volume xvi, issue no. 62 april-june 2014

VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 62APRIL-JUNE 2014

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

ISSN 2244-5862

Contents

(Next page)

For this second quarter, a total of nine trainingprogram activities (TPAs) under five core PHILJAprograms took place as scheduled. Of the six whichwere held at the PHILJA Training Center in TagaytayCity, three were Judicial Career EnhancementPrograms for selected RTC Judges of Regions I–III, IV–

VI and VIII–XII respectively; one was a CareerEnhancement Program for RTC Clerks of Court comingfrom Region II; and two were Career DevelopmentPrograms for Court Legal Researchers belonging toRegions IX and XII. The 33rd Pre-Judicature Program,as well as a Seminar for Executive Judges of Luzonand the NCJR, took place in Manila; while the CareerEnhancement Program for RTC Clerks of Court forRegions IX and XII was held in Cebu City.

On the other hand, eight TPAs that are specialfocus programs were delivered at different places inthe country: three seminar-workshops for Judges onVarious Laws and Rules Relating to Money Launderingand Other Financial Crimes were held in Cagayan deOro City (Region X), Laoag City (Regions I and II), andPampanga (Region III). A seminar-workshop onDangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors, andLaw Enforcers of the Second Judicial Region wasconducted in Tuguegarao City.

A Program Evaluation and Validation Workshopon the Competency Enhancement Training for FamilyCourt Judges and Court Personnel Handling CasesInvolving Children and its corresponding TPAs wereboth held in Manila; while a seminar-workshop onStrengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law forExecutive Judges of the National Capital JudicialRegion was held in Pasay City. The Personal SecurityTraining for Judges (PST), a program that aims to traintrial court judges on the basics of safety and securityprecautions, was delivered for selected Judges ofRegion I at the PTC in Tagaytay.

PHILJA also lent a hand to various courtemployees associations in the holding of theirrespective convention-seminars such as: the 10th

Biennial National Convention and Seminar of the Court

1

3

14

19

20

20

21

22

22

23

24

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

Trainings, Programs and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Resolutions

A.M. No. 13-05-05-SC – Re: Revision ofRestrictions on Teaching Hours of Justices,Judges and Personnel of the Judiciary. . . . . . .

Circulars

OCA Cir. No. 41-2014 – Request of Banks andOther Financial Institutions for Information onthe Status of a Case and the Personal Data ofa Party to a Case Relevant to the CreditStanding of the Litigant Subject of SuchRequest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Cir. No. 42-2014 – Modification of OCACircular No. 175-2009 dated December 18,2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Cir. No. 43-2014 – Small Claims CaseMonitoring System (SC2MS) Survey . . . . . . . .

OCA Cir. No. 44-2014 – Order Lifting theSuspension from the Practice of Law . . . . . . . .

OCA Cir. No. 55-2014 – Guidelines in theImplementation of the Automated PayrollSystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OCA Cir. No. 79-2014 – Bar Matter No. 1922(Re: Recommendation of the MandatoryContinuing Legal Educaton [MCLE] Board toIndicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courtsthe Counsel’s MCLE Certificate of Complianceor Certificate of Exemption) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3rd Quarter TPAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APRIL-JUNE 20142

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

ADOLFO S. AZCUNAChancellor

Legal Researchers Association of the Philippines (CLERAP),Inc., denominated as Court Legal Researchers as Partnerstowards a Reformed Judiciary in Ilocos Norte; the SeventhNational Convention/Seminar and Election of NationalOfficers of the Court Stenographers Association of thePhilipppines (COSTRAPHIL) in Tagbilaran City, the theme ofwhich was Upholding the Court’s Integrity with the HighestDegree of Professionalism through an Honest, Accurate andAuthentic Record of Court Proceedings; the Eighth NationalConvention and Seminar of the Philippine Association ofCourt Interpreters, Inc. (PHILACI) in Bacolod City billed asCourt Interpreter: Fervently and Competently Serving in theDispensation of Justice; and finally the Convention andSeminar of the Judiciary Association of Clerks of thePhilippines (JACOPHIL) in Iloilo City on the theme JudiciaryClerks Moving Towards Efficiency and Development.

Our Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) activitiescontinued with the holding of various InformationDissemination Through a Dialogue Among Barangay andCourt Officials in the cities of Ilagan and Santiago in Isabelaprovince and in Iligan, Lanao del Norte.

Pursuant to its task of strengthening Alternative DisputeResolution, the Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO)continued with the delivery of its various programs indifferent parts of the country as follows: four Panay andBacolod Mediation Programs, such as the Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators held in IloiloCity, the Judicial Settlement Conference for Judges onJudicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-based Course on JDR);and the respective Orientation programs for PublicProsecutors, Public Attorneys, and Law Practitioners, andfor Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Court, also onJudicial Dispute Resolution. These last two programs werelikewise held in Tacloban City.

In addition, the Basic Mediation Course and the Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks ofCourt, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees, and PMCUnit Staff were both conducted in Dipolog City, Zamboangadel Norte (Zamboanga del Norte Mediation Program) and inDaet, Camarines Norte (Camarines Norte MediationProgram).

An Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Mediation was held in Camarines Norte for thebenefit of its Mediation Program. In Tagaytay City, a WorkOrientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar (WOSES) forPMC Unit Staff was likewise delivered.

Furthermore, PHILJA mounted two RoundtableDiscussions for this period: one on Substantive Laws andJurisprudence on Intellectual Property for Court of AppealsJustices (Batch 1 in Camarines Norte and Batch 2 in CebuCity), and the other on Issues and Concerns Relating toIntellectual Property Rights Enforcement done in Makati City.

Selected new rulings of the Supreme Court andreminders given on doctrinal rulings, as well as newly issuedCourt orders, resolutions, and circulars including thosecoming from OCA, were posted as usual on our websitehttp://philja.judiciary.gov.ph.

These are interesting times to be working in the judiciary.As a former mentor used to say, it is at times like these thatwe must dig deeply and stand firmly. We keep our head abovethe water as we do what we are tasked to do.

I would like to salute everyone for doing an excellentjob in their respective roles in the Academy. Thanks, too, tothe Chief Justice and the Court En Banc for their unstintingsupport for all our undertakings. Above all, we thank GodAlmighty for making all these things possible.

All the best.

PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna (seated second from left); Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria (seated left), Head of Research,Publications and Linkages Office; Atty. Evecar Cruz Ferrer, Legal Adviser, ICRC (seated second from right); and Atty. LiwliwaAgbayani of ICRC (seated right), with the participants of the Judicial Career Enhancement Program for Selected Regional Trial CourtJudges of Regions VIII–XII held on June 18–20, 2014, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

VOLUME XVI ISSUE NO. 62 3

TRAININGS, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

The Third Asian Mediation Association Conference

Mediators from across Asia gathered at the Sheraton HongKong Hotel & Towers, Hong Kong, on April 3 and 4, 2014,for the Third Asian Mediation Association (AMA)Conference. The AMA Conference is an internationallyrenowned biennial event where mediation advocates sharetheir insights on current and emerging trends and ideas inthe development of mediation in Asia, as well as theirexperiences in mediation.

The Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO) is oneof the five founding members of AMA when it was formallyorganized in Singapore on August 17, 2007, and continuesto be active in promoting and facilitating the use ofmediation to amicably settle disputes, a common aimamong AMA members. The other founding members arethe Singapore Mediation Center, Hong Kong MediationCenter, Indonesian Mediation Center, and MalaysianMediation Center.

The PMCO delegation to the Conference was headedby PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna. The members ofthe delegation were the PMCO Executive CommitteeMembers, including Court Administrator Jose Midas P.Marquez, Justice Marina L. Buzon, Executive Secretary andActing PHILJA Chief of Office for PMC, Dean Eduardo D. delos Angeles, Judge Selma P. Alaras, Comm. Linda L. Malenab-Hornilla, Atty. Jose C. Saluib, Jr., and Mr. Jose T. Name, Jr.Atty. Camille Mae Sue Ting of the Office of the CourtAdministrator also attended the Conference.

Justice Azcuna delivered a 15-minute lecture on“Mobile Court-Annexed Mediation in the Philippines,” asub-topic of the segment on Case Sharing/Best Practices.

Dean de los Angeles also delivered a lecture on “Mediationas a Pre-Condition to Filing Court Cases under the ProposedCode of Civil Procedure.” During the gala dinner, JusticeBuzon gave a brief update on the accomplishments of thePMCO since its establishment in 2001.

The 3rd AMA Conference was hosted by the Hong KongMediation Centre (HKMC). The main theme of the ThirdAMA Conference was “Mediation: New Era–LegalFramework and Social Change,” which addressed thefollowing key issues: a) Civil Justice Reforms and Mediation,b) Mediation in Asia–Challenges and Opportunities, c) CourtRoles in Mediation, d) Legal Perspectives of MediationStandards and Practices, e) Emerging Thoughts on MediationTheories, f) Cultural and Social Factors in Mediation Practice,g) Cultural Factors in Family Mediation, and h) Best Practices/Case Sharing. Thirty-five international scholars and expertsin mediation and alternative dispute resolution fromAustralia, Canada, Mainland China, Hong Kong SAR, India,Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines,Singapore, the United States, and the United Kingdom sharedtheir experiences and presented their views on the currentsocial, political, and legal framework of mediation and therelevant social changes in the new era of mediation.

The 1st AMA Conference was held in 2009 and hosted bythe Singapore Mediation Center. The 2nd AMA Conferencewas held in Malaysia in 2011 and was hosted by theMalaysian Mediation Center. The 4th AMA Conference willbe held in Indonesia. The 5th AMA Conference will be held inthe Philippines and will be hosted by the Philippine MediationCenter Office.

APRIL-JUNE 20144

PHILJA conducted the Roundtable Discussion onSubstantive Laws and Jurisprudence on IntellectualProperty for Court of Appeals (CA) Justices and courtattorneys in Cagayan de Oro City on April 10–11 and in CebuCity on May 22–23. The activity was designed to apprise theparticipants on substantive laws and jurisprudence onintellectual property (IP); to provide a forum for criticalanalysis of the evolution of doctrines and principles appliedin resolving IP cases as against the present IP legal regime;and to allow the sharing of experiences and opinions withthe goal of enhancing the capacity of CA justices in thedisposition of IP cases.

The April batch comprised 28 selected CA Manila andCA Cagayan de Oro justices, together with selected CACagayan de Oro court attorneys. The May batch wascomposed of 34 selected CA Manila and CA Cebu justices,

Roundtable Discussion on Substantive Lawsand Jurisprudence on Intellectual Property

Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law

PHILJA conducted a seminar-workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law on April 29–30, 2014, at theTraders Hotel, Pasay City. It was attended by 26 executive and vice executive judges from the National Capital JudicialRegion. The activity was aimed to enable participants to: (a) demonstrate awareness of the magnitude of judicialcorruption and incompetence; (b) recognize the indispensable role of the Office of the Court Administrator in handlingjudicial corruption cases and promoting judicial integrity; (c) exhibit increased capacity in effective evaluation andgathering of evidence using available modes of discovery and in recognizing and handling lying witnesses; and (d)enhance commitment to promote judicial integrity and competent administration of justice.

The participants were provided opportunities to learn new concepts from the lectures; to analyze, through smallgroup discussions, case studies involving immorality and graft and corruption; and to apply what was learned throughsimulated situations. The lecture topics were Judicial Corruption: Major Threat to Rule of Law and an IndependentJudiciary; The Role of the Office of the Court Administrator in Strengthening Judicial Integrity and the Rule of Law;Available Modes of Discovery and Gathering of Evidence; Effective Evidence Evaluation; Recognizing and HandlingLying Witness; Putting It All Together: Writing the Report; and Facing Challenges on the Bench. An open forum followedeach lecture. Video exercises were also shown to demonstrate effective listening to a witness, tagging cross examination,and short listening. All the participants found the activity profitable.

with selected CA Cebu court attorneys. Authorities onintellectual property lectured on the following topics:Overview of IP Legal Regime in the Philippines; LegalRemedies on IPR Enforcement, Causes of Action,Procedures, and Jurisprudence; Rules on the Reliability andInfringement of Trademarks and Tradename IncludingInternational Registration under The Madrid System andUnfair Competition; Copyrights Concepts and Rights,Infringement and Limitations; Patents, Industrial Designsand Utility Models; Digital Piracy, Internet Piracy andCybercrime in relation to Intellectual Property; EconomicImpact of Intellectual Property; IP Violations as PredicateOffense of Anti-Money Laundering Offenses; and Discussionand Analysis of Trademark Cases. Panel discussions and openforums subsequent to the lectures gave the participantsopportunity to raise their own concerns, issues, andclarifications.


Pre-Judicature Program

Seminar for Executive Judges of Luzon and NCJR

Date: May 21–22, 2014Venue: Century Park Hotel, Malate, ManilaParticipants: 42 executive judges of Luzon and NCJR

33rd Pre-Judicature Program

Date: May 12–23, 2014Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, ManilaParticipants: 90 lawyers, namely:

1. Bienvenido B. Almonte, Jr.2. Howard B. Areza3. Nelvin M. Asi4. Malcom P. Bacuso5. Rizza E. Ballebar6. Rovelyn B. Baluyot7. E. Patrice Jamaine T. Barron8. Leonora G. Bartolome9. Coleen D. Bautista-Palapus10. Marjorie E. Benosa-Gador11. Egmedio C. Blacer12. Amabel R. Buenaluz13. Raul A. Cachola14. Khristy Ahnn Q. Cac-Rivera15. Wenceslao R. Caoayan16. Gissle Gay A. Capacite-Ballais17. Josephine C. Caranzo18. Christine Carol A. Casela-Doctor19. Jonas T. Castro20. Cristina Caybot-Gilapay21. Vida A. Cortez-Jimeno22. Elmira S. Cruz-Caisido23. Celso B. Cueto24. Melba A. David25. Maribeth L. De Juan-Hermoso26. Yola Dee G. De La Cruz Martirez27. John Gerald B. Dela Cruz28. Abigail S. Domingo-Laylo29. Donna Lee S. Dunuan-Gobway30. Niño Delvin E. Embuscado31. Rizalina A. Endozo-Alcazar32. Belinda S. Evangelista-Conge33. Ramon D. Facun34. Manuel Luis P. Felipe35. Louella Vieve B. Fernandez36. Kristine Suzanne Fineza

37. Fatima Kristine J. Franco38. Sheila C. Gacutan-Labuguen39. Francis Avelyn B. Gallega-Vargas40. Jeaneth Gaminde-San Joaquin41. Alberto G. Garcia42. Jhobee T. Gerasmio43. Helen Paulette T. Hombrebueno44. Julan C. Ilao45. Antonio T. Kho, Jr.46. Leomar R. Lanuza47. Igmidio C. Lat48. Eduardo I. Ledesma49. Annie May B. Leuterio50. Edmond B. Lorenzo51. Jolanie Ann C. Luspian-Sacyat52. Beryl Concepcion O. Macabaya53. Rechie N. Ramos-Malabanan54. Rose A. Malinao55. Jesus A. Mampo56. Aris S. Manguera57. Juvy R. Manwong58. Edwin O. Mapili59. Michael C. Maranan60. Mildred J. Marquez61. Maria Isabel T. Mella62. Dennis A. Mendoza63. Paul Michael G. Merioles64. Emmanuel S. Ocsing65. Dalisay C. Ohdate66. Alma B. Operio67. Chona M. Orbita68. Janet O. Palanca69. Dioanne B. Palao70. Vanessa D. Palay71. Alwen M. Paqueo72. Emilia R. Queng-Bueza73. Miller E. Quintin, Jr.74. Elma M. Rafallo-Lingan75. Mcneil M. Rante76. Garrick M. Reantillo77. Florencio B. Remudaro78. Michael Angelo S. Rito79. Gina Lyn R. Rubio80. Hipolito C. Salatan81. Yancy S. San Juan82. Jose A. Santos III83. Jane D. Laplana-Suarez84. Paulito R. Suaybaguio85. John Ivan B. Tablizo86. Zulieca L. Tamayo-De Vera87. Teofilo B. Tambago88. Evelyn R. Tumacder-Alameda89. Amiel Ronald R. Vinluan90. Rochelle Marie R. Zambas-Ucat

Orientation

APRIL-JUNE 20146

PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna (seated center) with the participants of the Judicial Career Enhancement Program for SelectedRegional Trial Court Judges of Regions IV to VII held on May 14–16, 2014, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna (seated center) with the participants of the Career Development Program for Court LegalResearchers of Region XII held on May 14–15, 2014, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.

PHILJA Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna (seated, center), Retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval (seatedleft), and Retired Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao (seated right), with the participants of the CareerDevelopment Program for Court Legal Researchers of Region IX held on June 18–19, 2014, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.


Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity andRule of Law for Executive Judges of the National CapitalJudicial Region

Date: April 29–30, 2014Venue: Traders Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay CityParticipants: 26 executive and vice executive judges of NCJR

Program Evaluation and Validation Workshop onCompetency Enhancement Training for Family Court Judgesand Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children

Date: May 8, 2014Venue: The Bayleaf, Intramuros, ManilaParticipants: 14 PHILJA officials, RTC judges, Research Groupmembers, and representatives from Child ProtectionNetwork, Child Protection Unit-PGH, OSG and DOJ

Information Dissemination through a Dialogue betweenBarangay Officials and Court Officials

City of IlaganDate: May 15, 2014Venue: City Hall Complex, Centro, Ilagan City, IsabelaParticipants: 68 barangay officials

City of SantiagoDate: May 16, 2014Venue: Bulwagan ng Mamamayan, City HallSantiago City, IsabelaParticipants: 87 barangay officials

City of IliganDate: June 27, 2014Venue: Elena Tower, Andres Bonifacio AvenueTibanga, Iligan CityParticipants: 87 barangay officials

Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and CourtPersonnel Handling Cases Involving Children

Date: May 27–29, 2014Venue: The Bayleaf, Intramuros, ManilaParticipants: 36 RTC judges, clerks of court, interpreters, courtsocial workers, prosecutors, and PAO lawyers

Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges,Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of the Second JudicialRegion

Date: June 3–5, 2014Venue: Valley Hotel, Tuguegarao City, Province of CagayanValleyParticipants: 79 RTC judges, prosecutors, law enforcers/PDEAofficers of Region II

