volume vii, issue no. 27 july-september 2005

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJuly-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005

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

(Continued on page 17)

True to its mandate, PHILJA continued to provide the necessary training for judgesand court personnel through the holding of the 36th and 37th Orientation Seminars-Workshops for newly appointed judges and for incumbent judges, and the RegionalJudicial Career Enhancement Program (Level 4) for judges and clerks of court of theRegional Trial Courts and First Level Trial Courts of Regions III, IV and IX from July toSeptember 2005. The 10th Pre-Judicature Program was also held for lawyers aspiringfor judicial posts. Basic training on Computer Fundamentals for Sandiganbayan Justiceshas likewise been started preparatory to making the Sandiganbayan a fully computerizedcourt.

The importance of mediation in accelerating the judicial process in the resolution ofcases, as a measure to declog the courts of their heavy case loads, continued to beemphasized through the conduct of several seminar-workshops on Court-AnnexedMediation, Judicial Dispute Resolution, and on the JURIS Mediation ProgramOrientation in Pampanga and Bacolod. No less important was the launch of the Courtof Appeals Mediation in August.

Making headway are the Special Focus Programs with a host of activities, notably the2nd Seminars on the Strengthening of Shari’a and Islamic Jurisprudence and of theShari’a Court System (which were hailed as contributory to the peace process inMindanao), and the 3rd Seminar on Juvenile and Domestic Relations Justice.

Getting its share of this quarter’s action is the on-going Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.Distinguished Lecture Series which called for the active participation of many sectors inthe legal community. The excellent lectures of respected local and international juristsand members of the Academe and international organizations, from the First Lecture(February) on The Legal Profession in the Digital Age by Retired Justice Jose C. Vitug to the

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

July to September 2005 Volume VII, Issue No. 27

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

SUPREME COURT

RE

PU

BLIC

OF THE PHILIP

PI N

ES

BATAS AT BAYAN

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS2

PHILJAACADEMIC PROGRAMS

RJCEP

PHILJA conducted three (3) Regional JudicialCareer Enhancement Programs (RJCEPs, Level4) for the third quarter of the year. The 5th RJCEPfor Judges, Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks ofCourt of the Regional Trial Courts and First LevelTrial Courts of Region IX was held on June 29 toJuly 1, 2005, at the Garden Orchid Hotel,Zamboanga City. One hundred twenty-eight(128) judges and court personnel attended theseminar-workshop, comprising nineteen (19)Regional Trial Court judges, twenty-one (21) FirstLevel Court judges and eighty-eight (88) clerksof court.

The 6th RJCEP for Judges, Clerks of Court andBranch Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Courtsand First Level Trial Courts of Region IV wasconducted on July 27 to 29, 2005, at the ManilaPavilion Hotel. This was attended by fourhundred ten (410) judges and clerks of court,comprising seventy-two (72) Regional Trial Courtjudges, seventy-eight (78) First Level Trial Courtjudges, sixty-one (61) clerks of court who arelawyers and one hundred ninety-nine (199) clerksof court who are non-lawyers.

Two (2) batches of the 7th RJCEP for Judges,Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court of theRegional Trial Courts and First Level Trial Courtsof the Third Judicial Region were conducted. Thefirst batch was held on August 23 to 25, 2005, atthe Manila Pavilion Hotel, Manila. One hundredeighty-one (181) participants attended theseminar composing of forty (40) Regional TrialCourt judges, thirty-eight (38) First Level Courtjudges, twenty (20) clerks of courts who arelawyers and eighty-three (83) clerks of court whoare non-lawyers. The second batch was held onSeptember 27 to 30, 2005, at the Bayview ParkHotel, Manila. A total of one hundred fifty-four(154) participants attended the seminarcomposing of thirty-one (31) Regional Trial Courtjudges, seventeen (17) First Level Trial Courtjudges, twenty-eight (28) clerks of court who arelawyers and seventy-eight (78) clerks of courtwho are non-lawyers.

36TH AND 37TH ORIENTATION

SEMINAR-WORKSHOPS FOR

NEWLY APPOINTED JUDGES

The 36th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Judges was held on July 11 to 22, 2005,at the PHILJA Development Center, TagaytayCity. In attendance were twenty-eight (28)judges, comprising nineteen (19) newlyappointed judges and nine (9) promoted judges.

A. New Appointments

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Hon. Lorna F.V. Catris-Chua ChengRTC Br. 168, Marikina CityHon. David L. Mirando, Jr.RTC Br. 263, Marikina CityHon. Manuel S. QuimboRTC Br. 273, Marikina CityHon. Jaime M. GurayRTC Br. 260, Parañaque City

REGION IVHon. Edwin G. Larida, Jr.RTC Br. 18, Tagaytay CityHon. Ernesto L. MarajasRTC Br. 8, Batangas CityHon. Narmo P. NoblejasRTC Br. 69, Binangonan, Rizal

REGION VHon. Genie G. AgbadaRTC Br. 42, Virac, Catanduanes

REGION VIIIHon. Agerico A. AvilaRTC Br. 29, Catbalogan, Samar

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS


Hon. Paulino Q. GallegosMeTC Br. 80, Muntinlupa CityHon. Ma. Paz R. Reyes-YsonMeTC Taguig

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

REGION IHon. Cleto R. Villacorta IIIMTCC Br. 2, Baguio City

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJuly-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005 3

REGION VIHon. Marie Yvette D. GoMTCC Br. 4, Iloilo City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIIHon. Ruben C. HilarioMTC Porac, Pampanga

REGION IVHon. Napoleon A. MonsodMTC Gen. Trias, Cavite

REGION VHon. Marie Louise A. Guan-AragonMTC Magallanes, Sorsogon

REGION VIIIHon. Nathaniel E. BaldonoMTC Borongan, Eastern Samar

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

REGION VHon. Ma. Agatha R. Borja-Cu4th MCTC San Fernando-Pamplona,

Camarines Sur

REGION VIHon. Alpha S. Delgado14th MCTC Alimodian-Leon-San Miguel, Iloilo

B. Promotions



Hon. Encarnacion Jaja M. BalbastroRTC Br. 146, Makati CityHon. Evelyn S. Arcaya-ChuaRTC Br. 144, Makati CityHon. Perpetua T. Atal-PañoRTC Br. 134, Makati CityHon. Eugene C. ParasRTC Br. 58, Makati CityHon. Tingaraan U. GuilingRTC Br. 109, Pasay CityHon. Jesus B. MupasRTC Br. 112, Pasay CityHon. Edwin B. RamizoRTC Br. 114, Pasay City

REGION IIHon. Josefino H. PiamonteRTC Br. 18, Ilagan, Isabela

REGION IIIHon. Consuelo A. BocarRTC Br. 71, Iba, Zambales

The 37th Orientation Seminar-Workshop forNewly Appointed Judges was held on September12 to 23, 2005, at the PHILJA DevelopmentCenter, Tagaytay City. In attendance were fifty-one (51) judges, comprising forty-five (45) newlyappointed judges and six (6) promoted judges.

