from the chancellor’s deskphilja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bulletin/bul67.pdf · graces needed to...

1Volume XVII Issue No. 67

Volume XVII Issue No. 67 July-September 2015 ISSN 2244-5862

For the period July to September 2015, PHILJA proceeded with the implementation of our regular training programs and activities (TPAs) such as the 73rd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges; the 35th Pre-Judicature Program for judicial aspirants; two Judicial Career Enhancement Programs for First Level Court Judges (JCEP) from Regions IV and VI; one Career Development Program for Court Legal Researchers of Luzon; and Career Enhancement Programs each for RTC Clerks of Court of Region IV, Court Social Workers of Regions VI–VIII, and RTC Sheriffs of the NCJR (Batch 2).

The following special focus programs were conducted during the quarter: Seminar-Workshops on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of Regions V and VII; Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law for Selected Judges of Regions VI and VII; the Third Forum on Women Leaders on the topic of biodiversity conservation; the Sixth Seminar-Workshop on Deposit Insurance, Banking Practices and Bank Conservatorship, Receivership and Liquidation; a Training Seminar on the Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases and Skills Development for Judges of Pilot Courts; a Competency Seminar on Legal Writing; two batches of Personal Security Training (PST) for Judges; a Seminar-Workshop for Judges of Regions IV and V on the topic of financial crimes and money laundering; a Competency Enhancement Training for Judges

and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children; and a Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Cases.

A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) for the PHILJA Curriculum Review was also conducted during this period with court personnel who are officers of the different judiciary associations and members of the Appellate Courts as resource persons.

PHILJA also lent a hand in the conduct of the 17th National Convention and Seminar of the Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines (MeTCJAP) in Batangas City. We also continued to support the Court’s Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) Program with the conduct of the Information Dissemination through Dialogue among Barangay Officials and Court Officials in the following areas—City of Balanga, Bataan and the City of Angeles, Pampanga in Luzon and in the City of Ormoc and Province of Samar in the Visayas.

The Academy, through the Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO), conducted a number of activities in support of alternative dispute resolution such as the Orientation Programs on Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) for Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court and for Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys and Law Practitioners; Basic Mediation

From the Chancellor’s Desk

(Continued on page 2)

Retired Family Court Judge Rosalina L. Pison gives new judges pointers on how to solemnize marriages during one of the Orientation Seminar-Workshops for Newly Appointed Judges regularly conducted by the Academy.

2 July - September 2015

Courses; as well as Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees, and PMCU Staff in Palawan and Oriental Mindoro.

Other mediation programs conducted this quarter were the WOSES or Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar given to selected PMC Unit Staff; Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Mediation for the North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat Mediation Programs; Refresher/Advanced Courses for Court-Annexed Mediators under the Bohol Mediation Program as well as the Cagayan and Isabela Mediation Programs; Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators and PMC Unit Staff under the Palawan, North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat Mediation Programs; and Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-based Course).

We also held a Roundtable Discussion (RTD) for Judges on Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health, as well as a Special Lecture under the Academic Excellence Lecture Series in the Judiciary (AELSJ) featuring Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose C. Vitug who spoke on “Coping with the Developing Landscape in Civil Law” before an enthusiastic audience composed of students, lawyers, members of the bench and professors from the Angeles University Foundation in Angeles, Pampanga.

We likewise continue to take note and share new rulings, orders, resolutions and circulars of the Supreme Court, as well as new OCA circulars in the quarterly issue of the PHILJA Bulletin and learning resources in the PHILJA website.

In all these activities, the Academy saw the notable performance of its teams and personnel, doing their tasks with dedication and loyalty. Thank you all.

I also wish to thank all our development partners who have unfailingly extended to us funding, expertise, sharing of best practices and the bond of friendship for many years now. Thank you, too, to the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court for the unstinting support and inspiration given to PHILJA and all its undertakings. The success of the Academy hinges on all these support for its endeavors.

Finally, thanks to the Almighty for the blessings and graces needed to serve our people effectively.

All the best.

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Chancellor

Continued from page 1Contents

From The Chancellor’s Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Circulars

Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 – Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 103-2015 – Implementation of Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9285 and Submission of Inventory Reports in Relation Thereto . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 113-2015 – Advice and Instructions Concerning the Piloting of Rules 22 and 24 of the Proposed Rules of Civil Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 144-2015 – Non-Attendance in the Philippine Judicial Academy Seminars . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 146-2015 – Membership Application Form on the Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan for the Year 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 155-2015 – Amendments to A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC (Re: Guidelines on Corporate Surety Bonds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 168-2015 – Effects of Suspension Meted on Justices or Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 173-2015 – Submission of Monthly Inventory of Cases for the Pilot-Testing of Rules 22 and 24 of the Draft Revised Rules of Civil Procedure . .

OCA Circular No. 174-2015 – Lifting of Compliance with OCA Circular No. 74-2013 (Re: Submission of Copies of Dismissed Drug Cases) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 189-2015 – Unauthorized Collection of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000) Deposit in ExtraJudicial Foreclosure Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 206-2015 – Resolution Dated June 16, 2015 in A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC (Amendment of A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC Dated June 17, 2003, for the Expansion of the Coverage of Cases Cognizable by the Special Commercial Courts to Include All Cases on Insolvency and Liquidation under the FRIA) . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 213-2015 – Guidelines for the Special Additional Expense Allowance for Assisting Court Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 222-2015 – Amendment to OCA Circular No. 07-2013, Timely Submission of Certificates of Service of Judges and Daily Time Records (DTRs)/Bundy Cards of Personnel of the Lower Courts . . . . . .

Fourth Quarter 2015 Training Programs and Activities . .

1

3

14

17

20

21

23

23

24

24

25

26

26

27

28

28

32


PHILJA Welcomes New Vice Chancellor and Chief for PMCO

On July 22, PHILJA officials and employees warmly welcomed retired Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. as PHILJA Vice Chancellor and Judge Geraldine Faith A. Econg as PHILJA Chief of Office for Philippine Mediation Center (PMC).

Justice Callejo, appointed for a term of two years per SC En Banc Resolution A.M. No. 15-07-02-SC-PHILJA, succeeds Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. whose term expired on May 9, 2015. Justice Torres served as PHILJA Vice Chancellor for 10 years.

Judge Econg was likewise appointed for a term of two years per the High Courts’ En Banc Resolution A.M. No. 15-04-01-SC-PHILJA.

Justice ROMEO J. CALLEJO, Sr.Justice Callejo obtained his Associate in Arts and Bachelor of Laws degrees from the San Beda College. He joined the office of the late Senator Jose W. Diokno immediately after passing the Bar. He was a Partner in Montenegro, Mandayag and Hernandez Law Office before he was appointed in 1987 as Presiding Judge of the Manila Regional Trial Court. He was appointed in 1994 as Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals where he served as Chairperson of the 10th Division. In 2002, he was appointed as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, during which he chaired the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters. Justice Callejo was the Chairperson of the 2005 Bar Examinations Committee. After his retirement from the High Court, he became the Chairperson of the Supreme Court Committee that drafted the Revision of Rule 65

of the Revised Rules of Court approved by the Supreme Court and of the Rules of Evidence pending approval by the SC. He served as Chair of PHILJA’s Department of Criminal Law in 1998.

Justice Callejo taught Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Trial Technique and Remedial Law in San Beda College, Ateneo de Manila University and the UP Law Center. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Society of Judicial Excellence and an alumnus of the Academy of Comparative and International Law of the University of Texas.

He was named Outstanding Judge of Manila in 1991 and in 1994, and an awardee of the coveted Cayetano Arellano Award for Judicial Excellence by the Foundation for Judicial Excellence in 1993.

Justice Callejo, who hails from Sta. Ana, Ilocos Sur, is a loving husband to Ma. Filipinas Villanueva, doting father to Romeo Gerard, and Geraldine Callejo-Geday, and a proud grandfather to Jacqueline, Alicia and Amelie.

Judge GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONGBefore her appointment to the bench, Judge Econg was a private law practitioner specializing in natural resources and environmental law. Her judicial career started when she was appointed in 2002 as Judge of the Minglanilla Municipal Trial Court in Cebu and later in 2004 as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 9, Cebu City. In 2010, she became the Judicial Reform Program Administrator of the Supreme Court’s Program Management Office. She was designated on May 10, 2015 as Acting Head of the Academy’s Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO) until her recent appointment as PHILJA Chief of Office for PMC in July 2015.

In 2006 and 2008, she took up special courses in court and case management at the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) based in United States of America. She is an Associate Mediator at the Singapore Mediation Center.

Judge Econg, obtained her Bachelor of Philosophy and Bachelor of Laws degrees from the University of San Carlos, Cebu City. She placed 15th in the 1993 Bar Examinations. She also holds a Diploma in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of the Philippines, a Certificate in Environmental Management and a Certificate in International Criminal Law from Salzburg University, Austria.

Training Programs and Activities


A 21-member PHILJA delegation attended the 2015 Biotechnology Outreach Project of the United States Department of State held at the New World Manila Bay on September 23.

Dr. Pesach Lubinsky, Science Advisor at the US Department of Agriculture, in his presentation entitled “Coexistence: A Perspective from the United States” discussed biotechnology, organic farming, coexistence of biotechnology and organic farming practices, and genetically engineered and identically preserved crops. He also shared the United States’ stand on biotechnology and coexistence, and the work of the Advisory Council for the 21st Century Agriculture. A lively open forum followed Dr. Lubinsky’s presentation.

The Philippine Judicial Academy, in partnership with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), held a Roundtable Discussion for Judges on Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health on July 29 to 30 at the Century Park Hotel in Manila attended by 24 participants, composed of selected RTC judges, representatives from the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), American Bar Association–Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI) and intellectual property law firms. The two-day activity was designed to discuss issues and concerns affecting the disposition of intellectual property rights cases and improve the skills of judges in using health-related TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) flexibilities in law interpretations and application.

PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna said in his Opening Remarks that the RTD is a very timely and

The PHILJA delegation, led by Research, Publications and Linkages Office Head Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria, was welcomed by Mr. Richard A. Bakewell, Environment, Science and Technology, Health and Energy Officer of the US Embassy. Dean Candelaria thanked the US Embassy for the opportunity given to the Academy’s delegation to learn from a very timely and substantive session on a relevant subject matter such as biotechnology.

The US Department of State supports the US Biotechnology Outreach Program aimed at promoting better understanding and dialogue among stakeholders on biotechnology issues. In recognition of the country as one of the regional leaders

2015 Biotechnology Outreach Project

Roundtable Discussion for Judges onIntellectual Property Rights and Public Health

wonderful opportunity for the participants to learn recent developments on intellectual property and public health that will be helpful in the administration of justice in our courts. Mr. Kiyoshi Adachi, Chief of the Intellectual Property Unit of UNCTAD shared a short background of UNCTAD and briefly discussed the TRIPS declaration on public health and the interconnection between intellectual property and public health. Ms. Thamara Romero, Legal Officer of the Intellectual Property Unit, UNCTAD, discussed key issues and current international and local trends in intellectual property rights and development in relation to public health and local pharmaceutical production.

