on personal or real property,
THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P300);
k.
For issuing a notice of garnishment, for each notice,
ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P100);
l.
For money collected by him ACTUAL OR
CONSTRUCTIVE (WHEN HIGHEST BIDDER IS THE
MORTGAGEE AND THERE IS NO ACTUAL COLLECTION
OF MONEY) by order, execution, attachment, or any
other process, judicial or extrajudicial which shall
immediately be turned over to the Clerk of Court, the
following sums shall be paid to the clerk of court to
wit:
1. On the first FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P4,000), FIVE
AND A HALF (5.5%) per centum;
2. On all sums in excess of FOUR THOUSAND PESOS
(P4,000), THREE (3%) per centum;
xxxx
19
A.M. No. 03-4-01-0 dated September 1, 2009.
privileged, who do not have the means to pay the said fees,
would not be denied access to courts by reason of poverty.
Indeed, requiring PAO’s clients to pay sheriff’s expenses,
despite their exemption from the payment of docket and
other legal fees, would effectly fetter their free access to
the courts thereby negating the laudable intent of Congress
in enacting RA No. 9406.
Free access to the courts and adequate legal assistance
are among the fundamental rights which the Constitution
extends to the less privileged. Thus, Section 11, Article III
of the 1987 Constitution mandates that “[f]ree access to
the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty.” The Constitution affords litigants—moneyed or
poor—equal access to the courts; moreover, it specifically
provides that poverty shall not bar any person from having
access to the courts. Accordingly, laws and rules must be
formulated, interpreted, and implemented pursuant to the
intent and spirit of this constitutional provision.20
Access to justice by all, especially by the poor, is not
simply an ideal in our society. Its existence is essential in a
democracy and in the rule of law.21 Without doubt, one of
the most precious rights which must be shielded and secured
is the unhampered access to the justice system by the poor,
the underprivileged and the marginalized.22
Having the foregoing principles in mind, the Court,
heeding the constitutional mandate of ensuring free access
to the courts and adequate legal assistance to the
marginalized and less privileged, hereby authorizes the
officials and employees of PAO to serve summons, subpoena
and other court processes pursuant to Section 3,23 Rule 14
of the Rules of Court. The authority given herein by the
Court to the officials and employees of PAO shall be limited
only to cases involving their client.
Authorizing the officials and employees of PAO to serve
the summons, subpoenas and other court processes in
behalf of their clients would relieve the latter from the
burden of paying for the sheriff’s expenses despite their
non-exemption from the payment thereof under Section 6
of RA No. 9406. The amount to be defrayed in the service
of summons, subpoena and other court processes in behalf
of its clients would consequently have to be taken from the
20
Spouses Algura v. Local Government Unit of the City of Naga,
536 Phil. 819 (2006)
21
Supra note 17, at 356.
22
Supra note 20.
23
SEC. 3. By whom served. — The summons may be served by
the sheriff, his deputy, or other proper court officer, or for
justifiable reasons by any suitable person authorized by
the court issuing the summons.
(Next page)
28
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
A.M. No. 11-10-03-O (continued)
operating expenses of PAO. In turn, the amount advanced
by PAO as actual travel expenses may be taken from the
amount recovered from the adversaries of PAO’s clients as
costs of suit, attorney’s fees or contingent fees prior to the
deposit thereof in the National Treasury.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
disquisitions, the Second Motion for Reconsideration filed
by Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta is DENIED. The Court’s
Resolutions dated November 22, 2011 and April 24, 2012
are hereby AFFIRMED. The request of Atty. Persida V.
Rueda-Acosta for the exemption of the clients of the Public
Attorney’s Office from the payment of sheriff’s expenses is
DENIED.
Nevertheless, the officials and employees of the Public
Attorney’s Office are hereby AUTHORIZED to serve
summons, subpoenas and other court processes in behalf
of their clients pursuant to Section 3, Rule 14 of the Rules
of Court, in coordination with the concerned court. The
amount to be defrayed in serving the summons, subpoenas
and other court processes could be taken from the
operating expenses of the Public Attorney’s Office which,
in turn, may be taken from the amount recovered by it
from the adversaries of PAO’s clients as costs of suit,
attorney’s fees or contingent fees prior to the deposit
thereof in the National Treasury, or damages that said
clients may be decreed as entitled to in case of the success
of PAO’s indigent clients.
SO ORDERED.
(Sgd.) BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR: SERENO, CJ, CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL
CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, Jr., PEREZ, MENDOZA,
PERLAS-BERNABE, LEONEN, JJ.
Chairperson:
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno
Working Chairperson:
Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen
Vice Chairperson:
Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez
Members:
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals
Presiding Justice or Acting Presiding Justice of the
Sandiganbayan
Presiding Justice of the Court of Tax Appeals
ACA Theodore O. Te
Chief, Public Information Office
PHILJA Vice Chancellor Justo P. Torres, Jr.
Philippine Judges Association President
Philippine Trial Judges League President
Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the
Philippines President
Representative of the Office of the Chief Justice
Secretariat:
Atty. Christine Veloso Lao
Atty. Ronald Evangelista
The Chairpersons, Vice Chairperson, Members and the
Secretariat of the above committee shall receive the
