Volume VIII, Issue No. 30 April-June 2006

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSApril-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

April to June 2006 Volume VIII, Issue No. 30

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

SUPREME COURT

RE

PU

BLIC

OF THE PHILIP

PI N

ES

BATAS AT BAYAN

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

40TH AND 41ST

ORIENTATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOPS

FOR NEWLY-APPOINTED JUDGES

The 40th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Judges conducted on March 27 to April 7,2006, at the PHILJA Development Center, TagaytayCity was attended by fifty (50) judges; forty-two(42) of whom were newly appointed and eight (8)were promoted.

A. New Appointments

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IHon. Ma. Ellen Monje AguilarRTC Br. 70, Burgos, PangasinanHon. Teodoro C. FernandezRTC Br. 38, Lingayen, PangasinanHon. Isidro T. PobreRTC Br. 22, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur

REGION IIIHon. Lucina A. DayaonRTC Br. 54, Macabebe, PampangaHon. Maria Amifaith S. Fider-ReyesRTC Br. 42, San Fernando, PampangaHon. Cicero D. Jurado, Jr.RTC Br. 38, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija

REGION IVHon. Ma. Conchita Lucero de MesaRTC Br. 70, Binangonan, RizalHon. John C. QuiranteRTC Br. 68, Binangonan, Rizal

REGION VHon. Lelu P. ContrerasRTC Br. 43, Virac, Catanduanes

REGION VIIHon. Noel P. CatacutanRTC Br. 37, Dumaguete CityHon. Arlene Catherine A. DatoRTC Br. 39, Dumaguete City

REGION VIIIHon. Crisologo S. BitasRTC Br. 7, Tacloban City, Leyte

PHILJAACADEMIC PROGRAMS

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS

Hon. Mariam G. BienMeTC Br. 53, Caloocan City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIHon. Jeffrey J. CabasalMTC Ilagan, Isabela

REGION IIIHon. Eda P. Dizon-EraMTC Guagua, PampangaHon. Elizabeth Segismundo-NicolasMTC Doña Remedios Trinidad, BulacanHon. Perry Anthony M. PunzalanMTC Bustos, BulacanHon. Salvador R. Santos, Jr.MTC Angat, Bulacan

REGION IVHon. Maribeth Rodríguez ManahanMTC San Mateo, Rizal

REGION VHon. Bernhard B. BeltranMTC Buhi, Camarines SurHon. Elsa A. MampoMTC Minalabac, Camarines Sur

REGION VIIHon. Cecilio O. DangoyMTC Calape, Bohol

REGION VIIIHon. Raul C. FranciscoMTC Allen, Northern Samar

REGION IXHon. Nemesio S. CañeteMTC Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay

REGION XHon. Gael P. PaderangaMTC Carmen, Agusan del NorteHon. Henelinda Molina DiazMTC Magpet, North Cotabato

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

REGION IIIHon. Angel M. Merez, Jr.MTCC Palayan City, Nueva Ecija

REGION VIIHon. Cenon Voltaire B. RepolloMTCC Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSApril-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006 3

REGION VIIIHon. Sylvia P. LamosteMTCC Br. 1, Tacloban City

REGION XIHon. Dennis A. VelascoMTCC Koronadal City, South Cotabato

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

REGION IHon. Ligaya V. SulicipanMCTC Badoc-Pinili, Ilocos Norte

REGION IVHon. Norferio B. NonoMCTC Aborlan-Kalayaan, Palawan

REGION VHon. Laurencio A. PutoMCTC Camaligan-Gainza-Milaor,Camarines Sur

REGION VIIHon. Lindecita C. ArcamoMCTC Lila-Loboc, Bohol

REGION VIIIHon. Alma Uy LampasaMCTC Daram-Zumaraga, SamarHon. Cicero T. LampasaMCTC Calbiga-Hinabangan, Samar

REGION IXHon. Oscar S. Cabarron8th MCTC Dumalinao-San-Pablo-Tigbao-Guipos,Zamboanga del Sur

REGION XIHon. Ambrosio N. MoletaMCTC Cagwait-Bayabas, Surigao del SurHon. Rufo U. NaragasMCTC Lanuza-Cortes-Madrid-Carmen,Surigao del SurHon. Ely T. PastoresMCTC Banga-Tantangan-Sto. Niño,South Cotabato

REGION XIIHon. Arvin Sadiri B. BalagotMCTC M’lang-Matalam, North CotabatoHon. Jose T. TabosaresMCTC Pres. Roxas-Antipas-Arakan,North Cotabato

B. Promotions


REGION IHon. Danilo P. CamachoRTC Br. 62, La Trinidad, Benguet

REGION IIIHon. Jose S. ValloRTC Br. 68, Camiling, TarlacHon. Nelson A. TribianaRTC Br. 37, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija

REGION VIIIHon. Ramon B. Daomilas, Jr.RTC Br. 11, Cebu CityHon. Gilbert P. MoisesRTC Br. 18, Cebu CityHon. Manuel D. PatalinghudRTC Br. 22, Cebu CityHon. Victor A. TevesRTC Br. 54, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu

REGION XHon. Avellino C. PakinoRTC Br. 43, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental

The 41st Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Judges held at the PHILJA DevelopmentCenter, Tagaytay City last May 29 to June 9, 2006,was attended by forty-two (42) judges whichconsist of thirty-two (32) newly appointed and ten(10) promoted.

A. New Appointments


REGION IIHon. Jezarene C. AquinoRTC Tuguegarao, Cagayan

REGION IVHon. Juanita G. AretaRTC Br. 86, Taal, Batangas

REGION VHon. Erwin Virgilio P. FerrerRTC Br. 20, Naga City, Camarines SurHon. Arturo Clemente B. RevilRTC Br. 50, San Jacinto, Masbate

(Continued on NEXT page)


REGION VIIHon. Marie Rose I. ParasRTC Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

REGION VIIIHon. Rogelio JobocoRTC Br. 27, Catbalogan, SamarHon. Alphinor C. SerranoRTC Br. 38, Gamay Northern Samar

REGION XHon. Jeoffre W. AcebidoRTC Br. 41, Cagayan de Oro City

REGION XIHon. Andres N. Lorenzo, Jr.RTC Br. 23, General Santos City

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Hon. Roberto P. BuenaventuraMeTC Br. 63, Makati CityHon. Carlito B. CalpaturaMeTC Br. 62, Makati CityHon. Ma. Marjorie T. Uyengco-NolascoMeTC Br. 79, Las Pinas CityHon. Josefino A. SubiaMeTC Br. 66, Makati City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IHon. Jose R. Feril, Jr.MTC Bacarra, Ilocos NorteHon. Charina Imelda C. SazonMTC Rosales, PangasinanHon. Lily C. De Vera-ValloMTC Bayambang, Pangasinan

Participants of the 41st Seminar-Workshopfor Newly-Appointed Judges with CA JusticeLucas P. Bersamin and PHILJA ExecutiveSecretary Justice Delilah Vidallon Magtolis.

