Volume XII, Issue No. 45 January-March 2010

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS 1January-March 2010January-March 2010

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

January to March 2010 Volume XII, Issue No.45

Excellence

in

the

Judiciary

Excellence

in

the

Judiciary

SUPREME COURT

RE

PU

BLIC

OF THE PHILIP

PI N

ES

BATAS AT BAYAN

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA NEWS2

“14 Years of Partnershipin Pursuit of Excellence in the Judiciary”

March 12, 2010 PHILJA Day Celebration

On March 12, 2010, the Philippine JudicialAcademy celebrated its 14th founding anniversary atthe Old Session Hall of the Supreme Court. The venuewas specially significant as it is right across the roomswhere PHILJA held office before its transfer to theCentennial Building. Befitting this momentousoccasion, a thanksgiving mass officiated by Fr.Demetrio M. Carmona, SDB, and attended by PHILJAofficials and employees, set the day-long activities inmotion.

In a simple recognition program following themass, Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna reminded everyoneto be both proud and humble of all that the Academyhas accomplished, and to continue to pursueexcellence. Ms. Joan Marie C. Tejada, recipient of theChancellor’s Award, expressed her gratitude to theAcademy for recognizing her hard work andcommitment. Hailed as PHILJA Employees of the Year,Mr. Joseph Arvin S. Cruz, for Supervisory level, andMr. Ryan Jay S. Orcullo, for Non-Supervisory level,were given plaques and monetary tokens donated bythe Management Committee (ManCom) members.Nominated by their peers and voted upon by theManCom members, the Employees of the Year werechosen for their excellent performance, above andbeyond job expectations, as well as their moralattributes and dedication to work. PHILJA employeeswho have been with the Academy for at least 10 yearswere each given a certificate and a pin in appreciationof their loyalty and dedication. They are:

1. Ms. Marita Flora C. Ayllon2. Mr. Bernie E. Azucena3. Ms. Susan S. Caparros4. Mr. Joseph Arvin S. Cuz5. Atty. Ma. Melissa R. Dimson-Bautista6. Mr. Eliseo A. Ege7. Ms. Lyra A. Encinares8. Mr. Mathew R. Fajardo9. Mr. Rodrigo G. Javier10. Ms. Rouschelle G. Mercado11. Mr. Jose T. Name, Jr.12. Mr. Lope R. Palermo13. Mr. Joselito P. Quines14. Ms. Armida M. Salazar15. Ms. Nennette G. Zaldivar

In the afternoon, the Photo Exhibit was formallyunveiled during the ribbon-cutting ceremony led byChief Justice Reynato S. Puno, assisted by ChancellorAdolfo S. Azcuna, Vice Chancellor Justo P. Torres, Jr.,and Founding Chancellor Emeritus Ameurfina A.Melencio Herrera. The pictures showed PHILJA’s

humble beginnings, its various meaningful activities,and its remarkable progress in the delivery of judicialeducation. The pictures also highlighted thepartnerships formed with people and organizationswhich further bolstered PHILJA’s efforts to deliverquality education to justices, judges and courtpersonnel. Partners, both local and foreign, as well askey personalities in PHILJA’s history graced the event.The event was made more meaningful when the ChiefJustice praised the Academy in his message,

The images of people speak of partnership x x x . Theimages of programs speak of performance x x x . Theimages of places speak of progress x x x. We aregathered here on the 14th year of the PhilippineJudicial Academy, to make a toast to its triumph x x xfor the example of work ethic you have shown inspiresus to do as well.

Chancellor's AwardeeMs. Joan Marie C. Tejada

with Justice Azcuna

Mr. Joseph Arvin S. Cruz, PHILJA Employee of the Year for the

Supervisory Level with PHILJA officials

Mr. Ryan Jay S. Orcullo, PHILJAEmployee of the Year for Non-Supervisory Level with PHILJA officials.


Portraits of Praise: A Toast to the Academy

Chief Justice Reynato S. PunoMessage delivered at the PHILJA Day Celebration

on March 12, 2010, Old Session Hall

Pictures, they say, never lie. I’d like to think this is thereason the Philippine Judicial Academy chose to tell us thestory of its 14 years through an exhibit of photographs. Thus,today we find ourselves surrounded by pictures that paint us aportrait of the institution that is the Philippine Judicial Academy(PHILJA).

We look at these photos, and the first image we see arepeople. We see personalities such as Founding ChancellorEmeritus Justice Ameurfina Melencio Herrera, who built theAcademy as its first chancellor, leading the institution for 13years. We see former Chief Justices Andres Narvasa, HilarioDavide, Jr. and Artemio Panganiban, who successively sawthrough the birth, growth, and development of the Academy.Aside from showing images of the past, these photos also paintthose of the present, showing us the face of the incumbentChancellor, Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, who in a few month’stime will be celebrating his one year as head of the Academy,together with the faces of officials, professors, and staff whomake up the PHILJA family. We see faces of justices, judges,and court personnel taking the roles of professors andparticipants alike. We also see faces of nonjudicial personalities,such as those from the government as well as from the privatesector, lending their expertise in their respective fields in supportof our judicial education program. There are also the faces ofpartners such as members of the academe and the internationalcommunity, whose invaluable assistance has made manyprograms of the PHILJA possible.

Next, we see in these photos programs that lie at the coreof the Academy as the premiere training school for justices,judges, court personnel, lawyers, and aspirants to judicial posts.We see the Judicial Career Enhancement Program andOrientation Seminar-Workshops for Executive Judges and ViceExecutive Judges and for Newly Appointed Judges and Clerksof Court. We see the Court Personnel Development program,which aims to enhance and update officers and staffs of ourcourts on skills, values, systems, and procedures for a moreeffective performance of their duties. We see the Pre-JudicatureProgram for lawyers who wish to join the Judiciary. We seespecial programs for lawyers and laypersons alike, programsthat address current trends and emerging issues in differentareas of law. We see Court-Annexed Mediation, AppellateCourt Mediation, and Justice Reforms Initiatives Support(JURIS) programs under the able aegis of the PhilippineMediation Center. These programs have successfully promotedand developed effective alternatives to litigation, both on thetrial and on the appellate levels, successfully mediating almost23,000 cases in the past year alone.

(Continued on next page)

The photos in this exhibit also point us to places where thePHILJA has gone. We see the Academy’s corps of professors,officials, and staff travel to different regions within the countryto bring our judicial education programs to as many members ofthe Judiciary and other stakeholders as possible. We see thesame people join our mobile court bus in its tour of courts andjails all over Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao under theEnhanced Justice on Wheels Program (EJOW) of the SupremeCourt. Indeed, the mobile court-annexed mediation program andthe information drive for barangay officials, two of the sixcomponents of the EJOW, have significantly contributed to thesuccess of the EJOW Program. Under this program, 5,361cases have been successfully mediated and a total of 11,900barangay officials oriented on the Court’s judicial reformprograms by the end of 2009.

Members of the Academy have also gone overseas to learnfrom best practices abroad as part of the Academy’s ceaselesssearch for ways to improve the quality of the judicial educationit offers. And, as a testament to how far the Academy has gone,it has also been invited by foreign judiciaries to share its secretsof success in creating and nurturing an effective judicial trainingprogram. With such growth in a little over a decade, the Academyhas consequently expanded its resources, adding to its SupremeCourt Centennial Building office another set of offices in theSupreme Court-Court of Appeals (SC-CA) Building, as well asanother home in Tagaytay where the construction of the PHILJADevelopment Center is nearing completion.

On the surface, these images of personalities, programs,and places are what we see from these photos. But, as anothersaying goes, pictures say a thousand words. Indeed, literally,there are words underneath the photos before us, beyond theimages we initially see.

The images of people speak of partnership. The story of theAcademy’s success is a story of sharing talent, time, and treasureacross sectors to produce and develop an educational arm that isas effective as it is efficient. Truly, in its young life, the Academyhas been graced by some of the best and the brightest minds inthe legal profession. It has been held together by people whosedetermination is matched by their diligence. And it has drawnthe support of organizations that have with the desire and theresources to contribute to the Academy’s success. To date, theAcademy has teamed up with over 100 other organizations andinstitutions.

The images of programs speak of performance. Throughoutthe years, the Academy has always delivered. From its maidenyear in 1996 — in which a then lean PHILJA team successfullyprepared curricula, designed instructional modules to achievethe objectives of the PHILJA Charter, and conducted 11 seminar-workshops — to the past year in which 6,655 participantsattended its core and special programs, while around 7,000participated in its seminars and lecture series, the Academy hasconsistently lived up of its goal to serve the Judiciary throughthe training of its members. Likewise, the Academy has not limited


Ceremonial Turn-Over of USAID-ABA ROLIDonation to the Judiciary for the Small ClaimsPilot Project

Development Partners: USAID; ABA ROLIDate: January 8, 2010Venue: Judges Lounge, Halls of Justice, Quezon CityParticipants: 40 comprising members of TWG, selectedpilot court judges, and other judges & court personnel

Information Dissemination Through a DialogueBetween the Barangay Officials and Chief Justicewith other Court Officials

Date: January 23, 2010Venue: Pedro Guevarra Memorial High School,Sta. Cruz, LagunaParticipants: 325 barangay officials of Laguna

Date: February 3, 2010Venue: Hiyas ng Bulacan Convention Center,Provincial Capitol Compound, Malolos City, BulacanParticipants: 149 barangay officials of Bulacan

Date: February 5, 2010Venue: Taguig City University AuditoriumParticipants: 82 barangay officials of Taguig City

itself to conducting trainings and lectures; it has created suchpublications as the Manual for Executive Judges, Fundamentalsof Decision Writing for Judges, and Annotation of the Code ofConduct for Court Personnel, among many others, to makesuch resources available to all.

Finally, the images of places speak of progress, taking usto heights the Academy has reached since its creation. Fromsuch modest beginnings, the PHILJA has truly gone a longway. Of all our judicial institutions, it enjoys the highest esteembased on a survey of lawyers and judges. It has earned accoladefrom international institutions such as the National Associationof State Judicial Educators in the U.S., the CommonwealthJudicial Education Institute in Canada, and the World Bank.But the Academy did not have an easy ride to success. It alsohad to overcome its own sets of obstacles, but it was able tohurdle them to reach where it is today.

We are gathered here on the 14th year of the PhilippineJudicial Academy, to make a toast to its triumph. I personallythank the Academy for its active cooperation in the SupremeCourt’s programs of reforms. Your participation not onlyaugments the Court’s resources, but also raises its hopes, forthe example of work ethic you have shown inspires us to do aswell.

Thank you and congratulations to the men and women ofthe PHILJA.

