sc_annual_12

This Annual Report is submitted pursuant to the Supreme Court's constitutionally-imposed duty under Article VIII, Section 16"The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of each regular session of the Congress, submit to the President and the Congress

an annual report on the operations and activities of the Judiciary."

This is a publication of the Supreme Court Public Information Office.Prior permission is not required to reproduce its contents, in whole or in part.

An electronic copy of this publication may be downloaded from sc.judiciary.gov.ph

Under the current structure, the Supreme Courtsits at the top of a four-level vertical hierarchy, withthe Court of Appeals as the third level and RegionalTrial Courts (RTC) and Municipal Trial Courts (MTC),Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) andMetropolitan Trial Courts in Cities (MeTC) as secondand first level courts, respectively.

The vertical hierarchy allows for a systematic orderof appellate review where the courts of the higher levelare given jurisdiction to review, reverse, revise or affirmthe decisions, orders, resolutions, writs and processesof the courts of the lower level. Within each level,however, the courts are coordinate and equal andcannot review, revise, reverse or affirm each other’sdecisions, resolutions, writs and processes.

FIRST LEVELFIRST LEVELFIRST LEVELFIRST LEVELFIRST LEVEL

The Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), MunicipalTrial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuit TrialCourts (MCTC) form the courts of the first level. TheMeTCs are established in Metropolitan Manila whilethe MTCCs are established in every city not formingpart of Metropolitan Manila. The MTCs areestablished in each of the other cities or municipalitieswhile the MTCCs are created in each circuitcomprising such cities and/or municipalities as

The Philippine JudiciaryOOOOOriginally established on June 11, 1901 through Act No. 136 by theriginally established on June 11, 1901 through Act No. 136 by theriginally established on June 11, 1901 through Act No. 136 by theriginally established on June 11, 1901 through Act No. 136 by theriginally established on June 11, 1901 through Act No. 136 by the

Philippine Commission as a three-level hierarchical organization, thePhilippine Commission as a three-level hierarchical organization, thePhilippine Commission as a three-level hierarchical organization, thePhilippine Commission as a three-level hierarchical organization, thePhilippine Commission as a three-level hierarchical organization, thePhilippine Judiciary, through the years, has retained a structure ofPhilippine Judiciary, through the years, has retained a structure ofPhilippine Judiciary, through the years, has retained a structure ofPhilippine Judiciary, through the years, has retained a structure ofPhilippine Judiciary, through the years, has retained a structure of

vertical hierarchy but has also incorporated a system of horizontal and lateralvertical hierarchy but has also incorporated a system of horizontal and lateralvertical hierarchy but has also incorporated a system of horizontal and lateralvertical hierarchy but has also incorporated a system of horizontal and lateralvertical hierarchy but has also incorporated a system of horizontal and lateralcoordination among courts within the same level.coordination among courts within the same level.coordination among courts within the same level.coordination among courts within the same level.coordination among courts within the same level.

grouped by law. The decisions of the courts of thefirst level are appealable to the courts of the secondlevel, or the RTC.

Within this level are the Shari’a Circuit Courts(SCC). Shari’a Courts have been established in theAutonomous Regions of Muslim Mindanao tointerpret and apply the Code of Muslim PersonalLaws provided under Presidential Decree No. 1083.Their decisions are appealable to the Shari’aAppellate Court which, however, has yet to beorganized.

SECOND LEVELSECOND LEVELSECOND LEVELSECOND LEVELSECOND LEVEL

The Regional Trial Courts (RTC) are courts of thesecond level. These courts are established in each ofthe thirteen (13) regions of the Philippines.

Each RTC may be composed of a single sala orof several branches. Unlike courts of the first level,the RTC has both original and appellatejurisdiction. In the exercise of its originaljurisdiction, an RTC may receive evidence in a casefalling within its jurisdiction. In the exercise of itsappellate jurisdiction, the RTC may review,reverse, revise, and affirm the decisions of firstlevel courts.

II

Also on the same level are the Shari’a DistrictCourts (SDC), whose decisions are appealable to thestill-to-be organized Shari’a Appellate Court. Pendingsuch organization, SDC Decisions are reviewed bythe Supreme Court through the special civil actionof certiorari under Rule 65 if the issue is one ofjurisdiction or through a petition for review oncertiorari by way of appeal under Rule 45. (Macaraigv. Balindong, GR No. 159210, September 20, 2006)

THIRD LEVELTHIRD LEVELTHIRD LEVELTHIRD LEVELTHIRD LEVEL

The Court of Appeals (CA) is at the third level.The CA is led by a Presiding Justice and exercisesits powers, functions and duties through twenty three(23) divisions of three members each. The CA’s 18th,19th and 20th Divisions comprise the CA Visayas andare located in Cebu City while its 21st, 22nd and 23rd

Divisions comprise the CA Mindanao and are basedin Cagayan de Oro City. Unlike the Supreme Court,the CA meets en banc only to decide onadministrative matters not to adjudicate.

The CA is assigned to review cases elevated to itfrom the RTCs as well as quasi-judicial agencies suchas the Civil Service Commission, Securities andExchange Commission, National Labor RelationsCommission, and the Land Registration Authority.

The CA also reviews cases where the sentenceis reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as wellas decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman inadministrative disciplinary cases. The CA is acollegial court and sits en banc only to exerciseadministrative, ceremonial or other non-adjudicatoryfunctions. Being an appellate court, it generallyresolves cases based on the record of the proceedingsfrom the trial court; in certain cases, however, theCA also conducts hearings and receives evidence suchas, for instance, in applications for the writ of Amparoor Habeas Data, whether in the exercise of originaljurisdiction or on remand from the Supreme Court.

The CA is also the Court which has the originaland exclusive jurisdiction to issue a freeze order overany monetary instrument or property under theAnti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 or Republic ActNo. 9160. It is also the Court with original andexclusive jurisdiction to allow surveillance andmonitoring of communications under the HumanSecurity Act of 2007 or Republic Act No. 9372.

SPECIAL COLLEGIATE COURTSSPECIAL COLLEGIATE COURTSSPECIAL COLLEGIATE COURTSSPECIAL COLLEGIATE COURTSSPECIAL COLLEGIATE COURTS

There are two special courts which, like the CA arecollegial courts, but, unlike the CA, have very specificjurisdictions.

The first of these is the Sandiganbayan, thecountry’s anti-graft court. It has jurisdiction to trypublic officers with a salary grade of 27 and above(including any co-accused who are private persons)charged with criminal cases involving violation of thecountry’s laws on graft and corruption andcorresponding civil cases for recovery of civil liabilityarising from the offense. The Sandiganbayan iscomposed of a Presiding Justice and fourteen (14)Associate Justices who sit in five divisions of threeJustices each. Its decisions are directly appealable tothe Supreme Court.

The second is the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)created under Republic Act No. 9503. It is composedof a Presiding Justice and eight (8) Associate Justices;it may sit en banc or in three divisions of threeJustices each. Republic Act 9282, which took effecton March 30, 2004, has elevated the status of the CTAto that of the Court of Appeals. The CTA hasexclusive jurisdiction to review on appeal decisionsin cases involving disputed assessments, refunds ofinternal revenue taxes, fees, or other charges,penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arisingunder the National Internal Revenue Code. It alsoexercises original jurisdiction over all criminaloffenses arising from violations of the Tax or TariffCodes and other laws administered by the Bureauof Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs.

FOURTH LEVELFOURTH LEVELFOURTH LEVELFOURTH LEVELFOURTH LEVEL

The Supreme Court sits at the top of this hierarchy.It is presided over by the Chief Justice and is composedof fourteen (14) other Justices. The Court mayadjudicate En Banc or in three divisions of fiveJustices each.

Under the Constitution, it has supervision over thecourts and court personnel as well as over all themembers of the judiciary. Its members sit untilretirement at age 70 or unless sooner removed byreason of ill health, death or conviction afterimpeachment.

The Court has the power, among others, to review,revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari,as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, finaljudgments or orders of lower courts” cases specified inArticle VIII, section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution.”Decisions of the Court, whether sitting En Banc orin division, are imbued with authoritativeness and,unless reconsidered by the Court, are considered partof the law of the land.

III

TH

E S

UP

RE

ME

CO

UR

T(C

ente

r) C

hief

Jus

tice

Mar

ia L

ourd

es P

. A

. S

eren

o;

(sea

ted,

fro

m l

eft)

A

ssoc

iate

Jus

tice

s D

iosd

ado

M.

Pera

lta,

Ter

esit

a J

. Le

onar

do-D

e C

astr

o,

Ant

onio

T.

Carp

io,

Pres

bite

ro J

. Vel

asco

, Jr.,

A

rtur

o D

. Bri

on, a

nd L

ucas

P. B

ersa

min

; (st

andi

ng, f

rom

left

) A

ssoc

iate

Jus

tices

Mar

vic

M.V

.F. L

eone

n, B

ienv

enid

o L.

Rey

es,

Jose

Por

tuga

l Per

ez,

Robe

rto

A. A

bad,

Mar

iano

C. D

el C

asti

llo,

Mar

tin

S. V

illar

ama,

Jr.,

Jo

se C

atra

l Men

doza

, and

Est

ela

M. P

erla

s-Be

rnab

e..

The Philippine Judiciary

The Chief Justice’s Message

2012: A Year of Trial,Transition and Change

The Members of the Court

Officials of Supreme Court Offices

Supreme Court and Lower CourtsStatement of Allotments, Obligations, and BalancesJanuary to December 2012

The State of the Judiciary in 2012

Judicial Reforms

The Court’s Work

Reports from the Third Level Courts: Court of Appeals,Court of Tax Appeals and Sandiganbayan

The Court’s Presence and Participationin Fora, Conferences, Seminarsand Workshops

Employee Welfare and Benefits

The Way Forward: The Four Pillars of Judicial ReformThe Year 2013 Thus Far

IIIIIIIIII

6

8

11

32

64

68

72

79

99

102

108

114

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

I came into the office with sufficient knowledge ofthe usual problems besetting a Philippine public institution. The judiciary is public in the formal

traditional sense that it is part of the government service,but it is also public in the larger and more meaningfulsense that its actions, as well as non-actions, determine toa significant degree the weal and future of a people.

This public institution, the judiciary, must play its roleas such in a manner that assures the people that itsdirection is clear, and that every one of its steps, purposeful.The advent of an era of transparency in Philippine publiclife challenges preconceived notions of how the judiciary isto relate to the public. While the sunshine of truth bringsa fresh, antiseptic air to the workings of the judiciary, inreality, many of the outcomes of judicial action have topercolate in the secret recesses of the judge’s chamber.

There, left to her thoughts, armed with her skills andthe knowledge gained from years of experience, she poresover the records, reviews her notes, and collects in hermind all the elements that must be mustered in arrivingat a just resolution of the conflict that is before her. Acollective court differs only in the percolative process ofarriving at a decision. The exchange of ideas amongcolleagues, sometimes emotional and heated, brings acollective element that should – all things being equal –produce a judicial result that is more profound, thoughtful,

comprehensive, incisive and prescient.

That process is concealedfrom public view.

Understandably, the publicis concerned that while it iscompelled to accept theindispensability of allowinga court to arrive at itsconclusions in a hidden

process, the public needs atthe same time to receive theassurance that this hidden processis unalloyed by considerationsother than upholding the law andmeting out justice. Publicaccusations or persistent rumorsof personal and material benefitsreceived in exchange for afavorable ruling by one or somemagistrates introduce a sense ofdesperation into this need forpublic assurance. On the other

2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES6

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes PChief Justice Maria Lourdes PChief Justice Maria Lourdes PChief Justice Maria Lourdes PChief Justice Maria Lourdes P. . . . . A. SerenoA. SerenoA. SerenoA. SerenoA. SerenoSupreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines

hand, it has been said that judges need not be unduly vexed by unproven accusations of wrongdoing.The judge’s balm is a clean conscience. But these words of comfort offered to judges do not address thepublic’s need to know, to be assured, that the private processes in adjudication are not used as cloaks tohide evil. This is why methods of reporting by the judiciary have been devised to address this need.

The first forum for reporting to the public is that which is found in a judicial “decision.” TheConstitution requires that “[n]o decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing thereinclearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.”1 This requirement of “clear expressionof facts and law” has been in force since the 1935 Constitution. In our present Charter, it has been recastto include the municipal courts, yet the principle remains timeless. It pertains to the duty of the courtsto ensure that affected persons, the readers and especially the parties, fully understand how the conclusionsof the courts are reached and to expose the reasoning to public scrutiny.

The limits of human expression, differing skill levels of judges, and the need to dispose of cloggeddockets disable this constitutional prescription from serving as the full answer to the public “need toknow” hunger. They mitigate, in varying degrees, this need. To the extent that the judge is skillful andmaintains a reputation for fairness and integrity, and is able to translate these advantages into a well-reasoned decision, the gap is narrowed.

The second set of forums for reporting is that located in the judiciary’s various institutional reports.The Constitution requires that the Supreme Court “within thirty days from the opening of each regularsession of the Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an Annual Report on the operationsand activities of the Judiciary.”2 Past practices have made the Supreme Court’s Annual Report relevantduring budget deliberations, but not much more useful beyond that. It is our hope that there will begreater use for the report.

This is the first Annual Report that will be submitted by the Supreme Court under my watch.Inevitably, the new team responsible for producing this report had to be guided by what had been donepreviously. While noticeable changes can be seen in many parts of the report, much of the hard data onthe performance of lower courts were adopted, unfiltered, from the present reporting system.

I have personally found myself wanting more clarity in the data. The working definitions that havebeen employed leave me unsatisfied. As I have announced on several occasions, the judiciary needsclear, clean, reliable data. It will need to have definite starting points that must spring from a thoroughinventory of cases, including in such inventory data on identifiable milestones in judicial disputes. Andthe definitions, together with the working targets that will be set to measure the performance of thejudiciary, must be acceptable to most everyone and must be workable in the long term. This spring-cleaning is currently being undertaken.

The judiciary has embarked on making its reports increasingly transparent and accessible. Theamount and depth of reports that can be found on the Supreme Court’s website have markedly improved.These are reports not only on the decisions of the Court, but also on its operations, financial and otherwise,as well as its key activities. Progressively, the Court will attempt new ways of increasing its assuranceto the public that the judiciary is to be trusted. While we will always have sad stories of the waywardones among us, the trajectory towards greater and nobler service cannot be derailed.

This is but a step to regaining public trust. Everyone can expect that many more will follow. Again,please accept my pledge, on behalf of the entire judiciary, that we will pour heart and soul into thepresentation of a judiciary increasingly composed of persons of “proven competence, integrity, probity,and independence” – a judiciary that will in the future, with the help of Almighty God, be a source ofpride for the Filipino people.

MABUHAY PO ANG SAMBAYANANG PILIPINO!

1 1987 Constitution, Art. 8, Sec. 14.2 Id. at Sec. 16.

2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 7

The year is best described in three words: trial, transition, and change.

The year 2012 saw three Chief Justices occupying the Court’s center seat in succession. Thestart of the year saw Chief Justice Renato C. Corona at the Court’s helm until May 29, 2012when he was removed from office. The removal, however, did not leave a vacuum, as SeniorAssociate Justice Antonio T. Carpio took over as Acting Chief Justice, by operation of theConstitution, in an orderly transition.

2012: A YEAR OF TRIAL,TRANSITION AND CHANGE


During the brief period of transition, Acting Chief Justice Carpio ordered the uploading ofthe latest reports on the SC Special Funds – Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and SpecialAllowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) – as well as the 2010 Annual Commission on Audit (COA)Report on the SC to the SC website (http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph). He also directed the posting ofthe various budget accountability reports (BARs) for the Supreme Court and the PresidentialElectoral Tribunal for the first quarter of 2012 already submitted to the Department of Budgetand Management to the website.

As Acting Chief Justice, he also convened both the Supreme Court En Banc and the JudicialBar Council. In its first session under his leadership, the Court resolved to make public theStatement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) of all justices and judges, subject tocertain guidelines. He, however, inhibited himself from participating in the process for selectingthe nominees for Chief Justice which the JBC initiated, as he himself was an automatic nomineefor Chief Justice, being the Senior Associate Justice.


On August 24, 2012, then Associate Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno took the center seatafter being appointed as the 24th Chief Justice and the first female Chief Justice of the Republicof the Philippines by President Benigno S. Aquino III. Like Senior Associate Justice Carpiobefore her, she would soon preside over the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) proceedings thatwould recommend the successor to her seat.

From the JBC shortlist, the President would choose the former government negotiator tothe peace talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and former Dean of theUniversity of the Philippines College of Law Marvic M.V.F. Leonen as the 15th Associate Justiceto fill the vacated seat of the new Chief Justice. His appointment made by the President onNovember 21, 2012 would complete the membership of the Court.

Despite two transitions and the change in leadership, the Court’s work continued withoutlet up, as may be seen in the Decisions it has promulgated En Banc and by division, theprograms for judicial reform and the activities undertaken by the various offices of the SupremeCourt.

Upon her assumption to office, Chief Justice Sereno immediately set to work by going downto the grassroots and visiting various courts nationwide, addressing problems and concernsthat have long beset our first and second level courts, their judges, and court personnel. Newrules of procedure were likewise introduced to expedite court proceedings (the Judicial AffidavitRule) as well as to protect the environment (the Efficient Use of Paper Rule).

Under the Chief Justice’s stewardship, extensive system and budget reforms are beingundertaken for the first time in its recent history. The Four Pillars of Judicial Reform (InstitutingIntegrity and Restoring Public Trust and Credibility; Ensuring Predictability, Rationality, Speed,and Responsiveness of Judicial Actions; Improving Systems and Infrastructure; DevelopingEfficient and Effective Human Resources) have been her framework for the overarching objectiveof a stable, efficient, and transformed judiciary.


First Division(From left) Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.; Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, WorkingChairperson; Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Chairperson; Justice Lucas P.Bersamin; Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes.

Second Division(From left) Justice Jose Portugal Perez; JusticeArturo D. Brion; Senior Associate Justice AntonioT. Carpio, Chairperson; Justice Mariano C. DelCastillo; Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.

En Banc


Third Division(From left) Justice Jose Catral Mendoza; Justice Diosdado M. Peralta; JusticePresbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Chairperson; Justice Roberto A. Abad; Justice MarvicM.V.F. Leonen.


Lawyer-academician Maria Lourdes P. A.Sereno was appointed on August 16, 2010 asthe 169th Justice of the Supreme Court andon August 24, 2012 as its 24th Chief Justice.Born on July 2, 1960, she is the youngest to

be so appointed to the Court in this century. She may alsobe one of the longest serving ever, as she is to mandatorilyretire in 2030 after serving a 20-year term.

Chief Justice Sereno is a product of early public schoollearning. She graduated with honors at the KamuningElementary School and Quezon City High School. She wasthen awarded generous scholarships by the governmentand several private institutions that allowed her to earnan Economics degree at the Ateneo de Manila Universityand a Bachelor of Laws degree at the University of thePhilippines.

After graduating valedictorian from the UP College ofLaw in 1984, Chief Justice Sereno joined the largest lawfirm in the country. While she enjoyed her challenging workin the law firm, her family started to grow. Choosing tospend more time with her two young children and herhusband, she opted to leave the law firm in 1986.

She joined the UP College of Law, where she was able tomold young men and women in the principles of Civil andCommercial law. From being one of the youngest facultymembers, she would eventually go on to lead and

CHIEF JUSTICEMARIAMARIAMARIAMARIAMARIA LOURDES P LOURDES P LOURDES P LOURDES P LOURDES P..... A. SERENOA. SERENOA. SERENOA. SERENOA. SERENOAppointed as the 24th Chief Justice on August 24, 2012Served as the 169th Associate Justice on August 16, 2010 – August 23, 2012

administer two institutions based in the UP Law Center – theInstitute of International Legal Studies and the Informationand Publication Division. She was a professor at the UPCollege of Law for nearly 20 years. She also taught at thePhilippine Judicial Academy and several internationalacademies.

In 1992, Chief Justice Sereno was awarded a De WitteFellowship and a Ford-Rockefeller Scholarship to pursue herMaster of Laws at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,where she developed her proficiency in law and economicsand international trade law. When she and her familyreturned to the Philippines, she played a key role indeveloping those fields of law.

At the age of 38, she was appointed as legal counsellor atthe World Trade Organizations’ Appellate Body Secretariatin Geneva. Her international experience and pioneeringachievements in the legal profession were recognized whenshe was selected as one of The Outstanding Women in theNation’s Service (TOWNS) for law.

At the age of 39, she was chosen as the only femalemember of the 1999 Preparatory Commission onConstitutional Reform, in which she was elected chairpersonof the commission’s Steering Committee. Here, she helpedthe various sectoral committees identify key constitutionalissues and integrated their f indings into a commonframework for analysis of the various constitutionalprovisions. In the same year, together with Justice JoseCampos, Commissioner Haydee Yorac, and other professorsfrom the UP College of Law, she co-founded Accesslaw, acorporation that provided the first annotated electronicresearch system in Philippine law.

Access to justice is one of the centerpiece advocacies of ChiefJustice Sereno. One of her earlier works in law school included areview of the interface between domestic laws and indigenouscustomary laws. The United Nations Development Program wouldalso commission her to write a paper on judicial reform, whichwould eventually become the basis for the first external reformprogram that was welcomed by the Supreme Court. Among theactivities the project birthed was the first ever dialogue betweenthe Members of the Supreme Court and representatives of thebasic sectors. She also assisted in the High Tribunal’s pilot projectsin mediation and judicial case management systems and, togetherwith professors from the UP School of Economics, wrote a widelyquoted, survey-based paper on justice and the cost of doingbusiness.

Prior to her joining the Court, she was engaged in majorinternational litigation as co-counsel for the Republic, after whichshe joined the Asian Institute of Management as Executive Directorof its think-tank - the AIM Policy Center – in which she pursued herinterest in policy reform and its impact on governance and theeconomy.

Believing in what she could deliver for justice and judicial reform,President Benigno C. Aquino III made her his first appointee to theSupreme Court.

She is married to Mario Jose E. Sereno. They are blessed withtwo children, Maria Sophia and Jose Lorenzo. Her late parents areMargarito Aranal of Siasi, Sulu, and Soledad Punzalan of Bay, Laguna.


Born in Davao City, Philippines, JusticeAntonio T. Carpio was sworn in as member ofthe Supreme Court on October 26, 2001. JusticeCarpio obtained his law degree from the Collegeof Law of the University of thePhilippines where he graduated valedictorian

and cum laude in 1975. He placed sixth in the 1975 BarExaminations. He earned his undergraduate degree inEconomics from Ateneo de Manila University in 1970.

In his student days, Justice Carpio was Chairman of theEditorial Board of the Philippine Law Journal of the UP Collegeof Law. He was Editor-in-Chief of The Guidon, the school paperof Ateneo de Manila University. He also served as ManagingEditor of the Philippine Collegian, the school paper of theUniversity of the Philippines.

Fresh out of law school, Justice Carpio went into privatepractice and founded the Carpio Villaraza and Cruz Law firm.He was a Professorial Lecturer of the UP College of Law from1983 until 1992 when he was appointed Chief PresidentialLegal Counsel, Office of the President of the Philippines.

Justice Carpio was a member of the Board of Regents ofthe University of the Philippines from 1993 to 1998. He was amember of the Technology Transfer Board of the Departmentof Industry from 1978 to 1979. He served as SpecialRepresentative of the Department of Trade for textilenegotiations from 1980 to 1981. He was elected President ofthe Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Pasay-Makati Chapter(1985-1986), Director of the UP Law Alumni Association(1984-1989), and Director of the Philippine Bar Association(1989-1990).

For his “distinguished and exemplary service” to theRepublic, Justice Carpio was awarded in 1998 the PresidentialMedal of Merit by then President Fidel Ramos. In 1991, JusticeCarpio received the Outstanding Achievement Award in Lawfrom the Ateneo de Manila Alumni Association. In 2002, hewas also the recipient of the Distinguished Alumnus Awardfrom the Ateneo de Davao Alumni Association. In 2009, hewas conferred a Doctorate of Laws, honoris causa, by theAteneo de Davao University.

Justice Carpio is the Chair of the Second Division and Chairof the Senate Electoral Tribunal.

Appointed as 148th Associate Justice on October 26, 2001

SENIOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICEANTONIO TANTONIO TANTONIO TANTONIO TANTONIO T. CARPIO. CARPIO. CARPIO. CARPIO. CARPIO


Born on August 8, 1948 in Pasay City, JusticePresbitero J. Velasco, Jr. is a product of the publicschool system. He went to J. SumulongElementary School (First Honorable Mention)and the University of the Philippines (UP)

Preparatory School, respectively, for his elementary and highschool education.

He obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Sciencefrom UP, finishing the course in only three years. He went onto take up his Bachelor of Laws from the same university. Atthe UP College of Law, Justice Velasco was a member of theOrder of the Purple Feather Honor Society and served on theEditorial Board of the Philippine Law Journal. He graduatedeighth in the class of 1971 with a grade of 1.79. He placedsixth in the Bar Exams that same year with a grade of 89.85%.

He engaged in private law practice for 20 years beforejoining the public sector as a regular member of the Judicialand Bar Council in 1993.

Justice Velasco served as Undersecretary of theDepartment of Justice from 1995 to April 1998. He wasconcurrently Commissioner of the Housing and Land UseRegulatory Board. He was also Chairman of the Board ofPardons and Parole, Commissioner of the Commission onSettlement and Land Disputes, and Member of the Committeeon Privatization.

In 1998, he was appointed Court of Appeals justice. Hewas ranked eighth in disposition of cases when he was namedCourt Administrator in 2001.

Justice Velasco has also served the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines (IBP) in various capacities: as its National Presidentin 1987, as Commissioner of the IBP Committee on BarDiscipline, and as Honorary Chairperson and Past National Co-Chairperson of the IBP National Committee on Legal Aid. Hewas a Member of the Board of Governors for the term 1985-87 and Vice President for Southern Tagalog Region. He wasalso the Cavite IBP Chapter President for the term 1985-1987.He was the President of the Quezon City “Capitol” Jaycees for1986-87. It was during his term that the Capitol Jaycees was

Appointed as 157th Associate Justice on March 31, 2006

JUSTICEPRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

adjudged the Most Outstanding JC Chapter in Asia-Pacific. In1988, he was elected the National Executive Vice President(NEVP) of the Philippine Jaycees in charge of Metro Manila.

On March 31, 2006, he was appointed as Associate Justiceof the Supreme Court. He is currently the Chairman of the ThirdDivision and of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.


Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro wasappointed to the Supreme Court on December 4,2007. She is an alumna of the University of thePhilippines (UP) where she was a consistentcollege and university scholar. She finished in

UP, Bachelor of Arts cum laude in 1968 and Bachelor of Law in1972 at the top four of her class. She was Vice-Chancellor anda consistent member of the UP College of Law honor society,the Order of the Purple Feather. She was elected to lifetimemembership in the Phi Kappa Phi International Honor Societyand Pi Gamma Mu International Honor Society in the SocialSciences for academic excellence in her Bachelor of Arts andBachelor of Laws degrees. She attended law courses in theInternational Law Institute in Washington D.C., USA and HarvardLaw School’s Program of Instruction for Lawyers inMassachusetts, USA.

Appointed as 160th Associate Justice on December 4, 2007

JUSTICETERESITTERESITTERESITTERESITTERESITAAAAA J.J.J.J.J. LEONARDO-DE CASTROLEONARDO-DE CASTROLEONARDO-DE CASTROLEONARDO-DE CASTROLEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Now on her 40th year in government, Justice De Castro’scareer in public service began on February 19, 1973, whenshe was appointed to a law clerk position in the Office of theClerk of Court of the Supreme Court. From January 1975 toNovember 1978, she served as a Legal/Judicial Assistant andas member of the technical staff of the late Chief Justice FredRuiz Castro. In December 1978, she transferred to theDepartment of Justice (DOJ) where she served as State CounselI and rose from the ranks culminating in her appointment in1997 as Assistant Chief State Counsel. She was designated asone of the international and peace negotiators of PresidentCorazon Cojuangco Aquino and President Fidel V. Ramos from1988 to 1997. In 1998, she was awarded by then PresidentFidel V. Ramos with the Presidential Medal of Merit forExceptionally Meritorious and Valuable Service Rendered andRemarkable Accomplishments that have served the interestof peace, unity and progress in Southern Philippines, earningher the gratitude and admiration of the Filipino nation andthe people.

Justice De Castro rejoined the Judiciary as SandiganbayanAssociate Justice on September 23, 1997 and became itsPresiding Justice on December 15, 2004. During herincumbency, she spearheaded the establishment of theComputerized Case Management System and the adoptionof reforms that contributed to easing of the court docket inthe Sandiganbayan and to the professionalization of its workforce. For these accomplishments as Presiding Justice of theSandiganbayan, she was awarded in December 2005 theChief Justice Hilario G. Davide Judicial Reform Award.

She now holds the position of President-elect, for theterm 2012-2014, of the International Association of WomenJudges (IAWJ) pursuant to her election in May 2012 at theBiennial Convention of the IAWJ held in London, UnitedKingdom, which was attended by members of the IAWJ fromover 100 countries. She is also currently the President of thePhilippine Women Judges Association (PWJA).

In the Supreme Court, Justice de Castro is the WorkingChair of the F irst Division, the Chairperson of theManagement Committee of the Judicial Reform SupportProject. She also served as the Working Vice-Chair of theCommittee on Ethics and Ethical Standards, Chairperson ofthe Committee on Computerization and Library, theCommittee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary, andthe Special Committee to Draft Rules on Sexual Harassmentin the Judiciary, and Member of the Supreme Court InternalRules Committee.


After an intervening two-year stint in theExecutive Branch as Secretary of Labor andEmployment, former Court of Appeals (CA)Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion came home to theJudiciary on March 17, 2008 as the Highest Court’s161st magistrate.

Justice Brion’s work experience cuts a swath across the threebranches of government and showcases the multiple aspects of lawpractice.

He began his law career in private law practice, mostly in laborlaw, with the Siguion Reyna Montecillo & Ongsiako Law Offices from1975 to 1982. At the same time, he shared his legal knowledge inthe academe as a member of the Ateneo de Manila University Facultyof Law from 1976 to 1981, and in 1986.

He first entered government service in 1970, while still in lawschool, as a clerical aide in the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations.He returned to government service, already a lawyer, in 1982 asExecutive Director of the Institute of Labor and Manpower Studiesunder the Philippine Ministry of Labor. In 1984, he was electedMambabatas Pambansa in the Philippine National Assembly wherehe was Vice-Chair of the Labor and Employment Committee and amember of the Committee on Revision of Laws and ConstitutionalAmendments. He was also appointed Deputy Minister of Labor forLegal and Legislative Affairs from 1985 to 1986 under the thenprevailing semi-parliamentary system of government.

He returned to private practice as Senior Partner of the Natividad,Delos Reyes, Maambong & Brion Law Firm from 1986 to 1988, andsubsequently was Senior Partner at the Siguion Reyna, Montecillo& Ongsiako Law Offices from 1995 to 2001. In the intervening years,he went to Canada, was admitted to the Law Society of UpperCanada, and worked in the Legal Service Branch of the OntarioMinistry of Labour and in the Ontario Government’s ManagementBoard Secretariat. He was Editor-in-Chief of the Legal Update, apublication of the Legal Services Branch of the Ontario Ministry ofLabour from 1992 to 1993.

He returned to the Philippines in 1995 to the Siguion Reyna LawOffice, at the same time undertaking consulting work for the CivilService Commission on public sector unionism. His consultancy ledto the paper “Public Sector Unionism – a Proposed Reconfiguration.”He likewise returned to the academe, teaching at Ateneo Law from1995 to 1997; at the University of the Philippines School of Laborand Industrial Relations from 2001 to 2002; and the Far EasternUniversity Institute of Law from 2005 to 2006. His full-timegovernment service restarted in 2001 as Undersecretary of Laborfor Labor Relations of the Department of Labor and Employment,and a year after, as Undersecretary for Special Projects of theDepartment of Foreign Affairs.

Justice Brion, the son of retired Regional Trial Court Judge EdonB. Brion and Laura S. Dizon of San Pablo City, crossed from the Bar toBench when he was appointed CA Associate Justice in July 2003.He was a Senior Member of the Appellate Court’s 15th Division untilJuly 2006, when he accepted the task of leading the country’sDepartment of Labor and Employment as its Secretary. His returnto the Judiciary in March 2008 completed the 15-member HighTribunal, filling in the vacancy left by the retirement of JusticeAngelina Sandoval-Gutierrez.

Although born in Manila on December 29, 1946, Justice Brionconsiders himself a true son of San Pablo, Laguna, the City ofSeven Lakes, where he spent his elementary (San PabloElementary School) and high school (Ateneo de San Pablo) years.He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics degree fromthe San Pablo Colleges before taking up his law studies at theAteneo de Manila University.

At the law school, he was a consistent honor student and was Editor-in-Chief of the Ateneo Law Journal. He finished his Bachelor of Lawsdegree with the distinction of being Cum Laude, Class Valedictorian,and awardee of the Golden Leaf Award, Gold Medal for AcademicExcellence, and First Honors Gold Medal. He ranked first place in theBar Examinations held that same year, with a grade of 91.65%.