A series of discussions followed on the following topics: emerging issues on patents and patentability (international




On July 21, the Academy convened the Philippines’ leading women advocates of biodiversity conservation and environmental law enforcement at the Third Forum of Women Leaders on Biodiversity Conservation, in partnership with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United States Department of the Interior (USDOI).

The guests of honor of the Forum, all renowned women in government, academe and media, were Court of Appeals

Third Forum of Women Leaders on Biodiversity Conservation

Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, Secretary of Justice Leila M. De Lima, Department of Environment and Natural Resources Undersecretary Analiza R. Teh, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Assistant Director Drusila Esther E. Bayate, Dr. Cecilia N. Gascon of the Southern Luzon State University, Dr. Minerva I. Morales of the Catanduanes State University, Ms. Karen Davila of ABS-CBN Integrated News and Current Affairs, and CTI Government Representatives Ms. Loreta A. Sollestre and Ms. Angelique M. Songco. Their short presentations highlighted their respective accomplishments and significant contributions in biodiversity conservation and environmental law enforcement, and promoted ways to increase collaborative efforts to protect the environment.

Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna, Department of Agriculture Undersecretary and BFAR Director Asis G. Perez and USAID Mission Director Gloria D. Steele delivered their messages before the 54 Forum participants coming from the Judiciary, Executive, Institute of Environmental Governance, National Coral Triangle Coordinating Committee, USAID, and Media.


Training Seminar on the Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases

and Skills Development for Judges of Pilot Courts

A Training Seminar on the Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases and Skills Development for Judges of Pilot Courts was conducted by the Supreme Court, the Special Committee on Speedy Trial and the Philippine Judicial Academy on July 23 to 24 at the PHILJA Training Center in Tagaytay City. Fifty-seven participants attended the activity, among them were SC justices, members of the Special Committee on Speedy Trial, the Technical Working Group on Continuous Trial, the Monitoring Team, and pilot court judges.

The two-day training seminar provided participants with a comprehensive view of the Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases in Pilot Courts (Administrative Matter No. 15-06-10-SC), which the Supreme Court, upon the recommendation of the Special Committee on Speedy Trial, approved on June 30, 2015. The guidelines will take effect on August 17, 2015.

Newly appointed PHILJA Vice Chancellor Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. welcomed the participants to the activity and remarked that initiatives such as the Guidelines on Continuous Trial are ways to improve the Philippine criminal justice system and expressed hope that the judges will perform their jobs with integrity, competence and diligence. PHILJA Chief of Office for Academic Affairs Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis read the Keynote Message of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, wherein the Chief Justice expressed gratitude to the 52 judges who have volunteered to implement continuous trial in selected criminal cases. “If this first batch of volunteer judges succeed in proving that continuous trial can be the procedural norm in the first pool of hundreds of cases to be tried on a continuous basis, then the Filipino judiciary will have shattered another popular belief: that here in the Philippines, the public has to resign itself to a turtle-paced justice system,” the Chief Justice said in her message. She also congratulated the members of the Special Committee on Speedy Trial and the Technical Working Group on Continuous Trial. “Their efforts, as well as those of our volunteer judges, provide the most effective proof that the judiciary is poised to fulfill its goal of setting the gold standard in public service,” CJ Sereno said.

Justice Diosdado M. Peralta provided an overview of the Continuous Trial Project and discussed the salient points of the Guidelines on Continuous Trial: Application and Jurisdiction,

Preliminary Investigation and Arrest, Arraignment and Pre-Trial, Trial Proper, and Promulgation of Judgment. Participants were later divided into groups for a workshop on automated hearing.

PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna started the second day of the activity with his remarks on how the Guidelines on Continuous Trial will revolutionize the trial of cases in the country. Justice Peralta then discussed the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court Resolution: Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts, the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, the Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Case, Republic Act No. 9165 also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and motions that delay proceedings. Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez delivered the Closing Remarks.

In April 2015, the Special Committee on Speedy Trial was tasked to formulate guidelines for the pilot and full implementation of the continuous trial system for criminal cases. The Committee is composed of SC Justice Diosdado M. Peralta as Chairperson; SC Justice Lucas P. Bersamin as Vice Chairperson; and SC Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., SC Justice Jose C. Mendoza, Court of Appeals (CA) Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, CA Justice Mario V. Lopez, CA Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, CA Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, Sandiganbayan Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, and Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, as members.

The Guidelines was one of the reform and innovation initiatives launched as part of the judicial reform agenda of the Philippine Supreme Court under Chief Justice Sereno. The four pillars of this judicial reform agenda are: 1) institutionalized integrity and restored public credibility, 2) ensuring the predictability, rationality, speed and responsiveness of judicial actions, 3) improved systems, processes and infrastructures, and 4) effective and efficient human resources.

in agricultural biotechnology development, adoption and trade, the US Department of State has reached out to its Philippine partners in the academe, government regulators, industry groups, farmers and non-government organizations.

2015 Biotechnology Outreach ProjectContinued from page 4


PHILJA conducted a roundtable discussion on handling financial crimes cases involving investment schemes on September 15 at the Manila Diamond Hotel attended by 17 selected pairing judges from the National Capital Judicial Region and representatives from the United States Federal Trade Commission. The one-day knowledge sharing activity aimed to re-apprise the participants of the various laws, rules and jurisprudence on financial crimes involving investment schemes and to discover emerging trends and best practices in other jurisdictions to further enhance Philippine judges’ capacity to handle and decide investment fraud cases.

Atty. Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., PHILJA Professorial Lecturer II, provided an overview of the elements and types of investment schemes and a discussion of related Philippine laws and rules. His presentation was followed by an open panel discussion on the issues and concerns in handling financial crimes cases on investment schemes with panelists Securities and Exchange Commission Chairperson Teresita J. Herbosa, PHILJA Vice Chancellor Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Mr. Eric O’Malley of the United States Department of Justice Criminal Division–Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (USDOJ-OPDAT), Atty. Daniel Hanks and Atty. Betsy Broder, both of the United States Federal Trade Commission. During the said panel discussion, participants were given the opportunity to suggest ways on how to best handle investment fraud cases. Among their proposals were for the Supreme Court to issue an administrative circular mandating the conduct of continuous trial for investment fraud/anti-money laundering cases and the creation of special courts to handle syndicated estafa cases.

Atty. Hanks and Atty. Broder shared the international perspective on the emerging trends and best practices in handling and deciding financial crimes cases involving investment schemes, as well as the key indicators, red flags, transaction patterns and tell-tale signs of pyramid/ponzi schemes. Judge Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, on the other hand, discussed various Philippine cases and rules concerning pyramid/ponzi schemes, existing Philippine pyramid schemes, potential scams, and the Eight-Point Test developed by the Direct Shopping Association of the Philippines (DSAP). Atty. Hanks, Atty. Broder and Judge San Pedro facilitated another open discussion where participants shared their experiences and challenges in handling and deciding financial crimes cases involving investment schemes, ways on how to deal with media pressure/influence, security concerns in handling said crimes, and the legal remedies available to victims.

PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna welcomed the speakers, resource persons and participants. He said that roundtable discussions are conducted by the Academy as venues for sharing of knowledge and experiences to improve the quality of administration of justice. Mr. O’Malley in his message said that he views the Philippines as “resourceful” because it opens itself to learning through sharing of ideas and open dialogue, the ultimate goal of which is to achieve justice. Justice Callejo in his closing remarks expressed his hope that the sharings and learnings from the activity will enhance the capacity of judges in handling and deciding fraud cases.

Roundtable Discussion for Judges: Knowledge Sharing in Handling Financial Crimes Cases Involving Investment Schemes (Pyramid/Ponzi Schemes)


Hon. Erriza Dawn B. NarcisoMTCC, Br. 2, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

Municipal Trial Courts

Region IIIHon. Ann Eillene S. Morales-JavaMTC, Jaen, Nueva EcijaHon. Wendell M. RamiterreMTC, Floridablanca, Pampanga

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Region IIIHon. Philip M. Cruz1st MCTC: Dinalupihan-Hermosa, BataanHon. Maricar P. Dela Cruz-Buban3rd MCTC: Orion-Pilar, Bataan

Shari’a Circuit Court

Region XIIHon. Palawan R. CayongccatShariff Aguak-Ampatuan, Maguindanao

II. Promotion

Regional Trial Courts

NCJRHon. Lyn C. Ebora-CachaRTC, Br. 82, Quezon CityHon. Maria Gilda T. Loja-PangilinanRTC, Br. 230, Quezon CityHon. Mitushealla R. Manzanero-CasiñoRTC, Br. 228, Quezon CityHon. Marilou D. Runes-TamangRTC, Br. 98, Quezon City

Region IHon. Junius F. DalatenRTC, Br. 50, Villasis, Pangasinan

Region IIIHon. Leo Cecilio D. BautistaRTC, Br. 38, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija

III. Completion

Hon. Sheryll D. Tulabing **MeTC, Br. 56, Malabon City

73rd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed JudgesDate: September 8–17, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 23 newly appointed and 6 promoted judges, namely:

I. New Appointments

Regional Trial Courts

Region IIIHon. Jonathan M. AgnesRTC, Br. 6, Malolos City, BulacanHon. Bernar D. FajardoRTC, Br. 67, Paniqui, TarlacHon. Maria Cristina G. LaderasRTC, Br. 85, Malolos City, BulacanHon. Robert Alexander R. MaligRTC, Br. 45, City of San Fernando, PampangaHon. Antonio Ray A. OrtigueraRTC, Br. 2, Balanga, Bataan

Metropolitan Trial Courts

NCJRHon. Don Ace Mariano V. AlagarMeTC, Br. 43, Quezon CityHon. Minerva M. Alejandria-BautistaMeTC, Br. 16, ManilaHon. Juliet C. Azarraga-ChanyongcoMeTC, Br. 53, Caloocan CityHon. Maria Lorenza I. Barias-SiosanaMeTC, Br. 49, Caloocan CityHon. Rolando A. De Guzman, Jr.MeTC, Br. 72, Pasig CityHon. Michelle G. Divina-DelfinMeTC, Br. 8, ManilaHon. Maria Ella Cecilia D. Dumlao-EscalanteMeTC, Br. 35, Quezon CityHon. Niño Delvin E. EmbuscadoMeTC, Br. 66, Makati CityHon. Paul A. FlorMeTC, Br. 20, ManilaHon. Remiebel U. MondiaMeTC, Br. 45, Pasay CityHon. John Boomsri S. RodolfoMeTC, Br. 38, Quezon City

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities

Region IIIHon. Joeven D. Dellosa*MTCC, Br. 2, City of San Fernando, Pampanga

Orientation-Seminar

* Was issued Certificate of Compliance only for being absent on September 8 (whole day) and September 16 (morning).

** Was issued Certificate of Completion for attending missed subjects during the 70th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges.


