Guidelines to Implement Mediation in Regional Trial Courts Acting as Appellate Courts in Appeals from First Level Courts

March 2, 2009

SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 28-09

 

I. Explanatory Note

During open forum sessions in various seminars on the subject of Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) that were conducted all over the country, a question frequently asked by RTC judges pertains to their power to divert pending cases on appeal from the first level courts. The usual answer given is that mediation is too late for criminal cases which have resulted in a conviction since a compromise could not overturn the judgment of conviction on appeal. Therefore, there is no incentive for crime victims to negotiate a compromise agreement since their ultimate goal is to secure a dismissal of the criminal case once the civil liability arising from the crime has been settled by a compromise agreement. While that ends the query on the criminal liability aspect, no satisfactory answer could be given to the question as to why no mediation is available for civil cases on appeal, more so, because mediation in the Court of Appeals has already been institutionalized under A.M. No. 04-3-15-SC dated 23 March 2004.

Further, the second paragraph of the new Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court directs the collection of mediation fees for appealed cases, as follows:

"The Clerks of Court of the First Level Courts shall collect the amount of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (Php500.00) upon the filing of a Notice of Appeal with the Regional Trial Court." (Emphasis supplied)

The foregoing provision (Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court) undoubtedly conveys the clear message that mediation would be available to the parties during the pendency of the appeal to the Regional Trial Court. The reality, however, is that there are no rules governing mediation in the Regional Trial Courts acting as an appellate court from judgments rendered by the First Level Courts in the exercise of their original and exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, there is currently no such mediation going on at the appeals stage in the Regional Trial Courts and a further opportunity to decongest court dockets has been and continues to be lost.

There is no sound reason for excluding the parties on appeal to the Second Level Courts from availing of mediation to resolve their disputes. The only explanation, therefore, is that the existing omission to provide for rules on mediation at this stage is pure inadvertence. acHDTA

It is to cure the foregoing inadvertent gap and at the same time, add to the impact of the policy of diverting to mediation pending court cases, whether on trial or on appeal, that these guidelines are being issued.

Moreover, making mediation and other modes of dispute resolution available during the appeal to the Regional Trial Court is in consonance with the State Policy stated in R.A. No. 9285 (the ADR Act of 2004) "to encourage and actively promote the use of ADR as an important means to achieve speedy and impartial justice and declog court dockets."

II. Coverage

The following cases shall be referred to mediation:

a. All civil cases and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to first level courts under Section 33, par. (1) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980;

b. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to first level courts under Section 33, par. (2) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980;

c. All civil cases involving title to or possession of real property or an interest therein brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to first level courts under Section 33, par. (3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; and

d. All habeas corpus cases decided by first level courts in the absence of the Regional Trial Court judge that are brought up on appeal from the special jurisdiction granted to first level courts under Section 35 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.

III. Procedure

1. After receipt of the memorandum on appeal filed by the appellant and the lapse of the period for filing appellee's brief, the RTC Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the First Level Court that rendered the decision on appeal, shall issue an order calling the parties to appear before him for judicial dispute resolution (JDR) of their case on appeal.

1.1 The order shall require the parties to attend in person or, in the case of corporate litigants, through a duly authorized representative who must be a ranking corporate officer, authorized by Board Resolution to stipulate on admitted facts and enter into a binding compromise agreement without need to further submit the same for approval by the Board of Directors. cEAaIS

2. On the date set in the order, the judge shall exert all efforts to resolve the dispute through mediation, conciliation and early neutral evaluation under the Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of an Enhanced Pre-Trial Proceedings issued as A.M. No. 04-1-12 SC-PHILJA as last amended by Resolution dated 13 November 2007. Any settlement shall be in writing, signed by the parties and adopted by the judge as the court's judgment upon a compromise.

3. Upon failure of JDR efforts, the judge shall turn over the case on appeal to a new judge selected by raffle to render a decision on the merits, observing strict confidentiality of the JDR proceedings, unless the parties have filed a joint motion requesting that, despite confidential information that may have been divulged during the JDR proceedings, the same judge shall continue to render judgment on their dispute on appeal.

4. In cases where the RTC judge affirms on appeal the order of the First Level Court dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, the appeals judge, instead of trying the case on the merits as provided for under the first paragraph of Section 5, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, shall order the parties to appear before him/her for JDR and follow the procedure under the first three paragraphs above.

5. In cases where the First Level Court had decided the case on the merit without jurisdiction, the RTC judge shall not dismiss the case but instead proceed to JDR in accordance with the foregoing procedure.

IV. Sanctions

A party who fails to appear for judicial dispute resolution may be imposed the appropriate sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court and other issuances of the Supreme Court, including 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 court upon motion of the appearing party or on the court's own initiative.

V. Duration of JDR Proceedings

The JDR Judge on appeal shall have a period of not exceeding sixty (60) days to complete the JDR proceedings. Such period shall be computed from the date when the parties first appeared for the initial conference as stated in the order to appear. An extended period of another thirty (30) days may be granted by the court upon joint motion filed by both parties on the ground that settlement is likely to be concluded. aCHcIE

VI. Settlement

If full settlement of the dispute on appeal is reached, the parties, assisted by their respective counsel, shall draft the compromise agreement which shall be submitted to the court for a judgment upon compromise. Where compliance with the terms of the compromise is forthwith made, the parties shall instead submit a mutual satisfaction of claims and counterclaims or a withdrawal of the appeal. In this case, the court shall enter an order dismissing the appeal.

If partial settlement is reached, the parties shall, with the assistance of counsel, submit the terms thereof for the court's approval and rendition of a judgment upon partial compromise. The court shall proceed to act in the manner of failed JDR efforts under paragraph 3, Section III Procedure, above.

Issued this 2nd day of March, 2009.

(SGD.) REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice

Footnotes

1. Formerly under the Justice Reforms Initiatives Support (JURIS) project funded by CIDA.