Justice Brion never ceased in his formal and informal pursuit ofknowledge. In the middle of his legal career, he went to obtain hisMaster of Laws degree at the Osgoode Hall Law School of York Universityin Toronto, Canada in 1994, with Labor Law as his main area of study.While serving as a Justice of the appellate court, Justice Brion enrolledin Spanish language classes at the Instituto Cervantes.

He is married to chemist-lawyer Atty. Antonietta C. Articona-Brion.They are blessed with two similarly multi-skilled children: Antonella A.Brion graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from YorkUniversity in Toronto, Canada, and is now both a writer and a painterafter her masteral studies in fine arts. Arturo Brion, Jr., a computerengineering graduate of McMaster University and Bachelor of Lawsdegree holder from the University of New Brunswick, is now inIntellectual Property Law Practice in Ottawa, Canada.

Justice Brion is a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,the Philippine Bar Association, and for a time, of the Law Society ofUpper Canada. He was Chapter President of the Integrated Bar, LagunaChapter, from 1981 to 1983; National President of the YMCA of thePhilippines in 1985; and a member of its National Board in 2006. He isalso a Mason and is a member of the Teodoro Kalaw Memorial LodgeNo. 136; Malinaw Lodge No. 25; the Manila Bodies No. 1 (A.&A.S.R.);and the Royal Order of Scotland.

Appointed as 161st Associate Justice on March 17, 2008

JUSTICEARTURO D. BRIONARTURO D. BRIONARTURO D. BRIONARTURO D. BRIONARTURO D. BRION


Appointed as 162nd Associate Justice on January 16, 2009

JUSTICEDIOSDADO M. PERALDIOSDADO M. PERALDIOSDADO M. PERALDIOSDADO M. PERALDIOSDADO M. PERALTTTTTAAAAA

On January 13, 2009, then SandiganbayanPresiding Justice Diosdado M. Peralta was namedas Supreme Court Associate Justice. He is thethird Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice to beappointed to the High Tribunal.

Justice Peralta finished his Bachelor of Science degree atthe San Juan de Letran in 1974 before pursuing law at theUniversity of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law, where hegraduated in 1979. On April 9, 2010, he was conferred thedegree of Doctor of Laws Honoris Causa by the NorthwesternUniversity, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte.

His government service started in 1987, when he wasappointed Third Assistant City Fiscal in Laoag City and, later,assigned to the Prosecutor’s Office in the City of Manila in1988. As Trial Prosecutor, he was awarded the OutstandingPublic Prosecutor of Manila for the year 1990-1991 by the City ofManila on June 21, 1991, and the Most Outstanding PublicProsecutor of the City of Manila on June 9, 1994 by the Departmentof Justice. Later, he became the Assistant Chief of theInvestigation Division, Office of the City Prosecutor.

On September 22, 1994, he was appointed judge of theRegional Trial Court, Branch 95, Quezon City, which wasdesignated as Special Criminal Court on Heinous Crimes and,later, Drugs Cases. As trial court Judge, he was the recipient ofseveral commendations, two of which were the Special CentennialAwardee in the Field of Criminal Law, given by the Integrated Barof the Philippines and the Supreme Court during its CentennialCelebration on June 6, 2001, and the Judicial Excellence Awardee2002 (Chief Justice Ramon Avanceña Award for OutstandingRegional Trial Court Judge), given by the Foundation for Judicial

Excellence on June 14, 2002 which, providentially, was alsothe same day when he was appointed Associate Justice of theSandiganbayan. On March 28, 2008, he became the PresidingJustice of the Sandiganbayan.

He was a Bar reviewer, professor, lecturer and resource personin Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Remedial Law, and TrialTechnique in notable universities. In recognition of his vastcontribution in the field of law, his alma mater gave him severalcitation, among others, the Award of Distinction and Award inthe Foundation of Judicial Excellence on November 23, 2002 forhis appointment as Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan, MostOutstanding Alumnus of the Year Award in 2008 for being thePresiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan, and also The OutstandingThomasian Alumni Awards for Law (TOTAL Awardee in Law/Justice) on August, which was the highest award bestowed bythe University of Santo Tomas to an alumnus. Other governmentand civic groups honored him with the Sectoral Ulirang AmaAwardee on Law and Judiciary given by the Ulirang AmaFoundation on June 18, 2006, and the Outstanding Citizen in theField of Law and Government Service on February 7, 2004 by theCity of Laoag.

He attended conference and study programs abroad, amongothers, Senior Seminar on Financial Underpinnings of Terrorismsponsored by the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C.,U.S.A., from August 6 to 9, 2001; Philippine Judicial Academy(PHILJA) Study Tour to Canada with the National JudicialInstitute, a Juris Canada project, from June 5 to 20, 2005;Program of Instruction for Lawyers-Program on Negotiationin Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Boston, Massachusetts,from June 9 to 13, 2008; Australasian Conference of Planningand Environmental Courts and Tribunals (ASPECT) in Sydney,Australia, from August 31 to September 3, 2010; KnowledgeSharing and Exchange Visit with Judiciaries of Spain, Italy,the Netherlands and the International Court of Justice, inSpain and the Netherlands, from July 5 to 17, 2011; andMarine Pollution Exercise (MARPOLEX) Makassar 2013, atPort Makassar, South Sulawesi Province, Republic ofIndonesia from June 24 to 27, 2013.

As an associate justice of the Supreme Court, he is theChairperson on the Committee on the Revision of theBenchbook on the Application, Computation and Graduationof Penalties. He is a member of the following committees,namely, Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court;Committee on the Revision of the Philippine Benchbook for TrialCourt Judges; Sub-Committee on the Rule of Procedure forEnvironmental Cases; Judicial Reform Support ProjectManagement Committee and Chairperson of its ComponentWorking Committee for Component D; Committee onLegislative-Executive Relations (LERCOM); Sub-Committee onthe Internal Rules of the Supreme Court; and Sub-Committeeon the Rule of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases.He presently sits as a Member of the House of RepresentativeElectoral Tribunal.

He is a member of the Corps of Professors, Department ofCriminal Law of the PHILJA of the Supreme Court where he isthe regular lecturer and resource person in the seminarsconducted for Judges and Judiciary officials and also, inthe Mandatory Continuing Legal Education program forlawyers in the country and those based abroad.

He is the second in a brood of four siblings of the late JudgeElviro L. Peralta, then Court of First Instance judge of Manila,and Catalina Madarang Peralta, a retired public school teacher.He is married to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Fernanda C.Lampas Peralta, with whom he has four children, namely,Dorothy, John Christopher, Timothy John, and John Isaac.


Justice Lucas P. Bersamin was serving asCourt of Appeals associate justice since March2003 when he was appointed to the SupremeCourt.

Prior to his CA post, he was the presiding judge of theQuezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 96. He had engagedin private legal practice before he was appointed as RTC judgein November 1986.

As a judge, he was the recipient of the Chief Justice JoseAbad Santos Award (Outstanding RTC Judge for 2002) duringthe 11th Judicial Excellence Awards (JEA). In the 2000 JEA, hebagged the Best Decision in Civil Law and Best Decision inCriminal Law awards, an unprecedented achievement that hasyet to be equalled.

He finished his law studies at the University of the East(UE) in 1973. He placed ninth in the Bar Examinations giventhat same year. He is a fellow at the Commonwealth JudicialEducation Institute in Dalhousie University in Halifax,Canada.

In 2006, he was recognized as one of UE’s 60 MostOutstanding Alumni Awardees during UE’s Diamond JubileeAwards. He was UE’s Outstanding Alumnus in the Judiciary in2001. In 1991, he was cited as Outstanding Alumnus inGovernment Service, Judiciary and Outstanding Alumnus inthe Field of Law by the UE Alumni Association, Inc.

He was a professor at the Ateneo School of Law, the UECollege of Law, and the University of Santo Tomas (UST) Facultyof Civil Law. He was special lecturer at the College of Law,University of Cebu in 2006. He continues to lecture for thePhilippine Judicial Academy.

Appointed as 163rd Associate Justice on April 3, 2009

JUSTICE LUCAS P LUCAS P LUCAS P LUCAS P LUCAS P. BERSAMIN. BERSAMIN. BERSAMIN. BERSAMIN. BERSAMIN


Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo obtained hisBachelor of Arts degree major in PoliticalScience from the San Beda College in 1971 andgraduated from the Ateneo de ManilaUniversity College of Law with a degree of

Bachelor of Laws in 1976. He passed the Bar Examinations inthe same year.

After practicing law, a brief stint in banking and workingwith the Araneta Group of Companies, he joined the judiciaryin 1989 as Municipal Trial Court Judge of San Mateo, Rizal. Hewas promoted to Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge of AngelesCity in 1992, and in 1995, was named RTC judge of QuezonCity where he was appointed first vice-executive judge untilhis appointment as Court of Appeals (CA) Justice in August2001. In the CA, he was the Chairman of the Eleventh Division.In 2005, he was conferred by the Rotary Club of Manila theJustice George A. Malcolm Award as best performing CAJustice. In 2006, he was recognized by the presiding justiceof the CA for outstanding performance for achieving zerobacklog in the disposition of cases, which he maintained upto his appointment to the Supreme Court. He also became theEditor-In-Chief of the Court of Appeals Journal from 2006 upto his promotion to the Supreme Court on July 29, 2009.Presently, Justice Del Castillo chairs the Enhanced Justice onWheels and the International Humanitarian Law Committees.

Justice Del Castillo has held various positions in religiousand civic organizations and in non-government organizationsand received various awards and distinctions. He was alsoactive in the Philippine Judges Association where he becameDirector, Vice-President for Administration, Senior Vice-President, and Executive Vice-President. He has lectured forthe Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) and for the MCLE(Ateneo, Center for Law Advocacy and Specialized Studies andChan Robles). He taught Practice Court I and II at the AteneoCollege of Law. In 2007, he was the Governor for Legal of theBel-Air Village Association.

He is married to former Ateneo Law Dean Cynthia delCastillo, with whom he has two children, who both becamelawyers. He was born on July 29, 1949.

Appointed as 164th Associate Justice on August 6, 2009

JUSTICEMARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOMARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOMARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOMARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOMARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO


Justice Roberto A. Abad was a Dean’sLister at the Ateneo de Manila Universitywhere he earned his law degree. He firstengaged in private practice, working forabout a year at the Jose W. Diokno Law Office

in 1968 before he joined the government working as TechnicalAssistant (1969-1973) and Associate Attorney (1974-1975)at the Supreme Court, supervised by then Chief Justice FredRuiz Castro.

In 1975, he joined the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).In 1985, he was promoted to Assistant Solicitor General, apost he held for about a year before putting up his own lawfirm. He has been engaged in the private practice of law forover 22 years.

He joined the legal academe when no less than the lateChief Justice Roberto C. Concepcion, the first University ofSanto Tomas (UST) law graduate to top the Bar examinationsand then Law Dean of UST, recruited Justice Abad from theOSG in 1978 to teach Political Law at the UST. Subsequently,he also taught Constitutional Law, Administrative Law,Election Law, Law on Public Corporation, and PublicInternational Law. And he also became a bar reviewer inPolitical Law.

From 1988-1990, he worked as legal consultant for thePresidential Committee on the Nuclear Power Plant underthe late Justice Secretary Sedfrey Ordoñez. Later, he workedas counsel for the Equitable Banking Corp. and its officersand branch managers during the impeachment trial of formerPresident Joseph E. Estrada.

He authored two books, Practical Book in Legal Writing in2002 and Fundamentals of Legal Writing in 2004. He was acontributing staff editor in the Supreme Court ReportsAnnotated (SCRA) from 1972 to 1996.

He has conducted a seminar-workshop in Legal Writingand Research in 2007 for lawyers and investigators of theOffice of the Ombudsman upon the invitation of the PhilippineJudicial Academy (PHILJA), the United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID), the Rule of LawEffectiveness (ROLE), and CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Likewise,he lectured to the research attorneys of the Sandiganbayanand the Court of Tax Appeals regarding the preparation ofjudicial memoranda.

He has also rendered free legal aid for the Free LegalAssistance Group (FLAG), Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment (DSWD), and the Angels of Hope Orphanage,Pulong Bunga, Silang, Cavite. He occasionally conductsweekend training for lay and religious catechists for theArchdiocese of Manila.

Justice Abad served as the Chairman of the 2011 BarExaminations that implemented radical reforms in the


JUSTICEROBERTO ROBERTO ROBERTO ROBERTO ROBERTO A. A. A. A. A. ABADABADABADABADABAD

conduct of the exams. Because of these reforms, Dean Andres D.Bautista of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law refers tohim as the “Father of the Modern Bar Exams.”

At present, Justice Abad heads the following committees inthe Supreme Court: Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Ruleson Civil Procedure, Committee on Internal Rules of the SupremeCourt, Committee on Continuing Legal Education and BarMatters, and the Chief Justice Committee to Address CaseCongestions and Delay in the Lower Courts. He heads theCommittee for the Decongestion of Provincial, City and Municipaljails, the committee responsible for the Judicial Affidavit Ruleand is the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Human Rightsand International Humanitarian Law and a member of theCommittee on Ethics and Ethical Standards and the Sub-Committee on Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights.

Justice Abad is married to Atty. Victoria Martinez-Abad. Hehas four children with the late Liliabeth B. Abad: Liliarosa, Ma.Leila, Rex Niño and Blessilda.


Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. has beenserving as Court of Appeals Justice for over adecade when he was appointed on November3, 2009 as the 166th member of the SupremeCourt.

Justice Villarama obtained his Bachelor of Laws degreefrom the Manuel L. Quezon University (MLQU) aftercompleting BS in Business Administration from De La SalleUniversity.

His appointment as SC Justice is a homecoming of sortshaving begun his law career in 1970 as a technical assistant inthe Legal Research Division (now Office of the Chief Attorney)of the High Court. He then later worked as legal counsel/corporate secretary for various companies.

In 1986, he rejoined the Judiciary after being appointedRegional Trial Court Judge of Pasig City. He served as itsexecutive judge from 1992 to 1996. He was a recipient of theUlirang Ama Award for Law and Judiciary and the Katangi-tanging Anak ng Angat, Bulacan Award in 2003.

On March 11, 1998, he was promoted to the CA where hehad served as chair of its Fifth Division and supervising justiceof the Judicial Records Division.

He has served as examiner of Labor and Social Legislationin the 2004 Bar examinations. He has also receivedrecognition as one of the justices with zero or least pendingcases during the 71st anniversary of the CA in 2007.

Justice Villarama is also a member of the SC Sub-Committeeon the Revision of Rules on Criminal Procedure and a lecturerin the School of Law of MLQU.

He has attended the 36th Program of Instruction for Lawyersconducted by Harvard Law School’s Faculty at Cambridge,Massachusetts, USA, among others.

Born on April 14, 1946, Manila, Justice Villarama is marriedto former SC En Banc Clerk of Court Atty. Ma. Luisa Dizon-Villarama. They have two children: Dra. Clarissa D. Villarama-Cellona, a dermatologist, and Carlo D. Villarama, a courtattorney.

Appointed as 166th Associate Justice on November 7, 2009

JUSTICEMARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.


Justice Jose Portugal Perez has thedistinction of being the Supreme Court’s first“homegrown” Justice, having spent all theyears of his professional life in the Court’sstoried halls before assuming office as SC

associate justice on December 26, 2009, succeeding SeniorJustice Leonardo A. Quisumbing.

Born on December 14, 1946, Justice Perez graduated inthe top ten of his class in both his political science and lawstudies at the University of the Philippines. His academicachievements gained him entry to the Phi Kappa Phi andPhi Gamma Mu Honor Societies as well as the Order of thePurple Feather, the UP Law Honor Society.

Fresh out of law school in 1971, the young AttorneyPerez first worked in the Court as a legal assistant in theOffice of the Reporter. In 1977 he became a confidentialattorney in the Office of Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro; in1980 supervising attorney in the Office of the Chief Attorneywhere he rose to the position of Assistant Chief. In 1987,he was promoted to Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief of theOffice of the Reporter.

In 1996, he was named Assistant Court Administrator,and in 2000, was appointed Deputy Court Administrator.In 2008, he was promoted to Court Administrator.

Justice Perez was valedictorian of the Batangas City HighSchool in 1963 and salutatorian of Saint Bridget’s College(elementary) in 1959. He is married to Expedita Perez (neéSabile), a retired human resource management officer inthe Department of Assessment of the City of Manila. Theyare blessed with three children – Jerico, Zernan, andDonnabelle.

Appointed as 167th Associate Justice on December 26, 2009

JUSTICEJOSE PORTUGAL PEREZJOSE PORTUGAL PEREZJOSE PORTUGAL PEREZJOSE PORTUGAL PEREZJOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ


A native of Lipa City, Justice Jose CatralMendoza was born on August 13, 1947 to Col.Ibarra S. Mendoza, a retired Philippine Air Force(PAF) officer, and Teresa Teaño Catral, a poultryraiser. He is the eldest of their eight children.

Of his seven siblings, two are priests, two are retired PAFgenerals, one a Philippine Air Lines pilot, one a parish assistant,and the only female, a Vice-President for Finance at the PITC.

A law degree holder from the San Beda College of Law, heis married to the former Livia Soledad Rojas, with whom hehas a son, Barleon Rojas Mendoza.

After passing the 1971 Bar examinations, he went intoprivate practice and served as a legal officer of the PhilippineBanking Corporation, the Manila Electric Co., and theGokongwei Group of Companies. He also served as SeniorConsular Investigator in the United States Embassy for fouryears.

In 1977, he joined the judiciary as a research attorney inthe Court of Appeals. After three years in the appellate court,he returned to the private sector as an associate in theAlampay Alvero Alampay Law Office. In 1985, he re-enteredthe judiciary, this time in the Supreme Court, first in the officeof Justice Nestor B. Alampay and, after the good justice hadretired, in the office of Justice Abdulwahid A. Bidin.

In 1989, Justice Mendoza became a member of the Benchwhen he was appointed presiding judge of Branch 26, RTC,Sta. Cruz, Laguna. In 1992, he was named executive judge ofthat station.

After almost five years in the province, in 1994, he wastransferred to Quezon City as the presiding judge of RTC,Branch 219, which was designated as a special court forheinous crimes. For his fair handling of the sensational casesassigned to his sala, he was nominated by the IBP, QuezonCity, for the Judicial Excellence Award. The Volunteers AgainstCrime and Corruption (VACC) and the Crusade AgainstViolence (CAV) recognized and commended him on how hewas dispensing justice. In 2002, the VACC bestowed on himthe Outstanding Judge Award. In 2003, he was designatedas the Executive Judge of that station.

On July 4, 2003, he was appointed associate justice ofthe Court of Appeals. He was noted for his decisions in thereinstatement of the criminal charges against Dante Tan andin the petition for a writ of amparo filed by the families ofUniversity of the Philippines students Sherlyn Cadapan andKaren Empeño.

On January 10, 2010, he was appointed as the 168th

associate justice of the Supreme Court.

Appointed as 168th Associate Justice on January 5, 2010

JUSTICEJOSE CAJOSE CAJOSE CAJOSE CAJOSE CATRALTRALTRALTRALTRAL MENDOZA MENDOZA MENDOZA MENDOZA MENDOZA


Supreme Court Associate JusticeBienvenido L. Reyes was born in Obando,Bulacan on July 6, 1947 to Fidel Reyes andTimotea Lorenzo Reyes. He is married toTeresita Jacinta Reyes and they are blessed

with two sons- Dennis Michael (with whom he has a beautifulgranddaughter named Mary Dominique), and Benson Michael.

He obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree from the Universityof Santo Tomas in 1967. Immediately after college, he wentto pursue his Bachelor of Laws degree at San Beda Collegeand finished the same in 1971. He passed the Bar Examinationsin the same year with a rating of 81.6%.

During his younger years, he engaged in private practiceand became a partner at Albano Reyes and Sansano LawOffices from 1972 to 1974. A year after, he became a MediaSpecialist at the Department of Public Information inMalacanang, Manila. Thereafter, he held various positions inprivate corporations such as Vice President for Corporateand Legal Affairs of the R.C. Silverio Group of Companies(1976-1981) consisting of the following: Sterling LifeAssurance Corporation, F ilriters Guaranty AssuranceCorporation, Philippine Underwriters’ Finance Corporation,Philfinance Securities Corporation, Silver Lines, Inc.,Silvertrade Inc., and Celebrity Sports Plaza. In 1977 to 1990,he engaged in the formulation of policies, objectives andguidelines relative to the operations of various firms eitheras Director, Corporate Secretary and Legal Counsel in thefollowing firms: Core Finance & Leasing Corporation, TripleOne Management and Development Corporation, Intra StrataAssurance Corporation, Best Security Agency, SterlingProperties, Inc., Intent Pacific Management Corporation,Dupels, Inc., Aurorama, Inc., and Railwayana, Inc.

Justice Reyes also became Managing Partner at the ReyesDaway Lim Bernardo Lindo and Rosales Law Offices in 1981 to1990; He was Board Secretary and Vice President of theNational Home Mortgage Finance Corporation from 1988 to1990, and Chairman of the Board of the Celebrity Sports Plaza(1990-1996).

In 1990, he took on the challenge of public service andbegan his career in the judiciary as presiding judge of theRegional Trial Court, Malabon City. On August 8, 2000, hewas appointed associate justice of the Court of Appeals.

While treading his way towards his remarkable career as alawyer, Justice Reyes was a recipient of various awards andrecognitions from different organizations and institutionswhich stood witness to his enduring commitment to theprofession. In 1998, he was awarded the Most OutstandingAlumnus by his high school alma mater, Colegio de SanPascual Baylon. Two years after, he was given the Plaque ofDistinction for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Lawand Jurisprudence by the Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc. and aCertificate of Recognition by the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines Calmana Chapter for his exemplary achievement


JUSTICEBIENVENIDO L. REYESBIENVENIDO L. REYESBIENVENIDO L. REYESBIENVENIDO L. REYESBIENVENIDO L. REYES

as an RTC judge of Malabon. He was also given a Certificate ofRecognition in the field of Law and Jurisprudence by the SanBeda College of Law in July 2002. In 2003, he was recipient ofGawad Dangal ng Obando, Natatanging Obandeòo Award forbeing the Most Outstanding Citizen of Obando, Bulacan in thefield of law.

In 2011, he received the following: Gawad Bilang KasapingPandangal (IBP Gat Marcelo H. del Pilar Bulacan Chapter);Fraternal Scroll of Distinction (Lex Talionis Fraternitas, Inc. );Pagkilala - Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Bulacan; theOutstanding Bedan Law Alumni Award and the 2012Distinguished Bedan Award. The most recent award he receivedis the Huwarang Anak ng Bulacan 2012 in the field of Judiciary.

During his stint as associate justice of the Court of Appeals,he received a recognition for having achieved Zero Backlog inhis docket as of November 2010. Ninety five percent of hisdecisions which were elevated to the Supreme Court wereaffirmed. On August 23, 2011, he was appointed Associatejustice of the Supreme Court by His Excellency PresidentBenigno S. Aquino III.


On September 16, 2011, the appointmentof then Court of Appeals Justice Estela M.Perlas-Bernabe as associate justice of theSupreme Court completed the 15-memberHigh Tribunal before the year ended. She

replaced Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales who, after retiringin June 2011, has since been named Ombudsman.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe completed her pre-law degree,Bachelor of Science in Commerce, at St. Paul College ofManila graduating magna cum laude in 1972. After obtaining

Appointed as 171st Associate Justice on September 16, 2011

JUSTICEESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABEESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABEESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABEESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABEESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

her law degree from the Ateneo College of Law, finishingas class salutatorian, and passing the Bar in 1977, sheimmediately joined the Judiciary as Technical Assistantin the office of then Associate Justice Lorenzo Relova.From 1979 to 1993, she worked in different private andgovernment offices, namely, China Banking Corporation;Paramount F inance Corporation; and National HomeMortgage & F inance Corporation. She later becamesenior partner of Bernabe Perlas Morte & Associatesfrom 1993 to 1996.

In March of 1996, Justice Perlas-Bernabe returned towhat she considers her greater calling. Her appointmentthen as metropolitan trial court judge of Makati City sealedher fate as a public servant. She was promoted as RegionalTrial Court judge of the same city in January 2000, andthereafter as associate justice of the Court of Appeals inMarch 2004, where she served for over seven years.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe was the Bar examiner inMercantile Law in 2007. She taught Practice Court andEvidence at the Ateneo College of Law from 2009 to 2011.

She received awards and citations for outstandingperformance in case writing and disposition, amongthem, the Best Written Decision for the Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court Level bestowed by the PhilippineWomen Judges Association in 1999; Award for ExemplaryPerformance and Award for Outstanding Performance inCase Disposition both given by the Court of Appeals in2007 and 2011, respectively. In her hometown in Plaridel,Bulacan, she was recognized as Natatanging BabaengHukom (2003) and Huwarang Anak ng Bulakan (2011);and was honored with a Certificate of Recognition forIntegrity, Selfless Dedication and Intellectual Probity(2005), the Gat Marcelo H. Del Pilar Award (2011), andthe Gawad Dangal ng Lipi (2012). She received from St.Paul University Manila the Gawad Parangal 2008 asOutstanding Alumna for Dedicated Service to the Countryand People.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe is happily married to RicardoC. Bernabe, Jr., a lawyer and businessman, with whomshe has two children, Ericia and Ricardo III, who arealso lawyers.


Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonenbecame the youngest Justice of the recentSupreme Court of the Philippines when hewas appointed last November 21, 2012. Thesecond youngest justice to be appointed nextto former Chief Justice Manuel V. Moran, he

is set to serve the highest tribunal for a total of 21 years. Justice Leonen graduated fourth in his class at the

University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law, passed the1987 Bar examinations and signed the roll in May 1988. Lateron, he pursued his master’s degree in Law from ColumbiaUniversity in New York. Prior to law school, Leonengraduated magna cum laude from the UP School ofEconomics and was a consistent valedictorian during hiselementary and high school years.

A servant leader even in his youth, Justice Leonen served as

the President of the Law Student Government during his stay atthe UP College of Law. Striking a balance between the study oflaw and its application beyond the classroom walls, hepassionately spoke of ideals while also focusing on realitieshappening outside the academe and how the two points couldmeet. During the height of Martial Law in February 1986, hewas among the student leaders of the Law Liberation Forcesthat led UP Law students to EDSA. He led the UP ParalegalVolunteer Organization under the supervision of the Free LegalAssistance Group (FLAG), a group of human rights lawyers,which he also became a part of in 1987.

Justice Leonen went on to become a member of the UP

Law faculty, initially as a professional lecturer inPhilippine Indigenous Law. He became assistant professorduring Dean Pacifico Agabin’s term and academicadministrator under Dean Merlin M. Magalona’s term. In2000, he was invited to act as UP System’s University General Counsel. In 2005, he became the first Vice-President for Legal Affairs of the UP System. He also becamethe Director of Legal Aid at the UP College of Law, and theDirector of the Information and Publication Division ofthe UP Law Center.

In 2008, he became the Dean of the UP College of Law.

During his term, he built on the rich traditions of the collegeand at the same time, introduced changes and newexperiences that allowed both faculty and students tobecome more engaged in critical discussions and attunedto current realities. As Dean, he allowed for intellectualdiscourse to flourish inside classrooms andbeyond. Aware of the power and usefulness of newtechnology, Justice Leonen became instrumental inconnecting the UP College of Law to the Internet throughwireless connection, improving its library’s e-services, andincreasing the exchange of knowledge and informationamong its stakeholders

Even prior to passing the bar exam, Justice Leonen – a

dedicated son of Baguio – co-founded the Legal Rights andNatural Resources Center Inc.-Kasama sa Kalikasan(LRCKSK-Friends of the Earth Philippines), a legal and policyresearch institution advocating the rights of long termupland communities composed of mostly farmers andindigenous peoples (IP).

Appointed as 172nd Associate Justice on November 21, 2012

JUSTICEMARMARMARMARMARVIC M.VVIC M.VVIC M.VVIC M.VVIC M.V.F.F.F.F.F. LEONEN. LEONEN. LEONEN. LEONEN. LEONEN

Despite receiving invitations from established law firms,

Justice Leonen together with his friends pursued their passiontowards building a public interest group that will providecompetent legal services to IP communities. From an initialgroup of four individuals, LRCKSK-Friends of the EarthPhilippines grew to become an internationally known publicinterest group which continues to run today.

In his 25 years as a law practitioner, he has handled anumber of landmark cases in the Supreme Court, includingthe case, Cruz v. NCIP, where he served as counsel forintervenors,arguing before the Supreme Court En Banc forindigenous communities on the constitutionality of theIndigenous Rights Act; and the case, La Bugal B’laan TribalAssociation, Inc. v. Victor Ramos, Secretary, Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources et. al, where he appearedfor a B’laan farming community as petitioner to question theconstitutionality of the mining law.

More recently, he was appointed as government chiefnegotiator in talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front(MILF). As chief negotiator, he led the government in signing aFramework Agreement on the Bangsamoro with the MILF – ahistoric milestone in waging peace in Mindanao.

Among his many roles, he finds the time to be a mentor tothose he works with and a trusted friend to those who havethe privilege of knowing him more personally.


JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCILCONSTITUTIONALLY-MANDATED OFFICES

An innovation of the1987 Constitution “inresponse to the publicclamor in favor ofeliminating politics fromthe appointment ofjudges,” the Judicial andBar Council (JBC) wascreated and charged withthe principal function ofnominating appointmentsto the Judiciary. It iscomposed of the ChiefJustice as ex officioChairperson, and theSecretary of Justice and arepresentative of Congressas ex officio members. Theregular members arecomposed of a retiredmember of the Supreme

Court, a representative of the private sector, a professorof law, and a representative of the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines.

The JBC’s regular activities include inventory andassessment of judicial vacancies; publication anddissemination of announcements of the opening ofvacancies; processing of applications; preliminaryscreening of applications of recommendations;publication and dissemination of lists of judicialapplicants; conduct of background check on applicants;conduct of psychological and psychiatric tests; conductof interviews; third preliminary evaluation of candidates;and final evaluation and selection of nominees.

The year 2012 saw the vacancy of the position of ChiefJustice in the middle of the year, thrusting the JBC intothe limelight. The JBC successfully conducted the publicinterviews of the candidates for the Chief Justice positionfrom July 24 to 27, 2012. The JBC was able to completethe processing of applications for a total of 215 vacancies,such as the positions of Chief Justice and AssociateJustice of the Supreme Court, seven positions ofAssociate Justice of the Court of Appeals, one position ofAssociate Justice of the Sandiganbayan, once positionof the Presiding Justice of the Court of Tax Appeals, andthe position of Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.

In 2012, the Council was composed of the following:Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno as ex officioChairperson, Justice Secretary Leila M. De Lima andCongressman Neil C. Tupas, Jr. as ex officio members;and Retired SC Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr.,Retired CA Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman, Atty. JoseV. Mejia, and Atty. Milagros N. Fernan-Cayosa as regularmembers. Former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (May17, 2010 - May 29, 2012), Senior Associate JusticeAntonio T. Carpio (May 30, 2012 – July 16, 2012), andAssociate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (July 16, 2012 –August 13, 2012) also served as ex officio Chairpersons,respectively.

CHIEF JUSTICEMARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Ex Officio Chairperson

(RET.) JUSTICE REGINOC. HERMOSISIMA, JR.Retired SC JusticesRepresentative

(RET.) JUSTICE AURORASANTIAGO LAGMANPrivate Sector Representative

ATTY. JOSE V. MEJIARepresentative from the LegalAcademe

ATTY. MARIA MILAGROS N.FERNAN-CAYOSAIBP Representative

ATTY. ANNALIZAS. TY-CAPACITEJBC Executive Officer

ATTY. FLORDELIZC. FARGAS

Chief, Office of Policy andDevelopment Research

MS. URSULA EDITHAO. SAN PEDRO

Chief, Office of Administrativeand Financial Services

ATTY. RICHARDO. PASCUAL

Chief, Office of the Recruitment,Selection and Nomination

On December 10, 2012, the JBCcelebrated its 25th year of existenceand service to the Filipino people byholding a commemorative programwhich was graced by the incumbentand retired Chairpersons; formerand incumbent JBC members,consultants, and ex officiosecretaries; JBC officers andemployees; and other distinguishedguests. The JBC also launched itscoffee-table book entitledCelebrating 25 Years which featuresits officials, offices and personnelsince its birth in 1987 up toDecember 2012.

HON. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.CongressmanEx Officio Member

HON. LEILA M. DE LIMASecretary of JusticeEx Officio Member

HON. FRANCIS JOSEPH G.ESCUDEROSenatorEx Officio Member

HON. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.SC Associate JusticeJBC Consultant

HON. ANTONIO T. CARPIOSC Senior Associate JusticeJBC Consultant

HON. ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court En BancEx Officio Secretary


The question as to who had jurisdiction to hear and resolve election controversies concerning the President and Vice-Presidentfirst arose under the 1935 Constitution. In the landmark case of Lopez vs. Roxas (No. L-25716, July 28, 1966), the SupremeCourt held that the silence of the Constitution on the matter the absemce of a statute empowering a judicial body to act as the

judge over such election contests means that “any candidate for President or Vice-President who believed that he was the candidatewho obtained the largest number of votes for either office, despite the proclamation of Congress of another candidate as thePresident- or the Vice President-elect, had no legal right to demand by election protest a recount of the votes case for the officeconcerned, to establish his right thereto.” The Court thus decreed controversies of this nature as “not justiciable.”

