Volume XVII, Issue No. 68 October-December 2015

1Volume XVII Issue No. 68

Volume XVII Issue No. 68October–December 2015 ISSN 2244-5862

For the final quarter of 2015, the Academy held the following regular programs: the 30th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Clerks of Court and the Seventh Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process Servers; the 36th Pre-Judicature Program for judicial aspirants; the Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP) for First Level Court Judges (Seventh and Eighth Judicial Regions); the respective Career Enhancement Programs for the RTC Clerks of Court of the Third Judicial Region, the Court Social Workers of Regions IX–XII and the Lawyers-Clerks of Court of the NCJR (Batch 1 – Manila, Caloocan and Pasay), as well as the RTC Sheriffs of the NCJR (Batch 3). Five batches of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Program (MCLE) for Court Attorneys were also delivered, in this period, for the benefit of lawyers in the Supreme Court (Batches 1 and 2) and the Court of Appeals (Batches 1, 2 and 3).

The holiday rush notwithstanding, the Academy pushed through with the following special focus activities: Basic Judicial Training on Cybercrime for Judges; Validation/Vetting Session on the Final Draft of the Helpbook on Combating Human Trafficking in the Philippines; Field Guide Information Drive on the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Special Course on International Criminal Law and Security, which were

done in the Court of Appeals, the House of Representatives and the Office of the Solicitor General, respectively; Good Practices for the Judiciary in Adjudicating Terrorism Offenses (Southeast Asia Regional Meeting); and the PHILJA Curriculum Review: Focus Group Discussion (FGD) for the Academe and Civil Society.

Quite a number of special focus seminar-workshops were also carried out—the Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law for Selected Judges of Regions IV and V; the Seventh Seminar-Workshop on Deposit Insurance, Banking Practices and Bank Conservatorship, Receivership and Liquidation; the Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons Cases; the Seminar on Election Laws for Supreme Court Lawyers; the Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of the 10th Judicial Region; and the Capacity Building on Environmental Laws and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases for Selected Judges and Branch Clerks of Court of Regions I and II.

The Academy, through the Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO), also conducted several activities supporting

From the Chancellor’s Desk

Continued on page 2

As our contribution in the overall efforts of the Criminal Justice System in addressing drug-related cases, the Academy, in partnership with the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB), regularly conducts the Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers.

2 October–December 2015

Alternative Dispute Resolution such as the respective Orientations of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court, Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys and Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute Resolution; the Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees and PMCU Staff in Court-Annexed Mediation for the North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat Mediation Programs, respectively; and the Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-based Course). Refresher/Advanced Courses for Court-Annexed Mediators were also held in various parts of the country where Mediation Programs are in place, such as Davao, SOCCSKSARGEN, Samar, Leyte and Metro Manila.

PHILJA assisted in the Philippine Judges Association Annual Convention and in the 22nd National Convention Seminar of the Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc. (PTJLI), as well as in the 12th National Convention and Seminar of the Regional Trial Court-Clerks of Court Association of the Philippines the theme of which was “E-Administration of Justice: Clerks of Court Adapting thru the Changing Times.”

Finally, we also had Roundtable Discussions for Justices and Selected Court Attorneys on Financial Crimes and Money Laundering for Court of Appeals Cebu and Cagayan de Oro stations. Another Roundtable Discussion on Issues and Concerns Relating to Intellectual Property Rights and Enforcement was also held, this time involving judges and pairing judges of special commercial courts. The 12th

Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair Lecture featuring “Til Debt Do Us Part: Revisiting the Rule of Law in Sovereign Debt Crisis” by Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria rounded off the activities for this final stretch of the year.

Note was taken by us of the latest rulings, doctrinal reminders, circulars and orders of the Court and the Office of the Court Administrator.

To our officials and staff, keep up the good work and congratulations on our milestones thus far.

To our development partners, thank you for you valuable support as we pursue our common goal.

To the Supreme Court, we are very grateful for the unwavering support to PHILJA and all our training programs, and activities.

Above all, our thanks to God.

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Chancellor

Continued from page 1Contents

From the Chancellor’s Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Judicial Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Training Programs and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Judicial Moves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

First Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Rulings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Doctrinal Reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Resolutions

A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC – Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase “Without Eligibility for Parole” In Indivisible Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A.M. No. 15-11-12-SC – Revised Implementing Guidelines for the Administration and Allocation of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bar Matter No. 1645 – Re: Amendment of Rule 139-B . . . .

Circulars

OCA Circular No. 223-2015 – Monthly Submission of Status Report on the Status of Cases Involving Intellectual Property Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 231-2015 – Reminder on the Rule Regarding Gambling and Casinos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 232-2015 – Application of Republic Act No. 8974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 250-2015 – Reiteration of Strict Observance of Office and Session Hours, Posting of Court Calendar, Proper Office Attire, and Conduct of Flag Raising and Lowering Ceremonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 252-2015 – Internship Program of Mediation Trainees on Court-Annexed Mediation . . . .

OCA Circular No. 253-2015 – Reiteration of OCA Circular No. 14-2012 Dated March 1, 2012 and Other Incidental Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 263-2015 – Implementation of E-Subpoena Service and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 269-2015 – Rules and Regulations on Local Absentee Voting in Connection with the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 271-2015 – Request of Prosecutors to be Furnished with Copies of the Semestral Docket Inventory Reports of Criminal Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Orders

Memorandum Order No. 43-2015 – Creating the Special Committee on Retirement and Civil Service Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

First Quarter 2016 Training Programs and Activities . .

1

3

7

18

20

20

21

22

23

25

27

28

28

29

31

31

32

32

34

34

36


May I ask everyone to please observe a minute of silence in honor of our fallen Philippine National Police Special Action Forces, and in sympathy with their families and loved ones.

It is always enervating to join an Asian Institute of Management forum. AIM is part of my life, when I once

served as Executive Director of the AIM Policy Center, formerly known as the Washington SyCip Policy Center. AIM justifiably takes pride in being one of the pioneers in international management education, and I congratulate its new Dean, Dr. Jikyeong Kang, for the challenge that lies before her. I would like to take this occasion also to congratulate the President, Dr. Steve DeKrey, as it is my first time to have the pleasure of meeting him.

The topic of my leadership talk inevitably has to do with what is going to dawn in the region by the end of 2015. That period has been designated as the time for the full realization of the vision of an integrated community of more than half a billion people of the 10 member states comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), including the Philippines. The ASEAN states’ combined nominal GDP exceeds two trillion American dollars.

Changing global dynamics in the political and economic sphere has allowed the ASEAN to transform itself into a genuine engine for the creation of larger markets for production, for trade and services exchange. Particularly significant has been the 1992 agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff for the ASEAN Free Trade Area (CEPT/AFTA), which was in a sense the beginning of ASEAN economic integration (Severino, 2001).

The move to integrate, formalized on November 20, 2007 when the heads of the 10 ASEAN member states signed the ASEAN Charter, envisions the establishment of an ASEAN Community founded on the following pillars: the ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC) Pillar; the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Pillar; and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Pillar, under the principles of political cohesion, economic integration, and social responsibility, respectively. To my lawyer’s eye, there appears to be a coincidental partial symmetry between the three ASEAN pillars of the ASEAN Community and the theory of the former Director of the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, Karel Vasak. Vasak classifies human rights into three generations: the first generation being of political and civic rights, the second generation of socio-economic rights, and the third generation of communal rights. Like Vasak’s theory, it appears that the ASEAN Charter seeks to guarantee full and comprehensive human security to the peoples of the region by declaring among its purposes the enhancement of the well-being and livelihood of the peoples of the ASEAN “by providing them with equitable access to opportunities for human development, social welfare, and justice” and also by declaring as one of its principles “respect for fundamental freedoms, the promotion and protection of human rights, and the promotion of social justice.”

It appears that it is primarily in the economic sphere that the ASEAN integration has made rapid strides. As spelled out in the ASEAN Charter, this integration consists of “the creation of a single market and production base in which there is free flow of goods and services and investment; facilitated movement of business persons, professionals, talents and labour; and freer flow of capital.” Besides having a single market and productive base, the AEC is also envisioned by its Blueprint to be highly competitive economically with equitable economic development while continuing to be integrated into the global economy.

Such heightened economic activities accompanying the establishment of the AEC has provided the impetus to a shift to a more Rule of Law based approach from the consensual

* Speech delivered by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno during the Sixth ASEAN Leaderspeak Series on January 28, 2015 at the Asian Institute of Management, Makati City.

Leadership in the Philippine Judiciary in the Context of ASEAN Integration*

Hon. Maria Lourdes P. A. SerenoChief Justice of the Philippines


style adopted previously by the ASEAN. By Rule of Law, it is meant the observance of rules (law) rather than the exercise of discretion. In a sign of progress from its earlier reputation, ASEAN is now growing teeth. And much like an infant, there are also teething pains.

For instance, my counterparts from the ASEAN, and notably from Singapore and Malaysia, have spoken of the need for the harmonization of commercial law in the region, no mean task considering the diversity of law in the region unlike that of say, Europe. For the Philippines, the responsibility for harmonization lies with Congress, which has plenary legislative power, and the Supreme Court, which has special rule-making power as to court procedures.

Indeed the region’s judiciaries have taken up the challenge of integration with no less than the Chief Justices at the forefront. Aided by the ASEAN Law Association (ALA), a non-governmental organization of lawyers, including judges, law teachers, law practitioners, and government lawyers in the region, the Supreme Court of Singapore hosted the inaugural Meeting of the ASEAN Chief Justices on August 23, 2013. In the said Meeting, my ASEAN counterparts and I agreed on the following objectives of the Meeting: 1) promote close relations and mutual understanding amongst the ASEAN judiciaries; 2) provide a regular forum for the ASEAN Chief Justices to discuss and exchange views on common issues facing the ASEAN judiciaries; and 3) facilitate judicial cooperation and collaboration among ASEAN judiciaries with a view to accelerate the growth and development of the ASEAN region. We also discussed how to develop an internet portal to improve the flow of information on ASEAN judiciaries; promote judicial education and training by collaborating on ideas to enhance the training opportunities for judges and judicial officers within the ASEAN; and harness judicial cooperation within the ASEAN by collaborating and sharing best practices in the use of court technology, case management, and service of court processes within ASEAN to promote economic growth and development of the region.

In the second Meeting of ASEAN Chief Justices last September 19, 2014 in Malaysia, it was decided with regard to the ASEAN Judiciaries Portal that the first four topics will be objective(s), target audience, content, and language; that the portal will be started in English; and that a paper will be prepared on the funding thereof for the next Meeting of the ASEAN Chief Justices. As for training of judges in the region, it was decided to establish a Working Group to work on the details thereof, and that the training programme will be on a joint partnership basis between Indonesia and the Philippines. It was similarly decided that a Working Group also be established as to issue of facilitating the service of civil processes within the ASEAN. The next Meeting will be held

this coming March in our country where we hope to make more progress to judicial cooperation in the region.

Another example of ASEAN judicial cooperation is the inaugural ASEAN Chief Justices’ Roundtable on Environment held on December 5–11, 2011 in Jakarta. The participants came up with A Common Vision on Environment for ASEAN Judiciaries Statement where the participants resolved to help strengthen the environmental enforcement chain in their countries. I am proud to say that our judiciary has been a trailblazer in the protection of the environment by the courts not just in the ASEAN region but worldwide. This it has done with its enunciation of the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility in the Oposa decision which allows litigants to sue on behalf of generations yet unborn and more recently, the Rules on Procedure for Environmental Cases with such novel features as the writ of kalikasan.

Singapore for its part in 2007 has launched the International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE), a self-assessment evaluation tool using questionnaires and checklists to improve court performance. In 2011, an IFCE self-assessment was conducted and tested by 60 Regional and Municipal Trial Courts in our country. There have been calls for the IFCE to be “adopted and adapted to suit the ASEAN context.” As well stated by Singapore’s Chief District Judge See Kee Oon: “x x x If members of the ASEAN come together with a common commitment to pursue court excellence via a concerted effort in adopting a common framework like the International Framework of Court Excellence (IFCE), it will send a strong signal to the world at large that we are united in promoting the region’s stability, economy, and prosperity. This will surely boost our credibility and attractiveness to investors, whether within and beyond the region” (Leong and Yin, 2014).

The commitment to excellence is also something that I have applied to the Philippine judiciary since I became Chief Justice three years ago. In the context of the integration of the ASEAN, I feel such commitment to be even more pressing. Indeed it is a must for our judiciary to be world-class for the Philippines to have the maximum benefits from such integration. If we in the judiciary cannot put our own house in order and create a stable legal environment for business, how can we invite and attract “guests” in the form of foreign direct investors? And in keeping with the Latin maxim nemo dat quod non habet, no one gives what he does not have, how can we be a source of judicial best practices to be emulated by our ASEAN neighbors?

