Report

on the

Effects of the Continuous Trial System

on Litigation Time and Output in the
National Capital Region

Submitted to the

Supreme Court

by the

Institute of Judicial Administration

U.P. Law Center
Diliman, Quezon City

1990
 Continuous trial was envisioned as a "mode of judicial fact-

finding and adjudication conducted with speed and dispatch so

that trial are held on scheduled dates withaut needless

postponements, the factual issues for trial well defined at pre-

trial, and the whole proceeding5 terminated and ready for

judgement within 90 days f.rom the date of initial hearing."

(Circular yo. l-69, dated January 19, 3.989). Initially, it was

intended- to cure the deficiencies of the piecemeal trial system

described as follows:

"The flow of cases in the trial courts from the time of

filing until their final disposition has been the subject of '
public criticism. The trial period is exceedingly long. It
usually takes more than two to three years to finish,. The
slcrw grind of the trial court machinery ha5 made the legal
maxim 'justice delayed is justice denied' apt-/I 1 \I descriptive
of the dismal situation obtaining in that level of
juri5diction. Indeed the ultimate .victims are ali+:aYs the
ordinary litigants. The real culprit is the common practice
of piecemeal trial of cases that sets cases for trial one
day at a time and thereafter continued or postponed ta
another date until all the parties have finished their
presentation of evidence."

The Continuous Trial System (CTS) was first piloted in

February 1989 in eighty-one (81) trial court5 all over the

country. Aimed to minimize delay in the processing of cases, 73

Regional Trial Courts and 8 Metropolitan Trial Courts were

required under Administrative Circular No. 4 dated September 22,

1988 to conduct trial of "one or at most three cases at a time"

and 'to adhere strictly to the provision of the above circular

that 'lin no case shall the entire trial period esceed three

months from the first day of trial unless otherwise authorized by

 the Chief Justice pursuant tt Section 3, Rule 22 Gf the Rules of

CGurt.

The Supreme Court issued a series of administrative GrderS

and circulars to widen and expedite the imp1 emen tatian of

continuous trial which led to its mandatory aduption in al 1 1,503

trial courts nationwide. These circulars were:

1. Circular No. l-89, January 19, 1989

Established guide1 ines for designated RTCs tG conduct
mandatory continuous trial.

2. Administrative Order No. 135

Designated 83 RTCs to implement the Mandatory Continuous
Calendar.

3. Administrative Order No. 135-A, February 6, 3.989

&mending Administrative Order No, 135.

4. Administrative Circular 135-E

Amending Administrative Circular No. 135.

=I
C" Administrative Circular No. 35, July 27, 1989
DeFignating 23 Manila RTC Judges in addition to 5 previcrusly
designated a5 Special Criminal Courts to implement mandatary
continuous trial.
1
6. Administrative Circular No. 135-C, August 11, 1989
Designating additional 1,377 branches of multisala RTC z
MetTC, MTC to implement the mandatory continuous trial
calendar effective September 1, 1989.

7. Admin,istrative Circular No. 3-90, January 31, 1990

Mandatory Continuous Trial in all courts. Designating all
1,900 trial courts nationwide to implement continuous trial
effective February 15, 1990. ,

THE 1989 STUDY ON CONTINUOUS TRIGL

The performance of the first 81 pilot courts were examined

.
the Institute of Judicial Administration in two researches

done in February 1989 and February 1990. The first study,

entitled "A Study of the Efficiency of Pilot Courts Using

. ..-
 ,

Continuous Trial", sought to evalllate the continuous trial

process as a means of addressing two major problems: delay and

docket congestion. The study looked primarily into the reduction

of delay in terms of litigation time, and reduction Of docket

size in terins of the number of pending cases in the designated
courts.

The effectiveness af continuous trial was evaluated, first

by comparing the performance of the 81 pilot courts before and

after they adopted continuous trial; and second, by comparing

their performance with 81 non-pilot courts using piecemeal trial.

Parallel to this, views and perceptions of judges, lawyers,

fiscals and litigants tiere gathered as to the efficiency of
adopting continuous trial. It further included a profile of

judges and court personnel and an account rjf some aspects of

court administration like budget practices and financial

resources allocation. Finally, an attempt was made to estimate

the private cost of litigation.

Rrief ly, the major findings of the 15’89 study were as

follows:
1. Cn litigation time, the trial period was found to be is
considerably shorter in courts using the continuous trial
system. The average length of trial period was computed at
18.1 days per case as against 341.8 days in the piecemeal
trial'. of civil and criminal case (Final Report, 1989:&I) j
and

2.. On output, the pilot RTCs using continuous trial registered

higher ratios of outflow over cas&load by 5.79x, and a
higher rate of decided cases over caseload by &.4&X compared
to the non-pilot courts using piecemeal trial-. Tite MetTCs
which used continuous trial have higher rates of outflow
over caseload by 4.1X, and a higher rate of decided cases
over caseload by 3.82X. (Final Report, 1989:159)..
THE 1990 STUDY CN CCNTINUCUS TRIAL

The second study was aimed at monitoring CTS implementation

in selected trial courts to get feedback on its effectiveness in

shortening litigation time and reducing docket size. Its major

findings to a great extent supported the findings in the first

study on the benefits of using CTS in place of piecemeal trial in

50 far a5 the RTCs in the regions were concerned . The major

findings were as follows:

1. The length of time spent in the litigation of cases tended

to be shorter under CTS. The trial of cases was found to be
shorter than the PO-day limit and averaged to 19 days for
ordinary civil actions, and 29 days for criminal cases.

