SC Annual 2015-2016 Narrative Report

JUDICIARY ANNUAL REPORT 2015-2016
THE J UDICIARY ANNUAL R EPORT

(2015-2016)
The Supreme Court
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Chair of the First Division

Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Chair of the Second Division
Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Chair of the Third Division

Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion

Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta
Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin

Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo
Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama Jr. (retired January 16, 2016)

Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez
Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza

Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes
Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe

Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (appointed January 22, 2016)
iii
The Court of Appeals
MANILA STATION
FIRST DIVISION
Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., Chairperson
Justice Romeo F. Barza, Senior Member
Justice Agnes Reyes Carpio, Junior Member
SECOND DIVISION
Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, Chairperson
Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, Senior Member
Justice Socorro B. Inting, Junior Member
THIRD DIVISION
Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, Chairperson
Justice Mario V. Lopez, Senior Member
Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, Junior Member
FOURTH DIVISION
Justice Noel G. Tijam, Chairperson
Justice Francisco P. Acosta, Senior Member
Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., Junior Member
FIFTH DIVISION
Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., Chairperson
Justice Stephen C. Cruz, Senior Member
Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, Junior Member
SIXTH DIVISION
Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, Chairperson
Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, Senior Member
Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, Junior Member
SEVENTH DIVISION
Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, Chairperson
Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, Senior Member
Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, Junior Member
EIGHTH DIVISION
Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, Chairperson
Justice Franchito N. Diamante, Senior Member
Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, Junior Member
NINTH DIVISION
Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, Chairperson
Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, Senior Member
Justice Melchor Quirino C. Sadang, Junior Member
TENTH DIVISION
Justice Marifl or P. Punzalan Castillo, Chairperson
Justice Florito S. Macalino, Senior Member
Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, Junior Member
iv
ELEVENTH DIVISION
Justice Sesinando E. Villon, Chairperson
Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, Senior Member
Justice Pedro B. Corales, Junior Member
TWELFTH DIVISION
Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., Chairperson
Justice Manuel M. Barrios, Senior Member
Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, Junior Member
THIRTEENTH DIVISION
Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, Chairperson
Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, Senior Member
Justice Ma. Luisa Quijano Padilla, Junior Member
FOURTEENTH DIVISION
Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., Chairperson
Justice Danton Q. Bueser, Senior Member
Justice Renato C. Francisco, Junior Member
FIFTEENTH DIVISION
Justice Ramon R. Garcia, Chairperson
Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba, Senior Member
Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, Junior Member
SIXTEENTH DIVISION
Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, Chairperson
Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, Senior Member
Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, Junior Member
SEVENTEENTH DIVISION
Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, Chairperson
Justice Ramon A. Cruz, Senior Member
Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Junior Member
CEBU CITY STATION
EIGHTEENTH DIVISION
Executive Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, Chairperson
Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, Senior Member
Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, Junior Member
NINETEENTH DIVISION
Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, Chairperson
Justice Edward B. Contreras, Senior Member
Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, Junior Member
TWENTIETH DIVISION
Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, Chairperson
Justice Pablito A. Perez, Senior Member
Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, Junior Member
v
CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY STATION
TWENTY-FIRST DIVISION
Executive Justice Romulo V. Borja, Chairperson
Justice Oscar V. Badelles, Senior Member
Justice Ronaldo B. Martin, Junior Member
TWENTY-SECOND DIVISION
Justice Edgardo A. Camello, Chairperson
Justice Ma. Filemena D. Singh, Senior Member
Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, Junior Member
TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION
Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, Chairperson
Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, Senior Member
Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, Junior Member
The Sandiganbayan
Pursuant to RA 10660 (An Act Strengthening the Functional and Structural

Organization of the Sandiganbayan) creating two additional divisions of the
Sandiganbayan, six Justices were appointed on January 20, 2016 bringing the
total number of members from 15 to 21. As of 2016, the current composition of the
Sandiganbayan is as follows:
FIRST DIVISION
Justice Efren N. De la Cruz, Chairperson
Justice Maria Cristina J. Cornejo, Senior Member
Justice Reynaldo P. Cruz, Junior Member
SECOND DIVISION
Justice Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos, Chairperson
Justice Napoleon E. Inoturan, Senior Member
Justice Michael Frederick L. Musngi, Junior Member
THIRD DIVISION
Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, Chairperson
Justice Samuel R. Martires, Senior Member
Justice Sarah Jane Fernandez, Junior Member
FOURTH DIVISION
Justice Jose R. Hernandez, Chairperson
Justice Alex D. Quiroz, Senior Member
Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg, Junior Member
FIFTH DIVISION
Justice Roland B. Jurado, Chairperson
Justice Rafael R. Lagos, Senior Member
Justice Ma. Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega, Junior Member
vi
SIXTH DIVISION
Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada, Chairperson
Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., Senior Member
Justice Karl B. Miranda, Junior Member
SEVENTH DIVISION
Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, Chairperson
Justice Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta, Senior Member
Justice Zaldy V. Trespeses, Junior Member
The Court of Tax Appeals

FIRST DIVISION
Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario, Chairperson
Justice Erlinda Piñera-Uy
Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla
SECOND DIVISION
Justice Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr., Chairperson
Justice Caesar A. Casanova
Justice Amelia Cotangco-Manalastas
THIRD DIVISION
Justice Lovell R. Bautista, Chairperson
Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino
Justice Ma. Belen Ringpis Liban
vii
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S MESSAGE

ONE PAGE, ONE MIND, ONE DIRECTION
T
his year’s Judiciary Annual Report takes off from the “success
stories” we presented last year and represents our continuing
effort to mainstream these successes stories into sustainable
standards.These success stories tell us about (a) Speedy
Justice. (for example, Hustisyeah and Case Decongestion Officers, the
Enterprise Information Systems Plans, E-Courts); (b) Transparent
Justice ( f o r e x a mp le , l ive s t re am in g, up lo ad in g of fi n an c i al
transactions, SALN summaries for SC Justices); (c) Compassionate
Justice (the Family Courts); and (d) Effi cient Justice (Infrastructure).
We are heartened that our efforts to mainstream these success
stories into sustainable standards was recognized and joined by the
Executive and Legislative branches in the last three years. Working
together, we were able to (a) institutionalize previously privately-
assisted reform initiatives and projects through GAA support; (b) put
in place through strategic and programmatic funding a reform track
for the judiciary that is long-term but time-bound, visionary but realistic,
practicable and practical.
Clearly of ONE MIND, the Executive, Congress and the Judiciary
read from ONE PAGE the past year. This led to a sharing of the strategic
vision that the Supreme Court has laid down for the judiciary. Our
success stories would not have been possible had it not been for
this partnership. This unity has also led to better allocation of
resources to the judiciary, where the premium has not been on
how much money is allocated but also to which programs it
is allocated and when it is allocated.
In the advent of a new administration borne on an
overwhelming mandate for change, the judiciary needs
to be the one, unchanging and ever-constant point in our
government. To be able to do this, the Judiciary needs
to be insulated from the germ of political dependency
and be strengthened in its autonomy and
independence. That is the O NE DIRECTION that the
Judiciary is constitutionally mandated to take. It is
the ONE DIRECTION that we are confi dent that our
partners in government from the legislative and the
executive branches will continue to support.
ii
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
THE WORK OF THE JUDICIARY

The Supreme Court
A CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
The Supreme Court of the Philippines is the progeny of the tribunal established
by Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901. While there is no
umbilical cord joining the Supreme Court to the Real Audiencia de Manila set up by the
Spaniards or the Audiencia Territorial de Manila constituted by Major General Elwell
Otis, these audiencias, however, serve as backdrops and proper perspectives in retelling
the history of the present Supreme Court.
The Judicial System of the Pre-Spanish Filipinos

When the Spanish colonizers fi rst arrived in the Philippine archipelago, they
found the indigenous Filipinos without any written laws. Mainly, the laws enforced
were derived from customs, usages and tradition. These laws were believed to be God-
given and were orally transmitted from generation to generation.
A remarkable feature of these customs and traditions was that they were found
to be very similar to one another notwithstanding that they were observed in widely
dispersed islands of the archipelago. There were no judges and lawyers who were
trained formally in the law, although there were elders who devoted time to the study
of the customs, usages and traditions of their tribes to qualify them as consultants or
advisers on these matters.
The unit of government of the indigenous Filipinos was the barangay, which was
a family-based community of 30 to 100 families, occupying a pook (“locality” or
“area”) Headed by a chieftain called a datu who exercised all functions of government—
executive, legislative, and judicial. A barangay was not only a political but also a
social and economic organization. In the exercise of his judicial authority, the datu
acted as a hukom (Judge) in settling disputes and deciding cases in his barangay.
The Judicial System Under the Spanish Regime

During the early Spanish occupation, King Philip II established the Real Audiencia
de Manila which was given not only judicial but legislative, executive, advisory, and
administrative functions as well. Composed of the incumbent governor general as the
presidente (presiding offi cer), four oidores (equivalent to associate justices), an asesor
(legal adviser ), an alguacil mayor (chief constable), among other offi cials, the Real
Audiencia de Manila was both a trial and appellate court. It had exclusive original,
concurrent original and exclusive appellate jurisdictions.
Initially, the Audiencia was given a non-judicial role in the colonial administration,
to deal with unforeseen problems within the territory that arose from time to time. It
was given the power to supervise certain phases of ecclesiastical aff airs as well as
regulatory functions, such as fi xing of prices at which merchants could sell their
commodities. Likewise, the Audiencia had executive functions, like the allotment of
1
lands to the sett lers of newly established pueblos. However, by 1861, the Audiencia
had ceased to perform these executive and administrative functions and had been
restricted to the administration of justice.
When the Audiencia Territorial de Cebu was established in 1886, the name of the
Real Audiencia de Manila was changed to Audiencia Territorial de Manila.
The Judicial System During theAmerican Occupation

As expected, the subsequent occupation by the Americans of the Philippine Islands
in the late 1890s after Spain’s defeat in the Spanish-American War paved the way for
considerable changes in the control, disposition, and governance of the Islands.
The judicial system established during the regime of the military government
functioned as an instrument of the executive—not of the judiciary—as an independent
and separate branch of government.
The Secretary of State John Hay, on May 12, 1899, proposed a plan for a colonial
government of the Philippine Islands which would give Filipinos the largest measure
of self-government. The plan contemplated an independent judiciary manned by judges
chosen from qualified locals and Americans.
On May 29, 1899, General Elwell Stephen Otis, Military Governor for the Philippines,
issued General Order No. 20, reestablishing the Audiencia Teritorial de Manila which
was to apply Spanish laws and jurisprudence recognized by the American military
governor as continuing in force.
The Audiencia was composed of a presiding offi cer and eight members organized
into two divisions: the sala de lo civil or the civil branch, and the sala de lo criminal or
the criminal branch.
It was General Otis himself who personally selected the fi rst appointees to the
Audiencia. Cayetano L. Arellano was appointed President (equivalent to Chief Justice)
of the Court, with Manuel Araullo as president of the sala de lo civil and Raymundo
Melliza as president of the sala de lo criminal. Gregorio Araneta and Lt. Col. E.H.
Crowder were appointed associate justices of the civil branch while Ambrosio Rianzares,
Julio Llorente, Major R.W. Young and Captain W.E. Brikhimer were designated associate
justices of the criminal branch. Thus, the reestablished Audiencia became the fi rst
agency of the new insular government where Filipinos were appointed side by side
with Americans.
The Establishment of the Supreme Court of the Philippines

On June 11, 1901, the Second Philippine Commission passed Act No. 136 entitled
“An Act Providing for the Organization of Courts in the Philippine Islands ” formally
establishing the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands and creating Courts of First
Instance and Justices of the Peace Courts throughout the land. The judicial organization
established by the Act was conceived by the American lawyers in the Philippine
Commission and was patterned in its basic structures after similar organizations in
the United States.
The Supreme Court created under the Act was composed of a Chief Justice and
six Judges. Five members of the Court could form a quorum, and the concurrence of
at least four members was necessary to pronounce a judgment. Act No. 136 abolished
the Audiencia established under General Order No. 20 and declared that the Supreme
Court created by the Act be substituted in its place. This effectively severed any nexus
between the present Supreme Court and the Audiencia.
2
The Anglo-American legal system under which the Supreme Court of the Philippine
Islands was expected to operate was entirely different from the old Spanish system
that Filipinos were familiar with. Adjustments had to be made; hence, the decisions
of the Supreme Court during its early years refl ected a blend of both the Anglo-
American and Spanish systems. The jurisprudence was a gentle transition from the
old order to the new.
TheSupremeCourtDuringtheCommonwealth
Following the ratification of the 1935 Philippine Constitution in a plebiscite, the
principle of separation of powers was adopted not by express and specific provision
to that eff ect, but by actual division of powers of the government into executive,
legislative, and judicial in different articles thereof.
As in the United States, the judicial power was vested by the 1935 Constitution
“in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law.” It
devolved on the Judiciary to determine whether the acts of the other two departments
were in harmony with the fundamental law.
The Court during the Commonwealth was composed of “a Chief Justice and ten
Associate Justices, and may sit en banc or in two divisions, unless otherwise provided
by law.”
The SupremeCourt of the Second Republic

After the Japanese occupation during the Second World War and the subsequent
independence from the United States, Republic Act No. 296 or the Judiciary Act of
1948 was enacted. This law grouped together the cases over which the Supreme Court
could exercise exclusive jurisdiction to review on appeal, certiorari or writ of error.
The Supreme Court Under the 1973 Constitution

The declaration of Martial Law through Proclamation No. 1081 by former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1972 brought about the transition from the 1935 Constitution
to the 1973 Constitution. This transition had implications on the Court’s composition
and functions.
This period brought in many legal issues of transcendental importance and
consequence. Among these were the legality of the ratification of a new Constitution,
the assumption of the totality of government authority by President Marcos, the power
to review the factual basis for a declaration of Martial Law by the Chief Executive.
Writ large also during this period was the relationship between the Court and the
Chief Executive who, under Amendment No. 6 to the 1973 Constitution, had assumed
legislative powers even while an elected legislative body continued to function.
The 1973 Constitution increased the number of the members of the Supreme
Court from 11 to 15, with a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. The Justices of the
Court were appointed by the President alone without the consent, approval, or
recommendation of any other body or offi cials.
The Supreme Court Under the Revolutionary Government

Shortly after assuming offi ce as the seventh President of the Republic of the
Philippines after the successful People Power Revolution of February 1986, then President
Corazon C. Aquino declared the existence of a revolutionary government under
Proclamation No. 1 dated February 25, 1986. Among the more significant portions of
this Proclamation was an instruction for “all appointive officials to submit their courtesy
resignations beginning with the members of the Supreme Court.”
3
The call was unprecedented, considering the separation of powers that previous
Constitutions had always ordained, but understandable considering the revolutionary
nature of the post-People Power government. Heeding the call, the members of the
Judiciary from the Supreme Court to the Municipal Circuit Courts placed their offices
at the disposal of the President and submitted their resignations. President Corazon
C. Aquino proceeded to reorganize the entire Court, appointing all 15 members, led
by former Senior Associate Justice Claudio M. Teehankee Sr. as Chief Justice.
On March 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino, through Proclamation No. 3, also
abolished the 1973 Constitution and put in place a Provisional “Freedom” Constitution.
Under Article I, section 2 of the Freedom Constitution, the provisions of the 1973
Constitution on the judiciary were adopted insofar as they were not inconsistent with
Proclamation No. 3.
Article V of Proclamation No. 3 provided for the convening of a Constitutional
Commission composed of fifty appointive members to draft a new constitution; this
would be implemented by Proclamation No. 9. The output of the Constitutional
Commission of 1986 was submitt ed to the people for ratifi cation, under Â Filipino
people then ratified the Constitution submitted to them by the Constitutional Commission
on February 2, 1987.
The Supreme Court Under the 1987 Constitution

As in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the 1987 Constitution provides that “[t]he
judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may
be established by law.” (Art. VII, Sec. 1). The exercise of judicial power is shared by
the Supreme Court with all the courts below it, but it is only the Supreme Court’s
decisions that are vested with precedential value or doctrinal authority, as its
interpretations of the Constitution and the laws are final and beyond review by any
other branch of government.
Unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, however, the 1987 Constitution defines
the concept of judicial power. Under paragraph 2 of Section 1, Article VIII, “judicial
power” includes not only the “duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable” but also “to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.” This
latter provision dilutes the effectivity of the “political question” doctrine which places
specifi c questions best submitt ed to the political wisdom of the people beyond the
review of the courts.
Building on previous experiences under former Constitutions, the 1987 Constitution
provides for specific safeguards to ensure the independence of the Judiciary. These are
found in the following provisions:
1. The grant to the Judiciary of fiscal autonomy. “Appropriations for the Judiciary
may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the
previous year, and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.”
(Art. VIII, Sec. 3)
2. The grant to the Chief Justice of authority to augment any item in the general
appropriation law for the Judiciary from savings in other items of said
appropriation as authorized by law. (Art. VI, Sec. 25[5])
3. The removal from Congress of the power to deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 of Article VIII.
4
environment that has presumably already suffered. The judgment

of the Court is set forth in its dispositive portion which states:
I N V I E W O F T H E F O R E G O I N G , t he Mot ion f or Partial
R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n is he r e b y DENIED. T h e M o t i o n f o r
Reconsideration with Motion for Clarifi cation is PARTLY
GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’ recommendations, embodied
in its December 21, 2012 Report and Recommendation, are
hereby ADOPTED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
I. The Department of Energy (DOE) is hereby ORDERED to
oversee the strict implementation of the following activities:
A. Preparatory to the Test Run of the entire stretch of the WOPL:
1) FPIC shall perform the following:
a. Continue submission of monitoring charts, data/reading,
accomplishment reports, and project status for all related
activities/works. Respond to comments and prepare for site
inspection.
b. Continue gas testing along the right- of-way using the
monitoring wells or boreholes. Prepare for inspection of right-
of-way and observation of gas testing activities on monitoring
wells and boreholes.
c. Explain the process of the selection of borehole location and
identify those located in pipeline bends, bodies of water,
highways, residential areas, repaired portions of the pipelines,
d e n t s a n d we l d e d j o i n t s , a s we l l o t h e r n o t a b le f a c t o r s ,
circumstances, or exposure to stresses.
d. Set up additional boreholes and monitoring wells suffi cient
to cover the entire stretch of the WOPL, the number and location
of which shall be determined by the DOE.
e. Continue submitting status report to the concerned government
agency/ies relating to “Project Mojica,” or the on-going pipeline
segment realignment activity being undertaken by FPIC to give
way to a flood control project of the MMDA in the vicinity of
Mojica St. and Pres. Osmeña Highway, and prepare for site
inspection.
2) The DOE shall perform the following undertakings:
a. Conduct onsite inspection of the pipeline right-of-way, the
area around the WOPL and the equipment installed underground
or aboveground.
b. Review and check the condition of the 22 patches reinforced
with Clockspring sleeves by performing the following:
i. Determine the location of the sleeves
ii. Review the procedure for the repair of the sleeves
iii. Inspect the areas where the affected portions of the WOPL
are located and which are easily accessible.
c. Inspect onsite the cathodic protection rectifi er to check the
following:
6
i. old and current readings

ii. the segment/s covered by the cathodic protection system
iii. review the criteria for prioritization of corrective action.
d. Observe and witness the running/operation of the intelligent
and cleaning pigs.
e. Check and calibrate the instruments that will be used for the
actual tests on the pipeline, and validate the calibration certificates
of these instruments.
B. During the Actual Test Run:
1) FPIC shall perform the following:
a. Perform Cleaning Pig run and witness the launching and
receiving of the intelligent and cleaning pigs.
b. Demonstrate and observe the various pressure and leakage
tests, including the following:
i. “Blocked-in pressure test” or the pressure test conducted while
all the WOPL’s openings are blocked or closed off; and
ii. “In-operation test” or the hourly monitoring of pressure rating
after the pipeline is filled with dyed water and pressurized at
a specified rate.
c. Continue, inspect, and oversee the current gas monitoring
system, or the monitoring of gas flow from the boreholes and
monitoring wells of the WOPL.
d. Check the mass or volume balance computation during WOPL
test run by conducting:
i. 30 days baseline data generation
ii. Computational analysis and monitoring of the data generated.
II. After FPIC has undertaken the activities prescribed in the
preceding paragraph 1, the DOE shall determine if the activities
and the results of the test run warrant the re-opening of the
WOPL. In the event that the DOE is satisfied that the WOPL is
safe for continued commercial operations, it shall issue an order
allowing FPIC to resume the operations of the pipeline.
III. Once the WOPL is re-opened, the DOE shall see to it that
FPIC strictly complies with the following directives:
a. Continue implementation of its Pipeline Integrity Management
System (PIMS), as reviewed by the DOE, which shall include,
but shall not be limited to:
1. the conduct of daily patrols on the entire stretch of the WOPL,
every two hours;
2. continued close monitoring of all the boreholes and monitoring
wells of the WOPL pipeline;
3. regular periodic testing and maintenance based on its PIMS;
and
4. the auditing of the pipeline’s mass input versus mass output;
7
b. submit to the DOE, within ten (10) days of each succeeding

month, monthly reports on its compliance with the above directives
and any other conditions that the DOE may impose, the results
of the monitoring, tests, and audit, as well as any and all activities
undertaken on the WOPL or in connection with its operation.
The concerned government agencies, namely: the Industrial
Technology Development Institute (ITDI) and the Metals Industry
Research and Development Center (MIRDC), both under the
D e p a r t m e n t o f S c i e n c e a n d Te c h n o l o g y ( D O S T ) , t h e
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Bureau of
Design (BOD) of the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), the University of the Philippines-National Institute of
Geological Science (UP-NIGS) and University of the Philippines-
Institute of Civil Engineering (UP-ICE), the petitioners, intervenors
and this Court shall likewise be furnished by FPIC with the
monthly reports. This shall include, but shall not be limited to:
realignment, repairs, and maintenance works; and
c. continue coordination with the concerned government agencies
for the implementation of its projects.
IV. Respondent FPIC is also DIRECTED to undertake and
continue the remediation, rehabilitation and restoration of the
aff ected Barangay Bangkal environment until full restoration
of the affected area to its condition prior to the leakage is achieved.
For this purpose, respondent FPIC must strictly comply with
the measures, directives and permits issued by the DENR for its
remediation activities in Barangay Bangkal, including but not
limited to, the Wastewater Discharge Permit and Permit to
Operate. The DENR has the authority to oversee and supervise
the aforesaid activities on said aff ected barangay.
V. The Inter-Agency Committee on Environmental Health under
the City Government of Makati shall SUBMIT to the DENR its
evaluation of the Remediation Plan prepared by CH2M Hill
Philippines, Inc. within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof.
VI. Petitioners’ prayer for the creation of a special trust fund to
answer for similar contingencies in the future is DENIED.
People v. Wahiman, The Court computed damages for loss of earning capacity on
Signed Resolution, the basis of the sole testimony of a murder victim’s widow as
GR No. 194912, to her husband’s age, work, and monthly salary, which had
June 16, 2015; En not been objected to by appellant or questioned during cross-
Banc examination or on appeal. This was a departure from the rule
that damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded
despite the absence of documentary evidence only, by way of
exception, when
(1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the
minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice
may be taken of the fact that in deceased ‘s line of work no
documentary evidence is available; or
(2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning
less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.” The
8
Court acknowledged that the case does not fall under any of
the exceptions but nonetheless awarded damages. The Court,
however, modified the trial court’s award for lost earnings to
follow the formula [2/3 x 80 – age] x [gross income – necessary
expenses equivalent to 50% of the gross annual income].
Film Development The Court declared Sections 13 and 14 of RA 9167
Council of the unconstitutional. The Court found that, by earmarking the income
Philippines (FDCP) on amusement taxes imposed by the local government units
v. Colon Heritage (LGUs) in favor of FDCP and the producers of graded films in
Realty Corporation, Section 14, Congress had committed a usurpation of the LGUs’
GR Nos. 203754 exclusive prerogative to apportion their funds defeating the
and 204418, June guarantee of fiscal autonomy to municipal corporations enshrined
16, 2015; En Banc in the Constitution. The Court also held that Section 13 is not
a grant by Congress of an exemption from amusement taxes in
favor of producers of graded films but a transfer to them of the
amount of amusement tax borne by the proprietors, lessors,
and operators as a monetary reward for having produced a
graded film, the funding for which was taken by the national
government from the coffers of the covered LGUs.
Velicaria-Garafil v. The Court upheld actions taken pursuant to President Benigno
Offi ce of the S. Aquino III’s Executive Order No. 2 (series of 2010) which
President, GR Nos. invalidated a series of appointments made by his immediate
203372, 209138, predecessor on the basis that they were in violation of the
and 212030, June constitutional ban on “midnight appointments” in Article VII,
16, 2015; En Banc section 15 of the 1987 Constitution.
Defining a valid appointment to a government post, including
one made under the exception to the ban on midnight
appointments, as a process that takes several steps to complete,
the Court emphasized that the appointments challenged failed
to meet that process. In this case, the Court found that petitioners
failed to show their compliance with all four elements of a
valid appointment (the President’s signing an appointee’s
appointment paper to a vacant offi ce, its offi cial issuance and
acceptance by the appointee evidenced by his or her oath of
offi ce or assumption of duties) as it was not shown that their
appointment papers had indeed been issued before the period
covered by the appointment ban.
The Court also noted the admission that the appointees took
their oaths of office during the period covered by the appointment
ban even as none of them claimed that their appointments fell
under the exception.
Ferrer v. Bautista, The Court sustained the constitutionality and legality of the
GR No. 210551, Socialized Housing Tax (SHT) of Quezon City (Ordinance No. SP-
June 30, 2015; En 2095, Series of 2011) as being consistent with Section 43 of RA
Banc 7279 (Urban Housing and Development Act).
The Court characterized the SHT, the collections of which accrue
to the city’s socialized housing programs and projects, not just
as a pure exercise of the taxing power but also to be “primarily
in the exercise of police power for the general welfare of the
city.”
9
In the same case, however, the Court also declared Ordinance

No. SP-2235, Series of 2013 (Garbage Fee Tax), which collects an
annual garbage fee on all domestic households in Quezon City,
to be unconstitutional and illegal and directed respondents to
refund with reasonable dispatch the sums of money collected
relative to its enforcement.
The Court noted that the basis for the fees under the 2013
Ordinance is the volume of waster currently generated by each
person in Quezon City, purportedly 0.66 kilogram per day,
and the increasing trend of waste generation for the past three
years. According to the Court, the cited figure fails to make a
distinction as to the type of waste generated and is inconsistent
with RA 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000),
Section 47 which limits the authority of the city to impose fees
only to the collection and transport of non-recyclable and special
wastes and the disposal of these into the sanitary landfi ll. It
also found the ordinance to be in violation of the equal protection
clause and the provisions in the Local Government Code that an
ordinance must be equitable and based, as far as practicable,
on the taxpayer’s ability to pay, and not be unjust, excessive,
oppressive, and confiscatory.
Arellano v. Republic, The Court upheld a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT)
GR No. 156022, under RA 8371 (The Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997) in
July 6, 2015; En favor of the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community, which
Banc allowed the community to develop, control, and manage Calauit
island, notwithstanding Presidential Proclamation No. 1578
which recognized private rights already extant at that time.
T he is s ua nc e of t he C A D T ne ga t e d t h e c o ns e q ue nc e s of
Resettlement Agreements entered into to remove and transfer
the settlers from Calauit to the resettlement areas in Halsey and
Burabod.
The Court, however, denied the plea that individual titles of
ownership over portions of Calauit be awarded on the theory
that the CADT amounts to an affi rmation and recognition of
the property rights of their ancestors from whom petitioners
trace their present claims. The Court held that under Section
12 of RA 8371, the option to secure title to the same must be
done in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended, or the Land Registration Act.
Enrile v. The Court ordered the grant of bail in the amount of One Million
Sandiganbayan, GR Pesos (P1,000,000.00) to petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile, who had
No. 213847, August been charged with plunder on the basis that he was not a flight
18, 2015; En Banc; risk because of his stature as Senator of the Republic and his
Motion for poor health condition.
Reconsideration
The Court considered the principal purpose of bail, which is to
denied, July 12,
guarantee the presence of the accused during trial or whenever
2016
required by the Court, and the national commitment to uphold
fundamental rights. It found that petitioner’s “social and political
standing and his having immediately surrendered to the
authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the
risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely.”
10
A Motion for Reconsideration of this Decision was denied by

the Court.
Presidential The Court dismissed two petitions for declaratory relief filed by
Commission on Good respondent United Coconut Planters Bank (UPCB) and United
Government (PCGG) Coconut Planters Life Assurance Corporation (COCOLIFE),
v. Dumayas, GR respectively, alleging their proportionate interest in the six
Nos. 209447 and Coconut Industry Investment Fund oil mill companies or oil
210901, August 11, mills groups (CIIF OMGs) and CIIF San Miguel Corporation
2015 block of shares.
The Court held that res judicata under the second aspect or
“conclusiveness of judgment” applies to the issue of ownership
of the said properties and the 14 CIIF holding companies was
directly and actually resolved by the Sandiganbayan and affirmed
by the Court in Cocofed v. Republic. In the Cocofed case, the
Court sustained the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that the CIIF
companies and the CIIF block of SMC shares are public funds
necessarily owned by the Government “which shall be used
only for the benefit of the coconut farmers and for the development
of the coconut industry.”
Bureau of Customs v. The Court, pursuant to Section 1, Article VIII in relation to
Devanadera, GR No. Section 5(5) of the Constitution, ruled that the original jurisdiction
193253, September 8, of the Court of Appeals over petitions for certiorari against
2015 actions by the Department of Justice on preliminary investigations
involving tax and tariff offenses is now transferred to the Court
of Tax Appeals pursuant to RA 9282.
Induran v. The Court declared Rule IX, Section 1 of the Indigenous Peoples’
Aberasturi, GR No. Rights Act-Implementing Rules and Regulations (IPRA-IRR),
181284, October Rule III, Section 524 and Rule IV, Sections 13 and 14 of the
20, 2015 National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Rules as
null and void. The provisions expanded the jurisdiction of the
NCIP under Section 66 of the IPRA to include disputes where
the parties do not belong to the same ICC/IP (Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples).
The Court considered the general rule that the jurisdiction of
the NCIP under Section 66 of the IPRA covers only disputes
and claims between and among members of the same ICCs/IPs
involving their rights under the IPRA, as well as the basic
administrative law principle that an administrative rule or
regulation must conform to, not contradict, the provisions of
the enabling law.
Maruhom v. People The Court qualified an earlier ruling (Colinares v. People) which
of the Philippines, held that an accused may still be allowed to apply for probation
GR No. 206513, even if he has filed a notice of appeal provided that such appeal
October 20, 2015 must be limited to the following grounds:
1. when the appeal is merely intended for the correction of the
penalty imposed by the lower court, which when corrected would
entitle the accused to apply for probation; and
2. when the appeal is merely intended to review the crime for
which the accused was convicted and that the accused should
11
only be liable to the lesser offense which is necessarily included

in the crime for which he was originally convicted and the
proper penalty imposable is within the probationable period.
The Court further required in Colinares that, before any appeal
on these two grounds may be made, the accused be required to
file a motion for reconsideration at the trial court anchored on
the two grounds and manifest an intention to apply for probation
should the motion be granted. The rationale for the motion for
reconsideration is to allow the trial court to correct any errors
in its judgment while the manifestation will demonstrate the
accused’s acceptance of the conviction and show that his only
objection is as to the penalty or the crime and that, if granted
and the penalty adjusted to fall within the probationable period,
he would agree to go on probation.
In this case, the Court found that the notice of appeal of the
accused questioned the correctness of the conviction and not
just the crime or penalty and therefore fell outside the Colina
guidelines and therefore could not have applied for probation.
Microsoft The Court held that the mere sale of illicit copies of software
Corporation v. programs is enough by itself to show the existence of probable
Manansala, GR No. cause for copyright infringement, and that there is no need to
166391, October 21, further prove who copied, replicated or reproduced the software
2015 programs.
Carpio Morales v. The Court abandoned the “condonation doctrine” first set forth
Court of Appeals, in 1959 in the case of Pascual v. Board of Nueva Ecija, but held
GR Nos. 217126-27, the abandonment to be prospective in eff ect. The Court held
November 10, 2015 that “there is simply no constitutional or statutory basis in our
jurisdiction to support the notion that an offi cial elected for a
different term is fully absolved of any administrative liability
arising from an off ense done during a prior term.”
The Court also declared the second paragraph of Section 14 of
RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act) as unconstitutional. The provision
states that no appeal or application for remedy may be heard
against the decision or fi ndings of the Ombudsman with the
exception of the Supreme Court on pure questions of law, i.e.,
Rule 45. The Court ruled that Congress cannot interfere with
matters of procedure; hence, it cannot alter the scope of a Rule
45 appeal so as to apply to interlocutory “findings” issued by
the Ombudsman. More significantly, by confi ning the remedy
to a Rule 45 appeal, the provision removes the remedy of certiorari,
grounded on errors of jurisdiction, in denigration of the judicial
power constitutionally vested in courts. In this light, the Court
also found the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 to
have increased the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, without a
showing, however, that it gave its consent to the same as required
under the Constitution.
The Court also declared the policy in the fi rst paragraph of
Section 14, RA 6770 which bars the issuance of provisional
injunctive writs by courts other than the Supreme Court to
e n j o i n a n i n ve s t i g a t i o n c o n d u c t e d b y t h e O ffi c e o f t h e
12
Ombudsman as ineffective until the Court adopts it as part of

the rules of procedure. It held the provision to be an encroachment
by Congress on the Court’s constitutional rule-making power.
Gonzales v. GJH The Court held that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s
Land, Inc., GR No. subject matter jurisdiction over intra-corporate cases under Section
202664, November 5 of PD 902-A was transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction,
10, 2015 i.e., the appropriate Regional Trial Courts; and the designated
branches of the Regional Trial Court, as per the rules promulgated
by the Supreme Court, shall exercise jurisdiction over such cases.
People v. Valdez, GR The Court held that an accused charged with the complex crime
No. 216007-09, of Malversation of Public Funds and through Falsifi cation of
December 8, 2015 Offi cial/Public Documents involving an amount in excess of
P22,000 is entitled to bail as a matter of right as what should
be considered is the penalty “prescribed” and not the penalty
to be imposed after trial.
Pilipinas Total Gas, The Court held that it is the taxpayer who ultimately determines
Inc. v. Commissioner when complete documents have been submitted for the purpose
of Internal Revenue, of commencing and continuing the running of the 120-day period
GR No. 207112, for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on a claim for
December 8, 2015 refund or tax credit of input taxes under Section 112 (C) of the
National Internal Revenue Code.
International Service The Court, in its Decision of December 8, 2015, applied the
For the Acquisition precautionary principle in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
of Agri-Biotech Cases and permanently enjoined the field testing of Bt (Bacillus
Applications, Inc v. thuringiensis) Talong, an eggplant “bio-engineered” to be resistant
Greenpeace Southeast to the fruit and shoot borer, the most destructive eggplant insect
Asia (Philippines), pest.
GR Nos. 209271,
The Court found that DAO 08-2002 failed to meet the minimum
209276, 209301,
requirements for safety under EO 514, which established the
and 209430,
National Biosafety Framework (NBF). The NBF under EO 514
December 8, 2015;
mandates a more transparent, meaningful and participatory
Motion for
public consultation on the conduct of fi eld trials beyond the
Reconsideration
posting and publication of notices and information sheets,
granted, July 26,
consultations with some residents and government offi cials,
2016; Original
and submission of written comments as provided in DAO 08-
Judgment, reversed.
2002. The Court found that petitioners simply followed DAO
08-2002 but no real eff ort was made to operationalize the
principles of the NBF in the conduct of field testing of Bt talong.
The failure of DAO 08-2002 to accommodate the NBF meant
that the DA lacks the mechanisms to mandate applicants to
comply with international biosafety protocols. On the application
of the Precautionary Principle, the Court found that the three
c on di ti ons f o r t he ap pl ic at io n of t h e p ri nc ip le —n ame ly
uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility
of serious harm—were present in the case. The Court held that
the more prudent course was to immediately enjoin the Bt talong
field trials and approval for commercialization until the concerned
government offices shall have performed their respective mandates
to implement the National Biosafety Framework established
under EO 514.
13
In its Decision of July 26, 2016, however, the Court granted the
various Motions for Reconsideration and reversed its earlier ruling
of December 8, 2015. Its dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are GRANTED.
The Decision dated December 8, 2015 of the Court, which affirmed
with modifi cation the Decision dated May 17, 2013 and the
Resolution dated September 20, 2013 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 00013 is hereby SET ASIDE for the reasons
above-explained. A new one is ENTERED DISMISSING the
Petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan
with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO) fi led by respondents Greenpeace
Southeast Asia (Philippines) (Greenpeace), Magsasaka at Siyentipiko
sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG), and others on the
ground of mootness.
In so holding, the Court agreed with the movants argument
that the case should have been dismissed for mootness in view
of the completion and termination of the Bt talong field trials
and the expiration of the Biosafety permits. It also stated that
the Court should not have resolved the case on its substantive
merits due to mootness and should also not have acted on the
c o ns t it ut io na l q ue s t i on, i. e . , w he t he r DA O 08 - 2 00 2 was
unconstitutional, as this matter was only collaterally raised.
The Court explained that it is not empowered to decide moot
questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or
riles of law which cannot aff ect the result as to the thing in
issue in the case before it. An action is considered moot when
it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues
have become academic or when the subject matt er has been
resolved. The Court also stated that the exceptions to mootness
under case law—(a) if there is a grave violation of the Constitution;
(b) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
public interest is involved; (c) when the constitutional issue raised
requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the
bar, and the public; and (d) the case is capable of repetition yet
evading review—were not present and thus the Court should
not, in the fi rst place, have decided the matter.
The supercession of DAO 08-2002 by JDC 01-2016 prevents the
issue from repeating itself yet evading review, thus not constituting
an exception to mootness. According to the Court, the new
regulatory framework under JDC 01-2016 is very different from
DAO 08-2002 and thus prevents this matter from falling under
that exception to mootness. The Court noted that there are two
factors to be considered before a case is deemed capable of
repetition yet evading review: (1) the challenged action was in
its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation
or expiration; and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that
the complaining party would be subjected to the same action.
The Biosafety permits in question were obtained in 2010 and
were valid for two years; the cases were filed just shortly before
the permits were to expire, thus respondents cannot claim that
14
the period to litigate was too short. Also, DAO 08-2002 has
been superceded by JDC 01-2016 thus preventing any claim of
being subjected to the same treatment from being successfully
made.
The Court pointed out that completion of field trials does not
mean that GMOs could immediately be commercially propagated
as there are regulations that govern the same.
Kabataan Party-List The Court upheld the constitutionality of the biometrics validation
v. Commission on of the list of voters as provided under RA 10367 and fl eshed
Elections out in the assailed COMELEC resolutions, holding that it passes
(COMELEC), GR the “strict scrutiny” test. It found that the objective of cleansing
No. 221318, the national voter registry so as to eliminate electoral fraud and
December 16, 2015 ensure that election results are refl ective of the will of the
electorate is a compelling state interest. The regulation is also
the least restrictive means as it is simply a manner of updating
registration for those already registered under RA 8189 through
technology.
Mendez v. Shari’a The Court, following the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, ruled
District Court, GR that the Shari’a Circuit Court possesses jurisdiction to rule on
No. 201614, issues of custody as they may be relevant to resolving divorce
January 12, 2016 (talaq) cases. The Court clarified that if the main cause of action
is one for custody, it must be fi led with the Shari’a District
Court following Article 143 of PD 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal
Laws).
Saguisag v. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense
Executive Secretary, Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the United States and
GR Nos. 212426 the Philippines even without it having been submitted for Senate
and 212444, concurrence on the ground that Article XVIII, Section 25 of the
January 12, 2016 Constitution allows the President to enter into an executive
agreement (EA) on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities if
(a) it is not the instrument that allows the presence of foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities or (b) it merely aims to implement
an existing law or treaty. The Court characterized the EDCA
as one such Executive Agreement that did not require Senate
concurrence as it provides for arrangements to implement existing
treaties (Visiting Forces Agreement and the Mutual Defense
Treaty).
Estrellado v. David, The Court held that the next-in-rank status of a government
GR No. 184288, employee is not a guarantee to one’s fi tness to the position
February 16, 2016 aspired for. It also noted that the three-salary grade limitation
on promotion and transfer is subject to exceptions under CSC
Resolution No. 03-0106 dated January 24, 2003.
Po e - L l a m a nz a r e s v. In this case, the Court declared petitioner Mary Grace Natividad
COMELEC, GR Nos. S. Poe-Llamanzares qualified to be a candidate for President in
221697 and 221698- the May 9, 2016 elections. It found the assailed resolutions of
700, March 8, 2016 the COMELEC in the matt er of petitioner’s citizenship and
residence in relation to her candidacy for president to have
been rendered in grave abuse of discretion; in the words of the
majority, “deadly diseased with grave abuse of discretion from
root to fruits,” both as to procedure and its conclusions.
15
On the matter of procedure, the Court held that the COMELEC

cannot itself, in the same cancellation of certificate of candidacy
(COC) case, decide the qualifications or lack thereof of candidates
for president, vice-president, senator, or representative and that
“(t)he facts of qualification must beforehand be established by
a prior proceeding…by statute, by executive order, or by
judgment of a competent court or tribunal.”
On the issue of petitioner’s natural-born citizenship, the Court
found that the blood relationship of a petitioner, a foundling,
with a Filipino citizen is “DEMONSTRABLE.” Citing statistics
to show that when petitioner was found in 1968 in Iloilo, the
majority of the population therein was Filipino and other
circumstantial evidence, such as her abandonment in a Catholic
church and her “typical Filipino features,” the Court stated
that “(a)s a matt er of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-
born citizens.” In the absence of an explicit provision in the
1935 Constitution, the Court quoted from deliberations of the
1934 Constitutional Convention to show that the framers intended
foundlings to be covered by the enumeration of natural-born
citizens. It noted that the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions
all guarantee the basic right to equal protection of the laws and
exhort the State to render equal justice.
The Court also cited as legal basis domestic laws on adoption,
which do not provide that adoption confers citizenship upon
the adoptee; but rather that the adoptee must be a Filipino in
the first place to be qualified for adoption.
Further, the Court also ruled that the common thread of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations Convention
on the Right of the Child (UNRC), and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which have all been ratified
by the Philippines, is to obligate it to grant nationality from
birth and ensure that no child is stateless. The Court also held
that the principle in the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain
Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws that a foundling
is presumed to have the “nationality of the country of birth”
and the principle in the 1961 United Nations Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness “that a foundling is presumed born of
citizens of the country where he is found” are generally accepted
principles of international law even though the two conventions
are yet unratified by the Philippines. It said that adopting these
legal principles “is rational and reasonable and consistent with
the jus sanguinis regime in our Constitution…”
Bagumbayan-VNP, The Court ordered the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
Inc. v. COMELEC, to enable the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system
GR No. 222731, capability feature for the 2016 elections. It found the VVPAT as
March 8, 2016 among the minimum safeguards provided under RA 8436
(Automated Election Law) as amended. The VVPAT feature prints
out the voter choice and shows via touch screen the votes in the
vote-counting machines. The COMELEC had feared that the
VVPAT would facilitate vote buying. The Court, however, pointed
16
out that the COMELEC has the power to choose the appropriate
procedure to enforce the VVPAT requirement under the law
and balance it with the constitutional mandate to secure the
secrecy and sanctity of the ballot.
Rappler Inc. v. The Court directed the Chair of the COMELEC to implement
Bautista, Signed Part VI (C), paragraph 19 of the Memorandum of Agreement
Resolution, GR No. regarding the presidential and vice-presidential debates to
222702, April 6, which the COMELEC is a party, allowing the said debates to
2016 be shown or live streamed unaltered on petitioner’s and other
websites subject to the copyright condition that the source is
clearly indicated. The Court held that the political nature of
the national debates and the public’s interest in the wide
availability of the information for the voters’ education certainly
justify allowing the debates to be shown or streamed in other
websites for wider dissemination in accordance with the MOA.
People v. Jugueta, The Court addressed the matt er of damages with regard to
GR No. 202124, criminal cases where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua
April 5, 2016 to death, thus:
I. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious
Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes
involving death of a victim where the penalty consists
of indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to
reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity – P100,000.00
b. Moral damages – P100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – P100,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity – P75,000.00
ii. Moral damages – P75,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – P75,000.00
b. Attempted:
ii. Exemplary damages – P50,000.00
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua other
than the above-mentioned:
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
b. Attempted:
17
II. For Simple Rape/Qualifi ed Rape:

1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced
to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated
but merely attempted:
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,
other than the above-mentioned:
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated,
but merely attempted:
III. For Complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code where death, injuries, or sexual abuse
results, the civil indemnity, moral damages, and
exemplary damages will depend on the penalty,
extent of violence and sexual abuse; and the number
of victims where the penalty consists of indivisible
penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced
to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
1.2 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,
other than the above-mentioned:
The above Rules apply to every victim who dies as a result of
the crime committ ed. In other complex crimes where death
does not result, like in Forcible Abduction with Rape, the civil
indemnity, moral and exemplary damages depend on the
prescribed penalty and the penalty imposed, as the case may
be.
IV. For Special Complex Crimes like Robbery with
Homicide, Robbery with Rape, Robbery with Intentional
Mutilation, Robbery with Arson, Rape with Homicide,
Kidnapping with Murder, Carnapping with Homicide
or Carnapping with Rape, Highway Robbery with
Homicide, Qualified Piracy, Arson with Homicide,
Hazing with Death, Rape, Sodomy or Mutilation and
18
other crimes with death, injuries, and sexual abuse as

the composite crimes, where the penalty consists of
indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to
reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages
is the same as the above if the penalty imposed is Death but
reduced to reclusion perpetua although death did not occur.
1.2 For the victims who suff ered mortal/fatal wounds
and could have died if not for a timely medical
intervention, the following shall be awarded:
1.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal
injuries:
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other
than the above-mentioned:
In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages
is the same as the above if the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua.
2.2 For the victims who suff ered mortal/fatal wounds
and could have died if not for a timely medical
intervention, the following shall be awarded:
2.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal
injuries:
In Robbery with Physical Injuries, the amount of damages shall
likewise be dependent on the nature/severity of the wounds
sustained, whether fatal or non-fatal.
The above Rules do not apply if in the crime of Robbery with
Homicide, the robber/s or perpetrator/s are themselves killed or
injured in the incident.
V. Where the component crime is rape, the above Rules
shall likewise apply, and that for every additional rape
committ ed, whether against the same victim or other
victims, the victims shall be entitled to the same damages
unless the other crimes of rape are treated as separate
19
crimes, in which case, the damages awarded to simple

rape/qualifi ed rape shall apply.
1.1 Where the crime was consummated:
1.2 Where the crime committ ed was not consummated,
except those crimes where there are no stages, i.e.,
Reckless Imprudence and Death under tumultuous
affray:
a. Frustrated:
b. Attempted:
If an aggravating circumstance was proven during the trial,
even if not alleged in the Information, in addition to the above
mentioned amounts as civil indemnity and moral damages, the
amount of P50,000.00 exemplary damages for consummated;
P30,000.00 for frustrated; and P20,000.00 for attempted, shall
be awarded.
VI. A. In the crime of Rebellion where the imposable penalty
is reclusion perpetua and death occurs in the course
of the rebellion, the heirs of those who died are
entitled to the following:
B. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds
in the course of the rebellion and could have died
if not for a timely medical intervention, the following
shall be awarded:
C. For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal
injuries:
VII. In all of the above instances, when no documentary
evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in
court, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages
shall be awarded.
20
21
22
23
24
ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINARY CASES

