TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE JDR GUIDE

Operations Manual For Judicial Dispute Resoluton (JDR) in the First And Second Level Courts of the Philippine Judicial System (Feb. 10, 2006 ver.)

Foreword
I. JDR Flow Charts A. Flow Chart for Civil Cases undergoing JDR B. Flow Chart for Criminal Cases undergoing JDR C. Flow Chart for Commercial Courts Cases undergoing JDR II. Scope of Mediatable Cases for JDR III. The JDR Process

i 1

5 7

A. Preparing for JDR Case management during Court Annexed Mediation Receiving the Case for JDR B. Opening Statement C. JDR Proper D. Settlement of Cases through JDR E. Non-settlement of Cases through JDR IV. Techniques for a Successful JDR V. Situations, Strategies and Options VI. Ethics VII. Social Context Issues VIII. Data Gathering and Performance Management Appendix Annex A: Sample Opening Statement 26 14 17 22 23 24

Annex B: Circulars 29 A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC Guidelines for the implementation of an enhanced pre-trial proceeding through conciliation and neutral evaluation Proposed Circular amending A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC for the implementation of an enhanced pre-trial proceeding under the Justice Reform Initiatives Support (JURIS) Project

JDR GUIDE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Annex C:

Sample Forms

38

PMC Form 1-A Order to Referral to PMC with Disclosure Form Form No. 1- Disclosure Form on cases related to or connected with the case under JDR Form No. 2 Notice to Parties for JDR Conference Form No. 3 - Order of Referral to PMC for Court Annexed Mediation with Predetermined Date for JDR Conference Form No. 4- Brief on CAM and JDR for Lawyers Form No. 5- Waiver on the Right to Re-assignment of Case for Purposes of Trial

JDR GUIDE

FOREWORD

FOREWORD Background on JDR. The Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) feature of the ADR Model Courts under the JURIS Project represents a major innovation in Philippine court procedure that is currently being pilot tested in five court sites in the country (San Fernando Pampanga, Bacolod City, San Fernando La Union, Cagayan de Oro and Baguio City). By introducing JDR into the Philippine court system, it is hoped that mediation and conciliation at the level of the judge would contribute significantly to the resolution of mediatable cases, thereby increasing the satisfaction of litigants in the court process and also helping to decongest the dockets of the judiciary. Objectives. This JDR Guide has been formulated to increase the understanding of the judges in the model court sites on the process of JDR, the best practices that could be adopted and also as an educational tool for judges involved in both court annexed mediation (CAM) and JDR. How to Use this Guide. This JDR Guide is intended as a handy reference, a personal aid for the use of all judges involved in JDR. It has been divided into tabbed sections that reflect the concerns of judges. It presents the general guidelines that judges may follow for the entire JDR process as well as various issues and concerns that impinge on that process. For easy reading, the texts for Parts II, III, and IV have been written using key words, phrases, and short paragraphs and sentences. While this Guide prescribes the fixed sequential steps for JDR, the judge is allowed some flexibility during the JDR process to apply his/her own personal style and approaches that he/she deems best under certain conditions, provided these are not in conflict with the principles of JDR. Where appropriate, the legal basis for the JDR process and roles of the JDR judge have been cross-referenced with footnotes. The relevant issuances and documents have been reproduced in the appendix for reference. Where some aspects of the Guide are still proposals awaiting Supreme Court approval, such has been indicated. A Note on Reflective Practice. Considering that JDR is being pilot-tested, there is a need for judges involved to continually reflect on what has been done and what is being practiced in order to refine JDR and make adjustments for increased effectiveness. To facilitate this, some writing space has been allotted on the right side of the page where the judge may write his/her insights, observations and suggestions for a better application of JDR.

JDR GUIDE

SCOPE OF MEDIATABLE CASES

II. SCOPE OF MEDIATABLE CASE FOR JDR A. Mediatable Cases Under AM No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA 1. All civil cases, settlement of estates, and cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, except those which by law may not be compromised; 2. Cases cognizable by the Lupong Katarungang Pambarangay Law; 3. The civil aspect of B.P. 22 cases; 4. The civil aspect of quasi-offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Under the revised Rule 141 on legal fees which took effect August 16, 2004 5. The civil aspect of estafa and libel Under the proposed circular amending A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC 6. Theft of small property considered as shoplifting B. Cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ejectment and unlawful detainer/ forcible entry; Money claims where the amount involved is not more than Php 100,000.00; Criminal cases like violation of traffic law, rules and regulations; Violation of municipal or city ordinance; and, Other criminal offenses where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged does not exceed one (1) year imprisonment or a fine not exceeding Php 5,000.00 or both fine and imprisonment. Tagapamayapa under the

N.B: Items (3) and (4) although included in the list of cases under summary procedure, should not be mediated for the following reasons: i. There are criminal offense which cannot be compromised; and ii. It might be a source of corruption if mediation pushes through.

JDR GUIDE

SCOPE OF MEDIATABLE CASES

C. Cases cognizable by the Lupong Katarungang Pambarangay Law;

Tagapamayapa

under

the

The Lupon of each Barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes. EXCEPTIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Where one (1) party is the government or agency or instrumentality thereof; Where one (1) party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of this official function; Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding five (5) thousand pesos (Php 5,000.00) or both; Offenses where there is no private offended party; Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangays adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; and, Such other cases or disputes that the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice

6.

7.

D. Quasi Offenses Examples of quasi offenses: 1. Cases covered are acts committed by reckless or simple imprudence or negligence resulting for example in slight, less serious or serious physical injuries; Imprudence resulting in damage to property; and, Reckless or simple imprudence with violation of the motor vehicle law.

2. 3.

JDR GUIDE

THE PROCESS OF JDR

III. THE PROCESS OF JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION (JDR)

START The actual JDR process starts from the time the Branch Clerk of Court receives the Mediators Report of a Not Settled mediation. END The end of the JDR process consists of the disposition of the case after the JDR, either in a judgment approved by the court through compromise agreement, or the referral of the case to the Office of the Clerk of Court, for raffle to the trial judge, for purposes of pre-trial proper and trial.

A. Preparing for JDR 1. Case management during CAM 1.1. Cases that are well managed during court annexed mediation would result in fewer cases going to JDR. ORIENTATION The judge should orient the parties on the function of court annexed mediation and JDR prior to referral to the PMC, especially in cases where the lawyers or the parties seem not to be aware of the referral procedure. CHECKLIST prior to referral of the case to CAM pre-trial briefs submitted by parties? Mediation fees paid? Other cases related to the case at bar in other courts, which may affect the mediation/ JDR process?

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

DISCLOSURE OF OTHER CASES The judge may utilize the sample PMC Form 1-A which serves several purposes: Refers the case to the PMC for mediation Requires the parties to disclose other cases which are pending and which are related to, or will materially affect, the ongoing mediation. (See Sample Form PMC Form 1-A) BRIEF ON CAM AND JDR The judge may also make available a brief on CAM/JDR for the information of lawyers seemingly unaware of the process. (See Sample Form No. 4)

1.5.

