January-March 2008 PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSphilja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bulletin/Bul37.pdf · 2019-11-19 · Hon. Janice R. Yulo-Antero MTC Sta. Rita, Pampanga PRE-JUDICATURE PROGRAM

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJanuary-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

January to March 2008 Volume X, Issue No. 37

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

SUPREME COURT

RE

PU

BLIC

OF THE PHILIP

PI N

ES

BATAS AT BAYAN

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS2

PHILJAACADEMIC PROGRAMS

RJCEP

The Regional Judicial Career Enhancement Program(Level 5) was conducted for Regions II, VI and XIIin the first quarter of the year.

A total of 80 participants from Region IIattended the program on January 30, 2008 toFebruary 1, 2008, at the Hotel Veniz, Baguio City.

One hundred forty-two judges and branchclerks of court participated in the program fromFebruary 26 to 28, 2008, at the Sarabia Manor Hoteland Convention Center, Iloilo City while 55 judgesand branch clerks of court from Region XIIparticipated in the program conducted on March26 to 28, 2008, at the Montebello Villa Hotel,Banilad, Cebu City.

ORIENTATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOPFOR NEWLY APPOINTED JUDGES

The 51st Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Judges was held on February 5 to 14, 2008,at the PHILJA Development Center, Tagaytay City.In attendance were 29 judges, comprising 23 newlyappointed judges, five promoted judges and onelateral appointed judge.

A. NEW APPOINTMENTS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIIHon. Ramon D. PamularRTC Br. 32, Guimba, Nueva Ecija

REGION VHon. Rolando D. BobisRTC Br. 64, Labo, Camarines NorteHon. Manuel M. RosalesRTC Br. 34, Iriga City, Camarines SurHon. Efren G. SantosRTC Br. 22, Naga City

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Hon. Norma Z. GoMeTC Caloocan CityHon. Alma Crispina C. LacorteMeTC Br. 51, Caloocan City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

REGION IHon. Santiago J. Marcella, Jr.MTCC Br. 3, Dagupan City, Pangasinan

REGION IVHon. Maximo M. De LeonMTCC Sta. Rosa City, Laguna

REGION VIHon. Peter Z. ParcoMTCC San Carlos City, Negros Occidental

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIIHon. Damaso P. Asuncion, Jr.MTC Mariveles, BataanHon. Corazon A. Domingo-RañolaMTC Baliuag, BulacanHon. Janice R. Yulo-AnteroMTC Sta. Rita, Pampanga

PRE-JUDICATURE PROGRAM

The 15th Pre-Judicature Program was conductedlast February 18 to 28, 2008, at the PHILJADevelopment Center, Tagaytay City. Nineteenlawyers completed the ten-day program, namely:

1. Carlo Martin R. Alcala2. Salvador T. Arnesto3. Rosalita T. Barola-Barcelona4. Danton Q. Bueser5. Danilo C. Emelo6. Jose N. Hernandez7. Mary Catherine P. Hilario8. Elmer M. Lanuzo9. Lourdes M. Layugan10. Frank E. Lobrigo11. Jennifer J. Manalili13. Joanne Frances G. Nifras14. Roben Dario T. Nuqui15. Emelito C. Pelayo16. Millicent N. Reyes17. Desideria B. Sarmiento18. Jordan J. Teano19. Gifford Domingo Eusebio L. Tumaneng

The program offered the participants a judicialperspective to the law, and introduced them to theskills, attitudes, values, and the conduct called forby appointment to the Bench.

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJanuary-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008 3

ORIENTATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOP

FOR NEWLY APPOINTED CLERKS OF COURT

The 9th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Clerks of Court was held on March 4 to 7,2008, at the PHILJA Development Center, TagaytayCity. In attendance were 43 newly appointed clerksof court.

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

Atty. Ma. Victoria P. DuralCourt of Tax AppealsAtty. Danilo B. FernandoCourt of Tax Appeals



Atty. Romeo G. Bautista IVRTC Br. 158, Pasig CityAtty. Augustus Cezar C. BinagRTC Br. 138, Makati CityAtty. Joan G. Bolina-SantillanRTC Br. 144, Makati CityAtty. Maria Cristina F. Carlos-DamascoRTC Br. 216, Pasig CityAtty. Dante R. CorminalRTC Br. 53, ManilaAtty. Neil Antonio R. EstilRTC Br. 28, ManilaAtty. Selca M. Foja-GaliciaRTC Br. 272, Marikina CityAtty. Melanie R. LaderaRTC Br. 27, Manila

Hon. Frazierwin V. ViterboMTC Talavera, Nueva Ecija

REGION VHon. Rafael H. Zurbito, Jr.MTC Donsol, Sorsogon

REGION VIHon. Alicia C. BarriosMTC Kalibo, Aklan

REGION VIIIHon. Alan A. VillarMTC Albuera, Leyte

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIIHon. Carmelito O. Ballesteros4th MCTC Cabiao-San Isidro, Nueva Ecija

REGION IVHon. Josephine G. Bautista-Barnhill4th MCTC Lumban-Kalay-an, Laguna

REGION VIHon. Mila D. Yap1st MCTC Calatrava-Toboso, Negros Occidental

REGION VIIHon. Hernani A. EspinaMCTC Borbon-Tabogon, CebuHon. Dennis C. Larrobis11th MCTC Malabuyoc-Ginatilan-Alegria, Cebu

REGION VIIIHon. Girlie Mutya Borrel-Yu2nd MCTC Malitbog-Tomas Oppus, Southern LeyteHon. Lolita R. Mercado4th MCTC Motiong-Jiabong-San Jose De Buan,Samar

B. PROMOTIONS



Hon. Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-SaleRTC Br. 106, Quezon CityHon. Amorfina C. CezarRTC Br. 67, Pasig City

REGION IHon. Nida B. AlejandroRTC Br. 24, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur

REGION IVHon. Manuel R. TaroRTC Br. 75, San Mateo, Rizal

REGION VHon. Timoteo A. Panga, Jr.RTC Br. 60, Iriga City, Camarines Sur

C. LATERAL

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


Hon. Virgilio V. MacaraigRTC Br. 37, Manila

(Continued on NEXT page)


SEMINAR ON ELECTION LAWS

In partnership with USAID and InternationalFoundation of Election Systems (IFES), theAcademy conducted the Seminar on Election Laws forFirst Level Court Judges and Clerks of Court on January8, 2008, at the College of Saint Benilde Hotel,Estrada corner Arellano Sts., Malate, Manila. Atotal of 132 participants attended the said seminar.

SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON DANGEROUS DRUGS

LAW FOR MARIKINA CITY STAKEHOLDERS

In partnership with the City Government ofMarikina, PHILJA conducted the Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Marikina CityStakeholders on January 9 to 11, 2008, at theMarikina Hotel, Marikina City. A total of 107participants were apprised on the classification ofdrugs, controlled precursors, and chemicals;problems encountered in prosecuting drug relatedcases, and its solutions, proper use of drugevidence, well-tested trial techniques, newprocedures, and the latest jurisprudence on relevantissues. Exercises on Investigating a Drug Offense,Prosecuting and Trying a Drug Case, Handling ofEvidence, and Issues/Concerns and the Role ofLocal Government Units (LGUs) through groupworkshops culminated this 3-day program.

COMPUTER SKILLS TRAINING

The program Computer Skills Training partneredwith USAID and ROLE, were conducted in severalbatches this quarter as follows:

Court of Appeals PersonnelVenue: Gokongwei Building, De La SalleUniversity, Manila59 participants- January 22-2553 participants- January 29-February 156 participants- February 19-2262 participants- February 26-29

Court of Appeals Justices and Clerks of CourtVenue: Brother Andrew Gonzales Building,De La Salle University, Manila

Atty. Elizabeth LimRTC Br. 63, Makati CityAtty. Rommel M. NardoRTC Br. 29, ManilaAtty. Peachy C. ObligadoRTC Br. 157, Pasig CityAtty. Arnel F. PabellarRTC Br. 94, Quezon CityAtty. Rudy B. Ricamora, Jr.RTC Br. 19, ManilaAtty. Maria Cristina M. Sampaga-ManuelRTC Br. 51, ManilaAtty. John Ivan TablizoRTC Br. 66, Makati CityAtty. Charlie E. ValloRTC Br. 141, Makati CityAtty. Beryl R. VergaraRTC Br. 223, Quezon CityAtty. Anne Marie U. YaoRTC Br. 17, Manila

REGION IAtty. Kristine Aquino-FerrerRTC Br. 46, Urdaneta, PangasinanAtty. Emma C. De Luna-MadronioRTC Br. 43, Dagupan City, PangasinanAtty. Hercules R. DoriaRTC Br. 53, Rosales, PangasinanAtty. Hanzel H. GuerreroRTC Br. 71, Candon, Ilocos SurAtty. Xavier F. GachoRTC OCC, Laoag, Ilocos Norte

REGION IIAtty. Sheila T. CamarauanRTC Br. 9, Appari, Cagayan

REGION IIIAtty. Maria Cristina L. CamuaRTC Br. 20, Malolos, Bulacan

REGION IVAtty. Maricel Lilled R. Asuncion-RoxasRTC Br. 23, Trece Martires City, CaviteAtty. Fritzie E. BabanRTC Br. 50, Puerto Princesa City, PalawanAtty. Erwin M. CaparrosRTC Br. 61, Gumaca, QuezonAtty. German M. Fabro IIIRTC Br. 59, Lucena CityAtty. Reiner C. LunaRTC Br. 15, Naic, Cavite

(Continued on the page 7)

SPECIAL FOCUS

PROGRAMS


29 participants- February 5-835 participants- February 12-15

Court of Tax Appeals PersonnelVenue: SEAMEO Innotech, Quezon City20 participants- March 6-719 participants- March 25-26

CAPACITY BUILDING ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATEINTERNATIONAL LAW ISSUES FOR THE

PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY

In partnership with the Ateneo Law SchoolCenter for International Economic Law, and incooperation with the British Embassy, the Academythrough its Department of Special Areas ofConcern, conducted the program Seminar-Workshopon Capacity Building on Public and Private InternationalLaw Issues for the Philippine Judiciary for SupremeCourt attorneys, Court of Appeals researchattorneys, Commercial Court judges and Court ofTax Appeals justices in three separate dates andvenues as follows:

Supreme Court attorneysVenue: Training Center, Supreme Court, Manila37 participants- January 24-25

Court of Appeals research attorneysVenue: The Pearl Manila Hotel, Manila50 participants- February 14-15

Commercial Court judges andCourt of Tax Appeals justicesVenue: CSB Hotel, Malate, Manila34 participants- March 3-4

The 2-day program highlighted onInternational Commercial Arbitration, CorporateSocial Responsibility, Public Procurement, TradeLiberalization and Competition Law.

JUDGE-TO-JUDGE DIALOGUE

The Judge-to-Judge Dialogue on the Power of the JudgeTaking Control of Court Proceedings was conducted onJanurary 25, 2008 at the Marco Polo Hotel, DavaoCity and on February 15, 2008, at the AvenueConvention Center, Naga City, with 41 participantsand 49 participants, respectively.

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON STRATEGY

FOR SUPPORT TO ENVIRONMENTAL COURTS

The Roundtable Discussion of Strategy for Supportto Environmental Courts was conducted by PHILJAon January 28, 2008 at the Justices’ Lounge,Supreme Court, Manila, in partnership with theUnited States Agency for International Development(USAID), the Asian Environmental Compliance andEnforcement Network (AECEN), the UnitedNations Development Programme-GlobalEnvironment Facility-Small Grants Programme(UNDP-GEF-SGP), and the Haribon Foundation.The 27 participants comprise Court of Appealsjustices, Supreme Court officials, representatives ofother government agencies, NGOs, academe anddevelopment partners.

At the end of the program, a Certificate ofRecognition was awarded to Chief Justice ReynatoS. Puno, for his steadfast advocacy to advance theconstitutional right of every Filipino to a balancedand healthful ecology and to ensure that thecountry’s natural heritage and unique biodiversityare protected by designating the Philippines’ first117 environmental courts. The same recognitionwas awarded to Justice Ameurfina A. MelencioHerrera for her steadfast advocacy and commitmentto ensure that the courts and judges become moreresponsive to environmental concerns by

continuing capacity buildinginitiatives through her workas PHILJA Chancellor.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno,Chancellor Ameurfina A.Melencio Herrera, Retired JusticeOswaldo D. Agcaoili, JusticePortia Aliño Hormachuelos,Professor Sedfrey M. Candelariaand Atty. Thelma C. Bahiawith the participants.


DISTINGUISHED LECTURE SERIES OF 2008

In partnership with the University of the East,the Academy conducted the First Distinguished LectureSeries of 2008, entitled Reform of the Spanish Civil Code:Basis and Content, on February 20, 2008, at theUniversity Conference Hall, University of the East,Manila. The Honoree and the Guest Lecturer wasHis Excellency Francisco Jose Hernando Santiago,President of the Supreme Tribunal and GeneralCouncil of the Judiciary of the Kingdom of Spain.

The lecture dealt with the most important ruleof law in the last century within the scope of civillaw in Spain – the Civil Code. It also highlightedthe principal reforms undergone by the SpanishCivil Code over the 119 years that it has been inoperation.

The Second Distinguished Lecture Series of 2008,entitled The New Zealand Experience of ResolvingIndigenous and Land Issues in the Context of a Treaty

MULTI-SECTORAL AND SKILLS-BUILDINGSEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON HUMAN RIGHTS

ISSUES: EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS ANDENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES

The Philippine Judicial Academy, in partnershipwith the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) andthe Australian Agency for InternationalDevelopment (AusAID), conducted Multi-Sectoraland Skills Building Seminar-Workshop on Human RightsIssues: Extrajudicial Killings and EnforcedDisappearances (3rd Judicial Region) in two batches onFebruary 28 to 29, 2008 and on March 6 to 7, 2008,at the Oasis Hotel, Clarkville Compound, AngelesCity, Pampanga with 70 and 60 participants,respectively.

CEDAW, GENDER SENSITIVITY, AND THECOURTS FOR JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL

In partnership with the Committee on GenderResponsiveness in the Judiciary (CGRJ) – Sub-Committee on Training and Capacity Building, theAteneo Human Rights Center (AHRC), and theAmerican Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative(ABA-ROLI), with support from the United StatesAgency for International Development (USAID),the Academy conducted the program Seminar-Workshop on CEDAW, Gender Sensitivity, and the Courtsfor Judges and Court Personnel of Baguio and Cebu.

There were 47 participants on February 20 to21, 2008, at the Ridgewood Hotel, Baguio City while45 participants attended on March 12 to 13, 2008,at the Waterfront Hotel, Mactan, Cebu.

The two-day program aimed to increase theawareness and deepen the understanding ofwomen’s rights under the Convention on theElimination of All Forms of Discrimination AgainstWomen (CEDAW) by the Judiciary, and build andenhance the capacity of judges and court lawyerson how the CEDAW can be applied and reflectedin the court decisions and issuances.

GENDER EQUALITY AND CEDAW

The Philippine Judicial Academy, in partnershipwith the Committee on Gender Responsiveness inthe Judiciary (CGRJ) – Sub-Committee on Trainingand Capacity Building, the Project ManagementOffice (PMO), and the Delegation of the EuropeanCommission to the Philippines, conducted theGender Equality and CEDAW: A Discussion SessionAmong Justices of the Court of Appeals on March 26,2008, at the Old Session Hall, Supreme Court,Manila. A total of 20 Court of Appeals Justicesattended the discussion.

Topics discussed were “Canon 5 on Equality,with Focus on the Constitutional Provision onGender Equality, Gender Fair Language and Sex-Disaggregated Statistics” and “Canon 6, Sec. 4 onCompetence and Diligence, vis-à-vis The Role ofInternational Law, with Focus on CEDAW, inEnriching Gender Responsiveness in the Court ofAppeals.”

Settlement Process, was conducted on March 10, 2008,at the Continuing Medical Education (CME)Auditorium, University of Santo Tomas, Manila.The Honoree and Guest Lecturer was retired ChiefJustice Taihakurei (Eddie) Durie DCNZM of theHigh Court of New Zealand. He discussed the lawand indigenous peoples in the context of theindigenous Maori of New Zealand, of whom he isa member.

SPECIAL FOCUS

PROGRAMS

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJanuary-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008

Supreme CourtAssociate Justice Arturo D. Brion

appointed on March 16, 2008

ACA Edwin A. Villasorappointed on February 14, 2008

Atty. Emmanuel L. Caparas,Chief, MISO


Court of AppealsAssociate Justice Florito S. Macalino

appointed on January 4, 2008

Associate Justice Edgardo T. Llorenappointed on January 4, 2008

SandiganbayanPresiding Justice Diosdado M. Peralta


PhiljaJustice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili

PHILJA Professor II (Part-time)appointed on February 4, 2008

Prof. Leonor M. BrionesPHILJA Consultant

appointed on February 26, 2008

CONVENTION

JUDICIAL MOVES

PWJA

The Academy and the Philippine Women JudgesAssociation conducted the Annual Convention-Seminar of the Philippine Women Judges Association(PWJA) on March 7 to 8, 2008, at the CentennialHall, Manila Hotel with the theme, “LadyMagistrates: Within and Beyond the Halls of Justice.”

A total of 346 participants from the NationalCapital Region and Regions I to XII, including 26Justices from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals,Court of Tax Appeals and Sandiganbayan attendedthis biennial event.

Atty. Lalaine B. MarananRTC Br. 91, Sta. Cruz, LagunaAtty. Mylene D. MasangkayRTC OCC, Batangas CityAtty. Albert M. PedrosaRTC Br. 51, Puerto Princesa City, PalawanAtty. Garrick M. ReantilloRTC Br. 80, Morong, RizalAtty. Thyrone Z. SanchezRTC OCC, Tanauan, Batangas.Atty. Diego Q. FranciaRTC OCC, Gumaca, Quezon

REGION VAtty. Joseph S. Abante, Jr.RTC OCC, Daet, Camarines NorteAtty. Janel I. Peñaflor-PurcilRTC Br. 31, Pili, Camarines SurAtty. Hazel R. RojasRTC Br. 5, Legaspi City , Albay


REGION VMs. Elma C. BautistaMTCC Br. 2, Iriga City, Camarines SurMs. Elena Cynthia M. LacbayMTCC OCC, Iriga City, Camarines Sur

(Continued from page 4)

Justice Arturo D. Brion ACA Edwin A. Villasor

7


But these were not the only engagements.

Distinguished Lecture Series

Impressively given in Spanish, andsimultaneously projected in English on thescreen, on 20 February 2008, was the FirstDistinguished Lecture for 2008, delivered by theHonorable Francisco Jose Hernando Santiago,Chief Justice of Spain, on “ Reform of the SpanishCivil Code: Basis and Content.” Thereafter, anhonorary doctorate degree was conferred on himby the University of the East, our co-sponsorfor the program.

At the Pre-Judicature Program on 21 February,held at the PHILJA Development Center inTagaytay City, the Chief Justice of Spain and hisdelegation listened briefly to a lecture onMediation and Arbitration through our existinglive-link television. On the same occasion,during the meeting between the twojudicial institutions, the future exchange ofprofessors between the two judicial institutionswas reiterated.

The 2nd of the Distinguished Lecture Series, heldon 10 March 2008, featured The New Zealand

Experience of Resolving Indigenous and Land Issues inthe Context of a Treaty Settlement Process,” deliveredby Judge Taihakurei Durie (ret.) of the HighCourt of New Zealand.

In his Closing Remarks during the said occasion,Chief Justice Puno expounded on the IndigenousPeople’s Rights Act of 1977 (IPRA), whichaddresses the “grave historical injustice to ourindigenous peoples,” as well as the provision inthe 1987 Constitution that recognizes andguarantees the rights of tribal Filipinos to theirancestral lands and domains.

Code of Conduct for Marshall Islands

As an outcome of the Pacific Judicial Council(PJC) Conference in Guam held on 25–28November 2007, attended by Chief JusticeReynato S. Puno and the Chancellor, PHILJAreceived a request for assistance in thedevelopment of the Republic of Marshall IslandsCode of Judicial Conduct. A special committeecomposed of Justice Hilarion L. Aquino as Chair;

FFFFFrom the Chance l l o r’rom the Chance l l o r’rom the Chance l l o r’rom the Chance l l o r’rom the Chance l l o r’s Desks Desks Desks Desks Desk

(Continued from page 1)

Justice Hector L. Hofilena and Justice Jose L.Sabio, as Members, sent by e-mail its commentsand proposals on 5 March 2008.

APJEF Newsletter

By way of sustaining linkages, and with theJudicial Commission of New South Wales as ourpartner, we also released the 3rd APJEF Newsletterfor distribution to members. Featured, amongothers, were Australia’s and the Philippines’participation in the IOJT Conference in Barcelona,Spain, on 21-25 October 2007.

Educational Sessions

Interactive education sessions, which have beenwell received by our participants, areincreasingly being conducted. Our programshave also become more multi-sectoral, makingfor better synergy among stakeholders in therespective activities. PHILJA faculty continue toreceive “Excellent” ratings. Professionalismcontinues to be the order of the day.

Website

The PHILJA Website is regularly updated tofamiliarize those concerned with the activities ofthe Academy.

Corporate Planning

PHILJA’s Corporate Planning is in place, withplans, programs, and the budget for the rest ofthe year soon to be formulated. It aims tostrengthen capabilities to bring about aperforming, efficient and effective judicialacademy.

A Good Beginning

We are off to a good start, after last year’sfrustrations due to inadequate funds, whichcrippled the academic calendar. Construction ofthe Philippine Training Center in Tagaytay Citywill hopefully commence by the middle of theyear, in fitting celebration of our 12th anniversary.

(Sgd.) Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera Chancellor

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTJanuary-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008 9

Guidelines on the appropriate recourse to assailCOMELEC resolution issued pursuant to Section16 of R.A. No. 7166.

To avoid similar instances of confusion and forthe guidance of the Bench and the Bar, the Courttakes this opportunity to lay down the followingguidelines on the appropriate recourse to assailCOMELEC resolutions issued pursuant to Section16 of R.A. No. 7166.

First, if a pre-proclamation case is excludedfrom the list of those (annexed to the OmnibusResolution on Pending Cases) that shall continue afterthe beginning of the term of the office involved,the remedy of the aggrieved party is to timely file acertiorari petition assailing the Omnibus Resolutionbefore the Court under Rules 64 and 65, regardlessof whether a COMELEC division is yet to issue adefinitive ruling in the main case or the COMELECen banc is yet to act on a motion for reconsiderationfiled if there is any.

It follows that if the resolution on the motionfor reconsideration by the banc precedes theexclusion of the said case from the list, what shouldbe brought before the Court on certiorari is thedecision resolving the motion.

Second, if a pre-proclamation case is dismissedby a COMELEC division and, on the same date ofdismissal or within the period to file a motion forreconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc excludedthe said case from the list annexed to the OmnibusResolution, the remedy of the aggrieved party isalso to timely file a certiorari petition assailing theOmnibus Resolution before the Court under Rules64 and 65. The aggrieved party need no longer filea motion for reconsideration of the division ruling.

The rationale for this is that the exclusion bythe COMELEC en banc of a pre-proclamation casefrom the list of those that shall continue is alreadydeemed a final dismissal of that case not only bythe division but also by the COMELEC en banc. Asalready explained earlier, the aggrieved party canno longer expect any favorable ruling from theCOMELEC.

