Volume XVI, Issue No. 63 July-September 2014

Transcription

1
VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 63
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2014
ISSN 2244-5862
From the Chancellor’s Desk
It was a hectic quarter for PHILJA with the usual delivery of
our various programs—the Orientation Seminar-Workshop
for Executive Judges (selected Executive Judges and Vice
Executive Judges of the Visayas) held in Cebu; the Career
Enhancement Program for RTC Clerks of Court in Region VI
(Roxas City) and Region XI (Davao City); the 70th Orientation
Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges; the 28th
Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Clerks
of Court and the 4th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for
Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process Servers (Batch 1),
both held at the PHILJA Training Center (PTC) in Tagaytay
City. Other activities also held at the PTC were the Judicial
Career Enhancement Program for selected RTC Judges of
the National Capital Judicial Region and the Career
Development Program for Court Legal Researchers of
Region VIII.
The Focus Group Discussion on the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases and the Personal Security Training
for Judges, as well as the Refresher/Advanced Course for
Court-Annexed Mediators for the Batangas, Laguna, and
Quezon Mediation Programs, also took place at the PTC.
“Glenda,” one of the most powerful typhoons to hit the
Philippines this year, dealt the Metro area and Tagaytay
City a blow dreadful enough to damage some areas of the
PTC and to cause both a power outage and water shortage.
Our commendable PTC staff and PHILJA training teams
proceeded with the scheduled activities notwithstanding
the discomfort in the typhoon’s aftermath.
In August, we headed to Dumaguete, the lovely city by
the sea, for this year’s Academic Excellence Lecture Series
in the Judiciary (AELSJ), in partnership with the Metrobank
Foundation and in cooperation with the Silliman University
College of Law and its General Education Integrative
Learning Lectures Program. Human Rights lawyer and
University of the Philippines Professor Herminio Harry L.
Roque, Jr., featured speaker, addressed an audience of
judges, lawyers, and law students in a lecture on Legal
Nuances to the Philippine Ratification of the Rome Statute
in the International Criminal Court held at the University’s
world-class Claire Isabel McGill Luce Auditorium.
In addition, quite a number of special focus seminarworkshops were carried out by PHILJA training teams all
over the country: Competency Enhancement Training for
Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving
Children (Dumaguete City); seminar-workshops on Various
Laws and Rules Relating to Money-Laundering and other
Financial Crimes held for Judges of Regions XI and XII (Davao
City) and Regions VIII and IX (Cebu City); seminars on the
Rules of Procedure on Financial Rehabilitation for Special
Commercial Court Judges and Pairing Court Judges in the
NCJR and Regions IV and V (Pasay City), Regions I to III, and
for other stakeholders (Baguio City); seminar-workshop on
Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law for
Executive and Vice Executive Judges of Regions IX to XII
(Davao City).
After a long time since the last one, and pursuant to
the Chief Justice’s directive, a Curriculum Review for the
Philippine Judicial Academy was held at the PTC which was
immediately followed by a well-attended 4 th Plenary
Assembly of the PHILJA Corps of Professors at the Court of
Appeals Auditorium in Manila.
It was at this last forum that I shared the information
that I had been elected Member of the International
Commission of Jurists for a five-year term. I will continue as
Chancellor of PHILJA but will attend and give lectures on
human rights and the rule of law in the Asian region to fulfill
two weeks a year of service.
Notwithstanding its full calendar, PHILJA continued to
assist in the Enhanced Justice on Wheels Program (EJOW)
through the delivery of the component Information
Dissemination through a Dialogue among Barangay Officials
and Court Officials in the cities of Iloilo and Bacolod in
Western Visayas, in Digos, Davao del Sur, and in Kidapawan
City in the province of Cotabato.
We also extended a hand to the 16th Convention and
Seminar of the 20,000 strong Philippine Association of Court
Employees (PACE) in Davao City, which was attended by
some 3,000 of its members, and likewise helped in the 16th
Convention and Seminar of the Metropolitan and City Judges
Association of the Philippines held in Quezon City.
The Academy, thru the Philippine Mediation Center
Office (PMCO), conducted a number of activities supporting
(Continued on page 6)
2
JULY - SEPTEMBER 2014
Contents
From the Chancellor’s Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Judicial Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trainings, Programs and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Judicial Moves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Doctrinal Reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Circulars
OCA Cir. No. 87-2014 — Guidelines on the Release
of Pensions for Judges/Pensioners and Survivorship
Pensioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 89-2014 — Small Claims Case
Monitoring System (SC2MS) Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 90-2014 — A.M. No. 12-4-6-SC (Re:
BIR Letter of Authority to Examine SC Books of
Account and other Accounting Records). . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 99-2014 — Reduction of Initial/
Opening Deposit and Maintaining Balance of
Regular Savings Account from P10,000 to P1,000
for the Fiduciary and Sheriff’s Trust Fund Accounts;
Waiver of Certification Fee on Bank Balances; and
Waiver of Fee on Requests for Snapshots and RePrinting of Bank Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 104-2014 — Court of Appeals Decision
dated June 25, 2014 in C.A. G.R. SP No. 131969 . . .
OCA Cir. No. 110-2014 — Bar Matter No. 2604
(Re: Clarification Relative to Sections 2 and 13,
RULE III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice). . . .
Cir. No. 112-2014 — Court Recognition of BJMP’s
Paralegal Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 113-2014 — Inventory of Confiscated
Property Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 115-2014 — Uniform Period and
Procedure in
the Payment of Fines in
Administrative Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 119-2014 — Conduct of Physical
Inventory and Renewal of Acknowledgment
Receipt for Equipment (ARE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 120-2014 — Piloting of a New System
for Speedy Court Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 121-2014 — Clarification on the
Collection of Postponement Fee in Consolidated
Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 122-2014 — A.M. No. 14-08-94-MeTC
(Re: Proper Fees to be Collected in Election Contests
Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay
Officials) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 125-2014 — A.M. No. 11-10-03-0 (Re:
Letter Dated April 18, 2011 of Chief Public Attorney
Persida Rueda-Acosta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Orders
Office Order No. 10-2014 — Establishing the
Standard Thickness of Case Rollos and Records . . .
Memorandum Order No. 19-2014 – Reorganizing
the Committee on Computerization and Library . .
Memorandum Order No. 20-2014 — Creating the
Committee on Family Courts and Juvenile Concerns . . . .
Fourth Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities . . .
Chancellor Azcuna Elected as ICJ Commissioner
1
3
7
20
21
27
27
28
28
28
29
29
29
30
30
31
38
39
39
41
41
42
44
The Philippine Judicial
Academy (PHILJA) takes
pride in its Chancellor,
Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna,
for his election as a
Commissioner to the International Commission of Jurists
(ICJ) [http://www.icj.org] based in Geneva, Switzerland.
Justice Azcuna’s election to the ICJ is a recognition of
PHILJA’s work in judicial education particularly in promoting
and strengthening the cause of human rights and the rule
of law in the Philippines and worldwide.
The International Commission of Jurists, composed of
eminent judges and lawyers from around the world,
promotes and protects human rights through the rule of
law to develop and strengthen national and international
justice systems. It aims to ensure the progressive
development and effective implementation of international
human rights and international humanitarian law; to secure
the realization of civil, cultural, economic, political, and
social rights; to safeguard the separation of powers; and to
guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the legal
profession. As a Commissioner, Justice Azcuna is expected
to work actively towards the fulfilment of the objectives of
the Commission and to assist in the implementation of its
programmes, especially those related to his expertise —
human rights.
Justice Azcuna, the first Filipino ICJ Commissioner, will
serve for a five-year term until 2019.
3
A Thought Piece on the Philippine Judicial Academy Curriculum Review
Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno
Chief Justice of the Philippines
In 1996, the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) was established by the Supreme Court and “charged with the formulation
and implementation of a continuing program of judicial education for justices, judges, court personnel and lawyers” (Sec.
1, A.O. No. 35-96, March 12, 1996). Two years later,1 PHILJA was given its legislative charter through the passage of
Republic Act No. 8557 (“An Act Establishing the Philippine Judicial Academy, Defining Its Powers and Functions,
Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes”).
Pursuant to the State policy to ensure the existence of
an efficient and credible Judiciary, PHILJA’s mandate is to
“provide members of the Judiciary and prospective
applicants with continuing good education and training”
(Sec. 1, RA No. 8557) by serving as a “training school for
Justices, Judges, court personnel, lawyers and aspirants to
judicial posts” (Sec. 3, RA No. 8557).
Under the last mentioned provision of RA No, 8557,
PHILJA “shall provide and implement a curriculum for
judicial education, and shall conduct seminars, workshops
and other training programs designed to upgrade (the)
legal knowledge, moral fitness, probity, efficiency, and
capability” of those it is mandated to train and educate.2
Eighteen years after the passage of PHILJA’s charter, a
curriculum review has become imperative. Modern trends
in judicial education should be recognized, and
international best practices be considered for local
application, to keep the Philippine judiciary up-to-date with
current developments. Some of my observations and
recommendations are as follows:
1. Judicial Education by Career Stages
Our programs should follow a cycle set by stages, for the
different participants. In the United States they call this
“Career Stage Education Programming” based on the
philosophy that “judicial education programming occurs
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
12 August 2014
Hon. ADOLF S. AZCUNA
Chancellor
Philippine Judicial Academy
Dear Chancellor Azcuna:
Allow me to express my gratitude to the Philippine
Judicial Academy (PHILJA) for its initiative to conduct a
curriculum review, with the goal of establishing a
strategic training plan and adapting new methods of
judicial education to address the distinct educational
needs and skill-sets of our judges and court personnel.
One of my reform visions includes a reinvigorated
PHILJA that is able to utilize modern trends in judicial
education and impart international best practices to
our judges and court personnel. I have concretized this
vision through the attached Thought-Piece, which I am
sharing with you and the participants of the curriculum
review, such that we may continue to realize our
common vision of PHILJA as the gold standard in judicial
learning and training.
(Next page)
Again, congratulations and mabuhay!
1.
Approved by President Fidel V. Ramos on February 26, 1998.
2.
SEC. 3. The PHILJA shall serve as a training school for justices,
judges, court personnel, lawyers and aspirants to judicial posts.
For this purpose, it shall provide and implement a curriculum for
judicial education, and shall conduct seminars, workshops and
other training programs designed to upgrade their legal
knowledge, moral fitness, probity, efficiency, and capability. It
shall perform such other functions and duties as may be
necessary in carrying out its mandate.
Sincerely,
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
4
along a continuum” (Issues and Trends in Judicial Branch
Education, Judicial Education Reference, Information and
Technical Transfer Project JERITT, Michigan State
University). The following stages are currently in use
internationally and may be studied:
(a) Pre-bench Programming
(b) New Judge/Employee Orientation: within the
first year
(c) Updates/Hot Topics: all career stages
(d) Mentoring
(e) Early Career Programming: 1–3 years
(f) Mid-Career Programming: 3.5–6 years
(g) Advanced Career Programming: 6+ years
(h) Retreats
Locally, new judges undergo an orientation seminar,
then after a year (which is too brief a period) participate in
a career enhancement seminar in compliance with
continuing legal education. A comparison of the programs
for these two seminars shows similarity, if not identity, in
content. While jurisprudence may have evolved in a span
of a year or more, there is so much more that PHILJA can
offer. It has been observed that, more often than not, the
same lecturer at the orientation for new judges will likewise
deliver the same lecture at the enhancement seminar, with
(hopefully) updated materials. The value-added factor is
thus diminished.
Following the career track per type of participant, I
suggest that programs be developed to advance their
respective expertises within a set time frame. For example,
PHILJA must study what programs should be conducted for
judges who have been on the bench for one to five years,
for those those who have served from five to 10 years, and
for those who have been judges for longer than that. This
would coincide with the career track of a judge who may
apply for promotion from a first level court to a second
level court after five years, and so on. The Judicial and Bar
Council, pursuant to Republic Act No. 8557 and A.O. No.
35-96, would thus have additional basis for vetting
applicants for judicial posts, in terms of knowledge and
skills training received.
Consistent with career tracking, PHILJA may also
consider developing its curriculum to allow for
specialization by Judges, after a specified period of time. It
may be considered that, part of developing one’s judicial
career is to not be a “generalist,” knowledgeable in all fields
of law but mastering none, but that one may pursue
passionately a chosen field, even as a Judge. Thus, PHILJA
could consider preparing its curriculum to allow for Judges
to become better at chosen fields, even as it continues to
strengthen Judges who choose to remain “generalists.”
2. Degree and Certificate Programs
PHILJA could further maximize its potential as a judicial
academy by offering degree programs. At present, it only
offers certificate programs which have largely not been of
use to participants who wish to obtain higher academic
credentials. Thus far, only San Beda School of Law’s Master
of Legal Studies program, which accepts PHILJA credits
from seminars attended as equivalent to class credits, has
progressed ahead of other schools in this respect. It is
suggested that by using PHILJA credits, participants may
be awarded with “diplomas” if they satisfy certain
requirements. The National Judicial College in the United
States confers a “Diploma of Judicial Skills” and a “Diploma
of Humanities and Judging.”
More significant, however, would be the grant of
degrees (e.g., Master of Judicial Studies and Ph.D. in Judicial
Studies). Majority of our judges have had no opportunity
for further studies due to “financial and time constraints.”
PHILJA should be able to partially address this need. PHILJA
could also commission a study by educators and curriculum
specialists on “equivalencies” so that the value of experience
can also lead to attainment of a higher degree.
3. Methodology for Program Delivery: “Blended
Learning”
“Interactive” learning methods produce better results,
especially in continuing education. At present, the majority
of PHILJA programs follow the traditional face-to-face
delivery format, without the interactive learning
component. A variety of delivery formats should be explored
and utilized based on the needs of the participants and the
goals of the program, thus:
1. Traditional Conference Format
2. Seminar-type Format
3. Retreats (with Strategic Mentoring)
4. Internet-based/Computer-assisted/Self-study
Format
5. Video Teleconferencing
6. Live Broadcasts
7. Clinical education, when legally possible
The last three options maximize distance learning
education. E-learning has become the trend in judicial
education. Through “webinars,” distance learners may
listen to and view presentations, then type in their
questions for the lecturer’s immediate response. Short
courses on a particular subject, which will be a prerequisite
to a “live” program, may also be offered online, thereby
obviating the need to discuss basic principles and freeing
up time for interactive learning. Post-program assignments
will likewise be done online. This is an example of a mixed
delivery format, which John Meeks and Diane Cowdrey of
the US National Center for State Courts call “Blended
Learning,“ referring to a mix of the traditional law school
classroom type of education and distance education. The
objective is “to match the best methods to the educational
goals and the audience.”
The pedagogical value of a Retreat with Strategic
Mentoring cannot be gainsaid. Close quarters supervision
over a period of time, where the Judge is not distracted
with the burden of his office and can focus on “sharpening
the saw,” by experienced mentors can do a lot to transform
the ways people think and act. The value of experience
that a mentor brings into the retreat would be in the
practical things and the many “best practices” that can be
shared and taken on by the Judge. PHILJA must consider
venues such as strategic retreats as not only an opportunity
for wellness but also for education.
Presently, the bulk of PHILJA lectures are on substantive
law. Unless there are new developments which require
face-to-face training, it is suggested that all learning in
substantive law be done through distance education, i.e.,
the target audience will have access to recorded lectures,
whether through CDs or via the internet. The text of the
presentation should likewise be made accessible. A
mechanism for receiving and answering questions on the
presentation should also be put in place. It is every judicial
officer’s professional duty to keep abreast of legal
developments, and each judicial officer is presumed to have
more than just a rudimentary understanding of the law.
PHILJA will provide them with the materials; it is their duty
to study them.
As for remedial law, it is suggested that lectures on
the Rules of Court and related jurisprudence be dispensed
with. Instead, all remedial law lectures should incorporate
the presentation of procedural flowcharts that justices,
judges and court personnel can easily follow, coupled with
checklists of jurisdictional requirements, formal
requirements, and the like. Each remedial law lecture
should also provide participants with sample ready-made
templates and forms of frequently used papers (courtissued and court-bound) relevant to the subject of the
lecture. As with the suggestion on substantive law, any
changes in the rules or updates on jurisprudence should
also be done by distance education.
These suggestions are considerably more cost-effective
than traditional programs, particularly with respect to the
executive time of judges, court officials and employees.
5
I recommend that skills training be the emphasis of
our programs. Thus, judges should be taught how to write
by actually making them write, and not through lectures
on how to write. This can be done live with follow-up writing
activities via distance education computer-based writing
exercises. Judges should also be taught how to handle and
rule on objections in the examination of witnesses. They
should be trained on how to conduct an exhaustive pretrial – not by lecturing them about Rule 18, but through a
live action approximation of a pre-trial proceeding. While
moot court is currently part of the new judges’ orientation,
they do not get to practice being judges but instead act
out the roles of lawyers, litigants, and witnesses. Judges
should likewise be taught how to deal with the different
types of witnesses, and how to compute penalties. They
should also be taught how to conduct plea bargaining and
how to conduct sentencing in open court. Judges should be
taught how to manage their caseload based on their court’s
peculiar needs, and not based on a general formula that
fails to take into account the environment each court
operates in. I likewise propose a mentoring program to be
established in conjunction with the OCA. Judges should be
taught how to manage their personnel and meager
supplies. Judges should be taught how to manage their
trials and keep active control of proceedings. Above all,
judges should be taught how to conduct themselves
ethically in day-to-day scenarios they commonly encounter.
The case study method of the leading schools can be a
good model to equip judges on handling many everyday
“dilemma” situations.
4. Fixed and Synchronized Program Calendar
Although PHILJA prepares an annual calendar of its
programs, it currently does not make this calendar available
to the targeted participants to enable them to synchronize
their own schedules with the projected activities. More
often than not, participants receive notices only a few
weeks before the date of the program, and virtually all
participants need to make travel arrangements. This results
in numerous resetting of court schedules, which is contrary
to the judiciary’s mandate and therefore should be avoided.
