I.

Introduction

Alternative dispute resolution is the wave of the future in
dispute resolution as enunciated by the Supreme Court. It is a
much better way of resolving controversies for it is much
speedier, cheaper, and less adversarial compared to regular
litigation. It provides both the parties confidentiality and the
opportunity to be heard more freely and openly; for alternative
dispute resolution is not in strict compliance with the rigid rules
of the court.

As a requisite for passing the subject, students were
required to observe mediation proceedings. The mediation
proceeding was conducted on the 30
th
day of January 2014 at the
Philippine Mediation Center located in the Justice Building Brgy.
Dalakit, Catarman, Northern Samar. In attendance were Ms.
Lucille Lee, Ms. Bikki Poso, Ms. Alfre Madelle Pineda, Ms.
Zandra Cornillez, Mr. Jhon Allen Berbon and Mr. Mikhael Santos.

The attendees listened and observed throughout the
mediation with the proper behavior and complied with the
confidentiality rule thereafter.


II. Narration

The accused came along with the BJMP officers and his
relatives. He was handcuffed as he entered the court room and
inside the room was the arbitrator, the plaintiff, the relatives of
both the accused and the plaintiff, and the students. Legal counsel
was not allowed to attend the mediation. So, there were no
lawyers present. There was only one arbitrator in this case and he
started the proceeding by narrating the case and what was it all
about.
The controversy was that of a simple theft in Brgy. Rawis,
Laoang, Northern Samar. The accused allegedly stole containers
of diesel in night time along with an accomplice with a motorcycle
as an escape vehicle. One of the two culprits was caught hence
this case against him. He did not expressly confess to the crime
although he impliedly confessed through some statements that
can be construed as an admission. Since the case of simple theft
against the accused was still pending he was incarcerated; he cant
afford bail for the accused was financially incapable. Thus, he was
already imprisoned for almost a year.
After stating the facts of the case the arbitrator conferred
with both of the parties carefully listening to their sides and then
he ordered the accused to leave the room so that he could talk to
the plaintiff in privacy. As the accused left, the arbitrator started
negotiating the terms of the compromise agreement with the
plaintiff. The arbitrator offered that the accused shall pay the
plaintiff six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) provided that he will drop
the charges. The arbitrator also explained that the compromise
agreement will be cheaper compared to the expenses that will be
incurred if he continued with the litigation. Unfortunately, the
plaintiff did not agree to this, he still holds that the accused
should be imprisoned so that he will learn his lesson. He even said
that since the accused was imprisoned theft was alleviated in their
place. Further negotiations were conducted and the amount of the
compromise agreement was increased to ten thousand pesos
(P10,000) as negotiated by the plaintiff. But still there was no
meeting of the minds.
Negotiations failed and the accused was ordered to enter
the room and was told about the compromise agreement. They
agreed to pay six thousand pesos provided that they will be given
a period of time to come up with the money. However, the
plaintiff is still contending that it should be raised to ten thousand
pesos.
The parties in the end still did not agree to the compromise
agreement. Thus, the arbitrator asked for their phone numbers
and agreed that after a month they will meet again and update
each other through cellular communication.
The proceeding ended without any resolution.
III. Reaction

Even though the controversy was not resolved the
recognition of the issue of power being at the heart of every
conflict is a material gain in dispute resolution.

Any alternative dispute resolution practice needs to
acknowledge the issue and bring it forth to bear on the process.
Thus, the measure of a successful dispute resolution is not the
resolution of the conflict itself but the empowerment of the
parties along the process towards a mutually gainful beneficial
resolution of the conflict as manifested by giving both sides the
opportunity to be heard and defend themselves with utmost
respect to each other in a manner which is not adversarial in
nature.

The facilitators empowering dispute resolution
management strive for the achievement and preservation of peace
and justice among the parties. They are primarily dedicated to the
principle that all parties to a conflict have the right to negotiate,
be heard, and amicably settle the issue. They believe in the
importance of this principle as a precondition to the achievement
of genuine peace and justice.

It is also opined that alternative dispute resolution provides
for a less formal way of settling the controversy thus lessening the
chances of injustice through technicalities. In regular litigation, the
parties must strictly follow the procedure provided by the law for
non-compliance with it may be fatal to the case. This is where the
lawyers come to play; they formulate plans and techniques to
defeat the other party through technicalities which might result to
injustice. In alternative dispute resolution the parties come to talk
and settle amicably and not to battle. They are at ease and they
can say whatever they want in front of each other which might
lead to the resolution of the conflict. They are not strictly bound
by the Rules of Court. Thus, there can be no injustice through
technicalities.




































Alternative Dispute Resolution














NARRATIVE REPORT
























Submitted by:
Jhon Allen Berbon
Ma. Lucille Lee
Bikki Poso
Alfre Madelle Pineda
Zandra Cornillez
Mikhael Santos