35th Pre-Judicature ProgramDate: July 20–31, 2015Venue: Bayleaf Hotel, Intramuros, ManilaParticipants: 47 lawyers, namely:

1. Maria Teresa S. Abadilla 2. Romeo E. Agacita, Jr.3. Gina A. Antonio4. May T. Aquino-Wong5. Hannah V. Arriola6. Lorelei S. Balansay-Tapia7. Kate S. Bansuelo8. Jennifer E. Bayaua9. Mary Kwen P. Cañete-Elefante10. Niven R. Canlapan11. Uriel N. Castillo12. Ma. Chrsitina G. Castillo13. Meliecar R. Castro14. Theresa G. Cinco-Bactat15. Helen B. Constantino-Balbuena16. Ana Florence S. Cuntapay-Oamil17. Joanne Sharon C. Dela Cruz18. Carmelita R. Delos Santos19. Jennet A. Delos Santos-Paras20. Erwin Y. Dimayacyac21. Reichelle S. Divino-Abejero22. Ma. Lorelai Andrea C. Dulig23. Cherrie Q. Frias-Altura24. Karla A. Funtila-Abugan25. Jerico G. Gay-ya26. David S. Gojunco27. Deanabeth C. Gonzales28. Joseph M. Inocencio29. Dorina H. Joya30. Romeo N. Juayno, Jr.31. Lily Joy A. Labayo-Patria32. Grace A. Lagadia33. Joan O. Lumawag34. Joy Z. Manaog35. Gian Enrico C. Navarro36. George C. Omelio, Jr.37. Marinelle B. O’Santos-Tubayan38. Myrna B. Pacala39. Maria Theresita E. Patula40. Francisco Benito A. Saavedra 41. Rino E. Sabarre42. Adrian Ferdinand S. Sugay43. Francis Tom F. Temprosa44. Allene C. Torres-Pena45. Karyn Lee A. Tribaco

Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP)

JCEP for First Level Court Judges

Fourth Judicial Region (Mindoro, Marinduque, Romblon, Palawan and Batangas)Date: July 1–3, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 48 MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

Sixth Judicial Region Date: July 14–16, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 56 MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

Career Development Program for Court Legal Researchers of LuzonDate: July 28–29, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 72 Sandiganbayan, RTC and MTCC court legal researchers from Luzon

Career Enhancement Program for RTC Clerks of Court

Region IVDate: July 7–9, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 90 RTC clerks of court

Career Enhancement Program for Court Social WorkersRegions VI– VIIIDate: July 7–9, 2015Venue: Harolds Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 25 RTC court social workers

Career Enhancement Program for RTC Sheriffs NCJR (Batch 2)Date: July 14–16, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 44 RTC sheriffs

Pre-Judicature Program

Career Development Program

Career Enhancement Program

* From Batch 34, only attended sessions on afternoon of July 29 and whole day of July 30

46. Katrina Jorelle P. Villena47. Grace L. Yulo48. Michel Kristian R. Ablan*


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

Region VDate: June 30–July 2, 2015Venue: The Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga CityParticipants: 93 RTC judges, prosecutors, law enforcers and representatives from the DOH

Region VIIDate: September 1–3, 2015Venue: Harolds Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 86 RTC judges, prosecutors, representatives from PDEA, AIDSOTF, NBI, PPA, NAPOLCOM and DOH

Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law for Selected Judges

Regions VI and VIIDate: July 15–16, 2015Venue: Hotel Essencia, Dumaguete CityParticipants: 24 RTC judges

Third Forum of Women Leaders on Biodiversity ConservationDate: July 21, 2015Venue: Diamond Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 54 representatives from the judicary, other government agencies, LGU’s, academe, civil society groups, USAID and media

Sixth Seminar-Workshop on Deposit Insurance, Banking Practices and Bank Conservatorship, Receivership and LiquidationDate: July 22–23, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 28 RTC judges and 10 PDCI observers

Training Seminar on the Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases and Skills Development for Judges of Pilot CourtsDate: July 23–24, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 57 comprising Supreme Court Justices, Supreme Court Committee on Speedy Trial, Monitoring Team, Technical Working Group and pilot court judges

Competency Seminar on Legal WritingDate: July 27, 2015Venue: Conference Room, Annex 1 Building, Court of Appeals, ManilaParticipants: 20 lawyers and non-lawyers from the Office of Justice Mariano C. del Castillo

Information Dissemination through a Dialogue between Barangay Officials and Court Officials

City of BalangaDate: July 30, 2015Venue: Bulwagan II, Capitol Compound, Balanga CityParticipants: 78 barangay and court officials

City of AngelesDate: July 31, 2015Venue: Angeles City Session Hall, Ground Floor, Pulung Maragul, Angeles CityParticipants: 91 barangay and court officials

City of OrmocDate: September 3, 2015Venue: Ormoc City Superdome, Larrazabal Street, Ormoc City, LeyteParticipants: 191 barangay and court officials

Province of SamarDate: September 4, 2015Venue: Covered Court, Provincial Capitol Ground, Catbalogan City, SamarParticipants: 81 barangay and court officials

Competency Enhancement TrainingJudges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons CasesDate: September 1–3, 2015Venue: Hotel Essencia, Dumaguete CityParticipants: 53 RTC judges, prosecutors, social workers and law enforcers

Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving ChildrenDate: September 8–10, 2015Venue: Hotel Jen, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay CityParticipants: 70 RTC judges, clerks of court/officers in charge, court interpreters, court social workers, local social workers, prosecutors, PAO lawyers, and representatives from Child Protection Unit Network and Consuelo Zobel Alger Foundation

Special Focus Program


Seminar-Workshop for Judges of the Fourth and Fifth Judicial Regions on Financial Crimes and Money LaunderingDate: September 16–17, 2015Venue: Diamond Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 35 RTC judges from Regions IV and V

Personal Security Training for JudgesDate: September 1–3, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 44 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges from NCJR and Region IV

Date: September 22–24, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 43 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges from NCJR and Regions III, IV and VII

Discussion Session

PHILJA Curriculum Review: Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

Court PersonnelDate: September 10, 2015Venue: Alex Reyes Conference Room, Court of Appeals, ManilaParticipants: 21 court personnel

Members of the Appellate CourtsDate: September 10, 2015Venue: Alex Reyes Conference Room, Court of Appeals, ManilaParticipants: 15 appellate justices

17th National Convention and Seminar of the Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines (MeTCJAP)Theme: Sharpening the Saw: Fortifying Judicial Integrity and DignityDate: September 23–25, 2015Venue: LIMA Park Hotel, Malvar, BatangasParticipants: 133 judges

Convention-Seminar

Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators and PMCU Staff

Palawan Mediation ProgramDate: July 9, 2015Venue: Hall of Justice, Puerto Princesa City, PalawanParticipants: 46 prospective mediators and PMCU staff

North Cotabato Mediation ProgramDate: September 8, 2015Venue: Hall of Justice, Kidapawan City, North CotabatoParticipants: 48 prospective mediators and PMCU staff

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

Roundtable Discussion for Judges on Intellectual Property Rights and Public HealthDate: July 29–30, 2015Venue: Century Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 24 selected RTC judges from NCJR and regions III and IV, representatives from IPOPHL, ABA-ROLI and Bengzon Perez Untalan IP Law Firm

Roundtable Discussion: Knowledge Sharing in Handling Financial Crimes Cases Involving Investment Schemes (Pyramid/Ponzi Schemes)Date: September 15, 2015Venue: Diamond Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 17 selected RTC judges from NCJR

Roundtable Discussion

Academic Excellence Lecture Series in the Judiciary featuring “Coping with the Developing Landscape in Civil Law” by Justice Jose C. VitugDate: September 18, 2015Venue: Angeles University Foundation, Angeles City, PampangaParticipants: 340 PHILJA officials and employees, representatives from Metrobank Foundation, Inc., selected judges, branch clerks of court and court legal researchers from RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC, Angeles University Foundation officials, faculty and students, and other guests

Special Lecture


Sultan Kudarat Mediation Program

Date: September 10, 2015Venue: Hall of Justice, Isulan, Sultan KudaratParticipants: 25 prospective mediators and PMCU staff

Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court on Judicial Dispute ResolutionDate: July 23, 2015Venue: Malolos Resort Club Royale, Malolos City, BulacanParticipants: 60 clerks of court and branch clerks of court

Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys and Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute ResolutionDate: July 23, 2015Venue: Malolos Resort Club Royale, Malolos City, BulacanParticipants: 36 prosecutors, PAO and IBP lawyers and law practitioners

Basic Mediation Course

Oriental Mindoro Mediation ProgramDate: June 30–July 3, 2015Venue: Filipiniana Hotel, Calapan City, Oriental MindoroParticipants: 31 mediators

Palawan Mediation ProgramDate: August 11–14, 2015Venue: Sunlight Guest Hotel, Puerto Princesa City, PalawanParticipants: 21 mediators

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

Oriental Mindoro Mediation ProgramDate: July 3, 2015Venue: Filipiniana Hotel, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro Participants: 50 judges, clerks of court, branch clerks of court, mediation trainees and PMCU staff

Palawan Mediation ProgramDate: August 14, 2015Venue: Sunlight Guest Hotel, Puerto Princesa City, PalawanParticipants: 47 judges, clerks of court, mediation trainees and PMCU staff

Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar for Philippine Mediation Center Unit StaffDate: August 26–27, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 75 PMCU staff

Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Mediation

North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat Mediation ProgramsDate: July 30, 2015Venue: JC Leisure and Business Place, Kidapawan City, North CotabatoParticipants: 100 judges, clerks of court, representatives from the National Prosecution Service, PAO, IBP, LGUs, NGOs, business sector, civil societies, academe and media

Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators

Bohol Mediation ProgramDate: August 4–5, 2015Venue: Arabelle Suites, Tagbilaran City, BoholParticipants: 22 mediators

Cagayan and Isabela Mediation ProgramsDate: September 15–16, 2015Venue: The Hotel Sophia, Cauayan City, IsabelaParticipants: 27 mediators

Faculty Workshop and Judicial Settlement Conferencefor Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution(Skills-based Course)Date: July 7–10, 2015Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 65 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

Roundtable Discussion for Judges on Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health (Continued from page 4)

perspective: Ms. Romero, Philippine perspective: Atty. Ferdinand Negre); challenges and best practices on patents (international perspective: Ms. Romero, Philippine perspective: Atty. Edmund Jason Baranda); experimental use exception, regulatory review exception and parallel imports under Patent Law, Canada-patent protection of pharmaceuticals (Mr. Adachi); compulsory licenses (Ms. Romero); protection of pharmaceutical test data (Mr. Adachi); anti-competitive practices (Mr. Adachi); and patent enforcement and permanent injunction (Ms. Romero). The discussions revolved around international and Philippine perspectives supported by statistics, cases, principles, and policies of the Court and other government agencies. Generic medicine production and its legality, and generics efficacy were also tackled. The participant-judges participated actively during the open discussions that followed each lecture. Judge Maria Rowena San Pedro provided a synthesis of the two-day roundtable discussion. A Closing Remarks was delivered by PHILJA Vice Chancellor Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.


PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna (seated, center) and Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria (seated, seventh from right), Head of the Academy’s Research, Publications, and Linkages Office (RPLO), with the participants of the Judcial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP) for First Level Court Judges of the Fourth Judicial Region (Mindoro, Marinduque, Romblon, Palawan and Batangas) held on July 1–3, 2015, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Raul B. Villanueva (seated, center) with the participants of the 73rd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges held on September 8–17, 2015, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

The officers of the Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines (MeTCJAP) present a Plaque of Appreciation to Guest Speaker Hon. Mark Llandro L. Mendoza, Representative, Fourth District of Batangas, during their 17th National Convention and Seminar held on September 23–25, 2015, at the LIMA Park Hotel, Malvar, Batangas.


Doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

“[t]he doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.” When petitioner’s recourse lies in an appeal to the Commission Proper in accordance with the procedure prescribed in MC 19, the CA may not be faulted for refusing to acknowledge petitioner before it.

Del Castillo, J., Macario Catipon, Jr. v. Jerome Japson, G.R. No. 191787, June 22, 2015.

Administrative Law

Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that “before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence, if resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court’s judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one’s cause of action. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case.” Indeed, the administrative agency concerned—in this case the Commission Proper—is in the “best position to correct any previous error committed in its forum.”


Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The corresponding penalty for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service may be imposed upon an erring public officer as long as the questioned act or conduct taints the image and integrity of the office; and the act need not be related to or connected with the public officer’s official functions. Under our civil service laws, there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, but the following acts or omissions have been treated as such: misappropriation of public funds; abandonment of office; failure to report back to work without prior notice; failure to safekeep public records and property; making false entries in public documents; falsification of court orders; a judge’s act of brandishing a gun, and threatening the complainants during a traffic altercation; a court interpreter’s participation in the execution of a document conveying complainant’s property which resulted in a quarrel in the latter’s family; selling fake Unified Vehicular Volume Program exemption cards to his officemates during office hours; a CA employee’s forging of receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations; a Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) employee’s act of repeatedly changing his IP address, which caused network problems within his office and allowed him to gain access to the entire GSIS network, thus putting the system in a vulnerable state of security; a public prosecutor’s act of signing a motion to dismiss that was not prepared by him, but by a judge; and a teacher’s act of directly selling a book to her students in violation of the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers. In petitioner’s case, his act of making false entries in his CSPE application undoubtedly constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; the absence of a willful or deliberate intent to falsify or make dishonest entries in his application is immaterial, for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service “may or may not be characterized by corruption or a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules.”


Family Code – Psychological incapacity as a ground to nullify a marriage; requisites.

“Psychological incapacity,” as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental—not merely physical—incapacity that causes a

Civil Law


party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code, among others, include their mutual obligations to live together; observe love, respect and fidelity; and render help and support. There is hardly a doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.

Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may only emerge after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.

In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Eduardo C. De Quintos, Jr., the Court reiterated the well-settled guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, embodied in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, based on Article 36 of the Family Code. Thus:

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. x x x.

x x x x

(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological—not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. x x x.

x x x x

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage. x x x.

x x x x

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. x x x.

x x x x

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential

obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted as root causes. x x x.

x x x x

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. x x x.

x x x x

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. x x x.

Mendoza, J., Robert F. Mallilin v. Luz G. Jamesolamin and the Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192718, February 18, 2015.

Innocent purchaser for value defined.

An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right or interest in the property, for which a full and fair price is paid by the buyer at the time of the purchase or before receipt of any notice of claims or interest of some other person in the property. It is the party who claims to be an innocent purchaser for value who has the burden of proving such assertion, and it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith. To successfully invoke and be considered as a buyer in good faith, the presumption is that first and foremost, the “buyer in good faith” must have shown prudence and due diligence in the exercise of his/her rights. It presupposes that the buyer did everything that an ordinary person would do for the protection and defense of his/her rights and interests against prejudicial or injurious concerns when placed in such a situation. x x x. In fine, for a purchaser of a property in the possession of another to be in good faith, he must exercise due diligence, conduct an investigation, and weigh the surrounding facts and circumstances like what any prudent man in a similar situation would do.

x x x x

A buyer cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser for value by merely relying on the TCT of the seller while ignoring all the other surrounding circumstances relevant to the sale.


x x x x

In the present case, petitioner’s sister Hilda Bautista, at the time of the sale, was residing near Rogelio and Shirley’s house—the subject property—in Ladislao Diwa Village, Marikina City. Had petitioner been more prudent as a buyer, she could have easily checked if Rogelio had the capacity to dispose of the subject property. Had petitioner been more vigilant, she could have inquired with such facility—considering that her sister lived in the same Ladislao Diwa Village where the property is located—if there was any person other than Rogelio who had any right or interest in the subject property.

x x x x

Further, issues surrounding the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale also pose question on the claim of petitioner that she is a buyer in good faith. As correctly observed by both courts a quo, the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed and dated on December 29, 1992. However, the Community Tax Certificates of the witnesses therein were dated January 2 and 20, 1993. While this irregularity is not a direct proof of the intent of the parties to the sale to make it appear that the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on December 29, 1992—or before Shirley filed the petition for legal separation on January 29, 1993—it is circumstantial and relevant to the claim of herein petitioner as an innocent purchaser for value.

Villarama, Jr., J., Josefina V. Nobleza v. Shirley B. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038, March 11, 2015.

Doctrinal RemindersCivil Law (continued)

Requisites to hold a director or officer personally liable for corporate obligations.

To hold a director or officer personally liable for corporate obligations, two requisites must concur: (1) complainant must allege in the complaint that the director or officer assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation, or that the officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith; and (2) complainant must clearly and convincingly prove such unlawful acts, negligence or bad faith. To hold a director personally liable for debts of the corporation, and thus pierce the veil of corporate fiction, the bad faith or wrongdoing of the director must be established clearly and convincingly.

It is settled that the transaction between Bancom and Bancap is an ordinary sale. We give weight to the finding of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that Bancap’s liability arose from its contractual obligation to Bancom. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Bancom and Bancap had been dealing with each other as seller and buyer of treasury bills from December 1991 until the transaction subject of this case on April 25, 1994, which was no different from their previous transactions. Nite, as Bancap’s President, cannot be held personally liable for Bancap’s obligation unless it can be shown that she acted fraudulently. However, the issue of fraud had been resolved with finality when the trial court acquitted Nite of estafa on the ground that the element of deceit is non-existent in the case. The acquittal had long become final and the finding is conclusive on this Court. The prosecution failed to show that Nite acted in bad faith. It is no longer open for review. Nite’s act of signing the Confirmation of Sale, by itself, does not make the corporate liability her personal liability.

Carpio, Acting C.J., Bank of Commerce v. Marilyn P. Nite, G.R. No. 211535, July 22, 2015.

Commercial Law

Family Code — Declaration of presumptive death; requisites.

Article 41 of the Family Code provides that before a judicial declaration of presumptive death may be granted, the present spouse must prove that he/she has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead. In this case, respondent failed. The RTC and the CA overlooked respondent’s patent non-compliance with the said requirement.

The well-founded belief in the absentee’s death requires the present spouse to prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse and that based on these efforts and inquiries, he/she believes that under the circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead. It necessitates exertion of active effort (not a mere passive one). Mere absence of the spouse (even beyond the period required by law), lack of any news that the absentee spouse is still alive, mere failure to communicate, or general presumption of absence under the Civil Code would not suffice. The premise is that Article 41 of the Family Code

places upon the present spouse the burden of complying with the stringent requirement of “well-founded belief” which can only be discharged upon a showing of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain not only the absent spouse’s whereabouts but, more importantly, whether the absent spouse is still alive or is already dead.

Mendoza, J., Republic of the Philippines v. Edna Orcelino-Villanueva, G.R. No. 210929, July 29, 2015.


TO: ALL JUSTICES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT

ALL JUSTICES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN

ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, AND MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

CC: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE OF THE COURT REPORTER PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE SUPREME COURT LIBRARY OTHER COURT LIBRARIES

SUBJECT: PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THE PROMULGATION, PUBLICATION, AND POSTING ON THE WEBSITES OF DECISIONS, FINAL RESOLUTIONS, AND FINAL ORDERS USING FICTITIOUS NAMES

In Administrative Matter No. 12-7-1S-SC (Re: Recommendation of Atty. Maria Victoria Gleoresty Sp. Guerra, Director IV and Acting Chief, Public Information Office, to Remove or Modify the Decisions Posted on the SC Website Involving Cases of Violence Against Women and Their Children), the Court issued Guidelines for the purpose of protecting the privacy and dignity of victims, including their relatives, in cases where the confidentiality of court proceedings and the identities of parties is mandated by law.

For the guidance of all courts, their respective clerks of court, and other court personnel, we issue the present Administrative Circular reiterating and supplementing our Guidelines in A.M. No. 12-7-15-SC by further detailing the procedures in the promulgation, publication, and posting of decisions, resolutions, and final and interlocutory orders in the cases covered by this Protocol.

I. Covered Cases

1. This Protocol shall govern the procedure in the promulgation, publication and posting of decisions, resolutions, and final and interlocutory orders of the courts in cases where the confidentiality of the identities of the parties, records, and court proceedings is mandated by law and/or by the rules.

2. Confidentiality of the identities of the parties, records, and court proceedings is mandated by the following

laws: Republic Act (RA) No. 76101 in cases of child abuse, exploitation, and discrimination; RA No. 85082 in cases of rape and other forms of sexual abuse or assault; RA No. 92083 in cases of human trafficking; RA No. 92624 in cases of violence against women and their children; and RA No. 93445 in cases involving children at risk and those in conflict with the law.

This Protocol shall also apply to cases where the confidentiality of the identities of the parties, records, and court proceedings is mandated by laws or rules not expressly mentioned herein and by similar laws or rules to be enacted in the future.

II. Prospective and Limited Retroactive Application

3. The decisions, resolutions, and orders issued or promulgated or to be issued or promulgated by the courts in cases covered by this Protocol shall be modified in accordance with the provisions of this Administrative Circular.

The modification of previously issued and promulgated decisions, resolutions, and orders shall extend only to those published on the Official Website of the Supreme Court (SC Website) beginning 1996, the earliest year when decisions of the Court were uploaded and made publicly accessible.

III. Modification Requirements for Covered Cases

4. The cases covered by this Protocol shall be modified in the following manner:

a. By replacing with fictitious initials the complete names of the women and children victims in the decisions, resolutions, and orders of the court in cases covered by this Protocol. For example, AAA should be written in place of the name of the woman victim in the crime of rape.

The courts may, in the exercise of their discretion, use different combinations of letters as long as the fictitious initials used shall not identify, directly or indirectly, the individual whose real name is replaced by the fictitious initials.

b. The personal circumstances or other information which tend to establish or compromise, directly or indirectly, the identities of the women and children victims, such as, but not limited to, their date of

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 83-2015

1 Known as the “Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.”

2 Known as the “Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998.”

3 Known as the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.”4 Known as the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their

Children Act of 2004.”

5 Known as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.”


birth, complete address, complete names of parents, relatives, or other household members, shall be blotted out from the decision, resolution, and order of the courts in covered cases.

The complete names and personal circumstances of the victim’s family members or relatives, who may be mentioned in the court’s decision or resolution, shall likewise be similarly treated.

c. At the victim’s instance or if the victim is a minor that of his or her guardian, the complete name of the accused may be replaced by fictitious initials and his or her personal circumstances blotted out from the decision, resolution, or order if the name and personal circumstances of the accused may tend to establish or compromise the victims’ identities. The victims or their guardians should manifest to the trial court at the earliest opportunity, i.e., after the filing of the complaint, information, or original petition, their desire to have the name of the accused be replaced with fictitious initials and his personal circumstances be blotted out from the decision, resolution, and order of the court.