As far as feasible, PHILJA should schedule its regular
programs in January and July when trial courts conduct
their semestral inventories and hold no hearings. PHILJA
should also utilize the dates when the DOJ prosecutors,
the public attorneys, the court stenographers, and the court
interpreters are set to hold their annual conventions (and
therefore no court hearings are scheduled). “Seasonal”
programs such as the orientation of new judges and the
seminar component of conventions may be scheduled
based on need.
Judges should be able to maximize oral arguments by
way of summation instead of requiring that everything be
6
reduced to writing. This saves time and shortens the period
for resolution of cases.
It is therefore proposed that PHILJA come out with its
annual calendar of programs by November of the current
year, such that it may be circulated to all targeted
participants by December 1 of the same year.
5. Learning Needs Assessment and Program Evaluation
It is important that an effective needs-assessment
mechanism be put in place. The evaluation form currently
used for programs administered by PHILJA generates
predictable results. In these evaluations, PHILJA solicits
comments on the program, as well as suggestions on future
programs that participants want PHILJA to offer. These
evaluation forms are filled out by participants when the
program is about to end, and participants are frequently in
a rush to leave. To be effective, needs assessment requires
great thought and consideration; a hastily filled-out form
may not provide the information necessary to formulate a
responsive curriculum. Instead of the written survey form,
PHILJA might consider ending the program with an
interactive, on-the-spot assessment of the program and a
survey of further learning needs of the participants.
Program evaluation should also go beyond the usual
end-of-program evaluation. There should be a follow-up
evaluation on profitability or the “value-added” to assess
whether changes, positive or negative, have been observed
and could be attributed to attendance in the program.
There should also be a cost-benefit analysis after each
program.
6. Training for Court Personnel
Only clerks of court and legal researchers receive regular
formal training from PHILJA. The other court personnel
receive training as a part of their conventions, but since
participation is voluntary because it entails personal
expenses, not all court personnel benefit from these
programs. Besides, these programs usually just comprise
two to four lectures.
PHILJA should expand its programs to train court
personnel in the efficient operations of our courts. The
most urgent candidates for training are sheriffs and process
servers. Next to the clerks of court, the sheriffs have the
weightiest responsibilities in a court.
To aid in the training of the different types of personnel,
manuals should be developed for each group, such as the
Manual for Clerks of Courts. Training should then be
conducted based on the developed manuals, which should
be simpler, checklist-oriented, and employ a practical,
experience-based approach.
From the Chancellor’s Desk (Continued from page 1)
Alternative Dispute Resolution. In Negros Oriental,
we delivered an Orientation Conference with
Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Mediation, an
Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators
and PMC Unit Staff, and a Basic Mediation Course
and a Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with
judges, clerks of court, branch clerks of court,
mediation-trainees and PMC Unit staff in CourtAnnexed Mediation under their Mediation Program.
In Iloilo City, we held a Judicial Settlement
Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution
(JDR) and the JDR Orientations of Public Prosecutors
and Practitioners, Clerks of Court, and Branch Clerks
of Court. A Refresher/Advanced Course for CourtAnnexed Mediators was also held in La Union for
the benefit of the La Union, Benguet, and
Pangasinan Mediation Programs.
Two roundtable discussions (RTDs), held for the
benefit of Court of Appeals Justices, rounded off our
activities for this quarter—one on Substantive Laws
and Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property (Batch
3) held in Zambales and the other on the Rules of
Procedure on Financial Rehabilitation in Manila.
We took note of the new rulings, doctrinal
reminders, and recent resolutions, circulars, and
orders of the Supreme Court as well as of the Office
of the Court Administrator.
To our officials and staff, keep up the good work
and congratulations on our highlights thus far.
To our development partners, thank you for your
valuable support as we pursue our common goal.
To the Supreme Court, we are very grateful for
the unwavering support for PHILJA in all our
trainings, programs, and activities.
To the Almighty be the glory.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Chancellor
7
TRAININGS, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
PHILJA Curriculum Review
On August 14, 2014, PHILJA convened the most brilliant
minds in judicial education for a PHILJA Curriculum Review,
in response to the directive of the PHILJA Board of Trustees,
to re-visit the training curricula and ensure that the
substance of PHILJA programs meet the needs of the
judiciary and current trends in judicial education. The activity
was designed: to develop a strategic training plan based on
needs assessment, including skills training, professional
development and personal growth; to learn, develop, and
adopt new methods in judicial education in relation to
emerging trends and technological advances; and to
formulate programs which address distinct educational
needs and enhance specific skills of judges and court
personnel who work in highly specialized areas of law.
PHILJA Chief of Office for Academic Affairs Justice
Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis presented the PHILJA Highlights
from 2012–2013 which provided: the current state of PHILJA
activities; statistics on the core programs completed and
their profitability ratings; trends in PHILJA courses; and issues
and concerns in the delivery of curricula. By way of
introduction to the curriculum review proper, Justice Hilarion
L. Aquino, Department of Ethics and Judicial Conduct Chair,
and Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino, Department of Jurisprudence
and Legal Philosophy Chair, presented The Problem of
Integrity and Teaching of Judicial Ethics and Current Trends
and Developments in Judicial Education, respectively.
The PHILJA Curriculum Review was carried out in two
discussion sessions: the first was a presentation addressing
what judicial training should be, considering the comments
and suggestions previously gathered from the Chief Justice
and Supreme Court justices; the second was a reexamination of PHILJA programs with department
chairpersons/member-representatives presenting their
respective comments and suggestions.
Prior to the forum, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A.
Sereno provided PHILJA her observations and
recommendations for the activity through her paper A
8
th
4 Plenary Assembly of the
PHILJA Corps of Professors and Conferment
Ceremony of the Posthumous Award to
Dr. Purificacion V. Quisumbing
Following through the recently conducted Review of PHILJA
Curriculum and acting upon the proposal of the members of
the Corps of Professors, PHILJA held a Plenary Assembly of
the PHILJA Corps of Professors on August 29, 2014, to
apprise the participants on the outcome and output of the
PHILJA Curriculum Review and gather their professorial
commitment to PHILJA. One hundred eight members of
the Corps of Professors, comprising Supreme Court and
PHILJA officials, incumbent and retired justices and judges,
professors of law, the academe, including the SC and PHILJA
staff, attended the activity.
presented the Review’s outputs and summary of
recommendations. The afternoon session was devoted to
workshop-focus group sessions by academic departments
where key guide questions were provided to facilitate their
discussions. In the same session, participants who were not
yet members of any department were given the opportunity
to sign up for membership in the department of their choice.
Led by Justice Delilah V idallon-Magtolis,the present
members of the Corps of Professors then took their Oath of
Professorial Commitment to solidify their dedication to the
task of judicial development and education. Justice Hilarion
L. Aquino delivered the closing remarks.
Focus Group Discussion on the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
Within the past four years since the Rules of Procedure on
Environmental Cases took effect on April 14, 2010, the
Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), in partnership with
valuable development partners conducted 18 multi-sectoral
capacity building trainings on the Rules for judges and other
stakeholders of designated Green courts and courts of
environmental hot spot areas. Court of Appeals justices
who are also duty bearers of the Rules were capacitated in
its application in three trainings conducted by the Academy.
To determine the Rules’ effectiveness, PHILJA, in
partnership with the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) and the United States Department
of the Interior (USDOI), conducted a Focus Group Discussion
(FGD) on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
on July 3–4, 2014 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay
City having as participants selected Court of Appeals justices
and judges who have participated in the previous trainings.
The FGD aimed to assess the application of the Rules;
identify the provisions of the Rules that need enhancement;
identify additional provisions to further improve the
application of the Rules; identify innovations and best
practices in the effective enforcement of remedies and
redress for violation of environmental laws; and assess the
impact of the series of trainings in the conduct by justices
and judges of their hearings and decision-making.
The program’s morning session began with the
conferment of the Posthumous Award to Dr. Purificacion V.
Quisumbing, Chair of the PHILJA Department of
International and Human Rights Law, for her significant
contributions to the Academy and to the Supreme Court.
The award was presented to Justice Leonardo Quisumbing
(ret.) and the rest of the family. Justice Quisumbing
responded with a message of appreciation.
The plenary assembly proper immediately followed the
conferment ceremony. PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna
The Chancellor, Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, formally
opened the activity with a total of 52 participants in
attendance. The participants were clustered into workshop
groups to discuss problem areas in the application of the
Rules and share best practices in the resolution of identified
problems. The workshop outputs were then presented in
plenary before distinguished panelists, Supreme Court
Justices Diosdado M. Peralta and Lucas P. Bersamin, who
are members of the Subcommittee on the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases, Justice Oswaldo D.
Agcaoili and Director Asis G. Perez of the Bureau of Fisheries
9
Visit of Bangladesh SC Delegation
The Supreme Court of Bangladesh delegation, led by
Mr. Chief Justice Md. Muzammel Hossain, accompanied
by H.E. John Gomez, Ambassador of Bangladesh in the
Philippines, visited to the Philippine Judicial Academy on
August 25, 2014, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay
City. They were welcomed by Chancellor Adolfo S.
Azcuna, Executive Secretary Marina L. Buzon, Chief of
Office for Academic Affairs Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis,
Head of the Research, Publications and Linkages
Office Sedfrey M. Candelaria and PHILJA Professor Thelma
A. Ponferrada. The delegation of eight was composed of
Mr. Chief Justice Md. Muzammel Hossain; Honorable
Judges of the Appellate Divisions Najmum Ara Sultana
and Syed Mahmud Hossain; Honorable Judges of the High
Court Division A.H.M. Shamsuddin Choudhury, Moyeenul
Islam Chowdhury, and Naima Haider; Senior District Judge
S. M. Kuddus Zaman; and Mr. Jakhongir Khayderov, Chief
Technical Adviser of Judicial Strengthening Project.
During the visit, the PHILJA officials gave them a tour of
the PTC facilities and a brief overview on PHILJA, with
focus on its composition, programs, publications, and
mediation activities.
Orientation-Seminars
70th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed
Judges
Date: July 15–24, 2014
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 41 newly appointed and 7 promoted judges,
namely:
A. NEW APPOINTMENTS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
REGION III
Hon. Gorgonio B. Elarmo, Jr.
RTC, Branch 77, Malolos City, Bulacan
Hon. Francisco P. Felizmenio
Hon. Gener M. Gito
RTC, Branch 92, Balanga City, Bataan
Hon. Philger Noel B. Inovejas
Hon. Jose Marie A. Quimboy
RTC, Branch 94, Mariveles, Bataan
Hon. Maria Zenaida Bernadette T. Tamayo-Mendiola
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS
Hon. Kirk M. Aniñon
MeTC, Branch 44, Pasay City
Hon. Ma. Lourdes V. Barrios-Sapalo
MeTC, Branch 64, Makati City
Hon. Dorothy Grace R. Daguna-Inciong
MeTC, Branch 52, Caloocan City
Hon. Honorio C. Ebora, Jr.
MeTC, Branch 71, Pasig City
Hon. Ihmie Michiko C. Gacad-Presto
MeTC, Branch 5, Manila
Hon. Fricia C. Gomez-Guillen
Hon. Jerome U. Jimenez
Hon. Ma. Ludmila P. Lim
MeTC, Branch 34, Quezon City
Hon. Analie B. Oga-Brual
MeTC, Branch 41, Quezon City
Hon. Eriza P. Pagaling-Zapanta
Hon. Karen M. Sy
Hon. Manuel Gerard C. Tomacruz
10
Hon. Sheryll D. Tulabing*
MeTC, Branch 56, Malabon City
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES
REGION V
Hon. Jocelyn P. Gamboa-Delos Santos
MTCC, Branch 4, City of San Fernando, Pampanga
Hon. Zharone Fritz M. Japzon-Ferreras
MTCC, City of Cabuyao, Laguna
Hon. Roberto Ricardo O. Kanapi
MTCC, Branch 2, San Jose City
Hon. Ryan Scott F. Robiños
MTCC, Branch 1, Tarlac City, Tarlac
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
REGION III
Hon. Michael Benedick V. Aleta
MTC, Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija
Hon. Kristine A. Aquino-Ferrer
MTC, Lupao, Nueva Ecija
Hon. Maria Cristina C. Botigan-Santos**
MTC, San Ildefonso, Bulacan
Hon. Jamila D.R. Cruz-Sarga
MTC, Rizal, Nueva Ecija
Hon. Rachelle G. Ernie
MTC, Zaragosa, Nueva Ecija
Hon. Julieta M. Isidro-Reyes
MTC, Dingalan, Aurora
Hon. Vincent E. Lamug
MTC, Iba, Zambales
Hon. Ian P. Ramoso
MTC, Talugtog, Nueva Ecija
Hon. Juan G. Rañola, Jr.
MTC, Hagonoy, Bulacan
Hon. Mario Pocholo M. Telan
MTC, Baliuag, Bulacan
REGION IV
Hon. Cyrus B. Goco
MTC, Socorro, Mindoro Oriental
Hon. Dennis U. Magsombol
MTC, Balayan, Batangas
Hon. Maricel M. Magpantay-Ng
MTC, Mataas-na-Kahoy, Batangas
Hon. Amiel Raymond O. Pargas
MTC, San Pascual, Batangas
Hon. Emmanuel S. Paynor
MTC, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija
Hon. Juanita A. Unira-Orejas
MTC, Lian, Batangas
* Missed the morning session on the fifth day (July 21)
** Missed the first day (July 15)
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
REGION III
Hon. Julius A. Java
1st MCTC: Quezon-Licab, Nueva Ecija
Hon. Stanley Marvin J. Pengson
3rd MCTC: Laur-Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija
B. PROMOTION
REGION I
Hon. Rusty M. Naya
RTC, Branch 51, Tayug, Pangasinan
REGION III
Hon. Isidra A. Argañosa-Maniego
Hon. Amelita C. Corpuz
RTC, Branch 96, Dinalupihan, Bataan
Hon. Eda P. Dizon-Era
RTC, Branch 60, Angeles City, Pampanga
Hon. Maria Maruja P. Narvaiza-Mendoza
Hon. Marion Jacqueline P. Poblete
Hon. Frazierwin V. Viterbo
RTC, Branch 33, Guimba, Nueva Ecija
Clerks of Court
Date: September 16–19, 2014
Participants: 69 newly appointed clerks of court, namely:
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Atty. Joselino N. Sucion
RTC, Branch 61, Makati City
REGION II
Atty. Maylene M. Nicolas
RTC, Branch 23, Roxas, Isabela
REGION III
Atty. Theodorick K. Ayungo
RTC, Branch 86, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
Atty. Anihairah B. Hadji Omar
RTC, Branch 73, Olongapo
REGION IV
Atty. Alpha L. Andrada
RTC, Branch 22, Imus, Cavite
Atty. Harvy Brian H. Valencia
RTC, Branch 48, Masbate
11
REGION V
Atty. Albert S. Olavere
RTC, Branch 33, Pili, Camarines Sur
REGION VI
Atty. Therese C. Del Campo-Peñaranda
RTC, Branch 28, Iloilo City
Atty. Jean-Paul A. Diputado
RTC, OCC, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
Atty. Maria Cecilia M. Garrido
RTC, Branch 40, Silay City
Atty. Kathryn Rose A. Hitalia-Baliatan
RTC, Branch 24, Iloilo City, Iloilo
Atty. Ma. Jezzel C. Rasimo
RTC, Branch 69, Silay City
REGION VII
Atty. Perpetua Socorro O. Enriquez-Belarmino
RTC Branch 8, Cebu City, Cebu
Atty. Rosadey E. Faelnar-Binongo
RTC Branch 11, Cebu City
REGION VIII
Atty. Hyacinth D. Renomeron
RTC, Branch 15, Burauen, Leyte
Atty. Ruby Christie C. Jordan-Merilo
RTC, Branch 9, Tacloban City, Leyte
Atty. Phoebeth S. Peras
RTC, Branch 25, Maasin, Southern Leyte
Atty. Djhoana Gene A. Antoni-Clemencio
RTC, Branch 44, Tacloban City
REGION IX
Atty. Maricel S. Bangayan-Lahi
RTC, OCC, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur
Atty. Leah Meih S. Macapas-Gagaracruz
RTC, Branch 12, Zamboanga City
Atty. Richelle A. Noblefranca
RTC, Branch 8, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte
Atty. Edwin M. Tomon
RTC, Branch 21, Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur
Atty. Aileen A. Zorrilla-Febiar
RTC Branch 10, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte
REGION X
Atty. Joseph Emmanuel C. Cotares
RTC OCC, Tandag, Surigao del Sur
Atty. Ed Anthony F. Guerra
RTC, Branch 29, Surigao City, Surigao del Norte
Atty. Jeanny Mae H. Rafols
RTC, Branch 38, Cagayan de Oro City
Misamis Oriental
Atty. Katrina Farrah P. Suarez
RTC, Branch 7, Bayugan City, Agusan del Sur
REGION XI
Atty. Marian Abbie B. Casipe
RTC, Branch 24, Koronadal, South Cotabato
Atty. Rubylin D. Pecson
RTC, Branch 2, Tagum City, Davao del Norte
REGION XII
Atty. Vicente C. Dumbrigue, Jr.
RTC, Branch 17, Kidapawan City, North Cotabato
Atty. Ma. Luningning P. Lagcao-Dy
RTC, Branch 4, lligan City, Lanao del Norte
Atty. Ruby M. Luy-Dela Banda
RTC, OCC, Kidapawan City, North Cotabato
Atty. Nurhani C. Pacasem-Nur
RTC, Branch 14, Cotabato City
Atty. Desiree P. Pacilan
RTC, OCC, IIigan City, Lanao del Norte
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Ms. Ofelia R. Viray-Sarte
MeTC, OCC, Marikina
IN
CITIES
REGION IV
Ms. Anita L. Crisostomo
MTCC, Branch 3, Antipolo City
REGION VI
Ms. Sharon Antoniette M. Verde
MTCC, Branch 4, Bacolod City
REGION VII
Ms. Clemente S. De Jesus
MTCC, Branch 2, Talisay, Cebu
Ms. Beverly A. Presas
MTCC, OCC, Talisay City
REGION X
Ms. Laarne D. Badoles
MTCC, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City
Ms. Ma. Rizalie Blossom E. Bagas
MTCC, OCC , Cagayan de Oro
REGION IX
Ms. Eleanor S. Angeles
MTCC, Branch 2, Dipolog City
REGION XI
Ms. Maria Luisa F. Elorde-Ellima
MTCC OCC, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte
Ms. Cynthia Mae F. Pingoy
MTCC, Branch 1, General Santos City
12
REGION XII
Ms. Mia E. Dela Peña
MTCC, Branch 2, Iligan City
Mr. Ramon Moshe U. Pernitez II
MTCC, Branch 5, Iligan City
REGION II
Ms. Leonida L. Sandoval
MTC, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya
REGION IV
Ms. Merly A. Beso
MTC, Calauag, Quezon
Mr. Jose Roy C. Piñon
MTC, Branch 2, Binangonan, Rizal
REGION V
Ms. Maryruth M. Verdadero
MTC, Pasacao, Camarines Sur
REGION VI
Ms. Jessica G. Castro
MTC, Cauayan, Negros Occidental
Ms. Arlyn M. Medina
MTC, San Jose, Antique
REGION VII
Ms. Hannah B. Ortiz
MTC, Sibonga, Cebu
REGION VIII
Mr. Ranulfo R. Balano
MTC, Tanauan, Leyte
REGION XII
Ms. Wenifreda I. Epe
MTC, Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte
Ms. Necifora G. Sayon
16th MCTC: Carmen-Batuan, Bohol
REGION VIII
Ms. Mirasol O. Catamco
5th MCTC: Maydolong-Balangkayan, Eastern Samar
Ms. Nora S. Dato
6th MCTC: San Jose-Biri-Rosario, Northern Samar
Mr. Leon C. Duran
10th MCTC: Balangiga-Lawaan, Eastern Samar
Mr. Alexander Serapio C. Abala
11th MCTC: Villaba-Tabango, Leyte
REGION IX
Mr. Johnil D. Magtuba
5th MCTC: Katipunan-Sergio Osmeña, Sr.
Zamboanga del Norte
Mr. Sherlando R. Pepito
10th MCTC: R. Magsaysay-Midsalip-Sominot
Zamboanga del Sur
Mr. Peter Laurence D. Real
2nd MCTC: Naga-Titay, Zamboanga Sibugay
REGION XI
Ms. L’Leonor G. Huqueriza
1st MCTC: Norala-T’Boli-Sto. Nino, South Cotabato
REGION XII
Ms. Euvelyn P. Casangoan
1st MCTC: Parang-Buldon-Matanog-Barira, Maguindanao
Sheriffs and Process Servers (Batch 1)
Date: September 2– 4, 2014
Participants: 35 newly appointed sheriffs and 27 newly
appointed process servers, namely:
A. SHERIFFS
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
REGION I
Ms. Resanelyn Margarita B. Nicolas
4th MCTC: Piddig-Carasi-Solsona, IIocos Norte
REGION III
Mr. Jerrycham A. Lora
3rd MCTC: Botolan-Cabangan, Zambales
REGION V
Mr. Diogenes L. Virtucio, Jr.
7th MCTC: Mobo-Milagros, Masbate
REGION VII
Mr. Aladino B. Lumayno
6th MCTC: Ubay-President Carlos P. Garcia, Bohol
Mr. Marwin Paul S. Bacho
RTC, Br. 128, Caloocan City
Mr. Vladimir T. Cos
RTC, OCC, Parañaque City
Mr. Melito E. Cuadra
RTC, Br. 100, Quezon City
Mr. Constancio M. Gallamos, Jr.
RTC, Br. 192, Marikina City
Mr. Delfin Dakila Y. Guerrero II
RTC, Br. 111, Pasay City
Ms. Marietta B. Limon
RTC, Br. 113, Pasay City
Mr. Felix V. Moreto III
RTC, OCC, Parañaque City
13
REGION IV
Mr. Francis Gerald C. Cruz
RTC, Br. 77, San Mateo Rizal
Mr. Joel S. Dalida
RTC, Br. 57, Lucena City, Quezon
Ms. Lea G. De Los Santos
RTC, Br. 96, Antipolo City, Rizal
Mr. Mario S. Devanadera
RTC, Br. 30, San Pablo City, Laguna
Ms. Imelda M. Magpantay
RTC, OCC, San Pedro, Laguna
Mr. Vincent Patrick R. Mataban
RTC, Br. 34, Calamba, Laguna
Mr. Bryan E. Noroña
RTC, Br. 27, Sta. Cruz, Laguna
Mr. Dino B. Alejandro
MeTC, Br. 99, Mandaluyong City
Mr. Norgen A. Altarejos
MeTC, Br. 81, Valenzuela City
Mr. Frederick F. Amparo
MeTC, Br. 73, Pateros
Mr. Dann August S. Arnuelo
MeTC, Br. 91, Parañaque City
Ms. Elena C. Banias
MeTC, OCC, Parañaque City
Mr. Jaime G. Banias, Jr.
Ms. Menchie A. Barcelona
Mr. Rogelio V. Clemente, Jr.
MeTC, Br. 39, Quezon City
Mr. Marc Christofer G. Dela Cruz
MeTC, Br. 93, Marikina City
Mr. Rommel P. Divina
Mr. Igmedio D. Garonia
MeTC, Br. 12, Manila
Mr. Zarex G. Marqueses
MeTC, Br. 6, Manila
Mr. Enrico H. Matias
MeTC, Br. 2, Manila
Ms. Editha S. Pacamparra
MeTC, Marikina City
Mr. Araw C. Perez
MeTC, OCC, Makati City
Ms. Emily J. Reyes
MeTC, Marikina City
Mr. Ronelio V. Salamanca
MeTC, Br. 55, Malabon City
Mr. Daniel Q. Saligumba
MeTC, OCC, Manila
Mr. Wilbur S. Young
MeTC, Br. 80, Muntinlupa City
REGION IV
Mr. Conrado O. Quiamzon, Jr.
MTCC, OCC, Cavite City
Mr. Frederick Matthew A. Galvez
MTCC, Br. 2, Batangas City
B. PROCESS SERVERS
Ms. Carol D. Aguilar
RTC, Br. 255, Las Piñas City
Mr. Alejandro U. Aribuabo
RTC, Br. 44, Manila
Mr. Eduardo C. Castillo, Jr.
RTC, Br. 158, Pasig City
Mr. Mark King V. Corrales
Mr. Andrew Nikko M. Dimo
RTC, Br. 84, Quezon City
Mr. Lorenzo D. Martinez
Mr. Ramesis L. Minay
RTC, OCC, Quezon City
REGION IV
Mr. Joemar C. Aseremo
RTC, Br. 5, Lemery, Batangas
Mr. Jeremy M. Atienza
RTC, OCC, San Pablo, Laguna
Ms. Racquel A. Javate
RTC, Br. 35, Calamba City, Laguna
Mr. Ric L. Gorospe
Mr. IIvin M. Jacob
MeTC, Br. 85, Caloocan City
Mr. Mario P. Liprado
Ms. Ricky B. Maniago
Mr. Reymie Jay Z. Montes
Ms. Sheila S. Pendon
Ms. Joy M. Punzalan
Mr. Ryan R. Quinto
MeTC, Br. 49, Caloocan City
Mr. Elias Francisco E. Ranches
Mr. Rhonald Allan G. Santos
MeTC, Br. 22, Manila
14
Mr. Rizalino D.L. Santos
Mr. Frederick E. Silloga
MeTC, Br. 55, Malabon City
Region XI
Venue: Park Inn by Radisson Davao, Davao City
Participants: 42 RTC clerks of court
REGION IV
Mr. Mark Lyndon C. Alzate
MTCC, OCC, Cavite City
Mr. Edgardo B. Bisente
MTCC, Dasmariñas City, Cavite
Ms. Marilyn O. Gabica
MTCC, OCC, Antipolo City, Rizal
Career Development Program
for Court Personnel (CDP)
CDP for Court Legal Researchers of Region VIII
Date: July 16–17, 2014
Participants: 16 RTC and MTCC legal researchers
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
REGION IV
Special Focus Programs
Mr. Jose Emmanuel Z. Sumbilla
MTC, OCC, San Pedro, Laguna
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
REGION IV
Mr. Glenn C. Austria
6th MCTC: Roxas-Cagayancillo, Palawan
Seminar for Executive Judges (Selected Executive Judges
and Vice Executive Judges of the Visayas)
Date: July 24–25, 2014
Venue: Marco Polo Plaza Hotel, Cebu City
Participants: 24 RTC and MTC judges
Judicial Career Enhancement
Programs (JCEP)
JCEP for Selected RTC Judges of the National Capital Judicial
Region
Date: July 16–18, 2014
Participants: 15 RTC judges
Career Enhancement
Programs (CEP)
CEP for RTC Clerks of Court
Region VI
Date: July 1–3, 2014
Venue: San Antonio Hotel, Baybay, Roxas City
Participants: 66 RTC clerks of court
Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court
Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children
Date: July 8–10, 2014
Venue: Bethel Guest House, Dumaguete City
Participants: 56 RTC judges, clerks of court/officers in
charge, court interpreters, court social workers,
prosecutors, PAO lawyers, and representatives from
Consuelo Foundation
Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws and Rules Relating to
Money Laundering and Other Financial Crimes for Judges
Regions XI and XII
Date: July 23–24, 2014
Venue: Marco Polo Hotel, Davao City
Regions VIII and IX
Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu City
Seminar on the Rules of Procedure on Financial
Rehabilitation for Special Commercial Court Judges and
Pairing Court Judges
NCJR and Regions IV and V
Date: August 8, 2014
Venue: Traders Hotel, Pasay City
Regions I to III and Other Stakeholders
Venue: The Manor, Camp John Hay, Baguio City
Participants: 40 RTC judges and IBP Baguio-Benguet
Chapter lawyers
15
Curriculum Review of the Philippine Judicial Academy
Participants: 26 PHILJA officials and members of PHILJA
Academic Departments
Academic Excellence Lecture Series in the Judiciary
Topic: Legal Nuances to the Philippine Ratification of the
Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court
Venue: Claire Isabel McGill Luce Auditorium
Silliman University, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
Participants: 248 PHILJA official, secretariat/documentors,
RTC and MTCC judges/branch clerks of court/clerks of
court/legal researchers, Silliman University students and
other guests
Information Dissemination through a Dialogue between
Barangay Officials and Court Officials
Iloilo City
Date: September 4, 2014
Venue: Sen. Potenciano T. Treñas Hall
Lone District Office, Iloilo City
Participants: 167 barangay officials and RTC court personnel
Personal Security Training for Judges
Date: September 30–October 2, 2014
Venue: PHILJA Training Center
Participants: 67 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges
Roundtable Discussions
Roundtable Discussion on Substantive Laws and
Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property for Court of Appeals
Justices (Batch 3)
Venue: Kamana Sanctuary, Subic, Zambales
Participants: 23 CA justices
Roundtable Discussion on the Rules of Procedure on
Financial Rehabilitation for Court of Appeals Justices
Venue: Court of Appeals Auditorium, Manila
Participants: 40 CA justices
Focus Group Discussion
Bacolod City
Venue: Atrium Hall of Justice, Bacolod City
Participants: 152 barangay officials
Kidapawan City
Venue: Kidapawan Provincial Gymnasium
Amas, Kidapawan City
Focus Group Discussion on the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases
Participants: 52 CA justices, SC Officials and staff, and RTC,
MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges
Convention-Seminars
Venue: Digos Cultural Center and Sports Complex
Digos City
16th Convention and Seminar of the Metropolitan and City
Judges Association of the Philippines (MetCJAP)
Theme: Judicial Innovations: Trends, Issues and Practices
Venue: Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria, Quezon City
Participants: 164 MeTC and MTCC judges
Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and
Rule of Law for Executive and Vice Executive Judges of
Regions IX to XII
Venue: Marco Polo Hotel, Davao City
Participants: 28 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges
16th National Convention and Seminar of the Philippine
Association of Court Employees (PACE)
Date: July 9–11, 2014
Venue: SMX Convention Center, Lanang, Davao
Participants: 2082 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC court
employees
Digos City
16
Newly elected officers of the Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE)
2014– 2016
National Officers
National President:
Atty. Ma. Fe O. Maloloy-on
MTCC OCC, Davao City
Treasurer:
Ellen DLS Serrano
RTC, Branch 231, Pasay City
Exec. Vice President:
Atty. Virginia R. Coloma-Rafael
RTC, Branch 1, Tagum City
Assistant Treasurer:
Arlyn M. Falcon
RTC,Branch 119, Pasay City
Vice President for Luzon:
Eddie H. Saracanlao
MTCC, Bacoor City
Auditor:
Agnes T. Sapinoso
MTCC, Imus City
Vice President for Visayas: Lyvia M. Malate
RTC, Branch 34, Tacloban City
Assistant Auditor:
Belinda G. Go
Branch 10, Cebu City, Cebu
Vice President for
Mindanao:
Atty. Andres B. Mission, Jr.
RTC, Branch 35,
General Santos City
Presidential and
Legal Adviser:
Atty. Perlita V. Ele
RTC, OCC, Quezon City
Secretary General:
Vice President for NCJR:
Edmund S. De Javing
RTC Branch 148, Makati City
Marie Ann B. Dolorito
Davao Del Norte
Board of Directors
Region I:
Dr. Macario Salva
MCTC, Sarrat-Vintar
Ilocos Norte
Region XII:
Atty. Kristinne M. Camandero
RTC, Branch 24, Midsayap
North Cotabato
Region III:
Roy M. Mendonez
RTC OCC, Iba, Zambales
Region XIII/CARAGA:
Ferninand P. Mesagrande
RTC, Branch 28, Lianga
Surigao del Sur
Region IV-A:
Rosalina G. Aguado
RTC, Branch 8, Batangas City
Caloocan City:
Azucena A. Berania
RTC OCC, Caloocan City
Zenaida Magayanes
RTC, Branch 7, Legaspi City
Makati City:
Ma. Teresa L. Umali
METC OCC, Makati City
Malabon City:
Percival S. Ponciano
RTC, Branch 72, Malabon City
Mandaluyong City:
Rayson M. Mayor
RTC, Branch 210
Mandaluyong City
Parañaque City:
Rumel M. Macalisang
RTC, Branch 258, Parañaque City
Region V:
Region VI:
Dr. Erly M. Martir
RTC, Branch 65
Buena V ista-Guimaras
Region VII:
Meriam C. Quizo
MTCC, Bais City
Region VIII:
Leila L. Cinco
RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan,
Samar
Region IX:
Virgilio S. Sila
MTCC, Branch 2, Pagadian City
Quezon City:
Bambito Sabiniano
RTC, Branch 219, Quezon City
Region X:
Nolan P. Lacang
RTC, Branch 35, Ozamis City
Taguig City:
Joselito C. Baldamor
RTC, Branch 267, Pasig City
Region XI:
Virgilia Elnah G. Gementiza
Valenzuela City:
Atty. Rio Nila L. Abiang
RTC OCC, Valenzuela City
17
Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) Programs
Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators
La Union, Benguet and Pangasinan Mediation Programs
Venue: Oasis Country Resort, San Fernando City, La Union
Participants: 50 mediators
Batangas, Laguna, and Quezon Mediation Programs
Date: August 14–15, 2014
Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on CourtAnnexed Mediation (Negros Oriental Mediation Program)
Date: July 10, 2014
Venue: Hotel Essencia, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
Participants: 97 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges, clerks
of court, representatives from NPS, PAO, IBP, LGU, civil
society, business, academe, and media
Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial
Dispute Resolution (Skills-based Course)
Date: August 26–29, 2014
Venue: Hotel del Rio, Iloilo City
Participants: 47 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges
Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators and
PMC Unit Staff (Negros Oriental Mediation Program)
Venue: Hall of Justice, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
Participants: 63 mediators, and staff applicants
Venue: Hall of Justice, Bais City, Negros Oriental
Participants: 31 mediators, and staff applicants
Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys and
Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute Resolution
Venue: Hotel del Rio, M.H. del Pilar Street, Molo, Iloilo City
Participants: 40 prosecutors, PAO and IBP lawyers
Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court
on Judicial Dispute Resolution
Venue: Hotel del Rio, M.H. del Pilar Street
Molo, Iloilo City
Participants: 50 clerks of court and branch clerks of court
Basic Mediation Course (Negros Oriental Mediation
Program)
Negros Oriental
Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges,
Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation
Trainees and PMC Unit Staff in Court-Annexed Mediation
(Negros Oriental Mediation Program)
Negros Oriental
Participants: 108 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges,
clerks of court, branch clerks of court, mediation trainees,
and PMCU staff
On PHILJA
4th Plenary Assembly of the PHILJA Corps of Professor (with
Conferment Ceremony of the Posthumous Award to the
Family of Dr. Purificacion V. Quisumbing)
Venue: Auditorium, Court of Appeals, Manila
Participants: 64 PHILJA officials and professorial lecturers,
Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing and family, and other
guests
18
PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna (seated center), and DCA Raul B. Villanueva (seated fifth from left) with the participants of the
70th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges held on July 15–24, 2014 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.
Dr. Cheselden George V. Carmona, Member of PHILJA’s Department of Commercial Law lectures on “Overview on Asset
Forfeiture” during the 4th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process Servers held on September 2–4,
2014, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.
