Ricardo E.

Escanlar III

LLB-2C

AN ASSESSMENT OF MEDIATION PROCEEDINGS

Monday, April 4, 2016. My classmates and I entered the mediation room at around
8:30, but were told to come back before 10 am as there were only two cases scheduled
that day, and mediation would start at 10. At first I thought that only five of us
classmates were observing the mediation proceedings, but as it turned out, other
classmates and batchmates from the other sections also scheduled their observation on
the same day as us.

The mediation room appeared to be the size of a normal courtroom in the hall of
justice’s third floor, with the elevated platform where the judge was supposed to
observe, only that the judge’s bench was replaced by files and secretaries’ desks. What
I also noticed was that the atmosphere appeared much more relaxed than what you
would normally see in a regular courtroom. OPM music was playing inside the room,
and the parties generally seemed at ease while waiting for the mediation to start. The
mediators and the other staff in the room were chatting with each other, fiddling with
their phones, or reading the newspaper.

There were three mediation tables set up, lined alongside each other. My classmates
and I sat with the parties on seats across the room. It was slightly awkward as there
were around 15 of us students waiting to observe an actual mediation, and we
outnumbered the parties themselves. On the room’s walls were a calendar, with a
schedule of the proceedings, and a chart displaying the organizational profile showing
the mediators, their pictures and names.

FIRST CASE

The first case was mediated at around 10 am. The mediator was male, probably in his
fifties, wore a red polo shirt and spoke Tagalog. The person who sat to his right was
male, probably also in his fifties. The opposing party was a woman who was probably in
her late forties.

The case appeared to be something about reckless imprudence. Hospital expenses were
discussed, and the parties were asked to show receipts of the expenses. The man on
the right turned out to be a lawyer appearing on behalf of his client, and he showed his
Special Power of Attorney. Based on the folder the woman was holding, she appeared
to representing someone of Chinese descent- the folder read “L. Caballero vs. Mingyi
Gao”. At the end of the procedure, it appeared as though both of the parties agreed to
submit the case to a Judicial Dispute Resolution.

The mediation took a total of only around ten minutes. Both parties were conversational
and polite with each other, and did not appear tense. The mediator was able to
navigate the proceedings even if he was speaking Tagalog while the parties were
mostly speaking Hiligaynon.

SECOND CASE

The second case, on the other hand, was handled by a female mediator who I
estimated was in her forties. The party to her right was a male in his fifties, who carried
a plastic envelope case of files. The party to her left has a woman in her forties. The
man identified himself as Jimmy Patino, brother and representative of Jessie Patino, the
real party to the case. The woman identified herself as Susan.

The case involved a property which was acquired by forgery. Susan mentioned that
Jessie’s wife should have been present during the mediation, as she had the best
knowledge of the price of the property. Jimmy said that there was no need, as the
attorney would be aware of the current market price of the property. A buyback was
also proposed by one of the parties, and they both seemed amicable to this agreement.
The mediation was concluded with the parties shaking hands and discussing the
schedule for the next meeting, if any. The proceedings were also finished within ten
minutes.

OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

Perhaps it just so happened that the two cases we observed were such, but the
resolution of the cases were much faster than what usually happens in an ordinary trial.

Furthermore, while this is coming from a small sample size observation which may not
be representative of what generally happens during mediation, but it does also appear
that conflicts are resolved more amicably and cordially in this form of settlement.

Cases like the ones we observed did seem more apt to be handled by an informal
process, and did not necessitate to be handled by a formal, full-blown trial.

The atmosphere was largely informal, without the rigid formalities of typical court
proceedings. The parties were able to communicate their concerns much easier to the
mediator, unlike if placed on a witness stand and placed under oath.
In trials, there are moments of tension where you could almost hear a pin drop because
of the lack of noise; that was not the case here, as everyone seemed to be at ease with
how things were going. No one was being combative, forceful or confrontational; while
there were moments were parties sounded somewhat loud, they were few and far in
between, and no one resorted to threats or shouting.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Filipino culture, in general, promotes compromise, community, harmony and amicable

resolution of disputes, unlike in America, where the slightest of infractions and
disagreements would be ample cause for litigation. The people who conceptualized the
idea of Alternative Dispute Resolution may have had this in mind, as well as seeing that
the process of attaining justice in this nation has been slow and cumbersome.

So, what should be done in order to further the objectives of alternative dispute
resolution in helping Filipinos attain justice quicker? A suggestion would be to increase
awareness of the availability of mediation as an option, and also to inform people of its
benefits, especially the savings in time and money it could give to the parties.

There also is this presumption among practitioners of the law, and also among clients,
that alternative dispute resolution, being “alternative”, is inferior and less viable to
regular court proceedings, and should only be resorted to as a last option. This stigma
could be helped erased by changing the name of ADR from “alternative” to
“affirmative”, as this connotes a more positive and proactive approach to handling
disputes. Lawyers themselves should be encouraged to promote ADR to their clients.

It does appear that the objectives of RA 9285 are being attained, as far as allowing
parties autonomy to solve their disputes and de-clogging court dockets are concerned.