Date: February 12, 2010Venue: Tarlac Provincial Jail Compound,Brgy. Dolores, Tarlac CityParticipants: 236 barangay officials, students,representatives from the PNP and Tarlac ProvincialJail of Taguig City

Date: February 24, 2010Venue: Muntinlupa City Hall Lobby, Muntinlupa CityParticipants: 255 barangay officials, LGU, students,representatives from the IBP and other agencies

Date: March 5, 2010Venue: La Union Provincial Jail Library, San Fernando City, La UnionParticipants: 115 barangay officials and provincial jailemployees of La Union

Date: March 6, 2010Venue: Multi-Purpose Hall, Baguio City Hall,Baguio CityParticipants: 179 barangay officials of Baguio City

Date: March 18, 2010Venue: Baywalk Hotel, Mati City, Davao OrientalParticipants: 191 barangay officials, students and otherguests

Training of Trainers on the CompetencyEnhancement Training for Judges and CourtPersonnel Handling Child Abuse and TraffickingCases

Development Partners: CPU-Net; UNICEFDate: January 25, 2010Venue: CSB Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 32 comprising selected justices, judges,prosecutors, PHILJA personnel, and representativefrom CPU-PGH

Continuing Legal Education Program for CourtLawyers

Supreme Court and Court of AppealsDate: January 26-27, 2010Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 116 court attorneys

Date: January 28-29, 2010Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 111 court attorneys

Date: March 18-19, 2010Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 75 court attorneys

Court of Appeals-CDO StationDate:February 22-23, 2010Venue: Pearlmont Inn, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 34 court attorneys


Chief Justice Reynato S. PunoThird Distinguished Lecture

Topic: The ASEAN CharterLecturer: H. E. Rosario G. Manalo, Senior Foreign ServiceAdviser to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Philippine Negotiatorof the ASEAN Charter and the Terms of Reference (TOR) ofthe ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights,Career Ambassador of the Philippine Diplomatic Service (ret.)Development Partners: ALA of the Philippines; PMODate: February 19, 2010Venue: En Banc Session Hall, Supreme Court, Manila

Court of Appeals-Cebu City StationDate: February 25-26, 2010Venue: Montebello Villa Hotel, Banilad, Cebu CityParticipants: 32 court attorneys

Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax AppealsDate:March 15-16, 2010Venue: Imperial Palace Suites, Quezon CityParticipants: 63 court attorneys

Seminar on Speedy Trial and Disposition ofCases

Development Partners: OCA; USAID; ABA-ROLINCR-Batch 2Date: January 29, 2010Venue: Mandarin Oriental Manila, Makati CityParticipants: 50 selected first and second level judges ofNCJR

MindanaoDate: February 10, 2010Venue: Marco Polo Davao Hotel, Davao CityParticipants: 46 selected first and second level judges ofRegions 9 to 12

Luzon-Batch 1Date: March 19, 2010Venue: Traders Hotel Manila, Pasay CityParticipants: 72 selected first and second level judges ofRegions 4 & 5

Knowledge Sharing on the Adjudicationof Disputes in an Automated Election System

Development Partners: USAID; ABA-ROLI; IFESDate: February 8, 2010Venue: Le Salon 2, Hyatt Hotel, Ermita, ManilaParticipants: 48 representatives from SC, PHILJA,COMELEC, ABA-ROLI, and IFES

Competency Enhancement Training for Judgesand Court Personnel Handling Child Abuse andTrafficking Cases

Development Partners: CPU-Network; UNICEFDate:February 9-11, 2010Venue: Sarabia Manor Hotel, Iloilo CityParticipants: 53 comprising selected RTC judges, courtpersonnel, CA lawyers, prosecutors, PAO lawyers andrepresentatives from the PNP of Region 6

Date:March 16-18, 2010Venue: The A Venue Hotel Suites, Makati CityParticipants: 76 comprising selected judges, courtpersonnel, prosecutors, PAO lawyers andrepresentatives from the PNP of NCJR


19th Pre-Judicature Program

Date: February 22 to March 5, 2010Venue: College of St. Benilde Hotel, Malate, ManilaParticipants: 62 lawyers

1. Atty. Joan A. Albarece2. Atty. Rosario Dolores V. Alday3. Atty. Edgar A. Ambagan4. Atty. Ma. Victoria T. Antique-Garalza5. Atty. Wilmar T. Arugay6. Atty. Mary Hazel SJ Atayza-Marasigan7. Atty. Rodolfo P. Azucena, Jr.8. Atty. Anne Beatrice A. Balmaceda9. Atty. Zandra Tubat Bato10. Atty. James Daniel O. Bicomong, Jr.11. Atty. Shirley Joyce O. Bohol12. Atty. Lyn Ebora Cacha13. Atty. Heidi M. Caguioa14. Atty. Emma Liza P. Calma15. Atty. Joseph Darren C. Centeno16. Atty. Joselito S. Concepcion17. Atty. Arlyn B. Concepcion-Soresca18. Atty. Zenalfie M. Cuenco19. Atty. Janette Mae J. Dillomes20. Atty. Sheryll C. Dolendo-Tulabing21. Atty. Dominica L. Dumangeng-Rosario22. Atty. Raquel C. Enriquez23. Atty. Ana Bergonzosa B. Escarlan

(for MCLE Compliance only)

24. Atty. Frederick Mikhail I. Farolan


25. Atty. Faustina B. Fernandez26. Atty. Vicente S. Hernandez, Jr.27. Atty. Ireneo D. Hernandez28. Atty. Perla Polintang Huerto29. Atty. Harold Cesar C. Huliganga30. Atty. Jaime O. Ibañez31. Atty. Irene C. Ishiwata (for MCLE Compliance only)

32. Atty. Aliakhbar A. Jumrani33. Atty. Edmond M. Kindipan34. Atty. Veronica B. King (for MCLE Compliance only)

35. Atty. Ireneo M. Lustre36. Atty. Edwin A. Macaraeg37. Atty. Ethel A. Malabanan38. Atty. Michelle C. Manaig-Calumpong39. Atty. Shiela Cindy D. Masangque40. Atty. Nicolas B. Medenilla II41. Atty. Arthur B. Melicor42. Atty. George E. Misa43. Atty. Christina S. Molino44. Atty. Ma. Susan Eleanor G. Muria45. Atty. Marie Catherine R. Nolasco46. Atty. Susan U. Ordinario47. Atty. Ronald M. Paas48. Atty. Iderlina P. Pagunuran (for MCLE Compliance only)

49. Atty. Corazon L. Rodriguez-Bondoc50. Atty. Arlene J. Roura51. Atty. Rina S. Sacdalan (for MCLE Compliance only)

52. Atty. Jose Theodoro Leonardo C. Santos53. Atty. Cipriano Alexander B. Soriano54. Atty. Silvino L. Sumagaysay, Jr.55. Atty. May Hazel M. Tagupa56. Atty. Rachelle C. Tandoc-Ricabierta57. Atty. Isah J.E. Tangonan58. Atty. Mark Kristopher G. Tolentino59. Atty. Devery Jean Katrina T. Tumilba60. Atty. Florencio E. Uy61. Atty. Marietta R. Velasco62. Atty. Zendy Maderazo Villanueva

Launch of the Publication of the Proceedings ofthe International Conference on the InternationalCriminal Court

Date: February 23, 2010Venue: En Banc Session Hall, Supreme Court, Manila

7th National Convention and Seminar of thePhilippine Association of Court Social Workers,Inc. (PACSWI)

Theme: Court Social Workers: Moving Forward in thePursuit of Social Justice and ExcellenceDate: February 24-26, 2010Venue: Regency Inn, Davao CityParticipants: 115 court social workers

Seminar-Workshop on Combating JudicialCorruption and Strengthening the Rule of Law

Development Partners: OCA; USAID; ABA-ROLIDate: February 25-27, 2010Venue: En Banc Session Hall, Supreme Court, ManilaParticipants: 42 OCA and JBC lawyers

Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Lawfor Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers

Development Partner: DDBDate: March 2-4, 2010Venue: Oxford Hotel, Angeles City, PampangaParticipants: 104 comprising selected RTC judges andprosecutors, representatives from PDEA, RAIDSOTG,PASG, PPA, NBI, and BUCUS of Regions 1, 2 & 3

National Summit on Family Courts

Development Partners: CGRJ; PJADate: March 4-5, 2010Venue: Manila Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 222 participants comprising members ofthe Judiciary, SC officials, family court judges, clerksof court, court interpreters, court social workers, andrepresentatives from PJA, DOJ, DSWD, DILG,Legislative, Civil Society, Church, Academe, Media,Development Partners, and CGRJ


JUDICIAL MOVES

Hon. Jose C. MendozaAssociate Justice, appointed on January 5, 2010


Hon. Jose Midas P. MarquezCourt Administrator, appointed on January 27, 2010

Hon. Jesus Edwin A. VillasorDeputy Court Administrator, appointed on October 27, 2009

National Convention and General Meeting ofthe Philippine Women Judges Association(PWJA)

Theme: The Role of Lady Magistrates in the Protectionof the EnvironmentDate: March 4-5, 2010Venue: Manila Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 306 lady judges

Convention and Seminar of the JudiciaryAssociation of Clerks of the Philippines

Theme: Enhancing the Integrity of Judicial Clerks inStrengthening the Rule of LawDate: March 24-26, 2010Venue: Tagaytay International Convention Center,Tagaytay CityParticipants: 601 clerks

Seminar-Workshop on the Rule of Procedure forSmall Claims Cases NCJR

Development Partners: OCA; USAID; ABA-ROLIDate: March 25, 2010; March 26, 2010Venue: Pan Pacific Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 72 and 89 judges and clerks of court

Supreme Court

Hon. Martin S. Villarama, Jr.Associate Justice, appointed on November 7, 2009

Hon. Jose P. PerezAssociate Justice, appointed on December 26, 2009

Hon. Raul B. VillanuevaDeputy Court Administrator, appointed on March 8, 2010

Hon. Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-DelorinoAssistant Court Administrator, appointed on January 18, 2010


Court of Appeals

Hon. Edwin D. SorongonAssociate Justice, appointed on November 5, 2009

Hon. Ramon A. CruzAssociate Justice, appointed November 5, 2009

Hon. Agnes R. CarpioAssociate Justice, appointed on November 5, 2009

Hon. Socorro B. IntingAssociate Justice, appointed on November 6, 2009

Hon. Angelita A. GacutanAssociate Justice, appointed on November 6, 2009

Hon. Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.Associate Justice, appointed on February 16, 2010

Hon. Ramon Paul L. HernandoAssociate Justice, appointed on February 16, 2010

Hon. Myra G. FernandezAssociate Justice, appointed on February 16, 2010

Hon. Nina G. Antonio-ValenzuelaAssociate Justice, appointed on February 24, 2010

Sandiganbayan

Hon. Norberto Y. Geraldez Presiding Justice, appointed on February 28, 2010

Hon. Maria Cristina J. Cornejo Associate Justice, appointed on March 1, 2010

Court of Tax Appeals

Hon. Cielito Mindaro-GrullaAssociate Justice, appointed on November 27, 2009

Hon. Esperanza Fabon-VictorinoAssociate Justice, appointed on November 27, 2009

Hon. Amelia C. ManalastasAssociate Justice, appointed on December 15, 2009

On the 23rd, PHILJA proceeded with thelaunch of the publication of the Proceedings ofthe International Conference on the InternationalCriminal Court also at the Supreme Court SessionHall. I thank Ambassador Rubens Anna Fedeleof the Italian Embassy and Judge Sang-HyunSong, President of the International CriminalCourt, for their presence and pre-recordedmessage, respectively.

Aside from having distributed a specialpublication entitled “Justitia et Lex: Handbookon Marriage,” PHILJA also mounted a NationalSummit on Family Courts (Strengthening the Multi-Sectoral Framework for the Protection of Family,Women and Children) with the cooperation of theSupreme Court’s Committee on GenderResponsiveness in the Judiciary (CGRJ) and thePhilippine Judges Association (PJA) on March12.

On the same day, PHILJA also celebrated its14th Anniversary as the educational arm of theCourt. The day opened with a morning massand a short program honoring deservingemployees while a photo exhibit, chroniclingthe Academy’s journey from a fledglinginstitution to its present incarnation as a leaderand model in judicial education in Asia and inthe world, was launched in the afternoon inthe presence of distinguished guests includingour development partners.

The said occasion also showcased theamazing talents of our very own PHILJA choirwhich was organized just before the event. Theirperformance under the helm of Justice OswaldoAgcaoili was indeed a pleasant revelation.

Allow me to express my gratitude to thePHILJA officials and employees for comingtogether as a family in celebrating this milestonesuccessfully. There is reason to be proud for noless than the Chief Justice himself called PHILJAthe “crown jewel” of the Supreme Court.

All the best this 2010!

Adolfo S. Azcuna Chancellor

FFFFFrom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’s Desks Desks Desks Desks Desk

Continued from page 1

PHILJA NEWSNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTJanuary-March 2010January-March 2010 9

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Power to promulgate rules exclusive domain ofthe Supreme Court; Court Rules can no longer bealtered by Congress.

Until the 1987 Constitution took effect, our twoprevious constitutions textualized a power sharingscheme between the legislature and this Court in theenactment of judicial rules. Thus, both the 1935 andthe 1973 Constitutions vested on the Supreme Courtthe “power to promulgate rules concerning pleading,practice, and procedure in all courts, and theadmission to the practice of law.” However, theseconstitutions also granted to the legislature theconcurrent power to “repeal, alter or supplement”such rules.

