On January 11, 2011, the Philippine Supreme Court approved new guidelines to expand the coverage of

court-annexed mediation (CAM) and judicial dispute resolution (JDR) [“Guidelines”]. The Guidelines were

issued through Resolution A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA .

The Guidelines adopted the policy of diverting court cases to CAM and JDR to “put an end to pending litigation

through a compromise agreement of the parties and thereby help solve the ever-pressing problem of court

docket congestion.”  While recognizing that criminal cases may not be compromised, this policy strongly

indicates that the ultimate objective of CAM and JDR is to end all litigation, not merely its civil aspect.

The Guidelines are empowers the parties to resolve their own disputes and give practical effect to the State

policy in Rep. Act No. 9285 (The ADR Act of 2004) “to actively promote party autonomy in the resolution of

disputes or the freedom of the parties to make their own arrangement to resolve disputes” (Sec. 2).  The

reference to RA 9285 is interesting because the Act does not cover court-annexed mediation (Sec. 7). 

Moreover, the mandatory nature of CAM and JDR and the restriction of the parties’ ability to choose their

mediators makes CAM and JDR somehow inconsistent with the idea that in an alternative dispute resolution

system, the parties have the freedom to determine how their dispute should be resolved.

Three stages of diversion

The Guidelines define three stages of court diversion, namely: CAM, JDR and Appeals Court Mediation (ACM). 

Each was previously covered by a separate Supreme Court issuance, which somehow made it difficult to see

that they were meant to complement each other.  The Guidelines now clarify that CAM, JDR and ACM have the

same objective and that they are merely different stages of a comprehensive dispute resolution process

aimed at abating or ending court-docket congestion.

1.  During CAM, the first stage of court diversion, the judge refers the parties to the Philippine Mediation

Center (PMC) for the mediation of their dispute by trained and accredited mediators.

2.  If CAMfails, the second stage, called the JDR, is undertaken by the JDR judge, acting as a mediator-

conciliator-early neutral evaluator.[1]

3.  The third stage is during appeal, where covered cases are referred to ACM.

Expanded jurisdiction

In addition to consolidating the existing CAM and JDR rules, the Guidelines covers the civil aspect of less grave

felonies punishable by correctional penalties not exceeding six years imprisonment, where the offended party

is a private person.[2]

The purpose is for the court diversion process to achieve a greater impact.  The expansion to less grave

offensesis needed since civil cases constitute only a small 16 percent of all cases filed in court, while special

proceedings constitute even a smaller 7.6 percent.  Since correctional penalties are intended for rehabilitation

and correction of the offender, there is no reason why crimes punishable by correctional penalties may not be

compromised, as to their civil aspect.  However, it is not clear if the Guidelines applies to the civil aspect of

criminal cases that are governed by special laws, although punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six

years.  In a strict sense, the term “less grave felonies” applies to crimes under the Revised Penal Code but not

crimes governed by special laws.

Despite the non-mediatable nature of the principal action, like annulment of marriage, other issues such as

custody of children, support, visitation, property relations and guardianship may be referred to CAM and JDR

to limit the issues for trial.

Role of lawyers

Finally, the Guidelines define the role of lawyers inCAMand JDR as that of adviser and consultant to their

clients.  They are encouraged to drop their combative role in the adjudicative process and to give up their

dominant role in judicial trials, in order to allow the parties more opportunities to craft their own agreement.— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — –[1]The JDR judge acts as a mediator, neutral evaluator and/or conciliator. As mediator and conciliator, he facilitates the settlement discussions between the parties and tries to reconcile their differences. As a neutral evaluator, he assesses the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case, makes a non-binding and impartial evaluation of the chances of each party’s success in the case, and persuades the parties to a fair and mutually acceptable settlement of their dispute.

[2] The other cases subject to mandatory CAM/JDR are:(1)  All civil cases and the civil liability of criminal cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure,

including the civil liability for violation of B.P. 22, except cases which may not be compromised.(2)  Special proceedings for the settlement of estates.(3)  All civil and criminal cases filed with a certificate to file action issued by the Punong Barangay or

the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo under the Revised Katarungang PambarangayLaw.(4)  The civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code.(5)  The civil aspect of estafa, theft and libel.(6)  All civil cases, probate proceedings, forcible entry and unlawful, cases involving title to or

possession of real property or an interest therein, and habeas corpus cases decided by the first level courts in the absence of the Regional Trial Court judge, brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts.

