INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Supreme Court “en banc” Resolution A.M. No. 01-

10-5-SC-PHILJA, dated October 16, 2001, and in line with the
objectives of the Action Program for Judicial Reforms (APJR) to
decongest court dockets, among others, the Court prescribed
guidelines in institutionalizing and implementing the mediation
program in the Philippines. The same resolution designated the
Philippine Judicial Academy as the component unit of the Supreme
Court for Court-Annexed Mediation and other Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms, and established the Philippine
Mediation Center (PMC).
Pending the formal creation of a more organized and structured
Philippine Mediation Center, a Mediation Division at the Judicial
Reforms Office of the Philippine Judicial Academy-Supreme Court, was
established to oversee and manage Mediation Center Units all over the
country.
Mediation is a process of settling disputes with the assistance of
an acceptable, impartial and neutral third party called a mediator. The
mediator helps parties identify issues and develop proposals to resolve
their disputes. Once the parties have arrived at a mutually acceptable
arrangement, the agreement becomes the basis for the court’s decision
on the case. This form of mediation is also known as court-annexed
mediation since the case has already been filed in court.

BODY:
Mediation in the Philippines as an alternative mode of dispute
resolution (ADR) is available through various forums. This is due to the
fact that the absence then of a general law that would govern ADR
such that several laws on various subjects, but would invariably include
mediation as a part were in effect. With the issuance in 2004 of the
general law, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (Republic
Act No. 9285), a general legislative framework is now available for the
promotion of Mediation as an ADR. Despite this, however, it is seen
that the existing avenues for mediation shall continue to subsist but
that there is room for more forum for ADR.
Mediation is one of the alternative dispute resolution processes
that pave the way in terms of resolving disputes by appointing a
neutral third party mediator to facilitate communication between the
parties, with a view to agreeing a settlement. It is efficient in such a
way that it is more speedily done and the parties do not necessarily
have to hire a lawyer for it. Although at the time of my observation,
there were some instances in which some parties have the presence
of their lawyer.
In Court-Annexed Mediation, the parties to a pending case are
directed by the court to submit their dispute to a neutral third party,
which is the mediator, who works with them to try and make solutions
to settle their controversy. The mediator acts as a facilitator for the
parties to try to arrive at a settlement, which will be the basis of the
court to render a judgment concerning the dispute.
With the resolution made by the Supreme Court through the
Philippine Judicial Academy, a brief history was discussed which
highlighted the creation of the Philippine Mediation Center and the
implementation of the guidelines in mediation processes and its
procedures. This shows how the Supreme Court fully supports and
encourages the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems instead
of going for a full blown litigious trial.
Report dated April 24, 2017 by a well-known newspaper
recognize the success of Supreme Courts’s mediation program as
highly successful which has achieved a remarkable success rate of 62
percent, one of the highest in Asia This shows that the Court-Annexed
Mediation really provides a substantial contribution for the speedy
disposition and resolution of cases or disputes and the decloging of
court dockets. This success rate can still be improved if lawyers could
encourage and promote this Alternative Dispute Resolution to their
clients instead of encouraging full litigious trial instead, which is
honestly the sad reality because some lawyers would tend to favor or
prefer a full blown litigious trial instead of a mediation in order for them
to collect their attorney’s fees as it is a source of their income.
CONCLUSION:
The future of Court-Annexed Mediation cannot be predicted with
a degree of certainty since the effectiveness of this Court-Annexed
Mediation depends on how it is being used and implemented. Since
lawyers are trained in an adversarial nature, it contradicts the use and
purpose of Court-Annexed Mediation as the Alternative Dispute
Resolution, which affects the success rate of the settlement of disputes
through this process. Maybe someday if lawyers would soon gain some
benefits which are more or less equal to what they receive in the
conduct of trial, they would really encourage and promote the use of
Court-Annexed Mediation as a form of settling disputes because we
also have to understand the position of some of these lawyers who
refuse to use this process for their clients since they depend on the
conduct of trial as their source of livelihood.

REFFERENCES:
 Republic Act No. 9285 (April 2, 2004) An Act To Institutionalize
The Use Of An Alternative Dispute Resolution System In The
Philippines And To Establish The Office For Alternative Dispute
Resolution, And For Other Purposes
 A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA
 ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 20-2002
 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ website of the Suprem Court
 https://opinion.inquirer.net
 http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/