PROFILE AND PERCEPTIONS OF JUDGES -I - Vol. III, No. 4 (October-December 1988) PROFILE AND PERCEPTIONS OF JUDGES OF PILOT COURTS ON THE CONTINUOUS TRIAL SYSTEM Atty. Ric Tan Legada and Atty. Rodolfo Sabio INTRODUCTION This report is based on the “Survey of the Profile and Perceptions of the Judges of the Pilot Courts Using the Continuous Trial System,” conducted as part of the larger research project, “Study of the Pilot Courts Using Continuous Trial.” The survey generated significant information on the background of the judges of pilot courts using continuous trial. The profile of the judges were cate- gorized as to age, sex, civil status, educational attain- ment, law school attended, year they were admitted to the bar, year they were appointed to the judiciary, the number of their caseloads and level of perform- ance per month and the length of time they could try and decide a case. The survey also solicited the perceptions of the judges on the continuous trial system. They were asked whether they want to be judges of the pilot courts, their expectations of the continuous trial systein, the problems that may be encountered. their level of performance, the factors that promote or hinder the speedy disposal of the cases, and their preferences on the trial system. The following discusses in detail the general profile of the respondents judges, their characteris- tics, and their perceptions. I. PROFILE OF JUDGES AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS A. GENERAL PROFILEOF JUDGES Of the total 81 pilot trial judges, seventy-fotir (74) responded. Out of these number, a large majority, 66 or 89.19 970are male judges and only 8 or 10.81% are female. As to age, the oldest is 6’i years old and the youngest is 38 years old. Thirty-one (31) or 41.90‘0 belong to the age bracket of 56-60. Sixteen (16j or 21.62% are between the ages of 61-65. T~velve (12) or 16.22% are between the ages of 46- 50. As to their civil status. a majority. 72 or 97.30% are married and one (1) or 1.35”0 is single and also one ( 1) or 1.75 @> is a widower. Nirxteen (1:)) or 8.68 % of those \vh(j responded are la\\, graduates from the !vfanuel Luis Quezvn IJni\ rrsitb-. Eight (8) or 10.82% are graduates from ihe C’ni\.ersity of the Philippines. Seven (7) or 9.167 arv <rsduates of the Universitv of Santo Tomus and six ‘61 or 3.11 ‘“0 are from Ateneo de hianila. Fi\r i51 or 6.77% are graduates from Far Eastern Univer- sity and the rest with the range of 2-4 are either graduates from other law schools such as Arellano University, Philippine Law School, University of San Agustin, University of San Carlos, Andres Bonifacio College, University of Mindanao, University of Negros Occidental, Lyceum University and Xavier University. (See Table I). TABLE 1 Law School Attended* NAME OF LAW SCHOOL NO. ‘5 Manuel L. Quezon University (MLQU) 19 University of the Philippines (UP) 8 University of Santo Tomas (UST) 7 Ateneo de Manila 6 Far Eastern University (FEU) 5 San Beda College (SBC) 4 University of the East (UE) 3 University of Manila (UM) 3 Manila Law College 3 Arellano University 2 Andres Bonifacio College 2 University of Pangasinan 1 University of San Agustin 1 NWC 1 Philippine Law College 1 University of San Carlos 1 University of Mindanao 1 University of Negros Occidental 1 Xavier University 1 FU 1 Lyceum 1 UP-FEU-MLQU 1 Lyceum-UE 1 TOTAL: 74 25.68 % 10.82% 9.46% 6.77% 5.41% 4.05% 4.05% 4.05% 4.05 % 2.70% 2.70% 1.35 % 1.35% 1.35% 1.35% 1.35% 1.35% 1.35 % 1.35% 1.35% 1.35% 1.35 ‘“c 1 ,v& :‘; 100.00 “L *As of 1988
Transcript
PROFILE AND PERCEPTIONS OF JUDGES -I -
Vol. III, No. 4 (October-December 1988)
PROFILE AND PERCEPTIONS OF JUDGES OF PILOT COURTS ON THE CONTINUOUS
TRIAL SYSTEM
Atty. Ric Tan Legada and Atty. Rodolfo Sabio
INTRODUCTION
This report is based on the “Survey of the Profile and Perceptions of the Judges of the Pilot Courts Using the Continuous Trial System,” conducted as part of the larger research project, “Study of the Pilot Courts Using Continuous Trial.”
The survey generated significant information on the background of the judges of pilot courts using continuous trial. The profile of the judges were cate- gorized as to age, sex, civil status, educational attain- ment, law school attended, year they were admitted to the bar, year they were appointed to the judiciary, the number of their caseloads and level of perform- ance per month and the length of time they could try and decide a case.
The survey also solicited the perceptions of the judges on the continuous trial system. They were asked whether they want to be judges of the pilot courts, their expectations of the continuous trial systein, the problems that may be encountered. their level of performance, the factors that promote or hinder the speedy disposal of the cases, and their preferences on the trial system.
