COURT ANNEXED MEDIATION AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE

RESOLUTION
(A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA (Re: Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the
Expanded Coverage of Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR)

Cases:

1. Chan Kent vs. Micarez, GR No. 185758, March 9, 2011

2. Rural Bank Inc., v. Samsung Mabuhay Corp., GR No. 175862, Oct. 13, 2010
3. Senarlo v. Judge Paderanga, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2025, April 15, 2010

 We have discussed those instances/cases where they no longer reach the courts because of the
application of Alternative Dispute Resolution. In fact, we have discussed the different areas
where alternative dispute resolution operates.
 When the case is already pending in court, can you still apply the rule on alternative dispute
resolution? In other words, is alternative dispute resolution operational or applicable in pending
court cases? YES! This finds application in court annexed mediation and judicial dispute
resolution.
 Court Annexed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution presuppose that there is already a
pending case in court. However, instead of going into full blown trial, the case is referred to
mediation. After mediation, the parties are still given a chance to undergo Judicial Dispute
Resolution. In short, there is this concept of court diversion of pending cases.

NOTES: source (annex of A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA)

 Concept of Court Diversion of pending cases

 The diversion of pending court cases both to Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) and to Judicial
Dispute Resolution (JDR) is plainly intended to put an end to pending litigation through a
compromise agreement of the parties and thereby solve the ever-pressing problem of court docket
congestion. It is also intended to empower the parties to resolve their own disputes and give
practical effect to the State Policy expressly stated in the ADR Act of 2004 (RA 9285), which
states “to actively promote party autonomy in the resolution of disputes of the freedom of the
parties to make their own arrangement to resolve disputes. Towards this end, the State shall
encourage and actively promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution as an important means
to achieve speedy and impartial justice and de-clog court dockets.” Take note also that such State
Policy promoting party autonomy, would necessarily include recognition of indigenous modes of
dispute resolution.
  Three Stages of Diversion

 Court diversion is a three stage process.

1. The first Stage = is the Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) where the judge refers the parties to
the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) for the mediation of their dispute by trained and
accredited mediators.
2. The Second Stage = is the Judicial Dispute Resolution Stage. This comes into play where
there is a failure to secure a settlement of the dispute during the first stage (CAM). In JDR,
the JDR judge sequentially becomes a mediator-conciliator-early neutral evaluator in a
continuing effort to secure a settlement.
= If there is still failure to arrive at a settlement at this second stage, the
mediator judge must turn over the case to another judge (a new one by
raffle or nearest/pair judge) who will try the unsettled case. The trial
judge shall continue with the pre-trial proper and, thereafter, proceed to
try and decide the case.
3. The third stage = this occurs during the appeal where covered cases are referred to the PMC-
Appeals Court Mediation (ACM) unit for mediatipn.
= Even if there is already a pending appeal, cases covered may still
undergo mediation.

Rationale for the three stages: The ultimate common end is to restore the role of the judiciary as the
forum of last recourse to be resorted to only after all prior earnest efforts to arrive at private
accommodation and resolution of disputes have failed.

 Mandatory Coverage for Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute
Resolution (JDR)

 The following cases shall be referred to CAM and be the subject of JDR proceedings:

1. Criminal Cases (as amended by the rule on continuous trial A.M. No.15-06-10-SC REVISED
GUIDELINES FOR CONTINUOUS TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES:

“ The following cases shall be referred to mediation on the civil liability unless a
settlement is reached earlier in the pre-trial/preliminary conference:

i. Crimes where payment may prevent criminal prosecution or may extinguish

criminal liability, such as violations of:

a.B.P. Blg. 22;

b. SSS Law (R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A No. 8282); and
c. PAG-IBIG Law (R.A. No. 9679).
 ii. Crimes against property under Title 10 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), where
the obligation may be civil in nature, such as:

a. Theft under Art. 308, RPC, cognizable by the first level courts;
b. Estafa under Art. 315(1), RPC, except estafa under Art. 315 (2) and (3);
c. Other forms of swindling under Art. 316, RPC;
d. Swindling of a minor under Art. 317, RPC;
e. Other deceits under Art. 318, RPC; and
f. Malicious mischief under Art. 327, RPC.

