Chief Justice Torres highlighted the challengesposed by the social media revolution to the courts inhis lecture delivered before a spillover audiencewhich included his Philippine counterpart, ChiefJustice Corona, and other jurists; law practitioners;and developmental aid partners at the SupremeCourt En Banc Session Hall. Also participating in theproceedings through video conferencing were thejudges at Waterfront Hotel, Cebu City and PearlmontHotel, Cagayan de Oro City.

The 51-year-old Chief Justice, a Juris Doctorgraduate of Harvard Law, described how the socialmedia revolution, where the method of accessinginformation has been transformed by the 24-hourinternet and social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter,and YouTube), has impacted on judicial ethics anddissemination of court information. For instance, hecited the Florida Judicial Ethics AdvisoryCommittees prohibition against judges adding thelawyers who appear before them as friends insocial networking sites. On the flip side, he pointedout how social networking sites can be used toimprove accessibility to court information as in the

case of the Tennessee court system which has 900followers on Twitter.

For court spokespersons and media/communityrelations officers specifically, he gave generalguidelines for media interviews (e.g., respondpromptly to media inquiries) and tips for crisiscommunication (e.g., establish a crisis communicationplan).

Through it all, Chief Justice Torres highlighted theresponsibility of the court representatives to reachout and interact with all aspects of the community toenhance and reinforce the public perception of andtrust in the system of justice.

Composing the panel of reactors to Chief JusticeTorres lecture were Supreme Court PublicInformation Office (PIO) Chief Court AdministratorJose Midas P. Marquez and noted journalist and STARcolumnist Jose Manuel Babe Romualdez.

Court Administrator Marquez pointed out thatwhile the Court is fully cognizant of the need to be

By Gleo Sp. Guerra

The Chief Justice Renato C. Corona Distinguished Lecture Series had a successful start last January 13 with the well-attended lectureon Media and the Courts of Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Jr. of the Supreme Court of Guam.more transparent and accessible, the best way for itto serve the public is to ensure that it fulfills itsprimary responsibility to see to it that justice is servedand served swiftly. He declared that the media willalways hold sway in the court of public opinion butin our courts, the sword of lady justice is mightierthan the journalists pen.

For his part, Romualdez stressed theresponsibility of the media in ensuring the impartialadministration of justice by simply reporting the factsof an ongoing trial without sensationalism orpartisanship.

Afterwards, Chief Justice Corona, Justice TeresitaJ. Leonardo-De Castro, and Philippine JudicialAcademy (PHILJA) Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna, alongwith Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, presented plaques ofappreciation to the speakers. Justice Jose P. Perez actedas Master of Ceremonies.

The event was held under the auspices of theSupreme Court, the PHILJA, and the SC ProgramManagement Office.

Kasama ng aking pamilya,malugod kong binabati angsambayanang Pilipino ngisang masaganang bagongtaon!

The dawning of a new yearmarks a fresh start for all ofus. Thus, we welcome it withgreat hope and renewedconfidence as we look ahead

Hon. Renato C. CoronaCHIEF JUSTICE

to new beginnings that we as a people will embark on in2011.

We have witnessed a number of significant milestonesthis past year capped by a change in leadership in all threegreat departments of government. As we take stock of thethings that transpired in the previous year and examine anddraw lessons from them, we likewise look at the start of thenew year as a welcome opportunity to harness our collectivespirit for our journey as a nation, knowing that we successfullyendured the challenges that confronted us the past year.

FROM THE BENCHAs the New Year begins, another chapter of our nations

history unfolds. Let us therefore be united in our efforts andprayers and arm ourselves with a sense of patriotism andfaith to realize the promise of a better life for our countrymen.

May we all have a happy, peaceful, and prosperous NewYear!

FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA DISTINGUISHED LECTURE. Guam Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Jr. (2nd from left) receives a plaque of appreciation from Philippine Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (3rd from left) after delivering the first lecturein the Chief Justice Renato C. Corona Distinguished Lecture Series last January 13 at the SC En Banc Session Hall. With them in the front row are (from left) Mary Torres, Chief Justice Torres wife; Philippine Supreme Court Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castroand Lucas P. Bersamin; Philippine Judicial Academy Chancellor (retired Philippine Supreme Court Justice) Adolfo S. Azcuna; and Maria Cenzon, Director of Policy Planning and Community Relations of the Unified Courts of Guam. Behind the rostrum is Masterof Ceremonies Philippine Supreme Court Justice Jose Portugal Perez. Chief Justice Torres spoke on, among others, the challenges posed by the social media revolution to the courts.The event was held under the auspices of the Supreme Court, the PhilippineJudicial Academy, the SC educational and training arm, and the SC Program Management Office.

New Year Message

Volume XII Number 01JANUARY 2011 22222

Reports

The Supreme Court recently upheldthe conviction of three men involvedin the Valentines Day bus bombing inMakati five years ago which wasowned by the Abu Sayyaf group.

In a 19-page decision penned byJustice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, theCourt affirmed the Makati CityRegional Trial Courts conviction ofGamal B. Baharan a.k.a. Tapay, AngeloTrinidad a.k.a. Abu Khalil, and RohmatAbdurrohim a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zakyof the complex crime of multiplemurder and multiple frustratedmurder. It also upheld the modificationby the Court of Appeals of theirsentence from death to reclusion perpetuaas required by RA 9346, Act Abolishingthe Imposition of Death Penalty.

The Court deemed it unnecessaryto rule on the sufficiency of thesearching inquiry into the accusedBaharan and Trinidads plea of guilt asit was not the sole basis of thecondemnatory judgment underconsideration.

SC Upholds Convictionof Valentines Day BusBombersBy Gleo Sp. Guerra

It upheld the finding of guiltagainst Rohmat as a principal byinducement in light of testimonialevidence of the training he gave onhow to make bombs coupled with hisparticipation in the planning andpersistent attempts to bombdifferent areas in Metro Manila andhis confirmation that Trinidadwould be getting TNT as part of theirmission.

The Court also affirmed thefindings of the existence of aconspiracy among the three basedon, among others, the clear andcategorical testimony of the statewitness Gappal Bannah Asali, a.k.aMaidan or Negro, who was amongthose originally charged.

On February 14, 2005, anexplosion occurred in an RRCG busat the stoplight at the corner of AyalaAvenue and EDSA, causing multipleinjuries and deaths to the buspassengers. (GR No. 188314, People v.Janjalani, January 10, 2011)

The Supreme Court recently upheldthe denial by the Court of Tax Appeals(CTA) of the tax refund claim ofpetitioner Atlas Consolidated Miningand Development Corporation (Atlas)amounting to PhP842,336,291.60.