JDR GUIDE

THE PROCESS OF JDR

1.6.

SUGGESTION: Judge may also schedule the JDR at some future date (e.g., 65 days after the first appearance at the PMC, in order to secure their presence and eliminate the need for notice for JDR conference. ROLE OF THE JUDGE DURING CAM:

1.7.

exercise supervision over the case by ensuring that the mediation is terminated not later than 60 days from the referral date. act on motions or requests for extension of the time to mediate from 30 to 60 days; impose the necessary sanctions if warranted upon the recommendation of the mediators, for parties who are absent during mediation proceedings. Sanctions allowed under Rule 18 consist of a) dismissing the suit for appear; or b) allowing the plaintiff to parte if the defendant fails to conferences. 2. Receiving the Case for JDR 2.1. RETURN OF THE CASE. The PMC returns the case unsettled to the judge, and the Branch Clerk of Court informs the judge and schedules it for JDR. 2.2. NOTICE to parties should be given (if one has not be given during the referral to CAM) for the JDR conference (see Sample Form No.2) 2.3. PREPARING FOR JDR Review files, pre-trial briefs and prepare questions (may use conflict map worksheet showing sides of parties on issues, their interests, the options, and objective criteria). of the Rules of Court failure of the plaintiff to present his evidence ex appear in mediation

B. STARTING THE JDR CONFERENCE 1. Before Start of JDR Wear regular civilian clothes, not judges robe;

JDR GUIDE

THE PROCESS OF JDR

Choose venue where confidentiality may be preserved not open to the public (chamber or courtroom; ideal is a settlement conference room); Sit at lawyers table if in the courtroom; Seat parties next to you (make parties and lawyers comfortable with friendly/relaxing atmosphere).

2. Opening Statement The opening statement has the following purposes or objectives: a) Informing the parties on what the JDR process is all about, what is the role of the judge and the parties (and their counsels) and how long it would take; b) Provide an opportunity for the parties to ask questions on things that may be unclear on the process; c) Eventually, put the minds and heart of the parties at ease in order that the JDR process could be more productive and meaningful

The opening statement may contain these points: Introduce himself/ herself, welcomes them to the court and brief parties on JDR especially on confidentiality and time frame (60 days for RTC, 30 0days for MTCC); Explain role of judge as a mediator, conciliator, neutral evaluator; Emphasize the role of the parties in seeking the solutions for their dispute; and the assisting role of the lawyers in such a search; Explain JDR process and parts they need to know in advance like caucusing, if caucusing will be used; Explain advantages of JDR and disadvantages of a full-blown trial (i.e. different trial judge); Stress that compromise agreement is final and executory; Inform that parties may settle on their own and court may approve; Explain role of parties and authority of parties to make decisions (spokesperson needed if litigants are many);

JDR GUIDE

THE PROCESS OF JDR

Ask parties if they have any questions.

(Please refer to the sample opening statement found in the annex)

NOTES ON OPENING STATEMENT

JDR GUIDE

10

THE PROCESS OF JDR

NOTES ON OPENING STATEMENT

JDR GUIDE

11

THE PROCESS OF JDR

C. JDR Proper 1. Judge acts as the mediator, conciliator and neutral evaluator as the conditions may warrant, in order to effect a settlement of the case. 2. Taking of notes is strictly limited for the personal consumption of the judge and should not form part of the records of the case, to preserve confidentiality. 3. Be reminded of the timelines: 60 days for the second level courts and 30 days for the first level courts. 4. OPTION WITH LAWYERS. If the judge feels that the lawyers are not fully convinced about the settlement process but there is a great chance of settlement, s/he may want to talk to the parties first without their lawyers. 5. SUGGESTED PROCESS: Opening Statement The plaintiff (preferably, and in his own words) would tell their side of the story. The defendant (preferably, and in his own words) would tell their side of the story Based on their stories, the judge would try to summarize the main issues in contention, and try to probe the various interests of the parties at play. The judge could facilitate the creation of options that would provide solutions to the dispute, or even actively propose solutions or options. Talking to each party separately (caucus) may be employed if the parties seem to be reaching an impasse.

D. SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE THROUGH JDR 1. Parties immediately comply with the agreement This usually happens if the dispute involves a money claim and the defendant opts to pay the sum in full at once. In this event, the parties through their counsel may choose to submit a manifestation on the satisfaction of claims and the mutual withdrawal of the complaint and counterclaim. The judge could then dismiss the case based on this fact.

JDR GUIDE

12

THE PROCESS OF JDR

2. Parties agree to settle and comply in the future If the settlement is for compliance at some future date, then a compromise agreement is secured. The following steps may be followed: a. Drafting of a compromise agreement by the parties, with the assistance of their lawyers; b. Prior to the signing, the judge may opt to explain the contents to the parties and make sure that they understand what they are signing, to obviate repudiation at some future date; c. Signing of the compromise agreement and the filing of a joint motion to approved the compromise; d. Judge approves the compromise agreement and renders a judgment based on compromise. e. Copy of the judgment based on compromise is sent to the PMC for statistical purposes.

E.

NO SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE AFTER JDR

1. Judge issues an order returning the case back to the Office of the Clerk of Court for raffling; 2. OCC raffles the case to another judge who will conduct the pretrial proper and trial, until the case is decided. 3. COPY TO PMC. A copy of the order referring the case to the OCC for raffle should be furnished the PMC for statistical purposes.

JDR GUIDE

13

TECHNIQUES FOR A SUCCESFUL JDR

IV. TECHNIQUES FOR A SUCCESSFUL JDR 1

COMMUNICATION Presentations by the parties: Each party makes a brief presentation of the events. This presentation is made without questions, examination/cross-examination or interruptions. It is essential for this presentation to be made by the parties and not the lawyers. The judge may, as a result, identify the priorities, interests and values of the parties through their presentations, as well as possible solutions. A presentation by the lawyers would be more legal and informal and tend toward argument rather than finding solutions. A party who is truly unable to express him/herself may be represented by his/her lawyer. But generally, if you reassure the individual, he/she will be able to proceed with his/her presentation. The presentations are generally brief, lasting 15-20 minutes each. This is an opportunity for the judge to identify the perceptions of each party as well as their interests, needs and values, by actively listening to each presentation. The judge may, at this time, note the elements to be discussed and identify the priorities of the parties in order to structure the subsequent discussions. Either party may go first. It is generally more logical to start with the party that initiated the legal proceedings, but there is nothing to stop you from starting with the other party. It is interesting to ask them to decide among themselves who will go first. Explanations: The judge attempts to have the parties explain why such an event or occurred or they reacted in such a way. The more information you have, the more solutions you will be able to identify. Determining the problems to be resolved: It is at this time, before you undertake the actual negotiations, that you must work with the parties to identify the common problem(s) to be resolved. Writing them down on a board or a flip chart helps depolarize the debate. Developing options: Before starting to negotiate the solutions, you must draw up a list of all the options available. During these brainstorming

Taken from AMICABLE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ( Primer prepared by the Superior Court of Montreal, Province of Quebec)

JDR GUIDE

14

TECHNIQUES FOR A SUCCESFUL JDR

sessions, it is often interesting to make a list of all of the options, even the wildest ones, without immediately starting the discussion. Other options, sometimes the best, often result from combining the wild and the traditional options. The parties and the lawyers will help the judge. Sometimes, the entire range of options available must be covered and then those that are unacceptable for one party or another can be eliminated. Use flip chart boards and other techniques to clearly identify the options.

NEGOTIATIONS Discussions of the options: This stage involves analyzing each option, eliminating it or retaining it, and coming up with new options based on those that have been discussed. It is easier to work with the entire group at this stage, in order to come up with as many options as possible. Once the true issues that are of concern to the parties and divide them have been discussed, it is easier to find the options that will satisfy both parties. Neither law nor jurisprudence: At this point, the lawyers frequently tend to cite law or authorities. An effort must be made to stick to the solutions of the facts, the practical solutions proposed. This is not a trial, before a court, which will settle a legal issue. Legal discussions must be avoided. The caucus: Holding a caucus meeting may be more beneficial than a full meeting if it is a matter of agreeing to a sum of money to settle the dispute. As usual, the party making the offer offers too little and the party receiving the money demands too much. In a caucus, the defenses fall. Return to the meeting of the entire group as quickly as possible. Flexibility and creativity: The cooperation of lawyers who clearly understand their role serves to develop new options, which are both more creative and more acceptable. It should be noted that the legal and extra-legal fees involved in a trial, the cost of experts and the interest and additional compensation granted by a judgment could make the difference between a failure and a settlement. Breaks taken during the JDR session are a good time to encourage discussion between the parties and their lawyers. Moreover, if the discussion goes well, the break may be extended. This is often a good

JDR GUIDE

15

TECHNIQUES FOR A SUCCESFUL JDR

opportunity to remind the parties about their commitment to find solutions that are focused on the future rather than returning to the past problems.

AGREEMENT Complete agreement: Make sure that all of the details have been settled. In the case of a sum of money, does it include interest, fees, when is it payable, in what form, what happens in the event that it is not paid, etc. Apology. In the case of an apology, have it written and approved immediately; indicate the date time and frequency of publication, etc. Clear agreement: Before asking the lawyers to draw up the agreement, gather all of the parties and their lawyers in a meeting of the full group and repeat each of the elements of the agreement, out loud, to make sure that all of the elements are clear. Written agreement: Ask the lawyers to draft the agreement immediately. In this way, everyone will be familiar with and approve the agreement, ambiguities will be eliminated or explained and the agreement can be signed. The judge may return to his/her office while the agreement is being drafted in the case of a long or complex text. Signed agreement: Once the agreement has been drafted, read it out loud, make sure that there are no ambiguities, that everyone understands it and that they still agree to it, answer questions and have the parties and their lawyers sign it. The judge does not sign the agreement because he/she is not a party to it. He/she simply acts as a judge/conciliator. The judge may be tempted, at the end of a long day of negotiations, to let the lawyers draw up the out-of-court settlement at a later date. It is preferable to have the agreement drawn up the same day, even if it has to be reworked. Everything will be fresh in the minds of the parties and the terms have just been negotiated, which make it all the easier to draft the agreement. Even if the parties want to think about the agreement overnight before signing it, it is preferable to write it up the same day, and have it signed later.

JDR GUIDE

16

SITUATIONS, STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS

When is neutral evaluation employed? Neutral evaluation is employed as a last resort when the parties could not reach a settlement and when there is a likelihood that the parties would change their minds if neutral evaluation is resorted to. It is an effective tool in making parties consider the option of settlement rather than pursuing the case in court.

V. SITUATIONS, STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS

A. Problems with SPAs, specially juridical persons Individuals Discourage the use by individuals of an SPA, so that they could come personally and participate in the settlement of the case. An exception would be persons of frail health, old age or similar conditions. Corporations A board resolution is necessary to determine the extent of the authority of the representative. Before the JDR, double check the authority of the representative and impress upon him/her that the court will require him to make certain decisions under his authority, and will not tolerate delays, such as asking the President or the Board again their go-signal for settlement proposals or that s/he is only authorized to compromise up to a certain amount. Advice the representatives of the possible sanctions arising from misrepresentations in the SPA. Client cannot be reached Judicial discretion should be exercised. Options are: Extend the period to allow more time to secure the SPA; Allow the transmission of a fax letter of authority from the client to the court room on the condition that the formal SPA should follow within a certain timeframe; Contact parties through phone, speakerphone or teleconferencing. Lawyers wants to go back to his client for consultation despite the SPA Ask the lawyer to explain himself Threaten the lawyer with contempt of court for having misrepresented himself to the judge as being fully authorized Make sure that the SPA is amended to include full authority, without any limit or ceiling

JDR GUIDE

17

SITUATIONS, STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS

B. Issues on Confidentiality Confidentiality during the proceedings The judge conducts the JDR usually alone, and takes notes for his personal consumption. To protect himself in contentious cases, the judge may allow a court staff to be present, who is also bound by confidentiality. Disposal of the judges notes- The judges notes shall not form part of the records of the case. However, if and when agreement is reached, the judge may ask the parties to sign his notes, if the compromise agreement for some reason could not be signed and sealed immediately. These notes could then be the basis for the more formal compromise agreement. Confidentiality during neutral evaluation It is suggested that neutral evaluation be done in caucus, so that the other party may not be influenced by the non-binding evaluation of the judge. Presence of Third parties during the JDR As much as possible, third parties or even relatives should be excluded from the JDR, because it would be quite difficult to bind them to the confidentiality principle.

C. Managing the JDR Process One party or both parties wants to go straight to JDR (during the initial hearing for referral to CAM) Only if both parties agree Allow when there are extraordinary circumstances. Judicial discretion because time is of the essence.

Difficult Parties and Physical violence/ Highly charged emotional situation Options: Cite for contempt. Ask for sheriffs presence. Bring parties back to agreements/ground rules. Manage physical space (between parties, between judge and parties).

JDR GUIDE

18

SITUATIONS, STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS

Ask parties to talk through judge/moderator. Ask for recess to defuse the situation.

During the JDR, parties agree to settle at a certain time but deadline not met (e.g., parties need more time to undertake accounting procedures) Allow extension, if reasonable. Threaten the parties to declare a non-settlement and send the case for raffling and trial

One party is very old or disabled and cannot go to court The disabled party may execute an SPA in favor of his counsel or relative Go to the partys residence (at judges personal cost). Hold sessions at disabled-friendly locations.

Refusal of parties to actively participate in JDR Draw out reasons of parties for not actively participating If lawyers are stubborn, talk to clients. If clients are stubborn, a caucus may be useful in drawing out their reasons for refusal to participate

A self-represented party has mental health problems/issues (e.g. obvious physical signs, off-tangent responses) Adjourn and ask party to come back with a family member. Appoint counsel de officio/guardian. Tap IBP legal aid. Summon director of health, city/provincial health officer (Rule 101) through prosecutor, to initiate proceedings for the hospitalization of insane persons (in extreme cases only)

What to do with pending incidents prior to JDR Often, the judge is faced with pending incidents prior to pre-trial. The most common pending incidents would be requests for temporary restraining
JDR GUIDE

19

SITUATIONS, STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS

orders, habeas corpus, application for support pendente lite, motions to dismiss and the like. The general rule is that the parties should come to JDR with all the preliminary issues already resolved. If there are issues of jurisdiction, then these should be resolved first. Bringing in technical experts to assist the judge during JDR As a general rule, the judge controls the procedure for the disposition of the case, and if an expert (such as accountants, geodetic surveyors, appraisers, doctors) could assist in the JDR, and the parties agree, then the decision is left to the sound discretion of the judge. Fees of the technical experts may be split even among the parties.

How to handle information obtained in a caucus which is critical for the resolution of the dispute Confidentiality rule may become an issue. Suggestion: ask party to disclose the information to the other party depending on how critical the information is; if party refuses, then ask party why he/she does not want to disclose to the other party. If the party wants to share this information only to the judge and not to the other party, then this has to be respected and JDR proceeds on this basis.

Role of lawyers of parties Lawyers should generally assist the judge by explaining to their clients the role of JDR and efforts at settlement Give lawyers some homework after every JDR session such as preparation of pertinent documents and preparing drafts of terms of settlement to be presented at the start of the next JDR conference. Remind them of A.M. No. 04-3-05-SC on the Guidelines for Parties Counsel in Court-Annexed Mediation Cases dated 9 March 2004.

Referral of cases to JDR during mid-trial Under the proposed guidelines, cases undergoing trial may be referred to JDR only upon joint motion of the parties. In this case, the trial judge will act as the JDR judge. Strictly speaking, this can no longer be called JDR and the judge cannot exercise his discretion for an early neutral

JDR GUIDE

20

SITUATIONS, STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS

evaluation, lest s/he be considered as biased or having pre-judged the case. JDR judge as the trial judge also The JDR judge may continue to try the case after failed JDR, as long as the parties execute the proper waiver. Please see Form No. 5 [Waiver on the Right to Re-assignment of Case for Purposes of Trial].

D. Sanctions Considering that JDR is still part of pre-trial, the sanctions allowed under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court are as follows: Sec. 5 Rule 18: Effect of failure to appear- The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for the dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof. Sanctions allowed under AM No. 04-1-12-SC (Enhanced Pre-Trail Proceeding through Conciliation and Early Neutral Evaluation) dated January 20, 2004 are as follows: In addition, the pre-trail judge may require the non-appearing party to reimburse not exceeding treble the costs incurred by the appearing party including attorneys fees for that day. A party who appears without the required authorization may similarly be sanctioned.

E.

Repudiation of agreements

If the agreement has not yet been approved by the judge, require the party who intends to repudiate to file a motion and to prove the fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect that has occurred in the process of securing the agreement If the agreement has already been approved by the judge, then the agreement is already final and executory, and one option for the party is to file a petition for relief from judgment based on Rule 38, within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment and within six months from the time the judgment was entered.

JDR GUIDE

21

ETHICS

TIPS TO AVOID REPUDIATION Judge should not be perceived to be railroading or forcing the issue Allow the parties to choose the format and language that best expresses their desire to settle. Ensure that all the aspects of the agreement conform with law, public policy, morals and good customs. Make sure all parties and counsels understood and agree with the agreement by reading it aloud and asking if there are any questions.

VI.

ETHICS Some ethical Issues/considerations which should be dealt with carefully: A. Illegal means employed by parties brought out during JDR and will have implications on the confidentiality rule (e.g., disclosure that a certain document has been procured through forgery) Should the judge just continue with JDR and let executive agencies concerned deal with it?

B. Unenforceable issues involving illegal activities. (e.g., a land survey has been purposely made to grab a portion of land not previously owned by one party) May go ahead with mediation rather than let violence erupt between parties.

C. Disclosure of information gathered in caucus with legal and moral dimensions to the other party. Should there be full disclosure? Under what circumstances? What should be the conditions for disclosure?

JDR GUIDE

22

SOCIAL CONTEXT ISSUES

D. Family issues, including euthanasia (where the members of the family are considering pulling the plug of the respirator of a dying family member, just so to facilitate some property transactions) E. Conflict of interest based on relationship. Should judge inhibit himself/herself from cases involving friends? Should the judge just disclose the relationship to all parties concerned?

F. Acceptance of gifts. Gifts are covered by the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. (Note: There may be a need for the mediators to be covered since they are not government employees but are officers of the court.)

G. Violation of confidentiality rule. JDR judge should not share information or subtly influence the trial judge. Friends/relatives of parties who are asked by parties to be present, especially in family cases, are covered by this rule. Impose sanction/s for violation of this rule.

VI. SOCIAL CONTEXT ISSUES A. Ethnic/Cultural Concerns Maintain sensitivity to local customs. Be sensitive to the traditional or indigenous modes of dispute resolution (tribal council, elders) and indigenous concepts of justice, fairness and equity and see if they could be reconciled with the formal legal system

B. Gender Sensitivity in the use of words. Not only discrimination against but over-sympathy for female parties.

C. Religion Sensitivity to and respect for religious beliefs and practices.

JDR GUIDE

23

DATA GATHERING AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

D. Social/Economic/Family Explore the other issues/deep-rooted problems that have a bearing on the case.

E. Power Deal with power imbalance rich and poor, e.g. more time for poor tenants to move out and look for another dwelling in ejectment cases. During JDR exclude the lawyers who are media magnets. Judge should always be in control of his/her court. Impose sanctions for aggressive parties.

F. Language When parties insist on using their respective languages judge may become the interpreter. If judge does not speak the language that has to be interpreted, ask the capable court staff to interpret. Judge can use the local language while the lawyers may still use English.

VIII. DATA GATHERING AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT A. Statistical Reporting - The Philippine Mediation Center shall be responsible for collating the information on settled and not settled JDR cases. What is indispensable is that the courts should regularly provide copies of the following documents to the PMC: Copy of the judgment based on compromise to record settled cases for JDR Copy of Order referring the case to OCC for raffling/ trial to record not settled cases for JDR.

B. Performance Management Guidelines on the crediting of settled cases: Cases settled by the JDR judge shall be counted as decided cases in his monthly report Cases settled by the pair of the commercial court judge shall be counted as decided cases in the monthly report of the pair judge. Cases settled by the family court judge through JDR shall be counted as decided cases in the monthly report of such judge.

JDR GUIDE

24

DATA GATHERING AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Improving the skills of judges in JDR Judges may want to share learnings and strategies in settling cases by including JDR as a fixed item in the agenda for regular meetings. Judges at the MTCC may want to sit in the JDR of RTC judges and vice versa if only to observe and learn skills from their fellow judges.

HELP DESK AT PHILJA FOR JDR

For queries and requests for assistance on Judicial Dispute Resolution, write or call the following :

Judicial Dispute Resolution Focal Person Philippine Judicial Academy, Centennial Building, Padre Faura Manila Phone No. 632-552-9525

JDR GUIDE

25

APPENDIX

SAMPLE OPENING STATEMENT

APPENDIX TO THE JDR GUIDE ANNEX A

SAMPLE OPENING STATEMENT
Good _____________! Atty. __________________________ Atty. _________________________ and the parties, ________________________________ ___________________________________. and

I am Judge_____________________________________, the Presiding Judge of the Court. Since we are in the second stage of the resolution of this case, which is called the Judicial Dispute Resolution, I will not be acting as a judge but as a mediator or a person who will manage your negotiations/discussions in order to effect the settlement of this case without going into full trial. (Note: If the parties are present). Considering that the parties are here, they will voice out what they really want to achieve in this proceeding. (If only the representatives). Please submit to me the document which authorizes you to appear for and in behalf of your client although since this is JDR it would be preferable if the parties will personally appear and talk with the other party. May I request that you keep in open mind and heart and be willing to give this stage of this proceeding, Judicial Dispute Resolution, a try and make a concerted effort to resolve your differences. It will be to your advantage if this case will be settled at this stage rather than go into full trial. Firstly, there is no guarantee you may win after a full blown trial. Here at JDR, we will try to address your claims, if not to your satisfaction, at least partially so that is really a win-win situation. Secondly, the time frame for resolving this matter in this proceeding will be 60 days from today. In an extraordinary circumstance it will be extended to another 30 days. Time, money and effort spent will be minimized for both parties. Lastly, this process is non confrontational with the end to view that the parties will end up a s friends or at least be civil with each other, unlike full blown trial where personal relationships are not taken into consideration. But first, we will lay down the rules of this proceeding. This is a confidential and private proceeding. Nothing that you say here will be repeated in the event that this case will be tried on the merits.

JDR GUIDE

26

APPENDIX

SAMPLE OPENING STATEMENT

Although you see me writing notes in the pad paper, it is for my own consumption. This will be destroyed after this proceedings and it will not be part of the record of the case. In the event that this case will be brought to trial, I will no longer be the one who will try this because my role is only up to the Judicial Dispute Resolution. There will be another judge who will preside the pre-trial conference and the trial proper. However, if you want me to continue to be the judge to handle the pre-trial and trial, that can be done but you have to sign a waiver. The success of this mediation or resolution depends upon your willingness to disclose fully and voluntarily your concerns and what you would want the other party to do or perform as well as what you will do or perform. As we go to this proceeding, we will observe the following rules: 1. Each party will have a chance to relate events which led to the filing of this case without any interruption from the other party; 2. English or local dialect may be used; 3. The party who speaks will have to present the facts of his claim and what he wants out of this case. All pertinent information has to be disclosed to enhance your opportunity for a most effective negotiation; 4. Questions after the statement of any party is to be directed the other party in a respectful manner. The idea is for you to negotiate with one another; 5. We will not limit ourselves to legal remedies but explore other remedies as long as both parties will agree; 6. In case the lawyer will speak for the party, he or she will interpret or speak without using legal or technical word, but it would be better if the parties will speak for themselves; 7. After the statement of the parties, I will summarize your concerns and will ask questions for the enlightenment of the other party; 8. Breaks are allowed, so are caucuses. This means that you and your lawyer are allowed to have a private talk, for five minutes maximum. I may participate in your caucus, if you would allow it, but information gained from such meeting will remain confidential unless you will give me permission to relay it to the other party.

JDR GUIDE

27

APPENDIX

SAMPLE OPENING STATEMENT

At this point in time, I would like to ask you if you have questions regarding our rules. If there are no other questions, we will now start the main proceeding. We will allow the plaintiff to state her case and what she wants to be settled. I will give you about five (5) minutes. Thereafter, we will also hear the side of the defendant and I will also give you five (5) minutes. After the Statement of Facts: Now that you have related the events, I will now list the facts which you have to agreed upon: __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________

Now, lets go to the facts and claims which you do not agree on:

__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Okay, we have stated what was in the past. Its time to look to the future and find solutions to your respective claims. (Note: limit the negotiation to facts and claims not agreed upon) For the plaintiffs, what are the claims of the defendants which you can accede to or can grant? For the defendants, what are the claims of the plaintiffs which you can accede to or can grant?

JDR GUIDE

28

APPENDIX

A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC

ANNEX B Circulars
A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila

Gentlemen: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated 20 January 2004 A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC.- Re: Proposed Guidelines for the Implementation of An Enhanced Pre-Trial Proceeding Through Conciliation and Neutral Evaluation. The Court Resolved to (a) NOTE the Letter dated 19 January 2004 of Chancellor Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera, Philippine Judicial Academy, (b) APPROVE the Proposed Guidelines for the Implementation of an Enhanced Pre-Trial Proceeding thru Conciliation and Neutral Evaluation, as amended, to wit:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT MANILA TO: THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OF PAMPANGA IN SAN FERNANDO AND OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL IN BACOLOD, AND THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN THE CITIES OF SAN FERNANDO AND BACOLOD SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ENHANCED PRETRIAL PROCEEDING THROUGH CONCILIATION AND NEUTRAL EVALUATION I. Background

The Justice Reform Initiatives Support Project (JURIS) is a five-year bilateral project funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which seeks to support the implementation by the Supreme Court of the Philippines Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR). The goals of JURIS are to strengthen and promote more effective use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, improve access to justice and support advocacy for reform. In connection with the effective use of ADR, the approach which JURIS has adopted to strengthen

JDR GUIDE

29

APPENDIX

A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC

ADR involves a bold and ambitious plan to showcase new ADR approaches in up to 14 model court sites in the Philippines. There will initially be 2 model court sites set-up in Pampanga and Bacolod by November 2003. II. Concept

The Project intends to strengthen conciliation at the pre-trial stage as a means of expediting the resolution of cases and decongesting court dockets, after court-annexed mediation has failed, by utilizing the following models: The use of the pre-trial judge who will conciliate between the parties. The use of the pre-trial judge as an early neutral evaluator. The use of the pre-trial judge as mediator. A combination of any of the above. Such other systems as the Design & Management Committee may find acceptable to the local set-up.

II.1 Concept of Conciliator Judge Despite the priority position in the Rules of Court for settlement and referral to ADR during pre-trial proceedings, most judges go through the function perfunctorily for various reasons, including fear of being disqualified if he goes into the process more intensively, and the possible failure of his efforts. It is the intention of this Project to restore the importance of this priority and at the same time to remove such apprehension.

II.2

Concept of Judge as Neutral Evaluator

After mediation has failed and the case is returned to the court, the Pre-trial judge, pursuant to the parties Pre-trial briefs, will define and simplify the issues, inquire into the necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings, strongly urge the parties to make stipulations and admissions of fact and documents, require the presentation and marking of all documentary exhibits, disclose the number and names of witnesses and the substance of their respective testimonies, and determine the propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. After the judge has gone through these aspects of the pretrial, he will ask the parties or their counsel to present a summary or brief of their case to him as they wish but under a time limit. Thereafter, he will assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of each partys case and make a non-binding and impartial evaluation or assessment of the chances of each partys success in the case. On the basis of his neutral evaluation, he will persuade the parties to reconsider their prior reluctance to use mediation towards a compromise agreement. II.3 Concept of Judge as Mediator

In the event that the parties agree to reconsider their initial reluctance to mediate, the judge shall facilitate settlement using all his skills as mediator.

JDR GUIDE

30

APPENDIX

A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC

III.

Procedure and Need for Pairing System

Under the above concepts, judicial proceedings are divided into two stages (1) from the filing of a complaint to the pre-trial stage (pre-mediation and post-mediation stages), and (2) trial and judgment stage. The judge to whom the case has been raffled presides over the pre-trial stage and the pairing judge presides over the trial stage. The pairing system shall be as provided for in existing Court Orders/Circulars. The judge presiding over the first stage (pre-trial judge) shall observe Section 2 (a) of Rule 18 of the rules of Court. In issuing an order to file pre-trial brief he shall also require a statement of undisputed facts, the proposed issues for resolution, and a synopsis of the law and jurisprudence relied upon, and, in cases covered under Section IV hereinbelow, order the parties to appear for mediation at the PMC for mediation proceedings. If mediation fails and the case is referred back to the pre-trial judge, he shall act as a conciliator, neutral evaluator, mediator, as explained above. If settlement is still not reached, a pre-trial order shall be issued to include a referral of the case to the pairing judge for trial (trial judge). It is believed that the parties will be freer and more spontaneous once they are assured that the conciliator judge/neutral evaluator will not be the one to try the case. III.1 Confidentiality The pre-trial judge is bound to observe the confidentiality of proceedings and shall not pass on any information obtained in the course of conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or mediation to the trial judge or to any other person.

IV.

Coverage This pilot-test shall apply to the following cases: (1) (2) All civil cases, settlement of estates, and cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, except those which by law may not be compromised; Cases cognizable by the Lupong Tagapamayapa and those cases that may be referred to it by the judge under Section __, Chapter VII of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the 1991 Local Government Code; The civil aspect of BP 22 cases; and The civil aspect of quasi-offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code.

(3) (4)

V.

Sanctions

A party who does not appear for mediation or pre-trial in violation of the order of the pretrial judge or in accordance with the scheduled mediation conferences, shall be imposed the appropriate sanctions as provided for in Rule 18 of the Rules of Court by said judge. In addition, the pre-trial judge may require the non-appearing party to reimburse not exceeding treble the costs incurred by the appearing party including attorneys fees for that day.

JDR GUIDE

31

APPENDIX

A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC

A party who appears without the required authorization may similarly be sanctioned. V.

Settlement

If settlement is reached at the post-mediation pre-trial stage, the pre-trial judge shall ask the parties, with the assistance of their counsel, to draft the compromise agreement for submission to and approval by the court for a judgment upon a compromise. However, the parties may submit to the Court a satisfaction of claims and mutual withdrawal of the complaint and counterclaim upon which the Court shall enter an order dismissing the case.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO Clerk of Court By: (SGD) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA Assistant Clerk of Court

Hon. Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera (x) Chancellor Philippine Judicial Academy 3rd Flr. Centennial Building Supreme Court

JDR GUIDE

32

APPENDIX

PROPOSED DRAFT AMENDING A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC

Proposed Circular amending AM No. 04-1-12-SC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT MANILA

TO:

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS OF _____________________________________________ _____________________________.

SUBJECT:

REVISED GUIDELINES AMENDING A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ENHANCED PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING UNDER THE JUSTICE REFORM INITIATIVES SUPPORT (JURIS) PROJECT.

I.

Explanatory Note

Despite the emphasis to encourage the amicable settlement of cases provided for Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of Court, most judges go through the function of exploring settlement perfunctorily for various reasons, including fear of being disqualified if he goes into the process more intensively and the possible failure of his efforts. Thus, it is the intention of JURIS Project to restore the importance of this priority and provide innovative procedures that will remove such apprehension. Two model courts have already been set up under JURIS in Bacolod and San Fernando, Pampanga, and more model courts will be set up in Benguet, La Union and Cagayan de Oro, to pilot test court-annexed mediation (CAM) and judicial dispute resolution (JDR). In JURIS model courts, mediatable cases are referred to CAM for mediation under accredited mediators in the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) and subsequently referred to JDR for further mediation by the judges if it is not resolved under CAM. If the case is still not settled in JDR, the case is transferred to the pair court for trial. In sum, these revised guidelines make the following amendments:

JDR GUIDE

33

APPENDIX

PROPOSED DRAFT AMENDING A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC

a. Replace the use of the pairing system with a raffle for the resumption of the judicial proceedings after JDR does not succeed; b. Change the nomenclature of the pre-trial judge who shall be called the JDR judge. The judge conducting the JDR is called the JDR judge instead of pre-trial judge because under the revised guidelines, pretrial proper is resumed after JDR, but this time, to be conducted by the trial judge instead of the judge who conducted JDR; c. Referral to JDR of cases even after conclusion of the pre-trial and during the trial itself; d. JDR judge may preside over the trial proceedings upon joint request of both parties; and e. Extend the limited period for settlement of cases. The time period to conduct JDR is limited to thirty (30) days for first level courts and sixty (60) days for regional trial courts. For BP 22 cases, however, such time may be extended upon agreement of the parties and/or the case archived as may be proper. II. Mandate After the date specified by PHILJA for the effectivity of the guidelines and following completion of the orientation for judges in JDR procedures and their training in mediation, conciliation and neutral evaluation, judges in all model court sites shall be authorized to conduct JDR under the JURIS in accordance with the guidelines set forth herein after CAM has not succeeded. III. Concept The goal of JURIS in JDR is to strengthen conciliation in the model court sites during the pre-trial stage in order to expedite the resolution of cases and thereby help decongest court dockets by utilizing the following models: (1) JDR judge as mediator; (2) JDR judge as conciliator; (3) JDR judge as early neutral evaluator; (4) A combination of any of the above; and (5) Such other models as the Design and Management Committee may find adaptable to the local setting.

JDR GUIDE

34

APPENDIX

PROPOSED DRAFT AMENDING A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC

As a mediator and conciliator, the judge facilitates the settlement discussions between parties and tries to reconcile their differences. As a neutral evaluator, the judge assesses the relative strengths and weaknesses of each partys case and makes a non-binding and impartial evaluation of the chances of each partys success in the case. On the basis of his neutral evaluation, the judge persuades the parties to reconsider their prior reluctance to settle their case amicably. The entire process comprises JDR. IV. Procedure 1. Two-Judge System - Parties will be more spontaneous once they are assured that the JDR judge will not be the one to try the case. As such, the general rule is that the JDR Judge shall not preside over the trial of the same case when his mediational efforts did not succeed. Judicial proceedings shall be divided into two stages (1) from the filing of a complaint, to the conduct of CAM and JDR during the pretrial stage, and (2) pre-trial proper to trial and judgment. The judge to whom the case has been raffled shall preside over the first stage. He shall be called the JDR judge. Thereafter, if the case is not resolved during JDR, it shall be raffled to another court, where the rest of the judicial proceedings up to judgment shall be held. The judge for that stage shall be called the trial judge. Any incidents or motions filed during the first stage shall be dealt with by the JDR judge at his discretion. For courts with a single branch, the case shall be simply transferred to the nearest or pair court. 2. Family Courts - Due to the special nature of a family dispute for which specialized family courts have been designated, parties may file a joint motion requesting that the case be tried by said special court despite the judge thereon having been the JDR judge. However, if there is another family court in the same JURIS site, the trial judge shall be that of the family court which did not conduct JDR proceedings. 3. Commercial Courts The JDR of commercial disputes shall be conducted by the pair judge of the commercial court. Where JDR does not succeed, the judge of the commercial court shall be the trial judge. 4. Referral to CAM - During the first stage as defined above, referral of the dispute for mediation shall be governed by A.M. No. xx-xxxx-SC-PHILJA.

JDR GUIDE

35

APPENDIX

PROPOSED DRAFT AMENDING A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC

5. Duration of JDR - For the first level courts, JDR shall be for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the time the parties first appeared for JDR. For the second level courts, JDR shall be for a period not exceeding sixty (60) days. BP 22 cases may be granted a longer period upon joint motion of the parties if there is high probability of settlement. In cases where settlement has been reached but the period of payment exceeds one (1) year, the case may be archived. 6. JDR During Trial Cases may be referred to JDR even during the trial stage. Upon joint motion of the parties, the trial judge may conduct JDR provided that the parties agree in said motion to resume trial if the case is not settled. V. Confidentiality To safeguard the confidentiality of mediation proceedings, the JDR judge shall not pass on any information obtained in the course of conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or mediation to the trial judge or to any other person. All JDR conferences shall be conducted in private. The JDR judge may, however, request from the mediator who previously mediated the case, a list of unresolved issues.

VI.

Coverage This pilot-test shall apply to the following cases: (1) All civil cases, settlement of estates, and cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, except those which by law may not be compromised; (2) Cases cognizable by the Lupong Tagapamayapa and those cases that may be referred to it by the judge under Section__. Chapter VII of the Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the 1991 Local Government Code; (3) The civil aspect of BP 22 cases; (4) The civil aspect of quasi-offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code; (5) Civil aspect of Estafa; (6) Civil aspect of Libel; and (7) Civil aspect of theft that comes within the meaning of shoplifting.

VII.

Sanctions A party who fails to appear for a mediation or JDR conference may be imposed the appropriate sanctions as provided for in Rule 18 of the Rules

JDR GUIDE

36

APPENDIX

PROPOSED DRAFT AMENDING A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC

of Court and the relevant issuances of the Supreme Court. A recommendation to impose sanctions shall be made to the JDR judge by the mediator who issued the notice to appear for mediation. If all parties are absent despite due notice, the mediator shall motu proprio recommend the imposition of proper sanctions upon all of them, including dismissal of the case. Among others, the JDR judge may require the nonappearing party to reimburse the appearing party his costs, including attorneys fees for that day, up to treble the amount incurred payable on or before the next mediation session. Any counsel, or corporate party, who appears for mediation without the required authorization to enter into stipulations of fact or compromise may be similarly sanctioned. VIII. Settlement

If settlement is reached, the parties, with assistance of their counsel, shall draft the compromise agreement for approval of the court and as basis for a judgment upon a compromise. Where compliance with the compromise agreement is forthwith made or the claim is otherwise settled, the parties shall instead submit a satisfaction of claims or mutual withdrawal of the complaint and counterclaim upon which the Court shall enter an order dismissing the case.

JDR GUIDE

37

APPENDIX

PMC FORM 1-A

ANNEX C Forms
PMC Form 1-A Order of Referral to PMC with Disclosure Form Republic of the Philippines RTC/MeTC/MTCC/MTC/MCTC Branch _______ City/Municipality of ________________ _________ JUDICIAL REGION

__________________________________ Plaintiff/Complainant, Case No.: ______________________ versus Nature: ________________________ __________________________________ Defendant/ Accused X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --X

ORDER OF REFERRAL
Pursuant to Section 2(a), Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Second Revised Guidelines for the implementation of mediation proceedings approved by the Supreme Court on October 16, 2001, this case is hereby referred to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) for mediation as part of pre-trial. Parties are hereby ordered to immediately proceed and to personally appear at the PMC Unit, located at ___________________________________________ with or without the presence of their counsel/s for mediation proceedings. This Court shall impose the appropriate sanction including but not limited to payment of appropriate fees by the absent party, censure, reprimand, declaration in contempt and such sanctions as are provided under the Rules of Court for failure to appear for pre-trial, in case any or both of the parties absent himself/themselves during the mediation proceedings. In the meantime, the Courts proceedings on the case are hereby suspended for thirty (30) days starting from this date and extendible for another thirty (30) days, for justifiable reasons. The Mediator is hereby directed to submit to this Court a status report on the progress of the proceedings at the end of the mediation period. If the mediation is successful, this Court shall immediately be informed and given (a) the original Compromise Agreement entered into by the parties as basis for the rendition of a judgment upon a compromise which

JDR GUIDE

38

APPENDIX

PMC FORM 1-A

may be enforced by execution; or, (b) a withdrawal of the complaint/counterclaim; or, (c) a satisfaction of the claim/counterclaim. It is understood that the mediation proceedings shall be confidential. Moreover, the parties are ordered to disclose to the court any other pending cases that are related to or will materially affect the outcome of the mediation proceedings, in the form attached herewith (please see Form 1). So ordered. The ________ day of _____________ 2004.

_________________________ Presiding Judge

Copy Furnished: Principal Litigants _____________________________ Counsels: Reg. Mail _____________________ ______________________________________ PMC Unit: _____________________________ Clerk in Charge:_________________________ x----- --------------------------------------------------------x

This is to certify that ____________________________ was selected as the Mediator for the above case.

Certified by: _________________________________ PMC Unit Coordinator/Daily Supervisor

Approved by: ____________________________ Presiding Judge

JDR GUIDE

39

APPENDIX

FORM NO.1: DISCLOSURE FORM

Form No. 1- Disclosure Form Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 28, San Fernando

DISCLOSURE OF PENDING CASES RELEVANT TO MEDIATION Title of the Case ________________________________________________ Nature of the Case ______________________________ Case No. ________ Name of Plaintiff/ Defendant ______________________________________ Counsel of Record ______________________________________________ Mailing Address ________________________________________________ Please check the appropriate response: _____ I/We would like to inform the court that there are no other pending cases which are related to or will materially affect this case which is subject to compulsory referral to mediation under AM No. 01-10-5-SC dated October 16, 2001 _____ I/ We would like to inform the court that there is a pending case/ are pending cases which are related to or will materially affect this case which is subject to compulsory referral to mediation under AM No. 01-10-5-SC dated October 16, 2001. The details of the case/cases are as follows:

Case No. __________ Title of the Case_________________________________ Pending before RTC/MTC No. ________ of _____________________________ Nature of the Case _________________________________________________ Case No. __________ Title of the Case_________________________________ Pending before RTC/MTC No. ________ of _____________________________ Nature of the Case _________________________________________________

___________________________ Date

________________________________ Signature of Party or Counsel

JDR GUIDE

40

APPENDIX

FORM NO.2: NOTICE

Form No. 2- Notice to Parties for JDR Conference REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES BRANCH 28 CITY OF SAN FERNANDO PAMPANGA

Amorsolo Rural Bank, Inc., Plaintiff, - versus CIVIL CASE NO. 9327

Elvira Toledo, Defendant. x----------------------------------------x

ORDER

This case was referred for mediation in the Philippine Mediation Unit pursuant to Section 2(a), Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and AM No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA (Second Revised Guidelines for the implementation of mediation proceedings approved by the Supreme Court on October 16, 2001.) Since the parties did not settle, this case was referred back to this Court for further proceedings. Wherefore, let this case be set for continuation of preliminary conference before the herein Presiding Judge for Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) proceedings (pursuant to AM No. 04-1-12-SC dated 20 January 2004) on October 19, 2005 at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon. Notify the parties. SO ORDERED. City of San Fernando Pampanga, 29 September 2005.

JUAN DE LA CRUZ Judge

JDR GUIDE

41

APPENDIX

FORM NO.3: ORDER OF REFERRAL

Form No. 3 Order of Referral to PMC for Court Annexed Mediation with Predetermined Date for JDR Conference
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT THIRD JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 41 City of San Fernando, Pampanga

BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Plaintiff, - versus SPS. IMELDA TUMALACAN and DIOSDADO TUMALACAN, Defendants. x---------------------------------------------x ORDER In todays pre-trial conference, plaintiff represented by Roberto Balboa assisted by his counsel Atty. Fernando Batacan who entered his appearance as collaborating counsel of counsel on record Atty. Porfirio Pandan, and defendant-spouses Imelda Tumalacan and Diosdado Tumalacan assisted by their counsel Atty. Ma. Teresa Mundo, who entered her appearance as collaborating counsel of counsel on record Atty. Jose Pablo, appeared in Court. Considering that this is one of the cases required by the Supreme Court to be mandatorily referred to the Philippine Mediation Center for Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) pursuant to Section 2(a), Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Second Revised Guidelines for the implementation of mediation proceedings approved by the Supreme Court on October 16, 2001, the Court ordered the release of the Order of Referral. Tentatively set the JDR component of the pre-trial conference to December 13, 2005 at 9:00 in the morning. SO ORDERED. City of San Fernando, Pampanga, October 18, 2005. CIVIL CASE NO. 13145

JUAN DE LA CRUZ Judge

JDR GUIDE

42

APPENDIX

FORM NO.4: BRIEF ON CAM AND JDR

Form No. 4 Brief on CAM and JDR for Lawyers

BRIEF on Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) Objectives of CAM and JDR CAM and JDR are features of the ADR Model Courts under the JURIS Project which represents a major innovation in Philippine court procedure currently being pilot tested in five court sites in the country (San Fernando Pampanga, Bacolod City, San Fernando La Union, Cagayan de Oro and Baguio City). By introducing CAM and JDR into the Philippine court system, it is hoped that the process of mediation and conciliation at the 1st and 2nd level courts would contribute significantly to the resolution/settlement of mediatable cases. Hopefully, this innovation would increase the satisfaction of litigants and their counsels in the court process and eventually help decongest the court dockets. Governing Rules and Regulations The process of CAM and JDR are principally governed by the following Supreme Court Circulars: 1. AM No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA dated October 16, 2001, which includes the following topics: Administrative Order establishing the Philippine Mediation Center Second Revised Guidelines on Mediation Code of Ethical Standards for Mediators Standards and Procedures for accreditation of mediators for courtreferred and court related mediation cases 2. AM No. 04-1-12-SC dated 20 January 2004, Guidelines for the Implementation of an Enhanced Pre-trial Proceeding through Conciliation and Neutral Evaluation The conduct of lawyers during mediation is principally governed by AM No. 04-305-SC Guidelines for Parties Counsel in court annexed mediation cases.

JDR GUIDE

43

APPENDIX

FORM NO.4: BRIEF ON CAM AND JDR

Expectations from Counsel

1. Counsels are expected to have read and understood the governing rules and regulations on court annexed mediation, judicial dispute resolution and the conduct of lawyers in mediation. In this light, the court expects the lawyers to assist their clients for an orderly conduct of mediation proceedings. 2. It shall be the duty of the parties (natural and juridical) and their counsel to appear at mediation and JDR (being part of pre-trial). The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown, therefore, or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement. 3. Attendance of the parties and their counsel at CAM and JDR is required, since this is part of pre-trial. Failure to attend these proceedings are subject to the sanctions provided under Rule 18 and AM No. 04-1-12-SC dated 20 January 2004

JDR GUIDE

44

APPENDIX

FORM NO.5: WAIVER

Form No. 5. Waiver on the Right to Re-assignment of Case for Purposes of Trial

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Regional Trial Court City of San Fernando, Pampanga Branch 41

CONRADO BULATAO, Plaintiff, -versusHONORATA DIAZ, Defendant. x------------------------------------x Civil Case No. 28675 for Damages

WAIVER ON THE RIGHT TO REASSIGNMENT OF CASE FOR PURPOSES OF JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION

COMES NOW, the plaintiff CONRADO BULATAO and defendant HONORATA DIAZ, represented by undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court respectfully avers: 1. We are fully aware of the right of the parties to have a raffle of the case for purposes of trial, as provided in AM No. ________-SC due to the fact that the Honorable Judge has already conducted JDR and may have known certain facts in the process that may impinge upon his / her impartiality; 2. Despite this fact, we are also manifesting to the Honorable Court that we would like the trial to proceed under the supervision and control of the same Honorable Judge that has conducted this JDR; 3. That we are making this waiver, with full confidence in the ability of the Honorable Court to proceed with the pre-trial proper and trial with dispatch and integrity, and with malice toward none. January 23, 2005, San Fernando Pampanga

ATTY. IMELDA LOPEZ Counsel for the Plaintiff

ATTY. CORAZON GOPEZ Counsel for the Defendant

JDR GUIDE

45