expense allowance presently authorized.
This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its
issuance this 12th day of August 2013.
(Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson, First Division
(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Chairperson, Second Division
(Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, Jr.
Chairperson, Third Division
Memorandum Order No. 30-2013
REORGANIZING THE COMMITTEE ON CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION AND BAR MATTERS
Memorandum Order No. 25-2013
REORGANIZING THE COMMITTEE ON SECURITY
In view of the existing vacancies in the Committee on
Security, it is hereby reorganized as follows:
In view of the retirement, resignation, death and expiration
of the term of the Committee’s former members, the
Committee on Continuing Legal Education and Bar Matters
is hereby reorganized as follows:
Chairperson:
Justice Roberto A. Abad
29
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
Memo. Order No. 30-2013 (continued)
Vice Chairperson:
Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe
Members:
Justice Diosdado M. Peralta
Chairperson, 2014 Bar Exams
Justice Bernardo P. Pardo
Chairperson
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Board
Justice Hilarion L. Aquino
Representative, Legal Education Board
Dean Danilo L. Concepcion
Head, UP Law Center
Dean Perry L. Pe
Representative
Philippine Association of Law Schools
Atty. Jose Aguila Grapilon
Representative
Philippine Association of Law Professors
OCA Circular No. 78-2013
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST
AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON ANY LAWSUITS
FILED OR PENDING AGAINST THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC
BEFORE ANY COURT IN THE PHILIPPINES
Pursuant to the Note Verbale from the Embassy of the
Argentine Republic dated May 2, 2013 inquiring if there
are any lawsuits filed or pending against the Argentine
Republic before any court in the Philippines, you are hereby
directed to submit a report to the Office of the Court
Administrator, through the Court Management Office
within 30 days of receipt hereof, of any such pending suit
before your respective jurisdictions.
For strict compliance.
Atty. Vicente M. Joyas
Representative, Integrated Bar of the Philippines
June 13, 2013.
Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa
SC Bar Confidant
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
Secretariat:
Atty. May Rachel S. Nolasco-Silangil
Office of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad
Mrs. Elnora P. Maranan
Office of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad
Mr. Mick Jude Sun
Office of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad
The Chairperson, Members and Secretariat shall each
be entitled to the expense allowance prescribed in
Administrative Circular No. 13-99 dated September 20,
1999.
This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its
issuance.
rd
Issued this 3 day of September 2013.
(Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson, First Division
(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
(Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, Jr.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
OCA Circular No. 80-2013
TO: ALL JUDGES AND BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: REPORT ON CASES INVOLVING VIOLATION OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9208 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
“ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 2003,” AS
AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10364 OR THE
“EXPANDED ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 2012”
To effectively monitor trafficking in persons cases, all judges
and clerks of court of the Regional Trial Courts are hereby
DIRECTED to report to the Office of the Court Administrator
pending cases involving violation of RA No. 9208 as
amended, indicating therein the docket number, date of
filing, case title, nature, date of arraignment and latest
status, using the attached form.*
∗
See attached form Annex: A “Inventory of Cases Regarding
Cases on Human Trafficking,” on page 38.
(Next page)
30
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
OCA Circular No. 80-2013 (continued)
The report shall be submitted to the Court
Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, via
regular
mail
or
electronic
mail
at
[email protected], within 20 days from
receipt of this notice.
For immediate and strict compliance.
June 25, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA Circular No. 83-2013
(MISO) be authorized to immediately implement the
enhancement of Court Administration Management
Information System (CAMIS) duly incorporating the revised
forms. The Committee explained that it is practical to
require the simultaneous submission of both forms while
the MISO is undertaking the completion of the enhanced
CAMIS in order that the users of the new forms will be
thoroughly acquainted with using it and in order to have
room for feedbacks from the lower courts.
In view thereof, all the concerned lower courts are
hereby DIRECTED to submit their monthly report of cases,
using the approved new forms∗ under Administrative
Circular No. 81-2012, in addition to the Monthly Report of
Cases under Administrative Circular No. 4-2004 beginning
the month of June 2013.
For your guidance and strict compliance.
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT/BRANCH CLERKS
OF COURT/OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF MONTHLY REPORT OF CASES
USING THE APPROVED NEW FORMS UNDER
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 81-2012 DATED
SEPTEMBER 17, 2012, IN ADDITION TO THE MONTHLY
REPORT OF CASES UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR
NO. 4-2004 DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2004
Administrative Circular No. 81-2012 dated September 17,
2012 (Re: New Forms, Guidelines, Instructions and Rules in
Accomplishing the Monthly Report of Cases) (a) provides
for the new forms to be used by the concerned first and
second level courts and the guidelines, instructions and
