From the Chancellor’s Desk - ::::Philippine Judicial...

1Volume XVIII Issue No. 72

Volume XVIII Issue No. 72October–December 2016 ISSN 2244-5862

(Continued on page 2)

The last quarter of 2016 saw us completing another successful year with the delivery of the following activities: the 32nd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Clerks of Court; the 10th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process Servers; an Orientation and Training

Seminar for Court Decongestion Officers of Beneficiary Courts at the National Capital Judicial Region (NCJR), Regions I, II, IV and V, and the Visayas Region; a Seminar for Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges of the NCJR as well as of the First, Second and Fourth Judicial Regions; a Career Development Program for Court Legal Researchers of the NCJR and Luzon; a Career Enhancement Program of the Regional Trial Court Sheriffs of the 11th Judicial Region and the 40th Pre-Judicature Program (PJP) for judicial aspirants.

A series of special focus programs for the benefit of judges and other court personnel in different regions were also carried out as follows: an Advanced Competency Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Legal Researchers, Social Workers and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons Cases (Regions I and III); a Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children from selected regions; several Capacity Building on Environmental Laws and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Regions I, II, IV and the NCJR); Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) Trainers’ Training; Seminar-Workshop for Selected Judges on Financial Crimes and Money Laundering; the Eighth Seminar-Workshop on Deposit Insurance, Banking Practices and Bank Conservatorship, Receivership and Liquidation; and a Seminar on the Financial Liquidation and Suspension of Payments (FLSP) and Rules of Procedure for Special Commercial Court Judges of the NCJR.

Additional activities were also carried out: a Special Course on International Criminal Law and Security (Basic and Advanced); a Roundtable Discussion on Cybercrime and the Courts; a Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law for Selected Judges of the NCJR; a Personal Security Training for Judges; and a Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers also of the NCJR.

Also wrapped up for the year were Information Dissemination through Dialogues among Barangay Officials and Court Officials—one in the City of Tagum in Davao; one in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya; and another in Lagawe, Ifugao.

The Academy, through the Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO), also rounded up its calendar for the year with the holding of several activities on Alternative Dispute Resolution in the cities of Cebu, Bogo and Danao such as the Basic Mediation Course for Court-Annexed Mediators; the Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators and PMC Unit Staff; Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Mediation and the Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees and PMC Unit Staff. A Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators (Skills Enhancement Course) for the Metro Manila Mediation Program completed the PMCO roster of activities for the year.

PHILJA also lent a hand in a total of five convention-seminars such as the Philippine Judges Association Midterm Convention and Seminar; the 23rd National Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc. (PTJLI); the Ninth National Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Association of Court Interpreters, Inc. (PhilACI); the 10th National Convention and General Assembly of the Philippine

From the Chancellor’s Desk

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno leads the panel during a brief dialogue with the participants of the Special Course on International Criminal Law and Security (Basic Course) held on November 21–24, 2016 at the PHILJA Training Center in Tagaytay City. With the Chief Justice are international criminal law experts Judge Fausto Pocar, Prof. David Cohen, Karim A. A. Khan and Dato Shyamala Alagendra.

2 October–December 2016

ContentsFrom the Chancellor’s Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judicial Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training Programs and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judicial Moves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Rulings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doctrinal Reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resolutions

A.M. No. 15-12-05-SC – Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of a Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) in the Judiciary . . . . . .

A.M. No. 16-07-06-SC – Ordering 240 Other Regional Trial Courts to Hear, Try and Decide Newly Filed Cases under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as Amended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A.M. No. 04-02-04-SC – The Legal Fees to be Collected in Cases of Liquidation of Solvent Juridical Debtors, Liquidation of Insolvent Juridical and Individual Debtors, Conversion from Rehabilitation to Liquidation Proceedings, Suspension of Payments of Insolvent Individual Debtors and Petitions in an out of court Restructuring Agreement Provided under A.M. Nos. 12-12-11-SC and 15-04-06-SC . . . . .

CircularsOCA Circular No. 221-2016 – Mandatory Observance of the Requirements Set Forth in Circular No. 39-97 dated June 19, 1997 (Re: Guidelines in the Issuance of Hold-Departure Orders) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 224-2016 – Memorandum of Agreement between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the Public Attorney’s Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 225-2016 – Clarification of OCA Circular No. 10-2014 on the Requirement of the Law on Adoption Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 250A-2016 – Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 910 dated April 22, 2016 . . . .

OCA Circular No. 230-2016 – Guidelines on the Distribution and Use of the Detainees Notebook . . .

OCA Circular No. 233-2016 – Incident Record Form as Additional Evidence in Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 265-2016 – Implementation of Sections 11 and 12 of the Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and to Speedy Trial (A.M. No. 12-11-12-SC); in Relation with the Full Roll Out of HUSTISYEAH! In HUSTISYEAH! Courts (A.M. No. 13-04-11-SC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

137

15161818

24

37

37

39

40

41

41

45

45

45

Association of Court Social Workers, Inc. (PACSWI); and the National Convention and Seminar of the First Level Clerks of Court Association of the Philippines (FLECCAP).

We took note of the new rulings of the Supreme Court, its doctrinal reminders and latest resolutions, circulars and orders as well as those of the OCA.

Indeed, 2016 proved to be a busy year for all of us. Thank you and congratulations to our officials and staff for making it one of our most fruitful years so far. Your dedication and love for your work are much appreciated.

Thank you, too, to our development partners for their constant support and confidence in the Academy.

I also wish to thank the Supreme Court for the support and encouragement given to PHILJA and all its undertakings.

I wish you all the best of the Season of Grace and a prosperous new year!

Maraming salamat!

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Chancellor

OCA Circular No. 270-2016 – Temporary Suspension of Committing Inmates to Congested Jail Facilities . .

OCA Circular No. 271-2016 – Court Resolution dated November 22, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 272-2016 – Service of Writs and Court Processes in Connection with Cases Involving Foreign Governments or Instrumentalities Thereof . .

OrdersMemorandum Order No. 24-2016 – Appointing the SC Deputy Division Clerk of Court in the Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division . . . . . . . . . .

Memorandum Order No. 38-A-2016 – Establishing the Technical Working Group on Judicial Integrity under the Committee on Continuing Legal Education and Bar Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Memorandum Order No. 46-2016 – Creating the Judiciary-Wide Committee on Data Reconciliation . .

First Quarter 2017 Training Programs and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

48

48

49

49

51

52

From the Chancellor’s Desk(Continued from page 1)


III. THE QUEZON CITY EXPERIENCE

Quezon City is the most populous city in the Philippines with more than three million inhabitants.110 Considered to be highly urbanized, it is the largest city in Metro Manila with an area of 166.2 square kilometers and with a population density of approximately more than 16,000 people per square kilometer.111 The city has a local social welfare and development office referred to as the Social Services and Development Department (SSDD) which is directly under the Office of the City Mayor. This is the department that fulfills the local government’s mandate to provide, care for, and empower the poor and disadvantaged sectors in the city. This department, together with the Quezon City barangays (communities), implement the provisions of RA No. 9344. It also supervises the youth home locally known as the “Molave Youth Home.”

The Molave Youth Home, created by the Quezon City government in 1973, provided that from 2010 to 2015, 1,217 CICL with cases filed in the family courts of Quezon City have been housed at the facility. Table 1 shows the yearly breakdown of the Molave Youth Home respondent-CICL.

Table 1 Number of Respondent-CICL in Molave Youth Home

Year Number of Respondent-CICL2010 2152011 2402012 2082013 1932014 1982015 217Total 1,217

110 Population is 3,085,786 as of end 2013 – data provided by the City Planning and Development Office, Quezon City.

111 Quezon City Annual Report 2013–2014, p. 13.

From this figure, the Molave Youth Home provided the following demographics of the respondent-CICL: sex, age group, educational attainment and socio-economic background; the type of crimes committed; the use of diversion by the family courts; the success rate of diversion, including the number of CICL who re-offended.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Children in Conflict with the Law and Court Diversion Procedure:Restorative Justice in Action* **Hon. ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE

Presiding JudgeRegional Trial Court, Branch 106, Quezon City

* Paper first delivered by Power Point presentation at (1) the Philippine Judicial Academy in its training program entitled “Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children,” July 2010; and (2) the Regional Convention of the Asia Pacific Region of the International Association of Women Judges, Taal Vista Hotel, Tagaytay City, on May 14, 2015.

** Fourth of four-part series

Number of CICL According to Sex

CY 2010–2015

Number of CICL According to Specific Age

CY 2010–2015


Judicial Views (continued)

According to Figures 1 and 2, 92 percent of the children with court cases for the years 2010–2015 were male, while 76 percent of all CICL were 16 to 17 years of age.

Figure 3

Figure 4

In Figure 3, 78 percent of the CICL were out-of-school youth. As to educational attainment, 50 percent of CICL (Figure 4) reached only the elementary level while 48 percent reached high school.

Figure 5

The data in Figure 5 shows that CICL predominantly come from families living below the poverty line. The poverty threshold income for the National Capital Region is P8,477 per month as of 2015.112 Most cases filed in the Quezon City family courts involve children of families where the family average joint income is from P3,000 to P5,999 per month, or roughly US$68.18 to US$136.34 per month.113 The second and third highest income groups are those where the joint income of the family are from P6,000 to P7,999 (US$136.36 to US$181.8 per month) and P1,000 to P2,999 (US$22.73 to US$68.16 per month), respectively.

Figure 6

As shown in Figure 6, the most number of crimes committed by CICL were robbery and theft, classified as crimes against property, at 60 percent of all crimes committed for the calendar years 2010–2015.

Figure 7

112 Data from the City Planning Development Office, Quezon City.113 2015 Average Exchange Rate of US$ 1.00 to P44.00 Philippine pesos.

Number of CICL According to Educational Status

CY 2010–2015

Number of CICL According to Educational Attainment

CY 2010–2015

Total Number of CICL According to Family Income

CY 2010-2015

Number of CICL According to Crimes Committed

CY 2010–2015

Number of CICL According to Diversion Programs

CY 2010–2015

Poverty Monthly Income Threshold-NCR8,477/month (CY2012–2015) *Family Income and Expenditure Survey


In Figure 7, diversion was conducted in either of two places—at the community level through the barangays where the CICL and his/her family resided or through a shelter run by an NGO. Sixty-six percent of the diversion programs were conducted at the barangay level.

Figure 8

Figure 8 shows that 59 percent of court diversion programs were successfully completed while the remaining 41 percent failed. Although the percentage of failed diversion is quite high, the success rate is more than 50 percent which is very encouraging considering that court diversion is a relatively new procedure in the juvenile justice system in this country.

Figure 9

Figure 9 shows that from the 1,271 CICL court cases for the years 2010–2015, only 1.6 percent of the CICL committed a crime for the second or third time, or only 20 out of the 1,271 cases.

Table No. 2

Statistics

Number of Re-offenders

YearNumber of Court

Cases

Re-offending Cases

Total Year of first/

previous admission Male Female

2010 215 0 0 0

2011 240 0 0 0

2012 208 2 0 2 3-5-2010

4-1-2010

2013 193 2 0 27-4-2011

11-24-2011

2014 198 5 0 5

3-5-2012*

11-5-2011

5-11-2012

1-11-2012

7-7-2012

2-5-2013

2015 217 12 0 12

7-5-2011

11-4-2011

11-9-2012

1-31-2013

1-17-2013

1-28-2013

1-19-2013

6-13-2013

7-9-2013

9-26-2013

6-19-2014*

11-21-2014

Total 1,271 21 0 21 21

Note: * Same minor offender, reducing the total number of re-offenders to 20, as reflected in Figure 9.

Number of re-offenders:

20 (1.6%)Number of

court cases: 1,271

Status of Diversion Programs

CY 2010–2015

Number of Re-offenders

CY 2010–2015


Table No. 2 illustrates in detail the data shown in Figure 9. The numbers particularly reveal that the re-offending mainly happens two to four years after the first or previous admission at the Molave Youth Home, and not immediately after the termination of diversion or the criminal case, if diversion was not undertaken. The low rates of re-offending as well as the average time interval of two to four years between the previous and subsequent offenses are significant indications that the diversion programs are working. They likewise show that the efforts exerted in developing and complying with diversion programs, even if those programs failed, have a positive impact on the CICL and their families.

IV. CONCLUSION

Ten years have passed since RA No. 9344 took effect. During that period, Philippine courts and all the stakeholders in the administration of juvenile justice have grappled with the novel and “strange” principle of restorative justice and made room for its application under the existing system of retributive justice.

The courts have also come to terms with the unfamiliar, untested and untried practice of court diversion and its corresponding unique features by making substantial adjustments in its procedure, both judicial and administrative. In the administrative function of the Office of the Clerk of Court, the assignment of a different case number to CICL who qualify for diversion entailed the adoption of a new class and category in the giving of case numbers and the consequent tracking of filed cases. Furthermore, the practice of diversion most necessarily requires that the courts closely collaborate and work together with the public prosecutor, the public attorney and the Local Social Welfare and Development Office (LSWDO), not to mention the community through the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC) and non-government organizations, in formulating a viable, workable and effective diversion program for the CICL. In areas where there are no youth detention houses or “Bahay Pag-asa,” the courts work in close coordination with the Bureau of Corrections and Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) to ensure that the CICL are given quarters separate from ordinary detention prisoners. In cases involving CICL who are found guilty and on automatic suspension of service of sentence, the courts, in preparing a disposition program, may place the CICL in youth rehabilitation centers run by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). If the CICL are found guilty and, at the time of promulgation of judgment, are over 21 years of age, the courts must ensure that the CICL are placed in agricultural training camps provided by the BJMP and the DSWD pursuant to RA No. 9344.

As implemented in Quezon City, the largest and most populous city and a pioneer in court diversion in the Philippines, the diversion program for the period 2010–2015 has been

relatively successful with 59 percent of the CICL completing the same. The success of the Quezon City family courts in applying court diversion procedure relies much on the hard work and diligence of the LSWDO under the supervision of the Social Services and Development Department of the city. Also contributing to this positive development was the active participation of the local government through its barangays and the BCPC which help to ensure implementation of diversion programs responsive to the needs of the CICL. The experience of QC is instructive on how the program may work in the other local communities provided that the infrastructure, physical facilities, personnel and training of all stakeholders directly involved in the implementation of said program are all in place. Indeed, the statistics indubitably reveal the favorable outcome and viability of court diversion, despite its novelty and sudden introduction into our legal system.

Restorative justice and court diversion have shown us that when a child comes into conflict with the law, he is not viewed as an offender but as a victim of circumstances over which he, by virtue of his lack of developmental years, has no full control. The CICL therefore needs help, not retribution. The CICL, with proper guidance and counselling, is made to understand the impact of his behavior and the harm he has done. On the other hand, the victim of the CICL is accorded a chance to meet the CICL, confront the child with the effect of his act, tell the child what the impact of his offending was and receive an apology from him. When the CICL is given this chance of taking responsibility and making amends for the crime done by apologizing and making reparation to the victim, he is making amends and reparation to the community as well.

Because of minority of age and the ongoing physiological maturation of his body which include his cognitive and psychosocial development, the CICL should not be branded, lumped with adult criminals and forsaken altogether. The CICL should be given an opportunity to lead a life away from crime, should be effectively enabled—with the help and support of their family, the community, society and the courts—so that they will be reintegrated into society and become law-abiding, responsible and productive members of our country.

The youth will be the next leaders of our country. They will be the next work force, the next professionals, the next police officers, the next barangay captains, the next judges, the next members of the House of Representatives. “Ang kabataan ang pag-asa ng bayan!” Should we not give them a second chance?

Judicial Views (continued)


Training Programs and Activities

2016 Biotechnology Outreach ProgramThe United States Department of State, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture, conducted the 2016 Biotechnology Outreach Program Manila on November 16, 2016 at the Diamond Hotel, Manila.

Thirty-three participants attended the half-day activity, among them were four Court of Appeals Justices headed by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., five environmental court judges of NCJR, two staff from the Office of Justice Marvic Mario Victor Leonen, six PHILJA officials led by the PHILJA Chancellor, Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, and 16 PHILJA personnel.

Mr. Ralph Bean, Agricultural Counselor from the US Department of Agriculture gave the opening remarks. Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, PHILJA Professor II, introduced the speaker, Dr. Wayne Parrott, Professor from the University of Georgia.

Dr. Parrott talked about the global trends in crop biotechnology. Specifically, he explained genetic modification, genetically modified organisms/crops, US biotechnology regulations and GMO labelling.

Dr. Parrott has a degree in Agronomy from the University of Kentucky, and MS and PhD degrees in plant breeding and plant genetics from the University of Wisconsin. The program, now on its 10th year, helps identify scientists to come out and speak on biotechnology issues, ranging from regulatory issues to latest technologies that are being used in the field.

Cybercrime and the Courts: A Roundtable Discussion

The Academy, in partnership with the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, through its Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training (US DOJ OPDAT), conducted the first Cybercrimes and the Courts: A Roundtable Discussion held on October 21, 2016 at the Pan Pacific Hotel, Manila.

The roundtable discussion was attended by 15 participants, among them judges and representatives from the Philippine and US Departments of Justice, National Bureau

The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) and the Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO) participated in the Asian Mediation Association (AMA) Annual General Meeting (AGM) on October 19, 2016 and the Fourth AMA Conference on October 20–21, 2016 held at the China Palace Hotel in Beijing, China.

PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna led the Academy’s delegation composed of Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, PMCO Chief Atty. Brenda Jay C. Angeles Mendoza and PMCO SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer Mr. Jose T. Name, Jr. Hosted by the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT)/China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC) Mediation Center, the theme of the AMA Conference was “New Global Trend of Mediation – Similarities and Differences.” The two-day international conference

Asian Mediation Association Annual General Meeting and Fourth AMA Conference

of Investigation, Philippine National Police and the academe. The participating judges shared the challenges, issues and concerns that confront them in handling cybercrimes cases and those involving digital information.

PHILJA Chief of Office for Academic Affairs Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis delivered the welcome remarks. US DOJ OPDAT Resident Legal Advisor Mr. Eric S. O’Malley, in his message, stressed that “digital evidence is an exceptional evidence of crime and that we should take advantage of this type of evidence.” He also expressed hope that an introductory training course on cybercrime for judges will be crafted and offered to the judges.

Judge Maria Rowena M. San Pedro, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 158, Pasig City, facilitated the session on Challenges, Issues and Concerns in Handling Cybercrimes Cases, while Prof. Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., Vice Chair of PHILJA Department of Court Technology, facilitated the Content Development and Training Design session.


The AGM provided a venue for the Hong Kong Mediation Centre to report on the accomplishments of AMA in the past year. It also provided the opportunity for its members to report on their respective performance for the year, including legal/judicial support from their countries. The AGM further discussed the membership application of the Bangladesh International Mediation Centre; the establishment and operation of the CCPIT/CCOIC Mediation Center that would focus on cross-border mediation; and the development of mediation in Mongolia through their Commercial Dispute Resolution Centre at the Mongolian National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MNCCI), the newest AMA member. The next AGM will be held in Thailand or Indonesia in 2017, while the Fifth AMA Conference will be held in Indonesia in 2018.

The two-day conference focused on the following topics: (i) Court and Diverse Dispute Resolution Mechanism Reform; (ii) Comparison of Lawyer Mediation Mechanism between Eastern and Western Countries; (iii) International Trend of Online Dispute Resolution; (iv) Differences of People’s Mediation or Community Mediation in Relation to Eastern and Western Context; (v) Mediation Practice and Successful Cases Sharing; (vi) How Do Mediation and Arbitration Play Their Respective Roles in Resolving Disputes Arising from Foreign Commerce; (vii) History and Development of Mediation Structures of AMA Members; and (viii) Cultural Differences and Mediation Techniques between Asian and Western Countries.

Justice Azcuna talked about the “History and Development of ADR Structures in the Philippines,” during the session on History and Development of Mediation Structure of AMA Members.

The Asian Mediation Association was organized in Singapore on August 17, 2007. The objective of the AMA is to promote the use and development of mediation in Asia and the rest of the world through strengthening members’ cooperation and association. Its members include the leading mediation centers in Asia, such as Bahrain, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. (Article by: Mr. Jose T. Name, Jr.)

Special Course on International Criminal Law and Security

The Philippine Judicial Academy conducted the back to back Basic and Advanced Special Courses on International Criminal Law and Security (ICLS) in November, attended by a total of 91 participants, at the scenic PHILJA Training Center in Tagaytay City.

Fifty-five participants attended the Basic Special Course on International Criminal Law and Security held on November 21 to 24. Among those who attended the four-day course were PHILJA professorial lecturers, judges, court attorneys, lawyer-representatives from the Department of Justice, Department of Foreign Affairs, Office of the Solicitor General and Bureau of Immigration, and a member of the academe.

PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna in his opening remarks warmly welcomed the speakers and participants. He also thanked Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno for inviting international law experts as lecturers. Vice Chancellor Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. discussed the objectives of the special course and provided an overview of the various subjects included in the course.

Seven invited foreign and local international law experts discussed 23 topics during the entire basic course, to wit: Prof. Dr. David Cohen, Director of WSD Handa Center for Human Rights and International Justice, Stanford University (International Criminal Law Fundamentals Part I, Transitional Justice Case Studies: East Timor, Indonesia and Cambodia, Substantive Offenses: War Crimes, Substantive Offenses: Enslavement and Forcible Transfer, Modes of Liability: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Inciting, and Defences); Prof. Dr. Judge Fausto Pocar of the Appeals Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Former President, ICTY (International Criminal Law Fundamentals Part II, Prosecuting International Crimes—Overview of International Mechanisms: ICTY and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [ICTR], Transitional Justice Case Studies: Special Tribunal for Lebanon [STL], European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo [EULEX] Courts and Kosovo Specialist Chambers, Substantive Offenses: Genocide, Substantive Offenses: Terrorization of Civilian Population, and Modes of Liability: Superior Responsibility, Ordering, Aiding and Abetting); Mr. Karim A. A. Khan Q.C., International Defense Counsel at the International Criminal Court (ICC), Former Prosecutor at the the UN ICTY and ICTR, and Member of the Temple Garden Chambers, Temple, London (Prosecuting International Crimes: International Criminal Court, Substantive Offenses: Crimes Against Humanity, Substantive Offenses: Torture, Other Inhumane Acts and Persecution, Substantive Offenses: Extrajudicial Killings, Modes of Liability: Modes of Liability at the ICC, and Defences); Dato Shyamala Alagendra, International Defense Counsel, ICC, Former Prosecutor, and UN Special Panels for Serious Crimes in East Timor, UN Special Court for Sierra Leone, and ICC (Transitional Justice Case Studies: Sierra Leone and Kenya, Substantive Offenses: Child Soldiers, and Substantive Offenses:

gathered 350 mediators and professionals from Asia, including the Philippine Mediation Center’s contingent of 1 clerk of court, 19 accredited court-annexed mediators, and 1 PMC Unit staff.


PHILJA: Spreading Love, Hope and Joy (2016 Christmas Celebration)

Thirty-one children of the Little Angels Home, Inc. in Tagaytay City found Christmas merrier and more meaningful as the Philippine Judicial Academy embarked on its first charity project to “spread love, hope and joy” to the children-beneficiaries. The gift-giving project was held on December 9, kicking off the Academy’s Christmas celebration this year.


Crimes of Sexual Violence); Atty. Katherine Vessels of the William S. Richardson School of Law (International Maritime Security Law, Maritime Security in Philippine Law); Prof. Jay Batongbacal, Director of the UP Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea (Special Lecture on the West Philippine Sea); and Atty. Jeneline Nicolas of Desierto and Desierto Law Office (Overview on Philippine Law and the Incorporation of International Law).

A workshop was held in the afternoon session of the second day. Participants were divided into four groups to discuss a common case problem and suggest the most appropriate mechanism for the investigation and prosecution of the direct forms of violence committed against the victims, their families and communities. Each group then presented their outputs before a plenary session the following day.

thought-provoking and enlightening, and there was a lively dynamic interaction and informative discussion with experts from abroad about international law and security.

“You, my friends, were introduced to the international significance and therefore, international concern about the crime; to the international reaction to their commission and the freely concluded discussions about what has been aptly called ‘man’s inhumanity to man.’ Serious focus has also been given to the modes of liability under the international criminal court. Very interesting were the discussions on international maritime security law and maritime security in the Philippine law x x x the most controversial is the topic on the West Philippine Sea Dispute of which the Philippines is a major stakeholder,” he said.

Justice Perez also expressed his gratitude to PHILJA for continuously making him a part of its activities. “I give special significance to my participation in the activity considering that I have a personal attachment to the Academy having been at its service from conceptualization to institutionalization, from its hand held days towards maturescence until virtual renewability,” his message reads. He further recognized the Academy for its “superb efforts” in organizing the event and thanked its staff for their efficient service and support.

Meanwhile, the Advanced Special Course on International Criminal Law and Security was held on November 24 to 26 with 36 participants comprising judges, court attorneys and lawyer-representatives from various government agencies who have completed the Special Course on International Criminal Law and Security held on January 18 to 22 and the Basic Course on ICLS on November 21 to 24.

Topics discussed during the advanced course were: The West Philippine Sea Dispute by Prof. Jay Batongbacal; Jurisdiction of the ICC-Exercise of Jurisdiction: Complementarity, Admissibility and Deferral Case Study Kenya and Libya Situation

Chief Justice Sereno graced the third day of the special course and delivered a message. She said it is important to understand international law and the context in which we are doing our work in order to really implement a rule of law-based system.

“We understand that the Constitution already accepts generally accepted principles of international law and has already incorporated them. We actually have unique statutes that incorporated many of the principles that already govern the relations of nations. x x x And that is why in my desire to increase the profile of the Philippine judiciary as a beacon of freedom and democracy in Asia, especially in Southeast Asia, I thought that it must be that we will really reach the cream or the elite of the legal firmament, so they will be equipped with the means to understand in this fast-changing world in which we are operating. We cannot give up our role as a beacon of democracy enshrined by the 1987 Constitution and witnessed by the whole world. This requires us therefore to always live as a rules-based society and for this we must understand the context, parameters, and the fast-changing developments,” the Chief Justice said.

Chief Justice Sereno also expressed her gratefulness for the friendships that have been forged with the speakers and thanked them for finding time to travel all the way to the Philippines to share their knowledge and expertise on various aspects of international law.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose P. Perez gave the closing remarks, which was read by his representative, Atty. Arturo B. Noblejas. Justice Perez noted that the presentations and panel discussions during the four-day course were



Orientation-Seminar

32nd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Clerks of CourtDate: November 8–11, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 35 newly appointed clerks of court, namely:

Regional Trial Courts

National Capital Judicial RegionAtty. Aileen Rose J. AngueRTC, Br. 60, Makati CityAtty. Ma. Adoracion J. BaetiongRTC, Br. 94, Quezon CityAtty. Maria Adella L. Fandialan-PinedaRTC, Br. 166, Pasig CityAtty. Ma. Niña Jasmin R. SuingRTC, Br. 228, Quezon City

Region IAtty. Myra A. AnodRTC, Br. 35, Bontoc, Mt. ProvinceAtty. Lanie V. BauzonRTC, Br. 41, Dagupan City, PangasinanAtty. Marie Diane O. Bolong-De LeonRTC, Br. 66, San Fernando City, La UnionAtty. Janice Siganay-QuerrerRTC, OCC, Bangued, AbraAtty. Simon K. Toyokan, Jr.RTC, OCC, Bontoc, Mt. Province

Region IIAtty. Candice L. Gullon-BuyucanRTC, Br. 14, Lagawe, Ifugao

Region IIIAtty. Mary Khristel A. DeompocRTC, Br. 72, Olongapo City, Zambales

Region VAtty. Lheila Mozenda C. Mendoza RTC, Br. 36, Iriga City, Camarines Sur

Region VIAtty. Aireen O. BonghanoyRTC, Br. 41, Bacolod City, Negros OccidentalAtty. Jo-Am B. CatalanRTC, OCC, Roxas City, CapizAtty. Sarah Jane P. DumancasRTC, Br. 52, Bacolod City, Negros OccidentalAtty. Rusella G. GabaldaRTC, Br. 46, Bacolod City, Negros OccidentalAtty. Lorraine Kier J. MatilingRTC, Br. 32, Iloilo City, IloiloAtty. Fehma G. SuropiaRTC, Br. 38, Iloilo City, Iloilo

Region VIIAtty. Emelita L. GoRTC, Br. 21, Cebu City, Cebu

Region VIIIAtty. Ma. Daryl Y. GabonRTC, Br. 29, Catbalogan, SamarRegion IXAtty. Maria Socorro D. SuarezRTC, OCC-Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del SurRegion XAtty. Melissa Grace G. LegaspiRTC, Br. 4, Butuan City, Agusan del NorteRegion XIAtty. Dulce Amor P. Mahumoc-UyanRTC, Br. 5, Mati, Davao OrientalRegion XIIAtty. Analia S. AndamRTC, Br. 10, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities

Region IIIMs. Maria Celia A. FloresMTCC, Br. 2, Olongapo City, ZambalesRegion IVMs. Joy A. TamesisMTCC, Br. 2, San Pedro City, LagunaRegion VIMs. Nora N. PalaranMTCC, OCC, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental

Municipal Trial Courts

Region XMs. Jocelyn M. RivasMTC, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Region IMr. Aniceto Francis C. Madronio6th MCTC: Pozorrubio–Sison, PangasinanRegion IIMs. Emelyn L. Ong8th MCTC: Angadanan-San Guillermo, Isabela

Region IVMr. Daniel Solomon D. Dacuno8th MCTC: Aborlan-Kalayaan, PalawanMs. Sanilyn C. Gianan7th MCTC: Quezon–Marcos–Dr. Jose P. Rizal, PalawanMr. Luis K. Adefuin5th MCTC: Paete–Pakil–Pangil, Laguna

Region VMr. Hector A. Ontog3rd MCTC: San Fernando-Batuan, Masbate


Region VIMr. Ferdinand Daniel B. Magallanes 3rd MCTC: Murcia–Salvador Benedicto, Negros Occidental

10th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process ServersDate: November 15–17, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 25 newly appointed sheriffs and process servers, namely:I. Sheriffs

Regional Trial CourtRegion XIMr. Santi Julian G. SolomonRTC, Br. 16, Davao City, Davao del Sur

Metropolitan Trial CourtsNational Capital Judicial RegionMr. Misael A. CambroneroMeTC, Br. 91, Parañaque CityMs. Avelina B. LaderasMeTC, OCC, Valenzuela City


Region IVMr. Rodel G. AntiqueMTCC, Br. 1, Imus, CaviteRegion VIMr. Edwin P. TimtimanMTCC, Br. 7, Bacolod City, Negros OccidentalRegion XMr. Cezar C. GultiaMTCC, Bayugan City, Agusan del SurII. Process Servers

Regional Trial Courts

National Capital Judicial RegionMr. Lorenzo M. CaacbayRTC, Br. 228, Quezon CityMr. Farnel T. CalditRTC, Br. 58, Makati CityMr. Johnsen Dave M. VillaramaRTC, Br. 290, Malabon CityRegion IMr. Marlon V. CantoriaRTC, Br. 26, San Fernando City, La UnionMr. Luisito S. Caranto, Jr.RTC, Br. 17, Batac, Ilocos NorteRegion IIIMr. John Ruiz L. GatchalianRTC, Br. 92, Balanga City, BataanRegion IVMr. Alvin P. DequitoRTC, Br. 57, Lucena City, Quezon

Mr. Jerwin R. PomidaRTC, Br. 24, Biñan City, Laguna

Region VIMs. Ma. Luz Y. BernasolRTC, Br. 26, Iloilo City, Iloilo

Region VIIIMs. Aileen C. BatoRTC, Br. 4, Dolores, Eastern SamarMr. Louie Eric A. LabadorRTC, Br. 17, Palompon, Leyte


Region IVMr. Gener E. EscuetaMTCC Biñan City, Laguna

Region VMr. Anastacio L. ZamudioMTCC, OCC, Naga City, Camarines Sur

Region VIMr. Benhur P. ManaresMTCC, Br. 5, Iloilo City, Iloilo

Region VIIMr. Jess Archee R. RealMTCC, OCC, Tagbilaran City, BoholMr. Jose Victoriano J. SamsonMTCC, OCC, Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Region XIMs. May Flor V. SevilloMTCC, Koronadal City, South Cotabato

Municipal Trial Court

Region VMr. Glenn L. AsugMTC, Caramoan, Camarines Sur

Municipal Circuit Trial Court

Region VIIIMr. Frederick M. Lacaba1st MCTC: Gamay–Lapinig–Mapanas, Northern Samar

Orientation and Training Seminar for Court Decongestion Officers of Beneficiary Courts National Capital Judicial Region and Regions I, II, IV and VDate: October 19–20, 2016 Venue: The Bayleaf, Intramuros, ManilaParticipants: 73 RTC, MeTC, MTCC and MTC court decongestion officers

Visayas Judicial RegionsDate: November 16–17, 2016 Venue: Harolds Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 68 RTC and MTCC court decongestion officers


Career Development Program

Seminar for Executive and Vice Executive JudgesFirst, Second, Fourth and National Capital Judicial RegionsDate: December 7–8, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 63 RTC, MeTC, MTCC and MTC executive and vice executive judges

Seminar for Executive and Vice Executive Judges

Court Legal Researchers of the National Capital Judicial Region and LuzonDate: November 3–4, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 51 court legal researchers

Pre-Judicature Program

40th Pre-Judicature ProgramDate: October 17–28, 2016Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, ManilaParticipants: 39 lawyers, namely:

National Capital Judicial RegionCristina V. AstudilloAniceto A. Calubaquib, Jr.Alexei P. CardenasTricia T. Defante-AndresPearl Fatima L. Evardone-See BokMaribel M. FernandezMarkova I. JacintoReginald L. LacoArnold A. MediodiaNicolas B. Nicolas

May Rachel S. Nolasco-SilangilCarlo Emmanuel D. OngVanessa Joy B. Ong Pe-JonesSherwin Peter O. PulayanAmador B. Rebato, Jr.Luisito D. RedobleRevi D. RobisGregori P. Subong, Jr.Henry Gerald P. Ysaac, Jr.Doming L. Zorilla

Region IMarlon S. CorpuzIrene A. Cortex-CorpuzRegion IIIMay Flor C. Abuedo1

Region IVIan D. EncarnacionDiego Q. FranciaDonabelle C. TalabongRegion VMarietta M. BelgicaNydia A. HebrioRegion VIImee Conn A. Diamante-BuntalidadBasilio Antonio R. GaraygayRegion VIINelson G. LeycoOlive Grace A. Tapayan-HebronRegion IXBryan S. Lim

Region XZaldy C. LimRosaleah L. MacarambonCielo M. Manlangit-RayosAslia T. Pacabuntal-PandapatanChristine Rose R. RuizSheryl Jane C. Zambrano

Participants from Other BatchesMa. Cristita A. Rivas-Santos2

Zaldy A. Monilla3

Charlene Clara G. Mendoza4

Roselle P. Teh5

Divina Lea A. Perdiguerra6

Regional Trial Court Sheriffs of the 11th Judicial RegionDate: November 8–10, 2016 Venue: Apo View Hotel, Davao CityParticipants: 38 sheriffs

Career Enhancement Program

1 Incomplete attendance, did not attend sessions on October 26.2 Attended sessions on October 21, 27 and 28, 2016, Batch 37.3 Attended sessions on October 27 and 28, 2016, Batch 38.4 Attended sessions on October 28, 2016, Batch 36.5 Attended sessions on October 28, 2016, Batch 36.6 Attended sessions on October 28, 2016, Batch 36.


Advanced Competency Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Legal Researchers, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons CasesDevelopment Partners: Australia–Asia Program to Combat Trafficking in Persons (AAPTIP)Date: October 4–6, 2016 Venue: Vista Marina Hotel and Resort, Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Olongapo City, ZambalesParticipants: 28 RTC judges, court legal researchers and court social workers, prosecutors, law enforcement investigators, and observers from the DOJ TFATIP

Capacity Building on Environmental Laws and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases for Selected Judges and Clerks of CourtRegions I, II and the National Capital Judicial RegionDate: October 5–7, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 16 RTC, MTCC and MCTC judges and clerks of courtRegion IVDate: December 14–16, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 32 RTC and MTC judges and clerks of court

Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) Trainers’ TrainingBatch 10Date: October 6–7, 2016 Venue: VIP Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 52 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges and court personnel of Regions IX and X

Seminar-Workshop for Selected Judges on Financial Crimes and Money LaunderingDevelopment Partner: United States of Justice Criminal Division–Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (DOJ-OPDAT)Date: October 6–7, 2016 Venue: Manila Diamond Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 24 RTC judges

PHILJA Curriculum Review: Module Development Consultations with the Justices of the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax AppealsDate: October 27, 2016 Venue: Sandiganbayan, Quezon City; Court of Tax Appeals, Quezon CityParticipants: 23 Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals justices

Special Focus Program

Information Dissemination through a Dialogue between Barangay Officials and Court OfficialsGovernment of Davao del NorteDate: October 27, 2016 Venue: Acacia Hall, Molave Hotel, Tagum CityParticipants: 121 barangay officials

Province of Nueva VizcayaDate: November 24, 2016 Venue: Bayombong, Nueva VizcayaParticipants: 120 barangay officials

Province of IfugaoDate: November 25, 2016 Venue: Sangguniang Panlalawigan Hall, Capitol Building, Lagawe, IfugaoParticipants: 111 barangay officials

Eighth Seminar-Workshop on Deposit Insurance, Banking Practices, Bank Conservatorship, Receivership and LiquidationDevelopment Partner: Philippine Deposit Insurance CorporationDate: November 16–17, 2016 Venue: Hotel Fortuna, Cebu CityParticipants: 33 RTC judges

Seminar on the Financial Liquidation and Suspension of Payments (FLSP) Rules of Procedure for Special Commercial Court Judges and Pairing Court Judges of the National Capital Judicial RegionDate: November 18, 2016 Venue: Manila Diamond Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 32 RTC judges

Special Course on International Criminal Law and SecurityBasic CourseDate: November 21–24, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 55 RTC judges, PHILJA professorial lecturers, court attorneys from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan, and lawyers from the Department of Justice, Department of Foreign Affairs, Office of the Solicitor General and Bureau of Immigration, and representatives from the academe

Advanced CourseDate: November 24–26, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 36 RTC and MTC judges, court attorneys from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan, PAO lawyers, and representatives from the Senate of the Philippines, Office of the Solicitor General, Department of Foreign Affairs and academe

Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving ChildrenDevelopment Partners: Consuelo Foundation and Child Protection Network Foundation, Inc.


Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

Convention-Seminar

Date: November 22–24, 2016 Venue: Hotel Jen, Roxas Boulevard, ManilaParticipants: 67 RTC judges, branch clerks of court/officers-in-charge, court interpreters and court social workers, prosecutors, PAO lawyers, and representatives from Consuelo Foundation

Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law for Selected Judges of the National Judicial Capital RegionDate: December 12–13, 2016 Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 24 RTC judges

Personal Security Training for JudgesDevelopment Partners: Supreme Court–Committee on Security–Office of the Court Administrator and National Bureau of Investigation Date: December 13–15, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 23 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs for Judges, Prosecutors, and Law Enforcers of the National Capital Judicial RegionDevelopment Partners: Dangerous Drugs BoardDate: December 14–16, 2016 Venue: Century Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 87 RTC judges, prosecutors, and representatives from the Parole and Probation Agency, National Bureau of Investigation, National Police Commission, PNP Anti-Illegal Drug Group, Philippine Dangerous Drugs Board, City Anti-Drug Abuse Council, Bureau of Customs and Department of Health

Cybercrimes and the Courts: A Roundtable DiscussionDevelopment Partners: United States of Justice, Criminal Division, Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and TrainingDate: October 21, 2016 Venue: Pan Pacific Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 15 judges and representatives from the Philippine and US Departments of Justice, National Bureau of Investigation, Philippine National Police and academe

Date: October 19–21, 2016 Venue: Limketkai Luxe Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 311 MTCC, MTC, MCTC, SDC, SCC and SHCC judges

Philippine Judges Association (PJA) Mid-Term ConventionTheme: In the Pursuit of Excellence in the Third MilleniumDate: November 12–14, 2016 Venue: Baguio Country Club, Baguio CityParticipants: 426 RTC judges

Ninth Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Association of Court Interpreters, Inc. (PHILACI)Theme: PHILACI: Committing to Uplift Court Interpreting in the PhilippinesDate: December 1–3, 2016 Venue: Subic Bay Traveler’s Hotel, Subic Bay Freeport Zone, ZambalesParticipants: 381 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC and SHCC court interpreters

10th National Convention and General Assembly of the Philippine Association of Court Social Workers, Inc. (PACSWI)Theme: Empowering the Social Workers of the Judiciary with In-depth ProfessionalismDate: December 6–8, 2016 Venue: Limketkai Luxe Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 33 court social workers

National Convention and Seminar of the First Level Clerks of Court Association of the Philippines (FLECCAP)Theme: FLECCAP: The Embodiment of Judicial Integrity, Independence, and Competence in the Public ServiceDate: December 7–9, 2016 Venue: Aziza Paradise Hotel, Puerto Princesa City, PalawanParticipants: 335 MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, SCC and SHCC clerks

Basic Mediation CourseBogo City and Danao City Mediation ProgramsDate: November 21–24, 2016 Venue: Hotel Elizabeth, Cebu CityParticipants: 30 mediation trainees

Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators (Skills Enhancement Course)Metro Manila Mediation ProgramDate: December 7–8, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 50 mediators

Roundtable Discussion

23rd Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc. (PTJLI)Theme: PTLJI: Responding to the Clarion Call for Positive Change


Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees and PMC Unit StaffBogo City and Danao City Mediation ProgramsDate: November 24, 2016Venue: Hotel Elizabeth, Cebu CityParticipants: 49 judges, clerks of court, mediation trainees and PMCU staff

Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed MediationBogo City Mediation ProgramDate: October 5, 2016Venue: Hisoler Beach Resort, Bogo City, CebuParticipants: 38 judges, clerks of court, prosecutors, public attorneys, IBP lawyer, and representatives from the local government units, civil societies and business sectors

Danao City Mediation ProgramDate: October 6, 2016Venue: Coco Palms, Danao City, Cebu

Participants: 37 judges, clerks of court, prosecutors, public attorneys, IBP lawyers, and representatives from the local government units, non-government organization, civil societies, business sectors, academe and media

Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators and PMC Unit StaffBogo City Mediation ProgramDate: October 25, 2016 Venue: Hall of Justice, Bogo City, CebuParticipants: 7 prospective mediators

Danao City Mediation ProgramDate: October 26, 2016 Venue: Hall of Justice, Danao City, CebuParticipants: 18 prospective mediators and PMCU staff applicant

Cebu City Mediation ProgramDate: October 27, 2016 Venue: Hall of Justice, Cebu City, CebuParticipants: 7 prospective mediators

Atty. BRENDA JAY C. ANGELES-MENDOZA Chief of Office for the Philippine Mediation Center

Philippine Judicial AcademyAppointed on June 28, 2016

Assumed Office on October 3, 2016

Brenda Jay Angeles-Mendoza is a lawyer with keen interest in mediation, environment and natural resources law and policy, and legal reform. Before her appointment as Chief of Office for the Philippine Mediation Center, she was an environmental law specialist (consultant) at the Asian

Development Bank’s Office of the General Counsel–Law, Justice, and Development program. She is also an assistant professorial lecturer at the De La Salle University College of Law. She is currently the vice president of the Mediators’ Network for Sustainable Peace, the vice chairperson of the Philippine Judicial Academy’s Department of Alternative Dispute Resolution, and a member of the Academy’s Corps of Professors.

In 2009, she was the Canadian International Development Agency’s consultant who was seconded to the Supreme Court’s Philippine Mediation Center Office where she mentored judicial staff and facilitated skills-enhancement programs on dispute resolution for judges.

From 2000 to 2008, she was a consultant and later program officer at The Asia Foundation where she helped manage the Foundations’ Legal Accountability and Dispute Resolution (LADR) and Conflict Management programs. From 1996 to 1998, she co-directed a project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Tanggol Kalikasan on the use of alternative dispute resolution in environment and natural resources conflicts. Over the past years, she lectured frequently and served as a resource person or facilitator on environmental law and policy, alternative dispute resolution, court-annexed mediation and judicial dispute resolution, negotiation, environmental conflict management, and legal and judicial ethics issues.

Atty. Mendoza holds a Master in Public Administration from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, and Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy (cum laude) degrees from the University of the Philippines. She has also attended certificate programs on Environmental Law (Asia Pacific Center for Environmental, NUS) and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Colorado Dispute Resolution Center, USA).


Commercial Law

Section 11 of the AMLA providing for ex-parte application and inquiry by the AMLC into certain bank deposits and investments not violative of substantive due processAs previously adverted to in our discussion on the right to privacy, the clash of privacy rights and interest against that of the government’s is readily apparent. However, the statutorily enshrined general rule on absolute confidentiality of bank accounts remains. Thus, the safeguards instituted in Section 11 of the AMLA and heretofore discussed provide for certain well-defined limits, as in the language of Baker v. Carr, “judicially discoverable standards” for determining the validity of the exercise of such discretion by the appellate court in, denying the letter-request of SPCMB. In short, Section 11 itself provides the basis for the judicial inquiry and which the owner of the bank accounts subject of the AMLC inquiry may invoke.

Undeniably, there is probable and preliminary governmental action against SPCMB geared towards implementation of the AMLA directed at SPCMB’s property, although there is none, as yet, physical seizure thereof, as in freezing of bank accounts under Section 10 of the AMLA. Note, however, that the allowance to question the bank inquiry order we carve herein is tied to the appellate court’s issuance of a freeze order on the principal accounts. Even in Eugenio, while declaring that the bank inquiry order under Section 11 then required prior notice of such to the account owner, we recognized that the determination of probable cause by the appellate court to issue the bank inquiry order can be contested. As presently worded and how AMLC functions are designed under the AMLA, the occasion for the issuance of the freeze order upon the actual physical seizure of the investigated and inquired into bank account, calls into motions the opportunity for the bank account owner to then question, not just probable cause for the issuance of the freeze order under Section 10, but, to begin with, the determination of probable cause for an ex-parte bank inquiry order into a purported related account under Section 11.

In enacting the amendment to Section 11 of the AMLC, the legislature saw it fit to place requirements before a bank inquiry order may be issued. We discussed these requirements as basis for a valid exception to the general rule on absolute confidentiality of bank accounts. However, these very safe guards allow SPCMB, post issuance of the ex-parte bank inquiry order, legal bases to question the propriety of such issued order, if any. To emphasize, this allowance to the owner of the bank account to question the bank inquiry order

is granted only after issuance of the freeze order physically seizing the subject bank account. It cannot be undertaken prior to the issuance of the freeze order.

While no grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed on the part of the appellate court when it explained in its letter that petitions of such nature “is strictly confidential in that when processing the same, not even the handling staff members of the Office of the Presiding Justice know or have any knowledge who the subject bank account holders are, as well as the bank accounts involved,” it was incorrect when it declared that “under the rules, the Office of the Presiding Justice is strictly mandated not to disclose, divulge, or communicate to anyone directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, the fact of the filing of any petition brought before [the Court of Appeals] by the Anti-Money Laundering Council, its contents and even its entry in the logbook.” As a result, the appellate court effectively precluded and prevented SPCMB of any recourse, amounting to a denial of SPCMB’s letter request.

We cannot overemphasize that SPCMB, as the owner of the bank account which may be the subject of inquiry of the AMLC, ought to have a legal remedy to question the validity and propriety of such an order by the appellate court under Section 11 of the AMLA even if subsequent to the issuance of a freeze order. Moreover, given the scope of inquiry of the AMLC, reaching and including even related accounts, which inquiry into specifies a proviso that: “[t]hat the procedure for the ex-parte application of the ex-parte court order for the principal account shall be the same with that of the related accounts,” SPCMB should be allowed to question the government intrusion. Plainly, by implication, SPCMB can demonstrate the absence of probable cause, i.e. that it is not a related account nor are its accounts materially linked to the principal account being investigated.

x x x x

All told, we affirm the constitutionality of Section 11 of the AMLA allowing the ex-parte application by the AMLC for authority to inquire into, and examine, certain bank deposits and investments.

Section 11 of the AMLA providing for the ex-parte bank deposit inquiry is constitutionally firm for the reasons already discussed. The ex-parte inquiry shall be upon probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) of the law or a money laundering offense under Section 4 of the same law. To effect the limit on the ex-parte inquiry, the petition under oath for authority to inquire, must, akin to the requirement of a petition for freeze order enumerated in Title VIII of A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, contain the name and address of the respondent; the grounds relied upon for the issuance of the order of inquiry; and the supporting evidence that the subject bank deposit are in any way related to or involved in an unlawful activity.

If the CA finds no substantial merit in the petition, it shall dismiss the petition outright stating the specific reasons for


Remedial Law

such denial. If found meritorious and there is a subsequent petition for freeze order, the proceedings shall be governed by the existing Rules on Petitions for Freeze Order in the CA. From the issuance of a freeze order, the party aggrieved by the ruling of the court may appeal to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising all pertinent questions of law and issues, including the propriety of the issuance of a bank inquiry order. The appeal shall not stay the enforcement of the subject decision or final order unless the Supreme Court directs otherwise. The CA is directed to draft rules based on the foregoing discussions to complement the existing A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset Preservation, and Freezing of Monetary Instrument, Property, or Proceeds Representing, Involving, or Relating to an Unlawful Activity or Money Laundering Offense under Republic Act No. 9160, as Amended for submission to the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court and eventual approval and promulgation of the Court en banc.

Perez, J., Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices v. The Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 216914, December 6, 2016.

Perfection of appeal in a municipal election contestAt the outset, the Court notes that the COMELEC erroneously cited A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC as the applicable rules in the instant cases. Said rules, which took effect on May 15, 2007, laid down the procedure for election contests and quo warranto cases involving municipal and barangay officials that are initiated in the trial courts. The same supplanted Rule 35 (“Election Contests before Courts of General Jurisdiction”) and Rule 36 (“Quo Warranto Case before Courts of General Jurisdiction”) of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

However, for the May 10, 2010 Automated Elections, the Court approved on April 27, 2010 A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC, the 2010 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal Officials. For municipal election contests, A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC superseded A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.

To appeal the trial court’s decision in a municipal election contest, Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC require the filing of a notice of appeal and the simultaneous payment of a P1,000 appeal fee to the trial court that rendered judgment. Thus –

Sec. 8. Appeal. – An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the COMELEC within five (5) days after promulgation, by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the decision, with copy served on

the adverse counsel or on the adverse party who is not represented by counsel.

Sec. 9. Appeal fee. – The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the court that rendered the decision an appeal fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal.(Emphasis supplied.)

With respect to the payment of the COMELEC appeal fee, an appellant is also required to pay an additional amount of P3,200 under Section 3, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 02-0130, to wit:

Sec. 3. Appeal Fees. – The appellant in election cases shall pay an appeal fee as follows:

(a) For election cases appealed from Regional Trial Courts ..... P3,000 (per appellant)

(b) For election cases appealed from courts of limited jurisdiction ..... P3,000 (per appellant)

Formerly, under Section 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the appeal fee payable to the COMELEC “shall be paid to, and deposited with, the Cash Division of the Commission within a period to file the notice of appeal.” Said period refers to the period stated in Section 3, Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules, which is within five days after the promulgation of the decision of the court. The promulgation of the decision is understood to mean the receipt by a party of a copy of the decision.

Thereafter, on July 15, 2008, the COMELEC promulgated COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 in order to clarify the implementation of the rules on the required appeal fees for the perfection of the appeals of election cases decided by the trial courts. x x x

x x x x

Plainly, COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 allows an appellant to pay the COMELEC appeal fee at the COMELEC’s Cash Division through the ECAD or by postal money order payable to the COMELEC within a period of 15 days from the time of the filing of the notice of appeal in the trial court. COMELEC Resolution No. 8486, for all intents and purposes, extended the period provided for the filing of the COMELEC appeal fee under Section 4, Rule 40 in relation to Section 3, Rule 22 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Thus, in Batalla v. Commission on Elections, the Court confirmed that COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 effectively amended Section 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

Incidentally, although COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 specifically mentions Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC as the applicable provisions on the procedure for instituting an appeal before the courts in election cases involving elective municipal and barangay officials, the same does not materially affect the application of the said resolution


Principle of non-interference with tribunals of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction Under Rule 58, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the court where the action is pending may grant the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction. Generally, trial courts have the ancillary jurisdiction to issue writs of preliminary injunction in cases falling within its jurisdiction, including civil actions that are incapable of pecuniary estimation and claims for sum of money exceeding P400,000 among others. There are, however, exceptions to this rule, such as when Congress, in the exercise of its power to apportion jurisdiction, restricts the authority of regular courts to issue injunctive reliefs. For example, the Labor Code prohibits any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving or arising from labor disputes. Similarly, Republic Act No. 8975 (RA No. 8975) provides that no court, other than the Supreme Court, may issue provisional injunctive reliefs which would adversely affect the expeditious implementation and completion of government infrastructure projects. Another well-recognized exception is that courts could not interfere with the judgments, orders, or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. This rule of non-interference applies not only to courts of law having equal rank but also to quasi-judicial agencies statutorily at par with such courts.

x x x x

x x x In Iloilo Commercial and Ice Company v. Public Service Commission, we categorically held that courts of first instance have no power to issue a restraining order directed to the PSC. x x x The Court, speaking through Justice Malcolm, said:

x x x x

x x x In the absence of a specific delegation of jurisdiction to Courts of First Instance to grant injunctive relief against orders of the Public Service Commission, it

Remedial Law

would appear that no court, other than the Supreme Court, possesses such jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would amount to a presumption of power in favor of one branch of the judiciary, as against another branch of equal rank. x x x

The above ruling is deemed to have been modified by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which granted the Court of Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction over “all final judgments, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission” except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution and the Labor Code. In this regard, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that an appeal from any award, judgment or resolution of or authorized by a quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, including the NTC, shall be through a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.

In view of the legislative history of the NTC, it is clear that Congress intended NTC, in respect of its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions, to be co-equal with regional trial courts. Hence, the RTC cannot interfere with the NTC’s exercise of its quasi-judicial powers without breaching the rule of non-interference with tribunals of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. In this case, the NTC was already in the process of resolving the issue of whether the access charges stipulated in the Agreement were fair and equitable pursuant to its mandate under RA No. 7925 when the RTC issued the assailed writ of preliminary injunction. Mediation conferences had been conducted and, failing to arrive at a settlement, the NTC had ordered the parties to submit their respective pleadings. Simply put, the NTC had already assumed jurisdiction over the issue involving access charges. Undeniably, the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction when it restrained the NTC from exercising its statutory authority over the dispute.

Jardeleza, J., Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corp. v. Smart Communications, Inc., G.R. No. 189026, November 9, 2016.

Proper interpretation of the term “capital” in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 ConstitutionThe decretal portion of the Gamboa Decision follows the definition of the term “capital” in the body of the decision, to wit: “x x x we x x x rule that the term ‘capital’ in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution refers only to shares of

Commercial Law

in this case as Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC are substantially similar to Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC. To repeat, A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC superseded A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC insofar as municipal elections are concerned.

Leonardo-De Castro, J., Jocelyn “Joy” Lim-Bungcaras v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 209415-17, November 15, 2016.

First ImpressionsRemedial Law (Continued)


stock entitled to vote in the election of directors, and thus in the present case only to common shares, and not to the total outstanding capital stock (common and non-voting preferred shares).”

The Court adopted the foregoing definition of the term “capital” in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution in furtherance of “the intent and letter of the Constitution that the ‘State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos’ [because a] broad definition unjustifiably disregards who owns the all-important voting stock, which necessarily equates to control of the public utility.” The Court, recognizing that the provision is an express recognition of the sensitive and vital position of public utilities both in the national economy and for national security, also pronounced that the evident purpose of the citizenship requirement is to prevent aliens from assuming control of public utilities, which may be inimical to the national interest. Further, the Court noted that the foregoing interpretation is consistent with the intent of the framers of the Constitution to place in the hands of Filipino citizens the control and management of public utilities; and, as revealed in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, “capital” refers to the voting stock or controlling interest of a corporation.

In this regard, it would be apropos to state that since Filipinos own at least 60 percent of the outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote directors, which is what the Constitution precisely requires, then the Filipino stockholders control the corporation, i.e., they dictate corporate actions and decisions, and they have all the rights of ownership including, but not limited to, offering certain preferred shares that may have greater economic interest to foreign investors—as the need for capital for corporate pursuits (such as expansion), may be good for the corporation that they own. Surely, these “true owners” will not allow any dilution of their ownership and control if such move will not be beneficial to them.

x x x x

The Court observed further in the Gamboa Decision that reinforcing this interpretation of the term “capital”, as referring to interests or shares entitled to vote, is the definition of a Philippine national in the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 (“FIA”), which is explained in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the FIA (“FIA-IRR”). The FIA-IRR provides:

Compliance with the required Filipino ownership of a corporation shall be determined on the basis of outstanding capital stock whether fully paid or not, but only such stocks which are generally entitled to vote are considered.

For stocks to be deemed owned and held by Philippine citizens or Philippine nationals, mere legal title is not enough to meet the required Filipino equity. Full beneficial ownership of the stocks, coupled with appropriate voting rights is essential. Thus, stocks, the voting rights of which have been assigned or transferred

to aliens cannot be considered held by Philippine citizens or Philippine nationals.

Echoing the FIA-IRR, the Court stated in the Gamboa Decision that:

Mere legal title is insufficient to meet the 60 percent Filipino-owned “capital” required in the Constitution. Full beneficial ownership of 60 percent of the outstanding capital stock, coupled with 60 percent of the voting rights, is required. The legal and beneficial ownership of 60 percent of the outstanding capital stock must rest in the hands of Filipino nationals in accordance with the constitutional mandate. Otherwise, the corporation is “considered as non-Philippine national[s].”

x x x x

The legal and beneficial ownership of 60 percent of the outstanding capital stock must rest in the hands of Filipinos in accordance with the constitutional mandate. Full beneficial ownership of 60 percent of the outstanding capital stock, coupled with 60 percent of the voting rights, is constitutionally required for the State’s grant of authority to operate a public utility. x x x

Was the definition of the term “capital” in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution declared for the first time by the Court in the Gamboa Decision modified in the Gamboa Resolution?

The Court is convinced that it was not. The Gamboa Resolution consists of 51 pages (excluding the dissenting opinions of Associate Justices Velasco and Abad). For the most part of the Gamboa Resolution, the Court, after reviewing SEC and DOJ Opinions as well as the provisions of the FIA and its predecessor statutes, reiterated that both the Voting Control Test and the Beneficial Ownership Test must be applied to determine whether a corporation is a “Philippine national” and that a “Philippine national” as defined in the FIA and all its predecessor statutes, is a Filipino citizen, or a domestic corporation “at least 60 percent of the capital stock outstanding and entitled to vote,” is owned by Filipino citizens. A domestic corporation is a “Philippine national” only if at least 60 percent of its voting stock is owned by Filipino citizens.” The Court also reiterated that, from the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, it is evident that the term “capital” refers to controlling interest of a corporation, and the framers of the Constitution intended public utilities to be majority Filipino-owned and controlled.

The “Final Word” of the Gamboa Resolution put to rest the Court’s interpretation of the term “capital”, and this is quoted verbatim, to wit:

XII.

Final Word

The Constitution expressly declares as State policy the development of an economy “effectively controlled” by Filipinos. Consistent with such State policy, the Constitution explicitly reserves the ownership and operation of public


utilities to Philippine nationals, who are defined in the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 as Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 percent of whose capital with voting rights belongs to Filipinos. The FIA’s implementing rules explain that “[f]or stocks to be deemed owned and held by Philippine citizens or Philippine nationals, mere legal title is not enough to meet the required Filipino equity. Full beneficial ownership of stocks, coupled with appropriate voting rights is essential.” In effect, the FIA clarifies, reiterates and confirms the interpretation that the term “capital” in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution refers to shares with voting rights, as well as with full beneficial ownership. This is precisely because the right to vote in the election of directors, coupled with full beneficial ownership of stocks, translates to effective control of a corporation.

Everything told, the Court, in both the Gamboa Decision and Gamboa Resolution, finally settled with the FIA’s definition of “Philippine national” as expounded in the FIA-IRR in construing the term “capital” in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.Caguioa, J., Jose M. Roy III v. Chairperson Teresita Herbosa and the Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 207246, November 22, 2016.

In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within 30 days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the 120-day period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals. (Emphasis supplied)

Based on the plain language of the foregoing provision, a VAT-registered taxpayer claiming for a refund or tax credit of its excess and unutilized input VAT must file an administrative claim within two years from the close of the taxable quarter when the sales are made. After that, the CIR is given 120 days, from the submission of complete documents in support of said administrative claim, within which to grant or deny said claim. Upon receipt of CIR’s decision, denying the claim in full or partially, or upon the expiration of the 120-day period without action from the CIR, the taxpayer has 30 days within which to file a petition for review with the CTA.

As earlier stated, this Court in Aichi clarified that the 120-day period granted to the CIR is mandatory and jurisdictional, the non-observance of which is fatal to the filing of a judicial claim with the CTA. The Court further explained that the two-year prescriptive period under Section 112(A) of the NIRC pertains only to the filing of the administrative claim with the BIR; while the judicial claim may be filed with the CTA within 30 days from the receipt of the decision of the CIR or expiration of 120-day period of the CIR to act on the claim. x x x

x x x x

Subsequently, in San Roque, while the Court reiterated the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day periods, it recognized as an exception BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, issued prior to the promulgation of Aichi, where the BIR expressly allowed the filing of judicial claims with the CTA even before the lapse of the 120-day period. The Court held that BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 furnishes a valid basis to hold the CIR in estoppel because the CIR had misled taxpayers into filing judicial claims before the CTA even before the lapse of the 120-day period:

There is no dispute that the 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional, and that the CTA does not acquire jurisdiction over a judicial claim that is filed before the expiration of the 120-day period. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule. The first exception is if the Commissioner, through a specific ruling, misleads a particular taxpayer to prematurely file a judicial claim with the CTA. Such specific ruling is applicable only to such particular taxpayer. The second exception is where the Commissioner, through a general interpretative rule issued under Section 4 of the Tax Code, misleads all taxpayers into filing prematurely judicial claims with the CTA. In these cases, the Commissioner cannot be

Taxation Law

Exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120-day period under Section 112 (c ) of the NIRCSection 112 of the NIRC provides for the rules on claiming refunds or tax credits of unutilized input VAT, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:

Sec. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. –

A) Zero-rated or Effectively Zero-rated Sales. – Any VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: x x x

x x x x

C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. – In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) hereof.

Doctrinal RemindersCommercial Law (Continued)


Remedial Law

allowed to later on question the CTA’s assumption of jurisdiction over such claim since equitable estoppel has set in as expressly authorized under Section 246 of the Tax Code.

x x x x

BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 is a general interpretative rule because it was a response to a query made, not by a particular taxpayer, but by a government agency tasked with processing tax refunds and credits, that is, the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Drawback Center of the Department of Finance. This government agency is also the addressee, or the entity responded to, in BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. Thus, while this government agency mentions in its query to the Commissioner the administrative claim of Lazi Bay Resources Development, Inc., the agency was in fact asking the Commissioner what to do in cases like the tax claim of Lazi Bay Resources Development, Inc., where the taxpayer did not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period.

Clearly, BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 is a general interpretative rule. Thus, all taxpayers can rely on BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 from the time of its issuance on December 10, 2003 up to its reversal by this Court in Aichi on October 6, 2010, where this Court held that the 120+30 day periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. (Emphasis supplied)

Following San Roque, the Court, in a catena of cases, has consistently adopted the rule that the 120-day waiting period does not apply to claims for refund that were prematurely filed during the period from the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on December 10, 2003, until October 6, 2010, when the Aichi was promulgated; but before and after said period, the observance of the 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional.

x x x x

All told, the Court maintains that the 120-day period is permissible from December 10, 2003, when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was issued, until October 6, 2010, when Aichi was promulgated; but before and after said period, the observance of the 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional.

Caguioa, J., Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Deutsche Knowledge Services, PTE. LTD., November 7, 2016.

Issuance of Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan, when warrantedThe Sasa Wharf Modernization Project has not yet reached the construction stage. The bidding process had not even

been concluded when the present petition was filed. On this account, the petition is also premature for the purpose of compelling the respondents to comply with Sections 26 and 27 of the LGC.

The purpose of a writ of continuing mandamus is to compel the respondent to perform his duties under the law. This remedy is available when any government agency, instrumentality, or officer unlawfully neglects a specific legal duty in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law, rule, or regulation, or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

The writ cannot be resorted to when the respondent is not the person obliged to perform the duty under the law (as is the case under the EIS System) or when the period for the respondent to perform its legal duty has not yet expired (as is the case with the consultation requirements of the LGC). Accordingly, we cannot issue a writ of continuing mandamus.

The petition does not warrant a Writ of Kalikasan

Likewise, the Court cannot issue a writ of kalikasan based on the petition. The writ is a remedy to anyone whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission. However, the violation must involve environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces in order to warrant the issuance of the writ.

The petitioners allege that the respondents have begun the process of transgressing their right to health and a balanced ecology through the bidding process. They cite The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: Synthesis Report to identify the four major negative impacts related to port operations: 1) environmental impacts, 2) land use impacts, 3) traffic impacts, and 4) other impacts. The synthesis report claims that most of these impacts affect the surrounding localities.

They claim that the environmental impacts of port operations “are within the field of air emissions, water quality, soil, waste, biodiversity, noise and other impacts. These environmental impacts can have severe consequences for the health of the population of the port city, especially for the poorer parts of port cities.”

The petitioners also cite Managing Impacts of Development in the Coastal Zone, a joint publication of the DENR, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and the DENR Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP) that identified the effects of coastal construction and reclamation, including ports and offshore moorings. The petition alleges that:

26. According to Managing Impacts, “Coastal construction has been the most widespread of


The Little Angels Home, Inc., established in 1998, is a child-caring facility providing 24-hour resident group care service for the physical, mental, social and spiritual well-being of mentally-gifted, dependent, abandoned, neglected, handicapped, disturbed, abused and exploited children. It is supervised by the sisters from the Handmaids of the Risen Christ Monastic Community (HRC).

Twenty-six PHILJA employees, 15 from Manila and 11 from the PHILJA Training Center in Tagaytay, handed out the special gifts, voluntarily donated by PHILJA officials and employees, consisting of sacks of rice, milk, canned goods and assorted groceries. They also brought and distributed lunch, tetra pack juice and cakes, much to the kids’ delight. During their two-hour stay, the staff played with the kids, shared stories with them and even took group photos with the children. The little angels, as an expression of their gratitude, rendered a dance number for the PHILJA staff.

PHILJA: Spreading Love, Hope and Joy (Continued from page 9)

by Mr. Karim A. A. Khan Q.C. and Dato Shyamala Alagendra; Substantive Offenses: Extrajudicial Killings by Mr. Khan; Modes of Liability: Individual Criminal Responsibility by Prof. Dr. Judge Fausto Pocar; and Substantive Offenses: Enslavement and War Crimes by Prof. Dr. David Cohen. Day two lecture topics were Substantive Offenses: Terrorisation of Civilian Population and Persecution by Judge Pocar; Modes of Liability: Superior Responsibility by Prof. Cohen; and International Trials by Judge Pocar and Mr. Khan.

A moot court exercise during the afternoon session of the second day of the program was facilitated by Judge Pocar, Prof. Cohen, Mr. Khan and Dato Alagendra. Participants were divided into three groups (Group 1 - Prosecution; Group 2 - State; Group 3 - Defense) and worked on a common three-part ICC Moot Court Fact Pattern - The Kingdom of Zell.

On the third day, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio delivered a Lecture on the West Philippine Sea Dispute. PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna delivered the closing remarks.

The basic and advanced courses on ICLS required participants to register online through the ICLS microsite found on the PHILJA website. The ICLS microsite, which also contains relevant information on the special course, was created through the efforts of the Academy’s PHILJA Administrative Office, and the Research, Publications and Linkages Office.

activities affecting coastal resources” since “Any construction that modifies the shoreline will invariably change currents, wave action, tidal fluctuations, and the transport of sediments along the coast” while “Coastal construction that restricts the circulation of coastal water bodies can also degrade water quali[t]y and coastal ecosystems.”

However, these allegations are insufficient to warrant a writ of kalikasan.

First, the petition failed to identify the particular threats from the Project itself. All it does is cite the negative impacts of operating a port inside a city based on the Synthesis Report. However, these impacts already exist because the Port of Davao has been operating since 1900. The Project is not for the creation of a new port but the modernization of an existing one. At best, the allegations in support of the application for the writ of kalikasan are hazy and speculative.

Second, the joint publication is titled Managing Impacts of Development in the Coastal Zone for a reason; it identifies the potential environmental impacts and proposes mitigation measures to protect the environment. The petition is misleading because it only identified the risks but neglected to mention the existence and availability of mitigating measures.

Moreover, this Court does not have the technical competence to assess the Project, identify the environmental threats, and weigh the sufficiency or insufficiency of any proposed mitigation measures. This specialized competence is lodged in the DENR, who acts through the EMB in the EIA process. As we have already established, the application of the EIS System is premature until a proponent is selected.

Further, we fail to see an environmental risk that threatens to prejudice the inhabitants of two or more cities or municipalities if we do not restrain the conduct of the bidding process. The bidding process is not equivalent to the implementation of the project. The bidding process itself cannot conceivably cause any environmental damage.

Finally, it is premature to conclude that the respondents violated the conditions of Resolution No. 118 issued by the Regional Development Council of Region Xl. Notably, the Resolution requires compliance before the implementation of the project. Again, the project has not yet reached the implementation stage.

Brion, J., Pilar Cañeda Braga, et al., v. Hon. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, G.R. No. 223076, September 13, 2016.

Special Course on International Criminal Law and Security(Continued from page 9)

Doctrinal RemindersRemedial Law (Continued)

(Next page)


The PHILJA staff were in accord that the charity project was a humbling and enriching experience. “Masarap sa pakiramdam na nakatulong ako sa kanila,” said Ms. Perla D. Villanueva, Utility Worker II from the Office of the Chancellor. Mr. Armando Marinduque, Household Attendant III from the PHILJA Training Center, cannot help but recall the happiness on the children’s faces. “Masaya ako na nakatulong ako sa kanila sa ganoong paraan at nakapagbahagi ng biyaya sa mga batang katulad nila,” he said. Because of the experience they gained and the happiness they felt during the charity project, they hope that a yearly outreach activity will be undertaken by the Academy.

The eight-minute audio-visual presentation (AVP) of the charity project was shown during the PHILJA Christmas Program held at the Auditorium of the Court of Appeals, Manila on December 19.

The program featured the annual Christmas pictorial and office parade, with the staff in Hawaiian-inspired outfits; Search for Videoke King and Queen won by Mr. Ricky E. Aznar and Ms. Lilian Catherine R. Arcullo; and the repeat of the winning “Freddie Mercury’s I Want to Break Free” performance of Mr. Brian Evangelista in the recently concluded SC Lip Sync Battle.

A surprise AVP was presented in honor of Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose “Pepe” P. Perez as one of the forerunners of the Academy. Justice Perez, in his response, recalled his deep involvement with PHILJA and

• Orientation and Training Seminar for Court Decongestion Officers of Beneficiary Courts in the Third, Fourth, and National Capital Judicial Regions

March 1–2, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Annual Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Association of Court Social Workers, Inc. (PACSWI)

March 1–3, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Gender Sensitivity Training (Training of Trainers) March 7, Manila

• Philippine Women Judges Association (PWJA) Convention March 9–10, Ilocos

• Personal Security Training March 14–16, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution

March 21–24, Cagayan

First Quarter 2017 Upcoming Training Programs and Activities (Continued from page 52)

• Training on Online Sexual Exploitation of Children (OSEC) March 22–24, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Orientation on Judicial Dispute Resolution (Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, and Law Practitioners)

March 23, Cagayan de Oro

• Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Legal Researchers and Social Workers Handling Anti-Trafficking in Persons Cases

March 27–30, TBA

• Competency Enhancement Training for Family Court Judges, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Investigators on the Management of Online Sexual Exploitation of Children Cases

March 29–31, TBA

• Recruitment of Mediators March 28–30, Mati, Davao Oriental and Nabunturan,

Compostela Valley

• Basic Judicial Training on Cybercrime for Judges for Selected Judges from NCJR

March 29–30, Manila

In his Christmas Message, PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna stressed three important virtues that the Academy learned in 2016: simplicity, compassion and thanksgiving. “Simplicity is accomplishing so much with so little and by being so we have produced world-class TPAs. Compassion is awareness of each other, forgiving the faults of one another and accepting your neighbor and co-worker. We also give thanks to God, who is the source of everything, for what we have, what we are and what we will be,” Justice Azcuna said. He likewise acknowledged the talents that PHILJA staff show, and congratulated the staff for the PHILJA achievements in 2016. He challenged everyone to continue to improve and shine internationally.

thanked everyone for all the fruitful years of partnership with the Academy.


A.M. NO. 15-12-05-SC

REVISED GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SPMS) IN THE JUDICIARY

Pursuant to Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 2012,1 and in line with Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 13, Series of 1999,2 Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 20093 and Administrative Matter No. 03-06-13-SC,4 the following rules and guidelines are hereby prescribed to implement the Supreme Court Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS), as follows:

I

Title

Section 1. This shall be known and cited as the “Guidelines on the Implementation of Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) in the Judiciary.

II

Declaration of Policy

Section 1. The Judiciary shall be united and driven towards a common vision of our desired future as an institution—a vision that is possible, to which all our individual and collective work will be aligned, and which will provide the overarching direction and focus on our operations and the institutional leadership that the Judiciary will exercise.

Sec. 2. The CSC mandates that all agencies should have a CSC approved Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS), wherein all performance-based human resources movements, and/or developments/interventions such as promotion, scholarship, training, rewards and incentives shall be based.

Sec. 3. The Judiciary shall be independent, effective, efficient and worthy of public trust and confidence.

Sec. 4. Investment in our people, not just for those performing adjudicative functions but also for those providing support services is necessary to enable the Judiciary and its personnel to grow and give satisfaction to the public that they serve.1 Guidelines in the Establishment and Implementation of Agency Strategic

Performance Management.2 Adopting the Revised Policies on the Performance Evaluation System CSC MC

No. 07-2007. 3 Reiterating the Installation of a Performance Management System.4 Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.

III

Rationale

Section 1. The SPMS is a concept that links employees’ performance with the agency vision, mission and strategic goals.

Sec. 2. The system ensures organizational effectiveness and improvement of individual employee efficiency by cascading organizational accountabilities to the various levels of the organization anchored on the establishment of rational and factual basis for performance targets and measures.

Sec. 3. SPMS will link performance management with other HR systems and ensure adherence to the principle of results-based/performance-based tenure and incentive scheme.

IV

Basic Elements

Section 1. The basic elements of the SPMS are as follows:

A. Goal aligned to agency mandate and organizational priorities. Performance goals and measurements of the Judiciary are aligned to national development plans, mandate under the Constitution, vision, mission, and strategic priorities, and/or organizational performance indicator framework. Predetermined standards are integrated into the success indicators as organizational objectives are cascaded down to the operational level.

B. Outputs/outcomes-based. The system puts premium on the major final outputs (MFOs) that contribute to the realization of the organization’s mandate, vision, mission, strategic priorities, outputs, and outcomes.

C. Team approach to performance management. Accountability and individual roles in the achievement of organizational goals are clearly defined to facilitate collective goal setting and performance rating. The individual’s work plan or commitment and rating form is linked to the division, unit, and office work plan or commitment and rating form to clearly establish the connection between organizational and employee performance.

D. User-friendly. The forms to be used for organizational and individual commitments and performance shall be similar and easy to complete. The office, division, and individual major final outputs and success indicators are aligned to facilitate cascading organizational goals to individual employees and harmonization of organizational and staff performance ratings.

E. Information system that supports monitoring and evaluation. A monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and information systems that facilitate the linkage between organizational and employee performance and generate timely, accurate, and reliable information


that can be used to track performance, report accomplishments, improve programs, and be the basis for policy decision-making shall be established. Mechanics and features of this information system shall be discussed with appropriate officials and personnel of the SC, CA, SB, CTA and the lower courts through the Office of the Court Administrator.

Sec. 2. Communication Plan. An orientation program for Judiciary officials and employees on the new policies on SPMS shall be implemented. This is to promote awareness and interest on the system and generate appreciation for the Judiciary SPMS as a management tool to engage officials and employees as partners in the achievement of organizational goals.

V

Scope and Coverage

Section 1. The SPMS shall apply to all officials and employees of the Judiciary, except Justices of the SC, CA, SB and CTA; the PHILJA Chancellor; JBC Members; Judges and part-time employees.

VI

Key Players and Responsibilities

Section 1. SPMS Champion (Head of Agency) – Chief Justice

1.1. Primarily responsible and accountable for the establishment and implementation of the SPMS.

1.2. Sets the Judiciary’s performance goals/objectives and performance measures.

1.3. Determines the Judiciary’s target setting period.

1.4. Approves office performance commitments and ratings.

1.5. Assesses performance of offices.

Sec. 2. Performance Management Teams

2.1. The Performance Management Teams (PMTs) shall have the following responsibilities:

a) Set consultation meetings with all Heads of Offices/Divisions to discuss the office performance commitment and rating system and tools;

b) Ensure that office performance management targets, measures, and budget are aligned with the goals of the agency;

c) Recommend approval of the office performance and rating system and tools;

d) Act as appeals body and final arbiter;

e) Identify potential top performers for awards; and

f) Adopt internal rules, procedures, and strategies to carry out its responsibilities.

2.2. Supreme Court Performance Management Team (SC-PMT) shall be composed of the following:

Chairperson Chief Justice or designated representative, Office of the Chief Justice

Vice Chairperson Clerk of Court/Deputy Clerk of Court

Members Chief/Assistant Chief, Office of Administrative Services (OAS-SC)

Chief/Assistant Chief, Office of Administrative Services, (OAS-OCA)

Representative, Supreme Court Assembly of Lawyer Employees (SCALE)

Representative, Second Level Employees, Supreme Court Employees Association (SCEA)

Representative, First Level Employees, Supreme Court Employees Association (SCEA)

2.3. Court of Appeals Performance Management Team (CA-PMT) shall be composed of the following:

Chairperson Presiding Justice or designated Representative

Vice Chairperson Executive Clerk of Court IV

Members Chief Judicial Staff Officer of Personnel Division

Chief Judicial Staff Officer of Finance

Planning Officer

Chief Judicial Staff Officer of any designated office

ACAE Representative

2.4. The Sandiganbayan Performance Management Team (SB-PMT) shall be composed of the following:

Chairperson Presiding Justice or Authorized Representative

Vice Chairperson Executive Clerk of Court IV

Members Chief Legal Office

Chief JSO Administrative Division

Chief JSO Finance Division

SBEA Representative


2.5. The Court of Tax Appeals Performance Management Team (CTA-PMT) shall be composed of the following:

Chairperson Presiding Justice or Designated Representative

Vice Chairperson Clerk of Court (Executive Clerk of Court IV)

Members Chief of Office, Office of Legal and Technical Services

Chief of Office, Office of Administrative and Finance Services

Representative, Employees Association

2.6. The Performance Management Teams for Lower Courts (PMT-LC) shall be composed of the following:

Chairperson Court Administrator

Vice Chairperson Deputy Court Administrators (in charge of the regions)

Members Chief/Assistant Chief, OAS, OCA

Chief/Assistant Chief RTC Personnel Division

Chief/Assistant Chief MTC etc. Personnel Division

Representative First Level Employee (PACE)

Representative Second Level Employee (PACE)

2.7. Each office in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals shall create its own Office Performance Management Team (OPMT) with the following composition:

Chairperson Chief of Office

Vice Chairperson Assistant Chief of Office

Members Division Chiefs

Sec. 3. Planning Office

3.1. Act as the PMT Secretariat;

3.2. Schedule the review and evaluation of the Office Performance Commitment and Rating (OPCR) Form by the PMT;

3.3. Consolidate, review, validate and evaluate the initial performance assessment based on accomplishments reported against success indicators and budget against actual expenses;

3.4. Conduct an annual agency performance planning and review conference; and;

3.5. Provide each office with the final office assessment as basis in the assessment of individual employees.

Sec. 4. Office of Administrative Services (OAS)

4.1. Monitor submission of Individual Performance Commitment and Rating (IPCR) Form;

4.2. Review the summary list of individual performance rating;

4.3. Provide analytical data on retention, skill/competency gaps and talent development plan;

4.4. Coordinate developmental interventions that will form part of the HR Plan.

Sec. 5. Chief of Office

5.1. Assume primary responsibility for performance management in his/her office;

5.2. Conducts strategic planning session with supervisors and staff;

5.3. Review and approve individual performance commitment and rating form;

5.4. Submit quarterly accomplishment report;

5.5. Conduct initial assessment of office’s performance;

5.6. Determine final assessment of individual employees’ performance level;

5.7. Inform employees of the final rating and identify necessary interventions to employees; and

5.8. Provide written notice to subordinates who obtain Unsatisfactory or Poor rating.

Sec. 6. Division/Section Chief

6.1 Assume joint responsibility with the Head of Office in attaining performance targets;

6.2. Rationalize distribution of targets and tasks;

6.3. Monitor closely the status of performance of subordinates;

6.4. Assess individual employees’ performance; and

6.5. Recommend developmental interventions.

Sec. 7. Individual Employees

7.1. Act as partners of management and co-employees in meeting organizational performance goals.

7.2. Prepares an Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR) and Monitoring Report Form to be given to his immediate supervisor.

7.3. Documents at least quarterly mentoring and coaching discussions with his immediate supervisor using the Individual Performance Monitoring and Coaching Journal.

ResolutionsA.M. NO. 15-12-05-SC (continued)


VII

SPMS Four-Stage Cycle and Calendar

Section. 1. Performance Planning and Commitment

The Judiciary shall conduct an annual Planning, Programming and Budgeting Workshop. Thereafter, all Chiefs of Offices shall meet with the Division/Section Chiefs and employees and agree on the outputs that should be accomplished based on the goals and objectives set for the Judiciary.

The suggested time for Performance Planning and Commitment is the last quarter of the preceding year.

During this stage, success indicators are determined. Success indicators are performance level yardsticks consisting of performance measures and performance targets. This shall serve as bases in the office and individual employee’s preparation of their performance contract and rating form.

Performance measures shall include any one, combination of, or all of the following general categories:

CATEGORY DEFINITION

Effectiveness/Quality

The extent to which actual performance compares with targeted performance. The degree to which objectives are achieved and the extent to which targeted problems are solved. In management, effectiveness relates to getting the right things done.

Efficiency

The extent to which time or resources is/are used for the intended task or purpose. Measures whether targets are accomplished with a minimum amount or quantity of waste, expense or unnecessary effort.

Timeliness

Measures whether the deliverable was done on time based on the requirements of the law and/or clients/stakeholders. Time-related performance indicators evaluate such things as project completion deadlines, time management skills and other time sensitive expectations.

Competency

A “cluster of related knowledge, skills and attitudes that affect a major part of one’s job (a role or responsibility), that correlates with performance on the job, and can be measured against well accepted standards, and that can be improved through training and development.”

The Judiciary Development Plan, Annual Budget Plans and Programs etc., shall be the basis of the targets of the Offices. Aside from the Office commitments explicitly identified under the Judiciary Development Plan, MFOs that contribute to the attainment of the organizational mission/vision which form part of the core functions of the Judiciary and its offices shall be indicated as performance targets.

The targets shall take into account any combination of, or all of the following:

• Historical data. The data shall consider past performance.

• Benchmarking. This involves identifying and comparing the best agencies or institutions or units within the agency with similar functions or processes. Benchmarking may also involve recognizing existing standards based on provisions or requirements of the law.

• Client demand. This involves a bottom-up approach where the Judiciary sets targets based on the needs of its clients. It may consult with stakeholders and review the feedback on its services.

• OPES Reference Table. List of major final outputs with definition and corresponding OPES points.

• Top Management instruction. The Chief Justice may set targets and give special assignments.

• Future trend. Targets may be based from results of the comparative analysis of the actual performance of courts at each level with their potential performance.

In setting work targets, each Office shall indicate the detailed budget requirements per expense account to help in ensuring a strategy driven budget allocation and in measuring cost efficiency. These targets, performance measures, budget and responsibility centers are summarized in the Office Performance Commitment and Review (OPCR) Form.5

The approved Office Performance Commitment and Review Form shall serve as basis for individual performance targets and measures to be prepared in the Division Performance Commitment and Review (DPCR) Form6 and Individual Employee’s Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR) Form.7

The Offices shall also identify specific division/unit/group/individuals as primarily accountable for producing a particular target output per program/project/activity. These targets, performance measures, budget and responsibility centers shall be summarized in the OPCR. The OPCR must be approved by the Chief Justice on the 15th of June and December preceding the start of a new semester.

The approved OPCR shall serve as basis for individual performance targets and measures to be prepared in the IPCR.

Unless the work output of a particular duty has been assigned pre-set standards by management, its standards shall be agreed upon by the supervisors and the ratees. Individual

5 Annex “A”. Office Performance Commitment and Review (OPCR) Form6 Annex “B”. Division Performance Commitment and Review (DPCR) Form7 Annex “C”. Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR) Form


employee’s performance standards shall not be lower than the agency’s standards in its approved OPCR Form.

Sec. 2. Performance Monitoring and Coaching

This will be done regularly during the performance period by the Planning Office, Chiefs of Office, Division and Office Heads, and the individual. The focus is creating an enabling environment to improve team performance and develop individual potentials.

Supervisors and coaches play a critical role at this stage. Their focus is on the critical function of managers and supervisors as coaches and mentors in order to provide an enabling environment/intervention to improve team performance; and manage and develop individual potentials.

Each office will submit a quarterly accomplishment report which is also the Office Performance Commitment and Review (OPCR) and Monitoring Report Form to be submitted on the first Monday of the succeeding quarter to the Planning Office.

Each individual will submit a quarterly accomplishment report which is also the Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR) and Monitoring Report Form to be submitted on the first Monday of the succeeding quarter to the Division Chief with a copy to the Office of Administrative Services.

Division and/or Individual Performance Mentoring and Coaching Journals must also be completed every quarter.

Sec. 3. Performance Review and Evaluation

The performance review and evaluation will be done at regular intervals to assess both the performance of the individual and his/her office. The suggested time periods for Performance Review and Evaluation are the first week of July and the first week of January the following year.

a. Office Performance Assessment

i. The Planning Office or any responsible unit in the agency shall consolidate, review, validate and evaluate the initial performance assessment of each Offices based on the reported Office accomplishments against the success indicators, and the allotted budget against actual expenses. The result of the assessment shall be submitted to the PMT for calibration and recommendation to the Chief Justice or its representative who shall determine the final rating of offices/units.

ii. A review conference shall be conducted annually by the Planning Office for the purpose of discussing the Office assessment with concerned Chiefs of Offices. This shall include participation of the Financial Management and Budget Office as regards budget utilization.

iii. Any issue/appeal/protest on the Office assessment shall be articulated by the concerned head of office and decided by the Chief Justice or its representative during this conference.

iv. The final rating shall no longer be appealable/contestable after the conference.

v. The Planning Office shall provide each Office with the final Office Assessment to serve as basis in the assessment of individual staff members.

vi. After the Planning Office sends the final Office Assessment, the Chief of Office and his/her Division Chiefs shall discuss office direction and development plan.

b. Performance Assessment for Individuals

i. The immediate supervisor shall assess individual employee performance based on the commitments made at the beginning of the rating period. The performance rating shall be based solely on records of accomplishment; there is no need for self-rating.

ii. The supervisor shall indicate qualitative comments, observations and recommendations in the individual employee’s performance commitment and review form to include competency assessment and critical incidents which shall be used for human resource development purposes such as promotion and other interventions.

iii. Employee’s assessment shall be discussed by the supervisor with the concerned ratee prior to the submission of the individual employee’s performance commitment and review form to the Head of Office.

iv. The Chief of Office shall determine the final assessment of performance level of the individual employee in his/her Office based on proof of performance. The final assessment shall correspond to the adjectival description of Outstanding, Very Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Poor.

v. The Chief of Office may adopt appropriate mechanism to assist him/her distinguish performance level of individuals, such as but not limited to peer ranking and client feedback.

vi. The employee and his immediate supervisor must accomplish a Professional Development Plan8 (agree on Strengths of Employee, Development Areas of Employee and Plans of Action). This is mandatory for employees who were rated Unsatisfactory and Poor in the preceding

8 Annex ”D” Professional Development Plan



rating period and for employees who exhibit Unsatisfactory or Poor performance during the rating period.

vii. The Chief of Office and the immediate supervisor shall also accomplish the Competency Evaluation Form.9

viii. The Chief of Office shall ensure that the employee is notified of his/her final performance assessment and the Summary List of Individual Ratings10 with the attached IPCRs are submitted to the Office of Administrative Services within the prescribed period.

Sec. 4. Performance Rewarding and Development Planning

a. Part of the individual employee’s evaluation is the competency assessment vis-à-vis the competency requirements of the job. The result of the assessment shall be discussed by the Chief of Office and immediate supervisors with the individual employee at the end of each rating period. The discussion shall focus on the strengths, competency-related performance gaps and the opportunities to address these gaps, career paths and alternatives.

b. Appropriate development interventions based on the competency assessment shall be made available by the Chief of Office and immediate supervisor/s in coordination with the Office of Administrative Services/Personnel Office.

c. The result of the competency assessment shall be treated independently of the performance rating of the employee.

d. The Professional Development Plan to improve or correct performance of employees with Unsatisfactory and Poor performance ratings must be outlined, including timelines, and monitored to measure progress.

e. Based on the results of the performance review and evaluation, developmental interventions shall be made available to specific employees when appropriate.

f. The results of performance evaluation/assessment shall serve as inputs to the:

• Heads of Offices in identifying and providing the kinds of interventions needed, based on the developmental needs identified;

• Office of Administrative Services/Personnel Office in consolidating and coordinating developmental interventions that will form part of the HR Plan and the basis for rewards and incentives;

• PMT in identifying potential PRAISE Awards nominees for various awards categories; and

• PRAISE Committee in determining-top performers of the Agency who qualify for awards and incentives.

Sec. 5. The SPMS Calendar shall reflect the four-stage cycle with activities, unit/person responsible and time-frame for each phase.

VIII

Mechanics of Performance Rating

Section 1. Rating Period

The performance of an employee shall be monitored over a six-month performance rating period, viz, from January to June and from July to December.

Sec. 2. SPMS Rating Scale

NUMERICAL RATING ADJECTIVAL RATING5 Outstanding4 Very Satisfactory3 Satisfactory2 Unsatisfactory1 Poor

Sec. 3. Competency Assessment Rating

360-Degree – Peer Evaluation Form

NameSupervisor Name (3-Way Management)Job TitleDivision

Definition of Ratings

PARTICULARS RATINGExceptional – Consistently exceeds all relevant performance standards. Provides leadership, foster teamwork, is highly productive, innovative, responsiveness and generates top quality work. Active in office – related professional and or/community groups.

5

Exceeds Expectations – Consistently meets and often exceeds all relevant performance standards. Shows initiative and versatility, works collaboratively, has strong technical & interpersonal skills or has achieved significant improvement in these areas.

4

Meets Expectations – Meets all relevant performance standards. Seldom exceeds or falls short of desired results or objectives. Lacks appropriate level of skills or is inexperienced/still learning the scope of the job

3

9 Annex “E” Competency Evaluation Form10 Annex “F” Summary List of Individual Ratings


Below Expectations – Sometimes meets the performance standards. Seldom exceeds and often falls short of desired results. Performance has declined significantly, or employee has not sustained adequate improvement, as required since the last performance review or performance improvement plan.

2

Needs Improvement – Consistently falls short of performance standards. 1

Instructions

Describe the employee’s contributions in each of the functional competency. It is very important that you demonstrate precise, detailed example since the last performance evaluation. Ratings must support and be substantiated by narrative comments.

(Insert Functional Competency here)

RATING 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

(Insert definition of Functional Competency here)Comments:

Supplementary Feedback

In what field do you endorse this employee concentrate for development?Suggested training program/s as intervention for employee advancement.

Sec. 4. Judiciary’s goals, priorities, success indicators and Major Final Outputs (MFO) are in accord with Civil Service Commission standards. Each MFO is based on the dimensions of performance or accomplishments, namely: quality, efficiency and timeliness.

Sec. 5. Quality or Effectiveness means getting the right things done. It refers to the degree to which objectives are achieved as intended and the extent to which issues are addressed with a certain degree of excellence.

2.1. Quality or effective performance involves the following elements:

a) Acceptability;

b) Meeting Standards;

c) Client satisfaction with services rendered;

d) Accuracy;

e) Meeting Standards; and

f) Completeness or comprehensiveness of reports;

g) Creativity or innovation; and

h) Personal initiative.

Sec. 6. Efficiency is the extent to which targets are accomplished using the minimum amount of time or resources.

Efficient performance applies to continuing tasks or frontline services (e.g., issuance of visas, licenses, permits, clearances and certificates). It involves the following elements:

a) Standard response time;

b) Number of requests/applications acted upon over number of requests/applications received; and

c) Optimum use of resources (e.g., money, logistics and office supplies).

Sec. 7. Timeliness measures if the targeted deliverable was done within the scheduled or expected time frame. Timely performance involves meeting deadlines as set in the work plan.

Sec. 8. Standard of Performance Measures

a. Quantity/Efficiency

FIXED TARGET PLANNED TARGET

5

100% or more of target completed with optimum use of prescribed resources

Performance exceeding targets by 30% and above of the planned targets; from the previous definition of performance exceeding targets by at least 50%.

4

90–99.9% of target completed with optimum use of prescribed resources

Performance exceeding targets by 15% to 29% of the planned targets; from the previous range of performance.

3

75–89% of target completed with optimum use of prescribed resources

Performance of 100% to 114% of the planned targets.

2

61–74.9% of target completed with above 10% use of prescribed resources

Performance of 51% to 99% of the planned targets.

1

60% and below of target completed with 20% above use of prescribed resources

Performance failing to meet the planned targets by 50% or below.

b. Quality/Effectiveness of Work

5

Accurately, clearly presented and well organized output, with satisfaction from client of the services rendered. All aspects of work assignment covered

4

Output delivered in accordance with prescribed guidelines; clearly presented and organized; with client satisfaction; one or two errors but results still very good



3Output delivered within prescribed guidelines, with more than one or two minor errors or deficiencies; requires minor/partial revisions

2 Output delivered with one or two major errors or deficiencies; requires major revisions

1Output not acceptable; haphazardly done and /or careless in the execution/ implementation of work; needs total revision

c. Timeliness

5 Output delivered 20% ahead of prescribed time of completion

4 Output delivered 10% ahead of prescribed time of completion

3 Output delivered in prescribed time of completion2 Output delivered 10% after the prescribed time of

completion1 Output delivered 20% after the prescribed time of

completion

Sec. 9. Each Success Indicator has the following features of S-M-A-R-T: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Time-Bound.

Sec. 10. Competency Measurements.11

Sec. 11. Employees’ rating shall be based on pre-determined targets based on duties and responsibilities as contained in their duly approved Office Performance Commitment and Review and Individual Performance Commitment and Review.

Sec. 12. The management principles stated under this Rule shall also apply in the performance rating of operating units.

Sec. 13. The performance rate as to quality, efficiency and timeliness is measured using a numerical scale ranging from 1 to 5 — with 1 as the lowest and 5 as the highest. The table below explains the meaning of each rating:

Sec. 14. For the rating to be objective, impartial, and verifiable, the operational definition or meaning of each numerical rating under each relevant dimension (i.e., quality, efficiency, or timeliness) per performance target or success indicator must be indicated.

Sec. 15. The average of all individual performance assessments shall not go higher than the collective performance assessment of the Office.

IX

Sanctions

Section 1. Unless justified, the non-submission of the Office Performance Commitment and Review (OPCR) Form to the Performance Management Team (PMT), and the Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR) Form to the

Office of Administrative Services/Personnel Office within the specified period shall be a ground for:

1.1. Employee’s disqualification from performance-based personnel actions which would require the rating for the given period such as promotion, training or scholarship grants and performance enhancement bonus, if the failure of the submission of the report form is the fault of the employees; and

1.2. Administrative sanction for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations such as simple neglect of duty of supervisors or employee’s responsible for the delay or non-submission of such forms.

Sec. 2. The failure on the part of the Head of Office to comply with the required notices to their subordinates for their unsatisfactory or poor performance during a rating period shall be a ground for an administrative offense for neglect of duty.

X

Appeal

Section 1. The Office Performance Assessment as discussed in the performance review conference shall be final and not appealable. Any issue on the initial performance assessment of an Office shall be discussed and decided during the performance review conference.

Sec. 2. Individual employees who feel aggrieved or dissatisfied with their performance rating may file an appeal with the Performance Management Team within 15 days from receipt of the notice of their final performance evaluation from the Head of Office.

Sec. 3. The Performance Management Team shall decide on the appeal within one month from receipt thereof.

Sec. 4. The decision of the PMT is merely recommendatory. The Chief Justice shall make the final decision. The final decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court as part of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedy and due process.

