Ellaine M.

Quimson LLB 2 B

Court-Annexed Mediation: Summing Up The Past And Charting The Future

Carolyn A. Mercado and Damcelle S. Torres

Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJA) conducted two tests for CAM which had 40% settlement
rate for the first test and an increased rate of 87% for the second test.

PhilJA created an Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, which was instrumental in the
promotion, planning, supervision, and ultimate institutionalization of CAM which led to
Resolution A.M. 01-10-5-SC-PhilJA in 2001 issued by the Supreme Court, where the Philippine
Mediation Center (PMC) was established and in 2005, the Appellate Court Mediation Project
moved to its second phase where it focused on the internship of newly-trained Court of Appeals
mediators and led to the issuance of the Proposed Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of
Mediation in the Court of Appeals. Mediators in CA were limited to retired judges; senior
members of the Bar; and senior law professor, trained and accredited by the SC.

Survey results showed that litigants who participated in CAM has satisfactorily settled their
cases and expressed their interest in mediation as an alternative, cost-efficient means of
resolving disputes and cleared court dockets through mediation.

Lawyers and judges play a important role for the success of CAM. Public awareness and
appreciation of CAM through continuous education and information is also a key for the
continuous success rate of CAM. Expanding CAM to civil aspects of other minor crimes such as
grave threats, slander, libel, and slight physical injuries might as well be covered, not only to
clear court dockets but to resolve the dispute in a speedy and less expensive way and to save
the relationship of the disputing parties.

The rise and fall of the success rate of CAM depends on the continuous usage of CAM through
the strengthening of mediators’ groups; the rise in popularity of ADR and CAM; and the further
rise in the costs of litigation.

Having more judges, lawyers and ADR practitioners with proper skills, knowledge and
experience will make CAM more effective, offering the parties a affordable and accessible
means in resolving their disputes before spending a substantial amount of time and money in
case preparation, assuring the public that courts are truly concerned about the emotional and
financial welfare of the people providing affordable and timely dispute resolution options.

Proper trainings should be undertaken by judges, lawyers and ADR practitioners to be an

effective mediator. With enough support from the government to conduct seminars and
trainings, our mediators will be more knowledgeable and ready to provide their service to
achieve better result in resolving disputes using CAM. Continues research on how to improve
CAM should also be done to adopt since our environment is constantly changing through time.
 Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) as an Innovative Mode of Dispute Resolution

Salvador S. Panga, Jr

Judicial dispute resolution (JDR) was introduced in 2014 strengthening component of the JURIS
Project, and as an adjunct to the court-annexed mediation (CAM) program.

JDR is a process by which a judge attempts to facilitate settlement between parties undergoing
litigation after a similar effort by a court appointed mediator has failed. The JDR program placing
greater emphasis on value creation, joint problem-solving, option generation and the
improvement of the parties’ relationship, than on the ascertainment of the parties’ respective
rights and obligations.

The Guidelines divide judicial proceedings into two stages. The first stage involves the filing of a
complaint until the completion of CAM and JDR, while the second stage consists of pre-trial to
trial and judgment.

The JURIS Project commissioned the research team to undertake an evaluation of the JDR
program. The researchers were asked to ascertain the effectiveness of the program in terms of
meeting its goal of increasing the volume of case disposition, to identify the necessary factors to
make the program effective and recommend how the program could be further strengthened
and determine the extent of approval or disapproval by the end-users of JDR, in terms of value,
fairness, acceptability and other similar factors.

Survey showed that half of the cases were successfully settled. It was a good indicator as an
alternative in resolving disputes rather than going through an expensive and longer trial.JDR
Judges believed that it is appropriate for judges to tell a party what he thinks the result will be if
the case will go through, in order to encourage the parties to settle. Generally it has achieved its
goal of reducing the court’s case load.

Most judges, lawyers and litigants strongly support and approve of JDR. It showed positive
results even if there are some programs that need modification such as possibility to expand the
coverage of JDR clarification of judges role initiatives for enhancing awareness of lawyers and
litigants on JDR conducting JDR hearings to allow them to craft settlement proposals, with the
assistance of their lawyers to bring should be adopted, litigants should be informed of the nature
and purpose of JDR before the JDR hearing.

The concept of judge facilitated settlement which has been accepted by all sectors. The
success rate was due to the readiness of the judges to take their role of dispute facilitators and
the training, monitoring, program support and management provided by the JURIS Project and
PhilJA.

Continuous support of JDR as an ADR, will not only be useful and effective in resolving disputes
and reducing the caseload of the courts but will also improve the relationship of the disputing
parties as well as the trust given to the judges.
 Collaborative Law and the Rules on Court- Annexed Family Mediation

Patrick Heinz M. Wiedmer

The right to a speedy trial is one of our constitutional rights, but due to delaying tactics and
clogged court dockets the case is taking much time to resolve it. This is especially felt in family
disputes of couples and may involve the resolution of many issues such as support, custody,
visitation, property relations and guardianship of minor and may take several years before one
issue can be resolved.

Although most family disputes are resolved within the family through negotiation, mediation and
sometimes adjudication, more often court intervention is needed when the couples fails to
resolve their conflicts.

Through the years CAM had gained the acceptance by the SC because of its high success rate
in settling disputes at the earliest possible opportunity.

Collaboration Law was introduced as another alternative way to resolve dispute, especially
when it involves sensitive topics such as family conflicts.

Collaboration Law stemmed from this simple idea to formulate a new type of ADR that puts
more pressure on parties and their counsel to agree to an out-of-court agreement with features:
1. Disqualification agreement which prohibits a counsel from continuing as such if the
negotiations fail and litigation is required in the next step. The parties will have to get another
counsel to represent them in a judicial resolution. This is an incentive for the lawyer to facilitate
the negotiation in good faith.
2. Full and voluntary discovery disclosures
3. Avoidance of a even a threat to litigation throughout the negotiation process
4. Commissioning of neutral experts to participate in the discussions
5. The “four-way meetings” where the parties negotiate face-to-face. The focus is the clients’
needs in a non-adversarial manner
6. It seeks a win-win result.
7. Unlike CAM, the parties don’t need to wait for the court to dictate when to begin negotiations.
The meetings may begin immediately if the parties desire, at a mutually agreed pace.

Collaboration Law could be a good way to resolve family disputes, giving the couple more
chances to resolve their disputes without any court order. Resolving family disputes the earliest
possible time without going through court trial would help the families involved or the couples
resolve their issue that might save their relationship without going through a lengthy trial that will
result into more emotional distress that would create greater gap between the couples or any
member of their family.

As another kind of an ADR, it will promote a speedy, less expensive way to resolve disputes
and will be a great help to lessen the cases that are filed in court.