As Chief Justice, I am both leader and manager in this immense endeavor to make our judiciary world-class. In the first task, I have to set out a vision of the Philippine judiciary, and in the second task I have to look for ways and means to

Judicial Views (continued)Leadership in the Philippine Judiciary in the Context of ASEAN Integration


implement the vision. The latter is tricky for I have to do a delicate balancing act between several interests: ensuring transparency while protecting the institution, ensuring accountability while encouraging people’s morale, assuring job security while upgrading performance standards. Much like the way ASEAN has incrementally evolved towards a rule-based community, so must I introduce reforms in the Judiciary with a careful eye towards the signs of the times. And in all these, I, in the same way ASEAN was originally conceived, must have the consensus and support of my colleagues in the Court.

At this point, let me introduce you to the four pillars of my judicial reform agenda. I will just very briefly introduce to you the four pillars through which judicial reform is being pegged, and then I will make a very personal statement on leadership.

The First Pillar

Institutionalized Integrity and Restored Public Credibility

We must restore public belief in the Filipino judge. To do this, we must institutionalize integrity and measure the rise or fall of the credibility of our judges by the appropriate instruments.

Five of the proposed components of this first pillar:

a. Creation of the pool of future judges. This can be done by looking at how the selection and education of students in law schools can identify the best talents who will be open to the vocation of judgeship; creating this pool includes gearing programs in the Philippine Judicial Academy and possibly in law schools for the selection and preparation of the best candidates for the judiciary. This pool can also choose from among practitioners and government lawyers who have led distinguished lives and careers and who can choose to enrich the rank of the judiciary with their presence.

b. Transforming the Judicial and Bar Council as the sharp recruitment, selection and promotion agency of the judiciary as the JBC was meant to be;

c. Strengthening the ability of the Office of the Court Administrator, the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Supreme Court to monitor the performance and conduct of judges and lawyers;

d. Establishment of values education, mentoring programs, and information campaigns in the context of law school education, of the continuing professional education of lawyers, and of the career enhancement education of judges; and

e. Creating two-way communication mechanisms between the judiciary and the legal profession on the

one hand, and the public on the other, including the establishment of a system on the effective discipline of the bar and bench.

The Second Pillar

Ensuring the Predictability, Rationality, Speed,and Responsiveness of Judicial Actions

Credibility must be demonstrated not only in the conduct of the judge in terms of integrity, independence, and probity, but it must also be restored in terms of judicial actions, which include decisions and orders that are predictable, rational, speedy, and responsive to the situation at hand.

Five of the components under this pillar are:

a. Docket decongestion programs that will hopefully cut by 30 to 50 percent the more than 600,000 cases currently pending in the first and second level trial courts within five years, with parallel jail decongestion programs to be jointly undertaken with the DOJ and the DILG;

b. A program to coordinate schedules with prosecutors and public attorneys so that the hearings of criminal cases do not get unduly reset and delayed;

c. A jurisprudence stabilization program;

d. Amendments to rules of procedure to cut down litigation time (e.g., the Judicial Affidavit Rule);

e. Monitoring of judicial performance through case management systems that provide executive judges and the Court Administrator real-time or near real-time data on the movement of cases.

The Third Pillar

Improved Systems, Processes and Infrastructure

Five of the components under this pillar are:

a. Creation of electronic courts and maximum use of information technology to expedite the service of notices and processes, calendaring of hearings, notification of parties, filing, archiving, and conferencing;

b. Judiciary-appropriate international certification of critical processes;

c. Building of appropriate and efficient court houses and storage facilities;

d. Creation of standard judicial and legal forms; and

e. Standardization of important judicial and administrative processes and the creation of detailed manuals of procedure for these processes.


Fourth Pillar

Effective and Efficient Human Resources

The judiciary is composed of judges and court staff. Any organizational development plan must have an input-output analysis identifying the number and qualifications of the required personnel in order to produce efficient delivery of justice. Such an analysis, however, has not yet been done. Also lacking are definition of the terms of reference of many personnel in the judiciary; an effective system of rewards and punishment; effective training; and standardized and manualized operating procedures.

Five of the components of the pillar are:

a. Professionalization and upgrading of the salary grades of some personnel ranks in the judiciary, e.g., sheriffs, interpreters, and possibly clerks of court;

b. Manualization of standard operating procedures for all court personnel and clarification of their terms of reference;

c. Upgrading of the skills of court personnel by continuous training;

d. Creation of effective performance evaluation, rewards, discipline and promotions systems; and

e. Rationalize personnel deployment, including those of judges.

The foregoing goals and strategies that I have set for the judiciary are distilled through my years of training and experience as an economist and as a litigator prior to my appointment to the Court. Keeping in mind that the dispensation of justice in this country is not the responsibility of the judiciary alone but also that of the law enforcement, prosecution, corrections, and community pillars of our criminal justice system, our reform efforts must also be in tandem with theirs to bear fruit.

In the near term, however, which I consider to be between three to five years from the start of my term as Chief Justice in 2012, I am optimistic we may be able to see some significant indicators of success. Even right now, we already are seeing some remarkable successes. Major decongestion programs have already been started, and the initial phase has been concentrated in Quezon City, the most highly-congested courts in the country, as it also has the highest population in the country. For the courts that we included in both the e-court system and the Hustisyeah! Decongestion program, we have seen a dramatic case decongestion by 29 percent in less than a year. At the end of my third year, I hope to report even more outstanding successes.

Judicial Views (continued)Leadership in the Philippine Judiciary in the Context of ASEAN Integration

I believe the success of reforms in the Philippine judiciary will help ease the integration of our country in the ASEAN community and will be one of our country’s contribution in the attainment of an ASEAN fully committed to the Rule of Law.

Now to my personal statement on leadership. While I may have been able to convince some of you, hopefully, by this time, that there is a plan of action that has been set in motion for the judiciary, what I am going to say is beyond any reform blueprint on paper. Leadership to me, is being accountable, for the kind of life that I lead in public and in private. If I cannot maintain internal consistency, by being a “just” human being, if I harbor malice and ill-will, and if my call for integrity is not authentic, then I am not leading, I am only deceiving. To be a leader is to be willing to examine one’s self and to be examined by others. Whether, to the best of my human capacity, I am faithful, whether the motive for reform is unadulterated, whether the vision is being constantly carried, and whether as a leader, I continue to authentically speak of and live the noble human values that can elevate the judicial community to the heights that it has set its eyes on. Ultimately, it is a matter of the heart and will. A good leader must ensure that in her heart of hearts, there is always this constant striving for perfection and excellence, in the context of the service she has chosen.

Sources:

Gonzalez- Manalo, Rosario. 2010. “The ASEAN Community and the Building of an ASEAN Community.” The PHILJA Judicial Journal, Vol. 12, Issue No. 33: 116–131.

Leong, James and Yin, Chan Wai. 2014. “Discussion on Court Excellence.” PowerPoint presentation for the ASEAN Judiciary Cooperation Workshop, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. October 28–29, 2014.

Menon, Sundaresh. 2013. “ASEAN Integration through Law Concluding Plenary.” <https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/data/doc/ManagePage/4943/ASEAN%20Integration%20Through%20Law%20Project%20Keynote.pdf>, accessed January 15, 2015.

Severino, Rodolfo C. 2001. “The ASEAN Way and the Rule of Law.” <http://www.asean.org/resources/2012-02-10-08-47-56/speeches-statements-of-the-former-secretaries-general-of-asean/item/the-asean-way-and-the-rule-of-law>, accessed January 15, 2015.


Training Programs and Activities

The 12th Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair Lecture featuring “Til Debt Do Us Part: Revisiting the Rule of Law in Sovereign Debt Crisis”

by Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria

Head of the Philippine Judicial Academy’s Research, Publications and Linkages Office and Ateneo Law School Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria is this year’s holder of the Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair in Law and Economics. He delivered his lecture entitled ‘Til Debt Do Us Part: Revisiting the Rule of Law in Sovereign Debt Crisis before members of the Judiciary, academe, lawyers and students from Ateneo Law School, and other guests. One hundred twenty-eight participants filled the Metrobank Plaza in Makati City on October 28 to attend the two-hour 12th Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair Lecture.

Dean Candelaria’s lecture delved on three general topics: (1) Traditional International Law and the Problem of State Insolvency; (2) The International Monetary Fund Stand-By Arrangements and National Economic Policy-Making in the Context of Modern Sovereign Debt Crisis Situations; and (3)Current Legal Issues: State Responsibility and Some Aspects of the International Monetary Fund Stand-By Arrangements.Particularly, Dean Candelaria discussed the traditional concept of contractual liabilities in the pre-19th century, the

(Next page)


protection of the rights of creditor subjects, and the German debt settlement and the multilateral approach. Then he went on to talk about the Bretton Woods System and the development of new international economic rules, the doctrine of conditionality and the development of the stand-by arrangement, the sovereign-debt renegotiation process and the IMF Stand-By Arrangement, and the IMF and its role in recent sovereign debt crises. Finally, Dean Candelaria shed light on current legal issues surrounding the consequences of non-compliance with IMF the stand-by arrangements, the full external debt service and the principle of state necessity, the human rights standards in sovereign debt crisis, the evolution of the right to development, the 1986 UN Convention on the Right to Development, the municipal law and international financial obligations, and an examination of a proposed legislation aimed at establishing limits to the country’s debt service payments.

Atty. Armando L. Suratos, Member of the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, and Dr. Luis F. Dumlao, Chair of the Ateneo de Manila University Economics Department

and Board of Director of the Philippine Economics Society, gave their respective reactions to the lecture.

Dean Candelaria presented a book-bound copy of his lecture to Mr. Aniceto M. Sobrepeña, President of Metrobank Foundation, Inc., who later turned over Dean Candelaria’s paper to the Supreme Court through Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno.

Earlier in the program, PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna gave the Welcome Remarks, Mr. Sobrepeña delivered a Message, and an audio-visual presentation of the Metrobank Foundation, Inc.’s 53 years of existence was shown. Chief Justice Sereno capped the program with her Closing Remarks.

The Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair Lecture, now on its 12th year, aims to assist PHILJA in developing and enhancing its judicial education programs by providing grants to its Corps of Professors to write and publish books and treatises with innovative concepts and approaches in designated areas of law. Since 2004, 12 PHILJA Professors have delivered professorial lectures in various fields of law.

The 12th Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair Lecture (continued)


Atty. Maricel D. FernandezRTC, OCC, Dagupan City, PangasinanAtty. Maricar Tungay Longayan-TabilinRTC, Br. 46, Urdaneta City, PangasinanAtty. Torina Grace Ramos MateoRTC, Br. 16, Laoag City, Ilocos NorteAtty. Myraflor G. SacullesRTC, Br. 51, Tayug, Pangasinan

Region IIAtty. Kathryn Joy Iritan Bunanig-OdonRTC, Br. 37, Bambang, Nueva VizcayaAtty. Dennis Pagbilao FelicianoRTC, OCC, Cabarroguis, QuirinoAtty. Venus H. De Guzman-SaquingRTC, Br. 4, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

Region IIIAtty. Mira Ciele Saguinsin BusangilanRTC, Br. 48, City of San Fernando, PampangaAtty. Michael Sarmiento De GuzmanRTC, Br. 89, Sto. Domingo, Nueva EcijaAtty. Mariacarla L. Camua-Dela PazRTC, Br. 80, Malolos City, BulacanAtty. Lourdes Philina Bugayong DumlaoRTC, Br. 42, City of San Fernando, PampangaAtty. Esmeralda M. Valerio-MoradaRTC, Br. 63, Tarlac City, Nueva Ecija

Region IVAtty. Mercedes G. Articona-JimenezRTC, Br. 91, Sta. Cruz, LagunaAtty. Crisalyn Balita LumanglasRTC, Br. 39, Calapan City, Mindoro OrientalAtty. Gisela Cecilia Abregunda Mauhay-ValdezRTC, Br. 13, Lipa City, BatangasAtty. Jon Dominic Panganiban PeñarandaRTC, Br. 77, San Mateo, RizalAtty. Gerald Faderagao RabenaRTC, Br. 12, Lipa City, BatangasAtty. Leopoldo Elizario Roxas, Jr.RTC, Br. 74, Antipolo City, Rizal

Region VAtty. Suzette Singson DacilloRTC, Br. 40, Daet, Camarines NorteAtty. Romel O. ReyesRTC, Br. 37, Iriga City, Camarines Sur