Sec. 5. Officials or employees who are separated from the service on the basis of Unsatisfactory or Poor Performance rating can appeal to the Civil Service Commission or its Regional Office within 15 days from receipt of the order or notice of separation.

Sec. 6. Employees are not allowed to protest the performance ratings of their fellow employees.

XI

Effectivity

Section 1. These guidelines shall take effect and implemented immediately upon the approval of the Supreme Court En Banc.

(Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENOChief Justice 11 Annex “G” Competency Measurements


SPMS Annex A

SUCCESS INDICATORSMAJOR FINAL OUTPUT (TARGETS + MEASURES) Alloted Budget Divisions Accountable Actual Accomplishments Remarks

Q E T Ave.MFO1 100% of 15 offices or more of 12,127 million PRINTING SERVICES See Annual Report January PRINTING SERVICES the Court's printing needs and MTEP 2017 to June 2016

requirements: PRINTED and REPRODUCED ACCURATELY within 6 months.

MFO2

Start of rating period End of rating period

Position: Position: Position:Date: Date:

_____________________________________________Signature of Head of Office

Date: _____________________________________

I, ___________________________________________________, commit to deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of the following targets in accordance with the indicated measures for

OFFICE PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW (OPCR) FORM

the period _________________________________.

ManilaSUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Position:

Total RatingFinal Average Rating

Assessed by PMT Secretariat Reviewed by PMT Chairman Final Rating by:Start of rating period

Position:Date:

End of rating period

Rating:5 - Outstanding4 - Very Satisfactory3 - Satisfactory2 - Unsatisfactory1 - Poor

APPROVED BY:

Position: Senior Chief Staff OfficerDate: June 17, 2016

Name: Leticia G. Javier

Date: Date:

Rating

SPMS Annex B


Q E T Ave.MFO1

MFO2

_____________________________________________Signature of Division Head

Date: ________________________________________

I, ___________________________________________, commit to deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of the following targets in accordance with the indicated measures for

DIVISION PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW (DPCR) FORM

the period ___________________________________.

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINESManila

Final Rating by:Position:Date:

Rating


1 - Poor

APPROVED BY:

Position:Date:

Name :

Rating:5 - Outstanding4 - Very Satisfactory3 - Satisfactory2 - Unsatisfactory


SPMS Annex A

SPMS Annex B


SPMS Annex C

Rating:5 - Outstanding

APPROVED BY: 4 - Very SatisfactoryName: Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes 3 - SatisfactoryPosition: Creative Arts Specialist I 2 - Unsatisfactory

1 - Poor


Q E T Ave.MFO1

MFO2

_____________________________________________Signature of Employee

Date: _______________________________________

Manila

I, ______________________________________________________, commit to deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of the following targets in accordance with the indicated measures for

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND REVIEW (IPCR) FORM

the period __________________________.

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Date: June 16, 2016

Position:

The above rating has been discussed with

Date:

Rating


Rater's comments and recommendations for Development purposes or Rewards/Promotion:

Name and Signature of Ratee: Name and Signature of Rater: Final Rating by the Head of Office:

Position:Date:

Position:Date:

SPMS Annex D SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Manila

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Date Aim

Objective

Target Review Date Achieved Date Comments

Task

Outcome

Next step

SPMS Annex C

SPMS Annex D


SPMS Annex E

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES Manila

Competency Evaluation Form Section I: Evaluation Period Employee Name Employee Title Department (Please place “X” in one of the boxes below): Annual Assessment Six Month Introductory Period Section II: Competency Assessment. Functional Competency Performance – Assessment and Results Competency 1 Behavior

Rating of employee’s performance relative to expectations for this competency (Place “X” in one box) Greatly Exceeds

Targets Exceeds Targets Meets Targets Occasionally Meets Targets Unsatisfactory

Supervisor’s rating of employee’s performance relative to expectations for this competency (Place “X” in one box)

Greatly Exceeds Targets Exceeds Targets Meets Targets Occasionally

Meets Targets Unsatisfactory

Add lines as needed

SPMS Annex E

Section III: Overall Rating of Employee’s Job Performance (to be completed by Supervisor).

Summary of Rating (Place “X” in one box)

Greatly Exceeds Targets Exceeds Targets Meets Targets Occasionally

Meets Targets Unsatisfactory

Supervisor’s Overall Comments on Employee’s Performance:

List professional development goals for next assessment period. The employee fills his or her goals; then the supervisor finalizes the goal, based on dialogue with the employee. A. Employee proposed professional development goal(s):

1. 2. 3. 4.

Add lines as needed


SPMS Annex E


SPMS Annex E

B. Professional Development goal(s) as finalized by Supervisor: 1.

2.

3.

4. Add lines as needed C. Indicate ways manager/supervisor can assist employee in achieving goals.

D. Employee's signature does not indicate agreement, only that this assessment has been reviewed and discussed by both employee and supervisor. Employee may include written comments that will become part of the evaluation file.

Employee Signature Date Supervisor’s Name Date PRINT or TYPE Supervisor Name:

SPMS Annex F


SUMMARY LIST OF INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE / RATINGS

Agency: ________________________________________________________ Performance Assessment: ____________________________________________ Department: ____________________________________________________ Division:________________________________________________________ Name of Employees RATING

NUMERICAL ADJECTIVAL

No. of Employees: Average Rating of Staff:

Submitted by: _______________________________

Division Head

SPMS Annex F

SPMS Annex E


SPMS Annex G


COMPETENCY MEASUREMENTS

(Insert Competency here) Team Player/Team Work – Actively participating in teams efforts. The process of working collaboratively with a group of people in order to achieve a goal.

Greatly Exceeds Expectations

Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Occasionally Meets

Expectations Unsatisfactory

Key Behaviors

Deals sensitively in dealing with other members of the group

Helps others in achieving the common goal

Cooperates

Contributes to the tasks assigned

Treats every worker with respect

Assists fellow workers

Accepts criticisms

Comments:

Submitted by: ___________________ Immediate Superior

Performance Monitoring and Coaching Journal

QUARTER 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Name of Division: Division Chief: Number of Personnel in Division: Name of Coachee:

Activity

Mechanisms Meeting Others Remarks Signature of Coachee

One-on-One Group Memo (Pls. Specify)

Monitoring

Coaching

Please indicate the date in the appropriate box when the monitoring was conducted.

Conducted by:

Immediate Superior

Date: Noted by:

Chief of Office

Date:


SPMS Annex G


ORDERING 240 OTHER REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS TO HEAR, TRY AND DECIDE NEWLY-FILED CASES UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, AS AMENDED

WHEREAS, in compliance with Section 90, Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, the Supreme Court designated 65 “special courts from among the existing Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) in each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of this act;”

WHEREAS, there are also 529 RTCs in single and multiple-sala stations which likewise hear and decide drugs cases, in addition to 121 RTCs specially-designated as Family Courts having exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide drugs cases against minors pursuant to Republic Act No. 8369;

WHEREAS, consequently, at present, there are already 715 RTCs authorized to hear and decide drugs cases;

WHEREAS, because the volume of drugs cases remain high and the influx of new drugs cases is steadily rising, there is an urgency to authorize more courts to hear and decide drugs cases considering the already heavy dockets of specially-designated drugs courts and other RTCs handling drugs cases;

WHEREAS, with 715 RTCs out of the 955 RTCs already handling drugs cases, the remaining 240 other RTCs may be mobilized and directed to also hear, try and decide all newly-filed drugs cases to help decongest the dockets of specially-designated drugs courts and expedite the resolution of drugs cases;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court hereby orders the 240 other Regional Trial Courts to hear, try and under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, as follows:

1. All newly-filed drugs cases shall be raffled to, heard, tried and decided by all RTCs, except family courts and overburdened RTCs as determined by the OCA. All specially-designated drugs courts exclusively hearing drugs cases pursuant to RA No. 91651 shall be exempt from the raffle of newly-filed drugs cases. All newly-filed drugs cases involving minors shall continue to be raffled to, heard and tried exclusively by the designated family courts. This system of distribution of drugs cases shall continue until the number of drugs cases in the various court stations has become manageable, as determined by the OCA, or until

otherwise ordered discontinued by the Supreme Court;

2. All newly-filed drugs cases shall continue to be raffled to, heard and tried by specially-designated drugs courts in stations where the average caseload of the specially-designated drugs courts is lower than the average caseload of the other courts in those stations, until such time when the average caseload of the specially-designated drugs courts is higher than the average caseload of the other courts in those stations, as determined by the OCA. Courts which may later be designated to assist specially designated drugs courts shall be exempt from the raffle of newlyfiled drugs cases;

3. The OCA is hereby directed to closely monitor all courts handling drugs cases and undertake necessary measures to ensure the efficient distribution, handling and disposition of drug cases, such as but not limited to, the following:

a. Recommend the designation of assisting courts or assisting judges to specially-designated drugs courts and regular courts hearing drugs cases, as needed;

b. Submit quarterly reports to the Court including the nature of drugs cases filed and the amount of drugs involved in each case, based on the reports submitted by the trial courts; and

c. Perform such other tasks as are essential for the efficient distribution, handling and disposition of drugs cases.

These guidelines shall take effect immediately.

July 19, 2016.

(Sgd.) SERENO, CJ, CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, PEREZ, MENDOZA, REYES, PERLAS-BERNABE, LEONEN, JARDELEZA, CAGUIOA, JJ.

A.M. NO. 16-07-06-SC

1 This shall EXCLUDE all newly created courts which are specially designated drugs courts, as of March 2016 onwards, until such time when their caseloads shall have reached the average caseload of the other specially designated drugs courts in their respective stations.

THE LEGAL FEES TO BE COLLECTED IN CASES OF LIQUIDATION OF SOLVENT JURIDICAL DEBTORS, LIQUIDATION OF INSOLVENT JURIDICAL AND INDIVIDUAL DEBTORS, CONVERSION FROM REHABILITATION TO LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS, SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS OF INSOLVENT INDIVIDUAL DEBTORS AND PETITIONS IN AN OUT OF COURT RESTRUCTURING AGREEMENT PROVIDED UNDER A.M. NOS. 12-12-11-SC AND 15-04-06-SC

A.M. NO. 04-02-04-SC


RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, in a Resolution dated September 4, 2001 under A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, the Supreme Court En Banc declared that a petition for rehabilitation is considered a special proceeding, hence, Section 7(d) and (g) of Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court should be applied;

WHEREAS, in a Resolution dated November 25, 2002 likewise under A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, the Supreme Court En Banc separately laid down an equitable schedule of legal fees to be collected in cases of corporate rehabilitation;

WHEREAS, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-02-04-SC effective August 16, 2004, incorporated the equitable schedule of legal fees prescribed for petitions for rehabilitation under Section 21(i) thereof and, furthermore, provided under Section 21(k) thereof that the fees prescribed under Section 7(a) of the said rule shall apply to petitions for insolvency or other cases involving intra-corporate controversies;

WHEREAS, in order to be consistent with the policy statement of Republic Act No. 10142, otherwise known as the “Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010,” of ensuring a “timely, fair, transparent, effective and efficient rehabilitation or liquidation of debtors,” cases for liquidation and suspension of payments, those converted from rehabilitation to liquidation proceedings and petitions for court-assistance in the execution or implementation, or annulment of the standstill agreement or out of court restructuring agreement should likewise have an equitable schedule of legal fees;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Court resolves to ADOPT a new schedule of filing fees as follows:

1. Rates of Filing Fee. –

a. For cases converted from rehabilitation proceedings to liquidation proceedings in accordance with Sections 2 and 6, Rule 2 of the Financial Liquidation and Suspension of Payments Rules of Procedure (2015), otherwise known as the FLSP Rules, under A.M. No. 15-04-06-SC, no additional fees shall be collected.

b. For newly-filed petitions for liquidation of solvent juridical debtors, the applicable fees shall be those provided for petitions for rehabilitation proceedings under Sec. 21(i) of Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court.

c. For newly-filed petitions for liquidation of insolvent juridical and individual debtors, the fees payable shall be based on the value of the assets of, or amount of monetary claims against, the debtor, whichever is higher, which must be declared in the petition or the inventory/list of assets of the debtor required to be attached to the petition, as follows:

1. Less than P10,000,000 P10,000

2. P10,000,000 or more but less than P20,000,000 P20,000





7. P60,000,000 or more but not more than P70,000,000 P70,000



10. P90,000,000 or more P100,000

The value of the assets shall be based on the fair market value of the real properties of the petitioner stated in the tax declaration or the zonal value thereof fixed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, whichever is higher. If there is none or in case of personal property, the value shall be as stated by the petitioner in the petition or the inventory/list of assets attached thereto.

d. For cases involving suspension of payments of insolvent individual debtors, the fees payable shall be in accordance with the schedule of fees provided in the preceding paragraph.

e. For petitions for court-assistance to execute or implement or annul the Standstill Agreement or the Out of Court Restructuring Agreement (OCRA), the fees payable shall be in the fixed amount of P20,000.

2. Manner of Payment. –

a. Petitions for Liquidation of Solvent Juridical Debtors

(i) Fees amounting to P100,000 or less shall be paid upon the filing of the petition.

(ii) Fees in excess of P100,000 may be paid on staggered basis in accordance with the following schedule:

(1) 25% shall be paid upon the issuance of the Liquidation Order;

(2) 25% shall be paid upon the approval of the Liquidation Plan; and

(3) The balance of 50% shall be included as part of the preferred payables to be settled in the Liquidation Plan.



b. Petitions for Liquidation of Insolvent Juridical and Individual Debtors

(i) Fees amounting to P50,000 or less shall be paid upon the filing of the petition.

(ii) Fees in excess of P50,000 may be paid on staggered basis in accordance with the following schedule:

(1) 25% shall be paid upon the issuance of the Liquidation Order;

(2) 25% shall be paid upon the approval of the Liquidation Plan; and

(3) The balance of 50% shall be included as part of the preferred payables to be settled in the Liquidation Plan.

c. Petitions for Suspension of Payments of Insolvent Individual Debtors – fees shall be paid in full upon the filing of the petition.

d. Petitions for court assistance in the execution or implementation or annulment of the Standstill Agreement or the OCRA – fees in the amount of P20,0000 shall be paid upon the filing of the petition.

3. If in the course of the proceedings, it is established that the actual total outstanding liabilities or the assets or their value were not correctly declared in the petition, the court shall direct the immediate payment of any deficiency in the filing fees to be treated as an administrative expense. In any case, any unpaid balance shall constitute a lien on the assets of the debtor until fully paid.

4. Section 21(k) of Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court is hereby DELETED as the fees covering petitions for insolvency are already provided for in this Resolution. As for cases involving intra-corporate controversies, the applicable fees shall be those provided under Section 7(a), 7(b)(1) or 7(b)(3) of Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court depending on the nature of the action.

5. The certification by the Clerk of Court that the full and correct amount of the filing fee has been paid shall be required prior to the termination of the liquidation proceedings.

This Resolution shall take effect 15 days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two newspapers of national circulation. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) is directed to circularize the same upon its effectivity.

October 5, 2016.

(Sgd.) SERENO, CJ (on official business), CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION (on leave), PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, PEREZ, MENDOZA, REYES, PERLAS-BERNABE, LEONEN, JARDELEZA, CAGUIOA, JJ.

TO: ALL SECOND LEVEL COURT JUDGES

SUBJECT: MANDATORY OBSERVANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN CIRCULAR NO. 39-97 DATED JUNE 19, 1997 (RE: GUIDELINES IN THE ISSUANCE OF HOLD-DEPARTURE ORDERS)

In view of the recurring problem involving the issuance of Hold-Departure Orders (HDOs) with incomplete information, which hinders the efficient implementation of the Bureau of Immigration (BI), and acting on the letter-request dated June 22, 2016 of BI Commissioner Jaime H. Morente, all second level court judges are hereby MANDATED to observe the guidelines set forth in Circular No. 39-97, which state:

3. The Hold-Departure Order shall contain the following information:

a. The complete name (including the middle name), the date and place of birth and the place of last residence of the person against whom a Hold-Departure Order has been issued or whose departure from the country has been enjoined;

b. The complete title and docket number of the case in which the Hold-Departure Order was issued;

c. The specific nature of the case; and

d. The date of the Hold-Departure Order.

If available, a recent photograph of the person against whom a Hold-Departure Order has been issued or whose departure from the country has been enjoined should also be included. (Emphasis supplied.)

Complainants and prosecutors are likewise required to provide all the necessary information in their petitions for the issuance of HDO. Failure to observe the aforementioned guideline requirements may be a ground for the denial of the same.

For strict compliance.

October 17, 2016.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZCourt Administrator

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 221-2016


TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD AND THE PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Appended herein as Annex “A”, for the information and guidance of all judges of the Regional Trial Court, is a Memorandum of Agreement dated August 22, 2016 between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the Public Attorney’s Office in relation to Section 54 (Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation), Article VIII of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.

October 21, 2016.

(Sgd.) RAUL BAUTISTA VILLANUEVADeputy Court Administrator

andOfficer in Charge

Office of the Court Administrator


MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This Memorandum of Agreement made and entered into this 22nd

day of August 2016 at Quezon City, Philippines, by the following parties:

The DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD, a government agency created by virtue of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, with principal office address at 3rd Floor, DDB - PDEA Building, NIA Road, Diliman, Quezon City, represented herein by its CHAIRMAN, SECRETARY FELIPE L. ROJAS, JR., CEO VI, hereinafter referred to as the DDB;

and

The PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, the principal law office of the Government in extending free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases, with principal office address at DOJ Agencies Building, NIA Road, Diliman, Quezon City, represented herein by its CHIEF PUBLIC ATTORNEY, DR. PERSIDA V. RUEDA-ACOSTA, hereinafter referred to as the PAO.

W I T N E S S E T H: THAT -

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 77 of RA No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, the DDB is the policy-making and strategy-formulating body on drug prevention and control and shall develop and adopt a comprehensive, integrated, unified and balanced national drug abuse prevention and control strategy;

WHEREAS, Section 54 of RA No. 9165 states that any drug dependent or relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity may apply to the Board or its duly recognized representatives for treatment and rehabilitation;

WHEREAS, Section 81(q) of RA No. 9165 provides that the DDB has the power and duty to issue guidelines for the approval and disapproval of applications for voluntary treatment and rehabilitation and confinement, wherein it shall issue the necessary, rules and regulations pertaining to the application and enforcement thereof;

WHEREAS, to effectively carry out the implementation of the Voluntary Submission Program pursuant to RA No. 9165, Board Resolution No. 2, Series of 2002 authorized the Executive Director to designate duly authorized Board Representatives to accept applications and file petitions for voluntary submission and compulsory confinement;

WHEREAS, Section 3(a) of Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 2007 states that authorized representatives shall be assisted by the Department of Justice, though the PAO, in the performance of their delegated authority;

WHEREAS, Section 14 – A of Chapter V, Title III, Book IV of Executive Order No 292, otherwise known as the “Administrative Code of 1987” provides that the PAO shall independently discharge its mandate to render, free of charge, legal representation, assistance and counseling to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned law, in the exigency of service, the PAO may be called upon by proper government authorities to render such service to other persons, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations;

WHEREAS, the PAO is willing to assist the DDB relative to the implementation of RA No. 9165 by providing technical and legal assistance to drug dependents who wish to avail of the provisions of Section 54 of said law;

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, the PARTIES agree as follows:

A. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF DDB

1. Coordinate with PAO regarding voluntary submission cases falling under RA No. 9165 for the effective implementation of this AGREEMENT;

2. Provide information to PAO relative to the case status of drug dependents referred to the same office;

3. Involve PAO in relevant DDB trainings and seminars; and,

4. Monitor and evaluate the implementation of this AGREEMENT.

B. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PAO

1. For the Public Attorneys to act as counsel and appear before the courts for drug dependents on petitions for voluntary submission filed by the DDB or its authorized representatives, except when there is conflict of interest and without prejudice to the drug dependent’s right to be represented by a private counsel of his choice;

2. In the exigency of the service, Public Attorneys shall provisionally represent the drug dependent who may appear in court by reason of a Petition for Voluntary

Annex A


OCA CIRCULAR NO. 250A-2016

TO: ALL JUDGES OF FAMILY COURTS

SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF OCA CIRCULAR NO. 10-2014 ON THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW ON ADOPTION CASES

Quoted hereunder are pertinent provisions of Resolution No. 02-2016 of the Committee on Family Courts and Juvenile Concerns-Technical Working Group, clarifying the application of OCA Circular No. 10-2014 on petitions for adoption intended for inter-country adoption but filed under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (RA No. 8552):

Resolution No. 02-2016

Clarification of OCA Circular No. 10-20-14 on the Requirement of the Law on Adoption Cases

A petition for adoption which is properly one for inter-country adoption but filed with the Family Court under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (RA No. 8552) by an alien or a former Filipino citizen, or by a Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad, not qualified under the law as to residency and certification or not falling under the exceptions provided by law, shall not be dismissed by the Court, but shall be transmitted to the Inter-Country Adoption Board for the latter's appropriate action pursuant to Section 32 of the Rule on Adoption (A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC).

