Volume XII, Issue No. 52 October-December 2011

Transcription

IN
R
P HIL
October to December 2011
IPP
IL
O
UR
PH
L
I
C
H
T HE P
IN E S
ES
IP
ME
PI N
S U PR E
LI
N
BATA
S AT BAYA
OF
J
EMY
REP UB
C
E
IP P
E M E C OU
UDIC IAL
AD
PR
1
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
NEWS
AC
U
T
S
October-December 2011
2011
October-December
T O F THE
Volume XIII, Issue No. 52
E
E
xx
cc
ee
ll
ll
ee
nn
cc
ee
ii
nn
tt
hh
ee
JJ
uu
dd
ii
cc
ii
aa
rr
yy
Table of Contents
From the Chancellor’s Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PHILJA News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
New Rulings and Doctrinal Reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Resolutions, Orders and Circulars
A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC – Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.O. No. 151-2011 – Creating Task Force: Katarungan at Kalayaan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
OCA Cir. No. 123-2011 – Small Claims Case Monitoring System (SC2MS) and USB Wireless Broadband Modems
OCA Cir. No. 140-2011 – Reiteration of Section 10 Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC and Amended
A.C. No. 35-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 153-2011 – Software Updates and Enhancements on the Small Claims Case Monitoring System (SC2MS)
OCA Cir. No. 156-2011 – Guidelines on the Holding of Team Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OCA Cir. No. 158-2011 – Supreme Court [Amended Administrative] Circular No. 35-2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
42
42
43
43
Upcoming PHILJA Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2
PHILJA NEWS
FOURTH HAGUE CONFERENCE
ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW,
ASIA PACIFIC REGIONAL CONFERENCE
The Supreme Court, through the Philippine Judicial
Academy, in partnership with the Department of
Foreign Affairs–Office of Legal Affairs (DFA-OLA) and
the UP Law Center–Institute of International Legal
Studies (UPLC-IILS), held the Fourth Hague Conference
on Private International Law, Asia Pacific Regional Conference,
last October 26-28, 2011, at the Mandarin Oriental
Hotel, Makati City.
Eighty-one foreign delegates from 28 countries
joined 130 representatives from the Judiciary,
Legislative Department, local offices and government
agencies, and academe, and 16 representatives of
international organizations: Australian and New
Zealand College of Notaries (ANZCN), ASEAN,
Hongkong Society of Notaries and the Hague
Conference on Conférence dela Haye (HCCH), in this
significant three-day conference.
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
The purpose of the regional conference was to
provide a venue to discuss the latest work of the HCCH
and to exchange information and experiences on
matters relating to the implementation and practical
operation of certain Hague conventions such as the
Intercountry Adoption Convention, Apostille
Convention, Service Convention, and International
Child Protection Convention. The conference will build
on the work and achievements of previous regional
meetings held at the Hongkong Special Administrative
Region of the People’s Republic of China (2008) and in
Malaysia (2005).
The conference aimed to serve as a platform for
sharing the Philippine experience and challenges in
the implementation of the Intercountry Adoption
Convention, and to provide a forum to discuss various
conventions that the Philippines is considering
acceding to, such as the Child Abduction, Apostille, Access
to Justice Convention and Service Conventions, with case
studies, country presentations, and examples of best
practices. It would increase visibility for the
Philippines in the field of private international law
and allow it to establish networks given its recent
membership in the HCCH.
Hon. Esteban Conejos, Jr., Undersecretary for
Migrant Workers’ Affairs, Department of Foreign
Affairs, gave the Welcome Remarks. He stated that the
Regional Conference intends to deepen and expand the
Philippines’ participation in the Hague Conference
system, as the country prepares to accede to the
Apostille and Service Conventions. Hon. Arturo Brion,
Associate Justice, Supreme Court, and Mr. Hans Van
Loon, Secretary General, Hague Conference on Private
International Law, both gave Opening Remarks. His
Excellency J. Eduardo Malaya, Philippine Ambassador
to Malaysia, was the moderator and chair of the
plenary on the first day on the topic “Introduction to
the Work of the Hague Conference on Private
International Law.”
2011
October-December
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
NEWS
PHILJA REACHES OUT TO
BARANGAY FRANCES, CALUMPIT, BULACAN
Last December 2, 2011, the PHILJA team joined
other Supreme Court offices in the Court’s semiannual Outreach Program, to distribute Noche Buena
bags to selected indigents of seven puroks in
Barangay Frances in Calumpit, Bulacan, one of the
submerged areas during typhoon Pedring.
Despite the intense heat, the people, gathered by
Barangay Captain Epitacio Cruz and his kagawads,
very patiently queued and waited for their turn to
receive their bags.
Brgy. Captain Cruz and his kagawads then took
the 19 PHILJA volunteers around to see the damages
brought by the typhoon upon their homes, properties
and means of livelihood. The former rice fields had
become muddy pits and barren land. Despite all the
hardships, however, the people were all smiles, with
their eyes reflecting hope for the proverbial rainbow
that would guide and speed their recovery.
3
The series is endowed by the Metrobank
Foundation, Inc. to assist PHILJA’s programs in judicial
education by enabling its Corps of Professors to write
and publish treatises with innovative concepts and
approaches in designated areas of law.
Professor Roque, 2011 Metrobank Foundation
Professorial Chair in International and Human Rights
Law, lectured on the Legal Nuances to the Philippine
Ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court. His lecture began with an introduction to the
International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute,
followed by an explanation of the principles governing
the ICC, what triggers its jurisdiction, and its Legal
Nuances (Complimentarity and Duty to Cooperate).
He also discussed the features and issues surrounding
the Philippines’ ratification of the Rome Statute of the
ICC, and the country’s basic obligation to cooperate.
As a reactor, Dean Raul C. Pangalangan, member
of the PHILJA Department of Constitutional Law and
Professor of the University of the Philippines, discussed
several points, particularly, on command
responsibility, individual responsibility, and state
responsibility.
Questions relative to the ICC’s jurisdiction on the
United Nations Security Council’s referral of Libyan
ruler Khadafi’s son Saif’s involvement in human rights
violations, among others, were raised during the Open
Forum.
Prof. Roque presented his paper to the Supreme
Court, represented by Associate Justice Arturo D.
Brion, and to the Metrobank Foundation, Inc.,
represented by Mr. Aniceto M. Sobrepeña who,
thereafter, presented the endowment to Prof. Roque.
EIGHTH METROBANK FOUNDATION
PROFESSORIAL CHAIR LECTURE
In collaboration with the Metrobank Foundation,
Inc., PHILJA conducted the Eighth Metrobank Foundation
Professorial Chair Lecture by Professor Herminio Harry
L. Roque, Jr., on December 9, 2011, at the Court of
Appeals Auditorium, Maria Orosa Street, Manila.
A total of 196 participants, comprising Supreme
Court and Court of Appeals Justices, Supreme Court
officials and staff, selected judges of the NCJR, Court
of Appeals–Manila officials and staff, and
representatives from the academe and other
government and private offices, attended the lecture.
Chancellor Azcuna presented PHILJA’s Plaques of
Appreciation to the Metrobank Foundation, Inc., Prof.
Roque, and Dean Raul Pangalangan.
Atty. Gilbert T. Andres, an associate lawyer of
Roque and Butuyan Law Offices, was the Master of
Ceremonies.
4
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
REGION XII
Hon. Fe B. Jimeno-Dajao
MTCC, Br. 1, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte
Orientation
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
60th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly
Appointed Judges
Date: October 4-13, 2011
Venue: PHILJA Training Center, Tagaytay City
Participants: 29 newly appointed and 12 promoted
judges, namely:
A. NEW APPOINTMENTS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Hon. Eleuterio L. Bathan
RTC, Br. 92, Quezon City
Hon. Lilia Mercedes Encarnacion A. Gepty
RTC, Br. 75, Valenzuela City
Hon. Marie Grace Javier Ibay
RTC, Br. 194, Parañaque City
Hon. Acerey C. Pacheco
RTC, Br. 165, Marikina City
REGION I
Hon. Elizabeth Lacanilao Berdal
RTC, Br. 47, Urdaneta, Pangasinan
REGION IV-A
Hon. Maria Florencia B. Formes-Baculo
RTC, Br. 34, Calamba, Laguna
Hon. Gregorio M. Velasquez
RTC, Br. 35, Calamba, Laguna
REGION V
Hon. Flerida P. Zaballa-Banzuela
RTC, Br. 51, Sorsogon City
REGION VIII
Hon. Janet Menzon Cabalona
RTC, Br. 33, Calbiga, Samar
Hon. Teresita Asuncion M. Lacandula-Rodriguez
MeTC, Br. 81, Valenzuela City
REGION IX
Hon. Carlo Martin R. Alcala
MTCC, Br. 3, Zamboanga City
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL C OURT
REGION IV-A
Hon. Perla P. Huerto
2nd MCTC: Taysan-Lobo, Batangas
Hon. Charito M. Macalintal-Sawali
4th MCTC: Malvar-Balete, Batangas
REGION VII
Hon. Joy Angelica S. Doctor
19th MCTC: Balilihan-Sikatuna-Corella, Bohol
REGION IX
Hon. Shene C. Cañete
12th Malangas-Imelda-Deplahan, Zamboanga Sibugay
Hon. Gino Jovito C. Aranas
MCTC: Kabasalan-Siay-Payao, Zamboanga Sibugay
B. PROMOTION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
REGION VI
Hon. Margaret N. Armea
MTCC, Br. 2, Naga City
REGION XI
Hon. Ruperto A. Besinga, Jr.
MTC, Maasim, Sarangani
REGION X
Hon. Adelyn P. Alvarado
2nd MCTC: Salay-Binuangan, Misamis Oriental
Hon. Carolyn C. Damasing
3rd MCTC: Kinoguitan-Sugbungcogon, Misamis Oriental
REGION X
Hon. Emmanuel P. Pasal
RTC, Br. 38, Cagayan de Oro City
REGION IV-A
Hon. Elenita C. Dimaguila
MTCC, Br. 4, Antipolo City, Rizal
REGION IV-A
Hon. Ma. Rowena Mojares Arevalo
MTC, Dasmariñas, Cavite
Hon. Zandra T. Bato
MTC, Noveleta, Cavite
Hon. Josephine C. Garcia-Borbon
MTC, Bauan, Batangas
REGION VI
Hon. Noel Darren C. Damian
4 th MCTC: Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros
Occidental
REGION III
Hon. Brigado P. Saldivar
RTC, Br. 31, Guimba, Nueva Ecija
REGION III
Hon. Noel J. Buenaventura
MTC, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija
IN
CITIES
Hon. Alfredo D. Ampuan
RTC, Br. 40, Manila
Hon. Carlito B. Calpatura
RTC, Br. 145, Makati City
Hon. Liwliwa S. Hidalgo-Bucu
RTC, Br. 34, Manila
Hon. Jaime B. Santiago
RTC, Br. 3, Manila
Hon. Josephine A. Vito Cruz
RTC, Br. 135, Makati City
Hon. Maria Paz Reyes Yson
RTC, Br. 54, Manila
2011
October-December
REGION III
Hon. Maria Magdalena Anisoto Balderama
RTC, Br. 65, Tarlac
Hon. Lily De Vera Vallo
RTC, Br. 64, Tarlac
REGION VI
Hon. Marie Yvette Dedel Go
RTC, Br. 37, Iloilo City
REGION XI
Hon. Alexander M. Betoya
RTC, Br. 16, Kabacan, North Cotabato
Hon. Dorothy Montejo Gonzaga
RTC, Br. 4, Panabo, Davao del Norte
Hon. Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales
RTC, Br. 17, Davao City
21st Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly
Appointed Clerks of Court
Date: November 15-18, 2011
Venue: Orchid Garden Suites Hotel, Manila
Participants: 36 newly appointed clerks of court, namely:
REGION I
Atty. Marty P. Cachapero
RTC, Br. 15, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte
Atty. Bernadette B. Espejo
RTC, Br. 13, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte
Atty. Alma Grace M. Lee-Omengan
RTC, Br. 21, Vigan, Ilocos Sur
Atty. Ferdinand C. Palma
RTC, OCC, Lingayen, Pangasinan
REGION II
Atty. Mariano B. Martin
RTC, Br. 11, Tuao, Cagayan
REGION III
Atty. Ritchie John D. Bolaño
RTC Br. 70, Iba, Zambales
Atty. Cherry C. Coliamco
RTC, Br. 2, Balanga City, Bataan
Atty. Melba A. David
RTC, Br. 14, Malolos City, Bulacan
Atty. Marlon A. Estabillo
RTC, Br. 75, Olongapo City, Zambales
Atty. Belinda S. Evangelista-Conge
RTC, Br. 8, Malolos, Bulacan
Atty. Maria Rhodora M. Ferrer
Atty. Maureen R. Genetiano
RTC, Br. 87, Gapan City, Nueva Ecija
Atty. Jennifer A. Grospe
RTC, Br. 66, Capas, Tarlac
Atty. Grace P. Ignacio
RTC, Br. 26, Cabanatuan City
Atty. Mischelle R. Maulion-Jocson
RTC, Br. 59, Angeles City, Pampanga
Atty. Nelso V. Largo
RTC, Br. 28, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
5
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
NEWS
Atty. Edna C. Paulino-Gogolin
REGION IV-A
Atty. Tristan Jiff B. Cledera
RTC, Br. 57, Lucena City, Quezon
REGION V
Atty. Ma. Rhoda J. Avengoza
RTC, Br. 41, Daet, Camarines Norte
Atty. Jason G. Rodenas
RTC, Br. 10, Legaspi City, Albay
Atty. Alma A. Villaraza-Gobot
RTC, Br. 63, Calabanga, Camarines Sur
IN
CITIES
REGION IV-A
Ms. Lourdesita V. Bunyi
MTCC, Tanauan City, Batangas
Ms. Marie Joy R. Encinas
MTCC, Br.1, Lucena City, Quezon
REGION I
Ms. Helen B. Batuto
MTC, Infanta, Pangasinan
Ms. Emerita A. Refuerzo
MTC, Caba, La Union
Ms. Nimfa B. Rivera
MTC, Sto. Tomas, La Union
REGION II
Ms. Zaida M. Tabaldo
MTC, Br. 1, Lal-lo, Cagayan
REGION III
Ms. Cheryl Marie R. Fortifaes
MTC, Plaridel, Bulacan
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
REGION I
Mr. Rodolfo A. Dait, Jr.
3rd MCTC: Pilar-Villaviciosa-San Isidro, Abra
Ms. Fatima B. Oviedo
1st MCTC: Burgos-Mabini-Dasol, Pangasinan
Ms. Elena J. Vallejo
11th MCTC: Sta. Cruz-Sta. Lucia, Ilocos Sur
REGION III
Ms. Victoria S. Pineda
2nd MCTC: Capas-Bamban-Concepcion, Tarlac
REGION IV-A
Ms. Myrna P. Almendras
5th MCTC: Talisay-Laurel, Batangas
REGION IV-B
Mr. Aleandro A. Luengas
4th MCTC: Taytay-San Vicente, Palawan
REGION V
Ms. Milagros V. Antonio
5th MCTC: Camaligan-Gainza-Milaor, Camarines Sur
Ms. Beatriz R. Danabar
4th MCTC: San Fernando-Pamplona, Camarines Sur
6
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
22nd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly
Appointed Clerks of Court
Date: December 6-9, 2011
Participants: 45 newly appointed clerks of court,
namely:
Atty. Aimee Marie B. Alcera
RTC, Br. 69, Pasig City
Atty. Arlene D. Alday
RTC, OCC, Pasay City
Atty. Charmaine C. Apolinario
RTC, OCC, Muntinlupa City
Atty. Magnolia P. Aquino
RTC, Br. 206, Muntinlupa City
Atty. Therese Lynn R. Bandong
RTC, Br. 256, Muntinlupa City
Atty. Nilo P. Barsaga, Jr.
RTC, OCC, Parañaque City
Atty. Ana Florence S. Cuntapay
RTC, Br. 159, Pasig City
Atty. Ruel H. Espaldon
RTC, Br. 30, Manila
Atty. Leamor B. Garcia
RTC, Br. 253, Las Piñas City
Atty. Jereen Ng P. Gracilla
RTC, Br. 255, Las Piñas City
Atty. Nadine A. Guzman
RTC, Br. 122, Caloocan City
Atty. Valerie Love P. Ilagan
RTC, Br. 55, Manila
Atty. Medwin B. Magtibay
RTC, Br. 260, Parañaque City
Atty. Peter Paul A. Matabang
RTC, OCC, Marikina City
Atty. Luithe Lovella C. Quitalig-Cabangunay
RTC, Br. 117, Pasay City
Atty. Jennifer J. Serrano
RTC, Br. 35, Manila
REGION IV-A
Atty. Mario G. Baltazar
RTC, OCC, Tanauan, Batangas
Atty. Marc Raymond B. Biason
RTC Br. 69, Binangonan, Rizal
Atty. Marife E. Encinares
RTC, Br. 36, Calamba City, Laguna
Atty. Daniel Christian B. Lacuata
RTC, OCC, Calamba City, Laguna
Atty. Ronces Anne S. Reyes-De Leon
RTC, Br. 72, Antipolo City, Rizal
Atty. Ronacyn P. Santiago
RTC, Br. 96, Antipolo City, Rizal
REGION VI
Atty. Rowena L. Serilo