In a decision penned by JusticeDiosdado Peralta, the Court held thatthe CTA and the Court of Appeals,which had affirmed the CTA ruling,based on their appreciation of theevidence presented, committed noerror when they declared thatpetitioner Atlas failed to prove that itis entitled to a tax refund.

The Court stressed that whenclaiming tax refund/credit, the ValueAdded Tax (VAT)-registered taxpayermust be able to establish that it doeshave refundable or creditable inputVAT, and the same has not been appliedagainst its output VAT liabilities information which are supposed to bereflected in the taxpayers VAT returns.In this case, both the CTA and CA hadfound that Atlas failed to present

SC Upholds Denial of Atlas PhP842M Tax Refund ClaimBy Gleo Sp. Guerra

photocopies of its export documentsthat would show that the purchaseinvoice/receipts submitted by it asproof of its input taxes are directlyattributable to the goods so exported.

On the issue of prescription, whereinAtlas questions the ruling of the CA thatthe formers claim for refund hasprescribed, disregarding the failure ofrespondent Commissioner of InternalRevenue and the CTA to raise the saidissue in their answer and originaldecision, respectively, the Court heldthe same moot and academic.

Under Section 100 of the Tax Code ofthe Philippines, Atlas is a zero-ratedVAT person for being an exporter ofcopper concentrates. According toAtlas, on January 20, 1994, it filed itsVAT return for the fourth quarter of1993, showing a total input tax ofPhP863,556,963.74 and an excess VATcredit of PhP842,336,291.60 for which itclaimed a refund. (GR No. 159471, Atlasv. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Janaury26, 2011)

The Supreme Court has effectivelyupheld the dismissal of falsificationcharges against the officials of CreativePlay Corner School (CPCS), a childrenslearning school operating in the poshDasmarias Village, Makati City.

This after the High Court affirmedthe resolutions dated July 21, 2005 andSeptember 29, 2005 of the Court ofAppeals. The first resolution denied themotion of Barangay Dasmarias,through its Barangay Captain Ma.Encarnacion Legaspi, for a secondextension of time to file a petition forreview, while the second resolutiondenied the former s motion forreconsideration

In 2004, Legaspi charged CPCS andits owners for allegedly falsifying andusing the Barangay Clearance andOfficial Receipt purportedly issued inCPCSs name by Legaspis barangayoffice. The charges, however, weredismissed due to lack of probable causeby the assistant city prosecutor. Onreview, the DOJ dismissed the petitionafter it found no error to justifyreversal of assailed resolution andruled that the petition was filed late.

Legaspi raised the matter to theappellate court. But before she did, she

SC Upholds Dismissalof Cases Against MakatiSchool OfficialsBy Jay B. Rempillo

first sought for extension of time of 15days or until May 28, 2005 which theCA had granted. Subsequently, Legaspiasked for another extension of five daysor until June 2. However, the petitionwas filed by mail only on June 7, 2005,five days late from the extensionsought. Subsequently, the CA deniedthe second motion for extension of timeto file petition for review anddismissed the said petition for havingbeen filed beyond the period allowedby the Revised Rules of CivilProcedure. Legaspi then filed a motionfor reconsideration which the CA alsodenied.

The Court held that the CA onlyfollowed sec. 4, Rule 43 of the Rules ofCourt when it dismissed Legaspismotions after it found the reason forthe second extension not compelling.

From the above, it is clear that theCA, after it has already allowedpetitioner an extension of 15 dayswithin which to file a petition forreview, may only grant a furtherextension when presented with themost compelling reason but the sameis limited only to a period of 15 days,declared the Court. As to Legaspisinvocation of liberal application of therules, the Court held that the presentcase is not attended by such animperative that justifies relaxation ofthe rules. (GR No. 169942, BarangasDasmarias v. Creative Play Corner School,January 24, 2011)

The Supreme Court has freed theAquinas School of any liability fordamages to a grade three pupil whowas shoved and kicked by his nunreligion teacher in 1998.

In a six-page decision penned byJustice Roberto A. Abad, the Courtgranted Aquinass petition to set asidethe August 4, 2008 decision of the Courtof Appeals (CA) which had found theschool and Sister Margarita Yamyaminsolidarily liable to student Jose LuisInton.

The Court said that the CA erred inholding Aquinas solidarily liable withYamyamin. It gave weight to thetestimony of the school directress thatper Aquinass agreement with acongregation of sisters, it wasYamyamins religious congregationthat chose her to teach catechism atAquinas. The Intons had not refutedthe school directress testimony in thisregard.

The Court noted that Aquinas actedpromptly to relieve Yamyamin of herassignment as soon as the schoollearned of the incident and that hertranscript of records, certificates, anddiplomas showed that she was a

SC Clears Aquinas School, Holds Nun Solely Liablefor Kicking PupilBy Jay B. Rempillo

qualified religion teacher. Likewise,Yamyamin was given a copy of theschools Administrative Faculty StaffManual that set the standards forhandling students and was required toattend a teaching orientation.

Records showed that on July 14,1998, while Yamyamin was teachingreligion to the grade three class, JoseLuis left his assigned seat to play a jokeon a classmate. Yamyamin ordered JoseLuis back to his seat. When the pupilagain left his seat, Yamyamin, unableto tolerate the childs behavior,approached him and kicked him on thelegs several times, as well as pulled andshoved his head on his classmates seat.

The parents of Jose Luis filed in theirsons behalf an action for damagesagainst Yamyamin and Aquinas beforethe Pasig City Regional Trial Courtwhich ruled in the Intons favor. Aseparate criminal action for violationof RA 7610 was filed against Yamyamin,to which she pleaded guilty and wassentenced accordingly. The Intonselevated the case to the appellate courtto increase the award of damages andhold Aquinas solidarily liable with thenun. (GR No. 184202, Aquinas School v.Inton, January 26, 2011)

Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011 3

The Supreme Court affirmed therulings of both the appellate and lowercourts finding six Chinese guilty ofillegal possession of drugs.

The Court, through JusticePresbitero J. Velasco, Jr., sentenced NgYik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng, ChangChaun Shi, Chua Shilou Hwan, KanShun Min and Raymond S. Tan, toreclusion perpetua with a fine of PhP5million for each for violating sec. 16,Art. III of RA 6425, the Dangerous DrugsAct of 1972.

In sustaining the conviction, theCourt held that the arrest of theaccused and the seizure of the illegaldrugs were valid even without anarrest warrant as the arrest was madeduring the commission of a crime.Under sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules ofCourt, a warrantless arrest is lawfulwhen the person to be arrested hascommitted, is actually committing, oris attempting to commit an offense,also referred to as arrest in flagrante

SC Upholds Conviction of Six Chinese Drug TraffickersBy Jen T. Tuazon

delicto. The Court held that the policehad probable cause to suspect that theaccused were loading and transportingcontraband more so when Hwan, uponbeing accosted, readily mentioned thatthey were loading shabu as well aspointed to Tan as their leader.

The Court added that all theelements of illegal possession of drugswere present: (1) the accused is inpossession of an item or object whichis identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)such possession is not authorized bylaw; and (3) the accused freely andconsciously possesses the said drug Further, the accused were positivelyidentified in court as the individualscaught loading and possessingprohibited drugs without proof thatthey were duly authorized by law topossess them. The accused were alsounable to show proof to support theirallegation of a frame-up in rebuttingthe testimonies of the prosecutionwitnesses, the Court noted. (GR No.18045, People v.

The Supreme Court affirmed theCourt of Appeals conviction of a large-scale illegal recruiter, sentencing thelatter with life imprisonment and afine of PhP500,000.

In a decision penned by JusticeMartin S. Villarama, Jr., the HighCourts Third Division upheld therulings of the appellate and lowercourts which had found TeresitaTessie Laogo guilty of the crime ofillegal recruitment in large scale. Inaddition to the said penalties, Laogowas also ordered by the Court toindemnify the offended parties foractual damages totaling PhP109,000.

To prove illegal recruitment, theCourt held, it must be shown that theaccused, without being dulyauthorized by law, gave the offendedparties the distinct impression that theformer had the power or ability to sendthe latter abroad for work such thatthe offended parties were convinced topart with their money in order to beemployed. The Court also stressed thatthere must be at least a promise or offerof an employment from the personposing as a recruiter, whether locallyor abroad. Laogo, working with SusanNavarro who remains at large,promised each of the five complainantsto be sent abroad as cooks and assistant

Life Imprisonment for Large-Scale Illegal RecruiterBy Jen T. Tuazon

cooks, with the follow-up transactionsdone in Laogo Travel Consultancy,Laogos travel agency. All receipts ofpayment also bore the logo of the travelagency, two of such receipts beingpersonally signed by Laogo herself. TheCourt thus found that Laogo, togetherwith Navarro, made the offendedparties believe that they weretransacting with a legitimaterecruitment agency and that LaogoTravel Consultancy had the authorityto recruit them and send them abroadfor work when in fact such agency hadnone as certified by the PhilippineOverseas Employment Agency.

Under Article 38(a) of the Labor Code,recruitment activities undertaken bynon-licensees or non-holders ofauthority are deemed illegal andpunishable by law. And when theillegal recruitment is committedagainst three or more persons,individually or as a group, then it isdeemed committed in large-scale andcarries with it stiffer penalties as thesame is deemed a form of economicsabotage. Section 7 of the MigrantWorkers Act provides a penalty of lifeimprisonment and a fine of not lessthan PhP500,000 nor more than PhP1million if illegal recruitment constituteseconomic sabotage. (GR No. 176264,People v. Laogo, January 18, 2011)

FEBRUARY 10-11Mediation Course for Lawyers of theBangko Sentral ng PilipinasPasay City

FEBRUARY 15Seminar Workshop on the Rules ofProcedure for Small Claims Cases forRegion 2Manila

FEBRUARY 17-18Information Dissemination Campaign onSmall Claims and Anti-TraffickingLaoag City

COURT CALENDAR

THIS MONTH IN HISTORY

JANUARY 2Japanese forces occupy the City of Manilain 1942

JANUARY 3The Japanese Military Administration in thePhilippines is established in 1942

JANUARY 12Abdulwahid A. Bidin is the first Muslimappointed Justice of the Supreme Court in1987

JANUARY 13The Supreme Court is honored as Filipinoof the Year by the Philippine Daily Inquirerin 2002

JANUARY 17President Ferdinand E. Marcos lifts MartialLaw in 1981

JANUARY 20The Japanese Congress grantsIndependence to the Philippines in 1942

JANUARY 24A royal order confirms the royal decree ofMay 29, 1885 separating judicial andexecutive powers in 1887

JANUARY 30The Audiencia Territorial de Manila withCayetano S. Arellano as Presidentreplaces the Real Audiencia in 1899

The first national elections since theproclamation of Martial Law are held in 1980

The Supreme Court recently dismissed for lack of merit the petition filed byelection lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal assailing the validity of the constitution ofthe Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET).

Atty. Macalintal had questioned the creation of a purportedly separatetribunal with a budget allocation, a seal, and a set of personnel and confidentialemployees.

In a 32-page En Banc decision penned by Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura,the Court held that the PET is not a separate and distinct entity from it eventhough the PET has functions peculiar only to it. It declared that the PET wasconstituted in implementation of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, and itfaithfully complies not unlawfully defies the constitutional directive. Theadoption of a separate seal, as well as the change in the nomenclature of the ChiefJustice and the Associate Justices into Chairman and Members of the Tribunal,respectively, was designed simply to highlight the singularity and exclusivity ofthe Tribunals functions as a special electoral court. Article VII, sec. 4 provides:The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relatingto the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, andmay promulgate its rules for the purpose.

[T]he PET, as intended by the framers of the Constitution, is to be aninstitution independent, but not separate, from the judicial department, i.e., theSupreme Court. McCulloch v. State of Maryland proclaimed that [a] power withoutthe means to use it is a nullity. The vehicle for the exercise of this power, asintended by the Constitution and specifically mentioned by the ConstitutionalCommissioners during the discussions on the grant of power to this Court, is thePET, stressed the Court.

As to petitioners claim that the PET exercises quasi-judicial functions incontravention of Article VIII, sec. 12 of the Constitution, which provides thatThe Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shallnot be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrativefunctions, the Court held that the expanded definition of judicial power foundin Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the present Constitution has allocated tothe Supreme Court, in conjunction with latters exercise of judicial power inherentin all courts, the task of deciding presidential and vice-presidential electioncontests, with full authority in the exercise thereof. The power wielded by PETis a derivative of the plenary judicial power allocated to courts of law, expresslyprovided in the Constitution, the Court explained; otherwise its members sittingin the Senate and House Electoral Tribunals would violate the said constitutionalprohibition.

On a final note, the Court cautioned against the filing of baseless petitionswhich only clog the Courts docket. The petition in the instant case belongs tothat classification. (GR No.191618, Macalintal v. PET, November 23, 2010)

SC Dimisses Petition vs. PETBy Gleo Sp. Guerra

4 Volume XII Number 01JANUARY 2011

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona ledthe launching of Judgment Day, a pilotproject and an off-shoot of the SupremeCourt s Enhanced Justice on Wheels(EJOW) program, at the Las Pias CityHall of Justice on January 21, 2011.

An initiative of the Las Pias City

judges and government officials incoordination with the Supreme Court,Judgment Day involves thesimultaneous disposition of cases inone day. This pilot project replicates theEJOW program to further speed up theadministration of justice. It is similarto the EJOW except that the bus, whichserves as the mobile court, is no longerpresent.

Like EJOW , Judgment Dayparticipating judges heard and decidedcases, which resulted in the provisionalrelease of five inmates, acquittal of 46accused, and conviction of eight othersin criminal cases. Thirty-one civil cases

Chief Justice Corona Leads Judgment Day LaunchBy Jay B. Rempillo

were also decided, while a total of 70 inmateswere served by the 20-member medical anddental team from the Las Pias City HealthOffice.

Aside from Chief Justice Corona, also

present were SC Public Information OfficeChief and Court Administrator Jose Midas P.Marquez, Assistant Court AdministratorJenny Lind A. Delorino, Las PiasCongressman Mark Villar, Las Pias Vice-Mayor Louie Bustamante, city councilors,members of the Las Pias Bar Association,and the Las Pias City Judges Association.

Those who participated in the JudgmentDay are Judge Erlinda Nicolas-Alvaro (RTC,198), Judge Leopoldo Baraquia (RTC, Branch200), Judge Ismael Duldulao (RTC, Branch197), Judge Bonifacio Maceda (RTC, Branch275), Judge Salvador Timbang, Jr. (RTC,Branch 253), Judge Joselito Vibandor (RTC,Branch 199), Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray, (RTC,Branch 255), and Judge Pio Pasia (MunicipalTrial Court, Branch 79).

In his speech, the Chief Justice saidthat the launching of Judgment Day willdemonstrate that the successes of theEJOW project can be duplicated in keyareas even without the appeal of amobile court. This undertaking willmake use of the existing resources andinfrastructure of the Judiciary, with theactive involvement of the localgovernment units, to promoteawareness of the justice system andspeedy administration of justice.

Chief Justice Corona underscored

that the Judgment Day will allow theSupreme Court to deploy its eightroving buses to distant provinces orto areas without regular courthouses,for which these buses were initiallyintended. As such, all possible meansof accessing the justice system be itthrough the traditional way of goingto regular courts, or through the EJOWand Judgment Day will be utilized.What will transpire here today will,

hopefully, serve as the blueprint forfuture opportunities to take ful ladvantage of the courts availablemeans to provide fast, free resolutionof confl icts through adjudication,mediation, or conciliation, he said.

Under the EJOW, a total of 5,157

inmates have been either released orhad their cases terminated so far, while12,590 cases have been successfullymediated. In addition, 10,073 inmateshave also been given medical anddental or legal assistance while 14,980barangay officials have benefitted fromlegal information dissemination.

Chief Justice Corona said that the EJOW

figures prove that in spite of the perennialproblems of congested dockets of courtsand vacancies the Judiciary has achievedsignificant victories in the battle to providepeople with access to justice. Heexpressed optimism that EJOWs feat willalso be duplicated by the Judgment Dayproject. (With report from Annie A. Laborte)

5Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011

Thirty-nine year old Julius Ocampo has been languishing in jail forsix years for charges of illegal drug use. Twenty-seven year old NinoPolo, on the other hand, has been doing time for four years for murdercharges. January 21, 2011would prove to be a red-letter day for bothof them for on that very day, both were finally acquitted due to theprosecutions failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Forty-four other inmates were also acquitted that same day onthe very first Judgment Day, an off-shoot of the Supreme CourtsEnhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) program launched at the Las PiasCity Hall of Justice.

The still single Ocampo was fetched by his 62-year old motherZosima Ocampo who unabashedly hugged him after he told her of hisacquittal by Judge Leopoldo Baraquia of the Las Pinas Regional TrialCourt, Branch 200.

Masayang masaya ako. Pangako ko sa sarili na ipapagpatuloyko ang magandang pagbabago ngayong malaya na ako (I am veryhappy. I promised myself I will not waste this new beginning now thatI am free), says Ocampo.

Ocampo says he is excited about his re-integration to the societyand hopes to have a fresh start with his own vulcanizing shop, a

By Jay B. Rempillo

business he was engaged in prior to his incarceration. His motherZosima was ecstatic that her son is now free, having alwaysmaintained his innocence.

Polo was similarly elated and grateful for his acquittal. He wasall smiles when judgment of the same was handed by JudgeElizabeth Yu Guray of the Las Pinas RTC, Branch 255. His co-accusedJerson Dasmarinas, however, was not as fortunate as Judge Gurayfound the latter guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetuafor shooting to death a cop in front of a beer joint in Naga Road.Dasmarinas admitted in court that he had met Polo only duringthe trial of their case.

A Roman Catholic, Polo says that prison life has reinvigoratedhis religious life as became more prayerful. Naging malapit akosa Diyos (I have become closer to God), he says. Polo, who couldnot wait to be reunited with his seven-year old son, however, hasto wait for he is still being held for another charge.

Aside from the acquittal of 46 accused, the first Judgment Dayalso resulted in the provisional release of five inmates and theconviction of eight others in criminal cases. A total of 31 civilcases have also been decided.

6 Volume XII Number 01JANUARY 2011

COURT WATCH

Two trial judges, including the one whohandled the Golden Buddha case, andthree court personnel who committedvarious offenses have been dismissed aspart of continuing efforts of the SupremeCourt, under the leadership of ChiefJustice Renato C. Corona, to weed theJudiciary of its misfits.

In a per curiam decision, the Courtdismissed Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuanof the Baguio City Regional Trial Court(RTC), Branch 3 for gross ignorance of thelaw. His dismissal was spawned by thecomplaint filed by Mrs. Imelda R. Marcoswho accused Judge Pamintuan committedgross ignorance when he, motu propio,reversed the final and executory orderdated May 30, 1996 of then ActingPresiding Judge Antonio Reyes.

In the said order, Judge Reyesdismissed the civil case and ordered theimmediate release of the BuddhaStatuette in the courts custody to thechildren of the late Rogelio Roxas. OnAugust 15, 2006, Judge Pamintuan issuedan order awarding to the estate of RogelioRoxas the Buddha Statuette, whichhowever, shall be under the court custodyuntil final settlement of the Roxas estate.The same order ruled that the Buddha inits custody is a fake one or a mere replicaof the original Golden Buddha, which hasbeen missing since 1971.

The Court found inexcusable JudgePamintuans overlooking the basic legalprinciple that when a judgment is final andexecutor, it becomes immutable andunalterable. It held that Judge Pamintuanmade a serious error in makingpronouncements that the Buddha in itscustody was a fake or a mere replica,which may be his opinion or the litigantsduring the hearing. It stressed that JudgePamintuan should have realized that thetrial court did not rule on that point in itsMay 30, 1996 order. It noted that this wasnot Judge Pamintuans first and soleadministrative case.

The Court finds Judge Pamintuanaccountable for gross ignorance of thelaw. He could have simply been suspendedand fined, but the Court cannot take hisprevious infractions lightly. His violationsare serious in character. Having beenpreviously warned and punished forvarious infractions, Judge Pamintuan nowdeserves the ultimate administrativepenalty dismissal from service, theCourt said.

In another per curiam decision, the Courtdismissed Judge Oscar E. Dinopol of theKoronadal City RTC, Branch 24 for grossmisconduct when he obtained commodityloans from complainant litigant VictorianoSy in the form of building materials fromthe construction of his house in

SC Dismisses ErringJudges, PersonnelBy Jay B. Rempillo

Koronadal City, which was evidenced byreceipts.

Judge Dinopol violated Canon 3 of theNew Code of Judicial Conduct when hereceived accommodations from Sy, thuscompromising his position as a judge.Likewise, the Court found he had violatedCanon 1, Canon 2, and Canon 4 of the saidCode, which highlights the judgesindependence, promotes a judgesintegrity, and mandates a judge toobserve and maintain proper decorumand its appearance in his public office.

Likewise, the Court found JudgeDinopol committed impropriety in talkingwith litigants outside court proceedings.

In another per curiam decision, the Courtdismissed Carlos A. Salvador, Sheriff IVof Angeles City RTC, Branch 58 for gravemisconduct and suspended Binangonan,Rizal RTC OIC Branch Clerk of Court BabeSJ. Ramirez for one year without pay forconduct prejudicial to the service.

Salvador was found liable for gravemisconduct for his refusal to implementthe writ of execution in the civil case andfor interposing obstacles in theenforcement of the writ on the groundsnot within the scope of his duty. On theother hand, Ramirez was sanction for thedelay in issuing the writ, which was notdone at her initiative but at the insistenceof the complainants. Ramirezcompounded the problem by issuing a writthat was, on its face, defective, thuscreating additional enforcementdifficulties.

The Court also dismissed Clerk ofCourt II Marissa U. Angeles of thePantabangan, Nueva Ecija, Municipal TrialCourt for dishonesty and gravemisconduct.

It held that Angeles failed to disputeor disprove the charges against her. Shewas found liable for her failure toimmediately account for the excess in thecash bond she receive; failure to issueappropriate receipts; failure to safekeepmonies received; and, failure to remit/deposit cash bonds in the governmentdepository upon receipt. These infractionsconstituted dishonesty and gravemisconduct for which she deserves to bedismissed from the service.

Likewise, the Court dismissed Jose M.Ramano, Deputy Sheriff of Makati CityRTC, Branch 140 for gross misconduct.

The Court established that Ramanohad been negligent in implementing thesubject writ due to the complainantsrefusal to give in to his demand that he begiven 35% share of whatever may becollected from the implementation of thewrit on a civil case. (AM No. RTJ-07-2062,Marcos v. Judge Pamintuan; AM No. RTJ-09-2189, Sy v. Judge Dinopol; AM No. P-03-1730,Judge Iturralde v. Ramirez; AM No. P-11-2887,OCA v. Angeles; AM No. P-10-2880, JudgeAldea-Arocena v. Angeles, January 18, 2011;AM P-90-488, OCA v. Ramano, January 25,2011)

The more than PhP4.8 billiondeposit of the Judiciarys FiduciaryFunds and all subsequent collectionsof trust and other receipts with theBureau of Treasury has no legalbasis, and the remittance of interestsof the Fiduciary Funds to the nationalgovernment is erroneous and must bediscontinued.

Thus said the Supreme Court as itruled that Fiduciary Funds in custodialegis shall remain under the custodyand control of the courts, to bedeposited and disposed of as the courtsmay direct in the exercise of theirjudicial functions, while FiduciaryFunds deposited with the Court in itsadministrative capacity, and not incustodia legis, shall be remitted to theNational Treasury.

In its 2008 Annual Audit Report, theCOA recommended that the Courtdeposit the amount ofPhP4,838,976,011.86 and allsubsequent collections of trust andother receipts with the Bureau ofTreasury in conformity withExecutive Order 338 (EO 338), Sections7 and 8 of the General Provisions of theGeneral Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year2008 (2008 GAA), and COA-DOF-DBMJoint Circular No. 1-97.

EO 338 directs government officesand agencies to immediately transferall public monies deposited withdepository banks and otherinstitutions to the Bureau of Treasury,regardless of income source, while the2008 GAA directs government agenciesto book trust and other receipts whichhave been received as guaranty for thefulfillment of an obligation with theNational Treasury. Joint Circular No.1-97, on the other hand, requires thatall National Government cashbalances be deposited with theNational Treasury.

The Court, however, held that whilefunds that properly accrue to theGeneral Fund must be turned over tothe Bureau of Treasury, which is underthe Executive branch, the custody anddisposition of any fund of whatevernature that is in custodia legis (custodyof the law) is under the exclusivecontrol of the courts in the exercise oftheir judicial functions.

The control of funds in custodia legisis an exercise of judicial power, andunder the Constitution, [T]he judicialpower is vested in one Supreme Courtand in such lower courts as may beestablished by law, said the Court.Neither the Executive nor Legislativebranch can encroach on the power ofthe courts to control custody ordisposition of funds in custodia legis,adding that upon termination of thecase, or earlier as the courts may direct,the funds in custodia legis will bereturned to their rightful owners,subject to a service fee of 10% perannum of the interests earned, whichshall accrue to the JudiciaryDevelopment Fund (JDF).

The High Court said that whileBatas Pambansa Blg. 325 provides that,unless otherwise provided, allcollections from fees and charges ofgovernment agencies, including theSupreme Court, shall accrue to theGeneral Fund of the NationalGovernment, an exemption is providedunder Presidential Decree No. 1949 (PD1949), which established the JDF forthe benefit of the members andpersonnel of the Judiciary to helpensure and guarantee the independenceof the Judiciary.

Fiduciary Funds Shall Remain With CourtBy Anna Katrina M. Martinez

PD 1949 provides that the ChiefJustice shall administer and allocate theJDF and shall have the sole exclusivepower and duty to approve theauthorized disbursement andexpenditures of the Fund. Thus, theJDF, although derived from legal feesand charges, does not accrue to theGeneral Fund by express provision ofPD 1949, said the Court.

The High Court added thatFiduciary Funds also do not accrue tothe General Fund as these are notcollections from fees and charges butare funds that are deposited in courtwhich are held in trust for the partiesand litigants.

The Court also ruled that its ownpractice of remitting the interests of theFiduciary Funds to the nationalgovernment is erroneous and must bediscontinued.

Following the right of accessionconferred on the owner of the propertyunder Article 440 of the Civil Code, theinterests on these fiduciary funds alsobelong to the parties who own theprincipal amount. Upon termination ofthe case, the interests should bereturned to the parties together withthe principal. The interests should notaccrue to the General Fund because itis tantamount to taking privateproperty for public use without justcompensation, the Court held. It addedthat interests on deposits of the JDFaccrue to the JDF for the benefit of themembers and personnel of theJudiciary.

The Court, however, ruled thatforfeited cash deposits made toguarantee undertakings in favor of thegovernment, and the interests thereon,are income of the government and shallbe remitted to the National Treasuryand that unclaimed fiduciary funds ofprivate parties, including interests,shall remain with the courts until a lawis passed authorizing the escheat orforfeiture of such unclaimed funds infavor of the State.

Finally, the Supreme Court ruledthat the amounts it previouslyremitted to the National Treasuryrepresenting interest earned on theFiduciary Fund and forfeited/confiscated bonds covering the periodfrom 2004 to 2007, under the staggeredpayments proposed by retired ChiefJustice Reynato S. Puno to the COA in2009, shall be credited to whateveramounts the Court is required to remitto the National Treasury. (Min. Res., AMNo. 05-3-35-SC, Re: Audit ObservationMemorandum; Min. Res., AM No. 10-8-3-SC, Re: Fiduciary Fund Deposits NotRemitted to the Bureau of Treasury, January18, 2011)

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona hasgranted the release of Fringe Benefit andthe Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)for December 2010 as additional benefitsto qualified court officials and personnel.

In Memorandum Order No. 03-2011,signed on January 21, 2011, Chief JusticeCorona authorized the release of anadditional allowance of PhP10,000 to allcourt employees and shall be receivedin its full amount by those who are still inthe service, as of November 30, 2010.

The Chief Justice also approved therelease of an Additional Cost of LivingAllowance under the JDF to qualifiedCourt personnel in amounts ranging fromPhP2,300 to PhP2,500 depending on theemployees salary grade as per the

CJ Corona Grants the Release of Fringe Benefit, JDFBy Sheena Mae T. Dagum

January 7, 2011 Memorandum Order No.01-2011.

The JDF and Fringe benefits aregranted to all qualified officials andemployees of the Supreme Court, thethree collegiate courts, and the lowercourts, pursuant to and by virtue of theauthority vested upon the Chief Justiceby Joint Resolution No. 96 of theConstitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group,and PD 1949, respectively. The PhP 10,000fringe benefit is taken from the savingsfrom appropriations in the FiscalAutonomy (FA) account, while theAdditional Cost of Living Allowancecomes from the eighty per centum (80%)allotted for the purpose from the incomeof the JDF from December 1 to 31, 2010.

7Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011

For the purposes of determiningadministrative culpability, the onlyquantum of evidence required issubstantial evidence, or that amountof relevant evidence which areasonable mind might accept asadequate to support a conclusion.

Thus said the Supreme Court as itdismissed Claudio M. Lopez, a ProcessServer of the Municipal Trial Court ofSudipen, La Union, for having beenfound guilty of possession ofmarijuana. The Court held thatevidence to support a conviction in acriminal case is not necessary, and thedismissal of the criminal case againstthe respondent in an administrativecase is not a ground for the dismissalof the administrative case.

Although the respondent allegedthat the evidence obtained wereinadmissible due to the illegality of theissuance of the search warrant as wellas the conduct of the search, the Courtruled that these issues should bethreshed out in the criminal case andnot in the instant administrative case.

Lopez claimed that the authoritiesrequired the presence of witnesses inaccordance with Rule 126 of the Rulesof Court when they searched his roomand recovered the one block of dried

La Union Process Server Dismissedfor Possession of MarijuanaBy Joachim Florencio Q. Corsiga

marijuana fruiting tops weighing790.6 grams wrapped in a newspaperand plastic bag. He also alleged that thesearch warrant was illegally issuedbecause presiding judge who issued thesearch warrant had no territorialjurisdiction over Sudipen, La Union,the place where it was enforced.

The Court once more stressed thatfrom the presiding judge to thelowliest clerk, being public servants inan office dispensing justice, shouldalways act with a high degree ofprofessionalism and responsibility.Their conduct must not only becharacterized by propriety anddecorum, but must also be inaccordance with the law and courtregulations. No position demandsgreater moral righteousness anduprightness from its holder than anoffice in the judiciary. Court employeesshould be models of uprightness,fairness and honesty to maintain thepeoples respect and faith in thejudiciary. (AM No. P-10-2788, OCA v.Lopez, January 2011)

Supreme Court officials andemployees can continue to avail of thehealth care plan services of FortuneMedicare Inc. until the end of April thisyear with certain exceptions.

During the extension period, healthcare services such as executive check-ups, annual physical examinations,reimbursement of out-patientmedicines, cauterization of warts andsclerotherapy, and vaccinations willnot be covered by the Fortune Carecard.

In its January 11, 2011 resolution,the Court En Banc approved theextension to give the Committee onBids ample time to complete theprocurement process.

Dr. Prudencio P. Banzon, Jr., Chief ofSC Medical and Dental Services, andSupreme Court Health and WelfarePlan (SCHWP) member said thatemployees can still use their Fortune

Fortune Care Health Care Services Extended Till April 30By Helen D. Santos

Care card for doctor consultations andother health care services in anyFortune Care-accredited hospitalduring the extension period.

On February 1, 2011, the Courtauthorized SCHWPC WorkingChairperson and Clerk of Court En BancAtty. Enriqueta E. Vidal to signify theCourts conformity to the terms andconditions of the extension coverage.

JUDGE JOSELITO VIBANDOR:The Family Court Judge as Head of the FamilyThink of yourself as the head of the family that you are there not onlyto conduct trial but to find ways for the parties to settle.

relates to nullity of marriages, childabuse, violence against women andchildren, he reveals. AdditionalFamily Courts would also seek toequalize our case loads with regularcourts who are assigned cases on a 1is to 3 ratio.

Judge Joey urges Congress to lookinto the implementation of the [RA8369] Family Courts Act of 1997 whichhas become moribund byappropriating funds therefore. Thesefunds, once appropriated, translatesto additional personnel in familycourts, such as court social workers,guardian ad litems and other supportpersons; facilities, such as the holdingor preparation areas for children andthe live links, and special trainings forthe family court judges and theirstaff, he adds.

SPEARHEADING PROJECTS

Judge Joey has always beenconcerned of the plight of inmates ofLas Pias City jail who have beenbeneficiaries of his establishment ofthe first city jail library in thecountry. This library is equipped witha computer, law books, referencebooks as well as childrens books. Hehas also been celebrating hisbirthday with the Las Pias Cityinmates since 2001.

He is also an advocate of barangayeducation where as President of theLas Pias City Judges Association, hehas spearheaded lectures on basic lawat the grassroots level.

In his own sala, Judge Joey hasintroduced innovations to bettermanage the flow of cases. Inmateswho have pending cases in his salaare provided individually with indexcard so as to appraise the inmates oftheir next trial dates, the penaltyimposable as well as therecommended bail and the status oftheir cases.

For this and other efforts tocontribute to the justice system, JudgeJoey was named Special Awardee of theYear in 2006 by the Bureau of JailManagement and Penology; and oneof the outstanding professors by theArellano School of Law. The San BedaLaw Alumni Association during its2008 Alumni Homecoming namedhim one of the Bedans who are of GreatService to the Filipino People. Judge Joeywas also a delegate to the HagueForum for International CriminalLaw for Justices and Judges in theNetherlands in 2008.

But above all the foregoingaccolades, serving the country whilesettling family disputes and touchinglives as a family court judge hasmade me a better person, saysJudge Joey.

A FAMILY COURT JUDGE

For Judge Joselito Joey de JesusVibandor, Presiding Judge of Las PiasCity, Regional Trial Court, Branch 199,being a family court judge is like beingin a specialized field of law. Familycourt judges hear cases for annulmentof marriages, custody, support,violence against women and children,child abuse and neglect, among others.

Think of yourself as the head of thefamily that you are there not only toconduct trial but to find ways for theparties to settle, Judge Joey shares. Afamily court judge should give the

family every opportunity to resolvetheir own disputes by themselves andwithin the bounds of the law acceptableto them, he advises.

A family court judge for a decadenow, Judge Joey says that the bestattribute of a family court judge is hislistening heart and that as a judge,he should also have the right attitudeand the ability to change the lives ofparents and their children.

He also says that a family courtjudge should address family-relatedissues by keeping in mind each of thefamily member s rights andobligations and the best interest offamily in relation to other families inthe community.

Born on July 7, 1954 in a mine campin Acoje Mines, Sta. Cruz, Zambales,Judge Joey recalls, My late fatherCristino Milla Vibandor, a stowawayfrom Bula, Camarines Sur, was anintermediate graduate who did oddjobs in Manila but later rose throughthe ranks to be the mining companyselectrical superintendent. His latemother Victoria de Jesus Vibandor, anative of Navotas, Metro Manila, wasa loving mother to Judge Joey and hisfive other siblings who all becamesuccessful in their respective fields.

Judge Joey is an alumnus of San BedaCollege, where he obtained his PoliticalScience degree in 1976, and law degreein 1980. After passing the Bar thefollowing year, he worked asLegislative Assistant at the Office ofBudget and Management, LegislativeService in Malacaang for a year. From1982 to 1987, he was a CorporateAttorney in the Philippine TourismAuthority. In mid-80s, he wasdesignated as Boracay Island TourismAdministrator.

In 1988, he joined the Departmentof Justice as Assistant ProvincialProsecutor for the province of NuevaEcija, and was later transferred toPasay, where he was awarded in 1994as one of the outstanding prosecutors.

In September 2001, Judge Joeyjoined the Judiciary when he wasappointed to the Regional Trial Courtof Las Pias, Branch 100. He wasdesignated Executive Judge of Las PiasCity for two terms, concurrentlyserving as Acting Presiding Judge ofRTC Branch 254, another family court.

At present, Judge Joey is also theActing Presiding Judge of RTC Branch4, Manila, the only land registrationcourt in Manila.

Judge Joey hopes for the designationof additional family courts not only inLas Pias but in other stations as wellto address the high number of familycourt cases. The bulk of these cases

Be prepared and not entirely dependent on your counsel. Be familiarwith the facts of the case as well as the documents to be identified inopen court.

Observe proper court decorum. Avoid creating scenes fit only for amovie and wear appropriate clothes.

Dont be late. Judges frown upon litigants and lawyers who come inlate.

Turn your cellphone off or in silent mode.

Dont exaggerate. This will reflect negatively on you. Judges are trainedto know when a witness is lying. Relax, speak the truth clearly anddistinctly. If you do not understand the question, call the attention of thecourt interpreter. There are questions answerable only by yes or no.

Rules of a Family Court Judge for LitigantsBy Judge Joselito Vibandor

By Annie A. Laborte

Photos by Doranne I. Lim, Francisco S. Gutierrez, Cesar Tito P. Royeras, and Randy R. SamonteCaptions by Arcie M. Sercado

PIO ZOOMLE

NSEF

28-80mm

1:3.5-5.6

II

58mmPu

blic

informationOffi ceSnap Judgments

8

STAFFBOXGLEO SP. GUERRA EDITOR IN CHIEF | JAY B. REMPILLO ASSOCIATE EDITOR | ANNA KATRINA M. MARTINEZ NEWS EDITOR | ANNIE A. LABORTE FEATURES EDITOR | RONALD C. NAPOLITANO ART/LAYOUT EDITOR | JAMES C. BITANGA ERIKAT. DY JOACHIM FLORENCIO Q. CORSIGA HELEN GRACE D. SANTOS ARCIE M. SERCADO JEN T. TUAZON SHEENA MAE T. DAGUM CONTRIBUTING EDITORS | RENATO T. BOCAR RUTH MILO-FERRER SANDRA PERALTA-CALUGAY SANDIGANBAYAN CORRESPONDENTS | ELSIE R. TIAUZON-FORTEZA CTA CORRESPONDENT | DORANNE I. LIM CHIEF PHOTOGRAPHER | FRANCISCO S. GUTIERREZ CESAR P. ROYERAS RANDY R. SAMONTE PHOTOGRAPHERS |MARVIE S. IGNACIO MELODY L. SY EDITORIAL ASSISTANTS | LEIZEL C. HABANA CIRCULATION MANAGER | EDMUNDO M. MOREDO PRODUCTION COORDINATOR | RAYMUND P. FLORES BENCHMARK ONLINE ADMINISTRATOR | JOSE MIDAS P.MARQUEZ ADVISER

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE: 3/F New SC Bldg. Annex Padre Faura St., Ermita 1000 Manila, Philippines | Telephone Numbers: (02) 522-5090, 92, 93, 94 | Telefax (02) 526-8129 | sc.judiciary.gov.ph| BENCHMARK can also be viewed online at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/publications/benchmark. The views and opinions presented in BENCHMARK are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect thoseof the Supreme Court. To notify BENCHMARK of any change or correction in your mailing address, e-mail us at pio@sc.judiciary.gov.ph or write to The Editor in Chief at the above address. Contributions in the form of articles and photos ofcourt-related subjects are welcome and will be published subject to the editors descreation.

Volume XII Number 01JANUARY 2011

NEWLY APPOINTED EMPLOYEESList provided by the Office of Administrative Services as of January 31, 2011

MARIA CRISTINA M. ATENDIDO, Court Attorney VI, OAJ Sereno, Transfer from CA GILBERTH D. BALDERAMA, Court Attorney IV, OAJ Perez,Reappointment TRICIA NICOLE Q. VELASCO-CATERA, Judicial Staff Head, OAJ Velasco, Promotion RONALD BRIAN G. EVANGELISTA, ExecutiveAssistant V, OAJ Brion, Reemployment JAY-R C. IPAC, Court AttorneY IV, OAJ Brion, Transfer from HRET DONATO B. JAVINAR, Court Attorney IV,OAJ Del Castillo, Reappointment JANICE C. LEE, Court Attorney IV, OAJ Sereno, Original Appointment CONSTANTINO U. MANLANGIT, PET ChiefJudicial Staff Officer, OAJ Perez, Transfer from SC NORELIZA R. MORAA, Court Attorney VI, OAJ Perez, Transfer from PET ANNA NERISSA B. PAZ-PEREZ, Court Attorney VI, OAJ Del Castillo, Promotion ANNA LOREM R. RAMOS, Court Attorney IV, OAJ Sereno, Original Appointment

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (seated, center, 3rd row) poses for posterity with New Bilibid Prison inmates, who are members of the College Guild of the University of Perpetual Help System Delta Extension School, which operates within the NBP Medium Security Compound in Muntinlupa City.Also in photo are Supreme Court Public Information Office Chief and Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (seated right next to Chief Justice Corona), and officials of the Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prisons, and the UPHSD. His January 21, 2011 visit is a homecoming of sorts for theChief Justice since he did volunteer work in the Prison Ministry in his earlier years. He also served as the head of the Malacaang legal office from 1992 to 1998 during the administration of then President Fidel V. Ramos, which processes the applications for pardon and parole of inmates. Duringhis speech, he reminded inmates that their incarceration is only temporary and that they should change for the better and make use of their God-given talents upon their release in the future.

Former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno is conferred the degree of Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, by the University of the Philippines (UP) incelebration of the centennial of the UP College of Law at the Malcolm Theatre, Malcolm Hall, UP Diliman on January 11, 2011. Assisting theChief Justice in donning the velvet robes is Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Chairperson Dr. Patricia Licuanan (far left), and his daughter,Ruth (far right). During the conferment, UP President Emerlinda R. Roman cited Chief Justice Punos term in the Supreme Court as one whichshowed fidelity to the Constitution, a deep concern for the deaths of activist victims, high principles, and a liberal judicial activism.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona answers a question posed by one of the members of the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippinesduring the FOCAPs 2011 Prospects Forum: Six Years of Possibilities held at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Makati, Manila on January 20, 2011.Chief Justice Corona, who keynoted the FOCAP event, is joined on the panel by (from left) National Economic and Development AuthorityDirector General Cayetano W. Paderanga, Jr., Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., and JG Summit Holdings President Lance Y. Gokongwei. FOCAPis an association of journalists who work for the different foreign wire and news service organizations operating in the country.

Atty. Sixto Brillantes, Jr. takes his oath as the new Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chair before his former law firm partner Justice AntonioEduardo B. Nachura at the Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila on January 16, 2011. Atty. Brillantes is a veteran election lawyer, Bartopnotcher, and son of a former COMELEC Commissioner.

Public Information Office Chief Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez exchanges thoughts with Quezon City Vice-Mayor Ma. JosefinaG. Belmonte at the Proposed Practice Guidelines for Quezon City Courts: A Consultation with Stakeholders held at the Bulwagang Amoranto,Quezon City Hall, QC on January 12, 2011. The project, supported by the Supreme Court, Office of the Court Administrator, United States Agencyfor International Development, American Bar AssociationRule of Law Initiative, Department of Justice, and the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines, aims to modernize Quezon Citys judicial system. The consultation gathered representatives from the Bar, Judiciary, prosecution,and public defenders offices to gauge their reactions to the proposed modifications to the present litigation practice guidelines.

Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Jr. prepares for a drive against Public Information Chief Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez during thefirst friendship game between Supreme Court Philippines and Guam at the The Zone, Bel Air, Makati City on January 13, 2011. The basketballfriendship games were part of the visit of Chief Justice Torres to the Philippines.

Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa C. Vilches makes a presentation of the current state of the Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) Programsfleet of buses and complement at the Orientation on the EJOW Program held at theTraining Room, Ground Floor, Centennial Building, SupremeCourt, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila on January 7, 2011. The orientation was due to the change in the process of deployment of the EJOW buses,which will now be delegated to the three Deputy Court Administrators (DCAs) and two Assistant Court Administrators (ACAs) who will betasked to propose venues, taking into consideration the judicial needs of every area or locality under their jurisdiction, and take care of theimplementation in their respective regions.