REGION IIIHon. Leticia L. NicolasMTC Limay, BataanHon. Rolando S. TungolMTC Br. 1, Abucay, Bataan

REGION IVHon. Norma M. RamosMTC Nasugbu, BatangasHon. Josephine A. Vito CruzMTC Cardona, Rizal

REGION XIHon. Semiramis Bituin C. CastroMTC Mati, Davao Oriental

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

REGION IIIHon. Analie C. Aldea-ArocenaMTCC Br. 1, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija

REGION IVHon. Eleuterio L. BathanMTCC Batangas CityHon. Tomas H. Torneros, Jr.MTCC Tagaytay City, Cavite

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

REGION IHon. Marietta S. Brawner-CualingMCTC Tuba-Sablan, Benguet

(Continued on page 19)


SPECIAL FOCUS

PROGRAMS

REGIONAL MULTI-SECTORAL SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC

RELATIONS JUSTICE (ADVANCED LEVEL)

This quarter, PHILJA, in partnership with theUnited Nation Children’s Fund (UNICEF),conducted three (3) Regional Multi-Sectoral Seminar-Workshops on Juvenile and Domestic Relations Justice(Advanced Level). The program of these seminar-workshops was made in compliance of the FamilyCourts Law (R.A. No. 8369), which requires theSupreme Court to provide a continuing programon child and family laws, procedure and otherrelated disciplines. To achieve the multi-sectoralapproach of the program, participants comprisejudges, branch clerks of court, court socialworkers, prosecutors, and PAO lawyers of FamilyCourts, as well as Philippine National Police (PNP)Officers and Bureau of Jail Management andPenology (BJMP) Officers handling juvenile anddomestic relations cases.

The 6th Regional Multi-Sectoral Seminar-Workshopon Juvenile and Domestic Relations Justice (AdvancedLevel) was conducted on April 5 to 7, 2006, at theRidgewood Residence Hotel, Baguio City. A totalof seventy-two (72) participants from the National

RJCEP (LEVEL 4)

The Academy, in collaboration with theSupreme Court’s Program Management Office(PMO), conducted the Regional Judicial CareerEnhancement Program (Level 4) for Judges, Clerks ofCourt and Branch Clerks of Court of the Regional TrialCourts and First Level Trial Courts of the Sixth JudicialRegion on April 26 to 28, 2006, at the Amigo TerraceHotel, Iloilo City. A total of two hundred seventy-seven (277) comprising RTC judges, First-LevelCourt judges and clerks of court participated in this3-day seminar.

A month after, PHILJA conducted the RegionalCareer Enhancement Program (Level 4) for Judges, Clerksof Court, Branch Clerks of Court of the Regional TrialCourts and First Level Trial Courts of the National CapitalJudicial Region (Batch 1) on May 24 to 26, 2006, at theHyatt Regency Hotel, Manila. The seminar wasattended by a total of three hundred four (304)participants comprising one hundred one (101)Regional Trial Court and First Level Trial Courtjudges, one hundred sixty-nine (169) clerks of courtand branch clerks of court, one hundred five (105)of which, were lawyers, and two (2) officers of theAFP-Judge Advocate General Office (JAGO).

PHILJAACADEMIC PROGRAMS

Participants of the 6th

Regional Multi-SectoralSeminar-Workshop onJuvenile and DomesticRelations Justice withJustice Alicia V. Sempio-Diy.

(Continued onNEXT page)

Participants of the 7th

Regional Multi-SectoralSeminar-Workshop onJuvenile and DomesticRelations Justice withJustice Alicia V. Sempio-Diy.


Capital Judicial Region, Region I and Region II,attended the seminar-workshop.

The 7th Regional Multi-Sectoral Seminar-Workshopon the Juvenile Relations Justice (Advanced Level) washeld on May 3 to 5, 2006, at the Waterfront InsularHotel Davao, Lanang, Davao City. Sixty-three (63)participants from Regions X, XI and XII attendedthe seminar-workshop.

The 8th Regional Multi-Sectoral Seminar-Workshopon the Juvenile and Domestic Justice (Advanced Level)was conducted on June 28 to 30, 2006 at HotelVenezia, Renaissance Gardens, Legaspi City.Seventy-nine (79) participants from Regions V andVI, attended the seminar-workshop.

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT TRAINING FOR

FAMILY COURT JUDGES AND PERSONNEL IN

HANDLING CHILD ABUSE CASE

PHILJA and the Child Protection Unit Network(CPU-Net), in cooperation with the BritishEmbassy, conducted the Capacity EnhancementTraining for Family Court Judges and Personnel inHandling Child Abuse Cases on April 18 to 20, 2006,at the Hotel Dominique, Tagaytay City.

Judges- Participants of the 8th Regional Multi-Sectoral Seminar-Workshop on Juvenile and Domestic Relations Justice with JusticeAlicia V. Sempio-Diy and Prof. Sedfrey M. Candelaria.

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON LIBERTY AND

PROSPERITY: A PROGRAM FOR THE

PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY

PHILJA, in collaboration with the SupremeCourt’s Program Management Office (PMO)conducted the Roundtable Discussion (RTD) on Libertyand Prosperity: A Program for the Philippine Judiciaryon April 12, 2006, at the Plantation Bay ResortHotel, Mactan Island in Cebu City.

A total of twenty-seven (27) participants fromSupreme Court, Court of Appeals-Manila, Cebu,Cagayan de Oro, Regional Trial Courts, PhilippineJudicial Academy, Program Management Office,Public Information Office, and Asean LawAssociation, attended this one-day roundtablediscussion. The objectives of the said discussionwere to clarify the twin concepts of “liberty” and“prosperity;” relate the twin goals of prosperity andliberty to the function of the Philippine judiciary;and draw up concrete measures by which thePhilippine Judiciary can contribute directly to theenhancement of liberty and prosperity.

Selected Family Court judges, their branchclerks of court, court social workers, interpreters,prosecutors and Public Attorney’s Office lawyerscomprise the participants of this training totalingto twenty-seven (27) participants.

Lectures presented were “The Phenomenon of ChildAbuse in the Philippines; Demographic, Physical, andDevelopmental Profiles of the Child Witness;” “The Roleof A Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) in Child Abuse Cases;”“Testimony of the Child Witness, Corroborative Evidenceand Expert Test;” and “Shield Law, Hearsay Evidence,Physical/Forensic Evidence, DNA Test, and OtherElectronic Evidence.”

