Chief Justice Torres highlighted the challenges

posed by the social media revolution to the courts in

his lecture delivered before a spillover audience
which included his Philippine counterpart, Chief
Justice Corona, and other jurists; law practitioners;
and developmental aid partners at the Supreme
Court En Banc Session Hall. Also participating in the
proceedings through video conferencing were the
judges at Waterfront Hotel, Cebu City and Pearlmont
Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City.
The 51-year-old Chief Justice, a Juris Doctor
graduate of Harvard Law, described how the social
media revolution, where the method of accessing
information has been transformed by the 24-hour
internet and social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter,
and YouTube), has impacted on judicial ethics and
dissemination of court information. For instance, he
cited the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory
Committees prohibition against judges adding the
lawyers who appear before them as friends in
social networking sites. On the flip side, he pointed
out how social networking sites can be used to
improve accessibility to court information as in the
case of the Tennessee court system which has 900
followers on Twitter.
For court spokespersons and media/community
relations officers specifically, he gave general
guidelines for media interviews (e.g., respond
promptly to media inquiries) and tips for crisis
communication (e.g., establish a crisis communication
plan).
Through it all, Chief Justice Torres highlighted the
responsibility of the court representatives to reach
out and interact with all aspects of the community to
enhance and reinforce the public perception of and
trust in the system of justice.
Composing the panel of reactors to Chief Justice
Torres lecture were Supreme Court Public
Information Office (PIO) Chief Court Administrator
Jose Midas P. Marquez and noted journalist and STAR
columnist Jose Manuel Babe Romualdez.
Court Administrator Marquez pointed out that
while the Court is fully cognizant of the need to be
By Gleo Sp. Guerra
T
he Chief Justice Renato C. Corona Distinguished Lecture Series had a successful start last January 13 with the well-attended lecture
on Media and the Courts of Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Jr. of the Supreme Court of Guam.
more transparent and accessible, the best way for it
to serve the public is to ensure that it fulfills its
primary responsibility to see to it that justice is served
and served swiftly. He declared that the media will
always hold sway in the court of public opinion but
in our courts, the sword of lady justice is mightier
than the journalists pen.
For his part, Romualdez stressed the
responsibility of the media in ensuring the impartial
administration of justice by simply reporting the facts
of an ongoing trial without sensationalism or
partisanship.
Afterwards, Chief Justice Corona, Justice Teresita
J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Philippine Judicial
Academy (PHILJA) Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna, along
with Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, presented plaques of
appreciation to the speakers. Justice Jose P. Perez acted
as Master of Ceremonies.
The event was held under the auspices of the
Supreme Court, the PHILJA, and the SC Program
Management Office.
Kasama ng aking pamilya,
malugod kong binabati ang
sambayanang Pilipino ng
isang masaganang bagong
taon!
The dawning of a new year
marks a fresh start for all of
us. Thus, we welcome it with
great hope and renewed
confidence as we look ahead
Hon. Renato C. Corona
CHIEF JUSTICE
to new beginnings that we as a people will embark on in
2011.
We have witnessed a number of significant milestones
this past year capped by a change in leadership in all three
great departments of government. As we take stock of the
things that transpired in the previous year and examine and
draw lessons from them, we likewise look at the start of the
new year as a welcome opportunity to harness our collective
spirit for our journey as a nation, knowing that we successfully
endured the challenges that confronted us the past year.
FROM THE BENCH
As the New Year begins, another chapter of our nations
history unfolds. Let us therefore be united in our efforts and
prayers and arm ourselves with a sense of patriotism and
faith to realize the promise of a better life for our countrymen.
May we all have a happy, peaceful, and prosperous New
Year!
FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA DISTINGUISHED LECTURE. Guam Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Jr. (2nd from left) receives a plaque of appreciation from Philippine Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (3rd from left) after delivering the first lecture
in the Chief Justice Renato C. Corona Distinguished Lecture Series last January 13 at the SC En Banc Session Hall. With them in the front row are (from left) Mary Torres, Chief Justice Torres wife; Philippine Supreme Court Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
and Lucas P. Bersamin; Philippine Judicial Academy Chancellor (retired Philippine Supreme Court Justice) Adolfo S. Azcuna; and Maria Cenzon, Director of Policy Planning and Community Relations of the Unified Courts of Guam. Behind the rostrum is Master
of Ceremonies Philippine Supreme Court Justice Jose Portugal Perez. Chief Justice Torres spoke on, among others, the challenges posed by the social media revolution to the courts.The event was held under the auspices of the Supreme Court, the Philippine
Judicial Academy, the SC educational and training arm, and the SC Program Management Office.
New Year Message
Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011
2 22 22
Reports
The Supreme Court recently upheld
the conviction of three men involved
in the Valentines Day bus bombing in
Makati five years ago which was
owned by the Abu Sayyaf group.
In a 19-page decision penned by
Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, the
Court affirmed the Makati City
Regional Trial Courts conviction of
Gamal B. Baharan a.k.a. Tapay, Angelo
Trinidad a.k.a. Abu Khalil, and Rohmat
Abdurrohim a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky
of the complex crime of multiple
murder and multiple frustrated
murder. It also upheld the modification
by the Court of Appeals of their
sentence from death to reclusion perpetua
as required by RA 9346, Act Abolishing
the Imposition of Death Penalty.
The Court deemed it unnecessary
to rule on the sufficiency of the
searching inquiry into the accused
Baharan and Trinidads plea of guilt as
it was not the sole basis of the
condemnatory judgment under
consideration.
SC Upholds Conviction
of Valentines Day Bus
Bombers
By Gleo Sp. Guerra
It uphel d the fi ndi ng of gui l t
agai nst Rohmat as a pri nci pal by
inducement in light of testimonial
evidence of the training he gave on
how to make bombs coupled with his
participation in the planning and
persi stent attempts to bomb
different areas in Metro Manila and
hi s confi rmati on that Tri ni dad
would be getting TNT as part of their
mission.
The Court al so affi rmed the
fi ndi ngs of the exi stence of a
conspiracy among the three based
on, among others, the cl ear and
categorical testimony of the state
witness Gappal Bannah Asali, a.k.a
Maidan or Negro, who was among
those originally charged.
On February 14, 2005, an
explosion occurred in an RRCG bus
at the stoplight at the corner of Ayala
Avenue and EDSA, causing multiple
i nj uri es and deaths to the bus
passengers. (GR No. 188314, People v.
Janjalani, January 10, 2011)
The Supreme Court recently upheld
the denial by the Court of Tax Appeals
(CTA) of the tax refund claim of
petitioner Atlas Consolidated Mining
and Development Corporation (Atlas)
amounting to PhP842,336,291.60.
In a decision penned by Justice
Diosdado Peralta, the Court held that
the CTA and the Court of Appeals,
which had affirmed the CTA ruling,
based on their appreciation of the
evidence presented, committed no
error when they declared that
petitioner Atlas failed to prove that it
is entitled to a tax refund.
The Court stressed that when
claiming tax refund/credit, the Value
Added Tax (VAT)-registered taxpayer
must be able to establish that it does
have refundable or creditable input
VAT, and the same has not been applied
against its output VAT liabilities
information which are supposed to be
reflected in the taxpayers VAT returns.
In this case, both the CTA and CA had
found that Atlas failed to present
SC Upholds Denial of Atlas PhP842M Tax Refund Claim
By Gleo Sp. Guerra
photocopies of its export documents
that would show that the purchase
invoice/receipts submitted by it as
proof of its input taxes are directly
attributable to the goods so exported.
On the issue of prescription, wherein
Atlas questions the ruling of the CA that
the formers claim for refund has
prescribed, disregarding the failure of
respondent Commissioner of Internal
Revenue and the CTA to raise the said
issue in their answer and original
decision, respectively, the Court held
the same moot and academic.
Under Section 100 of the Tax Code of
the Philippines, Atlas is a zero-rated
VAT person for being an exporter of
copper concentrates. According to
Atlas, on January 20, 1994, it filed its
VAT return for the fourth quarter of
1993, showing a total input tax of
PhP863,556,963.74 and an excess VAT
credit of PhP842,336,291.60 for which it
claimed a refund. (GR No. 159471, Atlas
v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Janaury
26, 2011)
The Supreme Court has effectively
upheld the dismissal of falsification
charges against the officials of Creative
Play Corner School (CPCS), a childrens
learning school operating in the posh
Dasmarias Village, Makati City.
This after the High Court affirmed
the resolutions dated July 21, 2005 and
September 29, 2005 of the Court of
Appeals. The first resolution denied the
motion of Barangay Dasmarias,
through its Barangay Captain Ma.
Encarnacion Legaspi, for a second
extension of time to file a petition for
review, while the second resolution
denied the former s motion for
reconsideration
In 2004, Legaspi charged CPCS and
its owners for allegedly falsifying and
using the Barangay Clearance and
Official Receipt purportedly issued in
CPCSs name by Legaspis barangay
office. The charges, however, were
dismissed due to lack of probable cause
by the assistant city prosecutor. On
review, the DOJ dismissed the petition
after it found no error to justify
reversal of assailed resolution and
ruled that the petition was filed late.
Legaspi raised the matter to the
appellate court. But before she did, she
SC Upholds Dismissal
of Cases Against Makati
School Officials
By J ay B. Rempillo
first sought for extension of time of 15
days or until May 28, 2005 which the
CA had granted. Subsequently, Legaspi
asked for another extension of five days
or until June 2. However, the petition
was filed by mail only on June 7, 2005,
five days late from the extension
sought. Subsequently, the CA denied
the second motion for extension of time
to file petition for review and
dismissed the said petition for having
been filed beyond the period allowed
by the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure. Legaspi then filed a motion
for reconsideration which the CA also
denied.
The Court held that the CA only
followed sec. 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court when it dismissed Legaspis
motions after it found the reason for
the second extension not compelling.
From the above, it is clear that the
CA, after it has already allowed
petitioner an extension of 15 days
within which to file a petition for
review, may only grant a further
extension when presented with the
most compelling reason but the same
is limited only to a period of 15 days,
declared the Court. As to Legaspis
invocation of liberal application of the
rules, the Court held that the present
case is not attended by such an
imperative that justifies relaxation of
the rules. (GR No. 169942, Barangas
Dasmarias v. Creative Play Corner School,
January 24, 2011)
The Supreme Court has freed the
Aquinas School of any liability for
damages to a grade three pupil who
was shoved and kicked by his nun
religion teacher in 1998.
In a six-page decision penned by
Justice Roberto A. Abad, the Court
granted Aquinass petition to set aside
the August 4, 2008 decision of the Court
of Appeals (CA) which had found the
school and Sister Margarita Yamyamin
solidarily liable to student Jose Luis
Inton.
The Court said that the CA erred in
holding Aquinas solidarily liable with
Yamyamin. It gave weight to the
testimony of the school directress that
per Aquinass agreement with a
congregation of sisters, it was
Yamyamins religious congregation
that chose her to teach catechism at
Aquinas. The Intons had not refuted
the school directress testimony in this
regard.
The Court noted that Aquinas acted
promptly to relieve Yamyamin of her
assignment as soon as the school
learned of the incident and that her
transcript of records, certificates, and
diplomas showed that she was a
SC Clears Aquinas School, Holds Nun Solely Liable
for Kicking Pupil
By J ay B. Rempillo
qualified religion teacher. Likewise,
Yamyamin was given a copy of the
schools Administrative Faculty Staff
Manual that set the standards for
handling students and was required to
attend a teaching orientation.
Records showed that on July 14,
1998, while Yamyamin was teaching
religion to the grade three class, Jose
Luis left his assigned seat to play a joke
on a classmate. Yamyamin ordered Jose
Luis back to his seat. When the pupil
again left his seat, Yamyamin, unable
to tolerate the childs behavior,
approached him and kicked him on the
legs several times, as well as pulled and
shoved his head on his classmates seat.
The parents of Jose Luis filed in their
sons behalf an action for damages
against Yamyamin and Aquinas before
the Pasig City Regional Trial Court
which ruled in the Intons favor. A
separate criminal action for violation
of RA 7610 was filed against Yamyamin,
to which she pleaded guilty and was
sentenced accordingly. The Intons
elevated the case to the appellate court
to increase the award of damages and
hold Aquinas solidarily liable with the
nun. (GR No. 184202, Aquinas School v.
Inton, January 26, 2011)
Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011
3
The Supreme Court affirmed the
rulings of both the appellate and lower
courts finding six Chinese guilty of
illegal possession of drugs.
The Court, through Justice
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., sentenced Ng
Yik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng, Chang
Chaun Shi, Chua Shilou Hwan, Kan
Shun Min and Raymond S. Tan, to
reclusion perpetua with a fine of PhP5
million for each for violating sec. 16,
Art. III of RA 6425, the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972.
In sustaining the conviction, the
Court held that the arrest of the
accused and the seizure of the illegal
drugs were valid even without an
arrest warrant as the arrest was made
during the commission of a crime.
Under sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court, a warrantless arrest is lawful
when the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense,
also referred to as arrest in flagrante
SC Upholds Conviction of Six Chinese Drug Traffickers
By J en T. Tuazon
delicto. The Court held that the police
had probable cause to suspect that the
accused were loading and transporting
contraband more so when Hwan, upon
being accosted, readily mentioned that
they were loading shabu as well as
pointed to Tan as their leader.
The Court added that all the
elements of illegal possession of drugs
were present: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which
is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by
law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possesses the said drug
Further, the accused were positively
identified in court as the individuals
caught loading and possessing
prohibited drugs without proof that
they were duly authorized by law to
possess them. The accused were also
unable to show proof to support their
allegation of a frame-up in rebutting
the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, the Court noted. (GR No.
18045, People v.
The Supreme Court affirmed the
Court of Appeals conviction of a large-
scale illegal recruiter, sentencing the
latter with life imprisonment and a
fine of PhP500,000.
In a decision penned by Justice
Martin S. Villarama, Jr., the High
Courts Third Division upheld the
rulings of the appellate and lower
courts which had found Teresita
Tessie Laogo guilty of the crime of
illegal recruitment in large scale. In
addition to the said penalties, Laogo
was also ordered by the Court to
indemnify the offended parties for
actual damages totaling PhP109,000.
To prove illegal recruitment, the
Court held, it must be shown that the
accused, without being duly
authorized by law, gave the offended
parties the distinct impression that the
former had the power or ability to send
the latter abroad for work such that
the offended parties were convinced to
part with their money in order to be
employed. The Court also stressed that
there must be at least a promise or offer
of an employment from the person
posing as a recruiter, whether locally
or abroad. Laogo, working with Susan
Navarro who remains at large,
promised each of the five complainants
to be sent abroad as cooks and assistant
Life Imprisonment for Large-Scale Illegal Recruiter
By J en T. Tuazon
cooks, with the follow-up transactions
done in Laogo Travel Consultancy,
Laogos travel agency. All receipts of
payment also bore the logo of the travel
agency, two of such receipts being
personally signed by Laogo herself. The
Court thus found that Laogo, together
with Navarro, made the offended
parties believe that they were
transacting with a legitimate
recruitment agency and that Laogo
Travel Consultancy had the authority
to recruit them and send them abroad
for work when in fact such agency had
none as certified by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Agency.
Under Article 38(a) of the Labor Code,
recruitment activities undertaken by
non-licensees or non-holders of
authority are deemed illegal and
punishable by law. And when the
illegal recruitment is committed
against three or more persons,
individually or as a group, then it is
deemed committed in large-scale and
carries with it stiffer penalties as the
same is deemed a form of economic
sabotage. Section 7 of the Migrant
Workers Act provides a penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of not less
than PhP500,000 nor more than PhP1
million if illegal recruitment constitutes
economic sabotage. (GR No. 176264,
People v. Laogo, January 18, 2011)
FEBRUARY 10-11
Mediation Course for Lawyers of the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Pasay City
FEBRUARY 15
Seminar Workshop on the Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases for
Region 2
Manila
FEBRUARY 17-18
Information Dissemination Campaign on
Small Claims and Anti-Trafficking
Laoag City
COURT CALENDAR
THIS MONTH IN HISTORY
JANUARY 2
Japanese forces occupy the City of Manila
in 1942
JANUARY 3
The Japanese Military Administration in the
Philippines is established in 1942
JANUARY 12
Abdulwahid A. Bidin is the first Muslim
appointed Justice of the Supreme Court in
1987
JANUARY 13
The Supreme Court is honored as Filipino
of the Year by the Philippine Daily Inquirer
in 2002
JANUARY 17
President Ferdinand E. Marcos lifts Martial
Law in 1981
JANUARY 20
The Japanese Congress grants
Independence to the Philippines in 1942
JANUARY 24
A royal order confirms the royal decree of
May 29, 1885 separating judicial and
executive powers in 1887
JANUARY 30
The Audiencia Territorial de Manila with
Cayetano S. Arellano as President
replaces the Real Audiencia in 1899
The first national elections since the
proclamation of Martial Law are held in 1980
The Supreme Court recently dismissed for lack of merit the petition filed by
election lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal assailing the validity of the constitution of
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET).
Atty. Macalintal had questioned the creation of a purportedly separate
tribunal with a budget allocation, a seal, and a set of personnel and confidential
employees.
In a 32-page En Banc decision penned by Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura,
the Court held that the PET is not a separate and distinct entity from it even
though the PET has functions peculiar only to it. It declared that the PET was
constituted in implementation of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, and it
faithfully complies not unlawfully defies the constitutional directive. The
adoption of a separate seal, as well as the change in the nomenclature of the Chief
Justice and the Associate Justices into Chairman and Members of the Tribunal,
respectively, was designed simply to highlight the singularity and exclusivity of
the Tribunals functions as a special electoral court. Article VII, sec. 4 provides:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and
may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
[T]he PET, as intended by the framers of the Constitution, is to be an
institution independent, but not separate, from the judicial department, i.e., the
Supreme Court. McCulloch v. State of Maryland proclaimed that [a] power without
the means to use it is a nullity. The vehicle for the exercise of this power, as
intended by the Constitution and specifically mentioned by the Constitutional
Commissioners during the discussions on the grant of power to this Court, is the
PET, stressed the Court.
As to petitioners claim that the PET exercises quasi-judicial functions in
contravention of Article VIII, sec. 12 of the Constitution, which provides that
The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall
not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions, the Court held that the expanded definition of judicial power found
in Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the present Constitution has allocated to
the Supreme Court, in conjunction with latters exercise of judicial power inherent
in all courts, the task of deciding presidential and vice-presidential election
contests, with full authority in the exercise thereof. The power wielded by PET
is a derivative of the plenary judicial power allocated to courts of law, expressly
provided in the Constitution, the Court explained; otherwise its members sitting
in the Senate and House Electoral Tribunals would violate the said constitutional
prohibition.
On a final note, the Court cautioned against the filing of baseless petitions
which only clog the Courts docket. The petition in the instant case belongs to
that classification. (GR No.191618, Macalintal v. PET, November 23, 2010)
SC Dimisses Petition vs. PET
By Gleo Sp. Guerra
4
Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona led
the launching of Judgment Day, a pilot
project and an off-shoot of the Supreme
Courts Enhanced Justice on Wheels
(EJOW) program, at the Las Pias City
Hall of Justice on January 21, 2011.

An initiative of the Las Pias City
j udges and government offi ci al s i n
coordination with the Supreme Court,
Judgment Day i nvol ves the
simultaneous disposition of cases in
one day. This pilot project replicates the
EJOW program to further speed up the
administration of justice. It is similar
to the EJOW except that the bus, which
serves as the mobile court, is no longer
present.
Li ke EJOW, Judgment Day
participating judges heard and decided
cases, which resulted in the provisional
release of five inmates, acquittal of 46
accused, and conviction of eight others
in criminal cases. Thirty-one civil cases
Chief Justice Corona Leads Judgment Day Launch
By J ay B. Rempillo
were also decided, while a total of 70 inmates
were served by the 20-member medical and
dental team from the Las Pias City Health
Office.

Aside from Chief Justice Corona, also
present were SC Public Information Office
Chief and Court Administrator Jose Midas P.
Marquez, Assistant Court Administrator
Jenny Lind A. Delorino, Las Pias
Congressman Mark Villar, Las Pias Vice-
Mayor Louie Bustamante, city councilors,
members of the Las Pias Bar Association,
and the Las Pias City Judges Association.
Those who participated in the Judgment
Day are Judge Erlinda Nicolas-Alvaro (RTC,
198), Judge Leopoldo Baraquia (RTC, Branch
200), Judge Ismael Duldulao (RTC, Branch
197), Judge Bonifacio Maceda (RTC, Branch
275), Judge Salvador Timbang, Jr. (RTC,
Branch 253), Judge Joselito Vibandor (RTC,
Branch 199), Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray, (RTC,
Branch 255), and Judge Pio Pasia (Municipal
Trial Court, Branch 79).

In his speech, the Chief Justice said
that the launching of Judgment Day will
demonstrate that the successes of the
EJOW project can be duplicated in key
areas even without the appeal of a
mobile court. This undertaking will
make use of the existing resources and
infrastructure of the Judiciary, with the
acti ve i nvol vement of the l ocal
government uni ts, to promote
awareness of the justice system and
speedy administration of justice.

Chief Justice Corona underscored
that the Judgment Day will allow the
Supreme Court to depl oy i ts ei ght
roving buses to distant provinces or
to areas without regular courthouses,
for which these buses were initially
intended. As such, all possible means
of accessing the justice system be it
through the traditional way of going
to regular courts, or through the EJOW
and Judgment Day will be utilized.
What will transpire here today will,
hopefully, serve as the blueprint for
future opportuni ti es to take ful l
advantage of the courts avai l abl e
means to provide fast, free resolution
of confl i cts through adj udi cati on,
mediation, or conciliation, he said.

Under the EJOW, a total of 5,157
inmates have been either released or
had their cases terminated so far, while
12,590 cases have been successfully
mediated. In addition, 10,073 inmates
have al so been gi ven medi cal and
dental or legal assistance while 14,980
barangay officials have benefitted from
legal information dissemination.

Chief Justice Corona said that the EJOW
figures prove that in spite of the perennial
problems of congested dockets of courts
and vacancies the Judiciary has achieved
significant victories in the battle to provide
people with access to justice. He
expressed optimism that EJOWs feat will
also be duplicated by the Judgment Day
project. (With report from Annie A. Laborte)
5
Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011
Thirty-nine year old Julius Ocampo has been languishing in jail for
six years for charges of illegal drug use. Twenty-seven year old Nino
Polo, on the other hand, has been doing time for four years for murder
charges. January 21, 2011would prove to be a red-letter day for both
of them for on that very day, both were finally acquitted due to the
prosecutions failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Forty-four other inmates were also acquitted that same day on
the very first Judgment Day, an off-shoot of the Supreme Courts
Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) program launched at the Las Pias
City Hall of Justice.
The still single Ocampo was fetched by his 62-year old mother
Zosima Ocampo who unabashedly hugged him after he told her of his
acquittal by Judge Leopoldo Baraquia of the Las Pinas Regional Trial
Court, Branch 200.
Masayang masaya ako. Pangako ko sa sarili na ipapagpatuloy
ko ang magandang pagbabago ngayong malaya na ako (I am very
happy. I promised myself I will not waste this new beginning now that
I am free), says Ocampo.
Ocampo says he is excited about his re-integration to the society
and hopes to have a fresh start with his own vulcanizing shop, a
By J ay B. Rempillo
business he was engaged in prior to his incarceration. His mother
Zosima was ecstatic that her son is now free, having always
maintained his innocence.
Polo was similarly elated and grateful for his acquittal. He was
all smiles when judgment of the same was handed by Judge
Elizabeth Yu Guray of the Las Pinas RTC, Branch 255. His co-accused
Jerson Dasmarinas, however, was not as fortunate as Judge Guray
found the latter guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua
for shooting to death a cop in front of a beer joint in Naga Road.
Dasmarinas admitted in court that he had met Polo only during
the trial of their case.
A Roman Catholic, Polo says that prison life has reinvigorated
his religious life as became more prayerful. Naging malapit ako
sa Diyos (I have become closer to God), he says. Polo, who could
not wait to be reunited with his seven-year old son, however, has
to wait for he is still being held for another charge.
Aside from the acquittal of 46 accused, the first Judgment Day
also resulted in the provisional release of five inmates and the
conviction of eight others in criminal cases. A total of 31 civil
cases have also been decided.
6
Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011
COURT WATCH
Two trial judges, including the one who
handled the Golden Buddha case, and
three court personnel who committed
various offenses have been dismissed as
part of continuing efforts of the Supreme
Court, under the leadership of Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona, to weed the
Judiciary of its misfits.
In a per curiam decision, the Court
dismissed Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan
of the Baguio City Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 3 for gross ignorance of the
law. His dismissal was spawned by the
complaint filed by Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos
who accused Judge Pamintuan committed
gross ignorance when he, motu propio,
reversed the final and executory order
dated May 30, 1996 of then Acting
Presiding Judge Antonio Reyes.
