Philja Bulletin No. 59

JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59
ISSN 2244-5862
From the Chancellors Desk

With just a few months left in 2013, PHILJA continued with several orientation seminar-workshops for newly appointed Judges (66th and 67th) and for sheriffs and process servers (2nd), both held at the PHILJA Training Center (PTC), Tagaytay; and also for clerks of court (26th) which was conducted in Lahug, Cebu City. I am happy to note that the PTC, which has been operating for close to two years, has been fully booked and busy with the holding of most of our ongoing programs such as the Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP) for the RTC and First Level Court Judges of Region V and RTC Judges of Region I; the Career Enhancement Program for First Level Clerks of Court of Region III (Batches 1 and 2); and the Career Development Program for Court Legal Researchers of Regions X and XI. The Personal Security Training for Judges (Batches 1 and 2) was likewise held at the PTC along with the Work Orientation Skills Enhancement Seminar (WOSES) for the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit staff and the Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution (skills-based course). In addition to these activities at the PTC, PHILJA also delivered some of its programs to other regions such as the 31st Pre-Judicature Program (PJP) held in General Santos City; the Career Enhancement Program for Region VI conducted in Bacolod City; the Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and the Rule of Law for Executive Judges and Single Sala Court Judges of Regions I and II; and the Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors, and Law Enforcers of the First Judicial Region, which were both held in Laoag City. The Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and the Rule of Law for Executive Judges and Single Sala Court Judges for Regions VI to IX and the Increasing Judicial Efficiency: Seminar-Workshop for Judges on the Effective Use of the Benchbook for Philippine Trial Courts (revised and expanded) for Regions VI to IX (Batch 3) were consecutively held in Cebu City, as was the Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children (for Judges of Region VII). The Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws Relating to Court Technology for Judges in Region X was conducted in Cagayan de Oro City. Our staff also assisted in the mounting of three big convention-seminars for this period such as the First General Assembly and Seminar of the Association of Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs held in Intramuros, Manila, which had for its theme Delineating and Strengthening the Role of the Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs in the Management and Operation of the Courts Geared Towards Strong and Unified Administrators of the Second Level Courts ; the 15 th Convention and Seminar of the Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines with the theme E 3 j = Enhancing Electronic and Environmental Justice which took place in Roxas City; and the 11th National Convention and Seminar of the RTC Clerks of Court Association of the Philippines, with the theme Clerks of Court In Pursuit of Excellence which was conducted in Boracay. Several activities were also held in the National Capital Region (NCR), such as the Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children given to selected single-sala court judges from Luzon; the Stakeholders Consultation Workshop and Presentation of the First Draft of the Helpbook on Combating Human Trafficking in the Philippines; the Ceremonial Turnover of the Final Draft of the Proposed Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Knowledge Sharing on Laws, Rules, and Trends on Asset Forfeiture and Management, all of which were held in Manila. The Seminar-Workshop on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property for Special Commercial Court Judges in the NCR and Selected Attorneys of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals was held in Makati City.
(Next page)
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
Contents
From the Chancellors Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trainings, Programs and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . New Rulings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doctrinal Reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resolutions A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.M. No. 13-7-144-RTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.M. No. 11-10-03-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orders Memorandum Order No. 25-2013 . . . . . . . . . . Memorandum Order No. 30-2013 . . . . . . . . . . Circulars OCA Cir. No. 78-2013 Submission of Report on Any Lawsuits Filed or Pending Against the Argentine Republic Before Any Court in the Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OCA Cir. No. 80-2013 Report on Cases Involving Violation of RA No. 9208 as amended by RA No. 10364 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OCA Cir. No. 83-2013 Submission of Monthly Report of Cases Using the Approved New Forms Under A.C. No. 81-2012 in Addition to the Monthly Report of Cases Under A.C. No. 4-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OCA Cir. No. 84-2013 Inventory of HoldDeparture Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OCA Cir. No. 87-2013 Court Resolution dated June 4, 2013 in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC . . . . . . . . . . . OCA Cir. No. 94-2013 Designation of EJs and Vice EJs Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 111-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OCA Cir. No. 97-2013 Guidelines for eRaffle in Quezon City Trial Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OCA Cir. No. 99-2013 A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC . . . OCA Cir. No. 100-2013 Exemption from OCA Circular No. 83-2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OCA Cir. No. 101-2013 Implementation of Sections 2 and 3 of RA No. 10158 . . . . . . . . . . . . . OCA Cir. No. 103-2013 Guidelines in the Implementation of the Automated Payroll System in the Single-Sala RTCs Outside the NCJR and the MTCs in All Judicial Regions . . . . . . . . . . . OCA Cir. No. 107-2013 New Guidelines on Jail Visitation and Inspection (A.M. No. 07-3-02-SC).. OCA Cir. No. 109-2013 Cover Letter for Copies of Orders, Decisions and Other Documents Submitted by Lower Courts to the OCA . . . . . . Upcoming PHILJA Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 28 23 23 24 1 3 16 17
From the Chancellors Desk

(Continued from page 1)
PHILJA also continued to support the Courts Enhanced Justice on Wheels (E-JOW) Program with the conduct of its Information Dissemination component through a Dialogue among Barangay and Court Officials during the EJOW caravans in the cities of Surigao, Butuan, General Santos, and in the municipality of Polomolok, South Cotabato, all in Mindanao; and in the City of San Pablo in Laguna. The Academy, through the Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO), held a number of activities in support of Alternative Dispute Resolution such as: a refresher/advanced course for Court-Annexed Mediators for the Isabela and Tuguegarao Mediation Programs in Cauayan City, Isabela; South Cotabato, Sarangani, and General Santos City Mediation Programs in General Santos City; and the Davao Mediation Program in Davao City. An orientation and screening of prospective mediators and PMC unit staff as well as a pre-internship orientation and meeting with judges, clerks of court, branch clerks of court, mediation trainees and PMC unit staff were also held in Legazpi City for the Albay Mediation Program, and in Sorsogon City for the Sorsogon Mediation Program. A basic mediation course for these two mediation programs was also held in Legazpi City. An orientation of clerks of court and branch clerks of court on Judicial Dispute Resolution was conducted in Laguna. We likewise continued taking note of new rulings of the Supreme Court and kept up with the reminders on doctrinal rulings, as well as the newly issued Court orders, resolutions, and circulars posted on our website http:// philja.judiciary.gov.ph. We also took note of new OCA circulars. In closing, I would like to thank our ever-dependable officials and staff, our brilliant corps of professors and lecturers, as well as our reliable program partners for giving their best to the Academy. Special thanks, too, to the Chief Justice and the Court En Banc for their unrelenting support for all our programs and activities. All the best.
29
29
30 30 31
31 32 33 33 34
34 35 ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Chancellor
37 40
TRAININGS, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Ceremonial Turnover of the Final Draft of the Proposed Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
RTD: Knowledge Sharing on Laws, Rules and Trends on Asset Forfeiture and Management
A Knowledge Sharing on Laws, Rules and Trends on Asset Forfeiture and Management was conducted by PHILJA on August 23, 2013, in partnership with the United States (U.S.) Department of JusticeCriminal Division, OPDAT. The knowledge sharing, by way of a roundtable discussion (RTD) and a focus group discussion (FGD) workshop attended by 12 judges from the NCJR and Region IV, aimed to re-apprise the judges and other stakeholders of the various laws, rules, jurisprudence and developments on asset forfeiture and management; to familiarize them with the countrys current state as regards the implementation of asset recovery efforts and the various challenges that must be addressed in order to improve the present system; and to expose them to the best practices being observed outside the country, the U.S. in particular. The RTD focused on the following topics: Philippine Laws, Rules on Asset Forfeiture and Management; Emerging Trends on Asset Forfeiture and Management: The Philippine Perspective; and Emerging Trends on Asset Forfeiture and Management: The International Perspective. From the discussions emerged the most problematic issue in asset forfeiturethe lack of an effective asset management system or regime for forfeited assets. Suggestions on how to improve the current asset management system in the Philippines surfaced during the discussions such as for PHILJA to consider coming up with best practices rules for managing assets that should be developed within the judiciary in the absence of a clear legal regime for asset management of forfeited assets. Informations gathered from the judges and other stakeholders regarding the challenges they face in asset forfeiture and management and the various existing problem areas in handling anti-money laundering and other financial crime cases during the FGD workshop will be used as bases for the training curriculum of the Seminar-Workshop on Combating Money Laundering and Other Financial Crimes in the Philippines.
In a special En Banc session on September 3, 2013,the Court En Banc led by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno accepted the submission by the Core Committee of the National Conference for the Revision of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the final draft of the proposed revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The ceremonial turnover was witnessed by the Court En Banc and attended by selected members of the Judiciary, the Core Committee members, Topical Working Group members, institutions and individuals who have shared their resources, expertise, competence, and commitment in the drafting of the proposed revised rules. In the same event, the Chief Justice awarded plaques of recognition to partner institutions, namely, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, University of the Philippines Law Center, PHILJA, Ateneo de Manila University School of Law, Office of the Solicitor General, and SC Office of the Chief Attorney; the Core Committee members, the members of the Topical Working Groups; and the Support Staff of the National Conference for the Revision of the Rules of Civil Procedure as commendation for their invaluable contributions in achieving the goals of the national conference. Certificates of recognition were also awarded to the delegates of the national conference comprising leading justices, judges, academicians, law practitioners and legal luminaries, for sharing their views and expertise, and for working extended hours to ensure full discussion of the draft rules.
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
Stakeholders Consultation Workshop and Presentation of the First Helpbook on Combating Human Trafficking
First General Assembly and Seminar of the Association of Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs
On July 11 to 12, 2013, the PHILJA, in partnership with the Association of Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs (ACCES), conducted the First General Assembly and Seminar of the Association of Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs pursuant to OCA Circular No. 60A-2013. The associations president, Atty. Engracio M. Escasinas, Jr., gave the opening address. The Chief Justice was the guest of honor and Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez was the guest speaker to 74 clerks of court and ex officio sheriffs who attended the activity. The seminar component provided lecture sessions in response to the need of clerks of court and ex officio sheriffs to foster sound values, strengthen commitment to public service, enhance court management and human resource skills, and gain clarification on certain topics. Topics discussed were issues and concerns in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings under Act No. 3135 and under Rule 141 which covered problems in the disbursement of the Sheriff Trust Fund, withdrawal/cancellation of complaints, problems regarding the new rules on pauper litigants represented by the Public Attorneys Office, and requirements in the withdrawal of cash bonds and rental deposits.
A Stakeholders Consultation Workshop and Presentation of the First Draft of the Helpbook on Combating Human Trafficking in the Philippines was conducted by PHILJA on August 13, 2013, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division, OPDAT. Aside from the presentation of the first draft of the helpbook, the activity gathered comments and recommendations that would be consolidated and evaluated for integration in the second draft of the helpbook. In attendance were 26 participants composed of selected judges, prosecutors and representatives from government agencies with experience in handling trafficking cases (i.e., Department of Justice, Department of Social Welfare and Development, Department of Foreign Affairs, National Bureau of Investigation, Philippine Center on Transnational Crime, Council for the Welfare of Children, Philippine Commission on Women, International Justice Mission, and Bureau of Immigration). The helpbook is a by-product of seminar-workshops and roundtable discussions conducted back in 2012. Significant learnings and recommendations from all these activities were integrated and written in a helpbook that will serve as a guide to all stakeholders of trafficking cases. The following chapters have been written thus far: General Introduction and Situationer on Trafficking in the Philippines, Investigation, Prosecution, Judicial Process, Victims and Witnesses, and The Role of the Civil Society.
Seminar-Workshop on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property

