Expanded coverage of Court-Annexed

Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute

Resolution (JDR): A Law Review

I. Background

II. Mediation

1. Concept
2. Philippine Mediation Mechanism
3. Alternative Dispute Resolution

II. CAM and JDR as an Alternative Dispute Resolution

1. Definition
2. Cases that are subjected to CAM and JDR
3. Rules and Procedure
4. Sanctions
5. Cases that are not subjected to CAM and JDR

IV. Possible Effects of the Expanded Coverage

1. Addressing Court Docket Congestion

2. Speedy Disposition of Cases

I. Background

The Judicial Branch of the Philippine government plays an indispensable role in the
stabilization of the society. The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the Government. [1] The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the
Constitution and limit the powers of the other branches of government. The Supreme
Court’s power to do this is its power of judicial review, where it determines which laws
and policies are constitutional, or allowable, and which are not.

Under the Supreme Court, there are also the so-called “Lower Courts” which includes
Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Courts,
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts,
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Shari’a District Courts, and Shari’a Circuit
Courts.[2] These courts adhere with the Supreme Court’s decisions to be applied as a
ruling to the similar cases in the lower courts. One of the functions of the lower courts is
to impose its proper court administration in order to have an efficient judicial system.
An efficient judicial system includes; effective administration of justice, proper
disposition of judgment, speedy disposition of cases and etc.

Speedy disposition of cases is beneficial both for the plaintiff and defendant in terms of
having the right justice they deserve in the particular cases that they are involved and it
will also sought to address the number one issue of the courts which is the clogging of
the court dockets because of the numerous cases from the previous court proceedings.
The Supreme Court now has formulated a lot of solutions in this number one problem in
the lower courts. One of the solutions was to expand the coverage of court-annexed
mediation (CAM) and judicial dispute resolution (JDR) “Guidelines”.[3]

II. Mediation

Philippine Mediation Mechanism

Many Philippine indigenous tribes and communities already had their specific dispute
resolution mechanisms based on local legal systems and practices, primarily by bringing
a dispute before an elder or chieftain for resolution. However, colonization by Spain
from the 16th century onwards reduced these indigenous dispute resolution
mechanisms to mere customs and traditions, and as such they were replaced by Western
legal concepts, particularly Spanish civil law and later Anglo-American common
law.[4]Over time, the Philippines developed a vast and complex legal system where legal
disputes are settled in courts, through the adversarial system of litigation. This led to the
perennial problem of clogged court dockets, which causes delays in the resolution of
disputes and contributes to dissatisfaction in the settlement of issues through the courts.
The Civil Code, promulgated in 1949, has a chapter on compromises, although it does
not specifically refer to compromises entered into after mediation. The Arbitration Law
(RA 876), promulgated in 1953, provides for domestic arbitration as an ADR method
but does not provide for other ADR methods such as mediation. But, in 1978,
Presidential Decree No. 1508 established a local or community dispute settlement
system, known as the Katarungang Pambarangay of amicably settling disputes at the
barangay level (ie, smallest local government unit), primarily through mediation,
conciliation or arbitration before the Barangay chairman or conciliation panels. The
Katarungang Pambarangay Law was recognized under the subsequent Local
Government Codes, promulgated in 1983 and 1991.[5] However, it was not until the
passage of the ADR Law in 2004 that most forms of present ADR methods, including
mediation, whether voluntary or court-annexed, were recognized and statutorily
defined.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Mediation is an effective way of resolving disputes without the need to go to court. It

