from the chancellor’s deskphilja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bulletin/bul56.pdf“the writ of amparo:...

VOLUME XIV ISSUE NO. 56OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2012

From the Chancellor’s DeskFrom the Chancellor’s DeskFrom the Chancellor’s DeskFrom the Chancellor’s DeskFrom the Chancellor’s Desk

During this last quarter of the year, as we settled downin anticipation of the holidays and the end of yet anotheryear, the Academy began wrapping up its activities for2012.

Two orientation seminar-workshops wereaccomplished at this time, one each for newly appointedjudges and clerks of court. Two Judicial CareerEnhancement Programs for Regional Trial Court judgeswere also delivered, one in Region II and the other inRegion VII.

Clerks of Court in the National Capital Judicial Regionalso participated in the Career Enhancement Program(Batch 3) for this quarter. Four batches of orientationseminar-workshops were likewise held for Executive andVice Executive Judges in Luzon, NCR, Visayas, andMindanao. Court Legal Researchers also had their turnwith the delivery of the Career Development Programfor those assigned in Region IV. The Continuing LegalEducation Program for Court Attorneys in the SupremeCourt and the Court of Appeals (three batches and twobatches, respectively) were held at the PHILJA TrainingCenter in Tagaytay. (Next page)

Roundtable Discussions on two timely concerns werealso conducted— “Competition Policy and Law” (inpartnership with the Department of Justice–Office forCompetition) and “Knowledge Sharing on the Protectionof the Rights of the LGBT Sector.” A Seminar-Workshopfor the National Commission on Indigenous PeoplesLawyers and Legal Officers was also mounted.

On November 12, your Chancellor delivered apresentation entitled, The Writ of Amparo: The PhilippineExperience So Far for the First Founding ChancellorEmeritus Justice Ameurfina Melencio Herrera AwardLecture at the PHILJA Training Center in Tagaytay.

A number of seminar-workshops for the benefit ofjudges and other court personnel in different regionswere likewise carried out as follows: Capacity Buildingon Environmental Laws and Rules of Procedure forEnvironmental Cases (ARMM, 18th Multi-Sectoral) andCourt of Appeals Justices; Increasing Judicial Efficiency:Seminar-Workshop for Judges on the Effective Use of theBenchbook for Philippine Trial Courts (Revised and

PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna with Resource Person (seated from right), Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, PHILJA ProfessorII during the Judicial Career Enhancement Program for Regional Trial Court Judges of Region VI, held on November 14-16,2012, at the Amigo Terrace Hotel, Iloilo City.

ISSN 2244-5862

OCTOBER-DECEMBER 20122

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

1

3

12

13

18

19

23

26

31

32

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

Trainings, Programs and Activities . . . . . .

New Ruling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Resolution

A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC – Efficient Use ofPaper Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Circulars

OCA Cir. No. 90-2012 – Court Decisiondated August 15, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Cir. No. 106-2012 – JudicialAffidavit Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Cir. No. 119-2012 – Guidelines onthe Rendition of Overtime Services inthe Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Cir. No. 146-2012 – Suspensionof the Implementation of theJudicial Affidavit Rule in CriminalProsecutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Upcoming PHILJA Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Expanded) for Regions X, XI, and XII (2 batches); Seminar-Workshop on CEDAW and Gender Sensitivity for Court ofAppeals Employees in the Visayas and Mindanao Stations;Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and CourtPersonnel Handling Cases Involving Children in Regions IVand VII; Personal Security Training for Judges of Region VIIand Mindanao; Seminar-Workshop on Intellectual PropertyRights Protection and Enforcement for Clerks of Court ofSpecial Commercial Courts in the NCJR and otherStakeholders; Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws Relatingto Court Technology for Judges in the Regions VI, VII, andVIII; Seminar-Workshop on Deposit Insurance, BankingPractices, and Bank Conservatorship, Receivership, andLiquidation and the Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous DrugsLaw for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of RegionVIII.

Also closing the year were Information Disseminationthrough Dialogues among Barangay Officials and CourtOfficials — one in Quezon City and another in the Provinceof Cotabato.

The Academy, through the Philippine Mediation CenterOffice, also rounded up its calendar with the holding ofseveral activities on Alternative Dispute Resolution suchas Refresher/Advanced Courses for Court-AnnexedMediators under the Metro Manila, Zamboanga, and CebuMediation Programs, respectively. Three major convention-seminars were also accomplished, namely, the PhilippineJudges Association Midterm Convention and Seminar withthe theme PJA: Upholding and Strengthening Judicial

ADOLFO S. AZCUNAChancellor

Independence; the 19th National Convention-Seminar of the Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc., the theme of whichwas Integrity, Transparency, and Accountability—Hallmarks of the Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc.; and that of theJudiciary Association of Clerks of the Philippines on the theme JACOPHIL Continuing Commitment to the Pursuit ofExcellence in Judicial Service.

Thank you and congratulations to our officials and staff for making 2012 one of our most fruitful years. Yourdedication and love for your work are much appreciated.

Thank you, too, to our development partners for their constant support for and confidence in the Academy.

Finally, I wish to thank the Honorable Supreme Court and the Chief Justice and Associate Justices for the sustainingencouragement given to PHILJA and all its undertakings.

All the best.

VOLUME XIV ISSUE NO. 56 3

TRAININGS, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

On November 12, 2012, retired Supreme Court Justice and PHILJAChancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna, first recipient of the FoundingChancellor Emeritus Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera Award forthe Most Outstanding Professorial Lecturer, delivered the lecture“The Writ of Amparo: The Philippine Experience So Far, ” at theauditorium of the PHILJA Training Center in Tagaytay. Inattendance were the family of Justice Herrera, led by her sonAtty. Florentino M. Herrera III and daughters Dr. Victoria LourdesM. Herrera-Ruiz and Dr. Milagros M. Herrera-Arroyo; Justicesof the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan,and the Court of Tax Appeals; representatives from the Office ofthe Court Administrator; officials of the Supreme Court, PHILJA,and the Court of Appeals; selected judges from the first andsecond level courts of Cavite; a few retired justices of the SupremeCourt; members of the academe, representatives of PHILJA’sdevelopment partners, and a number of private practitionersand law students.

Earlier, the PHILJA Board of Trustees headed by MadamChief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno approved the proposalby the children of Justice Herrera to donate funds for the annualaward to the Most Outstanding Professorial Lecturer, in honorof their mother Justice Herrera on the occasion of her 90th

birthday on May 11, 2012. Nominees shall come from theAcademic Council for the final selection of the awardee by theChancellor.

Chancellor Receives the Founding ChancellorEmeritus Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera

Most Outstanding Professorial Lecturer Award

Roundtable Discussion onCompetition Policy and Law

On November 7, 2012, PHILJA conducted aRoundtable Discussion on Competition Policyand Law at the Sofitel Philippine Plaza Hotelin cooperation with the Department ofJustice–Office for Competition (DOJ-OFC). Thefirst-time PHILJA activity was in response tothe proposal of Assistant Secretary GeronimoL. Sy of DOJ-OFC for the conduct of a capacitybuilding program for the judiciary to promoteknowledge and understanding on competitionpolicy and law and emerging competitionissues.

Resource persons who are authorities inlaw, economics, and business led thediscussions in four plenary sessions on topicssuch as: Competitive Standing of thePhilippines in the Global Scene; State ofEnforcement of Laws on Competition,Restraint of Trade and Monopolies andProblems in relation thereto; Effects of theProposed House Bill No. 4835 (An Act PenalizingAnti-Competitive Agreements, Abuse ofDominant Position and Anti-CompetitiveMergers, Establishing the Philippine FairCompetition Commission and AppropriatingFunds Therefor and For Other Purposes) andSenate Bill No. 3098 (The Competition Act) onthe Existing Laws on Competition, Restraint ofTrade and Monopolies. Asec. Sy underscoredthe important role of the judiciary in theimplementation of competition policy andlaw; i.e., for the courts to bring economicpolicy under the rule of law and for specializedtraining to be made available to judges.

The RTD was attended by 25 participantscomprising selected judges; members of thePHILJA Department of Commercial Law; andrepresentatives of the Tariff Commission,Securities and Exchange Commission, Bureauof Internal Revenue, Department of Trade andIndustry, and DOJ-Office for Competition.


Seminar-Workshop on Various LawsRelating to Court Technology

Continuing Legal Education Programfor Court Attorneys

In November 2012, the Philippine Judicial Academy conducteda series of Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Programs forSupreme Court and Court of Appeals Attorneys. The programwas designed to update court attorneys on developments invarious important legal subjects, and to enable those who haveserved the court for at least two years to qualify for exemptionfrom the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)compliance requirements under Bar Matter No. 850.

The CLE Programs for SC Attorneys were held in threebatches – on November 5-6 (86 participants); November 8-9(129 participants); and November 15-16 (112 participants).The CLE Program for CA Attorneys was conducted onNovember 19-20 and attended by 100 participants. Allprograms were held at the PHILJA Training Center, TagaytayCity.

Among the topics discussed during the sessions wereInternational Human Rights Laws; Marital Property Relationsand Succession; Updates in Criminal and Civil Procedure;Recent Cases on Evidence; Writ of Kalikasan and ContinuingMandamus; Current Problems in Legal Ethics and the Code ofConduct for Court Personnel; and Writing for the Court:Techniques, Issues and Concerns.

Twenty-three CLE programs for lawyers have already beenconducted since 1999.

On October 29-30, 2012, the PHILJA conducted aseminar-workshop on Various Laws Relating to CourtTechnology for judges in the Sixth, Seventh and EighthJudicial Regions. Its goal was to equip judges withknowledge on how to properly handle and decidecybercrime cases. Thirty-one judges, selected by theOffice of the Court Administrator for their experiencein handling cybercrime and electronic evidence cases,participated in the activity held at the Marco Polo Plazain Cebu.

The two-day seminar covered a range of topics onvarious laws relating to court technology such as lawson cybercrime, electronic evidence, electroniccommerce, and wiretapping. A panel discussion cappedthe seminar where the participants were givenopportunity to ask questions and air their concernsand recommendations. The participants’ mainrecommendation was the provision of computers withinternet connection and the necessary training to allcourts and court personnel.

The activity is the second in the series followingthe Focus Group Discussion on Problem Areas inHandling Cybercrime Cases held in August 2012.

PHILJA Conducts Seminar-Workshopfor NCIP Lawyers and Legal Officers

On December 4-6, 2012, PHILJA conducted the secondseminar-workshop for the lawyers and legal officers ofthe National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP);the first one held in November 2011. Pursuant to itsmandate to include quasi-judicial agencies in itsprograms for continuing judicial education, PHILJA hassupported this activity with the intent to boost theadjudicative and administrative functions of NCIP, asthe enforcer of RA No. 8371 or the Indigenous PeoplesRights Act of 1997.

A total of 66 participants, including sociologists, listened to the PHILJA and NCIP lecturers who are authorities inIPRA, Customary Law, Customary Law in Relation to the Rules of Court, Case Law, Trial Technique on Quasi-JudicialBodies, and Quasi-Judicial Bodies Case Management.

In her Statement of Purpose and Orientation, NCIP Chairperson Zenaida Brigida H. Pawid mentioned that theIPRA has been in effect for 14 years, yet its effect on the NCIP’s quasi-judicial functions has not been really felt; thus,the challenge is posed to the participants. In the same light, former Court Administrator Zenaida Elepaño stressed inher closing remarks that the genuine commitment to honor and articulate the basic human and legal rights of ICCsand IPs is expected from the participants.


Seminar for Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges

Date: October 23 to 25, 2012Venue: Century Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 33 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judgesof Luzon and the NCJR

Date: November 27 to 28, 2012Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 41 RTC and MTCC judges of Visayas andMindanao

63rd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly AppointedJudges

Date: October 2 to 11, 2012Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 31 newly appointed judges and 19promoted judges, namely:

A. NEW APPOINTMENTS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION VIHon. Domingo L. Casiple, Jr.RTC, Br. 7, Kalibo, AklanHon. Vicente V. GoRTC, Br. 68, Dumangas, IloiloHon. Raymond Joseph G. JavierRTC, Br. 52, Bacolod City, Negros OccidentalHon. Eduardo S. SaysonRTC, Br. 54, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental

REGION VIIIHon. Emelinda R. MaquilanRTC, Br. 13, Carigara, LeyteHon. Carlos O. ArguellesRTC, Br. 14, Baybay, Leyte

REGION IXHon. Dennis P. VicoyRTC, Br. 20, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur

REGION XHon. Isobel G. BarrosoRTC, Br. 8, Malaybalay City, BukidnonHon. Ma. Theresa A. CamannongRTC, Br. 9, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon

REGION XIHon. Edwin M. MalazarteRTC, Br. 27, Tandag, Surigao del SurHon. Lorenzo F. BaloRTC, Br. 24, Koronadal, South Cotabato

OrientationMUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

REGION VIHon. Eunice T. CuansingMTCC, Silay City, Negros OccidentalHon. Raul F. FaconMTCC, Br. 4, Iloilo City, IloiloHon. Montano C. Medel, Jr.MTCC, Br. 2, Bacolod City, Negros OccidentalHon. Karen Joy J. Tan-GastonMTCC, Br. 6, Bacolod City, Negros OccidentalHon. Joanne Frances G. NifrasMTCC, Cadiz City, Negros Occidental

REGION VIIHon. Albie Carmelo R. Pescadero*MTCC, Toledo City, Cebu

REGION IXHon. Joel G. VercideMTCC, Br. 1, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur

REGION XHon. Maria Luna LLena G. Lanticse-SabaMTCC, Br. 5, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis OrientalHon. Edmundo V. RaagasMTCC, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon

REGION XIHon. Marie Estrellita S. Tolentino-RojasMTCC, Br. 2, Davao City, Davao del Sur

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION VIHon. Leticia B. TrigueMTC, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental

REGION VIIIHon. Jeanette N. LoretoMTC, Palo, Leyte

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

REGION VIHon. Rodolfo S. Convocar13th MCTC: Sta. Barbara-Pavia, Iloilo

REGION VIIHon. Rodrigo T. Eguia4th MCTC: Talibon-Jetafe, BoholHon. Raul P. Barbarona14th MCTC: Dauis-Panglao, Bohol

* Incomplete Attendance


Hon. Christine M. Tabasuares-Aba7th MCTC: Valencia-Bacong, Negros Oriental

REGION VIIIHon. Divino Niño P. Polo12th MCTC: Abuyog-Javier, LeyteHon. Roselyn C. Fallorina11th MCTC: Villaba-Tabango, Leyte

REGION XHon. Robert B. Gonzaga1st MCTC: Malimono-San Francisco, Surigao del NorteHon. Francis L. Rafil2nd MCTC: Tubay-Santiago, Agusan del Norte

B. PROMOTION


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Hon. Sarah Alma M. LimRTC, Br. 2, ManilaHon. Madonna C. EchiverriRTC, Br. 81, Quezon CityHon. Arthur O. MalabaguioRTC, Br. 93, Quezon CityHon. Alfonso C. Ruiz IIRTC, Br. 216, Quezon CityHon. Caridad M. Walse-LuteroRTC, Br. 223, Quezon CityHon. Maria Gracia C. CasaclangRTC, Br. 155, Pasig CityHon. Maria Cheryl L. CegueraRTC, Br. 268, Pasig CityHon. Edison F. QuintinRTC, Br. 121, Caloocan City

REGION VIHon. Bienvenido P. Barrios, Jr.RTC, Br. 3, Kalibo, Aklan

REGION VIIHon. Jennifer L. Chavez-MarcosRTC, Br. 2, Tagbilaran City, Bohol

REGION IXHon. Victoriano D.L. Lacaya, Jr.RTC, Br. 9, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte

REGION XHon. Silvestre D. Orejana, Jr.RTC, Br. 36, Calamba, Misamis OccidentalHon. Marissa P. EstabayaRTC, Br. 44, Initao, Misamis OrientalHon. Gael P. PaderangaRTC, Br. 34, Cabadbaran City, Agusan del Norte

REGION XIHon. Rufo U. NaragasRTC, Br. 40, Tandag, Surigao del SurHon. Renato V. TampacRTC, Br. 25, Koronadal City, South Cotabato

REGION XIIHon. Arvin Sadiri B. BalagotRTC, Br. 17, Kidapawan City, North CotabatoHon. Ali M. BalindongRTC, Br. 21, Kapatagan, Lanao del NorteHon. Alberto P. QuintoRTC, Br. 1, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte

24th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly AppointedClerks of Court for Regions VI to XII

Date: November 20 to 23, 2012Venue: VIP Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 26 newly appointed clerks of court namely:


REGION VIAtty. Apollo V. RoldanRTC, Br. 5, Kalibo, AklanAtty. Sharmen Dizon GallaneroRTC, Br. 18, Roxas City, CapizAtty. Larnie Fleur Palma KimRTC, Br. 37, Iloilo City, IloiloAtty. Imee Conn A. DiamanteRTC, Br. 36, Iloilo City, IloiloAtty. Ria Divina FajardoRTC, Br. 7, Kalibo, Aklan

REGION VIIAtty. Angie M. Ucat-LogartaRTC, Br. 3, Tagbilaran City, Bohol

REGION VIIIAtty. Jose Ruther P. RobredilloRTC, OCC, Borongan, Eastern SamarAtty. Zoraida P. QuiloñaRTC, Br. 3, Guiuan, Eastern SamarAtty. Clarence G. CherreguineRTC, Br. 42, Balangiga, Eastern SamarAtty. Kareen May E. ArgenioRTC, Br. 19, Catarman, Northern SamarAtty. Julius Pacayra BabalconRTC, Br. 28, Catbalogan, Samar

REGION IXAtty. Lory Jean G. DuñosRTC, Br. 20, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del SurAtty. Arnold Pasa ArcenoRTC, Br. 22, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del SurAtty. Roman Agpawa Muyargas IIIRTC, Br. 31, Imelda, Zamboanga del Sur


REGION XAtty. Mylen Charlon GeroyRTC, Br. 24, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis OrientalAtty. Dick Carlo J. CabanlasRTC, OCC, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental

REGION XIAtty. Julius Acampado EspinaRTC, Br. 4, Panabo, Davao del NorteAtty. Lalaine Toledo Gaturian-JavingRTC, Br. 26, Surallah, South CotabatoAtty. Arnan Amor Plaza SalilinRTC, Br. 28, Lianga, Surigao del SurAtty. Jean Mae L. GallegoRTC, Br. 39, Polomok, South Cotabato

REGION XIIAtty. Caryl Caramba AlabanRTC, Br. 5, Iligan City, Lanao del NorteAtty. Sittie Aleah Caunda MacagaanRTC, Br. 8, Marawi City, Lanao del SurAtty. Danieza Julaidah Jamil PadateRTC, OCC, Malabang, Lanao del Sur

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

REGION XIMs. Socorro T. DigalMTC, Maco, Compostela Valley

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

REGION XMr. Julius C. Badilles4th MCTC: Mabini-Pantukan, Compostela Valley

REGION XIMs. Alicia Princesa B. Opiana1st MCTC: Carmen-Sto. Tomas-Braulio E. Dujali, Davao delNorte

Continuing Legal Education for Court Attorneys

Supreme CourtDate: November 5 to 6, 2012Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 86 SC lawyers

Date: November 8 to 9, 2012Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 129 SC lawyers

Date: November 15 to 16, 2012Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 112 SC lawyers

Court of AppealsDate: November 19 to 20, 2012Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 100 CA lawyers

Date: November 28 to 29, 2012Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 94 CA lawyers

Career Development Program for Court Legal Researchers

Date: October 29 to 30, 2012Venue: Century Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 50 RTC and MTCC court legal researchers ofRegion IV (Batch 2)

Career Enhancement Program for Clerks of Court

Date: October 17 to 19, 2012Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 98 RTC and MeTC clerks of court of NCJR (Batch 3)

JCEP for Regional Trial Court Judges

Date: October 17 to 19, 2012Venue: Apo View Hotel, Davao CityParticipants: 25 RTC judges of Region XI

Date: November 14 to 16, 2012Venue: Amigo Terrace Hotel, Iloilo CityParticipants: 50 RTC judges of Region VI

18th Multi-Sectoral Capacity Building on EnvironmentalLaws and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

Date: October 3 to 5, 2012Venue: Marco Polo Hotel, Davao CityParticipants: 87 comprising RTC, MTCC and MCTC judges,clerks of court, prosecutors, PAO and PMCO lawyers,representatives from BFAR, DENR, AILTF, NCIP, NGO, PCGand PNP of ARMM

Special Focus Programs

Continuing Legal Education

Career Development Program

Career Enhancement Program

Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP)


Capacity Building on Environmental Laws and the Rules ofProcedure for Environmental Cases for the Court of Appeals

Date: November 7 to 9, 2012Venue: Flushing Meadows Resort, Panglao, BoholParticipants: 24 Court of Appeals Justices

Increasing Judicial Efficiency: Seminar-Workshop for Judgeson the Effective Use of the Benchbook for Philippine TrialCourts (Revised and Expanded)

Regions X, XI and XIIDate: October 9, 2012Venue: Mallberry Suites Business Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 46 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

Date: November 6, 2012Venue: The Apo View Hotel, Davao CityParticipants: 46 RTC, MTCC, MCTC and MTC judges

Seminar-Workshop on CEDAW and Gender Sensitivity forCourt of Appeals Employees

Date: October 11 to 12, 2012Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 48 CA-Visayas employees

Date: November 22 to 23, 2012Venue: Mallberry Suites Business Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 36 CA-Mindanao employees

Personal Security Training for Judges

Date: October 16 to 18, 2012Venue: Harolds Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 37 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges ofRegion VII

Date: December 4 to 6, 2012Venue: The Apo View Hotel, Davao CityParticipants: 23 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges ofMindanao

Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and CourtPersonnel Handling Cases Involving Children

Date: October 16 to 18, 2012Venue: The Oriental Leyte, Palo, LeyteParticipants: 45 RTC judges, clerks of court, court interpreters,prosecutors, PAO lawyers and observers of Region VII

Date: December 11 to 13, 2012Venue: Century Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 37 RTC judges, clerks of court/officers-in-charge,interpreters, prosecutors and PAO lawyers of Region IV

Seminar-Workshop on Intellectual Property RightsProtection and Enforcement for Clerks of Court of SpecialCommercial Courts in the National Capital Judicial Regionand Other Stakeholders

Date: October 22-25, 2012Venue: CSB Hotel International Conference Center, ManilaParticipants: 31 RTC clerks of court of NCJR andrepresentatives from IPO and PHILJA

Seminar-Workshop for Judges on Various Laws Relatingto Court Technology

Date: October 29 to 30, 2012Venue: Marco Polo Plaza Cebu, Cebu CityParticipants: 31 RTC judges of Regions VI, VII and VIII

Date: December 4 to 5, 2012Venue: Marco Polo Hotel, Davao CityParticipants: 30 RTC judges of Regions XI and XII

Information Dissemination on Women and Children’sRights for Barangay Officials of Quezon City

Date: November 9, 2012Venue: Quezon City Hall, Quezon CityParticipants: 302 barangay officials of Quezon City

Fifth Seminar-Workshop on Deposit Insurance, BankingPractices, and Bank Conservatorship, Receivership, andLiquidation

Date: November 13 to 14, 2012Venue: Century Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 39 selected RTC judges of Regions I and III

Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges,Prosecutors and Law Enforcers

Date: November 20 to 22, 2012Venue: The Oriental Leyte, Palo, LeyteParticipants: 73 RTC judges, prosecutors, and law enforcersof Region VIII


Information Dissemination Through a Dialogue BetweenBarangay Officials of the Province of Cotabato and CourtOfficials

Date: November 26, 2012Venue: Provincial Capitol Gymnasium, Kidapawan CityParticipants: 369 barangay officials of Cotabato Province

Roundtable Discussion on Competition Policy and Law

Date: November 7, 2012Venue: Sofitel Philippine Plaza Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 25 selected RTC judges of NCJR, members ofPHILJA Department of Commercial Law, andrepresentatives from Tariff Commission, SEC, BIR, DTI, andOffice for Competition-DOJ

Roundtable Discussion: Knowledge Sharing on theProtection of the Rights of the LGBT Sector

Date: November 28, 2012Venue: Diamond Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 25 RTC judges of NCJR and representativesfrom the DOJ and NGOs

Seminar-Workshop for National Commission on IndigenousPeoples Lawyers and Legal Officers

Date: December 4 to 6, 2012Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 66 NCIP lawyers, legal officers andrepresentative from the UNDP

Special Lecture

Program for Quasi-Judicial Agencies

Convention-Seminar

Roundtable Discussion

On ADR/Mediation/JDR

Philippine Judges Association (PJA) Midterm Conventionand Seminar

Theme: PJA: Upholding and Strengthening JudicialIndependenceDate: October 10 to 12, 2012Venue: L’Fisher Hotel, Bacolod CityParticipants: 398 RTC judges

19th National Convention Seminar of the Philippine TrialJudges League, Inc. (PTJLI)

Theme: Integrity, Transparency, and Accountability –Hallmarks of the Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc.Date: November 22 to 24, 2012Venue: Fort Ilocandia Hotel, Laoag CityParticipants: 304 MTCC, MTC, MCTC and SHCC judges

8th Convention and Seminar of the Judiciary Association ofClerks of the Philippines (JACOPHIL)

Theme: JACOPHIL Continuing Commitment to the Pursuitof Excellence in Judicial ServiceDate: December 4 to 6, 2012Venue: Supreme Hotel and Convention Center, Baguio CityParticipants: 872 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC clerks

Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators

Date: October 11 to 12, 2012Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 56 mediators of the Metro Manila MediationProgram

Date: November 5 to 6, 2012Venue: Garden Orchid Hotel, Zamboanga CityParticipants: 15 mediators of the Zamboanga MediationProgram

Date: November 8 to 9, 2012Venue: Harolds Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 20 mediators of the Cebu Mediation Program

Founding Chancellor Emeritus Justice Ameurfina A.Melencio Herrera Award for the Most OutstandingProfessorial Lecturer

Date: November 12, 2012Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 259 SC, CA, SB, and CTA justices, SC and PHILJAofficials and employees, CA lawyers and staff, SC andappellate courts retired officials, RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTCand MCTC judges and clerks of court, and other guests

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno delivers the Keynote Speechduring the Philippine Judges Association Midterm Convention and Seminarheld on October 11, 2012, at the L’ Fisher Hotel, Bacolod City.


PHILJA Chief of Office for Administration Judge Thelma A. Ponferrada (ret.) (seated right) with Resource Persons (to left),Assistant Secretary Geronimo L. Sy, Office for Competition, Department of Justice; Director Cielito F. Habito, AteneoCenter for Economic Research and Development; Dean Pacifico A. Agabin, Chair, Department of Constitutional Law,PHILJA; and Attorney Richard Leo Baldueza, Supervising Legislative Officer, Office of House Committee on Trade andIndustry, during the RTD on Competition Policy and Law held on November 7, 2012, at the Sofitel Philippine Plaza Hotel,Manila.

PHILJA Professor and former CA Zenaida N. Elepaño (seated left) with participants in the 24th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Clerks of Court for Regions VI to XII held on November 20-23, 2012, at the VIP Hotel, Cagayan deOro City.

PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna with participants in the 63rd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judgesheld on October 2-11, 2012, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.


COURT LEGAL RESEARCHERS ASSOCIATIONOF THE PHILIPPINES (CLERAP), INC.

National OfficersExecutive Committee (2012-2014)

President: Ms. Cielo V. PardoExecutive Vice President: Ms. Maritoni M. NievaVP for Luzon: Ms. Zenaida A. MagayanesVP for Visayas: Ms. Marjorie Nieves G. CaresosaVP for Mindanao: Mr. Edgar C. CasalemGeneral Secretary: Ms. Rosenia G. JoverAsst. General Secretary: Ms. Prescila R. CornellaTreasurer: Ms. Zenaida E. CalauorAuditor: Ms. Asuncion R. PabellanoAsst. Auditor: Ms. Jesusa Ermita D. MarianoBusiness Manager: Mr. Aristotle V. RamosAsst. Business Manager: Mr. Marlo B. GuillanoPublic Information Officer: Mr. Paul Cayetano L. CabatinganAsst. Public Info. Officer: Mr. Igmedio J. BasadaAdviser: Mr. Ildefonso A. Pajuelas

Board of Directors

NCJR: Ms. Elizabeth O. Dela SernaRegion I: Ms. Catherine A. RamirezRegion II: Ms. Marissa P. Delos SantosRegion III: Ms. Rosenda P. MercadoRegion IV: Ms. Caridad Carmela V. SabbanRegion V: Ms. Ma. Corazon M. BaldoRegion VII: Ms. Eva Solima C. ToneleteRegion VIII: Ms. Rebecca S. MacasoRegion IX: Ms. Lilian G. SansonRegion X: Ms. Hentherlove D. LaranoRegion XI: Ms. Runero S. GonzagaRegion XIII (CARAGA): Ms. Venerando A. PingolARMM: Ms. Jurata B. Igasan-Daud

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATIONOF COURT SOCIAL WORKERS, INC. (PACSWI)

Honorary Advisers

Ms. Nona P. CabacunganMs. Cleofe M. DelimaMs. Emma E. Lopez

Board of Trustees

North Luzon: Ms. Maruche Honorina R. Rosario-CruzSouth Luzon: Ms. Alma N. SeriloVisayas: Ms. Jeanelyn Gorosin-LedesmaMindanao: VacantNCJR: Ms. Annina San Gil (Cluster I)

Ms. Julieta C. Tobias (Cluster II)Ms. Ma. Edna C. Alcantara (Cluster III)

National Officers2012-2016

President: Ms. Preciousa C. MacapusoExecutive Vice President: Ms. Evelyn D. CortezVP for Luzon: Ms. Ma. Edna PicatoVP for Visayas: Ms. Marilyn A. BillonesVP for Mindanao: VacantTreasurer: Ms. Concepcion A. BrillonAuditor: Ms. Lina E. CamachoExecutive Secretary: Ms. Jocelyn V. Arre


Residency requirement for a candidate; residencesynonymous with domicile.

The Local Government Code requires a candidate seekingthe position of provincial governor to be a resident of theprovince for at least one year before the election. Forpurposes of the election laws, the requirement of residenceis synonymous with domicile, meaning that a person mustnot only intend to reside in a particular place but must alsohave personal presence in such place coupled with conductindicative of such intention.

There is no hard and fast rule to determine acandidate’s compliance with residency requirement sincethe question of residence is a question of intention. Still,jurisprudence has laid down the following guidelines: (a)every person has a domicile or residence somewhere; (b)where once established, that domicile remains until heacquires a new one; and (c) a person can have but onedomicile at a time.

It is inevitable under these guidelines and theprecedents applying them that Jalosjos has met theresidency requirement for provincial governor ofZamboanga Sibugay.

One. The COMELEC appears hasty in concluding thatJalosjos failed to prove that he successfully changed hisdomicile to Zamboanga Sibugay. The COMELEC points outthat, since he was unable to discharge the burden of provingZamboanga Sibugay to be his rightful domicile, it must beassumed that his domicile is either Quezon City or Australia.

But it is clear from the facts that Quezon City wasJalosjos’ domicile of origin, the place of his birth. It may betaken for granted that he effectively changed his domicilefrom Quezon City to Australia when he migrated there atthe age of eight, acquired Australian citizenship, and livedin that country for 26 years. Australia became his domicileby operation of law and by choice.

On the other hand, when he came to the Philippinesin November 2008 to live with his brother in ZamboangaSibugay, it is evident that Jalosjos did so with intent tochange his domicile for good. He left Australia, gave up hisAustralian citizenship, and renounced his allegiance to thatcountry. In addition, he reacquired his old citizenship bytaking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of thePhilippines, resulting in his being issued a Certificate ofReacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of

Election Law

EducationLL.M, Columbia University, New York (2004)

LL.B, University of the Philippines (1987)(Signed Roll of Attorneys, May 28, 1988)

LL.B, University of the PhilippinesB.A., University of the Philippines

Marvic M.V.F. Leonen was appointed AssociateJustice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines onNovember 21, 2012. He is a Professor and a formerDean of the University of the Philippines College ofLaw. In 1983, he graduated with an AB Economicsdegree, magna cum laude, from the UP School ofEconomics and obtained his Bachelor of Lawsdegree from the College of Law in 1987. In the sameyear, he co-founded the Legal Resources CenterKasama sa Kalikasan/Friends of the EarthPhilippines., Inc, a legal and policy researchadvocacy institution that provides legal servicesfor upland rural poor and indigenous people’scommunities. He served as the Center’s executivedirector for fifteen years. He also earned a Masterof Laws degree from the Columbia Law School ofthe Columbia University in New York.

He first joined the UP law faculty as a professoriallecturer in Philippine Indigenous Law. He wasassistant professor during Dean Pacifico Agabin’sterm and academic administrator under DeanMerlin M. Magallona. In 2000, he was invited toact as the UP System’s University General Counsel.In 2005, he became the first Vice President for LegalAffairs of the UP System. In 2008, he became theDean of the College of Law at the University of thePhilippines. In July 2010, he was named byPresident Benigno C. Aquino III as the Governmentof the Philippines’ chief negotiator with the MoroIslamic Liberation Front in talks to attain lastingpeace in Mindanao which eventually led to thesigning of the Framework of Agreement between thetwo entities.

Judicial Moves

Hon. MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN Associate Justice

appointed on November 12, 2012

Supreme Court


Immigration. By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal rightto live in Australia, clearly proving that he gave up hisdomicile there. And he has since lived nowhere else exceptin Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.

To hold that Jalosjos has not establish a new domicile inZamboanga Sibugay despite the loss of his domicile of origin(Quezon City) and his domicile of choice and by operationof law (Australia) would violate the settled maxim that aman must have a domicile or residence somewhere.

Two. The COMELEC concluded that Jalosjos has notcome to settle his domicile in Ipil since he has merely beenstaying at his brother’s house. But this circumstance alonecannot support such conclusion. Indeed, the Court hasrepeatedly held that a candidate is not required to have ahouse in a community to establish his residence or domicilein a particular place. It is sufficient that he should livethere even if it be in a rented house or in the house of afriend or relative. To insist that the candidate own thehouse where he lives would make property a qualificationfor public office. What matters is that Jalosjos has provedtwo things: actual physical presence in Ipil and an intentionof making it his domicile.

Jalosjos presented the affidavits of next-door neighbors,attesting to his physical presence at his residence in Ipil.These adjoining neighbors are no doubt more credible sincethey have a better chance of noting his presence or absencethan his other neighbors, whose affidavits Erasmopresented, who just sporadically passed by the subjectresidence. Further, it is not disputed that Jalosjos bought aresidential lot in the same village where he lived and a fishpond in San Isidro, Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay. He showedcorrespondences with political leaders, including local andnational party-mates, from where he lived. Moreover,Jalosjos is a registered voter of Ipil by final judgment of theRegional Trial Court of Zamboanga Sibugay.

Three. While the Court ordinarily respects the factualfindings of administrative bodies like the COMELEC, thisdoes not prevent it from exercising its review powers tocorrect palpable misappreciation of evidence or wrong orirrelevant considerations. The evidence Jalosjos presentedis sufficient to establish Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, as hisdomicile. The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion inholding otherwise.

Four. Jalosjos won and was proclaimed winner in the2010 gubernatorial race for Zamboanga Sibugay. The Courtwill respect the decision of the people of that province andresolve all doubts regarding his qualification in his favor tobreathe life to their manifest will.

Abad, J., Rommel Apolinario Jalosjos v. The Commission on Electionsand Dan Erasmo, Sr., G.R. No. 191970, April 24, 2012.

Law on reconstitution of lost or destroyed land title; validsources for judicial reconstitution of title.

The relevant law that governs the reconstitution of a lostor destroyed Torrens certificate of title is Republic Act No.26. Section 2 of said statute enumerates the following asvalid sources for judicial reconstitution of title:

SECTION 2. Original certificates of title shall bereconstituted from such of the sources hereunderenumerated as may be available, in the followingorder:

(a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate oftitle;

(b) The co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’sduplicate of the certificate of title;

(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title,previously issued by the register of deedsor by a legal custodian thereof;

(d) An authenticated copy of the decree ofregistration or patent, as the case may be,pursuant to which the original certificateof title was issued;

(e) A document, on file in the Registry of Deeds,by which the property, the description ofwhich is given in said document, ismortgaged, leased or encumbered, or anauthenticated copy of said documentshowing that its original had beenregistered; and

(f) Any other document which, in thejudgment of the court, is sufficient andproper basis for reconstituting the lost ordestroyed certificate of title.

As borne out by the records of this case, respondentswere unable to present any of the documents mentionedin paragraphs (a) to (e) above. Thus, the only documentaryevidence the respondents were able to present as possiblesources for the reconstitution of OCT No. 3980 are thosethat they believed to fall under the class of “any otherdocument” described in paragraph (f).

x x x x

As correctly pointed out by petitioner, we hademphasized in Republic v. Holazo that the term “any other

Land Registration Law


Doctrinal RemindersLand Registration Law (continued)

those destroyed by the fire that gutted the premises ofsaid office on December 4, 1976. The document only statedthat said office “could not give any information/datainvolving the existence of Original/Transfer Certificate ofTitle No. Lot No. 18, area 770 sq. m., located at Taggapan,Echague, Isabela.” Third, a comparison between theaforementioned certification and the technical descriptionand sketch plan will reveal that there was a discrepancy inthe land area of the lot allegedly covered by OCT No. 3980.What was reflected on the former was a land area of 770sq. m. while the latter two documents pertained to a landarea of 811 sq. m. Furthermore, respondents were not ableto show adequate proof that a Torrens certificate of titlewas issued covering the subject parcel of land or that thesame piece of land is what is covered by the allegedly lostor destroyed OCT No. 3980. The Certification datedDecember 3, 2001 issued by the Land Registration Authority(LRA) which indicates that Decree No. 650254 issued onSeptember 1, 1937 is not among the salvaged decrees onfile in the LRA and is presumed to have been lost ordestroyed as a consequence of World War II does notsupport respondents’ assertion that OCT No. 3980 did existprior to its loss or destruction because said document failedto show a connection between Decree No. 650254 and OCTNo. 3980. From the foregoing, it is apparent that theconclusion of the Court of Appeals that “(t)he enumerationof the preferential documents to be produced as providedunder Section 2 of Republic Act 26 had been substantiallycomplied with” had no foundation based on the evidenceon record.

Likewise, the deed of sale purportedly betweenAntonia Pascua, as seller, and Pedro Fontanilla, as buyer,which involves OCT No. 3980 cannot be relied upon as basisfor reconstitution of Torrens certificate of title. Anexamination of the deed of sale would reveal that thenumber of the OCT allegedly covering the subject parcel ofland is clearly indicated, however, the date when said OCTwas issued does not appear in the document. Thiscircumstance is fatal to respondents’ cause as we havereiterated in Republic v. El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinasthat the absence of any document, private or official,mentioning the number of the certificate of title and thedate when the certificate of title was issued, does notwarrant the granting of a petition for reconstitution.

Leonardo-De Castro, J., Republic of the Philippines v. ConcepcionLorenzo, Orlando Fontanilla, Samuel Fontanilla, Juliet Fontanilla,Elizabeth Fontanilla, Rosela Fontanilla, Renato Fontanilla and EvelynFontanilla, G.R. No. 172338, December 10, 2012.

document” in paragraph (f) refers to reliable documents ofthe kind described in the preceding enumerations and thatthe documents referred to in Section 2(f) may be resortedto only in the absence of the preceding documents in thelist. Therefore, the party praying for the reconstitution of atitle must show that he had, in fact, sought to secure suchdocuments and failed to find them before presentation of“other documents” as evidence in substitution is allowed.Thus, we stated in Holazo that:

When RA No. 26, Section 2(f), or 3(f) for that matter,speaks of “any other document,” it must refer tosimilar documents previously enumerated thereinor documents ejusdem generis as the documentsearlier referred to. The documents alluded to inSection 3(f) must be resorted to in the absence ofthose preceding in order. If the petitioner forreconstitution fails to show that he had, in fact,sought to secure such prior documents (except withrespect to the owner’s duplicate copy of the titlewhich it claims had been, likewise, destroyed) andfailed to find them, the presentation of thesucceeding documents as substitutionary evidenceis proscribed. (citation omitted)

Furthermore, in a more recent case, this Courtenumerated what should be shown before an order forreconstitution can validly issue, namely: (a) that thecertificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that thedocuments presented by petitioner are sufficient andproper to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyedcertificate of title; (c) that the petitioner is the registeredowner of the property or had an interest therein; (d) thatthe certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost ordestroyed; and (e) that the description, area andboundaries of the property are substantially the same andthose contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

In the case at bar, the respondents were unable todischarge the burden of proof prescribed by law andjurisprudence for the reconstitution of lost or destroyedTorrens certificate of title. First, respondents failed to provethat the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. 3980 was indeedeaten by termites while in the custody of respondentConcepcion Lorenzo and her late husband Pedro Fontanillawho, inexplicably, did not execute an affidavit of loss asrequired by Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.Second, the Certification dated April 23, 2001 issued by theRegister of Deeds of Ilagan, Isabela did not categoricallystate that the original copy of OCT No. 3980, whichrespondents alleged to be on file with said office, was among


[A] search warrant proceeding is, in no sense, acriminal action or the commencement of aprosecution. The proceeding is not one against anyperson, but is solely for the discovery and to getpossession of personal property. It is a special andpeculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and madenecessary because of public necessity. It resemblesin some respect with what is commonly known asJohn Doe proceedings. While an application for asearch warrant is entitled like a criminal action, itdoes not make it such an action.

A search warrant is a legal process which has beenlikened to a writ of discovery employed by the Stateto procure relevant evidence of crime. It is in thenature of a criminal process, restricted to cases ofpublic prosecutions. A search warrant is a policeweapon, issued under the police power. A searchwarrant must issue in the name of the State, namely,the People of the Philippines.

A search warrant has no relation to a civil process.It is not a process for adjudicating civil rights ormaintaining mere private rights. It concerns thepublic at large as distinguished from the ordinarycivil action involving the rights of private persons.It may only be applied for in the furtherance ofpublic prosecution.

Clearly, although the search warrant in this case didnot target the residence or offices of Mendoza, et al., theywere entitled to file with the Makati RTC a motion tosuppress the use of the seized items as evidence againstthem for failure of the SEC and the NBI to immediatelyturn these over to the issuing court. The issuing court isthe right forum for such motion given that no criminal actionhad as yet been filed against Mendoza, et al. in some othercourt.

Parenthetically, it appears from its investigation reportthat the SEC kept the seized documents and articles formonths rather than immediately turn them over to theMakati RTC. Justifying its action, the SEC said that it stillneeded to study the seized items. Evidently, it wanted touse them to build up a case against the respondents,unmindful of its duty to first turn them over to the court.Clearly, SEC’s arbitrary action compromised the integrityof the seized documents and articles.

Abad, J., Securities and Exchange Commission, National Bureau ofInvestigation and Department of Justice v. Rizza G. Mendoza, CarlitoLee, Greshiela G. Compendio, Raul Rivera, Rey Beltran, Rex Almojuela,Linda P. Capalungan, Hilda R. Ronquillo, Ma. Loda Calma, Teresita P.Almojuela, Rufina Abad and Amador A. Pastrana, G.R. No. 170425, April23, 2012.

Remedial Law

Questions concerning the issuance of a search warrantand suppression of evidence seized under it can beraised only with the issuing court; nature of a searchwarrant proceeding.

Section 14 of Rule 126 is clear. Questions concerning both1) the issuance of the search warrant and 2) the suppressionof evidence seized under it are matters that can be raisedonly with the issuing court if, as in the present case, nocriminal action has in the meantime been filed in court.Thus:

SEC. 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or tosuppress evidence; where to file. — A motion toquash a search warrant and/or to suppressevidence obtained thereby may be filed in and actedupon only by the court where the action has beeninstituted. If no criminal action has been instituted,the motion may be filed in and resolved by thecourt that issued the search warrant. However, ifsuch court failed to resolve the motion and acriminal case is subsequently filed in anothercourt, the motion shall be resolved by the lattercourt. (emphasis supplied)

Although passed off as a petition for injunction, theaction that Mendoza, et al. filed with the Muntinlupa RTC,the object of which is to prohibit the three agencies fromusing the items seized under the search warrant, is actuallyan action to suppress their use as evidence. Consequently,Mendoza, et al. should have filed it with the Makati RTCthat issued such warrant.

It might be pointed out of course that since Mendoza,et al. were not parties to the issuance of the search warrant,they had no standing to question the same or seek thesuppression of evidence taken under it. Consequently, sincethey had reasons for questioning government use of theseized items against them, they had the right to bring theinjunction action before the Muntinlupa RTC where theyresided.

But the rules do not require Mendoza, et al. to beparties to the search warrant proceeding for them to beable to file a motion to suppress. It is not correct to saythat only the parties to the application for search warrantcan question its issuance or seek suppression of evidenceseized under it. The proceeding for the issuance of a searchwarrant does not partake of an action where a partycomplains of a violation of his right by another. The Courtclearly explained in United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, thenature of a search warrant proceeding.


Doctrinal RemindersRemedial Law (continued)

accused is at stake. The concern and the protectionwe must extend to matters of liberty cannot beoverstated. (emphasis supplied)

It is, thus, now settled that the fresh period rule isapplicable in criminal cases, like the instant case, wherethe accused files from a judgment of conviction a motionfor new trial or reconsideration which is denied by the trialcourt. The accused will have a fresh 15-day period countedfrom receipt of such denial within which to file his or hernotice of appeal.

Verily, the application of the statutory privilege ofappeal must not prejudice an accused who must beaccorded the same statutory privilege as litigants in civilcases who are granted a fresh 15-day period within whichto file an appeal from receipt of the denial of their motionfor new trial or reconsideration. It is indeed absurd andincongruous that an appeal from a conviction in a criminalcase is more stringent than those of civil cases. If the Courthas accorded litigants in civil cases—under the spirit andrationale in Neypes—greater leeway in filing an appealthrough the “fresh period rule,” with more reason that itshould equally grant the same to criminal cases whichinvolve the accused’s “sacrosanct right to liberty, which isprotected by the Constitution, as no person should bedeprived of life, liberty, or property without due process oflaw.”

Velasco, Jr., J., Rolex Rodriguez y Olayres v. People of the Philippinesand Allied Domecq Spirits and Wines, represented by Allied DomecqPhils., Inc., G.R. No. 192799, October 24, 2012.

Laches; elements of laches must be proven positively.

The established rule, as reiterated in Heirs of TomasDolleton v. Fil-Estate Management, Inc., is that “theelements of laches must be proven positively. Laches isevidentiary in nature, a fact that cannot be established bymere allegations in the pleadings x x x.” Evidence is ofutmost importance in establishing the existence of lachesbecause, as stated in Department of Education, Division ofAlbay v. Oñate, ‘there is “no absolute rule as to whatconstitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is tobe determined according to its particularcircumstances.” x x x Verily, the application of laches isaddressed to the sound discretion of the court as itsapplication is controlled by equitable considerations.

In this case, respondents (defendants-appellantsbelow) did not present any evidence in support of theirdefense, as they failed to take advantage of all the

Fresh period rule applicable in criminal cases.

The pivotal question is whether the “fresh period rule” isapplicable to appeals from conviction in criminal casesgoverned by Sec. 6 of Rule 122 which pertinently provides:

SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken. – An appeal mustbe taken within 15 days from promulgation of thejudgment or from notice of the final order appealedfrom. This period for perfecting an appeal shall besuspended from the time a motion for new trial orreconsideration is filed until notice of the orderoverruling the motion has been served upon theaccused or his counsel at which time the balance ofthe period begins to run. (emphasis supplied)

While Neypes was silent on the applicability of the “freshperiod rule” to criminal cases, the issue was squarelyaddressed in Yu v. Tatad, which expanded the scope of thedoctrine in Neypes to criminal cases in appeals of convictionunder Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of CriminalProcedure. Thus, the Court held in Yu:

While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civilcases, the Court’s pronouncement of a “fresh period”to appeal should equally apply to the period for appealin criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of theRevised Rules of Criminal Procedure x x x.

x x x x

Were we to strictly interpret the “fresh period rule”in Neypes and make it applicable only to the periodto appeal in civil cases, we shall effectively fosterand encourage an absurd situation where a litigantin a civil case will have a better right to appealthan an accused in a criminal case—a situationthat gives undue favor to civil litigants and unjustlydiscriminates against the accused-appellants. Itsuggests a double standard of treatment when wefavor a situation where property interests are atstake, as against a situation where liberty standsto be prejudiced. We must emphatically reject thisdouble and unequal standard for being contrary toreason. Over time, courts have recognized withalmost pedantic adherence that what is contraryto reason is not allowed in law—Quod estinconveniens, aut contra rationem non permissumest in lege.

Thus, we agree with the OSG’s view that if a delay inthe filing of an appeal may be excused on groundsof substantial justice in civil actions, with morereason should the same treatment be accorded tothe accused in seeking the review on appeal of acriminal case where no less than the liberty of the


Doctrinal RemindersRemedial Law (continued)

owners have a right to demand the returnof their property at any time as long as thepossession was unauthorized or merelytolerated, if at all. This right is neverbarred by laches.

x x x Social justice and equity cannot be used tojustify the court’s grant of property to one at theexpense of another who may have a better rightthereto under the law. These principles are notintended to favor the underprivileged whilepurposely denying another of his right under thelaw.

To rule that herein petitioner is guilty of laches even inthe absence of evidence to that effect would truly run afoulof the principle of justice and equity.

Peralta, J., Jack Arroyo v. Bocago Inland Dev’t. Corp. (BIDECO),represented by Carlito Bocago and/or the Heirs of the DeceasedRamon Bocago, namely, Basilisa vda. De Bocago, Carlito Bocago,Sannie Bocago Arrengo, and Inday Bueno, G.R. No. 167880, November

14, 2012.

opportunities they had to do so. The Court stressed in Heirsof Anacleto B. Nieto v. Municipality of Meycauayan,Bulacan, that:

x x x laches is not concerned only with the merelapse of time. The following elements must bepresent in order to constitute laches:

(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of oneunder whom he claims, giving rise to thesituation of which complaint is made for whichthe complaint seeks a remedy;

(2) delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, thecomplainant having had knowledge or notice,of the defendant’s conduct and having beenafforded an opportunity to institute a suit;

(3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of thedefendant that the complainant would assertthe right on which he bases his suit; and

(4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in theevent relief is accorded to the complainant, orthe suit is not held to be barred.

In this case, there is no evidence on record to provethe concurrence of all the aforementioned elements oflaches. The first element may indeed be established by theadmissions of both parties in the Complaint and Answer –i.e., that petitioner is the registered owner of the subjectproperty, but respondents had been occupying it forsometime and refuse to vacate the same – but the crucialcircumstances of delay in asserting petitioner’s right, lackof knowledge on the part of defendant that complainantwould assert his right, and the injury or prejudice thatdefendant would suffer if the suit is not held to be barred,have not been proven. Therefore, in the absence of positiveproof, it is impossible to determine if petitioner is guilty oflaches.

At this juncture, it is best to emphasize the Court’sruling in Labrador v. Perlas, to wit:

x x x As a registered owner, petitioner has a rightto eject any person illegally occupying his property.This right is imprescriptible and can never be barredby laches. In Bishop v. Court of Appeals, we held,thus:

As registered owners of the lots inquestion, the private respondents have aright to eject any person illegallyoccupying their property. This right isimprescriptible. Even if it be supposed thatthey were aware of the petitioners’occupation of the property, and regardlessof the length of that possession, the lawful

Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening JudicialIntegrity and Rule of Law for Executive Judges andSingle Sala Court Judges of Regions X, XI and XII(Mindanao)February 27-28, Cagayan de Oro City

Competency Enhancement Training (CET)for Judges and Court Personnel Handling CasesInvolving ChildrenMarch 5-7, Manila

18th National Convention-Seminar of thePhilippine Women Judges Association (PWJA)March 6-8, Palo, Leyte

Orientation and Screening of ProspectiveMediators and PMC Unit StaffMarch 7, Talibon, Bohol

PHILJA AnniversaryMarch 12, Tagaytay City

Competency Enhancement Training (CET)for Judges, Prosecutors, Social Workers and LawEnforcement in Investigators Handling Traffickingin Persons CasesMarch 19-21, Cebu City

25th Orientation Seminar forNewly Appointed Clerks of CourtMarch 19-22, Tagaytay City

Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges onJudicial Dispute ResolutionMarch 19-22, Tagaytay City

2013 Upcoming PHILJA Even t s2013 Upcoming PHILJA Even t s2013 Upcoming PHILJA Even t s2013 Upcoming PHILJA Even t s2013 Upcoming PHILJA Even t s(Continued from page 32)


A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC

EFFICIENT USE OF PAPER RULE

WHEREAS, to produce 500 reams of paper, 20 trees arecut and 100,000 liters of water are used, water that is nolonger reusable because it is laden with chemicals and isjust released to the environment to poison our rivers andseas;

WHEREAS, there is a need to cut the judicial system’suse of excessive quantities of costly paper, save our forests,avoid landslides, and mitigate the worsening effects ofclimate change that the world is experiencing;

WHEREAS, the judiciary can play a big part in savingour trees, conserving precious water, and helping motherearth;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court En Banc herebyissues and promulgates the following:

SEC. 1. Title of the Rule. – This rule shall be known and citedas the Efficient Use of Paper Rule.

SEC. 2. Applicability. – This rule shall apply to all courts andquasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervisionof the Supreme Court.

SEC. 3. Format and Style.

a. All pleadings, motions, and similar papers intended forthe court and quasi-judicial body’s consideration andaction (court-bound papers) shall be written in singlespace with a one-and-a-half space betweenparagraphs, using an easily readable font style of theparty’s choice, of 14-size font, and on a 13-inch by 8.5-inch white bond paper; and

b. All decisions, resolutions, and orders issued by courtsand by quasi-judicial bodies under the administrativesupervision of the Supreme Court shall comply withthese requirements. Similarly covered are the reportssubmitted to the courts and transcripts ofstenographic notes.

SEC. 4. Margins and Prints. – The parties shall maintain thefollowing margins on all court-bound papers: a left handmargin of 1.5 inches from the edge; an upper margin of 1.2inches from the edge; a right hand margin of 1.0 inch fromthe edge; and a lower margin of 1.0 inch from the edge.Every page must be consecutively numbered.

SEC. 5. Copies to be Filed. – Unless otherwise directed bythe court, the number of court-bound papers that a partyis required or desires to file shall be as follows:

a. In the Supreme Court, one original (properly marked)and four copies, unless the case is referred to the CourtEn Banc, in which event, the parties shall file tenadditional copies. For the En Banc, the parties need tosubmit only two sets of annexes, one attached to theoriginal and an extra copy. For the Division, the partiesneed to submit also two sets of annexes, one attachedto the original and an extra copy. All members of theCourt shall share the extra copies of annexes in theinterest of economy of paper.

Parties to cases before the Supreme Court are furtherrequired, on voluntary basis for the first six monthsfollowing the effectivity of this Rule and compulsorilyafterwards unless the period is extended, to submit,simultaneously with their court-bound papers, softcopies of the same and their annexes (the latter in PDFformat) either by email to the Court’s e-mail addressor by compact disc (CD). This requirement is inpreparation for the eventual establishment of an e-filing paperless system in the judiciary.

b. In the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, oneoriginal (properly marked) and two copies with theirannexes;

c. In the Court of Tax Appeals, one original (properlymarked) and two copies with annexes. On appeal tothe En Banc, one original (properly marked) and eightcopies with annexes; and

d. In other courts, one original (properly marked) withthe stated annexes attached to it.

SEC. 6. Annexes Served on Adverse Party. – A party requiredby the rules to serve a copy of his court-bound paper on theadverse party need not enclose copies of those annexesthat based on the record of the court such party alreadyhas in his possession. In the event a party requests a set ofthe annexes actually filed with the court, the party whofiled the paper shall comply with the request within fivedays from receipt.

SEC. 7. Date of Effectivity. – This rule shall take effect onJanuary 1, 2013 after publication in two newspapers ofgeneral circulation in the Philippines.

Manila, November 13, 2012.

(Sgd.) SERENO, CJ, CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DECASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO,ABAD, VILLARAMA, Jr., PEREZ, MENDOZA, REYES, PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.


ANNEX “A”

Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

ASTORGA AND REPOL LAW A.M. No. P-12-3029OFFICES, represented by ATTY. (Formerly OCA I.P.I.ARNOLD B. LUGARES, No. 08-2850-P)

Complainant, Present:

CARPIO,*LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,**

- versus- Acting Chairperson,BERSAMIN,DEL CASTILLO, andVILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

LEODEL N. ROXAS, SHERIFFIV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Promulgated:BRANCH 66, MAKATI CITY, 15 AUG 2012

Respondent.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

This is an administrative complaint filed by complainantAstorga and Repol Law Offices, represented by Atty. ArnoldB. Lugares (Atty. Lugares), against respondent Leodel N. Roxas,Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, MakatiCity, for willful neglect of duty, relative to Civil Case No. 01-1002, entitled FGU Insurance Corporation v. NEC CargoServices, Inc. and Albert T. Tamayo, Third Party Defendant.

Civil Case No. 01-1002 is a case for damages institutedby FGU Insurance Corporation (FGU) against NEC CargoServices, Inc. (NEC) before the RTC. FGU was represented bycomplainant.

After several years of litigation, the RTC rendered aDecision in favor of FGU, the dispositive portion of whichreads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of theplaintiff [FGU] and against the defendant NEC Cargo Services,Inc., ordering the latter to pay the plaintiff the following:

1. the amount of P1,942,285.91 with legal interestthereon from June 21, 2001 until the whole amount isfully paid;

2. attorney’s fees amounting to P70,000.00; and

3. costs of suit.

* Per Special Order No. 1284 dated August 6, 2012.

** Per Special Order No. 1226 dated May 30, 2012.

TO: ALL CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND SECONDLEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: COURT DECISION DATED AUGUST 15, 2012

For your information and guidance, the Honorable Courtissued a Decision dated August 16, 2012 in A.M. No. P-12-3029, formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2850-P (Astorga and RepolLaw Offices, represented by Atty. Arnold B. Lugares v.Leodel N. Roxas, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch66, Makati City), the dispositive portion of which reads asfollows:

x x x x

WHEREFORE, respondent Leodel N. Roxas, SheriffIV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, MakatiCity, is found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty andis SUSPENDED for one month and one day countedfrom his receipt of this Decision. He is STERNLYWARNED that a repetition of the same or similaracts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Officeof the Court Administrator, which is instructed tocirculate the Decision to the clerk of court of alltrial courts for dissemination to all concerned courtpersonnel. (emphasis supplied)

In view of the foregoing, you are hereby DIRECTED toOBSERVE faithfully the pronouncements of theabovementioned Decision dated August 15, 2012, asappended herewith as Annex “A”, and DISSEMINATE thesame to the attention of all concerned court personnelunder your administrative supervision.

For strict compliance.

September 24, 2012.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZCourt Administrator

OCA Circular No. 90-2012


OCA Circular No. 90-2012 (continued)

With regard to the third party complaint of defendantNEC Cargo Services Inc., the third party defendant AlbertoTamayo, doing business under the name and style of PatriotCargo Movers, is hereby ordered to reimburse defendant/third party plaintiff for all the sums the latter would payplaintiff.1

The aforementioned Decision became final andexecutory on September 24, 2004.2

FGU filed a Motion for Execution which was granted bythe RTC and the Writ of Execution was accordingly issued onJuly 10,2006.3

On July 11, 2006, respondent served a copy of the Writof Execution upon NEC at Block 15, Lot 9, Tulip Street, CamellaHomes I, Putatan, Muntinlupa City, which was received byMr. Narciso E. Catalon (Catalon). On even date, respondentlevied upon the personal properties, consisting of officeequipment, found inside the NEC office.

An auction sale was set on July 19, 2006 at 10:30: a.m.at the Main Entrance of the Hall of Justice of Makati City.Copies of the Notice of Sale were sent to all concerned partiesand posted on the bulletin boards at the City Hall, Hall ofJustice, and Post Office of Makati City.

However, Catalon filed on July 17, 2006 an Affidavit ofThird Party Claim, asserting ownership over the leviedproperties.

Respondent personally furnished complainant, throughAtty. Lugares, on July 18, 2006 a copy of the Notice of ThirdParty Claim, together with a copy of Catalon’s Affidavit ofThird Party Claim.

Since FGU failed to post an indemnity bond in favor ofthird party claimant Catalon, respondent did not proceedwith the scheduled auction sale on July 19,2006.

The Sheriff’s Report dated August 7, 2006, prepared byrespondent, declared the levy upon the personal propertiesin the NEC office Iifted, cancelled, and without effect; andstated that the same personal properties were released toCatalon and the original copy of the Writ of Execution andall pertinent papers were temporarily returned to the RTCunsatisfied.

Since then, there appears to have been no furtherdevelopment in the execution of the RTC Decision datedJanuary 16, 2006 in Civil Case No. 01-1002.

Thus, complainant filed the instant Complaint-Affidavit4

dated April 29, 2008 against respondent, alleging, amongother things, that:

7. Sometime in October of 2007, [complainant] furnished[respondent] with the Articles of Incorporation of the [NEC]from the Securities and Exchange Commission to inform himthat the [NEC] has leviable assets/credits in the form ofunpaid subscriptions and asked him to make thecorresponding levy/garnishment. He however refused toexecute the Decision and make the corresponding levy/garnishment without any valid reason as if to protect the[NEC] and its officers/subscribers.

8. Repeated follow-ups were again made by the [complainant]but to no avail, still no action from [respondent] and noperiodic reports. With this, [complainant] was constrainedto ask the assistance of the Branch Clerk of said Court toremind the sheriff of his duty to execute the Decision in theabovementioned case. Despite this, there is still no actionfrom [respondent] and no periodic reports. The levy/garnishment requested by the [complainant] had fallen ondeaf ears. Simply stated, no further action was taken.

9. [Respondent] actually thwarted the Decision by refusing toexecute it. He was able to set at naught all the hardships andlabor of [FGU]; Presiding Judge, Justices, lawyers and othercourt officers and employees in litigating the case.[Respondent] acts as if [FGU] and [complainant] is at his mercyof whether to execute the Decision or not. This should not bethe case because as sheriff, he is duty bound to immediatelyexecute the Decision and not refuse to do his job. Hisactuation in sleeping on [FGU’s] repeated requests certainlyundermines the people’s faith in the judicial process. Peoplewill be discouraged from invoking the jurisdiction of theCourts to settle their dispute if in the end, their victory wouldonly remain a paper victory if the sheriff tasked to executethe Decision would renege on its obligation as what[respondent] is doing.

10. At present, the Decision in [FGU’s] favor still remains to beexecuted, while [respondent] does nothing to execute thesame. This should not be the case because [FGU] as theprevailing party is entitled to the fruits of the Decision.Something must be done in order to have the Decisionexecuted.

11. It is respectfully submitted that [respondent] should bepenalized and removed from service for willfully refusing tocomply with his sworn duty to execute the Decision, which ishis job, and obey the order/writ of the court.5

In his Comment6 dated July 3, 2008, respondentcategorically and vehemently denied what he called as“baseless and malicious accusation” imputed against himby complainant. Respondent countered that:

3. The truth of which is that by virtue of the Writ of Executiondated July 10, 2006, on July 11, 2006, [respondent] levied[the] personal properties of defendant Corporation (NECCargo Services, Inc.) but was lifted in view of the Affidavit ofThird-Party Claim filed.

4. Contrary to the unfounded allegation of non-filing of periodicreports, [respondent], in compliance with the Rules of Court,prepared and submitted the corresponding Sheriff’s Report/1 Rollo, pp. 1-2.

2 Id. at 8. Per the Certification of Branch Clerk of Court John Ivan B.Tablizo dated May 21, 2008.

3 Id.

4 Id. at 5-7.

5 Id. at 6-7.

6 Id. at 14-15.


Return dated August 7, 2006, (Annex “A”) setting forththerein the whole proceedings undertaken and filed withthe Court. And a copy thereof was furnished to Atty. ArnoldLugares, received on August 28, 2006 (proof of receipt isattached to the case record).

5. That on October 2007, [respondent] was furnished by Atty.Arnold Lugares of an undated handwritten letter appendedthereto with mere photocopies of a list of names of allegedincorporators and asking [respondent] to send notices ofgarnishment regarding [NEC’s] leviable assets/credits in theform of unpaid subscriptions. (attached herewith is aphotocopy of Atty. Arnold Lugares undated letter and itsattachments). (Annex “B”). Further, contrary to the baselessallegation in paragraph no. 7 of the Complaint-Affidavit,[respondent] was never furnished of the Articles ofIncorporation of [NEC] from the Securities and ExchangeCommission by Atty. Arnold Lugares.

6. Contrary to the allegation of “repeated follow-ups,”[respondent] suggested to Atty. Arnold Lugares to notify theCourt relative to his allegation of [NEC’s] leviable assets inthe form of unpaid subscription. Respondent Sheriff opinesthat the unpaid subscription of the incorporators are notleviable assets and there is a need to determine and showproof that the subscriptions are declared delinquentthrough the filing of an appropriate Motion addressed tothe Court. It is a fundamental legal axiom that a Writ ofExecution must conform strictly to the dispositive portionof the decision sought to be executed. (Banquerigo v. C.A.,498 SCRA 169). As to the directive in the Writ of Execution inlight of the dispositive portion being executed, theRespondent Sheriff acted with prudence and cautionespecially where the alleged unpaid subscriptions aresought by Atty. Arnold Lugares, counsel of the prevailingparty, is not specified in the judgment.

7. Lastly, respondent Sheriff is not remiss in the performanceof his duties and does not have the slightest intention toneglect his duty as executing sheriff in the implementationof the Writ relative to the said Civil Case No. 01-1002.7

Consequently, respondent prayed that he be absolvedfrom any administrative liability.

On November 9, 2011, the Office of the CourtAdministrator (OCA) submitted its report8 with the followingrecommendations:

RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, we respectfullysubmit for the consideration of the Honorable Court the followingrecommendations:

1. The administrative complaint against Leodel N. Roxas,Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;

2. Sheriff Roxas be found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty; and

3. Sheriff Roxas be SUSPENDED FOR ONE MONTH and ONE DAYWITHOUT PAY and STERNLY WARNED that the commission of

the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt withmore severely.9

In a Resolution10 dated January 18, 2012, the Court re-docketed the administrative complaint against respondentas a regular administrative matter and required the partiesto manifest within 10 days from notice if they were willingto submit the matter for resolution based on the pleadingsfiled.

Complainant11 and respondent12 submitted theirManifestations dated March 12, 2012 and April 27, 2012,respectively, stating that they were submitting the case forresolution based on the pleadings filed.

Hence, we now resolve the present administrativematter, completely agreeing with the findings andrecommendations of the OCA.

Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 14. Return of writ of execution. – The writ of executionshall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately afterthe judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If thejudgment cannot be satisfied in full within 30 days after hisreceipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court andstate the reason therefor. Such writ shall continue in effectduring the period within which the judgment may beenforced by motion. The officer shall make a report to thecourt every 30 days on the proceedings taken thereon untilthe judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. Thereturns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole of theproceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court andcopies thereof promptly furnished the parties. (emphasisours)

The aforequoted provision clearly mandates the sheriffor other proper officer to file a return and when necessary,periodic reports, with the court which issued the writ ofexecution. The writ of execution shall be returned to thecourt immediately after the judgment had been partially orfully satisfied. In case the writ is still unsatisfied or onlypartially satisfied 30 days after the officer’s receipt of thesame, said officer shall file a report with the court statingthe reasons therefor. Subsequently, the officer shallperiodically file with the court a report on the proceedingstaken to enforce the writ every 30 days until said writ isfully satisfied or its effectivity expires. The officer is furtherrequired to furnish the parties with copies of the return andperiodic reports.

Herein respondent had undeniably failed to file periodicreports on the Writ of Execution dated July 10, 2006.Respondent received a copy of said Writ also on July 10,2006 and he filed a Sheriff ’s Report on August 7, 2006.According to his Report respondent had to lift and cancelthe levy on the office equipment found inside the NEC officegiven Catalon’s third-party claim over said properties and

7 Id.

8 Id. at 20-23.


9 Id. at 23.

1 0 Id. at 25.

1 1 Id. at 27-28.

1 2 Id. at 32.


the failure of FGU to post an indemnity bond in Catalon’sfavor, thus, the Writ of Execution dated July 10, 2006 wasreturned to the RTC unsatisfied. The Sheriff’s Report datedAugust 7, 2006 was the first and last filed by respondent inconnection with the Writ of Execution dated July 10, 2006,until the instant administrative complaint dated April 29,2008 was filed against him. For almost two years,respondent was completely remiss in filing the mandatedperiodic reports on the Writ of Execution dated July 10,2006. Consequently, for the same period of time, FGU, theprevailing party in Civil Case No. 01-1002, was left unawareof any steps taken by respondent to satisfy the Decisiondated January 16, 2006. Ultimately, it is apparent thatrespondent did not file any periodic report because he hadnothing to state therein as he failed to take any further actionto satisfy the Decision dated January 16, 2006 andimplement the Writ of Execution dated July 10, 2006.

In his defense, respondent claimed that there is no otherNEC property which he could levy or garnish to satisfy theDecision dated January 16, 2006. Respondent averred thathe could not garnish the unpaid subscriptions of NECincorporators, as complainant wished, because the unpaidsubscriptions were not specified in the dispositive portionof the judgment to be implemented. Respondent’s reasoningis unacceptabIe. Difficulties or obstacles in the satisfactionof a final judgment and execution of a writ do not excuserespondent’s total inaction. Neither the Rules norjurisprudence recognizes any exception from the periodicfiling of reports by sheriffs. If only respondent submittedsuch periodic reports, he could have brought hispredicament to the attention of the RTC and FGU and hecould have given the RTC and FGU the opportunity to actand/or move to address the same.

It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit andend of the suit and is the life of law. A judgment, if leftunexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for theprevailing party.13

Therefore, sheriffs ought to know that they have a swornresponsibility to serve writs of execution with utmostdispatch. When writs are placed in their hands, it is theirministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity andpromptness to execute them in accordance with theirmandate. Unless restrained by a court order, they shouldsee to it that the execution of judgments is not undulydelayed. Accordingly, they must comply with their mandatedministerial duty as speedily as possible. As agents of thelaw, high standards are expected of sheriffs.14

In Añonuevo v. Rubio,15 we stressed the reminder to allcourt personnel to perform their assigned tasks promptlyand with great care and diligence considering the important

role they play in the administration of justice. With respectto sheriffs, they are to implement writs of execution andsimilar processes mindful that litigations do not end merelywith the promulgation of judgments. Being the final stage inthe litigation process, execution of judgments ought to becarried out speedily and efficiently since judgments leftunexecuted or indefinitely delayed are rendered inutile andthe parties prejudiced thereby, condemnatory of the entirejudicial system. This admonition is now enshrined as CanonIV, Section 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel thatreads, “[c]ourt personnel shall at all times perform officialduties properly and with diligence. x x x”

Evidently, respondent displayed conduct short of thestringent standards required of court employees.Respondent’s long delay in the execution of the finaljudgment in favor of FGU and failure to submit the requiredperiodic reports constitute simple neglect of duty, definedas the failure of an employee to give one’s attention to atask expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a dutyresulting from carelessness or indifference. Civil ServiceCommission Memorandum Circular No. 19 classifies simpleneglect of duty as a less grave offense, punishable bysuspension without pay for one month and one day to sixmonths, for the first offense. This being respondent’s firstoffense, the penalty recommended by the OCA of one monthand one day is appropriate.

WHEREFORE, respondent Leodel N. Roxas, Sheriff IV ofthe Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City, is foundGUILTY of simple neglect of duty and is SUSPENDED for onemonth and one day counted from his receipt of this Decision.He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same orsimilar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of theCourt Administrator, which is instructed to circulate theDecision to the clerk of court of all trial courts fordissemination to all concerned court personnel.

SO ORDERED.

(Sgd.) TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTROAssociate Justice

Acting Chairperson, First Division

WE CONCUR:

(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIOSenior Associate Justice

(Sgd.) LUCAS P. BERSAMINAssociate Justice

(Sgd.) MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice

(Sgd.) MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice


1 3 Garcia v. Yared, 447 Phil. 444, 453 (2003).

1 4 Pesongco v. Estoya, 519 Phil. 226, 241 (2006).

1 5 479 Phil. 336, 340 (2004).



TO: THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURTOF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’ADISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIALCOURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’ACIRCUIT COURTS, THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF STATEPROSECUTOR, PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND THEINTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT: JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

For your information and guidance, the Supreme Court EnBanc has issued and promulgated the Judicial Affidavit Rulein A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC dated September 4, 2012, in orderto fully address the “case congestion and delays that haveplagued most courts in cities, given the huge volume ofcases filed each year and the slow and cumbersomeadversarial system that the judiciary has in place.”

In view of the foregoing, you are hereby DIRECTED toOBSERVE faithfully the pronouncements in theabovementioned Judicial Affidavit Rule dated September4, 2012, appended herewith as Annex “A”.

This Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC) waspublished in newspapers of general circulation particularlyin the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Manila Times onSeptember 8, 2012 and September 10, 2012, respectively,and ACCORDINGLY, will TAKE EFFECT on January 1, 2013.

Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.

October 15, 2012.


ANNEX “A”

A.M. No. 12-8-8-SCJUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

WHEREAS, case congestion and delays plague most courtsin cities, given the huge volume of cases filed each year andthe slow and cumbersome adversarial system that thejudiciary has in place;

WHEREAS, about 40 percent of criminal cases aredismissed annually owing to the fact that complainantssimply give up coming to court after repeatedpostponements;

WHEREAS, few foreign businessmen make long-terminvestments in the Philippines because its courts are unableto provide ample and speedy protection to their investments,keeping its people poor;

WHEREAS, in order to reduce the time needed forcompleting the testimonies of witnesses in cases underlitigation, on February 21, 2012, the Supreme Court approvedfor piloting by trial courts in Quezon City the compulsoryuse of judicial affidavits in place of the direct testimoniesof witnesses;

WHEREAS, it is reported that such piloting has quicklyresulted in reducing by about two-thirds the time used forpresenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding upthe hearing and adjudication of cases;

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court Committee on the Revisionof the Rules of Court, headed by Senior Associate JusticeAntonio T. Carpio, and the Subcommittee on the Revision ofthe Rules on Civil Procedure, headed by Associate JusticeRoberto A. Abad, have recommended for adoption a JudicialAffidavit Rule that will replicate nationwide the success ofthe Quezon City experience in the use of judicial affidavits;and

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court En Banc finds merit in therecommendation;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court En Banc herebyissues and promulgates the following:

SECTION 1. Scope.

a. This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, andincidents requiring the reception of evidence before:

1. The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal TrialCourts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, theMunicipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari’aCircuit Courts but shall not apply to small claimscases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;

2. The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari’a DistrictCourts;

3. The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, theCourt of Appeals, and the Shari’a Appellate Courts;

4. The investigating officers and bodies authorizedby the Supreme Court to receive evidence, includingthe Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); and

5. The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whoserules of procedure are subject to disapproval ofthe Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rulesof procedure contravene the provisions of thisRule.1

(Next page)

1 By virtue of the Supreme Court’s authority under Section 5(5),Article VIII, of the 1987 Constitution to disapprove rules ofprocedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.


b. For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall beuniformly referred to here as the “court.”

SEC. 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu ofDirect Testimonies.

a. The parties shall file with the court and serve on theadverse party, personally or by licensed courier service,not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminaryconference or the scheduled hearing with respect tomotions and incidents, the following:

1. The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, whichshall take the place of such witnesses’ directtestimonies; and

2. The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if any,which shall be attached to the judicial affidavitsand marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in thecase of the complainant or the plaintiff, and asExhibits I, 2, 3, and so on in the case of therespondent or the defendant.

b. Should a party or a witness desire to keep the originaldocument or object evidence in his possession, he may,after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit,and authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit thatthe copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is afaithful copy or reproduction of that original. Inaddition, the party or witness shall bring the originaldocument or object evidence for comparison duringthe preliminary conference with the attached copy,reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shallnot be admitted. This is without prejudice to theintroduction of secondary evidence in place of theoriginal when allowed by existing rules.

SEC. 3. Contents of Judicial Affidavit. – A judicial affidavitshall be prepared in the language known to the witnessand, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by atranslation in English or Filipino, and shall contain thefollowing:

a. The name, age, residence or business address, andoccupation of the witness;

b. The name and address of the lawyer who conducts orsupervises the examination of the witness and the placewhere the examination is being held;

c. A statement that the witness is answering the questionsasked of him, fully conscious that he does so underoath, and that he may face criminal liability for falsetestimony or perjury;

d. Questions asked of the witness and his correspondinganswers, consecutively numbered, that:

1. Show the circumstances under which the witnessacquired the facts upon which he testifies;

2. Elicit from him those facts which are relevant tothe issues that the case presents; and

3. Identify the attached documentary and objectevidence and establish their authenticity inaccordance with the Rules of Court;

e. The signature of the witness over his printed name; and

f. A jurat with the signature of the notary public whoadministers the oath or an officer who is authorized bylaw to administer the same.

SEC. 4. Sworn Attestation of the Lawyer.

a. The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestationat the end, executed by the lawyer who conducted orsupervised the examination of the witness, to the effectthat:

1. He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded thequestions he asked and the corresponding answersthat the witness gave; and

2. Neither he nor any other person then present orassisting him coached the witness regarding thelatter’s answers.

b. A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentionedto disciplinary action, including disbarment.

SEC. 5. Subpoena. – If the government employee or official, orthe requested witness, who is neither the witness of theadverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declinesto execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just causeto make the relevant books, documents, or other things underhis control available for copying, authentication, andeventual production in court, the requesting party may availhimself of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum orduces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rulesgoverning the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in thiscase shall be the same as when taking his deposition exceptthat the taking of a judicial affidavit shall be understood tobe ex parte.

SEC. 6. Offer Of and Objections to Testimony in JudicialAffidavit. – The party presenting the judicial affidavit of hiswitness in place of direct testimony shall state the purposeof such testimony at the start of the presentation of thewitness. The adverse party may move to disqualify thewitness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answersfound in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shallpromptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause themarking of any excluded answer by placing it in bracketsunder the initials of an authorized court personnel, without



prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section 40of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

SEC. 7. Examination of the Witness on His Judicial Affidavit. –The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine thewitness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attachedto the same. The party who presents the witness may alsoexamine him as on re-direct. In every case, the court shalltake active part in examining the witness to determine hiscredibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicitthe answers that it needs for resolving the issues.

SEC. 8. Oral Offer Of and Objections to Exhibits.

a. Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness,a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidenceof his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece,in their chronological order, stating the purpose orpurposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.

b. After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse partyshall state the legal ground for his objection, if any, toits admission, and the court shall immediately makeits ruling respecting that exhibit.

c. Since the documentary or object exhibits form part ofthe judicial affidavits that describe and authenticatethem, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply citedby their markings during the offers, the objections, andthe rulings, dispensing with the description of eachexhibit.

SEC. 9. Application of Rule to Criminal Actions.

a. This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:

1. Where the maximum of the imposable penalty doesnot exceed six years;

2. Where the accused agrees to the use of judicialaffidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or

3. With respect to the civil aspect of the actions,whatever the penalties involved are.

b. The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits ofits witnesses not later than five days before the pre-trial, serving copies of the same upon the accused. Thecomplainant or public prosecutor shall attach to theaffidavits such documentary or object evidence as hemay have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on.No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or objectevidence shall be admitted at the trial.

c. If the accused desires to be heard on his defense afterreceipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, heshall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit aswell as those of his witnesses to the court within 10days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of

each on the public and private prosecutor, includinghis documentary and object evidence previously markedas Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shallserve as direct testimonies of the accused and hiswitnesses when they appear before the court to testify.

SEC. 10. Effect of Non-compliance with the Judicial AffidavitRule.

a. A party who fails to submit the required judicialaffidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to havewaived their submission. The court may, however, allowonly once the late submission of the same provided, thedelay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudicethe opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fineof not less than P1,000 nor more than P5,000, at thediscretion of the court.

b. The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witnesswho fails to appear at the scheduled hearing of the caseas required. Counsel who fails to appear without validcause despite notice shall be deemed to have waivedhis client’s right to confront by cross-examination thewitnesses there present.

c. The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavitsthat do not conform to the content requirements ofSection 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4above. The court may, however, allow only once thesubsequent submission of the compliant replacementaffidavits before the hearing or trial provided the delayis for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudicethe opposing party and provided further, that public orprivate counsel responsible for their preparation andsubmission pays a fine of not less than P1,000 nor morethan P5,000, at the discretion of the court.

SEC. 11. Repeal or Modification of Inconsistent Rules. – Theprovisions of the Rules of Court and the rules of proceduregoverning investigating officers and bodies authorized bythe Supreme Court to receive evidence are repealed ormodified insofar as these are inconsistent with theprovisions of this Rule.

The rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial bodiesinconsistent herewith are hereby disapproved.

SEC. 12. Effectivity. – This rule shall take effect on January 1,2013, following its publication in two newspapers of generalcirculation not later than September 15, 2012. It shall alsoapply to existing cases.

Manila, September 4, 2012.

(Sgd.) SERENO, CJ; CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr., LEONARDO-DECASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD,VILLARAMA, Jr., PEREZ, MENDOZA, REYES, PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.



WHEREAS, in the resolution dated January 17, 2012in A.M. No. 08-11-8-SC, the Court approved therevised draft Guidelines on the Rendition ofOvertime Services in the Judiciary submitted by theFMBO and OAS.

NOW THEREFORE, the following guidelines arehereby issued to reiterate and/or update guidelineson rendition of overtime services:

1. Purpose

These guidelines shall be the basis for the:

a. payment of authorized overtime services;and

b. availment of compensatory time off in lieuof overtime pay for rendering overtimeservices

for uniformity and consistency in itsapplication

2. Coverage

These guidelines shall apply to all employeesof the Supreme Court up to Chiefs of Division,whether permanent, temporary, coterminous orcasual, including those of the PresidentialElectoral Tribunal (PET), Judicial and BarCouncil (JBC), Philippine Judicial Academy(PHILJA), Mandatory Continuing LegalEducation Office (MCLEO), the Court ofAppeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appealsand all courts in the first and second levels,when applicable.

3. Definition of Terms

Compensatory Overtime Credit (COC) refersto the accrued number of hours an employeeearns as a result of services rendered beyondregular working hours, and/or those renderedon Saturdays, Sundays, Holidays or scheduleddays off without the benefit of overtime pay.

Compensatory Time Off (CTO) refers to thenumber of hours or days an employee isexcused from reporting for work with full payand benefits. It is a non-monetary benefitprovided to an employee in lieu of overtimepay.

4. Policy on Overtime

Overtime work should be avoided by adequateplanning of work activities. It should not beresorted to in the performance of regularroutine work and activities except whenunforeseen events and emergency situationswill result in any of the following:

4.1. Cause financial loss to the government;

4.2. Embarrass the Supreme Court due to itsinability to meet its commitments; and


TO: ALL JUDGES AND PERSONNEL OF THE REGIONALTRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS,METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIALCOURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPALCIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THE RENDITION OF OVERTIMESERVICES IN THE JUDICIARY

Quoted hereunder is Administrative Circular No. 25-2012 dated April 11, 2012 of then Chief Justice Renato C.Corona, Re: Guidelines on the Rendition of OvertimeServices in the Judiciary:

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 25-2012

GUIDELINES ON THE RENDITION OF OVERTIMESERVICES IN THE JUDICIARY

WHEREAS, the following Circulars were issuedregarding rendition of overtime services:

a. Memorandum Circular No. 08-2004 (Revisingthe amended guidelines on the Rendition ofOvertime Services to update the Amendedguidelines on the Rendition of OvertimeServices approved on October 19, 2001;

b. Administrative Circular No. 44-2004 (AdoptingEffective Measures to Reduce Expenditures andIncrease Savings in Appropriations in theJudiciary); and

c. Administrative Circular No. 18-2005 (Adoptingas part of the Judiciary’s Austerity ProgramJoint Circular No. 2, s. 2004 of the Civil ServiceCommission (CSC) and Department of BudgetandManagement (DBM) on Non-Monetaryremuneration for overtime service rendered)as well as guidelines on its implementation;

WHEREAS, the Court in its resolution datedDecember 2, 2008 in A.M. No. 08-11-8-SC (Re:Payment of Expense Allowance to Committees,Lecturers and Similar Service Providers andOvertime Workers) declared among others, thateffective January 2009, overtime work shall be paidin accordance with rules on overtime pay ingovernment; and, in a subsequent resolution datedJuly 7, 2009, under paragraph (b) (iii) that overtimepay shall be paid in accordance with BudgetCircular No. 10.

WHEREAS, pursuant to the same resolution, theFiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO) andOffice of Administrative Services (OAS) weredirected among others, to jointly draft the rulesand guidelines on overtime pay under the policy ofavoiding needless overtime work;


(Next page)

4.3. Negate the purpose for which the work oractivity was conceived.

5. Activities for which Overtime Services may beAuthorized:

5.1 Completion of infrastructure and otherprojects with set deadlines;

5.2 Work involving the preparation for andadministration of Bar Examinations,where existing personnel are not adequateto handle such work during regular days;

5.3 Seasonal work such as budget preparationand rendition of annual reports to meetscheduled deadlines;

5.4 Preparation of special financialaccountability reports requiredoccasionally by central monitoringagencies like the Congress of thePhilippines, the Senate, the Office of thePresident, Commission on Audit,Department of Budget and Managementand National Economic DevelopmentAuthority;

5.5 Implementation of special program/projects embodied in directives andauthorizations, and with specific dates tocomplete which are in the nature ofadditional work of personnel with theirregular duties;

5.6 Services rendered by drivers and otherimmediate staff of officials authorized tohave such staff support when they arerequired to keep the same working hoursof their superiors. Request for overtimewill be renewable every 6 months;

5.7 Rendition of skeletal force on Saturdaysby all officials and employees of theJudiciary under Administrative CircularNo. 2-99 dated January 15, 1999 which issubject to Compensatory Time-Off;

5.8 Services rendered by Security Guardsbeyond their hours of duty in conventions,seminars, fora, and symposia.Certification of their overtime servicesshall be signed by the Head of Office/Organization who hosted/facilitated theaforesaid activity; and

5.9 Other services which the Chief Justice maydeem to require overtime work.

6. Request for Authority to Render Overtime Services

6.1 For compensatory overtime services

All requests for compensatory overtimeservices shall be made by the Chief ofOffice and must be submitted to the ChiefJustice/Presiding Justices for approvalbefore actual service of overtime isrendered.

6.2 For non-compensatory overtime services

Pursuant to A.C. No. 18-2005 (Adopting asPart of the Judiciary’s Austerity ProgramJoint Circular No.2, s. 2004 of the CSC andDBM on non-monetary remuneration forovertime services rendered), the heads ofoffices/units shall approve the requestsof their respective personnel to rendernon-compensatory overtime services.

For the lower courts, requests for renditionof overtime services on weekdays,scheduled workdays, Sundays or holidaysas well as for those who will renderskeletal force on Saturdays pursuant toAC No. 2-99, corollary with OCA CircularNo. 48-2007, shall be approved by theExecutive Judges.

6.3 Both requests shall state therein thefollowing:

• Purpose for which overtime will berendered;

• Tasks to be completed;

• Date and Time of commencement andcompletion; and

• List of employees who will renderovertime with their correspondingwork assignment and responsibilities.The number of personnel who willrender overtime services shall dependupon the size and objective of theproject.

Exceptions to non-compensatory overtimeservices. – The Chief Justice may, at hisdiscretion and if justified by compellingreasons, authorize exceptions to theapplication of non-monetary remuneration forovertime services rendered.

7. Who will be Authorized to Render OvertimeServices

All employees up to Chief of Division, whetherpermanent, temporary, coterminous or casual.



8. General Provisions on Overtime Services

Employees are required to render 40 hours ofwork in a week. However, they may be requiredto render overtime services in the exigency ofthe service when work has to be done beyondoffice hours due to compelling reasons andemergency situations.

8.1 Overtime services shall be from 5:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to4:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays andHolidays.

8.2 Overtime work beyond the number of hoursherein authorized for overtime services onweekdays and Saturdays, Sundays andholidays may be authorized in the interestof the service for extremely urgent reasonsin connection with activities enumeratedunder Paragraph 5.

8.3 With respect to personnel in the SupremeCourt who voluntarily extend theirworking hours to finish urgent taskswithout overtime pay, a written authorityfrom the Chief of Office or Judicial Staffhead must be submitted to the Office ofAdministrative Services, copy furnishedthe Security Division, for information andguidance.

9. Provisions on Compensatory Overtime Services

9.1 Overtime work with pay shall be allowed

a. when so required by the Chief Justiceor Associate Justices but only for amaximum of three personnel for eachof their offices;

b. for the official drivers of the ChiefJustice and Associate Justices;

c. for the drivers and other immediatestaff of officials authorized to havesuch staff support when they arerequired to keep the same workinghours of their superiors;

d. for security guards beyond theirhours of duty in conventions,seminars, fora, symposia; and

e. at the discretion of the Chief Justiceand if justified by compellingreasons.

9.2 Requests for overtime shall be renewableevery six months.

9.3 Overtime pay shall not be granted unlessthe concerned personnel shall have

rendered the regular work for the day.Hence, if the employees reported late forwork on a particular day, they will not beallowed to render the extra hours of work/overtime service on that day.

9.4 For all intents and purposes, except asmay be authorized under par. 8.2, extrahours of work/overtime services shall berendered for the following maximumnumber of hours:

a. three hours on weekdays, which shallstart at 5:00 p.m. and end at 8:00 p.m.,and

b. eight hours on Saturdays, Sundays,and Holidays, which shall start at8:00 a.m. and end at 4:00 p.m.

9.5 The actual time of arrival and departurefor overtime services should be indicatedin the daily time record. The Chief of Officeshall certify that the overtime service wasactually rendered. The overtime pay for thehours rendered shall be computed on thebases of the formula provided hereunder.

9.6 Report of accomplishment. – At the end ofevery pay period, a report as to the extentof the work that has been accomplished/completed must support the payroll to thesatisfaction of the approving authority. Noovertime pay will be processed unless thereport of accomplishment of everyemployee is attached to the payroll.Failure to submit such report may be aground for the withdrawal ordiscontinuance of the previously approvedauthority.

9.7 Amount of overtime pay

The rate of overtime pay shall be inaccordance with Budget Circular No. 10dated March 29, 1996, computed asfollows:

Hourly Rate shall be computed by thefollowing formula:

Actual Hourly Rate (H.R.) = Actual Salary Per Month

22 x 8

Overtime pay shall be computed asfollows:

A. For ordinary working days: Plus 25%of the hourly rate (0.25 x H.R.)

Overtime pay = 1.25 x H.R. x No. ofHours Rendered

B. For rest days and holidays: Plus 50%of the hourly rate (0.50 x H.R.)



Overtime pay = 1.50 x H.R. x No. ofHours Rendered

The total overtime of an employee for theyear shall not exceed 50 percent of his/her annual basic salary. If overtimeservice is rendered on a regular basis, thetotal overtime pay to be received per monthshall not exceed 50 percent of the monthlybasic salary.

9.8 Meal allowance as a form of payment ofovertime services shall no longer beallowed.

10. Funding Source

The funding source for overtime services shall comefrom the Maintenance and Other OperatingExpenses (MOOE 969-0ther Services)

11. Provisions on Non-Compensatory Overtime Service

In lieu of overtime pay, compensatory time off(CTO) corresponding to the number of hoursearned as a result of services rendered beyondregular working hours, may be availed of.

11.1 Computation of Compensatory OvertimeCredits (COC)

The COC is expressed in number ofhours, computed as follows:

For overtime services rendered onweekdays or scheduled work days:

COC = number of hours of overtime services x 1.0

For overtime services rendered onweekends, holidays or scheduled daysoff:

COC = number of hours of overtime services x 1.5

11.2 Accrual and Use of COCs

a. each employee may accrue not morethan 40 hours of COCs in a month. Inno instance, however, shall theunexpended balance exceed 120hours.

b. the COCs should be used as time-offwithin the year these are earned untilthe immediately succeeding year.Thereafter, any unutilized COCs aredeemed forfeited.

11.3 Limitation on the use of COCs

a. The COCs cannot be used to offsetundertime/s or tardiness incurred by

the employee during regular workingdays.

b. The COCs earned are non-commutative and/or non cumulative

11.4 Effect on Personnel Movement

a. In cases of resignation, retirement,or separation from the service, theunutilized COCs are deemed forfeited.

b. In case of detail, secondment ortransfer to another agency, the COCsearned in one agency cannot betransferred to another agency.

c. In case of promotion, except whenpromoted to a position not qualifiedto receive overtime pay underprevious issuances, the employeewill retain his or her accrued COC.

11.5. Issuance of Certificate of COCs Earned

An employee who has earned COC shallbe granted a Certificate of COC earnedduly approved and signed by theAdministrative/Personnel Officer as thecase may be. The certificate indicates thenumber of hours of earned COC by theemployee in a month. The certificatewould be issued at the end of eachmonth.

11.6 Availment of CTO

a. The CTO may be availed of in blocksof four or eight hours.

b. The employee may use the CTOcontinuously up to a maximum offive consecutive days per singleavailment, or on staggered basiswithin the year.

c. Employees who were granted COCshall request their Chief of Office onthe schedule of availment of the CTO.The said schedule shall be submittedto the Administrative Office. In theexigency of the service, however, theschedule may be recalled andsubsequently rescheduled by theChief of the Office of the employeewithin the year.

12. Procedures

The following procedures shall be observed inthe rendition of overtime services and/oravailment of compensatory time off:

a. The Administrative Office shall befurnished with a copy of the approvedauthority to render overtime services


(Next page)


b. The employee renders overtime servicesas stipulated in the approved authority.

c. The Administrative Office through theLeave Division prepares a summary ofovertime services rendered in a month,and computes the equivalent COCs, for thepurpose of the issuance of the COCCertificate.

d. The Chief of Administrative Office or theduly authorized Officer issues theCertificate of COCs, specifying the numberof COCs earned in a month.

e. The employees who have acquired theCertificate of COC shall request their Chiefsof Offices on the schedule of availment ofthe CTO. The approved request shall thenbe submitted to the Leave Division,Administrative Office, which shall recordthe availment of the CTO of the employee.

f. The employee avails of the CTO.

13. Duties and Responsibilities

a. Heads/Chiefs of Offices

1. The Heads/Chiefs of Offices shallrecommend to the Chief Justice,Presiding Justice, Executive Judge, asthe case may be, the employees whowill be authorized to render overtimeservices beyond their regular workinghours in accordance with theseguidelines.

2. Grant certificate of COC earned,through the Administrative/PersonnelOffice, concurrently setting safeguardmeasures to prevent any form of fraudand/or duplicity.

3. Approve/disapprove schedule of CTOas requested by the employee withoutcompromising the delivery of publicservice.

4. Ensure proper implementation ofthese guidelines and accordingly acton violations or irregularitiescommitted.

b. Employees

1. Observe properly the procedures inearning of COC and availing of CTO.

2. Request approval from the Head/Chiefof Office on the availment scheduleof CTO.

3. Monitor the balance of earned COCsvis-à-vis CTOs availed of.

c. Administrative/Personnel OfficeConcerned

1. Reflect on the time card theapplication for CTO filed by employee.

2. Submit to the Head/Chief of Officesconcerned a monthly report onsummary of overtime servicesrendered and the equivalent COCs andreport critical incidents orobservations.

3. Recommend measures to improve theimplementation of the guidelines onthe grant of COCs and availment ofthe CTOs.

14. Certificate of Compensatory Overtime Credit (COC)

FRONT

BACK



This Administrative Circular shall be strictlyimplemented by the FMBO and OAS and by theconcerned officials in the Office of the CourtAdministrator, the Court of Appeals, theSandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals.

All prior administrative circulars, orders andother issuances inconsistent with thisadministrative circular are hereby revoked.

This Administrative Circular shall take effectupon its issuance.

Issued this 11th day of April 2012.

(Sgd.) RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice

For the lower court employees, the procedures in therendition of overtime services and availment ofCompensatory Time-Off (CTO) outlined in OCA Circular No.48-2007 dated May 10, 2007 shall be maintained and theCertificate of Compensatory Overtime Credit (COC) Earnedshall be:

Please be guided accordingly.

November 6, 2012.



TO: ALL JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,SANDIGANBAYAN AND COURT OF TAX APPEALS, JUDGESOF THE TRIAL COURTS, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERSAND BODIES AUTHORIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT TORECEIVE EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE INTEGRATED BAROF THE PHILIPPINES AND ARBITERS OF SPECIAL COURTSAND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES WHOSE RULES OFPROCEDURE ARE SUBJECT TO DISAPPROVAL OF THESUPREME COURT, INSOFAR AS THEIR EXISTING RULESOF PROCEDURES CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF THISRULE.

SUBJECT: SUSPENSION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THEJUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS

In a Resolution dated September 4, 2012 in A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, the Court En Banc issued and promulgated the JudicialAffidavit Rule to take effect on January 1, 2013 (Section12) in all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring thereception of evidence before all the courts, as provided inSection 1 thereof.

Section 9 of the said Rule provides how it shall apply tocriminal actions.

However, the Prosecutors’ League of the Philippines,in a letter dated December 12, 2012 addressed to theHonorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices, hasrequested the deferment of the implementation of theJudicial Affidavit Rule in criminal cases for at least one year,pending the resolution of some issues raised.

On December 21, 2012, Associate Justices DiosdadoM. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin and Roberto A. Abad metwith the officers of the Prosecutors’ League of thePhilippines. Thereafter, Justice Abad drafted arecommendation to the Court En Banc for the defermentof the application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule for one yearfrom January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 under certainconditions.

Considering that the Court En Banc will not meet untilJanuary 8, 2013, Justice Abad is of the considered viewthat it may be more prudent for the justices, judges andarbiters concerned to suspend the implementation of theJudicial Affidavit Rule in criminal cases and await theresolution of the Court En Banc on the request of theProsecutors’ League of the Philippines.

December 27, 2012.


OCA Circular NO. 146-2012

PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE TO AVOIDPAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE ORIMPRISONMENT OR BOTH

3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial BuildingPadre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila 1000Philippines

Justice Adolfo S. AzcunaChancellor

Professor Sedfrey M. CandelariaEditor in Chief

Editorial and Research StaffAtty. Orlando B. Cariño

Atty. Ma. Melissa Dimson-BautistaArsenia M. Mendoza

Armida M. SalazarJocelyn D. Bondoc

Ronald P. CaraigJudith B. Del Rosario

Christine A. FerrerJoanne Narciso-Medina

Charmaine S. NicolasSarah Jane S. Salazar

Jeniffer P. SisonCirculation and Support Staff

Romeo A. ArculloLope R. PalermoDaniel S. TalusigPrinting Services

Leticia G. Javier and Printing Staff

The PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin is publishedquarterly by the Research,Publications and Linkages Officeof the Philippine JudicialAcademy, with office at the 3rd

Floor of the Supreme CourtCentennial Building, Padre FauraStreet corner Taft Avenue, Manila.Tel: 552-9524; Fax: 552-9621; E-mail: [email protected];[email protected]; Website:http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph

(Continued on page 17 )

Capacity Building on EnvironmentalLaws and the Rules of Procedurefor Environmental Cases for theCourt of AppealsJanuary 9-11, Panglao, Bohol

Seminar-Workshop for Judges onVarious Laws Relating to CourtTechnologyRegions I and IIJanuary 16-17, Laoag City

Regions III and IVFebruary 19-20, Manila

Region V, March 19-20, Legaspi City

Lecture Forum on the New JudicialAffidavit RuleJanuary 18, Laoag CityJanuary 25, Palo, LeyteMarch 1, Cagayan de Oro CityMarch 8, Baguio City

Orientation Seminar-Workshopfor Newly Appointed Judges64th, January 22-31, Tagaytay City65th, March 5-14, Tagaytay City

Ninth Metrobank FoundationProfessorial Chair LectureTopic: Towards a More Forward-Looking Insolvency SystemLecturer: Atty. Francis Ed. LimJanuary 25, Manila

Refresher/Advanced Course forMediatorsCamarines Sur Mediation ProgramJanuary 30-31, Naga City

Increasing Judicial Efficiency:Seminar-Workshop for Judges onthe Effective Use of the Benchbookfor Philippine Trial Courts(Revised and Expanded)Regions VII and VIII, Batch 2January 31, Cebu City

Regions I and II, Batch 2February 12, Laoag CityRegions VI, Batch 2March 14, Bacolod City

Pre-Judicature Program28th, February 4-15, Manila29th, March 11-22, Manila

Continuing Legal EducationProgram for Court AttorneysCA-Mindanao StationFebruary 6-7, Cagayan de Oro CityCA-Visayas StationFebruary 13-14, Cebu CitySandiganbayan andCourt of Tax AppealsFebruary 27-28, Tagaytay City

PST for JudgesFebruary 13-15, Tagaytay City

E-JOWProvince of RizalFebruary 14, Binangonan, Rizal

Career Development Program forCourt Legal ResearchersRegion VFebruary 20-21, Naga CityRegion VII, March 20-21Cebu City

Orientation Conference withStakeholders on Court-AnnexedMediationBohol Mediation ProgramFebruary 21, Tagbilaran City

JCEP for RTC JudgesRegion IX, February 27-March 1Dapitan CityRegion III, March 13-15Tagaytay City

2013 Upcoming PHILJA Events2013 Upcoming PHILJA Events2013 Upcoming PHILJA Events2013 Upcoming PHILJA Events2013 Upcoming PHILJA Events

from the chancellor’s deskphilja.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bulletin/bul56.pdf“the writ of amparo:...

Documents