Personal Security Training for Judges

Date: June 24–26, 2014Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 66 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges

JCEP for RTC Judges

Date: April 23–25, 2014Venue: PHILA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 33 RTC judges of Regions I to III

Date: May 14–16, 2014Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 28 RTC judges of Regions IV to VII

Date: June 18–20, 2014Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 23 RTC judges of Regions VIII to XII

CEP for RTC Clerks of Court

Date: April 1–3, 2014Venue: Montebello Villa Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 45 RTC clerks of court of Regions IX and XII

Date: May 27–29, 2014Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 33 RTC clerks of court of Region II

CDP for Court Legal Researchers

Date: May 14–15, 2014Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 25 RTC, SHDC, MeTC, and MTCC court legalresearchers of Region XII

Date: June 18–19, 2014Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 31 RTC, SHDC, and MTCC court legalresearchers of Region IX

Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws and Rules Relatingto Money Laundering and Other Financial Crimes forJudges

Date: April 23–24, 2014Venue: Seda Centrio Hotel, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 29 RTC judges of Region X

Date: May 14–15, 2014Venue: Fort Ilocandia Hotel, Laoag CityParticipants: 37 RTC judges of Regions I and II

Date: June 18–20, 2014Venue: Holiday Inn Clark, Clark Field, PampangaParticipants: 35 RTC judges of Regions I and III

Judicial Career Enhancement Program (JCEP)

Career Enhancement Program (CEP)

Career Development Program (CDP)

Special Focus Programs

APRIL-JUNE 20148

Justice Delilah V. Magtolis (seated center, second row), PHILJA Chief of Office for Academic Affairs, with participants of theSeminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Rule of Law for Executive Judges of the National Capital Judicial Region heldon April 29–30, 2014, at the Traders Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City.

Participants of the Personal Security Training for Judges held on June 24–26, 2014, at the PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City.


Roundtable Discussion on Substantive Laws andJurisprudence on Intellectual Property for Court of AppealsJustices

Batch 1

Date: April 10–11, 2014Venue: Seda Centrio, Cagayan de Oro CityParticipants: 28 CA-Manila and CA-CDO justices and CA-CDODivision Clerks of Court and court attorneys

Batch 2

Date: May 22–23, 2014Venue: Marco Polo Plaza Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 34 CA-Manila and CA-Cebu justices and CA-Cebu Division Clerks of Court and court attorneys

Roundtable Discussions on Issues and Concerns Relatingto Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement

Date: June 9–10, 2014Venue: Hotel Intercontinental, Makati CityParticipants: 30 selected CA-Manila and CA-Cebu justices,selected Special Commercial Court judges of the NCJR,representatives of DOJ-Task Force on Intellectual Property,IPO, WIPO, SC Subcommittee on Intellectual Property andIP law practitioner

Convention-SeminarRoundtable Discussion

10th Biennial National Convention and Seminar of the CourtLegal Researchers Association of the Philippines (CLERAP),Inc.

Theme: Court Legal Researchers as Partners towards aReformed JudiciaryDate: April 2–4, 2014Venue: Pamulinawen Hotel, San Nicolas, Ilocos NorteParticipants: 272 SB, RTC, MeTC, and MTCC court legalresearchers

8th National Convention and Seminar of the PhilippineAssociation of Court Interpreters, Inc. (PHILACI)

Theme: Court Interpreter: Fervently and Competently Servingin the Dispensation of JusticeDate: April 28–30, 2014Venue: Bacolod Pavilion Hotel, Bacolod CityParticipants: 310 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC courtinterpreters

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

Theme: Judiciary Clerks Moving towards Efficiency andDevelopmentDate: June 4–6, 2014Venue: Punta Villa Resort, Sto. Niño Sur Arevalo, Iloilo CityParticipants: 643 RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC clerks

7th National Convention/Seminar and Election of Officers of the Court Stenographers Association of the Philippines(COSTRAPHIL)

Theme: Upholding the Court’s Integrity with the Highest Degree of Professionalism through an Honest, Accurate and AuthenticRecord of Court ProceedingsDate: April 23–25, 2014Venue: Bohol Tropics Hotel, Tagbilaran CityParticipants: 1,135 stenographers of CA, SB, CTA, RTC, MeTC, SHCC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC

APRIL-JUNE 201410

REGIONAL DIRECTORS

CAR: Charlene G. Donga-elMTC, Tadian, Mt. Province

NCJR: Grace U. LimMeTC, Branch 26, Manila

Region I: Maria Teresa C. PeraltaRTC, Branch 22, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur

Region II: Jocelyn C. Topiño1st MCTC: Aglipay-Saguday, Quirino

Region III: Maria Teresa C. BautistaRTC, Branch 31, Guimba, Nueva Ecija

Region IV-A: Teresa J. TajanRTC, Branch 35, Calamba City, Laguna

Region IV-B: Agnes A. RodelasRTC, Branch 43, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro

Region V: Fe T. BerganciaRTC, Branch 28Naga City, Camarines Sur

Region VI: Conrada A. VillanuevaRTC, Branch 34, Iloilo City, Iloilo

Region VII: Vivian I. ElladoRTC, Branch 38Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

Region VIII: Lourdes M. ParceroRTC, Branch 9, Tacloban City, Leyte

Region IX: Cesar C. SalomaRTC, Branch 10Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte

Region X: Gloria T. MaghinayRTC, Branch 2Iligan City, Lanao del Norte

Region XI: Mercedes D. PingolRTC, Branch 12, Ecoland, Davao City

Region XII: VacantRegion XIII: Jonah A. Dahunog

3rd MCTC: Loreto-La Paz, Agusan del SurARMM: Sitti Rashida Ainin-Macawadib

MTC, Jolo, Sulu

NATIONAL BOARD OF OFFICERS

2014–2017

President and Chairperson of the Board: Belinda G. Go

RTC, Branch 10, Cebu City

Executive Vice President: Ma. Theresa P. ConcepcionRTC, Branch 142, Makati City

Vice President for Luzon: Amelia S. CorpuzRTC, Branch 3Balanga City, Bataan

Vice President for NCJR: Ronalyn T. AlmarvezMeTC, Branch 45, Pasay City

Vice President for Visayas: Rosemarie C. PaneloRTC, Branch 48, Bacolod CityNegros Occidental

Vice President for Mindanao:Anacleta G. BacaronRTC, Branch 3, Butuan CityAgusan del Norte

Treasurer: Yolanda C. PallananRTC, Branch 198, Las Piñas City

Auditor: Enrilynn G. ValenzuelaRTC, Branch 66, Baler, Aurora

Secretary General: Clarissa C. ManukilRTC, Branch 57, Cebu City

Asst. Secretary General: Evangeline L. Carbonilla4th MCTC: Cadijiocan-Magdiwang-San Fernando

Romblon

Business Manager: Peter Loewen Sumamban5th MCTC: Imelda-Malangas-Diplahan-PayaoZamboanga Sibugay

PIO: Eden B. BulasoRTC, Branch 256Muntinlupa City

The elected National Board of Officers and Regional Directors of the Court Stenographers Association of the Philippines (COSTRAPHIL):


On ADR/Mediation/JDR

Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on Court-Annexed Mediation (Camarines Norte Mediation Program)

Date: April 10, 2014Venue: Pineapple Island Resort, Daet, Camarines NorteParticipants: 73 RTC and MTC judges, clerks of court,representatives from NPS, PAO, IBP, LGU, NGOs, business/academe/media and civil society

Orientation of Public Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, andLaw Practitioners on Judicial Dispute Resolution

Date: May 8, 2014Venue: Sarabia Manor Hotel and Convention Center, Iloilo CityParticipants: 35 prosecutors, PAO lawyers and IBP-IloiloChapter members/law practitioners

Date: June 19, 2014Venue: Ritz Tower de Leyte, Tacloban CityParticipants: 52 prosecutors, PAO lawyers and IBP members/law practitioners

Orientation of Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Courton Judicial Dispute Resolution

Date: May 8, 2014Venue: Sarabia Manor Hotel and Convention Center, Iloilo CityParticipants: 54 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of courtand branch clerks of court

Date: June 19, 2014Venue: Ritz Tower de Leyte, Tacloban CityParticipants: 70 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of courtand branch clerks of court

Orientation and Screening of Prospective Mediators andPMC Unit Staff (Camarines Norte Mediation Program)

Date: May 15–16, 2014Venue: Hall of Justice, Daet, Camarines Norte and Hall ofJustice, Labo, Camarines NorteParticipants: 32 mediators and staff

Basic Mediation Course

Zamboanga del Norte Mediation ProgramDate: May 20–23, 2014Venue: D’Hotel and Suites, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del NorteParticipants: 27 mediation trainees

Camarines Norte Mediation ProgramDate: June 24–27, 2014Venue: Calaguas Gateway Hotel, Daet, Camarines NorteParticipants: 35 mediation trainees

Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerksof Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees, andPMC Unit Staff

Zamboanga del Norte Mediation ProgramDate: May 23, 2014Venue: D’Hotel and Suites, Dipolog City, Zamboanga del NorteParticipants: 63 RTC, MCTC and MTC judges, clerks of court,branch clerks of court, mediation trainees and PMC Unitstaff

Camarines Norte Mediation ProgramDate: June 27, 2014Venue: Calaguas Gateway Hotel, Daet, Camarines NorteParticipants: 57 RTC and MTC judges, clerks of court,mediation-trainees and PMC Unit staff

Refresher/Advanced Course for Court-Annexed Mediators(Panay and Bacolod Mediation Programs)

Date: May 8–9, 2014Venue: Sarabia Manor Hotel and Convention Center, Iloilo CityParticipants: 39 mediators

APRIL-JUNE 201412

Participants of the Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, Mediation Trainees andPMC Unit Staff (Zamboanga del Norte Mediation Program) held on May 23, 2014, at the D’ Hotel and Suites, Dipolog City,Zamboanga del Norte.

Participants of the Pre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court; and Participants of thePre-Internship Orientation and Meeting with Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court, PMC Unit Staff and Mediator Trainees inCourt-Annexed Mediation (Camarines Norte Mediation Program) held on June 27, 2014, at the Calaguas Gateway Hotel, Daet,Camarines Norte.

Justice Marina L. Buzon (seated center, second row) , Executive Secretary and Acting PHILJA Chief of Ofice for PMC and JudgeDivina Luz P. Aquino-Simbulan (seated, second row, third from right), with participants of the Basic Mediation Course (CamarinesNorte Mediation Program) held on June 24–27, 2014, at the Calaguas Gateway Hotel, Daet, Camarines Norte.


Gender Sensitivity Training for the JudiciarySeptember 22–23, Cebu City

28th Orientation Seminar for Newly Appointed Clerks of CourtSeptember 16–19, Tagaytay City

Seminar-Workshop on Strengthening Judicial Integrityand the Rules of Law for EJs and Vice EJsRegions XI and XII, September 17–18, Davao City

Convention Seminar of the MeTCJAPSeptember 24–26, Quezon City

PST for JudgesSeptember 30–October 2, Tagaytay City

33333rdrdrdrdrd Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities(Continued from page 24)

JUDICIAL MOVES

“After all the fuss, President Aquino has named ManilaJudge Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta as newAssociate Justice of the Sandiganbayan.” This was anexcerpt of the June 24, 2014 news article of thePhilippine Daily Inquirer, following the media hyperaised on Malacanang’s failure to beat the 90-daydeadline in the appointment process.

Justice Gomez-Estoesta, still overwhelmed by theunexpected turn of fate, quickly assumed office withthe Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division on June 24, 2014,instead of joining her colleagues in the Manila Daycelebrations.

A true believer of the servant-leader principle,Justice Gomez-Estoesta entered government servicein 1991 at the Office of the Solicitor General until herappointment in 2002 as Presiding Judge of theMetropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 6. Shewas cited by the Society for Judicial Excellence as theMost Outstanding Judge of the First Level Courts in2005, likewise garnering an award for Best Decisionin Criminal Cases. In 2006, she was promoted toPresiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,Branch 7. In 2012, she was awarded OutstandingRTC Judge by then Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim for herconscientious work as a trial judge. In the same year,the Society for Judicial Excellence cited her as one ofthe Most Outstanding Judges of Second Level Courts.

Justice Gomez-Estoesta is married to EricVincent, her classmate at the Ateneo School of Law,with whom she has three children. Asked how shewould best serve the ends of justice now that she iswith the Anti-Graft Court, Judge Gomez-Estoestareplied, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (For the greaterglory of God!).

Hon. MA. THERESA DOLORESC. GOMEZ-ESTOESTA

Associate JusticeSandiganbayan

appointed on June 20, 2014

Faculty Workshop and Judicial Settlement Conferencefor Judges on Judicial Dispute Resolution (Skills-basedCourse)

Date: May 7–9, 2014Venue: Sarabia Manor Hotel and Convention Center, IloiloCityParticipants: 66 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges

Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar forPhilippine Mediation Center Unit Staff

Date: April 23–24, 2014Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay CityParticipants: 86 PMC Unit staff

Doctrinal RemindersCriminal Law (continued from page 18)

another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit,and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniaryestimation is caused to the offended party or thirdperson.

In this case, as testified to by the victims/witnesses, appellant defrauded the victims by makingthem believe that she has the capacity to deploy themto South Korea as workers, even as she did not havethe authority or license for the purpose. Because ofthis enticement, the victims parted with their moneyin varying amounts as placement fees to appellant.Consequently, the victims suffered damages as thepromised employment abroad never materialized andthe money they parted with were never recovered.

Peralta, J., The People of the Philippines v. Mildred Salvatierra yMatuc, G.R. No. 200884, June 4, 2014.

APRIL-JUNE 201414

Certificates of Title issued pursuant to emancipationpatents are indefeasible and incontrovertible uponexpiration of one year from date of issue.

Certificates of title issued pursuant to emancipation patentsacquire the same protection accorded to other titles, andbecome indefeasible and incontrovertible upon theexpiration of one year from the date of the issuance of theorder for the issuance of the patent. Lands so titled may nolonger be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding;nor can they be decreed to other individuals. “The rule inthis jurisdiction, regarding public land patents and thecharacter of the certificate of title that may be issued byvirtue thereof, is that where land is granted by thegovernment to a private individual, the correspondingpatent therefor is recorded, and the certificate of title isissued to the grantee; thereafter, the land is automaticallybrought within the operation of the Land Registration Act,the title issued to the grantee becoming entitled to all thesafeguards provided in Section 38 of the said Act. In otherwords, upon expiration of one year from its issuance, thecertificate of title shall become irrevocable and indefeasiblelike a certificate issued in a registration proceeding.

Del Castillo, J., Charles Bumagat, Julian Bacudio, Rosario Padre,Spouses Rogelio and Zosima Padre, and Felipe Domincil v. RegaladoArribay, G.R. No. 194818, June 9, 2014.

Agrarian Law

Registered owner of motor vehicle and not the realowner is liable for damages caused during accidents.

In Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas, the Court held thatthe registered owner is deemed the employer of thenegligent driver, and is thus vicariously liable under Article2176, in relation to Article 2180, of the Civil Code. CitingEquitable Leasing Corporation v. Suyom, the Court ruledthat in so far as third persons are concerned, the registeredowner of the motor vehicle is the employer of the negligentdriver, and the actual employer is considered merely as anagent of such owner. Thus, whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the registered owner andthe driver is irrelevant in determining the liability of theregistered owner who the law holds primarily and directlyresponsible for any accident, injury or death caused by theoperation of the vehicle in the streets and highways.

Civil Law

As early as Erezo v. Jepte, the Court, speaking throughJustice Alejo Labrador, summarized the justification forholding the registered owner directly liable, to wit:

x x x The main aim of motor vehicle registration isto identify the owner so that if any accidenthappens, or that any damage or injury is causedby the vehicles on the public highways,responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definiteindividual, the registered owner. Instances arenumerous where vehicle running on publichighways caused accidents or injuries topedestrians or other vehicles without positiveidentification of the owner or drivers, or with veryscant means of identification. It is to forestall thesecircumstances, so inconvenient or prejudicial tothe public, that the motor vehicle registration isprimarily ordained, in the interest of thedetermination of persons responsible for damagesor injuries caused on public highways.

“‘One of the principal purposes of motor vehicleslegislation is identification of the vehicle and ofthe operator, in case of accident; and another isthat the knowledge that means of detection arealways available may act as a deterrent from laxobservance of the law and of the rules ofconservative and safe operation. Whateverpurpose there may be in these statutes, it issubordinate at the last to the primary purpose ofrendering it certain that the violator of the law orof the rules of safety shall not escape because oflack of means to discover him.” The purpose of thestatute is thwarted, and the displayed numberbecomes a “snare and delusion,” if courts willentertain such defenses as that put forward byappellee in this case. No responsible person orcorporation could be held liable for the mostoutrageous acts of negligence, if they should beallowed to place a “middleman” between them andthe public, and escape liability by the manner inwhich they recompense their servants.

Generally, when an injury is caused by the negligenceof a servant or employee, there instantly arises apresumption of law that there was negligence on the partof the master or employer either in the selection of theservant or employee (culpa in eligiendo) or in the supervisionover him after the selection (culpa vigilando), or both. Thepresumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure;consequently, it may be rebutted. Accordingly, the generalrule is that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of thecourt that in the selection and supervision of his employeehe has exercised the care and diligence of a good father ofa family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved ofliability. However, with the enactment of the motor vehicleregistration law, the defenses available under Article 2180of the Civil Code–that the employee acts beyond the scopeof his assigned task or that it exercised the due diligence of


(Next page)

under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945,or earlier.

The CA denied the application on the issue of open,continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession andoccupation of the subject land. It was of the view that shecould not have complied with the requirement of possessionand occupation under Section 14 (1) of PD No. 1529considering that she had admitted that it was not physicallyturned over to her. As she was not in actual and physicalpossession, she could not have exercised any acts ofdominion over the subject property which was essential tothe requirement of possession and occupationcontemplated under Section 14 (1) of PD No. 1529.

Mendoza, J., Josephine Wee v. Felicidad Mardo, G.R. No. 202414, June4, 2014.

Evidence required to establish land is disposable andalienable.

The evidence required to establish that land subject of anapplication for registration is alienable and disposable are:(1) CENRO or PENRO Certification; and (2) a copy of theoriginal classification approved by the DENR Secretaryand certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of theofficial records. In the present case, the foregoingdocuments had not been submitted in evidence. There isno copy of the original classification approved by the DENRSecretary. As ruled by this Court, a mere certification issuedby the Forest Utilization and Law Enforcement Division ofthe DENR is not enough. Petitioner is then correct thatevidence on record is not sufficient to prove that subjectlots had been declared alienable and disposable lands.

Peralta, J., Republic of the Philippines v. Francisca, Geronimo andCrispin, all surnamed SANTOS, G.R. No. 191516, June 4, 2014.

Probable cause; two kinds of determination ofprobable cause.

In People v. Castillo and Mejia, the Court has stated:

There are two kinds of determination of probablecause: executive and judicial. The executivedetermination of probable cause is one madeduring preliminary investigation. It is a functionthat properly pertains to the public prosecutor whois given a broad discretion to determine whetherprobable cause exists and to charge thosewhom he believes to have committed the crime asdefined by law and thus should be held for trial.

PD No. 1529 governs the original registrationproceedings of unregistered land.

Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known asProperty Registration Decree, governs the originalregistration proceedings of unregistered land. The subjectapplication for original registration was filed pursuant toSection 14(1) of PD No. 1529, which provides the conditionnecessary for registration. Thus:

SEC. 14. Who may apply. — The following personsmay file in the proper Court of First Instance anapplication for registration of title to land, whetherpersonally or through their duly authorizedrepresentatives:

(1) Those who by themselves or through theirpredecessors-in-interest have been inopen, continuous, exclusive and notoriouspossession and occupation of alienable anddisposable lands of the public domainunder a bona fide claim of ownership sinceJune 12, 1945, or earlier. (Emphasis supplied)

Based on these legal parameters, applicants forregistration of title under Section 14(1) must sufficientlyestablish: (1) that the subject land forms part of thedisposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2)that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest havebeen in open, continuous, exclusive and notoriouspossession and occupation of the same; and (3) that it is

a good father of a family to prevent damage–are no longeravailable to the registered owner of the motor vehicle,because the motor vehicle registration law, to a certainextent, modified Article 2180.

As such, there can be no other conclusion but to holdLim vicariously liable with Mendoza.

This does not mean, however, that Lim is left withoutany recourse against Enriquez and Mendoza. Under thecivil law principle of unjust enrichment, the registeredowner of the motor vehicle has a right to be indemnifiedby the actual employer of the driver; and under Article2181 of the Civil Code, whoever pays for the damage causedby his dependents or employees may recover from the latterwhat he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.

Perez, J., Mariano C. Mendoza and Elvira Lim v. Spouses Leonora J.Gomez and Gabriel V. Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014.

Doctrinal RemindersCivil Law (continued)

Land Registration Law

Criminal Law

APRIL-JUNE 201416

People v. Court of Appeals and Jonathan Cerbodiscussed the rationale. In that case, Jonathan Cerboallegedly shot Rosalinda Dy in the presence of his father,Billy Cerbo. An information for murder was filed againstJonathan Cerbo. The daughter of Rosalinda Dy, asprivate complainant, executed a complaint-affidavitcharging Billy Cerbo with conspiracy. The prosecutor thenfiled a motion to amend the information, which was grantedby the court. The information was then amended to includeBilly Cerbo as one of the accused, and a warrant of arrestwas issued against him.

Billy Cerbo filed a motion to quash the warrant arguingthat it was issued without probable cause. The trial courtgranted this motion, recalled the warrant, and dismissedthe case against him. The Court of Appeals affirmed thisdismissal. This court, however, reversed the Court of Appealsand ordered the reinstatement of the amendedinformation against Billy Cerbo, stating that:

In granting this petition, we are not prejudging thecriminal case or the guilt or innocence of privaterespondent Billy Cerbo. We are simply saying that,as a general rule, if the information is valid on itsface and there is no showing of manifest error, graveabuse of discretion or prejudice on the part of thepublic prosecutor, courts should not dismiss it for‘want of evidence,’ because evidentiary mattersshould be presented and heard during the trial.The functions and duties of both the trial court andthe public prosecutor in “the proper scheme ofthings” in our criminal justice system should beclearly understood.

The rights of the people from what couldsometimes be an “oppressive” exercise ofgovernment prosecutorial powers do need to beprotected when circumstances so require. But justas we recognize this need, we also acknowledgethat the State must likewise be accorded dueprocess. Thus, when there is no showing ofnefarious irregularity or manifest error in theperformance of a public prosecutor’s duties, courtsought to refrain from interfering with such lawfullyand judicially mandated duties.

In any case, if there was palpable error orgrave abuse of discretion in the publicprosecutor’s finding of probable cause, theaccused can appeal such finding to the justicesecretary and move for the deferment orsuspension of the proceedings until such appealis resolved. (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, the resolution dated March 4, 2008 ofProsecutor Rey F. Delgado found that the facts and evidencewere “sufficient to warrant the indictment of [petitioner]

Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not acriminal case must be filed in court. Whether ornot that function has been correctly discharged bythe public prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he hasmade a correct ascertainment of the existence ofprobable cause in a case, is a matter that the trialcourt itself does not and may not be compelled topass upon.

The judicial determination of probable cause, onthe other hand, is one made by the judge toascertain whether a warrant of arrest should beissued against the accused. The judge must satisfyhimself that based on the evidence submitted, thereis necessity for placing the accused under custodyin order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If thejudge finds no probable cause, the judge cannotbe forced to issue the arrest warrant.

The difference is clear: The executive determinationof probable cause concerns itself with whether there isenough evidence to support an Information being filed.The judicial determination of probable cause, on the otherhand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should beissued. In People v. Inting:

x x x Judges and Prosecutors alike shoulddistinguish the preliminary inquiry whichdetermines probable cause for the issuance of awarrant of arrest from the preliminaryinvestigation proper which ascertains whetherthe offender should be held for trial or released.Even if the two inquiries are conducted in thecourse of one and the same proceeding, thereshould be no confusion about the objectives.The determination of probable cause for thewarrant of arrest is made by the Judge. Thepreliminary investigation proper—whether or notthere is reasonable ground to believe that theaccused is guilty of the offense charged and,therefore, whether or not he should be subjectedto the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial—is the function of the Prosecutor. (Emphasissupplied)

While it is within the trial court’s discretion to make anindependent assessment of the evidence on hand, it is onlyfor the purpose of determining whether a warrant of arrestshould be issued. The judge does not act as an appellatecourt of the prosecutor and has no capacity to reviewthe prosecutor’s determination of probable cause; rather,the judge makes a determination of probable causeindependent of the prosecutor’s finding.

Doctrinal RemindersCriminal Law (continued)



(Next page)

x x x.” There was nothing in his resolution which showedthat he issued it beyond the discretion granted to him bylaw and jurisprudence.

While the information filed by Prosecutor Delgado wasvalid, Judge Capco-Umali still had the discretion to makeher own finding of whether probable cause existed to orderthe arrest of the accused and proceed with trial.

Jurisdiction over an accused is acquired when thewarrant of arrest is served. Absent this, the court cannothold the accused for arraignment and trial.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in theirpersons, houses, papers, and effects againstunreasonable searches and seizures of whatevernature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shallissue except upon probable cause to be determinedpersonally by the judge after examination underoath or affirmation of the complainant and thewitnesses he may produce, and particularlydescribing the place to be searched and the personsor things to be seized.

The Constitution prohibits the issuance of searchwarrants or warrants of arrest where the judge has notpersonally determined the existence of probable cause.The phrase “upon probable cause to be determinedpersonally by the judge after examination under oath oraffirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he mayproduce” allows a determination of probable cause by thejudge ex parte.

For this reason, Section 6, paragraph (a) of Rule 112 ofthe Rules on Criminal Procedure mandates the judge to“immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on recordfails to establish probable cause.” Section 6, paragraph(a) of Rule 112 reads:

SEC. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) Bythe Regional Trial Court. — Within 10 days fromthe filing of the complaint or information, the judgeshall personally evaluate the resolution of theprosecutor and its supporting evidence. He mayimmediately dismiss the case if the evidence onrecord clearly fails to establish probable cause. Ifhe finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrantof arrest, or a commitment order if the accusedhas already been arrested pursuant to a warrantissued by the judge who conducted the preliminaryinvestigation or when the complaint or informationwas filed pursuant to Section 7 of this Rule. In caseof doubt on the existence of probable cause, the

judge may order the prosecutor to presentadditional evidence within five days from noticeand the issue must be resolved by the court within30 days from the filing of the complaint orinformation.

In People v. Hon. Yadao:

Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court gives thetrial court three options upon the filing of thecriminal information: (1) dismiss the case if theevidence on record clearly failed to establishprobable cause; (2) issue a warrant of arrest if itfinds probable cause; and (3) order the prosecutorto present additional evidence within five days fromnotice in case of doubt as to the existence ofprobable cause.

But the option to order the prosecutor to presentadditional evidence is not mandatory. The court’sfirst option under the above is for it to“immediately dismiss the case if the evidence onrecord clearly fails to establish probable cause.” Thatis the situation here: the evidence on record clearlyfails to establish probable cause against therespondents. (Emphasis supplied)

It is also settled that “once a complaint or informationis filed in court, any disposition of the case, whether as toits dismissal or the conviction or the acquittal of theaccused, rests in the sound discretion of the court.”

In this case, Judge Capco-Umali made an independentassessment of the evidence on record and concluded that“the evidence adduced does not support a finding ofprobable cause for the offenses of qualified theft andestafa.” Specifically, she found that Juno Cars “failed toprove by competent evidence” that the vehicles allegedto have been pilfered by Alfredo were lawfully possessedor owned by them, or that these vehicles were received byAlfredo, to be able to substantiate the charge of qualifiedtheft. She also found that the complaint “[did] not statewith particularity the exact value of the alleged office filesor their valuation purportedly have been removed,concealed or destroyed by the accused,” which she foundcrucial to the prosecution of the crime of estafa underArticle 315, fourth paragraph, no. 3(c) of the Revised PenalCode. She also noted that:

x x x As a matter of fact, this court had even orderedthat this case be set for clarificatory hearing toclear out essential matters pertinent to the offensecharged and even directed the private complainantto bring documents relative to the same/paymentas well as affidavit of witnesses/buyers with theend view of satisfying itself that indeed probablecause exists to commit the present case whichprivate complainant failed to do.

APRIL-JUNE 201418


(P1 million) shall be imposed if illegalrecruitment constitutes economic sabotage asdefined herein.

Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shallbe imposed if the person illegally recruited is lessthan 18 years of age or committed by a non-licenseeor non-holder of authority.

It is necessary that the prosecution prove theconcurrence of the following elements: (1) the offenderundertakes any of the activities within the meaning of“recruitment and placement” under Article 13(b) of theLabor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumeratedunder Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of RANo. 8042) and (2) the offender has no valid license orauthority required by law to enable him to lawfully engagein recruitment and placement of workers. In the case ofillegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added:that the offender commits any of the acts of recruitmentand placement against three or more persons, individuallyor as a group.

In this case, appellant engaged in recruitment whenshe represented herself to be capable of deploying workersto South Korea upon submission of the pertinent documentsand payment of the required fees. As appellant claimed tobe the liaison officer of Llanesa Consultancy Services, thevictims believed that she indeed had the capability todeploy them abroad. All the witnesses and the supposedvictims identified appellant as the one who made suchrepresentation and received the payments they madeevidenced by the petty cash vouchers and receipts shesigned. Moreover, appellant was caught in an entrapmentoperation when she received the amount demandedallegedly as additional requirement before they can bedeployed abroad. It was, likewise, certified to by thePhilippine Overseas Employment Administration LicensingDivision that neither appellant nor Llanesa ConsultancyServices were licensed to recruit workers for overseasemployment. It is also clear from the evidence presentedthat the crime of illegal recruitment was committed byappellant against five persons.

Clearly, we find no reason to disturb the RTC’s findingsas affirmed by the CA, that appellant committed the crimeof illegal recruitment in large scale.

We likewise agree with the appellate court thatappellant may also be held liable for estafa. The very sameevidence proving appellant’s criminal liability for illegalrecruitment also established her criminal liability for estafa.The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded

Accordingly, with the present laws and jurisprudenceon the matter, Judge Capco-Umali correctly dismissed thecase against Alfredo.

Leonen, J., Alfredo C. Mendoza v. People of the Philippines and JunoCars, Inc., G.R. No. 197293, April 21, 2014.

Illegal recruitment defined; penalties to be imposed.

The crime of illegal recruitment is defined and penalizedunder Sections 6 and 7 of RA No. 8042, or the MigrantWorkers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, to wit:

SEC. 6. Definition. – For purposes of this Act, illegalrecruitment shall mean any act of canvassing,enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,hiring, or procuring workers, and includesreferring, contract services, promising oradvertising for employment abroad, whether forprofit or not, when undertaken by a non-licenseeor non-holder of authority contemplated underArticle 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, asamended, otherwise known as the Labor Code ofthe Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offersor promises for a fee employment abroad to two ormore persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shalllikewise include the following acts, x x x:

x x x x

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by asyndicate if carried out by a group of three or morepersons conspiring or confederating with oneanother. It is deemed committed in large scale ifcommitted against three or more personsindividually or as a group.

The persons criminally liable for the aboveoffenses are the principals, accomplices andaccessories. In case of juridical persons, theofficers having control, management or directionof their business shall be liable.

SEC. 7. Penalties.

(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitmentshall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of notless than six years and one day but not morethan 12 years and a fine of not less than TwoHundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000) nor morethan Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000).

(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine ofnot less than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos(P500,000) nor more than One Million Pesos (Continued on page 13)


d. If filed by the Presiding Justice of theCourt of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan,or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall besubject to the approval of the ChiefJustice.

4. An application for permission to teachfiled by court personnel shall requireapproval as follows:

a. If filed by court personnel from alower level court, it shall be subjectto the approval of the executive judgeconcerned;

b. If filed by court personnel from theCourt of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan,or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shallbe subject to the approval of thepresiding justice or the executivejustice concerned, as the case may be;

c. If filed by Supreme Court personnelbelonging to a chamber of anAssociate Justice of the SupremeCourt, it shall be subject to theapproval of the Associate Justiceconcerned, who will notify the ChiefJustice and the Office ofAdministrative Services, SupremeCourt, of this approval;

d. If filed by other Supreme Courtpersonnel, it shall be subject to theapproval of the Chief Justice.

5. The approving authority may deny theapplication or allow less than 10 hoursof teaching a week, depending on theapplicant’s performance record.

6. At the end of every year, an approvingauthority shall submit to the Chief Justicea report on the applications submitted forthe year and the respective status of, oraction taken on, each application.

For strict compliance.

Let the provisions in the Human Resource Manualreflect these amendments.” Mendoza, J., on leave. (35)[Amendments in bold.]

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court

EN BANCNOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued aResolution dated APRIL 1, 2014, which reads as follows:

A.M. No. 13-05-05-SC (Re: Revision of Restrictionson Teaching Hours of Justices, Judges and Personnelof the Judiciary). – Acting on the request of AssociateJustice Roberto A. Abad for a revision of therestrictions on the teaching hours of justices,judges, and personnel of the Judiciary underCircular No. 62-97 of the Office of the CourtAdministrator, this Court RESOLVES to AMEND therules and regulations on teaching to read asfollows:

1. Teaching shall be allowed for not more than10 hours a week. On regular working days(Monday through Friday), teaching shall notbe conducted earlier than 5:30 p.m.

2. An application for permission to teach iffiled by a judge shall be accompanied bya certification of the Clerk of Courtconcerned regarding the condition of thecourt docket showing: (a) the number ofpending cases; and (b) the number of casesdisposed of within a three-month periodprior to the start of the semester in his orher respective sala.

3. An application for permission to teachfiled by a judge or justice shall requireapproval as follows:

a. If filed by a judge from a lower levelcourt, it shall be subject to theapproval of the executive judgeconcerned;

b. If filed by an executive judge, it shallbe subject to the approval of the CourtAdministrator;

c. If filed by an Associate Justice of theCourt of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan,or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall besubject to the approval of thepresiding justice concerned;

A.M. No. 13-05-05-SC

APRIL-JUNE 201420

and

(5) attach a copy of the certification tothe record of the case; and

(iii) such other conditions as the Office of the CourtAdministrator may prescribe to protect theprivacy of the person whose credit standing isbeing verified, and to ensure that the properadministration of justice is not undulyprejudiced by the additional task of courtpersonnel.


March 20, 2014.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZCourt Administrator

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT

SUBJECT: REQUEST OF BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIALINSTITUTIONS FOR INFORMATION ON THE STATUS OF ACASE AND THE PERSONAL DATA OF A PARTY TO A CASERELEVANT TO THE CREDIT STANDING OF THE LITIGANTSUBJECT OF SUCH REQUEST

Pursuant to the Resolution dated September 3, 2013 ofthe Court En Banc in A.M. No. 13-05-01-SC, all requests ofbanks and other financial institutions for information onthe status of a case and the personal data of a party to acase which are relevant to the credit standing of the litigantsubject of such request, shall be filed by banks or financialinstitutions and acted upon by the courts under theseconditions:

(i) the bank or financial institution requesting thesaid information, after conducting diligentcredit investigation, shall:

(1) provide the docket number and theparties to the case where the litigantunder credit investigation is involved,to the court where such case has beenfound to be assigned;

(2) attach to the request the writtenconsent to access to the saidinformation, of all parties to the case,provided that if a party is a juridicalperson, its president or head shallgive consent;

(3) use the accessed information only forthe specific purpose stated in therequest; and

(4) treat with strict confidentiality theaccessed information under pain ofcontempt of court;

(ii) the clerk of court of the requested court shall:

(1) submit the request to the presidingjudge of the court for approval;

(2) charge the requesting bank orfinancial institution with service feein accordance with Rule 141 of theRules of Court;

(3) issue a certification on the requestedinformation within three working daysfrom receipt of the request;

(4) furnish each of the parties to the casewith a copy of the certification issued;

TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRSTAND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF OCA CIRCULAR NO. 175-2009DATED DECEMBER 18, 2009

The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), through itsChancellor, Honorable Adolfo S. Azcuna, has requested thisOffice that PHILJA through the Research, Publications andLinkages Office be excluded from the list of offices to befurnished with copies of monthly reports on the status ofcases involving Indigenous Cultural Communities andIndigenous Peoples on or before the 10th day of every month,as required of all judges and clerks of court of the trialcourts under OCA Circular No. 175-2009 dated December18, 2009 (Submission of Monthly Report on the Status ofCases Involving Indigenous Cultural Communities [ICCs] andIndigenous Peoples [IPs]). This is in support of the judiciary’spolicies not only on the proper observance of the efficientuse of paper rule but also the conservation of resources bycutting the judicial system’s use of excessive quantities ofcostly paper, among others.

Henceforth, all concerned are hereby DIRECTED toDISCONTINUE providing the PHILJA through its Research,Publications and Linkages Office, with the abovementionedmonthly reports effective April 2014. Instead, all judgesand clerks of court shall MAINTAIN only the submission ofthe reports to this Office through the Court ManagementOffice (CMO) pursuant to the aforesaid OCA Circular No.175-2009, either by the usual registered mail or throughits email [email protected].

This Circular modifies OCA Circular No. 175-2009 onlywith respect to the discontinuance of furnishing the PHILJAwith copies of the monthly reports and the modes of theirsubmission to the CMO as stated above.

OCA Circular No. 42-2014



Strict compliance is enjoined.

March 20, 2014.


TO: ALL SELECTED FIRST LEVEL COURT JUDGES ANDBRANCH CLERKS OF COURT/OFFICERS IN CHARGE

SUBJECT: SMALL CLAIMS CASE MONITORING SYSTEM(SC2MS) SURVEY

On October 1, 2008, the Rule of Procedure for Small ClaimsCases was pilot-tested in 22 first level courts in the differentregions of the country.

On March 18, 2010, after some revisions, the AmendedRule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases was rolled outand implemented in all first level courts nationwide.

On May 6, 2011, to enhance the capacity of the smallclaims courts towards an efficient monitoring andautomated monthly reporting of cases, the Supreme CourtCommittee on Computerization and Library approved theimplementation of the Small Claims Cases MonitoringSystem (SC2MS) in all first level courts.1 USB wirelessbroadband modems were distributed in all first level courtsfor the electronic transmission of their respective monthlyreports.2

On July 25, 2013, the Supreme Court reorganized3 theTechnical Working Group on the Small Claims Courts Projectto review the Rule of Procedure on Small Claims Cases andfurther address the need of litigants for a more cost-effective procedure and make justice more accessible tothe public.

However, notwithstanding the Judiciary-wideimplementation of the SC2MS, there still are numerouscourts that do not transmit the Monthly Docket Inventoryof Small Claims Cases using the SC2MS Software as requiredunder OCA Circular No. 78-2011 dated June 16, 2011.

To assess and gather insights and perspectives on howto improve the Amended Rule of Procedure for Small ClaimsCases and the SC2MS, the judges and branch clerks of court/officers in charge of the selected courts4 are hereby directed

1. OCA Circular No. 78-2011

2. OCA Circular No. 123-2011

3. OCA Memorandum Order No. 02-2013

4. Manila MeTC Br. 6; Manila MeTC Br. 11; Manila MeTC Br. 19; ManilaMeTC Br. 27; Quezon City MeTC Br. 35; Pasay City MeTC Br. 45;

OCA Circular No. 42-2014 (continued)


to accomplish and answer the attached: (1) table for listingof small claims cases, and (2) survey questionnaire, andthereafter mail them back to the Office of the CourtAdministrator using the paid return envelopes providedherein.

Your utmost cooperation in completing the survey ishereby enjoined.

March 26, 2014.


Pasay City MeTC Br. 48; Malabon MeTC Br. 56; Makati City MeTCBr. 65; Makati City MeTC Br. 67; Pasig City MeTC Br.71; MarikinaMeTC Br. 92; Agno MTC; Aguilar-Bugallon MCTC; Bacnotan MTC;Baguias-Bakun MCTC; Candon City MTCC; Dagupan City MTCC Br.2; Infanta MTC; Rosales MTC; Sta. Barbara MTC; Sto. Domingo MTC;Tayum-Penarrubia MCTC; Urdaneta City MTCC; Alfonso Lista-Aguinaldo MCTC; Amulung-Iguig MCTC; Aparri-Calayan MCTC Br.2; Baguio City MTCC Br. 1; Cabarroguis MTC; Cordon-DinapiquiMCTC; Gattaran MTC; IIagan MTC; Ivana-Uyugan MCTC;Maconacon-Divilican MCTC; Palanan MTC; Sta. Ana MTC; AngatMTC; Clark Field MTC; Guimba MTC; Limay MTC; Malolos City MTCCBr. 1; Marilao MTC; Meycauayan City MTCC Br. 1; Olongapo CityMTCC Br. 3; Peñaranda MTC; Quezon-Licab MCTC; Rizal MTC; Sta.Maria MTC; Bauan MTC; Binangonan MTC Br. 1; Brooke’s Point-Espanola MCTC; Calamba City MTCC; Cardona MTC; GuinayanganMTC; Ibaan MTC; Looc-Alcantara-Sta. Fe-San Jose MCTC;Mamburao MTC; Rosario MTC; Sablayan MTC; Silang-AmadeoMCTC; Bacacay-Malilipot MCTC; Balatan MTC; Bulan MTC;Cataingan-Pio V. Corpus-Esperanza MCTC; Irosin MTC; JosePanganiban MTC; Lagonoy MTC; Libmanan-Cabusao MCTC; IrigaCity MTCC Br. 1; San Andres MTC; San Jacinto-Monreal MCTC;Tabaco City MTCC; Bago City MTCC; Cabatuan-Maasin MCTC; CadizCity MTCC; Dingle-Duenas MCTC; Ibajay-Nabas MCTC; Iloilo CityMTCC Br. 8; Isabela-Moises Padilla MCTC; La Castellana MTC;Miag-Ao MTC; Pontevedra-Panay MCTC; Pototan-Mina MCTC; SilayCity MTCC; Borbon-Tabogon MCTC; Candijay-Anda MCTC; CanlaonCity MTCC; Carmen-Batuan MCTC; Cebu City MTCC Br. 1; Liloan-Compostela MCTC; Mandaue City MeTC Br. 3; Pamplona-Amlan-San Jose MCTC; Samboan-Santander-Oslob MCTC; Sibonga MTC;Siaton MTC; Toledo City MTCC; Allen MTC; Burauen MTC; CapoocanMTC; Carigara MTC; Catarman-Lope De Vega MCTC; CatbaloganCity MTCC; Jaro MTC; Leyte MTC; Maasin City MTCC; Merida-IsabelMCTC; Palompon MTC; Biliran-Cabucgayan MCTC; Aurora MTC;Dapitan City MTCC; Isabela City MTCC; Liloy-Tampilisan MCTC;Malangas-Imelda-Deplahan MCTC; Alicia MTC; Lamitan CityMTCC; Pagadian City MTCC Br. 1; Polanco MTC; San Miguel-Dinas-Lapuyan MCTC; Zamboanga City MTCC Br. 2; Zamboanga City MTCCBr. 4; Cagayan De Oro City MTCC Br. 1; Claver-Gigaquit MCTC;Gingoog City MTCC; Initiao-Libertad MCTC; Laguindingan-GitagumMCTC; Mahinog-Guinsiliban MCTC; Maramag-Kalilangan-Pangantucan MCTC; Oroquieta City MTCC Br. 1; Oroquieta CityMTCC Br. 2; Ozamis City MTCC Br. 3; Salay-Binuangan MCTC; TangubCity MTCC; Bansalan-Magsaysay MCTC; Davao City MTCC Br. 1;Island Garden City of Samal MTCC Br. 1; Lanuza-Cortez-Madrid-Carmen MCTC; Maasim MTC; Mabini-Pantukan MCTC; Malalag-Sulop MCTC; Mati City MTCC; Cagwait-Bayabas MCTC; Hinatuan-Tagbina MCTC; Norala-T’boli-Sto. Nino MCTC; Tupi MTC; Iligan CityMTCC Br. 3; Kapatagan MTC; Kidapawan City MTCC; Tacurong CityMTCC; Tubod-Baroy-Magsaysay MCTC; Parang-Buldon-Matanog-Barira MCTC; Cotabato City MTCC; Pigkawayan-Alamada-Banisilan MCTC; Kabuntalan MTC; Pres. Roxas-Antipas-ArakanMCTC; Upi-South Upi MCTC; Wao-Bumbaran MCTC.

APRIL-JUNE 201422

TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIALCOURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPALTRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS ANDSHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS

SUBJECT: ORDER LIFTING THE SUSPENSION FROM THEPRACTICE OF LAW

Concern has been brought to the attention of this Office asto whether the lifting of a lawyer’s suspension from thepractice of law is automatic upon the end of the periodstated in the Court’s decision. This is very crucial consideringthat some practicing lawyers make their appearance toany trial court immediately after the cessation of the periodsuspending them from the practice of law, without securingan order from the Supreme Court lifting their suspension.

In the July 12, 2000 Resolution of the Court in A.C. No.3066, J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc.v. De Vera, and A.C. No. 4438, De Vera v. Encanto, thenecessity of securing an order lifting the suspension fromthe practice of law is expressly stated and quoted as follows:

Anent respondent’s motion to lift his suspensionon the ground that he has already complied withthe directive of the Court to return to complainantthe money in his possession, respondent might bereminded that his suspension from the practice oflaw is for at least six months. The statement of theCourt that his suspension stands until he wouldhave satisfactorily shown his compliance with theCourt’s resolution is a caveat that his suspensioncould thereby extend for more than six months.The lifting of a lawyer’s suspension is not automaticupon the end of the period stated in the Court’sdecision, and an order from the Court lifting thesuspension at the end of the period is necessary inorder to enable him to resume the practice of hisprofession. (Emphasis supplied)

In view of the foregoing, all concerned are DIRECTEDto REQUIRE a lawyer who has been suspended from thepractice of law to present an order from the Supreme Courtlifting his/her suspension before he/she resumes thepractice of his/her profession.

Strict compliance is enjoined.

April 1, 2014.


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THEMUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND SHARI’A COURTSIN ALL JUDICIAL REGIONS

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THEAUTOMATED PAYROLL SYSTEM

In furtherance of OCA Circulars Nos. 18-2013 and 103-2013dated February 8, 2013 and August 7, 2013, respectively,the following guidelines shall be observed in theimplementation of the Automated Payroll System (APS) inthe Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and Shari’a Courts in allJudicial Regions:

1. The APS shall cover the releases for the payment ofsalaries, regular allowances as authorized by theGeneral Appropriations Act (GAA) as well as allowancesand other fringe benefits, if any, as may be authorizedby the Chief Justice.

2. The ATM Payroll Savings Account, shall be subject to amaintaining balance of P100, and a minimum balancerequirement of P500 to earn interest. Judges and courtpersonnel shall have the option to open a currentaccount with ATM access, with a maintaining balanceof P5,000.

3. Inquiry on individual bank balances and statements ofaccount can be effected through enrollment in the I-Access facility of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)for savings account and current account. Inquiries canalso be made through the LBP Phone Banking Facility.

4. The ATM Payroll Savings Account shall be subject toservice charges imposed by the Expressnet/Megalink/BancNet member banks on the usage of their ATMs orthose that may be imposed in the future.

5. The clerks of court are hereby held accountable toimmediately report to the Office of AdministrativeServices (OAS), OCA, copy furnished the FinancialManagement Office (FMO), OCA, and the LBP branchwhere the accounts were opened, the names of judgesand court personnel who have ceased their services intheir respective courts due, but not limited, toresignation, retirement, death, transfer, long orunauthorized leave of absence. After receipt of thenotice from the clerks of court, the names of the judgesor court personnel shall forthwith be excluded fromthe payroll with notice to the LBP for the terminationof the accounts.

6. Release of salaries and allowances which werepreviously directed to be withheld shall only be creditedone month after receipt of the notice of release.

OCA Circular No. 55-2014OCA Circular No. 44-2014


7. Non-crediting of salaries and allowances which aredirected to be withheld shall only be for a period of sixmonths. Thereafter, the name of the judge or courtpersonnel shall already be excluded from the payroll.

8. The payroll credit dates are as follows:

Regular Salaries – every 12th and27th of the month

RATA – on or before the 7th

working day of everymonth

EME – on or before the 7th dayof the following month

Regular Allowances – as may be authorized byas may be provided the Chief Justicefor by the GAA

Other allowances and – as may be authorized byfringe benefits, the Chief Justiceif any

However, the payroll credit dates of the regularsalaries and allowances provided for under the GAAshall strictly be subject to the release of cash allocationfrom the national government. If the payroll creditdate falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, creditingshall be on the Friday or the day before the holiday.

9. All judges and court personnel are directed to timelysubmit to the OAS-OCA their Certificates of Services/Daily Time Records to avoid the withholding of salariesand regular allowances.

10. Newly appointed judges and court personnel shallindividually open their ATM Payroll Savings Accountwith the LBP Branch nearest their official station.Thereafter, they shall submit to OAS-OCA thephotocopies of their ATM cards for validation and forinclusion in the APS payroll.

11. No checks for payment of regular salaries andallowances shall be released after the commencementof the APS implementation.


April 10, 2014.


OCA Circular No. 55-2014 (continued)

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 STATEPROSECUTOR, PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND THEINTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT: BAR MATTER NO. 1922 (RE: RECOMMENDATIONOF THE MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION[MCLE] BOARD TO INDICATE IN ALL PLEADINGS FILEDWITH THE COURTS THE COUNSEL’S MCLE CERTIFICATEOF COMPLIANCE OR CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION)

In the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 14,2014, in the above-cited administrative matter, the CourtRESOLVED, upon the recommendation of the MCLEGoverning Board, to:

(a) AMEND the June 3, 2008 resolution by repealingthe phrase “Failure to disclose the requiredinformation would cause the dismissal of the caseand the expunction of the pleadings from therecords” and replacing it with “Failure to disclosethe required information would subject the counselto appropriate penalty and disciplinary action”;and

(b) PRESCRIBE the following rules for non-disclosureof current MCLE compliance/exemption number inthe pleadings:

(i) The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000for the first offense, P3,000 for the secondoffense and P4,000 for the third offense;

(ii) In addition to the fine, counsel may be listedas a delinquent member of the Bar pursuantto Section 2, Rule 13 of Bar Matter No. 850 andits implementing rules and regulations; and

(iii) The non-compliant lawyer shall be dischargedfrom the case and the client/s shall be allowedto secure the services of a new counsel withthe concomitant right to demand the return offees already paid to the non-compliant lawyer.

This revokes OCA Circular No. 66-2008 dated July 22,2008, and any prior circular from the Office of the CourtAdministrator on this matter which is contrary to theforegoing is hereby superseded.

For your information, guidance and strict compliance.

May 6, 2014.



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

Arsenia M. MendozaArmida M. SalazarJocelyn D. BondocRonald P. Caraig

Judith B. Del RosarioChristine A. Ferrer

Joanne Narciso-MedinaCharmaine S. NicolasSarah Jane S. SalazarAtty. Jeniffer P. Sison

Circulation and Support StaffRomeo 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];ph i l ja@sc . jud ic iar y. gov.ph;Website: http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph

CEP for RTC Clerks of CourtRegion VI, July 1–3, Roxas CityRegion XI, September 16–18, Davao City

Refresher/Advanced Coursefor Court-Annexed MediatorsLa Union, Benguet and PangasinanMediation ProgramsJuly 2–3, La UnionBatangas, Laguna and Quezon MediationProgramsAugust 14–15, Tagaytay City

FGD on the Rules of Procedurefor Environmental CasesJuly 3–4, Tagaytay City

RTD on Substantive Laws andJurisprudence on Intellectual Propertyfor Court of Appeals Justices (Batch 3)July 3–4, Subic, Zambales

CET for Judges and Court PersonnelHandling Cases Involving ChildrenJuly 8–10, Dumaguete City

16th National Convention and Seminarof the PACEJuly 9–11, Lanang, Davao

Orientation Conference withStakeholders on Court-AnnexedMediation (Negros Oriental MediationProgram)July 10, Dumaguete City

70th Orientation Seminar-Workshopfor Newly Appointed JudgesJuly 15–24, Tagaytay City

CDP for Court Legal ResearchersRegion VIII, July 16–17, Tagaytay City

JCEP for Selected RTC JudgesNCJR, July 16–18, Tagaytay City

Seminar-Workshop on Various Laws andRules Relating to Money Laundering andOther Financial Crimes for JudgesRegions XI–XII, July 23–24, Davao CityRegions VIII–IX, September 24–25, Cebu City

Seminar for Executive Judges [SelectedJudges and Vice EJs of the Visayas]July 24–25, Cebu City

Seminar on the Rules of Procedure onFinancial Rehabilitation for SpecialCommercial Court Judges and PairingCourt JudgesNCJR and Regions IV and VAugust 8, Pasay City

Curriculum Review of PHILJAAugust 14, Tagaytay City

Academic Excellence Lecture Series inthe Judiciary Metrobank FoundationProfessorial Chair Series–Roll-outAugust 19, Dumaguete City

Study Tour of the Delegation of theSupreme Court of BangladeshAugust 25, Tagaytay City

Judicial Settlement Conference onJDR (Skills-based Course)August 26–29, Iloilo City

Orientation and Screening ofProspective Mediators and PMC UnitStaff (Negros Oriental MediationProgram)August 27–28Bais City, Negros Oriental

Orientation of Clerks of Court andBranch Clerks of Court on JDRAugust 28, Iloilo City

Orientation of Public Prosecutors andPublic Practitioners on JDRAugust 28, Iloilo City

4th Orientation Seminar-Workshopfor Newly Appointed Sheriffs andProcess Servers (NCJR and Region IV)September 2–4, Tagaytay City

Seminar on the Rules of Procedure onFinancial Rehabilitation for JusticesSeptember 4, Manila

E-JOWSeptember 4, Iloilo CitySeptember 5, Bacolod CitySeptember 25, Kidapawan CitySeptember 26, Digos City

33333rdrdrdrdrd Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities Quarter Trainings, Programs and Activities

(Continued on page 13)

volume xvi, issue no. 62 april-june 2014

Documents