Article VIII, sec. 6 gives the Supreme Court administrative supervision over
all courts and their personnel. Within the period covered by this Report, the
Court acted on the following administrative and disciplinary cases.
In Anonymous Lett er Against Aurora C. Castañeda, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 224, Quezon City, and Lorenzo Castañeda, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch
96, Quezon City, the respondents, who were married to each other, were found guilty
of gross misconduct and penalized with dismissal for extortion. The couple had demanded
the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000) from a litigant in exchange for an
allegedly favorable result in a murder case. (AM No. P-11-3017, June 16, 2015)
In Enriquez v. Lavadia, the Court held that it cannot countenance a lawyer’s
practice of repeatedly pleading for extensions of time and yet not submitting anything
to the Court as this “reflects his willful disregard for Court orders putting in question
his suitability to discharge his functions as a lawyer.” The Court disbarred the lawyer,
holding that the respondent’s propensity for filing motions for extension of time and
not fi ling the required pleading violated Canons 11 and 18 and Rules 10.03, 12.03,
and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. (AC No. 5686, June 16, 2015)
In Llunar v. Ricafort, the Court disbarred a lawyer for grave misconduct after he
engaged in the practice of law while under indefi nite suspension. He was likewise
found to have committ ed several infractions in his dealings with a client, such as
failure to exert diligence in handling his client’s case; failure to return, despite demand,
the amounts given to him by his client for handling the latt er’s case; and failure to
disclose to his client that he was under indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
(AC No. 6484, June 16, 2015)
In OCA v. Balut, the Court dismissed from the service the lower court judge who
repeatedly borrowed money, amounting to Two Hundred Two Thousand Seven Hundred
Seventy Four Pesos and Forty Two Centavos (P202,774.42), from the Court’s Fiduciary
Fund (FF), and who knowingly and deliberately made the clerks of court violate
pertinent circulars on proper administration of court funds. The Court noted that the
judge was able to fully pay his cash liabilities but nonetheless held that the judge’s
“unwarranted interference in the Court collections deserves administrative sanction
and not even the full payment of his accountabilities will exempt him from liability.”
The Court added that “(i)t matters not that these personal borrowings were paid as
what counts is the fact these funds were used outside of offi cial business.” (AM No.
RTJ-15-2426, June 16, 2015)
In Garciso v. OCA, the Court dismissed from the service for grave misconduct a
Cebu City process server who extorted money from a litigant. The Court found that
he solicited One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000) from a litigant in exchange
for the assistance he allegedly could extend towards the withdrawal by the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Authority (PDEA) of its non-existent application for a search warrant.
(AM No. P-09-2705 and AM No. P-09-2737, June 16, 2015)
In Caoile v. Macaraeg, the Court exonerated a lawyer by dismissing a disbarment
case against him for neglecting his client’s cause due to supervening causes. The
lawyer had thrice moved for an extension of time within which to file his brief but still
failed to file any. The Court noted that the lawyer was already 60 years old when the
hearings of the disbarment case were held in 1967 and that the subpoena issued by
the Solicitor General in 1972 contained a handwritten note that the lawyer had already
25
died. The case lingered with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines since 1990, with the Commission receiving no response from either
litigant regarding the resolution of the case; for this reason, the Court deemed it safe
to assume that the complainant had already lost interest in pursuing the disbarment
case and that the respondent had indeed already passed away. (AC No. 720, June 17,
2015)
In OCA v. Nicolas, a court interpreter and offi cer-in-charge of the Municipal Trial
Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan was meted the penalty of dismissal from the service with
forfeiture of all her retirements benefi ts for gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and
grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. She had incurred
shortages in the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF), the Judiciary
Development Fund (JDF), and the Fiduciary Fund amounting to One Hundred Seventy
Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Eight Pesos and Twenty Four Pesos (P177,838.24).
(AM No. P-10-2840, June 23, 2015)
In Mamintal v. Abdullah, the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an administrative
case for partiality, violation of due process, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming a
court employee against a Clerk of Court II of the Shari’a Circuit Court of Marawi City.
According to the Court, under the Muslim Code of Personal Laws, the Clerk of Court
of the Shari’a Circuit Court enjoys the privilege of wearing two hats: first, as Clerk of
Court of the Shari’a Circuit Court, and second, as Circuit Registrar within his territorial
jurisdiction. Thus, the Court ruled that while the respondent was undoubtedly a
member of the judiciary as a clerk of court of the Shari’a Circuit Court, a review of
the complaints revealed that he was charged for registering a divorce and issuing the
corresponding Certificate of Registration of Divorce pursuant to his duties as Circuit
Registrar of Muslim divorces. “Consequently, it behooves the Court to also forward
the subject complaint to the Offi ce of the Mayor, Marawi City and to the CSC for
appropriate action,” the Court added. (AM No. SCC-13-18-J, July 1, 2015)
In OCA v. Lizondra, the Court fined a Court Interpreter II and offi cer-in-charge
at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Tabuk City, Kalinga Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000) for her failure to faithfully perform duties assigned to her and for
violating circulars in not remitting court collections on time. (AM No. P-12-3101, July
1, 2015)
In Sanglay v. Padua, a sheriff who failed to file any report on a writ of execution
filed by a complainant in a civil case for almost two years after the Court directed him
to enforce the same was found guilty of simple neglect of duty, and was fi ned an
amount equivalent to his one month’s salary. (AM No. P-14-3182, July 1, 2015)
In Luna v. Galarita, the Court suspended for two years from the practice of law
a lawyer who failed to deliver to his client the amount of One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000). The amount represented the settlement proceeds he received after
entering into a compromise agreement in a foreclosure case without his client’s consent.
The Court also ordered him to return to his client the subject amount, with legal
interest of 6% per annum from February 2006. (AC No. 10662, July 7, 2015)
In Ibana-Andrade v. Paita-Moya, a lawyer who continued to practice law in willful
disobedience of the Court’s previous one-month suspension order was found to have
violated Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and was given an additional
penalty of six-month suspension from the practice of law. (AC No. 8313, July 14,
2015)
In OCA v. Guan, a former clerk of court, who had already been dropped from the
rolls for being absent without leave, was found guilty of gross neglect of duty for
26
having incurred shortages with respect to the JDF, the SAJF (General/Special Allowance
for the Judiciary), and the Fiduciary Fund amounting to Two Hundred Ninety Three
Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Three Pesos and Ten Centavos (P293,433.10). He was
ordered to pay a fine in an amount equivalent to his salary for six months and was
disqualifi ed from re-employment in the government. (AM No. P-07-2293, July 15,
2015)
In Re: Decision dated 17 March 2011 in Criminal Case No. SB-28361 Entitled “People
of the Philippines v. Joselito C. Barrozo,” the Court motu proprio disbarred a former
prosecutor who was previously convicted of direct bribery. The Court, emphasizing
that at the time of the commission of the crime the respondent was an Assistant Public
Prosecutor of Dagupan City, ruled that “for committing a crime which does not only
show his disregard of his oath as a government official but is likewise of such a nature
as to negatively aff ect his qualifi cation as a lawyer, respondent must be disbarred
from his offi ce as an att orney.” (AC No. 10207, July 21, 2015)
In Mabini Colleges, Inc. v. Pajarillo, a lawyer was suspended from the practice of
law for violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This
rule on confl ict of interest prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose
interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are
parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. The lawyer was found to have
represented confl icting interests when he served as counsel for a bank in a case for
annulment of mortgage fi led by a former client of his against the bank. (AM No.
10687, July 22, 2015)
In Andrada v. Cera, the Court suspended from the practice of law for one year a
lawyer who did not exert any effort in his client’s case for annulment of marriage and
completely reneged on the obligations due his client. The Court found that the respondent
lawyer lied to his client by claiming that he had made the necessary application and
payment with the National Statistics Offi ce for the issuance of the birth certificates of
his client’s children. He likewise failed to comply with their agreement to provide a
psychologist to administer the psychological tests necessary in their case. (AC No.
10187, July 22, 2015)
In Perfecto v. Esidera, a Catarman, a Northern Samar Regional Trial Court (RTC)
judge was suspended for one month for committing bigamy when she and her second
husband conducted a marriage ceremony in 1990. In fi nding the respondent judge
administratively liable for violation of her marriage obligations under the law, the
Court held: “this Court protects the credibility of the Judiciary in administering justice.”
(AM No. RTJ-15-2417, July 22, 2015)
In Committ ee on Ethics and Special Concerns, Court of Appeals, Manila v. Naig , a
utility worker of the Court of Appeals was found guilty of engaging in disgraceful and
immoral conduct, after he entered into an illicit relationship with a woman not his
wife. In imposing upon him the penalty of suspension for six months and one day
without pay, Court directed that the respondent desist from any further relationship
with his paramour until his subsisting marriage is terminated. (AM No. CA-15-32-P,
July 29, 2015)
In Coronel v. Cunanan, the Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for
one year for proposing to his client a way to circumvent the law. The lawyer, after to
his client the “ordinary procedure” of an extrajudicial settlement of estate as a means
of transferring title to property, also then proposed the option of “direct registration”,
despite being fully aware that this option was a circumvention of the law and that it
would deprive the Government of the corresponding estate taxes and transfer fees
27
aside from requiring the falsification of the transfer documents. (AC No. 6738, August
12, 2015)
In OCA v. Abarintos, a former records offi cer of the Cebu City station of Court of
Appeals was found guilty of gross dishonesty and misconduct after she tampered
with the date of receipt of a petition for review, making it appear that the said
pleading was timely filed to favor her husband’s kumpadre who had filed it. She was
ordered to pay a Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000) fi ne and was declared disqualifi ed
from employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government. (AM No. CA-
12-26-P, August 17, 2015)
In Paderanga v. Paderanga, a retired judge of the Mambajao, Camiguin RTC was
found guilty of conduct unbecoming a judge after he appropriated for himself a piece
of real property he co-owned with his sisters by erecting a fence around the said
property and introducing improvements on it without the conformity of his co-owners.
He was also found guilty of gross ignorance of the law after he issued a warrant of
arrest against his own sister, in violation of the compulsory disqualification of judges
related by consanguinity or affi nity to a party being a duty designed to free the
adjudication of cases from suspicion as to its fairness and integrity. (AM No. RTJ-14-
2383 and AM No. RTJ-07-2033, August 17, 2015)
In Salabao v. Villaruel, Jr. , the Court suspended from the practice of law for
eighteen (18) months a lawyer for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 10.03 and
12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court said that “is quite clear that
respondent has made a mockery of the judicial process by abusing Court processes,
employing dilatory tactics to frustrate the execution of a final judgment, and feigning
ignorance of his duties as an offi cer of the court.” (AC No. 8084, August 24, 2015)
In Marigomen v. Labar, the Court reprimanded a driver of the Court of Appeals
Cebu City station for violating Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and Gambling
Prohibited by Law under Section 52 (C) (3) and (5) of Rule IV of the Revised Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service . The Court ruled that the driver’s
unjustified presence at the maintenance section of the appellate court without offi cial
business or without a valid pass slip from the Assistant Clerk of Court as well as his
act of gambling within court premises fell short of the exacting standards for public
office, “especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary.”
(AM No. CA-15-33-P, August 24, 2015)
In Flores v. Mayor, Jr., the Court approved the recommendation of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and disbarred a Labor Arbiter who violated the Lawyer’s Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility for his “unexplained and unsanctioned act”
of archiving the records of a labor case for more than two years as well as for his
refusal to amend the Writ of Execution in the said case so as to reflect the amendment
of the name of the corporation against which it was issued. The Court noted that the
lawyer had previously been suspended for six months in another case for gross ignorance
of the law, also in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In view of the previous sanction, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ (IBP)
recommendation to disbar him was only proper. (AC No. 7314, August 25, 2015)
In Re: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rolando S. Torres as a Member
of the Philippine Bar, the Court denied a request for judicial clemency by a lawyer who
was disbarred in 2004 for gross misconduct consisting of fraudulent acts against his
own sister-in-law in the execution of a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement,
wherein he and his wife knowingly and false declared that they were the sole heirs
of a decedent. Petitioner failed to meet the first, third, and fourth guidelines in resolving
requests for judicial clemency, to wit: 1) there must be proof of remorse and reformation;
28
2) sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure period
of reform; 3) the petitioner’s age must show that he still has productive years ahead
of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself; 4) there
must be a showing of promise…as well as potential for public service; and 5) there
must be other relevant factors and circumstances that justify clemency. (AC No. 5161,
August 25, 2015)
In Arnado v. Adaza, a former Assemblyman and commissioner of the Bureau of
Immigrations was declared a delinquent member of the IBP and was suspended for six
months from the practice of law for his failure to comply with the requirements of
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for four compliance periods. The
Court said that “(w)hile the …. Regulations state that the MCLE Committee should
recommend to the IBP Board of Governors the listing of a lawyer as a delinquent
member, there is nothing that prevents the Court from using its administrative power
and supervision to discipline erring lawyers and from directing the IBP Board of
Governors to declare such lawyers as delinquent members of the IBP.” (AC No. 9834,
August 26, 2015)
In Sappayani v. Gasmen, the Court emphasized the importance of being a notary
public when it suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for one year and revoked
his notarial commission for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney without the personal
appearance of the affi ant. “Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary
act,” said the Court. “It is impressed with substantial public interest, and only those
who are qualified or authorized may act as such. It is not a purposeless ministerial act
of acknowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to pay fees for
notarization.” (AC No. 7073, September 1, 2015)
In Intestate Estate of Jose Uy v. Maghari, the Court suspended a lawyer for two
years for using a false IBP official receipt number, false professional tax receipt number,
false Roll of Attorneys number, and false MCLE compliance by using another lawyer’s
details in seven instances. The Court said that “(t)his case involves anything but trivial
non-compliance. It is much graver. The confluence of: (1) respondent’s many violations;
(2) the sheer multiplicity of rules violated; (3) the frequency—nay, pattern—of falsity
and deceit; and (4) his manifest intent to bring courts, legal processes, and professional
standards to disrepute bring to light a degree of depravity that proves respondent
worthy of being sanctioned.” (AC No. 10525, September 1, 2015)
In Ecraela v. Pangalangan, a government lawyer who was found to have carried
on several adulterous and illicit relations with both married and unmarried women
between the years 1990 to 2007 was disbarred on the ground of gross immorality and
for violating Section 2 of Article XV of the 1987 Constitution, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01,
Canon 7 and Rule 7.03, and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and the Lawyer’s Oath. (AC No. 10676, September 8, 2015)
In Mendoza Vda. De Robosa v. Mendoza, the Court suspended a lawyer for six (6)
months due to his negligent handling of his client’s case, exacerbated by his failure to
inform the client of the status of her case, in violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. (AC No. 6056, September 9, 2015)
In Williams v. Enriquez, a judge was suspended from the practice of law for six
months for engaging in forum shopping as a practicing lawyer. This practice disregarded
his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice and violated the
prohibition on unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes. He was found
guilty of violation of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. (AC No. 8319,
AC No. 8329, and AC No. 8366, September 16, 2015)
29
In Bartolome v. Basilio, the Court found a lawyer who affixed his official signature
and seal on an incomplete, if not false, notarial certificate guilty of violating the 2004
Rules of Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Apart from suspending him from the practice of law for one year, the Court also
revoked his incumbent commission as a notary public and prohibited him from being
commissioned as a notary public for two years. (AC No. 10783, October 14, 2015)
In Sugni Realty Holdings and Development Corporation v. Paredes-Encinareal, the
Court ordered a judge to pay a Twenty One Thousand Pesos (P21,000) fine for gross
ignorance of the law or procedure, after he disregarded the pertinent rule on the filing
of supersedeas bond and monthly deposit. The Court also saw the case as an opportune
time to remind first-level court judges to always adhere to the mandate of Section 19
of the Rules of Court by issuing writs of execution upon the motion of the plaintiffs in
actions for ejectment whenever the defendants have failed to stay execution. “They
should not leave to the appellate courts the action on the motions for execution because
that action would be too late in the context of Section 19,” said the Court. “The trial
and appellate judges should constantly be mindful of the summary nature of the
ejectments actions, and of the purpose underlying the mandate for immediate execution,
which is to prevent the plaintiffs from being further deprived of their rightful possession.
Otherwise, they stand liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure.” (AM No.
RTJ-08-2102, October 14, 2015)
In OCA v. Baltazar, a Clerk of Court of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)
in Allacapan-Lasam, Cagayan who was found guilty of gross dishonesty, grave
misconduct, and gross neglect of duty was dismissed from the service. He was likewise
ordered to pay the balance of the shortages he incurred in the amount of P112,376.80
and other accountability, as determined by the Financial Management Offi ce. (AM
No. P-14-3209, October 20, 2015)
In Balanza v. Criste, the Court imposed on a clerk from the Vigan City RTC a fine
in an amount equivalent to his salary for six months and one day for serious dishonesty.
The Court found that the clerk certifi ed spurious court issuances, giving the false
impression that the documents were authentic and offi cially executed by a judge and
that the clerk had the authority to make such certifi cations. (AM No. P-15-3321,
October 21, 2015)
In Tolentino v. Millado, two lawyers were reprimanded for breach of Canon 11,
Rules 11.03 and 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility after they, in an election
protest, recklessly alleged not only the MTCC’s lack of expertise and experience but
bias as well. The Court emphasized that while members of the Bar are free to criticize
judges, “criticism sans fair basis grossly violates the duty to accord respect owing to
the courts.” (AC No. 10737, November 9, 2015)
In OCA v. Corea, the Court suspended without pay for two months an RTC sheriff
who acted without authority and failed to follow the proper procedure in billing and
collecting from a rural bank service fees and incidental expenses for the conduct of
extrajudicial foreclosure of property. (AM No. P-11-2992, November 9, 2015)
In Valdez v. Dabon, Jr., the Court disbarred a lawyer for immorality, ruling that
the lawyer’s intimate relationship with a woman other than his wife “manifested his
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and for his own marital vow of
fi delity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the fundamental
ethics of his profession.” (AC No. 7353, November 16, 2015)
In OCA v. Tandinco, the Court imposed administrative fines for various offenses
on two judges and one clerk of court. It imposed a One Hundred Thousand Pesos
30
(P100,000) fi ne on a Calbayog City, Samar MTCC judge for gross incompetence,

ineffi ciency, negligence, and dereliction of duty; a Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000)
fine on a Daram-Zumarraga MCTC judge for undue delay in rendering a decision or
order; and a Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000) fi ne on a Calbayog City, Samar MTCC
clerk of court for simple neglect of duty. (AM No. MTJ-10-1760, November 16, 2015)
In Re: Incident Report Relative to a Criminal Case Filed Against Rosemarie U. Garduce,
Clerk III, Offi ce of the Clerk of Court (OCC), RTC, Parañaque City , the Court ordered the
dismissal from the service of a clerk who was found to have accepted money for
processing the bail bond of a party to a criminal case. (AM No. P-15-3391, November
16, 2015)
In Chua v. De Castro, the Court suspended for three months a lawyer who successfully
delayed the disposition of a collection case against his client through “atrocious
maneuvers” in seeking postponements of hearing dates. The excuses offered ranged
“from simple absence without notice, to claims of alleged ailment without any medical
certificates, to claims of not being ready despite being given sufficient time to prepare,
to the sending a representative lawyer who would profess non-knowledge of the case
to seek continuance, to a plea for postponement without providing any reason therefor.”
(AC No. 10671, November 25, 2015)
In Balanay v. White, the Court suspended for one year an RTC Eastern Samar
judge who directed her subordinate to alter the transcript of stenographic notes by
incorporating statements pertaining to substantial matt ers that were not actually
made during the hearing. The judge was also given a stern warning that given since
she had preciously been adjudged guilty and penalized for various infractions, the
Court will not hesitate to dismiss her from service in case she commits the same or
other similar acts. (AM No. RTJ-16-2443, January 11, 2016)
In Sison, Jr. v. Camacho, the Court disbarred a lawyer who was found to have
violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he entered into a
compromise agreement and accepted a lower judgment on behalf of his client in an
insurance settlement case without the conformity of the client. He was also found to
have violated Rule 16.01 of the Code when he personally requested from his client the
amount of P1,288,260 for payment of purported additional docket fees, but which he
unilaterally withheld by capriciously invoking the same amount as part of his attorney’s
fees. (AC No. 10910, January 12, 2016)
In Fernandez v. Alerta, a court stenographer who engaged in “moonlighting” by
facilitating the transfer of a property in her name, which is not part of her duties as
court stenographer, was reprimanded for engaging in private business or vocation
without prior approval of the Court. The Court said that in transacting with external
government agencies during offi ce hours, more particularly, the Registry of Deeds,
“she had not only expended time and effort which should have been devoted to the
performance of her offi cial functions, but she had also tainted the integrity of her
offi ce by giving, at the very least, the impression that she could have wielded her
authority or infl uence in exchange for unoffi cial favors.” (AM No. P-15-3344,
January 13, 2016)
In Yu v. Dela Cruz, the Court suspended a lawyer for three years for using his
client’s jewelry as security in a contract of pledge in order to obtain and appropriate
for himself the proceeds from the pledge, and then failed to facilitate the redemption
of the jewelry by issuing a worthless check, in violation of Canons 1, 16, 17, and Rules
1.01 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. (AC No. 10912, January 19,
2016)
31
In Velasco-Tamaray v. Daquis, the Court disbarred a lawyer for violation of Canon