CAM and JDR

The Guidelines divide judicial proceedings into two stages, namely: (a) from the filing of a complaint up to the

conduct of CAM and JDR during the pre-trial stage; and (b) from the pre-trial proper up to trial and judgment.

In both CAM and JDR, the court or any party may move to sanction a party who fails to appear or any person

who engages in abusive conduct during the proceedings.  Sanctions may include censure, reprimand,

contempt or requiring the absent party to reimburse up to treble the cost of the appearing party.

A representative of a party who is unable to attend in person must be fully authorized to appear, negotiate

and enter into a compromise without need of further approval by or notification to the authorizing party.

With respect to corporations, partnerships, or other juridical entities, the representative must also be a

ranking corporate officer.

The Guidelines emphasize that both CAM and JDR are confidential. Any information or communication made

or received is inadmissible as evidence in any other proceeding.  JDR judges and all court personnel or any

other person present during the proceeding are prohibited from passing information obtained in the course

of conciliation and early neutral evaluation to the trial judge or to any other person.

CAM Procedure

Under the Guidelines, the CAM procedure is:

1. Upon filing the last pleading, the judge orders the parties to appear before the PMC Unit.

2.  The parties shall select an acceptable accredited mediator. Otherwise, the mediator shall be chosen by lot.

3.  The mediator starts the mediation and explains the mediation process.

4.  With the consent of both sides, the mediator may hold separate caucuses and/or joint conferences with

them.

5.  If no settlement is reached at the end of the mediation period, the case is returned to the referring judge.

6.  The mediator has 30 days from the initial conference to complete the mediation process, extendible for

another 30 days upon motion to be filed by the mediator, with the conformity of the parties.

7.  If full settlement is reached, the parties shall draft the compromise agreement for approval by the court.  If

compliance has been made, the court shall dismiss the case upon the submission by the parties of a

satisfaction of claim or a mutual withdrawal of the case.

If partial settlement is reached, the parties will submit its terms for appropriate action by the court, without

waiting for resolution of the unsettled part.  The court will conduct JDR for the unsettled part of the dispute.

JDR Procedure

Under the Guidelines, the JDR procedure is:

1.  The JDR judge first refers the case to CAM but also pre-sets the JDR conference not earlier than 45 days

from the parties’ first mediation appearance.

First-level courts such as Metropolitan Trial Courts and Regional Trial Courts have 30 days from the first JDR

conference to complete the process.  Second-level courts such as Regional Trial Courts exercising its appellate

jurisdiction have 60 days to complete the process.

In criminal cases where a settlement has been reached on the civil aspect but the period of payment in

accordance with the terms of settlement exceeds one year, the case may be archived upon motion of the

prosecution, with notice to the other party and with approval by the judge.

2.  The judge to whom the case was assigned by raffle shall be the JDR judge. He shall preside over the first

stage and resolve all incidents or motions filed during this stage.  If the case is not resolved during JDR, it shall

be raffled to another judge for the second stage.  As a general rule, the JDR judge shall not preside over the

trial of the case.  However, the parties may jointly request in writing that the case be tried by the JDR judge.

3.  In single-sala courts, the parties may file a joint written motion requesting the court of origin to conduct

the JDR and trial. Otherwise the JDR will be conducted by the judge of the pair court or, if none, by the judge of

the nearest court at the station where the case was originally filed. The result of the JDR shall be referred to

the court of origin for appropriate action, e.g., approval of the compromise agreement or trial.

4.  In areas where only one court is designated as a family court, the parties may file a joint written motion

requesting the family court to which the case was originally raffled to conduct the JDR and trial. Otherwise,

the JDR shall be conducted by a judge of another branch through raffle.  If there is another family court in the

same area, the family court to whom the case was originally raffled shall conduct JDR and, if no settlement is

reached, the other family court shall conduct the pre-trial proper and trial.

5.  In areas where only one court is designated as commercial/intellectual property/environmental court

(“special court”), unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, the JDR shall be conducted by another judge

through raffle and not by the judge of the special court. Where there is no settlement, the judge of the special

court shall be the trial judge.  Any incident or motion filed before the pre-trial stage shall be dealt with by the

special court that referred the case to CAM.