On July 25 to 26, 2013, PHILJA conducted the SeminarWorkshop on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property for Special Commercial Court Judges in the NCJR and selected SC and CA Attorneys, in partnership with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). The seminar-workshop, the first in the series on substantive laws and jurisprudence on intellectual property, was attended by 75 participants who were apprised on how to access IPO assistance in trials involving highly technical evidence or matters and topics on trademarks; copyrights; intellectual property rights violations; cybercrime investigation; patents, industrial designs, utility models; and TRO/preliminary injunctions and other remedies with the end goal of enhancing the capacity of judges and court attorneys for the effective, efficient and expeditious disposition of intellectual property cases. Group workshops were facilitated to assess participants learnings from the lectures.
5
Hon. John Benedict D. Medina MeTC, Br. 96, Mandaluyong City Hon. Ruth S. Pasion-Ramos MeTC, Br. 99, Mandaluyong City Hon. Anne Perpetual S. Rivera-Sia MeTC, Br. 12, Manila Hon. Lady Rochelle S. Saymo-Llabres MeTC, Br. 50, Caloocan City Hon. Eduardo C. Solangon, Jr. MeTC, Br. 98, Mandaluyong City Hon. James T. Sy MeTC, Br. 76, Marikina City MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
IN
Orientation
66th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges Date: July 2 to 11, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 47 newly appointed judges, namely: REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Elisa R. Sarmiento-Flores RTC, Br. 71, Pasig City REGION I Hon. Marita B. Balloguing RTC, Br. 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur REGION III Hon. Jude Erwin U. Alaba RTC, Br. 91, Baler, Aurora Hon. Crisostomo J. Daguilan RTC, Br. 21, MaIolos City, Bulacan Hon. Johnmuel Romano Ritzard D. Mendoza RTC, Br. 26, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija REGION V Hon. Vivencio Gregorio G. Atutubo III RTC, Br. 32, Pili, Camarines Sur REGION VI Hon. Therese Blanche A. Bolunia RTC, Br. 47, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental REGION VIII Hon. Eligio P. Petilla RTC, Br. 42, Tacloban City, Leyte METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Allan B. Ariola MeTC, Br. 46, Pasay City Hon. Alberto N. Azarcon III MeTC, Br. 63, Makati. City Hon. Juvenal N. Bella MeTC, Br. 39, Quezon City Hon. Bernard P. Bernal MeTC, Br. 74, Taguig City Hon. Ma. Concepcion A. Billones MeTC, Br. 62, Makati City Hon. Dolly Rose R. Bolante-Prado MeTC, Br. 97, Mandaluyong City Hon. Ma. Maureen T. Concepcion-Dy MeTC, Br. 2, Manila Hon. Joel Socrates S. Lopena MeTC, Br. 33, Quezon City
CITIES
REGION III Hon. Jose V. Covarrubias III MTCC, Br. 1, Meycauayan City, Bulacan REGION V Hon. Michael A. Balmaceda MTCC, Br. 1, Sorsogon City, Sorsogon Hon. Ma. Luzy B. Torres-Clasio MTCC, Br. 2, Iriga City, Camarines Sur REGION VI Hon. Anne Beatrice A. Balmaceda MTCC, Br. 1, Iloilo City MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS REGION II Hon. Remalie C. Corbe-Cardenas MTC, Diffun, Quirino REGION III Hon. Romeo Carmelito C. Conge MTC, Pulilan, Bulacan Hon. Marjorie W. Maranan-Dempsey MTC, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS REGION II Hon. Donabel A. Balot 1st MCTC: Aglipay-Saguday, Quirino Hon. Queenie A. Mallillin 1st MCTC: Claveria-Sta. Praxedes, Cagayan REGION III Hon. Richard G. Evangelista 2nd MCTC: Mexico-San Luis, Pampanga Hon. Rebecca A. Guillen-Ubaa 2nd MCTC: Masinloc-Palauig, Zambales Hon. Jonald E. Hernandez 2nd MCTC: Maria Aurora-Dipaculao, Aurora Hon. Jo Anne D.C. Malaton 1st MCTC: Casiguran-Dilasag-Dinalongan, Aurora Hon. Rochelle S. Manuel 6th MCTC: Mabalacat-Magalang, Pampanga
6
Hon. Maria Belinda C. Rama 1st MCTC: Sta. Ana-Candaba, Pampanga Hon. Jacqueline R. Suing 3rd MCTC: Botolan-Cabangan, Zambales Hon. Edith Cynthia A. Wee 3rd MCTC: Baler-San Luis, Aurora REGION V Hon. Joveliza P. Palo-Soriano 6th MCTC: Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur REGION VI Hon. Maria Theresa P. Aldon 6th MCTC: Pandan-Libertad-Caluya, Antique Hon. Jerson F. Almalbis 4th MCTC: Dumarao-Cuartero, Capiz Hon. Janette Mae J. Dillomes 3rd MCTC: Patnongon-Bugasong-Valderrama, Antique Hon. Lunel J. Gabayoyo 2nd MCTC: Sibalom-San Remigio-Belison, Antique Hon. Wilfredo P. Paciente, Jr. 4th MCTC: Makato-Tangalan, Aklan REGION IX Hon. Nimfa C. Padao 3rd MCTC: Sindangan-Bacungan-Ponot, Zamboanga del Norte SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT REGION IX Hon. Alberto O. Romoros First Sharia District 1: Jolo, Sulu 67th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges Date: August 6 to 15, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 35 newly appointed judges, namely: REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Mariam G. Bien RTC, Br. 153, Pasig City Hon. Achilles Aristotle Apolinario C. Bulauitan RTC, Br. 154, Pasig City Hon. Joy N. Casihan-Dumlao RTC, Br. 262, Pasig City Hon. Bibiano G. Colasito RTC, Br. 50, Manila Hon. Maximo M. De Leon RTC, Br. 143, Makati City Hon. Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama RTC, Br. 79, Quezon City Hon. Marlina M. Manuel RTC, Br. 25, Manila Hon. Glenda C. Marin RTC, Br. 124, Caloocan City Hon. Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito RTC, Br. 5, Manila Hon. Manuel B. Sta. Cruz, Jr. RTC, Br. 226, Quezon City Hon. Josefino A. Subia RTC, Br. 138, Makati City Hon. Janice R. Yulo-Antero RTC, Br. 16, Manila
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
REGION III Hon. Christine Marie C. Capule RTC, Br. 48, City of San Fernando, Pampanga Hon. Mary Jane B. Dacara-Buenaventura RTC, Br. 43, City of San Fernando, Pampanga Hon. Emmanuel A. Silva RTC, Br. 4, Mariveles, Bataan Hon. Trese D. Wenceslao RTC, Br. 28, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija REGION V Hon. Evan D. Dizon RTC, Br. 40, Daet, Camarines Norte REGION VI Hon. Rosario Ester B. Orda-Caise RTC, Br. 48, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental REGION VII Hon. Mercedita G. Dadole-Ygnacio RTC, Br. 28, Mandaue City, Cebu REGION VIII Hon. Nathaniel E. Baldono RTC, Br. 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar Hon. Girlie M. Borrel-Yu RTC, Br. 35, Ormoc City, Leyte Hon. Evelyn P. Rios-Lesigues RTC, Br. 43, Tacloban City, Leyte MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
IN
CITIES
REGION VI Hon. Dialinda S. Dominguez MTCC, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental REGION VII Hon. Maria Corazon C. Gadugdug MTCC, Br. 2, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental REGION VIII Hon. Rene D. Romero, Jr. MTCC, Ormoc City, Leyte MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS REGION VIII Hon. Estefanie R. Plaza MTC, Burauen, Leyte
7
Tranne L. Digao-Ferrer RTC, Br. 28, Mandaue City, Cebu Florence Ed T. Obial-Kadusale RTC, Br. 45, Bais City, Negros Oriental Nyassa N. Orquillas RTC, Br. 46, Larena, Siquijor Boy C. Tecson RTC, Br. 26, Argao, Cebu REGION VIII Liza T. Caintic RTC, Br. 23, Allen, Northern Samar Marc Anito L. Camarines RTC, Br. 41, Gandara, Samar Melinda L. Docena RTC, Br. 24, Maasin, Southern Leyte Raul S. Villanobos RTC, Br. 31, Calbayog City, Samar REGION X Detchie D. Casals RTC, Br. 3, Butuan City Kathryn A. Galarrita RTC, Br. 39, Cagayan De Oro City REGION XI Ruby Jane S. Pea-Carea RTC, Br. 21, Bansalan, Davao Del Sur REGION XII Ofelia P. Cabahug RTC, Br. 18, Midsayap, North Cotabato Lennie Ann C. Cerdana RTC, Br. 20, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat Joel Batua M. Macaraya, Jr. RTC, OCC, Iligan City, Lanao Del Norte Lailane T. Mastura RTC, Br. 15, Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS REGION VII Liezel N. Gedorio MTCC, OCC, Mandaue City REGION VIII Ronaldo C. Bachao MTCC , Catbalogan City Edwin K. Cabello MTCC, OCC, Tacloban City REGION IX Mary Jean J. Eisma MTCC, OCC, Zamboanga City Luzminda S. Mercado MTCC, Br. 1, Dipolog City
IN
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS REGION VII Hon. Ma. Katrina C. Gonzalez-Pasicaran 2nd MCTC: Bindoy-Manjuyod-Ayungon, Negros Oriental Hon. Yvette Christine R. Labrador-Soleng 13th MCTC: Loay-Albuquerque-Baclayon, Bohol Hon. Leah P. Villarubia 1st MCTC: Pamplona-Amlan-San Jose, Negros Oriental REGION VIII Hon. Terso Y. Ducentes 1st MCTC: Macrohon-Padre Burgos-Limasawa Southern Leyte Hon. Allan Sixto DG Estudillo 3rd MCTC: Gandara-Matuguinao, San Jorge, Samar Hon. Fiel l. Marmita 4th MCTC: San Julian-Sulat, Eastern Samar Hon. Gorgonia Pineda-Encina 9th MCTC: Capul-San Vicente, Northern Samar Hon. Ruberna B. Quibal 4th MCTC: Catubig-Las Navas, Northern Samar Hon. Ritchie B. Reyes 8th MCTC: Daram-Zumarraga, Samar 26th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Clerks of Court Date: July 30 to August 2, 2013 Venue: Harolds Hotel, Lahug, Cebu City Participants: 53 newly appointed clerks of court, namely: REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS REGION V Ruben F. Mission V RTC, Br. 16, Tabaco, Albay Indira P. Napicol RTC, OCC, Daet, Camarines Norte Fe Cecelia B. Turiano RTC, Br. 35, Iriga City, Camarines Sur Doreen Ann C. Savilla RTC, Br. 39, Daet, Camarines Norte REGION VI Warme P. Araneta RTC, Br. 25, Iloilo City, Iloilo Melinaire L. Jalipa RTC, Br. 34, Iloilo City, Iloilo Gerald John G. Joven RTC, Br. 44, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Dale D. Pascua RTC, Br. 53, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental REGION VII Cheryl L. Baquial-Gamas RTC, Br. 1, Tagbilaran City, Bohol
CITIES
8
REGION X Cecil G. Paasa MTCC, Br. 4, Cagayan De Oro City Joan A. Torralba MTCC, Br. 1, Butuan City REGION XII Zolaica B. Baruang MTCC, Br. 3, Iligan City Analyn P. Dimaporo MTCC, Br. 4, Iligan City MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS REGION V David G. Ebo, Jr. MTC, San Andres, Catanduanes REGION VI Evagenia F. Delloso MTC, Hinobaan, Negros Occidental Ivy B. Jocsing MTC, Oton, Iloilo REGION VIII Lorelei V. Amantillo MTC, Marabut, Samar Leonor C. Echano MTC, Laoang, Northern Samar Emily S. Mercado MTC, Liloan, Southern Leyte Thelma A. Pagatpatan MTC, Tolosa, Leyte REGION X Zacarias M. Balingkit MTC, Alubijid, Misamis Oriental MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS REGION V Filipinas F. Aquino 1st MCTC: Ragay-Del Gallego, Camarines Sur Magin P. Salipot 5th MCTC: Dimasalang-Palanas-Uson, Masbate Maria T. Tejerero 1st MCTC: Bato-San Miguel, Catanduanes REGION VI Remyden S. Peralta 5th MCTC: Culasi-Sebaste, Antique Annel C. Fajarillo 4th MCTC: Dumarao-Cuartero, Capiz REGION VII Marigrace L. Batingal 1st MCTC: Cortes-Antequera-Maribojoc, Bohol Henry P. Caete, Jr. 7th MCTC: Liloan-Compostela, Cebu Candelaria S. Raro 12th MCTC: Lila-Loboc, Bohol
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
REGION VIII Angelina T. Abe 10th MCTC: Merida-Isabel, Leyte Marietta L. De Leon 5th MCTC: Mondragon-San Roque, Northern Samar Virginia O. Montopar 9TH MCTC: Capul-San Vicente, Northern Samar REGION XI Edith S. Chavez 2nd MCTC: Hagonoy-Matanao, Davao Del Sur 2nd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process Servers Date: July 24 to 26, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 71 newly appointed sheriffs and process servers, namely: A. SHERIFFS REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION Ritchie M. Arciaga RTC, Br. 256, Muntinlupa City Vladimir T. Cos RTC, OCC, Paraaque City Mark Vincent O. Lamano RTC, OCC, Manila Christopher P. Mendoza RTC, OCC, Manila Edwin C. Pueca RTC, OCC, Manila REGION I Felmer J. Abrigado RTC, Br. 17, Batac, lIocos Norte Corsini Alvin B. Barbadillo RTC, Br. 1, Bangued, Abra Liberty Joy M. Guarin RTC, Br. 39, Lingayen, Pangasinan Russell Blair S. Nabua RTC, Br. 42, Dagupan City, Pangasinan Rex Ian B. Villalobos RTC, Br. 71, Candon City, lIocos Sur Gilbert Ernesto P. Yalao III RTC, Br. 18, Batac, Ilocos Norte REGION II Bernardo A. Abela RTC, Br. 13, Basco, Batanes Froilan P. Dulnuan RTC, Br. 15, Alfonso Lista, Ifugao
9
Veneru Paul N. Santos MeTC, Br. 89, Paraaque City Conrado R. Serzo MeTC, Br. 87, Paraaque City MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
IN
Chester Aries B. Galera RTC, Br. 27, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya Nelson A. Marcha RTC, Br. 5, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan REGION III Lemuel J. Agar RTC, Br. 28, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija George P. Clemente RTC, Br. 67, Paniqui, Tarlac Leo D. Dacion RTC, OCC, Guagua, Pampanga Rodolfo C. Parungao, Jr. RTC, Br. 23, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija REGION IV Marvin N. Raciles RTC, Br. 69, Binangonan, Rizal REGION V Carmen Imelda P. Ante RTC, Br. 5, Legazpi City, Albay Luciano O. Apolinar, Jr. RTC, Br. 1, Legazpi City, Albay Gregorio C. Borrega RTC, Br. 42, Virac, Catanduanes Mitchell D. Bulanon RTC, Br. 61, Naga City, Camarines Sur Jose P. Codia, Jr. RTC, OCC, Legazpi City, Albay Noel R. Gonzales RTC, OCC, Naga City, Camarines Sur Hermie Jesus E. Intia RTC, Br. 24, Naga City, Camarines Sur Joseph S. Lopez RTC, Br. 10, Legazpi City, Albay Teresa P. Robrigado RTC, Br. 13, Ligao City, Albay Jesusa E. Taduran RTC, OCC, Pili, Camarines Sur Emilio C. Yuson RTC, Br. 27, Naga City, Camarines Sur METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION Marvin F. Calma MeTC, Br. 14, Manila Rio C. Carbonell MeTC, Br. 90, Paraaque City Rolando S. Escobar MeTC, Br. 92, Marikina City Oneil P. Santos MeTC, Br. 83, Caloocan City
CITIES
REGION III Mark Anthony R. Llacuna MTCC, Br. 3, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan Jomar M. Salando MTCC, Br. 2, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan REGION IV Lance Carmelo R. Fortu MTCC, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro REGION V Benjie A. Paao MTCC, Br. 3, Naga City, Camarines Sur Regino S. Revina, Jr. MTCC, OCC, Iriga City, Camarines Sur B. PROCESS SERVERS REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION Fortunato L. Doroteo, Jr. RTC, OCC, Manila Joel U. Evilla RTC, Br. 136, Makati City REGION I Arsenio Antonio R. Atud RTC, OCC, Vigan City, lIocos Sur Gilbert L. Evangelista RTC, OCC, Baguio City Ruben V. Severino RTC, OCC, Tayug, Pangasinan REGION II Alexander N. Imperial RTC, Br. 13, Basco, Batanes William F. Jandoc RTC, OCC, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya Jacob H. Lunag RTC, Br. 14, Lagawe, Ifugao REGION III Christopher B. Cale RTC, Br. 5, Dinalupihan, Bataan Martin Barry P. Magno RTC, Br. 76, Malolos City, Bulacan REGION IV Ruby Ann E. Masalunga RTC, Br. 12, Lipa City, Batangas
10
REGION V Romel S. Pujol RTC, Br. 6, Legazpi City, Albay METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION Rodolfo L. Antiquera MeTC, Br. 89, Paraaque City Richard G. De Mesa MeTC, Br. 84, Caloocan City Godofredo B. Oleza MeTC, Br. 90, Paraaque City Reynaldo E. Pabale MeTC, OCC, Caloocan City Michael Arman A. Ramos MeTC, Br. 83, Caloocan City Reymar L. Saloma MeTC , Br. 92, Marikina City MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS REGION II Rosemary D. Perico MTCC, Cauayan City, Isabela REGION III Jorge A. Adriano MTCC, OCC, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija Josegani R. Clemente MTCC, Br. 3, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan Joerey D. Fernando MTCC, Br. 2, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan REGION V Jesusa Dalhia O. Malaya MTCC, Br. 2, Iriga City, Camarines Sur MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS REGION III Andrew A. Toledo MTC, Rizal, Nueva Ecija Roy T. Vargas MTC, Balagtas, Bulacan REGION IV Orlando D. Biong MTC, Lucban, Quezon REGION V Isidro J. Guerrero MTC, Virac, Catanduanes MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS REGION I Gilbert B. Manzano 4th MCTC: Manabo-Boliney-Tubo-Luba, Abra
IN
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
REGION III Eronze P. Sablayan 3rd MCTC: Laur-Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija
Pre-Judicature Program
31st Pre-Judicature Program Date: September 2 to 13, 2013 Venue: East Asia Royale Hotel, General Santos City Participants: 36 lawyers, namely: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Mary Anne L. Academia Arlyn Joy C. Allosa-Alaba Joy Balayon-Mariano Venchito M. Bangayan Anthony A. Barluado Engracio S. Bautista Jerome C. Beatisola Jose C. Blanza, Jr. Jo Ann M. Burgos Arturo C. Cloma Eldred D. Cole Rebecca G. Dardo-Seredrica Sara Z. Duterte Tomas C. Falgui II Leannierose R. Fenis-Sucatre Jose Jerry L. Fulgar Franklin M. Gacal, Jr. Chalmer C. Gevieso Jose Mariano Constantino G. Gonzalez Maria Primarisa C. Guipo Carolyn D. Lorenzo-Tanudtanud Prince S. Losaria Ariel V. Macahilos Marife R. Macasocol-Alegre Leonard B. Mann Ramon R. Melliza Joyce K. Mirabueno Rafael O. Montilla Pinky D. Ortega Vicente T. Pea Rosendo A. Roque Catharine S. Sespee Gemma B. Tady Caroline Anne Z. Tajon Carmela Mae M. Tunguia Felipe E. Macaldo, Jr. (3 days only)
CITIES
11
Personal Security Training for Judges Date: July 3 to 5, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 54 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges Date: September 3 to 5, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 40 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges Information Dissemination Through a Dialogue between Barangay Officials and Court Officials Date: July 4, 2013 Venue: Surigao City Cultural Center, Surigao City Participants: 112 barangay officials of Surigao City Date: July 5, 2013 Venue: Doa Ynez Convention Center, Butuan City Participants: 274 barangay officials of Butuan City Date: August 23, 2013 Venue: San Pablo City Central Elementary School, San Pablo City, Laguna Participants: 185 barangay officials of San Pablo City Date: September 26, 2013 Venue: Notre Dame of Dadiangas University, General Santos City Participants: 203 barangay officials of City of General Santos Date: September 27, 2013 Venue: Municipal Gym, Polomolok, South Cotabato Participants: 253 barangay officials of Municipality of Polomolok Seminar Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law for Executive Judges and Single Sala Court Judges Date: July 10 to 11, 2013 Venue: Fort Ilocandia Hotel, Laoag City Participants: 31 executive and single sala court judges of Regions I and II Date: August 6 to 7, 2013 Venue: Marco Polo Plaza Hotel, Cebu City Participants: 28 executive judges of Regions VI, VII, VIII and IX and single sala court judges of Regions IX Seminar-Workshop on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property for Special Commercial Court Judges in the National Capital Judicial Region and Selected Attorneys of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Date: July 25 to 26, 2013 Venue: Holiday Inn and Suites Makati, Makati City Participants: 75 judges, SC and CA attorneys, IPO hearing officers and observer
Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP)

JCEP for Judges Date: July 17 to 19, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 88 RTC and First Level Court Judges of Region V Date: August 14 to 16, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 31 RTC Judges of Region I
Career Enhancement Program (CEP)

CEP for First Level Clerks of Court Date: August 27 to 28, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 52 MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of court of Region III (Batch 1) Date: August 29 to 30, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 46 MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of court of Region III (Batch 2) Date: September 11 to 12, 2013 Venue: LFisher Hotel, Bacolod City Participants: 83 MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of court of Region VI
Career Development Program (CDP)

CDP for Court Legal Researchers Date: July 24 to 25, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 45 RTC and MTCC legal researchers of Region X Date: September 18 to 19, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 37 RTC and MTCC legal researchers of Region XI
Special Focus Programs

Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children Date: July 3 to 5, 2013 Venue: The Bayleaf Intramuros, Manila Participants: 37 judges, clerks of court/OIC, court social workers, court interpreters, prosecutors and PAO lawyers of selected single sala courts in Luzon Date: September 4 to 6, 2013 Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu City Participants: 40 judges, clerks of court/OIC, court interpreters, prosecutors and PAO lawyers of Regions VI and VII
12
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
Stakeholders Consultation Workshop and Presentation of the First Draft of the Helpbook on Combating Human Trafficking in the Philippines Date: August 13, 2013 Venue: Diamond Hotel, Manila Participants: 26 selected judges of NCJR, and representatives from DOJ, DSWD, DFA, NBI, BI, Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC), Philippine Commission on Women (PCW), International Justice Mission (IJM), Commission on Filipino Overseas, and Philippine Center on Transnational Crime Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of the First Judicial Region Date: August 13 to 15, 2013 Venue: Fort Ilocandia Hotel, Laoag City Participants: 78 RTC judges, prosecutors and law enforcers of Region I Ceremonial Turnover of the Final Draft of the Proposed Revised Rules of Civil Procedure Date: September 3, 2013 Venue: En Banc Session Hall, Supreme Court, Manila Participants: 190 SC and CTA justices; OCA, PHILJA and OCAT officials; members of the Committee on the Revision of Rules of Civil Procedure, the Core Committee and the Topical Working Groups; judges; representatives from COA, OGCC, OSG, PALS, UPLC, IBP and SC-PIO; Core Committee Secretariat and PHILJA Secretariat Increasing Judicial Efficiency: Seminar-Workshop for Judges on the Effective Use of the Benchbook for Philippine Trial Courts (Revised and Expanded) for Regions VI to IX (Batch 3) Date: September 12, 2013 Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu City Participants: 42 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges of Regions VI to IX Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws Relating to Court Technology for Judges in the Tenth Judicial Region Date: September 18 to 19, 2013 Venue: Pryce Plaza Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City Participants: 35 RTC, MTCC and MTC judges of Region X
Venue: Diamond Hotel, Manila Participants: 12 selected judges
Convention-Seminar
17th National Convention and Seminar of the Sheriffs Confederation of the Philippines (SCOPHIL) Theme: Meeting New Challenges Towards Judicial Independence and Upholding the Rule of Law Date: April 16 to 18, 2013 Venue: Baguio Convention Center, Baguio City Participants: 849 sheriffs The Elected National Officers and Board of Directors are: NATIONAL OFFICERS Patermoscio G. Labayani, President Eduardo L. Bolima, Executive Vice President Felino G. Lacanlalay, Treasurer Fernando Loncion, Auditor Fernando R. Regino, Secretary-General Romeo Pascua, Vice President for Luzon Erly Martir, Vice President for Visayas Reynaldo Taleon, Vice President for Mindanao Arnulfo O. Lim, Vice President for NCJR BOARD OF DIRECTORS Fernando M. Austria, Director-Region I Maximiano C. Corsino, Director-Region II Roy Mendones, Director-Region III Elmer Baltazar, Director-Region IV Jessica Maxilinda A. Ibarreta, Director-Region V Nigel Jalea, Director-Region VI Melvin Destura, Director-Region VII Melito Malate, Director-Region VIII Victoriano Prado III, Director-Region IX Teresito Estenzo, Director-Region X Roberto Esguerra, Director-Region XI Angel C. Ancheta, Director-CARAGA 1st General Assembly and Seminar of the Association of Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs Theme: Delineating and Strengthening the Role of the Clerks of Court and Ex Officio Sheriffs in the Management and Operation of the Courts Geared Towards a Strong and Unified Administrators of the Second Level Courts Date: July 11 to 12, 2013 Venue: The Bayleaf Intramuros, Manila Participants: 74 clerks of court and ex officio sheriffs
Roundtable Discussion
Knowledge Sharing on Laws, Rules and Trends on Asset Forfeiture and Management Date: August 23, 2013
13
15th Convention and Seminar of the Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines (MeTCJAP) Theme: E3j = Enhancing Electronic and Environmental Justice Date: September 18 to 20, 2013 Venue: El Circulo Convention Center, Roxas City Participants: 116 MeTC judges 11th National Convention and Seminar of the RTC Clerks of Court Association of the Philippines (RTC-COCAP) Theme: Clerks of Court in Pursuit of Excellence Date: September 24 to 26, 2013 Venue: Crown Regency Resort and Convention Center Boracay Island, Aklan Participants: 255 RTC clerks of court
Participants: 49 judges, clerks of court/branch clerks of court, mediation trainees and PMCU staff Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators Isabela and Tuguegarao Mediation Programs Date: September 4 to 5, 2013 Venue: Hotel Andrea, Cauayan City, Isabela Participants: 27 mediators South Cotabato, Sarangani, and General Santos City Mediation Programs Date: September 17 to 18, 2013 Venue: Phela Grande Hotel, General Santos City Participants: 24 mediators Davao Mediation Program Date: September 19 to 20, 2013 Venue: Grand Regal Hotel, Davao City Participants: 25 mediators Faculty Workshop for the Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-Based Course)
On ADR/Mediation/JDR
Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators and PMC Unit Staff Albay Mediation Program Date: July 1 to 2, 2013 Venue: Halls of Justice of Ligao City and Legazpi City, Albay Participants: 34 mediators and staff applicants Sorsogon Mediation Program Date: July 3 to 4, 2013 Venue: Halls of Justice of Sorsogon City and Irosin, Sorsogon Participants: 39 mediators and staff applicants Basic Mediation Course Albay and Sorsogon Mediation Programs Date: July 22 to 25, 2013 Venue: Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City, Albay Participants: 41 mediation trainees Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees and PMCU Staff Albay Mediation Program Date: July 25, 2013 Venue: Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City, Albay Participants: 85 judges, clerks of court/branch clerks of court, mediation trainees and PMCU staff Sorsogon Mediation Program Date: July 26, 2013 Venue: Sorsogon Paradise Hotel and Resort, Sorsogon City
Date: July 11 to 12, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 63 PMCU staff Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-Based Course) Date: July 30 to August 2, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 64 judges Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court on Judicial Dispute Resolution Date: September 12, 2013 Venue: La Vista Pansol Resort, Calamba, Laguna Participants: 47 clerks of court and branch clerks of court Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys and Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute Resolution Date: September 12, 2013 Venue: La Vista Pansol Resort, Calamba, Laguna Participants: 59 prosecutors, public attorneys and IBP/law practitioners Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar for Philippine Mediation Center Unit Staff Date: July 11 to 12, 2013 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 63 PMCU staff
14
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (seated, center) with participants of the 66th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges held on July 211, 2013, at the PTC, Tagaytay City.
Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (seated, center) with participants of the 67th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges held on August 615, 2013, at the PTC, Tagaytay City.
Deputy Court Administrator Thelma C. Bahia (seated, center) with participants of the 2nd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process Servers held on July 2426, 2013, at the PTC, Tagaytay City.
15
PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna (seated, center) with participants of the Roundtable Discussion: Knowledge Sharing on Laws, Rules and Trends on Asset Forfeiture and Management held on August 23, 2013, at the Diamond Hotel, Manila.
Participants of the Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children held on July 35, 2013, at The Bayleaf Intramuros, Manila.
16
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
evidence and in giving due consideration to petitioners written statement as there is no constitutional impediment to its admissibility.
Constitutional Law
Non-admissibility of admission or confession of guilt applicable only in custodial interrogations.
The constitutional proscription against the admissibility of admission or confession of guilt obtained in violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, as correctly observed by the CA and the OSG, is applicable only in custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogation means any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. Indeed, a person under custodial investigation is guaranteed certain rights which attach upon the commencement thereof, viz: (1) to remain silent, (2) to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, and (3) to be informed of the two other rights above. In the present case, while it is undisputed that petitioner gave an uncounselled written statement regarding an anomaly discovered in the branch he managed, the following are clear: (1) the questioning was not initiated by a law enforcement authority but merely by an internal affairs manager of the bank; and, (2) petitioner was neither arrested nor restrained of his liberty in any significant manner during the questioning. Clearly, petitioner cannot be said to be under custodial investigation and to have been deprived of the constitutional prerogative during the taking of his written statement. Moreover, in Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, we declared that the right to counsel applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation. Amplifying further on the matter, the Court made clear in the recent case of Carbonel v. Civil Service Commission:
However, it must be remembered that the right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect during custodial investigation. Thus, the exclusionary rule under paragraph (2), Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation.
Del Castillo, J., Carlos L. Tanenggee v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013.
Commercial Law
Insurance companies must investigate within two years from effectivity of the policy those they insure.
Section 48 of the Insurance Code, serves a noble purpose, as it regulates the actions of both the insurer and the insured. Under the provision, an insurer is given two years from the effectivity of a life insurance contract and while the insured is aliveto discover or prove that the policy is void ab initio or is rescindable by reason of the fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of the insured or his agent. After the two-year period lapses, or when the insured dies within the period, the insurer must make good on the policy, even though the policy was obtained by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation. This is not to say that insurance fraud must be rewarded, but that insurers who recklessly and indiscriminately solicit and obtain business must be penalized, for such recklessness and lack of discrimination ultimately work to the detriment of bona fide takers of insurance and the public in general. Section 48 regulates both the actions of the insurers and prospective takers of life insurance. It gives insurers enough time to inquire whether the policy was obtained by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation; on the other hand, it forewarns scheming individuals that their attempts at insurance fraud would be timely uncovered thus deterring them from venturing into such nefarious enterprise. At the same time, legitimate policy holders are absolutely protected from unwarranted denial of their claims or delay in the collection of insurance proceeds occasioned by allegations of fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation by insurers, claims which may no longer be set up after the two-year period expires as ordained under the law. Thus, the self-regulating feature of Section 48 lies in the fact that both the insurer and the insured are given the assurance that any dishonest scheme to obtain life insurance would be exposed, and attempts at unduly denying a claim would be struck down. Life insurance policies that pass the statutory two-year period are essentially treated as legitimate and beyond question, and the individuals who wield them are made secure by the thought that they will be paid promptly upon claim. In this manner, Section 48 contributes to the stability of the insurance industry.
Here, petitioners written statement was given during an administrative inquiry conducted by his employer in connection with an anomaly/irregularity he allegedly committed in the course of his employment. No error can therefore be attributed to the courts below in admitting in
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 New Rulings

Commercial Law (continued)
17
here are seeking the establishment of a status or right. In the early case of Litam, et al. v. Rivera, this Court ruled that the declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding, and not in an independent civil action. This doctrine was reiterated in Solivio v. Court of Appeals x x x: In the more recent case of Milagros Joaquino v. Lourdes Reyes , the Court reiterated its ruling that matters relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in the proper probate court in a special proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of determining such rights. Citing the case of Agapay v. Palang, this Court held that the status of an illegitimate child who claimed to be an heir to a decedents estate could not be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action which, as in this case, was for the recovery of property. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
Section 48 prevents a situation where the insurer knowingly continues to accept annual premium payments on life insurance, only to later on deny a claim on the policy on specious claims of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, such as what obtains in the instant case. Thus, instead of conducting at the first instance an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the issuance of Insurance Policy No. 747411 which would have timely exposed the supposed flaws and irregularities attending it as it now professes, petitioner appears to have turned a blind eye and opted instead to continue collecting the premiums on the policy. For nearly three years, petitioner collected the premiums and devoted the same to its own profit. It cannot now deny the claim when it is called to account. Section 48 must be applied to it with full force and effect.
Del Castillo, J., Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation v. Cresencia P. Aban, G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013.
Civil Law
Determination of legal heirs must be made in a special proceeding/s case and not in a suit for recovery of ownership and possession.
Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property. This must take precedence over the action for recovery of possession and ownership. The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners
By way of exception, the need to institute a separate special proceeding for the determination of heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of practicality, as when the parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment thereon, or when a special proceeding had been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened. In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions, or those of similar nature, appear to exist. Hence, there lies the need to institute the proper special proceeding in order to determine the heirship of the parties involved, ultimately resulting to the dismissal of Civil Case No. T-2246.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon, namely, Alvaro Ypon, Erudita Y. Baron, Cicero Ypon, Wilson Ypon, Victor Ypon, and Hinidino Y. Pealosa v. Gaudioso Ponteras Ricaforte a.k.a Gaudioso E. Ypon, and The Register of Deeds of Toledo City, G.R. No. 198680, July 8, 2013.
Execution by motion within five years; exception.

The Rules of Court provide that a final and executory judgment may be executed by motion within five years from the date of its entry or by an action after the lapse of five years and before prescription sets in. This Court, however, allows exceptions when execution may be made by motion even after the lapse of five years. These exceptions have one common denominator: the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment obligor and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage.
(Next page)
18
Doctrinal Reminders
Civil Law (continued)
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
In Camacho v. Court of Appeals, we held that where the delays were occasioned by the judgment debtors own initiatives and for her advantage as well as beyond the judgment creditors control, the five-year period allowed for enforcement of the judgment by motion is deemed to have been effectively interrupted or suspended. In the present case, there is no dispute that RCBC seeks to enforce the decision which became final and executory on April 15, 1994. This decision orders Serra to execute and deliver the proper deed of sale in favor of RCBC. However, to evade his obligation to RCBC, Serra transferred the property to his mother Ablao, who then transferred it to Liok. Serras action prompted RCBC to file the Annulment case. Clearly, the delay in the execution of the decision was caused by Serra for his own advantage. Thus, the pendency of the Annulment case effectively suspended the five-year period to enforce through a motion the decision in the Specific Performance case. Since the decision in the Annulment case attained finality on March 3, 2009 and RCBCs motion for execution was filed on August 25, 2011, RCBCs motion is deemed filed within the five-year period for enforcement of a decision through a motion. This Court has reiterated that the purpose of prescribing time limitations for enforcing judgments is to prevent parties from sleeping on their rights. Far from sleeping on its rights, RCBC has pursued persistently its action against Serra in accordance with law. On the other hand, Serra has continued to evade his obligation by raising issues of technicality. While strict compliance with the rules of procedure is desired, liberal interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of justice.
Carpio, J., Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Federico A. Serra, G.R. No. 203241, July 10, 2013.
did not question the execution of the subject deed of sale made by their mother to Bobby. These incidents can but only lead to the conclusion that they were well-aware of the subject transaction and yet only pursued their claim 14 years after the sale was executed.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., Bobby Tan v. Grace Andrade, Proceso Andrade, Jr., Charity A. Santiago, Henry Andrade, Andrew Andrade, Jasmin Blaza, Glory Andrade, Miriam Rose Andrade, and Joseph Andrade, G.R. No. 171904 and Grace Andrade, Charity A. Santiago, Henry Andrade, Andrew Andrade, Jasmin Blaza, Miriam Rose Andrade, and Joseph Andrade v. Bobby Tan, G.R. No. 172017, August 7, 2013.
Land Registration Law

Rules on the disposition of public lands or lands of the public domain.
Rules relative to the disposition of public land or lands of the public domain, namely: (1) As a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State and are inalienable. Lands that are not clearly under private ownership are also presumed to belong to the State and, therefore, may not be alienated or disposed; (2) The following are excepted from the general rule, to wit: (a) Agricultural lands of the public domain are rendered alienable and disposable through any of the exclusive modes enumerated under Section 11 of the Public Land Act. If the mode is judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act , the agricultural land subject of the application needs only to be classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of the application, provided the applicants possession and occupation of the land dated back to June 12, 1945, or earlier. Thereby, a conclusive presumption that the applicant has performed all the conditions essential to a government grant arises, and the applicant becomes the owner of the land by virtue of an imperfect or incomplete title. By legal fiction, the land has already ceased to be part of the public domain and has become private property. (b) Lands of the public domain subsequently classified or declared as no longer intended for public use or for the development of national wealth are removed from the sphere of public dominion and are considered converted into
Laches defined.
Case law defines laches as the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. Records disclose that the Andrades took 14 years before filing their complaint for reconveyance in 1997. The argument that they did not know about the subject transaction is clearly belied by the facts on record. It is undisputed that Proceso, Jr. was a co-vendee in the subject deed of sale, while Henry was an instrumental witness to the Deed of Assignment and Option to Buy both dated July 26, 1983. Likewise, Rosarios sons, Proceso, Jr. and Andrew,
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 Doctrinal Reminders

Land Registration Law (continued)
19
the subsequent sale to petitioners is null and void, because when it was made, the seller Garcia was no longer the owner of the lot. Nemo dat quod non habet. The fact that the sale to Juanito was not notarized does not alter anything, since the sale between him and Garcia remains valid nonetheless. Notarization, or the requirement of a public document under the Civil Code, is only for convenience, and not for validity or enforceability. And because it remained valid as between Juanito and Garcia, the latter no longer had the right to sell the lot to petitioners, for his ownership thereof had ceased. Nor can petitioners registration of their purchase have any effect on Juanitos rights. The mere registration of a sale in ones favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was no longer the owner of the land, having previously sold the same to another even if the earlier sale was unrecorded. Neither could it validate the purchase thereof by petitioners, which is null and void. Registration does not vest title; it is merely the evidence of such title. Our land registration laws do not give the holder any better title than what he actually has. Specifically, it was held in Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Palileo that:
Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is without prejudice to a third party with a better right. The aforequoted phrase has been held by this Court to mean that the mere registration of a sale in ones favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded.
Del Castillo, J. , Spouses Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. and Ma. Rosario M. Sabitsana v. Juanito F. Muertegui, represented by his Attorney-inFact Domingo A. Muertegui, Jr., G.R. No. 181359, August 5, 2013.
patrimonial lands or lands of private ownership that may be alienated or disposed through any of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. If the mode of acquisition is prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary, proof that the land has been already converted to private ownership prior to the requisite acquisitive prescriptive period is a condition sine qua non in observance of the law (Article 1113, Civil Code) that property of the State not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription. To reiterate, then, the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land since June 12, 1945. Without satisfying the requisite character and period of possessionpossession and occupation that is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since June 12, 1945, or earlierthe land cannot be considered ipso jure converted to private property even upon the subsequent declaration of it as alienable and disposable. Prescription never began to run against the State, such that the land has remained ineligible for registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. Likewise, the land continues to be ineligible for land registration under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree unless Congress enacts a law or the President issues a proclamation declaring the land as no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth.
Bersamin, J., Heirs of Mario Malabanan, (Represented by Sally A. Malabanan), v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179987, September 3, 2013.
Act No. 3344 applies to sale of unregistered lands.

Act No. 3344, as amended, provides for the system of recording of transactions over unregistered real estate. Act No. 3344 expressly declares that any registration made shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better right. The question to be resolved therefore is: who between petitioners and respondent has a better right to the disputed lot? Respondent has a better right to the lot. The sale to respondent Juanito was executed on September 2, 1981 via an unnotarized deed of sale, while the sale to petitioners was made via a notarized document only on October 17, 1991, or 10 years thereafter. Thus, Juanito who was the first buyer has a better right to the lot, while
Criminal Law
Bigamous marriage; declaration of nullity of the first marriage required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted.
It has been held in a number of cases that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral. What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity,
(Next page)
20
Doctrinal Reminders
Criminal Law (continued)
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
for the same must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. If we allow respondents line of defense and the CAs ratiocination, a person who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution by immediately filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes a complaint against him. Respondent, likewise, claims that there are more reasons to quash the information against him, because he obtained the declaration of nullity of marriage before the filing of the complaint for bigamy against him. Again, we cannot sustain such contention. In addition to the discussion above, settled is the rule that criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the commission of the offense and from that instant, liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by law and that the time of filing of the criminal complaint or information is material only for determining prescription.
Peralta, J., People of the Philippines v. Edgardo V. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013.
Furthermore, three notices of dishonor were sent to petitioners, who then, should have immediately funded the check. When they did not, their liabilities under the bouncing checks law attached. Such liability cannot be affected by the alleged prejudicial question because their failure to fund the check upon notice of dishonour is itself the offense.
Perez, J., Spouses Argovan and Florida Gaditano v. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 188767, July 24, 2013.
Remedial Law
Attachment lien; length of time within which it continues to subsist.
By its nature, preliminary attachment, under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court (Rule 57), is an ancillary remedy applied for not for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize upon the relief sought and expected to be granted in the main or principal action; it is a measure auxiliary or incidental to the main action. As such, it is available during its pendency which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests during the interim, awaiting the ultimate effects of a final judgment in the case. In addition, attachment is also availed of in order to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual or constructive seizure of the property in those instances where personal or substituted service of summons on the defendant cannot be effected. In this relation, while the provisions of Rule 57 are silent on the length of time within which an attachment lien shall continue to subsist after the rendition of a final judgment, jurisprudence dictates that the said lien continues until the debt is paid, or the sale is had under execution issued on the judgment or until the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in the same manner provided by law. Applying these principles, the Court finds that the discharge of the writ of preliminary attachment against the properties of Sps. Lazaro was improper. Records indicate that while the parties have entered into a compromise agreement which had already been approved by the RTC in its January 5, 2007 Amended Decision, the obligations thereunder have yet to be fully complied with particularly, the payment of the total compromise amount of P2,351,064.80. Hence, given that the foregoing debt remains unpaid, the attachment of Sps. Lazaros properties should have continued to subsist.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., Alfredo C. Lim, Jr. v. Spouses Tito S. Lazaro and Carmen T. Lazaro, G.R. No. 185734, July 3, 2013.
Mere act of issuing a worthless check constitutes the offense punishable by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless check. The law did not look either at the actual ownership of the check or of the account against which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the drawee, maker or issuer. The thrust of the law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them into circulation. Even if the trial court in the civil case declares Asia Trust Bank liable for the unlawful garnishment of petitioners savings account, petitioners cannot be automatically adjudged free from criminal liability for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, because the mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the checks is in itself the offense.
21
The attorneys fee which a court may, in proper cases, award to a winning litigant is, strictly speaking, an item of damages. It differs from that which a client pays his counsel for the latter s professional services. However, the two concepts have many things in common that a treatment of the subject is necessary. The award that the court may grant to a successful party by way of attorneys fee is an indemnity for damages sustained by him in prosecuting or defending, through counsel, his cause in court. It may be decreed in favor of the party, not his lawyer, in any of the instances authorized by law. On the other hand, the attorneys fee which a client pays his counsel refers to the compensation for the latters services. The losing party against whom damages by way of attorneys fees may be assessed is not bound by, nor is his liability dependent upon, the fee arrangement of the prevailing party with his lawyer. The amount stipulated in such fee arrangement may, however, be taken into account by the court in fixing the amount of counsel fees as an element of damages. The fee as an item of damages belongs to the party litigant and not to his lawyer. It forms part of his judgment recoveries against the losing party. The client and his lawyer may, however, agree that whatever attorneys fee as an element of damages the court may award shall pertain to the lawyer as his compensation or as part thereof. In such a case, the court upon proper motion may require the losing party to pay such fee directly to the lawyer of the prevailing party. The two concepts of attorneys fees are similar in other respects. They both require, as a prerequisite to their grant, the intervention of or the rendition of professional services by a lawyer. As a client may not be held liable for counsel fees in favor of his lawyer who never rendered services, so too may a party be not held liable for attorneys fees as damages in favor of the winning party who enforced his rights without the assistance of counsel. Moreover, both fees are subject to judicial control and modification. And the rules governing the determination of their reasonable amount are applicable in one as in the other. [Emphases and underscoring supplied]
Legal Ethics
High standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required in the practice of law.
This Court has repeatedly emphasized that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and that a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State the administration of justice as an officer of the court. Accordingly, [l]awyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Respondent has fallen dismally and disturbingly short of the high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing required of him. Quite the contrary, he employed his knowledge and skill of the law as well as took advantage of the credulity of petitioners to secure undue gains for himself and to inflict serious damage on others. He did so over the course of several years in a sustained and unrelenting fashion and outdid his previous wrongdoing with even greater, more detestable offenses. He has hardly shown any remorse. From how he has conducted himself in these proceedings, he is all but averse to rectifying his ways and assuaging complainants plight. Respondent even foisted upon the IBP and this Court his duplicity by repeatedly absenting himself from the IBPs hearings without justifiable reasons. He also vexed this Court to admit his Appeal despite his own failure to comply with the much extended period given to him, thus inviting the Court to be a party in delaying complainants cause. For all his perversity, respondent deserves none of this Courts clemency. WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT, having clearly violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility through his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, is DISBARRED and his name ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
Per Curiam, Lilia Tabang and Concepcion Tabang v. Atty. Glenn C. Gacott, A.C. No. 6490 [Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1054], July 9, 2013.
Two concepts of attorneys fees.

Two concepts of attorneys fees ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary sense, it is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services rendered. In its extraordinary concept, it is awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages. Although both concepts are similar in some respects, they differ from each other, as further explained below:
In the case at bench, the attorneys fees being claimed by the petitioner refers to the compensation for professional services rendered, and not as indemnity for damages. He is demanding payment from respondents for having successfully handled the civil case filed by Chong against Spouses de Guzman. The award of attorneys fees by the RTC in the amount of P10,000 in favor of Spouses de Guzman, which was subsequently affirmed by the CA and this Court, is of no moment. The said award, made in its
(Next page)
22
Doctrinal Reminders
Legal Ethics (continued)
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
extraordinary concept as indemnity for damages, forms part of the judgment recoverable against the losing party and is to be paid directly to Spouses de Guzman (substituted by respondents) and not to petitioner. Thus, to grant petitioners motion to determine attorneys fees would not result in a double award of attorneys fees. And, contrary to the RTC ruling, there would be no amendment of a final and executory decision or variance in judgment.
Mendoza, J., Francisco L. Rosario, Jr. v. Lellani de Guzman, Arleen de Guzman, Philip Ryan de Guzman, and Rosella de Guzman-Bautista, G.R. No. 191247, July 10, 2013.
Conversely, a lawyers negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary action. While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the Court has consistently held that the lawyers mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation. Applying these principles to the present case, the Court finds that respondent failed to exercise the required diligence in handling complainants cause. Records show that he failed to justify his absence during the scheduled preliminary conference hearing in Civil Case No. 1972 which led the same to be immediately submitted for decision. As correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent could have exercised ordinary diligence by inquiring from the court as to whether the said hearing would push through, especially so since it was only tentatively set and considering further that he was yet to confer with the opposing counsel. The fact that respondent had an important commitment during that day hardly exculpates him from his omission since the prudent course of action would have been for him to send a substitute counsel to appear on his behalf. In fact, he should have been more circumspect to ensure that the aforesaid hearing would not have been left unattended in view of its adverse consequences, i.e., that the defendants failure to appear at the preliminary conference already entitles the plaintiff to a judgment. Indeed, second-guessing the conduct of the proceedings, much less without any contingent measure, exhibits respondents inexcusable lack of care and diligence in managing his clients cause.
Perlas-Bernabe, J. Josefina Caranza vda. De Saldivar v. Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr., A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013.
Relationship between attorney and his client.

The relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code embody these quintessential directives and thus, respectively state:
CANON 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. C ANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. xxxx RULE 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. RULE 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client s request for information.
OCA Circular No. 109-2013

(continued from page 37)
Case law further illumines that a lawyers duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsels care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.
courts to the Office of the Court Administrator, all concerned are DIRECTED to attach a COVER LETTER as a supplemental document to indicate the reason/s why the same are being furnished the Office. Strict compliance is hereby enjoined. September 5, 2013.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator
23
the Island of Sibuyan, Province of Romblon, to be stationed at the Municipality of Cajidiocan and denominated as Branch 106, RTC, Cajidiocan, Romblon;
A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC

EN BANC NOTICE Sirs/Mesdames: Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JULY 30, 2013, which reads as follows: A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC (Re: Proposed Rules on E-filing) and A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC (Re: Proposed Rule for the Efficient Use of Paper). The Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposal that all administrative circulars and orders, memorandum circulars and orders, and all other similar documents, will be delivered to each Justice in any of the following file formats, at his or her option: Electronic PDF file (by e-mail); Print (hard) copy; or Both electronic and print copies.
b. AUTHORIZE Branch 106, RTC, Cajidiocan, Romblon to exercise territorial jurisdiction over the Municipalities of Cajidiocan, Magdiwang and San Fernando, all in the province of Romblon; c. AMEND paragraph 1 of Administrative Order No. 7, to read as follows: Branch 81, with seat at Romblon over the Municipalities of Romblon, Corcuera, Concepcion, Banton, San Agustin and Sta. Maria (Imelda) Branch 106, with seat at Cajidiocan over the Municipalities of Cajidiocan, Magdiwang and San Fernando d. ORDER the transfer to Branch 106, RTC, Cajidiocan, Romblon, of all newly filed cases and all pending cases which have not yet reached the pre-trial stage in civil cases or where the accused have not yet been arraigned in criminal cases originating from the Municipalities of Cajidiocan, Magdiwang and San Fernando, and filed with Branch 81, RTC, Romblon, Romblon; e. CREATE the following positions in the Personnel Services Itemization of the said RTC to conform with the Staffing Pattern of the RTC, to wit:
No. of Position/s 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 Position Titles RTC Judge Clerk of Court VI Court Legal Researcher II Interpreter III Court Stenographer III Sheriff IV Data Entry Machine Operator II Clerk III Process Server Utility Worker I Salary Grade 29 25 15 12 12 12 8 6 5 1
In this connection, all interested Members of this Court who are interested in receiving electronic PDF files of these documents must formally submit their e-mail addresses to the Clerk of Court. Very truly yours, (Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL Clerk of Court
A.M. No. 13-7-144-RTC

EN BANC NOTICE Sirs/Mesdames: Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JULY 30, 2013, which reads as follows: A.M. No. 13-7-144-RTC (Re: Creation of One Additional Regional Trial Court [RTC] Branch in the Island of Sibuyan, Province of Romblon, to be Denominated as Branch 106 and Stationed at the Municipality of Cajidiocan). The Court Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), to a. IMPLEMENT Republic Act No. 10300 by creating one additional branch of the RTC in f.
DIRECT the Office of the Administrative Services, OCA, to SUBMIT to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) the newly created positions to be included in the Personnel Services Itemization (PSI) of the RTC for inclusion in the General Appropriations Act for funding purposes;
(Next page)
24
A.M. No. 13-7-144-RTC (continued)
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
g. DIRECT the Financial Management Office, OCA, to SUBMIT thereafter to the DBM the funding requirements for the full implementation of Republic Act No. 10300; h. DIRECT the DBM to RELEASE the Supplemental Allotment Release Order (SARO) and the corresponding Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) for the full implementation of Republic Act No. 10300; i. HOLD IN ABEYANCE the organization of Branch 106, RTC, Cajidiocan, Romblon until such time that the DBM has released the SARO and the corresponding NCA for the full operation of the subject court; and ORDER the amendment of all court records to conform with this development. Very truly yours, (Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL Clerk of Court
of a civil action in court. She claimed that sheriffs expenses should not be exacted from PAOs clients since Section 6 of Republic Act No. 94062 (RA No. 9406) specifically exempts them from the payment of docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action in court and other quasi-judicial bodies. In its letter3 dated March 23, 2011 to Atty. Acosta, the OCA clarified that PAOs clients, notwithstanding their exemption under Section 6 of RA No. 9406 from payment of docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action in court, are not exempted from the payment of sheriffs expenses. The OCA explained that sheriffs expenses, strictly speaking, are not considered as legal fees under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court since they are not payable to the government; they are payable to the sheriff/process server to defray his travel expenses in serving court processes in relation to the litigants case. In her letter4 dated April 18, 2011 to the OCA, Atty. Acosta maintained that, while sheriffs expenses may not be strictly considered as a legal fee, they are nevertheless considered as a fee which is incidental to the filing of an action in court and, hence, should not be exacted from PAOs clients. She pointed out that the imposition of sheriffs expenses on PAOs clients would render the latters exemption from payment of docket and other fees under Section 6 of RA No. 9406 nugatory. Considering that the matter involves an interpretation of RA No. 9406, Atty. Acosta requested that the same be referred to the Court en banc for resolution. In its report and recommendation5 dated September 14, 2011, the OCA maintained its position that PAOs clients are not exempted from the payment of sheriffs expenses; it stressed that the P1,000 sheriffs expenses are not the same as the sheriffs fee fixed by Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court and, hence, not covered by the exemption granted to PAOs clients under RA No. 9406. The OCA further alleged that the grant of exemption to PAOs clients from the payment of sheriffs expenses amounts to disbursement of public funds for the protection of private interests. Accordingly, the OCA recommended that Atty. Acostas request for exemption of PAOs clients from payment of sheriffs expenses be denied.
2
j.
A.M. No. 11-10-03-O

EN BANC RE: LETTER DATED APRIL 18, 2011 OF CHIEF PUBLIC ATTORNEY PERSIDA RUEDA ACOSTA REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT OF SHERIFFS EXPENSES Promulgated: July 30, 2013 xx RESOLUTION REYES, J.: This case stemmed from the February 7, 2011 letter1 of Attorney Persida V. Rueda-Acosta (Atty. Acosta), Chief Public Attorney of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In the said letter, Atty. Acosta sought a clarification as to the exemption of PAOs clients from the payment of sheriffs expenses, alleging that PAOs clients in its Regional Office in Region VII are being charged with the payment of sheriffs expenses in the amount of P1,000 upon the filing
1
An Act Reorganizing and Strengthening the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), Amending for the Purpose the Pertinent Provisions of Executive Order No. 292, Otherwise Known as the Administrative Code of 1987, as Amended, Granting Special Allowance to PAO Officials and Lawyers, and Providing Funds Therefor. Rollo, pp. 1516. Id. at 1921. Id. at 14.
3 4 5
Rollo, pp. 56.
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 A.M. No. 11-10-03-O (continued)
25
if there are extraordinarily persuasive reasons therefor, and upon express leave of court first obtained.13 Ordinarily, the Court would have dismissed outright Atty. Acostas second motion for reconsideration. However, for reasons to be discussed at length later, there is a need to give due course to the instant petition in order to reassess and clarify the Courts pronouncement in our Resolutions dated November 22, 2011 and April 24, 2012. In any case, it bears stressing that what is involved in this case is the Courts administrative power to determine its policy vis--vis the exaction of legal fees from the litigants. The Courts policy determination respecting administrative matters must not be unnecessarily bound by procedural considerations. Surely, a rule of procedure may not debilitate the Court and render inutile its power of administration and supervision over court procedures. At the core of this case is the proper interpretation of Section 6 of RA No. 9406 which, in part, reads: SEC. 6. New sections are hereby inserted in Chapter 5, Title III, Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, to read as follows: xxxx SEC. 16-D. Exemption from Fees and Costs of the Suit The clients of PAO shall be exempt from payment of docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action in court and other quasi-judicial bodies, as an original proceeding or on appeal. The costs of the suit, attorneys fees and contingent fees imposed upon the adversary of the PAO clients after a successful litigation shall be deposited in the National Treasury as trust fund and shall be disbursed for special allowances of authorized officials and lawyers of the PAO. (Emphasis ours) The OCA maintains that sheriffs expenses are not covered by the exemption granted to PAOs clients under RA No. 9406 since the same are not considered as a legal fee under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Stated differently, the OCA asserts that the exemption provided for under RA No. 9406 only covers the legal fees enumerated under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The court agrees.
13
Adopting the recommendation of the OCA, the Court en banc issued Resolution6 dated November 22, 2011 which denied Atty. Acostas request for exemption from the payment of sheriffs expenses. On January 2, 2012, Atty. Acosta sought a reconsideration7 of the Courts Resolution dated November 22, 2011, which the Court en banc referred to the OCA for appropriate action. In its report and recommendation8 dated March 22, 2012, the OCA averred that the exemption of PAOs clients from payment of legal fees is not an absolute rule and that the Court is not precluded from providing limitations thereto. Thus, the OCA recommended the denial of Atty. Acostas motion for reconsideration. On April 24, 2012, the Court en banc issued a Resolution9 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Acosta. Unperturbed, Atty. Acosta filed a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration10 and a Second Motion for Reconsideration11 of the Courts Resolution dated April 24, 2012, alleging that the imposition of sheriffs expenses on PAOs clients is contrary to the language, intent and spirit of Section 6 of RA No. 9406 since sheriffs expenses are considered as fees incidental to instituting an action in court. Further, she claimed that the said imposition on PAOs clients would hinder their access to the courts contrary to the mandate of Section 11, Article III of the Constitution. After a conscientious review of the contrasting legal disquisitions set forth in this case, the Court still finds the instant petition devoid of merit. At the outset, it bears stressing that this is already the third attempt of Atty. Acosta to obtain from this Court a declaration exempting PAOs clients from the payment of sheriffs fees the initial request therefor and the subsequent motion for reconsideration having been denied by this Court. As a rule, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading.12 This rule, however, is not cast in stone. A second motion for reconsideration may be allowed
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Id. at 24. Id. at 2543. Id. at 8487. Id. at 88. Id. at 8998. Id. at 99123. Section 2, Rule 52 in relation to Section 4, Rule 56 of the RULES OF COURT.
See Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco, 324 Phil. 483, 489 (1996).
(Next page)
26
A.M. No. 11-10-03-O (continued)
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
authorized persons in the service of summons, subpoena and other court processes that would be issued relative to the trial of the case. In case the initial deposit of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000) is not sufficient, then the plaintiff or petitioner shall be required to make an additional deposit. The sheriff, process server or other court authorized person shall submit to the court for its approval a statement of the estimated travel expenses for service of summons and court processes. Once approved, the Clerk of Court shall release the money to said sheriff or process server. After service, a statement of liquidation shall be submitted to the court for approval. After rendition of judgment by the court, any excess from the deposit shall be returned to the party who made the deposit. x x x x (Emphasis ours)
It is a well-settled principle of legal hermeneutics that words of a statute will be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and signification, unless it is evident that the legislature intended a technical or special legal meaning to those words. The intention of the lawmakerswho are, ordinarily, untrained philologists and lexicographersto use statutory phraseology in such a manner is always presumed.14 That Section 6 of RA No. 9406 exempts PAOs clients from the payment of docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action in court and other quasi-judicial bodies is beyond cavil. However, contrary to Atty. Acostas claim, a plain reading of the said provision clearly shows that the exemption granted to PAOs clients cannot be extended to the payment of sheriffs expenses; the exemption is specifically limited to the payment of fees, i.e., docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action. The term fees is defined as a charge fixed by law or by an institution for certain privileges or services.15 Viewed from this context, the phrase docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action refers to the totality of the legal fees imposed under Rule 14116 of the Rules of Court. In particular, it includes filing or docket fees, appeal fees, fees for issuance of provisional remedies, mediation fees, sheriffs fees, stenographers fees and commissioners fees.17 These are the fees that are exacted for the services rendered by the court in connection with the action instituted before it. Sheriffs expenses, however, cannot be classified as a fee within the purview of the exemption granted to PAOs clients under Section 6 of RA No. 9406. Sheriffs expenses are provided for under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, viz:
S EC . 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS and other persons serving processes. xxxx In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, the amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000) shall be deposited with the Clerk of Court upon filing of the complaint to defray the actual travel expenses of the sheriff, process server or other court14
Sheriffs expenses are not exacted for any service rendered by the court; they are the amount deposited to the Clerk of Court upon filing of the complaint to defray the actual travel expenses of the sheriff, process server or other court-authorized persons in the service of summons, subpoena and other court processes that would be issued relative to the trial of the case. It is not the same as sheriffs fees under Section 10,18 Rule 141 of the Rules of Court,
18
S EC . 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS and other persons serving processes. a. b. For serving summons and copy of complaint, for each defendant, TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200); For serving subpoenas in civil action or OTHER proceedings, for each witness to be served, ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P100); For executing a writ of attachment against the property of defendant, FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500) per defendant; For serving and implementing a temporary restraining order, or writ of injunction, preliminary or final, of any court, THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P300) per defendant; For executing a writ of replevin, FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500); For filing bonds or other instruments of indemnity or security in provisional remedies, for each bond or instrument, ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P100); For executing a writ or process to place a party in possession of real PROPERTY OR estates, THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P300) per property; For SERVICES RELATING TO THE POSTING AND PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER RULE 39 (EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS) AND IN EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE BY SHERIFF OR NOTARY PUBLIC besides the cost of publication, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY PESOS (P150);
c.
d.
e. f.
g.
People v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. No. 167304, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 49, 65. Websters Third New International Dictionary, p. 833. As amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC which took effect on August 16, 2004. Re: Request of National Committee on Legal Aid to Exempt Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing, Docket and Other Fees, A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 350. h.
15 16
17
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 A.M. No. 11-10-03-O (continued)
27
privileged, who do not have the means to pay the said fees, would not be denied access to courts by reason of poverty. Indeed, requiring PAOs clients to pay sheriffs expenses, despite their exemption from the payment of docket and other legal fees, would effectly fetter their free access to the courts thereby negating the laudable intent of Congress in enacting RA No. 9406. Free access to the courts and adequate legal assistance are among the fundamental rights which the Constitution extends to the less privileged. Thus, Section 11, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that [f]ree access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. The Constitution affords litigantsmoneyed or poorequal access to the courts; moreover, it specifically provides that poverty shall not bar any person from having access to the courts. Accordingly, laws and rules must be formulated, interpreted, and implemented pursuant to the intent and spirit of this constitutional provision.20 Access to justice by all, especially by the poor, is not simply an ideal in our society. Its existence is essential in a democracy and in the rule of law.21 Without doubt, one of the most precious rights which must be shielded and secured is the unhampered access to the justice system by the poor, the underprivileged and the marginalized.22 Having the foregoing principles in mind, the Court, heeding the constitutional mandate of ensuring free access to the courts and adequate legal assistance to the marginalized and less privileged, hereby authorizes the officials and employees of PAO to serve summons, subpoena and other court processes pursuant to Section 3,23 Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The authority given herein by the Court to the officials and employees of PAO shall be limited only to cases involving their client. Authorizing the officials and employees of PAO to serve the summons, subpoenas and other court processes in behalf of their clients would relieve the latter from the burden of paying for the sheriffs expenses despite their non-exemption from the payment thereof under Section 6 of RA No. 9406. The amount to be defrayed in the service of summons, subpoena and other court processes in behalf of its clients would consequently have to be taken from the
20
which refers to those imposed by the court for services rendered to a party incident to the proceedings before it. Thus, in In Re: Exemption of Cooperatives from Payment of Court and Sheriffs Fees Payable to the Government in Actions Brought Under RA No. 6938,19 the Court clarified that sheriffs expenses are not considered as legal fees, ratiocinating that:
The difference in the treatment between the sheriffs fees and the sheriffs expenses in relation with the exemption enjoyed by cooperatives is further demonstrated by the wording of Section 10, Rule 141, which uses fees in delineating the enumeration in the first paragraph, and expenses in qualifying the subsequent paragraphs of this provision. The intention to make a distinction between the two charges is clear; otherwise, the Rules would not have used different designations. Likewise, the difference between the two terms is highlighted by a consideration of the phraseology in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10, Rule 141, which uses the clause in addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, thereby unequivocally indicating that sheriffs expenses are separate charges on top of the sheriffs fees. (Italics supplied)
The Court, however, is not unmindful of the predicament of PAOs clients. In exempting PAOs clients from paying docket and other legal fees, RA No. 9406 intended to ensure that the indigents and the less
i. For taking inventory of goods levied upon when the inventory is ordered by the court, THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P300) per day or actual inventory; For levying on execution on personal or real property, THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P300); For issuing a notice of garnishment, for each notice, ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P100); For money collected by him ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE (WHEN HIGHEST BIDDER IS THE MORTGAGEE AND THERE IS NO ACTUAL COLLECTION OF MONEY) by order, execution, attachment, or any other process, judicial or extrajudicial which shall immediately be turned over to the Clerk of Court, the following sums shall be paid to the clerk of court to wit: 1. On the first FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P4,000), FIVE AND A HALF (5.5%) per centum; 2. On all sums in excess of FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P4,000), THREE (3%) per centum; xxxx
19
j. k. l.
Spouses Algura v. Local Government Unit of the City of Naga, 536 Phil. 819 (2006) Supra note 17, at 356. Supra note 20. SEC. 3. By whom served. The summons may be served by the sheriff, his deputy, or other proper court officer, or for justifiable reasons by any suitable person authorized by the court issuing the summons.
(Next page)
21 22 23
A.M. No. 03-4-01-0 dated September 1, 2009.
28
A.M. No. 11-10-03-O (continued)
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
Chairperson: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno Working Chairperson: Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen Vice Chairperson: Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez Members: Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals Presiding Justice or Acting Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice of the Court of Tax Appeals ACA Theodore O. Te Chief, Public Information Office PHILJA Vice Chancellor Justo P. Torres, Jr. Philippine Judges Association President Philippine Trial Judges League President Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines President Representative of the Office of the Chief Justice Secretariat: Atty. Christine Veloso Lao Atty. Ronald Evangelista The Chairpersons, Vice Chairperson, Members and the Secretariat of the above committee shall receive the expense allowance presently authorized. This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its issuance this 12th day of August 2013. (Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Chief Justice Chairperson, First Division (Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO Chairperson, Second Division (Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, Jr. Chairperson, Third Division
operating expenses of PAO. In turn, the amount advanced by PAO as actual travel expenses may be taken from the amount recovered from the adversaries of PAOs clients as costs of suit, attorneys fees or contingent fees prior to the deposit thereof in the National Treasury. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta is DENIED. The Courts Resolutions dated November 22, 2011 and April 24, 2012 are hereby AFFIRMED. The request of Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta for the exemption of the clients of the Public Attorneys Office from the payment of sheriffs expenses is DENIED. Nevertheless, the officials and employees of the Public Attorneys Office are hereby AUTHORIZED to serve summons, subpoenas and other court processes in behalf of their clients pursuant to Section 3, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, in coordination with the concerned court. The amount to be defrayed in serving the summons, subpoenas and other court processes could be taken from the operating expenses of the Public Attorneys Office which, in turn, may be taken from the amount recovered by it from the adversaries of PAOs clients as costs of suit, attorneys fees or contingent fees prior to the deposit thereof in the National Treasury, or damages that said clients may be decreed as entitled to in case of the success of PAOs indigent clients. SO ORDERED. (Sgd.) BIENVENIDO L. REYES Associate Justice WE CONCUR: SERENO, CJ, CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, Jr., PEREZ, MENDOZA, PERLAS-BERNABE, LEONEN, JJ.
Memorandum Order No. 30-2013

REORGANIZING THE COMMITTEE ON CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION AND BAR MATTERS
Memorandum Order No. 25-2013

REORGANIZING THE COMMITTEE ON SECURITY In view of the existing vacancies in the Committee on Security, it is hereby reorganized as follows:
In view of the retirement, resignation, death and expiration of the term of the Committees former members, the Committee on Continuing Legal Education and Bar Matters is hereby reorganized as follows: Chairperson: Justice Roberto A. Abad
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 Memo. Order No. 30-2013 (continued)
29
Vice Chairperson: Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe Members: Justice Diosdado M. Peralta Chairperson, 2014 Bar Exams Justice Bernardo P. Pardo Chairperson Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Board Justice Hilarion L. Aquino Representative, Legal Education Board Dean Danilo L. Concepcion Head, UP Law Center Dean Perry L. Pe Representative Philippine Association of Law Schools Atty. Jose Aguila Grapilon Representative Philippine Association of Law Professors Atty. Vicente M. Joyas Representative, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa SC Bar Confidant Secretariat: Atty. May Rachel S. Nolasco-Silangil Office of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad Mrs. Elnora P. Maranan Office of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad Mr. Mick Jude Sun Office of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad The Chairperson, Members and Secretariat shall each be entitled to the expense allowance prescribed in Administrative Circular No. 13-99 dated September 20, 1999. This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its issuance. Issued this 3 day of September 2013. (Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Chief Justice Chairperson, First Division (Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson, Second Division (Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, Jr. Associate Justice Chairperson, Third Division
rd

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON ANY LAWSUITS FILED OR PENDING AGAINST THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC BEFORE ANY COURT IN THE PHILIPPINES Pursuant to the Note Verbale from the Embassy of the Argentine Republic dated May 2, 2013 inquiring if there are any lawsuits filed or pending against the Argentine Republic before any court in the Philippines, you are hereby directed to submit a report to the Office of the Court Administrator, through the Court Management Office within 30 days of receipt hereof, of any such pending suit before your respective jurisdictions. For strict compliance. June 13, 2013. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator

TO: ALL JUDGES AND BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS SUBJECT: REPORT ON CASES INVOLVING VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9208 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 2003, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10364 OR THE EXPANDED ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 2012 To effectively monitor trafficking in persons cases, all judges and clerks of court of the Regional Trial Courts are hereby DIRECTED to report to the Office of the Court Administrator pending cases involving violation of RA No. 9208 as amended, indicating therein the docket number, date of filing, case title, nature, date of arraignment and latest status, using the attached form.*
See attached form Annex: A Inventory of Cases Regarding Cases on Human Trafficking, on page 38.
(Next page)
30
OCA Circular No. 80-2013 (continued)
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
The report shall be submitted to the Court Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, via regular mail or electronic mail at tipcases4oca@sc.judiciary.gov.ph, within 20 days from receipt of this notice. For immediate and strict compliance. June 25, 2013. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator
(MISO) be authorized to immediately implement the enhancement of Court Administration Management Information System (CAMIS) duly incorporating the revised forms. The Committee explained that it is practical to require the simultaneous submission of both forms while the MISO is undertaking the completion of the enhanced CAMIS in order that the users of the new forms will be thoroughly acquainted with using it and in order to have room for feedbacks from the lower courts. In view thereof, all the concerned lower courts are hereby DIRECTED to submit their monthly report of cases, using the approved new forms under Administrative Circular No. 81-2012, in addition to the Monthly Report of Cases under Administrative Circular No. 4-2004 beginning the month of June 2013. For your guidance and strict compliance. June 27, 2013. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT/BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT/OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF MONTHLY REPORT OF CASES USING THE APPROVED NEW FORMS UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 81-2012 DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2012, IN ADDITION TO THE MONTHLY REPORT OF CASES UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 4-2004 DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2004 Administrative Circular No. 81-2012 dated September 17, 2012 (Re: New Forms, Guidelines, Instructions and Rules in Accomplishing the Monthly Report of Cases) (a) provides for the new forms to be used by the concerned first and second level courts and the guidelines, instructions and rules in accomplishing the Monthly Report of Cases; and (b) repeals and supersedes Administrative Circular No. 4-2004 dated February 4, 2004 (Re: Revised Forms, Guidelines and Instructions in Accomplishing the Monthly Report of Cases). With respect thereto, on December 28, 2012, the Honorable Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno approved the recommendations of the OCA Reportorial Committee in its Memorandum dated November 27, 2012 (a copy is hereto attached) that (a) the Office of the Court Administrator, through the Court Management Office (CMO), be authorized to require the concerned lower courts to submit the revised monthly report of cases, in addition to the Monthly Report of Cases under Administrative Circular No. 4-2004; (b) the Repealing Clause under Administrative Circular No. 81-2012 be relaxed to accommodate the transition period until such time the enhancement and migration of the system has taken place; and (c) the Management Information Systems Office
SC FORMS (a) MRC-RTC (GJ-MSS), (b) MRC-RTC (SSS), (c) MRC-RTC (CC), (d) MRC-RTC (DC), (e) MRC-FLC, (f) MRC-RTC (FC) available in the PHILJA website (http:// philja.judiciary.gov.ph).

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS SUBJECT: INVENTORY OF HOLD-DEPARTURE ORDERS Acting on information received from the Bureau of Immigration that they have been receiving copies of decisions of acquittal and orders of dismissal from various courts which fail to incIude the cancellation of the HoldDeparture orders previously issued therein, all Regional Trial Courts are hereby DIRECTED to immediately conduct an inventory of cases wherein a Hold-Departure Order has been issued and subsequently cancelled by reason of the judgment of acquittal or the order of dismissal of the case with respect to the party subject of the Hold-Departure Order. In the event that the inventory conducted would reveal that the issued Hold-Departure order has not been cancelled despite the judgment of acquittal/order of dismissal of the case, the concerned court is DIRECTED to forthwith issue the appropriate order cancelling or lifting the Hold-Departure Order and furnish the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Bureau of Immigration with a copy
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 OCA Circular No. 84-2013 (continued)
31
the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF), and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and other relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included herein by the Supreme Court. The applications shall be personally endorsed by the heads of such agencies and shall particularly describe therein the places to be searched and/ or the property or things to be seized as prescribed in the Rules of Court. The Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges concerned shall issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served in the places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts. The Executive Judges and the authorized Judges shall keep a special docket book listing names of Judges to whom the applications are assigned, the details of the applications and the results of the searches and seizures made pursuant to the warrants issued. This Section shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. (Amendment emphasized)
of said order within 24 hours from its promulgation/ issuance and through the fastest available means of transmittal. In this regard, all concerned courts are enjoined to strictly comply with the provisions of Circular No. 39-97 (Guidelines in the Issuance of Hold-Departure Orders) which continue to remain in force. For strict compliance. June 27, 2013. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OF MANILA AND QUEZON CITY SUBJECT: COURT RESOLUTION DATED JUNE 4, 2013 IN A.M. NO. 03-8-02-SC In the June 4, 2013 Resolution of the Honorable Court En Banc, in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC (Re: Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties), the Court Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, to:
a. INCLUDE the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in the list of agencies authorized to file applications for search warrants involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City; and AMEND Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-802-SC dated January 27, 2004, to read as follows: CHAPTER V SPECIFIC POWERS, PREROGATIVES AND DUTIES OF EXECUTIVE JUDGES IN JUDICIAL SUPERVISION xxxx S EC . 12. Issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City The Executive Judges and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City shall have authority to act on applications filed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
For your information, guidance and strict compliance. July 2, 2013. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator

TO: ALL EXECUTIVE JUDGES, VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGES, AND JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS SUBJECT: DESIGNATION OF EXECUTIVE JUDGES AND VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGES PURSUANT TO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 111-2011 DATED JULY 28, 2011 In Administrative Order No. 111-2011 dated July 28, 2011, the Court designated Executive and Vice Executive Judges effective August 1, 2011 and to continue until July 31, 2013, or until their successors are designated, unless their designations are sooner revoked. Accordingly, the Executive and Vice Executive Judges designated in Administrative Order No. 111-2011, or those
(Next page)
b.
32
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
named thereafter, shall CONTINUE to ACT and PERFORM their duties and responsibilities BEYOND July 31, 2013 until their successors are designated, unless their respective designations are sooner revoked or otherwise extended by the Court. For your information and guidance. July 19, 2013. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator
1 (for the Executive Judge). Since the eRaffle system has not yet been configured to capture this ratio, to allow the courts with new judges to equalize their caseload with the other courts in the station, as mandated under the Manual for Executive Judges, whenever a case is assigned by eRaffle to a court with a newly appointed judge, that first case assigned by eRaffle plus the five succeeding cases on the list for eRaffle shall be assigned automatically to the same court with the newly assigned judge so that that court will receive the mandated six cases. This will apply for all types of courts and for all types of cases, regardless of the urgent ancillary reliefs sought in said cases, save Land Registration Cases which shall always be assigned solely by eRaffle at a 1:1 ratio. 3. To further achieve equality in the distribution of cases in Quezon City, considering the great disparity in the volume of cases assigned to certain types of court, the following rules shall be observed: 3.a. All courts with Acting Presiding Judges who are designated full time to act in Quezon City shall henceforth be assigned new cases by eRaffle at a ratio of 2:1, like other incumbent judges. When a new judge is appointed to a court where an Acting Judge is assigned, the new judge will only have the balance of the disparity in that courts caseload with the other courts of the same type in the station to equalize with, at a 6:2:1 ratio. 3.b. The two designated Commercial Courts of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branches 90 and 93, shall henceforth be assigned other cases cognizable by regular courts, pursuant to III.A. 7(c)(3) of the Manual for Executive Judges and OCA Circular No. 82-2003, June 20, 2003, at a ratio of 2:1, like other incumbent judges. 4. The re-raffle of cases where a declaration of failed JDR has been made shall also be done by eRaffle and the replacement for each case unloaded by any court due to failed JDR shall also be a case unloaded by another court also due to failed JDR. No new case shall be assigned to replace a case unloaded by a court due to failed JDR. 5. Other matters relating to the assignment of cases by eRaffle among Quezon City Trial Courts which are not expressly provided for herein shall be

TO: ALL CONCERNED JUDGES AND PERSONNEL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS AND THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS OF QUEZON CITY SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR eRAFFLE IN QUEZON CITY TRIAL COURTS Pursuant to OCA Circular No. 57-2013 dated April 29, 2013, relating to the Trial Run of the eCourt Program in Quezon City Trial Courts, the Quezon City Regional Trial Court and Metropolitan Trial Court were exempted from the application of rules regarding raffle of cases under A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC,* to pave the way for the eRaffle component of the eCourt Program. Nevertheless, because the eRaffle component of the eCourt Program is still being refined based on results of the trial run, certain concerns have arisen which necessitate the issuance of these guidelines. ACCORDINGLY, these Guidelines for eRaffle in Quezon City Trial Courts are hereby adopted to assist the Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court and Metropolitan Trial Court in achieving equality in the distribution or cases among the courts in the station through eRaffle. 1. All raffle shall be done electronically. This shall include the raffle of cases, marriages, publications of judicial notices, and extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages under Act No. 3135, once the latter have been included in the system and are already operational.
2. To equalize the distribution of cases, A.M. No. 038-02-SC fixed the ratio of cases for raffle at 6 (for
newly appointed judges): 2 (for incumbent judges):
Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties, effective February 15, 2004.
33
WHEREAS, the Committee (on the Proposed Practice Guidelines for Quezon City Courts) is constrained to request for an extension of six months from April 16, 2013, or until October 16, 2013 within which to submit its Final Report to the Supreme Court; WHEREAS, in the meantime, there is a need to clarify whether the Practice Guidelines shall continue to remain in force and effect, pending the submission of the Final Report by the Committee and the subsequent action of the Court thereon; WHEREAS, the continuous effectivity of the Practice Guidelines, pending the submission of the Final Report and the subsequent action of the Court thereon, is favorable for a more expeditious resolution of cases; NOW THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Practice Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts shall remain in force and effect, pending the submission of the Final Report by the Committee and the subsequent action of the Court thereon, and until further notice from the Court. For strict compliance. July 29, 2013. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator
addressed to the Executive Raffle Committee, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court and the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City for action, consistent with the objectives of the eCourt Program and the rules for the raffle of cases under A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC. For strict compliance. July 23, 2013. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT IN QUEZON CITY TRIAL COURTS SUBJECT: A.M. NO. 11-6-10-SC (RE: GUIDELINES FOR LITIGATION IN QUEZON CITY TRIAL COURTS) WHEREAS, in the Resolution dated February 21, 2012 in A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC (Re: Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts), the Court en banc (r)esolved to APPROVE the Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts, otherwise referred to as Practice Guidelines; WHEREAS, paragraph F of the Practice Guidelines provides that the Practice Guidelines shall take effect on April 16, 2012, after its publication for two consecutive weeks in two newspapers of general circulation in the country and after posting for one month at all floors of the Hall of Justice of Quezon City, including at the Offices of the Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Court and the Metropolitan Trial Court; WHEREAS, there is nothing in the Practice Guidelines that provides for the duration of its effectivity; WHEREAS, paragraph E (b) of the Practice Guidelines in part provides that at the end of the 12th month from such date of effectivity, the Committee (on the Proposed Practice Guidelines for Quezon City Courts) shall prepare and submit a Final Report on the project to the Supreme Court; WHEREAS, it is difficult to fully assess the effectiveness of the Practice Guidelines within a short span of time considering that the cases covered were only filed after April 16, 2012, and many of these cases are still at their preliminary stages, e.g., exchange of pleadings and pretrial;

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT IN THE QUEZON CITY TRIAL COURTS SUBJECT: EXEMPTION FROM OCA CIRCULAR NO. 83-2013 REQUIRING SUBMISSION OF MONTHLY REPORTS OF CASES USING THE APPROVED NEW FORMS On June 27, 2013, OCA Circular No. 83-2013 was issued directing all Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) to submit their monthly report of cases using the approved forms under Administrative Circular No. 81-2012, in addition to the Monthly Report of Cases under Administrative Circular No. 4-2004, beginning the month of June 2013. Considering that the Quezon City RTCs and MeTCs are already fully implementing the eCourt Project, which has its own facility for monthly reporting, the Quezon City RTCs and MeTCs are hereby EXEMPT from OCA Circular No. 83-2013. Instead, they shall accomplish their monthly reports through the forms incorporated in the eCourt system as recommended by the Technical Working Group for the Quezon City eCourts (TWG4QCeCourts) Program and approved by the undersigned.
(Next page)
34
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF SINGLE-SALA REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OUTSIDE THE NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION AND MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN ALL JUDICIAL REGIONS SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AUTOMATED PAYROLL SYSTEM IN THE SINGLE-SALA REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OUTSIDE THE NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION AND THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN ALL JUDICIAL REGIONS Further to OCA Circular No. 18-2013 which provided the guidelines in the implementation of the Automated Payroll System (APS) in the Multi-Sala Regional Trial Courts outside the National Capital Judicial Region and the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities in all Judicial Regions, the following guidelines shall be observed in the implementation of the APS in the Single-Sala Regional Trial Courts outside the National Capital Judicial Region and the Municipal Trial Courts in all Judicial Regions: 1. All judges and court personnel shall open their respective ATM Payroll Savings Accounts with the branch of the LBP nearest their official station. Executive Judges and Clerks of Court shall coordinate with the LBP Branch Manager as to the opening of the individual ATM Payroll Savings Account of judges and court personnel. 2. The requirements for the opening of an individual ATM Payroll Savings Account are as follows: a. A duly accomplished application form and specimen card by the judge and court personnel properly authenticated by the Executive Judge; b. Photocopies of two valid identification cards which include the Supreme Court ID; and c. 1 x 1 recent ID picture.
The Quezon City eCourts shall commence the submission of their monthly reports through the eCourts system for the period beginning June 2013 subject to the updating of the said forms and the configuration of any changes therein, as recommended by the TWG4QCeCourts and approved by the undersigned. For strict compliance. August 5, 2013. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator

TO: ALL EXECUTIVE/PRESIDING JUDGES OF THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10158 (AN ACT DECRIMINALIZING VAGRANCY, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLE 202 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE) Republic Act No. 10158, entitled An Act Decriminalizing Vagrancy, Amending for this Purpose Article 202 of Act No. 3815, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code, was passed into law on March 27, 2012 and published in the Official Gazette on May 14, 2012. Sections 2 and 3 thereof provide: SEC. 2. Effect on Pending Cases. All pending cases under the provisions of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its amendment by this Act shall be dismissed upon effectivity of this Act. SEC. 3. Immediate Release of Convicted Persons. All persons serving sentence for violation of the provisions of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its amendment by this Act shall be immediately released upon effectivity of this Act: Provided, That they are not serving sentence or detained for any other offense or felony. For your information and guidance. August 5, 2013. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator
3. After the opening of the accounts of the judges and court personnel, the Clerks of Court shall submit the list of the ATM Account Numbers with the individual photocopies of the ATM cards to the Financial Management Office (FMO), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Thereafter, the FMO-OCA shall submit the list to the LBP-SC Extension Office for validation before inclusion of the names of judges and court personnel in the APS Masterlist Payroll maintained by the EDP Division, Fiscal Management and Budget Office, Supreme Court. The individual photocopies of the ATM cards shall then be forwarded to the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), OCA, to
35
Regular Allowances: as may be provided for by the GAA Other allowances and fringe benefits, if any -
be attached to the personal records of the judges and court personnel. 4. The APS shall cover the releases for the payment of salaries, regular allowances as authorized by the General Appropriations Act (GAA) as well as allowances and other fringe benefits, if any, as may be authorized by the Chief Justice. 5. The ATM Payroll Savings Account shall be subject to the initial opening and maintaining balance of P100, and a minimum balance requirement of P500 to earn interest. Judges and court personnel shall have the option to open a current account with ATM access, with a maintaining balance of P5,000. 6. Inquiry on individual bank balances and statements of account can be effected through enrollment in the IAccess facility of the LBP for savings account and current account. Inquiries can likewise be made through the LBP Phone Banking Facility. 7. The ATM Payroll Savings Account shall be subject to service charges imposed by the Expressnet/Megalink/ BancNet member banks on the usage of their ATMs or those that maybe imposed in the future. 8. The Clerk of Court is hereby held accountable to immediately report to the OAS-OCA, copy furnished the Financial Management Office (FMO), OCA, and the LBP branch where the accounts were opened, the names of judges and court personnel who have ceased their services in the court due, but not limited, to resignation, retirement, death, transfer, and long or unauthorized leave of absence. After receipt of the notice from the clerk of court, the names of the judges or court personnel shall forthwith be excluded from the payroll with notice to the LBP for the termination of the accounts. 9. Release of salaries and allowances which were previously directed to be withheld shall only be credited one month after receipt of the notice of release. 10. Non-crediting of salaries and allowances which are directed to be withheld shall only be for a period of six months. Thereafter, the name of the judge or court personnel shall already be excluded from the payroll. 11. The payroll credit dates are as follows: Regular Salaries RATA EME - every 12th and 27th of the month - on or before the 7th working day of every month - on or before the 7 th day of the following month
as may be authorized by the Chief Justice as may be authorized by the Chief Justice
However, the payroll credit dates of the regular salaries and allowances provided for under the GAA shall strictly be subject to the release of cash allocation from the national government. If the payroll credit date falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, crediting shall be on the Friday or the day before the holiday. 12. All judges and court personnel are directed to timely submit to the OAS-OCA their Certificates of Services/ Daily Time Records to avoid the withholding of salaries and regular allowances. 13. Newly-appointed judges and court personnel shall individually open their ATM Payroll Savings Account with the LBP Branch nearest their official station. Thereafter, they shall submit to OAS-OCA, the photocopies of their ATM cards for validation and for inclusion in the APS payroll. 14. The List of ATM Account Numbers and the individual photocopies of the ATM cards shall be submitted to the FMO-OCA on or before the last working day of September 2013. Concerned judges and court personnel shall be informed accordingly on the commencement of the APS. Thereafter, no checks for payment of the regular salaries and other allowances shall be released. For strict compliance. August 7, 2013. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator

TO: ALL EXECUTIVE JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS, AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JUDGES OF SINGLE SALA STATIONS SUBJECT: NEW GUIDELINES ON JAIL VISITATION AND INSPECTION (A.M. NO. 07-3-02-SC) Pursuant to the Resolution dated January 8, 2013 in A.M. No. 07-3-02-SC (Re: Committee on Lower Court Reportorial Requirements) and A.M. No. 09-10-400-RTC (Re: Request
(Next page)
36
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
The Report (Form 2) shall include the following information: a. Name and age of the detention prisoner, case number, crime charged, start of the date of detention, duration of detention, status of the case (arraignment, pre-trial, reception of prosecution evidence or reception of defense evidence, submitted for decision); and Health condition of the adult prisoners and CICL as submitted by the BJMP/ provincial or city jail/youth detention homes/youth rehabilitation centers medical staff during the jail visitation and inspection.
of Judges for the Suspension of the Enforcement of Jail Visitation and Inspection in Accordance with A.M. No. 073-02-SC), the Court En Banc resolved to ADOPT the recommendation of the Committee on Lower Court Reportorial Requirements that the conduct of jail visitation and inspection by the (1) Executive Judges of all first and second level courts and (2) RTC judges of single stations be resumed or continued, subject to the modification that the same be done on a quarterly basis; and APPROVE in principle the proposed New Guidelines on Jail Visitation and Inspection, subject to the above modification, thus:
New Guidelines on Jail Visitation and Inspection (A.M. No. 07-3-02-SC) S ECTION 1. Who Shall Conduct Jail Visitation and Inspection. The Executive Judges of all first and second level courts and RTC Judges of single sala stations, accompanied by not more than two of their staff members, shall personally conduct visitation and inspection of the provincial or city jails as well as other youth detention homes and youth rehabiIitation centers within their respective jurisdictions on a quarterly basis. This shall also apply to Acting Executive Judges and any RTC Judge designated as Acting Presiding Judge of a single sala station. SEC. 2. Duties and Responsibilities of the Presiding Judges, Executive Judges and RTC Judges of Single Sala Stations; Reports to be Submitted. Ten days prior to the scheduled quarterly visit, the concerned Executive Judges and RTC Judges of single sala stations shall require the presiding judge/s within their administrative areas to submit a report (Form 1) on the total number of detainees whose cases are pending in their sala, which shall include the following information: name and age of the detention prisoner, case number, crime charged, first day of detention, duration of detention, and status of the case. The Executive Judges and RTC Judges of single sala stations shall also require the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) or the Provincial or City Wardens, and heads of youth detention homes and youth rehabilitation centers to submit to their office a quarterly report on the status of the detention prisoners or accused under detention and children in conflict with the law (CICL) whose cases are pending before the courts within their administrative area, preferably by branch. The Executive Judges and RTC Judges of single sala stations shall submit a Report on Jail Visitation and Inspection (Form 2) every quarter, to the Court Management Office, OCA, not later than 15 days following the last day of every quarter.
b.
As to the prisoner/s who is/are placed under detention equivalent to or beyond the maximum period of the imposable penalty, the concerned Executive Judge and RTC Judge of a single sala station is required to immediately act on the case or to advise and direct the concerned presiding judge/s to immediately act on the case involving said detention prisoner/s pursuant to the provisions of Article 29, last paragraph, of the Revised Penal Code. With respect to children in conflict with the law, the provisions of Article 53 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on Juveniles in Conflict With the Law)1, shall equally apply. Failure on the part of the concerned presiding judge to comply therewith may subject him/her to administrative sanctions. In such case, the concerned Executive Judge and RTC Judge of a single sala station shall immediately cause the release from detention of the subject prisoner or children in conflict with the law pursuant to the abovementioned Articles. In case the RTC Judge of a single sala station is indisposed, or on official leave of absence, or cannot otherwise discharge his/her duties, the Executive Judge of the nearest RTC multiple sala station, or in the absence of the said Executive Judge, the Vice Executive Judge thereof shall perform the duties in his/her stead. For this purpose, the Clerk of Court or Officer-in-Charge of the indisposed Judge shall inform the concerned Judge of such absence. S EC . 3. Report to the Office of the Court Administrator. In the event that the concerned presiding judge fails to act on the directive/s of the Executive Judge and the RTC Judge of a single sala station as mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 5 of Section 2, the latter shall submit a report to the Office of the Court Administrator within 10 days from said non-compliance, which may warrant administrative sanction/s to be imposed by the Supreme Court.
1
Effective on December 1, 2009 pursuant to En Banc Resolution dated November 24, 2009.
37
An Executive Judge and the RTC Judge of a single sala station who fails to perform his/her functions as defined herein shall likewise be subjected to administrative sanctions by the Supreme Court. SEC. 4. Reimbursement of Transportation Expenses. The Executive Judge and RTC Judge of a single sala station shall be entitled to reimbursement of transportation/gasoline expenses in the event that the BJMP/provincial or city jail/detention home/ rehabilitation center is more than 30 kilometers away from his/her station, subject to existing guidelines on reimbursement of such expenses. S EC . 5. Security Detail during Jail Visitation and Inspection. Where the jail and/or detention facility has detainees who are considered/ classified as security risks, the concerned Executive Judge and RTC Judge of a single sala station may request for security detail during the conduct of the jail visitation and inspection. SEC. 6. Dialogue with Detention Prisoners. During their jail visitation and inspection, the Executive Judges and RTC Judges of single sala stations are encouraged to invite the heads of the provincial or city prosecution office and Public Attorneys Office, or their representatives, for a dialogue with detention prisoners which may be conducted thereat. SEC. 7. Repealing Clause. Any circular or guideline, such as A.M. No. 07-3-02-SC, inconsistent with the above new guidelines for the conduct of the jaiI visitation and inspection as provided herein shall be considered as having been repealed or superseded.
2013 Upcoming PHILJA Events

(Continued from page 40)
Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and the Rule of Law for Executive and Vice Executive Judges and Single Sala Court Judges Region IV, October 2415, Pasay City Region V, November 1213, Naga City 10th Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair Lecture November 13, Quezon City Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators Metro Manila Mediation Program November 1415, Manila National Convention and Seminar of the PTJLI November 1416, General Santos City Judicial Settlement Conference on Judicial Dispute Resolution November 1922, Iloilo City Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, and Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute Resolution November 21, Iloilo City Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court on Judicial Dispute Resolution November 21, Iloilo City Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors, Law Enforcers and IBP Members of Pangasinan November 21, Lingayen, Pangasinan FGD for Selected Court of Appeals Justices on Problem Areas in Handling Intellectual Property Cases November 26, Manila Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers NCJR, November 2628, Mandaluyong City National Convention and Seminar of the FLECCAP December 46, Laoag City CET Program Evaluation and Stress Management Seminar for PHILJA Facilitators and Trainors December 9, Manila CET for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children December 1012, Manila PST for Judges December 1012, Tagaytay City
For your information and strict compliance. August 30, 2013. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator
(Continued on page 38)

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS SUBJECT: COVER LETTER FOR COPIES OF ORDERS, DECISIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY LOWER COURTS TO THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR To ensure immediate and appropriate action on copies of orders, decisions and other documents submitted by lower
38
OCA Circular No. 80-2013 (continued from page 29)
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013
OCA Circular No. 107-2013 (continued from page 37)
VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 OCA Circular No. 107-2013 (continued from page 38)
39
3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial Building Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila 1000 Philippines
PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE TO AVOID PAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH
2013 Upcoming PHILJA Events
National Convention and Seminar of the CLAPHIL October 13, Panglao, Bohol PJA Annual Convention and Election of National Officers October 810, Manila CEP for First Level Clerks of Court Region IV, Batch 1, October 1011, Tagaytay City Region IV, Batch 2, October 1718, Tagaytay City Silver Anniversary and National Convention and Seminar of the PACE October 1618, Manila Academic Excellence Lecture Series in the Judiciary October 10, Manila FGD for Judges on Problem Areas in Handling Intellectual Property Cases October 18, Pasay City RTD on International Best Practices on Tax Mediation October 18, Quezon City Seminar-Workshop on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property Selected Special Commercial Court Judges NCJR and Regions IV, October 22 23, Manila
Selected Special Commercial Court Judges and Court of Appeals Attorneys Mindanao, November 2021, Cagayan de Oro City
CDP for Court Legal Researchers Region II, October 2324, Baguio City Region VI, November 2728, Iloilo City/Bacolod City 68th Orientation Seminar Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges November 514, Tagaytay City CET for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons Cases November 57, Tagaytay City Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws and Rules Relating to Money Laundering and Other Financial Crimes for Judges NCJR, November 67, Manila E-JOW November 8, Capitol Ground, Province of Bulacan Validation Workshop on the Second Draft of the Helpbook on Combating Human Trafficking in the Philippines November 8, Manila
Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna Chancellor Professor Sedfrey M. Candelaria Editor in Chief Editorial and Research Staff Atty. Orlando B. Cario Arsenia M. Mendoza Armida M. Salazar Jocelyn D. Bondoc Ronald P. Caraig Judith B. Del Rosario Christine A. Ferrer Joanne Narciso-Medina Charmaine S. Nicolas Sarah Jane S. Salazar Jeniffer P. Sison Circulation and Support Staff Romeo A. Arcullo Lope R. Palermo Daniel S. Talusig Printing Services Leticia G. Javier and Printing Staff
The PHILJA Bulletin is published quarterly by the Research, Publications and Linkages Office of the Philippine Judicial Academy, with office at the 3 rd Floor of the Supreme Court Centennial Building, Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila. Tel: 552-9524; Fax: 552-9621; E-mail: research_philja@yahoo.com; philja@sc.judiciary.gov.ph; Website: http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph

Philja Bulletin No. 59

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philja Bulletin No. 59

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JULY-SEPTEMBER 2013

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59

From the Chancellors Desk

From the Chancellors Desk

34 35 ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Chancellor

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59

TRAININGS, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

Seminar-Workshop on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59

REGION III Eronze P. Sablayan 3rd MCTC: Laur-Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59

Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP)

Career Enhancement Program (CEP)

Career Development Program (CDP)

Special Focus Programs

Venue: Diamond Hotel, Manila Participants: 12 selected judges

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 New Rulings

Execution by motion within five years; exception.

Land Registration Law

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 Doctrinal Reminders

Act No. 3344 applies to sale of unregistered lands.

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59

Two concepts of attorneys fees.

Relationship between attorney and his client.

OCA Circular No. 109-2013

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59

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

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

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

Rollo, pp. 56.

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 A.M. No. 11-10-03-O (continued)

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 A.M. No. 11-10-03-O (continued)

A.M. No. 03-4-01-0 dated September 1, 2009.

Memorandum Order No. 30-2013

Memorandum Order No. 25-2013

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 Memo. Order No. 30-2013 (continued)

OCA Circular No. 78-2013

OCA Circular No. 80-2013

OCA Circular No. 83-2013

OCA Circular No. 84-2013

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 OCA Circular No. 84-2013 (continued)

OCA Circular No. 87-2013

OCA Circular No. 94-2013

OCA Circular No. 97-2013

newly appointed judges): 2 (for incumbent judges):

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 OCA Circular No. 97-2013 (continued)

OCA Circular No. 99-2013

OCA Circular No. 100-2013

OCA Circular No. 103-2013

OCA Circular No. 101-2013

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 OCA Circular No. 103-2013 (continued)

OCA Circular No. 107-2013

VOLUME XV ISSUE NO. 59 OCA Circular No. 107-2013 (continued)

2013 Upcoming PHILJA Events

OCA Circular No. 109-2013

OCA Circular No. 107-2013 (continued from page 37)

2013 Upcoming PHILJA Events

You might also like