Volume XIII, Issue No. 49 January-March 2011

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS 1January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

January to March 2011 Volume XIII, Issue No. 49

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

SUPREME COURT

RE

PU

BLIC

OF THE PHILIP

PI N

ES

BATAS AT BAYAN

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


(Continued on next page)

Tenth Multi-Sectoral Seminar-Workshop onAgrarian Justice for the Province of NegrosOccidental

Development Partners: AJFI, DAR, DOJ, PAO, IDEALSDate: February 2 to 4, 2011Venue: L’Fisher Hotel, Bacolod CityParticipants: 61 comprising judges, prosecutors,representatives from PAO, DAR, PNP and NGOs ofNegros Occidental

59th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for NewlyAppointed Judges

Date: February 9 to 18, 2011Venue: College of Saint Benilde Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 34 newly appointed judges and 16promoted judges

A. NEW APPOINTMENTS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIIHon. Cielitolindo A. LuyunRTC Br. 36, Gapan City, Nueva Ecija

REGION IVHon. Rose Marie M. AustriaRTC Br. 87, Rosario, BatangasHon. Marie Claire Victoria M. SordanRTC Br. 99, Antipolo City, RizalHon. Purita M. DeynataRTC Br. 100, Antipolo City, RizalHon. Miguel S. AsuncionRTC Br. 97, Antipolo City, Rizal

REGION VHon. Elmer M. LanuzoRTC Br. 6, Legaspi City, Albay

REGION VIHon. Estefanio S. Libutan, Jr.RTC Br. 50, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental

REGION VIIIHon. Janet M. CabalonaRTC Br. 33, Calbiga, SamarHon. Feliciano P. AguilarRTC Br. 41, Gandara, Samar

REGION IXHon. Josefino P. BaelRTC Br. 31, Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay

REGION XHon. Judy Sia GalvezRTC Br. 42, Medina, Misamis Oriental

Hon. Giovanni Alfred H. NavarroRTC Br. 27, Gingoong City, Misamis OrientalHon. Mirabeaus A. UndalokRTC Br. 43, Gingoong City, Misamis Oriental

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Hon. Flordeliza M. SilaoMeTC Br. 59, Mandaluyong City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

REGION IVHon. Ira Fritzie C. Cruz-RojoMTCC Br. 3, Antipolo City, Rizal

REGION VIHon. Francisco S. PandoMTCC Br. 4, Bacolod City, Negros OccidentalHon. Kristine B. Tiangco-VinculadoMTCC Br. 01, Roxas City, Capiz

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIHon. Marvin P. AnicetoMTC Ballesteros, CagayanHon. Mira Minda R. Cabulisan-CallanganMTC Alcala, CagayanHon. Victor R. CumigadMTC Abulug, CagayanHon. Isidro S. ReyesMTC Rizal, CagayanHon. Clifford Lambertini C. SobrevillaMTC Buguey, CagayanHon. Lornabeth T. UcolMTC Alicia, Isabela

REGION IIIHon. Francisco M. BeleyMTC San Rafael, BulacanHon. Snooky Maria Ana B. SagayoMTC Pandi, Bulacan

REGION VIIIHon. Purita F. GobenciongMTC Alang-Alang, LeyteHon. Luz P. NavaretteMTC Hilongos, Leyte

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIHon. Blaise S. Barcena8th MCTC: Aparri-Calayan (Br. 2), Cagayan

REGION VIHon. Phoebe G. Balbin6th MCTC: Ilog-Candoni, Negros Occidental


Resource Persons Discussion-Workshop on theCapacity Building Seminar on EnvironmentalLaws and the Rules of Procedure forEnvironmental Cases

Development Partners: USAID, USDOI, SC-PMO, DENRDate: February 24 to 25, 2011Venue: Century Park Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 44 comprising Supreme Court and Courtof Appeals Justices, PHILJA officials and trainingspecialists, DENR officials, BFAR representatives,members of the academe, USDOI and USAIDrepresentatives, and environmental lawyers

Final Validation Workshop and Writeshop onthe Helpbook on Human Rights Issues:Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances

Development Partner: TAFDate: February 25 to 27, 2011Venue: Regency Lagoon Resort, AklanParticipants: 13 comprising Helpbook editorialconsultants, writers, editors, and documentors

Forum on the Philippine Membership in thePermanent Court of Arbitration andInternational Dispute Resolution

Development Partners: DFA Office of Legal Affairs, UPLCInstitute of International Legal StudiesDate: March 2, 2011Venue: UP College of Law, Quezon CityParticipants: 220 comprising representatives fromparticipating government offices, namely, OP,Ombudsman, CTA, SB, PHILJA, PMCO, DFA, DTI, DOJ,OSG, RTC judges of Manila, Quezon City, and MakatiCity, and members of the academe

16th National Convention and Seminar of thePhilippine Women Judges Association

Theme: Stopping the Abuse of Power for the Purposesof Sexual Exploitation: Naming, Shaming and EndingSextortionDate: March 2 to 4, 2011Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 288 comprising women justices and judges

Information Dissemination Through a Dialoguebetween Barangay Officials and Court Officials

City of San Fernando and the Municipalities of PampangaDate: March 10, 2011Venue: Bale Katimawan Hall, Pampanga PoliceProvincial Office, City of San Fernando, PampangaParticipants: 87 barangay officials

City of Santiago, IsabelaDate: March 25, 2011Venue: Bulwagan ng Mamamayan, Santiago City,IsabelaParticipants: 190 barangay officials

Cities of Cauayan and Roxas, IsabelaDate: March 28, 2011Venue: Cauayan City Coliseum, Cauayan, IsabelaParticipants: 289 barangay officials

Municipality of Ilagan, IsabelaDate: March 29, 2011Venue: Ilagan Municipal Hall, Ilagan, IsabelaParticipants: 204 barangay officials

22nd Pre-Judicature Program

Date: March 7 to 18, 2011Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, Roxas Blvd., ManilaParticipants: 54 lawyers, namely:

1. Atty. Elmer H. Alea2. Atty. Rogerine T. Andrada3. Atty. Clemartin B. Arboleda4. Atty. Rean G. Arizala-Joaquin5. Atty. Juvenal N. Bella6. Atty. Joseph Raymond D. Borja7. Atty. Evangeline C. Cabochan-Santos8. Atty. Leilanie Bernadette C. Cabras9. Atty. Elena Melita L. Chica-Lledo10. Atty. Dante R. Corminal11. Atty. Esmeralda B. David12. Atty. Julieta Baccutan Estamo13. Atty. Rizalee Quintilla Gimena-Angeles14. Atty. Louie T. Guerrero15. Atty. Ma. Antonia L. Largoza-Cantero16. Atty. Albino Dennis C. Macatangay17. Atty. Alfred Roderick T. Manzano18. Atty. Maricel M. Marcial-Oquendo19. Atty. Johnmuel Romano Ritzard D. Mendoza20. Atty. Remiebel U. Mondia21. Atty. Eufel N. Morales22. Atty. Joan C. Mosatalla23. Atty. Trini Anne G. Nieva24. Atty. David T. Paradero25. Atty. Romulo A. Paras, Jr.26. Atty. Joel T. Pelicano27. Atty. Asryman T. Rafanan28. Atty. Rowena H. Rama-Chavez29. Atty. Melchor P. Ridulme30. Atty. Anne Perpetual S. Rivera31. Atty. Jason G. Rodenas32. Atty. Alejandro R. Rodriguez, Jr.33. Atty. Monday D. Samson34. Atty. Oliver T. San Juan35. Atty. Lady Rochelle S. Saymo-Llabres