The 1987 Constitution textually altered thepower-sharing scheme under the previous chartersby deleting in Section 5(5) of Article VIII Congress’subsidiary and corrective power. This glaring andfundamental omission led the Court to observe inEchegaray v. Secretary of Justice that this Court’s powerto promulgate judicial rules “is no longer shared bythis Court with Congress”:

The 1987 Constitution molded an evenstronger and more independent judiciary.Among others, it enhanced the rule makingpower of this Court [under] Section 5(5),Article VIII x x x .

The rule making power of this Court was expanded.This Court for the first time was given thepower to promulgate rules concerning theprotection and enforcement of constitutionalrights. The Court was also granted for thefirst time the power to disapprove rules ofprocedure of special courts and quasi-judicialbodies. But most importantly, the 1987 Constitutiontook away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, orsupplement rules concerning pleading, practice andprocedure. In fine, the power to promulgate rulesof pleading, practice and procedure is nolonger shared by this Court with Congress,more so with the Executive. x x x (Italicization

in the original; boldfacing supplied)

Any lingering doubt on the import of the textualevolution of Section 5(5) should be put to rest withour recent En Banc ruling denying a request by theGovernment Service Insurance System (GSIS) forexemption from payment of legal fees based on Section39 of its Charter, Republic Act No. 8291, exemptingGSIS from “all taxes, assessments, fees, charges or duesof all kinds.” Reaffirming Echegaray’s construction ofSection 5(5), the Court described its exclusive power

to promulgate rules on pleading, practice andprocedure as “one of the safeguards of this Court’sinstitutional independence”:

[T]he payment of legal fees is a vitalcomponent of the rules promulgated by thisCourt concerning pleading, practice andprocedure, it cannot be validly annulled,changed or modified by Congress. As one ofthe safeguards of this Court’s institutionalindependence, the power to promulgate rules ofpleading, practice and procedure is now the Court’s

exclusive domain. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

(Carpio, J., Baguio Market Vendors Multi-PurposeCooperative (BAMARVEMPCO), represented by RectoInso, Operations Manager v. Hon. Iluminada Cabato-Cortes, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, BaguioCity, G.R. No. 165922, February 26, 2010.)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Government employee dismissed for cause notdeprive of his personal contributions to the GSIS;can still recover it plus 3 percent interest.

There is no inconsistency between Section 11(d)of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended, andSection 4 of PD No. 1146, and, subsequently, RA No.8291. The inevitable conclusion then is that Section11(d) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended,continues to govern cases of employees dismissed forcause and their claims for the return of their personalcontributions.

Finally, it should be remembered that the GSISlaws are in the nature of social legislation, to beliberally construed in favor of the governmentemployees. The money subject of the instant requestconsists of personal contributions made by theemployee, premiums paid in anticipation of benefitsexpected upon retirement. The occurrence of acontingency, i.e., his dismissal from the service priorto reaching retirement age, should not deprive him ofthe money that belongs to him from the outset. Toallow forfeiture of these personal contributions infavor of the GSIS would condone undue enrichment.

Pursuant to the foregoing discussion, Cesar isentitled to the return of his premiums and voluntarydeposits, if any, with interest of three per centum perannum, compounded monthly.

(Nachura, J., Carmelita Lledo v. Atty. Cesar V. Lledo,A.M. No. P-95-1167, February 9, 2010.)


PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT10

Decisions in election contests; what they mustcontain.

In the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests, A.M.No. 07-4-15-SC, Section 2 of Rule 14 states:

SEC. 2. Form of decision in election protests. Aftertermination of the revision of ballots and beforerendering its decision in an election protest thatinvolved such revision, the court shall examineand appreciate the original ballots. The court, inits appreciation of the ballots and in renderingrulings on objections and claims to ballots of theparties, shall observe the following rules:

(a) On Marked Ballots – The court must specifythe entries in the ballots that clearly indicatethat the intention of the voter is to identify theballot. The specific markings in the ballots mustbe illustrated or indicated;

(b) On Fake or Spurious Ballots – The court mustspecify the COMELEC security markings thatare not found in the ballots that are consideredfake or spurious;

(c) On Stray Ballots – The court must specify andstate in detail why the ballots are consideredstray;

(d) On Pair or Group of Ballots – Written by One orIndividual Ballots Written by Two-When ballotsare invalidated on the ground of written by oneperson, the court must clearly and distinctlyspecify why the pair or group of ballots hasbeen written by only one person. The specificstrokes, figures or letters indicating that theballots have been written by one person mustbe specified. A simple ruling that a pair or groupof ballots has been written by one person wouldnot suffice. The same is true when ballots areexcluded on the ground of having been writtenby two persons. The court must likewise takeinto consideration the entries of the Minutes ofVoting and Counting relative to illiterate ordisabled voters, if any, who cast their votesthrough assistors, in determining the validityof the ballots found to be written by one person,whether the ballots are in pairs or in groups;and

(e) On Claimed Ballots – The court must specifythe exact basis for admitting or crediting

claimed votes to either party. (Emphasis supplied)

Notably, the word “must” is used in the above-quoted rule, thus, clearly indicating the mandatory —not merely directory — nature of the requirement ofwhat the decision should contain. The specific ruleson the contents of decisions in election contests wereformulated so that the decision could, by itself, be taken

as a valuable aid in expeditiously deciding on appealincidents peripheral to the main case. In the presentcase, the contents of the decision become particularlyrelevant and useful in light of the need to decide thecase before us with utmost dispatch, based only onthe documents submitted before us, considering thatthe records and election materials are with anothertribunal, as a matter of course.

For the limited purpose of determining whetherthe essential requisite of a clear showing in thedecision of the protestant’s victory and the protestee’sdefeat is present, we have examined the RTC Decisionsubject of the present case. It is glaring andunmistakable that the said Decision does not conformto the requirements set forth in Section 2 of the Rules.It does not give the specifics of its findings. The generalstatement invalidating 67 percent of the total votescast on the ground that the ballots were written byone person or written by two persons is grosslyinfirm. The Decision does not specify why the courtconsidered particular groups of ballots to have beenwritten by one person, and other invalidated ballotsto have been written by two persons. Worse, theDecision does not state which and how many ballotswere written by one person; and which and how manyballots were written by two persons. The entireDecision, even the lengthy part enumerating theexhibits offered by each party, fails to yield the exactnumber of and which ballots were written by oneperson, and the exact number of and which ballotswere written by two persons. There is also no mentionin the decision of whether or not the RTC took intoconsideration the entries of the Minutes of Voting andCounting relative to illiterate or disabled voters, ifany, who cast their votes through assistors. TheDecision merely states that “[a] careful and cursoryexamination of these ballots indubitably shows thatthese ballots are written either by one or two persons,given the palpable similarity in the handwritingsindicated in these ballots earlier declared byProtestant’s revisors as written by one and twopersons.” It utterly violates the mandatoryrequirement that “the court must clearly anddistinctly specify why the pair or group of ballotshas been written by only one person. The specificfigures or letters indicating that the ballots have beenwritten by one person must be specified.”

In the present case, the victory of the protestantand the defeat of the protestee were not clearlyestablished in the Decision because of the RTC’s failureto conform to the prescribed form of the Decision.Because of said infirmity, there is no certainty, it notbeing mentioned in the Decision, on whether the

PHILJA NEWSNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTJanuary-March 2010January-March 2010 11

ballots of those who voted through assistors were alsoinvalidated or not, in conjunction with the lack of aspecific number of ballots invalidated for beingwritten by one person. The ballots of those who votedthrough assistors, if any, could validly be written byone person. It being unclear from the Decision whetherthese ballots, if any, were invalidated, it follows thatthe victory of the protestant and defeat of the protesteeare unclear and not manifest therein.

Consequently, to allow the execution of such agrossly infirm RTC Decision in disregard of establishedjurisprudence and clear and straightforward rules isarbitrary and whimsical and constitutes grave abuseof discretion amounting to lack or excess ofjurisdiction.

(Del Castillo, J., Leonor Dangan-Corral v. Commissionon Elections and Ernesto Enero Fernandez, G.R. No.190156, February 12, 2010.)

AGRARIAN LAW

Only designated RTC as special agrarian court hasjurisdiction over agrarian cases within theprovince.

A branch of an RTC designated as a SpecialAgrarian Court for a province has the original andexclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for thedetermination of just compensation in that province.In Republic v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruledthat Special Agrarian Courts have original andexclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases: (1)all petitions for the determination of just compensationto landowners, and (2) the prosecution of all criminaloffenses under RA No. 6657.

By “special” jurisdiction, Special Agrarian Courtsexercise power in addition to or over and above theordinary jurisdiction of the RTC, such as takingcognizance of suits involving agricultural landslocated outside their regular territorial jurisdiction,so long as they are within the province where they sitas Special Agrarian Courts.

RA No. 6657 requires the designation by theSupreme Court before an RTC Branch can function asa Special Agrarian Court. The Supreme Court has notdesignated the single sala courts of RTC, Branch 64 ofGuihulngan City and RTC, Branch 63 of Bayawan Cityas Special Agrarian Courts. Consequently, they cannothear just compensation cases just because the landssubject of such cases happen to be within theirterritorial jurisdiction.

Since RTC, Branch 32 of Dumaguete City is thedesignated Special Agrarian Court for the province ofNegros Oriental, it has jurisdiction over all cases fordetermination of just compensation involvingagricultural lands within that province, regardless ofwhether or not those properties are outside its regularterritorial jurisdiction.

(Abad, J. Landbank of the Philippines v. Corazon M.Villegas, G.R. No. 180384 and Landbank of thePhilippines v. Heirs of Catalino V. Noel and Procula P.Sy, G.R. No. 180891, March 26, 2010.)

PHILJA BULLETIN

JUSTICE ADOLFO S. AZCUNA

Chancellor, Philippine Judicial Academy

PROFESSOR SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA

Editor in Chief

ARMIDA M. SALAZAR

Assistant Editor

ATTY. ORLANDO B. CARIÑO

JOCELYN D. BONDOC

JENIFFER P. SISON

CHRISTINE A. FERRER

Editorial Staff

SARAH JANE S. SALAZAR

Production and Circulation

EDMUNDO M. MOREDO

LETICIA G. JAVIER

Printing Services

The PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin is published quarterly bythe Research, Publications and Linkages Officeof the Philippine Judicial Academy, with officeat the 3rd Floor of the Supreme Court CentennialBuilding, Padre Faura St. cor. Taft Ave., Manila.Telephone No. 552-9524; Telefax No. 552-9621;E-mail addresses: [email protected];

[email protected] address: http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph

ELECTION LAW (continued)

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinDOCTRINAL REMINDERS12

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Right to a speedy disposition of cases not limitedto accused in criminal cases; applies also to partiesin civil and administrative cases.

The constitutional right to a “speedy dispositionof cases” is not limited to the accused in criminalproceedings but extends to all parties in all cases,including civil and administrative cases, and in allproceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicialhearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any party toa case may demand expeditious action by all officialswho are tasked with the administration of justice.

The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like theright to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only whenthe proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious,and oppressive delays; or when unjustifiedpostponements of the trial are asked for and secured;or even without cause or justifiable motive, a longperiod of time is allowed to elapse without the partyhaving his case tried. Equally applicable is thebalancing test used to determine whether a defendanthas been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedydisposition of a case for that matter, in which theconduct of both the prosecution and the defendant isweighed, and such factors as the length of the delay,the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure toassert such right by the accused, and the prejudice causedby the delay. The concept of a speedy disposition is arelative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.

Hence, the doctrinal rule is that in thedetermination of whether that right has been violated,the factors that may be considered and balanced areas follows: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for thedelay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right bythe accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay.

(Perez, J., Capt. Wilfredo G. Roquero v. The Chancellorof the UP-Manila; the Administrative DisciplinaryTribunal (ADT) of UP-Manila; Atty. Zaldy B. Docena;Eden Perdido; Isabella Lara, in their Capacities asChairman and Members of the ADT; and Imelda O.Abital, G.R. No. 181851, March 9, 2010.)

ELECTION LAW

HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass uponqualifications of party-list representatives.