And third, if a pre-proclamation case isdismissed by a COMELEC division but, on thesame date of dismissal or within the period to file a

POLITICAL LAWmotion for reconsideration, the COMELEC En Bancincluded the case in the list annexed to the OmnibusResolution, the remedy of the aggrieved party is totimely file a motion for reconsideration with theCOMELEC en banc. The reason for this is that thechallenge to the ruling of the COMELEC divisionwill have to be resolved definitively by the entirebody.

In laying down the said guidelines, the Courtis not unaware of its ruling in Santos v. Commissionon Elections, that the filing of a motion forreconsideration with the COMELEC en banc of adivision’s dismissal of a pre-proclamation case, andthe simultaneous filing of a certiorari petition beforethis Court questioning the Omnibus Resolution/list constitutes forum shopping. The Santosdoctrine shall continue to apply to every case witha similar or parallel factual setting.

(Nachura, J., Norma Patalinghug, EugeneEspedido, Reynaldo Berdin, Noraman Codilla,Bobie Cuenca, Efren Herrera, Lorenzo Igot, Jr.,Albertino Mata, Jr., Michael Czar Ouano, RamonPatalinghug, Francisco Senerpida and CharlesVailoces v. Commission on Elections, ArturoRadaza, Mario Amores, Queenie Ammann, JunardChan, Eduardo Cuizon, Alexander Gestopa, Jr.,Damian Gomez, Jr., Cornelio Pahayag, RodolfoPotot, Florito Pozon, Melissa Vidal, Marcial Ycong,Atty. Ann Janette Chua-Hu Lamban, City ElectionOfficer, Leonilo Oliva, Atty. Evangeline Gicale, andthe other members of the City Board of Canvassers,G.R. No. 178767, January 30, 2008.)

Sexual Harassment; what constitutes sexualharassment under R.A. No. 7877.

The Court of Appeals (CA), thus, correctlyruled that Rayala’s culpability is not to bedetermined solely on the basis of Section 3, R.A.No. 7877, because he is charged with theadministrative offense, not the criminal infraction,of sexual harassment. It should be enough thatthe CA, along with the Investigating Committeeand the Office of the President (OP), foundsubstantial evidence to support the administrativecharge.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW


PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTTTTT10

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (continued)

Osteosarcoma is compensable.

Osteosarcoma is not listed as an occupationaldisease in the Amended Rules on Employees’Compensation. Hence, it is supposed to be uponthe claimant or private respondents to prove bysubstantial evidence that the risk of contractingOsteosarcoma was increased by the workingconditions of the late Abraham Cate. Substantialevidence means such relevant evidence as areasonable mind might accept as adequate tosupport a conclusion. The records show thatAbraham failed to present evidence to establish thatthe development of his ailment was traceable to his

LABOR LAW

REMEDIAL LAW

Publication of Judicial Notices, Advertisementsfor Public Biddings, Notices of Auction Sales andother Similar Notices.

Supreme Court Circular No. 5-98 datedJanuary 12, 1998 directs all executive judges andother court personnel to strictly comply with theprovisions of P.D. No. 1079, “Revising andConsolidating All Laws and Decrees Regulating,Publication of Judicial Notices, Advertisement forPublic Biddings, Notices of Auction Sales and other

Yet, even if we were to test Rayala’s acts strictlyby the standards set in Section 3, R.A. No. 7877, hewould still be administratively liable. It is true thatthis provision calls for a “demand, request orrequirement of a sexual favor.” But it is notnecessary that the demand, request or requirementof a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oralor written statement. It may be discerned, withequal certitude, from the acts of the offender. Holding and squeezing Domingo’s shoulders,running his fingers across her neck and ticklingher ear, having inappropriate conversations withher, giving her money allegedly for school expenseswith a promise of future privileges, and makingstatements with unmistakable sexual overtones –all these acts of Rayala resound with deafeningclarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.

Likewise, contrary to Rayala’s claim, it is notessential that the demand, request or requirementbe made as a condition for continued employmentor for promotion to a higher position. It is enoughthat the respondent’s acts result in creating anintimidating, hostile or offensive environment forthe employee. That the acts of Rayala generatedan intimidating and hostile environment forDomingo is clearly shown by the common factualfinding of the Investigating Committee, the OP andthe CA that Domingo reported the matter to anofficemate and, after the last incident, filed for a leaveof absence and requested transfer to another unit.

(Nachura, J., Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo v. RogelioI. Rayala, G.R. No. 155831, February 18, 2008.)

working conditions in the Philippine Navy andnow the defunct Philippine Constabulary and thePNP. Further, private respondent’s allegation intheir petition for review with the Court of Appealsthat Abraham, as a rifleman in the Philippine Navy,may have been exposed to elements like a viruswhich could have contributed to his ailment doesnot satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence.The rule is that awards of compensation cannotrest on speculations and presumptions as theclaimant must prove a positive thing. Theapplication of the rules would mean that absentany proof that the risk of contracting the ailmentwas increased by the working conditions of thelate Abraham, private respondents would not beentitled to compensation.

Considering, however, that it is practicallyundisputed that under the present state of science,the proof referred by the law to be presented bythe deceased private respondent claimant wasunavailable and impossible to comply with, thecondition must be deemed as not imposed.

x x x in the specific case of respondent, therequirement is impossible to comply with giventhe present state of scientific knowledge. Theobligation to present such as an imposible evidencemust, therefore, be deemed void. Respondent,therefore, is entitled to compensation, consistentwith the social legislation’s intended beneficialpurpose.

(Azcuna, J., Government Service Insurance Systemv. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Abraham Caterepresented by Dorothy Cate, G.R. No. 124208,January 28, 2008.)


Similar Notices,” in the publication of noticesunder Act 3135, judicial notices, in specialproceedings, court orders and summonses and allsimilar announcements required by law to bepublished.

Executive judges are required under the P.D.to distribute those notices by raffle for publicationto qualified newspapers or periodicals, such rafflesto be conducted personally by the executive judgeafter designating a regular working day and adefinite time each week for such purpose.

Failure to follow this procedure is punishableby a fine of not less than five thousand pesos(Php5,000) nor more than twenty thousand pesos(Php20,000) and imprisonment for not less thansix (6) months nor more than two (2) years. Inaddition, the offending executive judge or courtpersonnel is perpetually disqualified from holdingany public office in the government.

The stringent provisions of P.D. No. 1079 wereintended to prevent unfair competition, meantultimately for the protection of the press.

On the otherhand, SC En Banc Resolution No.A.M. 01-01-07-SC dated October 16, 2001, providesfor uniform and comprehensive guidelines in theaccreditation of newspapers and other periodicalsseeking to publish the notices mentioned in P.D.No. 1079 and Circular 5-98.

Evidently, the language and tenor of theaforecited authorities show that the distributionof notices for publication by raffle is mandatoryand cannot be dispensed with.

Respondent clerk of court, as a lawyer andemployee of the court ought to know therequirements in and the importance of distributingnotices for publication. By failing to include morethan twenty foreclosure cases in the raffle,respondent showed a blatant disregard for theprocedure enjoined by P.D. No. 1079 and by saidSupreme Court circular and resolution. He wasfound guilty of dereliction of duty and gross neglectfor which he was fined Php20,000.

(Carpio Morales, J., Ferdinand Bascos v. Atty.Raymundo A. Ramirez, Clerk of Court, RTC, IlaganIsabela, A.M. No. P-08-2418, January 31, 2008.)

REMEDIAL LAW (continued)

Expanded jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals erred in declaring thatonly the Regional Trial Court has appellatejurisdiction over the judgment of the SangguniangPanlalawigan.

True, appeal is a purely statutory right and itcannot be exercised unless it is expressly grantedby law. Nevertheless, the CA can pass upon thepetition for review precisely because the law allowsit.

Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 or the JudiciaryReorganization Act of 1980, as amended by R.A.No. 7902, vests in the CA the appellate jurisdictionover all final judgments, decisions, resolutions,orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts andquasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boardsor commissions, among others. B.P. Blg. 129 hasbeen further supplemented by the 1997 Rules ofCivil Procedure, as amended, which provides forthe remedy of appeal via petition for review underRule 42 to the CA in cases decided by the RTC inthe exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Thus, the CA need not treat the appeal viapetition for review filed by Marcos as a petition forcertiorari to be able to pass upon the same. B.P. Blg.129, as amended, which is supplemented by Rule42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, gives the CA theauthority to entertain appeals of such judgmentsand final orders rendered by the RTC in the exerciseof its appellate jurisdiction.

(Reyes, R.T., J., Municipality of Nueva Era, IlocosNorte, represented by its Municipal Mayor,Caroline Arzadon-Garvida v. Municipality ofMarcos, Ilocos Norte, represented by its MunicipalMayor, Salvador Pillos, and the Honorable Courtof Appeals, G.R. No. 169435, February 27, 2008.)

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERS12

POLITICAL LAWCOMELEC En Banc does not have jurisdiction inthe first instance.

The consistent ruling of the Court is that, theCommission En Banc does not have jurisdiction inthe first instance, whether original or appellate,over election cases, pre-proclamation controversies,and incidents thereof. When such disputes are filedbefore or elevated to the Commission, they shouldbe heard and adjudicated first at the division level. This doctrine is anchored on Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution which established the two-tiered organizational and functional structure ofthe COMELEC. The provision requires that electioncases, including pre-proclamation controversies,should be heard and decided first at the divisionlevel. It reads, thus:

SEC. 3. The Commission on Elections maysit En Banc or in two divisions, and shallpromulgate its rules of procedure in orderto expedite disposition of election cases,including pre-proclamation controversies.All such election cases shall be heard anddecided in division, provided that motionsfor reconsideration of decisions shall bedecided by the Commission En Banc.

It is important to clarify, however, that not allcases relating to election laws filed before theCOMELEC are required to be first heard by adivision. Under the Constitution, the COMELECexercises both administrative and quasi-judicialpowers. The COMELEC en banc can act directly onmatters falling within its administrative powers. It is only when the exercise of quasi-judicial powersis involved that the COMELEC is mandated todecide cases first in division, and then, upon motionfor reconsideration, en banc.

(Ynares-Santiago, J., Randy C. Cambe v. TheCommission on Elections; The Municipal Board ofCanvassers of Lasam, Cagayan; and Dominador M.Go, G.R. No. 178456, January 30, 2008.)

Restraints on freedom of speech; how evaluated.

Generally, restraints on freedom of speech andexpression are evaluated by either or a combinationof three tests, i.e.,

(a) the dangerous tendency doctrine whichpermits limitations on speech once arational connection has been established (Continued on NEXT page)

between the speech restrained and thedanger contemplated;

(b) the balancing of interests tests, used as astandard when courts need to balanceconflicting social values and individualinterests, and requires a conscious anddetailed consideration of the interplay ofinterests observable in a given situation ortype of situation; and

(c) the clear and present danger rule whichrests on the premise that speech may berestrained because there is substantialdanger that the speech will likely lead toan evil the government has a right toprevent. This rule requires that the evilconsequences sought to be prevented mustbe substantive, “extremely serious and thedegree of imminence extremely high.”

As articulated in our jurisprudence, we haveapplied either the dangerous tendency doctrine orclear and present danger test to resolve free speechchallenges. More recently, we have concluded thatwe have generally adhered to the clear and presentdanger test.

(Puno, C.J., Francisco Chavez v. Raul M. Gonzales, inhis capacity as the Secretary of the Department ofJustice; and the National TelecommunicationsCommission (NTC), G.R. No. 168338, February 15,2008)

Prior restraint – defined.

Prior restraint refers to official governmentalrestrictions on the press or other forms ofexpression in advance of actual publication ordissemination. Freedom from prior restraint islargely freedom from government censorship ofpublications, whatever the form of censorship, andregardless of whether it is wielded by the executive,legislative or judicial branch of the government.Thus, it precludes governmental acts that requiredapproval of a proposal to publish; licensing orpermits as prerequisites to publication includingthe payment of license taxes for the privilege topublish; and even injunctions against publication. Even the closure of the business and printing officesof certain newspapers, resulting in thediscontinuation of their printing and publication,are deemed as previous restraint or censorship. Any

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSJanuary-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008 13

Redundancy in labor law; definition of.

