1
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
January–March 2021
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
ISSN 2244-5862
A y. Allelu de Jesus, Legal Adviser at the Interna onal Commi ee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in the Philippines, introduces the ICRC to the par cipants of the Training of
Trainers on Interna onal Humanitarian Law conducted by the Philippine Judicial Academy on March 17 to 23 via distance learning using Zoom.
From the Chancellor’s Desk
Having adjusted to the presence of the pandemic in 2020, we
opened this year with a renewed hope in our hearts. In the
first quarter of 2021:
We conducted three Orienta on Seminar-Workshops via
Distance Learning and Zoom Pla orm, one each for newly
appointed Clerks of Court from the Na onal Capital Judicial
Region (NCJR), Regions I, III to IX and X to XII, newly appointed
Trial Court Employees from the NCJR and Region V, and newly
appointed Court Interpreters from the NCJR, respec vely. We
also held two Career Enhancement Programs, one for First
Level Court Sheriffs from Regions IX to XII, and another for
Court Legal Researchers from the NCJR and Regions I to IV also
via Distance Learning. The holding of a Seminar-Workshop
for Execu ve and Vice Execu ve Judges na onwide as well
as that of the 53rd Pre-Judicature Program completed our
regular program offerings.
We also delivered the following special focus programs
through Distance Learning via Zoom Pla orm: a Seminar for
Jus ces of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court
of Tax Appeals on the Judicial Integrity Board; a SeminarWorkshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors
and Law Enforcers of the Fourth Judicial Region; a Training
of Trainers on Interna onal Humanitarian Law for Judges of
the NCJR, Regions I, III to V, VII to XI, a Jus ce from the Court
of Appeals and a PHILJA Lawyer; and a Training Seminar on
the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure and
Evidence for Judges from Pasig City, Mun nlupa City and
Region X.
We also brought back the Metrobank Founda on
Professorial Chair Lecture, the 17th, which featured Court
of Appeals Associate Jus ce Maria Filomena D. Singh. Her
lecture “Wielding the Sword: The Role of Judicial Educa on in
the Administra on of Jus ce” fell in March which happened
to be Women’s Month. Jus ce Singh is the first woman
Metrobank Founda on Chairholder which is an addi onal
happy coincidence.
(con nued on page 72)
2
January–March 2021
Contents
From the Chancellor’s Desk ...............................................
1
Judicial Views ....................................................................
3
Judicial Moves ...................................................................
9
Training Programs and Ac vi es ....................................... 10
First Impressions ............................................................... 19
New Rulings ...................................................................... 25
Doctrinal Reminders .......................................................... 30
Orders ............................................................................... 36
MEMORANDUM – Non-observance of Supreme Court
Workplace Protocol .....................................................................
36
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 03-2021 ....................................
36
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 18-2021 – Moratorium on the
Implementa on of the Guidelines on the Conduct of
Videoconferencing with Respect to Remote Appearance
from Abroad ........................................................................
50
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 19-2021 – Approved Memorandum
dated February 1, 2021 of the Commi ee for Office
Uniforms for the Supreme Court, the Presiden al Electoral
Tribunal and Lower Courts on the Request of the Supreme
Court Employees Associa on (SCEA) for the Extension
of the Relaxa on of the Rules on the Wearing of the
Prescribed Office Uniform from February 1 to 28, 2021 ......
50
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 20-2021 – Health Care Plan of All
Lower Court Personnel ......................................................... 50
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 22-2021 – Online Clinical Legal
Educa on Program (CLEP) Training .....................................
50
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 23-2021 – Suspension of OCA Circular
No. 61-2020 on the Issuance of Clearance Cer ficates
Pursuant to A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC (Guidelines on Corporate
Surety Bonds) ..........................................................................
51
38
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 08-2021 – Reitera ng Strict
Compliance with Memorandum Order No. 74-2019 ................
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 24-2021 – MOOE Webinar on February
18–19, 2021 .........................................................................
51
38
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 09-2021 – Crea ng a COVID-19
Response Team ........................................................................
38
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 12-2021 – Crea ng the
Technical Working Group on Electronic Notariza on ..............
39
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 26-2021 – Court En Banc Resolu on
dated February 9, 2021 in A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC (Re: 2020
Guidelines for the Conduct of the Court-Annexed Media on
[CAM] and Judicial Dispute Resolu on [JDR] in Civil
Cases).....................................................................................
54
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 30-2021 – MOOE Webinar on March
3–4, 2021 .............................................................................
54
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 31-2021 – Na onwide Survey on the
Applica on of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases and Implementa on of Environmental Laws ...............
61
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 36-2021 – Guidelines in the Processing
of Payment of Services and Contract of Service of
Contractual Court Stenographers, Payment of Service of
Court Financial Aides and Other Concerns Rela ng to OCA’s
Administra ve Supervision over the Lower Courts ..............
61
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 06-2021 – Special Commi ee
on the Proposed Court of Appeals Rule of Procedure Rela ng
to an Unlawful Ac vity or a Money Laundering Offense under
Republic Act No. (RA) 9160, as Amended .................................
37
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 07-2021 – Templates of the
Pre-Trial Order and of the Minutes of the Pre-Trial, as well as
Process Flow for Ordinary Civil Cases .......................................
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 13-2021 – Technical Working
Group on the Proposed Rule on Preserva on, Confisca on
and Forfeiture in Criminal Cases ..............................................
40
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 14-2021 – Crea ng the Court
of Appeals Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro City Halls of Jus ce
Coordina ng Commi ee Implementa on Group (HOJCC-CA-IG) .......
41
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 17-2021 ...................................
43
Circulars ...........................................................................
43
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 01-2021 – Work Suspension
in the Supreme Court to Conduct Disinfec on, Cleaning and
Sanita on of the Different Buildings and Offices .....................
43
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 02-2021 – Extended Work
Suspension in the Supreme Court un l March 16, 2021 ..........
44
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 03-2021 – Extension of Service of an
Employee Who Will Reach the Compulsory Re rement Age of
65 Year[s] ......................................................................................... 44
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 05-2021 – Use of Improvised or Provisional
Receipts in Case Official Receipts are Unavailable ........................
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 37-2021 – Inventory of Cases Involving
Violence on Lawyers Pending before the Courts .................. 65
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 38-2021 – Judiciary 365 Virtual
Adap on Caravan March 18–19, 2021 (1:00 P.M. to 4:00
P.M.) ..................................................................................... 66
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 40-2021 – Work Schedule for March
15–24, 2021 ......................................................................... 66
45
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 43-2021 – Court Opera ons from
March 23–31, 2021 .............................................................
66
45
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 11-2021 – Guidelines in Instances Where
There is Manifesta on or Informa on that a Case Pending
Before a Regular Court Involves a Minor .................................
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 44-2021 – Court Opera ons in the First
and Second Level Courts in the Na onal Capital Judicial
Region and in the Provinces of Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna,
and Rizal from March 24–April 16, 2021 .............................
67
46
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 45-2021 – MOOE Webinar on March
25–26, 2021 ......................................................................... 67
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 12-2021 – Guidelines for the Special
Expropria on Courts for Public Roads .....................................
46
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 13-2021 – Survey on Cases Involving
COVID-19 Governmental Measures .........................................
48
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 06-2021 – Use of Videoconferencing
in Cases Involving Persons Deprived of Liberty as Authorized
under A.M. No. 20-12-01-SC (Re: Guidelines on the Conduct of
Videoconferencing)............................................................................
10th
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 14-2021 –
OECD/KPC Compe on
Law Seminar for Asia-Pacific Judges on Market Defini on: An
Essen al Tool of Compe on Analysis .....................................
49
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 46-2021 – Change in the Representa ve
named in OCA Circular No. 214-2019 dated November
15, 2019 (Re: Request for Assistance by the Bureau of
Correc ons in the Verifica on of Authen city of Court
Documents Related to the Release from Imprisonment of
Persons Deprived of Liberty who have Completely Served
their Sentences) ...................................................................
71
3
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
THE REVISED LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
(Rule 138-A)
Deputy Court Administrator JENNY LIND R. ALDECOA DELORINO
Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court
*
What are the objec ves/goals of the Rule?
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), concerned
government offices, and non-governmental organiza ons
(NGOs) recognized by the law schools. The Externship
Program follows two tracks. The first track is in private
prac ce, and the second track is through in-court training.
Rule 138-A or the Law Student Prac ce Rule was
promulgated and amended (June 25, 2019)1 by the
Supreme Court to:
1) Ensure access to jus ce by the marginalized sector;
The FIRST TRACK, which is in private legal prac ce, allows
the student prac oner to engage in a limited prac ce
of law.
2) Ins tu onalize the Clinical Legal Educa on Program
in all law schools in order to enhance, improve, and
streamline law student prac ce;
For this purpose, the limited prac ce of law covers
the following acts:
3) Enhance learning opportuni es of law students;
1) Appearances;
4) Ins ll among them the value of legal professional
social responsibility; and
2) Dra ing and submission of pleadings and documents
before trial and appellate courts and quasi-judicial
and administra ve bodies;
5) Prepare them for the prac ce of law, as well as
regulate their limited prac ce thereof.
*
3) Assistance in media on and other alterna ve modes
of dispute resolu on;
When did the Revised Rule take effect?
The Revised Rule took effect at the start of Academic
Year 2020–2021 and the comple on of the Clinical
Legal Educa on Program (CLEP) is a prerequisite for Bar
examina on applicants commencing on the 2023 Bar
examina ons.
*
5) Such other ac vi es that may be covered by the
Clinical Legal Educa on Program of the Law schools.
If the externship of the student prac oner is in
private prac ce with a school-affiliated legal clinic, a
law firm or a prac cing lawyer, it is the school, or firm,
or supervising lawyer who manages the ac vi es of the
student prac oner. It is required that the supervising
lawyer must be a member of the IBP in good standing,
who is authorized by the law school to supervise the
student prac oner.3
What is the Clinical Legal Educa on Program that the
Supreme Court seeks to ins tu onalize in the Revised
Law Student Prac ce Rule and its Guidelines?
It is a credit-earning teaching course that is experiental,
interac ve, and reflec ve. The objec ve is to provide
law students with prac cal knowledge, skills and values
that are necessary for the applica on of law, delivery of
legal services, and promo on of social jus ce and public
interest, especially for the marginalized. It will allow the
student prac oners to be acquainted with the review
and other processes of the courts, as well as provide them
with hands-on training on legal research and wri ng.
It also aims to inculcate in the student prac oners
the value of public service and ethical standards in the
administra on of jus ce.2
*
4) Legal counseling and advice; and
*
Other than simply indorsing applica ons for cer fica on
of the law student prac oner, the law schools have other
du es, one of which is that they must ensure compliance
with the Code of Professional Responsibility by law
student prac oners and the supervising lawyers.4
On the part of the supervising lawyers, they should
personally appear with the student prac oner in all
cases pending before the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs),
as well as in other cases where the supervising lawyer’s
presence is required.5
What comprises the CLEP?
The CLEP establishes an Externship Program which
involves the courts, the law clinics of the law schools,
1
2
See R
138-A L
2019).
Id. Sec. 2(a).
S
P
, A.M. No. 19-03-24-SC (June 25,
What are the responsibili es of the law schools and the
supervising lawyers?
3
4
5
Id. Sec. 2(e).
Id. Sec. 9(d).
Id. Sec. 11(b).
4
*
January–March 2021
The supervising lawyers also approve and personally
sign any pleadings, briefs or other documents prepared
by the student prac oner for filing with the court or for
execu on by the eligible party.6
a) Interview prospec ve clients;
Moreover, the supervising lawyers assume
professional responsibility for any work performed by the
student prac oner who is under his/her supervision.
d) Dra legal documents such as affidavits, compromise
agreements, contracts, demand le ers, posi on
papers, and the like;
What is the role of the Execu ve Judges and Presiding
Judges?
e) Represent eligible par es before quasi-judicial or
administra ve bodies;
The role of the judges in this regard is to make sure that
the supervising lawyers perform their du es as far as
prac cable. This goes without saying that judges have
the responsibility to report instances of noncompliance
to the respec ve law schools, the IBP, and the Supreme
Court, when warranted.
f)
b) Give legal advice to the client;
c) Nego ate for and on behalf of the client;
g) Assist in public interest advocacies for policy
formula on and implementa on.
LEVEL 2 Cer fica on is for law students currently
enrolled during the second semester of the third year
law courses. Level 2 cer fica on allows the student
prac oner to:
With regard to cer fied student prac oners, judges
must be vigilant against any instance that would cons tute
unauthorized prac ce of law, such as:
a) Perform all ac vi es under Level 1 Cer fica on;
b) Assist in the taking of deposi ons and/or preparing
judicial affidavits of witnesses;
1) Engaging in any of the acts enumerated in Sec on 4 of
the Rule without the necessary cer fica on or without
the consent and direc on of the supervising lawyer;
c) Appear on behalf of the client at any stage of the
proceedings or trial, before any court, quasi-judicial
or administra ve body;
2) Making false representa ons in the applica on for
cer fica on;
3) Using an expired or revoked cer fica on to engage in
the limited prac ce of law;
d) In criminal cases, subject to the provisions of Sec on 5,
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, to appear on behalf of a
government agency in the prosecu on of criminal ac ons;
and
4) Rendering legal services outside the scope of the
prac ce areas allowed under Sec on 4 of the Rule;
e) In appealed cases, to prepare the pleadings required
in the case.9
5) Asking or receiving payment or compensa on for
services rendered under the Clinical Legal Educa on
Program; and
Both First and Second Level Cer fica ons are valid
un l the student has completed the required number
of courses in the Program, unless the same is sooner
revoked. Should the student fail to pass all the third year
law courses, the Level 2 Cer fica on is automa cally
revoked.10
6) Other analogous circumstances.7
*
Who are allowed to undertake any of the ac vi es under
this externship program?
Only student prac oners who have applied for and
secured the required cer fica ons are allowed to
undergo an externship program. There are two (2) levels
of cer fica on.8
*
It is only a er a student prac oner has been issued
a cer fica on can he/she perform any of the allowed
ac vi es. When signing briefs, pleadings, le ers and
other similar documents that he/she prepared under
the direc on of the supervising lawyer, the student
prac oner must always indicate the cer fica on
number.11
What are these two cer fica ons?
LEVEL 1 Cer fica on is for second-year law students,
meaning those who have successfully completed all the
first-year law courses. Level 1 Cer fica on allows the
student prac oner to:
6
7
8
Id. Sec. 11(e).
Rule 138-A Law Student Prac ce, supra note 1, Sec. 13.
Id. Sec. 3.
Provide public legal orienta on; and
9
10
11
Id. Sec. 4.
Id. Sec. 3.
Id. Sec. 7.
5
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
*
What are the sanc ons for non-compliance?
Commission of any such acts cons tu ng unauthorized
prac ce of law has serious repercussions. It is not only a
ground for revoca on of the cer fica on, but it could also
result in the law student’s inability to graduate or acquire
a law degree. Worse, it may disqualify a law student from
taking the Bar exams for a period to be determined by the
Supreme Court.12
Likewise, any act cons tu ng a viola on of the Code
of Professional Responsibility renders the supervising
lawyer, the Clinical Legal Educa on Head, and/or the
dean of the law school subject to disciplinary ac on.13
to take and use so copies/photos of assigned rollos
and records; and
5) Reports, dra s and research materials shall be
submi ed directly to the supervising judge. The
student prac oner is strictly prohibited to show or
transmit the same to outside par es before, during,
and a er the comple on of the court externship.14
*
Who supervises the work of the student prac
court externship?
oner in a
The student prac oner shall be under the direct
supervision and control of the presiding judge. It is the
supervising judge who assigns tasks to be performed by
the student prac oner, in ways that orient them with
the applica on of legal theory and doctrines, teaching
prac cal skills like research and wri ng, and inculca ng in
them the values of ethical standards.
Similarly, when a student prac oner fails to turn over
all office records and materials, electronic files entrusted
to his/her custody during the externship in court, he/she
shall be held accountable therefor, as a condi on for the
gran ng of the supervising judge’s final ra ng.16
*
For the dura on of the externship program, the
supervising judge monitors and assesses the progress of
the student prac oner, and shall give a final ra ng on
and assessment of their performance in accordance with
the ra ng system of their respec ve schools.
*
First, they are prohibited from disclosing confiden al
court documents or informa on acquired in the course of
their work, other than to court staff who are bound by the
same rule on confiden ality.
Can student prac oners be given access to case files
and other court records?
Needless to say, the non-disclosure rule includes the
prohibi on from pos ng or uploading of confiden al
informa on, files or documents in social media and/or
taking of photographs of such materials.
1) Access to specific rollos and other court records must
be upon express wri en authority of the supervising
judge;
Second, they cannot publicly comment about
unannounced case-related ma ers that were, presently
are, or will be before the court in its decision-making
capacity.
2) No rollos or records shall be taken out of the court/
office premises;
3) No rollos or records shall be shown to outside par es;
Third, any wri ng produced by the student
prac oner while working in court is considered property
of the court, and unless there is express and wri en
4) There shall be no copying or reproducing of files
through electronic or other means. However, during
this pandemic, a student prac oner may be allowed
14
13
Id. Sec. 13(a).
Rule 138-A Law Student Prac ce, supra note 1, Sec. 13(b).
Are student prac oners bound by the rule on
confiden ality applicable to court employees?
Indeed, they are bound by the confiden ality rule before,
during, and a er the comple on of their court externship.
Only for the purpose of the externship, the student
prac oner may be granted access to rollos and other
court records, subject however to the following rules:
12
oners have access to the court library?
Access to books and other materials in the court library
shall also be allowed, subject to condi ons that the
library shall impose, such as a library clearance before a
report of externship program comple on can be issued.
If any book or library material is lost or damaged while in
the possession of the student prac oner, or if the la er
fails to return it, he/she shall be required to replace it or
pay for its cost.15
The SECOND TRACK of the Externship Program is what we
used to refer to as an internship in the courts.
*
Do student prac
15
16
The Guidelines on the Externship Program of Law Student Prac oners in
Court under Rule 138-A, A.M. No. 19-03-24-SC (November 24, 2020), para. 8.
Id. Para. 9.
Id. Para. 13.
6
*
January–March 2021
authority from the supervising judge, it cannot be used as
a wri ng sample for any purpose.17
over the territory where the law school is located, the
applica on form with an endorsement under oath.22
It is likewise impera ve that the student prac oner
must not be employed at any law firm during the period
of his/her court externship.
Such endorsement by the dean/authorized
representa ve of the Law school must cer fy that the
applicant is a student enrolled in the Clinical Legal
Educa on Program, that the applicant possesses good
moral character, and has met all the requirements.23
Are student prac
oners subject to court sanc ons?
Yes, of course. Failure to comply with the security,
confiden ality and ethical rules shall subject the
erring student prac oner to administra ve and penal
sanc ons as provided by law, and as the Supreme Court
may impose. A court-imposed sanc on does not preclude
any disciplinary sanc on that the law school may also
impose.18
*
Upon receipt of the applica on for Level 1
Cer fica on, the EJ is to assign it an applica on number.
The applica on number is important not only for control
purposes, but also because the same number is adapted
as the cer fica on number.
The applica on/cer ficate number should reflect
the following details in sequence: Level number, judicial
region, city where the EJ is sta oned, the year, and the
order in which the applica on was received.
How many student prac oners are allowed per court
and what is the dura on of the court externship?
Courts are allowed a maximum of two (2) student
prac oners at any given me. However, for compelling
reasons to be determined by the supervising judge, a
higher number may be allowed.19
For example, if the applica on is the first one
submi ed before the office of the EJ of the RTC of Cebu
City, it shall be assigned an applica on number that reads:
L1-VII-CEB-2021-001.
Court externship may be conducted either during
the regular semester or summer term under a schedule
that would allow the student prac oner to complete
the required number of hours in the CLEP that he/she is
enrolled in.20
For Level 1 Cer fica on, the EJ will evaluate, approve
and issue the cer fica on within ten (10) days from
receipt of the applica on.24 The same assigned number
shall be reflected as the cer fica on number when the EJ
issues the Level 1 Cer fica on.
A student prac oner shall work during regular office
hours, and shall not be allowed access to court premises
a er office hours, unless expressly authorized by the
supervising Judge. Due to the pandemic situa on, in
lieu of physical presence at the court during office hours,
student prac oners may be allowed to perform all or
some of their tasks online through videoconferencing
pla orms authorized by the Supreme Court, as well as
other electronic means of communica on.21
*
For Level 2 Cer fica on, the EJ shall also assign the
applica on a control number in the same sequence,
except that the level number is 2 instead of 1. So, adap ng
the same example earlier given, the applica on number
shall read: L2-VII-CEB-2021-001.
A er the applica on is assigned a number, the EJ
simply evaluates the applica on and its a achments.
If the EJ finds the applica on to be incomplete, the EJ
must no fy the school and require compliance with the
requirements within five (5) days from receipt of no ce.25
What is the role of Execu ve and Vice Execu ve Judges?
Their primary role is in the approval of applica ons and
issuance of the cer ficates.
On the other hand, if the EJ finds the applica on to
be complete, the EJ shall recommend to the Office of the
Court Administrator the approval of the applica on and
issuance of the cer fica on.26
The law student submits to the school a dulyaccomplished applica on form. The school, through
its dean or authorized representa ve, shall submit to
the Execu ve Judge (EJ) of the RTC that has jurisdic on
17
18
19
20
21
Id. Para. 10.
Id. Para. 18.
Id. Para. 4.
The Guidelines on the Externship Program of Law Student Prac
Court under Rule 138-A, supra note 14, para 5.
Id. Para. 7.
For this purpose, the indorsement of the EJ shall
be coursed through the DCA in charge of the respec ve
22
23
oners in
24
25
26
Rule 138-A L
Id. Sec. 9.
Id. Sec. 5.
Id.
Id.
S
P
, supra note 1, Sec 5.
7
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
regions for approval of the applica on and issuance of
the Level 2 Cer fica on.27
Once the applica on is accepted, it is now the duty
of the supervising judge to take charge of the supervisory
and administra ve aspects of the externship program, by:
Once a student prac oner has been issued a
cer fica on, he/she must take an Oath/Affirma on to be
administered by the Execu ve Judge.28
1) Execu ng the Externship Agreement and issuing the
Cer ficate of Service or A endance and final ra ng,
among others;
The student prac oner who opts to follow the
first track, which is to undergo the limited prac ce of
law, a er acquiring the appropriate cer fica on, shall
then commence with the externship program under the
supervision of the law clinic, law firm or prac cing lawyer.
On the other hand, the student prac oner who
opts for the court externship s ll has to undergo another
applica on process with the specific branch of the court
where he/she intends to undergo the externship.
*
2) Explaining the Guidelines to the student prac
and
3) Explaining to the student prac oner the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel and emphasizing that
he/she is bound by its provisions, as well as ensuring
that the student prac oner observes the same.31
*
What are the documentary requirements for a court
externship?
1) A wri en applica on for externship, which includes a
cover le er and a curriculum vitae;
2) The latest law school transcript;
Personal Vigne e
3) A wri ng sample by the applicant which can be, but
not limited to, a legal memorandum or brief;
Now that I have acquainted you with the rudiments of the
Revised Law Student Prac ce Rule, I would like to share some
of my personal insights on the intrinsic value of this program.
4) A copy of the Cer fica on as a law student prac oner
issued by either the Execu ve Judge or the Deputy
Court Administrator, whichever is applicable;
5) A cer fica on from the dean or authorized
representa ve of the law school sta ng the following:
(a) he/she is enrolled in CLEP; and (b) the required
number of hours to complete the CLEP;
6) The grading rubric/method for evalua ng the
performance of the student prac oner; and
29
I am pre y sure quite a number of you had the ambi on,
even at a young age, to be a lawyer in the future. As a young
girl, I was more interested in music and the arts. Despite the
fact that my father was a Judge of the Juvenile and Domes c
Rela ons Court, as well as the Regional Trial Court, and then a
Court of Appeals Jus ce, who was, to many of his law school
students, a perfect role model, I had no desire to follow in his
footsteps.
Upon review and assessment of the required
documents, the presiding judge to whom the applica on
requirements were submi ed has full discre on whether
or not to accept the student prac oner into the court
externship program.29
Speaking about foot and feet, I am not embarrassed to
confess to you that from my childhood years un l my father
passed away in 2017, we had a ritual that we religiously
followed. Every week, I would sit on the floor and clean his
feet. Yes, clean his feet. It was not an act of servitude, but
one of respect and honor for a man who was larger than
life. Throughout the years, I learned so much about the law,
literally at my father’s feet. While I savored those mes when
I had my Papa’s full a en on, I did not realize that he was
actually brainwashing me to choose a career in law.
See Proposed Procedure for Issuance of Level 1 and 2 Cer fica ons under
Rule 138-A Pursuant to En Banc Resolu on dated June 25, 2019 in A.M. No.
19-03-24-SC (Rule 138-A [LAW STUDENT PRACTICE]), OCA Circular No. 1602020 dated (September 24, 2020).
Rule 138-A L S
P
, supra note 1, Sec. 8.
The Guidelines on the Externship Program of Law Student Prac oners in
Court under Rule 138-A, supra note 14, para. 3.
30
7) An accomplished Extern Applicant Supplemental
Background Ques ons Form.
28
What are the grounds for termina ng the court
externship?
The externship may be terminated when there is a
viola on of the terms and condi ons of the Externship
Agreement, or when the student prac oner is found
to have provided false or fraudulent informa on in the
applica on process.32
The student prac oner must submit to the presiding
judge the following:
27
oner;30
31
32
Id.
The Guidelines on the Externship Program of Law Student Prac
Court under Rule 138-A, supra note 14, para 11.
Id. Para. 15.
oners in
8
When the me came to make a choice, I very reluctantly
entered law school in Silliman University, where my father
taught Criminal Law and Conflict of Laws. Despite my
re cence, I managed to graduate. But then, since I had no
desire to be a lawyer, I saw no benefit in taking the Bar exams,
and my father had to “lay down the law,” so to speak, and
he forced me to take the exams. Thank God, I passed even
though I was under extreme duress, and I became a reluctant
lawyer.
So I worked with him in the Court of Appeals un l he
re red. But he was not done masterminding my career
just yet. I was a Court A orney in the Supreme Court when
he started his campaign to make me apply for the RTC in
Dumaguete. He even recruited his former colleagues in the
Court of Appeals to convince me to apply. Being the du ful
daughter that I was, I became an even more reluctant Judge.
Despite my 13 years in the appellate court, I knew deep down
that I was ill-prepared for the challenges and risks faced by
trial court judges. It was only then that I came to value all the
tutelage my father lavished on me since childhood. Following
his constant advice to “just do the right thing at the right me
for the right reason” has been my judicial mantra.
The reason why I belabored to share with you my rather
sen mental her-story is simple: I survived, and even thrived,
during those grueling years and in the face of death threats,
because I had a mentor (some mes tor-mentor) who guided
me all the way. How fortunate I was to have a father who
knew what was right and best for his obedient daughter.
So, I ask you now . . . who inspired you to become a
lawyer? Who inspired you to become a judge?
I am quite sure that some me in your youth, someone
touched your life and molded your mind, someone who
taught you the majesty of the law, and encouraged you to
dedicate the best years of your life to advocate for others and
to dispense jus ce with a conscience. So, take a good look at
who and where you are now.
The Clinical Legal Educa on Program ins tu onalized by
Rule 138-A is one of the ways by which you can pay it forward.
Whether as a presiding judge in a court where a student
prac oner is li ga ng, or as the supervising judge of a
student prac oner undergoing court externship, you have
the singular opportunity to be the role model that they need.
I can imagine that a judge would insist that his workplace
is a courtroom, not a classroom. The overarching objec ve in
January–March 2021
any classroom se ng is to educate the students, whereas the
primary func on of the courtroom is to adjudicate disputes
and achieve jus ce for the li gants. And yet, a deeper reflec on
on that opinion would lead the judge to acknowledge that the
means by which the adjudica on occurs arguably includes an
educa onal component, not just for the student prac oners,
but for all individuals in the courtroom, even for the judge
himself/herself.
Courtrooms offer student prac oners mul ple
opportuni es to observe and even emulate professional
lawyers and their standards. They get to experience firsthand
the consequences of their choices and their performance.
They are able to observe the demeanor and witness the
wisdom of judges. They have the opportunity to learn
numerous administra ve and clerical tasks that are necessary
corollaries to the prac ce of law. Ponder on this no on: “If the
law is a teacher in our society, the courtroom may be u lized
as a classroom for its own students.” In short, the courtroom
is a valuable extension of the law school classroom and a
cri cal site in which the student prac oners learn by doing.
Embrace your role as mentors because there is no
escaping it. You might as well walk the talk and leave an
indelible imprint in the minds and hearts of the student
prac oners who come before you.
Teach by example, rather than just by words.
Guide, rather than grill.
Instruct, rather than in midate.
Tutor, rather than torture.
Be pa ent, rather than perfunctory.
Be humble, rather than be a humbug.
Be compassionate, rather than be cri cal.
Always remember that these student prac oners will
one day be officers of the court. If they become successful,
they will owe a por on of their success to you. And if some
of them decide to pursue a career on the bench, you can be
sure that it is because once upon a me, a judge allowed him
or her to experience firsthand the beauty and majesty of the
law. A judge inspired him or her to apply the law with fairness
and wisdom. A judge showed him or her that dispensing true
jus ce can only be done with probity and integrity. Who
knows? . . . that could be your legacy.
9
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
Hon. JHOSEP Y. LOPEZ
Associate Jus ce, Supreme Court
Appointed on January 25, 2021
Associate Jus ce Jhosep Y. Lopez was a
cum laude graduate of Poli cal Science
from the University of the Philippines
in Diliman. He went on to finish
his law studies also from the same
university while working as a research
assistant at the UP Ins tute of Judicial
Administra on. He took the Bar in 1988 and got an average of
84.55 percent.
A year a er working as UP legal counsel, he was promoted
to be the chief legal officer of UP-Manila-PGH. Having done
superbly well as head of the UP Manila Legal Office at a very
young age, he was recruited to serve as chief legal counsel
of the Senate in 1991 under then Senate President Jovito R.
Salonga. It was in May 1992 that Jus ce Lopez finally decided
to try his hand in poli cs winning his first elec on as Councilor
of the Third District of Manila, one of the youngest members
then. He served four terms in the council in different posi ons,
eventually as majority floor leader. For many years, he was
consistently voted as Outstanding Councilor by the Manila
Press Club.
In 1998, Jus ce Lopez worked as chief legal consultant
to then Department of Health (DOH) Secretary Felipe Estrella
un l he was tapped by then Secretary of Agriculture Edgardo
J. Angara to be the Philippine’s first agricultural a aché to
Beijing, China where he served un l 2001 when he rejoined
the City Council of Manila.
In February 2006, Jus ce Lopez was appointed City
Prosecutor of Manila, and he had under him 132 prosecutors
and more than 170 support staff. Upon his assump on, he
ini ated many changes including the computeriza on in the
monitoring of cases. This resulted in the faster resolu on of
cases for preliminary inves ga on, so much so that one DOJ
Secretary referred to Manila Office of the City Prosecutor
(OCP) as one of the best performing field offices in the DOJ.
Having accomplished much a er more than six years at the
helm of Manila OCP, he was appointed as Associate Jus ce
of the Court of Appeals and took his oath on May 31, 2012.
Jus ce Lopez spent roughly eight and a half years with
the Court of Appeals, always exer ng all his efforts to ensure
that all his cases were correctly resolved and resolved on
me. Because of his hard work, Jus ce Lopez was ranked
number one in terms of number of cases adjudicated within
the Court of Appeals in 2017.
Jus ce Lopez has also been teaching law for the past 20
years. He primarily taught Criminal Law at the University of
the Philippines and Cons tu onal Law at New Era University
and Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. He was also a
lecturer in pre-bar reviews.
NEWLY APPOINTED SUPREME COURT OFFICIALS
A y. MARIFE M. LOMIBAO-CUEVAS
Clerk of Court
Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc, Supreme Court
Date of Assumption: March 26, 2021
A y. MA. CONSOLACION G. CRUZADA
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Second Division, Supreme Court
Date of Assump on: February 4, 2021
A y. ROMULO A. PARAS, JR.
General Counsel
Judicial Integrity Board
Date of Assump on: March 1, 2021
10
January–March 2021
Training Programs and Ac vi es
Virtual 25th PHILJA Founding Anniversary
The Philippine Judicial Academy marked another first when its officials and employees gathered online on March 12 for the
virtual celebra on of the Academy’s 25th Founding Anniversary with the theme “Silver Years of PHILJA: Surviving All Odds,
Shining Brighter Than Ever.”
The virtual celebra on started with a thanksgiving mass officiated by Rev. Fr. William T. Bustamante, followed by ecumenical
prayers recited by PHILJA Training Center (PTC) employees Mr. Rowel E. Saule, Mr. Ciriaco M. Martos, Ms. Chris e D. Mancia and
Mr. Antonio D. Teope. The mass, held at the PTC grounds in Tagaytay City following health and safety protocols, was streamed
via Facebook Live in the Academy’s Facebook page.
A er the mass, officials and employees logged in to their Zoom accounts for the anniversary program proper.
In his welcome message, PHILJA Vice Chancellor Jus ce Mariano C. Del Cas llo said, “No amount of pandemic or crisis can
prevent this gathering from taking place. Indeed, a silver anniversary is worth celebra ng, even at this me of the coronavirus.
We have survived several crises, and several administra ons, whether na onally or in the Supreme Court, but we are s ll here,
strong and resilient. We have, over the years, built an immunity system than can withstand the pandemic of this magnitude. So,
vaccine or no vaccine, we are here together, although remotely, to celebrate a milestone.”
Jus ce Del Cas llo expounded on the Academy’s anniversary theme: “silver years” to represent graying hairs symbolizing
maturity; “surviving all odds” to represent resilience and ability to take blows without breaking; and “shining brighter than ever”
to represent con nued op mism in the light of cri cism.
He reminded everyone to “face the next 25 years with renewed vigor. It is the Year of the Ox but x x x let us be a bull instead.
Let us take the next 25 years by the horn.”
To mark PHILJA’s 25 meaningful and frui ul years of existence, 25 special awards/recogni on, in addi on to the annual
PHILJA Ins tu onal Awards, were given to the following PHILJA employees, chosen through online peer-to-peer vo ng using
Google Forms:
Special Award
Awardee
1. PHILJA Model Employee Award
(Professional Level)
Ms. Sherryl F. Geronimo
Accountant II, Finance Office
2.
PHILJA Public Rela ons Award
Mr. Diodel R. Ame n
SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer
Office of the Vice Chancellor
3.
PHILJA Ingenuity Award
Ms. Chris Joyce B. Auditor
Public Rela ons Assistant
PHILJA Training Center Office
4.
PHILJA Outstanding Leader Award
A y. Ronald Paz Caraig
SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Publica ons Division
Research, Publica ons and Linkages Office
5.
PHILJA Outstanding Laborer Award
Mr. Lope R. Palermo
Judicial Staff Employee, Linkages Division
Research, Publica ons and Linkages Office
6.
STAR (Strategic Thinker, Achiever and Results-Oriented) Award
Ms. Micaela J. Hosillos
Judicial Staff Officer VI
Office of the Execu ve Secretary
7.
MVP (Mul -Tasking Valuable Partner) Award
Ms. Wyeth C. Juan
Execu ve Assistant III
Academic Affairs Office
11
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
8.
GEM (Going the Extra Mile) Award
Ms. Chris ne A. Ferrer
Judicial Staff Officer III, Publica ons Division
Research, Publica ons and Linkages Office
9.
Execu ve Performer Award
A y. Feovie T. Uy-Gerona
PHILJA A orney III
Office of the Execu ve Secretary
10. Core Performer Award
A y. Ronald Paz Caraig
SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Publica ons Division
Research, Publica ons and Linkages Office
11. Pillar Performer Award
Ms. Maria Lourdes B. dela Cruz
Budget Officer III
Finance Office
12. Customer Service Award – In House
Ms. Maria Cielito C. Cas llo
Administra ve Officer III
Administra ve Office
13. Customer Service Award – On Site
Mr. Joseph Arvin S. Cruz
Judicial Staff Officer V, Linkages Division
Research, Publica ons and Linkages Office
14. Congeniality Award
Ms. Armida M. Salazar
SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Linkages Division
Research, Publica ons and Linkages Office
15. Posi ve Vibes Award
Ms. Charmaine S. Nicolas
Judicial Staff Officer V, Publica ons Division
Research, Publica ons and Linkages Office
16. Go Green Award
Mr. Lope R. Palermo
Judicial Staff Employee, Linkages Division
Research, Publica ons and Linkages Office
17. 5-S Award
Mr. Diodel R. Ame n
SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer
Office of the Vice Chancellor
18. Team Player Award
Ms. Jocelyn D. Bondoc
SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer, Publica ons Division
Research, Publica ons and Linkages Office
19. Rockstar Rookie Award
A y. Shela L. de Claro-Arteza
PHILJA A orney II
Academic Affairs Office
20. Veteran Award
Ms. Jennifer D. A enza
Judicial Staff Officer VI
Academic Affairs Office
21. Outstanding Employee Detailed to PHILJA Award
Mr. Gregorio L. Alvarez
Officer in Charge, PHILJA Training Center Security Unit
(from the Security Division of the SC OAS)
22. Re red PHILJA Professor
Jus ce Oswaldo D. Agcaoili
PHILJA Full- me Professor II
23. Re ring PHILJA Official
Jus ce Marina L. Buzon
PHILJA Execu ve Secretary
24. Re ring PHILJA Board of Trustees’ Chair
The Honorable Diosdado M. Peralta
Chief Jus ce
Chair, PHILJA Board of Trustees
Meanwhile, the 25th award was the Achievement Award given to all the nine offices of the Academy in recogni on of their
personnel’s outstanding contribu on, dedica on and commitment to the achievement of the Academy’s mandate.
12
January–March 2021
The next set of awards that were virtually presented were the Ins tu onal Awards, composed of the Loyalty Awards, the
PHILJA Model Employee Awards (Supervisory and Non-Supervisory Level) and the Chancellor’s Award.
Since there was no anniversary program held last year due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 awardees were
also recognized during the program.
The 2020 and 2021 PHILJA loyalty awardees were:
A. 10 Years of Service
2020 Loyalty Awardees
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria
Jus ce Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis (+)
Jus ce Oswaldo D. Agcaoili
Jus ce Marina L. Buzon
Jus ce Adolfo S. Azcuna
Ms. Luningning R. Marin
Ms. Guinevere Andrea D. Zuñiga
Ms. Marilen B. Ramos
Ms. Perla D. Villanueva
Mr. Wilfredo L. Ladores
Mr. Joseph G. Nimo
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Mr. Anacleto C. Torres
Ms. Julieta PL Herrera
Ms. Maria Beatriz Asuncion A. Azcuna
A y. Reynaline G. Tan-Francisco
Ms. Dulce R. Rovedillo
Mr. Diodel R. Ame n
Ms. Michelle P. Rodriguez
Mr. Ramil B. Ramirez
Mr. Elmer B. Villareyes
Mr. Romeo C. de Leon, Jr.
Ms. Wenna Joy M. Bes l
2021 Loyalty Awardees
1. Mr. Rolando G. Bangayan, Jr.
2. Ms. Maria Cielito C. Cas llo
3. Ms. Lourdes D.V. de Castro
4. Ms. Jane Antonniete D. Fernandez
B. 15 Years of Service
2020 Loyalty Awardees
1.
2.
3
4.
Ms. Lourdes Lolita S. Pelausa
A y. David L. Ballesteros
Ms. Rushelle P. Dizon
Ms. Eleonor S. Benbinuto
5. Mr. Daniel S. Talusig
6. Ms. Joanne L. Narciso-Medina
7. Mr. Romulo M. Abancio, Jr.
2021 Loyalty Awardees
1. Mr. Gregorio N. Agojo
2. Ms. Evangi Lee A. Garcia-Pascual
3. Ms. Gloria M. Gatchalian
4. Ms. Micaela J. Hosillos
5. Ms. Maria Luisa A. Magno
6. Ms. Marissa P. Mariano
C. 20 Years of Service
2020 Loyalty Awardees
1. Mr. Eliseo A. Ege
2. Mr. Joseph Arvin S. Cruz
3. Ms. Lyra A. Encinares
4. Mr. Mathew R. Fajardo
5. Ms. Nenne e G. Zaldivar
2021 Loyalty Awardees
1. Ms. Joyce P. Abancio
2. Mr. Elizalde S. Carmona
3. Mr. Romil Q. de Leon
4. Ms. Maria Lourdes B. Dela Cruz
For exhibi ng exemplary service in their work assignments, the following were recognized as the 2020 and 2021 PHILJA
Model Employee Awardees:
PHILJA Model Employee Award (Non-Supervisory Level)
2020
Mr. Cristeto Agus n
Human Resource Management Officer I
Administra ve Division, Administra ve Office
2021
Ms. Chris M. Azurin
Judicial Staff Assistant III
Cash Division, Finance Office
13
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
PHILJA Model Employee Award (Supervisory Level)
2020
A y. Ronald Paz Caraig
SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer
Publica ons Division, Research, Publica ons and Linkages Office
2021
A y. David L. Ballesteros
PHILJA A orney IV
Judicial Educa on Division, Academic Affairs Office
The Chancellor’s Award is given to PHILJA personnel in recogni on of their integrity, dedica on to work and outstanding
performance. The 2020 Chancellor’s Awardees were A y. Reynaline G. Tan-Francisco, PHILJA A orney V, Office of the Chancellor;
A y. Jose C. Saluib, Jr., PHILJA A orney IV, Media on Planning and Research Division, Philippine Media on Center Office; and
Ms. Elma A. Dreo, Public Rela ons Officer II, Opera ons Division, PHILJA Training Center Office.
Ms. Armida M. Salazar, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Linkages Division, Research, Publica ons and Linkages Office, is
the 2021 Chancellor’s Awardee.
In apprecia on of their invaluable contribu on to the Academy, the Chancellor presented two surprise special recogni on
awards and tokens to A y. Maria Carina M. Cunanan, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administra ve Officer, Office of the
Administra ve Services, Supreme Court; and to Ms. Maria Beatriz Asuncion A. Azcuna, PHILJA Head Execu ve Assistant, Office
of the Chancellor.
Not to be missed during the virtual celebra on are the awaited special presenta on of PHILJA new employees, this me a
recorded dance performance, and the announcement of the pre-drawn 25 winners of the electronic raffle (18 minor and 7 major
prizes).
Capping the celebra on was PHILJA Chancellor Jus ce Adolfo S. Azcuna’s annual anniversary message. Jus ce Azcuna
expressed his gra tude to the organizers of the virtual anniversary program despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19
pandemic.
Jus ce Azcuna also thanked Father Bustamante who celebrated the mass at the PTC, the security guards for keeping all
PHILJAns safe and sound, and the health workers, nurses and doctors for taking care of all PHILJA officials and personnel during
this me of pandemic. He requested everyone to pray for the speedy and full recovery of PHILJAns who are sick and tested
posi ve for COVID-19.
As his term comes to an end on May 31, Jus ce Azcuna took the opportunity to thank the late Founding Chancellor Emeritus
Jus ce Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera for choosing him to be her successor, and former Chief Jus ce Reynato S. Puno for
appoin ng him as PHILJA Chancellor in 2009.
The Chancellor recounted all the accomplishments and ongoing projects/programs of PHILJA during his twelve-year term:
the introduc on and successful adop on of the Judicial Dispute Resolu on (JDR) and Alterna ve Dispute Resolu on (ADR)
mechanisms; the comple on of the PHILJA Training Center in Tagaytay; and the successful hos ng of the 2017 Interna onal
Organiza on for Judicial Training (IOJT) Biennial Seminar that adopted the principles of Judicial Training, among others.
Jus ce Azcuna also men oned the ongoing projects under his watch such as the comple on of the acquisi on of the
remaining private shares in PHILJA Tagaytay and the subsidiary PHILJA Development Center, Inc. (PDCI); publica on of the
Metrobank Lectures as the Academy is commi ed to disseminate these important lectures to our stakeholders; and addressing
the con nuing Commission on Audit (COA) advice on the reconcilia on of accounts and inventory of supplies.
On a final note, Jus ce Azcuna stressed that “we are all passing figures in the landscape of history, but we try our best to
make things be er than when we encountered them first. So, thank you and I would like to say, saan ka man naroroon, alaala kita
dahil mahal kita. Thank you and, as I said, farewell.” Jus ce Azcuna’s words were met with virtual applause and heart emo cons
displayed by the PHILJA officials and employees on their screens.
14
January–March 2021
17th Metrobank Founda on Professorial Chair Lecture
Court of Appeals Associate Jus ce Maria Filomena D. Singh
delivered her lecture on “Wielding the Sword: The Role of
Judicial Educa on in the Administra on of Jus ce” as the
2021 holder of the Metrobank Founda on Professorial Chair
in Judicial Educa on.
Center; 360 Degree Feedback Method; Kirkpatrick Four Levels
of Evalua on; Alterna ve Modes of Learning for the Adult
Learner; Ethics as a Central Component of Judicial Educa on;
and Judges and the Learning Community: Non-Formal Judicial
Educa on.
Jus ce Singh, who holds the dis nc on as the first woman
chairholder, presented her paper on March 5, three days
before the Interna onal Women’s Day celebra on on March
8, at the Supreme Court En Banc Session Hall.
Jus ce Singh also recommended three crucial pathways
that the Philippine Judiciary could undertake as a collec ve
and cohesive endeavor in the field of judicial educa on.
“First, we must recalibrate judicial training and assessment
so that judges can effec vely serve as both adjudicators and
administra ve managers. We need to draw baselines and
abide by empiricism in the selec on and design of judicial
educa on and training. Second, we must treat judges as fonts
of collec ve wisdom and experience and cul vate them as
collaborators and mentors for each other, emula ng through
mentoring and immersion, and be constantly guided by what
judges themselves think they ought and need to know. And
third, we must call for greater budget alloca on to put in
place all these recommenda ons in order to move closer to
what must be our common objec ve of delivering jus ce real
me,” Jus ce Singh said.
A ending the lecture in-person at the session hall,
observing social distancing and strict health protocols, and
online via Zoom were 198 par cipants composed of Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan Jus ces; Regional
Trial Court, Family Court and Municipal Trial Court in Ci es
judges and court personnel; SC, CA, Sandiganbayan and
PHILJA officials, lawyers and personnel; and guests from MBFI
and other agencies.
Chief Jus ce Diosdado M. Peralta formally opened the
program and warmly welcomed the guests. An audio-visual
presenta on showing MBFI’s pandemic efforts was played
followed by the pre-recorded message from MBFI President
Mr. Aniceto M. Sobrepeña.
Jus ce Singh stressed at the outset that “x x x judicial
educa on and training, in tandem with broad ins tu onal
reform, is a keen weapon to cut case delay and court
conges on.”
“We recognize the noble efforts of all branches of
government to tackle the issue through structural and
ins tu onal changes. However, it must not be lost upon us
that judges are at the forefront of the judiciary’s mandate to
dispense jus ce. x x x Judicial educa on and training must
likewise be underpinned by values forma on at its incep on,
and consistently challenged through experien al teaching
modali es,” Jus ce Singh emphasized.
Jus ce Singh’s comprehensive lecture also delved on
the following topics: The World Jus ce Project Rule of Law
Index; The Dual Nature of Judicial Func ons; New Code of
Judicial Conduct, Canon 6; The Declara on of Judicial Training
Principles of the Interna onal Organiza on for Judicial
Training (IOJT); The Seven Characteris cs of Effec ve Judicial
Educa on; Competencies and the Shi to Outcomes Based
Direc on; Ladderized Training System; Research and Data
Near the end of her lecture, Jus ce Singh underscored
that “the plan is simple: to give judges the earnest and genuine
opportunity to improve themselves through adequate, quality,
well-planned and efficacious judicial educa on and training.
The target is clear: to help eliminate docket conges on and
case delay. The result is our shared hope: to regain the public’s
trust and confidence in the judiciary.”
“Let us begin,” was Jus ce Singh’s empha c challenge to
those who a ended the lecture live at the session hall and
online via Zoom.
PHILJA Chancellor Jus ce Adolfo S. Azcuna delivered his
short reac on on Jus ce Singh’s lecture. During the short
open forum that followed, Jus ce Singh answered ques ons
raised by par cipants. PHILJA Vice Chancellor Jus ce Mariano
C. Del Cas llo capped the program with his closing remarks
where he congratulated Jus ce Singh and thanked everyone
who a ended the ac vity.
The Metrobank Founda on Professorial Chair Lecture is
endowed by the Metrobank Founda on, Inc. to assist PHILJA’s
judicial educa on programs by providing grants to its Corps
of Professors to write and publish books and trea ses with
innova ve concepts and approaches in designated areas of
law. Since 2004, 17 PHILJA Professors have delivered mely
and comprehensive discourses on various fields of law.
15
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
New Rules to Govern the Conduct of
CAM and JDR in Civil Cases
Orienta on-Seminar
The 2020 Guidelines for the Conduct of Court-Annexed
Media on (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolu on (JDR) in Civil
Cases took effect on March 1, 2021, pursuant to the Court’s
Resolu on in A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC issued on February 9, 2021.
Orienta on Seminar-Workshop for Newly
Clerks of Court
via Distance Learning Program
Date: February 1–5, 2021
Par cipants: 60 newly appointed clerks of court
The guidelines, earlier approved by the SC En Banc in a
Resolu on dated December 9, 2020, was issued in view of
the recent amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure which
became effec ve on May 1, 2020.
Orienta on Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Trial
Court Employees
via Distance Learning Program
The Academy’s Philippine Media on Center Office
(PMCO), headed by Judge Mona Lisa V. Tiongson-Tabora,
invited Judge Selma P. Alaras (RTC-Maka City, Branch 62),
Judge Caridad M. Walse-Lutero (RTC-Quezon City, Branch
223), Judge Divina Luz P. Aquino-Simbulan (RTC-City of San
Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 41), Judge Wilhelmina J. Wagan
(RTC-Pasay City, Branch 111) and Judge Marlo M. Malagar
(RTC-Manila, Branch 19) to dra the guidelines.
The commi ee conducted eight mee ngs from August to
September 2020 to review the exis ng guidelines on CAM and
JDR in civil cases, and to harmonize these guidelines with the
recent amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure.
According to Judge Tabora, it has always been the
objec ve of the PMCO to help all court users, specifically the
judges, court personnel, mediators, PMC Unit Staff, and the
li gants, to easily understand the media on process.
Some of the amendments introduced under the new
guidelines are the:
1. conduct of pre-trial and issuance of pre-trial order
before referral of the civil case to CAM;
2. clarifica on of mediatable civil cases, including the
cases to be covered under JDR on Appeal and cases
that can be referred by the courts permissively;
3. dura on of CAM in civil cases was limited to a nonextendible period of 30 calendar days from the date
of the order referring the case to CAM, while the
dura on of JDR was limited to 15 calendar days from
receipt of the referral order; and
4. the civil case can only be referred to a JDR Judge if
the trial judge is convinced that se lement is s ll
possible.
Appointed
Date: February 22–24, 2021
Par cipants: 78 newly appointed trial court employees
Date: March 9–11, 2021
Par cipants: 86 newly appointed trial court employees
Orienta on Seminar-Workshop for Newly Appointed Court
Interpreters
via Distance Learning Program
Date: March 29–30, 2021
Par cipants: 76 newly appointed court interpreters
Career Enhancement Program
Career Enhancement Program for First Level Court Sheriffs
via Distance Learning Program
Date: March 23–26, 2021
Par cipants: 56 first level court sheriffs
Career Enhancement Program for Court Legal Researchers
via Distance Learning Program
Date: March 24–26, 2021
Par cipants: 38 court legal researchers
Seminar-Workshop for Execu ve and Vice
Execu ve Judges
Seminar-Workshop for Execu ve and Vice Execu ve Judges
via Distance Learning Program
Date: February 9–12, 2021
Par cipants: 112 execu ve and vice execu ve judges
Pre-Judicature Program
53rd Pre-Judicature Program
via Distance Learning Program
Date: February 22–March 5, 2021
Par cipants: 200 lawyers, namely:
16
N
January–March 2021
C
J
R
Lilian C. Abenojar
Russel S. Alabado
Edward I. Alfonso
Philip William C. Altares
Lyndell P. Alvarado
Melissa Antone e D. Andaya-Tay
Henry S. Angeles
Sigfred P. Angeles
Darwin P. Angeles
Analyn G. Avila
Joseph Jerry B. Bañares, Jr.
Margret D. Bayhon
Lou Wella Mae S. Bernasor-Mendoza
Redwin B. Bides
Venice B. Buagñin
Almira B. Buce
Vladimir R. Bugaring
Vanessa S. Bugayong
Nathaniel G. Cacapit
Anna Carmi R. Calsado-Amoroso
Charnem B. Cañete
Lorelei A. Castro
Charles Janzen C. Chua
Kris ne Ria N. Cirilo
Joel Napoleon M. Coronel
Jinky Ann H. Cruz
Margareth Kristel B. Cuba-Samaniego
Marlita V. Dagsa
Monica A. David
Lanee C. David
Michelle R. De Los Reyes-Pagaduan
Honey Rose E. Delgado
Michelle O. Delos Santos-Bona
Joven no V. Diamante
Maria Czabrina O. Domingo
Benedicta A. Du-Baladad
Khris ne Jane B. Ejercito
Rojane C. Elopre
Emmanuel Benedict C. Evangelista
Maria Ghia C. Evangelista-Vizcarra
Agapito F. Fajardo, Jr.
Jessa Mariz R. Fernandez
Deonnalynne G. Fernandez
Lara Carmela G. Fernando
Geraiza Joy M. Floranda
Janalyn B. Gainza-Tang
Gia Angeli R. Geraldez-Abarquez
Keisha Trina M. Guangko
Ruby Ann S. Jalit
Amenda L. Leano-Garcia
Geoffrey H. Llarena
Arnel D. Macapagal
Patrick D. Maglinao
Maria Estella M. Maniquis
Maria Gwendolyn B. Marquez-Dizon
Ambrosio Maria M. Mar nez
Jamie Angeli T. Ma as
Hermielita M. Meneses
Falconi V. Millar
Maria Lourdes E. Mislang
Gi S. Mohametano
Ma hew M. Mortega
Janelle C. Mupas
Mary Grace M. Nacu
Ivn Maj M. Nopuente
Mary Ann P. Olalia-Lanete
Maureen Kascha L. Osoteo
Joeffrey G. Pagdanganan*
Muriel Ielaine B. Panganiban
Chrisa Sheila I. Pimentel
Kris ne Joy N. Puracan-Tragura
Patrick T. Ramos
Jennica C. Ramos
Joanne L. Ranada
Jerryl C. Rondez
Delight Aissa A. Salvador
Voltaire G. San Pedro
Analiza D. Sanchez
Phillip Charles G. Santos
Aileen N. Saquing-Agacita
Maria Victoria M. Sarmiento
Ramon Jeriel S. Sawit
Carla S. Sena
Edmund H. Sena
Merlo Vinia C. Silva-Castro
Michael Philip B. Silvala
Ronald Allan B. Sindo
Louie Brian R. Sze
Kareen T. Tacorda-Evangelista
Antone e C. Tionko
Maricar G. Tolen no
Maria Jerzy Aprille D. Torres
Philander L. Turqueza
Michael Marlowe G. Uy
Karla Regina D. Valera-Chua
Eretzisrel B. Valle
Veronica A. Vinluan-Bides
Myra Vita C. Yacapin-Follo
Pamela Marie R. Yson-Guevarra
R
I
Joenel M. Aurelio
Dante M. Bagsan
Dedicacion B. Banua-Duldulao
Rubie Lorraine S. Bogya Lictao
Mary Ellen S. Cabuhat
*
Did not take the WEE due to sa sfactory comple on of the 48th PJP
17
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
Hercules R. Doria
Michelle B. Gayagay-Lee
Monna Lissa C. Monje-Viray
Ronald L. Perez
Myra-Diwata A. Rivera-Caroy
Baby Ruth F. Torre
Isabel S. Zulueta
R
II
Glenbelle M. Granado
R
III
Evangeline B. Antonio
Phanie Rose S. Aragon-Saez
Roan U. Balverde-Suarez
Anne Rose R. De Guia
Minerva V. Gabriel-Sahagun
Maryann Agnes Jertez Y. Reyes-Beber
Tristan Jason Q. Tablante
Bess Joy M. Yumul
Maria Carmela C. Yumul-Elizaga
R
IV
Allesandra Fay V. Albarico
Vienna Maria R. Austria
Jose T. Banday
Maria Jocelyn D. Bascuguin
Myraflor L. Chavez
Efren R. Chavez
Cipriana D. De Villa
Jonathan Paolo R. Dimaano
Gemille Hernani L. Dolatre
Nikki Rose D. Esperanza
Norberto D. Frianeza I
Gia Joy G. Galarosa
Kenneth Beneri A. Galvez
Alfredo U. Ganggangan
Seralyn O. Garcia-Mendoza
Joedel F. Labordo
Rosario R. Larracas
Robert Nomar V. Leyretana
Gerville R. Luistro
Philbert A. Oloteo
Rey Benedict D. Ong
Giovannae Lyn M. Quicoy-Marin
Alex Aaron A. Rios
Jennifer B. Rosales
John Michael O. Sison
Melodie C. Tumambing-Marquez
Rose Camille C. Veneracion
R
V
Cherryl F. Barcenas-Nate
Daria B. Cantuba-Singson
Ludivina G. Francisco
Raiza Nicole G. Mendiola-Ladlad
Mila S. Raquid-Arroyo
Joy S. Rivera-Sabaybay
Charlo e Lyza R. Sayson-Ables
John Mar n H. Sese
R
VI
Salex E. Alibogha
Romela T. Amarilla-Cali s
Alice M. Garin
Lorena Pearl Roseluz D. Gellada-Tubongbanua
R
VII
Floyd Barry C. Amahit
Hazel Y. Cuñado
Aldeo Jesus E. Diez
Maria Margarita E. Estrada-Matu nao
Doyle D. Ex
Dollyn April A. Lucanas
Rizza Marie G. Mangubat
Jenlyn B. Mediana-Arenasa
Denis D. Pacas
Marigold D. Romero
R
VIII
Vanessa Q. Abrugar
Maria Cecile M. Andrade
Clarence G. Cherreguine
Jerleah Remedios B. Ragasa-Sydiongco
R
IX
Wendy Josephine L. Alico-Famor
Arnold P. Arceno
Orwin Lloyd M. Famor
Abraham S. Marcaban
Claver A. Pajaren
Suzanne Margaret T. Sencio-Tabunda
Edwin M. Tomon
Rey C. Torrecampo
R
X
Manuel Ramon I. Cabrera
Peme J. Cavales
Khanini B. Gandamra
Leigh Angeli C. Gipulla
Bonna E. Lora-Soriano
Cherry Mae D. Lugod
Micha Chernobyl L. Malana- Caba ngan
John Mark C. Marquino
Abdul-Azis U. Metmug
Si e Aisah M. Mohammadali-Mabaning
18
January–March 2021
Cherry Mae D.
Micha Chernobyl L. Malana- Caba ngan
John Mark C. Marquino
Abdul-Azis U. Metmug
Si e Aisah M. Mohammadali-Mabaning
Camille Therese L. Ubod-Manlunas
Janice Ivy G. Valparaiso-Chua
R
XI
Mariano L. Apao, Jr.
Dimpna D. Bermejo-Dulay
Maria Lourdes G. Lanzona-Estrellado
Faizah Gladys Mae K. Tejero
R
XII
Jeanilyn Grace D. Generalao-Hilario
Zosimo P. Lira, Jr.
52nd Pre-Judicature Program
A y. Brian Keith F. Hosaka**
Special Focus Programs
Seminar for Jus ces of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan
and Court of Tax Appeals on the Judicial Integrity Board
via Distance Learning Program
Development Partner: Judicial Integrity Board (JIB)
Date: February 24, 2021
Par cipants: 79 Associate Jus ces from Court of Appeals (CA),
Sandiganbayan (SB) and Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)
Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges,
Prosecutors and Law Enforcers of the Fourth Judicial Region
via Distance Learning Program
Development Partner: Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB)
Date: March 23–25, 2021
Par cipants: 77 RTC judges, prosecutors and law enforcers
and representa ves from other relevant agencies
**
Issued Cer ficate of Comple on from the 52nd Pre-Judicature Program
(a ended February 25, 2021, pm session)
Training of Trainers on Interna onal Humanitarian Law
via Distance Learning Program
Development Partner: Interna onal Commi ee on the Red
Cross (ICRC)
Date: March 17–23, 2021
Par cipants: 14 CA Jus ce, RTC judges, and PHILJA lawyer
Training Seminar on the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of
Civil Procedure and Evidence
via Distance Learning Program
Development Partners: United States Agency for Interna onal
Development (USAID), and the American Bar Associa on–
Rule of Law Ini a ve (ABA-ROLI)
Date: January 28–29, 2021
Par cipants: 55 RTC judges from Pasig City, Mun nlupa City
and Region X
Date: February 19 and 26, 2021
Par cipants: 34 RTC and FC judges
Special Lecture
17th Metrobank Founda on Professorial Chair Lecture
Wielding the Sword: The Role of Judicial Educa on in the
Administra on of Jus ce by Court of Appeals Associate
Jus ce Maria Filomena D. Singh
via Distance Learning Program
Development Partner: Metrobank Founda on, Inc.
Date: March 5, 2021
Par cipants: 198 Supreme Court, CA and Sandiganbayan
Jus ces; CA re red jus ce; RTC, FC and MTCC judges and court
personnel; Supreme Court, CA, Sandiganbayan and PHILJA
officials, lawyers and personnel; and guests from Metrobank
Founda on, Inc. and other agencies
Alterna ve Dispute Resolu on
Court-Annexed Media on (CAM)
Enhanced Refresher Course for Court-Annexed Mediators
(Skills Enhancement Course)
via Distance Learning Program
B
, P
, L
M
P
Date: March 2–5, 2021
Par cipants: 41 mediators
U
, T
B
19
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
three working days from repatria on. Failure to comply with
such requirement results in the forfeiture of the seafarer’s
claim for disability benefits. There are, however, excep ons
to the rule: (1) when the seafarer is incapacitated to report
to the employer upon his repatria on; and (2) when the
employer inadvertently or deliberately refused to submit
the seafarer to a post-employment medical examina on by
a company-designated physician.
Labor Law
Injuries can come in many forms—physical, emo onal,
or psychological. It is high- me that we recognize sexual
harassment on board vessels as a risk faced by our seafarers
This case involves a seafarer who was sexually harassed during
the course of his employment on board the M/V Mineral
Water. A er the incident, pe oner Richard Lawrence Daz
Toliongco (Toliongco) opted for voluntary repatria on. He
failed to comply with the three-day reportorial requirement.
However, a week a er his repatria on, he filed a complaint
before the Overseas Workers Welfare Administra on. Several
months later, he filed a complaint “for construc ve dismissal,
sexual harassment and maltreatment with prayer for the
payment of disability benefits, damages and a orney’s fees”
claiming that he is rendered permanently and totally disabled
due to his post-trauma c stress disorder caused by his
unfortunate experience onboard the vessel.
xxxx
Based on the par es’ arguments, the main issue in this case
is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the
Na onal Labor Rela ons Commission did not commit grave abuse
of discre on in denying Toliongco’s claim to disability benefits and
damages. Subsumed under this are the issues of (1) whether or
not the three-day rule on post-employment medical examina on
is mandatory; (2) whether or not Toliongco’s post-trauma c stress
disorder is work-related or work-aggravated; and (3) whether or
not Toliongco is en tled to damages.
The pe on is partly granted. The Court of Appeals erred
in ruling that Toliongco is not en tled to damages.
While the Cons tu on provides for “full protec on to
labor,” employers have the right to determine whether a
seafarer’s illness or injury is work-related or work-aggravated.
This is one of the reasons behind the three-day reportorial
requirement.
xxxx
De Andres v. Diamond H Marine Services & Shipping
Agency, Inc., et al. summarized the three-day reportorial
requirement and its excep ons under the POEA Standard
Employment Contract:
To recapitulate, a seafarer claiming disability benefits is
required to submit himself to a post-employment medical
examina on by a company-designated physician within
Ebuenga v. Southfield Agencies explained the ra onale
for the three-day reportorial requirement:
The three-day mandatory repor ng requirement must be
strictly observed since within three days from repatria on,
it would be fairly manageable for the physician to iden fy
whether the disease x x x was contracted during the term
of his employment or that his working condi ons increased
the risk of contrac ng the ailment.
xxxx
Moreover, the post-employment medical examina on
within three days from x x x arrival is required in order to
ascertain [the seafarer’s] physical condi on, since to ignore
the rule would set a precedent with nega ve repercussions
because it would open the floodgates to a limitless number
of seafarers claiming disability benefits. It would certainly
be unfair to the employer who would have difficulty
determining the cause of a claimant’s illness considering
the passage of me. In such a case, the employers would
have no protec on against unrelated disability claims.
This Court also stated in Ebuenga that post-employment
medical examina on “is a reciprocal obliga on where the
seafarer is obliged to submit to an examina on within three
working days from his or her arrival, and the employer is
correspondingly obliged to conduct a meaningful and mely
examina on of the seafarer.”
However, some illnesses may take more than three days
before its symptoms manifest. There are also illnesses that are
asymptoma c. Thus, the applica on of the 3-day reportorial
requirement must also be viewed on a case-to-case basis,
depending on the type of illness or disease.
For instance, pe oner’s alleged illness involves mental
health. Mental health disorders are not normally detected
in laboratory tests that we are accustomed to such as blood
extrac on. The diagnosis of mental health disorders usually
involve an interview with a psychiatrist and the conduct of
tests like the Rorschach, Thema c Appercep on Test, and
Minnesota Mul phasic Personality Inventory.
xxxx
There is no doubt that sexual harassment occurred on
board the M/V Mineral Water, and that pe oner was a vic m
of it. The ques on now is whether pe oner was able to
prove that his PTSD, as diagnosed by his physicians of choice,
is work-related or work-aggravated.
20
January–March 2021
First Impressions
Labor Law (continued)
xxxx
A unique circumstance in this case is that the alleged illness
is not caused by the du es and responsibili es of a Messman,
but is due to the seafarer’s work environment. Pe oner was
harassed twice in one night. Though he managed to escape
in both instances, there was no way for him to avoid CO
Oleksiy. The only way he could protect himself from further
sexual advances or unwanted sexual contact was to request
for repatria on.
In cases like these, it is possible that the seafarer’s fear
is heightened because there is no way to escape from the
environment where sexual harassment occurred. Being out at
sea, the seafarer has to wait for the ship to dock at the nearest
port before the seafarer can disembark and be repatriated.
Thus, from the me the incident of sexual harassment
occurred un l the me the seafarer is able to disembark, it
is probable that the seafarer is cowered by fear. In addi on,
the sexual predator, knowing there is no room for the vic m
to escape, is capable of con nuously commi ng such acts of
sexual harassment. The unique condi on of working on board
a ship empowers the harassment. The unique condi on of
working on board a ship empowers the sexual predator and
leaves the vic m feeling helpless because they are in the
same enclosed space.
By no means can pe oner’s repatria on be considered
as voluntary, for he had been pushed against the wall with
no other recourse. Hence, he is en tled to his salary for the
unexpired por on of his contract.
xxxx
The present case is unique because the illness involved is
a mental health disorder. We should consider the reality that
even if pe oner was physically capable of complying with the
three-day reportorial requirement, his mental facul es might
have hindered him from doing so, because of the possible
trauma inflicted on him caused by the two incidents of sexual
harassment at the hands of the chief officer.
A review of the records of this case shows that pe oner
was unable to comply with the three-day reportorial
requirement but filed a complaint one week a er repatria on.
xxx
Perhaps pe oner’s mind might have been so confused that
he could not fully grasp whatever was happening around him.
He might have lost his sense of me because of the trauma, thus
rendering him unable to comply with the three-day reportorial
requirement. It is also possible that he found it too trauma c to
report to his agency upon repatria on.
To support his claim for disability benefits, pe oner
presented a psychiatric report and a medical cer ficate.
These documents only prove that he was diagnosed with
PTSD, prescribed to take medica on, and recommended for
psychotherapy sessions. However, there was no disability
grading.
The medical cer ficate states that “[a]t this point in me
he cannot return to his work as a seafarer.” This statement
is not sufficient for this court to conclude that pe oner is
permanently and totally disabled to work as a seafarer. It
does not instruct us how pe oner’s PTSD is work-related or
work-aggravated. It also does not tell us whether pe oner
underwent psychotherapy sessions, as recommended
by his physicians. Assuming that pe oner underwent
psychotherapy sessions and took his prescribed medica on,
no evidence was presented showing how he responded to
treatment.
xxxx
Several months had passed before pe oner sought
medical opinion, but we should not blame him for belatedly
seeking medical help. Perhaps his dire financial condi on is
one factor. We note that he filed this Pe on as a pauperli gant and he has not found any suitable employment a er
repatria on. It might also have taken him some me to accept
that he needed medical help. He knew well enough that he
was wronged and immediately filed a complaint before the
Overseas Worker’s Welfare Administra on, but perhaps,
at that point, he had no manifest symptoms of any mental
health issues yet.
xxxx
Lest this Court be misunderstood, We recognize that it
takes me for vic ms of sexual harassment to come forward.
Perhaps more so if the vic m is a male, due to factors such
as “fear that he will be considered to have provoked the
assault in some way, s gma, a sense of loss of masculinity,
either through being penetrated or not having fought hard
enough to prevent the a ack (or both), x x x and fear of being
perceived as homosexual.”
It is established that pe oner suffered some form
of injury, but the pieces of evidence he submi ed are not
sufficient to convince this Court that he has been rendered
permanently and totally disabled. Thus, this Court is precluded
from awarding disability benefits, not because of his noncompliance with the three-day reportorial requirement, but
because there is barely any evidence to support the claim for
disability benefits.
xxxx
To restate, sexual harassment can happen to anyone and
everyone. Our society has o en depicted women as being the
weaker sex, and the only vic ms of sexual harassment. It is
high- me that this no on is corrected. To consider women as
the weaker sex is discriminatory. To think that only women
can be vic ms of sexual harassment is discriminatory against
men who have suffered the same plight; men who have been
vic mized by sexual predators.
21
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
Both the Labor Arbiter and the Na onal Labor Rela ons
Commission found that pe oner was sexually harassed.
Respondents also did not refute this. In view of the sexual
harassment suffered by pe oner at the hands of CO Oleksiy,
he is en tled to moral damages, exemplary damages, and
a orney’s fees.
xxxx
We must change the no on that injuries refer to only
the physical kind. Injuries can come in many forms—physical,
emo onal, or psychological. It is high- me that we recognize
sexual harassment on board vessels as a risk faced by our
seafarers. We also cannot disregard the possibility that
Toliongco felt shame over what had happened. Vic ms of
sexual abuse usually take me before repor ng to the proper
authori es. Perhaps, more so if they are male as society has
made it hard for male vic ms of sexual harassment to come
out and report. At its core, sexual harassment is not an issue
of gender but an issue of power and it may take me to find
solu ons.
Leonen, J., Richard Lawrence Daz Toliongco v. Court of Appeals, et
al., G.R. No. 231748, July 8, 2020.
Remedial Law
Rule 2.1.1 is not meant, and should not be construed, to
supplant the cons tu ve elements of the CIAC’s jurisdic on
as laid down in Rule 2.1 and the first paragraph of Sec on
4 of E.O. No. 1008; Mere allega on of construc on-related
factual ma ers does not serve to automa cally vest
jurisdic on in the CIAC
In dismissing the case for referral to the CIAC, the trial court
cited Sec on 2.1.1 of the CIAC Rules and ra ocinated that the
case at bar involves “defects in the construc on and excava on
of the building”; hence the CIAC has jurisdic on over the case.
The trial court further jus fied its ruling by ci ng the need
to declog its dockets and emphasizing the CIAC’s exper se
in construc on ma ers; which, to the trial court’s mind,
would be most advantageous to all par es concerned in the
resolu on of the case.
a er the abandonment or breach thereof. These disputes
may involve government or private contracts. For the
Board to acquire jurisdic on, the par es to a dispute
must agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitra on.
The jurisdic on of the CIAC may include but is not limited to
viola on of specifica ons for materials and workmanship;
viola on of the terms of agreement; interpreta on and/
or applica on of contractual me and delays; maintenance
and defects; payment, default of employer or contractor
and changes in contract cost.
Excluded from the coverage of this law are disputes
arising from employer-employee rela onships which
shall con nue to be covered by the Labor Code of the
Philippines.
This provision lays down three requisites for acquisi on
of jurisdic on by the CIAC, first: a dispute arising from
or connected with a construc on contract; second, such
contract must have been entered into by par es involved in
construc on in the Philippines; and third, an agreement by
the par es to submit their dispute to arbitra on. Given the
allega ons in the spouses Ang’s complaint and the issues
raised in their pe on before this Court, the foregoing
requisites obviously do not apply to the case at bar for the
simple reason that there is no construc on contract between
the spouses Ang and the respondents. The spouses Ang’s
cause of ac on does not proceed from any construc on
contract or any accessory contract thereto but from the
alleged damage inflicted upon their property by virtue of
respondents’ construc on ac vi es. In fact, respondent Soto
admi ed in his Comment that “[a] scrupulous examina on
of the allega ons [in the complaint] unveils the fact that [the
spouses Ang’s] cause of ac on springs not from a viola on of
the provisions of the Construc on Agreement between the
Sotos and the Caramats, but from the private respondents’
allegedly ‘destruc ve construc on’ and ‘erroneous prac ces’
in construc ng the Caramats’ 5-storey building.” Moreover,
the spouses did not agree, and even rejected the referral of
the dispute to the CIAC.
Provisions of law which define the jurisdic on of a quasijudicial agency “must be viewed in the light of the nature and
func on” of the par cular agency whose jurisdic on is sought
to be invoked. x x x
xxxx
xxxx
The jurisdic on of the CIAC is provided in Sec on 4
of Execu ve Order No. 1008, or the Construc on Industry
Arbitra on Law, viz.:
It is glaringly apparent from the foregoing that the CIAC
was established to serve as a tribunal which will expedi ously
resolve disputes within the construc on industry. The CIAC
was formed to resolve disputes involving transac ons and
business rela onships within the construc on industry; and
it is for this reason that Sec on 4 prescribes that the CIAC
shall only have jurisdic on over “disputes arising from, or
connected with, contracts entered into by par es involved in
S . 4. Jurisdic on. – The CIAC shall have original and
exclusive jurisdic on over disputes arising from, or
connected with, contracts entered into by par es involved
in construc on in the Philippines, whether the dispute
arises before or a er the comple on of the contract, or
22
January–March 2021
First Impressions
Remedial Law (continued)
construc on in the Philippines.” The foregoing phrase limits
the jurisdic on of the CIAC not only as to subject ma er
jurisdic on but also as to jurisdic on over the par es. Thus,
the CIAC can acquire jurisdic on if the dispute arises from or
is connected with the construc on industry, both par es to
such dispute are involved in construc on in the Philippines,
and they agree to submit their dispute to arbitra on.
Thus, it is erroneous to consider a suit for damages caused
by construc on ac vi es on an adjoining parcel of land as
a “dispute arising from or connected with a construc on
contract,” simply because an adjoining owner is not a party to
a construc on contract. Furthermore, such a construc on of
Execu ve Order (E.O.) No. 1008 would unduly and excessively
expand the scope of CIAC jurisdic on to include cases that are
essen ally quasi-delictual or tor ous in nature: cases that are
within the exclusive jurisdic on of the trial courts.
Both the court a quo and the respondents rely on Rule
2.1.1 of the CIAC Rules, which states that:
2.1.1 The jurisdic on of the CIAC may include but is not
limited to viola on of specifica ons for materials and
workmanship; viola on of the terms of agreement;
interpreta on and/or applica on of contractual
provisions; amount of damages and penal es;
commencement me and delays; maintenance and
defects; payment default of employer or contractor
and changes in contract cost.
Read together with the other parts of Rule 2, it becomes
apparent that Rule 2.1.1 is merely an enumera on of the
situa ons in which disputes cognizable by the CIAC may arise.
It merely supplements the preceding paragraph (Rule 2.1) by
illustra ng specific instances of disputes cognizable by the
CIAC. Rule 2.1.1 is not meant, and should not be construed, to
supplant the cons tu ve elements of the CIAC’s jurisdic on
as laid down in Rule 2.1 and the first paragraph of Sec on 4 of
E.O. No. 1008. It follows therefore, that not all disputes which
may be categorized as falling under Rule 2.1.1 are cognizable
by the CIAC. Stated differently, mere allega on of construc onrelated factual ma ers does not serve to automa cally vest
jurisdic on in the CIAC.
xxxx
Meanwhile, respondent Vilvar, ci ng Sec ons 35 and 21
of the Republic Act No. 9285 asserts that CIAC jurisdic on is
not limited to contractual rela ons. However, it has already
been demonstrated that the presence of a construc on
contract is an essen al requisite for the CIAC to acquire
jurisdic on. While it is indeed true that Sec ons 35 and 21
of the ADR Law confirm CIAC jurisdic on over construc on
disputes regardless of whether or not they arise from a
contract, it must be noted that Sec on 21 only contemplates
“ma ers arising from all rela onships of a commercial
nature.” Therefore, while CIAC may have jurisdic on over
non-contractual disputes (for instance, a tor ous breach of
contract), these disputes must s ll arise from or be connected
with a construc on contract entered into by par es in the
Philippines who agree to submit such disputes to arbitra on,
which is not the case here. Furthermore, the rela onship
between the par es in this case can hardly be considered
commercial in nature. Commercial acts have been defined
as those acts “which tend to the sa sfac on of necessi es
by means of exchange or of the rendi on of services effected
with a purpose of gain.” Here, the only rela on between
the spouses Ang and respondent Caramats is that they are
adjoining lot owners; and the spouses do not even have any
rela on at all to respondents Soto and Vilvar, other than that
involving the alleged damage to the Ang residence. The only
nexus between the spouses Ang and the respondents in this
case is spa al in nature, and this rela on is not enough to vest
jurisdic on in the CIAC.
Reyes, A. Jr., J., Drs. Reynaldo Ang and Susan Cucio-Ang v. Rosita De
Venecia, et al., G.R. No. 217151, February 12, 2020.
Commercial Law
The ruling on trademark ownership based on prior use in
Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. v. Abyadang and E.Y. Industrial
Sales, Inc. v. Shen Dar Electricity and Machinery Co., Ltd. is
inconsistent with the IP Code regime of ownership through
registra on
Faced with this intrinsic need to survive, enterprises are
becoming increasingly aware of the need to protect their
goodwill and their brands. The State, too, is interested in
the protec on of the intellectual property of enterprises
and individuals who have exerted effort and money to
create beneficial products and services. In line with this, and
considering the extent to which intellectual property rights
impact on the viability of businesses, a common controversy
in the field of intellectual property law is to whom these rights
pertain.
In this case of first impression; this is precisely the issue
at hand. This case concerns trademarks which are used for
different types of medicines but are admi ed by both par es
to be confusingly similar. Exacerba ng this controversy on the
issue of ownership, however, are conflic ng interpreta ons
on the rules on the acquisi on of ownership over trademarks,
muddled by jurispruden al precedents which applied
principles inconsistent with the current law. Thus, in resolving
this issue, the Court needed to examine and ascertain the
meaning and intent behind the rules that affect trademark
ownership.
23
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
xxxx
Pe oner Zuneca Pharmaceu cal has been engaged in the
importa on, marke ng, and sale of various kinds of medicines
and drugs in the Philippines since 1999. It imports generic
drugs from Pakistan and markets them in the Philippines
using different brand names. Among the products it has been
selling is a drug called carbamazepine under the brand name
“ZYNAPS,” which is an an -convulsant used to control all types
of seizure disorders of varied causes like epilepsy. x x x
Natrapharm, on the other hand, is a domes c corpora on
engaged in the business of manufacturing, marke ng, and
distribu on of pharmaceu cal products for human relief. One
of the products being manufactured and sold by Natrapharm is
ci coline under the trademark “ZYNAPSE,” which is indicated
for the treatment of cerebrovascular disease or stroke. The
trademark “ZYNAPSE” was registered with the Intellectual
Property Office of the Philippines (IPO) on September 24,
2007 and is covered by Cer ficate of Trademark Registra on
No. 4-2007-005596.
On November 29, 2007, Natrapham filed with the
RTC a Complaint against Zuneca for Injunc on, Trademark
Infringement, Damages and Destruc on with Prayer for TRO
and/or Preliminary Injunc on, alleging that Zuneca’s “ZYNAPS”
is confusingly similar to its registered trademark “ZYNAPSE”
and the resul ng likelihood of confusion is dangerous because
the marks cover medical drugs intended for different types
of illnesses. Consequently, Natrapharm sought to enjoin
Zuneca from using “ZYNAPS” or other varia ons thereof, in
addi on to its demand for Zuneca’s payment of P2,000,000
in damages; P5,000,000 in exemplary damages; and P300,000
as a orney’s fees, expenses of li ga on, and costs of suit.
Further, it prayed that all infringing goods, labels, signs, etc. of
Zuneca be impounded and destroyed without compensa on.
xxxx
Under the law, the owner of the mark shall have the
exclusive right to prevent all third par es not having the
owner’s consent from using iden cal or similar marks for
iden cal or similar goods or services where such use would
result in a likelihood of confusion.
Further, in Prosource Interna onal, Inc. v. Horphag
Research Management SA, the Court held that, to establish
trademark infringement, the following elements must be
proven: (1) the trademark being infringed is registered in the
IPO; (2) the trademark is reproduced, counterfeited, copied,
or colorably imitated by the infringer; (3) the infringing
mark is used in connec on with the sale, offering for sale,
or adver sing of any goods, business, or services; or the
infringing mark is applied to labels, signs, prints, packages,
wrappers, receptacles, or adver sements intended to be used
upon or in connec on with such goods, business, or services;
(4) the use or applica on of the infringing mark is likely to
cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others
as to the goods or services themselves or as to the source
or origin of such goods or services or the iden ty of such
business; and (5) it is without the consent of the trademark
owner or the assignee thereof.
Thus, to determine the prevailing party in this controversy
and the existence of trademark infringement, the Court first
has to rule on the issue of acquisi on of ownership of marks
by both par es.
The RTC and the CA both ruled that, having been the
first to register in good faith, Natrapharm is the owner of the
trademark “ZYNAPSE” and it has the right to prevent others,
including Zuneca, from registering and/or using a confusingly
similar mark.
Zuneca, however, contends that, as the first user, it had
already owned the “ZYNAPS” mark prior to Natrapharm’s
registra on and, invoking Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. v.
Abyadang (Berris) and E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc.[,] et al. v. Shen
Dar Electricity and Machinery Co., Ltd. (E.Y. Industrial Sales,
Inc.), its rights prevail over the rights of Natrapharm, the first
registrant of a confusingly similar mark.
The Court holds that Zuneca’s argument has no merit
because: (i) the language of the IP Code provisions clearly
conveys the rule that ownership of a mark is acquired through
registra on; (ii) the inten on of the lawmakers was to abandon
the rule that ownership of a mark is acquired through use;
and (iii) the rule on ownership used in Berris and E.Y. Industrial
Sales, Inc. is inconsistent with the IP Code regime of acquiring
ownership through registra on.
Special laws have historically determined and provided
for the acquisi on of ownership over marks, and a survey
thereof shows that ownership of marks is acquired either
through registra on or use.
xxxx
To clarify, while it is the fact of registra on which confers
ownership of the mark and enables the owner thereof to
exercise the rights expressed in Sec on 147 of the IP Code,
the first-to-file rule nevertheless priori zes the first filer
of the trademark applica on and operates to prevent any
subsequent applicants from registering marks described
under Sec on 123.1(d) of the IP Code.
Reading together Sec ons 122 and 123.1(d) of the IP
Code, therefore, a registered mark or a mark with an earlier
filing or priority date generally bars the future registra on
of—and the future acquisi on of rights in—an iden cal or a
confusingly similar mark, in respect of the same or closelyrelated goods or services, if the resemblance will likely deceive
or cause confusion.
The current rule under the IP Code is thus in stark contrast
to the rule on acquisi on of ownership under the Trademark
24
January–March 2021
First Impressions
Commercial Law (continued)
Law, as amended. To recall, the Trademark Law, as amended,
provided that prior use and non-abandonment of a mark by
one person barred the future registra on of an iden cal or
a confusingly similar mark by a different proprietor when
confusion or decep on was likely. It also stated that one
acquired ownership over a mark by actual use.
unnecessary to also anchor Berris, Inc.’s ownership of the mark
on the fact that it was the prior user as this was inconsistent
with the express provisions of the IP Code and the legisla ve
intent behind the law. Stated differently, the Court’s decision
in Berris was correct based on the fact that Berris, Inc. was the
first to file the applica on and register the mark.
Once the IP Code took effect, however, the general rule
on ownership was changed and repealed. At present, as
expressed in the language of the provisions of the IP Code,
prior use no longer determines the acquisi on of ownership
of a mark in light of the adop on of the rule that ownership
of a mark is acquired through registra on made validly in
accordance with the provisions of the IP Code. Accordingly,
the trademark provisions of the IP Code use the term “owner”
in rela on to registra ons. This fact is also apparent when
comparing the provisions of the Trademark Law, as amended,
and the IP Code, x x x
Significantly, in giving weight to the fact of prior use, the
Court cited the author Ruben E. Agpalo who had, in turn, cited
jurisprudence decided under the Trademark Law, as amended.
As a result, the rule that prior use was determina ve of
ownership was also used to resolve the issue of ownership in
Berris. As stated, however, this is contrary to the IP Code.
x x x Under the Trademark Law, as amended, the first user
of the mark had the right to file a cancella on case against an
iden cal or confusingly mark registered in good faith by another
person. However, with the omission in the IP Code provision
of the phrase “previously used in the Philippines by another
and not abandoned,” said right of the first user is no longer
available. In effect, based on the language of the provisions
of the IP Code, even if the mark was previously used and not
abandoned by another person, a good faith applicant may s ll
register the same and thus become the owner thereof, and
the prior user cannot ask for the cancella on of the la er’s
registra on. If the lawmakers had wanted to retain the regime
of acquiring ownership through use, this phrase should have
been retained in order to avoid conflicts in ownership. The
removal of such a right unequivocally shows the intent of the
lawmakers to abandon the regime of ownership under the
Trademark Law, as amended.
xxxx
As men oned, Zuneca argues that as the prior user,
following Berris and E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc., it had already
owned the “ZYNAPS” mark prior to Natrapharm’s registra on
of its confusingly similar mark, thus, its rights prevail over the
rights of Natrapharm.
As will be further explained, however, a closer look at
the cases cited by Zuneca reveals that the rule on ownership
used in resolving these cases is inconsistent with the rule on
acquisi on of ownership through registra on under the IP
Code.
xxxx
In Berris, despite the fact that Berris, Inc. was eventually
decided to be the owner of the mark consistent with the
rule on ownership under the IP Code, the Court mistakenly
gave undue weight to the fact of prior use. To be sure, it was
To repeat, a er the IP Code became effec ve star ng
1998, use was no longer required in order to acquire or perfect
ownership of the mark. In this regard, the Court now rec fies
the inaccurate statement in Berris that “[t]he ownership of a
trademark is acquired by its registra on and its actual use.”
The rec fied statement should thus read: “Under the IP Code,
the ownership of a trademark is acquired by its registra on.”
Any pronouncement in Berris inconsistent herewith should
be harmonized accordingly. To clarify, while subsequent use
of the mark and proof thereof are required to prevent the
removal or cancella on of a registered mark or the refusal of
a pending applica on under the IP Code, this should not be
taken to mean that actual use and proof thereof are necessary
before one can own the mark or exercise the rights of a
trademark owner.
Likewise, the rule on acquiring ownership discussed
in E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. is inconsistent with the current
rule under the IP Code. In said case, E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc.
(EYIS) imported air compressors from Shen Dar from 1997 to
2004. In 1997, during the effec vity of the Trademark Law, as
amended, Shen Dar filed a trademark applica on for “VESPA,
Chinese Characters and Device” for use on air compressors
and welding machines. Subsequently, in 1999, or already
during the effec vity of the IP Code, EYIS filed a trademark
applica on for “VESPA” for use on air compressors. On January
18, 2004, the IPO issued the cer ficate of registra on for
“VESPA” in favor of EYIS. Subsequently, on February 8, 2007,
the cer ficate of registra on for “VESPA, Chinese Characters
and Device” was issued in favor of Shen Dar.
Claiming to be the owner of the mark, Shen Dar filed a
pe on to cancel EYIS’s cer ficate of registra on. The Bureau
of Legal Affairs (BLA) and the Director General of the IPO both
ruled that EYIS was the owner of the mark and likewise directed
the cancella on of Shen Dar’s cer ficate of registra on.
Once the case reached the Court, the dispute was
resolved in favor of EYIS. The ponencia cited Sec on 123.1(d),
the first-to-file rule adopted by the IP Code x x x
xxxx
25
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
It is worth no ng that in E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc., the
Court upheld the factual finding that the first actual use by
EYIS was earlier than Shen Dar’s. The earliest dates of use
by both par es therein were during the effec vity of the
Trademark Law, as amended. It is also important to reiterate
that EYIS had applied and registered the mark under the IP
Code, while Shen Dar had applied for the mark under the
Trademark Law, as amended, and its registra on was obtained
a er the effec vity of the IP Code.
Assuming, however, that the Court should s ll review this
factual issue, it finds no reason to depart from the findings of
facts of the RTC, which findings were affirmed by the CA. In
fact, the Court also conducted a review of the tes monies and
evidence presented by the par es and finds that the RTC and
the CA were correct in their factual findings.
To be sure, the rule used to resolve the issue of ownership
in E.Y. industrial Sales, Inc. and Shangri-la should not be made
to apply in a situa on involving marks which are both used
and/or registered a er the effec vity of the IP Code. In the
case at bar, both “ZYNAPS” and “ZYNAPSE” have been used
and/or registered a er the IP Code became effec ve. Clearly,
the use or cita on of Trademark Law jurisprudence to resolve
the ques on on acquisi on of ownership of marks in the case
at bar or in cases involving marks registered or first used under
the IP Code will be irrelevant and inappropriate.
Caguioa, J., Zuneca Pharmaceu cal, et al. v. Natrapharm, Inc., G.R.
No. 211850, September 8, 2020.
x x x To emphasize, for marks that are first used and/or
registered a er the effec vity of the IP Code, ownership is
no longer dependent on the fact of prior use in light of the
adop on of the first-to-file rule and the rule that ownership is
acquired through registra on.
xxxx
In light of these se led facts, it is clear that Natrapharm is
the first-to-file registrant of “ZYNAPSE.” Zuneca, on the other
hand, is a prior user in good faith of a confusingly similar mark,
“ZYNAPS.” What remains conten ous is Natrapharm’s good or
bad faith as Zuneca contends that the mark was registered
in bad faith by Natrapharm. Indeed, if Zuneca’s conten on
turns out to be true, Natrapharm would not be the owner
of “ZYNAPSE” and it would not have the right under Sec on
147.1 of the IP Code to prevent other en es, including
Zuneca, from using confusingly similar marks for iden cal or
similar goods or services. Further, Natrapharm’s infringement
case would fail because its “ZYNAPSE” registra on would then
be voided.
To be sure, the finding of good faith or bad faith is a ma er
of factual determina on. Considering that a pe on for review
on cer orari under Rule 45 should only raise ques ons of law,
it is improper to put into issue at this juncture the existence of
bad faith in Natrapharm’s registra on.
Further, it is a well-recognized rule that the factual
findings of the RTC, its calibra on of the tes monies of the
witnesses, and its assessment of their proba ve weight are
given high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless cogent facts
and circumstances of substance, which if considered, would
alter the outcome of the case, were ignored, misconstrued or
misinterpreted.
The RTC ruled that there was no sufficient evidence to
convince it that Natrapharm had acquired the registra on in
bad faith. x x x
Civil Law
Unless there is a pending special proceeding for the
se lement of the decedent’s estate or for the determina on
of heirship, the compulsory or intestate heirs may commence
an ordinary civil ac on to declare the nullity of a deed or
instrument, and for recovery of property, or any other ac on
in the enforcement of their ownership rights acquired by
virtue of succession, without the necessity of a prior and
separate judicial declara on of their status as such
Under the Civil Code, when the brothers and sisters of a
deceased married sister survive with her widower, the la er
shall be en tled by law to one-half of the inheritance and the
brothers and sisters to the other half. The Civil Code likewise
states that this successional right of the legal heirs is vested in
them from the very moment of the decedent’s death.
Given that successional rights are conferred by the Civil
Code, a substan ve law, the ques on to be resolved here by
the Court is whether a prior determina on of the status as
a legal or compulsory heir in a separate special proceeding
is a prerequisite to an ordinary civil ac on seeking for the
protec on and enforcement of ownership rights given by
the law of succession. The Court now defini vely se les this
ques on once and for all.
xxxx
Given the clear dictates of the Civil Code that the rights
of the heirs to the inheritance vest immediately at the precise
moment of the decedent’s death even without judicial
declara on of heirship, and the various Court En Banc and
Division decisions holding that no prior judicial declara on
of heirship is necessary before an heir can file an ordinary
26
January–March 2021
New Rulings
Civil Law (continued)
civil ac on to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue
of succession through the nullifica on of deeds dives ng
property or proper es forming part of the estate and
reconveyance thereof to the estate or for the common benefit
of the heirs of the decedent, the Court hereby resolves to
clarify the prevailing doctrine.
Accordingly, the rule laid down in Ypon, Yap nchay,
Portugal, Reyes, Heirs of Gabatan v. Court of Appeals, and other
similar cases, which requires a prior determina on of heirship
in a separate special proceeding as a prerequisite before one
can file an ordinary civil ac on to enforce ownership rights
acquired by virtue of succession, is abandoned.
Henceforth, the rule is: unless there is a pending special
proceeding for the se lement of the decedent’s estate or for
the determina on of heirship, the compulsory or intestate
heirs may commence an ordinary civil ac on to declare
the nullity of a deed or instrument, and for recovery of
property, or any other ac on in the enforcement of their
ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, without
the necessity of a prior and separate judicial declara on of
their status as such. The ruling of the trial court shall only be
in rela on to the cause of ac on of the ordinary civil ac on,
i.e., the nullifica on of a deed or instrument, and recovery
or reconveyance of property, which ruling is binding only
between and among the par es.
Caguioa, J., Dr. Nixon L. Treyes v. Antonio L. Larlar, et al., G.R. No.
232579, September 8, 2020.
Reading Ar cle 364 of the Civil Code together with the
State’s declared policy to ensure the fundamental equality of
women and men before the law, a legi mate child is en tled
to use the surname of either parent as a last name
Pe oner filed a Pe on before the Regional Trial Court of
Zamboanga City, Branch 12, to change his name. He alleged
that he was born to Mario Alanis y Cimafranca and Jarmila
Imelda Ballaho y Al-Raschid, and that the name on his birth
cer ficate was “Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III.” However, he
wished to remove his father’s surname “Alanis III,” and instead
use his mother’s maiden name “Ballaho,” as it was what he
has been using since childhood and indicated in his school
records. He likewise wished to change his first name from
“Anacleto” to “Abdulhamid” for the same reasons.
xxxx
In its April 9, 2008 Order, the Regional Trial Court denied
the Pe on, holding that pe oner failed to prove any of the
grounds to warrant a change of name. It noted that the mere
fact that pe oner has been using a different name and has
become known by it is not a valid ground for change of name.
It also held that to allow him to drop his last name was to
disregard the surname of his natural and legi mate father,
in viola on of the Family Code and Civil Code, which provide
that legi mate children shall principally use their fathers’
surnames.
xxxx
Courts, like all other government departments and
agencies, must ensure the fundamental equality of women
and men before the law. Accordingly, where the text of a law
allows for an interpreta on that treats women and men more
equally, that is the correct interpreta on.
Thus, the Regional Trial Court gravely erred when it held
that legi mate children cannot use their mothers’ surnames.
Contrary to the State policy, the trial court treated the
surnames of pe oner’s mother and father unequally when
it said:
In the case at bar, what the pe oner wishes is for this
Court to allow him to legally change is [sic] his given and
registered first name from Anacleto III to Abdulhamid and
to altogether disregard or drop his registered surname,
Alanis, the surname of his natural and legi mate father,
and for him to use as his family name the maiden surname
of his mother Ballaho, which is his registered middle name,
which pe oner claims and in fact presented evidence to
be the name that he has been using and is known to be in
all his records.
In denying the herein pe on, this Court brings to the
a en on of the pe oner that, our laws on the use of
surnames state that legi mate and legi mated children
shall principally use the surname of the father. The Family
Code gives legi mate children the right to bear the
surnames of the father and the mother, while illegi mate
children shall use the surname of their mother, unless their
father recognizes their filia on, in which case they may
bear the father’s surname. Legi mate children, such as
the pe oner in this case, has [sic] the right to bear the
surnames of the father and the mother, in conformity with
the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames, and it is so
provided by law that legi mate and legi mated children
shall principally use the surname of the father.
This treatment by the Regional Trial Court was based on
Ar cle 174 of the Family Code, which provides:
A . 174. Legi mate children shall have the right:
(1) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother,
in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on
Surnames[.]
In turn, Ar cle 364 of the Civil Code provides:
A . 364. Legi mate and legi mated children shall
principally use the surname of the father.
The Regional Trial Court’s applica on of Ar cle 364 of
the Civil Code is incorrect. Indeed, the provision states that
legi mate children shall “principally” use the surname of the
father, but “principally” does not mean “exclusively.” This gives
ample room to incorporate into Ar cle 364 the State policy of
27
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
ensuring the fundamental equality of women and men before
the law, and no discernible reason to ignore it. x x x
Given these irrefutable premises, the Regional Trial
Court patently erred in denying pe oner’s prayer to use his
mother’s surname, based solely on the word “principally” in
Ar cle 364 of the Civil Code.
Leonen, J., Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III v. Court of Appeals, Cagayan de
Oro City and Hon. Gregorio Y. De La Peña III, Presiding Judge, Br. 12,
Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, G.R. No. 216425, November
11, 2020.
Remedial Law
Guidelines concerning pleas of guilty to capital offenses
Accused-appellant was charged with murder, defined and
penalized under Ar cle 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, making
said crime a capital offense.
It must be noted that murder remains a capital offense
despite the proscrip on against the imposi on of death as a
punishment. In People v. Albert, the Court ruled that “in case
death was found to be the imposable penalty, the same would
only have to be reduced to reclusion perpetua in view of the
prohibi on against the imposi on of the capital punishment,
but the nature of the offense of murder as a capital crime, and
for that ma er, of all crimes properly characterized as capital
offenses under the Revised Penal Code, was never tempered
to that of a non-capital offense.”
Thus, when accused-appellant pleaded guilty during his
arraignment, he pleaded to a capital offense. Sec on 3, Rule
116 of the 2000 Revised Rules is relevant, viz.:
S . 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; recep on of
evidence. – When the accused pleads guilty to a capital
offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences
of his plea and [shall] require the prosecu on to prove his
guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused
may present evidence in his behalf.
xxxx
The 2000 Revised Rules retained the salient points of the
1985 amendment. Hence, at present, the three-fold duty of
the trial court in instances where the accused pleads guilty to
a capital offense is as follows: (1) conduct a searching inquiry,
(2) require the prosecu on to prove the accused’s guilt and
precise degree of culpability, and (3) allow the accused to
present evidence on his behalf.
The present rules formalized the requirement of
the conduct of a searching inquiry as to the accused’s
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences
of his plea. Further, it made mandatory the recep on of
evidence in cases where the accused pleads guilty to a capital
offense. Most importantly, the present rules require that the
prosecu on prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the
accused. Evidently, star ng with the 1985 Rules, the accused
may no longer be convicted for a capital offense on the sole
basis of his plea of guilty.
xxxx
Thus, in every case where the accused enters a plea of
guilty to a capital offense, especially when he is ignorant
with li le or no educa on, the proper and prudent course to
follow is to take such evidence as are available and necessary
in support of the material allega ons of the informa on,
including the aggrava ng circumstances therein enumerated,
not only to sa sfy the trial judge himself but also to aid the
Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really
and truly understood and comprehended the meaning, full
significance, and consequences of his plea. x x x
Corollary to this duty, a plea of guilty to a capital offense
without the benefit of a searching inquiry or an ineffectual
inquiry, as required by Sec on 3, Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised
Rules, results to an improvident plea of guilty. It has even
been held that the failure of the court to inquire into whether
the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and to
fully explain to him the elements of the crime cons tutes a
viola on of the accused’s fundamental right to be informed of
the precise nature of the accusa on against him and a denial
of his right to due process.
This requirement is a reminder that judges must be
cau oned against the demands of sheer speed in disposing
of cases for their mission, a er all, and as has been me and
again put, is to see that jus ce is done.
xxxx
Applying the foregoing principles in this case, it is evident
that the trial court failed miserably to comply with the du es
imposed by the 2000 Revised Rules. As regards the first
duty, the trial court failed to conduct a searching inquiry
to determine the voluntariness and full comprehension by
accused-appellant of his plea of guilty. The Court scanned the
records of the case to see compliance with the said duty. The
search, however, was in vain. The records are barren of any
proceeding where the trial court gauged the mindset of the
accused when he pleaded guilty.
There is no transcript of stenographic notes which would
reveal what actually took place, what words were spoken,
what warnings were given, if a transla on was made and
the manner by which it was made, and whether or not the
guidelines for a searching inquiry were duly observed.
The RTC merely stated in its August 20, 2009 Order that
“[a]ll the contents of the Informa on as well as the par cular
28
January–March 2021
New Rulings
Remedial Law (continued)
crime charged was personally read to accused-appellant in
a Cebuano-Visayan dialect.” The RTC further stated that the
court and his counsel explained to accused-appellant the
consequences of his plea of guilt and that he will be sentenced
and imprisoned. Despite this, accused-appellant maintained
his plea of guilty.
Simply, there is no proof whatsoever that the herein judge
conducted the searching inquiry required. No other conclusion
can be made other than that the RTC failed to discharge its
du es. Accused-appellant’s plea of guilt is improvident.
What compounded the RTC’s strenuous oversight is the
fact that the trial court penalized accused-appellant of the
crime charged despite failure of the prosecu on to present
evidence of his guilt. This is in direct contraven on of the
mandate of the second duty stated in Sec on 3, Rule 116 of
the 2000 Revised Rules.
In this regard, the Court agrees with the CA that accusedappellant’s guilt for the crime of murder was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt. It is beyond cavil that the prosecu on did
not present any witness, despite being given four separate
hearing dates to do so. Thus, the RTC’s convic on of accusedappellant relied solely on his improvident plea of guilty.
Lastly, as regard[s] the third requisite, the October 5, 2011
Order of the RTC stated that “[a]ccused[-appellant,] despite
the non-recep on of prosecu on’s evidence[,] opted not to
present any evidence in [sic] his behalf.” It would appear that
accused-appellant waived his right to present evidence under
Sec on 3, Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised Rules. However, the
same Order and the records of the case are bere of any
showing that the trial court complied with the guidelines
promulgated by the Court in People v. Bodoso. Such cavalier
a tude of the trial court to the Rules of Court and exis ng
jurisprudence leaves much to be desired.
The RTC’s noncompliance with the Rules of Court is
beyond dispute. Both the OSG and accused-appellant agree
on this point. The divergence, however, is centered on the
effect of such noncompliance. Accused-appellant contends
that he should be acqui ed while the OSG agrees with the
CA’s order to remand the case for recep on of evidence to
prove accused-appellant’s guilt.
The acqui al of accused-appellant is in order.
The State insists that the case must be remanded to the
trial court for further proceedings so that the trial court may
comply with the requirements of Sec on 3, Rule 116.
For his part, accused-appellant insists that he should be
acqui ed because his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt. In support thereof, he cited Janjalani which ruled that
“[c]onvic ons based on an improvident plea of guilt are set
aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment.”
Unfortunately, accused-appellant’s quote is misleading.
While it is true that convic ons based on an improvident plea
of guilt are indeed set aside if the plea is the sole basis of the
judgment, it does not automa cally result in the acqui al of
the accused. Rather, the case is remanded to the lower court
for compliance with Sec on 3, Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised
Rules.
xxxx
Thus, the plea of guilty of an accused cannot stand in
place of the evidence that must be presented and is called for
by Sec on 3 of Rule 116. Trial courts should no longer assume
that a plea of guilty includes an admission of the a ending
circumstances alleged in the informa on as they are now
required to demand that the prosecu on prove the exact
liability of the accused. The requirements of Sec on 3 would
become idle and fruitless if we were to allow conclusions
of criminal liability and aggrava ng circumstances on the
dubious strength of a presump ve rule.
As it stands, the convic on of the accused shall be based
principally on the evidence presented by the prosecu on. The
improvident plea of guilty by the accused becomes secondary.
Accordingly, convic ons involving improvident pleas are
affirmed if the same are supported by proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Otherwise, the convic on is set aside and the case
remanded for re-trial when the convic on is predicated solely
on the basis of the improvident plea of guilt, meaning that the
prosecu on was unable to prove the accused’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. x x x
xxxx
x x x [T]he Court cannot sustain the convic on as there is
nothing in the records that would show the guilt of accusedappellant. Neither is it just to remand the case. This is not a
situa on where the prosecu on was wholly deprived of the
opportunity to perform its du es under the 2000 Revised
Rules to warrant a remand. In this case, the prosecu on was
already given reasonable opportunity to prove its case against
accused-appellant. Regre ably, the State squandered its
chances to the detriment of accused-appellant. If anything,
the State, given its vast resources and awesome powers,
cannot be allowed to vex an accused with criminal prosecu on
more than once. The State should, first and foremost, exercise
fairness.
The records also do not disclose that the improvident
plea of guilty jeopardized the presenta on of evidence by
the prosecu on, to the prejudice of either the prosecu on or
accused-appellant.
Therefore, in instances where an improvident plea of guilt
has been entered and the prosecu on was given reasonable
opportunity to present evidence to establish the guilt of the
accused but failed to do so, the accused is en tled to an
acqui al, if only to give rise to the cons tu onally guaranteed
right to due process and the presump on of innocence.
29
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
Since the prosecu on was given four separate hearing
dates to present evidence against accused-appellant and,
despite these chances, the prosecu on was unable to prove
his guilt, the Court acquits accused-appellant for failure of the
prosecu on to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for
the crime of murder.
xxxx
Lest it be misunderstood, the decision to acquit is not
recompense to accused-appellant and penalty for the trial
court and the State’s failure to abide by Sec on 3, Rule 116. It
is the result demanded by applicable law and jurisprudence.
At the end of day, the Court deeply feels and echoes the
cry for jus ce for Selma and her family. However, such jus ce
cannot be achieved at the expense of trampling on accusedappellant’s cons tu onal rights to due process, presump on
of innocence, and speedy disposi on of cases. In that case,
jus ce would not be jus ce at all. For while “[t]he sovereign
power has the inherent right to protect itself and its people
from vicious acts which endanger the proper administra on
of jus ce; hence, the State has every right to prosecute and
punish violators of the law,” “in the hierarchy of rights, the
Bill of Rights takes precedence over the right of the State to
prosecute, and when weighed against each other, the scales
of jus ce lt towards the former.”
In all criminal prosecu ons, the State bears the burden
of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. When the State fails to overcome the presump on of
innocence in favor of the accused, such as in this case, the
accused must be acqui ed and set free. No less than the
precepts of jus ce and fairness demand this.
Here, the acqui al of accused-appellant is fair and just
under the circumstances; that between the State and the
accused, the la er should be given preference. Accusedappellant’s acqui al is not just based on jus ce and fairness
but also based on humanity as the accused should not be
made to answer for the State’s blunders.
Indeed, while jus ce is the first virtue of the court, yet
admi edly, humanity is the second.
For the guidance of the bench and the bar, this Court
adopts the following guidelines concerning pleas of guilty to
capital offenses:
1. AT THE TRIAL STAGE. When the accused makes a
plea of guilty to a capital offense, the trial court must
strictly abide by the provisions of Sec on 3, Rule 116
of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
In par cular, it must afford the prosecu on an
opportunity to present evidence as to the guilt of
the accused and the precise degree of his culpability.
Failure to comply with these mandates cons tute
grave abuse of discre on.
a. In case the plea of guilty to a capital offense
is supported by proof beyond reasonable
doubt, the trial court shall enter a judgment of
convic on.
b. In case the prosecu on presents evidence
but fails to prove the accused’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, the trial court shall enter a
judgment of acqui al in favor of the accused.
c.
In case the prosecu on fails to present any
evidence despite opportunity to do so, the trial
court shall enter a judgment of acqui al in favor
of the accused.
In the above instance, the trial court shall
require the prosecu on to explain in wri ng
within 10 days from receipt its failure to present
evidence. Any instance of collusion between the
prosecu on and the accused shall be dealt with
to the full extent of the law.
2. AT THE APPEAL STAGE:
a. When the accused is convicted of a capital
offense on the basis of his plea of guilty,
whether improvident or not, and proof beyond
reasonable doubt was established, the judgment
of convic on shall be sustained.
b. When the accused is convicted of a capital offense
solely on the basis of his plea of guilty, whether
improvident or not, without proof beyond
reasonable doubt because the prosecu on was
not given an opportunity to present its evidence,
or was given the opportunity to present evidence
but the improvident plea of guilt resulted to an
undue prejudice to either the prosecu on or the
accused, the judgment of convic on shall be set
aside and the case remanded for re-arraignment
and for recep on of evidence pursuant to
Sec on 3, Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
c.
When the accused is convicted of a capital offense
solely on the basis of a plea of guilty, whether
improvident or not, without proof beyond
reasonable doubt because the prosecu on failed
to prove the accused’s guilt despite opportunity
to do so, the judgment of convic on shall be set
aside and the accused acqui ed.
Said guidelines shall be applied prospec vely.
Gesmundo, J., People of the Philippines v. Brendo P. Pagal a.k.a.
“Dindo,” G.R. No. 241257, September 29, 2020.
30
January–March 2021
Remedial Law
In dismissing criminal cases based on the right of the accused
to speedy trial, courts carefully weigh the circumstances
a ending each case. They should balance the right of the
accused and the right of the State to punish people who
violate its penal laws
Sec on 16, Ar cle III of the Cons tu on guarantees every
person’s right to a speedy disposi on of his case before
all judicial, quasi-judicial or administra ve bodies. This
cons tu onal right is not limited to the accused in criminal
proceedings but extends to all par es in all cases, be it civil or
administra ve in nature, as well as in all proceedings, either
judicial or quasi-judicial. In this accord, any party to a case
may demand expedi ous ac on of all officials who are tasked
with the administra on of jus ce.
Withal, it must be stressed that the right to a speedy
disposi on of cases should be understood to be a rela ve or
flexible concept such that a mere mathema cal reckoning of
the me involved would not be sufficient. Case law teaches
that the right is deemed violated only when the proceedings
are a ended by vexa ous, capricious, and oppressive delays;
or when unjus fied postponements of the trial are asked
for or secured, or even without cause or jus fiable mo ve,
a long period of me is allowed to elapse without a party
having his case tried. In dismissing criminal cases based on
the right of the accused to speedy trial, courts carefully weigh
the circumstances a ending each case. They should balance
the right of the accused and the right of the State to punish
people who violate its penal laws. Factors such as the length
of delay, reason for the delay, the defendant’s asser on or
non-asser on of the right, and prejudice to the defendant
resul ng from the delay, must be considered.
less than a month. The facts in field in no way indicate that
the prosecu on of the pe oners had been unjustly delayed
by the prosecu on, specifically the failure of its witnesses
to a end the scheduled hearing. The trial court should have
given the prosecu on a fair opportunity to prosecute its
case. The se led rule is that the right to speedy trial allows
reasonable con nuance so as not to deprive the prosecu on
of its day in court. x x x
The Court appreciates the RTC’s obedience to the newly
implemented Revised Guideline[s] for Con nuous Trial of
Criminal Cases. But, as discussed by the CA, strict adherence to
the rules is never meant to collide with the cons tu onal right
to due process. Although periods for trial have been s pulated,
these periods are not absolute. Where periods have been
set, certain exclusions are allowed by law. A er all, one must
recognize the fact that judicial proceedings do not exist in a
vacuum and must contend with the reali es of everyday life.
In spite of the prescribed me limits, jurisprudence con nues
to adopt the view that the fundamentally recognized principle
is that the concept of speedy trial is a rela ve term and must
necessarily be a flexible concept.
Finally, as men oned earlier, pe oners cannot invoke
their right against double jeopardy. The three requisites of
double jeopardy are: (1) a first jeopardy must have a ached
prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been
validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy must be for the
same offense as that in the first. Legal jeopardy a aches only:
(1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3)
a er arraignment; (4) when a valid plea has been entered;
and (5) when the defendant was acqui ed or convicted, or
the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the
express consent of the accused.
xxxx
The Court has consistently held in an unbroken line
of cases that dismissal of cases on the ground of failure to
prosecute is equivalent to an acqui al that would bar further
prosecu on of the accused for the same offense. Be that as
it may, these dismissals were predicated on the clear right of
the accused to speedy trial. These cases are not applicable
to this case considering that the right of the pe oners to a
speedy trial has not been violated by the State. In fact, the
order of dismissal was rendered by the RTC, and as held by
the CA, acted with grave abuse of discre on amoun ng to
lack or excess of jurisdic on. Significantly, the criminal case
was dismissed at pe oners’ instance and thus, with their
express consent. For these reasons, pe oners cannot invoke
their rights against double jeopardy. There was no viola on of
pe oners’ rights to speedy trial and the criminal case against
them was correctly ordered to be reinstated.
From the foregoing, it must be noted that Criminal Case
No. 14-1950 was only postponed thrice and for a period of
In ng, J., Michael David T. Castañeda, et al. v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 241729, July 8, 2020.
xxxx
In the pe on at bench, a careful review of the series of
events and the circumstances surrounding the proceedings
before the trial court would show that there was no delay
contemplated under the Cons tu on to support pe oners’
asser on that their right to speedy disposi on of the case
against them were violated.
31
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
Cons tu onal Law
The BANAT formula withstood the test of me and the Court
is offered no cogent reason to depart therefrom. BANAT
formula, is s ll good law
The Cons tu on mandates that the party-list system shall
compose 20 percent of the total membership in the House
of Representa ves. But the ma er on how party-lists could
qualify for a seat is le to the wisdom of the legislature. x x x
Pursuant to this cons tu onal direc ve, Congress enacted
RA No. 7941 se ng forth the parameters for elec ng partylists and the manner of alloca ng seats to them[.]
xxxx
x x x As finally se led in the landmark case of BANAT,
Sec on 11(b) of RA No. 7941 is to be applied, thus:
Round 1:
a. The par cipa ng par es, organiza ons or coali ons
shall be ranked from highest to lowest based on the
number of votes they each garnered in the party-list
elec on.
b. Each of those receiving at least 2 percent of the total
votes cast for the party-list system shall be en tled to
and guaranteed one seat each.
Ra onale: The statute references a 2 percent threshold.
The one-seat guarantee based on this arithme cal
computa on gives substance to this threshold.
Round 2, Part 1:
a. The percentage of votes garnered by each of the
par es, organiza ons and coali ons is mul plied
by the remaining available seats a er Round 1. All
party-list par cipants shall par cipate in this round
regardless of the percentage of votes they garnered.
b. The party-list par cipants shall be en tled to addi onal
seats based on the product arrived at in (a). The whole
integer of the product corresponds to a party’s share
in the remaining available seats. Frac onal seats shall
not be awarded.
Ra onale: This formula gives flesh to the
propor onality rule in rela on to the total number
of votes obtained by each of the par cipa ng party,
organiza on, or coali on.
c.
A Party-list shall be awarded no more than two
addi onal seats.
Ra onale: The three-seat cap in the statute is to be
observed.
Round 2, Part 2:
a. The party-list party, organiza on or coali on next in
rank shall be allocated one addi onal seat each un l
all available seats are completely distributed.
Ra onale: This algorithm endeavors to complete the
20 percent composi on for party-list representa on
in the House of Representa ves.
xxxx
The first round of seat alloca on is based on the first
sentence of Sec on 11(b) while the second round is based
on the first proviso. To prescribe a method of seat alloca on
contrary to the unequivocal language of RA No. 7941 would
be nothing short of judicial legisla on, if not usurpa on
of legisla ve powers, as it would allow us to subs tute the
wisdom of Congress with ours.
Pe oners do not challenge the first round of seat
alloca on. They maintain, however, that the second round
of seat alloca on results in the double-coun ng of votes.
According to them, each vote a er the 2 percent threshold
(to which has been allo ed a guaranteed one seat) should
already carry equal weight. They assert viola on of the “one
person, one vote” principle as well as the equal protec on
clause.
Pe oners are mistaken in claiming that the reten on
of the 2 percent votes in the second round of seat alloca on
is uncons tu onal. All votes, whether cast in favor of twopercenters and non-two-percenters, are counted once. The
perceived “double-coun ng of votes” does not offend the
equal protec on clause—it is an advantage given to twopercenters based on substan al dis nc on that the rule of
law has long acknowledged and confirmed.
xxxx
Pe oners foist the idea that only the votes of the twopercenters were counted and considered in the first round.
Jus ce Gesmundo seems to agree with them and states:
As correctly pointed out by the pe oners, the 2 percent
votes to jus fy the alloca on of one guaranteed seat
were considered and used during the alloca on of the
guaranteed seats. To consider them again, this me for
purposes of alloca ng addi onal seats would give these
voters more weight or more value than others in viola on
of the equal protec on clause as it gives due preference
to votes received by party-list organiza ons who got
2 percent of the vote from those who do not.
Nothing is farthest from the truth. All votes were counted,
considered and used during the first round of seat alloca on,
not just those of the two-percenters. But in the end, the
non-two-percenters simply did not meet the requisite vo ng
threshold to be allocated a guaranteed seat.
32
January–March 2021
Doctrinal Reminders
Constitutional Law (continued)
As correctly argued by the OSG, the system of coun ng
pertains to two different rounds and for two different purposes:
the first round is for purposes of applying the 2 percent
threshold and ensuring that only party-lists with sufficient
cons tuencies shall be represented in Congress, while the
second round is for the purpose of ensuring compliance with
the cons tu onal fiat that 20 percent of the members of
the House of Representa ves shall be elected via a party-list
system, thus, seats are computed in propor on to a party-list’s
total number of votes.
Such is the current state of the party-list system elec ons.
Since the system does not have a defined cons tuency as
in district representa on, elec ons are won by hurdling
thresholds, not by sheer plurality of votes. Congress deemed
it wise to set two thresholds for the two rounds of seat
alloca on. Each party-list earns a seat each me they hurdle
the threshold in each round. But to clarify, each vote is
counted only once for both rounds.
In the first round, party-lists receiving at least 2 percent
of the total votes cast for the party-list system are en tled
to one seat. In determining whether a party-list has met the
propor onal threshold, its percentage number of votes is
computed, as follows:
Number of votes obtained by a Party-list
Total number of votes cast under the
party-list system
The “total number of votes cast under the party-list
system,” the very divisor of the formula, the very index of
propor onality, requires that all votes cast under the partylist system be counted and considered in alloca ng seats
in the first round, be it in favor of a two-percenter or a
non-two-percenter. This only goes to show that all votes
were counted and considered in the first round. Just because
the non-two-percenters were not allocated a guaranteed seat
does not mean that their votes were accorded lesser weight,
let alone, disregarded. It simply means that they did not reach
the propor onal threshold in the first round.
xxxx
Just as how all votes were considered in the first round
of seat alloca on, all votes would be considered in the
first part of the second round of seat alloca on, too. Lest
it be misunderstood, though, there is no second round of
coun ng at this stage. We do not recompute the number
of votes obtained by each party nor the percentage of votes
they garnered. We do not tally the votes anew. We do not
modify the data used in the first round. Instead, the number
of votes cast for each party as determined in the first round
is preserved precisely to ensure that all votes are counted
only once.
Lazaro-Javier, J., Angkla: Ang Par do ng mga Pilipinong Marino,
Inc. (ANGKLA), and Serbisyo sa Bayan Party (SBP) v. Commission on
Elec ons, et al., G.R. No. 246816, September 15, 2020.
Administra ve Law
Dismissal of the administra ve case may operate to dismiss
the criminal case if there is a finding that the act from which
liability is anchored does not exist
On February 28, 2011, the Office of the OmbudsmanMindanao came out with two separate rulings on the
administra ve and criminal cases arising out of the same
alleged acts and omissions against pe oners. These rulings
were prepared and reviewed by, and signed for approval by
the same set of officers.
In October 2013, this same set of officers reconsidered
the Decision in the administra ve case and exonerated
pe oners on a categorical finding that they “had no direct
par cipa on in the anomalies.” Precisely because this same
set of officers had already found pe oners not to have had any
direct par cipa on in the anomalies, pe oners accordingly
moved for reconsidera on of the Resolu on in the criminal
case against them. Incredibly, this same set of officers from
the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao who exonerated
pe oners of any administra ve wrongdoing—to repeat, on
a finding by them that pe oners had no direct par cipa on
in the anomalies—nevertheless sustained the Resolu on in
the criminal case finding probable cause against pe oners
on sheer technicality, that is, the reglementary period in filing
a mo on for reconsidera on had already lapsed.
It is certainly astonishing how the same set of officers
who determined that pe oners had no par cipa on in
the anomalies—a determina on, in so many words, that
pe oners were completely innocent of any wrongdoing—
essen ally allowed, in the same breath, the con nuance of
the criminal prosecu on against them based on the same
factual circumstances and subject ma er. This denial of the
mo on for reconsidera on on a pure technicality in the face
of their own unqualified exonera on of pe oners in the
administra ve case is nothing but grave abuse of discre on—
for certainly, if pe oners were already found not to have had
any par cipa on in the anomalies, then this finding merits
their exonera on as well from the criminal case. It falls well
within the excep on to the general rule that administra ve
and criminal cases based on the same opera ve facts may
proceed independently.
To digress, there are three kinds of remedies available
against a public officer for impropriety in the performance
of his powers and the discharge of his du es: (1) civil,
(2) criminal, and (3) administra ve. These remedies may be
invoked separately, alternately, simultaneously or successively.
Some mes, the same offense may be the subject of all three
kinds of remedies.
33
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
The rule that the three kinds of remedies, which flow
from the three-fold liability of a public officer, may proceed
independently, is hinged on the differences in the quantum of
evidence required in each case. In criminal cases, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is needed, whereas a mere preponderance
of evidence will suffice in civil cases. In administra ve cases,
only substan al evidence is required. As such, defeat of any
of the three remedies will not necessarily preclude resort to
other remedies or affect decisions reached thereat.
Specifically, in cases where both an administra ve case
and a criminal case are filed against a public officer for the
same act or omission, the Court has consistently held that an
absolu on from an administra ve case does not necessarily
bar a criminal case from proceeding, and vice versa. x x x
It is significant to note, however, that the star ng point
in these cases is an act or omission which gives rise to an
offense—that single act or omission that offends against two
or more dis nct and related provisions of law or gives rise to
criminal as well as administra ve liability.
xxxx
x x x If the dismissal is only because the quantum of
evidence had not been met, the defendant or respondent is
not completely absolved in all remaining proceedings. That
said, in People v. Sandiganbayan (First Division) (People), while
the Court acknowledged the dis nct and independent nature
of an administra ve case from a criminal case, it nonetheless
gave weight on how the administra ve case was dismissed[.]
xxx
Notably, in People, the Court was upholding a resolu on
of the Sandiganbayan which granted the demurrer to
evidence of the accused. The an -gra court took into
account the decision of the CA in the administra ve case,
which upheld the legality and validity of the contracts subject
of the proceedings, as a “persuasive ruling,” considering that
it involved the same issues, subject ma er and par es. It
reasoned out that since the bases for the two separate and
dis nct proceedings pertain to the same evidence, then the
principle that the dismissal of an administra ve case does
not necessarily bar the filing of a criminal prosecu on for the
same or similar acts subject of the administra ve complaint,
on which its previous resolu on was anchored, no longer
applies. The conclusion then was that there being want of
substan al evidence to support an administra ve charge,
there could be no sufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion
that there is probable cause for a viola on of Sec on 3(e) of
RA No. 3019.
xxxx
x x x Constan no v. Sandiganbayan (Constan no) is
instruc ve. In that case, the Court held that the dismissal of
the administra ve case based on the same subject ma er
and a er examining the same crucial evidence operates to
dismiss the criminal case because of the precise finding that
the act from which liability is anchored does not exist. x x x
xxxx
The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao itself had
already determined, in no uncertain terms, that pe oners
had no par cipa on in the alleged anomalies. In arriving at
this conclusion, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao
noted the comments of the COA and the Opera ons/Process
Chart governing the disbursement of barangay funds, which
showed that the responsibili es of pe oners entailed
performing acts that transpired before and a er the alleged
anomalies occurred. x x x
The ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao,
therefore, is much more than a finding that there was
“insufficient evidence” to hold pe oners administra vely
liable, but rather, that pe oners did not commit anything at
all which can poten ally incriminate them administra vely or
criminally.
To be sure, the treatment of the different proceedings
here with regard to their capacity to survive a er the dismissal
of the other is akin to cases where, despite the acqui al of an
accused in a criminal case based on reasonable doubt, he or
she remains civilly liable. Well-se led is the rule that a person
acqui ed of a criminal charge is not necessarily civilly free
because the quantum of proof required in criminal prosecu on
(proof beyond reasonable doubt) is greater than that required
for civil liability (mere preponderance of evidence). In order to
be completely free from civil liability, a person’s acqui al must
be based on the fact that he did not commit the offense. If the
acqui al is based merely on reasonable doubt, the accused
may s ll be held civilly liable since this does not mean he did
not commit the act complained of. It may only be that the
facts proved did not cons tute the offense charged.
Caguioa, J., Alma Camoro Pahkiat, et al. v. Office of the OmbudsmanMindanao and Commission on Audit-XII, G.R. No. 223972, November
3, 2020.
Criminal Law
Neither the presence of the trafficker’s clients, nor their
intercourse with the vic m/s, is required to support a finding
of trafficking
Sec on 3(a) of RA No. 9208 defines the term “Trafficking in
Persons” as the “recruitment, transporta on, transfer or
harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the vic m’s
consent or knowledge, within or across na onal borders by
means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduc on, fraud, decep on, abuse of power or of posi on,
34
January–March 2021
Doctrinal Reminders
Criminal Law (continued)
taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons, or, the
giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another person for
the purpose of exploita on which includes at a minimum, the
exploita on or the pros tu on of others or other forms of
sexual exploita on, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude
or the removal or sale of organs.” The same provision further
provides that “[t]he recruitment, transporta on, transfer,
harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploita on
shall also be considered as ‘trafficking in persons’ even if it
does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding
paragraph.” x x x
xxxx
For a successful prosecu on of Trafficking in Persons, the
following elements must be shown: (a) the act of “recruitment,
transporta on, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons
with or without the vic m’s consent or knowledge, within or
across na onal borders”; (b) the means used which include
“threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduc on,
fraud, decep on, abuse of power or of posi on, taking
advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
person having control over another”; and (c) the purpose of
trafficking is exploita on which includes “exploita on or the
pros tu on of others or other forms of sexual exploita on,
forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or
sale of organs.” In addi on, Sec on 6 of RA No. 9208 provides
that the crime is qualified when, inter alia, the trafficked
person is a child[.] x x x
In this case, the courts a quo found that the prosecu on,
through the tes monies of both AAA and BBB, was able to
establish that Estonilo had indeed befriended the two minors
in order to recruit them and therea er, pimp them to his
clients. For this purpose, he was able to take advantage of AAA
and BBB’s minority and coerce them into commi ng sexual
acts with one another, under the pretext that they needed
to learn how to perform such acts with fellow males so that
they can earn monetary considera on for the same. Hence,
the Court finds no reason to overturn the findings of the RTC,
as affirmed by the CA, as there was no showing that they
overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding
facts and circumstances of the case. x x x
In this regard, the CA erred in opining that no trafficking
existed as “there was no person to whom [Estonilo] endorsed
or recruited his vic ms,” and further stressing that the sexual
acts transpired not between AAA or BBB and any of Estonilo’s
clients, but between AAA and BBB themselves. As aptly
pointed out by Associate Jus ce Ramon Paul L. Hernando,
neither the presence of the trafficker’s clients, nor their
intercourse with the vic m/s, is required to support a finding
of trafficking. As held in People v. Aguirre:
Furthermore, the presence of the trafficker’s clients is not
an element of the crime of recruitment or transporta on
of vic ms under Sec ons 3(a) and 4(a) of RA No. 9208. In
the same vein, the law does not require that the vic ms
be transported to or be found in a brothel or a pros tu on
den for such crime of recruitment or transporta on to
be commi ed. In fact, it has been held that the act of
sexual intercourse need not have been consummated for
recruitment to be said to have taken place. It is sufficient
that the accused has lured, en ced[,] or engaged its
vic ms or transported them for the established purpose
of exploita on, which includes pros tu on, sexual
exploita on, forced labor, slavery, and the removal
or sale of organs. In this case, the prosecu on has
sa sfactorily established accused-appellants’ recruitment
and transporta on of private complainants for purposes
of pros tu on and sexual exploita on. (Emphases and
underscoring supplied)
Thus, the fact that neither AAA nor BBB had sexual contact
with any of Estonilo’s clients will not affect the la er’s criminal
liability for Qualified Trafficking in Persons. To be sure, the
gravamen of the crime of trafficking is “the act of recrui ng
or using, with or without consent, a fellow human being for
[inter alia,] sexual exploita on”—which, as already discussed,
was established to have been commi ed by Estonilo.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., People of the Philippines v. Ranie Estonilo y De
Guzman, G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020.
Remedial Law
The limited recogni on of FDCP’s right to amusement taxes,
although coming from uncons tu onal and hence, void
provisions, is only based on the opera ve fact doctrine
In the June 16, 2015 Decision, the Court struck down as invalid
and uncons tu onal Sec ons 13 and 14 of RA No. 9167,
essen ally holding that these provisions violated the principle
of local fiscal autonomy because they authorized FDCP to
earmark, and hence, effec vely confiscate the amusement
taxes which should have otherwise inured to the benefit of
the local government units (LGUs). However, recognizing the
existence of these statutory provisions and the reliance of the
public thereto prior to their being declared uncons tu onal,
the Court applied the doctrine of opera ve fact and held,
among others, that: (1) FDCP and the producers of graded
films need not return the amounts already received from the
LGUs because they merely complied with the provisions of
RA No. 9167 which were in effect at that me; and (2) any
amounts retained by cinema proprietors and operators due
to FDCP at that me should be remi ed to the la er since
Sec ons 13 and 14 of RA No. 9167 produced legal effects prior
to their being declared uncons tu onal.
35
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
xxxx
At the onset, it is apt to note that the propriety to clarify
the Court’s own decision or resolu on in a given case rests
on its sole preroga ve, in line with its inherent power to
“amend and control its process and orders so as to make
them conformable to law and jus ce.” As held in one case,
“[t]he inherent power of the court carries with it the right
to determine every ques on of fact and law which may be
involved in the execu on.”
While the Court observes that its resolu on in this case had
already a ained finality on October 15, 2019, the Court deems
it apt to entertain SMPHI’s mo on for clarifica on concerning
the above issue due to the misguided interpreta on of the
FDCP in the higher interest of jus ce.
Primarily, it should be borne in mind that per the Court’s
procedure, when mo on for reconsidera on of a decision/
resolu on on the main is denied with finality, it means that
there is no more recourse by the losing party to contest the
same. Unless the Court grants leave upon further mo on of a
party, a denial with finality necessarily signifies that no further
pleadings, mo ons, or papers concerning the issue disposed
of shall be entertained. This therefore signifies that, regardless
of the date of receipt of the judgment, this Court’s disposi on
contained in the decision or resolu on should already be
deemed effec ve. Since there is no further recourse by the
losing party, the date of its receipt thereof would be of no
prac cal consequence.
In this case, the Court, in the October 15, 2019 Resolu on,
had already denied with finality, among others, FDCP’s mo on
for reconsidera on of the June 16, 2015 Decision x x x
The Court’s denial with finality of FDCP’s mo on for
reconsidera on had already put to rest any issue anent
the cons tu onality of Sec ons 13 and 14 of RA No. 9167.
As abovemen oned, the Court held that these provisions
violated the principle of local fiscal autonomy because they
authorized FDCP to earmark, and hence, effec vely confiscate
the amusement taxes which should have otherwise inured to
the benefit of the LGUs. x x x
With the uncons tu onality of these provisions,
proprietors, operators or lessees of theatres or cinemas are no
longer under any obliga on to remit to FDCP the amusement
taxes on graded films, which should have accrued to the LGUs.
Conversely, FDCP no longer had any legal right to receive or
demand the same.
However, in light of the opera ve fact doctrine, the Court
gave these provisions limited applica on in that FDCP was
authorized to retain the aforesaid amusement taxes already
received from proprietors, operators or lessees of theatres
or cinemas during the provisions’ effec vity. With the Court’s
final denial of FDCP’s mo on for reconsidera on on October
15, 2019, FDCP had lost its right to retain, nay, collect or
demand, any amusement tax from proprietors, operators or
lessees of theatres or cinemas pursuant to the stricken down
Sec ons 13 and 14 of RA No. 9167. The limited recogni on
of FDCP’s right to these taxes, although coming from
uncons tu onal and hence, void provisions, is only based on
the opera ve fact doctrine, which is in turn, premised on the
public reliance thereto at the me of their existence. Thus,
since Sec ons 13 and 14 of RA No. 9167 had already been
declared uncons tu onal with finality on October 15, 2019,
no one can validly claim reliance on these provisions anymore
from that point on, much less be a source of any right or
en tlement in favor of FDCP.
To reiterate, the fact that FDCP received the October 15,
2019 Resolu on on December 10, 2019 is of no moment.
While the finality of decisions or resolu ons of this Court is,
per the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, counted 15 days
from the party’s receipt, this reglementary period pertains
to decisions or resolu ons on the main. FDCP had already
received the main decision in this case declaring Sec ons 13
and 14 as uncons tu onal and had in fact, duly filed a mo on
for reconsidera on within the 15-day period. At the risk of
belaboring the point, FDCP’s mo on for reconsidera on had
already been denied with finality, which therefore means that
it had no further recourse under the Rules. In fact, from that
me on, FDCP did not any more contest the Court’s disposi on
through any subsequent mo on. This notwithstanding, FDCP,
through the alleged Memorandum dated December 11, 2019,
s ll sought all theater owners to process all amusement tax
remi ances accorded to films graded before December 10,
2019. This FDCP can no longer do. Notwithstanding FDCP’s
receipt of the Court’s October 15, 2019 Resolu on on
December 10, 2019, it has simply no more right, under the
law or equity, to the amusement taxes accruing in favor of the
LGUs. Beginning October 15, 2019, its limited refuge under
the opera ve fact doctrine had already ended.
In fine, the Court hereby clarifies that pursuant to
the opera ve fact doctrine, FDCP’s right to claim all taxes
withheld by proprietors, operators or lessees of theatres
or cinemas, which may otherwise accrue to the ci es and
municipali es in Metropolitan Manila and highly urbanized
and independent component ci es in the Philippines
pursuant to Sec on 140 of RA No. 7160 during the period the
graded film is exhibited, is only recognized from the date of
effec vity of RA No. 9167 up un l October 15, 2019 (finality
of this case).
xxxx
Thus:
1. FDCP is not required to return to the LGUs all
remi ances already received by it from proprietors,
operators or lessees of theatres or cinemas pursuant
to its implementa on of Sec ons 13 and 14 of
RA No. 9167 from the effec vity of RA No. 9167 up
un l October 15, 2019 (finality of this case);
2. Proprietors, operators or lessees of theatres or
cinemas are obliged to remit to FDCP all revenue
36
January–March 2021
Doctrinal Reminders
Remedial Law (continued)
from the amusement tax on the graded film which
may otherwise accrue to the ci es and municipali es
in Metropolitan Manila and highly urbanized and
independent component ci es in the Philippines
pursuant to Sec on 140 of the LGC during the period
the graded film is exhibited, provided that, revenue
to be remi ed to FDCP arises only from graded films
already exhibited during the period of the effec vity
of RA No. 9167 up un l October 15, 2019 (finality of
this case).
As a final point, it must be reiterated that Sec ons 13 and
14’s limited recogni on is only premised on the applica on
of the opera ve fact doctrine. Sec ons 13 and 14 are void
statutory provisions which should not have produced legal
effects were it not for the opera ve fact doctrine. Indeed, to
allow FDCP to claim revenue from amusement taxes at the
point of sale although the film is to be exhibited post-October
15, 2019 would not only defy the express language of Sec on
14 which caps FDCP’s right to revenues from amusement
taxes “during the period the graded film is exhibited,” it would
also deprive the LGUs of revenue that should have, beginning
October 15, 2019, righ ully redounded to their benefit.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., Film Development Council of the Philippines v.
Colon Heritage Realty Corpora on, operator of Oriente Group of
Theaters, represented by Isidoro A. Canizares, G.R. No. 203754; Film
Development Council of the Philippines v. City of Cebu and SM Prime
Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 204418, November 3, 2020.
Supreme Court employees to undertake all possible measures
to curtail the spread of infec on at the Court. We must
con nue to guard against the danger of complacency on this
ma er.
All court employees are expected to fully cooperate and
do their part by showing their concern to each other in order
to help implement the workplace guidelines for the health,
safety and well-being of all.
In this regard, all Chiefs of Office/Services, Judicial
Staff Heads, and Division Chiefs must employ their moral
ascendancy by reminding their ranks to strictly and faithfully
observe Memorandum No. 04-2020.
Lastly, Memorandum dated July 3, 2020 is reiterated,
that the Office of Administra ve Services, Supreme Court
will be constrained to take appropriate ac on, including the
recommenda on of the imposi on of disciplinary ac ons,
should Court officials and employees fail to heed these
repeated warnings.
January 7, 2021.
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 03-2021
Please be advised that from December 16, 2020 to date, it
was recorded that there were more than fi y (50) viola ons of
Memorandum Circular No. 04-2020 dated May 22, 2020 (i.e.
Workplace Protocol to Reduce the Transmission of COVID-19
in the Supreme Court).