Although it is the party-list organization that isvoted for in the elections, it is not the organizationthat sits as and becomes a member of the House ofRepresentatives. Section 5, Article VI of theConstitution, identifies who the “members” of that

House are:

SEC. 5. (1). The House of Representatives shall becomposed of not more than two hundred and fiftymembers, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shallbe elected from legislative districts apportionedamong the provinces, cities, and the MetropolitanManila area in accordance with the number of theirrespective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniformand progressive ratio, and those who, as providedby law, shall be elected through a party-list systemof registered national, regional, and sectoral parties

or organizations. (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, the members of the House ofRepresentatives are of two kinds: “members x x x whoshall be elected from legislative districts” and “thosewho x x x shall be elected through a party-list systemof registered national, regional, and sectoral partiesor organizations.” This means that, from theConstitution’s point of view, it is the party-listrepresentatives who are “elected” into office, not theirparties or organizations. These representatives areelected, however, through that peculiar party-listsystem that the Constitution authorized and thatCongress by law established where the voters casttheir votes for the organizations or parties to whichsuch party-list representatives belong.

Once elected, both the district representatives andthe party-list representatives are treated in likemanner. They have the same deliberative rights,salaries, and emoluments. They can participate inthe making of laws that will directly benefit theirlegislative districts or sectors. They are also subjectto the same term limitation of three years for amaximum of three consecutive terms.

It may not be amiss to point out that the Party-List System Act itself recognizes party-list nomineesas “members of the House of Representatives,” thus:

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State shallpromote proportional representation in the electionof representatives to the House of Representativesthrough a party-list system of registered national,regional and sectoral parties or organizations orcoalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizensbelonging to the marginalized and underrepresentedsectors, organizations and parties, and who lackwell-defined political constituencies but who couldcontribute to the formulation and enactment ofappropriate legislation that will benefit the nation asa whole, to become members of the House ofRepresentatives. Towards this end, the State shalldevelop and guarantee a full, free and open partysystem in order to attain the broadest possiblerepresentation of party, sectoral or group interestsin the House of Representatives by enhancing theirchances to compete for and win seats in the

PHILJA NEWSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSJanuary-March 2010January-March 2010 13

ELECTION LAW (continued)

legislature, and shall provide the simplest schemepossible. (Emphasis supplied)

As this Court also held in Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA No. 7941 v. Commission on Elections, a party-listrepresentative is in every sense “an elected memberof the House of Representatives.” Although the votecast in a party-list election is a vote for a party, suchvote, in the end, would be a vote for its nominees, who,in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the Houseof Representatives.

Both the Constitution and the Party-List SystemAct set the qualifications and grounds fordisqualification of party-list nominees. Section 9 ofRA No. 7941, echoing the Constitution, states:

SEC. 9. Qualification of Party-List Nominees. – Noperson shall be nominated as party-listrepresentative unless he is a natural-born citizen ofthe Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of thePhilippines for a period of not less than one yearimmediately preceding the day of the election, ableto read and write, bona fide member of the party ororganization which he seeks to represent for at least90 days preceding the day of the election, and is atleast 25 years of age on the day of the election.

In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must atleast be 25 but not more than 30 years of age on theday of the election. Any youth sectoralrepresentative who attains the age of 30 during histerm shall be allowed to continue until the expirationof his term.

In the cases before the Court, those who challengedthe qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparanclaim that the two do not belong to the marginalizedand underrepresented sectors that they ought torepresent. The Party-List System Act provides that anominee must be a “bona fide member of the party ororganization which he seeks to represent.”

It is for the HRET to interpret the meaning of thisparticular qualification of a nominee—the need for himor her to be a bona fide member or a representative ofhis party-list organization—in the context of the factsthat characterize petitioners Abayon and Palparan’srelation to Aangat Tayo and Bantay, respectively, andthe marginalized and underrepresented interests thatthey presumably embody.

Petitioners Abayon and Palparan of course pointout that the authority to determine the qualificationsof a party-list nominee belongs to the party ororganization that nominated him. This is true,initially. The right to examine the fitness of aspiringnominees and, eventually, to choose five from amongthem after all belongs to the party or organization

that nominates them. But where an allegation is madethat the party or organization had chosen and alloweda disqualified nominee to become its party-listrepresentative in the lower House and enjoy thesecured tenure that goes with the position, theresolution of the dispute is taken out of its hand.

Parenthetically, although the Party-List SystemAct does not so state, the COMELEC seems to believe,when it resolved the challenge to petitioner Abayon,that it has the power to do so as an incident of itsauthority to approve the registration of party-listorganizations. But the Court need not resolve thisquestion since it is not raised here and has not beenargued by the parties.

What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI ofthe Constitution provides that the HRET shall be thesole judge of all contests relating to, among other things,the qualifications of the members of the House ofRepresentatives. Since, as pointed out above, party-list nominees are “elected members” of the House ofRepresentatives no less than the districtrepresentatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hearand pass upon their qualifications. By analogy withthe cases of district representatives, once the party ororganization of the party-list nominee has beenproclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath andassumed office as member of the House ofRepresentatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction overelection contests relating to his qualifications ends andthe HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.

(Abad, J., Daryl Grace J. Abayon v. The HonorableHouse of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, PerfectoC. Lucaban, Jr., Ronyl S. De La Cruz and Agustin C.Doroga, G.R. No. 189466 and Congressman Jovito S.Palparan, Jr. v. House of Representatives ElectoralTribunal (HRET), Dr. Reynaldo Lesaca, Jr., CristinaPalabay, Renato M. Reyes, Jr., Erlinda Cadapan,Antonio Flores and Joselito Ustarez, G.R. No. 189506,February 11, 2010.)

CIVIL LAW

Filiation; establishing filiation.

Herrera v. Alba summarizes the laws, rules, andjurisprudence on establishing filiation, discoursing inrelevant part as follows:

Laws, Rules, and JurisprudenceEstablishing Filiation



The relevant provisions of the Family Codeprovide as follows:

ART. 175. Illegitimate children may establishtheir illegitimate filiation in the same way andon the same evidence as legitimate children.

x x x x

ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children isestablished by any of the following:

(1) The record of birth appearing in the civilregister or a final judgment; or

(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in apublic document or a private handwritteninstrument and signed by the parentconcerned.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, thelegitimate filiation shall be proved by:

(1) The open and continuous possession ofthe status of a legitimate child; or

(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules ofCourt and special laws.

The Rules on Evidence include provisions onpedigree. The relevant sections of Rule 130provide:

SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. —The act or declaration of a person deceased,or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigreeof another person related to him by birth ormarriage, may be received in evidence whereit occurred before the controversy, and therelationship between the two persons is shownby evidence other than such act or declaration.The word “pedigree” includes relationship,family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, thedates when and the places where these factsoccurred, and the names of the relatives. Itembraces also facts of family historyintimately connected with pedigree.

SEC. 40. Family reputation or traditionregarding pedigree. — The reputation ortradition existing in a family previous to thecontroversy, in respect to the pedigree of anyone of its members, may be received inevidence if the witness testifying thereon bealso a member of the family, either byconsanguinity or affinity. Entries in familybibles or other family books or charts,engraving on rings, family portraits and thelike, may be received as evidence of pedigree.

This Court’s rulings further specify whatincriminating acts are acceptable as evidenceto establish filiation. In Pe Lim v. CA, a casepetitioner often cites, we stated that the issueof paternity still has to be resolved by such

conventional evidence as the relevantincriminating verbal and written acts by theputative father. Under Article 278 of the NewCivil Code, voluntary recognition by a parentshall be made in the record of birth, a will, astatement before a court of record, or in anyauthentic writing. To be effective, the claimof filiation must be made by the putativefather himself and the writing must be thewriting of the putative father. A notarialagreement to support a child whose filiationis admitted by the putative father wasconsidered acceptable evidence. Letters to themother vowing to be a good father to the childand pictures of the putative father cuddlingthe child on various occasions, together withthe certificate of live birth, proved filiation.However, a student permanent record, awritten consent to a father’s operation, or amarriage contract where the putative fathergave consent, cannot be taken as authenticwriting. Standing alone, neither a certificateof baptism nor family pictures are sufficientto establish filiation. (Emphasis supplied)

(Carpio Morales, J., Ben-Hur Nepomuceno v. ArhbencelAnn Lopez, represented by her mother Araceli Lopez,G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010.)

AGRARIAN LAW

DAR Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction toclassify and identify landholdings for coverageunder the CARP.

The exclusive jurisdiction to classify and identifylandholdings for coverage under the CARP is reposedin the DAR Secretary. The matter of CARP coverage,like the instant case for application for exemption, isstrictly part of the administrative implementation ofthe CARP, a matter well within the competence of theDAR Secretary. As we explained in Leonardo Tarona, etal. v. Court of Appeals (Ninth Division), et al.:

The power to determine whether a property issubject to CARP coverage lies with the DARSecretary pursuant to Section 50 of RA No. 6657.Verily, it is explicitly provided under Section 1,Rule II of the DARAB Revised Rules that mattersinvolving strictly the administrativeimplementation of the CARP and other agrarianlaws and regulations, shall be the exclusiveprerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary

of the DAR.

(Nachura, J., Alangilan Realty & DevelopmentCorporation v. Office of the President, represented byAlberto Romulo, as Executive Secretary, and ArthurP. Autea, as Deputy Secretary; and Department ofAgrarian Reform, G.R. No. 180471, March 26, 2010.)

CIVIL LAW (continued)


LAND REGISTRATION LAW

A certificate of title not equivalent to title.

A certificate of title is not equivalent to title. In LeeTek Sheng v. Court of Appeals, we explained:

By title, the law refers to ownership which isrepresented by that document [the OriginalCertificate of Title or the Transfer Certificate ofTitle]. Petitioner apparently confuses certificatewith title. Placing a parcel of land under the mantleof the Torrens system does not mean thatownership thereof can no longer be disputed.Ownership is different from a certificate of title.The TCT is only the best proof of ownership of apiece of land. Besides, the certificate cannot alwaysbe considered as conclusive evidence of ownership.Mere issuance of the certificate of title in the nameof any person does not foreclose the possibilitythat the real property may be under co-ownershipwith persons not named in the certificate or thatthe registrant may only be a trustee or that otherparties may have acquired interest subsequentto the issuance of the certificate of title. To repeat,registration is not the equivalent of title, but isonly the best evidence thereof. Title as a conceptof ownership should not be confused with thecertificate of title as evidence of such ownershipalthough both are interchangeable. (Emphasis supplied)

(Carpio, J., Spouses Melchor and Saturnina Alde v.Ronald B. Bernal, Olympia B. Bernal, Juanito B. Bernal,and Myrna D. Bernal, G.R. No. 169336, March 18, 2010.)

CRIMINAL LAW

Arson; arson absorbs homicide if main objectiveis to burn the building.

[I]n cases where both burning and death occur, inorder to determine what crime/crimes was/wereperpetrated – whether arson, murder or arson andhomicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the mainobjective of the malefactor: (a) if the main objective isthe burning of the building or edifice, but death resultsby reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime issimply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed;(b) if, on the other hand, the main objective is to kill aparticular person who may be in a building or edifice,when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplishsuch goal the crime committed is murder only; lastly,(c) if the objective is, likewise, to kill a particularperson, and in fact the offender has already done so,but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing,then there are two separate and distinct crimescommitted – homicide/murder and arson. (Emphasis andunderscoring partly in the original; emphasis partly supplied)

(Carpio Morales, J., People of the Philippines v. FerdinandT. Baluntong, G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010.)

REMEDIAL LAW

Mandamus; its nature; cases where it will lie.

As a rule, mandamus will not lie in the absence ofany of the following grounds: [a] that the court, officer,board, or person against whom the action is takenunlawfully neglected the performance of an act whichthe law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting fromoffice, trust, or station; or [b] that such court, officer,board, or person has unlawfully excluded petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment of a right or officeto which he is entitled. On the part of the relator, it isessential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that heshould have a clear legal right to the thing demandedand it must be the imperative duty of respondent toperform the act required.