However, if the said alien or former Filipino citizen is qualified under Section 7(b) of the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, the Family Court shall hear and decide the petition for adoption.


TO: ALL CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS CIRCULAR NO. 910 DATED APRIL 22, 2016

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, through Deputy Governor Diwa C. Guinigundo, requested the Office of the Court Administrator to issue a circular on the replacement/exchange of the New Design Series (NDS) bank notes, pursuant to the Bangko SentraI ng Pilipinas (BSP) No. 910 dated April 22, 2016 (Replacement/Exchange of the New Design Series [NDS] Banknotes from the General Public and NDS Banknotes in the Custody of [i] Authorized Agent Banks, [ii] Office of Provincial/ City/ Municipal Treasurers, [iii] Clerks of Court/All Enforcement Agencies and [iv] Overseas Filipinos as of December 31, 2016), Item No. 3 of which pertinently provides:

3. In the case of NDS banknotes which are subject of pending court cases, CCs [Clerks of Court]/ALEAs shall submit for exchange the said NDS banknote holdings to the BSP within six months after the corresponding legal case(s) have been terminated. To ensure replacement of these notes, CCs and ALEAs shall submit to the BSP-Cash Department a duly filled-up and certified Inventory/Exchange Form for the New Design Series Banknotes not later than the close of business hours on January 31, 2017, copy furnished the BSP Office where the NDS banknotes are to exchanged through any of the following mode of submission: electronic mail, facsimile message, courier or hand carried. The address, contact information and territorial coverage of the BSP-Cash Department and the BSP regional offices and branches are listed in Annex 2. The replacement of NDS banknotes subject of court cases shall be strictly in accordance with the certified inventory submitted on or before January 31, 2017. (Emphasis underlined)

For immediate and further reference, a copy of BSP No. 910, dated April 22, 2016, with its attachments is appended herein as Annex “A”.

This circular revokes OCA Circular No. 250-2016 dated November 24, 2016.

Submission but has not yet been able to acquire the services of counsel; and

3. Recommend measures or strategies to effectively implement this AGREEMENT.

This AGREEMENT shall take effect upon approval of the PARTIES and shall be in effect unless and until modified and/or abrogated by a subsequent AGREEMENT of the parties. In case of non-compliance with the provisions by one party, any aggrieved party may terminate this AGREEMENT by sending a written notice to the other parties at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of termination.

(Sgd.) Sec. FELIPE L. ROJAS, Jr. CEO VIChairman

Dangerous Drugs Board

(Sgd.) Dr. PERSIDA V. RUEDA-ACOSTAChief Public Attorney

Public Attorney’s Office

For the information and guidance of all concerned.

October 25, 2016.

(Sgd.) RAUL BAUTISTA VILLANUEVADeputy Court Administrator

andOfficer in Charge

Office of the Court Administrator


Annex A

BANKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINASOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

CIRCULAR NO. 910Series of 2016

Subject: Replacement/Exchange of the New Design Series (NDS) Banknotes from the General Public and NDS Banknotes in the Custody of (i) Authorized Agent Banks, (ii) Office of Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurers, (iii] Clerks of Court/All Law Enforcement Agencies and (iv) Overseas Filipinos as of December 31, 2016

Further to BSP Circular No. 863 series of 2014, Authorized Agent Banks (AABs) are required to accept from the general public the New Design Series (NDS) banknotes far exchange with the New Generation Currency (NGC) banknotes until December 31, 2016. There are other institutions/entities and individuals who may also have NDS banknotes in their custody as of December 31, 2016 in consideration of legal constraints and geographical location, namely (i) the Office of Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurers (OTs), (ii) Office of Clerks of Court (CCs)/all law enforcement agencies (ALEAs) and (iii] Overseas Filipinos (OFs).

To facilitate the replacement/exchange of the NDS banknotes from the general public by banks and NDS banknotes in the custody of AABs, OTs, CCs/ALEAs and OFs as of December 31, 2016 with NGC banknotes, the following guidelines and procedures shall be observed accordingly:

1. All banks (head offices and their branches) are required to accept/exchange/replace NDS banknotes until December 31, 2016. Banks’ officers/employees who refuse to accept NDS banknotes from the general public, clients or non-clients, during the prescribed NDS banknote exchange period shall be subject to administrative sanctions, pursuant to Section 37 of Republic Act No. 7653, otherwise known as “The New Central Bank Act.”

2. AABs and OTs may submit the NDS banknotes, in their custody for replacement/exchange with NGC banknotes at the BSP-Cash Department and any of the BSP regional offices/branches starting January 2, 2017 but not later than the close of business hours on March 31, 2017, with two day prior notice to allow the BSP to prepare the required volume and denominations of NGC banknotes. The submission of AABs shall be accompanied by a duly accomplished BSP form for exchange/deposit of banks. In the case of submission of OTs, it should be accompanied by a duly filled-up Inventory Exchange Form for the New

Design Series Banknotes (Annex 1). The NDS banknote holdings submitted by AABs and OTs to BSP after March 31, 2017 shall not be valid for exchange/replacement. The address, contact information and territorial coverage of the BSP-Cash Department and the BSP regional offices and branches are listed in Annex 2.

3. In the case of NDS banknotes which are subject of pending court cases, CCs/ALEAs shall submit for exchange the said NDS banknote holdings to the BSP within six months after the corresponding legal case(s) have been terminated. To ensure replacement of these notes, CCs and ALEAs shall submit to the BSP-Cash Department a duly filled-up and certified Inventory/Exchange Form for the New Design Series Banknotes not later than the close of business hours on January 31, 2017, copy furnished the BSP Office where the NDS banknotes are to be exchanged, through any of the following mode of submission: electronic mail, facsimile message, courier or hand carried. The address, contact information and territorial coverage of the BSP-Cash Department and the BSP regional offices and branches are listed in Annex 2. The replacement of NDS banknotes subject of court cases shall be strictly in accordance with the certified inventory submitted on or before January 31, 2017.

4. Overseas Filipinos (OFs) working/living abroad who have in their possession NDS banknotes which could not be exchanged within the prescribed period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 shall register their NDS banknote holdings through the BSP Website starting October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016. The registered NDS banknotes shall be submitted for exchange the NGC banknotes within one year from date of registration at any of the BSP Offices indicated in Annex 2. The said NDS banknotes submitted to the BSP beyond the period of one year from date of registration shall not be valid far exchange/replacement. The NDS banknote exchange facility provided by the BSP to OFs shall be limited to P10,000 for each OF.

5. In the case of OFs who are located in countries experiencing geopolitical crisis during the registration period (i.e., October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016), they can avail of the BSP exchange facility for OFs from January 1, 2017 until December 31, 2017, subject to the P10,000 limit for each OF as cited in item no. 4 of this Circular. The NDS banknote holdings of said OFs submitted to the BSF after December 31, 2017 shall not be valid for exchange/replacement.

All NDS banknote holdings submitted for exchange/replacement shall be subject to the usual piece by piece verification by the BSP.

For the Monetary Board:

VICENTE S. AQUINOOfficer in Charge

April 22, 2016

Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.

November 5, 2016.


CircularsOCA CIRCULAR NO. 250A-2016 (continued)


Annex 1

BANKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS

Cash Department

Inventory/Exchange Form for the “New Design Series (NDS)” Banknotes

Received the following NDS Banknotes from (please indicate the group source by checking the box provided below) by (please indicate the recipient BSP Office) :

NDS Banknotes for Exchange Cash Breakdown

DENOMINATION No. of Bundles No. of Loose Wrappers

No. of Loose Banknotes TOTAL PIECES TOTAL AMOUNT

1000-piso

500-piso200-piso100-piso50-piso20-piso10-piso5-pisoTOTAL

Amount in words:

Submitted by:Address/Location:Contact No.:

Group Source: Municipal, City and Provincial Treasurer’s Office Clerk of Court (CC) and All Law Enforcement Agencies (ALEA) (People of the Philippines/Plaintiff) versus (Name of Accused/Defendant)

Certification: (To be filled-up by the Clerk of Court/Authorized Representative upon surrender/exchange of NDS banknotes to BSP in the case of NDS banknotes that are subject to court cases. )

Note: One wrapper consists of 100 pieces banknotes. One bundle consists of 10 wrappers.

Certification

This is to certify that the abovementioned number and amount of NDS banknotes being surrendered to BSP for exchange by (please specify the name of CC or ALEA) formed part of court evidence under criminal/civil case no. entitled PP/Plaintiff vs. Accused/Defendant which has become final and executory on .

______________________________________Clerk of Court/Authorized Representative

Date:


BSP ROs/Branches Address Contact Information Regional Coverage Provinces/Cities Serviced by RO/Branch

CASH DEPARTMENT Security Plant Complex East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

Tel. No: (02) 988-4835; (02) 988-4852Fax No: (02) 926-2318; (02) 926-4855 4A-CALABARZON Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and

Quezon

LA UNION REGIONAL OFFICE

Quezon Avenue, City of San Fernando, La Union

Tel. No: (072) 888-2083Fax No: (072) 888-3793

CAR-Cordillera Administrative Region

Abra, Apayao, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga, and Mountain Province, La Union, parts of Ilocos Sur, CAR

San Fernando (Pampanga)Greenfields Subd., Mac Arthur Highway, Sindalan, San Fernando City, Pampanga

Tel Nos: (045) 455-3835 to 36Fax No: (045) 455-3835 3 - Central Luzon Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales,

Bataan

Batac National Highway, Quiling Norte, Batac City, Ilocos Norte

Tel Nos: (077) 792-2103/792-2101 Fax No: (077) 792-2105 1 - Ilocos Region Ilocos Norte, parts of Ilocos Sur,

CAR

Tuguegarao Regional Government Center, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

Tel No: (078) 844-4755Fax No: (078) 846-4933 2 - Cagayan Valley Batanes, Cagayan, Isabela, Nueva

Vizcaya, and Quirino

Dagupan Tondaligan, Bonoan Guesset, Dagupan City

Tel No: (075) 614-3027Fax No: (075) 614-3026 1 - Ilocos Region Pangasinan, parts of Northern

Tarlac

Cabanatuan Cor. Del Pilar and Paco Roman Sts., Cabanatuan City

Tel Nos: (044) 463-1734 / 463-1736Fax No: (044) 463-2180 3 - Central Luzon Nueva Ecija, Aurora, parts of

Bulacan

Lucena Quezon Avenue, Lucena City Tel No: (042) 373-7323 4B - MIMAROPA Mindoro, Marinduque, Romblon, and Palawan

Naga Roxas Avenue, Diversion Road,Barangay Triangulo, Naga City Tel No: (054) 473-9073 5 - Bicol Region Camarines Sur, Camarines Norte

Legazpi Barangay 18 Rizal St., Cabagñan, Legaspi City

Tel No: (052) 480-5519Fax No: (052) 480-5585 5 - Bicol Region Albay, Catanduanes, Masbate,

Sorsogon

CEBU REGIONAL OFFICE Cor. Osmena Blvd and P. del Rosario Sts., Cebu City

Tel. No: (032) 254-0973Fax No: (032) 254-0702 7 - Central Visayas Cebu, Bohol

Bacolod Lacson cor. Luzuriaga Sts., Bacolod City

Tel No : (034) 434-7755Fax No: (034) 435-2816 6 - Western Visayas Negros Occidental

Iloilo BSP Bldg., Solis St., Iloilo City Tel No: (033) 335-1180Fax No: (033) 338-0573 6 - Western Visayas Iloilo, Guimaras, Antique

Roxas Arnaldo Boulevard, Brgy. Baybay, Roxas City 5600

Tel No: (036) 621-7823Telefax No.: (036) 621-7812 6 - Western Visayas Capiz, Aklan

Dumaguete North Road, Daro, Dumaguete City

Tel No: (035) 422-9326Fax Nos: (035) 422-9326 6 - Western Visayas Negros Oriental, Siquijor

Tacloban Airport Road, San Jose, Tacloban City Tel No: (053) 325-9121 8 - Eastern Visayas Samar, Leyte

DAVAO REGIONAL OFFICE Quirino Avenue, Davao City Tel. No: (082) 300-3709Fax No: (082) 226-4130 11 - Davao Region Davao del Norte/del Sur, Oriental/

Occidental, Compostela Valley

Butuan J.C. Ave., Brgy. Libertad, Butuan City Tel No : (085) 815-1502 13- Caraga Region Agusan del Norte/del Sur, Surigao

del Norte/del Sur, Dinagat Islands

Cagayan De Oro National Highway and Velez Sts., Cagayan de Oro City

Tel No : (088) 857-4179Fax No: (088) 857-4146

10 - Northern Mindanao/ARMM

Misamis Oriental, Bukidnon, Camiguin, Iligan City, Lanao del Sur/Norte

Cotabato Quezon Ave. cor Sinsuat Ave., Cotabato City

Tel Nos: (064) 421- 7370Fax No: (064) 421-3117

12 - SOCCSKSARGEN/ARMM

Cotabato City, Maguindanao

General Santos Pendatum and Daproza Sts., General Santos City Tel Nos: (083) 552-1905 12 -

SOCCSKSARGENSouth Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sarangani

Ozamiz Circumferential Road, Ozamiz City Tel Nos: (088) 521-2678 Misamis Occidental, Dipolog,

Pagadian

Zamboanga N.S. Valderosa St., Pettit Barracks, Zamboanga City

Tel No: (062) 991-2151Fax Nos: (062) 991-2692/992-3055

9 - Zamboanga Peninsula/ARMM

Zamboanga del Norte/del Sur/Sibugay, Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi

Annex 2

Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas Offices Accepting NDS Banknotes for Replacement/Exchange

CircularsOCA CIRCULAR NO. 250A-2016 (continued)


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CONCERNED COURT PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THE DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF THE DETAINEES NOTEBOOK

To avoid any confusion over the distribution and proper use of the Detainees Notebook under Section 15(c) of the March 18, 2014 Resolution of the Court in A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and to Speedy Trial), the following guidelines are hereby adopted:

1. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) shall supply each court with the required number of Detainees Notebooks. For this purpose, the respective Executive Judges shall submit to the Property Division, Office of Administrative Services, OCA, the number of detainees in their jurisdiction and the number of Detainees Notebook needed, send the same to the Property Division via regular mail or email at [email protected], and coordinate with the Property Division for the delivery of the Detainees Notebooks.

2. Two copies of the Detainees Notebook shall be allotted to each detainee for every pending case the detainee has, regardless of the imprisonment period of the imposable penalty. One copy shall be filed with and attached to the records of the case in court and shall form part thereof, while the other shall be kept by the jail warden, which copy shall be brought to the court every time the accused has a hearing.

3. BOTH copies of the Detainees Notebook shall be updated by the court personnel assigned by the judge and signed by him or her and the branch clerk of court after every hearing, stating what action the court has taken on the case, the next scheduled hearing, and what action the court will further take thereon. Case incidents that occurred before the distribution of the Detainees Notebook need not be recorded therein.

4. For detainees released on bail or recognizance, their copy of the Detainees Notebook shall be surrendered to the court. Should bail be subsequently canceled or forfeited, the Detainees Notebook shall be returned to the jail warden for safekeeping.

For your guidance and strict compliance.

November 7, 2016.



TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: INCIDENT RECORD FORM AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN COURT

The Philippine National Police (PNP), through the Police Director General, Mr. Ronald M. Dela Rosa, has requested the Office of the Court Administrator to issue a circular on the admissibility of the new Incident Record Form (IRF) of the PNP as evidence in court.

The PNP recently implemented the Crime Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS), which aims to generate reliable information on crime incidents and enhance police investigative capabilities through an integrated database system. With the CIRAS, crime incidents would now be recorded utilizing the IRFs, which would eventually replace the police blotter. Once fully implemented, the police blotter will only be used as a log of duly accomplished IRFs and will no longer contain any other information.

In view thereof and considering the probative value of the Incident Record Form, all concerned are accordingly DIRECTED to judiciously CONSIDER and ALLOW the Incident Record Form as evidence in courts and eventually replace blotter entry excerpts.

Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.

November 16, 2016.



TO: CONCERNED JUDGES AND BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND THE SECOND LEVEL COURTS OF CALOOCAN, VALENZUELA, MALABON, MANDALUYONG, PARAÑAQUE, PASAY AND LAS PIÑAS UNDER THE HUSTISYEAH! PROJECT

SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE GUIDELINES FOR DECONGESTING HOLDING JAILS BY ENFORCING THE RIGHTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS TO BAIL AND TO SPEEDY TRIAL (A.M. NO. 12-11-12-SC), IN RELATION WITH THE FULL ROLL OUT OF HUSTISYEAH! IN HUSTISYEAH! COURTS (A.M. NO. 13-04-11-SC)

On March 18, 2014, the Supreme Court en banc in A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC issued the Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and to Speedy Trial, authorizing trial courts to serve subpoenas and notices to parties and witnesses through electronic mails



(e-mail), telephone calls (landline or mobile phone), or by short messaging service (SMS) in criminal cases. On August 5, 2014, the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 13-04-11-SC extended such service to civil cases. Pursuant thereto:

1. In addition to the other modes of service of subpoenas and notices under the Rules of Court, trial courts may serve subpoenas and notices to parties, their counsels, and witnesses in criminal and civil cases through e-mail, telephone calls (landline or mobile phone), or by SMS. In cases where there are detainees, such service shall be made through the officer having the management of the jail or penal institution where the inmates are detained.

2. Each court shall use the official e-mail address, mobile phone and landline, numbers provided by the Supreme Court Management Information Systems Office (MISO) for the service of subpoenas and notices. The trial court shall also inform the parties, their counsels, witnesses, or the officer having the management of the jail or penal institution, of the court’s official e-mail address, landline and mobile phone numbers.

3. Unless otherwise directed by the judge or the branch clerk of court, only the criminal docket clerk in criminal cases and the civil docket clerk in civil cases are authorized to call or electronically serve subpoenas and notices. In the absence of the criminal or civil docket clerks, judges shall designate in writing the court personnel who will effect such service.

4. Each court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator the names of the authorized personnel who may call or electronically serve subpoenas and notices in criminal and civil cases. For this purpose, the attached Form A shall be used and the accomplished form shall be sent via e-mail to [email protected].

5. In criminal cases, the court shall direct the public prosecutors to furnish the court his or her e-mail address, landline and mobile phone numbers, including those of the complainant/s and his or her witnesses. Where a private prosecutor enters his appearance in the case, the duty to furnish these data shall be on the private prosecutor. Where the accused is represented by a counsel de parte, or counsel de officio, including the public attorney, the responsibility of supplying the above data shall belong to them. The court shall see to it that these requirements are complied with. For this purpose, the attached Form B shall be used.