2. On .the average, the pre-trial period of ordinary civil

action5 tended to be longer than the trial period. In
ordinary civil actions, the pre-trial period is 37 days and
'trial period is 19.1 days. In criminal cases, the prertrial
period averaged at 11.4 days and the trial period at 29.2
days.

3 . The whole litigation period beginning from the filing of the

case to submission for decision was prolonged due to much
longer days spent as waiting time between -the stages of
litigation. Fqr instance, the waiting time from filing of
the ca5e to arraignment in criminal ca5e5 was 47.3 days;
from filing of the case to joinder of Issues in civil cases,
53.5 days; from arraignment to the day before the start of
pre-trial, 24.1 days; from joinder of issues to the day
before the start of trial, 52.8 days; from the last day of
pre-trial to the day before the start of trial, 40.8 days.
(Final Report, 1991:70).

4. The mandatory conduct of foundpre-trial

to be an is
important factor in-reducing casesthe goingnumber to of
the trial proper
and therefore reducing the size of the -_
court docket. That is, the mandatory conduct of pre-trial
reduced the number of cases going to trial by 19.4X in RTCs
or 110 cases.out of 568 disposed cases, and by 33.331 in
MetTCs or 165 cases out of 493 disposed cases.

5. In the experience ‘of judges with high caseloads;; close

scheduling of the hearing of cases to meet the 90-day limit
was difficult to achieve. In many instances, cases have to
scheduled forhearing six months after filing.
6. The MetrGpGlitan Trial CGr!rts managed tG disperse 571 cases
in eleven (11) iTtGnthS (February to December 1X3’?‘) or 52
CEISES per rfmnth. In RTCs in the National Capital Region 3
the GUtf lGW Gf case5 tptalled 251 or 22 case5 pet- month
during the same period. In RTCs outside Metro Manila, the
tcrtal rate Gf outflow of cases is 162 or 14 cases per month.
(Final fieport, 13?1:7i).

In bclth studies, reduction of delay in terms of litigation

time and reduction of dGCket size in terms of the expanded USE of

pre-trial, wet-e used as indicators of performance. The findings

in both studies point to the conclusion that delay has been

minimized and court docket reduced to a certain extent. In terms

of litigatiizn time, this fended to be shorter than the litigation

proceedings before the adoption of continuous trial.

THE 2.991 STUDY DN CONTINUDUS TRIGL

This is the third in the series of studies on continuous

trial to determine it5 effects on litigation time and in

increasing the output of the trial courts., and determine whether

the initial gains made during the start of the implementation of

CTS are being sustained. The objectives of this continuing

effort are: aa

1. To measure the length of the trial period;

2. To measure the’ length of litigation time in the other

stages of the litigation process from the time of
filing up to the time that the case- is decided or
otherwise disposed of.

3. To determine the output and the correlation of the

caseload and the output of the courts.

4. To determine and analyze 5ignif icant problems

encountered by the RTCs in the NJCR. ,

,::
%.!
 5L. TO develop quantitative standards in meas,uring
performance in terms of litigation period and Gutf low;
and

6. To recommend courses of action that may be adopted by

the Supreme Court to further reduce the 1 i tigation
*period and increase the output of the trial courts.

The present study is.similar in scope to the first two

studies made by IJA. The performance of a sample of trial courts

will be assessed in terms of two indicators that have been

mentioned: litigation time and outflow of cases. In terms of

geographic area, this study is focused on-RTCs in the National

judicial Capital Region.

Selection of sample courts from which sample cases were

drawn was done in proportion to the number of RTCs in each local

government in Metro Manila. The purpose is to have sample courts

from all areas in Metro Manila. In each area, a proportionate

sample of courts is chosen and classified into .high (with

caseload of 350 cases and moreIS medium (with caseload of 290 to

3491 I and low (with caseload of 1 to 289) caseload courts based

on their caseloads ending June 1990.. The classification of RTCs

by level of case-load was intended to examine the problem raised

by some judges of high caseload courts their high caseloads

prevent them from following the 90-day trial limit simply because

there are just too many cases to schedule.

Forty (40) RTCs in Metro Manila have been chosen as samples.

During the data gathering phase, however, the number was reduced
to 37 t SEE Table 1). Two sample courts were gutted by fire

including its records so they were removed from the sample. The

37 sample RTCs are about 21.5% of the total 172 RTCs in thE
4 I
National Capital Judicial Region. There are 14 high caseload

,RTCs, 8 medium caseload, and 15 caseload. The outflow of CiASES

in the sample courts were also analyzed. (See Annex 1).

With respect to the sample cases, these were all drawn from

the files of the 37 sample courts, and covered those cases filed

within the period July to December 1990. As expected, many of

the cases are not yet concluded as of the time of data gathering.

The rationale behind choosing only those cases filed during this

period is to closely monitor the flow of cases from the day they

WETi? filed. Under the continuous trial system, cases should be

tried as swiftly as possible and within a period of ninety d ;i\r/ c--

Extension of the trial period is possible only upon written

guthority by the Chief Justice.

fin attempt was made to bP case specific and to analyze each

type of case within the major groups of criminal and civil cases.

However s the composition of the sample cases gathered did not

permit a detailed analysis since many of them have not yet been

submitted to pre-trial or to trial. They were found to be in

various stages of the litigation process. Instead, case5 were

grouped into criminal, and civil cases. At any rate, some

statements are made with regard to the each type of case as the

data allows. See Tables 1 for list of sample RTCs, and Tables 2

and 3 for list of sample cases.

Table 1. List of Sample RTCs, Total C=lses Filed and Sample Size -
Gf Cases, July to December 1990
_ _____--------------------------------------------
RTC Branch Cases Sample Size
Tatal
Filed (CR + CV)
A E CR CV E/k (
_____________------_---------------------------------------
LOW CASELOAI) 3-l&L 930 1,208 382 826 47.9
26 Manila 153 50 4 4& 32.7
42 Manila 129 52 2 5 27 at-l
, %.- 3
43 Manila 103 31 8 23 -30 . 1
47 Manila 140 93 40 53 Ab.4 :
50 Manila 118 83 24 53 70.3
58 Makati 206 85 47 a.3
T, 41.3
60 Makati 205 120 59 61 58.5
&8 Fasig 124 72 24. 48 58.1
79 Quezon City 220 90 48 42 40.9
85 Wezan City A_
371 37 22 15 16.0
88 Dueron City 216 130 20 110 60.2
120 Caloocan City 138 100 3L
7-r) 68 73L.C ci
131 Caloocan City 137
Li 98 12 86 80 .3
156 Pasig 149 8A 1 8 5 57.7
172 Valenzuela- 2&A . 81 1.6 A;5 30.4
-----------__-_--------------------------------------------------
MEDIUM CASELOAD 1,284 709 399 310 55.2
14 Manila 120 83 52 31 69.2
18 Manila 105 66 36 30 62.9
86 !XuezGn City 215 94 54 40 43.7
107 Buezon City 211 77 34 43 36.5
129Caloocan City 167 135 107 28 80.8
133Makati 217 98 51 47 45.2
147 Makati 181 107 53 54 59.1
160 Pasig A8 49 12 37 72.1
----------__-______----------------------------------------------
HIGH CASELOAD 2,013 970 -3-L
=I45 415 48.2
t5 Manila 105 35 33 2 33.3
25 -Manila 160 8b 60 26 53.7
31 Manila 12& 51 30 21 40.5
38 Manila 144 94 54 40 65.3
59 Makati 199 111 54 57 55.8
76 Quezon City 218 108 4& 62 49.5
78 Quezon City 200 98 550 38 49.0
90 Duezon City 32 19 1 18 59.4
120 Caloocan 143 50 35 15 35.0
137 Makati ,131 85 37 48 64.9
145 Makati 18& 70 34 36 37.6
153 Pa+ig 148 45 19 26 30.4
199 Pasig 69 17 14 3 24.6
l&9 Malabon 152 101 78 23 66.4
-----,-,--,,,,,,,,,,---------------------------~-----------------
GRAND TOTAL 5,817 2,887 1,780 1,107 49.6
----------,_____,,,-,-----------------------------------------~------
CR - criminal cases
cv - civil ca5e5
 Table 2. Composition of Sample Criminal Cases
--------____________---------------------------------------------
1. Crime5 Against Property
Bouncing Check (PF 22) ............... 329
Estafa (PI? 1689; RFCO 7.. ............ i92
Theft (Arts. 308-310 HFC) .............. 127
Robbery ....................... 107
Anti-Firacy & Anti-Hiway Robbery ........... 94
Other Crime5 Against Froperty ............ 30
2. Crimes Relative to Frohibited Drugs IRA 6425) .... 107
3. Crimes Against Persons
Murder (Art. 248 RFC) ................ 91
Homicide (Art. 249-250 RFC) ............. 180
Other Crime5 Against Persons ............ 6
4. Crimes Again5t Fersonal Liberty and Security
(illegal possession uf firearms) ........... 63
9C. Quasi-offenses (reckless imprudence) ......... 135
6. Crimes Against Fublic Morals (gambling & betting) . . 78
7. Crimes Against Chastity (rape and ait 5. af
lasciviciousness) .................. 36
8. Crimes Against Fublic Interest (falsification
of FjubIic documents; illegal recruitment;
anti-squatting) ................... Sl
9. Crime5 Against Fublic Order (assault to
persons in authority) ................ 20
IO. Crimes Against Honor (libel) ............ 6
11. Crimes Committed by Public Officers ......... 5
--------------___--_---------------------------------------------
TOTAL 1,760
-----------________----------------------------------------------

Table 3. Composition of Sample Civil Cases

--------____________---------------------------------------------
1. Ordinary Civil Cases
CollectionCases ............ ..'....37 7
Damages ...................... -186
Specific Performance ................ 35
Family Code Cases 123
Other Ordinary Civi; Cases
............................... 24

2. Prdvisional Remedies
Preliminary Injunction .................. 36
Delivery of Personal Property ............ 43
Other Provisional Remedies ........... : .. 32

3. Special Proceedings ................... 83

4. Special Civil Actions ................ 61
5. Land Registration .................. 39
6. Tax Cases 3
7. Other Civil'Cases ....................................... 65
-------------__--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,107
-------------__-__-----------------------------------------------
 Furth,ermGre, same Gf the judges of 5dlllplP CGUrt5 were

interviewed tG ask them GI-I the practicality Gf CTS and;Gr

problems they have encGuntered in using CGntinUGUs trial. In

spite of the mandatory adGptiGn of CT'S, only one Out Of the 37

sample RTCs in NCR actttally totally adapted it; 29 HTCs Gpted for
partial adGptiGn; and 7 did nut adGpt CTS.

GNALYSIS OF SAMPLE CRIMINAL CASES

The 2,887
. sample gathered cases from the 38 sample courts
represent abaut 49.&% of the total number Of cases filed in the
sample courts for the periGd July tcs December 1990. Df the 2,887
sample cases, 1,780 are criminal cases and 1,107 are civil cases.

The 1,780 criminal cases are COmpGS@d of disposed cases -and

cases pending at various stages Of the 1itigatiGn prOcess. The
status of sample criminal cases is shuwn in Table 4.

Table 4. Status of Sample Criminal Cases

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Status Frequency % Dist.
-------------------------------------------.----------------------
Number of Disposed Criminal Cases 1,583 88.9%

Decided on the Merits 242 13.6%

Acquitted 77 4.3%
CGnVicted 165 9.3:;
Dismissed 624 35.1%
With Prejudice 123 6.9X
Lack of Evidence 501 28.1%
Archived 712 40.0%
Transferred .2 0.1%
Petition/Appeal Reversed 3 0.1X
Number 'of P&ding Cases 197 11.1x
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 1,780 100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------- ----
 The 1,780 sample criminal ~35~5 were classified according tcr

status of litigation, i.e., disposed (decided, dismissed,

archived, amicable settlement, transferred), and pending. There

were 1,523 disposed ca5e5 (242 decided; 624 dismissed; 712

archived; 2 transferred; 2 appealed ciizes), and I.97 PWidir:*~

cases rn

A number of the disposed criminal cases, 110 or 6.9% were

disposed with trial. A larger number of cases, 70 or 4.4% were

disposed after the pre-trial was concluded, and thus withoilt

trial. An even bigger proportion of these criminal cases WEFf?

resolved before the pre-trial stages, &39 or 40.4%. ThE reason5

often cited for the early resolution of the cases before pre-

trial were the following: the litigants agreed to enter into

compromise agreement or to settle their cases amicably; or the

plaintiff showed lack of interest to pursue the case indicated b.y

actually asking the court to dismiss the case or simply by non-

appearance for several times in scheduled court hearings.

Table 5. Status of Sample Criminal Cd533 Status of Litigation

-----------------------------------------------------------------
After filing War After After Total
Arraignment or Pre-Trial Trial
Joinder
--------------------------------------------~--------------------
Criminal Cases 690 90 175 1,780

Disposed Cases A39 70 110 1,583

Pending Cases 91 20 65 197

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Elf the 1 ,583 disposed cases5 the trial of 267 cases trr 16.9%

were ccrmpleted within the mandatory W-day period. This included

the completion of the trial of 142 cases or 9% within a very

short period of l-10 days. On the average, the trial period

lasted 69.2 days per case. Dn the other hand, some 114 criminal

ca5es or 7.2% had a trial period longer than the mandatory sc-

days. See Table 6.

Table 6. Length of Trial Period of Criminal and Civil CEISE5 7

July to December 1990
------_-____________--------------------------------------------
Length of Trial Days cfi cv Total
-----------_______----------------------------------------------
1 142 52 134
z- 10 25 7 32
11 - 20 24 9 33
21 - 30 17 3 20
31- 60 33 10 43
61 - 90 26 .7 33
91 - 182 67 31 98 '
182 - 365 42 9 51
> 365 5 1 6
--------____________----------------------------------------- ---
Number of Cases 381 129 510
------______________--------------------------------------------
Ave. Days per Case 69.2 61.3 65.2
--------___________---------------------------------------------
CR - criminal cases cv - civil .ca5e5

ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE CIVIL CASES

A similar pattern of disposition is exhibited in both

criminal and civil cases. Insofar a5 the civil cases are

concerned, majority or 862 cases (77.9%) were disposed compared

to the 245 cases or 22.1X which were still pending.

.
Table 7. Status of Sample Civil Cases
----________________________l________l__-------------------------
status Frequency % Distr.
-------_________-___---------------------------------------------
Number of Disposed Civil Cases 862 77.9%
Decided on the tieritz
With Trial
Without Trial
AmicablE Settlement
Dismissed
Archived
Transferred
Petition/Appeal Affirmed/Htiversed

b~uinber crf Pending Civil Cases 245 22.1%

-_------___________----------------------------------------------
TOTAL 1,107 100.0%
-------_-_______-__----------------------------------------------

Of the disposed eases, 144 cases or 16.7% were disposed

during the pre-trial stage. Similarly, .more than half of the
disposed ci.vil cases or 638 civil cases (74.1%) were disposed
before reaching the pre-trial or trial stages, ime.Y after filing
and/or joinder of issues.

Table 8. Status of Sample Civil Cases by Stage of Litigation

--------____________---------------------------------------------
After filing &/or After After Total

Arraignment or Pre-Trial Trial

Joinder
-----------_________---------------------------------------------
Civil Cases 77s 203 129 1,107
Disposed Cases 638 144 79 8&I
Pending Cases 137 59 50 246
----------,,-,-,=,,,---------------------------------------------

The trial of 88 cases or 10ti2% were completed within the 90-

day mandatory period. This included 52 civil cases whose trial

proceedings were completed within a very short period of 10 days.

.
., . ...’

:. . ...<
..
The average trial period of civil cases was computed at 61.3 days

Per case. A smaller number (41 civil cases) necessitated trial

periods l&gEr than three months. See alsc, Table 6.

Under CTS; the conduct of a pre-trial confe.rerice for

criminal and civil cases was made mandatory.‘ This provision i rt

the law is significant because tG it can be directly attributed

the rise in the volume of cases disposed before they reached the

‘trial stage. The pre-trial period led to the disposition of 383

criminal cases and ‘2% civil cases. These have the direct effect

of reducing the actual number of cases that will proceed to the

trial stage.

Table of 9.
Fre-Trial Length Period of driminal and Civil Cases,
to December July lt990
--------____________---------------------------------------------
Length of Trial Days CR cv Total
-----------______-_----------------------------------------------
1 308 209 517
2- 10 14 7 21
11 - 20 & 9 15
21 - 30 14 7 21
31 - 60 14 20 34
bl- 90 11 12 23
91 - 182 1& 19 35
-183 - 365 d 12 18 ,
> 3&5 0 1 1
-------------_____________________c_____-------------------------

Total No. of Gases 389 296 8385

---------------------------------------T-------------------------
Ave. Days Per Case 14.4 28.8 21.6
--------------__i__----------------------------------------------
CR - criminal cases cv - civil cases
.x

.a ,.:‘,>\
.:.
 : *

s.

LENGTH OF LITISGTIUN PERIOD BY LEVEL 5F CfiSELU~D

we tried tG.CGmpdre the length crf pre-trial and trial in the

IGW, medium and high caselccad courts. With respect to pre-trial,

it was surprisingly longest at 36.5 days per civil case in the

1GW CdsElGdd HTCS. In high caseload RTCs', the average was only

23.1 days per civil case.

Fur criminal ca5e5 3 the pre-trial average is abaLe tw5

WEEkS, and is again longsst, at 15.3 days in lclw caseload F;?-C5.

In high caseload HTCs, it averaged 14.4 days per criminal case.

With respect to the trial of civil cases, the high case1 odd

RTCs regi;tered an average of 52.3 days;‘this is lower than the

66.8 days average in low caseload RTCs.

With respect tG the trial of criminal cases:, this is lcjngest

in high caseload RTCs at an average of 82.1 days. In lGW

caseload RTCs, the average trial days is 62.6 days.

The length of litigation time that a particular criminal or

civil. case proceeding iS completed from filing to promulgation Gf

decision was computed. With respect to criminal‘cases the total

.
length of 'litigation time has an average of 247.7 days in low

caseload .RTCs , and 372.8 days in high kseload RTCs. However.,

the difference in total' length of time with respect to civ'il

case5 is not very great, i.e, 411.3 days in low caseload RTCs ,

and 472.1 days in high caseload RTCs.

..

Table IO. Litigation Period in Low Caseload Courts

-----___II_________----------------------------------------------
Litigatictn Stage Criminal No. of Civil NG. of
Cases . Days Cases Days
------_----_________---------------------------------------------

Filing to Arraignment/
Joinder of Issues 386 58.1 123 9 ;7 I rI:

firraignment/Joinder to
Pre-Trial

Pre-Trial to Trial -- -- 36 77
bi .2

Trial 200 62.6 48 66.8

Trial to Submission for

Decision 30 23.5 11 42.9

Submission for Decision

to Decision 25 40.3 1 9 .u
------________________________________I_-------------------------
TDTAL 247.7 411.3
------_-__________________________I_____-------------------------

Table 11. Litigation Period in Medium Caseload Courts

---------___________---------------------------------------------
Litigation Stage Criminal No. of Civil No. of
Case5 Days Cases Days
-----------___-____----------------------------------------------
Filing to Arraignment/
Joinder of Issues 183 . 76.7 77 92.8

Arraignme&t/Joinder to
Pre-Trial 73 37.1 26 109.7
*
Pre-Trial 77 12.1 72 24.2

Pre-Trial,to Trial -- -- 8 62.2

Trial 61 6B.8 25 68.6

Trial to Submission for

Decision 6 23.7 10 13.4

Submission far 'Decision

to Decision 9 28.9 29 77
33 . 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 245.3 404.3
-----------------------------------------------------~-----------

.i ...
.:. 1.1

_. _ I
 Table 12. Litigation Period in High Caseload hurts
--------______-__------------------------------------------------
Litigaticin Stage Criminal No. of Civil No. of
CdSES Days Cases Days
----------__________---------------------------------------------
Fi 1 ing to Gri-aignment/
Joinder of Issues 274 67.5 141 97.3
Grraignment~JoindEr to
F’rlF-Tri,dl 3i 78.0 67 131.4
Fre-Trial

Fre-Trial to Trial -- -- 24 83.3

I Trial 120 82.1 56 53.2

Submission far Decision

to Decision 5 54.4 13 72.7
---I------______-------------------------------------------------

TOTAL 372.8 472.1

----------______-------------------------------------------------

COMPt?RISDN WITH PREVIDUS IJA STUDIES

The CTS if adhered to strictly can hasten the speed at which

the justice machinery grinds to try cases. The merits of CTS

were documented in the two previous studies done by the IJA which

showed the initial achievements in reducing the dockets of trial

courts and shortening the overall litigation process. There are

indications however that this inertia may be waning to the

detriment of litigants. This statement stems from the finding in

this study that the average length of the trial period, although

still falling within the 90-day mandatory limit, was longer ,than

the averages'in the 1989 and 1990 studies. The trial period of

criminal cases (CR), for instance, averaged at 62.6 days, and

.
66.8 days for civil cases (CV) in low caseload courts. These

averages are longer than the 17.7 days average for criminal cases

with prisoner (CCP), and 27 days for criminal ca5e5 without

prisoner (CCw/oP) based on the 1990 study. In the 1989 study,

the aver&ges were shorter at 14 days for CCP and 20.2 dsiys fsr

CCw/oP.

The average length of time from filing to decision w&s alsa

longer at 247.7 days for criminal cases, and 411.3 days for civil

cases in this study. In the 1990 study, this period took an

average of 64-b days {CCP), 90.3 days.ICCw/oP), and 119.1 days

ttxx - ordinary civil actions). In the 1989 study, the length of

titie from filing to decision was a little more than two months.

The -length of the pre-trial was relatively short at 15.3

days /CR), and 36.6 days under the present study. In the : 9'i!:,

study, the averages were 11.4 days ICR) and 37 days (OCR). See

Table 13.

The positive effects of CTS was manifested in the courts

.,
being obliged to keep. its docket current. Thi; observation is

evident in the large volume of cases .disposed after filing,

arranignment in criminal cases, or joinder of issues in civil

cases, thus preventing cases whose litigants showed no more

interest6 to pursue their cases to clog the dockets. In the

present. sutyd, 50.7X of the total number of cases filed from 3uly

to December 1990 were disposed after filing and/or arraignment or

joinder of .isues.
 The benefits of making the pre-trial mandatory had its

impact on the volume of CEISE~ disposed at the pre-trial stage.

The volume accounted for about 10.1% of the total sample CElSP5.

The volume of case5 going to trial wa5 also significantly sm.3 11

a5 most of the case5 had been disposed at earlier stages. Scje

Table 14,

Table 13. Comparison of Average Feriods under the Fresent Study

and the 17’20 ansd l?S9 1,363 Studies
--------------------------------------------------------------.---
f? R c
-----__-____________---------------------------------------------
Present Study

1. Low Caseload HTCs

Criminal case5 . . . . . . . . . . s52.6 15.3 247.7
Civil Ca5es . . . . . . . . .'. . 66.8 36.5 411.3

2. Medium Caseload RTCs

Criminal Cases . . . . . . . . . . 65.8 12.1 24=1b.3
Civil CasEs . . . . . . . . . . . .&a.6 24.2 404.3

3. High Caseload RTCs

Criminal Cases . . . . . . . . . . 82.1 14.4 372.8
CivilCases . . . . . . . . . . . 5'2
-3. 23.1 472.1
-----------________----------------------------------------------
1990 Study

Criminal Carjes with Prisoner . . . 17.7 11.4 64.6

Wiminal Cases without Prisoner. . 27.0 9013
Ordinary Civil CIctions . . . . . . 11.4 37.0 119.1
-----------c-----------------------------------------------------
1989 Study

Criminal Cases with Prisoner . . . 14.0 27.2 75.2

Criminal Cases without Prisoner. . 20.2 30.5 69.4,
Ordinary Civil Actions . . . . . . 22.2 40.5 69.5
-------------------------------------------------------~---------
A- Length of Trial
B- Length of Pre-Trial
C- Length of Time from filing to Decision
 c
. ’

. .I

Table 14. Rate Gf Case Disposal at Certain Stage5 of LitigatiGn

-------_________-_-----------------------------------------------
Tatal Sample D x % .F %
-___________________---------------------------------------------
Criminal Case5 1,780 690 38.8 90 5.1 175 9.8

Civil Cases 1,107 775 70.0 203 18.3 129 11.h

Total 2,887 1,4M 50.7 293 10.1 304 JO.5

----------__________---------------------------------------------
D - NLiRtb~r of Cases Disposed after Filing, and Arraignment
or, Joinder of Issues
E- Number Gf Cases Disposed Z)uring Fre-Trial
F- Number of Cases Disposed During Trial.

The CTS in general ha5 made its contribution in solving ilye

twin prablems Gf ct>urt delay and docket congestion. Its
achievement5 in this area huwever will be eroded if other

measures are not taken. Other interventions have to be adGpted

in conjunctiGn with the CTS to be able to keep the benefits that

the CTS has brought to the judicial proces. These intervention5

may be administrative, technical and behavioral.

Administratively, personnel benefits, budgetary and material

support must .be made 'available to the courts regularly in

sufficient amount to enable them to swiftly render their duties

and responsibilities.

Technically, the court system must contintiously protect its

independent decision making I to continuously uphold justice,

render justice equally, impartially and moral,ly. , In terms of

behavioral interventions, the court : . system should lend support to

the training and further training'of lawyers, fiscal!%, government

prosecutors, and judges to keep them abreast of recent court

decisions and innovations in the court system.

I’-
.

OUTFLOW AND CASELOAD

For the six-month period covering July to December 1930, the

37 sample csurts had a YDTAL OUTFLOW of 8,763 ca~e5~ or an

average of 39 &5es per month per court. That sume of the RTCS

have registered very high OUtflGlha Gf cacxzsi does not absGlutefy

mean that they performed better than the courts which have lisw

outf lcw a-f cases. Total dutfloti of cases consists 61 ca5es

decided on the merits, dismissed, amicably settled, transferred

and archived. There is a general view that archived and

transferred cases b athough they lessen the caseload, may not

truly indicate higher or better performance, since pre-trial or

trial proceedings may not have been actually conducted. Eranch

PO-QC for instance has archived 432 cases. branch 145~Makati

likewise archived 109 ca5e5. Eranch i&T-tialabon archived 5 1

cases and transferred 91 cases.

Removing the effect of the archived cases s the average

monthly outflow. for Branch 9Q-QC is lowered from 94 to 14.3

cases, whiie that of Branch 14%Makati is lowered from 77 to 59

cases. in Branch .1&Y-Malabon, its average monthly outflow is

lowered from 58 to 33.8 cases.

Removing the effect of archived cases, the average monthly

outflow becomes 34 cases per court.

While the aver&e monthly outflow ranged from 15 (lowest) to

94 (highest) cases, 20X of the sample courts (or 8 courts)

registered a monthly average outflow of 27.5 ca5es g which is

.... .;
c:. :.
still lower than the overall average c3f 39 ca5es. The

concentration of the average monthly ctutflow is in the range of

15 to 55 cases.

on whether additions to or subtractions from the caselcrad

are substantive or not F the rate of change i r-i outflow Was

determirted. There werE 24 RTCs which experienced a decreasing

rate of outflow of cas.es. That is, the number of cases disposed

every month has become less and less at the rate of 41.5%. On

the positive side, 12 RTC have performed better by disposing

cases at an average of 126.8%. (See Table 15).

Table 15. Rate of Increase/decrease in Outflow in 37 RTCs

------_-______--------------------------------------------
Hate in X Increase Decrease
----------------------------------------------------------
0.0 - 10.0 1 * 3
10.1 - 20.0 1 3
20.1 - 30.0 1 4
JO.1 - 40.0 2 2
40.1 - 50.0 -- 4
> 50.0 7 8
----------__----------------------------------------------
Total Number of RTCs 12 24
------_________-------------------------------------------
.
Average* 126.8X 41.5%
----------------------------------------------------------
Sum of rate of increase (or decrease)
-*Average = -------------------------------------
Total number of RTCs

The question may be asked whether the rate of outf fow of

ca5e5 is influenced by the level of caseload of individual

courts, i.e., a court with high caseload may also dispose cases

at a'relatively higher rate than a court with low caseload.

..,./ -,
t 1..
 The ratio af the average outflow per month to the average

caseload per month was computed. This shall be refErred to as

the rate of dispO5itiOn of ca5e5. In formula form, we have:

outflow per month

F:atf'Z Gf disposition of CASES. = -------------_-_--
caseload per month.

Table 16 shows the distribution of ths rate of disposition

by level of caseload (lok~, medium, high) using mon.thly averages.

Table 16. Rate of disposi,tion by level of caseload

--___________------_~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~-~~~~~~~-----------~~
Rate of Level of Caseload
Disposition Low Medium High
<%I l-283 290-35U )X50 -fcltal
---_-_______-------~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~-~-~~-~~~-----------~
1.0 - 5.0 0 u 3 3
5 . 1 - 1~~.Q 1 2 4 7
IQ.1 - 15.0 7 2 5 14
15.1 - 20.0 4 1 0 5
20.1 - 25.0 2 2 0 4
25.1 - 3u.u 2 1 2 5
---___________---------------------------------------------
Total Number of RTCs 15 8 14 37
--________-________----------------------------------------
Averaget 17.6 16.4 11.1 14.9
--______I______--------------------------------------------
Sum of rates of disposition per court
wlverage = -----------------------------------------
Total number of RTCi by level of caseload

The rate of disposition ranged from the lowest rate of 2.6%

to the highest rate of 29.7%. A rate of 2,6% means that less

than 3 cases are disposed for every 100 caseload. The average

rate of disposition is 14.9%.

One significant finding that could be discerned from Table

14 is that the low-caseload RTCs have a rate of disposition of

17.&% which is higher than the average rate of disposition of the

high caselciad cGUrts Gf 11.1%. filthGUgh in terms cjf the actual
number of cases removed fram the docket, the perfGrmance Gf high-

caseload RTCs did not differ much from that of the low-caseload
RTCs. Their monthly average GutflGw crf cases were 43 an& 35

case5, far high- and low-caseload RTCs y respectively. The

medium-caseload RTCs have a ccimparably high average mclrrthly r;i+a-_

of outflaw of 42 case5, and their average rate Gf dispGsitiGn is

16.4% per court. ,

Based Gf-I the foregoing, having high caseload may IiGt

neCeSsarily mean a high rate r3f case outflcrw.

The trend of the monthly caseload was determined to shed

light on the question of whether the monthly caselcrad of RTCs is
increasing lot- decreasing) as a result of the adoption of the
CTS.

Table 17. Rate of Increase/Decrease in Caseload

,----__________-------------------------------------------
Rate in % Increase Decrease Total
----_-________-------------------------------------------
0.0 - 10.0. 8 8. .16
10.1 - 20.0 2 7 9 _
' 20.1 - 30.0 2 '3 5
rflo.l'- 40.0 0 2 .2
40.1 - 50.0 0 3 3
> 50.0 1' 1 2
---------___-_-------------------------------------------
Tot&No. of RTCs 13 24 37
-------------------------------------------------------------
Average 24.2 m.7 21.3
---------_-----------------------------------------------

The trend of the caseioad level is encouraging. Twenty-four

1241 of the sample qTCs registered a decreasing caseload at an

average of 19.7%.
 On the other hand, 13 cut of the 37 sample RTCs had a level

of caseload that is increasing at a average rate of 24.2%.

Thus, from July to D’ecember -1990, the monthly volume of c&se1 oad

of 13 courts had been increasing with the December caseload being

higher than the July caseload.

The piecemeal trial has not been tcrtally igncjred in WCs i i-l

NCR. In fact 7 sample courts did not adopt it and maintained the

u5e of piecemeal trial. Only 1 RTC totally adopted continuous

trial.

Hased on an interview with some judges of the sample ETCs Y

it was noted that there is still a growing perception that CTS is

not the answer to the innumerable unresolved cases, although the

judges interviewed are aware of the advantages of CTS. They said

that switching from a system that they have long accustomed to to

a system that requires discipline and hard work may take a longer

whileto internalize.

The factors frequently cited, if properly managed, could

make the CTS effective:'

1. caseload eachof court

2. Lolume criminal
of versus ciVi1 cases
3. ’ system in the raffling of cases
4. avdilability of court personnel, legal counsel, and
' parties to the case
5. number of motions and petitions filed and allowed
6. compliance to court procedure
7. use of time
8. facilities, equipment and supply of office materials
9. discipline.

.<:.
.. ,::
._:
 The following pointers may help in the swift administratiGn

Gf cases in courts using CTS:

(Ncrte : This pcrrtion was written by Emil:, Caacbay. Reim!Y/E this

nGte in the Final RepGi-t).

1. FreparatiGn Gf monthly inventGry.Gf ca5e5 categcrizing each

CEISE into betided cln the merits; amicably- settled Gr cGff:promise

cqreema-it; tr-ansf erred; archived; dismissed; piT3ViSiGi-ldl ly

disposed; and pending.

2. Fun c tua 1 i ty and attendance. The early bird catches the

early worm and the judge who starts early finished mGre CEISES.

Often the punctual judge commands mGre authority from the lawyers
who give mGre priority to cases heard before strict judges fGr

fear that they may be fined of their cases dismissed.

7
3 l Discipline. It is in the. determined efforts of the judges
a5 well as the lawyers to keep courts maintain a h4 profile.

But it is the sale responsibility of the judge to impose the

strict 'observance of, .and com'pl iance with court rules and
procedures. '

4. Working drive. As observed in an ordinary court forum, a

number of court personnel do not show enthusiasm in their work.

A "couldn+t care attitude" is observed and has become a habit to

some. As a means of achieving efficient ctxw t administration,
incentives and merit awards may be given to deserving and
effici&nt court employees. .
 2’.

I-+

CONCLLJDINtS REMARKS

The major findings of this study are the following:

1. On the length of the trial period, the average length Gf

trial of criminal cases was 70.5 days; AZ.9 days i f-1 civil

ca5es.

2. The mandatory conduct of pre-trial has effectively led to

the early dissolution of CEISES and substantial ly reduced the

volume of cases going to the trial stage.

3. A large proportion of cases filed were disposed even before

>
the pre-trial stage, thus decongesting the courts at the

earliest possible time.

4. The rate of outflow, i.e,, the number of ca5es disposed

monthly, is almost of the same level in high and low

caseload courts.

5. With respect to the level qf caseload, majority (28’ out of

40 samjqle WCs) registered a decreasing level of caseload

monthly; The decrease goes at an average rate of 18.9%

.I
monthly. In the.other 19 sample RTCs, .the monthly rate of

increase in thei.r caseload is lower at 7.7%.

6. The decreasing rate of caseload and the increasing rate of

I
outflow augur well for the averall favorable performance of
I
the sample RTCs.

(Note for Gina: Attach here as Annexes’ the tklo tables on monthly
caseload and outflow. Remove this note in the final report.)