RTC, Br. 65, Buenavista, Guimaras
Atty. Maria Fe M. Taal
RTC, Br. 3, Kalibo, Aklan
REGION VII
Atty. Joselinda B. Mutia-Muga
RTC, Br. 20, Cebu City
REGION VIII
Atty. Creschic C. Mancol
RTC, Br. 32, Calbayog City, Samar
Atty. Maria Pamela S. Oliver
RTC, OCC, Ormoc City, Leyte
REGION X
Atty. Ian C. Tajonera-Bernardo
RTC, Br. 44, Initao, Misamis Oriental
REGION XI
Atty. Lilyn D. Gambong
RTC, Br. 6, Mati, Davao Oriental
Atty. Adela Y. Hosain
RTC, OCC, Davao City
Atty. Ronald P. Ruedas
RTC, OCC, Mati, Davao Oriental
REGION XII
Atty. Irma D. Celdran
RTC, OCC, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte
Atty. Maria Paz Teresa V. Zalsos-Uychiat
RTC, Br. 7, Tubod, Lanao Del Norte
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Atty. Asterio T. Aganon, Jr.
MeTC, Br. 56, Malabon City
Atty. Hanneli R. Garay
MeTC, Br. 76, Marikina City
Atty. Ezra Olivero M. Lim
MeTC, OCC, Manila
Atty. Ryan Jay I. Rabaca
MeTC, Br. 4, Manila
Atty. Melissa B. Perez
MeTC, Br. 57, San Juan
IN
CITIES
REGION IV-A
Mr. Adonis A. Madrid
MTCC, Br. 3, Antipolo City
REGION VII
Mr. Jose Celestino E. Acevedo
MTCC, Br. 3, Cebu City
REGION XI
Ms. Divina C. Arellano
MTCC, Br. 1, Davao City
REGION IV-A
Ms. Rebelia P. Garces
MTC, San Luis, Batangas
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL C OURT
REGION IX
Ms. Marivic P. Yrauda
7th MCTC: Dimataling-Tabina-Pitogo, Zamboanga Del Sur
REGION X
Ms. Pelagia S. Dasigan
3rd MCTC: Impasugong-Sumilao, Bukidnon
REGION XII
Ms. Rosalinda H. Montevirgen
2nd MCTC: M’Lang-Matalam, North Cotabato
2011
October-December
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
NEWS
Career Development Program
Career Development Program for Court Legal
Researchers of NCJR
Venue: College of Saint Benilde Hotel, Manila
Participants: 37 RTC and MeTC court legal researchers
Venue: College of Saint Benilde Hotel, Manila
Participants: 49 RTC and MeTC court legal researchers
Quasi-Judicial Agencies Program
Seminar-Workshop for the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples
Development Partners: NCIP; UNDP
Venue: Camelot Hotel, Quezon City
Participants: 31 Commissioners, Regional Hearing
Officers, officials and staff of NCIP
Career Enhancement Program for Insurance
Commission Lawyers and Legal Staff
Development Partner: Insurance Commission
Date: November 18, 2011
Venue: Insurance Commission, Manila
Participants: 30 Insurance Commission lawyers and
legal staff
Career Enhancement Program
7
Special Focus Program
Training on the Small Claims Case Monitoring
System (SC2MS)
Development Partners: OCA; PMO; USAID; ABA-ROLI
Date: October 13, 2011
Venue: Traders Hotel, Pasay City
Participants: 81 MeTC clerks of court and clerks in charge
of SC2MS of NCJR
Venue: Traders Hotel, Pasay City
Participants: 95 MTCC, MTC, and MCTC clerks of court
and clerks in charge of SC2MS of Region IV
Venue: Days Hotel, Iloilo City
and clerks in charge of SC2MS of Region VI
Venue: Days Hotel, Iloilo City
and clerks in charge of SC2MS of Region VII
Venue: Holiday Inn Clark, Pampanga
and clerks in charge of SC2MS of Region III
Date: December 8, 2011
Venue: Pryce Plaza Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City
and clerks in charge of SC2MS of Regions IX, X and the
Province of Surigao del Sur
Increasing Judicial Efficiency: Seminar-Workshop for
Judges on the Effective Use of the Benchbook for
Philippine Trial Courts (Revised and Expanded)
Career Enhancement Program for Clerks of Court
Development Partners: USAID; ABA-ROLI
Venue: Family Country Hotel and Convention Center,
General Santos City
Participants: 90 RTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC clerks of
court of Region XI
Venue: Marco Polo Hotel, Davao City
Participants: 75 RTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC judges of
Regions X, XI and XII
Roundtable Discussion
Roundtable Discussion on Revisiting the Decisions
of the Court on Marriage
Venue: M.K. Tan Auditorium, Bayanihan Center,
UNILAB Brgy. Kapitolyo, Pasig City
Participants: 129 CA justices, PHILJA officials and
Research Group members, Family Court judges, SC
and CA lawyers, law school deans/representatives,
lawyers, and students
Venue: Garden Orchid Hotel, Zamboanga City
Region IX
Venue: Leyte Park Hotel, Tacloban City
Region VIII
Venue: Marco Polo Plaza Cebu, Cebu City
Region VII
8
PHILJA NEWS
Competency Enhancement Training for Judges and
Court Personnel Handling Cases Involving Children
Development Partners: UNICEF; CPU-NET
Venue: Marco Polo Hotel, Davao City
Participants: 54 RTC judges, clerks of court, interpreters,
prosecutors, PAO lawyers of Regions IX to XII
10th and 11th Multi-Sectoral Capacity Building
on Environmental Laws and the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases
Development Partner: DENR
Venue: Sarabia Manor Hotel, Iloilo City
Participants: 77 RTC judges and clerks of court, prosecutors,
PAO lawyers, officials of the DENR, BFAR, LGU, PCG
and PNP of Region VI
Venue: Century Park Hotel, Malate, Manila
Participants: 83 RTC judges and clerks of court, prosecutors,
PAO lawyers, officials of the DENR, BFAR, LGU, PCG
and PNP of Region IV-B
Seminar-Workshop on CEDAW and Gender
Sensitivity for Court of Appeals Employees
Development Partners: CA; CGRJ; CA-GAD Focal Point;
AHRC
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
Information Dissemination through a Dialogue
among Barangay Officials and Court Officials
Development Partners: SC-Committee on E-JOW; PMO
Province of Misamis Oriental, City of Gingoog
Venue: Arturo S. Lugod Memorial Sports and Cultural
Center, Gingoog City
Participants: 100 barangay officials
Province of Bukidnon, Municipality of Manolo Fortich
Venue: Mangima Spring Resort, Mangima, Manolo
Fortich, Bukidnon
City of Valenzuela
Venue: Valenzuela City Center for Performing Arts, Malinta,
Valenzuela City
Province of Pangasinan and the Municipality of Lingayen
Venue: Sison Auditorium, Pangasinan
Municipality of Dagupan
Venue: Leisure Coast Resort, Dagupan City
Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Cebu City
Participants: 50 employees of CA Cebu Station
Venue: VIP Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City
Participants: 44 employees of CA Cagayan de Oro Station
Venue: Century Park Hotel, Manila
Participants: 42 employees of CA Manila Station
11th Multi-Sectoral Seminar-Workshop on Agrarian
Workshop on Implementing the International
Development Partners: SC-Committee on Security; OCA;
NBI
Venue: East Asia Royale Hotel, General Santos City
Participants: 44 RTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, and Shari’a
Court judges of Regions XI to XII
Framework for Court Excellence
Development Partners: USAID–Government of the
Philippines and the National Center for State Courts
Participants: 22 RTC, MeTC, MTCC and MTC judges
of NCJR and Region IV
Participants: 22 RTC, MeTC, MTCC and MTC judges
of NCJR and Region IV
Seminar-Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for
Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers
Development Partner: DDB
Venue: Villa Caceres, Naga City
Participants: 105 comprising RTC judges, prosecutors and
law enforcers from PDEA, PNP, NBI, Bureau of Customs,
and Parole and Probation Administration of Region V
Justice ( Region XI)
Development Partners: AJFI; DAR; DOJ; PAO; IDEALS
Venue: Apo View Hotel, Davao City
Participants: 69 RTC, MTCC and MCTC judges,
prosecutors, PAO lawyers, officials of DAR, PNP, and
NGOs
Personal Security Training for Judges
International Conference
Fourth Hague Conference on Private International
Law, Asia Pacific Regional Conference
Development Partners: DFA-OLA; UPLC-IILS
Venue: Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Makati City
Participants: 227 comprising delegations from The Hague,
legal and foreign affairs government offices from the
ASEAN and Asia Pacific member countries, and other
foreign diplomatic communities; representatives from
the judiciary, legislative department, international
organizations, local offices/agencies and academe
2011
October-December
9
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
NEWS
Special Lectures
Academic Excellence Lecture Series in the Judiciary:
Updates on Corporate Rehabilitation
Development Partner: Metrobank Foundation, Inc.
Venue: College of Law, University of the East, Manila
Participants: 431 SC and PHILJA officials, RTC judges,
representatives from Metrobank and members of the
academe
Eighth Metrobank Professorial Chair Lecture Series
“Legal Nuances to the Philippine Ratification of the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”
Development Partner: Metrobank Foundation, Inc.
Venue: CA Auditorium, Court of Appeals, Manila
Participants: 196 comprising SC and CA Manila justices,
officials and staff, PHILJA officials and staff, selected
RTC judges of NCJR, members of the academe, and
representatives from various offices
Convention-Seminars
National Convention and Election of Officers and
Metro Manila Mediation Program
Venue: Court of Appeals Auditorium, Manila
Participants: 37 mediators
Camarines Sur Mediation Program
Venue: Avenue Plaza Hotel, Naga City
Fourth Seminar–Workshop on the Special Rules of
Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution
Venue: Grand Regal Hotel, Davao City
Participants: 29 RTC judges of Regions IX to XII
Work Orientation and Skills Enhancement Seminar
for Philippine Mediation Center Unit Staff
Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, Manila
Participants: 58 PMC unit staff of Luzon
Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, Manila
Participants: 59 PMC unit staff of Luzon
Judicial Moves
Directors–Philippine Judges Association (PJA)
Theme: Responsive to New Challenges
Venue: New World Hotel, Makati City
Participants: 545 judges
Court of Appeals
18th National Convention–Seminar and Election of
Officers of the Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc.
(PTJLI)
Theme: Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc.: Kaagapay
sa Daang Matuwid
Venue: Negros Oriental Convention Center, Dumaguete
City
Participants: 329 judges
Hon. Pedro B. Corales
Associate Justice, appointed on November 11, 2011
Sandiganbayan
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Refresher Course for Court-Annexed Mediators
Davao Mediation Program
Venue: Grand Regal Hotel, Davao City
South Cotabato and Sarangani Mediation Programs
Venue: Phela Grand Hotel, General Santos City
Hon. Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr.
Presiding Justice, appointed on October 6, 2011
10
NEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
Doctrinal Reminders
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Guidelines to be observed in administrative
proceedings.
Department of Health v. Camposano restates the
guidelines laid down in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial
Relations that due process in administrative
proceedings requires compliance with the following
cardinal principles: (1) the respondents’ right to a
hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case
and submit supporting evidence, must be observed;
(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(3) the decision must have some basis to support itself;
(4) there must be substantial evidence; (5) the decision
must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at
least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
(6) in arriving at a decision, the tribunal must have
acted on its own consideration of the law and the facts
of the controversy and must not have simply accepted
the views of a subordinate; and (7) the decision must
be rendered in such manner that respondents would
know the reasons for it and the various issues
involved.
In the present case, the fifth requirement stated
above was not complied with. Reyes was not properly
apprised of the evidence offered against him, which
were eventually made the bases of petitioner’s decision
that found him guilty of grave misconduct.
To recall, after the affidavit of Acero was filed with
the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, the
respondents therein, i.e., Reyes and Peñaloza, were
ordered to submit their counter-affidavits in order to
discuss the charges lodged against them. While
Peñaloza acknowledged in his counter-affidavit his
participation in the illicit transaction complained of,
he pointed to Reyes as the main culprit. Peñaloza
thereafter submitted the affidavits of Amper and
Valdehueza as witnesses who would substantiate his
accusations. However, the records reveal that only
the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao and Acero
were furnished copies of the said affidavits. Thus, Reyes
was able to respond only to the affidavit of Acero. It
would appear that Reyes had no idea that Peñaloza, a
co-respondent in the administrative case, would point
an accusing finger at him and even supply the
inculpatory evidence to prove his guilt. The said
affidavits were made known to Reyes only after the
rendition of the petitioner’s Decision dated September
24, 2001.
The fact that Reyes was able to assail the adverse
decision of the petitioner via a Motion for
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
Reconsideration Cum Motion to Set the Case for
Preliminary Conference did not cure the violation of
his right to due process in this case. Reyes filed the
said motion precisely to raise the issue of the violation
of his right to due process. There is nothing on record
to show that Reyes was furnished with, or had
otherwise received, a copy of the affidavits of
Peñaloza, Amper and Valdehueza, whether before or
after the Decision dated September 24, 2001, was
issued. Thus, it cannot be said that Reyes had a fair
opportunity to squarely and intelligently answer the
accusations therein or to offer any rebuttal evidence
thereto.
It is true that, in the past, this Court has held that
the right to due process of a respondent in an
administrative case was not violated if he was able to
file a motion for reconsideration to refute the evidence
against him. However, the instant case should be
differentiated from Ruivivar v. Office of the Ombudsman,
which likewise involved the issue of administrative
due process. In the said case, Ruivivar was found
administratively liable for discourtesy in the course
of her official functions and was meted the penalty of
reprimand. In her motion for reconsideration,
Ruivivar argued that she was deprived of due process
because she was not furnished copies of the affidavits
of complainant’s witnesses. Thereafter, the
Ombudsman ordered that Ruivivar be furnished with
copies of the affidavits of the witnesses, with the
directive for her to file any pleading that she may
deem appropriate. As Ruivivar still opted not to
controvert the affidavits that were belatedly provided
to her, the Ombudsman ruled that her right to due
process was not violated and her administrative
liability was upheld. The Court affirmed the ruling of
the Ombudsman, declaring that “the law can no
longer help one who had been given ample
opportunity to be heard but who did not take full
advantage of the proffered chance.”
In the instant case, petitioner plainly disregarded
Reyes’ protestations without giving him a similar
opportunity, as in Ruivivar, to be belatedly furnished
copies of the affidavits of Peñaloza, Amper and
Valdehueza to enable him to refute the same. As it
were, petitioner rendered its Decision dated
September 24, 2001, on the basis of evidence that were
