philja bulletin no. 59

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013

From the Chancellors DeskFrom the Chancellors DeskFrom the Chancellors DeskFrom the Chancellors DeskFrom the Chancellors Desk

ISSN 2244-5862

With just a few months left in 2013, PHILJA continued withseveral orientation seminar-workshops for newly appointedJudges (66th and 67th) and for sheriffs and process servers(2nd), both held at the PHILJA Training Center (PTC),Tagaytay; and also for clerks of court (26th) which wasconducted in Lahug, Cebu City. I am happy to note that thePTC, which has been operating for close to two years, hasbeen fully booked and busy with the holding of most of ourongoing programs such as the Judicial Career EnhancementProgram (JCEP) for the RTC and First Level Court Judges ofRegion V and RTC Judges of Region I; the CareerEnhancement Program for First Level Clerks of Court ofRegion III (Batches 1 and 2); and the Career DevelopmentProgram for Court Legal Researchers of Regions X and XI.The Personal Security Training for Judges (Batches 1 and 2)was likewise held at the PTC along with the WorkOrientation Skills Enhancement Seminar (WOSES) for thePhilippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit staff and the JudicialSettlement Conference for Judges on Judicial DisputeResolution (skills-based course).

In addition to these activities at the PTC, PHILJA alsodelivered some of its programs to other regions such asthe 31st Pre-Judicature Program (PJP) held in General SantosCity; the Career Enhancement Program for Region VIconducted in Bacolod City; the Seminar-Workshop onStrengthening Judicial Integrity and the Rule of Law forExecutive Judges and Single Sala Court Judges of Regions Iand II; and the Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous DrugsLaw for Judges, Prosecutors, and Law Enforcers of the FirstJudicial Region, which were both held in Laoag City.

The Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening JudicialIntegrity and the Rule of Law for Executive Judges andSingle Sala Court Judges for Regions VI to IX and theIncreasing Judicial Efficiency: Seminar-Workshop for Judgeson the Effective Use of the Benchbook for Philippine TrialCourts (revised and expanded) for Regions VI to IX (Batch3) were consecutively held in Cebu City, as was theCompetency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court (Next page)

Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children (for Judges ofRegion VII). The Seminar-Workshop on Various LawsRelating to Court Technology for Judges in Region X wasconducted in Cagayan de Oro City.

Our staff also assisted in the mounting of three bigconvention-seminars for this period such as the FirstGeneral Assembly and Seminar of the Association of Clerksof Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs held in Intramuros, Manila,which had for its theme Delineating and Strengthening theRole of the Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs in theManagement and Operation of the Courts Geared TowardsStrong and Unified Administrators of the Second LevelCourts; the 15th Convention and Seminar of theMetropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippineswith the theme E3j = Enhancing Electronic andEnvironmental Justice which took place in Roxas City; andthe 11th National Convention and Seminar of the RTC Clerksof Court Association of the Philippines, with the themeClerks of Court In Pursuit of Excellence which was conductedin Boracay.

Several activities were also held in the National CapitalRegion (NCR), such as the Competency EnhancementTraining for Judges and Court Personnel Handling CasesInvolving Children given to selected single-sala court judgesfrom Luzon; the Stakeholders Consultation Workshop andPresentation of the First Draft of the Helpbook onCombating Human Trafficking in the Philippines; theCeremonial Turnover of the Final Draft of the ProposedRevised Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Knowledge Sharingon Laws, Rules, and Trends on Asset Forfeiture andManagement, all of which were held in Manila. TheSeminar-Workshop on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudenceon Intellectual Property for Special Commercial CourtJudges in the NCR and Selected Attorneys of the SupremeCourt and Court of Appeals was held in Makati City.

JULY-SEPTEMBER 20132

From the Chancellors Desk(Continued from page 1)

ADOLFO S. AZCUNAChancellor

PHILJA also continued to support the CourtsEnhanced Justice on Wheels (E-JOW) Program with theconduct of its Information Dissemination componentthrough a Dialogue among Barangay and Court Officialsduring the EJOW caravans in the cities of Surigao, Butuan,General Santos, and in the municipality of Polomolok,South Cotabato, all in Mindanao; and in the City of SanPablo in Laguna.

The Academy, through the Philippine MediationCenter Office (PMCO), held a number of activities insupport of Alternative Dispute Resolution such as: arefresher/advanced course for Court-Annexed Mediatorsfor the Isabela and Tuguegarao Mediation Programs inCauayan City, Isabela; South Cotabato, Sarangani, andGeneral Santos City Mediation Programs in GeneralSantos City; and the Davao Mediation Program in DavaoCity. An orientation and screening of prospectivemediators and PMC unit staff as well as a pre-internshiporientation and meeting with judges, clerks of court,branch clerks of court, mediation trainees and PMC unitstaff were also held in Legazpi City for the Albay MediationProgram, and in Sorsogon City for the Sorsogon MediationProgram. A basic mediation course for these twomediation programs was also held in Legazpi City. Anorientation of clerks of court and branch clerks of courton Judicial Dispute Resolution was conducted in Laguna.

We likewise continued taking note of new rulings ofthe Supreme Court and kept up with the reminders ondoctrinal rulings, as well as the newly issued Court orders,resolutions, and circulars posted on our website http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph. We also took note of new OCAcirculars.

In closing, I would like to thank our ever-dependableofficials and staff, our brilliant corps of professors andlecturers, as well as our reliable program partners forgiving their best to the Academy. Special thanks, too, tothe Chief Justice and the Court En Banc for theirunrelenting support for all our programs and activities.

All the best.

13

1617

232324

2828

29

29

30

30

31

31

3233

33

34

34

35

37

40

ContentsFrom the Chancellors Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Trainings, Programs and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . .New Rulings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Doctrinal Reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resolutions A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A.M. No. 13-7-144-RTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A.M. No. 11-10-03-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Orders Memorandum Order No. 25-2013 . . . . . . . . . . Memorandum Order No. 30-2013 . . . . . . . . . .Circulars

OCA Cir. No. 78-2013 Submission of Reporton Any Lawsuits Filed or Pending Against theArgentine Republic Before Any Court in thePhilippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 80-2013 Report on CasesInvolving Violation of RA No. 9208 as amendedby RA No. 10364 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 83-2013 Submission of MonthlyReport of Cases Using the Approved NewForms Under A.C. No. 81-2012 in Addition tothe Monthly Report of Cases Under A.C. No.4-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 84-2013 Inventory of Hold-Departure Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 87-2013 Court Resolution datedJune 4, 2013 in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 94-2013 Designation of EJs andVice EJs Pursuant to Administrative OrderNo. 111-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 97-2013 Guidelines for eRaffle inQuezon City Trial Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 99-2013 A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC . . .OCA Cir. No. 100-2013 Exemption from OCACircular No. 83-2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 101-2013 Implementation ofSections 2 and 3 of RA No. 10158 . . . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 103-2013 Guidelines in theImplementation of the Automated PayrollSystem in the Single-Sala RTCs Outside the NCJRand the MTCs in All Judicial Regions . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 107-2013 New Guidelines on JailVisitation and Inspection (A.M. No. 07-3-02-SC)..OCA Cir. No. 109-2013 Cover Letter for Copiesof Orders, Decisions and Other DocumentsSubmitted by Lower Courts to the OCA . . . . . .

Upcoming PHILJA Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 3

TRAININGS, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

Ceremonial Turnover of the Final Draft of theProposed Revised Rules of Civil Procedure

In a special En Banc session on September 3, 2013,theCourt En Banc led by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A.Sereno accepted the submission by the CoreCommittee of the National Conference for theRevision of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the finaldraft of the proposed revised Rules of Civil Procedure.The ceremonial turnover was witnessed by the CourtEn Banc and attended by selected members of theJudiciary, the Core Committee members, TopicalWorking Group members, institutions and individualswho have shared their resources, expertise,competence, and commitment in the drafting of theproposed revised rules.

In the same event, the Chief Justice awardedplaques of recognition to partner institutions, namely,the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, University ofthe Philippines Law Center, PHILJA, Ateneo de ManilaUniversity School of Law, Office of the Solicitor General,and SC Office of the Chief Attorney; the CoreCommittee members, the members of the TopicalWorking Groups; and the Support Staff of the NationalConference for the Revision of the Rules of CivilProcedure as commendation for their invaluablecontributions in achieving the goals of the nationalconference. Certificates of recognition were alsoawarded to the delegates of the national conferencecomprising leading justices, judges, academicians, lawpractitioners and legal luminaries, for sharing theirviews and expertise, and for working extended hoursto ensure full discussion of the draft rules.

A Knowledge Sharing on Laws, Rules and Trends onAsset Forfeiture and Management was conducted byPHILJA on August 23, 2013, in partnership with theUnited States (U.S.) Department of JusticeCriminalDivision, OPDAT. The knowledge sharing, by way of aroundtable discussion (RTD) and a focus group discussion(FGD) workshop attended by 12 judges from the NCJRand Region IV, aimed to re-apprise the judges and otherstakeholders of the various laws, rules, jurisprudenceand developments on asset forfeiture andmanagement; to familiarize them with the countryscurrent state as regards the implementation of assetrecovery efforts and the various challenges that mustbe addressed in order to improve the present system;and to expose them to the best practices being observedoutside the country, the U.S. in particular.

The RTD focused on the following topics: PhilippineLaws, Rules on Asset Forfeiture and Management;Emerging Trends on Asset Forfeiture and Management:The Philippine Perspective; and Emerging Trends onAsset Forfeiture and Management: The InternationalPerspective. From the discussions emerged the mostproblematic issue in asset forfeiturethe lack of aneffective asset management system or regime forforfeited assets. Suggestions on how to improve thecurrent asset management system in the Philippinessurfaced during the discussions such as for PHILJA toconsider coming up with best practices rules formanaging assets that should be developed within thejudiciary in the absence of a clear legal regime for assetmanagement of forfeited assets.