1, Rule 1.01; Canon 7, Rule 7.03; Canon 10, Rule 10.01; and Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Court stressed that “pretending to be counsel for a
party in a case and using a forged signature in a pleading merits the penalty of
disbarment,” imposed the said penalty upon. (AC No. 10868, January 26, 2016)
In Fabay v. Resuena, the Court disbarred a lawyer who notarized a Special Power
of Attorney after permitting just one person to sign for and on behalf of four of the
six principals of the instrument, doing away with the actual physical appearance of
all the parties, he was also perpetually disqualifi ed from being commissioned as a
notary public. The Court lamented that having appeared to have intentionally violated
the notarial law, the respondent had allowed himself to be an instrument of fraud,
which the Court will not tolerate. (AC No. 8723, January 26, 2016)
In Francisco v. Flores, the Court suspended from the practice of law a lawyer who
violated Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Court stressed that the failure of a lawyer “to act upon
a client’s case resulting in the prescription of available remedies is negligence…The
general rule is that notice to counsel is notice to client. This rule remains until counsel
notifi es the court that he or she is withdrawing his or her appearance, or client
informs the court of change of counsel. Untruthful statements made in pleadings filed
before courts, to make it appear that the pleadings are filed on time, are contrary to
a lawyer’s duty of committ ing no falsehood.” (AC No. 10753, January 26, 2016)
In Japitana v. Parado, a two-year suspension was imposed on a lawyer who performed
notarial acts in 2006 in spite of the absence of a notarial commission for the said
period, and who testifi ed in court that he had a notarial commission eff ective until
2008, when he actually had none. The Court likewise permanently disqualifi ed him
from being commissioned as a Notary Public. (AC No. 10859, January 26, 2016)
In Sistual v. Ogena, the Court penalized a lawyer with a two-year suspension
after the latter, as notary public, failed to require the personal presence of the signatories
of certain documents and proceeded to notarize the same without the signatures of
all the parties. The lawyer was also found to have failed to require the parties to
present their residence certifi cates or any other document proving their identities
before he notarized the documents in question. (AC No. 9807, February 2, 2016)
In OCA v. Ruiz, the Court dismissed from the service and disbarred a judge of the
Makati City RTC who had been previously convicted by the Sandiganbayan for violation
of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 and for malversation of public funds. The Court emphasized
that “judges should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence,
and their conduct should be above reproach. They must adhere to exacting standards
of morality, decency, and probity. A magistrate is judged, not only by his offi cial acts,
but also by his private morality and actions.” (AM No. RTJ-13-2361, February 2, 2016)
In Malabed v. Dela Peña, a lawyer was found guilty of gross misconduct for
misrepresenting in a civil case that he submitted a certificate to file action issued by
a Lupon Tagapamayapa, when in fact there was none prior to the institution of the civil
action of his client; for using improper language in his pleadings, and for willfully
defying the Court’s prohibition on reemployment in any government offi ce as an
accessory penalty of his prior dismissal as a judge. He was suspended from the practice
of law for two years. (AC No. 7594, February 9, 2016)
In Floran v. Ediza, the Court disbarred a lawyer who was found to have violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility by committ ing grave misconduct and willful
insubordination, after he “repeatedly and blatantly disregarded and obstinately defied”
32
numerous Court resolutions requiring him to show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with or be held in contempt. (AC No. 5325, February 9, 2016)
In Lam v. Garcia, the Court stressed that quarreling with a co-employee, especially
when done before the public or within the premises during office hours, is prejudicial
to public service. It thus reprimanded a junior process server for simple discourtesy
and conduct unbecoming a court employee for shouting within court premises, upon
discovering that the entries in her Daily Time Record (DTR) were modifi ed by the
clerk of court of her branch to allegedly refl ect her absences, “Buang ka! Yawa ka!
Nganong imo kong gibotangan ug absent? Gasunod sunod pa gud. Paghulat ug akoy mabotang!
Disabled!” (“You are stupid! You devil! Why did you mark me absent for consecutive
days? Wait until I would be the one to write! Disabled!”) (AM No. P-15-3300, February
10, 2016)
In Re: Civil Service Examination Irregularity (Impersonation) of Ms. Elena T. Valderoso,
Cash Clerk II, Offi ce of the Clerk of Court, MTCC, Antipolo City , a court employee who
acknowledged that another person took the Career Service Professional Examination
for her in 1994 was found guilty of serious dishonesty and was meted the penalty of
forfeiture of whatever benefits due her, in lieu of dismissal which could no longer be
imposed because she had resigned from service. (AM No. P-16-3423, February 16,
2016)
In Aquino v. Alcasid, the Court ordered the dismissal from service of a Clerk III
of the Olongapo City RTC who stole and discounted the checks representing the
salaries of her fellow court personnel. The Court ruled that her acts amounted to
“grave misconduct and serious dishonesty, and violated the time-honored constitutional
principle that a public offi ce is a public trust.” (AM No. P-15-3361, February 23, 2016)
In Noces-De Leon v. Florendo, the Court ruled that a Vigan City RTC sheriff who
solicited and received the amount of P100,000 from a litigant to facilitate a favorable
ruling in a case for annulment of marriage was guilty of grave misconduct, citing
Section 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which provides that
“Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefi t based on any
explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their
offi cial actions.” (AM No. P-15-3393, February 23, 2016)
In Ramiscal v. Orro, a lawyer did not competently and diligently discharge his
duties to his clients when he failed to file a motion for reconsideration in their behalf
despite receiving from them the P7,000 he requested for that purpose and when he
further neglected to regularly update them on the status of their case, particularly on
the adverse result which caused them to lose whatever legal remedies where then
available. The Court found him guilty of violating Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended him from the practice of
law for two years. (AC No. 10945, February 23, 2016)
In Santos v. Leaño, three Tarlac City sheriff s were dismissed from service for
failing to comply with what was “a purely ministerial duty” of implementing a writ
of demolition in an ejectment case. Aside from their irregular designation since they
acted only upon the referral of the court sheriff originally deputized to enforce the
writ case and without the consent of the Presiding Judge, they also committed several
infractions when they failed to itemize and liquidate the expenses for the demolition
and to issue an offi cial receipt upon receiving money from the complainant, which
amounted to dishonesty or extortion. The Court added that the respondent sheriffs’
refusal to comply with the orders of the OCA to comment on the complaint-affi davit
against them despite notice constituted disrespect not only to the OCA but also to the
Supreme Court. (AM No. P-16-3419, February 23, 2016)
33
In Mahusay v. Gareza, the Court ordered the dismissal from service of a Victorias
City, Negros Occidental MTCC sheriff for dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, and simple
neglect of duty. It ruled that the sheriff’s failure in a small claims case to turn over the
partial payment of a judgment obligation he received from the debtor to the judgment
creditor or to the branch clerk was an act of misappropriation of funds amounting to
dishonesty. It further ruled that his failure to issue offi cial receipts for the amount he
received was violative of the General Auditing and Accounting Rules. (AM No. P-16-
3430, March 1, 2016)
In Miano v. Aguilar, the Court stressed that it is not unmindful of the circumstances
that may delay the speedy disposition of cases assigned to judges; hence, it allows
extensions of time within which pending cases may be disposed of, upon a seasonable
filing of a request therefor and sufficient justification. Thus, it found a Burgos, Pangasinan
RTC judge, who had failed to fi le any request for extension of time within which to
resolve several motions of inhibitions pending before her sala, guilty of undue delay
in issuing orders in several cases as well as undue delay in transmitting the records
of a case. (AM No. RTJ-15-2408, March 2, 2016)
In Gacuya v. Solbita, a lawyer who admitted to making an unauthorized notarization
of a deed of sale despite an expired notarial commission was permanently barred from
being commissioned as a notary public. He was likewise suspended from the practice
of law for two years. (AC No. 8840, March 8, 2016)
In Marsada v. Monteroso, the Court found a Cabadbaran, Agusan Del Norte RTC
sheriff guilty of simple misconduct after the latter made a judgment creditor accept
an amount less than that stated in a writ of execution as the full and entire satisfaction
of the obligation. He was fi ned P10,000. (AM No. P-10-2793, March 8, 2016)
In Sustento v. Liligan, a Tacloban City RTC judge who sought to justify his delay
in disposing of a petition for certiorari and its ensuing motion for reconsideration by
citing his “voluminous caseload” as well as being already “in the period of euphoria
for the Christmas holidays” when the said motion was submitt ed for resolution on
December 10, 2009, among others, was found guilty of gross inefficiency for his undue
delay in resolving the motion. He was fined P45,000. (AM No. RTJ-11-2275, March 8,
2016)
In In the Matt er of: Anonymous Complaint for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and
Perjury Committ ed by Judge Jaime E. Contreras (in his Capacity as the then 4 th Provincial
Prosecutor of Libmanan, Camarines Sur), a judge who failed to disclose in his Personal
Data Sheet (PDS) that a previous administrative case was filed against him when he
was still a 4th Assistant Provincial Prosecutor – wherein he was found guilty of simple
misconduct by the Office of the Ombudsman – was suspended from service for a year,
for dishonesty. The Court said that the judge should have known fully well the
consequences of making a false statement in his PDS. “Being a former public prosecutor
and a judge now, it is his duty to ensure that all laws of the land are followed to the
letter. His being a judge makes the act all the more unacceptable,” said the Court. (AM
No. RTJ-16-2452, March 9, 2016)
In Sanchez v. Aguilos, a lawyer who misrepresented his professional competence
and skill to a client regarding a case for annulment of marriage was fi ned P10,000.
“As the foregoing findings reveal, he did not know the distinction between the grounds
for legal separation and for annulment of marriage,” lamented the Court, adding that
such knowledge “would have been basic and expected of him as a lawyer accepting
a professional engagement for either causes of action.” The respondent lawyer was
also reprimanded by the Court for his use of improper language towards his fellow
34
attorney. The Court found that in his answer to the complainant’s letter demanding
the return of the amount of P70,000 she had paid for his professional services, the
respondent lawyer stated that the demand letter written by his fellow lawyer should
be treated “as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed by her counsel
xxx to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may serve its rightful purpose.” He
was further ordered to return to the complainant the sum of P70,000 plus legal interests.
(AC No. 10543, March 16, 2016)
In Report on the Theft of Court Exhibit by Roberto R. Castro, etc ., a Utility Worker
I of the RTC of Valenzuela City who admitted to taking a 9 mm. caliber firearm, which
was an exhibit in a criminal case, from the former clerk of court of his branch and,
instead of placing it inside the exhibit room as instructed, placed it inside his bag was
dismissed from service for guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. The Court said
that it was immaterial that the utility worker did not bring the gun outside of the
Valenzuela City Hall of Justice; the theft of the fi rearm was already consummated
when he placed it inside his bag. (AM No. P-16-3436, April 5, 2016)
In Ramos v. Mandagan, the Court suspended for one year a lawyer who received
the amount of P300,000 from her client for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the
latter’s provisional liberty and then failed to return the said amount to the client when
the petition for bail was denied by the Sandiganbayan despite the client’s repeated
demands. (AC No. 11128, April 6, 2016)
In Chang v. Hidalgo, a lawyer who admitt edly withdrew from the cases he was
handling for his client but failed to provide any evidence to show that his client agreed
to or knew about such withdrawal was penalized with a one-year suspension from
the practice of law and ordered to return to his client the amount of P61,500 representing
his attorney’s fees, with interests. The Court held: “The offensive attitude of a client
is not an excuse to just disappear and withdraw from a case without notice to the
court and to the client, especially when att orney’s fees have already been paid.”
(AC No. 6934, April 6, 2016)
In Castro v. Mangrobang, the Court imposed a P10,000 fi ne on a former judge of
the Imus, Cavite RTC for undue delay in resolving pending matt ers in a civil case,
after it took him 10 months and nine months to resolve the Omnibus Motions and the
Motion to Admit Postmaster’s Certifi cation, respectively, in the said case. (AM No.
RTJ-16-2455, April 11, 2016)
In Cobalt Resources, Inc. v. Aguado, the Court disbarred a lawyer who was found
to have masterminded an alleged hijacking and carnapping of a delivery van belonging
to the complainant that was loaded with cellular phones worth P1.3 million. The
Court ruled that it was clear that the respondent lawyer committed the acts complained
of—from the planning stage up to its execution—as it was established that he was in
possession of a falsified ID showing him as a legal consultant of the Presidential Anti-
Smuggling Group (PASG) and a fake mission order identifying him as the Assistant
Team Leader of the anti-smuggling operations which was used to fl ag down and
hijack the van. (AC No. 10781, April 12, 2016)
In Nulada v. Paulma, a lawyer convicted for violation of BP 22, a crime involving
moral turpitude, was suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating
the Lawyer’s Oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
(AC No. 8172, April 12, 2016)
In Re: Findings on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the 7 th MCTC, Liloan-Compostela,
Liloan, Cebu, the Court fined a judge P75,000 for gross ineffi ciency in the performance
of his duties after the judge failed to decide 99 cases submitted for decision and resolve
35
91 cases with pending incidents in his sala within the prescribed reglementary period,
“with some of those cases/incidents taking more than 10 years to be decided or
resolved.” (AM No. 12-8-59-MCTC, April 12, 2016)
In Hermano v. Prado, Jr., the Court imposed a six-month suspension from the
practice of law on a lawyer who failed to discharge his duties as a counsel. The lawyer
failed to prepare and file a memorandum on his client’s behalf despite the RTC’s order
to do so, resulting in the loss of opportunity for his client to establish his claim of self-
defense and eventual conviction. He likewise failed to return to his client the amount
of P15,000 he required as his professional fees for the eventual appeal of the case,
which did not happen as the respondent, two days before the lapse of the period for
fi ling of appellant’s brief, was nowhere to be found. (AC No. 7447, April 18, 2016)
In PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation v. Lokin, Jr. and Labastilla, the Court imposed
a three-year suspension and one-year suspension from the practice of law, respectively,
on two lawyers who were found guilty of violating Canons 7 and 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Court found that the two lawyers compromised the
integrity of the Judiciary “by maliciously imputing corrupt motives against the
Sandiganbayan” in making a checkbook entry in complainant’s financial records that
a check in the amount of P2,000,000 was issued and given to the Sandiganbayan to
secure a favorable temporary restraining order. (AC No. 11139, April 19, 2016)
In Re: Evaluation of Administrative Liability of Hon. Antonio C. Lubao, a retired
judge of the General Santos RTC was fined P65,000 for committing various offenses,
namely, gross misconduct for his repeated failure to comply with the OCA directives;
violation of SC Administrative Circular Nos. 4-2005 and 81-2012, and COA Circular
No. 81-2012; undue delay in rendering decisions or orders, having 60 cases decided
beyond the reglementary period, 47 cases which had not progressed as of audit date,
three unresolved cases with pending incidents, and seven cases not acted upon; and
undue delay in the submission of Monthly Reports of Cases from January to December
2014. (AM No. 15-09-314-RTC, April 19, 2016)
In Gubatanga v. Bodoy, a utility worker from the MTC of Balagtas Bulacan was
dismissed from service for dishonesty, after he withdrew P60,000 from the trial court’s
bank account without any authority. Emphasizing that it will not tolerate dishonesty,
the Court said that even minor employees mirror the image of the courts they serve;
thus, they are required to preserve the good name and standing of the Judiciary as a
true temple of justice. (AM No. P-16-3447, April 19, 2016)
In Tulio v. Buhangin, the Court imposed a six-month suspension on a lawyer who
represented confl icting interests, in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Court reiterated that the rule prohibiting confl ict of
interest is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty as throughout the course of
a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client’s
case, including its strengths and weaknesses. “It behooves lawyers not only to keep
inviolate the client’s confi dence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing, for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers,” said the Court. (AC No. 7110, April 20, 2016)
In Tabao v. Cabcabin, a sheriff who entertained the voluntary surrender of an
accused in a criminal case for purposes of posting cash bail bond was found guilty of
simple misconduct and was fined P5,000. The Court held that such act was beyond
the scope of his assigned job description, and was hardly identical with or was subsumed
under his present duties and functions, as defi ned in the 2002 Revised Manual for
Clerks of Court. (AM No, P-16-3437, April 20, 2016)
36
In OCA v. Casalan, the Court ordered a judge of the RTC of Culasi, Antique to pay
a fi ne in the amount equivalent to his salary for three months after he was found
guilty of undue delay in rendering decision or order, and of violation of SC rules and
directives. The Court underscored that “the honor and integrity of the judicial system
is measured not only by the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered, but also
by the efficiency with which disputes are resolved.” Thus, the Court said, judges must
perform their official duties with utmost diligence if public confidence in the judiciary
is to be preserved. “There is no excuse for mediocrity in the performance of judicial
functions. The position of judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the
law and the Constitution in the discharge of offi cial duties,” it added. (AM No. RTJ-
14-2385, April 20, 2016)
In Malangas v. Zaide, the Court imposed a two-year suspension for violation of
Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility on a lawyer who refused
to account for the funds given to him by his client in a complaint for damages,
especially the amount his client paid in excess of what was required as docket fees.
The Court also found that the respondent lawyer unduly delayed the case as the trial
court had to postpone the hearings thereon because of his repeated failure to appear
at the hearings. Said the Court: “Given the gravity of the off enses imputed against
him, and considering that this is his second administrative case, respondent lawyer’s
defense that he was a young lawyer when he went astray hardly merits sympathy
from this Court.” (AC No. 10675, May 31, 2016)
RULE-MAKING
The Constitution vests the Supreme Court with the power to “promulgate
rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.” (Art. VIII, sec.
5[5]) Under this same provision, “(r )ules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.” Here are some of the rules and actions taken by the Court under its
rule-making power within the period covered by the JAR.
AM No. 15-04-03-SC, Re: Letters of Justice Jose C. Vitug [Ret], Founding Dean,
Angeles University Foundation [AUF] School of Law, dated February 7, 2015, and of
JudgeAveA. Zurbito-Alba, Municipal Trial Court, Daraga,Albay, dated January 29,
2015, June 16, 2015. | The Court allowed students to undergo on-the-job training
(OJT)/practicum in the lower courts and authorized the Office of the Court Administrator
to act on applications and requests of students and learning institutions for students
to undergo OJT and internship in the lower courts and directed it to promulgate
guidelines for such applications with special emphasis to ensure that the rules on
ethics, security, and confidentiality of records are complied with.
AM No. 03-03-03-SC, Amendment ofAM No. 03-03-03-SC dated June 17, 2003,
for the Expansion of the Coverage of Cases Cognizable by the Special Commercial
Courts to IncludeAll Cases on Insolvency and Liquidation Under the FRIA, June 16,
2015. | AM No. 03-03-03-SC, AmendmentofAMNo.03-03-03-SCdatedJune17,2003
for the Expansion of the Coverage of Cases Cognizable by the Special Commercial
CourtstoIncludeAllCasesonInsolvencyandLiquidationUndertheFRIA, November
16, 2015. The Court amended its earlier Rules on June 16, 2015 and directed that (1)
cases governed by the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010 (FRIA) for (a)
37
the rehabilitation of sole proprietorships, (b) the insolvency and liquidation cases of
corporations, partnerships, and other associations, and (c) insolvency and suspension
of payments/discharge of individuals, and (2) those liquidation cases emanating from
administrative proceedings shall be heard and decided by the designated Special
Commercial Courts. On November 16, 2015, it further amended the Rules to provide
that “(w)hen there is no Special Commercial Court designated to hear and decide a
case fi led within a specifi c territory in accordance with the existing rules on venue,
the case may fi led in the nearest designated Special Commercial Court within the
judicial region of said territory.”
AM Circular No. 83-2015, Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation,
Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final
Orders Using Fictitious Names, July 27, 2015. | The Court reiterated and supplemented
its Guidelines in AM No. 12-7-15-SC (Re: Recommendation of Atty. Maria Victoria Gleoresty
Sp. Guerra, Director IV and Acting Chief, Public Information Offi ce, to Remove or Modify
the Decisions Posted on the SC Website Involving Cases of Violence Against Women and
Their Children) by further detailing the procedures in the promulgation, publication,
and posting of decisions, resolutions, and final and interlocutory orders in the cases
covered by this Protocol, i.e., “in cases where the confidentiality of the identities of the
parties, records, and court proceedings is mandated by law and/or by the rules.” The
Guidelines are aimed at protecting the privacy and dignity of victims, including their
relatives, in cases where the confidentiality of court proceedings and the identities of
parties is mandated by law.
AM No. 15-06-10-SC, Re:AdoptingtheGuidelinesforContinuousTrialofCriminal
Cases in Pilot Courts, June 30, 2015. | A key element of judicial reform being the
elimination of delay in court processes, the Court approved the Proposed Guidelines for
Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases in Pilot Courts which took effect on August 17, 2015.
The Guidelines, among others, state that during an arraignment, if the accused pleads
guilty to the crime charged in the Information, judgment shall immediately be rendered,
except in those cases involving capital offenses and that the court shall announce in
open court the date of the promulgation of its decision which should be within the
period provided under the Regular/Special Rules.
AM No. 15-08-02-SC, Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase “Without
Eligibility for Parole” in Indivisible Penalties, August 4, 2015. | The Court set the
following guidelines to be observed in the imposition of penalties and in the use of the
phrase “without eligibility for parole”: –(1) in cases where the death penalty is not
warranted, there is no need to use the phrase “without elibility for parole” to qualify
the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized
with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and (2) when circumstances are
present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed
because of RA 9346 (Act Prohibiting Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines ), the
qualification of “without eligibility for parole” shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua
in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death
penalty had it not been for RA 9346.
BM No. 1645, Re: Amendment of Rule 139-B (Disbarment and Discipline of
Attorneys), October 13, 2015. | The Court approved ammendments to Rule 139-B of
the Rules of Court, specifi cally to sections 1 (How Instituted) 5 (Service or Dismissal),
12 (Review and Recommendation by the Board of Governors), 13 (Investigation of Complaints),
and 15 (Suspension of Attorney by the Supreme Court) thereof. The amendments are to
take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
The Court directed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to revise its rules of procedure
in accordance with the amendments to Rule 139-B.
38
AM No. 15-08-07-SC, Re: Administrative Matter for Agenda Requesting the

TransferofVenueofPendingCase/sWhereintheAccusedisCurrentlyDetainedatthe
National Penitentiary by Virtue of a Conviction inAnother Case, November 10, 2015.
| The Court issued these guidelines for temporary transfer of records to be adopted
for uniformity. Among others, the Court required that within three days from notice,
the Executive Judge of the court a quo shall cause the transmittal of the case records
to the court concerned specifying the proceedings to be conducted thereat; and within
three days from receipt of the case records, the Executive Judge of the court where the
case records are to be transferred shall immediately cause the raffl e of the case among
the judges in the station. Likewise, the judge to whom the case is assigned or raffl ed
shall immediately calendar the case for arraignment.
AM No. 10-4-20-SC, The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, November 10,
2015. | The Court approved the following amendments to Rule 2, Section 3 (1); Rule
2 (Court en banc matters and cases); Section 5 (Composition and quorum of a Division),
Insertion of An Additional Section in Rule 2 Defining the Word “Vacancy”as Used in
the Rules and the Consequent Re-Numbering of the Succeeding Sections (Vacancy);
Rule 2, Section 7 [To be Re-Numbered as Section 8] (Resolution of motions for
reconsideration or clarification of decisions or signed resolutions and all other pleadings,
motions and incidents subsequently filed; creation of a Special Division); Rule 8, Section
4 (Substitution of Member ); Rule 13, Section 4 (Continuance in deliberations); and
Deletion of Sections 5 and 7 of Rule 13; Replacement Thereof By A New Provision on
the Decision-Making Process; and Re-Numbering of the Affected Sections (Decision-
making process).
AM No. 08-8-7-SC, The Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, December
8, 2015. | The Court approved The Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
that, among others, increased from P100,000 to P200,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, the amount or value of the claim falling within the jurisdiction of small claims
courts. The Revised Rules took effect on February 1, 2016. All first-level courts, except
for Shari’a courts, are small claims courts. These include the Metropolitan Trial Courts
(MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs),
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs). The Revised Rules were promulgated “to
protect and advance the constitutional rights of persons to a speedy disposition of
their cases, provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the disposition of small
claims cases, and, introduce innovations and best practice for the benefi t of the
underprivileged.”
AM No. 15-11-12-SC, Revised Implementing Guidelines for theAdministration
andAllocation of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) Under Presidential Decree
No.1949, December 16, 2015. | The Court adopted the Revised Implementing Guidelines
for the Administration and Allocation of the JDF Under PD 1949 to, among others,
further ensure the JDF’s effi cient administration, allocation, and utilization as
supplemental funding to the annual General Appropriations Acts (GAA) and ensure
consistency in policies and efficiency in procedures. The Revised Implementing Guidelines
has the following sections – Purpose of the JDF; Sources of the JDF; Authorized
Depository Bank for the JDF; Allocation of the JDF; Utilization of the 80% JDF; Utilization
of the 20% JDF; Submission of Annual Procurement Plan and Budget Planning; Previously
Authorized Expenditures; Submission of JDF Reports; and Effectivity.
AM No. 15-12-05-SC ( Re: Guidelines for the Implementation of a Strategic
Performance Management System [SPMS] inthe Judiciary, December 16, 2015. | The
Court approved the Guidelines for the Implementation of a Strategic Performance Management
Systems in the Judiciary. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) mandates that all agencies
39
should have a CSC approved SPMS, wherein all performance-based human resources
movements, and/or developments/interventions such as promotion, scholarship, training,
rewards and incentives shall be based.
AM No. 15-10-02-SC, In re Clarification on How Congress, as an Institution,
ShouldObtainthe“AdviceandConcurrence”oftheSupremeCourtInCaseItDecides
to Pass a Bill Increasing the High Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction, March 15, 2016. |
The Court was constrained to deem the request for “advice” as no longer relevant in
view of the passage of the subject bills in the lower house. Resultantly, what the Court
can only issue at this point are the guidelines for future bills of the same import and
its position towards the proposed increase of its jurisdiction under the subject bills.
Hence, the Court withheld its concurrence from the proposed increase of its jurisdiction
as embodied in the subject bills, pursuant to the constitutional grant under Article VI,
Section 30 of the Constitution. The Committee on Labor, Employment, and Human
Resources Development of the Senate of the Philippines sought the clarification on the
actual implementation of Sec. 30, Art. VI relative to the then pending Senate Bill No.
1968, Senate Bill No. 1843, and House Bill No. 5602 that intend to amend Articles 223
and 224 of the Labor Code of the Philippines by providing that decisions, resolutions or
awards by the National Labor Relations Commission be directly reviewable by the
Court. Article VI, Sec. 30 of the Constitution provides that “[n]o law shall be passed
increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution
without its advice and concurrence.”
ADMISSION TO THE BAR

Rule 138 of the Rules of Court defi ne who lawyers are and prescribe the
requirements for admission to the Bar. Sections 10 and 11 of the Rule provide
for the nature, content and methodology of the bar examinations as well as the
oversight thereof.
The 2015 Bar Examinations, the 114 th to be held in the country, saw a total of
1,731 examinees, or 26.21% percent out of the 6,605 examinees who took the 2015 Bar
Examinations, pass. Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
chaired the 2015 Committee on the Bar Examinations which were administered by the
Offi ce of the Bar Confidant headed by Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant Atty.
Ma. Cristina B. Layusa. This year’s bar was held not in September but during the four
Sundays of November 2015 (November 8, 15, 22, and 29, 2015) at the Pontifi cal and
Royal University of Santo Tomas in España, Manila. The change in schedule was
prompted by the shift in academic calendar by some law schools. The oathtaking of
the successful Bar examines was held on June 16, 2016 at the Philippine International
Convention Center (PICC).
University of the Philippines College of Law graduate Rachel Angeli B. Miranda
obtained the highest over-all rating of 87.40%. Miranda was followed by Athena C.
Plaza (University of San Carlos), 87.25%; Jayson C. Aguilar (University of the Philippines),
86.75%; Reginald M. Arceo (Ateneo de Manila University), 86.70%; Mandy Therese
Anderson (Ateneo de Manila University), 86.15%; Giselle P. Hernandez (University of
the Philippines), 86.10%; Darniel R. Bustamante (San Beda College-Manila), 85.90%;
Jecca B. Jacildo (University of San Carlos), Soraya S. Laut (Xavier University), and
Jericho R. Tiu (Ateneo de Manila University), 84.85%; Jedd Brian R. Hernandez, 85.80%
(University of the Philippines); Ronel U. Buenaventura (Bulacan State University);
and Lara Carmela G. Fernando (San Beda College-Manila), 85.75%.
40
The 2015 Bar examiners were Hon. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, Presiding Justice,
Sandiganbayan (Political Law and Public International Law); Atty. Theodore O. Te,
Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Supreme Court Public Information Offi ce
(Labor Law and Social Legislation); Atty. Rita Linda V. Jimeno, Partner, Jimeno and
Cope Law Firm (Civil Law); Hon. Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, Associate Justice,
Court of Tax Appeals (Taxation); Atty. Rafael A. Morales, Managing Partner, Sycip
Salazar Hernandez and Gatmaitan Law Firm (Mercantile Law); Hon. Efren N. Dela
Cruz, Associate Justice, Sandiganbayan (Criminal Law); Hon. Alexander G. Gesmundo,
Associate Justice, Sandiganbayan (Remedial Law); Hon. Maria Theresa Mendoza-
Arcega, Associate Justice, Sandiganbayan (Ethics and Practical Exercises).
Due to the scope and diffi culty, the Bar Examinations are regarded as the most
prestigious professional licensure exam in the country. It is also the only licensure
examination not administered by the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC).
Table 1: Comparative Statistics on Bar Passing Percentage
Year Number of Passers Out of the Passing Percentage

Total Examinees
2000 979 out of 4,698 20.48%
2001 1,266 out of 3,849 32.98%
2002 917 out of 4,659 19.68%
2003 1,108 out of 5,349 20.71%
2004 1,659 out of 5,249 31.61%
2005 1,526 out of 5,607 27.22%
2006 1,893 out of 6,187 30.60%
2007 1,289 out of 5,626 22.91%
2008 1,310 out of 6,364 20.58%
2009 1,451 out of 5,903 24.58%
2010 982 out of 4,847 20.26%
2011 1,913 out of 5,987 31.95%
2012 949 out of 5,343 17.76%
2013 1,174 out of 5,292 22.18%
2014 1,126 out of 5,984 18.82%
2015 1,731 out of 6,605 26.21%
41
The Courts of the Third Level

THE COURT OF APPEALS
Statutory History
The Court of Appeals was created on February 1, 1936 by virtue of Commonwealth
Act No. 3 promulgated on December 31, 1935, and was then composed of 11 judges.
Its mission may be described in the following action points: (1) To enhance the public
trust by disposing of cases justly, speedily, and impartially. (2) To employ computerized
and automated innovations and re-engineer administrative and operational systems;
(3) To uplift the professional and moral standards of Court offi cials and employees;
(4) To provide magistrates an environment conducive to the faithful discharge of their
judicial tasks; (5) To uphold the Rule of Law by fairly and fearlessly defending the
Constitution and the rights of the people.
When Commonwealth Act No. 259 was enacted on April 7, 1938, the appellate
judges were named justices and the composition of the Court of Appeals was increased
to 15 justices. Executive Order No. 4, issued on February 5, 1942, again increased the
number of justices to 17. In the latt er part of 1944, it was regionalized into fi ve
Districts – Court of Appeals (CA) for Northern, Central and Southern Luzon; for
Manila; and for Visayas and Mindanao. During the Japanese Occupation in 1945, the
CA was abolished in 1945 when President Sergio Osmeña Sr. issued EO 37.
After the Japanese Occupation and with the passage of RA 52 on October 4,
1946, the CA was recreated consisting of a presiding justice and 14 associate justices.
The composition of the CA was increased to 18 by RA 1605; then to 24 justices by RA
5204 on June 16, 1968. The number of CA justices was increased again to 36 in 1973
and to 45 in 1978.
In 1983, there was a thorough judicial reorganization under Batas Pambansa Blg.
129. EO 864 was issued wherein the Court of Appeals was renamed Intermediate
Appellate Court (IAC) and its membership enlarged to 50 associate justices with a
presiding justice. However, only 37 justices were appointed during this period.
With the change of government in 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued EO
33 on July 28, 1986, reverting the name back to “Court of Appeals” composed of a
presiding justice and 50 associate justices. On February 23, 1995, RA 7902 was passed
expanding the jurisdiction of the Court eff ective March 18, 1995.
On December 30, 1996, RA 8246 created six more divisions in the Court, thereby
increasing its membership from 51 to 69 justices. The number of divisions was increased
from 17 to 23 and its membership from 51 to 69. Under the law, the first 17 divisions
are to be stationed in Manila for cases coming from the 1st to the 5th Judicial Regions,
the 18th to 20th divisions were to be stationed in Cebu City for cases from the 6th to
8th Judicial Regions, and the 21st to 23rd divisions in Cagayan de Oro City for cases
from the 9th to 12th Judicial Regions. However, this law was fully implemented only
in 2004, with the appointment of 18 new justices for the Visayas and Mindanao
stations and the opening of the CA in Cebu and Cagayan de Oro.
Composition and Membership; Jurisdiction

The CA is composed of 69 justices, including its presiding justice, assigned to 23
divisions with three justices each as members. It reviews the decisions and final orders
of all the Regional Trial Courts. Also, the CA reviews decisions and resolutions in
administrative cases of the Ombudsman (Fabian v. Desierto, GR No. 129742, September
42
16, 1998), and those of the Department of Justice and other agencies exercising quasi-
judicial functions, including the Office of the President. The decisions and resolutions
of the National Labor Relations Commission are now initially reviewable by the Court
of Appeals, instead of a direct recourse to the Supreme Court, via petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 (St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, GR No. 130688, September 16, 1998).
On July 7, 2004, the Supreme Court, in People v. Mateo (GR No. 147678-87, July
7, 2004) allowed the Court of Appeals to conduct an intermediate review before the
case is elevated to it (the Supreme Court) in criminal cases where the penalty imposed
is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death.
On December 15, 2005, the Supreme Court issued AM No. 05-11-04-SC promulgating
the rules of procedure in anti-money laundering cases under RA 9160 as amended,
wherein the CA was granted jurisdiction over petitions for freeze orders on any
monetary instrument, property or proceeds involving an unlawful activity under said
RA.
On October 24, 2007, the CA was also granted jurisdiction over petitions for
Writs of Amparo, pursuant to AM No. 07-9-12-SC. Likewise, eff ective February 2,
2008, the CA was granted jurisdiction over petitions for Writs of Habeas Data, pursuant
to AM No. 08-1-16-SC.
The Work of the Court of Appeals

For 2015, the Court of Appeals disposed of more cases (13,034) than were fi led
(11,792) during the same year. The output of 13,034 cases taken against the total case
input of 33,801 cases represents a 38.56 percentage of case disposal for calendar year
2015. Of the 13,034, cases, a total of 10,146 cases were disposed by full Decision, while
the remaining 2,888 by Resolution.
The total Case Input is the combined number of the cases filed (11,792) and cases
reinstated (445) in CY 2015, plus the 21,564 cases pending as of December 31, 2014.
Of the 1,072 cases referred for mediation to the Philippine Mediation Center-
Court of Appeals for the year 2015, a total of 105 cases were reportedly successfully
mediated.
In 2015, the Special Cases Section reported that the court received only one Writ
of Kalikasan Case compared to three in 2014, six Writ of Amparo Cases, and one Writ
of Habeas Data Case. The Offi ce of the Presiding Justice, on the other hand, reported
18 Anti-Money Laundering Act Cases.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN
The Sandiganbayan was created 38 years ago on June 11, 1978.
Its Vision is to be “a judicial institution that the Filipino people can rely on for the
att ainment of the highest norms of offi cial conduct required of public offi cers and
employees.” Its Mission is “to give life and meaning to the constitutional precept that
a public office is a public trust and to impress upon public officers and employees that
they are at all times accountable to the people with their duty to serve with the highest
degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and effi ciency.
The Sandiganbayan carries out this objective by conducting expeditious trials of
criminal and civil cases involving offenses committed by public officers and employees,
including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations.”
43
Statutory History
The creation of the Sandiganbayan was originally provided for by the 1973
Constitution. In Article XIII, section 5, the 1973 Constitution directed that “(t)he
National Assembly shall create a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which
shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices
and such other offenses committed by public offi cers and employees, including those
in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their offi ce as may be
determined by law.” Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, exercising his legislative
power under Amendment No. 6 of the 1976 Amendments to the 1973 Constitution,
issued on June 11, 1978 Presidential Decree No. 1486 creating the Sandiganbayan and
placed it on the same level as Courts of First Instance, now called the Regional Trial
Courts. Later, the status of the Sandiganbayan was elevated to the level of the Court
of Appeals by virtue of PD 1606. At the start of its operation in 1979, the Sandiganbayan
initially had only one Division. A Second Division was activated in 1981, while the
Third Division was added the following year to complete the full membership of the
Court under PD 1606.
The Sandiganbayan is a special court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals
and Court of Tax Appeals, and possesses all the inherent powers of a court of justice.
Article IX, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that “the Sandiganbayan shall
continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided
by law.”

Originally, the Sandiganbayan was composed of a presiding justice and fourteen
associate justices who shall be appointed by the President. They sat in five Divisions
of three justices each.
RA 10660 provides for six additional justices for two additional divisions. The
Sandiganbayan’s new composition is now 21 justices sitting in seven divisions of three
members each, as provided in Section 1 of RA 10660.
Section 2 of RA 10660 provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have original exclusive
jurisdiction over cases involving:
a. Violations of RA 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, RA 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the
Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are offi cials occupying the
following positions in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the off ense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director
or higher, otherwise classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher, of the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989 (RA 6758), specifi cally including:
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial
department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panglungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers and other city department heads;
(c) Offi cials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and
higher;
44
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all offi cers of
higher rank;
(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and offi cials and
prosecutors in the Offi ce of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) President, directors or trustees, or managers of government- owned or -
controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;
(2) Members of Congress and offi cials thereof classified as Grade ‘27’ and up
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 ;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
(4) Chairpersons and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice
to the provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local offi cials classifi ed as Grade ‘27’ and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 .
b. Other crimes committed by the public offi cials and employees mentioned in
subsection a. of this section in relation to their offi ce.
c. Civil and criminal cases fi led pursuant to and in connection with Executive
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over fi nal
judgments, resolutions or orders or regional trial courts whether in the exercise of
their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.
The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for
the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions,
and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over
petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases
fi led or which may be fi led under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in
1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the
Supreme Court.
The Work of theSandiganbayan

The Sandiganbayan disposed of 276 cases for CY 2015, one less than the 277 cases
it disposed of in CY 2014. The disposed cases consist of 262 Criminal Cases, three
Special Civil Actions, one Civil Case and 10 Appealed Cases. The clearance rate in
2015, or the ratio of outfl ow of cases – referring to 276 cases decided and archived/
terminated – against the inflow of cases – referring to 357 newly-filed cases, 32 revived
cases – was 70.95%.
Most of the cases disposed in CY 2015 involved Falsification which topped the list
of the number of cases disposed of in CY 2015 with 80 cases or 28.99%. This was
followed by other cases (Violation of RA 8291, etc.) with 72 cases or 26.09%. Placing
third and fourth, respectively on the list were Violation of RA 3019 with 63 cases or
22.83% and Malversation cases with 23 cases or 8.33%. These four types of cases
constituted 86.24% of the cases disposed of in 2015.
There were 273 persons who were involved in 276 cases disposed of in CY 2015.
Compared to CY 2014’s record of 331 accused, there were 58 accused less over last
45
year’s record representing a 17.52% decrease of the total number of persons accused
before the Court. The table below shows the manner of disposal involving the 331
persons accused before the Court in 2015.
At the beginning of the year 2016, there are 3,206 cases pending in the Sandiganbayan
court docket. Out of this number, 254 cases were filed, 46 were revived totaling 3,506
workload from January to April 2016. Also, 109 cases were disposed and 3,397 are
pending as of this date.
Of the 254 cases fi led in January to April 2016, 85 cases or 33.5% involved
violations of Republic Acts primarily Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Other
cases involved malversation cases with 23 cases filed or 9.1% of the total cases filed,
while 72 45 cases or 17.71% for others including Violation of Presidential Decrees and
the remaining 28.34% consisted of various other offenses.
THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

Statutory History
The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) was created by RA 1125 on June 16, 1954 to
exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Collector of Internal
Revenue, Commissioner of Customs, and provincial or city Boards of Assessment
Appeals.
Under RA 9282, the CTA was elevated to the same level as the Court of Appeals
and its membership enlarged by the addition of three more justices for a total of two
Divisions with three members each. RA 9503 further enlarged the CTA’s membership
by providing for another three additional justices for a total of nine justices, one
presiding justice and eight associate justices, who may sit in three divisions or en banc.
The CTA is presently composed of nine justices who may sit en banc or in three
divisions, with each division consisting of three justices.
Its Vision is to be “a specialized tax court that is impartial, competent, transparent,
and worthy of public trust and confi dence, ensuring faithful compliance with tax
laws,” which it hopes to achieve guided by the following principles:
1. Fair and speedy collection of taxes by the Government;
2. Adequate judicial remedies to taxpayers against unreasonable/unjust tax
assessments and refund of excessive/erroneous taxes collected;
3. Proper interpretation of tax statutes;
4. Adherence to the independence of the judiciary; and
5. Utmost deference for public trust and confi dence in the judiciary.
Under RA 9282, the CTA has the following jurisdiction:
A. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:
1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or
other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
relations thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or
other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal
46
Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be
deemed a denial;
3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases
originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction;
4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs
duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected,
fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under
the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;
5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property
originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him
automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are
adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;
7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of non-agricultural
product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural
product, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under
Section 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures
under RA 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to
impose said duties.
B. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations
of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided,
however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than
P1,000,000.00 or where there is no specifi ed amount claimed shall be tried by the
regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any provision of
law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the
corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall
at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in the same
proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily
carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil
action separately from the criminal action will be recognized.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:
a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial
Courts in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction.
b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional
Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally
decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts in their respective jurisdiction.
c. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided:
1) Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving fi nal and
executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided, however,
that collection cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of
47
charges and penalties, claimed is less than P1,000,000.00 shall be tried by the proper
Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court.
2) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:
a) Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional
Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective
territorial jurisdiction.
b) Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the
Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection
cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdiction.
The Work of the Court of TaxAppeals

The Court of Tax Appeals resolved 375 cases (Case Output) as against the total
Case Input of 1,516 cases, which means a case disposal rate of 25%.
The 375 disposed cases compared to its target for 2015 of 352 cases meant a 106%
accomplishment rate. Given a total of 577 cases filed for 2015 as compared to its total
Case Output, a clearance rate of 67% was att ained.
In terms of the amount or peso value, the 375 cases disposed of by the CTA
represent about P11.5 billion in taxes and duties litigated for the year.
TRIAL COURTS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL

The trial courts of the first and second level were created under Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, the general law which re-organized the judiciary.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

Under BP 129, Regional Trial Courts, which are courts of the second level, have
jurisdiction in several types of actions in civil cases. These courts “shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
courts, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance
by the latt er. In other cases, RTCs “shall exercise original jurisdiction: (1) In the
issuance of writs of certiorari, been forced in any part of their respective regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.” RTCs
also have “appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by (the courts of the first level)
in their respective territorial jurisdictions.”
THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
BP Blg. 129 provides for the jurisdiction of the courts of the first level, Metropolitan
Trial Courts in Cities (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts (MCTCs). It states that in criminal cases, “except in cases falling with the
exclusive original jurisdiction of RTCs and of the Sandiganbayan, the MeTCs, MTCs,
and MCTCs shall exercise: (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city
or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable
accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or
predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof: Provided,
48
however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence,

they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. (as amended by RA No. 7691).”
In civil cases, MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs “shall exercise: (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 exceed P100,000.00 or, in Metro
Manila where such personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not
exceed 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) Exclusive original jurisdiction
over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such
cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleading and the question
of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of
ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession; (3) Exclusive
original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest
therein does not exceed P20,000.00 or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
assessed value does not exceed P50,000.00 exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value of such property
shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.” (as amended by RA
7691)
THE SHARI’A COURTS

The Shari’a courts are courts with a limited and special jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases and administer justice for the country’s Muslim population in accordance
with the Muslim Code of Personal Laws. Even with limited and special jurisdiction, they
are considered regular courts, as pointed out in Republic v. Hon. Asuncion (GR 108208,
March 11, 1994).
Statutory History
PD 1083, the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines , was signed into law
on February 4, 1977 creating the Shari’a Courts. Article 137 of said Code provides:
“There are hereby created, as part of the judicial system, courts of limited jurisdiction
to be known respectively as Shari’a District Courts and Shari’a Circuit Courts, which
shall exercise power and functions in accordance with this title.”
RA 6734 (An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao), signed into law in 1989, not only recognized and secured the continued
existence of the Shari’a District and Shari’a Circuit Courts but also created the Shari’a
Appellate Court. The Shari’a Appellate Court, “together with the other Shari’a trial
courts, shall have jurisdiction over cases involving persons, family and property relations
of Muslims in the Philippines.”