not disclosed to Reyes. This the Court cannot
sanction. A judgment in an administrative case that
imposes the extreme penalty of dismissal must not
only be based on substantial evidence but also
rendered with due regard to the rights of the parties
to due process.
(Leonardo-De Castro, J., Office of the Ombudsman v. Antonio
T. Reyes, G.R. No. 170512, October 5, 2011.)
AND DOCTRINAL
October-December 2011 NEW RULINGSPHILJA
NEWSREMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
CIVIL LAW
Notice of lis pendens; effects of annotation of lis
pendens.
“A notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the
whole world that a particular real property is in
litigation, serving as a warning that one who acquires
an interest over said property does so at his own risk,
or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over
the said property.” The effect of the annotation of lis
pendens on future transactions over the subject
property is discussed by an authority on land titles
and registration:
Once a notice of lis pendens has been duly
registered, any cancellation or issuance of the
title of the land involved as well as any
subsequent transaction affecting the same,
would have to be subject to the outcome of the
litigation. In other words, upon the termination
of the litigation there can be no risk of losing the
property or any part thereof as a result of any
conveyance of the land or any encumbrance that
may be made thereon posterior to the filing of
the notice of lis pendens.
It is not disputed that petitioners in this case (Dela
Merced, et al v. GSIS, G.R. No. 167140) caused the
annotation of lis pendens on TCT No. 23554, which
covers Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2, as early as September
21, 1984. On July 29, 1985 and August 24, 1998, TCT
No. 23554 was cancelled with respect to Lots 7 and 8
of Block 2 and new individual titles were issued to
Victorino and Dimaguila. Both titles had the notice of
lis pendens which was carried over from TCT No. 23554.
Ineluctably, both Victorino and Dimaguila had notice
of the litigation involving GSIS’s ownership over the
subject properties, and were bound by the outcome of
the litigation. When a transferee pendente lite takes
property with notice of lis pendens, such transferee
undertakes to respect the outcome of the litigation.
As held in Selph v. Vda. de Aguilar, an order to cancel the
transferor ’s title may be enforced against his
transferee, whose title is expressly subject to the
outcome of the litigation by the fact of the annotation
of lis pendens.
The existence of these entries on Dimaguila’s and
Victorino’s titles bars any defense of good faith against
petitioners and effectively makes Dimaguila and
Victorino mere privies of GSIS and subject to whatever
rights GSIS might have in the subject properties,
which (as it turns out) is none at all. What Dimaguila
and Victorino possess are derivative titles of the GSIS’s
title over Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2, which this Court has
finally adjudicated to be null and void. Given the legal
maxim that a spring cannot rise higher than its source,
it follows that Dimaguila’s and Victorino’s titles, or
any other title over the subject properties that are
derived from TCT No. 23554 of the GSIS, are likewise
11
null and void. As explained by this Court in another
case, the title obtained by the transferee pendente lite
affords him no special protection; he cannot invoke
the rights of a purchaser in good faith and cannot
acquire better rights than those of his predecessorin-interest.
In Voluntad v. Spouses Dizon, the Court allowed the
issuance of an alias writ of execution against the
transferees pendente lite, who had knowledge of the
pending litigation on the basis of the annotation of
the notice of lis pendens on their titles. The Court
clarified therein that there was no need for the
victorious [parties] to file a separate action to enforce
their right to recover the property as against the new
registered owners.
In Associated Bank v. Pronstroller, the Court affirmed
the judgments of the trial and appellate courts
cancelling the titles of the spouses Vaca, who were
transferees pendente lite of Associated Bank, despite the
fact that the spouses Vaca were not parties to the case
between Associated Bank and the Pronstrollers. The
Court explained therein:
Admittedly, during the pendency of the case,
respondents timely registered a notice of lis
pendens to warn the whole world that the property
was the subject of a pending litigation.
Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit,
refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which
a court acquires over property involved in a suit,
pending the continuance of the action, and until
final judgment. Founded upon public policy and
necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the
properties in litigation within the power of the
court until the litigation is terminated, and to
prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by
subsequent alienation. x x x
The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold
effect: (1) to keep the subject matter of the
litigation within the power of the court until the
entry of the final judgment to prevent the defeat
of the final judgment by successive alienations;
and (2) to bind a purchaser, bona fide or not, of
the land subject of the litigation to the judgment
or decree that the court will promulgate
subsequently.
This registration, therefore, gives the court clear
authority to cancel the title of the spouses Vaca,
since the sale of the subject property was made
after the notice of lis pendens. x x x
Upon Associated Bank’s MR, the spouses Vaca filed
a motion to intervene arguing that they had a real
interest in assailing the July 14, 2008 Decision, which
ordered the cancellation of their title. The Court denied
the intervention. It was held that the interests of the
spouses Vaca in the subject property were properly
represented in the action by their transferor/vendor
Associated Bank, which was already a party thereto.
(Continued on next page)
12
NEW RULINGS AND DOCTRINAL REMINDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
Doctrinal Reminders
CIVIL LAW (continued)
As transferees pendente lite, the spouses Vaca stand
exactly in the shoes of their predecessor-in-interest,
Associated Bank.
(Del Castillo, J., Col. Francisco Dela Merced, substituted by his
heirs namely, Luis Cesar Dela Merced, Blanquita Dela Merced
nee Macatangay, and Maria Olivia M. Paredes v. Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS) and Spouses Victor and
Milagros Manlongat, G.R. No. 167140, November 23, 2011.)
TAXATION LAW
Commission of Internal Revenue cannot collect
what is not provided in the tax law.
Section 143 of the Tax Reform Act of 1997 is clear
and unambiguous. It provides for two periods: the
first is the 3-year transition period beginning January
1, 1997, the date when RA No. 8240 took effect, until
December 31, 1999; and the second is the period
thereafter. During the 3-year transition period, Section
143 provides that “the excise tax from any brand of
fermented liquor x x x shall not be lower than the tax
which was due from each brand on October 1, 1996.”
After the transitory period, Section 143 provides that
the excise tax rate shall be the figures provided under
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Section 143 but increased
by 12 percent, without regard to whether such rate is
lower or higher than the tax rate that is actually being
paid prior to January 1, 2000 and, therefore, without
regard to whether the revenue collection starting
January 1, 2000 may turn out to be lower than that
collected prior to said date. Revenue Regulations No.
17-99, however, created a new tax rate when it added
in the last paragraph of Section 1 thereof, the
qualification that the tax due after the 12 percent
increase becomes effective “shall not be lower than
the tax actually paid prior to January 1, 2000.” As
there is nothing in Section 143 of the Tax Reform Act of
1997 which clothes the BIR with the power or authority
to rule that the new specific tax rate should not be
lower than the excise tax that is actually being paid
prior to January 1, 2000, such interpretation is clearly
an invalid exercise of the power of the Secretary of
Finance to interpret tax laws and to promulgate rules
and regulations necessary for the effective
enforcement of the Tax Reform Act of 1997. Said
qualification must, perforce, be struck down as invalid
and of no effect.
It bears reiterating that tax burdens are not to be
imposed, nor presumed to be imposed beyond what
the statute expressly and clearly imports, tax statutes
being construed strictissimi juris against the government.
In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a
rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the
basic law prevails as said rule or regulation cannot go
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law. It
must be stressed that the objective of issuing BIR
Revenue Regulations is to establish parameters or
guidelines within which our tax laws should be
implemented, and not to amend or modify its
substantive meaning and import. As held in
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fortune Tobacco
Corporation,
x x x The rule in the interpretation of tax laws is
that a statute will not be construed as imposing
a tax unless it does so clearly, expressly, and
unambiguously. A tax cannot be imposed without
clear and express words for that purpose.
Accordingly, the general rule of requiring
adherence to the letter in construing statutes
applies with peculiar strictness to tax laws and
the provisions of a taxing act are not to be
extended by implication. x x x As burdens, taxes
should not be unduly exacted nor assumed
beyond the plain meaning of the tax laws.
Hence, while it may be true that the interpretation
advocated by petitioner CIR is in furtherance of its
desire to raise revenues for the government, such
noble objective must yield to the clear provisions of
the law, particularly since, in this case, the terms of
the said law are clear and leave no room for
interpretation.
(Villarama, Jr., J., Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San
Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 184428, November 23, 2011.)
CRIMINAL LAW
Warrantless arrest.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure enumerates the instances when
warrantless arrests are lawful.
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. –
A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed
and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
(Continued on page 41)
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
ORDERS AND CIRCULARS
PHILJA NEWS
EN BANC
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a
Resolution dated October 18, 2011, which reads as follows:
A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS CASES
RESOLUTION
Acting on the recommendation of the SubCommittee on the Rules of Procedure for Intellectual
Property Rights Cases submitting for this Court’s
consideration and approval the proposed Rules of
Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases, the
Court resolved to APPROVE the same.
These Rules shall take effect 15 days after their
publication in two newspapers of national circulation.
October 18, 2011.
(Sgd.) CORONA, CJ, CARPIO, VELASCO, Jr.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA,
BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, Jr.,
PEREZ, MENDOZA, SERENO, REYES, PERLASBERNABE, JJ.
A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC
RULES OF PROCEDURE
FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS CASES
RULE 1
General Provisions
SECTION 1. Title. – These Rules shall be known and
cited as the “Rules of Procedure for Intellectual
Property Rights Cases.”
SEC. 2. In what courts applicable. – These Rules shall
be observed by the Regional Trial Courts designated
by the Supreme Court as Special Commercial Courts.
SEC. 3. Applicability of the regular rules. – When the
court determines that the civil or criminal action
involves complex issues, it shall issue a special order
that the regular procedure prescribed in the Rules of
Court shall apply, stating the reason therefor.
Where applicable, the Rules of Court shall apply
suppletorily to proceedings under these Rules.
SEC. 4. Executory nature of orders. – Any order issued
by the court under these Rules is immediately
executory unless restrained by a superior court.
13
SEC. 5. Verification and supporting documents. – Any
pleading, motion, opposition, defense or claim filed
by any interested party shall be supported by verified
statements that the affiant has read the same and that
the factual allegations therein are true and correct of
his personal knowledge or based on authentic records,
and shall contain as annexes such documents as may
be deemed by the party submitting the same as
supportive of the allegations in the affidavits.
SEC. 6. Duty of the clerk of court. – It shall be the duty of
the branch clerk of court to notify in writing the
Director-General of the Intellectual Property Office
(IPO) of any action, suit or proceeding involving a
copyright, trademark, service mark, patent, industrial
design, utility model, undisclosed information and
technology transfer agreement. Such notice shall set
forth: the names and addresses of the litigants and
the copyright, trademark, service mark, patent or
design registrations involved and, where applicable,
the numbers of their certificates of registration. The
notice shall be submitted within one month after the
filing thereof.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
RULE 2
Nature of Proceedings
SECTION 1. Scope. – Rules 2 to 9 shall apply to all civil
actions for violations of intellectual property rights
provided for in Republic Act No. 8293 or the
Intellectual Property Code, as amended, including
civil actions for Infringement of Patent (Section 76),
Utility Model (Section 108) and Industrial Design
(Section 119), Trademark Infringement (Section 155 in
relation to Section 163), Unfair Competition (Section
168 in relation to Section 163), actions concerning
trademark license contracts (Section 150 in relation
to Section 163), actions concerning imported
merchandise or goods bearing infringing marks or
trade names (Section 166 in relation to Section 163),
actions for cancellation of the registration of a
collective mark (Section 167 in relation to Section 163),
False Designations of Origin; False Description or
Representation (Section 169 in relation to Section 163),
Breach of Contract (Section 194), civil actions for
infringement of copyright, moral rights, performers’
rights, producers’ rights, and broadcasting rights
(Sections 177, 193, 203, 208, 211, and 216), and other
violations of intellectual property rights as may be
defined by law.
SEC. 2. Special Commercial Courts in the National
Capital Judicial Region with authority to issue writs of
search and seizure enforceable nationwide. – Special
Commercial Courts in Quezon City, Manila, Makati,
and Pasig shall have authority to act on applications
14
RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS
A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC (continued)
for the issuance of writs of search and seizure in civil