If the accused is a minor, the complete name of the accused shall be replaced with fictitious initials and his or her personal circumstances, except for the fact of minority, shall be blotted out from the decision, resolution or order.

d. As to geographical location, the decisions, resolutions, and orders in covered cases should refer only to the province where the incident occurred or where the crime was committed. References to the specific barangay or town should be blotted out from the body of the decision, resolution, or order if its identification could lead to the disclosure of the identities of the women or children victims.

5. The court shall determine the use of fictitious initials in place of the victims’ complete names at the earliest opportunity, i.e., after the filing of the complaint, information, or original petition, and shall then issue an order or resolution to this effect.

The fictitious initials determined by the court to replace the real names of the victims in covered cases should be used consistently in the body and dispositive portion of the decision, resolution, or order and in all subsequent court issuances.

The court may, however, use the real names of the victims in its issuance of interlocutory orders, where the identification of the victims is necessary to avoid mistake or confusion in the enforcement of these orders.

The use of fictitious initials, however, may be waived by the victims in accordance with paragraph 9 of this Protocol.

6. The order or resolution issued by the court under paragraph 5 of this Protocol shall be effective in all subsequent proceedings in the case, even on appeal to the higher courts.

The court’s order or resolution shall also apply to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed by either the accused-appellant or the minor or children victims, assailing the proceedings, orders, or judgment by a lower court in covered cases.

7. In cases where the victims or their guardians have manifested their desire to replace the complete name of the accused with fictitious initials, the caption or title of the case should be written as follows:

a. The fictitious initials in the caption or title of the case shall be followed by the case number, or government record (G.R.) number, assigned to the case written in parenthesis. For example, in the lower courts, ‘People of the Philippines v. AAA (Case No.).’

b. If the case is appealed to the higher courts, the fictitious initials shall be followed by the case number assigned by the appellate court with proper notation of the original case number of the case before the trial court written in parenthesis. For example, ‘BBB v. People (current appellate court case number [formerly lower court case number]).’

c. If the case filed is a separate and independent petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the fictitious initials shall be followed by the case number assigned by the higher court. Examples are: ‘BBB v. Public/Private Respondents (Case No. ),’ and ‘People of the Philippines and BBB v. Public/Private Respondents (Case No._______).’

8. The rules under this Protocol shall also be observed in modifying the decisions, resolutions, and orders to be uploaded and already uploaded on the SC Website or the SC E-Library.

IV. Waiver by the Victims

9. The women and children victims in covered cases may, at any time, consent to the disclosure of their real names and personal circumstances in the decisions, resolutions, and orders of the court. In such case, the victims giving the consent must personally, or with the assistance of counsel, execute a written waiver in the presence of the court or before a notary public.

In cases where the victim giving the consent is a minor, the waiver must be executed by the minor’s parent or guardian. In the absence of a parent or guardian, the

CircularsADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR No. 83-2015 (continued)


court shall designate a person who shall execute the waiver on the minor’s behalf. The person so designated by the court must fully explain the consequences of the waiver to the minor. The waiver may be executed in the presence of the handling court or before a notary public, and must be approved by the handling court.

10. For good and meritorious cause shown to the handling court, the waiver under paragraph 9 of this Protocol may be revoked by the victims who gave their consent to the disclosure of their real names and personal circumstances in the decisions, resolutions, and orders of the court.

The revocation of the waiver must be in writing and executed in the presence of the handling court or before a notary public. In the latter case, the revocation shall be effective upon the approval by the handling court.

In cases where the waiver was executed on behalf of a minor, the revocation of such waiver may be executed by either the minor’s parent, guardian or person duly designated by the court.

The handling court to which the revocation is submitted shall give its approval if, in the exercise of its discretion, the revocation will serve the greater good of the women or children victims. The handling court shall set the terms for the modification of decisions, resolutions, or orders between the time a waiver is made and its revocation.

11. The women or children victims waiving the confidentiality of their identities or revoking such waiver must present the waiver or revocation of the waiver, duly executed under the provisions of paragraphs 9 and 10 of this Protocol, to the handling judge or the court office or officer responsible for the modification of the decisions, resolutions, and orders in cases covered by this Protocol.

V. Promulgation

12. In the promulgation of decisions, final resolutions, and final orders in covered cases, the court shall prepare two copies of its decision, resolution, and final order. The first copy shall be the unmodified version of the decision, resolution, and final order, where the real names of the parties are used and the parties’ personal circumstances are disclosed. The second copy shall be the version of the decision, resolution, and order as modified in accordance with this Protocol. Both copies shall be attached and made part of the records.

The unmodified version (or first copy) of the promulgated decision, final resolution, and final order of the court is confidential and shall be sealed in an envelope before it is attached to the records. The sealed envelope shall only be opened upon the authority of the handling judge/justice and must be re-sealed thereafter. The second copy shall form part of the open records of the case.

VI. Publication and Posting

13. Only the decisions, final resolutions, and final orders in covered cases promulgated by the Supreme Court and modified under this Protocol shall be published in the Philippine Reports and in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated.

14. Only the decisions, final resolutions, and final orders in covered cases promulgated by the Supreme Court and modified under this Protocol shall be posted on the SC Website and the Court’s E-Library.

The modified version of the decisions, final resolutions and final orders promulgated by the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and the lower courts may also be posted in the SC Website, if so directed by the Supreme Court.

VII. Prohibition Against Release to thePublic and the Media

15. Hard and soft copies of the original or unmodified version (first copy) of promulgated decisions, resolutions, and orders in covered cases shall not be released to the public and to the media, except when the victims have executed a written waiver in accordance with paragraph 9 of this Protocol.

Neither shall the records containing the real names and personal circumstances of the parties, mentioned under paragraph 5 above, be released to the public and to the media, except with the authority of the handling court.

VIII. Responsibility for the Modification of Promulgated Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Orders

16. The clerks of court of the Regional Trial Courts and the First Level Courts shall be responsible for the modification of the decisions, resolutions, and orders in their respective courts, as instructed in the order or resolution issued by the court referred to in paragraph 5 of this Protocol.

17. The handling clerks of court of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan shall be responsible for the modification of the decisions, resolutions, and orders of their respective courts in covered cases. They shall furnish their respective libraries, the SC Library, the PHILJA libraries, and the Court’s Public Information Office with a monthly list of modified decisions, resolutions, and orders.

18. The Office of the Court Administrator, through its Legal/Court Management Office, shall be responsible for the modification of the decisions, resolutions, and orders of the “lower courts to be uploaded on the SC Website, as directed by the Supreme Court.

19. The Public Information Office shall be responsible for the modification of the decisions, resolutions, and orders of the Supreme Court already uploaded and to be uploaded on the SC Website.


The PIO shall also be responsible for the modification of the decisions, resolutions, and orders of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan that are directed by the Supreme Court to be uploaded on the SC Website.

The PIO shall furnish the SC Clerk of Court, the Office of the Reporter, the SC Library, and the PHILJA libraries with a monthly list of its modified decisions, resolutions, and orders.

20. The SC Library shall be responsible for the modification of decisions, resolutions, and orders uploaded on the E-Library and other websites of the Supreme Court which are accessed by a “username” and “password” provided by the SC Library.

IX. Liability

21. The court officials responsible for the modification of the decisions, resolutions, and orders by the courts in covered cases or tasked to handle the covered cases under the terms of this Protocol, as well as the court employees designated to carry out tasks related to the implementation of this Protocol, must strictly observe the provisions of this Protocol. The judges, justices, clerks of court and heads of court offices concerned shall adopt appropriate measures within their courts or offices to fully implement the terms and purpose of this Protocol.

22. The unauthorized release to the public or to the media of hard or soft copies of the unmodified version (first copy) of the decision, resolution, or order of the courts in covered cases shall be considered a grave offense and shall be punishable with the penalties provided under the Civil Service Rules on Administrative Cases for grave offenses, without prejudice to the criminal liabilities that the violators may incur under applicable laws.

23. Third parties who do not have any direct responsibility for the implementation of this Protocol and who violate the confidentiality covered by this Protocol, may be held liable under the appropriate laws or rules.

X. Effectivity

24. This Protocol shall take effect immediately.

Issued this 27th day of July 2015.

(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIOActing Chief Justice

TO: ALL PRESIDING JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 36 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9285 AND SUBMISSION OF INVENTORY REPORTS IN RELATION THERETO

The Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) through its Chairman, Mr. Manuel M. Cosico, and Members, Messrs. Antonio A. Abola and Emilio Lolito J. Tumbocon, has invited the attention of this Office on the problems that they have encountered in the implementation of Section 39, Republic Act No. 9285, and in the submission of inventory reports in relation thereto, which were the subject of OCA Circular No. 34-2012, dated April 27, 2012, and reiterated in OCA Circular No. 111-2014, dated August 22, 2014. Said problems are briefly stated as follows:

1. Notwithstanding the issuance of the abovementioned OCA Circulars, there are only few cases that have been filed with the CIAC over a 3-year period, which indicates the under-reporting of the required referrals. A possible cause is the acceptance by the trial courts for docketing of construction disputes that are disguised as merely for collection of a sum of money which, if examined carefully, would have revealed that the cause of action is unpaid construction work;

2. There is the reluctance of some judges to dismiss the construction disputes without any motion being filed. Such hesitation is misplaced, considering that the aforesaid OCA Circulars have precisely given the judges the authority to dismiss said disputes; and

3. There is likewise the plaintiffs perceived difficulty of access to the Makati-based CIAC in contrast with the easier access to the nearby courts, which problem has been effectively addressed, whereby construction disputes can now be filed by virtue of an arrangement between the Construction Industry Authority of the Philippines (CIAP) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) at the CIAP Windows in the DTI Regional Offices as follows: a) Region 1 [San Fernando City, La Union]; b) Region 3 [Angeles City, Pampanga]; c) Region 5 [Legazpi City, Albay]; d) Region 7 [ Cebu City, Cebu]; Region 10 [Cagayan de Oro City]; Region 11 [Davao City]; and CAR [Baguio City].

In view of the foregoing and in order to more effectively enforce the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the CIAC over construction disputes in the Philippines as provided in Section 39 of RA No. 9285, as well as to reduce the increased judicial workload occasioned by such disputes, all concerned judges are hereby DIRECTED to:

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 103-2015

CircularsADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR No. 83-2015 (continued)


(1) REVIEW judiciously all pending civil cases for collection of sum of money to determine whether they arise from a construction dispute. In the affirmative, they shall DISMISS such cases and REFER the same to the CIAC or the appropriate ClAP Windows in DTI Regional Offices for proper arbitration, with advice to the plaintiff as to where to file his/her case, UNLESS both parties, assisted by their respective counsels, shall submit to the Regional Trial Court a written agreement that the dispute shall be exclusively resolved by the trial court, rather than the CIAC; and

(2) SUBMIT, within 15 days from notice, an inventory of such construction disputes filed in their respective courts,


TO: THE CONCERNED JUDGES FOR THE PILOTING OF RULES 22 (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE) AND 24 (TRIAL ON THE ISSUES) OF THE PROPOSED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

SUBJECT: ADVICE AND INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING THE PILOTING OF RULES 22 AND 24 OF THE PROPOSED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 103-2015FORM NO. 1

No. Case No. Case Title Date Filed Latest Status (If not yet Referred to CIAC)

Inventory of Construction Disputes

Prepared by: Verified by: Clerk-in-Charge Clerk of Court/OIC

Noted: Presiding Judge

to the Court Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, using the attached Form No. 1.

Accordingly, this Circular amends the OCA Circular Nos. 34-2012 and 111-2014 dated April 27, 2012 and August 22, 2014, respectively.

Strict compliance is hereby enjoined. Failure to comply with directives shall result in administrative sanctions.

June 1, 2015.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZCourt Administrator

Pursuant to the Resolution dated March 18, 2014 of the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 14-03-02-SC (Re: Program for Piloting and Assessing the Proposed Revised Rules of Civil Procedure), and to test the usefulness of Rules 22 and 24 of the proposed Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the selected Pilot Courts involved and those charged with its implementation are advised and instructed as follows:

Common Instructions

1. Coverage – In the interest of orderly implementation of the proposed Rules 22 and 24, Pilot Court judges are advised to apply such rules to all civil cases that are re-raffled to them for trial beginning July 1, 2015 following


a failed Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) in those cases. However, upon written mutual agreement of the parties, such Rules may also be applied to cases that have been re-raffled to the Pilot Courts before July 1, 2015 following a failed JDR.

2. Cases of special courts – Pilot Courts that serve as special courts, like family courts and commercial courts, are advised to apply the proposed Rules 22 and 24 to cases that are assigned to them for trial. The face-to-face trial shall not apply to special civil actions, special proceedings, cases that involve a child or a disadvantaged witness, and where the court perceives the danger of uncontrollable passion arising from deep animosity between the parties.

3. Voluntary application of pilot rules to cases where JDR failed prior to July 1, 2015 – In cases that are re-raffled to Pilot Courts where the failure of the JDR occurred prior to the effectivity of the pilot period, the provisions of Rules 22 and 24 may be applied by the Court only upon written unanimous agreement of the parties.

4. Inhibition of Pilot Court judge – In the event of the inhibition of a Pilot Court judge in a case governed by the proposed Rules 22 and 24, such case shall be re-raffled to another Pilot Court, should a qualified one be available in the same station. Otherwise, the non-Pilot Court to which it is re-raffled shall try the case under the applicable rules of procedure.

5. Application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule. – The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to cases covered by the proposed Rules 22 and 24. The period for its submission shall, however, be reckoned from the date set in Section 22.2 (a) of the proposed Rule 22 since the latter is the controlling rule. In the event the parties have already submitted their judicial affidavits incidental to the failed JDR, it would be reasonable for the Pilot Court to allow them to adopt the same for the purpose of such Rule. The parties may submit reply affidavits pursuant to Section 22.2(b) of Rule 22.

Instructions for Rule 22

6. Notice to submit draft Terms of Reference (TOR). – It is preferable that Pilot Courts serve notice on the parties to submit their draft TOR by electronic mail (email) or short messaging system (SMS), wherever such means of communication are available, at the mobile phone numbers that counsels of the parties have been required to submit, to ensure simultaneous receipt.

7. Submission of TOR. – Within 15 days from notice, the parties shall personally file the required TOR with the Pilot Courts and simultaneously serve a copy thereof to the opposing parties.

8. Filing and service of the draft TOR. – The Pilot Courts may, if they deem it suitable under the circumstances, require the parties to file their draft TORs and serve copies of the same upon the adverse party also by email or SMS, wherever such means of communication are available. If this is not possible, the parties may personally file the same and furnish copies thereof by personal service upon the adverse party within 15 days from notice.

9. Final TOR controls scope of the trial. – The TOR prepared by the Pilot Court during the preliminary conference, after consultation with the parties and their counsels, shall be final and shall control the scope of the trial.

10. Evidence to be presented deemed admitted. – The direct testimony of a witness shall be deemed offered and admitted upon submission of the judicial affidavit, subject to motion for exclusion of inadmissible testimony at the appropriate time and to the examination of such witness. Thus, an offer of evidence is no longer required after the trial has been terminated.

11. Objection to presentation of witnesses or judicial affidavits – Any objection to the presentation of a witness or to any of the questions propounded in the judicial affidavits or the judicial affidavits themselves shall be raised not later than the preliminary conference and before the TOR is finalized.

Instructions for Rule 24

i. Face-to-Face Trial

12. Face-to-face trial to be given priority – The Pilot Court must encourage the parties to agree on the mode of trial of issues that will govern their case. If they cannot agree, it is preferable for the Pilot Court judge to give priority to face-to-face trial, a shorter proceeding, unless insufferable circumstances dictate otherwise.

13. Exclusion of witness not encouraged in face-to-face trial – The exclusion of a witness in a face-to-face trial is discouraged since direct confrontation is the essence of such mode of trial. Should there be compelling reasons for excluding a witness, it is preferable that the court convert the mode of trial to alternate trial of issues.

14. Examination by the judge – To avoid the appearance of partiality when the judge examines a witness from one side and elicits testimony in his/her favor, the judge should ask the witness from the other side to respond to that testimony or ask him/her a question that will also elicit testimony in favor of his/her side.

ii. Alternate Trial

15. Examination of witnesses per issue – During an alternate trial, the Pilot Court and the counsels for the parties are required by the proposed Rules to examine each witness

CircularsOCA CIRCULAR NO. 113-2015 (continued)


solely with respect to the issue or related issues stated in the order of trial. However, if a party has only one witness for all or several of the issues that are to be tried, then the witness should be examined on all the issues, but one issue after the other, in the order stated in the final TOR.

16. Exclusion of witness allowed in alternate trial – In alternate trial, the exclusion of witnesses is allowed upon the discretion of the judge.

Similar Instructions for Trial of Issues

17. Trial of issues to be terminated in one hearing – Trial of issues, as far as practicable, should be terminated in one hearing date. As such, the Pilot Court shall maintain a separate calendar for cases covered by these rules.

18. Non-adversarial environment for trial of issues – It is preferable for a Pilot Court to provide a non-adversarial environment during the trial of issues, whether it adopts a face-to-face trial or an alternate trial. This can be best achieved, if permitted by office space, through a conference type of hearing where the judge sits at the head of the table and the parties are seated on either side of the table.

19. Apparent biased questions not a ground for inhibition of the Pilot Court judge – A Pilot Court judge shall not inhibit from hearing and deciding a case covered by these proposed rules on the ground of apparent biased questions, provided that such questions are relevant to the issues being tried.

20. No delegation of trial of issues to the clerk of court – In the event that a party is declared in default due to his or her failure to appear during the preliminary conference, the Pilot Court judge shall not delegate the trial of issues involving the remaining party to the clerk of court. It is to the judge that the proposed rules entrust the examination of witnesses.

21. Change in the mode of trial allowed – The parties, upon written unanimous agreement and on or prior to the scheduled trial of issues, may opt to change the mode of trial from a face-to-face trial to an alternate trial or from an alternate trial to a face-to-face trial, provided that the conduct of the new mode of trial is not unduly affected. This promotes party autonomy. Should the Pilot Court judge perceive the danger of uncontrollable passion arising from deep animosity, the mode of trial may be converted from a face-to-face trial to an alternate trial.

For your strict compliance.

June 16, 2015.



TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: NON-ATTENDANCE IN THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY SEMINARS

The attention of this Office has been called that despite the directive of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) requiring trial court judges to attend its scheduled seminars, some of them still fail to comply and inform PHILJA of the reason/s for their non-attendance.

In view of the foregoing, all concerned are DIRECTED to faithfully and conscientiously OBSERVE the PHILJA directive requiring attendance in all its seminars and to judiciously INFORM the PHILJA of the reason/s in case of inability to attend. This is to enable the PHILJA to properly monitor the compliance of all attendees with its seminars conducted for the educational advancement of the trial court judges nationwide.

Strict compliance is enjoined.

July 9, 2015.


TO: ALL JUDGES AND PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS (REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS AND MAINTENANCE STAFF OF THE HALLS OF JUSTICE)

SUBJECT: MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FORM ON THE SUPREME COURT HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN FOR THE YEAR 2016

In connection with the healthcare plan for the year 2016, the herein attached Membership Application Form is hereby required to be duly accomplished by all the judges and personnel of the Lower Courts and all the maintenance staff of the Halls of Justice.

The Membership Application Form will determine the preferred healthcare plan for the year 2016. Thus, the said form should be accomplished within 10 days from notice, or not later than August 15, 2015.



The Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan Committee will tally the individual preferences of the concerned judges, personnel and maintenance staff to determine whether an In-House Healthcare Plan, the reimbursement plan that was operated from 1998 to 2014, or an Outsourced Healthcare Plan, such as the plan contracted to a Health Maintenance Organization via public bidding which was won by Medocare Health Systems, Inc. for the year 2015, will be implemented for the year 2016.

If both healthcare plans are amenable to any judge, personnel or staff, then the latter may choose both and the majority will determine which healthcare plan will be implemented for the year 2016. If a judge, personnel or staff prefers only the In-House Healthcare Plan but the majority prefers the Outsourced Healthcare Plan, the said judge, personnel or staff will not be covered for the year 2016, and vice-versa. Non-submission of the form shall be considered waiver of the benefits of either plan and exemption from payment of the employee share for any of the healthcare plan.

For the distribution of the form, the Clerk of Court - OCC, Branch Clerk of Court or Officer in Charge of each office or court station shall be responsible for the distribution of the form to the concerned judges, personnel and staff by having the attached form photocopied for as many judges, personnel and staff that the particular office or court station may have.

Thereafter, the concerned Clerk of Court - OCC, Branch Clerk of Court or Officer in Charge should collate, scan and email the duly accomplished forms to the [email protected] starting on August 17, 2015 and no later than August 20, 2015. In the event that there is no option on the part of the concerned Clerk of Court - OCC, Branch Clerk of Court or Officer-in-Charge to email them, the forms should be mailed within the above period to the Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan–Secretariat, Supreme Court Compound, Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila. In either event, said official should contact +632 525 5796 to inform the Secretariat that the subject forms have been either emailed or sent thru mail.

For strict compliance.

July 13, 2015.



TO: JUSTICES, JUDGES, COURT OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL OF THE THIRD, SECOND AND FIRST LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO A.M. NO. 04-7-02-SC (RE: GUIDELINES ON CORPORATE SURETY BONDS)

In accordance with the Resolution dated April 21, 2015 of the Court in A.M. No: 04-7-02-SC (Re: Guidelines on Corporate Surety Bonds), all concerned justices, judges, court officials and personnel are hereby informed of the following amendments/clarifications to the said guidelines:

(a) That the obligation on the part of the accused/defendant to pay the annual premium necessary for the renewal of the surety bond previously approved by the court REMAINS;

(b) The phrase “Unless and until the Supreme Court directs otherwise” appearing in the first paragraph of Section VII of A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC is AMENDED to read as “Unless and until the court concerned directs otherwise;” and

(c) The second paragraph of Section VII of A.M. No. 04-7 -02-SC is AMENDED to include the following statement: “If the surety company seeks to be discharged from its obligation because of the failure/refusal of the accused/defendant to pay the premiums, it shall make the same notice within 10 days from the occurrence of such fact and the court shall decide accordingly.”