The nature of redundancy as an authorizedcause for dismissal is explained in the leading caseof Wiltshire File Co., Inc. v. National Labor RelationsCommission, viz:

x x x redundancy in an employer’s personnelforce necessarily or even ordinarily refers toduplication of work. That no other personwas holding the same position that privaterespondent held prior to termination of hisservices does not show that his position hadnot become redundant. Indeed, in any wellorganized business enterprise, it would besurprising to find duplication of work andtwo or more people doing the work of oneperson. We believe that redundancy, forpurposes of the Labor Code, exists where theservices of an employee are in excess of whatis reasonably demanded by the actualrequirements of the enterprise. Succinctlyput, a position is redundant where it issuperfluous, and superfluity of a position orpositions may be the outcome of a numberof factors, such as overhiring of workers,decreased volume of business, or droppingof a particular product line or service activitypreviously manufactured or undertaken bythe enterprise.

(Nachura, J., Smart Communictation, Inc. v. ReginaM. Astorga, G.R. No. 148132, January 22, 2008.)

Arbitration; grounds to vacate an arbitral award.

Section 24 of R.A. No. 876 provides for thespecific grounds for a petition to vacate an awardmade by an arbitrator:

SEC. 24. Grounds for vacating award. – Inany one of the following cases, the courtmust make an order vacating the awardupon the petition of any party to thecontroversy when such party provesaffirmatively that in the arbitrationproceedings:

(a) The award was procured by corruption,fraud, or other undue means; or

(b) That there was evident partiality orcorruption in the arbitrators or any ofthem; or

LABOR LAW(c) That the arbitrators were guilty of

misconduct in refusing to postpone thehearing upon sufficient cause shown, orin refusing to hear evidence pertinent andmaterial to the controversy; that one ormore of the arbitrators was disqualifiedto act as such under section nine hereof,and willfully refrained from disclosingsuch disqualifications or of any othermisbehavior by which the rights of anyparty have been materially prejudiced; or

(d) That the arbitrators exceeded theirpowers, or so imperfectly executed them,that a mutual, final and definite awardupon the subject matter submitted tothem was not made.

Based on the foregoing provisions, the law itselfclearly provides that the RTC must issue an ordervacating an arbitral award only “in any one of the. . . cases” enumerated therein. Under the legalmaxim in statutory construction expressio unius estexclusio alterius, the explicit mention of one thing ina statute means the elimination of others notspecifically mentioned. As R.A. No. 876 did notexpressly provide for errors of fact and/or law andgrave abuse of discretion (proper grounds for apetition for review under Rule 43 and a petition forcertiorari under Rule 65, respectively) as grounds formaintaining a petition to vacate an arbitral awardin the RTC, it necessarily follows that a party maynot avail of the latter remedy on the grounds oferrors of fact and/or law or grave abuse of discretionto overturn an arbitral award.

(Corona, J., ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporationv. World Interactive Network Systems (WINS)Japan Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 169332, February 11, 2008)

(Continued from PREVIOUS page)

law or official that requires some form ofpermission to be had before publication can bemade, commits an infringement of theconstitutional right, and remedy can be had atthe courts.

(Puno, C.J., Francisco Chavez v. Raul M. Gonzales, inhis capacity as the Secretary of the Department ofJustice; and the National TelecommunicationsCommission (NTC), G.R. No. 168338, February 15,2008)


CIVIL LAWEquitable mortgage: definition and requisites of.

An equitable mortgage is one which, althoughlacking in some formality, or form, or words, orother requisites demanded by a statute,nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties tocharge real property as security for a debt, andcontains nothing impossible or contrary to law.

The essential requisites of an equitablemortgage are: (1) the parties enter into whatappears to be a contract of sale, (2) but theirintention is to secure an existing debt by way ofmortgage.

Article 1602 of the Civil Code provides:

ART. 1602. The contract shall be presumedto be an equitable mortgage, in any of thefollowing cases:

(1) When the price of a sale with right torepurchase is unusually inadequate;

(2) When the vendor remains in possessionas lessee or otherwise;

(3) When upon or after the expiration of theright to repurchase, another instrumentextending the period of redemption orgranting a new period is extended;

(4) When the purchaser retains for himselfa part of the purchase price;

(5) When the vendor binds himself to paythe taxes on the thing sold;

(6) In any other case where it may be fairlyinferred that the real intention of theparties is that the transaction shallsecure the payment of a debt or theperformance of any other obligation.

In any of the foregoing cases, any money,fruits, or other benefit to be received by thevendee as rent or otherwise shall beconsidered as interest which shall be subjectto the usury laws.

Jurisprudence recognizes that there is noconclusive test to determine whether a deedpurporting to be a sale on its face is really a simpleloan accommodation secured by a mortgage.However, our case law consistently shows that thepresence of even one of the circumstancesenumerated in Article 1602 suffices to convert a

purported contract of sale into an equitablemortgage.

(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., Dionisia Dorado Vda. DeDelfin, represented in this act by her heirs v.Salvador D. Dellota, represented by his heirs andthe Intestate Estate of the late Gumersindo Deleña,G.R. No. 143697, January 28, 2008.)

Easement: requisite to be satisfied in order to beentitled to a legal easement of right of way.

It should be remembered that to be entitled to alegal easement of right of way, the followingrequisites must be satisfied:

(1) the dominant estate is surrounded by otherimmovables and has no adequate outlet toa public highway;

(2) proper indemnity has been paid;

(3) the isolation was not due to acts of theproprietor of the dominant estate; and

(4) the right of way claimed is at the point leastprejudicial to the servient estate.

The fourth requisite is absent.

We are in full accord with the ruling of the CAwhen it aptly and judiciously held, to wit:

As provided for under the provisions of Article650 of the New Civil Code, the easement ofright of way shall be established at the pointleast prejudicial to the servient estate, and,insofar as consistent with this rule, where thedistance from the dominant estate to a publichighway may be the shortest. Where thereare several tenements surrounding thedominant estate, and the easement may beestablished on any of them, the one where theway is shortest and will cause the least damageshould be chosen. But if these two circumstancesdo not concur in a single tenement, as in the instantcase, the way which will cause the least damageshould be used, even if it will not be the shortest. The criterion of least prejudice to the servient estatemust prevail over the criterion of shortest distance. The court is not bound to establish what isthe shortest; a longer way may be establishedto avoid injury to the servient tenement, suchas when there are constructions or wallswhich can be avoided by a round-about way,as in the case at bar.


As between a right of way that woulddemolish a fence of strong materials toprovide ingress and egress to a publichighway and another right of way whichalthough longer will only require a van orvehicle to make a turn, the secondalternative should be preferred. Mereconvenience for the dominant estate is notwhat is required by law as the basis forsetting up a compulsory easement. Even inthe face of necessity, if it can be satisfiedwithout imposing the easement, the sameshould not be imposed.

Finally, worthy of note, is the undisputedfact that there is already a newly openedpublic road barely fifty (50) meters awayfrom the property of appellants, which onlyshows that another requirement of the law,that is, there is no adequate outlet, has notbeen met to establish a compulsory right ofway.

Such pronouncement by the CA is in line withthis Court’s ruling in Quimen v. Court of Appeals,where we held that as between a right of way thatwould demolish a store of strong materials toprovide egress to a public highway, and anotherright of way which, although longer, will onlyrequire an avocado tree to be cut down, the secondalternative should be preferred.

(Nachura, J., Apolinardito C. Quintanilla andPerfecta C. Quintanilla v. Pedro Abangan andDaryl’s Collection Intl. Inc., G.R. No. 160613,February 12, 2008)

CIVIL LAW (continued)

MERCANTILE LAWCorporate Rehabilitation; serious situation test.

Section 6 of the Interim Rules of Procedure onCorporate Rehabilitation provides:

SEC. 6. Stay Order. –- If the court finds thepetition to be sufficient in form andsubstance, it shall, not later than five (5)days from the filing of the petition, issue anOrder (a) appointing a RehabilitationReceiver and fixing his bond; (b) stayingenforcement of all claims, whether for moneyor otherwise and whether such enforcementis by court action or otherwise, against thedebtor, its guarantors and sureties not


solidarily liable with the debtor; (c)prohibiting the debtor from selling,encumbering, transferring, or disposing inany manner any of its properties except inthe ordinary course of business; (d)prohibiting the debtor from making anypayment of its liabilities outstanding as ofthe date of filing of the petition; (e)prohibiting the debtor’s suppliers of goodsor services from withholding supply ofgoods and services in the ordinary courseof business for as long as the debtor makespayments for the services and goods suppliedafter the issuance of the stay order; (f )directing the payment in full of alladministrative expenses incurred after theissuance of the stay order; (g) fixing theinitial hearing on the petition not earlierthan forty five (45) days but not later thansixty (60) days from the filing thereof; (h)directing the petitioner to publish the Orderin a newspaper of general circulation in thePhilippines once a week for two (2)consecutive weeks; (i) directing all creditorsand all interested parties (including theSecurities and Exchange Commission) to fileand serve on the debtor a verified commenton or opposition to the petition, withsupporting affidavits and documents, notlater than ten (10) days before the date ofthe initial hearing and putting them onnotice that their failure to do so will bar themfrom participating in the proceedings; and(j) directing the creditors and interestedparties to secure from the court copies ofthe petition and its annexes within suchtime as to enable themselves to file theircomment on or opposition to the petitionand to prepare for the initial hearing of thepetition.

Section 6 provides that the petition must be“sufficient in form and substance.” In RizalCommercial Banking Corporation v. Intermediate AppellateCourt, this Court held that under Section 6(c) ofP.D. No. 902-A, receivers may be appointedwhenever: (1) necessary in order to preserve therights of the parties-litigants; and/or (2) protectthe interest of the investing public and creditors.The situations contemplated in these instancesare serious in nature. There must exist a clear


REMEDIAL LAWCriminal conviction for an unlawful activity isnot a prerequisite for the institution of a civilforfeiture proceeding.

Section 27 of the Rule of Procedure in Cases ofCivil Forfeiture provides that no prior criminalcharge, pendency of or conviction for an unlawfulactivity or money laundering offense is necessaryfor the commencement or the resolution of apetition for civil forfeiture.

Thus, regardless of the absence, pendency oroutcome of a criminal prosecution for the unlawfulactivity or for money laundering, an action for civilforfeiture may be separately and independentlyprosecuted and resolved.

(Corona, J., Republic of the Philippines, representedby the Anti-Money Laundering Council v.Glasgow Credit and Collection Services, Inc., andCitystate Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 170281,January 18, 2008)

Venue in Civil Forfeiture Cases.

Section 3, Title II of A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, theRule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, AssetPreservation; and Freezing of MonetaryInstrument, Property; or Proceeds Representing,Involving or Relating to an Unlawful Activity orMoney Laundering Offense under R.A. No. 9160,as amended provides:

SEC. 3. Venue of cases cognizable by theregional trial court. – A petition for civilforfeiture shall be filed in any regional trialcourt of the judicial region where themonetary instrument, property or proceedsrepresenting, involving, or relating to anunlawful activity or to a money launderingoffense are located; provided, however, thatwhere all or any portion of the monetaryinstrument, property or proceeds is locatedoutside the Philippines, the petition may befiled in the regional trial court in Manila orof the judicial region where any portion ofthe monetary instrument, property, orproceeds is located, at the option of thepetitioner.

Under said Section 3, the venue of civilforfeiture cases is any RTC of the judicial regionwhere the monetary instrument, property orproceeds representing, involving, or relating to an

and imminent danger of losing the corporateassets if a receiver is not appointed. Absent suchdanger, such as where there are sufficient assets tosustain the rehabilitation plan and both investorsand creditors are amply protected, the need forappointing a receiver does not exist. Simply put,the purpose of the law in directing theappointment of receivers is to protect the interestsof the corporate investors and creditors.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that thepetition for rehabilitation does not allege that thereis a clear and imminent danger that petitioner willlose its corporate assets if a receiver is not appointed.In other words, the “serious situation test” laiddown by Rizal Commercial Banking Corporationhas not been met or at least substantially compliedwith. Significantly, the Stay Order dated July 13,2004 issued by the RTC does not state any serioussituation affecting petitioner’s corporate assets. Weobserve that in appointing Mr. Gener T. Mendozaas Rehabilitation Receiver, the only basis of thelower court was its finding that the petition issufficient in form and substance. However, it didnot specify any reason or ground to sustain suchfinding. Clearly, the petition failed to comply withthe “serious situation test.”

(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., Pryce Corporation v. TheCourt of Appeals and China Banking Corporation,G.R. No. 172302, February 4, 2008)

MERCANTILE LAW (continued)

by the debtor will extend the time within whichthe writ may be issued without scire facias. Thus,the time during which execution is stayed shouldbe excluded, and the said time will be extendedby any delay occasioned by the debtor.

There had been many instances where thisCourt allowed the execution by motion evenafter the lapse of five years. These exceptionshave one common denominator, and that is, thedelay is caused or occasioned by actions of thejudgment debtor and/or is incurred for hisbenefit or advantage.

(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., Esteban Yau v. RicardoC. Silverio, Sr., G.R. No. 158848, February 4,2008)

REMEDIAL LAW (Continued from page 19)


REMEDIAL LAW (continued)

Decisional law enumerates the requisites of anaction for declaratory relief, as follows:

(1) the subject matter of the controversy mustbe a deed, will, contract or other writteninstrument, statute, executive order orregulation, or ordinance;

(2) the terms of said documents and the validitythereof are doubtful and require judicialconstruction;

(3) there must have been no breach of thedocuments in question;

(4) there must be an actual justiciablecontroversy or the “ripening seeds” of onebetween persons whose interests areadverse;

(5) the issue must be ripe for judicialdetermination; and

(6) adequate relief is not available throughother means or other forms of action orproceeding.

(Nachura, J., Eufemia Almeda and Romel Almedav. Bathala Marketing Industries Inc., G.R. No.150806, January 28, 2008)

Petition for Certiorari; actual addresses of all thepetitioners and respondents a requirement;motion for reconsideration is jurisdictional andmandatory.

Under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petiton forcertiorari shall contain the actual addresses of allthe petitioners and the respondents, thus:

SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effectof non-compliance with requirements. – Thepetition shall contain the full names andactual addresses of all the petitioners andrespondents, a concise statement of thematters involved, the factual background ofthe case, and the grounds relied upon for therelief prayed for.

x x x x

It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legiblecopies together with proof of service thereofon the respondent with the original copyintended for the court indicated as such by

unlawful activity or to a money laundering offenseare located. Pasig City, where the account soughtto be forfeited in this case is situated, is within theNational Capital Judicial Region (NCJR). Clearly,the complaint for civil forfeiture of the account maybe filed in any RTC of the NCJR. Since the RTCManila is one of the RTCs of the NCJR, it was aproper venue of the Republic’s complaint for civilforfeiture of Glasgow’s account.

(Corona, J., Republic of the Philippines, representedby the Anti-Money Laundering Council v.Glasgow Credit and Collection Services, Inc., andCitystate Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 170281,January 18, 2008)

Replevin; definition of

Replevin is an action whereby the owner orperson entitled to repossession of goods or chattelsmay recover those goods or chattels from one whohas wrongfully distrained or taken or whowrongfully detains such goods or chattels. It isdesigned to permit one having right to possessionto recover property in specie from one who haswrongfully taken or detained the property. Theterm may refer either to the action itself, for therecovery of personalty, or to the provisional remedytraditionally associated with it, by whichpossession of the property may be obtained by theplaintiff and retained during the pendency of theaction.

(Nachura, J., Smart Communictation, Inc. v.Regina M. Astorga, G.R. No. 148132, January, 22,2008)

Declaratory relief; definition of; requisites of anaction for declaratory relief.

Declaratory relief is defined as an action by anyperson interested in a deed, will, contract or otherwritten instrument, executive order or resolution,to determine any question of construction orvalidity arising from the instrument, executiveorder or regulation, or statute, and for a declarationof his rights and duties thereunder. The only issuethat may be raised in such a petition is the questionof construction or validity of provisions in aninstrument or statute. Corollary is the general rulethat such an action must be justified, as no otheradequate relief or remedy is available under thecircumstances. (Continued on NEXT page)


the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by aclearly legible duplicate original or certifiedtrue copy of the judgment, order, resolution,or ruling subject thereof, such materialportions of the record as are referred totherein, and other documents relevant orpertinent thereto. The certification shall beaccomplished by the proper clerk of court orby his duly authorized representative, or bythe proper officer of the court, tribunal,agency or office involved or by his dulyauthorized representative. The other requisitenumber of copies of the petition shall beaccompanied by clearly legible plain copiesof all documents attached to the original.

The petitioner shall also submit together withthe petition a sworn certification that he hasnot theretofore commenced any other actioninvolving the same issues in the SupremeCourt, the Court of Appeals or differentdivisions thereof, or any other tribunal oragency; if there is such other action orproceeding, he must state the status of thesame; and if he should thereafter learn that asimilar action or proceeding has been filedor is pending before the Supreme Court, theCourt of Appeals, or different divisionsthereof, or any other tribunal or agency, heundertakes to promptly inform the aforesaidcourts and other tribunal or agency thereofwithin five (5) days therefrom.

The petitioner shall pay the correspondingdocket and other lawful fees to the clerk ofcourt and deposit the amount of Php500.00for costs at the time of the filing of thepetition.

The failure of the petitioner to comply withany of the foregoing requirements shall besufficient ground for the dismissal of thepetition. (Emphasis supplied.)

The requirement that a petition for certiorarimust contain the actual addresses of all thepetitioners and the respondents is mandatory. Petitioner’s failure to comply with the saidrequirement is sufficient ground for thedismissal of his petition. Thus, the Court ofAppeals correctly dismissed the petition forcertiorari on the ground that the parties’ actualaddresses were not indicated therein.

x x x

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals correctlydismissed the petition for certiorari on the groundthat petitioner failed to file a motion forreconsideration of the questioned RTC Order. Thefiling of a motion for reconsideration to give thecourt a quo a chance to correct itself is ajurisdictional and mandatory requirement whichmust be strictly complied with. Although there areexceptions to this general rule, the instant casepresents no valid and compelling reason to deviatefrom the said rule.

(Quisumbing, J., Percival A. Cendaña v. Cirilo A.Avila, G.R. No. 168350, January 31, 2008)

Execution of judgment; when allowed after fiveyears.

Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure, as amended provides:

SEC 6. Execution by motion or by independentaction. – A final and executory judgment ororder may be executed on motion within five(5) years from the date of its entry. After thelapse of such time, and before it is barred bythe statute of limitations, a judgment may beenforced by action. The revived judgmentmay also be enforced by motion within five(5) years from the date of its entry andthereafter by action before it is barred by thestatute of limitations.

It is clear from the above Rule that a judgmentmay be executed on motion within five years fromthe date of its entry or from the date it becomesfinal and executory. Thereafter, before barred by thestatute of limitations, by action. However, thereare instances where this Court allowed executionby motion even after the lapse of five years uponmeritorious grounds.

In Francisco Motors Corporation v. Court of Appeals,this Court held that in computing the time limitfor enforcing a final judgment, the general rule isthat there should not be included the time whenexecution is stayed, either by agreement of theparties for a definite time, by injunction, by thetaking of an appeal or writ of error so as to operateas a supersedeas, by the death of a party orotherwise. Any interruption or delay occasioned

(Continued on page 16)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSJanuary-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008January-March 2008 19

SUPREME COURTRESOLUTION of the COURT En Banc dated January22, 2008, on A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC

RE: RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

Acting on the recommendation of the Chairpersonand Members of the Committee on Revision of theRules of Court submitting for this Court’sconsideration and approval the proposed Rule on theWrit of Habeas Data, the Court Resolved to APPROVEthe same.

THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

SECTION I. Habeas Data. – The writ of habeas data is aremedy available to any person whose right toprivacy in life, liberty or security is violated orthreatened by an unlawful act or omission of a publicofficial or employee, or of a private individual or entityengaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of dataor information regarding the person, family, home andcorrespondence of the aggrieved party.

SEC. 2. Who May File. – Any aggrieved party may file apetition for the writ of habeas data. However, in casesor extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, thepetition may be filed by:

(a) Any member of the immediate family of theaggrieved party, namely: the spouse, childrenand parents; or

(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateralrelative of the aggrieved party within thefourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity,in default of those mentioned in the precedingparagraph.

SEC. 3. Where to File. – The petition may be filed withthe Regional Trial Court where the petitioner orrespondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction overthe place where the data or information is gathered,collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner.

The petition may also be filed with the SupremeCourt or the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayanwhen the action concerns public data files ofgovernment offices.

SEC. 4. Where Returnable; Enforceable. – When the writis issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judgethereof, it shall be returnable before such court orjudge.

When issued by the Court of Appeals or theSandiganbayan or any of its justices, it may bereturnable before such court or any justice thereof, orto any Regional Trial Court of the place where the

petitioner or respondent resides, or that which hasjurisdiction over the place where the data orinformation is gathered, collected or stored.

When issued by the Supreme Court or any of itsjustices, it may be returnable before such Court or anyjustice thereof, or before the Court of Appeals or theSandiganbayan or any or its justices, or to anyRegional Trial Court of the place where the petitioneror respondent resides, or that which has jurisdictionover the place where the data or information isgathered, collected or stored.

The writ of habeas data shall be enforceableanywhere in the Philippines.

SEC. 5. Docket Fees. – No docket and other lawful feesshall be required from an indigent petitioner. Thepetition of the indigent shall be docketed and actedupon immediately, without prejudice to subsequentsubmission of proof of indigent not later than fifteen(15) days from the filing of the petition.

SEC. 6. Petition. – A verified written petition for a writof habeas data should contain:

(a) The personal circumstances of the petitionerand the respondent;

(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated orthreatened and how it affects the right to life,liberty or security of the aggrieved party;

(c) The actions and recourses taken by thepetitioner to secure the data or information;

(d) The location of the files, registers or databases,the government office, and the person incharge, in possession or in control of the dataor information, if known;

(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include theupdating, rectification, suppression ordestruction of the database or information orfiles kept by the respondent.

In case of threats, the relief may include aprayer for an order enjoining the actcomplained of; and

(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just andequitable.

SEC. 7. Issuance of the Writ. – Upon the filing of thepetition, the court, justice or judge shall immediatelyorder the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought toissue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under theseal of the court and cause it to be served within three


PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS20

RESOLUTION, dated January 22, 2008 (continued)

days from its issuance; or in case or urgent necessity,the justice or judge may issue the writ under his orher own hand, and may deputize any officer or personto serve it.

The writ shall also set the date and time forsummary hearing of the petition which shall not belater than ten (10) work days from the date of itsissuance.

SEC. 8 . Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. –A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after itsallowance, or a deputized person who refuses to servethe same, shall be punished by the court, justice orjudge for contempt without prejudice to otherdisciplinary actions.

SEC. 9. How the Writ is Served. – The writ shall beserved upon the respondent by the officer or persondeputized by the court, justice or judge who shallretain a copy on which to make a return of service. Incase the writ cannot be served personally on therespondent, the rules on substituted service shallapply.