Informations gathered from the judges and otherstakeholders regarding the challenges they face in assetforfeiture and management and the various existingproblem areas in handling anti-money laundering andother financial crime cases during the FGD workshopwill be used as bases for the training curriculum of theSeminar-Workshop on Combating Money Launderingand Other Financial Crimes in the Philippines.

RTD: Knowledge Sharing on Laws, Rules andTrends on Asset Forfeiture and Management


Seminar-Workshopon Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence

on Intellectual Property

On July 25 to 26, 2013, PHILJA conducted the Seminar-Workshop on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence onIntellectual Property for Special Commercial CourtJudges in the NCJR and selected SC and CA Attorneys,in partnership with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).The seminar-workshop, the first in the series onsubstantive laws and jurisprudence on intellectualproperty, was attended by 75 participants who wereapprised on how to access IPO assistance in trials involvinghighly technical evidence or matters and topics ontrademarks; copyrights; intellectual property rightsviolations; cybercrime investigation; patents, industrialdesigns, utility models; and TRO/preliminary injunctionsand other remedies with the end goal of enhancing thecapacity of judges and court attorneys for the effective,efficient and expeditious disposition of intellectualproperty cases. Group workshops were facilitated toassess participants learnings from the lectures.

On July 11 to 12, 2013, the PHILJA, in partnership with theAssociation of Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs (ACCES),conducted the First General Assembly and Seminar ofthe Association of Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffspursuant to OCA Circular No. 60A-2013. The associationspresident, Atty. Engracio M. Escasinas, Jr., gave theopening address. The Chief Justice was the guest of honorand Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez was theguest speaker to 74 clerks of court and ex officio sheriffswho attended the activity.

The seminar component provided lecture sessions inresponse to the need of clerks of court and ex officio sheriffsto foster sound values, strengthen commitment to publicservice, enhance court management and human resourceskills, and gain clarification on certain topics. Topicsdiscussed were issues and concerns in extrajudicialforeclosure proceedings under Act No. 3135 and underRule 141 which covered problems in the disbursement ofthe Sheriff Trust Fund, withdrawal/cancellation ofcomplaints, problems regarding the new rules on pauperlitigants represented by the Public Attorneys Office, andrequirements in the withdrawal of cash bonds and rentaldeposits.

First General Assembly and Seminarof the Association of Clerks of Court

and Ex Officio Sheriffs

A Stakeholders Consultation Workshop andPresentation of the First Draft of the Helpbook onCombating Human Trafficking in the Philippines wasconducted by PHILJA on August 13, 2013, inpartnership with the U.S. Department of JusticeCriminal Division, OPDAT. Aside from the presentationof the first draft of the helpbook, the activity gatheredcomments and recommendations that would beconsolidated and evaluated for integration in thesecond draft of the helpbook. In attendance were 26participants composed of selected judges, prosecutorsand representatives from government agencies withexperience in handling trafficking cases (i.e.,Department of Justice, Department of Social Welfareand Development, Department of Foreign Affairs,National Bureau of Investigation, Philippine Center onTransnational Crime, Council for the Welfare ofChildren, Philippine Commission on Women,International Justice Mission, and Bureau ofImmigration).

The helpbook is a by-product of seminar-workshopsand roundtable discussions conducted back in 2012.Significant learnings and recommendations from allthese activities were integrated and written in ahelpbook that will serve as a guide to all stakeholdersof trafficking cases. The following chapters have beenwritten thus far: General Introduction and Situationeron Trafficking in the Philippines, Investigation,Prosecution, Judicial Process, Victims and Witnesses,and The Role of the Civil Society.

Stakeholders Consultation Workshopand Presentation of the First Helpbook

on Combating Human Trafficking


66th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly AppointedJudges

Date: July 2 to 11, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 47 newly appointed judges, namely:

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGIONHon. Elisa R. Sarmiento-FloresRTC, Br. 71, Pasig City

REGION IHon. Marita B. BalloguingRTC, Br. 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur

REGION IIIHon. Jude Erwin U. AlabaRTC, Br. 91, Baler, AuroraHon. Crisostomo J. DaguilanRTC, Br. 21, MaIolos City, BulacanHon. Johnmuel Romano Ritzard D. MendozaRTC, Br. 26, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

REGION VHon. Vivencio Gregorio G. Atutubo IIIRTC, Br. 32, Pili, Camarines Sur

REGION VIHon. Therese Blanche A. BoluniaRTC, Br. 47, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental

REGION VIIIHon. Eligio P. PetillaRTC, Br. 42, Tacloban City, Leyte

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGIONHon. Allan B. AriolaMeTC, Br. 46, Pasay CityHon. Alberto N. Azarcon IIIMeTC, Br. 63, Makati. CityHon. Juvenal N. BellaMeTC, Br. 39, Quezon CityHon. Bernard P. BernalMeTC, Br. 74, Taguig CityHon. Ma. Concepcion A. BillonesMeTC, Br. 62, Makati CityHon. Dolly Rose R. Bolante-PradoMeTC, Br. 97, Mandaluyong CityHon. Ma. Maureen T. Concepcion-DyMeTC, Br. 2, ManilaHon. Joel Socrates S. LopenaMeTC, Br. 33, Quezon City

Hon. John Benedict D. MedinaMeTC, Br. 96, Mandaluyong CityHon. Ruth S. Pasion-RamosMeTC, Br. 99, Mandaluyong CityHon. Anne Perpetual S. Rivera-SiaMeTC, Br. 12, ManilaHon. Lady Rochelle S. Saymo-LlabresMeTC, Br. 50, Caloocan CityHon. Eduardo C. Solangon, Jr.MeTC, Br. 98, Mandaluyong CityHon. James T. SyMeTC, Br. 76, Marikina City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

REGION IIIHon. Jose V. Covarrubias IIIMTCC, Br. 1, Meycauayan City, Bulacan

REGION VHon. Michael A. BalmacedaMTCC, Br. 1, Sorsogon City, SorsogonHon. Ma. Luzy B. Torres-ClasioMTCC, Br. 2, Iriga City, Camarines Sur

REGION VIHon. Anne Beatrice A. BalmacedaMTCC, Br. 1, Iloilo City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIHon. Remalie C. Corbe-CardenasMTC, Diffun, Quirino

REGION IIIHon. Romeo Carmelito C. CongeMTC, Pulilan, BulacanHon. Marjorie W. Maranan-DempseyMTC, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIHon. Donabel A. Balot1st MCTC: Aglipay-Saguday, QuirinoHon. Queenie A. Mallillin1st MCTC: Claveria-Sta. Praxedes, Cagayan

REGION IIIHon. Richard G. Evangelista2nd MCTC: Mexico-San Luis, PampangaHon. Rebecca A. Guillen-Ubaa2nd MCTC: Masinloc-Palauig, ZambalesHon. Jonald E. Hernandez2nd MCTC: Maria Aurora-Dipaculao, AuroraHon. Jo Anne D.C. Malaton1st MCTC: Casiguran-Dilasag-Dinalongan, AuroraHon. Rochelle S. Manuel6th MCTC: Mabalacat-Magalang, Pampanga

Orientation


Hon. Maria Belinda C. Rama1st MCTC: Sta. Ana-Candaba, PampangaHon. Jacqueline R. Suing3rd MCTC: Botolan-Cabangan, ZambalesHon. Edith Cynthia A. Wee3rd MCTC: Baler-San Luis, Aurora

REGION VHon. Joveliza P. Palo-Soriano6th MCTC: Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur

REGION VIHon. Maria Theresa P. Aldon6th MCTC: Pandan-Libertad-Caluya, AntiqueHon. Jerson F. Almalbis4th MCTC: Dumarao-Cuartero, CapizHon. Janette Mae J. Dillomes3rd MCTC: Patnongon-Bugasong-Valderrama, AntiqueHon. Lunel J. Gabayoyo2nd MCTC: Sibalom-San Remigio-Belison, AntiqueHon. Wilfredo P. Paciente, Jr.4th MCTC: Makato-Tangalan, Aklan

REGION IXHon. Nimfa C. Padao3rd MCTC: Sindangan-Bacungan-Ponot, Zamboanga delNorte

SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT

REGION IXHon. Alberto O. RomorosFirst Sharia District 1: Jolo, Sulu

67th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly AppointedJudges

Date: August 6 to 15, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 35 newly appointed judges, namely:


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGIONHon. Mariam G. BienRTC, Br. 153, Pasig CityHon. Achilles Aristotle Apolinario C. BulauitanRTC, Br. 154, Pasig CityHon. Joy N. Casihan-DumlaoRTC, Br. 262, Pasig CityHon. Bibiano G. ColasitoRTC, Br. 50, ManilaHon. Maximo M. De LeonRTC, Br. 143, Makati CityHon. Nadine Jessica Corazon J. FamaRTC, Br. 79, Quezon CityHon. Marlina M. ManuelRTC, Br. 25, Manila

Hon. Glenda C. MarinRTC, Br. 124, Caloocan CityHon. Emily L. San Gaspar-GitoRTC, Br. 5, ManilaHon. Manuel B. Sta. Cruz, Jr.RTC, Br. 226, Quezon CityHon. Josefino A. SubiaRTC, Br. 138, Makati CityHon. Janice R. Yulo-AnteroRTC, Br. 16, Manila

REGION IIIHon. Christine Marie C. CapuleRTC, Br. 48, City of San Fernando, PampangaHon. Mary Jane B. Dacara-BuenaventuraRTC, Br. 43, City of San Fernando, PampangaHon. Emmanuel A. SilvaRTC, Br. 4, Mariveles, BataanHon. Trese D. WenceslaoRTC, Br. 28, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

REGION VHon. Evan D. DizonRTC, Br. 40, Daet, Camarines Norte

REGION VIHon. Rosario Ester B. Orda-CaiseRTC, Br. 48, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental

REGION VIIHon. Mercedita G. Dadole-YgnacioRTC, Br. 28, Mandaue City, Cebu

REGION VIIIHon. Nathaniel E. BaldonoRTC, Br. 2, Borongan, Eastern SamarHon. Girlie M. Borrel-YuRTC, Br. 35, Ormoc City, LeyteHon. Evelyn P. Rios-LesiguesRTC, Br. 43, Tacloban City, Leyte


