JANUARY-MARCH 2014 VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 ISSN 2244-5862

From the Chancellor’s Desk

On January 16, 2014, the Consuelo Zobel Alger Foundation paid a courtesy call on Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno to personally hand over their donation of 100 sets of Anatomically Correct Dolls for the use of our Family Courts nationwide. The Court, through PHILJA, received the gift at the Signing Ceremony of the Deed of Donation. Each set is composed of two adult male and female dolls, as well as a pair of boy and girl dolls designed to be of assistance in the conduct of investigative and forensic interviews of sexually abused children. Further ushering in the New Year were the following programs: the 69th Orientation Seminar- Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges in the PTC- Tagaytay; the Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process Servers in Cebu City; Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (center) with the the 32nd Pre-Judicature Program (PJP) in Pasay City; representatives from the Consuelo Zobel Alger Foundation (from left) Atty. Carmela Andal-Castro, Dr. Jon Matsuoka, Ph.D., and and the Judicial Career Enhancement Program Constance H. Lau, Esq., PHILJA Vice Chancellor Justo P. Torres, Jr., (JCEP) for RTC Judges of Region X in Cagayan De Oro and Family Court Judge Cesar Pabel D. Sulit during the Courtesy City. Call on the Chief Justice and Signing Ceremony of the Deed of Donation of Anatomically Correct Dolls held on January 16, 2014, at Eight Special Focus Programs also took place: the SC Dignitaries’ Lounge, New Supreme Court Building, Padre the First Judiciary Budget Conference in the PTC- Faura Street, Manila. Tagaytay; a Seminar-Workshop on the Apostille in safety and security precautions including training on the proper Convention at the De La Salle University–College of and practical use of firearms and marksmanship, was delivered Manila, Manila; two Seminars on the Rules of for selected Judges of Region I in Baguio City. Procedure on Financial Rehabilitation – one for the Court of Appeals Justices in Cebu City, the Special PHILJA also assisted in the 19th National Convention and Commercial Court Judges of Regions VI to VIII, and Seminar of the Philippine Women Judges Association held in Manila, other stakeholders therein; and the other for the with the theme Women Judges: Keeping Up with Information Court of Appeals Justices in Cagayan De Oro City, the Technology and Issues in International Law, and in the 9th National Special Commercial Court Judges of Regions IX to Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Association of Court XII, and other stakeholders therein. Social Workers, Inc., (PACSWI) held in Palawan which focused on The Vital Role of the Social Workers in Responding to the Current Also held in Cebu were the Seminar-Workshop Social Challenges in the Judicial System. on Substantive Laws and Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property for Special Commercial Court Our Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) activities for the Judges of Regions VI to VIII as well as selected year opened with the delivery of Information Dissemination Attorneys of the Court of Appeals Cebu City Station; through a Dialogue among Barangay and Court Officials in and the Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws and Rules Mandaluyong City. Relating to Money Laundering and other Financial In furthering Alternative Dispute Resolution, the Philippine Crimes for Judges of Region VII. The same program Mediation Center Office (PMCO) conducted several Refresher/ was also conducted in Naga City for Judges of Region Advanced Courses for Court-Annexed Mediators for the Bataan, V. The Personal Security Training for Judges (PST), a program that provides trial court judges the basics (Next page) 2 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

Contents From the Chancellor’s Desk (Continued from page 1) From the Chancellor’s Desk ...... 1 Zambales, and Pampanga Mediation Programs in Judicial Views ...... 3 Tagaytay City; the Iligan, Ozamiz, Marawi, and Cagayan Trainings, Programs and Activities ...... 4 De Oro City Mediation Programs in Cagayan De Oro City; and the Leyte, Cebu, and Zamboanga City Mediation New Rulings ...... 16 Programs in Cebu City. Doctrinal Reminders ...... 16 The PMCO activities for this quarter focused on two Resolutions areas in Mindanao: the Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Mediation in Malaybalay Administrative Matter No. 12-11-2-SC – Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the City for the Bukidnon Mediation Program; and the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and to Speedy Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators and Trial...... 17 PMC Unit Staff in Dipolog City for the Zamboanga Del Norte Mediation Program. In addition, a Basic Mediation Orders Course as well as a Pre-Internship Orientation and Memorandum Order No. 05-2014 – Creating the Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Committee on Yolanda-Affected Areas (CYA). . . . . 20 Court, Mediation Trainees, and PMC Unit Staff of the Administrative Order No. 52-2014 – Designated Bukidnon Mediation Program also took place in Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges...... 21 Malaybalay City. Circulars The Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on OCA Cir. No. 139-2013 – A.M. No. 13-09-08-SC Judicial Dispute Resolution (a skills-based course) were (Re: Request for Guidance and/Clarification on also held for two batches in the PTC-Tagaytay. Section 7, Rule 111 of RA No. 10154 Requiring Orientations on Judicial Dispute Resolution for Clerks of Retiring Government Employees to Secure a Court and Branch Clerks of Court as well as for Public Clearance of Pendency/Non-Pendency of Case/s Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, and Law Practitioners in from the Civil Service Commission) ...... 29 Olongapo City completed the PMCO activities for this OCA Cir. No. 163-2013 – Issuance of Mittimus/ period. Commitment Order and Transfer of Detainees/ We also uploaded new rulings of the Supreme Court Prisoners from One Detention/Penal Facility to and reminders given on doctrinal rulings, as well as the Another for Purposes of Testifying at the Hearing or Trial of an Action ...... 30 newly issued Court orders, resolutions, and circulars on our website http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph. New OCA OCA Cir. No. 01-2014 – Extension on the Modified circulars were also posted. Public Prosecutors’ Compliance with the Provisions of the Judicial Affidavit Rule for Another Year, Ending In March, PHILJA celebrated its 18th Foundation Day on December 31, 2014 ...... 31 with a simple program imbued with our usual OCA Cir. No. 08-2014 – Revision of Restrictions on camaraderie and good cheer. Eighteen years is truly a Teaching Hours of Justices, Judges and Personnel milestone, synonymous to having entered adulthood. of the Judiciary ...... 32 Now an adult, PHILJA is ready to make even more OCA Cir. No. 09-2014 – Requirement of Notice to significant strides toward excellence in the Judiciary. All the Parties in Any Action or Proceedings of the If it takes a village to raise a child, then it took our Mandatory Disqualification or Voluntary Inhibition officials and staff, our corps of professors and lecturers, of the Justice or the Judge Who has Participated in the Action or Proceedings...... 33 and program partners to bring PHILJA into being the leading judicial institution that it is today. I would like to OCA Cir. No. 10-2014 – Requirement of the Law on congratulate everyone for having done an excellent job Adoption Cases...... 43 and for generously giving their time, talent, and even OCA Cir. No. 17-2014 – Complete Addresses/ their treasures to the Academy. Thanks, too, to the Chief Locations and Other Contact Information of the Justice and the Court En Banc for their remarkable and 43 Lower Courts...... much appreciated support for all our programs and OCA Cir. No. 19-2014 – Revocation of activities. Above all, we thank the God Almighty for Memorandum Order No. 177 (S. 2005) ...... 44 making all these things possible. OCA Cir. No. 38-2014 – Judicious Implementation of Court Issuances Concerning the Ban on the All the best. Issuance of TROs or Writs of Preliminary Injunctions Involving Government Infrastructure Projects . . . . 45 ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Upcoming PHILJA Events ...... 48 Chancellor VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 3

Judicial Views Reflections from 4 Years as a Judge: A View from the “Boondocks” of Cam Sur Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr. 9th MCTC of Nabua-Bato, Camarines Sur

I have been a Judge of the 9th but also see the period before filing and the period after MCTC of Nabua-Bato, Camarines finality of decision, including its execution, probation, and Sur since 11 March 2010. By service of sentence. 2011, I had also become Acting Pro-Alternative Dispute Resolution Presiding Judge of the MTC of Balatan, Camarines Sur as well as Early on, I saw the need, challenge and merit of promoting Judge-Designate for referred amicable settlement and a culture of mediation vis-à-vis cases in the MTCs of Baao and a predominant local culture of litigation and the traditional Buhi, Camarines Sur and MTCC of Iriga City Branch 2 – thus adversarial mode of lawyering. Corollary to this, is the covering all the first level courts in the Rinconada judicial promotion of respect for the Katarungang Pambarangay district of Camarines Sur under the administrative system and for CAM by accredited mediators of the supervision of the RTC of Iriga City. The experience and Philippine Mediation Center (PMC). Even the public exposure at this frontline of the judiciary has been prosecutors, believe it or not, can and have played a positive invaluable, just as the hard work has been meaningful, role in ADR. As developed with the assigned public challenging and fulfilling. Allow me to share my main prosecutor in my station, one relevant preferential mode, reflections as well as some learnings and insights from this which also makes for speedy disposition, is provisional work. dismissal, which has to be with the expressed consent of the accused (thus by his agreement to the corresponding Wisdom of the Heart motion of the public prosecutor), with notice to the offended party (who is often present in open court) and As early as the 57th Judicial Orientation-Workshop for Newly involving a 1 year probationary or testing period of sorts. Appointed Judges which I attended in April 2010, perhaps the most important or inspiring guidance was from a Rendering Justice and Peace Brazilian judiciary concept that PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo A. Azcuna shared: to render justice, not just In older days, the municipal judge was a “Justice of the decisions, by having sabiduria del corazon (“wisdom of Peace.” I like this term and wish it were restored. The the heart”), taking into account the human element in the beauty of the term is really in the value it gives to peace at case, knowing the context of one’s decisions that are not the community level, of course a peace that comes with issued in a vacuum from social reality. Stated otherwise, it justice. In general, I would say the best form (actually is to strive to administer justice “in the grand manner,” substance) this could take is a mutually acceptable with largeness of mind, heart and soul, and with an settlement whereby both parties are given their respective understanding of the spirit and living context in which the due and as much as possible restore normal relations black-letter law is applied. between them. The ideal is indeed to render not only justice but also peace. Broader View of Justice System Justice, or the settlement of legal disputes between At the first level, closer to the ground zero of local the parties, can be rendered by a court decision after an communities, one can actually develop a broader and adversarial trial on the merits. This is the standard route of longer view of the Philippine justice system that is not litigation in the Philippine justice system, a route that is just limited to the courts and to the cases filed therein. often prolonged, expensive, exhausting, acrimonious and Aside from the barangay justice system and court-annexed uncertain. Its drama is overrated, as it is actually for the mediation (CAM), alternative dispute resolution (ADR) most part a tedious and often unnecessary belaboring of might also involve the proven-effective indigenous tribal testimony. This route may bring justice but it hardly brings conflict resolution mechanisms and informal community peace between the parties. Justice can also be rendered mediation such as by senior citizens (among the elders), by an allowable compromise settlement between the policemen and parish priests. The view of a court case parties, whereby they give and take on what is due each should not be limited to the period from filing to decision (Continued on page 47) 4 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

TRAININGS, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

Signing Ceremony of the Seminar-Workshop on the Deed of Donation of Apostille Convention Anatomically Correct Dolls Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, in behalf of the On January 30, 2014, PHILJA conducted the Seminar- Supreme Court and the Philippine Judicial Academy Workshop on the Apostille Convention at the De La Salle (PHILJA), accepted the donation of anatomically correct University–College of Law, Manila (main site) and via dolls through a signing ceremony of the Deed of Donation videoconferencing at the En Banc Session Hall, Supreme on January 16, 2014, 2 pm, at the Dignitaries’ Lounge of Court. The activity was held to: (a) increase awareness the New Supreme Court Building. about the Hague Conference and its work in the Asia Pacific The donor, Consuelo Zobel Alger Foundation region including providing technical assistance to countries (Foundation) is a private foundation that works to prevent to implement Hague Conventions within their jurisdiction and treat abuse, neglect and exploitation of children, in accordance with best practices and reaching out to state women and families. In pursuit of the mission of its founder and non-state organizations within the Asia Pacific to and benefactress, Doña Consuelo Zobel Alger, the explore ways of harmonizing private international law Foundation expressed its desire to assist the Supreme Court throughout the world; and (b) enable participants to in their programs to improve court processes and capacity become familiar with the 1961 Hague Convention to deal with child cases by donating 100 sets of anatomically Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign correct dolls for distribution to all Family Courts in the Public Documents commonly known as the Apostille country. Each set of anatomically correct dolls is composed Convention, and its implications in anticipation of the of an adult male, adult female, girl-child and boy-child dolls, Philippines’ accession in 2014. The seminar-workshop, designed to be used in investigative or forensic interviews streamed live via YouTube, was attended by a total of 180 of sexually abused children. guests composed of SC and CA officials and court attorneys, RTC executive judges, NCJR MeTC executive judges, and The Foundation’s Chairman of the Board, Constance representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs, H. Lau, Esq., expressed her gratitude to the Supreme Court with 105 participants at the main site and 75 at the remote and PHILJA for welcoming their group and emphasized the site, respectively. aim of the Foundation in donating the anatomically correct dolls to the Supreme Court for use of the family courts. She Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo- added that the dolls are manufactured in the USA by Teach- de Castro formally opened the activity and De La Salle a-Bodies, a world-class authority in providing professionals University College of Law Dean Jose Manuel I. Diokno with anatomically correct instructional dolls to help break welcomed the participants. The seminar-workshop down barriers when communicating with children about featured three lectures: (1) Introduction to the Hague child sex abuse, treatment, and therapy. Conference, the Hague Conventions, the Apostille Convention, and the electronic Apostille program (e-APP); Family Court Judge Cesar Pabel D. Sulit of the Regional (2) It’s all about Authenticity: Towards Ensuring Trustworthy Trial Court of San Juan City delivered his Message of Documents; and (3) A Detailed Examination of Practice Appreciation in behalf of all the Family Court Judges wherein and Experience in the Implementation of the Apostille he expressed and enumerated the significance and Convention (including the e-APP program). The resource importance of the dolls based on his own experience in speakers were Professor Anselmo Reyes of the Hague handling such cases. Conference Asia Pacific Regional Office Hong Kong and The Foundation’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Professor Peter Zablud of the Board of Governors of the Dr. Jon Matsuoka, Ph.D., signed the Deed of Donation as Australian and New Zealand College of Notaries. Chief Donor while PHILJA’s Vice Chancellor Justo P. Torres, Jr. Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno capped the activity with signed as Donee. her Closing Remarks. She urged the members of the judiciary and the legal profession to prepare for the Justice Torres, in behalf of PHILJA, thanked the impending accession of the Philippines to the Apostille Foundation for providing the courts the effective testimonial Convention, and to embrace technology in delivering justice tools for survivors of child sexual abuse. worldwide. The signing ceremony was preceded with a Courtesy The Apostille Convention, concluded in October 1961, Call on the Chief Justice by 20 members and guests of the aims to replace the often cumbersome and costly process Foundation. in the circulation of public documents with a simple procedure without veering away from legalization–the issuance of an Apostille (also called Apostille Certificate or Certificate). A document with an Apostille Certificate would not require any further legalization by the country in which it is to be used. VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 5

PHILJA Visits IRRI

Upon invitation from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), a delegation of PHILJA officials and employees participated in a study tour of the Institute in Los Baños, Laguna, on February 7, 2014, headed by Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna. The delegates were welcomed by Director General Robert S. Zeigler, Deputy Director General V. Bruce J. Tolentino and Senior Counsel Eugeniano Perez III. A briefing by some of the Institute’s officials on the scope of their work, rice breeding, and rice biotechnology followed. Handouts and publications complementing the discussions were also provided by the Institute. Afterwards, the delegates were taken on a brief tour to the IRRI’s ricefields featuring different rice varieties, and to the Institute’s units and facilities such as the Genetic Transformation Laboratory, Seed Health Unit, International Rice Genebank, and the Grain Quality and Nutrition Center. The study tour was capped by an open forum that served as venue for the delegates’ questions and concerns, as well as for Justice Azcuna, on behalf of PHILJA and the delegation, to compliment the remarkable work of IRRI and to express gratitude for the gracious hospitality accorded PHILJA by IRRI’s officials and employees.

PHILJA Turns 18

PHILJA celebrated its 18th foundation year on March 12, 2014. The celebration, with a Filipino festival theme, kicked off with a parade and presentation of 18 Filipino desserts by PHILJA offices–each representing the 18 years of PHILJA’s existence. PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna delivered the Welcome Remarks. Part of the program for the yearly anniversary celebration is the recognition of employees and presentation of awards. Nineteen PHILJA employees received loyalty awards for having served the Academy for 15 and 10 years. Atty. Elmer DG Eleria and Mr. Lope R. Palermo were awarded Model Employees for supervisory and non-supervisory levels, respectively, for their reliable and efficient performance of tasks, exemplary work attitude, willingness to cooperate with co-employees, integrity, punctuality, and excellent attendance. Atty. Ria Corazon H. Berbano-Ablan received the 2014 Chancellor’s Award. Another highlight of the celebration was the launching of the Academy’s portfolio video, an audio-visual presentation entitled “An Introduction to PHILJA.” 6 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

First Judiciary Budget Conference The First Judiciary Budget Conference was conducted by PHILJA on February 6-8, 2014, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City, for 114 participants comprising selected executive judges of multiple and single sala courts nationwide; clerks of court of multiple sala courts; and selected Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals officials and court personnel. The activity aimed to (a) provide the overall framework and priority thrusts of the Judiciary; (b) develop the guidelines and procedures in the preparation of the 2015 budget for each office/ service/court in the Judiciary; and (c) set the schedule of the budget preparation activities within the Judiciary and prescribe the forms to be accomplished by the concerned offices/services/courts. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno presented the Policy Framework and Priority Thrusts of the Judiciary for 2015. Other presentations such as Overview of the Budget Process, Guidelines in the Preparation of the Budget, and How to Accomplish the Prescribed Template and Budget Calendar followed. In the afternoon session of the first day, participants were divided into five working groups for workshops that allowed them to work on their respective budgets based on the prescribed templates. The workshops continued in the morning session of the second day. Capping the two-day conference was a workshop validation and an open forum.

Seminar on the Rules of Procedure on Financial Rehabilitation

On February 19, 2014, PHILJA conducted the Seminar on the Rules of Procedure on Financial Rehabilitation in partnership with the Supreme Court Subcommittee on Commercial Courts, United States Agency for International Development, and the American Bar Association– Rule of Law Initiative. The seminar served as a forum for judges, practitioners, and interested parties to share their experiences and help one another resolve difficult legal issues in rehabilitation cases, with the end goal of enhancing the capacity of justices and special commercial court judges in the efficient, effective, and expeditious disposition of commercial disputes. Forty-five participants composed of Court of Appeals–Cebu justices, special commercial court judges of Regions VI, VII and VIII, and selected members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, attended this first-of-its-kind seminar after the Court’s approval of the Financial Rehabilitation Rules of Procedure in October 2013. Topics discussed during the seminar were Overview of the 2013 Financial Rehabilitation Rules (FR Rules); Court- Supervised Rehabilitation; Pre-Negotiated and Out-of-Court Rehabilitation; Cross-Border Rehabilitation; and Updates and Jurisprudence on Corporate Rehabilitation. A panel discussion that provided clarification, comments, and answers to questions, problems, issues, and concerns raised by participants during the levelling-off sessions, capped the substantive sessions of the seminar. All participants found the seminar profitable and enriching. VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 7

Hon. Charles Javier M. Calapini Orientation 3rd MCTC: Sarrat-Vintar, Ilocos Norte

th Hon. Melita Amylesha G. Delson-Macaraeg 69 Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed 1st MCTC: Kapangan-Kibungan, Benguet Judges Hon. Edwin A. Macaraeg Date: March 18–27, 2014 7th MCTC: Banayoyo-Lidlidda-San Emilio, Ilocos Sur Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Hon. Rodrigo C. Valdez, Jr. Participants: 26 newly appointed and 8 promoted judges, 5th MCTC: SalIapadan-Bucloc-Daguioaman, Abra namely: Hon. Charmi Christine F. Valera 2nd MCTC: Tayum-Peñarrubia, Abra A. NEW APPOINTMENTS REGION II REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS Hon. Richardson G. Agbisit REGION I 5th MCTC: Flora-Sta. Marcela, Apayao Hon. Caroline R. Jaucian Hon. Glenda V. Antolin-Pazziuagan RTC, Br. 26, San Fernando City, La Union 1st MCTC: Basco-Mahatao, Batanes Hon. Pascual D. Kimayong, Jr. REGION II 4th MCTC: Lagawe-Hingyon, Ifugao Hon. Gemma P. Bucayu-Madrid Hon. Ramorelia P. Lodriguito-Caranay RTC, Br. 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan 13th MCTC: San Manuel-Aurora, Isabela MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES Hon. Michael J. Tagare 2nd MCTC: Maddela-Nagtipunan, Quirino REGION V Hon. Joan C. Mosatalla REGION V MTCC, Tabaco City, Albay Hon. Francisco E. Torres, Jr. 1st MCTC: Bato-San Miguel, Catanduanes MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS B. PROMOTION REGION I Hon. Rouella Melinda P. Atmosfera REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS MTC, Langangilang, Abra REGION I Hon. Bernadette B. Badecao Hon. Romeo M. Atillo, Jr. MTC, Sto. Tomas, La Union RTC, Br. 31, Agoo, La Union Hon. Sarah C. Marcos-Martin Hon. Mario Anacleto M. Banez MTC, Agno, Pangasinan RTC, Br. 25, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur Hon. Jihan Q. Palcon-Hacutina Hon. Maria Ligaya V. Itliong-Rivera MTC, Bucay, Abra RTC, Br. 5, Baguio City Hon. Marlon N. Ramos Hon. Ethelwolda A. Jaravata MTC, Anda, Pangasinan RTC, Br. 32, Agoo, La Union Hon. Maria Paz I. Rivera-Basangan Hon. Ivan Kim B. Morales MTC, Caba, La Union RTC, Br. 59, Baguio City Hon. Dominico A. Sanchez MTC, Bayambang, Pangasinan REGION II Hon. Kurt Elijay Q. Tremor Hon. Nicanor S. Pascual, Jr. MTC, Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur RTC, Br. 8, Aparri, Cagayan

REGION II REGION VI Hon. Mayumi M. Abergas Hon. Cicero T. Lampasa MTC, Cabarroguis, Quirino RTC, Br. 2, Kalibo, Aklan

REGION IV REGION VII Hon. Robert V. Marcelo Hon. Glenda C. Go MTC, Tanay, Rizal RTC, Br. 65, Talisay City, Cebu

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS 27th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed REGION I Hon. Richard B. Balucio Clerks of Court 2nd MCTC: Pasuquin-Burgos, Ilocos Norte Date: March 25–28, 2014 Hon. Jaime D. Bugain Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City 6th MCTC: Santiago-San Esteban, Ilocos Sur Participants: 91 newly appointed clerks of court, namely: 8 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS REGION II Atty. Cecilio Batnag Ewangan, Jr. NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION RTC, Br. 15, Alfonso Lista, Ifugao Atty. Darlene Reolo Vivas Atty. Jeanna Bie Ongan RTC, Br. 104, Quezon City RTC, Br. 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino Atty. Kathleen Sala Aseron Atty. Christina Aradanas Parubrub-Yere RTC, Br. 86, Quezon City RTC, Br. 35, Santiago City, Isabela Atty. Ricardo Yao Atanacio, Jr. RTC, Br. 138, Makati City REGION III Atty. Laurice Marie Angela Tan Austria Atty. Alejandro Ducusin RTC, Br. 134, Makati City RTC, Br. 88, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija Atty. Jerilee Reña Carreon-Balat Atty. Chona Tungol Guiao RTC, Br. 92, Quezon City RTC, OCC, Macabebe, Pampanga Atty. Beverly Elvy B. De Mesa Atty. Claryl-Anne D. Laminato-Fernandez RTC, Br. 215, Quezon City RTC, Br. 39, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija Atty. Jennifer Verzosa Domingo Atty. Jenny Vi T. Laygo RTC, Br. 199, Las Piñas City RTC, Br. 2, Balanga, Bataan Atty. Neil Hector Tabay Duenas Atty. Maricon E. Medina RTC, Br. 137, Makati City RTC, Br. 60, Angeles City, Pampanga Atty. Ana Maria Verga Francisco REGION IV RTC, OCC, Pasay City Atty. Gil Matthew B. Cabanting Atty. Xavier Elbert V. Gordula RTC, Br. 54, Lucena City, Quezon RTC, Br. 9, Manila Atty. Rafael Badillo Familaran Atty. Katherine Joy P. La Rosa-Millares RTC, Br. 82, Odiongan, Romblon RTC, Br. 132, Makati City Atty. Warren Wesley Mogol Malalad Atty. Alvin Catacutan Lobo RTC, Br. 41, Pinamalayan, Mindoro Oriental RTC, Br. 212, Mandaluyong City Atty. Charlene Clara Gabiana Mendoza Atty. Karen Marjorie Babas Marquez RTC, Br. 84, Batangas City, Batangas RTC, Br. 68, Pasig City Atty. Arturo Sunga Oliva, Jr. Atty. Carlo Emmanuel Dizon Ong RTC, Br. 2, Batangas City, Batangas RTC, Br. 84, Quezon City Atty. Divina Lea Alcantara Perdiguerra-Muñoz Atty. Noel Rangel Roque RTC, Br. 3, Batangas City, Batangas RTC, Br. 2, Manila Atty. Sonia Philipa M. Ricablanca-Pargas Atty. Maureen Grace Olar Sandrino RTC, Br. 8, Batangas City, Batangas RTC, Br. 125, Caloocan City Atty. Sheldon Melanio Selga Singson REGION V RTC, Br. 168, Marikina City Atty. Nardito Montenegro Badiola, Jr. Atty. Isidoro Llapitan Soriano, Jr. RTC, Br. 58, San Jose (Tigaon), Camarines Sur RTC, Br. 70, Pasig City Atty. Fiel Valencia Bagalacsa-Abad Atty. Stephanie Michelle Chua Tan RTC, Br. 61, Naga City, Camarines Sur RTC, Br. 88, Quezon City Atty. Maria Janice Borlagdan Caño-Coderis Atty. Nicolito Jesus Molina Alim RTC, Br. 17, Tabaco City, Albay RTC, Br. 129, Caloocan City Atty. May Mirabel Macasinag-Redoblado RTC, OCC, Legazpi City, Albay REGION I Atty. Ginalyn Readoras Marcaida Atty. Carla N. Andes RTC, Br. 24, Naga City, Camarines Sur RTC, OCC, Lingayen, Pangasinan Atty. Bernalyn Aquino Duyan METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS RTC, Br. 41, Dagupan City, Pangasinan NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION Atty. Mary Jane Tabacla Bomowey-Salupen Atty. Grace Gutierrez Beltran RTC, Br. 29, San Fernando City, La Union MeTC, Br. 63, Makati City Atty. Jade Racho Razote Atty. Reymond Castañeda Blanco RTC, OCC, Alaminos City, Pangasinan MeTC, Br. 42, Quezon City Atty. Jovina Gomez Quitoriano-Labiano Atty. Laureana Caunan Buenaventura RTC, Br. 32, Agoo, La Union MeTC, Br. 89, Parañaque City Atty. Russell De Mesa Sabado Atty. Nathaniel Gancenia Cacapit RTC, OCC, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan MeTC, OCC, Mandaluyong City VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 9

Atty. Brenda Grande Dela Cruz-Beltran Ms. Mirasol Villanueva Sanchez MeTC, Br. 85, Caloocan City MTC, Kawit, Cavite Atty. Primitiva Gabriel Ellorando Ms. Milagros San Diego Crisologo MeTC, Br. 84, Caloocan City MTC, Cardona, Rizal Atty. Fernando S. Igaya REGION V MeTC, Br. 83, Caloocan City Ms. Ireneo Ricardo D. Aytona, Jr. Atty. Ma. Sonia B. Inserto MTC, Mercedes, Camarines Norte MeTC, Mandaluyong City Ms. Chito Boribor Pacao Atty. Danilo San Pedro Loja MTC, Daet, Camarines Norte MeTC, Br. 86, Caloocan City Atty. Ronald Ofalla Santiago MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS MeTC, OCC, Pasig City REGION I Atty. Patricia C. Villaruel Ms. Cecilia Umandam Aclayan MeTC, Br. 26, Manila 3rd MCTC: Besao-Sagada, Mt. Province MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES REGION II REGION III Ms. Myrna M. Buscaino Ms. Ma. Theresa Villanueva Antes 11th MCTC: Gamu-Burgos, Isabela MTCC, OCC, Olongapo City, Zambales Ms. Erlinda G. Camilo Ms. Froctosa Idos Ceñidoza 4th MCTC: Lagawe-Hingyon, Ifugao MTCC, Br. 2, San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan Mr. Roger Totto Concha, Jr. Mr. Marco Roperez Gulinao 2nd MCTC: Cabagan-Sto. Tomas, Isabela MTCC, Br. 1, San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan Atty. Orlando Belen Javier 4th MCTC: Gonzaga-Sta. Teresita, Cagayan REGION IV Ms. Penafrancia Pasion Alicum REGION III MTCC, OCC, Antipolo City, Rizal Ms. Wilfredo Sese Pangan Mr. Rufo Balani Mendoza 6th MCTC: Mabalacat-Magalang, Pampanga MTCC, Tagaytay City, Cavite Mr. Kim Adrian P. Yanga 3rd MCTC: Baler-San Luis, Aurora REGION V Ms. Rosa B. Calisin REGION IV MTCC, Legazpi City, Albay Ms. Gracilia D. Abes Mr. Antonio Remondavia Mangampo 3rd MCTC: EI Nido-Gaudencio E. Abordo, Palawan MTCC, OCC, Legazpi City, Albay Ms. Anna Liza Cruz Atangan 4th MCTC: Alfonso-Gen. Aguinaldo, Cavite MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS Ms. Lillian Reyes Modesto REGION I 1st MCTC: Maragondon-Ternate-Magallanes, Cavite Ms. Analiza Corilla Barretto Ms. Evelyn Biscocho Nohay MTC, Bani, Pangasinan 7th MCTC: Taal-San Nicolas, Batangas

REGION III REGION V Ms. Angelina Tanjuan Azan Ms. Narissa Camara Balce MTC, Hagonoy, Bulacan 2nd MCTC: San Lorenzo Ruiz-Imelda-San Vicente, Camarines Norte Ms. Fatima Manuel Manuel Ms. Cecilia Mercedes Gerona Ceriola MTC, Lubao, Pampanga 2nd MCTC: Bacacay-Malilipot, Albay Mr. Julius Gardi Jacinto Mojado Ms. Marilyn Orendain Mayhay MTC, Obando, Bulacan 3rd MCTC: Libmanan-Cabusao, Camarines Sur Ms. Ma. Asuncion San Jose Samonte Ms. Agnes Vargas Vega MTC, Guiguinto, Bulacan 3rd MCTC: Panganiban-Viga-Bagamanoc, Catanduanes

EGION R IV rd Ms. Anastacia Balmes Alcantara 3 Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed MTC, Ibaan, Batangas Sheriffs and Process Servers Ms. Vivian Valenzuela Mendoza Date: March 4–6, 2014 MTC, Catanauan, Quezon Venue: Montebello Villa Hotel, Banilad, Cebu City Ms. Rosario Rodriguez Romen Participants: 47 newly appointed sheriffs and 34 newly MTC, Nasugbu, Batangas appointed process servers, namely: 10 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

A. SHERIFFS REGION X Mr. Darryl A. Asis REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS RTC, Br. 5, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte REGION VI Ms. Ellijah M. Virtudes Ms. Lourdes P. Belenio RTC, Br. 14, Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental RTC, Br. 26, Iloilo City, Iloilo REGION XI Mr. Ricardo B. Burgos Ms. Divinagracia B. Barcelona RTC, Br. 16, Roxas City, Capiz RTC, Br. 16, Davao City, Davao del Sur Mr. Carlo Magno L. Celeste Mr. Froilan E. Reyes RTC, OCC, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental RTC, Br. 34, Panabo, Davao del Norte Mr. Ralph John L. Dizon Mr. Harold J. Tolimao RTC, OCC, Iloilo City, Iloilo RTC, Br.26, Surallah, South Cotabato Ms. Diyesha C. Lacuesta RTC, Br. 32, Iloilo City, Iloilo REGION XII Mr. Al Holbert D. Lim Mr. Mamasabansayan H. Cuaro RTC, Br. 28, Iloilo City, Iloilo RTC, Br. 26, Wao, Lanao del Sur Ms. Melanie Z. Nanit Mr. Saidamen U. Mangotara RTC, OCC, Kalibo, Aklan RTC, OCC, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte Mr. Rhett T. Poyogao SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT RTC, Br. 43, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental REGION IX REGION VII Mr. Putchoy S. Ahamad Mr. X-Jay L. Magdale* SDC, Jolo, Sulu RTC, Br. 9, Cebu City, Cebu MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES REGION VIII Mr. Elfredo F. Abasolo REGION VI RTC, Br. 31, Calbayog City, Samar Mr. Romulo P. Daniel Mr. Jipson Abayon MTCC, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental RTC, Br. 17, Palompon, Leyte Mr. John C. Joseph Mr. Antonio L. Carlon MTCC, Br. 7, Iloilo City, Iloilo RTC, Br. 23, Allen, Northern Samar Mr. Wesley L. Morales Mr. Christian Gilbert M. Dado MTCC, Br. 6, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental RTC, Br. 42, Balangiga, Eastern Samar Mr. John Paul J. Tabladello Mr. Calixto G. Gutierrez MTCC, Br. 1, Iloilo City, Iloilo RTC, Br. 44, Tacloban City, Leyte Ms. Rodena Z. Vilches Mr. Rolando B. Lomuntad MTCC, Br. 7, Talisay City, Negros Occidental RTC, OCC, Borongan, Eastern Samar REGION VII Mr. Danilo B. Obediencia Mr. Alex M. Heyrosa RTC, Br. 43, Tacloban City, Leyte MTCC, OCC, Mandaue City, Cebu Mr. William DP. Olivo RTC, Br. 32, Calbayog City, Samar REGION VIII Mr. Danilo A. Ruiz Mr. Aldine M. Borac RTC, Br. 13, Carigara, Leyte MTCC, Borongan, Eastern Samar Mr. Mario A. Sabarillo Mr. Antonio Radie E. Ruedas RTC, Br. 5, Oras, Eastern Samar MTCC, Catbalogan City, Samar Mr. Cresencio H. Sanico REGION IX RTC, OCC, Catarman, Samar Mr. Lindo C. California REGION IX MTCC, Cabadbaran City, Agusan del Norte Mr. Jasper R. Cajocon REGION XI RTC, Br. 9, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte Ms. Shirley O. Alpha Mr. Glenn Mar B. Dadan MTCC, OCC, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur RTC, OCC, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte Ms. Jennifer V. Laolao Mr. Christopher Jess B. Parreño MTCC, Br. 6, Davao City, Davao del Sur RTC, Br. 12, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur Ms. Marriane D. Tuya MTCC, Koronadal City, South Cotabato * As observer. VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 11

REGION XII REGION XII Mr. Ryan B. Amanodin Ms. Jalaine D. Dumarpa MTCC, Br. 3, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte RTC, Br. 26, Wao, Lanao del Sur Mr. Jeremiah H. Dajao MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES MTCC, Br. 5, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte Ms. Goldamier Hassan Indardaya REGION VI MTCC, Br. 4, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte Mr. Evelio U. Varcas MTCC, Bago City, Negros Occidental MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT REGION VII REGION IX Mr. Joseph P. Lauron Mr. Guillermo C. Puerto MTCC, Br. 6, Cebu City, Cebu MTC, Br. 31, Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay Ms. Mabel D. Suan B. PROCESS SERVERS MTCC, Br. 8, Cebu City, Cebu Mr. Francis M. Tormis REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS MTCC, OCC, Cebu City, Cebu REGION VI Ms. Ma. Elizabeth G. Ysmael Ms. Pinky A. Ayalin MTCC, Toledo City, Cebu RTC, Br. 34, Iloilo City, Iloilo Ms. Victoria D. Dionglay REGION XII RTC, Br. 24, Iloilo City, Iloilo Ms. Jocelyn T. Iglupas Mr. Danny S. Gonzaga MTCC, OCC, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte RTC, Br. 62, Bago City, Negros Occidental Mr. Ruel L. Locasia MTCC, Br. 4, IIigan City, Lanao del Norte REGION VII Ms. Amerah M. Macadato Mr. Manuel V. Ubag MTCC, Br. 3, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte RTC, Br. 35, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental Mr. Javier T. Mamutuk REGION VIII MTCC, Br. 5, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte Mr. Santos B. Amac Ms. Myla Rosales** RTC, Br. 23, Guiuan, Eastern Samar MTCC, Br. 11, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte Mr. Greco O. Cabueños MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS RTC, Br. 33, Calbiga City, Samar Mr. Francisco S. Magnifico REGION X RTC, Br. 44, Tacloban City Mr. Earl J. Macalaguing Mr. Renaldo D. Paler MTC, Alubijid, Misamis Oriental RTC, Br. 26, San Juan, Sourthern Leyte MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS Mr. Adolfo P. Petilla, Jr. REGION VII RTC, Br. 43, Tacloban City, Leyte Mr. Gumersindo T. Olivar, Jr. REGION IX 5th MCTC: Zamboanguita-Dauin, Negros Oriental Mr. Decsan S. Tibudan Mr. Leartes S. Pono, Jr. RTC, Br. 20, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur 5th MCTC: Borbon-Tabogon, Cebu

REGION XI REGION IX Mr. Jose Felicisimo L. Ampig Ms. Aveguil Mae D. Abella RTC, OCC, Koronadal, South Cotabato 6th MCTC: San Miquel-Dinas-Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur Mr. Warren A. Garcia REGION X RTC, Br. 21, Bansalan, Davao del Sur Mr. Algosto R. Espejon Mr. Ares T. Mercader 8th MCTC: Del Carmen (Numancia)-San Isidro- RTC, Br. 25, Koronadal, South Cotabato San Benito, Surigao del Norte Mr. Alberto O. Ramos, Sr. Mr. John Kirth E. Ocampo RTC, Br. 17, Davao City, Davao del Sur 8th MCTC: Initao-Libertad, Misamis Oriental Mr. Jaime B. Sullano RTC, Br. 40, Tandag, Surigao del Sur REGION XII Mr. Alfredo J. Tayabas Mr. Melvin V. Tumampic RTC, Br. 16, Davao City, Davao del Sur 5th MCTC: Kolambugan-Tangcal, Lanao Del Norte

** As observer. 12 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

50. Maria Corazon R. Millares Pre-Judicature Program 51. Ma. Sophia P. Obieta-Palad 52. Maria Nenita A. Opiana 32nd Pre-Judicature Program 53. Janelyn S. Pua-ng 54. Mary Melanie H. Quiño Date: February 10–21, 2014 55. Charo V. Rejuso-Munsayac Venue: Traders Hotel, Pasay City 56. Ramon Antonio C. Sabinorio Participants: 70 lawyers, namely: 57. Gerardo A. Sadsad 1. Rommel A. Abragan 58. Karen Joy N. Salvador-Kalaw 2. Ma. Lenina C. Alisuag 59. Jennifer R. Santos 3. Eusebio Jose F. Alvina 60. Bernardine S. Santos 4. Jinky Y. Anarna 61. Lynell L. Sese 5. Noe T. Aquino 62. Ruben E. Sevillano, Jr. 6. Hirou Glenn A. Asuncion 63. Gil Jude F. Sta. Maria, Jr. 7. Katrina Catherine P. Atienza-Dato 64. Ma. Excelsis R. Surell 8. Regalado A. Ballares, Jr. 65. Roderick B. Tagnia 9. Wilfredo B. Barreda 66. Mario Pocholo M. Telan 10. Misael Domingo C. Battung III 67. Anna Leah Y. Tiongson-Mendoza 11. Ruth B. Bawayan 68. Edwin C. Torres 12. Ruth P. Bernabe 69. Martin Felix Francisco T. Tuanquin 13. June Ann Q. Bernal 70. Renato John B. Vasquez, Jr. 14. Jose Ronald M. Bersales 15. Mary Jane T. Bomowey-Salupen 16. Erriza Dawn C. Bucu-Narciso Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP) 17. Marilex Lazaro Cabading 18. Karen S. Canullas-Armada JCEP for RTC Judges of Region X 19. Angelo Ferdinand R. Carig 20. Maria Celina S. Carungay-Sevillano Date: March 19–21, 2014 21. Reynaldo P. Cruz Venue: Sedia Centrio Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City 22. Michael I. Danganan Participants: 31 RTC judges 23. Mary Evangeline A. De Los Santos 24. Donna Cher A. Dela Cruz 25. Jacinto M. Dela Cruz, Jr. Special Focus Programs 26. Gidget Rose V. Duque 27. Honorio C. Ebora, Jr. Seminar-Workshop on the Apostille Convention 28. Jorge B. Espinal 29. Marie Bernadette J. Espinosa Date: January 30, 2014 30. Rysty Ann C. Espinosa-Borja Venue: Bro. Andrew Gonzales Bldg., De La Salle University– 31. Flordeliza D. Dela Cruz-Evangelista College of Law, Manila (Main Site) and En Banc Session Hall, 32. Fe D. Fernandez Supreme Court (Remote Site) 33. Erma Joyce J. Foronda-Remudaro Participants: Main Site – 106 RTC and MeTC executive judges; 34. Rogelio G. Francisco SC officials and court attorneys; and DFA lawyers 35. Josefina C. Fria Remote Site – 76 SC and CA officials and court attorneys 36. Omar T. Gabrieles 37. Maria Lourdes Gutierrez First Judiciary Budget Conference 38. Sylvia M.Inciso-Butial Date: February 6–8, 2014 39. Jose R. Jimenez Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City 40. Katherine Joy P. La Rosa-Millares Participants: 114 selected Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, 41. Rachelle D. Likwong-Anos Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals officials and court 42. Flocerfina E. Lloren personnel; Executive Judges of multiple and single sala courts 43. Jema Sharae J. Macaraya nationwide; and clerks of court of multiple sala courts 44. Helen C. Magampon-Maberit 45. Carolyn A. Malicdem Information Dissemination through a Dialogue between 46. Maribel F. Mariano-Beltran Barangay Officials of the City of Mandaluyong and Court 47. Maria Rosario M. Marte-Rediang Officials 48. Zosimo DG Mendoza, Jr. 49. Ma. Peaches C. Mesina-Cruz Date: February 14, 2014 VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 13