The following discusses in detail the general profile of the respondents judges, their characteris- tics, and their perceptions.
I. PROFILE OF JUDGES AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS
A. GENERAL PROFILEOF JUDGES
Of the total 81 pilot trial judges, seventy-fotir (74) responded. Out of these number, a large majority, 66 or 89.19 970 are male judges and only 8 or 10.81% are female. As to age, the oldest is 6’i years old and the youngest is 38 years old. Thirty-one (31) or 41.90‘0 belong to the age bracket of 56-60. Sixteen (16j or 21.62% are between the ages of 61-65. T~velve (12) or 16.22% are between the ages of 46- 50.
As to their civil status. a majority. 72 or 97.30% are married and one (1) or 1.35”0 is single and also one ( 1) or 1.75 @> is a widower.
Nirxteen (1:)) or 8.68 % of those \vh(j responded are la\\, graduates from the !vfanuel Luis Quezvn IJni\ rrsitb-. Eight (8) or 10.82% are graduates from ihe C’ni\.ersity of the Philippines. Seven (7) or 9.167 arv <rsduates of the Universitv of Santo Tomus and six ‘61 or 3.11 ‘“0 are from Ateneo de hianila. Fi\r i51
or 6.77% are graduates from Far Eastern Univer- sity and the rest with the range of 2-4 are either graduates from other law schools such as Arellano University, Philippine Law School, University of San Agustin, University of San Carlos, Andres Bonifacio College, University of Mindanao, University of Negros Occidental, Lyceum University and Xavier University. (See Table I).
TABLE 1 Law School Attended*
NAME OF LAW SCHOOL NO. ‘5
Manuel L. Quezon University (MLQU) 19 University of the Philippines (UP) 8 University of Santo Tomas (UST) 7 Ateneo de Manila 6 Far Eastern University (FEU) 5 San Beda College (SBC) 4 University of the East (UE) 3 University of Manila (UM) 3 Manila Law College 3 Arellano University 2 Andres Bonifacio College 2 University of Pangasinan 1 University of San Agustin 1 NWC 1 Philippine Law College 1 University of San Carlos 1 University of Mindanao 1 University of Negros Occidental 1 Xavier University 1 FU 1 Lyceum 1 UP-FEU-MLQU 1 Lyceum-UE 1
y;ac j&7&; \FqTere f.Lirtjer asked of the number of ;,‘ezrs they iVeX en,na& k private law practice, lav; Caking ir. govqnment or its equivaient ‘before their appintment as iudges. Only sixty six (65) responded. The data showy that sixtew (16) or 1%75Y~ had I& 20 years of izw practice. Fourteen (14) 0: 17.28% had about i1-X years law practice. Only three (3)
r.” mwe 31-;a >‘ears Ci more Of 1aW piFiCtiCe. It Cafi be significantly noted tha? one (I) had about 39 years of practice of Iaw.* it is only significant that one (1) judge has cnly 2 years related law practice. See Table d hcr:nw,, * = _ “.,IV
On Cascioads and Kate of Disposal
The respondents jxiges were asked about the IIIIITI~ of cases that the\, hand!e as of Febrtlar\. 1989. T\.v~eI~t>mt\~o (22) or 30.565 have indicate2 that tile\ ha\,e a caseload of 151-200 as of Februar\. 1989. Slnetecn (19) or 26.39 iia\.e caseload of lOl- 130. oni!. :\vu (2) or 2.78 5 stated that thq ha\e only a caseload of 50 or belov,. SignificantI!., therr ix one (1) or 1.39”~ stated thai IiC has a iuw!;,ati of 379. Also, it is significant to note that there is another one (1) Oi 1.39% n.!lo stated that hi- has a case load of 500. See Table 5.
Table 5 Caseload.5 a.5 of Februar!. 1989
e 28
PROFILE AND PERCEPTIONS OF JUDGES Vol. III, No. 4 (October-December 1988) 1 cases. The data show that as to civil cases, twenty- three (23) or 41.07% are heard for the duration of one month (1) to six (6) months. This is followed by fourteen (14) or 25.00% who stated that they could hear the case between the period of seven (7) months to one (1) year. The longest period indicated was from 3238 months or an average of 3 years and 2 months (1.39%).
With respect to criminal cases, thirty-three (33) or 55.00% stated that they could hear the case within the period of l-6 months. This is followed by sixteen (16) or 26.67% who stated that they could hear the case between seven (7) months to one (1) year. The longest period indicated was between the period 25- 31 months or two (2) years (3.49 %). See Table 6.
