Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 1
April–June 2016 Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 ISSN 2244-5862
From the Chancellor’s Desk
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 Judges listen as a COMELEC representative explains the features of the Vote Librarians and Regional Trial Court Sheriffs of the NCJR (Batch Counting Machine (VCM) during one of the four seminars on election laws 4) were likewise conducted during this quarter. for judges conducted by the Academy in April at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City. The Training Seminar on the 2016 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure for Small Claims Cases for the First Level Court made Legal Researchers, Social Workers and Law Enforcement up a good part of our special focus programs at this time as we Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons Cases (ACET-TIP) carried out six such activities for Judges and their respective was launched in a well-attended affair which was graced by Chief Clerks of Court of Judicial Regions II, III, IX, XI, X and XII, and Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno and Australian Ambassador one exclusively for the Clerks of Court of Judicial Region I. Amanda Gorely. Australia–Asia Program to Combat Trafficking A significant number of other special focus seminar- in Persons (AAPTIP), our program partner in the fight against workshops were also carried out such as the Training of TIP, had their key officials Mr. Willem Pretorius and Ms. Krystal Trainers (TOT) for the Competency Enhancement Training for Thompson fly in from their Headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement to attend the launch. Investigators Handling Online Sexual Exploitation of Children In the curriculum review front, the Validation Workshop Cases (CET-OSEC) which was followed by the pilot of the Program with the Academic Council as well as the Fifth Plenary Assembly itself; two batches of Competency Enhancement Training for of the PHILJA Corps of Professors and Lecturers also took place Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children this quarter. (CET-Child); a Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for The 2016 Founding Chancellor Emeritus Justice Ameurfina Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of Judicial Region IV; A. Melencio Herrera Award for the Most Outstanding four batches of Seminar on Election Laws for Judges; Seminar- Professorial Lecturer was delivered by Prof. Sedfrey M. Workshop for Selected Judges on Financial Crimes and Money Candelaria, Dean of the Ateneo School of Law and Head of our Laundering; and a Seminar on the Financial Liquidation and Research, Publications and Linkages Office. The topic was“The Suspension of Payments (FLSP) Rules of Procedure for Court of Millennial Judge: Judicial Education at the Crossroads.” Appeals Justices (Cebu City Station), Special Commercial Court th Judges and Pairing Court Judges of Regions VI to VIII were also The Academy extended a helping hand in the 17 National held. Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE). In keeping with the changing times, PHILJA introduced relevant training in the field of Cybercrime such as the Basic The Academy, through the Philippine Mediation Center and Advanced Judicial Training on Cybercrime for Judges Office (PMCO), also conducted a handful of activities supporting and held the Judiciary Conference on Cybercrime. Our Alternative Dispute Resolution such as a Basic Mediation program partner for this activity is the Council of Europe Course for the Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Aurora Mediation ( C O E ) – G l o b a l A c ti o n o n C y b e r c r i m e ( G L A C Y ) P r o j e c t . Programs; a Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Last June, the Module and Handbook on the Advanced Mediators (Skills Enhancement Course) for the Misamis Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, (Continued on page 2) 2 April–June 2016
Contents Orders Memorandum Order No. 24-2016 – Appointing the SC From the Chancellor’s Desk ...... 1 Deputy Division Clerk of Court in the Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division ...... 43 Judicial Views ...... 3 Memorandum Order No. 28-2016 – Creating the Judiciary- Training Programs and Activities ...... 8 Wide Committee on Health Care Benefits of Justices, Judges and Certain High Level Officials of the Judiciary . . . 43 Judicial Moves ...... 22 Administrative Order No. 67-2016 – Creation of First Impressions ...... 24 Performance Management Teams (PMTS) in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Doctrinal Reminders ...... 24 Appeals and Lower Courts ...... 44
Resolutions Administrative Order No. 121-2016 – Creating Task A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC – Amendment of A.M. No. 03- Force Katarungan at Kalayaan in the National Capital 03-03-SC Dated June 17, 2003, For the Expansion of the Judicial Region ...... 45 Coverage of Cases Cognizable by Special Commercial Courts ...... 32 Third Quarter Training Programs and Activities . . . . 48 Circulars From the Chancellor’s Desk OCA Circular No. 75-2016 – Guidelines on On-the-Job (Continued from page 1) Training and Legal Apprenticeship Program for College and Law Students in the Lower Courts ...... 33 Oriental, Misamis Occidental, Lanao del Sur, Zamboanga del OCA Circular No. 76-2016 – Guidelines on the Holding of Norte and Zamboanga del Sur Mediation Programs; the Lanao Organization Activities ...... 34 del Norte and Bukidnon Mediation Programs; the La Union, OCA Circular No. 87-2016 – Prohibition Against the Benguet and Pangasinan Mediation Programs, as well as the Issuance of Injunctions or Restraining Orders Against Panay and Bacolod Mediation Programs. Two batches of the Government Agencies Enforcing Environmental Laws Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar (WOSES) and Preventing Violations Thereof ...... 35 for PMCU Staff were also held, along with the respective OCA Circular No. 88-2016 – Delegation by the Chief of Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed the Philippine National Police of Authority to Personally Mediation for Agusan del Norte and Agusan del Sur Mediation Endorse or Authorize Applications for Search Warrants Programs. A Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with to Key Officers ...... 35 Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation OCA Circular No. 105-2016 – Posting of Notices Trainees and PMC Unit Staff for the Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino Announcing the Observation of the Records Disposal Mediation Programs likewise took place. Period for the Whole Month of July 2016 ...... 36 The following activities in furtherance of Judicial Dispute OCA Circular No. 122-2016 – Records Retrieval Request Resolution (JDR) were also held by the PMCO: two batches Form for the Retrieval of Residual Records under A.M. of Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges (Skills-based No. 07-3-09-SC ...... 37 Course); two batches of Orientation of Clerks of Court and OCA Circular No. 128-2016 – Forms to be Accomplished Branch Clerks of Court and two batches of Orientation of and Submitted in Recommending Applicants for Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, and Law Practitioners. Vacancies in the Lower Courts ...... 39 OCA Circular No. 131A-2016 – Unauthorized Practice of We also took note of new rulings, doctrinal reminders, Consolidation and Lumping of Newly-Filed Cases Prior to resolutions, circulars, and orders of the Court as well as of the Raffle ...... 40 Office of the Court Administrator. OCA Circular No. 139-2016 – Supplement to OCA To our officials and staff, keep up the good work and let us Circular No. 128-2016 Re: Forms to be Accomplished and continue giving our best to the Academy. Submitted in Recommending Applicants for Vacancies in the Lower Courts ...... 40 To our development partners, thank you for your valuable OCA Circular No. 140-2016 – Amendment to OCA support as we pursue our common goal. Circular No. 71-2003, Guidelines in the Submission To the Supreme Court, we are very grateful for the of Performance Rating for Lower Court Officials and unwavering support to PHILJA in all our training programs and Personnel ...... 40 activities. OCA Circular No. 141-2016 – Internship Program for All the best. Mediation Trainees on Court-Annexed Mediation ...... 42
OCA Circular No. 142-2016 – Internship Program for ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Mediation Trainees on Court-Annexed Mediation ...... 42 Chancellor Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 3
Children in Conflict with the Law and Court Diversion Procedure: Restorative Justice in Action* ** Hon. ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court, Branch 106, Quezon City
II. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9344 detention in jails and provides for alternatives to detention. It Republic Act No. 9344 was passed by the two Houses of lays down the procedure in taking the child into custody and, Congress on March 22, 200619 and was approved by President for the first time, expressly and specifically provides that the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on April 23, 2006. It took effect on child undergo diversion proceedings before the Katarungang May 20, 2006.20 Pambarangay or the police or Public Prosecutor as well as the court, whenever applicable. For children in conflict with the The law, establishes a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice law not subject to diversion proceedings and whose cases and Welfare System and covers the “different stages involving go to trial, the law grants the child the benefit of automatic children at risk and children in conflict with the law from suspension of service of sentence and, furthermore, provides 21 prevention to rehabilitation and reintegration.” A “child at for disposition measures that will facilitate the return and risk” is defined as a child who is vulnerable to and at risk of reintegration of the child to his family and the community. The committing criminal offenses because of personal, family and law mandates the establishment of youth detention homes social circumstances while a child in conflict with the law is by local government units and the creation of post-release defined as a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, community-based programs for the reintegration of such having committed an offense under Philippine Laws. Republic children to their respective families and communities, and Act No. 9344 holds children accountable for their crimes thereby prevent their re-offending. The law enhances public but with substantially different methods and a standard of safety by providing measures and early intervention strategies accountability separate and distinct from the adult criminal to prevent the commission of crimes. justice system. Another major feature of the law is the creation of The Law itself sets forth several new terms and defines the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC). The JJWC these terms accordingly. It states a number of basic principles principally oversees the implementation of the law and is in the administration of juvenile justice and welfare, including tasked to develop a comprehensive juvenile intervention the prevention of juvenile delinquency, and emphasizes the program and improve the administration of the juvenile role of the family, together with the local government units justice and welfare system in the country. The JJWC used and the community, in instituting intervention programs for to be under the Department of Justice but is now under the children below the age of criminal responsibility and children administrative supervision of the Department of Social Welfare at risk. With respect to children in conflict with the law, the and Development (DSWD) by virtue by RA No. 10630,22 which law enumerates the rights of these children, prohibits their amended RA No. 9344. The provisions of RA No. 9344 are based on the fundamental * Paper first delivered by Power Point presentation at (1) the Philippine policy that the state shall protect the “best interest” of the Judicial Academy in its training program entitled “Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases child through measures that will ensure the observance of Involving Children,” July 2010; and (2) the Regional Convention of the Asia international standards of child protection under international Pacific Region of the International Association of Women Judges, Taal law, especially those to which the Philippines is a party. In Vista Hotel, Tagaytay City, on May 14, 2015. furtherance of this policy, the law expressly provides that ** Second of four-part series pursuant to Article 40 of the United Nations Convention 19 The law is entitled “An Act Establishing a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice on the Rights of the Child, the State shall also ensure that and Welfare System, Creating the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their under the Department of Justice, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes.” It is simply known as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare well-being by providing a variety of disposition measures Act of 2006.” 20 People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011. 22 RA No. 10630 was passed on June 5, 2013 and took effect on October 25, 21 Sec. 1, RA No. 9344. 2013. 4 April–June 2016
Judicial Views (continued) was to transform the way contemporary societies view and such as care, guidance and supervision orders, counselling, respond to crime and related forms of troublesome behavior probation, foster care, education and vocational training by not simply controlling crime but by dealing with it more programs and other alternatives to institutional care. In effectively and at the same time, accomplishing a host of other support thereof, the law itself declares that the State adopts desirable goals.31 In countries with traditional societies and the provisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules indigenous communities, conflict-resolution processes and for the Administration of Justice or “Beijing Rules,” the United mechanisms between the victim, offender and society existed Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency and were highly functional. It was discovered that in New or the “Riyadh Guidelines” and the United Nations Rules for Zealand, Africa and North American indigenous communities, 23 the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty or the there existed traditional models that could operate within 24 “Havana Rules.” Finally, the State is mandated to apply the the realities of the modern legal system which models were “principles of restorative justice” in all its laws, policies and subsequently adopted into the legal system as forms of 25 programs applicable to children in conflict with the law. restorative justice.32 In the specific area of juvenile justice, All cases involving the CICL are under the jurisdiction of this principle likewise received much interest and publicity the family courts as provided in RA No. 8639, or the Family as an intervention for young people who have offended and Courts Act of 1997.26 At present, the family courts are oftentimes have become an integral part of a number of actually Regional Trial Courts designated as family courts by specific youth justice orders and programmes in different the Supreme Court,27 pursuant to the Transitory Provisions countries.33 of RA No. 8369. To date, there are 121 Regional Trial Courts In 1999, the United Nations Economic and Social Council designated as family courts all over the country. adopted a Resolution encouraging member-States to use A. Restorative Justice mediation and restorative justice in appropriate cases and The framework of RA No. 9344 is the principle of restorative called on the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal justice. Restorative Justice is defined in the law as: Justice to consider the development of guidelines on the use of these programs. The Tenth United Nations Congress on A principle which requires a process of resolving the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, held conflicts with the maximum involvement of the victim, in Vienna in May 2000, included “fairness to victims and the offender and the community. It seeks to obtain offenders” as one of its four substantive topics and encouraged reparation for the victim, reconciliation of the offender, governments to expand their use of restorative justice in the the offended and the community; and reassurance to the criminal justice system.34 Restorative Justice thus became a offender that he/she can be reintegrated into society. It world-wide movement.35 also enhances public safety by activating the offender, 36 the victim and the community in prevention strategies.28 There is no single definition of restorative justice. Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as an “alternative delinquency The concept and philosophy of restorative justice emerged sanction that focuses on repairing the harm done, meeting during the 1970s and 1980s in the United States and Canada the victim’s needs and holding the offender for his or her in conjunction with a practice that required reconciliation actions.” Restorative justice sanctions use a balanced 29 between the offender and the victim. This practice started approach, producing the least restrictive disposition while with burglary and other property crimes although the coverage stressing the offender’s accountability and simultaneously was later expanded to include other offenses and even severe providing relief to the victim. The offender may be ordered to 30 forms of criminal violence. The goal of restorative justice 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 31 [2007]; Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice, April 25, 2007, CRC/C/GC/10, Gerry Johnstone and Daniel W. Van Ness, “The Meaning of Restorative available at
In broad terms, restorative justice processes bring victims members or other significant individuals of the victims and and offenders into contact, whether directly or indirectly, so offenders are added, this is called family group conferences.46 that victims can receive answers to their questions, tell the The offender’s family and/or other relevant people from the offender what the impact of their offending was, and receive an community are especially important since this model tends to apology from the offender.38 It means encouraging offenders focus on the offender’s support system in taking responsibility to understand the impact of their behavior, the harms they and changing their behaviors.47 Circle approaches emerged have done—and urging them to take responsibility for their initially from First Nation communities in Canada.48 And circles actions and be accountable for their behavior.39 It gives young are being used for many purposes—for sentencing, healing, people the chance to take responsibility and make amends for for workplace conflicts and as forms of community dialogue.49 their crime through apologizing and making reparation either All these models may be blended and have the common 40 to the victim or to the community. The aim is to repair the aim of repairing the harm caused by the crime through harm caused by the crime and recognizes that crime harms balancing the interests of young people who have offended society as a whole and, at the same time, brings the wider with those of victims and communities.50 According to Howard community into decision-making to find a way to repair the Zehr, one of the founding fathers of the Restorative Justice 41 harm caused by crime. Movement, family group conferences and peace-making Through restorative justice, controlling crime is more circles are adaptations of traditional and indigenous ways of effective and accomplishing a host of other goals becomes conflict resolution.51 possible—victims of crime experience healing of the trauma Restorative Justice came about as a reaction to the they suffer; offenders become genuinely accountable for their principle of retributive or punitive justice under which system actions; the family and community collaborate and cooperate offenders were generally subjected to. Retributivism is a legal to prepare a favorable environment for the successful theory wherein criminal punishment is justified, as long as reintegration of the offender into society and thereby prevent the offender is morally accountable, regardless of whether re-offending; constructive projects of crime prevention and deterrence or other good consequences will result52 which community development are created and implemented that is paid by punishment. The punishment is sometimes said may result in social capital, significant fiscal savings for the to be society’s act of paying back the criminal for the wrong 42 state and, ultimately, social regeneration. done.53 The prison is the most important penal sanction and Restorative justice is a field largely grounded in practice penal power and arrangements are administered solely by the and has several practice models. Three distinctive models State.54 have tended to dominate and these are: victim-offender conferences, family group conferences and circle approaches.43 46 Otherwise, referred to as FGC – Zehr, supra note 29. Each involves an encounter with a preference for face-to-face 47 Two basic forms of FGC’s have gained prominence. One model was meetings between key stakeholders—victim and offender at developed by the police in Australia, based partially on ideas from New minimum, and other community and people involved in the Zealand. Facilitators may be specially trained police officers with an criminal justice system as well.44 These encounters are led by approach to the dynamics of shame, using shame in a positive way. The facilitators who oversee and guide the process, making sure other model of family conferencing originated in New Zealand and today provides the norm for juvenile justice in that country. It was in response that all the parties are involved. Unlike arbitrators, facilitators to a crisis in an alien colonial juvenile justice system by the indigenous for conferences or circles do not impose settlement. Each Maori population that the FGC was developed. Since 1989, the standard model allows an opportunity for participants to explore facts, 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. feelings and resolutions. They are encouraged to tell their 48 stories, to ask questions, to express their feelings and to work 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 45 toward mutually acceptable outcomes. 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, Victim-offender conferences primarily involve victims and sincerity, etc. One or two “circle keepers” serve as facilitator of the circle offenders who are guided by a trained facilitator. When family – Id. 49 The concept of restorative justice is used in other areas – school discipline, workplace management, corporate regulation, political conflict resolution 38 Stephenson, et al., supra note 33, at p. 161. and transitional justice – Johnstone and Van Ness,supra note 31, at 6. 39 Zehr, supra note 29, at pp. 16–17, 37. 50 Zehr, supra note 29. 40 Stephenson, et al., supra note 33, at p. 161. 51 Id. at 43. 41 Id. at 162. 52 “Retributivism,” Black’s Law Dictionary. 42 Johnstone and Van Ness, supra note 31. 53 Id. 43 Zehr, supra note 29, at 44. 54 John Pratt, “Beyond Evangelical Criminology: The Meaning and Significance 44 Id. at 44–45. of Restorative Justice,” pp. 44–55 (Institutionalizing Restorative Justice, 45 Id. Willan Publishing, 2006). 6 April–June 2016
Judicial Views (continued) a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to The major differences between Retributive and have the capacity to infringe the penal law. The Beijing Rules 55 Restorative Justice may be summed up as follows: simply recommend that the age of criminal responsibility be based on emotional, mental and intellectual maturity of the 59 Retributive Justice Restorative Justice child. In the Philippines, a child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from - Crime is an act against the - Crime is an act against criminal liability but is subjected to an intervention program state, a violation of the another person and the by the Department of Social Welfare and Development60 and law community the Local Social Welfare Development Office61 in coordination - Crime is an individual - Crime has both individual with the Barangays.62 Republic Act No. 10630 which amended act with individual and social dimensions of RA No. 9344 in Section 20-A provides that a child above 12 responsibility responsibility years to 15 years of age who commits serious crimes shall be - Imposition of pain as - Punishment alone is not deemed a neglected child for which a petition for involuntary punishment is effective effective and is disruptive commitment of the child to the Bahay Pag-asa should be filed because it deters crime to community harmony by the LSWDO with the court. Similarly, under Section 20-B, if and changes behavior and good relationships; the child over 12 years but not over 15 years of age commits goal is reconciliation and restoration and offends for the second time or oftener, a petition for voluntary commitment of the child may be filed in court by the - Offender accountability - Offender accountability child’s parents, and, if they refuse, a petition for involuntary is defined as taking is defined as assuming commitment shall be filed by the LSWDO. punishment responsibility and taking action to repair harm But why 15 years old in the Philippines? - Emphasis is on adversarial - Emphasis is on dialogue Scientific and empirical evidence in very recent years relationships and negotiation 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 - Victims are peripheral to - Victims are central to the the process process of resolving a frontal lobe of the brain, the area responsible for self-control crime and reasoning, mature at the approximate age of 14 years old as scientific researches show64 and the process of normal B. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility brain development suggests that full cognitive maturity may Pursuant to the Beijing Rules and Riyadh Guidelines, RA No. not occur until late adolescence or in the early 20s.65 This 9344 fixed the age of criminal responsibility for children anatomical finding means that children below 15 years of age at above 15 years but below 18 years of age who acted may not possess many cognitive abilities of adults. 56 with discernment. In Japan, the minimum age of criminal Furthermore, scientific research has also demonstrated 57 responsibility is 14 years old; In Korea, it is also 14 years; that the child’s brain undergoes a complex maturation process and in Thailand, 14 years. In Australia and New Zealand, the as the child grows. Their impulse-control, risk assessment minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years of age. In and effective recognition of the effects of their actions only Canada, it is 12 years of age. In Argentina, it is 16 years; in progress and improve through the years.66 The developmental Colombia, 14 years. In Europe, the minimum age is 14 years in Italy, 15 years in Norway and Sweden; and 10 years in England, 59 Rule 4.1, Part One. 58 Wales and Northern Ireland. 60 DSWD. The minimum age of criminal responsibility varies among 61 LSWDO. states-parties of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 62 RA No. 9344, Sec. 6. The fixing of the age of criminal responsibility at Notably, the Convention does not expressly set a specific 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. minimum age but merely obliges the states-parties to establish 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 55 Source:
Training Programs and Activities
THE MILLENNIAL JUDGE: JUDICIAL EDUCATION AT THE CROSSROADS 2016 Founding Chancellor Emeritus Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera Award for the Most Outstanding Professorial Lecturer
As this year’s recipient of the Founding Chancellor Emeritus comparative experiences of judicial education centers, PHILJA Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera Award for the Most progressed in a manner beyond the modest expectations of Outstanding Professorial Lecturer, Ateneo Law School Dean the architects of this program,” Dean Candelaria emphatically Sedfrey M. Candelaria delivered a lecture entitled The said. Millennial Judge: Judicial Education at the Crossroads on Dean Candelaria also discussed PHILJA’s ongoing June 20 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City. One Curriculum Review pursuant to Chief Justice Maria Lourdes hundred fifty-five participants, composed of Court of Appeals P. A. Sereno’s directive to review the academic offerings and (CA), Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and Sandiganbayan justices, training program of the Academy in line with the Court’s Supreme Court and PHILJA officials and employees, CA, CTA judicial reform agenda. Chief Justice Sereno provided the and Sandiganbayan employees, judges, branch clerks of court, Academy her vision, observations and recommendations and guests from other government agencies and the private through her paper “A Thought Piece on the Philippine Judicial sector, intently listened to Dean Candelaria’s one-hour-and-a- Academy Curriculum Review.” (The full text of Chief Justice half special lecture, which was accompanied by an animated Sereno’s Thought Piece was published in the July─September and engaging powerpoint presentation. 2014 issue of the PHILJA Bulletin.) Dean Candelaria, who also heads the Academy’s Research, A lively open forum followed Dean Candelaria’s lecture. Publications and Linkages Office, explored the challenges He formally presented his paper to the children of Justice confronting judicial educators in designing pedagogical Herrera and to the Supreme Court through PHILJA Chancellor tools and learning methods in light of the millennial era. His Adolfo S. Azcuna, who earlier delivered the opening remarks lecture advanced the proposition that the situation is shared and welcomed the attendees and guests. by other jurisdictions similarly confronted with the changing Capping the event was Chief Justice Sereno’s Closing environment fueled by globalization and its consequent impact Remarks read by Chancellor Azcuna. In her message, Chief on information technology and delivery of legal education in Justice Sereno said that “legal and judicial education is indeed law schools today. at the crossroads, uniquely ripe for innovative curricular and “The Philippine Judicial Academy in its early years muddled pedagogical change. We must accept that the millennial era is through the delivery of judicial education and training in a here.” Steadfast in the Court’s duty to respond to the changing rather unchartered territory, but as it learned the ropes from times, Chief Justice Sereno further said that “judicial training Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 9 and continuing education are at the heart of that preparation to our cause in carefully crafting, revising and updating training to lead the next generation—our so-called ‘millennial’ judges programs and modules to develop judicial competence, instill and those who will come after. It will entail transcending sound values and form constructive attitudes in our judges traditional curricula and forging connections with the social and court personnel,” her message reads. context to which the training will be applied.” She ended by expressing her hope that “PHILJA will be the As chairperson of PHILJA’s Board of Trustees, Chief Justice bright shining lights of judicial education in the entire Asia- Sereno called on the Academy to recast its traditional role Pacific Region.” into a more dynamic one—as a fully engaged educational Established in 2012 by the children of Justice Herrera in institution that provides structured judicial training—custom- honor of her 90th birthday, the Founding Chancellor Emeritus built and custom-managed for each level of the Judiciary and Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera Award for the Most for each class of trainees. “Just recently, this curriculum review Outstanding Professorial Lecturer aims to assist PHILJA in yielded outstanding results, paving the way for radical shifts in its continuing promotion of judicial excellence through the the way we conduct our judicial education and training,” Chief delivery of distinguished lectures in judicial education. Former Justice Sereno’s message reads. recipients were Justice Azcuna in 2012, Retired CA Justice The Chief Justice also commended and thanked Atty. Hilarion L. Aquino in 2013, and SC Senior Associate Justice Candelaria and PHILJA for all their essential contributions to Antonio T. Carpio in 2014. the judiciary. “I have personally witnessed your commitment
Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and Law Enforcement Investigators on the Management of Online Sexual Exploitation of Children Cases (CET-OSEC)
The Philippine Judicial Academy conducted back-to-back In the afternoon, Judge Amy A. Avellano of RTC Branch Competency Enhancement Training on the management 58, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental and PHILJA Professorial of Online Sexual Exploitation of Children Cases (CET- Lecturer I, presented and discussed the CET-OSEC enhanced OSEC) programs designed to improve the competencies of training module, including the topics of the lectures and the participants in preventing, referring, investigating, prosecuting plots of the trigger videos that will be used during the two- and adjudicating OSEC cases. The training programs were held day training program. The enhanced training module was first week of May at the Discovery Suites, Pasig City. the product of the roundtable discussion conducted by the A Training of Trainers of Competency Enhancement Academy on March 9 attended by 20 selected RTC judges. Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and Participants then underwent three simulation exercises Law Enforcement Investigators Handling Online Sexual on how to catch a predator. Facilitated by Head Agent Uy, Exploitation of Children Cases was conducted on May 3 participants were given 10 minutes to enter an online chat attended by 18 selected regional trial court judges and room and try to hook up with a predator over the internet. prosecutors. The participants will be part of the pool of Meanwhile, the first Competency Enhancement trainers who will be mobilized for the roll out of the CET-OSEC Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and Law program. Enforcement Investigators on the Management of Online PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna and Mr. Ky Sexual Exploitation of Children Cases was held May 4 to 5 Johnson of The Asia Foundation (TAF), in their respective attended by 45 participants, composed of selected RTC judges, messages, underscored PHILJA’s and TAF’s commitment prosecutors, court social workers and law enforcers. This two- to combat cybercrime and online child sexual abuse and day activity is an intensive, multidisciplinary program designed exploitations. The morning sessions were devoted to lectures to improve the competencies of participants as frontline on The Millennials, Their Cyberspace and Language by Ms. workers in preventing, referring, investigating, prosecuting Melissa Legarda Alcantara, Journalist and Consultant of Cross- and adjudicating OSEC cases. Cultural Digital Media; Surveillance, Monitoring, Investigation The first day sessions started off with the opening remarks and Detection of Crimes Against Millennials by Atty. Lawrence of PHILJA Chancellor Justice Azcuna, followed by a message Aritao of International Justice Mission; Catching the Predator from Atty. Carolyn Mercado of The Asia Foundation, and the in His Digital World by Head Agent Jed Sherwin G. Uy of statement of purpose and orientation by Supreme Court the Department of Justice–Office of Cybercrime; and Basic Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro. Facilitating Skills by Dean Erlyn Sana, PHILJA Professorial Lecturer II. (Next page) 10 April–June 2016
CET-OSEC (continued) 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 Financial Trail of OSEC by Atty. Vencent L. Salido, Deputy Lomanta of Cebu Province; and Detection, Surveillance, Director and Head of Compliance and Investigation Group, Monitoring and Investigation of the Crimes against Millennials Anti-Money Laundering Secretariat. by Atty. Lawrence Aritao of International Justice Mission. The participants were again divided in three groups to In the afternoon, the participants watched one of the work on different OSEC cases applying what they have learned module videos entitled “Salisi.” They were later divided in three from the lectures. Each group presented the result of their groups to discuss the psychosocial aspects of the relationships respective case investigation. portrayed in the video; the preparations for the conduct and Head Agent Uy facilitated the simulation exercise where aftermath of a rescue operation; and the evidence that may participants entered an online chat room to catch a predator. be required to successfully bring a case to court. As their post-test, participants accomplished the OSEC The second day lectures focused on these topics: The Knowledge Inventory and the results were analyzed and Digital World by Head Agent Jed Sherwin G. Uy; and The discussed during the plenary.
Judicial Training on Cybercrime
In June, PHILJA conducted the Basic Judicial Training on The Basic Judicial Training on Cybercrime for Judges, held Cybercrime for Judges, the Advanced Judicial Training on on June 15 to 17, was attended by 17 second level court judges. Cybercrime and the Judicial Conference on Cybercrime at the The lecture topics discussed during the three-day training were PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City, in partnership with Introduction to Technologyby Mr. Ariel Rodriguez, Head of the the Council of Europe (COE) and the Department of Justice National ICT Training Division of the DOST-ICTO; Introduction (DOJ). The conduct of these activities is part of the country- to Cybercrime, and Rules on Electronic Evidence by Judge specific activities of the Global Action on Cybercrime (GLACY) Romeo D. Tagra of RTC Br. 273, Marikina City; Trends, Threats Project implemented by the European Union and the COE. and Challenges─International Cooperation, and Republic The Philippines is one of the priority countries of the GLACY Act No. 10175─Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 by Judge Project along with Mauritius, Senegal, Tonga, Morocco, South Rainelda H. Estacio-Montesa of RTC Br. 46, Manila; Budapest Africa and Sri Lanka. 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, Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 11
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. prosecutors and lawyers from the Public Attorney’s Office, In her Message, Chief Justice Sereno said that “there actively participated in this advanced training. Lectures on is a need for members of the Judiciary to maintain a Introduction to the Case Scenario (Mr. Branko Stamenkovic, proactive stance in postulating a comprehensive response to Serbian Public Prosecutor), Developing an Investigation (Ms. cybercrimes by prioritizing the adoption and sharing of best Esther George, Founder of Global Prosecutors Electronic practices and tools, and by educating ourselves as to how we Evidence Network), Traditional and Alternative Currencies (Mr. can best approach cybercrimes.” Branko Stamenkovic), International Cooperation (Mr. Ammar The Chief Justice further said that “the Judiciary is in Oozeer, Barrister and Senior Partner, Juristconsult Chambers, the process of studying the possibility of creating, through Mauritius), Digital Forensics (Mr. Branko Stamenkovic), and legislative intervention, or designating courts of general Presenting the Case in Court (Mr. Ammar Oozeer). In between jurisdiction, as cybercrime courts to ensure that responsive lectures, participants were divided into several groups to work actions are taken once cybercrime cases are filed in the on: identifying crimes and developing an investigation plan; courts. Development of specialized trainings, in coordination financial aspects of the scenario; international cooperation with key experts around the globe, are also being explored.” aspects of the scenario; identifying suspects and planning The Chief Justice’s Message ended with warmest felicitations strategy; and finalizing the case. The delegates and trainers to the participants and appreciation to the Academy, the DOJ, underwent a case review feedback session at the end of the and the COE-GLACY Project. five group activities. 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 Finally, the Judicial Conference on Cybercrime, held Assistance Treaties in Cybercrime Investigations by DOJ Chief on June 23 to 24, was attended by 42 judges, prosecutors, State Counsel Ricardo V. Paras III; Budapest Convention on representatives from the DOJ and the National Bureau of Cybercrime by Hon. Madhub and Ms. George. Investigation, and other guests. The conference aimed to provide an opportunity for judges and justices of the A sharing of international best practices and case studies, Philippine Supreme Court to share experiences and best with Atty. Vencent L. Salido, Hon. Madhub and Ms. George practices in handling cybercrime cases and appreciation as resource persons, was held during the morning session of of electronic evidence; revisit existing laws, jurisprudence, the second day. In the afternoon, a panel composed of Court treaties and conventions related to cybercrime cases and (Continued on page 46) 12 April–June 2016
Hon. Abouben Jade R. Pabellan-Bacal*1 Orientation-Seminar MTCC, Br. 6, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental Hon. Eileen Joy T. Pakino-Bonghanoy MTCC, Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental Hon. Llani A. Sacote-Valconcha 75th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed MTCC, Br. 3, Ozamis City, Misamis Occidental Judges Hon. Jarley D. Sulay-Trugillo Date: April 19–28, 2016 MTCC, Bayugan City, Agusan del Sur Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Hon. Rochelle Marie R. Zambas-Ucat Participants: 34 newly appointed judges and 11 promoted MTCC, Br. 4, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte judges, namely: Region XII A. Newly Appointed Judges Hon. Macabinta P. Derogongan MTCC, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur Regional Trial Courts Municipal Trial Courts National Capital Judicial Region Hon. Jaime Fortunato A. Caringal Region IX RTC, Br. 278, Mandaluyong City Hon. Jeanecel G. Vercide-Climaco Hon. Anthony B. Fama MTC, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay RTC, Br. 277, Mandaluyong City Region X Hon. Ma. Antonia L. Largoza-Cantero Hon. Nemeson B. Cañete RTC, Br. 291, Malabon City MTC, Carmen, Agusan del Norte Hon. Orven K. Ontalan Hon. Tristram C. Tenebro RTC, Br. 285, Valenzuela City MTC, San Fernando, Bukidnon Hon. Ronald Q. Torrijos RTC, Br. 288, Navotas City Region XI Hon. Charles S. Concon Region IX MTC, Maragusan (San Mariano), Compostela Valley Hon. Shaldilyn B. Bangsaja Hon. Chalmer C. Gevieso RTC, Br. 33, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur MTC, Maasim, Sarangani Hon. Gracelina P. Gagarra-Bernardo Hon. Regina F. Sison-Montiel RTC, Br. 17, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur MTC, New Corella, Davao del Norte Hon. Grace C. Tillah-Alasco RTC, Br. 26, Sapa-Sapa, Tawi-Tawi Region XII Hon. Joselita E. Jadraque-Augusto Region XI MTC, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte Hon. Melinda R. Alconcel-Dayanghirang RTC, Br. 54, Davao City, Davao del Sur Municipal Circuit Trial Courts Hon. Jose C. Blanza, Jr. Region IX RTC, Br. 22, General Santos City, South Cotabato Hon. Kathia C. Adasa-Santiago Hon. Edilu P. Hayag 7th MCTC: Liloy–Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte RTC, Br. 53, Davao City, Davao del Sur Hon. Rowena S. Carpitanos-Magallanes Hon. Joyce Kho Mirabueno 9th MCTC: Salug–Godod, Zamboanga del Norte RTC, Br. 58, General Santos City, South Cotabato Hon. Jerry B. Patcho Hon. Ronald S. Tolentino 6th MCTC: Labason–Gutalac-Kalauit, Zamboanga del Norte RTC, Br. 52, Davao City, Davao del Sur Hon. Johnabel H. Tabunda Metropolitan Trial Courts 7th MCTC: Dimataling–Tabina–Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur National Capital Judicial Region Region XI Hon. Fredrick G. Separa Hon. Glenn P. Quimba MeTC, Br. 118, Navotas City 2nd MCTC: Banga–Tantangan, South Cotabato Municipal Trial Courts in Cities * Was issued Certificate of Compliance only due to incomplete Region X attendance. Hon. Jhobee T. Gerasmio 1 Missed the session on April 27, 2016 morning and first topic on the MTCC, Br. 1, Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental afternoon. Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 13
Region XII Hon. Pedro T. Dabu, Jr. Hon. Jose Edgar R. Sinangote RTC, Br. 286, Navotas City 4th MCTC: Bagumbayan–Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat Hon. Romana Maria Melchora P. Lindayag-Del Rosario*1 B. Promoted Judges** RTC, Br. 287, Navotas City Hon. Jacqueline S. Martin-Balictar Regional Trial Courts RTC, Br. 9, Manila National Capital Judicial Region Hon. Arthur B. Melicor Hon. Juris S. Dilinila-Callanta RTC, Br. 284, Valenzuela City RTC, Br. 85, Quezon City Hon. Rosario G. Ines-Pinzon*2 Hon. Rosalia I. Hipolito-Bunagan RTC, Br. 290, Malabon City RTC, Br. 232, Caloocan City Hon. Tammy Ann C. Reyes-Mendillo Hon. Juliet M. Manalo-San Gaspar RTC, Br. 22, Manila RTC, Br. 279, Mandaluyong City Region IX Hon. Restituto V. Mangalindan, Jr. Hon. Ruben N. Bance RTC, Br. 280, Mandaluyong City RTC, Br. 29, San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur 2 Hon. Rhoda Magdalene L. Mapile-Osinada* Hon. Vicente S. De La Plaza II RTC, Br. 289, Malabon City RTC, Br. 36, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay Hon. J. Ermin Ernest Louie R. Miguel RTC, Br. 281, Mandaluyong City Region X Hon. Wilfredo G. Bibera, Jr. Region IX RTC, Br. 46, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon Hon. Roncesvalles B. Filoteo Hon. Eldred D. Cole RTC, Br. 32, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur RTC, Br. 45, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon Hon. Vera T. Vergara Hon. Marigel S. Dagani-Hugo RTC, Br. 14, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur RTC, Br. 3, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte Region XI 3 Region XI Hon. Carfelita B. Cadiente-Flores* Hon. Celestial V. Aranda-Gonzales RTC, Br. 61, Digos, Davao del Sur RTC, Br. 57, Mabini, Compostela Valley Hon. Lorna B. Santiago-Avila Hon. Cresenciana DC. Cruz RTC, Br. 36, General Santos City, South Cotabato RTC, Br. 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley Hon. Dennis A. Velasco Hon. Rebecca G. Dardo-Seredrica RTC, Br. 23, General Santos City, South Cotabato RTC, Br. 46, Alabel, Sarangani Hon. Jose Jerry L. Fulgar 76th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed RTC, Br. 47, Alabel, Sarangani Judges Hon. Catalina Shineta M. Tare-Palacio Date: May 31–June 9, 2016 RTC, Br. 41, Cantilan, Surigao del Sur Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Hon. Bill L. Ybarley Participants: 48 newly appointed judges and 10 promoted RTC, Br. 48, Alabel, Sarangani judges, namely: Region XII A. Newly Appointed Judges Hon. Ali Ombra R. Bacaraman RTC, Br. 4, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte Regional Trial Courts Hon. Sittie Laarni R. Umpa National Capital Judicial Region RTC, Br. 9, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur Hon. Elena A. Amigo-Amano Metropolitan Trial Courts RTC, Br. 282, Valenzuela City Hon. Rodolfo P. Azucena, Jr. National Capital Judicial Region RTC, Br. 125, Caloocan City Hon. Aimee S. Arago Hon. Ferdinand C. Baylon MeTC, Br. 119, Navotas City RTC, Br. 77, Quezon City * Was issued Certificate of Compliance only due to incomplete ** Attended April 25─28, 2016 attendance. 2 Missed the session on April 25, 2016. 1 Missed the session on June 3, 2016. 3 Missed the session on April 27, 2016 morning. 2 Missed the session on June 6, 2016. 14 April–June 2016
Hon. Nelvin M. Asi Hon. John Edwin C. Luneta MeTC, Br. 114, Muntinlupa City 1st MCTC: Cantilan-Carrascal, Surigao del Sur Hon. Rommelo C. Camarillo B. Promoted Judges** MeTC, Br. 107, Valenzuela City Hon. Karen S. Canullas-Armada Regional Trial Courts MeTC, Br. 123, Las Piñas City National Capital Judicial Region Hon. Aida D. Coliflores-Romero Hon. Eduardo Ramon R. Reyes MeTC, Br. 122, Las Piñas City RTC, Br. 15, Manila Hon. Lynnette May D. Deloria-Manarang Hon. Snooky Maria Ana B. Sagayo MeTC, Br. 124, Las Piñas City RTC, Br. 283, Valenzuela City Hon. Chelsea Segunda G. Dirige-Legaspi MeTC, Br. 112, Muntinlupa City Region X Hon. Juan Jose P. Enriquez III Hon. Nannette Michote E. Lao MeTC, Br. 115, Taguig City RTC, Br. 28, Mambajao, Camiguin Hon. Jennifer B. Escorpezo-Bayaua Hon. Roy P. Murallon MeTC, Br. 13, Manila RTC, Br. 13, Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental Hon. April Joy L. Frisnedi-Belleza Region XI MeTC, Br. 111, Muntinlupa City Hon. Alejandro Ramon C. Alano Hon. Maya Joy P. Guiyab RTC, Br. 55, General Santos City, South Cotabato MeTC, Br. 120, Malabon City Hon. Allan Edwin P. Boncavil Hon. Ghia Chrystellyne O. Hurtado-Juan RTC, Br. 62, Polomolok, South Cotabato MeTC, Br. 108, Valenzuela City Hon. Felipe B. Maglana, Jr. Hon. Marita Iris B. Laqui-Genilo RTC, Br. 7, Baganga, Davao Oriental MeTC, Br. 109, Valenzuela City Hon. Karen C. Maramba-Firme Region XII MeTC, Br. 60, Mandaluyong City Hon. Henelinda J. Molina-Diaz Hon. Desiree Gertrude G. Orquiola-Moldez RTC, Br. 61, Kidapawan City, North Cotabato MeTC, Br. 110, Muntinlupa City Hon. Rainera P. Osua Hon. Ma. Victoria Q. Padilla-Awid RTC, Br. 28, Midsayap, North Cotabato MeTC, Br. 117, Taguig City Hon. Jose T. Tabosares Hon. Richard O. Pascual RTC, Br. 23, Kidapawan City, North Cotabato MeTC, Br. 116, Taguig City Hon. Melody G. Restituto 31st Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed MeTC, Br. 113, Muntinlupa City Clerks of Court Hon. Gloria D. Santos, Jr. Date: May 24–27, 2016 MeTC, Br. 51, Caloocan City Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Hon. Carlo D. Villarama Participants: 54 newly appointed clerks of court, namely: MeTC, Br. 36, Quezon City Regional Trial Courts Municipal Trial Courts in Cities Region X National Capital Judicial Region Hon. Isabel Corazon C. Plaza Atty. Rickson M. Buenviaje MTCC, Br. 3, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte RTC, Br. 122, Caloocan City Atty. Myrtle B. Calvan Region XI RTC, Br. 27, Manila Hon. Galerie Gee Y. Flores Atty. Jeanne Luz Dela Rosa Castillo MTCC, Tandag City, Surigao del Sur RTC, Br. 229, Quezon City Municipal Circuit Trial Courts Atty. Julie L. Doctolero RTC, Br. 151, Pasig City Region X Hon. Christopher C. Castro Atty. Marie Hyacinth G. Laggui 9th MCTC: Sta. Monica–Burgos, Surigao del Norte RTC, Br. 79, Quezon City Hon. Edsel M. Ensomo Atty. Jenelyn B. Legaspi 7th MCTC: Gen. Luna–Pilar, Surigao del Norte RTC, Br. 110, Pasay City Atty. Imelda C. Mangligot-Hidalgo Region XI RTC, Br. 131, Caloocan City Hon. Vicente C. Dumbrigue, Jr. 7th MCTC: Hinatuan–Tagbina, Surigao del Sur ** Attended June 6─9, 2016. Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 15
Region VIII Atty. Manuel M. Pascua, Jr. Atty. Michael John B. Labajosa RTC, Br. 163, Taguig City RTC, Br. 27, Catbalogan, Samar Atty. Bernalyn A. Perez Atty. Regina G. Paredes-Elizarde RTC, Br. 118, Pasay City RTC, Br. 36, Carigara, Leyte Region II Region IX Atty. Roxanne Mia A. Adduru-Aman Atty. Maria Liezelda G. Abas-Reganion RTC, Br. 8, Aparri, Cagayan RTC, Br. 9, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte Atty. Gizle M. De La Cruz Atty. Jill Cindy L. Cruz-Cañete RTC, Br. 9, Aparri, Cagayan RTC, Br. 13, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur Atty. Mylalyn A. Matalang Atty. Yellen B. Yap RTC, Br. 17, City of Ilagan, Isabela RTC, Br. 6, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte Atty. Marifem H. Tugadi RTC, Br. 28, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya Region XII Atty. Mary Joy P. Junio Region III RTC, Br. 24, Midsayap, North Cotabato Atty. Alvin A. Bautista Atty. Amy V. Prado RTC, Br. 18, Malolos City, Bulacan RTC, Br. 20, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat Atty. Giancarlo S. Capati Atty. Darlene D. Torreña RTC, OCC, City of San Fernando, Pampanga RTC, Br. 19, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat Atty. Girlie Venus E. De Leon RTC, Br. 74, Olongapo City, Zambales Metropolitan Trial Courts Atty. Diana S. Fajardo-Lampa National Capital Judicial Region RTC, Br. 44, City of San Fernando, Pampanga Ms. Shela L. De Claro-Arteza Atty. Minerva A. Jimenez MeTC, Br. 90, Parañaque City RTC, Br. 4, Mariveles, Bataan Ms. Elaine Sharon A. De Luna Atty. Jemuel Paolo M. Lobo MeTC, Br. 50, Caloocan City RTC, Br. 93, Balanga City, Bataan Ms. Maria Linda T. Doble Atty. Maryann Agnes Jertez Y. Reyes-Beber MeTC, OCC, Pasig City RTC, Br. 94, Mariveles, Bataan Municipal Trial Courts Region IV Region I Atty. Glenda B. Josol Ms. Kristine A. Dannang RTC, Br. 47, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan MTC, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur Atty. Gian Carlo R. Layson Ms. Rosalinda R. De Guzman RTC, Br. 79, Morong, Rizal MTC, Bayambang, Pangasinan Atty. Mark Wilfred M. Reyes RTC, Br. 72, Antipolo City, Rizal Municipal Circuit Trial Courts Atty. Peter Gian-Marc R. Reyes Region I RTC, Br. 32, San Pablo City, Laguna Ms. Sheila R. Ragasa nd Region V 2 MCTC: San Vicente-San Ildefonso, Ilocos Sur Atty. Evan E. Domasian Region II RTC, Br. 54, Gubat, Sorsogon Ms. Raquel E. Cayton Atty. Sheena Ester Arteta Gacer 2nd MCTC: Dupax del Norte–Dupax Del Sur–Alfonso Castañeda RTC, Br. 23, Naga City, Camarines Sur Nueva Vizcaya Region VI Region III Atty. Maria Theresa V. Rizon Mr. Lester G. Sicalag RTC, Br. 57, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental 1st MCTC: Dinalupihan–Hermosa, Bataan Atty. Lyle Rose M. Tanquerido Region IV RTC, Br. 22, Iloilo City, Iloilo Mr. Florencio G. Capones, Jr.* Region VII 1st MCTC: Mauban-Sampaloc, Quezon Atty. Jesrel E. Bolanio Mr. Johnathan R. Juacalla RTC, Br. 51, Carmen, Bohol 1st MCTC: Luisiana-Cavinti, Laguna Atty. Ligaya R. Violeta RTC, Br. 36, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental * Incomplete attendance (attended May 24─26, 2016 only) 16 April–June 2016
Ms. Myla H. Lomod Region III 1st MCTC: San Teodoro–Baco–Puerto Galera, Mindoro Oriental Ms. Florian P. Banabana RTC, Br. 57, Angeles City, Pampanga Region VI Mr. Virgilio N. Catbagan, Jr. Mr. Teejay M. Gulmatico RTC, Br. 39, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija 10th MCTC: Calinog–Bingawan, Iloilo Mr. Romeo Joseph M. Gatbunton Ms. Raymunda C. Imbang RTC, Br. 94, Mariveles, Bataan 3rd MCTC: Patnongon–Bugasong–Valderrama, Antique Mr. Redentor B. Lucas Region X RTC, Br. 32, Guimba, Nueva Ecija Mr. Job Mark P. Mutia Mr. Roli Jay A. Mariano 3rd MCTC: Aloran–Panaon, Misamis Occidental RTC, OCC, Mariveles, Bataan Region XI Mr. Florante R. Poquez Mr. Dustin V. Betonio RTC, Br. 38, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija 3rd MCTC: Kapalong–Talaingod, Davao del Norte Region IV Mr. Felicisimo A. Atienza Shari’a Circuit Courts RTC, Br. 37, Calamba City, Laguna Region IX Ms. Minerva C. Caniedo Ms. Heidi A. Hassan RTC, OCC, Batangas City, Batangas 2nd SCC, Siasi–Pandami–Tapul–Lugus, Sulu Mr. Manuel Desider00io Rafael R. Medina RTC, Br. 86, Taal, Batangas 8th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Mr. Ryan Rex D.J. Sardea Sheriffs and Process Servers RTC, Br. 5, Lemery, Batangas Date: April 5–7, 2016 Mr. Emmanuel D. Socrates Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City RTC, Br. 50, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan Participants: 76 newly appointed sheriffs and process servers, Region VI namely: Mr. Mark Emmanuel D. Delmo I. Sheriffs RTC, OCC, Iloilo City, Iloilo Regional Trial Courts Region XI National Capital Judicial Region Mr. Wilfredo A. Sarsoza, Jr. Mr. Randy C. Bernardo RTC, Br. 29, Bislig City, Surigao del Sur RTC, Br. 78, Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Courts Mr. Carlo Dan A. Gutierrez RTC, Br. 144, Makati City National Capital Judicial Region Mr. Crispin A. Maravilla Mr. Estanislao P. Fernandez RTC, Br. 267, Taguig City MeTC, OCC, Manila Ms. Celeste D. Pinauin Mr. Vincent B. Inamach RTC, Br. 43, Manila MeTC, OCC, Marikina City Mr. Samuel V. Pizaña Municipal Trial Courts in Cities RTC, Br. 53, Manila Region I Mr. Raymund S. Prado Mr. Rody P. Nogoy RTC, Br. 126, Caloocan City MTCC, Br. 2, San Fernando City, La Union Mr. Abdul Jabbar L. Usman RTC, Br. 88, Quezon City Region III Mr. Louie R. Cuvin Region I MTCC, OCC, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan Ms. Erlinda C. Alipio Mr. Teodulo S. De Leon RTC, OCC, Dagupan City, Pangasinan MTCC, Br. 1, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan Mr. Charlie T. Bundoc Mr. Renato B. Puno, Jr. RTC, Br. 21, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur MTCC, Palayan City, Nueva Ecija Region II Mr. Jeffrey M. Reyes Mr. Allan A. Argonza MTCC, OCC, City of San Fernando, Pampanga RTC, Br. 9, Aparri, Cagayan Region IV Mr. Juanito A. Bautista * Incomplete attendance (attended May 24─26, 2016 only) MTCC, Bacoor City, Cavite Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 17
Mr. Jay R. De La Cruz Ms. Weldy E. Diamante MTCC, Cabuyao City, Laguna RTC, Br. 64, Mauban, Quezon Mr. Charlie J. Manginsay Mr. Menerando N. Jalos, Jr. MTCC, Biñan City, Laguna RTC, Br. 41, Pinamalayan, Mindoro Oriental Mr. Jay Arnold T. Panganiban MTCC, Br. 1, Batangas City, Batangas Metropolitan Trial Courts Region V National Capital Judicial Region Mr. Jose Emmanuel A. Oyales Mr. Danilo M. Avendaño MTCC, Br. 2, Iriga City, Camarines Sur MeTC, OCC, Marikina City Ms. Maria Teresa G. Carpio Region VI MeTC, OCC, Caloocan City Mr. Amiel H. Corañez Mr. Jaeson James S. Dela Cruz MTCC, Br. 3, Roxas City, Capiz MeTC, OCC, Pasig City Mr. Runald D. Francisco Ms. Elizabeth Cassandra M. Fernandez MTCC, Br. 4, Roxas City, Capiz MeTC, Br. 10, Manila II. Process Servers Mr. Loreto L. Lapitan MeTC, OCC, Marikina City Regional Trial Courts Mr. Arnold B. Malonzo National Capital Judicial Region MeTC, Br. 51, Caloocan City Mr. Rommel V. Aquilana RTC, OCC, Malabon City Municipal Trial Courts in Cities Ms. Zenaida G. Arabit Region II RTC, Br. 100, Quezon City Ms. Viva Kristel T. Macarubbo Mr. Edward C. Calalang MTCC, Ilagan City, Isabela RTC, Br. 256, Muntinlupa City Region IV Mr. Cesar S. De Guzman RTC, Br. 145, Makati City Mr. Jowell D. Salvador MTCC, OCC, Antipolo City, Rizal Mr. Melchedeck M. Dela Cruz RTC, Br. 148, Makati City Region VI Mr. Manolito C. Ripdos Ms. Dee L. Dapiton RTC, Br. 56, Makati City MTCC, Br. 3, Roxas City, Capiz Mr. Emil B. Roda Ms. Elsie L. Dellava RTC, Br. 107, Quezon City MTCC, Br. 4, Roxas City, Capiz Region I Ms. Fe M. Muzones Mr. Peter A. Arquitola MTCC, Br. 4, Iloilo City, Iloilo RTC, OCC, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte Region XII Mr. Jerry R. Balbin Ms. Soraine B. Jalil RTC, Br. 28, San Fernando City, La Union MTCC, OCC, lligan City, Lanao del Norte Mr. Christian Jay D. Galam RTC, Br. 18, Batac, Ilocos Norte Municipal Trial Courts Ms. Ma. Teresa A. Mendoza Region I RTC, Br. 59, Baguio City, Benguet Mr. Rodolfo E. Esteban Region II MTC, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan Mr. Armando B. Onia Mr. Jaimer L. Udani RTC, Br. 30, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya MTC, Bantay, Ilocos Sur Region III Region III Mr. Carlito V. Amistoso Ms. Emalyn D. Racho RTC, OCC, Dinalupihan, Bataan MTC, Pulilan, Bulacan Mr. Dennis Christian D. Villanueva Mr. Arnel R. Tolentino RTC, Br. 94, Mariveles, Bataan MTC, Guiguinto, Bulacan Region IV Region IV Ms. Christine T. Aliwalas Mr. Emil Lawrence R. Rea RTC, Br. 34, Calamba City, Laguna MTC, General Trias, Cavite 18 April–June 2016
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts 29. Ruben F. Mission V 30. Rebelinda S. Narsolis Region I 31. Alena Gale H. Palileo-Yabes Mr. Danilo V. Bersalona 32. Eileen C. Paloma 4th MCTC: Manabo–Boliney–Tubo–Luba, Abra 33. Russel P. Portugal Region II 34. Vinalyn M. Potot-Baluran Mr. Roger T. Lafradez 35. Margareth P. Reyes-Mendoza 1st MCTC: Luna–Pudtol–Calanasan, Apayao 36. Maria Cristita A. Rivas-Santos Mr. Hardie A. Luga 37. Vernice Lauren S. Roman 1st MCTC: San Pablo–Sta. Maria, Isabela 38. Ivy C. Ruiz-Regis Region IV 39. Arnel M. Santos Mr. Melquiades H. Ferre 40. Marion S. Sevilla 3rd MCTC: Indang–Mendez-Nuñez, Cavite 41. Lilybeth T. Sindayen-Libiran Mr. Margarito Ruel C. Vita 42. Gemalyn F. Tarol 3rd MCTC: Nagcarlan–Rizal, Laguna 43. Anne Chinika L. Tolentino 44. Jesus G. Torres 45. Fidel S. Tutor, Jr. 46. Ryan Jude D. Villar Pre-Judicature Program 47. Zach L. Zaragoza-Ziga 48. Juliet S. Imperial1 49. Hannah L. Baldas-Calitong2 th 37 Pre-Judicature Program 50. Paolo Dominique Quejano3 Date: March 28–April 8, 2016 Venue: Bayleaf Hotel, Intramuros, Manila Participants: 47 lawyers, namely: 38th Pre-Judicature Program Date: May 23–June 3, 2016 1. Johanna R. Abella Venue: Bayleaf Hotel, Intramuros, Manila 2. Sheena Marie R. Abella-Davis Participants: 40 lawyers, namely: 3. Nilo G. Ahat 4. Cherilee B. Alagaban-Almiñana 1. Ma. Christina V. Abalos 5. Maria Zenaida F. Alejandre 2. Ma. Rowena V. Alejandria 6. Jose Troy A. Almario 3. Adelaimar C. Arias-Jose 7. Pilar C. Anciado 4. Ramon C. Avengoza 8. Alpha L. Andrada 5. Joel C. Bantasan 9. Brenda Jay C. Angeles-Mendoza* 6. Esther Gertrude D. Biliran 10. Raquel V. Aspiras-Sanchez 7. Rosemarie E. Buendia-Garde 11. Laurice Marie Angela T. Austria 8. Ofelia P. Cabahug 12. Gail B. Avila 9. Ginger Anne S. Castillo 13. Fritzie E. Baban-Subang 10. Victor Carlo Antonio V. Cayco 14. Clemente M. Clemente 11. Sheryl Lyn T. Chua 15. Jose I. Cordero, Jr. 12. Rene Antonio R. Cirio 16. Liezel C. De Leon 13. Maria Norma G. Co 17. Jan Michael S. Dela Cruz 14. Gemma Armi M. De La Cruz 18. Michael William T. Diokno 15. Mark Brian A. Dela Cruz 19. Venus I. Gapuz-Taliman 16. Charlene Anne Yu De Leon 20. January Mari P. Garcia 17. Glenna Mari M. Dela Cruz 21. Ma. Cherryl C. Gepolongca 18. Kelly P. Dela Rosa* 22. Dionis P. Jacobe 19. Roxanne Marie B. Dimayuga 23. Menandro T. Lim, Jr. 20. Jeeli P. Espinosa 24. Alma Florence A. Logronio* 21. Jose C. Evan 25. Neilito V. Lupango 26. Edward S. Magat 1 From Batch 36. Attended sessions on March 29 and 30. 27. April Joy B. Magsayo-Aguila 2 From Batch 36. Attended sessions on March 29 and 30. 28. Maria Monette F. Mesa 3 From Batch 36. Attended sessions on April 5. * Did not take the Written Evaluative Examinations. Only attended * Did not take the Written Evaluative Examinations. sessions on June 23 and June 24. Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 19
22. Joselito G. Fajardo 23. Helen Grace S. Hernandez Career Development Program 24. Jennifer A. Jimeno 25. Djoanivie Jomare A. Junasa 26. Leila R. Jose Career Development Program for Court Legal Researchers of 27. Jennifer M. Melchor-Adviento the Visayas 28. Zaldy L. Monilla Date: May 4–5, 2016 29. Rotela Fatima A. Ortiz Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City 30. Eloisa A. Papa Participants: 68 RTC and MTCC court legal researchers 31. Diomer L. Priela 32. Melchor Carlos R. Rabanes 33. Leo Miguel A. Ramos Special Focus Program 34. Maria Karen B. Rebato 35. Jazon H. Restubog 36. Wendy S. Reyes Training Seminar on the 2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for 37. Meliza Joan B. Robite Small Claims Cases for First Level Courts 38. Katrina C. Tabique Judges 39. Paulo A. Talban Eighth Judicial Region 40. Diosfa C. Toledanes-Valencia Date: April 1, 2016 1 41. Jenifer B. Bagay Venue: XZY Hotel, Tacloban City, Leyte 2 42. Arnold C. Moralejo Participants: 46 MTC, MTCC, and MCTC judges 43. Vinalyn M. Potot-Baluran3 Eleventh Judicial Region Date: May 6, 2016 Judicial Career Enhancement Program Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City (JCEP) Participants: 35 MTC, MTCC, and MCTC judges Judges and Clerks of Court JCEP for First Level Court Judges of the Eleventh Judicial Ninth Judicial Region Region Date: April 8, 2016 Date: May 4–6, 2016 Venue: Top Plaza Hotel, Dipolog City Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 75 MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges, and clerks of Participants: 35 MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges court Eleventh and Twelfth Judicial Regions Date: April 29, 2016 Career Enhancement Program Venue: East Asia Royale Hotel, General Santos City Participants: 76 MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges, and clerks of court of the 12th judicial region and clerks of court of 11th Career Enhancement Program for Court Librarians judicial region Date: May 11–13, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Third Judicial Region Participants: 40 RTC court librarians and PHILJA librarian Date: May 20, 2016 Venue: Xenia Hotel, Clark Freeport Zone, Pampanga Career Enhancement Program for RTC Sheriffs of the NCJR Participants: 205 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges and clerks (Batch 4) of court Date: March 17–19, 2016 Second Judicial Region Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Date: May 27, 2016 Participants: 72 RTC sheriffs Venue: Ivory Hotel, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan Participants 1 From Batch 36. Attended May 30 morning, May 31 afternoon, : 136 MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges, and clerks of June 1 morning, and June 2 morning sessions. Took the Written court Evaluative Examinations on June 3 afternoon. Tenth and Twelfth Judicial Regions 2 From Batch 36. Attended May 31 morning session. Date: June 17, 2016 3 From Batch 37. Attended May 23 morning, May 26 morning, May Venue: VIP Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City 27 afternoon, June 1 morning, and June 2 afternoon sessions. Took Participants: 146 MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges, and clerks of the Written Evaluative Examinations on June 3 afternoon. court 20 April–June 2016
Clerks of Court Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and Court First Judicial Region Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children Date: June 23, 2016 Development Partners: Consuelo Foundation, and Child Venue: Hotel Veniz, Baguio City Protection Network, Inc. Participants: 108 clerks of court Date: May 17–19, 2016 Venue: Century Park Hotel, Manila Participants: 63 RTC judges, clerks of court, court social Seminar on Election Laws for Judges workers, court interpreters, prosecutors, PAO lawyers, and Batch 1 (Regions I─III) representatives from Consuelo Foundation Date: April 5, 2016 Date: June 7–9, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Venue: Quest Hotel and Conference Center, Cebu City Participants: 39 judges Participants: 69 RTC judges, clerks of court, social workers, Batch 2 (Regions IV─V) court interpreters, prosecutors, and PAO lawyers Date: April 7, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City PHILJA Curriculum Review: Fifth Plenary Assembly of the Participants: 30 judges PHILJA Corps of Professors and Lecturers Date: May 20, 2016 Batch 3 (Regions VI─IX) Venue: Court of Appeals, Manila Date: April 12, 2016 Participants: 135 CA and CTA Presiding Justices, PHILJA Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City executive officials, PHILJA Corps of Professors, professorial Participants: 46 judges lecturers/resource persons (non-members of PHILJA Corps of Batch 4 (Regions X─XII) Professors), and other guests Date: April 14, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Laws for Judges, Participants: 41 judges Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of the Fourth Judicial Region Development Partner: Dangerous Drugs Board Date: May 17–19, 2016 PHILJA Curriculum Review: Validation Workshop Venue: Taal Vista Hotel, Tagaytay City with the Academic Council Participants: 79 judges, prosecutors, and law enforcers (PDEA, Date: April 26, 2016 PNP, PPA, NBI, and DDB) Venue: Court of Appeals, Manila Participants: 42 PHILJA Corps of Professors, program partners, Seminar-Workshop for Selected Judges on Financial Crimes and PHILJA officials and staff and Money Laundering Development Partner: United States Department of Justice Training of Trainers of Competency Enhancement Training for Crminal Division–Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Assistance and Training (OPDAT) Investigators Handling Online Sexual Exploitation of Children Cases Date: June 7–8, 2016 Development Partners: United Nations Children’s Fund, Venue: Manila Diamond Hotel, Manila Australian Embassy–The Philippines, and The Asia Foundation Participants: 27 RTC judges Date: May 3, 2016 Date: June 28–29, 2016 Venue: Discovery Suites, Pasig City Venue: Manila Diamond Hotel, Manila Participants: 18 RTC judges and prosecutors Participants: 29 RTC judges
Competency Enhancement Training for Family Court Seminar on the Financial Liquidation and Suspension of Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Payments (FLSP) Rules of Procedure for Court of Appeals Investigators on the Management of Online Sexual Justices (Cebu City Station), Special Commercial Court Judges Exploitation of Children Cases and Pairing Court Judges of Regions VI to VIII Development Partners: United Nations Children’s Fund, Development Partners: United States Agency for International Australian Embassy–The Philippines, and The Asia Foundation Development, and American Bar Association–Rule of Law Date: May 4–5, 2016 Initiative Venue: Discovery Suites, Pasig City Date: June 22, 2016 Participants: 45 RTC judges, social workers, prosecutors, and Venue: Marco Polo Hotel, Cebu City law enforcers Participants: 24 CA-Cebu justices and RTC judges Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 21
Basic Judicial Training on Cybercrime for Judges Development Partners: Department of Justice and Council of Special Lecture Europe (COE)–Global Action on Cybercrime (GLACY) Project Date: June 15─17, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 17 RTC judges 2016 Founding Chancellor Emeritus Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera Award for the Most Outstanding Advanced Judicial Training on Cybercrime for Judges Professorial Lecturer featuring the topic “The Millenial Development Partners: Department of Justice and Council of Judge: Judicial Education at the Crossroads” by Dean Sedfrey Europe (COE)–Global Action on Cybercrime (GLACY) Project M. Candelaria Date: June 20─22, 2016 Development Partner: Children of Founding Chancellor Emeritus Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera Participants: 18 judges, prosecutors and PAO lawyers Date: June 20, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Judicial Conference on Cybercrime Participants: 155 CA, CTA and Sandiganbayan justices, SC and Development Partners: Department of Justice and Council of PHILJA officials and employees, CA, CTA and Sandiganbayan Europe (COE)–Global Action on Cybercrime (GLACY) Project employees, judges, branch clerks of court, and other guests Date: June 23─24, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 42 judges, prosecutors, representatives from DOJ and NBI, and other guests Alternative Dispute Resolution Program
Orientation Seminar for Judges and Court Decongestion Officers Basic Mediation Course Date: April 18─19, 2016 Venue: Harolds Hotel, Cebu City Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Aurora Mediation Programs Participants: 45 judges (April 18); 67 court decongestion officers Date: May 17─20, 2016 (April 18─19) Venue: Governor’s Garden Hotel, Solana, Nueva Vizcaya Participants: 42 mediators Date: May 12─13, 2016 Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, Manila Participants: 168 court decongestion officers Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators (Skills Enhancement Course) Launch of the Module and Handbook on the Advanced Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors, Panay and Bacolod Mediation Programs Legal Researchers, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Date: March 30–31, 2016 Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons Cases Venue: Hotel del Rio, Iloilo City Development Partner: Australia–Asia Program to Combat Participants: 38 mediators Trafficking in Persons (AAPTIP) Date: June 23, 2016 Misamis Oriental, Misamis Occidental, Lanao del Sur, Venue: Dignitaries Lounge, Supreme Court, Manila Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur Mediation Participants: 31 SC Offcials and staff, PHILJA staff, trainers, Programs instrument developers, Ambassador of Australian Embassy, Date: April 20–21, 2016 representatives from AAPTIP, and guests Venue: The VIP Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City Participants: 22 mediators
Convention-Seminar Lanao del Norte and Bukidnon Mediation Programs Date: May 4–5, 2016 Venue: Haus Malibu, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon Participants: 29 mediators 17th National Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE) La Union, Benguet and Pangasinan Mediation Programs Date: April 20–22, 2016 Date: June 21–22, 2016 Venue: Easter College, Baguio City Venue: Hotel Supreme Convention Plaza, Baguio City Participants: 2,722 court employees Participants: 46 mediators 22 April–June 2016
Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar for PMC Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court on Unit Staff Judicial Dispute Resolution Date: May 26, 2016 Date: April 20–21, 2016 Venue: Queen Margarette Hotel, Lucena City Venue: The VIP Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City Participants: 47 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC clerks of court/ Participants: 26 PMC Unit staff branch clerks of court Date: May 18–19, 2016 Date: June 28, 2016 Venue: Hotel Fortuna, Cebu City Venue: Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga City Participants: 45 PMC Unit staff Participants: 56 RTC, MTCC MTC, and MCTC clerks of court/ branch clerks of court Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Mediation Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, and Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute Resolution Agusan del Norte Mediation Program Date: May 26, 2016 Date: June 7, 2016 Venue: Queen Margarette Hotel, Lucena City Venue: Amaris Suites, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte Participants: 58 prosecutors, public attorneys and IBP/law Participants: 64 judges, clerks of court/branch clerks of court, practitioners prosecutors, PAO and IBP lawyers, representatives from LGUs, business sector, academe, and media Date: June 28, 2016 Venue: Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga City Agusan del Sur Mediation Program Participants: 60 prosecutors, public attorneys, and IBP/law Date: June 8, 2016 practitioners Venue: Provincial Learning Center, Prosperidad Agusan del Sur Participants: 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 Program Date: June 28, 2016 Venue: Governor’s Garden Hotel, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya Participants: 38 judges, clerks of court, mediation trainees, and Atty. ANNA-LI R. PAPA-GOMBIO PMC Unit staff Deputy Clerk of Court, En Banc Appointed on January 25, 2016 Quirino Mediation Program Date: June 29, 2016 Venue: Capitol Plaza Hotel and Restaurant, Cabarroguis, Quirino Participants: 30 judges, clerks of court, mediation trainees, and PMC Unit staff
Atty. BASILIA T. RINGOL Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on Judicial Dispute Deputy Clerk of Court and Resolution (Skills-based Course) Chief, Judicial Records Division Date: April 26–29, 2016 Appointed on February 18, 2016 Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Participants: 58 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges Date: June 26–29, 2016 Venue: Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga City Participants: 40 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 23
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 the75 th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges held on April 19–28, 2016 at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.
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. 24 April–June 2016
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 Alternative Dispute Resolution 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, Production of evidence in an arbitration case where the whether the information sought is available from other sources Deliberative Process Privilege is invoked and can be obtained without compromising the government’s Traditionally, U.S. courts have established two fundamental deliberative processes, and the importance of the material to requirements, both of which must be met, for the deliberative the discoverant’s case.” process privilege to be invoked. First, the communication In the present case, considering that the RTC erred in must be predecisional, i.e., “antecedent to the adoption applying our ruling in Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, and of an agency policy.” Second, the communication must be both BCA’s and DFA’s assertions of subpoena of evidence deliberative, i.e., “a direct part of the deliberative process in and the deliberative process privilege are broad and lack that it makes recommendations or expresses opinions on legal specificity, we will not be able to determine whether the or policy matters.” It must reflect the “give-and-take of the evidence sought to be produced is covered by the deliberative consultative process.” process privilege. The parties are directed to specify their x x x x claims before the RTC and, thereafter, the RTC shall determine which evidence is covered by the deliberative process Thus, “[t]he deliberative process privilege exempts privilege, if there is any, based on the standards provided in materials that are ‘predecisional’ and ‘deliberative,’ but this Decision. It is necessary to consider the circumstances requires disclosure of policy statements and final opinions surrounding the demand for the evidence to determine ‘that have the force of law or explain actions that an agency whether or not its production is injurious to the consultative has already taken.“’ functions of government that the privilege of non-disclosure x x x x protects. The deliberative process privilege can also be invoked in Carpio, J., Department of Foreign Affairsv. BCA International Corporation, arbitration proceedings under RA No. 9285. G.R. No. 210858, June 29, 2016 “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 Constitutional Law 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 Summary deportation proceedings cannot be instituted of proposed policies before they have been finally formulated by the BI against citizens of the Philippines or adopted; and to protect against confusing the issues It is settled that summary deportation proceedings cannot and misleading the public by dissemination of documents be instituted by the BI against citizens of the Philippines. In suggesting reasons and rationales for a course of action which Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa, the Court reiterated were not in fact the ultimate reasons for the agency’s action.” the doctrine that citizens may resort to courts for protection x x x x if their right to live in peace, without molestation from any As a qualified privilege, the burden falls upon the official or authority, is disturbed in a deportation proceeding. government agency asserting the deliberative process In that case, we stated: privilege to prove that the information in question satisfies However, the rule enunciated in the above-cases both requirements—predecisional and deliberative. “The admits of an exception, at least insofar as deportation Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 25 proceedings are concerned. Thus, what if the claim to (Property Relations Between Husband and Wife) of the Family citizenship of the alleged deportee is satisfactory? Should Code. x x x the deportation proceedings be allowed to continue x x x x or should the question of citizenship be ventilated in a judicial proceeding? In Chua Hiong v. Deportation Board The conjugal partnership of Anastacio and Flora was (96 Phil. 665 [1955]), this Court answered the question in dissolved when Flora died in 1968, pursuant to Article 175 (1) the affirmative, and We quote: of the Civil Code (now Article 126 (1) of the Family Code). When the evidence submitted by a respondent x x x x is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to While Article 130 of the Family Code provides that any immediate review should also be recognized disposition involving the conjugal property without prior and the courts should promptly enjoin the liquidation of the partnership shall be void, this rule does not deportation proceedings. A citizen is entitled to apply since the provisions of the Family Code shall be “without live in peace, without molestation from any official prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with or authority, and if he is disturbed by a deportation proceeding, he has the unquestionable right to the Civil Code or other laws.” resort to the courts for his protection, either by x x x x a writ of habeas corpus or of prohibition, on the In the case of Taningco v. Register of Deeds of Laguna, we legal ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction.If he held that the properties of a dissolved conjugal partnership fall is a citizen and evidence thereof is satisfactory, there is no sense nor justice in allowing the under the regime of co-ownership among the surviving spouse deportation proceedings to continue, granting and the heirs of the deceased spouse until final liquidation and him the remedy only after the Board has finished partition. The surviving spouse, however, has an actual and its investigation of his undesirability. vested one-half undivided share of the properties, which does not consist of determinate and segregated properties until x x x. And if the right (to peace) is precious and liquidation and partition of the conjugal partnership. valuable at all, it must also be protected on time, to prevent undue harassment at the hands of ill- An implied ordinary co-ownership ensued among Flora’s meaning or misinformed administrative officials. surviving heirs, including Anastacio, with respect to Flora’s Of what use is this much boasted right to peace share of the conjugal partnership until final liquidation and and liberty if it can be availed of only after the partition; Anastacio, on the other hand, owns one-half of the Deportation Board has unjustly trampled upon it, original conjugal partnership properties as his share, but this besmirching the citizen’s name before the bar of is an undivided interest. public opinion? (Emphasis supplied) Article 493of the Civil Code on co-ownership provides: Since respondent has already been declared and recognized as a Philippine citizen by the BI and the DOJ, he Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of must be protected from summary deportation proceedings. his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, We affirm the ruling of the CA on this matter: and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, True, “[t]he power to deport an alien is an act of the State. except when personal rights are involved. But the effect It is an act by or under the authority of the sovereign of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the power. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to be allotted to him in the division upon the termination the public good and domestic tranquillity of the people.” of the co-ownership. However, in this controversy, petitioner is not an alien. He is a Filipino citizen duly recognized by the BI, the DOJ Thus, Anastacio, as co-owner, cannot claim title to and the DFA x x x. (Citations omitted) any specific portion of the conjugal properties without an actual partition being first done either by agreement CJ v. Sereno, ., Republic of the Philippines Davonn Maurice C. Harp, G.R. or by judicial decree. Nonetheless, Anastacio had the No. 188829, June 13, 2016 right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest in the subject property. Civil Law 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- Succession; Co-ownership owners. Consequently, Anastacio’s sale to the spouses Molina Conjugal partnership of gains established before and after without the consent of the other co-owners was not totally the effectivity of the Family Code are governed by the rules void, for Anastacio’s rights or a portion thereof were thereby found in Chapter 4 (Conjugal Partnership of Gains) of Title IV effectively transferred, making the spouses Molina a co-owner 26 April–June 2016
Doctrinal Reminders 1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated: Civil Law (Continued) a. Frustrated: of the subject property to the extent of Anastacio’s interest. This result conforms with the well-established principle that i. Civil indemnity – P75,000 the binding force of a contract must be recognized as far as it ii. Moral damages – P75,000 is legally possible to do so (quando res non valet ut ago, valeat iii. Exemplary damages – P75,000 quantum valere potest). b. Attempted: i. Civil indemnity – P50,000 J v. Brion, ., Melecio Domingo Spouses Genaro Molina and Elena B. ii. Exemplary damages – P50,000 Molina, G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2016 iii. Exemplary damages – P50,000 2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, Concept of Compromise Agreement other than the above-mentioned: With respect to the parties’ alleged Compromise Agreement, a. Civil indemnity – P75,000 we rule that this “agreement” has no effect to the resolution b. Moral damages – P75,000 of the present case. c. Exemplary damages – P75,000 Parties to a suit may enter into a compromise agreement 2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated: to avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. A compromise agreement intended to resolve a matter already a. Frustrated: under litigation is a judicial compromise, which has the force i. Civil indemnity – P50,000 and effect of a judgment of the court.However, no execution ii. Moral damages – P50,000 of the compromise agreement may be issued unless the iii. Exemplary damages – P50,000 agreement receives the approval of the court where the b. Attempted: litigation is pending and compliance with the terms of the agreement is decreed. i. Civil indemnity – P25,000 ii. Moral damages – P25,000 In this case, the petitioners admitted that their compromise iii. Exemplary damages – P25,000 agreement was not submitted for court approval for failure of the respondents’ counsel to sign the agreement. The parties, II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape: however, are not prevented from pursuing their compromise 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to agreement or entering into another agreement regarding the reclusion perpetua because of RA No. 9346: subject matter of this case provided that their stipulations a. Civil indemnity – P100,000 are not contrary to law, morals, good custom, public order, or b. Moral damages – P100,000 public policy. c. Exemplary damages – P100,000 Brion, J., Heirs of Exequiel Hagoriles v. Romeo Hernaez, et al., G.R. No. 1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated 199628, April 20, 2016 but merely attempted: a. Civil indemnity – P50,000 b. Moral damages – P50,000 Criminal Law c. Exemplary damages – P50,000 2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned: Guidelines for awarding of civil indemnity, moral and a. Civil indemnity – P75,000 exemplary damages b. Moral damages – P75,000 In summary: c. Exemplary damages – P75,000 I. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious 2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes but merely attempted: involving death of a victim where the penalty consists of a. Civil indemnity – P25,000 indivisible penalties: b. Moral damages – P25,000 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to c. Exemplary damages – P25,000 reclusion perpetua because of RA No. 9346: III. For Complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal a. Civil indemnity – P100,000 Code where death, injuries, or sexual abuse results, the b. Moral damages – P100,000 civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages c. Exemplary damages – P100,000 will depend on the penalty, extent of violence and sexual Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 27
abuse; and the number of victims where the penalty a. Civil indemnity – P75,000 consists of indivisible penalties: b. Moral damages – P75,000 c. Exemplary damages – P75,000 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA No. 9346: In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same as the above if the penalty imposed a. Civil indemnity – P100,000 is reclusion perpetua. b. Moral damages – P100,000 c. Exemplary damages – P100,000 2.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds and could have died if not for a timely medical 1.2 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, intervention, the following shall be awarded: other than the above-mentioned: a. Civil indemnity – P50,000 a. Civil indemnity – P75,000 b. Moral damages – P50,000 b. Moral damages – P75,000 c. Exemplary damages – P50,000 c. Exemplary damages – P75,000 2.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal The above Rules apply to every victim who dies as a injuries: result of the crime committed. In other complex crimes a. Civil indemnity – P25,000 where death does not result, like in Forcible Abduction b. Moral damages – P25,000 with Rape, the civil indemnity, moral and exemplary c. Exemplary damages – P25,000 damages depend on the prescribed penalty and the penalty imposed, as the case may be. In Robbery with Physical Injuries, the amount of damages shall likewise be dependent on the nature/ IV. For Special Complex Crimes like Robbery with Homicide, severity of the wounds sustained, whether fatal or non- Robbery with Rape, Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, fatal. Robbery with Arson, Rape with Homicide, Kidnapping with Murder, Carnapping with Homicide or Carnapping with The above Rules do not apply if in the crime of Rape, Highway Robbery with Homicide, Qualified Piracy, Robbery with Homicide, the robber/s or perpetrator/s are Arson with Homicide, Hazing with Death, Rape, Sodomy themselves killed or injured in the incident. or Mutilation and other crimes with death, injuries, and Where the component crime is rape, the above Rules sexual abuse as the composite crimes, where the penalty shall likewise apply, and that for every additional rape consists of indivisible penalties: committed, whether against the same victim or other 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to victims, the victims shall be entitled to the same damages reclusion perpetua because of RA No. 9346: unless the other crimes of rape are treated as separate crimes, in which case, the damages awarded to simple a. Civil indemnity – P100,000 rape/qualified rape shall apply. b. Moral damages – P100,000 V. In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and c. Exemplary damages – P100,000 the penalty consists of divisible penalties, i.e., Homicide, In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of Death under Tumultuous Affray, Infanticide to Conceal the damages is the same as the above if the penalty imposed Dishonor of the Offender, Reckless Imprudence Resulting is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua although death to Homicide, Duel, Intentional Abortion and Unintentional did not occur. Abortion, etc.: 1.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds 1.1 Where the crime was consummated: and could have died if not for a timely medical a. Civil indemnity – P50,000 intervention, the following shall be awarded: b. Moral damages – P50,000 a. Civil indemnity – P75,000 1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, b. Moral damages – P75,000 except those crimes where there are no stages, i.e., c. Exemplary damages – P75,000 Reckless Imprudence and Death under Tumultuous Affray: 1.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries: a. Frustrated: a. Civil indemnity – P50,000 i. Civil indemnity – P30,000 b. Moral damages – P50,000 ii. Moral damages – P30,000 c. Exemplary damages – P50,000 b. Attempted: 2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, i. Civil indemnity – P20,000 other than the above-mentioned: ii. Moral damages – P20,000 28 April–June 2016
Doctrinal Reminders percent per annum from the finality of this decision until Criminal Law (Continued) fully paid. If an aggravating circumstance was proven during the trial, even if not alleged in the Information, in addition Peralta, J., People of the Philippines v. Ireneo Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, to the above mentioned amounts as civil indemnity April 5, 2016 and moral damages, the amount of P50,000 exemplary damages for consummated; P30,000 for frustrated; and Double Jeopardy, requisites P20,000 for attempted, shall be awarded. After all, such reinvestigation would not subject Estores and VI. A. In the crime of Rebellion where the imposable San Miguel to double jeopardy because the same only attaches penalty is reclusion perpetua and death occurs in the if the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy has course of the rebellion, the heirs of those who died attached before the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been are entitled to the following: validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same a. Civil indemnity – P100,000 offense as in the first. In turn, a first jeopardy attaches only b. Moral damages – P100,000 (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) c. Exemplary damages – P100,000 after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the B. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds in case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express the course of the rebellion and could have died if not consent. In this case, the case against Estores and San Miguel for a timely medical intervention, the following shall was dismissed before they were arraigned. Thus, there can be be awarded: no double jeopardy to speak of. Let true justice be served by a. Civil indemnity – P75,000 reinvestigating the real participation, if any, of Estores and San b. Moral damages – P75,000 Miguel in the killing of Mary Grace and Claudine Divina. c. Exemplary damages – P75,000 Peralta, J., People of the Philippines v. Ireneo Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, C. For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal April 5, 2016 injuries: a. Civil indemnity – P50,000 Prosecution’s two-fold task in criminal case b. Moral damages – P50,000 c. Exemplary damages – P50,000 In every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold, that is, (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the VII. In all of the above instances, when no documentary commission of the crime charged; and (2) to establish with the evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in same quantum of proof the identity of the person or persons court, the amount of P50,000 as temperate damages shall responsible therefor, because, even if the commission of be awarded. the crime is a given, there can be no conviction without the To reiterate, Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides identity of the malefactor being likewise clearly ascertained. that the minimum amount for awards of civil indemnity is x x x x P3,000, but does not provide for a ceiling. Thus, although People v. Rodrigo the minimum amount cannot be changed, increasing the In , the Court had the occasion to instruct amount awarded as civil indemnity can be validly modified that great care should be taken in considering the identification and increased when the present circumstance warrants it. of the accused especially, when this identification is made by a sole witness and the judgment in the case totally depends on Prescinding from the foregoing, for the two counts the reliability of the identification. of murder, attended by the ordinary aggravating circumstance of dwelling, appellant should be ordered In his Sworn Statement, Adolfo mentioned six individuals to pay the heirs of the victims the following damages: (1) involved in the crime but that he could not remember who P100,000 as civil indemnity for each of the two children shot the victim. In his testimony however, the number of who died; (2) P100,000 as moral damages for each of the participants were reduced to two, who conveniently were the two victims; (3) another P100,000 as exemplary damages only two individuals arrested in connection with the crime. for each of the two victims; and (4) temperate damages in Adolfo also remembered seeing Jonel shoot the victim. the amount of P50,000 for each of the two deceased. For We held in People v. Flores that when serious and the four counts of Attempted Murder, appellant should inexplicable discrepancies are present between a previously pay P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages sworn statement of a witness and her testimonial declarations and P50,000 as exemplary damages for each of the four with respect to one’s participation in a serious imputation victims. In addition, the civil indemnity, moral damages, such as murder, there is raised a grave doubt on the veracity exemplary damages and temperate damages payable of the witness’ account. There is no other evidence in this by the appellant are subject to interest at the rate of six case aside from the testimony of the lone eyewitness which Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 29 directly implicates appellants to the crime. The inconsistent ownership of the system, the actual length of the cable/s statements could not be dismissed as inconsequential because that lie in the Philippine territory, and the corresponding the inconsistency goes into the very identification of the assessment and taxes due on the same, because the public assailants, which is a crucial aspect in sustaining a conviction. respondents imposed and collected the assailed real property tax on the finding that at least a portion or more portions of x x x x the submarine cable system that Capwire owns or co-owns The deficiency in the proof submitted by the prosecution lies inside Philippine territory. Capwire’s disagreement with cannot be ignored. A slight doubt created in the identity of the such findings of the administrative bodies presents little to no perpetrators of the crime should be resolved in favor of the legal question that only the courts may directly resolve. accused. Instead, Capwire argues and makes claims on mere x x x x assumptions of certain facts as if they have been already For failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable admitted or established, when they have not, since no doubt that appellants were the perpetrators of the crime, we evidence of such have yet been presented in the proper are constrained to rule on the latters’ acquittal. agencies and even in the current petition. As such, it remains unsettled whether Capwire is a mere co-owner, not full owner, Perez, J., People of the Philippines v. Jonel Vargas y Ramos, et al., G.R. of the subject submarine cable and, if the former, as to what No. 208446, April 6, 2016 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 Taxation Law 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 Administrative Remedies, when proper out quasi-judicially before the administrative agencies. It In disputes involving real property taxation, the general rule is has been held that “a bare characterization in a petition of to require the taxpayer to first avail of administrative remedies unlawfulness, is merely a legal conclusion and a wish of the and pay the tax under protest before allowing any resort to a pleader, and such a legal conclusion unsubstantiated by facts judicial action, except when the assessment itself is alleged which could give it life, has no standing in any court where to be illegal or is made without legal authority. For example, issues must be presented and determined by facts in ordinary prior resort to administrative action is required when among and concise language.” Therefore, Capwire’s resort to judicial the issues raised is an allegedly erroneous assessment, like action, premised on its legal conclusion that its cables (the when the reasonableness of the amount is challenged, while equipment being taxed) lie entirely on international waters, direct court action is permitted when only the legality, power, without first administratively substantiating such a factual validity or authority of the assessment itself is in question. premise, is improper and was rightly denied. Its proposition Stated differently, the general rule of a prerequisite recourse that the cables lie entirely beyond Philippine territory, and to administrative remedies applies when questions of fact therefore, outside Philippine sovereignty, is a fact that is not are raised, but the exception of direct court action is allowed subject to judicial notice since, on the contrary, and as will be when purely questions of law are involved. explained later, it is in fact certain that portions of the cable x x x x would definitely lie within Philippine waters. Jurisprudence on the Local Government Code is clear that facts such as these x x x, the Court sustains the CA’s finding that petitioner’s must be threshed out administratively, as the courts in these case is one replete with questions of fact instead of pure types of cases step in at the first instance only when pure questions of law, which rendered its filing in a judicial questions of law are involved. forum improper because it is instead cognizable by local administrative bodies like Board of Assessment Appeals, Peralta, J., Capitol Wireless, Inc. v. The Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, which are the proper venues for trying these factual issues. The Provincial Assessor of Batangas, The Municipal Treasurer and Verily, what is alleged by Capwire in its petition as “the crux Assessor of Nasugbu, Batangas, G.R. No. 180110, May 30, 2016 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,” Remedial Law 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, One-day delay in filing of Petition for Review, when rather, such factual issues as the extent and status of Capwire’s excusable 30 April–June 2016
Doctrinal Reminders Remedial Law (Continued) court, or the latter court may annul a decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court. In his Comment, respondent explained that he was able to file his appeal with the CA only on November 4, 2004, because But the law and the rules are silent when it comes to a he had to wait for the RTC to grant him leave to withdraw his situation similar to the case at bar, in which a court, in this pending Petition. He asked the Court to consider the fact that case the Court of Tax Appelas, is called upon to annul it the one-day delay in filing the appeal was not caused by his own judgment. More specifically, in the case at bar, the CTA thoughtlessness, but by the need to ensure that he would not sitting en banc is being asked to annul a decision of one of its violate the rule against forum shopping. divisions. However, the laws creating the CTA and expanding its jurisdiction (RA Nos. 1125 and 9282) and the court’s own We rule for respondent. The one-day delay in the filing of rules of procedure (the Revised Rules of the CTA) do not the Petition is excusable. provide for such a scenario. In Heirs of Crisostomo v. Rudex International Development It is the same situation among other collegial courts. To Corp., the Court explained that the limited period of appeal illustrate, the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals may sit was instituted to prevent parties from intentionally and and adjudicate cases in divisions consisting of only a number unreasonably causing a delay in the administration of justice. of members, and such adjudication is already regarded The dismissal of a petition is unwarranted if the element of as the decision of the Court itself. It is provided for in the intent to delay is clearly absent from a case. Here, it is apparent Constitution, Article VIII, Section 4(l) and BP Blg. 129, Section that the delay in the filing of the Petition was for a valid reason, 4, respectively. The divisions are not considered separate and i.e., respondent had to wait for the RTC Order allowing him to distinct courts but are divisions of one and the same court; withdraw his then pending Petition. It is likewise clear that he there is no hierarchy of courts within the Supreme Court did not intend to delay the administration of justice, as he in and the Court of Appeals, for they each remain as one court fact filed the appeal with the CA on the very same day the RTC notwithstanding that they also work in divisions. The Supreme issued the awaited Order. Court sitting en banc is not an appellate court vis-a-vis its x x x x divisions, and it exercises no appellate jurisdiction over the We find no reason to depart from the above ruling. All latter. As for the Court of Appeals en banc, it sits as such only things considered, a liberal construction of the rules of for the purpose of exercising administrative, ceremonial, or procedure is in order. The ends of justice would be better other non-adjudicatory functions. served by a review of this case on the merits rather than by a Thus, it appears contrary to these features that a collegial dismissal based on technicalities. court, sitting en banc, may be called upon to annul a decision Sereno, CJ., Republic of the Philippines v. Davonn Maurice C. Harp, G.R. of one of its divisions which had become final and executory, No. 188829, June 13, 2016 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 Annulment of judgment, jurisdiction and nature of judgments must, at some point, attain finality. A court that Annulment of judgment, as provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules can revisit its own judgments leaves the door open to possible of Court, is based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and endless reversals or modifications which are anathema to a lack of jurisdiction. It is a recourse that presupposes the filing stable legal system. of a separate and original action for the purpose of annulling or J v avoiding a decision in another case. Annulment is a remedy in Peralta, ., Commissioner of Internal Revenue . Kepco Ilijan Corp., G.R. law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be No. 199422, June 21, 2016 annulled is rendered. It is unlike a motion for reconsideration, appeal or even a petition for relief from judgment, because Res Judicata; Distinction between Bar by Prior Judgment annulment is not a continuation or progression of the same Rule and Principle of Conclusiveness of Judgment case, as in fact the case it seeks to annul is already final and executory. Rather, it is an extraordinary remedy that is Respondents appear to have misunderstood the implications equitable in character and is permitted only in exceptional of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment on their cause. cases. Contrary to their claims, the factual findings are conclusive and have been established as the controlling legal rule in the Annulment of judgment involves the exercise of original instant case, on the basis of the principle of res judicata— jurisdiction, as expressly conferred on the Court of Appeals more particularly, the principle of conclusiveness of judgment. by Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP Blg.) 129, Section 9(2). It also implies power by a superior court over a subordinate one, This doctrine of res judicata which is set forth in Section as provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, wherein the 47 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court lays down two main rules, appellate court may annul a decision of the regional trial namely: (1) the judgment or decree of a court of competent Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 31
privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation between the same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in parties and their privies and constitutes a bar to a new action the first suit (Nabus v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 732 or suit involving the same cause of action either before the [1991]). Identity of cause of action is not required but same or any other tribunal; and (2) any right, fact, or matter merely identity of issue. in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which Justice Feliciano, in Smith Bell & Company (Phils.), Inc. v. a judgment or decree is rendered on the merits is conclusively Court of Appeals (197 SCRA 201, 210 [1991]), reiterated settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated Lopez v. Reyes (76 SCRA 179 [1977]) in regard to the between the parties and their privies whether or not the distinction between bar by former judgment which claims or demands, purposes, or subject matters of the two bars the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand, or cause of action, and conclusiveness of suits are the same. judgment which bars the relitigation of particular facts These two main rules mark the distinction between the or issues in another litigation between the same parties principles governing the two typical cases in which a judgment on a different claim or cause of action. may operate as evidence. The first general rule stated above The general rule precluding the re-litigation of and corresponding to the afore-quoted paragraph (b) of material facts or questions which were in issue Section 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, is referred to as“bar and adjudicated in former action are commonly by former judgment”; while the second general rule, which applied to all matters essentially connected is embodied in paragraph (c) of the same section and rule, is with the subject matter of the litigation. Thus, known as “conclusiveness of judgment.” (Emphases Supplied) it extends to questions necessarily implied in the final judgment, although no specific finding In Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, We may have been made in reference thereto and discussed the concept of conclusiveness of judgment as although such matters were directly referred pertaining even to those matters essentially connected with to in the pleadings and were not actually or the subject of litigation in the first action. This Court explained formally presented. Under this rule, if the record therein that the bar on re-litigation extends to those of the former trial shows that the judgment questions necessarily implied in the final judgment, although could not have been rendered without deciding no specific finding may have been made in reference thereto, the particular matter, it will be considered and although those matters were directly referred to in the as having settled that matter as to all future pleadings and were not actually or formally presented. If the actions between the parties and if a judgment record of the former trial shows that the judgment could not necessarily presupposes certain premises, have been rendered without deciding a particular matter, it they are as conclusive as the judgment itself. will be considered as having settled that matter as to all future (Emphases supplied) actions between the parties; and if a judgment necessarily The foregoing disquisition finds application to the case at presupposes certain premises, they are as conclusive as the bar. judgment itself: Undeniably, the present case is merely an adjunct of the The second concept—conclusiveness of judgment— 2004 case, in which the automation contract was declared states that a fact or question which was in issue in a to be a nullity. Needless to say, the 2004 Decision has since former suit and was there judicially passed upon and become final. As earlier explained, this Court arrived at several determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is factual findings showing the illegality of the automation conclusively settled by the judgment therein as far as contract; in turn, these findings were used as basis to justify the parties to that action and persons in privity with the declaration of nullity. them are concerned and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies, A closer scrutiny of the 2004 Decision would reveal that in the same court or any other court of concurrent the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding jurisdiction on either the same or different cause of particular factual matters in relation to the following: (1) action, while the judgment remains unreversed by identity, existence and eligibility of MPC as a bidder; (2) failure proper authority. It has been held that in order that of the ACMs to pass DOST technical tests; and (3) remedial a judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a measures undertaken by the COMELEC after the award of the particular matter in another action between the same automation contract. Under the principle of conclusiveness parties or their privies, it is essential that the issue be of judgment, We are precluded from re-litigating these facts, identical. If a particular point or question is in issue in as these were essential to the question of nullity. Otherwise the second action, and the judgment will depend on stated, the judgment could not have been rendered without the determination of that particular point or question, necessarily deciding on the above-enumerated factual a former judgment between the same parties or their matters. 32 April–June 2016
Doctrinal Reminders Remedial Law (Continued) SC dated June 17, 2003 designated Special Commercial Courts to handle these cases and other cases of commercial nature, Thus, under the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, including intellectual property cases; those material facts became binding and conclusive on the parties, in this case MPEI and, ultimately, the persons that WHEREAS, A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC needs to be further comprised it. When a right or fact has been judicially tried strengthened in order to address the gaps in venue caused by and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or when the limited number of designated Special Commercial Courts an opportunity for that trial has been given, the judgment per judicial region; of the court—as long as it remains unreversed—should be WHEREAS, Sections 18 and 23 of Batas Pambansa Bilang conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) authorize Thus, the CA should not have required petitioner to present the Supreme Court to define the territorial authority of the further evidence of fraud on the part of respondent Willy and branches of the Regional Trial Court to allow better access to MPEI, as it was already necessarily adjudged in the 2004 case. justice; To allow respondents to argue otherwise would be WHEREAS, cases governed by the FRIA for (1) the rehabilitation violative of the principle of immutability of judgment. When of sole proprietorships, in addition to partnerships and a final judgment becomes executory, it becomes immutable corporations which already fall under the jurisdiction of and unalterable and may no longer undergo any modification, Special Commercial Courts, (2) insolvency and liquidation much less any reversal. x x x of corporations, partnerships and other associations, and Sereno, CJ., Republic of the Philippines v. Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc., (3) insolvency and suspension of payments/discharge of et al., G.R. No. 184666, June 27, 2016 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 A.M. NO. 03-03-03-SC as dissolution and liquidation of partnerships under Articles 1830 and 1831 of the Civil Code are best consolidated under the Special Commercial Courts; EN BANC NOW, THEREFORE, the Court Resolves: RESOLUTION 1. That (1) cases governed by the FRIA for (a) the rehabilitation AMENDMENT OF A.M. NO. 03-03-03-SC DATED JUNE 17, of sole proprietorships, in addition to partnerships and 2003, FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE COVERAGE OF CASES corporations which already fall under the jurisdiction COGNIZABLE BY SPECIAL COMMERCIAL COURTS TO INCLUDE of Special Commercial Courts, (b) the insolvency and ALL CASES GOVERNED BY THE FRIA, LIQUIDATION CASES liquidation of corporations, partnerships and other EMANATING FROM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, AND associations, and (c) the insolvency and suspension of DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION OF PARTNERSHIPS UNDER payments/discharge of individuals, (2) liquidation cases THE CIVIL CODE emanating from administrative proceedings, and (3) dissolution and liquidation of partnerships under Articles WHEREAS, Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) No. 10142, otherwise 1830 and 1831 of the Civil Code shall be heard and decided known as the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of by the designated Special Commercial Courts; 2010 (the FRIA) empowers the Supreme Court to designate the courts that will hear and resolve cases brought thereunder and 2. That, for clarity, the exercise of jurisdiction of Special to promulgate the rules of pleading, practice and procedure Commercial Courts shall now cover the following cases: that will govern such proceedings; (a) Intra-corporate cases and other cases enumerated WHEREAS, in view of the passage of RA No. 8799, which under Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 902- transferred the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange A, as amended, that were formerly cognizable by the Commission over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Securities and Exchange Commission (A.M. No. 01-2- Presidential Decree No. 902-A, including cases involving 04-SC, March 13, 2001); rehabilitation of corporations, partnerships and other (b) Intellectual Property Cases (A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC, associations, to the Regional Trial Courts, A.M. No. 03-03-03- June 17, 2003); Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 33
i. All civil actions for violations of intellectual Provided, however, that the Executive Judge concerned property rights provided for in Republic Act shall adopt a procedure whereby every rehabilitation, No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code (“IP insolvency or liquidation case assigned or transferred to Code”), as amended (Section 1, Rule 2 of A.M. a Special Commercial Court shall be duly credited to such No. 10-3-10-SC, October 18, 2011); court. ii. All criminal actions for violations of intellectual This Resolution shall take effect 15 days following its property rights provided for in the IP Code, as publication in the Official Gazette or in two newspapers of amended (Section 1, Rule 10 of A.M. No. 10-3-10- national circulation. The Office of the Court Administrator SC, October 18, 2011); (OCA) is directed to circularize the same upon its effectivity. iii. Applications for ex parte issuance of a writ of June 21, 2016. search and seizure in civil actions for infringement of intellectual property rights (A.M. No. 02-1-06- (Sgd.) SERENO, CJ, CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DE SC, February 15, 2002 and Sec. 2, Rule 2 of A.M. CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO (on official No. 10-3-10-SC, October 18, 2011); leave), PEREZ, MENDOZA, REYES, PERLAS-BERNABE, LEONEN, iv. Applications for the issuance of search warrants JARDELEZA, CAGUIOA, JJ. 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; OCA CIRCULAR NO. 75-2016 (e) Financial Rehabilitation Cases i. Petitions for rehabilitation of corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships, filed TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT IN THE FIRST AND pursuant to the FRIA (A.M. No. 12-12-11-SC, SECOND LEVEL COURTS August 27, 2013); and SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON ON-THE-JOB TRAINING AND ii. Liquidation of insolvent juridical and individual LEGAL APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE AND LAW debtors and suspension of payments of insolvent STUDENTS IN THE LOWER COURTS debtors pursuant to the FRIA (A.M. No. 15-04- 06-SC, April 21, 2015); and Pursuant to the Resolution dated June 16, 2015 of the Court 1 (f) Liquidation Cases en banc in A.M. No. 15-04-03-SC, which resolved to “LIFT the prohibition on the accommodation of students to undergo on- i. Those emanating from administrative proceedings the-job training/practicum in the lower courts” and directed and from expiration of corporate term (Sections the Office of the Court Administrator to “promulgate guidelines 118, 119 and 120 of the Corporation Code); and governing the application and acceptance of students as ii. Court-assisted liquidation under Special Laws. interns in the lower courts, as reflected in the resolutions of 3. Upon the effectivity of this Resolution, all filed and pending the Court on the matter, and ensure that the rules on ethics, cases mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph security and confidentiality of records are complied with,” the shall be assigned or transferred to the designated Special following guidelines are hereby issued: Commercial Courts having territorial jurisdiction over 1. Objectives. The program aims to acquaint interns with (a) them; the review and other processes of the court to which they 4. When there is no Special Commercial Court designated to are assigned; (b) the ethical standards in the administration hear and decide a case filed within a specific territory in of justice; c) the hands-on-training on legal research and accordance with the existing rules on venue, the case shall writing; and (d) other matters relevant to their respective be filed in the nearest designated Special Commercial curriculum. Court within the judicial region of said territory; and 1 5. In order to ensure a just and equitable distribution of Re: Letters of Justice Jose C. Vitug [Ret], Founding Dean, Angeles University Foundation [AUF] School of Law, dated February 7, cases, the designated Special Commercial Courts shall 2015, and of Judge Ave A. Zurbito-Alba, Municipal Trial Court, continue to participate in the raffle of other cases. Daraga, Albay, dated January 29, 2015. 34 April–June 2016
Circulars OCA Circular No. 75-2016 (Continued) interns shall replace or pay for the cost of any book or 2. Accreditation of Schools. The program shall be open only library material that they fail to return to the library; to students from schools included in the list approved 9. Confidentiality. The interns shall be bound by the rule on by the Court Administrator, hereinafter referred to as confidentiality applicable to court employees; “accredited schools.” Requests for school accreditation 10. Code of conduct. The interns shall observe and be bound shall be addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator by the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which shall be (OCA) with proof that the school/university is duly explained by the supervising judge; accredited by the Commission on Higher Education or the Legal Education Board. 11. Assessment and monitoring. The supervising judge shall monitor and assess the progress of the interns during the 3. Applications. Applications by college/university students program/internship, and shall give a final rating on and for OJT/practicum in the lower courts, in accordance with assessment of their performance in accordance with the the program of their college/university, shall be filed in rating system of their respective schools. The supervising the specific court where they intend to undertake their judge shall then furnish the OCA with a copy of the said internship or training. Applicants are required to submit final rating; a written application for internship, a copy of their curriculum vitae, a recommendation and/or endorsement 12. Accountability and turnover of records. The interns shall be from the dean of their program, and proof that their accountable for and shall turn over all office records and school is an accredited school. The application, together materials entrusted to their custody during the program/ with the favorable endorsement by the presiding judge, internship, including electronic files in their possession shall be sent to the OCA for approval; involving their work, as a condition for the grant of the supervising judge’s final rating report; 4. Number of interns per court. A court shall be allowed a maximum of only two interns at any given time, unless, 13. Allowances. Due to budgetary constraints, the internship for compelling reasons, a higher number may be required shall be at no expense to the court; as may be determined by the Court Administrator; 14. Sanctions and penalties. Non-compliance with the 5. Supervision. The interns shall be under the direct security, confidentiality and ethical rules shall be under supervision and control of the presiding judge; pain of administrative and penal sanctions as the law may provide and as the Supreme Court may impose. Any 6. Workplace and working hours. The interns shall work at Court-imposed sanction shall be without prejudice to the the court premises during regular office hours but shall sanctions that the college/university may impose; not be allowed access to these premises after office hours, except with the express authority of the supervising 15. Explanation of guidelines. These guidelines shall be judge; explained to every intern at the start of the program/ internship. 7. Access to records. The interns may be granted access to rollos and other court records subject to the following For the information and guidance of all concerned. rules: March 22, 2016. a. The interns may be allowed access to specific rollos (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ and other court records only under the express Court Administrator 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; OCA CIRCULAR NO. 76-2016 c. No copying or reproduction of files shall be allowed; d. Reports, drafts and research materials shall be TO: ALL LOWER COURT ORGANIZATIONS/ASSOCIATIONS submitted directly to the supervising judge, and shall not be shown or transmitted to outside parties SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THE HOLDING OF ORGANIZATION before, during and after completion of the program/ ACTIVITIES internship; In the various requests for the conduct of conventions/ 8. Access to Library. Interns may borrow books and other seminars received from associations of judges and employees, materials from the court library under conditions that it has been observed that said conventions/seminars entail the library shall impose, and shall be required to submit an activity period of less than a week and in some instances, a library clearance before any report of completion of the even more. In this regard, it is imperative that the attendance program can be issued to their respective schools. The of court officials and personnel in such activities is regulated Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 35 to ensure that the performance of their regular duties and Acting on persistent reports of continuous violations of rules functions is not adversely affected. and laws prohibiting the issuance of injunctions or restraining Henceforth, to attain optimum service and to establish orders against government agencies enforcing environmental uniformity in the grant of any request from every judiciary laws and preventing violations thereof, all judges of first organization, the following guidelines are hereby prescribed and second level courts are hereby ENJOINED to STRICTLY as to the number of days that will be authorized by this Office OBSERVE Rule 2, Section 10 of the Rules of Procedure for on official time/business for organization activities: Environmental Cases, which provides: (1) National Convention – Official Time/Business for a Sec. 10. Prohibition against temporary restraining order maximum of three days including travel time. (TRO) and preliminary injunction. – Except the Supreme Court, no court can issue a TRO or writ of preliminary National Officers are given another one day for injunction against lawful actions of government agencies preconvention preparation; that enforce environment laws or prevent violations (2) Regional Convention – Official Time/Business for a thereof.1 maximum of two days including travel time. and Section 134 of the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, as Regional Officers are given another one day for pre- amended by Republic Act No. 10654, which provides: convention preparation; Sec. 134. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining (3) Consultative Meetings – Official Time/Business of one Orders, Preliminary Injunctions, and Preliminary Mandatory day for each meeting for a maximum of two meetings Injunctions. – No injunction or restraining order from the Municipal Trial Courts and Regional Trial Courts shall lie against within a year including travel time for the concerned the Department [Department of Agriculture] and BFAR [Bureau officers and members only; of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources] upon the ex parte motion (4) Monthly Meeting of Officers – Official Time/Business or petition filed by any person or entity in the exercise by the of one day for each meeting, including travel time, for Department and BFAR of its regulatory functions in support of 2 a maximum of six meetings in a year for the concerned the implementation of this Code. officers only; and For your information and strict compliance. (5) Oath Taking of Officers of the Association – Official Time April 4, 2016. for a maximum of one day, including travel time, after every election for the newly-elected and appointed (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ officers only. Court Administrator 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 OCA CIRCULAR NO. 88-2016 three months before the intended actual activity of every organization or association. Prior circulars from the Office of the Court Administrator TO: ALL JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS on this matter which are contrary to the foregoing are hereby SUBJECT: DELEGATION BY THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE superseded. NATIONAL POLICE OF AUTHORITY TO PERSONALLY ENDORSE Strict compliance with these new guidelines is enjoined. OR AUTHORIZE APPLICATIONS FOR SEARCH WARRANTS TO March 22, 2016. KEY OFFICERS Paragraph 5, OCA Circular No. 40-2016, provides, among (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator 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 OCA CIRCULAR NO. 87-2016 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: ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS 1 SUBJECT: PROHIBITION AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF Rule of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Rule 2, A.M. No. 09-6-8SC, 13 April 2010. INJUNCTIONS OR RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST 2 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ENFORCING ENVIRONMENTAL The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, Republic Act No. 8550 LAWS AND PREVENTING VIOLATIONS THEREOF [1998] as amended by Republic Act No. 10654 [2015]. 36 April–June 2016
Circulars OCA Circular No. 88-2016 (continued) SUBJECT: POSTING OF NOTICES ANNOUNCING THE OBSERVATION OF THE RECORDS DISPOSAL PERIOD FOR THE the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act WHOLE MONTH OF JULY 2016 of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and other relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by Congress, and Pursuant to the Supreme Court en banc Resolution dated included by the Supreme Court x x x.” December 16, 2015 in A.M. No. 07-3-09-SC (Re: Proposed In a subsequent letter dated March 30, 2016 addressed to Guidelines in the Disposition and/or Destruction of Court the Court Administrator, Police Director Ricardo C. Marquez, Records, Papers and Exhibits [Re: Simplified Guidelines for PNP Chief, has delegated his authority to endorse or authorize Disposing of Records of Long-Decided Cases and Unneeded all applications for search warrants to the following key Documents and Papers]), all first and second level courts officers of the PNP in their respective territorial jurisdictions: are REQUIRED to post NOTICES informing the general public that the first and second level courts shall observe the whole 1. Deputy Chief for Operations; month of July 2016 as the period for records disposal. For 2. Director for Investigation and Detective this purpose, the attached draft of NOTICE TO THE GENERAL Management; PUBLIC, to be signed by the concerned Executive Judge, 3. Directors for Integrated PoIice Operations; Presiding Judge or Clerk of Court/Officer in Charge, shall be 4. Regional Directors; used in compliance therewith. 5. Directors, National Support Units; 6. Regional Chiefs, National Support Units; Likewise, and as further required in the subject Resolution, 7. Provincial Directors; all courts shall post, together with above Notice, the entire 8. Provincial Officers, National Support Units; and, text or copy of the Guidelines as provided in A.M. No. 07-3-09- 9. Chiefs of Police. SC. The posting of the Notice and Guidelines shall be done in three conspicuous places in the court and other public places Accordingly, all applications for search warrants for wider dissemination. enforceable within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court endorsed or authorized by the above-named officers of For strict compliance. the PNP shall be sufficient compliance with OCA Circular No. April 27, 2016. 40-2016. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ However, applications for search warrants filed with the Court Administrator 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 NOTlCE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC endorsed or authorized by the Chief of the PNP himself, or by the Director for Investigation and Detective Management of NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to the the PNP, to whom the authority has been delegated. Supreme Court en banc Resolution dated December 16, For strict compIiance. 2015 in A.M. No. 07-3-09-SC (Re: Proposed Guidelines April 4, 2016. in the Disposition and/or Destruction of Court Records, Papers and Exhibits [Re: Simplified Guidelines for (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Disposing of Records of Long-Decided Cases and Court Administrator 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 OCA CIRCULAR NO. 105-2016 TERMINATED CASES (5 years in age and above) and for old NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS/FORECLOSURE OF TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND MORTGAGE PETITIONS with the concerned Office of the SECOND LEVEL COURTS Clerk of Court or single-sala Regional Trial Court branch clerk. During this period, the judges and court personnel * Resolution Clarifying the Guidelines on the Application for and shall segregate the disposable or residual records and Enforceability of Search Warrants, issued on January 25, 2000, physically extract the records that shall be retained and as amended by A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, Guidelines on the Selection kept in the court’s custody and safekeeping. and Designation of Executive Judges and Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties, issued on January 27, 2004, further FURTHER, an ADVISORY IS HEREBY GIVEN to amended on June 4, 2013, as provided in OCA Circular No. 87- litigants, lawyers and other interested persons who may 2013. Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 37
Within the month of August 2016, any interested party may file an application to take possession of any residual want to obtain the disposable residual records of all record, file, or document subject of disposal under the terminated cases 5 years and above in age or the old Guidelines, on a “first-come, first-served” basis. This notarized documents/foreclosure petitions, that they may application shall be filed before the branch concerned, APPLY for such records before the branch that decided or if not known, before the Office of the Clerk of Court of the cases or the concerned Office of the Clerk of Court/ the station. The attached application form shall be used branch clerk who is in possession thereof. For this for this purpose x x x. purpose, the applicant shall fill out the form provided and Attached herewith is the Records Retrieval Request Form submit the same within the WHOLE MONTH of August to be used for this purpose. The following guidelines for the 2016. In the absence of said application, the pertinent retrieval of residual records shall be observed: records shall be subject to disposal during the WHOLE 1. The Records Retrieval Request Form shall be made MONTH of September 2016. available to the public by the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) for multiple-sala courts, or the Clerk of During the RECORDS DISPOSAL PERIOD, the Court for single-sala courts. court shall hold hearings as far as practicable, more 2. The application shall be filed before the branch so for urgent matters and incidents, including, but not concerned or OCC of the station, as the case may be. limited to, applications for writs of habeas corpus, amparo or habeas data, temporary restraining orders, permanent 3. The branch concerned or the OCC shall approve the application once the documents are found, except protection orders, bails, and lifting of warrants of arrest, when a compelling reason exists not to approve the as well as arraignment of detained accused. same, which shall be indicated in the Form. PLEASE BE GUIDED ACCORDINGLY. 4. An application fee of Five Hundred Pesos (P500) shall be collected on a per case basis (for case documents), EJ/Judge/Clerk of Court/OIC 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 OCA CIRCULAR NO. 122-2016 amount in the JDF account. 5. The application fee shall be waived for pauper litigants, as indicated in their respective pleadings, TO: ALL PRESIDING JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE and for any interested party who qualifies as a pauper FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS litigant, as determined by the judge, provided the same is indicated in the Form with the documents SUBJECT: RECORDS RETRIEVAL REQUEST FORM FOR THE supporting the claim attached. RETRIEVAL OF RESIDUAL RECORDS UNDER A.M. NO. 07-3-09- SC (RE: PROPOSED GUIDELINES IN THE DISPOSITION AND/OR 6. No application fee shall be charged where the records DESTRUCTION OF COURT RECORDS, PAPER AND EXHIBITS requested are unavailable or not found, or where the [RE: SIMPLIFIED GUIDELINES FOR DISPOSING OF RECORDS request is denied by the court or Office of the Clerk of OF LONG-DECIDED CASES AND UNNEEDED DOCUMENTS Court. AND PAPERS]) 7. The branch concerned or OCC, as the case may be, In its December 16, 2015 Resolution in A.M. No. 07-3-09-SC,1 shall release the residual records requested after the Court en banc declared that the first and second level payment of the applicable fee has been made and courts shall observe the whole month of August 2016 as the verified. period for retrieval of residual records by interested parties.2 8. No application for the retrieval of residual records Item 1(c)(i) provides: shall be entertained after August 31, 2016. For strict compliance. 1 (Re: Proposed Guidelines in the Disposition and/or Destruction of Court Records, Papers and Exhibits [Re: Simplified Guidelines May 25, 2016. for Disposing of Records of Long-Decided Cases and Unneeded Documents and Papers]). (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ 2 Item 1(c) Court Administrator 38 April–June 2016
Circulars OCA Circular No. 122-2016 (continued)
Request Date Reference No.
Philippine Trial Courts Are you named interested party or counsel of record in this case? Interested Party (pls. specify): ______Records Retrieval Counsel of Record Others (pls. specify) ______Request Form 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 ______ Case Document City/Municipality ______ Non-Case Document RTC Branch ______ Notarial Document MeTC/MTCC/MTC/MCTC Branch ______ Clearance Shari’a District Court Certification Shari’a Circuit Court Foreclosure of Mortgage Office of the Clerk of Court Other: (pls. specify) ______
Part D: Case Identification Case Type Nature of Case Case Title Civil Criminal Special Proceedings Small Claims Docket Number Other: (pls. specify) ______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 DISPOSITION Record Found Record Not Found – P0.00 Released Case Document (per case) – P500.00 Pauper Litigant – P0.00 Denied Non-Case Document (per document) – P500.00 Unavailable Number of Documents ______If denied or unavailable, explain: ______TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: P ______PAYMENT VERIFICATION RELEASED BY: DATE: RECEIVED BY:
O.R. No. ______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:
Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 39
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 128-2016 FORM 002
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT Selection and Promotion Board SUBJECT: FORMS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED AND SUBMITTED Lower Courts IN RECOMMENDING APPLICANTS FOR VACANCIES IN THE LOWER COURTS Interview Results
In line with the Chief Justice’s objective to professionalize Applicant Interview Score Remarks the ranks of lower court employees and to ensure that only the deserving applicants are appointed to the positions 1. Juan dela Cruz 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 2. Juan dela Cruz 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 3. Juan dela Cruz attached to the application papers submitted to the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator in I hereby certify that the above-listed interview scores were accordance with OCA Circular No 74-2010 dated May 21, 2010, arrived at after interviewing all the applicants for the position of as amended by OCA Circular Nos. 134-2010 dated October 5, (position applied for). 2010 and 44-2013 dated March 18, 2013. (Date of submission) For strict compliance. (signature above name) RECOMMENDING OFFICER May 31,2016.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator FORM 003
FORM 001 Selection and Promotion Board Lower Courts
Selection and Promotion Board Examination Results Lower Courts Recommendation Form Applicant Examination Score Remarks
To the Members of the Selection and Promotion Board-LC: 1. Juan dela Cruz 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. 2. Juan dela Cruz (Applicant) is (state reason for recommendations) ; d e s c r i b e n a t u r e o f e x a m i n a ti o n g i v e n t o a p p l i c a n t , i f a p p l i c a b l e g i v e n ) 3. Juan dela Cruz .
Attached are the results of the interview and/or special I hereby certify that the above-listed examination scores examination of all the applicants for the particular position for the were arrived at after reviewing the examination results given to all Board’s consideration. applicants for the positions of(position applied for). (Date of submission) (Date of submission) (signature above name) (signature above name) RECOMMENDING OFFICER RECOMMENDING OFFICER 40 April–June 2016
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 131A-2016 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, SUBJECT: ALL MULTIPLE-BRANCH FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL shall be mandatory for all courts which have already received COURTS notice to post from the Office of Administrative Services, SUBJECT: UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF CONSOLIDATION Office of the Court Administrator with attached copy of the AND LUMPING OF NEWLY-FILED CASES PRIOR TO RAFFLE circular and the required forms. However for courts which Pursuant to the Supreme Court en banc Resolution dated received their notice to post without a copy of the circular March 15, 2016 in A.M. No. 16-01-1-RTC (Re: Consolidation and the required forms, compliance with OCA Circular No. and Lumping of Newly-Filed Cases Prior to Raffling) and in 128-2016 shall be optional. view of Sections 1 2 and 42, Chapter V of A.M. No. 05-8-02 For strict compliance. (Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive June 27, 2016. Judges and Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties) which took effect on February 15, 2004, all concerned are (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ hereby DIRECTED to REFRAIN from the unauthorized practice Court Administrator of CONSOLIDATING and LUMPING of cases prior to the raffle of the newly-filed cases. For your information, guidance, and strict compliance. OCA CIRCULAR NO. 140-2016 This Circular revokes OCA Circular No. 131-2016 dated June 3, 2016. TO: ALL JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL June 27, 2016. SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO OCA CIRCULAR NO. 71-2003, (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ GUIDELINES IN THE SUBMISSION OF PERFORMANCE RATING Court Administrator FOR LOWER COURT OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL For the information and guidance of all concerned, OCA OCA CIRCULAR NO. 139-2016 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 TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT be observed in the submission of performance rating: SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENT TO OCA CIRCULAR NO. 128-2016 1. The performance evaluation of every court personnel Re: FORMS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED AND SUBMITTED IN shall be done every six months ending on June 30 and RECOMMENDING APPLICANTS FOR VACANCIES IN THE December 31 of every year pursuant to Section 3(d), Rule LOWER COURTS IX of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws. 1 Raffle of Cases. – All cases filed with the first and second level 2. FORMS. Two performance rating forms are prescribed, to courts in stations with two or more branches shall be assigned or distributed to the different branches by raffle. No case shall be wit: assigned to any branch of a multiple-branch court without being 2.1 Performance Rating Form – for Supervisor raffled. Raffling of cases shall be regularly conducted at two o’clock in the afternoon every Monday and/or Thursday as warranted by – to be used to evaluate the performance of the number of cases to be raffled. officials and employees with supervisory 2 Exclusion of vacant branches from raffle. – All vacant branches authority and duty, namely, the Clerks of Court without regular judges shall be excluded from the raffle. However, (including Branch Clerks of Court), Officers in once the vacancies are filled, the Executive Judge shall ensure that Charge designated in place of Clerks of Court and newly-filed cases shall be raffled to all branches on a 6:2:1 ratio as the Section Chiefs in the Office of the Clerk of follows: six newly-filed cases to each of the newly-filled branches; Court. two newly-filed cases to the existing branch or branches; and one newly-filed case to the branch of the Executive Judge, until 2.2 Performance Rating Form – for Non-Supervisor such time when the newly-filled branches in the station shall have – to be used to evaluate the performance of the been assigned such number of cases as will be equivalent to the number of cases raffled to the other branches during the period of other court employees not covered by paragraph vacancy. 2.1 hereof. Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 41
Effective July to December 2016 rating period, the Strategic 7. DEADLINE. The performance rating forms shall be Performance Management System (SPMS) Forms shall be submitted to and received by the concerned divisions of used. the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court 3. RATER. The performance evaluation shall be made by the Administrator, within the following periods: following: 7.1 First Semester Performance Rating (January 1 to June 3.1 Executive Judge – for the Clerk of Court/OIC of the 30) Office of the Clerk of Court; – on or before September 15 of the same year; and 3.2 Presiding Judge – for the Clerk of Court/OIC of the 7.2 Second Semester Performance Rating (July 1 to sala; December 31) 3.3 OCC Clerk of Court – for the Section Chiefs and other – on or before March 15 of the following year. OCC personnel not under the direct supervision of a Section Chief; 8. Failure to submit or late submission and submission of improperly accomplished performance rating form shall 3.4 (Branch) Clerk of Court – for the court personnel of be grounds for disciplinary action against the official the sala; concerned. 3.5 OCC Section Chiefs – for the OCC personnel under their direct supervision. 9. After the expiration of the deadline for submission of the performance rating forms, the OAS, OCA, shall 4. The prescribed rating forms must be accomplished in submit a report to the Legal Office, OCA, for appropriate triplicate following strictly the instruction stated therein. disciplinary action relative to the Clerks of Court/OIC Only the original copy shall be sent to the Office of Clerks of Court who failed to submit the performance Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator rating forms of the personnel of their respective offices/ (OAS, OCA). The duplicate copy shall be given to the ratee branches within the prescribed period as well as those and the triplicate shall be kept in the office files. This who belatedly submitted their performance rating modifies Memorandum dated November 6, 2002, re: forms. Regular Submission of Performance Ratings. 10. Court officials and personnel who obtained Court officials and personnel who are temporarily Unsatisfactory ratings for two rating periods and Poor reassigned/detailed to other stations shall indicate their rating for one evaluation period may be dropped from official stations in the performance rating forms. the rolls after due notice. 5. Any erasures or alterations made on the performance 11. The performance ratings shall be used as basis for rating forms must be initialed by the rater/immediate promotion, transfer, training and scholarship grants supervisor who effected the said changes. and other personnel actions. Only court officials and 6. The Clerks of Court/OIC Clerks of Court in the Office of personnel with Outstanding or Very Satisfactory the Clerk of Court and in the respective branches shall performance rating shall be considered for the forward the performance rating forms of all employees aforementioned personnel actions. in the office/branch in one batch to the: 12. Payment of productivity incentive benefit and other For court personnel of RTC benefits that are performance-based shall be held RTC Personnel Division in abeyance pending submission of the required Office of Administrative Services performance rating reports. Office of the Court Administrator 13. The Financial Management Office (FMO), OCA, shall Supreme Court of the Philippines timely forward circulars or guidelines authorizing the 1000 Manila release of performance-based benefits to the OAS, OR OCA. Within five working days from the receipt of the For court personnel of MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, circulars or guidelines, the OAS, OCA, shall transmit to SDC and SCC the FMO, OCA, the required reports for the release of the MTC, etc. Personnel Division benefits taking into consideration the abovementioned Office of Administrative Services deadlines. Office of the Court Administrator 14. All performance rating forms that will be received by Supreme Court of the Philippines the OAS, OCA, after the submission of the required 1000 Manila reports shall no longer be transmitted to the FMO, 42 April–June 2016
Circulars OCA Circular No. 140-2016 (continued) OCA, to avoid delay in the release of the benefits, as the PMC Units in Cabarroguis, Quirino and Bayombong, Nueva scheduled. Nonetheless, all subsequent submissions Vizcaya, starting August 1, 2016 and thenceforth. will be consolidated/collated by the OAS, OCA. The Any communication relating to this program should report/list of officials and personnel who are entitled be addressed to Hon. Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Chancellor, to the benefits but were held in abeyance due to late PHILJA, 3rd Floor, Centennial Building, Supreme Court, Padre submission of the required performance rating forms Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila. shall be transmitted to the FMO, OCA, on or before November 15 of the current year. The FMO, OCA, will June 27, 2016 thereafter process and release the benefits. The benefits (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ of officials and personnel who will not be included in the Court Administrator 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. OCA CIRCULAR NO. 142-2016
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator 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 OCA CIRCULAR NO. 141-2016 ON COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), through the Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO), in coordination TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND with the Office of the Court Administrator, is expanding its SECOND LEVEL COURTS IN THE PROVINCES OF QUIRINO AND Court-Annexed Mediation Program in the Province of Aurora. NUEVA VIZCAYA To formally mark the establishment of the Philippine Mediation Center Unit (PMCU) in Baler, Aurora, an Internship SUBJECT: INTERNSHIP PROGRAM FOR MEDIATION TRAINEES Program for Mediation Trainees will be conducted from ON COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION August 1 to September 30, 2016. This activity aims to provide The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), through the Mediation Trainees the opportunity to apply what they Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO), in coordination have learned from the Basic Mediation Course held at the with the Office of the Court Administrator, is expanding its Governor’s Garden Hotel in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, on May Court-Annexed Mediation Program in the Provinces of Quirino 17–20 2016, by handling mediatable cases where they should and Nueva Vizcaya. successfully settle at least three out of five cases assigned to therein, in order to be recommended for accreditation as To formally mark the establishment of the Philippine Court-Annexed Mediators. This program will be conducted Mediation Center Units (PMCU) in Cabarroguis, Quirino under the supervision of a Mentor-Coach. and Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, an Internship Program for Mediation Trainees will be conducted from August 1 to In connection therewith, you are hereby directed to September 30, 2016. This activity aims to provide Mediation conduct an inventory of mediatable cases and refer them to Trainees the opportunity to apply what they have learned the PMC Unit in Baler, Aurora, starting August 1, 2016 and from the Basic Mediation Course held at the Governor’s thenceforth. Garden Hotel in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, on May 17–20, 2016, Any communication relating to this program should by handling mediatable cases where they should successfully be addressed to Hon. Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Chancellor, settle at least three out of five cases assigned to them, PHILJA, 3rd Floor, Centennial Building, Supreme Court, Padre in order to be recommended for accreditation as Court- Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila. Annexed Mediators. This program will be conducted under June 27, 2016. the supervision of a Mentor-Coach. In connection therewith, you are hereby directed to (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ conduct an inventory of mediatable cases and refer them to Court Administrator Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 43
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 MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 24-2016 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 APPOINTING THE SC DEPUTY DIVISION CLERK OF COURT healthcare service provider; IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIVISION CLERK OF COURT, THIRD WHEREAS, to streamline the process of acquiring the services DIVISION of a health maintenance organization, there is a need to create WHEREAS, the position of SC Deputy Division Clerk of Court a judiciary-wide committee to evaluate all concerns of said in the Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, court officials, and provide recommendations to the Office is vacant; the notice of vacancy and the deadline for the of the Chief Justice and/or Supreme Court Bids and Awards filing of the applications for appointment thereto were duly Committee for Goods and Services; published; and the matrix, (showing the applicants’ present NOW, THEREFORE, the Judiciary-Wide Committee on Health positions with salary grades, highest educational attainment, Care Benefits of Justices, Judges and certain High Level Officials performance rating, relevant experiences, trainings and of the Court is hereby created and constituted as follows: seminars, dates of entrance to the Supreme Court, and dates Chairperson of last promotion) prepared by the Deputy Clerk of Court and Hon. Thelma C. Bahia Chief Administrative Officer Atty. Eden T. Candelaria were Deputy Court Administrator submitted to the Chief Justice; Vice Chairperson WHEREAS, evaluations have been made based on the criteria Judge Manuel Gerard C. Tomacruz for the selection of the most qualified applicants. Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 10, Manila NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, for and in behalf of the Members Supreme Court, by virtue of and pursuant to the power and Judge Ana Teresa T. Cornejo-Tomacruz authority vested in the revised Resolution in A.M. No. 99- MeTC, Branch 21, Manila 12-08-SC, do hereby appoint ATTY. MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG, III as Deputy Division Clerk of Court in the Office Atty. Czarina E. Samonte-Villanueva of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division. Atty. Jocelyn T. Fabian Office of the Chief Justice This appointment shall take effect on the 14th day of June 2016. Atty. Joevanni A. Villanueva Office of Associate Justice Jose P. Perez Issued this 14th day of June 2016. Representative/s (Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Office of Administrative Services Chief Justice Supreme Court Medical Services Chairperson, First Division Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) (Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO OCA-Office of Administrative Services Senior Associate Justice Court of Appeals Chairperson, Second Division Court of Tax Appeals Sandiganbayan (Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, Jr. Secretary Associate Justice To be designated by the Chairperson Chairperson, Third Division The Judiciary-Wide Committee shall have the following functions and duties: MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 28-2016 1. Determine who may be covered by the comprehensive healthcare plan for Justices, Judges and certain High CREATING THE JUDICIARY-WIDE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH Level Officials of the Court; CARE BENEFITS OF JUSTICES, JUDGES AND CERTAIN HIGH 2. Conduct research and/or survey on specific medical LEVEL OFFICIALS OF THE JUDICIARY needs and other related assistance to develop a 44 April–June 2016
Orders Memorandum Order No. 28-2016 (continued) WHEREAS, pursuant to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series comprehensive medical program/protection best of 2012 (Guidelines in the Establishment and Implementation suited for said court officials; of Agency Strategic Performance Management System), and in line with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 13, Series of 1992 3. List all existing laws, rules, regulations, and other (Adopting the Revised Policies on the Performance Evaluation relevant issuances pertaining to the procurement of a System), CSC Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2009 comprehensive medical program/protection for said (Reiterating the Installation of a Performance Management court officals; System), and Administrative Matter No. 03-06-13-SC (Code 4. Receive, assess, and provide recommendations of Conduct for Court Personnel), the Guidelines on the on possible healthcare agreements with different Implementation of a Strategic Performance Management healthcare providers/organizations; and System in the Judiciary was created; 5. Propose policy guidelines and other relevant WHEREAS, the said Guidelines requires the creation of recommendations to the Office of the Chief Justice Performance Management Teams (PMTs) in the Supreme and/or to the Supreme Court Bids and Awards Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Committee for Goods and Services relative to the Appeals and Lower Courts, which shall have the following process and requirements for securing a healthcare responsibilities: service provider who may provide comprehensive a) Set consultation meetings with all Heads of medical program/protection, in accordance with the Offices/Divisions to discuss the office performance established needs of the intended beneficiaries; and commitment and rating system and tools; 6. Perform such functions as may be directed by the Chief b) Ensure that office performance management targets, Justice or by the Court and those that are inherent, measures, and budget are aligned with the goals of incidental or essential to the accomplishment of its the agency; above duties and objectives. c) Recommend approval of the office performance and The Chairperson, Working Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, rating system and tools; Members and Members of the Secretariat of the Committee shall receive the usual expense allowances. d) Act as appeals body and final arbiter; This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its e) Identify potential top performers for awards; and issuance this July 4, 2016. f) Adopt internal rules, procedures, and strategies to carry out its responsibilities; (Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO NOW, THEREFORE, the Performance Management Teams Chief Justice (PMTs) in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Chairperson, First Division Court of Tax Appeals and Lower Courts are hereby created and (Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO shall be composed of the following: Senior Associate Justice a) Supreme Court Performance Management Team Chairperson, Second Division (SC-PMT) (Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, Jr. Chairperson Associate Justice Chief Justice or designated representative Chairperson, Third Division Office of the Chief Justice Vice Chairperson Clerk of Court/Deputy Clerk of Court Members ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 67-2016 Chief/Assistant Chief Office of Administrative Services (OAS-SC)
WHEREAS, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), mandates Chief/Assistant Chief that all agencies should have a CSC approved Strategic Office of Administrative Services Performance Management System (SPMS), wherein all Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA) performance-based human resources movements, and/or Representative, developments/interventions such as promotion, scholarship, Supreme Court Assembly of Lawyer Employees training, rewards and incentives shall be based; (SCALE) Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 45
Representative, Second Level Employees, Members Supreme Court Employees Association (SCEA) Chief/Assistant Chief, OAS, OCA Representative, First Level Employees, Chief/Assistant Chief, RTC Personnel Division Supreme Court Employees Association (SCEA) Chief/Assistant Chief, MTC etc. Personnel Division b) Court of Appeals Performance Management Team (CA-PMT) Representative, First Level Employees, PACE Chairperson Representative, Second Level Employees, PACE Presiding Justice or designated representative The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and Members of the Vice Chairperson Committee shall receive the usual expense allowances. Executive Clerk of Court VI This Administrative Order shall take effect upon its issuance this 29th day of April 2016. Members Chief Judicial Staff Officer of Personnel Division (Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Chief Judicial Staff Officer of Finance Chief Justice Planning Officer Chief Judicial Staff Officer of any designated office ACAE Representative c) Sandiganbayan Performance Management Team ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 121-2016 (SB-PMT)
Chairperson CREATING TASK FORCE KATARUNGAN AT KALAYAAN IN THE Presiding Justice or authorized representative NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION Vice Chairperson WHEREAS, few courts are able to effectively monitor the Executive Clerk of Court IV progress of criminal cases resulting in unacceptable procedural Members delays in trial and prolonged incarceration of detainees; Chief Legal Office WHEREAS, Administrative Order No. 151-2011 created the Chief JSO Admin. Division Task Force Katarungan at Kalayaan in the City of Manila which Chief JSO Finance Division is primarily tasked to address the immense overcrowding in SBEA Representative holding jails and other problems affecting the welfare of the d) Court of Tax Appeals Performance Management Team detainees; (CTA-PMT) WHEREAS, notwithstanding the success of the Manila Task Chairperson Force, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of the Presiding Justice or designated representative program design in heterogeneous sites and various contexts Vice Chairperson for critical adjustments and reforms prior to a nationwide Clerk of Court (Executive Clerk of Court IV) rollout; Members WHEREAS, holding jails in the National Capital Judicial Region (NCJR) are among the most congested nationwide and due Chief of Office to its proximity to the Supreme Court and other agencies Office of Legal and Technical Services engaged in jail management, they become ideal in terms of Chief of Office program implementation and monitoring; Office of Administrative and Finance Services NOW, THEREFORE, there is hereby created in the cities of Representative,Employees Association the National Capital Judicial Region Task Forces Katarungan at Kalayaan to monitor the status and conditions of the e) Performance Management Teams for Lower Courts detainees and take prompt actions to ensure the protection (PMT-LC) of their rights and release when warranted. Chairperson A Task Force shall consist of: Court Administrator a. A Regional Trial Court Judge as Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court Judge as Vice Deputy Court Administrators Chairperson, both to be appointed for a term of two (in charge of the regions) years by the Executive Judge of the city. 46 April–June 2016
Orders Administrative Order No. 121-2016 (continued) and the Office of the Court Administrator the action/s that presiding judges or court personnel have taken The Chairperson shall preside over the meetings of on such advise; the Task Force, sign and review its recommendations and reports, invite the judges of courts under review, g. Submit a report of accomplishments of the Task Force grant the release of budget allocations, and other to the Committee on the Decongestion of Provincial, powers necessary to faithfully carry out its duties. In City, and Municipal Jails; his/her absence, the Vice Chairperson shall assume h. Recommend appropriate sanctions for non- these functions. compliance to the Office of the Chief Justice, through b. The City or Provincial Prosecutor or his/her the Office of the Court Administrator; representative and the Local Head of the Public i. Summarize its experiences and suggest relevant Attorney’s Office or his/her representative who shall measures and reforms to speed up the trial process identify policies, practices, and procedures that and help decongest local jails; and contribute to delays in trial and suggest possible solutions to these problems. j. Perform such functions and exercise such powers as are inherent, incidental, or essential to the c. The Warden of City or Provincial Jail or his/her accomplishment of its above duties and objectives. representative who shall assist the Task Force in gathering information relating to detained persons. The organization of the Task Force and the exercise of its duties shall be carried out in batches. The chronology of which A Task Force shall have a Secretariat composed of the is determined by the severity of jail congestion in the area. Branch Clerks of Court or any staff of the Chairperson and Vice The batches shall be deployed as follows: Chairperson, a jail officer, stenographers, and additional court or jail employees if necessary. The Secretariat shall perform Batch 1 : Quezon City and Pasay (Q3 2016) administrative and information management functions, to Batch 2 : Las Piñas, Makati, Muntinlupa, and Navotas (Q1 wit: records keeping, drafting of correspondence, facilitating 2017) meetings, following up courts, organizing thematic roundtable Batch 3 : Caloocan, Parañaque, Pasig, and Taguig (Q3 discussions, liaising with external stakeholders, publication of 2017) materials and other logistic matters. With the approval of the Committee, the Task Force may solicit the assistance of the Batch 4: Remainder of NCJR (Q1 2018) local government, the academe and civil society organizations. This Administrative Order shall take effect upon its A Task Force shall have the following duties, powers, and issuance. functions: Baguio City, April 12, 2016. a. Study and define the issues concerning detained prisoners, especially their rights that need to be acted (Sgd.) SERENO, CJ, CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, on with promptness end resoluteness; BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, PEREZ, MENDOZA, REYES, PERLAS-BERNABE, LEONEN, JARDELEZA, CAGUIOA, JJ. b. Coordinate and monitor the actions of the court personnel (judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, branch clerks of court) to ensure that detainees are Judicial Training on Cybercrime accorded their legal rights and privileges; (Continued from page 11) c. Advise the presiding judge of the appropriate courts Administrator Marquez, Court of Appeals Associate and their relevant court personnel of the need to Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Hon. Madhub and Ms. provide the Task Force information and documents George discussed issues in cybercrime cases and as it may request for the purpose of completing and formulation of action plan. Among others, the issues and processing the data files of detained prisoners; suggestions raised during the open forum include the d. Identify inmates who are at risk of delay, understand designation of cybercrime courts pursuant to Section 21 the causes of delay, and recommend appropriate Chapter V of Republic Act No. 10175; lack of procedural corrective actions; remedies available to complainant situated outside e. Advise the presiding judges or any court personnel the Philippine jurisdiction where no local consulate of the need to act on any incident or situation that office can be found; authority of consular officials to adversely affects the rights of detained prisoners, or administer oath in lieu of prosecutors for the complaint- subject them to undue or harsh treatments; affidavits; authority of prosecutors to administer oath f. Report to the Supreme Court Committee for the (next page) Decongestion of Provincial, City, and Municipal Jails Volume XVIII Issue No. 70 47
Judicial Training on Cybercrime (Continued)
using information technology in places without consular The two-day program ended with the Closing offices; importance of presenting the affiant in court and Remarks of Mr. Pereira, PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. the suggestion to include in the draft rules to consider Azcuna, and Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano, which teleconference for affiants not in the Philippines; storage was read by National Prosecution Service Senior Deputy and custody of computer data if deposited before the State Prosecutor Theodore M. Villanueva. They thanked court pursuant to Section 16 of RA No. 10175; procedure the organizers, trainers and experts for the opportunity in dealing with the opening of sealed data; procedure to increase the participants’ capacities on prosecution in real time collection of traffic data; procedure in taking and handling cybercrime and electronic evidence cases, down a website committing cybercrime; and delineating the with the hope for more opportunities for collaborations requirements for application of search warrant in connection with each other in the future. with child abuse cases in relation to cybercrime cases.
Third Quarter 2016 Training Programs and Activities (Continued from page 48)
Agusan del Norte Mediation Program August 31–September 1, Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City, Albay July 19, Hall of Justice, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte September 15–16, Waterfront Insular Hotel, Davao City Agusan del Sur Mediation Program July 21, Hall of Justice, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur • Orientation and Training Seminar for Judges and Court Decongestion Officers of Beneficiary Courts • Seminar-Workshop on Procedural, Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property for Special Regions XI and XII Commercial Court Judges of Regions I, II, II, IV and V August 30–31, Seda Abreeza Hotel, Davao City July 21–22, Le Monet Hotel, Baguio City Regions XI, X and XII • Ninth Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly September 7–8, Seda Centrio Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City Appointed Sheriffs and Process Servers • Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, July 19–21, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of the Third Judicial • Information Dissemination through a Dialogue between Region Barangay Officials and Court Officials August 30–September 1, Xenia Hotel Clark Freeport Zone, Angeles City, Pampanga City of Olongapo August 12, Rizal Triangle Multi-Purpose Center • Basic Mediation Course (Agusan del Norte and Agusan Olongapo City del Sur Mediation Programs) City of Tacloban September 5–8, Red Palm Suites August 25, Patio Victoria, San Jose, Tacloban City Butuan City, Agusan del Norte Municipality of Catarman • Seminar on the Financial Liquidation and Suspension of August 26, Ibabao Hall, Provincial Capitol Payments (FLSP) Rules of Procedure for Court of Appeals Catarman, Northern Samar Justices (Cagayan de Oro City Station), Special Commercial • 13th Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair Lecture Court Judges and Pairing Court Judges of Regions IV, X, XI entitled “Remedial Law as an Instrument to Promote and XII September 1, Park Inn by Radisson, Davao City Social Justice and Environmental Protection” by Justice Magdangal M. De Leon • Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, August 18, Court of Appeals Auditorium Prosecutors, Social Workers and Law Enforcers Court of Appeals, Manila Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons Cases • Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) September 13–15, Taal Vista Hotel, Tagaytay City Trainers’ Training • Personal Security Training for Judges August 25–26, Hotel Elizabeth, Baguio City September 13–15, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City 48 3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial Building PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE April–JuneTO AVOID 2016 Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila PAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY 1000 Philippines FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH
Third Quarter 2016 Training Programs and Activities
Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna • Refresher/Advanced Course for • Strategic Performance Management Chancellor Court-Annexed Mediators (Skills System (SPMS) Roll-Out Enhancement Course) July 5–8, Court of Tax Appeals Multi- Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria Pampanga, Zambales, and Bataan Purpose Hall, Quezon City Editor in Chief Mediation Programs July 27–28, Hotel Stotsenberg July 5–6, PHILJA Training Center Clarkfield Freeport Zone, Pampanga Editorial and Research Staff Tagaytay City Atty. Ma. Melissa Dimson-Bautista August 2–3, PHILJA Training Center August 3–4, City Suites Condotel Armida M. Salazar Tagaytay City Cebu City Jocelyn D. Bondoc August 15–16, Hotel del Rio, Iloilo City Ronald Paz Caraig September 21–22, Joseph Arvin S. Cruz PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City August 18–19, Golden Peak Hotel, Cebu City Christine A. Ferrer • Judicial Settlement Conference for Joanne Narciso-Medina Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution • Career Enhancement Program for Charmaine S. Nicolas (Skills-based Course) Court Social Workers of the First, Sarah Jane S. Salazar Second, Fourth, and Fifth Judicial August 23–26, PHILJA Training Center Regions Circulation and Support Staff Tagaytay City July 12–14, PHILJA Training Center Romeo A. Arcullo • Pre-Internship Orientation and Tagaytay City Judith B. Del Rosario Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Michael Angelo P. Laude • Judicial Career Enhancement Program Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Lope R. Palermo for First Level Court Judges Trainees and PMC Unit Staff Daniel S. Talusig 10th Judicial Region Aurora Mediation Program July 13–15, PHILJA Training Center Printing Services July 1, Machiavelli Lodge, Baler, Aurora Tagaytay City Leticia G. Javier and Staff Agusan del Sur Mediation Program First, Sixth, and National Capital September 9, Provincial Learning Center Judicial Regions Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur July 27–29, PHILJA Training Center • Career Enhancement Program for Tagaytay City The PHILJA Bulletin is published Regional Trial Court Sheriffs of the quarterly by the Research, • 39th Pre-Judicature Program (As Seventh Judicial Region Publications and Linkages Office Prescribed by Section 10, Republic July 5–7, Hotel Fortuna, Cebu City of the Philippine Judicial Academy, Act No. 8557) (Complete Compliance with office at therd 3 Floor of the • Competency Enhancement Training with MCLE Requirements) Supreme Court Centennial Building, for Family Court Judges, Prosecutors, July 18–29, Bayview Park Hotel Padre Faura Street corner Taft Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Roxas Boulevard, Manila Avenue, Manila. Tel: 552-9524; Fax: Investigators on the Management of 552-9621; Email: research_philja@ • Orientation and Screening of Online Sexual Exploitation of Children yahoo.com; [email protected]. Prospective Mediators and PMC Unit Cases ph; Website: http://philja.judiciary. Staff gov.ph July 5–6, Marco Polo Hotel, Cebu City (Continued on page 47)