iii. Crimes against honor under Title 13, RPC, where the liability may be civil in
nature, such as:

a. Libel by means of writings or similar means under Art. 355, RPC;

b. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a
compensation under Art. 356, RPC;
c. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official
proceedings under Art. 357, RPC;
d. Grave Slander (Grave Oral Defamation) – of serious and insulting nature
under Art. 358, par. 1, RPC;
e. Simple Slander (Oral Defamation) – not of a serious and insulting nature
under Art. 358, par. 2, RPC;
f. Grave Slander by Deed – of a serious nature under Art. 359, par. 1, RPC;
g. Simple Slander by Deed – not of a serious nature under Art. 359, par. 2,
RPC;
h. Incriminating innocent person under Art. 363, RPC;
i. Intriguing against honor under Art. 364, RPC;

2. Special Proceedings for the settlement of estates;

3. All civil cases and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, brought on appeal from
the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under section
33, par. (1) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980;

4. All civil cases involving title to or possession of real property or an interest therein
brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first
level courts under Section 33, par (3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980;

5. All habeas corpus cases decided by the first level courts in the absence of the
Regional Trial Court judge, that are brought on appeal from the special jurisdiction
granted to the first level courts under Section 35 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act
of 1980 (this contemplates the absence of all RTC judges in the province or
municipality. It was the MTC, MCTC, METCs (lower courts) that decide the habeas
corpus cases).
  Cases that shall not be referred to CAM or JDR

1. Civil Cases which by law cannot be compromised (Art. 2035, New Civil Code);

2. Other criminal cases not covered under the rule on continuous trial;

3. Habeas corpus petitions; (do not confuse this with habeas corpus cases decided by
the lower courts)

4. All cases under RA No. 9262 (Violence Against Women and Children); and

5. Cases with pending application for Restraining Orders/Preliminary Injunctions.

(However, in cases covered under Nos. 1, 4 and 5 where the parties inform the court that they
have agreed to undergo mediation on some aspects thereof, e.g., custody of minor children,
separation of property, or support pendente lite, the court shall refer them to mediation.)

 COURT ANNEXED MEDIATION (CAM)

 Procedure:

1. After the last pleading has been filed (in civil cases) or after arraignment and
preliminary conference/pre-trial (in criminal cases), the judge shall issue an order
requiring the parties to forthwith appear before the concerned Philippine Mediation
Center (PMC) Unit staff to start the process for the settlement of their dispute through
mediation. On the same date, the court shall give to the PMC a copy of the order for
mediation. In criminal cases, the order for mediation is already incorporation in the
arraignment and preliminary conference/pre-trial order.

2. Individual parties are required to personally appear for mediation. In the event that
they cannot do so, they can send their representatives who must be fully authorized to
appear, negotiate and enter into a compromise agreement, through a Special Power of
Attorney.

3. Corporations, partnerships or other juridical entities shall be represented by a ranking

corporate officer, fully authorized by a Board Resolution to offer, negotiate, accept,
decide and enter into a compromise agreement, without need of further approval by or
notification to the authorizing party.

4. The order shall include a clear warning that sanctions maybe imposed upon a party for
failure to comply therewith.
 5. On the date set in the Order, the parties shall proceed to select a mutually acceptable
mediator from among the list of accredited mediators. If no agreement is reached, the
PMC Unit Staff shall, in the presence of the parties and the Mediators, choose by lot the
one who will mediate the dispute from among the mediators inside the unit, ensuring a
fair and equal distribution of cases: Provided, however, that in exceptional circumstances
where special qualifications are required of the mediator, the parties shall be given an
opportunity to select from the entire list of accredited mediators.

6. The mediator shall be considered an officer of the court while performing his duties as
such or in connection therewith.

7. The concerned Meditator shall start the mediation process, unless the parties and
mediator agree to reset the initial mediation conference, which shall not be later than five
days from the original date.