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

SEMINAR-WORKSHOP FOR SELECTED JUDGES

PHILJA, in partnership with the UnitedNations Development Programme-GlobalEnvironment Facility-Small Grants Programme(UNDP-GEF-SGP), International Visitor Program-Philippines Alumni Foundation Inc., and theHaribon Foundation, through the ANEST forBiodiversity Conservation in the Philippines (PN-11780) and the Threatened Species Program,conducted two (2) Environmental Law Seminar-Workshops for Selected Judges this quarter.

The Environmental Law Seminar-Workshop forSelected Judges of Samar, Leyte and Bohol wasconducted on April 19 to 20, 2006 at the Leyte ParkResort Hotel, Magsaysay Blvd., Tacloban City. The

(Continued on page 9)


ON MEDIATION

RE-ORIENTATION SEMINAR

FOR COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATORS

PHILJA’s Philippine Mediation Center (PMC)conducted the Re-Orientation Seminar for Court-Annexed Mediators (Cagayan de Oro Mediation Program)on May 18 to 19, 2006, at the VIP Hotel in Cagayande Oro City. The program was attended by eighteen(18) mediators.

Significant in the module is the discussion ofthe important roles played by the mediators andofficers of the court, as role models, facilitators andcommunicators. There was a substantivediscussion on Rule 141 and the Implementing Rulesand Regulations on Court-Annexed Mediation.Furthermore, the participants were oriented on thedifferent PMC Forms and statistical reportingrequirements.

The Re-Orientation Seminar of Court-AnnexedMediators, Inauguration of PMC General Santos Unitand Oath-Taking Ceremony of Mediators wasconducted on June 5 to 6, 2006 in General SantosCity. The three-part program was attended byforty-three (43) mediators on the first day, andincreased to around ninety (90) participants on thesecond day with the attendance of invited Judges,Local Officials, Mediators, Media and otherstakeholders in the Inauguration and Oath-takingCeremony.

MEDIATOR’S TRAINING FOR CEBU

PHILJA, in partnership with Court-AnnexedMediation (CAM), Justice Reform InitiativesSupport (JURIS), and the University of San Carlos,conducted the Mediator’s Training for Cebu on May30 to June 2, 2006, at the University of San Carlos,Cebu City. A total of thirty-six (36) participantsattended the training. The participants wereacademicians, successful professionals and industryleaders who are well-respected in Cebu andinfluential in civic society. They have expressedtheir commitment to help the Supreme Court andPHILJA in constructing a new PhilippineMediation Center in the area.

The program of the training was patterned afterthe Integrated Curriculum for Mediator Training,with the objective that by the end of the training,the participants will a perspective that mediationis an effective tool in decongesting court docketsand makes the judicial process move at a faster paceadvantageous to all.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP

FOR JUDGES-TRAINERS

The Academy’s Philippine Mediation Center(PMC), the Justice Reform Initiatives Support(JURIS) Project, and the National Judicial Institute(NJI) of Canada conducted the Faculty DevelopmentWorkshop for Judges-Trainers on May 9, 2006, andthe Course on Court-Annexed Mediation and JudicialSettlement Conference on Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR)on May 10 to 12, 2006, at the L’Fisher Hotel inBacolod City. Sixty (60) participants attended bothprograms.

Participants of the Re-orientationSeminar of Court-Annexed Mediators(Cagayan De Oro Mediation Program).


PACSWI

The Fifth Convention and Seminar of the PhilippineAssociation of Court Social Workers, Inc. was held onApril 19 to 21, 2006, at the Subic International Hotelin Olongapo City with the theme “Strengthening theRole of Court Social Workers in the Judiciary.” Theseminar was attended by one hundred eight (108)social workers nationwide.

The program covered lectures on Guardianship,Legal Separation, Annulment and Declarations ofNullity, Adoption, and Violence Against Womenand Their Children, to which cases, court socialworkers are actively involved. Basic computer skillstraining and the use of Microsoft Word, Excel, andPowerPoint, as well as a lecture on the Code ofConduct of Court Personnel, were also part of theprogram. Highlighting the convention is theawarding of the Plaque of Recognition and Loyaltyto the court social workers who have dedicatedtwenty years and more of social service for thejudiciary.

JACOPHIL

PHILJA and the Judiciary Association of Clerksof the Philippines (JACOPHIL) conducted the FifthConvention and Seminar of the Judiciary Association ofClerks of the Philippines on April 26 to 28, 2006, atthe Kaamulan Theater, Pines View Park,Malaybalay City, Bukidnon with the theme “TheRole of Clerks in the Implementation of Judicial Reforms.”Six hundred twenty-one (621) clerks attended theconvention and seminar.

Topics discussed in the seminar were “HumanRelations and Human Behavior,” “The Code of Conductfor Court Employees, Court Clerks and Judicial Reform,”and “Sexual Harassment in the Court.”

PHILACI

The Academy and the Philippine Associationof Court Interpreters (PHILACI) conducted theFourth National Convention and Seminar of the PhilippineAssociation of Court Interpreters (PHILACI) on May

17 to 19, 2006, at the Regent Hotel in Naga Citywith the theme “Court Interpreters: Purveyors of Truthand Sentinels of Justice.” Four hundred three (403)court interpreters attended the activity.

The seminar focused on the discussion of theRole of Interpreters; English Proficiency and Accuracy inInterpretation (With Exercises); Legal English; StandardProcedures Pointers in Interpretation; Employees Benefits;and Liberty and Prosperity as Aims of Judicial Service.

FLECCAP

The Philippine Judicial Academy and the First-Level Clerks of Court Association of the Philippines(FLECCAP) conducted the Convention and Seminarof the First-Level Clerks of Court Association of thePhilippines on May 31 to June 2, 2006, at the BoholTropics Hotel, Tagbilaran City.

Various topics covered in the said event wereHuman Behavior and Human Relations; AdministrativeCases involving CoC’s and Recent AdministrativeCirculars and Issuances; Clerks of Court and Facility inthe Disposition of Cases and Court Management; LegalFees, Judicial Development Fund, Special Allowance forJudiciary (SAJ) Fund and Meditation Fees, and theAccomplishment of Monthly and Inventory Reports.

CONVENTIONS

seminar-workshop was attended by a total offorty-three (43) participants. Bishop EmmanuelC. Trance, Bishop-in-Charge for NorthernSamar delivered the Inspirational Messageduring the Closing Ceremonies on April 20,2006. In his message, he outlined the differentenvironmental programs of the Church in theSamar Island, one of which is theinstitutionalization of a multi-sectoral approachand involvement of the National GovernmentOrganizations (NGOs) and Local GovernmentUnits (LGUs) to protect and develop theenvironment and natural resources in their area.