6. In civil cases, the court shall direct the counsels, or in their absence, the parties, to furnish the court the e-mail addresses, and the landline and mobile phone numbers of the parties, their counsels, and witnesses through which they can be served with subpoenas and notices. For this purpose, the attached Form B shall be used.

7. The subpoenas and notices shall first be electronically served through e-mail or SMS. If these modes of service are not feasible, then the notices and subpoenas shall, with prior clearance from the judge, be served by telephone calls, either through landline or mobile phone. For this purpose; the attached Form C shall be used.

8. For accuracy and uniformity, service through SMS should include the court of origin, the case number, and the notice itself. The SMS should resemble the sample SMS in Annex A.

9. The electronic service or service by telephone call under these guidelines shall be proved by any of the following:

a. printouts of sent e-mail and the acknowledgment by the recipient;

b. printouts of SMS transmitted through the court’s equipment or device and the acknowledgment by the recipient; or

c. report of phone call made by the designated court personnel.

10. The postal and e-mail addresses, as well as the mobile phone and landline numbers of the counsels, the parties and the witnesses, shall be part of the official court records and shall enjoy the same degree of confidentiality.

11. Any person who uses the said addresses or numbers without proper authority, or for purposes other than the sending of court subpoenas or notices, may be cited for indirect contempt and accordingly sanctioned.

12. In highly-sensitive and confidential cases where the disclosure of e-mail addresses, landline and mobile phone numbers may pose security risks or breach of confidentiality rules, the regular mode of service shall be observed. In this regard, the e-mail addresses, landline and mobile phone numbers of the parties concerned need not be obtained by the court.

For compliance.

December 1, 2016.


Form A

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES_____________ TRIAL COURT

_____________ REGIONBRANCH ____, _____

The following court personnel are hereby authorized to send subpoenas and notices to parties, their counsels, and witnesses in the cases before this court:

CircularsOCA CIRCULAR NO. 265-2016 (continued)


1. Criminal CasesName: Position:

2. Civil CasesName:Position:

Furthermore, the following e-mail address, mobile phone and landline numbers of the court will be used for such service:

E-mail address:

Mobile phone number:

Landline number:

Dated this ____ day of ________ 20 __.

__________________ Judge

Form B


_____________ REGIONBRANCH ____, _____

__________________ Criminal Case No. or Civil Case No. - versus -

__________________

I, ________________________ may be served with subpoenas and/or notices in the above-captioned case through my preferred e-mail address, landline or mobile phone number as indicated below:

E-MAIL ADDRESS:

MOBILE PHONE NUMBER:

LANDLINE NUMBER:

I undertake to immediately acknowledge receipt of the subpoenas and notices sent through said e-mails and mobile phones. I also undertake to immediately inform the court in writing of any changes in any of my e-mail addresses and/or contact numbers. I understand that the service herein shall be proved by printouts of sent e-mail or SMS, and is presumed complete upon transmission. For notices made through phone calls, proof of service shall be through a report of the phone call made by the designated court personnel.

Dated this _____ day of __________ , 20 ___ .

__________________ Name and Signature Party/Counsel/Witness

Annex A

Sample SMS - PRODUCE ORDER

From QC RTC BR 123. Re: CC Q-10-613214. Case Title: PP v. Reyes. To Jail Warden: PRODUCE accused JOHN DOE on 19 January 2017 at 9:00 am for ARRAIGNMENT. Hall of Justice Annex Building, QC.Reply to acknowledge receipt.

Sample SMS - SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM

From QC RTC BR 123. Re: CC Q-10-613214. Case Title: PP v. Reyes.To JOHN DOE: APPEAR and TESTIFY on 19 January 2017 at 9:00 am.Hall of Justice Annex Building, QC. Reply to acknowledge receipt.

Sample SMS - SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

From QC RTC BR 123. Re: CC Q-10-613214. Case Title: PP v. Reyes.To JOHN DOE: APPEAR and BRING with you the following evidence _____ on 19 January 2017 at 900 am. Hall of Justice Annex Building, QC. Reply to acknowledge receipt.

Sample SMS - NOTICE OF HEARING

From QC RTC BR 123. Re: CC Q-10-613214. Case Title: PP v. Reyes.To ATTY. JOHN DOE: Case set for hearing on 19 January 2017 at 9:00 am. Hall of Justice Annex Building, QC. Reply to acknowledge receipt.

Form C


_____________ REGIONBRANCH ____, _____

______________________________ is hereby authorized to serve through phone call a subpoena or notice and should state the following:

Case title/docket number: _____________Party/counsel/witness to be served: _____________Material facts of the notice or subpoena:

Dated this ____ day of ________ 20 __.

_________________ Presiding Judge

Date: ___________________________Time of call: ___________________________

Answer of the party/counsel/witness to the notice or subpoena:

______________________ Branch Clerk, Criminal / Civil Docket Clerk


TO: JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF COMMITTING INMATES TO CONGESTED JAIL FACILITIES

In view of reports of the alarming increase in the number of inmates in jail facilities all over the country, and as confirmed by Jail Director Serafin P. Barreto, Jr., Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), in his letter dated September 23, 2016 relative to the present congested condition of these jail facilities, all judges of the First and Second Level Courts are hereby DIRECTED to first ascertain the actual state of these facilities and submit a report of their findings to their respective Executive Judges.

The Executive Judges of the First and Second Level Courts, for their part and pursuant to their duty to (a) inquire into the prisoners’ proper accommodation and health, and, examine the condition of the jail facilities; and (b) strive to eliminate conditions inimical to the detainees, are hereby DIRECTED to coordinate with the BJMP wardens in identifying the overcrowded jails and to order, if feasible, the temporary suspension of issuance of Commitment Orders transferring inmates to the identified overcrowded jail facilities within their respective administrative areas of responsibility.

December 5, 2016.


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: COURT RESOLUTION DATED NOVEMBER 22, 2016

Pursuant to the November 22, 2016 Resolution of the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 16-11-390-RTC (Re: Further Amendments to Administrative Order No. 134-92, which Establishes a Pairing System for Single Sala Stations), the Court RESOLVED to FURTHER AMEND Administrative Order No. 134-92 which established a pairing system for single sala stations, as amended by Administrative Order No. 19-97 dated February 14, 1997, the full text of which is as follows:

In the event of vacancy in a single sala station or of the absence or disability of the judge thereof and no acting judge has yet been designated, OR IN CASE OF THE ABSENCE OR UNAVAILABILITY OF THE LATTER, the Clerk of Court, upon the request of any party, shall refer



TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: SERVICE OF WRITS AND COURT PROCESSES IN CONNECTION WITH CASES INVOLVING FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS OR INSTRUMENTALITIES THEREOF

The Department of Foreign Affairs, through the Acting Assistant Secretary, Atty. Leo Tito L. Ausan, Jr., Office of Legal Affairs, requested the Office of the Court Administrator to issue a circular on the proper observance of Memorandum Circular No. 3 dated March 14, 1978 (Service of Writs and Court Processes in Connection with Cases Involving Foreign Governments or Instrumentalities Thereof), paragraph 2 of which pertinently provides:

Accordingly, you are hereby advised that henceforth court processes and writs issued in connection with cases involving foreign governments or agencies should be forwarded to the Department of Foreign Affairs


any urgent matter requiring immediate action to the nearest presiding judge of the appropriate Regional Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court with jurisdiction to act on the matter. Such presiding judge is authorized to hear and resolve any urgent matters, including applications for restraining orders, injunctions and other matters requiring immediate attention prior to the appointments of a new judge, the return of the regular judge, the assignment of an acting judge, OR THE RETURN THEREOF, without prejudice to any subsequent action that may be taken by the judge to whom the particular case is eventually assigned. If the nearest trial court is a multiple sala station, the matter shall be referred to the Executive Judge, or in his absence, the presiding judge authorized to act for the Executive Judge; and

The Clerk of Court, before making such referral to the nearest presiding judge of the same level, shall certify that the station is vacant, or that the presiding judge thereof is absent or disabled and that no acting judge has been designated, OR THE LATTER IS ABSENT OR OTHERWISE UNAVAILABLE. The RTC Executive Judge with jurisdiction over the MTC single sala station concerned or the Court Administrator in the case of an RTC single sala station, shall immediately be notified of said referral. [AMENDMENTS IN BOLD]

For your information, guidance and strict compliance.

December 5, 2016.



APPOINTING THE SC DEPUTY DIVISION CLERK OF COURT IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIVISION CLERK OF COURT, THIRD DIVISION

WHEREAS, the position of SC Deputy Division Clerk of Court in the Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, is vacant; the notice of vacancy and the deadline for the filing of the applications for appointment thereto were duly published; and the matrix (showing the applicants’ present positions with salary grades, highest educational attainment, performance rating, relevant experiences, trainings and seminars, dates of entrance to the Supreme Court, and dates of last promotion) prepared by the Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer Atty. Eden T. Candelaria were submitted to the Chief Justice;

WHEREAS, evaluations have been made based on the criteria for the selection of the most qualified applicants.

NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, for and in behalf of the Supreme Court, by virtue of and pursuant to the power and authority vested in the revised Resolution in A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC, do hereby appoint ATTY. MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG, III as Deputy Division Clerk of Court in the Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division.

This appointment shall take effect on the 14th day of June 2016.

MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 24-2016

Issued this 14th day of June 2016.

(Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENOChief Justice

Chairperson, First Division

(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIOChairperson, Second Division

(Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, Jr.Chairperson, Third Division

ESTABLISHING THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON JUDICIAL INTEGRITY UNDER THE COMMITTEE ON CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION AND BAR MATTERS

In view of the need to further thresh out issues related on strengthening judicial integrity falling under the mandate of the Committee on Continuing Legal Education and Bar Matters, a Technical Working Group on Judicial Integrity is hereby established, as follows:

Chairperson Hon. Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (Ret.) Vice Chancellor, Philippine Judicial Academy

Vice Chairperson Hon. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan

Members Hon. Roman G. Del Rosario Presiding Justice, Court of Tax Appeals

Hon. Magdangal M. De Leon Associate Justice, Court of Appeals

Hon. Alexander G. Gesmundo Associate Justice, Sandiganbayan

Hon. Hilarion L. Aquino (Ret.) Chair, Department of Ethics Philippine Judicial Academy–Academic Council

Hon. Hector Hofilena (Ret.) Vice Chair, Department of Ethics Philippine Judicial Academy–Academic Council

Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria Head, Research, Publications and Linkages Office Philippine Judicial Academy

Hon. Georgina D. Hidalgo Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court, Branch 122, Caloocan City

MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 38-A-2016

for transmission to the foreign embassy concerned by diplomatic note. (Emphasis added)

The foregoing directive was reiterated in Circular No. 22 dated September 2, 1987 and further restated in Circular No. 3-91 dated May 20, 1991.

In view thereof and in consonance with the prevailing diplomatic practice, all concerned are hereby DIRECTED to FORWARD all court processes and writs issued in connection with cases involving foreign governments or agencies to the DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS for transmission to the foreign embassy concerned by diplomatic note.

For strict compliance.

December 5, 2016.



Dean Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis President Philippine Association of Law Schools

Atty. Rosario T. Setias-Reyes National President Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Atty. Arno V. Sanidad Law Professor University of the Philippines

Atty. Jilliane Joyce R. De Dumo Assistant Chief Staff Head Office of the Chief Justice

Secretariat Atty. Ronaldo M. Garcia PHILJA Attorney IV Philippine Judicial Academy

Ms. Joan Marie C. Tejada Supervising Judicial Staff Officer Philippine Judicial Academy

The Technical Working Group shall have the following functions and duties:

1. Conduct review, research and other relevant study on the following matters:

a. appropriate measures to strengthen integrity and prevent opportunism or corruption in the Judiciary;

b. independent mechanism to be instituted in the Supreme Court to receive, inquire into, resolve and deliver disciplinary actions against members of the Judiciary, including the creation and implementation of appropriate detection, investigation, prevention and punishment mechanisms to deter, discourage and prevent graft and corruption in the Judiciary;

c. relevant performance and integrity measures that could minimize, if not totally eliminate corruption risks; and

d. adequacy and effectiveness of existing Rules of Disciplinary Actions against Justices, Judges and employees of the Judiciary;

2. Recommend, as it may deem necessary, the creation of offices in and by the Supreme Court to preserve and enhance judicial integrity, and to ensure the efficient, fast and just resolution of disciplinary actions against members of the Judiciary and the employees thereof;

3. Propose and submit to the Supreme Court any amendment of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and

other relevant circulars and issuances of the Supreme Court on matters above listed;

4. Draft a multi-year work plan that shall incorporate the functions and duties herein listed and such other relevant programs, projects and activities (PPA), to be submitted to the Committee on Committee on Continuing Legal Education and Bar Matters within one month from the creation of the Technical Working Group. The work plan shall include the following details:

a. Identified PPAs and their respective timelines;

b. Brief description of each PPA and its expected outcome or output;

c. Budget requirements of each PPA; and

d. Responsible persons;

5. Submit periodic progress reports to the Committee on Continuing Legal Education and Bar Matters; and

6. Perform such functions as may be directed by the Chief Justice, Committee or by the Court and those that are inherent, incidental or essential to the accomplishment of its above duties and objectives.

To enable it to perform its functions and duties, the Technical Working Group shall be authorized to:

1. Invite resource persons and observers who may provide input in the Technical Working Group discussions;

2. Collaborate with the Philippine Judicial Academy in cases where skills development and other capacity building measures are necessary; and

3. Do such other acts as may be necessary in the performance of its mandate.

The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Members and Members of the Secretariat of the Technical Working Group shall receive the usual expense allowances.

This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its issuance this 29th day of September 2016.



(Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, Jr.Associate Justice

Chairperson, Third Division

(Sgd.) TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTROAssociate Justice

(Per S.O. No. 2375 [Revised] dated September 14, 2016)

OrdersMEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 38-A-2016 (continued)


CREATING THE JUDICIARY-WIDE COMMITTEE ON DATA RECONCILIATION

WHEREAS, the Judiciary will participate in the constitutionally mandated exercise of a national planning process that will create a Philippine Development Plan;

WHEREAS, the said planning process requires the establishment of indicators, and setting of annual targets, based upon accurate and standardized data sets used by the entire justice sector;

WHEREAS, to fully actualize these objectives, there is a need to create a committee tasked to streamline the process of gathering, utilizing and updating of data sets and other appropriate terminologies and metrics, by the Judiciary, to ensure that timely and accurate information are used in the national planning process.

NOW THEREFORE, the Judiciary-Wide Committee on Data Reconciliation is hereby created and constituted as follows:

Chairperson Hon. Karl B. Miranda Associate Justice, SandiganbayanVice-Chairperson Atty. Anna-Li Papa-Gombio Deputy Clerk of Court, En BancMembers Atty. Eden T. Candelaria Supreme Court–Office of Administrative Services Atty. Carlos N. Garay Management Information Systems Office Atty. Marina B. Ching Court Management Office

Atty. Caridad A. Pabello Office of Administrative Services Atty. Lilian Baribal Co Fiscal Management Office Atty. Ma. Regina A.F.M. Ignacio Halls of Justice Atty. Wilhelmina D, Geronga Legal Office, Office of the Court Administrator Atty. Jilliane Joyce R. De Dumo Office of the Chief Justice

Atty. Elmer DG. Eleria Philippine Judicial Academy Atty. Brenda Jay Angeles Mendoza Philippine Mediation Center Office Representative of the Court of Appeals

Representative of the Sandiganbayan

Representative of the Court of Tax Appeals

Ms. Ursula Edita O. San Pedro Judicial and Bar Council

Secretary

To be designated by the Chairperson

The Judiciary-Wide Committee shall have the following functions and duties:

1. Review and collate all relevant data sets available in the Judiciary;

2. Conduct study, research and/or survey of all existing laws, rules, regulations, and other relevant issuances pertaining to the gathering, utilizing and updating of data sets, and appropriate terminologies and metrics, by the Judiciary, to ensure its timeliness and accuracy;

3. Receive, assess, and provide recommendations on the appropriate terminologies, data sets and metrics to be used by the Judiciary, in relation to other international standards;

4. Propose steps to standardize such data sets, terminologies and metrics to be used by the Judiciary;

5. Liaise with appropriate government agencies in the standardization of such data sets, terminologies and metrics;

6. Prepare the Judiciary Data Handbook and other necessary materials, as an output of the Committee;

7. Propose other policy guidelines and relevant recommendations to the Office of the Chief Justice and/or to the Court relative to the abovementioned functions: and

8. Perform such functions as may be directed by the Chief Justice or by the Court and those that are inherent, incidental or essential to the accomplishment of its above duties and objectives.

The Chairperson, Working Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Members and Members of the Secretariat of the Committee shall receive the usual expense allowances.

This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its issuance this 25th day of November 2016.



(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIOSenior Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

(Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.Associate Justice

Chairperson, Third Division

MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 46-2016


First Quarter 2017 Training Programs and ActivitiesJustice Adolfo S. Azcuna

Chancellor

Dean Sedfrey M. CandelariaEditor in Chief

Editorial and Research StaffAtty. Ma. Melissa Dimson-Bautista

Armida M. SalazarJocelyn D. BondocRonald Paz Caraig

Joseph Arvin S. CruzChristine A. Ferrer

Joanne Narciso-MedinaCharmaine S. NicolasSarah Jane S. Salazar

Circulation and Support StaffRomeo A. Arcullo

Judith B. Del RosarioMichael Angelo P. Laude

Lope R. PalermoDaniel S. Talusig

Printing ServicesLeticia G. Javier and Staff

The PHILJA Bulletin is published quarterly by the Research, Publications and Linkages Office of the Philippine Judicial Academy, with office at the 3rd Floor of the Supreme Court Centennial Building, Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila. Tel: 552-9524; Fax: 552-9621; Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; Website: http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph


3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial BuildingPadre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila1000 Philippines

PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE TO AVOID PAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH

• Capacity Building on Environmental Laws and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases for Selected Judges and Clerks of Court

Regions III, V–XII January 25–27 PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

Region VIII March 22–24 PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges

January 31–February 9 PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Orientation Conference on Court-Annexed Mediation

Stakeholders and Prospective Mediators in Davao Oriental

February 1, Davao Oriental

Stakeholders and Prospective Mediators in Compostela Valley

February 2, Compostela Valley

Stakeholders and Prospective Mediators in Abra

February 16, Bangued, Abra

Stakeholders and Prospective Mediators in Masbate

March 2, Masbate City

Stakeholders and Prospective Mediators in Catanduanes

March 16, Virac, Catanduanes

• PHILJA Curriculum Review: Module Development Consultation

Members of the PHILJA Corps of Professors

February 7 Court of Appeals Auditorium, Manila

Court of Appeals Justices - Cebu and Cagayan de Oro Stations

February 15, Cebu City

• Career Enhancement Program for Sheriffs from Region III

February 7–9 PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and

Process Servers February 14–16 PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Information Dissemination through a Dialogue between Barangay Officials and Supreme Court Officials and

Mobile Court Annexed Mediation

February 16–17, TBA

March 16–17, TBA

• 41st Pre-Judicature Program February 20–March 3 General Santos City

• Career Enhancement Program for RTC Clerks of Courts

Regions XI and XII February 21–23 PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

Regions VII and IX March 14–16 PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators February 22–23 PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Clerks of Court

February 28–March 3, Manila

From the Chancellor’s Desk - ::::Philippine Judicial...

Documents

Transcript of From the Chancellor’s Desk - ::::Philippine Judicial...