A. New Appointments



Hon. Alexander S. BalutRTC Br. 76, Quezon City

REGION IHon. Ma. Susana T. BauaRTC Br. 69, Lingayen, PangasinanHon. Georgina D. HidalgoRTC Br. 68, Lingayen, PangasinanHon. Robert O. RudioRTC Br. 40, Dagupan City, Pangasinan

REGION IIHon. Marcelino K. WacasRTC Br. 25, Tabuk, Kalinga, Apayao

REGION IIIHon. Olivia E. SamarRTC Br. 79, Malolos, Bulacan

REGION IVHon. Hector B. AlmeydaRTC Br. 62, Gumaca, QuezonHon. Pastor A. de CastroRTC Br. 43, Roxas, Mindoro OrientalHon. Adolfo V. EncomiendaRTC Br. 57, Lucena City, QuezonHon. Fernando L. FelicenRTC Br. 20, Imus, CaviteHon. Jose M. MadridRTC Br. 82, Odiongan, RomblonHon. Alberto F. SerranoRTC Br. 92, Calamba, Laguna

REGION VHon. Pablo C. Formaran IIIRTC Br. 21, Naga City, Camarines SurHon. Angeles S. VasquezRTC Br. 13, Ligao City, Albay


REGION VIIIHon. Rowena Nieves A. TanRTC Br. 42, Balangiga, Eastern Samar

REGION IXHon. Hipolito P. Bael, Jr.RTC Br. 6, Dipolog City,

Zamboanga del NorteHon. Gregorio V. dela Peña IIIRTC Br. 12, Zamboanga CityHon. Reynerio G. EstacioRTC Br. 14, Zamboanga CityHon. Oscar D. TomarongRTC Br. 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte

REGION XHon. Pelagio B. EstopiaRTC Br. 8, Malaybalay, Bukidnon

REGION XIIHon. Oscar V. BadellesRTC Br. 5, Iligan, Lanao del NorteHon. Bansawan Z. IbrahimRTC Br. 13, Cotabato City

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS


Hon. Alfredo D. AmpuanMeTC Br. 33, Quezon CityHon. Luis Zenon Q. MacerenMeTC Br. 39, Quezon City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

REGION IHon. Borromeo R. BustamanteMTCC Alaminos, Pangasinan

REGION IVHon. Teodoro S. CarboneraMTCC Tanauan, Batangas

REGION VIIHon. Monalila S. TecsonMTCC Br. 1, Cebu City

REGION IXHon. Andrea Asistido-dela CruzMTCC Panabo City, Davao del NorteHon. Norma Rustre CalatravaMTCC Digos City, Davao del Sur

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IHon. Caridad V. GalvezMTC Lingayen, PangasinanHon. Juvencio S. GasconMTC Cabugao, Ilocos SurHon. Maria Corazon M. LabradorMTC San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte

REGION IIIHon. Amelita V. Cruz-CorpuzMTC Lubao, PampangaHon. Venancio M. OverejaMTC Paniqui, TarlacHon. Cecilia S. TalapianMTC Br. 2, Meycauayan, Bulacan

REGION IVHon. Eloida G. CapunoMTC Calauan, LagunaHon. Harry D. JaminolaMTC Naujan, Mindoro OrientalHon. Mark N. MarcosMTC Roxas, Mindoro OrientalHon. Dinnah A. TopacioMTC Bacoor, Cavite

REGION VIIHon. Veronico R. SardoncilloMTC Minglanilla, Cebu

REGION VIIIHon. Prospero T. RapadaMTC Naval, Biliran, Leyte

REGION XIHon. Anita M. FernandezMTC Sta. Cruz, Davao del SurHon. Dorothy M. GonzagaMTC Asuncion, Davao del Norte

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

REGION IVHon. Cirile M. Foja5th MCTC Odiongan-Ferrol, Romblon

REGION VIHon. Eugene C. Cabardo4th MCTC San Dionisio-Concepcion, Iloilo

REGION XHon. Michelia O. Capadocia7th MCTC Opol- El Salvador, Misamis Oriental


B. Promotions



Hon. Ralph S. LeeRTC Br. 83, Quezon City

REGION IVHon. Hermenegildo M. LacapRTC Br. 83, Tanauan, Batangas

REGION VIHon. Rafael Cresencio C. Tan, Jr.RTC Br. 30, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

REGION VIIIHon. Alma Consuelo D. EsideraRTC Br. 20, Catarman, Northern Samar

REGION XHon. Ruben R. CagasRTC Br. 36, Calamba, Misamis Occidental

10TH PRE-JUDICATURE PROGRAM

The 10th Pre-Judicature Program was held onAugust 8 to 19, 2005, at the Training Room,Centennial Building, Supreme Court. Twenty-five (25) participants completed the programalong with three (3) sit-ins for second eligibility.

The program is designed for lawyers whoaspire for appointment as judges for the First andSecond Level Trial Courts and justices of theCourt of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Courtof Appeals.

SYMPOSIUM ON RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

The Symposium on Restorative Justice wasconducted by the Academy, in cooperation withthe Coalition for Restorative Justice (CRJ) on July1, 2005, at the Training Room, CentennialBuilding, Supreme Court. Participants to thesymposium were Court of Appeals justices,Sandiganbayan justices, Regional Trial Courtjudges, First Level Trial Court judges and Boardof Pardons and Parole lawyers.

Dr. Daniel W. Van Ness, Executive Directorof the Prison Fellowship International (PFI) Centerfor Justice and Reconciliation served as thesymposium’s resource speaker. He is activelyinvolved in developing and promoting restorativejustice theory and practice in national,intergovernmental and scholarly settings. Also,he was a major architect of the Declaration of BasicPrinciples on the Use of Restorative JusticeProgrammes in Criminal Justice Matters, whichthe UN Economic and Social Council endorsedin 2001.

Dr. Van Ness introduced to the Judiciary therestorative justice as a new movement in the fieldsof victimology and criminology. Acknowledgingthat crime causes injury to people andcommunities, it insists that of restoring justice theparties be permitted to participate in the process.Accordingly, restorative justice programs enablethe victim, the offender and affected members ofthe community to be directly involved inresponding to the crime. They become central to

SPECIAL FOCUS

PROGRAMS

the criminal justice process, withState and legal professionalsbecoming facilitators of a systemthat aims at offenderaccountability, reparation to thevictim and full participation bythe victim, offender andcommunity. He stressed that therestorative process of involvingall parties is fundamental toachieving the outcome ofreparation and peace.


SPECIAL FOCUS

PROGRAMS

BASIC COMPUTER TRAINING FOR

SANDIGANBAYAN JUSTICES

The Academy, in coordination with the UnitedStates Agency for International Development(USAID), The Asia Foundation (TAF), the Rule ofLaw Effectiveness (ROLE), and the American BarAssociation – Asia Law Initiative (ABA-Asia)conducted the Basic Computer Training forSandiganbayan Justices (Module 1: ComputerFundamentals) on August 30 and 31, 2005, at theSomerset Millennium Hotel, Legaspi Village,Makati City. Sandiganbayan Presiding JusticeTeresita J. Leonardo-De Castro with the othertwelve (12) Sandiganbayan associate justicesattended the training. The training was conductedin view of the computerization of theSandiganbayan, a part of the modernizationprogram of the Judiciary.

SEMINARS ON STRENGTHENING SHARI’A

AND ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE

A series of activities were conducted by theAcademy, in partnership with the MindanaoEconomic Development Council (MEDCo), theUnited Nations Development Programme(UNDP), and the Program Management Office ofthe Supreme Court (PMO-SC) to strengthen theShari’a and Islamic Jurisprudence.

The Seminar on Strengthening Shari’a andIslamic Jurisprudence was conducted on July 25 to29, 2005, at the Garden Orchid Hotel, ZamboangaCity. It has two (2) parts, the first part focused onstrengthening Shari’a and Islamic jurisprudenceand the second part focused on orientation onformal and informal modes of alternative disputeresolution. This was attended by fifty-nine (59)participants, comprising twenty-three (23) judges,twenty-three (23) clerks of court, and thirteen (13)selected participants from the Court of Appeals(CA), the Tawi-Tawi Department of Health (DOJ),the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), theArmed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) – SouthernCommand, the Philippine National Police (PNP),and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

This was followed by the Consultative Meetingregarding the Seminar on Strengthening Shari’a andIslamic Jurisprudence held on September 2, 2005,at the VIP Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City. Fourteen(14) participants, comprising judges and clerks ofcourt attended the meeting.

Another Seminar on Strengthening Shari’a andIslamic Jurisprudence was conducted onSeptember 26 to 30, 2005, at the Grand Men SengHotel, Davao City. A total of forty-eight (48)participants attended the seminar, consisting ofsix (6) judges; two (2) clerks of court; twenty-five(25) other court personnel; and fifteen (15)representatives from the Armed Forces ofPhilippines (AFP), Philippine National Police(PNP), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and PublicAttorney’s Office (PAO).

NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE

PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY AND CODE OF

CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL

For the Court of Tax Appeals, the Academy, incollaboration with the Program ManagementOffice of the Supreme Court (PMO-SC), Officeof Administrative Services of the Supreme Court(OAS-SC), United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID), and the American BarAssociation – Asia Law Initiative (ABA-Asia)conducted a series of orientation and immersionprogram on the New Code of Conduct for thePhilippine Judiciary and the Code of Conduct forCourt Personnel.

