MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
COVENANT ON THE EXPRESS COURT: A 180-DAY JUSTICE SYSTEM
IN LAS PINAS CITY, PHILIPPINES
This is a COVENANT by the Five Pillars of the Criminal Justice System in Las Pinas City adopting "EXPRESS COURT: A 180-DAY JUSTICE SYSTEM".
WHEREAS, the idea of "EXPRESS COURT: A 180-DAY JUSTICE SYSTEM" evolved from the experience in Antique of three judges[1] who constantly met to exchange notes on their monthly case disposal. They dialogued with the local Pillars of the Criminal Justice System. They had no name then to give to their idea. Indeed, it was only a friendly competition among themselves to reduce their respective docket, which showed a steady growth from year to year.[2] The friendly competition, plus the cooperation they got, reversed that. It was reduced from 1,126 cases in 1986 to 879 cases in December 1988.
WHEREAS, the Antique "friendly competition" serendipitously jibed with the rules prescribed by the Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 4 dated September 22, 1988 urging Expeditious Disposition of Cases and Circular No. 1-89 dated January 19, 1989 providing Guidelines in the Conduct of Mandatory Continuous Trial as well as RA 8493 which was approved much later on February 12, 1998.
WHEREAS, EXPRESS COURT in reality is the initiative of trial judges to focus a firm but judicious control over cases under the aforesaid Circulars and RA 8493 to peg their disposition to within 180 days from filing of Ordinary cases[3] and to within 360 days from filing of Extraordinary cases[4] and within 720 days of Exceptional cases[5] via continuous trial on dates priorly agreed by both sides at arraignment or pretrial, up to the promulgation of the decision, leveling the pressure of work among the Judge and court personnel, on the one hand, and litigants as well as their lawyers, upon the other, deeming a party to have completed presentation of his/her evidence after the lapse of the dates assigned to do so (Par. II (8), Circular No. 1-89 dated January 19, 1989).
WHEREAS, in January 1997, a proposal was submitted to the Supreme Court [6] to adopt "EXPRESS COURT: A 180-DAY JUSTICE SYSTEM" in Las Pinas City but was not pursued because the proponent was reassigned in Makati. That proposal, however, started its name. The appointment of 6 new Las Pinas judges nudged the revival of the EXPRESS COURT.
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2002 the Office of the Court Administrator, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Philippine Judicial Academy adopted a MEMORANDUM ON POLICY GUIDELINES, the salient parts of which read, thus:
I. The OCA and IBP shall endeavor to have the members of the bench and the bar assist in the improvement of court proceedings.
II. The IBP shall see to it that its members undertake the following:
1. To make use of available Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods prior to resort to courts;
2. To encourage parties to include in their contracts a stipulation on compulsory resort to arbitration in any dispute arising therefrom;
3. To make full use of pre-trial and avail of court-referred mediation in appropriate cases, in order to obviate prolonged trial;
4. To resort to the modes of discovery under Rules 23 to 29 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;
5. To agree to the delegation of the reception of evidence to the clerk of court under Section 9, Rule 30 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;
6. To refer an issue of fact to commissioners in accordance with Rule 32 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;
7. To agree to the use of affidavits of witnesses in the direct examination in appropriate cases subject to the right of the opposing counsel to object to inadmissible evidence and the right to cross-examination;
8. To utilize Sections 14 and 15 of Rule 119 to ensure the appearance or examination of material witnesses for the prosecution in criminal cases;
9. To observe restraint in filing motions to dismiss but instead allege the grounds thereof in the answer as defenses;
10. To discourage the filing of motions for postponements, extensions of time to file pleadings, suspensions of proceedings and like motions; and
11. To submit well-prepared and well-researched memoranda to assist the judge in rendering decisions.
III. The OCA and the IBP shall coordinate with the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Committee in their projects, programs and activities for the implementation of these policy guidelines."
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2002 the RTC Judges of Las Pinas City passed RESOLUTION No. 02-001 to initiate the "EXPRESS COURT: A 180-DAY JUSTICE SYSTEM" in the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City and to adhere to the DAVIDE DOCTRINE.
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2003 the Caseflow Management Committee of PHILJA commended the proponent, Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, and the Las Pinas Bar Association led by Attorney Manuel Laserna, Jr., Founding President and Attorney Myrna C. Mercader, Founding Treasurer, for their initiative in taking measures to expedite the disposition of cases in Las Pinas courts.
WHEREAS, the basic assumption in the EXPRESS COURT is that he who utilizes the COURT does not only come with clean hands but is ready with evidence to do legal battle as well.
WHEREAS, EXPRESS COURT enjoins the use of the modes of discovery. Litigants and counsel are therefore reminded to be truthful in making stipulations otherwise they shall suffer for any untruthful stipulation. Thus:
To ensure that availment of the modes of discovery is otherwise untrammeled and efficacious, the law imposes serious sanctions on the party who refuses to make discovery, such as dismissing the action or proceeding or part thereof, or rendering judgment by default against the disobedient party; contempt of court, or arrest of the party or agent of the party; payment of the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining a court order to compel discovery; taking the matters inquired into as established in accordance with the claim of the party seeking discovery; refusal to allow the disobedient party support or oppose designated claims or defenses; striking out pleadings or parts thereof; staying further proceedings.
Of course, there are limitations to discovery, x x x when it can be shown that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such a manner as to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the person subject to the inquiry. And ... further limitations come into existence when the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon the recognized domains of privilege.
In fine, the liberty of a party to make discovery is well nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of the law." (G.R. No. 90478, November 21, 1991, REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN)
WHEREAS, at pretrial or even arraignment of the accused, the Judge shall require the parties/counsel to give the number of their witnesses and strongly lead them to reduce same to a minimum via the use of the modes of discovery in lieu of court testimony. In a criminal case, only if the defense agrees.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned Multi-Sectoral Represenatives of the of the Criminal Justice System of Las Pinas City hereby adopt "EXPRESS COURT: A 180-DAY JUSTICE SYSTEM" in the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City and validate the initiative taken by its Judges in RESOLUTION No. 02-001 to decide, dismiss or otherwise dispose of cases within 180 days from filing of Ordinary cases and within 360 days from filing of Extraordinary cases and within 720 days of Exceptional cases pursuant to the provisions of R.A. Act No.8493[7] ("Continuous Trial") and SC Circular No. 38-98, unless they pertain to a Special Court in which case, the period to so dispose them shall be the period prescribed for such Special Court.
FURTHER, EXPRESS COURT shall highlight the following:
(1) Pretrial. Not a perfunctory but an earnest and firm carrying out of the purposes of pre-trial, specially on stipulation of facts and limitation of the number of witnesses. Good faith, not tactics, should be the yardstick.
(2) Memoranda. Mandatory submission of simultaneous memoranda,[8] such that failure to so file [i.] raises the presumption of weakness of a party's cause, and [ii.] estops him from questioning the Court's findings of fact.[9] "Simultaneous" should literally mean "simultaneous", and not be a game of watchful waiting. Moreover, sanctions should be meted to a party filing a memorandum which is unfaithful, misleading or otherwise grossly inaccurate in the presentation of material facts.[10] Deliberate suppression of a material fact should not go unpunished. In their hearts lawyers know what is material or not.
(3) strict control on time extensions, adjournments or postponements. The policy should be `one liberality is enough; two is too much; three is a favor.'
(4) in debt or collection cases, execution pending appeal should always be allowed under bond, insofar as the actual damages claimed to be unpaid. This will discourage recalcitrant debtors from prolonging an obviously lost case.
(5) interlocutory orders should not be frequently elevated to the appellate courts on certiorari which, significantly, has been abused as a substitute for ordinary appeal and instead become a "common gambit of some lawyers".[11] In their hearts lawyers know a good case from a bad one, and really know when to expect victory from a good case and defeat from a bad one.[12]
(6) Motions for reconsideration discouraged. If filed, regarded denied if not acted in 5 days from filing as inaction means denial (Cruz vs. CIR, 8 SCRA 826,830-831). Experience shows less than 1% thereof are reconsidered. A motion for reconsideration is not even necessary in certain cases. [13]
(7) Motions to dismiss, for particulars, etc. promptly disposed. They should be served personally upon opposing counsel, which may be through the Clerk of Court at the party's expense. Failure to do so, outright denial.
Signed in the City of Las Pinas this 18th day of February 2004.
(END)
Prof. MJ Laserna Jr., AB, LLB, LLM
FEU Inst. Of Law, Manila
Founder, Las Pinas City Bar Assn Inc., 2001-2003
Sec., IBP PPLM Chapter, 2003-2005
Convenor, Lawyers for Reform/Lawyers for Roco Movement
March 4, 2004
[1] Judge Pedro I. Icamina of Branch 10, appointed 1986; Judge Benjamin Martinez of Branch 11, appointed early 1987: and Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda of Branch 12, appointed 1986, now Executive Judge in Las Piñas City.
[2] 815 cases (1983), 954 cases (1984), 1,025 cases (1985), 1,126 cases (1986).
[3] Those whose combined witnesses in each or consolidated non-criminal cases do not exceed 6 witnesses and those whose witnesses in each or consolidated criminal cases do not exceed 4 witnesses.
[4] Those whose combined witnesses in each or consolidated non-criminal cases exceed 6 witnesses but not more than 10 witnesses and those whose combined witnesses in each or consolidated criminal cases exceed 4 witnesses but not more than 8 witnesses.
[5] Those not Ordinary, Extraodinary or Archived cases
[6] Per a Manifestation in A.M. No. 96-5-178-RTC by Judge Maceda when he was Acting Executive Judge in Las Pinas City.
[7] Including but not limited to the following:
(a)Plea bargaining;
(b)Stipulation of Facts;
(c)Marking for identification of evidence of parties;
(d)Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and
(e)Such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial.
After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and evidence marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control the course of action during the trial, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice.
Limit for Trial. After consultation with the public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial.
Time Limit Between Filing of Information and Arraignment and Between Arraignment and Trial. The arraignment of an accused shall be held within thirty (30) days from the filing of the information, or from the date the accused has appeared before the justice, judge or court in which the charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. Thereafter, where a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial. Trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from arraignment as fixed by the court.
[9] While there is an old ruling to this effect, it is doubtful that this has become doctrinal or been promoted to the level of a presumption juris et de jure or irrebutable presumption.. "It should not escape attention that counsel for appellants did not file a reply brief ***. A legitimate inference is that no refutation of such circumstances, which as left unexplained, are quite damaging, could be offered." (People vs. Macaraeg, 53 SCRA 296).
[10] The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of a client's cause, it must never be at the expense of deviation from the truth." (Munoz vs. People, 53 SCRA 190, 194-195)
[11] Tan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 164 SCRA 130.
[12] "It does appear at times, and this appeal on a question of law from a lower court decision is one of them, that litigants manifest their resentment at losing cases by indulging their propensity for elevating the matter to a higher tribunal in the hope of a successful outcome, notwithstanding the absence of any clear illegality or rank injustice in the judgment thus rendered. Counsel, if faithful to the command of legal ethics insofar as their duty to the judiciary is concerned, would do well to temper such inclination on the part of clients. Otherwise, the result would be to clog further what is already the crowded dockets of the courts. (Arangco vs. Baloso, 49 SCRA 296, at pp. 297-298)
[13] When it "would raise the same point stated in the motion *** or where the issue raised is one purely of law." (Ronquillo vs. CA, 132 SCRA 274, 280-281, citing cases.)