Venue: Kaban ng Hiyas Auditorium, Kaban ng Hiyas Building, Date: March 5–7, 2014 Maysilo Circle, Boni Avenue, Mandaluyong City Venue: Manila Hotel, City of Manila Participants: 191 barangay officials and staff from RTC-OCC Participants: 417 women justices and judges and DILG Mandaluyong 9th National Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Seminar on the Rules of Procedure on Financial Association of Court Social Workers, Inc. (PACSWI) Rehabilitation Theme: The Vital Role of the Social Workers in Responding Court of Appeals Justices Cebu City Station and Special to the Current Social Challenges in the Judicial System Commercial Court Judges of Regions VI, VII, VIII, and Date: March 5–7, 2014 Other Stakeholders Venue: The Legend Palawan Hotel, Puerto Princesa, Palawan City Date: February 19, 2014 Participants: 124 court social workers Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu City Participants: 45 CA-Cebu justices, RTC judges, and IBP lawyers On ADR/Mediation/JDR Court of Appeals Justices Cagayan de Oro City Station and Special Commercial Court Judges of Regions IX, X, Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on XI, XII, and Other Stakeholders Court-Annexed Mediation Date: March 13, 2014 Bukidnon Mediation Program Venue: Pryze Plaza Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City Date: January 28, 2014 Participants: 51 CA-CDO justices, RTC judges, IBP lawyers, Venue: Pine Hills Hotel, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon and observers Participants: 69 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges, clerks of court, representatives from NPS, PAO, IBP, LGU, NGOs, Seminar-Workshop on Substantive Laws and business, academe, media and civil society Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property for Special Commercial Court Judges of Regions VI, VII, VIII, and Zamboanga del Norte Mediation Program Date: January 30, 2014 Selected Attorneys of Court of Appeals Cebu City Station Venue: D’ Hotel and Suites, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte Date: February 20–21, 2014 Participants: 75 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges, clerks of Venue: Diamond Suites Hotel, Cebu City court, representatives from NPS, PAO, IBP, LGU, business, Participants: 37 RTC judges and selected CA-Cebu court academe, media and civil society attorneys Faculty Workshop and Judicial Settlement Conference for Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws and Rules Relating to Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-based Course) Money Laundering and Other Financial Crimes for Judges Date: February 11–14, 2014 Region VII Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Date: February 27–28, 2014 Participants: 51 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu City Date: March 18–21, 2014 Participants: 36 RTC judges Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Region V Participants: 56 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges Date: March 19–20, 2014 Venue: Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga City Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators Participants: 36 RTC judges Bataan, Zambales, and Pampanga Mediation Programs Date: February 13–14, 2014 Personal Security Training for Judges of Region I Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Date: March 18–20, 2014 Participants: 30 mediators Venue: Hotel Veniz, Baguio City Iligan, Ozamiz, Marawi, and Cagayan de Oro City Mediation Participants: 43 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC Judges Programs Date: March 4–5, 2014 Convention-Seminar Venue: Pryce Plaza Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City Participants: 27 mediators 19th National Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Leyte, Cebu, and Zamboanga City Mediation Programs Women Judges Association Date: March 6–7, 2014 Theme: Women Judges: Keeping Up with Information Venue: Hotel Fortuna, Cebu City Technology and Issues in International Law Participants: 40 mediators 14 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators and Judicial Moves PMC Unit Staff Bukidnon Mediation Program Date: February 26–27, 2014 Venue: Hall of Justice, Valencia City and Hall of Justice, Hon. MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH Malaybalay City Associate Justice Participants: 78 mediators and staff applicants Court of Appeals appointed on March 13, 2014 Zamboanga del Norte Mediation Program Date: March 20, 2014 Venue: Hall of Justice, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte Justice Singh holds a Master of Laws degree from the Participants: 14 mediators and staff applicants Washington College of Law of the American University in Washington, D.C.; a Juris Doctor degree from the Ateneo Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court de Manila University School of Law, second honors; and on Judicial Dispute Resolution a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English, major in Imaginative Date: March 13, 2014 Writing, cum laude, from the University of the Philippines Venue: Seorabeol Grand Leisure Hotel, Subic Bay Free Port Justice Singh practiced law for 10 years before Zone, Olongapo City joining the judiciary in October 2002 as Presiding Judge Participants: 57 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC clerks and of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch branch clerks of court 31; and thereafter served for two terms as Executive Judge of the MeTC, Quezon City. She was selected as Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, and Representative of all First Level Courts to the Board of Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute Resolution Trustees of the Philippine Judicial Academy until her Date: March 13, 2014 promotion in June 2007 as Presiding Judge of Branch 85, Venue: Seorabeol Grand Leisure Hotel, Subic Bay Free Port Regional Trial Court, Quezon City. By that time, Justice Zone, Olongapo City Singh had reduced her docket from 4,500 to 892 active Participants: 74 prosecutors, public attorneys, and IBP/law cases. She received the Don Antonio Madrigal Award as practitioners Most Outstanding First Level Court Judge of 2007 by the Society for Judicial Excellence of the Supreme Court. On Basic Mediation Course (Bukidnon Mediation Program) March 13, 2014, she was appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. Date: March 25–28, 2014 Venue: Pine Hills Hotel, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon Justice Singh was a Hubert Humphrey Fellow on Court Participants: 41 mediation trainees Management and Judicial Education of the United States Department of State from August 2009 to June 2010. She Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, worked with the World Bank’s Institutional Reform Sector on judicial reform projects in Europe and Central Asia. Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation She became the first Philippine Judicial Fellow at the Trainees, and PMCU Staff (Bukidnon Mediation Program) Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C. Date: March 28, 2014 Justice Singh is a member of the Corps of Professors Venue: Pine Hills Hotel, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon of the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Faculty of Participants: 62 RTC and MCTC judges, clerks/branch clerks Law at the Ateneo de Manila University. In October 2009, of court, mediation trainees, and PMCU staff she presented a paper on Court and Case Management in Sydney, Australia, upon the invitation of the Linkages International Organization for Judicial Training. She produced a Toolkit for Philippine Trial Judges, and wrote a paper on Enforcement of Ethical Standards. She has Courtesy Call and Signing Ceremony of the Deed of served on Supreme Court Committees, including the Donation of Anatomically Correct Dolls Technical Working Group for Small Claims Court Project, Date: January 16, 2014 the Quezon City Trial Courts Automation Project, the Venue: Dignitaries’ Lounge, New Supreme Court Building, Committee to Address Case Congestion and Delay, and Manila the Records Disposal Project for Pilot Courts. She is Participants: 20 guests from the Consuelo Zobel Alger also an active lecturer on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Foundation Education (MCLE) circuit for lawyers. VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 15

Judicial Moves

Hon. PABLITO A. PEREZ Hon. RAFAEL ANTONIO M. SANTOS Associate Justice Associate Justice Court of Appeals Court of Appeals appointed on March 13, 2014 appointed on March 13, 2014

Justice Pablito A. Perez was appointed to the Court of Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos obtained his Bachelor Appeals on March 13, 2014, after being law professor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering from the and dean, private practitioner, general counsel, and University of the Philippines and his Bachelor of Laws head of a corporate law department for over 30 years. degree from the UP College of Law in 1988. Ranking He holds a Master of Laws Degree from the University eighth in his graduating class, he was awarded the Dean’s of Pennsylvania; an A.B. degree in Philosophy from the Medal for academic achievement and became a Ateneo de Manila University, cum laude, and his member of the Order of the Purple Feather, the Honor Bachelor of Laws degree from San Beda College, Society of the UP College of Law. valedictorian. He ranked 14th in the 1983 Bar Justice Santos practiced law for more than 20 years, Examination. mostly with the CVC Law firm (formerly Carpio Villaraza At age 19, immediately after graduation, he taught and Cruz) where he rose from Junior Associate to Senior Philosophy at the Ateneo de Manila and Media Law to Partner and head of its Litigation Department. Asia-Pacific journalists pursuing a master’s degree at Prior to joining the Court of Appeals, Justice Santos the Ateneo Graduate School of Journalism. He served the Executive Branch of Government as Senior presented papers on media law at international Undersecretary in charge of operations of three major conferences in Asia, sponsored by the Konrad Adenauer Departments: the Department of the Interior and Local Asian Center for Journalism. Government (November 2012–March 2014), the For 20 years, Justice Perez was a professor of Department of Transportation and Communications (July various law subjects at the San Beda College of Law 2011–November 2012), and the Department of National where he also served as Vice Dean for six years. Defense (November 2004–November 2006). Justice Santos was also appointed as Acting Secretary of the After serving as attorney at ACCRA Law, he joined DOTC in October 2012 during the transition between the late Senator Raul S. Roco’s law firm in 1986, where the appointments of Secretary Manuel A. Roxas II and he rose to become Co-Managing/Partner in Charge of Secretary Joseph Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya. Finance and Head of the Litigation and Labor Department. Prior to his appointment to the Court of While in private practice, Justice Santos was an Appeals, Justice Perez served as General Counsel of the active member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Filinvest Group of Companies and as Corporate He served the IBP Rizal Chapter as vice president (2010– Secretary and Compliance Officer in two publicly listed July 2011; 2002–2004) and director (2008–2010 and companies. 2000–2002). He also served as an officer of the IBP National Office as General Counsel (2001–2003) and as Justice Perez is married to Arbel O. Morales, with a Commissioner on Bar Discipline (2003–2004). whom he has three children — Johann Paulo, Fatima Anne, and Reginald. He was born on January 15, 1957, A native of San Fernando, Pampanga, Justice Santos to the late Peregrino D. Perez and Lydia R. Alhambra of is married to Marie Therese M. Granada-Santos. They San Pablo City, Laguna. have three children: Paolo Niccolo, Jose Antonio Rafael, and Gabrielle Angela. 16 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

the corporate powers of the LGU, and whether it was passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law), and the substantive (i.e., involving inherent merit, like the conformity of the ordinance with the limitations Civil Law under the Constitution and the statutes, as well as with the requirements of fairness and reason, and its consistency Certiorari under Rule 65 remedy versus decisions in with public policy). small claims cases. Bersamin, J., Valentino L. Legaspi v. City of Cebu, T.C. (TITO) Sayson and Ricardo Hapitan, G.R. No. 159110 and Bienvenido P. Jaban, Sr., and Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases Bienvenido Douglas Luke Bradbury Jaban v. Court of Appeals, City of states that: Cebu, City Mayor Alvin Garcia, Sangguniang Panlunsod of City of Cebu, Hon. Renato V. Osmeña, as Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang SEC. 23. Decision. – After the hearing, the court shall Panlunsod, and CITOM Chairman Alan Gaviola, as CITOM Chief, CITOM render its decision on the same day, based on the Traffic Enforcer E.A. Romero, and Lito Gilbuena, G.R. No. 159692, December 10, 2013. facts established by the evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases Criminal Law and a copy thereof forthwith served on the parties. Determination of probable cause. The decision shall be final and unappealable. The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on Considering the final nature of a small claims case evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has decision under the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal been committed and there is enough reason to believe is not allowed, and the prevailing party may, thus, that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based immediately move for its execution. Nevertheless, the on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. What is proceedings where appeal is not an available remedy, does merely required is “probability of guilt.” Its determination, not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for too, does not call for the application of rules or standards certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial Perlas-Bernabe, J., A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Emma Mondejar, on the merits. Thus, in concluding that there is probable accompanied by her husband, Efren Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804, cause, it suffices that it is believed that the act or omission January 22, 2014. complained of constitutes the very offense charged. It is also important to stress that the determination of probable cause does not depend on the validity or merits of a party’s accusation or defense, or on the admissibility or veracity of testimonies presented. As previously Political Law discussed, these matters are better ventilated during the trial proper of the case. As held in Metropolitan Bank & Tests for a valid ordinance. Trust Company v. Gonzales: In City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., the Court restated the tests Probable cause has been defined as the existence of a valid ordinance thusly: of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the A long line of decisions has held that for an person charged was guilty of the crime for which ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within he was prosecuted. x x x The term does not mean the corporate powers of the local government unit “actual or positive cause” nor does it import to enact and must be passed according to the absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable to the following substantive requirements: (1) must cause does not require an inquiry into whether not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be It is enough that it is believed that the act or partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but omission complained of constitutes the offense may regulate trade; (5) must be general and charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be of evidence of the prosecution in support of the unreasonable. charge. As jurisprudence indicates, the tests are divided into Brion, J., Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Michael Tan a.k.a. Paul D. Tan, the formal (i.e., whether the ordinance was enacted within G.R. No. 179367, January 29, 2014. VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 17

Remedial Law

Rules on legal standing. A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC The rules regarding legal standing in bringing public suits, GUIDELINES FOR DECONGESTING HOLDING JAILS BY or locus standi, are already well-defined in our case law. ENFORCING THE RIGHTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS TO BAIL We cite David, which summarizes jurisprudence on this AND TO SPEEDY TRIAL point: WHEREAS, the Constitution provides in Section 13, Article By way of summary, the following rules may be III, that all persons, except those charged with offenses culled from the cases decided by this Court. punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and strong, shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient legislators may be accorded standing to sue, sureties or released on recognizance as the law may provided that the following requirements are met: provide and further, that excessive bail shall not be required; (1) The cases involve constitutional issues; WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has allowed the summary (2) For taxpayers , there must be a claim of illegal hearing of applications for bail of persons charged with disbursement of public funds or that the tax offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life measure is unconstitutional; imprisonment; (3) For voters, there must be a showing of obvious WHEREAS, there is a need to effectively implement existing interest in the validity of the election law in policies laid down by the Constitution, the laws and the question; rules respecting the accused’s rights to bail and to speedy (4) For concerned citizens, there must be a showing trial in the context of decongesting our detention jails and that the issues raised are of transcendental humanizing the conditions of detained persons pending the importance which must be settled early; and hearing of their cases; (5) For legislators , there must be a claim that the WHEREAS, the Supreme Court Committee for the official action complained of infringes upon Decongestion of Provincial, City, and Municipal Jails has their prerogatives as legislators. recommended for the adoption of guidelines for We rule that the instant petition raises issues of decongesting holding jails by enforcing the rights of accused transcendental importance, involved as they are with the persons to bail and to speedy trial; and performance of a constitutional duty, allegedly neglected, WHEREAS, the Supreme Court En Banc, finds merit in the by the COA. Hence, We hold that the petitioner, as a recommendation; concerned citizen, has the requisite legal standing to file the instant mandamus petition. NOW, THEREFORE, all trial courts, public prosecutors, public attorneys, private practitioners, and other persons involved To be sure, petitioner does not need to make any prior in protecting and ensuring the grant to the accused of his demand on the MECO or the COA in order to maintain the rights to bail and to speedy trial are enjoined as follows: instant petition. The duty of the COA sought to be compelled by mandamus, emanates from the Constitution and law, A. THE RIGHT TO BAIL which explicitly require, or “demand,” that it perform the SEC. 1. Duty of the court to fix the appropriate bail. said duty. To the mind of this Court, petitioner already established his cause of action against the COA when a. The court shall, after finding sufficient cause to hold he alleged that the COA had neglected its duty in the accused for trial, fix the amount of bail that the violation of the Constitution and the law. latter may post for his provisional release, taking into account the public prosecutor’s recommendation and Perez, J., Dennis A.B. Funa v. Manila Economic and Cultural Office and any relevant data that the court may find from the the Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 193462, February 4, 2014. criminal information and the supporting documents submitted with it, regarding the following: 1. Financial ability of the accused to give bail; 2. Nature and circumstances of the offense; 3. Penalty for the offense charged;

(Next page) 18 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (continued) b. At the hearing of the accused’s motion for bail, the prosecution shall present its witnesses with the option 4. Character and reputation of the accused; of examining them on direct or adopting the affidavits 5. Age and health of the accused; they executed during the preliminary investigation as their direct testimonies. 6. Weight of the evidence against the accused; c. The court shall examine the witnesses on their direct 7. Probability of the accused appearing in trial; testimonies or affidavits to ascertain if the evidence of 8. Forfeiture of other bonds; guilt of the accused is strong. The court’s questions 9. Fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when need not follow any particular order and may shift from arrested; and one witness to another. The court shall then allow counsels from both sides to examine the witnesses as 10. Pendency of cases in which the accused is under well. The court shall afterwards hear the oral bond. arguments of the parties on whether or not the The Department of Justice’s Bail Bond Guide shall be evidence of guilt is strong. considered but shall not be controlling. In no case shall the d. Within 48 hours after hearing, the court shall issue an court require excessive bail. order containing a brief summary of the evidence SEC. 2. Fixing of the amount of bail. – Pending the raffle of adduced before it, followed by its conclusion of whether the case to a regular branch of the court, the accused may or not the evidence of guilt is strong. Such conclusion move for the fixing of the amount of bail, in which event, shall not be regarded as a pre-judgment on the merits the Executive Judge shall cause the immediate raffle of the of the case that is to be determined only after a full- case for assignment and the hearing of the motion. blown trial.

SEC. 3. When amount of bail may be reduced. – If the SEC. 7. Frivolous complaints against judges. – A party or a accused does not have the financial ability to post the lawyer who is guilty of filing a frivolous administrative amount of bail that the court initially fixed, he may move complaint or a petition for inhibition against a judge arising for its reduction, submitting for that purpose such from the latter’s action on the application for bail may be documents or affidavits as may warrant the reduction he appropriately sanctioned. seeks. The hearing of this motion shall enjoy priority in the B. THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL hearing of cases. SEC. 8. Observance of time limits. – It shall be the duty of SEC. 4. Order fixing the amount of bail inappealable. – The the trial court, the public or private prosecutor, and the order fixing the amount of the bail shall not be subject to defense counsel to ensure, subject to the excluded delays appeal. specified in Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and the Speedy SEC. 5. Release after service of minimum imposable penalty. Trial Act of 1998, compliance with the following time limits The accused who has been detained for a period at least in the prosecution of the case against a detained accused: equal to the minimum of the penalty for the offense a. The case of the accused shall be raffled and referred to charged against him shall be ordered released, motu the trial court to which it is assigned within three days proprio or on motion and after notice and hearing, on his from the filing of the information; own recognizance without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him. [Sec. 16, Rule 114 of the b. The court shall arraign the accused within 10 days from Rules of Court and Sec. 5(b) of RA No. 10389] the date of the raffle;

SEC. 6. Bail in offenses punishable by death, reclusion c. The court shall hold the pre-trial conference within 30 perpetua or life imprisonment. days after arraignment or within 10 days if the accused is under preventive detention; provided, however, that a. The hearing of the accused’s motion for bail in offenses where the direct testimonies of the witnesses are to punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life be presented through judicial affidavits, the court shall imprisonment shall be summary, with the prosecution give the prosecution not more than 20 days from bearing the burden of showing that the evidence of arraignment within which to prepare and submit their guilt is strong. The accused may at his option, if he judicial affidavits in time for the pre-trial conference; wants the court to consider his evidence as well, submit in support of his motion the affidavits of his d. After the pre-trial conference, the court shall set the witnesses attesting to his innocence. trial of the case in the pre-trial order not later than 30 days from the termination of the pre-trial conference; and VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 19

A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (continued) SEC. 12. Proof of service of notice of hearing or subpoena. To ascertain the proper service of notice of hearing or e. The court shall terminate the regular trial within 180 subpoena: days, or the trial by judicial affidavits within 60 days, a. The public prosecutor shall, during inquest or reckoned from the date trial begins, minus the preliminary investigation, require the complainant and excluded delays or postponements specified in Rule his witnesses and, in proper cases, the police officers 119 of the Rules of Court and the Speedy Trial Act of who witnessed the commission of the crime subject of 1998. the investigation, to leave with him their postal and e- SEC. 9. Dismissal on ground of denial of the right to speedy mail addresses and mobile phone numbers for use in trial. – The case against the detained accused may be summoning them when they need to appear at the dismissed on ground of denial of the right to speedy trial in hearings of the case. the event of failure to observe the above time limits. b. When requesting the court to issue a subpoena or SEC. 10. Provisional dismissal. subpoena duces tecum for their witnesses, the parties shall provide the court with the postal and e-mail a. When the delays are due to the absence of an essential addresses and mobile phone numbers of such witness whose whereabouts are unknown or cannot witnesses. be determined and, therefore, are subject to exclusion in determining compliance with the prescribed time c. The service of notice of hearing or subpoena at the limits which caused the trial to exceed 180 days, the postal address, e-mail address, or through mobile court shall provisionally dismiss the action with the phone number shall be proved by any of the following: express consent of the detained accused. 1. an officer’s return or affidavit of service if done by b. When the delays are due to the absence of an essential personal service, or by registry return card; witness whose presence cannot be obtained by due 2. printouts of sent e-mail and the acknowledgment diligence though his whereabouts are known, the by the recipient; court shall provisionally dismiss the action with the express consent of the detained accused provided: 3. printouts of electronic messages transmitted through the court’s equipment or device and the 1. the hearing in the case has been previously twice acknowledgment by the recipient; or postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness and both the witness and the 4. reports of phone calls made by the court. offended party, if they are two different persons, d. The postal and e-mail addresses as well as the mobile have been given notice of the setting of the case phone numbers supplied by the parties and their for third hearing, which notice contains a warning witnesses incident to court cases shall be regarded as that the case would be dismissed if the essential part of the judicial processes in those cases. witness continues to be absent; and Consequently, any person who uses the same without 2. there is proof of service of the pertinent notices of proper authority or for purposes other than sending of hearings or subpoenas upon the essential witness court notices shall be deemed guilty of indirect and the offended party at their last known postal contempt and accordingly punished. or e-mail addresses or mobile phone numbers. e. In cases of police officers whose testimonies are c. For the above purpose, the public or private prosecutor essential to the prosecution of the case, service of the shall first present during the trial the essential witness notice of hearing or subpoena on them shall be made or witnesses to the case before anyone else. An through the police unit responsible for the arrest and essential witness is one whose testimony dwells on the prosecution of the accused, copy furnished the presence of some or all of the elements of the crime Personnel Department of the Philippine National and whose testimony is indispensable to the conviction Police. It shall be the responsibility of the head of that of the accused. police unit to ensure the transmission of the notice or subpoena to the addressee. Service upon the police SEC. 11. Service of subpoena and notices through electronic unit shall be deemed service upon such police officers. mail or mobile phones. – Subpoena and notices may be served by the court to parties and witnesses through f. The court shall cause the service of a copy of the order electronic mails (e-mail) or through mobile phone either of provisional dismissal upon the offended party in the through phone calls or through short messaging service manner provided above. (SMS). (Next page) 20 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (continued) and other copy kept by the jail warden which copy shall be brought with the accused at the hearing. The SEC. 13. Report of government expert witnesses. – A branch clerk of court shall update the two copies of certified copy of the report of a government medical, the notebook at every hearing by stating what action chemical, or laboratory expert relating to a criminal case the court has taken in it, the next scheduled hearing, shall be admissible as prima facie evidence of the truth of and what action the court will further take on the case. its contents. The personal appearance in court of a witness d. The Task Force shall have access to all case records and who prepared the report shall be unnecessary unless information relating to detained persons and shall demanded by the accused for the purpose of cross- advise the judges hearing their cases, when warranted, examination. of the need for them to act on any incident or situation that adversely affects the rights of detained persons SEC. 14. Revival of cases provisionally dismissed. – The one or two year period allowed for reviving a criminal case or subject them to undue or harsh treatment. that has been provisionally dismissed shall be reckoned from e. The Office of the Chief Justice shall exercise direct the issuance of the order of dismissal. The dismissal shall supervision over all such Task Forces. become automatically permanent if the case is not revived These guidelines shall take effect on May 1, 2014 after within the required period. Such permanent dismissal shall publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the amount to an adjudication of the case on the merits. Philippines and shall apply to all accused persons under SEC. 15. Local Task Force Katarungan at Kalayaan. preventive detention. a. The Court shall establish a Task Force Katarungan at Manila, Philippines, March 18, 2014. Kalayaan in appropriate places for the purpose of (Sgd.) SERENO, CJ, CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DE eliminating unnecessary detention. It shall be chaired CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, by a Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge, with a ABAD, VILLARAMA, Jr., PEREZ, MENDOZA, REYES, PERLAS- Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court Judge as vice BERNABE (on Official Leave), LEONEN, JJ. chairman, both to be appointed for a term of two years by the Executive Judge of the place. The city or provincial prosecutor of the place or his representative and the local head of the Public Attorney’s Office or his representative shall be members of the Task Force. Memorandum Order No. 05-2014 The assistance of the local Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and the Office of the Provincial Governor CREATING THE COMMITTEE ON YOLANDA-AFFECTED may be enlisted. AREAS (CYA) b. The Task Force shall track and keep a record of the WHEREAS, super typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) brought about progress of the criminal cases of all detained persons great destructioon and ruin when it struck Regions IV-A, IV- within their jurisdiction and ensure that such persons B, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, XI, and CARAGA on November 8, 2013; are accorded the rights and privileges provided by law, WHEREAS, the super typhoon affected a number of trial the rules, and these guidelines. courts in said regions in varying degrees, resulting in the c. Each court shall maintain a “Detainees Notebook,” that destruction of courthouses, records and equipment; shall be supplied free by the Office of the Court WHEREAS, there is a need to create a committee Administrator and shall contain (i) the full name of the composed of representatives from the different offices in accused; (ii) the docket number and title of the case; the Supreme Cout and the Office of the Court Administrator (iii) the kind of crime charged; (iv) the date his detention (OCA) to expeditiously address the concerns of these courts; began; (v) the date when his detention becomes equal to the minimum of the imposable penalty; (vi) the date NOW THEREFORE, in the interest of the service, a when his detention becomes equal to the maximum Committee on Yolanda-affected Areas (CYA) is hereby imposable penalty; (vii) the date of arraignment; (viii) created to be composed of the following: the date of pre-trial hearing or conference; (ix) the Chairperson: first day of trial; (x) the statutory last day of trial if no Hon. Jose Midas P. Marquez excluded delays or postponements are incurred; (xi) Court Administrator sufficient space for entering the progress of the hearing Vice Chairperson: of the case; and (xii) such other data as may be essential Atty. Ma. Carina M. Cunanan to the monitoring of his or her case. One copy of the Chair, Procurement Planning Committee notebook shall be attached to the record of the case (Continued on page 46) VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 21

Hon. Esteban A. Tacla, Jr. Vice Executive Judge Administrative Order No. 52-2014 Parañaque City Hon. Jaime M. Guray Executive Judge In the interest of an effective administration of justice and Hon. Rolando G. How Vice Executive Judge pursuant to the Resolution dated January 27, 2004 in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, the following trial court judges are hereby Las Piñas City DESIGNATED Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges Hon. Salvador V. Timbang, Jr. Executive Judge of their respective stations effective March 24, 2014 and Hon. Lorna N. Domingo Vice Executive Judge to continue until March 23, 2016, or until their successors Muntinlupa City are designated, unless their designations are sooner Hon. Juanita Tomas Guerrero Executive Judge revoked: Hon. Antonietta P. Medina Vice Executive Judge

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS Valenzuela City Hon. Maria Nena J. Santos Executive Judge NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION Hon. Nancy R. Palmones Vice Executive Judge Manila Hon. Marino M. Dela Cruz, Jr. Executive Judge FIRST JUDICIAL REGION st Hon. Reynaldo A. Alhambra 1 Vice Exec. Judge Abra nd Hon. Ma. Theresa Dolores 2 Vice Exec. Judge Bangued G. Estoesta Hon. Raphiel F. Alzate Executive Judge Hon. Thelma B. Medina 3rd Vice Exec. Judge Benguet Quezon City Baguio City Hon. Fernando T. Sagun, Jr. Executive Judge Hon. Mia Joy O. Cawed Executive Judge st Hon. Bernelito R. Fernandez 1 Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Edilberto T. Claravall Vice Executive Judge Hon. Cecilyn Burgos-Villavert 2nd Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Caridad W. Lutero 3rd Vice Exec. Judge La Trinidad Hon. Danilo P. Camacho Executive Judge Pasay City Hon. Jennifer P. Humiding Vice Executive Judge Hon. Racquelen Abary-Vasquez Executive Judge Hon. Caridad G. Cuerdo 1st Vice Exec. Judge Ilocos Norte Hon. Tingaraan U. Guiling 2nd Vice Exec. Judge Batac Caloocan City Hon. Isidoro T. Pobre Executive Judge Hon. Victoriano B. Cabanos Executive Judge Laoag City Hon. Ma. Teresa E. 1st Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Philip G. Salvador Executive Judge De Guzman-Alvarez Hon. Francisco Roberto D. Quilala Vice Executive Judge Hon. Glenda C. Marin 2nd Vice Exec. Judge Ilocos Sur Makati City Vigan City Hon. Selma P. Alaras Executive Judge Hon. Marita Bernales Balloguing Executive Judge Hon. Rico Sebastian D. Liwanag 1st Vice Exec. Judge Narvacan Hon. Carlito B. Calpatura 2nd Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Sixto D. Diompoc Executive Judge Hon. Elpidio R. Calis 3rd Vice Exec. Judge Candon City Pasig City Hon. Gabino B. Balbin, Jr. Executive Judge Hon. Danilo S. Cruz Executive Judge Hon. Maria Gracia C. Casaclang 1st Vice Exec. Judge La Union Hon. Lorifel L. Pahimna 2nd Vice Exec. Judge San Fernando City Hon. Jennifer A. Pilar 3rd Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Victor M. Viloria Executive Judge Malabon Hon. Alpino P. Florendo Vice Executive Judge Hon. Celso Raymundo L. Executive Judge Agoo Magsino, Jr. Hon. Romeo M. Atillo, Jr. Executive Judge Hon. Jimmy Edmund G. Batara Vice Executive Judge Bauang Marikina City Hon. Ferdinand A. Fe Executive Judge Hon. Geraldine Fiel Macaraig Executive Judge Mt. Province Hon. Anjanette De Leon Ortile Vice Executive Judge Bontoc Mandaluyong City Hon. Joseph A. Patnaan Executive Judge Hon. Monique Q. Ignacio Executive Judge (Next page) 22 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

A.O. No. 52-2014 (continued) Bataan Balanga City Hon. Angelito I. Balderama Executive Judge Pangasinan Hon. Remigio M. Escalada, Jr. Acting Vice Exec. Judge Lingayen Bulacan Hon. Emma P. Bauzon Executive Judge Hon. Maria Laarni R. Parayno Vice Executive Judge Malolos City Hon. Ma. Theresa M. Arcega Executive Judge Dagupan City Hon. Basilo R. Gabo, Jr. 1st Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Caridad V. Galvez Executive Judge Hon. Albert R. Fonacier 2nd Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Genoveva C. Maramba Vice Executive Judge Hon. Alexander P. Tamayo 3rd Vice Exec. Judge Urdaneta City Nueva Ecija Hon. Tita Rodriguez Villarin Executive Judge Cabanatuan City Hon. Elizabeth L. Berdal Vice Executive Judge Hon. Primo G. Sio, Jr. Executive Judge Tayug Hon. Johnmuel Romano Vice Executive Judge Hon. Emma I. Parajas Executive Judge Ritzardo D. Mendoza Alaminos City Guimba Hon. Elpidio N. Abella Executive Judge Hon. Ramon D. Pamular Executive Judge Hon. Brigado P. Saldivar Vice Executive Judge San Carlos City Hon. Hermogenes D. Fernandez Executive Judge Gapan City Hon. Cielitolindo A. Luyun Executive Judge SECOND JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Mildred V. Hernal Vice Executive Judge Cagayan Sto. Domingo Tuguegarao City Hon. Eleanor Teodora M. Vizcarra Executive Judge Hon. Vilma Tumaliuan Pauig Executive Judge Hon. Anarica C. Reyes Vice Executive Judge Hon. Raymond Reynold R. Lauigan Vice Executive Judge San Jose City Aparri Hon. Cynthia Martinez Florendo Executive Judge Hon. Oscar T. Zaldivar Executive Judge Pampanga Hon. Conrado T. Tabaco Vice Executive Judge City of San Fernando Isabela Hon. Divina Luz A. Simbulan Executive Judge Ilagan Hon. Maria Amifaith Fider-Reyes Vice Executive Judge Hon. Rodolfo B. Dizon Executive Judge Guagua Hon. Andrew U. Barcena Vice Executive Judge Hon. Jonel S. Mercado Executive Judge Cauayan City Hon. Maria Concepcion A. Yumang Vice Executive Judge Hon. Raul V. Babaran Executive Judge Macabebe Isabela Hon. Ma. Josephine M. Executive Judge Santiago City Rosario-Mercado Hon. Anastacio D. Anghad Executive Judge Angeles City Hon. Efren M. Cacatian Vice Executive Judge Hon. Omar T. Viola Executive Judge Nueva Vizcaya Hon. Irin Zenaida S. Buan Vice Executive Judge Bayombong Tarlac Hon. Fernando F. Flor, Jr. Executive Judge Tarlac City Bambang Hon. Maria Magdalena A. Executive Judge Hon. Jose Godofredo M. Naui Executive Judge Balderama Hon. Lily De Vera Vallo Vice Executive Judge Quirino Cabarroguis Zambales Hon. Eufren F. Changale Acting Executive Judge Iba Hon. Josefina D. Farrales Executive Judge THIRD JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Consuelo D. Bocar Vice Executive Judge Aurora Olongapo City Baler Hon. Richard A. Paradeza Executive Judge Hon. Maximo B. Ancheta, Jr. Executive Judge Hon. Raymond C. Viray Vice Executive Judge VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 23

A.O. No. 52-2014 (continued) Morong FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Gina F. Cenit-Escoto Executive Judge Hon. Sheila Marie A. Ignacio Vice Executive Judge Region IV-A Binangonan Batangas Hon. Dennis Patrick Z. Perez Executive Judge Batangas City Hon. Ma. Conchita L. De Mesa Vice Executive Judge Hon. Ruben A. Galvez Executive Judge Hon. Dorcas F. Perez Vice Executive Judge Region IV-B Tanuan City Mindoro Oriental Hon. Arcadio I. Manigbas Executive Judge Calapan City Hon. Tomas C. Leynes Executive Judge Balayan Hon. Cristino E. Judit Executive Judge Pinamalayan Hon. Carolina F. De Jesus-Suarez Vice Executive Judge Hon. Recto A. Calabocal Executive Judge Lipa City Mindoro Occidental Hon. Noel M. Lindog Executive Judge San Jose Hon. Danilo S. Sandoval Vice Executive Judge Hon. Gay Marie F. Lubigan-Rafael Executive Judge Cavite Marinduque Cavite City Boac Hon. Agapito S. Lu Executive Judge Hon. Antonina C. Magturo Executive Judge Hon. Manolito Y. Gumarang Vice Executive Judge Palawan Bacoor Puerto Princesa City Hon. Eduardo I. Tanguanco Executive Judge Hon. Jose Bayani J. Usman Executive Judge Hon. Angelo R. Arizala Vice Executive Judge Imus Hon. Norberto J. Quisumbing, Jr. Executive Judge FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION Laguna Albay Biñan Legazpi City Hon. Teodoro N. Solis Executive Judge Hon. Pedro R. Soriao Executive Judge Sta. Cruz Hon. Elmer M. Lanuzo Vice Executive Judge Hon. Cynthia M. Ricablanca Executive Judge Ligao City Hon. Iluminado M. De la Peña Vice Executive Judge Hon. Amy Ana De Villa Rosero Executive Judge San Pablo City Hon. Edwin R. Ma-alat Vice Executive Judge Hon. Agripino G. Morga Executive Judge Tabaco City Calamba City Hon. Alben C. Rabe Executive Judge Hon. Alberto F. Serrano Executive Judge Hon. Edwin R. Ma-alat Acting Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Maria Florencia F. Baculo Vice Executive Judge Camarines Sur San Pedro Naga City Hon. Sonia Y. Casano Executive Judge Hon. Valentin E. Pura, Jr. Executive Judge Hon. Pablo C. Formaran III Vice Executive Judge Quezon Lucena City Libmanan Hon. Dennis R. Pastrana Executive Judge Hon. Irma Isidora M. Executive Judge Hon. Rommel L. Villanueva Vice Executive Judge Boncodin-Zamudio Hon. Cecilia B. Soler Vice Executive Judge Gumaca Hon. Maria Chona Pulgar Navarro Executive Judge Pili Hon. Jose C. Sarcilla Executive Judge Rizal Antipolo City Camarines Sur Hon. Ronaldo B. Martin Executive Judge Iriga City Hon. Ruth C. Santos Vice Executive Judge Hon. Timoteo A. Panga, Jr. Executive Judge Hon. Manuel M. Rosales Vice Executive Judge San Mateo Hon. Josephine Zarate-Fernandez Executive Judge Hon. Lily V. Biton Vice Executive Judge (Next page) 24 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

A.O. No. 52-2014 (continued) San Carlos City Hon. Katherine A. Go Executive Judge

San Jose SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Ma. Angela Acompanado Executive Judge Bohol Arroyo Tagbilaran City Camarines Norte Hon. Suceso A. Arcamo Executive Judge Daet Hon. Leo M. Lison Vice Executive Judge Hon. Arniel A. Dating Executive Judge Cebu Hon. Roberto A. Escaro Vice Executive Judge Cebu City Catanduanes Hon. Soliver C. Peras Executive Judge Virac Hon. Wilfredo F. Navarro 1st Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Lelu P. Contreras Executive Judge Hon. Gilbert P. Moises 2nd Vice Exec. Judge Masbate Lapu-Lapu City Masbate City Hon. Toribio S. Quiwag Executive Judge Hon. Maximino R. Ables Executive Judge Mandaue City Hon. Nilo B. Barsaga Vice Executive Judge Hon. Teresita A. Galanida Executive Judge Sorsogon Talisay City Sorsogon City Hon. Glenda Ching-Go Acting Executive Judge Hon. Rofebar F. Gerona Executive Judge Hon. Flerida Z. Banzuela Vice Executive Judge Toledo City Hon. Hermes B. Montero Executive Judge SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION Negros Oriental Aklan Dumaguete City Kalibo Hon. Gerardo A. Paguio, Jr. Executive Judge Hon. Marietta H. Valencia Executive Judge Hon. Arlene Catherine A. Dato 1st Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Elmo F. Del Rosario Vice Executive Judge Hon. Marie Rose I. Paras 2nd Vice Exec. Judge

Antique EIGHTH JUDICIAL REGION San Jose Eastern Samar Hon. Nery G. Duremdes Executive Judge Borongan Hon. Adriano S. Savillo Acting Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Elvie P. Lim Executive Judge Capiz Leyte Roxas City Tacloban City Hon. Ignacio I. Alajar Executive Judge Hon. Alphinor C. Serrano Executive Judge Hon. Esperanza Isabel P. Deslate Vice Executive Judge Hon. Evelyn P. Riños-Lesigues Vice Executive Judge Mambusao Ormoc City Hon. Daniel Antonio Gerardo S. Executive Judge Hon. James Clinton Richard C. Executive Judge Amular Nuevo Iloilo Carigara Iloilo City Hon. Lauro Andres P. Castillo, Jr. Executive Judge Hon. Loida D. Maputol Executive Judge Hon. Ma. Elena G. Opinion 1st Vice Exec. Judge Northern Samar Hon. Fe Gallon-Gayanillo 2nd Vice Exec. Judge Catarman Hon. Norma Megenio-Cardenas Executive Judge Negros Occidental Silay City Laoang Hon. Dyna Doll C. Trocio Executive Judge Hon. Jose F. Falcotelo Executive Judge Bacolod City Southern Leyte Hon. Anita Guanzon Chua Executive Judge Maasin City Hon. Pepito B. Gellada 1st Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Bethany G. Kapili Executive Judge Hon. Manuel O. Cardinal, Jr. 2nd Vice Exec. Judge Samar Himamaylan City Catbalogan Hon. Nilo M. Sarsaba Executive Judge Hon. Agerico A. Avila Executive Judge VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 25

A.O. No. 52-2014 (continued) ELEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION Davao Del Norte Calbayog City Tagum City Hon. Reynaldo B. Clemens Executive Judge Hon. Virginia D. Tehano-Ang Executive Judge Hon. Ma. Susana T. Baua Vice Executive Judge NINTH JUDICIAL REGION Panabo City Basilan Hon. Dororthy Montejo Gonzaga Executive Judge Isabela City Hon. Danilo M. Bucoy Executive Judge Davao Oriental Mati Zamboanga Del Norte Hon. Jordan H. Reyes Executive Judge Dipolog City Hon. Rogelio D. Laquihon Executive Judge Davao Del Sur Hon. Victoriano D. Lacaya, Jr. Vice Executive Judge Davao City Hon. Pelagio S. Paguican Executive Judge Zamboanga Del Sur Hon. Virginia H. Europa 1st Vice Exec. Judge Zamboanga City Hon. Retrina E. Fuentes 2nd Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Gregorio V. Dela Peña III Executive Judge Hon. Peter V. Eisma Vice Executive Judge Digos City Hon. Carmelita S. Davin Executive Judge Pagadian City Hon. Magnolia C. Velez Vice Executive Judge Hon. Romeo T. Descallar Executive Judge Hon. Dennis P. Vicoy Vice Executive Judge South Cotabato General Santos City TENTH JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Oscar P. Noel, Jr. Executive Judge Agusan Del Norte Hon. Antonio C. Lubao Vice Executive Judge Butuan City Koronadal City Hon. Eduardo S. Casals Executive Judge Hon. Lorenzo F. Balo Executive Judge Hon. Emmanuel E. Escatron Vice Executive Judge Surigao Del Sur Bukidnon Tandag Malaybalay City Hon. Rufo U. Naragas Executive Judge Hon. Ma. Theresa Executive Judge Aban-Camannong TWELFTH JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Isobel G. Barroso Vice Executive Judge Lanao Del Norte Misamis Occidental Iligan City Oroquieta City Hon. Albert B. Abragan Executive Judge Hon. Silvestre D. Orejana, Jr. Acting Executive Judge Hon. Anisah A. Umpa Vice Executive Judge Hon. Edmundo P. Pintac Acting Vice Exec. Judge Lanao Del Sur Ozamis City Marawi City Hon. Salome P. Dungog Executive Judge Hon. Wenida M. Papandayan Executive Judge Misamis Oriental Malabang Cagayan De Oro City Hon. Lacsaman M. Busran Executive Judge Hon. Dennis A. Alcantar Executive Judge Maguindanao Hon. Marites Filomena R. 1st Vice Exec. Judge Cotabato City Bernales Hon. Bansawan Z. Ibrahim Executive Judge Hon. Henry B. Damasing 2nd Vice Exec. Judge North Cotabato Medina Kabacan Hon. Judy A. Sia Galvez Executive Judge Hon. Laureano T. Alzate Executive Judge Gingoog City Kidapawan City Hon. Giovanni Alfred H. Navarro Executive Judge Hon. Rogelio R. Narisma Executive Judge Surigao Del Norte Midsayap Surigao City Hon. Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum Executive Judge Hon. Victor A. Canoy Executive Judge (Next page) 26 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

A.O. No. 52-2014 (continued) San Fernando City, La Union Hon. Imelda P. Cosalan Executive Judge METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS SECOND JUDICIAL REGION Manila Hon. Glenda M. Ramos Executive Judge Santiago City Hon. Rosalia I. Hipolito-Bunagan 1st Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Alexander V. De Guzman Executive Judge Hon. Joel A. Lucasan 2nd Vice Exec. Judge Tuguegarao City Hon. Andy S. De Vera 3rd Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Racquel R. Aglaua Executive Judge Quezon City Hon. Maita Grace D. Israel Vice Executive Judge Hon. Edgardo B. Bellosillo Executive Judge THIRD JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Juris S. Dilinila-Callanta 1st Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Janet Abergos-Samar 2nd Vice Exec. Judge Malolos City Hon. Nemesio V. Manlangit Executive Judge Pasay City Hon. Restituto V. Mangalindan, Jr. Executive Judge Meycauayan City Hon. Allan B. Ariola Vice Executive Judge Hon. Cecilia S. Talapian Executive Judge Caloocan City Angeles City Hon. Alma Crispina C. Lacorte Executive Judge Hon. Katrina Nora Buan Factora Executive Judge Hon. Michael V. Francisco Vice Executive Judge Cabanatuan City Malabon Hon. Kelly B. Belino Executive Judge Hon. Ma. Ofelia S. Contreras-Soriano Executive Judge Hon. Leo Cecilio D. Bautista Acting Vice Exec. Judge San Juan Olongapo City Hon. Marianito C. Santos Executive Judge Hon. Merinnisa O. Ligaya Executive Judge Hon. Tomas B. Maddela III Vice Executive Judge Mandaluyong City Hon. Flordeliza M. Silao Executive Judge San Jose City Hon. Eduardo C. Solangon, Jr. Vice Executive Judge Hon. Analie A. Arocena Executive Judge Makati City San Jose Del Monte City Hon. Barbara Aleli H. Briones Executive Judge Hon. Aileen Liza Executive Judge Hon. Jackie B. Crisologo-Saguisag Vice Executive Judge Mamasabulod-David Hon. Gerlyn T. Delos Reyes Vice Executive Judge Pasig City Hon. Eduardo Ramon R. Reyes Executive Judge City of San Fernando, Pampanga Hon. Marina G. Mejorada Vice Executive Judge Hon. Ma. Lourdes F. Tolentino Executive Judge Hon. Rene E. Reyes Acting Vice Exec. Judge Marikina City Hon. Shirley L. Magsipoc-Pagalilauan Executive Judge Tarlac City Hon. Maria Cecilia Ty-Pantua Vice Executive Judge Hon. Eleanor V. De Jesus Executive Judge Parañaque City FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Leilanie Marie D. Grimares Executive Judge Antipolo City Hon. Harold Cesar C. Huliganga Vice Executive Judge Hon. Elenita C. Dimaguila Executive Judge Valenzuela City Hon. Ira Fritzie C. Cruz-Rojo Vice Executive Judge Hon. Mateo B. Altarejos Executive Judge Batangas City Hon. Petronila Tanas Arguelles Executive Judge MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES Lipa City FIRST JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Agripino R. Bravo Executive Judge Baguio City Cavite City Hon. Roberto R. Mabalot Executive Judge Hon. Franco Paulo R. Arago Acting Executive Judge Hon. Glenda Ortiz Soriano Vice Executive Judge Lucena City Dagupan City Hon. Joselito P. Tamaray Executive Judge Hon. Zarah R. Sanchez-Fernandez Executive Judge Hon. Junius F. Dalaten Vice Executive Judge San Pablo City Hon. Rean G. Arizala-Joaquin Executive Judge Laoag City Hon. Maria Christine Isabel Z. Vice Executive Judge Hon. Jonathan A. Asuncion Executive Judge Falguera-Guerrero VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 27

A.O. No. 52-2014 (continued) TENTH JUDICIAL REGION Butuan City FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Dennis B. Castilla Executive Judge Iriga City Hon. Lorna O. Reyes Executive Judge Cagayan de Oro City Hon. Romualdo E. Galarrita Executive Judge Legazpi City Hon. Cesar A. Merlas Vice Executive Judge Hon. Arlinda G. Resari Executive Judge Hon. Jose Noel R. Rubio Vice Executive Judge Ozamis City Hon. Miriam O. Angot Executive Judge Naga City Hon. Roy P. Murallon Acting Vice Exec. Judge Hon. Margaret N. Armea Executive Judge Hon. Nonna Oliva Beltran Vice Executive Judge Oroquieta City Hon. Nora B. Montejo Lumasag Executive Judge Sorsogon City Hon. Cynthia G. Falcotelo Executive Judge Surigao City Hon. Rosalie D. Pratil Acting Executive Judge SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION ELEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION Bacolod City Davao City Hon. Jose Paulo G. Ariola Executive Judge Hon. Silverio M. Mandalupe Executive Judge Hon. Francisco S. Pando Vice Executive Judge Hon. Leo T. Madrazo Vice Executive Judge Iloilo City Island Garden City of Samal Hon. Ma. Theresa E. Gaspar Executive Judge Hon. Carfelita C. Flores Executive Judge Hon. Enrique Z. Trespeces Vice Executive Judge General Santos City Roxas City Hon. Alejandro Ramon C. Alano Executive Judge Hon. Kristine B. Tiangco Executive Judge Hon. Marrie Ellengrid S. Baliguat Vice Executive Judge

SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION TWELFTH JUDICIAL REGION Cebu City Iligan City Hon. Monalila S. Tecson Executive Judge Hon. Rosite P. Macaraya Executive Judge Hon. Pamela A. Baring-Uy Vice Executive Judge MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS Dumaguete City Hon. Maria Corazon Executive Judge SECOND JUDICIAL REGION Calimbayan-Gadugdog Cagayan Mandaue City Lal-Lo Hon. Rogelio S. Lucmayon Executive Judge Hon. Glenda C. Dupaya Acting Executive Judge Hon. Nora M. Dorado Acting Vice Exec. Judge Tagbilaran City Hon. Helen T. Cabatos Acting Executive Judge THIRD JUDICIAL REGION Talisay City Pampanga Hon. Mario V. Manayon Executive Judge Guagua Hon. Eda P. Dizon-Era Executive Judge EIGHTH JUDICIAL REGION FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION Tacloban City Laguna Hon. Sylvia P. Lamoste Executive Judge San Pedro NINTH JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Jeannette L. Bilan Executive Judge Dipolog City Rizal Hon. Chad M. Paler Executive Judge Binangonan Hon. George Andy B. Pantanosas, Jr. Executive Judge Pagadian City Hon. Pablito S. Pielago, Jr. Executive Judge MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

Zamboanga City SECOND JUDICIAL REGION Hon. Ivan C. Mendoza, Jr. Executive Judge Cagayan Hon. Nancy B. Cuaresma Vice Executive Judge Aparri-Calayan Hon. Blaise Sambolledo-Barcena Executive Judge (Next page) 28 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

A.O. No. 52-2014 (continued) equal seniority in the judiciary, the judge who is the most senior in age in the station shall act as Executive Judge. In all the above instances, the Acting Executive Judge The following provisions of the Resolution dated shall so act until the Executive Judge returns or until the January 27, 2004 in A.M. No. 03-08-03-SC are hereby detail by the Supreme Court of another Judge who will act adopted for information and guidance of everyone as Executive Judge. (Section 3, Chapter II) concerned, thus: The Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges shall In stations where there is only a single RTC branch, the serve for a term of two years, or until their successors are Presiding Judge thereof shall automatically be the designated, unless their designations are revoked earlier Executive Judge of the first level courts within his by the Supreme Court. They may be redesignated to the administrative area. (Section 1[a], Chapter II) same positions. The Executive Judges of multiple branch RTCs shall act In case of the death, retirement, permanent disability, as Executive Judges of single-branch Metropolitan Trial removal from office, the imposition of administrative Court (MeTCs) and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs) penalty as provided for in Section 5, Chapter III, resignation as well as of all Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) and Municipal or expiration of the term of office of the Executive Judge, Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) within their respective the following shall automatically become the Executive administrative areas. (Section 1[c], Chapter II) Judge unless the Supreme Court designates another judge Whenever the Executive Judge is on official leave of as Executive Judge: absence or is not physically present in the station, the (a) The Vice Executive Judge in stations with only one following shall automatically act as Executive Judge: Vice Executive Judge; (a) In single-branch RTC stations, the Executive Judge (b) The First Vice Executive Judge in stations with two of the RTC of the nearest station in the province. or more Vice Executive Judges. Should the First In case there is only one RTC judge in the province, Vice Executive Judge become the Executive Judge the Executive Judge of the nearest RTC station as pursuant to this Section, the Second Vice determined in the aforementioned Resolution Executive Judge shall, in turn, also automatically

dated January 27, 2004. become the FirstVice Executive Judge, and so on, unless the Supreme Court appoints other judges (b) In two-branch stations, the remaining judge in the as First, Second or Third Vice Executive Judges station, and in default of both for the same (Section 2, Chapter III). reasons, the Executive Judge of the same level of the court in the nearest station in the province. The imposition upon an Executive Judge or Vice The RTC of the nearest station in the province shall Executive Judge of an administrative penalty of at least a be determined in accordance with the reprimand shall automatically operate to divest him of his aforementioned Resolution. position as such (Section 5, Chapter III). (c) In multiple-branch stations with three (3) or more Executive Judges shall submit their respective annual branches, the First Vice Executive Judge, and in reports to the Court Management Office, Office of the Court default for the same reasons, the Second Vice Administrator, on or before July 31 the following year Executive Judge, shall act as Executive Judge. In (Section 10, Chapter X). default of these three judges of the same reasons, Promulgated this 21st day of March 2014. as abovementioned, the Third Vice Executive Judge shall act as Executive Judge. (Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Chief Justice Whenever the Executive Judge and all the Vice Chairperson, First Division Executive Judges are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the judge who is the most (Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO senior in tenure among the permanent judges in the station Associate Justice and shall automatically act as Executive Judge. Should there be Chairperson, Second Division two or more judges of equal seniority in the station, the (Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, Jr. judge who is the most senior in the judiciary shall act as Associate Justice and Executive Judge. Should there be two or more judge of Chairperson, Third Division VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 29

In view of the foregoing, the Court rules that the subject provision – which requires retiring government employees to secure a prior clearance of pendencyInon-pendency of administrative case/s from, among others, the CSC – should not be made to apply to employees of the Judiciary. To deem OCA Circular No. 139-2013 it otherwise would disregard the Court’s constitutionally-enshrined power of administrative TO: ALL OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST AND supervision over its personnel. Besides, retiring SECOND LEVEL COURTS court personnel are already required to secure a prior clearance of the pendency/non-pendency of SUBJECT: A.M. NO. 13-09-08-SC (RE: REQUEST FOR administrative case/s from the Court which makes GUIDANCE AND/CLARIFICATION ON SECTION 7, RULE 111 the CSC clearance a superfluous and non- OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10154 REQUIRING RETIRING expeditious requirement contrary to the declared GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO SECURE A CLEARANCE OF state policy of RA No. 10154. PENDENCYINON-PENDENCY OF CASE/S FROM THE CIVIL To further clarify the matter, the same principles SERVICE COMMISSION) dictate that a prior clearance of pendency/non- pendency of administrative case/s from the Office In the October 1, 2013 Resolution of the Honorable Court of the President (albeit some court personnel are En Banc, in A.M. No. 13-09-08-SC (Re: Request for presidential appointees, e.g., Supreme Court Guidance/Clarification on Section 7, Rule III of Republic Act Justices) or the Office of the Ombudsman should No. 10154 Requiring Retiring Government Employees to not equally apply to retiring court personnel. Verily, Secure a Clearance of Pendency/Non-Pendency of Case/s the administrative supervision of court personnel from the Civil Service Commission), the requirement of and all affairs related thereto fall within the seeking a Clearance of Pendency/Non-Pendency of exclusive province of the Judiciary. Administrative Case from the Civil Service Commission It must, however, be noted that since the Constitution embodied in Section 7, Rule III of the Implementing Rules only accords the Judiciary administrative and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10154 was declared supervision over its personnel, a different treatment INAPPLICABLE to retiring employees of the Judiciary. of the clearance requirement obtains with respect to criminal cases. As such, a clearance requirement The Resolution is hereby quoted as follows: which pertains to criminal cases may be imposed Before the Court is a Memorandum dated September by the appropriate government agency, i.e., the 18, 2013 from Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk Office of the Ombudsman, on retiring court of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, Office of personnel as it is a matter beyond the ambit of the Administrative Services of the Supreme Court, Judiciary’s power of administrative supervision. requesting guidance/clarification on the WHEREFORE, the requirement of seeking a Clearance applicability to the Judiciary of Section 7, Rule III of Pendency/Non-Pendency of Administrative Case of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of from the Civil Service Commission embodied in Republic Act No. (RA) 10154 which states: Section 7, Rule III of the Implementing Rules and SEC. 7. Notice of Pendency of Case. The retiring Regulations of Republic Act No. 10154 is declared employee shall seek Clearance of Pendency /Non- INAPPLICABLE to retiring employees of the Judiciary. Pendency of Administrative Case from his/her employer agency, Civil Service Commission (CSC), SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied) Office of the Ombudsman, or in case of presidential appointees, from the Office of the For your information, guidance and strict compliance. President. November 6, 2013. Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Constitution (Constitution) exclusively vests in the Court administrative supervision over all courts Court Administrator and court personnel. As such, it oversees the court personnel’s compliance with all laws and takes the proper administrative action against them for any violation thereof. As an adjunct thereto, it keeps in its custody records pertaining to the administrative cases of retiring court personnel. 30 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

II. In order to decongest provincial, city and OCA Circular No. 163-2013 municipal jails and to effect better control and supervision over national prisoners, ALL TRIAL TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST COURT JUDGES concerned ARE HEREBY AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS DIRECTED to ISSUE the corresponding MITTIMUSES or COMMITMENT ORDERS of SUBJECT: ISSUANCE OF MITTIMUS/COMMITMENT NATIONAL PRISONERS IMMEDIATELY AFTER ORDER AND TRANSFER OF DETAINEES/PRISONERS FROM THEIR CONVICTION, WHETHER OR NOT A ONE DETENTION/PENAL FACILITY TO ANOTHER FOR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR APPEAL PURPOSES OF TESTIFYING AT THE HEARING OR TRIAL OF HAS BEEN FILED, so that they may be remitted AN ACTION or transferred to the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila.2 In a Resolution dated November 19, 2013 in A.M. No. 13- III. National prisoners may likewise be committed 11-07-SC, the Supreme Court En Banc APPROVED the draft to the other national penal institutions, Circular submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator namely: on the “Issuance of Mittimus/Commitment Order and Transfer of Detainees/Prisoners from One Detention/Penal Davao Prison and Penal Farm at Panabo, Facility to Another or from One Place to Another for Davao del Norte (for national prisoners in Regions X and XI) Purposes of Testifying at the Hearing or the Trial of an Action,” which is quoted hereunder for immediate San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm at compliance: Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur (for national prisoners in Regions IX and XII) TO: ALL JUDGES and CLERKS OF COURT of the FIRST and SECOND LEVEL COURTS Leyte Regional Prison at Abuyog, Leyte (for national prisoners in Region VIII) SUBJECT: ISSUANCE OF MITTIMUS / COMMITMENT ORDER and TRANSFER OF DETAINEES/PRISONERS Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm at Puerto FROM ONE DETENTION/PENAL FACILITY TO Princesa, Palawan (for national prisoners ANOTHER or FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER FOR in Palawan and Puerto Princesa City) PURPOSES OF TESTIFYING AT THE HEARING OR THE Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm at TRIAL OF AN ACTION Sablayan, Mindoro Occidental (for It has come to the attention of the Supreme Court national prisoners in Mindoro Oriental that some judges have refused, hesitated, or and Mindoro Occidental) neglected to issue Mittimuses/Commitment Orders Correctional Institution for Women at to effect the transfer of national prisoners to the Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila (female national penal institutions immediately after national prisoners). conviction, which is violative of existing guidelines. Furthermore, there is a need to address concerns Accordingly, the judges concerned may, in arising from recent events wherein detainees/ the exercise of sound discretion, favorably prisoners, while being transported from one act on the manifestations of prosecutors detention/ penal facility to another for the purpose for direct commitment of national 3 of testifying at the hearing or trial of an action, prisoners to these penal institutions. have escaped or been killed. For these purposes, IV. Except by the express authority of the Supreme the established guidelines on these matters are Court upon proper application to effect the hereby reiterated and modified as follows: transfer of a national prisoner, NO JUDGE SHALL I. Prisoners detained at provincial, city, and ALLOW A PRISONER OR DETAINEE CONFINED IN municipal jails who are sentenced by trial ANY NATIONAL PENITENTIARY TO BE BROUGHT courts to prison terms exceeding three years OUTSIDE THE SAID PENAL INSTITUTION for are considered ‘national’ prisoners and shall appearance or attendance before any court. be committed to the national penal V. Every Judge in the National Capital Judicial institutions. Those sentenced to one year and Region and in the Provinces of Rizal, Bulacan, one day to not more than three years are Cavite, and Laguna who requires the classified as ‘city/provincial’ prisoners and attendance or appearance in any judicial shall be committed to the city/provincial jails. proceeding of a national prisoner or detainee Prisoners sentenced to not more than one year are classified as ‘municipal’ prisoners and shall be committed to the municipal jails.1 2. Ibid. 3. OCA Circular No. 63-97 dated October 6, 1997. 1. OCA Circular No. 4-92-A dated April 20, 1992, citing PD No. 29. VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 31

OCA Circular No. 163-2013 (continued) OCA Circular No. 01-2014

confined in the New Bilibid Prison or TO: ALL JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, Correctional Institution for Women is directed SANDIGANBAYAN AND COURT OF TAX APPEALS, JUDGES to conduct such proceeding within the premises OF THE TRIAL COURTS, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND of the said penal institutions. BODIES AUTHORIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO VI. Every Judge of a court outside of the National RECEIVE EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE INTEGRATED BAR Capital Judicial Region and the Provinces of OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ARBITERS OF SPECIAL COURTS Rizal, Bulacan, Cavite, and Laguna who AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES WHOSE RULES OF requires the attendance or appearance in any PROCEDURE ARE SUBJECT TO DISAPPROVAL OF THE judicial proceeding of a national prisoner or SUPREME COURT, INSOFAR AS THEIR EXISTING RULES detainee confined in the New Bilibid Prison or OF PROCEDURES CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS Correctional Institution for Women is directed to immediately refer the matter to the Supreme RULE Court through the Office of the Court SUBJECT: EXTENSION ON THE MODIFIED PUBLIC Administrator for appropriate action. PROSECUTORS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF VII. Every Judge who requires the attendance or THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE FOR ANOTHER YEAR, appearance in any judicial proceeding of a ENDING ON DECEMBER 31, 2014 national prisoner or detainee confined in any other national penal institution mentioned in The Supreme Court En Banc has issued a Resolution dated Section III hereof is directed to conduct such December 10, 2013 that resolves to EXTEND the modified proceeding within the premises of said penal public prosecutors’ compliance with the provisions set forth institution or, when such action is deemed on the Judicial Affidavit Rule for another year, ending on impractical, to immediately refer the matter December 31, 2014, quoted hereunder as follows: to the Supreme Court through the Office of the A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule) – Acting Court Administrator for appropriate action. on the recommendation of the Chairman of the Chief VIII. Whenever circumstances justify the issuance Justice Committee to Address Case Congestion and of a Subpoena or Summons effecting the Delays, the Court resolves to EXTEND for another transfer of a prisoner from his original place year, ending on December 31, 2014, the modified of confinement, his testimony should be taken public prosecutors’ compliance with the provisions at once, and immediately thereafter he should of the Judicial Affidavit Rule insofar as the be returned to the said original place of prosecution of criminal cases is concerned. confinement.4 The Court enjoins the National Prosecution Service All Judges and concerned lower court of the Department of Justice and the Prosecutors’ personnel are hereby ENJOINED to strictly League of the Philippines to work closely with the observe the foregoing guidelines. Supreme Court Subcommittee on the Revision of the All prior circulars, orders, and other Rules of Criminal Procedure, headed by Associate issuances inconsistent with this Circular Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, in developing are hereby revoked. comprehensive and truly meaningful changes that will minimize the problems of delay in the criminal For strict compliance. justice system. December 6, 2013. Let the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office be furnished with copy (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ of this resolution for circulation. Court Administrator Any prior circular from the Office of the Court Administrator on this matter which is contrary to the foregoing is hereby superseded. For your information, guidance and strict compliance. January 2, 2014. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ 4. SC Administrative Circular No. 6 dated December 5, 1977. Court Administrator 32 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

b. If filed by an executive judge, it shall OCA Circular No. 08-2014 be subject to the approval of the Court Administrator; TO: THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE c. If filed by an Associate Justice of the COURT OF TAX APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, THE SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS, THE METROPOLITAN or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall be TRIAL COURTS, THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, subject to the approval of the THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT presiding justice concerned; TRIAL COURTS AND THE SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS d. If filed by the Presiding Justice of the SUBJECT: REVISION OF RESTRICTIONS ON TEACHING Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall be HOURS OF JUSTICES, JUDGES AND PERSONNEL OF THE subject to the approval of the Chief JUDICIARY Justice. Quoted hereunder, for the information, guidance and 5. An application for permission to teach filed strict compliance of all justices, judges and personnel of by court personnel shall require approval as the Judiciary, is the Court En Banc Resolution dated follows: November 12, 2013 in A.M. No. 13-05-05-SC (Re: Revision a. If filed by court personnel from a lower of Restrictions on Teaching Hours of Justices, Judges and level court, it shall be subject to the Personnel of the Judiciary): approval of the executive judge concerned; A.M. No. 13-05-05-SC – (Re: Revision of Restrictions on Teaching Hours of Justices, Judges and Personnel b. If filed by court personnel from the of the Judiciary). – Acting on the request of Associate Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, or Justice Roberto A. Abad for a revision of the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall be subject restrictions on the teaching hours of justices, to the approval of the presiding justice judges, and personnel of the Judiciary under concerned; Circular No. 62-97 of the Office of the Court c. If filed by Supreme Court personnel Administrator, this Court RESOLVES to AMEND the belonging to a chamber of an rules and regulations on teaching to read as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, follows: it shall be subject to the approval of 1. Teaching shall in no case be conducted earlier the Associate Justice concerned, who than 5:30 p.m. on regular working days will notify the Chief Justice and the (Monday through Friday) and 2:30 p.m. on Office of Administrative Services, Saturdays. Supreme Court of this approval; 2. Teaching shall be allowed for not more than d. If filed by other Supreme Court 10 hours a week. Teaching on regular working personnel, it shall be subject to the days (Monday through Friday) shall be limited approval of the Chief Justice. to at most, two hours a day. 6. The approving, authority may deny the 3. An application for permission to teach if filed application or allow less than 10 hours of by a judge shall be accompanied by a teaching a week, depending on the applicant’s certification of the Clerk of Court concerned performance record. regarding the condition of the court docket 7. At the end of every year, an approving authority showing: shall submit to the Chief Justice a report on a. the number of pending cases; and the applications submitted for the year and the respective status of, or action taken on, b. the number of cases disposed of each application. within a three-month period prior to the start of the semester in his or her For strict compliance. respective sala. x x x x 4. An application for permission to teach filed by a judge or justice shall require approval as Appended herein as Annex “A” is the revised Request follows: for Permission to Teach form. a. If filed by a judge from a lower level January 20, 2014. court, it shall be subject to the approval of the executive judge (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ concerned; Court Administrator VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 33

OCA Circular No. 08-2014 (continued) OCA Circular No. 09-2014 Annex “A” Republic of the Philippines TO : THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE Supreme Court COURT OF TAX APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, Office of the Court Administrator THE SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS, THE METROPOLITAN Manila TRIAL COURTS, THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO TEACH THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND THE SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS ______SUBJECT: REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE TO ALL THE PARTIES DATE IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANDATORY DISQUALIFICATION OR VOLUNTARY INHIBITION OF THE Hon. Court Administrator Supreme Court JUSTICE OR THE JUDGE WHO HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE Manila ACTION OR PROCEEDINGS Sir: Quoted hereunder, for STRICT COMPLIANCE of all the courts of the Philippines, is the salient part of the dispositive portion In accordance with Supreme Court Circular No. 1, dated May 2, 1973, as amended by the Resolution of the Court En of the En Banc Decision dated December 10, 2013 in IPI Banc dated June 4, 1974 and the Civil Service Commission No. 12-203-CA-J [formerly A.M. No. 12-8-06-CA] entitled (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 5, series of 1966, I have “Re: Letters of Lucena B. Rallos, For Alleged Acts/Incidents/ the honor to request permission to teach after office hours Occurences Relative to the Resolution(s) Issued in CA-G.R. for the school year . In this connection, I am SP No. 06676 by Court of Appeals Executive Justice Pampio submitting the following data or information about myself: Abarintos and Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando and 1. NAME: CIVIL STATUS: Victoria Isabel Paredes,” and A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA entitled (Family Name-Given Name-Middle Name) “Re: Complaint Filed by Lucena B. Rallos Against Justices 2. POSITION: STATION: Gabriel T. Ingles, Pamela Ann Maxino, and Carmelita S. Manahan”: 3. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY DEGREE PURSUED/FINISHED The Court DIRECTS that henceforth all the parties in ______any action or proceedings shall be notified within ______five days of the mandatory disqualification or 4. OTHER SPECIAL TRAINING: voluntary inhibition of a Judge or Justice who has participated in any action of the court, stating the 5. NATURE OF TEACHING JOB: reason or reasons for the mandatory College/University Subjects to be Teaching Load for No. of Hours disqualification or voluntary inhibition. Taught each Semester

______The copy of the Decision is appended herein as Annex “A” for guidance and reference. I am attaching herewith a certificate of my recent physical and medical examination duly certified by a January 20, 2014. government physician. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ ______Court Administrator DATE SIGNATURE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL: Annex “A” ______EN BANC Presiding Judge RE: LETTERS OF LUCENA B. IPI No. 12-203-CA-J * I hereby certify the following: RALLOS, FOR ALLEGED [formerly A.M. No. 12-8-06-CA] Number of Pending Cases ______ACTS/INCIDENTS/ Number of Cases Disposed for Within OCCURENCES RELATIVE TO a three (3) month period prior to start THE RESOLUTION(S) ISSUED of semester ______IN CA-G.R. SP No. 06676 BY COURT OF APPEALS EXECUTIVE JUSTICE PAMPIO ______ABARINTOS and ASSOCIATE Clerk of Court JUSTICES RAMON PAUL

* To be filled up if applicant is a Judge (Next page) 34 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

OCA Circular No. 09-2014 (continued) P34,905,000 for the parcels of land plus interest of 12% per annum computed from the date of the decision until fully paid; P50,000 as attorney’s fees; and P50,000 as litigation HERNANDO and VICTORIA expenses.3 ISABEL PAREDES. The RTC granted the motion of the Heirs of Vicente RaIlos, x———————————x et al. for the execution pending appeal of the July 24, 2001 RE: COMPLAINT FILED BY A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA decision. In implementing the execution pending appeal, LUCENA B. RALLOS AGAINST the RTC issued three separate orders, all dated December JUSTICES GABRIEL T. Present: 21, 2001. Both parties sought the reconsideration of the INGLES, PAMELA ANN orders dated December 21, 2001.4 On March 21, 2002, the MAXINO, and CARMELITA S. SERENO, C.J., RTC issued its consolidated order resolving the motions for MANAHAN. CARPIO, reconsideration of the parties.5 VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), BRION, Visayas Station. The Heirs of Vicente RaIl os, et al. assailed PERALTA, the July 24, 2001 decision and the March 21, 2002 BERSAMIN, consolidated order of the RTC. On its part, Cebu City DEL CASTILLO, challenged the decisions of January 14, 2000, July 24, 2001, ABAD, and March 21, 2002. VILLARAMA, Jr., On May 29, 2007, the CA promulgated its decision PEREZ, dismissing the appeal of Cebu City for its failure to file a MENDOZA, record on appea1.6 Cebu City moved for a reconsideration, REYES, and but the CA denied its motion in the resolution promulgated PERLAS-BERNABE, on August 30, 2007. Thence, Cebu City filed its petition for LEONEN, JJ.: review in this Court (G.R. No. 179662), but the Court denied Promulgated: the petition for review.7 December 10, 2013 The Heirs of Vicente Rallos, et al. thereafter moved in x——————————————————————————x the RTC for the execution of the July 24, 2001 decision and the March 21, 2002 consolidated order. The RTC granted the DECISION motion. Subsequently, however, upon finding that the RTC BERSAMIN, J.: had erred in executing the decision and the consolidated order, the Heirs of Vicente Rallos, et al. lodged an appeal Judicial officers cannot be subjected to administrative with the CA, Visayas Station, to compel the RTC to comply disciplinary actions for their performance of duty in good strictly with the tenor of the decision and the consolidated faith. order (CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 04418). Antecedents On June 11, 2010, the CA decided CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. In Civil Case No. CEB-20388 of the Regional Trial Court 04418 by requiring the RTC to execute the RTC’s July 24, in Cebu City (RTC), the Heirs of Vicente Rallos, one of whom 2001 decision and its March 21, 2002 consolidated order 8 is complainant Lucena B. Rallos (Rallos), and other parties strictly in accordance with their tenor. After its motion for collectively referred to as Vicente Rallos, et al. sought just reconsideration was denied, Cebu City appealed by petition compensation from the city government of Cebu City (Cebu for review (G.R. No. 194111). However, the Court denied Cebu 9 City) for two parcels of land pertaining to the estate that City’s appeal on December 6, 2010. Cebu City had been maintaining as public roads without On motion for execution by the Heirs of Vicente Rallos, their consent. On January 14, 2000, the RTC (Branch 9) et al., the RTC directed on September 23, 2011 the issuance rendered its decision holding Cebu City liable to pay just of a writ of execution in accordance with the ruling in CA- compensation to the Heirs of Vicente Rallos, et al.; and G.R. CEB SP. No. 04418.10 In reaction, Cebu City presented an directing the creation of a board of commissioners that would determine the amount of just compensation.)1 Cebu City sought the reconsideration of the decision, but its 3. Id. at 51–55. motion was denied.2 4. Id. at 56–68. Upon submission by the board of commissioners of its 5. Id. at 69–74. report on the just compensation, the RTC rendered another decision on July 24, 2001 ordering Cebu City to compensate 6. ld. at 75–93. the Heirs of Vicente Rallos, et al. in the amount of 7. Id. at 94–95.

1. Rollo (A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA) pp. 31–47. 8. Id. at 99–110.

2. Id. at 48–50. 9. Id. at 111. VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 35

OCA Circular No. 09-2014 (continued) 2. Atty. Joseph L. Bernaldez, the Notary Public in both the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping and Affidavit of Good Faith, did not indicate therein his notarial commission number and the province/city omnibus motion to quash the writ of execution and to lift where he is commissioned, in violation of Section 2, the notice of garnishment, but the R TC denied the omnibus Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. motion through its orders of October 26, 2011,11 January 12 3. Atty. Marie VelIe P. Abella, the Notary Public in the 26, 2012, and February 27, 2012. Affidavit of Service did not reflect therein the province/ On March 26, 2012, Cebu City brought in the CA, Visayas city where she is commissioned as a notary public, in Station, a petition for the annulment of the RTC’s decisions violation of Section 2, Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. of January 14, 2000 and July 24, 2001, and the consolidated order dated March 21, 2002 (CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676), Petitioner is DIRECTED to RECTIFY the foregoing defects within 10 alleging that Vicente Rallos and his heirs had been obliged days from notice. Meanwhile, the Court shall hold in abeyance under a compromise agreement called convenio, as any action on the Petition and TRO application pending compliance with the order of rectification of defects.16 approved on October 18, 1940 by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cebu (CFI) in Civil Case No. 616 and Civil Cebu City complied with the resolution on April 12, Case No. 626, to donate, cede, and transfer the parcels of 2012.17 land in question to Cebu City; that Cebu City should not be Through the Manifestation with Urgent Motion for the made to pay just compensation for the parcels of land in Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 4, question despite the final and executory decision in Civil 2012, Cebu City informed the CA of its receipt of the Notice to Case No. CEB-20388 because of the ruling by the CFI in Civil Parties of Sale on Execution that set the sale on April 10, Case No. 616 and Civil Case No. 626 to the effect that the 2012 and April 17, 2012; and alleged that the sale on parcels of land in question had been donated to Cebu City; execution could render the proceedings in CA-G.R. CEB SP. and that the concealment of the existence of the convenio by No. 06676 moot and academic.18 the Heirs of Vicente Rallos, including Rallos, during the proceedings in Civil Case No. CEB-20388 constituted Acting on the aforesaid urgent motion of Cebu City, the extrinsic fraud, which was “unmasked” only when Cebu City CA, through Justice Hernando, issued a TRO on April 13, discovered the existence of the convenio in 2011.13 2012, viz: Accordingly, Cebu City sought the nullification of the RTC decisions and consolidated order; and the issuance of a Proceeding now to the supplication for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the petitioner, the temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of Court perceives more than adequate grounds for its grant. preliminary injunction “to prevent the hasty, if not unlawful Firstly, is there urgency involved on the matter, as an 14 release of government funds.” execution sale has been scheduled not just on April 10, 2012 CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676 was raffled to the 18th Division but also on April 17, 2012. Secondly, if such sale pushes through, it may well render moot the proceedings before of the CA, Visayas Station, whose members then were this Court. Thirdly, there appears, at least preliminarily, a respondents Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, as the Chairman, right on the part of petitioner that needs protection, that is, Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, as the Senior Member, and its right not to be deprived of its property if the fraud it Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, as the Junior Member.15 alleges - that of concealment of the convenio – is unmasked On March 28, 2012, the 18th Division, through Justice to be such. Thus, grave or irreparable injury may therefore Hernando, promulgated a resolution directing Cebu City to be suffered, in Our estimation at this stage of the rectify certain defects in its petition, to wit: proceedings, by the petitioner should a TRO be not forthcoming. Perusal of the above-captioned Petition for Annulment of Final Decision/s and Order/s, with prayer for the issuance The Court now therefore resolves to GRANT the petitioner’s of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of application for a TRO, effective for 60 days from notice by Preliminary Injunction (WPI), reveals the following respondents. By virtue of the TRO, the respondents or anyone acting in their behalf, are enjoined from executing infirmities: the Decision dated January 14, 2000 and July 24, 2001, the 1. Copy of Sangguniang Panlungsod Resolution No. 12- Order dated February 9, 2001, Consolidated Order dated 1330-2011 that is attached to the Petition, while December 21, 2001 and Order dated February 27, 2012 of ostensibly a certified true copy, is in fact just a respondent court, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9 of Cebu photocopy. City and from causing the release of any funds of the petitioner in satisfaction thereof. 10. Id. at 113–114. Petitioner is DIRECTED to post the corresponding TRO Bond, 11. Id. at 115–116. 12. Id. at 117. 16. Id. at 195–196. 13. Id. at 168–189. 17. Id. at 206–208. 14. Id. at 187. 18. Id. at 197–199. 15. Id. at 140. (Next page) 36 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

OCA Circular No. 09-2014 (continued) was assigned by raffle to Justice Ingles, who was designated as the Chairman of the 18th Division for purposes of the case. Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Justice Manahan herein fixed at P1 Million, within 10 days from notice. The were assigned, respectively, as the Senior and the Junior TRO issued by the Court shall be effective immediately upon Members of the Division.30 receipt by respondents. However, the failure of the petitioner to comply with the posting of the bond within the On June 26, 2012, the CA granted Cebu City’s application 10-day period shall result in the lifting of the restraining for the writ of preliminary injunction, to wit: order.19 x x x x Cebu City posted the required TRO bond of P1,000,000.20 A writ of preliminary injunction issues to prevent threatened On April 23, 2012, Justice Hernando inhibited from or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties further participation in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676.21 During before their claims can be thoroughly studied and the raffle of April 24, 2012, CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676 was adjudicated. Its sole office is to preserve the status quo until assigned to Justice Paredes, with Justice Gabriel T. Ingles the merits of the case can be heard fully. To be entitled to a writ of injunction, a party must establish the following being designated as the new third member.22 requisites: (a) the right of the complainant is clear and On April 26, 2012, the CA set the hearing on Cebu City’s unmistakable; (b) the invasion of the right sought to be application of the writ of preliminary injunction on May protected is material and substantial; and (c) there is an 23, 2012.23 urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. On May 7, 2012, the Heirs of Vicente Rallos moved to We find the foregoing requisites satisfied. set aside the April 13, 2012 resolution; to lift the TRO; and to dismiss the petition for annulment.24 First, the initial evidence satisfactorily demonstrates petitioner’s clear and unmistakable right as a beneficiary On May 23, 2012, the CA held the hearing on Cebu City’s or prospective donee in a Convenio executed on September application for the writ of preliminary injunction. The 22, 1940. Petitioner submitted as exhibit in its application counsels for both parties attended the hearing, where the for WPI, the Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Heirs of Vicente Rallos moved to be allowed to submit their Province of Cebu, 8th Judicial District dated October 18, 1940. formal offer of exhibits in support of their opposition to the The Decision reproduced verbatim the judicially-approved issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The CA Convenio, which provided for a stipulation pour autrui in petitioner’s favor, whereby Lots 485-D and 485-E, the granted their motion, and further directed the parties to subjects of Civil Case No. CEB-20388, were supposed to be 25 submit their respective memoranda. donated and transferred to it by respondent’s predecessor, On June 5, 2012, CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676 was assigned Father Vicente Rallos. The Convenio also provided that to Justice Abarintos in view of the intervening transfer of should petitioner not accept the donation, the road lots would still be for public use. Justice Paredes to Manila.26 However, two days later, Justice Abarintos inhibited himself from further participation in Respondents question the authenticity of the Decision CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676.27 embodying the Convenio since the same is purportedly unsigned. This challenge shall be fully contended with when By the raffle conducted on June 7, 2012, CA-G.R. CEB SP. we evaluate the merits of the petition, but at this juncture, No. 06676 was next assigned to Justice Edgardo L. Delos suffice it to say that our inclination to regard the Decision Santos, while Justice Carmelita S. Manahan was designated as authentic, for purposes of resolving the propriety of the as the new third member of the Division.28 On June 14, 2012, herein ancillary remedy, is anchored on these reasons: (1) however, Justice Delos Santos also inhibited himself from the 1940 decision is more than 30 years old; and (2) it was produced from a custody in which it would be naturally found participation in the case.29 Thus, CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676 if genuine. Respondents’ counsel, Atty. Glenn Cañete, admitted during the hearing that he personally went to RTC Branch 9, and found out for himself that indeed, there is a copy of the said Decision in the records of the court. 19. Id. at 207. Moreover, respondent Maurillo Rallos, likewise, attested in his Affidavit that he personally went to the Office of the 20. Id. at 142. RTC Clerk of Court and upon personally examining its 21. Id. at 209. records, saw for himself that the decision was actually in the custody of the clerk. 22. Id. at 142. Second, the invasion of petitioner’s right sought to be 23. Id. protected is material and substantial. It appears, from the sampling of evidence, that respondents deliberately 24. Id. suppressed Convenio when they lodged Civil Case No. CEB- 20388, seeking for forfeiture of improvements and payment 25. Id. at 210–255. of fair market value with damages, litigation expenses and 26. Id. at 143. 27. Id. at 256. 29. Id. at 257. 28. Id. at 143. 30. Id. at 143. VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 37

OCA Circular No. 09-2014 (continued) 06676.33 On August 30, 2012, the Court received another letter from Rallos requesting permission to amend her letter- complaint and to admit her attached amended letter- attorneys fees, against petitioner. The non-disclosure of the complaint.34 The Court docketed the amended letter- Convenio resulted in the violation of petitioner’s right to for complaint as A.M. No. 12-8-06-CA.35 it is now made to pay, with the use of public funds, just compensation for properties that were supposed to be On September 12, 2012, the Court received an affidavit- donated and transferred to it without cost. In fact, complaint from Rallos, whereby she also charged Justice petitioner already paid P56,196,369.42 in 2001 and 2009. Ingles, Justice Maxino and Justice Manahan with administrative and criminal offenses. The Court docketed Third, there is urgent and paramount necessity for the writ the affidavit-complaint as A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA.36 to prevent serious damage. In propounding its application for WPI, petitioner alleged that public respondent issued On September 18, 2012, the Court promulgated a an Order (Order) dated February 27, 2012, directing : 1) the resolution in A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA requiring Justice Ingles, depositary banks of the City of Cebu to release to the Sheriff, Justice Maxino and Justice Manahan to comment on the certifications as to the correct account numbers under affidavit-complaint of Rallos, and consolidating A.M. No. petitioner’s name in order to cater to the final judgment in 12-9-08-CA with A.M. No. 12-8-06-CA.37 Civil Case No. CEB-20388; (2) the plaintiffs to demand the Sangguniang Panlungsod to enact the appropriation On December 13, 2012, the Court received the joint ordinance; and (3) the depositary banks to release the comment/answer of Justice Ingles, Justice Maxino and amount for the satisfaction of the money judgment upon Justice Manahan, whereby they prayed for the dismissal of presentment of the appropriation ordinance. In a the charges in A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA for lack ofmerit.38 Manifestation with Urgent Motion it subsequently filed, petitioner informed this Court that it had received the On January 8, 2013, the Court re-docketed A.M. No. 12- following from the sheriff: (1) Notice to Parties of Sale on 8-06-CA as OCA I.P.I. No. 12-203-CA-J, and ordered Justice Execution; (b) (sic) Notice of Execution Sale at Public Auction; Abarintos, Justice Hernando and Justice Paredes to comment and (3) Amended Writ of Execution. on the letter-complaint.39 They separately complied, but all To date, the foregoing issuances have not been recalled, of them prayed for the dismissal of the letter-complaint for such that, when the limited life of the previously granted lack of merit.40 TRO expires, the sheriff can proceed with garnishing petitioner’s bank deposits and selling its patrimonial Charges in IPI No. 12-203-CA-J property described in the Notice of Execution Sale of Public (formerly A.M. No. 12-8-06-CA) Auction. The involvement of public funds and property justifies the urgency and necessity of the issuance of a WPI In her amended letter, Rallos averred that the issuance of to prevent serious damage to petitioner. It is best to the March 28, 2012 resolution in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676 preserve the status quo pending the final determination of directing the rectification of the “fatal” defects of the petition this case, otherwise, whatever Decision hereon will be for the issuance of the TRO had been erroneous; that the rendered ineffectual and nugatory. fatally defective petition should instead be outrightly WHEREFORE, premises considered, let a Writ of Preliminary dismissed inasmuch as the decisions and the consolidated Injunction issue enjoining respondents, their successors, order thereby sought to be annulled had been already agents, representatives, assigns, and any and all persons affirmed by the Court in G.R. No. 179662 and G.R. No. 194111; acting under their supervision, direction and on their behalf, that Cebu City should carry the responsibility for making its from executing the Decisions dated January 14, 2000 and petition compliant with the Rules of Court; that the July 24, 2001, the Order dated February 9, 2001, respondent Justices had thus acted as legal consultants of Consolidated Order dated December 21, 2001 and Order Cebu City; and that it was a matter of public knowledge that dated February 27, 2012 of the respondent court, the petitions filed in the CA were being routinely dismissed even Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Cebu City, and from causing 41 the release of any funds, or the auction of property/ies of for minor deficiencies. petitioner in satisfaction thereof, until further orders from the Court.31 The Heirs of Vicente Rallos moved for the 33. Rollo (IPI No. 12-203-CA-J), pp. 1–7. reconsideration of the grant of the application for the writ of preliminary injunction.32 34. Id. at 23–31. On August 10, 2012, the Court received the letter- 35. Id. at 35. complaint from Rallos requesting an investigation of the 36. Rollo (A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA), pp. 4–30. allegedly unlawful and unethical conduct of Justice Abarintos, Justice Hernando and Justice Paredes as Members 37. Id. at 137. th of the 18 Division in dealing with CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 38. Id. at 139–163. 39. Rollo (IPI No. 12-203-CA-J), p. 37. 40. Id. at 47–51, 55–59, and 68–70. 31. Id. at 115–121. 41. ld. at 26–27. 32. Id. at 146. (Next page) 38 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

OCA Circular No. 09-2014 (continued) void because it had not been accepted in a public document by Cebu City during the lifetime of the purported donor.44 Rallos further asserted that the June 26, 2012 resolution Rallos contended that it was improper for Justice reflected the negligence and bias of the respondent Justices Abarintos to have participated in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676 because: (1) it enjoined the execution of orders dated despite having previously inhibited himself in CA-G.R. CEB February 9, 2001 and December 21, 2001 allegedly issued SP. No. 06364, because Cebu City was the petitioner and the in Civil Case No. CEB-20388 that did not exist in fact; (2) it Heirs of Vicente Rallos were the respondents in both cases; stopped the execution of the order dated February 27, 2012 that Justice Abarintos did not have “the cold impartiality of that was still the subject of a motion for reconsideration; a neutral judge” to determine CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676; (3) it unduly interfered with the Court’s rulings in G.R. No. that the “appearance of impropriety” became more apparent 194111 and G.R. No. 179662; and (4) it unduly interfered when Justice Abarintos and several other Justices inhibited with the final and executory orders issued in Civil Case No. themselves from participation in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676; CEB-20388.45 She maintained that the CA was barred from and that Justice Hernando was biased because he inhibited entertaining Cebu City’s petition and application for the himself in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676 immediately after issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction because Cebu rendering the March 28,2012 and April 13, 2012 City had previously appealed the decisions rendered on 42 resolutions. January 14, 2000 and July 24, 2001 as well as the Rallos argued that litigants in the CA had the right to be consolidated order of March 21, 2002 (CA-G.R. CV No. 76656) informed of the inhibition of the Justices, and to object if but had lost the appeal; and that respondent Justices the inhibition was invalid; that a Justice could not simply violated her right to have the Court’s resolutions in G.R. No. inhibit from a case because doing so would raise doubts on 179662 and G.R. No. 194111 executed without undue delay, the integrity of the judicial process; and that the inhibitions thereby denying to her the fruits of her court victory. of the respondent Justices raised the suspicion of As relief, Rallos prayed that the respondent Justices be manipulation wherein the Justices who were unwilling to held guilty of serious misconduct, and meted the penalty of issue the writ of preliminary injunction sought by Cebu City removal from office and perpetual disqualification from were forced to inhibit themselves in order that other Justices holding office or employment in the Government; that they sympathetic towards Cebu City could be put in their places. be further criminally prosecuted for violating Republic Act Rallos prayed that the respondent Justices be held No. 6713, Republic Act No. 3019, and Article 206 of the administratively and criminally liable, and in the meantime Revised Penal Code; that they be disbarred for violating the be temporarily suspended to avoid influencing the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of Professional investigation of the letter-complaint; and that the CA be Responsibility; and that they be transferred to other CA directed to furnish her with the list of inhibitions and stations and be prohibited from participating in cases where replacements of the respondent Justices in CA-G.R. SP No. she was a party.46 06676, and the grounds for the inhibitions and Ruling replacements.43 We dismiss both administrative complaints for their Allegations in A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA lack of basis. Rallos asserted that respondent Justice Ingles, Justice 1. Administrative complaints are not proper remedies to Maxino and Justice Manahan had “knowingly disobeyed” assail alleged erroneous resolutions of respondent Justices the resolutions promulgated on December 5, 2007 in G.R. No. 179662 and on December 6, 2010 in G.R. No. 194111 by Considering that the assailed conduct under both their issuance of the June 26, 2012 resolution granting Cebu complaints referred to the performance of their judicial City’s application for the writ of preliminary injunction; that functions by the respondent Justices, we feel compelled to the issuance constituted serious misconduct and a violation dismiss the complaints for being improper remedies. We of Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code, Republic Act No. have consistently held that an administrative or disciplinary 6713 and Republic Act No. 3019; that the issuance of the complaint is not the proper remedy to assail the judicial writ of preliminary injunction was on the basis of the acts of magistrates of the law, particularly those related to convenio, a document that had not been formally offered in their adjudicative functions. Indeed, any errors should be evidence by Cebu City during the hearing for the issuance of corrected through appropriate judicial remedies, like appeal writ of preliminary injunction; that even had the convenio in due course or, in the proper cases, the extraordinary writs been formally offered in evidence, it should still not have of certiorari and prohibition if the errors were jurisdictional. been considered because: (1) it was only a machine copy and was even unsigned; (2) Cebu City was not a party to the convenio; and (3) the supposed donation to Cebu City was 44. Rollo (A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA), pp. 14–19.

42. Id. at 27–28. 45. Id. at 18–20. 43. Id. at 29–31. 46. Id. at 20–28. VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 39

OCA Circular No. 09-2014 (continued) 2. Truth of the allegations of bias, negligence or improper motives against respondent Justices cannot be presumed but must be substantiated Having the administrative or disciplinary complaint be an In their comment/answer regarding the issuance of the alternative to available appropriate judicial remedies March 28, 2012 resolution, the respondent Justices declared 47 48 would be entirely unprocedural. In Pitney v. Abrogar, the that they had resolved not to outrightly dismiss the petition Court has forthrightly expressed the view that extending the of Cebu City despite its several defects because: (1) the immunity from disciplinary action is a matter of policy, for defects had been minor or non-essential; (2) the petition “[t]o hold otherwise would be to render judicial office had alleged the discovery of the convenio that would untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret supposedly show that Cebu City should not be obliged to the law in the process of administering justice can be expend the huge amount of public funds to compensate the infallible in his judgment.” Heirs of Vicente Rallos; (3) the petition must be decided on In addition, the Court reminds that the disregard of the the merits rather than on technicality because the release policy by Rallos would result in the premature filing of the of a huge amount of public funds would be involved; (4) the administrative complaints – a form of abuse of court rules of procedure should not be utilized as tools to defeat processes.49 justice; and (5) even with the foregoing being weighty enough, they had still imposed the condition that any action on the In IPI No. 12-203-CA-J, Rallos clearly wanted to challenge petition and the application for the TRO application would the resolutions promulgated on March 28, 2012 and April be held in abeyance pending compliance with the order for 13, 2012. Although she should have filed motions for the rectification of the defects. reconsideration vis-à-vis such resolutions in due course, she filed a motion for reconsideration only with respect to As to the April 13, 2012 resolution, the respondent the resolution of April 13, 2012. Her resorting to the filing Justices stated: of the letter-complaint instead of the motion for 3. The CA Resolution granting the TRO was issued based reconsideration vis-à-vis the March 28, 2012 resolution on the appellate court’s fair and objective estimation was improper because she could not substitute the that indeed, there was a compelling and urgent ground administrative to the proper judicial recourse. Anent the for its grant. The Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court was April 13, 2012 resolution, she should have waited for the in the act of implementing the lower court’s writ of action of the CA on her motion for reconsideration, and execution on the properties of the applicant and there should the motion be eventually denied, her proper remedy was, at that point, a necessity to stop the implementation, particularly since Cebu City had was to appeal. shown at least at that stage of the proceedings, that In A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA, although Rallos had moved for the Rallos heirs had conveniently withheld from it the the reconsideration of the June 26, 2012 resolution, she did existence of a Deed of Donation (Convenio) whereby not anymore wait for the resolution of the motion for the Rallos family had previously donated the property that was subsequently expropriated by Cebu City. reconsideration. Instead, she filed the complaint-affidavit. That, too, was impermissible, because her appropriate 4. In short, the impression of the appellate court at the recourse was to await the resolution of the motion for time is why should Cebu City be made to pay just reconsideration and then to appeal should the CA deny the compensation by the Rallos heirs for the expropriation of their property which had been donated by the Rallos motion. It is to be mentioned, too, that the CA had not yet family to Cebu City in the first place? This resolved Cebu City’s main suit for the annulment of judgment circumstance, in the appellate court’s fair and on the merits; hence, it was premature and unprocedural objective view, justified the grant of the injunctive relief. for her to insist that the respondent Justices could have Otherwise, the Rallos heirs, which includes the already ruled on the grounds for annulment. That resolution complainant, would unduly enrich themselves at the should be awaited because the issue on the validity and expense of Cebu City and essentially swindle it of its effectiveness of the convenio would precisely still require assets (that were about to be executed upon by the the CA’s appreciation of the convenio as evidence. Nor were RTC Sheriff) when they acceded to the expropriation of the principle of immutability of judgment and the their property that should have been delivered by them applicability of any law or jurisprudence to bar Cebu City’s to the city as a piece of donated property. x x x.50 action for annulment of judgment already in effect, x x x x considering that the CA still had to discharge its adjudicatory function respecting the matter of the validity Furthermore, the grant or denial of a temporary restraining and effectiveness of the convenio. order is discretionary on the part of the court. The matter is judicial in nature, and as such, the party’s remedy if prejudiced by the orders of a judge/justice given in the 47. Cruz v. Iturralde, A.M. RTJ No. 03-1775, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA course of a trial, is the proper reviewing court, and not with 51 65, 71–72. the OCA by means of an administrative complaint.

48. A.M. No. RTJ-03-1748, November 11, 2008, 415 SCRA 377, 382. 50. Rollo (IPI No. 12-203-CA-J), p. 69.

49. Hilado v. Reyes, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1910, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 51. Id. at 49. 146, 162. (Next page) 40 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

OCA Circular No. 09-2014 (continued) public funds or sale of any of the city’s property for payment of just compensation, or, to restrain acts that may render moot and academic the judgment or order that may be rendered in this case.52 A reading of them easily shows that the questioned resolutions exhaustively explained their factual and legal With regard to the June 26, 2012 resolution, the bases. Apparently, the respondent Justices concerned respondent Justices elucidated in their comment/answer: promulgated the questioned resolutions with prudence and Indeed, the judgment sought to be executed is already final, fairness, and upon due consideration of the surrounding and the general rule is that, as there is nothing left to be circumstances. Contrary to the posture of Rallos, therefore, done the final judgment has to be executed or enforced. the respondent Justices’ issuance of the questioned This rule, however, is not absolute. It admits of exceptions, resolutions was not tainted by bias, negligence or any to wit: improper motives. x x x x Moreover, the respondent Justices conducted a hearing In the instant case, the stay of execution of the judgment before issuing the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of paying just compensation to petitioner for the properties Cebu City. In that hearing, the counsels of the parties in litigation is warranted by the fact that there is still a attended, and were granted ample opportunity to argue for pending case regarding the ownership of the said their respective sides. properties, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 06364 entitled City of Cebu v. Lucena B. Rallos, et al. In that case, the City of Anent the voluntary inhibitions of the respondent Cebu seeks to nullify the October 13, 1998 Order in Spec. Justices concerned, it serves well to note that Section 1, Proc. No. 107-R entitled “Testate Estate of Vicente Rallos, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court set standing guidelines for deceased, Vicente Gullas, Executor,” with prayer to direct the that purpose. The guidelines have required just and valid administratix of the testate estate of Vicente Rallos to causes to justify voluntary inhibitions. Thereby, the execute a deed of donation thereby donating the disputed lots in favour of the City of Cebu, pursuant to a “convenio.” discretion to decide whether to voluntarily inhibit or not x x x could not be unfettered, for, as fittingly said in Abrajano v. Heirs of Augusto F. Salas, Jr.:53 It bears stressing that the cases before the respondent justices involve public funds, more specifically, city funds x x x. The rule on inhibition and disqualification of judges is to be used in the delivery of basic services to constituents laid down in Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court: of the City of Cebu. As defined “public funds are those moneys belonging to the State or to any political subdivision SEC. 1. Disqualification of judges. – No judge or of the State; more specifically, taxes, customs duties and judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or moneys raised by operation of law for the support of the his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, government or for the discharge of its obligations.” For this legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is reason alone, there is the need to protect government funds related to either party within the sixth degree of – for which the City of Cebu is accountable, and this should consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the not be jeopardized through the supposed violation by the fourth degree, computed according to the rules city government of petitioner’s right to enjoy the fruits of of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, the final judgment in her favour when government administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in protection can be done and is being done without adverse which he has presided in any inferior court when effects to petitioner’s rights should the case be eventually his ruling or decision is the subject of review, resolved in her favour. without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the Indeed, to go ahead with the execution when there are record. matters involving the ownership of the subject properties that need to be threshed out may prove to be detrimental A judge may, in the exercise of his sound to the interest of the government and public, as well. That discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a is precisely why the courts are directed to proceed with case, for just or valid reasons other than those extreme prudence and caution in satisfying judgements mentioned above. involving public funds. “In Administrative Circular No. 10- Thus stated, the rule contemplates two kinds of inhibition: 2000 dated October 25, 2000, all judges of lower courts were compulsory disqualification assumes that a judge cannot advised to exercise utmost caution, prudence and actively or impartially sit on a case for the reasons stated in judiciousness in the issuance of writs of execution to satisfy the first paragraph, while voluntary inhibition under the money judgments against government agencies and local second paragraph leaves to the judge’s discretion whether government units. Judges, thus, cannot indiscriminately he should desist from sitting in a case for other just and valid issue writs of execution against the government to enforce reasons with only his conscience to guide him. money judgments.” The issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of x x x x conscience and sound discretion on the part of the judge. Therefore, pending determination as to who has legal right to the subject properties, there is a patent, imperative need 52. Rollo (A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA), pp. 152–154. to be provisionally enjoin execution to prevent release of 53. G.R. No. 158895, February 16, 2006, 482 SCRA 476. VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 41

OCA Circular No. 09-2014 (continued) not be objective and impartial as far as the issues and the parties were concerned. Indeed, at that stage of the proceedings, any decision to voluntarily inhibit was primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion on This discretion is an acknowledgement of the fact that judges his part. The discretion, according to Abrajano v. Heirs of are in a better position to determine the issue of inhibition, Augusto F. Salas, Jr., supra, “is an acknowledgement of the as they are the ones who directly deal with the parties- fact that judges are in a better position to determine the litigants in their courtrooms. The decision on whether he issue of inhibition, as they are the ones who directly deal should inhibit himself, however, must be based on his rational with the parties-litigants in their courtrooms,” provided the and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case brought before him. decision is based on a “rational and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case brought before him.” The rule does not give the judge the unfettered discretion to Thus, based on the guidelines set in Section 1, Rule 137 of decide whether he should desist from hearing a case. The the Rules of Court, the participation of Justice Abarintos in inhibition must be for just and valid causes. The mere the initial stage of the proceedings in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. imputation of bias, partiality and prejudgment will not suffice in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome 06676 despite having previously inhibited himself in CA- the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role G.R. CEB SP. No. 06364 could not be held as improper under to dispense justice according to law and evidence and the circumstances. without fear or favor. The disqualification of a judge cannot In any event, Justice Abarintos subsequently saw the be based on mere speculations and surmises or be predicated on the adverse nature of the judge’s rulings towards the need for his voluntary inhibition when CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. movant for inhibition.54 (Bold underscoring supplied for 06676 came to be assigned to him following the transfer to emphasis) Manila of Justice Paredes. His voluntary inhibition occurred on June 7, 2012. What is noteworthy is that Rallos could Rallos contends that Justice Abarintos improperly have filed a motion for his inhibition if she considered the participated in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676 despite having participation of Justice Abarintos in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. previously inhibited himself in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06364, 06676 as improper. That she raises the issue of his inhibition which had involved Cebu City as the petitioner and the Heirs only before this Court in this administrative proceeding of Vicente Rallos as the respondents, on the ground that leaves the Court no choice but to regard her imputation of some of the siblings and relatives of Rallos were his friends.55 impropriety and bias against him as a mere afterthought We disagree with the contention of Rallos. considering that she does so only after the CA had issued the writ of preliminary injunction sought by Cebu City. It appears that Rallos, in her capacity as the administratix of the estate of Vicente Rallos, had submitted Rallos charges Justice Hernando with bias because he in Special Proceeding No. 1017-R entitled Testate Estate of voluntarily inhibited himself in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676 Vicente Rallos, deceased; Vicente Gullas, Executor a only after the promulgation of the March 28, 2012 and April supplemental inventory of the properties of the estate that 13, 2012 resolutions.56 included the two parcels of land that were later the subject Again, we cannot agree with Rallos. of CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676. The probate court issued an order on October 13, 1998 directing the transfer of the In the notice he sent to the CA Raffle Committee, Justice properties listed in the supplemental inventory to Rallos Hernando stated the reasons why he decided to inhibit and her co-heirs. Feeling aggrieved, Cebu City appealed to himself from the case, to wit: the CA to nullify the October 13, 1998 order, and also to It has come to the attention of the undersigned that prior to pray that Rallos as the administratix of the testate estate of the official issuance of the Court’s Order dated April 13, 2012 Vicente Rallos be directed to execute a deed of donation in the abovecited case which granted petitioner’s prayer respecting the disputed lots in favor of Cebu City pursuant for a Temporary Restraining Order, an alleged representative to the convenio (CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06364). of the petitioner’s City Legal Office attempted to secure a copy of said Order; citing a purported instruction from the To recall, the resolution of March 28, 2012 concerned u[n]dersigned to the City Legal Office to procure it. For the the preliminary matter of having Cebu City comply with the record, the undersigned strongly accentuates that he never deficiencies of its petition in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676, while did so, nor is he familiar, either personally or by the resolution of April 13, 2012 involved the issuance of the acquaintance, with the fellow in question. TRO to prevent the execution of the decisions and the This event has now rendered it completely untenable for the consolidated order by the RTC that would probably render undersigned to participate in the proceedings concerning the consideration and adjudication of CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. this case if only to obviate suspicions of undue influence by 06676 moot and academic. If, at that stage of the proceedings him, or by the petitioner itself. Hence, I am voluntarily in CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676, Justice Abarintos believed inhibiting myself from this litigation. May I therefore request himself to be capacitated to take part, the Court is in no position to dispute his capacity to do so in the absence of any clear and persuasive showing by Rallos that he would 55. Rollo (lPI No. 12-203-CA-J), p. 50. 56. Id. at 27–28.

54. Id. at 486–488. 57. Id. at 71. (Next page) 42 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

OCA Circular No. 09-2014 (continued) may replace it with another case of similar nature and status, subject to Section 4 (c), Rule III.

for its re-raffle to another Justice to replace me as As the foregoing rules indicate, there are two kinds of ponente.57 inhibition, the mandatory and the voluntary. In mandatory inhibition, the disqualified Justice must notify the Raffle The fact that Justice Hernando voluntarily inhibited Committee and the Members of the Division of the decision himself after writing the assailed resolutions did not to inhibit. In voluntary inhibition, the inhibiting Justice must establish his bias against Rallos and her co-heirs inform the other Members of the Division, the Presiding considering that the inhibition was for the precise objective Justice, the Raffle Committee, and the Division Clerk of Court of eliminating suspicions of undue influence. The of the decision to inhibit and the reason for the inhibition. justification of Justice Hernando was commendable, and There is nothing in Rule V or in any other part of the Internal should be viewed as a truly just and valid ground for his Rules of the Court of Appeals that specifically requires that self-disqualification as a judicial officer in a specific case. the party-litigants be informed of the mandatory or Rallos insists that she was entitled to be informed about voluntary inhibition of a Justice. the inhibitions of the Justices and about their reasons for Nevertheless, a party-litigant who desires to be informed the inhibitions. of the inhibition of a Justice and of the reason for the Rule V of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals inhibition must file a motion for inhibition in the manner expressly provides the rules on inhibition of Justices, viz: provided under Section 3, Rule V of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, supra. Upon the filing of the motion, the RULE V party-litigant becomes entitled to be notified of the CA’s INHIBITION OF JUSTICES action on the motion for inhibition and of the reasons for the action. Likewise, the party-litigant may seek the SECTION 1. Mandatory Inhibition of Justices. – When a Justice is disqualified under any of the grounds enumerated in the reconsideration or may appeal to the Court any action on first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court the part of the CA on the motion for inhibition or motion for and in Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, he/she shall reconsideration. Alas, Rallos did not submit a motion for immediately notify the Raffle Committee and the members the inhibition of any of the respondent Justices. of his/her Division. We do not subscribe to Rallos’ suggestion that the series SEC. 2. Voluntary Inhibition of a Justice. – An inhibition of a of inhibitions in CA-G.R. SP No. 06676 constituted a scheme Justice, whether mandatory or voluntary, must be made to favor Cebu City. She presented no proof to validate her within 10 working days from his/her discovery of a just and suggestion. In fact, she herself conceded that she was thereby valid reason to inhibit. only voicing out her suspicion of an irregularity. To stress, Copies of the action of the Justice shall be furnished to the their good faith and regularity in the performance of official other members of the Division, the Presiding Justice, the duties, which are strong presumptions under our laws, Raffle Committee and the Division Clerk of Court. should prevail unless overcome by contrary proof. Worth SEC. 3. Motion to Inhibit a Division or a Justice.– A motion for noting in that regard is that there was even no valid reason inhibition must be in writing and under oath and shall state that could have prohibited the Justices charged in A.M. No. the grounds therefor. 12-9-08-CA from participating in CA-G.R. SP No. 06676. It A motion for inhibition of a Division or a Justice must be serves well to consider, too, that none of the respondent acted upon by the Division or the Justice concerned, as the Justices charged in IPI No. 12-203-CA-J is anymore case may be, within 10 working days from its/his/her receipt participating in CA-G.R. SP No. 06676; and that the thereof except when there is an application for a temporary respondent Justices charged in A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA were restraining order, in which case, the motion must be acted chosen by raffle as required under pre-existing rules and upon immediately. regulations to replace the Justices who had meanwhile No motion for inhibition of a Justice or Division will be voluntarily inhibited themselves from further participation granted after a decision on the merits or substance of the for valid reasons. case has been rendered or issued by any Division except for a valid or just reason, e.g. allegation of corrupt motives. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court holds, [Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA dated June 19, 2007 of the conformably with the urging of Justice Arturo D. Brion, that Supreme Court]. henceforth all the parties in any action or proceedings should be immediately notified of any mandatory One who files a motion for inhibition without basis and manifestly for delay may be cited in contempt of court. A disqualification or voluntary inhibition of the Judge or lawyer who assists in the filing of such baseless and dilatory Justice who has participated in any action of the court, motion may be referred by the Justice concerned or by the stating the reason for the mandatory disqualification or Court motu proprio to the Supreme Court for appropriate voluntary inhibition. The requirement of notice is a measure disciplinary action. to ensure that the disqualification or inhibition has not

SEC. 4. Action on Inhibition.– The action on the inhibition been resorted to in order to cause injustice to or to prejudice shall be attached to the rollo and paged. any party or cause.

SEC. 5. Right of Replacement. – When a Justice inhibits WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the administrative himself/herself from a case, the Justice to whom it is raffled complaints against Court of Appeals Associate Justice VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 43

OCA Circular No. 09-2014 (continued) application for inter-country adoption of a Filipino child x x x” (Article III, Section 9). The practice of filing petitions Pampio A. Abarintos, Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. for adoption under the Domestic Adoption Act is Hernando, Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, discouraged by the DSWD as there may be unanticipated Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, Associate Justice Pamela situations that may prevent the prospective adopted Ann Maxino and Associate Justice Carmelita S. Manahan parents from bringing the adopted child to the country for their lack of merit and substance. where they reside. This would be inimical to the well-being The Court DIRECTS that henceforth all the parties in any and best interest of the child. action or proceedings shall be notified within five days of To address the concerns of the DSWD and for the best the mandatory disqualification or voluntary inhibition of a interest and welfare of all the children to be adopted, as Judge or Justice who has participated in any action of the court, stating the reason or reasons for the mandatory judges of family courts, you are all enjoined to STRICTLY disqualification or voluntary inhibition. OBSERVE the mandate of Republic Act Nos. 9523, 8552, and 8043, and other related laws and issuances when The Court Administrator is ORDERED to disseminate handling adoption cases before your respective courts. this decision to all courts of the Philippines for their guidance and strict compliance. January 20, 2014. SO ORDERED. (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ (Sgd.) LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Court Administrator Associate Justice OCA Circular No. 17-2014 WE CONCUR: (Sgd.) SERENO, CJ, CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DE TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS Jr., PEREZ, MENDOZA, REYES, PERLAS-BERNABE, LEONEN, JJ. SUBJECT: COMPLETE ADDRESSES/LOCATIONS AND OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE LOWER COURTS OCA Circular No. 10-2014 The Office of the Chief Justice has secured the assistance of an information communication technology consultant to TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE FAMILY COURTS review the implementation of the Enterprise Information SUBJECT: REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW ON ADOPTION Systems Plan (EISP) of the Judiciary. Part of the consultant’s CASES scope of work is to come up with a cost estimate of the full Secretary Corazon Juliano-Soliman of the Department of implementation of the EISP which include providing Social Welfare and Development brought to the attention interconnectivity for all courts. In order to get a cost of the Court that there are cases wherein the filed Petition estimate of the planned interconnection, relevant for Adoption did not include (a) a certification that the information arc needed such as the complete addresses/ child is legally available for adoption pursuant to Republic locations of all the lower courts. Act No. 9523, “An Act Requiring the Certification of the In this connection, all judges and clerks of court of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) first and second level courts are hereby DIRECTED to submit to Declare a ‘Child Legally Available for Adoption’ as a the following information: Prerequisite for Adoption Proceedings, x x x”; and/or (b) a (1) the complete addresses/locations (i.e. up to street Consent to Adopt issued by the DSWD for children who are level) of your respective courts/offices; considered wards of the State. (2) the landline telephone number of your respective Secretary Soliman further reported that there have courts/offices and/or your respective mobile been cases wherein prospective adoptive parents residing numbers; and abroad filed the petition for adoption in Philippine courts under Republic Act No. 8552, “An Act Establishing the Rules (3) your respective e-mail addresses. and Policies on the Domestic Adoption of Filipino Children Submission of the required information to the Court and for Other Purposes,” otherwise known as the “Domestic Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator (via Adoption Act of 1998”, instead of filing the petition under courier or email address [email protected]), Republic Act No. 8043, “An Act Establishing the Rules to within five days from receipt or this circular, is MANDATORY. Govern Inter-Country Adoption of Filipino Children and for Other Purposes,” otherwise known as the “Inter-Country January 27, 2014. Adoption Act of 1995” which provides that “(a)n alien or a (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad may file an Court Administrator 44 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

ANNEX “A” MALACAÑAN PALACE OCA Circular No. 19-2014 MANILA BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 63 TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS REVOKING MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 177 (s. 2005) SUBJECT: REVOCATION OF MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 177 (S. 2005) ENTITLED “DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, Article III, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution OF JUSTICE TO OBSERVE A BAIL BOND GUIDE FOR provides that, “[a]ll persons, except those charged with QUALIFIED THEFT” offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by In her letter dated January 6, 2014, Secretary Leila M. De sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may Lima of the Department of Justice provided the Court with be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired a copy of Memorandum Order No. 63 entitled “Revoking even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is Memorandum Order No. 177 (s. 2005),” signed by suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required;” President Benigno S. Aquino III on December 6, 2013. WHEREAS, Memorandum Order No. 177 s. 2005 (“MO 177”), entitled “Directing the Department of Justice to Secretary De Lima stated that the revoked Observe a Bail Bond Guide for Qualified Theft,” provides in Memorandum Order No. 177 (s. 2005) dated June 28, 2005 Section 1 thereof that “[n]o bail shall be recommended for entitled “Directing the Department of Justice to Observe a the crime of qualified theft where the aggregate value of Bail Bond Guide for Qualified Theft” provides in Section 1 the property stolen is P500,000 and above;” that: WHEREAS, Department Circular No. 29 s. 2005 (“DC [n]o bail shall be recommended for the crime of 29”), issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), entitled qualified theft where the aggregate value of the “Amending Department Circular No. 74 dated November 6, property stolen is P500,000 and above. 2001 Involving Qualified Theft when the Value of Property Stolen is P222,000 or More,” provides that “pursuant to She further stated that on July 15, 2005, the the provisions of existing laws, no bail shall be Department of Justice, through former Secretary Raul M. recommended for the offense of qualified theft, whether Gonzalez, issued Department Circular No. 29 entitled consummated, frustrated or attempted, where the value of “Amending Department Circular No. 74 dated November the property is P222,000 or more;” 6, 2001 Involving Qualified Theft when the Value of the WHEREAS, MO 177 and DC 29 are inconsistent as to Property Stolen is P222,000 or More” which provides that: the threshold amount that must be the object of the crime WHEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of existing of qualified theft in order for bail not to be recommended; laws, no bail shall be recommended for the offense WHEREAS, the said inconsistency has resulted in of qualified theft, whether consummated, frustrated confusion among stakeholders in the criminal justice or attempted, where the value of the property is system; and P222,000 or more. WHEREAS, a streamlined and rationalized bail regime As stated in Memorandum Order No. 63, the is indispensable in the effective administration of justice inconsistency between Memorandum Order No. 177 and and the protection of the constitutional right to bail. Department Circular No. 29, as to the threshold amount NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President that must be the object of the crime of qualified theft in of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by order for bail not to be recommended, has resulted in law, do hereby revoke Memorandum Order No. 177 s. 2005. confusion among stakeholders in the criminal justice The amount of bail that should be recommended in cases system. Thus the need to take a step to streamline and of qualified theft shall hereafter be governed by the rationalize the bail regime for the effective administration pertinent rules contained in the relevant issuances of the of justice by revoking Memorandum Order No. 177. Department of Justice. The copy of Memorandum Order No. 63 is appended This Memorandum Order shall take effect immediately. herein as Annex “A” for guidance and reference. DONE, in the City of Manila, this 6th of December, in the year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Thirteen. January 27, 2014. By the President: (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ (Sgd.) PAQUITO N. OCHOA, Jr. Court Administrator Executive Secretary VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 45

involving an ,infrastructure project x x x of the OCA Circular No. 38-2014 government, x x x to prohibit any person or persons, entity or government official from proceeding with or continuing the execution or TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS implementation of any such project, x x x or SUBJECT: JUDICIOUS IMPLEMENTATION OF COURT ISSUANCES pursuing any lawful activity necessary for such execution, implementation or operation.” At the CONCERNING THE BAN ON THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY risk of being repetitious, we stress that the RESTRAINING ORDERS OR WRITS OF PRELIMINARY foregoing statutory provision expressly deprives INJUNCTIONS INVOLVING GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE courts of jurisdiction to issue injunction writs PROJECTS against the implementation or execution of an infrastructure project. The Department of Transportation and Communication and Their attention is further invited to Circular No. 68- Department of Public Works and Highways thru the 94, issued on November 3, 1994 by the OCA OIC Deputy Honorable Joseph Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya and Honorable Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, on the Rogelio L. Singson, respectively, have invited the attention subject “Strict Observance of Section 1 of PD No. of the Court regarding the ongoing several urgent projects 1818 Envisioned by Circular No. 13-93 dated March that involve right-of-way issues. Corollary to these 5, 1993, and Circular No. 20-92 dated March 24, 1992.” undertakings, they requested that, once again, all judges of Finally, judges should never forget what the Court the trial courts must be reminded of the judicious categorically declared in Minos v. Natividad (213 SCRA implementation of administrative issuances relative to the 734, 742 [1992]) that “[b]y express provision of law, prohibition on the issuance of temporary restraining orders amply supported by well-settled jurisprudence, the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over (TROs) and writs of preliminary injunction involving such seizure and forfeiture proceedings, and regular government infrastructure projects. courts cannot interfere with his exercise thereof or In Administrative Circular No. 7-99 dated June 25, 1999, stifle or put it to naught. (Emphasis supplied) the Court enjoined judges to exercise utmost caution, Subsequently, the same proscription on the issuance of prudence, and judiciousness in the issuance of TROs and TROs and writs of preliminary injunction was further writs of preliminary injunction. Pertinent portions of the reiterated in Administrative Circular No. 11-2000 dated said issuance is hereby quoted as follows: November 13, 2000, in view of the enactment of Republic Despite well-entrenched jurisprudence and Act No. 8975, also known as “An Act to Ensure the Expeditious circulars regarding exercise of judiciousness and Implementation and Completion of Government care in the issuance of temporary restraining orders Infrastructure Projects by Prohibiting Lower Courts from (TRO) or grant writs of preliminary injunction, Issuing Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary reports or complaints on abuses committed by trial Injunctions or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions, judges in connection therewith persist. Some even Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof, and for Other intimated that irregularities, including corruption, Purposes.” Section 3 of the Act quoted therein reads as might have influenced the issuance of the TRO or the writ of preliminary injunction. follows: No less than the President of the Philippines has SEC. 3. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary requested this Court to issue a circular reminding Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions and judges to respect PD No. 1818, which prohibits the Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions. – No Court, except issuance of TROs in cases involving the Supreme Court, shall issue any temporary implementation of government infrastructure restraining order, preliminary injunction or projects. The Office of the President has likewise preliminary mandatory injunction against the brought to the attention of this Court orders of government, or any of its subdivisions, officials or judges releasing imported articles under seizure any person or entity, whether public or private, and forfeiture proceedings by the Bureau of acting under the government’s direction, to restrain, Customs. prohibit or compel the following acts: Judges are thus enjoined to observe utmost caution, (a) Acquisition, clearance and development of the prudence and judiciousness in the issuance of TRO and right-of-way and/or site or location of any in the grant of writs of preliminary in/unction to avoid national government project; any suspicion that its issuance or grant was for (b) Bidding or awarding of contract/project of the consideration other than the strict merits of the case. national government as defined under Section Judges should bear in mind that in Garcia v. Burgos 2 hereof; (291 SCRA 546, 571–572 [1998]), this Court explicitly (c) Commencement, prosecution, execution, stated: implementation, operation of any such contract

SECTION 1 of PD No. 1818 distinctly provides that or project; “[n]o court in the Philippines shall have (d) Termination or rescission of any such contact/ jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, project; and preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction in any case, dispute, or controversy (Next page) 46 JANUARY-MARCH 2014

OCA Circular No. 38-2014 (continued) M.O. No. 05-2014 (continued from page 20) (e) The undertaking or authorization of any other Members: lawful activity necessary for such contract/ Atty. Ma. Lourdes E.B. Oliveros project. Chief Justice Staff Head,Office of the Chief Justice, The prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes or Atty. Vicente Dante P. Adan/designated or controversies instituted by a private party, representative including but not limited to cases filed by bidders or those claiming to have rights through such Atty. Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores bidders involving such contract/project. This Chief, Fiscal Management and Budget Office, prohibition shall not apply when the matter is of or her representative extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that unless a temporary restraining order is Atty. Caridad A. Pabello issued grave injustice and irreparable injury will Chief, Office of Administrative Services, OCA, arise. The applicant shall file a bond, in an amount or her representative to be fixed by the court, which bond shall accrue in Atty. Regina Adoracion Filomena M. Ignacio favor of the government if the court should finally Chief, Office on the Halls of Justice, OCA, decide that the applicant was not entitled to the or her representative relief sought. Atty. Gil Jude F. Sta. Maria, Jr. If after due hearing the court finds that the award Court Attorney VI of the contract is null and void, the court may, if appropriate under the circumstances, award the Office of Justice Jose Catral Mendoza contract to the qualified and winning bidder or Mr. Edilberto A. Davis order a rebidding of the same, without prejudice Acting Chief, Management Informations Systems to any liability that the guilty party may incur under or his representative existing laws. Mr. Tenioso B. Libed However, due to the negative reports that reached the Officer in Charge, Property Division, OCA, Court not only on the issuance of TROs or writs of preliminary or his representative injunction in cases involving government projects but also Secretary: on the complaints about delays in the disposition of such Atty. Camille Sue Mae L. Ting cases after a TRO is converted into a writ of preliminary Court Attorney V, OCA injunction, the Court issued Administrative Circular No. 62- 2002 dated November 20, 2002. It reminded all trial court Asst. Secretary: judges to strictly comply with Administrative Circular Nos. Ms. Angela A. Antonio 7-99 and 11-2000, and directed them to submit the reports Executive Assistant VI, OCA on the status of TROs or writs of preliminary injunction The Chairperson and Members of the above issued in various cases. Commitee and its Secretariat shall be entitled to Lastly, the Court through the Office of the Court receive the usual expense allowance authorized under Administrator issued OCA Circular No. 79-2003 dated June A.C. No. 13-1999, subject to existing accounting and 12, 2003. The trial court judges are once again cautioned auditing rules and regulations. concerning the improvident or irregular issuance of TROs This Memorandum Order shall take efect upon its or the grant of writs of preliminary injunction. They are issuance. reminded to be aware of the cases where the issuance of temporary restraining order or the grant of preliminary Issued on March 14, 2014. injunction is proper, as well as the cases where they are not (Sgd.) MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO including cases concerning government infrastructure Chief Justice projects. Chairperson, First Division In view of all the foregoing, all concerned are hereby Date: March 13, 2014 EXHORTED to CONTINUOUSLY OBSERVE and IMPLEMENT the (Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO abovementioned administrative issuances of the Court to Associate Justice and ensure that all cases involving government infrastructure Chairperson, Second Division projects can be resolved in a speedy and timely manner. Date: March 14, 2014 Strict compliance is hereby enjoined. (Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, Jr. March 12, 2014. Associate Justice and (Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Chairperson, Third Division Court Administrator Date: March 14, 2014 VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 61 47

Judicial Views 2014 Upcoming PHILJA Events (continued from page 3) (Continued from page 48) other, through mediation by the court or by court- „ Program Evaluation and Validation Workshop on CET for annexed mediators, and then approved and adopted Family Court Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children by a court decision also. This alternative route for May 8, Manila dispute resolution brings a measure of both justice „ 33rd Pre-Judicature Program and peace, the latter consisting of at least the May 12–23, Manila restoration of normal relations between the parties, „ CDP for Court Legal Researchers or an end to their fighting in and out of court. This Region XII, May 14–15, Tagaytay City does not entail trial, and is thus a usually speedier Region IX, June 18–19, Tagaytay City disposition of the case – itself a constitutional right of „ Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators all persons. This is thus what one PHILJA lecturer called and PMC Unit Staff the “most effective docket-reduction tool.” Stated Camarines Norte Mediation Program otherwise, this is the judicial equivalent of winning May 15–16, Daet and Labo, Camarines Norte battles without firing a single shot or shedding a single „ E-JOW drop of blood. City of Ilagan May 15, Ilagan City, Isabela Legal Ethics City of Santiago May 16, Santiago City, Isabela The brunt of the settlement effort might be carried by Iligan City the judge but it helps when there is the positive June 27, Iligan City cooperation and even assistance of counsels, especially „ Basic Mediation Course as “officers of the court,” regarding their own legal Zamboanga del Norte Mediation Program ethical “Duty [to society] to encourage amicable May 20–23, Dipolog City settlement.” Indeed, this is also a matter of legal Camarines Norte Mediation Program ethics and not just a procedural matter that one just June 24–27, Daet, Camarines Norte goes through motions of exploring the possibility of „ Seminar for EJs of Luzon and NCJR amicable settlement, manifesting willingness but not May 21–22, Manila following through. Oftentimes legal ethics comes „ Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks into play just as importantly as substantive and of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediator-Trainees, and procedural law. In rendering decisions, judgments PMCU Staff (Zamboanga del Norte Mediation Program) May 23, Dipolog City and resolutions, I often find it not enough to just discuss the latter two aspects of the law. There is to „ CET for Judges and Court Personnel Handling Child Cases me a duty, where appropriate, to also impart legal Involving Children May 27–29, Manila ethics and values education in the extended discussion of a case, as well as in posters and various „ Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers handouts to lawyers and litigants. Region II, June 3–5, Tuguegarao City „ Convention and Seminar of the JACOPHIL Judicial Activism Theme: Judiciary Clerks: Moving Towards Efficiency and In this work as a judge, there has to be a high sense of Development responsibility because of the role of the judiciary in June 4–6, Iloilo City society and the awareness that your judicial work „ RTD on Issues and Concerns Relating to Intellectual decisions directly affect the rights, liberty or property Property Rights Enforcement of the parties to the cases before you. Indeed, on the June 9–10, Makati City other hand, you do have a certain measure of power, „ PST for Judges stature and most importantly moral ascendancy with Regions VI–VIII, June 24–26, Tagaytay City which to set things right (give the parties their due), „ Seminar on the Rules of Procedure on Financial to solve problems and disputes between parties, and Rehabilitation for Special Commercial Court Judges of to otherwise change or reform things for the better, Regions I–III and Other Stakeholders June 27, Baguio City including social attitudes – ultimately to “serve the people” in your own small way. It is nothing less than „ Pre-internship Orientation and Meeting Camarines Norte Mediation Program another kind of activism or another kind of judicial June 27, Daet, Camarines Norte activism. 3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial Building PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE TO AVOID PAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE OR Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila 1000 IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH Philippines

2014 Upcoming PHILJA Events „ CEP for RTC Clerks of Court Regions IV-VII Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna Regions IX and XII May 14–16, Tagaytay City Chancellor April 1–3, Cebu City Regions VIII-XII Professor Sedfrey M. Candelaria Region II June 18–20, Tagaytay City Editor in Chief May 27–29, Tagaytay City „ 7th National Convention and Editorial and Research Staff „ 10th Biennial National Convention Seminar of National Officers of the Atty. Orlando B. Cariño and Seminar of the CLERAP COSTRAPHIL Arsenia M. Mendoza Theme: “Court Legal Researchers Theme: “Upholding the Court’s Armida M. Salazar as Partners Towards a Reformed Integrity with the Highest Degree of Jocelyn D. Bondoc Judiciary” Professionalism through an Honest, Ronald P. Caraig April 2–4, Ilocos Norte Accurate and Authentic Record of Judith B. Del Rosario „ Asian Mediation Association (AMA) Court Proceedings” Christine A. Ferrer Conference April 23–25, Tagbilaran City Joanne Narciso-Medina Charmaine S. Nicolas „ 8th National Convention and April 3–4, Hong Kong Sarah Jane S. Salazar „ RTD on Substantive Laws and Seminar of the PHILACI Jeniffer P. Sison Theme: “Court Interpreter: Fervently Jurisprudence on Intellectual Circulation and Support Staff Property and Competently Serving in the Court of Appeals Justices Dispensation of Justice” Romeo A. Arcullo April 28–30, Bacolod City Lope R. Palermo Batch 1, April 10–11, Cagayan de Oro City Daniel S. Talusig Batch 2, May 22–23, Cebu City „ Seminar-Workshop on Printing Services „ Orientation Conference with Strengthening Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Judicial Integrity for EJs of NCJR Leticia G. Javier and Printing Staff Mediation April 29–30, Pasay City Camarines Norte Mediation Program „ Judicial Settlement Conference for April 10, Daet, Camarines Norte Judges on JDR „ Seminar-Workshop on Various (Skills-based Course) Laws and Rules Relating to Money May 6–9, Iloilo City The PHILJA Bulletin is published Laundering and Other Financial „ Orientation of Clerks of Court and quarterly by the Research, Crimes for Judges Branch Clerks of Court on JDR Publications and Linkages Office Region X May 8, Iloilo City of the Philippine Judicial April 23–24, Cagayan de Oro City June 19, Tacloban City Academy, with office at the 3rd Regions I and II „ Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Floor of the Supreme Court May 14–15, Laoag City Public Attorneys, and Law Region III Centennial Building, Padre Faura Practitioners on JDR June 18–19, Clark Field, Pampanga Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila. May 8, Iloilo City Tel: 552-9524; Fax: 552-9621; E- „ Work Orientation and Skills June 19, Tacloban City Enhancement Seminar (WOSES) for mail: [email protected]; „ Refresher/Advanced Course for PMC Unit Staff [email protected]; Website: Court-Annexed Mediators (Panay April 23–24, Tagaytay City http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph and Bacolod Mediation Programs) „ JCEP for Selected RTC Judges May 8–9, Iloilo City Regions I-III, April 23–25 Tagaytay City (Continued on page 47)