rules in accomplishing the Monthly Report of Cases; and (b)
repeals and supersedes Administrative Circular No. 4-2004
dated February 4, 2004 (Re: Revised Forms, Guidelines and
Instructions in Accomplishing the Monthly Report of Cases).
With respect thereto, on December 28, 2012, the
Honorable Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno
approved the recommendations of the OCA Reportorial
Committee in its Memorandum dated November 27, 2012
(a copy is hereto attached) that (a) the Office of the Court
Administrator, through the Court Management Office
(CMO), be authorized to require the concerned lower
courts to submit the revised monthly report of cases, in
addition to the Monthly Report of Cases under
Administrative Circular No. 4-2004; (b) the Repealing Clause
under Administrative Circular No. 81-2012 be relaxed to
accommodate the transition period until such time the
enhancement and migration of the system has taken place;
and (c) the Management Information Systems Office
June 27, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
∗
SC FORMS (a) MRC-RTC (GJ-MSS), (b) MRC-RTC (SSS), (c)
MRC-RTC (CC), (d) MRC-RTC (DC), (e) MRC-FLC, (f) MRC-RTC
(FC) available in the PHILJA website (http://
philja.judiciary.gov.ph).
OCA Circular No. 84-2013
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: INVENTORY OF HOLD-DEPARTURE ORDERS
Acting on information received from the Bureau of
Immigration that they have been receiving copies of
decisions of acquittal and orders of dismissal from various
courts which fail to incIude the cancellation of the HoldDeparture orders previously issued therein, all Regional
Trial Courts are hereby DIRECTED to immediately conduct
an inventory of cases wherein a Hold-Departure Order has
been issued and subsequently cancelled by reason of the
judgment of acquittal or the order of dismissal of the case
with respect to the party subject of the Hold-Departure
Order.
In the event that the inventory conducted would reveal
that the issued Hold-Departure order has not been
cancelled despite the judgment of acquittal/order of
dismissal of the case, the concerned court is DIRECTED to
forthwith issue the appropriate order cancelling or lifting
the Hold-Departure Order and furnish the Department of
Foreign Affairs and the Bureau of Immigration with a copy
31
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
OCA Circular No. 84-2013 (continued)
of said order within 24 hours from its promulgation/
issuance and through the fastest available means of
transmittal.
In this regard, all concerned courts are enjoined to
strictly comply with the provisions of Circular No. 39-97
(Guidelines in the Issuance of Hold-Departure Orders) which
continue to remain in force.
For strict compliance.
June 27, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA Circular No. 87-2013
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OF MANILA AND QUEZON CITY
SUBJECT: COURT RESOLUTION DATED JUNE 4, 2013 IN
A.M. NO. 03-8-02-SC
In the June 4, 2013 Resolution of the Honorable Court En
Banc, in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC (Re: Guidelines on the
Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and
Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties), the Court
Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Office of the
Court Administrator, to:
a.
b.
INCLUDE the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) in the list of agencies authorized
to file applications for search warrants
involving violations of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in the RTCs of
Manila and Quezon City; and
AMEND Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-802-SC dated January 27, 2004, to read as
follows:
CHAPTER V
SPECIFIC POWERS, PREROGATIVES AND DUTIES OF
EXECUTIVE JUDGES IN JUDICIAL SUPERVISION
xxxx
S EC . 12. Issuance of search warrants in special
criminal cases by the Regional Trial Courts of Manila
and Quezon City — The Executive Judges and,
whenever they are on official leave of absence or
are not physically present in the station, the Vice
Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon
City shall have authority to act on applications
filed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Anti-Crime
Task Force (ACTAF), and the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), for search warrants
involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions as well
as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property Code,
the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff
and Customs Code, as amended, and other relevant
laws that may hereafter be enacted by Congress,
and included herein by the Supreme Court.
The applications shall be personally endorsed by
the heads of such agencies and shall particularly
describe therein the places to be searched and/ or
the property or things to be seized as prescribed in
the Rules of Court. The Executive Judges and Vice
Executive Judges concerned shall issue the
warrants, if justified, which may be served in the
places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said
courts.
The Executive Judges and the authorized Judges
shall keep a special docket book listing names of
Judges to whom the applications are assigned, the
details of the applications and the results of the
searches and seizures made pursuant to the
warrants issued.
This Section shall be an exception to Section 2 of
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. (Amendment
emphasized)
For your information, guidance and strict compliance.
July 2, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA Circular No. 94-2013
TO: ALL EXECUTIVE JUDGES, VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGES,
AND JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: DESIGNATION OF EXECUTIVE JUDGES AND VICE
EXECUTIVE JUDGES PURSUANT TO ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER NO. 111-2011 DATED JULY 28, 2011
In Administrative Order No. 111-2011 dated July 28, 2011,
the Court designated Executive and Vice Executive Judges
“effective August 1, 2011 and to continue until July 31,
