July-September 2007 PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSphilja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bulletin/Bul35.pdf · 2019-11-19 · July-September 2007 PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS Hon. Rosalinda S. Medinaceli-Gepigon

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJuly-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

July to September 2007 Volume IX, Issue No. 35

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 NEWS

REGULAR ACADEMIC

PROGRAMS

ORIENTATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOP

FOR NEWLY APPOINTED JUDGES

The 48th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Judges conducted on July 17 to 26, 2007 atthe PHILJA Development Center, Tagaytay City,had a total of forty-nine (49) judges in attendance.There were eight (8) new appointees to the RegionalTrial Court; two (2) new appointees to theMunicipal Trial Court in Cities; fifteen (15) newappointees to the Municipal Trial Court; nineteen(19) new appointees to the Municipal Circuit TrialCourt; and one(1) new appointee to the Shari’aCircuit Court. Four (4) judges were promoted tothe Regional Trial Court.

A. NEW APPOINTMENTS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IHon. Jennifer A. PilarRTC Br. 32, Agoo, La Union

REGION IVHon. Ramiro R. GeronimoRTC Br. 81, Romblon, RomblonHon. Honorio E. Guanlao, Jr.RTC Br. 29, San Pablo City, LagunaHon. Albert A. KalaloRTC Br. 4, Batangas CityHon. Leopoldo Mario P. LegazpiRTC Br. 49, Puerto Prinsesa City, PalawanHon. Agripino G. MorgaRTC Br. 32, San Pablo City, Laguna

REGION XHon. Victor A. CanoyRTC Br. 29, Surigao City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

REGION IXHon. Ivan C. Mendoza, Jr.MTCC Br. 2, Zamboanga City

REGION XHon. Cesar P. BordalbaMTCC Br. 1, Surigao City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IHon. Joseph C. AñonuevoMTC Sta. Maria, Pangasinan

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

FOR COURT ATTORNEYS

The Continuing Legal Education Program for CourtAttorneys is a two-day program which highlightson the topics of Agrarian Reform, Updates on LaborLaw, Consitutional Law and Family Law, andReview of Decisions and Resolutions of the CivilService Commission, other Quasi-judicial Agenciesand the Ombudsman. The program for theCagayan De Oro Court of Appeals Attorneys washeld on July 10 to 11, 2007, at Dynasty Court Hotel,Cagayan De Oro City, with forty-seven (47)participants. The Cebu Court of Appeals Attorneysattended the same program on July 31 to August 2,2007, at Montebello Villa Hotel comprising forty-three (43) participants.

Below are the participants of the 48th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges with PHILJA lecturerSandiganbayan Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval.

2


Hon. Rosalinda S. Medinaceli-GepigonMTC Bolinao, PangasinanHon. Fervyn C. PinzonMTC Anda, PangasinanHon. Pauline O. Badol-SalveMTC Balungao, Pangasinan

REGION IIHon. Nympha D. AbbacanMTC Lubuagan, Kalinga Apayao

REGION IIIHon. Felino Z. ElefanteMTC Sta. Maria, BulacanHon. Fernando Y. Guerrero, Jr.MTC Gen. Tinio, Nueva EcijaHon. Nathanael A. RamosMTC Bongabon, Nueva Ecija

REGION IVHon. Walter Inocencio V. ArrezaMTC Pitogo, QuezonHon. Benno L. BonifacioMTC Macalelon, QuezonHon. Rosario Ester B. Orda-CaiseMTC Alaminos, Laguna

REGION XHon. Grace Monica Z. LaribaMTC Lopez Jaena, Misamis OccidentalHon. Lou A. NuevaMTC Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur

REGION XIHon. Angelita A. Alfonso-TumandaMTC San Isidro, Davao Oriental

REGION XIIHon. Rainera P. OsuaMTC Midsayap, North Cotabato

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

REGION IHon. Crisma R. Vismanos-Nabua5th MCTC Urbiztondo-Basista, PangasinanHon. Rusty M. Naya3rd MCTC Agular-Bugallon, PangasinanHon. Mervin Jovito S. Samadan8th MCTC Alcala-Bautista, Pangasinan

REGION IIHon. Sergio T. Angnganay, Jr.14th MCTC Luna-Pudtol, ApayaoHon. Marcos C. Diasen, Jr.1st MCTC Tinglayan-Tanudan, Kalinga Apayao

REGION IIIHon. Ma. Cristina M. Pizarro2nd MCTC Orani-Samal, BataanHon. Emmanuel A. Silva3rd MCTC Orion-Pilar, BataanHon. Elenita D. Pascua-Sennido2nd MCTC Gen. M. Natividad-Llanera, Nueva Ecija

REGION IVHon. Edwin B. Buffe6th MCTC San Agustin-Imelda, RomblonHon. Arnel B. Caparros7th MCTC Atimonan-Plaridel, QuezonHon. Ma. Theresa M. Navarro3rd MCTC El Nido-Gaudencia E. Abordo, PalawanHon. Donna B. Pascual1st MCTC Luisiana-Cavinti, LagunaHon. Glenn D. Santos1st MCTC San Andres-Calatrava, Romblon

REGION VIIHon. Antonio Manuel A. Alcantara4th MCTC La Libertad-Villahermoso, Negros Oriental

REGION XHon. Exequil L. Dagala8th MCTC Dapa-Socorro, Surigao del Norte

REGION XIHon. Renato V. TampacMCTC Surallah-Lake Sebu, South Cotabato

REGION XIIHon. Ottowa B. Abinal8th MCTC Molundo-Lumba-Bayabao-Maguing,

Lanao del SurHon. Aldohnne R. Umpa4th MCTC Malabang-Balbagan-Sulta-Gumander-

Kapatagan, Lanao del SurHon. Alexander B. Yarra5th MCTC Pinagkawayanan-Alamada, North Cotabato

SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS

Hon. Omar A. TaherSCC Pikit, Cotabato

B. PROMOTIONS


NCJRHon. Wilhelmina T. Melanio-ArcegaRTC Br. 5, Manila

(Continued on NEXT page)

3


Hon. Petronilo A. Sulla, Jr.RTC Br. 110, Pasay CityHon. Alberico B. UmaliRTC Br. 138, Makati City

REGION IIIHon. Primo G. Sio, Jr.RTC Br. 23, Cabanatuan City, Nueva City

REGION IVHon. Winston V. BaldosRTC Br. 41, Pinamalayan, Mindoro Oriental

The 49th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Judges was held on August 21 to 30, 2007,at the PHILJA Development Center, Tagaytay City.In attendance were twenty-nine (29) judgescomprising eight (8) new appointees to the RegionalTrial Court, one (1) new appointee to theMetropolitan Trial Court, one (1) new appointee tothe Municipal Trial Court in Cities, seven (7) newappointees to the Municipal Trial Court, eleven (11)new appointees to the Municipal Circuit Trial Courtand one (1) promoted judge to the Regional TrialCourt.

A. NEW APPOINTMENTS


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Hon. Monique Ignacio-QuisumbingRTC Br. 209, Mandaluyong City

REGION IIHon. Rogelio P. CorpuzRTC Br. 27, Bayombong, Nueva VizcayaHon. Merianthe Pacita M. ZuraekRTC Br. 29, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

REGION IIIHon. Richard A. ParadezaRTC Br. 72, Olongapo CityHon. Raymond C. VirayRTC Br. 75, Olongapo City

REGION IVHon. Manuelito O. CaballesRTC Boac, Marinduque

REGION VIIHon. Douglas Arturo C. MarigomenRTC Br. 5, Cebu City

REGION IXHon. Romeo T. DescallarRTC Br. 19, Pagadian City

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Hon. Ronald B. MorenoMeTC Br. 64, Makati City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

REGION VIIHon. Ma. Josefa C. Pinza-RamosMTCC, Danao City, Cebu


REGION IVHon. Edgardo P. BalquiedraMTC Gasan, Marinduque

Below are the participants of the 49th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges with PHILJAlecturer Sandiganbayan Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval andRetired Court of Appeals Justice Hilarion L. Aquino

4


SEMINAR-WORKSHOP FOR EXECUTIVE JUDGES

AND VICE-EXECUTIVE JUDGES

The Seminar-Workshop for Executive Judges andVice-Executive Judges of Regions 4 and 5 was held onAugust 7 to 9, 2007, at the College of St. BenildeHotel, Malate, Manila. A total of fifty-seven (57)participants attended, comprising thirty-seven (37)Executive Judges and twenty (20) Vice-ExecutiveJudges. The Seminar-Workshop for Executive Judgesand Vice-Executive Judges of Regions 1, 2 and 3 wasconducted on September 4 to 6, 2007, at the LegendInternational Hotel, Subic Bay Free Port, Zambales.A total of sixty-five (65) participants attended thesaid program comprising twenty (20) ExecutiveJudges and forty (40) Vice-Executive Judges.

Among the lectures delivered in this three-dayseminar-workshop are the following: Selection andAppointment of Executive Judges; General andSpecific Powers, Prerogatives and Duties ofExecutive Judges in Judicial Supervision; ExecutiveLeadership; Caseflow Management; HumanBehavior and Human Relations in Organization;Media Management Relations; Transparency andGood Governance; Corruption in the Judiciary;Inherent Powers (Contempt, Subpoena and / orEnforcement); and Issuance of Judicial Writs andWarrants (Including Freeze Order under AMLA andRules on Forfeiture). Towards the end of theseminar-workshop, a Dialogue with the CourtAdministrator took place which addressed pertinentwork issues of the Judges.

Hon. Jose M. De La Santa, Jr.MTC Buenavista, MarinduqueHon. Margarette A. D. AspacioMTC Dolores, QuezonHon. Maria Luisa L.G. BeticMTC Tiaong, QuezonHon. Wilfredo G. OcaMTC Real, QuezonHon. Nickie G. TamparongMTC Mauban, QuezonHon. Maria May S. Zafranco-RedorMTC Pagbilao, Quezon


REGION IVHon. Emmanuel Q. Artazo4th MCTC Taytay-San Vicente, PalawanHon. Lovelle Moana R. Hitosis2nd MCTC, Coron-Busuanga, PalawanHon. Manolito Y. Gumarang6th MCTC, Siniloan-Famy, LagunaHon. Lutgardo P. Huerto3rd MCTC, Nagcarlan-Rizal, LagunaHon. Conrado M. Jamolin7th MCTC, Sta. Maria-Mabitac, LagunaHon. Julian D. Jison2nd MCTC, Magdalena-Liliw-Majayjay, LagunaHon. Alberto L. Vizcocho4th MCTC, Infanta-Gen. Nakar, QuezonHon. Leopoldo S. Lopez1st MCTC, Pililia-Jala-Jala, Rizal

REGION VIHon. Gonzalo S. Espa3rd MCTC, Sara-Ajuy-Lemery, Iloilo City

REGION XHon. Ignacio B. Macarine9th MCTC, Gen. Luna-Pilar, Surigao del Norte

REGION XIHon. Marlo C. Brasales1st MCTC Norala-T’boli-Sto. Niño, South Cotabato

B. PROMOTIONS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

REGION VIHon. Domingo D. DiamanteRTC Br. 67, Guimbal, Iloilo

RJCEP

The Academy conducted the Regional JudicialCareer Enhancement Program (Level 5) for the Judges ofthe Regional Trial Courts and First Level Courts of the 5th

Judicial Region on September 12 to 14, 2007, at theCasablanca Hotel, Peñaranda St., Legazpi City. Atotal of one hundred seven (107) participantsattended the program.

Topics discussed include Bench and BarRelations; Media Management and Relations withMedia; Special Civil Actions; Management of Courtsand of Court Personnel; Emerging Trends andIssues in Jurisprudence – Commercial Law; CivilLaw and Criminal Law; and the Human SecurityAct.

5


14TH PRE-JUDICATURE PROGRAM

The 14th Pre-Judicature Program conducted onSeptember 17 to 27, 2007, at the Cebu Grand Hotel,Cebu City was attended by a total of twenty-two(22) participants from Manila, Albay, Roxas, Cebuand Dumaguete City. The following attendees tookthe examination and completed the program:

1. Atty. Paterno C. Belciña, Jr.2. Atty. Leilanie T. Braza-Oro3. Atty. Petronio V. Elesterio4. Atty. Kit S. Enriquez5. Atty. Jorge L. Gabriente6. Atty. Catherine Annabelle L. Hermoso7. Atty. Angelito C. Inocencio8. Atty. Myrna V. Limbaga9. Atty. Carlo P. Loreto10. Atty. Anna Marie P. Militante11. Atty. Rosemarie S. Pabatao12. Atty. Clairon B. Pañares13. Atty. Ma. Theresa A. Peñera14. Atty. Mendulfo C. Pintor, Jr.15. Atty. Jose A. Santos III16. Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas17. Atty. Alfredo J. Sipalay18. Atty. Jonnah John B. Ungab19. Atty. Generoso Alejo P. Villareal20. Atty. Leilani Trinidad L. Villarino

This ten-day program covered, among others:The Code of Judicial Conduct and the Behaviourof a Judge: Rules, Canons and Case Studies;Updates on Family Laws; Developments inAppellate Procedures; Crimes Punished by theRevised Penal Code; Crimes Punished UnderSpecial Laws; Contemporary Approaches toAdvance Legal Research; Court-AnnexedMediation and Enhanced Court Involvement in theMediation Process; Basic Principles of Mediationand Arbitration; ADR Law and Arbitration;Environmental Law; International Human RightsLaw and Domestic Enforcement andImplementation; Caseflow Management; LegalReasoning; Computation of Penalties and theApplication of the Indeterminate Sentence Law;The Trial Complex; Judicial Writing; and MootCourt.

5TH ORIENTATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOP

FOR NEWLY APPOINTED CLERKS OF COURT

The 5th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Clerks of Court was conducted onSeptember 25 to 27, 2007, at Hotel Fortuna, CebuCity. The thirty-four (34) clerks of court of the FirstLevel Courts of Regions VI, VII and VIII whoattended the three-day program were:


REGION VIAtty. Ruby Remedios V. Abelgos-EsperaRTC OCC San Jose, AntiqueAtty. Bernie C. AlfonRTC Br. 16, Roxas City, CapizAtty. Nenita V. AlquizarRTC Br. 48,Bacolod City, Negros OccidentalAtty. Cherrie Mae F. AzagraRTC Br. 19, Roxas City, CapizAtty. Martin Raymund B. CarmonaRTC Br. 59, San Carlos City, Negros OccidentalAtty. Mateo C. HachuelaRTC Br. 24, Iloilo City, IloiloAtty. Clarence G. ZerrudoRTC Br. 33, Iloilo City, Iloilo

REGION VIIAtty. Cynthia Albarracin-CañeteRTC Br. 20, Cebu CityAtty. Lucily S. Bathan-FranciscoRTC Br. 17, Cebu CityAtty. Ricardo A. Boligao, Jr.RTC Br. 11, Cebu CityAtty. Julius A. BiliranRTC OCC Tagbilaran CityAtty. Beth Nectarine G. Catacutan-AndoraRTC Br. 39, Dumaguete City, Negros OrientalAtty. Julito N. LumusadRTC Br. 37, Dumaguete City, Negros OrientalAtty. Eva Fel C. PacuribRTC Br. 46, SiquijorAtty. Ma. Corazon S. PerezRTC Br. 41, Dumaguete City, Negros OrientalAtty. Leah P. VillarubiaRTC Br. 36, Dumaguete City

REGION VIIIAtty. Shirley Joyce O. BoholRTC Br. 31, Calbayog City, SamarAtty. Goldie Liza Cesista-HermanoRTC Br. 42, Balangiga, Eastern Samar

6


SPECIAL FOCUS

PROGRAMS

ASIAN JUSTICES FORUM

ON THE ENVIRONMENT

The Asian Justices Forum on the Environment withthe theme “Sharing Experience to StrengthenEnvironmental Adjudicaton in Asia,” was held on July5 to 6, 2007 at the Edsa Shangri-la Hotel, OrtigasCentre, Mandaluyong City. The participants on thefirst day comprise sixteen (16) foreign delegates andseventy-one (71) local delegates. Second dayparticipants comprise sixteen (16) foreign delegatesand forty-one (41) local delegates.