Region VIIAtty. Marichu A. AguraRTC, Br. 65, Talisay City, CebuAtty. Michelle Ann GacutnoRTC, OCC,Talisay City, CebuAtty. Ayn Unto Sarsaba-TiusecoRTC, Br. 32, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

30th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Clerks of CourtDate: October 6–9, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 81 newly appointed clerks of court from RTC and first level courts, namely:

Regional Trial Courts

National Capital Judicial RegionAtty. Irene C. ArceoRTC, Br. 49, ManilaAtty. Theo Joseph Narvaez CabasaRTC, Br. 197, Las Piñas CityAtty. Criscelyn B. Carayugan-LugoRTC, Br. 87, Quezon CityAtty. Lara Mae D. CasimiroRTC, Br. 54, ManilaAtty. Margareth Kristel B. CubaRTC, Br. 97, Quezon CityAtty. Marie Angeli Villagarcia Dela CruzRTC, Br. 140, Makati CityAtty. Angela Francesca M. DinRTC, Br. 36, ManilaAtty. Joey V. HerreraRTC, OCC, Malabon CityAtty. Ma. Criselda Dijan Ilagan-YsonRTC, Br. 195, Parañaque CityAtty. Markova I. JacintoRTC, Br. 272, Marikina CityAtty. Aissa Celine Hernandez LunaRTC, Br. 221, Quezon CityAtty. Melanie Macapagal MarteRTC, Br. 3, ManilaAtty. Kristine P. MonfortRTC, Br. 47, ManilaAtty. Ronald Gozum OñateRTC, Br. 80, Quezon CityAtty. Ronald SantiagoRTC, Br. 262, Pasig CityAtty. Charrie M. SantosRTC, Br. 116, Pasay CityAtty. Doming L. ZorillaRTC, Br. 85, Quezon City

Region IAtty. Kathleen Ann Sabado Bromeo-OrduñaRTC, OCC, Tayug, Pangasinan

Orientation-Seminar


Region VIIIAtty. Cleofe L. AbrenzosaRTC, Br. 43, Tacloban City, LeyteAtty. Melissa D. ClomaRTC, OCC, Catarman, Northern SamarAtty. Rosario Joy E. Flores-NebridaRTC, Br. 20, Catarman, Northern Samar

Region IXAtty. Margarita T. Palad-BernanteRTC, Br. 16, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur

Region XAtty. Helga Anne Treasure L. AyuyangRTC, Br. 2, Tuguegarao City, CagayanAtty. Kinni Albert Ysalina GarridoRTC, Br. 2, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte

Region XIAtty. Aileen Grace H. BurgosRTC, Br. 7, Baganga, Davao OrientalAtty. Ma. Jasmine P. LoodRTC, Br. 38, Alabel, SaranganiAtty. Michelle D. Roldan-AdvinculaRTC, Br. 20, Digos City, Davao del SurAtty. Mary Grace l. VenturaRTC, Br. 25, Koronadal City, South Cotabato

Metropolitan Trial Courts

National Capital Judicial RegionMs. Anna Liza ManuelMeTC, Br. 43, Quezon CityMr. Vladimir R. MatiasMeTC, Br. 68, Pasig City

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities

Region IMs. Maria Janice Perez ZamoranosMTCC, Br. 2, Dagupan City, Pangasinan

Region IIIMs. Helen de Jesus PinedaMTCC, Gapan City, Nueva Ecija

Region VIMr. Aldous I. MalicayMTCC, Sagay City, Negros Occidental

Region VIIMs. Melinda SalinasMTCC, Br. 6, Cebu City, CebuMs. Lysette B. YusonMTCC, Br. 4, Cebu City, Cebu

Region XMr. Felipe G. Ensomo, Jr.MTCC, Surigao City, Surigao del NorteMs. Jasmin C. TorionMTCC, Br. 2, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte

Municipal Trial Courts

Region IMs. Anita Ormita LavisteMTC, Bangar, La Union

Region IIMs. Rachelle Concepcion Camarauan DanguilanMTC, Peñablanca, CagayanMs. Brilla Maquera FernandezMTC, Ballesteros, Cagayan

Region IIIMs. Grace QuejadoMTC, San Antonio, Zambales

Region IVMs. Josiephine T. BondocMTC, Lian, BatangasMs. Airylle N. PenafielMTC, Mogpog, MarinduqueMs. Rosenie A. RabanoMTC, Ibaan, Batangas

Region VIMs. Karla Mae Depeno DuenasMTC, Maayon, Capiz

Region VIIIMs. Criselda GaranMTC, Hilongos, Leyte

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Region IMs. Ma. Anniecelle Calagui Terrenal8th MCTC: Baay-Malibcong-Lacub-Tineg, AbraMs. Myrna R. Munar3rd MCTC: Tubao-Pugo, La UnionMs. Jemil Ayson Viloria4th MCTC: Narvacan-Nagbukel-Santa, Ilocos Sur

Region IVMs. Elena Mapili Arroza3rd MCTC: Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan, Mindoro Occidental

Region VIIMs. Sophia Marapao Caballo10th MCTC: Jagna-Garcia-Hernandez, BoholMs. Maria Imelda Centino Angcla20th MCTC: Catigbian-San Isidro-Sagbayan-Bohol


Region IXMs. Vicenta Camumay Diliman6th MCTC: Labason-Gutalac-Kalawit, Zamboanga del NorteMs. Jenieflor Dahilog Namocatcat2nd MCTC: New Piñan-Libertad, Zamboanga del NorteMr. Donald T. Serion8th MCTC: Dumalinao-San Pablo-Tigbao-GuiposZamboanga del SurMs. Jeanella Jade Abtuh Veloso2nd MCTC: Patikul-Panamao-Marungas-Pangutaran-New Panamoc, Sulu

Region XMr. Dante B. Echin2nd MCTC: Sison-Taganaan, Surigao del Norte

Shari’a Circuit Court

Region XIIMr. Nasser Daroyodun Abolais6th SHCC: Balingdong-Tugaya-Bacolod-Kalawi-Madalum Lanao del Sur

Seventh Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process ServersDate: October 6–8, 2015Venue: Harolds Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 32 newly appointed sheriffs and process servers, namely:

I. Sheriffs


Region VIMr. Francis F. ReyesRTC, Br. 56, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental

Region VIIMr. Napoleon G. CarmenRTC, Br. 20, Cebu City, CebuMr. Marner Necifort F. EnotRTC, Br. 41, Dumaguete City, Negros OrientalMr. Pio Manuel Alfonso O. RoaRTC, Br. 65, Talisay City, CebuMr. Fernando P. TagleRTC, OCC, Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Region IXMr. Marcos N. Firmeza, Jr.RTC, Br. 6, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del NorteMs. Zamlan O. OyagRTC, Br. 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur

Region XMr. Ruben John U. CagasRTC, OCC, Ozamis City, Misamis Occidental

Ms. Rosalinda J. MalinisRTC, Br. 36, Calamba, Misamis OccidentalMs. Flora C. PerezRTC, Br. 43, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental


Region VIIMs. Shayne Margret B. AlcaldeMTCC, Br. 6, Cebu City, CebuMr. Ryan V. ValleMTCC, Naga City, Cebu

Region XIIMr. Ronald M. EsmadeMTCC, OCC, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte

II. Process Servers


Region VIIMr. Genard B. VillanuevaRTC, Br. 65, Talisay City, Cebu

Region VIIIMs. Virginia D. de LeonRTC, OCC, Catarman, Northern Samar

Region IXMr. Amir Z. DaungRTC, Br. 13, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del SurMr. Michael B. ReyesRTC, Br. 25, Siasi, SuluMr. Jogie C. VisitacionRTC, Br. 20, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur

Region XMr. Shelvin B. ObedencioRTC, Br. 10, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon


Region VIMr. Ronilo T. Morales, Jr.MTCC, Br. 2, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental

Region VIIMr. Jose Mariano C. MacalolotMTCC, Br. 2, Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Region VIIIMr. Regie C. SaavedraMTCC, OCC, Tacloban City, LeyteMr. Rhodgie M. VillaMTCC, Catbalogan City, Samar

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Region VIIMr. Austin Elliotte Y. Nini3rd MCTC: Daan Batayan-Medellin-San Remigio, Cebu


Pre-Judicature Program

Mr. Ireneo C. Omolon2nd MCTC: Tubigon-Clarin, BoholMr. Solomon C. Torrejos10th MCTC: Jagna-Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol

Region VIIIMs. Richelle Angela G. Uy1st MCTC: Sta. Margarita-Sto. Niño-Almagro-Tagapul-anSamar

Region IXMr. Ahmad Fauji T. Taup3rd MCTC: Tandubas-South Upian-Sapa-Sapa, Tawi-Tawi

Region XMr. Manny E. Amano5th MCTC: Jasaan-Claveria, Misamis Oriental

Region XIIMr. Muhammad Khadaffy M. Omar9th MCTC: Wao-Bumbaran, Lanao del Sur

Municipal Trial Court

Region XMs. Rexa F. PaclebMTC, Mainit, Surigao del Norte

Shari’a Circuit Court

Region XIIMr. Sahranie I. Indad3rd SHCC : Baloi-Pantar-Ragat-Poona-Piagapo-Matunggao Lanao del Norte

36th Pre-Judicature ProgramDate: October 20–30, 2015Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 49 lawyers, namely:1. Joseph Philip T. Andres2. Glenn Paul D. Armamento3. Cherry May P. Avellano4. Jenifer B. Bagay5. Rowena C. Balagtas6. Cleveland Z. Buela7. Isagani G. Calderon8. Lina S. Candoleta9. Cynara Hannah L. Cayton10. Joy Marie Frances C. Cortes11. Fabinda K. Delos Santos12. Danilo N. Dividina13. Efren Vincent M. Dizon14. Norguel Yazer M. Eleazar

15. Jeshiree D. Espinas-Dionisio16. Giovanni Paul I. Gomez17. Ira Jordana Margrethe M. Gomez18. Jenneth M. Gregorio19. Lilibeth C. Lorena20. Rowena C. Magallanes21. Abelardo P. Maglanque, Jr.22. Maria Rhodora A. Malabag-Peralta23. Roderick E. Manzano24. Charlene Clara G. Mendoza25. Generick Humprey V. Morales26. Helen Grace A. Motril27. Rosario S. Nicanor28. Jose Julius P. Obus29. Gabriel Guy P. Olandesca30. Divina Lea A. Perdiguerra31. Orlando P. Polinar32. Zenaida R. Razon33. Sonia Philipa M. Ricablanca-Pargas34. Nida Q. Rodriguera35. Juliet S. Salaria36. Richelle Lou B. Sanchez37. Marilet F. Santos-Layug38. Maria Fe M. Taal39. Maria Rosario S. Tam40. Roselle P. Teh41. Jenny Vi C. Trinidad-Laygo42. Renato John B. Vasquez, Jr.43. Hannah L. Baldas-Calitong1

44. Juliet S. Imperial245. Dominador A. Salanga3

46. Fatima Lipp D. Panontongan4

47. Shy Anne T. Juan-Monera5

48. Arnold C. Moralejo6

49. Paolo Dominique O. Quejano7

50. Joseph M. Inocencio8

1 Absent on October 20–21 2 Absent on October 20–213 Absent on October 20–224 Attended on October 20 (Morning session only)5 Absent on October 246 Absent on October 24 (Morning session)7 Absent on October 24 (Morning session)8 Sit-in participant; has completed the 34th PJP

Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP)

JCEP for First Level Court JudgesSeventh Judicial Region Date: November 4–6, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 56 MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges


Career Enhancement Program

Career Enhancement Program for RTC Clerks of Court

Region IIIDate: September 30–October 2, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 53 RTC clerks of court

Career Enhancement Program for Lawyers-Clerks of Court

NCJR (Batch 1: Manila, Pasay and Caloocan)Date: October 28–30, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 73 RTC and MeTC lawyers-clerks of court

Career Enhancement Program for RTC Sheriffs

NCJR (Batch 3)Date: November 24–26, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 41 RTC sheriffs

Career Enhancement Program for Court Social Workers

Regions IX to XIIDate: December 2–4, 2015Venue: Water Insular Hotel, Davao City Participants: 27 RTC court social workers

Continuing Legal Education Program for Court Attorneys of the Supreme Court

Batch 1Date: October 12–13, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 58 court attorneys

Continuing Legal Education Program

Basic Judicial Training on Cybercrime for Judges Date: October 20–22, 2015Venue: Crown Regency Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 26 judges and representatives from PHILJA and DOJ