Recognized further in this jurisdiction is theprinciple that mandamus cannot be used to enforcecontractual obligations. Generally, mandamus will notlie to enforce purely private contract rights, and willnot lie against an individual unless some obligation inthe nature of a public or quasi-public duty is imposed.The writ is not appropriate to enforce a private rightagainst an individual. The writ of mandamus lies toenforce the execution of an act, when, otherwise, justicewould be obstructed; and, regularly, issues only incases relating to the public and to the government;hence, it is called a prerogative writ. To preserve itsprerogative character, mandamus is not used for theredress of private wrongs, but only in matters relatingto the public.

Moreover, an important principle followed in theissuance of the writ is that there should be no plain,speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course oflaw other than the remedy of mandamus being invoked.In other words, mandamus can be issued only in caseswhere the usual modes of procedure and forms ofremedy are powerless to afford relief. Althoughclassified as a legal remedy, mandamus is equitable in itsnature and its issuance is generally controlled byequitable principles. Indeed, the grant of the writ ofmandamus lies in the sound discretion of the court.

(Nachura, J., Uy Kiao Eng v. Nixon Lee, G.R. No. 176831,January 15, 2010.)

Right to possession of a purchaser at anextrajudicial foreclosure of a mortgage sale.

Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Pardosquarely ruled on the right to possession of a purchaserat an extrajudicial foreclosure of a mortgage. This caseinvolved a real estate mortgage as security for a loanobtained from a bank. Upon the mortgagor’s default,



the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. Atthe auction sale, the bank was the highest bidder. Acertificate of sale was duly issued and registered. Thebank then applied for the issuance of a writ ofpossession, which the lower court dismissed. TheCourt reversed the lower court and held that thepurchaser at the auction sale was entitled to a writ ofpossession pending the lapse of the redemption periodupon a simple motion and upon the posting of a bond.

In Navarra v. Court of Appeals, the purchaser at anextrajudicial foreclosure sale applied for a writ ofpossession after the lapse of the one-year redemptionperiod. The Court ruled that the purchaser at anextrajudicial foreclosure sale has a right to thepossession of the property even during the one-yearredemption period provided the purchaser files anindemnity bond. After the lapse of the said periodwith no redemption having been made, that rightbecomes absolute and may be demanded by thepurchaser even without the posting of a bond.Possession may then be obtained under a writ whichmay be applied for ex parte pursuant to Section 7 ofAct No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, thus:

SEC. 7. In any sale made under the provisions ofthis Act, the purchaser may petition the Court ofFirst Instance of the province or place where theproperty or any part thereof is situated, to givehim possession thereof during the redemptionperiod, furnishing bond in an amount equivalentto the use of the property for a period of 12months, to indemnify the debtor in case it beshown that the sale was made without violatingthe mortgage or without complying with therequirements of this Act. Such petition shall bemade under oath and filed in form of an ex partemotion x x x and the court shall, upon approval ofthe bond, order that a writ of possession issue,addressed to the sheriff of the province in whichthe property is situated, who shall execute saidorder immediately. (Emphasis supplied)

In the present case, the certificate of sale of theforeclosed property was annotated on TCT No. 22990on 7 June 2002. The redemption period thus lapsed on7 June 2003, one year from the registration of the sale.When private respondent applied for the issuance ofa writ of possession on 18 August 2004, theredemption period had long lapsed. Since theforeclosed property was not redeemed within oneyear from the registration of the extrajudicialforeclosure sale, private respondent had acquired anabsolute right, as purchaser, to the writ of possession.It had become the ministerial duty of the lower courtto issue the writ of possession upon mere motionpursuant to Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended.

Moreover, once ownership has been consolidated,the issuance of the writ of possession becomes aministerial duty of the court, upon proper applicationand proof of title. In the present case, when privaterespondent applied for the issuance of a writ ofpossession, it presented a new transfer certificate of titleissued in its name dated 8 July 2003. The right of privaterespondent to the possession of the property was thusfounded on its right of ownership. As the purchaser ofthe property at the foreclosure sale, in whose name titleover the property was already issued, the right ofprivate respondent over the property had becomeabsolute, vesting in it the corollary right of possession.

Petitioners are wrong in insisting that they weredenied due process of law when they were declared indefault despite the fact that they had filed theiropposition to the issuance of a writ of possession. Theapplication for the issuance of a writ of possession is inthe form of an ex parte motion. It issues as a matter ofcourse once the requirements are fulfilled. No discretionis left to the court.

Petitioners cannot oppose or appeal the court’sorder granting the writ of possession in an ex parteproceeding. The remedy of petitioners is to have thesale set aside and the writ of possession cancelled inaccordance with Section 8 of Act No. 3135, as amended,to wit:

SEC. 8. The debtor may, in the proceedings in whichpossession was requested, but not later than 30 daysafter the purchaser was given possession, petitionthat the sale be set aside and the writ of possessioncancelled, specifying the damages suffered by him,because the mortgage was not violated or the salewas not made in accordance with the provisions

hereof. x x x

Any question regarding the validity of theextrajudicial foreclosure sale and the resultingcancellation of the writ may be determined in asubsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8 of ActNo. 3135, as amended. Such question should not beraised as a justification for opposing the issuance of awrit of possession since under Act No. 3135, as amended,the proceeding for this is ex parte.

Further, the right to possession of a purchaser at anextrajudicial foreclosure sale is not affected by a pendingcase questioning the validity of the foreclosureproceeding. The latter is not a bar to the former. Evenpending such latter proceeding, the purchaser at aforeclosure sale is entitled to the possession of theforeclosed property.

(Carpio, J., Cua Lai Chu, Claro G. Castro, and Juanita Castrov. Hon. Hilario L. Laqui, Presiding Judge, Regional TrialCourt, Branch 218, Quezon City and Philippine Bank ofCommunication, G.R. No. 169190, February 11, 2010.)

REMEDIAL LAW (continued)


REMEDIAL LAW (continued)

Consolidation of cases; requisite for andadvantages of.

In Teston v. Development Bank of the Philippines, theCourt laid down the requisites for the consolidationof cases, viz:

A court may order several actions pending beforeit to be tried together where they arise from thesame act, event or transaction, involve the same orlike issues, and depend largely or substantially onthe same evidence, provided that the court hasjurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated andthat a joint trial will not give one party an undueadvantage or prejudice the substantial rights of

any of the parties. (Emphasis supplied)

The rule allowing consolidation is designed toavoid multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppressionor abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets,and to simplify the work of the trial court – in short,the attainment of justice with the least expense andvexation to the parties-litigants.

Thus, in Philippine Savings Bank v. Mañalac, Jr., theCourt disregarded the technical difference between anaction and a proceeding, and upheld the consolidationof a petition for the issuance of a writ of possessionwith an ordinary civil action in order to achieve amore expeditious resolution of the cases.

In the present case, it would be more in keepingwith law and equity if all the cases filed againstpetitioner were consolidated with that having thelowest docket number pending with the Third Divisionof the Sandiganbayan. The only notable differences inthese cases lie in the date of the transaction, the entitytransacted with and amount involved. The charge andcore element are the same – estafa through falsification ofdocuments based on alleged overstatements of claimsfor miscellaneous and extraordinary expenses. Notably,the main witness is also the same – Hilconeda P. Abril.

It need not be underscored that consolidation ofcases, when proper, results in the simplification ofproceedings which saves time, the resources of theparties and the courts, and a possible majorabbreviation of trial. It contributes to the swiftdispensation of justice, and is in accord with the aimof affording the parties a just, speedy and inexpensivedetermination of their cases before the courts. Aboveall, consolidation avoids the possibility of renderingconflicting decisions in two or more cases which wouldotherwise require a single judgment.

(Carpio Morales, J., Jaime S. Domdom v. Hon. Thirdand Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan,Commission on Audit and the People of the Philippines,G.R. Nos. 182382-83, February 24, 2010.)

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 26-2010 (Continued from page 27 )

As one of the safeguards of this Court’sinstitutional independence, the power topromulgate rules of pleading, practice andprocedure is now the Court’s exclusivedomain. That power is no longer shared bythis Court with Congress, much less with theExecutive.

Congress could not have carved out anexemption for the GSIS from the payment oflegal fees without transgressing anotherequally important institutional safeguard ofthe Court’s independence – fiscal autonomy.Fiscal autonomy recognizes the power andauthority of the Court to levy, assess andcollect fees, including legal fees. Moreover,legal fees under Rule 141 have two basiccomponents, the Judiciary Development Fund( JDF) and the Special Allowance for theJudiciary Fund (SAJF). The laws whichestablished the JDF and the SAJF expresslydeclare the identical purpose of these fundsto guarantee the independence of theJudiciary as mandated by the Constitution andpublic policy. Legal fees therefore do not onlyconstitute a vital source of the Court’s financialresources but also comprise an essentialelement of the court’s fiscal independence.Any exemption from the payment of legal feesgranted by Congress to government-owned or-controlled corporations and local governmentunits will necessarily reduce the JDF and theSAJF. Undoubtedly, such situation isconstitutionally infirm for it impairs theCourt’s guaranteed fiscal autonomy and erodesits independence. (Emphasis bold and italics)

Henceforth for strict compliance of allconcerned is the dispositive portion of theabovementioned resolution of the Supreme CourtEn Banc dated February 11, 2010 in the AM No. 08-2-01-0 which states that:

WHEREFORE, the petition of the GovernmentService Insurance System for recognition ofits exemption from the payment of legal feesimposed under Section 22 of Rule 141 of theRules of Court on government-owned or -controlled corporations and local government

units is hereby DENIED.

February 25, 2010.

(Sgd.) Jose Midas P. Marquez Court Administrator

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS18

RESOLUTION of the COURT En Banc datedFebruary 16, 2010, on A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC

“A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (Re: Rule of Procedure for SmallClaims Cases). – The Court Resolved, upon therecommendation of the Technical Working Group onthe Small Claims Courts Pilot Project, to APPROVEthe –

(a) Amendment of Section 8 (d), Rule 141 of theRevised Rules of Court, with the addition ofthe following provision as regards filing feesfor frequent filers in small claims cases:

For small claims cases, only those fees setforth in this Rule, as amended, shall becollected. If more than 10 small claims arefiled by one party in the court station withinthe calendar year, an additional filing of feeof Five Hundred Pesos (P500) shall be paid forevery claim filed after the 10th claim, and anadditional One Hundred Pesos (P100) or a totalof Six Hundred Pesos (P600) for every claimfiled after the 20th claim, and another OneHundred Pesos (P100) or a total of SevenHundred Pesos (P700) for every claim filedafter the 30th claim, and another One HundredPesos (P100) for every 10th additional casethereafter, progressively and cumulatively,but the total filing fees shall not exceed TwentyThousand Pesos (P20,000). In no case shall aparty pay filing fees of more than TwentyThousand Pesos (P20,000) per claim in acalendar year.

Each party filing a claim shall declare in theStatement of Claim the number of smallclaims cases that party filed in the court

station within the calendar year.

(b) Addition of the following statement in theStatement of Claim (Form 1-SCC), particularlybetween Nos. 6 and 7 thereof:

6-A. In this court station, how many smallclaims have you filed within this calendar yearprior to this present case? ____________(Sa court station na ito, pang ilang kaso na itong

isinampa mo sa loob ng kasalukuyang taon? ____)

(c) Two (2) Forms on Information for thePlaintiff (Form I-SCC-Info) and Informationfor the Defendant (Form 3-SCC-Info), to wit:

INFORMATION FOR THE PLAINTIFF (the person filing the claim)

(Kaalaman para sa Naghahabla)

(TUNTUNIN SA PAGSINGIL NG MALILIIT NAHALAGA – natatanging pamamaraan sa pagdinigkung saan ang halagang salapi na sinisingil ayP100,000 o mas mababa. Ang proseso ay simple athindi pormal.)

2. You are the plaintiff. The person you are filingthe case against is the defendant. (Ikaw angNaghahabla. Ang taong siyang sinampahan ngkaso ang Hinahabla.)