8. At the initial conference, the Mediator shall explain to both parties the mediation
process, stressing the benefits of an early settlement of \their dispute based on serving
their mutual interests, rather that the legal positions taken by them.

9. With the consent of both parties, the mediator may hold caucuses with each party to
determine their respective real interests in the dispute. Thereafter, another joint
conference may be held to consider various options that may resolve the dispute through
reciprocal concessions and on terms that are mutually beneficial to both the parties.

10. The Mediator shall not record in any manner the proceedings of the joint conferences
or of the separate caucuses. No transcript or minutes of mediation proceedings shall be
taken. If personal notes are taken for guidance, the notes shall be shredded and
destroyed. Should such record exists, they shall not be admissible as evidence in any
proceedings.

11. If no settlement has been reached at the end of the period given, the case must be
returned to the referring judge.

 Sanctions:

= The court, upon recommendation of the Mediator, may impose sanctions upon
party who (1) fails to appear before the PMC Unit as directed by the referring judge, or
(2) upon any person who engages in abusive conduct during mediation proceeding.

= Sanctions may include but not limited to the following:

 1. censure;

2. reprimand;

3. contempt;

4. requiring the absent party to reimburse the appearing party his costs,
including attorney’s fees for that day up to treble such costs payable on
or before the date of the re-scheduled setting.

= Sanctions may also be imposed by the referring judge upon his own initiative or
upon motion of the interested party.

= The sanctions may be lifted or set aside in the sound discretion of the referring
judge if there is a justifiable cause duly proved in the hearing called on the motion to
reconsider filed by the absent party and concurred in by the concerned mediator.

 Duration of Mediation = 30 days to complete the mediation process. An extended period

of another 30 days may be granted by the court, upon motion filed by the mediator with
the conformity of the parties.

 Suspension of periods = the period during which the case is undergoing mediation shall
be excluded from the regular and mandatory periods for trial and rendition of judgement
in ordinary cases and in cases under summary proceedings.

 Settlement

= If full settlement of the dispute is reached, the parties, assisted by their respective
counsels, shall draft the compromise agreement which shall be submitted to the court for
judgment upon compromise or other appropriate action. Where compliance is forthwith
made, the parties shall instead submit a satisfaction of claims or mutual withdrawal of the
case and thereafter, the court shall enter an order dismissing the case.

= If partial settlement is reached, the parties shall, with the assistance of counsel, submit
the terms thereof for the appropriate action of the court, without waiting for resolution of
the unsettled part.

= In relation to the unsettled part of the dispute, the court shall proceed to conduct JDR
proceedings in accordance with Part Three hereof where JDR is available.

 JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION

 Only judges who have undergone orientation in JDR procedures and completed their
training in mediation, conciliation and neutral evaluation, are authorized to conduct JDR
proceedings in accordance with the guidelines for the settlement of disputes pending in
their courts, after the parties failed to settle their disputes during the CAM at the PMCU.

 The JDR judge is the one to whom the case is originally raffled and who referred the case
for mediation before the PMC.

 If JDR is not conducted because of the failure of the parties to appear, the JDR judge may
impose appropriate sanctions and shall continue with the proceedings of the case.

(Sanctions may include but not limited to the following:

1. censure;

2. reprimand;

3. contempt;

4. requiring the absent party to reimburse the appearing party his costs,
including attorney’s fees for that day up to treble such costs payable on
or before the date of the re-scheduled setting.)

 The JDR judge shall conduct the JDR process as mediator, neutral evaluator and/or
conciliator in order to actively assist and facilitate negotiations among the parties for
them to settle their dispute.

 As mediator and conciliator = the judge facilitates the settlement discussions between the
parties and tries to reconcile their differences.

 As a neutral evaluator = the judge assesses the relative strengths and weaknesses of each
party’s case and makes a non-binding and impartial evaluation of the chances of each
party’s success in the case. On the basis of such neutral evaluation, the judge persuades
the parties to a fair and mutually acceptable settlement of their dispute.

 As we had discussed in passing last meeting, the JDR judge shall not preside over the
trial of the case when the parties did not settle their dispute at JDR. There is a need to re-
raffle the case to another judge or to refer it to the nearest/pairing judge. As we all know,
parties will be more spontaneous once they are assured that the JDR judge will not be the
one to try the case. This is so because, the JDR judge may have elicited confidential
information that may create bias and partiality that could affect the judgment.

 Take note however, that in cases of single sala court or in areas where only one court is
designated as Commercial, Intellectual, Property and Environmental courts (they are
called special courts), the parties, before the commencement of the JDR proceedings,
 may file a joint written motion requesting that the court of origin conduct the JDR
proceedings and trial.

 Can cases be still referred to JDR even during the trial judge? YES! Cases may be
referred to JDR even during the trial stage upon written motion of one or both parties
indicating willingness to discuss a possible compromise.

 Just like in CAM, in JDR party litigants shall attend all mediation conferences or through
duly authorized representative. The authority of the representatives shall be in writing,
and shall state that they are fully empowered to offer, negotiate, accept, decide and enter
into a compromise agreement without need of further approval by or notification to the
authorizing parties.

 In case of corporations, the representatives must be senior management officials with

written authority from the board of directors to offer, negotiate, accept, decide and enter
into compromise agreement without need of further approval by or notification to the
authorizing parties.

 Decisions/Judgements approving the compromise agreements of the parties, through

efforts of the judge as mediator, conciliator or neutral evaluator, shall contain a statement
to that effect that the Judgements/Decisions were achieved through JDR. This is to
distinguish judgments/Decisions approving compromise agreements secured through
CAM. Copies of the Judgments/Decisions shall be submitted to the Philippine Mediation
Center Unit for documentation purposes.

 Duration of Proceedings:

1. First level courts = 30 days

2. Second level courts = 60 days

(a longer period, however, may be granted upon the discretion of the JDR judge if there is a high
probability of settlement and upon joint written motion of the parties.)

 PROVISIONS COMMON TO BOTH CAM AND JDR

 All matters discussed or communication made and documents presented during the CAM
and JDR shall be privileged and confidential and the same shall be inadmissible as
evidence for any purpose on any other proceedings.

= However, evidence or information that is otherwise admissible does not become

inadmissible solely by reason of its use in mediation or conciliation.
 = The judge shall not pass any information obtained in the course of conciliation and
early neutral evaluation to the trial judge or to any other person. This prohibition shall
include all court personnel or any other person present during such proceedings. All JDR
conferences shall be conducted in private.

 May lawyers attend in the mediation proceedings before the CAM and JDR proceedings?
YES

 If so, what are their roles then? Lawyers may attend mediation proceedings in the role of
adviser and consultant to their clients, dropping their combative role in the adjudicative
process, and giving up their dominant role in judicial trials. They must accept a less
directive role in order to allow the parties more opportunities to craft their own
agreement.

= In particular, they shall perform the following functions:

1. Help their clients comprehend the mediation process and its benefits and allow them
to assume greater personal responsibility in making decisions for the success of
mediation in resolving the dispute.

2. Discuss with their clients the following:

a. The substantive issues in the dispute

b. Prioritization of resolution in terms of importance to client

c. Understanding the position of the other side and the underlying fears, concerns,
and needs underneath that position.

d. Need for more information or facts to be gathered or exchanged with the other
side for informed decision making

e. Possible bargaining options but stressing the need to be open-minded about other
possibilities.

f. The best, worst and most likely alternatives to a negotiated agreement.

g. Assist in preparing a compromise agreement that is not contrary to law, morals,

good customs, public order, or public policy so that the same may be approved by
the court, paying particular attention to issues of voluntary compliance of what
have been agreed upon, or otherwise to issues of enforcement in case of breach

h. Assist, wherever applicable, in the preparation of a manifestation of satisfaction

of claims and mutual withdrawal of complaint and counterclaim as basis for the
court to issue an order of dismissal.
COURT OF APPEALS MEDIATION