Among the interesting sessions of the programwere Specialized Judicial Forums for AdjudicatingEnvironmental Cases; Innovative Procedures and Practicesin Adjudicating Environmental Cases; ApplyingAppropriate Remedies in Redressing Environmental Harm;Framework for Strengthening Environmental Adjudicationin the Philippines; Strengthening Judicial Capacity onEnvironment; and Regional Cooperation on StrengtheningInstitutional Arrangements.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno’s Keynote Addressentitled, “Under One Haven, Above One Earth,”underscored the important role of judges in theadjudication of environmental cases and emphasizedthe need of the independent judiciary and judicialprocess to boldly and fearlessly implement andenforce international and national laws related toenvironmental protection. The Chief Justicelikewise, timely cited the findings of experts on thechilling effects of climate change.

Atty. Terso Y. DucentesRTC Br. 15, Burauen, LeyteAtty. Erwin James B. FabrigaRTC Br. 12, Ormoc CityAtty. Mayumi M. Gorme-AmoraRTC Br. 24, Maasin, Southern LeyteAtty. Angelo M. RaagasRTC Br. 1, Borongan, Eastern SamarAtty. Dherlee Herrera RivasRTC Br. 30, Basey, SamarAtty. Claire C. SablanRTC Br. 38, Gamay, Northern Samar

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

Atty. Rodolfo Richard P. BalisnomoMTCC Sipalay City

REGION VIIAtty. Rodillo B. FernandezMTCC Br. 6, Cebu City


REGION VIAtty. Moises G. Nifras, Jr.MTC Hinigaran, Negros OccidentalAtty. Ma. Lorda M. SantizoMTC San Joaquin, Iloilo

REGION VIIIAtty. Manolita G. FernandezMTC Baybay, LeyteAtty. Alejandrita B. GranadosMTC Leyte, LeyteAtty. Lilian T. TalboMTC Marabut, Samar


REGION VIIAtty. Gertrudes B. RomeroMCTC Loay-Albuquerque-Baclayon, BoholAtty. Rhoel Ariel J. VillagonzaloMCTC Domanjog-Ronda, Cebu

REGION VIIIAtty. Jaime S. Sabandal, Jr.MCTC Paranjas-San Sebastian, Samar

Foreign and Local Presentors of theAsian Justices Forum on theEnvironment with Chief JusticeReynato S. Puno.

7


SEMINAR-WORKSHOP

ON LEGAL WRITING AND LEGAL RESEARCH

The Seminar-Workshops on Legal Writing and LegalResearch for Court of Tax Appeals Attorneys andfor two (2) batches of Sandiganbayan Attorneyswere conducted at separate dates on July 11 to 13,2007, September 3 to 5, 2007, and September 10 to12, 2007, respectively, at the SEAMO Innotech,Diliman, Quezon City. This project was madepossible through the support of the United StatesAgency for International Development (USAID)and the Rule of Law Effectiveness (ROLE).

A total of fifty-six (56) attorneys attended thesessions on English Proficiency; Judicial Standardsand Style in Decision Making; Editing; andMethods of Legal Research. Their skills werefurther enhanced in the workshops on LegalDispute and Conflicting Claims; Drafting ofDecisions/Resolutions and Legal Research.

ORIENTATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN

THE FAMILY CODE AND THE

CODE OF MUSLIM PERSONAL LAWS

The Orientation Seminar-Workshop on ComparativeAnalysis Between the Family Code and the Code of MuslimPersonal Laws was conducted in two (2) batchesduring the third quarter of the year.

Thirty-seven (37) participants attended theseminar-workshop on July 16 to 18, 2007, at theMontebello Villa Hotel, Banilad, Cebu City. Forty(40) participants attended the seminar-workshopon August 14 to 16, 2007, at the Golden Pine Hotel,Baguio City.

The topics covered were Comparative Studieson the Family Code and the Muslim Personal Laws,on Civil and Islamic Laws on Succession, and onCivil and Islamic Laws on Persons and FamilyRelations; Comparative Analysis on Civil andIslamic Laws on Procedure and Evidence as wellas on Marriage and Divorce Under the Family Codeand Muslim Code. There was likewise, aninteresting discussion on the Right Responses toAge-Old Problems of Mindanao and theAutonomous Region.

SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON

ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND

LAWS ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN

In partnership with the European Commission,the Department of Social Welfare and Development,the Department of Justice, the Department of theInterior and Local Government, and the AlternativeLaw Groups, three (3) batches of the Seminar-Workshop on Access to Justice and Laws on Women andChildren for Judges and Court Personnel of First LevelCourts were conducted by the Academy this quarter.

This activity is a training program aimed tosensitize municipal trial court judges and courtpersonnel on the Barangay Justice System and lawsaffecting women and children.

The participants of the three (3) batches comprisea total of one hundred twenty-seven (127) First-Level Court judges and selected court personnel.The dates and venues of the seminar-workshop wereJuly 23 to July 25, 2007, at the College of St. BenildeHotel, Malate, Manila; August 20 to 22, 2007, atthe Grand Men Seng Hotel, Davao City; andSeptember 26 to 28, 2007, at the Sarabia ManorHotel and Convention Center, Iloilo City.

SEMINAR ON ELECTION LAWS FOR

JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT

PHILJA, in partnership with the United StatesAgency for International Development (USAID)and International Foundation of Election Systems(IFES), conducted the Seminar on Election Laws forJudges and Clerks of Court on August 2, 2007, at theTraders Hotel Manila, Pasay City, with a total ofseventy-two (72) participants in attendance .

Differentiating between acceptable andunacceptable pleadings in election cases;distinguishing between the spheres of jurisdictionand competence of the courts and of theCommission on Elections in election cases; relatingprovisions of election law and election rules to thedisputes frequently referred to the courts fordisposition; and identifying techniques for thespeedy resolution of election cases, were the lessonslearned by the participants in this activity.

This activity covered substantial lectures onElection Contests and Election Offenses and

8


own seminar-workshops. A Judge-to-JudgeDialogue emphasizing judges’ control of thecourtroom had also its share of attention. Weheld continuing legal education programs forcourt attorneys of the Court of Appeals inCagayan de Oro and Cebu; Legal Writing andLegal Research for those of the Court of TaxAppeals; and gender sensitivity for those of theSandiganbayan. Records Management, Controland Archiving trainings were commenced whichwe hope would improve the recording system inall offices. To these should be added e-CaseflowManagement, begun in Pasay City, to help in thetracking of cases from filing to disposition.

Many of these activities were undertaken withthe help of development partners, for which weare truly grateful, to which should be added theseminar-workshop on Access to Justice and Lawson Women and Children for Judges and CourtPersonnel of first level courts.

We also focused on Election Laws and the DrugsLaw. A new topic on the comparative analysisbetween the Family Code and the Code of MuslimPersonal Laws was addressed. It is hoped thatthe efforts of the Shari’a and Islamic JurisprudenceDepartment would help in promoting peaceefforts in Mindanao.

ADR continues to be a landmark reform projectnot only by way of expansion of Court-AnnexedMediation (CAM) in all judicial regions but alsoin the enhancement of Appellate Court Mediationand Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR). We nowhave 117 PMC Units; 1 ACM Unit, soon to beexpanded to three (3); and five (5) JDR Units,with one more to be added soon.

Advocacies on the Code of Conduct for CourtPersonnel continue to be pursued. Soon, we hopeto be able to cover the entire country with thehelp of our partners.

We trust that the New Rulings and DoctrinalReminders in the PHILJA Bulletin are servingtheir purpose. Our Consultant, Justice MinervaGonzaga Reyes, is now monitoring the exercise.

We forge ahead, confident that problems will besolved and challenges met. The pursuit ofexcellence in the judiciary through qualityjudicial education needs the support of all.

comprehensive discussion of the pertinentCOMELEC Rules of Procedure; COMELECIssuances; Omnibus Election Code; Supreme CourtRulings; Voters Registration Act of 1996 (R.A. No.8189) and Jurisdiction of RTC and First-LevelCourts.

JUDGE-TO-JUDGE DIALOGUE

In partnership with the Program ManagementOffice (PMO), Office of the Court Administrator(OCA), and American Bar Association-Rule of LawInitiative (ABA-ROLI), the Academy conducted theJudge-to-Judge Dialogue on the Power of the Judge: TakingControl of the Courtroom on August 2, 2007, at theTraders Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City. Therewere forty-eight (48) Executive and Vice-ExecutiveJudges of first and second level courts of theNational Capital Judicial Region who participated.

SEMINAR-WORKSHOP FOR

EXECUTIVE JUDGES, PROSECUTORS

AND LAW ENFORCERS ON DRUGS LAW

Batch two of the Seminar-Workshop for Judges,Prosecutors and Law Enforcers on Drugs Law wasconducted in partnership with the DangerousDrugs Board (DDB) on August 8 to 10, 2007, atthe Tagaytay Country Hotel, Tagaytay City. A totalof ninety-five (95) selected National Capital JudicialRegion Drugs and Family Court judges, as well astheir prosecutors, attended the seminar-workshop.

With the aim to coordinate and integrate theoverall efforts of the Criminal Justice System (CJS)especially in the field of prosecution and criminalinvestigation, this activity particularly updated theparticipants on the classification of drugs,controlled precursors and essential chemicals aslisted in the 1961, 1971 and 1988 law conventionson narcotic drugs, psychothropic substances andthe illicit traffic thereof; on R.A. No. 9165 and itsImplementing Rules and Regulations; and on theDDB Regulations. The sessions were likewise aimedat identifying problems encountered in prosecutingdrug related cases and solutions to the same, andenhancing knowledge on evidence handling andgathering, as well as search and seizure.

FFFFFrom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’s Desks Desks Desks Desks Desk(Continued from page 1)

9


ON MEDIATION

BASIC MEDIATION COURSE

The Basic Mediation Course (Tuguegarao MediationProgram) was conducted on August 13 to 16, 2007,at the Hotel Ivory and Convention Center,Tuguegarao City. A total of twenty-seven (27)participants attended this program.

Lecture topics discussed were: The PhilippineJudicial System: An Overview; Legal versusProblem-Solving Mindsets; Mediation as EssentiallyAssisted Negotiation; Conflict Management andDispute Resolution; Alternative DisputeResolution (ADR) and Court-Annexed Mediation(CAM); Overview / Fundamentals ofCommunications; The Stages of Mediation andCommunication Skills which includes six (6) stages;The Rules and Guidelines on the Mediation Fees;The Administrative and Procedural Aspects ofCourt-Annexed; Writing Compromise Agreements;Ethics in Mediation which includes a) The Mediatoras an Officer of the Court and b) The Mediator Ana Professional Mediator; and The GrievanceMachinery in Court-Annexed Mediation.

FAMILY COURT MEDIATION SEMINAR

In partnership with the Philippine MediationCenter (PMC), in coordination with the UnitedStates Agency for International Development(USAID), and The Asia Foundation (TAF), PHILJAconducted four (4) batches of Family Court MediationSeminar in the third quarter of the year.

The four (4) batches were held on August 23 to25, 2007 at the Coral Room, The Pearl Manila Hotel,Manila; August 29 to 31, 2007 at the Hotel Veniz,Baguio City; September 5 to 7, 2007, at the CebuGrand Hotel, Cebu City; and September 12 to 14,2007 at the Grand Men Seng Hotel, Davao City,respectively. A total of one hundred twenty (120)selected mediator-participants from all judicialregions, attended the said program.

The sessions focused on enhancing skills ofparticipants on mediation of Family Court cases,specifically addressing Ethical Dilemmas, Genderand Child Sensitivity and CompromiseAgreements.

JDR

In collaboration with the National JudicialInstitute Canada-JURIS Project, three (3) batchesof the Forum on Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) wereconducted for judges on July 17, 2007, at theExecutive Lounge, Makati City Hall, Makati City,for court personnel on July 19, 2007, at the E-Library, Asian Institute Management, Makati Cityand for lawyers on August 3, 2007, at the AIMConference Center.

Two (2) batches of the Bench and Bar Dialogue onJudicial Dispute Resolution (JDR), were likewise,conducted this quarter on August 7, 2007, at theAIM Conference Center, Electronic Library Room,Makati City and on September 19, 2007, at theMakati Sports Club, Inc., Makati City.

CONVENTIONS

METCJAP

PHILJA, in coordination with the Metropolitanand City Judges Association of the Philippines(MeTCJAP), conducted their 9th Convention Seminaron September 25 to 28, 2007, at the Hotel SupremeConvention Plaza, Baguio City, with the theme,“Justice in Action Strengthening the Nation.” Atotal of one hundred forty-four (144) participantsattended the convention-seminar.

JUDICIAL MOVES

Supreme CourtAssociate Justice Ruben T. Reyes

appointed on July 25, 2007

Court of AppealsAssociate Justice Franchito N. Diamante

appointed on August 8, 2007

Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier

appointed on August 29, 2007

10

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTTTTTJuly-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007

LABOR LAWUrolithiasis is a compensable sickness

Section 1(b), Rule III implementing P.D. No.626, as amended, provides:

For the sickness and the resulting disabilityor death to be compensable, the sickness mustbe the result of an occupational disease listedunder Annex “A” of these Rules with theconditions set therein satisfied, otherwise, proofmust be shown that the risk of contracting thedisease is increased by the working conditions.

Under the above Rule, for Merlita’s sickness andresulting disability to be compensable, there mustbe proof that (a) her sickness was the result of anoccupational disease listed under Annex “A” of theRules of Employees’ Compensation, or (b) the riskof contracting the disease was increased by herworking conditions. This means that if theclaimant’s illness or disease is not included in Annex“A,” then he is entitled to compensation only if hecan prove that the risk of contracting the illness ordisease was increased by his working conditions.The law does not require that the connection beestablished with absolute certainty or that a directcausal relation be shown. It is enough that thetheory upon which the claim is based is probable.Probability, not certainty, is the touchstone.

Pertinently, the Court stated in the case ofEmployees’ Compensation Commission v. Court ofAppeals:

Despite the abandonment of thepresumption of compensability established bythe old law, the present law has not ceased to bean employees’ compensation law or a sociallegislation; hence, the liberality of the law infavor of the working man and woman stillprevails, and the official agency charged by lawto implement the constitutional guarantee ofsocial justice should adopt a liberal attitude infavor of the employee in deciding claims forcompensability, especially in light of thecompassionate policy towards labor which the1987 Constitution vivifies and enhances.Elsewise stated, a humanitarian impulse,dictated by no less than the Constitution itselfunder the social justice policy, calls for a liberaland sympathetic approach to legitimate appealsof disabled public servants; or that all doubts tothe right to compensation must be resolved infavor of the employee or laborer. Verily, thepolicy is to extend the applicability of the law

on employees’ compensation to as manyemployees who can avail of the benefitsthereunder.

Concededly, Merlita’s illness, urolithiasis, is notamong those listed in the table of occupationaldiseases embodied in Annex “A” of the Rules onEmployees’ Compensation. Nevertheless, the Courtagrees with the Court of Appeals in its finding thatMerlita was able to prove by substantial evidencethat her working conditions increased the risk ofcontracting the disease. Substantial evidence is theamount of relevant evidence which a reasonablemind might accept as adequate to justify theconclusion.

(Tinga, J., Government Service Insurance Systemv. Merlita Pentecostes substituted by Jaime R.Pentecostes, G.R. No. 154385, August 24, 2007)

CRIMINAL LAWParole; definition of; consequences thereof; grantthereof does not extinguished civil liability

Parole refers to the conditional release of anoffender from a correctional institution after heserves the minimum term of his prison sentence.The grant thereof does not extinguish the criminalliability of the offender. Parole is not one of themodes of totally extinguishing criminal liabilityunder Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code. Inclusiounius est exclusio alterius.