In the said order, Judge Reyes
dismissed the civil case and ordered the
immediate release of the Buddha
Statuette in the courts custody to the
children of the late Rogelio Roxas. On
August 15, 2006, Judge Pamintuan issued
an order awarding to the estate of Rogelio
Roxas the Buddha Statuette, which
however, shall be under the court custody
until final settlement of the Roxas estate.
The same order ruled that the Buddha in
its custody is a fake one or a mere replica
of the original Golden Buddha, which has
been missing since 1971.
The Court found inexcusable Judge
Pamintuans overlooking the basic legal
principle that when a judgment is final and
executor, it becomes immutable and
unalterable. It held that Judge Pamintuan
made a serious error in making
pronouncements that the Buddha in its
custody was a fake or a mere replica,
which may be his opinion or the litigants
during the hearing. It stressed that Judge
Pamintuan should have realized that the
trial court did not rule on that point in its
May 30, 1996 order. It noted that this was
not Judge Pamintuans first and sole
administrative case.
The Court finds Judge Pamintuan
accountable for gross ignorance of the
law. He could have simply been suspended
and fined, but the Court cannot take his
previous infractions lightly. His violations
are serious in character. Having been
previously warned and punished for
various infractions, Judge Pamintuan now
deserves the ultimate administrative
penalty dismissal from service, the
Court said.
In another per curiam decision, the Court
dismissed Judge Oscar E. Dinopol of the
Koronadal City RTC, Branch 24 for gross
misconduct when he obtained commodity
loans from complainant litigant Victoriano
Sy in the form of building materials from
the construction of his house in
SC Dismisses Erring
Judges, Personnel
By J ay B. Rempillo
Koronadal City, which was evidenced by
receipts.
Judge Dinopol violated Canon 3 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct when he
received accommodations from Sy, thus
compromising his position as a judge.
Likewise, the Court found he had violated
Canon 1, Canon 2, and Canon 4 of the said
Code, which highlights the judges
independence, promotes a judges
integrity, and mandates a judge to
observe and maintain proper decorum
and its appearance in his public office.
Likewise, the Court found Judge
Dinopol committed impropriety in talking
with litigants outside court proceedings.
In another per curiam decision, the Court
dismissed Carlos A. Salvador, Sheriff IV
of Angeles City RTC, Branch 58 for grave
misconduct and suspended Binangonan,
Rizal RTC OIC Branch Clerk of Court Babe
SJ. Ramirez for one year without pay for
conduct prejudicial to the service.
Salvador was found liable for grave
misconduct for his refusal to implement
the writ of execution in the civil case and
for interposing obstacles in the
enforcement of the writ on the grounds
not within the scope of his duty. On the
other hand, Ramirez was sanction for the
delay in issuing the writ, which was not
done at her initiative but at the insistence
of the complainants. Ramirez
compounded the problem by issuing a writ
that was, on its face, defective, thus
creating additional enforcement
difficulties.
The Court also dismissed Clerk of
Court II Marissa U. Angeles of the
Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, Municipal Trial
Court for dishonesty and grave
misconduct.
It held that Angeles failed to dispute
or disprove the charges against her. She
was found liable for her failure to
immediately account for the excess in the
cash bond she receive; failure to issue
appropriate receipts; failure to safekeep
monies received; and, failure to remit/
deposit cash bonds in the government
depository upon receipt. These infractions
constituted dishonesty and grave
misconduct for which she deserves to be
dismissed from the service.
Likewise, the Court dismissed Jose M.
Ramano, Deputy Sheriff of Makati City
RTC, Branch 140 for gross misconduct.
The Court established that Ramano
had been negligent in implementing the
subject writ due to the complainants
refusal to give in to his demand that he be
given 35% share of whatever may be
collected from the implementation of the
writ on a civil case. (AM No. RTJ-07-2062,
Marcos v. Judge Pamintuan; AM No. RTJ-09-
2189, Sy v. Judge Dinopol; AM No. P-03-1730,
Judge Iturralde v. Ramirez; AM No. P-11-2887,
OCA v. Angeles; AM No. P-10-2880, Judge
Aldea-Arocena v. Angeles, January 18, 2011;
AM P-90-488, OCA v. Ramano, January 25,
2011)
The more than PhP4.8 billion
deposit of the Judiciarys Fiduciary
Funds and all subsequent collections
of trust and other receipts with the
Bureau of Treasury has no legal
basis, and the remittance of interests
of the Fiduciary Funds to the national
government is erroneous and must be
discontinued.
Thus said the Supreme Court as it
ruled that Fiduciary Funds in custodia
legis shall remain under the custody
and control of the courts, to be
deposited and disposed of as the courts
may direct in the exercise of their
judicial functions, while Fiduciary
Funds deposited with the Court in its
administrative capacity, and not in
custodia legis, shall be remitted to the
National Treasury.
In its 2008 Annual Audit Report, the
COA recommended that the Court
deposit the amount of
PhP4,838,976,011.86 and all
subsequent collections of trust and
other receipts with the Bureau of
Treasury in conformity with
Executive Order 338 (EO 338), Sections
7 and 8 of the General Provisions of the
General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (2008 GAA), and COA-DOF-DBM
Joint Circular No. 1-97.
EO 338 directs government offices
and agencies to immediately transfer
all public monies deposited with
depository banks and other
institutions to the Bureau of Treasury,
regardless of income source, while the
2008 GAA directs government agencies
to book trust and other receipts which
have been received as guaranty for the
fulfillment of an obligation with the
National Treasury. Joint Circular No.
1-97, on the other hand, requires that
all National Government cash
balances be deposited with the
National Treasury.
The Court, however, held that while
funds that properly accrue to the
General Fund must be turned over to
the Bureau of Treasury, which is under
the Executive branch, the custody and
disposition of any fund of whatever
nature that is in custodia legis (custody
of the law) is under the exclusive
control of the courts in the exercise of
their judicial functions.
The control of funds in custodia legis
is an exercise of judicial power, and
under the Constitution, [T]he judicial
power is vested in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be
established by law, said the Court.
Neither the Executive nor Legislative
branch can encroach on the power of
the courts to control custody or
disposition of funds in custodia legis,
adding that upon termination of the
case, or earlier as the courts may direct,
the funds in custodia legis will be
returned to their rightful owners,
subject to a service fee of 10% per
annum of the interests earned, which
shall accrue to the Judiciary
Development Fund (JDF).
The High Court said that while
Batas Pambansa Blg. 325 provides that,
unless otherwise provided, all
collections from fees and charges of
government agencies, including the
Supreme Court, shall accrue to the
General Fund of the National
Government, an exemption is provided
under Presidential Decree No. 1949 (PD
1949), which established the JDF for
the benefit of the members and
personnel of the Judiciary to help
ensure and guarantee the independence
of the Judiciary.
Fiduciary Funds Shall Remain With Court
By Anna Katrina M. Martinez
PD 1949 provides that the Chief
Justice shall administer and allocate the
JDF and shall have the sole exclusive
power and duty to approve the
authorized disbursement and
expenditures of the Fund. Thus, the
JDF, although derived from legal fees
and charges, does not accrue to the
General Fund by express provision of
PD 1949, said the Court.
The High Court added that
Fiduciary Funds also do not accrue to
the General Fund as these are not
collections from fees and charges but
are funds that are deposited in court
which are held in trust for the parties
and litigants.
The Court also ruled that its own
practice of remitting the interests of the
Fiduciary Funds to the national
government is erroneous and must be
discontinued.
Following the right of accession
conferred on the owner of the property
under Article 440 of the Civil Code, the
interests on these fiduciary funds also
belong to the parties who own the
principal amount. Upon termination of
the case, the interests should be
returned to the parties together with
the principal. The interests should not
accrue to the General Fund because it
is tantamount to taking private
property for public use without just
compensation, the Court held. It added
that interests on deposits of the JDF
accrue to the JDF for the benefit of the
members and personnel of the
Judiciary.
The Court, however, ruled that
forfeited cash deposits made to
guarantee undertakings in favor of the
government, and the interests thereon,
are income of the government and shall
be remitted to the National Treasury
and that unclaimed fiduciary funds of
private parties, including interests,
shall remain with the courts until a law
is passed authorizing the escheat or
forfeiture of such unclaimed funds in
favor of the State.
Finally, the Supreme Court ruled
that the amounts it previously
remitted to the National Treasury
representing interest earned on the
Fiduciary Fund and forfeited/
confiscated bonds covering the period
from 2004 to 2007, under the staggered
payments proposed by retired Chief
Justice Reynato S. Puno to the COA in
2009, shall be credited to whatever
amounts the Court is required to remit
to the National Treasury. (Min. Res., AM
No. 05-3-35-SC, Re: Audit Observation
Memorandum; Min. Res., AM No. 10-8-3-
SC, Re: Fiduciary Fund Deposits Not
Remitted to the Bureau of Treasury, January
18, 2011)
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona has
granted the release of Fringe Benefit and
the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)
for December 2010 as additional benefits
to qualified court officials and personnel.
In Memorandum Order No. 03-2011,
signed on January 21, 2011, Chief Justice
Corona authorized the release of an
additional allowance of PhP10,000 to all
court employees and shall be received
in its full amount by those who are still in
the service, as of November 30, 2010.
The Chief Justice also approved the
release of an Additional Cost of Living
Allowance under the JDF to qualified
Court personnel in amounts ranging from
PhP2,300 to PhP2,500 depending on the
employees salary grade as per the
CJ Corona Grants the Release of Fringe Benefit, JDF
By Sheena Mae T. Dagum
January 7, 2011 Memorandum Order No.
01-2011.
The JDF and Fringe benefits are
granted to all qualified officials and
employees of the Supreme Court, the
three collegiate courts, and the lower
courts, pursuant to and by virtue of the
authority vested upon the Chief Justice
by Joint Resolution No. 96 of the
Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group,
and PD 1949, respectively. The PhP 10,000
fringe benefit is taken from the savings
from appropriations in the Fiscal
Autonomy (FA) account, while the
Additional Cost of Living Allowance
comes from the eighty per centum (80%)
allotted for the purpose from the income
of the JDF from December 1 to 31, 2010.
7
Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011
For the purposes of determining
administrative culpability, the only
quantum of evidence required is
substantial evidence, or that amount
of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
Thus said the Supreme Court as it
dismissed Claudio M. Lopez, a Process
Server of the Municipal Trial Court of
Sudipen, La Union, for having been
found guilty of possession of
marijuana. The Court held that
evidence to support a conviction in a
criminal case is not necessary, and the
dismissal of the criminal case against
the respondent in an administrative
case is not a ground for the dismissal
of the administrative case.
Although the respondent alleged
that the evidence obtained were
inadmissible due to the illegality of the
issuance of the search warrant as well
as the conduct of the search, the Court
ruled that these issues should be
threshed out in the criminal case and
not in the instant administrative case.
Lopez claimed that the authorities
required the presence of witnesses in
accordance with Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court when they searched his room
and recovered the one block of dried
La Union Process Server Dismissed
for Possession of Marijuana
By J oachim Florencio Q. Corsiga
marijuana fruiting tops weighing
790.6 grams wrapped in a newspaper
and plastic bag. He also alleged that the
search warrant was illegally issued
because presiding judge who issued the
search warrant had no territorial
jurisdiction over Sudipen, La Union,
the place where it was enforced.
The Court once more stressed that
from the presiding judge to the
lowliest clerk, being public servants in
an office dispensing justice, should
always act with a high degree of
professionalism and responsibility.
Their conduct must not only be
characterized by propriety and
decorum, but must also be in
accordance with the law and court
regulations. No position demands
greater moral righteousness and
uprightness from its holder than an
office in the judiciary. Court employees
should be models of uprightness,
fairness and honesty to maintain the
peoples respect and faith in the
judiciary. (AM No. P-10-2788, OCA v.
Lopez, January 2011)
Supreme Court officials and
employees can continue to avail of the
health care plan services of Fortune
Medicare Inc. until the end of April this
year with certain exceptions.
During the extension period, health
care services such as executive check-
ups, annual physical examinations,
reimbursement of out-patient
medicines, cauterization of warts and
sclerotherapy, and vaccinations will
not be covered by the Fortune Care
card.
In its January 11, 2011 resolution,
the Court En Banc approved the
extension to give the Committee on
Bids ample time to complete the
procurement process.
Dr. Prudencio P. Banzon, Jr., Chief of
SC Medical and Dental Services, and
Supreme Court Health and Welfare
Plan (SCHWP) member said that
employees can still use their Fortune
Fortune Care Health Care Services Extended Till April 30
By Helen D. Santos
Care card for doctor consultations and
other health care services in any
Fortune Care-accredited hospital
during the extension period.
