october to december 2006 volume viii, issue no. 32 from...

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSOctoberOctoberOctoberOctoberOctober-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006OctoberOctoberOctoberOctoberOctober-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

October to December 2006 Volume VIII, Issue No. 32

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

SUPREME COURT

RE

PU

BLIC

OF THE PHILIP

PI N

ES

BATAS AT BAYAN

FFFFFrom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’s Desks Desks Desks Desks Desk

ffT bl fT bl fbl f (Continued on page 11)

PHILJA congratulates Honorable Reynato S. Puno as the new Chief Justice of theland and is heartened by his statement before PHILJA’s officials and staff that judicialeducation would be one of the centerpieces of his term.

Sharing top billing in this quarter was the Global Forum on Liberty and Prosperitywhich was hailed by both local and foreign delegates as an “outstanding programof real significance” and commended for its efficient organization. PHILJA wasspecially proud of the Joint Declaration on Liberty and Prosperity, crafted by thedelegates, as a significant outcome of this Forum wherein they declared that “thesafeguarding of the rights and liberties of citizens, and the promotion of theireconomic well-being, are inseparable key objectives of the Rule of Law.” In hisKeynote Address, Chief Justice Panganiban expounded on how the realization ofthe twin beacons of Liberty and Prosperity could benefit all peoples of the world.

This quarter also brought to our doors more opportunities for the sharing andexchange of ideas and experiences with other judicial institutions. We have takenoff from the signing of the Memoranda or Frameworks of Agreement, signed bythen Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, with Egypt, France, and Spain, and havewelcomed new affiliations with Bangladesh and Guam. We are thankful for therecognition accorded our efforts in judicial education as we continue to developour programs and employ new practices/methodology for its advancement,particularly for the Philippine Judiciary. For this reason, the provision for adequatetraining facilities and equipment is being addressed through the Japan Government’sgrant of P300M, allocated exclusively for the construction, renovation, and equippingof the Philippine Development Center in Tagaytay City. The unveiling of thefoundation granite marker in November marked the start of the process towardsthe building’s construction.

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS2

PHILJAACADEMIC PROGRAMS

43RD ORIENTATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOPFOR NEWLY APPOINTED JUDGES

The 43rd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Judges was held on November 22 to 30,2006, at the PHILJA Development Center, TagaytayCity. In attendance were twenty-eight (28) judges,comprising twenty-seven (27) newly appointedjudges and one (1) promoted judge.

A. NEW APPOINTMENTS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Hon. Carlos A. ValenzuelaRTC Br. 213, Mandaluyong City

REGION IIIHon. Celso O. BaguioRTC Br. 34, Gapan, Nueva Ecija

REGION VIHon. Francisco N. RodriguezRTC Br. 63, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental

REGION VIIIHon. Eduardo O. Cablao, Sr.RTC Br. 4, Dolores, Eastern Samar

REGION XIIHon. Lacsaman M. BusranRTC Br. 11, Malabang, Lanao del Sur

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Hon. Maria Gracia A. Cadiz-CasaclangMeTC Br. 71, Pasig City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

REGION IIIHon. Norman V. PamintuanMTCC Br. 4, Olongapo City

REGION IVHon. Manuel D. NocheMTCC Br. 2, Cavite City

REGION VIHon. Ma. Theresa Enriquez-GasparMTCC Br. 8, Iloilo CityHon. Rene B. GonzalesMTCC Br. 7, Iloilo CityHon. Evelyn P. RondaelMTCC Br. 9, Iloilo CityHon. Enrique Z. TrespecesMTCC Br. 10, Iloilo City

Hon. Rosario Abigail M. Dris-VillanuevaMTCC Br. 6, Iloilo City

REGION XHon. Charina G. Navarro-QuijanoMTCC Br. 2, Surigao City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION VHon. Evan D. DizonMTC Mercedes, Camarines NorteHon. Mel-Gerald N. NievaMTC Guinobatan, AlbayHon. Ave A. Zurbito-AlbaMTC Daraga, Albay

REGION VIHon. Milo M. TupasMTC Lambunao, Iloilo City

REGION VIIIHon. Jose B. LagadoMTC Mahaplag, Leyte

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIIHon. Jessie D. DalitMCTC Victoria-La Paz, Tarlac

REGION VHon. Sarina Rosa G. CoMCTC Ragay-Del Gallego, Camarines Sur

REGION VIHon. Bienvenido P. Barrios, Jr.MCTC Culasi-Sebaste-Pandan, AntiqueHon. Ernesto B. EstoyaMCTC Barbaza-Laua-An-Tibiao, AntiqueHon. Emilio Rodolfo Y. Legaspi IIIMCTC Sibalom-San Remegio-Bellison, Antique

REGION VIIIHon. Altone M. MirallesMCTC Villaba-Tabango, Leyte

REGION XIHon. Clemente E. BoloyMCTC Malita-Sta. Maria-Don Marcelino,Davao del Sur

SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT

REGION IXHon. Musar Adil AmilSCC Patikul, Sulu

B. PROMOTION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

REGION IHon. Elpidio C. CablayanRTC Br. 58, Bucay, Abra

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSOctoberOctoberOctoberOctoberOctober-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006OctoberOctoberOctoberOctoberOctober-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006 3

SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON CEDAW,GENDER SENSITIVITY AND THE COURTS

SPECIAL FOCUS

PROGRAMS

PHILJA, in partnership with the Committee onGender Responsiveness in the Judiciary (CGRJ),Sub-Committee on Training and Capacity-Building,Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC), and theUnited Nations Development Fund for Women(UNIFEM), conducted the Seminar-Workshop onCEDAW, Gender Sensitivity and the Courts, on October5 to 6, 2006, at the Justices’ Lounge, CentennialBuilding, Court of Appeals, Manila. This seminar-workshop was attended by a total of thirty-three(33) lawyers from the Supreme Court, Court ofAppeals, Sandiganbayan and the Court of TaxAppeals.

From left to right: Atty. Gilbert V. Sembrano, Atty. Rea A. Chiongson, Prof. Amparita S. Sta. Maria, Dr. Purificacion V. Quisumbing and Prof. Sedfrey M. Candelaria.

Participants of the Training Program for IPOand DTI Hearing Officers and Legal Assistantswith Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez (ret.), lectureron Decision Writing.

TRAINING PROGRAM FOR IPO AND DTIHEARING OFFICERS AND LEGAL ASSISTANTS

PHILJA, in collaboration with the IntellectualProperty Office (IPO-Phil.), conducted the TrainingProgram for IPO and DTI Hearing Officers and LegalAssistants last October 10 to 13, 2006, at IPPhilBuilding, Makati City. In attendance were forty-five (45) Intellectual Property Philippines andDepartment of Trade Hearing Officers and LegalAssistants.

In their respective messages, PHILJA ViceChancellor Justo P. Torres, Jr. and IPO-Phil.Director General Adrian S. Cristobal, Jr.,

emphasized the importance of due processobservance in resolving issues in relation tointellectual property system in the Philippines.

Moreover, lecturers gave interesting andinformative presentations aimed at helping hearingofficers and legal assistants in the effectiveperformance of their functions.

MULTI-SECTORAL SEMINAR-WORKSHOP

ON AGRARIAN JUSTICE FOR DAVAO

PHILJA, in collaboration with the AgrarianJustice Foundation, Inc. (AJFI), the Department ofAgrarian Reform (DAR), and the Department ofJustice (DOJ), conducted the Multi-Sectoral Seminar-Workshop on Agrarian Justice for Davao, on October17 to 19, 2006, at the Waterfront Insular Hotel,Lanang, Davao City. Selected first and second leveljudges and representatives from the Department ofJustice, Public Attorney’s Office, Department ofAgrarian Reform, Philippine National Police, andthose from NGOs, People’s Organization (POs) andlocal government units (LGUs) comprised the fifty(50) participants of this seminar-workshop.

Among the objectives of the activity were: toincrease sensitivity to the plight of the vulnerablesectors of the agrarian society; and to identify actualand potential conflicts between the agrarian justicesystem, and the civil and criminal justice systems,including conflicts of jurisdiction between theregular courts, and the Department of AgrarianReform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and itsregional and provincial arms: Regional AgrarianReform Adjudicators (RARAD), and ProvincialAgrarian Reform Adjudicators (PARAD).


ADVANCED COURSE ON

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

FOR COMMERCIAL COURT JUDGES

PHILJA, in collaboration with the NationalJudicial Institute Canada-Juris Project andIntellectual Property Philippines (IPPhil),conducted the Advanced Course on Intellectual PropertyLaw for Commercial Court Judges, on November 14 to17, 2006, at the Rockwell Club, Palm GroveRestaurant, Makati City. A total of twenty-six (26)commercial court judges participated in the course.

The objective of this course was to providecommercial court judges with an in-depthknowledge on intellectual property law whichwould develop into the skills necessary to resolverelevant issues in cases before Philippine courts.The course focused on the general discussions andpractical exercises on the three (3) main areas ofintellectual property law, namely: trademarks,patents and copyrights.

Participants of the Advanced Course on IntellectualProperty Law for Commercial Court Judges with Atty.Cesar L. Villanueva, Atty. Adrian S. Cristobal, Jr.,Amb. Lilia R. Bautista and Atty. Andrew Michael S. Ong.

JUDICIAL MOVES

SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON

LAW AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY

The Academy, in partnership with the AteneoLaw School, Ateneo De Manila-Department ofEconomics, and in cooperation with the BritishEmbassy conducted three (3) Seminar-Workshops onLaw and Economic Development Issues for the PhilippineJudiciary in the fourth quarter of the year.

The first Seminar-Workshop on Law and EconomicDevelopment Issues for the Philippine Judiciary wasconducted on November 16 to 17, 2006, at theTraining Center, Centennial Building, SupremeCourt, Manila. This was attended by a total oftwenty-four (24) Supreme Court lawyers.

Another seminar-workshop was conducted onNovember 21 to 22, 2006, at the CSB Hotel Manila.This was attended by a total of forty-three (43)Court of Appeals lawyers.

The third seminar-workshop was conductedon December 13 to 14, 2006, at the CSB HotelManila. This seminar-workshop was attended byforty-one (41) participants comprising CommercialCourt judges and students of Law and Economicsat the San Beda Graduate School of Law.

Supreme CourtChief Justice Reynato S. Puno

appointed on December 6, 2006

Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.

appointed on March 31, 2006

Court of AppealsAssociate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison

appointed on May 8, 2006

Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza


Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon


Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr.


Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor


Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla


Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez


Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta


Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz


Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias


Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion



DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

FOR JUDICIAL PERSONNEL

JUDICIAL REFORM ADVOCACY:ORIENTATION-WORKSHOP ON THE CODE OF

CONDUCT FOR NCJR COURT PERSONNEL

PHILJA, in partnership with the ProgramManagement Office (PMO), United States Agencyfor International Development (USAID), and theAmerican Bar Association-Asia Law Initiative(ABA-Asia), conducted The Judicial Reform Advocacy:Orientation-Workshop on the Code of Conduct for NCJRCourt Personnel in twelve (12) batches as listed below,at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Pasay City.

Batch Date No. of Participants

1 October 25 168

2 October 26 183

3 November 6 193

4 November 7 178

5 November 13 191

6 November 14 190

7 November 20 200

8 November 21 190

9 November 27 194

10 November 28 198

11 December 4 193

12 December 5 200

TOTAL 2,278

This activity’s main resource is the New Codeof Conduct for Court Personnel. Workshops wereconducted wherein the participants were dividedinto small focus groups to work on hypothethicalquestions applying the framework of the Code, intheir resolutions. Group reports followed theworkshop. The participants were also apprised ofthe Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR)presented.

CONVENTIONS

PJA

PHILJA and the Philippine Judges Association(PJA), conducted the Mid-Term Convention-Seminarof the Philippine Judges Association, on October 12 to14, 2006, at the Holiday Inn Hotel, Clarkfield,Angeles City, Pampanga with the theme: “Libertyand Prosperity through a Strong Judiciary.” Thiswas attended by a total of five hundred fourteen(514) judges nationwide.

As the Keynote Speaker, Chief JusticePanganiban reitrerated his vow to lead the judiciaryin the four (4) In’s – Independence, Integrity,Industry and Intelligence; and talked about howto counteract the corrosive effects of ACID (Accessto Justice, Corruption, Incompetence and Delay)in the delivery of justice, particularly to the poorand marginalized sectors of our society. Duringthe Message and Dialogue sessions with the judgesin the afternoon, Court Administrator ChristopherO. Lock echoed the Chief Justice’s call for the judgesto maintain the independence of the judiciary anduphold the Rule of Law, which provides the venuefor liberty and prosperity.

PTJLI

The Academy and the Philippine Trial JudgesLeague, Inc. (PTJLI) conducted the NationalConvention-Seminar of the Philippine Trial Judges League,Inc., on November 8 to 10, 2006, at the LegendHotel, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. A total oftwo hundred fifty-four (254) participants attendedthis three-day convention-seminar.

Topics discussed in this convention-seminarwere: Rules on Evidence, Juvenile Justice andWelfare Act (R.A. No. 9344), Pre–Trial and Modesof Discovery, Computation of Penalties and Fines,the Indeterminate Sentence Law, andEnvironmental Laws particularly the Fisheries Act.


ON MEDIATION

WORKSHOP ON THE

COMMUNICATION PROGRAM

FOR COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION

PHILJA and the Philippine Mediation Center,in cooperation with Asian Institute of Journalismand Communication (AIJC), United States Agencyfor International Development (USAID), and TheAsia Foundation (TAF), conducted the Workshop onthe Communication Program for Court-Annexed Mediation,on October 23, 2006, at the Pan Pacific Hotel Manila.The sixteen (16) attendees comprise the AlternativeDispute Resolution (ADR) and Design ManagementCommittee (DMC) members, includingrepresentatives from TAF and AIJC.

Topics discussed were as follows: Overview ofthe communication program; Project deliverablesand process involved in the formulation of theinformation education and communication (IEC)materials for mediation; and Presentation ofmediation articles developed from successfullymediated cases from PMC Units in Quezon City,Manila, Cebu, Davao, Pampanga and Cagayan deOro.

ORIENTATION CONFERENCE

WITH STAKEHOLDERS ON

COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION

The Orientation Conference with Stakeholders onCourt-Annexed Mediation (Batangas Mediation Program)was conducted on October 27, 2006, at the DaysHotel, Batangas City. A total of one hundred twenty(120) participants attended the orientationconference.

The Orientation Conference with Stakeholders onCourt-Annexed Mediation (Bulacan Mediation Program)was conducted on November 17, 2006, at the BarcieInternational Center, Malolos, Bulacan City. A totalof one hundred eight (108) participants attendedthe said orientation conference.

Topics discussed were: Overview and HistoricalBackground of Court-Annexed Mediation in thePhilippines; and Alternative Dispute Resolution,PHILJA, and Expectations and Impact on thePhilippine Judicial System.

CLERAP

PHILJA and the Court Legal ResearchersAssociation of the Philippines (CLERAP)conducted the Convention and Seminar of the CourtLegal Researchers Association of the Philippines, onOctober 18 to 20, 2006 at the Bohol Tropics Resort,Tagbilaran City with the theme: “Keeping Abreastwith Judicial Reforms and Innovations.”

Three hundred sixteen (316) court legalresearchers nationwide attended this three-dayconference with the aim to learn and assimilate newskills, dimensions and trends relevant to legalresearch. The participants worked in groupactivities after the substantive lectures. The electionof the new set of officers was conducted on thesecond day of the convention-seminar.

Below are the new set of CLERAP National andRegional Officers for 2006-2008:

Mr. Charlie A. Regilme- National PresidentMr. Hilario S. Cordero-Exec. Vice PresidentMr. Albert Macero -Vice President for LuzonMs. Genoveva R. Vasquez-Vice Pres. for VisayasMr. Benjamin Cortes – Vice Pres. for MindanaoMs. Merlie N. Yuson – General SecretaryMs. Rosenia G. Jover – Asst. SecretaryMs. Zenaida E. Calaor – TreasurerMs. Jennifer D. Andino – AuditorMs. Marilyn Leander – Asst. AuditorMr. Ildefonso Pajuelas –Business ManagerMr. Reynaldo Abunador – Asst. Bus. ManagerMr. Ed Baltazar – Public Information OfficerMs. Cielo Pardo – NCJR DirectorMs. Richelmina A. Velasco – Reg. 1 DirectorMr. Joel Palpallatoc – Reg. II DirectorMr. Wilson C. Mangabat – Reg. III DirectorMr. Raul Manuel Blas – Reg. IV DirectorMr. Aristotle V. Ramos – Reg. V DirectorMr. Ephraim B. Gellada – Reg. VI DirectorMr. Samuel Nebrida, Jr. – Reg. VIII DirectorMs. Hubairah H. Agpangan – Reg. IX DirectorMr. Edgar Casalem – Reg. XI DirectorMs. Jurata D. Igasan – ARMM Director


NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

COURT-ANNEXED/REFERRED

ADR MECHANISMS

The Philippine Judicial Academy, and thePhilippine Mediation Center (PMC) a componentunit of the Supreme Court designated for Court-Referred, Court-Related Mediation Cases and otherAlternative Dispute Resolution, in coordinationwith the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID) and The Asia Foundation(TAF), conducted the National Conference on Court-Annexed/Referred Alternative Dispute ResolutionMechanisms, on November 27 to 28, 2006 at theCentury Park Hotel, P. Ocampo Sr., Manila.

The conference’s theme was “Ayusin Ang Gusot,Habaan ang Pasensya” and aimed at highlightingthe significant role and accomplishments of Court-Annexed/Referred ADR Mechanisms in theresolution mechanisms consistent with the visionof the judiciary to broaden access to justice. Theconference included a breakout session, whichprovided a venue for sharing practical experiencesin mediation towards developing the existingImplementing Rules and Regulations on Trial CourtAnnexed Mediation and PMC Units, and in thepromotion and institutionalization of Court-Annexed Mediation.

There were a total of four hundred twenty-four(424) participants including PMC accreditedmediators all over the country, and otherstakeholders of ADR mechanisms. Also on thisoccasion, the first batch of the accredited AppellateCourt Mediators for the Court of Appeals took theiroath before the Chief Justice.

ON PHILJA

LAUNCHING OF THE CAPACITY-BUILDING ON

LAW AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY

CURRICULUM AND TRAINING MANUAL

PHILJA, in partnership with the Ateneo LawSchool, Ateneo de Manila-Department ofEconomics, and in cooperation with the BritishEmbassy, conducted the Launching of the Capacity-Building on Law and Economic Development Issues forthe Philippine Judiciary Curriculum and Training Manuallast October 5, 2006, at the 7th Floor, Penthouse,New Building, Supreme Court, Manila.

Her Majesty’s Ambassador Mr. PeterBeckingham of the British Embassy, gave a briefMessage of Appreciation after the ceremonial turn-over and launching of the Manual and Curriculum.Justice Reynato S. Puno received the Manual andCurriculum in behalf of the Supreme Court.

Her Majesty’s Ambassador Mr. Peter Beckingham of theBritish Embassy and Senior Supreme Court JusticeReynato S. Puno.

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS

From left to right: Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Mr.Ryuichiro Yamazaki, Ambassador of Japan to the Philippines,and PHILJA Chancellor Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera duringthe Unveiling of the Foundation Stone Marker.

PHILJA CORPORATE PLANNING

The PHILJA Corporate Planning: For a Performing,Efficient and Effective Judicial Academy, was conductedon December 8, 2006, at the Training Room,Centennial Building, Supreme Court, Manila.

The resource person who facilitated thecorporate planning process was Dr. Jacinto C.Gavino, Jr., Fr. James F. Donelan, SJ Professor ofBusiness Ethics and one of the core faculty in theAsian Institute of Management (AIM).

Part of the planning was the Presentation ofStrategic Areas for Change. Chancellor AmeurfinaA. Melencio Herrera discussed her assessment ofthe Academy in her presentation Challenge ofIntroducing Organizational Change. Other topicsdiscussed were Human Resource Empowerment,The Need for Systems Planning, and Towards aStable and Proactive Finance. At the ClosingCeremonies, heads of offices and staffrepresentatives gave brief messages of theirAffirmation and Commitment to the Academy.

Vice Chancellor Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr., inhis Closing Remarks, highlighted that despite thechallenges faced by PHILJA, what keeps ustogether is our faith in each other, that we belongto the same PHILJA Family.

Participants to the PHILJA Corporate Planningwith Professor Jacinto C. Gavino, Jr.

UNVEILING OF THEFOUNDATION STONE MARKER

OF THE PHILJA DEVELOPMENT CENTER

The Philippine Judicial Academy in cooperationwith the Project Management Office (PMO) of theSupreme Court, held the momentous “Unveilingof the Foundation Stone Marker of the PHILJADevelopment Center,” on November 30, 2006, atthe PHILJA Development Center (PDC), TagaytayCity.

This half-day program was graced with thepresence of Supreme Court officials, PHILJAofficials, professors and staff, the Ridge Sports andCountry Club Corporation stockholders, andSupreme Court’s and PHILJA’s Developmentpartners, and officials of the local government ofTagaytay City. The distinguished speakers on theproject’s history and development include SupremeCourt Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, PHILJAChancellor Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera,Ambassador Ryuichiro Yamazaki of Japan andFormer Government Corporate Counsel ManuelM. Lazaro. The ceremonial unveiling and signingof the Foundation Stone Marker was led by ChiefJustice Artemio V. Panganiban with AmbassadorYamazaki and PHILJA Chancellor Herrera. In theInspirational Message of the Chief Justice, heconveyed that “PHILJA is the first and only trainingschool for the Philippine judiciary. As envisioned,the renovation and construction of the PHILJADevelopment Center will make its academic programand physical facilities comparable with those ofother training institutions. In particular, theexpansion program will transform it into anational and, I hope, an ASEAN regional hub for(1) continuing legal and judicial education, (2) pre-judicature training, (3) judicial career enhancement,and (4) various programs in specialized areas ofthe law.”

8

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTTTTTOctoberOctoberOctoberOctoberOctober-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006OctoberOctoberOctoberOctoberOctober-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006 9

Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 41, exempting all PCGGmembers or staff from testifying in any judicial,legislative or administrative proceeding, isrepealed by the 1987 Constitution.

Notably, the 1987 Constitution recognizes thepower of investigation, not just of Congress, butalso of “any of its committee.” This is significantbecause it constitutes a direct conferral ofinvestigatory power upon the committees and itmeans that the mechanisms which the Houses cantake in order to effectively perform its investigativefunction are also available to the committees.

It can be said that the Congress’ power ofinquiry has gained more solid existence andexpansive construal. The Court’s high regard tosuch power is rendered more evident in Senate v.Ermita (G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006), where itcategorically ruled that “the power of inquiry isbroad enough to cover officials of the executivebranch.” Verily, the Court reinforced the doctrinein Arnault that “the operation of government,being a legitimate subject for legislation, is aproper subject for investigation” and that “thepower of inquiry is co-extensive with the powerto legislate.”

Considering these jurisprudential instructions,we find Section 4(b) directly repugnant with ArticleVI, Section 21. Section 4(b) exempts the PCGGmembers and staff from the Congress’ power ofinquiry. This cannot be countenanced. Nowherein the Constitution is any provision granting suchexemption. The Congress’ power of inquiry, beingbroad, encompasses everything that concerns theadministration of existing laws as well as proposedor possibly needed statutes. It even extends “togovernment agencies created by Congress andofficers whose positions are within the power ofCongress to regulate or even abolish.” PCGGbelongs to this class.

Certainly, a mere provision of law cannot posea limitation to the broad power of Congress, in theabsence of any constitutional basis.

x x x

Section 4(b), being in the nature of animmunity, is inconsistent with the principle ofpublic accountability. It places the PCGG membersand staff beyond the reach of courts, Congress andother administrative bodies. Instead of encouragingpublic accountability, the same provision onlyinstitutionalizes irresponsibility and non-accountability. In Presidential Commission on GoodGovernment v. Peña (G.R. No. L-77663, April 12, 1988),Justice Florentino P. Feliciano characterized as

“obiter ” the portion of the majority opinionbarring, on the basis of Sections 4(a) and (b) ofE.O. No. 1, a civil case for damages filed against thePCGG and its Commissioners. x x x

x x x

Corollarily, Section 4(b) also runs counter tothe following constitutional provisions ensuring

the people’s access to information:

Article II, Section 28

Subject to reasonable conditions prescribedby law, the State adopts and implements apolicy of full public disclosure of all itstransactions involving public interest.

Article III, Section 7

The right of the people to information onmatters of public concern shall be recognized.Access to official records, and to documents ,and papers pertaining to official acts,transactions, or decisions, as well as togovernment research data used as basis forpolicy development, shall be afforded thecitizen, subject to such limitations as may beprovided by law.

x x x

A statute may be declared unconstitutionalbecause it is not within the legislative power toenact; or it creates or establishes methods or formsthat infringe constitutional principles; or its purposeor effect violates the Constitution or its basicprinciples. As shown in the above discussion,Section 4(b) is inconsistent with Article VI, Section21 (Congress’ power of inquiry), Article XI, Section1 (principle of public accountability), Article II,Section 28 (policy of disclosure) and Article III,Section 7 (right to public information).

Significantly, Article XVIII, Section 3 of theConstitution provides:

All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,proclamations, letters of instructions, andother executive issuances not inconsistentwith this Constitution shall remain operativeuntil amended, repealed, or revoked.

The clear import of this provision is that allexisting laws, executive orders, proclamations,letters of instructions and other executive issuancesinconsistent or repugnant to the Constitution arerepealed.

(Continued on NEXT page)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTTTTT10

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (continued)

(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., In the matter of the Petitionfor Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of CamiloL. Sabio v. Honorable Senator Richard Gordon,et. al., GR. No. 174340; PCGG, et. al., v. RichardGordon et. al., G.R. No. 174318; PhilcomsatHoldings Corporations, et. al., v. Senate Committeeon Government Corporations and PublicEnterprises, et. al., G.R. No. 174177; October 17,2006)

Senate Committee’s inquiry does not violate theright to privacy and right against self-incrimination of the directors and officers ofPhilcomsat Holdings Corporation.

In evaluating a claim for violation of the rightto privacy, a court must determine whether aperson has exhibited a reasonable expectation ofprivacy and, if so, whether that expectation hasbeen violated by unreasonable governmentintrusion. Applying this determination to thesecases, the important inquiries are: first, did thedirectors and officers of Philcomsat HoldingsCorporation exhibit a reasonable expectation ofprivacy?; and second, did the government violatesuch expectation?

The answers are in the negative. Petitionerswere invited in the Senate’s public hearing todeliberate on Senate Resolution No. 455,particularly “on the anomalous losses incurred bythe Philippine Overseas TelecommunicationsCorporation (POTC), Philippine CommunicationsSatellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), andPhilcomsat Holdings Corporations (PHC) due tothe alleged improprieties in the operations bytheir respective board of directors.” Obviously,the inquiry focuses on petitioners’ acts committedin the discharge of their duties as officers anddirectors of the said corporations, particularlyPhilcomsat Holdings Corporation. Consequently,they have no reasonable expectation of privacyover matters involving their offices in acorporation where the government has interest.Certainly, such matters are of public concern andover which the people have the right toinformation.

This goes to show that the right to privacy isnot absolute where there is an overriding stateinterest. x x x

x x x

Anent the right against self-incrimination, itmust be emphasized that this right maybe invokedby the said directors and officers of PhilcomsatHoldings Corporation only when the

incriminating question is being asked, since theyhave no way of knowing in advance the natureor effect of the questions to be asked of them. Thatthis right may possibly be violated or abused is noground for denying respondent Senate Committeestheir power of inquiry. The consolation is thatwhen this power is abused, such issue may bepresented before the courts. At this juncture, whatis important is that respondent Senate Committeeshave sufficient Rules to guide them when the rightagainst self-incrimination is invoked. x x x

(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., In the matter of the Petitionfor Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Camilo L.Sabio v. Honorable Senator Richard Gordon, et.al., GR. No. 174340; PCGG, et. al., v. RichardGordon et. al., G.R. No. 174318; PhilcomsatHoldings Corporations, et. al., v. Senate Committeeon Government Corporations and PublicEnterprises, et. al., G.R. No. 174177; October 17,2006)

Essential elements of “Amendment to theConstitution directly proposed by the peoplethrough initiative upon a petition.”

Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution isthe governing constitutional provision that allowsa people’s initiative to propose amendments to theConstitution. This section states:

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitutionmay likewise be directly proposed by thepeople through initiative upon a petitionof at least twelve per centum of the totalnumber of registered voters of which everylegislative district must be represented byat least three per centum of the registeredvoters therein. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

x x x

Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intendedthat the “draft of the proposed constitutionalamendment” should be “ready and shown” to thepeople “before” they sign such proposal. Theframers plainly stated that “before they sign thereis already a draft shown to them.” The framersalso “envisioned” that the people should sign onthe proposal itself because the proponents must“prepare that proposal and pass it around forsignature.”

The essence of amendments “directly proposedby the people through initiative upon petition”is that the entire proposal on its face is a petitionby the people. This means two essential elementsmust be present. First, the people must author and

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTTTTTOctoberOctoberOctoberOctoberOctober-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006OctoberOctoberOctoberOctoberOctober-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006 11

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (continued)FFFFFrom the Chance l l o r’rom the Chance l l o r’rom the Chance l l o r’rom the Chance l l o r’rom the Chance l l o r’s Desks Desks Desks Desks Desk(Continued from page 1)

The assistance of ABA-Asia and the ProgramMangement Office (PMO) enabled us to hold thetwelve (12) Code of Conduct orientation seminar-workshops for 2,278 court personnel of the NCJR.Evaluation reports on the program haveconsistently been positive in terms of profitabilityand educational experience. In 2007, we arehopeful that the program will be able to covermore judicial personnel as far as resources willallow.

We encourage our judges to avail of oure-Learning program with the Modules onRemedial Law and Civil Law currently offeredonline. This interactive online learning toolkeeps the judges updated on latest jurisprudencewhile serving as a venue for clarification of relatedissues, without their having to leave the comfortor convenience of their home or work station.

Continuing legal education has likewise beenextended to court attorneys in seminar-workshops such as that on Law and EconomicDevelopment issues for the Philippine Judiciaryconducted for both judges and research attorneysof appellate courts. At the launch of the ReferenceManual on Law and Economic DevelopmentIssues for the Judiciary, then Senior AssociateJustice Reynato S. Puno remarked thatknowledge of international laws will affect courtrulings which should hopefully propel oureconomic growth and make the Philippinescompetitive in the world. The message wasaffirmed in the speeches of topnotch lecturersheaded by former Supreme Court JusticeFlorentino P. Feliciano who is also Chairman ofthe Appellate Body of the World TradeOrganization.

We regret the negative observations receivedindirectly from a few participants regarding someprograms. However, we try to balance theseagainst the overall high profitability ratingsgiven by most of them for most of the activities.As the year ends, we look back on our successesas we learn from our shortcomings and face ourproblems. We remain hopeful that the comingyear will find us recharged, confrontingchallenges, increasingly inspired, performing andeffective, to come closer to our vision of a judiciaryperforming competently, impartially, ethically,and with accountability.

Our warmest Handclasps to All!

thus sign the entire proposal. No agent orrepresentative can sign on their behalf. Second, asan initiative upon a petition, the petition must beembodied in a petition.

These essential elements are present only if thefull text of the proposed amendments is first shownto the people who express their assent by signingsuch complete proposal in a petition. Thus, anamendment is “directly proposed by the peoplethrough initiative upon a petition” only if thepeople sign on a petition that contains the fulltext of the proposed amendments.

The full text of the proposed amendments mayeither be written on the face of the petition, orattached to it. If so attached, the petition must statethe fact of such attachment. This is an assurancethat every one of the several millions of signatoriesto the petition had seen the full text of the proposedamendments before signing. Otherwise, it isphysically impossible, given the time constraint,to prove that every one of the millions of signatorieshad seen the full text of the proposed amendmentsbefore signing.

x x x

Moreover, “an initiative signer must beinformed at the time of signing of the nature andeffect of that which is proposed” and failure to doso is “deceptive and misleading” which rendersthe initiative void.

(Carpio, J., Raul L. Lambino, et. al., v. TheCommission on Elections; Mar-Len Abigail Binay,et. al., v. Commission on Elections, et. al., G.R. Nos.174153 and 174299, October 25, 2006)

Rule on Indigent Litigants.

Recapitulating the rules on indigent litigants,therefore, if the applicant for exemption meets thesalary and property requirements under Section 19of Rule 141, then the grant of application ismandatory. On the other hand, when theapplication does not satisfy one or bothrequirements, then the application should not bedenied outright; instead, the court should applythe “indigency test” under Section 21 of Rule 3 anduse its sound discretion in determining the meritsof the prayer for exemption.

(Velasco, Jr., J., Spouses Antonio F. Algura andLorencita S.J. Algura v. The Local Government Unitof the City of Naga, Atty. Manuel Teoxon, Engr.Leon Palmiano, Nathan Sergio and BenjaminNavarro, Sr., G.R. No. 150135, October 30, 2006)

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERS12

REMEDIAL LAWCriminal liability for estafa already committedis not affected by the subsequent novation ofcontract.

What is more nettlesome is respondent judge’sholding that there was novation or rescission ofcontract that prevented the onset of criminalliability for estafa. Jurisprudence is replete withcases that the criminal liability for estafa alreadycommitted is not affected by the subsequentnovation of the contract, for it is a public offensewhich must be prosecuted and punished by theState on its own motion even if complete reparationhad been made for the damage suffered by theoffended party. Although totally inapplicable to thematter of criminal liability, the claim of novationby reason of the partial return of the moneydefrauded was swallowed by the respondent judgehook, line, and sinker to absolve Ordiz fromliability.

(Nachura, J., Augusto C. Caesar v. Judge RomeoM. Gomez, etc., A.M. No. RTJ-07-2059, August 10,2007)

Sworn statements are almost incomplete andoften inaccurate and are generally inferior to thetestimony of a witness in open court.

The general rule is that inconsistencies anddiscrepancies between the testimony of a witnessin contrast with what he stated in an affidavit donot necessarily discredit him. Affidavits given topolice and barangay officers are made ex parte andoften incomplete or incorrect for lack or absence ofsufficient inquiries by the investigating officer. Itis of judicial knowledge that sworn statements arealmost incomplete and often inaccurate and aregenerally inferior to the testimony of a witness inopen court.

Inconsistencies or discrepancies in thetestimony of the witness relative to minor orperipheral matters and not to the significant factsvital to the guilt or innocence of the accused fromthe crime charged or the elements of such crimeare not grounds for the acquittal of the accused.

(Callejo, Sr., J., Eduardo Leyson, et. al., v. PedroLawa, et. al., G.R. No. 150756, October 11, 2006)

CRIMINAL LAWRepublic Act No. 9346 unequivocally bars theapplication of the death penalty, as well asexpressly repeals all such statutory provisionsrequiring the application of death penalty, sucheffect necessarily extends to its relevance to thegraduated scale of penalties under Article 71.

In truth, there is no material difference between“imposition” and “application,” for both termsembody the operation in law of the death penalty.Since Article 71 denominates “death” as an elementin the graduated scale of penalties, there is noquestion that the operation of Article 71 involvesthe actual application of the death penalty as ameans of determining the extent which a person’sliberty is to be deprived. Since Rep. Act No. 9346unequivocally bars the application of the deathpenalty, as well as expressly repeals all suchstatutory provisions requiring the application ofdeath penalty, such effect necessarily extends to itsrelevance to the graduated scale of penalties underArticle 71. We cannot find basis to conclude thatRep. Act No. 9346 intended to retain the operativeeffects of the death penalty in the graduation ofthe other penalties in our penal laws.

(Tinga, J., People of the Philippines v. Alfredo Bon,G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006)

The debarring of the death penalty throughRepublic Act No. 9346 did not correspondinglydeclassify those crimes previously catalogued as“heinous.”

It should be understood that the debarring ofthe death penalty through Rep. Act No. 9346 didnot correspondingly declassify those crimespreviously catalogued as “heinous.” Theamendatory effects of Rep. Act No. 9346 extend onlyto the application of the death penalty but not tothe definition or classification of crimes. True, thepenalties for heinous crimes have been downgradedunder the aegis of the new law. Still, what remainsextant is the recognition by law that such crimes,by their abhorrent nature, constitute a specialcategory by themselves. Accordingly, Rep. Act No.9346 does not serve as basis for the reduction ofcivil indemnity and other damages that adhere toheinous crimes.

(Tinga, J., People of the Philippines v. Alfredo Bon,G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSOctoberOctoberOctoberOctoberOctober-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006OctoberOctoberOctoberOctoberOctober-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006 13

Mandamus is available only to compel the doingof an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty.

Mandamus will not generally lie from one branchof government to a coordinate branch, for theobvious reason that neither is inferior to theother.

Regrettably, however, the plain, speedy andadequate remedy herein sought by petitioners, i.e.,a writ of mandamus commanding the respondentsto require PUVs to use CNG [Compressed NaturalGas], is unavailing. Mandamus is available onlyto compel the doing of an act specifically enjoinedby law as a duty. Here, there is no law thatmandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTCto order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. Atmost the LTFRB has been tasked by E.O. No. 290in par. 4.5 (ii), Section 4 “to grant preferential andexclusive Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC)or franchises to operators of NGVs based on theresults of the DOTC surveys.”

Further, mandamus will not generally lie fromone branch of government to a coordinate branch,for the obvious reason that neither is inferior tothe other. The need for future changes in bothlegislation and its implementation cannot bepreempted by orders from this Court, especiallywhen what is prayed for is procedurally infirm.Besides, comity with and courtesy to a coequalbranch dictate that we give sufficient time andleeway for the coequal branches to address bythemselves the environmental problems raised inthis petition.

x x x

It is the firm belief of this Court that in thiscase, it is timely to re-affirm the premium we haveplaced on the protection of the environment in thelandmark case of Oposa. Yet, as serious as thestatistics are on air pollution, with the present fuelsdeemed toxic as they are to the environment, asfatal as these pollutants are to the health of thecitizens, and urgently requiring resort to drasticmeasures to reduce air pollutants emitted by motorvehicles, we must admit in particular thatpetitioners are unable to pinpoint the law thatimposes an indubitable legal duty on respondentsthat will justify a grant of the writ of mandamuscompelling the use of CNG for public utilityvehicles. It appears to us that more properly, thelegislature should provide first the specific statutoryremedy to the complex environmental problemsbared by herein petitioners before any judicialrecourse by mandamus is taken.

(Quisumbing, J., HIlarion M. Henares, Jr., et al., v.Land Transportation Franchising and RegulatoryBoard, G.R. No. 158290, October 23, 2006)

Demurrer to evidence, when proper.

Demurrer to evidence authorizes a judgment onthe merits of the case without the defendant havingto submit evidence on his part as he wouldordinarily have to do, if it is shown by plaintiff’sevidence that the latter is not entitled to the reliefsought. The demurrer, therefore, is an aid orinstrument for the expeditious termination of anaction, similar to a motion to dismiss, which a courtor tribunal may either grant or deny.

A demurrer to evidence may be issued when,upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has shownno right to relief. Where the plaintiff’s evidencetogether with such inferences and conclusions asmay reasonably be drawn therefrom does notwarrant recovery against the defendant, a demurrerto evidence should be sustained. A demurrer toevidence is likewise sustainable when, admittingevery proven fact favorable to the plaintiff andindulging in his favor all conclusions fairly andreasonably inferable therefrom, the plaintiff hasfailed to make out one or more of the materialelements of his case, or when there is no evidenceto support an allegation necessary to his claim. Itshould be sustained where the plaintiff’s evidenceis prima facie insufficient for a recovery.

(Callejo, Sr. J., The Heirs of Emilio Santioque,represented by Filemon W. Santioque v. The Heirsof Emilio Calma, et. al., G.R. No. 160832, October27, 2006)

Guidelines in reviewing rape cases.

In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided bythese principles: First, the prosecution has to showthe guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonabledoubt or that degree of proof that, to an unprejudicedmind, produces conviction. Second, unless there arespecial reasons, the findings of trial courts, especiallyregarding the credibility of witnesses, are entitledto great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.Third, the disposition of rape cases are governed bythe following guidelines: (1) the accusation for rapecan be made with facility; it is difficult to prove butmore difficult for the person accused, thoughinnocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsicnature of the crime of rape where only two personsare usually involved, the testimony of thecomplainant must be scrutinized with extremecaution, and (3) the evidence for the prosecutionmust stand or fall on its own merits and cannotdraw strength from the weakness of the evidence ofthe defense.

(Chico-Nazario, J., People of the Philippines v. HenryBidoc y Roque, G.R. No. 169430, October 31, 2006)

REMEDIAL LAW (continued)

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERS14

LABOR LAWLoss of Trust and Confidence as a ground todismiss an employee; requisites.

Now, to validly dismiss an employee on the groundof loss of trust and confidence, the followingrequisites must be established: (a) the loss ofconfidence must not be simulated; (b) it shouldnot be used as a subterfuge for causes which areillegal, improper or unjustified; (c) it may not bearbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelmingevidence to the contrary; (d) it must be genuine,not a mere afterthought, to justify earlier actiontaken in bad faith; and (e) the employee involvedholds a position of trust and confidence. Proofbeyond reasonable doubt is not required, butsubstantial evidence is vital and the burden restson the employer to establish such evidence. Anyother rule would place the employee absolutely atthe mercy of the employer. Moreover, the term trustand confidence is restricted to managerial employeesonly.

(Quisumbing, J., Jaime H. Ballao v. Court ofAppeals, et. al., G.R. No. 162342, October 11, 2006)

A foreign judgment or order against a person ismerely presumptive evidence of a right asbetween the parties. It may be repelled, amongothers, by want of jurisdiction of the issuingauthority or by want of notice to the party againstwhom it is enforced. The party attacking aforeign judgment has the burden of overcomingthe presumption of its validity.

Generally, in the absence of a special contract,no sovereign is bound to give effect within itsdominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal ofanother country; however, under the rules ofcomity, utility and convenience, nations haveestablished a usage among civilized states by whichfinal judgments of foreign courts of competentjurisdiction are reciprocally respected and renderedefficacious under certain conditions that may varyin different countries. Certainly, the Philippine legalsystem has long ago accepted into its jurisprudenceand procedural rules the viability of an action forenforcement of foreign judgment, as well as therequisites for such valid enforcement, as derivedfrom internationally accepted doctrines.

The conditions for the recognition andenforcement of a foreign judgment in our legalsystem are contained in Section 48, Rule 39 of the1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended thus:

Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments. – The effectof a judgment or final order of a tribunal of aforeign country, having jurisdiction to render thejudgment or final order is as follows:

(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon aspecific thing, the judgment or final orderis conclusive upon the title to the thing;and

(b) In case of a judgment or final order againsta person, the judgment or final order ispresumptive evidence of a right as betweenthe parties and their successors in interestby a subsequent title;

In either case, the judgment or final order maybe repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction,want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, orclear mistake of law or fact.

Under the above Rule, a foreign judgment ororder against a person is merely presumptiveevidence of a right as between the parties. It maybe repelled, among others, by want of jurisdictionof the issuing authority or by want of notice tothe party against whom it is enforced. The partyattacking a foreign judgment has the burden ofovercoming the presumption of its validity.

(Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., St. Aviation Services Co.,Pte., Ltd., v. Grand International Airways, Inc.,G.R. No. 140288, October, 23, 2006)

LEGAL ETHICSDismissal or withdrawal of charges and thedesistance of witnesses do not automatically resultin the dismissal of an administrative case.

At the outset, the Court stresses that the dismissalor withdrawal of charges and the desistance ofwitnesses do not automatically result in thedismissal of an administrative case. Affidavits ofdesistance filed by complainants are looked uponwith disfavor; even the withdrawal of thecomplaint does not have the legal effect ofexonerating the respondent from anyadministrative disciplinary action. It does notoperate to divest this Court of jurisdiction todetermine the truth behind the matter stated inthe complaint, as our disciplinary authority cannotbe dependent on, or frustrated by, privatearrangements between parties; otherwise theprompt and fair administration of justice, as wellas the discipline of court personnel, would beundermined. However, in such cases, the chargeagainst the respondent judge should still be provenby substantial evidence, which in this case wasnot established.

(Callejo, Sr., J., Spouses Trefil and Lina A. Umalev. Judge Nicolas V. Fadul, Jr., Municipal TrialCourt, Pagsanjan, Laguna, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1660,November 30, 2006)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSOctoberOctoberOctoberOctoberOctober-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006OctoberOctoberOctoberOctoberOctober-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006-December 2006 15

SPECIAL ORDER NO. 443, dated December 13,2006

ADJUDICATION OF CASES

Reorganization of the Three Divisions of theCourt and Designation of the Chairpersons andMembers thereof

First Division

Chairperson:Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno

Working Chair:Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez

Members:Justice Renato C. CoronaJustice Adolfo S. AzcunaJustice Cancio C. Garcia

Second Division

Chairperson:Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing

Members:Justice Antonio T. CarpioJustice Conchita Carpio Morales Justice Dante O. TingaJustice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.

Third Division

Chairperson:Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago

Members:Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-MartinezJustice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.

Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario

SUPREME COURT OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 146-2006

TO: ALL PERSONNEL OF THE JUDICIARY

SUBJECT: PROHIBITION AGAINST DUALAPPOINTMENTS AND DOUBLECOMPENSATION OF AGOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

Quoted hereunder for your information andguidance is the resolution of the Third Division ofthis Court dated April 26, 2006 in A.M. No. 06-3-89-MTC Re: Query on Prohibition Against DualAppointments and Double Compensation of aGovernment Employee.

“The Court NOTES the Report dated March7, 2006 of the Office of the Court Administratoron the letter of Rogelio V. Ligsay, Clerk of Court,Municipal Trial Court, Buguey, Cagayan,inquiring whether the position of Chairmanof the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB)of Buguey, Cagayan, which he presently holds,falls within the prohibition against dualappointments and double compensation of agovernment employee, finding that:

Clerk of Court Rogelio V. Ligsay’sacceptance of his designation as one of themembers in the PLEB is contrary tojurisprudence x x x. Such membership inthe PLEB likewise falls under theprohibitions enumerated under Sec. 5,Canon III of the Code of Conduct for CourtPersonnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SCpromulgated on April 27, 2004).

Although membership in the PLEB isa civic duty, PLEB members may be paidper diem as may be determined by the cityor municipal council from city or municipalfunds. The Board has jurisdiction to hearand decide citizen’s complaints or cases filedbefore it against erring officers andmembers of PNP (R.A. No. 6975, January21, 1991).

With the nature of its creation, sourceof compensation/allowance and the dutiesattached to the position, it is clear that suchmembership falls under the classification of“outside employment” contemplated underSec. 5, paragraphs (c) and (e) of the Codeas above quoted.

As recommended in the said report, theCourt Resolves:

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS16


TO : ALL JUSTICES OF THE COURT OFAPPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN ANDCOURT OF TAX APPEALS, JUDGES OFTHE LOWER COURTS, LAWYERS INTHE GOVERNMENT SERVICE,INTEGRATED BAR OF THEPHILIPPINES AND OFFICE OF THESOLICITOR GENERAL

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF RULE 139-B

The Court En Banc in its resolution datedSeptember 12, 2006 in B.M. 1645, Resolved toAMEND the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule139-B of the Rules of Court, clarified by CircularNo. 3-89 dated February 6, 1989, as follows:

x x x

“The IBP shall forward to the Supreme Courtfor appropriate disposition all “complaints fordisbarment, suspension and discipline filed againstincumbent Justices of the Court of Appeals,Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax appeals and judgesof lower courts, whether or not they are chargedsingly or jointly with other respondents, andwhether or not such complaint deals with actsunrelated to the discharge of their officialfunctions. The same procedure shall be observedwith respect to complaints filed against retiredjustices and judges. All similar complaints against

lawyers still in the government service, whetherfiled directly with the IBP or transmitted to theIBP by the Office of the Solicitor General, shallfirst be referred to the Court for appropriate action.

x x x

The amendment took effect on October 2, 2006following its publication in the Manila Bulletinon September 15, 2006.”

October 31, 2006.

(Sgd.) CHRISTOPHER O. LOCK Court Administrator


TO : ALL CLERKS OF COURT OF THEREGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

SUBJECT: AUTHORITY TO NOTARIZEDOCUMENTS

For your information and guidance, the CourtEn Banc had issued a resolution dated August 15,2006 in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (Re: 2004 Rules onNotarial Practice), which Resolved among others,to wit:

x x x

(f) AUTHORIZES the Clerk of Court of theRegional Trial Courts to notarize not onlydocuments relating to the exercise theirofficial functions but also privatedocuments, subject to the followingconditions: (i) all notarial fees charged inaccordance with Section 7(o) of the Rule141 of the Rules of Court, and, withrespect to private documents, inaccordance with the notarial fee that theSupreme Court may prescribe incompliance with Section 1, Rule V of the2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, shall befor the account of the Judiciary and (ii)they certify in the notarized documentsthat there are no notaries public withinthe territorial jurisdiction of the RegionalTrial Court;

x x x

November 16, 2006.

(Sgd.) CHRISTOPER O. LOCK Court Administrator

(a) to NOTE the letter dated January 7, 2006of Rogelio V. Ligsay, Clerk of Court,Municipal Trial Court, Buguey, Cagayan;and

(b) to DIRECT Clerk of Court Ligsay, in viewof existing jurisprudence and theprovisions under Sec. 5, paragraphs (c)and (e) of the Code of Conduct for CourtPersonnel, to avoid accepting otherpositions or designations detrimental tohis functions and to immediately desistfrom performing the functions of amember of the People’s Law EnforcementBoard (PLEB).”

For strict compliance.

October 27, 2006.



1. The price is subject to adjustments depending on

printing and distribution costs. (Continued on NEXT page)

b. The Cash Division, FMO, OCA, shallmaintain with the Land Bank of thePhilippines a separate special account of thefiduciary fund specifically for the NRF. Aseparate cashbook shall also be kept andmaintained for the fund. Withdrawals ofdeposits shall be made only uponauthorization or approval by the ChiefJustice or his duly authorizedrepresentative.

c. The Court Administrator and the FinancialOffice of the OCA shall be the authorizedsignatories for this fund.

4. In view of the current unavailability of notarialregisters, notaries public shall be allowed to usethe temporary form attached hereto. The notarypublic concerned shall file a written request touse the improvised form with the executivejudge that issued his commission. A copy ofhis current commission shall be attached to suchrequest.

The notaries public who have been authorizedto use such forms shall have them book-boundand initialed on each and every page by theexecutive judge before whom the request wasfiled. Each bound copy shall have a maximumof 106 pages and shall be treated and used inthe same manner as the new notarial book.

Each request shall be limited to one bound copy.Should the bound copy be used up before thenew notarial books are available, the notarypublic concerned may request anew for the useof bound temporary forms. The use of boundtemporary forms shall end when the newnotarial books are available but, upon writtenrequest, the executive judge may allow thenotary public to use up the bound temporaryforms.

5. The OCA shall, within the first ten (10) days ofthe first month of every quarter remit to theOffice of the Solicitor General an amountequivalent to 10% of the gross collectionsduring the preceding quarter as the share ofthe OSG in the sale of the notarial registers.

6. The printed certification of the CourtAdministrator as to the number of pages of eachnotarial register shall be countersigned by thefollowing:


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURTOF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTSAND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THEPHILIPPINES

SUBJECT: 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE

The Court En Banc, in its Resolution datedAugust 15, 2006 in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC Resolvedto APPROVE the Proposed Guidelines in theImplementation of the Provisions of theMemorandum of Agreement between the Office ofthe Court Administrator and the Office of theSolicitor General relative to printing anddistribution of Notarial Books, to wit:

1. Notaries public who render legal and notarialservices within the National Capital JudicialRegion shall secure their notarial registers fromthe Property Division, Office of theAdministrative Services of the Office of theCourt Administrator (OCA).

2. Notaries public in other judicial regions shallsecure their notarial registers from the Officeof the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the RegionalTrial Court (RTC) of the city or province underthe supervision of the Executive Judge whoissued their respective notarial commissions.However, they may also secure notarialregisters from the Office of the CourtAdministrator.

3. Notarial registers shall be available atPhp1,200.001 each. Said amount shall coveronly the costs of printing and binding of thenotarial registers exclusive of shipping chargeswhen sold in the provinces. Payments shallbe made either to the Cash Division, FinancialManagement Office, OCA, or to the Clerk ofCourt/accountable officer in the OCC of theRTC, as the case may be.

a. The amount collected shall be receipted anddeposited to a separate account of thefiduciary fund to be known as the“Notarial Register Fund” (NRF).

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS18


TO : THE CLERKS OF COURT OF THE COURTOF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN ANDCOURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND THEEMPLOYEES WELFARE AND BENEFITSDIVISION, OFFICE OF THEADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OFTHE COURT ADMINISTRATOR

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATIONWHETHER IT IS STILL NECESSARYFOR JUSTICES AND JUDGES TOSECURE AN OMBUDSMANCLEARANCE FOR PURPOSES OFTHEIR APPLICATION FORRETIREMENT.

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 157-2006 (continued)

For your information and guidance is the CourtEn Banc resolution issued on October 17, 2006 inA.M. No. 06-10-18-SC (Re: Request for ClarificationWhether it is Still Necessary for Justices and Judgesto Secure an Ombudsman Clearance for Purposesof their Application for Retirement), to wit:

“A.M. No. 06-10-18-SC (Re: Request forClarification Whether it is Still Necessary forJustices and Judges to Secure an OmbudsmanClearance for Purposes of their Application forRetirement) - This refers to the Letter dated October12, 2006 of Mr. Joseph Bryan Hilary P. Davide,Chief Justice’s Staff Head, seeking clarification fromthe Court on whether it is still necessary for Justicesand Judges to secure an Ombudsman Clearance forpurposes of their application for retirement.

Memorandum Circular No. I Series of 1992issued by the Office of the Ombudsman reads infull:

MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. I

Series of 1992

TO: ALL HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS,OFFICES,BUREAUS AND AGENCIESOF THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL-GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDINGGOVERNMENT–OWNED ANDCONTROLLED CORPORATIONS

RE: OMBUDSMAN CLEARANCE

Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3019, asamended, otherwise known as the “Anti-Graftand Corrupt Practices Act” provides that “(N)opublic officer shall be allowed to resign or retirepending an investigation, criminal oradministrative, or pending a prosecutionagainst him, for any offense under this Act orunder the provisions of the Revised Penal Codeon bribery.”

In order that the foregoing prohibition maybe strictly observed, all concerned are herebyenjoined not to allow the retirement, or acceptthe resignation of any “public officer” asdefined under said Act without first securing/presenting a clearance to the effect that he hasno pending criminal or administrative casewith this Office. Any person found to be notcomplying with this Circular may be punished

a. In the National Capital Region, the officialof the Office of the Court Administratorauthorized by the Court Administrator toso countersign; and

b. In the case of the other judicial regions, theClerk of Court of the Regional Trial Courtof the city or province where such bookhas been obtained for cost.

7. The Supreme Court Printing Office shall printthe notarial registers. In the event the PrintingOffice cannot meet the requirements of theOCA, and subject to Republic Act No. 9184(Government Procurement Reform Act), itsimplementing rules and regulations, andexisting Supreme Court issuances onprocurement, the Court Administrator maycontract out the printing of notarial registersto the following printers in the followingorder:

a. UP Printing Services;

b. The National Printing Office; or

c. Private printing firm.

The OCA shall resort to the third option onlyif the first two printers can not accommodate therequirements of the Court.

November 16, 2006.


(Continued on NEXT page)


OCA CIRCULAR NO. 162-2006 (continued)

3. Id. at 724-725.

1. The provision reads, in part, thus:

SEC. 2. The President, Vice-President, the Membersof the Supreme Court, the Members of theConstitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman maybe removed from office, on impeachment for, andconviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution,treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes,or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers andemployees may be removed from office as providedby law, but not by impeachment.

2. 413 Phil. 717, 725 (2001).

for contempt pursuant to Section 15(9) ofRepublic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of1989).

This circular takes effect immediately.

February 11, 1992.

(Sgd.) CONRADO M. VASQUEZ Ombudsman

On the basis thereof, Justices and Judges, as one ofthe requirements for their application for retirement,are required to secure the Ombudsman Clearanceto the effect that he or she has no pending criminalor administrative case filed with the Office of theOmbudsman. The Court finds, however, that suchrequirement has no legal justification.

Members of the Supreme Court may be removedfrom office only by impeachment. This is clear fromSection 2,1 Article XI of the Constitution. FurtherSection (1) thereof vests in the House ofRepresentative the exclusive power to initiate allcases of impeachment. On the other hand, Section6, Article VIII provides that the “Supreme Courtshall have the administrative supervision over allcourts and the personnel thereof.”

In Caoibes, Jr. v. Ombudsman,2 the Court in nouncertain terms stressed that the Office of theOmbudsman may not encroach into the SupremeCourt’s exclusive administrative jurisdiction overall courts and court personnel, from the PresidingJustice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowestmunicipal trial court clerk in this wise:

x x x Under Section 6, Article VIII of theConstitution, it is the Supreme Court which isvested with exclusive administrative supervisionover all courts and its personnel. Prescinding fromthis premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine foritself and by itself whether a criminal complaintagainst a judge, or court employee, involves anadministrative matter. The Ombudsman is dutybound to have all cases against judges and court

personnel filed before it, referred to the SupremeCourt for determination as to whether anadministrative aspect is involved therein. This ruleshould hold true regardless of whether anadministrative case based on the act subject of thecomplaint before the Ombudsman is alreadypending with the Court. For, aside from the factthat the Ombudsman would not know of thismatter unless he is informed of it, he should givedue respect for and recognition of the administrativeauthority of the Court, because in determiningwhether an administrative matter is involved, theCourt passes upon not only administrativeliabilities but also other administrative concerns,as is clearly conveyed in the case of Maceda v.Vasquez (221 SCRA 464 [1993]).

The Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind theCourt, to its findings that a case before it does ordoes not have administrative implications. To doso is to deprive the Court of the exercise of itsadministrative prerogatives and to arrogate untoitself a power not constitutionally sanctioned. Thisis a dangerous policy which impinges, as it does,on judicial independence.

Maceda is emphatic that by virtue of itsconstitutional power of administrative supervisionover all courts and court personnel, from thePresiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down tothe lowest municipal trial court clerk, it is onlythe Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’and court personnel’s compliance with all laws,and take the proper administrative action againstthem if they commit any violation thereof. Noother branch of government may intrude into thispower, without running afoul of the doctrine ofseparation of powers. 3

The requirement imposed on the Justices and Judgesto secure the Ombudsman Clearance for purposesof their retirement is, thus, without basis in law.

ACCORDINGLY, Justices of the Supreme Court,Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of TaxAppeals, and Judges are not required to secure theOmbudsman Clearance for purposes of theirapplication for retirement.”

November 27, 2006.


PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS

Date Seminars / Activities Venue

Presentation of the Project Evaluation Report on “Improving JudicialProceedings Involving Child Sexual Abuse/ExploitationCase” Basic Mediation Course (Batangas Mediation Program)

Seminar-Workshop on CEDAW, Gender Sensitivity, and the Courts44th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges

Orientation-Seminar on the PMC Operation and Grievance MachinerySeminar on Democracy and Law at the Service of Human Person

12th Pre-Judicature Program

Launching and Presentation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct forthe Philippine Judiciary (Annotated)

Seminar-Workshop on CEDAW, Gender Sensitivity, and the Courts45th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges

Strengthening the Implementation of the Codeof Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines

Seminar-Workshop on Law and Economic Development Issuesfor the Philippine Judiciary

Seminar-Workshop on CEDAW, Gender Sensitivity, and the Courts forSelected Judges of the National Capital Judicial Region

Jan. 11

Jan. 22-25

Jan. 25-26Jan. 31-Feb. 8

Feb. 12Feb. 15-16

Feb. 20-Mar. 27

Feb. 20

Feb. 22-23Mar. 14-22

Mar. 26-29

Mar. 27-28

Mar. 29-30

Justices’ Lounge,Supreme Court, ManilaHotel Pontefino,Batangas CitySupreme Court, ManilaPHILJA Dev’t. Center,Tagaytay CityBacolod City, Negros Occ.Eduardo Aboitiz FoundationInc., Cebu CityIBP Bldg., Ortigas Center,Pasig CityJustices’ Lounge,Supreme Court, ManilaSupreme Court, ManilaPHILJA Dev’t. Center,Tagaytay CityDynasty Court Hotel,Cagayan de Oro CityQuezon City Sports Club,Quezon CitySupreme Court, Manila

3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial BuildingPadre Faura St. cor. Taft Ave., Manila, Philippines1000

PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE TO AVOIDPAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE ORIMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin

2007Upcoming PHILJA Events2007Upcoming PHILJA Events2007Upcoming PHILJA Events2007Upcoming PHILJA Events2007Upcoming PHILJA Events20072007200720072007 Upcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA Events

october to december 2006 volume viii, issue no. 32 from...

Documents