3. Before you fill up this Form, read theseInstructions to know you rights. Or, you mayinquire about your rights and the Small ClaimsProcedure with the Office of the Clerk of Court(OCC) of the place where you intent to fileyour claim. (Bago mo sagutin ang form na itobasahin muna ang mga tagubilin upang malamanang iyong mga karapatan. Maari ka ringmagtanong, tungkol sa iyong mga karapatan saOffice of the Clerk of Court [OCC] ng lugar kungsaan mo nais maghain ng reklamo ukol sa pagsingilng maliit na halaga.)

4. If your case falls under the Small Claims Rule,these are the things you can do at home or inthe barangay: (Kung ang iyong kaso aynasasaklaw ng Tuntunin sa Pagsingil ng Maliliitna Halaga, ang mga bagay na ito ang maaari monggawin sa bahay o sa barangay:)

a. GATHER ALL DOCUMENTS ANDEVIDENCE PERTINENT TO THE CLAIM.(TIPUNIN ANG LAHAT NG MGADOKUMENTO AT MGA KATIBAYANGSUSUPORTA SA IYONG PAGSINGIL.)

Examples are: (Mga Halimbawa nito:)

Contract/Agreement Kontrata/Kasunduan)Promissory Note / Receipts / Affidavitof Witness/es / Other Importantdocuments such as Checks/or Picture/s(Katibayan ng Pagkakautang/Resibo/Sinumpaang Salaysay ng mga Saksi/Testigo/iba pang dokumento tulad ng tseke atlarawan.)

b. LATEST DEMAND LETTER (IF ANY), ITSPROOF OF SERVICE AND PROOF OFRECEIPT (PINAKAHULING LIHAM NGPANININGIL [KUNG MERON], KATIBAYAN NGPAGPADALA AT PAGKATANGGAP NITO.)

c. CERTIFICATE TO FILE ACTION FROMTHE BARANGAY, IF NECESSARY(Katunayan ng pagsasampa ng kaso sahukuman galing sa barangay, kungkinakailangan.)

d. SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IN CASEPLAINTIFF CANNOT ATTEND THEHEARING. (Natatanging gawad-kapangyarihano “Special Power of Attorney” kung angnaghahabla ay hindi makadalo sa pagdinig.)

1. “SMALL CLAIMS RULE” — is a specialprocedure where money claims for OneHundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) or lessare heard. The process is quick andinexpensive; the procedure is simple andinformal.

PHILJA NEWSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSJanuary-March 2010January-March 2010 19

e. SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE OR BOARDRESOLUTION AUTHORIZING YOU TOFILE THE CASE, IF YOU AREREPRESENTING A CORPORATION,PARTNERSHIP, COOPERATIVE ORASSOCIATION. (Patunay ng kalihim oresolusyon ng lupon na nagpapahintulot sa iyongkumakatawan sa lupon sa pagsampa ng kaso.)

f. If you are unable to pay the filing feesbecause you have no adequate financialmeans, you may file the case as an indigentby getting FORM 6-SCC AND ATTACHINGTHE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:

Affidavit of IndigencyBarangay Certificate of IndigencyCity or Municipal Assessor’s CertificateCity or Municipal Treasurer ’s OfficeCertificateAffidavit of Two Disinterested Persons

(Kung hindi mo mabayaran ang filing fees dahilwala kang sapat na kakayahang pinansyal,maari kang magsampa ng kaso bilang isangtaong walang sapat na kabuhayan sapamamagitan ng pagsagot ng Form 6-SCCKALAKIP ANG MGA SUMUSUNOD NADOKUMENTO:

Sinumpaang Salaysay na Walang Sapat ngKabuhayanPatunay ng Barangay na Walang Sapat naKabuhayanPatunay ng Panglungsod na Tagatasa(assessor)Patunay ng Tanggapan ng Panglungsod naIngat-YamanSinumpaang Salaysay ng Dalawang TaongHindi Interesado

5. Fill up Form 1-SCC. Attach to the Form yoursupporting documents and affidavits ofwitnesses. (Punuan ang Form 1-SCC. Ilakip saForm ang iyong mga dokumento at sinumpaangsalaysay ng mga testigo/saksi.)

Make copies of ALL pages of this formand your supporting documents (file theoriginal in court, make a copy for eachplaintiff or defendant named in the caseand an extra copy for yourself). (Gumawang kopya ng lahat ng pahina ng Form na ito atng iyong mga dokumento [ihain ang orihinalsa hukuman, gumawa ng kopya para sa bawatNaghahabla o Hinahabla sa kaso atkaragdagang kopya para sa iyo.])

If the original documents consist ofrecords that could not be separated, youcan photocopy the pertinent documentand have it certified by the Clerk of Courtin the OCC as a faithful reproduction ofthe original. (Kung ang orihinal na dokumento

ay di maihiwalay, maari mong ipakopya ito atipa-certify sa Clerk of Court ng OCC na angdokumento ay totoo at tapat na kopya ngorihinal)

6. Have the form and all your supportingdocuments, especially the Verification Form,notarized by the Clerk of Court in the OCC.(Kailangan ang Form at lahat ng kalakip nadokumento, lalong higit ang Form ng Patotoo aypinatunayan/ninotaryo ng Clerk of Court [OCC]o Branch Clerk of Court.)

7. Pay the filing fee (except if your motion tosue as an indigent has been granted).(Magbayad ng bayarin sa pagtala [maliban kungang iyong kahilingan na makapagsampa ng kasobilang isang taong walang sapat na kabuhayanay napagtibay na].)

8. Get the date and time of your hearing fromthe court to which your case was assigned.[Alamin ang araw at oras ng pagdinig sa hukumankung saan ang iyong kaso ay nakabinbin.]

9. GO TO THE COURT ON YOUR HEARINGDATE. Bring the originals of all certifieddocumentary evidence attached to youForm 1-SCC to prove your case. (PUMUNTASA HUKUMAN SA PETSA AT ARAW NGPAGDINIG. Dalhin ang mga orihinal ng lahat ngdokumento ng katibayan, higit lalo yaong kalakipsa iyong Form 1-SCC para patunayan ang iyongkaso.)

10. YOU CANNOT HAVE A LAWYER AT THEHEARING. You may consult a lawyer beforeor after the hearing but the lawyer cannotappear for or with you at the hearing.(HUWAG KANG MAGSAMA NG ABOGADOSA PAGDINIG. Maari kang makipag-usap okumonsulta sa abogado bago o pagkatapos ngpagdinig pero ang abogado ay hindipinahihintulutang dumalo para sa iyo sapagdinig.)

If you are representing a corporation,partnership, cooperative or association,you must bring your original writtenauthority to appear at the hearing and toenter into an amicable settlement, tosubmit to alternative modes of disputeresolution, and to enter into stipulationsor admissions of facts and of documents.(Kung iyong kinakatawan ay korporasyon,bakasan, kooperatiba o asosasyon/samahan,kinakailangang magdala ka ng orihinal nagawad-kapangyarihan na dumalo sa pagdinigat para sa mapayapang pag-aayos, sumailalimsa alternatibong paraan ng pag-aayos ogumawa ng pag-amin o makipagkayari sa mgapangyayari at dokumento.)


RESOLUTION on A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (continued)



11. You must be aware that upon the filing of thiscase, the judge may dismiss your claim if sheor he finds legal grounds for dismissal suchas lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,improper venue, etc. as enumerated inSection 1 of Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure. (Binibigyan ka ng babala na sapagsampa ng kaso, maaaring maipawalang-saysayng hukuman ang iyong kaso kung nakita niya namayroong legal na batayan para maipawalang-saysay ito, tulad ng kawalan ng kapangyarihan sabagay ng kaso, hindi wasto ang lugar napinagsampahan ng kaso, etc. na isinasaad saSection 1, Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.)

INFORMATION FOR THE DEFENDANT(the person against whom the case is filed)

(Kaalaman para sa Hinahabla)

1. “SMALL CLAIMS RULE” – is a specialprocedure where money claims for OneHundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) or lessare heard. The process is quick andinexpensive; the procedure is simple andinformal. (TUNTUNIN SA PAGSINGIL NGMALILIIT NA HALAGA – ay natatangingpamamaraan sa pagdinig kung saan ang halagangsalapi na sinisingil ay P100,000 o mas mababa.Ang proseso ay simple at hindi pormal.)

2. You are the defendant – the person againstwhom the case is filed. The person who isfiling the case is the plaintiff. (Ikaw angHinahabla. Ang taong siyang nagsasampa ngkaso ay ang Naghahabla.)

3. Read this form and all pages attached tounderstand the claim against you and toprotect your rights. (Basahin ang Form na ito atang lahat ng pahina na kalakip upang maunawaanang kaso laban sa iyo at upang mapangalagaanang iyong mga karapatan.)

4. You must file your Response and attend thehearing on the date indicated in the Notice ofHearing. If you do not go to court, you maylose the case. (Ikaw ay kinakailangangmagsumite ng iyong Sagot at pumunta sa kortesa petsa ng pagdinig na nakasulat sa Abiso saPagdinig. Kung hindi ka makakapunta sa kortemaari kang matalo sa kaso.)

5. Make copies of the Response and all its pagesand attached documents (file the original incourt and serve one copy on each plaintiffand keep an extra copy for yourself) (Gumawang mga kopya ng Sagot at lahat ng mga pahinanito at ilakip ang mga dokumento [ihain ang orihinalsa hukuman at bigyan ng kopya ang Naghahabla atmag-iwan ng kopya para sa iyo].)

6. Do I need a lawyer?(Kailangan ko ba ang abogado?)

You may consult a lawyer but YOU CANNOTHAVE A LAWYER WITH YOU AT THEHEARING. (Maaari kang komunsulta saabogado pero HINDI KA MAAARINGMAGSAMA NG ABOGADO SA PAGDINIG.)

7. What if I do not speak English well?(Paano kung hindi ako makapagsalitangmabuti ng Ingles?)

The judge will speak in Filipino or the localdialect. A court-provided interpreter shall alsobe available on the hearing day. (Ang hukomay magsasalita sa Filipino o sa local na diyalekto.Ang panghukumang tagasalin ay maaaringmagamit sa araw ng pagdinig.)

8. How do I get ready for court?(Paano ako makapaghahanda sa hukuman?)

Fill up the form entitled “Response” and fileit in court within 10 calendar days from yourreceipt of the form. If you have questionsregarding the Form, you can inquire with thecourt that served you the summons and theResponse. The telephone number of the courtis written on the Summons. (Punuan ang Formna “Sagot” at ihain ito sa hukuman sa loob ng 10araw simula sa pagtanggap ng Form. Kung ikaway mayroong mga tanong tungkol sa Form, maaarikang magtanong sa korte na nagpadala ngPatawag at ng Sagot. Ang numero ng telepono nghukuman ay nakasulat sa Patawag.)

9. What happens if I do not file the Response andappear at the hearing?(Anong mangyayari kung hindi ako naghainng Sagot at hindi dumalo sa pagdinig?)

The court shall proceed with the hearing and,if you are absent, the court shall make ajudgment as may be warranted by the facts.(Ang korte ay magpapatuloy sa pagdinig at, kungikaw ay hindi dumalo, ay magpapasiya atmagbibigay ng desisyon ayon sa nararapat.)

10. What happens at the hearing?(Anong mangyayari sa pagdinig?)

If you and the plaintiff will appear at thehearing, the judge will listen to both of you.The judge shall conduct mediation andencourage you and the plaintiff to settle yourcase. If you do not settle, the judge shallrender a decision on the day of hearing itself.You cannot appeal this decision. (Kung ikaw atang naghahabla ay dadalo sa pagdinig, ang hukomay makikinig sa inyong dalawa. Ang hukom ayhihikayat sa inyong magka-ayos at magkasundoat lutasin ang inyong di pagkakaunawaan. Kunghindi kayo magkakasundo, ang hukom ay gagawang desisyon sa araw mismo ng pagdinig. Hindi kana maaaring mag-apela sa desisyon ng korte.)


11. Do I have options?(Meron ba akong pagpipilian?)

Yes. If you are the defendant, you can do anyof the following: (Oo. Kung ikaw ang Hinahabla,maaari mong gawin ang alinman sa mga sumusunod.)

