volume xiii, issue no. 51 july-september 2011

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS 1July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011 PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

July to September 2011 Volume XIII, Issue No. 51

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

SUPREME COURT

RE

PU

BLIC

OF THE PHILIP

PI N

ES

BATAS AT BAYAN

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of Contents

From the Chancellor’s Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PHILJA News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Rulings and Doctrinal Reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resolutions, Orders and Circulars

A.O. No. 111-2011 – Designated Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A.C. No. 15-2011 – Transfer of Physical Delivery and Distribution Function of Books for the Lower Courts,from the Supreme Court Library to the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court AdministratorRevised A.C. No. 81-2010 – Guidelines on the Implementation of RA No. 9946 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 86-2011 – Maximum Period of Vacation Leave of Lower Court Officials and Personnel . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 99-2011 – Guidelines for the Issuance of Authority for Court Personnel Who Are AccreditedMediators Under the Court-Annexed Mediation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 102-2011 – Authorizing the Court Administrator to Act on and Approve Requests of LowerCourts for the Hiring of Services of Foreign Language Interpreters in Actions or Proceedings in Courts . . .OCA Cir. No. 113-2011 – Reiteration of AC No. 58-2002 and AO No. 19-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 119-2011 – Guidelines on When a Person is Considered Formally Charged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OCA Cir. No. 126-2011 – For the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to be Furnished with Copies of Decisions

Upcoming PHILJA Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

10

17

272732

32

3234353536

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin2

FFFFFrom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’s Desks Desks Desks Desks Desk (Continued)

* Source: Office of the Court Administrator

Our courts are structured in a four-layer hierarchy. The first level courts are the municipal and citycourts which receive the simplest cases. The next are the regional trial courts which receive morecomplicated cases and appeals from the first level. Next are the intermediate appellate courts – theCourt of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals. At the summit is the SupremeCourt, our highest court.

II. DUE PROCESS AND THE RULE OF LAW

Judges and courts are sworn to go about the task of settling disputes brought before them by followingprescribed ways that we may simply call due process and the rule of law.

What this means is that the courts and judges have to hear first before they condemn, proceed byinquiry, and render judgment only after hearing (Webster’s take on due process), and that they must befair and impartial, applying the law equally to all in the same factual situation without fear or favor(rule of law).

Furthermore, they must dispense justice speedily and effectively, that is, render timely and completejustice.

These age-old paradigms present a difficult but all-important task.

III. PHILIPPINE COURTS STATISTICS (TRIAL COURTS)*

As of December 31, 2010:

Total Number of Judicial Positions – 2,197Total Number of Incumbents – 1,606Total Number of Vacancies – 591Vacancy Rate – 26.90%Total Number of Pending Cases – 587,812

As of May 31, 2011:

Total Number of Pending Cases – 596,661

IV. THE CARE AND RUNNING OF THE COURTS

The Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, is charged with the care and running ofall our courts.

It does this firstly through the Court Administrator, the Honorable Jose Midas P. Marquez, and theOffice of the Court Administrator (OCA). The OCA attends to the needs of the courts and receivescomplaints against judges. If warranted, the Court considers these complaints and after due hearingmetes out disciplinary measures including fines, suspensions, and dismissals.

There is also the Supreme Court’s Academy for the courts. It is called the Philippine Judicial Academy(PHILJA), of which I am the Chancellor. PHILJA is tasked by law with the training of judges and courtpersonnel.

It has some 200 people all told and an Academic Council, as well as a corps of professors. It will soonreopen its Tagaytay training facilities (PHILJA Training Center) which were renovated and expanded.

V. SEEING REALITY, SEEKING JUSTICE

As part of my Supreme Court retirement, I came out with two books, one titled “Seeking Justice inToday’s World” and the other “Seeing Reality in Today’s World.”

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS 3July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011

I believe judges should be attuned to their surrounding reality. My streetphotography helps in this by making me aware of people’s day to day lives inthe immediate way. So for this posting I selected these photos for sharing. (Seephotos on page)

VI. PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL REFORM PROGRAM

The Philippine Judiciary has been undertaking a program of structural andpeople-oriented reform called Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR) startedby Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and continued under Chief Justice RenatoC. Corona.

It has six major components but, essentially, it targets people, cases, systems,and resources. A USD120 million loan from the World Bank to the PhilippineGovernment started its implementation. So far we have seen the beginnings ofcomputerization of our courts and its case management, the training of ourjudges and court personnel on the Code of Conduct for the Judiciary, theconstruction of model court houses in Mactan (finished), in Angeles (to befinished) and in Manila (not yet started), and the launching of the Justice onWheels project of the Supreme Court.

Also, the Academy for judges will have a modern, state-of-the-art trainingfacility in Tagaytay, set to start operations late this year, funded by a Php300million grant from Japan, and a World Bank loan (part of the APJR) for theequipment which includes a Global Distance Learning Center. It has a four-storey lodging facility attached to a main facility consisting of an auditorium,training rooms, a library and archive, offices, and an Annex Training Facilitywith sports and exercise equipment.

On September 12 this year, a Revised and Expanded Benchbook for trial judgeswill be launched by the Supreme Court which will provide our trial judgeswith the latest jurisprudence on all branches of law at their fingertips, in bothhard copy (2-volumes of ring-bound material) and a searchable CD.

VII. HELPBOOK ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES

Recently launched by the Supreme Court is a Helpbook on Human Rights Issues:Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances. Produced by the Philippine JudicialAcademy with the help of the USAID and The Asia Foundation, it contains ineasy-to-follow format of six chapters with colored headings, covering the topics:Situationer, Investigation, The Commission on Human Rights, Prosecution,The Judicial Process, and the Role of Civil Society. It has useful tables, sidebars,and figures. Furthermore, the needed forms are contained in an attached CD.The rules on the relationship of media and the courts and on personal securityof judges are annexed (pp. 259-271).

Initially, copies are being provided to our trial court judges and otherstakeholders in the human rights field including leading the NGOs, the PNP,the DOJ and the CHR.

The Research, Publications and Linkages Office (RPLO) of the PhilippineJudicial Academy should be able to respond to further inquiries. (RPLO Tel. No.552-9524 or email at [email protected]).

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

(Continued on next page)

(Continued)

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin4

VIII. THE JUDICIARY’S BUDGET - THE LATEST WRINKLE

The present debate on the Judiciary’s budget is worth careful study.

The entire Judiciary (Supreme Court and all lower courts including the three appellate courtsunder it) receives almost one percent of the national budget. This usually translates to Php14 billion.As this is sorely lacking, the Supreme Court has to supplement it with funds raised through court filingfees. This is what is called JDF (Judiciary Development Fund). This usually is in the neighborhood ofPhp2 billion yearly. The JDF is required to be apportioned into 80 percent for salaries and 20 percent forcapital expenditures.

Furthermore, Congress passed a law to add, through an increase of filing fees, to the salaries ofJustices and judges at 20 percent yearly increments over a five-year period, thus doubling it at the endof the exercise, which ended a year ago. After salaries have been doubled, this SAJJ (Salary Adjustmentfor Justice and Judges) component is supposed to be appropriated as part of the regular yearlyappropriations for Congress (this is not yet being done).

Now, there are about 2,197 trial courts of which 591 are vacant. These vacant positions are fundedby Congress even if, being vacant, the portion of the budget intended for them becomes savings for thecourts. These savings are very crucial to the operation of the courts as these are the source of employees’benefits and other necessary expenses that arise. These savings are allocated and realigned as neededby the Chief Justice in accordance with the exigencies of court operations.

These savings under the proposed budget for 2011 are in the order of Php1.8 billion.

The Department of Budget and Management wants to put all savings across all government officesinto one fund called the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefit Fund (MPBF) to be released by DBM if andwhen the positions covering them are filled or presumably, the personnel benefit expense or otherexpedient measure is approved by the corresponding office from which it was taken–in this case, thecourts or the Judiciary.

The proposal is supported by the House of Representatives but met rough sailing in the Senate.

The reason for the objection – This is deemed contrary to the provision of the Constitution thatstates: “The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reducedby the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall beautomatically and regularly released.” (Art. VIII, Sec. 3, Phil. Constitution).

If the Supreme Court has to go to the DBM for the release of a portion of its approved appropriationsevery time it needs it, then, it is not being automatically and regularly released.

This is the bone of contention and the result still hangs in the balance.

A good number of court employees are proposing to wear black on Mondays to protest the MPBF.

All the best, friends in Facebook and in real life!

FFFFFrom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’s Desks Desks Desks Desks Desk (Continued)


Career Enhancement Program

Clerks of CourtDate: July 5-7, 2011Venue: Top Plaza Hotel, Dipolog CityParticipants: 68 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC clerks ofcourt of Region IX

Date: August 9-11, 2011Venue: The VIP Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 65 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC clerks ofcourt of Region XII

Date: September 14-16, 2011Venue: Ivory Hotel and Convention Center, TuguegaraoCityParticipants: 112 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC clerks ofcourt of Region II

POEA Lawyers and Legal StaffDevelopment Partner: POEADate: July 21 to 22, 2011Venue: PST Hall, POEA, Mandaluyong CityParticipants: 45 POEA lawyers and legal staff

Competency Enhancement Training for Judgesand Court Personnel Handling Cases InvolvingChildren

Development Partners: CPU-Net; UNICEFDate: July 6-8, 2011Venue: Hotel Dominique, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 51 RTC judges, clerks of court, courtinterpreters, prosecutors and PAO lawyers of RegionsIII to IV

Date: August 2-4, 2011Venue: Fort Ilocandia Resort Hotel, Laoag City, IlocosNorteParticipants: 51 RTC judges, clerks of court, courtinterpreters, prosecutors, PAO lawyers and PNPofficers of Regions I to II

Information Dissemination Through a Dialoguebetween Barangay Officials and Court Officials

City of PagadianDate: July 7, 2011Venue: Cafe Ilang-Ilang, Pagadian CityParticipants: 171 barangay officials

City of NagaDate: July 22, 2011Venue: Naga Youth Center, Naga CityParticipants: 123 barangay officials

City of SilayDate: July 28, 2011Venue: Natalio G. Velez Sports and Cultural Center,Silay CityParticipants: 167 barangay officials

City of Balanga, BataanDate: August 4, 2011Venue: Bulwagan ng Bayan II, Balanga CityParticipants: 221 barangay officials

City of AngelesDate: August 5, 2011Venue: Angeles Session Hall, Angeles CityParticipants: 191 barangay officials

City of PasayDate: August 8, 2011Venue: Session Hall, Pasay City HallParticipants: 224 barangay officials

City of Puerto PrincesaDate: August 19, 2011Venue: Palawan State University Performing ArtsCenter, Puerto Princesa City, PalawanParticipants: 168 barangay officials

Province of AntiqueDate: September 22, 2011Venue: Gov. Evelio B. Javier Gymnasium, San Jose,AklanParticipants: 253 barangay officials

Municipality of KaliboDate: September 23, 2011Venue: Trade Hall, Provincial Capitol, Kalibo, AklanParticipants: 180 barangay officials

23rd Pre-Judicature Program

Date: July 18-29, 2011Venue: Traders Hotel, Pasay CityParticipants: 37 lawyers, namely:1. Atty. Blaise Marie E. Alaras2. Atty. Pascasio E. Aquino3. Atty. Ronald B. Ariete4. Atty. Amy A. Avellano5. Atty. Edgar M. Avila6. Atty. Wilfredo L. Bejasa7. Atty. Jovy C. Beldad8. Atty. Ramiro B. Borres, Jr.9. Atty. Lalaine M. Cabatingan

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS6

10. Atty. Joseph Joel R. Castillo11. Atty. Primitivo M. Corpuz, Jr.12. Atty. Rolando A. De Guzman, Jr.13. Atty. Andy S. De Vera14. Atty. Antonio O. Del Val15. Atty. Arys P. Deloso16. Atty. Joan Lou P. Gamboa17. Atty. Joyrich M. Golangco18. Atty. Ruby R. Gonzales19. Atty. Nida T. Gravino20. Atty. Gilda E. Guillermo21. Atty. Mary Ann Charisma C. Gutierrez22. Atty. Rafael G. Hipolito23. Atty. John Ray M. Libiran24. Atty. Mariano B. Martin25. Atty. Beatrice C. Medina26. Atty. Cornelio A. Pacala27. Atty. Lily Ann M. Padaen28. Atty. Angelo M. Raagas29. Atty. Henry R. Rabino30. Atty. Maria Milagros M. Ramirez-Lisaca31. Atty. Luz Victoria F. Reyes32. Atty. Elias Omar A. Sana33. Atty. Rainier D. Sarol34. Atty. Helena C. Tolentino35. Atty. Maria Kristina R. Torrecampo36. Atty. Salvador C. Villarosa, Jr.37. Atty. Tamsin Rae L. Yap

24th Pre-Judicature Program

Date: September 5-16, 2011Venue: Pearlmont Inn, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 20 lawyers, namely:1. Atty. Alloa R. Alameda2. Atty. Ela DV Angeles-Lim3. Atty. Joy Marie Badal-Pamisa4. Atty. Teresa Q. Blanco5. Atty. Karren Maricris Cacabelos-Sur6. Atty. Fay L. Garcia-Sasis7. Atty. Rebecca A. Guillen-Ubaña8. Atty. Joana I. Jardeleza-Llagas9. Atty. Alona T. Labtic10. Atty. Sabrina Balbon Lagamon11. Atty. Alvyn R. Lopena12. Atty. Cristina Teresa M. Ociones13. Atty. Nathaniel C. Pore14. Atty. Edmundo V. Raagas15. Atty. Fritzie Belle M. Roa16. Atty. Tristram C. Tenebro17. Atty. Dara M. Tormes18. Atty. Christian L. Valdehueza19. Atty. Ferdinand R. Villanueva20. Atty. Marlon I. Yap

Multi-Sectoral Capacity Building onEnvironmental Laws and Rules of Procedure forEnvironmental Cases

Development Partners: SC-PMO; UNDP; DENRDate: July 27-29, 2011Venue: East Asia Royale Hotel, General Santos CityParticipants: 99 RTC judges, clerks of court, prosecutors,PAO lawyers, representatives from DENR, BFAR, LGU,PCG, NGOs, and PNP of Region XII

Development Partner: DENRDate: August 31-September 2, 2011Venue: La Piazza Hotel and Convention Center, LegazpiCity, AlbayParticipants: 87 RTC judges, clerks of court, PAO lawyers,representatives from DENR, BFAR, PCG, Chamber ofMines, and PNP of Region V

Date: September 28-30, 2011Venue: Marco Polo Hotel, Davao CityParticipants: 68 RTC judges, clerks of court, prosecutors,PAO lawyers, representatives from DENR, BFAR,PCG, and NCIP of Region XI

Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting withJudges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court,Mediator-Trainees, and PMCU Staff in Court-Annexed Mediation

Biliran, Samar Province, and Southern Leyte MediationProgramDate: August 2, 2011Venue: Hall of Justice, Regional Trial Court, Catarman,Northern SamarParticipants: 38 RTC, MTC, and MCTC judges, clerks ofcourt, branch clerks of court, cash clerks, mediator-trainees, and prospective PMCU staff

Date: August 3, 2011Venue: Hall of Justice, Calbayog CityParticipants: 20 RTC and MCTC judges, clerks of court,branch clerks of court, cash clerks, mediator-trainees,and prospective PMCU staff

Date: August 4, 2011Venue: Hall of Justice, Catbalogan CityParticipants: 32 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges,clerks of court, branch clerks of court, cash clerks,mediator-trainees, and prospective PMCU staff


Date: August 5, 2011Venue: Conference Hall, Capitol Building, BoronganCityParticipants: 45 RTC, MTC, and MCTC judges, clerks ofcourt, branch clerks of court, cash clerks, mediator-trainees, and prospective PMCU staff

Date: August 8, 2011Venue: Session Hall, Legislative Building, Maasin CityParticipants: 34 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges,clerks of court, branch clerks of court, cash clerks,mediator-trainees, and prospective PMCU staff

Date: August 10, 2011Venue: Hall of Justice, Naval, BiliranParticipants: 22 RTC, MTC, and MCTC judges, clerks ofcourt, branch clerks of court, cash clerks, mediator-trainees, and prospective PMCU staff

Isabela Mediation ProgramDate: September 1, 2011 (a.m.)Venue: Hall of Justice, RTC, Cauayan City, IsabelaParticipants: 33 RTC, MTCC, and MCTC judges, clerks ofcourt, branch clerks of court, cash clerks, mediator-trainees, and prospective PMCU staff

Date: September 1, 2011 (p.m.)Venue: Hall of Justice, RTC, Santiago City, IsabelaParticipants: 21 RTC, MTCC, and MCTC judges, clerks ofcourt, branch clerks of court, cash clerks, mediator-trainees, and prospective PMCU staff

Date: September 2, 2011Venue: Hall of Justice, RTC, Ilagan, IsabelaParticipants: 39 RTC, MTC, and MCTC judges, clerks ofcourt, branch clerks of court, cash clerks, mediator-trainees, and prospective PMCU staff

Seminar on Speedy Trial and Disposition of CasesDevelopment Partners: OCA; USAID; ABA-ROLI

Date: August 5, 2011Venue: Fort Ilocandia Resort Hotel, Laoag City, IlocosNorteParticipants: 54 selected RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTCjudges of Region I

Date: August 26, 2011Venue: Hotel Venezia, Legazpi CityParticipants: 55 selected RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTCjudges of Region V

Multi-Sectoral Seminar-Workshop on Public-Private Partnership

Development Partner: Action for Economic Reforms (AER)Date: August 11, 2011Venue: Discovery Suites, Pasig CityParticipants: 33 Executive and Vice Executive judges ofNCJR and representatives from Bases ConversionDevelopment Authority (BCDA), Department ofFinance (DOF), DOF-Office of Privatization,

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH),Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), Laguna LakeDevelopment Authority (LLDA), LocalImplementation of National Competitiveness forEconomic Growth (LINC-EG), Maritime IndustryAuthority (MARINA) and Public-Private Partnership(PPP) Center

Pilot Development Program for Court LegalResearchers of NCJR

Date: August 11-12, 2011Venue: College of Saint Benilde Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 43 RTC and MeTC court legal researchersof NCJR

Basic Mediation Course(Isabela Mediation Program)

Date: August 15-18, 2011Venue: The Isabela Hotel, Cauayan City

Participants: 35 mediators

Personal Security Training for Judges

Development Partners: SC-Committee on Security; OCA;NBIDate: August 16-18, 2011Venue: Grand Regal Hotel, Bacolod CityParticipants: 47 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges ofRegions VI to VIII


10th National Convention and Seminar of theRegional Trial Court–Clerks of CourtAssociation of the Philippines (RTC-COCAP)

Theme: The Clerks of Court: Catalysts of Public Faithin the JudiciaryDate: August 23-25, 2011Venue: Waterfront Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 364 RTC clerks of court

Career Development Programfor Court Legal Researchers of NCJR

Date: September 8-9, 2011Venue: Traders Hotel, Pasay CityParticipants: 39 RTC and MeTC court legal researchersof NCJR

Training of Trainors on the Small Claims CaseMonitoring System (SC2MS)

Development Partners: USAID; ABA-ROLIDate: September 9, 2011Venue: Traders Hotel, Pasay CityParticipants: 44 representatives from PHILJA, SC-MISO,OCA and SC-PMO

Launching of the Benchbook for Philippine TrialCourts (Revised and Expanded)

Development Partners: USAID; ABA-ROLIDate: September 12, 2011Venue: Supreme Court Session Hall, ManilaParticipants: 135 SC Justices, CA Justices, CTA Justices,SB Justices, SC officials and staff, SC lawyers, PHILJABoard of Trustees, officials, professors, consultants andstaff, Executive Judges of NCJR, representatives fromMCLE, JBC, law associations/academe, ABA-ROLI,USAID, World Bank, TAF, Embassy of the UnitedStates–U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Divisionand media.

13th Convention and Seminar of theMetropolitan and City Judges Association of thePhilippines (MeTCJAP)

Theme: Judicial Wellness: An Imperative to an EffectiveAdministration of JusticeDate: September 13-15, 2011Venue: Subic Bay Travelers Hotel, Olongapo CityParticipants: 143 MeTC and MTCC judges

Orientation Seminar-Workshop onComparative Analysis between the Family Codeand the Code of Muslim Personal Laws

Date: September 19-21, 2011Venue: Top Plaza Hotel, Dipolog CityParticipants: 39 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judgesfrom Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte,

Misamis Occidental, and Zamboanga Sibugay

Increasing Judicial Efficiency: Seminar-Workshop for Judges on the Effective Use of theBenchbook for Philippine Trial Courts (Revisedand Expanded)

Development Partners: USAID; ABA-ROLIDate: September 20-21, 2011Venue: Traders Hotel, Pasay CityParticipants:Batch 1 – 60 RTC and MeTC judges of NCJR

Batch 2 – 67 RTC and MeTC judges of NCJR

Roundtable Discussion on Combating HumanTrafficking in the Philippines for SelectedAppellate Court Justices

Development Partners: CA; US Department of JusticeCriminal Division - OPDATDate: September 22, 2011Venue: Century Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 38 CA justices of Manila, Cebu and Cagayande Oro


Supreme Court

JUDICIAL MOVES

Office of the Court Administrator

Hon. Bienvenido L. Reyes Associate Justice, appointed on August 23, 2011

Hon. Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe Associate Justice, appointed on September 16, 2011

Atty. Marina B. Ching Chief of Office, Court Management Office

appointed on August 16, 2011

Atty. James D.V. Navarrete Assistant Chief of Office, Legal Office

appointed on August 16, 2011

Upcoming Activities (continued from page 36)

Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on(JDR) (Skills-based Course)November 15-18, Tagaytay City

Seminar-Workshop for the NationalCommission on Indigenous PeoplesNovember 15-17, Quezon City

Orientation Seminar-Workshop forNewly Appointed Clerks of CourtNovember 15-18, Manila (21st)December 6-9, Tagaytay City (22nd)

Conference on Judicial Dispute Resolutionfor Selected NCJR JudgesNovember 16-18, Tagaytay City

18th National Convention Seminar and Electionof Officers of the Philippine Trial Judges League,Inc. (PTJLI) Theme: “Philippine Trial Judges League,Inc.: Kaagapay sa Daang Matuwid”November 17-19, Dumaguete City

Career Enhancement Program for InsuranceCommission Lawyers and Legal StaffNovember 18, Manila

11th Multi-Sectoral Seminar-Workshopon Agrarian Justice Region XINovember 22-24, Davao City

Roundtable Discussion Revisitingthe Court Decisions on MarriageNovember 23, Pasig City

Career Enhancement Program forClerks of Court (Region XI)November 22-24, General Santos City

Seminar-Workshop on CEDAW and GenderSensitivity for Court of Appeals Lawyers,Manila StationDecember 1-2, Manila

Personal Security Training for Judges(Regions IX to XII)December 6-8, General Santos City

Work Orientation and Skills EnhancementSeminar for Philippine Mediation Center UnitStaff (Batch 2)December 8-9, Manila

Eighth Metrobank Foundation ProfessorialChair Lecture on “Legal Nuances to the PhilippineRatification of the Rome Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court”December 9, Manila

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin10 NEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

New Ruling

REMEDIAL LAW

Beneficial interest; debtor retains beneficialinterest in a contract of mortgage.

Section 9(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court statesthe manner by which judgments for money maybe satisfied by levy, to wit:

Sec. 9. Execution of judgments for money, howenforced. –

x x x x

(b) Satisfaction by levy. – If the judgment obligorcannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash,certified bank check or other mode of paymentacceptable to the judgment obligee, the officershall levy upon the properties of the judgmentobligor of every kind and nature whatsoeverwhich may be disposed of for value and nototherwise exempt from execution giving the latterthe option to immediately choose which propertyor part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient tosatisfy the judgment. If the judgment obligordoes not exercise the option, the officer shall firstlevy on the personal properties, if any, and thenon the real properties if the personal propertiesare insufficient to answer for the judgment.

The sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion ofthe personal or real property of the judgmentobligor which has been levied upon.

When there is more property of the judgmentobligor than is sufficient to satisfy the judgmentand lawful fees, he must sell only so much of thepersonal or real property as is sufficient tosatisfy the judgment and lawful fees.

Real property, stocks, shares, debts, credits, andother personal property, or any interest in eitherreal or personal property, may be levied upon inlike manner and with like effect as under a writof attachment.

In determining properties to be levied upon, theRules require the sheriff to levy only on those“properties of the judgment debtor” which are “nototherwise exempt from execution.” For purposes ofthe levy, a property is deemed to belong to thejudgment debtor if he holds a beneficial interest insuch property that he can sell or otherwise dispose offor value. In a contract of mortgage, the debtor retainsbeneficial interest over the property notwithstandingthe encumbrance, since the mortgage only serves tosecure the fulfillment of the principal obligation.Indeed, even if the debtor defaults, this fact does not

operate to vest in the creditor the ownership of theproperty; the creditor must still resort to foreclosureproceedings. Thus, a mortgaged property may stillbe levied upon by the sheriff to satisfy the judgmentdebtor’s obligations, as what happened in the presentcase. After ascertaining the judgment debtor ’s(Reyes’) interest over the car, the respondent properlyenforced the levy thereon — an act that, to our mind,is in accordance with the Rules of Court.

It was thus irrelevant for the complainant to arguethat had the respondent checked the car’s certificateof registration, the respondent would have been awareof the encumbrance. The encumbrance, untilforeclosed, will not in any way affect the judgmentdebtor ’s rights over the property or exempt theproperty from the levy. Even the pendency of theproceeding for replevin that the complainantinstituted would not serve to prevent the sheriff fromlevying on the car, since Reyes’ default and thecomplainant’s right to foreclose still had to be settledin the proceeding.

(Brion, J., Golden Sun Finance Corporation, represented byRachelle L. Marmito v. Ricardo R. Albano, Sheriff III, MetropolitanTrial Court (MeTC), Branch 61, Makati City, A.M. No. P-11-

2888, July 27, 2011.)

JUSTICE ADOLFO S. AZCUNA

Chancellor

PROFESSOR SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA

Editor in Chief

Editorial and Research Staff

ATTY. ORLANDO B. CARIÑO

ATTY. MA. MELISSA DIMSON-BAUTISTA

ARSENIA M. MENDOZA

ARMIDA M. SALAZAR

JOCELYN D. BONDOC

RONALD P. CARAIG

JUDITH B. DEL ROSARIO

CHRISTINE A. FERRER

JOANNE NARCISO-MEDINA

CHARMAINE S. NICOLAS

SARAH JANE S. SALAZAR

JENIFFER P. SISON

Circulation and Support Staff

ROMEO A. ARCULLO

LOPE R. PALERMO

DANIEL S. TALUSIG

Printing Services

LETICIA G. JAVIER AND PRINTING STAFF

The PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin is published quarterly by the Research, Publications andLinkages Office of the Philippine Judicial Academy, with office at the 3rd Floor ofthe Supreme Court Centennial Building, Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue,Manila. Tel: 552-9524; Fax: 552-9621; E-mail: [email protected];[email protected]; Website: http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS 11NEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTJuly-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011

CIVIL LAW

Proofs needed to recover ownership of realproperty.

Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that tosuccessfully maintain an action to recover theownership of a real property, the person who claims abetter right to it must prove two (2) things: first, theidentity of the land claimed; and second, his title thereto.

In regard to the first requisite, in an accionreinvindicatoria, the person who claims that he has abetter right to the property must first fix the identity ofthe land he is claiming by describing the location, area andboundaries thereof. Anent the second requisite, i.e., theclaimant’s title over the disputed area, the rule is that aparty can claim a right of ownership only over the parcel ofland that was the object of the deed.

In this case, petitioners failed to prove the identityof the parcels of land sought to be recovered and theirtitle thereto. Petitioners contend that they are theowners of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 by virtue of thedecision of the Municipal Court of Palauig, Zambales,in the ejectment case (forcible entry) against Lodelfoand Narciso Marcial, declaring them (petitioners) asthe ones in possession of the property, which decisionwas affirmed on appeal. However, as stated by thetrial court and the Court of Appeals, the propertyinvolved in the ejectment case was Lot No. 1197, andit was never mentioned in the respective decisions ofthe Municipal Court of Palauig, Zambales, and the CFIof Zambales, Branch II-Iba that the portion intrudedupon was Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626. Moreover,petitioners failed to adduce in evidence the technicaldescription of Lot No. 1197 and failed to prove thatLot Nos. 1625 and 1626 were part of or used to be partof Lot No. 1197.

Further, the documents presented by petitionersto prove their title over Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626showed that the properties covered therein werelocated in Barrio Liozon, Palauig, Zambales, while LotNos. 1625 and 1626 are located in Barrio Locloc, Palauig,Zambales. In addition, petitioners failed to establishwhich of the deeds of sale, donation or documentsevidencing transfer of properties to their father, Migueldel Fierro, which were adduced in evidence, coveredLot Nos. 1625 and 1626.

(Peralta, J., Cornelio Del Fierro, Gregorio Del Fierro, IldefonsoDel Fierro, Asuncion Del Fierro, Cipriano Del Fierro, ManuelaDel Fierro, and Francisco Del Fierro v. Rene Seguiran, G.R. No.152141, August 8, 2011.)

Doctrinal Reminders Trust; kinds of trusts; its concept.

A trust is the legal relationship between oneperson having an equitable ownership of propertyand another person owning the legal title to suchproperty, the equitable ownership of the formerentitling him to the performance of certain duties andthe exercise of certain powers by the latter. Trusts areeither express or implied. Express or direct trusts arecreated by the direct and positive acts of the parties,by some writing or deed, or will, or by oral declarationin words evincing an intention to create a trust.Implied trusts – also called “trusts by operation oflaw,” “indirect trusts” and “involuntary trusts” –arise by legal implication based on the presumedintention of the parties or on equitable principlesindependent of the particular intention of the parties.They are those which, without being expressed, arededucible from the nature of the transaction asmatters of intent or, independently of the particularintention of the parties, as being inferred from thetransaction by operation of law basically by reasonof equity.

Implied trusts are further classified intoconstructive trusts and resulting trusts. Constructivetrusts, on the one hand, come about in the main byoperation of law and not by agreement or intention.They arise not by any word or phrase, either expresslyor impliedly, evincing a direct intention to create atrust, but one which arises in order to satisfy thedemands of justice. Also known as trusts ex maleficio,trusts ex delicto and trusts de son tort, they are construedagainst one who by actual or constructive fraud,duress, abuse of confidence, commission of a wrongor any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice,concealment of questionable means, or who in anyway against equity and good conscience has obtainedor holds the legal right to property which he oughtnot, in equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy.They are aptly characterized as “fraud-rectifyingtrust,” imposed by equity to satisfy the demands ofjustice and to defeat or prevent the wrongful act ofone of the parties. Constructive trusts are illustratedin Articles 1450, 1454, 1455 and 1456.

On the other hand, resulting trusts arise from thenature or circumstances of the consideration involvedin a transaction whereby one person becomes investedwith legal title but is obligated in equity to hold histitle for the benefit of another. This is based on theequitable doctrine that valuable consideration and notlegal title is determinative of equitable title or interestand is always presumed to have been contemplatedby the parties. Such intent is presumed as it is notexpressed in the instrument or deed of conveyanceand is to be found in the nature of their transaction.



Implied trusts of this nature are hence describable as“intention-enforcing trusts.” Specific examples ofresulting trusts may be found in the Civil Code,particularly Articles 1448, 1449, 1451, 1452 and 1453.

Articles 1448 to 1456 of the Civil Code enumeratecases of implied trust, but the list according to Article1447 is not exclusive of others which may beestablished by the general law on trusts so long as thelimitations laid down in Article 1442 are observed,that is, that they be not in conflict with the New CivilCode, the Code of Commerce, the Rules of Court andspecial laws.

While resulting trusts generally arise on failure ofan express trust or of the purpose thereof, or on aconveyance to one person upon a consideration fromanother (sometimes referred to as a “purchase-moneyresulting trust”), they may also be imposed in othercircumstances such that the court, shaping judgmentin its most efficient form and preventing a failure ofjustice, must decree the existence of such a trust. Aresulting trust, for instance, arises where, there beingno fraud or violation of the trust, the circumstancesindicate intent of the parties that legal title in one beheld for the benefit of another. It also arises in someinstances where the underlying transaction is withoutconsideration, such as that contemplated in Article1449 of the Civil Code. Where property, for example,is gratuitously conveyed for a particular purpose andthat purpose is either fulfilled or frustrated, the courtmay affirm the resulting trust in favor of the grantoror transferor, where the beneficial interest in propertywas not intended to vest in the grantee.

Intention – although only presumed, implied orsupposed by law from the nature of the transaction orfrom the facts and circumstances accompanying thetransaction, particularly the source of theconsideration – is always an element of a resultingtrust and may be inferred from the acts or conduct ofthe parties rather than from direct expression ofconduct. Certainly, intent as an indispensable element,is a matter that necessarily lies in the evidence, thatis, by evidence, even circumstantial, of statementsmade by the parties at or before the time title passes.Because an implied trust is neither dependent uponan express agreement nor required to be evidenced bywriting, Article 1457 of our Civil Code authorizes theadmission of parole evidence to prove their existence.Parole evidence that is required to establish theexistence of an implied trust necessarily has to betrustworthy and it cannot rest on loose, equivocal orindefinite declarations.

Thus, contrary to the Court of Appeals’ findingthat there was no evidence on record showing that animplied trust relation arose between Margarita andRoberto, we find that petitioner before the trial court,had actually adduced evidence to prove the intentionof Margarita to transfer to Roberto only the legal titleto the properties in question, with attendantexpectation that Roberto would return the same toher on accomplishment of that specific purpose forwhich the transaction was entered into. The evidenceof course is not documentary, but rather testimonial.

(Peralta, J., Estate of Margarita D. Cabacungan, represented byLuz Laigo-ali v. Marilou Laigo, Pedro Roy Laigo, Stella Balagotand Spouses Mario B. Campos and Julia S. Campos, G.R. No.175073, August 15, 2011.)

LAND REGISTRATION LAW

Requisites for the grant of petitions in landregistration cases; Regalian doctrine.

The Property Registration Decree (PD No. 1529)provides for original registration of land in an ordinaryregistration proceeding. Under Section 14(1) thereof, apetition may be granted upon compliance with thefollowing requisites: (a) that the property in question isalienable and disposable land of the public domain; (b)that the applicants by themselves or through theirpredecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,exclusive and notorious possession and occupation; and(c) that such possession is under a bona fide claim ofownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Under the Regalian doctrine which is embodiedin Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, alllands of the public domain belong to the State, whichis the source of any asserted right to ownership ofland. All lands not appearing to be clearly withinprivate ownership are presumed to belong to the State.Unless public land is shown to have been reclassifiedor alienated to a private person by the State, it remainspart of the inalienable public domain. To overcomethis presumption, incontrovertible evidence must beestablished that the land subject of the application isalienable or disposable.

To prove that the land subject of an applicationfor registration is alienable, an applicant mustestablish the existence of a positive act of thegovernment such as a presidential proclamation oran executive order; an administrative action;investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators;and a legislative act or a statute. The applicant mayalso secure a certification from the Government thatthe lands applied for are alienable and disposable.

Doctrinal RemindersCIVIL LAW (continued)


Doctrinal RemindersLAND REGISTRATION LAW (continued)

In this case, the Assistant Regional ExecutiveDirector for Operations-Mainland Provinces of theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR), in compliance with the directive of the trialcourt, issued a certification stating that the subjectproperty “falls within the Alienable and DisposableLand, Project No. 22-A of Lipa, Batangas, per LC Map718 certified on March 26, 1928.” However, in theCertification dated January 14, 2000, issued by theDENR CENR Officer of Batangas City, Pancrasio M.Alcantara, which was submitted in evidence by thepetitioner, it states that:

This is to certify that based on projection fromthe technical reference map of this Office, LotNo. 3730, Ap-04-009883, situated at Barangay SanAndres, Malvar, Batangas containing an area ofNINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THREE ANDFORTY SEVEN (9,103.47) SQUARE METERS andshown at the reverse side hereof has beenverified to be within the ALIENABLE ANDDISPOSABLE ZONE under Project No. 39, LandClassification Map No. 3601 certified on 22December 1997 except for twenty meters strip ofland along the creek bounding on thenortheastern portion which is to be maintainedas streambank protection.

x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner has not explained the discrepancies inthe dates of classification mentioned in the foregoinggovernment certifications. Consequently, the statusof the land applied for as alienable and disposable wasnot clearly established.

We also agree with the CA that petitioner ’sevidence failed to show that he possessed the propertyin the manner and for the duration required by law.

Petitioner presented tax declarations and the deedsof confirmation of the 1946 sale from the original owner(Lucio Olan) to Anatalio Aranda and the 1965 donationmade by the latter in favor of petitioner. But as foundby the CA, the history of the land shows that it wasdeclared for taxation purposes for the first time onlyin 1981. On the other hand, the Certification issued bythe Municipal Treasurer of Malvar stated thatpetitioner, who supposedly received the property fromhis father in 1965, had been paying the correspondingtaxes for said land “for more than five consecutiveyears including the current year [1999],” or beginning1994 only or just three years before the filing of theapplication for original registration. While, as a rule,tax declarations or realty tax payments of propertyare not conclusive evidence of ownership, neverthelessthey are good indicia of possession in the concept of

owner, for no one in his right mind would be payingtaxes for a property that is not in his actual orconstructive possession – they constitute at least proofthat the holder has a claim of title over the property.

Petitioner likewise failed to prove the allegedpossession of his predecessors-in-interest. His witnessLuis Olan testified that he had been visiting the landalong with his father Lucio since he was six years old(he was 70 years old at the time he testified), or asearly as 1936. Yet, there was no evidence that LucioOlan declared the property for tax purposes at anytimebefore he sold it to Anatalio Aranda. There is also noshowing that Anatalio Aranda declared the propertyin his name from the time he bought it from LucioOlan. And even assuming that Lucio actually plantedrice and corn on the land, such statement is notsufficient to establish possession in the concept ofowner as contemplated by law. Mere casualcultivation of the land does not amount to exclusiveand notorious possession that would give rise toownership. Specific acts of dominion must be clearlyshown by the applicant.

We have held that a person who seeks theregistration of title to a piece of land on the basis ofpossession by himself and his predecessors-in-interestmust prove his claim by clear and convincingevidence, i.e., he must prove his title and should notrely on the absence or weakness of the evidence of theoppositors. Furthermore, the court has the boundenduty, even in the absence of any opposition, to requirethe petitioner to show, by a preponderance of evidenceand by positive and absolute proof, so far as possible,that he is the owner in fee simple of the lands whichhe is attempting to register. Since petitioner failed tomeet the quantum of proof required by law, the CAwas correct in reversing the trial court and dismissinghis application for judicial confirmation of title.

(Villarama, Jr., J., Ramon Aranda v. Republic of the Philippines,G.R. No. 172331, August 24, 2011.)

CRIMINAL LAW

Civil liability of accused despite his exoneration.

In Banal v. Tadeo, Jr., the Supreme Court elucidated onthe civil liability of the accused despite his exonerationin this wise:

While an act or omission is felonious becauseit is punishable by law, it gives rise to civilliability not so much because it is a crime butbecause it caused damage to another. Viewing



things pragmatically, we can readily see thatwhat gives rise to the civil liability is really theobligation and moral duty of everyone to repairor make whole the damage caused to anotherby reason of his own act or omission, doneintentionally or negligently, whether or not the

same be punishable by law. x x x

Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, byreason of his own act or omission, done intentionally ornegligently, causes damage to another. Hence, forpetitioner to be civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it mustbe proven that the acts he committed had causeddamage to the spouses.

(Del Castillo, J., Felixberto A. Abellana v. People of the Philippinesand Spouses Saapia B. Alonto and Diaga Alonto, G.R. No. 174654,August 17, 2011.)

REMEDIAL LAW

Requirements to entitlement to injunctive relief.

As clearly explained in Ocampo v. Sison Vda. deFernandez:

To be entitled to the injunctive writ, the applicantmust show that there exists a right to be protectedwhich is directly threatened by an act sought tobe enjoined. Furthermore, there must be ashowing that the invasion of the right is materialand substantial and that there is an urgent andparamount necessity for the writ to preventserious damage. The applicant’s right must beclear and unmistakable. In the absence of a clearlegal right, the issuance of the writ constitutesgrave abuse of discretion. Where the applicant’sright or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction isnot proper. The possibility of irreparable damagewithout proof of an actual existing right is not aground for injunction.

A clear and positive right especially calling forjudicial protection must be shown. Injunction isnot a remedy to protect or enforce contingent,abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protecta right not in esse and which may never arise, orto restrain an act which does not give rise to acause of action. There must exist an actual right.There must be a patent showing by the applicantthat there exists a right to be protected and thatthe acts against which the writ is to be directedare violative of said right.

In this case, the defendants in the ejectment casepossess no such legal rights that merit the protectionof the courts through the writ of preliminaryinjunction. The MCTC has already rendered a decisionin favor of the RCA and ordered the defendants therein

Doctrinal RemindersCRIMINAL LAW (continued)

to vacate the premises. Their appeal to the RTC wasdismissed and the decision has become final.Evidently, their right to possess the property inquestion has already been declared inferior orinexistent in relation to the right of the RCA in theMCTC decision which has already become final andexecutory.

(Villarama, Jr., J., Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando,Pampanga represented herein by the incumbent Archbishop v.Eduardo Soriano, Jr., Edan Yalun, Evangelina Ablaza, FelicidadY. Urbina, Felix Salenga, Reynaldo I. Mallari, Marciana B. Barcoma,Bienvenido Panganiban, Brigida Navarro, Eufrancia T. Flores,Victoria B. Sudsod, Eufronio Caparas, Crisanto Manansala, LilyMasangcay, Benjamin Guinto, Jr., Martha G. Castro and LinoTolentino, G.R. No. 153829, Benjamin Guinto, Jr. v. RomanCatholic Archbishop of San Fernando, Pampanga representedherein by the incumbent Archbishop, G.R. No. 160909, August

17, 2011.)

Payment of appellate court docket and otherlawful fees is mandatory and jurisdictional.

The rule that appellate court docket and otherlawful fees must be paid within the period for takingan appeal is stated in Section 4, Rule 41 of the 1997Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended:

SEC. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. –Within the period for taking an appeal, theappellant shall pay to the clerk of the court whichrendered the judgment or final order appealedfrom, the full amount of the appellate court docketand other lawful fees. Proof of payment of saidfees shall be transmitted to the appellate courttogether with the original record or the recordon appeal.

Likewise, Section 3, Rule 41, of the same Rulesstate:

SEC. 3. Period of ordinary appeal, x x x. – The appealshall be taken within 15 days from notice of thejudgment or final order appealed from. Where arecord on appeal is required, the appellant shallfile a notice of appeal and a record on appealwithin 30 days from notice of the judgment orfinal order. x x x

x x x x

In this case, petitioner received a copy of the trialcourt’s Order on May 14, 2004. Thus, pursuant toSection 3, Rule 41, in relation to Section 1, Rule 22, ithad until May 31, 2004 within which to perfect itsappeal by filing within that period the notice ofappeal and paying the appellate docket and other legalfees. On May 17, 2004, petitioner filed its notice ofappeal within the reglementary period. We note,however, that it paid the required docket fees only onOctober 20, 2004, or late by almost five months.


Doctrinal RemindersREMEDIAL LAW (continued)

It bears stressing that payment of docket and otherfees within this period is mandatory for the perfectionof the appeal. Otherwise, the right to appeal is lost.This is so because a court acquires jurisdiction over thesubject matter of the action only upon the payment ofthe correct amount of docket fees regardless of the actualdate of filing of the case in court. The payment ofappellate docket fees is not a mere technicality of lawor procedure. It is an essential requirement, withoutwhich the decision or final order appealed frombecomes final and executory as if no appeal was filed.

We held in one case that the CA correctly dismissedthe appeal where the docket fees were not paid in fullwithin the prescribed period of 15 days but were paid41 days late due to inadvertence, oversight, andpressure of work. In another case, we ruled that noappeal was perfected where half of the appellate docketfee was paid within the prescribed period, while theother half was tendered after the period within whichpayment should have been made.

Evidently, where the appellate docket fee is notpaid in full within the reglementary period, thedecision of the trial court becomes final and no longersusceptible to an appeal. For once a decision becomesfinal, the appellate court is without jurisdiction toentertain the appeal.

Moreover, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 50 of the1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, the CA, onits own motion or that of the appellee, may dismissthe appeal on the ground that appellant failed to paythe docket and other lawful fees. Section 1(c), Rule 50of the Rules provides that:

SECTION 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. – An appealmay be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on itsown motion or on that of the appellee, on thefollowing grounds:

x x x x

(c) Failure of the appellant to pay the docketand other lawful fees as provided in Section4 of Rule 41;

x x x x

Pertinently, this Court’s ruling in Cu-Unjiengv. Court of Appeals is instructive:

With the reality obtaining in this case thatpayment of the appellate docket fees wasbelatedly made four months after the lapse ofthe period for appeal, it appears clear to us thatthe CA did not acquire jurisdiction overpetitioner’s appeal except to order its dismissal,as it rightfully did. Thus, the September 1, 1998

decision of the RTC has passed to the realm offinality and became executory by operation oflaw. (Underscoring ours)

(Villarama, Jr., J., D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. v. City ofParañaque City Assessor, Parañaque City Treasurer and ParañaqueCity Council, G.R. No. 170728, August 31, 2011.)

Contempt of Court; kinds of contempt; its concept.

Contempt of court has been defined as a willfuldisregard or disobedience of a public authority. In itsbroad sense, contempt is a disregard of, ordisobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative orjudicial body or an interruption of its proceedings bydisorderly behavior or insolent language in itspresence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedingsor to impair the respect due to such a body. In itsrestricted and more usual sense, contemptcomprehends a despising of the authority, justice, ordignity of a court. The phrase contempt of court is generic,embracing within its legal signification a variety ofdifferent acts.

The power to punish for contempt is inherent inall courts, and need not be specifically granted bystatute. It lies at the core of the administration of ajudicial system. Indeed, there ought to be no questionthat courts have the power by virtue of their verycreation to impose silence, respect, and decorum intheir presence, submission to their lawful mandates,and to preserve themselves and their officers from theapproach and insults of pollution. The power to punishfor contempt essentially exists for the preservation oforder in judicial proceedings and for the enforcementof judgments, orders, and mandates of the courts, and,consequently, for the due administration of justice. Thereason behind the power to punish for contempt isthat respect of the courts guarantees the stability oftheir institution; without such guarantee, theinstitution of the courts would be resting on a veryshaky foundation.

Contempt of court is of two kinds, namely: directcontempt, which is committed in the presence of or sonear the judge as to obstruct him in the administrationof justice; and constructive or indirect contempt, whichconsists of willful disobedience of the lawful processor order of the court.

The punishment for the first is generally summaryand immediate, and no process or evidence isnecessary because the act is committed in facie curiae.The inherent power of courts to punish contempt ofcourt committed in the presence of the courts withoutfurther proof of facts and without aid of a trial is not



open to question, considering that this power isessential to preserve their authority and to preventthe administration of justice from falling intodisrepute; such summary conviction and punishmentaccord with due process of law. There is authority forthe view, however, that an act, to constitute directcontempt punishable by summary proceeding, neednot be committed in the immediate presence of thecourt, if it tends to obstruct justice or to interfere withthe actions of the court in the courtroom itself. Also,contemptuous acts committed out of the presence ofthe court, if admitted by the contemnor in open court,may be punished summarily as a direct contempt,although it is advisable to proceed by requiring theperson charged to appear and show cause why heshould not be punished when the judge is withoutpersonal knowledge of the misbehavior and isinformed of it only by a confession of the contemnoror by testimony under oath of other persons.

In contrast, the second usually requiresproceedings less summary than the first. Theproceedings for the punishment of the contumaciousact committed outside the personal knowledge of thejudge generally need the observance of all the elementsof due process of law, that is, notice, written charges,and an opportunity to deny and to defend such chargesbefore guilt is adjudged and sentence imposed.

Plainly, therefore, the word summary with respectto the punishment for contempt refers not to the timingof the action with reference to the offense but to theprocedure that dispenses with the formality, delay,and digression that result from the issuance of process,service of complaint and answer, holding hearings,taking evidence, listening to arguments, awaitingbriefs, submission of findings, and all that goes with aconventional court trial.

A distinction between in-court contempts, whichdisrupt court proceedings and for which a hearingand formal presentation of evidence are dispensedwith, and out-of-court contempts, which require normaladversary procedures, is drawn for the purpose ofprescribing what procedures must attend the exerciseof a court’s authority to deal with contempt. Thedistinction does not limit the ability of courts to initiatecontempt prosecutions to the summary punishmentof in-court contempts that interfere with the judicialprocess.

The court may proceed upon its own knowledgeof the facts without further proof and without issueor trial in any form to punish a contempt committeddirectly under its eye or within its view. But there

Doctrinal RemindersREMEDIAL LAW (continued)

must be adequate facts to support a summary orderfor contempt in the presence of the court. The exerciseof the summary power to imprison for contempt is adelicate one and care is needed to avoid arbitrary oroppressive conclusions. The reason for theextraordinary power to punish criminal contempt insummary proceedings is that the necessities of theadministration of justice require such summarydealing with obstructions to it, being a mode ofvindicating the majesty of the law, in its activemanifestation, against obstruction and outrage.

Proceedings for contempt are sui generis, in naturecriminal, but may be resorted to in civil as well ascriminal actions, and independently of any action.They are of two classes, the criminal or punitive, andthe civil or remedial. A criminal contempt consists inconduct that is directed against the authority anddignity of a court or of a judge acting judicially, as inunlawfully assailing or discrediting the authority anddignity of the court or judge, or in doing a dulyforbidden act. A civil contempt consists in the failure todo something ordered to be done by a court or judgein a civil case for the benefit of the opposing partytherein. It is at times difficult to determine whetherthe proceedings are civil or criminal. In general, thecharacter of the contempt of whether it is criminal orcivil is determined by the nature of the contemptinvolved, regardless of the cause in which thecontempt arose, and by the relief sought or dominantpurpose. The proceedings are to be regarded ascriminal when the purpose is primarily punishment,and civil when the purpose is primarilycompensatory or remedial. Where the dominantpurpose is to enforce compliance with an order of acourt for the benefit of a party in whose favor theorder runs, the contempt is civil; where the dominantpurpose is to vindicate the dignity and authority ofthe court, and to protect the interests of the generalpublic, the contempt is criminal. Indeed, the criminalproceedings vindicate the dignity of the courts, butthe civil proceedings protect, preserve, and enforcethe rights of private parties and compel obedience toorders, judgments and decrees made to enforce suchrights.

(Bersamin, J., Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, Oceanic ContainerLines, Inc., Solid Shipping Lines Corporation, Sulpicio Lines,Inc., et al. v. Distribution Management Association of thePhilippines, Lorenzo Cinco, and Cora Curay, G.R. No. 155849,

August 31, 2011.)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS 17July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011July-September 2011 RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS

In the interest of an effective administration ofjustice and pursuant to the Resolution dated January27, 2004, in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, the following trialcourt judges are hereby DESIGNATED Executive


ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER No. 111-2011

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

Judges and Vice Executive Judges of their respectivestations effective August 1, 2011 and to continue untilJuly 31, 2013, or until their successors are designated,

unless their designations are sooner revoked:

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 CIRCULARS18

A.O. No. 111-2011 (continued)

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

SECOND JUDICIAL REGION



THIRD JUDICIAL REGION



A. O. No. 111-2011 (continued)

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

REGION IV-A

REGION IV-B



FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION

SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION




SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION

EIGHTH JUDICIAL REGION

NINTH JUDICIAL REGION


TENTH JUDICIAL REGION

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION

TWELFTH JUDICIAL REGION




A. O. No. 111-2011 (continued)METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES


A. O. No. 111-2011 (continued)MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

SECOND JUDICIAL REGION



The following provisions of the Resolution datedJanuary 27, 2004 in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC are herebyadopted for your information and guidance:

In stations where there is only a single RTC branch,the Presiding Judge thereof shall automatically be theExecutive Judge of the first level courts within hisadministrative area (Sec. 1 (a), Chapter II).

The Executive Judges of multiple branch RTCsshall act as Executive Judges of single-branchMetropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) and Municipal TrialCourts in Cities (MTCCs) as well as of all MunicipalTrial Courts (MTCs) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts(MCTCs) within their respective administrative areas(Sec. 1 (c), Chapter II).

Whenever the Executive Judge is on official leaveof absence or is not physically present in the station,the following shall automatically act as ExecutiveJudge:

(a) In single-branch RTC stations, the Executive Judgeof the RTC of the nearest station in the province.

In case there is only one RTC judge in theprovince, the Executive Judge of the nearest RTCstation as determined in the aforementionedResolution dated January 27, 2004.

(b) In two-branch stations, the remaining judge inthe station, and in default of both for the samereasons, the Executive Judge of the same level ofthe court in the nearest station in the province.The RTC of the nearest station in the province shallbe determined in accordance with theaforementioned Resolution.

(c) In multiple-branch stations with three or morebranches, the First Vice Executive Judge, and indefault for the same reasons, the Second ViceExecutive Judge, shall act as Executive Judge. Indefault of these three judges for the same reasons,as abovementioned, the Third Vice ExecutiveJudge shall act as Executive Judge.

Whenever the Executive Judge and all the ViceExecutive Judges are on official leave of absence or arenot physically present in the station, the judge who isthe most senior in tenure among the permanent judgesin the station shall automatically act as ExecutiveJudge. Should there be two or more judges of equalseniority in the station, the judge who is the mostsenior in the judiciary shall act as Executive Judge.Should there be two or more judges of equal seniorityin the judiciary, the judge who is the most senior inage in the station shall act as Executive Judge.

In all the above instances, the Acting ExecutiveJudge shall so act until the Executive Judge returns oruntil the detail by the Supreme Court of another Judgewho will act as Executive Judge (Sec. 3, Chapter II).

The Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judgesshall serve for a term of two years, or until theirsuccessors are designated, unless their designationsare revoked earlier by the Supreme Court. They maysubsequently be re-designated to the same positions.

In case of the death, retirement, permanentdisability, removal from office, the imposition ofadministrative penalty as provided for in Section 5,Chapter III, resignation or expiration of the term ofoffice of the Executive Judge, the following shallautomatically become the Executive Judge unless theSupreme Court designates another judge as ExecutiveJudge:

(a) The Vice Executive Judge in stations with onlyone Vice Executive judge;

(b) The First Vice Executive Judge in stations withtwo or more Vice Executive Judges. Should theFirst Vice Executive Judge become the ExecutiveJudge pursuant to this Section, the Second ViceExecutive Judge shall, in turn, also automaticallybecome the First Vice Executive Judge, and so on,unless the Supreme Court appoints other judgesas First, Second or Third Vice Executive Judges(Sec. 2, Chapter III).

The imposition upon an Executive Judge or ViceExecutive Judge of an administrative penalty of at leasta reprimand shall automatically operate to divest himof his position as such (Sec. 5, Chapter III).

Executive Judges shall submit their respectiveannual reports to the Court Management Office, Officeof the Court Administrator, on or before 31 July thefollowing year (Sec. 10, Chapter X).

Promulgated this 28th day of July 2011.

(Sgd.) RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice

(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

(Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, Jr. Associate Justice

Chairperson, Third Division

(Per Revised A.M. No. 99-12-88-SC)


ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 15-2011

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT

RE: TRANSFER OF PHYSICAL DELIVERY ANDDISTRIBUTION FUNCTION OF BOOKS FOR THELOWER COURTS, FROM THE SUPREME COURTLIBRARY TO THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR

In line with the function of the Office of the CourtAdministrator to assist the Supreme Court in theexercise of its administrative supervision over alllower courts and in furtherance with the Court’sprogram of providing for a more centralized mannerin the issuance, distribution, and control of propertiesof lower courts, notice is hereby given to all Judgesand Clerks of Court that henceforth, the physicaldelivery and distribution of books for the lower courtsshall no longer be coursed through the Supreme CourtLibrary but will now be made through the Office ofAdministrative Services, Office of the CourtAdministrator. In this regard, all requests foracquisition of books should be addressed to the Officeof the Court Administrator, Supreme Court of thePhilippines, Manila.

Please be guided accordingly.

February 25, 2011.

(Sgd.) RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULARNo. 81-2010

GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OFREPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 (AN ACT GRANTINGADDITIONAL RETIREMENT, SURVIVORSHIP,AND OTHER BENEFITS TO MEMBERS OF THEJUDICIARY, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSEREPUBLIC ACT NO. 910, AS AMENDED,PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOROTHER PURPOSES)

COVERAGE

These guidelines shall apply to all Justices of theSupreme Court (SC), the Court of Appeals (CA), theSandiganbayan (SB), the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA),and Judges of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courtin Cities (MTCC), Municipal Trial Court (MTC),Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Shari’a DistrictCourt (SDC), Shari’a Circuit Court (SCC) or any otherCourt established thereafter.

PURPOSE

To set out the policies and procedures to beobserved regarding the implementation of the grantof additional retirement, survivorship and otherbenefits to the members of the Judiciary as providedunder Republic Act No. 9946 (RA No. 9946) amendingRepublic Act No 910 (RA No. 910).

DEFINITION OF TERMS

1) Salary – the actual basic monthly salary of Justicesand Judges, including step increments andlongevity pay (A.M. No. 03-12-04-SC, Resolution,February 24, 2004) at the rates provided underthe Modified Salary Schedule for CivilianPersonnel pursuant to the Senate and House ofRepresentatives Joint Resolution No. 4 approvedon June 17, 2009, and in accordance with theimplementing guidelines that may be issuedtherefor. The term shall include the amountcorresponding to the Special Allowance for theJudiciary (SAJ) converted into salary pursuant tothe resolution of the Court, dated June 7, 2011, inA.M. No. 07-8-03-SC.

2) Representation Allowance and TransportationAllowance (RATA) – allowance given to officialsat a monthly standard rate in order to defrayrepresentation and transportation expenses whilein the performance of the duties of their positions.The amount of the allowance shall be inaccordance with the rates provided for under theGeneral Appropriations Act of any current year.

3) Other allowances – standard allowances given toall government employees at prescribed rates,guidelines, rules and regulations, such as, but notlimited to, the personnel economic relief allowance(PERA) and the additional compensationallowance, which is now incorporated in thePERA pursuant to Joint Resolution No. 4 asimplemented in Budget Circular No. 2009-3 datedAugust 18, 2009. The term shall include the SAJpursuant to Section 5, Republic Act No. 9227 insuch amount not yet converted to salary pursuantto the resolution of the Court, dated June 7, 2011,in A.M. 07-8-03-SC.

4) Permanent disability – illness or injuryconsidered as permanent disability under existinglaws, rules and regulations and determined andcertified to by the SC Medical and Dental Services.

5) Heirs – those entitled to succeed in the estate ofthe deceased Justice or Judge under the law onsuccession.



6) Surviving spouse – the legitimate spouse of theJustice or Judge.

7) Child – A child of the Justice or Judge entitled tothe benefit.

8) Tuition Fee – the payment for instruction chargedby a state university or college but excludesmiscellaneous fees, such as laboratory fees,medical fees and I.D. fee, and expenses for books,school supplies and board and lodging.

WHO ARE ENTITLED, QUALIFICATIONS ANDBENEFITS

A. COMPULSORY RETIREMENT

1. Justice of the SC, CA, SB, CTA or a Judge of the RTC,MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, SDC, SCC or of anyother Court thereafter established who hasrendered at least 15 years service in the Judiciaryor in any other branch of the government, or inboth, and retires for having attained the age of 70years.

2. Upon retirement, a Justice of the SC, CA, SB, CTAor Judge of the RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC,SDC, SCC or of any other Court thereafterestablished, shall be automatically entitled to alump-sum of five years gratuity computed on thebasis of the highest monthly salary plus thehighest monthly aggregate of RATA and otherallowances such as PERA and ADCOM which he/she was receiving on the date of his/her retirement.

The Justice or Judge with less than 15 yearsservice in the government or judiciary who retiresfor having attained the age of 70 years shallautomatically receive the same benefits asaforementioned.

3. After the expiration of the five-year period, theJustice or Judge shall receive during the residue ofhis/her natural life, a monthly pension equivalentto the highest monthly salary plus the highestmonthly aggregate of RATA and other allowancessuch as PERA and ADCOM which he/she wasreceiving at the time of his/her retirement.

The Justice or Judge with less than 15 yearsservice in the government or judiciary who retiresfor having attained the age of 70 years shall beentitled to a pro rata monthly pension computedas follows:

number of years Basic pay plus the highest monthlyin the govt. or judiciary x aggregate of RATA, PERA, ADCOM

15 years and other allowances

Revised A. C. No. 81-2010 (continued)

4. The Justice or Judge shall be entitled to a non-wagebenefit in favor of one child in the form ofeducation scholarship consisting of free tuitionfee for one Bachelor’s Degree in a state universityor college. The admission of the child entitled tothe benefit shall be subject to the rules andregulations of such state university or college. TheBachelor’s Degree should be completed within theprescribed number of years in the curriculum ofthe state university or college.

B. OPTIONAL RETIREMENT

1. Justice of the SC, CA, SB, CTA or Judge of the RTC,MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, SDC, SCC or any otherCourt thereafter established who has attained theage of 60 years and has rendered at least 15 yearsservice in the government, the last three years ofwhich shall have been continuously rendered inthe Judiciary.

2. Upon retirement, a Justice of the SC, CA, SB, CTAor Judge of the RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC,SDC, SCC or any other Court thereafterestablished, shall be automatically entitled to alump sum of five years gratuity computed on thebasis of the highest monthly salary plus thehighest monthly aggregate of RATA and otherallowances such as PERA and ADCOM which he/she was receiving on the date of his/her retirement.

3. After the expiration of the five-year period, theJustice or Judge shall receive during the residue ofhis/her natural life, a monthly pension equivalentto the highest monthly salary plus the highestmonthly aggregate of RATA and other allowancessuch as PERA and ADCOM which he/she was thenreceiving.

4. The Justice or Judge shall be entitled to non-wagebenefit in favor of one child in the form ofeducation scholarship consisting of free tuitionfee for one Bachelor’s Degree in a state universityor college, subject to the following guidelines:

(A) All applications for entitlement to theeducation scholarship shall be submittedon or before April 30 of each year to theOffice of Administrative Services of theSupreme Court for children of Justices ofthe Supreme Court, the Office ofAdministrative Services of each of thecollegiate appellate courts for children ofJustices of said courts, and the Office ofthe Administrative Services of the Office


Court thereafter established, who retires byreason of any permanent disability contractedduring the Justice’s or Judge’s incumbency in officeand prior to the date of retirement, shall be entitledto receive a gratuity equivalent to 10 years on thebasis of the highest monthly salary plus the highestmonthly aggregate of RATA and other allowancessuch as PERA and ADCOM which he/she wasreceiving on the date of his/her retirement.

b. Should the Justice or Judge survive after 10 years,he/she shall continue to receive during the residueof his/her natural life a monthly pension equivalentto the highest monthly salary plus the highestmonthly aggregate of RATA and other allowancessuch as PERA and ADCOM which he/she was thenreceiving, provided that such Justice or Judge hasrendered at least 15 years of government service.

The Justice or Judge with less than 15 yearsservice in the government or Judiciary shall beentitled to a pro rata monthly pension computedas follows:



c. The Justice or Judge shall be entitled to a non-wagebenefit in favor of one child in the form of educationscholarship consisting of free tuition fee for oneBachelor’s Degree in a state university or college.The admission of the child entitled to the benefitshall be subject to the rules and regulations of suchstate university or college. The Bachelor’s Degreeshould be completed within the prescribednumber of years in the curriculum of the stateuniversity or college.

2. Partial Permanent Disability

a. Justice of the SC, CA, SB, CTA or Judge of the RTC,MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, SDC, SCC or any otherCourt thereafter established, who retires at theage of 70 years, with the attendance of any partialpermanent disability contracted during his/herincumbency and prior to the date of retirement,shall receive an additional gratuity equivalent totwo years lump sum that he/she is entitled toreceive.

b. Should the Justice or Judge survive after sevenyears, he/she shall continue to receive during theresidue of his/her natural life a monthly pensionequivalent to the highest monthly salary plus thehighest monthly aggregate of RATA and other


of the Court Administrator of theSupreme Court for the children of Judgesof the First and Second level courts.

(B) The application letter of a child-beneficiary shall indicate the stateuniversity or college of his or her choice,which should be furnished a copy of theapplication, attaching certified truecopies of: (i) the birth certificate dulyissued by the proper government agency,and (ii) the report card (Form 138) if he orshe is a high school graduate or thetranscript of records if he or she alreadyhas a college degree or has startedcollege education.

(C) The respective Offices of AdministrativeServices shall: (i) verify the authenticityof the documents attached to theapplication letter; and (ii) recommend theproper action to the Supreme Court,through the Chief Justice, or the propercollegiate appellate court, through thePresiding Justice. Upon approval of theapplication, the proper Office ofAdministrative Services shall so informthe state university or college chosen bythe child-beneficiary.

(D) A child-beneficiary presently studying incollege may avail of the educationscholarship to complete his course or optto take up another course provided thathe or she shall inform the Supreme Courtof his or her option.

(E) The Bachelor’s Degree may include thelaw course provided it is completedwithin the period specified in thecurriculum.

(F) These guidelines shall apply to a child-beneficiary of a Justice or Judge whoavails of optional retirement, permanentdisability retirement, partial permanentdisability retirement, or other modes ofcessation from judicial service as may beprovided for by law.

C. PERMANENT DISABILITY RETIREMENT

1. Total Permanent Disability

a. Justice of the SC, CA, SB, CTA or Judge of the RTC,MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, SDC, SCC or any other



allowances such as PERA and ADCOM which he/she was then receiving, provided such Justice orJudge has rendered at least 15 years of governmentservice.

The Justice or Judge with less than 15 yearsservice in the government or judiciary who retiresfor having attained the age of 70 years shall beentitled to a pro rata monthly pension computedas follows:



c. A Justice or Judge who retired with the attendanceof any partial permanent disability five years priorto the effectivity of RA No. 9946 shall be entitled tothe same benefits provided for under said Act.

d. The Justice or Judge shall be entitled to a non-wagebenefit in favor of one child in the form ofeducation scholarship consisting of free tuition feefor one Bachelor’s Degree in a state university orcollege. The admission of the child entitled to thebenefit shall be subject to the rules and regulationsof such state university or college. The Bachelor’sDegree should be completed within the prescribednumber of years in the curriculum of the stateuniversity or college.

D. DEATH

1. The heirs of a Justice of the SC, CA, SB, CTA, or aJudge of the RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, SDC,SCC or any other Court thereafter established whodies while in actual service, regardless of his/herage and length of service, shall receive a lump sumof five years gratuity computed on the basis of thehighest monthly salary plus the highest monthlyaggregate of RATA and other allowances such asPERA and ADCOM received by him/her as suchJustice or Judge.

2. The heirs of the deceased Justice or Judge who hasrendered at least 15 years service either in theJudiciary or in any other branch of Government,or both, shall be entitled to a lump sum of 10 yearsgratuity computed on the basis of the highestmonthly salary plus the highest monthlyaggregate of RATA and other allowances such asPERA and ADCOM received by him/her as suchJustice or Judge.

3. The heirs of a Justice or Judge who is killed becauseof his/her work as such, shall receive the lump

sum of 10 years gratuity provided that the Justiceor Judge has served the government for at leastfive years regardless of age at the time of death.Should the government service be less than fiveyears, the heirs shall receive a lump sum of fiveyears gratuity (A.M. No. 02-12-01-SC, dated

September 30, 2003).

4. It is presumed that death is work-related when aJustice or Judge is killed intentionally while in the

service.

E. SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS

The legitimate surviving spouse of a Justice orJudge who (1) has retired or was eligible to retireoptionally at the time of death; and (2) was receivingor would have been entitled to receive a monthlypension, shall be entitled to receive the said benefitsthat the deceased Justice or Judge would have receivedhad the Justice or Judge not died. The surviving spouseshall continue to receive such retirement benefits untilthe surviving spouse’s death or remarriage.

F. OTHER ENTITLEMENTS

1. All pension benefits of retired members of theJudiciary shall be automatically increasedwhenever there is an increase in the salary ofthe same position from which he/she retired.

2. The benefits under RA No. 9946 shall begranted to all those who have retired prior toits effectivity, provided that the benefits shallbe applicable only to members of the Judiciaryand the benefits to be granted shall beprospective, beginning February 11, 2010, thedate of effectivity of RA No. 9946.

3. The implementing guidelines provided hereinshall be applicable to officials of the Judiciarywho have been granted the rank, salary andprivileges of a member of the Judiciary subjectto the conditions set forth in the resolutions,dated December 9, 2008 and February 17, 2009,in A.M. No. 11838-Ret.

PROHIBITIONS TO ENTITLEMENT TO PENSION

1. A retired Justice of the SC, CA, SB, CTA or Judge of theRTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, SDC, SCC or his/her surviving spouse receiving the benefits of RANo. 9946 during the time that he/she is receiving



said pension shall not appear as counsel before anycourt in any civil case wherein the government orany subdivision or instrumentality thereof is theadverse party, or in any criminal case wherein anincumbent or former office or employee of thegovernment is accused of an offense committed inrelation to his/her office, or collect any fee for his/herappearance in any administrative proceedings tomaintain an interest to the Government, National,Provincial or municipal, or to any of its legallyconstituted offices.

2. The member of the Judiciary or his/her survivingspouse who assumes an elective public office, shallnot, upon assumption of office and during his/herterm, receive the monthly pension due to him/her.

3. The surviving spouse who remarries shall nolonger be entitled to the survivorship benefit.

REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES

The requirements and procedures for entitlementto and release of benefits under RA No. 9946, amendingRA No. 910, shall be in accordance with the guidelineshereto attached as Annex “A.”

FUNDING

The amount necessary for the initialimplementation of RA No. 9946 shall be chargedagainst the current year’s savings of the respectivecourts from which the Justice or Judge retires.Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for itscontinued implementation shall be included in theannual General Appropriations Act.

IMPLEMENTATION

The Office of Administrative Services and theFiscal Management and Budget Office of the SupremeCourt and the Office of Administrative Services andthe Financial Management Office of the Office of theCourt Administrator shall forthwith implement this.

All provisions of issuances inconsistent with theherein guidelines are hereby revoked.

This guidelines shall take effect upon its approval.

Issued this 6th day of September 2011.

(Sgd.) RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice


EN BANCNOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued aResolution dated SEPTEMBER 6, 2011, which reads asfollows:

A.M. No. l0-7-6-SC (Re: Request of Association ofRetired RTC Judges of the Philippines for theImmediate Implementation of Republic Act No.9946). – The Court Resolved to

(a) NOTE the Memorandum dated August 25,2011 of Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerkof Court and Chief Administrative Officer;and

(b) APPROVE the

(i) Revised Administrative Circular No. 81-2010(Guidelines on the Implementation ofRepublic Act No. 9946 [An Act GrantingAdditional Benefits to Members of theJudiciary, Amending for the Purpose RepublicAct No. 910, as amended, Providing FundsTherefor and for Other Purposes]), with thefollowing amendments:

(1) deletion of the words “minor ” and“whether legitimate or not” in paragraph7 in the Definition of Terms of “Child”;

(2) addition of paragraph 8 defining “TuitionFee”;

(3) amendment of paragraph 4 on page 5;and

(4) amendments of the definition of –

“Salary” under no. 1 to make itconsistent with the resolution datedJune 7, 2011 in A.M. No. 07-5-10-SC(In re: General Appropriations Actfor FY 2007 [Republic Act No. 9401])and A.M. No. 07-8-03-SC (In re:Query on the Effect of the 10 PercentSalary Increase under ExecutiveOrder No. 611 on the SpecialAllowance for the Judiciary ofJustices, Judges and Court Officialswith Equivalent Rank of Court ofAppeals Justices or RTC Judges);and

“Other allowances” under no. 3; and



(ii) Draft Memorandum of Agreement betweenthe Supreme Court and a state university,as modified by deleting the secondWHEREAS clause found on page 2 thereof.”Sereno, J., on leave. Reyes, J., on official

leave. (adv191)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E.VIDAL Clerk of Court

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 86-2011

TO: ALL JUDGES AND PERSONNEL OF THELOWER COURTS

SUBJECT: MAXIMUM PERIOD OF VACATIONLEAVE OF LOWER COURT OFFICIALS ANDPERSONNEL

For the information and guidance of all concerned,quoted hereunder is the Resolution dated February 1,2011, of the Honorable Court En Banc:

A.M. No. 09-7-03-O (Setting of the MaximumPeriod of Vacation Leave of Lower CourtOfficials and Personnel). – The Court Resolvedto AMEND the resolution of November 23, 2010,to provide that the maximum period for vacationleave of absence including the extension thereof,whether to be spent abroad or within thePhilippines, be extended to a maximum period of30 working days, except in cases of study leave/scholarship grants or sick leave with medicalcertificate.

Please be guided accordingly.

July 5, 2011.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator


TO: ALL COURT PERSONNEL

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR THE ISSUANCE OFAUTHORITY FOR COURT PERSONNEL WHO AREACCREDITED MEDIATORS UNDER THE COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION PROGRAM

Pursuant to Part IV, par. 6, and Part VI, par. 13,Implementing Rules and Regulations on Mediation in

the Trial Courts, adopted by the Supreme Court inResolution No. 02-04, dated March 23, 2004, in A.M.No. 04-3-15-SC-PHILJA, court personnel are allowedto act as mediators under certain restrictions providedtherein. Moreover, under Section D, par. 4, SecondRevised Guidelines for the Payment of Mediators’ Feesissued by SC-PHILJA on March 1, 2011, the authorityto mediate for court personnel shall be issued by theOffice of the Court Administrator. Accordingly, courtpersonnel are authorized by this Office to act asmediators under the Court-Annexed MediationProgram subject to the following parameters:

1. The court personnel must conduct mediation onlyoutside of regular office hours, when on leave, orwhen specifically authorized by this Office and/or under existing rules of the Supreme Court (e.g.,Sec. 3, Rule 3, Rules of Procedure for EnvironmentalCases, in A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, directing the courtto refer for mediation an environmental case to abranch clerk of court or legal researcher in theabsence of a Philippine Mediation Center Unit);

2. The court personnel must comply with allSupreme Court and civil service regulationspertaining to time, salaries and other disciplinaryrules applicable to them.

For information and guidance.

July 19, 2011.



TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIALCOURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPALCIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICTCOURTS AND SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS

SUBJECT: AUTHORIZING THE COURTADMINISTRATOR TO ACT ON AND APPROVEREQUESTS OF LOWER COURTS FOR THE HIRINGOF SERVICES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGEINTERPRETERS IN ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGSIN COURTS

For the information and guidance of all courtsconcerned, quoted hereunder is the Memorandumdated May 25, 2011, which was approved by theHonorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona on May 30,2011, granting the Court Administrator authority toact on and approve requests of lower courts to hire



1 Authorizing the Court Administrator to Act on and Approve

Requests of Lower Courts for the Hiring of Sign Language

Interpreters

2 Guidelines on the Payment of the Services of a Hired Sign

Language Interpreter

the services of foreign language interpreters in actionsor proceedings where such service/s would berendered, to wit:

x x x x

The Court, acting on previous similar requests

on the hiring of services of sign language

interpreters, issued Memorandum Order No. 59-

2004 dated September 10, 2004,1 authorized the

Court Administrator to act on and grant requests

of trial court judges to hire the services of sign

language interpreters in actions or proceedings

where such services would be rendered.

Subsequently, OCA Circular No. 104-2007 dated

October 18, 20072 was issued providing guidelines

on the payment of service/s rendered by a hired

sign language interpreter, to wit:

x x x x

1. Upon recommendation of the

Presiding Judge and after

confirmation/approval of the Court

Administrator, the designated sign

language interpreter shall render

the services required.

2. For payment of the services

rendered, the designated sign

language interpreter shall submit

the following documents to the

Finance Division, FMO-OCA;

a) Confirmation Approval by the

Court Administrator of the

designation as sign language

interpreter;

b) Certificate of appearance

issued by the Branch Clerk of

Court of Officer in Charge;

c) Certified copy of the minutes of

the hearing.

3. For cases to be heard within the

NCJR, the designated sign language

interpreter shall be entitled to a fee

to be fixed by the Court

Administrator on a per day or per

appearance basis.

4. For cases to be heard outside the

NCJR, the sign language interpreter

shall likewise be entitled to an

additional expense allowance and

traveling and transportation

allowance subject to the guidelines

set forth under SC Administrative

Circular No. 15-2005 dated March 22,

2005, if the sign language interpreter

shall come from the NCJR. However,

where there is an available sign

language interpreter outside the

NCJR, they shall only be entitled to

the fee fixed by the Court

Administrator.

The amount specified for the

purpose shall be chargeable against

the savings in appropriations for the

lower courts, subject to the

compliance of Item No. 2 hereof.

In the interest of the service, and in order to avoid

delays in the processing of analogous requests

of lower courts, the Court may similarly authorize

the Court Administrator to act on and grant

requests of trial court judges to hire the services

of foreign language interpreters, such as German,

Japanese, Chinese interpreters and the like, in

actions or proceedings where such services

would be rendered. The guidelines set forth in

the payment of service/s rendered by a hired

sign language interpreter as cited in OCA Circular

No. 104-2007, may likewise be adopted for

purposes of the payment of services of hired

foreign language interpreter/s.

In view of the foregoing, we respectfully

recommend for the consideration of the

Honorable Court that the Court Administrator be

GIVEN authority to act on and grant requests of

lower court judges to hire the services of foreign

language interpreters in actions or proceedings

where such services would be rendered, subject

to the guidelines on the payment of service/s

rendered set forth in OCA Circular No. 104-2007

dated October 18, 2007.

For your information and guidance.

July 19, 2011.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ

Court Administrator

OCA Circular No. 102-2011 (continued)



TO: ALL CONCERNED JUDGES OF THE FIRSTLEVEL COURTS OF MANILA, QUEZON CITY,PASAY CITY AND MAKATI CITY

SUBJECT: REITERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVECIRCULAR NO. 58-2002 (REQUIRINGEXPEDITIOUS DISPOSITION OF CRIMINALCASES INVOLVING TOURISTS) ANDADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 19-2011(ESTABLISHING NIGHT COURTS IN THEMETROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS OF PASAY CITYAND MAKATI CITY)

The National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM)

through its Police Director General and Chief, Atty.

Raul M. Bacalzo, has invited the attention of this Office

that despite the Court’s issuance of Administrative

Circular No. 58-2002 dated November 14, 2002, that

enjoins the lower courts to prioritize the criminal cases

involving tourists, the clamor of both foreign and local

tourists, who are victims of crimes in the country, for

immediate police response and speedy disposition of

their cases has continuously occurred. Such situation

may adversely affect our tourism industry because of

the impression that the Philippines is not a safe haven

for tourists.

Relative thereto, it must be emphasized that aside

from Administrative Circular No. 58-2002, the Court

in its Administrative Order No. 19-2011 dated January

27, 2011, (Establishing Night Courts in the

Metropolitan Trial Courts of Pasay City and Makati

City), reiterated that trial courts should judiciously

dispose criminal cases involving tourists.

Henceforth, in order to fully apprise all concerned

judges to give preferential attention to criminal cases

involving tourists and to ultimately address the

speedy and efficient disposition of criminal cases filed

against them with the lower courts, the following

provisions are hereby reiterated, to wit:

Administrative Circular No. 58-2002

x x x x

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the Resolution

of September 10, 2002 in A.M. No. 02-8-12-SC (Re:

In the Matter of the Creation of Night Courts or

Special Tourist Courts Exclusively to Attend to Tourist-

Related Crimes), it is hereby directed that:

1. Criminal Cases where the offended party or

complainant is a tourist or transient in this

country shall be given priority in disposition

in accordance with the pertinent provisions

of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

and decided within 24 hours from the date of

filing in court;

2. All Executive Judges are directed to inform

the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the

Prosecutor ’s Office of the provisions of

Administrative Circular No. 2-99 dated

January 15, 1999, specifically the assignment

of judges on duty every Saturday and the

court’s duty to act on bailable offenses on

Saturday afternoon, Sundays and non-

working holidays; and

3. The Executive Judges of the Regional Trial

Courts of Manila and Quezon City shall (a)

inform the PNP and the Prosecutor’s Office

within their jurisdiction of the schedule of

the branches of the first level courts

assigned to hold night sessions; and (b)

make representations with the PNP and local

government units to ensure that appropriate

security measures are adopted to protect

judges and their staff on night sessions.

Administrative Order No. 19-2011

x x x x

WHEREFORE, it is hereby directed that:

x x x x

4. The provisions of Administrative Circular

No. 58-2002, dated November 14, 2002,

requiring an expeditious disposition of

criminal cases involving tourists be complied

with; and

5. The Executive Judges of the Metropolitan

Trial Courts of Pasay City and Makati City

(a) inform the Philippine National Police

(PNP) and the Prosecutor’s Office within their

respective jurisdictions of the schedule of

the branches of the metropolitan trial courts

assigned to hold night sessions; and (b)

make representations with the PNP and the

local government units to ensure that

appropriate security measures are adopted

to protect the judges and their staff during

night sessions. (Italics emphasized)

For your information, guidance and strict

compliance.

August 12, 2011.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ

Court Administrator



TO: COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN,COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIALCOURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS,METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPALTRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIALCOURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTSAND SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON WHEN A PERSONCONSIDERED FORMALLY CHARGED

Pursuant to the Decision of the Supreme Court in

Crisostomo M. Plopinio v. Atty. Liza Zabala-Cariño,

A.M. No. P-08-2458 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2755-

P), promulgated on March 22, 2010, directing the

Office of the Court Administrator to cause the

dissemination of the guidelines as to when a person

shall be considered formally charged, please be

informed that a person shall be considered charged:

(1) In administrative proceedings – (a) upon the filing

of a complaint at the instance of the disciplining

authority; or (b) upon the finding of the existence

of a prima facie case by the disciplining authority,

in case of a complaint filed by a private person.

(2) In criminal proceedings – (a) upon the finding of

the existence of probable cause by the

investigating prosecutor and the consequent

filing of an information in court with the required

prior written authority or approval of the

provincial or city prosecutor or chief state

prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy;

(b) upon the finding of the existence of probable

cause by the public prosecutor or by the judge

in cases not requiring a preliminary investigation

nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure;

or (c) upon the finding of cause or ground to hold

the accused for trial pursuant to Section 13 of

the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. (Italics

emphasized.)

For proper guidance.

August 24, 2011.

(Sgd.) NIMFA C. VILCHES

Deputy Court Administrator

and Officer in Charge

Office of the Court Administrator


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THEREGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

SUBJECT: FOR THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITORGENERAL (OSG) TO BE FURNISHED WITHCOPIES OF DECISIONS

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through

Solicitor General, Hon. Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz,

informed this Office that they are undertaking a

similar project which may complement the

Honorable Chief Justice’s project to clear up court files.

It established the OSG’s Case Inventory Update Project

which shall address the proper monitoring of the

agency’s cases with the trial courts, particularly those

that had already been decided. One of the problems

that surfaced is the presence of numerous cases,

mostly before the trial courts, where the OSG has not

received yet to date the status of said cases and/ or

provided with copies of the decisions if already

rendered.

Relative thereto, the OSG requested that it be

furnished with copies of decisions, subject to its

acknowledgment of the same upon receipt thereof, so

that the files on the trial courts can also be finally

closed, and with the laudable objective that said

documents shall be digitized and stored in the OSG’s

database.

Henceforth, you are DIRECTED to furnish the

OSG with copies of decisions at the following address:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village

Makati City, Philippines

Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.

September 14, 2011.



3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial BuildingPadre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila 1000Philippines

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

20112011201120112011 Upcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA Events20112011201120112011 Upcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA Events

volume xiii, issue no. 51 july-september 2011

Documents