Validation/Vetting Session on the Final Draft of the Helpbook on Combating Human Trafficking in the Philippines Date: October 20–22, 2015Venue: Diamond Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, ManilaParticipants: 18 PHILJA officials and documenters/staff, OPDAT representative, Helpbook writers, contributors, and Family Court judges

Field Guide Information Drive on the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Special Course on International Criminal Law and Security

Department of JusticeDate: October 26, 2015Venue: Court of Appeals, ManilaParticipants: 29 prosecutors, and representatives from the Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan

Special Focus Program



Continuing Legal Education Program for Court Attorneys of the Court of AppealsBatch 1Date: November 9–10, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 86 court attorneys

Batch 2Date: November 12–13, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 106 court attorneys

Eighth Judicial Region Date: November 25–27, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 53 MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges


House of RepresentativesDate: November 9, 2015Venue: House of Representatives, Batasan ComplexQuezon CityParticipants: 23 House of Representatives lawyers and personnel

Office of the Solicitor GeneralDate: November 12, 2015Venue: Office of the Solicitor General, Makati CityParticipants: 39 OSG lawyers and personnel

Good Practices for the Judiciary in Adjudicating Terrorism Offenses (Southeast Asia Regional Meeting)Date: November 3–5, 2015Venue: Intercontinental Hotel Manila, Makati CityParticipants: 29 Kingdom of Cambodia judges and professor, Republic of Indonesia and Federation of Malaysia judges, Republic of the Philippines court administrator and judges, United States of America judges and representative, Supreme Court and PHILJA officials, lawyers and staff and representatives from the Global Center on Cooperative Security

Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law for Selected Judges of Regions IV and VDate: November 12–13, 2015 Venue: The Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga City Participants: 24 RTC judges

Seventh Seminar-Workshop on Deposit Insurance, Banking Practices and Bank Conservatorship, Receivership and LiquidationDate: November 25–26, 2015Venue: Hotel Elizabeth, Cebu CityParticipants: 47 RTC judges and 7 observers from the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation

Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons Cases

Date: December 2–4, 2015Venue: Quest Hotel and Conference Center, Cebu CityParticipants: 52 RTC judges, prosecutors, social workers and law enforcers

Seminar on Election Laws for Supreme Court Lawyers

Date: December 4, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 46 lawyers

Roundtable Discussion

PHILJA Curriculum Review: Focus Group Discussion (FGD)Academe and Civil SocietyDate: November 25, 2015Venue: San Beda College, Mendiola, ManilaParticipants: 17 resource persons from the academe and civil society

Discussion Session

Roundtable Discussion for Justices andSelected Court Attorneys of Court of Appeals onFinancial Crimes and Money Laudering

Court of Appeals–Cebu StationDate: October 7–8, 2015Venue: BE Resorts Mactan, CebuParticipants: 30 justices, division clerks of court and selected court attorneys

Court of Appeals–Cagayan de Oro StationDate: December 2–3, 2015Venue: Limketkai Luxe Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 32 justices and selected court attorneys

Roundtable Discussion on Issues and Concerns Relating to Intellectual Property Rights and EnforcementDate: October 27–28, 2015Venue: New World Hotel, Makati CityParticipants: 23 RTC judges of NCJR

Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors, and Law Enforcers of the 10th Judicial RegionDate: December 8–10, 2015Venue: Limketkai Luxe Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 73 judges, prosecutors, law enforcers and representative from the Department of Health, and 1 observer from the Office of the City Prosecutor–Cagayan de Oro

Capacity Building on Environmental Laws and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases for Selected Judges and Branch Clerks of Court of Regions I and IIDate: December 9–11, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 42 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges and clerks of court


Convention-Seminar

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

Philippine Judges Association Annual Convention Theme: “PJA: Unity in Diversity”Date: October 14–16, 2015Venue: Manila Mariott Hotel, Newport City ComplexPasay CityParticipants: 523 judges

22nd National Convention Seminar of the Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc.Theme: “Celebrating PTJLI’s Role in Attaining Peace, Security, and Stability”Date: October 22–24, 2015Venue: Villa Caceres Hotel, Naga CityParticipants: 259 judges

12th National Convention and Seminar of the Regional Trial Court–Clerks of Court Association of the Philippines Theme: “E-Administration of Justice: Clerks of Court Adapting thru the Changing Times”Date: November 4–6, 2015Venue: City of Dreams, Parañaque CityParticipants: 234 clerks of court

Faculty Workshop and Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution(Skills-based Course)Date: October 6–9, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 67 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court on Judicial Dispute ResolutionDate: November 25, 2015Venue: Microtel by Wyndham, Cabanatuan City, Nueva EcijaParticipants: 59 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of court and branch clerks of court

Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, and Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute ResolutionDate: November 25, 2015Venue: Microtel by Wyndham, Cabanatuan City, Nueva EcijaParticipants: 51 prosecutors, public attorneys and IBP lawyers

Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees and PMCU Staff

North Cotabato Mediation ProgramDate: October 1, 2015Venue: JC Leisure and Business Place, Kidapawan CityNorth CotabatoParticipants: 56 judges, clerks of court, mediation trainees and PMCU staff

Sultan Kudarat Mediation ProgramDate: October 2, 2015Venue: Felra Suites Hotel, Tacurong City, Sultan KudaratParticipants: 30 judges, clerks of court, mediation trainees and PMCU staff

Refresher/Advanced Course forCourt-Annexed Mediators

Davao Mediation ProgramDate: November 9–10, 2015Venue: The Royal Mandaya Hotel, Davao CityParticipants: 24 mediators

SOCCSKSARGEN Mediation ProgramDate: November 12–13, 2015Venue: Hotel San Marco, General Santos CityParticipants: 19 mediators

Samar and Leyte Mediation Programs

Date: December 2–3, 2015Venue: XYZ Hotel, Tacloban CityParticipants: 20 mediators

Metro Manila Mediation Program

Date: December 10–11, 2015Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 39 mediators

Special Lecture

12th Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair Lecture featuring “Til Debt Do Us Part: Revisiting the Rule of Law in Sovereign Debt Crisis” by Dean Sedfrey M. CandelariaDate: October 28, 2015Venue: Metrobank Plaza, Makati CityParticipants: 128 Members of the Judiciary, PHILJA Corps of Professors, and the Bar, court attorneys, students, officials and other guests


Retired Court of Appeals Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili (seated front row, 3rd from left), PHILJA Professor II, with the participants of the Capacity Building on Environmental Laws and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases for Selected Judges and Branch Clerks of Court of Regions I and II held on December 9–11, 2015 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

Judge Jose Lorenzo R. dela Rosa, RTC Br. 4, Manila, (seated 2nd row, center) the lecturer on Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions. joins the participants of the Career Enhancement Program for RTC Sheriffs NCJR (Batch 3) held on November 24–26, 2015 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

Retired Family Court Judge Rosalina L. Pison (seated, 10th from left) and Retired Judge Thelma A. Ponferrada (seated, 11th from left), PHILJA Professor I, with the participants of the Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP) for the Eighth Judicial Region held on November 25–27, 2015 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.


Court of Appeals Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. addresses a question from a participant during his lecture on Code of Conduct for Court Personnel on the occassion of the Continuing Legal Education Program for Court Attorneys of the Court of Appeals (Batch 1) held on November 9–10, 2015 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

Atty. Joseph S. Vega, Acting Election Officer, Antipolo City, discusses the Jurisdiction and Powers of the Commission on Elections and Electoral Tribunals during the Seminar on Election Laws for Supreme Court Lawyers held on December 4, 2015 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez with the officials and members of the Regional Trial Court–Clerks of Court Association of the Philippines (RTC-COCAP) during their 12th National Convention and Seminar held on November 4–6, 2015 at the City of Dreams, Parañaque City.


Hon. GERALDINE C. FIEL-MACARAIG Associate Justice, Court of AppealsAppointed on November 6, 2015

Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, prior to his appointment as Court of Appeals Associate Justice on November 6, 2015, was Head of the Litigation and Intellectual Property Rights Department of the Feria Tantoco Robeniol Law Offices. He has 27 years of extensive private law practice starting as an Associate of the said Firm in 1987, then as Partner in 1996, and later on as

Name Partner in 2008. He had a brief stint with the Office of the Solicitor General working as an Associate Solicitor from 1987 to 1991.

His practice in litigation covered civil, criminal, labor, maritime, insurance, tax and corporate cases before various courts and administrative agencies such as the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts, Office of the Ombudsman, National Labor Relations Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Insurance Commission, Department of Justice, Bureau of Immigration, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, Intellectual Property Office, and the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission.

Justice Robeniol is a Bar Reviewer and Professor of the Faculty of Civil Law of the University of Santo Tomas where he currently teaches Alternative Dispute Resolution and Intellectual Property Law. Since 1988, he has also taught Property Law, Labor Law, Administrative Law, Public Corporations, International Law, Constitutional Law, Political Law, and Torts and Damages. He is a lecturer for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Program for the subject Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Justice Robeniol obtained his Bachelor of Arts major in Economics degree from the University of Santo Tomas in 1982. He graduated magna cum laude from the Faculty of Civil Law from the same University in 1986 and passed the Bar Examinations given on the same year.

Hon. GABRIEL T. ROBENIOLAssociate Justice, Court of AppealsAppointed on November 6, 2015

Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig obtained her Bachelor of Science in Business Administration and Bachelor of Laws degrees from the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, in 1983 and 1987, respectively.

In November 1987, she started her career in the government as Legislative Staff Officer VI at the Reference and

Research Bureau of the House of Representatives. In 1989, she transferred to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and for 12 years handled cases for the government, its agencies and instrumentalities before the trial courts, the appellate court and the Supreme Court. She was the president of the OSG Ladies’ Circle in 1994 to 1995.

She was appointed presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 192, Marikina City in August 2001. In December 2009, her sala was designated as one of the two Family Courts in Marikina City. Justice Fiel-Macaraig concurrently served as the Executive Judge of her station for two terms (2007–2011), and then for another term in March 2014 until her promotion as Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals in November 2015.

Aside from her judicial work, Justice Fiel-Macaraig serves as trainer in the Competency Enhancement Training (CET) Seminar-Workshops for judges and court personnel handling cases involving children, CET-Trafficking in Persons, and Gender Sensitivity Training, under the auspices of the Philippine Judicial Academy. She is also a member of the Technical Working Group of the Supreme Court’s Committee on Family Courts. She was a member of the Subcommittee of the Society for Judicial Excellence in the Search for Outstanding Clerks of Court in 2013 and 2015.

In recognition of her exemplary service as a member of the judiciary, the Society for Judicial Excellence awarded Justice Fiel-Macaraig the Chief Justice Jose Abad Santos Award as Outstanding Regional Trial Court Judge in the Philippines in 2012.

(Continued on page 26) (Continued on page 26)


Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas obtained his Bachelor of Arts major in Political Science degree at the Saint Louis University, Baguio City, and his law degree from San Beda College, Mendiola, Manila, in 1982 and 1986, respectively.

After passing the 1986 Bar Examinations, Justice Roxas first joined the Judiciary on June 30,

1987 as Legal Research Attorney of Branch 162 of the Pasig City Regional Trial Court. On October 5, 1987, he joined the Office of the Solicitor General as Associate Solicitor until he left government service on May 20, 1991 to join the private sector. He was employed as Legal Counsel and Assistant Corporate Secretary of Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., until January 31, 2002. After a year-long stint as Partner in the defunct law office of Roxas Eleazar Luis Roxas and Associates, he was appointed on January 15, 2003 as Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28.

Prior to his appointment as Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals on November 6, 2015, Justice Roxas was the Presiding Judge of RTC Manila, Branch 12 since January 13, 2006. He was designated Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Manila, Branch 52 from July 25, 2011 to June 10, 2015. In addition to his regular duties, he was designated Second Vice Executive Judge of RTC Manila on November 7, 2014.

Justice Roxas was chosen Outstanding RTC Judge of Manila in 2013. He also received a Special Citation for Government Service by the San Beda College of Law Alumni Association in 2014. He was a Facilitator in Judicial Dispute Resolution seminars conducted by the Philippine Judicial Academy. He also served as Director for Manila of the Philippine Judges Association for two consecutive terms.

Justice Roxas is married to Atty. Silvina Q. Mamaril-Roxas and they are blessed with three daughters namely: Rosanne Veronica, Rissa Vida, and Rachel Vivien.

Justice Perpetua Atal-Paño was appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals on November 6, 2015, after serving for almost 15 years as judge in Makati City (10 years in the Regional Trial Court and five years in the Metropolitan Trial Court).