Judge Jaime B. Santiago, Presiding Judge of RTC Br. 4, Manila, gives some pointers on firearms proficiency to the participants
of the Personal Security Training held on September 30–October 2, 2014 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.
19
Supreme Court Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe gives an “Overview of the 2013 Financial Rehabilitation Rules”
during the Seminar for Court of Appeals Justices on the Rules of Procedure on Financial Rehabilitation held on September 4, 2014, at
the Traders Hotel, Pasay City.
Lecturers and Resource Persons Justice Magdangal M. De Leon (seated fourth from left), Justice Delilah V idallon-Magtolis
(seated fifth from left) IPO-Phil Director General Ricardo R. Blancaflor (seated center), and Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores with
the participants of the Roundtable Discussion on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property for Court of Appeals
Justices (Batch 3), held on July 3–4, 2014 at the Kamana Sanctuary, Subic, Zambales.
Justice Marina L. Buzon, PHILJA Executive Secretary and Acting Chief of the Philippine Mediation Center Office (seated center)
with the participants of the Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution, held on August 26–29, 2014 at
the Hotel del Rio, Iloilo City.
20
In 1996, Justice Jardeleza became Senior Vice President
and General Counsel of San Miguel Corporation, a position
he held until June 30, 2010.
Hon. FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice
Supreme Court
appointed on August 19, 2014
Justice Francis H. Jardeleza served as Solicitor General of
the Republic of the Philippines from February 2012 until his
appointment as the 173rd Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court on August 19, 2014. He also served as Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon.
As Solicitor General, Justice Jardeleza argued many
cases before the Supreme Court, notably the constitutional
challenges to the Cybercrime Law and the Reproductive
Health Law. He also served as Agent for the Republic of the
Philippines and Head of the Philippine legal team handling
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Annex
VII arbitration with China, in relation to the West Philippine
Sea maritime disputes. As Agent of the Republic, he lectured
extensively on the Philippines’ claim here and abroad,
including at the Department of Foreign Affairs; the
Philippine Navy Headquarters; the Council on Foreign
Relations in New York, USA; the Center for a New American
Security in Washington, D.C., USA; Harvard University in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; New York University in
New York, USA; and at the New York State Bar Association
Seasonal Meeting in Hanoi, Vietnam.
At the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), Justice
Jardeleza worked to improve the quality of representation
by the OSG through capacity building programs for OSG
lawyers and the recruitment of new lawyers from the top
graduates of law schools, including bar topnotchers.
Prior to his career in government, Justice Jardeleza had
an extensive private law practice. He joined Angara Abello
Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRALAW) in 1975 and
became partner in 1981. He was the only junior partner
allowed to be a member of both the Litigation and Corporate
(Special Projects) Departments. In 1986, he became
Chairman of the ACCRALAW Litigation Department.
In 1987, Justice Jardeleza left ACCRALAW and founded
Jardeleza Sobrevinas Diaz Hayudini and Bodegon. In 1990,
he established the Jardeleza Law Offices as a solo practice.
Later, he joined Roco Bunag Kapunan Migallos and
Jardeleza, as partner, where he headed the Litigation and
Labor Law Departments.
Justice Jardeleza also taught Constitutional and
Administrative Law, and Civil Procedure at the University of
the Philippines (UP) College of Law, where he was a
professorial lecturer since 1993. He also served as examiner
for Political Law in the 2012 bar examinations.
Born in Jaro, Iloilo, on September 26, 1949, Justice
Jardeleza graduated class valedictorian in elementary and
high school at the Jaro Elementary School and the UP Iloilo
College High School, respectively. He took his Bachelor of
Arts, Major in Political Science, from UP Iloilo College, where
he was recognized as the Most Outstanding Graduate in
1970. In 1974, he obtained his Bachelor of Laws from the
UP College of Law, Diliman, graduating salutatorian and
cum laude. In the same year, he placed third in the Bar
Examinations with a general average of 88.35 percent. In
1977, he obtained his Master of Laws at the Harvard Law
School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. He then trained
as a foreign associate in the New York law firm of Sullivan
and Cromwell, specializing in securities, litigation, and public
offerings.
Fourth Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities
(Continued from page 44)
Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws and Rules
Relating to Money Laundering and Other
Financial Crimes
November 26–27, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
Career Enhancement Program for RTC Clerks of
Court (Region VII)
December 2–4, Cebu City
Personal Security Training for Judges
December 2–4, PTC, Tagaytay City
Career Development Program for Court Legal
Researchers
December 9–10, Tagaytay City
Seminar-Workshop on Money Laundering and
Other Financial Crimes (Region VI)
December 9–10, Bacolod City
21
Administrative Law
Nepotism defined.
Nepotism is defined as an appointment issued in favor of a
relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity of any of the following: (1) appointing authority;
(2) recommending authority ; (3) chief of the bureau or
office; and (4) person exercising immediate supervision over
the appointee. Here, it is undisputed that respondent Cortes
is a relative of Commissioner Mallari in the first degree of
consanguinity, as in fact Cortes is the daughter of
Commissioner Mallari.
By way of exception, the following shall not be
covered by the prohibition: (1) persons employed in a
confidential capacity; (2) teachers; (3) physicians; and (4)
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. In the
present case, however, the appointment of respondent
Cortes as IO V in the CHR does not fall to any of the
exemptions provided by law. In her defense, respondent
Cortes merely raises the argument that the appointing
authority referred to in Section 59 of the Administrative
Code is the Commission En Banc and not the individual
Commissioners who compose it.
The purpose of Section 59 on the rule against nepotism
is to take out the discretion of the appointing and
recommending authority on the matter of appointing or
recommending for appointment a relative. The rule insures
the objectivity of the appointing or recommending official
by preventing that objectivity from being in fact tested.
Clearly, the prohibition against nepotism is intended to
apply to natural persons. It is one pernicious evil impeding
the civil service and the efficiency of its personnel.
Moreover, basic rule in statutory construction is the
legal maxim that “we must interpret not by the letter that
killeth, but by the spirit that giveth life.” To rule that the
prohibition applies only to the Commission, and not to the
individual members who compose it, will render the
prohibition meaningless. Apparently, the Commission En
Banc, which is a body created by fiction of law, can never
have relatives to speak of.
Indeed, it is absurd to declare that the prohibitive veil
on nepotism does not include appointments made by a
group of individuals acting as a body. What cannot be done
directly cannot be done indirectly. This principle is
elementary and does not need explanation. Certainly, if
acts that cannot be legally done directly can be done
indirectly, then all laws would be illusory.
In the present case, respondent Cortes’ appointment
as IO V in the CHR by the Commission En Banc, where his
father is a member, is covered by the prohibition.
Commissioner Mallari’s abstention from voting did not cure
the nepotistic character of the appointment because the
evil sought to be avoided by the prohibition still exists. His
mere presence during the deliberation for the appointment
of IO V created an impression of influence and cast doubt
on the impartiality and neutrality of the Commission En
Banc.
(Abad, J., Civil Service Commission v. Maricelle M. Cortes, G.R. No.
200103, April 23, 2014.)
Labor Law
Requisites of a valid dismissal based on loss of trust
and confidence.
In M+W Zander Philippines, Inc. v. Enriquez the requisites
of a valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence,
follows:
Article 282(c) of the Labor Code allows an employer
to terminate the services of an employee for loss
of trust and confidence. Certain guidelines must
be observed for the employer to terminate an
employee for loss of trust and confidence. It was
held in General Bank and Trust Company v. Court of
Appeals, viz.:
[L]oss of confidence should not be simulated. It
should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which
are improper, illegal, or unjustified. Loss of
confidence may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face
of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It must be
genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify earlier
action taken in bad faith.
The first requisite for dismissal on the ground
of loss of trust and confidence is that the employee
concerned must be one holding a position of trust
and confidence.
There are two classes of positions of trust:
managerial employees and fiduciary rank-and-file
employees.
Managerial employees are defined as those
vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down
management policies and to hire, transfer, suspend,
lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees or effectively recommend such
managerial actions. They refer to those whose
primary duty consists of the management of the
establishment in which they are employed or of a
department or a subdivision thereof, and to other
officers or members of the managerial staff. Officers
and members of the managerial staff perform work
directly related to management policies of their
employer and customarily and regularly exercise
discretion and independent judgment.
22
Doctrinal Reminders
Labor Law (continued)
The second class or fiduciary rank-and-file
employees consist of cashiers, auditors, property
custodians, etc., or those who, in the normal
exercise of their functions, regularly handle
significant amounts of money or property. These
employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely
charged with the care and custody of the employer’s
money or property, and are thus classified as
occupying positions of trust and confidence.
ownership of the husband or the wife. Although the property
appears to be registered in the name of the husband, it has
the inherent character of conjugal property if it was
acquired for valuable consideration during marriage. It
retains its conjugal nature.
In order to rebut the presumptive conjugal nature of
the property, the petitioner must present strong, clear and
convincing evidence of exclusive ownership of one of the
spouses. The burden of proving that the property belongs
exclusively to the wife or to the husband rests upon the
party asserting it.
xxxx
The second requisite of terminating an
employee for loss of trust and confidence is that
there must be an act that would justify the loss of
trust and confidence. To be a valid cause for
dismissal, the loss of confidence must be based
on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly
established facts.
To summarize, the first requisite is that the employee
concerned must be one holding a position of trust and
confidence, thus, one who is either: (1) a managerial
employee; or (2) a fiduciary rank-and-file employee, who, in
the normal exercise of his or her functions, regularly handles
significant amounts of money or property of the employer.
The second requisite is that the loss of confidence must be
based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly
established facts.
In Lima Land, Inc. v. Cuevas, we discussed the difference
between the criteria for determining the validity of invoking
loss of trust and confidence as a ground for terminating a
managerial employee on the one hand and a rank-and-file
employee on the other. In the said case, we held that with
respect to rank-and-file personnel, loss of trust and
confidence, as ground for valid dismissal, requires proof of
involvement in the alleged events in question, and that mere
uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer
would not suffice. With respect to a managerial employee,
the mere existence of a basis for believing that such
employee has breached the trust of his employer would
suffice for his dismissal.
(Velasco, Jr., J., Wesleyan University-Philippines v. Nowella Reyes, G.R.
No. 208321, July 30, 2014.)
Civil Law
Registration of a property in the name of one spouse
does not destroy its conjugal nature.
Registration of a property alone in the name of one spouse
does not destroy its conjugal nature. What is material is
the time when the property was acquired. The registration
of the property is not conclusive evidence of the exclusive
In the present case, aside from its allegation that the
subject property is no longer conjugal and its assertion that
it is a mortgagee in good faith, the petitioner bank offered
no evidence, convincing to the Court, that the subject
property exclusively belonged to Jose, Sr. As stated earlier,
the petitioner bank failed to overcome the legal
presumption that the disputed property was conjugal. Thus,
the conclusion of both lower courts that the subject property
was conjugal property holds. Factual findings of the CA
affirming those of the trial court are binding on the Court
unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted
with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.
(Brion, J., Philippine National Bank v. Jose Garcia and Children Nora
Garcia, Jose Garcia, Jr., Bobby Garcia and Jimmy Garcia and Heirs of
Rogelio Garcia Namely: Celedonio Garcia, Danilo Garcia, Elsa Garcia,
Fermin Garcia, Heherson Garcia, Gregorio Garcia, Imelda Garcia and
Jane Garcia., G.R. No. 182839, June 2, 2014.)
Novation; its concept.
Novation was extensively discussed by the Court in Garcia v.
Llamas:
Novation is a mode of extinguishing an obligation by
changing its objects or principal obligations, by
substituting a new debtor in place of the old one, or by
subrogating a third person to the rights of the creditor.
Article 1293 of the Civil Code defines novation as
follows:
ART. 1293. Novation which consists in substituting a
new debtor in the place of the original one, may be
made even without the knowledge or against the will
of the latter, but not without the consent of the
creditor. Payment by the new debtor gives him rights
mentioned in articles 1236 and 1237.
In general, there are two modes of substituting
the person of the debtor: (1) expromision and (2)
delegacion. In expromision, the initiative for the
change does not come rom — and may even be
made without the knowledge of — the debtor, since
it consists of a third person’s assumption of the
obligation. As such, it logically requires the consent
of the third person and the creditor. In delegacion,
the debtor offers, and the creditor accepts, a third
person who consents to the substitution and
assumes the obligation; thus, the consent of these
23
three persons are necessary. Both modes of
substitution by the debtor require the consent of the
creditor.
petitioner shall take an oath of allegiance to the Philippines
as a sovereign nation.
Novation may also be extinctive or modificatory.
It is extinctive when an old obligation is terminated
by the creation of a new one that takes the place of
the former. It is merely modificatory when the old
obligation subsists to the extent that it remains
compatible with the amendatory agreement.
Whether extinctive or modificatory, novation is made
either by changing the object or the principal
conditions, referred to as objective or real novation;
or by substituting the person of the debtor or
subrogating a third person to the rights of the
creditor, an act known as subjective or personal
novation. For novation to take place, the following
requisites must concur:
It is a well-entrenched rule that Philippine citizenship
should not easily be given away. All those seeking to acquire
it must prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, that they
have complied with all the requirements of the law. The
reason for this requirement is simple. Citizenship involves
political status; hence, every person must be proud of his
citizenship and should cherish it. Verily, a naturalization
case is not an ordinary judicial contest, to be decided in
favor of the party whose claim is supported by the
preponderance of the evidence. Naturalization is not a right,
but one of privilege of the most discriminating, as well as
delicate and exacting nature, affecting, as it does, public
interest of the highest order, and which may be enjoyed
only under the precise conditions prescribed by law therefor.
1)
There must be a previous valid obligation.
2)
The parties concerned must agree to a new
contract.
3)
The old contract must be extinguished.
4)
There must be a valid new contract.
Novation may also be express or implied. It is
express when the new obligation declares in
unequivocal terms that the old obligation is
extinguished. It is implied when the new obligation
is incompatible with the old one on every point.
The test of incompatibility is whether the two obligations
can stand together, each one with its own independent
existence. (Emphasis supplied)
(Leonen, J., Arco Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. and Candida A. Santos v. Dan
T. Lim, doing business under the name and style of Quality Papers &
Plastic Products Enterprises, G.R. No. 206806, June 25, 2014.)
Naturalization process may be judicial or
administrative; qualifications of applicant and his
witnesses.
No less than the 1987 Constitution enumerates who are
Filipino citizens. Among those listed are citizens by
naturalization, which refers to the legal act of adopting an
alien and clothing him with the privilege of a native-born
citizen. Under the present laws, the process of
naturalization can be judicial or administrative. Judicially,
CA No. 473 provides that after hearing the petition for
citizenship and receipt of evidence showing that the
petitioner has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications required by law, the competent court may
order the issuance of the proper naturalization certificate
and the registration thereof in the proper civil registry. On
the other hand, Republic Act (RA) No. 9139 provides that
aliens born and residing in the Philippines may be granted
Philippine citizenship by administrative proceeding by filing
a petition for citizenship with the Special Committee, which,
in view of the facts before it, may approve the petition and
issue a certificate of naturalization. In both cases, the
Jurisprudence dictates that in judicial naturalization,
the application must show substantial and formal
compliance with CA No. 473. In other words, an applicant
must comply with the jurisdictional requirements, establish
his or her possession of the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications enumerated under the law, and present at
least two character witnesses to support his allegations. In
Ong v. Republic of the Philippines, the Court listed the
requirements for character witnesses, namely:
1. That they are citizens of the Philippines;
2. That they are “credible persons”;
3. That they personally know the petitioner;
4. That they personally know him to be a resident
of the Philippines for the period of time
required by law;
5. That they personally know him to be a person
of good repute;
6. That they personally know him to be morally
irreproachable;
7. That he has, in their opinion, all the
qualifications necessary to become a citizen
of the Philippines; and
8. That he “is not in any way disqualified under
the provisions” of the Naturalization Law.
In vouching for the good moral character of the
applicant for citizenship, a witness, for purposes of
naturalization, must be a “credible” person as he becomes
an insurer of the character of the candidate. The Court, in
Ong, explained:
a “credible” person is, to our mind, not only an
individual who has not been previously convicted
of a crime; who is not a police character and has no
police record; who has not perjured in the past; or
whose “affidavit” or testimony is not incredible.
What must be “credible” is not the declaration
24
Doctrinal Reminders
Civil Law (continued)
made, but the person making it. This implies that
such person must have a good standing in the
community; that he is known to be honest and
upright; that he is reputed to be trustworthy and
reliable; and that his word may be taken on its face
value, as a good warranty of the worthiness of the
petitioner.
In consonance with the above dictum, in Lim Ching Tian
v. Republic, the Court explained that the “law requires that
a vouching witness should have actually known an applicant
for whom he testified for the requisite period prescribed
therein to give him the necessary competence to act as
such. The reason behind this requirement is that a vouching
witness is in a way an insurer of the character of petitioner
because on his testimony the court is of necessity compelled
to rely in deciding the merits of his petition. It is, therefore,
imperative that he be competent and reliable. And he is
only competent to testify on his conduct, character and
moral fitness if he has had the opportunity to observe him
personally, if not intimately, during the period he has
allegedly known him.” The law, in effect, requires that the
character witnesses be not mere ordinary acquaintances
of the applicant, but possessed of such intimate knowledge
of the latter as to be competent to testify of their personal
knowledge; and that they have each one of the requisite
qualifications and none of the statutory disqualifications.
In this case, the OSG mainly harps on the petitioner’s
failure to prove that his witnesses are credible.
The Court agrees.
The records of the case show that the joint affidavits
executed by petitioner’s witnesses did not establish their
own qualification to stand as such in a naturalization
proceeding. In turn, petitioner did not present evidence
proving that the persons he presented were credible. In
the words of the CA, “he did not prove that his witnesses
had good standing in the community, known to be honest
and upright, reputed to be trustworthy and reliable, and
that their word may be taken at face value, as a good
warranty of the worthiness of petitioner.”