2013, or until their successors are designated, unless their
designations are sooner revoked.”
Accordingly, the Executive and Vice Executive Judges
designated in Administrative Order No. 111-2011, or those
(Next page)
32
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
OCA Circular No. 94-2013 (continued)
named thereafter, shall CONTINUE to ACT and PERFORM
their duties and responsibilities BEYOND July 31, 2013 until
their successors are designated, unless their respective
designations are sooner revoked or otherwise extended by
the Court.
For your information and guidance.
July 19, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA Circular No. 97-2013
TO: ALL CONCERNED JUDGES AND PERSONNEL OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS AND THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURTS OF QUEZON CITY
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR eRAFFLE IN QUEZON CITY
TRIAL COURTS
Pursuant to OCA Circular No. 57-2013 dated April 29, 2013,
relating to the Trial Run of the eCourt Program in Quezon
City Trial Courts, the Quezon City Regional Trial Court and
Metropolitan Trial Court were exempted from the
application of rules regarding raffle of cases under A.M.
No. 03-8-02-SC,* to pave the way for the eRaffle
component of the eCourt Program. Nevertheless, because
the eRaffle component of the eCourt Program is still being
refined based on results of the trial run, certain concerns
have arisen which necessitate the issuance of these
guidelines.
ACCORDINGLY, these Guidelines for eRaffle in Quezon
City Trial Courts are hereby adopted to assist the Executive
Judges and Vice Executive Judges of the Quezon City
Regional Trial Court and Metropolitan Trial Court in
achieving equality in the distribution or cases among the
courts in the station through eRaffle.
1. All raffle shall be done electronically. This shall
include the raffle of cases, marriages, publications
of judicial notices, and extrajudicial foreclosure of
mortgages under Act No. 3135, once the latter
have been included in the system and are already
operational.
This will apply for all types of courts and for all types of
cases, regardless of the urgent ancillary reliefs sought in
said cases, save Land Registration Cases which shall always
be assigned solely by eRaffle at a 1:1 ratio.
3. To further achieve equality in the distribution of
cases in Quezon City, considering the great
disparity in the volume of cases assigned to certain
types of court, the following rules shall be
observed:
3.a. All courts with Acting Presiding Judges
who are designated full time to act in
Quezon City shall henceforth be assigned
new cases by eRaffle at a ratio of 2:1, like
other incumbent judges. When a new
judge is appointed to a court where an
Acting Judge is assigned, the new judge
will only have the balance of the disparity
in that court’s caseload with the other
courts of the same type in the station to
equalize with, at a 6:2:1 ratio.
3.b. The two designated Commercial Courts
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branches 90 and 93, shall henceforth be
assigned other cases cognizable by
regular courts, pursuant to III.A. 7(c)(3)
of the Manual for Executive Judges and
OCA Circular No. 82-2003, June 20, 2003,
at a ratio of 2:1, like other incumbent
judges.
newly appointed judges): 2 (for incumbent judges):
4. The re-raffle of cases where a declaration of failed
JDR has been made shall also be done by eRaffle
and the replacement for each case unloaded by
any court due to failed JDR shall also be a case
unloaded by another court also due to failed JDR.
No new case shall be assigned to replace a case
unloaded by a court due to failed JDR.
Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges
and Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties, effective
February 15, 2004.
5. Other matters relating to the assignment of cases
by eRaffle among Quezon City Trial Courts which
are not expressly provided for herein shall be
2.
∗
1 (for the Executive Judge). Since the eRaffle
system has not yet been configured to capture
this ratio, to allow the courts with new judges to
equalize their caseload with the other courts in
the station, as mandated under the Manual for
Executive Judges, whenever a case is assigned by
eRaffle to a court with a newly appointed judge,
that first case assigned by eRaffle plus the five
succeeding cases on the list for eRaffle shall be
assigned automatically to the same court with the
newly assigned judge so that that court will receive
the mandated six cases.
To equalize the distribution of cases, A.M. No. 038-02-SC fixed the ratio of cases for raffle at 6 (for
33
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
OCA Circular No. 97-2013 (continued)
addressed to the Executive Raffle Committee,
respectively, of the Regional Trial Court and the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City for action,
consistent with the objectives of the eCourt
Program and the rules for the raffle of cases under
A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC.
For strict compliance.
July 23, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA Circular No. 99-2013
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT IN QUEZON CITY
TRIAL COURTS
WHEREAS, the Committee (on the Proposed Practice
Guidelines for Quezon City Courts) is constrained to request
for an extension of six months from April 16, 2013, or until
October 16, 2013 within which to submit its Final Report to
the Supreme Court;
WHEREAS, in the meantime, there is a need to clarify
whether the Practice Guidelines shall continue to remain
in force and effect, pending the submission of the Final
Report by the Committee and the subsequent action of the
Court thereon;
WHEREAS, the continuous effectivity of the Practice
Guidelines, pending the submission of the Final Report and
the subsequent action of the Court thereon, is favorable
for a more expeditious resolution of cases;
NOW THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Practice Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts
shall remain in force and effect, pending the submission of
the Final Report by the Committee and the subsequent
action of the Court thereon, and until further notice from
the Court.
For strict compliance.
SUBJECT: A.M. NO. 11-6-10-SC (RE: GUIDELINES FOR
LITIGATION IN QUEZON CITY TRIAL COURTS)
WHEREAS, in the Resolution dated February 21, 2012 in
A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC (Re: Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon
City Trial Courts), the Court en banc “(r)esolved to APPROVE
the Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts,”
otherwise referred to as Practice Guidelines;
WHEREAS, paragraph F of the Practice Guidelines
provides that the Practice Guidelines “shall take effect on
April 16, 2012, after its publication for two consecutive
weeks in two newspapers of general circulation in the
country and after posting for one month at all floors of the
Hall of Justice of Quezon City, including at the Offices of the
Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Court and the
Metropolitan Trial Court;”
WHEREAS, there is nothing in the Practice Guidelines
that provides for the duration of its effectivity;
WHEREAS, paragraph E (b) of the Practice Guidelines
in part provides that “at the end of the 12th month from
such date of effectivity, the Committee (on the Proposed
Practice Guidelines for Quezon City Courts) shall prepare
and submit a Final Report on the project to the Supreme
Court;”
WHEREAS, it is difficult to fully assess the effectiveness
of the Practice Guidelines within a short span of time
considering that the cases covered were only filed after
April 16, 2012, and many of these cases are still at their
preliminary stages, e.g., exchange of pleadings and pretrial;
July 29, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA Circular No. 100-2013
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT IN THE QUEZON
CITY TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: EXEMPTION FROM OCA CIRCULAR NO. 83-2013
REQUIRING SUBMISSION OF MONTHLY REPORTS OF
CASES USING THE APPROVED NEW FORMS
On June 27, 2013, OCA Circular No. 83-2013 was issued
directing all Regional Trial Courts (RTC’s) and Metropolitan
Trial Courts (MeTC’s) to “submit their monthly report of
cases using the approved forms under Administrative
Circular No. 81-2012, in addition to the Monthly Report of
Cases under Administrative Circular No. 4-2004, beginning
the month of June 2013.”
Considering that the Quezon City RTC’s and MeTC’s
are already fully implementing the eCourt Project, which
has its own facility for monthly reporting, the Quezon City
RTC’s and MeTC’s are hereby EXEMPT from OCA Circular
No. 83-2013. Instead, they shall accomplish their monthly
reports through the forms incorporated in the eCourt
system as recommended by the Technical Working Group
for the Quezon City eCourts (TWG4QCeCourts) Program
and approved by the undersigned.
(Next page)
34
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
OCA Circular No. 100-2013 (continued)
The Quezon City eCourts shall commence the
submission of their monthly reports through the eCourts
system for the period beginning June 2013 subject to the
updating of the said forms and the configuration of any
changes therein, as recommended by the TWG4QCeCourts
and approved by the undersigned.
For strict compliance.
August 5, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA Circular No. 101-2013
TO: ALL EXECUTIVE/PRESIDING JUDGES OF THE FIRST
LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10158 (AN ACT DECRIMINALIZING
VAGRANCY, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLE 202
OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE)
Republic Act No. 10158, entitled An Act Decriminalizing
Vagrancy, Amending for this Purpose Article 202 of Act
No. 3815, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised
Penal Code, was passed into law on March 27, 2012 and
published in the Official Gazette on May 14, 2012. Sections
2 and 3 thereof provide:
SEC. 2. Effect on Pending Cases. — All pending cases
under the provisions of Article 202 of the Revised
Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its amendment
by this Act shall be dismissed upon effectivity of
this Act.
SEC. 3. Immediate Release of Convicted Persons.
— All persons serving sentence for violation of the
provisions of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code
on Vagrancy prior to its amendment by this Act
shall be immediately released upon effectivity of
this Act: Provided, That they are not serving
sentence or detained for any other offense or
felony.
For your information and guidance.
August 5, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA Circular No. 103-2013
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF SINGLE-SALA
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OUTSIDE THE NATIONAL
CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION AND MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
IN ALL JUDICIAL REGIONS
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
AUTOMATED PAYROLL SYSTEM IN THE SINGLE-SALA
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OUTSIDE THE NATIONAL
CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION AND THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS IN ALL JUDICIAL REGIONS
Further to OCA Circular No. 18-2013 which provided the
guidelines in the implementation of the Automated Payroll
System (APS) in the Multi-Sala Regional Trial Courts outside
the National Capital Judicial Region and the Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities in all Judicial Regions, the following
guidelines shall be observed in the implementation of the
APS in the Single-Sala Regional Trial Courts outside the
National Capital Judicial Region and the Municipal Trial
Courts in all Judicial Regions:
1. All judges and court personnel shall open their
respective ATM Payroll Savings Accounts with the
branch of the LBP nearest their official station.
Executive Judges and Clerks of Court shall coordinate
with the LBP Branch Manager as to the opening of the
individual ATM Payroll Savings Account of judges and
court personnel.
2. The requirements for the opening of an individual ATM
Payroll Savings Account are as follows:
a. A duly accomplished application form and
specimen card by the judge and court personnel
properly authenticated by the Executive Judge;
b. Photocopies of two valid identification cards which
include the Supreme Court ID; and
c.
1 x 1 recent ID picture.
3. After the opening of the accounts of the judges and
court personnel, the Clerks of Court shall submit the
list of the ATM Account Numbers with the individual
photocopies of the ATM cards to the Financial
Management Office (FMO), Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA). Thereafter, the FMO-OCA shall
submit the list to the LBP-SC Extension Office for
validation before inclusion of the names of judges and
court personnel in the APS Masterlist Payroll
maintained by the EDP Division, Fiscal Management
and Budget Office, Supreme Court. The individual
photocopies of the ATM cards shall then be forwarded
to the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), OCA, to
35
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
OCA Circular No. 103-2013 (continued)
be attached to the personal records of the judges and
court personnel.
4. The APS shall cover the releases for the payment of
salaries, regular allowances as authorized by the
General Appropriations Act (GAA) as well as allowances
and other fringe benefits, if any, as may be authorized
by the Chief Justice.
5. The ATM Payroll Savings Account shall be subject to
the initial opening and maintaining balance of P100,
and a minimum balance requirement of P500 to earn
interest. Judges and court personnel shall have the
option to open a current account with ATM access,
with a maintaining balance of P5,000.
6. Inquiry on individual bank balances and statements of
account can be effected through enrollment in the IAccess facility of the LBP for savings account and current
account. Inquiries can likewise be made through the
LBP Phone Banking Facility.
7. The ATM Payroll Savings Account shall be subject to
service charges imposed by the Expressnet/Megalink/
BancNet member banks on the usage of their ATMs or
those that maybe imposed in the future.
8. The Clerk of Court is hereby held accountable to
immediately report to the OAS-OCA, copy furnished
the Financial Management Office (FMO), OCA, and the
LBP branch where the accounts were opened, the
names of judges and court personnel who have ceased
their services in the court due, but not limited, to
resignation, retirement, death, transfer, and long or
unauthorized leave of absence. After receipt of the
notice from the clerk of court, the names of the judges
or court personnel shall forthwith be excluded from
the payroll with notice to the LBP for the termination
of the accounts.
9. Release of salaries and allowances which were
previously directed to be withheld shall only be credited
one month after receipt of the notice of release.
10. Non-crediting of salaries and allowances which are
directed to be withheld shall only be for a period of six
months. Thereafter, the name of the judge or court
personnel shall already be excluded from the payroll.
11. The payroll credit dates are as follows:
Regular Salaries
RATA
EME
- every 12th and 27th of the month
- on or before the 7th working day of
every month
- on or before the 7 th day of the
following month
Regular Allowances:
as may be provided
for by the GAA
-
as may be authorized by the
Chief Justice
Other allowances and
fringe benefits, if any -
as may be authorized by the
Chief Justice
However, the payroll credit dates of the regular salaries
and allowances provided for under the GAA shall strictly be
subject to the release of cash allocation from the national
government. If the payroll credit date falls on a Saturday,
Sunday or holiday, crediting shall be on the Friday or the
day before the holiday.
12. All judges and court personnel are directed to timely
submit to the OAS-OCA their Certificates of Services/
Daily Time Records to avoid the withholding of salaries
and regular allowances.
13. Newly-appointed judges and court personnel shall
individually open their ATM Payroll Savings Account
with the LBP Branch nearest their official station.
Thereafter, they shall submit to OAS-OCA, the
photocopies of their ATM cards for validation and for
inclusion in the APS payroll.
14. The List of ATM Account Numbers and the individual
photocopies of the ATM cards shall be submitted to
the FMO-OCA on or before the last working day of
September 2013. Concerned judges and court
personnel shall be informed accordingly on the
commencement of the APS. Thereafter, no checks for
payment of the regular salaries and other allowances
shall be released.
For strict compliance.
August 7, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA Circular No. 107-2013
TO: ALL EXECUTIVE JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND
LEVEL COURTS, AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JUDGES OF
SINGLE SALA STATIONS
SUBJECT: NEW GUIDELINES ON JAIL VISITATION AND
INSPECTION (A.M. NO. 07-3-02-SC)
Pursuant to the Resolution dated January 8, 2013 in A.M.
No. 07-3-02-SC (Re: Committee on Lower Court Reportorial
Requirements) and A.M. No. 09-10-400-RTC (Re: Request
(Next page)
36
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
OCA Circular No. 107-2013 (continued)
The Report (Form 2) shall include the following
information:
of Judges for the Suspension of the Enforcement of Jail
Visitation and Inspection in Accordance with A.M. No. 073-02-SC), the Court En Banc resolved to ADOPT the
recommendation of the Committee on Lower Court
Reportorial Requirements that the conduct of jail visitation
and inspection by the (1) Executive Judges of all first and
second level courts and (2) RTC judges of single stations be
resumed or continued, subject to the modification that
the same be done on a quarterly basis; and APPROVE in
principle the proposed New Guidelines on Jail Visitation
and Inspection, subject to the above modification, thus:
New Guidelines on Jail Visitation and Inspection
(A.M. No. 07-3-02-SC)