On the other hand, the Environmental LawSeminar-Workshop for Selected Judges of CARAGAand Davao was held on May 18 to 19, 2006, atthe Grand Regal Hotel in Davao City. A total offorty-nine (49) participants attended theseminar-workshop.

(Continued from page 6)


DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

FOR JUDICIAL PERSONNEL

BASIC COMPUTER TRAINING FOR

SANDIGANBAYAN JUSTICES

PHILJA, in partnership with United StatesAgency for International Development (USAID),The Asia Foundation (TAF), Rule of LawEffectiveness (ROLE) and the American BarAssociation-Asia Law Initiative (ABA-Asia),conducted the Basic Computer Training forSandiganbayan Justices [Module 3: Case Managementand Information System (CMIS)] on June 1 to 2, 2006,at the Nautilus Room, Manila Pavilion, U.N.Avenue, Manila. In attendance were thirteen (13)Sandiganbayan Justices. They were given lectureson computer basics and hands-on exercises onCMIS.

TEAM-BUILDING SEMINAR-WORKSHOP

FOR THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

PHILJA, with the assistance of the SupremeCourt’s Office of the Administrative Services (SC-OAS), conducted the Team-Building Seminar-Workshop for Court of Tax Appeals Officials and Staffon May 12 to 14, 2006, at the Island Cove Resortand Leisure Park, Binakayan, Kawit, Cavite.

The team-building seminar for the Court of TaxAppeals was led by Presiding Justice Erenesto D.Acosta. The three-day activity made theparticipants feel the sense of “belongingness” totheir work organization and develop an awarenessto team dynamics, team goals, team values andteam conflict resolution.

NEW MEMBER OF THE

PHILJA BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Judge Maria Filomena Singh, Presiding Judgeof the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 31, QuezonCity, and Executive Judge of the Metropolitan TrialCourt of Quezon City was approved to be the FirstLevel Representative to the PHILJA Board ofTrustees in an acting capacity.

PHILJA’S CORPS OF PROFESSORS

PHILJA is pleased to announce and welcomethe new members of the Academy’s Corps ofProfessors:

Remedial LawChair: Justice Alfredo L. BenipayoMember: Alexander G. Gesmundo

Civil LawChair: Prof. Ruben F. Balane

Criminal LawMember: Dean Carlos P. Ortega

International and Human Rights LawMember: Prof. Herminio Harry L. Roque

Court ManagementMembers: Judge Caridad G. Cuerdo

Judge Joselito D.J. Vibandor

Court TechnologyChair: Atty. Emmanuel L. CaparasMembers: Prof. Jesus M. Disini, Jr.

Prof. Ray C. Espinosa

Likewise, PHILJA welcomes Retired AssociateJustice Vicente V. Mendoza as Professorial Lecturer

Participants of the BasicComputer Training forSandiganbayan Justices.

ON PHILJA

in Constitutional Lawand congratulates himfor having been recentlynamed Holder of theMetrobank FoundationProfessorial Chair inConstitutional Law.

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

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

In view of the maximum tolerance mandated byB.P. No. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985),calibrated preemptive response (CPR) serves novalid purpose if it means the same thing asmaximum tolerance and is illegal if it meanssomething else.

At any rate, the Court rules that in view ofthe maximum tolerance mandated by B.P. No. 880,CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the samething as maximum tolerance and is illegal if itmeans something else. Accordingly, what is to befollowed is and should be that mandated by thelaw itself, namely, maximum tolerance, x x x.

POLITICAL LAW

The President alone can declare a state of nationalemergency, but, without legislation, she has nopower to take over privately-owned public utilityor business affected with public interest.

Following our interpretation of Section 17,Article XII, [1987 Constitution] invoked byPresident Arroyo in issuing PP 1017, this Courtrules that such Proclamation does not authorizeher during the emergency to temporarily take overor direct the operation of any privately ownedpublic utility or business affected with publicinterest without authority from Congress.

Let it be emphasized that while the Presidentalone can declare a state of national emergency,however, without legislation, he has no power totake over privately-owned public utility orbusiness affected with public interest. The Presidentcannot decide whether exceptional circumstancesexist warranting the take over of privately-ownedpublic utility or business affected with publicinterest. Nor can he determine when suchexceptional circumstances have ceased. Likewise,without legislation, the President has no powerto point out the types of businesses affected withpublic interest that should be taken over. In short,the President has no absolute authority to exerciseall the powers of the State under Section 17, ArticleVII in the absence of an emergency powers actpassed by Congress.

(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., Prof. Randolf S. David, etal., v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., G.R. No.171396, May 3, 2006.)

x x x

Furthermore, there is need to address thesituation adverted to by petitioners where mayorsdo not act on applications for a permit and whenthe police demand a permit and the rallyists couldnot produce one, the rally is immediately dispersed.In such a situation, as a necessary consequenceand part of maximum tolerance, rallyists who canshow the police an application duly filed on a givendate can, after two days from said date, rally inaccordance with their application without the needto show a permit, the grant of the permit beingthen presumed under the law, and it will be theburden of the authorities to show that there hasbeen a denial of the application, in which case therally may be peacefully dispersed following theprocedure of maximum tolerance prescribed by thelaw.

In sum, this Court reiterates its basic policy ofupholding the fundamental rights of our people,especially freedom of expression and freedom ofassembly. In several policy addresses, Chief JusticeArtemio V. Panganiban has repeatedly vowed touphold the liberty of our people and to nurturetheir prosperity. He said that “in cases involvingliberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavilyagainst the government and in favor of the poor,the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessedand the weak. Indeed, laws and actions that restrictfundamental rights come to the courts with a heavypresumption against their validity. These laws andactions are subjected to heightened scrutiny.”

For this reason, the so-called calibratedpreemptive response policy has no place in our legalfirmament and must be struck down as a darknessthat shrouds freedom. It merely confuses ourpeople and is used by some police agents to justifyabuses. On the other hand, B.P. No. 880 cannotbe condemned as unconstitutional; it does notcurtail or unduly restrict freedoms; it merelyregulates the use of public places as to the time,place and manner of assemblies. Far from beinginsidious, “maximum tolerance” is for the benefitof rallyists, not the government. The delegationto the mayors of the power to issue rally “permits”is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound “clear and present danger” standard.

(Azcuna, J., Bayan, Karapatan, KilusangMagbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), et al., v. EduardoErmita, et al., G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSApril-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006 NEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTTTTT 11

Local Government has a deadline of 30 days todesignate specific freedom parks, as providedunder B.P. 880.