While there is no showing that petitioner’s witnesses
were of doubtful moral inclinations, there was likewise no
indication that they were persons whose qualifications were
at par with the requirements of the law on naturalization.
Simply put, no evidence was ever proffered to prove the
witnesses’ good standing in the community, honesty, moral
uprightness, and most importantly, reliability. As a
consequence, their statements about the petitioner do not
possess the measure of “credibility” demanded of in
naturalization cases. This lack of “credibility” on the part of
the witnesses, unfortunately, weakens or renders futile
petitioner’s claim of worthiness. An applicant for Philippine
citizenship would carefully testify as to his qualifications,
placing emphasis on his good traits and character. This is
expected of a person who longs to gain benefits and
advantages that Philippine citizenship bestows. Therefore,
a serious assessment of an applicant’s witnesses, both as to
the credibility of their person and their very testimony, is an
essential facet of naturalization proceedings that may not
be brushed aside.
(Mendoza, J., Dennis L. Go. v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 202809,
July 2, 2014.)
Marriage ceremony defined.
While Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not
specifically define a “marriage ceremony” and what
constitutes its “illegal” performance, Articles 3(3) and 6 of
the Family Code are clear on these matters. These provisions
were taken from Article 55 of the New Civil Code which, in
turn, was copied from Section 3 of the Marriage Law with
no substantial amendments.
Article 6 of the Family Code provides that “[n]o
prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of
the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for
the contracting parties to appear personally before the
solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not
less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each
other as husband and wife.”
Pertinently, Article 3(3) mirrors Article 6 of the Family
Code and particularly defines a marriage ceremony as that
which takes place with the appearance of the contracting
parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal
declaration that they take each other as husband and wife
in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.
Even prior to the date of the enactment of Article 352
of the RPC, as amended, the rule was clear that no
prescribed form of religious rite for the solemnization of
the marriage is required. However, as correctly found by
the CA, the law sets the minimum requirements constituting
a marriage ceremony: first, there should be the personal
appearance of the contracting parties before a solemnizing
officer; and second, their declaration in the presence of
not less than two witnesses of legal age, that they take
each other as husband and wife.
(Brion, J., Rene Ronulo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 182438, July
2, 2014.)
Criminal Law
Consequences of an acquittal on the civil liability of
the accused.
The consequences of an acquittal on the civil liability of the
accused are as follows:
25
Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with
different effects on the civil liability of the accused.
First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused
is not the author of the act or omission complained
of. This instance closes the door to civil liability,
for a person who has been found to be not the
perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can
never be held liable for such act or omission. There
being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the
question, and the civil action, if any, which may be
instituted must be based on grounds other than
the delict complained of. This is the situation
contemplated in Rule III of the Rules of Court. The
second instance is an acquittal based on
reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In
this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not
been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt
from civil liability which may be proved by
preponderance of evidence only. This is the
situation contemplated in Article 29 of the Civil
Code, where the civil action for damages is “for the
same act or omission.” x x x.
(Peralta, J., Cristina B. Castillo v. Phillip R. Salvador, G.R. No. 191240,
July 30, 2014.)
Remedial Law
Consideration of other grounds not raised or assigned
as errors.
The Supreme Court has allowed the consideration of other
grounds not raised or assigned as errors in several instances.
In the case of Manila International Airport Authority v.
Rivera V illage Lessee Homeowners Association,
Incorporated, the Court enumerated such instances. Thus:
The Court has allowed the consideration of other
grounds not raised or assigned as errors specifically
in the following instances: (1) grounds not assigned
as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject
matter; (2) matters not assigned as errors on appeal
but are evidently plain or clerical errors within the
contemplation of the law; (3) matters not assigned
as errors on appeal but consideration of which is
necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete
resolution of the case or to serve the interest of
justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice;
(4) matters not specifically assigned as errors on
appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters
of record having some bearing on the issue
submitted which the parties failed to raise or which
the lower court ignored; (5) matters not assigned
as errors on appeal but closely related to an error
assigned; and (6) matters not assigned as errors
on appeal but upon which the determination of a
question properly assigned is dependent.
(Mendoza, J., Heirs of Paciano Yabao, Represented by Remedios Chan v.
Paz Lentejas Van Der Kolk, G.R. No. 207266, June 25, 2014.)
Litis pendentia; its requisites.
Litis pendentia refers to the situation where another action
is pending between the same parties for the same cause of
action so that one of these actions is unnecessary and
vexatious. The dismissal of a civil action on the ground of
litis pendentias based on the policy that a party is not
allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same
subject matter and for the same cause of action in order
that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the
sake of the stability of the rights and statuses of persons.
To constitute litis pendentia, the following requisites
must be present: (1) identity of the parties in the two
actions; (2) substantial identity in the causes of action and
in the reliefs sought by the parties; (3) and the identity
between the two actions should be such that any judgment
that may be rendered in one case, regardless of which
party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the
other.
Indisputably, the requisite identity of parties is met in
the present case. The disputed point is whether there is
substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs
sought in the cases for annulment of lease contract filed by
Stop and Save and for unlawful detainer filed by Dominga.
“The test to determine whether the causes of action
are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence
will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in
the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions.
If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two
actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the
first case is a bar to the subsequent action.”
In the present case, while there is an identity in the
facts between the two actions, involving as they do the
same lease contract, the issues and the relief prayed for
are different so that the causes of action remain entirely
distinct from each other.
In the unlawful detainer suit, the issue is who between
the parties has a better right to physical possession over
the property or possession de facto and the principal relief
prayed for is for Stop and Save to vacate the property for
failure to pay the rent. In contrast, in the annulment of
lease contract, the issue is the validity of the lease contract,
where Stop and Save puts in issue Dominga’s ownership.
In other words, the issue of physical possession in the
action for unlawful detainer cannot be identical with the
issues of ownership and validity of contract in the action
for annulment. From these essential differences, the lack
of required identity in the causes of action for litis pendentia
to exist cannot be denied.
Brion, J., Dominga B. Quito v. Stop & Save Corporation, as represented
by Gregory David Dickenson, as its Chairman, and Julieta BuanDickenson, as its President, Roberto Buan, Henry Co, Angelina Lumotan,
Rodel Pineda and Rose Calma, G.R. No. 186657, June 11, 2014.
26
Doctrinal Reminders
Remedial Law (continued)
Service of summons upon judicial entity.
Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides the rule
on service of summons upon a juridical entity. It provides
that summons may be served upon a juridical entity only
through its officers. Thus:
SEC. 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. –
When the defendant is a corporation, partnership
or association organized under the laws of the
Philippines with a juridical personality, service may
be made on the president, managing partner,
general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or
in-house counsel.
We have already established that the enumeration in
Section 11 of Rule 14 is exclusive. Service of summons upon
persons other than those officers enumerated in Section 11
is invalid. Even substantial compliance is not sufficient service
of summons.
This provision of the rule does not limit service to the
officers’ places of residence or offices. If summons may not
be served upon these persons personally at their residences
or offices, summons may be served upon any of the officers
wherever they may be found.
(Leonen, J., Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose
Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 172204, July 2, 2014.)
Summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings
distinguished.
A summary judgment is usually distinguished from a
judgment on the pleadings. Under Rule 34 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, trial may be dispensed with and a
case decided through judgment on the pleadings if the
answer filed fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the
material allegations of the claimant’s pleading.
Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the answer
filed fails to tender any issue, or otherwise admits the
material allegations in the complaint. On the other hand,
in a summary judgment, the answer filed tenders issues as
specific denials and affirmative defenses are pleaded, but
the issues raised are sham, fictitious, or otherwise not
genuine.
employees fall within the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals
such that when the claim for damages is grounded on the
“wanton failure and refusal” without just cause of an
employee to report for duty despite repeated notices served
upon him of the disapproval of his application for leave of
absence, the same falls within the purview of Civil Law, to
wit:
As early as Singapore Airlines Limited v. Paño, we
established that not all disputes between an employer
and his employee(s) fall within the jurisdiction of the
labor tribunals. We differentiated between
abandonment per se and the manner and
consequent effects of such abandonment and ruled
that the first, is a labor case, while the second, is a
civil law case.
Upon the facts and issues involved, jurisdiction over
the present controversy must be held to belong to the
civil Courts. While seemingly petitioner’s claim for
damages arises from employer-employee relations,
and the latest amendment to Article 217 of the Labor
Code under PD No. 1691 and BP Blg. 130 provides
that all other claims arising from employeremployee relationship are cognizable by Labor
Arbiters [citation omitted], in essence, petitioner’s
claim for damages is grounded on the “wanton failure
and refusal” without just cause of private respondent
Cruz to report for duty despite repeated notices served
upon him of the disapproval of his application for leave
of absence without pay. This, coupled with the further
averment that Cruz “maliciously and with bad faith”
violated the terms and conditions of the conversion
training course agreement to the damage of petitioner
removes the present controversy from the coverage of
the Labor Code and brings it within the purview of Civil
Law.
Clearly, the complaint was anchored not on the
abandonment per se by private respondent Cruz of
his job—as the latter was not required in the
Complaint to report back to work—but on the manner
and consequent effects of such abandonment of work
translated in terms of the damages which petitioner had
to suffer. x x x.
Jurisdiction over dispute between an employer and
his employees.
Indeed, jurisprudence has evolved the rule that claims
for damages under Article 217(a)(4) of the Labor Code, to
be cognizable by the LA, must have a reasonable causal
connection with any of the claims provided for in that article.
Only if there is such a connection with the other claims can
a claim for damages be considered as arising from employeremployee relations.
The Court ruled in the recent case of Portillo v. Rudolf Lietz,
Inc. that not all disputes between an employer and his
(Peralta, J., Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. v. Engr. Salvador Adviento, G.R.
No. 171212, August 4, 2014.)
(Leonen, J., Olivarez Corporation and Dr. Pablo R. Olivarez v. Benjamin
Castillo, G.R. No. 196251, July 9, 2014.)
27
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 89-2014
TO: ALL SELECTED FIRST LEVEL COURT JUDGES AND BRANCH
CLERKS OF COURT/OFFICERS IN CHARGE
TO: ALL JUDGES/PENSIONERS AND SURVIVORSHIP
PENSIONERS
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THE RELEASE OF PENSIONS FOR
JUDGES/PENSIONERS AND SURVIVORSHIP PENSIONERS
Pursuant to OCA Circulars Nos. 18-2013 (February 8, 2013),
103-2013 (August 7, 2013) and 55-2014 (April 10, 2014),
the Automated Payroll System (APS) was fully implemented
for the payment of salaries and allowances to all judges and
personnel of the lower courts. Payroll crediting dates for
salaries and allowances were specified for uniform
implementation. Notably, pensions of retired judges/
pensioners are likewise released through the automated
payroll system at their options. However, all survivorship
pensioners receive the pensions only by checks to strictly
monitor compliance with the requirements for their receipt
of the survivorship pensions.
In order to rationalize the release of pensions, whether
by check or by APS, together with the releases of salaries
and allowances of incumbent judges and personnel of the
lower courts through APS, specific dates for the release of
pensions was recommended by the Office of the Court
Administrator and was APPROVED by Chief Justice MARIA
LOURDES P. A. SERENO on May 23, 2014.
Thus, beginning July 2014, the following guidelines shall
be observed in the release of pensions for judges/pensioners
and survivorship pensioners:
1.
Pensions of retired judges/pensioners who
receive their pensions through APS shall be
credited not earlier than the 7th working day of
every month;
2.
Pensions of retired judges/pensioners who
receive their pensions through Modified
Disbursement Scheme (MDS) checks shall
likewise be released not earlier than the 7th
working day of every month, by mail or by
personal pick-up; and
3.
Pensions of survivorship pensioners shall be
released not earlier than the 10th working day
of the month, by mail or by personal pick-up.
SUBJECT: SMALL CLAIMS CASE MONITORING SYSTEM (SC2MS)
SURVEY
On March 26, 2014, the Office of the Court Administrator,
in cooperation with the American Bar Association Rule of
Law Initiative, disseminated survey/questionnaires on the
Small Claims Case Monitoring System (SC2MS) to a select
group of courts to gather insights and perspectives on how
to improve the Amended Rule of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases and the SC2MS.1
To further assess the needed amendments to the
Amended Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases as well
as improve the SC2MS, it is necessary to acquire additional
data from the Iitigants. Thus, the branch clerks of court/
officers in charge of the selected courts2 are hereby directed
to: (1) encode on to the SC2MS all the required data for the
cases you have listed as samples under OCA Circular No. 432014, and (2) disseminate the attached questionnaires* for
plaintiffs, and thereafter mail them back to the Office of
the Court Administrator using the paid envelopes provided
herein.
Your utmost cooperation in completing the survey is
hereby enjoined.
July 4, 2014.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
1.
OCA Circular No. 43-2014
2.
Manila MeTC Br. 6; Manila MeTC Br. 11; Quezon City MeTC Br. 35;
Makati City MeTC Br. 65; Marikina MeTC Br. 92; Dagupan City; MTCC
Br. 2; Bacnotan MTC; Rosales MTC; Urdaneta City MTCC; Alfonso
Lista-Aguinaldo MCTC; Aparri-Calayan MCTC Br. 2; Ilaga MTC;
Limay MTC; Malolos City MTCC Br. 1; Marilao MTC; Meycauayan
City MTCC Br. 1; Olongapo City MTCC Br. 3; Rizal MTC; SilangAmadeo MCTC; Brooke’s Point-Espanola MCTC; Calamba City
MTCC; Bauan MTC; Looc-Alcantara-Sta. Fe-San Jose MCTC; Rosario
MTC; Libmanan-Cabusao MCTC; Iriga City MTCC Br. 1; Tabaco City
MTCC; Cadiz City MTCC; Iloilo City MTCC Br. 8; Miag-Ao MTC;
Pontevedra-Panay MCTC; Pototan-Mina MCTC; Silay City MTCC;
Toledo City MTCC; Carmen-Batuan MCTC; Cebu City MTCC Br. 1;
Mandaue City MeTC Br. 3; Carigara MTC; Catarman- Lope De Vega
MCTC; Barauen MTC: Leyte MTC; Maasin City MTCC; LiloyTampilisan MCTC; Catbalogan City MTCC; Pagadian City MTCC Br.
1: Zamboanga City MTCC Br. 2; Zamboanga City MTCC Br. 4; Dapitan
City MTCC; Aurora MTC; Cagayan De Oro City MTCC Br. 1; Gingoog
City MTCC: Maramag-Kalilangan-Pangantucan MCTC; Oroquieta
City MTCC Br. 2; Ozamis City MTCC Br. 3; Laguindingan-Gitagum
MCTC; Bansalan-Magsaysay MCTC; Norala-T’boli-Sto. Nino MCTC;
Tupi MTC; Kidapawan City MTCC; Davao City MTCC Br. 1; Island
Garden City of Samal MTCC Br. 1; lIigan City MTCC Br. 3; Kapatagan
MTC; Tacurong City MTCC; Pigkawayan-Alamada-Banisilan MCTC;
Pres. Roxas-Antipas-Arakan MCTC.
*
Questionnaires available in the PHILJA website
(http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph).
For strict compliance.
June 23, 2014.
Court Administrator
28
TO: ALL OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST AND
SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: A.M. NO. 12-4-6-SC (RE: BIR LETTER OF AUTHORITY
TO EXAMINE SUPREME COURT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND
OTHER ACCOUNTING RECORDS)
In the June 25, 2014 Resolution of the Honorable Court En
Banc in A.M. No. 12-4-6-SC (Re: BIR Letter of Authority to
Examine Supreme Court Books of Account and Other
Accounting Records), the Court resolved, upon the
recommendation of the Commission on Audit under Audit
Observation Memorandum No. 2014-001 (SAJ), as
submitted by the Fiscal Management and Budget Office, to
APPROVE the withholding and remittance of the correct
amount of tax required to be deducted and withheld from
the Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) of officials and
employees, as well as the withholding of the corresponding
taxes from the following:
(1) The monthly SAJ of incumbent justices, judges
and judiciary officials with the equivalent rank
of a Court of Appeals Justice or Regional Trial
Court judge;
(2) The monthly special allowance in an amount
equivalent to the SAJ being received by judiciary
officials not included in item no. 1; and
(3) The additional allowance from the surplus of
the SAJ Fund that may be authorized to be given
to judiciary officials and employees who are
not direct beneficiaries under Republic Act No.
9227.
For your information, guidance and strict compliance.
July 7, 2014.
Court Administrator
TO: EXECUTIVE/PRESIDING JUDGES, CLERKS OF COURT/
OFFICERS IN CHARGE/ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS OF THE FIRST
AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: REDUCTION OF INITIAL/OPENING DEPOSIT AND
MAINTAINING BALANCE OF REGULAR SAVINGS ACCOUNT
FROM P10,000 TO P1,000 FOR THE FIDUCIARY AND SHERIFF’S
TRUST FUND ACCOUNTS; WAIVER OF CERTIFICATION FEE ON
BANK BALANCES; AND WAIVER OF FEE ON REQUESTS FOR
SNAPSHOTS AND RE-PRINTING OF BANK STATEMENTS
Quoted hereunder, for the information and guidance of all
concerned, are certain matters on bank policies of the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) which were requested by this
Office in its letter dated May 26, 2014, and were approved
by the LBP through Ms. Delma O. Bandiola, Assistant Vice
President/Relationship Officer, North NCR Cluster B, to wit:
(1) Reduction of initial/opening deposit and
maintaining balance of Regular Savings
Account from P10,000 to P1,000 for the
Fiduciary Fund and Sheriff’s Trust Fund;
(2) Waiver of certification fee on bank balances;
and
(3) Waiver of fee on requests for snapshots and
re-printing of bank statements.
