Volume XVII Issue No.
67
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
From the Chancellors Desk
Retired Family Court Judge Rosalina L. Pison gives new judges pointers on how to solemnize marriages during one of the Orientation Seminar-
Workshops for Newly Appointed Judges regularly conducted by the Academy.
For the period July to September 2015, PHILJA proceeded
with the implementation of our regular training programs
and activities (TPAs) such as the 73rd Orientation Seminar-
Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges; the 35th Pre-
Judicature Program for judicial aspirants; two Judicial Career
Enhancement Programs for First Level Court Judges (JCEP)
from Regions IV and VI; one Career Development Program for
Court Legal Researchers of Luzon; and Career Enhancement
Programs each for RTC Clerks of Court of Region IV, Court
Social Workers of Regions VIVIII, and RTC Sheriffs of the
NCJR (Batch 2).
The following special focus programs were conducted
during the quarter: Seminar-Workshops on Dangerous Drugs
Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of Regions V
and VII; Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity
and Rule of Law for Selected Judges of Regions VI and VII; the
Third Forum on Women Leaders on the topic of biodiversity
conservation; the Sixth Seminar-Workshop on Deposit
Insurance, Banking Practices and Bank Conservatorship,
Receivership and Liquidation; a Training Seminar on the
Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases and Skills
Development for Judges of Pilot Courts; a Competency
Seminar on Legal Writing; two batches of Personal Security
Training (PST) for Judges; a Seminar-Workshop for Judges of
Regions IV and V on the topic of financial crimes and money
laundering; a Competency Enhancement Training for Judges
1
July-September 2015 ISSN 2244-5862
and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children; and a
Competency Enhancement Training for Judges, Prosecutors,
Social Workers, and Law Enforcement Investigators Handling
Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Cases.
A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) for the PHILJA
Curriculum Review was also conducted during this period
with court personnel who are officers of the different
judiciary associations and members of the Appellate Courts
as resource persons.
PHILJA also lent a hand in the conduct of the 17th National
Convention and Seminar of the Metropolitan and City Judges
Association of the Philippines (MeTCJAP) in Batangas City. We
also continued to support the Courts Enhanced Justice on
Wheels (EJOW) Program with the conduct of the Information
Dissemination through Dialogue among Barangay Officials
and Court Officials in the following areasCity of Balanga,
Bataan and the City of Angeles, Pampanga in Luzon and in the
City of Ormoc and Province of Samar in the Visayas.
The Academy, through the Philippine Mediation Center
Office (PMCO), conducted a number of activities in support
of alternative dispute resolution such as the Orientation
Programs on Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) for Clerks of
Court and Branch Clerks of Court and for Public Prosecutors,
Public Attorneys and Law Practitioners; Basic Mediation
(Continued on page 2)
2 July - September 2015
Contents
From The Chancellors Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Training Programs and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Doctrinal Reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Circulars
Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 Protocols and
Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and
Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions,
and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Circular No. 103-2015 Implementation of
Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9285 and Submission
of Inventory Reports in Relation Thereto . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Circular No. 113-2015 Advice and Instructions
Concerning the Piloting of Rules 22 and 24 of the
Proposed Rules of Civil Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Circular No. 144-2015 Non-Attendance in the
Philippine Judicial Academy Seminars . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Circular No. 146-2015 Membership Application
Form on the Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan
for the Year 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Circular No. 155-2015 Amendments to A.M.
No. 04-7-02-SC (Re: Guidelines on Corporate Surety
Bonds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Circular No. 168-2015 Effects of Suspension
Meted on Justices or Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Circular No. 173-2015 Submission of Monthly
Inventory of Cases for the Pilot-Testing of Rules 22
and 24 of the Draft Revised Rules of Civil Procedure . .
OCA Circular No. 174-2015 Lifting of Compliance
with OCA Circular No. 74-2013 (Re: Submission of
Copies of Dismissed Drug Cases) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Circular No. 189-2015 Unauthorized Collection
of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000) Deposit in
ExtraJudicial Foreclosure Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Circular No. 206-2015 Resolution Dated June
16, 2015 in A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC (Amendment of
A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC Dated June 17, 2003, for the
Expansion of the Coverage of Cases Cognizable by
the Special Commercial Courts to Include All Cases on
Insolvency and Liquidation under the FRIA) . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Circular No. 213-2015 Guidelines for the
Special Additional Expense Allowance for Assisting
Court Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Circular No. 222-2015 Amendment to OCA
Circular No. 07-2013, Timely Submission of Certificates
of Service of Judges and Daily Time Records (DTRs)/
Bundy Cards of Personnel of the Lower Courts . . . . . .
Fourth Quarter 2015 Training Programs and Activities . .
Continued from page 1
Courses; as well as Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting
1 with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation
3 Trainees, and PMCU Staff in Palawan and Oriental Mindoro.
14 Other mediation programs conducted this quarter were
the WOSES or Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement
Seminar given to selected PMC Unit Staff; Orientation
Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Mediation
for the North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat Mediation
Programs; Refresher/Advanced Courses for Court-Annexed
17 Mediators under the Bohol Mediation Program as well as the
Cagayan and Isabela Mediation Programs; Orientation and
Screening of Prospective Mediators and PMC Unit Staff under
20 the Palawan, North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat Mediation
Programs; and Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges on
Judicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-based Course).
21
We also held a Roundtable Discussion (RTD) for Judges
on Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health, as well as a
23 Special Lecture under the Academic Excellence Lecture Series
in the Judiciary (AELSJ) featuring Retired Supreme Court
Associate Justice Jose C. Vitug who spoke on Coping with
23 the Developing Landscape in Civil Law before an enthusiastic
audience composed of students, lawyers, members of the
bench and professors from the Angeles University Foundation
24 in Angeles, Pampanga.
We likewise continue to take note and share new rulings,
24 orders, resolutions and circulars of the Supreme Court, as
well as new OCA circulars in the quarterly issue of the PHILJA
Bulletin and learning resources in the PHILJA website.
25
In all these activities, the Academy saw the notable
performance of its teams and personnel, doing their tasks
with dedication and loyalty. Thank you all.
26
I also wish to thank all our development partners who
have unfailingly extended to us funding, expertise, sharing of
26 best practices and the bond of friendship for many years now.
Thank you, too, to the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court for the unstinting support
and inspiration given to PHILJA and all its undertakings. The
success of the Academy hinges on all these support for its
endeavors.
27
Finally, thanks to the Almighty for the blessings and
graces needed to serve our people effectively.
28 All the best.
28 ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Chancellor
32
Volume XVII Issue No. 67 3

Training Programs and Activities

PHILJA Welcomes New Vice Chancellor and Chief for PMCO

On July 22, PHILJA officials and employees warmly welcomed retired Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.
as PHILJA Vice Chancellor and Judge Geraldine Faith A. Econg as PHILJA Chief of Office for Philippine Mediation Center (PMC).
Justice Callejo, appointed for a term of two years per SC En Banc Resolution A.M. No. 15-07-02-SC-PHILJA, succeeds Justice
Justo P. Torres, Jr. whose term expired on May 9, 2015. Justice Torres served as PHILJA Vice Chancellor for 10 years.
Judge Econg was likewise appointed for a term of two years per the High Courts En Banc Resolution A.M. No. 15-04-01-SC-
PHILJA.

Justice ROMEO J. CALLEJO, Sr.

Justice Callejo obtained his Associate in Arts and Bachelor of Laws degrees from the San Beda College. He
joined the office of the late Senator Jose W. Diokno immediately after passing the Bar. He was a Partner in
Montenegro, Mandayag and Hernandez Law Office before he was appointed in 1987 as Presiding Judge
of the Manila Regional Trial Court. He was appointed in 1994 as Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals
where he served as Chairperson of the 10th Division. In 2002, he was appointed as Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court, during which he chaired the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters. Justice
Callejo was the Chairperson of the 2005 Bar Examinations Committee. After his retirement from the High
Court, he became the Chairperson of the Supreme Court Committee that drafted the Revision of Rule 65
of the Revised Rules of Court approved by the Supreme Court and of the Rules of Evidence pending approval by the SC. He
served as Chair of PHILJAs Department of Criminal Law in 1998.
Justice Callejo taught Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Trial Technique and Remedial Law in San Beda
College, Ateneo de Manila University and the UP Law Center. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Society of Judicial
Excellence and an alumnus of the Academy of Comparative and International Law of the University of Texas.
He was named Outstanding Judge of Manila in 1991 and in 1994, and an awardee of the coveted Cayetano Arellano
Award for Judicial Excellence by the Foundation for Judicial Excellence in 1993.
Justice Callejo, who hails from Sta. Ana, Ilocos Sur, is a loving husband to Ma. Filipinas Villanueva, doting father to Romeo
Gerard, and Geraldine Callejo-Geday, and a proud grandfather to Jacqueline, Alicia and Amelie.

Judge GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONG

Before her appointment to the bench, Judge Econg was a private law practitioner specializing in natural
resources and environmental law. Her judicial career started when she was appointed in 2002 as Judge of
the Minglanilla Municipal Trial Court in Cebu and later in 2004 as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 9, Cebu
City. In 2010, she became the Judicial Reform Program Administrator of the Supreme Courts Program
Management Office. She was designated on May 10, 2015 as Acting Head of the Academys Philippine
Mediation Center Office (PMCO) until her recent appointment as PHILJA Chief of Office for PMC in July
2015.
In 2006 and 2008, she took up special courses in court and case management at the National Center for State Courts
(NCSC) based in United States of America. She is an Associate Mediator at the Singapore Mediation Center.
Judge Econg, obtained her Bachelor of Philosophy and Bachelor of Laws degrees from the University of San Carlos,
Cebu City. She placed 15th in the 1993 Bar Examinations. She also holds a Diploma in Urban and Regional Planning from the
University of the Philippines, a Certificate in Environmental Management and a Certificate in International Criminal Law from
Salzburg University, Austria.
4 July - September 2015

2015 Biotechnology Outreach Project

A 21-member PHILJA delegation attended the 2015
Biotechnology Outreach Project of the United States
Department of State held at the New World Manila Bay on
September 23.
Dr. Pesach Lubinsky, Science Advisor at the US Department
of Agriculture, in his presentation entitled Coexistence: A
Perspective from the United States discussed biotechnology,
organic farming, coexistence of biotechnology and organic
farming practices, and genetically engineered and identically
preserved crops. He also shared the United States stand on
biotechnology and coexistence, and the work of the Advisory
Council for the 21st Century Agriculture. A lively open forum
followed Dr. Lubinskys presentation.
The PHILJA delegation, led by Research, Publications
and Linkages Office Head Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria, was
welcomed by Mr. Richard A. Bakewell, Environment, Science
and Technology, Health and Energy Officer of the US Embassy.
Dean Candelaria thanked the US Embassy for the opportunity
given to the Academys delegation to learn from a very timely
and substantive session on a relevant subject matter such as
biotechnology.
The US Department of State supports the US Biotechnology
Outreach Program aimed at promoting better understanding
and dialogue among stakeholders on biotechnology issues.
In recognition of the country as one of the regional leaders
(Continued on page 6)

Roundtable Discussion for Judges on

Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health

The Philippine Judicial Academy, in partnership with the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),
held a Roundtable Discussion for Judges on Intellectual
Property Rights and Public Health on July 29 to 30 at the
Century Park Hotel in Manila attended by 24 participants,
composed of selected RTC judges, representatives from
the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL),
American Bar AssociationRule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI)
and intellectual property law firms. The two-day activity
was designed to discuss issues and concerns affecting the
disposition of intellectual property rights cases and improve
the skills of judges in using health-related TRIPS (Trade-
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) flexibilities in
law interpretations and application.
PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna said in
his Opening Remarks that the RTD is a very timely and
wonderful opportunity for the participants to learn recent
developments on intellectual property and public health that
will be helpful in the administration of justice in our courts.
Mr. Kiyoshi Adachi, Chief of the Intellectual Property Unit of
UNCTAD shared a short background of UNCTAD and briefly
discussed the TRIPS declaration on public health and the
interconnection between intellectual property and public
health. Ms. Thamara Romero, Legal Officer of the Intellectual
Property Unit, UNCTAD, discussed key issues and current
international and local trends in intellectual property rights
and development in relation to public health and local
pharmaceutical production.
A series of discussions followed on the following topics:
emerging issues on patents and patentability (international
(Continued on page 12)
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
Third Forum of Women Leaders on
Biodiversity Conservation
On July 21, the Academy convened the Philippines leading
women advocates of biodiversity conservation and
environmental law enforcement at the Third Forum of Women
Leaders on Biodiversity Conservation, in partnership with the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
and the United States Department of the Interior (USDOI).
The guests of honor of the Forum, all renowned women
in government, academe and media, were Court of Appeals
5
Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio
Morales, Secretary of Justice Leila M. De Lima, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Undersecretary Analiza
R. Teh, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Assistant
Director Drusila Esther E. Bayate, Dr. Cecilia N. Gascon of the
Southern Luzon State University, Dr. Minerva I. Morales of the
Catanduanes State University, Ms. Karen Davila of ABS-CBN
Integrated News and Current Affairs, and CTI Government
Representatives Ms. Loreta A. Sollestre and Ms. Angelique M.
Songco. Their short presentations highlighted their respective
accomplishments and significant contributions in biodiversity
conservation and environmental law enforcement, and
promoted ways to increase collaborative efforts to protect
the environment.
Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna, Department of Agriculture
Undersecretary and BFAR Director Asis G. Perez and USAID
Mission Director Gloria D. Steele delivered their messages
before the 54 Forum participants coming from the Judiciary,
Executive, Institute of Environmental Governance, National
Coral Triangle Coordinating Committee, USAID, and Media.
6 July - September 2015
Training Seminar on the Guidelines
for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases
and Skills Development for Judges of Pilot Courts
A Training Seminar on the Guidelines for Continuous Trial of
Criminal Cases and Skills Development for Judges of Pilot Courts
was conducted by the Supreme Court, the Special Committee
on Speedy Trial and the Philippine Judicial Academy on July
23 to 24 at the PHILJA Training Center in Tagaytay City. Fifty-
seven participants attended the activity, among them were
SC justices, members of the Special Committee on Speedy
Trial, the Technical Working Group on Continuous Trial, the
Monitoring Team, and pilot court judges.
The two-day training seminar provided participants
with a comprehensive view of the Guidelines for Continuous
Trial of Criminal Cases in Pilot Courts (Administrative Matter
No. 15-06-10-SC), which the Supreme Court, upon the
recommendation of the Special Committee on Speedy Trial,
approved on June 30, 2015. The guidelines will take effect on
August 17, 2015.
Newly appointed PHILJA Vice Chancellor Justice Romeo
J. Callejo, Sr. welcomed the participants to the activity and
remarked that initiatives such as the Guidelines on Continuous
Trial are ways to improve the Philippine criminal justice
system and expressed hope that the judges will perform their
jobs with integrity, competence and diligence. PHILJA Chief of
Office for Academic Affairs Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis
read the Keynote Message of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A.
Sereno, wherein the Chief Justice expressed gratitude to the
52 judges who have volunteered to implement continuous
trial in selected criminal cases. If this first batch of volunteer
judges succeed in proving that continuous trial can be the
procedural norm in the first pool of hundreds of cases to
be tried on a continuous basis, then the Filipino judiciary
will have shattered another popular belief: that here in the
Philippines, the public has to resign itself to a turtle-paced
justice system, the Chief Justice said in her message. She
also congratulated the members of the Special Committee on
Speedy Trial and the Technical Working Group on Continuous
Trial. Their efforts, as well as those of our volunteer judges,
provide the most effective proof that the judiciary is poised to
fulfill its goal of setting the gold standard in public service, CJ
Sereno said.
Justice Diosdado M. Peralta provided an overview of the
Continuous Trial Project and discussed the salient points of the
Guidelines on Continuous Trial: Application and Jurisdiction,
Preliminary Investigation and Arrest, Arraignment and Pre-
Trial, Trial Proper, and Promulgation of Judgment. Participants
were later divided into groups for a workshop on automated
hearing.
PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna started
the second day of the activity with his remarks on how the
Guidelines on Continuous Trial will revolutionize the trial
of cases in the country. Justice Peralta then discussed the
Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court Resolution:
Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts, the Rules
of Procedure for Environmental Cases, the Rules of Procedure
for Intellectual Property Rights Case, Republic Act No. 9165
also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and motions
that delay proceedings. Court Administrator Jose Midas P.
Marquez delivered the Closing Remarks.
In April 2015, the Special Committee on Speedy Trial
was tasked to formulate guidelines for the pilot and full
implementation of the continuous trial system for criminal
cases. The Committee is composed of SC Justice Diosdado M.
Peralta as Chairperson; SC Justice Lucas P. Bersamin as Vice
Chairperson; and SC Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., SC Justice
Jose C. Mendoza, Court of Appeals (CA) Justice Magdangal M.
De Leon, CA Justice Mario V. Lopez, CA Justice Maria Filomena
D. Singh, CA Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, Sandiganbayan
Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, and Court Administrator
Jose Midas P. Marquez, as members.
The Guidelines was one of the reform and innovation
initiatives launched as part of the judicial reform agenda of the
Philippine Supreme Court under Chief Justice Sereno. The four
pillars of this judicial reform agenda are: 1) institutionalized
integrity and restored public credibility, 2) ensuring the
predictability, rationality, speed and responsiveness of judicial
actions, 3) improved systems, processes and infrastructures,
and 4) effective and efficient human resources.
2015 Biotechnology Outreach Project
Continued from page 4
in agricultural biotechnology development, adoption
and trade, the US Department of State has reached out
to its Philippine partners in the academe, government
regulators, industry groups, farmers and non-government
organizations.
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
Roundtable Discussion for Judges: Knowledge Sharing in Handling
Financial Crimes Cases Involving Investment Schemes (Pyramid/Ponzi Schemes)
PHILJA conducted a roundtable discussion on handling
financial crimes cases involving investment schemes on
September 15 at the Manila Diamond Hotel attended by 17
selected pairing judges from the National Capital Judicial
Region and representatives from the United States Federal
Trade Commission. The one-day knowledge sharing activity
aimed to re-apprise the participants of the various laws, rules
and jurisprudence on financial crimes involving investment
schemes and to discover emerging trends and best practices
in other jurisdictions to further enhance Philippine judges
capacity to handle and decide investment fraud cases.
Atty. Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., PHILJA Professorial Lecturer II,
provided an overview of the elements and types of investment
schemes and a discussion of related Philippine laws and rules.
His presentation was followed by an open panel discussion on
the issues and concerns in handling financial crimes cases on
investment schemes with panelists Securities and Exchange
Commission Chairperson Teresita J. Herbosa, PHILJA Vice
Chancellor Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Mr. Eric OMalley of
the United States Department of Justice Criminal Division
Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and
Training (USDOJ-OPDAT), Atty. Daniel Hanks and Atty. Betsy
Broder, both of the United States Federal Trade Commission.
During the said panel discussion, participants were given
the opportunity to suggest ways on how to best handle
investment fraud cases. Among their proposals were for the
Supreme Court to issue an administrative circular mandating
the conduct of continuous trial for investment fraud/anti-
money laundering cases and the creation of special courts to
handle syndicated estafa cases.
7
Atty. Hanks and Atty. Broder shared the international
perspective on the emerging trends and best practices
in handling and deciding financial crimes cases involving
investment schemes, as well as the key indicators, red
flags, transaction patterns and tell-tale signs of pyramid/
ponzi schemes. Judge Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro,
on the other hand, discussed various Philippine cases and
rules concerning pyramid/ponzi schemes, existing Philippine
pyramid schemes, potential scams, and the Eight-Point
Test developed by the Direct Shopping Association of the
Philippines (DSAP). Atty. Hanks, Atty. Broder and Judge San
Pedro facilitated another open discussion where participants
shared their experiences and challenges in handling and
deciding financial crimes cases involving investment schemes,
ways on how to deal with media pressure/influence, security
concerns in handling said crimes, and the legal remedies
available to victims.
PHILJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna welcomed
the speakers, resource persons and participants. He said that
roundtable discussions are conducted by the Academy as
venues for sharing of knowledge and experiences to improve
the quality of administration of justice. Mr. OMalley in his
message said that he views the Philippines as resourceful
because it opens itself to learning through sharing of ideas
and open dialogue, the ultimate goal of which is to achieve
justice. Justice Callejo in his closing remarks expressed his
hope that the sharings and learnings from the activity will
enhance the capacity of judges in handling and deciding fraud
cases.
8 July - September 2015

Orientation-Seminar
Hon. Erriza Dawn B. Narciso
MTCC, Br. 2, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
73rd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed
Municipal Trial Courts
Judges
Date: September 817, 2015 Region III
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City Hon. Ann Eillene S. Morales-Java
Participants: 23 newly appointed and 6 promoted judges, MTC, Jaen, Nueva Ecija
namely: Hon. Wendell M. Ramiterre
MTC, Floridablanca, Pampanga
I. New Appointments
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Regional Trial Courts
Region III Region III
Hon. Jonathan M. Agnes Hon. Philip M. Cruz
RTC, Br. 6, Malolos City, Bulacan 1st MCTC: Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan
Hon. Bernar D. Fajardo Hon. Maricar P. Dela Cruz-Buban
RTC, Br. 67, Paniqui, Tarlac 3rd MCTC: Orion-Pilar, Bataan
Hon. Maria Cristina G. Laderas Sharia Circuit Court
RTC, Br. 85, Malolos City, Bulacan
Hon. Robert Alexander R. Malig Region XII
RTC, Br. 45, City of San Fernando, Pampanga Hon. Palawan R. Cayongccat
Hon. Antonio Ray A. Ortiguera Shariff Aguak-Ampatuan, Maguindanao
RTC, Br. 2, Balanga, Bataan
Metropolitan Trial Courts II. Promotion

NCJR Regional Trial Courts

Hon. Don Ace Mariano V. Alagar NCJR
MeTC, Br. 43, Quezon City Hon. Lyn C. Ebora-Cacha
Hon. Minerva M. Alejandria-Bautista RTC, Br. 82, Quezon City
MeTC, Br. 16, Manila Hon. Maria Gilda T. Loja-Pangilinan
Hon. Juliet C. Azarraga-Chanyongco RTC, Br. 230, Quezon City
MeTC, Br. 53, Caloocan City Hon. Mitushealla R. Manzanero-Casio
Hon. Maria Lorenza I. Barias-Siosana RTC, Br. 228, Quezon City
MeTC, Br. 49, Caloocan City Hon. Marilou D. Runes-Tamang
Hon. Rolando A. De Guzman, Jr. RTC, Br. 98, Quezon City
MeTC, Br. 72, Pasig City
Hon. Michelle G. Divina-Delfin Region I
MeTC, Br. 8, Manila Hon. Junius F. Dalaten
Hon. Maria Ella Cecilia D. Dumlao-Escalante RTC, Br. 50, Villasis, Pangasinan
MeTC, Br. 35, Quezon City Region III
Hon. Nio Delvin E. Embuscado Hon. Leo Cecilio D. Bautista
MeTC, Br. 66, Makati City RTC, Br. 38, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija
Hon. Paul A. Flor
MeTC, Br. 20, Manila III. Completion
Hon. Remiebel U. Mondia
MeTC, Br. 45, Pasay City Hon. Sheryll D. Tulabing **
Hon. John Boomsri S. Rodolfo MeTC, Br. 56, Malabon City
MeTC, Br. 38, Quezon City
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities * Was issued Certificate of Compliance only for being absent on
Region III September 8 (whole day) and September 16 (morning).
** Was issued Certificate of Completion for attending missed
Hon. Joeven D. Dellosa* subjects during the 70th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for
MTCC, Br. 2, City of San Fernando, Pampanga Newly Appointed Judges.
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
Pre-Judicature Program
35th Pre-Judicature Program
Date: July 2031, 2015
Venue: Bayleaf Hotel, Intramuros, Manila
Participants: 47 lawyers, namely:
1. Maria Teresa S. Abadilla
2. Romeo E. Agacita, Jr.
3. Gina A. Antonio
4. May T. Aquino-Wong
5. Hannah V. Arriola
6. Lorelei S. Balansay-Tapia
7. Kate S. Bansuelo
8. Jennifer E. Bayaua
9. Mary Kwen P. Caete-Elefante
10. Niven R. Canlapan
11. Uriel N. Castillo
12. Ma. Chrsitina G. Castillo
13. Meliecar R. Castro
14. Theresa G. Cinco-Bactat
15. Helen B. Constantino-Balbuena
16. Ana Florence S. Cuntapay-Oamil
17. Joanne Sharon C. Dela Cruz
18. Carmelita R. Delos Santos
19. Jennet A. Delos Santos-Paras
20. Erwin Y. Dimayacyac
21. Reichelle S. Divino-Abejero
22. Ma. Lorelai Andrea C. Dulig
23. Cherrie Q. Frias-Altura
24. Karla A. Funtila-Abugan
25. Jerico G. Gay-ya
26. David S. Gojunco
27. Deanabeth C. Gonzales
28. Joseph M. Inocencio
29. Dorina H. Joya
30. Romeo N. Juayno, Jr.
31. Lily Joy A. Labayo-Patria
32. Grace A. Lagadia
33. Joan O. Lumawag
34. Joy Z. Manaog
35. Gian Enrico C. Navarro
36. George C. Omelio, Jr.
37. Marinelle B. OSantos-Tubayan
38. Myrna B. Pacala
39. Maria Theresita E. Patula
40. Francisco Benito A. Saavedra
41. Rino E. Sabarre
42. Adrian Ferdinand S. Sugay
43. Francis Tom F. Temprosa
44. Allene C. Torres-Pena
45. Karyn Lee A. Tribaco
9
46. Katrina Jorelle P. Villena
47. Grace L. Yulo
48. Michel Kristian R. Ablan*
Judicial Career Enhancement Program
(JCEP)
JCEP for First Level Court Judges
Fourth Judicial Region (Mindoro, Marinduque,
Romblon, Palawan and Batangas)
Date: July 13, 2015
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 48 MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges
Sixth Judicial Region
Date: July 1416, 2015
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 56 MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges
Career Development Program
Career Development Program for Court Legal
Researchers of Luzon
Date: July 2829, 2015
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 72 Sandiganbayan, RTC and MTCC court legal
researchers from Luzon
Career Enhancement Program
Career Enhancement Program for RTC Clerks of Court
Region IV
Date: July 79, 2015
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 90 RTC clerks of court
Career Enhancement Program for Court Social Workers
Regions VI VIII
Date: July 79, 2015
Venue: Harolds Hotel, Cebu City
Participants: 25 RTC court social workers
Career Enhancement Program for RTC Sheriffs NCJR
(Batch 2)
Date: July 1416, 2015
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 44 RTC sheriffs
* From Batch 34, only attended sessions on afternoon of July 29
and whole day of July 30
10
Special Focus Program
Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges,
Prosecutors and Law Enforcers
Region V
Date: June 30July 2, 2015
Venue: The Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga City
Participants: 93 RTC judges, prosecutors, law enforcers and
representatives from the DOH
Region VII
Date: September 13, 2015
Venue: Harolds Hotel, Cebu City
Participants: 86 RTC judges, prosecutors, representatives
from PDEA, AIDSOTF, NBI, PPA, NAPOLCOM and DOH
Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity
and Rule of Law for Selected Judges
Regions VI and VII
Date: July 1516, 2015
Venue: Hotel Essencia, Dumaguete City
Participants: 24 RTC judges
Third Forum of Women Leaders on Biodiversity
Conservation
Date: July 21, 2015
Venue: Diamond Hotel, Manila
Participants: 54 representatives from the judicary, other
government agencies, LGUs, academe, civil society groups,
USAID and media
Sixth Seminar-Workshop on Deposit Insurance, Banking
Practices and Bank Conservatorship, Receivership and
Liquidation
Date: July 2223, 2015
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 28 RTC judges and 10 PDCI observers
Training Seminar on the Guidelines for Continuous Trial
of Criminal Cases and Skills Development for Judges of
Pilot Courts
Date: July 2324, 2015
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 57 comprising Supreme Court Justices,
Supreme Court Committee on Speedy Trial, Monitoring
Team, Technical Working Group and pilot court judges
July - September 2015
Competency Seminar on Legal Writing
Date: July 27, 2015
Venue: Conference Room, Annex 1 Building, Court of
Appeals, Manila
Participants: 20 lawyers and non-lawyers from the Office of
Justice Mariano C. del Castillo
Information Dissemination through a Dialogue between
Barangay Officials and Court Officials
City of Balanga
Date: July 30, 2015
Venue: Bulwagan II, Capitol Compound, Balanga City
Participants: 78 barangay and court officials
City of Angeles
Date: July 31, 2015
Venue: Angeles City Session Hall, Ground Floor, Pulung
Maragul, Angeles City
Participants: 91 barangay and court officials
City of Ormoc
Date: September 3, 2015
Venue: Ormoc City Superdome, Larrazabal Street, Ormoc
City, Leyte
Participants: 191 barangay and court officials
Province of Samar
Date: September 4, 2015
Venue: Covered Court, Provincial Capitol Ground, Catbalogan
City, Samar
Participants: 81 barangay and court officials
Competency Enhancement Training
Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and Law
Enforcement Investigators Handling Trafficking in
Persons Cases
Date: September 13, 2015
Venue: Hotel Essencia, Dumaguete City
Participants: 53 RTC judges, prosecutors, social workers and
law enforcers
Judges and Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving
Children
Date: September 810, 2015
Venue: Hotel Jen, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City
Participants: 70 RTC judges, clerks of court/officers in
charge, court interpreters, court social workers, local social
workers, prosecutors, PAO lawyers, and representatives
from Child Protection Unit Network and Consuelo Zobel
Alger Foundation
Volume XVII Issue No. 67 11

Seminar-Workshop for Judges of the Fourth and Roundtable Discussion

Fifth Judicial Regions on Financial Crimes and Money
Laundering
Date: September 1617, 2015
Venue: Diamond Hotel, Manila
Participants: 35 RTC judges from Regions IV and V
Personal Security Training for Judges
Date: September 13, 2015
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 44 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges
from NCJR and Region IV
Date: September 2224, 2015
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 43 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges
from NCJR and Regions III, IV and VII
Roundtable Discussion for Judges on Intellectual
Property Rights and Public Health
Date: July 2930, 2015
Venue: Century Park Hotel, Manila
Participants: 24 selected RTC judges from NCJR and regions
III and IV, representatives from IPOPHL, ABA-ROLI and
Bengzon Perez Untalan IP Law Firm
Roundtable Discussion: Knowledge Sharing in Handling
Financial Crimes Cases Involving Investment Schemes
(Pyramid/Ponzi Schemes)
Date: September 15, 2015
Venue: Diamond Hotel, Manila
Participants: 17 selected RTC judges from NCJR

Special Lecture
Convention-Seminar

Academic Excellence Lecture Series in the Judiciary

17th National Convention and Seminar of the
Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the
Philippines (MeTCJAP)
Theme: Sharpening the Saw:
Fortifying Judicial Integrity and Dignity
Date: September 2325, 2015
Venue: LIMA Park Hotel, Malvar, Batangas
Participants: 133 judges
featuring Coping with the Developing Landscape in Civil
Law by Justice Jose C. Vitug
Date: September 18, 2015
Venue: Angeles University Foundation, Angeles City,
Pampanga
Participants: 340 PHILJA officials and employees,
representatives from Metrobank Foundation, Inc., selected
judges, branch clerks of court and court legal researchers
from RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC, Angeles University
Foundation officials, faculty and students, and other guests

Discussion Session Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

PHILJA Curriculum Review: Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators and

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) PMCU Staff
Court Personnel Palawan Mediation Program
Date: September 10, 2015 Date: July 9, 2015
Venue: Alex Reyes Conference Room, Court of Appeals, Manila Venue: Hall of Justice, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
Participants: 21 court personnel Participants: 46 prospective mediators and PMCU staff

Members of the Appellate Courts North Cotabato Mediation Program

Date: September 10, 2015 Date: September 8, 2015
Venue: Alex Reyes Conference Room, Court of Appeals, Manila Venue: Hall of Justice, Kidapawan City, North Cotabato
Participants: 15 appellate justices Participants: 48 prospective mediators and PMCU staff
12
Sultan Kudarat Mediation Program
Date: September 10, 2015
Venue: Hall of Justice, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat
Participants: 25 prospective mediators and PMCU staff
Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court
on Judicial Dispute Resolution
Date: July 23, 2015
Venue: Malolos Resort Club Royale, Malolos City, Bulacan
Participants: 60 clerks of court and branch clerks of court
Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys and
Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute Resolution
Date: July 23, 2015
Venue: Malolos Resort Club Royale, Malolos City, Bulacan
Participants: 36 prosecutors, PAO and IBP lawyers and law
practitioners
Basic Mediation Course
Oriental Mindoro Mediation Program
Date: June 30July 3, 2015
Venue: Filipiniana Hotel, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro
Participants: 31 mediators
Palawan Mediation Program
Date: August 1114, 2015
Venue: Sunlight Guest Hotel, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
Participants: 21 mediators
Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges,
Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation
Trainees and PMCU Staff
Oriental Mindoro Mediation Program
Date: July 3, 2015
Venue: Filipiniana Hotel, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro
Participants: 50 judges, clerks of court, branch clerks of
court, mediation trainees and PMCU staff
Palawan Mediation Program
Date: August 14, 2015
Venue: Sunlight Guest Hotel, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
Participants: 47 judges, clerks of court, mediation trainees
and PMCU staff
Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar for
Philippine Mediation Center Unit Staff
Date: August 2627, 2015
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 75 PMCU staff
July - September 2015
Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on
Court-Annexed Mediation
North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat Mediation
Programs
Date: July 30, 2015
Venue: JC Leisure and Business Place, Kidapawan City, North
Cotabato
Participants: 100 judges, clerks of court, representatives
from the National Prosecution Service, PAO, IBP, LGUs,
NGOs, business sector, civil societies, academe and media
Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed
Mediators
Bohol Mediation Program
Date: August 45, 2015
Venue: Arabelle Suites, Tagbilaran City, Bohol
Participants: 22 mediators
Cagayan and Isabela Mediation Programs
Date: September 1516, 2015
Venue: The Hotel Sophia, Cauayan City, Isabela
Participants: 27 mediators
Faculty Workshop and Judicial Settlement Conference
for Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution
(Skills-based Course)
Date: July 710, 2015
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 65 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges
Roundtable Discussion for Judges on Intellectual Property
Rights and Public Health (Continued from page 4)
perspective: Ms. Romero, Philippine perspective: Atty.
Ferdinand Negre); challenges and best practices on
patents (international perspective: Ms. Romero, Philippine
perspective: Atty. Edmund Jason Baranda); experimental
use exception, regulatory review exception and parallel
imports under Patent Law, Canada-patent protection
of pharmaceuticals (Mr. Adachi); compulsory licenses
(Ms. Romero); protection of pharmaceutical test data
(Mr. Adachi); anti-competitive practices (Mr. Adachi);
and patent enforcement and permanent injunction (Ms.
Romero). The discussions revolved around international
and Philippine perspectives supported by statistics,
cases, principles, and policies of the Court and other
government agencies. Generic medicine production and
its legality, and generics efficacy were also tackled. The
participant-judges participated actively during the open
discussions that followed each lecture. Judge Maria
Rowena San Pedro provided a synthesis of the two-day
roundtable discussion. A Closing Remarks was delivered
by PHILJA Vice Chancellor Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.
Volume XVII Issue No. 67 13

Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Raul B. Villanueva (seated, center) with the participants of the 73rd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly
Appointed Judges held on September 817, 2015, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna (seated, center) and Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria (seated, seventh from right), Head of the Academys Research,
Publications, and Linkages Office (RPLO), with the participants of the Judcial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP) for First Level Court Judges of the
Fourth Judicial Region (Mindoro, Marinduque, Romblon, Palawan and Batangas) held on July 13, 2015, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

The officers of the Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines (MeTCJAP) present a Plaque of Appreciation to Guest Speaker Hon.
Mark Llandro L. Mendoza, Representative, Fourth District of Batangas, during their 17th National Convention and Seminar held on September
2325, 2015, at the LIMA Park Hotel, Malvar, Batangas.
14
Administrative Law
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
[t]he doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant
a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged
with an administrative body of special competence. When
petitioners recourse lies in an appeal to the Commission
Proper in accordance with the procedure prescribed in MC
19, the CA may not be faulted for refusing to acknowledge
petitioner before it.
Del Castillo, J., Macario Catipon, Jr. v. Jerome Japson, G.R. No. 191787,
June 22, 2015.
Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires
that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of
the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself
of all the means of administrative processes afforded him or
her. Hence, if resort to a remedy within the administrative
machinery can still be made by giving the administrative
officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter
that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy
should be exhausted first before the courts judicial power
can be sought. The premature invocation of the intervention
of the court is fatal to ones cause of action. The doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical
and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy
entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition
of controversies. Furthermore, the courts of justice, for
reasons of comity and convenience, will shy away from a
dispute until the system of administrative redress has been
completed and complied with, so as to give the administrative
agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and
dispose of the case. Indeed, the administrative agency
concernedin this case the Commission Properis in the
best position to correct any previous error committed in its
forum.
Del Castillo, J., Macario Catipon, Jr. v. Jerome Japson, G.R. No. 191787,
June 22, 2015.
July - September 2015
Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The corresponding penalty for conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service may be imposed upon an erring public
officer as long as the questioned act or conduct taints the image
and integrity of the office; and the act need not be related to
or connected with the public officers official functions. Under
our civil service laws, there is no concrete description of
what specific acts constitute conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, but the following acts or omissions
have been treated as such: misappropriation of public funds;
abandonment of office; failure to report back to work without
prior notice; failure to safekeep public records and property;
making false entries in public documents; falsification of court
orders; a judges act of brandishing a gun, and threatening the
complainants during a traffic altercation; a court interpreters
participation in the execution of a document conveying
complainants property which resulted in a quarrel in the
latters family; selling fake Unified Vehicular Volume Program
exemption cards to his officemates during office hours; a CA
employees forging of receipts to avoid her private contractual
obligations; a Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
employees act of repeatedly changing his IP address, which
caused network problems within his office and allowed him
to gain access to the entire GSIS network, thus putting the
system in a vulnerable state of security; a public prosecutors
act of signing a motion to dismiss that was not prepared by
him, but by a judge; and a teachers act of directly selling a
book to her students in violation of the Code of Ethics for
Professional Teachers. In petitioners case, his act of making
false entries in his CSPE application undoubtedly constitutes
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; the
absence of a willful or deliberate intent to falsify or make
dishonest entries in his application is immaterial, for conduct
grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service may or
may not be characterized by corruption or a willful intent to
violate the law or to disregard established rules.
Del Castillo, J., Macario Catipon, Jr. v. Jerome Japson, G.R. No. 191787,
June 22, 2015.
Civil Law
Family Code Psychological incapacity as a ground to
nullify a marriage; requisites.
Psychological incapacity, as a ground to nullify a marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no less
than a mentalnot merely physicalincapacity that causes a
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties
to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the
Family Code, among others, include their mutual obligations
to live together; observe love, respect and fidelity; and render
help and support. There is hardly a doubt that the intendment
of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological
incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to
give meaning and significance to the marriage.
Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 must
be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and
(c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such
that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary
duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history
of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt
manifestations may only emerge after the marriage. It must
be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be
beyond the means of the party involved.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Eduardo C. De Quintos,
Jr., the Court reiterated the well-settled guidelines in resolving
petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, embodied in
Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, based on Article 36
of the Family Code. Thus:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the
marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should
be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation
of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.
x x x.
xxxx
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity
must be (a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently
proven by experts and (d) clearly explained
in the decision. Article 36 of the Family
Code requires that the incapacity must be
psychologicalnot physical, although its
manifestations and/or symptoms may be
physical. x x x.
xxxx
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the
time of the celebration of the marriage. x x x.
xxxx
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
clinically permanent or incurable. x x x.
xxxx
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about
the disability of the party to assume the essential
15
obligations of marriage. Thus, mild characteriological
peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional
outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes. x x x.
xxxx
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code
as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles
220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to
parents and their children. Such non-complied marital
obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition,
proven by evidence and included in the text of the
decision.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should
be given great respect by our courts. x x x.
xxxx
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or
fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel
for the state. x x x.
Mendoza, J., Robert F. Mallilin v. Luz G. Jamesolamin and the Republic
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192718, February 18, 2015.
Innocent purchaser for value defined.
An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property
of another, without notice that some other person has a right
or interest in the property, for which a full and fair price
is paid by the buyer at the time of the purchase or before
receipt of any notice of claims or interest of some other
person in the property. It is the party who claims to be an
innocent purchaser for value who has the burden of proving
such assertion, and it is not enough to invoke the ordinary
presumption of good faith. To successfully invoke and be
considered as a buyer in good faith, the presumption is that
first and foremost, the buyer in good faith must have shown
prudence and due diligence in the exercise of his/her rights.
It presupposes that the buyer did everything that an ordinary
person would do for the protection and defense of his/her
rights and interests against prejudicial or injurious concerns
when placed in such a situation. x x x. In fine, for a purchaser
of a property in the possession of another to be in good faith,
he must exercise due diligence, conduct an investigation, and
weigh the surrounding facts and circumstances like what any
prudent man in a similar situation would do.
xxxx
A buyer cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser for value by
merely relying on the TCT of the seller while ignoring all the
other surrounding circumstances relevant to the sale.
16
Doctrinal Reminders
Civil Law (continued)
xxxx
In the present case, petitioners sister Hilda Bautista, at the
time of the sale, was residing near Rogelio and Shirleys
housethe subject propertyin Ladislao Diwa Village,
Marikina City. Had petitioner been more prudent as a buyer,
she could have easily checked if Rogelio had the capacity
to dispose of the subject property. Had petitioner been
more vigilant, she could have inquired with such facility
considering that her sister lived in the same Ladislao Diwa
Village where the property is locatedif there was any
person other than Rogelio who had any right or interest in
the subject property.
xxxx
Further, issues surrounding the execution of the Deed of
Absolute Sale also pose question on the claim of petitioner
that she is a buyer in good faith. As correctly observed by
both courts a quo, the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed
and dated on December 29, 1992. However, the Community
Tax Certificates of the witnesses therein were dated January
2 and 20, 1993. While this irregularity is not a direct proof of
the intent of the parties to the sale to make it appear that
the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on December 29,
1992or before Shirley filed the petition for legal separation
on January 29, 1993it is circumstantial and relevant to the
claim of herein petitioner as an innocent purchaser for value.
Villarama, Jr., J., Josefina V. Nobleza v. Shirley B. Nuega, G.R. No.
193038, March 11, 2015.
Family Code Declaration of presumptive death;
requisites.
Article 41 of the Family Code provides that before a judicial
declaration of presumptive death may be granted, the present
spouse must prove that he/she has a well-founded belief that
the absentee is dead. In this case, respondent failed. The RTC
and the CA overlooked respondents patent non-compliance
with the said requirement.
The well-founded belief in the absentees death requires
the present spouse to prove that his/her belief was the result
of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse
and that based on these efforts and inquiries, he/she believes
that under the circumstances, the absent spouse is already
dead. It necessitates exertion of active effort (not a mere
passive one). Mere absence of the spouse (even beyond the
period required by law), lack of any news that the absentee
spouse is still alive, mere failure to communicate, or general
presumption of absence under the Civil Code would not
suffice. The premise is that Article 41 of the Family Code
July - September 2015
places upon the present spouse the burden of complying with
the stringent requirement of well-founded belief which can
only be discharged upon a showing of proper and honest-to-
goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain not only the absent
spouses whereabouts but, more importantly, whether the
absent spouse is still alive or is already dead.
Mendoza, J., Republic of the Philippines v. Edna Orcelino-Villanueva,
G.R. No. 210929, July 29, 2015.
Commercial Law
Requisites to hold a director or officer personally liable
for corporate obligations.
To hold a director or officer personally liable for corporate
obligations, two requisites must concur: (1) complainant must
allege in the complaint that the director or officer assented
to patently unlawful acts of the corporation, or that the
officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith; and (2)
complainant must clearly and convincingly prove such
unlawful acts, negligence or bad faith. To hold a director
personally liable for debts of the corporation, and thus pierce
the veil of corporate fiction, the bad faith or wrongdoing of
the director must be established clearly and convincingly.
It is settled that the transaction between Bancom and
Bancap is an ordinary sale. We give weight to the finding of
both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that Bancaps
liability arose from its contractual obligation to Bancom. The
trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Bancom and
Bancap had been dealing with each other as seller and buyer
of treasury bills from December 1991 until the transaction
subject of this case on April 25, 1994, which was no different
from their previous transactions. Nite, as Bancaps President,
cannot be held personally liable for Bancaps obligation unless
it can be shown that she acted fraudulently. However, the
issue of fraud had been resolved with finality when the trial
court acquitted Nite of estafa on the ground that the element
of deceit is non-existent in the case. The acquittal had long
become final and the finding is conclusive on this Court. The
prosecution failed to show that Nite acted in bad faith. It is no
longer open for review. Nites act of signing the Confirmation
of Sale, by itself, does not make the corporate liability her
personal liability.
Carpio, Acting C.J., Bank of Commerce v. Marilyn P. Nite, G.R. No.
211535, July 22, 2015.
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 83-2015
TO: ALL JUSTICES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE SUPREME
COURT
ALL JUSTICES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN
ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS IN CITIES, AND MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
CC: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF THE COURT REPORTER
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
SUPREME COURT LIBRARY
OTHER COURT LIBRARIES
SUBJECT: PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THE
PROMULGATION, PUBLICATION, AND POSTING ON THE
WEBSITES OF DECISIONS, FINAL RESOLUTIONS, AND FINAL
ORDERS USING FICTITIOUS NAMES
In Administrative Matter No. 12-7-1S-SC (Re: Recommendation
of Atty. Maria Victoria Gleoresty Sp. Guerra, Director IV and
Acting Chief, Public Information Office, to Remove or Modify
the Decisions Posted on the SC Website Involving Cases of
Violence Against Women and Their Children), the Court
issued Guidelines for the purpose of protecting the privacy
and dignity of victims, including their relatives, in cases where
the confidentiality of court proceedings and the identities of
parties is mandated by law.
For the guidance of all courts, their respective clerks
of court, and other court personnel, we issue the present
Administrative Circular reiterating and supplementing our
Guidelines in A.M. No. 12-7-15-SC by further detailing the
procedures in the promulgation, publication, and posting of
decisions, resolutions, and final and interlocutory orders in
the cases covered by this Protocol.
I. Covered Cases
1. This Protocol shall govern the procedure in the
promulgation, publication and posting of decisions,
resolutions, and final and interlocutory orders of
the courts in cases where the confidentiality of the
identities of the parties, records, and court proceedings
is mandated by law and/or by the rules.
2. Confidentiality of the identities of the parties, records,
and court proceedings is mandated by the following
17
laws: Republic Act (RA) No. 76101 in cases of child abuse,
exploitation, and discrimination; RA No. 85082 in cases
of rape and other forms of sexual abuse or assault; RA
No. 92083 in cases of human trafficking; RA No. 92624 in
cases of violence against women and their children; and
RA No. 93445 in cases involving children at risk and those
in conflict with the law.
This Protocol shall also apply to cases where the
confidentiality of the identities of the parties, records,
and court proceedings is mandated by laws or rules not
expressly mentioned herein and by similar laws or rules
to be enacted in the future.
II. Prospective and Limited Retroactive Application
3. The decisions, resolutions, and orders issued or
promulgated or to be issued or promulgated by the
courts in cases covered by this Protocol shall be modified
in accordance with the provisions of this Administrative
Circular.
The modification of previously issued and promulgated
decisions, resolutions, and orders shall extend only to
those published on the Official Website of the Supreme
Court (SC Website) beginning 1996, the earliest year
when decisions of the Court were uploaded and made
publicly accessible.
III. Modification Requirements for Covered Cases
4. The cases covered by this Protocol shall be modified in
the following manner:
a. By replacing with fictitious initials the complete
names of the women and children victims in the
decisions, resolutions, and orders of the court in
cases covered by this Protocol. For example, AAA
should be written in place of the name of the woman
victim in the crime of rape.
The courts may, in the exercise of their discretion,
use different combinations of letters as long as the
fictitious initials used shall not identify, directly or
indirectly, the individual whose real name is replaced
by the fictitious initials.
b. The personal circumstances or other information
which tend to establish or compromise, directly or
indirectly, the identities of the women and children
victims, such as, but not limited to, their date of
1
Known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
2
Known as the Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of
1998.
3
Known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.
4
Known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004.
5
Known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.
18
Circulars
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR No. 83-2015 (continued)
birth, complete address, complete names of parents,
relatives, or other household members, shall be
blotted out from the decision, resolution, and order
of the courts in covered cases.
The complete names and personal circumstances of
the victims family members or relatives, who may be
mentioned in the courts decision or resolution, shall
likewise be similarly treated.
c. At the victims instance or if the victim is a minor
that of his or her guardian, the complete name of
the accused may be replaced by fictitious initials and
his or her personal circumstances blotted out from
the decision, resolution, or order if the name and
personal circumstances of the accused may tend to
establish or compromise the victims identities. The
victims or their guardians should manifest to the trial
court at the earliest opportunity, i.e., after the filing of
the complaint, information, or original petition, their
desire to have the name of the accused be replaced
with fictitious initials and his personal circumstances
be blotted out from the decision, resolution, and
order of the court.
If the accused is a minor, the complete name of the
accused shall be replaced with fictitious initials and
his or her personal circumstances, except for the fact
of minority, shall be blotted out from the decision,
resolution or order.
d. As to geographical location, the decisions,
resolutions, and orders in covered cases should refer
only to the province where the incident occurred
or where the crime was committed. References to
the specific barangay or town should be blotted out
from the body of the decision, resolution, or order if
its identification could lead to the disclosure of the
identities of the women or children victims.
5. The court shall determine the use of fictitious initials
in place of the victims complete names at the earliest
opportunity, i.e., after the filing of the complaint,
information, or original petition, and shall then issue an
order or resolution to this effect.
The fictitious initials determined by the court to replace
the real names of the victims in covered cases should be
used consistently in the body and dispositive portion of
the decision, resolution, or order and in all subsequent
court issuances.
The court may, however, use the real names of the
victims in its issuance of interlocutory orders, where the
identification of the victims is necessary to avoid mistake
or confusion in the enforcement of these orders.
July - September 2015
The use of fictitious initials, however, may be waived
by the victims in accordance with paragraph 9 of this
Protocol.
6. The order or resolution issued by the court under
paragraph 5 of this Protocol shall be effective in all
subsequent proceedings in the case, even on appeal to
the higher courts.
The courts order or resolution shall also apply to petitions
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed
by either the accused-appellant or the minor or children
victims, assailing the proceedings, orders, or judgment by
a lower court in covered cases.
7. In cases where the victims or their guardians have
manifested their desire to replace the complete name of
the accused with fictitious initials, the caption or title of
the case should be written as follows:
a. The fictitious initials in the caption or title of the case
shall be followed by the case number, or government
record (G.R.) number, assigned to the case written
in parenthesis. For example, in the lower courts,
People of the Philippines v. AAA (Case No.).
b. If the case is appealed to the higher courts, the
fictitious initials shall be followed by the case number
assigned by the appellate court with proper notation
of the original case number of the case before the
trial court written in parenthesis. For example,
BBB v. People (current appellate court case number
[formerly lower court case number]).
c. If the case filed is a separate and independent
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the fictitious
initials shall be followed by the case number assigned
by the higher court. Examples are: BBB v. Public/
Private Respondents (Case No. ), and People of the
Philippines and BBB v. Public/Private Respondents
(Case No._______).
8. The rules under this Protocol shall also be observed in
modifying the decisions, resolutions, and orders to be
uploaded and already uploaded on the SC Website or the
SC E-Library.
IV. Waiver by the Victims
9. The women and children victims in covered cases may,
at any time, consent to the disclosure of their real names
and personal circumstances in the decisions, resolutions,
and orders of the court. In such case, the victims giving
the consent must personally, or with the assistance of
counsel, execute a written waiver in the presence of the
court or before a notary public.
In cases where the victim giving the consent is a minor,
the waiver must be executed by the minors parent or
guardian. In the absence of a parent or guardian, the
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
court shall designate a person who shall execute the
waiver on the minors behalf. The person so designated
by the court must fully explain the consequences of the
waiver to the minor. The waiver may be executed in the
presence of the handling court or before a notary public,
and must be approved by the handling court.
10. For good and meritorious cause shown to the handling
court, the waiver under paragraph 9 of this Protocol may
be revoked by the victims who gave their consent to the
disclosure of their real names and personal circumstances
in the decisions, resolutions, and orders of the court.
The revocation of the waiver must be in writing and
executed in the presence of the handling court or before
a notary public. In the latter case, the revocation shall be
effective upon the approval by the handling court.
In cases where the waiver was executed on behalf of a
minor, the revocation of such waiver may be executed
by either the minors parent, guardian or person duly
designated by the court.
The handling court to which the revocation is submitted
shall give its approval if, in the exercise of its discretion,
the revocation will serve the greater good of the women
or children victims. The handling court shall set the terms
for the modification of decisions, resolutions, or orders
between the time a waiver is made and its revocation.
11. The women or children victims waiving the confidentiality
of their identities or revoking such waiver must present
the waiver or revocation of the waiver, duly executed
under the provisions of paragraphs 9 and 10 of this
Protocol, to the handling judge or the court office or
officer responsible for the modification of the decisions,
resolutions, and orders in cases covered by this Protocol.
V. Promulgation
12. In the promulgation of decisions, final resolutions, and
final orders in covered cases, the court shall prepare two
copies of its decision, resolution, and final order. The first
copy shall be the unmodified version of the decision,
resolution, and final order, where the real names of the
parties are used and the parties personal circumstances
are disclosed. The second copy shall be the version of the
decision, resolution, and order as modified in accordance
with this Protocol. Both copies shall be attached and
made part of the records.
The unmodified version (or first copy) of the promulgated
decision, final resolution, and final order of the court is
confidential and shall be sealed in an envelope before
it is attached to the records. The sealed envelope shall
only be opened upon the authority of the handling judge/
justice and must be re-sealed thereafter. The second copy
shall form part of the open records of the case.
19
VI. Publication and Posting
13. Only the decisions, final resolutions, and final orders in
covered cases promulgated by the Supreme Court and
modified under this Protocol shall be published in the
Philippine Reports and in the Supreme Court Reports
Annotated.
14. Only the decisions, final resolutions, and final orders in
covered cases promulgated by the Supreme Court and
modified under this Protocol shall be posted on the SC
Website and the Courts E-Library.
The modified version of the decisions, final resolutions
and final orders promulgated by the Court of Appeals,
Sandiganbayan and the lower courts may also be posted
in the SC Website, if so directed by the Supreme Court.
VII. Prohibition Against Release to the
Public and the Media
15. Hard and soft copies of the original or unmodified version
(first copy) of promulgated decisions, resolutions, and
orders in covered cases shall not be released to the public
and to the media, except when the victims have executed
a written waiver in accordance with paragraph 2 of this
Protocol.
Neither shall the records containing the real names and
personal circumstances of the parties, mentioned under
paragraph 5 above, be released to the public and to the
media, except with the authority of the handling court.
VIII. Responsibility for the Modification of
Promulgated Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Orders
16. The clerks of court of the Regional Trial Courts and the First
Level Courts shall be responsible for the modification of
the decisions, resolutions, and orders in their respective
courts, as instructed in the order or resolution issued by
the court referred to in paragraph 5 of this Protocol.
17. The handling clerks of court of the Court of Appeals
and the Sandiganbayan shall be responsible for the
modification of the decisions, resolutions, and orders
of their respective courts in covered cases. They shall
furnish their respective libraries, the SC Library, the
PHILJA libraries, and the Courts Public Information Office
with a monthly list of modified decisions, resolutions, and
orders.
18. The Office of the Court Administrator, through its Legal/
Court Management Office, shall be responsible for the
modification of the decisions, resolutions, and orders of
the lower courts to be uploaded on the SC Website, as
directed by the Supreme Court.
19. The Public Information Office shall be responsible for the
modification of the decisions, resolutions, and orders of
the Supreme Court already uploaded and to be uploaded
on the SC Website.
20
Circulars
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR No. 83-2015 (continued)
The PIO shall also be responsible for the modification
of the decisions, resolutions, and orders of the Court of
Appeals and the Sandiganbayan that are directed by the
Supreme Court to be uploaded on the SC Website.
The PIO shall furnish the SC Clerk of Court, the Office of
the Reporter, the SC Library, and the PHILJA libraries with
a monthly list of its modified decisions, resolutions, and
orders.
20. The SC Library shall be responsible for the modification
of decisions, resolutions, and orders uploaded on the
E-Library and other websites of the Supreme Court which
are accessed by a username and password provided
by the SC Library.
IX. Liability
21. The court officials responsible for the modification of
the decisions, resolutions, and orders by the courts in
covered cases or tasked to handle the covered cases
under the terms of this Protocol, as well as the court
employees designated to carry out tasks related to the
implementation of this Protocol, must strictly observe
the provisions of this Protocol. The judges, justices, clerks
of court and heads of court offices concerned shall adopt
appropriate measures within their courts or offices to
fully implement the terms and purpose of this Protocol.
22. The unauthorized release to the public or to the media
of hard or soft copies of the unmodified version (first
copy) of the decision, resolution, or order of the courts
in covered cases shall be considered a grave offense and
shall be punishable with the penalties provided under
the Civil Service Rules on Administrative Cases for grave
offenses, without prejudice to the criminal liabilities that
the violators may incur under applicable laws.
23. Third parties who do not have any direct responsibility
for the implementation of this Protocol and who violate
the confidentiality covered by this Protocol, may be held
liable under the appropriate laws or rules.
X. Effectivity
24. This Protocol shall take effect immediately.
Issued this 27th day of July 2015.
(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice
July - September 2015
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 103-2015
TO: ALL PRESIDING JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 36 OF REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 9285 AND SUBMISSION OF INVENTORY REPORTS
IN RELATION THERETO
The Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC)
through its Chairman, Mr. Manuel M. Cosico, and Members,
Messrs. Antonio A. Abola and Emilio Lolito J. Tumbocon,
has invited the attention of this Office on the problems that
they have encountered in the implementation of Section 39,
Republic Act No. 9285, and in the submission of inventory
reports in relation thereto, which were the subject of OCA
Circular No. 34-2012, dated April 27, 2012, and reiterated
in OCA Circular No. 111-2014, dated August 22, 2014. Said
problems are briefly stated as follows:
1. Notwithstanding the issuance of the abovementioned
OCA Circulars, there are only few cases that have
been filed with the CIAC over a 3-year period, which
indicates the under-reporting of the required referrals.
A possible cause is the acceptance by the trial courts
for docketing of construction disputes that are
disguised as merely for collection of a sum of money
which, if examined carefully, would have revealed that
the cause of action is unpaid construction work;
2. There is the reluctance of some judges to dismiss
the construction disputes without any motion being
filed. Such hesitation is misplaced, considering that
the aforesaid OCA Circulars have precisely given the
judges the authority to dismiss said disputes; and
3. There is likewise the plaintiffs perceived difficulty of
access to the Makati-based CIAC in contrast with the
easier access to the nearby courts, which problem has
been effectively addressed, whereby construction
disputes can now be filed by virtue of an arrangement
between the Construction Industry Authority of the
Philippines (CIAP) and the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI) at the CIAP Windows in the DTI Regional
Offices as follows: a) Region 1 [San Fernando City,
La Union]; b) Region 3 [Angeles City, Pampanga]; c)
Region 5 [Legazpi City, Albay]; d) Region 7 [ Cebu City,
Cebu]; Region 10 [Cagayan de Oro City]; Region 11
[Davao City]; and CAR [Baguio City].
In view of the foregoing and in order to more effectively
enforce the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the CIAC over
construction disputes in the Philippines as provided in Section
39 of RA No. 9285, as well as to reduce the increased judicial
workload occasioned by such disputes, all concerned judges
are hereby DIRECTED to:
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
(1) REVIEW judiciously all pending civil cases for collection
of sum of money to determine whether they arise from
a construction dispute. In the affirmative, they shall
DISMISS such cases and REFER the same to the CIAC or
the appropriate ClAP Windows in DTI Regional Offices
for proper arbitration, with advice to the plaintiff as to
where to file his/her case, UNLESS both parties, assisted
by their respective counsels, shall submit to the Regional
Trial Court a written agreement that the dispute shall be
exclusively resolved by the trial court, rather than the
CIAC; and
(2) SUBMIT, within 15 days from notice, an inventory of such
construction disputes filed in their respective courts,
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 103-2015
FORM NO. 1
Inventory of Construction Disputes
No. Case No. Case Title
Prepared by:
Clerk-in-Charge Clerk of Court/OIC
Noted:
Presiding Judge
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 113-2015
TO: THE CONCERNED JUDGES FOR THE PILOTING OF
RULES 22 (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE) AND 24
(TRIAL ON THE ISSUES) OF THE PROPOSED RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE
SUBJECT: ADVICE AND INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING THE
PILOTING OF RULES 22 AND 24 OF THE PROPOSED RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
21
to the Court Management Office, Office of the Court
Administrator, using the attached Form No. 1.
Accordingly, this Circular amends the OCA Circular Nos.
34-2012 and 111-2014 dated April 27, 2012 and August 22,
2014, respectively.
Strict compliance is hereby enjoined. Failure to comply
with directives shall result in administrative sanctions.
June 1, 2015.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
Latest Status
Date Filed
(If not yet Referred to CIAC)
Verified by:
Pursuant to the Resolution dated March 18, 2014 of the Court
En Banc in A.M. No. 14-03-02-SC (Re: Program for Piloting
and Assessing the Proposed Revised Rules of Civil Procedure),
and to test the usefulness of Rules 22 and 24 of the proposed
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the selected Pilot Courts
involved and those charged with its implementation are
advised and instructed as follows:
Common Instructions
1. Coverage In the interest of orderly implementation
of the proposed Rules 22 and 24, Pilot Court judges are
advised to apply such rules to all civil cases that are re-
raffled to them for trial beginning July 1, 2015 following
22
Circulars
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 113-2015 (continued)
a failed Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) in those cases.
However, upon written mutual agreement of the parties,
such Rules may also be applied to cases that have been
re-raffled to the Pilot Courts before July 1, 2015 following
a failed JDR.
2. Cases of special courts Pilot Courts that serve as special
courts, like family courts and commercial courts, are
advised to apply the proposed Rules 22 and 24 to cases
that are assigned to them for trial. The face-to-face trial
shall not apply to special civil actions, special proceedings,
cases that involve a child or a disadvantaged witness, and
where the court perceives the danger of uncontrollable
passion arising from deep animosity between the parties.
3. Voluntary application of pilot rules to cases where JDR
failed prior to July 1, 2015 In cases that are re-raffled to
Pilot Courts where the failure of the JDR occurred prior to
the effectivity of the pilot period, the provisions of Rules
22 and 24 may be applied by the Court only upon written
unanimous agreement of the parties.
4. Inhibition of Pilot Court judge In the event of the
inhibition of a Pilot Court judge in a case governed by the
proposed Rules 22 and 24, such case shall be re-raffled to
another Pilot Court, should a qualified one be available in
the same station. Otherwise, the non-Pilot Court to which
it is re-raffled shall try the case under the applicable rules
of procedure.
5. Application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule. The Judicial
Affidavit Rule shall apply to cases covered by the
proposed Rules 22 and 24. The period for its submission
shall, however, be reckoned from the date set in Section
22.2 (a) of the proposed Rule 22 since the latter is the
controlling rule. In the event the parties have already
submitted their judicial affidavits incidental to the failed
JDR, it would be reasonable for the Pilot Court to allow
them to adopt the same for the purpose of such Rule. The
parties may submit reply affidavits pursuant to Section
22.2(b) of Rule 22.
Instructions for Rule 22
6. Notice to submit draft Terms of Reference (TOR). It is
preferable that Pilot Courts serve notice on the parties
to submit their draft TOR by electronic mail (email) or
short messaging system (SMS), wherever such means
of communication are available, at the mobile phone
numbers that counsels of the parties have been required
to submit, to ensure simultaneous receipt.
7. Submission of TOR. Within 15 days from notice, the
parties shall personally file the required TOR with the
Pilot Courts and simultaneously serve a copy thereof to
the opposing parties.
July - September 2015
8. Filing and service of the draft TOR. The Pilot Courts may,
if they deem it suitable under the circumstances, require
the parties to file their draft TORs and serve copies of
the same upon the adverse party also by email or SMS,
wherever such means of communication are available.
If this is not possible, the parties may personally file the
same and furnish copies thereof by personal service upon
the adverse party within 15 days from notice.
9. Final TOR controls scope of the trial. The TOR prepared
by the Pilot Court during the preliminary conference,
after consultation with the parties and their counsels,
shall be final and shall control the scope of the trial.
10. Evidence to be presented deemed admitted. The direct
testimony of a witness shall be deemed offered and
admitted upon submission of the judicial affidavit, subject
to motion for exclusion of inadmissible testimony at the
appropriate time and to the examination of such witness.
Thus, an offer of evidence is no longer required after the
trial has been terminated.
11. Objection to presentation of witnesses or judicial affidavits
Any objection to the presentation of a witness or to any
of the questions propounded in the judicial affidavits or
the judicial affidavits themselves shall be raised not later
than the preliminary conference and before the TOR is
finalized.
Instructions for Rule 24
i. Face-to-Face Trial
12. Face-to-face trial to be given priority The Pilot Court
must encourage the parties to agree on the mode of
trial of issues that will govern their case. If they cannot
agree, it is preferable for the Pilot Court judge to give
priority to face-to-face trial, a shorter proceeding, unless
insufferable circumstances dictate otherwise.
13. Exclusion of witness not encouraged in face-to-face trial
The exclusion of a witness in a face-to-face trial is
discouraged since direct confrontation is the essence of
such mode of trial. Should there be compelling reasons
for excluding a witness, it is preferable that the court
convert the mode of trial to alternate trial of issues.
14. Examination by the judge To avoid the appearance of
partiality when the judge examines a witness from one
side and elicits testimony in his/her favor, the judge
should ask the witness from the other side to respond
to that testimony or ask him/her a question that will also
elicit testimony in favor of his/her side.
ii. Alternate Trial
15. Examination of witnesses per issue During an alternate
trial, the Pilot Court and the counsels for the parties are
required by the proposed Rules to examine each witness
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
solely with respect to the issue or related issues stated in
the order of trial. However, if a party has only one witness
for all or several of the issues that are to be tried, then
the witness should be examined on all the issues, but one
issue after the other, in the order stated in the final TOR.
16. Exclusion of witness allowed in alternate trial In
alternate trial, the exclusion of witnesses is allowed upon
the discretion of the judge.
Similar Instructions for Trial of Issues
17. Trial of issues to be terminated in one hearing Trial of
issues, as far as practicable, should be terminated in one
hearing date. As such, the Pilot Court shall maintain a
separate calendar for cases covered by these rules.
18. Non-adversarial environment for trial of issues It is
preferable for a Pilot Court to provide a non-adversarial
environment during the trial of issues, whether it adopts
a face-to-face trial or an alternate trial. This can be
best achieved, if permitted by office space, through a
conference type of hearing where the judge sits at the
head of the table and the parties are seated on either
side of the table.
19. Apparent biased questions not a ground for inhibition
of the Pilot Court judge A Pilot Court judge shall not
inhibit from hearing and deciding a case covered by
these proposed rules on the ground of apparent biased
questions, provided that such questions are relevant to
the issues being tried.
20. No delegation of trial of issues to the clerk of court In
the event that a party is declared in default due to his or
her failure to appear during the preliminary conference,
the Pilot Court judge shall not delegate the trial of issues
involving the remaining party to the clerk of court. It is to
the judge that the proposed rules entrust the examination
of witnesses.
21. Change in the mode of trial allowed The parties, upon
written unanimous agreement and on or prior to the
scheduled trial of issues, may opt to change the mode of
trial from a face-to-face trial to an alternate trial or from
an alternate trial to a face-to-face trial, provided that the
conduct of the new mode of trial is not unduly affected.
This promotes party autonomy. Should the Pilot Court
judge perceive the danger of uncontrollable passion
arising from deep animosity, the mode of trial may be
converted from a face-to-face trial to an alternate trial.
For your strict compliance.
June 16, 2015.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
23
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 144-2015
TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL
COURTS
SUBJECT: NON-ATTENDANCE IN THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL
ACADEMY SEMINARS
The attention of this Office has been called that despite the
directive of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) requiring
trial court judges to attend its scheduled seminars, some of
them still fail to comply and inform PHILJA of the reason/s for
their non-attendance.
In view of the foregoing, all concerned are DIRECTED to
faithfully and conscientiously OBSERVE the PHILJA directive
requiring attendance in all its seminars and to judiciously
INFORM the PHILJA of the reason/s in case of inability to
attend. This is to enable the PHILJA to properly monitor the
compliance of all attendees with its seminars conducted
for the educational advancement of the trial court judges
nationwide.
Strict compliance is enjoined.
July 9, 2015.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 146-2015
TO: ALL JUDGES AND PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST AND
SECOND LEVEL COURTS (REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,
SHARIA DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURTS AND MAINTENANCE STAFF OF
THE HALLS OF JUSTICE)
SUBJECT: MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FORM ON THE
SUPREME COURT HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN FOR THE
YEAR 2016
In connection with the healthcare plan for the year 2016,
the herein attached Membership Application Form is hereby
required to be duly accomplished by all the judges and
personnel of the Lower Courts and all the maintenance staff
of the Halls of Justice.
The Membership Application Form will determine the
preferred healthcare plan for the year 2016. Thus, the said
form should be accomplished within 10 days from notice, or
not later than August 15, 2015.
24
Circulars
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 146-2015 (continued)
The Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan Committee
will tally the individual preferences of the concerned judges,
personnel and maintenance staff to determine whether an
In-House Healthcare Plan, the reimbursement plan that was
operated from 1998 to 2014, or an Outsourced Healthcare
Plan, such as the plan contracted to a Health Maintenance
Organization via public bidding which was won by Medocare
Health Systems, Inc. for the year 2015, will be implemented for
the year 2016.
If both healthcare plans are amenable to any judge,
personnel or staff, then the latter may choose both and
the majority will determine which healthcare plan will be
implemented for the year 2016. If a judge, personnel or staff
prefers only the In-House Healthcare Plan but the majority
prefers the Outsourced Healthcare Plan, the said judge,
personnel or staff will not be covered for the year 2016, and
vice-versa. Non-submission of the form shall be considered
waiver of the benefits of either plan and exemption from
payment of the employee share for any of the healthcare plan.
For the distribution of the form, the Clerk of Court - OCC,
Branch Clerk of Court or Officer in Charge of each office or
court station shall be responsible for the distribution of the
form to the concerned judges, personnel and staff by having
the attached form photocopied for as many judges, personnel
and staff that the particular office or court station may have.
Thereafter, the concerned Clerk of Court - OCC, Branch
Clerk of Court or Officer in Charge should collate, scan and
email the duly accomplished forms to the schwp.secretariat@
gmail.com starting on August 17, 2015 and no later than
August 20, 2015. In the event that there is no option on the
part of the concerned Clerk of Court - OCC, Branch Clerk of
Court or Officer-in-Charge to email them, the forms should be
mailed within the above period to the Supreme Court Health
and Welfare PlanSecretariat, Supreme Court Compound,
Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila. In either event, said official
should contact +632 525 5796 to inform the Secretariat that
the subject forms have been either emailed or sent thru mail.
For strict compliance.
July 13, 2015.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 155-2015
TO: JUSTICES, JUDGES, COURT OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL
OF THE THIRD, SECOND AND FIRST LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO A.M. NO. 04-7-02-SC (RE:
GUIDELINES ON CORPORATE SURETY BONDS)
July - September 2015
In accordance with the Resolution dated April 21, 2015 of the
Court in A.M. No: 04-7-02-SC (Re: Guidelines on Corporate
Surety Bonds), all concerned justices, judges, court officials
and personnel are hereby informed of the following
amendments/clarifications to the said guidelines:
(a) That the obligation on the part of the accused/defendant
to pay the annual premium necessary for the renewal
of the surety bond previously approved by the court
REMAINS;
(b) The phrase Unless and until the Supreme Court directs
otherwise appearing in the first paragraph of Section VII
of A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC is AMENDED to read as Unless
and until the court concerned directs otherwise; and
(c) The second paragraph of Section VII of A.M. No. 04-7
-02-SC is AMENDED to include the following statement:
If the surety company seeks to be discharged from its
obligation because of the failure/refusal of the accused/
defendant to pay the premiums, it shall make the same
notice within 10 days from the occurrence of such fact
and the court shall decide accordingly.
This Circular supersedes prior circulars/memoranda
inconsistent herewith and shall remain in force until further
orders from the Court.
Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.
July 23, 2015.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 168-2015
TO: ALL THE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, AND THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
AND ALL JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, THE
SHARIA DISTRICT COURTS, THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURTS, THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, THE
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURTS, AND THE SHARIA CIRCUIT COURTS
SUBJECT: EFFECTS OF SUSPENSION METED ON JUSTICES
OR JUDGES
In accordance with the January 27, 2015 Resolution of the
Court En Banc in A.M. No. RTJ-12-2316 [Formerly A.M. No.
09-7-280-RTC] (Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon.
Liberty O. Castaeda, et al.), all justices and judges are hereby
REMINDED of the following effects of any meted suspension,
whether preventive or indefinite:
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
1. Upon receipt of the Courts resolution of suspension,
justices/judges suspended from office are prohibited
from performing any of their official functions during the
period of suspension until further orders from the Court;
2. To prevent a hiatus in the performance of judicial and
administrative functions in the lower courts, an acting
presiding judge, or an assisting judge where appropriate,
shall be immediately designated in his/her stead;
3. Respondent justices/judges shall not receive their regular
basic salary and other remunerative allowances and
fringe benefits in accordance with existing guidelines and
those to be issued by the Court for the purpose;
4. During the period of suspension, respondent justices/
judges shall not be eligible to receive other benefits from
the Court such as training, nomination for promotion,
or any other similar non-remunerative benefits in
accordance with existing guidelines and those to be
issued by the Court for the purpose; and
5. Respondent justices/judges may face such other
consequence, as may be determined by the Court or the
Office of the Court Administrator.
For your information and guidance.
August 3, 2015.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA Circular No. 173-2015
Form 1
Monthly Inventory of Cases for Pilot Testing
of Rules 22 & 24 Draft Rules of Civil Procedure
Branch
for the Month of
CASE NATURE AMOUNT DATE
CASE TITLE
NUMBER OF CLAIM INVOLVED FILED
25
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 173-2015
TO: THE CONCERNED TRIAL COURT JUDGES
SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF MONTHLY INVENTORY OF
CASES FOR THE PILOT TESTING OF RULES 22 AND 24 OF
THE DRAFT REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
In connection with the pilot testing of Rules 22 and 24 of
the proposed Revised Rules of Civil Procedure pursuant to
the March 8, 2014 Resolution of the Supreme Court in A.M.
No. 14-03-02-SC (Re: Program for Piloting and Assessing the
Proposed Revised Rules of Civil Procedure), all concerned
judges are hereby directed to submit a Monthly Inventory of
Cases for Pilot Testing of the said Rules.
The monthly inventory of cases shall be filed within
the first five days of the succeeding month and shall be
sent through registered mail to the Office of the Court
Administrator and through email to srdcmo@sc.judiciary.gov.
ph. In both instances, the concerned judges should request
for a confirmation receipt of their registered mail and/or
email.
The above-required monthly inventory of cases is in
addition to the regular monthly reports being submitted by
the courts. The form for said report is hereto attached for use
by the concerned pilot courts.
For strict compliance.
August 6, 2015.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
,
DATE OF DATE DATE OF
DATE/S
REFFERAL TO (CASE MGT) FINAL REMARKS
HEARING
PILOT COURT CONFERENCE DECISION
26
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 174-2015
TO: ALL BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: LIFTING OF COMPLIANCE WITH OCA CIRCULAR
NO. 74-2013 (RE: SUBMISSION OF COPIES OF DISMISSED
DRUG CASES)
In OCA Circular No. 74-2013 dated June 27, 2013 all trial
courts were ordered to furnish the Office of the Court
Administrator with copies of all decisions dismissing drug
cases, including provisional dismissals, beginning January
2013, for a comprehensive study. Considering that the said
study has already been terminated, the directive in the OCA
Circular No. 74-2013 is now lifted.
For immediate and strict compliance.
August 6, 2015.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 189-2015
TO: EXECUTIVE/PRESIDING JUDGES, CLERKS OF COURT/
OFFICERS IN CHARGE/ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS AND
SHERIFFS OF THE SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTION OF ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000) DEPOSIT IN EXTRAJUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE CASES
As a result of the financial audits conducted by the Fiscal
Monitoring Division, Court Management Office, Office of the
Court Administrator, a number of second level courts were
found to have collected One Thousand Pesos (P1,000) for
every extrajudicial foreclosure case filed in their respective
courts to defray the expenses related to the posting of
court notices where the subject property is located or in the
barangay where the property is situated.
In this regard, Paragraph 2 of Section 10, Rule 141, Revised
Rules of Court is instructive. The same provides:
IN ADDITION TO THE FEES HEREINABOVE FIXED, THE
AMOUNT OF ONE THOUSAND (P1,000) PESOS SHALL BE
DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF COURT UPON FILING
OF THE COMPLAINT TO DEFRAY THE ACTUAL TRAVEL
EXPENSES OF THE SHERIFF, PROCESS SERVER OR OTHER
COURT AUTHORIZED PERSONS IN THE SERVICE OF
SUMMONS, SUBPOENA AND OTHER COURT PROCESSES
July - September 2015
THAT WOULD BE ISSUED RELATIVE TO THE TRIAL OF
THE CASE. IN CASE THE INITIAL DEPOSIT OF ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000) IS NOT SUFFICIENT, THEN
THE PLAINTIFF OR PETITIONER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO
MAKE AN ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT. THE SHERIFF, PROCESS
SERVER OR OTHER COURT AUTHORIZED PERSON
SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT FOR ITS APPROVAL A
STATEMENT OF THE ESTIMATED TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR
SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COURT PROCESSES. ONCE
APPROVED, THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL RELEASE THE
MONEY TO SAID SHERIFF OR PROCESS SERVER. AFTER
SERVICE, A STATEMENT OF LIQUIDATION SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. AFTER
RENDITION OF JUDGMENT BY THE COURT, ANY EXCESS
FROM THE DEPOSIT SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE PARTY
WHO MADE THE DEPOSIT. (Emphasis ours)
Please be reminded that the One Thousand Pesos (P1,000)
referred to in the abovementioned provision is intended
for actual travel expenses in the service of court processes
relative to the trial of the case. Simply put, an extrajudicial
foreclosure proceeding is not one of the cases contemplated
in said rule since it is not considered as part of a court trial.
Moreover, Section 3 of Act No. 3135 does not require
posting of notices in the barangay where the property is
located. Thus:
Sec. 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of the
sale for not less than 20 days in at least three public
places of the municipality or city where the property
is situated, and if such property is worth more than
four hundred pesos, such notice shall also be published
once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or
city. (Emphasis ours.)
In fact, in Fortune Motors (Phils.) Inc. v. Metropolitan
Bank and Trust Company, et al., G.R. No. 115068, November
28, 1996, the Honorable Court ruled:
x x x Act 3135 does not require posting of the notice
of sale on the mortgaged property. Section 3 of the
said law merely requires that the notice of the sale be
posted for not less than 20 days in at least three public
places of the municipality or city where the property
is situated. The aforementioned places, to wit: the
Sheriffs Office, the Assessors Office and the Register
of Deeds are certainly the public places contemplated
by law, as these are places where people interested in
purchasing real estate congregate.
Henceforth, considering the foregoing pronouncements,
the clerk of court/accountable officer is hereby directed to
refrain from collecting One Thousand Pesos (P1,000) as cost
for the posting of notices in every extrajudicial foreclosure
case. The posting of notices where the property is located
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
or in the barangay where the property is situated is the
obligation of the interested party.
For your information and strict compliance.
August 17, 2015.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 206-2015
TO: ALL PRESIDING JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF
THE SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DATED JUNE 16, 2015 IN A.M.
NO. 03-03-03-SC (AMENDMENT OF A.M. NO. 03-03-03-
SC DATED JUNE 17, 2003, FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE
COVERAGE OF CASES COGNIZABLE BY THE SPECIAL
COMMERCIAL COURTS TO INCLUDE ALL CASES ON
INSOLVENCY AND LIQUIDATION UNDER THE FRIA)
Pursuant to the Resolution dated June 16, 2015 in A.M.
No. 03-03-03-SC, the Court En Banc, among other matters,
expanded the coverage of cases cognizable by the special
commercial courts by including all cases on insolvency and
liquidation under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency
Act of 2010 (FRlA).
The Resolution dated June 16, 2015, appended herein as
Annex A, was published in the Official Gazette on August 24,
2015 and shall take effect on September 8, 2015.
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.
September 8, 2015.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
Annex A
EN BANC
A.M. NO. 03-03-03-SC
AMENDMENT OF A.M. NO. 03-03-03-SC DATED JUNE
17, 2003, FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE COVERAGE OF
CASES COGNIZABLE BY THE SPECIAL COMMERCIAL
COURTS TO INCLUDE ALL CASES ON INSOLVENCY AND
LIQUIDATION UNDER THE FRIA
27
Resolution
WHEREAS, Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) No. 10142,
otherwise known as the Financial Rehabilitation and
Insolvency Act of 2010 (the FRIA) empowers the Supreme
Court to designate the courts that will hear and resolve
cases brought thereunder and to promulgate the rules of
pleading, practice, and procedure that will govern such
proceedings;
WHEREAS, in view of the passage of RA No. 8799, which
transferred the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange
Commission over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of
Presidential Decree No. 902-A, including cases involving
rehabilitation of corporations, partnerships, and other
associations, to the Regional Trial Courts, A.M. No. 03-03-
03-SC dated June 17, 2003 designated Special Commercial
Courts to handle these cases, as well as intellectual property
cases;
WHEREAS, A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC needs to be further
strengthened in order to address the gaps in venue caused
by the limited number of designated Special Commercial
Courts per judicial region;
WHEREAS, Sections 18 and 23 of Batas Pambansa Bilang
129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) authorize
the Supreme Court to define the territorial authority of the
branches of the Regional Trial Court to allow better access
to justice;
WHEREAS, cases governed by the FRIA for (1) the
rehabilitation of sole proprietorships, (2) insolvency
and liquidation of corporations, partnerships and other
associations, and (3) insolvency and suspension of
payments/discharge of individuals, are likewise special
cases that are commercial in nature;
WHEREAS, liquidation cases emanating, not from the
FRIA but, from administrative proceedings are likewise
commercial in nature;
WHEREAS, to streamline the court structure and promote
expediency and efficiency in handling special commercial
cases, the exercise of jurisdiction to hear and decide all
rehabilitation, insolvency and liquidation cases brought
under the FRIA and those emanating from administrative
proceedings are best consolidated under the Special
Commercial Courts;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court Resolves:
1. That (1) cases governed by the FRIA for (a) the
rehabilitation of sole proprietorships, (b) the insolvency
and liquidation cases of corporations, partnerships and
other associations, and (c) insolvency and suspension
of payments/discharge of individuals, and (2) those
liquidation cases emanating from administrative
proceedings shall be heard and decided by the
designated Special Commercial Courts;
28
Circulars
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 206-2015 (continued)
2. Upon the effectivity of this Resolution, all newly filed
and pending cases mentioned in the immediately
preceding paragraph shall be assigned or transferred
to the designated Special Commercial Courts having
territorial jurisdiction over them;
3. When there is no Special Commercial Court designated
to hear and decide a case filed within a specific territory
in accordance with the existing rules on venue, the
case may be filed in any designated Special Commercial
Court within the judicial region of said territory; and
4. In order to ensure a just and equitable distribution of
cases, the designated Special Commercial Courts shall
continue to participate in the raffle of other cases.
Provided, however, that the Executive Judge concerned
shall adopt a procedure whereby every rehabilitation,
insolvency or liquidation case assigned or transferred
to a Special Commercial Court shall be duly credited to
such court.
This Resolution shall take effect 15 days following its
publication in the Official Gazette or in two newspapers of
national circulation.
June 16, 2015.
(Sgd.) SERENO, CJ, CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA (on official leave), BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, VILLARAMA, Jr., PEREZ, MENDOZA, REYES,
PERLAS-BERNABE, LEONEN (on official leave), JARDELEZA,
JJ.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 213-2015
TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE ASSISTING COURTS IN THE
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS IN MANILA CITY, THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS IN CEBU CITY, AND THE MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT IN CITIES IN MANDAUE CITY, CEBU
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR THE SPECIAL ADDITIONAL
EXPENSE ALLOWANCE FOR ASSISTING COURT JUDGES
Pursuant to the July 9, 2015 request of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) for the grant of a Special Additional
Expense Allowance for Assisting Court Judges, which was
approved by the Honorable Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.
A. Sereno on August 28, 2015, the following Guidelines for
the Special Additional Expense Allowance for Assisting Court
Judges shall be observed:
1. Judges of Assisting Courts with one Assisted Court shall
be entitled to a special additional expense allowance of
July - September 2015
Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000) a month, provided that
they receive and hear at least 10 cases from their Assisted
Court for that month.
2. Judges of Assisting Courts with more than one Assisted
Court shall be entitled to a special additional expense
allowance of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000) a month,
provided that they receive and hear at least 10 cases from
each of their Assisted Courts for that month. Should the
number of cases received and heard for the month from
each Assisted Court be less than 10, but if added together
amounts to at least 10 cases, the judge of the Assisting
Court shall be entitled to Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000)
as special additional expense allowance.
3. For the release of the special additional expense
allowance, a Certification issued by the Branch Clerk
of Court as to the number of cases received and heard
by the judge of the Assisting Court from the Assisted
Court for the month must be submitted to the Financial
Management Office (FMO), OCA, within the first five days
of the succeeding month.
4. Entitlement to the special additional expense allowance
shall retroact from the start date of the Assisting Courts
project, as provided in OCA Circular Nos. 10-2015-A, 10-
2015-AA, 61-2015, and 69-2015, subject to the submission
of the required Certification.
5. The special additional expense allowance shall be charged
against the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses
of the lower courts for Fiscal Year 2015.
For your guidance and information.
September 15, 2015.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 222-2015
TO: ALL JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO OCA CIRCULAR NO. 07-2013,
TIMELY SUBMISSION OF CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE
OF JUDGES AND DAILY TIME RECORDS (DTRs)/BUNDY
CARDS OF PERSONNEL OF THE LOWER COURTS
For the information and guidance of all concerned, item nos.
5 and 6 of OCA Circular No. 07-2013 dated January 16, 2013
are hereby amended to read as follows:
5. The Clerk of Court in the OCC and in the respective
branches shall thereafter forward, within the first
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
five days after the end of each month, the Certificates
of Service and DTRs/Bundy Cards, together with the
properly accomplished application/s for leave (Civil
Service Form No. 6), if applicable, of all employees
in the office/branch, and the Monthly Report on
Absences, Tardiness and Undertime in one batch, to
the:
Employees Leave Division
Office of Administrative Services
Office of the Court Administrator
Supreme Court
1000 Manila
5.1. In the event that one or more personnel
failed to submit his/her DTR for the month,
the Clerk of Court shall make a declaration
or statement in the transmittal letter of
the reason/s why such personnel failed to
submit his/her DTR. Such declaration must
be subscribed and sworn to before the
Executive/Presiding Judge (see attached
copy of form);
5.2. The reason/s cited by the Clerk
of Court shall be the basis of the
Employees Leave Division (ELD),
OAS, OCA for the withholding of
salary or exclusion from the payroll
of the concerned judge and/or
dropping from the rolls by reason
of absence without official leave
(AWOL) of the concerned personnel;
6. To avoid overpayment and over-remittance, the
salaries and benefits of judges and personnel of
the lower courts shall be withheld or excluded
from the payroll, without prior notice, based on
the following grounds:
6.1 The following shall be grounds for
withholding of salaries and benefits:
(a) failure to submit Certificate of
Service or DTR/Bundy Card within
the next two succeeding months;
(b) having incurred approved sick leave
without pay for 30 consecutive
with this OCA circular are hereby revoked.
working days, spent within or
outside the country;
(c) having incurred approved vacation
leave without pay for at least one
day by reason of travel abroad or
long leave for the purpose of taking
the bar or board examination; and
29
(d) having incurred at least one day
vacation or sick leave of absence
spent outside the country without
securing travel authority.
6.2 The withheld salaries and benefits of the
concerned judges and personnel shall be
released after they have submitted their
Certificates of Service/DTRs/Bundy Cards or
after they have reported for work following
their continuous sick leave of absence,
travel abroad or long leave.
6.3 The following shall be grounds for exclusion
from the payroll:
(a) absence without official leave for
more than 30 consecutive working
days;
(b) failure to report for work for more
than 30 consecutive working days
after the lapse of the period covered
by the approved authority to travel
abroad;
(c) The judge or personnel has filed an
intent to retire/resign but has not
officially filed an application form
for retirement/resignation and the
judge or personnel has continuously
failed to submit his/her Certificate
of Service or DTRs/Bundy Cards
after the effectivity date of his/her
retirement or resignation;
(d) And other similar cases.
6.4 The concerned judges and personnel shall
be re-included in the payroll after they
have submitted to the OCA proof that
they have reported back for work and that
their absences or failure to submit their
Certificates of Service/DTRs/Bundy Cards
is based on meritorious grounds, as may be
determined by the OCA.
This Circular shall serve as notice to all concerned.
All prior circulars, orders, and other issuances inconsistent
For immediate compliance.
September 18, 2015.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
30 July - September 2015

OCA CIRCULAR No. 222-2015

Form 1

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Office of the Court Adminstrator
Manila


Date

THE CHIEF
Employees Leave Division
Office of the Court Administrator
Supreme Court, Manila

Dear Sir/Madam,

Enclosed herewith are the Certificate of Service, Daily Time Records (DTRs) and Leave Application/s
for leave of absence/s for the month of of the following court employees of
the :
(Station)
Employee Names Position

Please take note that Mr./Ms. ,

(name) (position)

(station)
did not submit to the undersigned his/her DTR as required due to

(reason for not submitting)

Respectfully yours,

(Clerk of Court/Officer in Charge)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of ,

affiant exhibiting to me his/her Supreme Court issued Identification Card No.

(Executive/Presiding Judge)
Volume XVII Issue No. 67
Fourth Quarter 2015 Training Programs and Activities (Continued from page 32)
November 12
OSG Padilla Hall, Office of the Solicitor General, Makati City
Roundtable Discussion on Issues and Concerns Relating to
Intellectual Property Rights and Enforcement
October 2728, New World Hotel, Makati City
Career Enhancement Program for Lawyers-Clerks of Court
of the National Capital Judicial Region
Batch 1: Manila, Caloocan and Pasay
October 2830, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
12th Metrobank Foundation Professorial Chair Lecture
October 2830, Metrobank Plaza, Makati City
Good Practices for the Judiciary in Adjudicating Terrorism
Offenses (Southeast Asia Regional Meeting)
November 35, InterContinental Manila Hotel, Makati City
Judicial Career Enhancement Program for First Level Court
Judges of the Seventh Judicial Region
November 46, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
12th National Convention and Seminar of the Regional Trial
CourtClerks of Court Association of the Philippines
Theme: E-Administration of Justice: Clerks of Court
Adapting thru the Changing Times
November 46, City of Dreams, Paraaque City
Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators
Davao Mediation Program
November 910, The Royal Mandaya Hotel, Davao City
SOCSARGEN Mediation Program
November 1213, Hotel San Marco, General Santos City
Samar and Leyte Mediation Programs
December 23, XYZ Hotel, Tacloban City
Metro Manila Mediation Program
December 1011, Bayview Park Hotel, Roxas Boulevard
Ermita, Manila
Continuing Legal Education Program for Court Attorneys of
the Court of Appeals
Batch 1
November 910, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Batch 2
November 1213, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and
Rule of Law for Selected Judges of Regions IV and V
November 1213, Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga City
31
Career Enhancement Program for Regional Trial Court
Sheriffs of the National Capital Judicial Region (Batch 3)
November 2426, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court
on Judicial Dispute Resolution
November 24, Microtel by Wyndham, Cabanatuan City
Nueva Ecija
Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, and
Law Practitioners on Judicial Dispute Resolution
November 24, Microtel by Wyndham, Cabanatuan City
Nueva Ecija
Judicial Career Enhancement Program for First Level Court
Judges of the Eighth Judicial Region
November 2527, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Seventh Seminar-Workshop on Deposit Insurance, Banking
Practices and Bank Conservatorship, Receivership and
Liquidation
November 2526, Hotel Elizabeth, Arch. Reyes, Cebu City
PHILJA Curriculum Review: Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
for the Academe and Civil Society
November 25, San Beda College, Mendiola, Manila
Roundtable Discussion for Justices and Selected Court
Attorneys of Court of AppealsCagayan de Oro Station on
Financial Crimes and Money Laundering
December 23, Limketkai Luxe Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City
Career Enhancement Program for Court Social Workers of
the 9th to 12th Judicial Regions
December 24, Waterfront Insular Hotel, Lanang, Davao
City
Competency Enhancement Training for Judges,
Prosecutors, Social Workers, and Law Enforcement
Investigators Handling Trafficking in Persons Cases
December 24, Quest Hotel and Conference Center, Cebu
City
Seminar on Election Laws for Supreme Court Lawyers
December 4, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges,
Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of the 10th Judicial Region
December 810, Limketkai Luxe Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City
Capacity Building on Environmental Laws and the Rules
of Procedure for Environmental Cases for Selected Judges
and Branch Clerks of Court of Regions I and II
December 911, PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
 3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial Building
32 Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila
PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZEDJulyUSE- September
TO AVOID 2015
PAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE OR
1000 Philippines IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH

Fourth Quarter 2015 Training Programs and Activities

Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting
with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch
Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees
and PMC Unit Staff in Court-Annexed
Mediation
North Cotabato Mediation Program
October 1
Kidapawan City, North Cotabato
Sultan Kudarat Mediation Program
October 2
Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat
30th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for
Newly Appointed Clerks of Court
October 69,
PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Judicial Settlement Conference for
Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution
(Skills-based Course)
October 69
PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
7th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for
Newly Appointed Sheriffs and Process
Servers
October 68, Lahug, Cebu City
Roundtable Discussion for Justices
and Selected Court Attorneys of Court
of AppealsCebu Station on Financial
Crimes and Money Laundering
October 78, Mactan, Cebu
Continuing Legal Education Program for
Court Attorneys of the Supreme Court
Batch 1
October 1213
PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Batch 2
October 1416,
PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Batch 3
October 2223
PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Philippine Judges Association Annual
Convention
October 1416
Manila Marriot Hotel, Newport
Boulevard, Newport City Complex
Pasay City
36th Pre-Judicature Program
(As Prescribed by Section 10, Republic
Act No. 8557) (Complete Compliance
with MCLE Requirements)
October 2030, Bayview Park Hotel
Roxas Boulevard, Manila
Basic Judicial Training on Cybercrime
for Judges
October 2022
Crown Regency Hotel, Cebu City
Validation/Vetting Session on the Final
Draft of the Helpbook on Combating
Human Trafficking in the Philippines
October 22, Diamond Hotel
Roxas Boulevard, Manila
22nd National Convention Seminar of
the Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc.
October 2224
Villa Caceres Hotel, Naga City
Field Guide Information Drive on
the Philippine Judicial Academy and
the Special Course on International
Criminal Law and Security
October 26
Alex Reyes Conference Room
Court of Appeals
November 9
Social Hall, House of Representatives
Batasan, Complex, Quezon City
(Continued on page 31)
Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna
Chancellor
Professor Sedfrey M. Candelaria
Editor in Chief
Editorial and Research Staff
Atty. Orlando B. Cario
Atty. Ma. Melissa Dimson-Bautista
Armida M. Salazar
Jocelyn D. Bondoc
Ronald Paz Caraig
Joseph Arvin S. Cruz
Christine A. Ferrer
Joanne Narciso-Medina
Charmaine S. Nicolas
Sarah Jane S. Salazar
Circulation and Support Staff
Romeo A. Arcullo
Judith B. Del Rosario
Michael Angelo P. Laude
Lope R. Palermo
Daniel S. Talusig
Printing Services
Leticia G. Javier and Staff
The PHILJA Bulletin is published
quarterly by the Research,
Publications and Linkages Office
of the Philippine Judicial Academy,
with office at the 3rd Floor of the
Supreme Court Centennial Building,
Padre Faura Street corner Taft
Avenue, Manila. Tel: 552-9524; Fax:
552-9621; Email: research_philja@
yahoo.com; philja@sc.judiciary.gov.
ph; Website: http://philja.judiciary.
gov.ph