To remedy the situation, Congress passed RA 1793 on June 21, 1957 which categorically pointed to the Supreme Court as theelectoral tribunal for and sole judge of all presidential and vice-presidential contests. However, this law was implicitly repeated withthe adoption of the 1973 Constitution, the former’s postulates being incompatible with a parliamentary system of government, andwas still nor restored under the reconstituted presidential system.

Meanwhile, BP 884 promulgated on December 3, 1985 created an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal to try, hear anddecide election contests in the Office of the President and the Vice-President. The adoption of the 1987 Constitution finally anddefinitely gave legal justification for the creation and continued existence of the tribunal. Section 4, Article VII thereof states that the“Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of thePresident or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.”

In Macalintal vs. PET (GR No. 191618, September 23, 2010), the Court had the occasion to rule on the constitutionality of thePET. Holding in the affirmative, the Court upheld the tribunal’s plenary power to judge presidential and vice-presidential electioncontests and to promulgate the rules of procedure in connection thereto. “The establishment of PET simply constitutionalized whatwas statutory before the 1987 Constitution,” it held. Thus, the Supreme Court was re-established and re-affirmed as the decisivetribunal with jurisdiction over all contests pertaining to the positions of President and Vice-President of the Philippines.

The PET is composed of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as the Chairperson and the 14 Associate Justices as members,with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court supervising and administering the tribunal’s activities.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL


ATTY. FELIPA B. ANAMAAssistant Clerk of Court En Banc

OFFICES OF THE DIVISION CLERKS OF COURT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT EN BANC

The Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc (OCC) is the Court’s administrative machinery. Itsfunction is to assist the Court in its adjudicative function. Its primary task is the preparationof the agenda for the weekly sessions of the Court En Banc. The office is headed by the Clerk

of Court whose main responsibilities include the implementation of policies formulated and thework programs set by the Court through the Chief Justice; the general supervision over personneland administrative matters; and the recommendation of courses of action on various matters rangingfrom personnel to non-judicial concerns. In addition, the Clerk of Court also acts as the custodian ofthe Court’s funds, revenues, properties and premises and acts as the liaison officer in all officialmatters in relation to other government agencies.

ATTY. ROMEO M. SALAZARSC Executive Officer

ATTY. LIBRADA C. BUENASC Executive Officer

(December 4, 2007-July 11, 2012)

ATTY. ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court En Banc

The three Offices of theDivision Clerk of Courtperform the same

functions as the Office of theClerk of Court En Banc inproviding technical support tothe Court’s First, Second, andThird Divisions.

ATTY. MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

Second Division(July 9, 2012 – present)

ATTY. TERESITA A. TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Second Division

ATTY. WILFREDO V. LAPITANDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Third Division

ATTY. EDGAR O. ARICHETA Division Clerk of Court

First Division

ATTY. LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court

First Division(July 12, 2012 – present)

ATTY. LUCITA A. SORIANODivision Clerk of Court

Third Division

ATTY. ANNA-LI R. PAPA-GOMBIODeputy Clerk of Court and Executive

Officer OCC En Banc


ATTY. EDEN T. CANDELARIACHIEF

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

ATTY. CORAZON G. FERRER- FLORESCHIEF

The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) plans, recommends,and implements personnel management and developmentprograms. It also handles the administrative service functions

of the Supreme Court, including the Presidential Electoral Tribunal(PET), Judicial Bar and Council (JBC), the Philippine Judicial Academy(PHILJA), the PHILJA Development Center, Maintenance Sections ofthe Halls of Justice, and the Mandatory Continuing Legal EducationOffice (MCLEO).

The OAS has nine divisions: the Personnel Division, TrainingDivision, Leave Division, Employee Welfare and Benefits Division,Complaints and Investigation Division, Records Control Division,Security Division, Maintenance Division, and Property Division.

In 2012, the OAS conducted 84 training activities for SCemployees, with a total of 2,024 participants. The OAS also received21 administrative cases against SC employees, which were eventuallyresolved by the Court.

ATTY. RUBY ESTEBAN-GARCIA

Assistant Chief

FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICE

The Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO) takes chargeof all financial transactions of the Supreme Court, includingthose of the JBC, OCA, all Halls of Justice, PHILJA, PET, and

the MCLEO. They perform the Court’s fiscal, budget, accounting,and cashiering activities such as planning the budget, accountingwork methods and procedure, preparing the estimates of theexpenditures of the Judiciary, managing the court expenditures, andsubmitting budget estimates and financial reports.

The FMBO has seven divisions: Finance Division, Budget Division,Accounting Division, Checks Disbursement Division, Cash Collectionand Disbursement Division, Electronic Data Processing Division, andFiscal Management Information Division.

In the year 2012, the FMBO prepared and processed vouchers tocover the payment of salaries, allowances, office supplies, equipmentand other sundry expenses, utilities, janitorial and security servicesand maintenance, and other operating expenses, and issued the corresponding checks therefor.The office also prepared and submitted to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM),the House of Representatives, and the Senate the proposed budget of the SC and lower courtsincluding pertinent schedules for CY 2013. Payrolls with corresponding salary checks wereprocessed bi-monthly. Salary and policy loans from the Government Service Insurance Systemand Pag-IBIG loans were coursed through the FMBO. The Office also prepared and submittedconsolidated financial statements and reports to the Commission on Audit, DBM, Bureau ofTreasury, and the Congress of the Philippines.

ATTY. MA. CARINA M. CUNANAN

Assistant Chief


OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY

ATTY. MERCEDESG. MOSTAJOAssistant Chief

The Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT) is the Court’s legalresearch arm. It assists the Court in its adjudicative andadministrative functions on cases, issues and matters

assigned by the Court, the Chief Justice, the Members of the Court,the Clerk of Court, and other offices of the Court, including thePhilippine Judicial Academy and the Office of the CourtAdministrator. In aid of legal research, the Office has an informationretrieval system in electronic and traditional forms forjurisprudence, laws, and issuance of other government agencies.It also maintains a traditional index case system for the same.

In order to achieve quick retrieval of information and addressthe lack of space for the cabinets of index cards, the OCAT hasbeen continuously working on a project to digitize records ofstudies, memoranda, reports, and typewritten indices of caseswhich have been on file since the 1960’s.

The Court also has a Zero Backlog Project, where some lawyersfrom offices of the Justices are tasked to study unresolved cases and submit reports to theChief Attorney and the Deputy Clerk of Court En Banc. Two reports have already been submittedin December 2012.

In the year 2012, the OCAT prepared 52 reports, comments and memoranda; 39 officialletters and other communications; and a total of 689 indexed decisions, laws and issuances.

ATTY. EDNA E. DIÑOCHIEF

OFFICE OF THE REPORTER

The Office of the Reporter is tasked with the publication of thePhilippine Reports which contain the printed decisions of theSupreme Court. It also prepares syllabi for the same, and also

comes out with the Office of the Reporter’s Case Index.

In 2012, the Office submitted 28 volumes of the PhilippineReports to the Printing Services for publication, submitted 116significant decisions to the National Printing Office for publicationin the Official Gazette, sorted out 949 decisions, prepared 664 syllabifor decisions promulgated during the year, and prepared 938 syllabicovering the year and missing syllabi covering the previous years.

The Office of the Reporter also conducts income generatingactivities. For the year 2012, they were able to collect P100,900from certifications and research fees, P187,600 from the sales ofPhilippine Reports, P129,912 from photocopies of decisions, andP20,800 from the sales of Case Indices, with a total amounting toP449,212.

ATTY. EDNA B. CAMBACHIEF

ATTY. DOUGLAS F. ANAMAAssistant Chief of Office

(June 29, 2012 - January 4, 2013)


MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE

COL. ALEXANDER M. AREVALOActing Chief

(March 24, 2011-August 14, 2013)

The Management and Information Systems Office (MISO) isthe information technology arm of the Supreme Court. Itprovides the technical expertise behind the formulation ofsystems design studies and application system developmentas well as support services on hardware maintenance. Its goalis to support and guide the Court in establishing state-of-the-art information technology infrastructure to further itsmodernization program. It coordinates with the Committeeon Computerization on policies and implementation of newtechonology and the improvement of systems already used inthe Supreme Court and in the lower courts.

In 2012, the MISO conducted special projects such as theGlobal Distance Learning Network (GDLN) and Electronic MootCourt for the PHILJA which includes installation of videoconferencing, electronic moot court, and security solutions;Small Claims Case Monitoring System (SC2MS) which wasimplemented in all first level courts in the country to facilitate the speedy resolution of smallclaims cases; Quezon City eCourts system which includes recording and tracking of thestatus of cases filed in courts in Quezon City; Supreme Court Case Management InformationSystem (SC-CMIS) which has features such as the dashboard, the electronic raffling ofcases, mailing system, posting of the texts of decisions, document templates for courtnotices and issuances, and tracking of the rollos or case records using a bar system;Consultant Services for the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System and the JudiciaryCase Management System (JCMS) which includes updating of the ERP and JCMS componentsof the Enterprise Information Systems Plan (EISP) in terms of scope, timelines and costing,preparing the bidding documents, and assisting the Bids and Awards Committee and MISOin the procurement of the ERP systems and the JCMS; Installation of Network Systems;Technical Training of MISO Personnel; and Technical Support for Computerized Systems.They also extended assistance to the Office of Justice Martin S. Villarama and to the Officeof the Bar Confidant on software and hardware solutions for the MCQ-based 2012 BarExaminations.

ATTY. AMOR P. ENTILAAssistant Chief

(June 29, 2012 - present)

ATTY. MA. CRISTINA B. LAYUSACHIEF

OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT

The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) manages the conductof the annual Bar examinations and handles administrativecomplaints against lawyers. It is composed of four

divisions: the Bar Complaints Division which is tasked to handleadministrative cases for disbarment against lawyers and answersrelated queries and matters; the Bar Records Division whichserves as custodian of personal records of members of the Bar;the Bar Relations which handles complaints against Barexaminees, successful Bar examinees but not yet lawyers, andother queries related to Bar matters; and the Bar ExaminationsDivision which processes, prepares, supervises, operates, andconducts Bar examinations.

In the year 2012, the OBC received 3,113 administrativecases for disbarment, and 937 Bar matters which are complaintsagainst Bar examinees and successful examinees.

A total of 5,710 applications of Bar candidates to take the 2012 Bar Examinations wereprocessed and reported by the OBC. A total of 5,686 candidates were admitted to take the BarExaminations. However, only 5,343 took the examinations.

The OBC administered and supervised the 2012 Bar Examinations held at the University ofSto. Tomas on October 7, 14, 21 and 28. The officials and staff were actively involved in thepreparations and operations of the examinations from the start of the filing of the petitions totake the examinations, up to the signing of the roll of attorneys.


MR. EDILBERTO A. DAVISActing Chief

(August 15, 2013-present)

JUDICIAL RECORDS OFFICE

The Judicial Records Office (JRO) manages and superintendsactivities in connection with the judicial process from thefiling of cases to the promulgation of decisions, entry of

judgment, and the remand of records of cases disposed of. Italso controls the receipt, processing, and distribution of pleadingsfiled before the Court. Besides this, the JRO takes custody of therollos and records of cases, including transcript and exhibits;and prepares and keeps data or statistics on judicial cases.

In the year 2012, the JRO received a total of 47,534 pleadings,consisting mostly of motions for reconsideration, comments,replies, sur-rejoinders, motions for extension, and manifestations.They received a total number of 4,961 cases which are initiatorypleadings including extensions to file petition, petitions, andcriminal records.

ATTY. MA LOURDES C. PERFECTOCHIEF

(March 10, 2008-July 8, 2012)

ATTY. CORAZON T. DE LOS REYESAssistant Chief

The 2012 Bar examinations consisted of a Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) portion and an essay exam portion which weregiven 60% and 40% weights, respectively, in the computation the candidate’s final grade. In the afternoon of the last Sunday,there was also a performance test (trial memorandum).

The OBC compiled statistics by subject and school, the committee report, and other pertinent data, and submitted the finalreport of the 2012 Committee on Bar Examinations to the Court. On March 20, 2013, the names of the 949 successful Barexaminees, constituting a 17.76% passing perecentage, were released and published upon order of the Court.

Prior to their oath-taking, successful examinees who were required to pay admission fees to the Bar and membership dues tothe Integrated Bar of the Philippines were issued clearances by the OBC. The new members of the Bar took their oath on April 24,2013 at the Plenary Hall of the Philippine International Convention Center. The OBC also facilitated the signing of the Roll ofAttorneys at the SC and the issuance of certificates of membership to the Bar.

LIBRARY SERVICES

The Library Services operates a state-of-the-art library with its collection and services whichare continuously updated and improved. They not only serve the Supreme Court but therest of the Judiciary as well.

With the Library’s wireless Internet access, researchers from the Court’s legal staff and otherCourt employees can quickly access the Lexis online subscription of foreign legal sources andother important local websites on the Internet.

The Supreme Court also has an E-Library which contains jurisprudence, laws, executiveissuances, and court circulars. In June 2012, upon instructions of then Acting Chief JusticeAntonio T. Carpio, Supreme Court decisions from 1901 to 1995 and laws from 1900 (Acts,Commonwealth Acts, Presidential Decrees, Batas Pambansa, and Republic Acts) were uploadedon the E-Library. This completed the decisions in the E-Library dated 1900 to present. The Libraryalso distributes E-Library CDs quarterly for the entire Judiciary, which are needed and requestedespecially by the lower courts. The last CD distributed covered decisions until December 2012.

As of 2012, the collection of the Library Services has increased by 1,729 volumes divided asfollows: 1,194 purchased books, 535 books from donations, and 43 pamphlets. The total collectionof the library as of December 2012 is 101,568 volumes consisting of 77,825 books, 2,552 boundlegal periodicals, 9,068 pamphlets, and 12,866 volumes of donated books

MS. MILAGROS S. ONGCHIEF


MEDICAL AND DENTAL SERVICES

The Medical and Dental Services attends to the medical and dental needs of Supreme Courtjustices, judges, officials and employees, as well as the SC’s component bodies such asthe Office of the Court Administrator, Judicial and Bar Council, Philippine Judicial Academy

(PHILJA), Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office, and the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.It also provides medical services during official court activities, such as the Bar examinationsand provincial seminars.

The primary forms of service are by out-patient medical and/or dental consultations andtreatment, provision of first aid, hospital conduction, and specialty referrals. Other servicesrenderred are pre-employment physical examination; laboratory, psychological and neuro-psychiatric evaluation; and physical therapy. They also attend to medical needs of examineesduring Bar examinations and participants during seminars of the PHILJA.

In 2012, the Service also conducted special activities, such as two voluntary blood lettingactivities; a lay forum on influenza; anti-flu vaccination; a lay forum on back pain; a lay forum onhypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, and heart disease; a mini-workshop on weightmanagement; and the launching of the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation in the Supreme Court.

For the year 2012, there were a total of 15,525 medical consultations at the SC Clinic. Suchconsultations included blood pressure monitoring, injections, requests for medical certificates,requests for prescription, electrocardiogram (ECG), and ambulance conduction. Meanwhile, thedental consultations totaled to 2,493 which included gum treatment, permanent filling, simpleextraction, and oral prophylaxis, among others.

DR. PRUDENCIO P. BANZON, JR.CHIEF

PRINTING SERVICES

The Printing Services Office addresses the printing requirements of the different offices ofthe Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals,and the lower courts, including attached institutions such as the Philippine Judicial

Academy, Judicial and Bar Council, and the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office.

In 2012, the Printing Services Office printed out various regular and non-regular publications.For the regular publications, the Office printed out hardbound volumes such as the PhilippineReports in 3,358 copies and the Notarial Register in 6,374 copies, and paperbacks such as theMonthly Case Digest of Supreme Court Decisions in 2,898 copies and PHILJA Journal in 11,212copies. The Service also printed out 9 issues of the Benchmark with 30,908 copies and 3 issuesof the PHILJA Bulletin with 8,417 copies.

For the non-regular publications, the Office printed out 320 copies of a set of hardboundbook, 5,237 copies of 7 sets of paperbacks, 1,983 copies of a ring-bound book, pamphletstotaling to 17,937 copies, and 100 copies of a set of another type of publication.

The Printing Services Office also purchased a new machine, which now enables them toprint colored publications such as journals, bulletins, and newspapers in large formats.

MS. LETICIA G. JAVIERSC Senior Chief Staff Officer

(June 29, 2012 – present)


The Philippine JudicialAcademy (PHILJA) wascreated under the auspices

of Administrative Order No. 35-96dated March 12, 1996 during theterm of former Chief Justice AndresR. Narvasa. However, its existenceand continued functioning wereonly officially mandated onFebruary 26, 1998 by virtue of RA8557, which institutionalizedPHILJA as a “training school forjustices, judges, court personnel,lawyers, and aspirants to judicialposts.”

The regular programs of the PHILJA include the following:Pre-Judicature Program; Orientation Seminar-Workshop forNewly-Appointed Judges; Regional Career Enhancement Program;and Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Court Personnel. TheAcademy also has special focus programs for newly appointedclerks of court in order to prepare them for assumption of officeand for the discharge of their duties. It also organizes and hostsvarious convention seminars, development programs for courtpersonnel, programs for quasi-judicial agencies, professorialcompetency programs, and discussion sessions.

PHILJA also regularly releases several publications, such asthe PHILJA Bulletin, the PHILJA Judicial Journal, and monthlyOnline Fax and Electronic Alerts on recent Court issuances anddecisions on selected administrative cases; and occassionallycomes out with special publications tackling PHILJA-conductedprograms on timely issues, compiling PHILJA lectures, andfocusing on relevant jurisprudence and other legal materials thatcan be used as valuable references by judges and other membersof the Judiciary. The PHILJA also regularly updates its website,philja.judiciary.gov.ph. The website contains PHILJA’s calendarof activities, news, announcements, seminars, and informationabout their programs and lecturers.

For the year 2012, PHILJA’s activities were mainly designedto promote judicial integrity and increase competentadministration of judicial corruption cases, such as the Facilitators’Writeshop and Seminar Workshop on Strengthening JudicialIntegrity and Rule of Law for Judges.

The PHILJA kicked off 2012 with its 1,393rd activity entitledAsset Recovery as an Anti-Corruption Tool: A Focus GroupDiscussion with Judge Michael Hopmeier in January, and endedit with Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and CourtPersonnel Handling Cases involving Children as its 1,565th activitysince its inception in 1996. The PHILJA conducted a total of 48regular seminars, trainings and workshops and 94 specialseminars, trainings and workshops. The Training on Small ClaimsMonitoring System (SC2MS) was concluded in May 2012, with atotal of 14 trainings conducted for First Level Clerks of Court. TheAcademy also reactivated the Judicial Career EnhancementProgram, with six batches of trainings already conducted, afterthree years of respite.

THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMYAs the component unit of the Supreme Court for Court-

Annexed Mediation and Other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) mechanisms, the PHILJA has achieved significantoutcomes in its programs and activities in 2012. The PhilippineMediation Center Office (PMCO) has been assisting the Courtsin decongesting their dockets through ADR mechanisms whichinclude Court-Annexed Mediation, Appellate Court Mediation,Judicial Dispute Resolution, and Mobile Court-AnnexedMediation. The PMCO conducted 49 trainings, programs andactivities during the year. The Executive Committee of the PMCOheld 10 regular meetings and passed several resolutions, whichwere all approved by the Supreme Court En Banc. Mediationhas also significantly contributed to the declogging of courtdockets in 2012.

PHILJA Chancellor and Retired SC Justice Adolfo S. Azcunaalso represented the Academy in various significant internationalconferences and events, such as the Conference and AnnualGeneral Meeting of the Asian Mediation Association in Bali,Indonesia and World Bank Group’s Law, Justice andDevelopment Week 2012 in Washington D.C., USA.

(RET.) JUSTICE ADOLFO S. AZCUNAChancellor

(RET.) JUSTICE JUSTO P. TORRES, JR.Vice Chancellor and Chief, Finance Office

(RET.) JUSTICE MARINA L. BUZONExecutive Secretary and Acting Chief,

Philippine Mediation Center Office

(RET.) JUSTICE DELILAH VIDALLONMAGTOLIS

Chief, Academic Affairs Office

(RET.) JUDGE THELMA A. PONFERRADAChief, Administrative Office

DEAN SEDFREY M. CANDELARIAChief, Research, Publications, and Linkages

Office

2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 39Attached Institution

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION OFFICE

Other Offices

The Mandatory Continuing LegalEducation Office (MCLEO) carries out theobjectives of the Mandatory Continuing

Legal Education (MCLE) program of the Courtwhich aims to keep lawyers abreast with thedevelopments in law and jurisprudence,maintain the ethics of the profession, andenhance the standards of the practice of law.It also sets the schedule of MCLE fees inconsulation with the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines Board of Governors, with theapproval from the Supreme Court.

The MCLEO has two divisions. TheAccreditation, Program Monitoring,Compliance and Evaluation Division is incharge of the implementation of Rules 8 to 9

and 11 to 14 of the MCLE Rules; while the Administrative and Finance Division is responsible for allmatters affecting the personnel, properties, and finances of the MCLEO, collection and managementof all fees prescribed by the MCLE Rules, and preparation of the annual budget proposals for theimplementation of MCLE Rules and the operation of the MCLEO for review of the MCLE Committeeand submission to the Court.

In the year 2012, the MCLEO conducted numerous activities in the last quarter of the year in connection with the ending of the FourthCompliance period on April 14, 2013. The period started in 2001. Since its inception in 2001, the Office, through the MCLE GoverningBoard, has accredited a total number of 189 MCLE Providers until 2012. Out of the 189, 51 were able to conduct 2,478 MCLE activities andprograms in 2012. The year 2012 ranks second in the history of the MCLEO in terms of the number of activities and programs presented,which included updates on substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence, legal ethics, alternative dispute resolution, legal writing andoral advocacy, trial and pre-trial skills, international law and international conventions, and MCLE prescribed subjects.

The year 2012 also saw a significant increase in the number of lawyers who attended the various MCLE seminars to comply with theMCLE requirements for the Fourth Compliance Period before the April 14, 2013 deadline. In December 2012, the MCLEO also launched itswebsite which contains information about the Office and the MCLE Implenting Rules and Regulations. MCLE forms are also downloadablefrom the website.

SOCIETY FOR JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE

(RET.) JUSTICE CAROLINAC. GRIÑO-AQUINO (†)

Chairperson (2001 – July 23, 2012)

(RET.) JUSTICE BERNARDO P. PARDOChairman ( February 1, 2013 - present)

ATTY. JESUSA JEAND. REYES

Assistant Executive Officer

The Society for Judicial Excellence (SJE) is in charge of the annual Judicial Excellence Awards foroutstanding members of the Judiciary. In choosing the awardees, the Society, through its Boardof Judges, considers the nominees based on criteria which determine their efficiency and

effectiveness in carrying out their duties and responsibilities; their initiative, innovativeness, andresourcefulness in meeting the exigencies of the service; public perception in upholding judicial integrityand independence; their noteworthy contributions to the administration of justice; and leadership inthe Judiciary and the community.

The recipients of the 2012 Judicial Excellence Awards are Judge Maria Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Manila as the Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano Awardee;Judge Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 192, Marikina City as the ChiefJustice Jose Abad Santos Awardee; Judge Gregorio V. Dela Peña of the Regional Trial Court, Branch12, Zamboanga City as the Chief Justice Ramon Avanceña Awardee; Judge Emily L. San Gaspar-Gitoof the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 20, Manila as the Don Antonio P. Madrigal Awardee; and Atty.Maria Christine A. Imperial-Bernarte of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Naga City as the lonerecipient of the Outstanding Branch Clerk of Court for the Second Level Courts.

Out of 85 nominees for this year’s JEA, 11 made it to the shortlist which was then submitted forscreening to the Board of Judges chaired by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio and composedof Justice Bernardo P. Pardo (Ret.), Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez(Ret.), Philippine Judicial Academy Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna, Atty. Maria Milagros Fernan-Cayosaof the Judicial and Bar Council, Atty. Roan I. Libarios of Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and DeanErnesto P. Maceda, Jr. of the College of Law of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. The awardingceremonies were held on September 24, 2012 at the Manila Hotel.

ATTY. MA. LUISA L. LAUREAExecutive Director


Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court exercises administrative supervisionover all lower courts. To properly discharge the constitutional mandate, the Court is assisted by the Office of the CourtAdministrator (OCA), which was created under PD 828, as amended by PD 842, and further strengthened in a Resolution

of the Supreme Court dated October 24, 1996. The OCA is tasked with the supervision and administration of the lower courtsall over the country and all of their personnel. It likewise reports and recommends to the Supreme Court all actions that affectlower court management, personnel and financial administration, and administrative discipline.

The mission of the OCA is to ensure that judges shall administer justice in a manner truly compatible with the independence,impartiality, integrity, competence, and promptness required of them. The OCA likewise aims to provide these judges withthe sustained appropriate working environment that would fully enable them to discharge their adjudicative and administrativeresponsibilities efficiently and effectively.

The OCA is assisted by five line offices: the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), the Court Management Office(CMO), the Financial Management Office (FMO), the Legal Office (LEGO), and the Office on Halls of Justice (OHOJ).

The primary role of the OAS is to provide prompt, effiicient, effective, and economical delivery of essential supportservices to all lower courts. These support services encompass the management of personnel, leave matters, employees’welfare and benefits as well as property and records management of personnel, leave matters, employees’ welfare andbenefits as well as property and records management, among others.

The CMO provides services relating to judicial supervision and monitoring, judicial audit and inspection, judicial assignments and placements, circuitization ordecircuitization of court, and delineation of the territorial areas of lower courts. It is also responsible for the compilation, analysis and validation of case data gathered,fiscal monitoring, audits, and reconciliation of books of accountable officers. It also reviews work systems, procedures and processes, and formulates plans andstrategies for the OCA and the lower courts.

The FMO essentially performs the following functions: budget preparation, allotment, and control for lower courts; processing and control of staff salaries and otherfinancial concerns; accounting and monitoring of all lower court financial transactions, revenues, collections, and remittance; cash disbursement, checks preparation,issuance of official receipts for various funds; and checks releasing and recording of miscellaneous matters.

The LEGO receives, processes, and evaluates administrative complaints filed against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, judges of the first andsecond level courts, and lower court personnel. This office submits its findings to the SC by way of Agenda Reports. It also takes charge of the reports and recommendationsfor administrative complaints referred by the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. Whenever warranted, the LEGO likewise initiates and prosecutes administrativecomplaints against judicial officers and employees.

The OHOJ is incharge of the inspection and assessment of the repair or renovation requirements of the HOJs all over the country. It supervises civil works projects,and provides office furniture and equipment to the courts, and maintenance tools and supplies to the maintenance units in the HOJs. The OHOJ also supervises securityand janitorial service contracts; processes utilities, securities, and janitorial bills; and attends to the monthly bills for payments of rentals of temporary HOJs.

HON. JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZCourt Administrator (January 26, 2010 to present) Deputy Court Administrator (August 11, 2009 to January 25, 2010);Assistant Court Administrator (March 20, 2007 to August 10, 2009)

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR

DEPUTY AND ASSISTANT COURT ADMINISTRATORS / OCA CHIEFS OF OFFICE

HON. THELMA C. BAHIADeputy Court Administrator

(May 15, 2013-present) Assistant Court Administrator

(September 9, 2008 to May 15, 2013)

HON. RAUL B. VILLANUEVADeputy Court Administrator

HON. ANTONIO M. EUGENIO, JR.Deputy Court Administrator

(February 28, 2012 - Nov. 28, 2012)

HON. JENNY LIND A. DELORINODeputy Court Administrator(January 8, 2013 - present)

Assistant Court Administrator(January 12, 2010 – January 7, 2013)

ATTY. CARIDAD A. PABELLOChief, OCA Office of Administrative Services

ATTY. WILHELMINA D. GERONGAChief, OCA Legal Office

ATTY. LILIAN BARRIBAL-COChief, OCA Fiscal Management Office

ATTY. MARINA B. CHINGChief, OCA Court Management Office

ATTY. REGINA ADORACIONFILOMENA M. IGNACIO

Chief, OCA Office on Halls of Justice


PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE

ATTY. THEODORE O. TEAssistant Court Administrator and Chief(January 7, 2013 - present)

HON. JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZPIO Chief (January 26, 2010 – May 29, 2012)Acting PIO Chief (August 11, 2009 – January 25, 2010)Acting PIO Chief (March 20, 2007 – August 10, 2009)

ATTY. MARIA VICTORIA GLEORESTYSP. GUERRADirector IV(June 1, 2005 - present)Acting PIO Chief(May 30, 2012 – January 6, 2013)Director IV and Assistant PIO Chief(June 1, 2005 - May 29, 2012)

The primary task of the Public Information Office is to promptly disseminateas widely as possible, news and jurisprudence from the Supreme Court.Its primary objective is to bring the Court closer to the people. It is an

information-based office which cultivates the Court’s good relations with themedia and the general public.

The PIO provides photo and video coverage of oral arguments and otherimportant Court events and activities. It also conducts court tours and producesinformation, education and communication (IEC) materials about the Judiciary.

In 2012, the PIO has continued providing photo and video coverage ofimportant Court events and activities. It also conducted a total of 63 scheduledcourt tours and entertained a few walk-ins.

The PIO also produces and disseminates press releases and briefings whichare subsumed under the heading Court News Flash. In 2012, the office issued atotal of 122 Court News Flash reports.

In the year 2012, the PIO produced the Benchmark, a monthly newspaperon judicial events and important Court issuances; 1,000 copies of the SupremeCourt Annual Report; 1,000 copies of the 2012 Supreme Court Planner; and13,500 copies of the 2012 Court Calendar (9,000 in big format and 4,500 insmall format).

During the year, the PIO was also tasked to start working on modification ofthe SC decisions on cases involving violenece against women and children postedon the SC website. In compliance with the Court’s resolution dated September4, 2012 in AM No. 12-7-15-SC, the PIO submitted to the Clerk of Court En Bancthe decisions which were modified by replacing the names of the victims withfictitious initials. The decisions which were already modified were uploaded tothe SC website in place of the originally uploaded unmodified decisions.

The Office also helped in the layout and design of posters of Court programsand activities and other materials, such as the current Court officials’ andemployees’ identification card. The PIO also worked on the audio-visualpresentation of the retirees for 2012 upon the request of the SC PRAISECommittee.

From January 2010 unti l the present, the PIO has beenmonitoring the trial of People v. Andal Ampatuan, Jr., et al. (CriminalCases Nos. Q-09-162148-72; Q-09-162216-31; and Q-10-162654-66) pending before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC),Branch 221, presided by Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes.

The PIO has also continued with the administration of the SCwebsite (sc.judiciary.gov.ph) by regularly uploading promulgateddecisions, issuances and announcements of the Court, Bar results,online Benchmark and Court News Flash reports, and photo releases;and updating lists of accredited bonding companies for civil andcriminal cases and special proceedings.

The PIO also spearheads or assists in organizing and managingseveral Court activities and events. In 2012, it spearheaded theholding of the Forum for Media on Judiciary Coverage at the MicrotelInn and Suites in Baguio City on April 18, pursuant to its mandateunder A.M. No. 99-4-08-SC to offer periodic workshops or seminarsdesigned to inform members of the media about the work of theCourt and its procedures. The Forum was attended by Manila-basedprint, radio, and television broadcast and online media persons whoare members of the Justice and Court Reporters Associations(JUCRA) and the Justice Reporters Organization (JUROR). Thetopics during the Forum included the importance of accuratereporting; knowledge of commonly used legal terms used in SCdecisions and resolutions; basic safety, protection, and personalsecurity tips for members of the media; and summary of factssurrounding the current legal issues and controversies the SupremeCourt was facing during the t ime, such as the effect of theimpeachment and the defiance of Temporary Restraining Orders(TROs) all over the country on the Judiciary.

Clippings of articles about the Judiciary from Manila-basedbroadsheets and newspapers are also compiled by the PIO on adaily basis, including during weekends and holidays.

The Program Management Office (PMO) was createdby the Supreme Court to coordinate and managethe implementation of the Judicial Reform

Program’s technical and administrative aspects. Itsactivities focus on project development, resourcemobilization, advocacy for reform, procurement andcontract management, project implementation andmonitoring, financial management, as well asadministrative management.

For the year 2012, the Judicial Reform Support Projectwrapped up its implementation, the justice reform projectswith the United Nations Development Programme reachedtheir next phases, and new programs with the UnitedStates Agency for International Development andEuropean Union were launched.

The PMO has also actively participated in projectsgeared towards making justice more accessible and work

MR. EDILBERTO A. DAVISDeputy Judicial Reform Program Administrator

JUDGE GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONGJudicial Reform Program Administrator

The Rollo Room of the Office of the Chief Justice is in charge of safekeeping all rollos of cases, which contain all originalpleadings, communications, documents, and other papers filed by the parties.

Under A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC or The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, personnel of the Rollo Room and other Court personneltasked to store and distribute rollos are “bound by strict confidentiality on the identity of the Member-in-Charge or the ponente, aswell as on the integrity of the rollos, under pain of administrative sanction and criminal prosecution for any breach thereof.”

An official written request from the Chief Judicial Staff Head or the Chief of Office of the requesting Office is necessary before anyrollo may be released by Rollo Room personnel. Furthermore, only the authorized personnel named in the written request mayreceive rollos.

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE

THE ROLLO ROOM


for the marginalized, decongesting courts and improving their infrastructures, promoting integrity and professionalism in the Judiciary,and developing systems and procedure for case management. It also played a vital role in reform activities such as the media forumorganized by the PIO, a consultation on judicial reform, and a moot court competition. The Office also facilitated scholarships andtraining offered by the Korean International Cooperation Agency and the Japan International Cooperation Agency. The PMO alsoparticipates in meetings of the Justice Sector Coordinating Council and the Inter-Agency Executive Committee on Persons Deprivedof Liberty.

Chambers of Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio

Chambers of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno


Chambers of Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.

Chambers of Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro


Chambers of Justice Arturo D. Brion

Chambers of Justice Diosdado M. Peralta


Chambers of Justice Lucas P. Bersamin

Chambers of Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo


Chambers of Justice Roberto A. Abad

Chambers of Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.


Chambers of Justice Jose Portugal Perez

Chambers of Justice Jose Catral Mendoza


Chambers of Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes

Chambers of Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe


Chambers of Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen


OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT - EN BANC

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT - FIRST DIVISION

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT - SECOND DIVISION

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT - THIRD DIVISION



OAS - SECURITY DIVISION



OAS - SECURITY DIVISION

JUDICIAL BAR AND COUNCIL

FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICE

FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION / INTERNAL AUDIT DIVISION

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY


OFFICE OF THE REPORTER

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE

OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT


JUDICIAL RECORDS OFFICE

LIBRARY SERVICES

MEDICAL AND DENTAL SERVICES


MEDICAL SERVICES - HEALTH AND WELFARE

PRINTING SERVICES

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE


PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR - COURT ADMINISTRATOR MARQUEZ

OFFICE OF DCA VILLANUEVA


OFFICE OF DCA EUGENIO, JR.

OFFICE OF DCA BAHIA

OFFICE OF DCA DELORINO


OCA - LEGAL OFFICE

OCA - COURT MANAGEMENT OFFICE

OCA - FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OFFICE


OCA - OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, EMPLOYEES LEAVE DIVISION

OCA - OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, RECORDS DIVISION

OCA - OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, RTC AND MTC PERSONNEL DIVISIONS


OCA - OFFICE ON HALLS OF JUSTICE

OCA - OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, EMPLOYEES WELFARE AND BENEFITS DIVISION

OCA - OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, PROPERTY DIVISION


PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION OFFICE

SOCIETY FOR JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE SECRETARIAT


The total appropriation for the Supreme Court of the Philippines and the Lower Court for FY 2012 amounted to PhP15,357,342,000.00 broken down as follows: Total Appropriation per GAA-RA 10155 PhP13,355,764,000.00 Add. Retirement & Life Insurance Premium PhP 671,607,000.00 Miscellaneous Personnel Benefit Fund PhP 1,329,971,000.00 (3rd and 4th Tranche of SSL 3) PhP15,357,342,000.00 Less: Actual Obligations Personal Services (PhP12,315,281,000.00) M O O E (PhP 2,465,376,000.00) Capital Outlay 0 (PhP14,780,657,000.00) Balance as of December 31, 2012 PhP576,685,000.00

Supreme Court and Lower CourtsStatement of Allotments, Obligations, and BalancesJanuary to December 2012


In 2012, the President signed into law a budget of 1.816Trillion Pesos, of which the judiciary got a total ofP15,075,891,000.00. The judiciary budget includesallocations for the Supreme Court and the lower courts,the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), theSandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, and the Court ofTax Appeals.

Of this amount, the Supreme Court and the lower courtswere allocated a total of P13,355,764,000.00, with thePresidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) getting an additionalP72,157,000, the Sandiganbayan getting a total ofP348,121,000.00, the Court of Appeals a total ofP1,094,428,000.00, and the Court of Tax Appeals a total ofP205,421,000.00.

THE STATE OF THE JUDICIARY IN 2012The Judiciary Budget

0.348 0.205

1.094

13.427

SC, lower courts and PET CA Sandiganbayan CTA

Judiciary Budget Judiciary Budget Judiciary Budget Judiciary Budget Judiciary Budget AllocationAllocationAllocationAllocationAllocation(in Billions of Pesos)


Comparatively, the over all budget for the judiciary increased from 2011 to 2012. Except for the oneinstance in 2010, the judiciary budget has increased every year.

In 2012, the total budget for the judiciaryincreased from P13,621,518,000 toP15,075,891,000 from 2011 to 2012. In relationto the national budget, the judiciary’s budget for2012 represents 0.83% of the total budget, whichis exactly the same percentage of the judiciarybudget in relation to the 2011 national budget.

The judiciary’s budget represented the 11th

largest amount allocated (not counting theamounts allocated for automatic appropriationsand for debt service), which is also the same placeas 2011.

PERSONNELPERSONNELPERSONNELPERSONNELPERSONNEL AND STAND STAND STAND STAND STAFFINGAFFINGAFFINGAFFINGAFFING11111

As of 2012, the Supreme Court and the lowercourts it supervised—the Metropolitan Trial Courts(MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities(MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs),Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), Shari’aCircuit Courts (SCCs), Regional Trial Courts(RTCs) and Shari’a District Courts (SDCs)—employed a total of 22,777 people, including judgesand non-judicial staff. This number is down fromthe 26,433 persons employed in 2011.1All data from the Court’s Office of Administrative Services (OAS) and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

BREAKDOWNBREAKDOWNBREAKDOWNBREAKDOWNBREAKDOWNOF 2012 JUDICIALOF 2012 JUDICIALOF 2012 JUDICIALOF 2012 JUDICIALOF 2012 JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTSAPPOINTMENTSAPPOINTMENTSAPPOINTMENTSAPPOINTMENTS

In 2012, there were two Supreme Courtvacancies, which were filled within the year. Thefirst was for Chief Justice, due to the removal offormer Chief Justice Renato C. Corona from office,which was filled on August 24, 2012 with theappointment of then Associate Justice MariaLourdes P. A. Sereno as the nation’s 24th ChiefJustice. The second was for the post that shevacated as Associate Justice by reason of herappointment as Chief Justice, which was filledon November 21, 2012 with the appointment of

VACANCY RATES FOR JUDGESAt the end of 2012, the vacancy rate for Judges was at 26.23%, with a total of 577 vacancies out of a

total of 2,199 positions available.

former UP Law Dean and GPH Chief Negotiatorto the Peace Talks with the Moro IslamicLiberation Front (MILF) Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.

There were nine vacancies in the Court ofAppeals (CA) as of 2012, five of which werevacancies as of 2011 with four from 2012; of thefour from 2012, only three were filled in 2012, withone vacancy remaining as of the end of 2012. TheCourt of Tax Appeals (CTA) had two vacancies asof 2012, both of which were not filled as of 2012.The Sandiganbayan had one vacancy, carried overfrom 2011, which was not filled as of 2012.


VACANCIES AS OF END OF 2012, BY COURT APPOINTMENTS TO THE JUDICIARY IN 2012, BY COURT

Adjudication

*Case Input for Judicial Matters includes pending judicial matters as of December 31, 2011 (beginning balance), new cases, and reinstated cases**Case Output for Judicial Matters includes petitions denied/dismissed by minute/extended resolutions, denied motions for extension of time tofile petitions, transferred cases to other courts, and cases disposed of by decisions/signed resolutions.

THE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL MATTERS

* Case Input for Administrative Matters includes pending administrative cases as of December 31, 2011 (beginning balance), new administrativematters, and reinstated cases.** Case Output for Administrative Matters includes minute/extended resolutions disposing of complaints against justices, judges, and court personnel,matters on their retirement, and other miscellaneous administrative matters, complaints against lawyers and other bar matters; and administrativematters disposed of by decisions/signed resolutions.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS


THIRD LEVEL COURTS

* Case Input for Judicial Matters includes pending judicial matters as of December 31, 2011 (beginning balance), new cases, transferred cases,referred cases, and reinstated cases.** Case Output for Judicial Matters includes petitions denied/dismissed by minute/extended resolutions, denied motions for extension of time tofile petitions, transferred cases to En Banc/Divisions or other courts, and cases disposed of by decisions/signed resolutions.

The Lower Courts

* Case input is the total number of pending cases as of December 31, 2011 (beginning balance), newly filed cases, and revived/reopened cases.** Case output is the total number of decided/resolved cases and archived cases.


TRAILBLAZING JUDICIARY

Efficient Use of Paper RuleEfficient Use of Paper RuleEfficient Use of Paper RuleEfficient Use of Paper RuleEfficient Use of Paper RuleAll rulings to be issued by the court and all

pleadings to be filed by parties will maximize everysheet of paper in keeping with the Efficient Use ofPaper Rule promoting a paper-less judiciary to protectthe environment. (see related matter on page 85)

E-filingE-filingE-filingE-filingE-filingPursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule

and in preparation for the eventualestablishment of an e-filing paperless system inthe judiciary, the Supreme Court, through itsManagement Information Systems Office, has setup the e-mail address [email protected].

JUDICIAL REFORMSIn 2012, the Supreme Court’In 2012, the Supreme Court’In 2012, the Supreme Court’In 2012, the Supreme Court’In 2012, the Supreme Court’s Judicial Reform Projects continued to flourish.s Judicial Reform Projects continued to flourish.s Judicial Reform Projects continued to flourish.s Judicial Reform Projects continued to flourish.s Judicial Reform Projects continued to flourish.

Maintaining its drive to improve already established reform programs, the Court addedMaintaining its drive to improve already established reform programs, the Court addedMaintaining its drive to improve already established reform programs, the Court addedMaintaining its drive to improve already established reform programs, the Court addedMaintaining its drive to improve already established reform programs, the Court addednew components and enhanced elements of the original programs in order to betternew components and enhanced elements of the original programs in order to betternew components and enhanced elements of the original programs in order to betternew components and enhanced elements of the original programs in order to betternew components and enhanced elements of the original programs in order to betterserve the Judiciary’serve the Judiciary’serve the Judiciary’serve the Judiciary’serve the Judiciary’s stakeholders.s stakeholders.s stakeholders.s stakeholders.s stakeholders.


The Guidelines shall apply to all newly filedcases and all pending cases where trial has notstarted yet, whether or not pre-trial has beenconcluded. They may also apply to pending caseswhere trial has already commenced, with theconsent of both parties. (see related matter onpage 86)

Judicial Affidavit RuleJudicial Affidavit RuleJudicial Affidavit RuleJudicial Affidavit RuleJudicial Affidavit RuleThe Supreme Court En Banc has approved the

Judicial Affidavit Rule which takes effect onJanuary 1, 2013. This Rule adopted by the HighCourt follows through the innovation firstimplemented under the Guidelines for Litigationin Quezon City Trial Court, by requiring judicialaffidavits in lieu of oral direct testimony incovered cases.

The Quezon City trial courts were chosen bythe Supreme Court as the pilot courts for theproject given that the said courts have the biggestcase inflow in the country due to its territory, thelargest in the National Capital Judicial Region,and its population. (see related matter on page86)

INCREASING ACCESS TO JUSTICE,DECONGESTING COURTS AND JAILSEnhanced Justice on WheelsEnhanced Justice on WheelsEnhanced Justice on WheelsEnhanced Justice on WheelsEnhanced Justice on Wheels

Inspired by Guatemala’s mobile courts, theEnhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) remains oneof the Court’s most innovative measures tofurther speed up the administration of justice.The fleet now consists of nine buses deployednationwide. Six of them have been procured withfinancial assistance from the World Bank, whilethree were donated by the Sarangani Province,the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce andIndustry Inc. (FCCCII), and the local governmentof Santiago City, respectively.

E-filing, under the Rule, requires partiesbefore the Supreme Court to submit,simultaneously with their court-bound papers,soft copies of the same and their annexes (thelatter in PDF format) either by mail to theCourt’s e-mail address or by compact disc.

Guidelines for Litigation in QuezonGuidelines for Litigation in QuezonGuidelines for Litigation in QuezonGuidelines for Litigation in QuezonGuidelines for Litigation in QuezonCity Trial CourtsCity Trial CourtsCity Trial CourtsCity Trial CourtsCity Trial Courts

The Court has approved the Guidelines forLitigation in Quezon City Trial Courts to achievethe correlative objectives of docket decongestionand speedier case processing and disposition,as well as consistency in court action regardingprocedural and practice requirements which arenot expressly covered or provided for under theRules of Court.


By the end of 2012, the EJOW Program hasfacilitated the release of 6,932 inmates; settled7,048 cases through court-annexed mediation; andprovided free legal aid to 4,393 detainees. A totalof 22,216 inmates were provided free medical anddental assistance, while 18,472 barangay officialsparticipated in the information disseminationseminars provided by lecturers from thePhilippine Judicial Academy.

Small Claims CourtSmall Claims CourtSmall Claims CourtSmall Claims CourtSmall Claims CourtThe Rule of Procedure

for Small Claims Casesprovides an inexpensiveand expeditious means to

settle actions before first-level courts for moneyclaims not exceeding P100,000. No attorneys areallowed and user-friendly forms are providedfor every step of the proceeding.

This undertaking was launched in 44 trialcourts in selected urban areas of the Philippinesin October 2008. On average, cases are heardfour months after a litigant files a small claimscase while the hearing and the decision itselftakes only one day. In comparison, traditionalcourts normally need three to four years toresolve incoming civil cases. In 2010, all 1,137first level courts nationwide, except Shari’ahCircuit Courts, have been designated to hearsmall claims cases.


Also in 2011, the Supreme Court launched theSmall Claims Case Monitoring System (SC2MS),which seeks to enable the Judiciary to betterintegrate its processes by shifting from manual tofaster electronic processes. The SC2MS, a projectof the Supreme Court and the American BarAssociation Rule of Law Initiative (ABA ROLI)and funded by the United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID), aims tomake it easier for small claims courts to providethe High Court with detailed, consistent, andintegrated case information. SC2MS will enablethe judiciary to better integrate its processesby shifting from manual to faster electronicprocesses. It will also improve data systemsacross localities and regions. The new system

will save staff time, streamline the reportingprocess, reduce human errors, and increase thejudiciary’s accountability. Its key featuresinclude an automatic display of daily tasks,programmed custom reports, real-time casetracking, and an audit log that captures casehistory.

The Office of the Court Administrator issuedOCA Circular No. 78-2011 relative to theguidelines and pertinent instructions on thedistribution and use of computers and printersin all first level courts with the pre-installedSC2MS software. These computers and printersshall be used exclusively for small claims cases.The Court, through USAID and World Bankfunding; distributed software, computers andUSB Broadband wireless modems to the saidcourts to facilitate the electronic submissionof monthly small claims reports. So far theproject has attained an 89.3% success rate forwhich the World Bank has given the SupremeCourt a rating of “excellent.”

Case Delay and Docket ReductionCase Delay and Docket ReductionCase Delay and Docket ReductionCase Delay and Docket ReductionCase Delay and Docket ReductionProject (CDDRP)Project (CDDRP)Project (CDDRP)Project (CDDRP)Project (CDDRP)

Supported by the United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID) through theAmerican Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative(ABA ROLI), the Project is being conducted in 16selected first and second level courts with highvolume of cases (above 1,000 cases). These courtswere directed to conduct their Semestral DocketInventory using the CDDRP Diagnostic Inventorytool for two semesters covering the period ofJune-December 2011 and January-June 2012.

From November 2011 to February 2012,individual validation meetings/post auditconsultation meetings were conducted in the 16


pilot courts to validate the reports submitted byeach court branch after the diagnostic inventoryis conducted; and assist them in the developmentof their Docket Management Plan. The DocketManagement Plan is formulated by each courtbranch which indicates the committed action/s toaddress the gaps, issues, causes of delay, andcongestion in these courts.

From August 1 to November 30, 2012, dataencoders were provided to the six MeTC branchesand seven RTC branches in the 4th JudicialRegion for the encoding of the semestral docketinventory of these courts into the Court DataEntry system. The Court Data Entry System wasdeveloped by the ABA ROLI as a database tosystematize the docket inventory of the 13selected courts.

ENHANCING ACCESS TO PILLARSOF JUSTICE, KNOWLEDGE SHARINGAND ESTABLISHING LINKAGESOn Environmental Justice:On Environmental Justice:On Environmental Justice:On Environmental Justice:On Environmental Justice:Citizens’ HandbookCitizens’ HandbookCitizens’ HandbookCitizens’ HandbookCitizens’ Handbook

To further enhance the environmental reformprojects, the Court engaged a principal researcherto undertake the development of the Citizens’

Handbook, conduct of a workshop/writeshop,research, and a validation workshop to provideinformation on the policies and proceduresrelative to the implementation of environmentallaws in the ARMM.

On October 16,2012, a writeshop wasconducted at the Pearl Manila Hotel in Manila,involving resource persons from ARMMRegional Trial Court Branch 8, PENRO of Lanaodel Sur, BFAR-ARMM, Tawi-Tawi ProvincialPolice and the Al Kalifah Foundation. A draft ofthe Handbook was completed containing Islamicperspectives from the Qu’ran and ARMMenvironmental laws. To finalize the Handbook,it was subjected to a validation workshop onNovember 29, 2012 at the Mallberry SuitesBusiness Hotel in Cagayan de Oro City.Participants invited included identifiedagencies of the ARMM Regional Government,the head chairman Ulama, a grand mufti,representative from the King Faisal Center forIslamic, Arabic and Asian Studies of MindanaoState University, and World Wildlife Fund(WWF).

The Supreme Court participated in twointernational fora to share our experience onenvironmental justice. The first event was the


Global South-South Development (GSSD) Expoheld from November 19 to 23, 2012 in Vienna,Austria. The Court was invited to serve as panelpresenter on its experience on environmentaljustice during the mini-forum on Environmentand Legal Empowerment. The Philippineexperience was one of the case studies presentedtogether with China, Latin America andCaribbean, Arab regions, and Africa.

The second was the 2nd Round TableDiscussion (RTD) of ASEAN Chief Justices onEnvironment from December 7 to 9, 2012 at AyerKeroh, Melaka, Malaysia. The Philippinedelegation was composed of Chief Justice MariaLourdes P. A. Sereno, Associate Justice PresbiteroJ. Velasco, Jr., Deputy Court Administrator RaulB. Villanueva, and then Assistant (now Deputy)Court Administrator Jenny Lind Aldecoa-Delorino. The RTD defined the roadmap ofASEAN Judiciaries on the Environment.

PeerPeerPeerPeerPeer-to-Peer Exchange W-to-Peer Exchange W-to-Peer Exchange W-to-Peer Exchange W-to-Peer Exchange With the Unitedith the Unitedith the Unitedith the Unitedith the UnitedStates Supreme CourtStates Supreme CourtStates Supreme CourtStates Supreme CourtStates Supreme Court

For the first time in recent history, the ChiefJustice and Associate Justices of the SupremeCourt of the Philippines engaged in a peer-to-peer exchange with their counterparts in theUnited States of America.

On December 14, 2012, Chief Justice MariaLourdes P. A. Sereno, and Associate JusticesPresbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Mariano C. delCastillo, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe met withChief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and other

Associate Justices of the United States SupremeCourt in Washington, D.C., to discuss, amongothers, maintaining judicial stability in a rapidlychanging environment.

Chief Justice Sereno upon invitation by theWorld Bank, headquartered in the U.S. capital,also delivered the keynote address on Access toJustice and Social Inclusion, in celebration of theLaw, Justice, and Development Week 2012. Shespoke on “The Cost of Injustice.”

Other activities scheduled during the four-dayofficial visit included a meeting with United StatesAttorney General Eric H. Holder, knowledgesharing with the Federal Judicial Center and theAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and aforum on Philippine Judicial Reform sponsoredby the U.S.-Philippines Society.

Media ForumMedia ForumMedia ForumMedia ForumMedia ForumThe Program Management Office (PMO)

supported and participated in the conduct of the2012 Forum for Media on Judiciary Coverage inBaguio City on 18 April 2012. The Forum wasconducted to help improve media coverage of thejudiciary and was used as a feedback mechanismto strengthen judiciary-media relations. Duringthe activity, the PMO also solicited feedback fromJUCRA and JUROR members on their views,opinions, or concerns on the judicial reformprogram as well as their suggestions on whatareas in judicial reform need to be pursued. Some40 Manila-based print, radio, broadcast, andonline media persons attended the Forum. This


annual activity is part of the PMO initiativesunder the World Bank-funded Judicial ReformSupport Project (JRSP).

DEVELOPING COURT INFRASTRUCTUREAND KEEPING UP WITH TECHNOLOGYAngeles City Pilot Model CourtAngeles City Pilot Model CourtAngeles City Pilot Model CourtAngeles City Pilot Model CourtAngeles City Pilot Model Court

The construction of the Angeles City Hall ofJustice, the second pilot model court to beconstructed under the Judicial Reform SupportProject (JRSP), was completed in May 2012. Namedafter former Chief Justice Jose Abad Santos, thebuilding was inaugurated on July 5, 2012. Courtsin Angeles City are now consolidated in onelocation, contributing to the further enhancementof access to justice.

Quezon City Hall of JusticeQuezon City Hall of JusticeQuezon City Hall of JusticeQuezon City Hall of JusticeQuezon City Hall of JusticeE-Court ProgramE-Court ProgramE-Court ProgramE-Court ProgramE-Court Program

The Quezon City Hall of Justice e-CourtProgram, supported by the USAID through ABA-ROLI, is a pilot project to equip the courts withinformation technology capabilities to enable thedevelopment of various electronic systems thataim to modernize court processes and procedures.

Pursuant to OCA Circular 01-2012 datedJanuary 13, 2012, a Technical Working Groupfor the Quezon City Program was created to,among others, approve the work plan softwaredesign and features for the said project; andaccept the appropriate computer system forthe Quezon City first- and second-level courts.

The Program aims, among others, to makea database of all cases filed in Quezon City,generate reports automatically, monitor caseflow, improve docket management, and providepublic access to case status information.

In 2012, there was an inventory of ICTequipment of the Quezon City first- andsecond-level courts, setting up andrefurbishing of the server room, as well asnetworking and cabling. There was also ahands-on orientation/training on the eCourtfor the Branch Clerks of Court, as well as forthe Date Encoders. Desktop computers andprinters to all first- and second-level courtsunder the Project have also been delivered. Bythe end of the year, there were 58 full-timeEncoders hired assigned to each court branchof the QC HOJ.


THE COURT’S WORKADJUDICAADJUDICAADJUDICAADJUDICAADJUDICATIONTIONTIONTIONTION

Article VIII, section 1 of the 1987 Constitution vests the judicial power in “one Supreme Court andin such lower courts as may be established by law.” A primary aspect of the judicial power is adjudication,which includes the “duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights whichare legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a graveabuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch orinstrumentality of the government.”

In 2012, the Court, sitting En Banc and in division, promulgated the following Decisions, pursuantto its work of adjudication.

GR No. 199486, GR No. 199486, GR No. 199486, GR No. 199486, GR No. 199486, Cosalan vCosalan vCosalan vCosalan vCosalan v. Domogan. Domogan. Domogan. Domogan. Domogan, January 17, 2012 (, January 17, 2012 (, January 17, 2012 (, January 17, 2012 (, January 17, 2012 (En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc ResolutionResolutionResolutionResolutionResolution)))))

The Supreme Court issued a writ of kalikasan and temporary environmental protection orderdirecting the Baguio City local government, headed by Mayor Mauricio Domogan and Vice MayorDaniel Farinas, to “cease and desist from making use of the Irisan dump site either as a temporaryholding/staging area or as a dumping or controlled area for any and all kinds of solid waste.” TheCourt issued the writ after a petition was filed against the city government due to a trash slide in 2011that claimed six lives.


GR Nos. 177857-58, GR Nos. 177857-58, GR Nos. 177857-58, GR Nos. 177857-58, GR Nos. 177857-58, COCOFED vCOCOFED vCOCOFED vCOCOFED vCOCOFED v. Republic. Republic. Republic. Republic. Republic; GR; GR; GR; GR; GRNo. 178193, No. 178193, No. 178193, No. 178193, No. 178193, Ursua vUrsua vUrsua vUrsua vUrsua v. Republic. Republic. Republic. Republic. Republic, January 24, 2012,, January 24, 2012,, January 24, 2012,, January 24, 2012,, January 24, 2012,En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed theSandiganbayan ruling that reconveyed to thegovernment San Miguel Corporation (SMC) sharesin the aggregate amount of P1.656 billion boughtusing coconut levy funds. These shares had beenregistered in the names of the Coconut IndustryInvestment Fund (CIIF) and its holding companies.It denied the consolidated petitions of the PhilippineCoconut Producers Federation Inc. (COCOFED), etal. and Danilo S. Ursua, former COCOFED officer,assailing the anti-graft court’s ruling that, amongothers, declared the coco levy fund-bought SMCshares as public funds.

GR No. 164197, GR No. 164197, GR No. 164197, GR No. 164197, GR No. 164197, Securities and ExchangeSecurities and ExchangeSecurities and ExchangeSecurities and ExchangeSecurities and ExchangeCommission vCommission vCommission vCommission vCommission v. Prosperity. Prosperity. Prosperity. Prosperity. Prosperity.Com, Inc.Com, Inc.Com, Inc.Com, Inc.Com, Inc., January 25,., January 25,., January 25,., January 25,., January 25,2012, Third Division2012, Third Division2012, Third Division2012, Third Division2012, Third Division

The Supreme Court sustained the applicationof the Howey Test in determining the existence ofan investment contract so as to require registrationbefore the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) pursuant to the Securities Regulation Code(SRC). It unanimously held that Prosperity.Com,Inc. (PCI)’s scheme in selling its computer softwareis more akin to network marketing rather than aninvestment contract.

GR No. 185124, GR No. 185124, GR No. 185124, GR No. 185124, GR No. 185124, Republic vRepublic vRepublic vRepublic vRepublic v. Rural Bank of. Rural Bank of. Rural Bank of. Rural Bank of. Rural Bank ofKabacan IncKabacan IncKabacan IncKabacan IncKabacan Inc., January 25, 2012, Second Division., January 25, 2012, Second Division., January 25, 2012, Second Division., January 25, 2012, Second Division., January 25, 2012, Second Division

The Supreme Court excluded the value ofexcavated soil from the payment for justcompensation to the owners of expropriatedproperties in Cotabato used by the NationalIrrigation Authority (NIA) for its Malitubog-Marigadao Irrigation Project in 1994. Upholdingthe ruling of the Court of Appeals Twenty-First(21st) Division which had deleted the inclusion ofthe value of the excavated soil in the payment forjust compensation, the Court held that there wasno legal basis to separate the value of theexcavated soil from that of the expropriatedproperties as the soil has no value separate fromthat of the expropriated land.

GR No. 187107, GR No. 187107, GR No. 187107, GR No. 187107, GR No. 187107, United Claimants United Claimants United Claimants United Claimants United Claimants AssociationAssociationAssociationAssociationAssociationof NEAof NEAof NEAof NEAof NEA v v v v v. NEA. NEA. NEA. NEA. NEA, January 31, 2012, , January 31, 2012, , January 31, 2012, , January 31, 2012, , January 31, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Supreme Court upheld the National

Electrification Administration (NEA) TerminationPay Plan, affirming the power of NEA to terminateits employees as provided in the Electric PowerIndustry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA Law). It heldthat under Rule 33, sec. 3(b)(ii) of the EPIRA Law

Implementing Rules and Regulations, all NEAemployees shall be considered legally terminatedwith the implementation of a reorganizationprogram pursuant to a law enacted by Congressor pursuant to Sec. 5(a)(5) of PD 269, the lawcreating the NEA. Sec. 5(a)(5) of PD 269 givesNEA the power to organize or reorganize itsstaffing structure.

GR No. 153304-05, GR No. 153304-05, GR No. 153304-05, GR No. 153304-05, GR No. 153304-05, People vPeople vPeople vPeople vPeople v. Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan,,,,,February 7, 2012, February 7, 2012, February 7, 2012, February 7, 2012, February 7, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of theSandiganbayan dismissing two cases ofmalversation of public funds against former FirstLady Imelda R. Marcos and two other formergovernment officials. It dismissed the petitionfiled by the People of the Philippines assailingthe decision of the Sandiganbayan which hadgranted the demurrers to evidence filed byMarcos, together with Jose Conrado Benitez, andRafael Zagala, former Minister and DeputyMinister, respectively, of the Ministry of HumanSettlements (MHS). It ruled that as a grant ofdemurrer to evidence amounts to a judgment ofacquittal brought about by the dismissal of thecase for insufficiency of evidence, any furtherprosecution of the accused would violate the


constitutional proscription on double jeopardy,except on two grounds: (1) grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and/or(2) where there is a denial of a party’s due processrights.

GR No. 171701, GR No. 171701, GR No. 171701, GR No. 171701, GR No. 171701, Republic vRepublic vRepublic vRepublic vRepublic v. Marcos-Manotoc. Marcos-Manotoc. Marcos-Manotoc. Marcos-Manotoc. Marcos-Manotoc,,,,,February 8, 2012, Second DivisionFebruary 8, 2012, Second DivisionFebruary 8, 2012, Second DivisionFebruary 8, 2012, Second DivisionFebruary 8, 2012, Second Division

The Supreme Court reinstated the children of thelate President Ferdinand E. Marcos and former FirstLady Imelda R. Marcos, namely, Ma. Imelda “Imee”R. Marcos-Manotoc, Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong”R. Marcos, Jr., and Irene R. Marcos-Araneta, asdefendants in the ill-gotten wealth case in connectionwith the Marcoses’ accumulation of at least P200billion and use of the media networks IBC-13, BBC-2, and RPN-9 for the family’s personal benefit, amongothers, now pending before the Sandiganbayan. Thiseven as it found wanting the conduct of theprosecution of the case by the PresidentialCommission on Good Government (PCGG) and theOffice of the Solicitor General (OSG).

GR No. 193978, GR No. 193978, GR No. 193978, GR No. 193978, GR No. 193978, Galicto vGalicto vGalicto vGalicto vGalicto v. Pres. . Pres. . Pres. . Pres. . Pres. Aquino IIIAquino IIIAquino IIIAquino IIIAquino III,,,,,February 28, 2012, February 28, 2012, February 28, 2012, February 28, 2012, February 28, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed apetition to nullify and enjoin the implementation of

Executive Order (EO) No. 7 issued by PresidentBenigno Simeon C. Aquino precluding the grant andrelease of bonuses and allowances to the Board ofDirectors of government-owned and –controlledcorporations (GOCCs) and government financialinstitutions and increase of salary rates and new oradditional benefits and allowances to GOCC and GFIemployees.

GR No. 151258, GR No. 151258, GR No. 151258, GR No. 151258, GR No. 151258, VVVVVillareal villareal villareal villareal villareal v. People. People. People. People. People; GR No.; GR No.; GR No.; GR No.; GR No.154954, 154954, 154954, 154954, 154954, People vPeople vPeople vPeople vPeople v. CA. CA. CA. CA. CA; GR No. 155101, ; GR No. 155101, ; GR No. 155101, ; GR No. 155101, ; GR No. 155101, Dizon vDizon vDizon vDizon vDizon v.....PeoplePeoplePeoplePeoplePeople; GR Nos. 178057 and 178080, ; GR Nos. 178057 and 178080, ; GR Nos. 178057 and 178080, ; GR Nos. 178057 and 178080, ; GR Nos. 178057 and 178080, VVVVVilla villa villa villa villa v.....EscalonaEscalonaEscalonaEscalonaEscalona, February 1, 2012, Second Division, February 1, 2012, Second Division, February 1, 2012, Second Division, February 1, 2012, Second Division, February 1, 2012, Second Division

The Supreme Court modified the offenses ofseveral of the accused in the cases involving thehazing death of Leonardo “Lenny” Villa in 1991. Itmodified the appealed judgment of the Court ofAppeals (CA) in GR No. 155101 finding petitionerFidelito Dizon guilty of homicide and that in GRNo. 154954 finding Antonio Mariano Almeda, JunelAnthony Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and VincentTecson guilty of the crime of slight physical injuriesby instead holding all five guilty beyond reasonabledoubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.It sentenced each to suffer an indeterminate prisonterm of four months and one day of arresto mayor,as minimum, to four years and two months of


prision correccional, as maximum. In addition, itordered them jointly and severally to pay the heirsof Lenny Villa P50,000 civil indemnity ex delicto,P1,000,000 moral damages, plus legal interest onall damages awarded at the rate of 12% from thedate of the finality of its decision until satisfaction,and costs de oficio. Villa’s death eventually led tothe passage in 1995 of RA 8049 (the Anti-HazingLaw) criminalizing hazing.

GR Nos. 162335 & 162605, GR Nos. 162335 & 162605, GR Nos. 162335 & 162605, GR Nos. 162335 & 162605, GR Nos. 162335 & 162605, Manotok vManotok vManotok vManotok vManotok v. Heirs. Heirs. Heirs. Heirs. Heirsof Homer L. Barqueof Homer L. Barqueof Homer L. Barqueof Homer L. Barqueof Homer L. Barque, March 6, 2012, , March 6, 2012, , March 6, 2012, , March 6, 2012, , March 6, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

Denying with finality the motions forreconsideration of its August 24, 2010 decision, theSupreme Court made final its ruling that theNational Government owns 342,945-square meterproperty in Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate, QuezonCity fought over by the Manotoks, the Barques, andthe Manahans.

GR No. 175263, GR No. 175263, GR No. 175263, GR No. 175263, GR No. 175263, Nieto, JrNieto, JrNieto, JrNieto, JrNieto, Jr. v. v. v. v. v. SEC. SEC. SEC. SEC. SEC, March 14,, March 14,, March 14,, March 14,, March 14,2012, Second Division2012, Second Division2012, Second Division2012, Second Division2012, Second Division

Dismissing the petition filed by formerPhilippine Ambassador to Spain Manuel H. Nieto,Jr., the Supreme Court held that a case becomes

moot and academic when there is no more actualcontroversy between the parties or no usefulpurpose can be served in passing upon the meritsof the case. Nieto, a member of PhilcomsatHoldings Corporation (PHC)’s Board of Directors,challenged the decision of the Court of Appeals(CA) to annul the orders of the Securities andExchange Commission (SEC) directing the PHCto convene its annual stockholders’ meeting.

GR No. 166216, GR No. 166216, GR No. 166216, GR No. 166216, GR No. 166216, Aberca vAberca vAberca vAberca vAberca v. V. V. V. V. Vererererer, March 14, 2012,, March 14, 2012,, March 14, 2012,, March 14, 2012,, March 14, 2012,Third DivisionThird DivisionThird DivisionThird DivisionThird Division

The Supreme Court ruled that former ArmedForces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of StaffFabian Ver and other subordinate AFP officerswere deprived of procedural due process whenthey were declared by the trial court in defaultbased on a defective mode of service, i.e., serviceof notice to file answer by publication in a casefor damages filed by former military detainees.Consequently, it affirmed the decision of theCourt of Appeals (CA) directing the remand ofthe case to the lower court for furtherproceedings.

GR No. 190293, GR No. 190293, GR No. 190293, GR No. 190293, GR No. 190293, Fortun vFortun vFortun vFortun vFortun v. Pres. . Pres. . Pres. . Pres. . Pres. ArroyoArroyoArroyoArroyoArroyo; GR; GR; GR; GR; GRNo. 190294, No. 190294, No. 190294, No. 190294, No. 190294, Dilangalen vDilangalen vDilangalen vDilangalen vDilangalen v. Ermita. Ermita. Ermita. Ermita. Ermita; GR No.; GR No.; GR No.; GR No.; GR No.190301, 190301, 190301, 190301, 190301, Colmenares vColmenares vColmenares vColmenares vColmenares v. Pres. . Pres. . Pres. . Pres. . Pres. ArroyoArroyoArroyoArroyoArroyo; GR No.; GR No.; GR No.; GR No.; GR No.190302, 190302, 190302, 190302, 190302, Loyola vLoyola vLoyola vLoyola vLoyola v. Pres. . Pres. . Pres. . Pres. . Pres. ArroyoArroyoArroyoArroyoArroyo; GR No. 190307,; GR No. 190307,; GR No. 190307,; GR No. 190307,; GR No. 190307,Salonga vSalonga vSalonga vSalonga vSalonga v. Pres. . Pres. . Pres. . Pres. . Pres. ArroyoArroyoArroyoArroyoArroyo; GR No. 190356,; GR No. 190356,; GR No. 190356,; GR No. 190356,; GR No. 190356,Mantawil vMantawil vMantawil vMantawil vMantawil v. Executive Secretary. Executive Secretary. Executive Secretary. Executive Secretary. Executive Secretary; GR No.; GR No.; GR No.; GR No.; GR No.190380, 190380, 190380, 190380, 190380, Monsod vMonsod vMonsod vMonsod vMonsod v. Ermita. Ermita. Ermita. Ermita. Ermita, March 20, 2012, , March 20, 2012, , March 20, 2012, , March 20, 2012, , March 20, 2012, EnEnEnEnEnBancBancBancBancBanc

The Supreme Court dismissed for being mootand academic seven consolidated petitionsassailing Presidential Proclamation 1959, issuedon December 4, 2011 by then President GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo, declaring a state of martiallaw and suspending the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus in the Province of Maguindanao,except for identified areas of the Moro IslamicLiberation Front. The subject proclamation wasissued in the wake of the “MaguindanaoMassacre,” where 57 people were gunned downon a desolate highway by armed men believed tobe led by the ruling family in Maguindanao, theAmpatuans.

GR Nos. 147036-37, GR Nos. 147036-37, GR Nos. 147036-37, GR Nos. 147036-37, GR Nos. 147036-37, Pambansang KoalisyonPambansang KoalisyonPambansang KoalisyonPambansang KoalisyonPambansang Koalisyonng mga Samahang Magsasaka at Manggagawang mga Samahang Magsasaka at Manggagawang mga Samahang Magsasaka at Manggagawang mga Samahang Magsasaka at Manggagawang mga Samahang Magsasaka at Manggagawasa Niyugan (PKSMMN)sa Niyugan (PKSMMN)sa Niyugan (PKSMMN)sa Niyugan (PKSMMN)sa Niyugan (PKSMMN) vvvvv. Executive Secretary. Executive Secretary. Executive Secretary. Executive Secretary. Executive Secretary;;;;;GR No. 14781GR No. 14781GR No. 14781GR No. 14781GR No. 147811, 1, 1, 1, 1, Amor vAmor vAmor vAmor vAmor v. Executive. Executive. Executive. Executive. ExecutiveSecretarySecretarySecretarySecretarySecretary, April 10, 2012; , April 10, 2012; , April 10, 2012; , April 10, 2012; , April 10, 2012; En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court reaffirmed its previouspronouncements that coco-levy funds are publicfunds and are in the nature of taxes. It declared


Executive Order 312 (Establishing theErap’s Sagip Niyugan Program as anEmergency Measure to Alleviate the Plight ofCoconut Farmers Adversely Affected by LowPrices of Copra and Other Coconut Products,and Providing Funds Therefor) and ExecutiveOrder 313 (Rationalizing the Use of the CoconutLevy Funds by Constituting a ‘Fund forAssistance to Coconut Farmers’ as anIrrevocable Trust Fund and Creating a CoconutTrust Fund Committee for the ManagementThereof) as unconstitutional for being incontravention of P.D. 1445 and the Constitution.

GR No. 171GR No. 171GR No. 171GR No. 171GR No. 171101, 101, 101, 101, 101, Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vHacienda Luisita, Inc. vHacienda Luisita, Inc. vHacienda Luisita, Inc. vHacienda Luisita, Inc. v.....Presidential Presidential Presidential Presidential Presidential Agrarian Reform CouncilAgrarian Reform CouncilAgrarian Reform CouncilAgrarian Reform CouncilAgrarian Reform Council; ; ; ; ; April 24,April 24,April 24,April 24,April 24,20122012201220122012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court denied the Motion to Clarify andReconsider Resolution of November 22, 2011filed by petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI)and the Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification filed by Noel Mallari, Julio Suniga,Supervisory Group of Hacienda Luisita, Inc. andWindsor Andaya. It also declared the 05 July2011 Decision, as modified by the 22 November2011 Resolution and further modified by theinstant Resolution, final and executory.

IN ITS DECISION, THE COURTIN ITS DECISION, THE COURTIN ITS DECISION, THE COURTIN ITS DECISION, THE COURTIN ITS DECISION, THE COURTRULED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: RULED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: RULED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: RULED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: RULED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:

1. In determining the date of “taking,” theCourt voted 8-6 to maintain the ruling fixingNovember 21, 1989 as the date of “taking,” thevalue of the affected lands to be determined bythe Land Bank of the Philippines and theDepartment of Agrarian Reform (DAR);

2. On the propriety of the revocation of theoption of the Farmworker-Beneficiaries (FWBs)toremain as HLI stockholders, the Court, byunanimous vote, agreed to reiterate its ruling inits November 22, 2011 Resolution that the optiongranted to the FWBs stays revoked;

3. On the propriety of returning to the FWBsthe proceeds of the sale of the 500-hectareconverted land and of the 80.51-hectare SCTEXland, the Court unanimously voted to maintainits ruling to order the payment of the proceeds ofthe sale of the said land to the FWBs less the 3%share, taxes and expenses specified in the falloof the November 22, 2011 Resolution;

4. On the payment of just compensation forthe homelots to HLI, the Court, by unanimousvote, resolved to amend its July 5, 2011 Decisionand November 22, 2011 Resolution by ordering

the government, through the DAR, to pay to HLIthe just compensation for the homelots thusdistributed to the FWBS.

GR No. 164987, GR No. 164987, GR No. 164987, GR No. 164987, GR No. 164987, Lawyers Lawyers Lawyers Lawyers Lawyers Against Monopoly andAgainst Monopoly andAgainst Monopoly andAgainst Monopoly andAgainst Monopoly and

Poverty (LAMP) vPoverty (LAMP) vPoverty (LAMP) vPoverty (LAMP) vPoverty (LAMP) v. The Secretary of Budget and. The Secretary of Budget and. The Secretary of Budget and. The Secretary of Budget and. The Secretary of Budget andManagementManagementManagementManagementManagement, , , , , April 24, 2012April 24, 2012April 24, 2012April 24, 2012April 24, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court upheld the constitutionality of theimplementation of the Priority DevelopmentAssistance Fund (PDAF) as provided for in RepublicAct 9206 or the General Appropriations Act of 2004.The Court held that the direct allocation and releaseof PDAF to Members of Congress based on theirlist of projects did not violate the Constitution andthe laws.

GR No. 191970, GR No. 191970, GR No. 191970, GR No. 191970, GR No. 191970, Jalosjos vJalosjos vJalosjos vJalosjos vJalosjos v. COMELEC. COMELEC. COMELEC. COMELEC. COMELEC, , , , , AprilAprilAprilAprilApril24, 2012, 24, 2012, 24, 2012, 24, 2012, 24, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court held that COMELEC gravely abusedits discretion in ruling that Rommel Jalosjos failedto sufficiently establish his domicile. It ruled thatJalosjos has met the residency requirement forProvincial Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay.Moreover, since Jalosjos has already won, the Courtstated it would respect the decision of the peopleand resolve all doubts in his favor to give life to thepeoples’ will.

GR No. 192791, GR No. 192791, GR No. 192791, GR No. 192791, GR No. 192791, Funa vFuna vFuna vFuna vFuna v. V. V. V. V. Villarillarillarillarillar, , , , , April 24, 2012April 24, 2012April 24, 2012April 24, 2012April 24, 2012,En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The case, although rendered moot and academicby the resignation of Reynaldo A. Villar, was stillconsidered by the Court for the guidance of thebench, the bar and the public. The Court held thatthe appointment of Commissioner Villar to theposition of the Chairman of the Commission ofAudit to replace Guillermo Carage wasunconstitutional for violation of Section 1(2), ArticleIX (D) of the Constitution. The Court restated itsruling in Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX (D), to wit:

(1) The appointment of members of any of thethree constitutional commissions, after theexpiration of the uneven terms of office of the firstset of commissioners, shall always be for a fixedterm of seven (7) years; an appointment for a lesserperiod is void and unconstitutional. The appointingauthority cannot validly shorten the full term ofseven (7) years in case of the expiration of the termas this will result in the distortion of the rotationalsystem prescribed by the Constitution.

(2) Appointments to vacancies resulting from

certain causes (death, resignation, disability orimpeachment) shall only be for the unexpiredportion of the term of the predecessor, but such


appointments cannot be less than the unexpiredportion as this will likewise disrupt thestaggering of terms laid down under Sec. 1(2), Art.IX(D).

(3) Members of the Commission, e.g. COA,

COMELEC or CSC, who were appointed for a fullterm of seven years and who served the entireperiod, are barred from reappointment to anyposition in the Commission. Corollarily, the firstappointees in the Commission under theConstitution are also covered by the prohibitionagainst reappointment.

(4) A commissioner who resigns after serving in

the Commission for less than seven years is eligiblefor an appointment to the position of chairmanfor the unexpired portion of the term of thedeparting chairman. Such appointment is notcovered by the ban on reappointment, providedthat the aggregate period of the length of serviceas commissioner and the unexpired period of theterm of the predecessor will not exceed seven (7)years and provided further that the vacancy inthe position of chairman resulted from death,resignation, disability or removal byimpeachment. The Court clarifies that“reappointment” found in Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D)means a movement to one and the same office

(commissioner to commissioner or chairman tochairman). On the other hand, an appointmentinvolving a movement to a different position oroffice (commissioner to chairman) wouldconstitute a new appointment and, hence, not,in the strict legal sense, a reappointment barredunder the Constitution.

(5) Any member of the Commission cannot be

appointed or designated in a temporary or actingcapacity.

GR No. 189434, GR No. 189434, GR No. 189434, GR No. 189434, GR No. 189434, Marcos, Jr. v. RepublicMarcos, Jr. v. RepublicMarcos, Jr. v. RepublicMarcos, Jr. v. RepublicMarcos, Jr. v. Republic;;;;;

GR No. 189505, GR No. 189505, GR No. 189505, GR No. 189505, GR No. 189505, Marcos v. RepublicMarcos v. RepublicMarcos v. RepublicMarcos v. RepublicMarcos v. Republic; April; April; April; April; April25, 201225, 201225, 201225, 201225, 2012, Second Division Second Division Second Division Second Division Second Division

The Court affirmed the April 2, 2009 Decisionof the Sandiganbayan, which granted theRepublic’s Motion for Summary Judgment anddeclared all assets and properties of Arelma,S.A., an entity created by the late Ferdinand E.Marcos, forfeited in favor of the government.

GR No. 201112, GR No. 201112, GR No. 201112, GR No. 201112, GR No. 201112, Capalla v. COMELECCapalla v. COMELECCapalla v. COMELECCapalla v. COMELECCapalla v. COMELEC; GR; GR; GR; GR; GRNo. 201121, No. 201121, No. 201121, No. 201121, No. 201121, Solidarity for Sovereignty v.Solidarity for Sovereignty v.Solidarity for Sovereignty v.Solidarity for Sovereignty v.Solidarity for Sovereignty v.COMELECCOMELECCOMELECCOMELECCOMELEC; GR No. 201127, ; GR No. 201127, ; GR No. 201127, ; GR No. 201127, ; GR No. 201127, Guingona v.Guingona v.Guingona v.Guingona v.Guingona v.COMELECCOMELECCOMELECCOMELECCOMELEC; GR No. 201413, ; GR No. 201413, ; GR No. 201413, ; GR No. 201413, ; GR No. 201413, TanggulangTanggulangTanggulangTanggulangTanggulangDemokrasya, IncDemokrasya, IncDemokrasya, IncDemokrasya, IncDemokrasya, Inc. . . . . v. COMELECv. COMELECv. COMELECv. COMELECv. COMELEC, June 13,, June 13,, June 13,, June 13,, June 13,20122012201220122012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc


The Court upheld the constitutionality of theCOMELEC Resolutions regarding the purchaseof Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS)machines from Smartmatic-TIM and theExtension Agreement and the Deed of Salecovering said goods.

GR No. 190793, GR No. 190793, GR No. 190793, GR No. 190793, GR No. 190793, Magdalo Para sa PagbabagoMagdalo Para sa PagbabagoMagdalo Para sa PagbabagoMagdalo Para sa PagbabagoMagdalo Para sa Pagbabagovvvvv. COMELEC. COMELEC. COMELEC. COMELEC. COMELEC; June 19, 2012; June 19, 2012; June 19, 2012; June 19, 2012; June 19, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court ruled that the COMELEC did notabuse its discretion in denying Magdalo’sPetition for Registration as a political party, onthe ground of the use of violence and unlawfulmeans for achieving its goals. Since the groupwas granted amnesty, the Court held that itcould file a new Petition and register anew.

GR No. 187951, GR No. 187951, GR No. 187951, GR No. 187951, GR No. 187951, The WThe WThe WThe WThe Wellex Group, Inc. vellex Group, Inc. vellex Group, Inc. vellex Group, Inc. vellex Group, Inc. v.....SandiganbayanSandiganbayanSandiganbayanSandiganbayanSandiganbayan, , , , , June 25, 2012June 25, 2012June 25, 2012June 25, 2012June 25, 2012, Second Second Second Second SecondDivisionDivisionDivisionDivisionDivision

The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’sSeptember 24, 2008 and April 2, 2009Resolutions, which included the four hundredfifty (450) million shares of stock of WaterfrontPhilippines Inc. in the forfeiture proceedingsin the plunder case against former PresidentJoseph E. Estrada.

GR No. 139930, GR No. 139930, GR No. 139930, GR No. 139930, GR No. 139930, Republic vRepublic vRepublic vRepublic vRepublic v. Cojuangco, Jr. Cojuangco, Jr. Cojuangco, Jr. Cojuangco, Jr. Cojuangco, Jr.....,,,,,June 26, 2012, June 26, 2012, June 26, 2012, June 26, 2012, June 26, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court denied the Petition of the Republicand affirmed the May 14, 1999 Memorandum ofthe Office of the Ombudsman, which dismissedthe charge of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019against the respondents on the ground ofprescription.

GR No. 196870, GR No. 196870, GR No. 196870, GR No. 196870, GR No. 196870, Boracay Foundation, Inc. vBoracay Foundation, Inc. vBoracay Foundation, Inc. vBoracay Foundation, Inc. vBoracay Foundation, Inc. v.....The Province of The Province of The Province of The Province of The Province of AklanAklanAklanAklanAklan, June 26, 2012, June 26, 2012, June 26, 2012, June 26, 2012, June 26, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

This case involved the proposed reclamationof land between Caticlan and Boracay Island forcommercial purposes. The Court partially grantedthe petition of Boracay Foundation, and convertedthe Temporary Environment Protection Order(TEPO) it previously issued into a writ ofcontinuing mandamus. The Court ordered theDepartment of Environment and NaturalResources- Environmental Management BureauRegional Office VI (DENR-EMBR RVI) to reviewthe classification of the project and to furtherstudy the impact of the reclamation based onupdated studies. It directed the Province ofAklan to cooperate with DENR-EMBR RVI inits review of the project, to secure approval fromlocal government units and to consult withstakeholders and other sectors concerned. It

ordered the Philippine Reclamation Authority tomonitor submission of the province of therequirements to be issued by DENR-EMBR RVI.Finally, the Court also ordered the cessation ofthe implementation of the reclamation projectuntil further orders.

GR No. 200242, GR No. 200242, GR No. 200242, GR No. 200242, GR No. 200242, Corona vCorona vCorona vCorona vCorona v. Senate. Senate. Senate. Senate. Senate, July 17,, July 17,, July 17,, July 17,, July 17,2012, 2012, 2012, 2012, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court dismissed, on the ground of mootness,the petition for certiorari and prohibition withprayer for injunctive reliefs filed by former ChiefJustice Renato C. Corona on February 8, 2012. Thepetition assailed the impeachment case initiatedby the respondent members of the House ofRepresentatives (HOR) and trial being conductedby respondent Senate of the Philippines.

GR No. 202242, GR No. 202242, GR No. 202242, GR No. 202242, GR No. 202242, Chavez vChavez vChavez vChavez vChavez v. JBC. JBC. JBC. JBC. JBC, July 17, 2012,, July 17, 2012,, July 17, 2012,, July 17, 2012,, July 17, 2012,En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court granted the petition assailing theconstitutionality and validity of the currentnumerical composition of the Judicial and BarCouncil (JBC). In declaring the current JBCcomposition as unconstitutional, the Courtopined that the use of the singular letter “a”preceding “representative of Congress” isunequivocal and leaves no room for any otherconstruction and that it is indicative of what themembers of the Constitutional Commission hadin mind, that is, Congress may designate only one(1) representative to the JBC.

GR No. 196425, GR No. 196425, GR No. 196425, GR No. 196425, GR No. 196425, PichayPichayPichayPichayPichay, Jr, Jr, Jr, Jr, Jr. v. v. v. v. v. Office of the. Office of the. Office of the. Office of the. Office of theDeputy Executive Secretary for Legal Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal AffairsAffairsAffairsAffairsAffairsInvestigative and Investigative and Investigative and Investigative and Investigative and Adjudicatory DivisionAdjudicatory DivisionAdjudicatory DivisionAdjudicatory DivisionAdjudicatory Division, July 24,, July 24,, July 24,, July 24,, July 24,2012, 2012, 2012, 2012, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorariand Prohibition seeking to declare asunconstitutional Executive Order No. 13, entitled,“Abolishing the Presidential Anti-GraftCommission and Transferring Its Investigative,Adjudicatory and Recommendatory Functions tothe Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary forLegal Affairs, Office of the President.” The Courtheld that petitioner has failed to discharge theburden of proving the illegality of E.O. 13, whichis indubitably a valid exercise of the President’scontinuing authority to reorganize the Office of thePresident.

GR No. 193636, GR No. 193636, GR No. 193636, GR No. 193636, GR No. 193636, Gamboa vGamboa vGamboa vGamboa vGamboa v. Chan. Chan. Chan. Chan. Chan, July 24, 2012,, July 24, 2012,, July 24, 2012,, July 24, 2012,, July 24, 2012,En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court denied the petition for reviewassailing the RTC Decision in Special Proc. No.14979, insofar as it denied Dingras Mayor


Gamboa the privilege of the writ of habeas data.The Court ruled that Gamboa was unable toprove through substantial evidence that herinclusion in the list of individuals maintainingprivate army groups (PAGs) made her and hersupporters susceptible to harassment and toincreased police surveillance and that the stateinterest of dismantling PAGs far outweighs thealleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa,especially when the collection and forwarding bythe PNP of information against her was pursuantto a lawful mandate.

GR Nos. 177857-58, GR Nos. 177857-58, GR Nos. 177857-58, GR Nos. 177857-58, GR Nos. 177857-58, COCOFED vCOCOFED vCOCOFED vCOCOFED vCOCOFED v. Republic. Republic. Republic. Republic. Republic; GR; GR; GR; GR; GRNo. 178193, No. 178193, No. 178193, No. 178193, No. 178193, Ursua vUrsua vUrsua vUrsua vUrsua v. Republic. Republic. Republic. Republic. Republic, September 4, 2012,, September 4, 2012,, September 4, 2012,, September 4, 2012,, September 4, 2012,En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court denied with finality the petitioners’Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of theCourt dated January 24, 2012. The Court furtherclarified that the 753,848,312 SMC Series 1 preferredshares of the CIIF companies converted from the CIIFblock of SMC shares, with all the dividend earningsas well as all increments arising from, but not limitedto, the exercise of preemptive rights subject of theSeptember 17, 2009 Resolution, shall now be thesubject matter of the January 24, 2012 Decision andshall be declared owned by the Government and beused only for the benefit of all coconut farmers andfor the development of the coconut industry.

GR No. 196231, GR No. 196231, GR No. 196231, GR No. 196231, GR No. 196231, Gonzales III vGonzales III vGonzales III vGonzales III vGonzales III v. Office of the. Office of the. Office of the. Office of the. Office of thePresidentPresidentPresidentPresidentPresident; GR No. 196232, ; GR No. 196232, ; GR No. 196232, ; GR No. 196232, ; GR No. 196232, Barreras-Sulit vBarreras-Sulit vBarreras-Sulit vBarreras-Sulit vBarreras-Sulit v.....Executive SecretaryExecutive SecretaryExecutive SecretaryExecutive SecretaryExecutive Secretary, September 4, 2012, , September 4, 2012, , September 4, 2012, , September 4, 2012, , September 4, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court unanimously ordered the

reinstatement with backwages of DeputyOmbudsman for the Military and Other LawEnforcement Office Emilio A. Gonzales III who wasdismissed by the Office of the President for grossneglect of duty and grave misconduct relative to thecase of the dismissed policeman who perpetrated the2010 Manila hostage-drama which had left eightHong Kong tourists dead.

GR No. 180050, GR No. 180050, GR No. 180050, GR No. 180050, GR No. 180050, Navarro vNavarro vNavarro vNavarro vNavarro v. Executive Secretary. Executive Secretary. Executive Secretary. Executive Secretary. Executive SecretaryErmitaErmitaErmitaErmitaErmita, September 1, September 1, September 1, September 1, September 11, 2012, (1, 2012, (1, 2012, (1, 2012, (1, 2012, (Min. Res.Min. Res.Min. Res.Min. Res.Min. Res.), ), ), ), ), En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court declared valid and constitutional RA9355, the law creating the province of DinagatIslands, the proclamation of the said province, andupheld the election of the officials thereof. The Courthad also declared valid the provision in Article 9 (2)of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the LocalGovernment Code (LGC) of 1991, which provides,“The land area requirement shall not apply wherethe proposed province is composed of one (1) ormore islands.”

GR No. 183533, GR No. 183533, GR No. 183533, GR No. 183533, GR No. 183533, In the Matter of the In the Matter of the In the Matter of the In the Matter of the In the Matter of the

Petition for the Writ of Amparo and thePetition for the Writ of Amparo and thePetition for the Writ of Amparo and thePetition for the Writ of Amparo and thePetition for the Writ of Amparo and theWrit of Habeas Data in favor of Francis SaezWrit of Habeas Data in favor of Francis SaezWrit of Habeas Data in favor of Francis SaezWrit of Habeas Data in favor of Francis SaezWrit of Habeas Data in favor of Francis Saezv. Arroyov. Arroyov. Arroyov. Arroyov. Arroyo, September 25, 2012, , September 25, 2012, , September 25, 2012, , September 25, 2012, , September 25, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court denied with finality the Motion forReconsideration dated September 26, 2010 filedby petitioner Francis Saez. In denying the MR ofthe petitioner, the Court held that the totality ofthe evidence presented by the petitioner failed tosupport his claims, therefore, the reliefs prayedfor cannot be granted. The Court added that theliberality accorded to amparo and habeas datacases does not mean that a claimant is dispensedwith the onus of proving his case.

GR No. 199082, GR No. 199082, GR No. 199082, GR No. 199082, GR No. 199082, Arroyo vArroyo vArroyo vArroyo vArroyo v. DOJ. DOJ. DOJ. DOJ. DOJ; GR No. 199085,; GR No. 199085,; GR No. 199085,; GR No. 199085,; GR No. 199085,Abalos vAbalos vAbalos vAbalos vAbalos v. De Lima. De Lima. De Lima. De Lima. De Lima; GR No. 1991; GR No. 1991; GR No. 1991; GR No. 1991; GR No. 199118: 18: 18: 18: 18: Arroyo vArroyo vArroyo vArroyo vArroyo v.....COMELECCOMELECCOMELECCOMELECCOMELEC; September 18, 2012, ; September 18, 2012, ; September 18, 2012, ; September 18, 2012, ; September 18, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court dismissed the three consolidatedpetitions and supplemental petitions for Certiorariand Prohibition assailing the following: (1)Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No.9266 “In the Matter of the Commission onElections and Department of Justice JointInvestigation on the Alleged Election OffensesCommitted during the 2004 and 2007 ElectionsPursuant to Law” dated August 2, 2011; (2) JointOrder No. 001- 2011 (Joint Order) “Creating andConstituting a Joint DOJ-Comelec PreliminaryInvestigation Committee [Joint Committee] andFact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 NationalElections Electoral Fraud and ManipulationCases” dated August 15, 2011; (3) Rules ofProcedure on the Conduct of PreliminaryInvestigation on the Alleged Election Fraud in the2004 and 2007 National Elections (JointCommittee Rules of Procedure) dated August 23,2011; (4) Initial Report of the Fact-Finding Teamdated October 20, 2011; and (5) the validity of theproceedings undertaken pursuant to the aforesaidissuances.

The Court held that petitioners failed to establishany constitutional or legal impediment to thecreation of the Joint DOJ-COMELEC PreliminaryInvestigation Committee and Fact-Finding Teamgiven that the Joint Committee and Fact-FindingTeam perform functions that COMELEC and DOJalready perform by virtue of the Constitution, thestatutes, and the Rules of Court.

GR No. 176579, GR No. 176579, GR No. 176579, GR No. 176579, GR No. 176579, Gamboa vGamboa vGamboa vGamboa vGamboa v. Secretary T. Secretary T. Secretary T. Secretary T. Secretary Teveseveseveseveseves,,,,,October 9, 2012, October 9, 2012, October 9, 2012, October 9, 2012, October 9, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Supreme Court, voting 10-3, has deniedwith finality the motions for reconsideration ofits June 28, 2011 decision that directed the


Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)to investigate the Philippine Long DistanceTelephone Co. (PLDT) for possible violationof the constitutional limit on foreignownership in utilities.

GR No. 189754, GR No. 189754, GR No. 189754, GR No. 189754, GR No. 189754, Bautista vBautista vBautista vBautista vBautista v. Cuneta-. Cuneta-. Cuneta-. Cuneta-. Cuneta-PangilinanPangilinanPangilinanPangilinanPangilinan, October 24, 2012, , October 24, 2012, , October 24, 2012, , October 24, 2012, , October 24, 2012, Third DivisionThird DivisionThird DivisionThird DivisionThird Division

The Court ordered the reinstatement of theportion of the order of the Regional Trial Court(RTC) in Mandaluyong, Branch 212, whichdismissed the libel suits filed by singer-actressSharon Cuneta-Pangilinan against petitionersLito Bautista and Jimmy Alcantara for thealleged defamatory articles against her publishedin the tabloid Bandera.

GR No. 192221, GR No. 192221, GR No. 192221, GR No. 192221, GR No. 192221, Dela Cruz vDela Cruz vDela Cruz vDela Cruz vDela Cruz v. COMELEC. COMELEC. COMELEC. COMELEC. COMELEC,,,,,November 13, 2012, November 13, 2012, November 13, 2012, November 13, 2012, November 13, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court unanimously declared null andvoid COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 insofar asit orders that the votes cast for candidates listedtherein, who were declared nuisance candidatesand whose certificates of candidacy have beeneither cancelled or set aside, be consideredstray. The Court held that the votes cast forAurelio N. Dela Cruz during the elections ofMay 2012 should have been counted in favor ofCasimira S. Dela Cruz and not consideredstray votes.

GR No. 152642, Sto. Tomas v. Salac; GR No.152710, Sto. Tomas v. Paneda I; GR No.167590, Philippines v. PASEI; GR No. 182978-79, Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion,Inc. v. Spouses Cuaresma, & GR No. 184298-99, Spouses Cuaresma v. White Falcon Services,Inc., November 13, 2012, En Banc

The Court upheld certain provisions of RA8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas FilipinosAct of 1995), reversing the ruling of theRegional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila, whichdeclared the same unconstitutional.

Setting aside the December 8, 2004 decisionof the Manila RTC, the Court declared sections6, 7, and 9 and the last sentence of the secondparagraph of Section 10 of RA 8042 as valid andconstitutional. Section 6 defines the crime of“illegal recruitment” and enumerates the actsconstituting the same, while Section 7 providesthe penalties for prohibited acts. Section 9allowed the filing of criminal actions arisingfrom “illegal recruitment” before the RTC of theprovince or city where the offense wascommitted or where the offended party

actually resides at the time of the commission ofthe offense, while the last sentence of the secondparagraph of Section 10 holds the corporatedirectors, officers, and partners of recruitment andplacement agencies jointly and solidarily liable formoney claims and damages that may be adjudgedagainst the agencies.

GR No. 178789, GR No. 178789, GR No. 178789, GR No. 178789, GR No. 178789, Lim v. NPCLim v. NPCLim v. NPCLim v. NPCLim v. NPC, November 14,, November 14,, November 14,, November 14,, November 14,2012, Third Division2012, Third Division2012, Third Division2012, Third Division2012, Third Division

The Court unanimously held that both theRegional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen,Pangasinan (Branch 37) and the Court of Appealsdid not gravely abuse their discretion when bothcourts ruled against the striking out of the motionfor judgment by default filed by private respondentRoberto and Arabela Arcinue against petitionerNatividad Lim for failure of the Arcinues to submitthe required explanation for resorting to serviceby registered mail rather than personal service.

GR No. 183026, GR No. 183026, GR No. 183026, GR No. 183026, GR No. 183026, Padalhin v. LaviñaPadalhin v. LaviñaPadalhin v. LaviñaPadalhin v. LaviñaPadalhin v. Laviña,,,,,November 14, 2012, First DivisionNovember 14, 2012, First DivisionNovember 14, 2012, First DivisionNovember 14, 2012, First DivisionNovember 14, 2012, First Division

The Court affirmed the award of P700,000.00in damages by the Court of Appeals (CA) to theformer Philippine Ambassador to Kenya NelsonLaviña against former Consul General to Kenya,Nestor Padalhin and his wife, Annie.

GR No.178607, GR No.178607, GR No.178607, GR No.178607, GR No.178607, Jimenez v. SorongonJimenez v. SorongonJimenez v. SorongonJimenez v. SorongonJimenez v. Sorongon,,,,,December 5, 2012, December 5, 2012, December 5, 2012, December 5, 2012, December 5, 2012, En BancEn BancEn BancEn BancEn Banc

The Court denied Dante Jimenez’s appeal inestafa case as the petitioner, in his capacity as thePresident of Unlad Shipping & ManagementCorporation, has no legal personality to assail thedismissal of the criminal case since the main issueraised by the petitioner involved the criminalaspect of the case and did not appeal to protecthis alleged pecuniary interest as an offended partyof the crime, but to cause the reinstatement of thecriminal action against the respondents whichinvolves the right to prosecute which pertainsexclusively to the People, as represented by theOSG.

RULE-MAKINGRULE-MAKINGRULE-MAKINGRULE-MAKINGRULE-MAKINGArticle VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987

Constitution gives the Supreme Court the powerto make rules “concerning the protection andenforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,practice and procedure in all courts, the admissionto the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legalassistance to the underprivileged.”

In 2012, the Court continued to exercise its rulemaking power by promulgating the following:


1. AM No. 11-9-4-SC, 1. AM No. 11-9-4-SC, 1. AM No. 11-9-4-SC, 1. AM No. 11-9-4-SC, 1. AM No. 11-9-4-SC, Efficient Use of PaperEfficient Use of PaperEfficient Use of PaperEfficient Use of PaperEfficient Use of PaperRuleRuleRuleRuleRule, effective January 1, 2013., effective January 1, 2013., effective January 1, 2013., effective January 1, 2013., effective January 1, 2013.

Promoting a paper-less judiciary to protect theenvironment, the Supreme Court En Banc issuedon November 13, 2012 the Efficient Use of PaperRule to maximize the use of every sheet of paperin rulings to be issued by the court and in thepleadings to be filed by parties. The Court notedthat there is a need to cut the judicial system’suse of excessive quantities of costly paper, saveour forests, avoid landslides, and mitigate theworsening effects of climate change that the worldis experiencing.

The Rule, among others, requires that allpleadings, motions, and similar papers intended forthe consideration of all courts and quasi-judicialbodies under the supervision of the Supreme Courtshall be written in single space with a one-and-a-half space between paragraphs, using an easilyreadable font style of the party’s choice, of 14-sizefont, and on a 13-inch by 8.5-inch white bondpaper.

All decisions, resolutions, and orders issuedby courts and quasi-judicial bodies under theadministrative supervision of the High Tribunal,as well as reports submitted to the courts andtranscripts of stenographic notes, shall comply withthe said requirements.

2. 2. 2. 2. 2. AM No. 00-6-1-SC, AM No. 00-6-1-SC, AM No. 00-6-1-SC, AM No. 00-6-1-SC, AM No. 00-6-1-SC, Human Resource Manual,Human Resource Manual,Human Resource Manual,Human Resource Manual,Human Resource Manual,January 31, 2012January 31, 2012January 31, 2012January 31, 2012January 31, 2012

The Supreme Court En Banc approved theHuman Resource Manual (formerly referred to asthe Personnel Manual) for justices, judges, officials,and employees of the judiciary. The Manualintends to provide all members of the judiciary athorough and clear presentation of the Court’sspecific set of administrative rules and guidelines,policies, and procedures on a wide-range ofpersonnel matters and topics such asappointments, office attendance and leavematters, employees’ benefits, privileges andservices, official travels, and administrativediscipline, among others.

To better acquaint the judicial workforce of theethical standards required from its members, theManual has also incorporated significant issuancessuch as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standardsfor Public Officials and Employees, the Code ofConduct for Court Personnel, and the New Code ofJudicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Italso included the rules and regulations establishedby the Civil Service Commission, and the Court’s

administrative circulars in relation to issues ongraft and corruption, gender equality andemployee welfare.

3. A.M No. 12-8-8-SC, 3. A.M No. 12-8-8-SC, 3. A.M No. 12-8-8-SC, 3. A.M No. 12-8-8-SC, 3. A.M No. 12-8-8-SC, Judicial AffidavitJudicial AffidavitJudicial AffidavitJudicial AffidavitJudicial AffidavitRuleRuleRuleRuleRule, September 4, 2012, effective January, September 4, 2012, effective January, September 4, 2012, effective January, September 4, 2012, effective January, September 4, 2012, effective January1, 20131, 20131, 20131, 20131, 2013

Targeted to cut down as much as two-thirdsof the time consumed in presenting oraltestimony on direct examination, this Rule willalso address the perennial cause of casedismissals, i.e., the non-appearance of parties,especially witnesses in criminal cases, who gettired of returning to court repeatedly due topostponements and “lack of material time.”

The Rule applies to all cases before allcourts in the country, except the SupremeCourt, including criminal cases where themaximum imposable penalty does not exceedsix years; where the accused agrees to theapplication of the Rule, regardless ofimposable penalty; and, with respect to thecivil aspect of a criminal action, regardless alsoof the imposable penalty. Non-compliance shallresult in a waiver of the right to presentevidence.

44444. Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City. Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City. Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City. Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City. Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon CityTTTTTrial Courtsrial Courtsrial Courtsrial Courtsrial Courts, February 21, 2012, effective, February 21, 2012, effective, February 21, 2012, effective, February 21, 2012, effective, February 21, 2012, effectiveApril 16, 2012.April 16, 2012.April 16, 2012.April 16, 2012.April 16, 2012.

These Guidelines seek to achieve thecorrelative objectives of docket decongestionand speedier case processing and disposition,as well as consistency in court action regardingprocedural and practice requirements whichare not expressly covered or provided for underthe Rules of Court.

Among the salient features of theGuidelines are the requirement of leave ofcourt prior to the filing of any pleadingsubsequent to the complaint, answer, andreply; the limitations on the size of font (size14), spacing (double-spaced), and the numberof pages (not exceeding 40 pages) of pleadingssubsequent to the reply; the mandatorysubmission by the parties of memoranda (notexceeding 25 pages, single spaced, and usingsize 14 font) after the completion of the trial;the disallowance of postponement of hearingexcept for acts of God or force majeure; therequirement of an official receipt from theOffice of the Clerk of Court of Quezon Cityevidencing payment of postponement feeprior to the grant of a motion for


postponement; and the imposition of alimitation as to the number of times eachparty shall be allowed to file a motion forinhibition (once and strictly based on thegrounds provided for under Rule 137 of theRules of Court), among others.

The Quezon City trial courts were chosenby the Supreme Court as the pilot courts forthe project given that the said courts havethe biggest case inflow in the country due toits territory, the largest in the NationalCapital Judicial Region, and its population.

5. AM No. 12-6-13-SC, 5. AM No. 12-6-13-SC, 5. AM No. 12-6-13-SC, 5. AM No. 12-6-13-SC, 5. AM No. 12-6-13-SC, Guidelines inGuidelines inGuidelines inGuidelines inGuidelines inRequests for Travel Abroad of All MembersRequests for Travel Abroad of All MembersRequests for Travel Abroad of All MembersRequests for Travel Abroad of All MembersRequests for Travel Abroad of All Membersand Personnel of the Appellate Courts andand Personnel of the Appellate Courts andand Personnel of the Appellate Courts andand Personnel of the Appellate Courts andand Personnel of the Appellate Courts andTrial Courts and Officials and Personnel ofTrial Courts and Officials and Personnel ofTrial Courts and Officials and Personnel ofTrial Courts and Officials and Personnel ofTrial Courts and Officials and Personnel ofthe SC and the OCAthe SC and the OCAthe SC and the OCAthe SC and the OCAthe SC and the OCA, June 13, 2012, June 13, 2012, June 13, 2012, June 13, 2012, June 13, 2012

The Supreme Court adopted a new method ofprocessing requests for travel abroad of membersand personnel of the appellate and trial courts;and officials and personnel of the Supreme Courtand the Office of the Court Administrator, effectiveimmediately.

THE NEW GUIDELINES PROVIDE THATHE NEW GUIDELINES PROVIDE THATHE NEW GUIDELINES PROVIDE THATHE NEW GUIDELINES PROVIDE THATHE NEW GUIDELINES PROVIDE THATTTTT:::::

1. All requests for travel abroad of the Justicesand personnel of the appellate courts [Court ofAppeals (CA), Sandiganbayan, and Court of TaxAppeals (CTA)], other than requests for travelabroad on official business or official time whichare covered by AM No. 96-3-06-0, shall be actedupon by the presiding justice of the concernedappellate court without anymore referring thematter to the Supreme Court. However, allrequests for travel abroad of the presidingjustices of the CA, Sandiganbayan, and the CTAshall be submitted to the SC, and shall be referredto the chairpersons of the Divisions for theirappropriate action;

2. All requests for travel abroad of trial courtjudges and personnel, other than those for travelabroad on official business or official time whichare covered by AM No. 96-3-06-0, shall be filedwith the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA),in accordance with OCA Circular No. 49-2003.Such requests shall be acted upon by the OCA,which shall no longer refer such matter to the SC;

3. All requests for travel abroad of SC personnel,other than those for requests to travel abroad onofficial business or official time which are coveredby AM No. 96-3-06-0, shall be submitted to the SCOffice of Administrative Services (OAS) forevaluation and recommendation, and referred to

the SC Clerk of Court for appropriate action.However, all requests for travel abroad of theClerk of Court of the SC shall be referred to theChairpersons of the Divisions for their appropriateaction; and,

4. All requests for travel abroad of OCApersonnel, other than those for requests to travelabroad on official business or official time whichare covered by AM No. 96-3-06-0, shall besubmitted to the SC OAS for evaluation andrecommendation, and referred to the CourtAdministrator for appropriate action. However,all requests for travel abroad of the CourtAdministrator, Deputy Court Administrators, andAssistant Court Administrators shall be submittedto the SC and shall be referred to the Chairpersonsof the Divisions for their appropriate action.

6. 6. 6. 6. 6. AM No. 09-8-6-SC, AM No. 09-8-6-SC, AM No. 09-8-6-SC, AM No. 09-8-6-SC, AM No. 09-8-6-SC, Re: Request for Copy ofRe: Request for Copy ofRe: Request for Copy ofRe: Request for Copy ofRe: Request for Copy ofthe 2008 Statement of the 2008 Statement of the 2008 Statement of the 2008 Statement of the 2008 Statement of Assets, Liabilities andAssets, Liabilities andAssets, Liabilities andAssets, Liabilities andAssets, Liabilities andNetworth and Personal Data Sheet or CurriculumNetworth and Personal Data Sheet or CurriculumNetworth and Personal Data Sheet or CurriculumNetworth and Personal Data Sheet or CurriculumNetworth and Personal Data Sheet or CurriculumVVVVVitae of the Justices of the Supreme Court anditae of the Justices of the Supreme Court anditae of the Justices of the Supreme Court anditae of the Justices of the Supreme Court anditae of the Justices of the Supreme Court andOfficers and Employees of the JudiciaryOfficers and Employees of the JudiciaryOfficers and Employees of the JudiciaryOfficers and Employees of the JudiciaryOfficers and Employees of the Judiciary and and and and and AMAMAMAMAMNo. 09-8-07-CA, No. 09-8-07-CA, No. 09-8-07-CA, No. 09-8-07-CA, No. 09-8-07-CA, Re: Request of the PhilippineRe: Request of the PhilippineRe: Request of the PhilippineRe: Request of the PhilippineRe: Request of the PhilippineCenter for Investigative Journalism for the 2008Center for Investigative Journalism for the 2008Center for Investigative Journalism for the 2008Center for Investigative Journalism for the 2008Center for Investigative Journalism for the 2008Statement of Statement of Statement of Statement of Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net WAssets, Liabilities and Net WAssets, Liabilities and Net WAssets, Liabilities and Net WAssets, Liabilities and Net Worthorthorthorthorthand Personal Data Sheets of the Court of and Personal Data Sheets of the Court of and Personal Data Sheets of the Court of and Personal Data Sheets of the Court of and Personal Data Sheets of the Court of AppealsAppealsAppealsAppealsAppealsJusticesJusticesJusticesJusticesJustices, June 13, 2012, June 13, 2012, June 13, 2012, June 13, 2012, June 13, 2012

These Guidelines provide the procedure for therequest and release of the full Statement of


Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) of alljustices and judges of the judiciary, as follows:

1. All requests shall be filed with the Office ofthe Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, theCourt of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the CourtOffice of the Court Administrator; and forattached agencies, with their respective headsof offices.

2. Requests shall cover only copies of the latestSALN, Personal Data Sheet (PDS) and curriculumvitae (CV) of the members, officials, and employeesof the judiciary, and may cover only previous recordsif so specifically requested and considered asjustified, as determined by the officialsmentioned in par. 1 above, under the terms ofthese guidelines and the Implementing Rulesand Regulations of RA 6713.

3. In the case of requests for copies of SALN ofthe justices of the Supreme Court, the Court ofAppeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of TaxAppeals, the authority to disclose shall be madeby the Court En Banc.

4. Every request shall explain the requestingparty’s specific purpose and their individualinterests sought to be served; shall state thecommitment that the request shall only be for thestated purpose; and shall be submitted in a dulyaccomplished request form secured from the SCwebsite. The use of the information secured shallonly be for the stated purpose.

5. In the case of requesting individuals otherthan members of the media, their interests shouldgo beyond pure or mere curiosity.

6. In the case of the members of the media, therequest shall additionally be supported by of TaxAppeals; for the lower courts, with the proof underoath of their media affiliation and by a similarcertification of the accreditation of their respectiveorganizations as legitimate media practitioners.

7. The requesting party, whether as individualsor as members of the media, must have noderogatory record of having misused anyrequested information previously furnished tothem.

The requesting parties shall complete theirrequests in accordance with these guidelines. Thecustodians of these documents (the respectiveClerks of Court of the Supreme Court, Court ofAppeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax

Appeals for the Justices; and the CourtAdministrator for the judges of various trialcourts) shall preliminarily determine if therequests are not covered by the limitations andprohibitions provided in RA 6713 and itsimplementing rules and regulations, and inaccordance with the aforecited guidelines.Thereafter, the Clerk of Court shall refer thematter pertaining to Justices to the Court EnBanc for final determination.

7. AM No. 12-7-1-SC, 7. AM No. 12-7-1-SC, 7. AM No. 12-7-1-SC, 7. AM No. 12-7-1-SC, 7. AM No. 12-7-1-SC, Re: Decisions/Re: Decisions/Re: Decisions/Re: Decisions/Re: Decisions/Resolutions for Uploading to the SCResolutions for Uploading to the SCResolutions for Uploading to the SCResolutions for Uploading to the SCResolutions for Uploading to the SCWebsiteWebsiteWebsiteWebsiteWebsite, July 10, 2012), July 10, 2012), July 10, 2012), July 10, 2012), July 10, 2012)

This details the procedure by which theCourt’s decisions and resolutions are to beuploaded to its website.

With regard to signed decisions and signedresolutions, the procedure set forth in Rule 141

11111Rule 14. RULE IN HANDLING Rule 14. RULE IN HANDLING Rule 14. RULE IN HANDLING Rule 14. RULE IN HANDLING Rule 14. RULE IN HANDLING ANDANDANDANDANDDISSEMINADISSEMINADISSEMINADISSEMINADISSEMINATION OF DECISIONS TION OF DECISIONS TION OF DECISIONS TION OF DECISIONS TION OF DECISIONS ANDANDANDANDANDRESOLUTIONSRESOLUTIONSRESOLUTIONSRESOLUTIONSRESOLUTIONS

Section 1.Section 1.Section 1.Section 1.Section 1.PROMULGATION.

– A decision or resolution shall deemed promulgated on the date it is received andacknowledged by the Clerk of Court or DivisionClerk of Court from the Office of the ChiefJustice or the Division Chairperson.

Section 2.Section 2.Section 2.Section 2.Section 2.REPORT OF PROMULGATION.

– Within twenty-four hours from thepromulgation of a decision or resolution, the Clerk of Courtor the Division Clerk of Court shall formallyinform the Chief Justice or the DivisionChairperson of such promulgation.

Section 3.Section 3.Section 3.Section 3.Section 3.ELECTRONIC DISSEMINATION OFDECISION OR RESOLUTION.

– Upon receipt of the report of promulgation,the Chief Justice shall direct the Chief Justice’sStaff Head to deliver immediately the magneticor electronic copy of the decision or resolutionto the Management Information Systems Office(MISO).

Section 4.Section 4.Section 4.Section 4.Section 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MISO. – Upon receipt of a copy of a promulgateddecision or resolution, the MISO shall


(a) log the date and time of receipt;

(b) format the decision or resolution in such away as to make it readable on the SupremeCourt website;

(c) scan any handwritten notes on the signature page, such as “Inthe result,” and include signature page withthe same handwritten notes for posting;

(d) take note of any typographical error in themagnetic or electronic file of the decision orresolution, and immediately bring it to the attention of the writer of thedecision or resolution, or the Chief Justicein case of a per curiam decision or when thewriter has ceased to serve the Court;

(e) immediately furnish the Library with softcopies of all decisions and resolutions for archival purposes.

Section 5.Section 5.Section 5.Section 5.Section 5.SERVICE AND DISSEMINATION OFDECISIONS AND SIGNED RESOLUTIONS.

– The Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk ofCourt shall see to the service of authenticatedcopies of the promulgated decision or signedresolution upon the parties in accordance withthe provisions of the Rules of Court. The Clerkof Court of the Division Clerk of Court shallalso immediately provide hard copies of thesame to the Public Information Office, Officeof the Court Administrator, Office of the ChiefAttorney, Philippine Judicial Academy, and theLibrary.

Section 6.Section 6.Section 6.Section 6.Section 6.SAFEKEEPING OF ORIGINAL HARD COPYOF DECISION AND DRAFTING OFSYLLABUS OF EACH PROMULGATEDDECISION.

– As soon as hard copies of the decision orresolution shall have been served on the partiesand disseminated in accordance with theseRules, the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerkof Court shall deliver to the Office of theReporter (a) the original hard copy of eachsigned decision or resolution for safekeeping,and (b) a reproduction of such hard copy forthe preparation of the concise synopsis andsyllabus of each decision or resolution dulyapproved by the writer of the decision or bythe Chief Justice if the writer has retired or isno longer in the judicial service, prior topublication in the Philippine Reports. TheOffice of the Reporter shall (a) see to thesecured safekeeping of original decisions

that shall be collated and bound on a monthlybasis, and (b) be responsible for the updatedpublication of the Philippine Reports.

Section 7.Section 7.Section 7.Section 7.Section 7.PUBLICATIONOF DECISIONS AND RESOLUTIONS.

– A decision and signed resolution of theCourt shall be published in the PhilippineReports, with the synopsis and syllabusprepared by the Office of the Reporter. Otherdecisions and signed resolutions not sopublished may also be published in thePhilippine Reports in the form of memorandaprepared by the Office of the Reporter. ThePublic Information (PIO) may choose andsubmit significant decisions and resolutionsfor publication in the Official Gazette of theInternal Rules of the Supreme Court relativeto the submission, promulgation, release andelectronic dissemination of such decisions andresolutions.

8. 12-7-15-SC, 8. 12-7-15-SC, 8. 12-7-15-SC, 8. 12-7-15-SC, 8. 12-7-15-SC, Re: Recommendation ofRe: Recommendation ofRe: Recommendation ofRe: Recommendation ofRe: Recommendation ofAtty. Maria Victoria Gleoresty Sp. Guerra,Atty. Maria Victoria Gleoresty Sp. Guerra,Atty. Maria Victoria Gleoresty Sp. Guerra,Atty. Maria Victoria Gleoresty Sp. Guerra,Atty. Maria Victoria Gleoresty Sp. Guerra,Director IV and Acting Chief, PublicDirector IV and Acting Chief, PublicDirector IV and Acting Chief, PublicDirector IV and Acting Chief, PublicDirector IV and Acting Chief, PublicInformation Office, to Remove or ModifyInformation Office, to Remove or ModifyInformation Office, to Remove or ModifyInformation Office, to Remove or ModifyInformation Office, to Remove or Modifythe Decisions Posted in the SC Websitethe Decisions Posted in the SC Websitethe Decisions Posted in the SC Websitethe Decisions Posted in the SC Websitethe Decisions Posted in the SC WebsiteInvolving Cases of Violence Against WomenInvolving Cases of Violence Against WomenInvolving Cases of Violence Against WomenInvolving Cases of Violence Against WomenInvolving Cases of Violence Against Womenand Their Childrenand Their Childrenand Their Childrenand Their Childrenand Their Children, September 4, 2012), September 4, 2012), September 4, 2012), September 4, 2012), September 4, 2012)

In keeping with the states’ policy of affordingspecial protection to women and children victims ofviolence and child abuse, the Supreme Courtpromulgated these Guidelines which cover theretroactive application of the provisions ofconfidentiality under RA 9262 (The Anti-ViolenceAgainst Women and Their Children Act of 2004) andof other laws in cases involving sexually-relatedcrimes uploaded in its website.

The Guidelines mandate the modification ofdecisions under RA 9262, RA 9208 (Anti-Traffickingin Persons Act of 2003), and cases where theconfidentiality of court proceedings and the identityof the parties involved are mandated by law and bythe rules in order to protect the privacy and thedignity of the victims and their relatives. Themodification of covered decisions shall only be madein the part of the official website of the Court openlyaccessible to the public, and shall extend only tothose published in the Supreme Court’s websitebeginning 1996, the year of the earliest SupremeCourt decisions uploaded and made publiclyaccessible in the Court’s website.

Under the Guidelines, the modification of thedecisions shall extend to (a) the withholding of the


names of the women and child victims in covereddecisions and the use of fictitious initials instead;and (b) the non-disclosure of their personalcircumstances or any other information tending toidentify them or disclose their identities, includingthe names and information of their immediatefamily and household members, from which datathe identities of the victims can be inferred.

DISCIPLINEDISCIPLINEDISCIPLINEDISCIPLINEDISCIPLINEPursuant to its power of supervision over

the Integrated Bar and administrativesupervision over all courts and court personnel,the Court, in 2012, continued to ensure that theJudiciary is rid of court officials and employeeswhose conduct and incompetence underminethe people’s faith in the judiciary, emphasizingthat “those charged with the dispensation ofjustice, from the justices and judges to thelowliest clerks, should be circumscribed withthe heavy burden of responsibility. Not onlymust their conduct at all times be characterizedby propriety and decorum but, above all else, itmust be beyond suspicion.”

In Concerned Citizen v. Abad (AM No. P-11-2907, January 31, 2012), a court stenographerwas dismissed from service by the SupremeCourt En Banc for asserting that she personallytook her Civil Service Sub-ProfessionalExamination when in fact somebody else tookthe said qualifying examination for her, asevidenced by the difference between thepicture on her Personal Data Sheet and that onthe Picture Seat Plan during the examinationas well of the variance in her signatures on thetwo documents.

In Judge Dayaon v. De Leon (AM No. P-11-2926, February 1, 2012), a court stenographerof the Macabebe, Pampanga Regional TrialCourt (RTC) was found guilty of habitualabsenteeism and was thus suspended from workfor one month after she incurred unauthorizedabsences for three consecutive months in theyear 2010.

In Campos v. Campos (AM No. MTJ-10-1761,February 8, 2012), a former Agusan Del SurMunicipal Trial Court (MTC) judge was foundguilty of simple misconduct, which it definedas a transgression of some established rule ofaction, an unlawful behavior, or negligencecommitted by a public officer, and fined him inthe amount of P20,000 after he registered underhis son’s name the land belonging to him, toshield the said property from a possible

judgment debt from a case pending againsthim.

In Medina v. Canoy (AM No. RTJ-11-2298,February 22, 2012), A judge who resolved alitigant’s Motion to Dismiss after more than ayear, and only after the filing of anadministrative case against him for suchinaction, was fined P30,000, with the Courtruling that the judge’s misdemeanor “is not onlya blatant transgression of the Constitution butalso of the Code of Judicial Conduct, whichenshrines the significant duty of magistrates todecide cases promptly.”

In Del Rosario v. Pascua (AM No. P-11-2999,February 27, 2012), the Court imposed a penaltyof suspension for three months without pay on acourt stenographer from Isabela who travelled toHong Kong from June 1 to June 6, 2008 withoutsecuring a travel authority from the SupremeCourt and without stating in her leave applicationher foreign travel.

In Dela Cruz v. Malunao (AM No. P-11-3019,March 20, 2012), a Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya RTCClerk III was dismissed after she solicited P35,000and received P15,000 in exchange for a favorabledecision in a civil case pending before her branch.The Court found that the said clerk had “thepropensity to abuse a position of public service andis not fit to remain in the civil service” after shecontinued to solicit money from litigants even aftershe had been preventively suspended.

In Office of the Court Administrator v. Indar(AM No. RTJ-10-2232, April 10, 2012), the HighCourt imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissalfrom service and disbarment on a judge from theCotabato City and Maguindanao Regional TrialCourts (RTCs) for issuing decisions that voidedmarital unions without conducting any judicialproceedings. “Such malfeasance not only makesa mockery of marriage and its life-changingconsequences but likewise grossly violates thebasic norms of truth, justice, and due process,”stressed the Court.

In Judge Santos v. Mangahas (AM No. P-09-2720, April 17, 2012), the Court forfeited theretirement benefits of a court stenographer fromAngat, Bulacan Municipal Trial Court (MTC)who resigned from service after anadministrative complaint was filed against her.The Court found the stenographer guilty ofgrave misconduct after she was found to haveshouted at the complainant judge within the


court premises, reported the complainantjudge to the police after she was reprimandedfor her solicitation, and refused to talk withcomplainant judge during a staff meeting. TheCourt said: “High-strung and belligerentbehavior has no place in government servicewhere the personnel are enjoined to act withself-restraint and civility at all times evenwhen confronted with rudeness and insolence.”

In Luarca v. Judge Molato (AM No. MTJ-08-1711, April 23, 2012), a judge who agreed toserve as one of the bank signatories of acorporation of which his wife was thepresident, even if he may not have performedsuch service for the corporation, wasreprimanded by the Supreme Court forviolation of Administrative Circular 5 whichprohibits public officials from performing oragreeing to perform functions or servicesoutside of their official functions for the reasonthat the entire time of the officials andemployees of the judiciary shall be devoted totheir official work to ensure the efficient andspeedy administration of justice.

In Jallorina v. Taneo-Regner (AM No. P-11-2948, April 23, 2012), a data entry machineoperator from the San Mateo, Rizal RTC wasfound guilty of disgraceful and immoralconduct, and was meted the penalty ofsuspension from service for six months and oneday for maintaining an illicit affair with amarried Assistant Provincial Prosecutor.

In OAS-OCA v. Gareza (AM No. P-12-3058,Leave Division, April 25, 2012), a sheriff fromthe Victorias City, Negros OccidentalMunicipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) whoincurred tardiness for a total of 73 times fromJanuary 2009 to January 2010 was suspendedfrom service for 30 days.

In Office of the Court Administrator v.Kasilag (AM No. P-08-2573, June 19, 2012), theSupreme Court found a Manila Regional TrialCourt (RTC) sheriff guilty of falsification ofofficial document and dishonesty based onsubstantial evidence that the sheriff falsifiedhis Daily Time Record (DTR) for February2004, where the superimpositions on his timeentries were apparent. The DTR showed thatthe original entries had been erased andreplaced instead with time entries showingthat the personnel reported for work on thedays he previously took a leave of absence for.The Court stressed that falsification of a DTRby a court personnel is a grave offense.

In Comilang v. Judge Arnaldo (AM No. RTJ-10-2216, June 26, 2012), the Court ordered thedismissal from service of a Calamba CityRegional Trial Court (RTC) judge who, incomplete disobedience to a writ of preliminaryinjunction issued by the Court of Appeals (CA),required a state prosecutor to explain his non-filing of a supersedeas bond, issued subpoenasto compel his attendance before court hearingsrelative to the contempt proceedings, andultimately found the said prosecutor guilty ofindirect contempt for his non-compliance withthe issued subpoenas.

In Ramos v. Teves (AM No. P-12-3061, June 27,2012), the Court suspended a “discourteous” clerkof court for 30 days after he stubbornly refusedto receive a counsel’s motion despite the latter’sexplanation, as a lawyer, that a copy of the samedid not have to be served on the defendant. TheCourt held: “Unless specifically provided by therules, clerks of court have no authority to passupon the substantive or formal correctness ofpleadings and motions that parties file with thecourt.”

In Katague v. Ledesma (AM No. P-12-3067, July4, 2012), the Court, emphasizing that the failureof a sheriff to make periodic reports on the statusof a writ of execution warrants administrativeliability, imposed the penalty of 15-day suspensionwithout pay on a Sheriff IV for simple neglect ofduty, after the latter failed to submit periodicreports and to make a return of the Writ ofExecution in accordance with the Rules of Court.

In Lambayong Teachers and EmployeesCooperative v. Diaz (AM No. P-06-2246, July 11,2012), another sheriff was fined in the amountequivalent to his salary for three months after hereceived P1,500 from a lawyer, and P136.96 froma litigant, for the expenses to be incurred in theexecution of three writs in a case for collection ofsum of money, without first making an estimateand securing prior approval from the MunicipalTrial Court in Cities (MTCC). The sheriff alsofailed to render accounting after the executionof the said writs.

In Judge Adlawan v. Capilitan (AM No. P-12-3080, August 29, 2012), for disgraceful andimmoral conduct, a court stenographer wassuspended from service for six months and oneday after she got impregnated by a man who wasmarried to another woman.

In Uy v. Javellana (AM No. MTJ-07-1666,September 5, 2012), a Negros Occidental judge


who, among others, issued a warrant of arrestfor the accused in a criminal case even if theaccused did not fail to appear when required;conducted a preliminary investigation evenwhen it was not required; and denied a Motionto Dismiss in a case that was not previouslyreferred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa asrequired by the Rules on Summary Procedurewas dismissed by the High Court.

In OCA v. Fontanilla (AM No. P-12-3086,September 18, 2012), a clerk of court who not onlyincurred delay in the remittance of court fundsin her custody but also incurred shortagesamounting to P28,000 was fined in the amount ofP40,000, for grave misconduct.

In OCA v. Castillo (AM No. P-10-2805,September 18, 2012), another clerk of court whoseinfidelity in the collection of court funds resultedin an accountability amounting to P597,155.10was found guilty of gross neglect of duty,dishonesty, and grave misconduct, and was giventhe ultimate penalty of dismissal from service.

In Magtibay v. Indar (AM No. RTJ-11-2271,September 24, 2012), the Court imposed a P20,000fine on a Cotabato City Regional Trial Court(RTC) judge, who had been previously dismissedfrom service, after he retorted “Huwag mo nangituloy ang sasabihin mo kumukulo ang dugo sainyo lumayas na kayo marami akong problema”when he denied the request for documents of theparties to a case pending before his branch.

In Velasco v. Baterbonia (AM No. P-06-2161,September 25, 2012), the Court dismissed a cashclerk from the Alabel, Sarangani Regional TrialCourt (RTC) who incurred shortages in theJudiciary Development Fund, the SpecialAllowance for the Judiciary Fund, and theSheriff ’s Special Fund in her custody, in the totalamount of P231,699.03. The Court also said thatthe cash clerk should be criminally prosecutedfor estafa through falsification. “Corruption asan element of grave misconduct consists in theact of an official or employee who unlawfully orwrongfully uses her station or character toprocure some benefit for herself or for another,contrary to the rights of others,” it held.

In OCA v. Castañeda (AM No. RTJ-12-2316,October 9, 2012), a judicial audit and physicalinventory of cases in a branch of the Paniqui,Tarlac Regional Trial Court (RTC) – promptedby reports that the said branch was “fastbecoming a haven for couples who want theirmarriages to be judicially declared null and void

or annulled, or those who want to be legallyseparated” – resulted in the dismissal of itspresiding judge for dishonesty, gross ignoranceof the law and procedure, gross misconductand incompetency; the six-months-and-one-day suspension of its clerk of court forinefficiency and incompetency; and theimposition of a P5,000 fine, for simple neglectof duties, on its sheriff, four courtstenographers, court interpreter, and utilityworker.

In Casar v. Soluren (AM No. RTJ-12-2333,October 22, 2012), a P10,000 fine was imposedon judge who went to the Aurora ProvincialJail to solicit sympathies from prisoners,especially those who had pending cases in hersala, and persuade them to sign a letteraddressed to then Chief Justice Renato C.Corona calling for the dismissal of anadministrative complaint against her.

In Viscal Development Corporation v. DelaCruz-Buendia (AM No. P-12-3097, November 26,2012), three sheriffs from the Manila RTC weresuspended for one month and one day for simpleneglect of duty after they failed to make a returnof the writ of execution in a case within theprescribed period to submit periodic reports. Thesheriffs also failed to furnish the parties to thecase copies of the return.

In Vizcayno v. Dacanay (AM No. MTJ-10-1772, December 5, 2012), a first-level court judgewho conducted an ocular inspection of a realproperty subject of a forcible entry case pendingin his court, in the presence of the plaintiffs butwithout notice to the defendant, was foundguilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interestof the service and was ordered to pay a fine ofP30,000.

Reiterating that “the practice of law isconsidered a privilege bestowed by the State onthose who show that they possessed andcontinue to possess the legal qualifications forit,” the Supreme Court also imposed sanctionson erring members of the Bar for committingvarious administrative violations.

In Isenhardt v. Real (AC No. 8254, February15, 2012), the Court, apart from revoking hisnotarial commission, also disqualified a lawyerfrom reappointment as notary public for twoyears and suspended him from the practice oflaw for one year for violating his oath as a lawyerand the Code of Professional Responsibilitywhen he made it appear that a complainant in


a civil case personally appeared before him andsubscribed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)authorizing her brother to mortgage herproperty, causing the same to be laterforeclosed by the Rural Bank of Antipolo City.

In Pelaez v. Awid (AC No. 7572, February 8,2012), a lawyer was also suspended from thepractice of law for a period of three months forunduly delaying a preliminary investigation ina case for reckless imprudence against him forfalsely representing to the Quezon CityProsecutor ’s Office that he had priorcommitments in another case to secure severalhearing postponements, in violation of Rules12.03 and 12.04 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

In Lahm III v. Mayor, Jr. (AC No. 7430,February 15, 2012), the Court suspended aLabor Arbiter from the practice of law for aperiod of six months for gross ignorance of thelaw and violation of the lawyer’s oath and ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility forissuing a status quo ante order following amotion for issuance of a temporary restrainingorder and/or preliminary injunction in a casefor illegal dismissal when he did not have theauthority to do so under the 2005 Rules ofProcedure of the National Labor RelationsCommission.

In Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante,PIAB-C, Office of the Ombudsman (AM No. 10-1-13-SC, March 20, 2012), a lawyer who wasindefinitely suspended by the Court for graveprofessional misconduct when he misquotedConstitutional provisions in a complaint beforethe Office of the Ombudsman against then ChiefJustice Hilario Davide, Jr. and Justice AliciaAustria-Martinez was allowed by the Court toresume his practice after the Court ruled thathis suspension had already impressed upon him“the need for care and caution in hisrepresentations as an officer of this Court.”

In Aniñon v. Sabitsana (AC No. 5098, April11, 2012), a lawyer was suspended from thepractice of law for one year for representing oneclient against another client in the same action,and for a new engagement that entailed him tocontend and oppose the interest of his otherclient in a property in which his legal serviceshad been previously retained.

In In re: Supreme Court Resolution Dated28 April 2003, GR Nos. 145817 and 145822 (AC

No. 6332, April 17, 2012), , , , , “It has not escapedthe Court’s attention that respondent Peña hasmanifested a troubling history of praying for theinhibition of several members of this Court orfor the re-raffle of the case to another Division,on the basis of groundless and unfoundedaccusations of partiality,” lamented the Court,as it disbarred a lawyer who had “predilection”for seeking the inhibition of 11 Supreme CourtJustices from a case he was representing in anapparent bid to shop for a sympathetic ear.

In Villatuya v. Tabalingcos (AC No. 6622, July10, 2012), a lawyer was found guilty of grossimmorality under the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility and was disbarred by the SupremeCourt for having committed bigamy by enteringinto two marriages while his first marriage wasstill subsisting.

In Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa (AC No. 7360, July24, 2012), a lawyer’s final conviction of the crimeof bribery for offering a public prosecutorP30,000 in connection with a criminal casepaved the way for his disbarment after theSupreme Court ruled that he was “predisposedto flout the exacting standards of morality anddecency required of a member of the Bar.”

In Virtusio v. Virtusio (AC No. 6753,September 5, 2012), the Court imposed thepenalty of suspension from the practice of lawfor one year on a lawyer and revoked any NotarialCommission she might have and disqualified herfrom applying for the same for one year, after itwas found that the said lawyer notarized twodocuments after the expiration of her commissionhad expired. The Court held: “A lawyer whonotarizes a document without a propercommission violates his lawyer’s oath to obey thelaw. He makes it appear that he is commissionedwhen he is not. He thus indulges in deliberatefalsehood that the lawyer’s oath forbids.”

In Ventura v. Samson (AC No. 9608, November27, 2012), a married lawyer was ordereddisbarred by the Supreme Court for engaging insexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl, adaughter of his former employee. “In this case,respondent’s gross misbehavior and unrepentantdemeanor clearly shows a serious flaw in hischaracter, his moral indifference to sexualexploitation of a minor, and his outright defianceof established norms,” held the Court.

The Supreme Court defended its fiscalautonomy as in upheld the validity of in-housecomputation made by the Property Division of


DATA ON ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS

the Court’s Office of Administrative Services (OAS)in computing the appraisal value that a retiredChief Justice and four retired Associate Justices ofthe Supreme Court paid to acquire the governmentproperties they used during their tenure.

The Court En Banc confirmed that the OAS-Property Division’s use of the formula based onConstitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) JointResolution No. 35 dated April 23, 1997, as directedunder the Court Resolution dated March 23, 2004,was legal and valid. “(T)he use of the formulaprovided in CFAG Joint Resolution No. 35 is a partof the Court’s exercise of its discretionary authorityto determine the manner the granted retirementprivileges and benefits can be availed of,” said theCourt. “Any kind of interference on how theseretirement privileges and benefits are exercised andavailed of violates the fiscal autonomy andindependence of the Judiciary, but also encroachesupon the constitutional duty and privilege of theChief Justice and the Supreme Court En Banc tomanage the Judiciary’s own affairs.” (AM No. 11-7-10-SC, Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of theAppraised Value of the Properties Purchased by theRetired Chief/Associate Justices of the SupremeCourt, July 31, 2012)

In Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Oscar Ongjocoagainst CA Justices Enriquez Jr., Bato Jr., andMacalino (AM OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J, January31, 2012), the Court dismissed outright for utterlack of merit an administrative complaint againstthree justices of the Court of Appeals (CA). The HighCourt reminded the complainant that to sustain hisallegations of misconduct against the respondentJustices, his administrative complaint “must rest

on the quality of the evidence; and that his basinghis plain accusations on hunches and speculationswould not suffice to held them administrativelyliable for rendering the adverse decision.”

Apart from disciplining its own ranks, theSupreme Court recognized that unfoundedadministrative charges against members of thebench degrade the judicial office and interferewith the due performance of their work. “Judicialofficers do not have to suffer the brunt ofunsuccessful or dissatisfied litigants’ baseless andfalse imputations of their violating theConstitution in resolving their cases and ofharboring bias and partiality towards the adverseparties. The litigant who baselessly accuses themof such violations is not immune from appropriatesanctions if he thereby affronts the administrationof justice and manifests a disrespect towards thejudicial office.”

The Court En Banc likewise dismissed forhaving become moot and academic thecomplaint filed by Inter-Petal RecreationalCorporation against former Chief JusticeRenato C. Corona in view of the SenateImpeachment Court’s May 29, 2012 rulingfinding the former guilty of the charge underArticle II of the Articles of Impeachment, withthe penalty of removal from office anddisqualification to hold any public office asprovided in sec. 3(7), Article XI of theConstitution. (AM No. 12-6-10-SC, Re:Complaint Against the Hon. Chief JusticeRenato C. Corona dated September 14, 2011filed by Inter-Petal Recreational Corporation,June 13, 2012)


Note: Admonition and Warning are not penalties.SC - Supreme CourtCA - Court of AppealsCTA - Court of Tax AppealsRTC - Regional Trial CourtMeTC - Metropolitan Trial CourtMTCC - Municipal Trial Court in Cities

LOWER COURT JUDGES

MTC - Municipal Trial CourtMCTC - Municipal Circuit Trial CourtSDC - Shari’a District CourtSCC - Shari’a Circuit Court

COURT PERSONNEL


Sources: Docket and Clearance Division, OCA – Legal Office;Complaints and Investigation Division, OAS

Source: Office of the Bar Confidant

LAWYERS


COURT OF COURT OF COURT OF COURT OF COURT OF APPEALSAPPEALSAPPEALSAPPEALSAPPEALSIn 2012, the Court of Appeals (CA) disposed a

total of 13,211 of the 36115 pending cases, thusregistering a 36.60% case disposal.

Per its records, the CA has issued a total of55,824 minute resolutions, 16,160 extendedresolutions, and 8,478 entries of judgment wereissued.

Eight new appellate court justices wereappointed in 2012, namely, Justice Marilyn B.Lagura-Yap, Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Dy,Justice Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, Justice RenatoC. Francisco, Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, JusticeMarie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, Justice OscarV. Badelles, and Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.

The year also saw the launching of the 4th ZeroBacklog Project for Manila, Cebu, and Cagayan

Reports from the Third Level Courts:COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND SANDIGANBAYAN

de Oro of CA Presiding Justice Andres B.Reyes, Jr., giving priority to the disposal of 2010and earlier cases submitted for decision. By theend of the year, there were 2,246 Zero BacklogProject (ZBP) cases disposed of, thus clearingthe appellate court of 76.58% of its backlog casesor those from 2010 and earlier submitted fordecision.

Likewise, the CA launched the DigitizedCompilation of the Court of Appeals Decisionsfrom 2009 to 2011.

The CA also launched its E-Raffle or theelectronic raffle of cases, one of the key features ofits Court of Appeals-Case Management InformationSystem (CA-CMIS) Project. The E-Raffle addressesthe equality, randomness, and transparency of thedistribution of cases to the justices.


There were also ground breaking ceremoniesfor the construction of the CA Cebu and CACagayan de Oro Stations.

COURT OF TAX APPEALSCOURT OF TAX APPEALSCOURT OF TAX APPEALSCOURT OF TAX APPEALSCOURT OF TAX APPEALSThe Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), under final

year of service of its Presiding Justice ErnestoD. Acosta, maintained a high disposal rate of caseswith a high output of 362 disposed cases over acase input of 1,218, or a consistent three-year casedisposal rate of 30% was achieved.

The 362 cases disposed of by the CTA representabout P6.6 billion in taxes and duties litigated forthe year.

Majority of the CTA caseload is made up ofyoung cases wherein 39.84% of which is less thana year old, 27.34% are a year but less than twoyears, and 12.73% are two years but less thanthree years, indicating a manageable caseload andgood timeline of cases, considering the fact that

tax cases are complicated, taxation being a highlyspecialized field of law. The rest of the cases arebetween three years to less than four years andeight years to less than nine years.

SANDIGANBAYANSANDIGANBAYANSANDIGANBAYANSANDIGANBAYANSANDIGANBAYANThe Sandiganbayan disposed a total of 363 cases

from a total workload of 2,662 cases, indicating adisposal rate of 13.64%. The 363 cases disposed in2012 was lower by 67 cases over the 430 casesdisposed in 2011, or a decrease by 15.58%.

There were 395 new cases filed during the year,

which translated to decrease by 18.05% comparedto the 482 new cases filed in 2011. Additionally, with2,228 cases still in the docket at the beginning ofthe year and 39 cases revived, the Courtaccumulated a total workload of 2,662 cases in 2012,slightly higher by four cases over the 2,658 caseload in 2011. At the end of the year, with 363 casesdisposed, a total of 2,299 cases remained pendingat the Sandiganbayan.


Of the 395 cases filed in 2012, 185 cases or

46.83% of total cases filed involved violations ofthe Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft andCorrupt Practices Act. The remaining cases werefor: falsification with 56 cases filed or 14.18% ofthe total cases filed, estafa with 51 cases filed thusaccounting for 12.91% of the total cases filed,malversation with 40 cases filed or 10.13% of thetotal cases filed, and perjury with 18 cases filedor 4.56% of the total cases filed. The remaining11.39% of the total cases filed comprised variouscriminal offenses constituting 7.84% or a total of31 new criminal cases, 10 appealed cases (2.53%),two civil cases (0.51%), and two special civil actioncases (0.51%).

The anti-graft court also approved theproposed 2012 Revised Internal Rules of theSandiganbayan on October 15, 2012 forsubmission to the Supreme Court.

A separate annual report was submitted to thePresident by the Sandiganbayan in compliancewith Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1606which states that: “The Sandiganbayan shallsubmit an annual report to the President,including all disbursements of funds entrustedto it, within two months from the end of the FiscalYear.”


Organized by the PIO, the program was alsomade possible with assistance from the ProgramManagement Office.

Three timely and relevant topics were discussedamong more than 40 media participants. CourtReportage, with Court of Appeals Justice Apolinario

D. Bruselas, Jr. as speaker, offered theparticipants commonly used legal terms to aidthem in reading and understanding SC decisionsand resolutions.

Basic Safety, Protection, and Personal SecurityMeasures, as lectured in via Skype video tele-

THE COURT’S PRESENCE AND PARTICIPATION INFORA, CONFERENCES, SEMINARS AND WORKSHOPS2012 FORUM FOR MEDIA ON JUDICIARY COVERAGE2012 FORUM FOR MEDIA ON JUDICIARY COVERAGE2012 FORUM FOR MEDIA ON JUDICIARY COVERAGE2012 FORUM FOR MEDIA ON JUDICIARY COVERAGE2012 FORUM FOR MEDIA ON JUDICIARY COVERAGE(April 18, 2012, Microtel Inn and Suites, Baguio City)(April 18, 2012, Microtel Inn and Suites, Baguio City)(April 18, 2012, Microtel Inn and Suites, Baguio City)(April 18, 2012, Microtel Inn and Suites, Baguio City)(April 18, 2012, Microtel Inn and Suites, Baguio City)

Held pursuant to the mandate of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court to “offerHeld pursuant to the mandate of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court to “offerHeld pursuant to the mandate of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court to “offerHeld pursuant to the mandate of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court to “offerHeld pursuant to the mandate of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court to “offerperiodic workshops or seminars that are designed to inform members of the media about the work ofperiodic workshops or seminars that are designed to inform members of the media about the work ofperiodic workshops or seminars that are designed to inform members of the media about the work ofperiodic workshops or seminars that are designed to inform members of the media about the work ofperiodic workshops or seminars that are designed to inform members of the media about the work ofthe Court and its procedures, the the Court and its procedures, the the Court and its procedures, the the Court and its procedures, the the Court and its procedures, the 2012 Forum for Media on Judiciary Coverage2012 Forum for Media on Judiciary Coverage2012 Forum for Media on Judiciary Coverage2012 Forum for Media on Judiciary Coverage2012 Forum for Media on Judiciary Coverage was yet was yet was yet was yet was yetanother spring of information for both old and new members of the Justice and Courtanother spring of information for both old and new members of the Justice and Courtanother spring of information for both old and new members of the Justice and Courtanother spring of information for both old and new members of the Justice and Courtanother spring of information for both old and new members of the Justice and CourtReporters Association and the Justice Reporters Organization.Reporters Association and the Justice Reporters Organization.Reporters Association and the Justice Reporters Organization.Reporters Association and the Justice Reporters Organization.Reporters Association and the Justice Reporters Organization.


conferencing by Philippine National PoliceDeputy Group Director for Intelligence P/Supt.Expedito Orillo provided tips for the media onsafety and protection when reporting,researching, and covering sensitive issues thatcan put them in danger.

Snapshot of the Judiciary, as tackled by CourtAdministrator and then PIO Chief Jose MidasP. Marquez, presented to the media factssurrounding legal issues and controversies facingthe SC.

1717171717ththththth MUL MUL MUL MUL MULTI-SECTORALTI-SECTORALTI-SECTORALTI-SECTORALTI-SECTORAL CAP CAP CAP CAP CAPACITYACITYACITYACITYACITYBUILDING ON ENVIRONMENTBUILDING ON ENVIRONMENTBUILDING ON ENVIRONMENTBUILDING ON ENVIRONMENTBUILDING ON ENVIRONMENTALALALALAL LA LA LA LA LAWSWSWSWSWSAND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FORAND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FORAND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FORAND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FORAND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR

ENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTALALALALAL CASES (August 29 to 31, CASES (August 29 to 31, CASES (August 29 to 31, CASES (August 29 to 31, CASES (August 29 to 31,2012, 2012, 2012, 2012, 2012, Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao)Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao)Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao)Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao)Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao)

Signifying the completion of the trainingprogram for all regions as targeted, the 17th Multi-Sectoral Capacity Building on Environmental Lawsand the Rules of Procedure for EnvironmentalCases held at the Autonomous Region in MuslimMindanao. Participants, totaling to 61, werecomposed of judges, clerks of courts, as well asrepresentatives from the Public Attorney’s Office,Department of Energy and Natural Resources,Philippine National Police, Philippine CoastGuard, Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources, non-government organizations, localgovernment units, and the academe.

The three-day training incorporated Islamicbeliefs and principles concerning the treatment,protection and conservation of the environment.

SERIES OF MULSERIES OF MULSERIES OF MULSERIES OF MULSERIES OF MULTI- SECTORALTI- SECTORALTI- SECTORALTI- SECTORALTI- SECTORAL CAP CAP CAP CAP CAPACITYACITYACITYACITYACITYBUILDING ON ENVIRONMENTBUILDING ON ENVIRONMENTBUILDING ON ENVIRONMENTBUILDING ON ENVIRONMENTBUILDING ON ENVIRONMENTALALALALAL LA LA LA LA LAWS WS WS WS WS ANDANDANDANDANDTHE RULES OF PROCEDURE FORTHE RULES OF PROCEDURE FORTHE RULES OF PROCEDURE FORTHE RULES OF PROCEDURE FORTHE RULES OF PROCEDURE FORENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTALALALALAL CASES CASES CASES CASES CASES

Organized by the Philippine Judicial Academy(PHILJA), this series of activities was a venue forstakeholders to bring up and discuss concerns, aswell as provide input to further strengthen thecause of environmental justice among the pillarsof the criminal justice system.

GLOBAL SOUTH-SOUTH DEVELOPMENTGLOBAL SOUTH-SOUTH DEVELOPMENTGLOBAL SOUTH-SOUTH DEVELOPMENTGLOBAL SOUTH-SOUTH DEVELOPMENTGLOBAL SOUTH-SOUTH DEVELOPMENT(GSSD) EXPO (November 19 to 23, 2012, V(GSSD) EXPO (November 19 to 23, 2012, V(GSSD) EXPO (November 19 to 23, 2012, V(GSSD) EXPO (November 19 to 23, 2012, V(GSSD) EXPO (November 19 to 23, 2012, Vienna,ienna,ienna,ienna,ienna,Austria)Austria)Austria)Austria)Austria)

The Supreme Court participated in twointernational fora on Environmental Justice. Thefirst – the Global South-South Development (GSSD)– was held on November 19 to 23 in Vienna, Austria.Invited as panel presenter on its experience onenvironmental justice during the mini-forum onEnvironment and Legal Empowerment, thePhilippine Supreme Court shared the Philippineexperience one of the case studies presentedtogether with China, Latin America and Caribbean,Arab regions, and Africa.

2ND ROUND T2ND ROUND T2ND ROUND T2ND ROUND T2ND ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION OF ABLE DISCUSSION OF ABLE DISCUSSION OF ABLE DISCUSSION OF ABLE DISCUSSION OF ASEANASEANASEANASEANASEANCHIEF JUSTICES ON ENVIRONMENTCHIEF JUSTICES ON ENVIRONMENTCHIEF JUSTICES ON ENVIRONMENTCHIEF JUSTICES ON ENVIRONMENTCHIEF JUSTICES ON ENVIRONMENT(December 7 to 9, 2012, (December 7 to 9, 2012, (December 7 to 9, 2012, (December 7 to 9, 2012, (December 7 to 9, 2012, AAAAAyer Meroh, Melaka,yer Meroh, Melaka,yer Meroh, Melaka,yer Meroh, Melaka,yer Meroh, Melaka,Malaysia)Malaysia)Malaysia)Malaysia)Malaysia)

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, JusticePresbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Deputy CourtAdministrator Raul B. Villanueva, and Assistant


Court Administrator Jenny Lind Aldecoa-Delorino formed the Philippine delegation. Theround table discussion was aimed at defining theroadmap of ASEAN Judiciaries on theEnvironment.

ORIENTORIENTORIENTORIENTORIENTAAAAATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOPTION SEMINAR-WORKSHOPTION SEMINAR-WORKSHOPTION SEMINAR-WORKSHOPTION SEMINAR-WORKSHOP FOR FOR FOR FOR FORNEWLNEWLNEWLNEWLNEWLY Y Y Y Y APPOINTED JUDGES (March 20 to 29,APPOINTED JUDGES (March 20 to 29,APPOINTED JUDGES (March 20 to 29,APPOINTED JUDGES (March 20 to 29,APPOINTED JUDGES (March 20 to 29,2012; June 13 to 22, 2012; and October 2 to 12012; June 13 to 22, 2012; and October 2 to 12012; June 13 to 22, 2012; and October 2 to 12012; June 13 to 22, 2012; and October 2 to 12012; June 13 to 22, 2012; and October 2 to 11,1,1,1,1,2012, PHILJA2012, PHILJA2012, PHILJA2012, PHILJA2012, PHILJA T T T T Training Centerraining Centerraining Centerraining Centerraining Center, T, T, T, T, Tagaytay City)agaytay City)agaytay City)agaytay City)agaytay City)

Three batches of Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Judges (61st, 62nd,and 63rd), were all held at the PHILJA TrainingCenter in Tagaytay City.

ORIENTORIENTORIENTORIENTORIENTAAAAATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOPTION SEMINAR-WORKSHOPTION SEMINAR-WORKSHOPTION SEMINAR-WORKSHOPTION SEMINAR-WORKSHOP FOR FOR FOR FOR FORNEWLNEWLNEWLNEWLNEWLY Y Y Y Y APPOINTED CLERKS OF COURT (JulyAPPOINTED CLERKS OF COURT (JulyAPPOINTED CLERKS OF COURT (JulyAPPOINTED CLERKS OF COURT (JulyAPPOINTED CLERKS OF COURT (July3 to 6, 2012, Bayview Park Hotel, Manila;3 to 6, 2012, Bayview Park Hotel, Manila;3 to 6, 2012, Bayview Park Hotel, Manila;3 to 6, 2012, Bayview Park Hotel, Manila;3 to 6, 2012, Bayview Park Hotel, Manila;November 20 to 23, 2012, VIP Hotel, Cagayan deNovember 20 to 23, 2012, VIP Hotel, Cagayan deNovember 20 to 23, 2012, VIP Hotel, Cagayan deNovember 20 to 23, 2012, VIP Hotel, Cagayan deNovember 20 to 23, 2012, VIP Hotel, Cagayan deOro City)Oro City)Oro City)Oro City)Oro City)

The 23rd and 24th Orientation Seminar-WorkshopFor Newly Appointed Clerks of Court were held onJuly 3 to 5, 2012 at the Bayview Park Hotel, Manila,and also on November 20 to 23, 2012 at the VIPHotel in Cagayan de Oro City.

JUDICIAL CAREER ENHANCEMENTJUDICIAL CAREER ENHANCEMENTJUDICIAL CAREER ENHANCEMENTJUDICIAL CAREER ENHANCEMENTJUDICIAL CAREER ENHANCEMENTPROGRAM FOR REGIONAL TRIAL COURTPROGRAM FOR REGIONAL TRIAL COURTPROGRAM FOR REGIONAL TRIAL COURTPROGRAM FOR REGIONAL TRIAL COURTPROGRAM FOR REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

JUDGES (May 2 to 4, 2012; PHILJAJUDGES (May 2 to 4, 2012; PHILJAJUDGES (May 2 to 4, 2012; PHILJAJUDGES (May 2 to 4, 2012; PHILJAJUDGES (May 2 to 4, 2012; PHILJATraining Center, Tagaytay City; June 19Training Center, Tagaytay City; June 19Training Center, Tagaytay City; June 19Training Center, Tagaytay City; June 19Training Center, Tagaytay City; June 19to 21, 2012, Oriental Hotel, Palo, Leyte; Julyto 21, 2012, Oriental Hotel, Palo, Leyte; Julyto 21, 2012, Oriental Hotel, Palo, Leyte; Julyto 21, 2012, Oriental Hotel, Palo, Leyte; Julyto 21, 2012, Oriental Hotel, Palo, Leyte; July18 to 20, 2012, PHILJA Training Center,18 to 20, 2012, PHILJA Training Center,18 to 20, 2012, PHILJA Training Center,18 to 20, 2012, PHILJA Training Center,18 to 20, 2012, PHILJA Training Center,Tagaytay City; August 14 to 16, 2012,Tagaytay City; August 14 to 16, 2012,Tagaytay City; August 14 to 16, 2012,Tagaytay City; August 14 to 16, 2012,Tagaytay City; August 14 to 16, 2012,PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City;PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City;PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City;PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City;PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City;October 17 to 19, 2012, Apo View Hotel,October 17 to 19, 2012, Apo View Hotel,October 17 to 19, 2012, Apo View Hotel,October 17 to 19, 2012, Apo View Hotel,October 17 to 19, 2012, Apo View Hotel,Davao City; Nov. 14 to 16, 2012, AmigoDavao City; Nov. 14 to 16, 2012, AmigoDavao City; Nov. 14 to 16, 2012, AmigoDavao City; Nov. 14 to 16, 2012, AmigoDavao City; Nov. 14 to 16, 2012, AmigoTTTTTerrace Hotel, Iloilo City)errace Hotel, Iloilo City)errace Hotel, Iloilo City)errace Hotel, Iloilo City)errace Hotel, Iloilo City)

Six Judicial Career Enhancement Program forRegional Trial Court Judges were held for thosein Regions IV, VII, II, 6, as well as two batchesfor those in the National Capital Judicial Region.Judicial Career Enhancement Program forRegional Trial Court Judges of Region IV was heldfrom May 2 to 4, 2012 at the PHILJA TrainingCenter in Tagaytay City. For those of judges ofRegion VIII, the Judicial Career EnhancementProgram was held on June 19 to 21, 2012 inOriental Hotel, Palo, Leyte. The first and secondbatches of such Program for NCJR judges wereheld on July 18 to 20, and August 14 to 16, 2012,were both held at the PHILJA Training Centerin Tagaytay City. For judges of Region II and 6,the Programs were held, on October 17 to 19,2012 at the Apo View Hotel in Davao City, andNovember 14 to 16, 2012, at the Amigo TerraceHotel in Iloilo City, respectively.

SEMINAR FOR EXECUTIVE JUDGES SEMINAR FOR EXECUTIVE JUDGES SEMINAR FOR EXECUTIVE JUDGES SEMINAR FOR EXECUTIVE JUDGES SEMINAR FOR EXECUTIVE JUDGES ANDANDANDANDANDVICE EXECUTIVE JUDGES (August 1 to 3,VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGES (August 1 to 3,VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGES (August 1 to 3,VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGES (August 1 to 3,VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGES (August 1 to 3,2012, PHILJA2012, PHILJA2012, PHILJA2012, PHILJA2012, PHILJA T T T T Training Centerraining Centerraining Centerraining Centerraining Center, T, T, T, T, Tagaytay City;agaytay City;agaytay City;agaytay City;agaytay City;October 23 to 25, 2012, Century Park Hotel,October 23 to 25, 2012, Century Park Hotel,October 23 to 25, 2012, Century Park Hotel,October 23 to 25, 2012, Century Park Hotel,October 23 to 25, 2012, Century Park Hotel,Manila; November 27 to 28, 2012, Radisson BluManila; November 27 to 28, 2012, Radisson BluManila; November 27 to 28, 2012, Radisson BluManila; November 27 to 28, 2012, Radisson BluManila; November 27 to 28, 2012, Radisson BluHotel, Cebu City)Hotel, Cebu City)Hotel, Cebu City)Hotel, Cebu City)Hotel, Cebu City)

Seminar-Workshop for Executive Judges andVice Executive Judges of Luzon and NCJR onAugust 1 to 3, 2012, at the PHILJA TrainingCenter in Tagaytay City, and of Visayas andMindanao on October 23 to 25, 2012 at theCentury Park Hotel, Manila, and on November27 and 28, 2012, at the Radisson Blue Hotel, CebuCity.

CAREER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FORCAREER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FORCAREER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FORCAREER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FORCAREER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FORRTC CLERKS OF COURT (February 22 to 23,RTC CLERKS OF COURT (February 22 to 23,RTC CLERKS OF COURT (February 22 to 23,RTC CLERKS OF COURT (February 22 to 23,RTC CLERKS OF COURT (February 22 to 23,2012, PHILJA2012, PHILJA2012, PHILJA2012, PHILJA2012, PHILJA TRAINING CENTER, T TRAINING CENTER, T TRAINING CENTER, T TRAINING CENTER, T TRAINING CENTER, TagaytayagaytayagaytayagaytayagaytayCity; City; City; City; City; April 18 and 20, 2012, PHILJAApril 18 and 20, 2012, PHILJAApril 18 and 20, 2012, PHILJAApril 18 and 20, 2012, PHILJAApril 18 and 20, 2012, PHILJA TRAINING TRAINING TRAINING TRAINING TRAININGCENTER, TCENTER, TCENTER, TCENTER, TCENTER, Tagaytay City; May 22 to 24, 2012,agaytay City; May 22 to 24, 2012,agaytay City; May 22 to 24, 2012,agaytay City; May 22 to 24, 2012,agaytay City; May 22 to 24, 2012,Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City; June 19 to 21,Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City; June 19 to 21,Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City; June 19 to 21,Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City; June 19 to 21,Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City; June 19 to 21,2012, Richmonde Plaza, Cebu City; July 182012, Richmonde Plaza, Cebu City; July 182012, Richmonde Plaza, Cebu City; July 182012, Richmonde Plaza, Cebu City; July 182012, Richmonde Plaza, Cebu City; July 18to 20, 2012, Sarabia Manor Hotel, Iloilo City;to 20, 2012, Sarabia Manor Hotel, Iloilo City;to 20, 2012, Sarabia Manor Hotel, Iloilo City;to 20, 2012, Sarabia Manor Hotel, Iloilo City;to 20, 2012, Sarabia Manor Hotel, Iloilo City;July 25 to 27, 2012, Baguio Country Club,July 25 to 27, 2012, Baguio Country Club,July 25 to 27, 2012, Baguio Country Club,July 25 to 27, 2012, Baguio Country Club,July 25 to 27, 2012, Baguio Country Club,Baguio City; September 5 to 7, 2012, PryceBaguio City; September 5 to 7, 2012, PryceBaguio City; September 5 to 7, 2012, PryceBaguio City; September 5 to 7, 2012, PryceBaguio City; September 5 to 7, 2012, PrycePlaza Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City;Plaza Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City;Plaza Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City;Plaza Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City;Plaza Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City;


September 12 to 14, 2012, PHILJASeptember 12 to 14, 2012, PHILJASeptember 12 to 14, 2012, PHILJASeptember 12 to 14, 2012, PHILJASeptember 12 to 14, 2012, PHILJATRAINING CENTER, Tagaytay City;TRAINING CENTER, Tagaytay City;TRAINING CENTER, Tagaytay City;TRAINING CENTER, Tagaytay City;TRAINING CENTER, Tagaytay City;September 19 to 21, PHILJA TRAININGSeptember 19 to 21, PHILJA TRAININGSeptember 19 to 21, PHILJA TRAININGSeptember 19 to 21, PHILJA TRAININGSeptember 19 to 21, PHILJA TRAININGCENTER, Tagaytay City; October 17 to 19,CENTER, Tagaytay City; October 17 to 19,CENTER, Tagaytay City; October 17 to 19,CENTER, Tagaytay City; October 17 to 19,CENTER, Tagaytay City; October 17 to 19,2012, PHILJA TRAINING CENTER,2012, PHILJA TRAINING CENTER,2012, PHILJA TRAINING CENTER,2012, PHILJA TRAINING CENTER,2012, PHILJA TRAINING CENTER,Tagaytay City)Tagaytay City)Tagaytay City)Tagaytay City)Tagaytay City)

Ten Career Enhancement Program ForRegional Trial Court Clerks of Court seminarswere held in 2012. RTC Clerks of Court in RegionsIII and IV had their training on February 22 to23, 2012, and April 18 and 20, 2012, respectively,at the PHILJA Training Center in Tagaytay City.Those of Region V had their seminar on May 22to 24, 2012 at the Hotel St. Ellis, Legazpi City.For those of Regions VII and VIII, trainings wereconducted on June 19 to 21, 2012, at theRichmond Plaza Hotel in Cebu City. CareerEnhancement Program For Regional Trial CourtClerks of Court of Region VI was held on July18 to 20, 2012, at the Sarabia Manor Hotel, IloiloCity. Baguio Country Club in Baguio City, forits part, was the venue of the CareerEnhancement Program For Regional Trial CourtClerks Of Court of Region I. The Career

Enhancement Program For Regional Trial CourtClerks Of Court of Region X, on September 5 to7, 2012, was held at the Pryce Hotel in Cagayande Oro City. The three batches of the program forthose in the National Judicial Capital Region wereheld at the PHILJA Training Center, TagaytayCity, on September 12 to 14 and 19 to 21, 2012, aswell as on October 17 to 19, 2012.

CONTINUING LEGALCONTINUING LEGALCONTINUING LEGALCONTINUING LEGALCONTINUING LEGAL EDUCA EDUCA EDUCA EDUCA EDUCATION FORTION FORTION FORTION FORTION FORCOURT COURT COURT COURT COURT AAAAATTORNEYS (November 5 to 6, 8 to 9,TTORNEYS (November 5 to 6, 8 to 9,TTORNEYS (November 5 to 6, 8 to 9,TTORNEYS (November 5 to 6, 8 to 9,TTORNEYS (November 5 to 6, 8 to 9,and 15 to 16, 2012, (for Supreme Court Courtand 15 to 16, 2012, (for Supreme Court Courtand 15 to 16, 2012, (for Supreme Court Courtand 15 to 16, 2012, (for Supreme Court Courtand 15 to 16, 2012, (for Supreme Court CourtAttorneys) and November 19 to 20 and 28 and 29,Attorneys) and November 19 to 20 and 28 and 29,Attorneys) and November 19 to 20 and 28 and 29,Attorneys) and November 19 to 20 and 28 and 29,Attorneys) and November 19 to 20 and 28 and 29,2012 (for Court of 2012 (for Court of 2012 (for Court of 2012 (for Court of 2012 (for Court of Appeals Court Appeals Court Appeals Court Appeals Court Appeals Court Attorneys),Attorneys),Attorneys),Attorneys),Attorneys),PHILJAPHILJAPHILJAPHILJAPHILJA T T T T Training Centerraining Centerraining Centerraining Centerraining Center, T, T, T, T, Tagaytay City)agaytay City)agaytay City)agaytay City)agaytay City)

Three batches of seminar titled Continuing LegalEducation for Court Attorneys of the SupremeCourt were held at the PHILJA Training Center,Tagaytay City on November 5 to 6, 8 to 9, and 19 to20. Two batches of the seminar, called ContinuingLegal Education Program for Court Attorneys ofthe Court of Appeals were conducted on April 19and 20, 2012, and November 28 to 29, 2012 also atthe PHILJA Training Center.


VARIOUS SEMINAR-WORKSHOPS FORVARIOUS SEMINAR-WORKSHOPS FORVARIOUS SEMINAR-WORKSHOPS FORVARIOUS SEMINAR-WORKSHOPS FORVARIOUS SEMINAR-WORKSHOPS FORJUDGES AND COURT PERSONNELJUDGES AND COURT PERSONNELJUDGES AND COURT PERSONNELJUDGES AND COURT PERSONNELJUDGES AND COURT PERSONNELTHROUGH THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIALTHROUGH THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIALTHROUGH THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIALTHROUGH THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIALTHROUGH THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIALACADEMY (PHILJA)ACADEMY (PHILJA)ACADEMY (PHILJA)ACADEMY (PHILJA)ACADEMY (PHILJA)

Thousands of stakeholders attended SupremeCourt seminars and conferences, through thePHILJA. These training programs include: CareerDevelopment Program for Court Legal Researchersheld on separate dates between February andOctober, 2012, in Manila; 8th National Conventionand Seminar of the Philippine Association of CourtSocial Workers, Inc. (PACSWI), on March 7 to 9,2012 at the Bethel Guest House, Dumaguete City;9th Biennial National Convention and Seminar ofthe Court Legal Researchers Association of thePhilippines (CLERAP), Inc., on April 18 to 20, 2012at the La Piazza Hotel and Convention Center,Legazpi City, Albay; 7th National Convention andSeminar of the Philippine Association of CourtInterpreters, Inc. (PhilACI) on April 25 to 27, 2012at the Skylight Convention Center, Puerto PrincesaCity, Palawan;

15th National Convention and Seminar of thePhilippine Association of Court Employees (PACE)on May 9 to 11, 2012 at the Puerto Prinsesa CityColiseum, Palawan; 14th National Convention andSeminar of the Metropolitan and City Judges

Association of the Philippines on September 12to 14, 2012 at the Dakak Park and Beach Resort,Dapitan City in Zamboanga del Norte;Philippine Judges Association MidtermConvention and Seminar on October 10 to 122012 at the L’Fisher Hotel, Baguio City; 19th

Convention Seminar of the Philippine TrialJudges League, Inc. on November 22 to 24, 2012at the Fort Ilocandia Hotel in Laoag City; andConvention and Seminar of the JudiciaryAssociation of the Clerks of the Philippines onDecember 4 to 6 at the Supreme Hotel andConvention Center, Baguio City.

PHILJA also conducted special focusprograms such as four batches of PersonalSecurity Training for Judges, two OrientationSeminar-Workshop on Comparative Analysisbetween the Family Code and the Code ofMuslim Personal Laws; Seminar-Workshop onJudicial Writing for House of RepresentativesElectoral Tribunal (HRET) Lawyers; CareerEnhancement Program for PRC Directors,Lawyers, and Legal Staff; Seminar-Workshop forNational Commission on Indigenous PeoplesLawyers and Legal Officers; Focus GroupDiscussion on the LGBT Section; Fifth Seminar-Workshop on Deposit Insurance, BankingPractices, and Bank Conservatorship,


Receivership, and Liquidation; IncreasingJudicial Efficiency: Seminar-Workshop forJudges on the Effective Use of theBenchbook for Phil ippine Trial Courts(Revised and Expanded);

Three batches of Seminar-Workshop onCEDAW and Gender Sensitivity for Court ofAppeals Employees (Manila Station) held onApril 26 to 27, 2012, April 17 to 18, August 2to 3, 2012 all at the Century Park Hotel,Manila, as well as Seminar-Workshop onCEDAW and Gender Sensitivity for Court ofAppeals Employees (Visayas Station) onOctober 11 to 12, 2012 at the Radisson BluHotel in Cebu City, and Seminar-Workshopon CEDAW and Gender Sensitivity for Courtof Appeals Employees (Mindanao Station),November 22 to 23, 2012 at the MallberrySuites Business Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City;Gender Sensitivity Training for Judges,Court Interpreters and Court Social Workerson March 28 to 29, 2012 at the East AsiaRoyale Hotel, General Santos City;

Seminar-Workshop on Combating HumanTrafficking in the Philippines for SelectedJudges and Prosecutors Handling HumanTrafficking Cases on February 2 to March

1, 2012 at the AltaVista Hotel in Malay,Aklan; Seminar Workshop on CombatingHuman Trafficking in the Philippines forSelected Judges, Prosecutor and Court Personnelof Region VI on March 14 to 14, 2012 at theSheridan Hotel, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan;

Seminar-Workshop on Implementing theInternational Framework for Court Excellence (1st

and 2nd Batches), on September 10 to 11 andSeptember 11 to 12, at the Sabia Manor Hotel,Iloilo City, respectively; Seminar-Workshop onthe Rules of Procedure on Intellectual PropertyCases for Judges, Prosecutors and Clerks of Courtin the National Capital Judicial Region andFourth Judicial Region on May 31, 2012, andSeminar-Workshop on the Rules of Proecedureon Intellectual Property Cases for Judges in theFirst, Second, Third and Fifth Judicial Regionson June 22, 2012, both at the Traders Hotel, RoxasBoulevard, Pasay City;

Seminar-Workshop on the Rules of Proecedureon Intellectual Property Cases for Judges andProsecutors in the Sixth, Seventh, and EightJudical Region and Court of Appeals-Cebu StationCourt of Attorneys on July 27, 2012 at theMontebello Villa Hotel in Cebu City; Seminar-Workshop on the Rules of Proecedure onIntellectual Property Cases for Judges andProsecutors in the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh andTwelfth Judicial Regions on August 24, 2012 atthe Marco Polo Hotel in Davao City;

Seminar-Workshop on the Rules of Procedureon Intellectual Property Protection andEnforcement for Clerks of Court of SpecialCommercial Courts in the National CapitalJudicial Region and Other Stakeholders onOctober 25, 2012 at the CSB Hotel InternationalConference Center in Malate, Manila.

PHILJA also conducted three Pre-JudicaturePrograms (As prescribed by Section 10, RepublicAct No. 8557) on April 16 to 26, 2012 and May 14to 25 at the Bayview Park Hotel, Manila, and onAugust 6 to 7, 2012 at the Crown Regency Hotel,Fuente Osmeña, Cebu City; and the FoundingChancellor Emeritus Justice AmeurfinaMelencio-Herrera Award For The MostOutstanding Professorial Lecturers on November12, 2012 at the PHILJA Training Center, TagaytayCity, as well as the 17th National Convention andSeminar of the Philippine Women JudgesAssociation, with the theme Women Judges: 25Years of Upholding Judicial Independence, TheRule of Law and Women’s Rights.


CCCCClothinglothinglothinglothinglothing AAAAAllowancellowancellowancellowancellowance

Regardless of employment status, employeeswho have been in the service for at least sixconsecutive months are granted the annual clothingallowance, in cash or in kind, provided that theyremain in the service for another six months fromthe day the clothing allowance was given.

Representation and TRepresentation and TRepresentation and TRepresentation and TRepresentation and Transportation ransportation ransportation ransportation ransportation AllowanceAllowanceAllowanceAllowanceAllowance(RA(RA(RA(RA(RATTTTTA)A)A)A)A)

The RATA is given to employees whose positionsare expressly authorized by the GeneralAppropriations Act (GAA) to receive suchallowance, those of equivalent rank as determinedby the Department of Budget and Management,and those who have been duly designated by theappointing authority to a vacant position entitledto RATA.

Since the RATA is attached to the position,employees entitled to the said allowance mustrender actual service incident to or in connectionwith the discharge of their official duties. Hence,employees who go on a leave for more than a monthare not entitled to receive such allowance.

Personal Economic Relief Personal Economic Relief Personal Economic Relief Personal Economic Relief Personal Economic Relief Assistance (PERA) andAssistance (PERA) andAssistance (PERA) andAssistance (PERA) andAssistance (PERA) andAdditional Compensation (ADCOM)Additional Compensation (ADCOM)Additional Compensation (ADCOM)Additional Compensation (ADCOM)Additional Compensation (ADCOM)

Upon assumption of duty, each employeereceives Personal Economic Relief Assistance ofP500, and Additional Compensation of P1,500 permonth. In accordance with the Department ofBudget Management’s Budget Circular No. 2009-3, the PERA and ADCOM have been combined asPERA in the amount of P2,000.

Additional Cost of Living Additional Cost of Living Additional Cost of Living Additional Cost of Living Additional Cost of Living Allowance from theAllowance from theAllowance from theAllowance from theAllowance from theJudiciary Development Fund (JDF)Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)

The JDF was established in 1984 by PD 1949for the benefit of the members and personnel ofthe Judiciary, to help ensure and guarantee theindependence of the Judiciary as mandated by the

EMPLOYEEWELFARE AND BENEFITS

Constitution and public policy and required bythe impartial administration of justice. Derivedfrom the increase in legal fees and from othersources, such as Bar examination fees, intereston deposits of its income, confiscated bail bonds,income from publications of the Supreme CourtPrinting Press, and rentals of facilities in theHalls of Justice, the JDF is used to augment theallowances of members and personnel of theJudiciary and to finance the acquisition,maintenance, and repair of office equipment andfacilities. PD 1949 provides that at least 80percent of the JDF shall be used for cost of livingallowances, and that no more than 20 percent ofthe said Fund shall be used for office equipmentand facilities.

The 80 percent of the JDF is given monthly toall qualified employees in proportion to their basicmonthly salaries. The rates of the additional costof living allowance are based on salary brackets,so that those with a basic monthly salary ofP14,000 or less are given the biggest share, nextare those receiving more than P14,000 to P21,000,and those receiving more than P21,000, the least


share. The JDF allocated for employees of thesame salary grade is the same across all courts.Court employees who have rendered at least sixmonths of service in the Judiciary are entitled tothe full amount of the allowance, while courtpersonnel who have rendered less than sixmonths of service as of the cut-off date are entitledto the pro-rated amounts of the JDF.

For 2011, the total collections of the JDF as ofDecember 31 amounted to P992,865,700.89. TheCourt also had the beginning balance ofP1,046,685,618.11 in the JDF as of January 1,2011. The total disbursements of the JDF in 2011amounted to P867,449,097.97.

Special Special Special Special Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ)Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ)Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ)Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ)Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ)

The SAJ is a special allowance equivalent tothe 100 percent individual basic monthly salariesunder the Salary Standardization Law, grantedto justices, judges, and other Judiciary officialsholding the equivalent rank of a Court of Appealsjustice or Regional Trial Court judge. Created in2003 by RA 9227, An Act Granting a Special

Allowance for Justices, Judges, and those HoldingRanks Equivalent to Justices of the Court ofAppeals and the Regional Trial Court, the SAJ wasimplemented over the span of four years, spreadinguniformly the special allowance in amountsequivalent to 25 percent of the basic salariescovered for each installment.

As provided by RA 9227, the surplus from thecollections in excess of the amount needed to fundthe special allowances granted to justices, judges,and all other positions in the judiciary with theequivalent rank of justices of the Court of Appealsand judges of the Regional Trial Court may be usedby the chief justice of the Supreme Court to grantadditional allowances exclusively to other courtpersonnel not covered by the benefits grantedunder the said law.

Funding for the SAJ is derived from the legalfees originally prescribed, imposed, and collectedunder Rule 141 of the Rules of Court prior to thepromulgation of the amendments under PD 1949,Judiciary Development Fund Decree, and increasesin 1989 current fees and new fees which may be


imposed by the Supreme Court after theeffectivity of RA 9227 on November 11, 2003.

For 2011, the Court was able to collect the totalamount of P1,120,444.539.01 funding for the SAJas of December 31. On top of this figure, the Courtalso had a beginning balance in January 2011, theamount of P564,363,870.67. The totaldisbursement of the SAJ fund in 2011 wasP1,522,696,023.60.

Longevity PayLongevity PayLongevity PayLongevity PayLongevity Pay

Pursuant to Section 42, BP 129, justices, judges,and employees of similar rank are granted longevitypay equivalent to five percent of their monthly basicpay, for every five years of continuous andcommendable service rendered in the Judiciary,provided, that the total salary of each justice orjudge concerned, after this longevity pay is added,does not exceed the salary of the justice or judgenext in rank.

Productivity Incentive BenefitProductivity Incentive BenefitProductivity Incentive BenefitProductivity Incentive BenefitProductivity Incentive Benefit

This benefit is based on the productivity andperformance of employees, as evaluated by theheads of their respective offices. Those entitled tothis benefit are court employees who have hadat least a “satisfactory” performance ratingand have rendered actual government servicefor at least one year.

Productivity Enhancement IncentiveProductivity Enhancement IncentiveProductivity Enhancement IncentiveProductivity Enhancement IncentiveProductivity Enhancement Incentive

This benefit is granted to members andpersonnel of the Judiciary, in recognition of thecommendable performance and contribution ofits workforce in achieving efficiency in theoperations of the courts.

Fringe BenefitsFringe BenefitsFringe BenefitsFringe BenefitsFringe Benefits

Fringe benefits in the form of rice subsidyallowance, grocery expense, and emergencyeconomic a l lowance are granted toemployees because of their present economiccondit ion ar is ing from the prevai l ingeconomic crisis in the country. The fringebenefit in the form of anniversary bonus isgiven to officials and personnel of the HighCourt and the appellate courts, on theoccasion of the founding anniversary of theSupreme Court, chargeable against therespect ive savings from the regularappropriations of the courts.

YYYYYearearearearear-End Benefits and Cash Gift-End Benefits and Cash Gift-End Benefits and Cash Gift-End Benefits and Cash Gift-End Benefits and Cash Gift

Every December, Court employees receive abonus equivalent to the actual base monthlysalary as of October 31, and a cash gift of P5,000,as provided under RA 6686, as amended by RA8441. Employees who have been in the servicefrom January 1 to October 31, and those who haverendered at least four months of service inclusiveof leaves of absence with pay are entitled to thisbenefit. Employees may avail one half (1/2) ofthe amount, as an interest free loan duringmidyear, pursuant to the General Provisions ofthe General Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year2011 or RA 10147.

Step IncrementStep IncrementStep IncrementStep IncrementStep Increment

The Step Increment is given to employees whohave been in continuous service in a particularposition for the last three years. Likewise,justices, judges, and employees of similar rankare entitled to the Step Increment, in addition totheir longevity pay.


Loyalty Loyalty Loyalty Loyalty Loyalty AAAAAwardwardwardwardward

The Loyalty Award is conferred on Courtemployees who have rendered an initial 10 yearsof continuous and satisfactory service in thegovernment and every five years thereafter. Theaward is given in cash and in accordance withthe allowable rates at the time of the grant. Inaddition, a token of appreciation is given to thequalified employees.

For purposes of granting the Loyalty Award,services rendered in other government agenciesprior to January 1, 2002 are not considered.Likewise, an official or employee who has earneda total of not more than 50 days authorizedvacation leave without pay within the ten-yearperiod shall be considered as having renderedcontinuous service, for the grant of the LoyaltyAward.

Special Benefits of Employees of the SC MedicalSpecial Benefits of Employees of the SC MedicalSpecial Benefits of Employees of the SC MedicalSpecial Benefits of Employees of the SC MedicalSpecial Benefits of Employees of the SC MedicalServices as Public Health WServices as Public Health WServices as Public Health WServices as Public Health WServices as Public Health Workersorkersorkersorkersorkers

The Court’s health workers may avail of thebenefits provided under the Magna Carta ofPublic Health Workers, subject to therequirements or conditions set forth therein.Additionally, three (3) months prior to theircompulsory retirement at age 65, they are entitledto an automatic grant of one (1) salary range orgrade higher than the basic salary, and theretirement benefits shall be computed on thebasis of the upgraded salary, provided that they

have fulfilled the age and service requirementsunder existing laws.

Shuttle Bus Service (for SC Employees)Shuttle Bus Service (for SC Employees)Shuttle Bus Service (for SC Employees)Shuttle Bus Service (for SC Employees)Shuttle Bus Service (for SC Employees)

To extend additional economic benefits toSupreme Court employees, the Supreme Courtprovided 10 shuttle buses which help Courtpersonnel save on transportation expenses. Eachshuttle bus has a fixed route covering the areas ofBulacan, Las Piñas, Cainta, Valenzuela,Novaliches, Fairview, Laguna, Cavite, andMarikina.

The shuttle buses are also utilized to providetransportation to Court officials and personnel toand from different official events of the Court,especially during outreach programs.

Medical and Dental ServicesMedical and Dental ServicesMedical and Dental ServicesMedical and Dental ServicesMedical and Dental Services

The SC Clinic provided a total of 36,190 variousmedical services in 2012, of which 15,525 weremedical consultations/treatments, 16,210 werephysical therapy treatments, 2,493 were dentalconsultations/treatment, 902 were laboratorytestings, and 749 were psychological tests. Includedin its services for 2012 were 109 neuro-psychiatricevaluations and 201 pre-employment physicalexaminations.

Of the 16 ailments commonly encountered atthe SC Clinic, respiratory tract infections andcardiovascular complaints topped the list with


3,384 and 3,273 cases, respectively. These werefollowed by endocrine/metabolic ailmentscomprising 3,411 reported cases. Other commonailments experienced by the employees weremusculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, dermatological,neurologic, and urogenital/renal, andophthalmologic in nature.

Of the 2,493 various dental services renderedby the SC Clinic in 2012, 603 were permanentfillings, 414 were oral prophylaxes, 353 were simpleextractions, 347 were post-operative treatments,and 275 were ginggiva/gum treatments.

In addition, the Clinic staff performed 170 casesof temporary filling, 105 dental X-rays, 96 oralconsultations, five difficult extractions, and 125other dental procedures.

Out of the 213 requests for medical evaluationsreceived by the SC Clinic last year, 87 were formagna carta (special leave), 47 were for maternityleave, 26 were for disability retirement, 16 werefor sick leave, two were for rehabilitation leave, andthree were for new applicants.

SC Healthcare Services SC Healthcare Services SC Healthcare Services SC Healthcare Services SC Healthcare Services AgreementAgreementAgreementAgreementAgreement

In addition to its local healthcare services madeavailable through the SC Medical and DentalServices, the Supreme Court has, since 2009,entered into annual healthcare services agreementswith healthcare providers. Under its HealthcareServices Project, the 15 Supreme Court justices,and all other officials and employees, regardless ofstatus of appointment, are covered by the healthcare program, as long as they are in the service asof the date of the contract’s effectivity. Thehealthcare services and benefits under the Projectinclude out-patient services, preventive services,emergency care services, hospitalization/in-patientservices, dental care services, and annual physicalexamination.

Supreme Court Motorcycle, Computer andSupreme Court Motorcycle, Computer andSupreme Court Motorcycle, Computer andSupreme Court Motorcycle, Computer andSupreme Court Motorcycle, Computer andHandgun Handgun Handgun Handgun Handgun Acquisition Program (SC-MCHAP)Acquisition Program (SC-MCHAP)Acquisition Program (SC-MCHAP)Acquisition Program (SC-MCHAP)Acquisition Program (SC-MCHAP)

The Court offers interest-free loans for theacquisition of a motorcycle, computer or handgununder the Supreme Court Motorcycle, Computer,and Handgun Acquisition Program (SC-MCHAP).These loans are charged against the 20 percentof the JDF where the said portion of the Fundshall be used for office equipment and facilitiesof the Courts located where the legal fees arecollected.

A.A.A.A.A. The Motorcycle Motorcycle Motorcycle Motorcycle Motorcycle Acquisition ProgramAcquisition ProgramAcquisition ProgramAcquisition ProgramAcquisition Program(MAP)(MAP)(MAP)(MAP)(MAP) grants a loan of P50,000.00 which initiallywas to be paid in installment within three years,pursuant to the Resolution of the Court En BancNo. A.M. 99-8-12 SC dated October 19, 1999. Theinstallment payment terms was howeverextended to five years through OCA Circular No.15-2002 dated June 7, 2002. As provided underthe En Banc Resolution on the MAP, the loanapplicant shall have the option to choose the modeof payment he wants – either through salarydeduction or his share in the JDF.

B.B.B.B.B. The Computer Computer Computer Computer Computer Acquisition ProgramAcquisition ProgramAcquisition ProgramAcquisition ProgramAcquisition Program(CAP) for Lawyers, Justices, and Judges (CAP) for Lawyers, Justices, and Judges (CAP) for Lawyers, Justices, and Judges (CAP) for Lawyers, Justices, and Judges (CAP) for Lawyers, Justices, and Judges offersfinancial assistance to qualified justices, judges,and court attorneys who wish to acquire acomputer through loans and staggered paymentschemes. Pursuant to the Resolution of the CourtEn Banc in A.M. No. 05-09-18 SC dated September20, 2005, the CAP offers a loan of P36,000.00, whichcan be paid with a monthly deduction of P1,000.00from the monthly JDF allowance.

The CAP for other qualified court employeesgrants a loan for a maximum amount ofP30,000.00 with a payment term of 30 monthlyinstallments pursuant to Court En BancResolution A.M. No. 05-5-17 SC dated June 7,2005, as amended by the En Banc Resolution ofthe Court dated June 20, 2006. Loans notexceeding P24,000.00 shall be paid in 24 equalmonthly installments.

C.C.C.C.C. The Handgun Handgun Handgun Handgun Handgun Acquisition ProgramAcquisition ProgramAcquisition ProgramAcquisition ProgramAcquisition Program(HAP)(HAP)(HAP)(HAP)(HAP) offers loans to judges in an amount notexceeding P50,000.00 which is payable in 36monthly installments, pursuant to Court EnBanc Resolution A.M. No. 08-3-13 –SC datedSeptember 30, 2008.

Permission to TPermission to TPermission to TPermission to TPermission to Teacheacheacheacheach

In accordance with En Banc Resolution datedJune 4, 1974 and OCA Circular No. 62-97 dated


October 9, 1997, all judges and personnel of thecourts may be allowed to teach, subject to therules and regulations specified therein.

Other Government BenefitsOther Government BenefitsOther Government BenefitsOther Government BenefitsOther Government Benefits

SC employees also enjoy other governmentbenefit such as those coming from theGovernment Service Insurance System, PAG-IBIG, PhilHealth, and Employees’ Compensationand State Insurance Fund Benefits.

Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)BenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefits

All employees who have not reached thecompulsory retirement age, regardless ofemployment status, are required to avail ofmembership in the GSIS, to be covered with lifeinsurance upon entrance to duty.

PPPPPAG-IBIG Fund BenefitsAG-IBIG Fund BenefitsAG-IBIG Fund BenefitsAG-IBIG Fund BenefitsAG-IBIG Fund Benefits

Membership in the PAG-IBIG Fund iscompulsory upon all employees covered by theGSIS, irrespective of their employment status,and their employers. Members can avail ofbenefits such as dividends, return ofcontributions, portability of membership, optionalwithdrawal of contributions, housing features,death benefits, and various short-term loans andother benefits programs.

PhilHealth BenefitsPhilHealth BenefitsPhilHealth BenefitsPhilHealth BenefitsPhilHealth Benefits

Employees with PhilHealth ID cards canbenefit from quality and affordable healthcareservices through PhilHealth’s administrationof the National Health Insurance Program.

Employees ’ Compensation and StateEmployees ’ Compensation and StateEmployees ’ Compensation and StateEmployees ’ Compensation and StateEmployees ’ Compensation and StateInsurance Fund BenefitsInsurance Fund BenefitsInsurance Fund BenefitsInsurance Fund BenefitsInsurance Fund Benefits

Created under PD No. 626 which took effecton January 1, 1975, the employees ’compensation benefits or disability benefitscomes as a compensation package for bothpublic and private sector employees and theirdependents in the event of work-related injury,sickness, disability or death. The employee isnot obliged to contribute any amount to theprogram as it is a purely employer-basedcontribution benefit. The GSIS administersthe program for the public sector, and theSocial Security System for the private sector.

Retirement BenefitsRetirement BenefitsRetirement BenefitsRetirement BenefitsRetirement Benefits

Retirement benefits of Justices, judges andofficials with judicial rank are governed by RA910, as amended by RA 9946, while RA 660,RA 1616, and RA 8291 amending PD 1146 arelaws governing the retirement of employees.Revised Administrative Circular No. 81-2010laid out the guidelines on the implementationof RA 9946.


THE WAY FORWARD:THE FOUR PILLARS OF JUDICIAL REFORM

INSTITUTING INTEGRITY AND RESTORING PUBLICTRUST AND CREDIBILITY

On July 3, 2013, the Chief Justice launchedan enhanced program of interaction among thepillars of the justice system by convening, after ahiatus, the Justice Sector Coordinating CouncilJustice Sector Coordinating CouncilJustice Sector Coordinating CouncilJustice Sector Coordinating CouncilJustice Sector Coordinating Council.This Council includes the Secretaries of Justiceand DILG, and with them, the prosecutionservice, the PAO, and the PNP. A stricter systemto ensure full attendance by witnesses, especially

government witnesses including the police will beimplemented by the Council and undue delays byany of the pillars of justice will not be brooked.

ENSURING PREDICTABILITY, RATIONALITY, SPEED,AND RESPONSIVENESS OF JUDICIAL ACTIONS

In 2013, the Supreme Court (SC) of thePhilippines continued the Enhanced Justice onEnhanced Justice onEnhanced Justice onEnhanced Justice onEnhanced Justice onWheels (EJOW) programWheels (EJOW) programWheels (EJOW) programWheels (EJOW) programWheels (EJOW) program, which sends mobilecourts (buses) to the different jails in the country

THE YEAR 2013 THUS FAR


to expedite the trial of criminal cases. Otherthan the jail and docket decongestioncomponent of the EJOW, the program alsoconsists of jail visitation, court-annexedmediation, medical and dental mission, free legalaid to inmates, information and disseminationcampaign for barangay officials, and a teambuilding seminar for court employees. It alsolaunched the Judgment Day program which,together with the EJOW, enabled the releaseof a total of 790 accused since August 2012.

The recently launched Judgment Day programJudgment Day programJudgment Day programJudgment Day programJudgment Day programaims to decongest jails by bringing trial courtjudges to jails to conduct hearings. The SC pilot-tested the program simultaneously in Manila,Quezon City, Angeles City, Cebu City, and DavaoCity on June 18, 2013.

Together, the EJOW and Judgment Dayprograms resolved a total of 1,488 civil and criminalcases to date.

In addition to the new Judgment Day program,the Supreme Court also since August 2012 haslaunched four additional sets of programs. The firstelectronic court systemelectronic court systemelectronic court systemelectronic court systemelectronic court system for trial courts in QuezonCity was presented to the public on June 14, 2013.The E-court program aims to speed up theassignment and verification of cases, and to provideinstantaneous information retrieval for the public,judges, and court personnel, thereby ensuringtransparency and reducing some possible sourcesof corruption. .

The Hustisyeah! Case Docket DecongestionHustisyeah! Case Docket DecongestionHustisyeah! Case Docket DecongestionHustisyeah! Case Docket DecongestionHustisyeah! Case Docket DecongestionProgramProgramProgramProgramProgram was operationalized and presented tothe media on July 17, 2013. The program is anintense inventory, assessment andimplementation of court-specific decongestionplans. The initial number of courts receiving thisintense decongestion effort is 34, with one courtbeing choked with more than 2,200 cases thatthe incumbent judge inherited from herpredecessors.

Most significantly, the Supreme Court sinceAugust 2012 has promulgated new rules ofnew rules ofnew rules ofnew rules ofnew rules ofprocedure procedure procedure procedure procedure that are aimed at reducing litigationtime, use of too much paper, and the start ofelectronic filing of pleadings in the SupremeCourt. These are the Judicial Affidavit Ruleand the Efficient Use of Paper Rule. Likewise,the National Conference on the Revision of theRules on Civil Procedure was concluded onJune 30, 2013, with the proposed final draft tobe turned-over to the Court in August of the


same year. The Supreme Court continues tostudy reforms in other rules of procedureintended to further decongest jails and cut downlitigation time in both civil and criminal cases.

To further aid in the faster processing of casesin courts, the government has reduced the vacancyvacancyvacancyvacancyvacancyrate of the judiciary rate of the judiciary rate of the judiciary rate of the judiciary rate of the judiciary to 22.63% as of 18 June2013 (87 vacancies). The Office of the Presidentis now studying the list of judicial nominees bythe Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which willfurther reduce the vacancy to 18.86 up to 20.21%.1

DEVELOPING EFFICIENTAND EFFECTIVE HUMAN RESOURCES

All Supreme Court offices are currentlyconducting process mapping and analysis. This isthe first step towards developing competencies ofjudicial staff and employees by an effectiveresource rationalization and development therebyensuring that there is a mix of skills and positionsto ensure that qualifications and skills are alignedto ensure effectiveness and efficiency.

A study on the case carrying capacity ofcase carrying capacity ofcase carrying capacity ofcase carrying capacity ofcase carrying capacity oflower court judges lower court judges lower court judges lower court judges lower court judges will be undertaken to1Annaliza S. Ty-Capacite, JBC Executive Officer, Memo for the Chief Justice, 18 June 2013.


continuous systems improvement in theadjudicative, administrative and financialfunctions will create the culture of excellenceneeded to improve the quality of dispensationof justice in the country.

Connectivity of all courts is crucial tocontinuous systems improvement. As a start,the Court has distributed USB devices to allcourts nationwide to provide Clerks of Courtwith internet access.

Procurement processes are also reviewedwith the objective of full compliance with themandates of the Government ProcurementReform Act . The Court has updated i tsprocurement plan and has also conducted abidders’ forum to address the problem of failedbiddings. For the first time, the SupremeCourt has started procuring common usesupplies from the Procurement Service (PS)and wi l l be working towards a greaterpartnership with the PS to provide the needsfor office supplies of all courts throughout thecountry.

The Court also started the ATM payrollsystem for lower court employees in Februarytargeting full roll-out by the end of the year.

Repairs and rehabilitation work for allAnsaldo type buildings throughout the countryare currently underway. This will be followedby rehabilitation of all court buildings andconstruction of new ones to ensure that even theappearance of our Halls of Justice will inspireconfidence in the justice system.

Underscoring the importance of transparencyand access to public information, the PublicInformation Office (PIO) has, starting fromJanuary 15, 2013, made public through theSupreme Court website audio recordings of theoral arguments of the Court in digital format.It has also put up summaries of pertinentpleadings and, in specific instances, uploadedto the website PDF copies of the actualpleadings and comments. Copies of temporaryrestraining orders or status quo ante orders arealso made public the moment they are issued,through emailed press statements and uploadedactual copies of the orders and writs. Ease ofaccess to information has also been facilitatedby the activation of the PIO’s official twitteraccount, which allows the public to monitor andbe guided by official announcements from theCourt, issued through the PIO, in real time.

provide an analysis o f the work, taskcomposition and workload of judges. Theanalysis should provide useful inputs todefine short-term and long-term directionsin the area of caseloads and staffing that willsupport sustained case decongestion anddelay reduction.

IMPROVING SYSTEMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The process mapping outputs will alsoprovide systems-wide information onprocesses that can be automated andredundancies that must be eliminated. A


sc_annual_12

Documents

level courts

level vertical hierarchy

lower level

thephilippine judiciary

thephilippine commission

lateralvertical hierarchy

municipal trial courts

municipaltrial courts