The foregoing shall also serve as an authority to open a
Fiduciary Fund and Sheriff’s Trust Fund account.
July 31, 2014.
Court Administrator
TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED JUNE 25, 2014
IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 131969, ENTITLED RICARDO MENDEZ Y
DUALAN V. HON. LIZA MARIE R. PICARDAL-TECSON, ET AL.
In his letter dated July 30, 2014, Prosecutor General Claro
A. Arellano reported that some of the courts in the National
Capital Judicial Region “have dismissed a significant amount
of criminal cases for lack of jurisdiction, using as basis the
decision of the Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals
in the case, “Ricardo Mendez y Dualan v. Hon. Liza Marie
R. Picardal-Tecson, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of
Makati City, Branch 144 and People of the Philippines,”
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 131969, promulgated on June
25, 2014.” With respect thereto, Prosecutor General
Arellano disclosed that they “filed a Motion for
Reconsideration to the aforementioned decision.”
By reason thereof, Prosecutor General Arellano sought
the assistance of the Office of the Court Administrator “to
provide our Honorable Courts the necessary guidance
pertaining to the subject CA decision.” He added that “the
Honorable Courts (should) restrain the dismissal of criminal
informations filed by (their) prosecution offices on the basis
of the said CA decision while (their) Motion for
Reconsideration is still pending before the Court of Appeals.”
It is clear that the decision in the subject cases has yet
to attain finality. Thus, the same should not be cited as basis
in the meantime to quash criminal informations being filed
by prosecution offices which are found to be suffering from
the supposedly fatal defect of lack of the required approval
by the concerned city prosecutors. Accordingly, and until
further notice, the proper course of action to take is to
29
maintain the status quo and newly-filed criminal cases should
not be dismissed citing as authority the decision in the
Mendez case (CA-G.R. SP No. 131969) since the said ruling
is not yet final.
Any prior circular from the Office of the Court Administrator
on this matter which is contrary to the foregoing is hereby
superseded.
August 22, 2014.
August 8, 2014.
Court Administrator
Court Administrator
TO: THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN COURT OF
TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT
COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS, THE OFFICE
OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR, PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND
THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUBJECT: BAR MATTER NO. 2604 (RE: CLARIFICATION RELATIVE
TO SECTIONS 2 AND 13, RULE III OF THE 2004 RULES ON
NOTARIAL PRACTICE)
In the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated December 11,
2012 in the above-cited administrative matter, the Court
resolved the clarification sought by Atty. Noreen Grace
Salise-Gonzaga relative to the requirements for renewal of
notarial commission, the full context of which is reproduced
below, to wit:
In a Letter dated September 4, 2012, Atty. Noreen
Grace Salise-Gonzaga seeks a clarification on the
requirements for renewal of notarial commission,
specifically Section 13 of Rule III of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice. She avers that the Clerk of Court
in her judicial region “requires us to comply with
the provisions of Rule III, Section 2 all over again,
plus the requirement of Section 13.”
WHEREFORE, for renewal of notarial commission,
specifically under Section 13, Rule III of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice, aside from payment of the
application fee, a notary public needs only to file a written
application with the Executive Judge within forty-five
(45) days before the expiration of the notarial
commission, attaching thereto clearances from the
following:
(1) Executive Judge of the Regional Trial
Court who will issue the notarial
commission;
(2) Office of the Bar Confidant;
(3) Local Chapter of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines where the applicant is
seeking notarial commission; and
(4) National Bureau
(Emphasis supplied)
of
Investigation.
TO: ALL CONCERNED JUDGES, CLERKS OF COURT, AND OTHER
COURT PERSONNEL
SUBJECT: COURT RECOGNITION OF BJMP’S PARALEGAL
PROGRAM
Acting on the letter of the Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology (BJMP) dated March 28, 2014 that “it has been
the perennial report of (their) Paralegal Officers that they
find utmost difficulty in asking for court records and following
up cases with many court personnel,” and pursuant to the
Resolution of the Court in A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (Guidelines
for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Rights of
Accused Persons to Bail and to Speedy Trial), dated March
18, 2014, and took effect on May 1, 2014, which recognized
the need “to effectively implement existing policies laid
down by the Constitution, the laws, and the rules respecting
the accused’s rights to bail and to speedy trial in the context
of decongesting our detention jails and humanizing the
conditions of detained persons pending the hearing of their
cases,” all judges, clerks of court, and other concerned court
personnel of all first and second level courts are ENJOINED
to RECOGNIZE the BJMP Paralegal Program and its
Paralegal Officers, “who are tasked to assist inmates, avail
of legal modes of release, and conduct coordination
(mechanisms) to help expedite the resolution of their
pending cases,” for a speedier disposition of cases and
decongestion of jails.
August 26, 2014.
Court Administrator
TO: ALL TRIAL COURT JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT/
BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT
SUBJECT: INVENTORY OF CONFISCATED PROPERTY BONDS
It has come to our attention that majority of the branches
of the lower courts have not been submitting to the Office
30
Circulars
OCA Circular No. 113-2014 (continued)
of the Court Administrator (OCA) their reports on
confiscated property bonds in both civil and criminal cases
where such bonds were posted. OCA Circular No. 4-2002
was issued on May 8, 2002 to the effect that all branches of
the lower courts are directed to submit an inventory of all
confiscated property bonds. It is in this light that the OCA is
reiterating its previous directive, requiring all branches of
the trial courts to submit an inventory of confiscated
property bond.
The inventory shall be reported using the following format:
Administrator (OCA) relative to the payment of fines in
administrative matters, all concerned justices, judges, court
officials and personnel are hereby informed of the following
procedure:
In order to have a uniform procedure in the payment of
fines imposed by the Court in administrative matters, all
fines shall be paid within 30 days from the finality of the
decision or final resolution imposing the fine. Decisions and
resolutions in administrative cases which are immediately
executory shall be considered final, for purposes of the
payment of fines, upon receipt of the subject decision or
resolution and the fine shall be paid within the
aforementioned period regardless of the filing of a Motion
for Reconsideration.
Payment shall be made with the Office of the Clerk of
Court of the station where the respondent is assigned which,
within five 5 days, shall furnish the Docket and Clearance
Division (DCD), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) with
a certified copy of the receipt indicating therein the case
number where the fine was imposed. Payment may also be
made with the Cash Division of the Financial Management
Office, OCA, which shall immediately furnish the DCD, OCA,
with a certified copy of the receipt indicating therein the
case number where the fine was imposed.
The DCD shall inform the Court of all payments of fines
in administrative matters. It shall likewise report to the
Court any failure of respondent(s) to pay fines imposed by
the Court.
The aforesaid inventory report shall be submitted to
the Docket and Clearance Division, Legal Office, Office of
the Court Administrator, not later than 30 days from receipt
hereof. Henceforth, all branches of the lower courts are
enjoined to submit a report on the inventory of confiscated
property bond, as the need arises.
This Circular supersedes prior circulars/memoranda
inconsistent herewith and shall remain in force until further
orders from the Court.
Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.
August 27, 2014.
Court Administrator
August 26, 2014.
Court Administrator
TO: JUSTICES, JUDGES, COURT OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL
OF THE THIRD, SECOND AND FIRST LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: UNIFORM PERIOD AND PROCEDURE IN THE
PAYMENT OF FINES IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
In accordance with the Court’s August 27, 2013 Resolution
in A.M. No. P-03-1703 (Edna Fe F. Aquino v. Jose R. Martin,
Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Cauayan City, Isabela)
approving the circular proposed by the Office of the Court
TO: ALL CLERKS OF COURT, OFFICERS IN CHARGE, LIBRARIANS
AND ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS, SHARI’A
CIRCUIT COURTS AND MAINTENANCE OFFICES OF THE HALLS
OF JUSTICE
SUBJECT: CONDUCT OF PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND RENEWAL
OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT FOR EQUIPMENT (ARE)
For purposes of updating the records of property
accountabilities and to determine the condition of all office
31
equipment, furniture, books and all other properties of the
lower courts, all Clerks of Court, Officers in Charge, Librarians
and accountable officers of the lower courts and
maintenance offices of the Halls of Justice are hereby
directed to conduct a physical inventory of all court-issued
properties in their respective, offices, branches and libraries
and to renew their Acknowledgment Receipt for Equipment
(ARE).
The conduct of the inventory must be witnessed by a
representative from the nearest Commission on Audit (COA)
office.
The result of the inventory must be reflected in the
attached Inventory Report form, accomplished in triplicate,
and must be duly attested by the representative of the
COA.
In the preparation of the inventory reports, all courtissued properties, including equipment and other properties
which are issued by the offices of the Supreme Court (SC) or
offices of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) without
ARE and donated properties whose ownership has been
transferred to the SC, must be included in the report. The
condition (ex. serviceable, unserviceable) of each piece of
property should be duly indicated in the “Remarks” column
of the prescribed form. Information such as the property
number, serial number, the date the property was acquired
and to whom it was issued must also be indicated.
Not to be included in the Inventory Report are the
properties issued by local government or non-government
agencies where ownership is not transferred to the court,
properties issued by the Department of Justice to the courts
or offices housed in Halls of Justice for reason of lack of
formal transfer, and office supplies and other consumables.
All Executive and Presiding Judges shall supervise the
proper implementation of this directive within their
respective jurisdictions to insure the proper accomplishment
and prompt submission of such reports to the Property
Division, Office of Administrative Offices, OCA.
All Clerks of Courts, Officers in Charge, Librarians and
accountable officers of the lower courts and maintenance
offices of the Halls of Justice are required to submit their
respective Inventory Reports and ARE within 30 days from
receipt of this Circular, and thereafter, to submit the
Inventory Report on or before the first week of January of
every succeeding year, and the ARE every three years on
the first week of January.
September 11, 2014.
Court Administrator
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF SELECTED
FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS IN QUEZON CITY,
MAKATI CITY, ANGELES CITY, ILOILO CITY, DAVAO CITY,
AND CEBU CITY
SUBJECT: PILOTING OF A NEW SYSTEM FOR SPEEDY
COURT TRIAL
The Supreme Court En Banc, in a Resolution dated
March 18, 2014 in A.M. No. 14-03-02-SC (Re: Program for
Piloting and Assessing the Proposed Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure), approved the Piloting of a New System for
Speedy Court Trial, the full text of which is appended herein
as “Annex A.”
The rules of the new system shall apply to all civil actions
which have not yet undergone pre-trial in the selected first
and second level courts mentioned in said rules, and shall
take effect on February 23, 2015.
For your information, guidance, and strict compliance.
September 12, 2014.
Court Administrator
“ANNEX A”
ANNOUNCING THE PILOTING OF
A NEW SYSTEM FOR SPEEDY COURT TRIAL
The Supreme Court has approved by Resolution A.M. 1403-02-SC dated March 8, 2014 the piloting of Rules 22 and
24 of the draft Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, reproduced
below. These Rules shall, beginning February 23, 2015,
apply to all civil actions in the following first and second
level courts that have not yet undergone pre-trial:
Quezon City
a. Regional Trial Courts: Branches 77, 78, 81, 84, 89,
90, 92, 93, 97, 100, 218 and 225
b. Metropolitan Trial Courts: Branches 31, 36, 38 and
42
Makati City
a. Regional Trial Courts: Branches 57, 58, 60, 62,
133, 134, 136, 137, 142 and 149
b. Metropolitan Trial Courts: Branches 61 and 67
Angeles City
a. Regional Trial Courts: Branches 56 and 57
b. Metropolitan Trial Courts: Branch 2
Iloilo City
a. Regional Trial Courts: Branches 27, 28, 29, 37 and
39
b. Metropolitan Trial Courts: Branches 6, 8 and 10
32
Circulars
Davao City
a. Regional Trial Courts: Branches 10, 12 and 16
Cebu City
a. Regional Trial Courts: Branches 9, 10, 11, 12, 18,
19, 22 and 24
RULE 22
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE
SECTION 22.1. Policy of the Rule. — It is the policy of this
Rule in relation to the Rule on Trial of issues to:
(a) Require the parties to make a full disclosure of the
known facts of the case early in the proceedings and
submit to the court the affidavits and documents that
prove their claims, for the purpose of enabling the
court to accurately identify the issues between the
parties and facilitate the process of settling their
disputes amicably or, if this is not possible, to
considerably limit the scope of trial;
(a) The court shall, motu proprio or on motion, give notice
to the parties to simultaneously submit to the court
within 30 days from notice and serve upon each other,
the following:
1. The judicial affidavits of their witnesses in support
of their allegations, which shall take the place of
such witnesses’ direct testimonies; and
2. The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if
any, which shall be attached to the judicial
affidavits, identified and marked as Exhibits P, P-1,
P-2, and so on in the case of-the plaintiff or
petitioner, Exhibits C, C-1, C-2, and so on in the
case of the complainant, Exhibits D, D-1, D-2, and
so on in the case of the defendant, Exhibits R, R-1,
R-2, and so on in the case of the respondent, and
duly identified and authenticated by the proper
witness or witnesses.
(b) A party may, if he or she so desires, submit reply judicial
affidavits respecting matters not touched by his or her
initial affidavits within 15 days from receipt of the
adverse party’s judicial affidavits. No further judicial
affidavit may be submitted without prior leave of court
which shall be granted only on justifiable grounds.
(f) Raise the level of professionalism of judges and counsels
in terms of promptness in starting court proceedings
and meeting deadlines.
(c) Should a party or a witness desire to retain possession
of the original document or object evidence, he or she
may, after it has been identified, marked as exhibit,
and authenticated, warrant in his or her judicial
affidavit that the copy, reproduction, or picture
attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy,
reproduction, or picture of the original. In addition,
the party or witness shall bring to court the original
document or object evidence to enable the adverse
party to compare the original document with its copy
or reproduction or the object evidence with its picture.
The comparison shall be done by the adverse party
before the branch clerk of court prior to the date of
the preliminary conference. The comparison shall then
be duly noted by the branch clerk of court on the
attached copy, reproduction, or picture before the date
of the preliminary conference. Unless the comparison
is done or deemed waived by the non-appearance of
the adverse party, the copy attached to the judicial
affidavit shall not be admitted.
SEC . 22.2. Mandatory disclosure of evidence. — If the
parties do not settle their disputes during the JDR [Judicial
Dispute Resolution stage], the case shall be raffled to a
different branch for further proceedings. The parties may,
however, instead file a joint written motion or manifestation
requesting the court that concluded the JDR to continue
with the case. In either case, the parties shall then submit
to the court and disclose to each other the evidence in the
case that are known and available to them in the following
manner:
(d) If the requested witness, who is neither the witness of
the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably
declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses
without just cause to make the relevant books,
documents, or other things under his or her control
available for copying, authentication, and eventual
production in court, the requesting party may avail
himself or herself of a subpoena ad testificandum or
duces tecum under the Rules of Court. The party
requesting the issuance of a subpoena shall be
(b) Treat litigations not as a contest pitting the resources
and skills of the parties in building up their cases and
destroying those of the others, but as a collective effort
of all to search for the truth and to render justice to
all;
(c) Empower the judge to take a direct role in examining
the witnesses during the trial and elicit from them the
answers needed for rendering a just judgment;
(d) Make maximum use of the court’s time and shorten
trial without sacrificing the quality of hearing and
adjudication:
(e) Require the parties and their counsels to assist the
court in doing work they can properly perform to enable
the judge to do his judicial duties with greater dispatch
and efficiency; and
33
responsible for ensuring its personal service upon the
witness, and shall bear the cost of such personal service
and the expenses of the witness in appearing before
the lawyer who will prepare or supervise the
preparation of his or her judicial affidavit.
(e) A party who fails to submit the required judicial
affidavits and exhibits when they are due shall be
deemed to have waived such submission and the right
to present evidence in support of his or her case. Still,
the court may, for good cause shown and not later
than 15 days from receipt of the adverse party’s judicial
affidavits and exhibits, allow but once the late
submission of the requirements. It may also, if no good
cause is shown, still allow such late submission but once,
provided that the defaulting party or his or her counsels,
whoever may appear at fault, pays a fine set by the
court which shall not be less than P1,000 or more than
P5,000.
(f) If a vital witness is (1) outside the Philippines, or (2) is
shown to be under an exceptional or compelling
predicament at the time his or her judicial affidavit is
needed for submission, the counsel may, with leave of
court, prepare such affidavit through video
conferencing and submit it to the court with the
counsel’s attestation regarding its authenticity,
conditioned on the witness appearing at the hearing
to sign it, affirm its truth, and submit to an examination
by the court and the parties.
(g) The court may, on motion, allow a witness who,
because of exceptional and compelling reasons, has
been unable to execute a judicial affidavit to testify in
court by way of a narration of what he or she needs to
relate in relation to the case which shall be restricted
to relevant facts, provided that the motion is filed
within the period for submission of judicial affidavits
and the movant states in the motion the substance of
the testimony of such witness. This shall include
government employees or officials who are unable to
execute judicial affidavits by reason of the demands of
their official work.
(h) In case a party submits judicial affidavits that do not
conform to the content requirements, the court shall
issue an order excluding such affidavits from the record.
The court may, however, allow but once and for good
cause shown the subsequent submission of the
compliant replacement affidavits within 10 days from
receipt of the exclusion order. If no good cause is
shown, the court may still allow such subsequent
submission provided that the erring party or his or her
counsels, whoever may appear responsible for their
preparation and submission, pays a fine set by the court
which shall not be less than P1,000 or more than
P5,000.
(i) The direct testimony of a witness shall be deemed
offered and admitted upon submission in court of his
or her judicial affidavit, subject to motions for exclusion
of inadmissible testimonies at the appropriate time
and to the examination of such witness. The documents
and object evidence that the parties previously marked
as their exhibits shall also be deemed offered and
admitted upon their submission in court as part of the
testimony of the witness who testifies on their
existence, execution, or functions for the purposes that
such testimony indicates, whether expressly or
impliedly, subject to motions for exclusion at the
appropriate time and to the examination of the
witness.
SEC. 22.3. Use of certain discovery procedures. — A party
who desires to avail himself or herself of the modes of
discovery shall do so in accordance with Rules 27 to 31.
Such party shall take steps to complete the process and
submit the material portions of the record of the
proceedings, previously undisclosed documents or facts, and
the necessary judicial affidavits pertaining to the fruits of
the discovery within 60 days from the start of the discovery
process.
Sec. 22.4. Preparation of the Terms of Reference. — The
Court shall, taking into account the submissions of the parties
and counsels, prepare the Terms of Reference of the case
that will control the scope of trial.
(a) After the parties shall have submitted their respective
judicial affidavits, documentary and object exhibits,
and the results of the discovery procedures they have
undertaken, the court shall issue an order requiring
each party through their respective counsels as officers
of the court, to simultaneously submit to it and serve
on the other party within 15 days from notice a brief,
concise, and fair draft of the Terms of Reference of the
case, containing:
1. A summary of the admitted facts;
2. A statement that the documents attached to
judicial affidavits or object evidence referred to
are faithful copies, reproductions, or pictures of
their originals if such be the case;
3. A summary of the totality of the facts that the
plaintiff’s evidence appears to have established;
4. A summary of the totality of the facts that the
defendant’s evidence appears to have established;
5. Based on the two summaries above, a statement
of the factual issue or issues that the conflicting
evidence of the parties present:
6. A list of the witnesses from either side who, based
on their judicial affidavits and exhibits, are
34
Circulars
competent to testify on each of the factual issues
or related factual issues in the case; and
7. A statement of the legal issues that the case
presents once the factual issues and related factual
issues have been resolved.
(b) An issue is factual when the contending parties cannot
agree that a thing exists or has actually happened. An
issue is legal when the contending parties assume a
thing exists or has actually happened but disagree on
its legal significance or effect on their rights or
obligations.
(c) Only relevant and significant issues need be tried. An
issue is relevant and significant when its resolution will
help decide the case on its merits. Otherwise, it is
irrelevant and need not be tried.
(d) Every factual issue should be adequately stated. The
statement of an issue is adequate when it contains
words describing the ultimate facts that the party
bearing the burden of proving the affirmative of such
issue must establish by his or her evidence.
(e) The facts alleged by the parties in their complaint,
answer, and judicial affidavits, when not put in issue in
the Terms of Reference, shall be deemed admitted or
otherwise regarded as irrelevant to the resolution of
the dispute.
(f) If a party’s counsel fails to submit his or her draft of the
Terms of Reference, he or she shall be deemed to have
waived the submission of such draft, without prejudice
to appropriate sanctions for failure to comply with the
order of the court.
(g) Within 15 days of its receipt of the drafts of the Terms
of Reference, or after the lapse of the period to submit
such drafts, the court shall prepare its final version,
taking such drafts into account. (n)
SEC. 22.5. Notice of Preliminary Conference. — The branch
clerk of court shall, through phone calls and electronic
messages, consult the parties, through their counsels, on
their availability before setting the case for preliminary
conference. In addition, the branch clerk shall serve a
written notice of such conference on the parties, through
their counsels, requiring the parties and their counsels to
appear before the court for a preliminary conference on
the date and time that it has set. It shall be the duty of the
counsels to promptly inform their clients regarding the
setting and the need for them to be present as well. (n)
person who is fully authorized to act on his behalf respecting
all the matters subject of the conference. (n)
SEC. 22.7. Decision as in default against absentee. — In
the event a party or his counsels fails to appear at the
preliminary conference, the court shall, within thirty days
from the date of the scheduled preliminary conference,
render a decision, adjudicating the other party’s claims, if
warranted, after the court’s ex parte examination of such
party’s witness or witnesses based on their judicial affidavits.
(n)
SEC. 22.8. Decision as in default, when set aside. — The
court may, however, set aside a judgment rendered under
Section 22.7 if, within 15 days from notice of the decision,
the party concerned files a motion with the court with prior
notice to the adverse party that his or her failure to comply
with what was required of him or her has been due to
extrinsic fraud or unavoidable accident. Only when the
ground is clearly meritorious will the court grant the motion.
The court may at its discretion, however, where the ground
is not clearly meritorious, still grant the motion, set aside
the decision of default, and reschedule another preliminary
conference for the last time, upon admission of error or
neglect by the party or his or her counsel and after payment
of a fine set by the court which shall not be less than P1,000
or more than P5,000. (n)
S EC . 22.9. Matters to be taken up at the preliminary
conference. — The court shall take the following actions
during the preliminary conference in the order listed below:
(a) The, court shall determine, in consultation with the
parties and their counsels, if there is a need to make
changes in the contents or wordings of the Terms of
Reference that it earlier prepared. If there is such a
need, the court shall enter the changes on the
document.
(b) If a party asks the court to try an excluded issue, the
court shall include it for trial provided that such party
makes a deposit for court costs amounting to not less
than P10,000 but not more than P50,000 at the
discretion of the court. Should the trial court or, on
appeal, a higher court find the additional issue a sham,
it shall order the deposit forfeited to the court;
otherwise it shall have the same refunded to the party
concerned.
(c) The court may adjourn the preliminary conference
once if there is a chance of settlement and the parties
need time to consider the matter; otherwise, the court
shall proceed with the conference.
(d) The court shall, in consultation with the parties:
SEC. 22.6. Appearance of parties. — It shall be the duty of
the parties and their counsels to appear at the preliminary
conference. A party’s non-appearance may be excused only
for valid cause shown or if he or she is represented by another
1. Fix the order in which the issues are to be tried;
2. Identify the witnesses who need to be present to
testify on each of the issues;
35
3. Set the specific dates for reception of evidence on
each issue or related issues;
4. Determine whether the circumstances warrant
an alternate or face-to-face trial of issues and in
the latter case, whether it shall be a simple or
regular trial of issues as provided below, and
determine who among the witnesses are exempt
from face-to-face examination;
5. Determine the need to refer certain issues to trial
by commissioners; and
6. Summarize the foregoing arrangements towards
the end of the preliminary conference and issue
an Order of Trial, copy furnished the parties, which
shall reflect such arrangements.
(e) The court may, as a result of the preliminary
conference or in the course of it when the
circumstances warrant, render judgment or dismiss
the action. If evidence is required for adjudicating a
ground for dismissal, the court shall set the case for
reception of such evidence and then dismiss the action
if warranted.
(b) A party may move on proper ground to disqualify a
witness before he or she is examined and strike out his
judicial affidavit or exclude any of the answers found in
it on ground of inadmissibility. This motion shall be
resolved in accordance with Sections 24.8 and 24.9
below.
(c) A party may also move to exclude any of the exhibits
attached to the judicial affidavit of a witness on ground
of inadmissibility. This motion shall be resolved also in
accordance with Sections 24.8 and 24.9 below. The
objecting party shall make his motion in writing before
the trial if the exhibits are voluminous to facilitate its
resolution. The rulings of the court respecting the
exclusion of testimonies and exhibits based on public
policy grounds shall be without prejudice to a tender
of excluded evidence under the appropriate rule.
(d) The court and the counsels of the parties shall examine
the witnesses and determine the truthfulness of the
judicial affidavits that constitute their direct
testimonies in the case.
xxxx
(e) A witness may testify on one or more issues.
RULE 24
SEC. 24.5. Rules governing alternate trial. — In an alternate
trial:
TRIAL OF ISSUES
SECTION 24.1. Alternate trial. — An alternate trial is one
where parties take turns in presenting their witnesses
respecting the first factual issue or related issues stated in
the order of trial. The party who bears the burden of proving
the affirmative of the issue under consideration shall be the
first to present a witness.
SEC. 24.2. Face-to-face trial. — A face-to-face trial is one
wherein witnesses from the contending sides appear
together before the court, sit face-to-face around a table
in a non-adversarial environment, and answer questions
from the court as well as the parties’ counsels respecting
the factual issue under consideration.
SEC. 24.3. Options for trying the issues. — The court shall
have the option to try the issues embodied in the Terms of
Reference either by alternate or face-to-face trial. In the
latter case, the court may conduct either simple or regular
face-to-face trial, whichever it considers more suitable. The
parties may by unanimous agreement, however, choose to
have an alternate trial in lieu of a face-to-face trial.
SEC. 24.4. Common rules. — The following common rules
shall govern both alternate and face-to-face trials:
(a) Each factual issue shall be tried strictly in the sequence
provided in the Order of Trial although two or more
closely related issues may be simultaneously tried.
(a) The parties shall take turns in presenting their
witnesses respecting the first factual issue or related
issues stated in the Order of Trial.
(b) The party who bears the burden of proving the
affirmative of the issue under consideration shall be
the first to present a witness. If the party has more
than one witness, the witnesses will be presented
successively respecting such issue. The opposing party
shall afterwards present the witness or witnesses for
that issue.
(c) The court shall be the first to examine each of the
witnesses thus presented. The parties shall then take
their turns to conduct the cross, re-direct, and re-cross
of the particular witness. This is without prejudice to
the right of the court to ask additional questions of the
same witness.
(d) The examination by the court and by the parties shall
entirely focus on the issue or issues at hand and not
dwell on matters outside of and totally unrelated to
such issue or issues.
(e) After all the witnesses from both sides have been
examined respecting the issue or related issues under
consideration, the trial shall move on to the next issue
or related issue in the Order of Trial until all the issues
shall have been tried.
36
Circulars
SEC. 24.6. Ground rules governing a face-to-face trial. — In
a face-to-face trial:
(a) The witnesses from the contending sides shall appear
together before the court and simultaneously swear
to the truth of their respective testimonies.
(b) The witnesses shall sit face-to-face around the table in
a non-adversarial environment and answer questions
from the court and the parties’ counsels respecting
the factual issue under consideration;
(c) Only one person at a time shall speak during the faceto-face trial and always with prior permission from the
court which shall take steps to ensure that the person
who speaks is identified for the record;
(d) The witnesses shall address their answers to the
examining judge or counsels; and
(e) The witnesses shall not pose questions to the other
witnesses relating to their testimonies but shall be
given equal opportunity to respond to the questions.
SEC. 24.7. Two-phase examination of witnesses in a faceto-face trial. — The examination of the witnesses from the
contending sides in the face-to-face trial shall consist of two
phases: the first phase shall be by the court and the second
phase by the parties’ respective counsels.
(a) In the first phase, the court shall examine the witnesses
regarding the issue or related issues at hand in no
particular sequence and may also direct its questions
to one or more of the Witnesses from the contending
sides.
(b) When the questions from the court are directed to a
specific witness, the other witnesses from the same
side may seek permission to supplement, clarify, or
qualify the answers that the first witness has given.
(c) In turn, the court shall give the witnesses from the
other side equal time and opportunity to reply.
(d) The court may allow the witnesses from the
contending sides to continue their divergent exchanges
provided new facts or new arguments are introduced
and the testimonies have not become repetitive.
(e) The court may also stop the exchanges if the answers
from the contending sides have sufficiently clarified
their positions and the points of their disagreement.
(f) The court may, before moving the examination of the
witnesses from first phase to second phase, summarize
its own understanding of the positions of the parties
and the testimonies of their witnesses on the issue or
related issues at hand.
(g) In the second phase, the court shall allow counsels
from the contending sides to cross-examine, re-direct,
and re-cross the witnesses based on their judicial
affidavits, the attached exhibits, the answers the
witnesses gave during the court ’s first-phase
examination, or their testimonies. This second-phase
examination shall be without prejudice to the court’s
further examination of the witness already examined
by the counsels.
(h) Where there are multiple parties involved (the plaintiff,
the defendant, the third, fourth, or fifth-party plaintiffs
or defendants, or the intervenors) the court shall fix
the order of cross, re-direct, and re-cross examination
by the various counsels involved, making sure that a
party is able to examine the witness whose testimony
is adverse. A party may adopt a favorable testimony.
(i) After the counsels have concluded their examinations
of the witnesses, the court shall terminate the second
phase respecting the particular issue or related issues
and move to the examination of the witnesses
respecting the next issue or related issues if such
examination is likewise in the agenda of the court for
that day’s setting. The reception of evidence for the
next issue or related issues may be scheduled on
another setting in accordance with the Order of Trial.
SEC. 24.8. Exceptions to the court’s examination of the
witnesses. — The counsel for any party may in the course
of the court’s examination of the witnesses, take exceptions
to objectionable questions that it poses to one or some of
them. The exceptions shall simply state the legal grounds
for objection with no further explanation. The court shall
act on the exceptions in the following manner:
(a) In case of exceptions as to form, such as when the
questions from the court are perceived to be
argumentative, leading, multiple, repetitive, vague,
improper characterization, confusing, or unfair, the
counsels shall state the ground for exception after the
question has been answered. The court shall take note
of the exception or where warranted, strike out the
answer and rephrase the question;
(b) Exceptions as to substance such as when the questions
from the court are perceived to elicit answers that are
inadmissible on public policy grounds including those
relating to the rights against self-incrimination,
privileged communication, disqualification, and to the
Statute of Frauds, rape shield law, bank secrecy laws,
Anti-Money Laundering Act, and other laws or rules
that prohibit disclosure of information or data, may be
made before the witness answers the questions. The
counsels may also move to strike out any answer
already given on the same grounds. In either case, the
court shall promptly rule on such exceptions or motions.
37
(c) In case of exceptions to admissibility under the rules
governing best evidence, parol evidence, conclusion
or opinion evidence, hearsay evidence, irrelevant
evidence, or character evidence, the counsels shall
state the ground for exception after the question has
been answered. The court shall take note of the
exception and consider the same when deciding the
case.
SEC. 24.9. Objections to the questions of counsels.
(a) It is the counsels’ duty to fairly elicit only admissible
evidence from a witness, either by way of preparing the
judicial affidavit constituting the direct examination
or by way of cross, re-direct, or recross examination.
(b) The counsels for one side may move to exclude the
whole or part of the testimony embodied in the judicial
affidavit of a witness presented by the other side on
ground of inadmissibility.
(c) Objections as to form in Section 24.8(a) and admissibility
in Section 24.8(c) shall be made after the questions
have been answered. Objections as to substance in
Section 24.8(b) may be raised before the questions
are answered; if the answers have already been given,
motions to strike out may be made.
(d) The court shall act on the motion or objection in the
same manner it would act on exceptions from questions
of the court as provided under Section 24.8 above.
SEC. 24.10. When face-to-face examination of witnesses
shall not apply. — The face-to-face examination of
witnesses shall not apply when one of the witnesses to the
factual issue under consideration is either (a) a child covered
by the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, or (b) a person
who is mentally, psychologically, or physically challenged,
or has a similar condition that puts such witness at a
disadvantage in a face-to-face confrontation. In such a case,
the witnesses on that issue shall be examined separately.
The face-to-face examination shall, however, proceed with
respect to the other issues that do not involve the child or
disadvantaged witness.
SEC. 24.12. Regular or summary face-to-face trial schedules.
The schedules for holding face-to-face trial of issues shall
either be simple or regular based on the circumstances of
each case.
(a) Where the issues are complex or numerous and the
evidence from both sides consist of the testimonies of
several witnesses or involve numerous pieces of
evidence, the court shall hold a regular face-to-face
trial, with the hearings spread over a period of time.
(b) Where the issues are simple and few, the court shall
hold a simple one-time face-to-face trial, with an oral
judgment rendered at the end of such trial. But if in
the course of such trial, the court discovers that the
issues are after all complex or numerous, it shall suspend
the proceedings and direct the conduct of a regular
trial in the succeeding settings.
SEC. 24.13. Memorandum, oral argument, and judgment.
The court may hear the parties argue their respective
positions before rendering judgment in the case, as follows:
(a) In an alternate or regular face-to-face trial of issues:
1. The court shall, after all the issues in the case have
been heard, direct the parties to simultaneously
submit their respective memorandum or draft
decision within 30 days from the date the trial
ended, accompanied by a softcopy of the
document in a format acceptable to the court.
2. Furthermore, the court shall , within 10 days from
receipt of such memorandum or draft decision,
set the case for oral argument on a date and time
the court and the parties may agree on.
3. The court shall render a written decision within
90 days after hearing the parties on their oral
argument. It may wholly or partially adopt or use
the memorandum or draft decision of the winning
party for its decision or prepare its own.
(b) In a simple face-to-face trial of issues:
1.
The court may, immediately after all the witnesses
have been examined, hear the parties briefly on
oral argument and afterwards orally state its rulings
on the issue or issues involved and announce the
dispositive part of its judgment.
2.
Such oral judgment shall be recorded in the minutes
of the proceedings which, together with the
resolution of each issue, shall be signed by the
parties or their counsels as evidence of notification.
If a party or his counsels refuses to sign, the refusal
shall be reflected in the same minutes.
3.
The court shall then direct the winning party to
submit within 30 days from the oral judgment a
The face-to-face trial shall also not be required in: (a)
special civil actions; (b) special proceedings; and (c) where
the court perceives the danger of uncontrollable passion
arising from deep animosity between the parties.
SEC. 24.11. Examination of Expert Witnesses in a face-toface trial of issues. — The examination of expert witnesses
in a face-to-face trial of issues shall follow the same
procedure provided in Section 24.7. With leave of court,
however, an expert witness may ask questions directed to
the other party’s expert witness on any matter covered by
the testimony of the latter on the issue or related issues at
hand.
38
Circulars
memorandum or draft, of the decision based on the
oral judgment then rendered, accompanied by
softcopy of the document in a format acceptable to
the court.
4.
shall be considered a waiver of appearance and trial
shall proceed without such counsel. The absent
counsel’s witnesses, if present, shall be regarded as
witnesses procured by the court concerning the case
and shall be examined in the usual course.
In place of oral judgment, the court shall have the
option of requiring each party to submit a
memorandum or draft decision within 30 days from
the date the face-to-face trial ended, accompanied
by a softcopy of the document in a format
acceptable to the court.
(b) In the event of the failure of a witness to appear, the
court shall order such witness’ judicial affidavit
expunged, without prejudice to the adverse party using
it as a judicial admission if the witness is also a party.
5.
Whether or not the court adopts a party’s
memorandum draft decision, it shall promulgate
its written decision in the case within 60 days from
the oral judgment, if any, or from the date the faceto-face trial ended.
SEC. 24. 16. Newly discovered evidence; new issues evolving
during trial. — A party may, in the course of trial, file a
motion to admit newly-discovered evidence subject to the
rule governing its admission. A party may, without amending
the pleadings, also file a motion to amend the Order of Trial
to include a new issue or issues that may have since arisen.
6.
The period to appeal from the judgment of the court
in this case shall be reckoned from the date of
receipt of written decision by the appealing party.
SEC. 24.14. Trials shall be intransferable.
(a) Because of the numerous persons involved in, and the
complex preparations required for, the conduct of trial,
especially the face-to-face trial, the dates set for trials
shall be intransferable except on grounds of fortuitous
event or serious illness of a counsel or witness. The
party seeking postponement or resetting of the hearing
has the burden of proving with satisfactory evidence
the ground invoked. Otherwise, such party shall be
deemed to have waived the appearance of counsel and
witnesses at the scheduled face-to-face trial.
(b) No motion for postponement or resetting shall be
granted on ground of serious illness of a counsel or
witness, unless the party concerned presents a medical
certificate issued by a physician stating that the illness
is of such gravity as to prevent the counsel or witness
from attending the scheduled hearing. The judge may
require the physician to appear before the court or
order another physician either government-employed
or retained by the adverse party, to verify the truth of
the certification. If such certification turns out to be
false, the certifying physician shall be held in contempt
of court and punished accordingly.
(c) If the ground for postponement or resetting turns out
to be false, the party or counsel who sought it shall
also be subject to contempt of court.
SEC. 24.15. Consequences of failure to appear at the trial.
(a) The failure of counsel to appear at the pre-agreed faceto-face trial without obtaining a prior postponement
SEC. 24.17. Language used during trial. — The court shall
require the witnesses in the trial of issues to testify either in
English or Filipino, whichever language would enable such
witnesses, the court, and the counsels to have fair
exchanges. If any of the witnesses cannot take part in such
exchanges because of language difficulty, the examination
of the witness shall be conducted in the language or dialect
known to such witness. In this case, the judge or examining
counsels shall make use of an interpreter of their choosing
who shall assist them in propounding questions to, and
appreciating the answers of, the witness. Nevertheless, the
recording of the actual answers given by the witness, not
their English or Filipino translation, will constitute the official
and binding testimony of the witness. When quoting in a
pleading, motion, memorandum, petition, or other court
submission, the text of quest ions and answers of a witness
given in a local dialect, the counsels shall indicate the
translations into English or Filipino in appropriate brackets.
OFFICERS IN CHARGE/ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS OF THE FIRST
AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION ON THE COLLECTION OF
POSTPONEMENT FEE IN CONSOLIDATED CASES
Queries have been brought to the attention of this Office as
to the proper interpretation and application of Rule 141 of
the Revised Rules of Court, specifically on the postponement
fee to be collected in consolidated cases.
39
The Court in, Chua v. The Executive Judge, G.R. No.
202920, October 2, 2013, explained the rationale on
collecting fees, albeit on the subject of docket fees, on each
individual case and not on its entirety. It declared, in part,
the following justifications:
In the instant case, there are a total of 40 counts of
violation of BP Blg. 22 that was filed before the MeTC. And
each of the 40 was, in fact, assessed its filing fees, individually,
based on the amount of check one covers. Under the rule of
criminal procedure, the filing of the 40 counts is equivalent
to the filing of 40 different informations, as each count
represents an independent violation of BP Blg. 22. Filing
fees are, therefore, due for each count and may be paid for
each count separately.
Second. In an effort to justify her refusal of petitioner’s
request, the Executive Judge further argues that since all
40 counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 were brought about by
a single complaint filed before the OCP and are now
consolidated before the court, the payment of their filing
fees should be made for all or none at all.
That all 40 counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 all
emanated from a single complaint filed in the OCP is
irrelevant. The fact remains that there are still 40 counts
of violation of BP Blg. 22 that were filed before the MeTC
and, as a consequence, 40 individual filing fees to be
paid.
Neither would the consolidation of all 40 counts make
any difference. Consolidation unifies criminal cases
involving related offenses only for purposes of trial.
Consolidation does not transform the filing fees due for
each consolidated into one indivisible fee (Emphasis
supplied).
Henceforth,
considering
the
foregoing
pronouncements, the collection of a postponement fee,
whenever there are consolidated cases filed in the trial
court, should be made separately on each case included
therein, and not on the entire or collective fee for the
consolidated cases, since the mode of consolidation is
merely underscored for purposes of trial, and does not
in any way affect the collection of an individual
postponement fee for each case involved in the
consolidation. Further, the rule shall not only be exclusively
applied to consolidated BP Blg. 22 cases, but shall also
equally apply to all types of cases subject of consolidation.
For your information, guidance, and strict compliance.
September 16, 2014.
Court Administrator
TO: CLERKS OF COURT/OFFICERS IN CHARGE/ACCOUNTABLE
OFFICERS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: A.M. NO. 14-08-94-MeTC (RE: PROPER FEES TO BE
COLLECTED IN ELECTION CONTESTS INVOLVING ELECTIVE
MUNICIPAL AND BARANGAY OFFICIALS)
In its September 2, 2014 Resolution in A.M. No. 14-08-94MeTC (Re: Proper Fees to be Collected in Election Contests
Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials) the
Honorable Court, upon the recommendation of the Office
of the Court Administrator, resolved, among others, to:
(b) ADVISE the Clerks of Court in the first and
second level courts that: (i) Section 1, Rule 7 of
the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests
Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal
and Barangay Officials (A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC),
dated May 15, 2007, is controlling insofar as
the proper collection of filing fees is concerned;
(ii) other assessments for Legal Research Fund,
Sheriffs Trust Fund, V ictim’s Compensation
Fund and Mediation Fund shall be collected
in election contests; (iii) the P3,000 filing fee
for election contest shall be allocated to the
amount of the Special Allowance for the
Judiciary; and (iv) postal money orders are not
acceptable as a mode of payment of filing fees.
Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.
September 16, 2014
Court Administrator
OFFICERS IN CHARGE/ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS OF THE
FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT : A.M. NO. 11-10-03-0 (RE: LETTER DATED APRIL
18, 2011 OF CHIEF PUBLIC ATTORNEY PERSIDA RUEDAACOSTA REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT
OF SHERIFF’S EXPENSES)
In the July 30, 2013 Resolution in A.M. No. 11-10-03-0 (Re:
Letter dated April 18, 2011 of Chief Public Attorney Persida
Rueda-Acosta Requesting Exemption from the Payment of
Sheriff’s Expenses), the Supreme Court En Banc DENIED
the request of Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta for the
40
Circulars
exemption of the clients of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO)
from the payment of sheriff’s expenses.
Relevant portions of the Resolution explicitly provide:
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. V iewed 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 141 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. These are the fees that
are exacted for the services rendered by the court
in connection with the action instituted before it.
Sheriffs’ expenses, however, cannot be considered
as a “fee” within the purview of the exemption granted
to PAO’s clients under Section 6 of RA No. 9406. Sheriffs’
expenses are provided for under Section 10, Rule
141 of the Rules of Court, viz:
SEC. 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS and other persons
serving processes.
xxxx
In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, the amount
of ONE THOUSAND (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 court-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 (P1,000) PESOS
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.
xxxx
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 sheriffs’
fees under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court,
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, 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 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 means of Congress in enacting RA
No. 9406.
xxxx
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,
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.
41
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 sheriffs
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 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
Resolution 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. (Emphasis added)
September 24, 2014.
Court Administrator
OFFICE ORDER NO. 10-2014
ESTABLISHING THE STANDARD THICKNESS OF CASE
ROLLOS AND RECORDS
WHEREAS, the undersigned has directed the conduct of
process mapping and cluster meetings as mechanisms for
threshing out issues and addressing problem areas with
respect to the functions of a particular office or cluster;
WHEREAS, in these process mapping sessions and
cluster meetings, the offices concerned have raised the
problem of voluminous rollos and case records, e.g., the
difficulty and inconvenience of handling them, and their
disintegration due to constant handling;
WHEREFORE, all offices concerned are hereby
informed that, henceforth, the thickness of case rollos and
records shall not exceed 2½ inches. Annexes may be
contained in a subsequent volume or volumes in cases where
the pleading itself exceeds 2½ inches; Provided, that a
particular document, whether pleading or annex, may not
be split or divided into separate volumes. For this purpose,
the rollos or records shall be labeled as Volume I, II, III, and
so on.
FURTHER, Members of the Court may request that
rollos or records of old cases be separated in parts in
accordance with the herein established standard; Provided
that the rollos shall be coursed through the Rollo Room
which shall in turn transmit the rollos to the docketing office
concerned for stitching.
This Office Order shall take effect upon its issuance this
7th day of August 2014.
(Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 19-2014
REORGANIZING THE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTERIZATION
AND LIBRARY
WHEREAS, there is recognition of the need to harmonize
and integrate all computerization efforts at all levels of the
judiciary to truly implement the Enterprise Information
Systems Plan of the Judiciary and related reforms;
42
Orders
Memorandum Order 19-2014 (continued)
WHEREAS, there is a need to modernize and enhance
court library collections, facilities and e-library systems to
assist judges and court personnel in their adjudication
functions;
NOW, THEREFORE, in the interest of service, the
Committee on Computerization and Library is hereby
reorganized as follows:
Chairperson
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno
Vice Chairpersons
Hon. Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe
Hon. Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen
Members
Court of Appeals Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas
Court of Appeals Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh
Representative of the Court of Tax Appeals
Representative of the Sandiganbayan
Representative of the Office of the Court Administrator
Chief, Management Information Systems Office
Secretary
Atty. Michael B. Ocampo
Assistant Secretary
Atty. John Robert G. Real
Members of the Secretariat
Ms. Editha D. Pontaoe
Mr. Gary Louie Comia, and
Mr. Ferdinand Duero (alternate)
There shall be a Subcommittee on Libraries and
Research, which shall be composed of the following:
Chairperson:
Hon. Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen
Members:
Mrs. Milagros Santos-Ong
Chief Librarian of the Supreme Court
Chief Librarian of the Court of Appeals
Chief Librarian of the Court of Tax Appeals
Chief Librarian of the Sandiganbayan
Representative of the librarians from the lower courts
[To be designated by the Chief Justice]
The Chairperson, Members, Consultants, and Members
of the Secretariat of the Committee and the SubCommittee, including those who have rendered service as
part of the same prior to the issuance of this Memorandum
Order shall receive the usual expense allowances.
This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its
issuance this 4th day of July 2014.
Chief Justice
Chairperson, First Division
(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
(Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 20-2014
CREATING THE COMMITTEE ON FAMILY COURTS AND
JUVENILE CONCERNS
WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 8369 was enacted in 1997
providing for the establishment of family court;
WHEREAS, from its enactment the law has not been
fully implemented;
WHEREAS, there is a need to revisit the Iaw and map
out plans for its implementation taking into consideration
current issues and requirements;
NOW THEREFORE, the Committee on Family Courts
(formerly the Subcommittee on Family Courts under the
Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court and the
Committee on Gender Responsiveness) is hereby created
and constituted as follows:
Chairperson
Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
Vice Chairperson
Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, Court of Appeals
Members
Judge Angelene Mary Quimpo Sale, RTC, Br. 106, Quezon City
Judge Lorifel Lacap Pahimna, RTC Br. 69, Pasig City
Judge Ma. Theresa M. Arcega, RTC Br. 17, Malolos Bulacan
Judge Cesar Pabel D. Sulit, RTC, Pasig City
Court Administrator or his representative
Chief, Office of the Chief Attorney
Chief, Fiscal Management and Budget Office
Chief, Management Information Sytems Office
Chief, Public Information Office
Atty. Myrna Feliciano, Philippine Judicial Academy
Representative, Office of the Chief Justice
Secretary
Atty. Catherina N. Manzano
43
Assistant. Secretary
Ms. Ma. Theresa Baylon
PHILJA Curriculum Review (Continued from page 7)
Secretariat
To be designated by the Chairperson
The Committee shall have the following duties:
1. Formulate the implementing Rules and
Regulations and other rules for Republic Act No.
8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997)
2. Draft plan for the organization of family courts to
include the following:
a. Creation/Development of staffing pattern for
family courts
b. Determination of number of courts that must
be created under national legislation
c.
Report on training needs assessment of all
actors in family and juvenile justice sector
d. Recommendations for infrastructure
requirements for family courts
e. Piloting of family courts that will have ideal
guidelines, resources, environment, facilities
and staff for addressing family and juvenile
justice concerns
3. Monitor the implementation of the plan for the
creation and organization of family courts
including identification of procedural rules and
court guidelines, as well as judicial and legal forms,
that must be adopted to increase the effectiveness
and efficiency of family courts;
4. Create such working groups as necessary to carry
out its duties.
The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Members, and
Members of the Secretariat of the Committee, including
those who have rendered service as part of the said
Committee prior to the issuance of this Memorandum Order,
shall receive the usual expense allowances.
This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its
Issuance this 13th day of August 2014.
Chief Justice
Chairperson, First Division
(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
(Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
Thought Piece on the Philippine Judicial Academy
Curriculum Review. Supreme Court Associate Justices
Martin S. V illarama, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe,
Mario Victor F. Leonen, and Lucas P. Bersamin were
also interviewed for their thoughts and comments
on enhancing judicial education. The Justices
responded to the discussion points given them
earlier; Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes addressed the
points in a letter. The Justices’ common comments
and suggestions placed emphasis on the following:
how to conduct pre-trial; skills-based modules, e.g.,
management, decision writing, strong oral and
written skills, court governance to include challenges
and developments in judicial processes; apprising
judges on latest developments in law, recent
legislative acts and SC decisions, rules and
procedures; maximizing the benefits of PJP and
accreditation from other law schools; ethics; and use
of mock trial and interactive case-based simulations
to apply critical thinking skills in decision making. The
Chief Justice’s thought piece as well as the inputs
from the associate justices interviewed proved
substantial in the discussions on what judicial training
should be and served as the road map during the
PHILJA Curriculum Review.
Professor Sedfrey M. Candelaria, Head of the
Research, Publications and Linkages Office,
summarized the comments and recommendations
towards the end of the program, which included a
proposal to convene another forum to study and
approve the new curriculum.
All PHILJA executive officials; 22 department
chairpersons, vice chairpersons, and members of the
14 academic departments attended the activity,
with 13 PHILJA lawyers and staff assisting.
Focus Group Discussion on the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (Continued from page 8 )
and Aquatic Resources. The outcomes of the
workshop and panel discussion were consolidated
and formally presented for consideration to the
Subcommittee, through Justices Peralta and
Bersamin who gave their respective responses to
the consolidated outputs. Justice Bersamin officially
led the distribution of the certificates of participation
to the participants and declared the closing of the
activity.
44
3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial Building
Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila 1000
Philippines
JULYUSE
- SEPTEMBER
2014
PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED
TO AVOID
PAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE
OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH
Fourth Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities
11th Metrobank Foundation
Professorial Chair Lecture
October 8
Court of Appeals Manila
Seminar-Workshop on
Intellectual Property for Clerks of
Court of Special Commercial
Courts
October 8–9, Cebu City
Roundtable Discussion on Issues
and Concerns Relating to
Intellectual Property Rights
Enforcement
October 23–14, Makati City
5th Orientation SeminarWorkshop for Newly Appointed
Sheriffs and Process Servers
November 4–6, Mactan, Cebu
Philippine Judges Association
Midterm Convention
October 14–16
Legazpi City, Albay
CET for Judges and Court
Personnel Handling Cases
Involving Children
November 11–13, Tagaytay City
4th Orientation SeminarWorkshop for Newly Appointed
Sheriffs and Process Servers
(Batch 2)
October 14–16, Tagaytay City
Refresher/Advanced Course for
Court-Annexed Mediators
November 13–14
Court of Appeals, Manila
Refresher/Advanced Course for
Court-Annexed Mediators
October 16–17, Tagaytay City
CEP for RTC Clerks of Court
November 18–20
Cagayan de Oro City
21st National Convention Seminar
of the Philippine Trial Judges
League, Inc.
October 23–25, Malay, Aklan
Seminar-Workshop for Special
Commercial Court Judges and
Pairing Court Judges
November 19–20, Pasay City
Information Dissemination
through a Dialogue between
Barangay Officials and Court
Officials
October 23
Cagayan de Oro City
October 24, Malaybalay City
Seminar-Workshop on
Intellectual Property for
Selected Special Commercial
Court Judges and Pairing Court
Judges
November 21, Pasay City
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
Joseph Arvin S. Cruz
Christine A. Ferrer
Charmaine S. Nicolas
Sarah Jane S. Salazar
Jeniffer P. Sison
Circulation and Support Staff
Romeo A. Arcullo
Michael Angelo P. Laude
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

Volume XVI, Issue No. 63 July-September 2014

Transcription

Similar documents

Volume IV, Issue No. 16 October-December 2002

Meeting Minutes - City of Langley

Judicial Activism in India

Protecting Fair Courts

Volume XIV, Issue No. 56 October

QATAR RAIL DOHA METRO PROJECT

Real Time Clock - e-Gizmo Mechatronix Central