By: Ambrosio R. Villorente
The Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines held a dialogue with the Business Sector of Aklan on the “Integration of Mediation in Business”.
The dialogue was held at CAP bldg., Kalibo, Aklan on September 30 and attended by provincial businessmen of Aklan and some media personalities.
The Chamber-to-Chamber II Dialogue is geared to clarify and explain the judicial role in business and economic cases. The dialogue endeavored also to explain what is the “Alternative Dispute Resolution” (ADR) all about as provided for in R.A. 9285 approved on April 2, 2004.
Hon. Niovady M. Marin, presiding judge of Branch 6, RTC, Kalibo, Aklan welcomed the guests, discussion leaders and participants to the dialogue. Atty. Gleoresty Guerra of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court gave the opening remarks. Atty. Guerra also spoke on the “Modes of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Its Integration in Business.”
According to him, ADR means any process or procedure used to resolve a dispute or controversy, other than by adjudication of a presiding judge of a court or an office of a government agency in which a neutral third party participates to assist in the resolution of the issues.”
In general, all civil and commercial disputes are covered by ADR. It does not include however, 1. labor disputes, 2. civil status of the person, 3. validity of marriage, 4. any ground for legal separation, the jurisdiction of courts, 5. legitime, 6. criminal liability, and 7. those which by law should be compromised.
Under the Supreme Court approved guidelines, those referable for mediation are:
a. All civil cases settlement of estates and cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, except those which by law may not be compromised;
b. Cases cognizable by the Lupong Tagapamayapa under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law;
c. The civil aspect of BP 22 (Bouncing checks law) Cases; and
d. The civil aspect of quasi offenses under Title 14 (criminal negligence) of the Revised Penal Code.
Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential. It shall not be subject to discovery and shall be inadmissible in any adversarial proceeding, whether judicial or quasi-judicial. A party may designate a lawyer or any other person to provide assistance in the mediation. A waiver of this right shall be made in writing by the party waiving. A waiver of participation or legal presentation may be restricted at any time.
Under R.A. 9285, it created the office of the ADR as an agency under the Dept. of Justice to promote ADR and accredit ADR practitioners like conciliators, arbitrators and mediators.
Atty. Guerra gave some tips to avoid litigation which are: 1. explore and exhaust efforts at conciliation, 2. look for a pipeline, 3. avoid lawyers who are merely mercenaries, 4. go to a dispute resolution center or an ADR practitioner, and 5. submit to an agreement.
“The Role of the Judiciary as the Third Branch of Government” was presented by ACA Reuben P. dela Cruzof the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court.
He told the participants of the two judicial powers which are: 1. Adjudication of civil, criminal and other cases, and 2. Judicial review to rule laws unconstitutional.
He stressed that “the restoration of our citizenry’s trust and confidence in the administration of justice forms the basis for peace, order and stability…that the maintenance of a peaceful and orderly society serves as incentive for economic growth and development”.
The judiciary’s Reform Agenda was discussed by Dir. Susana N. Gavino of the Program Management Office of the Supreme Court. According to Dir. Gavino, the program for judicial reform is anchored on: a. impartiality, access to and speed of judicial systems; b. judicial autonomy and self-governance; c. streamlined institutional structure and operations; d. decentralization; e. information systems-based operations, planning performance management and decision making; f. competitive and equitable remuneration; g. continuing capability improvement; h. transparency and accountability in appointments to the Bench, i. consensus-building and collaboration with civil society.
Gavino confessed, judicial reform is very slow to accomplish because of several challenges confronting the judiciary like case congestion and delay. She also cited reform issues like deficient institutional system and budget limitation.
According to Dir. Gavino, of the 2,258 total positions for justices/judges, only 1,562 are filled up. Some 696 or 30.82 percent are vacant. There is only judge per 53,000 persons in the Philippines or 18 judges per million Filipinos unlike, as she compared Australia with 41 judges per million population, United Kingdom with 51 per million, Canada with 75 per million and united States with 107 per million.
This high ratio of the number of judges to population explains why there is a very high pending cases in the Philippines Courts. As of December 31, 2003, there were 810,523 cases pending in courts. In 2004, some 472,740 were filled in courts. Of these cases, 348,764 were decided and 153,606 were archived. As of December 31, 2004, some 813,518 are still pending in various courts levels. /MP mailto:madyaas_pen@yahoo.com
The Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines held a dialogue with the Business Sector of Aklan on the “Integration of Mediation in Business”.