On February 1, 2011, the Court
authorized SCHWPC Working
Chairperson and Clerk of Court En Banc
Atty. Enriqueta E. Vidal to signify the
Courts conformity to the terms and
conditions of the extension coverage.
JUDGE JOSELITO VIBANDOR:
The Family Court Judge as Head of the Family
Think of yourself as the head of the family that you are there not only
to conduct trial but to find ways for the parties to settle.
relates to nullity of marriages, child
abuse, violence against women and
children, he reveals. Additional
Family Courts would also seek to
equalize our case loads with regular
courts who are assigned cases on a 1
is to 3 ratio.
Judge Joey urges Congress to look
into the implementation of the [RA
8369] Family Courts Act of 1997 which
has become moribund by
appropriating funds therefore. These
funds, once appropriated, translates
to additional personnel in family
courts, such as court social workers,
guardian ad litems and other support
persons; facilities, such as the holding
or preparation areas for children and
the live links, and special trainings for
the family court judges and their
staff, he adds.
SPEARHEADING PROJECTS
Judge Joey has always been
concerned of the plight of inmates of
Las Pias City jail who have been
beneficiaries of his establishment of
the first city jail library in the
country. This library is equipped with
a computer, law books, reference
books as well as childrens books. He
has also been celebrating his
birthday with the Las Pias City
inmates since 2001.
He is also an advocate of barangay
education where as President of the
Las Pias City Judges Association, he
has spearheaded lectures on basic law
at the grassroots level.
In his own sala, Judge Joey has
introduced innovations to better
manage the flow of cases. Inmates
who have pending cases in his sala
are provided individually with index
card so as to appraise the inmates of
their next trial dates, the penalty
imposable as well as the
recommended bail and the status of
their cases.
For this and other efforts to
contribute to the justice system, Judge
Joey was named Special Awardee of the
Year in 2006 by the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology; and one
of the outstanding professors by the
Arellano School of Law. The San Beda
Law Alumni Association during its
2008 Alumni Homecoming named
him one of the Bedans who are of Great
Service to the Filipino People. Judge Joey
was also a delegate to the Hague
Forum for International Criminal
Law for Justices and Judges in the
Netherlands in 2008.
But above all the foregoing
accolades, serving the country while
settling family disputes and touching
lives as a family court j udge has
made me a better person, says
Judge Joey.
A FAMILY COURT JUDGE
For Judge Joselito Joey de Jesus
Vibandor, Presiding Judge of Las Pias
City, Regional Trial Court, Branch 199,
being a family court judge is like being
in a specialized field of law. Family
court judges hear cases for annulment
of marriages, custody, support,
violence against women and children,
child abuse and neglect, among others.
Think of yourself as the head of the
family that you are there not only to
conduct trial but to find ways for the
parties to settle, Judge Joey shares. A
family court judge should give the
family every opportunity to resolve
their own disputes by themselves and
within the bounds of the law acceptable
to them, he advises.
A family court judge for a decade
now, Judge Joey says that the best
attribute of a family court judge is his
listening heart and that as a judge,
he should also have the right attitude
and the ability to change the lives of
parents and their children.
He also says that a family court
judge should address family-related
issues by keeping in mind each of the
family member s rights and
obligations and the best interest of
family in relation to other families in
the community.
Born on July 7, 1954 in a mine camp
in Acoje Mines, Sta. Cruz, Zambales,
Judge Joey recalls, My late father
Cristino Milla Vibandor, a stowaway
from Bula, Camarines Sur, was an
intermediate graduate who did odd
jobs in Manila but later rose through
the ranks to be the mining companys
electrical superintendent. His late
mother Victoria de Jesus Vibandor, a
native of Navotas, Metro Manila, was
a loving mother to Judge Joey and his
five other siblings who all became
successful in their respective fields.
Judge Joey is an alumnus of San Beda
College, where he obtained his Political
Science degree in 1976, and law degree
in 1980. After passing the Bar the
following year, he worked as
Legislative Assistant at the Office of
Budget and Management, Legislative
Service in Malacaang for a year. From
1982 to 1987, he was a Corporate
Attorney in the Philippine Tourism
Authority. In mid-80s, he was
designated as Boracay Island Tourism
Administrator.
In 1988, he joined the Department
of Justice as Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor for the province of Nueva
Ecija, and was later transferred to
Pasay, where he was awarded in 1994
as one of the outstanding prosecutors.
In September 2001, Judge Joey
joined the Judiciary when he was
appointed to the Regional Trial Court
of Las Pias, Branch 100. He was
designated Executive Judge of Las Pias
City for two terms, concurrently
serving as Acting Presiding Judge of
RTC Branch 254, another family court.
At present, Judge Joey is also the
Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch
4, Manila, the only land registration
court in Manila.
Judge Joey hopes for the designation
of additional family courts not only in
Las Pias but in other stations as well
to address the high number of family
court cases. The bulk of these cases
Be prepared and not entirely dependent on your counsel. Be familiar
with the facts of the case as well as the documents to be identified in
open court.
Observe proper court decorum. Avoid creating scenes fit only for a
movie and wear appropriate clothes.
Dont be late. Judges frown upon litigants and lawyers who come in
late.
Turn your cellphone off or in silent mode.
Dont exaggerate. This will reflect negatively on you. Judges are trained
to know when a witness is lying. Relax, speak the truth clearly and
distinctly. If you do not understand the question, call the attention of the
court interpreter. There are questions answerable only by yes or no.
Rules of a Family Court Judge for Litigants
By J udge J oselito Vibandor
By Annie A. Laborte
Photos by Doranne I. Lim, Francisco S. Gutierrez, Cesar Tito P. Royeras, and Randy R. Samonte
Captions by Arcie M. Sercado
PIO ZOOM LENS EF 28-80m m
1 : 3 . 5 - 5 . 6 I I
5 8 m m P u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n O f f i c e
Snap Judgments
8
STAFFBOX
GLEO SP. GUERRA EDITORINCHIEF | JAY B. REMPILLO ASSOCIATEEDITOR | ANNA KATRINA M. MARTINEZ NEWSEDITOR| ANNIE A. LABORTE FEATURESEDITOR| RONALD C. NAPOLITANO ART/LAYOUTEDITOR| JAMES C. BITANGA ERIKA
T. DY JOACHIM FLORENCIO Q. CORSIGA HELEN GRACE D. SANTOS ARCIE M. SERCADO JEN T. TUAZON SHEENA MAE T. DAGUM CONTRIBUTINGEDITORS| RENATO T. BOCAR RUTH MILO-FERRER SANDRA PERALTA-
CALUGAY SANDIGANBAYANCORRESPONDENTS | ELSIE R. TIAUZON-FORTEZA CTACORRESPONDENT | DORANNE I. LIM CHIEFPHOTOGRAPHER| FRANCISCO S. GUTIERREZ CESAR P. ROYERAS RANDY R. SAMONTE PHOTOGRAPHERS |
MARVIE S. IGNACIO MELODY L. SY EDITORIALASSISTANTS | LEIZEL C. HABANA CIRCULATIONMANAGER | EDMUNDO M. MOREDO PRODUCTIONCOORDINATOR | RAYMUND P. FLORES BENCHMARKONLINEADMINISTRATOR| JOSE MIDAS P.
MARQUEZ ADVISER
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE: 3/F New SC Bldg. Annex Padre Faura St., Ermita 1000 Manila, Philippines | Telephone Numbers: (02) 522-5090, 92, 93, 94 | Telefax (02) 526-8129 | sc.judiciary.gov.ph
| BENCHMARK can also be viewed online at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/publications/benchmark. The views and opinions presented in BENCHMARK are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those
of the Supreme Court. To notify BENCHMARK of any change or correction in your mailing address, e-mail us at pio@sc.judiciary.gov.ph or write to The Editor in Chief at the above address. Contributions in the form of articles and photos of
court-related subjects are welcome and will be published subject to the editors descreation.
Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011
NEWLY APPOINTED EMPLOYEES
List provided by the Office of Administrative Services as of J anuary 31, 2011
MARI A CRI STI NA M. ATENDI DO, Court Attorney VI , OAJ Sereno, Transfer from CA GI LBERTH D. BALDERAMA, Court Attorney I V, OAJ Perez,
Reappointment TRI CI A NI COLE Q. VELASCO-CATERA, J udicial Staff Head, OAJ Velasco, Promotion RONALD BRI AN G. EVANGELI STA, Executive
Assistant V, OAJ Brion, Reemployment J AY-R C. I PAC, Court AttorneY I V, OAJ Brion, Transfer from HRET DONATO B. J AVI NAR, Court Attorney I V,
OAJ Del Castillo, Reappointment J ANI CE C. LEE, Court Attorney I V, OAJ Sereno, Original Appointment CONSTANTI NO U. MANLANGI T, PET Chief
J udicial Staff Officer, OAJ Perez, Transfer from SC NORELI ZA R. MORAA, Court Attorney VI , OAJ Perez, Transfer from PET ANNA NERI SSA B. PAZ-
PEREZ, Court Attorney VI , OAJ Del Castillo, Promotion ANNA LOREM R. RAMOS, Court Attorney I V, OAJ Sereno, Original Appointment
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (seated, center, 3rd row) poses for posterity with New Bilibid Prison inmates, who are members of the College Guild of the University of Perpetual Help System Delta Extension School, which operates within the NBP Medium Security Compound in Muntinlupa City.
Also in photo are Supreme Court Public Information Office Chief and Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (seated right next to Chief Justice Corona), and officials of the Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prisons, and the UPHSD. His January 21, 2011 visit is a homecoming of sorts for the
Chief Justice since he did volunteer work in the Prison Ministry in his earlier years. He also served as the head of the Malacaang legal office from 1992 to 1998 during the administration of then President Fidel V. Ramos, which processes the applications for pardon and parole of inmates. During
his speech, he reminded inmates that their incarceration is only temporary and that they should change for the better and make use of their God-given talents upon their release in the future.
Former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno is conferred the degree of Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, by the University of the Philippines (UP) in
celebration of the centennial of the UP College of Law at the Malcolm Theatre, Malcolm Hall, UP Diliman on January 11, 2011. Assisting the
Chief Justice in donning the velvet robes is Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Chairperson Dr. Patricia Licuanan (far left), and his daughter,
Ruth (far right). During the conferment, UP President Emerlinda R. Roman cited Chief Justice Punos term in the Supreme Court as one which
showed fidelity to the Constitution, a deep concern for the deaths of activist victims, high principles, and a liberal judicial activism.
Chief Justice Renato C. Corona answers a question posed by one of the members of the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines
during the FOCAPs 2011 Prospects Forum: Six Years of Possibilities held at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Makati, Manila on January 20, 2011.
Chief Justice Corona, who keynoted the FOCAP event, is joined on the panel by (from left) National Economic and Development Authority
Director General Cayetano W. Paderanga, Jr., Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., and JG Summit Holdings President Lance Y. Gokongwei. FOCAP
is an association of journalists who work for the different foreign wire and news service organizations operating in the country.
Atty. Sixto Brillantes, Jr. takes his oath as the new Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chair before his former law firm partner Justice Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura at the Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila on January 16, 2011. Atty. Brillantes is a veteran election lawyer, Bar
topnotcher, and son of a former COMELEC Commissioner.
Public Information Office Chief Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez exchanges thoughts with Quezon City Vice-Mayor Ma. Josefina
G. Belmonte at the Proposed Practice Guidelines for Quezon City Courts: A Consultation with Stakeholders held at the Bulwagang Amoranto,
Quezon City Hall, QCon January 12, 2011. Theproject, supportedby theSupremeCourt, Officeof theCourt Administrator, United States Agency
for International Development, American Bar AssociationRule of Law Initiative, Department of Justice, and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, aims to modernize Quezon Citys judicial system. The consultation gathered representatives from the Bar, Judiciary, prosecution,
and public defenders offices to gauge their reactions to the proposed modifications to the present litigation practice guidelines.
Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Jr. prepares for a drive against Public Information Chief Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez during the
first friendship game between Supreme Court Philippines and Guam at the The Zone, Bel Air, Makati City on January 13, 2011. The basketball
friendship games were part of the visit of Chief Justice Torres to the Philippines.
Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa C. Vilches makes a presentation of the current state of the Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) Programs
fleet of buses and complement at the Orientation on the EJOW Programheld at theTraining Room, Ground Floor, Centennial Building, Supreme
Court, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila on January 7, 2011. The orientation was due to the change in the process of deployment of the EJOW buses,
which will now be delegated to the three Deputy Court Administrators (DCAs) and two Assistant Court Administrators (ACAs) who will be
tasked to propose venues, taking into consideration the judicial needs of every area or locality under their jurisdiction, and take care of the
implementation in their respective regions.