6.  Cases may be referred to JDR even during trial, upon written motion of one or both parties. The JDR judge

may either be (a) another judge through raffle in multiple-sala courts; or (b) the nearest court (or pair court,

if any) regardless of the level of the latter court in single sala courts.

7.  If the dispute is fully settled, the parties will submit the compromise agreement for approval by the court. 

If there has been compliance, the court shall dismiss the case upon submission by the parties of a satisfaction

of claims or a mutual withdrawal of the parties’ respective claims and counterclaims.

In case of partial settlement, the compromise may be submitted to the court for approval and rendition of a

judgment upon partial compromise, which may be immediately enforced by execution.

In criminal cases, if settlement is reached on the civil aspect thereof, the parties shall submit the compromise

agreement for appropriate action by the court.  Action on the criminal aspect of the case will be determined

by the Public Prosecutor, subject to the appropriate action of the court.

Court-annexed mediation

The Philippine Congress has shown interest in Court-Annexed Mediation as an alternative mode of dispute resolution.

The previous report of its research service on the matter cited the following:

1. Sec. 5, par. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution: “Sec.5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: x x x x (5) promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, x x x. Such rules shall provide a simplified and expensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, x x x.”

2. Sec. 2 (a), Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: “Sec. 2. Nature and Purpose. The pre-trial is mandatory. The court shall consider: (a) the possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution; x x x.”

3. Supreme Court Resolution, A. M. No. 02-2-17SC, April 16, 2002, pilot-testing the efficacy of mediation for settling cases pending in the Court of Appeals as requested by the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA).

4. Supreme Court Resolution, A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA, October 16,

2001 designating PHILJA as a component unit of the Supreme Court for court-referred, court-related mediation cases, and other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms; and adopting the “Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Mediation Proceedings”, the “Standards and Procedures for Accreditation of Mediators for Court Referred”, the “Court Related Mediation Cases”, and the “Code of Ethical Standards for Mediators”.

5. Supreme Court Resolution, A.M. No. 99-01-SC-PHILJA, October 19,

1999 pilot testing the efficacy of Mandatory Mediation/Conciliation in the pilot areas of Mandaluyong City and Valenzuela City.

6. Mediation is a process of resolving disputes with the aid of a neutral person who help parties identify issues and develop proposals to resolve their disputes. Unlike arbitration, the mediator is not empowered to decide disputes.

7. Conciliation is the process of referring a dispute to a commission of persons who are empowered to examine the facts and to submit a report containing recommendations for the settlement of the dispute: their recommendations or proposals, however, do not have the bending effect of an award or judgment, as is the case in arbitration.

8. Arbitration is the submission of a disputed matter for decision to private, unofficial persons, selected in a manner provided by law or agreement. There are two kinds, compulsory or voluntary. Compulsory exists where the consent of one of the parties is enforceable by statutory enactment (Labor Code) either in a Court of law or before a justice of peace. Voluntary where it is affected by mutual agreement of the parties by means of a rule of court or otherwise.

9. In court-annexed mediation, the parties to a pending case are directed by the court to submit their dispute to a neutral third party (the Mediator), who works with them to reach a settlement of their controversy. The Mediator acts as a facilitator for the parties to arrive at a mutually acceptable arrangement, which will be the basis for the court to render a judgment based on a compromise.

10. The trial court, after determining the possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution, shall issue an Order referring the case to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit for mediation and directing the parties to proceed immediately to the PMC unit. The Order shall be personally given to the parties during the re-trial. Copy of the Order together with the copy of the complaint and answers, shall be furnished the PMC Unit within the same date.

11. The supervisor of the PMC Unit shall assist the parties select a mutually acceptable mediator from a list of duly accredited mediators and inform the parties about fees, if any, and the mode of payment. If the parties cannot agree on a mediator, then the supervisor shall assign the mediator. The trial court shall immediately be notified of the name of the mediator, and shall thereafter confirm the selection or appointment of the mediator.

12. Mediation is a purely voluntary process. The parties or party in mediation can call it off at any time when it does not seem to be working and go back to the court and pursue litigation. In noncompliance to agreements the party affected can immediately apply for execution of the judgment or order to the trial court that approved the compromise agreement.

13. At the Court of Appeals level, upon promulgation of judgment based on a compromise agreement, the CA Division Clerk of Court shall forthwith issue an entry of judgment and remand the records of the case to the court of origin for execution of judgment.

14. The mediation fee shall be a certain percentage of the filling fee, to be paid separately from the filling fee, and in accordance with the Level of Mediators and the schedules presented below, generally equivalent to 20% of filling fee Before the start of the mediation, 50% of the mediation fee shall be paid to the clerk of court. Upon settlement of the case, the balance of the mediation fee shall also be paid to the clerk of court. If no compromise is reached, the down payment is forfeited. Under Rule 141 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an advance mediation fee of P1,000.00 is immediately paid simultaneously with the payment of the docket and filing fees and, in case of appeals, upon payment of the appeal fee.

15. The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) was created by the Supreme Court under Administrative Order No. 35-96 on March 16, 1996 and Republic Act No. 8557 (February 26, 1998).

16. In accordance with the guidelines set forth in Supreme Court en banc Resolution in Adm. Matter No. O1-10-5-SC-PHILJA, dated October 16, 2001, PHILJA was designated as the component unit for court-referred, court-related mediation cases, and other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution; shall direct and manage the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC), initiating for this purpose the technical and management assistance of appropriate and qualified organizations or individuals, on such terms as may be stipulated in a Memorandum of Agreement between PHILJA, through its Chancellor, and such other organizations or individuals, subject to ratification by the PHILJA Board of Trustees; shall supervise and have operational control over PMC units and Mediation Chapters with respect to court-referred, court-related mediation cases through its Mediation Division, in coordination with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA); shall determine, with the previous approval of the Supreme Court, when to conduct annual and or semi-annual settlements week or weeks, without prejudice to year-round mediation; was directed to study and recommend the use of other forms of court diversion or other modes of alternative dispute resolution, and upon its approval, to implement the same in accordance with such rules as may be promulgated by the Supreme Court.

17. The Supreme Court en banc Resolution in Administrative Matter No 01-10-5-SCPHILJA, dated October 16, 2001 approved and issued the second revised guidelines on mediation. The following cases are referable to mediation: a) All civil cases, settlement of estates, and cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure,

except those which by law may not be compromised; b) Cases cognizable by the Lupong Tagapamayapa under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law; c) The civil aspect of BP 22 cases; and d) The civil aspect of quasi offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code. (Note: At present, estafa and theft cases are now mediatable. Other civil and criminal cases, upon agreement of the parties, may also be referred to the PMC).

18. The trial court, after determining the possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution, shall issue an Order referring the case to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) Unit for mediation and directing the parties to proceed immediately to the PMC Unit. The Order shall be personally given to the parties during the pre-trial. Copy of the Order together with a copy of the Complaint and Answer/s, shall be furnished the PMC Unit within the same date.

19. Lawyers may attend the mediation proceedings and shall cooperate with the Mediator towards the amicable settlement of the dispute.

20. Basic notes on the Mediation Proceedings:

a) The Mediator shall be considered as an officer of the court.

b) A conference before the Mediator shall first be held with both parties present. The mediator shall explain the mediation proceedings stressing the benefits of an early settlement of the dispute and shall attempt immediate settlement. If no settlement is reached at this conference, the Mediator may, with the consent of both parties, hold separate caucuses with each party to enable the Mediator to determine their respective real interests in the dispute. Thereafter, another joint conference may be held to consider various options proposed by the parties to the Mediator to resolve the disputes.

c) The Mediator shall not record the proceedings in any manner, but he may take down personal notes to guide him.

d) The Mediator shall submit to the trial court, which referred the case to mediation, a status report on the progress of the proceedings at the end of the mediation period.

e) The PMC shall not keep a file of mediation proceedings except the report of the Mediator. All other records or documents that have been submitted by the parties shall be returned to them.

f) At the end of the thirty-day period allowed by the trial court, if no settlement has been reached, the case must be returned to the trial court for further proceedings, unless the parties agree to further continue the mediation, in which case a last extension of thirty (30) days may be granted by the trial court.

The mediation proceedings and all incidents thereto shall be kept strictly confidential, unless otherwise specifically provided by law, and all admissions or statements made therein shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

21. Basic ethical principles applicable to all mediators:

a. A Mediator shall be candid, accurate, and fully responsible to the trial court concerning his qualifications, availability, and all other pertinent matters. A Mediator shall observe all administrative policies, applicable procedural rules, and statutes. A Mediator is responsible to the judiciary for the propriety of his activities and must observe judicial standards of fidelity and diligence.

b. Impartiality. The Mediator shall maintain impartiality toward all parties. Impartiality means freedom from favoritism or bias either by appearance, word or by action, and a commitment to serve all parties as opposed to a single party. No time may a Mediator meet with any of the parties to discuss a case referred.

c. Competence. - A mediator shall maintain professional competence in mediation skills, including but not limited to: staying informed of and abiding by all statutes, rules, and administrative orders relevant to the practice of mediation; and regularly engaging in educational activities promoting professional growth.

d. Conflict of Interest. The Mediator shall refrain from participating in the mediation of any dispute if he/she perceives that participation, as a Mediator will be a clear conflict of interest.

e. Avoidance of Delays. A Mediator shall plan a work schedule, refrain from accepting appointments when it becomes apparent that completion of the mediation assignments cannot be done in a timely and expeditious manner, and perform the mediation services in such a way as to avoid delays.

f. Prohibition Against Solicitation or Advertising. A Mediator shall not use, the mediation process to solicit, encourage, or otherwise incur future professional services and financial gain from either or both parties.

g. Prohibition Against Coercion. A Mediator shall not coerce or unfairly influence a party into a settlement agreement and shall not make substantive decisions for any party to a mediation process.

h. Prohibition Against Misrepresentation. A Mediator shall not intentionally or knowingly misrepresent material facts or circumstances in the course of conducting a mediation.

i. A Balanced Process. A Mediator shall promote a balanced process and shall encourage the parties to conduct the mediation deliberations in a non-adversarial manner.

j. Mutual Respect. A Mediator shall promote mutual respect among the parties throughout the mediation process.

k. Personal Opinion. While a Mediator may point out possible outcomes of the case, under no circumstance may a Mediator offer a personal or professional opinion as to how the trial court, where the case has been filed, will resolve the dispute.

l. Disclosure of Fees. Except for his/her authorized fees, the Mediator in Court-Referred Mediation shall not accept any commission, gift or other similar forms or remuneration from parties or their representatives.

m. Confidentiality. The Mediator shall treat information revealed in mediation in strict confidentiality, except for the following: (1) Information that is statutorily mandated to be reported; (2) Information that, in the judgment of the Mediator reveals a danger of serious physical harm either to a third person or to himself/herself.

n. Role of Mediator in Settlement. The Mediator has the responsibility to see to it that the parties consider and understand the terms of the settlement.

o. The Mediator shall respect the relationship between mediation and other professional disciplines including law, medicine, science, accounting, mental health and social services and shall promote harmony and cooperation between Mediators and other professionals.

p. Pro Bono Service. A Mediator has a professional responsibility to provide competent service to persons seeking assistance including those unable to pay for such services. As a means of meeting the needs of the financially disadvantaged, a Mediator should provide mediation services pro bono or at a reduced rate of compensation.

22. The Supreme Court in its resolution, A.M. No. 02-2-17-SC, dated April 16, 2002, approved and allowed the pilot testing of mediation proceedings in the Court of Appeals, as requested by the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA).

Coverage:

1) Civil cases brought on ordinary appeal with:

i. Both appeal briefs filed; or

ii. Only the appellant’s brief filed; or

iii. With no appeal briefs filed but with memoranda

Exception:

i. Criminal cases

ii. Habeas corpus petitions

iii. Cases with pending application for restraining orders/Preliminary injunctions, unless both parties consent to Mediation

iv. Civil cases brought on ordinary appeal without the appellant’s brief or memoranda

2) Labor cases;

3) Special civil actions; and

4) Other cases, e.g., high impact economic cases.

23. The Supreme Court in en banc Resolution A.M. No. 99-01-SC-PHILJA – Re: Recommendation No. C-12, proposing, “To Pilot Test the Efficacy of Mandatory Mediation/Conciliation,” (Annex C) dated October 19, 1999, approved and issued the amended guidelines for the implementation of mediation/conciliation proceedings in the pilot areas of Mandaluyong City and Valenzuela City.

Coverage:

a) Civil cases involving members of the same family within the sixth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, except those which by law cannot be the subject of compromise, and civil disputes between residents of the same municipality or city cognizable by the Lupon Tagapamayapa in accordance with Section 408, LGC (1991);

b) Collection cases based on creditor and debtor relationships;

c) Claims for civil damages; and

d) Disputes arising out of lessor-lessee tenant relationship.

Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.Las Pinas City, Philippines