REGION VIHon. Dialinda S. DominguezMTCC, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental

REGION VIIHon. Maria Corazon C. GadugdugMTCC, Br. 2, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

REGION VIIIHon. Rene D. Romero, Jr.MTCC, Ormoc City, Leyte


REGION VIIIHon. Estefanie R. PlazaMTC, Burauen, Leyte



REGION VIIHon. Ma. Katrina C. Gonzalez-Pasicaran2nd MCTC: Bindoy-Manjuyod-Ayungon, Negros OrientalHon. Yvette Christine R. Labrador-Soleng13th MCTC: Loay-Albuquerque-Baclayon, BoholHon. Leah P. Villarubia1st MCTC: Pamplona-Amlan-San Jose, Negros Oriental

REGION VIIIHon. Terso Y. Ducentes1st MCTC: Macrohon-Padre Burgos-LimasawaSouthern LeyteHon. Allan Sixto DG Estudillo3rd MCTC: Gandara-Matuguinao, San Jorge, SamarHon. Fiel l. Marmita4th MCTC: San Julian-Sulat, Eastern SamarHon. Gorgonia Pineda-Encina9th MCTC: Capul-San Vicente, Northern SamarHon. Ruberna B. Quibal4th MCTC: Catubig-Las Navas, Northern SamarHon. Ritchie B. Reyes8th MCTC: Daram-Zumarraga, Samar

26th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly AppointedClerks of Court

Date: July 30 to August 2, 2013Venue: Harolds Hotel, Lahug, Cebu CityParticipants: 53 newly appointed clerks of court, namely:


REGION VRuben F. Mission VRTC, Br. 16, Tabaco, AlbayIndira P. NapicolRTC, OCC, Daet, Camarines NorteFe Cecelia B. TurianoRTC, Br. 35, Iriga City, Camarines SurDoreen Ann C. SavillaRTC, Br. 39, Daet, Camarines Norte

REGION VIWarme P. AranetaRTC, Br. 25, Iloilo City, IloiloMelinaire L. JalipaRTC, Br. 34, Iloilo City, IloiloGerald John G. JovenRTC, Br. 44, Bacolod City, Negros OccidentalDale D. PascuaRTC, Br. 53, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental

REGION VIICheryl L. Baquial-GamasRTC, Br. 1, Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Tranne L. Digao-FerrerRTC, Br. 28, Mandaue City, CebuFlorence Ed T. Obial-KadusaleRTC, Br. 45, Bais City, Negros OrientalNyassa N. OrquillasRTC, Br. 46, Larena, SiquijorBoy C. TecsonRTC, Br. 26, Argao, Cebu

REGION VIIILiza T. CainticRTC, Br. 23, Allen, Northern SamarMarc Anito L. CamarinesRTC, Br. 41, Gandara, SamarMelinda L. DocenaRTC, Br. 24, Maasin, Southern LeyteRaul S. VillanobosRTC, Br. 31, Calbayog City, Samar

REGION XDetchie D. CasalsRTC, Br. 3, Butuan CityKathryn A. GalarritaRTC, Br. 39, Cagayan De Oro City

REGION XIRuby Jane S. Pea-CareaRTC, Br. 21, Bansalan, Davao Del Sur

REGION XIIOfelia P. CabahugRTC, Br. 18, Midsayap, North CotabatoLennie Ann C. CerdanaRTC, Br. 20, Tacurong, Sultan KudaratJoel Batua M. Macaraya, Jr.RTC, OCC, Iligan City, Lanao Del NorteLailane T. MasturaRTC, Br. 15, Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao


REGION VIILiezel N. GedorioMTCC, OCC, Mandaue City

REGION VIIIRonaldo C. BachaoMTCC , Catbalogan CityEdwin K. CabelloMTCC, OCC, Tacloban City

REGION IXMary Jean J. EismaMTCC, OCC, Zamboanga CityLuzminda S. MercadoMTCC, Br. 1, Dipolog City


REGION XCecil G. PaasaMTCC, Br. 4, Cagayan De Oro CityJoan A. TorralbaMTCC, Br. 1, Butuan City

REGION XIIZolaica B. BaruangMTCC, Br. 3, Iligan CityAnalyn P. DimaporoMTCC, Br. 4, Iligan City


REGION VDavid G. Ebo, Jr.MTC, San Andres, Catanduanes

REGION VIEvagenia F. DellosoMTC, Hinobaan, Negros OccidentalIvy B. JocsingMTC, Oton, Iloilo

REGION VIIILorelei V. AmantilloMTC, Marabut, SamarLeonor C. EchanoMTC, Laoang, Northern SamarEmily S. MercadoMTC, Liloan, Southern LeyteThelma A. PagatpatanMTC, Tolosa, Leyte

REGION XZacarias M. BalingkitMTC, Alubijid, Misamis Oriental


REGION VFilipinas F. Aquino1st MCTC: Ragay-Del Gallego, Camarines SurMagin P. Salipot5th MCTC: Dimasalang-Palanas-Uson, MasbateMaria T. Tejerero1st MCTC: Bato-San Miguel, Catanduanes

REGION VIRemyden S. Peralta5th MCTC: Culasi-Sebaste, AntiqueAnnel C. Fajarillo4th MCTC: Dumarao-Cuartero, Capiz

REGION VIIMarigrace L. Batingal1st MCTC: Cortes-Antequera-Maribojoc, BoholHenry P. Caete, Jr.7th MCTC: Liloan-Compostela, Cebu

Candelaria S. Raro12th MCTC: Lila-Loboc, Bohol

REGION VIIIAngelina T. Abe10th MCTC: Merida-Isabel, LeyteMarietta L. De Leon5th MCTC: Mondragon-San Roque, Northern SamarVirginia O. Montopar9TH MCTC: Capul-San Vicente, Northern Samar

REGION XIEdith S. Chavez2nd MCTC: Hagonoy-Matanao, Davao Del Sur

2nd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly AppointedSheriffs and Process Servers

Date: July 24 to 26, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 71 newly appointed sheriffs and processservers, namely:

A. SHERIFFS


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGIONRitchie M. ArciagaRTC, Br. 256, Muntinlupa CityVladimir T. CosRTC, OCC, Paraaque CityMark Vincent O. LamanoRTC, OCC, ManilaChristopher P. MendozaRTC, OCC, ManilaEdwin C. PuecaRTC, OCC, Manila

REGION IFelmer J. AbrigadoRTC, Br. 17, Batac, lIocos NorteCorsini Alvin B. BarbadilloRTC, Br. 1, Bangued, AbraLiberty Joy M. GuarinRTC, Br. 39, Lingayen, PangasinanRussell Blair S. NabuaRTC, Br. 42, Dagupan City, PangasinanRex Ian B. VillalobosRTC, Br. 71, Candon City, lIocos SurGilbert Ernesto P. Yalao IIIRTC, Br. 18, Batac, Ilocos Norte

REGION IIBernardo A. AbelaRTC, Br. 13, Basco, BatanesFroilan P. DulnuanRTC, Br. 15, Alfonso Lista, Ifugao


Chester Aries B. GaleraRTC, Br. 27, Bayombong, Nueva VizcayaNelson A. MarchaRTC, Br. 5, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

REGION IIILemuel J. AgarRTC, Br. 28, Cabanatuan City, Nueva EcijaGeorge P. ClementeRTC, Br. 67, Paniqui, TarlacLeo D. DacionRTC, OCC, Guagua, PampangaRodolfo C. Parungao, Jr.RTC, Br. 23, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

REGION IVMarvin N. RacilesRTC, Br. 69, Binangonan, Rizal

REGION VCarmen Imelda P. AnteRTC, Br. 5, Legazpi City, AlbayLuciano O. Apolinar, Jr.RTC, Br. 1, Legazpi City, AlbayGregorio C. BorregaRTC, Br. 42, Virac, CatanduanesMitchell D. BulanonRTC, Br. 61, Naga City, Camarines SurJose P. Codia, Jr.RTC, OCC, Legazpi City, AlbayNoel R. GonzalesRTC, OCC, Naga City, Camarines SurHermie Jesus E. IntiaRTC, Br. 24, Naga City, Camarines SurJoseph S. LopezRTC, Br. 10, Legazpi City, AlbayTeresa P. RobrigadoRTC, Br. 13, Ligao City, AlbayJesusa E. TaduranRTC, OCC, Pili, Camarines SurEmilio C. YusonRTC, Br. 27, Naga City, Camarines Sur


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGIONMarvin F. CalmaMeTC, Br. 14, ManilaRio C. CarbonellMeTC, Br. 90, Paraaque CityRolando S. EscobarMeTC, Br. 92, Marikina CityOneil P. SantosMeTC, Br. 83, Caloocan City

Veneru Paul N. SantosMeTC, Br. 89, Paraaque CityConrado R. SerzoMeTC, Br. 87, Paraaque City


REGION IIIMark Anthony R. LlacunaMTCC, Br. 3, San Jose del Monte City, BulacanJomar M. SalandoMTCC, Br. 2, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan

REGION IVLance Carmelo R. FortuMTCC, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro

REGION VBenjie A. PaaoMTCC, Br. 3, Naga City, Camarines SurRegino S. Revina, Jr.MTCC, OCC, Iriga City, Camarines Sur

B. PROCESS SERVERS


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGIONFortunato L. Doroteo, Jr.RTC, OCC, ManilaJoel U. EvillaRTC, Br. 136, Makati City

REGION IArsenio Antonio R. AtudRTC, OCC, Vigan City, lIocos SurGilbert L. EvangelistaRTC, OCC, Baguio CityRuben V. SeverinoRTC, OCC, Tayug, Pangasinan

REGION IIAlexander N. ImperialRTC, Br. 13, Basco, BatanesWilliam F. JandocRTC, OCC, Bambang, Nueva VizcayaJacob H. LunagRTC, Br. 14, Lagawe, Ifugao

REGION IIIChristopher B. CaleRTC, Br. 5, Dinalupihan, BataanMartin Barry P. MagnoRTC, Br. 76, Malolos City, Bulacan

