(b) pre-trial proper to trial and judgment.

From the Book of Riano:

Judicial dispute resolution (JDR); purposes
1. The explanatory note of A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-Philja declares that
"Despite the priority given Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, as
amended, for the amicable settlement of cases, most judges go
through the function of exploring settlement perfunctorily for
various reasons, including fear of being disqualified if he goes into
the process more intensively. Thus, it is the intention of the JURIS
Project to restore the importance of this priority and install
innovative procedures that will remove such apprehension."
2. The concept of Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) is an innovative
concept in the judicial system and by it "it is hoped that mediation
and conciliation at the level of the judge would contribute
significantly to the resolution of mediatable cases, thereby
increasing the satisfaction of litigants in the court process and also
helping to decongest the dockets of the judiciary." Another goal is
to strengthen conciliation during the pre-trial stage in order to
expedite the resolution of cases.
Stages in the judicial proceedings with JDR; confidentiality
Judicial proceedings shall be divided into two stages, namely:
(a) from the filing of a complaint, to the conduct of CAM (CourtAnnexed Mediation) and JDR during the pre-trial stage; and

2. The judge to whom the case has been originally raffled shall
preside over the first stage. He shall be called the JDR judge.
Parties will be more spontaneous once they are assured that the
JDR judge will not be the one to try the case. As such, the general
rule is that the JDR shall not preside over the trial of the same case
when mediation did not succeed.
As a mediator and conciliator, the judge facilitates the settlement
discussions between 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 his neutral evaluation, the judge persuades
the parties to reconsider their prior reluctance to settle their case
amicably. The entire process comprises JDR (A.M. No. 04-1-12-SCPhilja. Re: Philja Resolution No. 06-22, Revised Guidelines for the
Implementation of an Enhanced Pre-Trial Proceeding under the
JURIS Project, as Amended, August 29,2006).
3. The mediation process is designed to be confidential. In order to
safeguard the confidentiality of mediation proceedings, the JDR
judge shall not pass on any information obtained in the course of
conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or mediation to the trial judge
or to any other person. All JDR conferences shall be conducted in
private. The JDR judge may, however, confer in confidence with the
mediator who previously mediated the case, merely for the
purpose of determining unresolved issues (A.M. No. 04-1-12-SCPhilja. Re: Philja Resolution No. 06-22, Revised Guidelines for the

Implementation of an Enhanced Pre-Trial Proceeding under the

Reckless or simple imprudence with violation of the motor

JURIS Project, as Amended, August 29, 2006).

vehicle law.
Cases subject to mediation for JDR
(e) The civil aspect of estafa and libel under the proposed
(a) All civil cases, settlement of estates, and cases covered by the

circular amending A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC;

Rule on Summary Procedure, except those which by law may not

(f) The civil aspect of theft, under Art. 308 of the Revised

be compromised;

Penal Code, as part of the cases for referral to mediation.

Criminal cases like violation of traffic rules and regulations
Salient features of the suggested JDR process

and violation of municipal or city ordinances although

included in the list of cases under summary procedure
should

not

be

mediated

because

they

cannot

1. The judge conducting the JDR is called the JDR judge instead of

be

pre-trial judge because under the revised guidelines, pre-trial

compromised and might be a source of corruption if

proper is resumed after JDR, but this time, to be conducted by the

mediation pushes through.

trial judge instead of the judge who conducted the JDR but the JDR

(b) Cases cognizable by the Lupong Tagapamayapa under the

Katarungang Pambarangay Law;
(c) The civil aspect of B.P. Big. 22 cases;
(d) The civil aspect of quasi-offenses under Title 14 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Examples of quasi offenses:

judge may preside over the trial proceedings upon joint request of
both parties.
The JDR acts as the mediator, conciliator and neutral evaluator as
the conditions may warrant, in order to effect a settlement of the
case.
2. Taking of notes is strictly limited for the personal consumption of
the judge and should not form part of the records of the case, to
preserve confidentiality.

(i) Cases covered are acts committed by reckless or simple

imprudence or negligence resulting for example in slight,
less serious or serious physical injuries;
(ii) Imprudence resulting in damage to property ; and,(iii)

3. The timeline for mediation is 60 days for the second level courts
and 30 days for the first level courts.
4. If the judge feels that the lawyers are not fully convinced about

the settlement process but there is a great chance of settlement,

b. Prior to the signing, the judge may opt to explain the contents to

the judge may talk to the parties first without their lawyers. Talking

the parties and make sure that they understand what they are

to each party separately (caucus) may also be employed if the

signing, to obviate repudiation at some future date;

parties seem to be reaching an impasse.