There are a total of 51 Shari’a Circuit Courts distributed across various parts of
Mindanao, as follows: (a) six courts in the Province of Sulu; (b) eight in the Province
of Tawi-Tawi; (c) 10 in the Provinces of Basilan, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga
del Sur and the Cities of Dipolog, Pagadian, and Zamboanga; (d) 12 in the Provinces
of Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur and the Cities of Iligan and Marawi; and (e)
49
15 in the Province of Maguindanao, North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat and the City
of Cotabato.
The Shari’a Circuit judges must be at least 25 years old and must have passed the
examination in Shari’a and Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) given by the Supreme Court.
The Shari’a Circuit Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases
involving offenses defined and punished under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the
Philippines. Likewise, the SCC shall have jurisdiction over all civil actions and proceedings
between parties who are Muslims or have been married in accordance with Article 13
involving disputes relating to (a) marriage; (b) divorce recognized under the Code; (c)
betrothal or breach of contract to marry; (d) customary dower ( mahr); (e) disposition
and distribution of property upon divorce; (f) maintenance and support, and consolatory
gifts, (mut’a); and (g) restitution of marital rights. All cases involving disputes relative
to communal properties also fall within their jurisdiction. There is a Shari’a District
Court for each of the five special judicial districts: (a) the First Shari’a District shall
comprise the Province of Sulu; (b) the Second Shari’a District, the Province of Tawi-
Tawi; (c) the Third Shari’a District, the Province of Basilan, Zamboanga del Norte and
Zamboanga del Sur, and the Cities of Dipolog, Pagadian and Zamboanga; (d) the
Fourth Shari’a District, the provinces of Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur, and the
Cities of Iligan and Marawi; and (e) the Fifth Shari’a District, the Provinces of
Maguindanao, North Cotabato, and Sultan Kudarat, and the City of Cotabato.
The Shari’a District judges appointed by the President of the Philippines must not
only have same qualifications for judges of the second-level courts but must also be
learned in Islamic law and jurisprudence.
The Shari’a District Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over
a) all cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternity and filiation
arising under the Code of Muslims Personal Laws of the Philippines;
b) petitions for the declaration of absence and death and for the cancellation or
correction of entries in the Muslim Registries mentioned in Title VI of Book
Two of this Code;
c) all actions arising from customary contracts in which the parties are Muslims,
if they have not specifi ed which law shall govern their relations; and
d) all petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus,
and all other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
The Shari’a District Courts have original jurisdiction over:
(a) petitions by Muslims for the constitution of a family home, change of name
and commitment of an insane person to an asylum;
(b) all other personal and real actions not mentioned in paragraph (d) above
wherein the parties involved are Muslims except those for forcible entry and
unlawful detainer, which shall fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the Municipal Circuit Trial Court; and
(c) all special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief wherein the parties
are Muslims or the property involved belongs exclusively to Muslims.
The Shari’a District Courts have appellate jurisdiction over all cases tried in the
Shari’a Circuit Courts within their territorial jurisdiction. Their decisions whether on
appeal from the Shari’a Circuit Court or not shall be final. Like the Shari’a Circuit and
District Courts, the Shari’a Appellate Court shall have jurisdiction over cases involving
50
persons, family, and relations. It shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, and
other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; and (2) Exercise
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases tried in the Shari’a District Courts as
established by law. The decisions of the Shari’a Appellate Court shall be fi nal and
executory: Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall affect the original
and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in the Constitution.
JUDICIAL REFORMS
Concrete reform programs in the Philippine judicial system started in the 1990s.
At least 40 technical studies on court administration were capsulized in documents,
such as the Technical Assistance of the Philippine Judiciary on Justice and Development
(1996-1999), Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary (1999) , Action Program for Judicial
Reform (2001-2010), and Judicial Reform Support Project (2001-2012).
These actions are subsumed what is now being developed as The Judiciary and
Legal Profession Development Plan (JLPDP), the reform programs continue to evolve,
taking their cue from changes in our environment, culture, and learnings from ongoing
court initiatives. The JLPDP is the judiciary’s roadmap that points out major ongoing
or future programs, projects and activities. It is a link to the then, the now, and the
what-is-to-be by providing continuity on the accomplishments spearheaded by current
and previous Chief Justices and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court.
The following are selected highlights of the reform programs carried out or continued
by the Court in 2015 to 2016:
Hustisyeah! 1 This one-time case decongestion program launched in 2013 has
so far recorded a 30% reduction rate of caseload for Quezon
City, where it was piloted. Data from the Offi ce of the Court
Administrator as of February 2016 shows that the pending cases
in 119 courts were reduced by 17.21%, or from 95,025 to 78,670.
Participating courts include those in Makati City, Angeles City,
Davao City, Manila, Pasig City, San Juan City, and Taguig.
Since its inception in 2013, the Hustisyeah! case decongestion
program of the Supreme Court has signifi cantly reduced the
dockets of the 175 heavily congested courts participating in the
program. Hustisyeah involves an inventory of court dockets,
formulation of case decongestion plans, and implementation of
these plans.
Quezon City The Quezon City Practice Guidelines features limitations to the
Practice Guidelines length of pleadings, kind of motions and number of
in Litigation postponements; strict timeframes; and mandates judicial affidavits
in lie u of oral ope n c ourt t es t imony w it h right of c ros s-
examination. The guidelines also authorize the use of private
couriers to serve court processes.
The QCPG has significantly reduced the period of case disposal
from 12 years to seven years in the Regional Trial Courts (RTC)
and 21 to only seven years in the Metropolitan Trial Courts
(MeTC). Also, the average number of days to try a case has
been reduced to 194 days from the previous 524 for civil cases;
1 A coined term that is meant to be read as “Hustis-ya”, with the “e” sound glossed over.
51
252 from 734 days for criminal cases; 193 from 863 days for
family cases; and 358 from 1,596 days for drugs cases. For
cases pending in MeTCs, the average has been reduced to 141
from 365 days for civil cases; 171 from 421 days for criminal
c ases; 224 from 1, 913 days for civil as pec ts arising f rom
commercial cases, and 104 from 634 days for criminal aspects
arising from the same. The project is currently being assessed
for potential roll-out to other court stations and possible
consolidation with the Continuous Trial for Criminal Cases.
Continuous Trial for This project is currently rolled out in 52 pilot RTCs and six pilot
Criminal Cases MeTCs in Manila, Quezon City, and Makati. Under this system,
courts handling criminal cases will try cases ( e.g. bouncing
checks, cases involving minors, drugs, estafa, illegal recruitment,
and select commercial cases) continuously until resolved.
Assisting Courts To address the disproportionate allocation of courts in various
parts of the country, assisting courts were formed, in which
these less congested courts from nearby jurisdictions are tasked
to help overburdened courts deal with the latt er’s heavier
caseloads. The assisting courts program is currently being
implemented in the following areas: 20 Metropolitan Trial Courts
(MeTCs) in Manila to assist seven MeTCs in Makati and 20
MeTCs in Quezon City; 12 Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) in
Cebu City to assist three RTCs in Mandaue City and three
RTCs in Lapu-Lapu City; and one Municipal Circuit Trial Court
(MCTC) in Compostela-Cordova to assist one Municipal Trial
Court in Cities (MTCC) in Lapu-Lapu City.
As of December 2015, a total of 2,706 criminal cases and 3,084
civil cases have been transmitted by the Quezon City and Makati
City assisted courts to the Manila assisting courts. Of the 3,084
civil cases transferred, 1,172 cases, or 38%, have been disposed
of, while 1,523 of the 2,706 criminal cases, or 56.28%, transferred
were likewise disposed of. A total of 2,695 criminal and civil
cases, or 46.54%, were disposed of by the Manila assisting courts.
In Cebu, a total of 2,957 cases have been transmitted since the
start of the assisting court pilot in 2015. Of the total, 63 came
from Mandaue Municipal Trial Courts in Cities; 1,281 from
Lapu-Lapu; and 1,613 from Mandaue RTCs. There was no data
on the disposal of the cases transmitted to the assisting courts.
Pilot of Rules 22 and Rolled out on August 1, 2015, this project is currently being
24 in the Ru le s o n implemented in 54 pilot courts since August 17, 2015.
Civil Procedure
A total of 140 cases were tried under Rules 22 and 24 of the
Draft Revised Rules of Civil Procedure during its launch. Of these,
19 have been set for case management conference and four
have been set for trial. In Iloilo, two cases have been dismissed
and one case has been archived. None of the cases has yet been
decided based on the merits. However, in Iloilo, a case is nearing
a decision following the conclusion of the parties’ presentation
of evidence and the sett ing of a date for oral arguments.
Participants to the project are courts in Quezon City, Makati
City, Angeles City, Cebu City, Iloilo City, Davao City.
52
eCourt As of August 2015, there are 82 operational eCourts covering

all the courts in Quezon City, Angeles City, Lapu-Lapu City,
and Tacloban City. In the third and fourth quarters of 2015,
there were 85 eCourts in Tacloban City, Davao City, Cebu City,
and Makati City. In 2016, there were 120 ecourts in Manila,
Pasig City, and Mandaluyong City. By end of 2016, eCourt will
be in 287 trial courts handling about 30% of the total caseload
of the Philippine court system.
The eCourt is an automated case management system developed
for the trial courts that is expected to not only increase efficiency
in case processing and monitoring, but also enhance transparency
in court operations and records integrity. It aims to speed up
decision-making through automated monitoring of cases and
cut case backlogs through a dashboard that provides information
like the aging of cases, pending deadlines, and new case incidents
that require action. It also seeks to increase public access to
information through computers in public kiosks that are found
at the entrance of the different halls of justices, as well as bolster
t r a n s p a r e n c y b e c a u s e t h e r a ffl i n g o f c a s e s is n o w d o n e
electronically.
Automated An offshoot of the eCourt is the automated hearing system in
Hearings which every activity in a court trial is captured electronically,
right there and then (in real time), including orders issued by
the judge, minutes of the hearing conducted, judges’ notes on
testimony taken, markings of evidence, issuance of writs and
other court processes, by linking together the computers of the
judge, stenographer and interpreters, to allow all individuals
to view and edit real-time the documents being prepared.
To date, there are 150 trial courts in eight cities conducting
automated hearings in their salas.
An automated hearing also does away with the delay in the
preparation of open court orders and the inevitable postponements
due to our present reliance on the snail mail system. The orders
and subpoenas are immediately released to the parties present
in court, thereby saving at least one month in waiting time if
service is done via snail mail.
The Enterprise The EISP is the judiciary’s information communications
Information technology master plan approved in 2009 and updated in 2014
Systems Plan and targeted for implementation in 2015-2019. It identifies over
(EISP) 20 software application systems to speed up the adjudication
of cases, increase personnel productivity, and improve court
and case management. Some key EISP projects include upgrading
of the judiciary center, cabling and site preparation, and
connectivity and network security.
As of March 2016, the Court has already awarded fi ve major
EISP components for (1) the rehabilitation of the SC Main Data
Center in Manila; (2) construction of the Disaster Recover (or
Back-up) Data Center in Angeles City; (3) servers equipment
and monitoring system for the data centers; (4) connectivity for
53
the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court

of Tax Appeals, and the trial courts in Regions 3, 4-A, 7, and
the NCJR and Davao City; and (5) network security. These
projects are now under implementation, with the two data
center projects nearing completion and the servers and equipment
fully delivered and being installed in the data centers. ePLDT
and PLDT have started putting internet connections in the target
courts, which will be completed by August 2016, according to
their estimate.
In less than one and a half years of implementation, the Supreme
Court is almost finished with critical components of the judiciary
IT infrastructure, which are thresholds for projects, such as the
eCourts.
Six other EISP projects are already undergoing bidding process:
(1) Hearing Management System, (2) Digitization of Court
Records-Phase 1, (3) Judiciary Email, (4) Lawyer Information
System, and (5) Legal Resource Management System. The
procurement of the two remaining 2015 EISP components, such
as Document Records and Archive Management System and
the PHILJA eLearning Management System, is targeted to begin
in the 3 rd quarter of 2016.
Process The project is currently rolled out in the Supreme Court,

Re-engineering Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, and select lower courts.
(including It involves the conduct of process reengineering, a critical business
rationalization and management tool that aims to map out or document all processes
modernization of in the judiciary; identify areas for improvement; streamline
plantilla) processes as necessary; create key performance indicators; and
review human resource requirements based on these improved
processes. Each warm body in the Supreme Court, appellate
courts and select lower courts painstakingly participated in
these reengineering workshops to ensure that even informal
processes are mapped out and fully documented.
Performance-Based With 2016 as target year for implementation, a study on a
Evaluation, performance-based incentive system will be employed, particularly
Rewards, the Strategic Performance Management System, which adopts
Discipline, and offi ce-level targets and competency assessments for all court
Promotions System personnel, except justices and judges.
Procurement This system stresses the need for a strong linkage between planning
Process Reforms and budgeting. Through intensified market research, alignment
with the budget, and automation through the Enterprise Resource
Plan System, it provides analytical basis for decision-making
and putting such decisions into operation.
Transparency and The Ulat ng Hudikatura (Report of the Judiciary), wherein, before
Accountability members of the media, the Chief Justice outlines signifi cant
Reforms developments in the judiciary; the conduct of regular press
briefings by the Chief Public Information Officer on recent actions
or decisions by the Court; and enhancements to the Supreme
Court Annual Report and the website of the Supreme Court are
all part of the judiciary’s eff orts to make it more accessible,
hence more transparent and accountable, to the public. The
54
sc.judiciary.gov.ph website now includes live-streaming and

podcasts of oral arguments, and viewing of fi nancial reports
and contracts entered into by the Court.
A Stakeholders Consultation and Communications Technical
Working Group, tasked to assess the effectiveness and efficiency
of the judiciary’s key programs, projects, and activities, has
also been created.
Infrastructure The Master Plan was developed in 2004 and is intended to be
Master Plan updated by the judiciary. At this time, the 2004 Plan is still
(including facility being used by the Office on the Halls of Justice (HoJs) as a basis
standards) for the design and space planning of courts that are covered by
the infrastructure rehabilitation program that started in 2013.
The judiciary will conduct a baseline study in 2016 or early
2017 to assess the current state of court infrastructure, likely
with the assistance of the United Architects of the Philippines.
The baseline study will be preliminary to the updating of the
Master Plan in 2017.
Court Warehousing The Supreme Court is in the process of procuring professional
storage warehousing solutions, which includes bar-coding
documents, on-time delivery of documents, and appropriate
storage environment.
Judiciary This includes the rehabilitation of the old and construction of
Infrastructure new Halls of Justice (HoJs) in various parts of the country.
Program Under this Program, the Court, in 2014, also entered into an
agreement with the Bases Conversion Development Authority
for the purchase of a 21,463-square meter lot at the Bonifacio
Global City for the Judiciary Complex.
Justice Zones Launched in November 2014, the Justice Zone is a flagship project
of the Justice Sector Coordinating Council (JSCC), which was
developed to address delay and ineffi ciencies through sector-
wide coordinative efforts, while respecting the independence
of all institutions concerned. It is an area or locality where a
minimum number of inter-agency coordinative reforms are
present, rendering that area or locality fully compliant based
on the rating system to be established. The JSCC is composed
by the Supreme Court, Department of Justice (DOJ), and
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).
Some of the key reform projects in the justice zone accomplished
in 2014 to 2016 include:
a. eSubpoena – an automated notifi cation system where the
courts are able to send out electronic subpoenas, and duly
received by the concerned police officer through their national
headquarters,
b. Sector-Wide Capacity Building – such as joint trainings on
forensics; preparation and use of judicial affi davits and
templates; and protocol for case management of child victims
of abuse and exploitation,
55
c. Synchronized Calendars – comprehensive calendar containing

all information on offi cial activities (e.g. training) of the
justice sector actors,
d. Evidence Management System - a system being developed by
a technical working group to improve evidence gathering,
handling, marking and disposal,
e. Thematic Forum – such as the 2015 Anti-Illegal Drugs Summit
and Evidence Management Forum in October 2015,
f. Signing of Memorandum of Agreement between BJMP and PAO
– to allow the effi cient coordination of both agencies in jail
decongestion, such as facilitating the fi ling of motions to
release qualified inmates, and regular visits through the eDalaw
program,
g. Sharing of criminal case inventory between the trial court
and prosecutors, and
h. Development of JSCC Website;
Addressing A Technical Working Group on Human Rights was recently
Impunity: Criminal established to evaluate all concerns and recommendations to
Impunity and the judiciary relative to the safeguarding of constitutional rights
Redress for Mass and human rights policy issues, relative to the safeguarding of
Civil Injuries constitutional rights and human rights policy issues, including
assessment of the efficacy of the Writs of Amparo and of Habeas
Data.
Creation of Special In September 2015, the Supreme Court Committee on Family
Courts (e.g. Family Courts and Juvenile Concerns organized a National Summit to
Courts, Shari’a address issues in the operation of the family courts. This was in
Courts) with anticipation of the opening of the family courts that were
corresponding mandated by the law but only recently funded by Congress.
budgetary support Expected to open by the end of 2016 are 48 Family Courts in
from the national the National Capital Region, and Regions 3 and 4, which account
government for 52.46% of total child and family cases nationwide. This,
after the Court, has been granted a budget for the first phase
of the implementation of RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 8369,
circa 1997), a fi rst in the history of the judiciary.
Jail Decongestion Supreme Court A M N o . 1 2 - 1 1 - 2 - S C ( G u i d e l i n e s o n J a i l
Decongestion) includes the creation of a Task Force Katarungan
at Kalayaan (pilot in Manila City) and the establishment of a
Detainee’s Notebook. As of January 2016, 403 out of the 550
detainees or 73.3% have been released under the Task Force
Katarungan at Kalayaan Project. The baseline population of 550
detainees, who are being evaluated to monitor the impact of
the review process, was established in January 2014. The Task
Force aims to timely dispose of cases by reviewing these through
a set of criteria. Since then, it has significantly contributed to
the resolution of cases of inmates at the Manila City Jail.
With its success in Manila, the Task Force Katarungan at Kalayaan
will be established in the rest of the National Capital Judicial
Region. Training and orientation in preparation for its full
56
implementation will be conducted in Quezon City and Pasay