involves an independent third party – a mediator – who helps both sides come to an
agreement. Such is often used to describe a wide variety of dispute resolution
mechanisms that are short of, or alternative to, full-scale court processes. The term can
refer to everything from facilitated settlement negotiations in which disputants are
encouraged to negotiate directly with each other prior to some other legal process, to
arbitration systems or mini trials that look and feel very much like a courtroom process.
Processes designed to manage community tension or facilitate community development
issues can also be included within the rubric of ADR. ADR systems may be generally
categorized as negotiation, conciliation/mediation, or arbitration systems. Negotiation
systems create a structure to encourage and facilitate direct negotiation between parties
to a dispute, without the intervention of a third party.
The Philippine Congress passed Republic Act No. 9285 or the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Act of 2004 (the ADR Law), which, inter alia, prescribes rules governing
voluntary mediation, whether ad hoc or institutional, other than court annexed. On the
other hand, for court-annexed mediation, the Philippine Supreme Court – pursuant to
article VIII, section 5 of the Philippine Constitution, which authorizes the Supreme
Court to promulgate rules for the enforcement of constitutional rights, which rules shall
provide for simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases –
issued AM No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA, providing guidelines for the mediation process
through the court annexed mediation (CAM) program in the trial courts up to the
appeals court level (the Revised Guidelines). The ADR Law treats information obtained
through voluntary mediation as generally privileged and confidential; however, the
guarantee of confidentiality may be waived by the mediation parties. Moreover, the ADR
Law provides that an agreement to submit a dispute to mediation by an institution shall
include an agreement to be bound by the internal mediation and administrative policies
of such institution, and that an agreement to submit a dispute to mediation under
institutional mediation rules shall be deemed to include an agreement to have such rules
govern the mediation of the dispute and for the mediator, the parties, their respective
counsel, and non-party participants to abide by such rules. In case of conflict between
the institutional mediation rules and the provisions of the ADR Law, however, the latter
shall prevail. Furthermore, the ADR Law prohibits a mediator from making a report,
assessment, evaluation, recommendation, finding, or other communication regarding a
mediation to a court or agency or other authority that may make a ruling on a dispute
that is the subject of a mediation, except (i) where the mediation occurred or has
terminated, or where a settlement was reached; or (ii) as regards known facts that a
reasonable individual would consider likely to affect the impartiality of the mediator,
including a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the mediation and any
existing or past relationship with a party or foreseeable participant in the mediation.
The ADR Law also grants parties the freedom to agree on the place of mediation; failing
such agreement, the place of mediation shall be any place convenient and appropriate to
all parties.

III. CAM and JDR as an Alternative Dispute Resolution

Court-Annex Mediation

It is a voluntary process conducted under the auspices of the court by referring the
parties to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) Unit for the settlement of their
dispute, assisted by a Mediator accredited by the Supreme Court. [6]
 An amicable settlement will extinguish the dispute between the parties and upon
reaching an agreement, the PMC will not further refer it to the courts for the JDR.

Cases that are subjected to CAM

The following cases shall be referred to CAM:

1. All civil cases, except those which by law may not be compromised (Article 2035, New
Civil Code);
2. Special proceedings for the settlement of estates;
3. The civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code;
4. The civil aspect of criminal cases where the imposable penalty does not exceed six years
imprisonment and the offended party is a private person; and
5. The civil aspect of theft (not qualified theft), estafa (not syndicated or large scale estafa),
and libel.

Rules and Procedure

1. After the last pleading has been filed, the judge shall issue an order requiring the parties
to forthwith appear before the concerned Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) Unit staff
to start the process for the settlement of their dispute through mediation. On the same
date, the court shall give to the PMC a copy of the Order for mediation.
2. Individual parties are required to personally appear for mediation. In the event they
cannot do so, they can send their representatives who must be fully authorized to
appear, negotiate and enter into a compromise, through a Special Power of Attorney.
3. Corporations, partnerships, or other juridical entities shall be represented by a ranking
corporate officer fully authorized by a Board Resolution to offer, negotiate, accept,
decide and enter into a compromise agreement, without need of further approval by or
notification to the authorizing party.
4. The Order issued shall include a clear warning that sanctions may be imposed upon a
party for 12 failure to comply therewith, in accordance with the Section below on
sanctions.
5. On the date set in the Order, the parties shall proceed to select a mutually acceptable
mediator from among the list of accredited mediators. If no agreement is reached, the
PMC Unit Staff shall, in the presence of the parties and the Mediators, choose by lot the
one who will mediate the dispute from among the Mediators inside the Unit, ensuring a
fair and equal distribution of cases: Provided, however, that in exceptional
circumstances where special qualifications are required of the mediator, the parties shall
be given an opportunity to select from the entire list of accredited mediators.
6. The Mediator shall be considered an officer of the court while performing his duties as
such or in connection therewith.
7. The concerned Mediator shall forthwith start the mediation process, unless the parties
and mediator agree to reset the initial mediation conference, which shall not be later
than five (5) days from the original date.
8. At the initial conference, the Mediator shall explain to both parties the mediation
process, stressing the benefits of an early settlement of their dispute based on serving
their mutual interests, rather than the legal positions taken by them.
9. With the consent of both parties, the Mediator may hold separate caucuses with each
party to 13 determine their respective real interests in the dispute. Thereafter, another
joint conference may be held to consider various options that may resolve the dispute
through reciprocal concessions and on terms that are mutually beneficial to both the
parties.
10. The Mediator shall not record in any manner the proceedings of the joint conferences or
of the separate caucuses. No transcript or minutes of mediation proceedings shall be
taken. If personal notes are taken for guidance, the notes shall be shredded and
destroyed. Should such record exists, they shall not be admissible as evidence in any
other proceedings.
11. If no settlement has been reached at the end of the period given, the case must be
returned to the referring judge.

Sanctions

The court, upon recommendation of the Mediator, may impose sanctions upon a party
who fails to appear before the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) Unit as directed by
the referring judge, or upon any person who engages in abusive conduct during
mediation proceedings, as provided for in the Rules of Court as part of the Pre-Trial and
other issuances of the Supreme Court, including, but not limited to censure, reprimand,
contempt, requiring the absent party to reimburse the appearing party his costs,
including attorney’s fees for that day up to treble such costs, payable on or before the
date of the re-scheduled setting. Sanctions may also be imposed by the referring judge
upon his own initiative or upon motion of the interested party.

This refers to a process whereby the judge (called the JDR Judge) employs conciliation,
mediation or early neutral evaluation in order to settle a case at the pre-trial stage. In
the event the JDR fails, then another judge (called the trial judge) shall proceed to hear
and decide the case.
 Judicial Dispute Resolution

This refers to a process whereby the judge (called the JDR Judge) employs conciliation,
mediation or early neutral evaluation in order to settle a case at the pre-trial stage. In
the event the JDR fails, then another judge (called the trial judge) shall proceed to hear
and decide the case.

Cases that are subjected to JDR

The following cases shall be referred to JDR by Judges in areas declared as JDR sites:

1. All cases which were not successfully settled in CAM;

2. All appealed cases from the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the First Level Courts:
3. Over civil cases and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, under Section 33,
paragraph (1) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980;
4. Over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer under Section 33, paragraph (2) of
the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980;
5. Over civil cases involving title to or possession of real property or an interest therein
under Section 33, paragraph (3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; and
6. Over a habeas corpus case decided by the judge of the first level court, in the absence of
all the Regional Trial Court judges in the province or city, that are brought up on appeal
from the special jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 35 of the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.

Rules and Procedure

Judicial proceedings shall be divided into two stages: (1) from the filing of a complaint
to the conduct of CAM and JDR during the pre-trial stage, and (2) pre-trial proper to
trial and judgment. The judge to whom the case has been originally raffled, who shall be
called the JDR Judge, shall preside over the first stage.

The judge, who shall be called the trial judge, shall preside over the second stage. At the
initial stage of the pre-trial conference, the JDR judge briefs the parties and counsels of
the CAM and JDR processes. Thereafter, he issues an Order of Referral of the case to
CAM and directs the parties and their counsels to proceed to the PMCU bringing with
them a copy of the Order of Referral.
The JDR judge shall include in said Order, or in another Order, the pre-setting of the
case for JDR not earlier than forty-five (45) days from the time the parties first 17
personally appear at the PMCU so that JDR will be conducted immediately if the parties
do not settle at CAM. All incidents or motions filed during the first stage shall be dealt
with by the JDR judge. If JDR is not conducted because of the failure of the parties to
appear, the JDR judge may impose the appropriate sanctions and shall continue with
the proceedings of the case. If the parties do not settle their dispute at CAM, the parties
and their counsels shall appear at the preset date before the JDR judge, who will then
conduct the JDR process as mediator, neutral evaluator and/or conciliator in order to
actively assist and facilitate negotiations among the parties for them to settle their
dispute.