REGION IVRuby Ann E. MasalungaRTC, Br. 12, Lipa City, Batangas


REGION VRomel S. PujolRTC, Br. 6, Legazpi City, Albay


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGIONRodolfo L. AntiqueraMeTC, Br. 89, Paraaque CityRichard G. De MesaMeTC, Br. 84, Caloocan CityGodofredo B. OlezaMeTC, Br. 90, Paraaque CityReynaldo E. PabaleMeTC, OCC, Caloocan CityMichael Arman A. RamosMeTC, Br. 83, Caloocan CityReymar L. SalomaMeTC , Br. 92, Marikina City


REGION IIRosemary D. PericoMTCC, Cauayan City, Isabela

REGION IIIJorge A. AdrianoMTCC, OCC, Cabanatuan City, Nueva EcijaJosegani R. ClementeMTCC, Br. 3, San Jose del Monte City, BulacanJoerey D. FernandoMTCC, Br. 2, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan

REGION VJesusa Dalhia O. MalayaMTCC, Br. 2, Iriga City, Camarines Sur


REGION IIIAndrew A. ToledoMTC, Rizal, Nueva EcijaRoy T. VargasMTC, Balagtas, Bulacan

REGION IVOrlando D. BiongMTC, Lucban, Quezon

REGION VIsidro J. GuerreroMTC, Virac, Catanduanes


REGION IGilbert B. Manzano4th MCTC: Manabo-Boliney-Tubo-Luba, Abra

REGION IIIEronze P. Sablayan3rd MCTC: Laur-Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija

31st Pre-Judicature Program

Date: September 2 to 13, 2013Venue: East Asia Royale Hotel, General Santos CityParticipants: 36 lawyers, namely:

1. Mary Anne L. Academia2. Arlyn Joy C. Allosa-Alaba3. Joy Balayon-Mariano4. Venchito M. Bangayan5. Anthony A. Barluado6. Engracio S. Bautista7. Jerome C. Beatisola8. Jose C. Blanza, Jr.9. Jo Ann M. Burgos10. Arturo C. Cloma11. Eldred D. Cole12. Rebecca G. Dardo-Seredrica13. Sara Z. Duterte14. Tomas C. Falgui II15. Leannierose R. Fenis-Sucatre16. Jose Jerry L. Fulgar17. Franklin M. Gacal, Jr.18. Chalmer C. Gevieso19. Jose Mariano Constantino G. Gonzalez20. Maria Primarisa C. Guipo21. Carolyn D. Lorenzo-Tanudtanud22. Prince S. Losaria23. Ariel V. Macahilos24. Marife R. Macasocol-Alegre25. Leonard B. Mann26. Ramon R. Melliza27. Joyce K. Mirabueno28. Rafael O. Montilla29. Pinky D. Ortega30. Vicente T. Pea31. Rosendo A. Roque32. Catharine S. Sespee33. Gemma B. Tady34. Caroline Anne Z. Tajon35. Carmela Mae M. Tunguia36. Felipe E. Macaldo, Jr. (3 days only)

Pre-Judicature Program


JCEP for Judges

Date: July 17 to 19, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 88 RTC and First Level Court Judges of Region V

Date: August 14 to 16, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 31 RTC Judges of Region I

CEP for First Level Clerks of Court

Date: August 27 to 28, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 52 MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of court ofRegion III (Batch 1)

Date: August 29 to 30, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 46 MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of court ofRegion III (Batch 2)

Date: September 11 to 12, 2013Venue: LFisher Hotel, Bacolod CityParticipants: 83 MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of court ofRegion VI

CDP for Court Legal Researchers

Date: July 24 to 25, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 45 RTC and MTCC legal researchers of Region X

Date: September 18 to 19, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 37 RTC and MTCC legal researchers of Region XI

Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and CourtPersonnel Handling Cases Involving Children

Date: July 3 to 5, 2013Venue: The Bayleaf Intramuros, ManilaParticipants: 37 judges, clerks of court/OIC, court socialworkers, court interpreters, prosecutors and PAO lawyersof selected single sala courts in Luzon

Date: September 4 to 6, 2013Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 40 judges, clerks of court/OIC, courtinterpreters, prosecutors and PAO lawyers of Regions VIand VII

Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP)

Career Enhancement Program (CEP)

Career Development Program (CDP)

Personal Security Training for Judges

Date: July 3 to 5, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 54 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

Date: September 3 to 5, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 40 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

Information Dissemination Through a Dialogue betweenBarangay Officials and Court Officials

Date: July 4, 2013Venue: Surigao City Cultural Center, Surigao CityParticipants: 112 barangay officials of Surigao City

Date: July 5, 2013Venue: Doa Ynez Convention Center, Butuan CityParticipants: 274 barangay officials of Butuan City

Date: August 23, 2013Venue: San Pablo City Central Elementary School,San Pablo City, LagunaParticipants: 185 barangay officials of San Pablo City

Date: September 26, 2013Venue: Notre Dame of Dadiangas University,General Santos CityParticipants: 203 barangay officials of City of General Santos

Date: September 27, 2013Venue: Municipal Gym, Polomolok, South CotabatoParticipants: 253 barangay officials of Municipality ofPolomolok

Seminar Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity andRule of Law for Executive Judges and Single Sala CourtJudges

Date: July 10 to 11, 2013Venue: Fort Ilocandia Hotel, Laoag CityParticipants: 31 executive and single sala court judges ofRegions I and II

Date: August 6 to 7, 2013Venue: Marco Polo Plaza Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 28 executive judges of Regions VI, VII, VIIIand IX and single sala court judges of Regions IX

Seminar-Workshop on Substantive Laws andJurisprudence on Intellectual Property for SpecialCommercial Court Judges in the National Capital JudicialRegion and Selected Attorneys of the Supreme Court andCourt of Appeals

Date: July 25 to 26, 2013Venue: Holiday Inn and Suites Makati, Makati CityParticipants: 75 judges, SC and CA attorneys, IPO hearingofficers and observer

Special Focus Programs


Stakeholders Consultation Workshop and Presentationof the First Draft of the Helpbook on Combating HumanTrafficking in the Philippines

Date: August 13, 2013Venue: Diamond Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 26 selected judges of NCJR, andrepresentatives from DOJ, DSWD, DFA, NBI, BI, Council forthe Welfare of Children (CWC), Philippine Commission onWomen (PCW), International Justice Mission (IJM),Commission on Filipino Overseas, and Philippine Center onTransnational Crime

Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges,Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of the First Judicial Region

Date: August 13 to 15, 2013Venue: Fort Ilocandia Hotel, Laoag CityParticipants: 78 RTC judges, prosecutors and law enforcersof Region I

Ceremonial Turnover of the Final Draft of the ProposedRevised Rules of Civil Procedure

Date: September 3, 2013Venue: En Banc Session Hall, Supreme Court, ManilaParticipants: 190 SC and CTA justices; OCA, PHILJA and OCATofficials; members of the Committee on the Revision ofRules of Civil Procedure, the Core Committee and theTopical Working Groups; judges; representatives from COA,OGCC, OSG, PALS, UPLC, IBP and SC-PIO; Core CommitteeSecretariat and PHILJA Secretariat

Increasing Judicial Efficiency: Seminar-Workshop forJudges on the Effective Use of the Benchbook for PhilippineTrial Courts (Revised and Expanded) for Regions VI to IX(Batch 3)

Date: September 12, 2013Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 42 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges ofRegions VI to IX

Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws Relating to CourtTechnology for Judges in the Tenth Judicial Region

Date: September 18 to 19, 2013Venue: Pryce Plaza Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 35 RTC, MTCC and MTC judges of Region X

Knowledge Sharing on Laws, Rules and Trends on AssetForfeiture and Management

Date: August 23, 2013

Venue: Diamond Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 12 selected judges

17th National Convention and Seminar of the SheriffsConfederation of the Philippines (SCOPHIL)

Theme: Meeting New Challenges Towards JudicialIndependence and Upholding the Rule of LawDate: April 16 to 18, 2013Venue: Baguio Convention Center, Baguio CityParticipants: 849 sheriffs

The Elected National Officers and Board of Directors are:

NATIONAL OFFICERS

Patermoscio G. Labayani, PresidentEduardo L. Bolima, Executive Vice PresidentFelino G. Lacanlalay, TreasurerFernando Loncion, AuditorFernando R. Regino, Secretary-GeneralRomeo Pascua, Vice President for LuzonErly Martir, Vice President for VisayasReynaldo Taleon, Vice President for MindanaoArnulfo O. Lim, Vice President for NCJR

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Fernando M. Austria, Director-Region IMaximiano C. Corsino, Director-Region IIRoy Mendones, Director-Region IIIElmer Baltazar, Director-Region IVJessica Maxilinda A. Ibarreta, Director-Region VNigel Jalea, Director-Region VIMelvin Destura, Director-Region VIIMelito Malate, Director-Region VIIIVictoriano Prado III, Director-Region IXTeresito Estenzo, Director-Region XRoberto Esguerra, Director-Region XIAngel C. Ancheta, Director-CARAGA

1st General Assembly and Seminar of the Association ofClerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs

Theme: Delineating and Strengthening the Role of theClerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs in the Managementand Operation of the Courts Geared Towards a Strong andUnified Administrators of the Second Level CourtsDate: July 11 to 12, 2013Venue: The Bayleaf Intramuros, ManilaParticipants: 74 clerks of court and ex officio sheriffs

Convention-Seminar

Roundtable Discussion


15th Convention and Seminar of the Metropolitan and CityJudges Association of the Philippines (MeTCJAP)

Theme: E3j = Enhancing Electronic and EnvironmentalJusticeDate: September 18 to 20, 2013Venue: El Circulo Convention Center, Roxas CityParticipants: 116 MeTC judges

11th National Convention and Seminar of the RTC Clerks ofCourt Association of the Philippines (RTC-COCAP)

Theme: Clerks of Court in Pursuit of ExcellenceDate: September 24 to 26, 2013Venue: Crown Regency Resort and Convention CenterBoracay Island, AklanParticipants: 255 RTC clerks of court

Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators andPMC Unit Staff

Albay Mediation ProgramDate: July 1 to 2, 2013Venue: Halls of Justice of Ligao City and Legazpi City, AlbayParticipants: 34 mediators and staff applicants

Sorsogon Mediation ProgramDate: July 3 to 4, 2013Venue: Halls of Justice of Sorsogon City and Irosin, SorsogonParticipants: 39 mediators and staff applicants

Basic Mediation Course

Albay and Sorsogon Mediation ProgramsDate: July 22 to 25, 2013Venue: Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City, AlbayParticipants: 41 mediation trainees

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

Albay Mediation ProgramDate: July 25, 2013Venue: Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City, AlbayParticipants: 85 judges, clerks of court/branch clerks ofcourt, mediation trainees and PMCU staff

Sorsogon Mediation ProgramDate: July 26, 2013Venue: Sorsogon Paradise Hotel and Resort, Sorsogon City

Participants: 49 judges, clerks of court/branch clerks ofcourt, mediation trainees and PMCU staff

Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators

Isabela and Tuguegarao Mediation ProgramsDate: September 4 to 5, 2013Venue: Hotel Andrea, Cauayan City, IsabelaParticipants: 27 mediators

South Cotabato, Sarangani, and General Santos CityMediation ProgramsDate: September 17 to 18, 2013Venue: Phela Grande Hotel, General Santos CityParticipants: 24 mediators

Davao Mediation ProgramDate: September 19 to 20, 2013Venue: Grand Regal Hotel, Davao CityParticipants: 25 mediators

Faculty Workshop for the Judicial Settlement Conference forJudges on Judicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-Based Course)

Date: July 11 to 12, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 63 PMCU staff

Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on JudicialDispute Resolution (Skills-Based Course)

Date: July 30 to August 2, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 64 judges

Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Courton Judicial Dispute Resolution

Date: September 12, 2013Venue: La Vista Pansol Resort, Calamba, LagunaParticipants: 47 clerks of court and branch clerks of court

Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys andLaw Practitioners on Judicial Dispute Resolution

Date: September 12, 2013Venue: La Vista Pansol Resort, Calamba, LagunaParticipants: 59 prosecutors, public attorneys and IBP/lawpractitioners

Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar forPhilippine Mediation Center Unit Staff

Date: July 11 to 12, 2013Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 63 PMCU staff

On ADR/Mediation/JDR


Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (seated, center) with participants of the 66th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Judges held on July 211, 2013, at the PTC, Tagaytay City.

Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (seated, center) with participants of the 67th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Judges held on August 615, 2013, at the PTC, Tagaytay City.

Deputy Court Administrator Thelma C. Bahia (seated, center) with participants of the 2nd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Sheriffs and Process Servers held on July 2426, 2013, at the PTC, Tagaytay City.


PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna (seated, center) with participants of the Roundtable Discussion: Knowledge Sharing on Laws,Rules and Trends on Asset Forfeiture and Management held on August 23, 2013, at the Diamond Hotel, Manila.

Participants of the Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children held on July35, 2013, at The Bayleaf Intramuros, Manila.


Non-admissibility of admission or confession of guiltapplicable only in custodial interrogations.

The constitutional proscription against the admissibility ofadmission or confession of guilt obtained in violation ofSection 12, Article III of the Constitution, as correctlyobserved by the CA and the OSG, is applicable only incustodial interrogation.

Custodial interrogation means any questioninginitiated by law enforcement authorities after a person istaken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom ofaction in any significant manner. Indeed, a person undercustodial investigation is guaranteed certain rights whichattach upon the commencement thereof, viz: (1) to remainsilent, (2) to have competent and independent counselpreferably of his own choice, and (3) to be informed of thetwo other rights above. In the present case, while it isundisputed that petitioner gave an uncounselled writtenstatement regarding an anomaly discovered in the branchhe managed, the following are clear: (1) the questioningwas not initiated by a law enforcement authority but merelyby an internal affairs manager of the bank; and, (2)petitioner was neither arrested nor restrained of his libertyin any significant manner during the questioning. Clearly,petitioner cannot be said to be under custodial investigationand to have been deprived of the constitutional prerogativeduring the taking of his written statement.

Moreover, in Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, wedeclared that the right to counsel applies only toadmissions made in a criminal investigation but not to thosemade in an administrative investigation. Amplifying furtheron the matter, the Court made clear in the recent case ofCarbonel v. Civil Service Commission:

However, it must be remembered that the right tocounsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights ismeant to protect a suspect during custodialinvestigation. Thus, the exclusionary rule underparagraph (2), Section 12 of the Bill of Rightsapplies only to admissions made in a criminalinvestigation but not to those made in anadministrative investigation.

Here, petitioners written statement was given duringan administrative inquiry conducted by his employer inconnection with an anomaly/irregularity he allegedlycommitted in the course of his employment. No error cantherefore be attributed to the courts below in admitting in

Constitutional Law

evidence and in giving due consideration to petitionerswritten statement as there is no constitutional impedimentto its admissibility.

Del Castillo, J., Carlos L. Tanenggee v. People of the Philippines, G.R.No. 179448, June 26, 2013.

Insurance companies must investigate within twoyears from effectivity of the policy those they insure.

Section 48 of the Insurance Code, serves a noble purpose,as it regulates the actions of both the insurer and theinsured. Under the provision, an insurer is given two yearsfrom the effectivity of a life insurance contract and whilethe insured is aliveto discover or prove that the policy isvoid ab initio or is rescindable by reason of the fraudulentconcealment or misrepresentation of the insured or hisagent. After the two-year period lapses, or when theinsured dies within the period, the insurer must make goodon the policy, even though the policy was obtained by fraud,concealment, or misrepresentation. This is not to say thatinsurance fraud must be rewarded, but that insurers whorecklessly and indiscriminately solicit and obtain businessmust be penalized, for such recklessness and lack ofdiscrimination ultimately work to the detriment of bonafide takers of insurance and the public in general.

Section 48 regulates both the actions of the insurersand prospective takers of life insurance. It gives insurersenough time to inquire whether the policy was obtained byfraud, concealment, or misrepresentation; on the otherhand, it forewarns scheming individuals that their attemptsat insurance fraud would be timely uncovered thusdeterring them from venturing into such nefariousenterprise. At the same time, legitimate policy holdersare absolutely protected from unwarranted denial of theirclaims or delay in the collection of insurance proceedsoccasioned by allegations of fraud, concealment, ormisrepresentation by insurers, claims which may no longerbe set up after the two-year period expires as ordainedunder the law.

Thus, the self-regulating feature of Section 48 lies inthe fact that both the insurer and the insured are given theassurance that any dishonest scheme to obtain lifeinsurance would be exposed, and attempts at undulydenying a claim would be struck down. Life insurance policiesthat pass the statutory two-year period are essentiallytreated as legitimate and beyond question, and theindividuals who wield them are made secure by the thoughtthat they will be paid promptly upon claim. In this manner,Section 48 contributes to the stability of the insuranceindustry.

Commercial Law


New RulingsCommercial Law (continued)

Section 48 prevents a situation where the insurerknowingly continues to accept annual premium paymentson life insurance, only to later on deny a claim on the policyon specious claims of fraudulent concealment andmisrepresentation, such as what obtains in the instant case.Thus, instead of conducting at the first instance aninvestigation into the circumstances surrounding theissuance of Insurance Policy No. 747411 which would havetimely exposed the supposed flaws and irregularitiesattending it as it now professes, petitioner appears to haveturned a blind eye and opted instead to continue collectingthe premiums on the policy. For nearly three years,petitioner collected the premiums and devoted the sameto its own profit. It cannot now deny the claim when it iscalled to account. Section 48 must be applied to it with fullforce and effect.

Del Castillo, J., Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation v. CresenciaP. Aban, G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013.

Determination of legal heirs must be made in a specialproceeding/s case and not in a suit for recovery ofownership and possession.

Jurisprudence dictates that the determination ofwho are the legal heirs of the deceased must bemade in the proper special proceedings in court,and not in an ordinary suit for recovery ofownership and possession of property. This musttake precedence over the action for recovery ofpossession and ownership. The Court hasconsistently ruled that the trial court cannot makea declaration of heirship in the civil action for thereason that such a declaration can only be made ina special proceeding. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is definedas one by which a party sues another for theenforcement or protection of a right, or the preventionor redress of a wrong while a special proceeding isa remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status,a right, or a particular fact. It is then decisively clearthat the declaration of heirship can be made onlyin a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners

Civil Law

here are seeking the establishment of a status orright.

In the early case of Litam, et al. v. Rivera, this Courtruled that the declaration of heirship must be madein a special proceeding, and not in an independentcivil action. This doctrine was reiterated in Soliviov. Court of Appeals x x x:

In the more recent case of MilagrosJoaquino v. Lourdes Reyes, the Courtreiterated its ruling that matters relatingto the rights of filiation and heirship mustbe ventilated in the proper probate courtin a special proceeding instituted preciselyfor the purpose of determining such rights.Citing the case of Agapay v. Palang, thisCourt held that the status of an illegitimatechild who claimed to be an heir to adecedents estate could not be adjudicatedin an ordinary civil action which, as inthis case, was for the recovery of property.(Emphasis and underscoring supplied;citations omitted)

By way of exception, the need to institute a separatespecial proceeding for the determination of heirship maybe dispensed with for the sake of practicality, as when theparties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issueto the trial court and already presented their evidenceregarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC hadconsequently rendered judgment thereon, or when aspecial proceeding had been instituted but had been finallyclosed and terminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened.

In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions, or thoseof similar nature, appear to exist. Hence, there lies theneed to institute the proper special proceeding in order todetermine the heirship of the parties involved, ultimatelyresulting to the dismissal of Civil Case No. T-2246.

Perlas-Bernabe, J., Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon, namely, Alvaro Ypon,Erudita Y. Baron, Cicero Ypon, Wilson Ypon, Victor Ypon, and Hinidino Y.Pealosa v. Gaudioso Ponteras Ricaforte a.k.a Gaudioso E. Ypon, andThe Register of Deeds of Toledo City, G.R. No. 198680, July 8, 2013.

Execution by motion within five years; exception.

The Rules of Court provide that a final and executoryjudgment may be executed by motion within five yearsfrom the date of its entry or by an action after the lapse offive years and before prescription sets in. This Court,however, allows exceptions when execution may be madeby motion even after the lapse of five years. Theseexceptions have one common denominator: the delay iscaused or occasioned by actions of the judgment obligorand/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage.

(Next page)


Doctrinal RemindersCivil Law (continued)

In Camacho v. Court of Appeals, we held that wherethe delays were occasioned by the judgment debtors owninitiatives and for her advantage as well as beyond thejudgment creditors control, the five-year period allowedfor enforcement of the judgment by motion is deemed tohave been effectively interrupted or suspended.

In the present case, there is no dispute that RCBC seeksto enforce the decision which became final and executoryon April 15, 1994. This decision orders Serra to executeand deliver the proper deed of sale in favor of RCBC.However, to evade his obligation to RCBC, Serra transferredthe property to his mother Ablao, who then transferred itto Liok. Serras action prompted RCBC to file the Annulmentcase. Clearly, the delay in the execution of the decision wascaused by Serra for his own advantage. Thus, the pendencyof the Annulment case effectively suspended the five-yearperiod to enforce through a motion the decision in theSpecific Performance case. Since the decision in theAnnulment case attained finality on March 3, 2009 andRCBCs motion for execution was filed on August 25, 2011,RCBCs motion is deemed filed within the five-year periodfor enforcement of a decision through a motion.

This Court has reiterated that the purpose of prescribingtime limitations for enforcing judgments is to preventparties from sleeping on their rights. Far from sleeping onits rights, RCBC has pursued persistently its action againstSerra in accordance with law. On the other hand, Serra hascontinued to evade his obligation by raising issues oftechnicality. While strict compliance with the rules ofprocedure is desired, liberal interpretation is warranted incases where a strict enforcement of the rules will not servethe ends of justice.

Carpio, J., Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Federico A. Serra,G.R. No. 203241, July 10, 2013.

Laches defined.

Case law defines laches as the failure to assert a right foran unreasonable and unexplained length of time,warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assertit has either abandoned or declined to assert it.

Records disclose that the Andrades took 14 yearsbefore filing their complaint for reconveyance in 1997. Theargument that they did not know about the subjecttransaction is clearly belied by the facts on record. It isundisputed that Proceso, Jr. was a co-vendee in the subjectdeed of sale, while Henry was an instrumental witness tothe Deed of Assignment and Option to Buy both dated July26, 1983. Likewise, Rosarios sons, Proceso, Jr. and Andrew,

Land Registration Law

did not question the execution of the subject deed of salemade by their mother to Bobby. These incidents can butonly lead to the conclusion that they were well-aware ofthe subject transaction and yet only pursued their claim 14years after the sale was executed.

Perlas-Bernabe, J., Bobby Tan v. Grace Andrade, Proceso Andrade, Jr.,Charity A. Santiago, Henry Andrade, Andrew Andrade, Jasmin Blaza,Glory Andrade, Miriam Rose Andrade, and Joseph Andrade, G.R. No.171904 and Grace Andrade, Charity A. Santiago, Henry Andrade, AndrewAndrade, Jasmin Blaza, Miriam Rose Andrade, and Joseph Andrade v.Bobby Tan, G.R. No. 172017, August 7, 2013.

Rules on the disposition of public lands or lands of thepublic domain.

Rules relative to the disposition of public land or lands of thepublic domain, namely:

(1) As a general rule and pursuant to the RegalianDoctrine, all lands of the public domain belong tothe State and are inalienable. Lands that are notclearly under private ownership are also presumedto belong to the State and, therefore, may not bealienated or disposed;

(2) The following are excepted from the general rule,to wit:

(a) Agricultural lands of the public domain arerendered alienable and disposable through anyof the exclusive modes enumerated underSection 11 of the Public Land Act. If the modeis judicial confirmation of imperfect title underSection 48(b) of the Public Land Act, theagricultural land subject of the applicationneeds only to be classified as alienable anddisposable as of the time of the application,provided the applicants possession andoccupation of the land dated back to June 12,1945, or earlier. Thereby, a conclusivepresumption that the applicant has performedall the conditions essential to a governmentgrant arises, and the applicant becomes theowner of the land by virtue of an imperfect orincomplete title. By legal fiction, the land hasalready ceased to be part of the public domainand has become private property.

(b) Lands of the public domain subsequentlyclassified or declared as no longer intended forpublic use or for the development of nationalwealth are removed from the sphere of publicdominion and are considered converted into


Doctrinal RemindersLand Registration Law (continued)

patrimonial lands or lands of private ownershipthat may be alienated or disposed throughany of the modes of acquiring ownershipunder the Civil Code. If the mode of acquisitionis prescription, whether ordinary orextraordinary, proof that the land has beenalready converted to private ownership priorto the requisite acquisitive prescriptive periodis a condition sine qua non in observance ofthe law (Article 1113, Civil Code) that propertyof the State not patrimonial in character shallnot be the object of prescription.

To reiterate, then, the petitioners failed to presentsufficient evidence to establish that they and theirpredecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the landsince June 12, 1945. Without satisfying the requisitecharacter and period of possessionpossession andoccupation that is open, continuous, exclusive, andnotorious since June 12, 1945, or earlierthe land cannotbe considered ipso jure converted to private property evenupon the subsequent declaration of it as alienable anddisposable. Prescription never began to run against theState, such that the land has remained ineligible forregistration under Section 14(1) of the PropertyRegistration Decree. Likewise, the land continues to beineligible for land registration under Section 14(2) of theProperty Registration Decree unless Congress enacts a lawor the President issues a proclamation declaring the landas no longer intended for public service or for thedevelopment of the national wealth.

Bersamin, J., Heirs of Mario Malabanan, (Represented by Sally A.Malabanan), v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179987, September3, 2013.

Act No. 3344 applies to sale of unregistered lands.

Act No. 3344, as amended, provides for the system ofrecording of transactions over unregistered real estate.Act No. 3344 expressly declares that any registration madeshall be without prejudice to a third party with a betterright. The question to be resolved therefore is: who betweenpetitioners and respondent has a better right to thedisputed lot?

Respondent has a better right to the lot.

The sale to respondent Juanito was executed on September2, 1981 via an unnotarized deed of sale, while the sale topetitioners was made via a notarized document only onOctober 17, 1991, or 10 years thereafter. Thus, Juanitowho was the first buyer has a better right to the lot, while (Next page)

the subsequent sale to petitioners is null and void, becausewhen it was made, the seller Garcia was no longer theowner of the lot. Nemo dat quod non habet.

The fact that the sale to Juanito was not notarizeddoes not alter anything, since the sale between him andGarcia remains valid nonetheless. Notarization, or therequirement of a public document under the Civil Code, isonly for convenience, and not for validity or enforceability.And because it remained valid as between Juanito andGarcia, the latter no longer had the right to sell the lot topetitioners, for his ownership thereof had ceased.

Nor can petitioners registration of their purchase haveany effect on Juanitos rights. The mere registration of asale in ones favor does not give him any right over the landif the vendor was no longer the owner of the land, havingpreviously sold the same to another even if the earlier salewas unrecorded. Neither could it validate the purchasethereof by petitioners, which is null and void. Registrationdoes not vest title; it is merely the evidence of such title.Our land registration laws do not give the holder any bettertitle than what he actually has.

Specifically, it was held in Radiowealth Finance Co. v.Palileo that:

Under Act No. 3344, registration of instrumentsaffecting unregistered lands is without prejudiceto a third party with a better right. The aforequotedphrase has been held by this Court to mean that themere registration of a sale in ones favor does notgive him any right over the land if the vendor wasnot anymore the owner of the land havingpreviously sold the same to somebody else even ifthe earlier sale was unrecorded.

Del Castillo, J., Spouses Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. and Ma. RosarioM. Sabitsana v. Juanito F. Muertegui, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact Domingo A. Muertegui, Jr., G.R. No. 181359, August 5, 2013.

Bigamous marriage; declaration of nullity of the firstmarriage required before a valid subsequent marriagecan be contracted.

It has been held in a number of cases that a judicialdeclaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequentmarriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is abigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.

What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy iswhen he contracts a second or subsequent marriage duringthe subsistence of a valid marriage. Parties to the marriageshould not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity,

Criminal Law


Doctrinal RemindersCriminal Law (continued)

for the same must be submitted to the judgment ofcompetent courts and only when the nullity of the marriageis so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there isno such declaration, the presumption is that the marriageexists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriagebefore the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriageassumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. If we allowrespondents line of defense and the CAs ratiocination, aperson who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecutionby immediately filing a petition for the declaration of nullityof his earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decisionis rendered therein before anyone institutes a complaintagainst him.

Respondent, likewise, claims that there are morereasons to quash the information against him, because heobtained the declaration of nullity of marriage before thefiling of the complaint for bigamy against him. Again, wecannot sustain such contention. In addition to the discussionabove, settled is the rule that criminal culpability attachesto the offender upon the commission of the offense andfrom that instant, liability appends to him until extinguishedas provided by law and that the time of filing of the criminalcomplaint or information is material only for determiningprescription.

Peralta, J., People of the Philippines v. Edgardo V. Odtuhan, G.R. No.191566, July 17, 2013.

Mere act of issuing a worthless check constitutes theoffense punishable by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas PambansaBlg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check ora check that is dishonored upon its presentation forpayment. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the mere actof issuing a worthless check. The law did not look either atthe actual ownership of the check or of the account againstwhich it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention ofthe drawee, maker or issuer. The thrust of the law is toprohibit the making of worthless checks and putting theminto circulation.

Even if the trial court in the civil case declares AsiaTrust Bank liable for the unlawful garnishment ofpetitioners savings account, petitioners cannot beautomatically adjudged free from criminal liability forviolation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, because the mereissuance of worthless checks with knowledge of theinsufficiency of funds to support the checks is in itself theoffense.

Remedial Law

Furthermore, three notices of dishonor were sent topetitioners, who then, should have immediately funded thecheck. When they did not, their liabilities under thebouncing checks law attached. Such liability cannot beaffected by the alleged prejudicial question because theirfailure to fund the check upon notice of dishonour is itselfthe offense.

Perez, J., Spouses Argovan and Florida Gaditano v. San MiguelCorporation, G.R. No. 188767, July 24, 2013.

Attachment lien; length of time within which itcontinues to subsist.

By its nature, preliminary attachment, under Rule 57 ofthe Rules of Court (Rule 57), is an ancillary remedy appliedfor not for its own sake but to enable the attaching party torealize upon the relief sought and expected to be grantedin the main or principal action; it is a measure auxiliary orincidental to the main action. As such, it is available duringits pendency which may be resorted to by a litigant topreserve and protect certain rights and interests duringthe interim, awaiting the ultimate effects of a finaljudgment in the case. In addition, attachment is also availedof in order to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actualor constructive seizure of the property in those instanceswhere personal or substituted service of summons on thedefendant cannot be effected.

In this relation, while the provisions of Rule 57 are silenton the length of time within which an attachment lien shallcontinue to subsist after the rendition of a final judgment,jurisprudence dictates that the said lien continues until thedebt is paid, or the sale is had under execution issued onthe judgment or until the judgment is satisfied, or theattachment discharged or vacated in the same mannerprovided by law.

Applying these principles, the Court finds that thedischarge of the writ of preliminary attachment againstthe properties of Sps. Lazaro was improper.

Records indicate that while the parties have enteredinto a compromise agreement which had already beenapproved by the RTC in its January 5, 2007 AmendedDecision, the obligations thereunder have yet to be fullycomplied with particularly, the payment of the totalcompromise amount of P2,351,064.80. Hence, given thatthe foregoing debt remains unpaid, the attachment of Sps.Lazaros properties should have continued to subsist.

Perlas-Bernabe, J., Alfredo C. Lim, Jr. v. Spouses T ito S. Lazaro andCarmen T. Lazaro, G.R. No. 185734, July 3, 2013.


Legal Ethics

High standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty,integrity and fair dealing required in the practice oflaw.

This Court has repeatedly emphasized that the practice oflaw is imbued with public interest and that a lawyer owessubstantial duties not only to his client, but also to hisbrethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation,and takes part in one of the most important functions ofthe State the administration of justice as an officer ofthe court. Accordingly, [l]awyers are bound to maintainnot only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also ofmorality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.

Respondent has fallen dismally and disturbingly shortof the high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, andfair dealing required of him. Quite the contrary, heemployed his knowledge and skill of the law as well as tookadvantage of the credulity of petitioners to secure unduegains for himself and to inflict serious damage on others.He did so over the course of several years in a sustainedand unrelenting fashion and outdid his previous wrongdoingwith even greater, more detestable offenses. He has hardlyshown any remorse. From how he has conducted himself inthese proceedings, he is all but averse to rectifying his waysand assuaging complainants plight. Respondent evenfoisted upon the IBP and this Court his duplicity byrepeatedly absenting himself from the IBPs hearingswithout justifiable reasons. He also vexed this Court toadmit his Appeal despite his own failure to comply with themuch extended period given to him, thus inviting the Courtto be a party in delaying complainants cause. For all hisperversity, respondent deserves none of this Courtsclemency.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT,having clearly violated the Canons of ProfessionalResponsibility through his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitfulconduct, is DISBARRED and his name ordered STRICKENfrom the Roll of Attorneys.

Per Curiam, Lilia Tabang and Concepcion Tabang v. Atty. Glenn C. Gacott,A.C. No. 6490 [Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1054], July 9, 2013.

Two concepts of attorneys fees.

Two concepts of attorneys fees ordinary andextraordinary. In its ordinary sense, it is the reasonablecompensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal servicesrendered. In its extraordinary concept, it is awarded bythe court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losingparty as indemnity for damages. Although both conceptsare similar in some respects, they differ from each other,as further explained below:

The attorneys fee which a court may, in propercases, award to a winning litigant is, strictlyspeaking, an item of damages. It differs from thatwhich a client pays his counsel for the latter sprofessional services. However, the two conceptshave many things in common that a treatment ofthe subject is necessary. The award that the courtmay grant to a successful party by way of attorneysfee is an indemnity for damages sustained by himin prosecuting or defending, through counsel, hiscause in court. It may be decreed in favor of theparty, not his lawyer, in any of the instancesauthorized by law. On the other hand, the attorneysfee which a client pays his counsel refers to thecompensation for the latters services. The losingparty against whom damages by way of attorneysfees may be assessed is not bound by, nor is hisliability dependent upon, the fee arrangement ofthe prevailing party with his lawyer. The amountstipulated in such fee arrangement may, however,be taken into account by the court in fixing theamount of counsel fees as an element of damages.

The fee as an item of damages belongs to the partylitigant and not to his lawyer. It forms part of hisjudgment recoveries against the losing party. Theclient and his lawyer may, however, agree thatwhatever attorneys fee as an element of damagesthe court may award shall pertain to the lawyer ashis compensation or as part thereof. In such a case,the court upon proper motion may require thelosing party to pay such fee directly to the lawyerof the prevailing party.

The two concepts of attorneys fees are similar inother respects. They both require, as a prerequisiteto their grant, the intervention of or the renditionof professional services by a lawyer. As a clientmay not be held liable for counsel fees in favor ofhis lawyer who never rendered services, so too maya party be not held liable for attorneys fees asdamages in favor of the winning party who enforcedhis rights without the assistance of counsel.Moreover, both fees are subject to judicial controland modification. And the rules governing thedetermination of their reasonable amount areapplicable in one as in the other. [Emphases andunderscoring supplied]

In the case at bench, the attorneys fees being claimedby the petitioner refers to the compensation for professionalservices rendered, and not as indemnity for damages. He isdemanding payment from respondents for havingsuccessfully handled the civil case filed by Chong againstSpouses de Guzman. The award of attorneys fees by theRTC in the amount of P10,000 in favor of Spouses deGuzman, which was subsequently affirmed by the CA andthis Court, is of no moment. The said award, made in its

(Next page)


Doctrinal RemindersLegal Ethics (continued)

extraordinary concept as indemnity for damages, formspart of the judgment recoverable against the losing partyand is to be paid directly to Spouses de Guzman (substitutedby respondents) and not to petitioner. Thus, to grantpetitioners motion to determine attorneys fees would notresult in a double award of attorneys fees. And, contraryto the RTC ruling, there would be no amendment of a finaland executory decision or variance in judgment.

Mendoza, J., Francisco L. Rosario, Jr. v. Lellani de Guzman, Arleen deGuzman, Philip Ryan de Guzman, and Rosella de Guzman-Bautista,G.R. No. 191247, July 10, 2013.

Relationship between attorney and his client.

The relationship between an attorney and his client is oneimbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this light,clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindfulof their cause and accordingly exercise the required degreeof diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer isexpected to maintain at all times a high standard of legalproficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, andcompetence to the case, regardless of its importance andwhether he accepts it for a fee or for free. Canon 17, andRules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code embodythese quintessential directives and thus, respectively state:

CANON 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of hisclient and he shall be mindful of the trust andconfidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client withcompetence and diligence.

x x x x

RULE 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matterentrusted to him, and his negligence in connectiontherewith shall render him liable.

RULE 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informedof the status of his case and shall respond within areasonable time to the client s request forinformation.

Case law further illumines that a lawyers duty ofcompetence and diligence includes not merely reviewingthe cases entrusted to the counsels care or giving soundlegal advice, but also consists of properly representing theclient before any court or tribunal, attending scheduledhearings or conferences, preparing and filing the requiredpleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonabledispatch, and urging their termination without waiting forthe client or the court to prod him or her to do so.

Conversely, a lawyers negligence in fulfilling his dutiessubjects him to disciplinary action. While such negligenceor carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the Courthas consistently held that the lawyers mere failure toperform the obligations due his client is per se a violation.

Applying these principles to the present case, the Courtfinds that respondent failed to exercise the requireddiligence in handling complainants cause.

Records show that he failed to justify his absence duringthe scheduled preliminary conference hearing in Civil CaseNo. 1972 which led the same to be immediately submittedfor decision. As correctly observed by the InvestigatingCommissioner, respondent could have exercised ordinarydiligence by inquiring from the court as to whether the saidhearing would push through, especially so since it was onlytentatively set and considering further that he was yet toconfer with the opposing counsel. The fact that respondenthad an important commitment during that day hardlyexculpates him from his omission since the prudent courseof action would have been for him to send a substitutecounsel to appear on his behalf. In fact, he should havebeen more circumspect to ensure that the aforesaid hearingwould not have been left unattended in view of its adverseconsequences, i.e., that the defendants failure to appearat the preliminary conference already entitles the plaintiffto a judgment. Indeed, second-guessing the conduct of theproceedings, much less without any contingent measure,exhibits respondents inexcusable lack of care and diligencein managing his clients cause.

Perlas-Bernabe, J. Josefina Caranza vda. De Saldivar v. Atty. Ramon SGCabanes, Jr., A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013.

courts to the Office of the Court Administrator,all concerned are DIRECTED to attach a COVERLETTER as a supplemental document to indicate thereason/s why the same are being furnished theOffice.

Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.