Similarly, accused-appellant’s release on paroledid not extinguish his civil liability. Article 113 ofthe Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability.– Except in case of extinction of his civil liabilityas provided in the next preceding article, theoffender shall continue to be obliged to satisfythe civil liability resulting from the crimecommitted by him, notwithstanding the fact thathe has served his sentence consisting ofdeprivation of liberty or other rights, or has notbeen required to serve the same by reason ofamnesty, pardon commutation of sentence orany other reason.

Thus, accused-appellant’s civil liability subsistsdespite his release on parole.

(Corona, J., People of the Philippines v. VictorianoM. Abesamis, G.R. No. 140985, August 28, 2007)

11

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 COURTTTTT

REMEDIAL LAWThe Court of Appeals cannot reverse and set asidea decision of the Secretary of Justice and substituteits own judgment

The power to reverse and set aside partakes ofan appellate jurisdiction which the CA does nothave over judgments of the Secretary of Justiceexercising quasi-judicial functions.

There is a whale of a difference between the CA’spower of review in the exercise of its appellatejurisdiction and its original jurisdiction overpetitions for certiorari as that filed by the respondentin CA-G.R. SP No. 74094. Certiorari power is limitedto questions of jurisdiction and grave abuse ofdiscretion only. Wisdom or error of judgment onthe part of the Secretary of Justice in arriving at hisconclusions of fact and law which is proper in anappeal cannot legitimately be the subject of reviewin a petition for certiorari before the CA becausethe decision of the Secretary of Justice is notappealable to the CA.

(Garcia, J., Nace Sue P. Buan v. Francisco T.Matugas, G.R. No. 161179, August 7, 2007)

Jurisdiction over reformation of instruments

We hold that being an action for reformationof instruments, petitioner’s complaint necessarilyfalls under the jurisdiction of the Regional TrialCourt pursuant to Section 1, Rule 63 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, whichprovides:

Section 1. Who may file petition. – Anyperson interested under a deed, will, contractor other written instrument, whose rights areaffected by a statute, executive order orregulation, ordinance, or any othergovernmental regulation may, before breach orviolation thereof, bring an action in theappropriate Regional Trial Court to of his rightsor duties thereunder determine any questionof construction or validity arising, and for adeclaration.

An action for the reformation of aninstrument, to quiet title to real property orremove clouds therefrom, or to consolidateownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code,may be brought under this Rule.

As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, anydisagreement as to the nature of the parties’relationship which would require first anamendment or reformation of their contract is anissue which the courts may and can resolvewithout the need of the expertise and specializedknowledge of the HLURB.

(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., Frabelle FishingCorporation v. The Philippine American LifeInsurance Company, PHILAM PropertiesCorporation and PERF Realty Corporation, G.R.No. 158560, August 17, 2007)

Seminar-Workshop on CEDAW, Gender Sensitivity,and the Courts for SC Attorneys

National Convention-Seminar of PTLJIVideo Conference on The Rule on the Writ of Amparo

50th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed JudgesOrientation-Worshop on the Code of Conduct

for Negros Occidental Court PersonnelJudge to Judge Dialogue

Orientation-Worshop on the Code of Conductfor Bulacan Court Personnel

Seminar-Workshop on Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers

Multi-Sectoral Seminar-Workshop on Agrarian Justicefor the Province of Iloilo

Orientation-Worshop on the Code of Conductfor Selected Court Personnel of Region VIII

2nd Convention and Seminar of the COSTRAPHILRJCEP (Level 5) for RTC and First-Level Trial Court Judges

of Region XSeminar-Workshop on Drugs Law for Judges,

Prosecutors and Law Enforcers Personal Security Training for Judges

8th Orientation Seminar-Workshopfor Newly Appointed Clerks of Court (Mindanao)

Nov. 8-9

Nov. 8-10Nov. 12Nov. 13-22Nov. 13-15

Nov. 16Nov. 20-22

Nov. 21-23

Nov. 27-29

Nov. 27-29

Nov. 27-29Dec. 4-6

Dec. 5-7

Dec. 5-7Dec. 11-13

Training Center,Supreme Court, Manila Zamboanga CityManila/Cebu City/Davao CityPHILJA, Tagaytay CityGrand Regal Hotel,Bacolod CityTacloban CityMalolos, Bulacan

Fort Ilocandia Resort,Laoag CityIloilo City

Leyte Park Resort Hotel,Tacloban CityDAP, Tagaytay CityDynasty Court Hotel,Cagayan de Oro CityTagaytay Country Hotel,Tagaytay CityPHILJA , Tagaytay CityCrown Regency Hotel,Davao City

PHILJA Upcoming Activities (continued)

Date Seminars / Activities Venue

12

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSJuly-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007

POLITICAL LAWAct of State Doctrine; definition of

The classic American statement of the act of statedoctrine, which appears to have taken root inEngland as early as 1674, and began to emerge inAmerican jurisprudence in the late eighteenth andearly nineteenth centuries, is found in Underhill v.Hernandez, where Chief Justice Fuller said for aunanimous Court:

Every sovereign state is bound to respectthe independence of every other state, and thecourts of one country will not sit in judgmenton the acts of the government of another,done within its territory. Redress of grievancesby reason of such acts must be obtainedthrough the means open to be availed of bysovereign powers as between themselves.

The act of state doctrine is one of the methodsby which States prevent their national courts fromdeciding disputes which relate to the internal affairsof another State, the other two being immunityand non-justiciability. It is an avoidance techniquethat is directly related to a State’s obligation torespect the independence and equality of otherStates by not requiring them to submit toadjudication in a national court or to settlement oftheir disputes without their consent. It requiresthe forum court to exercise restraint in theadjudication of disputes relating to legislative orother governmental acts which a foreign State hasperformed within its territorial limits.

(Tinga, J., Presidential Commission on GoodGovernment and Magtanggol C. Gunigundo, inhis capacity as Chairman thereof v. Sandiganbayanand Officeco Holdings, N.V., G.R. No. 124772,August 14, 2007)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPowers of the Ombudsman are not merelyrecommendatory

In Estarija v. Ranada, the Supreme Courtreiterated its pronouncements in Ledesma and wenton to categorically state:

x x x [T]he Constitution does not restrictthe powers of the Ombudsman in Section 13,Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, but allowsthe Legislature to enact a law that would spellout the powers of the Ombudsman. Through

the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6770, specificallySection 15, par. 3, the lawmakers gave theOmbudsman such powers to sanction erringofficials and employees, except members ofCongress, and the Judiciary. To conclude, wehold that Sections 15, 21, 22 and 25 of RepublicAct No. 6770 are constitutionally sound. Thepowers of the Ombudsman are not merelyrecommendatory. His office was given teethto render this constitutional body not merelyfunctional but also effective. Thus, we holdthat under Republic Act No. 6770 and the 1987Constitution, the Ombudsman has theconstitutional power to directly remove fromgovernment service an erring public officialother than a member of Congress and theJudiciary.

(Garcia, J., Commission on Audit, Regional OfficeNo. 13, Butuan City v. Agapito A. Hinampas andEmmanuel J. Cabanos, G.R. No. 158672, August 7,2007)

LABOR LAWConstruction Industry Arbitration Commission(CIAC); jurisdiction of

Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 1008,or the Construction Industry Arbitration Law, provides:

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. — The CIAC shallhave original and exclusive jurisdiction overdisputes arising from, or connected with,contracts entered into by parties involved inconstruction in the Philippines, whether thedispute arises before or after the completionof the contract, or after the abandonment orbreach thereof. These disputes may involvegovernment or private contracts. For the Boardto acquire jurisdiction, the parties to a dispute mustagree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.

The jurisdiction of the CIAC may includebut is not limited to violation of specificationsfor materials and workmanship; violation ofthe terms of agreement; interpretation and/or application of contractual provisions;amount of damages and penalties;commencement time and delays; maintenanceand defects; payment default of employer orcontractor and changes in contract cost.


13

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERS

Excluded from the coverage of this law aredisputes arising from employer-employeerelationships which shall continue to becovered by the Labor Code of the Philippines.

Corollarily, Section 1, Article III of the Rules ofProcedure Governing Construction Arbitration providesthat recourse to the CIAC may be availed ofwhenever a contract contains a clause for thesubmission of a future controversy to arbitration,thus:

Section 1. Submission to CIAC Jurisdiction.— An arbitration clause in a constructioncontract or a submission to arbitration of aconstruction dispute shall be deemed anagreement to submit an existing or futurecontroversy to CIAC jurisdiction,notwithstanding the reference to a differentarbitration institution or arbitral body in suchcontract or submission. When a contractcontains a clause for the submission of a futurecontroversy to arbitration, it is not necessaryfor the parties to enter into a submissionagreement before the claimant may invoke thejurisdiction of CIAC.

Clearly then, the CIAC has original andexclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from orconnected with construction contracts entered intoby parties that have agreed to submit their disputeto voluntary arbitration.

(Nachura, J., Licomcen Incorporated v. FoundationSpecialists, Inc., G.R. No. 169678, August 21, 2007)

CIVIL LAWArticle 36 of the Family Code Interpreted

It is worthy to emphasize that Article 36contemplates downright incapacity or inability totake cognizance of and assume the basic maritalobligations, not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty,much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.As this Court repeatedly declares, Article 36 of theFamily Code is not to be confused with a divorcelaw that cuts the marital bond at the time the causesthereof manifest themselves. It refers to a seriouspsychological illness afflicting a party even beforethe celebration of the marriage. It is a malady sograve and so permanent as to deprive one ofawareness of the duties and responsibilities of thematrimonial bond one is about to assume. These

LABOR LAW (continued)

marital obligations are those provided underArticles 68 to 71, 220, 221 and 225 of the FamilyCode.

Neither should Article 36 be equated with legalseparation, in which the grounds need not berooted in psychological incapacity but on physicalviolence, moral pressure, moral corruption, civilinterdiction, drug addiction, sexual infidelity, andabandonment, and the like. At best the evidencepresented by petitioner refers only to grounds forlegal separation, not for declaring a marriage void.

(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., Rosa Yap Paras v. Justo J.Paras, G.R. No. 147824, August 2, 2007)

Fortuitous Event; definition of; robbery is notconsidered a fortuitous event

Fortuitous events by definition areextraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable.It is therefore, not enough that the event shouldnot have been foreseen or anticipated, as iscommonly believed but it must be one impossibleto foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty to foreseethe happening is not impossibility to foresee thesame.

To constitute a fortuitous event, the followingelements must concur: (a) the cause of theunforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of thefailure of the debtor to comply with obligationsmust be independent of human will; (b) it must beimpossible to foresee the event that constitutes thecaso fortuito or, if it can be foreseen, it must beimpossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must be suchas to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfillobligations in a normal manner; and, (d) theobligor must be free from any participation in theaggravation of the injury or loss.

The burden of proving that the loss was dueto a fortuitous event rests on him who invokesit. And, in order for a fortuitous event to exemptone from liability, it is necessary that one hascommitted no negligence or misconduct that mayhave occasioned the loss.

It has been held that an act of God cannot beinvoked to protect a person who has failed to takesteps to forestall the possible adverse consequencesof such a loss. One’s negligence may haveconcurred with an act of God in producing damageand injury to another; nonetheless, showing that

14


the immediate or proximate cause of the damage orinjury was a fortuitous event would not exemptone from liability. When the effect is found to bepartly the result of a person’s participation —whether by active intervention, neglect or failureto act — the whole occurrence is humanized andremoved from the rules applicable to acts of God.

Petitioner Sicam had testified that there was asecurity guard in their pawnshop at the time of therobbery. He likewise testified that when he startedthe pawnshop business in 1983, he thought ofopening a vault with the nearby bank for thepurpose of safekeeping the valuables but wasdiscouraged by the Central Bank since pawnedarticles should only be stored in a vault inside thepawnshop. The very measures which petitionershad allegedly adopted show that to them thepossibility of robbery was not only foreseeable, butactually foreseen and anticipated. Petitioner Sicam’stestimony, in effect, contradicts petitioners’ defenseof fortuitous event.

Moreover, petitioners failed to show that theywere free from any negligence by which the loss ofthe pawned jewelry may have been occasioned.

Robbery per se, just like carnapping, is not afortuitous event. It does not foreclose the possibilityof negligence on the part of herein petitioners.

(Austria-Martinez, J., Roberto C. Sicam and Agenciade R.C. Sicam, Inc. v. Lulu V. Jorge and Cesar Jorge,G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007)

Differences between a Contract of Sale and aContract to Sell

The following are the differences between aContract OF Sale and a Contract TO Sell: (a) In aContract OF Sale, the non-payment of the price isa resolutory condition which extinguishes thetransaction that, for a time, existed and dischargesthe obligations created thereunder; in a ContractTO Sell, full payment of the purchase price is apositive suspensive condition, failure of which isnot a breach but an event that prevents theobligation of the vendor to convey title frombecoming effective; (b) In the first, title over theproperty generally passes to the buyer upondelivery; in the second, ownership is retained bythe seller, regardless of delivery and is not to passuntil full payment of the price; and (c) In the first,after delivery has been made, the seller has lost

CIVIL LAW (continued)

ownership and cannot recover it unless the contractis resolved or rescinded; in the second, since theseller retains ownership, despite delivery, he isenforcing and not rescinding the contract if heseeks to oust the buyer for failure to pay.

(Quisumbing, J., Florante Vidad, Sr., Arlene Vidad-Absalon and Florante Vidad, Jr. v. Elpidio Tayamenand Laurena Tayamen, G.R. No. 160554, August24, 2007.)

REMEDIAL LAWAppeals from decisions in administrativedisciplinary cases of the Ombudsman; Certiorariunder Rule 65 cannot be a substitute for theremedy of appeal; appeal and certiorari aremutually exclusive and not alternative orsuccessive.

Appeals from decisions in administrativedisciplinary cases of the Office of the Ombudsmanshould be taken to the CA by way of petition forreview under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure, as amended. Rule 43 which prescribesthe manner of appeal from quasi-judicial agencies,such as the Ombudsman, was formulated preciselyto provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedurefor quasi-judicial agencies. Thus, certiorari underRule 65 will not lie, as appeal under Rule 43 is anadequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Petitioner failed to file an appeal with the CAwithin fifteen (15) days from notice of the assaileddecision. As noted by the CA, she filed her petitionfor certiorari only after 52 days from receiving thedenial of her motion for reconsideration by theOmbudsman. Such remedy cannot prosper ascertiorari under Rule 65 cannot be resorted to as asubstitute for the lost remedy of appeal. Theremedies of appeal and certiorari are mutuallyexclusive and not alternative or successive.

As explained by the Court in David v. Cordova,

x x x a petition for certiorari cannot be asubstitute for an appeal from a lower courtdecision. Where appeal is available to anaggrieved party, the action for certiorari willnot be entertained. The remedies of appeal(including petitions for review) and certiorariare mutually exclusive, not alternative orsuccessive. Hence, certiorari is not and cannot


15


be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one’sown negligence or error in one’s choice ofremedy occasioned such loss or lapse. Oneof the requisites of certiorari is that there beno available appeal or any plain, speedy andadequate remedy. Where an appeal isavailable, certiorari will not prosper, even ifthe ground therefor is grave abuse ofdiscretion. (Emphasis supplied)

(Austria-Martinez, J., Corazon C. Balbastro v. NestorJunio, Brian Casasola, Kent Huegula, Jason MartinJardiniano, Joebert Espulgar, Prudencio Macalalag,Cyril Ponclara, Edilzar Amaller, Melvin Mondejar andFrancis Soron, G.R. No. 154678, July 17, 2007)

Final judgment; immutable and unalterable

It is a settled doctrine that a decision, after itbecomes final, becomes immutable and unalterable. Thus, the court loses jurisdiction to amend, modify,or alter a final judgment and is left only with thejurisdiction to execute and enforce it. Anyamendment or alteration which substantially affectsa final and executory judgment is null and voidfor lack of jurisdiction, including the entireproceedings held for that purpose.

(Velasco, Jr., J. Resurrecion Obra v. Sps. VictorianoBadua and Myrna Badua, Sps. Juanito Baltores andFlordeliza Baltores, Sps. Isabelo Badua and PrescilaBadua, Sps. Jose Balanon and Shirley Balanon, Sps.Orlando Badua and Marita Badua and Sps. LeoncioBadua and Juvy Badua, G.R. No. 149125, August9, 2007)

Issue of ownership raised as an incident inejectment cases; MTC has jurisdiction

To settle the matter, the Court then expresslyruled that:

[B]y virtue of the express mandate set forthin Section 33(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,inferior courts have jurisdiction to resolve thequestion of ownership raised as an incidentin an ejectment case where a determinationthereof is necessary for a proper and completeadjudication of the issue of possession.

As it now stands, therefore, the MTC hasjurisdiction to hear and decide cases on forcibleentry and unlawful detainer regardless of whethersaid cases involve questions of ownership or even

REMEDIAL LAW (continued)

if the issue of possession cannot be determinedwithout resolving the question of ownership.

This ruling however is subject to the conditionthat the lower court’s adjudication of ownershipin the forcible entry or unlawful detainer case ismerely provisional and the Court’s affirmance ofthe lower court’s decision would not bar orprejudice an action between the same partiesinvolving title to the property.

Finding that the MTCC erred in dismissingpetitioner’s complaint on the ground of lack ofjurisdiction, the Court deems it proper to remandthe case to the MTCC for it to rule on the merits ofthe complaint for forcible entry.

(Austria-Martinez, J., Go Ke Chong, Jr. v. MarianoM. Chan, G.R. No. 153791, August 24, 2007.)

Venue for actions for revival of judgment

Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure provides that after the lapse of five (5)years from entry of judgment and before it is barredby the statute of limitations, a final and executoryjudgment or order may be enforced by action. TheRule does not specify in which court the action forrevival of judgment should be filed.

In Aldeguer v. Gemelo, the Court held that:

x x x an action upon a judgment must bebrought either in the same court where saidjudgment was rendered or in the place wherethe plaintiff or defendant resides, or in anyother place designated by the statutes whichtreat of the venue of actions in general.(Emphasis supplied)

but emphasized that other provisions in the rulesof procedure which fix the venue of actions ingeneral must be considered.

Under the present Rules of Court, Sections 1and 2 of Rule 4 provide:

Section 1. Venue of real actions. - Actionsaffecting title to or possession of real property,or interest therein, shall be commenced andtried in the proper court which hasjurisdiction over the area wherein the realproperty involved, or a portion thereof, issituated.

x x x

16



occupancy of said house by defendant wasonly due to the tolerance of herein plaintiffs;

8. That plaintiffs, in the latter period of 1993,then demanded the removal of the subjecthouse for the purpose of constructing acommercial building and which hereindefendant refused and in fact now claimsownership of the portion in which saidhouse stands;

9. That repeated demands relative to theremoval of the subject house were hencemade but which landed on deaf ears;

10. That a survey of the property as owned byherein plaintiffs clearly establishes that thesubject house is occupying Four Hundred(400) square meters thereof at the north-west portion thereof, as per the approvedsurvey plan in the records of the Bureau ofLands.

Nowhere in said complaint was the assessedvalue of the subject property ever mentioned. There is therefore no showing on the face of thecomplaint that the RTC has exclusive jurisdictionover the action of the respondents. Indeed, absentany allegation in the complaint of the assessed valueof the property, it cannot be determined whetherthe RTC or the MTC has original and exclusivejurisdiction over the petitioner’s action. The courtscannot take judicial notice of the assessed or marketvalue of the land.

Jurisdiction of the court does not depend uponthe answer of the defendant or even uponagreement, waiver or acquiescence of the parties. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court over the natureof the action and the subject matter thereof cannotbe made to depend upon the defenses set up in thecourt or upon a motion to dismiss for, otherwise,the question of jurisdiction would depend almostentirely on the defendant.

Considering that the respondents failed toallege in their complaint the assessed value of thesubject property, the RTC seriously erred indenying the motion to dismiss. Consequently, allproceedings in the RTC are null and void, and theCA erred in affirming the RTC.

( Austria-Martinez, J., Victorino Quinagoran v.Court of Appeals and The Heirs of Juan de la Cruz,G.R. No. 155179, August 24, 2007)

Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions. - All otheractions may be commenced and tried wherethe plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffsresides, or where the defendant or any of theprincipal defendants resides, or in the case ofa non-resident defendant where he may befound, at the election of the plaintiff.

Thus, the proper venue depends on thedetermination of whether the present action forrevival of judgment is a real action or a personalaction.

(Austria-Martinez, J., Adelaida Infante v. AranBuilders, Inc., G.R. No. 156596, August 24, 2007.)

Complaint must allege the assessed value of thereal property subject of the complaint

In no uncertain terms, the Court has alreadyheld that a complaint must allege the assessed valueof the real property subject of the complaint or theinterest thereon to determine which court hasjurisdiction over the action. This is because thenature of the action and which court has originaland exclusive jurisdiction over the same isdetermined by the material allegations of thecomplaint, the type of relief prayed for by theplaintiff and the law in effect when the action isfiled, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs areentitled to some or all of the claims asserted therein.

In this case, the complaint denominated as“Recovery of Portion of Registered Land withCompensation and Damages,” reads:

1. That plaintiffs are the only direct andlegitimate heirs of the late Juan dela Cruz,who died intestate on February 3, 1977, andare all residents of Centro, Piat, Cagayan;

x x x

4. That plaintiffs inherited from x x x Juan delaCruz x x x a certain parcel of land x x xcontaining an area of 13,111 square meters.

5. That sometime in the mid-1960’s, a house waserected on the north-west portion of theaforedescribed lot x x x.

x x x

7. That since plaintiffs and defendant wereneighbors, the latter being the admittedowner of the adjoining lot, the former’s

17


Petition for annulment of judgment, nature of;grounds to annul

A petition for annulment of judgment is anextraordinary action. By virtue of its exceptionalcharacter, the action is restricted exclusively to thegrounds specified in the Rules, namely: extrinsicfraud and lack of jurisdiction. The rationale forthe restriction is to prevent the extraordinary actionfrom being used by a losing party to make acomplete farce of a duly promulgated decision thathas long become final and executory.

Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulmentof judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction overthe person of the defending party or over the subjectmatter of the claim. Where the court hasjurisdiction over the defendant and over the subjectmatter of the case, its decision will not be voidedon the ground of absence of jurisdiction. Here,there is no dispute that the trial court hasjurisdiction over the case for eminent domain.

It is settled that once jurisdiction has beenacquired, it is not lost until the court shall havedisposed of the case in its entirety. As earliermentioned, on October 5, 1995, the trial court issuedan Entry of Judgment of its Resolution of August31, 1995 which attained finality. It is clear that fromthe inception of Civil Case No. 2737-O until October5, 1995 when the Entry of Judgment was issued,the trial court retained its jurisdiction over the case. Verily, when the questioned Resolution was issuedon August 31, 1995, the trial court acted withjurisdiction. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred ingranting respondent’s petition for annulment ofjudgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. Spouses Eulogio Moralesand Rosalia Arzadon, petitioners, v. Subic Shipyardand Engineering, Inc., G.R. No. 148206, August24, 2007.)

Demurrer to evidence; when granted

Demurrer to evidence authorizes a judgmenton the merits of the case without the defendanthaving to submit evidence on his part as he wouldordinarily have to do, if plaintiff’s evidence showsthat he is not entitled to the relief sought. Demurrer, therefore, is an aid or instrument forthe expeditious termination of an action, similarto a motion to dismiss, which the court or tribunalmay either grant or deny.


A demurrer to evidence may be issued when,upon the facts adduced and the applicable law, theplaintiff has shown no right to relief. Where thetotality of plaintiff’s evidence, together with suchinferences and conclusions as may reasonably bedrawn therefrom, does not warrant recoveryagainst the defendant, a demurrer to evidenceshould be sustained. A demurrer to evidence islikewise sustainable when, admitting every provenfact favorable to the plaintiff and indulging in hisfavor all conclusions fairly and reasonably inferabletherefrom, the plaintiff has failed to make out oneor more of the material elements of his case, or whenthere is no evidence to support an allegationnecessary to his claim. It should be sustained wherethe plaintiff’s evidence is prima facie insufficient for arecovery.

(Nachura, J., Erlinda B. Dandoy, represented by herAttorney-in-Fact, Rey Anthony M. Naria v. Courtof Appeals, Hon. Thelma A. Ponferrada, in hercapacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional TrialCourt of Quezon City, Branch 104, and NerissaLopez, G.R. No. 150089, August 28, 2007.)

Summary judgment; when allowed

We examined the records and found thatsummary judgment is in order. Under Section 3,Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, summary judgmentmay be allowed where, save for the amount ofdamages, there is no genuine issue as to anymaterial fact and the moving party is entitled to ajudgment as a matter of law. Summary or acceleratedjudgment is a procedural technique aimed atweeding out sham claims or defenses at an earlystage of the litigation, thereby avoiding the expenseof time involved in a trial. Even if the pleadingsappear, on their face, to raise issues, summaryjudgment may still ensue as a matter of law if theaffidavits, depositions and admissions show thatsuch issues are not genuine. The presence orabsence of a genuine issue as to any material factdetermines, at bottom, the propriety of summaryjudgment. A genuine issue, as opposed to fictitiousor contrived one, is an issue of fact that requiresthe presentation of evidence. To the moving partyrests the onus of demonstrating the absence of anygenuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in thecomplaint is patently unsubstantial so as not toconstitute a genuine issue for trial. In Estrada v.Consolacion, the Court stated that when the moving

18


party is a defending party, his pleadings,depositions or affidavits must show that hisdefenses or denials are sufficient to defeat theclaimant’s claim. The affidavits or depositions shallshow that there is no defense to the cause of actionor the cause of action has no merits, as the casemay be. In fine, in proceedings for summaryjudgment, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiffto prove the cause of action and to show that thedefense is interposed solely for the purpose of delay.After the plaintiff discharges its burden, thedefendants has the burden to show facts sufficientto entitle him to defend.

(Garcia, J., Edward T. Marcelo, Marcelo FiberglassCorporation, Phil-Asia Agro Industries Corp.,Philippine Special Services Corp., ProvidentInternational Resources Corp., Marcelo Chemicaland Pigment Copr., Farmers Fertilizer Corp.,Insular Rubber Co., Inc., Hydronics Corporationof the Philippines, Marcelo Rubber and LatexProducts, Inc., Polaris Marketing Corp., H. MarceloSteel Corp., Philippine Casino Operators Corp., andMaria Cristina Fertilizer Corp. v. Sandiganbayanand the Presidential Commission on GoodGovernment, G.R. No. 156605, August 28, 2007)

Sequestration; sequestration is akin to theprovisional remedy of preliminary attachment orreceivership

The Court elucidated on the power of the PCGGto issue sequestration orders in Bataan Shipyard &Engineering Company, Inc. v. Presidential Commission onGood Government. The Court held:

By the clear terms of the law, the power ofthe PCGG to sequester property claimed to be“ill-gotten” means to place or cause to beplaced under its possession or control saidproperty, or any building or office whereinany such property and records pertainingthereto may be found, including “businessenterprises and entities,”– for the purposeof preventing the destruction, concealmentor dissipation of, and otherwise conservingand preserving, the same – until it can bedetermined, through appropriate judicialproceedings, whether the property was intruth “ill- gotten,” i.e., acquired through oras a result of improper or illegal use of or theconversion of funds belonging to theGovernment or any of its branches,

instrumentalities, enterprises, banks orfinancial institutions, or by taking undueadvantage of official position, authority,relationship, connection or influence,resulting in unjust enrichment of theostensible owner and grave damage andprejudice to the State. And this, too, is thesense in which the term is commonlyunderstood in other jurisdictions.

The Court further held:

As thus described, sequestration, freezingand provisional takeover are akin to theprovisional remedy of preliminaryattachment, or receivership. By attachment,a sheriff seizes property of a defendant in acivil suit so that it may stand as security forthe satisfaction of any judgment that maybe obtained, and not disposed of, ordissipated, or lost intentionally or otherwise,pending the action. By receivership,property, real or personal, which is subjectof litigation, is placed in the possession andcontrol of a receiver appointed by the Court,who shall conserve it pending finaldetermination of the title or right ofpossession over it. x x x

A sequestration order is similar to theprovisional remedy of Receivership under Rule 59of the Rules of Court. The PCGG may thus exerciseonly powers of administration over the propertyor business sequestered or provisionally taken overso as to bring and defend actions in its own name;receive rents; collect debts due; pay outstandingdebts; and generally do such other acts and thingsas may be necessary to fulfill its mission asconservator and administrator.

(Austria-Martinez, J., Pacific Basin Securities Co.Inc. v. Oriental Petroleum and Minerals Corp., andEquitable Banking Corp., G.R. No. 143972, August31, 2007)


19

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 CIRCULARS

SUPREME COURT

RESOLUTION of the COURT En Banc dated August28, 2007, on A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC

RE: REVISED UPGRADING SCHEDULE OF THELEGAL FEES IN THE SUPREME COURT ANDTHE LOWER COURTS UNDER RULE 141 OFTHE RULES OF COURT

Acting on the proposed guidelines submitted bythe Office of the Court Administrator pursuant to theResolution dated July 3, 2007, the Court RESOLVED to:

(a) ADOPT the attached Guidelines in theImplementation of Section 1 of Rule 141 of theRules of Court, as Amended;

(b) DIRECT the implementation of Section 1 ofRule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended, inall collegiate courts and, as designated pilot-testing areas, all lower courts in the NationalCapital Judicial Region and in Cebu City,Mandaue City, and Lapu-Lapu City; and

(c) REQUIRE the Office of the CourtAdministrator to submit on or beforeDecember 10, 2007 a written report on thepilot-testing of the amended rule and itsimplementing guidelines.

Upon effectivity of this Resolution, all resolutions,orders and circulars of this Court, which areinconsistent therewith, are repealed or modifiedaccordingly.

This Resolution shall take effect on September 3,2007.

August 28, 2007.

(Sgd.) REYNATO S. PUNO, CJ, QUISUMBING (on leave),YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIOMORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, REYES, JJ.

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THEIMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 1 OFRULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT,AS AMENDED

Pursuant to the Resolution dated April 17, 2007 inA.M. No. 04-2-04-SC amending Section I of Rule 141 ofthe Rules of Court, the following guidelines for thepayment of fees, its modes and effects are herebyadopted:

Section 1. Payment of Fees. - Upon filing of anyinitiatory pleading, all prescribed fees such as but not

limited to filing fees accruing to the JudiciaryDevelopment Fund and Special Allowance for theJudiciary Fund, and other fees accruing to the LegalResearch Fund, Victim Compensation Fund andMediation Fund, shall be paid in full, provided that, inpetitions for rehabilitation under the Interim Rules ofProcedure on Corporate Governance, filing fees inexcess of One Hundred Thousand Pesos(Php100,000.00) may be paid on a staggered basis,subject to the provisions of Section 2 hereof, inaccordance with the schedule provided under theResolution of the Court in A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC datedSeptember 19,2006.

Sec. 2. Modes of Payment. - The filing fees may be paidin cash or check, as follows:

(a) Cash Payment:

(1) Fees not accruing to the Judiciary DevelopmentFund or Special Allowance for the JudiciaryFund such as but not limited to the LegalResearch Fee, Victim Compensation Fee,Mediation Fee, and Cadastral Fee.

(2) Initial deposit of One Thousand Pesos(Php1,000.00) to defray actual travel expensesin the service of summons, subpoena and othercourt processes.

(b) Cash or Check Payment:

(1) Fees accruing to the Judiciary DevelopmentFund amounting to Five Thousand Pesos(Php5,000.00) or less.

(2) Fees accruing to the Special Allowance for theJudiciary Fund amounting to Five ThousandPesos (Php5,000.00) or less.

(c) Check Payment:

(1) Fees accruing to the Judiciary DevelopmentFund exceeding Five Thousand Pesos(Php5,000.00).

(2) Fees accruing to the Special Allowance for theJudiciary Fund exceeding Five ThousandPesos (Php5,000.00).

Check payments may be in the form of personal,company or manager’s check, provided that, if theamount exceeds Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00),it shall be paid in manager’s check.

Sec. 3. When payment is made in check. - All checksshall be crossed. No postdated, altered, or third-partycheck shall be accepted. Only checks in the accountname of the lawyer (or law firm) or the party

20

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSJuly-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007July-September 2007

(individual or corporate) filing an action shall beaccepted.

The fees accruing to the Judiciary DevelopmentFund or the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fundshall be paid in separate checks payable to the“Supreme Court, Judiciary Development FundAccount” or to the “Supreme Court, SpecialAllowance for the Judiciary Fund Account,”respectively. The docket number, title of the case, andthe court where the case was filed shall be indicatedin the dorsal/back portion of the check.

The official receipts issued for payment by checkshall be stamped with the following notation:“Payment Credited Only Upon Check Being Cleared.”The official receipts shall reflect accurately the nameof the party on whose behalf the payment is made, thedocket number and title of the case, the amount paidin words and in figures, the check number, the nameof the bank and the branch where the checking accountis maintained. The official receipt must be duly signedby the Clerk of Court. Pending clearance of the check,the Clerk of Court retains the official receipt and issuesa certified true copy thereof to the payor.

Sec. 4. When check is dishonored. - Upon receipt of thenotice of dishonor of the check from the depositorybank by the Supreme Court, the Fiscal Managementand Budget Office (FMBO) shall inform in writing theClerk of Court concerned within five (5) days fromreceipt of the notice of dishonor. In multiple-sala courts,the Clerk of Court shall inform in writing the BranchClerk of Court where the case was raffled of thedishonor of the check within twenty-four (24) hoursfrom receipt of the notice.

The court shall forthwith issue an orderdismissing the case, in consonance with Section 3 ofRule 17. Upon the dismissal of the case, the officialreceipt is automatically considered cancelled. Nomotion for reconsideration of the order of dismissalshall be entertained. The dismissal of the case shall bewithout prejudice to the filing of a case against thedrawer of the dishonored check.

Sec. 5. Duty of the Clerk of Court, Officer-in-Charge orAccountable Officer. - The Clerk of Court, the Officer-in-Charge in the Office of the Clerk of Court, or theduly authorized accountable officer designated inwriting shall strictly observe the proceduralguidelines in the collection of fees accruing to theJudiciary Development Fund and the SpecialAllowance for the Judiciary Fund, provided underAmended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 datedAugust 20, 2004.

Sec. 6. Submission of Monthly Report. - The Clerk ofCourt shall accomplish a Monthly Report of DismissedCases due to Dishonored Checks using Form LF-1 (acopy of which is hereto attached as Annex “A”) to besubmitted to the Accounting Division, FinancialManagement Office, Office of the Court Administratorwithin ten (10) days after the end of each month,attaching thereto the certified true copies of thefollowing documents:

(a) cancelled official receipts;

(b) deposit slips;

(c) monthly report of collections and deposits ofcheck; and

(d) court orders dismissing the case.

In the Cashbooks and Monthly Reports of theJudiciary Development Fund and the SpecialAllowance for the Judiciary Fund, two sub-columnsbearing the headings “Checks Received” and “Clearedas of (date) “shall be added under the column of“Official Receipt/Remittance Advice.”

Sec. 7. Judicial Nature of Assessment and Collection ofDocket Fees. - Matters relating to the propriety andcorrectness of the assessment and collection of docketfees are judicial in nature and should only bedetermined by the regular courts, pursuant to theResolution of the Court dated March 8, 2005 in A.M.No. 05-3-03-0.

Sec. 8. Refund of Filing Fees. - The refund of filing feespaid to the court on account of orders issued by thejudges shall be referred to the Chief Justice throughthe Court Administrator, pursuant to the Resolutionof the Court dated October 12,2005 in A.M. No. 05-9-256-MeTC.

Sec. 9. Effectivity. - These Guidelines shall take effecton October 1, 2007 in designated areas as the Court,by resolution, may direct.

Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.

Issued this 28th day of August 2007.

RESOLUTION on A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC (continued)

21


ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 118-2007

RE: DESIGNATION OF THE DIVISIONS OF THECOURT OF APPEALS TO HANDLE CASESINVOLVING THE CRIMES OF TERRORISMOR CONSPIRACY TO COMMITTERRORISM AND ALL MATTERSINCIDENT TO THE SAID CRIMES

Whereas, Republic Act No. 9372, otherwiseknown as the Human Security Act of 2007, vests theCourt of Appeals with authority to act upon judicialmatters in the implementation of the provisionsthereof;

Whereas, the Human Security Act itself requiresthe designation by the Supreme Court of specificdivisions of the Court of Appeals to handle casesinvolving the crimes of terrorism or conspiracy tocommit terrorism and all matters incident to the saidcrimes; and

Whereas, there is need now to designate thespecific divisions of the Court of Appeals which shallhandle the cases mentioned to ensure that in theimplementation of the Human Security Act, respectfor human rights, which shall be absolute andprotected at all times, shall not be prejudiced asexpressed in Section 2 thereof;

Now, Therefore, in the interest of the expeditiousand efficient administration of justice, the followingDivisions of the Court of Appeals, referred to as theAuthorizing Divisions, are hereby designated tohandle cases involving the crimes of terrorism orconspiracy to commit terrorism and all mattersincident to the said crimes:

1. Metropolitan Manila and Luzon - The First,Second and Third Divisions;

2. Visayas - The Eighteenth, Nineteenth andTwentieth Divisions; and

3. Mindanao - The Twenty-First, Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Divisions.

This Administrative Order shall take effectimmediately.

July 16, 2007.

(Sgd.) PUNO, CJ, QUISUMBING (Chairman, 2nd

Division), YNARES-SANTIAGO (Chairman, 3rd

Division), JJ.

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


TO: ALL PRESIDING JUSTICES AND CLERKS OFCOURT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,SANDIGANBAYAN, AND COURT OF TAXAPPEALS AND ALL JUDGES AND CLERKSOF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIALCOURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS,METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPALCIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND SHARI’ACIRCUIT COURTS

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THE DISPOSAL AND/OR DESTRUCTION OF COURTRECORDS, PAPERS AND EXHIBITS

1. The court records, papers and exhibits subject ofthe disposal and/or destruction must pertain tocases terminated for at least seven (7) years,EXCEPT the following, which shall remain in theoffice storage of every court, to wit:

(a) Naturalization cases;

(b) Big land cases;

(c) Precedent-setting cases without records in theSupreme Court;

(d) Death Penalty cases; and

(e) Criminal cases where the Board of Pardonsand Parole may require certain documents,important court exhibits, extendedresolutions resolving motions forreconsideration, and the like…

The phrase “court records, papers andexhibits” refers to basic pleadings and varioussupporting papers, documents and exhibitsattached to the expediente or rollo but do not coverdecisions of terminated cases. These decisionsmust still be maintained in the archives of therespective courts to preserve the repositorial valueof judicial statements set forth therein;

2. After the last day of the retention period, a requestfor authority to dispose of and/or to destroy courtrecords, papers, and exhibits shall be filed withthe Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), usingthe prescribed form (Form 1). The request shall beacted upon by the Court Administrator withinthirty (30) days from receipt hereof;

3. Notices of the intention to dispose of and/ordestroy court records, papers and exhibits must

SUPREME COURT

22


be posted for at least thirty (30) days from date ofreceipt of the approval of the Office of the CourtAdministrator of the authority to dispose of and/or destroy the court records, papers and exhibits,at the main entrances of three (3) conspicuouspublic places such as the Hall of Justice, ProvincialCapitol, City or Municipal Hall, and the Post Office;

4. Corresponding notices relative to such disposaland/or destruction of court records, papers andexhibits shall be sent to the parties and/or counselof record who may wish to retrieve documents/evidence from said court records at least thirty(30) days prior to the date of actual disposal and/or destruction;

5. The disposal and/or destruction must be carriedout after the expiration of thirty (30) days asprovided in the preceding paragraph, and shallbe undertaken by selling or burning the courtrecords, papers and exhibits, or by some otherpracticable manner;

6. The sale or burning shall be conducted in thepresence of the Presiding Justice/Executive Judge/Presiding Judge, the Clerk of Court and therepresentative from the Commission on Audit;

7. The Clerk of Court shall issue the correspondingofficial receipt to the buyer of the disposed courtrecords, papers, or exhibits, and the amountcollected therefor shall be recorded in a separatereport of collection specifying the nature of theincome;

8. The Clerk of Court shall remit to the JudiciaryDevelopment Fund the proceeds from the saleunder a separate Remittance Advice to the creditof the court involved with notice of suchremittance furnished the Office of the CourtAdministrator;

9. Within thirty (30) days after the disposal and/ordestruction of court records, papers, and exhibitsin accordance with the preceding procedures, theClerk of Court shall prepare a Disposal Report dulynoted by the Presiding Justice/Executive Judge/Presiding Judge, and submit the same to the Officeof the Court Administrator;

10. The Disposal Report must specify the: (a) courtrecords, papers, and exhibits disposed of and/ordestroyed, (b) compliance with the basicrequirements for the disposal and/or destructionof said court records, papers and exhibits, and (c)facts concerning the exhaustive efforts by the court

concerned to notify the parties and/or counsel ofrecords as prescribed in paragraph 4 hereof; and

11. Non-submission of the Disposal Report shall besubject to administrative sanctions as the Courtmay appropriately impose.

The provisions of this Administrative Order shallnot be applicable to court records, papers and exhibitswhere there is a specific law providing the disposaland/or destruction thereof.

Strict observance of the above rules/proceduresis hereby enjoined.

This Administrative Order amends or otherwisesupersedes Administrative Order No. 13 dated April29, 1981, and such other orders, circulars and otherissuances inconsistent herewith.

July 25, 2007.

(Sgd.) REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice

A.O. No. 120-2007 (continued)

23



GUIDELINES ON THE SOLEMNIZATION OFMARRIAGE BY THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY

WHEREAS, marriage under the Constitution, isan inviolable social institution and the foundation ofthe family and shall be protected by the State (Section2, Article XV, 1987 Constitution);

WHEREAS, the Family Code likewise provides thatthe nature, consequences and incidents of marriageare governed by law and not subject to any stipulation(Article 1, Family Code);

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has declared thatthe State has surrounded marriage with safeguardsto “monitor its purity, continuity and permanence”; 1

WHEREAS, for the above purposes, there is a needto lay down rules to enable solemnizing authorities ofthe Judiciary to secure and safeguard the sanctity ofmarriage as a social institution;

NOW, THEREFORE, the following Guidelines onthe Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of theJudiciary are hereby promulgated:

A. Justices of the Supreme Court and other appellatecourts and Judges of the Regional Trial Courts,Metropolitan Trial Courts,Municipal Trial Courtsin Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and MunicipalCircuit Trial Courts

Section 1. Authority of solemnizing officer. -

a. Incumbent Justices of the Supreme Court,Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Courtof Tax Appeals have authority to solemnizemarriages in any part of the Philippines,regardless of the venue, provided the requisitesof the law are complied with;2 and

b. Judges of the Regional Trial Courts,Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal TrialCourts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts andMunicipal Circuit Trial Courts have authorityto solemnize marriages within the court’sjurisdiction.3

Sec. 2. Raffle of requests for solemnization ofmarriages in multiple-sala courts. - Requests forsolemnization of marriages submitted to first and

second level courts in stations with two or morebranches shall be governed by the rules andprocedures in the raffle of cases prescribed byexisting resolutions and issuances. Raffle ofrequests shall be effected upon payment of theappropriate legal fees.

Sec. 3. Venue of marriage ceremony solemnized byJudges. - As a general rule, a marriage shall besolemnized publicly in the chambers of the judgeor in open court except in the following instances:

a. A marriage contracted at the point of deathor solemnized in a remote place under Article29 of the Family Code; or

b. A marriage where both parties submit awritten request to the solemnizing officer thatthe marriage be solemnized at a house or placedesignated by them in a sworn statement tothis effect.

Sec. 4. Duties of solemnizing officer before theperformance of marriage ceremony. - Beforeperforming the marriage ceremony, thesolemnizing officer shall:

a. Ensure that the parties appear personally andare the same contracting parties to themarriage;

b. Personally interview the contracting partiesand examine the documents submitted toascertain if there is compliance with theessential and formal requisites of marriageunder the Family Code; and

c. Personally examine the marriage licensepresented, unless a marriage license is notrequired under the relevant provisions of theFamily Code, to determine the authenticity,completeness and validity of the said license;

In the event that either or both of thecontracting parties be citizens of a foreign country,the solemnizing officer shall also examine thecertificate of legal capacity to contract marriageissued by the respective diplomatic or consularofficials and attached to the marriage license.

Sec. 5. Other duties of solemnizing officer beforethe solemnization of the marriage in legalratification of cohabitation. - In the case of amarriage effecting legal ratification ofcohabitation, the solemnizing officer shall (a)personally interview the contracting parties todetermine their qualifications to many; (b)personally examine the affidavit of the contracting

1. Jimenez v. Republic, L-127900, August 31, 1960, 109 Phil 273.

2. Navarro v. Judge Domagtoy, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088, July 19,1996, 259 SCRA 129.

3. Article 7, Family Code; Navarro v. Judge Domagtoy, ibid.

_____________________________

SUPREME COURT

24


parties as to the fact of having lived together ashusband and wife for at least five [5] years andthe absence of any legal impediments to marryeach other; and (c) execute a sworn statementshowing compliance with (a) and (b) and that thesolemnizing officer found no legal impediment tothe marriage.

Sec. 6. Duty of solemnizing officer during thesolemnization of the marriage. - The solemnizingofficer shall require the contracting parties topersonally declare before him and in the presenceof not less than two witnesses of legal age that thesaid parties take each other as husband and wife.

Sec. 7. Duties of solemnizing officer aftersolemnization of the marriage. - After performingthe marriage ceremony, the solemnizing officershall:

a. Ensure that the marriage certificate isproperly accomplished and has the completeentries, i.e., (1) the declaration that thecontracting parties take each other as husbandand wife; (2) the true and correct informationand statements required under Article 22 ofthe Family Code; (3) it is signed by thecontracting parties and their witnesses; and(4) it is attested by him;

b. See to it that the marriage is properlydocumented in accordance with Article 23 ofthe Family Code, as follows:

(1) By furnishing either of the contractingparties with the original of the marriagecertificate referred to in Article 6 of theFamily Code;

(2) By transmitting the duplicate andtriplicate copies of the marriage certificatenot later than fifteen (15) days after themarriage to the local civil registrar of theplace where the marriage was solemnized;and

(3) By retaining in the court’s files (1) thequadruplicate copy of the marriagecertificate, (2) the original of the marriagelicense, and, in proper cases, (3) theaffidavit of the contracting partiesregarding the solemnization of themarriage in a place other than the Justice’s/judge’s chambers or in open court.

Sec. 8. Other duties of solemnizing officer after thesolemnization of the marriage where marriagelicense is not required.- In cases of marriage in articulo

mortis or a marriage in a remote or distant areareferred to under Articles 27 and 28, respectively,of the Family Code, the solemnizing officer shallprepare an affidavit stating the following:

(a) That the marriage was performed in articulomortis or that the residence of either party,specifying the barrio or barangay, is so locatedthat there are no means of transportation toenable such party to appear personally beforethe local civil registrar;

(b) That the necessary steps were taken toascertain the ages and relationship of thecontracting parties; and

(c) That there are no legal impediments to themarriage.

The solemnizing officer (a) shall execute theaffidavit before the local civil registrar or anyother person legally authorized to administeroaths; and (b) shall file or send the original of theaffidavit, together with a legible copy of themarriage contract, to the local civil registrar ofthe municipality where it was performed withinthe period of thirty [30] days after theperformance of the marriage.

Sec. 9. Recording of marriages solemnized andsafekeeping of documents. -

a. The solemnizing shall cause to be kept in thecourt a record book of all marriagessolemnized. Marriages conducted shall beentered sequentially and each entry shall setforth the names of the contracting parties,their respective nationalities and currentactual places of residence, the date of marriageand the date of the marriage license.

b. The solemnizing officer shall cause to be filedin the court the quadruplicate copy of themarriage certificate, the original of themarriage license, the certificate of legalcapacity when one or both parties areforeigners or a copy thereof, and, whenapplicable, the affidavit of the contractingparties regarding the request for change inthe venue for the marriage. All documentspertaining the request for change in the venuefor the marriage. All documents pertainingto a marriage shall be kept in one file whichfile shall be properly labeled, catalogued andtheir integrity and safety secured.



25


B. Judges of the Shari’a District Courts and Shari’aCircuit Courts

Sec. 10. Authority to Solemnize Marriages. -

a. Incumbent Judges of the Shari’a District Courtsand Shari’a Circuit Courts and any persondesignated by the judge, should the properwali (guardian for marriage refuse withoutjustifiable reason, to authorize thesolemnization, shall have authority tosolemnize marriages within the court’sjurisdiction (Article 18, Code of MuslimPersonal Laws).

Sec. 11. Venue of the Marriage Ceremony. - Themarriage shall be solemnized publicly in anymosque, office of the Shari‘a judge, office of theDistrict or Circuit Registrar, residence of the brideor her wali, or at any other suitable place agreedupon by the parties (Article 19, Code of MuslimPersonal Laws).

Sec. 12. Marriages among Muslims withoutmarriage license. - Marriages among Muslims maybe performed validly without the necessity of amarriage license, provided that they aresolemnized in accordance with their customs, ritesor practices. (Article 33, Family Code).

Sec. 13. Duties of the solemnizing officer before themarriage ceremony. - Before performing themarriage ceremony, the solemnizing officer shall:

a. Ensure that the parties appearing personallybefore him are the same contracting partiesto the marriage to be solemnized; and

b. Personally interview the contracting partiesto satisfy himself that the essential requisitesfor the marriage prescribed by Article 15,Code of Muslim Personal Laws, are present.

Sec. 14. Other duties of the solemnizing officer beforethe marriage ceremony. - In case where one of thecontracting parties is a female who though lessthan fifteen (15) but not below twelve (12) yearsof age has attained puberty, the solemnizing officershall check whether or not, upon petition of aproper wali, an order has been issued by a judge ofthe Shari‘a District Court for the solemnization ofthe marriage (Article 16, Code of Muslim PersonalLaws).

Sec. 15. Duty of the solemnizing officer during themarriage ceremony. - The solemnizing officer shallensure that the ijab (offer) and the qabul (acceptance)

in marriage are (a) declared publicly in his presenceand of two (2) competent witnesses; (b) set forth inan instrument (in triplicate) signed or marked bythe contracting parties and the said witnesses; andthat the declaration is attested by him (Article 17,Code of Muslim Personal Laws).

Sec. 16. Duty of the solemnizing officer after themarriage ceremony. - The solemnizing officer shall(a) give one copy of the declaration to thecontracting parties; (b) send another copy of thedeclaration to the Circuit Registrar; and (c) keepthe third copy (Article 17, Code of Muslim PersonalLaws).

C. Miscellaneous Common Provisions

Sec. 17. Cases not covered by the Guidelines. - In allother cases not covered by the Guidelines, thesolemnizing officer shall comply and act inaccordance with the requirements prescribed bythe relevant provisions of the Family Code, theCode of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines,and Sections 37-45, Republic Act No. 3631 or theMarriage Law Act of 1929.

Sec. 18. Fees for the Solemnization of Marriages. -For the performance of marriage ceremony andissuance of marriage certificate and subjectfurther to the provisions of A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC(16 August 2004) the legal fees in the followingamounts shall be collected:

(a) For marriages solemnized by Justices of theSupreme Court and other appellate courts –Three hundred (Php300.00) pesos;

(b) For marriages solemnized by Judges of theRegional Trial Courts and Shari’a DistrictCourts – Three hundred (Php300.00) pesos;and

(c) For marriages solemnized by Judges of theMetropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal TrialCourts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts;Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and Shari’aCircuit Courts – Three hundred (Php300.00)pesos.

All fees collected for the solemnization ofmarriage shall accrue to the JudiciaryDevelopment Fund.

Sec. 19. Payment of legal fees in Philippine legaltender. - All fees shall be paid in Philippinecurrency and such fees collected shall be properlyofficially receipted.


26


ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 74-2007

RE: ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION4(B) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7877 ANDSECTIONS 6, 7, 8 OF A.M. NO. 03-03-13-SCBY THE EXECUTIVE JUDGES OF ALL TRIALCOURTS

WHEREAS, Section 4(b) of the Republic Act No,7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) mandateseach employer or head of office to create a Committeeon Decorum and Investigation (CODI) for sexualharassment cases, to increase awareness; preventincidents of sexual harassment; and to conductinvestigation of acts allegedly constituting sexualharassment;

WHEREAS, to implement Section 4(b) of RepublicAct No. 7877, the Supreme Court promulgated theresolution dated December 14, 2004 in A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC providing for the Rule on AdministrativeProcedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines onProper Work Decorum in the Judiciary, Section 6 of whichmandates, among others, that in all trial courts, theExecutive Judges shall appoint the members of theirCODI;

WHEREAS, Section 7 of the said Rules providesthat in the case of multi-sala courts, the CODI shall becomposed of the Executive Judge as Chairperson; theClerk of Court as Vice-Chairperson; and onerepresentative each from the employees’ associationsduly accredited by the Office of the CourtAdministrator;

WHEREAS, Section 8 of the same Rule, as amendedby the Resolution of the Court En Banc on March 7,2006, provides as follows:

Sec. 8. Jurisdiction, powers and responsibilitiesof CODIs- The CODI shall have jurisdictionover all complaints for sexual harassmentcommitted by official and employees of theJudiciary, except those against Judges of regular andspecial courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals,Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals ,which shallfundamentally adhere to the, proceedings laid down inSection 3 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended.

WHEREAS, the CODI shall receive the complaint,investigate its allegations, and submit report andrecommendation to the proper court authority asprovided for in Section 18 of the Rule;

WHEREAS, the Office of the Court Administratorclustered the first and second level single sala-courts

Sec. 20. Unauthorized demand for and receipt ofmarriage solemnization fees. - The demand for orsolicitation, collection or receipt of fees for thesolemnization of any marriage in excess of theamounts stated herein shall be considered aviolation of these Guidelines and shall subject thesolemnizing authority to administrativedisciplinary measures.4

Sec. 21. Facilitation of marriage ceremony. - Anyjudge or employee of the court who, alone or withthe connivance of other court personnel or thirdpersons not employed by the court, intervenes sothat the marriage of contracting parties isfacilitated or performed despite lack of or withoutthe necessary supporting documents, or performsother acts that tends to cause the solemnization ofthe marriage with undue baste shall be subjectedto appropriate administrative disciplinaryproceedings.

Sec. 22. Reporting of marriages solemnized. - Allmarriages solemnized shall be duly entered andindicated in the monthly report of cases to beaccomplished by the solemnizing officer.

Sec. 23. Posting of the Guidelines. - All ExecutiveJudges/Presiding Judges shall post copies of theseGuidelines (a) in conspicuous places in theirrespective Halls of Justice or courthouses; and (b)on the bulletin board of each court at the entranceto the courtroom.

Sec.24. Violations of the Guidelines. - Violations ofany of the provisions of the Guidelines shall beground for the appropriate administrativedisciplinary proceedings.

Sec. 25. Repealing clause. - The provisions ofadministrative orders, circulars and otherissuances of the Supreme Court inconsistentherewith are deemed amended or revoked.

Sec. 26. Effectivity. - These Guidelines shall takeeffect immediately.

August 9, 2007.

(Sgd.) REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

4. Dysico v. Dacumos, A.M. No. MTJ-94-999, September 23,1996; 262 SCRA 274.

_____________________________


27


to facilitate the organization of the Committee onDecorum and Investigation. Said clustering is hereinattached as Annex “A”1 and made an integral parthereof;

WHEREAS, the guidelines for the organization ofthe CODI as adopted in the En Banc resolution datedJuly 11, 2006 states:

(1) The single first level courts including theShari’a Circuit Court shall be clustered tothe RTC exercising administrativesupervision over the area where theconcerned first level court is located. Theyshall be under the CODI for multi-salalower courts;

(2) RTC single sala courts and the Shari’aDistrict Courts shall be clustered to thenearest RTC multi-sala court or RTC singlesala court as the case may be, as containedin the abovementioned Annex “A”.

The CODI in these clustered courts shall becomposed of the Executive Judge of the RTCmultiple sala court where the RTC singlesala is clustered who shall be theChairperson.

In case the clustered courts are both RTCsingle sala courts, the Chairperson shall bethe Presiding Judge who is the most seniorin the Judiciary if there are two or more, thenthe Presiding Judge most senior in age.

The Clerk of Court of the multiple sala courtor the Clerk of Court of the Chairperson incase of the clustered single-sala courts shallbe the vice-chairperson; and onerepresentative each from the employees’associations duly accredited by the Office ofthe Court Administrator.

NOW THEREFORE, Executive Judges of all trialcourts are hereby directed to submit to the Office ofthe Court Administrator on or before September 30,2007: (1) a report on their compliance with Section 4(b)of the Republic Act No. 7877 and Section 6, 7, and 8 ofA.M. No. 03-03-13-SC and (2) the list of the members oftheir respective CODIs.

Issued this 26th day of June 2007.

(Sgd.) PUNO, CJ, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA,TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR.,NACHURA, JJ.

1. Annex “A”- CLUSTERING SCHEME

FIRST JUDICIAL REGIONSingle Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 58, Bucay, Abra RTC, BanguedRTC, Branch 64, Buguias, Benguet RTC, La Trinidad, BenguetRTC, Branch 19, Bangui, Ilocos Norte RTC, Laoag CityRTC, Branch 24, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur RTC, Vigan CityRTC, Branch 25, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur RTC, Candon CityRTC, Branch 34, Balaoan, La Union RTC, San Fernando City, La UnionRTC, Branch 50, Villasis, Pangasinan RTC, Branch 53, Rosales, PangasinanRTC, Branch 53, Rosales, Pangasinan RTC, Branch 50, Villasis, PangasinanRTC, Branch 70, Burgos, Pangasinan RTC, Alaminos City

SECOND JUDICIAL REGIONSingle Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 11, Tuao, Cagayan RTC, Tuguegarao CityRTC, Branch 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan RTC, Branch 33, Ballesteros, CagayanRTC, Branch 33, Ballesteros, Cagayan RTC, Sanchez Mira, CagayanRTC, Branch 13, Basco, Batanes RTC, Aparri, CagayanRTC, Branch 14, Lagawe, Ifugao RTC, Branch 34, Banaue, IfugaoRTC, Branch 34, Banaue, Ifugao RTC, Branch 14, Lagawe, IfugaoRTC, Branch 15, Alfonso Lista, Ifugao RTC, Santiago CityRTC, Branch 22, Cabagan, Isabela RTC, Ilagan, IsabelaRTC, Branch 23, Roxas, Isabela RTC, Ilagan, IsabelaRTC, Branch 24, Echague, Isabela RTC, Santiago City

A.C. No. 74-2007 (continued)

28


SECOND JUDICIAL REGION (continued)Single Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 25, Tabuk, Kalinga RTC, Tuguegarao CityRTC, Branch 26, Luna, Apayao RTC, Branch 33, Ballesteros, CagayanRTC, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino RTC, Cabarroguis, Quirino

THIRD JUDICIAL REGIONSingle Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 4, Mariveles, Bataan RTC, Balanga CityRTC, Branch 5, Dinalupihan, Bataan RTC, Balanga CityRTC, Branch 40, Palayan City, Nueva Ecija RTC, Cabanatuan City, Nueva EcijaRTC, Branch 66, Capas, Tarlac RTC, Tarlac CityRTC, Branch 67, Paniqui, Tarlac RTC, Branch 68, Camiling, TarlacRTC, Branch 68, Camiling, Tarlac RTC, Branch 67, Paniqui, Tarlac

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGIONSingle Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 5, Lemery, Batangas RTC, Branch 86, Taal, BatangasRTC, Branch 86, Taal, Batangas RTC, Branch 5, Lemery, BatangasRTC, Branch 14, Nasugbu, Batangas RTC, Balayan, BatangasRTC, Branch 87, Rosario, Batangas RTC, Lipa City, BatangasRTC, Branch 15, Naic, Cavite RTC, Cavite CityRTC, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, Cavite RTC, Imus, CaviteRTC, Branch 90, Dasmariñas, Cavite RTC, Imus, CaviteRTC, Branch 23, Trece Martires City RTC, Cavite CityRTC, Branch 33, Siniloan, Laguna RTC, Sta. Cruz, LagunaRTC, Branch 43, Roxas, Mindoro Oriental RTC, Pinamalayan, Mindoro OrientalRTC, Branch 44, Mamburao, Mindoro Occidental RTC, San Jose, Mindoro OccidentalRTC, Branch 95, Roxas, Palawan RTC, Puerto Princesa CityRTC, Branch 63, Calauag, Quezon RTC, Gumaca, QuezonRTC, Branch 64, Mauban, Quezon RTC, Lucena CityRTC, Branch 65, Infanta, Quezon RTC, Lucena CityRTC, Branch 81, Romblon, Romblon RTC, Branch 82, Odiongan, RomblonRTC, Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon RTC, Branch 81, Romblon, Romblon

FIFTH JUDICIAL REGIONSingle Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 63, Calabanga, Camarines Sur RTC, Naga CityRTC, Branch 64, Labo, Camarines Norte RTC, Daet, Camarines NorteRTC, Branch 49, Cataingan, Masbate RTC, Masbate CityRTC, Branch 50, San Jacinto, Masbate RTC, Masbate CityRTC, Branch 54, Gubat, Sorsogon RTC, Sorsogon CityRTC, Branch 55, Irosin, Sorsogon RTC, Branch 65, Bulan, Sorsogon

SIXTH JUDICIAL REGIONSingle Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 13, Culasi, Antique RTC, Branch 64, Bugasong, AntiqueRTC, Branch 64, Bugasong, Antique RTC, Branch 13, Culasi, AntiqueRTC, Branch 66, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo RTC, Branch 68, Dumangas, IloiloRTC, Branch 67, Guimbal, Iloilo RTC, Iloilo CityRTC, Branch 68, Dumangas, Iloilo RTC, Iloilo CityRTC, Branch 65, Jordan, Guimaras RTC, Iloilo CityRTC, Branch 60, Cadiz City, Negros Occidental RTC, Silay CityRTC, Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental RTC, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental


29


SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION (continued)Single Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 62, Bago City, Negros Occidental RTC, Branch 63, La Carlota CityRTC, Branch 63, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental RTC, Branch 62, Bago City

SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGIONSingle Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 50, Loay, Bohol RTC, Tagbilaran CityRTC, Branch 51, Carmen, Bohol RTC, Branch 52, Talibon, BoholRTC, Branch 52, Talibon, Bohol RTC, Branch 51, Carmen, BoholRTC, Branch 25, Danao City, Cebu RTC, Bogo, CebuRTC, Branch 26, Argao, Cebu RTC, Branch 62, Oslob, CebuRTC, Branch 62, Oslob, Cebu RTC, Argao, CebuRTC, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu RTC, Toledo CityRTC, Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu RTC, Danao CityRTC, Branch 45, Bais City, Negros Oriental RTC, Tanjay, Negros OrientalRTC, Branch 63, Bayawan City, Negros Oriental RTC, Bais CityRTC, Branch 64, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental RTC, Bais CityRTC, Branch 43, Tanjay, Negros Oriental RTC, Branch 45, Bais CityRTC, Branch 46, Larena, Siquijor RTC, Dumaguete City

EIGHTH JUDICIAL REGIONSingle Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 3, Guiuan, Eastern, Samar RTC, Borongan, Eastern SamarRTC, Branch 4, Dolores, Eastern Samar RTC, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern SamarRTC, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar RTC, Branch 4, Dolores, Eastern SamarRTC, Branch 10, Abuyog, Leyte RTC, Tacloban CityRTC, Branch 11, Calubian, Leyte RTC, Carigara, LeyteRTC, Branch 14, Baybay, Leyte RTC, Ormoc CityRTC, Branch 15, Burauen, Leyte RTC, Tacloban CityRTC, Branch 17, Palompon, Leyte RTC, Ormoc CityRTC, Branch 18, Hilongos, Southern, Leyte RTC, Maasin CityRTC, Branch 16, Naval, Biliran RTC, Branch 37, Caibiran, BiliranRTC, Branch 37, Caibiran, Biliran RTC, Branch 16, Naval, BiliranRTC, Branch 23, Allen, Northern Samar RTC, Catarman, Northern SamarRTC, Branch 38, Gamay, Northern Samar RTC, Laoang, Northern Samar (unorganized sala)RTC, Branch 26, San Juan, Southern Leyte RTC, Branch 39, Sogod, Southern LeyteRTC, Branch 39, Sogod, Southern Leyte RTC, San Juan, Southern LeyteRTC, Branch 30, Basey, Samar RTC, Tacloban CityRTC, Branch 33, Calbiga, Samar RTC, Catbalogan, SamarRTC, Branch 40, Tarangnan, Samar RTC, Catbalogan, SamarRTC, Branch 41, Gandara, Samar RTC, Calbayog City

NINTH JUDICIAL REGIONSingle Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 3, Jolo, Sulu These three (3) courts can be clusteredRTC, Branch 4, Parang, Sulu as they are holding office andRTC, Branch 25, Siasi, Sulu Court sessions at Jolo, SuluRTC, Branch 5, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi RTC, Zamboanga CityRTC, Branch 26, Sapa Sapa, Tawi-Tawi RTC, Zamboanga City (unorganized sala)RTC, Branch 11, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte RTC, Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del NorteRTC, Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte RTC, Branch 11, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte


30


NINTH JUDICIAL REGION (continued)Single Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 27, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte RTC, Zamboanga CityRTC, Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur RTC, Branch 30, Aurora, Zamboanga del SurRTC, Branch 29, San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur RTC, Pagadian CityRTC, Branch 30, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur RTC, Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del SurRTC, Branch 24, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay RTC, Pagadian City

TENTH JUDICIAL REGIONSingle Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 34, Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte RTC, Butuan CityRTC, Branch 6, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur RTC, Branch 7, Bayugan, Agusan del SurRTC, Branch 7, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur RTC, Branch 6, Prosperidad, Agusan del SurRTC, Branch 11, Manalo Fortich, Bukidnon RTC, Malaybalay CityRTC, Branch 16, Tangub City, Misamis Occidental RTC, Ozamis CityRTC, Branch 36, Calamba, Misamis Occidental RTC, Oroquieta CityRTC, Branch 44, Initao, Misamis Oriental RTC, Cagayan de Oro CityRTC, Branch 28, Mambajao, Camiguin RTC, Cagayan de Oro CityRTC, Branch 31, Dapa, Surigao del Norte RTC, Surigao CityRTC, Branch 32, Dinagat Island, Surigao del Norte RTC, Surigao City

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL REGIONSingle Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley RTC, Tagum CityRTC, Branch 7, Baganga, Davao Oriental RTC, Mati, Davao OrientalRTC, Branch 32, Lupon, Davao Oriental RTC, Mati, Davao OrientalRTC, Branch 21, Bansalan, Davao del Sur RTC, Digos CityRTC, Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato RTC, Koronadal CityRTC, Branch 39, Polomolok, South Cotabato RTC, General Santos CityRTC, Branch 38, Alabel, Sarangani RTC, General Santos CityRTC, Branch 28, Lianga, Surigao del Sur RTC, Tandag, Bislig City, Surigao del SurRTC, Branch 29, Bislig City, Surigao del Sur RTC, Branch 28, Lianga, Surigao del SurRTC, Branch 41, Cantilan, Surigao del Sur RTC, Tandag, Surigao del Sur

TWELFTH JUDICIAL REGIONSingle Sala Stations Nearest RTC StationsRTC, Branch 7, Tubod, Lanao del Norte RTC, Branch 21, Kapatagan, Lanao del NorteRTC, Branch 21, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte RTC, Branch 7, Tubod, Lanao del NorteRTC, Branch 15, Shariff Aguak, (Maganoy), RTC, Cotabato City MaguindanaoRTC, Branch 19, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat RTC, Branch 20, Tacurong CityRTC, Branch 20, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat RTC, Branch 19, Isulan, Sultan KudaratRTC, Branch 25, Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat RTC, Branch 19, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat (unorganized)

SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT RTC STATION1. Shari’a District Court, Jolo, Sulu All RTCs in Sulu Province2. Shari’a District Court, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi RTC, Zamboanga City3. Shari’a District Court, Zamboanga City RTC, Zamboanga City4. Shari’a District Court, Marawi City RTC, Marawi City5. Shari’a District Court, Cotabato City RTC, Cotabato City

31


ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 76-2007

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT/BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT /OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIALCOURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS,METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPALCIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND SHARI’ACIRCUIT COURTS

SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF SEMESTRALDOCKET INVENTORY REPORT

For the purpose of determining the actual numberof cases and monitoring the status of each case filedwith the lower courts, all judges are required to conducta physical inventory of cases at the time of assumptionand every semester thereafter and regularly submit areport thereon to the Office of the Court Administrator.

The judge and the clerk of court shall examine eachcase record and initial the last page thereof. They shallprepare a tabulation of all pending cases at the time ofthe assumption of the judge or at the end of eachsemestral period, as the case may be, including all casesfiled and disposed of (archived cases, cases transferredto other branches/salas and decided cases) during thesemester being reported.

The following guidelines shall be observed:

Section 1. Who shall and when to conduct thephysical inventory of cases and which cases toinclude. -

a. Newly Appointed Judges

At any time during the immersion program,the judge and his/her clerk of court shallconduct a physical inventory of cases coveringthe cases pending at the time of his/herassumption. This shall include all cases filedand disposed of (archived cases, casestransferred to other branches/salas anddecided cases) prior to his/her assumption butwhich were not reported in the previousSemestral Docket Inventory.

b. All Judges (including newly appointed anddesignated as acting and assisting judges whotry and decide cases)

Every: (1) presiding judge; (2) newly appointedjudge; and (3) judges designated as acting orassisting judge to try and decide cases shallconduct the physical inventory of cases, which

shall cover all cases pending at the end of Juneand December of each year including all casesfiled and disposed of (archived cases, casestransferred to other branches/salas anddecided cases) during the semester.

Sec. 2. When to submit Docket Inventory Reports. -The report shall be submitted to the StatisticalReports Division, Court Management Office: (1)within one [1] month after the immersionprogram period – for newly appointed judges; and(2) not later than the first week of February andthe first week of August of each year – for all judges,including newly appointed judges.

However, newly appointed judges whoassumed administrative functions either in themonth of June or December shall conduct theinventory under the provisions of Section 1(b).

Sec. 3. Contents of the report and certification. - Thetabulation shall contain the following information:(1) case number; (2) case title; (3) nature of the case;(4) date filed/raffled; (5) date of pre-trial (in civilcases) or arraignment (in criminal cases); (6) dateof initial trial; (7) last trial or court action takenand date thereof; (8) date submitted for decision;and (9) judge to whom the case is assigned.

The report shall be jointly certified under oathby the trial judge and his/her clerk of court orbranch clerk of court or officer-in-charge concernedafter personally examining the record of each caseand initialing the last page thereof. The actualinclusive dates when the inventory was conductedshall be indicated in the certification.

Sec. 4. Official form and joint certification. - Theofficial form shall be as follows:

SUPREME COURT

32


The tabulation shall be subscribed and swornto by the judge and his/her clerk of court/branchclerk of court or officer-in-charge concernedbefore the Executive Judge or Vice Executive Judge,or in case of unavailability of both, before thePresiding Judge of the station nearest to his/hercourt. Should the distance or mode oftransportation be such as to make it impracticableto swear before the aforesaid judges, thedeclaration under oath may be done before apublic prosecutor or a notary public, in this order.

Sec. 5. No modification allowed. - No modificationof the prescribed form shall be made by either thejudge or the clerk of court.

Sec. 6. Period for inventory. - Judges may devoteone (1) week of each semester for the conduct ofthe physical inventory and preparation of thesemestral docket inventory report. Trials need notbe scheduled during the period.

Sec. 7. Sanctions.- Non-submission of theSemestral Docket Inventory Report and failure tosubmit complete and accurate reports shallwarrant the withholding of the salaries of thejudge/s and clerks of court/branch clerks of court/officers-in-charge concerned, without prejudiceto whatever administrative sanction the SupremeCourt may impose on them or criminal actionwhich may be filed against them.

Sec. 8. Repealing Clause. - This AdministrativeCircular revokes Administrative Circulars Nos.1 dated January 28, 1988 [Item No.1], 10-94 datedJune 29, 1994, 17-94 dated November 14, 1994 and2-2001 dated January 2, 2001 and other issuancesinconsistent with this issuance.

Sec. 9. Effectivity Clause. - This AdministrativeCircular shall take effect immediately and theherein prescribed form shall be used starting theSemestral Docket Inventory Report for the periodJuly to December 2007.

For strict compliance.

August 31, 2007.

(Sgd.) REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 09-2007

RE: ENJOINING ALL OFFICIALS ANDEMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIARY TOSTRICTLY OBSERVE THE PROHIBITIONAGAINST GAMBLING OR ENGAGING INOTHER FORMS OF GAMBLING WITHINCOURT PREMISES

Whereas, the Code of Conduct for Court Personnelprovides that any act of impropriety committed bycourt personnel “immeasurably affects the honor anddignity of the Judiciary and the people’s confidence init;”

Whereas, the Code of Conduct and EthicalStandards for Public Officials and Employees directspublic officials and employees to refrain from doingacts contrary to good morals and good customs;

Whereas, the Supreme Court has always enjoinedcourt employees to adhere to the exacting standardsof morality and decency in their professional as wellas private conduct in order to preserve the good nameand integrity of the courts of justice;

Whereas, the Court has received reports that courtemployees have been observed gambling or engagingin other forms of gambling within court premises (notonly in covert places but also in areas which could beeasily sighted by other personnel and the transactingpublic);

Whereas, studies show that gambling is amanipulative and ruinous means of exploiting theindividual’s weaknesses, his misplaced belief in andreliance on luck or “suerte;” and his misapprehensionof the role of skill in playing the game;

Whereas, the Court has ruled that “gambling isxxx absolutely forbidden at court premises duringoffice hours;” and that it “generates unwholesomeconsequences on the gambler as it diverts his attentionfrom the more important responsibilities of his job;”1

and

Whereas, in an instance where court employees’were apprehended engaged in a card game within thejudge’s chambers which game allegedly did notinvolve monetary bets, the Court still imposeddisciplinary sanctions on the erring personnel on theground that such act violated norms of public

1. Re: Amado T. Resma, et al., A.M. No. P-2387, May 13, 1981(104 SCRA 336); Paiste v. Mementa, A.M. No. P-03-1697,

October 1, 2003 (412 SCRA 403).

_____________________________



33


OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 67-2007

TO: ALL CLERKS OF COURT/OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE OF THE FIRST AND SECONDLEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: EXEMPTION OF THE INDIGENTCLIENTS OF THE PUBLICATTORNEY’S OFFICE (PAO) FROMTHE PAYMENT OF DOCKET ANDOTHER FEES

Quoted hereunder for the information andguidance of all concerned are the pertinent provisionsof Republic Act No. 9406 entitled “An ActReorganizing and Strengthening the PublicAttorney’s Office (PAO), amending for the purposepertinent provisions of Executive Order No. 292,otherwise known as the ‘Administrative Code of1987,’ as amended, granting special allowance toPAO officials and lawyers, and providing fundstherefor,” which took effect on April 15, 2007, to wit:

“Sec.2. Section 14 xxx is hereby further amendedto read as follows:

‘Sec. 14. Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). - xxx

“The PAO shall be the principal law office ofthe Government in extending free legalassistance to indigent persons in criminal,civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.” (Emphasis underlined)

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 6. New sections xxx

xxx xxx xxx

“Sec. 16.D. Exemption from Fees and Costs ofthe Suit. -The clients of the PAO shall beexempt from payment of docket and other feesincidental to instituting an action in court andother quasi-judicial bodies, as an originalproceeding or on appeal.

The costs of the suit, attorney’s fees andcontingent fees imposed upon the adversaryof the PAO clients after a successful litigationshall be deposited in the National Treasuryas trust fund and shall be disbursed forspecial allowances of authorized officials andlawyers of the PAO.”(Emphasis underlined)

However, the entitlement to the exemption fromthe payment of docket and other fees shall be subjectto the conditions prescribed under Section 19, Rule141 of the Revised Rules of Court.

accountability;2

Now, therefore, all officials and employees of allcourts under the Judiciary (from the Supreme Courtto the first and second level courts) are enjoined tostrictly heed the prohibition against gambling orengaging in other forms of gambling within courtpremises. In order to maintain the highest level ofethical conduct and morals in the Judiciary, gamblingand any forms thereof, regardless of whether or notthey involve monetary bets, shall not be allowed,tolerated or condoned.

The appropriate administrative disciplinaryaction shall be taken against any court official oremployee caught gambling or engaging in any form ofgambling within court premises (whether suchgambling activities occur during working days orweekends/holidays; or during office hours or beyondoffice hours).

In the Supreme Court, the Chief of Staff of the Officeof the Chief Justice and the respective Judicial StaffHeads of the Offices of the Associate Justices, the CourtAdministrator, the Clerk of Court and Division Clerksof Court, the Chiefs of Offices of the different offices,the Chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy, andthe Judicial and Bar Council Executive CommitteeChairman shall ensure that personnel in their officesshall comply fully and faithfully with the policyproscribing gambling and any forms thereof withincourt premises. They shall adopt such measures asmay be necessary to prevent the commission of allforms of gambling within their areas of supervision.

The respective Presiding Justices of the Court ofAppeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals,insofar as their courts are concerned, and the CourtAdministrator, with regard to the lower courts, shallsee to the implementation of this MemorandumCircular.

Issued this 18th day of June 2007.

(Sgd.) REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief Justice

2. Judge Albano-Madrid v. Apolonio, et al., A.M. No. P-01-15l7,

February 7, 2003 (397 SCRA 120).

M.C. No. 09-2007 (continued)

_____________________________

34



TO: ALL CLERKS OF COURT OF THE COURT OFAPPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OFTAX APPEALS AND THE FIRST ANDSECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: REVISED UPGRADING OF SCHEDULEOF THE LEGAL FEES IN THE SUPREMECOURT AND THE LOWER COURTSUNDER RULE 141 OF THE RULES OFCOURT

On May 29, 2007, Administrative Circular No. 60-2007 was issued to implement the resolution datedApril 17, 2007 of the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 07-2-04-SC which Amended Section 1 of Rule 141 of theRules of Court. The said resolution is supposed to takeeffect on July 2, 2007.

However, on July 3, 2007, the Court En Banc issuedanother resolution which Resolved to HOLD INABEYANCE the new modes of payment of legal feesbeginning July 2, 2007 as approved in the resolutiondated April 17, 2007, pending submission by the Officeof the Court Administrator of the ImplementingGuidelines thereon.

For your information and guidance.

July 12, 2007.

(Sgd.) CHRISTOPHER O. LOCK Court Administrator

Thus, the indigent client of PAO shall execute anaffidavit stating (a) that his gross income and that ofhis immediate family do not exceed an amount doublethe monthly minimum wage of an employee; and (b)that the indigent client does not own real propertywith a fair market value, as stated in the appendedcurrent tax declaration, of more than three hundredthousand (Php300,000.00) pesos.

The affidavit of the indigent client shall besupported by an affidavit of a disinterested personattesting to the truth of the former.


July 12, 2007.



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

SUBJECT: COPY FURNISHED THE LEGAL ANDPROSECUTION SERVICE (LPS) OF THEPHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENTAGENCY (PDEA) WITH ALL COURTORDERS, RESOLUTIONS, ANDDECISIONS ON DRUG CASES

In the effort of the Philippine Drug EnforcementAgency (PDEA) to prepare for prosecution or cause thefiling of appropriate criminal and civil cases forviolation of all laws on dangerous drugs, controlledprecursors and essential chemicals, and other similarcontrolled substances pursuant to Section 84(h) ofRepublic Act No. 9165, the said government agencythrough its Legal and Prosecution Service (LPS) isrequesting that it be furnished with all copies of allcourt orders, resolutions and decisions on drug cases,all for purposes of improving its system of tracking,monitoring, and checking the status of drug cases.

Henceforth, you are DIRECTED to furnish theabovementioned agency with all court orders,resolutions and decisions on drug cases at the followingaddress:

LEGAL AND PROSECUTION SERVICEPhilippine Drug Enforcement Agency

2F PDEA Building, NIA Northsite RoadPinyahan, Quezon City


July 25, 2007.



TO: ALL JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE COURT OF TAXAPPEALS, AND JUDGES OF THE FIRST ANDSECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: INTERIM PROCEDURE FORADDRESSING AND HANDLINGTHREATS AGAINST JUSTICES ANDJUDGES


35



TO: ALL PRESIDING JUDGES OF THEREGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPALTRIAL COURTS IN CITIES AND MUNICIPALCIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

SUBJECT: RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE“HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007”

Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the“Human Security Act of 2007” took effect on July 15,2007. The law defines terrorism and conspiracy tocommit terrorism, and prescribes the functions of,among others, the law enforcement authorities, theconcerned agencies under the Department of Justiceand the different courts under the Judiciary.

All judges of the courts mentioned herein areadvised to peruse and analyze the provisions of the“Human Security Act of 2007.” Particular attentionshould be given to the following provisions whichrelate to the functions and responsibilities of thecourts under the circumstances described therein:

1. “Sec. 17. Proscription of TerroristOrganizations, Association, or Group ofPersons. - Any organization, association, orgroup of persons organized for the purpose ofengaging in terrorism, or which, although notorganized for that purpose, actually uses theacts to terrorize mentioned in [the] Act or tosow and create a condition of widespread andextraordinary fear and panic among thepopulace in order to coerce the governmentto give in to an unlawful demand shall, uponapplication of the Department of Justice beforea competent Regional Trial Court, with duenotice and opportunity to be heard given tothe organization, association, or group ofpersons concerned, be declared as a terroristand outlawed organization, association, orgroup of persons by the said Regional TrialCourt.”

2. “Sec. 18. Period of Detention Without JudicialWarrant of Arrest. - The provisions of Article125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrarynotwithstanding, any police or lawenforcement personnel, who, having beenduly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken custody of aperson charged with or suspected of the crimeof terrorism or the crime of conspiracy tocommit terrorism shall, without incurring

The Supreme Court, through its Committee onSecurity (Committee) has undertaken the JudicialSecurity Project to address the recent spate of killingsand other acts of violence against trial court judges,and the matter of judicial security in general.

In coordination with the National Bureau ofInvestigation (NBI) and with the assistance of the USAgency for International Development (USAID)through the Rule of Law Effectiveness (ROLE) Project,the Committee has been drafting the Court Securityand Emergency Procedure Manuals for the SupremeCourt and the entire Judiciary. The matter ofinstituting protocols or procedures for addressing andhandling threats to the safety of Justices and Judges isincluded in these Manuals.

Pending the final submission and approval of saidManuals, the Committee has resolved to adopt aninterim procedure to address these aforementionedthreats. The Committee has resolved to designateDeputy Court Administrator Reuben P. De la Cruz andAtty. Allan C. Contado of the NBI as the contactpersons in the event a Justice or a Judge is confrontedwith such threats. Atty. Contado is the NBI’s LiaisonOfficer to the Supreme Court for the Task Force forJudiciary Protection.

Their contact details are:

Hon. Reuben P. De la CruzDeputy Court Administrator3/F Old Main BuildingSupreme CourtPadre Faura St., Ermita, Manila(02) 5257143; 0918-9635491

Atty. Allan C. ContadoChief, Anti-Graft Division and Liaison OfficerTask Force on Judiciary ProtectionNational Bureau of InvestigationTaft Avenue, Manila(02) 5238231 local 3424 and 3467; 0917-9777442; 0919-5887817

Please be guided accordingly.

16 August 2007.


OCA Cir. No. 78-2007 (continued)

36


any criminal liability for delay in the deliveryof detained persons to the proper judicialauthorities, deliver said charged or suspectedperson to the proper judicial authority withina period of three (3) days counted from themoment the said charged or suspected personhas been apprehended or arrested, detained,and taken into custody by the said police, orlaw enforcement personnel: Provided, That thearrest of those suspected of the crime ofterrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorismmust result from the surveillance underSection 7 and examination of bank depositsunder Section 27 of [the] Act.”

“The police or law enforcement personnelconcerned shall, before detaining the personsuspected of the crime of terrorism, presenthim or her before any judge at the latter’sresidence or office nearest the place where thearrest took place at any time of the day ornight. It shall be the duty of the judge; amongother things, to ascertain the identity of thepolice or law enforcement personnel and theperson or persons they have arrested andpresented before him or her, to inquire of themthe reasons why they have arrested theperson and determine by questioning andpersonal observation whether or not thesuspect has been subjected to any physical,moral or psychological torture by whom andwhy. The judge shall then submit a writtenreport of what he/she had observed when thesubject was brought before him to the propercourt that has jurisdiction over the case of theperson thus arrested.”

“The judge shall forthwith submit his/herreport within three (3) calendar days from thetime the suspect was brought to his/herresidence or office.”

“Immediately after taking custody of aperson charged with or suspected of the crimeof terrorism or conspiracy to committerrorism, the police or law enforcementpersonnel shall notify in writing the judge ofthe court nearest the place of apprehension orarrest: Provided, That where the arrest is madeduring Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or afteroffice hours, the written notice shall be servedat the residence of the judge nearest the placewhere the accused was arrested. The penaltyof ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon

the police or law enforcement personnel whofails to not and any judge as provided in thepreceding paragraph.”

3. “Sec. 19. Period of Detention in the Event of anActual or Imminent Terrorist Attack. - In theevent of an actual or imminent terroristattack, suspects may not be detained for morethan three (3) days without the writtenapproval of a municipal, city, provincial orregional official of a Human RightsCommission or judge of the municipal,regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or ajustice of the Court of Appeals nearest theplace of the arrest. If the arrest is made duringSaturdays, Sundays, holidays or after officehours, the arresting police or law enforcementpersonnel shall bring the person thus arrestedto the residence of any of the officialsmentioned above that is nearest the placewhere the accused was arrested. The approvalin writing of any of the said officials shall besecured by the police or law enforcementpersonnel concerned within five (5) days afterthe date of the detention of the personsconcerned: Provided, however, That within three(3) days after the detention of the suspects,whose connection with the terror attack orthreat is not established, shall be releasedimmediately.”

4. “Sec. 20. Penalty for Failure to Deliver Suspectto the Proper Judicial Authority within ThreeDays. - The penalty of ten (10) years and one(1) day to twelve (12) years of imprisonmentshall be imposed upon any police or lawenforcement personnel who has apprehendedor arrested, detained and taken custody of aperson charged with or suspected of the crimeof terrorism or conspiracy to committerrorism and fails to deliver such charged orsuspected person to the proper judicialauthority within the period of three (3) days.”

5. “Sec. 26. Restriction on Travel.- In cases whereevidence of guilt is not strong, and the personcharged with the crime of terrorism orconspiracy to commit terrorism is entitled tobail and is granted the same, the court, uponapplication by the prosecutor, shall limit theright of travel of the accused to within themunicipality or city where he resides orwhere the case is pending, in the interest ofnational security and public safety, consistent


37


Court of Appeals to allow the person accusedof the crime of terrorism or of the crime ofconspiracy to commit terrorism to withdrawsuch sums from sequestered or frozendeposits, placements, trust accounts, assetsand records as may be necessary for theregular sustenance of his/her family or to useany of his/her property that has been seized,sequestered or frozen for legitimate purposeswhile his/her case is pending shall suffer thepenalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve(12) years of imprisonment.”

7. “Sec. 40. Nature of Seized, Sequestered andFrozen Bank Deposits, Placements, TrustAccounts, Assets and Records. - The seized,sequestered and frozen bank deposits,placements, trust accounts, assets and recordsbelonging to a person suspected of or chargedwith the crime of terrorism or conspiracy tocommit terrorism shall be deemed as propertyheld in trust by the bank or financialinstitution for such person and thegovernment during the pendency of theinvestigation of the person suspected of orduring the pendency of the trial of the personcharged with any of the said crimes, as thecase may be and their use or disposition whilethe case is pending shall be subject to theapproval of the court before which the case orcases are pending.”

8. “Sec. 41. Disposition of the Seized, Sequesteredand Frozen Bank Deposits, Placements, TrustAccounts, Assets and Records. - If the personsuspected of or charged with the crime ofterrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorismis found, after his investigation, to be innocentby the investigating body, or is acquitted, afterhis arraignment or his case is dismissed beforehis arraignment by a competent court, theseizure, sequestration and freezing of his bankdeposits, placements, trust accounts, assetsand records shall forthwith be deemed liftedby the investigating body or by the competentcourt, as the case may be, and his bankdeposits, placements, trust accounts, assetsand records shall be deemed released fromsuch seizure, sequestration and freezing, andshall be restored concerned without anyfurther action on his part. The filing of anyappeal on motion for reconsideration shall notstate the release of said funds from seizure,sequestration and freezing.”

with Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution.Travel outside of said municipality or city,without the authorization of the court, shallbe deemed a violation of the terms andconditions of his bail, which shall then beforfeited as provided under the Rules of Court.

He/she may also be placed under housearrest by order of the court at his or her usualplace of residence. While under house arrest,he or she may not use telephones, cell phones,e-mails, computers, the internet or othermeans of communications with peopleoutside the residence until otherwise orderedby the court.

The restrictions abovementioned shall beterminated upon the acquittal of the accusedor of the dismissal of the case filed against himor earlier upon the discretion of the court onmotion of the prosecutor or of the accused.”

6. “Sec. 39. Seizure and Sequestration. - Thedeposits and their outstanding balances,placements, trust accounts, assets, and recordsin any bank or financial institution, moneys,businesses, transportation andcommunication equipment, supplies and otherimplements, and property of whatever kindand nature belonging: (1) to any personsuspected of or charged before a competentRegional Trial Court for the crime of terrorismor the crime of conspiracy to committerrorism; (2) to a judicially declared andoutlawed organization, association, or groupof persons; or (3) to a member of suchorganization, association, or group of personsshall be seized, sequestered, and frozen inorder to prevent their use, transfer, orconveyance for purposes that are inimical tothe safety and security of the people orinjurious to the interest of the State.”

“The accused or a person suspected of maywithdraw such sums as may be reasonablyneeded by the monthly needs of his familyincluding the services of his or her counsel andhis or her family’s medical needs uponapproval of the court. He or she may also useany of his property that is under seizure orsequestration or frozen because of his/herindictment as a terrorist upon permission ofthe court for any legitimate reason.”

“Any person who unjustifiably refuses tofollow the order of the proper division of the

OCA Cir. No. 79-2007 (continued)

38


“If the person charged with the crime ofterrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorismis convicted by a final judgment of a competenttrial court, his seized, sequestered and frozenbank deposits, placements, trust accounts,assets and records shall be automaticallyforfeited in favor of the government.”

“Upon his or her acquittal or thedismissal of the charges against him or her,the amount of Five hundred thousand pesos(Php500,000.00) a day for the period in whichhis properties, assets or funds were seizedshall be paid to him on the concept ofliquidated damages. The amount shall betaken from the appropriations of the police orlaw enforcement agency that caused the filingof the enumerated charges against him/her.”

9. “Sec. 48. Continuous Trial. - In cases ofterrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism,the judge shall set the case for continuous trialon a daily basis from Monday to Friday orother short-term trial calendar so as to ensurespeedy trial.”

For information and guidance.

August 17, 2007.



TO: ALL JUDGES AND LOWER COURTPERSONNEL

SUBJECT: STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF PARTV ITEM 2b OF THE AMENDEDREVISED ADMINISTRATIVECIRCULAR NO. 50-2001ESTABLISHING THE MERITSELECTION AND PROMOTION PLANFOR THE LOWER COURTS

For the information and guidance of all concerned,quoted hereunder is Part V. Item 2b of the AmendedRevised Administrative Circular No. 50-2001Establishing the Merit Selection and Promotion Plan(MSPP) for the Lower Courts:

V. PROCEDURE

xxx

2. Publication of Vacant Positions

b. Notify the Clerk of Court to post notices ofvacancies.

Within five (5) days from notification, theClerk of Court shall post notices ofvacancies to be filled in three (3) conspicuousplaces in the court’s premises for ten (10)working calendar days. The notice shallspecify the qualification standards andrequirements for the position.

Within two (2) months from the expirationof the ten-day period of posting, thefollowing guidelines shall be observed:

a. The Presiding Judge or Acting PresidingJudge shall submit all applications, with orwithout recommendation, to the ExecutiveJudge.

b. The Executive Judge shall indorse allapplications, with or withoutrecommendation, to OAS-OCA within five(5) days from receipt thereof.

xxx

It has been brought to our attention that someapplicants for the vacant positions in the lower courtsstill submit applications even after the lapse of two(2) months from the expiration of the ten-day periodof posting.

In order to expedite the processing ofappointments, Part V. Sec. 2b of the Amended RevisedAdministrative Circular No. 50-2001 Establishing theMerit Selection and Promotion Plan (MSPP) for theLower Courts as stated above shall be strictlyimplemented.

Henceforth, all applications received by theExecutive Judge/Presiding Judge for those filed in thelower courts and by the Office of AdministrativeServices, Office of the Court Administrator for thosedirectly filed in the Supreme Court after the aforesaidtwo-month period shall no longer be entertained.

This Circular shall take effect immediately.

Manila, Philippines.

10 September 2007.


39


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

2007 Upcoming PHILJA Events2007 Upcoming PHILJA Events2007 Upcoming PHILJA Events2007 Upcoming PHILJA Events2007 Upcoming PHILJA Events2007 Upcoming PHILJA Events2007 Upcoming PHILJA Events2007 Upcoming PHILJA Events2007 Upcoming PHILJA Events2007 Upcoming PHILJA Events

Documents

July-September 2007 PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSphilja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bulletin/Bul35.pdf · 2019-11-19 · July-September 2007 PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS Hon. Rosalinda S. Medinaceli-Gepigon