The Judicial Reform Advocacy: Orientation-Workshop on the Code of Judicial Conduct for CourtPersonnel of the Court of Tax Appeals wasconducted on July 11 and 12, 2005, at the Courtof Tax Appeals, Quezon City. A total of seventy-six (76) court employees attended the orientation.

This was followed by the conduct of theRoundtable Discussion on the New Code of JudicialConduct on July 13, 2005. All the six (6) justices ofthe Court of Tax Appeals attended the discussion.


3RD REGIONAL MULTI-SECTORAL

SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON JUVENILE AND

DOMESTIC RELATIONS JUSTICE

(ADVANCED LEVEL)

PHILJA, in partnership with the United NationsChildren’s Fund, Adhikain Para Sa KarapatangPambata – Ateneo Human Rights Center (AKAP-AHRC), United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID), and The Asia Foundation(TAF) conducted the 3rd Regional Multi-SectoralSeminar-Workshop on Juvenile and DomesticRelations Justice (Advanced Level) on September 7to 9, 2005, at the CSB Hotel, Malate, Manila. Atotal of fifty-eight (58) participants attended theseminar composing of judges, branch clerks ofcourt, court social workers, prosecutors, lawyersfrom the Public Attorney’s Office, and officers ofthe Philippine National Police (PNP) and Bureauof Jail Management and Penology (BJMP)handling women and children’s cases. This clusterof participants came from the National CapitalRegion particularly in the designated FamilyCourts in the cities of Caloocan, Las Piñas,Malabon, Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Parañaque,and Valenzuela.

Topics and activities covered by the seminar-workshop were updates on new laws on family,women, and children; dispute resolution skills;and the drafting and validation of rules andguidelines for family courts, specifically onadoption, diversion, Court Appointed SpecialAdvocate/Guardian Ad Litem (CASA/GAL), useof live link television, and mediation on familylaw cases.

SPECIAL FOCUS

PROGRAMS

SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON MEDIATION

Two (2) seminar-workshops were conductedunder the Tacloban Mediation Program for thethird quarter of 2005 by the Academy’s PhilippineMediation Center (PMC), in cooperation with theUnited States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID), and The Asia Foundation(TAF).

The Basic Seminar-Workshop on Mediation washeld on July 18 to 22, 2005, at Hotel Alejandro,Tacloban City. A total of fifty (50) participantsattended the seminar, comprising localgovernment officials and personnel, lawyers,retired judges, court personnel, prosecutors,media practitioners, academicians, PhilippineNational Police (PNP) officers, engineers,businessmen, and other professionals.

This was followed by an Orientation Seminar-Workshop on Mediation for Judges and Lawyers onSeptember 19 and 20, 2005, at the Hotel Alejandro,Tacloban City. Fifty-nine (59) participants attendedthe seminar, comprising of judges and lawyers.Twelve (12) cases were reported settled during theInternship Program.

Furthermore, a Media Information Campaignwas conducted on September 20, 2005. DCABernardo T. Ponferrada, Head of the PHILJA’sJudicial Reforms Office, Executive Judge SalvadorY. Apurillo of the Tacloban Regional Trial Court,and Atty. Alberto Hidalgo, President of theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines - Leyte Chapterwere interviewed by the local television, radio, andprint media practitioners. The press conferencewas aired simultaneously over local radio stationsand ABS-CBN News. The press conferenceprovided a wider media mileage and increased theawareness of the general public about mediationin the Leyte province.

ON MEDIATION


LAUNCHING OF THE

CA MEDIATION PROJECT

The Court of Appeals Mediation Project wassuccessfully launched on August 31, 2005, at theCourt of Appeals Auditorium, Manila. Thelaunching was graced by the Chief Justice; Justicesof the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals;Officials of the Supreme Court and Office of theCourt Administrator; Clerks of Court, DivisionClerks of Court, Mediators and Trainers of theCourt of Appeals; representatives from the UnitedStates Agency for International Development(USAID) and The Asia Foundation (TAF). Thelaunching was divided into two (2) parts. The firstpart was the cutting of the ribbon, unveiling ofthe Philippine Mediation Center - Court of Appeals(PMC-CA) Marker, and the blessing of the PMC-CA Office. A program followed at the Court ofAppeals Auditorium.

The Court of Appeals Mediation Project nowcalled the Appeals Court Mediation (ACM) Projectis currently in the Second Phase of its InternshipProgram for Newly Trained Mediators. This ispursued by the Academy through the PhilippineMediation Center, in cooperation with USAID andTAF.

The project is considered a milestone in thecourt-annexed mediation which was introducedunder the Action Program for Judicial Reform(APJR) of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. ACMcarries mediation one step further from the trialcourts to the appellate court level. It seeks toenhance the efficiency and effectiveness of theadministration of justice through the use ofalternative modes of dispute resolution and provideaffordable judicial service to the people.

ON MEDIATION

WORKSHOP ON JUDICIAL DISPUTE

RESOLUTION

The Workshop on Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR)was conducted by the Academy’s PhilippineMediation Center (PMC), the Justice ReformInitiatives Support (JURIS) Project, and theNational Judicial Institute (NJI) of Canada onSeptember 1 and 2, 2005, at the Training RoomCentennial Bldg., Supreme Court, Manila. Ten(10) judges from the cities of Bacolod and SanFernando, Pampanga attended the workshop.The workshop tackled the discussion amongothers, on practices and timelines as required byNJI.

JURIS MEDIATION PROGRAM

ORIENTATION AND WORKSHOPS

Two (2) JURIS Mediation Program Orientation andWorkshops were conducted by the Academy’sPhilippine Mediation Center (PMC), the JusticeReform Initiatives Support (JURIS) Project, andthe National Judicial Institute (NJI) of Canada.The first orientation and workshop was held onSeptember 13 and 14, 2005, at the L’ Fisher Hotel,Bacolod City. There were sixty-one (61) attendeescomprising twenty-five (25) judges and thirty-six(36) clerks of court and branch clerks of court.

The second orientation and workshop wasconducted on September 20 and 21, 2005, alsoat the same venue. Twenty-nine (29) participantsattended the workshop, consisting of twelve (12)judges and seventeen (17) clerks of court andbranch clerks of court.

The activity for the program was divided intotwo (2) parts. The first part was devoted tosessions orienting the judges and clerks of courton the nature, philosophy, and operations ofcourt-annexed mediation. The second part wasallotted to workshops which allowed theparticipants to assess their experience on court-annexed mediation during the Settlement Periodand were asked to make suggestions regardingthe procedures.

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJuly-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005 NEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTTTTT 9

POLITICAL LAW

CSC Regional Office’s Ruling Binds Nationaland Local Government Agencies.

The provisions of P.D. No. 807 (Civil ServiceDecree) and E.O. No. 292 (Administrative Codeof 1987) are clear that the Regional Offices of theCSC are empowered to enforce Civil Servicelaws, rules, policies and standards on personnelmanagement or personnel actions of national andlocal government agencies within theirjurisdiction, and to enforce the same laws, rules,policies and standards with respect to theconduct of public officers and employees. Fromthis power necessarily flows the authority to issueopinions and rulings regarding personnelmanagement in both national and localgovernment agencies. Moreover, these opinionsand rulings perforce bind the aforementionedgovernment agencies, otherwise, the authoritygiven by law to these Regional Offices wouldbecome useless and said Regional Offices can berendered impotent by government agencieswhich can simply choose to ignore their opinionsand rulings on the convenient ground that theyare not binding.

In the present case, the provision of law beingenforced by the Regional Office of the CSC isSection 36 of P.D. No. 807 and Section 46 of E.O.No. 292 which both provide that no officer oremployee in the Civil Service shall be suspendedor dismissed except for cause as provided by lawand after due process. Hence, the ruling of theCSC Regional Office that the memorandumdirecting private respondent to cease and desistfrom performing her duties and functions andadvising her to go on leave with or without payis contrary to existing Civil Service law and rules.

(Austria-Martinez, J., Israel G. Peralta, Parole andProbation Administration, Cotabato City v. Courtof Appeals, The Ombudsman and Nida Olegario,G.R. No. 141966, June 30, 2005)

CIVIL LAW

Custody of a minor child

Sexual preference or moral laxity alone does notprove parental neglect or incompetence. Not even

MERCANTILE LAW

Intellectual Property Code; utility models notcopyrightable.