36. Atty. Henry B. So37. Atty. Eduardo C. Solangon, Jr.38. Atty. Myra Nimfa Solidum-Mendieta39. Atty. Araceli R. Soñas-Crisostomo40. Atty. Albert R. Sordan41. Atty. Julia Cecily Coching Sosito42. Atty. Christine M. Tabasuares-Aba43. Atty. Ruflyne Ngay-os Tade44. Atty. Petronila T. Tañas-Arguelles45. Atty. Myla Teona N. Teologio46. Atty. Reynaldo P. Tomas, Jr.47. Atty. Michael G. Ureta48. Atty. M.A. Christian O. Uy49. Atty. Ma. Milagros G. Uy-Marpuri50. Atty. Amelito A. Velasco51. Atty. Magnolia C. Velez52. Atty. Jerome T. Victor53. Atty. Avelina J. Villegas-Rosario54. Atty. Raphael Kenneth E. Ybañez

Seminar on Speedy Trial and Disposition ofCases

Development Partners: OCA, USAID, ABA-ROLIDate: March 18, 2011Venue: Marco Polo Plaza Hotel, Cebu CityParticipants: 45 comprising selected judges of RTC,MTCC, MTC and MCTC judges of Regions VI, VII, andVIII

Personal Security Training for Judges

Development Partners: OCA, NBIDate: March 22 to 24, 2011Venue: Imperial Palace Suites, Quezon CityParticipants: 52 comprising RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC,and MCTC judges of NCJR, Regions III and IV

Orientation Seminar-Workshop onComparative Analysis between the Family Codeand the Code of Muslim Personal Laws

Date: March 28 to 30, 2011Venue: College of St. Benilde Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 56 comprising RTC, MTCC, MTC, andMCTC judges of NCJR and Region IV

Seminar-Workshop on the Special Rules ofCourt on Alternative Dispute Resolution

Development Partner: ADBDate: March 29 to 31, 2011Venue: El Cielito Hotel, Baguio CityParticipants: 41 comprising Commercial court judgesand Executive and Vice Executive judges of Regions Ito III

JUDICIAL MOVES

Hon. Gabriel T. Ingles Associate Justice, appointed on February 24, 2011

Hon. Victoria Isabel A. Paredes Associate Justice, appointed on March 1, 2011

Hon. Abraham B. Borreta Associate Justice, appointed on March 1, 2011

Hon. Pamela Ann Abella Maxino Associate Justice, appointed on March 1, 2011

Hon. Carmelita Salandanan Manahan Associate Justice, appointed on March 15, 2011

Hon. Melchor Quirino C. Sadang Associate Justice, appointed on March 15, 2011

Hon. Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles Associate Justice, appointed on March 15, 2011

Court of Appeals

PHILJA BULLETIN

JUSTICE ADOLFO S. AZCUNA

Chancellor, Philippine Judicial Academy

PROFESSOR SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA

Editor in Chief

ARMIDA M. SALAZAR

Assistant Editor

ATTY. ORLANDO B. CARIÑO

JOCELYN D. BONDOC

JENIFFER P. SISON

CHRISTINE A. FERRER

Editorial Staff

SARAH JANE S. SALAZAR

Production and Circulation

EDMUNDO M. MOREDO

LETICIA G. JAVIER

Printing Services

The PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin is published quarterly by the Research,Publications and Linkages Office of the Philippine JudicialAcademy, with office at the 3rd Floor of the Supreme CourtCentennial Building, Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue,Manila. Tel: 552-9524; Fax: 552-9621;E-mail:[email protected]; [email protected]: http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS 7NEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTJanuary-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011

New Rulings

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Designation of Court Personnel by an ExecutiveJudge.

In Castro v. Bague, the Sheriff IV of the RTC (Branch1) of Tagbilaran City was designated to act as DeputySheriff in the Office of the Clerk of Court to fill atemporary vacancy. The Court did not question thedesignation since the duties of a Sheriff IV are identicalwith the duties of a Deputy Sheriff as described in the2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court (Manual),which defines the general functions of all courtpersonnel in the judiciary.

Under 2.2.4 of Chapter VI, Volume I of the Manual,the Sheriff IV is tasked with serving writs andprocesses of the court; keeping custody of attachedproperties; and maintaining the record book on writsof execution, writs of attachment, writs of replevin,writs of injunction, and all other processes. Under 2.1.5of the same Chapter, the Deputy Sheriff serves writsand processes of the court; keeps custody of attachedproperties; and maintains the record book on writs ofexecution, writs of attachment, writs of replevin, writsof injunction, and all other processes. Unarguably, theSheriff IV and the Deputy Sheriff perform exactly thesame functions.

The duties of a Legal Researcher in the RTC aredescribed under 2.2.1 of Chapter VI, Volume I of theManual, to wit:

2.2.1.1. verifies authorities on questions of law raisedby parties-litigants in cases brought beforethe Court as may be assigned by thePresiding Judge;

2.2.1.2. prepares memoranda on evidence adducedby the parties after the hearing;

2.2.1.3. prepares outlines of the facts and issuesinvolved in cases set for pre-trial for theguidance of the Presiding Judge;

2.2.1.4. prepares indexes to be attached to therecords showing the important pleadings filed,the pages where they may be found, and ingeneral, the status of the case;

2.2.1.5. prepares and submits to the Branch Clerk ofCourt a monthly list of cases or motionssubmitted for decision or resolution, indicatingtherein the deadlines for acting on the same;and

2.2.1.6. performs such other duties as may beassigned by the Presiding Judge or the BranchClerk of Court.


On the other hand, 2.2.3 of Chapter VI, Volume I ofthe Manual describes the functions of a CourtInterpreter in the RTC thus:

2.2.3.1. acts as translator of the court;

2.2.3.2. attends court hearings;

2.2.3.3. administers oath to witnesses;

2.2.3.4. marks exhibits introduced in evidence andprepares the corresponding list of exhibits;

2.2.3.5. prepares and signs minutes of the courtsession;

2.2.3.6. maintains and keeps custody of record bookof cases calendared for hearing;

2.2.3.7. prepares court calendars and the records ofcases set for hearing; and

2.2.3.8. performs such other functions as may, fromtime to time, be assigned by the Presiding

Judge and/or Branch Clerk of Court.

Notably, the duties of a Legal Researcher are vastlydifferent from those of a Court Interpreter. A LegalResearcher focuses mainly on verifying legalauthorities, drafting memoranda on evidence,outlining facts and issues in cases set for pre-trial,and keeping track of the status of cases. On the otherhand, a Court Interpreter is limited to acting astranslator of the court, administering oaths towitnesses, marking exhibits, preparing minutes ofcourt session, and preparing the court calendar.

While the Manual provides that court personnelmay perform other duties the presiding judge mayassign from time to time, said additional duties mustbe directly related to, and must not significantly varyfrom, the court personnel’s job description. However,in case of a sudden vacancy in a court position, thejudge may temporarily designate a court personnelwith the competence and skills for the position even ifthe duties for such position are different from theprescribed duties of the court personnel. Thetemporary designation shall last only for such periodas is necessary to designate temporarily a courtpersonnel with the appropriate prescribed duties.Such temporary designation cannot go on for anindefinite period, or until the vacancy is filled up likein the designation by Judge Apita to respondent inthis case.

Section 7, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct forCourt Personnel expressly states that court personnelshall not be required to perform any work outside thescope of their job description, thus:

SEC. 7. Court personnel shall not be required toperform any work or duty outside the scope oftheir assigned job description. (Emphasis supplied)

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin8 NEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURTNEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

In Re: Report of Senior Chief Staff Officer Antonina A.Soria on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Accounts ofClerk of Court Elena E. Jabao, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,Jordan-Buenavista-Nueva Ecija, Guimaras, the Clerk ofCourt of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ofJordan-Buenavista-Nueva Valencia in Guimaras whowas designated to act as Court Stenographer inaddition to her duties as Clerk of Court to fill in for thenewly appointed Court Stenographer who was notyet well versed in stenography. The designationpassed the Court’s scrutiny as the duties of a CourtStenographer are subsumed under the generalresponsibilities of a Clerk of Court since Clerks of Courtexercise control and supervision over CourtStenographers.

In the instant case, both Legal Researcher andCourt Interpreter are subject to the control andsupervision of the Clerk of Court. Since LegalResearchers do not exercise control and supervisionover Court Interpreters, the duties of a CourtInterpreter cannot be deemed subsumed under thegeneral functions of a Legal Researcher.

While the executive judge may not require courtpersonnel to perform work outside the scope of theirjob description, except duties that are identical withor are subsumed under their present functions, theexecutive judge may reassign court personnel ofmultiple-branch courts to another branch within thesame area of administrative supervision when thereis a vacancy or when the interest of the service requires,after consultation with the presiding judges of thebranches concerned. Section 6, Chapter VII of A.M. No.03-8-02-SC Re: Guidelines on the Selection and Designationof Executive Judges and Defining Their Powers, Prerogativesand Duties so provides:

SEC. 6. Reassignment of lower court personnel. –(a) Executive Judges of the RTCs shall continueto have authority to effect the followingtemporary assignments within his/her area ofadministrative supervision:

(1) Personnel of one branch to anotherbranch of a multiple-branch court;

x x x x

Reassignments shall be made only in case ofvacancy in a position in a branch, or when theinterest of the service so requires. In either case,the assignment shall be made only afterconsultation with the Presiding Judges of thebranches concerned. In case of any disagreement,the matter shall be referred to the OCA forresolution. (Emphasis supplied)

However, consistent with Section 7, Canon IV ofthe Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, the

New RulingsADMINISTRATIVE LAW (continued)

reassignment of court personnel in multiple-branchcourts to another branch within the same area of theexecutive judge’s administrative supervision mustinvolve (1) work within the scope of the courtpersonnel’s job description or (2) duties that areidentical with or are subsumed under the courtpersonnel’s present functions.

In this case, since respondent’s job description isthat of Legal Researcher, Judge Apita may notdesignate her to act as Court Interpreter indefinitelyor until the vacancy is filled up. The said designationwill require respondent to perform work, which isoutside the scope of her job description and whichinvolves duties not identical with or subsumed underrespondent’s current functions. To do so would violatethe express language of Section 7, Canon IV of the Codeof Conduct for Court Personnel.

This rule is rooted in the time-honoredconstitutional principle that public office is a publictrust. Hence, all public officers and employees,including court personnel in the judiciary, must servethe public with utmost responsibility and efficiency.Exhorting court personnel to exhibit the highest senseof dedication to their assigned duty necessarilyprecludes requiring them to perform any work outsidethe scope of their assigned job description, save forduties that are identical with or are subsumed undertheir present functions.

Indeed, requiring a Legal Researcher to performthe work of a Court Interpreter is counter-productiveand does not serve the ends of justice. Not only willrespondent jeopardize her present position as LegalResearcher by constantly shifting from one job toanother, her qualification as Court Interpreter willalso be put in question. This arrangement does nothingbut compromise court personnel’s professionalresponsibility and optimum efficiency in theperformance of their respective roles in thedispensation of justice.

Judge Apita may not designate respondent to actas Court Interpreter for an indefinite period or until anew Court Interpreter is appointed. To meet a suddenvacancy or emergency, Judge Apita may only designaterespondent in an acting capacity pending designationof a Court Interpreter from another branch of the RTCof Tacloban City to temporarily fill the vacancy inBranch 7 of the same court. This would have been inaccord with pertinent rules governing thereassignment of, and the code of conduct for, courtpersonnel.

(Carpio, J., Executive Judge Leonilo B. Apita, Regional TrialCourt, Branch 7, Tacloban City. v. Marissa M. Estanislao, CourtLegal Researcher II, Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Tacloban

City, A.M. P-06-2206, March 16, 2011.)


CIVIL LAW

Probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad.

Our laws do not prohibit the probate of willsexecuted by foreigners abroad although the same havenot as yet been probated and allowed in the countriesof their execution. A foreign will can be given legaleffects in our jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Codestates that the will of an alien who is abroad produceseffect in the Philippines if made in accordance withthe formalities prescribed by the law of the placewhere he resides, or according to the formalitiesobserved in his country.

In this connection, Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if the decedentis an inhabitant of a foreign country, the RTC of theprovince where he has an estate may take cognizanceof the settlement of such estate. Sections 1 and 2 ofRule 76 further state that the executor, devisee, orlegatee named in the will, or any other personinterested in the estate, may, at any time after the deathof the testator, petition the court having jurisdictionto have the will allowed, whether the same be in hispossession or not, or is lost or destroyed.

Our rules require merely that the petition for theallowance of a will must show, so far as known to thepetitioner: (a) the jurisdictional facts; (b) the names,ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and deviseesof the testator or decedent; (c) the probable value andcharacter of the property of the estate; (d) the name ofthe person for whom letters are prayed, and (e) if thewill has not been delivered to the court, the name ofthe person having custody of it. Jurisdictional facts referto the fact of death of the decedent, his residence at thetime of his death in the province where the probatecourt is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a foreigncountry, the estate he left in such province. The rulesdo not require proof that the foreign will has alreadybeen allowed and probated in the country of itsexecution.

In insisting that Ruperta’s will should have beenfirst probated and allowed by the court of California,petitioners Manuel and Benjamin obviously have inmind the procedure for the reprobate of will beforeadmitting it here. But, reprobate or re-authenticationof a will already probated and allowed in a foreigncountry is different from that probate where the willis presented for the first time before a competent court.Reprobate is specifically governed by Rule 77 of theRules of Court. Contrary to petitioners’ stance, sincethis latter rule applies only to reprobate of a will, itcannot be made to apply to the present case. Inreprobate, the local court acknowledges as binding

the findings of the foreign probate court provided itsjurisdiction over the matter can be established.

Besides, petitioners’ stand is fraught withimpracticality. If the instituted heirs do not have themeans to go abroad for the probate of the will, it is asgood as depriving them outright of their inheritance,since our law requires that no will shall pass eitherreal or personal property unless the will has beenproved and allowed by the proper court.

Notably, the assailed RTC order of June 17, 2004,is nothing more than an initial ruling that the courtcan take cognizance of the petition for probate ofRuperta’s will and that, in the meantime, it wasdesignating Ernesto as special administrator of theestate. The parties have yet to present evidence of thedue execution of the will, i.e., the testator’s state ofmind at the time of the execution and compliance withthe formalities required of wills by the laws ofCalifornia. This explains the trial court’s directive forErnesto to submit the duly authenticated copy ofRuperta’s will and the certified copies of the Laws ofSuccession and Probate of Will of California.