Settle your case before the hearing. If youand the plaintiff agree on how to settlethe case, both of you must notify the court.Ask the OCC or Branch Clerk of Court forhelp. (Ayusin mo ang usapin bago padumating ang pagdinig. Kung ikaw at angNaghahabla ay nagkaayos kung paanopagkasunduan ang kaso, pareho ninyongipaalam sa hukuman. Humingi ng tulong saOffice of the Clerk of Court (OCC) o sa BranchClerk of Court.

File the Response. Appear at the hearing.Bring the affidavits of witnesses, receiptsand any evidence you need to prove yourcase. (Maghain ng Sagot. Dumalo sapagdinig. Dalhin ang mga sinumpaangsalaysay ng mga testigo, mga resibo atanumang katibayang iyong kailangan upangpatunayan ang iyong usapin.)

Agree with the plaintiff’s claim and pay themoney. Or, if you can not pay the moneynow, go to the hearing and say you wantto make payments by installment.(Sumang-ayon sa halagang sinisingil ngNaghahabla at bayaran ito. O, kung hindimabayaran ang sinisingil ngayon, dumalo kasa pagdinig at sabihin sa korte na gusto mongmagbayad ng hulugan.)

Let the case proceed without you. I you donot settle and do not go to the hearing,the judge may give the plaintiff what heor she is asking for plus court costs. If thishappens, the court may order that yourmoney or property be taken to pay thejudgment. (Magpapatuloy ang kaso kahitwala ka. Kung hindi ka nakipag-ayos at hindika dumalo sa pagdinig, maaaring ipagkaloobng hukom ang anumang hinihingi ngNaghahabla, pati na ang gastos sa paghainng kasong ito. Kung ito ay mangyari, ang korteay maaring mag-utos na ang iyong pera o ari-arian ay kuhanin para bayaran ang nakasaadsa desisyon ng korte.)

concerned, the TWG recommends the issuanceof Administrative Guidelines specificallyaddressing the concerns of not only the Judges,but also of the court personnel involved in theapplication of the Rule on Small Claims.

A. Guidelines for Judges

1. Upon receipt of a case, determine if it isa small claim.

1.1. It must involve a pure money claimthe principal amount of which doesnot exceed One Hundred ThousandPesos (P100,000).

1.2. If the principal claim exceeds OneHundred Thousand Pesos(P100,000), there must be a waiverof the excess embodied in theStatement of Claim.

1.3. With regard to the BP Blg. 22 cases,the court may only entertain thecivil aspect as a small claim if nocomplaint for the offense has yetbeen filed before the Office of theProsecutor. This fact must be statedunder oath by the plaintiff in theStatement of Claim, and thereshould be an express waiver of suchcriminal action in the Verificationand Certification of Non-ForumShopping.

1.4. If a case is determined by a judge tobe not a “small claim” within themeaning of the Rule, but it still fallswithin the jurisdiction of the FirstLevel Courts, the case should notbe dismissed and the judge shouldinstead declare it governed by theappropriate procedure (RegularProcedure or Summary Procedure).The case should then be re-docketed but no re-assignment (byraffle in a multi-sala court) isnecessary. This will prevent theforfeiture of the filing fees alreadypaid by the party, and the case canbe immediately acted upon by thesame court.

2. Determine if there is a ground foroutright dismissal.

The submission of a Certificate toFile Action from the barangay is a pre-requisite in Small Claims covered by thebarangay justice system.

Under Rule 16 par. (j) of the 1997Rules of Civil Procedure, non-



(c) Administrative Guidelines for (a) Judges and(b) Executive Judges, Clerks of Courts in multi-sala stations and in single-sala stations andBranch Clerks of Court, to wit:

ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES

To aid in achieving a uniform and systematicimplementation of the Rule by all courts


compliance with a condition precedentis a ground for dismissal of a complaint.Chapter VII (Sections 399-422) of RA No.7160, the Local Government Code, nowembodies the rules for mandatoryconciliation proceedings before thebarangay in covered cases. Although theRule on Small Claims Cases does notexpressly refer to such requirement, itis still mandatory as it is required by law.Non-compliance, therefore, with thebarangay requirement is still a ground fordismissal pursuant to Rule 16 of theregular rules, which apply suppletorilyaccording to Section 25 of the Rule.

3. If there is no ground for outrightdismissal, issue summons and notice ofhearing.

3.1. The summons and notice of hearing,which are required to be issued“within the same day of receipt ofthe Statement of Claim” underSection 10, must be issued within 24hours from such receipt, the phrase“same day” to be construed as“within one day.”

3.2. Do not wait for summons to beserved before setting the case forhearing.

3.3. The hearing should be set within 30days from receipt of the case. In casethe defendant resides outside thejudicial region, the hearing may beset not later than 60 days from dateof receipt of the case.

3.4. Failure of the plaintiff to causeservice of summons within twomonths from receipt of Sheriff ’sReturn shall cause the dismissal ofthe claim for failure to prosecute(Rule 17, Section 3, Rules of Court).This is not a ground to archive thecase.

3.5. Any party who appears at any timeafter the Court’s receipt of the caseshould be notified immediately ofthe date set for hearing.

3.6. There should be, at least, onehearing day every week devoted toSmall Claims, with a minimum of fivecases scheduled per hearing day.Cases with the same party-plaintiffmay all be set on the same date forfacility in the preparation of noticesand judgments. The Court shouldpost a notice of its small claimshearing day conspicuously at the

Branch and at the Office of the Clerkof Court.

3.7. Judges must approve an Estimateof Expenses submitted by theirSheriff/Process Server within 24hours from filing before any releasefrom the STF is allowed.

4. On the date of the hearing

4.1. Make an opening statement (Section20; see also Form 6A-SCC)explaining to the parties the objectof the Rule and the procedure forhearing the case. Ensure that theparties understand the proceedingsand actively participate therein.

4.2. Conduct settlement discussion instrict confidentiality. Try to explainto the parties why an amicablesettlement will be mutuallybeneficial.

4.3. The drafting of a compromiseagreement should be part of thehearing conducted by the judge. Thiswill ensure that an agreement willbe forged within the day of thehearing to pave the way for itsapproval by way of the requiredjudgment, to be issued also withinthe same day. It will also reduce theincidence of inclusion of terms whichare contrary to law, morals, goodcustoms, public policy and publicorder.

4.4. Have a template of a CompromiseAgreement ready. The parties maybe referred to the Branch Clerk ofCourt or the Clerk-in-Charge forassistance in filling up the template,whether before or after the case iscalled in open court.

4.5. In all instances, review the terms ofthe Compromise Agreementsubmitted by the parties. Do notapprove terms which areunconscionable and excessive,especially those relating to interestrates and surcharges. In the latterinstance, in your judgment approvethe agreement in part, substituteand impose a provision which isreasonable, to replace those youhave disapproved for beingexcessive and unconscionable.

4.6. In case a non-answering defendantappears at the hearing, recognizehis appearance only if he is willing



to enter into discussions ofsettlement, but guard againstcoercing the defendant to enter intoone.

4.7. If a non-answering defendantappears at the hearing and agreesto discuss a settlement but pleadspartial payment, which the plaintiffadmits, but no settlement isultimately reached, renderjudgment based on the Statementof the Claim. If the plaintiff waivesin writing (even in the Minutes ofHearing only) the confidentiality ofthe settlement discussion, you mayconsider the admission of partialpayments in rendering yourdecision.

4.8. If at anytime before or at thehearing, a Compromise Agreementis submitted signed by both partiesbut only one or neither partyappears to confirm it, issue an orderto the non-appearing party toconfirm it within 3 days, otherwise itshall be deemed confirmed. Thenissue a judgment based on theagreement.

4.9. If no settlement is reached and theparties do not wish to have anotherjudge hear the case, proceed to thehearing proper in an informalmanner and terminate and decide itwithin the same day.

5. Decision and execution

5.1 Whether based on an amicablesettlement or on the merits,judgment must be issued on thesame date of the hearing, exceptwhen there is a motion by any partyunder Section 22 to have anotherjudge hear the case.

5.2 Upon issuance of the decision, havecopies served on all parties presentto avoid mailing them.

5.3 A decision under the Rule isimmediately final and executory. Itmust be recorded in the Book ofJudgments on the same date it isrendered.

5.4 There is no appeal and, hence, noperiod to appeal to wait for.

5.5 On the same day the decision isrendered, the winning party maymove for its execution.

B. Guidelines for Executive Judges, Clerks ofCourts (COCs) in Multi Sala Stations and inSingle Sala Stations and Branch Clerks ofCourts (BCCs)

1. The Clerks of Court and the Branch Clerksof Court (even non-lawyers) mayadminister the oath to litigants for theforms to be used under the Rule. No feeshall be collected for this purpose.

2. The Clerks of Court should not accept merephotocopies of documentary annexessubmitted by the parties but shouldmonitor strict compliance with Sections 5and 11 of the Rule.

3. The Clerks of Court should have a separatedocket for Small Claims Cases withindependent numbering. Should a case,originally docketed as a Small Claim, beordered re-docketed, i.e., it is governed bythe Rule on Summary Procedure orregular procedure, this should be recordedin appropriate docket and a new numbergiven to the case. However, the caseshould not be re-raffled but shouldimmediately be sent back to the originalcourt after re-docketing.

4. The Clerks of Court should only ask fortwo copies of the pleadings and all theirannexes: one for the court and one for thedefendant. If there is more than onedefendant, that is the only time the COCmay require additional copies, one for eachadditional defendant.

5. The Clerks of Court can only certifyphotocopies of documents if the originalsare presented to them by the party whodoes not want to leave the same with thecourt. In that instance, the COC can certifythat the document is a faithful reproductionof the original exhibited by the party. Nofee shall be charged for this certification.

6. If, despite advice to the contrary, a litigantinsists on the filing of a case as a SmallClaim, the COC should reiterate theprevious advice given in a respectfulmanner and then docket the case.

7. Even despite insistence, COCs should notaccept a Statement of Claim signed by alawyer himself is the plaintiff, not even ifhe signs it as an attorney-in-fact of thenamed plaintiff.

8. Requests for advances for transportationexpenses from the Sheriff ’s Trust Fundshould be acted upon within 24 hours from




RESOLUTION of the COURT En Banc datedMarch 9, 2010, on BAR MATTER No. 1552-A

GUIDELINES ON THE LEGAL APPRENTICESHIPPROGRAM IN THE SUPREME COURT AND OTHERCOLLEGIATE APPELLATE COURTS

Acting on the proposal of Associate Justice ArturoD. Brion to allow legal apprenticeship in the Courtand in the appellate courts, the Court resolved toAPPROVE the following Guidelines on the LegalApprenticeship Program in the Supreme Court andOther Collegiate Appellate Courts:

GUIDELINES ON THE LEGAL APPRENTICESHIPPROGRAM IN THE SUPREME COURT AND OTHERCOLLEGIATE APPELLATE COURTS

1. The Program. The apprenticeship of fourth year lawstudents shall be referred to as Legal ApprenticeshipProgram. The law students undergoing the legalapprenticeship program shall be addressed asstudents-at-law.

2. Objectives. The program aims to acquaint thestudents-at-law with (a) the review and otherprocesses of the court to which they are assigned;(b) the ethical standards in the administration ofjustice; and (c) the hands-on-training on legalresearch and writing.

3. Duration. The program shall be conducted duringthe regular summer school break in April and Mayunder a schedule that would allow the students-at-law to work for at least 160 hours.

4. Accreditation of Law Schools. The program shall beopen only to incoming fourth year law students

receipt of the approved Statement ofEstimated Expenses.

9. The Clerks of Court should ensure thatthe full names and addresses of theparties are indicated in the Statement ofClaim, as well as alternative contactinformation (such as telephone numbers),when possible.

10.The Monthly Docket Inventory Reportshould reflect the date when a case isdecided or disposed of vis-à-vis the date offiling so that the timeliness of court actionmay be assessed. The date whensummons was issued and the date ofhearing should also be indicated. Finally,the execution and satisfaction ofjudgments rendered under the Ruleshould also be part of the Monthly Reportto determine the Rule’s efficacy.

11.The rule on inhibition in regular cases shallapply to Small Claims Courts.

