ADR Tadiar Notes PDF

THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY (KB) LAW AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) MECHANISMS
THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY (KB) LAW AND

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) MECHANISMS
Alfredo F. Tadiar
I. COMMON PURPOSES OF KB AND ADR
A. To help lighten judicial workload and decongest heavy court dockets.1
B. To empower the people to resolve their own disputes.2
C. To preserve the Filipino culture of prior conciliation to resolve their

disputes.3
II. THE KB LAW4
A. Purpose
To prevent the indiscriminate filing of cases in court by barring the

filing of such cases unless the parties have undergone prior conciliation
before Barangay authorities which did not result in a settlement of the
dispute by a compromise agreement and a Certificate to File Action in
1
The second and third WHEREAS clauses of P.D. 1508 states:
WHEREAS The indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts of justice
contributes heavily and unjustifiably to the congestion of court dockets, thus
causing a deterioration in the quality of justice
WHEREAS In order to help relieve the courts of such dockets

congestion and thereby enhance the quality of justice dispensed by the courts, it
is deemed desirable to formally organize and institutionalize a system of
amicably settling disputes at the barangay level.
2
Republic Act No. 9285, Sec. 2: the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 declares as a
State Policy to actively promote party autonomy in the resolution of disputes or the freedom of
the parties to make their own arrangements to resolve disputes.
3
The first WHEREAS clause of Presidential Decree No. 1508 states:
WHEREAS the perpetuation and official recognition of the time-honored
tradition of amicably settling disputes among family and barangay members at
the barangay level without judicial recourse would promote the speedy
administration of justice and implement the constitutional mandate to preserve
and develop Filipino culture and to strengthen the family as a basic social
institution.
4
The Katarungang Pambarangay Law was originally promulgated on June 11, 1978 as Pres.
Decree No. 1508 issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos. It was substantially re-enacted as the
Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law under Chapter 7 of Local Government Code of 1991
(Rep. Act No. 7160).
H-1
The Katarungang Pambarangay (KB) Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms
Court has been issued that no compromise settlement has been reached
despite personal confrontation of the parties.5
B. Conditions for Application of the KB Law
1. Both parties are natural persons6
2. Both parties are actual residents7 of same city/town8
3. Dispute is not among those excepted from coverage9
C. Subject Matter Jurisdiction for KB Proceedings
1. Crimes where the imposable penalty does not exceed 1 year of

imprisonment or P5,000.00 fine.
2. All civil cases without limit on the amount or value of the property
involved in the dispute.10
D. Exclusions from KB Jurisdiction
1. Disputes involving the government, any subdivision, or instrumentality

thereof.
5
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, Sec. 412, Conciliation, Pre-condition to filing complaint in
court. The certification is that there has been a confrontation between the parties before the
upon chairman or the pangkat and that no conciliation has been reached. The certification is
made by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon chairman or
pangkat chairman
6
The requirement that both disputants must be natural persons is inferred from Sec. 410 of the
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, authorizing any individual who has a cause of action against
another individual to file a complaint. The use of the terms individual and not the generic
persons which include corporations, is intended to convey that narrower meaning.
7
The use of the term actually residing was intended to exclude legal residence
8
This requirement of actual residence in the larger local government unit of a city or municipality,
is provided for in Sec. 408 of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991. Notwithstanding its clear
provision, however, it is common error, even among lawyers, to equate this requirement with
residence in the same barangay, thus unduly restricting its broader application. The confusion is
understandable in light of the title that this system is only for administering justice in the
Barangay.
9
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, Sec. 408, provides that the coverage is for amicable
settlement of all disputes except...
10
Barangay conciliation is not restricted to jurisdictional amounts of first level courts, Morata et
al., v. Go and Hon. Tomol, G.R. No. 62339, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 444. Claim for
damages, regardless of the amount involved, arising from an offense outside the jurisdiction of
KB, may be settled under KB law (Opinion of Minister of Justice, No. 151, series of 1979 and No.
51, series of 1980, and Opinion dated October 25, 1982.)
H-2
2. Where a party is a public officer or employee and the dispute relates

to the performance of official functions.
3. Serious crimes where imposable penalty exceeds that within KB

jurisdiction of 1 year imprisonment or P5,000.00 fine
4. Victimless crimes where there is no private offended party
5. Disputes relating to real properties located in different cities or towns

unless parties agree to settle before the appropriate lupon
6. Where parties reside in different towns or cities unless the barangays

where they reside adjoin each other and they agree to settle before the
appropriate lupon
7. Disputes determined by the President, upon recommendation of the

Secretary of Justice, to be not appropriate for barangay settlement.
E. Special Jurisdiction for KB Proceedings.
Non-criminal cases not falling within KB jurisdiction may still be

referred to the lupon concerned by the court in which they are filed.11
F. Venue for Filing of Complaint: Before Lupon of Barangay:12
1. Where the respondent or any of the respondents actually resides
2. Where the real property or the larger portion thereof (involved in the
dispute) is situated
3. Where the workplace in which disputants are employed is located
4. Where the institution in which parties are enrolled for study is located
11
The limits to the broad scope of this extended authority have not been tested. Thus, it is not
settled whether corporations or non-residents of a city or town, may now avail of this remedy
based on this expanded jurisdiction.
12
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, Sec. 409: Venue.
H-3
G. Procedure for Settling Disputes under KB Law.
Barangay conciliation is a two step process:
First. Before the punong barangay as Lupon Chairman13 and

principal conciliator. He has 15 days to secure a settlement.
Second. If he fails, he must constitute a 3 person

pangkatngtagapagkasundo14 which is given a similar period of 15 days from
the day it convenes extendible for another of 15 days, except in clearly
meritorious cases.15
H. Arbitration
At any time during the two stages of conciliation stated above,16 the
parties may execute an agreement to arbitrate wherein they agree to
abide by the arbitration award made by the lupon chairman or the
pangkat17.
I. Repudiation, Grounds, Procedure
There are two kinds of repudiation that are available to an

aggrieved party under the KB Law. One is the repudiation of the
arbitration agreement that the parties may have agreed upon. Such
repudiation must be done within five (5) days from the date thereof for the
same grounds and in accordance with the procedure for repudiating the
settlement.
It is important to note that there is no remedy of repudiation of an

arbitral award. The proper remedy is a petition to nullify the award filed
before the proper city or municipal trial court.18
The second kind is the repudiation of the compromise agreement that

may have been secured. It must be personally filed by the aggrieved party
within ten (10) days from the date of the settlement in the form of a written
13
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, Sec. 410.
14
Id., Sec. 404.
15
Id., Sec. 410 (e).
16
Id., Sec. 413.
17
Arbitration is hardly resorted to at the Barangay level. The reason for this is that the process is
not well understood and thus, is hardly suggested as an alternative to the parties. See Tadiar
Research Survey on the Conciliation of Disputes under the KB Law, book bound mimeo, 215
pages, 1984, UP Law Center
18
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, Sec. 416 provides that a petition to nullify the award has
been filed before the proper city or municipal court.
H-4
statement that must be sworn to before the Lupon Chairman on the ground
that his consent thereto was vitiated by fraud, violence or intimidation19.
The grounds for repudiation of the arbitration agreement, as already noted
above, are the same.
It is significant to note that while fraud may be deemed to include

deceit, the other grounds that vitiate consent under the Civil Code, namely,
accident, mistake, or undue influence20, are not expressly included therein.
J. Enforcement of Settlement or Award
The KB Law provides as follows:
Sec. 417.Execution.- The amicable settlement or arbitration

award may be enforced by execution by the lupon within six
(6) months from the date of settlement21. After the lapse of
such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the
appropriate city or municipal court.22
K. Sanctions
The original law contains a provision on sanctions23 that would

impose the penalty as for indirect contempt of court upon proper
application therefore by the concerned KB official.
Further, if it is the complainant who refuses or willfully fails to

appear in compliance with the summons issued, the complaint shall be
dismissed and this fact shall be reflected in the records and in the minutes
so as to bar the complainant from seeking judicial recourse for the same
cause of action.
19
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, Sec. 418.
20
CIVIL CODE, Art. 1330 to 1346.
21
It must be noted that computation for execution by the Lupon is 6 months from date of
settlement. This is understandable since that is also the date when the parties signed the
compromise agreement. However, there is no provision for computing the period in the case of
an arbitral award which is certainly not signed by the parties. It is suggested that commencement
of the period is from date when the award was received by the parties.
22
A problem arises in a case where monthly installments for 12 months is agreed upon and
default is made only on the seventh month. If literal interpretation is made, then a new action to
collect the 7th to the 12th installments must already be filed in court. However, a logical
interpretation would construe the computation of the 6 month period from the date of breach
which is the accrual of the cause of action. On this interpretation, the motion for execution must
still be filed with the Lupon. This is in accord with the objective of decongesting court dockets.
23
Pres. Decree No. 1508, Sec. 4 (d).
H-5
On the other hand, if it is the Respondent who is at fault, he shall

be barred from filing any counterclaim arising out of or necessarily
connected therewith.
The foregoing sanctions were not carried over to the Revised KB

Law under the Local Government Code. However, said omissions in the
substantive law were sought to be filled in by the IRR in Rule VI, Section 8
which reinstates all the foregoing sanctions in Pres. Decree No. 1508.24
L. Court interventions in KB Law
There are several instances when court intervention may be made.