City in June to July 2016, with preparatory activities to be
undertaken for Muntinlupa, Makati and other cities within the
NCR shall be conducted on the last quarter of the year.
Enhanced Justice Rolled out in July 2008, the Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW)
on Wheels (EJOW) Program has successfully improved access to justice through its
mobile court hearings, court-annexed mediation, and provision
of free legal, medical and dental aid to inmates and minor
offenders nationwide.
From 2015 up to the first quarter of 2016, 989 cases have been
heard or tried in the mobile court hearings, 276 of which were
decided on the merits; 624 cases were dismissed and 323 prisoners
were released. Part and parcel of the EJOW visits is the Judgment
Day Program where prisoners are either released on bail or
recognizance or have their cases dismissed or resolved by the
courts. A total of 4,286 prisoners were released either on bail
or recognizance (2,224), or whose cases were dismissed (2,062)
during the National Judgment Day participated in by first and
second level courts nationwide on November 16, 2015. A total
of 8,684 criminal cases were heard on the said date. Moreover,
278 prisoners were released on separate Judgment Days scheduled
in Pasig City, Makati City, Muntinlupa City, and Las Piñas as
City from May to August 2015. Under the project, cases of
detention prisoners eligible for release under existing laws and
rules are heard.
Specially-Trained Grounded on the successes of Hustisyeah!, the judiciary was
Case Decongestion granted a budget for the hiring of 635 contractual specially
Offi cers trained court decongestion offi cers (who are, at the minimum,
law graduates) to be deployed at trial court branches and stations
across the country with caseloads (or average caseloads, in the
case of court stations) of 500 or more.
The 635 case decongestion offi cers are distributed as follows:
NCJR-first level courts, 87; NCJR-second level Courts, 83; the
rest of the fi rst level courts, 23; the rest of the second level
courts, 442. As of date, the Court has already trained and deployed
359 case decongestion offi cers, with 122 in the NCJR; 20 in
Region 1; 10 in Region 2; 51 in Region 3; 91 in Region 4; and
65 in Region 7.
The Court is in the process of operationalizing (including hiring
of ) case decongestion officers for Regions 5, 6, 8 and 12 for the
remainder of the year.
57
FINANCIAL REPORT
On December 23, 2014, President Benigno S. Aquino III signed into law the 2015
General Appropriations Act, providing for the national budget, amounting to P2.606
Trillion. The 2015 budget was 15.1 percent higher than the previous year’s budget of
P2.265 Trillion.
The judiciary was allotted a total of P20.260 Billion or 0.78 percent of the national
budget. This was a nine percent (9%) increase from the approved P18.559 Billion
budget of the previous year.
Of the P20.260 Billion allocated to the judiciary by the 2015 General Appropriations
Act, P18.093 Billion went to the Supreme Court and Lower Courts, and P88.058
Billion went to Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The Court of Appeals received an
allotment of P1.434 Billion, the Sandiganbayan P400.476 Million, and the Court of
Tax Appeals P244.671 Million.
Approved 2015 Budget for the Judiciary (2015 General Appropriations Act)
Supreme Court and Lower Courts 18,093,379,000.00

Presidential Electoral Tribunal 88,058,000.00
Court of Appeals 1,434,198,000.00
Sandiganbayan 400,476,000.00
Court of Tax Appeals 244,671,000.00
Total 20,260,782,000.00
The judiciary budget was utilized to implement and support the ongoing reforms
being undertaken by the judiciary in decongesting its court dockets and modernizing
and automating its processes. The judiciary’s docket decongestion program included
the Enhanced Justice on Wheels, Small Claims Court and Small Claims Monitoring System,
HUSTISYEAH Program and Continuous Trials for Criminal Cases, among others. In
2015, the national government allott ed P890.36 Million for the judiciary’s fi ve-year
Information and Communications Technology master plan called the Enterprise
Information Systems Plan (EISP) as part of the judiciary’s modernization program. The
GAA support to the modernization program included the eCourts roll-out (which was
previously development-partner funded), automated hearings, the IT Infrastructure
program and connectivity program for trial courts, and the transfer of the Supreme
Court to Fort Bonifacio, among others.
58
INTERNATIONAL LINKAGES
The year 2015 up to the fi rst quarter of 2016 was a busy period for the Chief
Justice and the Associate Justices in terms of international linkages and networking.
On top of their adjudicative work (and, for the Chief Justice, her administrative
functions), some Members of the Court took time out to participate in conferences and
meetings overseas, deliver lectures and present papers. These linkages have served not
only to strengthen ties with Southeast East Asian and other international organizations
but also to bolster the Court’s image as an important element in maintaining the rule
of law in the region.
2015:
JANUARY The Philippine Judiciary hosted the Third ASEAN Chief Justices
TO Meeting (3rd ACJM) at Boracay Island from March 1-3. Led by
MARCH Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, the Court En Banc
gathered at the Shangri-La Boracay to host the Chief Justices
and Senior Magistrates of the ten (10) Association of Southeast
Asian (ASEAN) Member States. The successful three-day
gathering led to the unprecedented signing of the Boracay Accord
of 2015 which, among others, (a) reaffirmed mutual commitment
to strengthen international partnerships and regional solidarity
among the judiciaries of the ASEAN member states; and (b)
agreed to take initial steps towards the creation of working
groups focusing on training needs and capacity building, the
creation of ASEAN Judiciary Portal, case management, court
technology, child cross-border disputes, and civil processes. It
was also an opportunity for the Members of the Court to renew
ties with Chief Justices and Senior Magistrates of the ASEAN
Judiciaries.
On March 17, Chief Justice Sereno att ended the Meeting of
Experts in Singapore, upon the invitation of the International
Bar Association (IBA), through its President, David W. Rivkin.
The meeting was held to develop ideas for the IBA Judicial Integrity
Initiative, which is aimed at combating judicial corruption
worldwide. It was hosted by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon of
the Supreme Court of Singapore.
APRIL TO JUNE From April 13–15, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de
Castro was in Canada for the Joint Conference of the Canadian
Chapter of the International Association of Women Judges (IAWJ)
a nd t he N at i o nal J udi c ia l Ins ti t ut e o f Ca na da i n S t . J o hn’ s
Newfoundland. The theme of the conference was “Judging as
Canada Changes; Balancing Rights.”
On May 6–8, Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo and
Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe represented the Philippine judiciary
at the 5th International Conference on Enforcing Contracts of Thailand
and Sri Lanka in Seoul, South Korea.
On May 12–15, Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo and
Jose Portugal Perez represented the Philippine judiciary in two
significant events held in Hong Kong: the high-level colloquium
on the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), and the
59
Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) Conference

on Judicial Approach to International Arbitration . Both were
sponsored by the HKIAC and the Hong Kong Department of
Justice.
Chief Justice Sereno led a small delegation composed of Associate
Justices Diosdado M. Peralta and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Court
of Appeals Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Apolinario
Bruselas Jr. to Washington, D.C., Maryland and Viriginia for a
study tour on court automation from May 16–23. While there,
the Chief Justice and her delegation was received by Justices
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito of the United States
Supreme Court, with whom they held separate meetings. The
delegation also able to att end a non-argument session of the
United States Supreme Court. The study tour was sponsored
by the American Bar Association-Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-
ROLI).
On May 25–27, Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. attended
a meeting of the Secretary Generals of the Association of Asian
Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions in Jakarta,
Indonesia. He was accompanied by Deputy Court Administrator
Raul B. Villanueva and Deputy Clerk of Court and Executive
Officer En Banc Att y. Anna-Li R. Papa-Gombio. The meeting
was sponsored by the Constitutional Court of Indonesia.
JULY On July 26–29, Justice Del Castillo served as the head of the
TO delegation and representative of the Philippine judiciary to the
SEPTEMBER International Conference on Enforcement of Civil Case Judgment in
the Context of Dynamic Regional Economic Integration in Bangkok,
Thailand. During the event, delegates from the ASEAN countries,
China, Japan, and Korea shared the situations and challenges
regarding judgment enforcement in their respective countries
and discussed recommendations.
On August 15–16, Chief Justice Sereno joined the Board Members’
Meeting of the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and the
International Symposium on Constitutional Complaint in Jakarta,
Indonesia and gave a presentation during one of the panels on
the constitutional complaint mechanisms in the Philippine
judiciary. The discussions during the symposium centered on
aspects of constitutional complaint in connection with protection
of constitutional rights, comparisons of processes of constitutional
complaint, and challenges in handling cases of constitutional
complaint.
On September 29, Associate Justices Velasco and Lucas P.
Bersamin flew to Rome, Italy to attend a meeting with offi cials
of the Italian Ministry of Interior in connection with their duties
at the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). The
meeting was held “to discuss possible electoral reforms which
may be adopted in the Philippines.” During their visit, they
also met with the Philippine Embassy in Italy and the Italian
Senate’s Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee.
60
OCTOBER On October 2–3, Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez represented

TO the Philippine judiciary in behalf of Chief Justice Sereno at the
DECEMBER International Legal Forum of the Asia-Pacifi c on the theme
“National and international regulation of customs relations” in
Vladivostok, Russia. During the forum, the representatives from
the different countries exchanged ideas and experiences regarding
promotion of justice, protection of rights, and economic security.
Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro chaired the sixth session
on the Mexican Supreme Court’s Protocol on Judging with a
Gender Perspective during the Regional Judicial Dialogue on Judging
with a Gender Perspective on October 5 to 6 in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Judges and representatives from judicial training institutions
held a dialogue on tools and developments which are useful in
making gender-sensitive and non-discriminative decisions as
provided under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
Chief Justice Sereno was again invited by IBA President Rivkin
to speak during the Presidential Showcase Program on Combating
Judicial Corruption at the IBA’s Annual Conference in Vienna,
Austria on October 6. The Chief Justice was part of the panel
which discussed what causes judicial corruption, how some
countries have reduced or eliminated it, and what organizations
such as the IBA Judicial Integrity Initiative are doing to help
combat it.
On October 26–28, Justice Bernabe, who was accompanied by
Court of Appeals Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.,
represented the Philippine judiciary at the first United Nations
Commission on International Trade Law (UNICTRAL) Asia Pacific
Judicial Summit in Hong Kong. International arbitration,
arbitration agreements, and arbitral awards were among the
topics tackled during the event.
Chief Justice Sereno attended the 16th Conference of Chief Justices
of Asia and the Pacifi c in Sydney, Australia on November 6–9.
Among the topics discussed during the biennial conference were
legal response to terrorism; lawyers, protests, and politics; religion
and the law; and Asia as a law area.
2016:
JANUARY From February 4 to 6, the Philippine judiciary convened a
TO Workshop on the ASEAN Chief Justices Technical Working
MARCH Groups at the Training Center of Philippine Judicial Academy
in Tagaytay. An initiative of Chief Justice Sereno, which her
counterparts in the ASEAN Judiciaries agreed to, the Workshop
gathered the working groups created during the 3 rd ACJM in
March 2015 and provided much needed technical support for
the 4th ASEAN Chief Justices Meeting in o Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
by way of completed working proposals to be submitt ed for
consideration by the Chief Justices of the ASEAN.
61
APRIL Justice Diosdado M. Peralta represented the Court at the meetings

TO of the World Bank Doing Business Team in Washington D.C.,
JUNE USA from March 27 to April 1. He spoke about the Court’s
“continued good efforts to enhance its operations and deliver
timely justice service to all.” His trip was sponsored by the
American Bar Association-Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI).
Chief Justice Sereno led the delegation to the 4th ASEAN Chief
Justices Meeting (ACJM) which was held on April 1 in Ho Chi
Minh, Vietnam. The Chief Justice was accompanied by Justices
Velasco, de Castro, and Del Castillo and by PHILJA Chancellor
Adolfo Azcuna. During the plenary meeting of the ACJM, the
ASEAN Chief Justices agreed to rename, as one of the fi rst
items of business, the ACJM as the Council of ASEAN Chief
Justices (CACJ) upon the joint motion of Chief Justice Sereno
and Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon of Singapore. To strengthen
judicial cooperation among courts of ASEAN nations, the meeting
has been held annually since 2013. As a result of the initiative
of Chief Justice Sereno, the once informal and ad hoc group of
Chief Justices will now be more formally called the Council of
ASEAN Chief Justices (CACJ).
On April 26–29, Justices Perez, Bernabe, and Marvic M.V.F.
Leonen attended the Southeast Asia Judicial Workshop on Cybercrime
in Bangkok, Thailand. The Justices were invited by Chief Justice
Veerapol Tungsuwan of Thailand. During the Workshop, which
had over 100 judges as delegates from eight ASEAN nations,
the importance of global cooperation to combat cybercrime was
emphasized. The event was organized by the Thai Courts of
Justice, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Embassy
Bangkok.
J ustices de Cas tro and Bernabe att e nde d three eve nts in
Washington D.C. on May 24–29. The first event was the Judicial
Training Program-Jurisprudence for Equality Program ( JEP)
Workshop on Interactive Training Modules on issues such as
traffi cking, child rights, and gender stereotyping. The JEP is
the fl agship program of the IAWJ with the ultimate goal of
building a true “jurisprudence of equality.” They also participated
in the Meeting of the Board of the IAWJ of which Justice de
Castro is the incumbent President and the 13th Biennial Conference
of the IAWJ where issues such as the role of law and the work
of women judges in responding to gender inequality and women
and girls in detention, among others, were discussed. They were
joined by Deputy Court Administrator Jennylind Aldecoa-
Delorino.
62
Gender Profile of the Judiciary
Number/Percentage of male and female Nominees for the Judiciary (January 2014-April
2015)
No. of Total No. of

Positions Male Female Nominees
2014
Appellate 3 12 7 19
Courts (63.16%) 36.84%
Lower 179 420 429 849
Courts 49.47% 50.53%
Total 179 432 436 868
49.77% 50.23%
2015
( Jan-Apr.)
Appelatte 2 8 4 12
Courts 66.67% 33.33%
Lower 55 70 70 140
Courts 50% 50%
Total 57 78 74 152
51.32% 48.68%
Number/Percentage of male and female Appointees for the Judiciary (January 2014-
April 2015)
No. of Positions Male Female
2014
Appellate Courts 5 3 2
60% 40%
Lower Courts 124 63 61

50.81% 49.19%
Total 129 66 63
51.17% 48.83%
2015
Appelatte Courts 1 1 0
100%
Lower Courts 75 36 39
48% 52%
Total 76 37 39
48.68% 51.32%
63
Sex-Disaggregated Data on Male and Female Judges of First and Second Level
Courts (as of December 31, 2014)
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
COURT MALE % FEMALE % INCUMBENT NUMBER NUMBER
JUDGES VACANCIES OF COURTS
REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT 501 63% 298 37% 799 370 1169
METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT 38 44% 48 56% 86 78 164
MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT-
IN-CITIES 91 49% 96 51% 187 70 257
MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT 146 54% 122 46% 268 99 367
MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURT 196 59% 138 41% 334 133 467
SHARIA
DISTRICT COURT 0 0% 0 0% 0 5 5
SHARIA
CIRCUIT COURT 25 89% 3 11% 28 23 51
TOTAL 997 59% 705 41% 1702 778 2480
Sex-Disaggregated Data on Male and Female Personnel of First and Second Level
Courts (as of December 31, 2014)
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
COURT MALE % FEMALE % INCUMBENT NUMBER NUMBER
JUDGES VACANCIES OF COURTS
REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT 4544 38% 7352 62% 11896 5230 17126
METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT 497 41% 706 69% 1203 1066 2269
MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT-
IN-CITIES 1100 40% 1626 60% 2729 925 3654
MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT 898 36% 1625 64% 2523 463 2986
MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURT 1192 38% 1942 62% 3134 612 3746
SHARIA
DISTRICT COURT 27 55% 22 45% 49 6 55
SHARIA
CIRCUIT COURT 141 64% 79 36% 220 188 408
TOTAL 8399 39% 13355 61% 21754 8490 30244
64

SC Annual 2015-2016 Narrative Report

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SC Annual 2015-2016 Narrative Report

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

JUDICIARY ANNUAL REPORT 2015-2016

THE J UDICIARY ANNUAL R EPORT

The Supreme Court

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Chair of the First Division

Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Chair of the Third Division

Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion

Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin

Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama Jr. (retired January 16, 2016)

Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza

Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe

Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza

The Court of Appeals

CEBU CITY STATION

CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY STATION

Pursuant to RA 10660 (An Act Strengthening the Functional and Structural

The Court of Tax Appeals

THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S MESSAGE

THE WORK OF THE JUDICIARY

The Judicial System of the Pre-Spanish Filipinos

The Judicial System Under the Spanish Regime

The Judicial System During theAmerican Occupation

The Establishment of the Supreme Court of the Philippines

The SupremeCourt of the Second Republic

The Supreme Court Under the 1973 Constitution

The Supreme Court Under the Revolutionary Government

The Supreme Court Under the 1987 Constitution

environment that has presumably already suffered. The judgment

i. old and current readings

b. submit to the DOE, within ten (10) days of each succeeding

In the same case, however, the Court also declared Ordinance

A Motion for Reconsideration of this Decision was denied by

only be liable to the lesser offense which is necessarily included

Ombudsman as ineffective until the Court adopts it as part of

On the matter of procedure, the Court held that the COMELEC

II. For Simple Rape/Qualifi ed Rape:

other crimes with death, injuries, and sexual abuse as

crimes, in which case, the damages awarded to simple

ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINARY CASES

(P100,000) fi ne on a Calbayog City, Samar MTCC judge for gross incompetence,

In Velasco-Tamaray v. Daquis, the Court disbarred a lawyer for violation of Canon

AM No. 15-08-07-SC, Re: Administrative Matter for Agenda Requesting the

ADMISSION TO THE BAR

Table 1: Comparative Statistics on Bar Passing Percentage

Year Number of Passers Out of the Passing Percentage

The Courts of the Third Level

Composition and Membership; Jurisdiction

The Work of the Court of Appeals

Composition and Membership; Jurisdiction

The Work of theSandiganbayan

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

The Work of the Court of TaxAppeals

TRIAL COURTS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,

however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence,

THE SHARI’A COURTS

Composition and Membership; Jurisdiction

eCourt As of August 2015, there are 82 operational eCourts covering

the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court

Process The project is currently rolled out in the Supreme Court,

sc.judiciary.gov.ph website now includes live-streaming and

c. Synchronized Calendars – comprehensive calendar containing

implementation will be conducted in Quezon City and Pasay

Supreme Court and Lower Courts 18,093,379,000.00