TABLE 6 Average Period to Hear
Civil Cases and Criminal Cases
PERIOD CIVIL CRIMINAL NO. % No. % --
1-6 months 23 41.07% 33 55.00 %
7-12 months 14 25.00% 16 26.67 %
13-18 months 6 10.71% 6 10.00 %
19-24 months 8 14.29% 1 1.67%
2530 months 2 3.57% 2 3.33%
31 and above 3 5.36% 2 3.33% - ___- ___
TOTAL: 56’ 100.00% 60’ 100.00 %
‘Oi !he total 74 respondents, soome have left the questions un-
answered.
As to the average period to decide a case, the sun-ey shows that twenty-one (21) or 28.77O/~l stated that they decide a case within the period of 16-30 days. Eighteen (18) or 24.66% stated that they could decide the case within one (1) day, to fifteen (15) day-s. Significantly, one (1) or 1.37% stated that he could decide a case within 91-120 days. See Table 7.
TABLE 7 Average Period to Decide a Case
PERIOD NO. %
l-15 days 18 24.66 16Xl days 21 28.77 31-45 days 9 12.33 46-60 days 9 12.33
61-75 days 4 5.48 7690 days 11 15.06 91-60 days 1 1.37 --
TOTAL: 73 100.00
Finally, the judges were asked of the average num- ber of cases that they could decide every month. The data show that they have a case disposal of l-10 cases. Eleven (11) or 16.92% stated that they could decide about 11-20 cases a month. Only one (1) or 1.54 % stated that he could dispose about 31-46 cases. See Table 8.
TABLE 8 Average Number of Cases Decided Per Month
NO. OF CASES NO. %
l-10 51 78.46
11-20 11 16.92
21-30 2 3.08 3146 1 1.54
TOTAL: 65 100.00
Of the 21 who believe in the continuous trial sys tern, about three (3) stated that in fact, they have already tried to adopt it even before the same was ordered to be piloted by the Supreme Court. For the other reasons, some stated that although the!, are in favor, they have yet some reservations as to its success and are willing to undertake the task “if $\-en as an additional assignment.”
Preference on Trial System
The judges were further asked whether they would prefer continuous trial or piece-meal trial system. Of the eighty-one (81) pilot trial judges, only seventy-two (72) responded. Of the 72.70 or 88.89 % are in favor of the continuous trial system while only hvo (2) or 2.47 “0 are in favor of piece-meal trial svs- tern. See Table 9.
Table 9 Preference on Trial System
PREFERENCE NO. %
Continuous trial 70 86.42
Piece-meal trial 2 2.47
No answer 9 11.11 -- TOTAL: 81 100 %
Of the seventy (70) who preferred continuous trial. sixty-four (64) or 91% gave their reasons. Most of them. forty (40) or 574, stated that they prefer continuous trial because it is the answer to the problem of the clogged dockets of the courts and for a speedier dispensation of justice. Tlventy-one (21 i or 30 ‘> stated that the trial system itself provides faciiib for the judges to decide the case easily because the “facts are still fresh on their mind.” See Table 10.
TABLE 10 Reasons for Continuom Trial
RE.GOKS
Promotes speedier disposition of cases
It is easier to decide a case
1: is worth a tg
No reason
TOTAL:
so, 5;
40 57
21 30
3 4
6 9
70 100%
Of the t\vs (2) \vho fa\.ored piecemeal method, one reasoned that it is “to keep all the cases rolling.” The other one stated that Continuous Trial will be costly for the litigants especiall!- the accused in the criminal cases and the defendants in civil cases.
Factors that Promote Speedy Disposition of Cases
The respondents judges were asked to identif!. the factors that promote the speedy disposition of cases. Thirty--four (34j or 45.95% of those who responded stated that the whole Court complement consisting of the trial judges, lawyers, court personnel and to a certain degree, the court procedures affect the speedy disposition of cases. Fourteen (14) or 18.92% con- sidered the lawyers’ preparedness in the presentation of their witnesses and the availability of their exhibits. The third factor, 10 or 13.51% is com- petence of the judges in conducting a trial coupled \vith the systematic presentation of evidence by the parties. Please see Table 11 below.
TABLE 11 Factors that Promote the Speedy Disposition of Cases Problems that maybe Encountered
FACTORS 4
Overall complement of competence of lawyers, fiscals, parties, and court personnel
Lawyers’ preparedness
Ability of the judge to apply procedures
Sound case management by judge and cooperation of counsels to reach a compromise
Simplificat.ion of court
NO. %
34 45.95
14 18.92
10 13.51
7 9.46
The Respondent judges were asked of the problems that they may encounter in the implementation of the Continuous Trial System. They stated that fore- most of the problems are resistance of the practicing. lawyers, 31 or 46 % ; need for more stenographers, I2 or 18 % ; non-availability of the witnesses to testify, 6 or 9 %; and not enough of time to decide the case, 5 or 7.5 % . Please See Table 13.
TABLE 13 Problems that maybe Encountered
procedures on pre-trial and on postponement of hearings 5 6.76
Others 4 5.40
TOTAL: 74 100.00%
Factors that Hinder the Speedy Disposition of Cases
The respondents were further asked to identify the
PROBLEMS NO. 3%
Resistance of practicing lawyers
Need for more court personnel particularly stenographers
Non-availability of all witnesses to testify in a case over a short period of time
Not enough time to de-ide a case
factors Lvhioh hinder the speedy disposition of c;1ses. The data show that most of the reason\ cited are la\\yer-related. 54 or 43.04 % . These are: (1) Lack of practicing law>-ers, (also CLAO Lalvyers or Fiscals). their unpreparedness and preferences for well-pay- ing clients. (2) Inefficiency in the service of summons or subpoena. notices and other Court processes, 24 or 30.38%. (3) Fractice of la\v!xrs in postpone- ment of cases. 23 or 29.11%) (3) Lack of n,it- nesses and their urnvillingness to testify, 20 or 25.32%. (5) The fact that the poor litigants could not afford the services of lawyers. 12 or 15.19 %, ; and (6) Lack of stenographers, 11 or 13.93‘2 See Table 12.
TABLE 12 Factors that Hinder Speedy Disposition of Cases
FACTORS
Lawyer related
Inefficiency/delay in the service of summons, subpoena and other court processes
Postponement of cases
Lack or unwillingness of witnesses to testify
Poor litigants
Lack of Stenographers
Lack of Court facilities and logistics
Incompetence of Judges
Others
NO.’ %
34 43.04
24 30.38
23 29.11
20 25.32
12 15.19
11 13.92
8 10.13
7 8.86
6 7.59
*Multiple responses based on 79 respondents.
31 46%
12 18.9%
6 9 %
5 7.5%
30
Need for efficient delivery of court processes 5 7.5% Possibility of disregard of due pr- Delay in calendar for hearing of cases later filed.
4 6%
4 6 % - - TOTAL: 67 100%
Expectations on the Continuous Trial System
The respondent judges from eighty-one (81) pilot courts were also asked of their expectations on the continuous trial system. Seventy-one (71) responded. Out of those who responded, sixty-six (66) or 81.18 Or, perceived that the continuous-trial will succeed while five (5) or 6.17% have expressed doubts or were rather skeptical of its chance to succeed. See Table 14.
Table 14 Expectation on Continuous Trial
EXPECTATION NO 47,
Will succeed Will not succeed No answer
TOTAL:
_.-. ,”
66 81.45% 5 6.17%
10 12.35 “0 - ___ 81 100.00%
For those who perceived that the system will succeed, they stated that it will surely succeed if the Supreme Court will support and provide solutions to the problems that will be encountered. Some sig- nificant reasons that they cited why continuous trial will succeed arc as folhnvs:
* It will discourage dilatory tactics of lawyers and will prod them to go to court ready. It ~~11 ~5. tore the peqles faith in the ludiciary:
*
On the other hand. those who !la\.e expressed skepticism stated that the trial la\v!.ers \vill not likel? be cooperative and that the svstern will be esactinq too much pressrlre on the judges and the court personnel. It \\.a.~ in fact noted in the C&u Dialogue \vith judges and the IBP in Eastern Vihavas. that one judge suffered il mild stroke Avhiie 2 stcnocrapher 1t.a~ hospitaiized because of the pressurcas of con- tinuous trial. In Iloilo City. it was also noted that a cierk of court intcntionall~~ filed a leave for t\vo !21 U-C& because he co111d not copr~ up with the prwure
PROFILE AND PERCEPTIONS OF JUDGES Vol. III, No. 4 (October-December 1988) 1
of continuous trial. Just recently, a judge observe the continuous trial in the National Capital Region died after a stroke, presumably traced the pressure attendant to the system. This is of course expected of courts where the court is understaffed or if not, totally wanting of stenographers and other support staff. Some of the reasons for pessimism of the judges on the success of continuous trial are as follows:
* Resistance of lawyers due to conflict of their scheduled hearing and reduction in their in-
come: *
Lack of court staff, particubly stenographers, interpreters, clerks, process serws and bailiff to enforce court orders:
* It will open a floodgate of complaints by law- yers against the judges, certiorari proceedings on court orders and resolutions.
II. COURT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGETING
Apart from the survey on the Profile and Percep- tions of the Judges on Continuous Trial System, the court administration in Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and Metropolitan Trial Courts (MetTCs) was also looked into in terms of manpower. financial and material resources. Data on the budget and personnel of the 162 courts (144 RTCs and 18 MetTCs) were gathered from the Supreme Court. Survey questionnaires were also mailed to gather information on their perception on the process of budgeting, actual problems on personnel and court management and their suggestions on how these problems may be approached. In this survey on court budget and personnel. a distinction between courts using continuous trial as against those using piece- meal trial \vas not emphasized since no changes were iikew+se instituted in the budget and personnel of pilot and nonpilot courts.
Profile of Court Personnel
After discussing the general profile of judges of Pilot Court. it is important to discuss the profile of the court personnel in terms of their salan le\,el. status of appointment. ci\.ii service eliqibilitv and length of service.
Court Structure and Salan, Level
The authorized positions for each Re$onal Trial Co~lrt,‘~letropoiitan Trial Court tvith the corresponding saiary !e\.el are sho\vn in Table 1. The RTCh hax.e t\vel\.e I 12) rczuiar positions Lvhile the \,ietTCs have rime r9i including the posltion of the judge.
31
r JUDGES’ JOURNAL
Table 1 Position and Salav Rate for RTCs and hletTCs
Positions
RTCihletTC Judge Branch Clerk of Court Legal Researcher Interpreter Stenographic Reporter Stenographic Reporter Stenographic Reporter Deput) Sheriff Staff Assistant II Staff Assistant I Process Server RTClMetTC Aide
It will be noted that the salary rates for all the RTCs throughout all the judicial regions are the same. Likewise, the salary rates and allowances of all MetTC personnel are uniform throughout the county. Thus an RTC legal researcher in NCR, in Tuguegarao and in Iligan City receive the same salary. Correspondingly, all legal researchers in MetTCs are paid equal salaries.
The most recent salar) adjustment in the Judiciary was in 1 January 1988. Before this were the salary adjustments in 1 January 1985 and 1 March 1987. See Table 2.
PERCEPTIONS ON CONTINUOUS TRIAL AFTER THE EXPERIMENT
Apart from the survey made at the start of the experiment in February 1989 to June 30, 1989 on the perceptions of judges on the continuous trial system, another survey was made last July 1989 on the actual experience of the judges, lawyers and fiscals on the implementation of this system. A random sampling of 115 respondents was made consisting of judges, lawyers and fiscals. For the purpose of this report, their responses to the survey are integrated.
The survey questionnaire deals with the effective- ness of the Continuous Trial System in terms of re- ducing docket congestion or volume of the cases, litigation time, lawyers support of continuous trial, party litigants support, the problems encountered and possible solutions to these problems.
The responses were processed and the results were analyzed. The following are the discussions on the results of the survey.
A. EFFXCTIVENESS OF THE CONTINUOUS TRIAL
1. Reduction of Docket Congestion
The respondents were asked to rate the effective-
- \‘(A. III. So. 4 (Octot,er-I)eccmbcr 1DSSi 1
ness of the continuous trial s!.stem. Fort!,-eight (481 or 50% considered it as cffectiuc. Fort\.-four t-iJ! or 38 % considered it as oe~!/ r#crfiuc. T\<w (2) or 2 ‘2 considered it less effective. Xine or 8 ‘;; considered it not rflccficc. (Please see Table 1.).
Table 1 Effectiveness of Continuous Trial
HOW’ EFFECTIVE NO. 5;
Veq Effective 44 36 Effective 55 50 Less Effective 2 2 Not Effective 9 8 No Answer 2 2
TOTAL: 115 loo
The reasons gi\,en “M.hy continyous trial is Ejfcc- five” are the follo\ving: “Time for trial is shortened. (48) or 82 % ;” postponements are minimized,“ (8) or 13%; “Prosecution works hand in hand \vith the court/parties are prepared” (2) or 5 % .
The reasons given why it is \,‘cr!f Effrcfit-r in reducing docket congestion are the follo\ting: “Trial time is reduced b!, minimized postponement” (34) or 77%; “judges, lawyers, fiscals go to court prepared,” (4) or 9% ; and “early disposition of cases is facilitated,” (6) or 12%. The other reasons cited are more or less related to the question on wh!. it is “ef- fective.”
The reasons cited by those \vho considered con- tinuous as not effective are as follows: “number of trial time is still limited,” (3) or 338, “lawyers can not cope with pressures of continuous trial; limited number of lawyers,” (2) or 22.3% ; “very expensive for litigants,” (2) or 22.3 % ; “haphazard hearing be- cause of haste in terminating the case, (2) or 22.3 % .
2. Reduction of Litigation Time
As to the question on how effective is the con- tinuous trial system in reducing litigation time, the survey shows that fifty-eight or 50% considered it “very effective.” Forty-nine (49) or 43 % considered it “very effective.” (Please see Table No. 2).
Table 2 Effectiveness in Reducing Litigation Time
EFFECTIVENESS NO. %
Very Effective 49 43 Effective 58 50 Less Effective 3 3 Not Effective 5 4
TOTAL: 115 100 %
NO follow-up question was asked for the reasons why the respondents have considered continuous trial system as effective in reducing the litigation
PROFILE AND PERCEPTIONS OF JUDGES Vol. III, No. 4 (October-December 1988)
time. However, as stated in the answers for the “the resistance of lawyers due to the decrease in their reasons on why it reduced docket congestion, it was professional fees.” For those who qualified their observed that “continuous trial has facilitated early answers stated that some are supportive, some are resolution of the cases. not though these are mostly lawyers.
The respondents were also asked of the support of B. COST ON PART OF LITIGANTS the party-litigants. Ninety-six (96) or 83% stated
that they are supportive. Sixteen (16) or 14% stated The respondents were asked to compare whether otherwise. Three (3) or 3% did not answer. For
continuous trial is more expensive than the piece- ‘$ose who considered that the litigants are not meal trial system on the part of the litigants. The supportive, said that the litigants considered the data show that seventy-two (72) or 62% stated that it system as “costly and expensive” and that they have is not more expensiue. Only eighteen (18) or 16% not yet adopted to the new system. states that it is “more expensive. ” As to the support of Court personnel, seventy-
Most reasons given for Y-ro” or “not more expen- seven (77) or 70% of the respondents stated that the sive” are: “Issues to be tried are limited on matters Court personnel are supportive or the continuous trial not admitted during the pre-trial conference”; system. Eighteen (18) or 20% stated that they are not “Shorter time to hear cases”; “the time is fixed”; and supportiue. Nineteen (19) or 21% did not answer. “less postponements.” For those who considered that the court personnel
As to the reasons why it is “more expensive,” the are supportive, they stated that the personnel have respondents stated that it entails a series of trial in a realized the importance of the unclogging of the court given period of time and that the witnesses had to be dockets. For those who answered “no” stated “that housed or provided with food and other facilities. the staff, especially the stenographers, are always Besides, the litigants had to pay more for the lawyers overworked” because they are forced to finish the who will be compelled to forego appearance in other transcripts on time. One retired judge, and now a cases. To quote one lawyer: practicing lawyer remarked: “We are going to kill
the personnel.” Some clients earn and save only so much. Continuous trial by its exigencies, compel them to resort to borrow- ing money for litigation expenses and attorneys fees at virtually usurious interest.” D. SECTORS OPPOSED TO CONTISUOUS
TRIAL SYSTEM
C. SUPPORT OF JUDGES, LAWYERSiFISCALS, A final question was asked on whether there are PARTY LITIGANTS, AND COURT any sector or groups that are opposed to the con- PERSONNEL tinuous trial system. Fifty-five (55) or 475 stated
that there are sectors. Fifty-four (54) or 46’ stated The respondents were asked whether their con- that there are none. Six or 5% did not ansxver. For
temporary judges, lawyers/fiscals, party litigants those who answered “yes,” identified these sectors and court personnel are supportive of the continuous mostly as lawyers, judgesifiscals and litigants. court trial system. Sixty-two (62) or 69 % stated tharjudges personnel, and/or any combination thereof. (See and lawyers are supportive. Eleven (11) or 13% Table 4). stated that judges or lawyers are not supportive. Five (5) or 5% however qualified their answers that “source are supportive some are not.” (See Table 3). Table 4
Sectors Opposed to Continuous Trial System
Table 3 SECTORS NO. % Support on Continuous Trial
Some lawyers!judges
RESPONSE NO. and litigants 1 2 yo
YeS Lawyers with client
84 8 14
74 Partly yes & no 6 5 Lawyers as de officio No 11 9 counsel for poor litigants 2 4 No Answer 14 12 Lawyers only 18 33
TOTAL: 115 100 “0 Poor litigants 6 11
Court personnel 3 5 For those who answered “yes” stated that this is Sot specified 7 13
due mainlv to the “desire of the judge. lavvvers and fiscals to terminate earlier the cases.” On the other
No answer 10 18
hand, for those who answered “no” Cited 3_~ rea.som TOTAL: 48 100%
E. SUPPORT OF SUPRElfE COURT REQUESTED
The respondents were asked to identif!, the support that the\. Lvould avant the Supreme Court to extend to the judges of the pilot courts in the imple- mentation of the continuous trial system. hlost of the respondents considered additional funds. personnei. and facilities as their priorities. (See Table 51.
All the enumerated support are favored as shov,m against the “no” responses.
As to support for the promulgation of new rules, they have requested that amendments should be made to the Rules on Criminal Procedures lvithout gi\-ing any specific detail.
The other question refers to the support that xvi11 ensure the effectiveness of continuous trial. It is noted that recruitment of additional personnel is favored (51%): second is funding (455) and third is equipment (38 % ). See Table 6.
‘hlultiple responses based on 115 respondents.
Table 6 Support to make Continuous Trial Effective
Respondenti were asked of three (3) major prob- lems that they often encountered. The data show that the top three problems are: Lack of personnel especially court stenographer (24%); lack of lawyers/lawyers resistance (23 % ); Limited trial time conflict of schedules, (19 % ). (See Table 7).
‘Multiple responses based on 115 responvzs.
Tabie 7 Problems Encountered in the Implementation
of Continuous Trial System
PROBLEhlS
Lack of lawyers/ lauvers resistance
Lack of personnel especiali~ court stenographer
Lack of equipment supplies and facilities
Limited trial time/conflict of schedules of trial
Avaiiability of litigants and their witnesses
Lack of process sewers and other court personnel
Fiscalsiprosecutors lack of time to prepare for other x+rorks
Others
24s
16
22
13
13
19
11
11
TOTAL: 138 100%
RECOiMhlENDATIONS
In \iew of the problems presented, the respon- dents were further asked of their secific recommen- dations to solve the above-stated problems. As the given problems impl!., they stated that there must be an appointment of additional court personnel, in- crease of funds and provision for adequate logistics, supplies and equipments.
‘Multiple raponses based on 115 respondents
As to the scarcity of practicing lawyers and or their lack of cooperation, they should be made to under: stand that the continuous tria! system will benefit the administration of justice and therefore, they must be enjoined to support this program.
The other most notabie suggestion is that the process servers shouid be given incentive as increase in pay and allowances. The number of process servers should be increased to meet the needs of the court.
The above recommendations can be viewed from the point of view of the judges and the courts. Most of the Iawyer respondents have left this question un- answered as most of them do not favor the con- tinuous trial system for very obvious reasons. On the other hand, the fiscals or the prosecutors suggested that they shall be given enough time to attend to investigation of cases.
PROFILE AND PERCEPTIONS OF JUDGES Vol. III, No. 4 (October-December 1988)
H. WHETHER THEY FAVOR CONTINUOUS TRIAL SYSTEM
Finally, the respondents were asked whether they favor continuous trial system. Of the total respon- dents, ninety-six (96) or 83% are in favor and
fourteen (14) are against. Three (3) abstained. For the reasons why they are in favor, most of them re- ferred to their major reasons that the continuous trial system is effective in reducing court dockets and also in reducing litigation time.
“PROFILE AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE XDGES OF PILOT COURTS”
il;ame of Judge Branch R @on JUdiCUll Cl vi1 Law School j\‘u,n b er NO Regon Age Sex Srarur Attended
1 Felix B. Mmru 5 NCR MLA 65 M M UST-‘49 2 Roberto M. Lagman 6 NCR MLA 60 M M MLQU-5 5 3 I’rocoro Donato 12 NCR ML.4 59 M M UP-‘54 4 Augustus Ceasar Sangco 17 NCR MLA 42 M M SNBEDA’7 3 5 Sabino de Leon, Jr. 28 NCR MiA 56 M M ATENEO-MLA 6 Alicia Decano 28 NCR MiA 55 F M UPGSINAN 7 Marcelino Baurisrz. Jr. 34 NCR QC 54 M M MANILA-‘5 9 8 Arturo G. Tayag 37 NCR QC 48 M M UE-‘64 9 Ricardo D. Conjares 48 NCR PASXY 62 M M MLQU-‘5 1
10 Romeo Callejo 49 NCR MLA 51 M M SN BEDA 11 Belen Ortiz 49 NCR CALOOC.kN 50 F M MLQU’60 12 Eriberto M. Espnitu 53 NCR CALOOC.-\N 55 M M UE’63 13 Felix Nemesio 56 NCR MAKATI 54 M M LY CEUM’5 9 14 Cesar Santamaria 62 NCR MAKATI 50 M M MLQLJ’~~ 15 Ma. Cristina Cornejo 68 NCR PASIG 38 F S UST-‘75 16 Tirso Veiasco 88 NCR 57 M M ABC’S7 17 Maximiano .4suncion 104 NCR
:: 51 M M MLQU’55
18 Conchita Morales 110 NCR PASAY 47 F M UP 19 Sergio Amonoy 115 NCR PASAY 63 M M FEU-‘54 20 Rene R. Victoriano 124 NCR CALOOC4N 63 M M MLALAWC-‘5 1 7-l Antonio Fineza 131 NCR CALOOCAN 54 M M UST-‘56 22 Manuel Cosico 136 NCR MAKATI 47 M M ATENEOMLA 23 Oscar Pimenrel 148 NCR MAKATI 48 M M UST-‘63 24 Manuel Patron 152 NCR PASIG 62 M M FEU 25 Ramon Buenavenrura 154 NCR PASIG 60 M M ATENEO’S 2 26 Martin Villarama, Jr. 156 NCR PASIG 42 M M MLQU 27 Heilia Philipps 9 I BENGUET 61 F M UST-‘52 28 Felipe Pacqumg 11 I LAOAG CITY 60 M W MLQU-‘5 3 29 Inocencio hlahaman 29 I SNFERNANDO 59 M M MLQU’5 7 30 Antonio Be!en 38 I LINGAYEN 61 M M MLQU’56 3 1 Ventura Perez 3 II T’UGUEGARAO 63 M M ARELLANO’S 2 32 Antonio Hemandez 7 II APARRI 61 M M UM’S 5 33 Juan Bigornia, Jr. 18 II ILIGAN 52 M M FEU’5 9 34 Artemio R. Alivia 19 II CAUAY.4N 59 M M UP 35 Mario M. Dizon 1 III BALANGA 58 M M UE-‘57 36 Pablo S. Villanueva 6 III MALOLOS 60 M M FEU-‘55 37 Juan F. Jimenez 24 III CABANATUAN 59 M M UP’53 38 Patrocmio Corpuz 44 III SNFERNANDO 54 M M NWC-‘59 39 Roman A. Yalung 52 III GUAGUA 67 M M UP-FEU-MLQU 40 Antonio Descallar 60 III ANGELES 63 M M ARELLAN0’5 1 41 Arturo Barias 64 III TARLAC 60 M M ATENEOMLA 42 Roy de1 Rosario 21 IV IMUS 59 M M SNBEDA’59 43 Francisco Guerrero 34 IV CALAMBA 56 M M MLQU-‘53 44 Eligio Arboleda 41 IV PINAMALAYAN 59 M M MLQU-‘63 45 Restituto Aguilar 45 IV SNJOSE 64 M M UM 46 Filomeno Vergara 52 IV PRINCESA 61 M M FEU’5 5 47 Rodolfo Palattao 53 IV LUCENA 55 M M LCUM63-UE63 48 Eriberto Rosario Jr. 60 IV LUCENA 60 M M ATENEO’S 5 49 Danilo B. Pine 69 IV BINANGONAN 53 M M UP’60 50 Edilberto Noblejas 75 IV SNMATEO 59 M M UST 5 1 Luis Dictado 39 V DAET 57 M M PHILAWSCHOL 52 Roland0 Carandang 40 V DAET 58 M M MLQU’54 53 Marietta Homena-Valencia 1 VI KALIBO 43 F M up’71 54 Sixto Guanzon 33 VI ILOILO 63 M M MLQU’S 2 5 5 Romeo Habaradas 43 VI BACOLOD 60 M M U SN AGUSTIN(IL0) 5 6 Eudarlio Valencia 52 VI SORSOGON 50 M M UST’62 57 Bethel Moscardon 52 VI BACOLOD 49 F M MLQU’62 5 8 Jesus Ramos 54 VI BACOLOD 60 M M up’54 59 Andres Santos 2 VII TAGBILARAN 65 M M UM’5 7 60 Bernard0 Salas 8 VII CEBU 58 M M MLQU
36
PROFILE AND PERCEPTIONS OF JUDGES
Can’t.: “PROFILE AND PERCEPTIONS OF ‘ME JUDGES OF PILOT COURTS”
Name of Judge Branch Region . Judicial Civil Law School Number No. Region Age Sex Status A trended
61 Juanito Bernad 21 VII CEBU 62 Priscila Agana 24 VII CEBU 63 Eleuterio Chiu 32 VII DUMAGUETE 64 Temistocles Diez 37 VII DUMAGUETE 65 Pedro Espina 7 VIII TACLOBAN 66 Florentino Alumbres 20 VIII CATARMAN 67 Lucia Saavedra 24 VIII MAASIN 68 Roberto Navidad 32 VIII CALBAYOG 69 Pelagio Lachica 8 IX DIPOLOG 70 Celso Con01 12 X MISAMIS 7 1 Alfred0 Lagamon 22 X ORO-CGYAN 72 Nicasio de 10s Reyes 11 XI DAVAO 73 Renato Fuentes 17 XI DAVAO 74 Felipe Javier 4 XII ILIGAN
HIGHEST VALUE 67 LOWEST VALUE 38 AVERAGE 55.82
I as of January 1989 II as of December 1988
III The figure written by respondent was 70 cases. 1111 The figure written by respondent was 1 OO- 120 cases.
58 M M 59 F M 59 M M 58 M M 58 M M 5.7 M M 58 M M 50 M M 63 M M 57 M M 56 M M 49 M M 49 -M M 60 M M
ATENE0’55 MLQU’54
F.U. U SNCARLOS’53
MLQU’54 MLALAWCOLL
UP’57 SNBEDA
ADREBONCOL XAVIER U
MLQU MLQU
U MINDANAO U NEG OCC
RESI-LT OF QUESTIONN.URE NO. 1 “PROFILE AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE JUDGES OF PILOT COURTS”
I-ear Passed
the Bar
l-em Ave No. of Caseload .+l i’ i ’ iDer:oJ Appom- Case De- a5 of Ave. Period IO Hear I0 d-ecide