In this Decision, the Court goes even one stepfurther in safeguarding liberty by giving localgovernments a deadline of 30 days within whichto designate specific freedom parks as providedunder B.P. No. 880. If, after that period, no suchparks are so identified in accordance with Section15 of the law, all public parks and plazas of themunicipality or city concerned shall in effect bedeemed freedom parks; no prior permit of whateverkind shall be required to hold an assembly therein.The only requirement will be written notices to thepolice and the mayor ’s office to allow propercoordination and orderly activities.

(Azcuna, J., Bayan, Karapatan, KilusangMagbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), et al., v. EduardoErmita, et al., G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW continued REMEDIAL LAW“Moot and Academic” Principle.

A moot and academic case is one that ceases topresent a justiciable controversy by virtue ofsupervening events, so that a declaration thereonwould be of no practical use or value. Generally,courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismissit on ground of mootness. x x x The “moot andacademic” principle is not a magical formula thatcan automatically dissuade the courts in resolvinga case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot andacademic, if: first, there is a grave violation of theConstitution; second, the exceptional character ofthe situation and the paramount public interest isinvolved; third, when constitutional issue raisedrequires formulation of controlling principles toguide the bench, the bar and the public; and fourth,the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.


PHILJA continues to conduct training for court personnel in collaboration with the convention-seminars of their respective associations such as the PACSWI, JACOPHIL, PHILACI andFLECCAP. Aside from raising awareness on the new Code of Conduct for Court Employees,the participants received training for building or enhancing their competencies for work.

To complete the preparations prior to the roll-out of the Case Management Information System(CMIS) at the Sandiganbayan, Basic Computer Training was provided for the SandiganbayanJustices to correspond with their employees’ training on the CMIS for its successfulimplementation.

We responded favorably to the request of the Court of Tax Appeals for the conduct of a TeamBuilding Seminar-Workshop, in collaboration with the Supreme Court Office of AdministrativeServices. Led by CTA Presiding Justice Ernesto Acosta himself, it was an effective way for theirofficials and employees to develop a sense of ‘belongingness’ and improve overall team effort.

As we write, we are again caught in a whirl of activities preparing for the activities of the nextquarter. We foresee the next period to be as fruitful and beneficial to the Judiciary as the Academycontinues to march towards the attainment of its goals.

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


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

CONSTITUTIONAL LAWExecutive Privilege, defined.

The phrase “executive privilege” is not new inthis jurisdiction. It has been used even prior to thepromulgation of the 1986 Constitution. Being ofAmerican origin, it is best understood in light of howit has been defined and used in the legal literature ofthe United States.

Schwartz defines executive privilege as “the powerof the Government to withhold information from thepublic, the courts, and the Congress. Similarly, Rozelldefines it as “the right of the President and high-levelexecutive branch officers to withhold informationfrom Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public.”

Executive privilege is, nonetheless, not a clear orunitary concept. It has encompassed claims of varyingkinds. Tribe, in fact, comments that while it iscustomary to employ the phrase “executive privilege,”it may be more accurate to speak of executive privileges“since presidential refusals to furnish informationmay be actuated by any of at least three distinct kindsof considerations, and may be asserted, with differingdegrees of success, in the context of either judicial orlegislative investigations.”

(Carpio-Morales, J., Senate of the Philippines v.Eduardo R. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006)

Taxpayers, Voters, Concerned Citizens, andLegislators Standing to Sue, Requisites.

By way of summary, the following rules may beculled from the cases decided by this Court. Taxpayers,voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may beaccorded standing to sue, provided that the followingrequirements are met: (1) cases involve constitutionalissues; (2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegaldisbursement of public funds or that the tax measureis unconstitutional; (3) for voters, there must be ashowing of obvious interest in the validity of theelection law in question; (4) for concerned citizens,there must be a showing that the issues raised are oftranscendental importance which must be settledearly; and (5) for legislators, there must be a claimthat the official action complained of infringes upontheir prerogatives as legislators. Significantly, recentdecisions show a certain toughening in the Court’sattitude toward legal standing.

(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., Prof. Randolf S. David, et al.,v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 171396,May 3, 2006.)

LABOR LAW

Quitclaims executed by employees are oftenfrowned upon as contrary to public policy;exceptions.

It bears stressing that the law looks withdisfavor on quitclaims and releases byemployees who have been inveigled orpressured into signing them by unscrupulousemployers seeking to evade their legalresponsibilities and frustrate just claims ofemployees. In line with the policy of the Stateto promote the welfare of execution,quitclaims executed by employees are oftenfrowned upon as contrary to public policy.Acceptance of benefits therefrom does notamount to estoppel. Indeed, in Lopez SugarCorporation v. Federation of Free Workers, thisCourt ruled that:

Acceptance of those benefits would notamount to estoppel. The reason is plain.Employer and employee, obviously donot stand on the same footing. Theemployer drove the employee to thewall. The latter must have to get hold ofmoney. Because, out of the job, he hasto face harsh necessities of life. He thusfound himself in no position to resistmoney proferred. His, then, is a case ofadherence, not of choice. One thing sure,however, is that petitioners did not relenttheir claim. They pressed it. They aredeemed not to have waived any of theirrights. x x x.

In exceptional cases, the Court has giveneffect to quitclaim executed by employees ifthe employer is able to prove the followingrequisites: (1) the employee executes a deedof quitclaim voluntarily; (2) there is no fraudor deceit on the part of any of the parties; (3)the consideration of the quitclaim is credibleand reasonable; and (4) the contract is notcontrary to law, public order, public policy,morals or good customs or prejudicial to athird person with a right recognized by law.

(Callejo, Sr. J., Sime Darby Filipinas, Inc. v.Alfredo Arguilla and Henry C. Pedrajas, G.R.No. 143542, June 8, 2006)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSApril-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006 DOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSApril-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006 13

CIVIL LAWContract of Sale; rescission.

In a contract of sale, the vendor cannot recoverownership of the thing sold until and unless thecontract itself is resolved and set aside. On thisscore, it is significant to note that the resolutionor rescission of a contract of sale is furthercircumscribed by Article 1592 of the Civil Codewhich provides:

In the sale of immovable property, eventhough it may have been stipulated thatupon failure to pay the price at the timeagreed upon, the rescission of the contractshall of right take place, the vendee may pay,even after the expiration of the period, aslong as no demand for rescission of thecontract has been made upon him eitherjudicially or by a notarial act. After thedemand, the court may not grant him anew term. (Emphasis supplied)

The demand mentioned above refers to thatmade upon the vendee to agree to the resolutionof the contract. A party who fails to invokejudicially or by notarial act the resolution of thecontract of sale would be prevented from blockingthe consummation of the same in light of theprecept that mere failure to fulfill that contract doesnot operate ipso facto as its rescission.

(Azcuna, J., Platinum Plans Phil. Inc., et al. v.Romeo R. Cucueco, G.R. No. 147405, April 25, 2006)

Laches; Prescription; Distinguished.