September 5, 2013.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZCourt Administrator

OCA Circular No. 109-2013(continued from page 37)


A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC

A.M. No. 13-7-144-RTC

EN BANC NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued aResolution dated JULY 30, 2013, which reads as follows:

A.M. No. 13-7-144-RTC (Re: Creation of OneAdditional Regional Trial Court [RTC] Branch in the Islandof Sibuyan, Province of Romblon, to be Denominated asBranch 106 and Stationed at the Municipality of Cajidiocan). The Court Resolved, upon the recommendation of theOffice of the Court Administrator (OCA), to

a. IMPLEMENT Republic Act No. 10300 bycreating one additional branch of the RTC in

EN BANC NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued aResolution dated JULY 30, 2013, which reads as follows:

A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC (Re: Proposed Rules on E-filing)and A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC (Re: Proposed Rule for theEfficient Use of Paper). The Court Resolved to APPROVEthe proposal that all administrative circulars and orders,memorandum circulars and orders, and all other similardocuments, will be delivered to each Justice in any of thefollowing file formats, at his or her option:

Electronic PDF file (by e-mail); Print (hard) copy; or Both electronic and print copies.

In this connection, all interested Members of this Courtwho are interested in receiving electronic PDF files of thesedocuments must formally submit their e-mail addresses tothe Clerk of Court.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court

the Island of Sibuyan, Province of Romblon, tobe stationed at the Municipality of Cajidiocanand denominated as Branch 106, RTC,Cajidiocan, Romblon;

b. AUTHORIZE Branch 106, RTC, Cajidiocan,Romblon to exercise territorial jurisdictionover the Municipalities of Cajidiocan,Magdiwang and San Fernando, all in theprovince of Romblon;

c. AMEND paragraph 1 of Administrative OrderNo. 7, to read as follows:

Branch 81, with seat at Romblon over the Municipalities of Romblon,Corcuera, Concepcion, Banton, SanAgustin and Sta. Maria (Imelda)

Branch 106, with seat at Cajidiocan over the Municipalities of Cajidiocan,Magdiwang and San Fernando

d. ORDER the transfer to Branch 106, RTC,Cajidiocan, Romblon, of all newly filed casesand all pending cases which have not yetreached the pre-trial stage in civil cases orwhere the accused have not yet beenarraigned in criminal cases originating fromthe Municipalities of Cajidiocan, Magdiwangand San Fernando, and filed with Branch 81,RTC, Romblon, Romblon;

e. CREATE the following positions in the PersonnelServices Itemization of the said RTC toconform with the Staffing Pattern of the RTC,to wit:

No. of Position Titles SalaryPosition/s Grade

RTC JudgeClerk of Court VICourt Legal Researcher IIInterpreter IIICourt Stenographer IIISheriff IVData Entry Machine Operator IIClerk IIIProcess ServerUtility Worker I

f. DIRECT the Office of the Administrative Services,OCA, to SUBMIT to the Department of Budgetand Management (DBM) the newly createdpositions to be included in the Personnel ServicesItemization (PSI) of the RTC for inclusion in theGeneral Appropriations Act for funding purposes;

(Next page)

1111411211

2925151212128651


g. DIRECT the Financial Management Office,OCA, to SUBMIT thereafter to the DBM thefunding requirements for the fullimplementation of Republic Act No. 10300;

h. DIRECT the DBM to RELEASE theSupplemental Allotment Release Order(SARO) and the corresponding Notice of CashAllocation (NCA) for the full implementationof Republic Act No. 10300;

i. HOLD IN ABEYANCE the organization ofBranch 106, RTC, Cajidiocan, Romblon untilsuch time that the DBM has released the SAROand the corresponding NCA for the fulloperation of the subject court; and

j. ORDER the amendment of all court recordsto conform with this development.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court

EN BANC

RE: LETTER DATED APRIL 18, 2011 OF CHIEF PUBLICATTORNEY PERSIDA RUEDA ACOSTA REQUESTINGEXEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT OF SHERIFFSEXPENSES

Promulgated:July 30, 2013

xxRESOLUTION

REYES, J.:

This case stemmed from the February 7, 2011 letter1 ofAttorney Persida V. Rueda-Acosta (Atty. Acosta), ChiefPublic Attorney of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), tothe Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In the saidletter, Atty. Acosta sought a clarification as to theexemption of PAOs clients from the payment of sheriffsexpenses, alleging that PAOs clients in its Regional Officein Region VII are being charged with the payment ofsheriffs expenses in the amount of P1,000 upon the filing

of a civil action in court. She claimed that sheriffs expensesshould not be exacted from PAOs clients since Section 6 ofRepublic Act No. 94062 (RA No. 9406) specifically exemptsthem from the payment of docket and other fees incidentalto instituting an action in court and other quasi-judicialbodies.

In its letter3 dated March 23, 2011 to Atty. Acosta, theOCA clarified that PAOs clients, notwithstanding theirexemption under Section 6 of RA No. 9406 from paymentof docket and other fees incidental to instituting an actionin court, are not exempted from the payment of sheriffsexpenses. The OCA explained that sheriffs expenses, strictlyspeaking, are not considered as legal fees under Rule141 of the Rules of Court since they are not payable to thegovernment; they are payable to the sheriff/process serverto defray his travel expenses in serving court processes inrelation to the litigants case.

In her letter4 dated April 18, 2011 to the OCA, Atty.Acosta maintained that, while sheriffs expenses may notbe strictly considered as a legal fee, they are neverthelessconsidered as a fee which is incidental to the filing of anaction in court and, hence, should not be exacted fromPAOs clients. She pointed out that the imposition of sheriffsexpenses on PAOs clients would render the lattersexemption from payment of docket and other fees underSection 6 of RA No. 9406 nugatory. Considering that thematter involves an interpretation of RA No. 9406, Atty.Acosta requested that the same be referred to the Courten banc for resolution.

In its report and recommendation5 dated September14, 2011, the OCA maintained its position that PAOs clientsare not exempted from the payment of sheriffs expenses;it stressed that the P1,000 sheriffs expenses are not thesame as the sheriffs fee fixed by Section 10, Rule 141 ofthe Rules of Court and, hence, not covered by theexemption granted to PAOs clients under RA No. 9406.The OCA further alleged that the grant of exemption toPAOs clients from the payment of sheriffs expensesamounts to disbursement of public funds for the protectionof private interests. Accordingly, the OCA recommendedthat Atty. Acostas request for exemption of PAOs clientsfrom payment of sheriffs expenses be denied.

1 Rollo, pp. 56.

2 An Act Reorganizing and Strengthening the PublicAttorneys Office (PAO), Amending for the Purpose thePertinent Provisions of Executive Order No. 292,Otherwise Known as the Administrative Code of 1987,as Amended, Granting Special Allowance to PAO Officialsand Lawyers, and Providing Funds Therefor.

3 Rollo, pp. 1516.4 Id. at 1921.5 Id. at 14.

A.M. No. 11-10-03-O

A.M. No. 13-7-144-RTC (continued)


A.M. No. 11-10-03-O (continued)

Adopting the recommendation of the OCA, the Courten banc issued Resolution6 dated November 22, 2011 whichdenied Atty. Acostas request for exemption from thepayment of sheriffs expenses.

On January 2, 2012, Atty. Acosta sought areconsideration7 of the Courts Resolution dated November22, 2011, which the Court en banc referred to the OCA forappropriate action. In its report and recommendation8

dated March 22, 2012, the OCA averred that the exemptionof PAOs clients from payment of legal fees is not an absoluterule and that the Court is not precluded from providinglimitations thereto. Thus, the OCA recommended the denialof Atty. Acostas motion for reconsideration.

On April 24, 2012, the Court en banc issued aResolution9 which denied the Motion for Reconsiderationfiled by Atty. Acosta.

Unperturbed, Atty. Acosta filed a motion for leave tofile a second motion for reconsideration10 and a SecondMotion for Reconsideration11 of the Courts Resolutiondated April 24, 2012, alleging that the imposition of sheriffsexpenses on PAOs clients is contrary to the language, intentand spirit of Section 6 of RA No. 9406 since sheriffs expensesare considered as fees incidental to instituting an actionin court. Further, she claimed that the said imposition onPAOs clients would hinder their access to the courtscontrary to the mandate of Section 11, Article III of theConstitution.

After a conscientious review of the contrasting legaldisquisitions set forth in this case, the Court still finds theinstant petition devoid of merit.

At the outset, it bears stressing that this is already thethird attempt of Atty. Acosta to obtain from this Court adeclaration exempting PAOs clients from the payment ofsheriff s fees the initial request therefor and thesubsequent motion for reconsideration having been deniedby this Court. As a rule, a second motion for reconsiderationis a prohibited pleading.12 This rule, however, is not cast instone. A second motion for reconsideration may be allowed

if there are extraordinarily persuasive reasons therefor,and upon express leave of court first obtained.13

Ordinarily, the Court would have dismissed outrightAtty. Acostas second motion for reconsideration. However,for reasons to be discussed at length later, there is a needto give due course to the instant petition in order to reassessand clarify the Courts pronouncement in our Resolutionsdated November 22, 2011 and April 24, 2012.

In any case, it bears stressing that what is involved inthis case is the Courts administrative power to determineits policy vis--vis the exaction of legal fees from thelitigants. The Courts policy determination respectingadministrative matters must not be unnecessarily boundby procedural considerations. Surely, a rule of proceduremay not debilitate the Court and render inutile its power ofadministration and supervision over court procedures.

At the core of this case is the proper interpretation ofSection 6 of RA No. 9406 which, in part, reads:

SEC. 6. New sections are hereby inserted in Chapter5, Title III, Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, toread as follows:

x x x x

SEC. 16-D. Exemption from Fees and Costsof the Suit The clients of PAO shall beexempt from payment of docket andother fees incidental to instituting anaction in court and other quasi-judicialbodies, as an original proceeding or onappeal.

The costs of the suit, attorneys fees andcontingent fees imposed upon theadversary of the PAO clients after asuccessful litigation shall be deposited inthe National Treasury as trust fund andshall be disbursed for special allowancesof authorized officials and lawyers of thePAO. (Emphasis ours)

The OCA maintains that sheriffs expenses are notcovered by the exemption granted to PAOs clients underRA No. 9406 since the same are not considered as a legalfee under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Stated differently,the OCA asserts that the exemption provided for under RANo. 9406 only covers the legal fees

philja bulletin no. 59

Documents

city judges association

judges batches

rtc judges of region

court technology

themeclerks of court

level court judges ofregion

association of clerksof

seminar of themetropolitan