Name and age of the detention
prisoner, case number, crime charged,
start of the date of detention, duration
of detention, status of the case
(arraignment, pre-trial, reception of
prosecution evidence or reception of
defense evidence, submitted for
decision); and
b.
Health condition of the adult
prisoners and CICL as submitted by
the BJMP/ provincial or city jail/youth
detention homes/youth rehabilitation
centers medical staff during the jail
visitation and inspection.
As to the prisoner/s who is/are placed under
detention equivalent to or beyond the maximum
period of the imposable penalty, the concerned
Executive Judge and RTC Judge of a single sala
station is required to immediately act on the case
or to advise and direct the concerned presiding
judge/s to immediately act on the case involving
said detention prisoner/s pursuant to the
provisions of Article 29, last paragraph, of the
Revised Penal Code. With respect to children in
conflict with the law, the provisions of Article 53 of
A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on Juveniles in Conflict
With the Law)1, shall equally apply. Failure on the
part of the concerned presiding judge to comply
therewith may subject him/her to administrative
sanctions. In such case, the concerned Executive
Judge and RTC Judge of a single sala station shall
immediately cause the release from detention of
the subject prisoner or children in conflict with the
law pursuant to the abovementioned Articles.
S ECTION 1. Who Shall Conduct Jail Visitation and
Inspection. — The Executive Judges of all first and
second level courts and RTC Judges of single sala
stations, accompanied by not more than two of their
staff members, shall personally conduct visitation
and inspection of the provincial or city jails as
well as other youth detention homes and youth
rehabiIitation centers within their respective
jurisdictions on a quarterly basis.
This shall also apply to Acting Executive Judges
and any RTC Judge designated as Acting Presiding
Judge of a single sala station.
SEC. 2. Duties and Responsibilities of the Presiding
Judges, Executive Judges and RTC Judges of Single
Sala Stations; Reports to be Submitted. — Ten days
prior to the scheduled quarterly visit, the concerned
Executive Judges and RTC Judges of single sala
stations shall require the presiding judge/s within
their administrative areas to submit a report (Form
1) on the total number of detainees whose cases
are pending in their sala, which shall include the
following information: name and age of the
detention prisoner, case number, crime charged,
first day of detention, duration of detention, and
status of the case.
In case the RTC Judge of a single sala station is
indisposed, or on official leave of absence, or
cannot otherwise discharge his/her duties, the
Executive Judge of the nearest RTC multiple sala
station, or in the absence of the said Executive
Judge, the Vice Executive Judge thereof shall perform
the duties in his/her stead. For this purpose, the
Clerk of Court or Officer-in-Charge of the indisposed
Judge shall inform the concerned Judge of such
absence.
The Executive Judges and RTC Judges of single sala
stations shall also require the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology (BJMP) or the Provincial
or City Wardens, and heads of youth detention
homes and youth rehabilitation centers to submit
to their office a quarterly report on the status of
the detention prisoners or accused under detention
and children in conflict with the law (CICL) whose
cases are pending before the courts within their
administrative area, preferably by branch.
The Executive Judges and RTC Judges of single sala
stations shall submit a Report on Jail Visitation
and Inspection (Form 2) every quarter, to the Court
Management Office, OCA, not later than 15 days
following the last day of every quarter.
a.
S EC . 3. Report to the Office of the Court
Administrator. — In the event that the concerned
presiding judge fails to act on the directive/s of the
Executive Judge and the RTC Judge of a single sala
station as mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 5 of
Section 2, the latter shall submit a report to the
Office of the Court Administrator within 10 days
from said non-compliance, which may warrant
administrative sanction/s to be imposed by the
Supreme Court.
1
Effective on December 1, 2009 pursuant to En Banc
Resolution dated November 24, 2009.
37
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
OCA Circular No. 107-2013 (continued)
An Executive Judge and the RTC Judge of a single
sala station who fails to perform his/her functions
as defined herein shall likewise be subjected to
administrative sanctions by the Supreme Court.
SEC. 4. Reimbursement of Transportation Expenses.
— The Executive Judge and RTC Judge of a single
sala station shall be entitled to reimbursement of
transportation/gasoline expenses in the event that
the BJMP/provincial or city jail/detention home/
rehabilitation center is more than 30 kilometers
away from his/her station, subject to existing
guidelines on reimbursement of such expenses.
S EC . 5. Security Detail during Jail Visitation and
Inspection. — Where the jail and/or detention
facility has detainees who are considered/
classified as security risks, the concerned
Executive Judge and RTC Judge of a single sala
station may request for security detail during the
conduct of the jail visitation and inspection.
SEC. 6. Dialogue with Detention Prisoners. — During
their jail visitation and inspection, the Executive
Judges and RTC Judges of single sala stations are
encouraged to invite the heads of the provincial or
city prosecution office and Public Attorney’s Office,
or their representatives, for a dialogue with
detention prisoners which may be conducted
thereat.
SEC. 7. Repealing Clause. — Any circular or guideline,
such as A.M. No. 07-3-02-SC, inconsistent with the
above new guidelines for the conduct of the jaiI
visitation and inspection as provided herein shall
be considered as having been repealed or
superseded.
2013 Upcoming PHILJA Events
(Continued from page 40)

Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial
Integrity and the Rule of Law for Executive and Vice
Executive Judges and Single Sala Court Judges
Region IV, October 24–15, Pasay City
Region V, November 12–13, Naga City

10th Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair
Lecture
November 13, Quezon City

Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed
Mediators
Metro Manila Mediation Program
November 14–15, Manila

National Convention and Seminar of the PTJLI
November 14–16, General Santos City

Judicial Settlement Conference on Judicial Dispute
Resolution
November 19–22, Iloilo City

Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys,
and Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute Resolution
November 21, Iloilo City

Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of
Court on Judicial Dispute Resolution
November 21, Iloilo City

Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for
Judges, Prosecutors, Law Enforcers and IBP Members
of Pangasinan
November 21, Lingayen, Pangasinan

FGD for Selected Court of Appeals Justices on
Problem Areas in Handling Intellectual Property
Cases
November 26, Manila

Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for
Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers
NCJR, November 26–28, Mandaluyong City

National Convention and Seminar of the FLECCAP
December 4–6, Laoag City

CET Program Evaluation and Stress Management
Seminar for PHILJA Facilitators and Trainors
December 9, Manila

CET for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases
Involving Children
December 10–12, Manila

PST for Judges
December 10–12, Tagaytay City
For your information and strict compliance.
August 30, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
(Continued on page 38)
OCA Circular No. 109-2013
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF FIRST AND
SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: COVER LETTER FOR COPIES OF ORDERS,
DECISIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY
LOWER COURTS TO THE OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR
To ensure immediate and appropriate action on copies of
orders, decisions and other documents submitted by lower
(Continued on page 22)
38
OCA Circular No. 80-2013 (continued from page 29)
OCA Circular No. 107-2013 (continued from page 37)
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
OCA Circular No. 107-2013 (continued from page 38)
39
3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial Building
Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila 1000
Philippines
PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE TO AVOID
PAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE OR
IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH
2013 Upcoming PHILJA Events

National Convention and Seminar
of the CLAPHIL
October 1–3, Panglao, Bohol

PJA Annual Convention and
Election of National Officers
October 8–10, Manila

CEP for First Level Clerks of Court
Region IV, Batch 1, October 10–11,
Tagaytay City
Region IV, Batch 2, October 17–18,
Tagaytay City
CDP for Court Legal Researchers
Region II, October 23–24, Baguio
City
Region VI, November 27–28, Iloilo
City/Bacolod City

68th Orientation Seminar Workshop
for Newly Appointed Judges
November 5–14, Tagaytay City

CET for Judges, Prosecutors, Social
Workers and Law Enforcement
Investigators Handling Trafficking in
Persons Cases
November 5–7, Tagaytay City

Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws
and Rules Relating to Money
Laundering and Other Financial
Crimes for Judges
NCJR, November 6–7, Manila


Silver Anniversary and National
Convention and Seminar of the
PACE
October 16–18, Manila

Academic Excellence Lecture Series
in the Judiciary
October 10, Manila

FGD for Judges on Problem Areas
in Handling Intellectual Property
Cases
October 18, Pasay City

RTD on International Best Practices
on Tax Mediation
October 18, Quezon City

Seminar-Workshop on Substantive
Laws and Jurisprudence on
Intellectual Property
Selected Special Commercial Court
Judges
NCJR and Regions I–V, October 22–
23, Manila
Selected Special Commercial Court
Judges and Court of Appeals
Attorneys
Mindanao, November 20–21,
Cagayan de Oro City

E-JOW
November 8, Capitol Ground,
Province of Bulacan

Validation Workshop on the Second
Draft of the Helpbook on Combating
Human Trafficking in the Philippines
November 8, Manila
(Continued on page 37)
Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna
Chancellor
Professor Sedfrey M. Candelaria
Editor in Chief
Editorial and Research Staff
Atty. Orlando B. Cariño
Arsenia M. Mendoza
Armida M. Salazar
Jocelyn D. Bondoc
Ronald P. Caraig
Judith B. Del Rosario
Christine A. Ferrer
Joanne Narciso-Medina
Charmaine S. Nicolas
Sarah Jane S. Salazar
Jeniffer P. Sison
Circulation and Support Staff
Romeo A. Arcullo
Lope R. Palermo
Daniel S. Talusig
Printing Services
Leticia G. Javier and Printing Staff
The PHILJA Bulletin is published
quarterly by the Research,
Publications and Linkages Office
of the Philippine Judicial
Academy, with office at the 3 rd
Floor of the Supreme Court
Centennial Building, Padre Faura
Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila.
Tel: 552-9524; Fax: 552-9621; E-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]; Website:
http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph