FFrom the Chancellor’s Deskrom the Chancellor’s Deskphilja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bulletin/Bul81.pdf · Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of Regions I, II and

1Volume XXI Issue No. 81

ISSN 2244-5862Volume XXI Issue No. 81January–March 2019

(con nued on page 2)

From the Chancellor’s DeskFrom the Chancellor’s Desk2019 was ushered by a number of ac vi es at the PHILJA Training Center (PTC) in Tagaytay, such as the 83rd Orienta on Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges of the Na onal Capital Judicial Region (NCJR) and Regions I and II; the 17th Orienta on Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriff s and Process Servers of the NCJR and Regions I, III and XII; a Seminar for Execu ve and Vice Execu ve Judges from Luzon and Mindanao; two Career Enhancement Programs (CEP) for Lawyer-Clerks of Court of the NCJR (Batches 2 and 3, Round 3); one CEP for Court Interpreters of the NCJR (Batch 5). Four Con nuing Legal Educa on Programs (CLEPs) were conducted for the court a orneys of the following: Court of Appeals Cagayan de Oro sta on (one batch) and Manila sta on (two batches), and the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals (one batch). Two batches of Seminar-Workshops on Elec on Laws for Regional Trial Court judges from Regions I to XII were also held at the PTC.

PHILJA also brought the following ac vi es to Cebu City: the Seminar for Execu ve and Vice Execu ve Judges of the Visayas Region and the Con nuing Legal Educa on Program for Court A orneys of the Court of Appeals sta oned therein.

An Orienta on and Seminar-Workshop for Court Deconges on Offi cers of Benefi ciary Courts of the NCJR and Regions I and III, and the 48th Pre-Judicature Program were held in Manila.

The following special focus programs were brought and delivered by the Academy to various par cipants around the country: an Outcome-based Educa on Training for Judges, Court Personnel and Duty Bearers on Juvenile Jus ce par cipated in by judges, branch clerks of court, court social workers and social workers from the local government units, prosecutors and PAO lawyers from the NCJR and Region IV (Manila); a Seminar-Workshop for Judges on Cybercrime for those from Regions X to XII (Davao); a Seminar-Workshop for Selected

2 January–March 2019

From the Chancellor’s Desk(continued from page 1)

ADOLFO S. AZCUNAChancellor

ContentsFrom the Chancellor’s Desk.................................................... 1

Judicial Views........................................................................ 3

Training Programs and Ac vi es........................................... 5

Judicial Moves....................................................................... 12

First Impressions.................................................................... 14

New Rulings.......................................................................... 14

Doctrinal Reminders.............................................................. 15

Resolu ons

A.M. NO. 08-8-7-SC - Re: Proposed Amendments to Sec ons 2 and 8 of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC or The Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases................................................................. 25

Circulars

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 01-2019 — Disposal of Unnecessary Court Records and Judiciary Proper es................................................. 26

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 02-2019 — Use of the Supreme Court Offi cial Receipts in the Collec on of Fines and Proceeds from the Sale of Exhibits in Drugs Cases.............................................. 26

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 06-2019 — Expedited Processing and Release of Cer fi cate of Authority to Bear, Carry and Transport Firearms for Purposes of the May 13, 2019 Na onal and Local Elec ons...................................................................................... 27

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 09-2019 — Guidelines for the Use of Temporary Notarial Register Forms............................................. 28

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 12-2019 — Exemp on of Court Stenographers from A endance to Court Hearings and Direc ve to Finish the Pending Transcript of Stenographic Notes within a Month Prior to Eff ec vity Date of Their Re rement................................................................................... 29

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 42-2019 — Second Reitera on of Administra ve Circular No. 28-2008 Dated March 11, 2008 (Re: Guidelines in the Detail of Locally-Funded Employees to the Lower Courts)......................................................................... 29

Orders

MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 03-2019 — Reorganizing the Commi ee on the Revision of the Rules of Court........................ 31

MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 04-2019 — Crea ng the Subcommi ee for the Revision of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.................................................................................... 31

MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 05-2019 ....................................... 33

MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 06-2019 — Crea ng the 2020 Judiciary Budget Commi ee........................................................ 33

MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 07-2019 — Reorganizing the Special Commi ee on Memorial Rites......................................... 35

MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 13-2019 — Crea ng the Technical Working Group for the Revision of the Law Student Prac ce Rule ............................................................................... 35

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 07-2019 — Designa on of Special Courts to Hear Try and Decide Elec on Contests Involving Elec ve Municipal Offi cials........................................................... 36

Judges on Financial Crimes and Money Laundering for Judges of the NCJR (Maka ); a Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of Regions I, II and III (Baguio City). Five successive Training Seminars on Special Issues on the Implementa on of the Revised Guidelines on Con nuous Trial of Criminal Cases and the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases were held in Manila, Cebu, Cagayan de Oro and Davao City.

The 2019 PHILJA Founding Chancellor Emeritus Jus ce Ameurfi na A. Melencio Herrera Award for the Most Outstanding Professorial Lecturer featuring Senior Associate Jus ce Antonio T. Carpio highlighted the events held at the PTC. SAJ Carpio gave the newest version of his popular lecture en tled “Defending Philippine Sovereign Rights in the West Philippine Sea.”

We also helped in the Regional Conference of the Asia-Pacifi c Region of the Interna onal Associa on of Women Judges and the 24th Na onal Conven on and Seminar of the Philippine Women Judges Associa on (PWJA) with the theme “Jus ce…in the Hearts of Women” which was held in Panglao, Bohol.

PHILJA also con nued to support the Court’s Enhanced Jus ce on Wheels (E-JOW) Program with the conduct of the Informa on Dissemina on through Dialogue among Barangay Offi cials and Court Offi cials and the Mobile Court-Annexed Media on in Sorsogon City and Masbate City.

The Academy, through the Philippine Media on Center Offi ce (PMCO), had a number of ac vi es in support of Alterna ve Dispute Resolu on such as a Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators (Skills Enhancement Course) for Camarines Sur, Albay and Sorsogon Media on Programs for mediators from the said areas and one for the Cagayan and Isabela Media on Programs for those assigned therein.

We also con nued taking note of new rulings of the Supreme Court and kept up with the doctrinal reminders, as well as newly issued Court orders, resolu ons, and circulars in our website. We took note of new OCA circulars as well.

In closing, I would like to thank our dependable offi cials and staff , our corps of professors and lecturers, as well as our program partners for giving their best to the Academy. Special thanks to Chief Jus ce Lucas P. Bersamin and the Supreme Court for the unfading support for PHILJA. Finally, thanks to God for all these frui ul ac vi es.


Guardians of the Electoral Process in the Age of Automated Elec on System*

JUSTICE REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO**

Automa on — it is both longed for and feared by our society. Not long ago, many of us fantasized about the wonders of technology and how our future will be shaped by the rapid pace of our technological evolu on. I can s ll remember how I marveled at the limitless possibili es the future may bring, as promised in movies and television shows such as Diamonds are Forever and other James Bond movies, Star Wars, Star Trek, Back to the Future, and many others. The machines and gadgets that were used as fi c onal props in these science fi c on shows in the 1970s and 80s were considered back then as u erly ridiculous products of human imagina on. Talking computers, self-automated cars, wireless communica on devices were things beyond the reach of human ingenuity. Today, we can talk to Siri using our iPhones, self-driving cars are being sold by Tesla in the United States, and cell phones allow us to instantly communicate with anyone, anywhere in the world.

On the other hand, the wonders of technology have also been the source of fear and resentment. When automa on was fl oated in my former offi ce, some employees entertained the fear that they will be replaced by machines and computers. Automa on was meant to make life easier for humankind, but it also replaced humanity by displacing skilled labor. Yet regardless of how you view automa on, it is a fact of life that we must accept and even embrace.

I am sure most of you could s ll remember when elec ons were conducted manually. Scores of people (“usi”) inside the chao c coun ng and canvassing areas, followers of candidates, members of media, poll watchers and lawyers keenly guarding the manual vo ng and coun ng processes, the members of the Boards of Elec on Inspectors and Canvassers struggling to maintain order. Then came the Vote Coun ng Machine or “VCM” which completely revolu onized

* Closing Remarks delivered at the Seminar on Elec on Laws for Regional Trial Court Judges on December 7, 2018 at the Bayview Park Hotel, Manila.

** The author is currently a senior member of the Court of Appeals. Prior to her current posi on, she served as a Commissioner of the Commission on Elec ons from 1992 to 1998.

the elec on process by streamlining the vo ng procedure and increasing the speed of vote coun ng, transmission, and canvassing.

The automated elec ons, of course, dras cally changed the game. Lawyers joke that the VCMs made them obsolete, since computer technicians are now be er equipped to guard the votes. For instance, a brilliant and experienced elec on lawyer would enter a completely alien world if he or she joins a Commission on Elec ons (COMELEC) VCM source code review, as some lawyers and even jus ces cannot even operate a computer!

But mes have changed, and we must keep in step with the current technological reali es in order for us to properly discharge our func ons as magistrates. Let us not forget that we are the sen nels of democracy, and that we are tasked to protect the will of the people by guarding the sanc ty of the electoral process.

The importance of elec ons in a democra c and republican country was emphasized by Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding founders of the United States. Hamilton insisted that “a share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the ci zens at large, in vo ng at elec ons is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the es ma on of the law.” Thomas Jeff erson, Hamilton’s greatest poli cal rival, also highlighted the importance of the electoral process. Jeff erson, the primary author of the American Declara on of Independence and the third President of the United States, men oned that “the elec ve franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combina ons to subvert a Cons tu on, dictated by the wisdom, and res ng on the will of the people.”

Hamilton and Jeff erson were idealis c men who fashioned a progressive, democra c, and republican government a er gaining independence from the despo c rule of the Bri sh Empire. Hence, they valued the sanc ty of the ballot, as they considered it the refl ec on of the will of the people and the source of authority of the government. Yet their idealism did not account for the poli cal reali es that will beset countless na ons, including the Philippines, in the coming centuries. Ironically, it was Joseph Stalin, leader of the former Soviet


Union, who accounted for the stark poli cal reality of human poli cs. The Russian leader said that “the people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

Luckily, our policy makers learned from both the idealism of Jeff erson and Hamilton, and the pragma sm of Stalin. Free and honest elec ons must be ensured, but the guardians of democracy must always be wary that the votes of the ci zens could be manipulated by the people tasked to count the votes. Hence, if the human component is minimized if not completely removed, the tempta on for chea ng is eliminated.

Automa on of the electoral process is the best solu on to the problem of human interven on in the polling precincts and the canvassing sta ons. As a former COMELEC Commissioner, I am well aware of the inherent risks of manual elec ons, especially in the numerous elec on hotspots all over the country. For as long as people are tasked to count the votes and canvass the elec on returns, unscrupulous individuals will have the opportunity to undermine the elec on process. Poli cians eff ec vely used the proverbial guns, goons, and gold tac c because it is so easy to in midate or bribe people. However, a machine is not capable of fear and it cannot succumb to greed. The only problem is—it is s ll not violence-proof.

Republic Act No. 8436, or the Automated Elec ons Law, was passed on December 22, 1997 while I was s ll a COMELEC Commissioner. Even before RA No. 8436, RA No. 8046 authorized the pilot tes ng of automated elec ons in Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) in the September 1996 elec ons. I was tasked to supervise the elec ons in Lanao del Sur. We encountered numerous problems, weather, power shortages, peace and order—name it we had it. A er assessment and fi ne tuning, VCMs were fully u lized in the 2010 na onal elec ons and in the succeeding polls. Despite some doubts and concerns regarding the conduct of the elec ons, COMELEC was able to successfully implement na onwide the automated elec on system. The speed, effi ciency, and security of the VCMs and the Consolida on/Canvassing Systems (or “CCS”) greatly improved the transparency and fairness of our local and na onal elec ons.

The holding of elec ons is supposed to be a purely poli cal exercise. Ideally, the elec on of public offi cers should be done solely by the will of the people, and not by adjudica on of a court of law. Nevertheless, we, as guardians of the electoral process, must always stay vigilant for the adop on of an automated elec on system did not completely eliminate elec on-related judicial controversies in the Philippines.

I understand that it must be frustra ng for some of you to delve into the technical nuances of the VCMs, the development of the source code, the transmission to the CCS servers, and other informa on technology related jargon. I might as well

be speaking in a foreign language! We are trained in the language of law. But the current set-up of the automated elec on system necessarily involves highly technical ma ers.

In the past, we encountered cases like “Your Honor, nung kuwentahan ng boto, lamang kami, kaso biglang nag-brown out, tapos sila na yung lamang nung nagka-ilaw na.” Today, we read about issues like “manipula on of the source code,” “pre-programmed SD cards,” “hacking of the transmission of the elec on returns from the VCMs on-site to the CCS of the Board of Canvassers and the COMELEC Central Servers,” and the like. As my young and young-at-heart friends would say, nakaka nose-bleed! Are they speaking in tongues?!

But do not fret. If we keep abreast with the latest laws and COMELEC Resolu ons, we can properly resolve cases involving the upcoming automated mid-term elec ons, not to men on cases involving elec on off enses. Moreover, you have the benefi t of learning from the past experiences of judges during the 2010, 2013, and 2016 automated elec ons. We also have PHILJA and our COMELEC partners to help us understand the complexi es of the automated elec on system.

They say that technicians and computer engineers have replaced lawyers in elec on contests. Yet the most exci ng and controversial legal cases in recent history are elec on-related. In Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elec ons,1 a divided Supreme Court held that a foundling can run for president as a natural-born Filipino ci zen. In Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals and Jejomar Binay, Jr.,2 the High Tribunal reversed the condona on doctrine, prospec vely allowing the prosecu on of elected offi cials for crimes commi ed during their incumbency even if they are re-elected. Let’s not forget that the winner of the automated 2000 US presiden al elec on was decided by the US Supreme Court in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore.3 In addi on, I am sure that all of you are familiar with the pending Presiden al Electoral Tribunal (PET) case involving the vice presidency, which involves, among other issues, the 25 percent shading threshold of the VCM ballots.

While I was s ll a COMELEC Commissioner from 1992 to 1998, the internet, digital technology, satellite communica ons, computer so ware encryp on, and wireless transmission were s ll being developed. Cell phones were the size of a giant brick, typewriters were s ll in vogue, and

1 Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elec ons, G.R. Nos. 221697 and 221698-700, March 8, 2016.

2 Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015.

3 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).



Training Programs and Ac vi es

23rd PHILJA Founding Anniversary

On March 12, PHILJA celebrated its 23rd Founding Anniversary en tled PHILJA@23: Growing Stronger Together at the Court of Appeals Auditorium in Manila.

In his welcome message, PHILJA Vice Chancellor Jus ce Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. said that with unrelen ng energy and determina on, “we con nue to achieve the vision and mission of the Philippine Judicial Academy, over the years, to ensure a performing and effi cient judiciary, worthy of emula on, not only in the Philippines but also in interna onal fora.”

Jus ce Callejo also urged PHILJA employees “to see to it that the weaknesses and threats are addressed and strengths and opportuni es developed. x x x Ini a ve or ‘sariling sikap’ should be the right a tude, and results-based achievement, a common goal.”

“Indeed all of us in the Philippine Judicial Academy should work as one with competence, integrity and diligence to achieve our common goal,” Jus ce Callejo ended.

Part of the annual founda on celebra on is the presenta on of the PHILJA Ins tu onal Awards: 21 employees received loyalty pins and cer fi cates for 10 years of service, 3 employees received loyalty medals and cer fi cates for 15 years of service, and 12 employees received plaques of recogni on and PHILJA paper weights for 20 years of service.

The 2018 Chancellor’s Award was conferred upon Ms. Ma. Chris na M. Molo-Recio, SC Supervising Judicial Staff Offi cer from the Administra ve Offi ce, for her 16 years of dedicated service to the Academy exhibi ng the core PHILJA values of professionalism, honor, inclusiveness, leadership, judicial training excellence and accountability. She was feted for her admirable work ethic and collabora on with all PHILJA offi ces

as one training ins tu on, and for her selfl ess a tude and untarnished integrity.

This year’s Model Employee Award (Supervisory Level) was given to A y. Eric Voltaire Pablo, PHILJA A orney IV from the Academic Aff airs Offi ce, in recogni on of his enthusiasm shown in the performance of his du es and responsibili es, for being approachable even to other PHILJA personnel, and for being an employee with good moral character and a person of integrity.

Meanwhile, Ms. Patricia D. Lunario, Storekeeper IV from the Administra ve Offi ce, received the Model Employee Award (Non-Supervisory Level) in recogni on of her competence and effi ciency in the performance of her du es and responsibili es; for being hardworking and reliable, diligent in the accomplishment of assignments ahead of deadlines, and a team player; for having exemplary work a tude, delivering public service with dedica on, commitment and an amiable personality; and for being trustworthy.

The theme of the 2019 anniversary celebra on was Synergy. The program organizers, the Offi ce of the Chancellor and the Administra ve Offi ce, prepared games and simulated ac vi es to illustrate the theme.

The whole celebra on was livened by raffl e draws and performances of PHILJA’s very own talents who rendered song and dance numbers. An audiovisual presenta on on the 2018 PHILJA Founding Anniversary was likewise shown.

The ac vity was capped by the Anniversary Message of PHILJA Chancellor Jus ce Adolfo S. Azcuna where he congratulated all PHILJA personnel for excellently accomplishing their tasks. He acknowledged that PHILJA is now reaping the benefi ts of hard work by living the standards set by then Chancellor Jus ce Ameurfi na A. Melencio Herrera to work with competence, integrity and diligence.

He shared that PHILJA has embarked on two immediate tasks: the establishment of a graduate school of law to confer masteral degrees to judges and court personnel, and the acquisi on of the remaining private shares of the PHILJA Development Center, Inc. (PDCI).

Jus ce Azcuna expressed confi dence that PHILJA will accomplish these two tasks before the 25th Founding Anniversary of the Academy in 2021 through synergy and teamwork.


2019 Chancellor’s AwardeeMs. Ma. Chris na M. Molo-Recio

SC Supervising Judicial Staff Offi cer

Model Employee Awardee (Supervisory Level)A y. Eric Voltaire Pablo

PHILJA A orney IV

Model Employee Awardee (Non-Supervisory Level)Ms. Patricia D. Lunario

Storekeeper IV

Loyalty Awardees for 10 years of service in PHILJA

Loyalty Awardees for 15 years of service in PHILJA Loyalty Awardees for 20 years of service in PHILJA


Orienta on-Seminar

83rd Orienta on Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed JudgesDate: February 12–21, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityPar cipants: 55 newly appointed and promoted judges, namely:

N A J

R T C

R IHon. Romeo E. Agacita, Jr. RTC, Br. 27, San Fernando City, La UnionHon. Elizabeth G. Bringas RTC, Br. 72, Narvacan, Ilocos SurHon. Jorge S. Manaois, Jr. RTC, Br. 10, La Trinidad, BenguetHon. Daniel D. Mangallay RTC, Br. 64, Boguias, BenguetHon. Nyerson Dexter Tito Q. Tualla RTC, Br. 28, San Fernando City, La Union

R IIHon. Nicasio B. Bau sta III RTC, Br. 21, San ago City, IsabelaHon. Jerson E. Angog RTC, Br. 25, Tabuk City, KalingaHon. Randy B. Bulwayan RTC, Br. 39, Lubuagan, Kalinga

M T C

NCJR Hon. Peter Filip S. Abelita MeTC, Br. 132, Quezon CityHon. Sheena Marie R. Abella-Davis MeTC, Br. 37, Quezon City

Hon. Fredelyne H. Addug-Sanchez MeTC, Br. 68, Pasig CityHon. Dennis M. Aga MeTC, Br. 140, Quezon CityHon. Aimee Marie B. Alcera MeTC, Br. 139, Quezon CityHon. Jona er S. Almira MeTC, Br. 137, Quezon CityHon. Ayn Marie Grace G. Barit-Carig MeTC, Br. 31, Quezon CityHon. Richelle Lou S. Boling-Sanchez MeTC, Br. 29, ManilaHon. Earl Warren B. Cas llo MeTC, Br. 101, Mandaluyong CityHon. Clemente M. Clemente MeTC, Br. 127, Maka CityHon. Jose I. Cordero, Jr. MeTC, Br. 11, ManilaHon. Khrystynn Cyd Rhia G. De Leon-Garcia MeTC, Br. 134, Quezon CityHon. Grace Maria Theresa Bambi A. Delos Reyes-Jurado MeTC, Br. 30, ManilaHon. Theresa S. Dizon MeTC, Br. 155, Pasig CityHon. Karla A. Fun la-Abugan MeTC, Br. 17, ManilaHon. Marcelino R. Gonzales II MeTC, Br. 42, Quezon CityHon. Emilio R. Gonzales III MeTC, Br. 154, Pasig CityHon. Dionis P. Jacobe MeTC, Br. 73, PaterosHon. Jesusa R. Lapuz-Gaudiano MeTC, Br. 153, Pasig CityHon. Gloria Monica S. Lopez-Lao MeTC, Br. 133, Quezon CityHon. Catherina N. Manzano MeTC, Br. 126, Maka CityHon. Dinah P. Maximo-UyMeTC, Br. 131, Quezon CityHon. Melinda Cielo C. Mendoza MeTC, Br. 125, Maka CityHon. Jeland Omer L. Pormen lla MeTC, Br. 135, Quezon CityHon. Rechie N. Ramos-Malabanan MeTC, Br. 46, Pasay CityHon. Lo s P. Rosario MeTC, Br. 136, Quezon CityHon. Maureen L. Rubio-Marquez MeTC, Br. 128, Maka CityHon. Kris ne Grace L. Suarez MeTC, Br. 138, Quezon City


Hon. Alexius P. Tang MeTC, Br. 129, Maka CityHon. Karyn Lee A. Tribaco MeTC, Br. 100, Mandaluyong City

M T C C

R I Hon. Ma. Carina A. Aquino MTCC, Br. 1, Dagupan City, Pangasinan

M T C

R I Hon. Charlie E. Vallo MTC, Itogon, Benguet

R II Hon. Leslie D. Costales MTC, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

M C T C

R I Hon. Arthur C. Agullana, Jr. 4th MCTC, Manabo–Boliney–Tubo–Luba, AbraHon. Noe T. Aquino 5th MCTC, Tuba–Sablan, BenguetHon. Eilyn Beverly Bless L. Cas llo-Rimando 7th MCTC, Dolores–San Juan, AbraHon. Emma C. De Luna–Madronio 13th MCTC, Alilem–Sugpon, Ilocos SurHon. Byran Jasper D. Solis 9th MCTC, Tayug–San Nicolas, Pangasinan

R II Hon. Manuel A. Morente, Jr. 2nd MCTC, Ivana–Uyugan, Batanes

P J (F 18–21, 2019)

R T C

R IHon. Myra Sheila M. Nalupta-Barba RTC, Br. 65, Laoag City, Ilocos NorteHon. Victor R. Cumigad RTC, Br. 26, Luna, ApayaoHon. Richard T. Domingo RTC, Br. 23, Candon City, Ilocos SurHon. Michael V. Francisco RTC, Br. 6, Baguio CityHon. Maria Corazon M. Labrador RTC, Br. 18, Batac City, Ilocos Norte

Hon. Marlon S. Meneses RTC, Br. 55, Alaminos, PangasinanHon. Homer Jay D. Ragonjon RTC, Br. 24, Cabugao, Ilocos SurHon. Felix G. Salvador RTC, Br. 17, Batac City, Ilocos Norte

17th Orienta on Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriff s and Process ServersDate: February 12–14, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Par cipants: 63 sheriff s and process servers

Orienta on Seminar-Workshop for Court Deconges on Offi cers of the Benefi ciary Courts of the Na onal Capital Judicial Region and the First and Third Judicial RegionsDate: February 27–28, 2019Venue: Manila Prince Hotel and Suites, ManilaPar cipants: 69 court deconges on offi cers

Seminar for Execu ve Judges and Vice Execu ve JudgesDate: March 7–8, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityPar cipants: 60 RTC, MeTC, MTCC and MCTC judges

Date: March 20–21, 2019Venue: Hotel Elizabeth, Cebu CityPar cipants: 39 RTC and MTCC judges

Pre-Judicature Program

48th Pre-Judicature Program Date: February 11–22, 2019Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, ManilaPar cipants: 57 lawyers, namely:

N C J R Zerah Marie B. Absin*Evelyn T. Agravante-AvilaRadie-Lyr L. BolambaoCarla Honora N. Borromeo**Bethany V. Conde-PunzalanKaren J. Del RosarioShiela D. Del RosarioCornelio P. DomantayLovely C. EstradaWilfredo T. Garcia, Jr.Ria Corazon A. Golez

* MCLE credits only (did not take WEE)

** Incomplete a endance (missed sessions on February 20)


Odessa Grace E. GonzagaJenny R. GonzalesMary Grace L. JavierHazel V. Macalalag-Tomas*Jasmine A. MadarangWilben M. MayorSteve Paolo A. MercanoJack Andrew O. Miranda*Carmela B. Nierva-PitpitMary-Jane Y. OasayJoeff rey G. PagdangananDeanna D. PenaJairus B. RubioFrancisco Domingo Pascua L. SalazarGenesis L. SampagaMa. Yve e M. TamayoMichael Samuel C. TulayEvelyn Tumacder-Alameda*Jaclyn C. VicenteDorothy Grace R. Villapando-ManuelRichard P. Wang

R IDick Mark D. DinamlingBernade e B. EspejoSusana C. Gapla-Ew-UmayatJenny Beth T. Mamauag-QuilantangMax G. PascuaReden B. PulmanoBrian C. VirayRosario F. Vitamog-Palisoc

R IIICatherine E. Rutor-ReyesRhea-Ann J. Soliman

R IVCarmi Rose M. Genova-De GuzmanBeryl Concepcion O. MacabayaEuphrasia M. Mar nez-RiveraSarah B. Vedaña-Delos Santos

R VSuze e S. DacilloHaile G. Frivaldo, Jr.Erwin F. HonraArsyl Iluminado F. Villaroya

R VIIAntonio C. Aseniero

* MCLE credits only (did not take WEE)

Career Enhancement Program

Career Enhancement Program for Lawyer-Clerks of Court of the Na onal Capital Judicial Region

B 2 (R 3)Date: January 15–17, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Par cipants: 68 RTC and MeTC clerks of court

B 3 (R 3)Date: January 29–30, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Par cipants: 81 RTC and MeTC clerks of court Career Enhancement Program for Court Interpreters of the Na onal Capital Judicial Region (Batch 5)Date: March 13–15, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Par cipants: 68 RTC and MeTC court interpreters

Con nuing Legal Educa on Program

C A C A

C SDate: February 7–8, 2019Venue: Harolds Hotel, Cebu City Par cipants: 37 court a orneys

Dervis R. SenicaMaria Gladys C. Ybanez

R VIIIGwen Noreen A. Camiling

R XJose Paolo B. GalindoVals P. Lisondra

R XITheresa C. Montaña-Baluyut

P B 40Markova I. Jacinto***

P B 47Gerald I. Chan****Xavier Elbert V. Cordula*****

*** Took the wri en evalua ve examina ons

**** A ended on February 20, 2018, pm session (was issued a Cer fi cate of Comple on)

***** A ended on February 12, 2018, am session (was issued a Cer fi cate of Comple on)


Seminar-Workshop for Judges on Cybercrime

Development Partner: Supreme Court Subcommi ee on Commercial Courts

Date: February 7–8, 2019 Venue: Marco Polo Hotel, Davao CityPar cipants: 18 RTC judges

Seminar-Workshop for Judges on Financial Crimes and Money Laundering

Development Partner: United States Department of Jus ce Criminal Division through its Offi ce of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (USDOJ-OPDAT)

Date: February 26–27, 2019 Venue: Holiday Inn and Suites, Maka CityPar cipants: 24 RTC judges

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

Development Partner: Dangerous Drugs Board

Date: February 20–22, 2019 Venue: Le Monet Hotel, Baguio CityPar cipants: 128 RTC and FC judges, prosecutors, and representa ves from Bureau of Customs, Department of Health, Na onal Bureau of Inves ga on, Na onal Police Commission, Parole and Proba on Administra on, Philippine Na onal Police and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency

Seminar-Workshop on Elec on Laws for Regional Trial Court Judges

Development Partner: Commission on Elec ons

Date: March 13–14, 2019 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityPar cipants: 60 RTC judges

Special Focus Programs

Informa on Dissemina on through a Dialogue between Barangay Offi cials and Court Offi cials

S CDate: March 6, 2019 Venue: Bulwagan ng Katarungan, Sorsogon City Par cipants: 90 barangay offi cials

M CDate: March 8, 2019 Venue: Department of Educa on City Division Conference Hall, Masbate City Par cipants: 121 barangay offi cials

Outcome-based Educa on Training for Judges, Court Personnel and Duty Bearers on Juvenile Jus ce

Development Partners: Commi ee on Family Courts and Juvenile Concerns, Juvenile Jus ce and Welfare Council and United Na ons Children’s Fund

Date: March 12–15, 2019 Venue: Manila Prince Hotel, ManilaPar cipants: 35 RTC and 2 FC judges, branch clerks of court, court social workers, LGU social workers, prosecutors and PAO lawyers

C O SDate: February 27–28, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Par cipants: 38 court a orneys

M (B 1) Date: March 4–5, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Par cipants: 96 court a orneys

M (B 2)Date: March 7–8, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Par cipants: 67 court a orneys C A S C

T ADate: March 19–20, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Par cipants: 75 court a orneys


Special Lecture

2019 PHILJA Founding Chancellor Emeritus Jus ce Ameurfi na A. Melencio Herrera Award for the Most Outstanding Professorial Lecturer

Title of Lecture: Defending Philippine Sovereign Rights in the West Philippine SeaProfessorial Lecturer: Senior Associate Jus ce Antonio T. Carpio Development Partner: Children of Founding Chancellor Emeritus Jus ce Ameurfi na A. Melencio HerreraDate: March 15, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City, with Video Conferencing at the En Banc Session Hall, New Supreme Court Building, Padre Faura St., ManilaPar cipants: 210 SC, CA and CTA jus ces; SC and PHILJA offi cials; SC, PHILJA, CA and CTA employees; judges; branch clerks of court; legal researchers and other guests

Alterna ve Dispute Resolu on

Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators (Skills Enhancement Course)

A , S , C S M PDate: February 13–14, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Par cipants: 18 mediators

C I M PDate: February 27–28, 2019Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Par cipants: 22 mediators

Conven on-Seminar

Regional Conference of the Asia-Pacifi c Region of the Interna onal Associa on of Women Judges and the 24th

Na onal Conven on and Seminar of the Philippine Women Judges Associa on (PWJA)Theme: “Jus ce… in the Hearts of Women” Date: February 27–March 1, 2019Venue: Hennan Resort Hotel, Panglao, BoholPar cipants: 440 women jus ces and judges

Date: March 25–26, 2019 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityPar cipants: 37 RTC judges

Training Seminar on Special Issues on the Implementa on of the Revised Guidelines on Con nuous Trial of Criminal Cases and the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases

Development Partner: Governance in Jus ce Programme (GOJUST) with the support of the European Union

Date: January 25, 2019 Venue: AG New World Hotel, ManilaPar cipants: 110 MeTC judges

Date: February 22, 2019 Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, ManilaPar cipants: 105 MeTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

Date: March 8, 2019 Venue: Seda Hotel, Cebu CityPar cipants: 57 MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

Date: March 15, 2019 Venue: New Dawn Plus Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityPar cipants: 69 MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

Date: March 22, 2019 Venue: Marco Polo Hotel, Davao CityPar cipants: 52 MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

We invite Your Honors to share your views...

Since 2015, PHILJA Bulle n’s JUDICIAL VIEWS sec on has been featuring speeches delivered or papers wri en that have direct impact to the Judiciary.

We con nue to invite contribu ons from the members of the Judiciary. The speeches, ar cles, or papers must be at least 3,000 words. Lengthy speeches/papers may be published in parts. Kindly include a brief profi le of the author. The PHILJA Bulle n Editorial Board reserves the right to review the submissions prior to publica on.


Prior to her appointment to the High Court, she was Associate Jus ce of the Court of Appeals from September 13, 2007 un l March 6, 2019, where she held a zero backlog case docket and served as Chairperson of the Gender and Development Commi ee. She was also Member of the Supreme Court

Subcommi ee on Revision of Rules of Civil Procedure from 2012 to 2013. In 2011, she was chosen as Bar Examiner in Poli cal Law.

Jus ce Javier has been serving the government since 1977. She was a public school teacher at Lakandula High School, Tondo, Manila (1977 to 1978), Ramon Magsaysay High School, España, Manila (1978 to 1981) and Manila Science High School (1981 to 1983).

She started her prac ce of law in 1983 at the Offi ce of the Solicitor General (OSG) fi rst as Trial A orney, then as Solicitor, and fi nally as Assistant Solicitor General, a post she held for 14 years before she became Court of Appeals Associate Jus ce. Among the important cases she held as Solicitor and Assistant Solicitor General were: (1) Proclama on No. 1017, (2) Calibrated Preemp ve Response (CPR), (3) Smith’s custody case, (4) 2006 Nursing Board leakage, (5) rebellion case against Crispin Beltran, et al., (6) state rebellion case, (7) Cityhood of Maka and Mandaluyong, (8) Reynaldo Berroya’s kidnapping case, (9) PCGG Coco-Levy cases, (10) appointment of Former Chief Jus ce Hilario Davide as Permanent Representa ve to the United Na ons, (11) cons tu onality of the Visi ng Forces Agreement (VFA), (12) Comfort Women’s case, (13) cons tu onality of the Value Added Tax (VAT), and (14) mandamus to compel congressional enactment for the implementa on of the cons tu onal prohibi on against poli cal dynas es. At the OSG, she has also formed the OSG Abot Kamay Founda on for the benefi t of the rank and fi le employees, extending fi nancial assistance to them during illness and other emergencies.

Jus ce Javier is also a law professor at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) Faculty of Civil Law teaching Cons tu onal Law, Commercial Law, Civil Law, Remedial Law and Legal Ethics

Hon. AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIERAssociate Jus ce, Supreme Court of the Philippines

Appointed on March 7, 2019

since 1983; bar reviewer in Cons tu onal Law, Remedial Law and Legal Ethics; and MCLE lecturer on various topics such as Alterna ve Dispute Resolu on, Legal Wri ng and Oral Advocacy, Legal and Judicial Ethics, Special Proceedings, Appellate Prac ce and Special Civil Ac ons.

Jus ce Javier has likewise wri en ar cles for the Court of Appeals Journal and UST Law Review, among which are: The Double-Edged Sword of the Liberalized Rule on Reversion of Expropriated Property to the Original Owner; When Informa on is Coercion: Abe ng Harassment in the Name of Democracy; Thinking Marriage Equality; When Delay Controls the Mind; and Suff ering Stroke in the Judiciary.

Jus ce Javier has a ended trainings, seminars and conven ons on law and jus ce at the Harvard University in USA, Hong Kong, and Paris in France. She is a member of the UST Astrea Law Sorority, and the Philippine Bar Associa on. She was President of the OSG Ladies Circle from 1986 to 1987.

Jus ce Javier is an awardee of the 2008 Ulirang Ina, and a recipient of other awards from the Philippine Normal University Alumni Associa on, Philippine Na onal Police-CIDG, UST Law Alumni Associa on and UST Astrea Law Sorority.

Jus ce Javier completed her elementary educa on in Bacood Elementary School, Manila; and secondary educa on in Elpidio Quirino High School, Manila as class salutatorian. She graduated from the Philippine Normal College (PNC), magna cum laude, in 1977 with a Bachelor of Science in Educa on degree and received the Outstanding Student in Social Sciences award. She fi nished her Bachelor of Laws degree from the UST as magna cum laude in 1982 and passed the Bar Examina on given the same year with a grade of 82.8 percent. She was Editor in Chief of the UST Law Journal, a member of the UST Deba ng Team, and Rector’s Awardee for Academic Excellence (UST).

Born in Manila to Carlos B. Lazaro of Cadiz, Negros Occidental, and Sigma L. Carillo of Looc, Romblon, Jus ce Amy is married to A y. Rolando K. Javier of Cadiz, Negros Occidental with whom she has three children: Robert Voltaire (a computer engineer), Paula Sigma (a medical doctor), and Bertha Kamille (a culinary chef).


Jus ce Ronald B. Moreno obtained his Bachelor of Laws Degree in 1995 from the University of Santo Tomas (UST) Faculty of Civil Law, and his Master of Laws Degree from the University of Santo Tomas Graduate School of Law in 2006. He is presently working on his disserta on at the same university for

his Doctor of Civil Law (DCL) degree.

Prior to his appointment as Sandiganbayan Associate Jus ce, he was the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Maka , Branch 147. He was previously the Presiding Judge

Hon. RONALD B. MORENOAssociate Jus ce, Sandiganbayan

Appointed on June 18, 2019

of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Maka , Branch 64 and was designated as Execu ve Judge in 2008 to 2010 and 2010 to 2012.

Before he joined the Judiciary, Jus ce Moreno was a Special Prosecutor at the Offi ce of the Ombudsman from 2002 to 2003 and Third Assistant City Prosecutor at the Department of Jus ce from 2003 to 2007.

Since 2008, Jus ce Moreno has been a member of the UST Faculty of Civil Law and the Far Eastern University (FEU) Ins tute of Law teaching Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure,


A y. TOMAS W. REYES, JR.Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief A orney

Supreme CourtAppointed on January 21, 2019

A y. MARIFE M. LOMIBAO-CUEVASDeputy Clerk of Court and Execu ve Offi cer

Supreme CourtAppointed on January 21, 2019

NEWLY APPOINTED SUPREME COURT OFFICIALS

A y. BRIAN KEITH F. HOSAKAAssistant Court Administrator and

Chief, Public Informa on Offi ceSupreme Court

Appointed on January 28, 2019

Judicial Views(continued from page 4)

we wrote le ers using an actual pen and paper. The closest thing that we had that can receive wireless data were pagers, fax machines, and few cell phones, and I am sure that some of our millenials do not even know what a pager is. This VCM machine is prac cally the evolu on of the an quated systems we used in the 90s. It can instantaneously transmit the result of the votes per polling precinct to the municipal or city board of canvassers a er the close of polls. In turn, the municipal or city board of canvassers can transmit in “real me,” as the tech savvy genera on calls it, the canvassed votes to the provincial board of canvassers, unless for highly urbanized ci es which directly transmit the returns to the na onal board of canvassers. The fl ow of data from the VCM all the way up to the na onal board of canvassers is seamless and secure.

But no ma er how sophis cated our technology evolves, the human hunger for power and desire to win at all cost will never be eradicated. Thus, I implore my fellow magistrates to con nue to be vigilant and to master the legal and technical aspects of the automated elec ons.

I am grateful to COMELEC and PHILJA for organizing today’s seminar. As we quickly approach the 2019 elec ons, we must be fully equipped with suffi cient legal and technical knowledge to properly adjudicate ma ers rela ng to the conduct of the upcoming polls. Our hardworking colleagues from COMELEC and PHILJA deserve our warmest applause.

I also wish to thank all of the par cipants for inves ng me and pa ence in today’s seminar. Let us con nue to

work together to ensure a clean, orderly, honest, and peaceful mid-term elec ons.


Remedial Law

Forfeiture of replevin bond – requirements

Civil Case No. 10846 is a rare instance where the writ of seizure is dissolved due to the dismissal without prejudice, but the bond stands because the case has yet to be fi nally terminated by the Regional Trial Court.

The peculiar circumstances in this case arose when pe oner failed to return the van to Asuten, despite the dismissal of her ac on. This is an instance not covered by the Rules of Court or jurisprudence. In its discre on, the Regional Trial Court proceeded to rule on the forfeiture of the bond. As a result, respondent paid Asuten twice the value of the van withheld by pe oner. Respondent, thus, seeks to recover this amount from pe oner, despite the van only being worth half the amount of the bond.

Of all the provisional remedies provided in the Rules of Court, only Rule 60, Sec on 2 requires that the amount of the bond be double the value of the property. The other provisional remedies provide that the amount be fi xed by court or be merely equal to the value of the property. x x x

x x x x

However, there is a ra onale to the requirement that the bond for a writ of seizure in a replevin be double the value of the property. The bond func ons not only to indemnify the defendant in case the property is lost, but also to answer for any damages that may be awarded by the court if the judgment is rendered in defendant’s favor. x x x

x x x x

Any applica on of the bond in a replevin case, therefore, is premised on the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. Thus, the Rules of Court imply that there must be a prior judgment on the merits before there can be any applica on on the bond.

x x x x

The Rules of Court likewise require that for the defendant to be granted the full amount of the bond, he or she must fi rst apply to the court for damages. These damages will be awarded only a er a proper hearing.

x x x x

Forfeiture of the replevin bond, therefore, requires fi rst, a judgment on the merits in the defendant’s favor, and second, an applica on by the defendant for damages. Neither circumstance appears in this case. When pe oner failed to

produce the van, equity demanded that Asuten be awarded only an amount equal to the value of the van. The Regional Trial Court would have erred in ordering the forfeiture of the en re bond in Asuten’s favor, considering that there was no trial on the merits or an applica on by Asuten for damages. This judgment could have been reversed had pe oner appealed the Regional Trial Court’s May 24, 2004 Order in Civil Case No. 10846. Unfortunately, she did not. Respondent was, thus, constrained to follow the Regional Trial Court’s direc ve to pay Asuten the full amount of the bond. Leonen, J., Milagros P. Enriquez v. The Mercan le Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 210950, August 15, 2018.

Labor Law

Mo on for reconsidera on of rulings of voluntary arbitrators should be fi led within 10 days; Appeal fi led to the Court of Appeals should be fi led within 15 days

Therea er, the Court has variantly applied either the 15-day or the 10-day period as the me within which to appeal the decisions or awards of the Voluntary Arbitrators or Panels of Arbitrators. Thus, in the 2007 ruling in Leyte IV Electric Coopera ve, Inc. v. Leyeco IV Employees Union-ALU, the Court recognized the 15-day reglementary period under Rule 43. This was reiterated in AMA Computer College-San ago City, Inc. v. Nacino (2008), Mora v. Avesco Marke ng Corpora on (2008), Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hya -NUWHRAIN-APL v. Bacungan (2009), Saint L[o]uis University, Inc. v. Cobarrubias (2010), Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hya (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN) v. Magsalin (2011) and Royal Plant Workers Union v. Coca Cola Bo lers Philippines, Inc.-Cebu Plant (2013).

But in Philippine Electric Corpora on (PHILEC) v. Court of Appeals (2014), Baronda v. Court of Appeals (2015), and NYK-FIL Ship Management, Inc. v. Dabu (2017), the Court, ci ng Ar cle 276 of the Labor Code, applied the 10-day period. Notably, the Court opined in Philippine Electric Corpora on (PHILEC) v. Court of Appeals that despite the period provided in Rule 43, the 10-day period should apply in determining the meliness of appealing the decision or award of the Voluntary

Arbitrator or Panel of Arbitrators. x x x

x x x x

In the 2010 ruling in Teng v. Pagahac, the Court clarifi ed that the 10-day period set in Ar cle 276 of the Labor Code gave the aggrieved par es the opportunity to fi le their mo on for


reconsidera on, which was more in keeping with the principle of exhaus on of administra ve remedies, holding thusly:

In the exercise of its power to promulgate implemen ng rules and regula ons, an implemen ng agency, such as the Department of Labor, is restricted from going beyond the terms of the law it seeks to implement; it should neither modify nor improve the law. The agency formula ng the rules and guidelines cannot exceed the statutory authority granted to it by the legislature.

By allowing a 10-day period, the obvious intent of Congress in amending Ar cle 263 to Ar cle 262-A is to provide an opportunity for the party adversely aff ected by the VA’s decision to seek recourse via a mo on for reconsidera on or a pe on for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court fi led with the CA. Indeed, a mo on for reconsidera on is the more appropriate remedy in line with the doctrine of exhaus on of administra ve remedies. For this reason, an appeal from administra ve agencies to the CA via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court requires exhaus on of available remedies as a condi on precedent to a pe on under that Rule.

The requirement that administra ve remedies be exhausted is based on the doctrine that in providing for a remedy before an administra ve agency, every opportunity must be given to the agency to resolve the ma er and to exhaust all opportuni es for a resolu on under the given remedy before bringing an ac on in, or resor ng to, the courts of jus ce. Where Congress has not clearly required exhaus on, sound judicial discre on governs, guided by congressional intent.

By disallowing reconsidera on of the VA’s decision, Sec on 7, Rule XIX of DO 40-03 and Sec on 7 of the 2005 Procedural Guidelines went directly against the legisla ve intent behind Ar cle 262-A of the Labor Code. These rules deny the VA the chance to correct himself and compel the courts of jus ce to prematurely intervene with the ac on of an administra ve agency entrusted with the adjudica on of controversies coming under its special knowledge, training and specifi c fi eld of exper se. In this era of clogged court dockets, the need for specialized administra ve agencies with the special knowledge, experience and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical ma ers or intricate ques ons of facts, subject to judicial review, is indispensable. In Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that relief must fi rst be obtained in an administra ve proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the ma er is within the proper jurisdic on of a court.

Hence, the 10-day period stated in Ar cle 276 should be understood as the period within which the party adversely aff ected by the ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrators or Panel of Arbitrators may fi le a mo on for reconsidera on. Only a er the resolu on of the mo on for reconsidera on may the aggrieved party appeal to the CA by fi ling the pe on

for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within 15 days from no ce pursuant to Sec on 4 of Rule 43.

The Court notes that despite the clarifi ca on made in Teng v. Pagahac, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Na onal Concilia on and Media on Board (NCMB) have not revised or amended the Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitra on Proceedings insofar as its Sec on 7 of Rule VII is concerned. This inac on has obviously sown confusion, par cularly in regard to the fi ling of the mo on for reconsidera on as a condi on precedent to the fi ling of the pe on for review in the CA. Consequently, we need to direct the DOLE and the NCMB to cause the revision or amendment of Sec on 7 of Rule VII of the Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitra on Proceedings in order to allow the fi ling of mo ons for reconsidera on in line with Ar cle 276 of the Labor Code.Bersamin, J., Guagua Na onal Colleges v. Court of Appeals, GNC Faculty and Labor Union and GNC Non-Teaching Maintenance Labor Union, G.R. No. 188492, August 28, 2018.

Civil Law

Slight delay is not suffi cient to jus fy rescission

Ar cle 1191 of the Civil Code lays down the remedies that the injured party may resort to in case of breach of a reciprocal obliga on—fulfi llment of the obliga on or rescission thereof, with damages in either case.

Thus, in a contract of sale, the vendor’s failure to pay the price agreed upon generally cons tutes breach, and extends to the vendor the right to demand the contract’s fulfi llment or rescission.

It is important to stress, however, that the right of rescission granted to the injured party under Ar cle 1191 is predicated on a breach of faith by the other party who violates the reciprocity between them. Stated otherwise, rescission may not be resorted to in the absence of breach of faith.

In this connec on, Ar cle 1592 extends to the vendee in a sale of immovable property the right to eff ect payment even a er expira on of the period agreed upon, as long as no demand for rescission has been made upon him by the vendor. The provision states:

A . 1592. In the sale of immovable property, even though it may have been s pulated that upon failure to pay the price at the me agreed upon the rescission of the contract


shall of right take place, the vendee may pay, even a er the expira on of the period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or by a notarial act. A er the made demand, the court may not grant him a new term.

A reading of Ar cle 1592 in conjunc on with Ar cle 1191 thus suggests that in the absence of any s pula on to the contrary, the vendor’s failure to pay within the period agreed upon shall not cons tute a breach of faith, so long as payment is made before the vendor demands for rescission, either judicially, or by notarial act.Caguioa, J., Spouses Antonio Beltran and Felisa Beltran v. Spouses Apolonio Cangayda, Jr. and Loreta E. Cangayda, G.R. No. 225033, August 15, 2018.

Estoppel

Ar cle 1431 of the Civil Code defi nes estoppel as follows: Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representa on is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.

And Sec on 2(a), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides: S . 2. Conclusive presump ons. The following are instances of conclusive presump ons:

(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declara on, act, or omission, inten onally and deliberately led another to believe a par cular thing is true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any li ga on arising out of such declara on, act or omission, be permi ed to falsify it.

Estoppel is a doctrine that prevents a person from adop ng an inconsistent posi on, a tude, or ac on if it will result in injury to another. One who, by his acts, representa ons or admissions, or by his own silence when he ought to speak out, inten onally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other righ ully relies and acts on such belief, can no longer deny the existence of such fact as it will prejudice the la er. The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and jus ce. It springs from equitable principles and the equi es in the case. It is designed to aid the law in the administra on of jus ce where, without its aid, injus ce might result.

To stress, respondent HSBC-SRP con nuously sent out monthly Installment Due Reminders to pe oner Rosalina despite its demand le er dated September 25, 1995 to pay the full amount of the loan obliga on within three days from receipt of the le er. It, likewise, con nuously accepted pe oner Rosalina’s subsequent monthly amor za on payments un l June 1996; thus, making their default immaterial. Moreover, there was no more demand for the payment of the full obliga on a erwards. Consequently,

pe oners were made to believe that respondent HSBC-SRP was applying their payments to their monthly loan obliga ons as it had done before. It is now estopped from enforcing its right to foreclose by reason of its acceptance of the delayed payments.

Also, Ar cle 1235 of the Civil Code provides that when the creditor accepts performance, knowing its incompleteness and irregularity without protest or objec on, the obliga on is deemed complied with. Respondent HSBC-SRP accepted Rosalina’s payment of her housing loan account for almost one year without any objec on.

Respondent HSBC-SRP argues that estoppel is not applicable since the payments upon which pe oners rely were made without its knowledge and consent; that the updated balances were automa cally generated by the system; that pe oner Rosalina made unilateral payments to her salary savings account knowing that any amount she deposited therein will be automa cally credited as payments for her loan obliga ons.

We are not persuaded.

It is respondent HSBC-SRP, not pe oner Rosalina, which has access and control of the computer system with regard to the credi ng of the housing loan payments. It cannot now deny its ac on of con nuously accep ng pe oner Rosalina’s monthly amor za ons, coupled with the sending out of installment due reminders, and statements of her updated housing loan account to prejudice pe oners who relied thereon.Peralta, J., Spouses Gildardo C. Loquellano and Rosalina Juliet B. Loquellano v. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpora on, Ltd., Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpora on-Staff Re rement Plan and Manuel Estacion, G.R. No. 200553, December 10, 2018.

A special proceeding for declara on of heirship not necessary in the present case, considering that the par es voluntarily submi ed the issue of heirship before the trial court

Although the principal ac on in this case was for the recovery of ownership and possession of the subject land, it is necessary to pass upon the rela onship of Ambrosio to Marcelino for the purpose of determining what legal rights he may have in the subject land which he can pass to his heirs, pe oners herein. Notably, the issue of whether or not Ambrosio is one of the children of Marcelino was squarely raised by both par es in their respec ve pre-trial briefs. Hence, insofar as the par es in this case are concerned, the trial court is empowered to make a declara on of heirship, if only to resolve the issue of ownership.

To be sure, while the Court, in Yap nchay, ruled that a declara on of heirship can only be made in a special proceeding inasmuch as what is sought is the establishment of a status or right, by way of excep on, the Court, in Heirs

Doctrinal RemindersCivil Law (continued)


of Ypon v. Ricaforte, declared that “the need to ins tute a separate special proceeding for the determina on of heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of prac cality, as when the par es in the civil case had voluntarily submi ed the issue to the trial court and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship,” and “the [trial court] had consequently rendered judgment upon the issues it defi ned during the pre-trial,” as in this case. Indeed, recourse to administra on proceedings to determine who the heirs are is sanc oned only if there are good and compelling reasons for such recourse, which is absent herein, as both par es voluntarily submi ed the issue of Ambrosio’s heirship with Marcelino before the trial court and presented their respec ve evidence thereon. Thus, the case falls under the excep on, and there is no need to ins tute a separate special proceeding for the declara on of Ambrosio’s heirship. Perlas-Bernabe, J., Heirs of Paula C. Fabillar v. Miguel M. Paller, et al., G.R. No. 231459, January 21, 2019.

Recons tuted tle null and void if issued upon land that had been earlier tled in the name of another

In its Urgent Mo on to Li Order of General Default with Mo on to Admit A ached Opposi on fi led before the RTC, respondent alleged and admi ed that its tle—TCT No. T-6874, was derived from the same Original Cer fi cate of Title No. 1002, pursuant to the same Decree No. 101200, and was issued from the same LRC Record No. 8843 as pe oners’ tle, TCT No. T-3269. The only diff erence is that its TCT No. T-6874 was entered only on March 21, 1963, while pe oners’ TCT No. T-3269 was entered on March 21, 1956, or much earlier.

On its face, therefore, respondent’s tle—TCT No. T-6874—is null and void, for it was issued upon land that had been earlier tled in the name of another, namely, Basilio Aquino—pe oners’ supposed predecessor-in-interest.

In this jurisdic on, it is se led that in the case of two cer fi cates of tle purpor ng to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails.

In Degollacion v. Register of Deeds of Cavite we held that if two cer fi cates of tle purport to include the same land, whether wholly or partly, the be er approach is to trace the original cer fi cates from which the cer fi cates of tle were derived. Ci ng our earlier ruling in Mathay v. Court of Appeals we declared:

x x x where two transfer cer fi cates of tle have been issued on diff erent dates, to two diff erent persons, for the same parcel of land even if both are presumed to be tle holders in good faith, it does not necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier tle should prevail. On the assump on that there was regularity in the registra on leading to the eventual issuance of subject transfer cer fi cates of tle, the be er approach is to trace the original cer fi cates

from which the cer fi cates of tle in dispute were derived. Should there be only one common original cer fi cate of tle, x x x, the transfer cer fi cate issued on an earlier

date along the line must prevail, absent any anomaly or irregularity tain ng the process of registra on.

By respondent’s own admission, its tle is subordinate to pe oners’. In fact, it is patently null and void on its face, because it could not have acquired tle upon land already earlier registered in the name of another. Primus tempore, po or jure—fi rst in me, stronger in right. For this reason, respondent has no right—and no personality—to intervene in the recons tu on proceedings ins tuted by the pe oners.

It was evident from respondent’s own pleadings fi led with the courts that its purported rights to the property were non-existent, having for their basis a tle that was issued upon property that was already previously registered in the name of another. Indeed, respondent has no conceivable right to the property, having for its basis a void tle that came a er the same property was already transferred to and owned by another—in this case, the pe oners’ predecessor-in-interest Basilio Aquino. Del Cas llo, J., Virgilia T. Aquino, et al., v. Estate of Tomas B. Aguirre, G.R. No. 232060, January 14, 2019.

Land Registra on Law

Indefeasibility of tle not a defense when a cer fi cate of tle is issued over an inalienable land of the public domain

As a rule, a cer fi cate of tle issued pursuant to a homestead patent partakes the nature of a cer fi cate of tle issued through a judicial proceeding and becomes incontrover ble upon the expira on of one year. x x x

x x x x

Nevertheless, the rule that “a cer fi cate of tle issued pursuant to a homestead patent becomes indefeasible a er one year, is subject to the proviso that ‘the land covered by said cer fi cate is a disposable public land within the contempla on of the Public Land Law.’”

When the property covered by a homestead patent is part of the inalienable land of the public domain, the tle issued pursuant to it is null and void, and the rule on indefeasibility of tle will not apply. x x x

x x x x

In Republic v. Ramos, this Court held that despite the registra on of the land and the issuance of a Torrens tle,


the State may s ll fi le an ac on for reversion of a homestead land that was granted in viola on of the law. The ac on is not barred by the statute of limita ons, especially against the State. x x x

x x x x

Likewise, Spouses De Guzman v. Agbagala did not apply the principle of indefeasibility where “the patent and the tle based thereon are null and void.” x x x

x x x x

Heirs of Spouses Vda. De Palanca v. Republic also held that the State may recover non-disposable public lands registered under the Land Registra on Act “at any me and the defense of res judicata would not apply as courts have no jurisdic on to dispose of such lands of the public domain.”

As this Court ruled in that case, Lot No. H-19731, the land covered by Homestead Patent No. V-67820, is s ll part of the inalienable lands of the public domain there being no posi ve act declassifying it. Consequently, OCT No. G-3287, issued pursuant to Homestead Patent No. V-67820, is null and void. Thus, the State is not estopped from ins tu ng an ac on for the reversion of Lot No. H-19731 into the lands of the public domain.

Lands of the public domain can only be classifi ed as alienable and disposable through a posi ve act of the government. The State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake, or error of its offi cials or agents. It may revert the land at any me, where the concession or disposi on is void ab ini o.

Leonen, J., Republic of the Philippines v. Heirs of Ignacio Daquer and the Register of Deeds, Province of Palawan, G.R. No. 193657, September 4, 2018.

Criminal Law

As long as the qualifying circumstance is recited in the informa on it is deemed pleaded in the informa on

Mercado faults both the RTC and the CA for raising the crime to Murder by apprecia ng the qualifying circumstance of use of fi re. He asserts that only the qualifying circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premedita on were alleged in the Informa on. Thus, the courts erred in apprecia ng the qualifying circumstance of use of fi re.

The argument deserves scant considera on.

The test of suffi ciency of an Informa on is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know

the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly. The rule is that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Informa on in order not to violate the accused’s cons tu onal right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusa on against him. The Informa on is suffi cient as long as the qualifying circumstance is recited in the Informa on, regardless of whether designated as aggrava ng or qualifying, or whether wri en separately in another paragraph or lumped together with the general averments in a single paragraph. The purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for his defense, precluding surprises during the trial.

With the foregoing legal principles in mind, it is necessary then to determine whether the Informa on in this case suffi ciently informed the accused of the accusa on against him. To recall, the accusatory por on of the Informa on states:

That on or about the 15th day of October 2007, in the municipality of Sta. Maria, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdic on of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a baseball bat and with intent to kill Alicia Mercado-Lusuriaga and Evelyn Santos, live-in partners, with evident premedita on, treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously a ack, assault, hit them with the said baseball bat and pour gasoline into their bodies and light them thereby causing upon them third degree burns which directly caused their instantaneous death and the burning of [the] vic m’s house.

Contrary to law.

A reading of the afore-quoted por on of the Informa on readily reveals that while the “use of fi re” was not explicitly men oned as a qualifying circumstance, the Informa on nevertheless narrate with suffi ciency that Mercado was being accused of “causing x x x third degree burns [against the vic ms] which directly caused their instantaneous death.” It escapes the mind of the Court how one could be accused of “causing x x x third degree burns” without necessarily saying that he or she used fi re in the process.

Caguioa, J., People of the Philippines v. Patrick John Mercado y An cla, G.R. No. 218702, October 17, 2018.

Elements of Syndicated Estafa

Thus, the elements of Syndicated Estafa are: (a) Estafa or Other Forms of Swindling, as defi ned in Ar cles 315 and 316 of the RPC, is commi ed; (b) the Estafa or Swindling is commi ed by a syndicate of fi ve or more persons; and (c) defrauda on results in the misappropria on of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, coopera ve, “samahang nayon(s),” or farmers’ associa on,

Doctrinal RemindersLand Registration Law (continued)


or of funds solicited by corpora ons/associa ons from the general public.

In this case, a judicious review of the records reveals that Felix and his co-accused repeatedly induced the public to invest in Everfl ow on the undertaking that their investment would yield a huge percentage of returns. Under such lucra ve promise, the public—as represented by private complainants— were en ced to invest their hard-earned money into Everfl ow. Ini ally, Everfl ow would deliver on their promise, thus “hooking” the unwary investors into infusing more funds into it. However, as the Everfl ow offi cers/directors, i.e., Felix and his co-accused, knew from the start that Everfl ow had no clear trade by which it can pay the assured profi ts to its investors, they could no longer comply with their guarantee and had to simply abscond with their investors’ funds. It is se led that “where one states that the future profi ts or income of an enterprise shall be a certain sum, but he actually knows that there will be none, or that they will be substan ally less than he represents, the statements cons tute an ac onable fraud where the hearer believes him and relies on the statement to his injury,” as in this case.

Lest it be misunderstood, not all proposals to invest in certain business ventures are tainted with fraud. To be sure, an ac onable fraud arises when the accused has knowledge that the venture proposed would not reasonably yield the promised results, and yet, despite such knowledge, deliberately con nues with the misrepresenta on. Business investments ordinarily carry risks; but for as long as the incipient representa ons related thereto are legi mate and made in good faith, the fact that the business eventually fails to succeed or skews from its intended targets does not mean that there is fraud. As case law instructs, “the gravamen of the [crime of Estafa] is the employment of fraud or deceit to the damage or prejudice of another. When fraud pertains to the means of commi ng a crime or the classes of crimes under Chapter Three, Title Four, Book Two and Chapter Three, Title Seven, Book Two of the RPC, criminal liability may arise; otherwise, if fraud merely causes loss or injury to another, without being an element of a crime, then it may only be classifi ed as civil fraud from which an ac on for damages may arise.

x x x x

In this light, the courts a quo correctly found that all the elements of Syndicated Estafa are present in the instant case, as shown in the following circumstances: (a) the offi cers/directors of Everfl ow, comprising of Felix and his co-accused who are more than fi ve people made false pretenses and representa ons to the inves ng public, i.e., private complainants, regarding a lucra ve investment opportunity with Everfl ow in order to solicit money from them; (b) the said false pretenses and representa ons were made prior

to and simultaneous with the commission of fraud, which is made more apparent by the fact that Everfl ow was not authorized by the Securi es and Exchange Commission to solicit investments from the public in the fi rst place; (c) relying on the same, private complainants invested various amounts of money into Everfl ow; and (d) Felix and his co-accused failed to deliver their promised returns and ended up running away with private complainants’ investments, obviously to the la er’s prejudice.

Thus, the Court fi nds no reason to deviate from the factual fi nding of the trial court, as affi rmed by the CA, as there is no indica on that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the trial court was in the best posi on to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both par es, and hence, due deference should be accorded to the same. As such, Felix’s convic on for 21 counts of Syndicated Estafa must be upheld. Accordingly, he should suff er the penalty of life imprisonment for each count of the aforesaid crime.Perlas-Bernabe, J., The People of the Philippines v. Felix Aquino, Iris Aquino (deceased), Eleanor Macabbalug (at-large), Genalyn Nasol (at-large), Arturo Delgado, Jr. (at-large), Pearl Militar (at-large) and Catherine Anna Dela Cruz (at-large), G.R. No. 234818, November 5, 2018.

Remedial Law

The uncons tu onality of Sec on 14 of RA No. 6770 immaterial insofar as the appellate procedure for orders and decisions by the Ombudsman in criminal cases is concerned

A thorough reading of the Morales decision, therefore, would reveal that it was limited in its applica on—that it was meant to cover only decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in administra ve cases. The Court never in mated, much less categorically stated, that it was abandoning its rulings in Kuizon and Estrada and the dis nc on made therein between the appellate recourse for decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in administra ve and non-administra ve cases. Bearing in mind that Morales dealt with an interlocutory order in an administra ve case, it cannot thus be read to apply to decisions or orders of the Ombudsman in non-administra ve or criminal cases.

x x x xIn Kuizon v. Desierto and Mendoza-Arce v. Offi ce of the Ombudsman, we held that this Court has jurisdic on over pe ons for cer orari ques oning resolu ons or orders of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. For administra ve cases, however, we declared in the case of Dagan v.


Offi ce of the Ombudsman (Visayas) that the pe on should be fi led with the Court of Appeals in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The Dagan ruling homogenized the procedural rule with respect to administra ve cases falling within the jurisdic on of the Ombudsman—fi rst enunciated in Fabian v. Desierto— that is, all remedies involving the orders, direc ves, or decisions of the Ombudsman in administra ve cases, whether by an appeal under Rule 43 or a pe on for cer orari under Rule 65, must be fi led with the Court of Appeals.

x x x x

The Ombudsman’s determina on of probable cause may only be assailed through cer orari proceedings before this Court on the ground that such determina on is tainted with grave abuse of discre on. x x x

x x x x

Gatchalian’s conten on that the uncons tu onality of Sec on 14 of RA No. 6770 declared in Morales equally applies to both administra ve and criminal cases—and thus the CA from then on had jurisdic on to entertain pe ons for cer orari under Rule 65 to ques on orders and decisions arising from criminal cases—is simply misplaced. Sec on 14 of RA No. 6770 was declared uncons tu onal because it trampled on the rule-making powers of the Court by 1) prescribing the mode of appeal, which was by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, for all cases whether fi nal or not; and 2) rendering nugatory the cer orari jurisdic on of the CA over incidents arising from administra ve cases.

The uncons tu onality of Sec on 14 of RA No. 6770, therefore, did not necessarily have an eff ect over the appellate procedure for orders and decisions arising from criminal cases precisely because the said procedure was not prescribed by the aforemen oned sec on. To recall, the rule that decisions or orders of the Ombudsman fi nding the existence of probable cause (or the lack thereof) should be ques oned through a pe on for cer orari under Rule 65 fi led with the Supreme Court was laid down by the Court itself in the cases of Kuizon, Tirol Jr., Mendoza-Arce v. Ombudsman, Estrada, and subsequent cases affi rming the said rule. The rule was, therefore, not anchored on Sec on 14 of RA No. 6770, but was instead a rule prescribed by the Court in the exercise of its rule-making powers. The declara on of uncons tu onality of Sec on 14 of RA No. 6770 was therefore immaterial insofar as the appellate procedure for orders and decisions by the Ombudsman in criminal cases is concerned.

The argument therefore that the promulga on of the Morales decision—a case which involved an interlocutory order arising from an administra ve case, and which did not categorically abandon the cases of Kuizon, Tirol, Jr., Mendoza-Arce, and Estrada—gave the CA cer orari jurisdic on over fi nal orders and decisions arising from non-administra ve or

criminal cases is clearly untenable. Caguioa, J., Sherwin T. Gatchalian v. Offi ce of the Ombudsman and Field Inves ga on Offi ce of the Offi ce of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 229288, August 1, 2018.

Non-compliance with prior barangay concilia on process not a jurisdic onal requirement

Li ed from Presiden al Decree No. 1508, otherwise known as the “Katarungang Pambarangay Law,” the primordial objec ve of a prior barangay concilia on is to reduce the number of court li ga ons and prevent the deteriora on of the quality of jus ce which has been brought by the indiscriminate fi ling of cases in courts. Subject to certain exemp ons, a party’s failure to comply with this requirement before fi ling a case in court would render his complaint dismissible on the ground of failure to comply with a condi on precedent, pursuant to Sec on 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

Notably, in Aquino v. Aure, the Court clarifi ed that such concilia on process is not a jurisdic onal requirement, such that non-compliance therewith cannot aff ect the jurisdic on which the court has otherwise acquired over the subject ma er or over the person of the defendant, viz.:

Ordinarily, non-compliance with the condi on precedent [of prior barangay concilia on] could aff ect the suffi ciency of the plain ff ’s cause of ac on and make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on [the] ground of lack of cause of ac on or prematurity; but the same would not prevent a court of competent jurisdic on from exercising its power of adjudica on over the case before it, where the defendants, as in this case, failed to object to such exercise of jurisdic on in their answer and even during the en re proceedings a quo.

Similarly, in Banares II v. Balising, it was men oned that the non-referral of a case for barangay concilia on when so required under the law is not jurisdic onal in nature, and may therefore be deemed waived if not raised seasonably in a mo on to dismiss or in a responsive pleading.

Here, the ground of non-compliance with a condi on precedent, i.e., undergoing prior barangay concilia on proceedings, was not invoked at the earliest opportunity, as in fact, respondent was declared in default for failure to fi le a responsive pleading despite due no ce. Therefore, it was grave error for the courts a quo to order the dismissal of pe oner’s complaint on said ground. Hence, in order to rec fy the situa on, the Court fi nds it proper that the case be reinstated and remanded to the MCTC, which is the court of origin, for its resolu on on the merits.

Perlas-Bernabe, J., Elizabeth M. Lansangan v. Antonio S. Caisip, G.R. No. 212987, August 6, 2018.

Doctrinal RemindersRemedial Law (continued)


Court acquires jurisdic on where insuffi cient fi ling fees were paid provided there was no inten on to defraud the government

In line with this legal paradigm, prevailing case law demonstrates that “[t]he non-payment of the prescribed fi ling fees at the me of the fi ling of the complaint or other ini atory pleading fails to vest jurisdic on over the case in the trial court. Yet, where the plain ff has paid the amount of fi ling fees assessed by the clerk of court, and the amount paid turns out to be defi cient, the trial court s ll acquires jurisdic on over the case, subject to the payment by the plain ff of the defi ciency assessment.” “The reason is that to penalize the party for the omission of the clerk of court is not fair if the party has acted in good faith.”

Thus, in the cases of Rivera v. del Rosario, Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. v. Navarro, United Overseas Bank v. Ros (United Overseas Bank), and The Heirs of Reinoso, Sr. v. CA, the Court has consistently ruled that jurisdic on was validly acquired by the courts a quo therein upon the full payment of the docket fees as assessed by the clerk of court. In these cases, the Court held that the liberal doctrine in the ma er of paying docket fees enunciated in Sun Insurance, and not the strict regula ons set in Manchester, will apply in cases where insuffi cient fi ling fees were paid based on the assessment made by the clerk of court, provided that there was no inten on to defraud the government. In so ruling, the Court explained that when there is underpayment of docket fees, the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy has the responsibility of making a defi ciency assessment, and the party fi ling the ac on would be required to pay the defi ciency which shall cons tute a lien on the judgment.

In this case, it is undisputed that the amount of P500 paid by pe oner was insuffi cient to cover the required fi ling fees for her estafa case under the premises of Sec on 21, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC. Nonetheless, it is equally undisputed that she paid the full amount of docket fees as assessed by the Clerk of Court of the MTC, which is evidenced by a cer fi ca on dated April 11, 2016 issued therefor. In addi on, pe oner consistently manifested her willingness to pay addi onal docket fees when required. In her pe on, she claims that she is “very much willing to pay the correct docket fees which is the reason why she immediately went to the clerks of court[,] and records show that she paid the [MTC] of the amount assessed from her.” Indeed, the foregoing actua ons negate any bad faith on pe oner’s part, much more belie any intent to defraud the government. As such, applying the principles above-discussed, the Court holds that the court a quo properly acquired jurisdic on over the case. However, pe oner should pay the defi ciency that shall be considered as a lien on

the monetary awards in her favor pursuant to Sec on 2, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, x x x

Perlas-Bernabe, J., Isabel G. Ramones v. Spouses Teodorico Guimoc, Jr. and Elenita Guimoc, G.R. No. 226645, August 13, 2018.

Instances when invoca on lack of jurisdic on is barred by estoppel

Where there is no jurisdic on over a subject ma er, the judgment is rendered null and void. A void judgment has absolutely no legal eff ect, “by which no rights are divested, from which no rights can be obtained, which neither binds nor bars any one, and under which all acts performed and all claims fl owing out of are void.” Because there is in eff ect no judgment, res judicata does not apply to commencing another ac on despite previous adjudica ons already made.

However, this Court has discussed with great nuance the legal principle enunciated in Tijam. Estoppel by laches bars a party from invoking lack of jurisdic on in an unjustly belated manner especially when it ac vely par cipated during trial.

x x x x

x x x Tijam set a precedent to stop legal machina ons where jurisdic on was raised at the very last minute when the par es have already gone through long years of li ga on. It was not so much an issue of me than it was an issue of fairness. Though conferred by law, fairness and equity must temper the par es’ bravado to raise jurisdic on when they have par cipated in proceedings in the lower courts or when an unfavorable judgment against them has been rendered.

x x x x

In summary, Tijam applies to a party claiming lack of subject ma er jurisdic on when:

(1) there was a statutory right in favor of the claimant;

(2) the statutory right was not invoked;

(3) an unreasonable length of time lapsed before the claimant raised the issue of jurisdic on;

(4) the claimant ac vely par cipated in the case and sought affi rma ve relief from the court without jurisdic on;

(5) the claimant knew or had construc ve knowledge of which forum possesses subject ma er jurisdic on;

(6) irreparable damage will be caused to the other party who relied on the forum and the claimant’s implicit waiver.

Tijam applies in this case. The allega ons, determina ve of subject ma er jurisdic on, were apparent on the face of the Complaint. The law that determines jurisdic on of the Na onal Housing Authority had been in place for more than a


decade when the Complaint was fi led. St. Joseph Realty raised lack of jurisdic on in its Answer. Pe oners sought affi rma ve relief from the Regional Trial Court and ac vely par cipated in all stages of the proceedings. Therefore, there was no valid reason for pe oners to raise the issue of jurisdic on only now before this Court.Leonen, J., Gregorio Amoguis and Tito Amoguis v. Concepcion Ballado and Mary Grace Ballado Ledesma and St. Joseph Realty, Ltd., G.R. No. 189626, August 20, 2018.

Judge not bound to suspend arraignment a er the lapse of 60 days from fi ling of pe on with reviewing offi ce

Pe oners insist that respondent judge should have deferred from conduc ng further proceedings on the amended informa on and on the issuance of a warrant considering the pendency of their Pe on for Review before the Department of Jus ce. They cite Rule 116, Sec on 11(c) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:

R 116A P

S . 11. Suspension of arraignment. – Upon mo on by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases:

x x x x

(c) A pe on for review of the resolu on of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Jus ce, or the Offi ce of the President; provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed 60 days counted from the fi ling of the pe on with the reviewing offi ce.

Rule 116, Sec on 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure pertains to a suspension of an arraignment in case of a pending pe on for review before the Department of Jus ce. It does not suspend the execu on of a warrant of arrest for the purpose of acquiring jurisdic on over the person of an accused.

In the assailed February 26, 2009 Order, Judge Pamular denied Corpus’ mo on to defer or suspend arraignment and further proceedings. Pe oners claim that he should have suspended ac on on the issuance of a warrant considering the pendency of their Pe on for Review before the Department of Jus ce, ci ng Ledesma v. Court of Appeals and Tolen no v. Bonifacio as their bases. Furthermore, they also assert that the assailed Order defi es Rule 116, Sec on 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Rule 116, Sec on 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the grounds for suspension of arraignment. Upon mo on by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in case of a pending pe on for review of the prosecutor’s resolu on fi led before the Department of Jus ce.

Pe oners fi led a Manifesta on and Mo on dated February 9, 2009 before the Regional Trial Court, informing it about their pending Pe on for Review of the Prosecutor’s January 26, 2009 Resolu on before the Department of Jus ce. Thus, respondent judge commi ed an error when he denied pe oners’ mo on to suspend the arraignment of Corpus because of the pendency of their Pe on for Review before the Department of Jus ce.

However, this Court’s rule merely requires a maximum 60-day period of suspension counted from the fi ling of a pe on with the reviewing offi ce. Consequently, therefore, a er the expira on of the 60-day period, “the trial court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the mo on to defer arraignment.”

Pe oners jointly fi led their Pe on for Review before the Department of Jus ce on February 9, 2009. Thus, the 60-day period has already lapsed since April 10, 2009. Hence, respondent judge can now con nue with the arraignment and further proceedings with regard to pe oner Corpus.

Leonen, J., Mayor “Jong” Amado Corpus, Jr. and Carlito Samonte v. Hon. Judge Ramon D. Pamular of Branch 33, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Mrs. Pricilla Espinosa, and Nueva Ecija Provincial Public Prosecutor Floro Florendo, G.R. No. 186403, September 5, 2018.

Prior disclosure of a pending iden cal ac on does not absolve a party who commi ed forum shopping

On this ma er, it must be clarifi ed that contrary to the opinion of the CA, the fact that the respondent has disclosed and a ached a copy of its Mo on for Reconsidera on does not negate actual forum shopping. This is because the essence of forum shopping is not on the non-disclosure of pending “iden cal” ac ons, but in the ins tu on thereof.

As explained by the Court in Spouses Melo v. CA, compliance with the rule on cer fi ca on against forum shopping is “separate from, and independent of, the avoidance of forum shopping itself.” Thus, the variance with respect to imposable sanc ons in case of viola on—“[t]he former is merely a cause for the dismissal, without prejudice, of the complaint or ini atory pleading, while the la er is a ground for summary dismissal thereof and cons tutes direct contempt.” Consequently, the mere proper execu on of a cer fi ca on against non-forum shopping does not automa cally absolve a party who has otherwise commi ed forum shopping.

A. Reyes, Jr., J., Hon. Leila M. De Lima, in her capacity as Secretary of Jus ce v. City of Manila, represented by Mayor Joseph Ejercito Estrada, G.R. No. 222886, October 17, 2018.

Third party standing – requirements

Thus, while juridical persons, like an associa on, are endowed with the capacity to sue or be sued, it must demonstrate



substan al interest that it has sustained or will sustain direct injury. Assuming a hospital is found liable for viola ng the provisions of RA No. 10932, the liability or direct injury inures not to the pe oner associa on itself but to the member-hospital.

To be sure, the rule on standing admits of recognized excep ons: the over breadth doctrine, taxpayer suits, third party standing and the doctrine of transcendental importance. To fall under the third party excep on, an associa on fi ling a case on behalf of its members must not only show that it stands to suff er direct injury, but also that it has been duly authorized by its members to represent them or sue in their behalf.

In this case, while pe oner successfully averred that it is a non-stock, non-profi t organiza on, exis ng under the laws of the Philippines and iden fi ed its members being the sole na onal organiza on of purely privately owned clinics, hospitals or other health facili es in the Philippines, dedicated to the management and concerns of private hospitals in the country, it failed to demonstrate that ample authority had been extended to it by its members to fi le the instant pe on.

The a ached Board Resolu ons and Secretary’s Cer fi cate merely state that the “members of the [pe oner], view [RA No. 10932] as [uncons tu onal] with respect to its penal provisions or Sec on 4 thereof, the same being oppressive and confi scatory; and with respect to its provision on ‘Presump on of Liability’ or Sec on 5 thereof, which is u erly against the Cons tu onal provision on ‘Presump on of Innocence’” without authorizing pe oner to fi le the necessary pe on to ques on the cons tu onality of the law before any court. Pe oner therefore cannot benefi t from the third party excep on to the requirement of locus standi.

Tijam, J., Private Hospitals Associa on of the Philippines, Inc. (PHAPi) v. Hon. Salvador Medialdea, G.R. No. 234448, November 6, 2018.

Demurrer to evidence

A demurrer to evidence is fi led a er the prosecu on has rested its case and the trial court is required to evaluate whether the evidence presented by the prosecu on is suffi cient enough to warrant the convic on of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If the court fi nds that the evidence is not suffi cient and grants the demurrer to evidence, such dismissal of the case is one on the merits, which is equivalent to the acqui al of the accused. Well-established is the rule that the Court cannot review an order gran ng the demurrer to evidence and acqui ng the accused on the ground of insuffi ciency of evidence because to do so will place the accused in double jeopardy.

The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without excep ons. It has been held in the past that the only instance

when the accused can be barred from invoking his right against double jeopardy is when it can be demonstrated that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discre on amoun ng to lack or excess of jurisdic on, such as where the prosecu on was not allowed the opportunity to make its case against the accused or where the trial was a sham. For instance, there is no double jeopardy (1) where the trial court prematurely terminated the presenta on of the prosecu on’s evidence and forthwith dismissed the informa on for insuffi ciency of evidence; and (2) where the case was dismissed at a me when the case was not ready for trial and adjudica on.

In the instant case, the Court fi nds that the elements of double jeopardy are present herein. A valid informa on was fi led against respondents for viola on of Sec on 261(w)(b) of the Omnibus Elec on Code resul ng in the ins tu on of a criminal case before the proper court of competent jurisdic on. Subsequently, respondents pleaded not guilty to the off ense charged and were acqui ed; the dismissal of the case against them being based on a demurrer to evidence fi led a er the prosecu on rested its case.

It must be noted, moreover, that while an acqui al by virtue of a demurrer to evidence may be subject to review via a pe on for cer orari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, not by a pe on for review under Rule 45 like in this case, there is no showing that the RTC commi ed grave abuse of discre on amoun ng to lack or excess of jurisdic on or a denial of due process. “Grave abuse of discre on has been defi ned as that capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdic on. ‘The abuse of discre on must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a posi ve duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contempla on of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despo c manner by reason of passion and hos lity.’ The party ques oning the acqui al of an accused should be able to clearly establish that the trial court blatantly abused its discre on such that it was deprived of its authority to dispense jus ce.”

Peralta, J., People of the Philippines v. Randolph S. Ting and Salvacion I. Garcia, G.R. No. 221505, December 5, 2018.

A mortgage creditor cannot pursue an ac on for collec on in case there is a defi ciency a er the judicial foreclosure of mortgaged property

In case of a loan secured by a mortgage, the creditor has a single cause of ac on against the debtor—the recovery of the credit with execu on upon the security. The creditor cannot split his single cause of ac on by fi ling a complaint on the loan, and therea er another separate complaint for foreclosure of the mortgage. This is the ruling in the case of Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Icarangal x x x.


x x x x

In PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. Dai cited by respondents, the specifi c issue of whether a judgment in a replevin case would bar a subsequent ac on for defi ciency judgment was raised. The Court resolved the ques on in the affi rma ve x x x.

x x x x

x x x [R]eplevin is, as the above-cited BA Finance Corp. case holds, usually described as a mixed ac on.

Replevin, broadly understood, is both a form of principal remedy and of a provisional relief. It may refer either to the ac on itself, i.e., to regain the possession of personal cha els being wrongfully detained from the plain ff by another, or to the provisional remedy that would allow the plain ff to retain the thing during the pendency of the ac on and hold it pendente lite. The ac on is primarily possessory in nature and generally determines nothing more than the right of possession. Replevin is so usually described as a mixed ac on, being partly in rem and partly in personam—in rem insofar as the recovery of specifi c property is concerned, and in personam as regards to damages involved. As an ac on in rem, the gist of the replevin ac on is the right of the plain ff to obtain possession of specifi c personal property by reason of his being the owner or of his having a special interest therein.

Pe oner’s complaint for replevin was doubtless a mixed ac on—in rem with respect to its prayer for the recovery of the vessel, and in personam with respect to its claim for damages. And it was, with respect to its alterna ve prayer, clearly one in personam.

x x x x

The Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Icarangal and PCI Leasing & Finance, Inc. v. Dai rulings were reiterated in Allandale Sportsline Inc. v. The Good Development Corpora on, where this Court ruled that –

By causing the auc on sale of the mortgaged proper es, respondent eff ec vely adopted and pursued the remedy of extrajudicial foreclosure, using the writ of replevin as a tool to get hold of the mortgaged proper es. As emphasized in Bachrach, one eff ect of respondent’s elec on of the remedy of extrajudicial foreclosure is its waiver of the remedy of collec on of the unpaid loan.

x x x xHowever, another eff ect of its elec on of the remedy

of extrajudicial foreclosure is that whatever defi ciency remains a er applying the proceeds of the auc on sale to the total loan obliga on may s ll be recovered by respondent.

But to recover any defi ciency a er foreclosure, the rule is that a mortgage creditor must ins tute an

independent civil ac on. However, in PCI Leasing & Finance, Inc. v. Dai[,] the Court held that the claim should at least be included in the pre-trial brief. In said case, the mortgage-creditor had foreclosed on the mortgaged proper es and sold the same at public auc on during the trial on the ac on for damages with replevin. A er judgment on the replevin case was rendered, the mortgage-creditor fi led another case, this me for the defi ciency amount. The Court dismissed the second case on the ground of res judicata, no ng that:

Pe oner ignores the fact that it prayed in the replevin case that in the event manual delivery of the vessel could not be eff ected, the court render judgment in its favor by ordering [herein respondents] to pay x x x the sum of P3,502,095 plus interest and penalty thereon from October 12, 1994 un l fully paid as provided in the Promissory Note.

Since pe oner had extrajudicially foreclosed the cha el mortgage over the vessel even before the pre-trial of the case, it should have therein raised as issue during the pre-trial the award of a defi ciency judgment. A er all, the basis of its above-stated alterna ve prayer was the same as that of its prayer for replevin—the default of respondents in the payment of the monthly installments of their loan. But it did not.

Finally, in Marilag v. Mar nez, the Bachrach ruling was once more referenced, and the Court therein ruled, as follows:

Pe oner’s conten on that the judicial foreclosure and collec on cases enforce independent rights must, therefore, fail because the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and the subject PN both refer to one and the same obliga on, i.e., Rafael’s loan obliga on. As such, there exists only one cause of ac on for a single breach of that obliga on. Pe oner cannot split her cause of ac on on Rafael’s unpaid loan obliga on by fi ling a pe on for the judicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage covering the said loan, and, therea er, a personal ac on for the collec on of the unpaid balance of said obliga on not comprising a defi ciency arising from foreclosure, without viola ng the proscrip on against spli ng a single cause of ac on, where the ground for dismissal is either res judicata or li s penden a, as in this case.

x x x xFurther on the point, the fact that no foreclosure sale

appears to have been conducted is of no moment because the remedy of foreclosure of mortgage is deemed chosen upon the fi ling of the complaint therefor. In Suico Ra an & Buri Interiors, Inc. v. CA, it was explained:

x x x In sustaining the rule that prohibits mortgage creditors from pursuing both the remedies of a personal ac on for debt or a real ac on to foreclose the mortgage, the Court held in the case of Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Esteban Icarangal, et al. that a rule which would authorize the plain ff to bring a personal ac on against the debtor and simultaneously or successively another ac on



against the mortgaged property, would result not only in mul plicity of suits so off ensive to jus ce and obnoxious to law and equity, but also in subjec ng the defendant to the vexa on of being sued in the place of his residence or of the residence of the plain ff , and then again in the place where the property lies. Hence, a remedy is deemed chosen upon the fi ling of the suit for collec on or upon the fi ling of the complaint in an ac on for foreclosure of mortgage, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 68 of the Rules of Court. As to extrajudicial foreclosure, such remedy is deemed elected by the mortgage creditor upon fi ling of the pe on not with any court of jus ce but with the offi ce of the sheriff of the province where the sale is to be made, in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118.

As pe oner had already ins tuted judicial foreclosure proceedings over the mortgaged property, she is now barred from availing herself of an ordinary ac on for collec on, regardless of whether or not the decision in the foreclosure case had a ained fi nality. In fi ne, the dismissal of the collec on case is in order.

Contrary to pe oner’s stance, the pronouncements in Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Icarangal and PCI Leasing & Finance, Inc. v. Dai apply to the instant case. Par cularly, the PCI Leasing case is squarely applicable; the CA commi ed no error in invoking the ruling in said case. By failing to seek a defi ciency judgment in Civil Case No. CEB-22294 a er its case for recovery of possession was resolved, pe oner is barred from ins tu ng another ac on for such defi ciency. x x x

Del Cas llo, J., Central Visayas Finance Corpora on v. Spouses Eliezer S. Adlawan, et al., G.R. No. 212674, March 25, 2019.

A.M. NO. 08-8-7-SC

RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 2 AND 8 OF A.M. NO. 08-8-7-SC OR THE REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE

FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, in its November 21, 2000 Resolu on in A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, the Supreme Court approved the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, which took eff ect on October 1, 2008 and was implemented in 22 pilot courts na onwide;

WHEREAS, in its March 18, 2010 Resolu on in A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, the Court promulgated the Amended Rules of Procedure

for Small Claims Cases and made it eff ec ve to all fi rst level courts na onwide, the prominent feature of which included fi xing the jurisdic onal amount at One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000);

WHEREAS, in Memorandum Order No. 32-2015 dated August 11, 2015, the Special Commi ee on Small Claims Cases (Commi ee) was created to “review the exis ng Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases to fulfi ll the Judiciary’s objec ve of expedi ng trial and resolving cases eff ec vely and effi ciently”;

WHEREAS, in its December 8, 2015 Resolu on in A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, the Court, upon the recommenda on of the Commi ee, its Chairperson and its Technical Working Group (TWG), approved the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, which took eff ect on February 1, 2016, and increased the threshold amount from One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000);

WHEREAS, in its July 19, 2018 Resolu on in A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, the Court, upon the recommenda on of the Chairperson of the Commi ee and the TWG, increased the threshold amount from Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000) to Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000) and amended Sec ons 2 and 8 of the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases;

WHEREAS, in his February 18, 2019 Memorandum addressed to the Honorable Chief Jus ce Lucas P. Bersamin, Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez recommended that “the threshold amount of small claims cases in the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) be increased from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000) to Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000)” and “Sec ons 2 and 8, Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, be amended” for “a more consistent, streamlined applica on of procedural rules and speedier and more effi cient disposi on of money claims cases”;

WHEREAS, in the same Memorandum, Court Administrator Marquez explained that as a result of the increase in the threshold amount from Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000) to Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000), “all ac ons for money claims fi led before the Municipal Trial Courts in Ci es, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are now governed by the (Revised) Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, since these courts have a jurisdic onal limit of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000)” while “money claims fi led before the MeTCs, which have a jurisdic onal ceiling of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000), are governed either by the (Revised) Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases for claims up to Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000), or the Rules on Summary Procedure for claims above Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000)”;


OCA CIRCULAR NO. 01-2019

TO: ALL EXECUTIVE JUDGES, CLERKS OF COURT AND CONCERNED COURT PERSONNEL

SUBJECT: DISPOSAL OF UNNECESSARY COURT RECORDS AND JUDICIARY PROPERTIES

Due to persistent reports that unserviceable judiciary proper es and unnecessary court records con nue to block and accumulate along the corridors, stairways, fi re exits and open spaces in the Halls of Jus ce, which put the health of the court personnel and the general public at risk and expose the Halls of Jus ce to fi re hazards, and pursuant to the instruc ons of Chief Jus ce Lucas P. Bersamin, all concerned are hereby DIRECTED to immediately dispose these proper es and court records within the fi rst quarter of 2019, in accordance with exis ng rules and procedures.

In sta ons where no Regional Disposal Commi ee (RDC) or Metropolitan Trial Court Disposal Commi ee (MeTCDC) has been convened and organized yet, all Execu ve Judges and Judges of single sala courts are DIRECTED to comply with Administra ve Circular No. 90-2007 dated October 5, 2007, and immediately cons tute their respec ve RDCs or MeTCDCs in order to dispose the unnecessary court records and proper es within the period herein provided.

For strict compliance.

January 4, 2019.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZCourt Administrator


TO: ALL JUDGES, CLERKS OF COURT, BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT AND OFFICERS IN CHARGE/ACTING CLERKS OF COURT OF THE SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: USE OF THE SUPREME COURT OFFICIAL RECEIPTS IN THE COLLECTION OF FINES AND PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF EXHIBITS IN DRUGS CASES

It has come to the a en on of the Offi ce of the Court Administrator that the local government units men oned in OCA Circular No. 71-2017 dated March 27, 2017 (Re:

ResolutionsA.M. NO. 08-8-7-SC (continued)

WHEREAS, Court Administrator Marquez reported that based on court sta s cs, “high compliance rates with the melines laid down by the (Revised) Rules (of Procedure for Small Claims Cases) would indicate that increasing the threshold amount of small claims will not unduly burden the MeTCs”;

WHEREAS, ac ng on the recommenda on of Court Administrator Marquez, submi ng for considera on and approval of the Court the proposed amendments to Sec ons 2 and 8 of the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, the Court resolved to APPROVE the same, so as to read as follows:

S . 2. Scope. – These Rules shall govern the procedure in ac ons before the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Ci es (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) for payment of money where the value of claim does not exceed the jurisdic onal amount of these courts under Republic Act No. (RA) 7691 (Four Hundred Thousand Pesos [P400,000] for the MeTCs and Three Hundred Thousand Pesos [P300,000] for the MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs), exclusive of interest and costs.

x x x x

S . 8. Joinder of Claims. – Plain ff may join in a single statement of claim one or more separate small claims against a defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed the jurisdic onal amount of the concerned court under RA No. 7691 (Four Hundred Thousand Pesos [P400,000] for the MeTCs and Three Hundred Thousand Pesos [P300,000] for the MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs).

The appropriate Small Claims forms are likewise amended to reflect the increased threshold amount of P400,000 for the MeTCs.

These amendments to Sections 2 and 8, and the relevant Small Claims Forms of the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases shall take effect on April 1, 2019, following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation.

February 26, 2019.

(Sgd.) BERSAMIN, CJ, CARPIO, PERALTA, DEL CASTILLO, PERLAS-BERNABE, LEONEN, JARDELEZA, CAGUIOA, REYES, Jr., GESMUNDO, REYES, Jr., HERNANDO, CARANDANG, JJ.


Remi ance of Money Exhibit, Proceeds from Sale of Exhibits and Fines Imposed in Drugs Cases) have disallowed the sale of offi cial receipts, which, in turn, caused delay in the opera ons of the lower courts. There is therefore a need to MODIFY the provision authorizing the lower courts to purchase a booklet of offi cial receipts (ORs) from the concerned province, city or municipality or from any government agency/en ty for purposes of collec on of the proceeds pertaining to the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB).

Accordingly, all second level courts are hereby AUTHORIZED to use the offi cial receipts (ORs) issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines for purposes of collec on of the proceeds pertaining to the DDB for a considera on of Two Hundred Fi y Pesos (P250) as cost and freight of ORs per booklet. The Two Hundred Fi y Pesos (P250) shall be chargeable against the collec on of fi nes or proceeds from the sale of exhibits in drugs cases and shall be properly receipted and deposited to the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) account. The payor’s copy of the JDF OR shall be a ached to the report for submission to the DDB and its cer fi ed photocopy shall be a ached to the fi le copy of the report. The report shall be accomplished pursuant to OCA Circular No. 71- 2017.

Strict compliance is enjoined.

January 10, 2019.



TO: ALL JUSTICES, JUDGES AND COURT OFFICIALS OF THE JUDICIARY

SUBJECT: EXPEDITED PROCESSING AND RELEASE OF CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO BEAR, CARRY AND TRANSPORT FIREARMS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MAY 13, 2019 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS

Quoted hereunder is an excerpt from the minutes of the regular en banc mee ng of the Commission on Elec ons (COMELEC) held on December 19, 2018:

18- _________. IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE APPLICATION OF CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO BEAR, CARRY, AND TRANSPORT FIREARMS FOR PURPOSE OF THE MAY 13, 2019 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS (NLE) AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL GOVERNMENT LANE

x x x x

Considering the foregoing opinion of the Law Department, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve the request of the Supreme Court (SC), through the Commi ee on the Ban on Firearms and Security Personnel (CBFSP), for the issuance of a Cer fi cate of Authority (CA) to bear, carry, transport fi rearms of the Chief Jus ce, Jus ces of the Supreme Court, Jus ces of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals; and Judges of the Regional Trial Courts and Municipal/Metropolitan/Circuit Trial Courts under Sec on 6(E), Rule III of COMELEC Resolu on No. 10446, subject to the herein procedures recommended by the Law Department to fast track and make easy the issuance of Cer fi cate of Authority (CA) by making the above-quoted Sec on 7(a), Rule III of COMELEC Resolu on No. 10446 not applicable with respect to their applica ons for CA.

Hence, the following shall be observed:

1. The Offi ce of the Court Administrator (OCA) shall endorse to the CBFSP, through a list, the names of all judges and jus ces who wish to apply for a CA, which shall be cer fi ed by the Court Administrator;

2. The form to be used for the said cer fi ed list is a ached hereto as Annex ”A”;

3. The CBFSP shall then transmit to the OCA all issued CA, who in turn, shall be the one responsible to distribute the same to the concerned judges and jus ces; and

4. The Honorable Jus ces and Judges are allowed to carry, transport a maximum of two fi rearms.

RESOLVED, moreover, to approve the establishment of special government lanes in applying for the issuance of Cer fi cates of Authority for Law Enforcement Agencies (CA- LEA) in order not to cause disrup on in the performance of their law enforcement and/or security mandate. Further, the CBFSP shall give preferen al a en on to government law enforcement bodies in the evalua on of applica ons and issuance of CAs, provided they submit all the requirements and valid documents.

This Resolu on supplements COMELEC Resolu on No. 10446 promulgated November 21, 2018.

Let the Law Department implement this Resolu on.

SO ORDERED.

Pursuant to the foregoing, all qualifi ed members of the judiciary who wish to avail of the above expedited procedure for the issuance of a Cer fi cate of Authority (CA) to bear, carry and transport fi rearms may fi le their respec ve requests with the Court Administrator, who shall forthwith endorse the same to the Commi ee on the Ban on Firearms and Security Personnel (CBFSP).



TO: ALL EXECUTIVE JUDGES AND ALL CLERKS OF COURT/OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF TEMPORARY NOTARIAL REGISTER FORMS

In view of the insuffi cient number of the notarial registers printed in the previous years, All Judges and Clerks of Court/Offi cers in Charge of Offi ce of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Courts are enjoined to observe No. 4 of the Proposed Guidelines in the Implementa on of the Provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Offi ce of the Court Administrator and the Offi ce of the Solicitor General approved by the Court En Banc in a Resolu on dated August 15, 2006 and reiterated in OCA Circular No. 157-2006, to wit;

4. In view of the current unavailability of notarial registers, notaries public shall be allowed to use the temporary form a ached hereto. The notary public concerned shall fi le a wri en request to use the improvised form with the execu ve judge that issued the commission. A copy of his current commission shall be a ached to his request.

The notaries public who have been authorized to use such forms shall have them book-bound and ini aled on each and every page by the Execu ve Judge before whom the request was fi led. Each bound copy shall have a maximum of 106 pages and shall be treated and used in the same manner as the new notarial book; and

Each request shall be limited to one bound copy. Should the bound copy be used up before the new notarial books are available, the notary public concerned may request anew for the use of bound temporary forms. The use of bound temporary forms shall end when the new notarial books are available but, upon wri en request, the execu ve judge may allow the notary public to use up the bound temporary forms.

As addi onal requirement, a wri en cer fi ca on must be procured by the notary public from the Property Division, OCA, Supreme Court or the Clerk of Court/Offi cer in Charge, Offi ce of the Clerk of Court, and a ested to by the Execu ve Judge, cer fying to non-availability of the notarial register, at the me when he wanted to purchase. The same shall be a ached

to the request to use the improvised form.

This circular revokes OCA Circular No. 191-2017 dated September 7, 2017 direc ng all Clerks of Court and Offi cers in Charge of the Offi ce of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court,

EXPEDITED ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO BEAR, CARRY & TRANSPORT FIREARMS

REQUEST FORM PART A: REQUESTOR IDENTIFICATION Name Position/Rank

Court/Station/Office Mobile Phone Number

Office Address (Building No., Street, Barangay, Municipality/City, Province, ZIP) Office Phone Number

Office Email Address

Home Address (Building No., Street, Barangay, Municipality/City, Province, ZIP) Home Phone Number

Personal Email Address

PART B: DETAILS PERTAINING TO FIREARMS

License to Own and Possess Firearms (LTOPF) ID No.:

Kind/Description of Issued Firearms with Serial No. Caliber Firearm ID No. Permit to Carry Firearms Outside of

Residence (PTCFOR) Control No.

1.

2.

Signature Request Date

Annex “A”

Considering that the Court Administrator is required to cer fy that the concerned members of the judiciary are duly authorized and sanc oned by the Philippine Na onal Police, Armed Forces of the Philippines, or Supreme Court to bear, carry and transport fi rearms in the exercise of their judicial func ons, and that said fi rearms are duly registered and covered by duly issued and valid Permits to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence (PTCFORs), those concerned shall fi ll out the Request Form for Expedited Issuance of Cer fi cate of Authority to Bear, Carry, and Transport Firearms (Annex “A’’), which shall be a ached to their respec ve le ers of request.

Request le ers with completed Request Forms shall be delivered personally or via private courier service to the Offi ce of the Court Administrator at the address below:

Offi ce of the Court Administrator 3rd Floor Supreme Court Old Building

Padre Faura Street, Ermita, 1000 Manila

Advance copies of requests may be emailed to [email protected], but will only be processed and endorsed to the CBFSP upon receipt of the duly-signed hard copy.

January 11, 2019.


CircularsOCA CIRCULAR NO. 06-2019 (continued)



TO: ALL JUDGES, CLERKS OF COURT AND RETIRING COURT STENOGRAPHERS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: EXEMPTION OF COURT STENOGRAPHERS FROM ATTENDANCE TO COURT HEARINGS AND DIRECTIVE TO FINISH THE PENDING TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC NOTES WITHIN A MONTH PRIOR TO EFFECTIVITY DATE OF THEIR RETIREMENT

It has been brought to the a en on of this Court that every court stenographer who is about to re re from the judiciary fi nds diffi culty in having his/her clearance processed with dispatch due to the pendency of untranscribed stenographic notes. There is a common concern that because of the shortage of court stenographers na onwide, it is impossible that they can immediately fi nish the transcrip on of stenographic notes, and at the same me perform their other basic du es as court stenographers up to last day of their service in the judiciary. Thus, the court stenographers have requested that they be exempted from a ending any court hearing one month before the closing date of their re rement.

In view thereof, and for humanitarian considera ons, all concerned re ring court stenographers are hereby EXEMPTED from a endance to court hearings and are immediately DIRECTED to transcribe their respec ve pending stenographic notes, subject to the following guidelines, to wit:

1. The abovemen oned exemp on and direc ve must be availed of and complied with within the last month prior to the eff ec vity date of re rement of the court stenographers;

2. The one-month period is strictly non-extendible; and

3. The execu ve and/or presiding judge through their respec ve clerks of court and branch clerks of court shall ensure that there must be subs tute court stenographers during the exempted one-

to ensure that only the offi cial notarial register, designated as Judicial Form No. 143, as amended, is used by the notary public.

For immediate compliance.

January 24, 2019.


month period of a endance to court hearings. In an excep onal case wherein there is only one court stenographer and he/she is also re ring, most especially in a single sala sta on, the execu ve/presiding judge shall hire a contractual court stenographer preferably within six months before the said one-month period of absence subject to applicable rules and regula ons on hiring; otherwise, the only recourse for the execu ve/presiding judge is to designate a temporary court stenographer by borrowing one from any court sta on nearest to his/her court sala.

Strict compliance is enjoined.

January 29, 2019.



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

SUBJECT: SECOND REITERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 28-2008 DATED MARCH 11, 2008 (RE: GUIDELINES IN THE DETAIL OF LOCALLY-FUNDED EMPLOYEES TO THE LOWER COURTS)

Reports have reached the Offi ce of the Court Administrator that despite the issuance of OCA Circular No. 89-2012 dated September 18, 2012 (Re: Reitera on of Administra ve Circular No. 28-2008 dated March 11, 2008 [Re: Guidelines in the Detail of Locally-Funded Employees to the Lower Courts]), only few courts with locally-funded employees comply with the direc ves and requirements set forth in Administra ve Circular No. 28-2008.

Considering the confi den ality of court records and proceedings, there is a need to again (a) remind all judges and court personnel throughout the country to strictly comply with the provisions of Administra ve Circular No. 28-2008; and (b) emphasize item 11 thereof which provides that “[n]on-compliance and/or viola on of this circular by the judge, court personnel or locally-funded employee shall be a ground for disciplinary ac on.”

Accordingly, Administra ve Circular No. 28-2008 dated March 11, 2008 is hereby reiterated and all judges and court personnel of the fi rst and second level courts are REMINDED to strictly comply with the per nent provisions of the circular:


ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 28-2008

TO: ALL JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THE DETAIL OF LOCALLY-FUNDED EMPLOYEES TO THE LOWER COURTS

In the interest of the service, the following guidelines shall be observed in the detail of locally-funded employees to the lower courts:

1. No detail of locally-funded employees to the lower courts shall be allowed without fi rst obtaining permission from the Supreme Court (SC) through the Offi ce of the Court Administrator (OCA).

2. The request for the detail of locally-funded employees shall be made by the Presiding Judge for those in the court branches and the Execu ve Judge for those in the Offi ce of the Clerk of Court (OCC) and shall be submi ed to the Supreme Court through the Offi ce of the Court Administrator for approval. The request shall contain the following informa on:

a. Court caseloadb. Reason or necessity for the detail c. Name, posi on tle and du es to be assignedd. Dura on of the detail

3. Considering the confi den ality of court records and proceedings, locally-funded employees shall simply assist in the performance of clerical works, such as, receiving of le ers and other communica ons for the offi ce concerned, typing of address in envelopes for mailing, typing of cer fi cate of appearance, and typing of monthly reports. They shall not be given du es involving custody of court records, implementa on of judicial processes, and such other du es involving court proceedings. However, they may perform func ons appertaining to that of a messenger, janitor and driver if these posi ons are provided in the plan lla of the Local Government Unit (LGU).

4. The detail shall be allowed only for a maximum period of one year. Details beyond one year may be allowed provided it is with the consent of the detailed employee.

5. Request for renewal or extension of the period of the detail shall be submi ed to and received by the SC through the OCA 15 days before the expira on of the original/previous period of detail and must contain the informa on stated in paragraph 2 hereof.

6. During the period of the detail, the concerned LGU relinquishes its administra ve supervision over the locally-funded employees to the SC. Administra ve supervision refers to the authority to direct the performance of du es; restrain the commission of acts; and review, approve, reverse or modify acts or decisions of the detailed employee. In this regard, the SC through the lower court has the responsibility to monitor the punctuality and a endance of the detailed locally-funded employees, approve request for leave,

CircularsOCA CIRCULAR NO. 42-2019 (continued)

evaluate their performance, grant authority to travel and exercise other acts necessary to eff ec vely supervise the employees.

Prior to the eff ec vity of the detail, and insofar as those already detailed before the issuance of this administra ve circular, the Presiding Judge/Execu ve Judge shall request the concerned LGU to furnish the lower court with a cer fi ca on of the available sick and vaca on leave credits of the detailed locally-funded employee. In the event the Presiding Judge/Execu ve Judge approves the request for leave by the detailed employee, a copy of the same shall be submi ed by the Clerk of Court to the concerned LGU.

7. With respect to the personnel ac ons such as promo on, transfer, renewal, demo on, upgrading and reclassifi ca on of posi ons and the like, which requires the issuance of an appointment, and other personnel movement such as reassignment, detail, secondment, job rota on and designa on which do not necessarily require the issuance of an appointment, including salary adjustment, step-increment and mone za on of leave credits concerning the detailed locally-funded employee, the same shall s ll be under the jurisdic on of the concerned LGU.

8. Inasmuch as the locally-funded employee is detailed to an offi ce which carries with it du es and func ons related to the administra on of jus ce, such employee has the status of an offi cer of the court, and as such can be held accountable, short of being dismissed or suspended from offi ce, to the court he serves as well as to the Supreme Court for any negligence or conduct which impedes the effi cient and speedy administra on of jus ce, following the Supreme Court ruling in Esperanza Malanyon v. Rufi no Galang, A.M. No. P-133, July 20, 1978.

Complaints against locally-funded employee shall be fi led before the Supreme Court through the Offi ce of the Court Administrator, except for off enses classifi ed under Civil Service Rules as light off enses which shall be fi led with the Offi ce of the Execu ve Judge, who shall conduct an inves ga on pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC otherwise known as Guidelines on the Selec on and Appointment of Execu ve Judges and Defi ning Their Powers, Preroga ves and Du es. This is without prejudice to the authority of the concerned LGU to discipline locally-funded employee.

9. The Presiding Judge/Execu ve Judge shall submit to the SC through the OCA, within one month from receipt of this administra ve circular, an inventory of all locally-funded employees detailed in their respec ve court branches including the OCC specifying the names, posi on tles, assigned du es and dura on of the detail. In addi on, the Presiding Judge/Execu ve Judge shall regularly review the necessity for such details as well as the performance of the locally-funded employees, and recommend to the SC through


the OCA the revoca on of the detail for those whose services are no longer necessary in the lower courts or those with unsa sfactory or poor performance.

10. The Court Administrator is authorized to act on requests for detail of locally-funded employees and the revoca on of such details.

11. Non-compliance and/or viola on of this circular by the judge court personnel or locally-funded employee shall be a good for disciplinary ac on. (emphasis supplied) All other exis ng issuances that are inconsistent herewith are deemed superseded or modifi ed accordingly.

March 13, 2019.


MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 03-2019

REORGANIZING THE COMMITTEE ON THE REVISION OF THE RULES OF COURT

The Commi ee on the Revision of the Rules of Court is hereby reorganized as follows:

Chairperson

Chief Jus ce Lucas P. Bersamin

Vice/Working Chairperson

Jus ce Diosdado M. Peralta

Members

Jus ce Francis H. Jardeleza

Jus ce Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa

Jus ce Alexander G. Gesmundo

Jus ce Secretary Menardo I. Guevarra

Jus ce Adolfo S. Azcuna (ret.)

Jus ce Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (ret.)

A y. Francis Ed Lim

A y. Tranquil Gervacio S. Salvador III

A y. Amador Z. Tolen no, Jr.

Secretariat

A y. Ralph Jerome D. Salvador

A y. Camille Sue Mae L. Ting

A y. Al-Azree J. Mohammadsali

Stenographer

To be designated by the Chairperson

Addi onal Members


The Chairperson, Vice/Working Chairperson, Members, Secretariat and the Stenographers of the Commi ee, including those who have rendered service as part of the Commi ee, shall receive the usual expense allowances.

This Memorandum Order shall take eff ect upon its issuance.

January 14, 2019.

(Sgd.) LUCAS P. BERSAMINChief Jus ce

Chairperson, First Division

(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate Jus ce

Chairperson, Second Division

(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate Jus ce

Chairperson, Third Division


CREATING THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THE REVISION OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision of Sec on 5(5) of Ar cle VIII of the Cons tu on, the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning the protec on and enforcement of cons tu onal rights, pleading, prac ce, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the prac ce of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.

x x x x

WHEREAS, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure was adopted per Resolu on promulgated in Bar Ma er No. 803 on April 8, 1997;


WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to further promote its objec ve of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposi on of every ac on and proceeding, and to prevent delay and conges on in such court ac ons and proceedings;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Subcommi ee for the Revision of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby reorganized as follows:

Chairperson

Hon. Diosdado M. PeraltaAssociate Jus ce, Supreme Court

Vice Chairperson

Hon. Alexander G. GesmundoAssociate Jus ce, Supreme Court

Members

Hon. Francis H. JardelezaAssociate Jus ce, Supreme Court

Hon. Alfredo Benjamin S. CaguioaAssociate Jus ce, Supreme Court

Hon. Fernanda Lampas PeraltaAssociate Jus ce, Court of Appeals

Hon. Magdangal M. De Leon (ret.)Associate Jus ce, Court of Appeals

Hon. Niño Delvin E. EmbuscadoMetropolitan Trial Court, Branch 66, Maka City

A y. Ramon S. EsguerraProfessor, UP College of Law

A y. Tranquil Gervacio S. Salvador IIIProfessor, Ateneo De Manila Univesity School of Law

A y. Regan G. YuliongOffi ce of Chief Jus ce Lucas P. Bersamin

Secretariat

A y. Ralph Jerome D. SalvadorOffi ce of Associate Jus ce Diosdado M. Peralta

A y. Camille Sue Mae L. TingOffi ce of the Court Administrator

Stenographer

To be assigned by the Chairperson

The Commi ee shall have the following func ons and du es:

1. Dra a six-month work plan to be submi ed to the Chief Jus ce within one month from the crea on of the Commi ee, specifi cally to:

a. Iden fy ini a ves/ac vi es with proposed melines;

b. Briefl y describe expected outcome/output on the iden fi ed ini a ve/ac vi es;

c. Set budget requirements for each ini a ve/ ac vity; and

d. Name responsible focal persons.

2. Survey and compile the best prac ces to be employed by the trial judges;

3. Propose amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;

4. Defi ne other ini a ves that will expedite trials, and decongest dockets of all the trial courts na onwide; and

5. Formulate guidelines for the na onwide implementa on of approved amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

To enable it to perform its func ons and du es, the Commi ee shall be authorized to:

1. Create technical working groups, as the need arises, to look into special issues to be determined by the Commi ee;

2. Collaborate with the Philippine Judicial Academy for the development of skills and the formula on and adop on of training modules for trial court judges;

3. Invite resource persons who are experts in remedial law and procedure; and

4. Do such other acts as may be necessary in the performance of its mandate.

The Chairperson, Members, Secretariat and Stenographers of the Commi ee, including those who have rendered service as part of the Commi ee, shall receive the usual expense allowances.


January 14, 2019.







OrdersMEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 04-2019 (continued)



In view of the re rement, resigna on, promo on and appointment of some jus ces, judges, offi cials and employees of the judiciary, the Commi ee on Security is hereby reorganized as follows:

Chairperson

Hon. Ramon Paul L. HernandoAssociate Jus ce, Supreme Court

Vice Chairperson

Hon. Jose Midas P. MarquezCourt Administrator

Members

Hon. Romeo F. BarzaPresiding Jus ce, Court of Appeals

Hon. Amparo M. Cabotaje-TangPresiding Jus ce, Sandiganbayan

Hon. Roman G. Del RosarioPresiding Jus ce, Court of Tax Appeals

A y. Maria Carina M. CunananChief Administra ve Offi cer

Hon. Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (ret.)PHILJA Vice Chancellor

Hon. Felix P. ReyesPhilippine Judges Associa on President

Philippine Trial Judges League President

Metropolitan and City Judges Associa on of the Philippines

A y. Abraham Joseph AlcantaraOffi ce of the Chief Jus ce

Secretariat


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


January 14, 2019.








CREATING THE 2020 JUDICIARY BUDGET COMMITTEE

WHEREAS, the 1987 Cons tu on requires the President to submit to Congress a budget of expenditures and sources of fi nancing, including receipts from exis ng and proposed revenue measures, as the basis of the annual general appropria ons bill;

WHEREAS, the Judiciary submits through the Execu ve Department its yearly budget proposal for the considera on of Congress;

WHEREAS, the Judiciary had been ins tu ng systems to streamline and professionalize its budge ng process, founded upon a results-based framework ar culated in the Philippine Development Plan, to sustain its opera onal requirements and its reform ini a ves;

WHEREAS, it is also necessary to ensure that the 2020 Judiciary Budget con nue to refl ect the medium-term expenditure plan of the judiciary, for the inclusion of the full-term and annualized budgetary requirements of major investment programs and the annual opera onal requirements of the judiciary, for purposes of planning for resources and ensuring for con nuity and results over a fi ve year period from 2017 to 2021;

WHEREAS, to fully actualize these objec ves, there is a need for the 2020 Judiciary Budget to be policy-driven and centrally-managed but par cipatory in nature where all levels and units par cipate in the planning, programming and budge ng exercise, and all members contribute and account for the resources allocated for their respec ve offi ces.

NOW THEREFORE, the 2020 Judiciary Budget Commi ee is hereby recons tuted as follows:



Chairperson

Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez

Members

Presiding Jus ceCourt of Appeals

Presiding Jus ce Roman G. Del RosarioCourt of Tax Appeals

Presiding Jus ce Amparo M. Cabotaje-TangSandiganbayan

A y. Edgar O. ArichetaClerk of Court

Chief Jus ce Staff Head

Secretariat

Budget Division, FMBO

Offi ce of the Chairperson

Budget Review Technical Working Group

1. Jus ce Remedios Salazar Fernando Court of Appeals

2. Jus ce Karl B. Miranda Sandiganbayan

3. A y. Corazon Ferrer-Flores Fiscal Management and Budget Offi ce

4. A y. Maria Carina M. Cunanan Offi ce of Administra ve Services and Procurement

Planning Commi ee (for the Supreme Court and Lower Courts)

5. A y. Ruby Esteban-Garcia Financial Management Offi ce Offi ce of the Court Administrator

6. Chief of Offi ce Public Informa on Offi ce

7. Ms. Marilyn I. de Joya Fiscal Management and Budget Offi ce

8. Ms. Ana Leah G. Sevilla Fiscal Management and Budget Offi ce

9. Ms. Marie a R. Esdrelon Financial Management Offi ce Offi ce of the Court Administrator

10. A y. Raquel M. Ladrillano Offi ce on Halls of Jus ce

11. Ms. Virginia Velacruz Court of Appeals

12. Ms. Elsie Tiauzon-Forteza Court of Tax Appeals

13. Mr. Isidro Barredo, Jr. Court of Tax Appeals

14. Ms. Gemma Posadas Sandiganbayan

15. Ms. Maria Antonia Abugay Sandiganbayan

The Commi ee shall have the following du es:

1. Finalize the 2020 Judiciary Budget;

2. Ensure alignment of the Annual Procurement Plan to the Judiciary Budget, and consider a provision for sectoral budget based on the Philippine Development Plan;

3. Submit the 2020 Judiciary Budget, as approved by the Court en banc, to the Congress through the Department of Budget and Management;

4. Conduct the 2020 budget defense of the Judiciary; and

5. Conduct other func ons as delegated by the Court.

The Budget Review Working Group shall have the following du es:

1. Conduct an execu ve review of 2020 programs and budget submissions;

2. Recommend budget resolu ons of the Commi ee;

3. Prepare the forms and other necessary materials for the 2020 budget defense of the Judiciary; and

4. Conduct other func ons as delegated by the Commi ee and the Court.

The Chairperson, Members, Members of the Secretariat of the Commi ee, and Members of the Technical Working Groups, including those who have rendered service as part of the said Commi ee prior to and in the course of issuance of this Memorandum Order, shall receive the usual expense allowances.

This Memorandum Order shall take eff ect upon its issuance this 17th day of January 2019.









REORGANIZING THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MEMORIAL RITES

In view of the re rement, resigna on, promo on and appointment of some offi cials and employees of the judiciary, the Special Commi ee on Memorial Rites is hereby reorganized as follows:

Chairperson

A y. Edgar O. ArichetaOffi ce of the Clerk of Court, En Banc

Vice Chairperson

Hon. Jose Midas P. MarquezCourt Administrator and Ac ng ChiefPublic Informa on Offi ce

Members

A y. Maria Carina M. CunananDeputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administra ve Offi cer

A y. Corazon G. Ferrer-FloresFiscal Management and Budget Offi ce

A y. Ellen V. Abesamis-QuintoRepresenta ve from the Offi ce of the Chief Jus ce

Mr. Ponciano San agoPrin ng Services

Ms. Donna Lynn U. ArichetaOffi ce of the Clerk of Court, En Banc

Mr. Francisco S. Gu errezPublic Informa on Offi ce

Mr. Cesar Tito P. RoyerasPublic Informa on Offi ce

Secretariat

Ms. Mary Angeline V. De Jesus-EspinolaOffi ce of the Clerk of Court, En Banc

Ms. Helen D. SantosPublic Informa on Offi ce

The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Members and Members of the Secretariat of the above commi ee, including those who have rendered service as part of the said commi ee prior to the issuance of this Memorandum Order shall receive the usual expense allowance.

January 22, 2019.



CREATING THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP FOR THE REVISION OF THE LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE

WHEREAS, Sec on 5(5) of Ar cle VIII of the 1987 Cons tu on empowers the Supreme Court to adopt and promulgate rules concerning the protec on and enforcement of cons tu onal rights, pleading, prac ce and procedure in all courts, the admission to the prac ce of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged;

WHEREAS, a con ngent composed of Supreme Court offi cials, law school deans and legal aid heads were sent to the United States of America last October 1–12, 2018 for a learning visit to observe clinical legal educa on in diff erent universi es in the United States, the management of diff erent legal aid clinics, and prac ces that help the underprivileged get access to quality legal services;

WHEREAS, there is a need to amend Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court or the Law Student Prac ce Rule to provide the underprivileged the much needed access to jus ce, adopt the best prac ces from diff erent law universi es in the United States, establish legal aid clinics in the Philippines, and to make law students prac ce-ready individuals;

WHEREAS, the urgent task before the Commi ee on the Revision of the Rules of Court requires a select group of individuals, with highly-specialized training and exper se in clinical educa on and legal aid, to work on the dra amendments of the Law Student Prac ce Rule;

NOW, THEREFORE, a Technical Working Group of the Commi ee on the Revision of the Rules of Court for the amendments of the Law Student Prac ce Rule is hereby created and cons tuted as follows:

Chairperson

Hon. Alexander G. GesmundoAssociate Jus ce, Supreme Court

Vice Chairperson

Hon. Karla A. Fun la-AbuganPresiding Judge, MeTC, Branch 17, Manila

Members

Dean Joan S. LargoUniversity of San Carlos

Dean Alizedney DitucalanMindanao State University–College of Law


Dean Josefe Sorrera-TyFather Saturnino Urios University

Dean Domnina RancesAteneo de Naga University–College of Law

Dean Eduardo SansonWestern Mindanao State University

A y. Mikaila Ross FernandezProgram DirectorAteneo de Zamboanga University–College of Law

A y. Carolyn MercadoThe Asia Founda on

A y. Ellen V. Abesamis-QuintoOffi ce of the Chief Jus ce

A y. Charisma I. NolascoOffi ce of the Chief Jus ce

A y. Rigor R. PascualOffi ce of the Chief Jus ce

Secretariat

A y. Fa ma C. GarciaThe Asia Founda on

Ms. Veronica D. CruzThe Asia Founda on

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


March 8, 2019.


ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 07-2019 DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL COURTS TO HEAR TRY AND DECIDE ELECTION CONTESTS INVOLVING ELECTIVE MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS

WHEREAS, under Sec on 1, Rule 2, The 2010 Rules of Procedure for Municipal Elec on Contests (The 2010 Rules), Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) shall have exclusive original

jurisdic on over all elec on contests involving elec ve municipal offi cials;

WHEREAS, under Sec on 11, Rule 2, The 2010 Rules, the Supreme Court shall designate the RTCs within a judicial region that shall take cognizance of elec on protests and pe ons for quo warranto;

WHEREAS, under Sec on 13, Rule 14, The 2010 Rules, the designated elec on courts shall give preference to elec on contests over all other cases, except pe ons for writs of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the per nent provision of The 2010 Rules, Administra ve Order No. 149-2015, dated September 24, 2015, designa ng Regional Trial Court branches as Special Courts to hear, try and decide elec on contests involving elec ve municipal offi cials was issued;

WHEREAS, Administra ve Order No. 149-2015 has to be updated (a) to refl ect the amendments made in the said issuance; and (b) because a number of municipali es have been upgraded to ci es, while newly created RTCs have been organized;

WHEREAS, it is expected that elec on cases will be fi led in courts in view of the forthcoming May 13, 2019 local and na onal elec ons, and the other elec ons therea er;

NOW THEREFORE, in the interest of a speedy and effi cient administra on of jus ce and pursuant to Sec on 11, Rule 2, The 2010 Rules, the following branches of the RTCs are hereby designated to exclusively and speedily hear, try and decide elec on protests and pe ons for quo warranto involving elec ve municipal offi cials within their respec ve territorial jurisdic ons during local and na onal elec ons, un l otherwise revoked by the Court:

STATION BRANCH

N C J R

Pasig City Branch 262 (for cases originated from Pateros)

F J R

B La Trinidad Branch 62 Branch 63

I N Laoag City Branch 14 Branch 65








L U San Fernando City Branch 38 Branch 69 P Lingayen Branch 27 Branch 66 Dagupan City Branch 40 Branch 41 Urdaneta Branch 46 Branch 48

S J R C Tuguegarao Branch 3 Branch 10 Aparri Branch 7 I City of Ilagan Branch 18 Cauayan City Branch 40 San ago City Branch 36

N V Bayombong Branch 27

T J R B Balanga City Branch 3 Branch 92 Mariveles Branch 95

B Malolos City Branch 14 Branch 15 Branch 20 Branch 21 Branch 78 Branch 81 N E Cabanatuan City Branch 25 Branch 30 Guimba Branch 31 Gapan City Branch 34 Branch 35 Sto. Domingo Branch 89

P City of San Fernando Branch 41 Branch 47 Guagua Branch 49 Branch 52 Angeles City Branch 58 Branch 59

T Tarlac City Branch 64

Z Iba Branch 71 Olongapo City Branch 74

F J RR 4-A

B Batangas City Branch 3 Branch 8 Tanauan City Branch 66 Balayan Branch 10 Lipa City Branch 12

C Cavite City Branch 16 Tagaytay City Branch 134 Imus City Branch 22

L Sta. Cruz Branch 91 San Pablo City Branch 29 Calamba City Branch 35 Branch 92 Q Lucena City Branch 57 Branch 58 R An polo City Branch 97 Branch 100 San Mateo Branch 76 Morong Branch 80 Binangonan Branch 67

R 4-B

P Puerto Princesa City Branch 49 Branch 52

F J R A Legazpi City Branch 2 Branch 6 Branch 10 Ligao City Branch 11 Tabaco City Branch 18

C S Naga City Branch 19 Branch 61 Branch 62 Libmanan City Branch 29 Pili Branch 32


OrdersADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 07-2019 (continued)

Iriga City Branch 37 Branch 60 C N Daet Branch 39

M Masbate City Branch 45 Branch 47 S Sorsogon City Branch 53

S J R A Kalibo Branch 5 Branch 9 A San Jose Branch 12

C Roxas Branch 15 Branch 17 I Iloilo City Branch 22 Branch 24 Branch 29 Branch 35

N O Bacolod City Branch 42 Branch 49 Branch 50 San Carlos City Branch 59

S J R B Tagbilaran Branch 47 Branch 49 C Mandaue Branch 55

N O Dumaguete City Branch 33 Branch 39 Branch 42

E J R L Tacloban City Branch 6 Branch 34 Ormoc City Branch 47

S Catbalogan City Branch 29

N J R

Z N Dipolog City Branch 6 Branch 9

Z S Pagadian City Branch 19 Branch 21

T J R

A N Butuan City Branch 2 Branch 3 B Malaybalay City Branch 8 M O Oroquieta City Branch 13

M O Cagayan de Oro City Branch 17 Branch 21 Branch 41

E J R

D N Tagum City Branch 30

D S Digos City Branch 19

S C Koronadal City Branch 43 Surallah Branch 44

S Alabel Branch 47 Branch 50

T J R

L N Iligan City Branch 3 Branch 6 L S Marawi City Branch 10

M Cotabato City Branch 27

N C Kidapawan City Branch 61 Midsayap Branch 28

For purposes of this Administra ve Order, the cases referred herein shall be limited to elec on protests and pe ons for quo warranto involving elec ve municipal offi cials. All other elec on-related cases shall be raffl ed among the regular courts in the sta on.

In sta ons where there is only one branch designated as Special Court, the elec on contest shall he automa cally assigned to the said branch. If there are two or more branches designated as Special Courts in a sta on, the elec on


contest/s shall be raffl ed among the designated branches. All single sala courts are considered Special Courts for the above purpose and for this reason shall give priority to these cases in their trial calendars. In mul ple sala sta ons where there are no Special Courts designated for the purpose, the cases shall be raffl ed among, the regular courts therein.

The Special Courts herein designated, all single sala courts, and the branches where the elec on contests are raffl ed in case or mul ple sala sta ons where there is no designated special court, shall try and decide the elec on contests in accordance with The 2010 Rules.

The Special Courts herein designated shall con nue to be included in the raffl e of cases, criminal and civil, provided that the Execu ve Judges of the RTCs concerned shall exclude the designated Special Courts from such raffl e whenever in their judgment the caseload of these courts will prevent them from conduc ng the con nuous trial of the elec on contests.

The Branches thus designated as Special Courts shall con nue to perform the func ons as such within the purview or this Administra ve Order even a er the re rement, promo on, transfer or detail of the judges appointed/designated thereat. Elec on contests fi led a er the Special Courts became vacant due to re rement, promo on, transfer or detail of the presiding/ac ng judge shall s ll be raffl ed/assigned to the said Special Courts. The judge designated to preside over the vacant Special Court shall take cognizance of the cases unless the Supreme Court designates another judge.

In the event of disqualifi ca on and voluntary inhibi on of the judge of the designated Special Court, the following guidelines shall be observed:

(1) Where there is only one Special Court in the sta on, the pairing system for mul ple sala sta ons subject of Circular No. 7 dated September 23, 1974, as amended, shall apply; and

(2) Where there are more than two Special Courts in the sta on, the Execu ve Judge shall immediately assign the case by rank to the other or another Special Court. In case the Presiding Judge or the other special court is also disqualifi ed or inhibits himself/herself, the case shall be forwarded to the pairing judge of the Special Court which originally handled the said case. If the pairing judge is also disqualifi ed or inhibits himself/herself, the case shall be raffl ed to the other regular courts. At the next raffl e, an addi onal ease shall be assigned to the disqualifi ed or inhibi ng judge/s to replace the case so removed from his/her/their court.

If the judge in a single branch court voluntary inhibits himself/herself, the Order of Inhibi on shall be transmi ed to the pairing judge who shall then hear and decide the case in the court of origin. The determina on of the pairing judge shall be in accordance with Annex “A” of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC dated February 15, 2004 (Guidelines on the Selec on and Appointment of Execu ve Judges and Defi ning Their Powers, Preroga ves and Du es). Where the pairing judge who sits in a single-branch RTC is also disqualifi ed or voluntarily inhibits himself/herself, the ma er shall be referred by the Clerk of Court to the Execu ve Judge of the nearest mul ple-branch RTC also in accordance with Annex “A”, or in his/her absence, to the Vice Execu ve Judge thereof for assignment by rank among the judges in the sta on. However, the case shall remain in the court of origin.

This Administra ve Order supersedes Administra ve Order No. 149-2015, dated September 24, 2015, and shall take eff ect immediately.

January 15, 2019.

(Sgd.) LUCAS P. BERSAMINChief Jus ce of the Republic of the Philippines





Judicial MovesAssociate Justice Ronald B, Moreno (continued from page 13)

Special Proceedings, Evidence, Trial Technique, Prac ce Court and Alterna ve Dispute Resolu on. He is also a PHILJA lecturer on Judicial Dispute Resolu on for newly appointed judges, an accredited MCLE lecturer and a bar reviewer.

Jus ce Moreno, a Dangal ng Bayan ng Daet Awardee for Public Service in 2011, is the current President of the UST-Graduate School of Law Students Associa on, Inc. He was also a former President of the Maka City Judges Associa on, Inc. (MCJAI).


The PHILJA Bulletin is published quarterly by the Research, Publica ons and Linkages Offi ce of the Philippine Judicial Academy, with offi ce at the 3rd Floor of the Supreme Court Centennial Building, Padre Faura Street corner Ta Avenue, Manila. Tel: 552-9524; Fax: 552-9621; Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; Website: h p://philja.judiciary.gov.ph

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

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

Jus ce Adolfo S. AzcunaChancellor

Dean Sedfrey M. CandelariaEditor in Chief

Editorial and Research Staff A y. Ma. Melissa Dimson-Bau staA y. Ronald Paz CaraigMs. Armida M. Salazar

Ms. Regina Maria Sofi a M. BabasaA y. Rizsa Rose S. BaerMs. Jocelyn D. BondocMr. Jonel M. CandelariaMr. Joseph Arvin S. CruzMs. Judith B. Del RosarioMs. Chris ne A. FerrerMs. Joanne Narciso-MedinaMs. Charmaine S. NicolasMs. Sarah Jane S. Salazar

Circula on and Support Staff Mr. Romeo A. ArculloMr. Michael Angelo P. LaudeMr. Lope R. PalermoMr. Daniel S. Talusig

Prin ng ServicesMr. Ponciano M. San ago, Jr.and Staff

Documents

FFrom the Chancellor’s Deskrom the Chancellor’s Deskphilja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bulletin/Bul81.pdf · Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of Regions I, II and