She has devoted 30 years of her life to public service

occupying various positions in the government. She started as Appellate Court Confidential Assistant of Justice Jose Racela in the Court of Appeals, then as Appellate Court Supervising Staff in the same Court. Hence, her promotion as magistrate of the Court of Appeals is a dream come true and a grace-filled comeback. She also served as Court Attorney in the Supreme Court, and then joined the Department of Justice, first as State Counsel and subsequently as State Prosecutor.

Justice Atal-Paño was a recipient of the Commitment to Justice Award in 2005, given by the Rotary Club of Manila, for disposing the highest number of cases in the National Capital Judicial Region when she was a Metropolitan Trial Court Judge. A woman of strong faith and moral conviction, St. Paul University of Tuguegarao, her alma mater, recognized her as Outstanding Paulinian Achiever (Centennial Awardee) for a personal life anchored on Paulinian values of strong faith in God, firm moral conviction and integrity, as well as good community and human relations.

Justice Atal-Paño is also an Instructor at the San Beda College of Law, where she obtained her law degree, and at the University of Perpetual Help College of Law in Las Piñas. She teaches Criminal Procedure, Legal and Judicial Ethics, Agrarian Reform Law and Social Legislation, and Environmental Law and Natural Resources.

Justice Atal-Paño is the eldest of seven children of the late Atty. Pablo Atal and Artemia Talay-Atal. She is married

Hon. PERPETUA ATAL-PAÑO Associate Justice, Court of AppealsAppointed on November 6, 2015

Hon. RUBEN REYNALDO G. ROXAS Associate Justice, Court of AppealsAppointed on November 6, 2015

Atty. FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court

Supreme CourtAppointed on October 15, 2015

Atty. RENELIE B. MAYUGAJudicial Reform Program Administrator

Program Management OfficeSupreme Court

Appointed on October 15, 2015

(Continued on page 26)


Failure of a lawyer to indicate in his pleading the number and date of issue of his MCLE Certificate of Compliance will not cause the dismissal of the case but would subject him to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action.

To avoid inordinate delays in the disposition of cases brought about by a counsel’s failure to indicate in his or her pleadings the number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance, this Court issued an En Banc Resolution, dated January 14, 2014 which amended B.M. No. 1922 by repealing the phrase “Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records” and replacing it with “Failure to disclose the required information would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action.” Thus, under the amendatory Resolution, the failure of a lawyer to indicate in his or her pleadings the number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance will no longer result in the dismissal of the case and expunction of the pleadings from the records. Nonetheless, such failure will subject the lawyer to the prescribed fine and/or disciplinary action.

Peralta, J., People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the City Prosecutor, Department of Justice, Roxas City v. Jesus A. Arrojado, G.R. No. 207041, November 9, 2015.

Bar Matter

Malum Prohibitum, Section 23 of PD No. 1752, as amended, punishes the failure to make remittance only when such failure is without lawful cause or with fraudulent intent.

It is a general principle in law that in malum prohibitum case, good faith or motive is not a defense because the law punishes the prohibited act itself. The penal clause of Section 23 of PD No. 1752, as amended, however, punishes the failure to make remittance only when such failure is without lawful cause or with fraudulent intent. [Emphasis Supplied]

As earlier stated, evidence for fraudulent intent was wanting in this case. In March 1993, the payroll was prepared showing all the amounts deductible from the salaries of the employees including Medicare, loan repayment, withholding taxes, retirement insurance premium, and Pag-IBIG contributions. In the said payroll, a total amount of P15,818.81 was deducted for the Pag-IBIG loan repayments

and a total amount of P7,965.58 was deducted for the Pag-IBIG contributions of all the hospital and rural health employees. The deductions, however, were comingled with the funds of RMDH. The prosecution could not even argue and prove that the petitioners pocketed or misappropriated the deductions.

Notwithstanding the fact that the penal provisions of PD No. 1752, as amended, were reenacted and even expanded in RA No. 9679, the petitioners cannot be held liable whether under PD No. 1752 or under RA No. 9679 as their act of non-remittance was justified by a lawful cause—the devolution.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Court finds that the guilt of the petitioners was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Doubtless, there was noncompliance with the provisions on remittances in PD No. 1752, as amended, but considering that there was a doubt engendered by the devolution, the Court resolves it in favor of the petitioners.

Mendoza, J., Editha B. Saguin and Lani D. Grado v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 210603, November 25, 2015.

Criminal Law

Permanent and Total Disability.

Hence, as it stands, the current rule provides: (1) that mere inability to work for a period of 120 days does not entitle a seafarer to permanent and total disability benefits; (2) that the determination of the fitness of a seafarer for sea duty is within the province of the company-designated physician, subject to the periods prescribed by law; (3) that the company-designated physician has an initial 120 days to determine the fitness or disability of the seafarer; and (4) that the period of treatment may only be extended to 240 days if a sufficient justification exists such as when further medical treatment is required or when the seafarer is uncooperative.

x x x x

The manifest non-compliance of Osias with the prescribed therapy by the company-designated physician demonstrates that he was uncooperative with the treatment. Osias utterly disregarded the limited amount of time the company-designated physician had to finalize his medical assessment by ignoring the scheduled therapy sessions. The LA correctly ruled that, by going to La Union, Osias capriciously and wittingly dispensed with the treatment of the company-designated physician. Likewise, the NLRC observed that it would be unfair to award disability benefits to Osias due to the lapse of 120-day period because the extended period of the treatment was attributable to him.

Labor Law


Remedial Law

Remedies against a void judgment.

Indeed, under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect. Like any other rule, however, there are recognized exceptions to this general rule such as (1) the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, (2) void judgments, and (3) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.

Under the second exception, a void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It neither is a source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void. It may be said to be a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.

x x x x

In this case, the Court is of the considered view that Judge Catalo correctly recalled the judgment because the second and third exceptions on the doctrine of finality of judgments were squarely applicable. After the finality of the RTC decision on July 3, 2012, it was discovered that TCT No. 3460 had been cancelled as early as April 2, 1924. Complainant, when later asked to present his stand, failed to contradict the allegation that he falsified his affidavit of loss. Clearly, these subsequent events raised a red flag and placed the Respondent Judge on his toes. Judge Catalo realized an execution of such judgment would definitely be unjust and inequitable as it would be sanctioning fraud and irregularity. It would judicially permit

the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of a title which was no longer in existence.

Mendoza, J., Flor Gilbuena Rivera v. Hon. Leandro C. Catalo, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 256, Muntinlupa City, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2422 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4129-RTJ], July 20, 2015.

Demurrer to evidence.

A demurrer to evidence is an objection by one of the parties in an action to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party filing the demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. The Court’s task is to ascertain if there is competent or sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt.

In criminal cases, the grant of a demurrer amounts to an acquittal, and the dismissal order may not be appealed as this would place the accused in double jeopardy. Although the dismissal order is not subject to appeal, it may be reviewed through certiorari under Rule 65.

Brion, J., People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan (2nd Division), Quintin Saludaga y Bordeos, Arthus Adriatico y Eruda and Romeo De Luna, G.R. No. 197953, August 5, 2015.

Action for unlawful detainer is summary in nature.

An action for unlawful detainer is summary in nature and cannot be delayed by a mere assertion of ownership as a defense. When the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the court may pass upon that issue only if needed to determine who between the parties has a better right to possess the property. Furthermore, the adjudication on the issue of ownership is only provisional, and subject to a separate proceeding that the parties may initiate to settle the issue of ownership.

A person who possesses a title issued under the Torrens system is entitled to all the attributes of ownership including possession. A certificate of title cannot be subject to a collateral attack in an action for unlawful detainer. A collateral attack is made when, in an action to obtain a different relief, the validity of a certificate of title is questioned.

In the present case, the respondents alleged in their answer that the certificate of title issued in the name of Teresa was fraudulently obtained. This defense constitutes a collateral attack on the title and should not therefore be entertained. To directly assail the validity of TCT No. (N.A.) RT-1925, a direct action for reconveyance must be filed.

Brion, J., Teresa D. Tuazon v. Spouses Angel and Marcosa Isagon, G.R. No. 191432, September 2, 2015.

Thus, the Court agrees that the period for medical treatment and assessment was properly extended to 240 days. It was duly established that Dr. Arago issued his final medical report and his certification that Osias was fit to work on July 14, 2010, or after 147 days from the date of medical repatriation, which is well within the properly extended period of 240 days.

Mendoza, J., Marlow Navigation Philippines Inc., Marlow Navigation Co. Ltd./Cyprus, Ligaya C. Dela Cruz and Antonio Galvez, Jr. v. Braulio A. Osias, G.R. No. 215471, November 23, 2015.


crime punishable by reclusion perpetua, then even prior to the enactment of RA No. 9346, persons sentenced by final judgment to reclusion perpetua could not have availed of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.1

Since the distinction between reclusion perpetua and reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole is more apparent than real, then there is no more need to append the phrase “without eligibility for parole” to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

If at all, the qualification of “without eligibility for parole” may be applied to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the appellant should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for RA No. 9346.

In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, the phrase “without eligibility for parole” does not need to describe and be affixed to reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole.

This usage will provide uniformity to the Court’s promulgated decisions and resolutions and thus prevent confusion.

II.

In these lights, the following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of penalties and in the use of the phrase “without eligibility for parole”:

(1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase “without eligibility for parole” to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and

(2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of RA No. 9346, the qualification of “without eligibility for parole” shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for RA No. 9346.

This Resolution shall take effect immediately.

Manila, August 4, 2015.

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

GUIDELINES FOR THE PROPER USE OF THE PHRASE “WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE” IN INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES

This matter relates to the proper use of the phrase “without eligibility for parole” in indivisible penalties.

I.

Republic Act (RA) No. 9346, enacted on June 24, 2006, prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. As a consequence, the Court may no longer affirm the death sentences imposed by the courts a quo or itself impose the death penalty. Sections 2 and 3 of this law provide:

Sec. 2 – In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:

(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or

(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

Sec. 3 – Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225) states that the Act shall not apply to, among others, persons convicted of offenses punishable with the death penalty or life imprisonment. Notably, there was no reference to persons convicted of offense punishable with reclusion perpetua. However, the Court, in several cases, has considered the penalty of reclusion perpetua to be synonymous to life imprisonment for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and has ruled that this law does not apply to persons convicted of offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua.

Parole is extended only to those convicted of divisible penalties. Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty and carries no minimum nor maximum period. Section 5 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that it is after “any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him” that the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may consider whether such prisoner may be granted parole. With no “minimum penalty” imposable on those convicted of a

A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC

1 See concurring Opinion of Justice Tinga in People v. Tubongbauna, 532 Phil, 434, (2006)


A.M. No. 15-11-12-SC

REVISED IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND ALLOCATION OF THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF)

WHEREAS, Section 1, Article II of the 1987 Constitution declares that the Philippines is a democratic and republican State;

WHEREAS, the Judiciary, as a separate branch of government, enjoys judicial independence;

WHEREAS, the 1987 Constitution guarantees the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary under Section 3, Article VIII, to wit:

The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.

WHEREAS, to sustain the upkeep of office equipment and facilities of the Judiciary, there is a need to properly recognize that the “not more than 20 percent portion of the Judiciary Development Fund (20% JDF) is a supplement, rather than the main source of funding for these requisite expenditures;

WHEREAS, since its inception, various policies, procedures and guidelines have been issued in relation to the administration and allocation of the JDF which now need to be updated, consolidated and strengthened to make current in order to ensure consistency in policies and efficiency in procedures;

WHEREAS, to further ensure the efficient administration, allocation and utilization of the JDF as supplemental funding to the annual General Appropriations Act (GAA), the Court hereby adopts the following revised implementing guidelines;

NOW, THEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby adopts the following REVISED IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND ALLOCATION OF THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF):

Section 1. Purpose of the JDF. – The JDF is established for the benefit of the members and personnel of the Judiciary to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy and required by the impartial administration of justice.

Sec. 2. Sources of the JDF. – The JDF shall be derived from the following:

a) Increases in legal fees prescribed in the amendments to Rule 141 of the Rules of Court as promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, subject to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9227;

b) Interests on deposits of the JDF; andc) Other sources as determined by the Supreme Court

such as, but not limited, to the following:1. Sales of unserviceable equipment and

pieces of furniture (such as vehicles, computers, typewriters, chairs, tables, etc.), the acquisition cost of which was charged against the 20 percent JDF, to be returned to the 20 percent JDF;

2. The balance of fees collected from bar candidates after deducting bar-related expenses;

3. Fees now authorized to be paid or collected by sheriffs, such as sheriffs commission.

Sec. 3. Authorized Depository Bank for the JDF. – Unless otherwise directed by the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court, all the amounts accruing to the JDF shall be deposited in a savings account with the Land Bank of the Philippines.

Sec. 4. Allocation of the JDF. – The JDF shall be allocated as follows:

a) At least 80 percent of the JDF shall be used for cost of living allowances of the members and personnel of the Judiciary and shall be distributed in inverse proportion to their basic salaries: higher allowances being granted to those with lower salaries and lower allowances granted to those receiving higher salaries; and

b) Not more than 20 percent of the JDF shall be used to finance the acquisition, maintenance and repair of office equipment and facilities of the courts located (in locations) where the fees are collected.

The allocation of the 20 percent JDF for the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals including its stations in the Cities of Cebu and Cagayan de Oro, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals shall be based on their respective JDF collections.

For the Lower Courts, the allocation of the 20 percent JDF shall be based on the collections by judicial regions, unless otherwise directed by the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court.

The Chief Justice, in exercising the sole exclusive power and duty to approve and authorize disbursements and expenditures of the 20 percent JDF, may allow the disbursement and expenditure of amounts exceeding the allocation of a particular court or judicial region, if and when it is deemed necessary as the exigencies of the service may require.

Sec. 5. Utilization of the 80 percent JDF. – The release and distribution of the 80 percent JDF shall be covered by separate memorandum orders issued by the Chief Justice authorizing the release of the additional cost of living allowance under the JDF.


ResolutionsA.M. No. 15-11-12-SC (continued)

The disbursement of the 80 percent JDF collection deposited in the JDF shall not, in any way, be reduced by reason of its use for office equipment or facilities, and shall continue to be periodically released, as soon as the periodic reports of collections and deposits and the actual bank balance are available; Provided, that it shall be the responsibility of the finance offices of the courts to ensure that timely reporting, recording and reconciliations are made for the JDF.

Sec. 6. Utilization of the 20 percent JDF. – In the utilization and disbursement of the 20 percent JDF, the following shall be observed:

A. The items of expenditures that may be charged to the 20 percent JDF include the following:1. Court equipment, such as but not limited to:

a. Computers, printers, media storage devices, fax machines, typewriters, photocopiers, telephone units, stenographic machines and printing machines;

b. Safety and safekeeping tools and equipment such as fire extinguishers, alarm systems, safety vaults for evidence and records;

c. Security equipment such as bundy clocks, biometric equipment, closed circuit television (CCTV) monitors, firearms and the like to ensure the safety and security of each court station;

d. Transportation equipment for members of the courts and court officials in the make and kind appropriate to the stature of their office and for the use of the personnel; and

e. Such other equipment necessary or useful for the efficient and effective performance of the work of the courts and its members, officials and personnel.

2. Facilities, such as but not limited to:a. Halls of justice, offices and buildings

requiring upkeep to ensure safe, habitable and serviceable conditions;

b. Furniture and fixtures for use in the chambers of judges and justices, courtrooms, libraries, archiving and storage areas, holding areas and cafeterias; and

c. Other facilities considered essential in aiding and increasing the well-being of the members of the courts, its officials and personnel.

Any item not listed herein, but which may be found necessary or useful in the efficient discharge of the duties and/or functions of the courts, may be recommended for acquisition, subject to the favorable endorsements of the

Clerk of Court En Banc for the Supreme Court, the respective Presiding Justices for the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals, or the respective Executive Judges for the lower courts through the Court Administrator, when appropriate, for approval of the Chief Justice.B. The procedures for the utilization of the 20 percent JDF

shall be as follows:1. Before approval by the Chief Justice of any

disbursement against the 20 percent JDF, a certificate of availability of funds (CAF) shall be issued by the Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO) against the corresponding collections of the concerned court or judicial region deposited in the JDF;

2. After the issuance of the CAF and the approval by the Chief Justice of an expenditure on the basis of that particular CAF, the amount shall be considered earmarked and not available for any other expenditure, until the purpose of the expenditure so approved has been completed, duly cancelled or intentionally repurposed by the Chief Justice, in which case any unused balance thereof shall again become available funds in the 20 percent JDF of the concerned court or judicial region; and

3. The FMBO shall implement a monitoring system to ensure that the disbursements against the 20 percent JDF for the courts or judicial regions shall not exceed their respective collections deposited in the JDF at any given time, unless otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court as provided in these guidelines.

Sec. 7. Submission of Annual Procurement Plan and Budget Planning. – The Clerk of Court En Banc for the Supreme Court, the respective Presiding Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals, and the Court Administrator, with the assistance of the concerned Deputy Court Administrators for the lower courts within their respective assigned judicial regions, shall submit an annual procurement, maintenance, and upgrading plan for the offices and courts under their jurisdiction, considering the source of funding thereof, whether from the General Fund to be included in the Budget Proposal for Appropriations or from the 20 percent JDF; Provided, that the proposals for the use of the 20 percent JDF shall be submitted to and consolidated by the Supreme Court Procurement Planning Committee (SC-PPC) which shall determine the total amount of the proposed requirements per court or judicial region as against the estimated available balance of the allocation for the court or judicial region, as shall be certified to by the FMBO; Provided, further, that should the proposed requirements be more than the estimated available balance of the respective allocation of the court or judicial region, the requirements not covered shall be included in the Annual Procurement Plan of each of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals, and the Lower Courts which


in turn shall become a basis for the Budget Proposal for the ensuing year. The dates and schedules for the preparation of the above described plans shall be synchronized with the National Budget Call, unless otherwise directed by the Chief Justice.Sec. 8. Previously Authorized Expenditures. – Expenditures previously authorized to be charged against the 20 percent JDF in amounts exceeding the collections of the concerned court or judicial region deposited in the JDF may continue to be charged in full against the JDF unless repurposed by the Chief Justice.Sec. 9. Submission of JDF Reports. – A periodic report on the collections, deposits, expenditures, and disbursements of the JDF, both for the 80 percent and the 20 percent portions shall be submitted by the FMBO to the Office of the Chief Justice and posted at the Supreme Court website within a reasonable time thereafter through the Public Information Office. Once posted, it shall be deemed as faithful compliance with the publication/reporting requirements under Section 3 of PD No. 1949. All Executive Judges of the Lower Courts, Presiding Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals, as well as the Court Administrator and the Clerk of Court En Banc, are hereby encouraged to periodically peruse such posted reports and to bring to the attention of the Office of the Chief Justice any query, concern or recommendation they may have pertaining to any of the matters reported thereat. The concerned offices shall ensure timely and faithful compliance with pertinent accounting and auditing rules and regulations.Sec. 10. Effectivity. – This Revised Implementing Guidelines shall be effective immediately upon its approval. All circulars, orders, resolutions and issuances inconsistent with the provisions of this Revised Implementing Guidelines shall be deemed modified, amended or repealed. December 16, 2015.

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

BAR MATTER NO. 1645

RE: AMENDMENT OF RULE 139-B

WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution confers upon the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law.

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court’s power relating to the admission to the practice of law inherently includes the power to discipline and remove from the rolls, lawyers who have transgressed their oath and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

WHEREAS, dismissal of complaints filed against lawyers is a power of the Supreme Court that cannot be delegated to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

WHEREAS, the motive of the complainant and his or her action/inaction after the filing of a verified complaint against a lawyer are not essential to the proceedings.

NOW THEREFORE, Sections 1, 5, 12, 13, and 15 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court are amended to read as follows:

Rule 139-B

Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

Section 1. How Instituted. – Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or upon the filing of a verified complaint of any person before the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.

The IBP shall forward to the Supreme Court for appropriate disposition all complaints for disbarment, suspension and discipline filed against incumbent Justices of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and judges of lower courts, or against lawyers in the government service, whether or not they are charged singly or jointly with other respondents, and whether or not such complaint deals with acts unrelated to the discharge of their official functions.

If the complaint is filed before the IBP, six copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapter who shall forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an investigator.

A. Proceedings in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Section 5. Service or Dismissal. – If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within 15 days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the Investigator will recommend to the Board of Governors the dismissal of the complaint. Thereafter, the procedure in Section 12 of this Rule shall apply.

No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise,


The amendments shall take effect 15 days after publication in a newspaper of general circulation.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is ordered to revise its rules of procedure in accordance with the amendments to Rule 139-B.

October 13, 2015.

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

restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, unless the Supreme Court motu proprio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, determines that there is no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the respondent. (Amendment pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated May 27, 1993 re Bar Matter No. 356)

Sec. 12. Review and Recommendation by the Board of Governors.

a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report.

b) After its review, the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, shall recommend to the Supreme Court the dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action against the respondent. The Board shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based. The resolution shall be issued within a period not exceeding 30 days from the next meeting of the Board following the submission of the Investigator’s report.

c) The Board’s resolution, together with the entire records and all evidence presented and submitted, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action within 10 days from issuance of the resolution.

d) Notice of the resolution of the Board shall be given to all parties through their counsel, if any.

B. Proceedings in the Supreme Court

Section 13. Investigation of Complaints. – In proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court, or in other proceedings when the interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case for investigation to the Office of the Bar Confidant, or to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in which case the investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided in Sections 6 to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly by the Supreme Court. The complaint may also be referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.

C. Common Provisions

Section 15. Suspension of Attorney by Supreme Court. After receipt of respondent’s answer or lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme Court, motu proprio, or upon the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, may suspend an attorney from the practice of his profession for any of the causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the pendency of the investigation until such suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court.

ResolutionsBar Matter No. 1645 (continued)

He has written a book on “Alternative Dispute Resolution.” The book, originally published in June 2012, contains a scholarly discussion of the law on domestic, foreign and international commercial arbitration, mediation and the other modes of dispute resolution recognized and allowed under Philippine law. The Revised Edition of the book, released in July 2015, incorporates recent decisions of the Supreme Court, new principles and current trends on the subject.

He has also written a book on “The Law on Katarungang Pambarangay,” published in July 2015, containing an in-depth analysis and discussion of the law, principles, procedures, and jurisprudence on the Katarungang Pambarangay in English and Filipino.

Judicial MovesJustice Robeniol (Continued from page 18)

Judicial MovesJustice Atal-Paño (Continued from page 19)

to Diosdado Dizon Paño for 31 years. They have three daughters: Ma. Teresita, a registered nurse in Australia; Diana Abigail, a lawyer; and Marian Pauline, a Philippine Airlines flight attendant.

Justice Fiel-Macaraig was born to Judge Heliodoro T. Fiel( ) and Pura Catingub of Ormoc City. She is married to Judge Virgilio V. Macaraig, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, City of Manila, with whom she has two children, Virgil David and Zandro Luis.

Judicial MovesJustice Fiel-Macaraig (Continued from page 18)


OCA CIRCULAR NO. 223-2015

TO: ALL JUDGES AND BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS (RTCs) DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL COMMERCIAL COURTS AND CONCERNED JUDGES OF SINGLE SALA RTCs

SUBJECT: MONTHLY SUBMISSION OF STATUS REPORT ON THE STATUS OF CASES INVOLVING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Pursuant to Section 164, RA No. 8293,1 and Section 6, Rule I, A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC,2 dated October 18, 2011, OCA Circular No. 47-2004, dated March 30, 2004,3 was issued directing all judges, branch clerks of court, and officers in charge of special commercial courts and single sala RTCs to submit a monthly list of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) cases filed in their court to the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), Office of the President, for monitoring purposes, using the attached prescribed form. However, the then attached prescribed form does not include the nature of the IPR cases filed in courts and the search warrants issued.

Thus, to enhance the efficient monitoring of IPR cases towards a comprehensive data gathering system, and upon the request of the IPO for the revision of the form to be used in filing the status reports, beginning October 2015, you are hereby DIRECTED to use the attached revised forms (Annex “A” and “B”) in complying with the submission of monthly status reports on IPR cases.

All monthly status reports using the attached revised forms (Annex “A” and “B”) shall be submitted on or before the 10th day of the succeeding month, for the preceding month, to both:

Court Management OfficeOffice of the Court AdministratorSupreme CourtPadre Faura, Ermita, Manilaor through e-mail address [email protected], and

The Intellectual Property Office28 Upper McKinley Road, McKinley HillTown Center Fort Bonifacio, Taguig Cityor through e-mail address [email protected]

This circular supersedes OCA Circular No. 47-2004 dated March 30, 2004.

For strict compliance.

September 21, 2015.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZCourt Administrator

1 Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines2 Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases3 Submission of the Monthly Report of Status of Intellectual

Property Rights Cases

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ___________________________________ JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH _____________ _____________________________________________

(Court Station)

EMAIL ADDRESS:____________________________ CONTACT NO.: _______________________________

STATUS REPORT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES MONTH/YEAR _____________________________

Docket No. (Case No.)

Case Title

Date Filed

Case Title Nature of the Case

Business Name (if applicable)

IPRs (Trademarks, Copyrights, Invention, Industrial Design, Utility Model)

Product Status Plaintiff/

ComplainantRespondent/Accused

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Prepared by: Noted by: _________________________________ _______________________________ Branch Clerk of Court Presiding Judge

Annex A


TO: ALL JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL

SUBJECT: REMINDER ON THE RULE REGARDING GAMBLING AND CASINOS

Considering that the Annual Convention of the Philippine Judges Association on October 14–16, 2015 will be held at the Marriott Hotel, which is within the Newport City Complex, Pasay City, which also houses a casino, all judges and court personnel are strictly REMINDED of the prohibition against gambling or being seen in casinos.

Section 14(4)(a), Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended, prohibits government officials from playing in casinos.

The Supreme Court, in Circular No. 4, dated August 27, 1980, ruled that “judges of inferior courts and court personnel are enjoined from playing in or being present in gambling casinos,” and cited par. 3, Canons of Judicial Ethics, which decrees that “a judge’s official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.”

Section 1, Canon 4, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, also mandates that “judges shall avoid


ResolutionsOCA Circular No. 223-2015 (continued)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ___________________________________ JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH _____________ _____________________________________________________

(Court Station)

EMAIL ADDRESS:____________________________ CONTACT NO.: _______________________________

STATUS REPORT OF SEARCH/WARRANTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES

MONTH/YEAR _____________________________

Search

Warrant No. (Civil/Criminal)

Applicant Case Title

IPRs (Trademarks,

Copyrights, Invention, Industrial Design, Utility Model)

Product Date of Issue Date of Return

Status (e.g. returned with complaint, information quashed, not implemented or

returned with negative result)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Prepared by: Noted by: _________________________________ _______________________________ Branch Clerk of Court Presiding Judge

Annex B

impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.”

Please be guided accordingly.

October 12, 2015.


TO: REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, AND MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

SUBJECT: APPLICATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8974

The attention of the Office of the Court Administrator has been called on the lower courts’ delay in the issuance of writs of possession in expropriation proceedings involving national government infrastructure projects.

In Republic of the Philippines v. Spouses Agustin and Imelda Cancio,1 the Court clarified when a writ of possession in expropriation proceedings should be issued:


1 G.R. No. 170147, January 30, 2009.


There is therefore no need yet to determine with reasonable certainty the final amount of just compensation in resolving the issue of a writ of possession. In fact, it is the ministerial duty of the trial court to issue the writ upon compliance with the requirements of Section 4 of (RA No. 8974). No hearing is required and the court cannot exercise its discretion in order to arrive at the amount of the provisional value of the property to be expropriated as the legislature has already fixed the amount under the aforementioned provision of the law.

Section 4, RA No. 8974,2 provides:

Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings. – Whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for the right-of-way or location for any national government infrastructure project through expropriation, the appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the expropriation proceedings before the proper court under the following guidelines:

(a) Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of 100 percent of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); and (2) the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined under Section 7 hereof;

(b) In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no zonal valuation, the BIR is hereby mandated within the period of 60 days from the date of the expropriation case, to come up with a zonal valuation for said area; and

(c) In case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of utmost urgency and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the area concerned, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property its proffered value taking into consideration the standards prescribed in Section 5 hereof.

Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project.

Before the court can issue a Writ of Possession, the implementing agency shall present to the court a certificate of availability of funds from the proper official concerned. (Emphasis supplied)

TO: ALL JUDGES, OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: REITERATION OF STRICT OBSERVANCE OF OFFICE AND SESSION HOURS, POSTING OF COURT CALENDAR, PROPER OFFICE ATTIRE, AND CONDUCT OF FLAG RAISING AND LOWERING CEREMONIES

In view of the persistent reports received by this Office on the non-observance by some judges and court personnel of the prescribed office and session hours, proper office attire and appearance, posting of court calendar, and the absence of judges and court personnel in flag raising and lowering ceremonies, all judges and court personnel are ENJOINED strictly to observe the following rules:

A. Strict Observance of Office Hours1

1. All courts must observe the following office hours, without prejudice to the approved flexi-time of some court personnel:

Regions I to XII

Mondays–Fridays

8:00 a.m. – 12:00 n.n. 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

National Capital Judicial Region

Mondays–Fridays

8:00 a.m. – 12:00 n.n. 12:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.

2. Judges are also EXHORTED to be mindful of the hours set for hearing and to start the hearings on time.

3. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9482,2 all judges are REMINDED to implement appropriate working schedules among their court personnel to enable them to attend to and serve litigants who are within the premises of the court during lunch break, and prior


1 OCA Circular No. 09-2015 dated January 21, 2015.2 An Act to Improve Efficiency in the Delivery of Government Service

to the Public by Reducing Bureaucratic Red Tape, Preventing Graft and Corruption, and Providing Penalties Therefor.

2 An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site, or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes, November 7, 2000.

In view of the foregoing, all courts are hereby ENJOINED to eschew delay and strictly comply with Section 4, RA No. 8974, as explained by existing jurisprudence.


October 15, 2015.



to the end of official working hours. The judges shall adopt a rotation system of personnel and provide a skeleton force to ensure that units dealing directly with the public, such as the receiving, process-serving, and the cashier, are accessible to the public at all times, including lunch and break times.

4. All judges and court personnel shall file the appropriate application for leave in case of their inability to report for work, in accordance with Item IV, Administrative Circular No. 08- 2009.3

B. Strict Observance of Session Hours4

1. The session hours of all Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall be from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 n.n. and from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., from Monday to Friday.

2. The hours in the morning and afternoon shall be devoted to the conduct of trial, unless already done, in which case the afternoon hours shall be utilized for (1) the conduct of pre-trial conferences; (2) writing of decisions, resolutions, or orders; or (3) the continuation of trial on the merits, whenever rendered necessary, as may be required by the Rules of Court, statutes, or circulars in specified cases.

3. Except those requiring immediate action, all motions should be scheduled for hearing on Friday, or if Friday is a non-working day, in the next business day. The unauthorized practice of some judges of entertaining motions or setting them for hearing on any other day or time must be avoided.

C. Proper Office Attire and Appearance of Judges and Court Personnel5

1. Judges at all times shall be in business attire.

2. Skirts of office uniforms or casual office attire should be at least knee-length (one inch above the knee may be allowed).

3. Appropriate footwear shall mean closed formal shoes; however, mules, sling-back shoes and peep-toe shoes are allowed.

4. The following are prohibited office attire when performing official functions:

a) Gauzy, transparent or net-like blouse or shirt;

b) Sando, sleeveless, strapless or spaghetti-

strapped blouses, tank tops (unless worn as an undershirt), blouses with over-plunging necklines;

c) Collarless t-shirts for men;

d) Micro-mini skirts, walking shorts, cycling shorts, leggings, tights, jogging pants, pedal pushers;

e) Sandals and step-ins exposing the toes; and

f) Rubber sandals, slippers, and “bakya.”

5. The sporting of long and unkempt hair, as well as wearing of earrings and other body ornaments by male judges and court personnel are not allowed.

6. The Identification Card (I.D.) forms part of the official uniform/appropriate office attire. Thus, it must be worn at all times while on official duty.

D. Posting of Court Calendar

All judges are STRICTLY required to ensure the posting of their court calendars outside their courtrooms at least one day before the scheduled hearings.

E. Conduct of Flag Raising and Lowering Ceremonies6

1. The flag-raising ceremony shall be observed every Monday morning and the flag lowering ceremony every Friday afternoon. The ceremony shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or singing of the Philippine National Anthem.7

2. All Executive Judges shall supervise the holding of the flag-raising and flag lowering ceremonies in their respective Halls of Justice buildings or courthouses, and shall ensure the attendance of all judges and court personnel in the rites.

3. A report on the absentees in both ceremonies for every month shall be submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) within the first 10 days of the succeeding month.

The Executive Judges shall strictly monitor compliance with this Circular by the judges and court personnel under their administrative supervision. The Deputy Court Administrators and the Legal Office, OCA, shall likewise oversee compliance by the Executive Judges, Presiding Judges and court personnel under their respective areas of administrative supervision.


November 10, 2015.


3 Guidelines in Cases of Prolonged Absences, Tardiness and Undertime, Filing of Applications for Leave and AvaiIment of the Rehabilitation Privilege, dated January 12, 2007.

4 OCA Circular No. 63-2001 dated October 3, 2001, citing Administrative Circular No. 3-99.

5 OCA Circular No. 157-2013 dated December 2, 2013.

6 OCA Circular No. 136-2010 dated October 5, 2010.7 Sec. 18, RA No. 8491.

CircularsOCA CIRCULAR No. 250-2015 (continued)


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS IN THE PROVINCES OF NORTH COTABATO AND SULTAN KUDARAT

SUBJECT: INTERNSHIP PROGRAM OF MEDIATION TRAINEES ON COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION

The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), through the Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO), in coordination with the Office of the Court Administrator, is expanding its Court-Annexed Mediation Program in the Provinces of North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat.

To formally mark the establishment of the Philippine Mediation Center Units (PMCU) in Kidapawan City and Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, an Internship Program for Mediation Trainees will be conducted from November 16, 2015 to January 18, 2016. This activity aims to provide Mediation Trainees the opportunity to apply what they have learned from the Basic Mediation Course held at the JC Leisure and Business Place on September 28 to October 1, 2015, by handling mediatable cases where they should successfully settle at least three out of five cases assigned to them, in order to be recommended for accreditation as Court-Annexed Mediators. This program will be conducted under the supervision of a Mentor-Coach.

In connection therewith, you are hereby directed to conduct an inventory of mediatable cases and refer them to the PMC Units in Kidapawan City and Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, starting November 16, 2015 and thenceforth.

Any communication relating to this program should be addressed to Hon. Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Chancellor, PHILJA, 3rd Floor, Centennial Building, Supreme Court, Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila.

November 11, 2015.



TO: THE CLERKS OF COURT AND/OR OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS AND FIRST LEVEL COURTS (METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS)

SUBJECT: REITERATION OF OCA CIRCULAR NO. 14-2012 DATED MARCH 1, 2012 AND OTHER INCIDENTAL MATTERS


It has reached the attention of this Office that despite the issuance of OCA Circular No. 14-2012 dated March 1, 2012 (Reiteration of Provisions I [Paragraph A(1)] and II [Paragraphs 4 and 5] of OCA Circular No. 58-2007, and Restatement of Provision I, Paragraph A[1] Thereof, by OCA Circular No. 51-2011), some lower courts still fail to: (a) submit the complete Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) Monthly Report of Collections and Deposits at the Finance–Accounting Division, Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA); and (b) state the correct names of payees in the Postal Money Orders (PMOs) resulting in the PMOs becoming stale, which causes delay in the recording of collections and deposits under the PMC Trust Fund.

To forestall a recurrence, the following pertinent provisions of OCA Circular No. 14-2012 dated March 1, 2012 are hereby REITERATED, to wit:

I. Fees to be Collected for Mediation Fund

A. Clerks of Court of the following courts shall collect fees to form the Mediation Fund under Section 9, Rule 141, of the Rules of Court as revised in A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, which took effect August 16, 2004, upon the filing of:

(1) The following pleadings in the Regional Trial Courts, and First Level Courts the amount of P500 Mediation Fee

Civil Case

- A Complaint

- Answer with mediatable counterclaim

- permissive or compulsory counterclaim [remains suspended pursuant to Resolution of the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC dated September 21, 2004 and further reiterated in OCA Circular No. 96-2009 dated August 13, 2009]

- third-party complaint, fourth-party complaint, etc.

- Complaint-in-Intervention

- Answer-in-Intervention

x x x x

II. Duty of the Clerks of Court or Officers in Charge

x x x x

4. Deposits of Collection


payees, all concerned shall personally SHOULDER the entire costs of revalidation of the PMOs.


November 11, 2015.


TO: FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS IN ANGELES CITY

SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF E-SUBPOENA SERVICE AND MANAGEMENT

Pursuant to the resolution of the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 13-08-03-SC, dated August 18, 2015, approving “the use of the eSubpoena System in the courts of Angeles City, Pampanga,” all the first and second level courts in Angeles City, Pampanga are hereby ENJOINED to implement the eSubpoena System, effective immediately.

For compliance.

November 25, 2015.



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

SUBJECT: RULES AND REGULATIONS ON LOCAL ABSENTEE VOTING IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAY 9, 2016 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS

For the information and guidance of all judges and personnel of the first and second level courts, attached herein is the copy of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 10003 dated October 14, 2015 entitled Rules and Regulations on Local Absentee Voting in Connection with the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections together with the Application to Avail of Local Absentee Voting (LAV Form No. 01) and the List of Applicants for Local Absentee Voting (LAV Form No. 02).

Copies of the Resolution and LAV forms may be reproduced or downloaded from the Comelec website www.


The depository bank for the Mediation Fund shall be the Land Bank of the Philippines. The income and interest earned shall likewise form part of the Fund.

The Clerks of Court, Officers in Charge, or their duly authorized officers shall deposit daily the collections accruing to the Fund with: (a) the SC PHILJA PMC Trust Fund (Rule 141) LBP Savings Account No. 3472-1000-08, for collections under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court; x x x.

In the absence of an LBP Branch, Postal Money Orders (PMO’s) [sic] payable to the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) can be purchased from the local Post Office and sent to PHILJA Finance Division for proper deposit. [However, when the PMOs are returned to the clerks of court and/or officers in charge for completion and revalidation because of the incorrect payees’ name therein, the cost of revalidation shall be under the personal accountability of the clerks of court and/or officers in charge concerned].

5. Monthly Reports

x x x “Monthly Report of Collection” shall be regularly prepared for the collections under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, x x x, attaching therewith: (a) the duplicate copy of the official receipts issued during such month covered; and (b) the validated copy of the Deposit Slips.

x x x x

(Emphasis supplied)

Henceforth, all the required monthly financial reports and accompanying attachments, as well as queries relative to collection and deposit of mediation fees shall be directly submitted and coursed through the following address [and telephone number]:

PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY FINANCE OFFICE–ACCOUNTING DIVISION 3F Centennial Building, Supreme Court

Padre Faura [Street], [Ermita], Manila [Tel. No. 02-552-9633]

Moreover, all concerned are REMINDED and DIRECTED to DEPOSIT all the collections under Section 9, Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court, solely in the SC PHILJA PMC Trust Fund (Rule 141) LBP Savings Account No. 3472-1000-08. Further, in the event that PMOs are returned due to incorrect names of

CircularsOCA CIRCULAR No. 253-2015 (continued)


LAV Form No. 01

Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Committee on Local Absentee Voting

MAY 9, 2016 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS

APPLICATION TO AVAIL OF LOCAL ABSENTEE VOTING 1. PERSONAL DATA: (Please use the same name as appearing in your registration records)(a) Name:

(Surname) (First name) (Middle name)(b) Sex: Male Female(c) Civil Status: Single Married Widow/er(d) Date of Birth: Place of Birth:(e) Contact Numbers: Mobile: HQ/Office Tel. No.:

Email address: 2. I AM A REGISTRERED VOTER OF: (Note: Please go to

http://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=VoterRegistration/RegistrationStatusVerification/precinct_finder for information on the following data.)

(f) (Precint No./Barangay) (City/Municipality) (Province)(g) Voter’s Registration Record Number (VRRN):(h) Voter’s Identification Number (VIN):3. I WANT TO AVAIL OF LOCAL ABSENTEE VOTING BECAUSE I WILL BE ASSIGNED ON ELECTION DAY TO PERFORM ELECTION DUTIES/COVER AND REPORT ON

THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS OUTSIDE THE PLACE WHERE I AM A REGISTERED VOTER Please check the appropriate box:

(i) I am a government official/employee (j) I am a member of the AFPGovernment Office RankPosition UnitPlace of Assignment Serial Number Name of Office/Supervisor Place of Assignment

Name of Commanding Officer

(k) I am a member of the PNP (l) I am a member of the mediaPosition/Rank PositionPlace of Assignment Place of Assignment Name of Station Head Name of Head of Company

I hereby certify that the above declarations are true and correct.

____________________________________ (Signature of applicant above printed name)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___________________ day of _____________________________________________________________,

2016 at ___________________________, Philippines. _____________________________________ (Signature above printed name)

Officer Authorized to Administer Oath

comelec.gov.ph. All duly accomplished application forms and certified Lists of Applicants shall be transmitted not later than March 7, 2016 to the Committee on Local Absentee Voting (CLAV) c/o ECAD, Commission on Elections, 8th Floor, Palacio del Gobernador Bldg., lntramuros, Manila.

For further information, Director Allen Francis B. Abaya may be reached at telephone numbers (02)5284260 and (02)5272986 or mobile number 09175594593.

December 10, 2015.


LAV Form No. 02

Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Committee on Local Absentee Voting

MAY 9, 2016 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS

LIST OF APPLICANTS FOR LOCAL ABSENTEE VOTING

OFFICE/UNIT/STATION: _____________________________________ ADDRESS: _________________________________________________________

SEQ. NO. LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME DATE OF

BIRTH

PLACE OF REGISTRATIONPLACE OF

ASSIGNMENT PRECINCT # BARANGAY MUNICIPALITY/CITY/DISTRICT PROVINCE

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that herein applicants are bona fide members/employees of ______________________________ with office address at _________________________________________. This is to further certify that the above‐named applicants will be assigned on election day outside the place where they are registered voters to perform election‐related duties or due to the performance of their functions in covering and reporting on the election.

__________________________ (Signature above printed name)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of _____________ , 2016, at _________________________________,

Philippines.

__________________________ (Signature above printed name)

Officer Authorized to Administer Oath


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT AND/OR OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: REQUEST OF PROSECUTORS TO BE FURNISHED WITH COPIES OF THE SEMESTRAL DOCKET INVENTORY REPORTS OF CRIMINAL CASES

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently streamlining the performance monitoring and reportorial system for the National Prosecution Service, and developing an automated Case Management System (CMS) and National Justice Information System (NJIS).

In order to assist the DOJ in the implementation of its projects, all concerned are hereby DIRECTED to allow Regional/Provincial/City Prosecutors to be furnished copies, upon request, of the Semestral Docket Inventory Reports of criminal cases in their respective courts.

This authorization shall be limited to the provision of copies needed for the purpose.


December 18, 2015.



CREATING THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RETIREMENT AND CIVIL SERVICE BENEFITS

WHEREAS, several laws and civil service regulations have been enacted providing for the benefits of government employees, and more specifically, to the members of the judiciary;

WHEREAS, the specific grant of these benefits require the approval of the Office of the Chief Justice and/or the Supreme Court En Banc;

WHEREAS, to streamline the approval process, there is a need to create a special committee to evaluate all concerns regarding retirement and civil service benefits of the members and other employees of the judiciary and provide recommendations to the Office of the Chief Justice and/or the Supreme Court En Banc;

MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 43-2015

NOW THEREFORE, the Special Committee on Retirement and Civil Service Benefits is hereby created and constituted as follows:

Chairperson: Atty. Anna-Li R. Papa-Gombio Office of the Clerk of Court–En Banc

Vice Atty. Eden T. Candelaria Chairperson: Office of Administrative Services

Members: Atty. Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores Fiscal Management and Budget Office

Atty. Maria Regina A.F.M. Ignacio Acting Chief, Office of the Chief Attorney

Atty. Caridad A. Pabello Office of Administrative Services– Office of the Court Administrator

Atty. Lilian Barribal-Co Financial Management Office– Office of the Court Administrator

Atty. Jocelyn T. Fabian Office of the Chief Justice

Atty. Czarina E. Samonte Office of the Chief Justice

Secretary: (To be designated by the Chairperson)

The Special Committee shall have the following functions and duties:

1. Draft a list of all retirement and civil service benefits mandated by existing laws and other relevant issuances, including the legal requirements for the grant of each benefit, for the approval of the Office of the Chief Justice;

2. Develop a checklist of requirements for the guidance of all employees of the Judiciary;

3. Receive, assess and provide recommendations to the Office of the Chief Justice and/or the Supreme Court En Banc with respect to specific requests for the grant of retirement and civil service benefits; and

4. Propose policy guidelines and other relevant recommendations to the Office of the Chief Justice to streamline and expedite the financial approval process relative to requests for retirement and civil service benefits.

Personnel benefits under the Judiciary Development Fund Law (Presidential Decree No. 1949 and other relevant issuances) or from the savings of the judiciary shall not form part of the Special Committee’s mandate.

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


Panay and Bacolod Mediation ProgramsMarch 30–31Hotel Del Rio, Iloilo City

• PHILJA Curriculum Review: Planning and WorkshopFebruary 10Bernas Center, Ateneo School of LawRockwell, Makati City

• Career Enhancement Program for Lawyers-Clerks of Court of the National Capital Judicial RegionBatch 2: Quezon City, Las Piñas, Marikina, Malabon and ValenzuelaFebruary 10–12PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityBatch 3: Makati, Pasig, Parañaque, Muntinlupa Mandaluyong and NavotasMarch 16–18PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Continuing Legal Education Program for Court Attorneys of the Court of Appeals

Mindanao StationFebruary 15–16Seda Centro Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityVisayas StationFebruary 18–19Hotel Elizabeth, Cebu City

• Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators and PMC Unit Staff Aurora Mediation ProgramFebruary 16Hall of Justice, Baler, AuroraNueva Vizcaya Mediation ProgramFebruary 18Hall of Justice, Bayombong, Nueva VizcayaQuirino Mediation ProgramFebruary 19Hall of Justice, Cabarroguis, Quirino

• 11th Biennial National Convention and Seminar of the Court Legal Researchers Association of the Philippines (CLERAP)February 17–19La Carmela Hotel, Malay, Aklan

• Judicial Career Enhancement Program for First Level Court Judges of the First Judicial Region

February 22–24PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Convention and Seminar of the Judiciary Association of Clerks of the Philippines

February 22–24Villa Caceres Hotel, Naga City

• Roundtable Discussion and Writeshop on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Mediation PolicyFebruary 22–23SEC Building, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City

• Specialized Mediation Training: Skills-Building Seminar-Workshop for Officials and Employees of the Securites and Exchange Commission

March 1–4Ace Hotel and Suites, Brixton Street, Pasig City

• Continuing Legal Education Program for Court Attorneys of the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax AppealsMarch 3–4PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• 21st National Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Women Judges Association (PWJA) March 9–11, Manila Hotel

• Roundtable Discussion for Judges on Online Sexual Exploitation of Children (OSEC)

March 9Manila Hotel, Manila

• PHILJA Curriculum Review: WriteshopMarch 15–16PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• 37th Pre-Judicature ProgramMarch 28–April 8Bayleaf Hotel, Intramuros, Manila

First Quarter 2016 Training Programs and Activities (Continued from page 36)

This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its issuance this 16th day of November 2015.

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

Chairperson, First Division (Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Senior Associate JusticeChairperson, Second Division

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

Chairperson, Third Division


• Special Course on International Criminal Law and SecurityJanuary 18–22PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Training Seminar on the 2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases for Judges and Clerks of CourtNational Capital Judicial Region and Region IVJanuary 18Court of Appeals Auditorium, ManilaFourth Judicial RegionFebruary 19PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityFirst Judicial RegionFebruary 24PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityFifth Judicial RegionFebruary 26The Oriental Hotel, Legazpi CitySixth Judicial RegionMarch 4The Inns by the Oriental, Bacolod CitySeventh Judicial RegionMarch 18Harolds Hotel, Cebu City

• Trainer’s Training for Court-Annexed Mediation

January 20–21Bayview Park Hotel, ManilaMarch 15–16Manila Pavilion, Manila

• 74th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed JudgesJanuary 26–February 4PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Mediation

Nueva Vizcaya Mediation ProgramJanuary 2624/7 Inn, Solano, Nueva VizcayaQuirino Mediation ProgramJanuary 27Capitol Plaza Hotel and Restaurant Cabarroguis, QuirinoAurora Mediation ProgramJanuary 28Carlito’s Inn and Lodging HouseBaler, Aurora

• Training of Trainers on Advanced Competency Enhancement Training on Trafficking in Persons CasesFebruary 1The Lake Hotel, Tagaytay City

• Advanced Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Legal Researchers, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons CasesFebruary 2–4The Lake Hotel, Tagaytay CityMarch 15–17Crown Regency Resort andConvention CenterMalay, Aklan

• Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators

(Skills Enhancement Course) Cavite, Batangas and Quezon Mediation ProgramsFebruary 2–3Bayview Park Hotel, City of ManilaRizal, Bulacan and LagunaMediation ProgramsFebruary 4–5Bayview Park Hotel, City of Manila

First Quarter 2016 Training Programs and ActivitiesJustice Adolfo S. Azcuna

Chancellor

Professor 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

(Continued on page 35)

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

Volume XVII, Issue No. 68 October-December 2015

Documents

Transcript of Volume XVII, Issue No. 68 October-December 2015