12.An additional fee of Five Hundred Pesos(P500) should be assessed any litigant forthe 10th small claim filed, and for everyfifth additional cases thereafter. The feeis justified by the service availed of whichrequires extra time and effort on the partof the courts. The volume of cases filedevidences the capacity of the litigant topay the fees.

13.On the same day of filing/raffling of theStatement of Claim, the Clerk of Courtshall transmit the records of the case tothe branch assigned. The Branch Clerk ofCourt (BCOC) shall forthwith inform theplaintiff of the date of hearing of the case.

14.Upon receipt of a newly filed/raffled smallclaim, in case the Presiding Judge is onleave, the BCOC shall immediately referthe case to the Pairing Judge forappropriate action in accordance withexisting Rules.

15.Sheriffs and Process Servers shall servethe summons and notice of hearing withinfive days from issuance, unless thedistance justifies a longer period, but inno case shall service be effected beyond30 days from date of issuance. Within fivedays from such service, the Officer ’sReturn shall be filed with the court with acopy furnished to the plaintiff at the givenaddress/es of record.

and


(d) Nationwide implementation/roll-out of theRule on Procedure for Small Claims Cases,as amended, to all first level courts, exceptthe Shari’a Circuit Court, effective 30 daysfrom date hereof.

Let this Resolution be published in a newspaperof general circulation.”

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA Clerk of Court



Justice, and in no case shall the copiedmaterials be brought outside court premisesor shown to outside parties;

d. Drafts and research materials shall besubmitted directly to the supervising Justiceand shall not be shown or transmitted tooutside parties before and after completion ofthe program.

10. Access to Court Library. Students-at-law may borrowbooks and other materials from the court libraryunder conditions that the library shall impose,and shall be required to submit a library clearancebefore any report of completion of the programcan be issued to their respective law schools. Thestudents-at-law shall replace or pay for the costof any book or library material that he or she mayfail to return to the library.

11. Code of Conduct. In the implementation of theprogram, the supervising Justice and the student-at-law shall respectively observe and be boundby the Code of Conduct for the Court Personneland the Code of Judicial Conduct for the PhilippineJudiciary.

12. Confidentiality. The students-at-law shall be boundby the rule on confidentiality applicable to courtemployees.

13. Assessment and Monitoring. The supervising Justiceshall monitor and assess the progress of thestudent-at-law during the program. At the end ofthe program, the supervising Justice shall prepareand issue a final rating on and assessment of thestudent-at-law’s performance in accordance withthe rating system of his or her law school. Thesupervising Justice shall submit the final ratingto the Office of the Chief Justice or to the Office ofthe Presiding Justice, as the case may be, with acopy to the student-at-law.

14. Accountability and Turn over of Records. The students-at-law shall be accountable for and shall turn overall office records and materials entrusted to theircustody during the program – including electronicfiles in their possession involving their workunder the legal apprenticeship program as acondition for the grant of the supervising Justice’sfinal rating report.

15. Sanctions and Penalties. Noncompliance with thesecurity, confidentiality and ethical rules shall be

from the law schools included in the list approvedby the Chief Justice or by the Presiding Justice(hereinafter referred to as “accredited lawschools”). Request for school accreditation shallcommence upon approval of this resolution andshall end on March 31, 2010. For this pilot phase ofthe program, preference shall be given to MetroManila-based law schools.

5. Application Requirements. Qualified students may filetheir application: (1) with the Office of the ChiefJustice, for Supreme Court applications; (2) withthe Presiding Justice, for collegiate appellate courtapplications; or (3) directly with the intendedsupervising Justice. All applicants are required tosubmit a written application for the LegalApprenticeship Program, a copy of their curriculumvitae, a recommendation under/or endorsementfrom the dean of their law school, and proof thattheir law school is an accredited law school. Andproof that their law school is an accredited lawschool.

6. Number of Apprentices per Justice. Every Justice of theSupreme Court and of the collegiate courts shallbe allowed a maximum of two students-at-lawfrom any of the accredited law schools.

7. Supervision. The student-at-law shall be under thedirect supervision of the participating Justice, andnot of the latter’s legal or administrative staff.

8. Workplace and Working Hours. Students-at-law shallwork at the individual Justice’s office premises onlyduring regular office hours and shall not beallowed access to these premises after office hours,except with the express authority of thesupervising Justice and only under conditions theJustice may impose.

9. Access to Records. Students-at-law may be grantedaccess to rollos and other court records subject tothe following rules:

a. Students-at-law can be allowed access onlyto specific rollos and other court records underthe express written authority of theirsupervising Justice.

b. No rollos or any other court records can bebrought outside the premises of thesupervising Justice’s office;

c. Copying or reproduction of files shall be withthe express authority of the supervising

RESOLUTION on BAR MATTER No. 1552-A (continued)


OCA CIRCULAR NO. 03-2010

TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECONDLEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: SUSPENSION ON THE CONDUCT OFJAIL VISITATION AND INSPECTION

In the Resolution of the Court dated October 14,2008, in Administrative Matter No. 07-3-02-SC (Re:Guidelines on the Jail Visitation and Inspection) Section2, thereof, specifically enjoins that the presiding judgesand executive judges, accompanied by their staffmembers shall conduct personally once a month thejail visitation and inspection. Subsequently, however,the Court in its En Banc Resolution dated November17, 2009 in AM No. 09-10-400-RTC (Re: Request ofJudges for the Suspension of the Enforcement of JailVisitation and Inspection in Accordance with AM No.

under pain of administrative and penal sanctions,as the law may provide and as the Supreme Courtmay impose. In the appropriate case, the sanctionsmay include disqualification from taking the Barexaminations. Any Court-imposed sanction shallbe without prejudice to the sanctions that the lawschools may impose.

16. Explanation of Guidelines. These rules and theoperations of these guidelines shall be explainedto every student-at-law at the start of theprogram.

17. Allowances. Subject to the availability of funds, thestudent-at-law shall receive a modest allowanceduring the period of legal apprenticeship, asdetermined by the Chief Justice or by the PresidingJustice. The Presiding Justice shall endeavor tocoordinate with the Chief Justice to achieveuniformity of allowances across the differentappellate courts.

This Resolution superseded MemorandumCircular No. 5-2003 dated June 25, 2003, to the extentthat it is in conflict with these Guidelines, and shalltake effect immediately.

March 9, 2010.

(Sgd.) PUNO, CJ, CARPIO, CORONA, CARPIOMORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DELCASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ,MENDOZA, JJ.

07-3-02-SC) Resolved, upon the recommendation ofthe Office of the Court Administrator, to:

(a) Note the Letter dated February 16, 2009 ofJudges Fe Lualhati D. Bustamante, TeresitaA. Calanida, Gerardo A. Paguio, Jr., RosendoB. Bandal, Jr., Roderick A. Maxino, Jesus B.Tinagan, Cesar Manuel U. Cadiz, Jr., Noel P.Catacutan, Arlene Catherine A. Dato, MarieRose I. Paras, Antonio T. Estoconing andCenon Voltaire B. Repollo, of the first andsecond level courts of Dumaguete City,requesting for the suspension of theenforcement of AM No. 07-3-02-SC datedOctober 14, 2008, requiring judges to conducta monthly jail visitation; Letter dated March30, 2009, of Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr.,President of the Philippine JudgesAssociation, expressing insights andconcerns on some provisions of AM No. 07-3-02-SC dated October 14, 2008 on jailvisitation, which needs re-examination; xxx;

(b) Authorize the Court Administrator toreconstitute the Committee on Lower CourtReportorial Requirements to re-examine, forpossible modifications, the Guidelines on JailVisitation and Inspection, and to submit aReport and Recommendation thereon within30 days from its initial meeting; and

(c) Suspend the conduct of jail visitation andinspection pending the results of the re-examination of the provisions of AM No. 07-3-02-SC. However, in lieu of actual jailvisitation and inspection, the jail warden maybe required to submit to the court a monthlyreport containing the data or informationrequired to be gathered by Sections 3 and 4 ofthe Guidelines; and the physical and mentalhealth, safety, and well-being of the prisonermay be determined by asking the accused andtheir lawyers during the trial of the case.(Emphasis supplied)

For your information and strict compliance onthe matter.

January 12, 2010.

(Sgd.) Nimfa C. Vilches Deputy Court Administrator

Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Court Administrator

RESOLUTION on BAR MATTER No. 1552-A (continued)



TO: EXECUTIVE/PRESIDING JUDGES, CLERKS OFCOURT/OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE/ACCOUNTABLEOFFICERS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVELCOURTS

SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF THE GUIDELINESIN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT’SRESOLUTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO.05-3-35-SC PURSUANT TO OCA CIRCULAR NO. 23-2009 DATED MARCH 3, 2009

Pursuant to the Resolutions dated January 31,2006, and March 11, 2008, the Court En Banc Notedand Granted the Audit Observation Memorandum ofthe Supreme Court Resident Auditor and directed theremittance of interests earned from the Fiduciary Fundand forfeited/confiscated bonds to the Bureau ofTreasury in accordance with the General Provisionsof the General Appropriations Act.

On March 3, 2009, the Office of the CourtAdministrator issued OCA Circular No. 23-2009enumerating the guidelines to be followed by theconcerned officers of the lower courts in the mannerof treating the interests earned from the FiduciaryFund and forfeited/confiscated bonds.

Second to the last paragraph of the aforesaidCircular provides:

This Circular shall apply to all interests earned andbonds confiscated/forfeited beginning January

2009.

Considering the numerous inquiry received by thisOffice relative to the aforementioned provision, thesame necessitates clarification which should read asfollows:

This circular shall apply to all unwithdrawn/unremitted interests and bonds confiscated/forfeited effective upon the issuance of theResolution En Banc in AM No. 99-8-01-SC, datedSeptember 14, 1999, which took effect on

November 1, 1999.

For strict and immediate compliance.

January 25, 2010.

(Sgd.) Nimfa C. Vilches Deputy Court Administrator

Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Court Administrator


TO: ALL JUDGES, AND CLERKS OF COURT/ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS OF THE FIRST ANDSECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION ON THEEXEMPTION OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICEINSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) FROM LEGAL FEESIMPOSED BY THE COURT ON GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND -CONTROLLED CORPORATIONSAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

Quoted hereunder are relevant portions of theHonorable Court’s pronouncement in its En BancResolution dated February 11, 2010, in AdministrativeMatter No. 08-2-01-0 (Re: Petition for Recognition ofthe Exemption of the Government Service InsuranceSystem from Payment of Legal Fees), to wit:

x x x x

The GSIS urges the Court to show deference toCongress by recognizing the exemption of theGSIS under Section 39 of RA No. 8291, from legalfees imposed under Rule 141. Effectively, the GSISwants this Court to recognize a power ofCongress to repeal, amend or modify a rule ofprocedure promulgated by the Court. However,the Constitution and jurisprudence do notsanction such view.

x x x x

The GSIS cannot successfully invoke the right tosocial security of government employees insupport of its petition. It is a corporate entitywhose personality is separate and distinct fromthat of its individual members. The rights of itsmember are not its rights; its rights, powers andfunctions pertain to it solely and are not sharedby its members. Its capacity to sue and bringactions under Section 41(g) of RA No. 8291, thespecific power which involves the exemption thatit claims in this case, pertains to it and not to itsmembers. Indeed, even the GSIS acknowledges that,in claiming exemption from the payment of legalfees, it is not asking that rules be made to enforcethe right to social security of its members but thatthe Court recognize the alleged right of the GSIS‘to seek relief from the courts of justice sanspayment of legal fees.’

However, the alleged right of the GSIS does notexist. The payment of legal fees does not take awaythe capacity of the GSIS to sue. It simply operatesas a means by which that capacity may beimplemented.

Since the payment of legal fees is a vital componentof the rules promulgated by this Court concerningpleading, practice and procedure, it cannot bevalidly annulled, changed or modified by Congress.

(Continued on page 17)


3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial BuildingPadre Faura St. cor. Taft Ave., Manila, Philippines1000

PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE TO AVOIDPAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE ORIMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.PHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin

2010 Upcoming PHILJA Events2010 Upcoming PHILJA Events

Documents

Volume XII, Issue No. 45 January-March 2010