Laches has been defined as such neglect oromission to assert a right, taken in conjunctionwith the lapse of time and other circumstancescausing prejudice to an adverse party, as willoperate as a bar in equity. It is a delay in theassertion of a right which works disadvantage toanother because of the inequity founded on somechange in the condition or relations of the propertyor parties. It is based on public policy which, forthe peace of society, ordains that relief will be deniedto a stale demand which otherwise could be a validclaim. It is different from and applies independentlyof prescription. While prescription is concernedwith the fact of delay, laches is concerned with theeffect of delay. Prescription is a matter of time;laches is principally a question of inequity ofpermitting a claim to be enforced, this inequitybeing founded on some change in the condition of

the property or the relation of the parties.Prescription is statutory; laches is not. Lachesapplies in equity, whereas prescription applies atlaw. Prescription is based on a fixed time, laches isnot. Laches means the failure or neglect for anunreasonable and unexplained length of time, todo that which, by exercising due diligence, couldor should have been done earlier; it is negligenceor omission to assert a right within a reasonabletime, warranting the presumption that the partyentitled to assert it either has abandoned or declinedto assert it. It has been held that even a registeredowner of property under the Torrens Title systemmay be barred from recovering possession ofproperty by virtue of laches.

(Austria-Martinez, J., Heirs of Dicman v. Jose Cariñoand Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146459, June 8,2006)

Equitable Mortgage; its definition and essentialrequisites.

Equitable mortgage, defined, is a contract that– although lacking the formality, the form or wordsor other requisites demanded by a statute –nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties toburden a piece of real property as security for adebt. Its essential requisites are: (1) the parties enterinto what appears to be a contract of sale; and (2)their intention, however, is to secure an existingdebt by way of a mortgage.

While there is no single conclusive test todetermine whether a deed absolute on its face isreally a simple loan accommodation secured by amortgage, the Civil Code enumerates severalinstances when a contract is presumed to be anequitable mortgage, thus:

Art. 1602. The contract shall bepresumed to be an equitable mortgage, inany of the following cases:

1. When the price of a sale with rightto repurchase is unusuallyinadequate;

2. When the vendor remains inpossession as lessee or otherwise;

3. When upon or after the expirationof the right to repurchase another


REMEDIAL LAWJudicial Review; Requisites.

Like almost all powers conferred by theConstitution, the power of judicial review is subjectto limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actualcase or controversy calling for the exercise ofjudicial power; (2) the person challenging the actmust have standing to challenge the validity of thesubject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he musthave a personal and substantial interest in the casesuch that he has sustained, or will sustain, directinjury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the questionof constitutionality must be raised at the earliestopportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionalitymust be the very lis mota of the case.


Citizen suits.

It is well-settled that when suing as a citizen,the interest of the petitioner in assailing theconstitutionality of laws, presidential decrees,orders, and other regulations, must be direct andpersonal. In Franciso v. House of Representatives, thisCourt held that when the proceeding involves theassertion of a public right, the mere fact that he is acitizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest.


Immunity from suit of the President during his/her tenure of office or actual incumbency.

It is not proper to implead President Arroyo asrespondent. Settled is the doctrine that thePresident, during his tenure of office or actualincumbency, may not be sued in any civil orcriminal case, and there is no need to provide for it

CIVIL LAW (continued)

instrument extending the period ofredemption or granting a newperiod is executed;

4. When the purchaser retains forhimself a part of the purchase price;

5. When the vendor binds himself topay the taxes on the thing sold;

6. In any other case where it may befairly inferred that the real intentionof the parties is that the transactionshall secure the payment of a debtor the performance of any otherobligation.

In any of the foregoing cases, anymoney, fruits, or other benefit to be receivedby the vendee as rent or otherwise shall beconsidered as interest which shall be subjectto the usury laws.

The presence of even just one of thecircumstances set forth in this provision sufficesto convert a contract to an equitable mortgage.No concurrence or an overwhelming number isneeded.

Article 1604 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1604. The provisions of Article 1602shall also apply to a contract purporting tobe an absolute sale.

While there is a presumption in favor ofequitable mortgage, such presumption, however,is not conclusive and may be rebutted bycompetent and satisfactory proof to the contrary.

(Austria-Martinez, J., Spouses Aniceto and ThelmaCirelos, v. Spouses William G. Hernandez, et al.,G.R. No. 146523, June 15, 2006)

Written consent of the biological parents isindispensable for the validity of a decree ofadoption.

The general requirement of consent and noticeto the natural parents is intended to protect thenatural parental relationships from unwarrantedinterference by interlopers, and to insure theopportunity to safeguard the best interests of thechild in the manner of the proposed adoption.

Clearly, the written consent of the biologicalparents is indispensable for the validity of a decreeof adoption. Indeed, the natural right of a parentto his child requires that consent must be obtainedbefore his parental rights and duties may beterminated and re-established in adoptive parents.

(Callejo, Sr., J., Diwata Ramos Landingin v. Republicof the Philippines, G.R. No. 164948, June 27, 2006)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSApril-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006 DOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSApril-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006 15

Right of Action; Cause of Action; distinguished.

The term “right of action” is the right tocommence and maintain an action. In the law ofpleadings, right of action is distinguished from acause of action in that the former is a remedial rightbelonging to some persons while the latter is aformal statement of the operational facts that giverise to such remedial right. The former is a matterof right and depends on the substantive law whilethe latter is a matter of statute and is governed bythe law of procedure. The right of action springsfrom the cause of action, but does not accrue untilall the facts which constitute the cause of actionhave occurred.

(Callejo, Sr. J., Multi-Realty DevelopmentCorporation v. The Makati Tuscany CondominiumCorporation, G.R. No. 146726, June 16, 2006)

Criminal Contempt distinguished from CivilContempt.

In the recent case of Montenegro v. Montenegro,431 SCRA 415, the Court distinguished criminalcontempt from civil contempt, as follows:

Contempt, whether direct or indirect, maybe civil or criminal depending on the natureand effect of the contemptuous act. Criminalcontempt is “conduct directed against theauthority and dignity of the court or a judgeacting judicially; it is an act obstructing theadministration of justice which tends tobring the court to disrepute or disrespect.”On the other hand, civil contempt is thefailure to do something ordered to be doneby a court or a judge for the benefit of theopposing party therein and is therefore, anoffense against the party in whose behalf theviolated order was made. If the purpose is topunish, then it is criminal in nature; but ifto compensate, then it is civil.

Thus, contempt proceedings have dualfunctions: (1) vindication of public interest bypunishment of contemptuous conduct; (2) coercionto compel the contemnor to do what the lawrequires him to uphold the power of the Court,and also to secure the rights of the parties to a suitawarded by the Court.