actions for violations of the Intellectual Property Code,
which writs shall be enforceable nationwide. The
issuance of these writs shall be governed by the rules
prescribed in Re: Proposed Rule on Search and Seizure in
Civil Actions for Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
(A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC, which took effect on February
15,2002). Within their respective territorial
jurisdictions, the Special Commercial Courts in the
judicial regions where the violation of intellectual
property rights occurred shall have concurrent
jurisdiction to issue writs of search and seizure.
RULE 3
Commencement of Action
SECTION 1. Pleadings. – The only pleadings allowed to
be filed are the complaints, compulsory counterclaims
and cross-claims pleaded in the answer, and the
answers thereto. All pleadings shall be verified.
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
The affidavits in question-and-answer format
referred to in Section 5 hereof and the relevant evidence
shall be made part of the complaint.
The complaint shall include a certification that the
party commencing the action has not filed any other
action or proceeding involving the same issue or issues
before any tribunal or agency nor is such action or
proceeding pending in other quasi-judicial bodies;
Provided, however, that if any such action is pending, the
status of the same must be stated, and should
knowledge thereof be acquired after the filing of the
complaint, the party concerned shall undertake to
notify the court within five days from such knowledge.
When the party-litigant is a corporation, the
verification/certification of non-forum shopping
required should be executed by a natural person duly
authorized by the corporation, through a special power
of attorney or a board resolution for the purpose,
attached to the complaint.
The complaint shall further be accompanied by
proof of payment of docket and other lawful fees.
SEC. 2. Who may file an action under these Rules. – Any
intellectual property right owner, or anyone
possessing any right, title or interest under claim of
ownership in any intellectual property right, whose
right may have been violated, may file an action under
these Rules.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements
shall not be remedied by mere amendment of the
complaint. The court, motu proprio, shall dismiss the case
without prejudice.
Any person who is a national or who is domiciled
or has a real and effective industrial establishment in
a country which is a party to any convention, treaty
or agreement relating to intellectual property rights
or the repression of unfair competition, to which the
Philippines is also a party, or extends reciprocal rights
to nationals of the Philippines by law, shall be entitled
to file an action under these Rules.
The submission of a false certification or noncompliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
constitute indirect contempt, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative, civil and criminal
liabilities. If the acts of a party or his counsel clearly
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be a ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt.
Any foreign national or juridical person who
meets the requirements of the immediately preceding
paragraph, and does not engage in business in the
Philippines, may also file an action under these Rules.
SEC. 4. Prohibited pleadings. – The following pleadings
are prohibited:
SEC. 3. Form and contents of the complaint. – The
complaint shall be verified and shall state the full
names of the parties to the case. Facts showing the
capacity of a party to sue or be sued, or the authority
of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity,
or the legal existence of an organized association of
persons that is made a party, must be averred. In case
of juridical persons, proof of capacity to sue must be
attached to the complaint.
The complaint shall contain a concise statement
of the ultimate facts constituting the complainant’s
cause or causes of action. It shall specify the relief(s)
sought, but it may add a general prayer for such
further or other relief(s) as may be deemed just or
equitable.
a) Motion to dismiss;
b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
c)
Motion for reconsideration of a final order or
judgment, except with regard to an order of
destruction issued under Rule 20 hereof;
d) Reply;
e)
Petition for relief from judgment;
f)
Motion for extension of time to file pleadings or
other written submissions, except for the answer
for meritorious reasons;
g) Motion for postponement intended for delay;
h) Third-party complaint;
i)
Intervention;
j)
Motion to hear affirmative defenses; and
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
k) Any pleading or motion which is similar to or of
like effect as any of the foregoing.
S EC . 5. Affidavits. –The affidavits required to be
submitted with the complaint shall be in questionand-answer format numbered consecutively, and shall
state only facts of direct personal knowledge of the
affiants which are admissible in evidence. The
affidavits shall also show the competence of the affiants
to testify to the matters stated therein.
A violation of this requirement may subject the
party or the counsel who submits the same to
disciplinary action, and shall be a ground for the court
to order that the inadmissible affidavit or portion
thereof be expunged from the records.
SEC. 6. Failure to file complaint where a writ of search
and seizure is issued. – Upon motion of the party whose
goods have been seized, with notice to the applicant,
the issuing court may lift its writ and order the return
of the seized goods if no case is filed with the
appropriate court and/or appropriate quasi-judicial
agency, including the Intellectual Property Office of
the Philippines, within 31 calendar days from the date
of issuance of the writ.
If no motion for the return of the seized goods is
filed within 60 days from the issuance of the writ
under the preceding paragraph, the court shall order
the disposal of the goods, as may be warranted, after
hearing with notice to the parties.
RULE 4
Answer
S ECTION 1. Summons. – The summons and the
complaint, including its attachments, shall be served
not later than five days from receipt of the complaint
by the court to which it is assigned or raffled.
SEC. 2. Service of summons, orders and other court
processes. – Summons, orders and other court
processes may be served by the sheriff, his deputy or
other proper court officer or for justifiable reasons, by
the counsel or representative of the plaintiff or any
suitable person authorized by the court issuing the
summons.
Any private person who is authorized by the
court to serve summons, orders and other court
processes shall, for that purpose, be considered an
officer of the court.
When the defendant is a foreign private juridical
entity, service may be made on its resident agent
designated in accordance with law for that purpose,
or, if there be no such agent, on the government official
designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers
or agents within the Philippines.
15
If the foreign private juridical entity is not
registered in the Philippines or has no resident agent,
service may, with leave of court, be effected out of the
Philippines through any of the following means:
a) By personal service coursed through the
appropriate court in the foreign country with the
assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs;
b) By publication once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the country where the defendant
may be found and by serving a copy of the
summons and the court order by registered mail
at the last known address of the defendant;
c)
By facsimile or any recognized electronic means
that could generate proof of service; or
d) By such other means as the court may, in its
discretion, direct.
Should either personal or substituted service fail,
summons by publication shall be allowed. In the case
of juridical entities, summons by publication shall be
done by indicating the names of the officers or their
duly authorized representative.
SEC. 3. Answer. – Within 15 days from service of
summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the
complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff.
Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded in the
answer shall be deemed waived, except when the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, when there
is another action pending between the same parties
for the same cause, or when the action is barred by a
prior judgment or by the statute of limitations. Crossclaims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted
in the answer shall be considered barred. The answer
to counterclaims or cross-claims shall be filed and
served within 10 days from service of the answer in
which they are pleaded.
SEC. 4. Effect of failure to answer. – Should the
defendant fail to answer the complaint within the
period stated above, the court, motu proprio or on motion
of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be
warranted by the allegations of the complaint, as well
as the affidavits and other evidence on record, unless
the court in its discretion requires the plaintiff to
submit additional evidence. Such reception of
additional evidence may be delegated to the clerk of
court. In no case shall the court award a relief beyond
or different from that prayed for; Provided, that the
court may, in its discretion, reduce the amount of
damages and attorney’s fees claimed for being
excessive or otherwise unconscionable.
SEC. 5. Affidavits. – The affidavits required to be
submitted with the answer shall be in question-andanswer format numbered consecutively, and shall
16
state only facts of direct personal knowledge of the
affiants which are admissible in evidence. The
affidavits shall also show the competence of the
affiants to testify to the matters stated therein.
A violation of this requirement may subject the
party or the counsel who submits the same to
disciplinary action, and shall be ground for the court
to order that the inadmissible affidavit or portion
thereof be expunged from the records.
RULE 5
Modes of Discovery
SECTION 1. In general. – A party can avail of any of the
modes of discovery not later than 30 days from the
joinder of issues.
SEC. 2. Objections. – Any mode of discovery, such as
interrogatories, request for admission, production or
inspection of documents or things, may be objected
to within 10 days from receipt of the request for
discovery and only on the ground that the matter
requested is manifestly incompetent, immaterial, or
irrelevant or is undisclosed information or privileged
in nature, or the request is for harassment. The
requesting party may comment in writing within
three days from receipt of the objection. Thereafter,
the court shall rule on the objection not later than 10
days from receipt of the comment or the expiration of
the three-day period.
SEC. 3. Compliance. – Compliance with any mode of
discovery shall be made within 10 days from receipt
of the request for discovery, or if there are objections,
from notice of the ruling of the court.
SEC. 4. Sanctions. – The sanctions prescribed by the
Rules of Court in relation to the modes of discovery
shall apply.
RULE 6
Pre-Trial
SECTION 1. Pre-trial; mandatory nature. – Within five
days after the period for availing of, or compliance
with, any of the modes of discovery prescribed in
Rule 5 hereof, whichever comes later, the handling
court shall immediately set the case for pre-trial and
direct the parties to submit their respective pre-trial
briefs. The parties shall file with the court and furnish
each other copies of their respective pre-trial briefs
in such manner as to ensure receipt by the court and
the other party at least five days before the date set
for the pre-trial.
The parties shall set forth in their pre-trial briefs,
among other matters, the following:
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
a) Brief statement of the nature of the case, which
shall summarize the theory or theories of the party
in clear and concise language;
b) Allegations expressly admitted by either or both
parties;
c)
Allegations deemed admitted by either or both
parties;
d) Documents not specifically denied under oath by
either or both parties;
e)
Amendments to the pleadings;
f)
Statement of the issues, which shall separately
summarize the factual and legal issues involved in
the case;
g) Names, addresses and contact numbers of affiants
and their judicial affidavits supporting the parties’
respective positions on each of the issues;
h) All other pieces of evidence, whether documentary
or otherwise, and their respective purposes;
i)
Specific proposals for an amicable settlement;
j)
Possibility of referral to mediation or other
alternative modes of dispute resolution;
k) Requests for closed-door hearings in cases
involving trade secrets, undisclosed information
and patents; and
l)
Such other matters as may aid in the just and
speedy disposition of the case.
S EC . 2. Nature and purpose of pre-trial. – Upon
appearance of the parties during the pre-trial, the court
shall order the parties to appear before the Philippine
Mediation Center in accordance with mediation rules
of the Supreme Court.
Should the parties fail to settle the case after
mediation, the pairing court shall conduct judicial
dispute resolution (JDR) conferences upon request of
the court handling the case in accordance with the
guidelines of the Supreme Court.
Pending mediation before the Philippine Mediation
Center and JDR with the pairing court, the court
handling the case shall suspend the proceedings. If
either mediation or JDR fails, the case shall be returned
to the court with dispatch for the pre-trial.
Before the pre-trial, the court may require the
marking of documentary or object evidence by the
branch clerk of court or any authorized court
personnel.
During the pre-trial, the court shall, with its active
participation, ensure that the parties consider in detail
all of the following:
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
a) The possibility of an amicable settlement;
b) Facts that need not be proven, either because they
are matters of judicial notice, or expressly or
deemed admitted;
c)
Permissible amendments to the pleadings;
d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations and
admissions of facts and documents;
e)
Objections to the admissibility of testimonial,
documentary and other evidence;
f)
Submission of judicial affidavits of witnesses and
objections to the form or substance of any
affidavit, or part thereof;
g) Simplification of the issues; and
h) Such other matters as may aid in the speedy and
summary disposition of the case.
SEC. 3. Effect of failure to appear. – The failure of the
plaintiff to submit a pre-trial brief within the specified
period or to appear in the pre-trial shall be a cause for
the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, unless
otherwise ordered by the court. The defendant who
submits a pre-trial brief and who appears during the
pre-trial shall be entitled to a judgment on the
counterclaim unless the court requires evidence ex
parte for a judgment. Any cross-claim shall be
dismissed.
The failure of the defendant to submit a pre-trial
