A final requirement in our subject, Alternative Dispute Resolution, is

to observe an actual mediation in a venue of our choice and to put our

thoughts in view of it in a final written output.

Every weekend in our second semester, we are constantly enlightened

with the beauty of having Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR). In contrast
to our aim as law students to abide and uphold the law at all times, it is not
always practical to settle disputes through litigation. The broken
relationships, the total loss from judgments rendered, the expenses that
incur, the time-consuming process and the health-risks that arises from the
stress and from the agony of having an unpredictable unfavourable
judgment are the situations that an ADR aims to depart from.

As law students, we are also peace makers and it is also our aim to
smoothen the justice system in our country. There are cases capable of being
settled through mediation and those that should only be settled through
litigation. For the first, it is our duty to encourage parties to settle and
maintain their good relationship and to also help declog the court dockets.
The welfare of the client must always be considered since a lawyer’s primary
duty is not to seek for profit, but to help his clients by doing what is best for
them. Thus, we are tasked to observe and to learn the good side of
mediation.

Our journey in this activity began when our group had decided to
conduct the observation in the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC). We
started by drafting a letter addressed to the Executive Judge, namely Judge
Raymond Reynold R. Lauigan, with a permission from our Professor, Judge
Mira Minda Cabulisan-Callangan. The purpose of the letter was to ask for
permission that we may be allowed to observe in the mediations, and to
formally introduce our clear intention. Our letter then has been approved
and we were granted with the privilege to observe.
 In the PMC, the first group that we had observed was connected to a
land dispute among a number of siblings. Lands are considered as very
common subjects of dispute among family members. People often forget
about relationships, love and the value of a family when properties such as a
land begin to get involved. It is not a very pleasing situation to those involved.

The mediator approached the disputing parties by notifying them that

it was their second meeting, thus, they should have already reflected and
thought about settling their conflict by then.

The mediator constantly reminded the parties that they will not
discuss the merits of the case, rather to aim at the root cause of their dispute.
It is to have both parties come up with a common understanding and
agreement rather than to be given a different and more painful judgment by
the court. We observed that the mediator tries so hard to help the disputing
parties to set-aside their pride.

The defendant in the mediation, is agitated with the plaintiff for the
reason that the plaintiff keeps pointing that the accused was wrong. The
siblings had a hard time speaking their mind in a calm manner. That was the
time that the mediator told them that they have to meet halfway and they
should voice out whatever is in their minds even though it is no longer
connected with their case and suggested that they should learn to listen to
one another. They should not be hesitant in expressing their thoughts
because this could help in the resolution of their controversy. Anyway,
everything that would be disclosed would be inadmissible as evidence in
court in case they would not be able to settle their conflict at the PMC. After
almost four hours of discussion, they arrived in partial settlement because
only one of the defendants concurred with the plaintiff.

However, before the mediator drafted their settlement, another

mediator tried to converse with all the siblings and let all of the siblings’ in-
laws out of the room. The mediator by then, tried her best to fix the
relationship of the siblings. After an hour, the case was fully settled. Then
came another set of parties to be mediated.

The second group had parties whose dispute involved money claims.

According to the mediator, that session was the parties’ final session.
During our observation, we have learned that the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MTC) already rendered a decision favourable to the plaintiff, ordering the
accused to pay the plaintiff within two years. According to the plaintiff,
during their previous session, they both agreed that the accused will pay the
plaintiff in accordance with the MTC’s decision.

However, during the session, the accused refused to accede with their
agreement and instead, requested if she could pay it for five years instead of
two years which the plaintiff did not allow. Then, the accused told the
mediator that she prefers her lawyer’s advice which is to bring the case back
to court. The mediator tried to convince the accused to settle their dispute
then and there for the reason that it was their last chance and that the
accused will surely spend more money compared to when she would agree
to pay under the terms and conditions of the plaintiff.

Unfortunately, the accused was firm with her decision to pursue the
case in court.

It was obvious that the dispute of the first group which we observed
was much graver compared with the second group. However, it was the first
group who was successful in coming up with a mutual agreement. This goes
to show that not all disputes can be settled through the help of the
mediators. And the settlement does not wholly depend on the gravity of the
case, rather it also depends on the willingness of the parties to meet halfway
and put an end to their contentions.

The goal to settle disputes among parties are given reasonable

number of chances before being brought back to the court. The time for
settlement and the gaps between them must be used by the parties to think
about the consequences of not settling the matter within themselves while
they are given the opportunity to do so. Sometimes, one of the parties offer
a price but the other feels that what is asked for is beyond his sense of justice
and his person. If none of the parties are willing to adjust, there is no other
option but to give the court the authority to settle the judgment. Such may
not be favourable to both and the judgment may be harsh, but it is the fruit
of the unwillingness of one or both to come up with an agreement when the
chance to do so had already elapsed.

Whether disputes among parties are settled or not, having alternative

dispute resolutions would always remain helpful for it is a healthy, friendly
and calm manner to resolve arguments. There was that final chance to
present an offer, to voice out and to speak with other parties face to face.
The good relationship between or among them may be maintained, and a
considerable amount of time and money would be saved. After all, we are
humans and our life is limited. It would be best to live our lives in peace with
those around us.