(Continued on NEXT Page)

in the Constitution or law. It will degrade thedignity of the high office of the President, the Headof State, if he can be dragged into court litigationswhile serving as such. Furthermore, it is importantthat he can be freed from any form of harassment,hindrance or distraction to enable him to fullyattend to the performance of his official duties andfunctions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch,only one constitutes the executive branch andanything which impairs his usefulness in thedischarge of the many great and important dutiesimposed upon him by the Constitution necessarilyimpairs the operation of the Government. However,this does not mean that the President is notaccountable to anyone. Like any other official, heremains accountable to the people but he may beremoved from office only in the mode provided bylaw and that is by impeachment.


Entries in official records made in theperformance of his duty by a public officer or bya person in the performance of a duty speciallyenjoined by law are only prima facie evidence ofthe facts therein stated.

No error, in our view, was committed by theappellate court in this regard. As previously held,entries in the police blotter, though regularly donein the course of the performance of official duty, arenot conclusive proof of the truth of such entriesand should not be given undue significance orprobative value, for they are usually incomplete andinaccurate. Entries in official records made in theperformance of his duty by a public officer or by aperson in the performance of a duty speciallyenjoined by law are only prima facie evidence of thefacts therein stated. To be admissible in evidence, itis essential that the person who made the entrieshad sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated,which must have been acquired by him personallyor through official information. In this case, SPO1Mira merely gathered his information from the fourto five bystanders he saw at the store.

(Quisumbing, J., People of the Philippines v. RonanP. Dulanas, G.R. No. 159058, May 3, 2006)

REMEDIAL LAW (continued)


REMEDIAL LAW (continued)

The Rules of Court penalizes two types ofcontempt, namely, direct contempt and indirectcontempt. Direct contempt is committed in thepresence of or so near a court as to obstruct orinterrupt the proceedings before the same, andincludes disrespect toward the court, offensivepersonalities toward others, or refusal to be swornor to answer as a witness, or to subscribe anaffidavit or deposition when lawfully required todo so.

On the other hand, Section 3 of Rule 71 of theRules of Court enumerates particular acts whichconstitute indirect contempt, thus:

(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court inthe performance of his official duties orin his official transactions;

(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawfulwrit, process, order or judgment of acourt, including the act of a person who,after being dispossessed or ejected fromany real property by the judgment orprocess of any court of competentjurisdiction, enters or attempts or inducesanother to enter into or upon such realproperty, for the purpose of executing actsof ownership or possession, or in anymanner disturbs the possession given tothe person adjudged to be entitled thereto;

(c) Any abuse of or any unlawfulinterference with the processes orproceedings of a court not constitutingdirect contempt under Section 1 of thisRule;

(d) Any improper conduct tending, directlyor indirectly, to impede, obstruct, ordegrade the administration of justice;

(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officerof a court, and acting as such withoutauthority;

(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;

(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of aperson or property in the custody of anofficer by virtue of an order or process ofa court held by him.

x x x

Contempt proceedings are neither wholly civilnor altogether criminal. It may not always be easyto classify a particular act as belonging to one ofthose two classes. It may partake of thecharacteristics of both. If it is remedial and coercivein nature, it is civil; the parties are the individualswhose private rights and remedies they wereinstituted to protect or enforce. The absence ofwillfulness does not release one from civil contempt.It is civil if it is instituted to preserve and enforcethe rights and administer the remedies of the partiesto which the court has to force them to obey.

Proceedings for contempt are criminal in natureif presented to preserve the power of the courts andto punish for disobedience to their orders. Criminalcontempt involves no element of personal injury;it is directed against the power and dignity of thecourt and the private parties have little, if anyinterest in the proceedings for its punishment.

x x x

It is not the fact of punishment, but rather itscharacter and purpose, that often serve todistinguish between the two classes of contempt.If it is for civil contempt the punishment is remedial,and for the benefit of the complainant. But if it isfor criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, tovindicate the authority of the court. But if thecontempt consists in the refusal of a party or aperson to do an act which the court has orderedhim to do for the benefit or the advantage of a partyto a suit or action pending before it, and he iscommitted until he complies with the order, thecommitment is in the nature of an execution toenforce the judgment of the court, and the party inwhose favor that judgment was rendered is the realparty-in-interest in the proceedings.

(Callejo, Sr., J., Atty. Ramon B. Ceniza v. DanielWistehuff, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 165734, June 16, 2006)

Power to punish for contempt must be exercisedon the preservative, not vindictive principle, andon the corrective and not retaliatory idea ofpunishment.

Contempt of court involves the doing of an act,or the failure to do an act, in such manner as tocreate an affront to the court and the sovereigndignity with which it is clothed. It is defined as“disobedience to the court by acting in oppositionto its authority, justice and dignity.” (Continued on page 19)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSApril-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSApril-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006 17

SUPREME COURT

RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC, dated 6June 2006, on A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC

RE: NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FORTHE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY

“A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC.- Re: New Code ofJudicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.- TheCourt Resolved, upon the recommendation of thePhilippine Judicial Academy, to REVISE theprovision of Canon 4, Section 9 of the New Codeof Judicial Conduct, as distributed to judges andcourt personnel, so as to read as follows:

Confidential information acquired byjudges in their judicial capacity shall not beused or disclosed for any other purpose notrelated to their judicial duties.

The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to publishthe above correction.” Ynares-Santiago, J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA Clerk of Court

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 71-2006

TO: ALL EXECUTIVE JUDGES, PRESIDINGJUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURTS OFTHE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’ADISTRICT COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIALCOURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL CIRCUITTRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIALCOURTS, SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS

SUBJECT: ACCREDITATION OF TWO ORMORE NEWSPAPERS OF THE SAMEOWNER (OCA CIRCULAR NO. 62-2003)

The Supreme Court En Banc in its Resolutiondated 21 March 2006; in A.M. No. 03-2-106-RTC,Re: Letter of Lalaine M. Jimenez, Publisher, EasternVisayas Mail, Ormoc City, on the Legality of CourtAccreditation of Two or More Newspapers of theSame Owner, Resolved to AUTHORIZE the Officeof the Court Administrator to explain the policyenunciated in OCA Circular No. 62-2003, thus:

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR

“The policy embodied in the above-mentioned circular is to limit, in each RTCstation, the accreditation to a singlenewspaper of an owner who publishesmore than one newspaper. Otherwise put,if an owner publishes two or morenewspapers, he cannot accredit more thanone paper in a particular RTC station. Therationale of the policy is to prevent unfaircompetition by ensuring that in each RTCstation no single newspaper owner orpublisher can have better chances over otherowners or publishers in the raffle of courtrelated publication contracts. Corollarily, thenewspaper owner can have one or more ofhis papers accredited in other RTC stations.”

For the information and guidance of allconcerned.

21 April 2006

(Sgd.) ZENAIDA N. ELEPAÑO Senior Deputy Court Administrator and Officer-in-Charge Office of the Court Administrator


TO: THE JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURTSOF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, THEMETROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, THEMUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS ANDTHE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIALCOURTS.

SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF OBSERVATIONS,COMMENTS AND PROBLEMSENCOUNTERED IN THEIMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULEON GUIDELINES TO BE OBSERVEDBY TRIAL COURT JUDGES ANDCLERKS OF COURT IN THECONDUCT OF PRE-TRIAL AND THEUSE OF DEPOSITION-DISCOVERYMEASURES

On 13 July 2004, the Court in its Resolution inA.M. No. 03-1-09-SC re; “PROPOSED RULE ON

(Continued on NEXT page)

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS18


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CONCERNED COURTPERSONNEL OF THE REGIONAL TRIALCOURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS,METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPALCIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND SHARI’ACIRCUIT COURTS

SUBJECT: AFFIXING THE DATE OF HEARINGIN THE REGISTRY RETURN CARD/RECEIPT ATTACHED TO EACHREGISTERED MAIL OF THE COURT

WHEREAS, Presidential Decree No. 26 extendsfranking privilege to papers connected with judicialproceedings;

WHEREAS, the Philippine Postal Corporation,through its Postmaster General Dario C. Rama, hasbrought to the attention of the Office of the CourtAdministrator (OCA) the matter of the continuingdelays in the delivery of mail matters despiteexisting orders enjoining postal employees toattend to such mails with dispatch;

WHEREAS, Postmaster General Rama advancesthe suggestion that the registry return card/receiptattached to each registered mail sent out by the


TO: ALL REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JUDGES

SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS,OBSERVATIONS, AND PROPOSEDREVISIONS TO THE PROVISIONSOF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165,OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THECOMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUSDRUGS ACT OF 2002.

We have received reports that some judges havebeen encountering problems in the implementationof the various provision of R.A. No. 9165 whileothers have observed that certain provision of theAct, especially those concerning penalties imposedon various violation, actually defeat the purposefor the enactment of the law instead of giving itlife.

The foregoing concerns give rise to an urgentneed to re-examine the provision of R.A. No. 9165.The result of such review could help strengthenthe provision of this law and enable the Office of

THE GUIDELINES TO BE OBSERVED BY TRIALCOURT JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT INTHE CONDUCT OF PRE-TRIAL AND USE OFDEPOSITION AND DISCOVERY MEASURES,”approved the said Guidelines. The same took effecton 16 August 2004.

The Guidelines seek to abbreviate courtproceedings, ensure prompt disposition of cases anddecongest court dockets through the maximum useof pre-trial and desposition-discovery measures.

After more than a year of implementation andto address concerns that OCA stakeholders mayhave with respect to the said Guidelines, you arehereby directed to submit to the Office of theundersigned not later than 31 May 2006 yourobservation, comments and problems encounteredin the implementation of the Guidelines.

For strict compliance.

16 May 2006.

(Sgd.) CHRISTOPHER O. LOCK Court Administrator

the Court Administrator to propose appropriaterecommendatory measures that would render thecourts more effective in handling and disposing ofdrug cases.

In view of all foregoing, ALL Regional TrialCourt judges (including these who are notpresiding over special court for drug cases) arehereby directed to submit to the Office of theundersigned within (30) days from receipt of thisCircular their comments on, proposed revisions to,and recommendations concerning theComprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002.

FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE.

16 May 2006


OCA CIRCULAR NO. 79-2006 (continued)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSApril-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSApril-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006April-June 2006 19

trial courts should include the date of hearing toalert postal employees of the urgency of the mailsthey are receiving;

WHEREAS, the OCA finds merit in thesuggestion propounded by Postmaster GeneralRama;

WHEREFORE, all concerned personnel of thetrial courts are hereby directed to indicate/affix thedate of hearing (if the subject court documentrequires the appearance of the parties in the branch)in the registry return card/receipt attached to eachregistered mail sent out to the litigants.

For strict compliance.

June 29, 2006.


OCA CIRCULAR NO. 92-2006 (continued)

It is well-settled that the power to declare aperson in contempt is inherent in all courts soas to preserve order in judicial proceedings andto uphold the administration of justice. Judges,however, are enjoined to exercise such powerjudiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint,and with the end view of utilizing the same forcorrection and preservation of the dignity of thecourt, and not for retaliation or vindication. Thesalutary rule is that the power to punish forcontempt must be exercised on the preservative,not vindictive principle, and on the correctiveand not retaliatory idea of punishment. Thecourts must exercise the power to punish forcontempt for purposes that are impersonal,because the power is intended as a safeguard notfor the judges as persons but for the functionsthat they exercise. Only occasionally should thecourt invoke the inherent power in order toretain that respect without which theadministration of justice must falter or fail.

(Chico-Nazario, J., John Panaligan v. JudgeFrancisco B. Ibay, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1972, June21, 2006.

REGION VIHon. Rafael S. AsebiasMCTC Salcedo-Mac Arthur, Eastern SamarHon. Marcelino F. Malate, Jr.MCTC Kananga-Matag-Ob, LeyteHon. Patrick M. EspereMCTC Sagod-Libagon-Bontoc, Southern LeyteHon. Felix B. Rodriguez, Jr.MCTC Roxas-Cagayancillo, Palawan

REGION VIIIHon. Joseph A. ElmacoMCTC Bindoy, Negros Oriental

REGION IXHon. Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales1st MCTC Carmen-Sto. Tomas-Braulio E.Dujali, Davao del Norte

B. Promotions


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Hon. Evangeline C. Castillo-MarigomenRTC Br. 101, Quezon CityHon. Gregorio B. Clemeña, Jr.RTC Br. 51, ManilaHon. Eleanor R. KwongRTC Br. 128, Caloocan CityHon. Eugenio C. MendinuetoRTC Br. 35, ManilaHon. Raymundo G. VallegaRTC Br. 130, Caloocan CityHon. Emma S. YoungRTC Br. 36, Manila

REGION IHon. Francisco Roberto D. QuilalaRTC Laoag, Ilocos Norte

REGION IIHon. Pablo M. AgustinRTC Br. 10, Aparri, CagayanHon. Renato P. PineRTC Br. 17, Ilagan, Isabela

REGION IIIHon. Ma. Resurreccion D. BuhatRTC Br. 80, Malolos, Bulacan



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

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

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

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

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

Volume VIII, Issue No. 30 April-June 2006

Documents

Transcript of Volume VIII, Issue No. 30 April-June 2006