The first is for the imposition of a sanction as for contempt of court and bar
of the Complaint or the compulsory counterclaim from court proceedings.
Since said sanctions are now imposed by implementing rules, their
absence in the substantive law may be a good ground for challenge.25
The second instance is when a complaint is filed in court without a

certificate to file action or with a questionable certificate. This may happen
when it is the Lupon Chairman that issues the Certificate to File Action.
The constitution of the pangkat is mandatory26 and, therefore, it is
premature for the Lupon Chairman to issue said certificate simply because
Respondent did not appear for conciliation.
Under Administrative Circular No. 14-93 issued by Chief Justice

Andres Narvasa, it is the duty of the Court to carefully scrutinize cases that
are filed in order to check compliance with the KB Law and its IRR. The
certification must attest to the fact of personal confrontation between the
parties. Plainly, this is not true in the foregoing situation since the
certificate was issued immediately upon the non-appearance of the
Respondent and, therefore, no such confrontation had taken place.
In the foregoing situation, the case before the court should be

dismissed upon motion of defendant on the ground of lack of a cause of
action or prematurity27
24
This could be questioned as a procedural rule that exceeds substantive law.
25
The question of whether sanctions may be imposed on the authority of the IRR where there is
no sanctions provided in the substantive law, has not been tested.
26
KB IRR, Sec. 1 c (1).
27
Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 65072, January 31, 1984, 127 SCRA 470.
H-6
M. Advantages of Settling under the KB Law.
Dissatisfactions28 with the judicial resolution of disputes that are

costly, incomprehensible and very lengthy, are each positively addressed
by the Kararungang Pambarangay Law.
1. Less costly and easily accessible.
On the matter of heavy costs entailed by judicial processing, KB

dispute processing is the least expensive mode. A minimal filing of P5.00
to P20.0029 is charged for filing a complaint. Accessibility is assured by
making available dispute processing in every Barangay, thus bringing
justice literally at the door step of everyone. Travel time to a centralized
location where the courts are situated, becomes inconsequential.
Conciliation could be agreed upon, and often takes place at a venue or
time most convenient to the parties and the mediator. Thus, time taken
away from work is minimized.
2. Comprehensible proceedings.
On the matter of popular incomprehensibility of judicial proceedings

arising from its being conducted in a foreign language (English) and using
legal jargon, KB dispute processing are conducted in the vernacular or
language understood by the parties. Parties are encouraged to tell their
side of the dispute freely and unencumbered by a lawyers vigorous
objections based on legalities.
3. Non-intervention of lawyers30
In fact, it is important to stress that no lawyer is allowed to intervene

in Barangay conciliation proceedings, much less to make obstructive
objections on procedural grounds that would judicialize the dispute in the
manner that lawyers are trained for.
28
Former CJ Artemio Panganiban acronymized ACID as the popular dissatisfactions with the
judicial mode of resolving disputes. A stands for restricted ACCESS to the courts; C is for
CORRUPTION; I is for INCOMPETENCE; and D stands for DELAY in the delivery of justice.
29
KB IRR, Rule VI, Sec. 4.
30
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, Sec. 15 provides: Appearance of parties in person. - In all
KB proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel or
representative, except minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin who
are not lawyers.
H-7
4. Brevity of proceedings
On the matter of judicial delay, KB processing is restricted to a total

of 45 days.31
5. Compromise agreement is like court judgment
Finally, when the parties agree on the terms of their compromise

agreement, the KB law vests it with the force and effect of a court
judgment.32 Thus, in the event of non-compliance or violation of their
agreement, the aggrieved party may move for enforcement without having
to go to court. This is one of the most significant innovations introduced by
the KB law whereby a contract is in effect converted into an enforceable
judgment of a court of law.
N. Benefits to the administration of justice secured by the KB Law.
Statistics from the Bureau of Local Government Supervision

(BLGS) show that in the two decades and a half that the KB system has
been operating since 1980, a cumulative total of 5,142,708 cases or
79.19%33 have been settled that, it is concluded, would have been
otherwise filed in the judicial system.
Based on the average amount of P 9,500.0034 that is the estimated

cost to the government for each of those cases to be resolved, the
barangay justice system has saved the government the staggering sum of
P 34,204,340,750.00.35 The estimated cost per case resolved is arrived at
by adding the operating budget of the court for a year and dividing it by the
number of cases disposed of during that year. Actually, the cost would be
much more than that if the capital outlay costs (building the Halls of
Justice, purchase of typewriters/computers, for instance) were added.
By lessening the workload of judges through preventing the filing of

cases that would have been resolved judicially, the KB system has
undoubtedly contributed to a great degree in lessening court docket
congestion.
31
Id., Sec. 410: (b) limits the conciliation before the Lupon Chairman to 15 days from the first
meeting of the parties before him. Paragraph (e) limits conciliation before the Pangkat to 15
days from he day it convenes. . .extendible for another period which shall not exceed 15 days
32
Id., Sec. 416 provides that The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force
and effect of a final judgment of a court upon expiration of ten days from date thereof...
33
Totality of action taken by mediation, conciliation or arbitration, DILG National Summary Report
on KP Implementation from 1980 to 2009.
34
Estimated adjudication cost per case, DILG Summary Report of cases filed and action taken on
Katarungang Pambarangay Implementation for CY 2009.
35
Estimated Government Savings, DILG Summary Report on KP Implementation from 1980-
2009.
H-8
As to other objective of the KB system of broadening access to

justice, referring to an empirical study that this author conducted in San
Fernando, La Union, with funding assistance from The Asia Foundation
(TAF), the conclusion was reached that the respondents surveyed placed
great value on the KB system for having empowered them to resolve their
own disputes.
This people empowering objective has now been enshrined as a

State Policy in the ADR Act of 2004 (Rep. Act No. 9285) when it explicitly
expressed it as a state policy to respect party autonomy or the freedom of
the parties to make their own arrangement to resolve their own disputes36.
III. COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION (CAM) WITH MOBILE COURT-ANNEXED

MEDIATION (MCAM)
Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) is a long belated complement to the KB

Law. The latter seeks to screen out cases from being filed in court unless earnest
efforts to compromise the dispute have been exerted and failed. It addresses
cases that are still impending to be filed in court.
More than twenty (20) years later, CAM was introduced in 1999 to address
the cases that are pending in court. Its feasibility as a useful tool to unclog the
heavy court dockets37, was earlier shown by a pilot study approved by the Supreme
Court for Quezon City and San Fernando, La Union. Conducted in 1991-93 by the
UP Office of Legal Aid with funding from The Asia Foundation (TAF), and directed
by Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar38, the experiment showed a success rate of 31.14%
for the first level courts and 43.54% success rate for the RTC in San Fernando but
only an 11.76% success rate for Quezon City.
Court-Annexed Mediation Defined
Any mediation process conducted under the auspices of the court,

after such court has acquired jurisdiction of the dispute.39
Mediation Defined
A voluntary process in which a mediator selected by the parties,

facilitates communication and negotiation and assists the parties in
reaching a voluntary agreement regarding a dispute.40
36
Rep. Act No. 9285, Sec. 2
37
804,076 pending cases in the courts as of the end of 1998.
38
Court-Referred Mediation: An Experiment in Alternative Dispute Resolution UP Office of Legal
Aid, 1993, 127 pages, bookbound.
39
Rep. Act No. 9285, Sec. 2 (l).
40
Id., Sec. 2 (q).
H-9
Court-Referred Mediation Defined
Mediation ordered by a court to be conducted in accordance with

the Agreement of the Parties when an action is prematurely commenced
in violation of such agreement.41
Confusion Arising from Overlapping Definitions
Plainly, the definition of court-annexed mediation includes court-

referred mediation since the latter takes place after such court has
acquired jurisdiction of the dispute. The mischief of such overlapping
definitions is to produce a dilemma for the trial court judge, i.e.,
(1) to refer the case to the Philippine Mediation Center

(PMC) pursuant to and as mandatorily required by SC
issuance governing court-annexed mediation; or
(2) to refer the case to the mediator chosen by the parties.
Distinctions between Mediation and Adjudication
While both methods involve processes for resolving disputes, they

may be distinguished from each other in the following significant respects:
Standards Mediation Adjudication

1. Product Compromise Agreement Judgment
2. Maker of Product Parties themselves Judge
3. Focus Person Act
4. Outlook Forward Backward
5. Process Flexible Rigid
6. Result Win-Win Win-Lose
41
Id., Sec. 2 (l).
H-10
Each one of those distinctions shall be discussed separately, as
follows:
The product of mediation is a compromise agreement while the

product of adjudication is a judgment. As defined by the Civil Code, a
compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal
concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already
commenced.42
Although the judicial resolution of a dispute is often called a

decision, there is a distinction that may be drawn between the two terms -
decision and judgment. While a decision, such as to get married, may
often be based on emotions like love, hatred, and anger, judgment is
based on a rational evaluation of evidence bearing upon an issue that
relates to a relevant standard. Such standard distinguishes right from
wrong, legal from illegal, moral from immoral, or ethical from unethical.
Judgment is a product of the mind and emotion should not be allowed to
becloud rendition of a cold judgment.
A compromise that settles a dispute is the product of both parties

agreeing on the terms thereof. A judgment is the intellectual product of a
judge or an arbitrator for deciding which of the contending parties was
right or wrong in doing what is charged.
The focus of litigation is the act or omission that is complained of.

It is thus rightly called an act-oriented process. It is to prevent justice
from being swayed erroneously when one considers the kind of person
who committed the act charged, that the lady symbol of justice is
blindfolded not to see. Thus, evidence of character43, such as the social
rank, wealth or poverty, good or bad reputation, and the like, cannot be
initially introduced as they are considered prejudicial evidence. That
means evidence that may sway emotions and produce bias. After a
judgment of conviction for the crime charged, the sentencing stage now
becomes a person-oriented process so that the penalty maybe tailor-
suited to the particular person to be sentenced.
This is the case with the bifurcated trial of criminal cases that is
followed under the American system. It is only after a verdict of guilty that
the blindfold is literally removed to allow the imposition of a penalty
suitable to the person of a convicted accused after a thorough study is
made of the character of the person convicted. It is at this stage of
sentencing that the blindfold from the lady symbol of justice is removed.
42
CIVIL CODE, Art. 2028.
43
RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 51.
H-11
Unfortunately, in Philippine criminal trials, a mix-up takes place
whereby evidence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
considered together with evidence of guilt or innocence. It is like an
accused saying I am innocent but if you find me guilty, please be lenient
in imposing my punishment. This kind of trial has been criticized as more
prone to a miscarriage of justice than a bifurcated one.
In contrast, mediation is focused on the individual disputants and is

therefore aptly called a person-oriented process. Effort must be exerted
to determine what values each party holds, what are their interests, their
needs, their apprehensions and concerns. A good mediator, armed with
this knowledge, would then be able to effect a trade-off of values in order
to convince the parties to agree on a settlement. Such trade-off is formally
termed by the Civil Code as making reciprocal concessions to secure a
compromise that will avoid litigation or put an end to one already
commenced.
Since the focus of litigation is on the act, it must necessarily be

backward looking. This is because the ultimate purpose of litigation is to
punish for a wrong that was committed. While that purpose of punishment
is plain enough in criminal prosecutions, it is less obvious in civil cases.
Nevertheless, when one prays for punitive damages or exemplary or
corrective damages44 which are prayed for in the interest of the public
good to deter others from doing what was charged, the punitive orientation
of even civil litigation becomes obvious.
Once an act has been committed, it becomes a past event. In

criminal law, one can only be punished for an overt act that constitutes
part of a criminal attempt to commit a crime. This is the earliest stage at
which a crime may be punished. No one may be charged, much less be
punished for what he is merely intending to commit, is a sound principle in
the administration of criminal law in democratic countries.
On the other hand, mediation is forward looking in the sense that

its efforts are directed to reconciliation of the parties. The act charged is
merely the starting point to mend the relationship that was broken or
impaired because of it.
By reason of the foregoing distinctions, the mediation process must

necessarily be informal, even friendly, casual and flexible. In contrast, the
adjudicative process is formal, follows a rigid sequence, is distant and
aloof. This must be so in order to show the seriousness of the process
that may result in a deprivation of property, liberty or even life itself.
44
CIVIL CODE, Arts. 2229 to 2235.
H-12
The result of mediation may be a win-win agreement; that of
litigation must always be a win-lose decision. The judgment is a clear
condemnation of a wrong or the exoneration of innocence. It has been
insightfully observed that we need the black and white judgment of
litigation to keep alive our sense of right and wrong. Otherwise, the gray
area of a compromise may serve to dull it.
Expansion of PMC Units in the Philippines
As of December 2009, there are already 11045 Philippine Mediation

Center (PMC) units in the whole country with approximately 79846
accredited mediators.
The 98 CAM sites were not simultaneously, but cumulatively

established over a period of several years. Cumulatively, from 2001 to
2009, or a period of eight (8) years, for 33 sites (including Rizal and some
parts of Bulacan for MCAM), a total of 238,672 cases were referred to
CAM and 143,527 cases underwent mediation proceedings or an
acceptance rate of 60%. 96,158 cases resulted to successful mediation or
a success rate of 67%. Thus, 96,158 cases were out of the dockets of
2,026 courts in 33 sites for a period of eight (8) years or an average of 47
cases taken out of the docket per court for the said period.
Significantly, statistics gathered by the PMCO, reveal that during

the regular period for 2009, in 33 sites (including Rizal and Bulacan
through the Mobile Court-Annexed Mediation [MCAM]) covering 2,026
courts, there were 53,066 cases referred to CAM and MCAM of which
33,430 were mediated. Parties in 33,430 cases agreed to undergo
mediation proceedings (63% acceptance rate). 21,429 cases out of the
33,430 cases mediated resulted in successful mediation or a success rate
of 64% for the 2009 regular period. Thus, 21,429 cases were taken out of
the 2,026 courts dockets in 33 sites. Effectively, an average of 10 cases
were out of the case docket of each court in 2009 through CAM.
Concept of Court Diversion of Pending Cases
The diversion of pending court cases both to Court-Annexed

Mediation (CAM) and to Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) is plainly
intended to put an end to pending litigation through a compromise
agreement of the parties and thereby help solve the ever-pressing
problem of court dockets congestion. It is also intended to empower the
45
104 Court-Annexed Mediation Units, 2 Appeals Court Mediation units and 4 Mobile Court-
Annexed Mediation Units.
46
719 CAM Mediators and 79 ACM Mediators.
H-13
parties to resolve their own disputes and give practical effect to the State
Policy expressly stated in the ADR Act of 2004 (Rep. Act No. 9285, to wit:
to actively promote party autonomy in the resolution

of disputes or the freedom of the parties to make their
own arrangement to resolve disputes. Towards this
end, the State shall encourage and actively promote
the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as an
important means to achieve speedy and impartial
justice and de-clog court dockets
The Three Stages of Diversion
Simply stated, court diversion is a 3-stage process. The first

stage is the Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) where the judge
refers the parties to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) for the
mediation of their dispute by trained and accredited mediators.
Upon failing to secure a settlement of the dispute during the

first stage, a second stage (the JDR stage) sets in for another
attempt to be made for a settlement. At this stage, the JDR judge
sequentially becomes a mediator-conciliator-early neutral evaluator
in a continuing effort to secure a settlement. Still failing that second
attempt, the mediator-judge must turn over the case to another
judge (a new one chosen by raffle or nearest/pair judge) who will try
the unsettled case. The trial judge shall continue with the pre-trial
proper and, thereafter, proceed to try and decide the case.
The third stage is during the appeal where covered cases

are referred to the PMC-ACM unit for mediation.
The ultimate common end of both the Katarungang

Pambarangay Law and Court-Annexed Mediation is to restore the
role of the judiciary as the forum of last recourse to be resorted to
only after all prior earnest efforts to arrive at private
accommodation and resolution of disputes have failed.
Mandatory Coverage for CAM and JDR
The following cases shall be: 1) referred to Court-Annexed

Mediation (CAM) and 2) be the subject of JDR proceedings:
(1) All civil cases and the civil liability of criminal cases
covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, including
the civil liability of crimes charging violation of B.P. 22,
except those which by law may not be compromised;
H-14
(2) Special proceedings for the settlement of estates;
(3) All civil and criminal cases filed with a certificate to

file action issued by the Punong Barangay or the
PangkatngTagapagkasundo under the Revised
47
Katarungang Pambarangay Law;
(4) The civil aspect of Quasi Offenses under Title 14 of

the Revised Penal Code;
(5) The civil aspect of less grave felonies punishable by

correctional penalties not exceeding 6 years of
imprisonment where the offended party is a private
person;
(6) The civil aspect of estafa, theft, and libel;
The following cases shall not be referred to CAM and

JDR:
(1) Civil cases which by law cannot be compromised

(Article 2035, New Civil Code);
(2) Other criminal cases than those under paragraphs 3

to 6 above;
(3) Habeas Corpus petitions;
(4) All cases under Rep. Act No. 9262 (Violence against
Women and Children); and
(5) Cases with pending application for Restraining

Orders/Preliminary Injunctions.
However, in cases covered under 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.
47
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, Chapter 7 essentially re-enacts the Katarungang
Pambarangay Law with some revisions and, therefore, is referred to as the Revised KB Law.
H-15
Procedure in CAM
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
copies of the order for mediation and other pertinent pleadings filed to the
PMC.
2. Individual parties are required to personally appear for mediation. In

the event they cannot do so, their representatives must be fully authorized
to appear, negotiate and enter into a compromise by Special Power of
Attorney.
3. Corporate parties, partnership or other juridical entities, shall be

represented by a ranking corporate officer fully authorized by 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 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 Mediation Staff Officer in the PMC Unit
shall recommend three (3) mediators from whom said officer shall choose
by lot the one who will mediate the dispute.
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 determine their respective real interests in the
dispute. Thereafter, another joint conference may be held to consider
H-16
various options that may resolve the dispute through reciprocal
concession and on terms that are mutually beneficial
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 proceeding.
11. If no settlement has been reached at the end of the period given, the
case must be returned to the referring judge (or in appropriate cases the
JDR judge) for further proceedings.
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 in appropriate
cases the JDR judge), or upon any person who engages in abusive
conduct during mediation proceedings, may impose the appropriate
sanctions 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 attorneys 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.
Upon justifiable cause duly proved in the hearing called on the

motion to reconsider filed by the absent party, concurred in by the
concerned mediator, the sanctions imposed may be lifted or set aside in
the sound discretion of the referring judge.
Duration of Mediation in the PMC
The Mediator shall have a period of not exceeding thirty (30) days
to complete the mediation process. 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 motion filed by the Mediator with the
conformity of the parties.
H-17
Suspension of periods
The period during which the case is undergoing mediation shall be

excluded from the regular and mandatory periods for trial and rendition of
judgment in ordinary cases and in cases under summary proceedings.
Settlement
If full settlement is reached of the dispute, the parties, assisted by

their respective counsel, shall draft the compromise agreement which
shall be submitted to the court for judgment upon compromise or other
appropriate action. Where compliance is forthwith made, the parties shall
instead submit a satisfaction of claims or a mutual withdrawal of the case.
In this situation, the court shall enter an order dismissing the case.
If partial settlement is reached, the parties shall, with the assistance

of counsel, submit the terms thereof for the appropriate action of the court
without waiting for resolution of the unsettled part.
In relation to the unsettled part of the dispute, the court shall

proceed to conduct JDR proceedings in accordance with PART THREE
hereof where JDR is available.
IV. JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION (JDR)
JDR is conducted by a judge48 after parties fail to settle during Court-

Annexed Mediation (CAM). JDR proceedings are conducted in thirty (30) days
for first level courts (Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Metropolitan Trial Courts) and sixty (60) days for
second level courts (Regional Trial Courts)49 subject to extension at the
discretion of the JDR judge if settlement appears highly feasible.
The JDR judge becomes a mediator, early neutral evaluator and

conciliator. In fact, the JDR judge could be one or a combination of some or all
of said roles when conducting JDR. As a conciliator, the JDR judge persuades
parties to reconsider their reluctance to compromise. As an early neutral
evaluator, the JDR judge gives a confidential, reasoned oral evaluation but non-
binding opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of each partys case and their
chances of success. Based on practice, early neutral evaluation is conducted
48
In the following areas: City of San Fernando, Angeles City, and Pampanga; Bacolod City and
Negros Occidental; Baguio City and Benguet; Cagayan De Oro City and Misamis Oriental; San
Fernando City and La Union; and Makati City per Court En Banc Resolution, dated November 13,
2007, in Administrative Matter No. 04-1-12-SC-PHILJA.
H-18
during private caucus. As a mediator, the JDR judge actively facilitates and
assists negotiations among the parties.
The JDR judge shifts from rights-based approach to problem-solving

approach in resolving cases. The JDR judge focuses on interests and motivation
of parties and not their demands and positions. Thus, the JDR judge is not
bound by legal remedies but helps parties develop their own creative options for
their mutual gain.
As conciliator, early neutral evaluator, and/or mediator, the JDR judge

receives information in absolute confidence that could affect neutrality. Bias may
be created that could affect the impartiality of the judge in the trial of the case.
Moreover, parties will be more spontaneous once they are assured that the JDR
judge will not be the trial judge. Thus, in sites where JDR is in place, there is a
two-judge system the JDR judge and the trial judge.50
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.51
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 parties and
their counsels to proceed to the PMCU bringing with them copies of the
Order of Referral and major pleadings (complaint, answer etc.). 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 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 parties
to appear, the JDR judge may impose the appropriate sanctions and shall
continue with the proceedings of the case.52
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
50
A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-PhilJA, as amended, November 13, 2007, Part IV, No. 5, modified.
51
A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-PhilJA, as amended, November 13, 2007, Part IV, modified.
52
A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-PhilJA, as amended, November 13, 2007, Part IV, modified.
H-19
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 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.53
The JDR Judge shall not preside over the trial of the case54 when
parties did not settle their dispute at JDR.55
Courts
1. Multiple Sala Court - If the case is not resolved during JDR, it shall
be raffled to another branch for the pre trial proper56 up to
judgment.57
For cases with pending applications for restraining

orders/preliminary injunctions, the judge to whom the case was
raffled shall rule on the said applications. During the pre-trial stage,
the judge refers the case to CAM but if the parties do not settle at
CAM, the case will be raffled to another branch for JDR. If the
parties do not settle at JDR, the case will be returned to the branch
that ruled on the applications for the pre-trial proper and up to
judgment.58
2. Single Sala Court. Unless otherwise agreed upon as provided

below, the JDR proceedings will be conducted by the judge of the
pair court, if any, otherwise, by the judge of the nearest court as
determined by the concerned Executive Judge. The JDR
proceedings shall be conducted at the station where the case was
originally filed. The result of the JDR proceedings shall be referred
to the court of origin for appropriate action e.g. approval of the
compromise agreement, trial, etc.
53
A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-PhilJA, as amended, November 13, 2007, Part III, last paragraph,
modified.
54
Parties will be more spontaneous once they are assured that the JDR judge will not be the one
to try the case. This is so because, the JDR judge may have elicited confidential information that
may create bias and partiality that could affect the judgment.
55
A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-PhilJA, as amended, November 13, 2007, Part IV, second paragraph.
56
Rule 18, Sec. 2, paragraphs b, c, d, e, f, g, and i.
57
A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-PhilJA, as amended, November 13, 2007, Part IV, No. 1.
58
Includes post-judgment proceedings e.g. motion for reconsideration, execution, etc.
H-20
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties may file, by joint
written motion, a request before commencement of the JDR
proceedings that the court of origin shall conduct the JDR
proceedings and trial.59
3. Family Courts Unless otherwise agreed upon as provided below,

the JDR proceedings in areas where only one court is designated
as a family court, shall be conducted by a judge of another branch
through raffle. However, if there is another family court in the same
area, the family court to whom the case was originally raffled shall
conduct JDR proceedings and if no settlement is reached, the
other family court shall conduct the pre-trial proper and trial.

proceedings that the family court to whom the case was originally
raffled, shall conduct the JDR proceedings and trial.
Despite the non-mediatable nature of the principal like

annulment of marriage, other issues such as custody of children,
support, visitation, property relations and guardianship may be
referred to CAM and JDR to limit the issues for trial.60
4. Commercial, Intellectual Property and Environmental Courts - Unless

otherwise agreed upon as provided below, the JDR proceedings in
areas where only one court is designated commercial/intellectual
property/environmental, hereafter the special courts, shall be
conducted by another judge through raffle and not the judge of the
special courts. Where settlement is not reached, the judge of the
special courts shall be the trial judge. Any incident or motion filed
before the pre-trial stage shall be dealt with by the special courts that
shall refer the case to CAM.61

proceedings that the special courts to whom the case was originally
raffled, shall conduct the JDR proceedings and trial.
59
60
61
H-21
JDR During Trial
Cases may be referred to JDR even during the trial stage upon
written motion of one or both parties indicating willingness to discuss a
possible compromise. If the motion is granted the trial shall be
suspended62 and the case referred to JDR which shall be conducted by
another judge through raffle in multiple sala courts.
If settlement is reached during JDR, the JDR court shall take

appropriate action thereto i.e. approval/disapproval of the compromise
agreement. If settlement is not reached at JDR, the case is returned to
the referring court for continuation of trial.
In single sala courts, the JDR shall be conducted by the nearest

court (or pair court, if any) regardless of the level of the latter court. The
result of the JDR proceedings shall be referred to the court of origin for
appropriate action e.g. approval of the compromise agreement, trial, etc.
The parties may, by joint written motion, despite confidential

information that may be divulged during JDR proceedings, file a request
that their case be not transferred to other courts for JDR and that they
agree to have the trial judge continue the trial should the case not be
settled through JDR
Settlement Period
Any Settlement Period declared by the Supreme Court is

understood to include JDR and, therefore, half of all cases referred to
mediation shall be for JDR settlement. The procedure shall be as stated
in Roman Numeral IV above, except that no written motion is required
from the parties for their case to be referred to JDR.63
Party Participation
1. Individual Party Litigants
The party litigants shall attend all mediation conferences in

person or through duly authorized representatives. The authority of the
representative shall be in writing and shall state that he or she is fully
empowered to offer, negotiate, accept, decide and enter into a
compromise agreement without need of further approval by or
notification to the authorizing party.
62
CIVIL CODE, Art. 2030, par. 1.
63
H-22
2. Corporate Party Litigants
In case of corporations, the representative must be a senior

management official with written authority from the Board of Directors
to offer, negotiate, accept, decide and enter into compromise
agreement without need of further approval by or notification to the
authorizing party.64
Judgments/Decisions in JDR Decisions/ Judgments approving

the compromise of parties through the efforts of the judge as a
mediator, conciliator or neutral evaluator shall contain a statement to
the effect that the Judgments/Decisions were achieved through JDR.
This is to distinguish Judgments/Decisions approving compromise
agreements secured through CAM. Copies of said
Judgments/Decisions shall be submitted to the Philippine Mediation
Center Unit for documentation purposes.65
Sanctions
A party who fails to appear on the date set for JDR conference,
may forthwith be imposed the appropriate sanctions 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, requiring
the absent party to reimburse the appearing party his costs, including
attorneys fees for that day, up to treble such costs, payable on or before
the4 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.
64
A.M. No. 0-3-15-SC, 23 March 2004 and A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-PhilJA, as amended, November
13, 2007, Part IV, No. 11, modified.
65
A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-PhilJA, as amended, November 13, 2007, Part IV, No. 12.
H-23
Duration of JDR proceedings
To complete the judicial dispute resolution process, judges of First

Level Courts shall have a period of not exceeding thirty (30) days while
judges of Second Level Courts shall have a period of not exceeding sixty
(60) days. A longer period, however, may be granted upon discretion of
the JDR judge if there is a high probability of settlement and upon joint
written motion of the parties. Both periods shall be computed from the
date when the parties first appeared for JDR proceedings as directed in
the respective orders issued by the judge. As far as practicable, JDR
conferences shall be set not more than two (2) weeks apart so as to afford
parties ample time to negotiate meaningfully for settlement.66
In criminal cases covered by CAM & JDR, 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 notice to the private
complainant and approval by the judge.67
Suspension of periods
The period during which the case is undergoing JDR proceedings

shall be excluded from the regular and mandatory periods for trial and
rendition of judgment in ordinary cases and in cases under summary
proceedings.
Settlement
A. Civil Cases
If full settlement is reached of the dispute, the parties,

assisted by their respective counsel, shall draft the compromise
agreement which shall be submitted to the court for a judgment
upon compromise, enforceable by execution.
Where full compliance with the terms of the compromise is

forthwith made, the parties, instead of submitting a compromise
agreement, shall submit a satisfaction of claims or a mutual
withdrawal of the parties respective claims and counterclaims. In
this case, the court shall enter an order dismissing the case.
66
A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-PhilJA, as amended, November 13, 2007, Part IV, Nos. 6 and 10,
modified.
67
A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-PhilJA, as amended, November 13, 2007, Part IV, No. 7 on archiving
N.B. held for further study, modified.
H-24
If partial settlement is reached, the parties shall, with the
assistance of counsel, submit the terms thereof for the courts
approval and rendition of a judgment upon partial compromise
which may be enforced by execution without waiting for resolution
of the unsettled part.
In relation to the unsettled part of the dispute, the court shall

proceed to conduct trial on the merits of the case should the parties
file a joint motion for him to do so, despite confidential information
that may have been divulged during the conciliation/mediation stage
of the proceedings. Otherwise, the JDR Judge shall turn over the
case to a new judge by re-raffle in multiple sala courts or to the
originating court in single sala courts, for the conduct of pre-trial
proper and trial.
B. Criminal Cases
If settlement is reached on the civil aspect of the criminal

case, the parties, assisted by their respective counsel, shall draft the
compromise agreement which shall be submitted to the court for
appropriate action.
Action on the criminal aspect of the case will be determined

by the Public Prosecutor subject to the appropriate action of the
court.
If settlement is not reached by the parties on the civil aspect

of the criminal case, the JDR judge shall proceed to conduct the trial
on the merits of the case should the parties file a joint written motion
for him to do so, despite confidential information that may have been
divulged during the JDR proceedings. Otherwise, the JDR Judge
shall turn over the case to a new judge by re-raffle in multiple sala
courts or to the originating court in single sala courts, for the conduct
of pre-trial proper and trial.
Pre-trial Proper
Where no settlement or only a partial settlement was reached, and

there being no joint written motion submitted by the parties as stated in the
last preceding paragraphs, the JDR judge shall turn over the case to the
trial judge, determined by re-raffle in multiple sala courts or to the
originating court in single sala courts, as the case may be, to conduct pre-
trial proper as mandated by Rules 18 and 118 of the Rules of Court.
H-25
Trial and Judgment
The trial judge to whom the case was turned over, shall
expeditiously proceed to trial following pre-trial and thereafter render
judgment in accordance with the established facts determined by the
judge and the applicable laws.
V. JDR FOR RTC AS APPELLATE COURT FROM FIRST LEVEL COURTS
To date, trial courts in JDR sites do not only conduct JDR proceedings in
cases initially filed with them since the Supreme Court has already issued
Administrative Order No. 28-2009 dated March 2, 2009 directing all regional trial
courts in JDR sites acting as appellate courts in appeals from first level courts to
conduct JDR on appeal.
VI. APPELLATE COURT MEDIATION (ACM)
The Supreme Court expanded CAM to the Court of Appeals in 200268

Court of Appeals mediators were, however, limited to retired justices and judges,
senior members of the Bar and senior law professors who are trained and
accredited by the Supreme Court.
VII. NEED FOR CONSOLIDATION OF RULES
Some unexpected confusion in the implementation of court diversion of

pending cases to court-annexed mediation has arisen over the years. This is due
to the facts that 1) separate issuances/guidelines from the Supreme Court
govern the operations of Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute
Resolution (JDR); 3) such separate issuances/guidelines are separately
addressed to two distinct groups, eg., one to CAM in areas where the PMCO has
established operational units; and the others in five (5) provinces (Negros
Occidental, Misamis Oriental, Pampanga, Benguet, and La Union and in Makati
City; 4) such issuances/guidelines were made at different times spread out over
a period of several years; and 5) such issuances/guidelines contain different
coverage of cases for the mediation of cases under CAM and JDR.
The result of this confusion is that there is no authority to collect mediation

fees for theft despite its having been included as a mediatable case. The
question has been raised as to whether the amendment of Rule 141, which was
intended principally to provide authority to collect mediation fees, also expanded
68
Administrative Matter No. 02-2-17-SC, April 16, 2002.
H-26
the coverage of mediatable cases which were vested by separate issuances of
the Supreme Court.
Further, there is no statement of a rationale why estafa, libel and theft

have been included as mediatable cases for their civil as aspects, irrespective of
the gravity of the offenses that they carry.
For all the foregoing reasons, the PMCO Executive Committee has
endorsed to the PHILJA Board of Trustees such consolidated guidelines.69
Thereafter, the Supreme Court approved the Consolidated and Revised
Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of Court-Annexed Mediation
and Judicial Dispute Resolution. 70
VIII. NEED TO EXPAND COVERAGE OF MEDIATION
Although an impressive settlement rate has been achieved for cases

diverted to mediation, a still greater impact can be achieved by continuing the
expansion of the criminal coverage of CAM and JDR. This can be done without
necessarily affecting societal security.
Deterrence, which is achieved from a consistent and swift imposition of

the appropriate penalties imposed by law for the crime committed, is the principle
upon which societal security rests. It is for this reason that Article 2034 of the
Civil Code provides that:
There may be a compromise upon the civil liability

arising from the offense, but such compromise shall not
extinguish the public action for the imposition of the legal
penalty.
It is significantly important to note that the above-quoted statutory

provision does not restrict the offense for which a compromise may be reached
on the civil liability arising therefrom, to a category that is merely a light felony or
a misdemeanor. The gravity of the offense, as may be gauged from the
imposable penalty, is not mentioned in the Civil Code as a condition to allow
compromises on the civil aspects thereof. Inferably, therefore, the allowed
compromise of the civil liability applies to all crimes subject only to the policy
considerations of deterrence variables arising from the celerity, certainty and
severity of punishments actually imposed.71
69
65th Meeting of PHILJA Board of Trustees, November 4, 2009.
70
Court en banc Resolution dated January 11, 2011 in A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA
71
Jeremy Bentham, the noted English Utilitarian, posits that of the three variables, severity is the
least important of them.
H-27
As a result of the foregoing reasoning, and considering that generally, the
caseloads of courts are about 75% criminal,72 it was proposed73 to expand the
criminal case coverage for mediation to include the civil aspect of all crimes
falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the first level courts.
The rationale for such proposal is that the accused who are charged of
offenses which are punishable by a penalty not exceeding 6 years of
imprisonment or prision correccional, if convicted, is not intended to be punished
but to be corrected and rehabilitated. Even the nomenclature of the penalty,
correccional, infers such a purpose of teaching a lesson to effect a rehabilitation.
Such a rationale is further clearly inferred from the fact that such offenses are
subject to probation.
The convicted offender who is qualified, is granted a conditional freedom

and released to society. It is further relevant to and significant to note that that
the Department of Justice has initiated and is running a program of training
prosecutors to be mediators for criminal cases where the imposable penalty does
not exceed six years. 74
In contrast, the penalties classified under the Revised Penal Code as

afflictive and capital,75 are explicit that their purpose is outright punishment due to
enforced isolation or even permanent removal from society of the convict to
ensure public safety. Thus, the imposition of afflictive penalties for grave
offenses is surely the underlying basis for achieving the principle of deterrence,
not only for the person punished but also for the benefit of general society
through the principle of exemplarity.
IX. SPECIAL ADR RULES OF COURT76
PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS AND POLICIES
RULE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
Rule 1.1 Subject matter and governing rules

Rule 1.2 Nature of the proceedings
Rule 1.3 Summary proceedings in certain cases
72
Summary Report of Cases for 2006 shows that only 108,855 civil cases were pending at that
period, while 524,685 criminal cases were similarly pending.
73
The proposal was made by the author to the PMCO Executive Committee, based on a study
conducted and funded by The Asia Foundation.
74
DOJ Mediation Program.
75
Article 25, RPC, categorizes these penalties as those punishable with prision mayor, reclusion
temporal, reclusion perpetua and death (6 years and 1 day, 20 years and life imprisonment to
death).
76
For complete text of the Rules, see enclosed CD.
H-28
Rule 1.4 Verification and submissions
Rule 1.5 Certification against forum shopping
Rule 1.6 Prohibited submissions
Rule 1.7 Computation of time
Rule 1.8 Service and filing of pleadings, motions and other papers
in non-summary proceedings
Rule 1.9 No summons
Rule 1.10 Contents of petition/motion
Rule 1.11 Definitions
Rule 1.12 Applicability of Part II on Specific Court Relief
Rule 1.13 Spirit and intent of the Special ADR Rules
RULE 2: STATEMENT OF POLICIES
Rule 2.1 General policies

Rule 2.2 Policy on arbitration
Rule 2.3 Rules governing arbitral proceedings
Rule 2.4 Policy implementing competence-competence principle
Rule 2.5 Policy on mediation
Rule 2.6 Policy o Arbitration-Mediation or Mediation-Arbitration
Rule 2.7 Conversion of a settlement agreement to an arbitral
award.
PART II SPECIFIC COURT RELIEF
RULE 3: JUDICIAL RELIEF INVOLVING THE ISSUE OF

EXISTENCE, VALIDITY AND ENFORCEABILITY OF THE
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
Rule 3.1 When judicial relief is available
A. Judicial Relief before Commencement of Arbitration
Rule 3.2 Who may file petition

Rule 3.3 When the petition may be filed
Rule 3.4 Venue
Rule 3.5 Grounds
Rule 3.6 Contents of petition
Rule 3.7 Comment/Opposition
Rule 3.8 Court action
Rule 3.9 No forum shopping
Rule 3.10 Application for interim relief
Rule 3.11 Relief against court action
H-29
B. Judicial Relief after Arbitration Commences
Rule 3.12 Who may file petition

Rule 3.13 When petition may be filed
Rule 3.14 Venue
Rule 3.15 Grounds
Rule 3.17 Comment/opposition
A. Period for resolving the petition
B. No injunction of arbitration proceedings
C. When dismissal of petition is appropriate
Rule 3.20 Where no petition is allowed
Rule 3.21 Rendition of arbitral award before court decision on
petition from arbitral tribunals preliminary ruling on jurisdiction
Rule 3.22 Arbitral tribunal a nominal party
RULE 4: REFERRAL TO ADR
Rule 4.1Who makes the request

Rule 4.2 When to make request
Rule 4.3 Contents of request
Rule 4.6 No reconsideration, appeal or certiorari
Rule 4.7 Multiple actions and parties
Rule 4.8 Arbitration to proceed
RULE 5: INTERIM MEASURES OF PROTECTION
Rule 5.1 Who may ask for interim measures of protection

Rule 5.2 When to petition
Rule 5.3 Venue
Rule 5.4 Grounds
Rule 5.6 Types of interim measures of protection
Rule 5.7 Dispensing with prior notice in certain cases
Rule 5.11 Duty of the court to refer back
Rule 5.12 Security
Rule 5.13 Modification, amendment, revision or revocation
H-30
Rule 5.14 Conflict or inconsistency between interim measure by
court and by arbitral tribunal
Rule 5.15 Court to defer action on interim measures upon
constitution of tribunal
Rule 5.16 Court assistance should tribunal be unable to enforce
RULE 6: APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS
Rule 6.1 When court may act as appointing authority

Rule 6.2 Who may request for appointment
Rule 6.3 Venue
Rule 6.6 (skipped rule)
Rule 6.8 Forum shopping prohibited
RULE 7: CHALLENGE TO APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS
Rule 7.1 Who may challenge

Rule 7.2 When challenge may be raised in court
Rule 7.3 Venue
Rule 7.4 Grounds
Rule 7.8 No motion for reconsideration
Rule 7.9 Reimbursement of expenses and reasonable
compensation
RULE 8: TERMINATION OF MANDATE OF ARBITRATOR
Rule 8.1 Who may request for termination and on what grounds
Rule 8.2 When to request
Rule 8.3 Venue
Rule 8.7 No motion for reconsideration or appeal
Rule 8.8 Appointment of substitute arbitrator
H-31
RULE 9: ASSISTANCE IN TAKING EVIDENCE
Rule 9.1 Who may request assistance

Rule 9.2 When assistance may be sought
Rule 9.3 Venue
Rule 9.4 Ground
Rule 9.5 Type of assistance
Rule 9.10 Perpetuation of testimony before arbitral tribunal
constituted
Rule 9.11 Consequence of disobedience.
RULE 10. CONFIDENTIALIY/PROTECTIVE ORDERS
Rule 10.1 Who may request confidentiality

Rule 10.2 When request made
Rule 10.3 Venue
Rule 10.4 Grounds
Rule 10.6 Notice
Rule 10.10 Consequence of disobedience
RULE 11: CONFIRMATION, CORRECTION OR VACATION OF

AWARD IN DOMESTIC ARBITRATION
Rule 11.1 Who may request confirmation, correction or vacation

Rule 11.2 When to request confirmation, correction or vacation
A. Confirmation
B. Correction/Modification
C. Vacation
Rule 11.3 Venue
Rule 11.4 Grounds
Rule 11.5 Form of petition
Rule 11.7 Notice
Rule 11.8 Hearing
H-32
RULE 12: RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OR SETTING
ASIDE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION
AWARD
Rule 12.1 Who may request recognition and enforcement

Rule 12.2 When to file petition
(A) Petition to recognize and enforce
(B) Petition to set aside
Rule 12.3 Venue
Rule 12.4 Grounds to set aside or resist enforcement
Rule 12.5 Exclusive recourse against arbitral award
Rule 12.6 Form
Rule 12.8 Notice
Rule 12.9 Submission of documents
Rule 12.10 Hearing
Rule 12.11.Suspension of proceedings to set aside
Rule 12.12 Presumption in favor of confirmation
Rule 12.13 Judgment of the court
Rule 12.14 Costs
RULE 13: RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN

ARBITRAL AWARD
Rule 13.1 Who may request recognition and enforcement

Rule 13.2 When to request petition
Rule 13.3 Venue
Rule 13.4 Governing law and grounds to refuse recognition and
enforcement
Rule 13.6 Notice and opposition
Rule 13.7 Opposition
Rule 13.8 Submissions
Rule 13.9 Hearing
Rule 13.10 Adjournment/deferment of decision to enforce award
Rule 13.12 Recognition and enforcement of non-convention award
H-33
PART III PROVISIONS SPECIFIC TO MEDIATION
Rule 14.1 Application of the rules on arbitration
RULE 15: DEPOSIT AND ENFORCEMENT OF MEDIATED

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
Rule 15.1 Who makes a deposit

Rule 15.2 When deposit is made
Rule 15.3 Venue
Rule 15.4 Registry Book
Rule 15.5 Enforcement of mediated settlement agreement
PART IV PROVISIONS SPECIFIC TO CONSTRUCTION

ARBITRATION RULE
Rules 16.1 Application of the rules on arbitration
RULE 17: REFERRAL TO CIAC
Rule 17.1 Dismissal of action

Rule 17.2 Form and contents of motion
Rule 17.4 Hearing
Rule 17.5 Court Action
Rule 17.6 Referral immediately executory
Rule 17.7 Multiple actions and parties
Rule 17.8 Referral
PART V PROVISIONS SPECIFIC TO OTHER FORMS OF ADR
Rule 18.1 Applicability of rules to other forms of ADR

Rule 18.2 Applicability of rules on mediation
H-34
Rule 18.3 Applicability of rules on arbitration
Rule 18.4 Referral
Rule 18.5 Submission of settlement agreement
PART VI MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, APPEAL AND

CERTIORARI
RULE 19: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, APPEAL AND

CERTIORARI
A. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Rule 19.1 Motion for reconsideration
Rule 19.2 When to more for reconsideration
Rule 19.3 Contents and notice
Rule 19.4 Opposition or comment
Rule 19.5 Resolution of motion
Rule 19.6 No second motion for reconsideration
B. GENERAL PROVISIONS ON APPEAL AND CERTIORARI
Rule 19. 7 No appeal or certiorari on merits of arbitral award

Rule 19. 8 Subject matter and governing rules
Rule 19. 9 Prohibited alternative remedies
Rule 19.10 Rule on judicial review of arbitration in Philippines
Rule 19.11 Rule on judicial review of foreign arbitral award.
C. APPEALS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Rule 19.12 Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Rule 19.13 Where to appeal
Rule 19.14 When to appeal
Rule 19.15 How appeal taken
Rule 19.16 Contents of the petition
Rule 19.17 Effect of failure to comply with requirements
Rule 19.18 Action on the petition
Rule 19.19 Contents of Comment
Rule 19. 20 Due course
Rule 19.21 Transmittal of Records
Rule 19. 22 Effect of appeal
Rule 19. 23 Submission for decision
Rule 19. 24 Subject of appeal restricted in certain instance
Rule 19. 25 Party appealing decision of court confirming award
required to post bond
H-35
D. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI
Rule 19.26 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals

Rule 19.27 Form
Rule 19.28 When to file petition.
Rule 19.29 Arbitral tribunal a nominal party in the petition
Rule 19.30 Court to dismiss petition.
Rule 19.31 Order to comment.
Rule 19.32 Arbitration may continue despite petition for certiorari.
Rule 19.33 Prohibition against injunctions.
Rule 19.34 Proceedings after comment is filed.
Rule 19.35 Service and enforcement of order or judgment
E. APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
Rule 19.36 Review discretionary

Rule 19.37 Filing of petition with Supreme Court
Rule 19.38 Time for filing; extension
Rule 19.39 Docket and other lawful fees; proof of service of petition
Rule 19.41 Dismissal or denial of petition
Rule 19.42 Due course; elevation of records
PART VII FINAL PROVISIONS
RULE 20: FILING AND DEPOSIT FEES
Rule 20.1 Filing fee in petitions

Rule 20.2 Filing fee for action to enforce as a counter-petition
Rule 20.3 Deposit fee for mediated settlement agreements
Rule 20.4 Filing fee for other proceedings
RULE 21: COSTS
Rule 21.1 Costs

Rule 21.2 On dismissal of petition against ruling of arbitral tribunal
on preliminary question upholding jurisdiction
Rule 21.3 On recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral
tribunal award
Rule 21.4 Costs
Rule 21.5 Bill of costs
Rule 21.6 Government exemption for payment of fees
H-36
RULE 22: APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES OF COURT
Rule 22.1 Applicability of Rules of Court
RULE 23: SEPARABILITY
Rule 23.1 Separability Clause
RULE 24: TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
Rule 24.1 Transitory provision
RULE 25: ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Rule 25.1 Applicability of Special ADR Rules to Online Dispute

Resolution
Rule 25.2 Scope of online dispute resolution
RULE 26: EFFECTIVITY
Rule 26.1 Effectivity
Necessity for Promulgation
This is a positive response of the Supreme Court to the several

provisions of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (Rep. Act No.
9285)77 relating to remedies that may be filed in accordance with such
rules of procedure as may be promulgated by the Supreme Court78
Purpose
The discernible intent is to establish a parallel track for ADR

dispute resolution alongside the judicial track and prohibit court
intervention with ADR processes unless allowed under ADR Laws or the
77
Passed April 2, 2004.
78
Section 17 (c), relating to enforcement of a settlement deposited in court; Effectivity. - By an En
Banc Resolution (A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC) issued on September 1, 2009, the Special Rules of
Court on ADR took effect on October 30, 2009 following its publication in three (3) newspapers
of general circulation. Rep. Act No. 9285, Sec. 40, paragraph 4, relating to judicial confirmation
of a domestic award.
H-37
Special ADR Rules79 Thus, the courts are enjoined to extend their
greatest cooperation and (to exercise) the least intervention.80
The Special ADR Rules of Court is intended to govern the

procedure to be followed by the courts whenever judicial intervention is
sought in ADR proceedings in the specific cases where it is allowed.
Exclusions
1) The Special ADR Rules of Court do not apply to Court-Annexed

Mediation which shall be governed by issuances of the Supreme
Court.81
2) The law does not apply to the resolution or settlement of labor disputes
under the Labor Code.82
X. Conditions for Arbitration to Proceed
1) A valid and enforceable arbitration agreement in the contract for future

disputes.83
2) A submission agreement for arbitration of present dispute.84
XI. Features
1) Intrinsic value.- People empowerment is promoted by both the ADR

Law and the Special ADR Rules of Court by declaring as a policy of
the State to respect party autonomy or the freedom of the parties to
make their own arrangements in the resolution of disputes85
2) Instrumental value.- It recognizes that ADR, particularly arbitration and

mediations (are) important means to achieve speedy and efficient
resolution of disputes, impartial justice, curb a litigious culture and to
de-clog court dockets.86
79
SPECIAL ADR RULES OF COURT, Rule 2.2 Policy on arbitration (B).
80
Id., Rule 2.1: General policies.
81
Id., Rule 2.5: Policy on mediation.
82
Rep. Act No. 9285, Sec. 6: Exceptions to the application of this Act.
83
Rep. Act No. 876, Sec. 2: parties to a contract may in such contract agree to settle by
arbitration a controversy thereafter arising between them.
84
Id., parties may submit to arbitration any controversy existing between them
85
SPECIAL ADR RULES, Rule 2.1: General policies.
86
Id.
H-38
3) Need for judicial confirmation of award to make it enforceable. All
awards made by an arbitrator or arbitral tribunal requires confirmation
by a court of law in order to be enforceable.87
Exception: A CIAC Arbitral award need not be confirmed by the

Regional Trial Court to be executory as provided under Executive
Order No. 100888
4) The Special ADR Rules of Court do not govern the arbitration

proceedings itself. In ad hoc arbitration, the parties are free to agree
on the procedure to be followed in the conduct of arbitral
proceedings.89 However, they may agree to submit their dispute to
institutional arbitration rules.90
5) The law and the Special Rules recognize that construction disputes
shall be governed by Exec. Order No. 1008 and its arbitration rules.91
6) Construction disputes filed in court shall be dismissed and referred to

CIAC arbitration. 92
7) The Revised Rules of Court may not be resorted to even in a

suppletory capacity.93
8) The Special ADR Rules of Court now resolves conflicting procedural

remedies of appeal with confirmation/vacation of the award.94
Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court allows appeals to the Court

of Appeals from an award made by any quasi-judicial agency in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Included in the list of such
agencies are Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary
arbitrators authorized by law.
87
Rep. Act No. 9285, Sec. 40: Confirmation of Award.
88
Id., Sec. 40, paragraph 4.
89
Rule 2.3 Rules governing arbitral proceedings.
90
Rep. Act No. 9285, Sec. 26: Meaning of appointing authority.
91
Id., Sec. 34. Arbitration of construction disputes: Governing Law, The arbitration of
construction disputes shall be governed by Executive Order No. 1008, otherwise known as the
Construction Industry Arbitration Law.
92
Id., Sec. 39. Court to dismiss case involving construction disputes.
93
The suppletory application of the Rules of Court was proposed but was objected to by the
technical working group. Instead, Rule 22.1 was approved in effect stating that those relevant
provisions of the Rules of Court have either been included and incorporated in these Special
ADR Rules, or specifically referred to herein. Therefore, there is no need for providing for its
suppletory application.
94
Rule now mandates the joinder of the two remedies if filed separately.
H-39
On the other hand, Section 23 of the general Arbitration Law 95
require that an award must first be confirmed by a Regional Trial Court
where the parties reside and an appeal therefrom is allowed under Section
29 thereof.
Based on experience arising from an actual case where the

foregoing conflicting jurisdictions arose, the Special ADR Rules of Court
resolves the conflict by providing as follows:
Rule 19.7 No appeal or certiorari on the merits of an arbitral

award. An agreement to refer a dispute to arbitration shall mean that
the arbitral award shall be final and binding.
Consequently, a party to an arbitration is precluded from filing

an appeal or a petition for certiorari questioning the merits of an
arbitral award.
Where the losing party files an action to vacate or modify the award
and the prevailing party files a separate petition to confirm the award in its
favor, upon motionof either party, the court may order the consolidation of
the two cases before either court.96
9) All actions under the Special ADR Rules of Court are classified as
special proceedings97. This means that an initiatory pleading is a
petition.
10) A large number of judicial interventions are by summary

proceedings.98 This requires personal service and filing of petition or
by courier service,99 a hearing conducted in one (1) day and only for
purposes of clarifying facts and requires the court to resolve the
matter within a period of thirty (30) days from the day of hearing.100
11) Arbitration rule on competence-competence now enforced.
Under this principle,101 the first opportunity to rule on the issue of

whether a Tribunal has jurisdiction over a dispute must be given to the
Tribunal itself. Accordingly, the rule requires a court to exercise judicial
restraint and defer to the Tribunal on this issue.
95
Rep. Act No. 876.
96
SPECIAL ADR RULES OF COURT, Rule 11.5, paragraph 5.
97
Id., Rule 1.2: All proceedings under the Special ADR Rules are special proceedings.
98
Id., Rule 1.3 lists nine (9) interventions that are required to follow summary procedure.
99
Id., No provision is made for service by postal service.
100
Id.
101
Id., Rule 2.3 Policy implementing competence-competence principle.
H-40
12) Appeal to the Supreme Court now discretionary.
The reason for this restriction is to shorten the period of judicial

review of arbitration awards. Disputants resort to arbitration knowing that it
is an expeditious remedy to resolve disputes. A contrary rule would be a
disincentive to resort to arbitration and would contravene the State policy
of least intervention from the courts. This new policy is clearly stated in the
following provision:
Rule 19.36 Review discretionary. A review by the Supreme

Court is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion
which will be granted only for serious and compelling reasons
resulting in grave prejudice to the aggrieved party.
H-41

ADR Tadiar Notes PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADR Tadiar Notes PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY (KB) LAW AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) MECHANISMS

THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY (KB) LAW AND

I. COMMON PURPOSES OF KB AND ADR

A. To help lighten judicial workload and decongest heavy court dockets.1

B. To empower the people to resolve their own disputes.2

C. To preserve the Filipino culture of prior conciliation to resolve their

II. THE KB LAW4

To prevent the indiscriminate filing of cases in court by barring the

WHEREAS In order to help relieve the courts of such dockets

B. Conditions for Application of the KB Law

1. Both parties are natural persons6

2. Both parties are actual residents7 of same city/town8

3. Dispute is not among those excepted from coverage9

C. Subject Matter Jurisdiction for KB Proceedings

1. Crimes where the imposable penalty does not exceed 1 year of

D. Exclusions from KB Jurisdiction

1. Disputes involving the government, any subdivision, or instrumentality

2. Where a party is a public officer or employee and the dispute relates

3. Serious crimes where imposable penalty exceeds that within KB

4. Victimless crimes where there is no private offended party

5. Disputes relating to real properties located in different cities or towns

6. Where parties reside in different towns or cities unless the barangays

7. Disputes determined by the President, upon recommendation of the

E. Special Jurisdiction for KB Proceedings.

Non-criminal cases not falling within KB jurisdiction may still be

F. Venue for Filing of Complaint: Before Lupon of Barangay:12

1. Where the respondent or any of the respondents actually resides

3. Where the workplace in which disputants are employed is located

G. Procedure for Settling Disputes under KB Law.

Barangay conciliation is a two step process:

First. Before the punong barangay as Lupon Chairman13 and

Second. If he fails, he must constitute a 3 person

I. Repudiation, Grounds, Procedure

There are two kinds of repudiation that are available to an

It is important to note that there is no remedy of repudiation of an

The second kind is the repudiation of the compromise agreement that

It is significant to note that while fraud may be deemed to include

J. Enforcement of Settlement or Award

The KB Law provides as follows:

Sec. 417.Execution.- The amicable settlement or arbitration

The original law contains a provision on sanctions23 that would

Further, if it is the complainant who refuses or willfully fails to

On the other hand, if it is the Respondent who is at fault, he shall

The foregoing sanctions were not carried over to the Revised KB

L. Court interventions in KB Law

There are several instances when court intervention may be made.

The second instance is when a complaint is filed in court without a

Under Administrative Circular No. 14-93 issued by Chief Justice

In the foregoing situation, the case before the court should be

M. Advantages of Settling under the KB Law.

Dissatisfactions28 with the judicial resolution of disputes that are

1. Less costly and easily accessible.

On the matter of heavy costs entailed by judicial processing, KB

On the matter of popular incomprehensibility of judicial proceedings

In fact, it is important to stress that no lawyer is allowed to intervene

On the matter of judicial delay, KB processing is restricted to a total

5. Compromise agreement is like court judgment

Finally, when the parties agree on the terms of their compromise

N. Benefits to the administration of justice secured by the KB Law.

Statistics from the Bureau of Local Government Supervision

Based on the average amount of P 9,500.0034 that is the estimated

By lessening the workload of judges through preventing the filing of

As to other objective of the KB system of broadening access to