It is in the Court’s resolve to always protect every court
employee and their respec ve families during this global
pandemic. Thus, in light of the recently discovered COVID-19
variant that is more contagious than the original strain, an
early detec on of infec on will be more effec ve in order to
curtail its spread within the Court. In addi on to the exis ng
measures being implemented in reducing and containing
the disease, the following guideline shall be observed in the
administra on of An gen tes ng within the Supreme Court:
1. The court employee must first undergo medical
consulta on with the doctors of the SC Medical and
Dental Services;
2. Only individuals formally authorized or endorsed by
proper authori es may avail of An gen tes ng;
3. The An gen tes ng shall proceed during the acute phase,
i.e., within five (5) days from symptom onset;
4. A reverse transcrip on polymerase chain reac on (RTPCR) will be used to confirm a posi ve An gen test before
an individual is classified as a COVID-19 case; and
5. All asymptoma c close contacts must follow the exis ng
quaran ne protocols.
City of Manila, January 25, 2021.
In light of the recently discovered COVID-19 variant that
is more contagious than the original strain, we implore all
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALL CHIEFS OF OFFICES/SERVICES, AND JUDICIAL STAFF
HEADS
RE: NON-OBSERVANCE OF SUPREME COURT WORKPLACE
PROTOCOL
37
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 06-2021
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE PROPOSED COURT OF APPEALS
RULE OF PROCEDURE RELATING TO AN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY
OR A MONEY LAUNDERING OFFENSE UNDER REPUBLIC ACT
NO. (RA) 9160, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Decision of the Supreme Court in
Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices v. The
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 216914, promulgated on December
6, 2016, the Court of Appeals (CA) was directed to dra rules
based on the discussions in the said decision, to complement
the exis ng A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC Rule of Procedure in Cases of
Civil Forfeiture, Asset Preserva on, and Freezing of Monetary
Instrument, Property, or Proceeds Represen ng, Involving, or
Rela ng to an Unlawful Ac vity or Money Laundering Offense
under Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, for submission
to the Commi ee on the Revision of the Rules of Court and
eventual approval and promulga on of the Court En Banc;
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals created a
Technical Working Group (TWG) that shall regularly meet to
formulate, study and discuss the proposed inquiry rules of
procedure and therea er submit the same for the Court's
considera on and approval;
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2020, Court of Appeals Clerk of
Court Anita Jamerlan-Rey endorsed to the Office of the Clerk
of Court, Supreme Court En Banc, the Court of Appeals Rule
of Procedure in Cases of Bank Inquiry Into or Examina on of
Deposit and Investment Accounts Rela ng to an Unlawful
Ac vity or A Money Laundering Offense under Republic Act
No. 9160, (as Amended), for approval of the Supreme Court
En Banc.
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2020, the Court resolved to refer
the proposed rule to the commi ee that will be created to
review and study the Court of Appeals Rule of Procedure in
Cases of Bank Inquiry Into or Examina on of Deposit and
Investment Accounts Rela ng to an Unlawful Ac vity or
A Money Laundering Offense under Republic Act No. 9160,
(as Amended);
Hon. Rodil V. Zalameda
Associate Jus ce, Supreme Court
Hon. Jose Midas P. Marquez
Court Administrator
Hon. Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando
Presiding Jus ce, Court of Appeals
Hon. Fernanda Lampas Peralta
Associate Jus ce, Court of Appeals
Hon. Japar B. Dimaampao
Associate Jus ce, Court of Appeals
A y. Ma hew M. David
Director for Inves ga on and Enforcement Department
A y. Emme Rodion O. Manantan
Deputy Director for Financial Crimes and Inves ga on
A y. Romeo Raymond D. Santos
Deputy Director of Li ga on and Evalua on Group
Secretariat
A y. Jed Sherwin G. Uy
Office of the Chief Jus ce
A y. Camille Sue Mae L. Ting
Office of the Court Administrator
A y. Venus B. Maglaya-Taloma
Division Clerk of Court, Court of Appeals
A y. John Gilbert F. Macabales
Court A orney, Court of Appeals
A y. Reynaldo D. Vigonte
Court A orney, Court of Appeals
Janice A. Pisuena
Stenographer/s
The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Members, Secretariat
and Stenographer/s of the above Special Commi ee,
including those who have rendered service as part of the
said Commi ee shall receive the usual expense allowances
pursuant to Administra ve Circular No. 86-2019 dated August
29, 2019.
This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its
issuance this 27th day of January 2021.
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
Chairperson, First Division
NOW THEREFORE, the Special Commi ee is hereby created
and cons tuted as follows:
(Sgd.) ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Jus ce
Chairperson, Second Division
Chairperson
Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta
Chief Jus ce
(Sgd.) ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA1
Associate Jus ce
Working Chairperson, First Division
Vice Chairperson
Hon. Alexander G. Gesmundo
Associate Jus ce, Supreme Court
Members
Hon. Ramon Paul L. Hernando
Associate Jus ce, Supreme Court
1
Designated as Ac ng Signatory per Special Order No. 2809 dated January
22, 2021.
38
January–March 2021
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 07-2021
TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND-LEVEL COURTS
NATIONWIDE
RE: TEMPLATES OF THE PRE-TRIAL ORDER AND OF THE
MINUTES OF THE PRE-TRIAL, AS WELL AS PROCESS FLOW
FOR ORDINARY CIVIL CASES
In accordance with Sec on 7, Rule 18 of the 2019 Amendments
to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC
dated October 15, 2019), a ached herewith are the templates
of the Pre-Trial Order and the Minutes of the Pre-Trial, as well
as the Pre-Trial Process Flow for Ordinary Civil Cases.
For the guidance and informa on of all concerned.
February 1, 2021
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
[Refer to <h ps://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/A achmentsto-MO-07-2021.pdf> for the templates and process flow]
Memorandum Order No. 08-2021 (Con nued)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 74-2019
In accordance with the eighth item of the Ten-Point
Program of the Chief Jus ce, as regards the monitoring
of performance of all courts, all lower courts are
strictly enjoined to comply with the rules on session
hours and hearing dates, including the reglementary
or prescribed periods to resolve pending cases and
incidents, as provided for under the Cons tu on,
the laws, rules of procedure, guidelines and other
administra ve issuances.
In order to maintain the orderly court proceedings
and trial, and in the best interest of the service,
the use of cellular or smart phones while the court
is in session is strictly prohibited. The use of other
electronic communica on devices not related to the
ongoing proceedings or trial is likewise prohibited.
Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 08-2021
City of Manila, November 4, 2019.
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
TO: ALL JUSTICES, DIVISION CLERKS OF COURT AND
ASSISTANT DIVISION CLERKS OF COURT OF THE COURT
OF TAX APPEALS
RE: REITERATING STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH MEMORANDUM
ORDER NO. 74 2019
In Memorandum Order No.74-2019 dated November 4, 2019,
the undersigned strictly enjoined all lower courts to comply
with the rules on session hours and hearing dates, among
other ma ers, as provided for under rules of procedure,
guidelines and other administra ve issuances.
Prompt start of hearings at the me/s specified in the
court calendar is of paramount importance in view of the
reported more contagious variant of COVID-19, and in the
best interest of the service.
Strict compliance is enjoined.
February 1, 2021.
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 09-2021
CREATING A COVID-19 RESPONSE TEAM
In rela on to the con nuing threat of the coronavirus disease
2019, more commonly known as COVID-19 and with the
natural state of a virus to mutate which leads to changes such
as the development of new variants, a Team to address its
preven on and control is created as follows:
Chairperson
Dr. Prudencio P. Banzon, Jr.
SC Senior Chief Staff Officer
Medical and Dental Services
Working Chairperson
Dr. Frances-Li P. Bayaban
SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer
Medical and Dental Services
39
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
Vice Chairperson
Dr. Ronald Ian D. Cadiz
Medical Officer III
Medical and Dental Services
Members
A y. Edwin B. Andrada
SC Assistant Chief of Office
Office of Administra ve Services
-
when and how to make follow-up of pa ents and
close contacts
-
establish a Waste Disposal System
2. Update workplace protocol (Memorandum Circular
No. 04-2020) to be consistent with guidelines and
updates by the Department of Health (DOH) and
World Health Organiza on (WHO).
A y. Leah M. Enriquez
Judicial Supervisor
Represen ng the Office of the Court Administrator
3. Establish a clear line of communica on and repor ng
to the Office of the Chief Jus ce through the Office of
Administra ve Services
Dr. Madonna Catherine G. Dimaisip
SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer
Medical and Dental Services
4. Provide a list of contacts and repor ng procedures
Ms. Bernade e C. Prim-Mondragon
Physical Therapist III
Medical and Dental Services
Mr. Mark O. Sabordo
Nurse III
Medical and Dental Services
Ms. Mary Grace E. Mangampo
Nurse III
Medical and Dental Services
Ms. Ana Lorraine F. Vargas
Medical Technologist III
Medical and Dental Services
Secretary
To be designated by the Chairperson
The COVID-19 Response Team shall perform, among
others, the following func ons and du es:
1. Discuss guidelines and recommenda ons based on
the updates from the Department of Health (DOH)
and World Health Organiza on (WHO) which include:
-
-
test that could be done on employees suspected
to be infected of COVID-19 to be able to get best
results, considering its efficacy, availability and
cost effec veness
process flow on the steps to be followed when one
is determined to be posi ve of COVID-19: who to
contact/inform, procedure as to transpor ng the
pa ent, where to transport, etc.
-
iden fy screening area
-
who, where, how to isolate pa ent/s
-
how to properly conduct contact tracing
-
when to conduct tes ng for close contacts
5. Implement a chain of command (to communicate
changes so that everyone gets updated on changes
and developments on guidelines, etc.)
6. Evaluate the number of healthcare workers and
resources: doctors and nurses, PPEs available, etc.
7. Schedule at least a weekly mee ng to discuss
among others, new policies regarding the virus,
preven on and control measures, and be updated
on development regarding the disease including its
management
8. Coordinate with quaran ne facili es that may be
able to accommodate employees determined to be
posi ve of COVID-19
The Chairpersons, Vice Chairperson, the Members of
the Team and the Secretary shall receive the usual expense
allowances.
January 29, 2021.
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 12-2021
CREATING THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON ELECTRONIC
NOTARIZATION
WHEREAS, in Memorandum Order No. 36-2020, dated May
12, 2020, the Subcommi ee on the Revision of the Rules
Governing Notaries Public was reorganized to dra the interim
rules on remote notariza on of paper documents;
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court En Banc issued the Resolu on
in A.M. No. 20-07-04-SC dated July 14, 2020, approving
40
January–March 2021
Orders
Memorandum Order No. 12-2021(continued)
the 2020 Interim Rules on Remote Notariza on of Paper
Documents submi ed by the said Subcommi ee;
A y. Miguel Romualdo T. Sanidad
Office of Jus ce Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
WHEREAS, the said Interim Rules which took effect on August
16, 2020 are limited to the notariza on of paper documents
and instruments with handwri en signatures or marks
through the use of videoconferencing facili es;
(To be designated by the Chairperson)
Stenographer/s
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to formulate rules on
electronic notarial prac ce to permit notariza on of electronic
documents bearing digital signatures;
The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Members, and
Stenographer/s of the above Technical Working Group (TWG),
including those who have rendered service as part of the said
TWG, shall receive the usual expense allowances pursuant to
Administra ve Circular No. 86-2019 dated August 29, 2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Technical Working Group on Electronic
Notariza on is hereby created and cons tuted as follows:
This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its
issuance this 8th day of February 2021.
Chairperson
Hon. Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
Associate Jus ce, Supreme Court
Vice Chairperson
Hon. Ramon Paul L. Hernando
Associate Jus ce, Supreme Court
Members
Hon. Jose Midas P. Marquez
Court Administrator
Hon. Maria Filomena D. Singh
Associate Jus ce, Court of Appeals
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
Chairperson, First Division
(Sgd.) ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Jus ce
Chairperson, Second Division
(Sgd.) MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
Associate Jus ce
Chairperson, Third Division
Execu ve Judge Marlon Jay Moneva
Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 74
Execu ve Judge Ethel V. Mercado-Gutay
Regional Trial Court, Maka City, Branch 137
Execu ve Judge Joyce Kho Mirabueno
Regional Trial Court, General Santos City
South Cotabato, Branch 58
A y. Marilou Marzan-Anigan
Chief, Office of the Court Administrator
Court Management Office
A y. Rosita M. Requillas-Nacional
Bar Confidant, Office of the Bar Confidant
A y. Maria Victoria Gleoresty SP. Guerra
Chief, Office of the Chief A orney
A y. Maria Corazon Cecilia H. Pineda
Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court
Maka City
A y. Jed Sherwin G. Uy
Office of the Chief Jus ce
Mr. Jose N. Enriquez
Management Informa on Systems Office
Officer in Charge
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 13-2021
TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON THE PROPOSED RULE
ON PRESERVATION, CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE IN
CRIMINAL CASES
WHEREAS, in the October 2019 Mutual Evalua on Report
on the Philippines, the Asia Pacific Group found that neither
prosecutors nor law enforcement agencies have a policy
or prac ce of seeking confisca on orders at the point of
convic on;
WHEREAS, based on consulta ons and feedback from
prosecutors of the Department of Jus ce, no clear-cut rules
exist on criminal forfeitures, and law enforcement agencies
and prosecutors tend to neglect this aspect, and just se le for
convic on alone;
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2021, the members of the An Money Laundering Secretariat paid a courtesy call on Chief
Jus ce Diosdado M. Peralta and other Associate Jus ces of the
Supreme Court, to discuss, among other ma ers, the need for
the issuance of the Proposed Rule on Criminal Confisca on
and Forfeiture to address the 2019 Mutual Evalua on Report,
41
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
and the crea on of a Special Commi ee to review and study
the proposed rule;
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2021, the Special Commi ee on
the Proposed Rule on Criminal Confisca on and Forfeiture
met and agreed to create a Technical Working Group to
revise, review and submit to the Special Commi ee a working
dra of the proposed Rule on Preserva on, Confisca on and
Forfeiture in Criminal Cases;
said Commi ee shall receive the usual expense allowances
pursuant to Administra ve Circular No. 86-2019 dated August
29, 2019.
This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its
issuance this 23rd February 2021.
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
Chairperson, First Division
NOW THEREFORE, the Technical Working Group is hereby
created and cons tuted as follows:
(Sgd.) ESTELA M. PERLAS BERNABE
Senior Associate Jus ce
Chairperson, Second Division
Chairperson
Hon. Raul B. Villanueva
Deputy Court Administrator
(Sgd.) MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
Associate Jus ce
Chairperson, Third Division
Vice Chairperson
A y. Jesse Neil Q. Eustaquio
Legal Officer, Li ga on and Evalua on Group,
An -Money Laundering Council Secretariat
Members
A y. Deana P. Perez
Deputy State Prosecutor
DOJ Task Force on An -Money Laundering
A y. Tofel G. Austria
Senior State Prosecutor
DOJ Task Force on An -Money Laundering
A y. Ma hew M. David
Director for Inves ga on and Enforcement Department
An -Money Laundering Council Secretariat
A y. Romeo Raymond D. Santos
Deputy Director of Li ga on and Evalua on Group
An -Money Laundering Council Secretariat
A y. Jed Sherwin G. Uy
Office of the Chief Jus ce
A y. Jeffrey G. Gallardo
Office of the Chief Jus ce
A y. Jus n Adriel E. Ordoyo
Office of the Chief Jus ce
Secretariat
A y. Josephine B. Arpafo
Office of the Chief Jus ce
A y. Kym Nayre-San ago
Office of the Deputy Court Administrator
Raul B. Villanueva
The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Members, Secretariat
and Stenographer/s of the above Technical Working Group
including those who have rendered service as part of the
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 14-2021
CREATING THE COURT OF APPEALS CEBU CITY AND
CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY HALLS OF JUSTICE COORDINATING
COMMITTEE IMPLEMENTATION GROUP HOJCC CA IG
WHEREAS, in the Resolu on dated July 3, 2018 in
A.M. No. 18-07-08-CA,1 the Court has approved the
construc on of the Cebu City Judicial Complex on the seven
thousand one hundred twenty-three square meter (7,123)
South Road Property Lot that will house both the Court of
Appeals Cebu City Sta on and the Cebu City Hall of Jus ce;
WHEREAS, in the Resolu on dated September 18, 2018 in A.M.
No. 18-09-11-SC,2 the Court has approved the construc on
of the Cagayan de Oro City Judicial Complex at the Indahag
Lot that will house both the Court of Appeals Cagayan de Oro
Sta on and Cagayan de Oro Hall of Jus ce;
WHEREAS, in Memorandum Order No. 28-2019, the Court
reorganized the Halls of Jus ce Coordina ng Commi ee
for the Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro City Judicial Complex
that shall oversee the progress of the procurement and
implementa on of the said projects to ensure their mely and
proper construc on;
1
Re: Le er of Execu ve Jus ce Gabriel T. Ingles, Court of Appeals [CA], Cebu
City, rela ve to the Proposed Construc on of the CA-Visayas Sta on Building
on the Donated Property.
2
Re: Construc on of a Judicial Complex in Cagayan de Oro City.
42
January–March 2021
Orders
Memorandum Order No. 14-2021(continued)
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2019, the Court entered into contract
with E.H. Sison Engineers, Co and A.C. Ong Consul ng, Inc. as
the Detailed Architectural and Engineering Design (DAED) and
Project Management (PM) consultants, respec vely, of the
construc on of the Court of Appeals Building in Cagayan de
Oro City;
WHEREAS, there is a need to create a Hall of Jus ce
Coordina ng Commi ee Implementa on Group that shall
coordinate with the consultants during the implementa on
of the project, evaluate their deliverables and recommend
appropriate ac on for the considera on of the Halls of Jus ce
Coordina ng Commi ee for the Cebu City and Cagayan de
Oro City Judicial Complex;
In view of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals Cebu
City and Cagayan de Oro City Hall of Jus ce Coordina ng
Commi ee Implementa on Group (HOJCC-CA-IG) is hereby
created and organized as follows:
Head
A y. Adolfo T. Lopez, Jr.
Court A orney VI
Office of the Associate Jus ce Edgardo L. Delos Santos
Alternate Head
A y. Dollyn April A. Lucañas
Court A orney VI
Office of the Associate Jus ce Edgardo L. Delos Santos
Members
A y. Raquel M. Ladrillano
OCA Chief of Office
Office on Halls of Jus ce
Office of the Court Administrator
Ar. Arvin M. Na vidad
Architect III
(Alternate: Ar. Richard G. Nicolas, Building Inspector)
Office on Halls of Jus ce
Office of the Court Administrator
Engr. Benjo A. Belandres
Engineer II
(Alternate: Engr. Ramir S. Rabolar, Engineer III)
Office on Halls of Jus ce
Office of the Court Administrator
Mr. Armando M. Ocoma
SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer
Management Informa on Systems Office-SPPED
Supreme Court
A y. Anita Jamerlan-Rey
Clerk of Court, Court of Appeals Manila
Ms. Cheryl Joy D. Dean
Chief Judicial Staff Officer
Property and Supply Management Division
Court of Appeals Manila
Ms. Sheryll De Guzman
Chief Judicial Staff Officer
Management Informa on Systems Division
Court of Appeals Manila
Engr. Eric M. Cuasay
Chief Judicial Staff Officer, General Services Division
Court of Appeals Manila
Court of Appeals Cagayan de Oro City:
Hon. Edgardo A. Camello
Execu ve Jus ce, Court of Appeals
Cagayan de Oro Sta on
A y. Rosemarie Anacan-Dizon
Assistant Clerk of Court, Court of Appeals
Cagayan de Oro City Sta on
Engr. Ruel J. Magalang
Administra ve Officer II, Court of Appeals
Cagayan de Oro City Sta on
Court of Appeals Cebu City:
Hon. Gabriel T. Ingles
Execu ve Jus ce, Court of Appeals
Cebu City Sta on
A y. Maria Consuelo Aiza P. Wong-Ruste
Execu ve Clerk of Court III, Court of Appeals
Cebu City Sta on
Mr. Ariel A bula
Administra ve Officer II, Court of Appeals
Cebu City Sta on
The Head and Members from the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals Manila, Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro City
Sta ons, including those who have rendered service as part
of the said implementa on group prior to the issuance of this
Memorandum Order, shall receive the expense allowance
presently authorized.
This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its
issuance this 23rd day of February 2021.
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
Chairperson, First Division
43
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
(Sgd.) ESTELA M. PERLAS BERNABE
Senior Associate Jus ce
Chairperson, Second Division
(Sgd.) MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
Associate Jus ce
Chairperson, Third Division
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 17-2021
WHEREAS, under the work schedule and special arrangements
in the Supreme Court, all offices therein were allowed to
operate with a skeleton-staff of not less than seventy percent
(70%), from Monday to Friday 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, provided
that the thirty percent (30%) of the employees not repor ng
in a given day must con nue working from home, subject to
the submission of accomplishment reports.
WHEREAS, under its General Guidelines, different
precau onary and safety measures are currently being
implemented in the Supreme Court to reduce transmission of
COVID-19 among the employees who are in the buildings and
workplaces;
ln view of the increasing number of COVID-19 posi ve cases in
Metro Manila, effec ve immediately, strictly no visitors will be
allowed to enter the Supreme Court premises, except visitors
of Jus ces who must present a nega ve an gen/RT-PCR test
result at least twelve (12) hours before visit.
WHEREAS, in light of the increasing number again of
confirmed COVID-19 cases in view of the new variants, it was
recommended to conduct thorough disinfec on, cleaning
and sanita on of the different buildings and offices of the
Supreme Court;
Service providers who have business with the Court must
undergo the required an gen test before they may be allowed
entry.
NOW, THEREFORE, a er consulta on with the Jus ces and
Chiefs of Offices, more thorough disinfec on, cleaning and
sanita on of the different buildings and offices of the Supreme
Court is hereby ordered to be undertaken to minimize the
possible spread of infec on. To allow the disinfec on process
and ac vity to con nue uninterrupted, the following shall be
implemented:
Further, the Office of Administra ve Services, SC, is
given authority to immediately send home for isola on any
employee who will be tested posi ve in the an gen test
conducted by the SC Medical and Dental Services, and the
office where he/she works be immediately disinfected. Work
in the said office will also be suspended for a day.
City of Manila, March 9, 2021.
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
1. Disinfec on, cleaning and sanita on of the
different buildings and offices of the Supreme
Court will start on Thursday, March 11, 2021 un l
Sunday, March 14, 2021;
2. Commi ees with previously scheduled mee ngs
may be allowed to proceed depending upon the
discre on of the Chairperson or Head of the
Commi ee;
3. Urgent ma ers should be a ended to by the
concerned Chiefs or Heads of Offices, who are
expected to be reached at any me of the day;
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 01-2021
WORK SUSPENSION IN THE SUPREME COURT TO CONDUCT
DISINFECTION, CLEANING AND SANITATION OF THE
DIFFERENT BUILDINGS AND OFFICES
WHEREAS, Memorandum Circular No. 04-2020 (Supreme
Court Workplace Protocol) was issued on May 22, 2020 for the
guidance of Jus ces, officials and employees of the Supreme
Court to ensure their good health and well-being during the
par al and full opera on of the Court;
4. On-duty personnel of the Medical and
Dental Services (skeleton force), Security and
Maintenance Divisions, Office of Administra ve
Services–Supreme Court, are authorized to
report for work on March 11 to 14, 2021; and
5. Effec ve Monday, from March 15 to 19, 2021,
all offices are required to maintain a skeleton
force of fi y percent (50%) in order to maintain
physical distancing of six (6) feet.
Issued this 10th day of March 2021, in the City of Manila,
Philippines.
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
44
January–March 2021
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 02-2021
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 03-2021
EXTENDED WORK SUSPENSION IN THE SUPREME COURT
UNTIL MARCH 16, 2021
TO: ALL OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST AND
SECOND LEVEL COURTS
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2021, Chief Jus ce Diosdado M.
Peralta issued Memorandum Circular No. 01-2021 which,
among others, suspended work in the Supreme Court from
March 11 to 14, 2021 to give me for the disinfec on of the
Supreme Court compound.
SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF SERVICE OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO
WILL REACH THE COMPULSORY RETIREMENT AGE OF 65
YEAR[S]
WHEREAS, more me is needed to complete and accomplish
a more thorough disinfec on of the Supreme Court offices in
order to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and its new variant.
NOW, THEREFORE, a er consulta on with the Jus ces and
Chiefs of Offices, a con nua on of the disinfec on, cleaning,
and sanita on of the different buildings and offices of the
Supreme Court is hereby ordered to be undertaken to
minimize the possible spread of the infec on. To allow the
disinfec on process and ac vity to con nue uninterrupted,
the following shall be implemented:
1. The con nua on of the disinfec on, cleaning, and
sanita on of the different buildings and offices of the
Supreme Court is extended un l Tuesday, March 16,
2021;
2. Commi ees with previously scheduled mee ngs may
be allowed to proceed depending upon the discre on
of the Chairperson or Head of the Commi ee;
3. Court sessions shall proceed via videoconferencing
but the Oral Arguments scheduled on Tuesday, March
16, 2021, for G.R. No. 252578, et al., is suspended;
4. Urgent ma ers should be a ended to by the
concerned Chiefs or Heads of Offices, who are
expected to be reached at any me of the day;
5. On-duty personnel of the Medical and Dental Services
(skeleton force), Security and Maintenance Divisions,
Office of Administra ve Services–Supreme Court,
are authorized to report for work on March 15 to 16,
2021;
6. The flag raising ceremony at the Rizal Park on
Monday, March 15, 2021, shall proceed as scheduled
but strictly following health protocols; and
Quoted hereunder is Sec on 129, Rule XII (Prohibi ons) of
the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and other Human
Resource Ac ons (Revised July 2018) issued by the Civil
Service Commission (CSC) for the informa on and guidance
of all concerned:
S . 129. No person who has reached the compulsory
re rement age of 65 years can be appointed to any posi on
in the government, except to a primarily confiden al
posi on.
A person appointed to a primarily confiden al posi on who
reaches the age of 65 is considered automa cally extended
in the service un l the expiry date of his/her appointment
or un l his/her services are earlier terminated.
The extension of service of a person who will reach
the compulsory re rement age of 65 years may be
allowed for a period of six (6) months and in meritorious
circumstances may be extended for another six (6) months.
The request for extension shall be made by the Head of
Office. The same shall be filed with the Commission not
later than three (3) months prior to the date of the official/
employee’s compulsory re rement. Services rendered
during the period of extension shall no longer be credited
as government service. (underscoring supplied)
However, for one who will complete the fi een (15)
years of service required under the GSIS Law, a maximum
period of two (2) years may be allowed. Services rendered
during the period of extension shall be credited as part of
government service for purposes of re rement. The official
or employee, may file the request for extension of service.
The request shall be submi ed to the Commission with the
following documents:
a.
Request for extension of service signed by the
head of office/appoin ng officer/authority or
the employee in case of extension to complete
the 15-year service required under the GSIS Law,
containing the jus fica ons for the request;
b.
Cer fica on by a licensed government physician
that the employee subject of the request is s ll
mentally and physically fit to perform the du es
and func ons of his/her posi on;
7. From March 17 to 19, 2021, all offices are required
to maintain a skeleton force of fi y percent (50%) in
order to maintain physical distancing of six (6) feet.
Issued this 14th day of March 2021, in the City of
Parañaque, Philippines.
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Chief Jus ce
45
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
c.
Cer fied true copy of the employee’s Cer ficate
of Live Birth;
SUBJECT: USE OF IMPROVISED OR PROVISIONAL
RECEIPTS IN CASE OFFICIAL RECEIPTS ARE UNAVAILABLE
d.
Clearance of no pending administra ve case
issued by the CSC, Office of the Ombudsman and
agency concerned;
e.
Service record of the employee, if the purpose of
the extension is to complete the 15-year service
requirement under the GSIS law;
f.
Cer fica on from the GSIS on the Total Length of
Service (TLS) of the employee for those who are
comple ng the 15-year service requirement;
g.
Cer fied true copy of the updated Plan lla of
Personnel issued by the agency HRM Officer; and
h.
Proof of payment of the filing fee.
Considering the current public health emergency which is
crea ng logis cal problems for the Property Division, Office
of Administra ve Services, Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA), in sending adequate supply of official receipts to the
lower courts, thus resul ng in the unavailability of the same,
all Execu ve Judges or Presiding Judges, as the case may be,
are directed to authorize, for the mean me, their respec ve
clerks of court/accountable officers to improvise or use
provisional receipts, subject to cancella on and replacement
once the official receipts are received. These improvised or
provisional receipts shall be pre-numbered and therea er
reported to the Fiscal Monitoring Division (FMD), Court
Management Office, OCA, via e-mail (cmofmd.oca@judiciary.
gov.com.ph) for monitoring and audit purposes. Likewise,
official receipts purchased from other agencies shall be
reported to the FMD, CMO, OCA.
The only basis for the Heads of Offices to allow an employee
to con nue rendering service a er his/her 65th birthday is a
Commission Resolu on gran ng the request for extension. In
the absence of such resolu on, the said employee shall not be
authorized to perform the du es of the posi on and his/her
salaries shall be the liability of the official responsible for the
con nued service of the employee.
During the period of extension, the employee on service
extension shall be en tled to salaries and salary increases,
allowances and other remunera ons that are normally
considered part and parcel of an employee’s compensa on
package subject to the exis ng regula ons on the grant thereof,
except step increments. The employee shall also be en tled to
15 days vaca on and 15 days sick leave annually, provided that
the same are not commuta ve and cumula ve.
For lower court officials and personnel, request for
extension of service, together with the complete requirements,
should be filed with the Employee’s Welfare and Benefits
Division, Office of Administra ve Services, Office of the Court
Administrator, at least one (1) year prior to reaching the
compulsory re rement age of sixty-five (65) years.
Please be guided accordingly.
January 7, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 05-2021
TO: ALL JUDGES, CLERKS OF COURT, BRANCH CLERKS OF
COURT AND OFFICERS IN CHARGE/ACTING CLERKS OF
COURT OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
For your strict compliance.
January 12, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 06-2021
TO: ALL FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: USE OF VIDEOCONFERENCING IN CASES INVOLVING
PERSONS DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY AS AUTHORIZED UNDER
A.M. NO. 20-12-01-SC (RE: GUIDELINES ON THE CONDUCT
OF VIDEOCONFERENCING)
As a policy, Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs) commi ed in
na onal peniten aries are not allowed to be brought outside
said penal ins tu ons to appear or a end proceedings before
any court, except by express authority of the Court.1 Thus, the
Supreme Court, in A.M. No. 15-08-07-SC dated November 10,
2015, ruled that when a Judge outside the Na onal Capital
Judicial Region (NCJR) requires the a endance or appearance
of a na onal prisoner in a court proceeding, the records of
the case may be allowed to be temporarily transferred to the
court sta on where the na onal peniten ary is located for the
conduct of the appropriate proceeding within the premises of
the said penal ins tu on.
46
January–March 2021
Circulars
OCA Circular No. 06-2021(continued)
However, with the issuance of A.M. No. 20-12-01-SC
(Re: Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing),
effec ve January 16, 2021, all Judges who require the
a endance or appearance of a PDL detained in a na onal
peniten ary are DIRECTED to avail of the alterna ve mode
of videoconferencing, unless the PDL is authorized by the
Supreme Court to be brought to the court to a end in-court
hearings.
Office of the Clerk of Court for its re-raffle to a Family
Court; and
(c) On the other hand, if it is ascertained that the accused
was not a minor at the me of the commission of the
offense, the court shall promptly proceed with the
case.
For your informa on, guidance and strict
compliance.
For strict compliance.
January 18, 2021.
January 18, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
1
A.M. No. 13-11-07-SC dated November 19, 2013.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 12-2021
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 11-2021
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND
SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS
MANIFESTATION OR INFORMATION THAT A CASE PENDING
BEFORE A REGULAR COURT INVOLVES A MINOR
Pursuant to the Resolu on of the Court dated December 5,
2018 in A.M. No. 18-07-148-RTC (Administra ve Interven on
in Criminal Case No. 15-321554, en tled “People of the
Philippines v. John Ricks Aytona y Reyes @ “Leklek” and Jeffrey
Aytona y Vihizon”), all concerned trial courts are DIRECTED to
OBSERVE the following guidelines in instances where there is
a manifesta on or informa on that a case pending before a
regular court involves a minor, to wit:
(a) Whenever the age of minority of an accused in criminal
case pending before a regular court is at issue, the
court shall, before proceeding with the case, make a
determina on of such issue pursuant to Sec on 7 of
RA No. 9344 and Rule 35 of the Revised Implemen ng
Rules and Regula ons of RA No. 9344, as amended by
RA No. 10630;
(b) If a er such determina on, it is ascertained that the
accused was a minor at the me of the commission
of the offense, the court shall forward the case to the
TO: ALL JUDGES OF SECOND LEVEL COURTS WITH PENDING
EXPROPRIATION CASES
RE: GUIDELINES FOR THE SPECIAL EXPROPRIATION COURTS
FOR PUBLIC ROADS
Pursuant to the Resolu on of the Court En Banc dated
August 11, 2020, in Memorandum Circular No. 08-2020,1
which designated “special courts to specifically hear, try, and
decide expropria on cases involving na onal government
infrastructure projects,”2 eleven (11) Regional Trial Courts
(RTCs) in the ci es of Imus, Trece Mar res, Dasmariñas,
Tagaytay, Caloocan, and Manila were ini ally designated as
“Special Expropria on Courts for Public Roads.”
Upon the approval of the Honorable Chief Jus ce
Diosdado M. Peralta, the following Guidelines shall be
observed in expropria on cases filed under Republic Act No.
10752, or the Right-of-Way Act.3
1. All RTC judges with pending expropria on cases
in their respec ve dockets, within ten (10) days
from receipt hereof, shall make an inventory of all
expropria on cases involving the implementa on
of na onal government infrastructure projects in
1
Designa on of Special Courts to specifically hear, try, and decide
expropria on cases involving Na onal Government Infrastructure Projects,
Memorandum Circular No. 08-2020, August 11, 2020.
2
Ibid.
3
Republic Act No. 10752 (2016).
47
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
accordance with the Right-of-Way Act. The inventory
shall indicate the following:
shall be rendered within ninety (90) days from
submission for decision unless otherwise provided by
law or the Court.
a. Case number;
b. Date when the complaint or pe
filed;
c.
6. In instances where the sole issue in the expropria on
case is the determina on of just compensa on, and
the owner of the property contests the implemen ng
agency's proffered value, the court shall determine
the just compensa on to be paid to the owner
within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the
expropria on case6 pursuant to Sec[ on] 6(f), Rightof-Way Act.
on was
Date when the Writ of Possession (WOP)
was issued, if already issued; and,
d. Status of each case, i.e., whether the WOP
was issued, appointment of commissioners,
pre-trial, or decision.
The inventory shall be submi ed to the Office of
the Court Administrator at expropria oncases@
judiciary.gov.ph, copy furnished the Execu ve Judges
of the RTCs concerned.
7. In the event of inhibi on of the judge of a designated
Special Expropria on Court for Public Roads, the
following guidelines shall be observed:
a. Where there is only one (1) Special Expropria on
Court for Public Roads in the sta on, the pairing
system for mul ple-branch sta ons subject
to Circular No. 19-98,7 as reiterated in OCA
Circular No. 06-2020,8 shall apply;9
2. All newly filed expropria on cases pursuant to the
Right-of-Way Act shall be raffled or assigned to the
duly designated Special Expropria on Courts for
Public Roads in their respec ve territorial jurisdic ons.
Correspondingly, the Execu ve Judges of the RTCs
concerned shall raffle the expropria on cases where
there are at least two (2) special expropria on courts,
or assign the expropria on cases where there is only
one (1) special expropria on court.
b. Where there are two (2) Special Expropria on
Courts for Public Roads in the sta on, the
expropria on case shall be assigned to the
other special court; and,
c.
3. As far as prac cable, all Special Expropria on Courts
for Public Roads, as well as other RTCs with pending
expropria on cases, shall devote at least one (1) day
a week to hear expropria on cases.
4. Pursuant to Sec[ on] 12(f), Rule 15, 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,4
the filing of a mo on for postponement shall not
be allowed except if it is based on acts of God, force
majeure, or physical inability of the witness to appear
and tes fy.5
5. Expropria on cases referred to herein shall strictly
comply with the 2019 Proposed Amendments to
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure where trial shall
be terminated within one hundred eighty (180) days
from the ini al presenta on of evidence. Judgment
4
5
2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, A.M. No.
19-10-20-SC, May 1, 2020.
Sec. 6(a)(1), Republic Act No. 10752.
Where there are more than two (2) Special
Expropria on Courts for Public Roads
in the sta on, the Execu ve Judge shall
immediately raffle the case to the other
Special Expropria on Courts for Public
Roads. In case the Presiding Judge of the
other special court is also disqualified or
inhibits himself/herself, the case shall be
forwarded to the pairing judge of the special
court which originally handled the case. If the
pairing judge is also disqualified or inhibits
himself/herself, the case shall be raffled to
the other regular courts. At the next raffle,
6
Sec. 6(f), Id.
7
Expanded Authority of Pairing Courts, OCA Circular No. 19-98, February 18,
1998.
8
Reitera on of Circular No. 19-98 dated February 18, 1998, OCA Circular No.
06-2020, January 20, 2020.
9
Guidelines on the Selec on and Designa on of Execu ve Judges and
Defining their Powers, Preroga ves, and Du es, A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC,
February 15, 2004, Sec. 9(4)(i).
48
January–March 2021
Circulars
OCA Circular No. 12-2021(continued)
an addi onal case shall be assigned to the
disqualified or inhibi ng judge/s to replace
the case so removed from his/her/their
court.10
8. In case of temporary incapacity, absence, or disability
of the judge of the designated special expropria on
court to perform his/her du es, the pairing system
for mul ple-sala sta ons subject to Circular No. 19-98
dated February 18, 1998, as reiterated in OCA Circular
No. 06-2020, shall apply.
9. Pursuant to OCA Circular No. 113-201911 dated July
16, 2019, in compliance with Sec[ on] 6, Right-of-Way
Act, the Office of the Clerk of Court for mul ple-sala
courts, and the court itself in a single-sala court, shall
receive the deposit equivalent to the sum of:
a. One hundred percent (100%) of the value
of the land based on the current relevant
zonal valua on of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) issued not more than three (3)
years prior to the filing of the expropria on
complaint;12
b. Replacement cost at current market value of
the improvements and structures;13 and,
c.
Current market value of crops and trees
located within the property as determined
by a government financial ins tu on or an
independent property appraiser.14
10. Upon deposit of the amount equivalent to the sum
men oned in paragraph 9 herein, the concerned
court shall forthwith issue the WOP within seven (7)
days from deposit pursuant to Sec on 6, Right-ofWay Act.
11. These guidelines shall apply exclusively to the
expropria on of proper es affected by na onal
government infrastructure projects as defined by
Sec on 3, Right-of-Way Act, and shall be adopted by
10
11
12
13
14
Sec. 9(4)(ii), Id.
Clarifica on on expropria on cases, acquisi on of right-of-way, issuance of
Writs of Possession, and en tlement to interest pursuant to Republic Act No.
10752, OCA Circular No. 113-2019, July 16, 2019.
Sec. 6(a)(1), Republic Act No. 10752.
Sec. 6(a)(2), Id.
Sec. 6(a)(3), Id.
all Special Expropria on Courts for Public Roads and
RTCs with pending expropria on cases.
The provisions of the Rules of Court shall con nue to
apply in a suppletory character.
For purposes of monitoring the status of filed
expropria on cases, all RTCs with pending expropria on cases
shall accomplish the monthly report form, the link for which
will be posted at the Official Announcements and Issuances
Teams Channel in the Philippine Judiciary Office 365 pla orm.
For strict compliance.
January 19, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 13-2021
TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
RE: SURVEY ON CASES INVOLVING COVID-19 GOVERNMENTAL
MEASURES
On January 11, 2021, Chief Jus ce Diosdado M. Peralta
approved the par cipa on of the Philippine Judiciary in
a compara ve study, commissioned by the World Health
Organiza on (WHO), on li ga on in rela on to COVID-19
containment measures and regula ons within the ASEAN
Region. The long-term goal of the study is to build a general
open access global database of court decisions pertaining to
COVID-19 government-related measures.
Accordingly, you are DIRECTED to accomplish the survey
form on court decisions concerning challenges brought against
restric ons aimed at containing the COVID-19 pandemic on or
before January 25, 2021. The said survey form is available in
the Official Announcements and Issuances Teams Channel in
the Philippine Judiciary Office 365 pla orm.
For ques ons on the survey form, kindly contact the Court
Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, through
its official email address (ocacmo.sc@judiciary.gov.ph) or its
Judiciary 365 Teams account.
For strict compliance.
January 20, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
49
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 14-2021
TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
AND COURT ATTORNEYS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND
APPELLATE COURTS
SUBJECT: 10th OECD/KPC COMPETITION LAW SEMINAR
FOR ASIA-PACIFIC JUDGES ON MARKET DEFINITION: AN
ESSENTIAL TOOL OF COMPETITION ANALYSIS
The Organisa on for Economic Co-opera on and Development
(OECD)/Korea Policy Centre Compe on Programme, in
coopera on with the Supreme Court of the Philippines, will
hold its 10th Annual OECD/KPC Compe on Law Seminar for
Asia-Pacific Judges on “Market Defini on: An Essen al Tool of
Compe on Analysis” on February 4, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. (Manila
me) via Zoom. The event, which was originally scheduled on
November 19, 2020, will also launch the Compe on Law
Primer for ASEAN Judges on Market Defini on.
In this connec on, you are hereby invited to a end the said
seminar. You may register your a endance through this link
on or before January 26, 2021: h ps://meetoecd1.zoom.us/
mee ng/register/tJArf--hpzovEtc1Nw2caR40jhBQU6cJYoCC.
10th OECD/KPC Compe on Law Seminar
for Asia-Pacific Judges
Market defini on: an essen al tool of compe
and
Launch of Compe
Agenda
14:30
Philippine Standard Time
(GMT +8)
15:00-15:10
• Mr. Ruben Maximiano
(Senior Compe on Expert, OECD)
• Mr. Jung Won Song
(Director General, OECD/KPC Compe
Programme)
on
LAUNCH OF FCA / OECD PRIMER ON
COMPETITION FOR ASEAN JUDGES
15:10-15:40
• Mr. Frédéric Jenny
(Chair, Compe on Commi ee, OECD)
• The Hon. Michael O'Bryan
(Jus ce, Federal Court of Australia)
KEYNOTE
15:40-15:55
15:55-16:05
• The Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta
(Chief Jus ce, Supreme Court of the
Philippines)
BREAK
THE ECONOMICS OF COMPETITION LAW AND
THE COURTS
16:05-16:50
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
• Mr. Frédéric Jenny
(Chair, Compe on Commi ee, OECD)
Q&A SESSION
FCA / OECD PRIMER ON MARKET DEFINITION
16:50-17:10
We invite Your Honors to share your views...
Since 2015, PHILJA Bulle n’s JUDICIAL VIEWS sec on has
been featuring speeches delivered or papers wri en that
have direct impact to the Judiciary.
We con nue to invite contribu ons from the members of the
Judiciary. The speeches, ar cles, or papers must be at least
3,000 words. Lengthy speeches/papers may be published in
parts. Kindly include a brief profile of the author. The PHILJA
Bulle n Editorial Board reserves the right to review the
submissions prior to publica on.
Opening of Zoom wai ng room
WELCOME REMARKS
Please see the a ached agenda of the seminar for
reference.
January 20, 2021.
on Primer for ASEAN Judges
Co-sponsored by CLIP and in coopera on with the Philippines Supreme Court
Should you have any problem with the link, please
e-mail the following: Paloma.bellaiche@oecd.org and jhoh@
oecdkorea.org.
As for the Judges of the First and Second Level Courts,
your a endance in the subject seminar shall be on OFFICIAL
TIME, provided that your respec ve court calendars are
properly managed and the par es are no fied of any
cancelled hearings. You are also directed to submit to the
Court Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator,
through cmoplanning.oca@judiciary.gov.ph your report on
the ma er within ten (10) days from the conclusion of the
seminar.
on analysis
• Mr. Ruben Maximiano
(Senior Compe on Expert, OECD)
• Mr. Ma eo Giangaspero
(Compe on Expert, OECD)
THE ECONOMIC TOOLS OF MARKET
DEFINITION
17:10-17:25
17:25-17:40
• Mr. Jorge Padilla
(Senior Managing Director and Head of
Compass Lexecon EMEA)
OPEN DISCUSSION AND Q&A
CLOSING REMARKS
Email: research_philja@yahoo.com; philja@sc.judiciary.gov.ph
www.oecd.org/compe
on/seoulrcc
50
January–March 2021
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 18-2021
28, 2021, pursuant to Paragraph IV(B)[B.3] of Administra ve
Circular No. 42-2013, in rela on to Paragraph II of the
Guidelines on the Wearing of Appropriate Office A re.*
February 4, 2021.
TO: ALL JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
RE: MORATORIUM ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
GUIDELINES ON THE CONDUCT OF VIDEOCONFERENCING
WITH RESPECT TO REMOTE APPEARANCE FROM ABROAD
On January 16, 2021, the Guidelines on the Conduct of
Videoconferencing (A.M. No. 20-12-01-SC, dated December
9, 2020) became effec ve. In view, however, of the le er
dated January 19, 2021 of Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin,
Jr., Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), reques ng for a
“moratorium in the implementa on of the Guidelines un l
April 1, 2021,” pending the DFA’s formula on of its guidelines
and setup for videoconference hearings, and with the approval
of Chief Jus ce Diosdado M. Peralta, the implementa on
of the Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing
with respect to remote appearances from abroad is hereby
suspended un l April 1, 2021.
For the guidance and compliance of all concerned.
February 1, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 19-2021
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
*
II. Collarless t-shirts for men shall not be allowed even on Fridays. However,
denim or “maong” pants, rubber shoes, sandals, and step-ins may s ll be
worn on Fridays only.
[Refer to <https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/OCACircular-No.-19-2021.pdf> for Annex “A”]
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 20-2021
TO: ALL JUDGES AND PERSONNEL OF LOWER COURTS
SUBJECT: HEALTH CARE PLAN OF ALL LOWER COURT
PERSONNEL
Effec ve January 15, 2021, the United Coconut Planters
Life Assurance Corpora on (COCOLIFE) is the Health Care
Provider for all lower court personnel in the first and second
level courts, including shari’a courts. All claims of lower court
personnel for reimbursement of medical expenses prior to
said date can s ll be filed before the Supreme Court Health
and Welfare Plan (SCHWP), subject to prescribed rules and
regula ons. Meanwhile, Judges of the first and second level
courts, including shari’a courts, may con nue to avail of the
benefits provided by the SCHWP.
For your informa on and guidance.
February 4, 2021.
TO: ALL FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: APPROVED MEMORANDUM DATED FEBRUARY
1, 2021 OF THE COMMITTEE FOR OFFICE UNIFORMS FOR
THE SUPREME COURT, THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL AND LOWER COURTS ON THE REQUEST OF THE
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (SCEA) FOR
THE EXTENSION OF THE RELAXATION OF THE RULES ON
THE WEARING OF THE PRESCRIBED OFFICE UNIFORM FROM
FEBRUARY 1 to 28, 2021
For the informa on and guidance of all first and second
level courts, appended herein as Annex “A” is the approved
Memorandum dated February 1, 2021 of the Commi ee
for Office Uniforms for the Supreme Court, the Presiden al
Electoral Tribunal and Lower Courts on the request of the
SCEA for the extension of the relaxa on of the Guidelines on
the Wearing of Appropriate Office A re, thereby allowing
court employees to wear wash day clothes from February 1 to
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 22-2021
TO: ALL JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
RE: ONLINE CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAM (CLEP)
TRAINING
Ac ng on the le er dated February 3, 2021 of Jus ce Adolfo
S. Azcuna, Chancellor, Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA),
reques ng that “judges from all levels be authorized to
par cipate in the CLEP Training,” the Office of the Court
Administrator hereby authorizes all judges of the first and
second level courts to par cipate in the virtual training to
be conducted asynchronously through the online Learning
Management System Thinkific. Interested judges may access
the following links:
51
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
Online Training Pla orm:
h ps://www.ph-cleptraining.thinkific.com/
Training Instruc onal Video:
h ps:// nyurl.com/CLEPRegisterInstruc ons
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 24-2021
The module for judges, which will be made available
for six (6) weeks star ng February 8, 2021, will feature the
following topics:
1. Introduc on and General Knowledge on the Revised
Rule 138-A;
2. Judicial A tudes towards Law Student Prac
and
oners;
3. Externship Guidelines of the Court.
Any ques ons or concerns may be coursed through the
Academic Affairs Office, PHILJA, at (02) 8552-9531.
For the guidance and compliance of all concerned.
February 5, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
TO: THE CONCERNED JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL
SUBJECT: MOOE WEBINAR ON FEBRUARY 18–19, 2021
Pursuant to the Resolu on dated December 9, 2020 of
the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 17-08-09-SC, rela ve to the
con nua on of the pilot tes ng of the Maintenance and
Other Opera ng Expenses (MOOE) Interim Guidelines, the
Technical Working Group (TWG) on the Dra ing of the Interim
Guidelines will conduct an orienta on and training webinar
for judges, clerks of court/officers in charge, court financial
aides and court financial clerks on February 18–19, 2021.
In connec on therewith, the following concerned judges
and court personnel are hereby DIRECTED to a end the
webinar on OFFICIAL TIME, provided that their respec ve
court calendars are properly managed and the par es are
duly no fied of any cancelled hearing:
NAME
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 23-2021
TO: ALL CONCERNED CLERKS OF COURT (EXECUTIVE CLERKS
OF COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERKS OF COURT AND BRANCH
CLERKS OF COURT)
SUBJECT: SUSPENSION OF OCA CIRCULAR NO. 61-2020 ON
THE ISSUANCE OF CLEARANCE CERTIFICATES PURSUANT
TO A.M. NO. 04-7-02-SC (GUIDELINES ON CORPORATE
SURETY BONDS)
Considering the persistent challenges that the surety
companies encounter in securing clearances from the lower
courts na onwide due to the COVID-19 pandemic, compliance
with OCA Circular No. 61-2020 dated February 14, 2020 is
hereby SUSPENDED un l further no ce. The procedure being
followed prior to the issuance of the said circular shall be
observed.
All Clerks of Court, however, are directed to ensure,
before issuing clearance cer ficates, that all surety companies
transac ng business in their respec ve areas of jurisdic on
have no outstanding obliga ons pertaining to forfeited bonds.
For strict compliance.
JUDGES
1.
Hon. Melita Amylesha G.
Delson-Macaraeg
MCTC, Kapangan–Kibungan,
Benguet
2.
Hon. Rhea S. Gallevo
10-FC, RTC, San Fernando City,
La Union
3.
Hon. Marvin A. Galacgac
MCTC, Espiritu–Nueva Era,
Ilocos Norte
4.
Hon. Katherine M.
Legarda-Pajaron
Br. 54, RTC, Macabebe,
Pampanga
5.
Hon. Giovanni E. Palma
Br. 121, RTC, City of lmus, Cavite
6.
Hon. Patricia Angeles R.
Cataquiz-Fidel
16-FC, RTC, Sariaya, Quezon
7.
Hon. Por a A.
Mar nez-Panergo
Br. 60, RTC, Lucena City, Quezon
8.
Hon. Zach L. Zaragosa-Ziga
12-FC, RTC, Sorsogon City,
Sorsogon
9.
Hon. Rene M. Dela Cruz
5-FC, RTC, Daet,
Camarines Norte
10.
Hon. Jazon H. Restubog
Br. 3, MTCC, Legazpi City, Albay
11.
Hon. Jojo C. Cruzat
Br. 11, RTC, San Jose, An que
12.
Hon. Pacifico T.
Cimafranca Jr.
MCTC, Dumalinao–San Pablo–
Tigbao–Guipos,
Zamboanga Del Sur
February 11, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
STATION
52
January–March 2021
Circulars
OCA Circular No. 24-2021(continued)
13.
Hon. Joyce Kho Mirabueno
Br. 58, RTC, General Santos City,
South Cotabato
38.
Zenaida Calauor
Br. 30, RTC, Iloilo City, Iloilo
14.
Hon. Jonathan Honorato
D. Lock
Br. 61, RTC, Maka City
39.
Rose Shayne T.
Duazo-Huesca
Br. 34, RTC, Iloilo City, Iloilo
15.
Hon. Ma. Lorelai Andrea
C. Dulig
Br. 66, RTC, Maka City
40.
Ronald T. Elpusan
Br. 4, MTCC, Iloilo City, Iloilo
16.
Hon. Rainald C. Paggao
Br. 142, RTC, Maka City
41.
Kim Zeus I. Ga-an
Br. 1, RTC, Kalibo, Aklan
17.
Hon. Nancy R. Palmones
Br. 172, RTC, Valenzuela City
42.
Ana Sheryl C. Caringal
Br. 6, RTC, Kalibo, Aklan
18.
Ho. Juvenal N. Bella
Br. 39, MeTC, Quezon City
43.
Veronica Louise D. Mandi
Br. 34, RTC, Dumaguete City,
Negros Oriental
44.
Karen H. Moleta-Cadiz
Br. 35, RTC, Dumaguete City,
Negros Oriental
45.
Mary Jaynard P. Dionisio
Ofelia Tican-Mondiguing
OCC, MTCC, Baguio City,
Benguet
Br. 41, RTC, Dumaguete City,
Negros Oriental
46.
Xavier F. Gacho
Rei La Datsun G.
Bonghanoy-Bernaldez
OCC, RTC, Mandaue City, Cebu
20.
OCC, RTC, Laoag City,
Ilocos Norte
21.
Daryl Yanga Y. Rivera
OCC, RTC, Macabebe, Pampanga
47.
Alexa Marie L. Dano
Br. 85, RTC, Madaue City, Cebu
22.
Anna Camille M. Tadeo
Br. 62, RTC, Macabebe, Pampanga
48.
Mylene M. Ocat
Br. 87, RTC, Madaue City, Cebu
Russel Anne C. Bundoc
Br. 117, RTC, Macabebe,
Pampanga
49.
Jan Chris ane Sale
Br. 37, RTC, Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay
24.
Noreen S. Sarmiento
Br. 54, RTC, Macabebe,
Pampanga
50.
Micha Chernobyl L.
Malana-Caba ngan
Br. 21, RTC, Cagayan de Oro City,
Misamis Oriental
25.
Claire Bonifacio
Br. 63, RTC, Tarlac City, Tarlac
51.
Jocelyn V. Puzon
Br. 8, RTC, Davao City,
Davao del Sur
26.
Anna Clariza S.
Coloma-Morales
Br. 110, RTC, Tarlac City, Tarlac
52
Christy Dureza-Llanes
Br. 9, RTC, Davao City,
Davao del Sur
27.
Marie Felise Lim Gomez
Br. 111, RTC, Tarlac City, Tarlac
53.
Marites A. Pabalate
Br. 10, RTC, Davao City,
Davao del Sur
28.
Chloe S. Fadera
Br. 138, RTC, An polo City, Rizal
54.
Marnelli L. Jamison
29.
Paul Vincent E. Curimao V
Br. 140, RTC, An polo City, Rizal
Br. 11, RTC, Davao City,
Davao del Sur
55.
Lilian May C. Alpas
Jenny D. Cueto
Br. 7, RTC, Batangas City,
Batangas
Br. 17, RTC, Davao City,
Davao del Sur
56.
Mitchelle Bantar
Br. 23, RTC, General Santos City,
South Cotabato
CLERK OF COURT/OFFICER IN CHARGE
19.
23.
30.
31.
Casilda G. Mataquel
Br. 120, RTC, City of Imus, Cavite
32.
Rowena C. Jusay
Br. 121, RTC, City of Imus, Cavite
57.
Armand Torralba
Br. 58, RTC, General Santos City,
South Cotabato
33.
Cryzal Lyn B.
Guese-Rosales
Br. 60, RTC, Lucena City, Quezon
58.
Teresa P. A lon
OCC, RTC, Maka City
34.
Josie A. Pacites
Br. 131, RTC, Trece Mar res City,
Cavite
59.
Marj Joy G. Elejorde
Br. 56, RTC, Maka City
Erich Jus ne V. Alano
Br. 59, RTC, Maka City
Maria Jela M. Moran
Br. 21, RTC, Naga City,
Camarines Sur
60.
35.
61.
Maria Faye D. Dela Cruz
Br. 64, RTC, Maka City
36.
Lawrence Earl Roy A.
Gersalia
Br. 52, RTC, Sorsogon City,
Sorsogon
62.
Jay Princess P. Sacupaso
Br. 134, RTC, Maka City
37.
Catherine C. Macandog
Br. 53, RTC, Sorsogon City,
Sorsogon
63.
Russel Marvin G. Olado
Br. 137, RTC, Maka City
53
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
64.
George B. Madayag
Br. 138, RTC, Maka City
65.
Jobelle Joyce T. Liwag-Sy
Br. 143, RTC, Maka City
66.
67.
68.
69.
John Joseph A. Ona
Kris anne D.
Pinera-Divinagracia
Juanito R. Roxas
Kimberly Agniezka R.
Cortez
Br. 233, RTC, Maka City
Br. 45, RTC, Manila
OCC, MTCC, An polo City, Rizal
97.
Jomar P. Alvarez
OCC, RTC, Lucena City, Quezon
98.
Julie Ann Marie R. Dava
OCC, RTC, Lucena City, Quezon
99.
Annie J. Ortega
100.
Neil S. Buendia
101.
Trixia Maxine S. Ylosorio
102.
Ly-Ann D. Cajenta
103.
Janine B. Solis
104.
Inah May Juliene L. Melliza OCC, MTCC, Iloilo City, lloilo
105.
Kindra S. Oyon-Oyon
OCC, RTC, Cebu City, Cebu
106.
Steven J. Ygoña
OCC, RTC, Cebu City, Cebu
16-FC, RTC, Valenzuela City
107.
Reyna Marie V. Requierme
OCC, MTCC, Cebu City, Cebu
Br. 172, RTC, Valenzuela City
108.
Lyne e A. Tanglao
109.
Ma. Rona S. Figueroa
110.
Arnold D. Ancog
111.
Ian Joseph G. Enriquez
112.
Nikita Lore e M. Aguilar
113.
Evarsito M. Cerdeña
114.
Maymay D. Tocalo
Br. 89, RTC, Quezon City
Br. 95, RTC, Quezon City
75.
Maria Kristel B. Sarmiento
Br. 100, RTC, Quezon City
76.
Lani M. Guzman
Br. 102, RTC, Quezon City
77.
Michelle T. Dela Cruz
Br. 106, RTC, Quezon City
78.
Karoll Kaye D. Cuenga
Br. 132, RTC, Quezon City
79.
Al Dino N. Macavinta
Br. 220, RTC, Quezon City
80.
Noli A. Ermitanio
13-FC, RTC, Quezon City
81.
Margielyn Q. Asilo
Br. 229, RTC, Quezon City
84.
85.
Cynthia Corpuz
Phillip William C. Altares
Victor C. Longos
Br. 269, RTC, Valenzuela City
Br. 284, RTC, Valenzuela City
86.
Rosario E. Gaspar
OCC, RTC, Balanga City, Bataan
87.
Katrina P. Dabalos
OCC, RTC, Valenzuela City
COURT FINANCIAL AIDE
88.
Diane G. Valdriz
89.
Maila M. Amay
OCC, RTC, Tarlac City, Tarlac
Karren B. Gonzales
Br. 98, RTC, Quezon City
83.
Sarmiento
96.
Ann Marie Loren R. Pastor
Mendoza
Sheena Elaine E.
Isabela
OCC, MTCC, An polo City, Rizal
74.
Roxanne Marie A.
93.
OCC, MTCC, San ago City,
Anthony S. Romea
Br. 178, RTC, Manila
82.
Robert Anthony G. Gumpal
llocos Norte
95.
Vivien P. Marcelo
Ma. Clarissa M. Rosal
92.
OCC, RTC, Laoag City,
OCC, RTC, An polo City, Rizal
71.
73.
Ritchelle A. Bernardo
Ilocos Norte
Mark Kihm G. Lara
Br. 176, RTC, Manila
Dayanghirang
91.
OCC, RTC, Laoag City,
94.
Br. 55, RTC, Manila
Rosario R. Santos
Eloize Angeli M.
Angelica A. Corpuz
Br. 147, RTC, Maka City
70.
72.
90.
OCC, RTC, Dagupan City,
Pangasinan
OCC, RTC, San Fernando City,
La Union
OCC, RTC, Naga City,
Camarines Sur
OCC, MTCC, Legazpi City, Albay
OCC, RTC, Bacolod City,
Negros Occidental
OCC, RTC, Bacolod City,
Negros Occidental
OCC, RTC, Kalibo, Aklan
OCC, RTC, Dumaguete City,
Negros Oriental
OCC, RTC, Catbalogan City,
Samar
OCC, RTC, Pagadian City,
Zamboanga del Sur
OCC, RTC, Zamboanga City,
Zamboanga del Sur
OCC, RTC, Dipolog City,
Zamboanga Del Norte
OCC, RTC, Butuan City,
Agusan del Norte
OCC, RTC, Malaybalay City,
Bukidnon
54
January–March 2021
Circulars
OCA Circular No. 24-2021(continued)
115.
Johna Rose A. Betacura
116.
Rodel F. Dasok
117.
Hanan M. Bangon
118.
Siulien D. Abalo
OCC, RTC, Davao City,
Davao del Sur
of the Court-Annexed Media on [CAM] and Judicial Dispute
Resolu on [JDR] in Civil Cases).
The Resolu on shall take effect on March 1, 2021.
OCC, RTC, Davao City,
Davao del Sur
South Cotabato
Any prior circular from the Office of the Court Administrator
on this ma er which is contrary to the foregoing is hereby
superseded.
OCC, RTC, Iligan City,
February 24, 2021.
OCC, RTC, Koronadal City,
Lanao del Norte
119.
Eulene S. Ortega
OCC, RTC, Caloocan City
120.
Lina D. Cabanganan
OCC, RTC, Las Piñas City
121.
Maria Iloisa E. Holgado
OCC, RTC, Maka City
122.
Amytes R. Blente
OCC, RTC, Mandaluyong City
123.
Diana Rose L. Feliciano
OCC, RTC, Manila
124.
Aleda T. Alcobendas
OCC, RTC, Manila
125.
Maria Eulalia S. Silagan
OCC, RTC, Mun nlupa City
126.
Jenny B. Valenzuela
OCC, RTC, Parañaque City
127.
Erica M. Regalado
OCC, MeTC, Mandaluyong City
128.
Charlaine B. Dospueblo
OCC, MeTC, Parañaque City
129.
Jennelyn D. Salces
OCC, MeTC, Pasig City
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
[Refer to PHILJA Bulle n Supplement, January–March 2021, Vol. XXIII, Issue No.
89, pp. 4–13 for the full text of the Guidelines, and PMC Forms 2, 20, 21.]
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 30-2021
TO: THE CONCERNED JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL
February 18, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
SUBJECT: MOOE WEBINAR ON MARCH 3–4, 2021
Pursuant to the Resolu on dated December 9, 2020 of
the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 17-08-09-SC, rela ve to the
con nua on of the pilot tes ng of the Maintenance and
Other Opera ng Expenses (MOOE) Interim Guidelines, the
Technical Working Group (TWG) on the Dra ing of the Interim
Guidelines will conduct an orienta on and training webinar
for judges, clerks of court, branch clerks of court/officers in
charge and court financial aides on March 3–4, 2021.
In connec on therewith, the following concerned judges
and court personnel are hereby DIRECTED to a end the
webinar on OFFICIAL TIME, provided that their respec ve
court calendars are properly managed and the par es are
duly no fied of any cancelled hearing:
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 26-2021
TO: ALL COURT USERS, JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND
LEVEL COURTS, AND MEMBERS OF THE BAR
SUBJECT: COURT EN BANC RESOLUTION DATED FEBRUARY
9, 2021 IN A.M. NO. 19-10-20-SC (RE: 2020 GUIDELINES FOR
THE CONDUCT OF THE COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION [CAM]
AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION [JDR] IN CIVIL CASES)
For the informa on, guidance and strict compliance of all
concerned, appended herein as Annex “A” is the Resolu on
dated February 9, 2021 of the Honorable Court En Banc in
A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC (Re: 2020 Guidelines for the Conduct
NAME
STATION
JUDGES
1.
Hon. Peter Steve G. Lim
Br. 3, MeTC, Manila
2.
Hon. Eriza P.
Pagaling-Zapanta
Br. 4, MeTC, Manila
3.
Hon. Ihmie Michiko C.
Gacad-Presto
Br. 5, MeTC, Manila
4.
Hon. Jerome U. Jimenez
Br. 6, MeTC, Manila
5.
Hon. Carissa Anne 0.
Manook-Frondozo
Br. 7, MeTC, Manila
55
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
6.
Hon. Michelle G.
Divina-Delfin
Br. 8, MeTC, Manila
32.
Hon. Maria Lorenza I.
Barias-Siosana
Br. 49, MeTC, Caloocan City
7.
Hon. Manuel Gerard C.
Tomacruz
Br. 10, MeTC, Manila
33.
Hon. Gloria D. Santos, Jr.
Br. 51, MeTC, Caloocan City
8.
Hon. Jose I. Cordero, Jr.
Br. 11, MeTC, Manila
34.
Hon. Dorothy Grace R.
Daguna-Inciong
Br. 52, MeTC, Caloocan City
9.
Hon. Anne Perpetual S.
Rivera-Sia
Br. 12, MeTC, Manila
35.
Hon. Juliet C.
Azarraga-Chanyongco
Br. 53, MeTC, Caloocan City
10.
Hon. Jennifer B.
Escorpezo-Bayaua
Br. 13, MeTC, Manila
36.
Hon. Marlo B. Campanilla
Br. 83, MeTC, Caloocan City
11.
Hon. Carolina De Jesus
Esguerra
Br. 14, MeTC, Manila
37.
Hon. Jonald E.
Hernandez (APJ)
Br. 84, MeTC, Caloocan City
12.
Hon. Fricia C. Gomez-Guillen
Br. 15, MeTC, Manila
38.
Hon. Lourdes Grace S.
Barrientos-Sasondoncillo
Br. 86, MeTC, Caloocan City
13.
Hon. Minerva M.
Alejandria-Bau sta
Br. 16, MeTC, Manila
39.
Hon. Xavier Paolo R.
Del Cas llo
Br. 61, MeTC, Maka City
14.
Hon. Karla A. Fun la-Abugan
Br. 17, MeTC, Manila
40.
Br. 62, MeTC, Maka City
15.
Hon. Immaculada
Br. 18, MeTC, Manila
Concepcion C. Ylagan-Galang
Hon. Ma. Concepcion A.
Billones
41.
Hon. Alberto N. Azarcon III
Br. 63, MeTC, Maka City
16.
Hon. Karen M. Sy
Br. 19, MeTC, Manila
42.
Hon. Ma. Lourdes V.
Barrios-Sapalo
Br. 64, MeTC, Maka City
17.
Hon. Paul A. Flor
Br. 20, MeTC, Manila
43.
Hon. Ellen V.
Abesamis-Quinto
Br. 65, MeTC, Maka City
18.
Hon. Nerina Casandra N.
Anastacio-Mendinuento
Br. 22, MeTC, Manila
44.
Br. 26, MeTC, Manila
Hon. Niño Delvin E.
Embuscado
Br. 66, MeTC, Maka City
19.
Hon. Jorge Emmanuel M.
Lorredo
45.
Br. 67, MeTC, Maka City
Hon. Joel A. Lucasan
Br. 27, MeTC, Manila
Hon. Jackie B.
Crisologo-Saguisag
46.
Hon. Melinda Cielo C.
Mendoza
Br. 125, MeTC, Maka City
47.
Hon. Catherina A. Manzano
Br. 126, MeTC, Maka City
48.
Hon. Clemente M. Clemente
Br. 127, MeTC, Maka City
49.
Hon. Maureen L.
Rubio-Marquez
Br. 128, MeTC, Maka City
50.
Hon. Alexius P. Tang
Br. 129, MeTC, Maka City
51.
Hon. Lorelei S.
Balansay-Tapia
Br. 130, MeTC, Maka City
52.
Hon. Juan Jose P. Enriquez III
Br. 115, MeTC, Taguig City
53.
Hon. Ma. Victoria Q.
Padilla-Awid
Br. 117, MeTC, Taguig City
54.
Hon. Ma. Ofelia S.
Contreras-Soriano
Br. 55, MeTC, Malabon City
20.
21.
Hon. Andy S. De Vera
Br. 28, MeTC, Manila
22.
Hon. Richelle Lou S.
Boling-Sanchez
Br. 29, MeTC, Manila
23.
Hon. Grace Maria Theresa
Bambi A. Delos Reyes-Jurado
Br. 30, MeTC, Manila
24.
Hon. Kirk M. Aniñon
Br. 44, MeTC, Pasay City
25.
Hon. Remiebel U. Mondia
Br. 45, MeTC, Pasay City
26.
Hon. Rechie N.
Ramos- Malabanan
Br. 46, MeTC, Pasay City
27.
Hon. Jose Janello A.
Covarrubias
Br. 47, MeTC, Pasay City
28.
Hon. Allan B. Ariola
Br. 48, MeTC, Pasay City
29.
Hon. Vladimir Berla S. Daral
Br. 165, MeTC, Pasay City
30.
Hon. Kirby G. Javier
Br. 166, MeTC, Pasay City
55.
Hon. Sheryll C.
Dolendo-Tulabing
Br. 56, MeTC, Malabon City
31.
Hon. Sheila Marie V.
Sison-Javier
Br. 167, MeTC, Pasay City
56.
Hon. Maya Joy P.
Guiyab-Camposanto
Br. 120, MeTC, Malabon City
56
January–March 2021
Circulars
OCA Circular No. 30-2021(continued)
Hon. Emmanuel C.
Br. 62, RTC, La Trinidad,
Rasing (APJ)
Benguet
57.
Hon. Amy S.
Rivas-Magdangal
Br. 54, MeTC, Navotas City
82.
58.
Hon. Fredrick G. Separa
Br. 118, MeTC, Navotas City
83.
Hon. Jennifer P. Humiding
59.
Hon. Aimee S. Arago
Br. 119, MeTC, Navotas City
84.
Hon. Daniel D. Mangallay
60.
Hon. Teresita Asuncion M.
Lacandula-Rodriguez
Br. 81, MeTC, Valenzuela City
85.
Hon. Felix G. Salvador (APJ)
61.
Hon. Katlyn Anne C.
Aguilar-Bilgera
Br. 82, MeTC, Valenzuela City
86.
Hon. Homer Jay D. Ragonjan
62.
Hon. Rommelo C. Camarillo
Br. 107, MeTC, Valenzuela City
87.
Hon. Romeo M. A llo, Jr.
Br. 31, RTC, Agoo, La Union
63.
Hon. Ghia Chrystellyne 0.
Hurtado-Juan
Br. 108, MeTC, Valenzuela City
88.
Hon. Ethelwolda A. Jaravata
Br. 32, RTC, Agoo, La Union
64.
Hon. Marita Iris B.
Laqui-Genilo
Br. 109, MeTC, Valenzuela City
89.
Hon. Jacinto M. Dela Cruz, Jr.
Br. 33, RTC, Bauang, La Union
65.
Hon. Dennis M. Aga (APJ)
Br. 75, MeTC, Marikina City
90.
Hon. Ferdinand A. Fe
Br. 67, RTC, Bauang, La Union
66.
Hon. Maria Ella Cecilia D.
Dumlao-Escalante (APJ)
Br. 76, MeTC, Marikina City
91.
67.
Hon. Jeland Omer L.
Pormen lla (APJ)
Br. 92, MeTC, Marikina City
68.
Hon. Suzanne D.
Cobarrubias-Nabaza
Br. 93, MeTC, Marikina City
69.
Hon. Don Ace Mariano V.
Alagar (APJ)
Br. 94, MeTC, Marikina City
70.
Hon. Desiree Gertrude G.
Orquiola-Moldez
Br. 110, MeTC
Mun nlupa City
Hon. April Joy De Leon
Frisnedi-Belleza
Br. 111, MeTC
Mun npula City
71.
72.
73.
74.
Hon. Chelsea Segunda G.
Dirige-Legazpi
Br. 112, MeTC
Mun nlupa City
Hon. Melody G. Res tuto
Br. 113, MeTC
Mun nlupa City
Hon. Nelvin M. Asi
Br. 114, MeTC
Mun nlupa City
Lamong-Bumacod
Benguet
Br. 64, RTC, Buguias, Benguet
Br. 19, RTC, Bangui,
Ilocos Norte
Br. 24, RTC, Cabugao,
Ilocos Sur
11-FC, RTC, Bauang, La Union
92.
Hon. Marita B. Balloguing
93.
Hon. Junius F. Dalaten
94.
Hon. Rusty M. Naya
Br. 51, RTC, Tayug, Pangasinan
95.
Hon. Emma I. Parajas
Br. 52, RTC, Tayug, Pangasinan
Hon. Roselyn C.
Br. 53, RTC, Rosales,
Andrada-Borja
Pangasinan
Hon. Arginald Julius C.
Br. 54, RTC, Alaminos City,
Esguerra
Pangasinan
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
75.
Hon. Marianito C. Santos
Br. 57, MeTC, San Juan City
76.
Hon. Ronaldo B. Reyes
Br. 58, MeTC, San Juan City
77.
Hon. Dionis P. Jacobe
Br. 73, MeTC, Pateros
102.
78.
Hon. Elizabeth G.
Bringas (APJ)
Br. 58, RTC, Bucay, Abra
103.
Hon. Isagani G. Calderon
Br. 8, RTC, La Trinidad,
Benguet
104.
79.
Hon. Criselda M.
Br. 63, RTC, La Trinidad,
101.
80.
Hon. Marie a S.
Brawner-Cualing
Br. 9, RTC, La Trinidad,
Benguet
105.
81.
Hon. Jorge S. Manaois, Jr.
Br. 10, RTC, La Trinidad,
Benguet
106.
Hon. Marlon S. Meneses
Br. 34, RTC, Balaoan, La Union
Br. 50, RTC, Villasis,
Pangasinan
Br. 55, RTC, Alaminos City,
Pangasinan
Hon. Magnolia C.
Br. 56, RTC, San Carlos City,
Velez-Cayetano
Pangasinan
Hon. Geraldine
Br. 57, RTC, San Carlos City,
Navata-Francisco
Pangasinan
Hon. Danilo P. Ventajar
Hon. Chris an Emmanuel G.
Pimentel
Hon. Shirley L.
Magsipoc-Pagalilauan
Hon. Maria Lina Nieva S.
Casals
Hon. Ma. Theresa C. Bueno
Hon. Czarina E.
Samonte-Villanueva
13-FC, RTC, San Carlos City,
Pangasinan
Br. 180, RTC, Manila
Br. 181, RTC, Manila
Br. 182, RTC, Manila
Br. 183, RTC, Manila
Br. 184, RTC, Manila
57
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
132.
Hon. Nida B. Alejandro
Br. 12, RTC, Laoag City,
Ilocos Norte
133.
Hon. Romeo E. Agacita, Jr.
Br. 27, RTC, San Fernando
City, La Union
134.
Hon. Loreto S. Alog, Jr.
Br. 69, RTC, Lingayen,
Pangasinan
135.
Hon. Genoveva C. Maramba
Br. 44, RTC, Dagupan City,
Pangasinan
136.
Hon. Edilwasif T. Baddiri
Br. 115, RTC, Pasay City
137.
Hon. Ma. Chris na D. Lim
Br. 264, RTC, Pasig City
138.
Hon. Byron G. San Pedro
15-FC, RTC, Taguig City
Br. 306, RTC, Quezon City
139.
Hon. Loralie C. Datahan
Br. 69, RTC, Taguig City
Hon. Maria Cherell L.
De Castro-Sansaet
Br. 307, RTC, Quezon City
140.
Hon. Aida D.
Coliflores-Romero
Br. 122, MeTC, Las Piñas City
116.
Hon. Kris ne Joy M.
Meñez-Macalalad
Br. 308, RTC, Quezon City
141.
Hon. Karen S.
Canullas-Armada
Br. 123, MeTC, Las Piñas City
117.
Hon. Romel S. Odronia
Br. 309, RTC, Quezon City
142.
Hon. Lyne e May D.
Deloria Manarang
Br. 124, MeTC, Las Piñas City
118.
Hon. Ronald August L. Tan
Br. 297, RTC, Pasay City
143.
Br.71, RTC, An polo City, Rizal
119
Hon. Elenita C. Dimaguila
Br. 298, RTC, Pasay City
Hon. Banuar Reuben A.
Falcon
144.
Hon. Leo-Jon P. Ramos
120.
Hon. Leilani Marie D.
Grimares
Br. 85, RTC, Lipa City,
Batangas
145.
Hon. Salvador C. Villarosa, Jr.
Br. 56, RTC, Lucena City,
Quezon
146.
Hon. Janice L.
Andrade-Udarbe
Br. 57, RTC, Lucena City,
Quezon
147.
Hon. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos
Br. 54, RTC, Lapu-Lapu City,
Cebu
107.
Hon. Barry Boy A. Salvador
Br. 185, RTC, Manila
108.
Hon. John Benedict D.
Medina
Br. 186, RTC, Manila
109.
Hon. James T. Sy
Br. 187, RTC, Manila
110.
Hon. Karl Barth D. Justo
Br. 302, RTC, Quezon City
111.
Hon. Billy C. Evangelista
Br. 303, RTC, Quezon City
112.
Hon. Evangeline C.
Cabochan-Santos
Br. 304, RTC, Quezon City
113.
Hon. Gerlyn S.
Turingan-De Los Reyes
Br. 305, RTC, Quezon City
114.
Hon. Dolly Rose R.
Bolante-Prado
115.
Br. 294, RTC, Parañaque City
121.
Hon. Xerxes U. Garcia
Br. 295, RTC, Parañaque City
122.
Hon. Belen G.
Salespara-Carasig
Br. 296, RTC, Parañaque City
123.
Hon. Modesto D. Bahul, Jr.
2-FC, RTC, Baguio City,
Benguet
124.
4-FC, RTC, Laoag City,
Hon. Bonhoefer V. Bernardez
Ilocos Norte
148.
Hon. Janet M. Cabalona
Br. 28, RTC, Catbalogan City,
Samar
125.
Hon. Leah Agripina G.
Ramirez-Florendo
7-FC, RTC, Vigan City,
Ilocos Sur
149.
Hon. Esteban V.
Dela Peña (APJ)
Br. 29, RTC, Catbalogan City,
Samar
Hon. Emmylou V.
Rubang-Mangasar
8-FC, RTC, Candon City,
Ilocos Sur
150.
Hon. Irene T. Pontejos
Br. 7, RTC, Tacloban City, Leyte
126.
151.
Hon. Carlos L. Espero II
127.
Hon. Rhea S. Gallevo
10-FC, RTC, San Fernando
City, La Union
Br. 9, RTC, Davao City,
Davao del Sur
14-FC, RTC, Lingayen,
Pangasinan
152.
Hon. Nelson G. Layco
128.
Hon. Avelina J.
Villegas-Rosario
Br. 27, RTC, Lapu-Lapu City,
Cebu
129.
Hon. Zarah R.
Sanchez-Fernandez
15-FC, RTC, Dagupan City,
Pangasinan
130.
Hon. Edwin B. Maynigo
16-FC, RTC, Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan
Hon. Ligaya V. Itliong-Rivera
Br. 5, RTC, Baguio City,
Benguet
131.
CLERK OF COURT
153.
Rosalio Torren ra
OCC, MeTC, Manila
154.
Ezra Olivero M. Lim
OCC, MeTC, Manila
155.
Emma Annie D. Arafiles
OCC, MeTC, Pasay City
58
January–March 2021
Circulars
OCA Circular No. 30-2021(continued)
156.
Mona Lisa A. Buencamino
OCC, MeTC, Caloocan City
182.
Gilbert E. Ricablanca
Br. 8, MeTC, Manila
157.
Adoracion A. Arceo
OCC, MeTC, Maka City
183.
Arturo B. Joseph
Br. 9, MeTC, Manila
158.
Regina C. Rilloraza
OCC, MeTC, Maka City
184.
Hazel E. Buela
Br. 10, MeTC, Manila
159.
Mabel C. Madamba
OCC, MeTC, Taguig City
185.
Ma. Luisa T. Arugay
Br. 11, MeTC, Manila
160.
Neriza N. Salinas
OCC, MeTC, Taguig City
186.
Clecita C. Carpina
Br. 12, MeTC, Manila
161.
Ma. Fe Brenda J. Traviño
OCC, MeTC, Malabon City
187.
Marichu Teresa S. Taguilaso
Br. 13, MeTC, Manila
162.
Maricris G. Or z
OCC, MeTC, Navotas City
188.
Rodrigo V. Bulatao, Jr.
Br. 14, MeTC, Manila
163.
Jesus G. Salvacion
OCC, MeTC, Valenzuela City
189.
Abelardo T. Pongyan
Br. 15, MeTC, Manila
164.
Nicolas A. Jimenez
OCC, MeTC, Valenzuela City
190.
Maricris A. Liloc
Br. 17, MeTC, Manila
165.
Ofelia R. Viray-Sarte
OCC, MeTC, Marikina City
191.
Maria Josephine C. Pabroa
Br. 18, MeTC, Manila
166.
Gina O. Bucayon
OCC, MeTC, Mun nlupa City
192.
Agnes M. Vargas
Br. 19, MeTC, Manila
167.
Laureana C. Buenaventura
OCC, MeTC, Mun nlupa City
193.
Vivian P. Mendiola
Br. 20, MeTC, Manila
168.
Melissa B. Perez
OCC, MeTC, San Juan City
194.
Maria Pilar L. Fernandez
Br. 21, MeTC, Manila
169.
Rebecca G. Egsan
195.
Fa ma I. Tejada
Br. 22, MeTC, Manila
170.
Jurgens San Jose Milan
196.
James Ryan Dela Cruz Sia
Br. 24, MeTC, Manila
171.
Diosdado L. Doctolero
OCC, RTC, Agoo, La Union
197.
Dyna Jayme Roldan
Br. 25, MeTC, Manila
172.
Nida Q. Rodriguera
OCC, RTC, Bauang, La Union
198.
Patricia C. Villaruel
Br. 26, MeTC, Manila
199.
Edita E. Oneza
Br. 29, MeTC, Manila
200.
Pedro C. Doctolero, Jr.
Br. 44, MeTC, Pasay City
201.
Racquel F. Guerrero-Go
Br. 45, MeTC, Pasay City
202.
Lydia T. Casas
Br. 46, MeTC, Pasay City
203.
Leilani A. Tejero-Lopez
Br. 47, MeTC, Pasay City
204.
Jose Maria Chenly C. Dy
Br. 49, MeTC, Caloocan City
205.
Elaine Sharon A. De Luna
Br. 50, MeTC, Caloocan City
206.
Sofia I. Malazarte
Br. 51, MeTC, Caloocan City
207.
Cris na G. Payad
Br. 52, MeTC, Caloocan City
Br. 2, MeTC, Manila
208.
Maria Theresa C. Gonzales
Br. 53, MeTC, Caloocan City
173.
174.
Jennifer M.
Melchor-Adviento
Jade R. Razote-Rosal
175.
Alejandra P. Paningbatan
176.
Jocelyn B. Lu
177.
Por a Rochelle G. Villena
OCC, RTC, La Trinidad,
Benguet
OCC, RTC, La Trinidad,
Benguet
OCC, RTC, Tayug, Pangasinan
OCC, RTC, Alaminos City,
Pangasinan
OCC, RTC, San Carlos City,
Pangasinan
OCC, MeTC, Parañaque City
OCC, RTC, Batangas City
Batangas
BRANCH CLERK OF COURT/OFFICER IN CHARGE
178.
179.
Ma. Teresa Delos Santos
Masongsong
Rosario Concepcion A.
De Guzman
Br. 1, MeTC, Manila
180.
Ryan Jay I. Rabaca
Br. 4, MeTC, Manila
209.
Fernando S. lgaya
Br. 83, MeTC, Caloocan City
181.
Baby Emily R. Yarra
Br. 7, MeTC, Manila
210.
Primi va Gabriel Ellorando
Br. 84, MeTC, Caloocan City
59
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
211.
John Mandell Juliano
Daproza
Br. 85, MeTC, Caloocan City
239.
Miraquel A. Labog
Br. 108, MeTC, Valenzuela City
240.
Kent Anthony C. Revil
Br. 109, MeTC, Valenzuela City
241.
Hanneli R. Garay
Br. 76, MeTC, Marikina City
242.
Rosario C. Del Rosario-Jusay
Br. 92, MeTC, Marikina City
243.
Glen G. Evasco
Br. 93, MeTC, Marikina City
244.
Rolando A. Panaligan
Br. 94, MeTC, Marikina City
245.
Rommel F. Liban
Br. 95, MeTC, Marikina City
246.
Rofylyn L. Lagundino
Br. 80, MeTC, Mun nlupa City
212.
Danilo San Pedro Loja
Br. 86, MeTC, Caloocan City
213.
Quina Flor C. Ordinario
Br. 61, MeTC, Maka City
214.
Victoria E. Dulfo
Br. 62, MeTC, Maka City
215.
Grace G. Beltran
Br. 63, MeTC, Maka City
216.
Jhimbol Z. Pabalinas
Br. 64, MeTC, Maka City
217.
Rowena A. Soller
Br. 65, MeTC, Maka City
218.
Perlita C. Ordinario
Br. 66, MeTC, Maka City
219.
Romualdo I. Balancio
Br. 67, MeTC, Maka City
247.
Christopher S. Guzman
Br. 110, MeTC
Mun nlupa City
Br. 125, MeTC, Maka City
248.
Leo Maria C. Ordenes
Br. 112, MeTC
Mun nlupa City
220.
Mizpah-Grace A.
Lumawag-De Mesa
221.
Pacifico P. Monje, Jr.
Br. 126, MeTC, Maka City
249.
Erna D. Pilit
Br. 113, MeTC
Mun nlupa City
222.
Junel S. Norberte
Br. 127, MeTC, Maka City
250.
Iris M. Del Rio
Br. 114, MeTC
Mun nlupa City
223.
Jus n Michael B. Berango
Br. 128, MeTC, Maka City
251.
Sarah Jane M. Deseo
Br. 57, MeTC, San Juan City
224.
Angelica T. Alcuaz
Br. 129, MeTC, Maka City
252.
Nelita R. De Dumo
Br. 58, MeTC, San Juan City
225.
Maria-Aida C. Lomugdang
Br. 130, MeTC, Maka City
253.
Roselyn L. Villano
Br. 73, MeTC, Pateros
226.
Lerma B. Turqueza
Br. 74, MeTC, Taguig City
254.
Harilaos C. Banatao
Br. 58, RTC, Bucay, Abra
Br. 115, MeTC, Taguig City
255.
Maribel B. Macario-Pedro
Br. 8, RTC, La Trinidad,
Benguet
256.
Gladys Marie S. Budo-Gubat
Br. 9, RTC, La Trinidad,
Benguet
257.
Charisma Naida S.
Cas llo-Mar n
Br. 10, RTC, La Trinidad,
Benguet
258.
Maria Tarahata M.
Arevalo-Manaois
Br. 62, RTC, La Trinidad,
Benguet
259.
Marlyn C. Willie-Galasa
Br. 64, RTC, Buguias, Benguet
260.
Margie G. Laroya
Br. 19, RTC, Bangui,
Ilocos Norte
Br. 118, MeTC, Navotas City
261.
Sheryll Ann Y. Rin
Br. 24, RTC, Cabugao,
Ilocos Sur
227.
Annaliza B.
Caman gue-Baranda
228.
Merly Q. Pagkalinawan
Br. 116, MeTC, Taguig City
229.
Violeta C. Bau sta
Br. 117, MeTC, Taguig City
230.
Allan D. Regunton
Br. 55, MeTC, Malabon City
231.
Asterio T. Aganon, Jr.
Br. 56, MeTC, Malabon City
232.
Ma. Luisa A. Ramos
Br. 120, MeTC, Malabon City
233.
Romina C. Delos Santos
Br. 54, MeTC, Navotas City
234.
Phoebe Scherrie C.
Evangelista
235.
Clarissa H. Aenlle
Br. 119, MeTC, Navotas City
262.
Jovina G. Quitoriano-Labiano
Br. 25, RTC, Tagudin,
Ilocos Sur
236.
Elmer D. Cabrera
Br. 81, MeTC, Valenzuela City
263.
Gilbert Y. Canlas
Br. 31, RTC, Agoo, La Union
237.
Helen M. Evangelista
Br. 82, MeTC, Valenzuela City
264.
Ferdinand Esperanza
Br. 32, RTC, Agoo, La Union
238.
Reynaldo M. Oidem
Br. 107, MeTC, Valenzuela City
265.
Schelma Dulce
Suratos-Yanguas
Br. 33, RTC, Bauang, La Union
60
January–March 2021
Circulars
OCA Circular No. 30-2021(continued)
266.
Bernardita A. Sotelo
Br. 67, RTC, Bauang, La Union
294.
Leah A. Bagoy
Br. 69, RTC, Taguig City
267.
Phoebe B. Ullalim-Pasiwen
Br. 34, RTC, Balaoan, La Union
295.
Nimfa Samarita-Quince
Br. 163, RTC, Taguig City
268.
Zulieca L. Tamayo-De Vera
Br. 50, RTC, Villasis,
Pangasinan
296.
Noel C. Lagonoy
Br. 121, MeTC, Las Piñas City
269.
Myraflor G. Saculles
Br. 51, RTC, Tayug, Pangasinan
297.
Laurencia Lesil M. Reyes
Br. 122, MeTC, Las Piñas City
270.
Kris ne G. Samilin
Br. 52, RTC, Tayug, Pangasinan
298.
Sarah Jane C. Borras
Br. 123, MeTC, Las Piñas City
271.
Hercules R. Doria
Br. 53, RTC, Rosales,
Pangasinan
299.
Felda L. Domingo
Br. 124, MeTC, Las Piñas City
Thelma H. Dulay
Br. 87, MeTC, Parañaque City
Eden R. Raborar
Br. 54, RTC, Alaminos City,
Pangasinan
300.
272.
Br. 55, RTC, Alaminos City,
Pangasinan
301.
Maria Abigail A. Dospueblos
Br. 91, MeTC, Parañaque City
273.
Ruchin Sherryl C.
Caagao-Palaganas
302.
Kurl Angie E. Mon
Br. 135, MeTC, Quezon City
Randy M. Vistro
Br. 56, RTC, San Carlos City,
Pangasinan
303.
Kathrina R. Casar
Br. 139, MeTC, Quezon City
275.
Purissa M. Reyes
Br. 57, RTC, San Carlos City,
Pangasinan
304.
Kriztel-Ann J. Cabradilla
276.
Reden B. Pulmano
Br. 70, RTC, Burgos,
Pangasinan
305.
Mary Ann R. Foronda
277.
Melanie Chris ne S. Pascua
Br. 294, RTC, Parañaque City
306.
Enrique A. Gallardo
274.
278.
Remy Rose Ann S. Bituin
Br. 295, RTC, Parañaque City
279.
Diane G. Bihasa
Br. 22, RTC, Manila
307.
Thea Marie S. Malcampo
280.
Katherine P. Taeza
Br. 29, RTC, Manila
308.
Jeanie Rose C. Biscocho
281.
Rommel Brian P. Flores
Br. 32, RTC, Manila
309.
Julius Glen T. Espejo
310.
Ma. Geraldine M. Pan
Br. 23, RTC, Candon City,
Ilocos Sur
Br. 12, RTC, Laoag City,
llocos Norte
Br. 14, RTC, Laoag City,
llocos Norte
Br. 93, RTC, Balanga City,
Bataan
Br. 167, RTC, Lucena City,
Quezon
Br. 44, RTC, Mamburao,
Occidental Mindoro
282.
Jona T. Magbitang
Br. 176, RTC, Manila
283.
Josefina Jessica G. Divina
Br. 179, RTC, Manila
284.
Ma. Angelica R. De Guzman
8-FC, RTC, Mun nlupa City
311.
Lorna P. Verzosa
285.
Rosemarie S. Nejudne
Br. 115, RTC, Pasay City
312.
Raiza Khey L. Llorico
Br. 1, RTC, Kalibo, Aklan
286.
Alonto Parahiman, Jr.
Br. 109, RTC, Pasay City
313.
Marissa C. Cañete
Br. 52, RTC, Kalibo, Aklan
287.
Dana Lyne A. Areola
Br. 112, RTC, Pasay City
314.
Kristell Ann Marie Alido
Br. 14, RTC, Roxas City, Capiz
288.
Arlyn M. Falcon
Br. 119, RTC, Pasay City
315.
Jennie Ann T. Logronio
Br. 1, RTC, Roxas City, Capiz
289.
Joanikka Mae C. Colada
11-FC, RTC, Pasay City
316.
Ken Ebbe T. Peña
290.
Bellaflor B. De Jesus-Sanez
Br. 155, RTC, Pasig City
317.
Elvie O. Luyao
291.
Lourdes L. Escuyos
Br. 264, RTC, Pasig City
292.
Ann Marie Loren R. Pastor
Br. 98, RTC, Quezon City
318.
Michael John B. Labajosa
293.
Michelle T. Dela Cruz
Br. 106, RTC, Quezon City
319.
Maria Victoria S. Cruz
Br. 41, RTC, Pinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro
Br. 51, RTC, Sorsogon City,
Sorsogon
Br. 27, RTC, Lapu-Lapu City,
Cebu
Br. 55, RTC, Mandaue City,
Cebu
Br. 27, RTC, Catbalogan City,
Samar
Br. 51, MeTC, Caloocan City
61
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
I.
COURT FINANCIAL AIDE
320.
Eulene S. Ortega
OCC, RTC, Caloocan City
321.
Kimberly S. Villanueva
OCC, RTC, Caloocan City
322.
Sherwin S. Espiel
OCC, RTC, Puerto Princesa
City, Palawan
323.
Lyneth C. Gardose
OCC, RTC, Guimbal, Iloilo
March 3, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 31-2021
TO: ALL JUDGES OF SPECIALLY DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTAL
COURTS
RE: NATIONWIDE SURVEY ON THE APPLICATION OF THE
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Ac ng on the February 11, 2021 le er of Dean Sedfrey M.
Candelaria, Chief, Research, Publica ons, and Linkages Office,
Philippine Judicial Academy, reques ng the endorsement
of the survey ques onnaire on the applica on of the Rules
of Procedure for Environmental Cases and implementa on
of environmental laws, all environmental court judges are
hereby directed to accomplish the na onwide survey within
ten (10) days from this issuance, through the following link:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1hWzLbe7fmdWRrQXun1MLQKc_
veRPE6M1Haz7hA0J5ew/viewform?ts=5fe1858b&edit_reque
sted=true&gxids=7628
For the guidance and compliance of all concerned.
March 3, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 36-2021
TO: JUDGES, CLERKS OF COURT, AND OFFICERS IN CHARGE IN
THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THE PROCESSING OF PAYMENT OF
SERVICES AND CONTRACT OF SERVICE OF CONTRACTUAL
COURT STENOGRAPHERS, PAYMENT OF SERVICE OF COURT
FINANCIAL AIDES AND OTHER CONCERNS RELATING TO
OCA’S ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER THE LOWER
COURTS
PROCESSING OF PAYMENT OF SERVICES
To expedite the processing of the Payment of Services (POS)
of Contractual Court Stenographers and Court Financial Aides,
the following guidelines shall be observed:
1. The documentary requirements under OCA Circular
Nos. 132-2019 (Implementa on of the Contractual
Informa on and Payroll System) and 229-2019
(Supplemental Guidelines for the Implementa on
of the Contractual Informa on and Payroll System
[ClPS]) to process the ini al POS for the ini al
and succeeding Contracts of Service (COS) of
the Contractual Court Stenographers and Court
Financial Aides, and the monthly Daily Time Records
(DTRs) shall be electronically submi ed to the RTC
Personnel Division (for second level courts) and
MTC, etc. Personnel Division (for first level courts),
Office of Administra ve Services, Office of the Court
Administrator (OAS, OCA).
2. For Court Financial Aides (CFAs), the documentary
requirements stated above shall be electronically
submi ed to the Maintenance and Other Opera ng
Expenses (MOOE) Sec on, MTC, etc. Personnel
Division, Office of Administra ve Services, Office of
the Court Administrator (OAS, OCA), for the first and
second level courts.
3. Only complete and compliant documentary
requirements and DTRs received shall be transmi ed
by the OAS, OCA to the Finance Division, Financial
Management Office (FMO), OCA, for evalua on of
the documents and processing of POS, including the
prepara on of payroll.
4. The meline for the payment of the POS under OCA
Circular [No.] 229-2019 shall be based on the date
of receipt by the OAS, OCA of the complete and
compliant documentary requirements and the correct
monthly DTRs with complete suppor ng documents
which may be submi ed thru the official electronic
mail of the contractee’s court sta on. All documents
transmi ed thru the official electronic mail address
of the contractee’s court shall be accepted as official
documents by the Finance Division, FMO, OCA to
expedite the processing of the contractee’s salary.
5. DTRs with wrong entry/ies and/or with lacking
documentary requirements shall be automa cally
excluded in the regular or ini al supplemental
payroll even if received within the meline for the
processing of regular and ini al supplemental payroll
to avoid delay in the processing of the regular and
ini al supplemental payroll.
62
January–March 2021
Circulars
OCA Circular No. 36-2021(continued)
6. DTRs that were not included in the regular and ini al
supplemental payrolls shall be processed in batches
of succeeding supplemental payrolls (A to J) or by
individual vouchers.
7. All communica ons, requests, queries and follow-ups
on all ma ers pertaining to the POS and COS shall
be made only through the official electronic mail
addresses and telephone numbers found below:
For Contractual Court Stenographers
For Court Financial Aides
Email address: mooe.cfc.sc@judiciary.gov.ph
Tel. No.: (02) 82513543; Mobile No. 0906.0876947
Processor-in-Charge
Area Assignment
Carlson James S. Hipolito
Manila, Las Piñas
City, Pasay City,
Navotas City and
Valenzuela City;
Regions 1 to 4
Clyde Glenn V. Degorio
Quezon City,
Caloocan City,
Malabon City,
Mandaluyong City
and Mun nlupa
City; Regions 5 to 8
Crissa Mae M. Lastrella
Marikina City, Pasig
City, San Juan City,
Taguig City and
Parañaque City;
Regions 9 to 12
For RTC Personnel Division, OAS, OCA
Email address:
rtc.contractualcstg.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
Tel. No.: (02) 82513596
Processor-in-Charge
Area Assignment
Kevin Claude M. Geronimo
NCJR
(Manila, Maka City,
Pasig City, Malabon
City, Taguig City, Las
Piñas City, Navotas
City, Parañaque
City, Pasay City,
Mun nlupa City,
Marikina City and
San Juan City)
Amalia D. Alviso
Mandaluyong City;
Regions 1, 2, 8, 9,
10, 11 and 12
Camen F. Te
Quezon City;
Regions 3 and 5
Henrie a I. Semaña
Region 4
Edita B. Maglalang
Caloocan City and
Valenzuela City;
Regions 6 and 7
For MTC, etc. Personnel Division, OAS, OCA
Email address:
cstgcontractual.mtc.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
Tel. No.: (02) 85369037
Processor-in-Charge
Area Assignment
Angelica Veronica L.
Contract and
Corporal
Funding
Morris Albert B. Pante
DTRs (Payment of
Salary)
8. Once the documents are transmi ed to the Finance
Division, FMO, OCA, Contractual Court Stenographers
and Court Financial Aides shall direct their inquiries
to the said divisions in their official email and
telephone numbers indicated in this circular.
II. CONTRACT OF SERVICE
9. To enable the Contractual Court Stenographers to
completely acquire the required relevant experience
for the posi on, the period of their contract is
expanded from six (6) months to two (2) years for
second level courts and one (1) year for first level
courts, or the remaining period to meet the relevant
experience requirement, subject to pre-termina on
any me upon the recommenda on of the Execu ve
Judge (EJ) for those in the Office of the Clerk of
Court, and Presiding Judge (PJ) for those in the court
branches, for valid and reasonable grounds.
10. Four (4) months before the expira on of the two (2)/
one (1) year period of the contract, the EJ/PJ shall
submit their request for the repos ng of the court
stenographer posi on.
11. When the request is approved by the Honorable Chief
Jus ce, the regular process in the filling up of vacant
posi ons shall be observed. Having met the required
63
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
relevant experience, the EJ/PJ may now recommend
the permanent appointment of the concerned
contractual court stenographers.
2.
Transac ons involving
the a endance of judges
and court personnel such
as colla ng, processing
and safekeeping of the
cer ficates of services
of judges and the bundy
cards/daily me records
of court personnel,
and the processing of
applica ons for leave and
upda ng the records of
leave credits.
Employees Leave Division
Tel. Nos. (02) 85257793; 85234917;
85234926
Email addresses:
ncjr.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
r1.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
r2.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
r3.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
r4.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
r5.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
r6.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
r7.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
r8.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
r9.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
r10.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
r11.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
r12.leave.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
3.
Processing of re rement
claims.
Employee Welfare and Benefits
Division
Tel. Nos. (02) 85234893; 82477353
Email address:
ewbd.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
4.
Management and
distribu on of proper es,
supplies and equipment
for the lower courts.
Property Division
Tel Nos. (02) 85251839; 85257036;
85251270; 85369135; 85230528
Email address[es]:
sc_cfc.sc@judiciary.gov.ph
procurement.oasoca@judiciary.gov.ph
recordssec on.oasoca@judiciary.gov.ph
shippingdelivery.oasoca@judiciary.gov.ph
utilization_disposal.oasoca@judiciary.gov.ph
5.
Prepara on and upda ng
of service records and
personnel records (201
Files) of the employees
of the lower courts, and
handling of incoming and
outgoing mails.
Records Division
Tel. Nos. (02) 85231076; 85369081;
885234886
Email addresses:
records.oasoca@judiciary.gov.ph
201records.oasoca@judiciary.gov.ph
mailingrecords.oasoca@judiciary.gov.
ph
12. Those who s ll lack the appropriate eligibility shall
be recommended for temporary appointment for a
period of one (1) year in the absence of an applicant
who meets all the qualifica on requirements of the
posi on.
13. The contracts of service shall be renewed for one (1)
year while awai ng the release of their permanent/
temporary appointment to enable them to render
con nuous service.
III. OTHER CONCERNS
14. For other concerns rela ng to the OCA’s
administra ve supervision over the lower courts,
judges and court personnel shall direct their requests
to the following OCA offices:
Nature of Request
Concerned Office
Office of Administra ve Services
(OAS, OCA)
1.
Personnel ma ers
rela ng to processing of
appointments, details
and reassignments,
resigna ons, issuance
of cer ficate of
employment and the
prepara on of No ce
of Salary Adjustment
(NOSA), No ce of Step
Increment (NOSI), and
No ce of Longevity Pay
(NOLPA).
RTC Personnel Division
Tel. Nos. (02)85210525: 85245798;
85529695
Email addresses:
rtc1.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtc2.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtc3.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtc4.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtc5.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtc6.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtc7.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtc8.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtc9.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtc10.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtc11.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtc12.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtcncjr.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
saln-ipcr.rtc.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
rtc.contractualcstgpersonnel.oas.oca@
judiciary.gov.ph
hoj6-12.ncjr.personnel.oas.oca@
judiciary.gov.ph
MTC, etc. Personnel Division
Tel. Nos. (02)85369037; 82513470;
82513543
Email addresses:
metc.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
mtc.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
mtcc.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
mctc.reg1-7.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
mctc.reg.8-12.scc-sdc.oas.oca@
judiciary.gov.ph
cstgcontractual.mtc.oas.oca@judiciary.
gov.ph
hoj1-5.personnel.oas.oca@judiciary.
gov.ph
saln-ipcr.mtc.oas.oca@judiciary.gov.ph
mooe.cfc.sc@judiciary.gov.ph
Nature of Request
Concerned Office
Financial Management Office
(FMO, OCA)
1.
Verifica on as to the
disbursement vouchers
issued, and as to when
appointed judges and
personnel will be included
in the payroll.
2.
Request for cer fica on
of monthly pension/
survivorship pension.
3.
Request for Cer ficate of
Compensa on Payment/
Tax Withheld (BIR Form
2316).
4.
Request for Cer ficate of
Creditable Tax Withheld at
Source (BIR Form 2307).
5.
Request for GSIS
Cer ficate of Premiums,
and Loan Deduc ons.
6.
Request for Philhealth
Cer ficate of
Contribu ons (CSF).
7.
Request for Philhealth
Claim Form (CFI).
8.
Request for
Pag-lbig Cer ficate of
Contribu ons and Loan
Deduc ons.
Finance Division
Tel. Nos. (02) 85369022;
85234915
Accoun ng Division
Tel. Nos. (02) 85369235;
84041053; 85369033;
85267856
Email Address:
acctgfmo.oca@sc.judiciary.gov.ph
64
January–March 2021
Circulars
OCA Circular No. 36-2021(continued)
9.
9.
Request for Pag-lbig
Cer ficate of Oneness.
10. Request for NHMFC
Cer ficate of Housing
Loan Deduc ons.
10. Request for Transfer of
seat of the court.
11. Request for Cer ficate
of No Unliquidated
Cash Advance/Money
Accountability.
12. Request for copy of
payslip/s and payroll/s for
loan purposes.
11. Request for Exemp on
from Raffle of Cases.
Checks Disbursement Division
Tel. No. (02) 85251645
13. Request for Cer ficate
of Last Salary and
Allowances Received for
transferred employees.
Pending due to
unse led over
payments.
b.
As to how much
overpayments to be
se led.
14. Request for Exemp on
from OCA Circular No.
139-2[0]10 (requirement
for addi onal expense
and judicial incen ve
allowance).
15. Monitoring Quarterly
Reports re: Small Claims
and CTMS (Con nuous
Trial and Monitoring
System).
15. Follow-up/inquiry on
claims like Terminal
Leave Pay, re rement
benefits, replacement
of lost checks, and other
payments if checks are
already available for
release.
16. Queries regarding mode
of payment either by Cash
or by Manager's Check.
12. Request for Exemp on
from the Provisions of
Sec. 5, Chapter 5 in A.M.
No. 03-8-02-SC (exclusion
of vacant courts from
raffle).
13. Request to hold office and
court sessions outside of
official sta on.
14. Follow-ups on Cer ficate
of Clearance
a.
Circui za on and
decircui za on and
the delinea on of the
territorial area of the
lower courts.
16. Queries on OCA Circulars.
Cash Division
Tel. No. (02) 85215605; 85232330
17. Request for a endance
of judges and court
personnel in seminars,
team building, and office
ac vi es on official me
or official business (0B).
18. Submission of Annual
Reports of Execu ve
Judges.
17. Follow-up or inquiry on
Check of Advice to Debit
Accounts (ADA) Number
issued.
Office on Halls of Jus ce
(OHJ, OCA)
Tel. No. (02) 85529592
Email address:
ocaohj.sc@judiciary.gov.ph
Court Management Office
(CMO, OCA)
1.
Queries regarding
financial audit.
Fiscal Monitoring Division (FMD)
Tel. No. (02) 85257196
2.
Request for financial
audit.
3.
Queries regarding Rule
141 (Legal Fees).
4.
Submission of Monthly
Report of Cases.
5.
Submission of Semestral
Docket Inventory Report.
6.
Immersion Program for
promoted and newly
appointed judge.
CMO Proper
Tel. No. (02) 85369040
Judicial assignment and
placement (designa on
of Ac ng Presiding Judge/
Assis ng Judge).
Judicial Supervision and Monitoring
Division (JSMD)
Tel. Nos. (02) 85272439;
84042731
7.
8.
Designa on of special
courts (Special Family
Courts, Drugs Courts,
etc.).
Planning Division (PLAD)
Tel. Nos. (02) 85239408;
84042735
Sta s cal Reports Division (SRD)
Tel. No. (02) 85236479
1.
Repair of Court Facili es.
2.
Request for Maintenance
Supplies.
3.
Provision of Office Spaces.
4.
Processing of Dona on or
Usufruct for Site of Hall of
Jus ce.
5.
Installa on and payment
of u lity bills (electricity,
water and telephone).
6.
Deployment of security
guards and janitors.
7.
Lease rental payments of
office spaces.
Technical Service Division (TSD)
Tel. No. (02) 85529594
Email Address:
tsd_ohj_sc@yahoo.com
Administra ve and Fiscal
Services Division
Tel. No. (02)85529596
Email Address:
ohjadm17@yahoo.com
For your informa on and guidance.
March 9, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
65
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
*
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 37-2021
Required
1.
Please choose your Judicial Region*
Select your answer
2.
Please choose your province*
3.
Type your court sta on*
Example: Dumaguete City
TO: ALL JUDGES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: INVENTORY OF CASES INVOLVING VIOLENCE ON
LAWYERS PENDING BEFORE THE COURTS
Pursuant to the January 6, 2021 Memorandum of the
Honorable Chief Jus ce Diosdado M. Peralta direc ng the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to address the
“growing concern over the con nued a acks against lawyers
and judges,” an inventory of criminal cases pending before
the courts involving lawyers who were either harassed,
threatened, a acked, or even killed is being conducted.
Hence, all judges of first and second level courts are hereby
directed to accomplish the na onwide survey within ten (10)
days from this issuance, through the following link:
htt p s : / / fo r m s . o ff i c e . co m / Pa ge s / Re s p o n s e Pa ge .
aspx?id=LhcHltpScEOFs2JSFnCTV0kjDEPUBphOo0EZ_
R9ydexUNFQ5NzhKMFdPTVBSQjVSODBYMjVNSjBORC4u
Select your answer
˅
Enter your answer
4.
Please choose your court level*
Select your answer
5.
˅
Type your branch number*
Enter your answer
6.
Are there criminal cases pending before your court that involve crimes/
violence commi ed against Jus ces and/or Judges, public prosecutors and
lawyers, whether in government or private prac ce?*
Yes
No
7.
How many of these cases involve current or former Jus ces and/or Judges?
The value must be a number
8.
Please provide the details of these cases following this format (1)
(2)
(3)
*
For the guidance and compliance of all concerned.
Case Number:
Date the case was filed:
Status of the case:
Please indicate N/A if not applicable
Enter your answer
March 9, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
9.
Case Number:
Date the case was filed:
Status of the case:
Please indicate N/A if not applicable
Enter your answer
11.
Gree ngs!
This survey shall give the Court an overall view of the status
of such cases so that they may be addressed with reasonable
dispatch.
Please provide the details of these cases following this format (1)
(2)
(3)
*
Inventory of Cases Involving
Violence on Lawyers Pending
Before the Courts
Pursuant to the January 6, 2021 Memorandum of the
Honorable Chief Jus ce Diosdado M. Peralta direc ng the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to address the
“growing concern over the con nued a acks against lawyers
and judges wherein at least 54 lawyers and judges have
become vic ms of extrajudicial killings and violent crimes,”
the OCA is conduc ng an inventory of criminal cases pending
before the courts which involves lawyers who were either
harassed, threatened, a acked, or even killed.
How many of these cases involve current or former public prosecutors?*
The value must be a number
10.
Thank you.
˅
How many of these cases involve current or former government lawyers
other than public prosecutors?*
The value must be a number
12.
Please provide the details of these cases following this format (1)
(2)
(3)
*
Case Number:
Date the case was filed:
Status of the case:
Please indicate N/A if not applicable
Enter your answer
13.
How many of these cases involve lawyers in private prac ce?*
The value must be a number
14.
Please provide the details of these cases following this format (1)
(2)
(3)
*
Case Number:
Date the case was filled:
Status of the case:
Please indicate N/A if not applicable
Enter your answer
Submit
66
January–March 2021
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 38-2021
TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE FIRST AND
SECOND LEVEL COURTS
RE: JUDICIARY 365 VIRTUAL ADAPTION CARAVAN MARCH
18–19, 2021 (1:00 P.M. TO 4:00 P.M.)
Due to the rising cases of COVID-19 infec on, and upon
approval of Chief Jus ce Diosdado M. Peralta, all first and
second level courts are authorized to maintain a skeleton
force of at least fi y percent (50%) in-court, at the sound
discre on of the Presiding Judge and the Clerk of Court of the
Office of the Clerk of Court, from March 15, 2021 to March 24,
2021. Those who will not be in-court shall work from home
and be subject to the submission of accomplishment reports.
All judges and clerks of court of first and second level courts
are directed to a end the Judiciary 365 Virtual Adap on
Caravan to be held on March 18 and 19, 2021, 1:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m., which will be hosted on the Philippine Judiciary 365
pla orm.
All judges and court personnel are likewise reminded to
con nue to strictly observe safety protocols.
Subject ma er experts will discuss the new func ons
and features available on the Judiciary 365 pla orm which
can aid the users in their day-to-day court opera ons. These
include, among others, crea ng break-out rooms (where
li gants can confer with their counsels in private without
leaving the official videoconferencing pla orm), enabling the
“hard-mute” feature (to prevent the general public who are
observing the videoconferencing hearing from interrup ng
the proceedings), and crea ng the applets that will automate
certain rudimentary processes with no programming skills or
code required.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
Best prac ces and ps and tricks in modernizing the
workplace will also be shared with the par cipants to cope
with the challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Exci ng games will be played and raffle prizes drawn in
between learning sessions. A quiz bee will likewise be hosted
towards the end of the caravan as a tribute to Chief Jus ce
Diosdado M. Peralta who will be re ring on March 27, 2021.
The link for registra on is already posted on the Philippine
Judiciary 365–Official Announcements and Issuances Teams
channel.
March 9, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 40-2021
TO: ALL JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST AND
SECOND LEVEL COURTS
RE: WORK SCHEDULE FOR MARCH 15–24, 2021
For strict compliance.
March 14, 2021.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 43-2021
TO: ALL JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL OF THE FIRST AND
SECOND LEVEL COURTS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL
REGION AND IN THE PROVINCES OF BULACAN, CAVITE,
LAGUNA, AND RIZAL
RE: COURT OPERATIONS FROM MARCH 23–31, 2021
Consistent with Inter-Agency Task Force Resolu on No. 104
series of 2021,1 all first and second level courts and offices in
the Na onal Capital Judicial Region and in the provinces of
Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna, and Rizal shall maintain a skeleton
force of thirty percent (30%) to fi y percent (50%) in-court, at
the sound discre on of the Presiding Judge and the Clerk of
Court of the Office of the Clerk of Court, from March 23 un l
March 31, 2021 (half-day). Those who will not be in-court
shall work from home and be subject to the submission of
accomplishment reports.
During this period, the presiding judges of said courts are
highly encouraged to conduct videoconferencing hearings as
an alterna ve mode to in-court proceedings, pursuant to the
Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing (A.M. No.
20-12-01-SC), provided that if fully-remote videoconferencing
hearings are conducted, the presiding judge a er such hearings
shall proceed to the court, should there be urgent ma ers that
require his or her personal presence.
67
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
All judges, court personnel, and court users are reminded
to con nue to strictly observe safety protocols.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 45-2021
OCA Circular No. 40-2021, insofar as it is inconsistent
herewith, is hereby set aside.
TO: THE CONCERNED JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL
For strict compliance.
SUBJECT: MOOE WEBINAR ON MARCH 25–26, 2021
March 22, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
1
Dated March 20, 2021.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 44-2021
TO: ALL CONCERNED JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL
RE: COURT OPERATIONS IN THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL
COURTS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION AND IN
THE PROVINCES OF BULACAN, CAVITE, LAGUNA, AND RIZAL
FROM MARCH 24–APRIL 16, 2021
In keeping with the spirit of the Resolu on of the Court En
Banc in A.M. No. 21-03-25-SC, dated March 23, 2021, to
“DRASTICALLY REDUCE the Court personnel” in all court
levels, and as approved by Chief Jus ce Diosdado M. Peralta,
all courts and offices in the first and second level courts in the
Na onal Capital Judicial Region (NCJR) and in the provinces
of Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna, and Rizal, shall maintain only a
skeleton force (which may be less than thirty percent [30%] of
the work staff) sufficient to a end to all urgent ma ers, from
March 24 un l April 16, 2021.
In addi on, the judges in the said areas may conduct
fully-remote videoconferencing hearings during the said
period, without the prior permission from the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA). The said judges may likewise
conduct such fully-remote videoconferencing hearings outside
their respec ve judicial regions, but only in the resolu on of
bail applica ons of persons deprived of liberty, and provided
they are within the NCJR or the four (4) provinces.
For the guidance of all concerned.
Pursuant to the Resolu on dated December 9, 2020 of
the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 17-08-09-SC, rela ve to the
con nua on of the pilot tes ng of the Maintenance and
Other Opera ng Expenses (MOOE) Interim Guidelines, the
Technical Working Group (TWG) on the Dra ing of the Interim
Guidelines will conduct an orienta on and training webinar
for judges, clerks of court and branch clerks of court/officers
in charge on March 25, 2021 (Day 1 – from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m.) and on March 26, 2021 (Day 2 –from 8:30 [a].m. to 5:00
p.m.).
In connec on therewith, the following concerned judges and
court personnel are hereby DIRECTED to a end the webinar
on OFFICIAL TIME, provided that their respec ve court
calendars are properly managed and the par es are duly
no fied of any cancelled hearing:
NAME
JUDGES
1.
2.
Hon. Victor R. Cumigad
Hon. Ramon Senen B.
Baroña
Br. 26, RTC, Luna, Apayao
Br. 13, RTC, Basco, Batanes
Hon. Gemma P.
Br. 12, RTC, Sanchez Mira,
Bucayu-Madrid
Cagayan
4.
Hon. Edmar P. Cas llo, Sr.
Br. 11, RTC, Tuao, Cagayan
5.
Hon. Ester L. Piscoso-Flor
Br. 34, RTC, Banaue, Ifugao
6.
Hon. Romeo U. Habbiling
Br. 14, RTC, Lagawe, Ifugao
Hon. Reymundo L.
Br. 20, RTC, Cauayan City,
Aumentado
Isabela
3.
7.
8.
9.
March 23, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
STATION
Hon. Ariel M. Palce
Hon. Nicasio B.
Bau sta III (APJ)
Br. 40, RTC, Cauayan City,
Isabela
Br. 24, RTC, Echague, Isabela
10.
Hon. Randy B. Bulwayan
Br. 39, RTC, Lubuagan, Kalinga
11.
Hon. Jerson E. Angog
Br. 25, RTC, Tabuk City, Kalinga
68
January–March 2021
Circulars
OCA Circular No. 45-2021(continued)
12.
13.
Hon. Pacito M. Pineda, Jr.
Br. 101, RTC, Casiguran,
Hon. Ma. Lourdes T.
Br. 5, RTC, Dinalupihan,
Eltanal-Ignacio
Bataan
Br. 96, RTC, Dinalupihan,
14.
Hon. Amelita V. Cruz-Corpuz
15.
Hon. Ma. Teresa P. Mauleon
3-FC, RTC, Mariveles, Bataan
16.
Hon. Emmanuel A. Silva
Br. 4, RTC, Mariveles, Bataan
17.
Hon. Jose Marie A. Quimboy
Br. 94, RTC, Mariveles, Bataan
18.
Hon. Ma. Cris na M. Pizarro
Br. 95, RTC, Mariveles, Bataan
19.
Hon. Ma. Cris na G. Juanson
20.
21.
22.
23.
Hon. April Anne M.
Turqueza-Pabellar
5-FC, RTC, San Jose Del Monte
6-FC, RTC, Sta. Maria, Bulacan
Hon. John Voltaire C.
Br. 34, RTC, Gapan City,
Venturina (APJ)
Nueva Ecija
Hon. Mildred S.
Br. 35, RTC, Gapan City,
Villaroman- Hernal
Nueva Ecija
Hon. Elenita N.
Br. 36, RTC, Gapan City,
Evangelista-Casipit
Nueva Ecija
Br. 87, RTC, Gapan City,
25.
Hon. Ronald Leo T. Haban
Br. 66, RTC, Capas, Tarlac
26.
Hon. Jeovannie C. Ordoño
Br. 109. RTC, Capas, Tarlac
Hon. Ryan Philipp L.
Br. 1, MTCC, San Jose del
Bartolome
Monte City, Bulacan
Hon. Percyveranda A.
Br. 2, MTCC, San Jose del
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Monte City, Bulacan
Hon. Bienvenido B.
Br. 3, MTCC, San Jose del
Almonte, Jr. (APJ)
Monte City, Bulacan
Mojares-Arevalo
Hon. Helen B.
Br. 128, RTC, Dasmariñas City,
Constan no-Balbuena
Cavite
Hon. Josielyn D.
Br. 129, RTC, Dasmariñas City,
Lara-De Luna
Cavite
39.
Hon. Lerio C. Cas gador
Br. 15, RTC, Naic, Cavite
40.
Hon. Ralph S. Arellano
Br. 132, RTC, Naic, Cavite
37.
38.
41.
Hon. Tomas Ken D.
Romaquin, Jr.
42.
Hon. Teodoro N. Solis
43.
Hon. Jaime E. Bana n
44.
Hon. Vernard V. Quijano
45.
Hon. Dennis J. Rafa
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Br. 152, RTC, Biñan City,
Laguna
Br. 153, RTC, Biñan City,
Laguna
Br. 154, RTC, Biñan City,
Laguna
Villamonte
Laguna
Hon. Maria Florencia B.
Br. 34, RTC, Calamba City,
Formes-Baculo
Laguna
Hon. Grogorio M. Velasquez
Br. 35, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
Hon. Glenda R.
Br. 36, RTC, Calamba City,
Mendoza-Ramos
Laguna
Hon. Caesar C. Buenagua
Br. 37, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
Hon. Angelina A.
Br. 92, RTC, Calamba City,
Mailom-Orendain
Laguna
54.
Hon. Arturo V. Noblejas
Batangas
55.
Hon. Marlyn R. Agama
Br. 16, RTC, Cavite City, Cavite
56.
Br. 83, RTC, Tanauan City,
57.
Br. 25, RTC, Biñan City, Laguna
Br. 155, RTC, Biñan City,
Hon. Maria Cecilia T. Pantua
Br. 17, RTC, Cavite City, Cavite
Br. 24, RTC, Biñan City, Laguna
Hon. Armin Noel B.
53.
Batangas
Batangas
Hon. Rowena R.
Cavite
Br. 6, RTC, Tanauan City,
Macalintal-Sawali
Andico-Malabanan
Collado, Jr.
Hon. Hector A. Buenaluz, Jr.
Br. 66, RTC, Tanauan City,
Hon. Ethel R.
Br. 90, RTC, Dasmariñas City,
52.
Hon. Charito M.
Hon. Nevic C. Adolfo
Hon. Francisco Victor L.
36.
Nueva Ecija
Dela Cruz (APJ)
Hon. Jose Ricuerdo P. Flores
Br. 88, RTC, Cavite City, Cavite
City, Bulacan
Hon. Quijano S. Laure
28.
Hon. Franco Paulo R. Arago
Bataan
24.
27.
35.
Aurora
Hon. Ma. Lourdes S.
Mendoza
Hon. Salvador C.
Villarosa, Jr. (APJ)
Br. 103, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
Br. 104, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
Br. 105, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
Br. 33, RTC, Siniloan, Laguna
Br. 166, RTC, Siniloan, Laguna
Br. 64, RTC, Mauban, Quezon
69
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
Hon. Jennifer A.
Santos-de Lumen
18-FC, RTC, Cainta, Rizal
Hon. Mederlyn A.
Br. 1, MTCC, Cavite City,
Presa-Mangalindan
Cavite
Hon. Maria Cris ta A.
Br. 2, MTCC, Cavite City,
Rivas-Santos (APJ)
Cavite
Hon. Dioanne B. Palao (APJ)
Br. 1, MTCC, Dasmariñas City,
Br. 2, MTCC, Dasmariñas City,
Lontoc-Inciong
Cavite
Hon. Rhodalyne E.
Br. 3, MTCC, Dasmariñas City,
Dapul-Artazo
Cavite
Serrano-Altea
Vasquez-Abad
Laguna
Alamada-Magayanes
Hon. Rosalie A. Lui
Laguna
Laguna
Dimayacyac (APJ)
Oriental Mindoro
Hon. Ramon Chito R.
Br. 165, RTC, Brooke’s Point,
Mendoza
Palawan
71.
Hon. Arnel P. Cezar
Br. 163, RTC, Coron, Palawan
72.
Hon. Paul B. Jagmis, Jr.
Br. 95, RTC, Roxas, Palawan
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
Hon. Anna Leah Y.
Tiongson-Mendoza
Hon. Emmanuel Q. Artazo
Hon. Jose Pocholo R. Del
Rosario
Hon. Damidel L.
Awayan-Losito
Hon. Rene M. De La Cruz
78.
Hon. Rima B. Orbon-Ortega
79.
Hon. Agaton S. Fajardo
Camarines Sur
Br. 32, RTC, Pili, Camarines
Atutubo III
Sur
Hon. Maria Carmela Ng Pee
Br. 33, RTC, Pili,
Mendiola
Camarines Sur
Hon. Ma. Luzy B.
Torres-Clasio
8-FC, RTC, Pili, Camarines Sur
12-FC, RTC, Sorsogon City,
Hon. Zach L. Zaragosa-Ziga
85.
Hon. Marlo B. Campanilla
Br. 83, MeTC, Caloocan City
Hon. Chelsea Segunda G.
Br. 112, MeTC,
Dirige-Legaspi
Mun nlupa City
87.
Hon. Marianito C. Santos
Br. 57, MeTC, San Juan City
88.
Hon. Ronaldo B. Reyes
Br. 58, MeTC, San Juan City
89.
Hon. Marita Iris B.
Laqui-Genilo
90.
Hon. Bonhoefer V. Bernardez
91.
Hon. Eileen D. Lim
12-FC, RTC, Naujan,
Oriental Mindoro
Br. 31, RTC, Pili,
Hon. Vivencio Gregorio G.
Br. 3, MTCC, Calamba City,
Br. 43, RTC, Roxas,
70.
Hon. Nydia A. Hebrio
84.
Br. 2, MTCC, Calamba City,
Hon. Erwin Y.
69.
83.
MTCC, Biñan City, Laguna
Br. 1, MTCC, Calamba City,
Hon. Sharon M.
82.
86.
Hon. Leah Angeli B.
Hon. Eric Ismael P. Sakkam
81.
Cavite
Hon. Maureen D.R.
Hon. Maria Concepcion M.
80.
Sorsogon
Br. 109, MeTC, Valenzuela City
4-FC, RTC, Laoag City,
Ilocos Norte
Br. 54, RTC, Lucena City,
Quezon
CLERK OF COURT/BRANCH CLERK OF COURT/OFFICER IN CHARGE
Br. 33, RTC, Ballesteros,
92.
Lemwel L. Alapit
93.
Ruddy Allen N. Yee
94.
Cecilio B. Ewangan, Jr.
95.
Jerome B. Ban yan
Br. 34, RTC, Banaue, Ifugao
96.
Candice L. Gullon-Buyucan
Br. 14, RTC, Lagawe, Ifugao
97.
Nelson B. Cas llejos, Jr.
98.
Liza C. Dy
99.
Kris ne C. Gonzales-Perez
100.
Ella A. Cabalonga-Remigio
101.
Leif John L. Robino
Br. 164, RTC, Roxas, Palawan
Cagayan
Br. 12, RTC, Sanchez Mira,
Cagayan
Br. 15, RTC, Alfonso Lista,
Ifugao
14-FC, RTC, Taytay, Palawan
2-FC, RTC, Daraga, Albay
1-FC, RTC, Legazpi City, Albay
5-FC, RTC, Daet,
Camarines Norte
7-FC, RTC, Iriga City,
Camarines Sur
6-FC, RTC, Naga City,
Camarines Sur
OCC, RTC, Cauayan City,
Isabela
Br. 19, RTC, Cauayan City,
Isabela
Br. 20, RTC, Cauayan City,
Isabela
Br. 40, RTC, Cauayan City,
Isabela
Br. 22, RTC, Cabagan, Isabela
70
January–March 2021
Circulars
OCA Circular No. 45-2021(continued)
102.
Grazielle M. Clemente
Br. 24, RTC, Echague, Isabela
103.
Maylene M. Nicolas
Br. 23, RTC, Roxas, Isabela
104.
105.
Vanessa Trina Carr B.
Gumabol-Mar nez
Arnie T. Ardet
126.
Marco R. Gulinao
127.
Vivian L. Bureros
128.
Melody S. Javier
129.
Mario G. Baltazar
130.
Francia M. Barbosa-Bianzon
131.
Ronalina B. Lontoc-Elarmo
132.
Eric Faus no J. Esperanza
133.
Marcela L. Baybay
Br. 39, RTC, Lubuagan, Kalinga
Br. 26, RTC, Luna, Apayao
Monte City, Bulacan
Br. 2, MTCC, San Jose del
Monte City, Bulacan
Br. 3, MTCC, San Jose del
Monte City, Bulacan
OCC, RTC, Tanauan City,
106.
Mary Jane A. Andomang
107.
Seychelles June M. Doringo
108.
Rosario R. Baluyot
109.
Edlyn T. Almario
110.
Edralin F. Medina
111.
Rovelyn B. Baluyot
OCC, RTC, Mariveles, Bataan
134.
Roxanne C. Millora
112.
Charina P. Pascua
3-FC, RTC, Mariveles, Bataan
135.
Janelle P. Perlas
113.
Evangeline B. Antonio
Br. 4, RTC, Mariveles, Bataan
136.
Ofelia B. Dumindin
Br. 132, RTC, Naic, Cavite
114.
Chris ne Joy D. Prestoza
Br. 94, RTC, Mariveles, Bataan
137.
Rose Lyn A. Disonglo
Br. 24, RTC, Biñan, Laguna
115.
Minerva A. Jimenez-Inez
Br. 95, RTC, Mariveles, Bataan
138.
Niña Gracia L. Pablo-Corrales
Br. 152, RTC, Biñan, Laguna
116.
Katrina L. Lobendino
139.
Agatha Kris anne C. Bermejo Br. 153, RTC, Biñan, Laguna
117.
Carla Rosario DL. Señado
140.
Mara Marie P. Dimaano
141.
Leny B. Salazar-Bravo
142.
Abigail P. Castro-Zapata
143.
Jose C. Rivera, Jr.
144.
Joan A. Robles-Jesena
145.
Mell Anthony L. Genota
146.
Arven E. Legaspi
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
Shella Marie D. Asunto
Ann Margaret Q. Mangunay
Maria Fe Velasco-Jacosalem
Elizabeth Antonio-Mede
Maureen Gene ano-Pabaira
Br. 25, RTC, Tabuk City, Kalinga
Br. 1, MTCC, San Jose del
Br. 101, RTC, Casiguran,
Aurora
OCC, RTC, Dinalupihan,
Bataan
Br. 5, RTC, Dinalupihan,
Bataan
Br. 96, RTC, Dinalupihan,
Bataan
5-FC, RTC, City of San Jose del
6-FC, RTC, Sta. Maria, Bulacan
OCC, RTC, Gapan City,
Nueva Ecija
Br. 34, RTC, Gapan City,
Nueva Ecija
Br. 35, RTC, Gapan City,
Nueva Ecija
Br. 36, RTC, Gapan City,
Nueva Ecija
Br. 87, RTC, Gapan City,
Nueva Ecija
Anthony Vincent A. Cerdan
Br. 66, RTC, Capas, Tarlac
124.
Mercy A. Rebua-Aragon
Br. 109, RTC, Capas, Tarlac
Froctosa I. Ceñidoza
Br. 6, RTC, Tanauan City,
Batangas
Br. 66, RTC, Tanauan City,
Batangas
Br. 83, RTC, Tanauan City,
Batangas
Br. 90. RTC, Dasmariñas,
Cavite
Br. 128, RTC, Dasmariñas,
Cavite
Br. 129, RTC, Dasmariñas,
Cavite
Monte, Bulacan
123.
125.
Batangas
OCC, MTCC, San Jose del
Monte City, Bulacan
147.
148.
Br. 154, RTC, Biñan, Laguna
OCC, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
OCC, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
Br. 34, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
Br. 35, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
Br. 36, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
Br. 37, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
Winnie Anne S.
Br. 92, RTC, Calamba City,
Cuerdo-Bana n
Laguna
Jomarie Chris e G. Bejer
Br. 104, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
71
Volume XXIII Issue No. 89
149.
Raizza Mae M. Tandaan
150.
Maridel A. Ferrer-De Lumen
8-FC, RTC, Calamba City,
Laguna
Br. 33, RTC, Siniloan, Laguna
151.
Frances Lyka C. Fader
Br. 166, RTC, Siniloan, Laguna
152.
Lotus C. Ignacio
18-FC, RTC, Cainta, Rizal
153.
Susana B. Villena
154.
Maria Cris na G. Dabu
155.
Gay Eloisa G. Almeria
156.
Fe S. Cas llo
157.
Arvin E. Oruga
158.
Raymund Nazario G. Amican
159.
Arvy A. Ramos
160.
Rochelle De Leon Redondo
161.
Penafrancia P. Alicum
162.
Amelita S. Ragotero
163.
Ana Tomasa Delos Santos
Villena
Br. 1, MTCC, Dasmariñas City,
Br. 32, RTC, Pili,
Claveria-Badong
Camarines Sur
174.
Albert S. Olavere
175.
Marvin R. Lim
Br. 33, RTC, Pili,
Camarines Sur
Br. 93, MeTC, Marikina City
March 25, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
Br. 3, MTCC, Dasmariñas City,
Cavite
MTCC, Biñan City, Laguna
OCC, MTCC, Calamba City,
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 46-2021
Laguna
Br. 1, MTCC, Calamba City,
Laguna
Br. 2, MTCC, Calamba City,
Laguna
16-FC, RTC, Sariaya, Quezon
OCC, MTCC, An polo City,
Rizal
OCC, MTCC, An polo City,
Rizal
Br. 1, RTC, An polo City, Rizal
Br. 2, RTC, An polo City, Rizal
Anita L. Crisostomo
Br. 3, RTC, An polo City, Rizal
165.
Adriano De Jesus Villegas
Br. 4, RTC, An polo City, Rizal
166.
Arlene C. Aceveda
167.
Jerome B. Sadongdong
168.
Mary Ann B. Marigondon
Br. 163, RTC, Coron, Palawan
169.
Rosemary U. Acosta
Br. 95, RTC, Roxas, Palawan
170.
Beverly Z. Belandres
14-FC, RTC, Taytay, Palawan
171.
Alexander A. Tordilla
OCC, RTC, Pili, Camarines Sur
Janel I. Peñaflor
Veronica De Lara
Cavite
164.
172.
173.
12-FC, RTC, Naujan,
Oriental Mindoro
Br. 165, RTC, Brooke’s Point,
Palawan
Br. 31, RTC, Pili,
Camarines Sur
TO: ALL FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: CHANGE IN THE REPRESENTATIVE NAMED IN
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 214-2019 DATED NOVEMBER 15,
2019 (RE: REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE BY THE BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS IN THE VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY
OF COURT DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE RELEASE FROM
IMPRISONMENT OF PERSONS DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY WHO
HAVE COMPLETELY SERVED THEIR SENTENCES)
Ac ng on the le er dated February 11, 2021 of Undersecretary
Gerald Q. Bantag, Director General, Bureau of Correc ons
(BuCor), sta ng that Ms. Remedios Pinky B. Santos, the BuCor
officer named in OCA Circular No. 214-2019 dated November
15, 2019, no longer has access to documents related to Persons
Deprived of Liberty (PDLs) who have completely served their
sentences, and reques ng that Mr. Darwin Gaspay, Correc ons
Officer II, Inmate Documents Processing Division, Bureau of
Correc ons, be designated as the “recipient and verifier” vice
Ms. Santos, all first and second level courts are ENJOINED to
render assistance to Mr. Darwin Gaspay, in lieu of Ms. Santos,
in verifying the authen city of court documents related to the
release from imprisonment of PDLs.
All court officials and personnel are again REMINDED of
the confiden al nature of court records and proceedings, and
to release only informa on and court documents that are
allowed by exis ng laws, rules of procedure, guidelines and
other administra ve issuances.
March 25, 2021.
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
72
3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial Building
Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila
1000 Philippines
(con nued from page 1)
The Philippine Media on Center Office, in
furtherance of Alterna ve Dispute Resolu on,
conducted two Enhanced Refresher Courses for CourtAnnexed Mediators (Skills Enhancement Course) via
Distance Learning Program: one for mediators from
Benguet, Pangasinan, La Union, Tarlac and Bataan;
and another for those from Abra, Aurora, Quirino,
Masbate, Catanduanes, Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya
and Pampanga.
New decisions of the Supreme Court were noted
and reminders on doctrinal rulings, as well as on newly
issued Court orders, resolu ons, and circulars were
posted through our website h ps://philja.judiciary.
gov.ph. We also took note of new OCA circulars.
As we open 2021, I thank our ever-reliable officials
and staff, our excep onal Corps of Professors and
lecturers, as well as our generous program partners for
giving their best to the Academy.
Special thanks to our new Chief Jus ce, Alexander
G. Gesmundo, and to the Supreme Court En Banc for
the solid support of all our programs and ac vi es.
Above all, thanks to God Almighty, the Source of all
good things.
I shall finish my tenure and last term on May 31,
2021. Thank you all for sharing the journey.
The best of the best be with you.
ADOLFO
DOL
OLFO S. AZCUNA
OL
Chancellor
PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED January–March
USE TO AVOID 2021
PAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE
OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH
Jus ce Adolfo S. Azcuna
Chancellor
Dean Sedfrey M. Candelaria
Editor in Chief
Editorial and Research Staff
A y. Ma. Melissa Dimson-Bau sta
A y. Ronald Paz Caraig
Ms. Armida M. Salazar
Ms. Regina Maria Sofia M. Babasa
A y. Rizsa Rose S. Baer
Ms. Jocelyn D. Bondoc
A y. Gabriella Louise OJ. Candelaria
Mr. Jonel M. Candelaria
Mr. Joseph Arvin S. Cruz
Ms. Judith B. Del Rosario
Ms. Vanessa B. Espera
Ms. Chris ne A. Ferrer
Ms. Jehan V. Harun
Mr. Michael Angelo P. Laude
Ms. Joanne Narciso-Medina
Ms. Charmaine S. Nicolas
Ms. Sarah Jane S. Salazar
Ms. Yedda Marie B. Sosa
Circula on and Support Staff
Mr. Lope R. Palermo
Ms. Carmela D. Panganiban
Mr. Daniel S. Talusig
Mr. Elmer B. Villareyes
Prin ng Services
Mr. Ponciano M. San ago, Jr.
and Staff
The PHILJA Bulletin is published quarterly by the Research, Publica ons and Linkages Office of the Philippine Judicial
Academy, with office at the 3rd Floor of the Supreme Court Centennial Building, Padre Faura Street corner Ta Avenue, Manila.
Tel: (02) 8552-9524; Fax: (02) 8552-9621; Email: research_philja@yahoo.com; philja@sc.judiciary.gov.ph; Website: h ps://philja.
judiciary.gov.ph