5. The plaintiff (preferably, and in his own words) would tell his side
of the story and the defendant (preferably, and in his own words)
would tell his side of the story.
6. Based on their stories, the judge would try to summarize the
main issues in contention, and try to probe the various interests of
the parties at play. The judge could facilitate the creation of options
that would provide solutions to the dispute, or even actively
propose solutions or options.
7. Where a settlement is reached, the parties immediately comply
with the agreement. This usually happens if the dispute involves a
money claim and the defendant opts to pay the sum in full at once.
In this event, the parties through their counsel may choose to
submit a manifestation on the satisfaction of claims and the mutual
withdrawal of the complaint and counterclaim. The judge could
then dismiss the case based on this fact.
8. Where the parties agree to settle and comply in the future and
compliance of the settlement is for compliance at some future
date, then a compromise agreement is secured. The following steps
may be followed:
a. Drafting of a compromise agreement by the parties, with the
assistance of their lawyers;

c. Signing of the compromise agreement and the filing of a joint

motion to approve the compromise;
d. Judge approves the compromise agreement and renders a
judgment based on compromise;
e. Copy of the judgment based on compromise issent to the
Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) for statistical purposes.
In the criminal cases covered by mediation, where settlement on
the civil aspect has been reached but the period of payment in
accordance with the terms of settlement exceeds one (1) year, the
case may be archived upon motion of the prosecution with
concurrence of the private complainant and approval by the judge.
9. If there is no settlement reached after the JDR, the judge issues
an order returning the case to the Office of the Clerk of Court for
raffling and the clerk raffles the case to another judge who will
conduct the pre-trial proper and trial, until the case is decided.
10. A copy of the order referring the case to the Office of the Clerk
of court raffle should be furnished the Philippine Mediation Center
for statistical purposes (Operations Manual For Judicial Dispute
Resolution [JDR] in the First And Second Level Courts of the
Philippine Judicial System, Feb. 10, 2006; A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC
Guidelines for the Implementation of an Enhanced Pre-trial
Proceeding through Conciliation and Neutral Evaluation; A.M. No.

04-1-12-SC-Philja. Re: Philja Resolution No. 06-22, Revised

directive role to allow the parties more opportunities to craft their

Guidelines for the Implementation of an Enhanced Pre-Trial

own agreement. He must shift gears and accept the role of an

Proceeding under the JURIS Project, as Amended, August 29,

adviser or consultant.

2006).

After understanding and accepting his new role in the mediation

Court-annexed mediation guidelines

In a Resolution dated March 9, 2004, the Supreme Court adopted

A.M. No. 04-3-05-SC Re: Guidelines for Parties' Counsel in CourtAnnexed Mediation. The guidelines are thus quoted as follows:
1. "Re-orientation of attitudes towards dispute"
Litigation is based on the attitude that disputes involve rights and
remedies that are fought through the adversarial system of justice

process, he must help the client also comprehend and appreciate

the mediation process and its benefits, as well as the client's
greater personal responsibility for the success of mediation in
resolving the dispute.
9
3. " Preparation for participation in mediation "Upon receipt from
the trial court of the order to proceed to mediation,
counsel shall confer and discuss with his client the following:

for which lawyers have been specially trained for. When litigation is

(a) the mediation process as essentially a negotiation between the

shifted to mediation, a different attitude is called for that would

parties assisted by their respective counsel, and facilitated by a

view the dispute as a problem-solving opportunity for lawyers to

mediator, stressing its difference from litigation, its advantage and

assist the parties resolve their differences in ways that are

benefits,

productive for their future lives.

responsibility for its success and explaining the new role of the

2. "Re-orientation of lawyer's role in mediation"

"It is important to stress that the lawyer's role as counsel for a
party radically changes as the mode of dispute resolution shifts
from adjudication to mediation. The premise must be accepted that

the

client's

heightened

role

in

mediation

and

lawyer.
(b) the substance of the upcoming mediation, such as:
(i) the substantive issues involved in their dispute with the other
party and their prioritization in terms of importance to client.

counsel must drop his combative role in adjudication and view his
new role in mediation as a collaborator with the other counsel in

(ii) study of the other side's position in relation to the issues with a

working together toward the common goal of helping their clients

view to understanding the underlying fears, concerns and needs

resolve their differences to their mutual advantage. Whereas he is

underneath said position.

clearly dominant injudicial trials, he must now accept a less

(iii) information or facts to be gathered or sought from the other

side or to be exchanged that are necessary for informed decision
making.

be necessary, in order to give advice or suggestions to client in

private.
Should mediation before the court-accredited mediator fail, and the

(iv) possible bargaining options but stressing the need to be open-

case is referred back to the Court, the lawyer may have to take a

minded about other possibilities.

more active role during the mediation proceedings before the

(v) the best, worst, and most likely alternatives to a negotiated

agreement.
4. *Participation in the mediation sessions"
During the initial mediation session (before the court- accredited
mediator) when the mediator introduces the parties to the process
of mediation, it is helpful for the lawyers to give support to the
mediator so that their clients fully understand the rules and
processes of mediation.
To contribute to the success of mediation, the lawyers must allow
their clients to take responsibility for making decisions during the
negotiations within the mediation process. The lawyers must
restrain themselves from dominating the process and instead allow

judge.
5. "Assistance in preparing a compromise agreement or withdrawal
of complaint and satisfaction of claim"
The lawyers shall assist the mediator in putting in writing the terms
of the compromise agreement that the parties have entered into
and seeing to it that they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy so that the same may be
approved by the trial court for a judgment based upon a
compromise.
The lawyers shall pay particular attention to issues of voluntary
compliance with what has been agreed upon or otherwise, to
issues of enforcement.

their clients to take the initiative in discussions and create various

Where applicable, the lawyers shall assist in the prepa- ration of a

options that are relevant to their own personal interests.

manifestation of mutual satisfaction of claims and counterclaims as

However, if the client is unable to bargain effectively and it appears

that he is on the short-end of the power imbalance, and the
mediator is not doing enough to even up this imbalance, the lawyer
may have to take a somewhat more active role in the process.
Where necessary, a lawyer may ask for a recess, as often as may

basis for the court to issue an order of dis- missal.

Discovery procedures in criminal cases
1. There is no rule which precludes the use of relevant modes of
discovery in a criminal case. The modes of discovery are applicable
no doubt to civil proceedings which necessarily include the civil

aspect of a criminal case. Be it noted that a person criminally liable

of one's own testimony or that of another person regarding any

for a felony, is by the terms of Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code,

matter that may be cognizable in any court of the Philippines. The

also civilly liable.

terms, "any matter" are suffi- ciently broad to cover criminal

Be it further noted that provisional remedies are available in

connection with the civil action deemed instituted with the criminal
action pursuant to Rule 127. No cogent reason exists to exclusively
confine the use of modes of discovery to civil cases.
An examination of the provisions of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure disclose that the rules allow the production and

proceedings cognizable by Philippine courts. To claim that such

matters have reference to civil cases only is to stretch the rules of
logic too far.
2. In the case of People v. Hubert Webb, 312 SCRA 573, the Court
ruled that the taking of depositions in criminal cases is addressed
to judicial discretion.

inspection of material evidence in possession of the prosecution

In this case, the respondent filed a motion to take the testimony by

under Sec. 10 of Rule 116 (Arraignment). This provision is

oral deposition of several witnesses in the United States but the

substantially equivalent to Rule 27, a mode of discovery on

motion was denied by the trial court on the ground that the same is

the production or inspection of documents or things.

In Sec. 11 of Rule 116, arraignment may be suspended, among
others if the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound
mental condition. Where one issue in the criminal case is the
mental condition of the accused, an examination could be
conducted under the spirit of Rule 28, another mode of discovery.
The tenor of Sec. 11 of Rule 116 clearly confers an authority upon
the court to order a mental examination of the accused and to

not

allowed

by

the

Rules.

The

subsequent

motion

for

reconsideration was likewise denied. Dissatisfied, respondent

elevated his cause to the Court of Appeals.
In a decision predicated upon the constitutional grounds of due
process and the right of an accused to present his evidence and for
the production of evidence in his behalf and also on the theory that
the modes of discovery likewise applies to criminal cases, the CA
set aside the ruling of the trial court.

order his confinement if necessary. Determining the mental

The Supreme Court did not directly make pronouncements on

condition of the witness through an examination is no doubt a

whether or not the modes of discovery apply to criminal

discovery procedure.

proceedings. Neither did it also declare that the modes of discovery

A further examination of the Rules of Court will likewise reveal that

the rule on depositions in Sec. 1 of Rule 24 allows the perpetuation

cannot be employed in criminal cases.

The Court's decision initially centered on the reasoning that the

depositions proposed to be taken from the U.S. based witnesses

"The use of discovery procedures is directed to the sound

"would be merely corroborative or cumulative in nature and in

discretion of the trial judge. The deposition taking cannot be based

denying respondent's motion to take them, the trial court was but

nor can it be denied on flimsy reasons. Discretion has to be

exercising its judgment on what it perceived to be a superfluous

exercised in a reasonable manner and in consonance with the spirit

exercise on the belief that the introduction thereof will not

of the law. There is no indication in this case that in denying the

reasonably add to the persuasiveness of the evidence already on

motion of respondent-accused, the trial judge acted in a biased,

record." It recognized the power of a court "to stop the introduction

arbitrary, capricious or oppressive manner. Grave abuse of

of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence

discretion . . . implies such capricious, and whimsical exercise of

upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point

judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words

cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive."

where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner

Needless to state, explained the Court, the trial court can not be

by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent

faulted with lack of caution in denying respondent's motion

and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a

considering that under the prevailing facts of the case, respondent

virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act all in

had more than ample opportunity to adduce evidence in his

contemplation of law" (Underscoring supplied).

defense.
The Court continued: