San Sebastian College – Recoletos 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

A person’s right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under

the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution) which provides all persons

shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,

quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.1

This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal

proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or

administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-

judicial. In this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action

to all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.2

Emphasizing the old legal maxim, justice delayed is justice denied, gave

birth to the concept of right to speedy disposition of cases. This oft-

repeated adage requires the expeditious resolution of disputes, much more

1
1987 Constitution Section 16, Article III
2
Roquero v. Chancellor of UP-Manila, G.R. No. 181851, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 723, 732.
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 2
so in criminal cases where an accused is constitutionally guaranteed the

right to a speedy trial.3 In Corpuz vs. Sandiganbayan,4 the Court had

occasion to state:

The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy

disposition of the case against him was designed to prevent

the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal

prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and

to prevent delays in the administration of justice by

mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch

in the trial of criminal cases. Such right to a speedy trial and

a speedy disposition of a case is violated only when the

proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and

oppressive delays. The inquiry as to whether or not an

accused has been denied such right is not susceptible by

precise qualification. The concept of a speedy disposition is

a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.

3
1987 Philippine Constitution, Section 14(2), Art. III
4
G.R. No. 162214, 11 November 2004, 442 SCRA 294, 312-313.
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 3
While justice is administered with dispatch, the essential

ingredient is orderly, expeditious and not mere speed. It

cannot be definitely said how long is too long in a system

where justice is supposed to be swift, but deliberate. It is

consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It

secures rights to the accused, but it does not preclude the

rights of public justice. Also, it must be borne in mind that

the rights given to the accused by the Constitution and the

Rules of Court are shields, not weapons; hence, courts are

to give meaning to that intent.

However, Justice Antonio T. Carpio discussed in his 2012 column for an

online newsletter5:

At present, 21% of trials take 2 to 5 years to finish, and 13%

take more than 5 years to finish. On the other hand, cases

should ideally be decided as prescribed by the Constitution:

5
Carpio, Justice Antonio (June 2012).Judicial reform too important to fail. Retrieved from
https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/7856-judicial-reform-too-important-to-fail on May 15, 2018
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 4
not more than 24 months for the Supreme Court, not more

than 12 months for all other appellate courts, and not more

than 3 months for all other lower courts, all counted from

the date of submission for resolution of the case.

Clearly, the constitutionally prescribed case disposition timelines is not fully

complied with by the judiciary which is a serious violation of the

constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases.

In fact, based on the latest available data, there are some 1.2 million cases

in the (Philippines) nation’s courts, with only around 1,620 judges to resolve

them. On average, that’s 741 cases per judge. Historically, the average

period in which to decide a case has been two to three years for minor

cases, and 10 years for major ones. This means that if a judge presides in

the courtroom for about 251 days (the national average), it would take

more than three years to clear his/her docket. New cases are being added

daily. It took our court system 20 years to resolve the Vizconde massacre

case. In many instances it’s taken far, far longer, particularly if you are
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 5
without influence. The Maguindanao massacre, the worst election-related

violence in Philippine history, is still pending in court seven years later, and

far from resolution.6

One reason given for the slow wheels of justice is the “clogged court

dockets”—too many cases being tried by too few courts and judges. This

gets worse every year, as new cases pile up as fewer and fewer cases get to

be decided by the courts.7

Indeed, the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 19808, mandates the

promulgation of the Rule on Summary Procedure. As early as 1991, the

Supreme Court en banc promulgated through a resolution the Revised Rules

of Summary Procedure for Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts

in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. This rule

is applicable to civil cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,

irrespective of the amount of damages and unpaid rentals sought to be

6
Wallace, Peter (October 2017). Clogged courts and jails. Retrieved from
http://opinion.inquirer.net/107825/clogged-courts-jails on May 15, 2018
7
Cruz, Neal (November 2014). PH has slowest justice system in the world. Retrieved from
http://opinion.inquirer.net/80394/ph-has-slowest-justice-system-in-the-world-2 on May 21, 2018
8
Batas Pambansa (B.P.)Blg. 129
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 6
recovered and where attorney’s fees are awarded, the same shall not

exceed 20,000.00 and also all other cases, except probate proceedings,

where the total amount of plaintiff’s claim does not exceed 100,000.00 or

200,000.00 in Metro Manila, exclusive of interests and costs. 9

This notable reform was for the purpose of achieving an expeditious and

inexpensive determination of cases that are defined to be included in the

cases for Summary Procedure and without regard to technical rules.10 For this

reason, the Rule frowns upon delays and prohibits altogether the filing of

motions for extension of time. Consistent with this reasoning is Section 6 of

the Rule which allows the trial court to render judgment, even motu

proprio, upon the failure of a defendant to file an answer within the

reglementary period.11 Incidentally, it was also aimed at unclogging courts

dockets due to the indiscriminate filing of cases. Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro

largely blames the overcrowding of court dockets to what he calls the “over-

use, misuse and abuse” of the judicial remedy. This means that a person

seeking redress of a grievance has gone directly to court when it probably

9
A.M. No. 02-11-09-SC, November 12, 2002, RE: AMENDMENT OF THE REVISED RULE ON
SUMMARY PROCEDURE, Section 1 (A)
10
Section 36, B.P. 129; Rule on Summary Procedure
11
Gachon vs. Hon. Devera Jr., G.R. No. 116695. June 20, 1997
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 7
would have been more practical to have availed of other modes of dispute

resolution.12

Here, upon the filing of a complaint in a civil case or complaint or

information in a criminal case, the Metropolitan, Municipal or Municipal

Circuit Trial Court where the action is commenced shall make a preliminary

determination (a) whether it has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the

case or the nature of the action; (b) whether the venue of the action was

properly laid; (c) whether the complaint in the civil case states a valid cause

of action, or the complaint or information in the criminal case sufficiently

charges an offense, and (d) whether there are allegations in the complaint

or information as to justify continuation of the proceeding in the case. If the

court determines (preliminarily) that it has no jurisdiction, or the venue was

not properly laid, or the complaint in the civil case does not state a valid

cause of action, or the complaint or information in the criminal case

contains averments which justifies the commission of the act charged or

exempts the accused from criminal liability, or in any case contains

12
Tadiar, A. (June 1999). Unclogging the Court Dockets:Paper presented in the Symposium on Economic
Policy Agenda for the Estrada Administration at INNOTECH, Commonwealth Avenue, Diliman, Quezon
City.
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 8
averments which would not justify further proceedings in the case (e.g.,

prescription), then the court must motu proprio peremptorily dismiss the

complaint or the complaint or information, as the case may be. This is the

essence of section 3A and section 10 of the summary rules.

Should the court find that it has jurisdiction, and the venue was properly

laid, and a valid cause of action or indictment is embodied in the

complaint/complaint or information, or that there are no other valid cause

to immediately dismiss the case, then the court shall also make another

preliminary determination whether the case is governed by the summary

rules.

Notably, within 30 days after receipt of the last affidavits and position

papers or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall

render judgment. However, should the court find it necessary to clarify

certain material facts, it may, during the said period, issue an order

specifying the matters to be clarified, and require the parties to submit

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 9
affidavits or other evidences on the said matters within 10 days from

receipt of said order.13

If it determines that it should be covered by the summary rules, summons

is issued, if it is a civil case, stating in the summons such fact and ordering

the defendant to answer within the period provided. In this event, no

motion to dismiss, or for a bill of particulars, or for extension will be

entertained as these are prohibited pleadings.

Thus, the great significance of the Summary Procedure is the use of

affidavits, including sworn statements, and position papers to replace direct

and oral testimonies of the parties or their witnesses but there is still cross-

examination, and re-cross examination. Consequently, cases filed without

observing the formalities laid down by the rules can be a subject for

outright dismissal resulting to speedy judicial disposal of the same and

unclogging courts dockets.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

13
Section 10, 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 10

Under Philippine laws [Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (Batas

Pambansa Bilang 129) which took effect on January 18, 1983 and other

laws] the Philippine judicial system consists of Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and Municipal

Trial Courts.

These lower courts has an exclusive original jurisdiction, among others, to

cases involving the collection of sum of money amounting to not exceeding

P 300,000.00 or in Metro Manila not exceeding P400,000 exclusive of

interest, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs. If the

amount sum of money exceeds the jurisdictional amount, the action shall

be filed before the Regional Trial Court.

In addition to that, the Supreme Court en banc through a resolution dated

October 15, 1991 promulgated the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure for

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Circuit

Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts. This is pursuant to Section 36 of the
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 11
Judiciary Reorganization of 1980 (B.P Blg. 129) and to achieve an expeditious and

inexpensive determination of the cases. Summary procedure is a procedure

wherein the court decides the case through the evidence and affidavits

presented by the parties.

This rule governs the summary procedure in civil cases falling within the

lower courts’ jurisdiction involving forcible entry and unlawful detainer,

irrespective of the amount of damages and unpaid rentals sought to be

recovered, attorney’s fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed

20,000.00 and all other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total

amount of plaintiff’s claim does not exceed 100,000.00 or 200,000.00 in

Metro Manila, exclusive of interests and costs. 14

SCOPE AND LIMITATION

The researcher chose to limit his study to civil cases involving sum of money

decide by the Supreme Court from year 2014 to 2017 because recent study

shows that 14% of the total cases filed before the lower court involves such

14
As amended by A.M. 02-11-09-SC, effective November 25, 2002
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 12
action and in the Regional Trial Court, 59% of cases filed are that of civil

cases involving action for sum of money.15

These decided cases were originally filed before the lower courts or

Regional Trial Courts and thereafter appealed to the higher Courts.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The Rules on Summary Procedure only applies to lower courts namely

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Circuit

Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts.

This study seeks to investigate the feasibility of applying the Rules of

Summary Procedure to civil cases involving collection of sum of money with

an amount exceeding to P300, 000 or P400,000, as the case may be, which

is originally covered by the Regional Trial Court.

15
Philippine Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Project by Professor Rosemary Hunter of Griffith
University.
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 13
The following questions needed to be answered to address the study’s aim:

1. What are the rules on summary procedure observed by the lower

courts that should be adopted by the Regional trial court for cases

involving the collection of sum of money?

2. What are the effects if the Rules of Summary Procedure is applied in

the Regional Trial Court for cases involving collection of sum of

money?

OBJECTIVES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and Municipal

Trial Courts, has the original EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction for collection of sum of

money amounting to not exceeding P300,000.00, or not exceeding

P400,000.00 in Metro Manila. If the amount exceeds the jurisdictional

amount, the action must be filed before the Regional Trial Court.
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 14
Accordingly, in proceedings for actions for collection of sum of money filed

before the lower courts only position papers, including sworn statements,

and affidavits are needed to be presented before the court. The court shall

thereafter render its decision within the reglementary period provided by

the rules based on the position paper offered as evidence. On the other

hand, proceedings in the Regional Trial Court, party litigants are allowed to

file motion to dismiss or avail for other remedies provided by the rules on

civil procedure.

The main objective of this study is to be consistent with the constitutional

mandate of the right of speedy disposition of cases of every person and to

help unclog court dockets. Through this study, it will be an aid to solve the

problem of judicial delay which is the main cause of clogged court dockets.

The approach alsoseeks to enhance and speed up the disposition of cases

by the courts of justice without compromising the objective of protecting

the legal rights of those drawn into the judicial process.

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 15
In addition to that, the simplification of procedural rules for collection of

sum of money by adopting the reforms undertaken in this study will

increase the output of judges in disposing cases without being pressured by

time and workloads.

STATEMENT OF BENEFITS AND RISKS

Statement of Benefits

This study is aimed at helping the court in declogging its dockets brought

about by indiscriminate filing of cases. It also seeks to promote the

constitutional right of persons to a speedy, simplified and inexpensive

disposition of their cases and will create innovations on procedures for the

mutual benefits of all the parties. Also there will be less time spent on trial

hence, there will be more time for judges to decide other cases pending

before their court.

Statement of Risk
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 16
There might be an arbitrary dismissal of a case filed by a party litigant

simply because of the latter’s failure to present or attach sufficient evidence

when other relevant pieces of evidence are not yet available.

Definition of terms

1. JURISDICTION
2. Summary procedure
3. SPEEDY DISPOSITION
4. Alternative dispute resolution
5. Cam
6. JDR
7. ACM

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

FOREIGN LITERATURE
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 17
Litigants often ask why it takes so long for a case to wind its way through a

trial court. One big reason for the courts’ snail pace is the sheer volume of

pending cases.

According to the Wisconsin court system, 2014 ended with 121,628 pending

cases statewide and less than 250 civil/criminal judges. 16 Judge Robert Brack

is the busiest federal judge in the United States. From his bench in the

bordertown of Las Cruces, N.M., Brack expects to hear between 1,000 and

1,200 cases this year, more than twice the average number tried by district

court judges.17

In Canada, civil cases in Ontario run the gamut of disputes that affect the

daily lives of Canadians. Whether it be a claimant injured in an accident, an

employee let go from work or a commercial claim, the courts are there as

an outlet to declare the rights of the parties and resolve the dispute. It is

axiomatic that timely conclusion of the matter is of importance. Yet in many

jurisdictions in Ontario, the parties must wait anywhere from two to three
16
FOS (2015). Retrieved from http://foslaw.com/news-views/is-there-an-alternative-to-the-clogged-courts/
on May 21, 2018
17
What's Clogging the Courts? Ask America's Busiest Judge. Retrieved from
https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5429227&page=1 on May 21, 2018
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 18
years to obtain a trial date. This is after all pretrial steps in the proceeding

are complete and the parties have certified to the court that they are ready

for trial.18

Legal experts said that India, for example, does not have general statutory

time limits compared with the US Speedy Trial Act. The Civil Procedure

Code and the Criminal Procedure Code have time frames for completing

certain stages of the case. These statutes, however, generally do not

prescribe time limits within which the overall case should be completed or

each step in the trial should be concluded.19

Meanwhile a federal state in United States took the initiative to reduce the

expense and delay of litigation. The Texas Supreme Court promulgated a

new set of rules in its stated effort to improve the efficiency of the Texas

court system by compelling expedited procedures in smaller cases.

18
Allan Rouben Speaker's Corner: Extreme delays in civil trials an urgent matter September 23, 2013

19
S A ISHAQUI (August 2017) Time frame must for speedy trial of cases retrieved from
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/070817/time-frame-must-for-speedy-
trial-of-cases.html May 27, 2018
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 19
Here, These rules follow the directive of Government Code § 22.004(h),

which calls for “rules to promote the prompt, efficient, and cost-effective

resolution of civil actions…in which the amount in controversy, inclusive of

all claims for damages of any kind, whether actual or exemplary, a penalty,

attorney’s fees, expenses, costs, interest, or any other type of damage of

any kind, does not exceed $100,000.” 20 Original pleadings, including

petitions, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party claims must contain

now contain a short statement of the cause of action, damages sought

which are within the jurisdictional limits of the court and only monetary

relief of $100,000 or less, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs,

expenses, pre-judgment interest, and attorney fees, as the case may be.

In London, a creditor has only 6 years from the date of the debt becoming

outstanding or an agreement being met to recover the monies. However, if

a claim or other form of legal action is taken then the debt can be legally

20
Chris Hanslik (April 2013) New Rules Promise a Speedy Trial for Small Civil Cases retrieved from
http://www.boyarmiller.com/news-and-publications/legal-alerts/new-rules-promise-a-speedy-trial-
for-small-civil-cases-2/ on May 27, 2018
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 20
recoverable indefinitely and the creditor can continue to actively search for

21
the debtor beyond this period.

How do you recover your debt?

You can issue a claim in the UK if your contract stipulates it has exclusive

jurisdiction or it is a restitution claim to recover monies due to you, say as a

consumer, or it is a claim for a refund and either:

The Debtor is within a member of the European Union and your country

falls within the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 then permission to

serve the claim form outside of the UK is not even required and

enforcement is automatically permitted. This makes issuing a claim for an

outstanding debt relatively simple and cheap for the creditor; or

The debtor is in a country, outside the EU, but it has a reciprocal agreement

with the UK, such as Canada. This enables you to track down your debtor

and enforce your claim in that country in much the same way as above we

just need to secure the courts permission first, which is again a simple form
21
id.
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 21
and small nominal fee. There are many countries where this is possible and

you should check this before enforcing the debt.

To file a claim in England you simply issue this with a few additional forms,

but with no extra substantial court cost. If the Debtor cannot or does not

dispute jurisdiction nor files a defence the creditor has a direct route to

enforcing the judgment. If a defence is filed it will be heard here. Once

judgment is received and sealed as ‘enforceable abroad’ enforcement

action can then be taken in the debtor’s country of residence or company

registration.

The only delay is possibly service of the claim form and the time they have

to acknowledge service and/or file a defence as this varies from country to

country and some can be more exhaustive than others.

If your debtor is found within a non-EU country, there is no reciprocal

agreement and its not part of any applicable conventions then we would

advise you further.

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 22

Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1) the Order applies to the following

classes of suits, namely:—

(a) suits upon bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes;

(b) suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated

demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest,

arising,—

(i) on a written contract, or

(ii) on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum

of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty; or

(iii) on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a

debt or liquidated demand only.]

LOCAL LITERATURE

The Judicial branch holds the power to settle controversies involving rights

that are legally demandable and enforceable. This branch determines

whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 23
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part and instrumentality of the

government as enshrined in Article 8 Section 1.

However, Supreme Court admits that 21% of trials take 2 to 5 years to

finish, while 13% take more than 5 years. The National Statistical

Coordination Board has reported that lower courts have to handle more

than one million cases in a year or an average of around 4,221 cases per

working day. While the total inflow of cases in the lower courts has

declined, the total outflow of cases has likewise been on a downtrend. 22

Delay in disposing a case certainly violates the right of every person to

speedy disposition of a case. As provided in our 1987 Constitution provides

thus:All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases

before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies. 23 Our constitution

mandates that prompt disposition of cases as prescribed in Section 15.

22
Lim (September 2014) Shifting to issue-based court trials retrieved from
http://www.accralaw.com/publications/shifting-issue-based-court-trials on May 17, 2018.
23
Section 16, Article III of 1987 Philippine Constitution
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 24
According to Professor Hunter who made a study about Philippine Case

Decongestion and Delay Reduction Project, 14% of cases filed before the

lower court is composed of civil case involving collection of sum of money.

The study found out that it takes 54 days before a case is decided contrary

to the constitutional limit mandated. Because of this judicial delay, there is

an increase of caseloads.

In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not

capable of pecuniary estimation the Supreme Court has adopted the

criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy

sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is

considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in

the municipal courts or in the Courts of First Instance would depend on the

amount of the claim. 24

In Gaisano vs. Development, the issue in this case is a simple question of

whether the insurance policy between the petitioner and respondent is

24
MANUEL G. SINGSONG et al. vs. ISABELA SAWMILL, MARGARITA G. SALDAJENO et al. G.R.
No. L-27343 February 28, 1979
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 25
binding so as to entitle the former to the collection of sum of money

amounting to P150, 000 . Here, the case was filed before the Regional Trial

Court where it sought to collect the insurance proceeds from respondent

on October 1, 1997. RTC released its decision on September 2003. Hence,

the court proceeding to resolve the case took almost 6 years.

In Fausto vs Multi Agri-forest and Community Development Cooperative 25,

the action for sum of money amounting to P100,000 was filed before the

mtcc of naga city on December 12, 2000, respondent filed an opposition to

the demurrer to evidence alleging that the petitioners expressly waived the

need for notice or demand for payment in the promissory notes. After 9

years, the mtcc ordered the denial of the petitioners' demurrer to evidence

for lack of merit. Subsequently, in a Decision dated August 1, 2011, the

MTCC ruled in favor of the respondent and held the petitioners liable for

the payment of specified amount of loans, which include interests,

penalties and surcharges, plus 12% interest thereon. The case was appealed

thereafter. On the same year, the RTC affirmed the decision of the RTC.

25
- LYLITH B. FAUSTO, vs. MULTI AGRI-FOREST AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATIVE G.R.No. 213939, October 12, 2016
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 26
When the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied the same

was appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of RTC 2

years after it was filed.26 Finally, the case was decided by the Supreme Court

2016. It took 18 years to judicially dispose the case contrary to the limit set

by the Constitution.

In BPI vs Domingo27, it took 4 years for mtc to decide a simple action for

sum of money. Aggrieved, respondent Domingo appealed the case to the

higher court up to the Supreme Court. The SC, after 10 years from appeal

from the Court of Appeals, decided in favor of BPI when they concurred

with the MTC.

Based on the collection of sum of money cases filed before the Supreme

Court from 2013-2017, it appears that he constitutional limitation in

disposing a civil case is not being followed notwithstanding the fact that the

summary procedure is already promulgated as early as 1991.

26

27
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, v. AMADOR DOMINGO. G.R. No. 169407, March 25, 2015
-
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 27
The Philippines ranks 51st out of 102 countries in terms of how the rule of

law is experienced, according to the Index.28

The country, however, is in the bottom half of the 15 surveyed states in East

Asia and Pacific. The Philippines ranked 9th in the region.While it lags in the

East Asia and Pacific region, it fares well among other lower middle income

countries. It placed 5th of 25 states in the said income bracket covered by

the Index.29

SOLUTION TO UNCLOG COURT DOCKET

Slow judicial disposition of a case filed before the court may be the biggest

barrier in addressing justice. Hence, the Supreme Court promulgated rules

to address the problem in delayed judicial disposal of case.

a. Summary Procedure (1991)

28
Bernal (September 2013) Case delay worst barrier to justice in key PH cities retrieved from
https://www.rappler.com/nation/95389-case-delay-philippines-rule-law-index on May 17, 2018
29
Id.
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 28
The purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure is to achieve an

expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases without regard to

technical rules.

b. Small Claims (2008)

It is a special rule of procedure adopted by the Supreme Court pursuant to

its rule-making power under Sec. 5(5) of Article VIII of the 1987

Constitution, to govern small claims cases and is to be piloted in designated

first level courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,

Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts). This rule allows a

plaintiff (the person suing) to sue a defendant (the person being sued)

without the need of a lawyer.

This new rule becomes effective on 1 October 2008. Under the A.M. NO.

08-8-7-SC or the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, the purpose of a

small claims process is to provide a simpler and a more inexpensive and

expeditious means of settling disputes involving purely money claims than

the regular civil process. Inexpensiveness, informality, and simplicity.every

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 29
aspect of the process is designed to allow a person to handle his/her own

case from start to finish quickly and inexpensively. There are ready-made

forms available and strict procedural rules, including the rules of evidence,

do not apply. Hence, there is no need for a lawyer.

c. Court-Annexed Mediation (Cam) And Judicial Dispute Resolution (Jdr)

(2004)

The Supreme Court has issued A·M. No, 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA, January 11, 2011,

entitled “Consolidated And Revised Guidelines To Implement The Expanded

Coverage Of Court-Annexed Mediation (Cam) And Judicial Dispute

Resolution (Jdr)”.

The purpose of CAM and JDR is “to put an end to pending litigation through

compromise agreement of the parties and thereby help solve the ever-

pressing problem of court docket congestion”. It is also intended “to

empower the parties to resolve their own disputes and give practical effect

to the State Policy expressly stated in the ADR Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9285)”,

to wit: “to actively promote party autonomy in the resolution of disputes or

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 30
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.”

d. Judicial Strengthening To Improve Court Effectiveness (Justice) Project 30

(2012)

The Judicial Strengthening to Improve Court Effectiveness (JUSTICE) Project

between the Philippines and the United States to promote broad-based and

inclusive growth.is a five-year, $20 million project started in October 2012

focusing on strengthening the rule of law and streamlining the local judicial

process. JUSTICE supports reforming court procedures to improve judicial

efficiency, decongest court dockets and reduce court delay. This project

aims to remove improper filing practices, instate case timelines and

strengthen contract enforceability in order to achieve judicial

30
USAID (March 2017) Judicial Strengthening To Improve Court Effectiveness (Justice) Project retrieved
from https://www.usaid.gov/philippines/partnership-growth-pfg/justice on May 20, 2018
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 31
The project carefully introduced three interventions all intended to enhance

court efficiency: 1) installation of e-Court system, a computerized case

tracking and management tool; 2) massive case decongestion effort that

systematically identifies long-standing cases for resolution; and 3)

streamlining of trial rules to reduce opportunities for delay. This three-

pronged strategy is fully implemented in Quezon City, the largest and most

congested court district in the country.

Three years from its launch, JUSTICE is producing notable results in Quezon

City. Initial assessments show that the median case processing times of

trials across all types of courts were reduced by 60 percent to 78 percent. In

the area of docket decongestion, over 31,000 cases were inventoried and

30 percent of these were were disposed by June 2015. The project is now in

the process of rolling out these interventions in eight additional growth

hubs of the country.

e. Alternative community courts, known as the barangay justice system.

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 32
These courts are meant to help decongest the cases handled by regular

courts. Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the 1991 Local Government

Code, gives barangays the mandate to enforce peace and order and provide

support for the effective enforcement of human rights and justice.

Decentralization has facilitated the recognition of the

KatarungangPambarangay or Barangay Justice System as an alternative

venue for the resolution of disputes.31

Here, the Katarungang Pambarangay (KP) or Barangay Justice System (BJS) is

provides a venue for disputing parties to search for a mutually acceptable

solution.

31
Katarungang Pambarangay: A Handbook Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program
(LGSP)
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 33

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODS

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study used the qualitative method specifically the document analysis in

gathering and processing the research data. In the course of the study, the

researcher chose the descriptive research utilizing several sources from

books, issuances, jurisprudence, articles, journals and magazines.

To augment the study, statistical data were gathered from the data

gathering organizations such as the National Statistical Coordination Board,

National Conference for the Revision of the Rules of Civil Procedure headed

by retired Justice Roberto A. Abad.

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 34
The researcher also conducted actual interviews with judges working at the

Regional Trial Courts and Lower courts in Quezon City to get their views on

the subject matter. He also interviewed lawyers who handled and or

handling action for sum of money cases.

The following diagram illustrates the conceptual framework of the study, to

wit:

ANALYSIS OF
APPLYING THE
RULES ON
DOCUMENTS DOCUMENTARY SUMMARY
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
FOR ACTIONS
INVOLVING
SUM OF
MONEY
FALLING
WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION
OF RTC

INTERVIEWS
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 35
The conceptual framework shows the illustration of the essence of the

investigation. The researcher made use of the documents which have

bearing on the investigation; statistical data that are available and then

document analysis followed. Actual interviews were done to substantiate

the data generated from the documents. Analysis of applying the Rules on

Summary Procedure for actions involving sum of money falling within the

original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts were made

possible because of the methodologies utilized.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

The researcher used documents, which had a bearing on this study,

statistical data that were available and relevant and document analysis.

Statistical data were obtained by the researcher through the local and

international organizations or associations such as the National Statistical

Coordination Board, United States Agency for International Development,

and news articles written by Justices.

Interview questions were composed of 8 open-ended questions to be

answered by the respondents.

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 36

DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE

For this study, the researcher had gone through an organized process to be

able to have accurate information. The researcher personally administered

the research instruments to the respondents. It was conferred and

discussed the significance of the research.

The researcher handed the questions to the respondents to give them time

to think and to prevent giving hasty answers. Their answers became the

bases of analysis and interpretation. Also, their answers were made part of

the conclusion of this study to highlight a point the researcher is trying to

make from an expert in the field.

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 37

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSIONS/ ANALYSIS

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Before going into the details of the study, the researcher deems it proper to

detail the history of the 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure.

Under Section 33 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial

Courts shall exercise its jurisdiction:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate

proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of

provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the

personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 38
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro

Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the

demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos

(P200,000.00) exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind,

attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of

which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where there

are several claims or causes of action between the same or

different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount

of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes

of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out

of the same or different transactions;

(2) XXXX

(3) XXXX

However, Republic Act No. 7691 amended the expanded jurisdiction of

MeTC, MTC and MCTC by increasing the amount of the courts jurisdictional

amount. It specifically states that:

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 39
After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional

amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be adjusted

to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years

thereafter, such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to

Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however,

That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional

amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of

this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).

By law or the Constitution itself, courts are vested with jurisdiction to hear

and try specific cases. If a case is filed with the wrong court, it will be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts in

Cities

1. All civil cases, the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, and all

probate proceedings, where the value of personal property, estate or

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 40
amount of demand does not exceed Php 300,000. exclusive of interest,

damages, litigation and other expenses (in Metro Manila, the amount

should be Php 400,000.)

2. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer (ejectment)

3. All civil cases which involve title to or possession of real property or any

interest therein where the assessed value does not exceed Php 20,000. (in

Metro Manila Php 50,000.) exclusive of interest, damages, litigation and

other expenses

4. Civil cases under the rules on summary procedure

5. All offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years,

regardless of the fine or other imposable accessory or other penalties

including the civil liability (in offenses involving damage to property through

criminal negligence, the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction)

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 41

6. Petitions for issuances of original certificates of titles

Meanwhile, Section 36 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P. Blg.

129) states that:

In Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts with at least

two branches, the Supreme Court may designate one or more

branches thereof to try exclusively forcible entry and unlawful

detainer cases, those involving violations of traffic laws, rules and

regulations, violations of the rental law, and such other cases

requiring summary disposition as the Supreme Court may

determine. The Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or

procedures applicable to such cases in order to achieve an

expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without regard

to technical rules. Such simplified procedures may provide that

affidavits and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 42
testimony and that the periods for filing pleadings shall be non-

extendible.

Pursuant to the same section and to achieve an expeditious and

inexpensive determination of the cases referred to herein, the Court

resolved to promulgate the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.

Notably, under section 9 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure the

parties shall submit affidavits and position papers, and affidavits of their

witnesses and other evidence on the factual issues defined in the order,

together with their position papers setting forth the law and the facts relied

upon by them within ten (10) days from receipt of the order.

Thereafter, the court within thirty (30) days after receipt of the last

affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the

same, shall render judgment.

However should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts,

it may, during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to be
 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 43
clarified, and require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence on

the said matters within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment

shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last

clarificatory affidavits, or the expiration of the period for filing the same.

The court shall not resort to the clarificatory procedure to gain time for the

rendition of the judgment.

In proceedings for actions for Sum of money filed before the lower court

only position papers, including sworn statement, and affidavits are needed

to be presented before the court. The court shall thereafter render its

decision within the reglementary period as provided by Section 10 of the

Rules on Summary Procedure based on the position paper offered as

evidence.

Significantly, the Rules on Summary Procedure does not allow the filing of

motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information

 San Sebastian College – Recoletos 44
except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or

failure to comply with Barangay conciliation.32

On the other hand, actions for collection of sum of money not falling within

the jurisdiction of the lower courts shall be filed before the Regional Trial

Court after complying with the required barangay conciliation.

Here, the ordinary rules on Civil Procedure are followed. Hence, all the

remedies provided by the Rules of Court is available for the party litigant

specifically the filing of motion to dismiss, which is not available for the

summary procedure subject to exception. The filing of these motions

sometime tends to lengthen the court proceeding and thereby causing

judicial delay.

Unlike proceedings in the lower court, the Regional Trial Court conducts

cross-examination.

32
Rules on Summary Procedure, Section 19.
San Sebastian College – Recoletos 45