(Abad, J., In Re: In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Willof Ruperta Palaganas with Prayer for the Appointment of SpecialAdministrator, Manuel Miguel Palaganas and Benjamin GregorioPalaganas v. Ernesto Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, January 26,2011.)

REMEDIAL LAW

Fresh period rule applicable in criminal cases.

In Neypes, the Court modified the rule in civil caseson the counting of the 15-day period within which toappeal. The Court categorically set a fresh period of15 days from a denial of a motion for reconsiderationwithin which to appeal, thus:

The Supreme Court may promulgate proceduralrules in all courts. It has the sole prerogative toamend, repeal or even establish new rules for amore simplified and inexpensive process, andthe speedy disposition of cases. In the rulesgoverning appeals to it and to the Court ofAppeals, particularly Rules 42, 43 and 45, theCourt allows extensions of time, based onjustifiable and compelling reasons, for parties tofile their appeals. These extensions may consistof 15 days or more.

To standardize the appeal periods provided inthe Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunityto appeal their cases, the Court deems it practicalto allow a fresh period of 15 days within which tofile the notice of appeal in the Regional TrialCourt, counted from receipt of the orderdismissing a motion for a new trial or motion forreconsideration.



New RulingsREMEDIAL LAW (continued)

Henceforth, this “fresh period rule” shall also applyto Rule 40 governing appeals from the MunicipalTrial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42on petitions for review from the Regional TrialCourts to the Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appealsfrom quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appealsand Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to theSupreme Court. The new rule aims to regimentor make the appeal period uniform, to be countedfrom receipt of the order denying the motion fornew trial, motion for reconsideration (whether

full or partial) or any final order or resolution.

The Court also reiterated its ruling that it is thedenial of the motion for reconsideration thatconstituted the final order which finally disposed ofthe issues involved in the case.

The raison d’être for the “fresh period rule” is tostandardize the appeal period provided in the Rulesand do away with the confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period should be counted. Thus, the 15-day period to appeal is no longer interrupted by thefiling of a motion for new trial or motion forreconsideration; litigants today need not concernthemselves with counting the balance of the 15-dayperiod to appeal since the 15-day period is nowcounted from receipt of the order dismissing a motionfor new trial or motion for reconsideration or any finalorder or resolution.

While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civilcases, the Court’s pronouncement of a “fresh period”to appeal should equally apply to the period for appealin criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of theRevised Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the followingreasons:

First, BP 129, as amended, the substantive law onwhich the Rules of Court is based, makes no distinctionbetween the periods to appeal in a civil case and in acriminal case. Section 39 of BP 129 categorically statesthat “[t]he period for appeal from final orders, resolutions,awards, judgments, or decisions of any court in all cases shallbe 15 days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution,award, judgment, or decision appealed from.” Ubi lex nondistinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. When the law makesno distinction, we (this Court) also ought not torecognize any distinction.

Second, the provisions of Section 3 of Rule 41 of the1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 6 of Rule122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, thoughdifferently worded, mean exactly the same. There isno substantial difference between the two provisionsinsofar as legal results are concerned – the appealperiod stops running upon the filing of a motion fornew trial or reconsideration and starts to run again

upon receipt of the order denying said motion for newtrial or reconsideration. It was this situation thatNeypes addressed in civil cases. No reason exists whythis situation in criminal cases cannot be similarlyaddressed.

Third, while the Court did not consider in Neypesthe ordinary appeal period in criminal cases underSection 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of CriminalProcedure since it involved a purely civil case, it didinclude Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedureon petitions for review from the RTCs to the Court ofAppeals (CA), and Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure governing appeals by certiorari to this Court,both of which also apply to appeals in criminal cases,as provided by Section 3 of Rule 122 of the RevisedRules of Criminal Procedure, thus:

SEC. 3. How appeal taken. – x x x x

(b) The appeal to the Court of Appeals in casesdecided by the Regional Trial Court in theexercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall beby petition for review under Rule 42.

x x x x

Except as provided in the last paragraph ofSection 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to theSupreme Court shall be by petition for review

on certiorari under Rule 45.

Clearly, if the modes of appeal to the CA (in caseswhere the RTC exercised its appellate jurisdiction)and to this Court in civil and criminal cases are thesame, no cogent reason exists why the periods toappeal from the RTC (in the exercise of its originaljurisdiction) to the CA in civil and criminal casesunder Section 3 of Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure and Section 6 of Rule 122 of the RevisedRules of Criminal Procedure should be treateddifferently.

Were we to strictly interpret the “fresh periodrule” in Neypes and make it applicable only to theperiod to appeal in civil cases, we shall effectivelyfoster and encourage an absurd situation where alitigant in a civil case will have a better right to appealthan an accused in a criminal case – a situation thatgives undue favor to civil litigants and unjustlydiscriminates against the accused-appellants. Itsuggests a double standard of treatment when we favor asituation where property interests are at stake, asagainst a situation where liberty stands to beprejudiced. We must emphatically reject this doubleand unequal standard for being contrary to reason.Over time, courts have recognized with almostpedantic adherence that what is contrary to reason isnot allowed in law – Quod est inconveniens, aut contrarationem non permissum est in lege.

(Continued on page 19)


POLITICAL LAW

Doctrine of qualified political agency.

As early as 1939, in Villena v. Secretary of Interior, thisCourt has recognized and adopted from Americanjurisprudence this doctrine of qualified politicalagency, to wit:

x x x With reference to the Executive Departmentof the government, there is one purpose which iscrystal-clear and is readily visible without theprojection of judicial searchlight, and that is, theestablishment of a single, not plural, Executive.The first section of Article VII of the Constitution,dealing with the Executive Department, beginswith the enunciation of the principle that “Theexecutive power shall be vested in a President ofthe Philippines.” This means that the Presidentof the Philippines is the Executive of theGovernment of the Philippines, and no other. Theheads of the executive departments occupypolitical positions and hold office in an advisorycapacity, and, in the language of ThomasJefferson, “should be of the President’s bosomconfidence” (7 Writings, Ford ed., 498), and, inthe language of Attorney-General Cushing (7Op., Attorney-General, 453), “are subject to thedirection of the President.” Without minimizingthe importance of the heads of the variousdepartments, their personality is in reality butthe projection of that of the President. Statedotherwise, and as forcibly characterized by ChiefJustice Taft of the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, “each head of a department is, and mustbe, the President’s alter ego in the matters ofthat department where the President is requiredby law to exercise authority” (Myers v. UnitedStates, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep., 21 at 30; 272 U.S., 52 at

133; 71 Law. ed., 160).

Memorandum Circular No. 58, promulgated bythe Office of the President on June 30, 1993 reads:

In the interest of the speedy administrationof justice, the guidelines enunciated inMemorandum Circular No. 1266 (November 4,1983) on the review by the Office of the Presidentof resolutions/orders/decisions issued by theSecretary of Justice concerning preliminaryinvestigations of criminal cases are reiteratedand clarified.

No appeal from or petition for review ofdecisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary ofJustice on preliminary investigations of criminalcases shall be entertained by the Office of thePresident, except those involving offensespunishable by reclusion perpetua to death x x x.

Doctrinal Reminders

Henceforth, if an appeal or petition for reviewdoes not clearly fall within the jurisdiction of theOffice of the President, as set forth in theimmediately preceding paragraph, it shall be

dismissed outright x x x.

It is quite evident from the foregoing that thePresident himself set the limits of his power to reviewdecisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary of Justicein order to expedite the disposition of cases.Petitioner’s argument that the Memorandum Circularunduly expands the power of the Secretary of Justiceto the extent of rendering even the Chief Executivehelpless to rectify whatever errors or abuses theformer may commit in the exercise of his discretion ispurely speculative to say the least. Petitioner cannotsecond-guess the President’s power and thePresident’s own judgment to delegate whatever it ishe deems necessary to delegate in order to achieveproper and speedy administration of justice, especiallythat such delegation is upon a cabinet secretary – hisown alter ego.

Nonetheless, the power of the President todelegate is not without limits. No less than theConstitution provides for restrictions. Justice Jose P.Laurel, in his ponencia in Villena, makes this clear:

x x x x

x x x There are certain presidential powers whicharise out of exceptional circumstances, and ifexercised, would involve the suspension offundamental freedoms, or at least call for thesupersedence of executive prerogatives overthose exercised by co-equal branches ofgovernment. The declaration of martial law, thesuspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and theexercise of the pardoning power,notwithstanding the judicial determination of guiltof the accused, all fall within this special classthat demands the exclusive exercise by thePresident of the constitutionally vested power.The list is by no means exclusive, but there mustbe a showing that the executive power in question

is of similar gravitas and exceptional import.

In the case at bar, the power of the President toreview the Decision of the Secretary of Justice dealingwith the preliminary investigation of cases cannot beconsidered as falling within the same exceptional classwhich cannot be delegated. Besides, the President hasnot fully abdicated his power of control asMemorandum Circular No. 58 allows an appeal if theimposable penalty is reclusion perpetua or higher.Certainly, it would be unreasonable to impose uponthe President the task of reviewing all preliminary



investigations decided by the Secretary of Justice. Todo so will unduly hamper the other important dutiesof the President by having to scrutinize each andevery decision of the Secretary of Justicenotwithstanding the latter’s expertise in said matter.

x x x x

Based on the foregoing considerations, this Courtcannot subscribe to petitioner’s position asking thisCourt to allow her to appeal to the Office of thePresident, notwithstanding that the crimes for whichshe charges respondent are not punishable by reclusionperpetua to death.

It must be remembered that under theAdministrative Code of 1987 (EO No. 292), theDepartment of Justice, under the leadership of theSecretary of Justice, is the government’s principal lawagency. As such, the Department serves as thegovernment’s prosecution arm and administers thegovernment’s criminal justice system byinvestigating crimes, prosecuting offenders andoverseeing the correctional system, which are deepwithin the realm of its expertise. These are knownfunctions of the Department of Justice, which is underthe executive branch and, thus, within the ChiefExecutive’s power of control.

Petitioner ’s contention that MemorandumCircular No. 58 violates both the Constitution andSection 1, Chapter 1, Book III of EO No. 292, fordepriving the President of his power of control overthe executive departments deserves scantconsideration. In the first place, MemorandumCircular No. 58 was promulgated by the Office of thePresident and it is settled that the acts of thesecretaries of such departments, performed andpromulgated in the regular course of business are,unless disapproved or reprobated by the ChiefExecutive, presumptively the acts of the ChiefExecutive Memorandum Circular No. 58 has not beenreprobated by the President; therefore, it goes withoutsaying that the said Memorandum Circular has theapproval of the President.

(Peralta, J., Judge Adoracion G. Angeles v. Hon. Manuel E.Gaite, Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs, Office ofthe President; Hon. Raul Gonzales, Secretary, and Hon. JovencitoZuño, Chief State Prosecutor, both of the Department of Justice(DOJ); Hon. Ramon R. Garcia (Substituted by Hon. JosephLopez), City Prosecutor, ACP Marlina N. Manuel, and ACPAdeliza H. Magno-Guingoyon, all of the Manila ProsecutionService; and SSP Emmanuel Velasco, Department of Justice,G.R. No. 176596, March 23, 2011.)

Doctrinal RemindersPOLITICAL LAW (continued)

(Continued on page 19)

REMEDIAL LAW

Petition for certiorari; where filed; in aid ofappellate jurisdiction interpreted.

Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amendedby A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, which provides when andwhere a petition for certiorari should be filed, states thus:

SEC. 4. When and where to file petition. – Thepetition shall be filed not later than 60 days fromnotice of the judgment or resolution. In case amotion for reconsideration or new trial is timelyfiled, whether such motion is required or not, thepetition shall be filed not later than 60 dayscounted from the notice of the denial of themotion.

If the petition relates to an act or an omission ofa municipal trial court or of a corporation, aboard, an officer or a person, it shall be filed withthe Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdictionover the territorial area as defined by theSupreme Court. It may also be filed in the Courtof Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whetheror not the same is in aid of the court’s appellatejurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or anomission of a quasi-judicial agency, unlessotherwise provided by law or these rules, thepetition shall be filed with and be cognizable onlyby the Court of Appeals.

In election cases involving an act or an omission ofa municipal or a regional trial court, the petitionshall be filed exclusively with the Commission onElections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

The question then is, would taking cognizance ofa petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutoryorder of the regional trial court in an electoral protestcase be considered in aid of the appellate jurisdictionof the COMELEC? The Court finds in the affirmative.

Interpreting the phrase “in aid of its appellatejurisdiction,” the Court held in J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v.Jaramillo, et al. that if a case may be appealed to aparticular court or judicial tribunal or body, then saidcourt or judicial tribunal or body has jurisdiction toissue the extraordinary writ of certiorari, in aid of itsappellate jurisdiction. This was reiterated in De Jesusv. Court of Appeals, where the Court stated that a courtmay issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellatejurisdiction if said court has jurisdiction to review, byappeal or writ of error, the final orders or decisions ofthe lower court.

Note that Section 8, Rule 14 of the 2010 Rules ofProcedure in Election Contests Before the CourtsInvolving Elective Municipal Officials states that:

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS 13January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011January-March 2011

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER No. 11-3-6-SC

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 12, RULE 14 OF THERULES OF COURT ON SERVICE UPON FOREIGNPRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY

Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court is herebyamended to read as follows:

SEC. 12. Service upon foreign privatejuridical entity.—When the defendantis a foreign private juridical entity whichhas transacted business in thePhilippines, service may be made on itsresident agent designated inaccordance with law for that purpose,or, if there be no such agent, on thegovernment official designated by lawto that effect, or on any of its officers oragents within the Philippines.

If the foreign private juridical entity isnot registered in the Philippines or hasno resident agent, service may, withleave of court, be effected out of thePhilippines through any of the followingmeans:

a) By personal service coursedthrough the appropriate court in theforeign country with the assistanceof the Department of ForeignAffairs;

b) By publication once in a newspaperof general circulation in the countrywhere the defendant may be foundand by serving a copy of thesummons and the court order byregistered mail at the last knownaddress of the defendant;

c) By facsimile or any recognizedelectronic means that couldgenerate proof of service; or

d) By such other means as the courtmay in its discretion direct.

This rule shall take effect 15 days after publicationin a newspaper of general circulation in thePhilippines.

March 15, 2011.

(Sgd.) CORONA, CJ, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES,VELASCO, JR., NACHURA (On Official Leave),LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION (On Official Leave),PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD,VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, MENDOZA, SERENO, JJ.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER No. 19-2011

ESTABLISHING NIGHT COURTS IN THEMETROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS OF PASAY CITYAND MAKATI CITY

WHEREAS, the Constitution mandates the speedydisposition of cases of all persons before judicial bodies;

WHEREAS, “the Executive Judges of theMetropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courtsin Cities of the cities and municipalities comprisingMetro Manila x x x may assign all judges to hold nightcourt sessions daily from Monday to Friday and onofficial holidays and special days;”1

WHEREAS, in line with the constitutionalmandate on the speedy disposition of cases and in theexercise of its power of administrative supervision overall courts, the Supreme Court has ordered (a) theestablishment of night courts in the Metropolitan TrialCourts of Manila “to try and decide all special casesenumerated in the Rule on Summary Procedure,”2 and(b) the opening of two branches in the MetropolitanTrial Courts of Quezon City as night courts to hear“cases involving nighttime apprehensions” and“special cases enumerated in the Rule on SummaryProcedure;”3

WHEREAS, the Court held that the operationalguidelines for the assignment of judges and the holdingof night court sessions in Manila shall also be applicableto the night courts established in Quezon City;4

WHEREAS, the Court requires the expeditiousdisposition of criminal cases involving tourists; 5

WHEREAS, the Honorable Secretary Alberto A.Lim of the Department of Tourism has requested thedesignation of night courts also in Pasay City andMakati City, in addition to those already existing inManila City and Quezon City;

1 SEC. 15, A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC (Guidelines on the Selection andAppointment of Executive Judges and Defining Their Powers,Prerogatives and Duties), January 27, 2004.

2 Administrative Order No. 72, June 30, 1988.

3 A.M. No. 90-9-1437-MeTC (Re: Request for the Opening ofTwo [2] Branches of the Metropolitan Trial Court to ConductNight Sessions), October 2, 1990.

4 Ibid., See Administrative Order No. 72, June 30, 1988, for theoperational guidelines.

5 Administrative Circular No. 58-2002, November 14, 2002.


PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS14

WHEREFORE, it is hereby directed that:

1. Night courts similar to those designated inthe Metropolitan Trial Courts of Manila Cityand Quezon City be established in theMetropolitan Trial Courts of Pasay City andMakati City;

2. The operational guidelines for the assignmentof judges and the holding of night courtsessions in the Metropolitan Trial Courts ofManila6 be applicable to the night courts inthe Metropolitan Trial Courts of Pasay Cityand Makati City, respectively, except theoperating hours, which shall be from four-thirty in the afternoon (4:30 p.m.) until eleveno’clock in the evening (11:00 p.m.);7

3. The night courts of Pasay City and MakatiCity be authorized to try and decide casesinvolving nighttime apprehensions and allspecial cases enumerated in the Rule onSummary Procedure;

4. The provisions of Administrative Circular No.58-2002, dated November 14, 2002, requiringan expeditious disposition of criminal casesinvolving tourists be complied with; and

5. The Executive Judges of the Metropolitan TrialCourts of Pasay City and Makati City (a)inform the Philippine National Police (PNP)and the Prosecutor ’s Office within theirrespective jurisdictions of the schedule of thebranches of the metropolitan trial courtsassigned to hold night sessions, and (b) makerepresentations with the PNP and the localgovernment units to ensure that appropriatesecurity measures are adopted to protect thejudges and their staff during night sessions.

Immediate compliance with this order is enjoined.

January 27, 2011.

(Sgd.) RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice

6 As provided for in Administrative Order No. 72, June 30,1988.

7 SEC. 15, A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC (Guidelines on the Selectionand Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining TheirPowers, Prerogatives and Duties), January 27, 2004.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER No. 36-2011

TO: ALL PRESIDING JUSTICES AND CLERKS OFCOURT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,SANDIGANBAYAN, AND COURT OF TAXAPPEALS; AND ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OFCOURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITANTRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS INCITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPALCIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND SHARI’A CIRCUITCOURTS

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT ON SECTION 1 OF A.O.NO. 170-2008, REVISED GUIDELINES IN THEDISPOSAL AND/OR DESTRUCTION OF COURTRECORDS, PAPERS AND EXHIBITS

Section 1 of Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 170-2008 issued on November 11, 2008 provides that thephrase “court records, papers and exhibits” refers tobasic pleadings and various supporting papers,documents and exhibits attached to the expediente orrollo but do not cover decisions of terminated cases. Inits September 14, 2010 Resolution in A.M. No. 10-9-05-O (Re: Query of RCA Cresencio C. Tan, Jr., RCAO-Lapu-Lapu City, on the Guidelines to be Followed inthe Disposal/Destruction of Object Evidence), theCourt ordered that the term “exhibits” be redefinedto include object evidence which by reason of theirnature cannot be literally attached with the expedienteor rollo, e.g., knives, video karera machines, bags andthe like.

In view thereof, Section 1 of A.O. No. 170-2008 ishereby amended to read as follows:

1. The court records, papers and exhibits subject of thedisposal and/or destruction must pertain to casesterminated for at least seven years, EXCEPT thefollowing, which shall remain in the office storage ofevery court, to wit:

(a) Naturalization cases;

(b) Big land cases;

(c) Precedent-setting cases without records inthe Supreme Court;

(d) Death Penalty cases; and

(e) Criminal cases where the Board of Pardonsand Parole may require certain documents,important court exhibits, extendedresolutions resolving motions forreconsiderations and the like.

The phrase “court records, papers andexhibits” refers to basic pleadings and various

supporting papers, documents and exhibits

attached to the expediente or rollo including object

evidence or exhibits which by nature cannot be

A.O. No. 19-2011 (continued)


physically appended thereto, e.g., knives, video

karera machines, bags and the like. The phrase,

however, does not cover decisions of terminated

cases. Decisions must still be maintained in the

archives of the respective courts. In addition, a

duplicate original copy of each decision must be

sent to the Supreme Court Library to preserve

repositorial value of judicial statements set forth

therein;

This Administrative Order, therefore, amends

Section 1 of A.O. No. 170-2008 in so far as the disposal

of object evidence in cases terminated for at least seven

years and not covered by any special rule or law is

concerned.

February 25, 2011.


MEMORANDUM ORDER No. 04-2011

GUIDELINES ON GATHERING STATISTICALDATA ON ANTI-CORRUPTION CASES FILED ANDDISPOSED IN ALL COURTS

WHEREAS, the principal mandate of theComponent Working Committee (CWC) forComponent B of the Judicial Reform Support Program(JRSP) is the enhancement of the institutional integrityof the Judiciary;

WHEREAS, the issue of corruption in theJudiciary is one of the matters that the CWC forComponent B has to address pursuant to the saidmandate;

WHEREAS, there is a need for a factual matrix oncorruption to guide and aid the CWC for ComponentB in addressing the issue that has been adverselyaffecting the integrity of the Judiciary;

WHEREAS, among the components of the factualmatrix are statistical data on cases of corruption filedagainst Justices, judges and court officials andpersonnel;

WHEREAS, to assist the government in its fightagainst corruption, data on cases against allgovernment officials and employees filed and disposedin courts must also be gathered.

NOW, THEREFORE, the following guidelines arehereby established for compliance of the concernedcourt officials named below:

(1) For the purpose of this Memorandum Order,“corruption cases” shall refer to complaints andcases, whether administrative or criminal, filedagainst any Justice, judge, court official or courtemployee, as well as government official oremployee, for committing acts of corruptionincluding those penalized under Articles 212 to221 of the Revised Penal Code, RA No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), as amended, RANo. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standardsfor Public Officials and Employees), RA No. 7080(Plunder Law), Section 11(b) of RA No. 9485 (Anti-Red Tape Act) and other pertinent laws.

Corruption cases shall not be limited to casesincluded in the regular dockets of the concernedcourts but shall include cases that are still subjectof informal preliminary investigation (IPI),whether the complainant is identified oranonymous.

(2) Information on corruption cases filed and disposedfor the three-year period of 2007 to 2010 shall begathered and generated by:

(a) the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court forcases filed against Supreme Court Justices,officials and personnel;

(b) the Clerks of Court of the Court of Appeals,the Sandiganbayan and the Court of TaxAppeals for cases filed against Justices,officials and personnel of their respectivecourts; and

(c) the Court Administrator for cases filedagainst first and second level judges, officialsand personnel.

Specifically, whenever applicable, the data shallcontain the following:

(a) the nature of the cases, whetheradministrative or criminal

(i) in administrative cases, whether thecharges are formal or informal andwhether the complainant is anonymousor identified; and

(ii) in administrative cases, whether thecomplaint has already been docketed asa regular administrative case or stillsubject of IPI;

(b) the number of cases filed according to theirnature; and

(c) final outcome of the cases


A.O. No. 36-2011 (continued)


M. O. No. 04-2011 (continued)

(i) in administrative cases, whetherimposition of disciplinary sanction ordismissal of the charge and whetherdismissal of the complaint/case was inthe docketed/regular administrativematter stage or in the IPI stage; and

(ii) in criminal cases, whether conviction or

acquittal.

(3) The same Judiciary officials shall also gatherseparate information regarding corruption casesagainst all other government officials andemployees filed and disposed in the court(s)subject of their respective reports.

(4) All gathered data shall be submitted to the Officeof the Chief Justice through the Statistics Divisionin the Court Management Office of the Office ofthe Court Administrator (CMO-OCA) within aperiod of 60 days from receipt of thisMemorandum Order; provided that the CourtAdministrator shall:

(a) issue a circular on the matter fordissemination to all courts within five daysfrom receipt of this issuance, and

(b) direct submission by all first and second levelcourts of the required information within 60days from receipt of the circular.

(5) The Statistics Division of the CMO-OCA shallgenerate a statistical data based on the reportssubmitted by the concerned officials of theJudiciary within a one-month period from receiptthereof.

The statistical data shall thereafter besubmitted to the Office of the Chief Justice. A copythereof shall also be furnished to the CWC forComponent B of the JRSP through its Chairperson.

On request of concerned government agenciesand other proper parties, appropriate statisticaldata on corruption cases may be provided by theSupreme Court through the Office of the ChiefJustice upon favorable recommendation of theCWC for Component B of the JRSP.

(6) All the concerned officials mentioned in paragraph(2) are thereafter enjoined to continue the data-gathering activity and to submit data gatheredfor each year to the Office of the Chief Justicewithin the month of January of the immediatelyfollowing year.

(7) Within 10 days from the issuance of thismemorandum order, the Statistics Division of theCMO-OCA shall submit a proposed standard formfor the reports required under this memorandumorder to the CWC for Component B of the JRSPwhich shall in turn review the proposed standardform and recommend to the Chief Justice theapproval thereof.

This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon itsissuance this 21st day of January 2011.


OCA CIRCULAR No. 04-2011

TO: ALL CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONALTRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS,METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPALTRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIALCOURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTSAND SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS

SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF QUARTERLY REPORTON THE COLLECTIONS AND REMITTANCES OFTHE VICTIM COMPENSATION FEE

The Department of Justice through its AssistantSecretary for Financial Service, Zabedin M. Azis, hasinvited the attention of this Office concerning therecommendation of the Commission on Audit to itsagency that the various clerks of courts of the lowercourts must be reminded on the submission ofquarterly report on their collections and remittancesof victim compensation fee pursuant to Sections 1 and5 of Circular No. 59-94 previously issued by this Officeon October 10, 1994.

Henceforth, Circular No. 59-94 is hereby reiteratedwhich includes, among others, the aforementionedSections 1 and 5, subject of this issuance, to wit:

The following shall serve as guidelines to facilitatecollection and remittance of the victim-compensationfee of FIVE PESOS (P5.00), as provided by Section 18-A of Rule 141, Rules of Court:

1. The Clerks of Court shall remit every quarteror when the collection reaches FIVE HUNDREDPESOS (P500.00), whichever comes first;

2. Remittance shall be deposited to the nearestbranch of the Land Bank of the Philippines(LBP) within the province, city or municipalitywhere the Clerk of Court is holding office;

3. Deposit shall be for the account of the VictimCompensation Fund of the Board of Claims(BOC) Department of Justice under CurrentAccount No. 0592-1022-42;


OCA Cir. No. 04-2011 (continued)


TO: ALL JUSTICES OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN,JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITANTRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS INCITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPALCIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND SHARI’A CIRCUITCOURTS

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF OCA CIRCULAR NO.1-98 ON THE ISSUANCE OF COURT PROCESSESRELATIVE RECORDS ON FIREARMS ANDEXPLOSIVES

OCA Circular No. 1-98 dated January 2, 1998directs the courts to address “all summonses andprocesses seeking to establish official records orinformation regarding firearms and explosives x x xto ‘The Chief, Records Branch, Firearms and ExplosivesDivision (FED).’”

However, in the later case of Del Rosario v. People(G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001), the Supreme Courtheld that the certification issued by the RecordsBranch of the FED on whether a person is a licensedfirearm holder is sufficient evidence and should beaccepted by the courts in determining the presence orabsence of a valid license or permit to own or possessfirearms or explosives in order to establish the offenseof Illegal Possession of Firearms. Consequently, theappearance of FED records personnel before the courtsis not absolutely necessary in order to establish theauthenticity of such FED certification, and the latter

shall be recognized by the Court as sufficient toestablish the fact that the accused had no license orpermit to own or possess the firearm or explosive.

WHEREFORE, OCA Circular No. 1-98 datedJanuary 2, 1998, is hereby superseded. All lowercourts are hereby directed to desist from issuingsubpoenas, summonses or other processes requiringthe personal appearance of the Chief, Records Section,Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) and shall admitthe certification issued by the FEO Records Section assufficient proof of the fact of possession or non-possession of a valid license to own or possessfirearms or explosives in the offense of IllegalPossession of Firearms without further need ofrequiring the appearance of the FEO records personnelto testify on the authenticity thereof.

This Circular shall take effect immediately.

January 18, 2011.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ

Court Administrator


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THEREGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITANTRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS INCITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, ANDMUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

SUBJECT: INCLUSION OF ALL ENVIRONMENTALCASES UNDER COLUMN 19 OF PAGE 1 OF THEMONTHLY REPORT OF CASES

Environmental issues [are major concerns]inwhich this Court has expressed special interest bydesignating special courts to exclusively try anddecide violations of environmental laws. To effectivelymonitor the flow of these cases and pending necessaryamendments to SC-Form No. 1-2004 (Monthly Reportof Cases), all courts are hereby DIRECTED toincorporate under the column “Involving Violationof Forestry Law”(column 19, page 1, Criminal Cases)cases involving violations of environmental laws,which include but [are] not limited to the following:

1. Revised Forestry Code (PD No. 705, asamended)

2. Marine Pollution (PD No. 979)

3. Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act(RA No. 6969)

4. People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1999 (RANo. 7076)

4. In places where no Land Bank is doingbanking transactions, remittances shall bein the form of money order payable to theVictim Compensation Fund of the Board ofClaims (BOC), Department of Justice, PadreFaura, Manila;

5. The Clerks of Court are required to submit tothe Financial and Management Service,Department of Justice, a quarterly report ofcollections and remittances (deposits) of thevictim compensation fee.

6. The Clerks of Court shall requisition thesupply of official receipts from theDepartment of Justice. (Emphasis underlined)

For strict compliance.

January 10, 2011.


Court Administrator



OCA CIRCULAR No. 13-2011 (continued)

5. National Integrated Protected Areas SystemAct of 1992 (RA No. 7586)

6. Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (RA No. 7942)

7. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (RA No. 8371)

8. Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA No. 8550)

9. Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 (RA No. 8749)

10. Ecological Solid Waste Management Act(RA No. 9003)

1l. National Caves and Cave ResourcesManagement Act (RA No. 9072)

12. Wildlife Resources Conservation andProtection Act (RA No. 9147)

13. Chain Saw Act (RA No. 9175)

14. Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004 (RA No.9275)

Strict compliance is enjoined.

January 20, 2011.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator


TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THEFIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: GATHERING OF DATA IN CASESINVOLVING DEAF PARTIES/WITNESSES

The Case Monitoring Team of the Philippine DeafResource Center, Inc., a recipient of Australian Agencyfor International Development (AusAID) HUMANRIGHTS SMALL GRANTS SCHEME, to implement theproject “Strategies for Attaining Legal Access andSafeguarding Human Rights of the Deaf in thePhilippines” are going to various courts to gather dataon cases which involve deaf parties/witnesses to beused to create a database that shall serve as basis forreporting to various local and international humanrights entities.

In this regard your cooperation is hereby enjoinedsubject to such limitations as may be provided byexisting laws, rules and regulations and Section 7, ArticleIII of the 1987 Constitution.

February 3, 2011.


Court Administrator


TO: ALL JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL OFTHE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: PROHIBITION AGAINST SOLICITATIONFOR CONTRIBUTIONS BY COURT PERSONNEL

Reports had reached this Court that despiteprohibition, solicitations for contributions/donationsby court personnel from lawyers and litigants remainrampant.

Accordingly, all court personnel of the first andsecond level courts are hereby REMINDED to strictlyobserve the mandate of (a) Section 2, Canon I andSection 2(e), Canon III of Administrative Matter No.03-06-13-SC (Code of Conduct for Court Personnel)on improper solicitation, and (b) Circular No. 4-91dated May 31,1991 (Re: Letter-Complaint AgainstSolicitations for Contributions by Court Personnel),to quote:

x x x x

Henceforth, all personnel of the lower courtsunder the administrative supervision of theOffice of the Court Administrator are strictlyenjoined from making any form of solicitationfor contributions as it is strictly prohibited bylaw. (Emphasis supplied)

Consequently, all those found soliciting for and/or receiving contributions, in cash or in kind, fromany person, whether or not a litigant or lawyer,will be dealt with severely in accordance withthe sanctions prescribed by law.

Further, all court personnel are reminded thatcommitting improper solicitation is an offense whichmerit a grave penalty. Under Section 52(A)(11) of RuleIV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases inthe Civil Service, dismissal is the penalty for impropersolicitation at the first offense. Section 58(a) of thesame Rule provides that the penalty of dismissal shallcarry with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeitureof retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualificationof reemployment in the government service, unlessotherwise provided in the decision.

April 1, 2011.

(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ Court Administrator


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

Continued from page 1

Orientation Seminar-Workshop onComparative Analysis between the Family Codeand the Code of Muslim Personal Laws; and theSeminar-Workshop on the Special Rules of Courton Alternative Dispute Resolution.

The National Convention and Seminar ofthe Philippine Women Judges Association sawus contribute our share as requested, this timeon their 16th such affair.

On Mediation, we held a Judicial SettlementConference for Judges on Judicial DisputeResolution (Skills-Based Course), and anOrientation of Clerks of Court, PublicProsecutors, Public Attorneys, and LawPractitioners in the City of Manila on JudicialDispute Resolution.

On an even happier note, PHILJA observedits 15th Anniversary with the theme: Greening theAcademy, by planting trees at our TagaytayTraining Center grounds followed by a simpleprogram and lunch.

This issue also carries the New Rulings ofthe Supreme Court and Doctrinal Reminders.

Finally, for reference and use of all ourreaders, there are the Supreme CourtResolutions, Circulars, and Orders, as well asOCA Circulars on various subjects.

As I complete my two-year term asChancellor, with the possibility of a new termin June, let me thank The Honorable Chief Justiceand Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, fortheir trust and confidence, and all the PHILJAfamily, officials and employees, including thePMCO staff, heads of offices, field units and themediators, all of you, for the dedication,cooperation and support which account for ourcontinuing ability to serve in our primary taskof being the training arm of the Supreme Courtfor all Philippine judges and court personnel.

All the best.

March 31, 2011.

Adolfo S. Azcuna Chancellor

New RulingsREMEDIAL LAW (continued from page 10)

Thus, we agree with the OSG’s view that if adelay in the filing of an appeal may be excusedon grounds of substantial justice in civil actions,with more reason should the same treatment beaccorded to the accused in seeking the reviewon appeal of a criminal case where no less thanthe liberty of the accused is at stake. The concernand the protection we must extend to matters ofliberty cannot be overstated.

In light of these legal realities, we hold thatthe petitioner seasonably filed her notice ofappeal on November 16, 2005, within the freshperiod of 15 days, counted from November 3,2005, the date of receipt of notice denying hermotion for new trial.

(Brion, J., Judith Yu v. Hon. Rosa Samson-Tatad, PresidingJudge, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 105,and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170979,

February 9, 2011.)

Doctrinal RemindersREMEDIAL LAW (continued from page 12)

SEC. 8. Appeal. – An aggrieved party mayappeal the decision to the COMELEC withinfive days after promulgation, by filing anotice of appeal with the court thatrendered the decision, with copy servedon the adverse counsel or on the adverse

party who is not represented by counsel.

Since it is the COMELEC which hasjurisdiction to take cognizance of an appeal fromthe decision of the regional trial court in electioncontests involving elective municipal officials,then it is also the COMELEC which hasjurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of itsappellate jurisdiction. Clearly, petitioner erredin invoking this Court’s power to issue saidextraordinary writ.

(Peralta, J., Festo R. Galang, Jr. v. Hon. Ramiro R.Geronimo, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Courtof Romblon, Branch 81; and Nicasio M. Ramos, G.R. No.192793, February 22, 2011.)


3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial BuildingPadre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila 1000Philippines

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

20112011201120112011 Upcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA Events20112011201120112011 Upcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA EventsUpcoming PHILJA Events

Volume XIII, Issue No. 49 January-March 2011

Documents

Transcript of Volume XIII, Issue No. 49 January-March 2011