From the Chancellor’s Deskphilja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bulletin/Bul70.pdf · 2019-11-19 ·...

1Volume XVIII Issue No. 70

Volume XVIII Issue No. 70April–June 2016 ISSN 2244-5862

It was business as usual for PHILJA in the months of April, May and June 2016. Various regular programs such as the respective Orientation Seminar-Workshops for Newly Appointed Judges (75th and 76th), for Newly Appointed Clerks of Court (31st), and for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process Servers (8th) were successively held, along with an Orientation Seminar for Judges and Court Decongestion Officers (2 batches). Two Pre-Judicature Programs (37th and 38th), a Career Development Program for Court Legal Researchers of the Visayas, a Judicial Career Enhancement Program for First Level Court Judges of Region XI, and the Career Enhancement Programs for Court Librarians and Regional Trial Court Sheriffs of the NCJR (Batch 4) were likewise conducted during this quarter.

The Training Seminar on the 2016 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure for Small Claims Cases for the First Level Court made up a good part of our special focus programs at this time as we carried out six such activities for Judges and their respective Clerks of Court of Judicial Regions II, III, IX, XI, X and XII, and one exclusively for the Clerks of Court of Judicial Region I.

A significant number of other special focus seminar-workshops were also carried out such as the Training of Trainers (TOT) for the Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Online Sexual Exploitation of Children Cases (CET-OSEC) which was followed by the pilot of the Program itself; two batches of Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children (CET-Child); a Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of Judicial Region IV; four batches of Seminar on Election Laws for Judges; Seminar-Workshop for Selected Judges on Financial Crimes and Money Laundering; and a Seminar on the Financial Liquidation and Suspension of Payments (FLSP) Rules of Procedure for Court of Appeals Justices (Cebu City Station), Special Commercial Court Judges and Pairing Court Judges of Regions VI to VIII were also held.

In keeping with the changing times, PHILJA introduced relevant training in the field of Cybercrime such as the Basic and Advanced Judicial Training on Cybercrime for Judges and held the Judiciary Conference on Cybercrime. Our program partner for this activity is the Council of Europe (COE)–Global Action on Cybercrime (GLACY) Project. Last June, the Module and Handbook on the Advanced Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors,

Legal Researchers, Social Workers and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons Cases (ACET-TIP) was launched in a well-attended affair which was graced by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno and Australian Ambassador Amanda Gorely. Australia–Asia Program to Combat Trafficking in Persons (AAPTIP), our program partner in the fight against TIP, had their key officials Mr. Willem Pretorius and Ms. Krystal Thompson fly in from their Headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand to attend the launch.

In the curriculum review front, the Validation Workshop with the Academic Council as well as the Fifth Plenary Assembly of the PHILJA Corps of Professors and Lecturers also took place this quarter.

The 2016 Founding Chancellor Emeritus Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera Award for the Most Outstanding Professorial Lecturer was delivered by Prof. Sedfrey M. Candelaria, Dean of the Ateneo School of Law and Head of our Research, Publications and Linkages Office. The topic was “The Millennial Judge: Judicial Education at the Crossroads.”

The Academy extended a helping hand in the 17th National Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE).

The Academy, through the Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO), also conducted a handful of activities supporting Alternative Dispute Resolution such as a Basic Mediation Course for the Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Aurora Mediation Programs; a Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators (Skills Enhancement Course) for the Misamis

From the Chancellor’s Desk

(Continued on page 2)

Judges listen as a COMELEC representative explains the features of the Vote Counting Machine (VCM) during one of the four seminars on election laws for judges conducted by the Academy in April at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

2 April–June 2016

Oriental, Misamis Occidental, Lanao del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur Mediation Programs; the Lanao del Norte and Bukidnon Mediation Programs; the La Union, Benguet and Pangasinan Mediation Programs, as well as the Panay and Bacolod Mediation Programs. Two batches of the Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar (WOSES) for PMCU Staff were also held, along with the respective Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Mediation for Agusan del Norte and Agusan del Sur Mediation Programs. A Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees and PMC Unit Staff for the Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino Mediation Programs likewise took place.

The following activities in furtherance of Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) were also held by the PMCO: two batches of Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges (Skills-based Course); two batches of Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court and two batches of Orientation of Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, and Law Practitioners.

We also took note of new rulings, doctrinal reminders, resolutions, circulars, and orders of the Court as well as of the Office of the Court Administrator.

To our officials and staff, keep up the good work and let us continue giving our best to the Academy.

To our development partners, thank you for your valuable support as we pursue our common goal.

To the Supreme Court, we are very grateful for the unwavering support to PHILJA in all our training programs and activities.

All the best. ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Chancellor

From the Chancellor’s Desk(Continued from page 1)

Contents

From the Chancellor’s Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Judicial Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Training Programs and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Judicial Moves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

First Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Doctrinal Reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ResolutionsA.M. No. 03-03-03-SC – Amendment of A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC Dated June 17, 2003, For the Expansion of the Coverage of Cases Cognizable by Special Commercial Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CircularsOCA Circular No. 75-2016 – Guidelines on On-the-Job Training and Legal Apprenticeship Program for College and Law Students in the Lower Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 76-2016 – Guidelines on the Holding of Organization Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 87-2016 – Prohibition Against the Issuance of Injunctions or Restraining Orders Against Government Agencies Enforcing Environmental Laws and Preventing Violations Thereof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 88-2016 – Delegation by the Chief of the Philippine National Police of Authority to Personally Endorse or Authorize Applications for Search Warrants to Key Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 105-2016 – Posting of Notices Announcing the Observation of the Records Disposal Period for the Whole Month of July 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 122-2016 – Records Retrieval Request Form for the Retrieval of Residual Records under A.M. No. 07-3-09-SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 128-2016 – Forms to be Accomplished and Submitted in Recommending Applicants for Vacancies in the Lower Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 131A-2016 – Unauthorized Practice of Consolidation and Lumping of Newly-Filed Cases Prior to Raffle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 139-2016 – Supplement to OCA Circular No. 128-2016 Re: Forms to be Accomplished and Submitted in Recommending Applicants for Vacancies in the Lower Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 140-2016 – Amendment to OCA Circular No. 71-2003, Guidelines in the Submission of Performance Rating for Lower Court Officials and Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 141-2016 – Internship Program for Mediation Trainees on Court-Annexed Mediation . . . . . .

OCA Circular No. 142-2016 – Internship Program for Mediation Trainees on Court-Annexed Mediation . . . . . .

1

3

8

22

24

24

32

33

34

35

35

36

37

39

40

40

40

42

42

OrdersMemorandum Order No. 24-2016 – Appointing the SC Deputy Division Clerk of Court in the Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Memorandum Order No. 28-2016 – Creating the Judiciary-Wide Committee on Health Care Benefits of Justices, Judges and Certain High Level Officials of the Judiciary . . .

Administrative Order No. 67-2016 – Creation of Performance Management Teams (PMTS) in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and Lower Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Administrative Order No. 121-2016 – Creating Task Force Katarungan at Kalayaan in the National Capital Judicial Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Third Quarter Training Programs and Activities . . . .

43

43

44

45

48


II. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9344

Republic Act No. 9344 was passed by the two Houses of Congress on March 22, 200619 and was approved by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on April 23, 2006. It took effect on May 20, 2006.20

The law, establishes a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and Welfare System and covers the “different stages involving children at risk and children in conflict with the law from prevention to rehabilitation and reintegration.”21 A “child at risk” is defined as a child who is vulnerable to and at risk of committing criminal offenses because of personal, family and social circumstances while a child in conflict with the law is defined as a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine Laws. Republic Act No. 9344 holds children accountable for their crimes but with substantially different methods and a standard of accountability separate and distinct from the adult criminal justice system.

The Law itself sets forth several new terms and defines these terms accordingly. It states a number of basic principles in the administration of juvenile justice and welfare, including the prevention of juvenile delinquency, and emphasizes the role of the family, together with the local government units and the community, in instituting intervention programs for children below the age of criminal responsibility and children at risk. With respect to children in conflict with the law, the law enumerates the rights of these children, prohibits their

detention in jails and provides for alternatives to detention. It lays down the procedure in taking the child into custody and, for the first time, expressly and specifically provides that the child undergo diversion proceedings before the Katarungang Pambarangay or the police or Public Prosecutor as well as the court, whenever applicable. For children in conflict with the law not subject to diversion proceedings and whose cases go to trial, the law grants the child the benefit of automatic suspension of service of sentence and, furthermore, provides for disposition measures that will facilitate the return and reintegration of the child to his family and the community. The law mandates the establishment of youth detention homes by local government units and the creation of post-release community-based programs for the reintegration of such children to their respective families and communities, and thereby prevent their re-offending. The law enhances public safety by providing measures and early intervention strategies to prevent the commission of crimes.

Another major feature of the law is the creation of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC). The JJWC principally oversees the implementation of the law and is tasked to develop a comprehensive juvenile intervention program and improve the administration of the juvenile justice and welfare system in the country. The JJWC used to be under the Department of Justice but is now under the administrative supervision of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) by virtue by RA No. 10630,22 which amended RA No. 9344.

The provisions of RA No. 9344 are based on the fundamental policy that the state shall protect the “best interest” of the child through measures that will ensure the observance of international standards of child protection under international law, especially those to which the Philippines is a party. In furtherance of this policy, the law expressly provides that pursuant to Article 40 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the State shall also ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being by providing a variety of disposition measures

Children in Conflict with the Law and Court Diversion Procedure:Restorative Justice in Action* **Hon. ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE

Presiding JudgeRegional Trial Court, Branch 106, Quezon City

* Paper first delivered by Power Point presentation at (1) the Philippine Judicial Academy in its training program entitled “Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children,” July 2010; and (2) the Regional Convention of the Asia Pacific Region of the International Association of Women Judges, Taal Vista Hotel, Tagaytay City, on May 14, 2015.

** Second of four-part series19 The law is entitled “An Act Establishing a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice

and Welfare System, Creating the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council under the Department of Justice, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes.” It is simply known as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.”

20 People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011.

21 Sec. 1, RA No. 9344. 22 RA No. 10630 was passed on June 5, 2013 and took effect on October 25,

2013.

4 April–June 2016

such as care, guidance and supervision orders, counselling, probation, foster care, education and vocational training programs and other alternatives to institutional care. In support thereof, the law itself declares that the State adopts the provisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Justice or “Beijing Rules,” the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency or the “Riyadh Guidelines” and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty23 or the “Havana Rules.”24 Finally, the State is mandated to apply the “principles of restorative justice” in all its laws, policies and programs applicable to children in conflict with the law.25

All cases involving the CICL are under the jurisdiction of the family courts as provided in RA No. 8639, or the Family Courts Act of 1997.26 At present, the family courts are actually Regional Trial Courts designated as family courts by the Supreme Court,27 pursuant to the Transitory Provisions of RA No. 8369. To date, there are 121 Regional Trial Courts designated as family courts all over the country.

A. Restorative Justice

The framework of RA No. 9344 is the principle of restorative justice. Restorative Justice is defined in the law as:

A principle which requires a process of resolving conflicts with the maximum involvement of the victim, the offender and the community. It seeks to obtain reparation for the victim, reconciliation of the offender, the offended and the community; and reassurance to the offender that he/she can be reintegrated into society. It also enhances public safety by activating the offender, the victim and the community in prevention strategies.28

The concept and philosophy of restorative justice emerged during the 1970s and 1980s in the United States and Canada in conjunction with a practice that required reconciliation between the offender and the victim.29 This practice started with burglary and other property crimes although the coverage was later expanded to include other offenses and even severe forms of criminal violence.30 The goal of restorative justice

was to transform the way contemporary societies view and respond to crime and related forms of troublesome behavior by not simply controlling crime but by dealing with it more effectively and at the same time, accomplishing a host of other desirable goals.31 In countries with traditional societies and indigenous communities, conflict-resolution processes and mechanisms between the victim, offender and society existed and were highly functional. It was discovered that in New Zealand, Africa and North American indigenous communities, there existed traditional models that could operate within the realities of the modern legal system which models were subsequently adopted into the legal system as forms of restorative justice.32 In the specific area of juvenile justice, this principle likewise received much interest and publicity as an intervention for young people who have offended and oftentimes have become an integral part of a number of specific youth justice orders and programmes in different countries.33

In 1999, the United Nations Economic and Social Council adopted a Resolution encouraging member-States to use mediation and restorative justice in appropriate cases and called on the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice to consider the development of guidelines on the use of these programs. The Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, held in Vienna in May 2000, included “fairness to victims and offenders” as one of its four substantive topics and encouraged governments to expand their use of restorative justice in the criminal justice system.34 Restorative Justice thus became a world-wide movement.35

There is no single definition of restorative justice.36 Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as an “alternative delinquency sanction that focuses on repairing the harm done, meeting the victim’s needs and holding the offender for his or her actions.” Restorative justice sanctions use a balanced approach, producing the least restrictive disposition while stressing the offender’s accountability and simultaneously providing relief to the victim. The offender may be ordered to make restitution, to perform community service, or to make amends in some other way that the court orders.37

23 Sec. 5, last par., RA No. 9344.24 See UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 10

[2007]; Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice, April 25, 2007, CRC/C/GC/10, available at <http://www.refworld.org/docid/4670fca.12.html> accessed May 5, 2015.

25 Sec. 2(f), RA No. 9344.26 Sec. 5(a), RA No. 8369.27 See Sec. 17, Transitory Provisions, RA No. 8369.28 Sec. 4(q), RA No. 9344.29 Howard Zehr, The Little Book of Restorative Justice, p. 42 (Good Books,

Intercourse, PA 17534) (2002).30 In some communities, restorative approaches are available for crimes

such as death from drunken driving, assault, rape, even murder, see Zehr, Id., at p. 4.

31 Gerry Johnstone and Daniel W. Van Ness, “The Meaning of Restorative Justice,” Handbook of Restorative Justice, Chapter 1 (Willan, 2006), found in ilib, University of the Philippines Integrated Library System.

32 Id. at 43.33 Martin Stephenson, Henri Giller and Sally Brown, “Restorative Justice,”

Effective Practice in Youth Justice, p. 161 (Willan Publishing, 2007).34 Allison Morris and Gabrielle Maxwell, “Restorative Justice in New

Zealand,” Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice Competing or Reconcilable Paradigms, p. 237 (Hart Publishing, 2003).

35 Id.36 Id.37 Id.

Judicial Views (continued)


In broad terms, restorative justice processes bring victims and offenders into contact, whether directly or indirectly, so that victims can receive answers to their questions, tell the offender what the impact of their offending was, and receive an apology from the offender.38 It means encouraging offenders to understand the impact of their behavior, the harms they have done—and urging them to take responsibility for their actions and be accountable for their behavior.39 It gives young people the chance to take responsibility and make amends for their crime through apologizing and making reparation either to the victim or to the community.40 The aim is to repair the harm caused by the crime and recognizes that crime harms society as a whole and, at the same time, brings the wider community into decision-making to find a way to repair the harm caused by crime.41

Through restorative justice, controlling crime is more effective and accomplishing a host of other goals becomes possible—victims of crime experience healing of the trauma they suffer; offenders become genuinely accountable for their actions; the family and community collaborate and cooperate to prepare a favorable environment for the successful reintegration of the offender into society and thereby prevent re-offending; constructive projects of crime prevention and community development are created and implemented that may result in social capital, significant fiscal savings for the state42 and, ultimately, social regeneration.

Restorative justice is a field largely grounded in practice and has several practice models. Three distinctive models have tended to dominate and these are: victim-offender conferences, family group conferences and circle approaches.43 Each involves an encounter with a preference for face-to-face meetings between key stakeholders—victim and offender at minimum, and other community and people involved in the criminal justice system as well.44 These encounters are led by facilitators who oversee and guide the process, making sure that all the parties are involved. Unlike arbitrators, facilitators for conferences or circles do not impose settlement. Each model allows an opportunity for participants to explore facts, feelings and resolutions. They are encouraged to tell their stories, to ask questions, to express their feelings and to work toward mutually acceptable outcomes.45

Victim-offender conferences primarily involve victims and offenders who are guided by a trained facilitator. When family

members or other significant individuals of the victims and offenders are added, this is called family group conferences.46 The offender’s family and/or other relevant people from the community are especially important since this model tends to focus on the offender’s support system in taking responsibility and changing their behaviors.47 Circle approaches emerged initially from First Nation communities in Canada.48 And circles are being used for many purposes—for sentencing, healing, for workplace conflicts and as forms of community dialogue.49

All these models may be blended and have the common aim of repairing the harm caused by the crime through balancing the interests of young people who have offended with those of victims and communities.50 According to Howard Zehr, one of the founding fathers of the Restorative Justice Movement, family group conferences and peace-making circles are adaptations of traditional and indigenous ways of conflict resolution.51

Restorative Justice came about as a reaction to the principle of retributive or punitive justice under which system offenders were generally subjected to. Retributivism is a legal theory wherein criminal punishment is justified, as long as the offender is morally accountable, regardless of whether deterrence or other good consequences will result52 which is paid by punishment. The punishment is sometimes said to be society’s act of paying back the criminal for the wrong done.53 The prison is the most important penal sanction and penal power and arrangements are administered solely by the State.54

38 Stephenson, et al., supra note 33, at p. 161.39 Zehr, supra note 29, at pp. 16–17, 37.40 Stephenson, et al., supra note 33, at p. 161.41 Id. at 162.42 Johnstone and Van Ness, supra note 31.43 Zehr, supra note 29, at 44.44 Id. at 44–45.45 Id.

46 Otherwise, referred to as FGC – Zehr, supra note 29.47 Two basic forms of FGC’s have gained prominence. One model was

developed by the police in Australia, based partially on ideas from New Zealand. Facilitators may be specially trained police officers with an approach to the dynamics of shame, using shame in a positive way. The other model of family conferencing originated in New Zealand and today provides the norm for juvenile justice in that country. It was in response to a crisis in an alien colonial juvenile justice system by the indigenous Maori population that the FGC was developed. Since 1989, the standard response to most serious juvenile crime in New Zealand is an FGC, although the court system remains a back-up – Zehr, supra note 29, at 48.

48 In a circle process, participants arrange themselves in a circle, and pass a “talking piece” around the circle to ensure that each person speaks in the order in which each is seated in the circle. A set of values is often articulated as part of the process which emphasizes respect, integrity, sincerity, etc. One or two “circle keepers” serve as facilitator of the circle – Id.

49 The concept of restorative justice is used in other areas – school discipline, workplace management, corporate regulation, political conflict resolution and transitional justice – Johnstone and Van Ness, supra note 31, at 6.

50 Zehr, supra note 29.51 Id. at 43.52 “Retributivism,” Black’s Law Dictionary.53 Id.54 John Pratt, “Beyond Evangelical Criminology: The Meaning and Significance

of Restorative Justice,” pp. 44–55 (Institutionalizing Restorative Justice, Willan Publishing, 2006).

6 April–June 2016

B. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

Pursuant to the Beijing Rules and Riyadh Guidelines, RA No. 9344 fixed the age of criminal responsibility for children at above 15 years but below 18 years of age who acted with discernment.56 In Japan, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 14 years old;57 In Korea, it is also 14 years; and in Thailand, 14 years. In Australia and New Zealand, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years of age. In Canada, it is 12 years of age. In Argentina, it is 16 years; in Colombia, 14 years. In Europe, the minimum age is 14 years in Italy, 15 years in Norway and Sweden; and 10 years in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.58

The minimum age of criminal responsibility varies among states-parties of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Notably, the Convention does not expressly set a specific minimum age but merely obliges the states-parties to establish

a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law. The Beijing Rules simply recommend that the age of criminal responsibility be based on emotional, mental and intellectual maturity of the child.59 In the Philippines, a child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal liability but is subjected to an intervention program by the Department of Social Welfare and Development60 and the Local Social Welfare Development Office61 in coordination with the Barangays.62 Republic Act No. 10630 which amended RA No. 9344 in Section 20-A provides that a child above 12 years to 15 years of age who commits serious crimes shall be deemed a neglected child for which a petition for involuntary commitment of the child to the Bahay Pag-asa should be filed by the LSWDO with the court. Similarly, under Section 20-B, if the child over 12 years but not over 15 years of age commits and offends for the second time or oftener, a petition for voluntary commitment of the child may be filed in court by the child’s parents, and, if they refuse, a petition for involuntary commitment shall be filed by the LSWDO.

But why 15 years old in the Philippines?

Scientific and empirical evidence in very recent years reveal that the human brain continues to develop until the age of 21 years and to mature as late as 25 years of age.63 The frontal lobe of the brain, the area responsible for self-control and reasoning, mature at the approximate age of 14 years old as scientific researches show64 and the process of normal brain development suggests that full cognitive maturity may not occur until late adolescence or in the early 20s.65 This anatomical finding means that children below 15 years of age may not possess many cognitive abilities of adults.

Furthermore, scientific research has also demonstrated that the child’s brain undergoes a complex maturation process as the child grows. Their impulse-control, risk assessment and effective recognition of the effects of their actions only progress and improve through the years.66 The developmental

55 Source: <http://www.cscsb.org/restorative_justice/retribution_vs_restoration.html>, see also Zehr, supra note 29, at 21.

56 RA No. 9344, Sec. 6 as amended by RA No. 10630, Sec. 3.57 However amendments made to the Juvenile Act permitted the Family

Court to commit children as young as 11 to Juvenile Training Schools under the administration of the Ministry of Justice Correction Bureau – Child Rights International Networks – <https://www.crin.org/en/home/ages/asia> [accessed May 10, 2015].

58 Child Rights International Network, supra note 57.

59 Rule 4.1, Part One.60 DSWD.61 LSWDO.62 RA No. 9344, Sec. 6. The fixing of the age of criminal responsibility at

under 15 years old is a major change from that of under 9 years of age as provided in Article 12, The Revised Penal Code.

63 Policy Paper of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC), “Keeping the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility at 15 years: When it is not a Matter of Choice.”

64 Id.; citing United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), “The Implications of Lowering the Age of Criminal Liability,” citing the Study of Elliot Co, “Criminal Responsibility and Children: A new defence required to acknowledge the absence of capacity and choice,” 75 Journal of Criminal Law 308 (2011).

65 Id.66 Id.; citing United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), “The Implications

of Lowering the Age of Criminal Liability,” citing the Study of NSW

Retributive Justice

- Crime is an act against the state, a violation of the law

- Crime is an individual act with individual responsibility

- Imposition of pain as punishment is effective because it deters crime and changes behavior

- Offender accountability is defined as taking punishment

- Emphasis is on adversarial relationships

- Victims are peripheral to the process

Restorative Justice

- Crime is an act against another person and the community

- Crime has both individual and social dimensions of responsibility

- Punishment alone is not effective and is disruptive to community harmony and good relationships; goal is reconciliation and restoration

- Offender accountability is defined as assuming responsibility and taking action to repair harm

- Emphasis is on dialogue and negotiation

- Victims are central to the process of resolving a crime

The major differences between Retributive and Restorative Justice may be summed up as follows:55

Judicial Views (continued)


factors at play determine the choices children make and these choices largely reflect their immature judgment based on a basically unformed character. Since their evolving capacities develop simultaneously with the physical development of their brain structure,67 children and adults vastly differ in the following areas: (1) in their level of cognitive and psychosocial development; (2) in their decision-making capacities; and (3) in their level of formation of personal identity.68

In their psychosocial development, children between the ages of 14 to 16 years, which is middle adolescence, experience family conflicts over control and independence. They get involved with peer groups, are preoccupied with peer culture and perceive peer influence so great that behavioral examples to the child are given by the peers themselves.69 Acceptance by peers is critical to self-esteem.70

However, when children reach 17 to 20 years old, which is late adolescence, they have a firmer identity and practice more autonomy from the family. Peer groups and peer values recede in importance.71 Children pursue an interest in relationships. They become goal-directed and start being concerned about wider social problems, ethical and economic issues.72

In the Philippine legal context, a person below the age of 18 years cannot give consent to a contract.73 The acts of a minor, as a general rule, produce no juridical effect. Minors cannot give consent and bind themselves in marriage; they cannot be employed except in specific instances;74 they cannot vote.75 And it is only upon the attainment of the age of majority, which commences at 18 years, that the child becomes emancipated and, consequently, qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life.76 The minimum age of criminal responsibility at over 15

years old and the benefits given the CICL in RA No. 9344 are thus fully consistent with our own civil law.77

Why also the term “Children in Conflict with the Law?”

This term first appeared in the Philippine legal system in RA No. 9344. Prior thereto, children were simply and singularly referred to as a “minor” in the Revised Penal Code and as a “youthful offender” in PD No. 603. On the international scene, they are collectively called “juvenile offenders” under the Beijing Rules, “juvenile delinquents” in the Riyadh Guidelines and “juveniles” in the Havana Rules. It was only in 2007 when the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child issued General Comment No. 10 on Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice that the term “children in conflict with the law” was first officially recognized and used.78

Republic Act No. 9344 took effect in the Philippines in 2006 and the term “children in conflict with the law” entered our statute books one year before it was officially recognized by the United Nations.

The Revised Rule on Children in Conflict with the Law79 defines a CICL as a person who at the time of the commission of the offense is below 18 years old but not less than 15 years and one day old and commits an offense with discernment.80

Discernment is defined as the “capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.”81 Discernment is preliminarily determined by a social worker and finally by the court if the child is charged with a non-serious offense i.e., the offense has an imposable penalty of not more than 6 years imprisonment. In all other cases, discernment is determined by the court. This determination shall take into account the child’s ability to understand the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of the wrongful act; and whether the child is to be held responsible for essentially anti-social behavior.82

Department of Juvenile Justice “Juvenile Justice Submission into the Review of the Young Offenders Act 1997 and the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987,” (December 2011).

67 Id.68 Id.; citing Laurence Steinberg and Elizabeth S. Scott “Less Guilty by Reason

of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility and the Juvenile Death Penalty,” AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, Vol. 58 No. 12, p. 1010, Copyright by the American Psychological Association, Inc. (December 2003); see also Kliegman, Behrman, Jenson and Stanton, Textbook of Pediatrics, pp. 60–61 [18th ed., 2004] .

69 Kliegman, Behrman, Jenson and Stanton, supra note 68, at p. 60. 70 Bernadette Madrid, “The Developing Child: What the Courts Should

Know,” Lecture-Presentation, Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children, Philippine Judicial Academy.

71 Id.72 Madrid, supra note 70.73 Art. 35(1), Family Code; Article 1327, Civil Code. 74 Art. 139, Chapter II, Title III, Book III, Labor Code.75 Art. V, 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.76 Arts. 234 and 236, Family Code.

77 Policy Paper of the JJWC, supra note 63, at p. 11.78 See Introduction, this paper.79 Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 02-1-18-SC; The Revised Rule on Children

in Conflict with the Law took effect on December 1, 2009; Prior to this was the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law which took effect in April 2002.

80 Id. Secs. 1 and 4(a).81 Id. Sec. 4(j).82 Id. Sec. 10.

8 April–June 2016

Training Programs and Activities

As this year’s recipient of the Founding Chancellor Emeritus Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera Award for the Most Outstanding Professorial Lecturer, Ateneo Law School Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria delivered a lecture entitled The Millennial Judge: Judicial Education at the Crossroads on June 20 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City. One hundred fifty-five participants, composed of Court of Appeals (CA), Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and Sandiganbayan justices, Supreme Court and PHILJA officials and employees, CA, CTA and Sandiganbayan employees, judges, branch clerks of court, and guests from other government agencies and the private sector, intently listened to Dean Candelaria’s one-hour-and-a-half special lecture, which was accompanied by an animated and engaging powerpoint presentation.

Dean Candelaria, who also heads the Academy’s Research, Publications and Linkages Office, explored the challenges confronting judicial educators in designing pedagogical tools and learning methods in light of the millennial era. His lecture advanced the proposition that the situation is shared by other jurisdictions similarly confronted with the changing environment fueled by globalization and its consequent impact on information technology and delivery of legal education in law schools today.

“The Philippine Judicial Academy in its early years muddled through the delivery of judicial education and training in a rather unchartered territory, but as it learned the ropes from

THE MILLENNIAL JUDGE: JUDICIAL EDUCATION AT THE CROSSROADS2016 Founding Chancellor Emeritus Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera Award

for the Most Outstanding Professorial Lecturer

comparative experiences of judicial education centers, PHILJA progressed in a manner beyond the modest expectations of the architects of this program,” Dean Candelaria emphatically said. Dean Candelaria also discussed PHILJA’s ongoing Curriculum Review pursuant to Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno’s directive to review the academic offerings and training program of the Academy in line with the Court’s judicial reform agenda. Chief Justice Sereno provided the Academy her vision, observations and recommendations through her paper “A Thought Piece on the Philippine Judicial Academy Curriculum Review.” (The full text of Chief Justice Sereno’s Thought Piece was published in the July─September 2014 issue of the PHILJA Bulletin.)

A lively open forum followed Dean Candelaria’s lecture. He formally presented his paper to the children of Justice Herrera and to the Supreme Court through PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna, who earlier delivered the opening remarks and welcomed the attendees and guests.

Capping the event was Chief Justice Sereno’s Closing Remarks read by Chancellor Azcuna. In her message, Chief Justice Sereno said that “legal and judicial education is indeed at the crossroads, uniquely ripe for innovative curricular and pedagogical change. We must accept that the millennial era is here.” Steadfast in the Court’s duty to respond to the changing times, Chief Justice Sereno further said that “judicial training


The Philippine Judicial Academy conducted back-to-back Competency Enhancement Training on the management of Online Sexual Exploitation of Children Cases (CET-OSEC) programs designed to improve the competencies of participants in preventing, referring, investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating OSEC cases. The training programs were held first week of May at the Discovery Suites, Pasig City.

A Training of Trainers of Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Online Sexual Exploitation of Children Cases was conducted on May 3 attended by 18 selected regional trial court judges and prosecutors. The participants will be part of the pool of trainers who will be mobilized for the roll out of the CET-OSEC program.

PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna and Mr. Ky Johnson of The Asia Foundation (TAF), in their respective messages, underscored PHILJA’s and TAF’s commitment to combat cybercrime and online child sexual abuse and exploitations. The morning sessions were devoted to lectures on The Millennials, Their Cyberspace and Language by Ms. Melissa Legarda Alcantara, Journalist and Consultant of Cross-Cultural Digital Media; Surveillance, Monitoring, Investigation and Detection of Crimes Against Millennials by Atty. Lawrence Aritao of International Justice Mission; Catching the Predator in His Digital World by Head Agent Jed Sherwin G. Uy of the Department of Justice–Office of Cybercrime; and Basic Facilitating Skills by Dean Erlyn Sana, PHILJA Professorial Lecturer II.

In the afternoon, Judge Amy A. Avellano of RTC Branch 58, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental and PHILJA Professorial Lecturer I, presented and discussed the CET-OSEC enhanced training module, including the topics of the lectures and the plots of the trigger videos that will be used during the two-day training program. The enhanced training module was the product of the roundtable discussion conducted by the Academy on March 9 attended by 20 selected RTC judges.

Participants then underwent three simulation exercises on how to catch a predator. Facilitated by Head Agent Uy, participants were given 10 minutes to enter an online chat room and try to hook up with a predator over the internet.

Meanwhile, the first Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and Law Enforcement Investigators on the Management of Online Sexual Exploitation of Children Cases was held May 4 to 5 attended by 45 participants, composed of selected RTC judges, prosecutors, court social workers and law enforcers. This two-day activity is an intensive, multidisciplinary program designed to improve the competencies of participants as frontline workers in preventing, referring, investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating OSEC cases.

The first day sessions started off with the opening remarks of PHILJA Chancellor Justice Azcuna, followed by a message from Atty. Carolyn Mercado of The Asia Foundation, and the statement of purpose and orientation by Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro.

Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and Law Enforcement Investigators on the Management of

Online Sexual Exploitation of Children Cases (CET-OSEC)

(Next page)

and continuing education are at the heart of that preparation to lead the next generation—our so-called ‘millennial’ judges and those who will come after. It will entail transcending traditional curricula and forging connections with the social context to which the training will be applied.”

As chairperson of PHILJA’s Board of Trustees, Chief Justice Sereno called on the Academy to recast its traditional role into a more dynamic one—as a fully engaged educational institution that provides structured judicial training—custom-built and custom-managed for each level of the Judiciary and for each class of trainees. “Just recently, this curriculum review yielded outstanding results, paving the way for radical shifts in the way we conduct our judicial education and training,” Chief Justice Sereno’s message reads.

The Chief Justice also commended and thanked Atty. Candelaria and PHILJA for all their essential contributions to the judiciary. “I have personally witnessed your commitment

to our cause in carefully crafting, revising and updating training programs and modules to develop judicial competence, instill sound values and form constructive attitudes in our judges and court personnel,” her message reads.

She ended by expressing her hope that “PHILJA will be the bright shining lights of judicial education in the entire Asia-Pacific Region.”

Established in 2012 by the children of Justice Herrera in honor of her 90th birthday, the Founding Chancellor Emeritus Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera Award for the Most Outstanding Professorial Lecturer aims to assist PHILJA in its continuing promotion of judicial excellence through the delivery of distinguished lectures in judicial education. Former recipients were Justice Azcuna in 2012, Retired CA Justice Hilarion L. Aquino in 2013, and SC Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio in 2014.

10 April–June 2016

Judicial Training on Cybercrime

In June, PHILJA conducted the Basic Judicial Training on Cybercrime for Judges, the Advanced Judicial Training on Cybercrime and the Judicial Conference on Cybercrime at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City, in partnership with the Council of Europe (COE) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The conduct of these activities is part of the country-specific activities of the Global Action on Cybercrime (GLACY) Project implemented by the European Union and the COE. The Philippines is one of the priority countries of the GLACY Project along with Mauritius, Senegal, Tonga, Morocco, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

The Basic Judicial Training on Cybercrime for Judges, held on June 15 to 17, was attended by 17 second level court judges. The lecture topics discussed during the three-day training were Introduction to Technology by Mr. Ariel Rodriguez, Head of the National ICT Training Division of the DOST-ICTO; Introduction to Cybercrime, and Rules on Electronic Evidence by Judge Romeo D. Tagra of RTC Br. 273, Marikina City; Trends, Threats and Challenges─International Cooperation, and Republic Act No. 10175─Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 by Judge Rainelda H. Estacio-Montesa of RTC Br. 46, Manila; Budapest Convention on Cybercrime─Overview and Substantial Articles by Judge Philip A. Aguinaldo of RTC Br. 207, Muntinlupa City; and Procedures in Cybercrime Investigation by Head Agent Jed Sherwin G. Uy of the Department of Justice–Office of the Cybercrime. Participants took part in the practical exercises facilitated by Judge Tagra and Judge Estacio-Montesa. This training is the third in the series of similar trainings held in March and October 2015.

On the other hand, the Advanced Judicial Training on Cybercrime was conducted on June 20 to 22 as a follow up training for those who have already completed the basic training. During this course, COE trainers were tapped to share their expertise and experiences in cybercrime cases prosecution. Eighteen participants, composed of judges,

A pre-test was administered to gather the profiles of the participants and measure their level of awareness of OSEC as a legal and social issue. Then, a series of lectures were delivered on the following topics: The Wonderful World of Cyberspace by Atty. Katrina Legarda, PHILJA Professorial Lecturer II; The Generation Today: Bridging the Gap between the Digital Dinosaurs and the Millennials by Dr. Bernadette Madrid, PHILJA Professorial Lecturer II; Trauma-Informed Care: Parenting the Millennial Generation and Its Carers by Dr. Norieta C. Balderrama, Forensic Psychiatrist at the UP-Philippine General Hospital Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine; Legal Framework: Making the Obsolete Relevant by Senior Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Lolita Lomanta of Cebu Province; and Detection, Surveillance, Monitoring and Investigation of the Crimes against Millennials by Atty. Lawrence Aritao of International Justice Mission.

In the afternoon, the participants watched one of the module videos entitled “Salisi.” They were later divided in three groups to discuss the psychosocial aspects of the relationships portrayed in the video; the preparations for the conduct and aftermath of a rescue operation; and the evidence that may be required to successfully bring a case to court.

The second day lectures focused on these topics: The Digital World by Head Agent Jed Sherwin G. Uy; and The

Financial Trail of OSEC by Atty. Vencent L. Salido, Deputy Director and Head of Compliance and Investigation Group, Anti-Money Laundering Secretariat.

The participants were again divided in three groups to work on different OSEC cases applying what they have learned from the lectures. Each group presented the result of their respective case investigation.

Head Agent Uy facilitated the simulation exercise where participants entered an online chat room to catch a predator. As their post-test, participants accomplished the OSEC Knowledge Inventory and the results were analyzed and discussed during the plenary.

CET-OSEC (continued)



electronic evidence; and assess and identify gaps between the implementation of Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and the existing Rules of Court and determine the action steps to address the same.

The Opening Ceremonies started off with a Message from GLACY Project Manager Mr. Manuel de Almeida Pereira where he gave a brief background of the GLACY Project and reiterated COE’s commitment to this project in the Philippines. Mr. Jed Sherwin G. Uy, Officer in Charge-Director of the DOJ Office of Cybercrime read the Message of Justice Secretary Emmanuel L. Caparas, and Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez read the Message of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno.

In her Message, Chief Justice Sereno said that “there is a need for members of the Judiciary to maintain a proactive stance in postulating a comprehensive response to cybercrimes by prioritizing the adoption and sharing of best practices and tools, and by educating ourselves as to how we can best approach cybercrimes.”

The Chief Justice further said that “the Judiciary is in the process of studying the possibility of creating, through legislative intervention, or designating courts of general jurisdiction, as cybercrime courts to ensure that responsive actions are taken once cybercrime cases are filed in the courts. Development of specialized trainings, in coordination with key experts around the globe, are also being explored.” The Chief Justice’s Message ended with warmest felicitations to the participants and appreciation to the Academy, the DOJ, and the COE-GLACY Project.

Lectures discussed during the conference were Overview on Cybercrime and Cybersecurity in the Philippines by Atty. Raul Cortez of Microsoft Philippines (Industry Perspective), BGen Nicolas Ojeda, Jr. (Ret.), Deputy Executive Director of Department of Information and Communication Office (Philippine Perspective), and Justice O.B. Madhub, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Mauritius (International Perspective); Cybercrime and Our Laws by Supreme Court Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin; Understanding Digital Forensics by PSI Levy B. Lozada, Chief of the Digital Forensic Laboratory, Philippine National Police; Prosecuting Cybercrime Cases by SDSP Theodore M. Villanueva, Chairperson of the Prosecution Task Force on Cybercrime, National Prosecution Service; Preparing a Case for Court Including Evidence Presentation Methods by Ms. Esther George; Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties in Cybercrime Investigations by DOJ Chief State Counsel Ricardo V. Paras III; Budapest Convention on Cybercrime by Hon. Madhub and Ms. George.

A sharing of international best practices and case studies, with Atty. Vencent L. Salido, Hon. Madhub and Ms. George as resource persons, was held during the morning session of the second day. In the afternoon, a panel composed of Court

prosecutors and lawyers from the Public Attorney’s Office, actively participated in this advanced training. Lectures on Introduction to the Case Scenario (Mr. Branko Stamenkovic, Serbian Public Prosecutor), Developing an Investigation (Ms. Esther George, Founder of Global Prosecutors Electronic Evidence Network), Traditional and Alternative Currencies (Mr. Branko Stamenkovic), International Cooperation (Mr. Ammar Oozeer, Barrister and Senior Partner, Juristconsult Chambers, Mauritius), Digital Forensics (Mr. Branko Stamenkovic), and Presenting the Case in Court (Mr. Ammar Oozeer). In between lectures, participants were divided into several groups to work on: identifying crimes and developing an investigation plan; financial aspects of the scenario; international cooperation aspects of the scenario; identifying suspects and planning strategy; and finalizing the case. The delegates and trainers underwent a case review feedback session at the end of the five group activities.

Finally, the Judicial Conference on Cybercrime, held on June 23 to 24, was attended by 42 judges, prosecutors, representatives from the DOJ and the National Bureau of Investigation, and other guests. The conference aimed to provide an opportunity for judges and justices of the Philippine Supreme Court to share experiences and best practices in handling cybercrime cases and appreciation of electronic evidence; revisit existing laws, jurisprudence, treaties and conventions related to cybercrime cases and


Orientation-Seminar

75th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed JudgesDate: April 19–28, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 34 newly appointed judges and 11 promoted judges, namely:

A. Newly Appointed Judges

Regional Trial Courts

National Capital Judicial RegionHon. Jaime Fortunato A. Caringal RTC, Br. 278, Mandaluyong CityHon. Anthony B. Fama RTC, Br. 277, Mandaluyong CityHon. Ma. Antonia L. Largoza-Cantero RTC, Br. 291, Malabon CityHon. Orven K. Ontalan RTC, Br. 285, Valenzuela CityHon. Ronald Q. Torrijos RTC, Br. 288, Navotas City

Region IXHon. Shaldilyn B. BangsajaRTC, Br. 33, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur Hon. Gracelina P. Gagarra-Bernardo RTC, Br. 17, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del SurHon. Grace C. Tillah-Alasco RTC, Br. 26, Sapa-Sapa, Tawi-Tawi

Region XI Hon. Melinda R. Alconcel-DayanghirangRTC, Br. 54, Davao City, Davao del Sur Hon. Jose C. Blanza, Jr. RTC, Br. 22, General Santos City, South CotabatoHon. Edilu P. Hayag RTC, Br. 53, Davao City, Davao del SurHon. Joyce Kho Mirabueno RTC, Br. 58, General Santos City, South CotabatoHon. Ronald S. Tolentino RTC, Br. 52, Davao City, Davao del Sur

Metropolitan Trial Courts

National Capital Judicial RegionHon. Fredrick G. Separa MeTC, Br. 118, Navotas City

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities

Region XHon. Jhobee T. Gerasmio MTCC, Br. 1, Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental

Hon. Abouben Jade R. Pabellan-Bacal*1

MTCC, Br. 6, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental Hon. Eileen Joy T. Pakino-Bonghanoy MTCC, Gingoog City, Misamis OrientalHon. Llani A. Sacote-Valconcha MTCC, Br. 3, Ozamis City, Misamis OccidentalHon. Jarley D. Sulay-Trugillo MTCC, Bayugan City, Agusan del SurHon. Rochelle Marie R. Zambas-Ucat MTCC, Br. 4, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte

Region XIIHon. Macabinta P. Derogongan MTCC, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur

Municipal Trial Courts

Region IXHon. Jeanecel G. Vercide-Climaco MTC, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay

Region XHon. Nemeson B. Cañete MTC, Carmen, Agusan del NorteHon. Tristram C. Tenebro MTC, San Fernando, Bukidnon

Region XIHon. Charles S. Concon MTC, Maragusan (San Mariano), Compostela ValleyHon. Chalmer C. Gevieso MTC, Maasim, SaranganiHon. Regina F. Sison-Montiel MTC, New Corella, Davao del Norte

Region XIIHon. Joselita E. Jadraque-AugustoMTC, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Region IXHon. Kathia C. Adasa-Santiago 7th MCTC: Liloy–Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte Hon. Rowena S. Carpitanos-Magallanes 9th MCTC: Salug–Godod, Zamboanga del NorteHon. Jerry B. Patcho 6th MCTC: Labason–Gutalac-Kalauit, Zamboanga del NorteHon. Johnabel H. Tabunda 7th MCTC: Dimataling–Tabina–Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur

Region XIHon. Glenn P. Quimba 2nd MCTC: Banga–Tantangan, South Cotabato

* Was issued Certificate of Compliance only due to incomplete attendance.

1 Missed the session on April 27, 2016 morning and first topic on the afternoon.


Region XIIHon. Jose Edgar R. Sinangote 4th MCTC: Bagumbayan–Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat

B. Promoted Judges**


National Capital Judicial RegionHon. Juris S. Dilinila-Callanta RTC, Br. 85, Quezon City Hon. Rosalia I. Hipolito-Bunagan RTC, Br. 232, Caloocan CityHon. Juliet M. Manalo-San Gaspar RTC, Br. 279, Mandaluyong CityHon. Restituto V. Mangalindan, Jr. RTC, Br. 280, Mandaluyong CityHon. Rhoda Magdalene L. Mapile-Osinada*2

RTC, Br. 289, Malabon City Hon. J. Ermin Ernest Louie R. Miguel RTC, Br. 281, Mandaluyong City

Region IXHon. Roncesvalles B. Filoteo RTC, Br. 32, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del SurHon. Vera T. Vergara RTC, Br. 14, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur

Region XIHon. Carfelita B. Cadiente-Flores*3

RTC, Br. 61, Digos, Davao del SurHon. Lorna B. Santiago-Avila RTC, Br. 36, General Santos City, South Cotabato Hon. Dennis A. Velasco RTC, Br. 23, General Santos City, South Cotabato

Hon. Pedro T. Dabu, Jr. RTC, Br. 286, Navotas CityHon. Romana Maria Melchora P. Lindayag-Del Rosario*1

RTC, Br. 287, Navotas CityHon. Jacqueline S. Martin-Balictar RTC, Br. 9, ManilaHon. Arthur B. Melicor RTC, Br. 284, Valenzuela CityHon. Rosario G. Ines-Pinzon*2

RTC, Br. 290, Malabon CityHon. Tammy Ann C. Reyes-Mendillo RTC, Br. 22, Manila

Region IXHon. Ruben N. Bance RTC, Br. 29, San Miguel, Zamboanga del SurHon. Vicente S. De La Plaza II RTC, Br. 36, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay

Region XHon. Wilfredo G. Bibera, Jr. RTC, Br. 46, Malaybalay City, BukidnonHon. Eldred D. Cole RTC, Br. 45, Malaybalay City, BukidnonHon. Marigel S. Dagani-Hugo RTC, Br. 3, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte

Region XIHon. Celestial V. Aranda-Gonzales RTC, Br. 57, Mabini, Compostela ValleyHon. Cresenciana DC. Cruz RTC, Br. 3, Nabunturan, Compostela ValleyHon. Rebecca G. Dardo-Seredrica RTC, Br. 46, Alabel, SaranganiHon. Jose Jerry L. Fulgar RTC, Br. 47, Alabel, SaranganiHon. Catalina Shineta M. Tare-Palacio RTC, Br. 41, Cantilan, Surigao del SurHon. Bill L. Ybarley RTC, Br. 48, Alabel, Sarangani

Region XIIHon. Ali Ombra R. Bacaraman RTC, Br. 4, Iligan City, Lanao del NorteHon. Sittie Laarni R. Umpa RTC, Br. 9, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur


National Capital Judicial RegionHon. Aimee S. Arago MeTC, Br. 119, Navotas City

** Attended April 25─28, 20162 Missed the session on April 25, 2016. 3 Missed the session on April 27, 2016 morning.

76th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed JudgesDate: May 31–June 9, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 48 newly appointed judges and 10 promoted judges, namely:

A. Newly Appointed Judges


National Capital Judicial RegionHon. Elena A. Amigo-AmanoRTC, Br. 282, Valenzuela City Hon. Rodolfo P. Azucena, Jr. RTC, Br. 125, Caloocan CityHon. Ferdinand C. Baylon RTC, Br. 77, Quezon City

* Was issued Certificate of Compliance only due to incomplete attendance.

1 Missed the session on June 3, 2016. 2 Missed the session on June 6, 2016.


Hon. Nelvin M. Asi MeTC, Br. 114, Muntinlupa CityHon. Rommelo C. Camarillo MeTC, Br. 107, Valenzuela CityHon. Karen S. Canullas-Armada MeTC, Br. 123, Las Piñas CityHon. Aida D. Coliflores-Romero MeTC, Br. 122, Las Piñas CityHon. Lynnette May D. Deloria-Manarang MeTC, Br. 124, Las Piñas CityHon. Chelsea Segunda G. Dirige-Legaspi MeTC, Br. 112, Muntinlupa CityHon. Juan Jose P. Enriquez III MeTC, Br. 115, Taguig CityHon. Jennifer B. Escorpezo-Bayaua MeTC, Br. 13, ManilaHon. April Joy L. Frisnedi-Belleza MeTC, Br. 111, Muntinlupa CityHon. Maya Joy P. Guiyab MeTC, Br. 120, Malabon CityHon. Ghia Chrystellyne O. Hurtado-Juan MeTC, Br. 108, Valenzuela CityHon. Marita Iris B. Laqui-Genilo MeTC, Br. 109, Valenzuela CityHon. Karen C. Maramba-Firme MeTC, Br. 60, Mandaluyong CityHon. Desiree Gertrude G. Orquiola-Moldez MeTC, Br. 110, Muntinlupa CityHon. Ma. Victoria Q. Padilla-Awid MeTC, Br. 117, Taguig CityHon. Richard O. Pascual MeTC, Br. 116, Taguig CityHon. Melody G. Restituto MeTC, Br. 113, Muntinlupa City Hon. Gloria D. Santos, Jr. MeTC, Br. 51, Caloocan CityHon. Carlo D. Villarama MeTC, Br. 36, Quezon City

Municipal Trial Courts in CitiesRegion XHon. Isabel Corazon C. Plaza MTCC, Br. 3, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte

Region XIHon. Galerie Gee Y. Flores MTCC, Tandag City, Surigao del Sur


Region XHon. Christopher C. Castro 9th MCTC: Sta. Monica–Burgos, Surigao del NorteHon. Edsel M. Ensomo 7th MCTC: Gen. Luna–Pilar, Surigao del Norte

Region XIHon. Vicente C. Dumbrigue, Jr. 7th MCTC: Hinatuan–Tagbina, Surigao del Sur

Hon. John Edwin C. Luneta 1st MCTC: Cantilan-Carrascal, Surigao del Sur

B. Promoted Judges**


National Capital Judicial RegionHon. Eduardo Ramon R. Reyes RTC, Br. 15, ManilaHon. Snooky Maria Ana B. Sagayo RTC, Br. 283, Valenzuela City

Region XHon. Nannette Michote E. Lao RTC, Br. 28, Mambajao, CamiguinHon. Roy P. Murallon RTC, Br. 13, Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental

Region XIHon. Alejandro Ramon C. Alano RTC, Br. 55, General Santos City, South CotabatoHon. Allan Edwin P. Boncavil RTC, Br. 62, Polomolok, South CotabatoHon. Felipe B. Maglana, Jr. RTC, Br. 7, Baganga, Davao Oriental

Region XIIHon. Henelinda J. Molina-Diaz RTC, Br. 61, Kidapawan City, North CotabatoHon. Rainera P. Osua RTC, Br. 28, Midsayap, North CotabatoHon. Jose T. Tabosares RTC, Br. 23, Kidapawan City, North Cotabato

31st Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Clerks of Court Date: May 24–27, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 54 newly appointed clerks of court, namely:


National Capital Judicial RegionAtty. Rickson M. Buenviaje RTC, Br. 122, Caloocan CityAtty. Myrtle B. Calvan RTC, Br. 27, Manila Atty. Jeanne Luz Dela Rosa CastilloRTC, Br. 229, Quezon CityAtty. Julie L. DoctoleroRTC, Br. 151, Pasig CityAtty. Marie Hyacinth G. LagguiRTC, Br. 79, Quezon City Atty. Jenelyn B. Legaspi RTC, Br. 110, Pasay City Atty. Imelda C. Mangligot-Hidalgo RTC, Br. 131, Caloocan City

** Attended June 6─9, 2016.


Atty. Manuel M. Pascua, Jr. RTC, Br. 163, Taguig CityAtty. Bernalyn A. PerezRTC, Br. 118, Pasay City

Region IIAtty. Roxanne Mia A. Adduru-Aman RTC, Br. 8, Aparri, Cagayan Atty. Gizle M. De La Cruz RTC, Br. 9, Aparri, Cagayan Atty. Mylalyn A. Matalang RTC, Br. 17, City of Ilagan, Isabela Atty. Marifem H. TugadiRTC, Br. 28, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

Region IIIAtty. Alvin A. BautistaRTC, Br. 18, Malolos City, BulacanAtty. Giancarlo S. Capati RTC, OCC, City of San Fernando, PampangaAtty. Girlie Venus E. De LeonRTC, Br. 74, Olongapo City, Zambales Atty. Diana S. Fajardo-Lampa RTC, Br. 44, City of San Fernando, Pampanga Atty. Minerva A. JimenezRTC, Br. 4, Mariveles, Bataan Atty. Jemuel Paolo M. Lobo RTC, Br. 93, Balanga City, Bataan Atty. Maryann Agnes Jertez Y. Reyes-BeberRTC, Br. 94, Mariveles, Bataan

Region IVAtty. Glenda B. JosolRTC, Br. 47, Puerto Princesa City, PalawanAtty. Gian Carlo R. LaysonRTC, Br. 79, Morong, Rizal Atty. Mark Wilfred M. ReyesRTC, Br. 72, Antipolo City, Rizal Atty. Peter Gian-Marc R. Reyes RTC, Br. 32, San Pablo City, Laguna

Region VAtty. Evan E. Domasian RTC, Br. 54, Gubat, SorsogonAtty. Sheena Ester Arteta GacerRTC, Br. 23, Naga City, Camarines Sur

Region VIAtty. Maria Theresa V. Rizon RTC, Br. 57, San Carlos City, Negros OccidentalAtty. Lyle Rose M. TanqueridoRTC, Br. 22, Iloilo City, Iloilo

Region VIIAtty. Jesrel E. BolanioRTC, Br. 51, Carmen, Bohol Atty. Ligaya R. VioletaRTC, Br. 36, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

Region VIIIAtty. Michael John B. LabajosaRTC, Br. 27, Catbalogan, SamarAtty. Regina G. Paredes-ElizardeRTC, Br. 36, Carigara, Leyte

Region IXAtty. Maria Liezelda G. Abas-Reganion RTC, Br. 9, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte Atty. Jill Cindy L. Cruz-CañeteRTC, Br. 13, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur Atty. Yellen B. Yap RTC, Br. 6, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte

Region XIIAtty. Mary Joy P. JunioRTC, Br. 24, Midsayap, North Cotabato Atty. Amy V. PradoRTC, Br. 20, Tacurong, Sultan KudaratAtty. Darlene D. TorreñaRTC, Br. 19, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat


National Capital Judicial RegionMs. Shela L. De Claro-ArtezaMeTC, Br. 90, Parañaque CityMs. Elaine Sharon A. De LunaMeTC, Br. 50, Caloocan CityMs. Maria Linda T. DobleMeTC, OCC, Pasig City


Region IMs. Kristine A. DannangMTC, Cabugao, Ilocos SurMs. Rosalinda R. De GuzmanMTC, Bayambang, Pangasinan


Region IMs. Sheila R. Ragasa2nd MCTC: San Vicente-San Ildefonso, Ilocos Sur

Region IIMs. Raquel E. Cayton 2nd MCTC: Dupax del Norte–Dupax Del Sur–Alfonso Castañeda Nueva Vizcaya

Region IIIMr. Lester G. Sicalag1st MCTC: Dinalupihan–Hermosa, Bataan

Region IVMr. Florencio G. Capones, Jr.*1st MCTC: Mauban-Sampaloc, Quezon Mr. Johnathan R. Juacalla1st MCTC: Luisiana-Cavinti, Laguna

* Incomplete attendance (attended May 24─26, 2016 only)


Ms. Myla H. Lomod1st MCTC: San Teodoro–Baco–Puerto Galera, Mindoro Oriental

Region VIMr. Teejay M. Gulmatico10th MCTC: Calinog–Bingawan, IloiloMs. Raymunda C. Imbang3rd MCTC: Patnongon–Bugasong–Valderrama, Antique

Region XMr. Job Mark P. Mutia3rd MCTC: Aloran–Panaon, Misamis Occidental

Region XIMr. Dustin V. Betonio3rd MCTC: Kapalong–Talaingod, Davao del Norte

Shari’a Circuit Courts

Region IXMs. Heidi A. Hassan2nd SCC, Siasi–Pandami–Tapul–Lugus, Sulu

8th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process ServersDate: April 5–7, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 76 newly appointed sheriffs and process servers, namely:

I. Sheriffs


National Capital Judicial RegionMr. Randy C. Bernardo RTC, Br. 78, Quezon CityMr. Carlo Dan A. Gutierrez RTC, Br. 144, Makati CityMr. Crispin A. Maravilla RTC, Br. 267, Taguig CityMs. Celeste D. Pinauin RTC, Br. 43, ManilaMr. Samuel V. Pizaña RTC, Br. 53, ManilaMr. Raymund S. Prado RTC, Br. 126, Caloocan CityMr. Abdul Jabbar L. Usman RTC, Br. 88, Quezon City

Region IMs. Erlinda C. Alipio RTC, OCC, Dagupan City, PangasinanMr. Charlie T. Bundoc RTC, Br. 21, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur

Region IIMr. Allan A. Argonza RTC, Br. 9, Aparri, Cagayan

Region IIIMs. Florian P. Banabana RTC, Br. 57, Angeles City, PampangaMr. Virgilio N. Catbagan, Jr. RTC, Br. 39, San Jose City, Nueva EcijaMr. Romeo Joseph M. Gatbunton RTC, Br. 94, Mariveles, BataanMr. Redentor B. Lucas RTC, Br. 32, Guimba, Nueva EcijaMr. Roli Jay A. Mariano RTC, OCC, Mariveles, BataanMr. Florante R. Poquez RTC, Br. 38, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija

Region IVMr. Felicisimo A. Atienza RTC, Br. 37, Calamba City, LagunaMs. Minerva C. Caniedo RTC, OCC, Batangas City, BatangasMr. Manuel Desider00io Rafael R. Medina RTC, Br. 86, Taal, BatangasMr. Ryan Rex D.J. Sardea RTC, Br. 5, Lemery, BatangasMr. Emmanuel D. Socrates RTC, Br. 50, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

Region VIMr. Mark Emmanuel D. Delmo RTC, OCC, Iloilo City, Iloilo

Region XIMr. Wilfredo A. Sarsoza, Jr. RTC, Br. 29, Bislig City, Surigao del Sur


National Capital Judicial RegionMr. Estanislao P. Fernandez MeTC, OCC, ManilaMr. Vincent B. Inamach MeTC, OCC, Marikina City


Region IMr. Rody P. Nogoy MTCC, Br. 2, San Fernando City, La Union

Region IIIMr. Louie R. Cuvin MTCC, OCC, San Jose del Monte City, BulacanMr. Teodulo S. De Leon MTCC, Br. 1, San Jose del Monte City, BulacanMr. Renato B. Puno, Jr. MTCC, Palayan City, Nueva EcijaMr. Jeffrey M. Reyes MTCC, OCC, City of San Fernando, Pampanga

Region IVMr. Juanito A. Bautista MTCC, Bacoor City, Cavite* Incomplete attendance (attended May 24─26, 2016 only)


Mr. Jay R. De La CruzMTCC, Cabuyao City, Laguna Mr. Charlie J. ManginsayMTCC, Biñan City, Laguna Mr. Jay Arnold T. Panganiban MTCC, Br. 1, Batangas City, Batangas

Region VMr. Jose Emmanuel A. Oyales MTCC, Br. 2, Iriga City, Camarines Sur

Region VIMr. Amiel H. Corañez MTCC, Br. 3, Roxas City, CapizMr. Runald D. FranciscoMTCC, Br. 4, Roxas City, Capiz

II. Process Servers


National Capital Judicial RegionMr. Rommel V. Aquilana RTC, OCC, Malabon CityMs. Zenaida G. Arabit RTC, Br. 100, Quezon City Mr. Edward C. Calalang RTC, Br. 256, Muntinlupa CityMr. Cesar S. De Guzman RTC, Br. 145, Makati CityMr. Melchedeck M. Dela Cruz RTC, Br. 148, Makati CityMr. Manolito C. Ripdos RTC, Br. 56, Makati CityMr. Emil B. Roda RTC, Br. 107, Quezon City

Region IMr. Peter A. Arquitola RTC, OCC, Laoag City, Ilocos NorteMr. Jerry R. Balbin RTC, Br. 28, San Fernando City, La UnionMr. Christian Jay D. Galam RTC, Br. 18, Batac, Ilocos NorteMs. Ma. Teresa A. Mendoza RTC, Br. 59, Baguio City, Benguet

Region IIMr. Armando B. Onia RTC, Br. 30, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya

Region IIIMr. Carlito V. Amistoso RTC, OCC, Dinalupihan, BataanMr. Dennis Christian D. Villanueva RTC, Br. 94, Mariveles, Bataan

Region IVMs. Christine T. AliwalasRTC, Br. 34, Calamba City, Laguna

Ms. Weldy E. Diamante RTC, Br. 64, Mauban, QuezonMr. Menerando N. Jalos, Jr. RTC, Br. 41, Pinamalayan, Mindoro Oriental


National Capital Judicial RegionMr. Danilo M. Avendaño MeTC, OCC, Marikina CityMs. Maria Teresa G. Carpio MeTC, OCC, Caloocan CityMr. Jaeson James S. Dela Cruz MeTC, OCC, Pasig CityMs. Elizabeth Cassandra M. Fernandez MeTC, Br. 10, ManilaMr. Loreto L. Lapitan MeTC, OCC, Marikina CityMr. Arnold B. Malonzo MeTC, Br. 51, Caloocan City


Region IIMs. Viva Kristel T. Macarubbo MTCC, Ilagan City, Isabela

Region IVMr. Jowell D. Salvador MTCC, OCC, Antipolo City, Rizal

Region VIMs. Dee L. Dapiton MTCC, Br. 3, Roxas City, CapizMs. Elsie L. Dellava MTCC, Br. 4, Roxas City, CapizMs. Fe M. Muzones MTCC, Br. 4, Iloilo City, Iloilo

Region XIIMs. Soraine B. Jalil MTCC, OCC, lligan City, Lanao del Norte


Region IMr. Rodolfo E. Esteban MTC, Sta. Barbara, PangasinanMr. Jaimer L. Udani MTC, Bantay, Ilocos Sur

Region IIIMs. Emalyn D. Racho MTC, Pulilan, BulacanMr. Arnel R. Tolentino MTC, Guiguinto, Bulacan

Region IVMr. Emil Lawrence R. Rea MTC, General Trias, Cavite



Region IMr. Danilo V. Bersalona 4th MCTC: Manabo–Boliney–Tubo–Luba, Abra

Region IIMr. Roger T. Lafradez 1st MCTC: Luna–Pudtol–Calanasan, ApayaoMr. Hardie A. Luga 1st MCTC: San Pablo–Sta. Maria, Isabela

Region IVMr. Melquiades H. Ferre3rd MCTC: Indang–Mendez-Nuñez, CaviteMr. Margarito Ruel C. Vita 3rd MCTC: Nagcarlan–Rizal, Laguna

37th Pre-Judicature ProgramDate: March 28–April 8, 2016Venue: Bayleaf Hotel, Intramuros, ManilaParticipants: 47 lawyers, namely:

1. Johanna R. Abella 2. Sheena Marie R. Abella-Davis 3. Nilo G. Ahat 4. Cherilee B. Alagaban-Almiñana 5. Maria Zenaida F. Alejandre 6. Jose Troy A. Almario 7. Pilar C. Anciado 8. Alpha L. Andrada 9. Brenda Jay C. Angeles-Mendoza*

10. Raquel V. Aspiras-Sanchez 11. Laurice Marie Angela T. Austria 12. Gail B. Avila 13. Fritzie E. Baban-Subang 14. Clemente M. Clemente 15. Jose I. Cordero, Jr. 16. Liezel C. De Leon 17. Jan Michael S. Dela Cruz 18. Michael William T. Diokno 19. Venus I. Gapuz-Taliman 20. January Mari P. Garcia 21. Ma. Cherryl C. Gepolongca 22. Dionis P. Jacobe 23. Menandro T. Lim, Jr. 24. Alma Florence A. Logronio*

25. Neilito V. Lupango 26. Edward S. Magat 27. April Joy B. Magsayo-Aguila 28. Maria Monette F. Mesa

29. Ruben F. Mission V 30. Rebelinda S. Narsolis 31. Alena Gale H. Palileo-Yabes 32. Eileen C. Paloma 33. Russel P. Portugal 34. Vinalyn M. Potot-Baluran 35. Margareth P. Reyes-Mendoza 36. Maria Cristita A. Rivas-Santos 37. Vernice Lauren S. Roman 38. Ivy C. Ruiz-Regis 39. Arnel M. Santos 40. Marion S. Sevilla 41. Lilybeth T. Sindayen-Libiran 42. Gemalyn F. Tarol 43. Anne Chinika L. Tolentino 44. Jesus G. Torres 45. Fidel S. Tutor, Jr. 46. Ryan Jude D. Villar 47. Zach L. Zaragoza-Ziga48. Juliet S. Imperial1

49. Hannah L. Baldas-Calitong2

50. Paolo Dominique Quejano3

Pre-Judicature Program

* Did not take the Written Evaluative Examinations.

38th Pre-Judicature ProgramDate: May 23–June 3, 2016Venue: Bayleaf Hotel, Intramuros, ManilaParticipants: 40 lawyers, namely:

1. Ma. Christina V. Abalos 2. Ma. Rowena V. Alejandria3. Adelaimar C. Arias-Jose4. Ramon C. Avengoza5. Joel C. Bantasan6. Esther Gertrude D. Biliran7. Rosemarie E. Buendia-Garde 8. Ofelia P. Cabahug9. Ginger Anne S. Castillo10. Victor Carlo Antonio V. Cayco 11. Sheryl Lyn T. Chua12. Rene Antonio R. Cirio 13. Maria Norma G. Co 14. Gemma Armi M. De La Cruz15. Mark Brian A. Dela Cruz16. Charlene Anne Yu De Leon17. Glenna Mari M. Dela Cruz18. Kelly P. Dela Rosa*

19. Roxanne Marie B. Dimayuga20. Jeeli P. Espinosa 21. Jose C. Evan

* Did not take the Written Evaluative Examinations. Only attended sessions on June 23 and June 24.

1 From Batch 36. Attended sessions on March 29 and 30.2 From Batch 36. Attended sessions on March 29 and 30.3 From Batch 36. Attended sessions on April 5.


Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP)

Career Enhancement Program

Career Enhancement Program for Court LibrariansDate: May 11–13, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 40 RTC court librarians and PHILJA librarian

Career Enhancement Program for RTC Sheriffs of the NCJR (Batch 4)Date: March 17–19, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 72 RTC sheriffs

Career Development Program

Career Development Program for Court Legal Researchers of the VisayasDate: May 4–5, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 68 RTC and MTCC court legal researchers

Training Seminar on the 2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases for First Level Courts

JudgesEighth Judicial RegionDate: April 1, 2016Venue: XZY Hotel, Tacloban City, LeyteParticipants: 46 MTC, MTCC, and MCTC judges

Eleventh Judicial RegionDate: May 6, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 35 MTC, MTCC, and MCTC judges

Judges and Clerks of Court

Ninth Judicial RegionDate: April 8, 2016Venue: Top Plaza Hotel, Dipolog CityParticipants: 75 MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges, and clerks of court

Eleventh and Twelfth Judicial Regions Date: April 29, 2016Venue: East Asia Royale Hotel, General Santos CityParticipants: 76 MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges, and clerks of court of the 12th judicial region and clerks of court of 11th judicial region

Third Judicial RegionDate: May 20, 2016Venue: Xenia Hotel, Clark Freeport Zone, PampangaParticipants: 205 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges and clerks of court

Second Judicial RegionDate: May 27, 2016Venue: Ivory Hotel, Tuguegarao City, CagayanParticipants: 136 MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges, and clerks of court

Tenth and Twelfth Judicial RegionsDate: June 17, 2016Venue: VIP Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 146 MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges, and clerks of court

Special Focus Program

22. Joselito G. Fajardo23. Helen Grace S. Hernandez 24. Jennifer A. Jimeno 25. Djoanivie Jomare A. Junasa 26. Leila R. Jose 27. Jennifer M. Melchor-Adviento 28. Zaldy L. Monilla 29. Rotela Fatima A. Ortiz30. Eloisa A. Papa 31. Diomer L. Priela32. Melchor Carlos R. Rabanes 33. Leo Miguel A. Ramos 34. Maria Karen B. Rebato 35. Jazon H. Restubog 36. Wendy S. Reyes 37. Meliza Joan B. Robite 38. Katrina C. Tabique 39. Paulo A. Talban 40. Diosfa C. Toledanes-Valencia 41. Jenifer B. Bagay1

42. Arnold C. Moralejo2

43. Vinalyn M. Potot-Baluran3

1 From Batch 36. Attended May 30 morning, May 31 afternoon, June 1 morning, and June 2 morning sessions. Took the Written Evaluative Examinations on June 3 afternoon.

2 From Batch 36. Attended May 31 morning session. 3 From Batch 37. Attended May 23 morning, May 26 morning, May

27 afternoon, June 1 morning, and June 2 afternoon sessions. Took the Written Evaluative Examinations on June 3 afternoon.

JCEP for First Level Court Judges of the Eleventh Judicial RegionDate: May 4–6, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 35 MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges


Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving ChildrenDevelopment Partners: Consuelo Foundation, and Child Protection Network, Inc.

Date: May 17–19, 2016Venue: Century Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 63 RTC judges, clerks of court, court social workers, court interpreters, prosecutors, PAO lawyers, and representatives from Consuelo Foundation

Date: June 7–9, 2016Venue: Quest Hotel and Conference Center, Cebu CityParticipants: 69 RTC judges, clerks of court, social workers, court interpreters, prosecutors, and PAO lawyers

PHILJA Curriculum Review: Fifth Plenary Assembly of the PHILJA Corps of Professors and LecturersDate: May 20, 2016Venue: Court of Appeals, Manila Participants: 135 CA and CTA Presiding Justices, PHILJA executive officials, PHILJA Corps of Professors, professorial lecturers/resource persons (non-members of PHILJA Corps of Professors), and other guests

Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Laws for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of the Fourth Judicial RegionDevelopment Partner: Dangerous Drugs BoardDate: May 17–19, 2016Venue: Taal Vista Hotel, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 79 judges, prosecutors, and law enforcers (PDEA, PNP, PPA, NBI, and DDB)

Seminar-Workshop for Selected Judges on Financial Crimes and Money LaunderingDevelopment Partner: United States Department of Justice Crminal Division–Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT)

Date: June 7–8, 2016Venue: Manila Diamond Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 27 RTC judges

Date: June 28–29, 2016Venue: Manila Diamond Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 29 RTC judges

Seminar on the Financial Liquidation and Suspension of Payments (FLSP) Rules of Procedure for Court of Appeals Justices (Cebu City Station), Special Commercial Court Judges and Pairing Court Judges of Regions VI to VIIIDevelopment Partners: United States Agency for International Development, and American Bar Association–Rule of Law InitiativeDate: June 22, 2016Venue: Marco Polo Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 24 CA-Cebu justices and RTC judges

Clerks of Court

First Judicial RegionDate: June 23, 2016Venue: Hotel Veniz, Baguio CityParticipants: 108 clerks of court

Seminar on Election Laws for Judges

Batch 1 (Regions I─III)Date: April 5, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 39 judges

Batch 2 (Regions IV─V)Date: April 7, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 30 judges

Batch 3 (Regions VI─IX)Date: April 12, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 46 judges

Batch 4 (Regions X─XII)Date: April 14, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 41 judges

PHILJA Curriculum Review: Validation Workshop with the Academic Council Date: April 26, 2016Venue: Court of Appeals, ManilaParticipants: 42 PHILJA Corps of Professors, program partners, and PHILJA officials and staff

Training of Trainers of Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Online Sexual Exploitation of Children CasesDevelopment Partners: United Nations Children’s Fund, Australian Embassy–The Philippines, and The Asia FoundationDate: May 3, 2016Venue: Discovery Suites, Pasig CityParticipants: 18 RTC judges and prosecutors

Competency Enhancement Training for Family Court Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Investigators on the Management of Online Sexual Exploitation of Children CasesDevelopment Partners: United Nations Children’s Fund, Australian Embassy–The Philippines, and The Asia FoundationDate: May 4–5, 2016Venue: Discovery Suites, Pasig CityParticipants: 45 RTC judges, social workers, prosecutors, and law enforcers


Basic Judicial Training on Cybercrime for JudgesDevelopment Partners: Department of Justice and Council of Europe (COE)–Global Action on Cybercrime (GLACY) ProjectDate: June 15─17, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 17 RTC judges

Advanced Judicial Training on Cybercrime for JudgesDevelopment Partners: Department of Justice and Council of Europe (COE)–Global Action on Cybercrime (GLACY) ProjectDate: June 20─22, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 18 judges, prosecutors and PAO lawyers

Judicial Conference on Cybercrime Development Partners: Department of Justice and Council of Europe (COE)–Global Action on Cybercrime (GLACY) ProjectDate: June 23─24, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 42 judges, prosecutors, representatives from DOJ and NBI, and other guests

Orientation Seminar for Judges and Court Decongestion Officers

Date: April 18─19, 2016Venue: Harolds Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 45 judges (April 18); 67 court decongestion officers (April 18─19)

Date: May 12─13, 2016Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 168 court decongestion officers

Launch of the Module and Handbook on the Advanced Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Legal Researchers, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons CasesDevelopment Partner: Australia–Asia Program to Combat Trafficking in Persons (AAPTIP)Date: June 23, 2016Venue: Dignitaries Lounge, Supreme Court, ManilaParticipants: 31 SC Offcials and staff, PHILJA staff, trainers, instrument developers, Ambassador of Australian Embassy, representatives from AAPTIP, and guests

2016 Founding Chancellor Emeritus Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera Award for the Most Outstanding Professorial Lecturer featuring the topic “The Millenial Judge: Judicial Education at the Crossroads” by Dean Sedfrey M. CandelariaDevelopment Partner: Children of Founding Chancellor Emeritus Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio HerreraDate: June 20, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 155 CA, CTA and Sandiganbayan justices, SC and PHILJA officials and employees, CA, CTA and Sandiganbayan employees, judges, branch clerks of court, and other guests

Basic Mediation Course

Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Aurora Mediation ProgramsDate: May 17─20, 2016Venue: Governor’s Garden Hotel, Solana, Nueva VizcayaParticipants: 42 mediators

Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators (Skills Enhancement Course)

Panay and Bacolod Mediation ProgramsDate: March 30–31, 2016Venue: Hotel del Rio, Iloilo CityParticipants: 38 mediators

Misamis Oriental, Misamis Occidental, Lanao del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur Mediation ProgramsDate: April 20–21, 2016Venue: The VIP Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 22 mediators

Lanao del Norte and Bukidnon Mediation ProgramsDate: May 4–5, 2016Venue: Haus Malibu, Malaybalay City, BukidnonParticipants: 29 mediators

La Union, Benguet and Pangasinan Mediation ProgramsDate: June 21–22, 2016Venue: Hotel Supreme Convention Plaza, Baguio CityParticipants: 46 mediators

Convention-Seminar

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

Special Lecture

17th National Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE) Date: April 20–22, 2016Venue: Easter College, Baguio CityParticipants: 2,722 court employees


Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar for PMC Unit Staff

Date: April 20–21, 2016Venue: The VIP Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 26 PMC Unit staff

Date: May 18–19, 2016Venue: Hotel Fortuna, Cebu CityParticipants: 45 PMC Unit staff

Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Mediation

Agusan del Norte Mediation ProgramDate: June 7, 2016Venue: Amaris Suites, Butuan City, Agusan del NorteParticipants: 64 judges, clerks of court/branch clerks of court, prosecutors, PAO and IBP lawyers, representatives from LGUs, business sector, academe, and media

Agusan del Sur Mediation ProgramDate: June 8, 2016Venue: Provincial Learning Center, ProsperidadAgusan del SurParticipants: 54 judges, clerks of court/branch clerks of court, prosecutors, PAO and IBP lawyers, representatives from Parole and Probation Office, LGUs, media, civil society, and business sector

Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees and PMC Unit Staff

Nueva Vizcaya Mediation ProgramDate: June 28, 2016Venue: Governor’s Garden Hotel, Solano, Nueva VizcayaParticipants: 38 judges, clerks of court, mediation trainees, and PMC Unit staff

Quirino Mediation ProgramDate: June 29, 2016Venue: Capitol Plaza Hotel and Restaurant,Cabarroguis, QuirinoParticipants: 30 judges, clerks of court, mediation trainees, and PMC Unit staff

Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-based Course)Date: April 26–29, 2016Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 58 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges

Date: June 26–29, 2016Venue: Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga CityParticipants: 40 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges

Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court on Judicial Dispute ResolutionDate: May 26, 2016Venue: Queen Margarette Hotel, Lucena CityParticipants: 47 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC clerks of court/branch clerks of court

Date: June 28, 2016Venue: Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga CityParticipants: 56 RTC, MTCC MTC, and MCTC clerks of court/branch clerks of court

Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, and Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute ResolutionDate: May 26, 2016Venue: Queen Margarette Hotel, Lucena CityParticipants: 58 prosecutors, public attorneys and IBP/law practitioners

Date: June 28, 2016Venue: Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga CityParticipants: 60 prosecutors, public attorneys, and IBP/law practitioners

Atty. ANNA-LI R. PAPA-GOMBIODeputy Clerk of Court, En BancAppointed on January 25, 2016

Atty. BASILIA T. RINGOL Deputy Clerk of Court and

Chief, Judicial Records DivisionAppointed on February 18, 2016


Retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval, Chairperson of PHILJA’s Department of Criminal Law, lectures on Crimes Punishable by Special Laws during the Career Development Program for Court Legal Researchers of the Visayas Region held on May 4–5, 2016 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

Comm. Linda Malenab-Hornilla, Chairperson of PHILJA’s Department of Alternative Dispute Resolution, discusses Court-Annexed Mediation in the Philippines and the Role of the Clerks of Court during the 31st Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Clerks of Court held on May 24 to 27, 2016 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (seated, center) and Ateneo University School of Law Professor Atty. Ferdinand M. Negre (seated, 6th from left)with the participants of the 75th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges held on April 19–28, 2016 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.


Alternative Dispute Resolution

Production of evidence in an arbitration case where the Deliberative Process Privilege is invokedTraditionally, U.S. courts have established two fundamental requirements, both of which must be met, for the deliberative process privilege to be invoked. First, the communication must be predecisional, i.e., “antecedent to the adoption of an agency policy.” Second, the communication must be deliberative, i.e., “a direct part of the deliberative process in that it makes recommendations or expresses opinions on legal or policy matters.” It must reflect the “give-and-take of the consultative process.”

x x x x

Thus, “[t]he deliberative process privilege exempts materials that are ‘predecisional’ and ‘deliberative,’ but requires disclosure of policy statements and final opinions ‘that have the force of law or explain actions that an agency has already taken.“’

x x x x

The deliberative process privilege can also be invoked in arbitration proceedings under RA No. 9285.

“Deliberative process privilege contains three policy bases: first, the privilege protects candid discussions within an agency; second, it prevents public confusion from premature disclosure of agency opinions before the agency establishes final policy; and third, it protects the integrity of an agency’s decision; the public should not judge officials based on information they considered prior to issuing their final decisions.” Stated differently, the privilege serves “to assure that subordinates within an agency will feel free to provide the decision[-]maker with their uninhibited opinions and recommendations without fear of later being subject to public ridicule or criticism; to protect against premature disclosure of proposed policies before they have been finally formulated or adopted; and to protect against confusing the issues and misleading the public by dissemination of documents suggesting reasons and rationales for a course of action which were not in fact the ultimate reasons for the agency’s action.”

x x x x

As a qualified privilege, the burden falls upon the government agency asserting the deliberative process privilege to prove that the information in question satisfies both requirements—predecisional and deliberative. “The

agency bears the burden of establishing the character of the decision, the deliberative process involved, and the role played by the documents in the course of that process.” It may be overcome upon a showing that the discoverant’s interests in disclosure of the materials outweigh the government’s interests in their confidentiality. “The determination of need must be made flexibly on a case-by-case, ad hoc basis,” and the “factors relevant to this balancing include: the relevance of the evidence, whether there is reason to believe the documents may shed light on government misconduct, whether the information sought is available from other sources and can be obtained without compromising the government’s deliberative processes, and the importance of the material to the discoverant’s case.”

In the present case, considering that the RTC erred in applying our ruling in Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, and both BCA’s and DFA’s assertions of subpoena of evidence and the deliberative process privilege are broad and lack specificity, we will not be able to determine whether the evidence sought to be produced is covered by the deliberative process privilege. The parties are directed to specify their claims before the RTC and, thereafter, the RTC shall determine which evidence is covered by the deliberative process privilege, if there is any, based on the standards provided in this Decision. It is necessary to consider the circumstances surrounding the demand for the evidence to determine whether or not its production is injurious to the consultative functions of government that the privilege of non-disclosure protects.

Carpio, J., Department of Foreign Affairs v. BCA International Corporation, G.R. No. 210858, June 29, 2016

Constitutional Law

Summary deportation proceedings cannot be instituted by the BI against citizens of the Philippines It is settled that summary deportation proceedings cannot be instituted by the BI against citizens of the Philippines. In Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa, the Court reiterated the doctrine that citizens may resort to courts for protection if their right to live in peace, without molestation from any official or authority, is disturbed in a deportation proceeding. In that case, we stated:

However, the rule enunciated in the above-cases admits of an exception, at least insofar as deportation


Civil Law

Succession; Co-ownershipConjugal partnership of gains established before and after the effectivity of the Family Code are governed by the rules found in Chapter 4 (Conjugal Partnership of Gains) of Title IV

proceedings are concerned. Thus, what if the claim to citizenship of the alleged deportee is satisfactory? Should the deportation proceedings be allowed to continue or should the question of citizenship be ventilated in a judicial proceeding? In Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board (96 Phil. 665 [1955]), this Court answered the question in the affirmative, and We quote:

When the evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings. A citizen is entitled to live in peace, without molestation from any official or authority, and if he is disturbed by a deportation proceeding, he has the unquestionable right to resort to the courts for his protection, either by a writ of habeas corpus or of prohibition, on the legal ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction. If he is a citizen and evidence thereof is satisfactory, there is no sense nor justice in allowing the deportation proceedings to continue, granting him the remedy only after the Board has finished its investigation of his undesirability.

x x x. And if the right (to peace) is precious and valuable at all, it must also be protected on time, to prevent undue harassment at the hands of ill-meaning or misinformed administrative officials. Of what use is this much boasted right to peace and liberty if it can be availed of only after the Deportation Board has unjustly trampled upon it, besmirching the citizen’s name before the bar of public opinion? (Emphasis supplied)

Since respondent has already been declared and recognized as a Philippine citizen by the BI and the DOJ, he must be protected from summary deportation proceedings. We affirm the ruling of the CA on this matter:

True, “[t]he power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is an act by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and domestic tranquillity of the people.” However, in this controversy, petitioner is not an alien. He is a Filipino citizen duly recognized by the BI, the DOJ and the DFA x x x. (Citations omitted)

Sereno, CJ., Republic of the Philippines v. Davonn Maurice C. Harp, G.R. No. 188829, June 13, 2016

(Property Relations Between Husband and Wife) of the Family Code. x x x

x x x x

The conjugal partnership of Anastacio and Flora was dissolved when Flora died in 1968, pursuant to Article 175 (1) of the Civil Code (now Article 126 (1) of the Family Code).

x x x x

While Article 130 of the Family Code provides that any disposition involving the conjugal property without prior liquidation of the partnership shall be void, this rule does not apply since the provisions of the Family Code shall be “without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.”

x x x x

In the case of Taningco v. Register of Deeds of Laguna, we held that the properties of a dissolved conjugal partnership fall under the regime of co-ownership among the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased spouse until final liquidation and partition. The surviving spouse, however, has an actual and vested one-half undivided share of the properties, which does not consist of determinate and segregated properties until liquidation and partition of the conjugal partnership.

An implied ordinary co-ownership ensued among Flora’s surviving heirs, including Anastacio, with respect to Flora’s share of the conjugal partnership until final liquidation and partition; Anastacio, on the other hand, owns one-half of the original conjugal partnership properties as his share, but this is an undivided interest.

Article 493 of the Civil Code on co-ownership provides:

Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.

Thus, Anastacio, as co-owner, cannot claim title to any specific portion of the conjugal properties without an actual partition being first done either by agreement or by judicial decree. Nonetheless, Anastacio had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest in the subject property.

x x x x

Anastacio, as a co-owner, had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest, but not the interest of his co-owners. Consequently, Anastacio’s sale to the spouses Molina without the consent of the other co-owners was not totally void, for Anastacio’s rights or a portion thereof were thereby effectively transferred, making the spouses Molina a co-owner


Criminal Law

Doctrinal RemindersCivil Law (Continued)

of the subject property to the extent of Anastacio’s interest. This result conforms with the well-established principle that the binding force of a contract must be recognized as far as it is legally possible to do so (quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest).

Brion, J., Melecio Domingo v. Spouses Genaro Molina and Elena B. Molina, G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2016

Concept of Compromise AgreementWith respect to the parties’ alleged Compromise Agreement, we rule that this “agreement” has no effect to the resolution of the present case.

Parties to a suit may enter into a compromise agreement to avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. A compromise agreement intended to resolve a matter already under litigation is a judicial compromise, which has the force and effect of a judgment of the court. However, no execution of the compromise agreement may be issued unless the agreement receives the approval of the court where the litigation is pending and compliance with the terms of the agreement is decreed.

In this case, the petitioners admitted that their compromise agreement was not submitted for court approval for failure of the respondents’ counsel to sign the agreement. The parties, however, are not prevented from pursuing their compromise agreement or entering into another agreement regarding the subject matter of this case provided that their stipulations are not contrary to law, morals, good custom, public order, or public policy.

Brion, J., Heirs of Exequiel Hagoriles v. Romeo Hernaez, et al., G.R. No. 199628, April 20, 2016

Guidelines for awarding of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages In summary:

I. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:

1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA No. 9346:

a. Civil indemnity – P100,000 b. Moral damages – P100,000 c. Exemplary damages – P100,000

1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:

a. Frustrated:

i. Civil indemnity – P75,000 ii. Moral damages – P75,000 iii. Exemplary damages – P75,000

b. Attempted:

i. Civil indemnity – P50,000 ii. Exemplary damages – P50,000 iii. Exemplary damages – P50,000

2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:

a. Civil indemnity – P75,000b. Moral damages – P75,000 c. Exemplary damages – P75,000

2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:

a. Frustrated:


b. Attempted:


II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:

1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA No. 9346:


1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated but merely attempted:




2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, but merely attempted:


III. For Complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code where death, injuries, or sexual abuse results, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages will depend on the penalty, extent of violence and sexual


abuse; and the number of victims where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:





The above Rules apply to every victim who dies as a result of the crime committed. In other complex crimes where death does not result, like in Forcible Abduction with Rape, the civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages depend on the prescribed penalty and the penalty imposed, as the case may be.

IV. For Special Complex Crimes like Robbery with Homicide, Robbery with Rape, Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, Robbery with Arson, Rape with Homicide, Kidnapping with Murder, Carnapping with Homicide or Carnapping with Rape, Highway Robbery with Homicide, Qualified Piracy, Arson with Homicide, Hazing with Death, Rape, Sodomy or Mutilation and other crimes with death, injuries, and sexual abuse as the composite crimes, where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:



In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same as the above if the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua although death did not occur.

1.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds and could have died if not for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded:


1.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries: a. Civil indemnity – P50,000 b. Moral damages – P50,000 c. Exemplary damages – P50,000



In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same as the above if the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua.

2.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds and could have died if not for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded: a. Civil indemnity – P50,000 b. Moral damages – P50,000 c. Exemplary damages – P50,000

2.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:a. Civil indemnity – P25,000 b. Moral damages – P25,000 c. Exemplary damages – P25,000

In Robbery with Physical Injuries, the amount of damages shall likewise be dependent on the nature/severity of the wounds sustained, whether fatal or non-fatal.

The above Rules do not apply if in the crime of Robbery with Homicide, the robber/s or perpetrator/s are themselves killed or injured in the incident.

Where the component crime is rape, the above Rules shall likewise apply, and that for every additional rape committed, whether against the same victim or other victims, the victims shall be entitled to the same damages unless the other crimes of rape are treated as separate crimes, in which case, the damages awarded to simple rape/qualified rape shall apply.

V. In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of divisible penalties, i.e., Homicide, Death under Tumultuous Affray, Infanticide to Conceal the Dishonor of the Offender, Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, Duel, Intentional Abortion and Unintentional Abortion, etc.:1.1 Where the crime was consummated:

a. Civil indemnity – P50,000b. Moral damages – P50,000

1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, except those crimes where there are no stages, i.e., Reckless Imprudence and Death under Tumultuous Affray:a. Frustrated:

i. Civil indemnity – P30,000ii. Moral damages – P30,000

b. Attempted:i. Civil indemnity – P20,000ii. Moral damages – P20,000


Doctrinal RemindersCriminal Law (Continued)

If an aggravating circumstance was proven during the trial, even if not alleged in the Information, in addition to the above mentioned amounts as civil indemnity and moral damages, the amount of P50,000 exemplary damages for consummated; P30,000 for frustrated; and P20,000 for attempted, shall be awarded.

VI. A. In the crime of Rebellion where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua and death occurs in the course of the rebellion, the heirs of those who died are entitled to the following:

a. Civil indemnity – P100,000b. Moral damages – P100,000c. Exemplary damages – P100,000

B. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds in the course of the rebellion and could have died if not for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded:


C. For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:


VII. In all of the above instances, when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in court, the amount of P50,000 as temperate damages shall be awarded.

To reiterate, Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that the minimum amount for awards of civil indemnity is P3,000, but does not provide for a ceiling. Thus, although the minimum amount cannot be changed, increasing the amount awarded as civil indemnity can be validly modified and increased when the present circumstance warrants it.

Prescinding from the foregoing, for the two counts of murder, attended by the ordinary aggravating circumstance of dwelling, appellant should be ordered to pay the heirs of the victims the following damages: (1) P100,000 as civil indemnity for each of the two children who died; (2) P100,000 as moral damages for each of the two victims; (3) another P100,000 as exemplary damages for each of the two victims; and (4) temperate damages in the amount of P50,000 for each of the two deceased. For the four counts of Attempted Murder, appellant should pay P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P50,000 as exemplary damages for each of the four victims. In addition, the civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages and temperate damages payable by the appellant are subject to interest at the rate of six

Double Jeopardy, requisitesAfter all, such reinvestigation would not subject Estores and San Miguel to double jeopardy because the same only attaches if the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy has attached before the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. In turn, a first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. In this case, the case against Estores and San Miguel was dismissed before they were arraigned. Thus, there can be no double jeopardy to speak of. Let true justice be served by reinvestigating the real participation, if any, of Estores and San Miguel in the killing of Mary Grace and Claudine Divina.

Peralta, J., People of the Philippines v. Ireneo Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016

Prosecution’s two-fold task in criminal caseIn every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold, that is, (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged; and (2) to establish with the same quantum of proof the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor, because, even if the commission of the crime is a given, there can be no conviction without the identity of the malefactor being likewise clearly ascertained.

x x x x

In People v. Rodrigo, the Court had the occasion to instruct that great care should be taken in considering the identification of the accused especially, when this identification is made by a sole witness and the judgment in the case totally depends on the reliability of the identification.

In his Sworn Statement, Adolfo mentioned six individuals involved in the crime but that he could not remember who shot the victim. In his testimony however, the number of participants were reduced to two, who conveniently were the only two individuals arrested in connection with the crime. Adolfo also remembered seeing Jonel shoot the victim.

We held in People v. Flores that when serious and inexplicable discrepancies are present between a previously sworn statement of a witness and her testimonial declarations with respect to one’s participation in a serious imputation such as murder, there is raised a grave doubt on the veracity of the witness’ account. There is no other evidence in this case aside from the testimony of the lone eyewitness which

percent per annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid.

Peralta, J., People of the Philippines v. Ireneo Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016


Taxation Law

Administrative Remedies, when properIn disputes involving real property taxation, the general rule is to require the taxpayer to first avail of administrative remedies and pay the tax under protest before allowing any resort to a judicial action, except when the assessment itself is alleged to be illegal or is made without legal authority. For example, prior resort to administrative action is required when among the issues raised is an allegedly erroneous assessment, like when the reasonableness of the amount is challenged, while direct court action is permitted when only the legality, power, validity or authority of the assessment itself is in question. Stated differently, the general rule of a prerequisite recourse to administrative remedies applies when questions of fact are raised, but the exception of direct court action is allowed when purely questions of law are involved.

x x x x

x x x, the Court sustains the CA’s finding that petitioner’s case is one replete with questions of fact instead of pure questions of law, which rendered its filing in a judicial forum improper because it is instead cognizable by local administrative bodies like Board of Assessment Appeals, which are the proper venues for trying these factual issues. Verily, what is alleged by Capwire in its petition as “the crux of the controversy,” that is, “whether or not an indefeasible right over a submarine cable system that lies in international waters can be subject to real property tax in the Philippiines,” is not the genuine issue that the case presents—as it is already obvious and fundamental that real property that lies outside of Philippine territorial jurisdiction cannot be subjected to its domestic and sovereign power of real property taxation—but, rather, such factual issues as the extent and status of Capwire’s

directly implicates appellants to the crime. The inconsistent statements could not be dismissed as inconsequential because the inconsistency goes into the very identification of the assailants, which is a crucial aspect in sustaining a conviction.

x x x x

The deficiency in the proof submitted by the prosecution cannot be ignored. A slight doubt created in the identity of the perpetrators of the crime should be resolved in favor of the accused.

x x x x

For failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellants were the perpetrators of the crime, we are constrained to rule on the latters’ acquittal.

Perez, J., People of the Philippines v. Jonel Vargas y Ramos, et al., G.R. No. 208446, April 6, 2016

ownership of the system, the actual length of the cable/s that lie in the Philippine territory, and the corresponding assessment and taxes due on the same, because the public respondents imposed and collected the assailed real property tax on the finding that at least a portion or more portions of the submarine cable system that Capwire owns or co-owns lies inside Philippine territory. Capwire’s disagreement with such findings of the administrative bodies presents little to no legal question that only the courts may directly resolve.

Instead, Capwire argues and makes claims on mere assumptions of certain facts as if they have been already admitted or established, when they have not, since no evidence of such have yet been presented in the proper agencies and even in the current petition. As such, it remains unsettled whether Capwire is a mere co-owner, not full owner, of the subject submarine cable and, if the former, as to what extent; whether all or certain portions of the cable are indeed submerged in water; and whether the waters wherein the cable/s is/are laid are entirely outside of Philippine territorial or inland waters, i.e., in international waters. More simply, Capwire argues based on mere legal conclusions, culminating on its claim of illegality of respondents’ acts, but the conclusions are yet unsupported by facts that should have been threshed out quasi-judicially before the administrative agencies. It has been held that “a bare characterization in a petition of unlawfulness, is merely a legal conclusion and a wish of the pleader, and such a legal conclusion unsubstantiated by facts which could give it life, has no standing in any court where issues must be presented and determined by facts in ordinary and concise language.” Therefore, Capwire’s resort to judicial action, premised on its legal conclusion that its cables (the equipment being taxed) lie entirely on international waters, without first administratively substantiating such a factual premise, is improper and was rightly denied. Its proposition that the cables lie entirely beyond Philippine territory, and therefore, outside Philippine sovereignty, is a fact that is not subject to judicial notice since, on the contrary, and as will be explained later, it is in fact certain that portions of the cable would definitely lie within Philippine waters. Jurisprudence on the Local Government Code is clear that facts such as these must be threshed out administratively, as the courts in these types of cases step in at the first instance only when pure questions of law are involved.

Peralta, J., Capitol Wireless, Inc. v. The Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, The Provincial Assessor of Batangas, The Municipal Treasurer and Assessor of Nasugbu, Batangas, G.R. No. 180110, May 30, 2016

Remedial Law

One-day delay in filing of Petition for Review, when excusable


Doctrinal RemindersRemedial Law (Continued)

Annulment of judgment, jurisdiction and nature of Annulment of judgment, as provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, is based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. It is a recourse that presupposes the filing of a separate and original action for the purpose of annulling or avoiding a decision in another case. Annulment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered. It is unlike a motion for reconsideration, appeal or even a petition for relief from judgment, because annulment is not a continuation or progression of the same case, as in fact the case it seeks to annul is already final and executory. Rather, it is an extraordinary remedy that is equitable in character and is permitted only in exceptional cases.

Annulment of judgment involves the exercise of original jurisdiction, as expressly conferred on the Court of Appeals by Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP Blg.) 129, Section 9(2). It also implies power by a superior court over a subordinate one, as provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, wherein the appellate court may annul a decision of the regional trial

Res Judicata; Distinction between Bar by Prior Judgment Rule and Principle of Conclusiveness of Judgment

Respondents appear to have misunderstood the implications of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment on their cause. Contrary to their claims, the factual findings are conclusive and have been established as the controlling legal rule in the instant case, on the basis of the principle of res judicata—more particularly, the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.

This doctrine of res judicata which is set forth in Section 47 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court lays down two main rules, namely: (1) the judgment or decree of a court of competent

court, or the latter court may annul a decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court.

But the law and the rules are silent when it comes to a situation similar to the case at bar, in which a court, in this case the Court of Tax Appelas, is called upon to annul it own judgment. More specifically, in the case at bar, the CTA sitting en banc is being asked to annul a decision of one of its divisions. However, the laws creating the CTA and expanding its jurisdiction (RA Nos. 1125 and 9282) and the court’s own rules of procedure (the Revised Rules of the CTA) do not provide for such a scenario.

It is the same situation among other collegial courts. To illustrate, the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals may sit and adjudicate cases in divisions consisting of only a number of members, and such adjudication is already regarded as the decision of the Court itself. It is provided for in the Constitution, Article VIII, Section 4(l) and BP Blg. 129, Section 4, respectively. The divisions are not considered separate and distinct courts but are divisions of one and the same court; there is no hierarchy of courts within the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, for they each remain as one court notwithstanding that they also work in divisions. The Supreme Court sitting en banc is not an appellate court vis-a-vis its divisions, and it exercises no appellate jurisdiction over the latter. As for the Court of Appeals en banc, it sits as such only for the purpose of exercising administrative, ceremonial, or other non-adjudicatory functions.

Thus, it appears contrary to these features that a collegial court, sitting en banc, may be called upon to annul a decision of one of its divisions which had become final and executory, for it is tantamount to allowing a court to annul its own judgment and acknowledging that a hierarchy exists within such court. In the process, it also betrays the principle that judgments must, at some point, attain finality. A court that can revisit its own judgments leaves the door open to possible endless reversals or modifications which are anathema to a stable legal system.

Peralta, J., Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kepco Ilijan Corp., G.R. No. 199422, June 21, 2016

In his Comment, respondent explained that he was able to file his appeal with the CA only on November 4, 2004, because he had to wait for the RTC to grant him leave to withdraw his pending Petition. He asked the Court to consider the fact that the one-day delay in filing the appeal was not caused by his thoughtlessness, but by the need to ensure that he would not violate the rule against forum shopping.

We rule for respondent. The one-day delay in the filing of the Petition is excusable.

In Heirs of Crisostomo v. Rudex International Development Corp., the Court explained that the limited period of appeal was instituted to prevent parties from intentionally and unreasonably causing a delay in the administration of justice. The dismissal of a petition is unwarranted if the element of intent to delay is clearly absent from a case. Here, it is apparent that the delay in the filing of the Petition was for a valid reason, i.e., respondent had to wait for the RTC Order allowing him to withdraw his then pending Petition. It is likewise clear that he did not intend to delay the administration of justice, as he in fact filed the appeal with the CA on the very same day the RTC issued the awaited Order.

x x x x

We find no reason to depart from the above ruling. All things considered, a liberal construction of the rules of procedure is in order. The ends of justice would be better served by a review of this case on the merits rather than by a dismissal based on technicalities.

Sereno, CJ., Republic of the Philippines v. Davonn Maurice C. Harp, G.R. No. 188829, June 13, 2016


jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties and their privies and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action either before the same or any other tribunal; and (2) any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which a judgment or decree is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claims or demands, purposes, or subject matters of the two suits are the same.

These two main rules mark the distinction between the principles governing the two typical cases in which a judgment may operate as evidence. The first general rule stated above and corresponding to the afore-quoted paragraph (b) of Section 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, is referred to as “bar by former judgment”; while the second general rule, which is embodied in paragraph (c) of the same section and rule, is known as “conclusiveness of judgment.” (Emphases Supplied)

In Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, We discussed the concept of conclusiveness of judgment as pertaining even to those matters essentially connected with the subject of litigation in the first action. This Court explained therein that the bar on re-litigation extends to those questions necessarily implied in the final judgment, although no specific finding may have been made in reference thereto, and although those matters were directly referred to in the pleadings and were not actually or formally presented. If the record of the former trial shows that the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding a particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties; and if a judgment necessarily presupposes certain premises, they are as conclusive as the judgment itself:

The second concept—conclusiveness of judgment—states that a fact or question which was in issue in a former suit and was there judicially passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment therein as far as the parties to that action and persons in privity with them are concerned and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies, in the same court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or different cause of action, while the judgment remains unreversed by proper authority. It has been held that in order that a judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a particular matter in another action between the same parties or their privies, it is essential that the issue be identical. If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties or their

privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit (Nabus v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 732 [1991]). Identity of cause of action is not required but merely identity of issue.

Justice Feliciano, in Smith Bell & Company (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals (197 SCRA 201, 210 [1991]), reiterated Lopez v. Reyes (76 SCRA 179 [1977]) in regard to the distinction between bar by former judgment which bars the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand, or cause of action, and conclusiveness of judgment which bars the relitigation of particular facts or issues in another litigation between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action.

The general rule precluding the re-litigation of material facts or questions which were in issue and adjudicated in former action are commonly applied to all matters essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation. Thus, it extends to questions necessarily implied in the final judgment, although no specific finding may have been made in reference thereto and although such matters were directly referred to in the pleadings and were not actually or formally presented. Under this rule, if the record of the former trial shows that the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties and if a judgment necessarily presupposes certain premises, they are as conclusive as the judgment itself. (Emphases supplied)

The foregoing disquisition finds application to the case at bar.

Undeniably, the present case is merely an adjunct of the 2004 case, in which the automation contract was declared to be a nullity. Needless to say, the 2004 Decision has since become final. As earlier explained, this Court arrived at several factual findings showing the illegality of the automation contract; in turn, these findings were used as basis to justify the declaration of nullity.

A closer scrutiny of the 2004 Decision would reveal that the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding particular factual matters in relation to the following: (1) identity, existence and eligibility of MPC as a bidder; (2) failure of the ACMs to pass DOST technical tests; and (3) remedial measures undertaken by the COMELEC after the award of the automation contract. Under the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, We are precluded from re-litigating these facts, as these were essential to the question of nullity. Otherwise stated, the judgment could not have been rendered without necessarily deciding on the above-enumerated factual matters.


Doctrinal RemindersRemedial Law (Continued)

Thus, under the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, those material facts became binding and conclusive on the parties, in this case MPEI and, ultimately, the persons that comprised it. When a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or when an opportunity for that trial has been given, the judgment of the court—as long as it remains unreversed—should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them. Thus, the CA should not have required petitioner to present further evidence of fraud on the part of respondent Willy and MPEI, as it was already necessarily adjudged in the 2004 case.

To allow respondents to argue otherwise would be violative of the principle of immutability of judgment. When a final judgment becomes executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer undergo any modification, much less any reversal. x x x

Sereno, CJ., Republic of the Philippines v. Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 184666, June 27, 2016

EN BANC

RESOLUTION

AMENDMENT OF A.M. NO. 03-03-03-SC DATED JUNE 17, 2003, FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE COVERAGE OF CASES COGNIZABLE BY SPECIAL COMMERCIAL COURTS TO INCLUDE ALL CASES GOVERNED BY THE FRIA, LIQUIDATION CASES EMANATING FROM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, AND DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION OF PARTNERSHIPS UNDER THE CIVIL CODE

WHEREAS, Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) No. 10142, otherwise known as the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010 (the FRIA) empowers the Supreme Court to designate the courts that will hear and resolve cases brought thereunder and to promulgate the rules of pleading, practice and procedure that will govern such proceedings;

WHEREAS, in view of the passage of RA No. 8799, which transferred the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, including cases involving rehabilitation of corporations, partnerships and other associations, to the Regional Trial Courts, A.M. No. 03-03-03-

A.M. NO. 03-03-03-SC

SC dated June 17, 2003 designated Special Commercial Courts to handle these cases and other cases of commercial nature, including intellectual property cases;

WHEREAS, A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC needs to be further strengthened in order to address the gaps in venue caused by the limited number of designated Special Commercial Courts per judicial region;

WHEREAS, Sections 18 and 23 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) authorize the Supreme Court to define the territorial authority of the branches of the Regional Trial Court to allow better access to justice;

WHEREAS, cases governed by the FRIA for (1) the rehabilitation of sole proprietorships, in addition to partnerships and corporations which already fall under the jurisdiction of Special Commercial Courts, (2) insolvency and liquidation of corporations, partnerships and other associations, and (3) insolvency and suspension of payments/discharge of individuals, liquidation cases emanating from administrative proceedings, as well as dissolution and liquidation of partnerships under Articles 1830 and 1831 of the Civil Code are commercial in nature;

WHEREAS, to streamline the court structure and promote expediency and efficiency in handling special commercial cases, the exercise of jurisdiction to hear and decide all rehabilitation, insolvency and liquidation cases brought under the FRIA and those emanating from administrative proceedings, as well as dissolution and liquidation of partnerships under Articles 1830 and 1831 of the Civil Code are best consolidated under the Special Commercial Courts;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Court Resolves:

1. That (1) cases governed by the FRIA for (a) the rehabilitation of sole proprietorships, in addition to partnerships and corporations which already fall under the jurisdiction of Special Commercial Courts, (b) the insolvency and liquidation of corporations, partnerships and other associations, and (c) the insolvency and suspension of payments/discharge of individuals, (2) liquidation cases emanating from administrative proceedings, and (3) dissolution and liquidation of partnerships under Articles 1830 and 1831 of the Civil Code shall be heard and decided by the designated Special Commercial Courts;

2. That, for clarity, the exercise of jurisdiction of Special Commercial Courts shall now cover the following cases:

(a) Intra-corporate cases and other cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 902-A, as amended, that were formerly cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission (A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC, March 13, 2001);

(b) Intellectual Property Cases (A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC, June 17, 2003);


i. All civil actions for violations of intellectual property rights provided for in Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code (“IP Code”), as amended (Section 1, Rule 2 of A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC, October 18, 2011);

ii. All criminal actions for violations of intellectual property rights provided for in the IP Code, as amended (Section 1, Rule 10 of A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC, October 18, 2011);

iii. Applications for ex parte issuance of a writ of search and seizure in civil actions for infringement of intellectual property rights (A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC, February 15, 2002 and Sec. 2, Rule 2 of A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC, October 18, 2011);

iv. Applications for the issuance of search warrants involving violations of the Intellectual Property Code (Sec. 2, Rule 10 of A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC, October 18, 2011);

(c) Cases involving admiralty and maritime laws (A.M. No. 05-4-05-SC, April 12, 2005);

(d) Petitions for dissolution involving partnerships under Articles 1830 and 1831 of the Civil Code, including liquidation emanating therefrom;

(e) Financial Rehabilitation Casesi. Petitions for rehabilitation of corporations,

partnerships, and sole proprietorships, filed pursuant to the FRIA (A.M. No. 12-12-11-SC, August 27, 2013); and

ii. Liquidation of insolvent juridical and individual debtors and suspension of payments of insolvent debtors pursuant to the FRIA (A.M. No. 15-04-06-SC, April 21, 2015); and

(f) Liquidation Casesi. Those emanating from administrative proceedings

and from expiration of corporate term (Sections 118, 119 and 120 of the Corporation Code); and

ii. Court-assisted liquidation under Special Laws.3. Upon the effectivity of this Resolution, all filed and pending

cases mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph shall be assigned or transferred to the designated Special Commercial Courts having territorial jurisdiction over them;

4. When there is no Special Commercial Court designated to hear and decide a case filed within a specific territory in accordance with the existing rules on venue, the case shall be filed in the nearest designated Special Commercial Court within the judicial region of said territory; and

5. In order to ensure a just and equitable distribution of cases, the designated Special Commercial Courts shall continue to participate in the raffle of other cases.

Provided, however, that the Executive Judge concerned shall adopt a procedure whereby every rehabilitation, insolvency or liquidation case assigned or transferred to a Special Commercial Court shall be duly credited to such court.

This Resolution shall take effect 15 days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two newspapers of national circulation. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) is directed to circularize the same upon its effectivity.

June 21, 2016.

(Sgd.) SERENO, CJ, CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO (on official leave), PEREZ, MENDOZA, REYES, PERLAS-BERNABE, LEONEN, JARDELEZA, CAGUIOA, JJ.

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 75-2016

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT IN THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON ON-THE-JOB TRAINING AND LEGAL APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE AND LAW STUDENTS IN THE LOWER COURTS

Pursuant to the Resolution dated June 16, 2015 of the Court en banc in A.M. No. 15-04-03-SC,1 which resolved to “LIFT the prohibition on the accommodation of students to undergo on-the-job training/practicum in the lower courts” and directed the Office of the Court Administrator to “promulgate guidelines governing the application and acceptance of students as interns in the lower courts, as reflected in the resolutions of the Court on the matter, and ensure that the rules on ethics, security and confidentiality of records are complied with,” the following guidelines are hereby issued:

1. Objectives. The program aims to acquaint interns with (a) the review and other processes of the court to which they are assigned; (b) the ethical standards in the administration of justice; c) the hands-on-training on legal research and writing; and (d) other matters relevant to their respective curriculum.

1 Re: Letters of Justice Jose C. Vitug [Ret], Founding Dean, Angeles University Foundation [AUF] School of Law, dated February 7, 2015, and of Judge Ave A. Zurbito-Alba, Municipal Trial Court, Daraga, Albay, dated January 29, 2015.


2. Accreditation of Schools. The program shall be open only to students from schools included in the list approved by the Court Administrator, hereinafter referred to as “accredited schools.” Requests for school accreditation shall be addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) with proof that the school/university is duly accredited by the Commission on Higher Education or the Legal Education Board.

3. Applications. Applications by college/university students for OJT/practicum in the lower courts, in accordance with the program of their college/university, shall be filed in the specific court where they intend to undertake their internship or training. Applicants are required to submit a written application for internship, a copy of their curriculum vitae, a recommendation and/or endorsement from the dean of their program, and proof that their school is an accredited school. The application, together with the favorable endorsement by the presiding judge, shall be sent to the OCA for approval;

4. Number of interns per court. A court shall be allowed a maximum of only two interns at any given time, unless, for compelling reasons, a higher number may be required as may be determined by the Court Administrator;

5. Supervision. The interns shall be under the direct supervision and control of the presiding judge;

6. Workplace and working hours. The interns shall work at the court premises during regular office hours but shall not be allowed access to these premises after office hours, except with the express authority of the supervising judge;

7. Access to records. The interns may be granted access to rollos and other court records subject to the following rules:a. The interns may be allowed access to specific rollos

and other court records only under the express written authority of their supervising judge;

b. No rollos or any other court records shall be brought outside the premises of the supervising judge’s court, nor shall they be shown to outside parties;

c. No copying or reproduction of files shall be allowed;d. Reports, drafts and research materials shall be

submitted directly to the supervising judge, and shall not be shown or transmitted to outside parties before, during and after completion of the program/internship;

8. Access to Library. Interns may borrow books and other materials from the court library under conditions that the library shall impose, and shall be required to submit a library clearance before any report of completion of the program can be issued to their respective schools. The

interns shall replace or pay for the cost of any book or library material that they fail to return to the library;

9. Confidentiality. The interns shall be bound by the rule on confidentiality applicable to court employees;

10. Code of conduct. The interns shall observe and be bound by the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which shall be explained by the supervising judge;

11. Assessment and monitoring. The supervising judge shall monitor and assess the progress of the interns during the program/internship, and shall give a final rating on and assessment of their performance in accordance with the rating system of their respective schools. The supervising judge shall then furnish the OCA with a copy of the said final rating;

12. Accountability and turnover of records. The interns shall be accountable for and shall turn over all office records and materials entrusted to their custody during the program/internship, including electronic files in their possession involving their work, as a condition for the grant of the supervising judge’s final rating report;

13. Allowances. Due to budgetary constraints, the internship shall be at no expense to the court;

14. Sanctions and penalties. Non-compliance with the security, confidentiality and ethical rules shall be under pain of administrative and penal sanctions as the law may provide and as the Supreme Court may impose. Any Court-imposed sanction shall be without prejudice to the sanctions that the college/university may impose;

15. Explanation of guidelines. These guidelines shall be explained to every intern at the start of the program/internship.

For the information and guidance of all concerned.

March 22, 2016.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZCourt Administrator


CircularsOCA Circular No. 75-2016 (Continued)

TO: ALL LOWER COURT ORGANIZATIONS/ASSOCIATIONS

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THE HOLDING OF ORGANIZATION ACTIVITIES

In the various requests for the conduct of conventions/seminars received from associations of judges and employees, it has been observed that said conventions/seminars entail an activity period of less than a week and in some instances, even more. In this regard, it is imperative that the attendance of court officials and personnel in such activities is regulated



TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: PROHIBITION AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTIONS OR RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ENFORCING ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND PREVENTING VIOLATIONS THEREOF

1 Rule of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Rule 2, A.M. No. 09-6-8SC, 13 April 2010.

2 The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, Republic Act No. 8550 [1998] as amended by Republic Act No. 10654 [2015].


TO: ALL JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: DELEGATION BY THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE OF AUTHORITY TO PERSONALLY ENDORSE OR AUTHORIZE APPLICATIONS FOR SEARCH WARRANTS TO KEY OFFICERS

Paragraph 5, OCA Circular No. 40-2016, provides, among others, that “[t]he heads of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) shall personally endorse (or authorize) all applications for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,

to ensure that the performance of their regular duties and functions is not adversely affected.

Henceforth, to attain optimum service and to establish uniformity in the grant of any request from every judiciary organization, the following guidelines are hereby prescribed as to the number of days that will be authorized by this Office on official time/business for organization activities:(1) National Convention – Official Time/Business for a

maximum of three days including travel time. National Officers are given another one day for

preconvention preparation;(2) Regional Convention – Official Time/Business for a

maximum of two days including travel time. Regional Officers are given another one day for pre-

convention preparation;(3) Consultative Meetings – Official Time/Business of one

day for each meeting for a maximum of two meetings within a year including travel time for the concerned officers and members only;

(4) Monthly Meeting of Officers – Official Time/Business of one day for each meeting, including travel time, for a maximum of six meetings in a year for the concerned officers only; and

(5) Oath Taking of Officers of the Association – Official Time for a maximum of one day, including travel time, after every election for the newly-elected and appointed officers only.

It is understood that any organizational activity on official business is chargeable against local funds, if available and authorized. The request should be sent to this Office at least three months before the intended actual activity of every organization or association.

Prior circulars from the Office of the Court Administrator on this matter which are contrary to the foregoing are hereby superseded.

Strict compliance with these new guidelines is enjoined.

March 22, 2016.


Acting on persistent reports of continuous violations of rules and laws prohibiting the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders against government agencies enforcing environmental laws and preventing violations thereof, all judges of first and second level courts are hereby ENJOINED to STRICTLY OBSERVE Rule 2, Section 10 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which provides:

Sec. 10. Prohibition against temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. – Except the Supreme Court, no court can issue a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction against lawful actions of government agencies that enforce environment laws or prevent violations thereof.1

and Section 134 of the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, as amended by Republic Act No. 10654, which provides:

Sec. 134. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions, and Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions. – No injunction or restraining order from the Municipal Trial Courts and Regional Trial Courts shall lie against the Department [Department of Agriculture] and BFAR [Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources] upon the ex parte motion or petition filed by any person or entity in the exercise by the Department and BFAR of its regulatory functions in support of the implementation of this Code.2

For your information and strict compliance.

April 4, 2016.



the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and other relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included by the Supreme Court x x x.”

In a subsequent letter dated March 30, 2016 addressed to the Court Administrator, Police Director Ricardo C. Marquez, PNP Chief, has delegated his authority to endorse or authorize all applications for search warrants to the following key officers of the PNP in their respective territorial jurisdictions:

1. Deputy Chief for Operations;2. Director for Investigation and Detective

Management;3. Directors for Integrated PoIice Operations;4. Regional Directors;5. Directors, National Support Units;6. Regional Chiefs, National Support Units;7. Provincial Directors;8. Provincial Officers, National Support Units; and,9. Chiefs of Police.

Accordingly, all applications for search warrants enforceable within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court endorsed or authorized by the above-named officers of the PNP shall be sufficient compliance with OCA Circular No. 40-2016.

However, applications for search warrants filed with the Executive Judges of the City of Manila and Quezon City, to be enforced outside their respective territorial jurisdictions pursuant to A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC,* must be personally endorsed or authorized by the Chief of the PNP himself, or by the Director for Investigation and Detective Management of the PNP, to whom the authority has been delegated.

For strict compIiance.

April 4, 2016.


* Resolution Clarifying the Guidelines on the Application for and Enforceability of Search Warrants, issued on January 25, 2000, as amended by A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, Guidelines on the Selection and Designation of Executive Judges and Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties, issued on January 27, 2004, further amended on June 4, 2013, as provided in OCA Circular No. 87-2013.


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

NOTlCE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to the Supreme Court en banc Resolution dated December 16, 2015 in A.M. No. 07-3-09-SC (Re: Proposed Guidelines in the Disposition and/or Destruction of Court Records, Papers and Exhibits [Re: Simplified Guidelines for Disposing of Records of Long-Decided Cases and Unneeded Documents and Papers]), all first and second level courts shall observe the WHOLE MONTH of JULY 2016 as the official RECORDS DISPOSAL PERIOD for TERMINATED CASES (5 years in age and above) and for old NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS/FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE PETITIONS with the concerned Office of the Clerk of Court or single-sala Regional Trial Court branch clerk. During this period, the judges and court personnel shall segregate the disposable or residual records and physically extract the records that shall be retained and kept in the court’s custody and safekeeping.

FURTHER, an ADVISORY IS HEREBY GIVEN to litigants, lawyers and other interested persons who may

CircularsOCA Circular No. 88-2016 (continued) SUBJECT: POSTING OF NOTICES ANNOUNCING THE

OBSERVATION OF THE RECORDS DISPOSAL PERIOD FOR THE WHOLE MONTH OF JULY 2016

Pursuant to the Supreme Court en banc Resolution dated December 16, 2015 in A.M. No. 07-3-09-SC (Re: Proposed Guidelines in the Disposition and/or Destruction of Court Records, Papers and Exhibits [Re: Simplified Guidelines for Disposing of Records of Long-Decided Cases and Unneeded Documents and Papers]), all first and second level courts are REQUIRED to post NOTICES informing the general public that the first and second level courts shall observe the whole month of July 2016 as the period for records disposal. For this purpose, the attached draft of NOTICE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, to be signed by the concerned Executive Judge, Presiding Judge or Clerk of Court/Officer in Charge, shall be used in compliance therewith.

Likewise, and as further required in the subject Resolution, all courts shall post, together with above Notice, the entire text or copy of the Guidelines as provided in A.M. No. 07-3-09-SC. The posting of the Notice and Guidelines shall be done in three conspicuous places in the court and other public places for wider dissemination.

For strict compliance.

April 27, 2016.




TO: ALL PRESIDING JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: RECORDS RETRIEVAL REQUEST FORM FOR THE RETRIEVAL OF RESIDUAL RECORDS UNDER A.M. NO. 07-3-09-SC (RE: PROPOSED GUIDELINES IN THE DISPOSITION AND/OR DESTRUCTION OF COURT RECORDS, PAPER AND EXHIBITS [RE: SIMPLIFIED GUIDELINES FOR DISPOSING OF RECORDS OF LONG-DECIDED CASES AND UNNEEDED DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS])

In its December 16, 2015 Resolution in A.M. No. 07-3-09-SC,1

the Court en banc declared that the first and second level courts shall observe the whole month of August 2016 as the period for retrieval of residual records by interested parties.2

Item 1(c)(i) provides:

want to obtain the disposable residual records of all terminated cases 5 years and above in age or the old notarized documents/foreclosure petitions, that they may APPLY for such records before the branch that decided the cases or the concerned Office of the Clerk of Court/branch clerk who is in possession thereof. For this purpose, the applicant shall fill out the form provided and submit the same within the WHOLE MONTH of August 2016. In the absence of said application, the pertinent records shall be subject to disposal during the WHOLE MONTH of September 2016.

During the RECORDS DISPOSAL PERIOD, the court shall hold hearings as far as practicable, more so for urgent matters and incidents, including, but not limited to, applications for writs of habeas corpus, amparo or habeas data, temporary restraining orders, permanent protection orders, bails, and lifting of warrants of arrest, as well as arraignment of detained accused.

PLEASE BE GUIDED ACCORDINGLY.

EJ/Judge/Clerk of Court/OIC

Within the month of August 2016, any interested party may file an application to take possession of any residual record, file, or document subject of disposal under the Guidelines, on a “first-come, first-served” basis. This application shall be filed before the branch concerned, or if not known, before the Office of the Clerk of Court of the station. The attached application form shall be used for this purpose x x x.

Attached herewith is the Records Retrieval Request Form to be used for this purpose. The following guidelines for the retrieval of residual records shall be observed:

1. The Records Retrieval Request Form shall be made available to the public by the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) for multiple-sala courts, or the Clerk of Court for single-sala courts.

2. The application shall be filed before the branch concerned or OCC of the station, as the case may be.

3. The branch concerned or the OCC shall approve the application once the documents are found, except when a compelling reason exists not to approve the same, which shall be indicated in the Form.

4. An application fee of Five Hundred Pesos (P500) shall be collected on a per case basis (for case documents), or on a per document basis (for non-case documents, such as notarial documents, clearances, certifications, foreclosure of mortgage, etc.). This fee shall be paid to the OCC or Clerk of Court (for single-sala courts), who shall issue an Official Receipt and deposit the amount in the JDF account.

5. The application fee shall be waived for pauper litigants, as indicated in their respective pleadings, and for any interested party who qualifies as a pauper litigant, as determined by the judge, provided the same is indicated in the Form with the documents supporting the claim attached.

6. No application fee shall be charged where the records requested are unavailable or not found, or where the request is denied by the court or Office of the Clerk of Court.

7. The branch concerned or OCC, as the case may be, shall release the residual records requested after payment of the applicable fee has been made and verified.

8. No application for the retrieval of residual records shall be entertained after August 31, 2016.


May 25, 2016.


1 (Re: Proposed Guidelines in the Disposition and/or Destruction of Court Records, Papers and Exhibits [Re: Simplified Guidelines for Disposing of Records of Long-Decided Cases and Unneeded Documents and Papers]).

2 Item 1(c)


CircularsOCA Circular No. 122-2016 (continued)

Philippine Trial Courts Records Retrieval

Request Form

Request Date Reference No.

Are you named interested party or counsel of record in this case? Interested Party (pls. specify): ______________________ Counsel of Record Others (pls. specify) ______________________________

Are you a pauper litigant? Yes (pls. attach supporting documents) No

Part A: Requestor Identification

Last Name First Name M.I. Signature

Address Telephone/Mobile Number

Municipality/City/Province Zip Code Email Address

Part B: Processing Location Part C: Record Type Province _______________________________________________________________________ City/Municipality ________________________________________________________________

RTC Branch __________________ MeTC/MTCC/MTC/MCTC Branch __________________ Shari’a District Court Shari’a Circuit Court Office of the Clerk of Court

Case Document Non-Case Document

Notarial Document Clearance Certification Foreclosure of Mortgage Other: (pls. specify) ___________________

Part D: Case Identification Case Type Civil Criminal Special Proceedings Small Claims Other: (pls. specify)

______________________

Nature of Case Case Title

Docket Number

Part E: Records Requested Please describe records requested as completely as possible. Include dates of pleadings, orders, exhibits, letter, etc., and names of individuals involved. For notarial documents, please specify the name of the notary public, document type, document number, etc. Attach additional pages if necessary.

For Judiciary Use Only FEES Record Found Record Not Found – P0.00 Case Document (per case) – P500.00 Pauper Litigant – P0.00 Non-Case Document (per document) – P500.00 Number of Documents _________________ TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: P _________________________

DISPOSITION Released Denied Unavailable If denied or unavailable, explain: ______ _________________________________

PAYMENT VERIFICATION O.R. No. ___________________

RELEASED BY: DATE: RECEIVED BY:

A.M. No. 07-3-09-SC dated 16 December 2015 (Re: Proposed Guidelines in the Disposition and/or Destruction of Court Records, Papers and Exhibits [Re: Simplified Guidelines for Disposing of Records of Long-Decided Cases and Unneeded Documents and Papers]

CLAIM RECEIPT Reference No.: Released By: Requestor: Released Date: No. of Documents: Received By:



TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT

SUBJECT: FORMS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED AND SUBMITTED IN RECOMMENDING APPLICANTS FOR VACANCIES IN THE LOWER COURTS

In line with the Chief Justice’s objective to professionalize the ranks of lower court employees and to ensure that only the deserving applicants are appointed to the positions therein, the Selection and Promotion Board–Lower Courts has resolved to adopt the attached forms to be submitted in the recommendation of applicants for vacancies in the lower courts. Thus, the following forms: Recommendation Form (Form 001); Interview Results Form (Form 002); and Examination Results Form (Form 003) should be duly accomplished and attached to the application papers submitted to the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator in accordance with OCA Circular No 74-2010 dated May 21, 2010, as amended by OCA Circular Nos. 134-2010 dated October 5, 2010 and 44-2013 dated March 18, 2013.


May 31,2016.


FORM 001

Selection and Promotion BoardLower Courts

Recommendation Form

To the Members of the Selection and Promotion Board-LC:

I hereby recommend the appointment of (name of applicant) to the position of (position applied for) in the (court) after having interviewed all the applicants for the position and/or assessing them through a special examination for this purpose.

(Applicant) is (state reason for recommendations) ;

describe nature of examination given to applicant, if applicable given) .

Attached are the results of the interview and/or special examination of all the applicants for the particular position for the Board’s consideration.

(Date of submission)

(signature above name) RECOMMENDING OFFICER

FORM 002


Interview Results

Applicant Interview Score Remarks

1. Juan dela Cruz

2. Juan dela Cruz

3. Juan dela Cruz

I hereby certify that the above-listed interview scores were arrived at after interviewing all the applicants for the position of (position applied for).



FORM 003


Examination Results

Applicant Examination Score Remarks

1. Juan dela Cruz

2. Juan dela Cruz

3. Juan dela Cruz

I hereby certify that the above-listed examination scores were arrived at after reviewing the examination results given to all applicants for the positions of (position applied for).






1 Raffle of Cases. – All cases filed with the first and second level courts in stations with two or more branches shall be assigned or distributed to the different branches by raffle. No case shall be assigned to any branch of a multiple-branch court without being raffled. Raffling of cases shall be regularly conducted at two o’clock in the afternoon every Monday and/or Thursday as warranted by the number of cases to be raffled.

2 Exclusion of vacant branches from raffle. – All vacant branches without regular judges shall be excluded from the raffle. However, once the vacancies are filled, the Executive Judge shall ensure that newly-filed cases shall be raffled to all branches on a 6:2:1 ratio as follows: six newly-filed cases to each of the newly-filled branches; two newly-filed cases to the existing branch or branches; and one newly-filed case to the branch of the Executive Judge, until such time when the newly-filled branches in the station shall have been assigned such number of cases as will be equivalent to the number of cases raffled to the other branches during the period of vacancy.

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 131A-2016

SUBJECT: ALL MULTIPLE-BRANCH FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF CONSOLIDATION AND LUMPING OF NEWLY-FILED CASES PRIOR TO RAFFLE

Pursuant to the Supreme Court en banc Resolution dated March 15, 2016 in A.M. No. 16-01-1-RTC (Re: Consolidation and Lumping of Newly-Filed Cases Prior to Raffling) and in view of Sections 21 and 42, Chapter V of A.M. No. 05-8-02 (Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties) which took effect on February 15, 2004, all concerned are hereby DIRECTED to REFRAIN from the unauthorized practice of CONSOLIDATING and LUMPING of cases prior to the raffle of the newly-filed cases.

For your information, guidance, and strict compliance.

This Circular revokes OCA Circular No. 131-2016 dated June 3, 2016.

June 27, 2016.


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT

SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENT TO OCA CIRCULAR NO. 128-2016 Re: FORMS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED AND SUBMITTED IN RECOMMENDING APPLICANTS FOR VACANCIES IN THE LOWER COURTS

TO: ALL JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO OCA CIRCULAR NO. 71-2003, GUIDELINES IN THE SUBMISSION OF PERFORMANCE RATING FOR LOWER COURT OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL

For the information and guidance of all concerned, OCA Circular No. 71-2003 dated June 4, 2003 is hereby amended to read as follows:

In the interest of the service, the following guidelines shall be observed in the submission of performance rating:

1. The performance evaluation of every court personnel shall be done every six months ending on June 30 and December 31 of every year pursuant to Section 3(d), Rule IX of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws.

2. FORMS. Two performance rating forms are prescribed, to wit:

2.1 Performance Rating Form – for Supervisor

– to be used to evaluate the performance of officials and employees with supervisory authority and duty, namely, the Clerks of Court (including Branch Clerks of Court), Officers in Charge designated in place of Clerks of Court and the Section Chiefs in the Office of the Clerk of Court.

2.2 Performance Rating Form – for Non-Supervisor

– to be used to evaluate the performance of the other court employees not covered by paragraph 2.1 hereof.

Please be informed that compliance with OCA Circular No. 128-2016, re: Forms to be Accomplished and Submitted in Recommending Applicants for Vacancies in the Lower Courts, shall be mandatory for all courts which have already received notice to post from the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator with attached copy of the circular and the required forms. However for courts which received their notice to post without a copy of the circular and the required forms, compliance with OCA Circular No. 128-2016 shall be optional.


June 27, 2016.



Effective July to December 2016 rating period, the Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) Forms shall be used.

3. RATER. The performance evaluation shall be made by the following:

3.1 Executive Judge – for the Clerk of Court/OIC of the Office of the Clerk of Court;

3.2 Presiding Judge – for the Clerk of Court/OIC of the sala;

3.3 OCC Clerk of Court – for the Section Chiefs and other OCC personnel not under the direct supervision of a Section Chief;

3.4 (Branch) Clerk of Court – for the court personnel of the sala;

3.5 OCC Section Chiefs – for the OCC personnel under their direct supervision.

4. The prescribed rating forms must be accomplished in triplicate following strictly the instruction stated therein. Only the original copy shall be sent to the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OAS, OCA). The duplicate copy shall be given to the ratee and the triplicate shall be kept in the office files. This modifies Memorandum dated November 6, 2002, re: Regular Submission of Performance Ratings.

Court officials and personnel who are temporarily reassigned/detailed to other stations shall indicate their official stations in the performance rating forms.

5. Any erasures or alterations made on the performance rating forms must be initialed by the rater/immediate supervisor who effected the said changes.

6. The Clerks of Court/OIC Clerks of Court in the Office of the Clerk of Court and in the respective branches shall forward the performance rating forms of all employees in the office/branch in one batch to the:

For court personnel of RTCRTC Personnel DivisionOffice of Administrative ServicesOffice of the Court AdministratorSupreme Court of the Philippines1000 Manila

OR

For court personnel of MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, SDC and SCC

MTC, etc. Personnel DivisionOffice of Administrative Services Office of the Court Administrator Supreme Court of the Philippines 1000 Manila

7. DEADLINE. The performance rating forms shall be submitted to and received by the concerned divisions of the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator, within the following periods:

7.1 First Semester Performance Rating (January 1 to June 30)

– on or before September 15 of the same year; and

7.2 Second Semester Performance Rating (July 1 to December 31)

– on or before March 15 of the following year.

8. Failure to submit or late submission and submission of improperly accomplished performance rating form shall be grounds for disciplinary action against the official concerned.

9. After the expiration of the deadline for submission of the performance rating forms, the OAS, OCA, shall submit a report to the Legal Office, OCA, for appropriate disciplinary action relative to the Clerks of Court/OIC Clerks of Court who failed to submit the performance rating forms of the personnel of their respective offices/branches within the prescribed period as well as those who belatedly submitted their performance rating forms.

10. Court officials and personnel who obtained Unsatisfactory ratings for two rating periods and Poor rating for one evaluation period may be dropped from the rolls after due notice.

11. The performance ratings shall be used as basis for promotion, transfer, training and scholarship grants and other personnel actions. Only court officials and personnel with Outstanding or Very Satisfactory performance rating shall be considered for the aforementioned personnel actions.

12. Payment of productivity incentive benefit and other benefits that are performance-based shall be held in abeyance pending submission of the required performance rating reports.

13. The Financial Management Office (FMO), OCA, shall timely forward circulars or guidelines authorizing the release of performance-based benefits to the OAS, OCA. Within five working days from the receipt of the circulars or guidelines, the OAS, OCA, shall transmit to the FMO, OCA, the required reports for the release of the benefits taking into consideration the abovementioned deadlines.

14. All performance rating forms that will be received by the OAS, OCA, after the submission of the required reports shall no longer be transmitted to the FMO,



OCA, to avoid delay in the release of the benefits, as scheduled. Nonetheless, all subsequent submissions will be consolidated/collated by the OAS, OCA. The report/list of officials and personnel who are entitled to the benefits but were held in abeyance due to late submission of the required performance rating forms shall be transmitted to the FMO, OCA, on or before November 15 of the current year. The FMO, OCA, will thereafter process and release the benefits. The benefits of officials and personnel who will not be included in the report/list of the OAS, OCA, submitted to the FMO, OCA, on or before November 15, shall no longer be processed and released.

For immediate and strict compliance.

June 27, 2016.


CircularsOCA Circular No. 140-2016 (continued)

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS IN THE PROVINCES OF QUIRINO AND NUEVA VIZCAYA

SUBJECT: INTERNSHIP PROGRAM FOR MEDIATION TRAINEES ON COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION

The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), through the Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO), in coordination with the Office of the Court Administrator, is expanding its Court-Annexed Mediation Program in the Provinces of Quirino and Nueva Vizcaya.

To formally mark the establishment of the Philippine Mediation Center Units (PMCU) in Cabarroguis, Quirino and Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, an Internship Program for Mediation Trainees will be conducted from August 1 to September 30, 2016. This activity aims to provide Mediation Trainees the opportunity to apply what they have learned from the Basic Mediation Course held at the Governor’s Garden Hotel in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, on May 17–20, 2016, by handling mediatable cases where they should successfully settle at least three out of five cases assigned to them, in order to be recommended for accreditation as Court-Annexed Mediators. This program will be conducted under the supervision of a Mentor-Coach.

In connection therewith, you are hereby directed to conduct an inventory of mediatable cases and refer them to

the PMC Units in Cabarroguis, Quirino and Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, starting August 1, 2016 and thenceforth.

Any communication relating to this program should be addressed to Hon. Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Chancellor, PHILJA, 3rd Floor, Centennial Building, Supreme Court, Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila.

June 27, 2016


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS IN THE PROVINCE OF AURORA

SUBJECT: INTERNSHIP PROGRAM FOR MEDIATION TRAINEES ON COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION

The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), through the Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO), in coordination with the Office of the Court Administrator, is expanding its Court-Annexed Mediation Program in the Province of Aurora.

To formally mark the establishment of the Philippine Mediation Center Unit (PMCU) in Baler, Aurora, an Internship Program for Mediation Trainees will be conducted from August 1 to September 30, 2016. This activity aims to provide Mediation Trainees the opportunity to apply what they have learned from the Basic Mediation Course held at the Governor’s Garden Hotel in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, on May 17–20 2016, by handling mediatable cases where they should successfully settle at least three out of five cases assigned to therein, in order to be recommended for accreditation as Court-Annexed Mediators. This program will be conducted under the supervision of a Mentor-Coach.

In connection therewith, you are hereby directed to conduct an inventory of mediatable cases and refer them to the PMC Unit in Baler, Aurora, starting August 1, 2016 and thenceforth.

Any communication relating to this program should be addressed to Hon. Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Chancellor, PHILJA, 3rd Floor, Centennial Building, Supreme Court, Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila.

June 27, 2016.




APPOINTING THE SC DEPUTY DIVISION CLERK OF COURT IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIVISION CLERK OF COURT, THIRD DIVISION

WHEREAS, the position of SC Deputy Division Clerk of Court in the Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, is vacant; the notice of vacancy and the deadline for the filing of the applications for appointment thereto were duly published; and the matrix, (showing the applicants’ present positions with salary grades, highest educational attainment, performance rating, relevant experiences, trainings and seminars, dates of entrance to the Supreme Court, and dates of last promotion) prepared by the Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer Atty. Eden T. Candelaria were submitted to the Chief Justice;

WHEREAS, evaluations have been made based on the criteria for the selection of the most qualified applicants.

NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, for and in behalf of the Supreme Court, by virtue of and pursuant to the power and authority vested in the revised Resolution in A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC, do hereby appoint ATTY. MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG, III as Deputy Division Clerk of Court in the Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division.

This appointment shall take effect on the 14th day of June 2016.

Issued this 14th day of June 2016.

(Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENOChief Justice

Chairperson, First Division

(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIOSenior Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

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

Chairperson, Third Division

MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 24-2016

MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 28-2016

CREATING THE JUDICIARY-WIDE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE BENEFITS OF JUSTICES, JUDGES AND CERTAIN HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS OF THE JUDICIARY

WHEREAS, there is a need to assess the option of securing a healthcare service provider to extend medical assistance to Justices, Judges, and certain High Level Officials of the Judiciary;

WHEREAS, there is also a need to rationalize the coverage of medical assistance for Justices, Judges, and certain High Level Officials of the Court who may be willing to increase their share to augment the cost for additional benefits under a healthcare service provider;

WHEREAS, to streamline the process of acquiring the services of a health maintenance organization, there is a need to create a judiciary-wide committee to evaluate all concerns of said court officials, and provide recommendations to the Office of the Chief Justice and/or Supreme Court Bids and Awards Committee for Goods and Services;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Judiciary-Wide Committee on Health Care Benefits of Justices, Judges and certain High Level Officials of the Court is hereby created and constituted as follows:

Chairperson Hon. Thelma C. Bahia Deputy Court Administrator

Vice Chairperson Judge Manuel Gerard C. Tomacruz Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 10, Manila

Members Judge Ana Teresa T. Cornejo-Tomacruz MeTC, Branch 21, Manila

Atty. Czarina E. Samonte-Villanueva Atty. Jocelyn T. Fabian Office of the Chief Justice

Atty. Joevanni A. Villanueva Office of Associate Justice Jose P. Perez

Representative/s

Office of Administrative Services Supreme Court Medical Services Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) OCA-Office of Administrative Services Court of Appeals Court of Tax Appeals Sandiganbayan

Secretary To be designated by the Chairperson

The Judiciary-Wide Committee shall have the following functions and duties:

1. Determine who may be covered by the comprehensive healthcare plan for Justices, Judges and certain High Level Officials of the Court;

2. Conduct research and/or survey on specific medical needs and other related assistance to develop a


comprehensive medical program/protection best suited for said court officials;

3. List all existing laws, rules, regulations, and other relevant issuances pertaining to the procurement of a comprehensive medical program/protection for said court officals;

4. Receive, assess, and provide recommendations on possible healthcare agreements with different healthcare providers/organizations; and

5. Propose policy guidelines and other relevant recommendations to the Office of the Chief Justice and/or to the Supreme Court Bids and Awards Committee for Goods and Services relative to the process and requirements for securing a healthcare service provider who may provide comprehensive medical program/protection, in accordance with the established needs of the intended beneficiaries; and

6. Perform such functions as may be directed by the Chief Justice or by the Court and those that are inherent, incidental or essential to the accomplishment of its above duties and objectives.

The Chairperson, Working Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Members and Members of the Secretariat of the Committee shall receive the usual expense allowances.

This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its issuance this July 4, 2016.


Chairperson, First Division

(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIOSenior Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

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

Chairperson, Third Division

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 67-2016

WHEREAS, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), mandates that all agencies should have a CSC approved Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS), wherein all performance-based human resources movements, and/or developments/interventions such as promotion, scholarship, training, rewards and incentives shall be based;

WHEREAS, pursuant to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 2012 (Guidelines in the Establishment and Implementation of Agency Strategic Performance Management System), and in line with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 13, Series of 1992 (Adopting the Revised Policies on the Performance Evaluation System), CSC Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2009 (Reiterating the Installation of a Performance Management System), and Administrative Matter No. 03-06-13-SC (Code of Conduct for Court Personnel), the Guidelines on the Implementation of a Strategic Performance Management System in the Judiciary was created;

WHEREAS, the said Guidelines requires the creation of Performance Management Teams (PMTs) in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and Lower Courts, which shall have the following responsibilities:

a) Set consultation meetings with all Heads of Offices/Divisions to discuss the office performance commitment and rating system and tools;

b) Ensure that office performance management targets, measures, and budget are aligned with the goals of the agency;

c) Recommend approval of the office performance and rating system and tools;

d) Act as appeals body and final arbiter;

e) Identify potential top performers for awards; and

f) Adopt internal rules, procedures, and strategies to carry out its responsibilities;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Performance Management Teams (PMTs) in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and Lower Courts are hereby created and shall be composed of the following:

a) Supreme Court Performance Management Team (SC-PMT)

Chairperson

Chief Justice or designated representative Office of the Chief Justice

Vice Chairperson

Clerk of Court/Deputy Clerk of Court

Members

Chief/Assistant Chief Office of Administrative Services (OAS-SC)

Chief/Assistant Chief Office of Administrative Services Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA)

Representative,Supreme Court Assembly of Lawyer Employees (SCALE)

OrdersMemorandum Order No. 28-2016 (continued)


Representative, Second Level Employees, Supreme Court Employees Association (SCEA)

Representative, First Level Employees, Supreme Court Employees Association (SCEA)

b) Court of Appeals Performance Management Team (CA-PMT)

Chairperson Presiding Justice or designated representative

Vice Chairperson

Executive Clerk of Court VI

Members Chief Judicial Staff Officer of Personnel Division Chief Judicial Staff Officer of Finance Planning Officer Chief Judicial Staff Officer of any designated office ACAE Representative

c) Sandiganbayan Performance Management Team (SB-PMT)

Chairperson Presiding Justice or authorized representative

Vice Chairperson Executive Clerk of Court IV

Members Chief Legal Office Chief JSO Admin. Division Chief JSO Finance Division SBEA Representative

d) Court of Tax Appeals Performance Management Team (CTA-PMT)

Chairperson Presiding Justice or designated representative

Vice Chairperson Clerk of Court (Executive Clerk of Court IV)

Members

Chief of Office Office of Legal and Technical Services

Chief of Office Office of Administrative and Finance Services

Representative, Employees Association

e) Performance Management Teams for Lower Courts (PMT-LC)

Chairperson Court Administrator

Vice Chairperson

Deputy Court Administrators (in charge of the regions)

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 121-2016

CREATING TASK FORCE KATARUNGAN AT KALAYAAN IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

WHEREAS, few courts are able to effectively monitor the progress of criminal cases resulting in unacceptable procedural delays in trial and prolonged incarceration of detainees;

WHEREAS, Administrative Order No. 151-2011 created the Task Force Katarungan at Kalayaan in the City of Manila which is primarily tasked to address the immense overcrowding in holding jails and other problems affecting the welfare of the detainees;

WHEREAS, notwithstanding the success of the Manila Task Force, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of the program design in heterogeneous sites and various contexts for critical adjustments and reforms prior to a nationwide rollout;

WHEREAS, holding jails in the National Capital Judicial Region (NCJR) are among the most congested nationwide and due to its proximity to the Supreme Court and other agencies engaged in jail management, they become ideal in terms of program implementation and monitoring;

NOW, THEREFORE, there is hereby created in the cities of the National Capital Judicial Region Task Forces Katarungan at Kalayaan to monitor the status and conditions of the detainees and take prompt actions to ensure the protection of their rights and release when warranted.

A Task Force shall consist of:

a. A Regional Trial Court Judge as Chairperson and a Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court Judge as Vice Chairperson, both to be appointed for a term of two years by the Executive Judge of the city.

Members

Chief/Assistant Chief, OAS, OCA

Chief/Assistant Chief, RTC Personnel Division

Chief/Assistant Chief, MTC etc. Personnel Division

Representative, First Level Employees, PACE

Representative, Second Level Employees, PACE

The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and Members of the Committee shall receive the usual expense allowances.

This Administrative Order shall take effect upon its issuance this 29th day of April 2016.



The Chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the Task Force, sign and review its recommendations and reports, invite the judges of courts under review, grant the release of budget allocations, and other powers necessary to faithfully carry out its duties. In his/her absence, the Vice Chairperson shall assume these functions.

b. The City or Provincial Prosecutor or his/her representative and the Local Head of the Public Attorney’s Office or his/her representative who shall identify policies, practices, and procedures that contribute to delays in trial and suggest possible solutions to these problems.

c. The Warden of City or Provincial Jail or his/her representative who shall assist the Task Force in gathering information relating to detained persons.

A Task Force shall have a Secretariat composed of the Branch Clerks of Court or any staff of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, a jail officer, stenographers, and additional court or jail employees if necessary. The Secretariat shall perform administrative and information management functions, to wit: records keeping, drafting of correspondence, facilitating meetings, following up courts, organizing thematic roundtable discussions, liaising with external stakeholders, publication of materials and other logistic matters. With the approval of the Committee, the Task Force may solicit the assistance of the local government, the academe and civil society organizations. A Task Force shall have the following duties, powers, and functions:

a. Study and define the issues concerning detained prisoners, especially their rights that need to be acted on with promptness end resoluteness;

b. Coordinate and monitor the actions of the court personnel (judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, branch clerks of court) to ensure that detainees are accorded their legal rights and privileges;

c. Advise the presiding judge of the appropriate courts and their relevant court personnel of the need to provide the Task Force information and documents as it may request for the purpose of completing and processing the data files of detained prisoners;

d. Identify inmates who are at risk of delay, understand the causes of delay, and recommend appropriate corrective actions;

e. Advise the presiding judges or any court personnel of the need to act on any incident or situation that adversely affects the rights of detained prisoners, or subject them to undue or harsh treatments;

f. Report to the Supreme Court Committee for the Decongestion of Provincial, City, and Municipal Jails

and the Office of the Court Administrator the action/s that presiding judges or court personnel have taken on such advise;

g. Submit a report of accomplishments of the Task Force to the Committee on the Decongestion of Provincial, City, and Municipal Jails;

h. Recommend appropriate sanctions for non-compliance to the Office of the Chief Justice, through the Office of the Court Administrator;

i. Summarize its experiences and suggest relevant measures and reforms to speed up the trial process and help decongest local jails; and

j. Perform such functions and exercise such powers as are inherent, incidental, or essential to the accomplishment of its above duties and objectives.

The organization of the Task Force and the exercise of its duties shall be carried out in batches. The chronology of which is determined by the severity of jail congestion in the area. The batches shall be deployed as follows:

Batch 1 : Quezon City and Pasay (Q3 2016)

Batch 2 : Las Piñas, Makati, Muntinlupa, and Navotas (Q1 2017)

Batch 3 : Caloocan, Parañaque, Pasig, and Taguig (Q3 2017)

Batch 4: Remainder of NCJR (Q1 2018)

This Administrative Order shall take effect upon its issuance.

Baguio City, April 12, 2016.

(Sgd.) SERENO, CJ, CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, PEREZ, MENDOZA, REYES, PERLAS-BERNABE, LEONEN, JARDELEZA, CAGUIOA, JJ.

OrdersAdministrative Order No. 121-2016 (continued)

Administrator Marquez, Court of Appeals Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Hon. Madhub and Ms. George discussed issues in cybercrime cases and formulation of action plan. Among others, the issues and suggestions raised during the open forum include the designation of cybercrime courts pursuant to Section 21 Chapter V of Republic Act No. 10175; lack of procedural remedies available to complainant situated outside the Philippine jurisdiction where no local consulate office can be found; authority of consular officials to administer oath in lieu of prosecutors for the complaint-affidavits; authority of prosecutors to administer oath

Judicial Training on Cybercrime(Continued from page 11)

(next page)


Third Quarter 2016 Training Programs and Activities(Continued from page 48)

Agusan del Norte Mediation ProgramJuly 19, Hall of Justice, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte

Agusan del Sur Mediation ProgramJuly 21, Hall of Justice, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur

• Seminar-Workshop on Procedural, Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property for Special Commercial Court Judges of Regions I, II, II, IV and VJuly 21–22, Le Monet Hotel, Baguio City

• Ninth Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process ServersJuly 19–21, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Information Dissemination through a Dialogue between Barangay Officials and Court Officials

City of Olongapo August 12, Rizal Triangle Multi-Purpose CenterOlongapo City

City of Tacloban August 25, Patio Victoria, San Jose, Tacloban City

Municipality of CatarmanAugust 26, Ibabao Hall, Provincial CapitolCatarman, Northern Samar

• 13th Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair Lecture entitled “Remedial Law as an Instrument to Promote Social Justice and Environmental Protection” by Justice Magdangal M. De LeonAugust 18, Court of Appeals AuditoriumCourt of Appeals, Manila

• Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) Trainers’ Training

August 25–26, Hotel Elizabeth, Baguio City

August 31–September 1, Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City, Albay

September 15–16, Waterfront Insular Hotel, Davao City

• Orientation and Training Seminar for Judges and Court Decongestion Officers of Beneficiary Courts

Regions XI and XIIAugust 30–31, Seda Abreeza Hotel, Davao City

Regions XI, X and XIISeptember 7–8, Seda Centrio Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City

• Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of the Third Judicial RegionAugust 30–September 1, Xenia HotelClark Freeport Zone, Angeles City, Pampanga

• Basic Mediation Course (Agusan del Norte and Agusan del Sur Mediation Programs)September 5–8, Red Palm Suites Butuan City, Agusan del Norte

• Seminar on the Financial Liquidation and Suspension of Payments (FLSP) Rules of Procedure for Court of Appeals Justices (Cagayan de Oro City Station), Special Commercial Court Judges and Pairing Court Judges of Regions IV, X, XI and XIISeptember 1, Park Inn by Radisson, Davao City

• Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and Law Enforcers Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons CasesSeptember 13–15, Taal Vista Hotel, Tagaytay City

• Personal Security Training for JudgesSeptember 13–15, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

using information technology in places without consular offices; importance of presenting the affiant in court and the suggestion to include in the draft rules to consider teleconference for affiants not in the Philippines; storage and custody of computer data if deposited before the court pursuant to Section 16 of RA No. 10175; procedure in dealing with the opening of sealed data; procedure in real time collection of traffic data; procedure in taking down a website committing cybercrime; and delineating the requirements for application of search warrant in connection with child abuse cases in relation to cybercrime cases.

The two-day program ended with the Closing Remarks of Mr. Pereira, PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna, and Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano, which was read by National Prosecution Service Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Theodore M. Villanueva. They thanked the organizers, trainers and experts for the opportunity to increase the participants’ capacities on prosecution and handling cybercrime and electronic evidence cases, with the hope for more opportunities for collaborations with each other in the future.

Judicial Training on Cybercrime (Continued)


Third Quarter 2016 Training Programs and ActivitiesJustice Adolfo S. Azcuna

Chancellor

Dean Sedfrey M. CandelariaEditor in Chief

Editorial and Research StaffAtty. Ma. Melissa Dimson-Bautista

Armida M. SalazarJocelyn D. BondocRonald Paz Caraig

Joseph Arvin S. CruzChristine A. Ferrer

Joanne Narciso-MedinaCharmaine S. NicolasSarah Jane S. Salazar

Circulation and Support StaffRomeo A. Arcullo

Judith B. Del RosarioMichael Angelo P. Laude

Lope R. PalermoDaniel S. Talusig

Printing ServicesLeticia G. Javier and Staff

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


3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial BuildingPadre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila1000 Philippines

PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE TO AVOID PAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH

• Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators (Skills Enhancement Course)Pampanga, Zambales, and Bataan Mediation ProgramsJuly 5–6, PHILJA Training CenterTagaytay CityAugust 3–4, City Suites CondotelCebu CitySeptember 21–22, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City

• Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-based Course)

August 23–26, PHILJA Training Center Tagaytay City

• Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees and PMC Unit Staff

Aurora Mediation ProgramJuly 1, Machiavelli Lodge, Baler, AuroraAgusan del Sur Mediation ProgramSeptember 9, Provincial Learning CenterProsperidad, Agusan del Sur

• Career Enhancement Program for Regional Trial Court Sheriffs of the Seventh Judicial RegionJuly 5–7, Hotel Fortuna, Cebu City

• Competency Enhancement Training for Family Court Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Investigators on the Management of Online Sexual Exploitation of Children CasesJuly 5–6, Marco Polo Hotel, Cebu City

• Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) Roll-Out

July 5–8, Court of Tax Appeals Multi-Purpose Hall, Quezon City

July 27–28, Hotel StotsenbergClarkfield Freeport Zone, PampangaAugust 2–3, PHILJA Training CenterTagaytay CityAugust 15–16, Hotel del Rio, Iloilo City

August 18–19, Golden Peak Hotel,Cebu City

• Career Enhancement Program for Court Social Workers of the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Judicial RegionsJuly 12–14, PHILJA Training CenterTagaytay City

• Judicial Career Enhancement Program for First Level Court Judges

10th Judicial RegionJuly 13–15, PHILJA Training CenterTagaytay CityFirst, Sixth, and National Capital Judicial RegionsJuly 27–29, PHILJA Training CenterTagaytay City

• 39th Pre-Judicature Program (As Prescribed by Section 10, Republic Act No. 8557) (Complete Compliance with MCLE Requirements)July 18–29, Bayview Park HotelRoxas Boulevard, Manila

• Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators and PMC Unit Staff

Date post:	01-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	19 times
Download:	0 times