It bears stressing that the focus of copyright isthe usefulness of the artistic design, and not itsmarketability. The central inquiry is whether thearticle is a work of art. Works for applied artinclude all original pictorials, graphics, andsculptural works that are intended to be or havebeen embodied in useful article regardless offactors such as mass production, commercialexploitation, and the potential availability ofdesign patent protection.

Indeed, while works of applied art, originalintellectual, literary and artistic works arecopyrightable, useful articles and works ofindustrial design are not. A useful article may becopyrightable only if and only to the extent thatsuch design incorporates pictorial, graphic, orsculptural features that can be identifiedseparately from, and are capable of existing

the fact that a mother is a prostitute or has beenunfaithful to her husband would render her unfitto have custody of her minor child. To deprivethe wife of custody, the husband must clearlyestablish that her moral lapses have had anadverse effect on the welfare of the child or havedistracted the offending spouse from exercisingproper parental care.

It is therefore not enough for Crisanto to showmerely that Joycelyn was a lesbian. He must alsodemonstrate that she carried on her purportedrelationship with a person of the same sex in thepresence of their son or under circumstances notconducive to the child’s proper moraldevelopment. There is no evidence that the sonwas exposed to the mother ’s alleged sexualproclivities or that his proper moral andpsychological development suffered as a result.

(Panganiban, J., Joycelyn Pablo-Gualberto v.Crisanto Rafaelito Gualberto V, G.R. No. 154994;Crisanto Rafaelito Gualberto V v. Court of Appeals;Hon. Helen B. Ricafort, Presiding Judge, RTCParañaque City, Branch 260; and Joycelyn C.Pablo-Gualberto, G.R. No. 156254, June 28, 2005)

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTTTTT10

REMEDIAL LAW

Evidence; Admissibility of tape recordings.

It is generally held that sound recording is notinadmissible because of its form where a properfoundation has been laid to guarantee thegenuineness of the recording. In our jurisdiction,it is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before atape recording is admissible in evidence and givenprobative value, the following requisites mustfirst be established, to wit:

(1) A showing that the recording device wascapable of taking testimony;

(2) A showing that the operator of the devicewas competent;

(3) Establishment of the authenticity andcorrectness of the recording;

(4) A showing that changes, additions, ordeletions have not been made;

(5) A showing of the manner of thepreservation of the recording;

(6) Identification of the speakers; and(7) A showing that the testimony elicited was

voluntarily made without any kind ofinducement.

In one case, it was held that the testimony ofthe operator of the recording device as regardsits operation, his method of operating it, theaccuracy of the recordings, and the identities ofthe persons speaking laid a sufficient foundationfor the admission of the recordings. Likewise, awitness’ declaration that the sound recording

independently of the utilitarian aspects of thearticle.

Being plain automotive spare parts that mustconform to the original structural design of thecomponents they seek to replace, the Leaf SpringEye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion are notornamental. They lack the decorative quality orvalue that must characterize authentic works ofapplied art. They are not even artistic creationswith incidental utilitarian functions or worksincorporated in a useful article.

(Callejo, Sr., J., Jessie G. Ching v. William Salinas,Sr., et. al., G.R. No. 161295, June 29, 2005)

MERCANTILE LAW (continued)

represents a true portrayal of the voices containedtherein satisfies the requirement ofauthentication. The party seeking theintroduction in evidence of a tape recording bearsthe burden of going forth with sufficient evidenceto show that the recording is an accuratereproduction of the conversation recorded.

These requisites were laid down precisely toaddress the criticism of susceptibility totampering of tape recordings.

(Chico-Nazario, J., Cirse Francisco “Choy”Torralba v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.153699, August 22, 2005)

Verification and Certification against forumshopping; Whether the absence of thesignature of the person misjoined as a party-plaintiff in either the verification page orcertification against forum shopping is groundfor the dismissal of the action.

A misjoined party plaintiff has no businessparticipating in the case as a plaintiff in the firstplace, and it would make little sense to requirethe misjoined party in complying with all therequirements expected of plaintiffs.

At the same time, Section 11, Rule 3 of the1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that “neithermisjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is groundfor dismissal of an action.”

Clearly, misjoinder of parties is not fatal to thecomplaint. The rule prohibits dismissal of a suiton the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder ofparties. Moreover, the dropping of misjoinedparties from the complaint may be done motuproprio by the court, at any stage, without needfor a motion to such effect from the adverse party.

Since the misjoined party plaintiff receives norecognition from the court as either anindispensable or necessary party-plaintiff, it thenfollows that whatever action or inaction themisjoined party may take on the verification orcertification against forum-shopping isinconsequential.

(Tinga, J., Christine Chua v. Jorge Torres andAntonio Beltran, G.R. No. 151900, August 30,2005)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJuly-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005 DOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERS 11

ELECTION LAW

Pre-proclamation controversies are limited tochallenges directed against the Board ofCanvassers and its proceedings.

Pre-proclamation controversies are limited tochallenges directed against the Board ofCanvassers and proceedings before said Boardrelating to particular election returns. It is limitedto an examination of the election returns on theirface. It is beyond the COMELEC’s jurisdiction togo beyond the face of the returns or investigateelection irregularities.

The proceedings in a pre-proclamationcontroversy are summary in nature. Receptionof evidence aliunde, such as the List of Voters withvoting records is proscribed. Issues such as fraudor terrorism attendant to the election process, theresolution of which would compel or necessitatethe COMELEC to pierce the veil of electionreturns which appear to be prima facie regularon their face are anathema to a pre-proclamationcontroversy. Such issues should be posed andresolved in a regular election protest, which iswithin the original jurisdiction of the RegionalTrial Court.

(Austria-Martinez, J. Ms. Bairansalam LautLucman v. Comelec, G.R. No. 166229, June 29,2005)

CIVIL LAW

Guidelines in the award of damages and ratesof interest.

In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,the Supreme Court laid down the followingguidelines:

I. When an obligation, regardless of itssource, i.e., law, contracts, quasi-contracts,delicts or quasi-delicts is breached, thecontravenor can be held liable for damages.The provisions under Title XVIII on“Damages” of the Civil Code govern indetermining the measure of recoverabledamages.

II. With regard particularly to an awardof interest, in the concept of actual andcompensatory damages, the rate of interest,as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as

follows:

1. When the obligation is breached, andit consists in the payment of a sum of money,i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, theinterest due should be that which may havebeen stipulated in writing. Furthermore, theinterest due shall itself earn legal interestfrom the time it is judicially demanded. Inthe absence of stipulation, the rate of interestshall be 12% per annum to be computedfrom default, i.e., from judicial orextrajudicial demand under and subject tothe provisions of Article 1169 of the CivilCode.

2. When an obligation, not constitutinga loan or forbearance of money, is breached,an interest on the amount of damagesawarded may be imposed at the discretionof the court at the rate of 6% per annum.No interest, however, shall be adjudged onunliquidated claims or damages exceptwhen or until the demand can be establishedwith reasonable certainty. Accordingly,where the demand is established withreasonable certainty, the interest shall beginto run from the time the claim is madejudicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, CivilCode) but when such certainty cannot beso reasonable established at the time thedemand is made, the interest shall begin torun only from the date the judgment of thecourt is made (at which time thequantification of damages may be deemedto have been reasonable ascertained). Theactual base for the computation of legalinterest shall, in any case, be on the amountfinally adjudged.

3. When the judgement of the courtawarding a sum of money becomes final andexecutory, the rate of legal interest whetherthe case falls under paragraph 1 orparagraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annumfrom such finality until its satisfaction, thisinterim period being deemed to be by thenan equivalent to a forbearance of credit.

(Davide, Jr. C.J., The President of PhilippineDeposit Insurance v. Hon. Wilfredo Reyes, RTCManila, et al., G.R. No. 154973, June 21, 2005)

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERS12

CIVIL LAW (continued)

Right to reacquire expropriated land; whetheran owner of an expropriated land for public usehave the right to re-acquire it after the publicuse is abandoned

The answer to that question depends upon thecharacter of the title acquired by the expropriator,whether it be the State, a province, a municipality,or a corporation which has the right to acquireproperty under the power of eminent domain. If,for example, land is expropriated for a particularpurpose, with the condition that when thatpurpose is ended or abandoned the property shallreturn to its former owner, then, of course, whenthe purpose is terminated or abandoned the formerowner reacquires the property so expropriated. If,for example, land is expropriated for a public streetand the expropriation is granted upon conditionthat the city can only use it for a public street, then,of course, when the city abandons its use as apublic street, it returns to the former owner, unlessthere is some statutory provision to the contrary.If upon the contrary, however, the decree ofexpropriation gives to the entity a fee simple title,then of course, the land becomes the absoluteproperty of the expropriator, whether it be theState, a province, or municipality, and in that casethe non-user does not have the effect of defeatingthe title acquired by the expropriation proceedings.

When land has been acquired for public usein fee simple, unconditionally, either by theexercise of eminent domain or by purchase, theformer owner retains no rights in the land, andthe public use may be abandoned or the land maybe devoted to a different use, without anyimpairment of the estate or title acquired, or anyreversion to the former owner.

(Chico-Nazario, J., Air Transportation Office (ATO)and MACTAN-CEBU International AirportAuthority (MCIAA) v. Apolonio Gopuco, Jr., G.R.No. 158563, June 30, 2005)

CRIMINAL LAW

Rape case; a mentally retarded individual maybe a credible witness

In rape cases, the victim’s credibility is crucial tothe determination of the accused’s culpability asthe crime generally involves two (2) persons only

REMEDIAL LAW

Jurisdiction over cases for violation of R.A.No. 8293, Intellectual Property Code.

The issues posed for resolution are – (1) Whichcourt has jurisdiction over criminal and civilcases for violation of intellectual property rights?xxx

Under Section 170 of R.A. No. 8293, whichtook effect on January 1, 1998, the criminalpenalty for infringement of registered marks,unfair competition, false designation of originand false description or representation, isimprisonment from two (2) to five (5) years anda fine ranging from Fifty Thousand Pesos(Php50,000) to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos(Php200,000), to wit:

SEC. 170. Penalties. - Independent ofthe civil and administrative sanctionsimposed by law, a criminal penalty ofimprisonment from two (2) to five (5) yearsand a fine ranging from Fifty thousandpesos (Php50,000.00) to Two hundredthousand pesos (Php200,000.00) shall beimposed on any person who is found guiltyof committing any of the acts mentionedin Section 155 [Infringement], Section 168[Unfair Competition] and Section 169.1[False Designation of Origin and FalseDescription or Representation].

and usually perpetrated in seclusion. While itmay be difficult to determine the credibility ofone who is a mental retardate, it can still beattained by deducing from the manner he or shetestifies in court as to the surrounding facts ofthe crime committed.

As long as a witness’ testimony isstraightforward, candid and unflawed byinconsistencies or contradictions in its materialpoints, and his or her demeanor is consistentwith one who has been victimized to thus bolstercredibility with the verity born out of humannature and experience, as in the herein victim’scase, credibility can be accorded to him or her.

(Carpio Morales, J., People of the Philippines v.Jeus Macapal, Jr., G.R. No. 155335, July 14, 2005)

CRIMINAL LAW (continued)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJuly-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005 DOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERS 13

Corollarily, Section 163 of the same Codestates that actions (including criminal and civil)under Sections 150, 155, 164, 166, 167, 168 and169 shall be brought before the proper courtswith appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws,thus –

SEC. 163. Jurisdiction of Court. – Allactions under Sections 150, 155, 164 and166 to 169 shall be brought before the propercourts with appropriate jurisdiction underexisting laws. (Emphasis supplied).

The existing law referred to in the foregoingprovision is Section 27 of R.A. No. 166 (TheTrademark Law) which provides that jurisdictionover cases for infringement of registered marks,unfair competition, false designation of originand false description or representation, is lodgedwith the Court of First Instance (now RegionalTrial Court) –

SEC. 27. Jurisdiction of Court of FirstInstance. - All actions under this Chapter[V – Infringement] and Chapters VI [UnfairCompetition] and VII [False Designation ofOrigin and False Description orRepresentation], hereof shall be broughtbefore the Court of First Instance.

We find no merit in the claim of petitionerthat R.A. No. 166 was expressly repealed by R.A.No. 8293. The repealing clause of R.A. No. 8293,reads –

SEC. 239. Repeals. – 239.1. All Acts andparts of Acts inconsistent herewith, moreparticularly Republic Act No. 165, asamended; Republic Act No. 166, asamended; and Articles 188 and 189 of theRevised Penal Code; Presidential Decree No.49, including Presidential Decree No. 285,as amended, are hereby repealed.(Emphasis added)

Notably, the aforequoted clause did notexpressly repeal R.A. No. 166 in its entirety,otherwise, it would not have used the phrases“parts of Acts” and “inconsistent herewith;” andit would have simply stated “Republic Act No.165, as amended; Republic Act No. 166, asamended; and Articles 188 and 189 of the RevisedPenal Code’ Presidential Decree No. 49, including

Presidential Decree No. 285, as amended arehereby repealed.” It would have removed alldoubts that said specific laws had been renderedwithout force and effect. The use of the phrases“parts of Acts” and “inconsistent herewith” onlymeans that the repeal pertains only to provisionswhich are repugnant or not susceptible ofharmonization with R.A. No. 8293. Section 27of R.A No. 166, however, is consistent and inharmony with Section 163 of R.A. No. 8293. HadR.A. No. 8293 intended to vest jurisdiction overviolations of intellectual property rights with theMetropolitan Trial Courts, it would have expresslystated so under Section 163 thereof.

Moreover, the settled rule in statutoryconstruction is that in case of conflict between ageneral law and a special law, the latter mustprevail. Jurisdiction conferred by a special lawto Regional Trial Courts must prevail over thatgranted by a general law to Municipal TrialCourts.

In the case at bar, R.A. No. 8293 and R.A. No.166 are special laws conferring jurisdiction overviolations of intellectual property rights to theRegional Trial Court. They should thereforeprevail over R.A. No. 7691, which is a generallaw. Hence, jurisdiction over the instant criminalcase for unfair competition is properly lodgedwith the Regional Trial Court even if the penaltytherefor is imprisonment of less than six (6) years,or from two (2) to five (5) years and a fine rangingfrom Php50,000.00 to Php200,000.00.

In fact, to implement and ensure the speedydisposition of cases involving violations ofintellectual property rights under R.A. No. 8293,the Court issued A.M. No. 02-1-11-SC datedFebruary 19, 2002 designating certain RegionalTrial Courts as Intellectual Property Courts. OnJune 17, 2003, the Court further issued aResolution consolidating jurisdiction to hear anddecide Intellectual Property Code and Securitiesand Exchange Commission cases in specificRegional Trial Courts designated as SpecialCommercial Courts.

(Puno, J., Manolo Samson v. Hon. VictorianoCabanos, RTC Judge, Antipolo City, G.R. No.161693, June 28, 2005)

REMEDIAL LAW (continued)

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS14

SUPREME COURT

A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC

RE: AMENDMENT OF RULES 112 AND 114OF THE REVISED RULES ON

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY REMOVINGTHE CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARYINVESTIGATION FROM JUDGES

OF THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS

RESOLUTION

Acting on the Resolution dated August 26, 2005 ofthe Committee on the Revision of Rules of Court,the Court Resolved to AMEND Rules 112 and 114of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure asfollows:

RULE 112

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

SECTION 1. Preliminary investigation defined;when required.-Preliminary investigation is aninquiry or proceeding to determine whetherthere is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committedand the respondent is probably guilty thereof,and should be held for trial.

Except as provided in Section 6 of this Rule,a preliminary investigation is required to beconducted before the filing of a complaint orinformation for an offense where the penaltyprescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two(2) months and one (1) day without regard tothe fine. (1 a)

SEC. 2. Officers authorized to conduct preliminaryinvestigations.-The following may conductpreliminary investigations:

(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and theirassistants;

(b) National and Regional StateProsecutors; and

(c) Other officers as may be authorized bylaw.

Their authority to conduct preliminaryinvestigations shall include all crimescognizable by the proper court in theirrespective territorial jurisdictions. (2a)

SEC. 3. Procedure.- The preliminaryinvestigation shall be conducted in thefollowing manner:

(a) The complaint shall state the address ofthe respondent and shall be accompanied byaffidavits of the complainant and his witnesses,as well as other supporting documents toestablish probable cause. They shall be in suchnumber of copies as there are respondents, plustwo (2) copies for the official file. The affidavitsshall be subscribed and sworn to before anyprosecutor or government official authorized toadminister oath, or, in their absence orunavailability, before a notary public, each ofwhom must certify that he personally examinedthe affiants and that he is satisfied that theyvoluntarily executed and understood theiraffidavits.

(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing ofthe complaint, the investigating officer shalleither dismiss it if he finds no ground tocontinue with the investigation, or issue asubpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copyof the complaint and its supporting affidavitsand document.

The respondent shall have the right toexamine the evidence submitted by thecomplainant which he may not have beenfurnished and to copy them at his expense. Ifthe evidence is voluminous, the complainantmay be required to specify those which heintends to present against the respondent, andthese shall be made available for examinationor copying by the respondent at his expense.

Objects as evidence need not be furnished aparty but shall be made available forexamination, copying or photographing at theexpense of the requesting party.

(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of thesubpoena with the complaint and supportingaffidavits and documents, the respondent shallsubmit his counter-affidavit and that of hiswitnesses and other supporting documentsrelied upon for his defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to andcertified as provided in paragraph (a) of thissection, with copies thereof furnished by him

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJuly-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS 15

(Continued on NEXT page)

to the complainant. The respondent shall notbe allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu ofa counter-affidavit.

(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed,or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, theinvestigating officer shall resolve the complaintbased on the evidence presented by thecomplainant.

(e) The investigating officer may set ahearing if there are such facts and issues to beclarified from a party or a witness. The partiescan be present at the hearing but without theright to examine or cross-examine. They may,however, submit to the investigating officerquestions which may be asked to the party orwitness concerned.

The hearing shall be held within ten (10)days from submission of the counter-affidavitsand other documents or from the expiration ofthe period for their submission. It shall beterminated within five (5) days.

(f ) Within ten (10) days after theinvestigation, the investigating officer shalldetermine whether or not there is sufficientground to hold the respondent for trial. (3a)

SEC. 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutorand its review.-If the investigating prosecutorfinds cause to hold the respondent for trial, heshall prepare the resolution and information,He shall certify under oath in the informationthat he, or as shown by the record, anauthorized officer, has personally, examined thecomplainant and his witnesses; that there isreasonable ground to believe that a crime hasbeen committed and that the accused isprobably guilty thereof; that the accused wasinformed of the complaint and of the evidencesubmitted against him; and that he was givenan opportunity to submit controvertingevidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend thedismissal of the complaint.

Within five (5) days from his resolution,he shall forward the record of the case to theprovincial or city prosecutor or chief stateprosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputyin cases of offenses cognizable by the

Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its originaljurisdiction. They shall act on the resolutionwithin ten (10) days from their receipt thereofand shall immediately inform the parties of suchaction.

No complaint or information may be filedor dismissed by an investigating prosecutorwithout the prior written authority or approvalof the provincial or city prosecutor or theOmbudsman or his deputy.

Where the investigating prosecutorrecommends the dismissal of the complaint buthis recommendation is disapproved by theprovincial or city prosecutor or chief stateprosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputyon the ground that a probable cause exists, thelatter may, by himself, file the informationagainst the respondent, or direct anotherassistant prosecutor or state prosecutor to doso without conducting another preliminaryinvestigation.

If upon petition by a proper party undersuch rules as the Department of Justice mayprescribe or motu proprio, the Secretary of Justicereverses or modifies the resolution of theprovincial or city prosecutor or chief stateprosecutor, he shall direct the prosecutorconcerned either to file the correspondinginformation without conducting anotherpreliminary investigation, or to dismiss or movefor dismissal of the complaint or informationwith notice to the parties. The same rule shallapply in preliminary investigations conductedby the officers of the Office of the Ombudsman.(4a)

SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue.-

(a) By the Regional Trial Court.-Within ten (10)days from the filing of the complaint orinformation, the judge shall personally evaluatethe resolution of the prosecutor and itssupporting evidence. He may immediatelydismiss the case if the evidence on record clearlyfails to establish probable cause. If he findsprobable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest,or a commitment order when the complaint orinformation was filed pursuant to section 6 of

A.M. NO. 05-8-26-SC (continued)


this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence ofprobable cause, the judge may order theprosecutor to present additional evidencewithin five (5) days from notice and the issuemust be resolved by the court within thirty(30) days from the filing of the complaint orinformation.

(b) By the Municipal TriaI Court.-Whenrequired pursuant to the second paragraph ofsection 1 of this Rule, the preliminaryinvestigation of cases falling under the originaljurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court orMunicipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal TrialCourt or Municipal Circuit Trial Court SHALLbe conducted by the prosecutor. The procedurefor the issuance of a warrant of arrest by thejudge shall be governed by paragraph (a) ofthis section.

(c) When warrant of arrest not necessary.-Awarrant of arrest shall not issue if the accusedis already under detention pursuant to awarrant issued, by the municipal trial court inaccordance with paragraph (b) of this section,or if the complaint or information was filed-pursuant to section 6 of this Rule or is for anoffense penalized by fine only. The court shallthen proceed in the exercise of its originaljurisdiction. (6a)

SEC. 6. When accused lawfully arrested withoutwarrant.-When a person is lawfully arrestedwithout a warrant involving an offense whichrequires a preliminary investigation, thecomplaint or information may be filed by aprosecutor without need of such investigationprovided an inquest has been conducted inaccordance with existing rules. In the absenceor unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, thecomplaint may be filed by the offended partyor by a peace officer directly with the propercourt on the basis of the affidavit of the offendedparty or arresting officer or person.

Before the complaint or information is filed,the person arrested may ask for a preliminaryinvestigation in accordance with this Rule, buthe must sign a waiver of the provisions ofArticle 125 of the Revised Penal Code, asamended, in the presence of his counsel.Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply forbail and the investigation must be terminatedwithin fifteen (15) days from its inception.

After the filing of the complaint orinformation in court without a preliminaryinvestigation, the accused may within five (5)days from the time he learns of its filing, askfor a preliminary investigation with the sameright to adduce evidence in his defense asprovided in this Rule. (7a; sec. 2, RA. No. 7438)

SEC. 7. Records.-

(a) Records supporting the information orcomplaint.- An information or complaint filedin court shall be supported by the affidavits andcounter-affidavits of the parties and theirwitnesses, together with the other supportingevidence and the resolution on the case.

(b) Record of preliminary investigation. -Therecord of the preliminary investigationconducted by a prosecutor OR OTHEROFFICERS AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BYLAW shall not form part of the record of thecase. However, the court, on its own initiativeor on motion of any party, may order theproduction of the record or any of its part whennecessary in the resolution of the case or anyincident therein, or when it is to be introducedas an evidence in the case by the requestingparty. (8a)

SEC.8. Cases not requiring a preliminaryinvestigation nor covered by the Rule on SummaryProcedure.-

(a) If filed with the prosecutor.-If the complaintis filed directly with the prosecutor involvingan offense punishable by an imprisonment ofless than four (4) years, two (2) months andone (1) day, the procedure outlined in section3(a) of this Rule shall be observed. Theprosecutor shall act on the complaint based onthe affidavits and other supporting documentssubmitted by the complainant within ten (10)days from its filing.

(b) If fiIed with the Municipal, Trial Court.-Ifthe complaint or information is filed with ‘theMunicipal Trial Court or Municipal CircuitTrial Court for an offense covered by thissection, the procedure in section 3(a) of thisrule shall be observed. If within ten (10) daysafter the filing of the complaint of information,the judge finds no probable cause afterpersonally evaluating the evidence, or afterpersonally examining in writing and under



accept new cases for preliminary investigation,which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of courtsof other levels.

These amendments shall take effect on October3, 2005 following their publication in newspaperof general circulation not later than September 15,2005.

August 30, 2005.

(Sgd.) DAVIDE, JR., CJ, PUNO, PANGANIBAN,QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,CORONA, CARPIO-MORALES, CALLEJO, SR.,AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, JJ.

oath the complainant and his witnesses in theform of searching questions and answers, heshall dismiss the same. He may, however,require the submission of additional evidence;within ten (10) days from notice, to determinefurther the existence of probable cause. If thejudge still finds no probable cause despite theadditional evidence, he shall, within ten (10)days from its submission or expiration of saidperiod, dismiss the case. When he findsprobable cause, he shall issue a warrant ofarrest, or a commitment order if the accusedhad already been arrested, and hold him fortrial. However, if the judge is satisfied that thereis no necessity for placing the accused undercustody, he may issue summons instead of awarrant of arrest. (9a)

x x x

RULE 114

BAIL

SEC. 17. Bail, where filed.-(a) Bail in theamount fixed may be filed with the court wherethe case is pending, or, in the absence orunavailability of the judge thereof, with anyregional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge,municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trialjudge in the province, city, or municipality. Ifthe accused is arrested in a province, city, ormunicipality other than where the case ispending, bail may be filed with any regionaltrial court of said place or, if no judge thereofis available, with any metropolitan trial judgeor municipal trial judge or municipal circuittrial judge, therein.

(b) Where the grant of bail is a matter ofdiscretion, or the accused seeks to be releasedon recognizance, the application may be filedonly in the court where the case is pending ontrial or appeal.

(c) Any person in custody who is not yetcharged in court may apply for bail, with anycourt in the province, city or municipalitywhere he is held. (17a)

All First Level Courts shall continue with thepreliminary investigation of cases pending withthem and terminate them not later than December31, 2005.

Upon the date of effectivity of theseamendments, First Level Courts shall no longer


Eighth Lecture (August) on Judicial Reform -Issues to Consider by Mr. Anthony G. Toft, ChiefCounsel, East Asia and Pacific Region, WorldBank, increased interest in the series andheightened expectations for the remainder of thelectures.

The Ninth Lecture in the above-mentionedLecture Series ended the quarter on an exultantnote on the topic The Commitment to JudicialEducation – A Presentation, with our eminent juristsand experts as speakers. Retired Chief JusticeAndres R. Narvasa, Chief Justice Hilario G.Davide, Jr., Senior Associate Justice Reynato S.Puno, Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban,Retired Justice Ricardo C. Puno, Sr., and ViceChancellor Justo P. Torres, Jr. traced theremarkable history of PHILJA from its birth toits present commendable position in theadministration of judicial education. Well-presented were the ongoing projects and linkagesof the PHILJA by the respective Chairs of theAcademic Departments. Justice Panganiban veryappropriately spoke of the Lecture Series,together with the other retirement activities inhonor of Chief Justice Davide, as a celebrationof thanksgiving.

We are, indeed, rising to the challenge of Mr.George Thomson, Executive Director ofCanada’s National Judicial Institute, who hasnamed PHILJA as “one of the world leaders indeveloping judicial education.”

Chancellor’s Desk(Continued from page 1)


OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 61-2005

TO: THE COURT OF APPEALS,SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAXAPPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS,METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT,MUNICIPALCIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND SHARI’ACIRCUIT COURTS

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THE NON-MONETARY REMUNERATION FOROVERTIME SERVICES

Quoted hereunder is the Implementing Guidelineson the Non-Monetary Remuneration for OvertimeServices Rendered for the Judiciary, to wit:

“IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES ON THENON-MONETARY REMUNERATION FOR

OVERTIME SERVICES RENDEREDFOR THE JUDICIARY”

“WHEREAS, a revised amended guidelines onthe rendition of overtime services was issued bythe Honorable Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.on July 21, 2004;

“WHEREAS, the Civil Service Commission andDepartment of Budget and Management issuedJoint Circular No. 12, s. 2004 dated October 4, 2004,to provide a uniform, policy on the availment ofcompensatory time-off in lieu of overtime pay;

“WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005, the HonorableChief Justice issued Administrative Circular No. 18-2005 adopting as part of the Judiciary’s austerityprogram the aforementioned Joint Circular No. 2,s. 2004;

“WHEREAS, the adoption of theaforementioned Joint Circular No. 2 would giveincalculable advantage and benefit to the Judiciary,to the service, and to personnel rendering overtimeservice;

“NOW, THEREFORE, the following guidelineson the non-monetary remuneration for overtimeservices rendered are hereby adopted pursuant toJoint Circular No. 2;

1. Purpose - These guidelines shall be the basisfor the availment of compensatory time off inlieu of overtime pay for rendering overtimeservices.

2. Coverage - These guidelines shall apply to allemployees of the Supreme Court up to Chiefsof Division, whether permanent, temporary,coterminous or casual, including those of thePresidential Electoral Tribunal and the Judicialand Bar Council, the Court of Appeals, theSandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, andall Courts in the first and second levels.

3. Exemption - These guidelines shall not coverthe official drivers of the Chief Justice andAssociate Justices of the Supreme Court andthe Presiding Justices and Associate Justices ofthe Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals andthe Sandiganbayan who may continue to receiveovertime pay instead of the non-monetaryremuneration. At the discretion of the ChiefJustice and if justified by compelling reasons,exceptions to the application of the JointCircular on non-monetary remuneration forovertime service rendered may be authorized.

4. Definition of Terms -

Compensatory Overtime Credit (COC) refersto the accrued number of hours an employeeearns as a result of services rendered beyondregular working hours, and/or those renderedon Saturdays, Sundays, Holidays or scheduleddays off without the benefit of overtime pay.

Compensatory Time-Off (CTO) refers to thenumber of hours or days an employee is excusedfrom reporting for work with full pay andbenefits. It is a non-monetary benefit providedto an employee in lieu of overtime pay.

5. Guidelines -

5.1 Employees are required to render forty (40)hours of work in a week. Employees maybe required to render overtime service inthe exigency of the service when work hasto be done beyond office hours due tocompelling reasons and emergencysituations.


5.2 The Heads of Offices shall determine theneed for overtime services, the date, timeand its purpose. They shall requestauthority from the Chief Justice / PresidingJustice / Executive Judge to render overtimeservice indicating therein the tasks to becompleted and the expected time ofcompletion.

5.3 Requests for overtime shall be made by theHead of Office and must be submitted tothe Chief Justice / Presiding Justice /Executive Judge for approval before actualservice of overtime is rendered.

5.4 Activities for which Overtime services maybe authorized

5.4.1 Completion of infrastructure andother projects with set deadlines.

5.4.2 Work involving the preparation forand administration of BarExaminations, where existingpersonnel are not adequate to handlesuch work during regular workingdays.

5.4.3 Seasonal work such as budgetpreparation and rendition of annualreports to meet scheduled deadlines

5.4.4 Preparation of special financialaccountability reports requiredoccasionally by central monitoringagencies like the Congress of thePhilippines, the Senate, the Office ofthe President, Commission on Audit,Department of Budget andManagement, and the NationalEconomic Development Authority.

5.4.5 Implementation of special program/projects embodied in directives andauthorizations, and with specificdates to complete which are in thenature of additional work ofpersonnel with their regular duties.

5.4.6 Services rendered by drivers andother immediate staff of officialsauthorized to have such staff supportwhen they are required to keep the

same working hours of theirsuperiors.

5.4.7 Rendition of skeletal force onSaturdays by all officials andemployees of the judiciary underAdministrative Circular No. 2-99dated 15 January 1999 issued by theChief Justice.

5.4.8 Other services which the Chief Justicemay deem to require overtime work.

5.5 Computation of COCs

The COC is expressed in number ofhours, computed as follows:

5.5.1 For overtime services rendered onweekdays or scheduled work days:

COC = number of hours of overtimeservices x 1.0

5.5.2 For overtime services rendered onweekends, holidays or scheduled daysoff:

COC = number of hours of overtimeservices x 1.5

5.6 Accrual and Use of COCs

5.6.1 Each employee may accrue not morethan forty (40) hours of COCs in amonth. In no instance, however,shall the unexpended balance exceedone hundred twenty hours (120)hours.

5.6.2 The COCs should be used as time-offwithin the year these are earned. Theunutilized COC should not be carriedover in the ensuing year, hence, arenon-cumulative.

5.6.3 The COCs shall be considered asofficial time for the followingpurposes:

5.6.3.1 compliance withcompensation rules relative

(Continued on NEXT page)

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 61-2005 (continued)


to the entitlement to PERA,Additional Compensation,year-end benefits, and otherbenefits received on a regularbasis; and

5.6.3.2 computation of service hoursfor entitlement to sick andvacation leave credits, and tostep increment due to lengthof service.

5.7. Limitation on the Use of COCs

5.7.1 The COCs cannot be used to offsetundertime/s or tardiness incurred bythe employee during regularworking days.

5.7.2 The COCs earned cannot beconverted to cash, hence, are non-commutive.

5.7.3 The COCs will not be added to theregular leave credits of the employee;hence, it is not part of theaccumulated leave credits that is paidout to the employee.

5.8 Effect on Personnel Movement

5.8.1 In cases of resignation, retirement, orseparation from the service, theunutilized COCs are deemed forfeited.

5.8.2 In case of detail, secondment ortransfer to another agency, the COCsearned in one agency cannot betransferred to another agency, norcould the employee receive themonetary equivalent thereof.

5.8.3 In case of promotion, except whenpromoted to a position not qualifiedto receive overtime pay underprevious issuances, the employee willretain his or her accrued COC

5.9 Issuance of Certificate of COC Earned

An employee who has earned COCshall be granted a Certificate of COC earnedduly approved and signed by the ChiefAdministrative Officer/Personnel Officer as

the case may be. The certificate indicates thenumber of hours of earned COC by theemployee in a month. The certificate wouldbe issued at the end of each month.

5.10 Availment of CTO

5.10.1 The CTO may be availed of in blocksof four (4) or eight (8) hours.

5.10.2 The employee may use the CTOcontinuously up to a maximum offive (5) consecutive days per singleavailment, or on staggered basiswithin the year.

5.10.3 Employees who were granted COCshall request their Chief of Office onthe schedule of availment of theCTO. The said schedule shall besubmitted to the Administrative/Personnel Office. In the exigency ofthe service, however, the schedulemay be recalled and subsequentlyrescheduled by the Head of the Officeof the employee within the year.

6. Procedures

The following procedures shall be observedin the rendition of overtime services andavailment of compensatory time off:

6.1 The Administrative/Personnel Office shallbe furnished with a copy of the approvedauthority to render overtime services.

6.2 The employee renders overtime services asstipulated in the Office Order.

6.3 The Administrative/Personnel Officeprepares a summary of overtime servicesrendered in a month, and computes theequivalent COCs, for the purpose of theissuance of the COC Certificate.

6-4 The Chief of the Administrative/PersonnelOffice issues the Certificate of COCs,specifying the number of COCs earned in amonth.

6.5 The employees who have acquired theCertificate of COC shall request their Headof Office on the schedule of availment of



the CTO. The approved request shall thenbe submitted to the Administrative/Personnel Office, which shall record theavailment of the CTO of the employee.

6.6 The employee avails of the CTO.

7. Duties and Responsibilities

7.1 Heads/Chiefs of Offices

7.1.1 The Heads/Chiefs of Offices shallrecommend to the Chief Justice/Presiding Justice/ Executive Judgeemployees who will be authorized torender overtime services beyondregular working hours in accordancewith these guidelines and the rulesand regulations on overtime servicecontained in Memorandum CircularNo. 08-2004.

7.1.2 Grant certificate of COC earned,concurrently setting safeguardmeasures to prevent any form of fraudand/or duplicity.

7.1.3 Approve/disapprove schedule of CTOas requested by the employee withoutcompromising the delivery of servicesto clientele.

7.1.4 Ensure proper implementation ofthese guidelines, and act accordinglyshould violations or irregularities becommitted.

7.2 Employees

7.2.1 Observe properly the procedures inearning of COC and availing of CTO.

7.2.2 Request approval from the Head/Chiefof Office on the availment schedule ofCTO.

7.2.3 Monitor the balance of earned COCsvis-a-vis CTOs availed of.

7.3 Administrative / Personnel OfficerConcerned

7.3.1 Reflect on the time card the applicationfor CTO filed by the employee.

7.3.2 Submit to the Head/ Chief of Officesconcerned monthly report onsummary of overtime servicesrendered and the equivalent COCs;and report critical incidents orobservations.

7.3.3 Recommend measures to improve theimplementation of the guidelines onthe grant of COCs and availment ofCTOs.

8. Certificate of Compensatory Overtime Credit(COC)

Front

Back

Certificate of COC Earned

This certificate entitles Mr./Ms. _________________ to______________ of Compensatory Overtime Credits.(number of hours)

_________________ Head of Office

Date Issued: _____________Valid Until: _______________

No. of Hours of Date Used Remaining RemarksEarned COCs/ of COCs COCs Beginning CTO Balance

Approved by: Claimed:

_______________ _______________ Head of Office HRMO

_______________ _______________

(Continued on page 22)



OCA CIRCULAR NO. 78-2005

TO: ALL EXECUTIVE JUDGES AND CLERKS OFCOURT

SUBJECT: En Banc Resolution A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC dated 16 October 2001, prescribingthe Guidelines in the Accreditation ofNewspapers and Periodicals seeking toPublish Judicial and Legal Notices andOther Similar Announcements and inthe Raffle thereof

The Office of the Court Administrator has beenreceiving numerous anonymous letters that thereare still some Clerks of Courts who are notcomplying with En Banc Resolution A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC dated 16 October 2001, particularly underSection 10 of the said resolution, that is:

“SEC. 10. Requirement of raffle.- All notices,announcements and advertisements subjecthereof shall be distributed for publication toaccredited newspapers or periodicals byraffle. No such notices, announcements andadvertisements may be assigned forpublication without being raffled.

The raffle of judicial or legal notices forpublication shall be included in the regularraffle of cases, provided that special rafflesmay be conducted for notices that need to bepublished before the regular raffle could beconducted.

The posting of judicial notices forpublication, the raffle procedure and thepublication of the results thereof shall beconducted in the same manner as the raffleof cases as provided in the Manual for Clerksof Court. All accredited newspapers orperiodicals shall as much as possible beassigned an equal number of notices topublish but the same must be done thruraffle.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Considering the importance of the publicationsof judicial notices and other similar announcement,it is incumbent upon the judiciary to implementregulations to see to it that the conduct of the sameincluding the raffle thereof should therefore beprotected and guarded against from any attemptof scheming parties to manipulate its conduct andimplementation.

With this in mind, our Supreme Court hasissued circulars and other issuances regulating thepublication of judicial notices, advertisement forpublic biddings, notices of auction sales and othersimilar notices to ensure uniform compliance andto protect the interest of the public, in general, andof litigants, in particular.

For that matter, all Executive Judges and Clerksof Court are again reminded to take special attentionto En Banc Resolution A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC dated16 October 2001, prescribing the Guidelines in theAccreditation of Newspapers and Periodicalsseeking to Publish Judicial and Legal Notices andOther Similar Announcements and in the Rafflethereof.

STRICT COMPLIANCE HEREWITH ISHEREBY ENJOINED.

29 July 2005.

(Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Court Administrator

9. Saving Clause

Issues or conflicts arising from thoseguidelines shall be resolved by the ChiefJustice.

10. Effectivity

These guidelines shall take effect onMay 15, 2005.

(Sgd.) PRESBITERO J.VELASCO, JR. Court Administrator

(Sgd.) EDEN T. CANDELARIA Deputy Clerk of Court and

Chief Administrative Officer

For the information and guidance of allconcerned.

18 May 2005.

(Sgd.) ZENAIDA N. ELEPAÑO Acting Court Administrator

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 61-2005(Continued from page 21)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJuly-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005July-September 2005 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS

2005 Upcoming PHILJA Events2005 Upcoming PHILJA Events2005 Upcoming PHILJA Events2005 Upcoming PHILJA Events2005 Upcoming PHILJA Events2005 Upcoming PHILJA Events2005 Upcoming PHILJA Events2005 Upcoming PHILJA Events2005 Upcoming PHILJA Events2005 Upcoming PHILJA Events

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 BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin

volume vii, issue no. 27 july-september 2005

Documents