brief within the specified period or to appear in the
pre-trial shall be a cause for the dismissal of the
counterclaim. The plaintiff who submits a pre-trial
brief and who appears during the pre-trial shall be
entitled to a judgment on the complaint unless the
court requires evidence ex parte for a judgment.
SEC. 4. Termination. – The pre-trial shall be terminated
not later than 30 working days after its
commencement, excluding the period for mediation
and judicial dispute resolution (JDR).
SEC. 5. Record of pre-trial. – The proceedings in the
pre-trial shall be recorded, excluding mediation and
JDR. Within 10 days after the termination of the pretrial, the court shall issue an order which shall recite
in detail the matters taken up in the pre-trial, the
actions taken on such matters, the amendments
allowed in the pleadings, and the agreements or
admissions made by the parties as to any of the
matters considered. The court shall rule on all
objections to or comments on the admissibility of any
documentary or other evidence, including any
affidavit or any part thereof.
17
The court shall indicate whether the case shall be
submitted for decision immediately after pre-trial, or
on the basis of position papers, or after clarificatory
hearing, or after trial.
SEC. 6. Submission of position papers. – If the case is to
be submitted for decision on the basis of position
papers, the court, in the Pre-Trial Order, shall direct
the parties to file simultaneously their respective
position papers, setting forth the law and the facts
relied upon by them and attaching thereto affidavits
of their witnesses in question-and-answer format
numbered consecutively, and other evidence on the
factual issues defined in the order, together with their
respective draft decisions, if so desired, within a nonextendible period of 30 days from receipt of the order.
No reply or rejoinder shall be allowed.
SEC. 7. Clarificatory hearing or hearings following pretrial. – If there are matters to be clarified, the court
shall include in the Pre-Trial Order the schedule of
clarificatory hearing or hearings, which must
commence within 30 days from the termination of
the pre-trial, and be completed not later than 15 days
thereafter.
At least three days before the scheduled
clarificatory hearing, the parties may submit
clarificatory questions which the court, in its
discretion, may propound.
SEC. 8. Schedule of trial. – If the court deems it
necessary to hold trial, the court shall include in the
Pre-Trial Order the schedule of hearings to be
conducted expeditiously and completed not later than
60 days from the date of the initial trial which must
commence within 30 days from the termination of
the pre-trial.
RULE 7
Clarificatory Hearing and Trial
S ECTION . 1. Clarificatory hearings. – During
clarificatory hearing or hearings, the parties must
have representatives and their counsels ready for
questioning by the court.
Immediately after termination of such
clarificatory hearing or hearings, the court shall order
the parties to simultaneously file, within 10 days from
such date, their respective position papers as required
under Section 6, Rule 6, above.
SEC. 2. Clarificatory hearing or hearings following
submission of position papers. – Upon submission of
the parties’ position papers immediately after the pretrial as required under Section 6 of the preceding Rule,
and the court deems it necessary to hold clarificatory
hearing or hearings on any matter before rendering
judgment, it shall set the case for such purpose.
18
The order setting the case for clarificatory hearing
must be issued not later than 15 days after receipt of
the last position papers or the expiration of the period
for filing the same and the clarificatory hearing must
be scheduled within 15 days from the issuance of
such order and completed not later than 15 days.
During said clarificatory hearing or hearings, the
parties must have representatives and their counsels
ready for questioning by the court.
SEC. 3. Judicial affidavits. – The judicial affidavits shall
serve as the direct testimonies of the witnesses during
trial, subject to cross-examination by the adverse
party.
SEC. 4. Period of trial. – A period not exceeding 30
days shall be allotted to the plaintiff and a similar
period to the defendant in the manner prescribed in
the Pre-Trial Order. The failure of a party to present a
witness on a scheduled trial date shall be deemed a
waiver of such trial date. However, a party may
present such witness or witnesses within the party’s
remaining allotted trial dates. No extension shall be
allowed by the judge except for justifiable reasons.
SEC. 5. Offer of and ruling on exhibits. – Evidence
presented during the trial and not otherwise admitted
by the parties or ruled upon by the court during the
pre-trial shall be offered orally immediately after the
completion of the presentation of evidence of the party
concerned. The opposing party shall immediately
raise the objections on the offer of exhibits and
thereafter, the court shall at once rule on the offer and
objections in open court.
In case the court requires the submission of a
written formal offer of exhibits, the same shall be
submitted to the court within five days from
completion of the presentation of the evidence of the
party, furnishing copies thereof on the other party,
who may submit comments or objections to the formal
offer within five days from receipt. The court shall
make its ruling on the offer within five days from the
expiration of the period to file comments or objections.
SEC. 6. Mandatory submission of draft decisions. –
Immediately after an oral ruling on the last offer of
evidence, the court shall order the parties to
simultaneously submit their respective draft
decisions, within a non-extendible period of 30 days.
In case the ruling is in writing, the court shall order
the parties to simultaneously submit their respective
draft decisions within a non-extendible period of 30
days from receipt of the order.
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
RULE 8
Judgment
SECTION 1. Judgment immediately after pre-trial. –
Where the case is submitted for decision immediately
after pre-trial in accordance with Section 5, Rule 6,
the court shall render judgment within 45 days after
pre-trial.
SEC. 2. Judgment after submission of position papers. –
Within 45 days after receipt of the last position paper,
affidavits, documentary and real evidence, or the
expiration of the period for filing the same under
Section 6 of Rule 6 and Section 1 of Rule 7, the court
shall render judgment on the basis of the parties’
position papers, affidavits, documentary and real
evidence.
SEC. 3. Judgment after clarificatory hearing. – Within
45 days after termination of clarificatory hearing or
hearings under Section 7 of Rule 6 and Section 2 of
Rule 7, the court shall render judgment.
SEC. 4. Judgment after trial. – Within 60 days after
receipt of the draft decision of the parties under Section
6 of Rule 7, the court shall render judgment.
SEC. 5. Judgments executory pending appeal. – Unless
restrained by a higher court, the judgment of the court
shall be executory even pending appeal under such
terms and conditions as the court may prescribe.
RULE 9
Appeal
SECTION 1. Who may appeal. – Any party may appeal
from a judgment or final order.
SEC. 2. How appeal taken. – All decisions and final
orders shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals
through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court.
The petition for review shall be taken within 15
days from notice of the decision or final order of the
Regional Trial Court designated by the Supreme Court
as Special Commercial Courts. Upon proper motion
and the payment of the full amount of the legal fee
prescribed in Rule 141, as amended, and before the
expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of
Appeals may grant an additional period of 15 days
within which to file the petition for review. No further
extension shall be granted except for the most compelling
reasons and in no case to exceed 15 days.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
RULE 10
Nature of Proceedings
SECTION 1. Scope. – Rules 10 to 15 shall apply to all
criminal actions for violations of intellectual property
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
rights provided for in Republic Act No. 8293 or the
Intellectual Property Code, as amended, including
Repetition of Infringement of Patent (Section 84),
Utility Model (Section 108) and Industrial Design
(Section 119), Trademark Infringement (Section 155 in
relation to Section 170), Unfair Competition (Section
168 in relation to Section 170), False Designations of
Origin; False Description or Representation (Section
169.1 in relation to Section 170), infringement of
copyright, moral rights, performers’ rights, producers’
rights, and broadcasting rights (Sections 177, 193, 203,
208 and 211 in relation to Section 217), and other
violations of intellectual property rights as may be
defined by law.
SEC. 2. Special Commercial Courts in the National
Capital Judicial Region with authority to issue search
warrants enforceable nationwide. – Special Commercial
Courts in Quezon City, Manila, Makati, and Pasig shall
have authority to act on applications for the issuance
of search warrants involving violations of the
Intellectual Property Code, which search warrants
shall be enforceable nationwide. Within their
respective territorial jurisdictions, the Special
Commercial Courts in the judicial regions where the
violation of intellectual property rights occurred shall
have concurrent jurisdiction to issue search warrants.
Accordingly, the Executive Judges are hereby
relieved of the duty to issue search warrants
involving violations of the Intellectual Property Code
in criminal cases as stated in Section 12, Chapter V of
A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC (Guidelines on the Selection and
Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining Their Powers,
Prerogatives and Duties).
RULE 11
Commencement of Action
SECTION 1. How commenced. – The filing of criminal
cases falling within the scope of this Rule shall be by
information after a prior verified complaint is filed
under Rule 12 on Preliminary Investigation.
19
territory where any of the elements of the offense
occurred.
SEC. 3. When warrant of arrest may issue. – Within 10
days from the filing of the information, the judge shall
personally evaluate the information together with the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
documents. The judge may immediately dismiss the
case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall
issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if
the accused has already been arrested. In case of
doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge
may order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five days from notice and the issue
must be resolved by the court within 15 days from
the presentation of the additional evidence.
SEC. 4. Disposition of goods seized pursuant to search
warrant. – If a criminal action has been instituted,
only the trial court shall rule on a motion to quash a
search warrant or to suppress evidence obtained
thereby or to release seized goods.
It shall be the duty of the applicant or private
complainant to file a motion for the immediate
transfer of the seized goods to the trial court, which
motion shall be immediately acted upon by the issuing
court.
If no criminal action has been instituted, the
motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress
evidence obtained thereby or to release seized goods
may be filed in and resolved by the issuing court. If
pending resolution of the motion, a criminal case is
meanwhile filed in another court, the incident shall
be transferred to and resolved by the latter court.
Upon motion of the party whose goods have been
seized, with notice to the applicant, the issuing court
may quash the search warrant and order the return
of the seized goods if no criminal complaint is filed
within 60 days from the issuance of the search
warrant.
When the information is filed, the verified
complaint and the affidavits of witnesses together
with other evidence, in such number of copies as there
are accused plus two copies for the court’s files, shall
be attached thereto.
If no criminal action is filed before the office of the
prosecutor and no motion for the return of the seized
goods is filed within 60 days from the issuance of the
search warrant, the issuing court shall require the
parties, including the private complainant, if any, to
show cause why the search warrant should not be
quashed.
In case of failure to attach the complaint, affidavits
and evidence, the court shall order the investigating
prosecutor, through the court’s designated prosecutor,
to submit the said requirements before the pre-trial.
SEC. 5. Prohibited motions. – The following motions
shall not be allowed:
SEC. 2. Where to file. – The information, together with
attachments, shall be filed with the court referred to
in Section 2 of Rule 1, which has jurisdiction over the
a) Motion to quash the information, except on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction;
20
as well as other supporting documents to
establish probable cause. Notarized affidavits of
witnesses shall be allowed and admitted as part
of the complaint, provided that affidavits executed
by non-residents of the Philippines shall be duly
authenticated by the concerned Philippine
consular or diplomatic office.
b) Motion for extension of time to file affidavits or
any other papers; and
c)
Motion for postponement intended for delay.
RULE 12
Preliminary Investigation
SECTION 1. Complaint. – The complaint shall be filed
with the Department of Justice or the office of the
prosecutor that has jurisdiction over the offense
charged:
a) The complaint shall state the full name of the
complainant and the facts showing the capacity
or authority of the complaining witness to
institute a criminal action in a representative
capacity, and the legal existence of an organized
association of persons that is instituting the
criminal action. In case of juridical persons, proof
of capacity to sue must be attached to the
complaint. Where the complainant is a juridical
person not registered in the Philippines,
documents proving its legal existence and/or its
capacity to sue, such as a certificate of registration
or extracts from relevant commercial registries
or offices having jurisdiction over said entities,
shall be accepted if these are originals or in case of
public documents, certified true copies thereof
executed by the proper officer of such registries
or offices.
Where the complainant is a foreign national or is
domiciled or has a real and effective industrial
establishment in a country which is a party to
any convention, treaty or agreement relating to
intellectual property rights or the repression of
unfair competition to which the Philippines is also
a party, or extends reciprocal rights to national of
the Philippines by law, the verified complaint
must contain such facts showing entitlement to
file the action.
b) The complaint shall state the address of the
respondent and shall be in such number of copies
as there are respondents, plus two copies for the
investigating prosecutor. The complaint shall be
subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor
or government official authorized to administer
oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before
a notary public. The administering officer must
certify that he personally examined the
complainant and that he is satisfied that the
complainant voluntarily executed and
understood the complaint.
c)
The complaint shall be accompanied by the
affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses,
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
d) In instances where multiple complaints are filed
by the same complainant, copies of the supporting
documents shall be admitted after they are
compared with and shown to be faithful
reproductions of the originals or certified
documents referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) and
(c) above.
SEC. 2. Procedure. – The preliminary investigation
shall be conducted as follows:
a) Within 10 days after the filing of the complaint,
the investigating prosecutor, on the basis of the
complaint and the affidavits and other evidence
accompanying the same, may dismiss the case
outright for being patently without basis or merit
and order the release of the accused if in custody,
and/or seized articles in custody, if any.
b) When the complaint is not dismissed pursuant
to the immediately preceding paragraph, the
investigating prosecutor, within 10 days from the
filing of the complaint, shall issue an order to the
respondent attaching thereto a copy of the
complaint and its supporting affidavits and
documents, and require the respondent to submit
his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his
witnesses and other documentary evidence in the
format required under Section 1 hereof, wherever
applicable, serving copies thereof on the
complainant not later than 10 days from receipt
of said order. The counter-affidavits shall be
subscribed and sworn to and certified as provided
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 1 hereof. The
respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion
to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit.
c)
If the respondent cannot be served with the order
of the investigating prosecutor, or if served, does
not submit counter-affidavits within the 10-day
period, the investigating prosecutor shall resolve
the complaint based on the evidence presented
by the complainant.
d) The investigating prosecutor may set a hearing if
there are facts and issues to be clarified from a
party or a witness. The parties can be present at
the hearing but without the right to examine or
cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the
investigating prosecutor questions which may be
asked to the party or witness concerned.
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
e)
Within 10 days from the last written submission
by the parties or the expiration of the period for
such submission, the investigating prosecutor
shall determine whether or not there is sufficient
ground to hold the respondent for trial.
SEC. 3. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant.
– When a person is lawfully arrested without a
warrant, the information may be filed by a prosecutor
without need of such investigation provided an
inquest had been conducted in accordance with
existing Rules.
Before the information is filed, the person arrested
may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance
with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, in the presence of his counsel.
Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail
and the investigation must be terminated within 15
days from its inception.
After the filing of the information in court without
preliminary investigation, the accused may, within
five days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a
preliminary investigation with the same right to
adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule.
RULE 13
Arraignment and Pre-Trial
SECTION 1. Arraignment. – The arraignment shall be
conducted in accordance with Rule 116 of the Rules of
Court. If the accused is in custody for the crime
charged, he shall be immediately arraigned. If the
accused enters a plea of guilty, he shall forthwith be
sentenced.
After arraignment, the court shall immediately
schedule the case for pre-trial.
SEC. 2. Referral to mediation. – Before conducting the
trial, the court shall call the parties to a pre-trial. Upon
appearance of the parties during pre-trial, the judge
shall order the parties to appear before the Philippine
Mediation Center for court-annexed mediation on the
civil aspect of the criminal action. The pre-trial judge
shall suspend the court proceedings while the case is
undergoing mediation. Upon termination of the
mediation proceedings, the court shall continue with
the pre-trial.
SEC. 3. Pre-trial. – During the pre-trial, a stipulation of
facts may be entered into, or the propriety of allowing
the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense
may be considered, or such other matters as may be
taken up to clarify the issues and to ensure a speedy
disposition of the case. However, no admission by the
accused shall be used against him unless reduced to
21
writing and signed by the accused and his counsel. A
refusal or failure to stipulate shall not prejudice the
accused.
The pre-trial shall be terminated not later than 30
days from the date of its commencement, excluding
the period for mediation and JDR.
Should a party desire to present additional
affidavits or counter affidavits as part of his direct
evidence, he shall so manifest during the pre-trial,
stating the purpose thereof. If allowed by the court,
the additional affidavits of the prosecution or the
counter-affidavits of the defense shall be submitted to
the court and served on the adverse party not later
than three days after the termination of the pre-trial.
If the additional affidavits are presented by the
prosecution, the accused may file his counteraffidavits and serve the same on the prosecution
within three days from such service.
Before the pre-trial, the court may require the
marking of documentary or object evidence by the
branch clerk of court or any authorized court
personnel.
SEC. 4. Non-appearance at the pre-trial. – If the counsel
for the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at
the pre-trial and does not offer an acceptable excuse
for his lack of cooperation, the court may impose
proper sanctions or penalties.
SEC. 5. Record of pre-trial. – Within five days after the
termination of the pre-trial, the court shall issue an
order stating the matters taken up therein, including
but not limited to:
a) Plea bargaining;
b) The stipulations or admissions entered into by the
parties;
c)
Whether, on the basis of the stipulations and
admissions made by the parties, judgment may
be rendered without the need of further
proceedings, in which event judgment shall be
rendered within 30 days from issuance of the
order;
d) A clear specification of material facts which remain
controverted;
e)
Trial dates of each party;
f)
Such other matters intended to expedite the
disposition of the case.
RULE 14
Trial
SECTION 1. Affidavits and other evidence at the trial. – The
Court shall hear the evidence of the parties on the trial
22
dates agreed upon by them during the pre-trial. The
affidavits of the witnesses of the parties which form
part of the record of the case, such as those submitted:
(a) during the preliminary investigation; and/or (b)
during the pre-trial, shall constitute the direct
testimonies of the witnesses who executed them. Such
witnesses may be subjected to cross examination by
the adverse party.
SEC. 2. Conduct of trial. – The court shall conduct
hearings expeditiously so as to ensure speedy trial.
Each party shall have a maximum period of 60 days
to present his evidence-in-chief on the trial dates
agreed upon during the pre-trial.
SEC. 3. Submission of memoranda. – Upon termination
of trial, the court may order the parties to submit
within a non-extendible period of 30 days their
memoranda setting forth the law and the facts relied
upon by them.
SEC. 4. Judgment. – The court shall promulgate the
judgment not later than 60 days from the time the
case is submitted for decision, with or without the
memoranda. A copy of the judgment shall be
furnished the IPO.
RULE 15
Appeal
SECTION 1. Who may appeal. – Any party may appeal
from a judgment or final order, unless the accused
will be placed in double jeopardy.
SEC. 2. How appeal taken. – The appeal shall be taken
in the manner provided under Rule 122 of the Rules of
Court.
RULE 16
Common Rules on Admissibility
and Weight of Evidence
SECTION 1. Evidence of good faith. – In cases of patent
infringement, trademark infringement, and copyright
infringement, fraudulent intent on the part of the
defendant or the accused need not be established.
Good faith is not a defense unless the defendant or the
accused claims to be a prior user under Sections 73
and 159 of the Intellectual Property Code or when
damages may be recovered under Sections 76, 156,
and 216 of the Code.
SEC. 2. Foreign official documents. – All official records
kept in a foreign country, including certificates of
registration, shall be admissible if authenticated by
the proper consular office of the Philippines having
jurisdiction over the country where such records and/
or certificates are kept. However, such authentication
of foreign official documents may be the subject of the
agreement of the parties.
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
SEC. 3. Deposition of foreign witness. – The deposition
of any witness abroad shall be taken within six
months from the date of the order allowing the
deposition, unless the failure to take the deposition
within the period is caused by a fortuitous event,
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
SEC. 4. Presumptions in the Intellectual Property Code.
– The presumptions in the Intellectual Property Code
on patents, trademarks and copyright shall apply to
these Rules.
SEC. 5. Suppletory application of the rules on discovery
and evidence. – Unless inconsistent with these Rules,
the rules on discovery and evidence under the Rules
of Court shall apply.
RULE 17
Evidence in Patent Cases
SECTION 1. Burden of proof in patent infringement;
presumption regarding process patents.
a) The burden of proof to substantiate a charge for
patent infringement rests on the party alleging
the same, subject, however, to sub-section b)
below, and other applicable laws.
b) If the subject matter of a patent is a process for
obtaining a product, any identical product is
presumed to have been obtained through the use
of the patented process if: (i) the product is new;
or (ii) there is substantial likelihood that the
identical product was made by the process and
the owner of the patent has been unable, despite
reasonable efforts, to determine the process
actually used. In such cases, the court shall then
order the defendant or alleged infringer to prove
that the process to obtain the identical product is
different from the patented process, subject to the
court’s adoption of measures to protect, as far as
practicable, said defendant or alleged infringer’s
manufacturing and business secrets.
SEC. 2. Patents issued presumed valid.
a) In all cases, a letters patent issued by the
Intellectual Property Office–Bureau of Patents, or
its predecessor or successor-agencies, is prima facie
evidence of its existence and validity during the
term specified therein against all persons, unless
the same has already been cancelled or voided by
a final and executory judgment or order.
b) Moreover, letters patents issued by the Intellectual
Property Office–Bureau of Patents, or its
predecessor or successor-agencies, are presumed
to have been validly issued by said government
agency in accordance with applicable laws,
unless otherwise contradicted or overcome by
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
other admissible evidence showing that the same
was irregularly issued.
SEC. 3. Presumption regarding knowledge of existing
patent rights. – For purposes of awarding damages in
patent infringement cases, it is presumed that the
defendant or alleged infringer knew of the existence
of a patent over a protected invention or process, if:
(a)on the patented invention or product manufactured
using the patented process; (b) on the container or
package in which said article is supplied to the public;
or (c) on the advertising material relating to the
patented product or process, are placed the words
Philippine Patent with the number of the patent.
S EC . 4. Request for technical advice. – In patent
infringement cases, the court, motu proprio or upon
motion by a party, may order the creation of a
committee of three experts to provide advice on the
technical aspects of the patent in dispute. Within 30
days from receipt of the order creating the committee,
each side shall nominate an expert, who shall then
both be appointed by the court. The court shall
appoint the third expert from a list submitted by the
experts of each side. All fees and expenses relating to
the appointment of a committee shall be initially
equally shouldered by the parties but may later on be
adjudicated by the court in favor of the prevailing
party.
To assist in the trial involving highly technical
evidence or matters, the court may also request the
IPO to provide equipment, technical facilities, and
personnel.
SEC. 5. Application to utility models and industrial
designs. – The above rules shall likewise be applicable
to infringement cases involving utility models and
industrial designs.
RULE 18
Evidence in Trademark Infringement
and Unfair Competition Cases
SECTION 1. Certificate of registration. – A certificate of
registration of a mark shall be prima facie evidence of:
a)
the validity of the registration;
b)
the registrant’s ownership of the mark; and
c)
the registrant’s exclusive right to use the same in
connection with the goods or services and those
that are related thereto specified in the certificate.
SEC. 2. Well-known mark. – In determining whether a
mark is well-known, account shall be taken of the
knowledge of the relevant sector of the public, rather
than of the public at large, including knowledge in
the Philippines which has been obtained as a result of
23
the promotion of the mark. The following criteria or
any combination thereof may be taken into account
in determining whether a mark is well-known:
a) the duration, extent and geographical area of any
use of the mark; in particular, the duration, extent
and geographical area of any promotion of the
mark, including advertising or publicity and the
presentation, at fairs or exhibitions, of the goods
and/or services to which the mark applies;
b) the market share, in the Philippines and in other
countries, of the goods and/or services to which
the mark applies;
c)
the degree of the inherent or acquired distinction
of the mark;
d) the quality image or reputation acquired by the
mark;
e)
the extent to which the mark has been registered
in the world;
f)
the exclusivity of registration attained by the
mark in the world;
g) the extent to which the mark has been used in the
world;
h) the exclusivity of use attained by the mark in the
world;
i)
the commercial value attributed to the mark in
the world;
j)
the record of successful protection of the rights in
the mark;
k) the outcome of litigations dealing with the issue
of whether the mark is a well-known mark; and
l)
the presence or absence of identical or similar
marks validly registered for or used on identical
or similar goods or services and owned by
persons other than the person claiming that his
mark is a well-known mark.
Provided, further, that the mark is well-known both
internationally and in the Philippines.
SEC. 3. Presumption of likelihood of confusion. –
Likelihood of confusion shall be presumed in case an
identical sign or mark is used for identical goods or
services.
SEC. 4. Likelihood of confusion in other cases. – In
determining whether one trademark is confusingly
similar to or is a colorable imitation of another, the
court must consider the general impression of the
ordinary purchaser, buying under the normally
prevalent conditions in trade and giving the attention
such purchasers usually give in buying that class of
24
goods. Visual, aural, connotative comparisons and
overall impressions engendered by the marks in
controversy as they are encountered in the realities
of the marketplace must be taken into account. Where
there are both similarities and differences in the
marks, these must be weighed against one another to
see which predominates.
In determining likelihood of confusion between
marks used on non-identical goods or services, several
factors may be taken into account, such as, but not
limited to:
a) the strength of plaintiff’s mark;
b) the degree of similarity between the plaintiff’s and
the defendant’s marks;
c)
the proximity of the products or services;
d) the likelihood that the plaintiff will bridge the gap;
e)
evidence of actual confusion;
f)
the defendant’s good faith in adopting the mark;
g) the quality of defendant’s product or service; and/
or
h) the sophistication of the buyers.
“Colorable imitation” denotes such a close or
ingenious imitation as to be calculated to deceive
ordinary persons, or such a resemblance to the
original as to deceive an ordinary purchaser giving
such attention as a purchaser usually gives, as to cause
him to purchase the one supposing it to be the other.
SEC. 5. Determination of similar and dissimilar goods or
services. – Goods or services may not be considered
as being similar or dissimilar to each other on the
ground that, in any registration or publication by the
Office, they appear in different classes of the Nice
Classification.
SEC. 6. Intent to defraud or deceive. – In an action for
unfair competition, the intent to defraud or deceive
the public shall be presumed:
a) when the defendant passes off a product as his by
using imitative devices, signs or marks on the
general appearance of the goods, which misleads
prospective purchasers into buying his
merchandise under the impression that they are
buying that of his competitors;
b) when the defendant makes any false statement in
the course of trade to discredit the goods and
business of another; or
c)
where the similarity in the appearance of the
goods as packed and offered for sale is so striking.
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
SEC. 7. Generic marks. – A registered mark shall not be
deemed to be the generic name of goods or services
solely because such mark is also used as a name of or
to identify a unique product or service.
The test for determining whether the mark is or
has become the generic name of goods or services on
or in connection with which it has been used shall be
the primary significance of the mark to the relevant
public rather than purchaser motivation.
RULE 19
Evidence in Copyright Cases
SECTION 1. When copyright presumed to subsist. – In
copyright infringement cases, copyright shall be
presumed to subsist in the work or other subject
matter to which the action relates, and ownership
thereof shall be presumed to belong to complainant if
he so claims through affidavit evidence under Section
218 of the Intellectual Property Code, as amended,
unless defendant disputes it and shows or attaches
proof to the contrary in his answer to the complaint.
A mere denial of the subsistence of copyright and/or
ownership of copyright based on lack of knowledge
shall not be sufficient to rebut the presumption.
SEC. 2. Effect of registration and deposit. – Registration
and deposit of a work with the National Library or
the Intellectual Property Office shall not carry with it
the presumption of ownership of the copyright by the
registrant or depositor, nor shall it be considered a
condition sine qua non to a claim of copyright
infringement.
SEC. 3. Presumption of authorship. – The natural person
whose name is indicated on a work in the usual
manner as the author shall, in the absence of proof to
the contrary, be presumed to be the author of the
work. This presumption applies even if the name is a
pseudonym, provided the pseudonym leaves no
doubt as to the identity of the author.
The person or body corporate whose name
appears on an audio-visual work in the usual manner
shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be
presumed to be the maker of said work.
S EC . 4. International registration of works. – A
statement concerning a work, recorded in an
international register in accordance with an
international treaty to which the Philippines is or may
become a party, shall be construed as true until the
contrary is proved, except:
a) Where the statement cannot be valid under
Republic Act No. 8293, as amended, or any other
law concerning intellectual property; or
b) Where the statement is contradicted by another
statement recorded in the international register.
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
RULE 20
Order of Destruction
SECTION 1. Order of destruction. – At any time after the
filing of the complaint or information, the court, upon
motion and after due notice and hearing where the
violation of the intellectual property rights of the
owner is established, may order the destruction of
the seized infringing goods, objects and devices,
including but not limited to, sales invoices, other
documents evidencing sales, labels, signs, prints,
packages, wrappers, receptacles, and advertisements
and the like used in the infringing act.
Such hearing shall be summary in nature with
notice of hearing to the defendant or accused to his
last known address to afford the defendant or accused
the opportunity to oppose the motion.
SEC. 2. Conditions for order of destruction. – The court
may only issue an Order of Destruction, subject to the
following conditions:
a) An inventory and photographs of the seized
infringing goods have been taken before
destruction at the place where the seized
infringing goods are stored;
b) The taking of the inventory and photographs
must be witnessed and attested to by: (1) the
accused or counsel or agent, or in their absence,
an officer of the barangay where the seized
infringing goods are stored; (2) the complainant,
his representative or counsel; (3) the public officer
who seized the items or a representative of his
office; and (4) a court officer authorized by the
court to supervise the destruction of the seized
infringing goods;
c)
Representative samples of the seized infringing
goods have been retained in a number and nature
as to suffice for evidentiary purposes;
d) An inventory of the representative samples has
been made by the persons enumerated under (b)
above;
e)
f)
The court officer authorized to supervise the
destruction has submitted a report thereon,
within five days from the date of destruction, to
which is attached (i) the inventory and
photographs of the seized infringing goods and
(ii) the inventory of the representative samples;
and
The applicant has posted a bond in an amount
fixed by the court.
SEC. 3. Admissibility of representative samples. –
Representative samples of the goods, objects and
25
devices referred to in this Rule, together with the
inventory and photographs of the same, shall be
admissible in lieu of the actual items.
RULE 21
Reportorial Requirements
SECTION 1. Reportorial requirements. – Within 30 days
from the issuance of the decision or final order, the
court shall furnish the IPO a copy of the decision or
final order.
RULE 22
Transitory Provision
SECTION 1. Transitory provision. – These Rules shall be
applicable to all pending intellectual property cases,
whenever practicable as determined by the court.
RULE 23
Effectivity
SECTION 1. Effectivity – These Rules shall take effect 15
days after their publication in two newspapers of
national circulation.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 151-2011
CREATING TASK FORCE: KATARUNGAN AT
KALAYAAN
Whereas, few courts are able to effectively monitor
the status of the cases of detained prisoners, especially
regarding the length of their detention, resulting in a
failure to grant them prompt release when already
warranted under existing laws and rules;
Whereas, cases of terminal illness of detainees,
prolonged mental disorders, and other extreme
situations need to be attended to and given special
considerations;
Whereas, there is a need to compare court records
with existing detainee records of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology (BJMP) to ensure accuracy
and constant update;
Whereas, there is a need to establish a working
body under the Committee on the Decongestion of
Provincial, City and Municipal Jails which will
continuously monitor the status and conditions of
detained prisoners, and take prompt action to ensure
the protection of the rights of detained prisoners and
their release from detention when warranted;
26
A.O. No. 151-2011 (continued)
Whereas, the International Committee of the Red
Cross in the Philippines (ICRC) is willing to lend a
hand to the Court’s initiative to decongest holding jails
and to protect the fundamental rights of the detained
prisoners; and
Whereas, a prototype of this working body prior
to its being institutionalized needs to be created to
establish initial experience and provide needed data
for critical adjustments and reforms;
NOW THEREFORE, there is hereby created in the
City of Manila a prototype body to be known as Task
Force: Katarungan at Kalayaan, to monitor the status
and conditions of detained prisoners in its jails. Task
Force: Katarungan at Kalayaan shall be composed of
the following:
Co-Chair:
RTC Judge stationed in Manila,
preferably a volunteer who has an
interest in helping persons in
detention, to be designated by the RTC
Executive Judge subject to prior
approval by the Chair of the
Committee on the Decongestion of
Provincial, City, and Municipal Jails
Co-Chair:
MeTC Judge stationed in Manila, with
the same interest, to be designated by
the MeTC Executive Judge subject to
prior approval by the Chair of the
Committee on the Decongestion of
Provincial, City and Municipal Jails
Members:
The City Prosecutor of Manila or his
authorized representative
The Chief of the PAO Manila District
Office or his authorized Representative
Representative from the BJMP
Representative from the ICRC
Secretariat:
To be assigned by the BJMP
Task Force: Katarungan at Kalayaan shall have
the following duties, powers and functions:
1.
2.
Study and define, with the assistance of the ICRC,
the issues concerning detained prisoners,
especially their rights that need to be acted on
with promptness and resoluteness.
Advise the presiding judges of the appropriate
courts and their relevant court personnel of the
need to provide the Task Force such information
and documents as it may request for the purpose
of completing and processing the data files of
detained prisoners.
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
3.
Advise the presiding judges or any court personnel
of the need to act on any incident or situation that
adversely affects the rights of detained prisoners,
or subjects them to undue or harsh treatments.
4.
Report to the Office of the Court Administrator
the action or actions that the presiding judge or
court personnel has taken on such advise.
5.
Submit a quarterly report of accomplishments of
the Task Force to the Committee on the
Decongestion of Provincial, City, and Municipal
Jails.
6.
Perform such functions and exercise such powers
as are inherent, incidental, or essential to the
accomplishment of its above duties and objectives.
This Administrative Order shall take effect upon
its issuance.
Manila, November 18, 2011.
(Sgd.) RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson, First Division
(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
(Sgd.) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
JUSTICE ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Chancellor
PROFESSOR SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA
Editor in Chief
Editorial and Research Staff
ATTY. ORLANDO B. CARIÑO
ATTY. MA. MELISSA DIMSON-BAUTISTA
ARSENIA M. MENDOZA
ARMIDA M. SALAZAR
JOCELYN D. BONDOC
RONALD P. CARAIG
JUDITH B. DEL ROSARIO
CHRISTINE A. FERRER
JOANNE NARCISO-MEDINA
CHARMAINE S. NICOLAS
SARAH JANE S. SALAZAR
JENIFFER P. SISON
Circulation and Support Staff
ROMEO A. ARCULLO
LOPE R. PALERMO
DANIEL S. TALUSIG
Printing Services
LETICIA G. JAVIER AND PRINTING STAFF
The PHILJA Bulletin is published quarterly by the Research, Publications and
Linkages Office of the Philippine Judicial Academy, with office at the 3rd Floor of
the Supreme Court Centennial Building, Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue,
Manila. Tel: 552-9524; Fax: 552-9621; E-mail: research_philja@yahoo.com;
philja@sc.judiciary.gov.ph; Website: http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 123-2011
all small claims cases already decided and
disposed of starting from January to April 2011
for your own case monitoring and efficient record
management.
TO: ALL JUDGES AND BRANCH CLERKS OF
COURT/OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF THE FIRST
LEVEL COURTS, EXCEPT SHARI’A CIRCUIT
COURTS
Pursuant thereto, you are hereby DIRECTED to
submit the Monthly Docket Inventory of Small
Claims Cases using the approved SC2MS
Software on or before the 10 th day of the
succeeding month either through:
SUBJECT: SMALL CLAIMS CASE MONITORING
SYSTEM (SC2MS) AND USB WIRELESS
BROADBAND MODEMS
(1) electronic mail to smallclaims@sc.judiciary.gov.ph;
or
(2) soft copy of the report using a diskette or
CD, which shall be sent by post or courier to:
The Supreme Court has distributed to first level
courts computers and printers with the pre-installed
software Small Claims Case Monitoring System
(SC2MS) which was designed and developed to
capture relevant data on small claims cases; while
those courts which were not allotted with said
computers and printers were provided with compact
discs (CDs) containing the SC2MS software for
installation in their existing computers.
To further enhance the capacity of these courts
towards an efficient monitoring and automated
monthly reporting of cases, USB wireless broadband
modems shall also be distributed for the use of the
courts.1 The modem, which shall be turned over and
endorsed to the Branch Clerks of Court (BCC) or the
Officer in Charge (OIC) for the exclusive use of the
court, will provide internet connections to aid the
prompt transmittal of monthly reports to the Court
Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator
(CMO-OCA). These modems will be provided with
Php50.00 load monthly to facilitate the transmission
of reports.
The concerned BCC/OIC shall receive and sign the
attached Memorandum of Receipt (MR) and return
the same using the self-addressed stamped return
envelope within five days from receipt to the Property
Division, OCA, for record purposes.
Notwithstanding
the
Judiciary-wide
implementation of the SC2MS to the first level
courts, there are reports that some courts still
submit their Monthly Docket Inventory of Small
Claims Cases using the old format. To reiterate,
quoted hereunder is OCA Circular No. 78-2011
dated June 16, 2011 for compliance of all courts
concerned, to wit:
RE: SC2MS – SMALL CLAIMS CASES
Judicial Supervision and Monitoring Division
Court Management Office
Office of the Court Administrator
Supreme Court
Padre Faura Street
Ermita, Manila 1000
as the case may be. (Emphasis supplied)
To further assist the users, step-by-step
procedures on report preparation, saving of files as
well as submission and transmission thereof to the
CMO through email or CD burning are attached for
your reference. Likewise, there will be training
activities for all BCC’s or OICs, or their substitutes, on
the SC2MS Software for technical support and
capacity building.
The SC2MS Help Desk is already operational to
address queries and concerns. You may [a] call: (02)
404-2731 (CMO) or (02) 552-9640 (MISO2); or [b] email:
smallclaims@sc.judiciary.gov.ph; or [c] access the
website: sc.judiciary.gov.ph, for other information
and announcements.
For maintenance or reloading concerns on the USB
wireless broadband modem, you may also contact
the 24/7 Hotline Number: (02) 730-1288, or email:
customersupport@globebusiness.com.ph. If the unit
is defective, please bring it to the service center nearest
to your court. Attached is the Warranty and List of
Service Centers for your reference.
For immediate and strict compliance.
x x x x
September 7, 2011.
All pending and decided SMALL CLAIMS
CASES starting from the month of MAY 2011
onwards shall be encoded/entered using the
approved SC2MS Software. You can also include
1
Pursuant to the En Banc Resolution dated August 16,
2011, in A.M. No. 11-8-3-SC.
27
(Sgd.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
2
SC Management Information Systems Office
(MISO).
28
OCA Circular No. 123-2011 (continued)
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
29
CITYLIGHT TELECOM CENTRE
HUAWEI CURRENT SERVICE CENTERS
30
CORPORATE ACCOUNT SUPPORT
AIKONTECH CURRENT SERVICE CENTERS
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
31
32
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
33
34
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
35
36
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
37
38
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
39
40
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
Doctrinal Reminders
CRIMINAL LAW (continued from page 12)
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b)
above, the person arrested without a warrant
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest
police station or jail and shall be proceeded
against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule
112.
It is clear that Trestiza’s warrantless arrest does
not fall under any of the circumstances mentioned
in Section 5, Rule 113. However, Trestiza failed to
make a valid objection to his warrantless arrest.
Any objection to the procedure followed in the
matter of the acquisition by a court of jurisdiction
over the person of the accused must be opportunely
raised before he enters his plea; otherwise, the
objection is deemed waived. Trestiza, being a
policeman himself, could have immediately
objected to his warrantless arrest. However, he
merely asked for the grounds for his arrest. He did
not even file charges against the arresting officers.
There was also a lengthy amount of time between
Trestiza’s arrest on November 16, 2002, and the
filing of the Omnibus Motion objecting to Trestiza’s
warrantless arrest on May 11, 2004. Although it
may be argued that the objection was raised prior
to the entry of Trestiza’s plea of not guilty in the
kidnapping for ransom charge, it must be noted
that the circumstances of the present case make us
rule otherwise. Trestiza was charged with two
crimes at the time of his arrest: kidnapping with
ransom under Criminal Case No. 02-3393 and illegal
possession of firearms under Criminal Case No. 023394. Trestiza did not question the legality of his
warrantless arrest nor the acquisition of
jurisdiction of the trial court over his person, and
fully participated in the hearing of the illegal
possession of firearms case. Thus, Trestiza is
deemed to have waived any objection to his
warrantless arrest. Under the circumstances,
Trestiza’s Omnibus Motion in the kidnapping for
ransom case is a mere afterthought and cannot be
considered as a timely objection.
Assuming arguendo that Trestiza indeed made
a timely objection to his warrantless arrest, our
jurisprudence is replete with rulings that support
the view that Trestiza’s conviction is proper despite
being illegally arrested without warrant. In People
v. Manlulu, the Court ruled:
[T]he illegality of the warrantless arrest
cannot deprive the State of its right to
prosecute the guilty when all other facts on
record point to their culpability.
Indeed, the illegal arrest of an accused is not
sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial
free from error. The fatal flaw of an invalid
warrantless arrest becomes moot in view of a
credible eyewitness account.
(Carpio, J., People of the Philippines v. PO1 Froilan L.
Trestiza, P/S INSP. Lorieman* L. Manrique, and Rodie J.
Pineda @ “Buboy,” G.R. No. 193833, November 16, 2011.)
* Sometimes referred to as “Loriemar” in the records.
41
42
TO:
ALL EXECUTIVE/ PRESIDING JUDGES,
CLERKS OF COURT/ ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS,
BRANCH CLERKS OF COURT, SHERIFFS,
PROCESS SERVERS AND OTHER COURT
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZED TO SERVE COURT
PROCESSES
SUBJECT: REITERATION OF SECTION 10
PARAGRAPHS 2, 3 and 4 OF ADMINISTRATIVE
MATTER NO. 04-2-04-SC (RE: RULE 141, LEGAL
FEES) AND AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 35-2004 (RE: GUIDELINES IN THE
ALLOCATION OF LEGAL FEES)
It has been observed that despite issuances by the
Court mandating the deposit of additional amount of
One Thousand Pesos (Php1,000.00) with the Clerk of
Court upon filing of the complaint to defray the actual
travel expenses of the sheriff, process server or other
court-authorized persons in the service of summons,
subpoena and other court processes that would be
issued relative to the trial of the case, many lower
courts still fail to collect the subject amount as deduced
from the monthly report of collections submitted to
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and
several reports of the financial audit teams of the OCA.
Henceforth, all concerned officials and personnel
of the lower courts are hereby REMINDED to ensure
that the following provision of Administrative Matter
No. 04-2-04-SC (Re: Rule 141, Legal Fees) and Amended
Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 (Re: Guidelines
in the Allocation of Legal Fees) is strictly observed:
SEC. 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS and other
persons serving processes.
IN ADDITION TO THE FEES HEREINABOVE
FIXED, THE AMOUNT OF ONE THOUSAND
PESOS (Php1,000.00) SHALL BE DEPOSITED
WITH THE CLERK OF COURT UPON FILING OF
THE COMPLAINT TO DEFRAY THE ACTUAL
TRAVEL EXPENSES OF THE SHERIFF, PROCESS
SERVER OR OTHER COURT-AUTHORIZED
PERSONS IN THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS,
SUBPOENA AND OTHER COURT PROCESSES
THAT WOULD BE ISSUED RELATIVE TO THE
TRIAL OF THE CASE. IN CASE THE INITIAL
DEPOSIT OF ONE THOUSAND PESOS
(Php1,000.00) IS NOT SUFFICIENT, THEN THE
PLAINTIFF OR PETITIONER SHALL BE
REQUIRED TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL
DEPOSIT. THE SHERIFF, PROCESS SERVER OR
OTHER COURT[-]AUTHORIZED PERSON SHALL
SUBMIT TO THE COURT FOR ITS APPROVAL A
STATEMENT OF THE ESTIMATED TRAVEL
EXPENSES FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND
COURT PROCESSES. ONCE APPROVED, THE
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
CLERK OF COURT SHALL RELEASE THE
MONEY TO SAID SHERIFF OR PROCESS
SERVER. AFTER SERVICE, A STATEMENT OF
LIQUIDATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
COURT FOR APPROVAL. AFTER RENDITION
OF JUDGMENT BY THE COURT, ANY EXCESS
FROM THE DEPOSIT SHALL BE RETURNED TO
THE PARTY WHO MADE THE DEPOSIT.
IN CASE A REQUEST TO SERVE THE SUMMONS
AND OTHER PROCESSES IS MADE TO THE
CLERK OF COURT AND EX OFFICIO SHERIFF
WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PLACE
WHERE THE DEFENDANT OR THE PERSON
SUBJECT OF THE PROCESS RESIDES, A
REASONABLE
AMOUNT
SHALL
BE
WITHDRAWN FROM SAID DEPOSIT BY THE
CLERK OF THE COURT ISSUING THE PROCESS
FOR THE PURCHASE OF A POSTAL MONEY
ORDER TO COVER THE ACTUAL EXPENSES OF
THE SERVING SHERIFF.
With regard to sheriff’s expenses in executing
writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions
or safeguarding the property levied upon,
attached or seized, including kilometrage for
each kilometer of travel, guards’ fees,
warehousing and similar charges, the interested
party shall pay said expenses in an amount
estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval
of the court. Upon approval of said estimated
expenses, the interested party shall deposit such
amount with the clerk of court and ex officio
sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the
deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process,
subject to liquidation within the same period for
rendering a return on the process. THE
LIQUIDATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE
COURT. Any unspent amount shall be refunded
to the party making the deposit. A full report shall
be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with
his return, and the sheriff’s expenses shall be
taxed as costs against the judgment debtor.
October 5, 2011.
Court Administrator
TO: ALL JUDGES AND BRANCH CLERKS OF
COURT/OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF THE
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS (MeTCs),
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES (MTCCs),
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS (MTCs), AND
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS (MCTCs).
SUBJECT:
SOFTWARE
UPDATES
AND
ENHANCEMENTS ON THE SMALL CLAIMS CASE
MONITORING SYSTEM (SC2MS)
2011
October-December
RESOLUTIONS,
PHILJA NEWS
The Small Claims Case Monitoring System
(SC2MS) has been implemented in the first level courts
as an efficient monitoring and reporting tool for all
small claims cases.
To further improve the system, the Office of the
Court Administrator shall release quarterly updates
and enhancements on the SC2MS software, as may be
necessary. Compact discs (CDs) containing an
enhanced SC2MS shall be distributed to all first level
courts. Upon receipt thereof, the Branch Clerks of
Court or Officers in Charge are hereby directed to
install the updated version by following the
instructions found in the CD. The installation
procedure will automatically update the SC2MS
software pre-installed in your computer. All small
claims cases which you had previously encoded shall
remain in the database.
After installing said updates and enhancements,
you are also directed to send, thru e-mail, the monthly
inventory on small claims cases by clicking the
“generate all” button to ensure that all pending and
newly-filed cases are included in the report.
For your queries and concerns, please contact the
SC2MS Help Desk at telephone numbers: (02) 4042731 (OCA-Court Management Office) or (02) 552-9640
(SC-Management Information Systems Office); or
email us at smallclaims@sc.judiciary.gov.ph; or access
the website sc.judiciary.gov.ph.
For immediate and strict compliance.
November 9, 2011.
Court Administrator
TO: ALL FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THE HOLDING OF
TEAM BUILDING
It has always been observed that various requests
for team building activity are received by this Office.
In this regard, so as not to duly affect the performance
of regular duties and functions of the judiciary officials
and court personnel, there is a need to regulate the
granting of request for team building activity to every
lower court.
Henceforth, to observe optimal service and to
establish uniformity in the granting of any request
for team building activity, this Office shall only
authorize the holding of team building for only ONE
DAY, on OFFICIAL TIME preferably on a Friday. No
request for such an activity will be granted without
the accompanying program of activities and the
43
names of the resource speakers/facilitators, etc. during
the event.
Strict compliance with this new policy is hereby
enjoined.
November 14, 2011.
Court Administrator
TO: JUSTICES, JUDGES, COURT OFFICIALS AND
PERSONNEL OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT
OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,
SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN
CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AND SHARI’A CIRCUIT
COURTS
ALL PRIVATE PRACTICING LAWYERS
SUBJECT: SUPREME COURT [AMENDED
ADMINISTRATIVE] CIRCULAR NO. 35-2004
WHEREAS, in a Resolution dated April 26, 2010 in
Administrative Matter No. P-09-2661 [Formerly A.M.
OCA IPI No. 09-3174-P] (Anonymous Complaint v.
Gertrudes F. Felitro, Minerva A. Respicio and Edna A. Externon,
all Court Stenographers, Regional Trial Court, Branch 197,
Las Piñas City), the First Division of the Court directed
the Office of the Court Administrator to issue a circular
reminding all courts on the strict compliance with
Supreme Court [Amended] Administrative Circular
No. 35-2004 dated August 20, 2004;
WHEREFORE, the attention of all concerned,
particularly court stenographers, is called to Section
11 of the aforementioned circular, viz:
SEC . 11. Stenographers. — Stenographers shall
give certified transcript of notes taken by them
to every person requesting the same upon
payment to the Clerk of Court of (a) TEN PESOS
(Php10.00) for each page of not less than 250 words
before the appeal is taken and (b) FIVE PESOS
(Php5.00) for the same page, after the filing of the
appeal, provided, however, that one-third (1/3)
of the total charges shall accrue to the Judiciary
Development Fund (JDF) and the remaining twothirds (2/3) to the stenographer concerned.
Before the appeal – Php10.00 per page of not less
than 250 words
After the appeal – Php5.00 for the same.
For strict compliance.
November 15, 2011.
Court Administrator
44
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
PHILJA NEWS
PRIVATE
PHILJA Bulletin
Bulletin
PHILJA
OR UNAUTHORIZED USE TO AVOID
PAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE OR
IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.
3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial Building
Padre Faura Street corner Taft Avenue, Manila 1000
Philippines
2012 Upcoming
Upcoming PHILJA Events

Volume XII, Issue No. 52 October-December 2011

Transcription

Similar documents

QATAR RAIL DOHA METRO PROJECT

NM Marg DPS Vasant Kunj

Real Time Clock - e-Gizmo Mechatronix Central

This set of letters is both from the IARDC (Illinois Attorney

for sub-lease

Volume XII, Issue No. 48 October-December 2010

Venue name: Namco Funscape Description: Namco Funscape

laserDESK - scanlab.de

Volume XV, Issue No. 57 January-March 2013

1:30 pm january 29,2014