SEC. 10. Return; Contents. – The respondent shall file averified written return together with supportingaffidavits within five work days from service of thewrit, which period may be reasonably extended bythe Court for justifiable reasons. The return shall,among other things, contain the following:

(a) The lawful defenses such as national security,state secrets, privileged communication,confidentiality of the source of information ofmedia, and others;

(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possessionor in control of the data or information subjectof the petition:

(i) a disclosure of the data or informationabout the petitioner, the nature or suchdata or information, and the purpose forits collection;

(ii) the steps or actions taken by therespondent to ensure the security andconfidentiality of the data or information;and

(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data orinformation held.

(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution ofthe proceeding.

A general denial of the allegations in the petitionshall not be allowed.

SEC. 11. Contempt. – The court, justice or judge maypunish with imprisonment or fine a respondent whocommits contempt by making a false return, orrefusing to make a return; or any person whootherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or orderof the court.

SEC. 12. When Defenses May Be Heard in Chambers. – Ahearing in chambers may be conducted where therespondent invokes the defense that the release of thedata or information in question shall compromisenational security or state secrets, or when the data orinformation cannot be divulged to the public due toits nature or privileged character.

SEC. 13. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. – Thefollowing pleadings and motions are prohibited:

(a) Motion to dismiss;

(b) Motion for extension of time to file opposition,affidavit, position paper and other pleadings;

(c) Dilatory motion for postponement;

(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;

(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;

(f) Third-party complaint;

(g) Reply;

(h) Motion to declare respondent in default;

(i) Intervention;

(j) Memorandum;

(k) Motion for reconsideration of interlocutoryorders or interim relief orders; and

(l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibitionagainst any interlocutory order.

SEC. 14. Return; Filing. – In case the respondent fails tofile a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed tohear the petition ex parte, granting the petitioner suchrelief as the petition may warrant unless the court inits discretic1Il requires the petitioner to submitevidence.

SEC. 15. Summary Hearing. – The hearing on the petitionshall be summary. However, the court, justice or judgemay call for a preliminary conference to simplify theissues and determine the possibility of obtainingstipulations and admissions from the parties.

SEC. 16. Judgment. – The Court shall render judgmentwithin ten (10) days from the time the petition issubmitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition


ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 16-2008

RE: DESIGNATING THE REGIONAL COURTADMINISTRATOR, DEPUTY REGIONALCOURT ADMINISTRATOR AND ASSISTANTCOURT ADMINISTRATORS FOR PILOT RCAOIN THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION

Pursuant to En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 06-11-09-SC dated November 14, 2006, entitled“Implementing the pilot project on Enhancing theAutonomy, Accountability, and Efficiency of theJudiciary, and the Administration of Justice,Establishing and Operationalising the PilotOrganization Infrastructure, Providing for GeneralImplementation Arrangements and Other Purposes,”the designation of personnel to positions in pilot RCAO7 and their compensation and benefits are herebyeffected.

1. Designation of Personnel. The followingpersonnel are hereby detailed on full-time basisand designated officers-in-charge to pertinentpositions in pilot RCAO 7, as indicated hereunder:

RESOLUTION, dated January 22, 2008 (continued)

are proven by substantial evidence, the court shallenjoin the act complained of, or order the deletion,destruction, or rectification of the erroneous data orinformation and grant other relevant reliefs as may bejust and equitable; otherwise, the privilege of the writshall be denied.

Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforcedby the sheriff or any lawful officer as may be designatedby the court, justice or judge within five (5) work days.

SEC. 17. Return of Service. – The officer who executedthe final judgment shall, within three (3) days from itsenforcement, make a verified return to the court. Thereturn shall contain a full statement of the proceedingsunder the writ and a complete inventory of thedatabase or information, or documents and articlesinspected, updated, rectified, or deleted, with copiesserved on the petitioner and the respondent.

The officer shall state in the return how thejudgment was enforced and complied with by therespondent as well as all objections of the partiesregarding the manner and regularity of the service ofthe writ.

SEC. 18. Hearing of Officer’s Return.– The Court shallset the return for hearing with due notice to the partiesand act accordingly.

SEC. 19. Appeal. – Any party may appeal from thejudgment or final order to the Supreme Court underRule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or lawor both.

The period of appeal shall be five (5) work daysfrom the date of notice of the judgment or final order.

The appeal shall be given the same priority ashabeas corpus and amparo cases.

SEC. 20. Institution of Separate Actions. – The filing of apetition for the writ of habeas data shall not precludethe filing of separate criminal, civil or administrativeactions.

SEC. 21. Consolidation. – When a criminal action is filedsubsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ, thelatter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.

When a criminal action and a separate civil actionare filed subsequent to a petition for a writ of habeasdata, the petition shall be consolidated with thecriminal action.

After consolidation, the procedure under, this Ruleshall continue to govern the disposition of the reliefsin the petition.

SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. – When acriminal action has been commenced, no separatepetition for the writ shall be filed.The reliefs underthe writ shall be available to all aggrieved party bymotion in the criminal case.

The procedure under this Rule shall govern thedisposition of reliefs available under the writ of habeasdata.

SEC. 23. Substantive Rights. – This Rule shall notdiminish, increase or modify substantive rights.

SEC. 24. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. –The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily insofar asit is not inconsistent with this Rule.

SEC. 25. Effectivity. – This Rule shall take effect onFebruary 2, 2008 following its publication in three (3)newspapers of general circulation.

January 22, 2008.

PUNO, CJ, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIAMARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES,AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO (on officialleave), VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, REYES,LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ. concur.



2. Other Support Personnel. The designated RegionalCourt Administrator may propose the detail ofother support personnel as may be necessary infacilitating the implementation of the pilot RCAOin the Seventh Judicial Region.

3. Salaries, Other Compensation and PersonnelBenefits of the Designated Personnel. Thedesignated personnel to the identified positionsshall continue to receive their basic monthlysalaries. They shall also be authorized to receiveall other compensation from JDF and othersources as well as other personnel benefits at ratesconsistent with those authorized for the positionsto which they are designated or their equivalent,provided that those who are receiving higher ratesdue to their current positions will continue toreceive the higher rates.

4. Designation on Full-Time Basis. The designatedpersonnel shall be detailed on full-time basis andshall be freed of all assignments andresponsibilities of their current positions.

5. Honorarium. All personnel detailed to the pilotRCAO shall be entitled to a monthly honorariumwhich shall not exceed 20% of the amount of theircurrent basic monthly salary.

This Order shall take effect upon its issuance andshall be effective for six (6) months until or unlessextended by the undersigned.

Issued this 23rd day of January 2008.

(Sgd.) REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

Name and Current Position:Judge Cresencio Rafael C. Tan, Jr.Presiding JudgeRegional Trial Court, Branch 30,Dumaguete City

Designation:Regional Court Administration

Name and Current Position:Atty. Rullyn S. GarciaJudicial SupervisorOffice of the Court AdministratorSupreme Court, Manila

Designation:Deputy Regional Court Administrator

Name and Current Position:Atty. Rosemarie S. PabataoBranch Clerk of CourtRegional Trial Court, Branch 22, Cebu City

Designation:Assistant Regional Court Administrator forBudgeting

Name and Current Position:Atty. Catherine C. BaganoBranch Clerk of CourtRegional Trial Court, Branch 57, Cebu City

Designation:Assistant Regional Court Administrator forFinancial Accounting and Disbursement

Name and Current Position:Atty. Isidro F. Bongcayao, Jr.Branch Clerk of CourtRegional Trial Court, Branch 25, Danao City

Designation:Assistant Regional Court Administratorfor General Services

Name and Current Position:Atty. Denis L. PacasBranch Clerk of CourtRegional Trial Court, Branch 54,Lapu-Lapu City

Designation:Assistant Regional Court Administratorfor Human Resource Development

Name and Current Position:Mr. Ceferino R. Faunillan, Jr.Financial & Management Officer IIProgram Management OfficeSupreme Court, Manila

Designation:Assistant Regional Court Administrator forRevenue Management


RE: DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL COURTS TOHEAR, TRY AND DECIDE ENVIRONMENTALCASES

In the interest of an efficient administration ofjustice and pursuant to Sec. 23 of B.P. Blg. 129, thefollowing branches of the first and second level courtsare hereby designated as Special Courts to try anddecide violations of environmental laws, including butnot limited to the following:

1. Revised Forestry Code (P.D. No. 705)2. Marine Pollution (P.D. No. 979)


3. Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act(RA. No. 6969)

4. People’s Small-Scale Mining Act(R.A. No. 7076)

5. National Integrated Protected Areas SystemAct (R.A. No. 7586)

6. Philippine Mining Act (R.A. No. 7942)7. Indigenous People’s Rights Act

(R.A. No. 8371)8. Philippine Fisheries Code (R.A. No. 8550)9. Clean Air Act (R.A. No. 8749)10. Ecological Solid Waste Management Act

(R.A. No. 9003)11. National Caves & Cave Resources

Management Act (R.A. No. 9072)12. Wildlife Conservation & Protection Act

(R.A. No. 9147)13. Chainsaw Act (R.A. No. 9175)14. Clean Water Act (R.A. No. 9275)

committed within their respective territorialjurisdictions.



Br. 1, ManilaBr. 41, ManilaBr. 101, Quezon CityBr. 108, Pasay CityBr. 127, Kaloocan CityBr. 58, Makati CityBr. 152, Pasig City

(cases originating from Pasig City)Br. 266, Pasig City

(cases originating from Taguig City)Br. 170, Malabon CityBr. 272, Marikina CityBr. 208, Mandaluyong CityBr. 196, Parañaque CityBr. 201, Las Piñas CityBr. 205, Muntinlupa CityBr. 171, Valenzuela City

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 5, Baguio CityBr. 10, La Trinidad, BenguetBr. 12, Laoag CityBr. 28, San Fernando CityBr. 39, Lingayen, PangasinanBr. 44, Dagupan City, PangasinanBr. 47, Urdaneta City

SECOND JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 5, Tuguegarao CityBr. 9, Aparri, Cagayan

A.O. No. 23-2008 (continued)

Br. 17, Ilagan, IsabelaBr. 27, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 1, Balanga CityBr. 19, Malolos CityBr. 29, Cabanatuan CityBr. 32, Guimba, Nueva EcijaBr. 36, Gapan CityBr. 41, City of San Fernando, PampangaBr. 51, Guagua, PampangaBr. 59, Angeles CityBr. 65, Tarlac CityBr. 69, Iba, ZambalesBr. 75, Olongapo City

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 4, Batangas CityBr. 11, Balayan, BatangasBr. 88, Cavite CityBr. 20, Imus, CaviteBr. 27, Sta. Cruz, LagunaBr. 32, San Pablo CityBr. 36, Calamba CityBr. 51, Puerto Princesa CityBr. 60, Lucena CityBr. 70, Binangonan, RizalBr. 71, Antipolo CityBr. 75, San Mateo, RizalBr. 78, Morong, Rizal

FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 1, Legaspi CityBr. 13, Ligao CityBr. 15, Tabaco CityBr. 25, Naga CityBr. 32, Pili, Camarines SurBr. 35, Iriga CityBr. 38, Daet, Camarines NorteBr. 53, Sorsogon CityBr. 47, Masbate City

SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 2, Kalibo, AklanBr. 11, San Jose, AntiqueBr. 15, Roxas CityBr. 28, Iloilo CityBr. 44, Bacolod City

SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 23, Cebu CityBr. 28, Mandaue CityBr. 54, Lapu-Lapu CityBr. 34, Dumaguete CityBr. 47, Tagbilaran City

(Continued on the NEXT page)


EIGHT JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 9, Tacloban CityBr. 29, Catbalogan, Samar

NINTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 8, Dipolog CityBr. 16, Zamboanga CityBr. 20, Pagadian City

TENTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 4, Butuan CityBr. 10, Malaybalay CityBr. 12, Oroquieta CityBr. 39, Cagayan de Oro City

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 1, Tagum CityBr. 16, Davao CityBr. 18, Digos CityBr. 35, General Santos City

TWELFTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 4, Iligan CityBr. 10, Marawi City

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTSBr. 3, ManilaBr. 8, ManilaBr. 36, Quezon CityBr. 48, Pasay CityBr. 49, Kaloocan CityBr. 67, Makati CityBr. 70, Pasig City


FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 4, Baguio CityBr. 3, Dagupan City

SECOND JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 4, Tuguegarao City

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 1, Angeles CityBr. 1, Cabanatuan CityBr. 2, City of San Fernando, PampangaBr. 3, Olongapo CityBr. 1, San Jose Del Monte City

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 1, Antipolo CityBr. 2, Lipa CityBr. 1, San Pablo City

FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 2, Legaspi CityBr. 2, Naga City

SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 3, Bacolod CityBr. 9, Iloilo CityBr. 2, Roxas City

SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 7, Cebu CityBr. 3, Mandaue CityBr. 1, Tagbilaran City

NINTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 2, Zamboanga City

TENTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 2, Butuan CityBr. 5, Cagayan de Oro CityBr. 3, Ozamis City

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 7, Davao CityBr. 1, General Santos City

TWELFTH JUDICIAL REGION

Br. 1, Iligan City

The following guidelines shall be observed:

1. In multi sala stations where no branches of thefirst and second level courts are hereindesignated to try and decide environmentalcases, the cases shall be raffled among thebranches thereat which shall try and decidesuch cases according to existing issuances.

2. All single sala first and second level courts areconsidered special courts for the above purpose.

3. The Special Courts herein designated shallcontinue to be included in the raffle of cases,criminal civil and other cases.

4. The branches thus designated as Special Courtsshall continue to perform their functions as suchwithin the purview of this AdministrativeOrder even after the retirement, promotion,dismissal suspension, transfer or detail of thejudges appointed/designated to preside overthem. Their successors whether permanent ortemporary, shall act as Presiding Judges ofthese Special Court unless the Supreme Courtotherwise directs.

5. All environmental cases covered by this Orderwherein pre trial in case of civil cases hasalready commenced and when the accused isalready arraigned in case of criminal cases shallremain in the branches where they areoriginally assigned, otherwise these cases shallbe assigned by raffle in case there are two or


more designated Special Courts or when thereis only one (l) in the station, the cases shall beunloaded to the said Special Court. Thetransferred environmental cases shall beconsidered as raffled cases to the Special Courtshence the branch which unloaded theenvironmental cases shall be assigned newlyfiled cases to replace the cases removed fromsaid branch.

6. In the event of inhibition of the presiding judgeof the Special Courts, the following shall beobserved:

a. Where there is only one (1) Special Court inthe station, the pairing system for multibranch stations under Circular No. 7 datedSeptember 23, 1974 shall apply;

b. Where there are two (2) Special Courts inthe station, the Executive Judge shallimmediately assign the case to the otherSpecial Court; and

c. Where there are three (3) or more SpecialCourts in the station, the Executive Judgeshall immediately assign by raffle to theother Special Courts.

In case all the Presiding Judges of the otherSpecial Courts are also disqualified orinhibit themselves, the case shall beforwarded to the pairing judge of the SpecialCourt which originally handled the saidcase. If the pairing judge is also disqualifiedor inhibits himself/herself, the case shall beraffled to the other regular courts. At thenext raffle, a newly filed case shall beassigned to the disqualified or inhibitingjudge to replace the case so removed fromhis/her court.

d. Where a judge of a single sala first levelcourt is disqualified or inhibits himself/herself, the Order of Inhibition shall bereferred to the Executive Judge who shallassign the case by raffle among the judgesin his administrative area of supervision,the assigned judge shall try and decide thesame in the court where it was originallyfiled;

e. Where the judge of a single sala RTC isdisqualified or inhibits himself/herself, theOrder of Inhibition shall be referred to theExecutive/Presiding Judge of the nearestRTC station. If the nearest station is a multi

A.O. No. 23-2008 (continued)

sala branch, the Executive Judge shall assignthe case to the same Special Court in thestation, if there is any. If the presiding judgeof the Special Court is disqualified orinhibits himself/herself, the case shall beraffled among the judges in the station. Inall instances, the case shall be tried by theassigned judge in the court where the casewas originally filed.

This Order shall take effect upon its issuance.

January 28, 2008.


(Sgd.) LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

(Sgd.) CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice

Chairperson, Third Division

(Per Revised A.M. No. 99-12-88-SC)


RE: CREATING A COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THELOWER COURTS’ OPERATIONS ANDORGANIZATION

WHEREAS, on January 13, 2006, the PhilippineAssociation of Court Employees (PACE) requested theSupreme Court to consider and approve the proposedreclassification of position titles and the upgrading ofsalaries of lower court employees it submitted;

WHEREAS, in its Resolution dated January 24,2006 in A.M. No. 06-1-04-SC, the Court En Banc directedthe Office of the Court Administrator and the Office ofAdministrative Services to comment on the request ofPACE;

WHEREAS, the Office of the Court Administrator,through its Officer-in-Charge, (1) reported to the Courtthat an Ad Hoc Committee had been constituted in 2003tasked with submitting proposals for the upgrading,reclassification, creation or abolition of positions inthe lower courts, together with their correspondingsalary grades and the definition and identification ofthe duties and functions attached to each position, for



the purpose of making the lower courts’ staff positionsresponsive to present requirements; and (2)transmitted a copy of the Report submitted in October2004 by the said Ad Hoc Committee to the CourtAdministrator;

WHEREAS, the Office of the Court Administrator,through the Officer-in-Charge, underscored the needto create another Committee to further study theconcerns raised in the Ad Hoc Committee Report andto conduct a more thorough study of the operationsand organization of the lower courts; and

WHEREAS, the Court En Banc, in its Resolutiondated April 25, 2006, resolved to create a Committee“which will conduct a more comprehensive andstrategic review of the lower court’s operations andorganization, adopting for the purpose the parameterscontained in Executive Order No. 366 [dated October4, 2004] creating the Change Management Team;”

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the aforesaidCourt resolution, a Committee is hereby created, to becalled the Operations and Committee to Review theLower Courts’ Organization, composed of thefollowing:

1. Chairman: ACA Edwin A. Villasor2. Vice-Chairman: Atty. Thelma C. Bahia3. Members: a. Atty. Caridad A. Pabello

b. Atty. Jaime D. Navarretec. Atty. Fe Corcelles- Aguilad. Atty. Pascuala S. Magtibaye. Atty. Arturo V. Noblejasf. Atty. Eric S. Fortalezag. Ms. Marietta R. Esdrelon.

The Committee shall have the following functions:

a. Review and diagnose the existingorganizational structures of the first andsecond level courts and identifyorganizational weaknesses, constraints andlimitations;

b. Recommend appropriate amendments to thepresent organizational structure of the firstand second level courts, including staffpositions, the definition and identification oftheir duties and responsibilities, theirreclassification, collapse or merger to renderthe said positions more responsive to theneeds of the courts and the public they serve;

c. Review salary levels and study salaryupgrading which should not however resultin wage distortions,

d. Conduct consultation meetings with theofficials of the Office of the CourtAdministrator, judges and personnel of thelower courts and other stakeholders; and

e. Perform such other functions as may benecessary for the performance of itsresponsibilities.

The Chairperson, in consultation with theMembers, shall designate the Secretary and AssistantSecretary of the Committee. The Chairperson,Members, Secretary and Assistant Secretary shall beentitled to the authorized expense allowances, subjectto the guidelines prescribed under AdministrativeCircular No. 13-99 dated September 30, 1999.

The Committee shall complete its work under thisAdministrative Order within six (6) months from itsconstitution.

Issued this 29th day of February 2008.


(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice

Working Chairperson, First Division

(Sgd.) CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice

Chairperson, Third Division

(Per Revised A.M. No. 99-12-88-SC)

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 08-2008

TO: ALL JUDGES

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THEOBSERVANCE OF A RULE OFPREFERENCE IN THE IMPOSITION OFPENALTIES IN LIBEL CASES.

Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code penalizeslibel, committed by means of writing, printing,lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting,theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, orany similar means, with prision correccional in itsminimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil actionwhich may be brought by the offended party.


1. 325 Phil. l053, l068 (1996).

2. 388 Phil. 269,279 (2000).

3. G.R. Nos. 118757 and 121571, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA

480.

4. G.R. No. 142509, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 275.

In the following cases, the Court opted to imposeonly a fine on the person convicted of the crime of libel:

In Fernando Sazon v. Court of Appeals and People of thePhilippines,1 the Court modified the penalty imposedupon petitioner, an officer of a homeowners’association, for the crime of libel from imprisonmentand fine in the amount of Php200.00, to fine only ofPhp3,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in caseof insolvency, for the reason that he wrote the libelousarticle merely to defend his honor against the maliciousmessages that earlier circulated around thesubdivision, which he thought was the handiwork orthe private complainant.

In Quirico Mari v. Court of Appeals and People of thePhilippines,2 where the crime involved is slander bydeed, the Court modified the penalty imposed on thepetitioner, an ordinary government employee, fromimprisonment to fine of Php1,000.00, with subsidiaryimprisonment in case of insolvency, on the ground thatthe latter committed the offense in the heat of angerand in reaction to a perceived provocation.

In Roberto Brillante v. Court of Appeals and People of thePhilippines,3 the Court deleted the penalty ofimprisonment imposed upon petitioner, a localpolitician, but maintained the penalty of fine ofP4,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case ofinsolvency, in each of the (5) cases of libel, on theground that the intensely feverish passions evokedduring the election period in 1988 must have agitatedpetitioner into writing his open letter; and thatincomplete privileged communication should beappreciated in favor of petitioner, especiallyconsidering the wide latitude traditionally given todefamatory utterances against public officials inconnection with or relevant to their performance ofofficial duties or against public figures in relation tomatters of public interest involving them.

In Jose Alemania Buatis, Jr. v. People of the Philippinesand Atty. Jose Pieraz,4 the Court opted to impose uponpetitioner, a lawyer, the penalty of fine only for thecrime of libel considering that it was his first offenseand he was motivated purely by his belief that he wasmerely exercising a civic and moral duty to his clientwhen he wrote teh defamatory letter to privatecomplainant.

A.C. No. 08-2008 (continued)

The foregoing cases indicate an emergent rule ofpreference for the imposition of fine only rather thanimprisonment in libel cases under the circumstancestherein specified.

All courts and judges concerned should hencefortjtake note of the foregoing rule of preference set by theSupreme Court on the matter of the imposition ofpenalties for the crime of libel bearing in mind thefollowing principles:

1. This Administrative Circular does notremove imprisonment as an alternativepenalty for the crime of libel under Article355 of the Revised Penal Code;

2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise ofsound discretion, and taking intoconsideration the peculiar circumstances ofeach case, determine whether the impositionof a fine alone would best serve the interestsof justice or whether forbearing to imposeimprisonment would depreciate theseriousness of the offense, work violence onthe social order, or otherwise be contrary tothe imperatives of justice;

3. Should only a fine he imposed and the accusedbe unable to pay the fine, there is no legalobstacle to the application of the Revised PenalCode provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.

The Court Administrator shall cause theimmediate dissemination of this AdministrativeCircular to all courts and judges concerned.

This Administrative Circular, approved by theSupreme Court En Banc in A.M. No. 08-1-17-SC at itssession of 22nd January 2008 shall take effect upon itsissuance.

Issued this 25th day of January 2008.

(Sgd.) REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice


ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 28-2008

TO: ALL JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THE DETAIL OFLOCALLY-FUNDED EMPLOYEES TOTHE LOWER COURTS

In the interest of the service, the followingguidelines shall be observed in the detail of locally-funded employees to the lower courts:

1. No detail of locally-funded employees to thelower courts shall be allowed without firstobtaining permission from the Supreme Court(SC) through the Office of the CourtAdministrator (OCA).

2. The request for the detail of locally-fundedemployees shall be made by the PresidingJudge for those in the court branches and theExecutive Judge for those in the Office of theClerk of Court (OCC) and shall be submittedto the Supreme Court through the Office ofthe Court Administrator for approval. Therequest shall contain the followinginformation:

a. Court caseloadb. Reasons or necessity for the detailc. Name, position title and duties to be

assignedd. Duration of the detail

3. Considering the confidentiality of courtrecords and proceedings, locally-fundedemployees shall simply assist in theperformance of clerical works, such as,receiving of letters and other communicationsfor the office concerned, typing of address inenvelopes for mailing, typing of certificate ofappearance, and typing of monthly reports.They shall not be given duties involvingcustody of court records, implementation ofjudicial processes, and such other dutiesinvolving court proceedings. However, theymay perform functions appertaining to thatof a messenger, janitor and driver if thesepositions are provided in the plantilla of theLocal Government Unit (LGU).

4. The detail shall be allowed only for amaximum period of one (I) year. Details beyondone year may be allowed provided it is withthe consent of the detailed employee.

5. Request for renewal or extension of the periodof the detail shall be submitted to and received

by the SC through the OCA fifteen (15) daysbefore the expiration of the original/previousperiod of detail and must contain theinformation stated in paragraph 2 hereof.

6. During the period of the detail, the concernedLGU relinquishes its administrativesupervision over the locally-fundedemployees to the SC. Administrativesupervision refers to the authority to directthe performance of duties; restrain thecommission of acts; and review, approve,reverse or modify acts or decisions of thedetailed employee. In this regard, the SCthrough the lower court has the responsibilityto monitor the punctuality and attendance ofthe detailed locally-funded employees,approve request for leave, evaluate theirperformance, grant authority to travel andexercise other acts necessary to effectivelysupervise the employees.

Prior to the effectivity of the detail, andinsofar as those already detailed before theissuance of this administrative circular, thePresiding Judge/Executive Judge shall requestthe concerned LGU to furnish the lower courtwith a certification of the available sick andvacation leave credits of the detailed locally-funded employee. In the event the PresidingJudge/Executive Judge approves the requestfor leave by the detailed employee, a copy ofthe same shall be submitted by the Clerk ofCourt to the concerned LGU.

7. With respect to the personnel actions such aspromotion, transfer, renewal, demotion,upgrading and reclassification of positionsand the like, which requires the issuance ofan appointment, and other personnelmovement such as reassignment, detail,secondment, job rotation and designationwhich do not necessarily require the issuanceof an appointment, including salaryadjustment, step-increment andmonetization of leave credits concerning thedetailed locally-funded employee, the sameshall still be under the jurisdiction of theconcerned LGU.

8. Inasmuch as the locally-funded employee isdetailed to an office which carries with itduties and functions related to theadministration of justice, such employee hasthe status of an officer of the court, and assuch can be held accountable, short of being


OCA CIRCULAR NO. 14-2008

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT IN THEREGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

SUBJECT: MONTHLY REPORT ON STATUS OFCASES INVOLVING TERRORISM

Pursuant to the Resolution of the Court En Bancdated December 4, 2007 in A.M. No. 07-11-604-RTC,the Office of the Court Administrator was directed tomonitor all cases involving terrorism, and see to itthat the judges concerned shall set these cases forcontinuous trial in accordance with Section 48 of R.A.No. 9372 (Human Security Act).

Section 48 of the said Act provides “x x x the judgeshall set the case for continuous trial on a daily basisfrom Monday to Friday or other short-term trialcalendar so as to ensure speedy trial.”

In this connection, you are hereby directed toSUBMIT to this Office thru the Court ManagementOffice, a report on the cases involving terrorismstating in complete details the latest status thereof onor before February 15, 2008. Thereafter, a monthlyreport on the status of the cases shall be submitted onor before the tenth day of the succeeding month.

In determining the cases involving terrorism, Sec.of R.A. No. 9372 is hereby quoted for your information:

“SEC. 3. Terrorism. – Any person who commitsan act punishable under any of the followingprovisions of the Revised Penal Code:

a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in theHigh Seas or in the Philippine Waters);

b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);

c. Article 134-a (Coup d’Etat), including actscommitted by private persons;

d. Article 248 (Murder);

e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious IllegalDetention);

f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), or under

(1) Presidential decree No. 1613(The Law on Arson);

(2) Republic Act No. 6969(Toxic Substances and Hazardous andNuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);

dismissed or suspended from office, to thecourt he serves as well as to the SupremeCourt for any negligence or conduct whichimpedes the efficient and speedyadministration of justice, following theSupreme Court ruling in Esperanza Malanyaonv. Rufino Galang, AM. No. P-133, July 20, 1978.

Complaints against locally-fundedemployee shall be filed before the SupremeCourt through the Office of the CourtAdministrator, except for offenses classifiedunder Civil Service Rules as light offenseswhich shall be filed with the Office of theExecutive Judge, who shall conduct aninvestigation pursuant to A.M. No 03-8-02-SC otherwise known as Guidelines on theSelection and Appointment of ExecutiveJudges and Defining their Powers,Prerogatives and Duties. This is withoutprejudice to the authority of the concernedLGU to discipline locally-funded employee.

9. The Presiding Judge/Executive Judge shallsubmit to the SC through the OCA, within onemonth from receipt of this administrativecircular, an inventory of all locally-fundedemployees detailed in their respective courtbranches including the OCC, specifying thenames, position titles, assigned duties andduration of the detail. In addition, thePresiding Judge/Executive Judge shallregularly review the necessity for such detailsas well as the performance of the locally-funded employees, and recommend to the SCthrough the OCA the revocation of the detailfor those whose services are no longernecessary in the lower courts or those withunsatisfactory or poor performance.

10. The Court Administrator is authorized to acton requests for detail of locally-fundedemployees and the revocation of such details.

11. Non-compliance and/or violation of thiscircular by the judge, court personnel orlocally-funded employee shall be a ground fordisciplinary action.

All other existing issuances that are inconsistentherewith are deemed superseded or modifiedaccordingly.

March 11, 2008.


A.C. No. 28-2008 (continued)


OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR


(3) Republic Act 5207(Atomic Energy Regulatory andLiability Act of 1968);

(4) Republic Act No. 6235(Anti-Hijacking Law);

(5) Presidential Decree No. 532(Anti-Piracy and Anti--HighwayRobbery Law of 1974); and

(6) Presidential Decree No. 1866, asamended (Decree Codifying the Laws onIllegal and Unlawful Possession,Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition orDisposition of Firearms, Ammunitions orExplosives)

thereby sowing and creating a condition ofwidespread and extraordinary fear and panic amongthe populace, in order to coerce the government to givein to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crimeof terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40)years of imprisonment, without the benefit of paroleas provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise knownas the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.”

For strict compliance.

January 24, 2008.

(Sgd.) ZENAIDA N. ELEPAÑO Court Administrator

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 35-2008

TO : ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OFTHE FIRST AND SECOND lEVEL COURTSAND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THEPHILIPPINES.

SUBJECT : ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES IN THEPRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OFNOTARIAL REGISTERS,PARTICULARLY ON THE PAYMENTOF SHIPPING CHARGES FORNOTARIAL REGISTERS.

For the information and guidance of all concerned,quoted hereunder are the resolutions of the Court EnBanc in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.- Re: 2004 Rules on NotarialPractice:

1. Resolution dated February 12, 2008.

“A.M. No. 02-08-13-SC - Re: 2004 Rules onNotarial Practice (Additional Guidelines forthe Implementation of the MOA betweenOCA and OSG on Notarial Registers).

x x x x

The Court further Resolved, upon therecommendation of the Sub-Committee onthe Revision of Rules Governing NotariesPublic to:

(a) APPROVE the following Guidelines onthe Printing and Distribution of NotarialRegisters, particularly on the paymentof shipping charges for notarial registers,and in line with the resolution of August15, 2006 in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC Re: 2004Rules on Notarial Practice, to wit:

(1) A fixed rate of Fifty Pesos (Php50.00)per notarial book purchased shall becharged irrespective of the distancefrom point of origin to the point ofdestination (SC – Luzon/Visayas/Mindanao).

Should there be an increase in theshipping charge by the contractedfreight forwarder, proper adjustmentshall be made in the fixed rate and theClerk of Court (CoC)/AccountableOfficer shall be notified accordinglyby this Office.

The shipping charge shall be addedto the cost of the notarial register(P1,200.00 + P50.00) so the totalamount to be collected per notarialregister shall be One Thousand TwoHundred Fifty Pesos (P1 ,250.00).

The CoC/OIC shall properlyindicate in the Office Receipt (OR) tobe issued, the collection of OneThousand Two Hundred Pesos (Php1,200.00) for the cost of printing andbinding of notarial registers andcollection of Fifty Pesos (Php50.00) forshipping cost/charge per notarial bookpurchased.

The ORs requisitioned from theProperty Division, Office ofAdministrative Services, Office of theCourt Administrator shall be used forthis purpose.

OCA Cir. No. 14-2008 (continued)


(2) All collections for the shipping cost/charges shall be deposited to theaccount of the NRF in the Land Bank ofthe Philippines (LBP) Savings Account(SA) No. 3472-1000-32.

(3) The Court Administrator and the Chiefof Financial Management Office (FMO)are authorized to withdraw anddisburse the amount collected forpayment of the shipping chargesincurred in transporting the notarialbooks.

x x x x.”

2. Resolution dated February 19, 2008.

“A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. – Re: 2004 Rules onNotarial Practice. – The Court Resolved, uponthe recommendation of the Sub--Committeeon the Revision of the Rules GoverningNotaries Public, to AMEND Sec. 12(a), Rule IIof the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, to wit:

‘Rule II

DEFINITIONS

x x x x

“SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. – Thephrase “competent evidence of identity”refers to the identification of an individualbased on:

(a) at least one current identificationdocument issued by an official agency,bearing the photograph and signature ofthe individual, such as but not limitedto, passport, driver’s license, ProfessionalRegulation Commission ID, NationalBureau of Investigation clearance, policeclearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangaycertification, Government Service andInsurance System (GSIS) e-card, SocialSecurity System (SSS) card, Philhealthcard, senior citizen card, OverseasWorkers Welfare Administration(OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book, aliencertificate of registration/immigrantcertificate of registration, governmentoffice ID, certification from the NationalCouncil for the Welfare of DisabledPersons (NCWDP), Department of SocialWelfare and Development (DSWD)certification. or

OCA Cir. No. 35-2008 (continued)

JUSTICE AMEURFINA A. MELENCIO HERRERA

Chancellor, Philippine Judicial Academy

PROFESSOR SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA

Editor-in-Chief

ARMIDA M. SALAZAR

Assistant Editor

ATTY. ORLANDO B. CARIÑO

JOCELYN D. BONDOC

JENIFFER P. SISON

CHRISTINE V. ABEJUELA

Editorial Staff

SARAH JANE S.SALAZAR

Circulation

EDMUNDO M. MOREDO

LETICIA G. JAVIER

PrintingServices

(b) x x x x”

x x x x

For strict compliance.

March 25 ,2008.

(Sgd.) JOSE P. PEREZ Deputy Court Administrator Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Court Administrator

The PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin is published quarterly bythe Research, Publications, and Linkages Officeof the Philippine Judicial Academy, with office atthe 3rd Floor of the Supreme Court CentennialBuilding, Padre Faura Street cor. Taft Avenue,Manila.

Telephone No. 552-9524; Telefax No. 552-9621E-mail address: [email protected] address:http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS

3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial BuildingPadre Faura St. cor. Taft Ave., Manila, Philippines1000

PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE TO AVOIDPAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE ORIMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin

20082008200820082008 Upcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA Events20082008200820082008 Upcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA Events

Documents

January-March 2008 PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSphilja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bulletin/Bul37.pdf · 2019-11-19 · Hon. Janice R. Yulo-Antero MTC Sta. Rita, Pampanga PRE-JUDICATURE PROGRAM