As mediator and conciliator, the judge facilitates the settlement discussions between the
parties and tries to reconcile their differences. As a neutral evaluator, the judge assesses
the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case and makes a non-binding and
impartial evaluation of the chances of each party’s success in the case. On the basis of
such neutral evaluation, the judge persuades the parties to a fair and mutually
acceptable settlement of their dispute. The JDR judge shall not preside over the trial of
the case15 when the parties did not settle their dispute at JDR.

Sanctions

A party who fails to appear on the date set for JDR conference, may forthwith be
imposed the appropriate sanction 22 as provided in Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of
Court and relevant issuances of the Supreme Court including, but not limited to censure,
reprimand, contempt, and requiring the absent party to reimburse the appearing party
his costs, including attorney’s fees for that day up to treble such costs, payable on or
before the date of the re-scheduled setting. Sanctions may be imposed by the JDR judge
upon motion of the appearing party or motu proprio.

Upon justifiable cause duly proved in the hearing of the motion to reconsider filed by
the absent party, the sanctions imposed may be lifted, set aside or modified in the sound
discretion of the JDR judge. A representative who appears on behalf of an individual or
corporate party without the required authorization by special power of attorney or board
resolution, respectively, may similarly be imposed appropriate sanctions.

Cases that are not subjected to CAM and JDR

 The following cases shall not be referred to CAM and JDR:

1. Civil cases which by law cannot be compromised, as follows:

 The civil status of persons;
 The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
 Any ground for legal separation;
 Future support;
 The jurisdiction of courts; and
 Future legitime.
2. Civil aspect of non-mediatable criminal cases;
3. Petitions for Habeas Corpus;
4. All cases under Republic Act No. 9262 (Violence against Women and Children); and
5. Cases with pending application for Restraining Orders/Preliminary Injunctions.

However, in cases covered in numbers 1, 4 and 5 where the parties inform the court that
they have agreed to undergo mediation on some aspects thereof, e.g., custody of minor
children, separation of property, or support pendente lite, the court shall refer them to
mediation.

IV. Possible Effects of the Expanded Coverage

Addressing Court Docket Congestion

Court Docket Congestion is one of the most predominant issues in the

administration of Courts in the Philippines as it affects the functions of the judicial
system. Such mechanisms are being brought upon to resolve this issue such as the
implementation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule which shortens the period in presenting
the testimonies of the witnesses in the Court proceedings. Likewise, a mechanism was
discovered to effectively lessen the court docket congestion as the Court-Annex
Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution was devise by the Supreme Court of the
Philippines and its administrative bodies. Upon these mechanisms, Courts can lessen
their dockets which can be helpful for all the people. On January 11, 2011 an expanded
coverage of the CAM and JDR through A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA was issued and it is
indeed a great solution to expand its jurisdiction for cases that can be mediatable for the
parties to come up with a compromise agreement that can dispose the case immediately.
The possible outcome of this expanded coverage can definitely lessen or declog court
dockets.

Speedy Disposition of Cases

It is a must for the Judges to impose Speedy Disposition of Cases such as stated in OCA-
Circular-No.-101-2017, whereas, criminal cases are subjected to continuous trial of the
Courts and hereby announced that all are for compliance of the rules and procedures for
Speedy Disposition of Cases. The expanded coverage of CAM and JDR imposes the
possibility of having this kind of privilege as it will provide the right justice the parties
deserved and also lead to declog court dockets. This is also serves as a fundamental right
to the citizens of the Philippines so that it must be granted to those parties involved in a
respective case.

[1] Sec. 1, Art. 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

[2] Lower Courts in the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.chanrobles.com

[3] The Guidelines were issued through Resolution A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA .

[4] Maria Roda Cisnero, Indigenous Modes of Dispute Resolution and Indigenous
Justice Systems.

[5] Retrieved from http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/PIN.

[6] AM No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA

Advertisements