This Circular supersedes prior circulars/memoranda inconsistent herewith and shall remain in force until further orders from the Court.

Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.

July 23, 2015.



TO: ALL THE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AND THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND ALL JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, THE SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS, THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AND THE SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS

SUBJECT: EFFECTS OF SUSPENSION METED ON JUSTICES OR JUDGES

In accordance with the January 27, 2015 Resolution of the Court En Banc in A.M. No. RTJ-12-2316 [Formerly A.M. No. 09-7-280-RTC] (Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Liberty O. Castañeda, et al.), all justices and judges are hereby REMINDED of the following effects of any meted suspension, whether preventive or indefinite:



1. Upon receipt of the Court’s resolution of suspension, justices/judges suspended from office are prohibited from performing any of their official functions during the period of suspension until further orders from the Court;

2. To prevent a hiatus in the performance of judicial and administrative functions in the lower courts, an acting presiding judge, or an assisting judge where appropriate, shall be immediately designated in his/her stead;

3. Respondent justices/judges shall not receive their regular basic salary and other remunerative allowances and fringe benefits in accordance with existing guidelines and those to be issued by the Court for the purpose;

4. During the period of suspension, respondent justices/judges shall not be eligible to receive other benefits from the Court such as training, nomination for promotion, or any other similar non-remunerative benefits in accordance with existing guidelines and those to be issued by the Court for the purpose; and

5. Respondent justices/judges may face such other consequence, as may be determined by the Court or the Office of the Court Administrator.

For your information and guidance.

August 3, 2015.



Monthly Inventory of Cases for Pilot Testing of Rules 22 & 24 Draft Rules of Civil Procedure

Branch ,

for the Month of

CASE NUMBER CASE TITLE NATURE

OF CLAIMAMOUNT INVOLVED

DATE FILED

DATE OF REFFERAL TO PILOT COURT

DATE(CASE MGT)

CONFERENCE

DATE/SHEARING

DATE OF FINAL

DECISIONREMARKS

OCA Circular No. 173-2015Form 1

TO: THE CONCERNED TRIAL COURT JUDGES

SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF MONTHLY INVENTORY OF CASES FOR THE PILOT TESTING OF RULES 22 AND 24 OF THE DRAFT REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

In connection with the pilot testing of Rules 22 and 24 of the proposed Revised Rules of Civil Procedure pursuant to the March 8, 2014 Resolution of the Supreme Court in A.M. No. 14-03-02-SC (Re: Program for Piloting and Assessing the Proposed Revised Rules of Civil Procedure), all concerned judges are hereby directed to submit a Monthly Inventory of Cases for Pilot Testing of the said Rules.

The monthly inventory of cases shall be filed within the first five days of the succeeding month and shall be sent through registered mail to the Office of the Court Administrator and through email to [email protected]. In both instances, the concerned judges should request for a confirmation receipt of their registered mail and/or email.

The above-required monthly inventory of cases is in addition to the regular monthly reports being submitted by the courts. The form for said report is hereto attached for use by the concerned pilot courts.

For strict compliance.

August 6, 2015.



TO: ALL BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

SUBJECT: LIFTING OF COMPLIANCE WITH OCA CIRCULAR NO. 74-2013 (RE: SUBMISSION OF COPIES OF DISMISSED DRUG CASES)

In OCA Circular No. 74-2013 dated June 27, 2013 all trial courts were ordered to furnish the Office of the Court Administrator with copies of all decisions dismissing drug cases, including provisional dismissals, beginning January 2013, for a comprehensive study. Considering that the said study has already been terminated, the directive in the OCA Circular No. 74-2013 is now lifted.

For immediate and strict compliance.

August 6, 2015.



TO: EXECUTIVE/PRESIDING JUDGES, CLERKS OF COURT/OFFICERS IN CHARGE/ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS AND SHERIFFS OF THE SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTION OF ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000) DEPOSIT IN EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE CASES

As a result of the financial audits conducted by the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, a number of second level courts were found to have collected One Thousand Pesos (P1,000) for every extrajudicial foreclosure case filed in their respective courts to defray the expenses related to the posting of court notices where the subject property is located or in the barangay where the property is situated.

In this regard, Paragraph 2 of Section 10, Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court is instructive. The same provides:

IN ADDITION TO THE FEES HEREINABOVE FIXED, THE AMOUNT OF ONE THOUSAND (P1,000) PESOS SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF COURT UPON FILING OF THE COMPLAINT TO DEFRAY THE ACTUAL TRAVEL EXPENSES OF THE SHERIFF, PROCESS SERVER OR OTHER COURT AUTHORIZED PERSONS IN THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS, SUBPOENA AND OTHER COURT PROCESSES

THAT WOULD BE ISSUED RELATIVE TO THE TRIAL OF THE CASE. IN CASE THE INITIAL DEPOSIT OF ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000) IS NOT SUFFICIENT, THEN THE PLAINTIFF OR PETITIONER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT. THE SHERIFF, PROCESS SERVER OR OTHER COURT AUTHORIZED PERSON SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT FOR ITS APPROVAL A STATEMENT OF THE ESTIMATED TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COURT PROCESSES. ONCE APPROVED, THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL RELEASE THE MONEY TO SAID SHERIFF OR PROCESS SERVER. AFTER SERVICE, A STATEMENT OF LIQUIDATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. AFTER RENDITION OF JUDGMENT BY THE COURT, ANY EXCESS FROM THE DEPOSIT SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE PARTY WHO MADE THE DEPOSIT. (Emphasis ours)

Please be reminded that the One Thousand Pesos (P1,000) referred to in the abovementioned provision is intended for actual travel expenses in the service of court processes relative to the trial of the case. Simply put, an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding is not one of the cases contemplated in said rule since it is not considered as part of a court trial.

Moreover, Section 3 of Act No. 3135 does not require posting of notices in the barangay where the property is located. Thus:

Sec. 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of the sale for not less than 20 days in at least three public places of the municipality or city where the property is situated, and if such property is worth more than four hundred pesos, such notice shall also be published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city. (Emphasis ours.)

In fact, in Fortune Motors (Phils.) Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, et al., G.R. No. 115068, November 28, 1996, the Honorable Court ruled:

x x x Act 3135 does not require posting of the notice of sale on the mortgaged property. Section 3 of the said law merely requires that the notice of the sale be posted for not less than 20 days in at least three public places of the municipality or city where the property is situated. The aforementioned places, to wit: the Sheriff’s Office, the Assessor’s Office and the Register of Deeds are certainly the public places contemplated by law, as these are places where people interested in purchasing real estate congregate.

Henceforth, considering the foregoing pronouncements, the clerk of court/accountable officer is hereby directed to refrain from collecting One Thousand Pesos (P1,000) as cost for the posting of notices in every extrajudicial foreclosure case. The posting of notices where the property is located



or in the barangay where the property is situated is the obligation of the interested party.

For your information and strict compliance.

August 17, 2015.


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

SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DATED JUNE 16, 2015 IN A.M. NO. 03-03-03-SC (AMENDMENT OF A.M. NO. 03-03-03-SC DATED JUNE 17, 2003, FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE COVERAGE OF CASES COGNIZABLE BY THE SPECIAL COMMERCIAL COURTS TO INCLUDE ALL CASES ON INSOLVENCY AND LIQUIDATION UNDER THE FRIA)

Pursuant to the Resolution dated June 16, 2015 in A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC, the Court En Banc, among other matters, expanded the coverage of cases cognizable by the special commercial courts by including all cases on insolvency and liquidation under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010 (FRlA).

The Resolution dated June 16, 2015, appended herein as Annex “A”, was published in the Official Gazette on August 24, 2015 and shall take effect on September 8, 2015.

Any prior circular from the Office of the Court Administrator on this matter which is contrary to the foregoing is hereby superseded.

For your information, guidance and strict compliance.

September 8, 2015.



Annex A

EN BANC

A.M. NO. 03-03-03-SC

AMENDMENT OF A.M. NO. 03-03-03-SC DATED JUNE 17, 2003, FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE COVERAGE OF CASES COGNIZABLE BY THE SPECIAL COMMERCIAL COURTS TO INCLUDE ALL CASES ON INSOLVENCY AND LIQUIDATION UNDER THE FRIA

Resolution

WHEREAS, Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) No. 10142, otherwise known as the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010 (the FRIA) empowers the Supreme Court to designate the courts that will hear and resolve cases brought thereunder and to promulgate the rules of pleading, practice, and procedure that will govern such proceedings;

WHEREAS, in view of the passage of RA No. 8799, which transferred the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, including cases involving rehabilitation of corporations, partnerships, and other associations, to the Regional Trial Courts, A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC dated June 17, 2003 designated Special Commercial Courts to handle these cases, as well as intellectual property cases;

WHEREAS, A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC needs to be further strengthened in order to address the gaps in venue caused by the limited number of designated Special Commercial Courts per judicial region;

WHEREAS, Sections 18 and 23 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) authorize the Supreme Court to define the territorial authority of the branches of the Regional Trial Court to allow better access to justice;

WHEREAS, cases governed by the FRIA for (1) the rehabilitation of sole proprietorships, (2) insolvency and liquidation of corporations, partnerships and other associations, and (3) insolvency and suspension of payments/discharge of individuals, are likewise special cases that are commercial in nature;

WHEREAS, liquidation cases emanating, not from the FRIA but, from administrative proceedings are likewise commercial in nature;

WHEREAS, to streamline the court structure and promote expediency and efficiency in handling special commercial cases, the exercise of jurisdiction to hear and decide all rehabilitation, insolvency and liquidation cases brought under the FRIA and those emanating from administrative proceedings are best consolidated under the Special Commercial Courts;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Court Resolves:

1. That (1) cases governed by the FRIA for (a) the rehabilitation of sole proprietorships, (b) the insolvency and liquidation cases of corporations, partnerships and other associations, and (c) insolvency and suspension of payments/discharge of individuals, and (2) those liquidation cases emanating from administrative proceedings shall be heard and decided by the designated Special Commercial Courts;


TO: ALL JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO OCA CIRCULAR NO. 07-2013, TIMELY SUBMISSION OF CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE OF JUDGES AND DAILY TIME RECORDS (DTRs)/BUNDY CARDS OF PERSONNEL OF THE LOWER COURTS

For the information and guidance of all concerned, item nos. 5 and 6 of OCA Circular No. 07-2013 dated January 16, 2013 are hereby amended to read as follows:

5. The Clerk of Court in the OCC and in the respective branches shall thereafter forward, within the first


2. Upon the effectivity of this Resolution, all newly filed and pending cases mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph shall be assigned or transferred to the designated Special Commercial Courts having territorial jurisdiction over them;

3. When there is no Special Commercial Court designated to hear and decide a case filed within a specific territory in accordance with the existing rules on venue, the case may be filed in any designated Special Commercial Court within the judicial region of said territory; and

4. In order to ensure a just and equitable distribution of cases, the designated Special Commercial Courts shall continue to participate in the raffle of other cases. Provided, however, that the Executive Judge concerned shall adopt a procedure whereby every rehabilitation, insolvency or liquidation case assigned or transferred to a Special Commercial Court shall be duly credited to such court.

This Resolution shall take effect 15 days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two newspapers of national circulation.

June 16, 2015.

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

TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE ASSISTING COURTS IN THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS IN MANILA CITY, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS IN CEBU CITY, AND THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES IN MANDAUE CITY, CEBU

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR THE SPECIAL ADDITIONAL EXPENSE ALLOWANCE FOR ASSISTING COURT JUDGES

Pursuant to the July 9, 2015 request of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for the grant of a Special Additional Expense Allowance for Assisting Court Judges, which was approved by the Honorable Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno on August 28, 2015, the following Guidelines for the Special Additional Expense Allowance for Assisting Court Judges shall be observed:

1. Judges of Assisting Courts with one Assisted Court shall be entitled to a special additional expense allowance of


Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000) a month, provided that they receive and hear at least 10 cases from their Assisted Court for that month.

2. Judges of Assisting Courts with more than one Assisted Court shall be entitled to a special additional expense allowance of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000) a month, provided that they receive and hear at least 10 cases from each of their Assisted Courts for that month. Should the number of cases received and heard for the month from each Assisted Court be less than 10, but if added together amounts to at least 10 cases, the judge of the Assisting Court shall be entitled to Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000) as special additional expense allowance.

3. For the release of the special additional expense allowance, a Certification issued by the Branch Clerk of Court as to the number of cases received and heard by the judge of the Assisting Court from the Assisted Court for the month must be submitted to the Financial Management Office (FMO), OCA, within the first five days of the succeeding month.

4. Entitlement to the special additional expense allowance shall retroact from the start date of the Assisting Courts project, as provided in OCA Circular Nos. 10-2015-A, 10-2015-AA, 61-2015, and 69-2015, subject to the submission of the required Certification.

5. The special additional expense allowance shall be charged against the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses of the lower courts for Fiscal Year 2015.

For your guidance and information.

September 15, 2015.




five days after the end of each month, the Certificates of Service and DTRs/Bundy Cards, together with the properly accomplished application/s for leave (Civil Service Form No. 6), if applicable, of all employees in the office/branch, and the Monthly Report on Absences, Tardiness and Undertime in one batch, to the:

Employees’ Leave DivisionOffice of Administrative ServicesOffice of the Court Administrator

Supreme Court1000 Manila

5.1. In the event that one or more personnel failed to submit his/her DTR for the month, the Clerk of Court shall make a declaration or statement in the transmittal letter of the reason/s why such personnel failed to submit his/her DTR. Such declaration must be subscribed and sworn to before the Executive/Presiding Judge (see attached copy of form);

5.2. The reason/s cited by the Clerk of Court shall be the basis of the Employees’ Leave Division (ELD), OAS, OCA for the withholding of salary or exclusion from the payroll of the concerned judge and/or dropping from the rolls by reason of absence without official leave (AWOL) of the concerned personnel;

6. To avoid overpayment and over-remittance, the salaries and benefits of judges and personnel of the lower courts shall be withheld or excluded from the payroll, without prior notice, based on the following grounds:

6.1 The following shall be grounds for withholding of salaries and benefits:

(a) failure to submit Certificate of Service or DTR/Bundy Card within the next two succeeding months;

(b) having incurred approved sick leave without pay for 30 consecutive working days, spent within or outside the country;

(c) having incurred approved vacation leave without pay for at least one day by reason of travel abroad or long leave for the purpose of taking the bar or board examination; and

(d) having incurred at least one day vacation or sick leave of absence spent outside the country without securing travel authority.

6.2 The withheld salaries and benefits of the concerned judges and personnel shall be released after they have submitted their Certificates of Service/DTRs/Bundy Cards or after they have reported for work following their continuous sick leave of absence, travel abroad or long leave.

6.3 The following shall be grounds for exclusion from the payroll:

(a) absence without official leave for more than 30 consecutive working days;

(b) failure to report for work for more than 30 consecutive working days after the lapse of the period covered by the approved authority to travel abroad;

(c) The judge or personnel has filed an intent to retire/resign but has not officially filed an application form for retirement/resignation and the judge or personnel has continuously failed to submit his/her Certificate of Service or DTRs/Bundy Cards after the effectivity date of his/her retirement or resignation;

(d) And other similar cases.

6.4 The concerned judges and personnel shall be re-included in the payroll after they have submitted to the OCA proof that they have reported back for work and that their absences or failure to submit their Certificates of Service/DTRs/Bundy Cards is based on meritorious grounds, as may be determined by the OCA.

This Circular shall serve as notice to all concerned.

All prior circulars, orders, and other issuances inconsistent with this OCA circular are hereby revoked.

For immediate compliance.

September 18, 2015.



OCA CIRCULAR No. 222-2015Form 1

Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court

Office of the Court AdminstratorManila

Date

THE CHIEFEmployees’ Leave DivisionOffice of the Court AdministratorSupreme Court, Manila

Dear Sir/Madam,

Enclosed herewith are the Certificate of Service, Daily Time Records (DTRs) and Leave Application/s

for leave of absence/s for the month of of the following court employees of

the : (Station)

Please take note that Mr./Ms. , (name) (position)

(station)

did not submit to the undersigned his/her DTR as required due to

(reason for not submitting)

Respectfully yours,

(Clerk of Court/Officer in Charge)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of ,

affiant exhibiting to me his/her Supreme Court issued Identification Card No.

(Executive/Presiding Judge)

Employee Names Position


November 12OSG Padilla Hall, Office of the Solicitor General, Makati City

• Roundtable Discussion on Issues and Concerns Relating to Intellectual Property Rights and EnforcementOctober 27–28, New World Hotel, Makati City

• Career Enhancement Program for Lawyers-Clerks of Court of the National Capital Judicial Region

Batch 1: Manila, Caloocan and PasayOctober 28–30, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• 12th Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair LectureOctober 28–30, Metrobank Plaza, Makati City

• Good Practices for the Judiciary in Adjudicating Terrorism Offenses (Southeast Asia Regional Meeting)November 3–5, InterContinental Manila Hotel, Makati City

• Judicial Career Enhancement Program for First Level Court Judges of the Seventh Judicial RegionNovember 4–6, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• 12th National Convention and Seminar of the Regional Trial Court–Clerks of Court Association of the PhilippinesTheme: “E-Administration of Justice: Clerks of Court Adapting thru the Changing Times”November 4–6, City of Dreams, Parañaque City

• Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators

Davao Mediation ProgramNovember 9–10, The Royal Mandaya Hotel, Davao City

SOCSARGEN Mediation ProgramNovember 12–13, Hotel San Marco, General Santos City

Samar and Leyte Mediation ProgramsDecember 2–3, XYZ Hotel, Tacloban City

Metro Manila Mediation ProgramDecember 10–11, Bayview Park Hotel, Roxas Boulevard Ermita, Manila

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

Batch 1November 9–10, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

Batch 2November 12–13, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law for Selected Judges of Regions IV and VNovember 12–13, Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga City

• Career Enhancement Program for Regional Trial Court Sheriffs of the National Capital Judicial Region (Batch 3)November 24–26, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court on Judicial Dispute ResolutionNovember 24, Microtel by Wyndham, Cabanatuan City Nueva Ecija

• Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, and Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute ResolutionNovember 24, Microtel by Wyndham, Cabanatuan City Nueva Ecija

• Judicial Career Enhancement Program for First Level Court Judges of the Eighth Judicial RegionNovember 25–27, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Seventh Seminar-Workshop on Deposit Insurance, Banking Practices and Bank Conservatorship, Receivership and LiquidationNovember 25–26, Hotel Elizabeth, Arch. Reyes, Cebu City

• PHILJA Curriculum Review: Focus Group Discussion (FGD) for the Academe and Civil SocietyNovember 25, San Beda College, Mendiola, Manila

• Roundtable Discussion for Justices and Selected Court Attorneys of Court of Appeals–Cagayan de Oro Station on Financial Crimes and Money LaunderingDecember 2–3, Limketkai Luxe Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City

• Career Enhancement Program for Court Social Workers of the 9th to 12th Judicial RegionsDecember 2–4, Waterfront Insular Hotel, Lanang, Davao City

• Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons CasesDecember 2–4, Quest Hotel and Conference Center, Cebu City

• Seminar on Election Laws for Supreme Court LawyersDecember 4, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of the 10th Judicial RegionDecember 8–10, Limketkai Luxe Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City

• 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 IIDecember 9–11, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

Fourth Quarter 2015 Training Programs and Activities (Continued from page 32)


• Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees and PMC Unit Staff in Court-Annexed Mediation

North Cotabato Mediation ProgramOctober 1Kidapawan City, North Cotabato

Sultan Kudarat Mediation ProgramOctober 2 Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat

• 30th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Clerks of CourtOctober 6–9, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-based Course)October 6–9 PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• 7th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process ServersOctober 6–8, Lahug, Cebu City

• Roundtable Discussion for Justices and Selected Court Attorneys of Court of Appeals–Cebu Station on Financial Crimes and Money LaunderingOctober 7–8, Mactan, Cebu

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

Batch 1October 12–13 PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

Batch 2October 14–16, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

Batch 3October 22–23 PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Philippine Judges Association Annual ConventionOctober 14–16Manila Marriot Hotel, Newport Boulevard, Newport City ComplexPasay City

• 36th Pre-Judicature Program(As Prescribed by Section 10, Republic Act No. 8557) (Complete Compliance with MCLE Requirements)October 20–30, Bayview Park Hotel Roxas Boulevard, Manila

• Basic Judicial Training on Cybercrime for JudgesOctober 20–22 Crown Regency Hotel, Cebu City

• Validation/Vetting Session on the Final Draft of the Helpbook on Combating Human Trafficking in the PhilippinesOctober 22, Diamond Hotel Roxas Boulevard, Manila

• 22nd National Convention Seminar of the Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc. October 22–24 Villa Caceres Hotel, Naga City

• Field Guide Information Drive on the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Special Course on International Criminal Law and SecurityOctober 26Alex Reyes Conference RoomCourt of Appeals

November 9Social Hall, House of Representatives Batasan, Complex, Quezon City

Fourth Quarter 2015 Training Programs and ActivitiesJustice Adolfo S. Azcuna

Chancellor

Professor Sedfrey M. CandelariaEditor in Chief

Editorial and Research StaffAtty. Orlando B. Cariño

Atty. Ma. Melissa Dimson-BautistaArmida M. SalazarJocelyn D. BondocRonald Paz Caraig

Joseph Arvin S. CruzChristine A. Ferrer

Joanne Narciso-MedinaCharmaine S. NicolasSarah Jane S. Salazar

Circulation and Support StaffRomeo A. Arcullo

Judith B. Del RosarioMichael Angelo P. Laude

Lope R. PalermoDaniel S. Talusig

Printing ServicesLeticia G. Javier and Staff

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


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

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

from the chancellor’s deskphilja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bulletin/bul67.pdf · graces needed to...

Documents