The dialogue was held at CAP bldg., Kalibo, Aklan on September 30 and attended by provincial businessmen of Aklan and some media personalities.
The Chamber-to-Chamber II Dialogue is geared to clarify and explain the judicial role in business and economic cases. The dialogue endeavored also to explain what is the “Alternative Dispute Resolution” (ADR) all about as provided for in R.A. 9285 approved on April 2, 2004.
Hon. Niovady M. Marin, presiding judge of Branch 6, RTC, Kalibo, Aklan welcomed the guests, discussion leaders and participants to the dialogue. Atty. Gleoresty Guerra of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court gave the opening remarks. Atty. Guerra also spoke on the “Modes of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Its Integration in Business.”
According to him, ADR means any process or procedure used to resolve a dispute or controversy, other than by adjudication of a presiding judge of a court or an office of a government agency in which a neutral third party participates to assist in the resolution of the issues.”
In general, all civil and commercial disputes are covered by ADR. It does not include however, 1. labor disputes, 2. civil status of the person, 3. validity of marriage, 4. any ground for legal separation, the jurisdiction of courts, 5. legitime, 6. criminal liability, and 7. those which by law should be compromised.
Under the Supreme Court approved guidelines, those referable for mediation are:
a. All civil cases settlement of estates and cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, except those which by law may not be compromised;
b. Cases cognizable by the Lupong Tagapamayapa under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law;
c. The civil aspect of BP 22 (Bouncing checks law) Cases; and
d. The civil aspect of quasi offenses under Title 14 (criminal negligence) of the Revised Penal Code.
Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential. It shall not be subject to discovery and shall be inadmissible in any adversarial proceeding, whether judicial or quasi-judicial. A party may designate a lawyer or any other person to provide assistance in the mediation. A waiver of this right shall be made in writing by the party waiving. A waiver of participation or legal presentation may be restricted at any time.
Under R.A. 9285, it created the office of the ADR as an agency under the Dept. of Justice to promote ADR and accredit ADR practitioners like conciliators, arbitrators and mediators.
Atty. Guerra gave some tips to avoid litigation which are: 1. explore and exhaust efforts at conciliation, 2. look for a pipeline, 3. avoid lawyers who are merely mercenaries, 4. go to a dispute resolution center or an ADR practitioner, and 5. submit to an agreement.
“The Role of the Judiciary as the Third Branch of Government” was presented by ACA Reuben P. dela Cruzof the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court.
He told the participants of the two judicial powers which are: 1. Adjudication of civil, criminal and other cases, and 2. Judicial review to rule laws unconstitutional.
He stressed that “the restoration of our citizenry’s trust and confidence in the administration of justice forms the basis for peace, order and stability…that the maintenance of a peaceful and orderly society serves as incentive for economic growth and development”.
The judiciary’s Reform Agenda was discussed by Dir. Susana N. Gavino of the Program Management Office of the Supreme Court. According to Dir. Gavino, the program for judicial reform is anchored on: a. impartiality, access to and speed of judicial systems; b. judicial autonomy and self-governance; c. streamlined institutional structure and operations; d. decentralization; e. information systems-based operations, planning performance management and decision making; f. competitive and equitable remuneration; g. continuing capability improvement; h. transparency and accountability in appointments to the Bench, i. consensus-building and collaboration with civil society.
Gavino confessed, judicial reform is very slow to accomplish because of several challenges confronting the judiciary like case congestion and delay. She also cited reform issues like deficient institutional system and budget limitation.
According to Dir. Gavino, of the 2,258 total positions for justices/judges, only 1,562 are filled up. Some 696 or 30.82 percent are vacant. There is only judge per 53,000 persons in the Philippines or 18 judges per million Filipinos unlike, as she compared Australia with 41 judges per million population, United Kingdom with 51 per million, Canada with 75 per million and united States with 107 per million.
This high ratio of the number of judges to population explains why there is a very high pending cases in the Philippines Courts. As of December 31, 2003, there were 810,523 cases pending in courts. In 2004, some 472,740 were filled in courts. Of these cases, 348,764 were decided and 153,606 were archived. As of December 31, 2004, some 813,518 are still pending in various courts levels. /MP mailto:madyaas_pen@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment