I wish to summarize here some of the salient points stated in a previous Philippine Supreme Court study on court caseflow management program, which is being piloted in the trial courts of Pasay City, Metro Manila and which is based on the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM), for purposes of legal research of the visitors of this blog.
The five (5) key performance areas of any Justice System are the following:
1. Access to Justice
2. Expedition and Timelines
3. Equality, Fairness and Integrity
4. Independence and Accountability
5. Public Trust and Confidence
To determine if a court is meeting its performance standards, a system must be devised to systematically collect and analyze its performance data. For example, before a court measures case backlog, it is best to evaluate first the extent in which it is keeping pace with its incoming caseload.
Because Philippine courts are courts of record, it is not difficult to conduct court and case record reviews by consulting case files, dockets and administrative reports. They are the primary sources of quantitative information and are more objective than surveys and interviews. This is not to say, though, the surveys, questionnaires, and interviews are useless tools of performance research. Another approach is the focus group approach, which requires the creation of groups of knowledgeable practitioners for the purpose of exchanges of ideas among such persons.
The Judiciary has borrowed the concept of Total Quality Management (TQM) from Business Schools. TQM is encouraged as a management strategy that enlists the participation of all members of an organization in meeting and exceeding the expectations of their clients or customers by integrating quality into every process that is performed, product produced or service delivered by their enterprise. Applied to the judiciary, it means continuous improvement of court services by injecting quality thereto to satisfy the needs of those who deal with the courts. Its goal is to provide quality service to court users.
A court is an organized whole or an assembly of interdependent parts so that a change in one part affects the whole system. Its administrative functions and processes are so closely linked with each other such that the proper discharge of one depends on the proper discharge of others. TQM finds applicability in a court system since processing court cases involves a series of administrative steps performed by various court employees from the commencement of an action to its final disposition. Quality can be integrated into these processes to satisfy and delight court users, thus enhancing the effective administration and delivery of justice.
To effectively implement TQM in a court system, the presiding judge must organize a management team composed of himself and all court personnel. Because of the nature of the office, he is the Team Leader. As such, he must cultivate the leadership abilities among his personnel, continually search for opportunities to challenge existing processes and improve the court organization, think "outside of the frame", and experiment and take risks, inspire a shared vision, think in the future tense, have a clear idea of the goals of his court, move the team towards this vision, empower others to act, actively involve his team members under an atmosphere of creativity, trust and respect for human dignity, lead the way, create standards of excellence and set examples for others to follow, recognize the contributions of each team member, celebrate team accomplishments, and make his/her members feel like heroes.
The judge must instill teamwork among all members. The word TEAM should mean “Together, Everybody Achieves More”. The catchword is “Together”. This stresses the need for "alignment," a situation where persons in a group function as a whole. A team is aligned when the individual energies and intelligence of the members are harnessed and harmonized. This results in a sense of oneness, a shared purpose and vision.
The three (3) determinants for setting an ideal climate for implementing TQM are communications, participatory decision-making in the management process, and humane treatment of employees. These mean that communication lines between the judge and staff must always be open. Court employees must be allowed to participate in deciding administrative issues since it is they who will implement the action to be taken. Any decision made should be the consensus of all team members. Each member must be treated with respect and should feel as an indispensable part of the team.
Case Management in trial courts is a process whereby judicial control over the cases is assumed and exercised, with maximum efficiency consistent with justice, from the moment of filing to disposition for purposes of reducing litigation costs and eliminating delay.
An essential tool of case management is Caseflow Management which is the process of moving cases swiftly through the court from filing to disposition. It is the heart of court administration. Thus, from the commencement of litigation to its resolution, whether by trial or settlement, any elapsed time other than reasonably required for pleadings, discovery and court events, is unacceptable and should be eliminated. To enable just and efficient resolution of cases, the court, not the lawyers or litigants, should control the pace of litigation. A strong judicial commitment is essential to reducing delay and, once achieved, maintaining a current docket.
The objectives of case management are equal treatment of all litigants by the court; timely disposition of cases; enhancement of the quality of litigation; and promotion and preservation of public confidence in the courts.
Case management is the sole and primary responsibility of a judge and court personnel. Judges must be actively involved early in the proceedings, i.e., from the time the case is filed. Firm judicial control must be maintained throughout the life of each case. The events or stages of a case must be scheduled at the earliest possible time and the time between these events should be as short as reasonably possible. This is called 'short scheduling.' Judges must create expectations that trials and other case events will occur as scheduled. They should adhere to a strict 'no-continuance' or ‘no adjournment' policy. Judges must establish an adequate information system for each case through an accurate caseload inventory report that shall include, among other data, the age and status of cases, to properly monitor and manage their caseloads.
The judge must involve all participants in the program. These are the lawyers, prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcers, court personnel and litigants. Explaining to them the caseflow process and its objectives and emphasizing the need to cooperate in terms of meeting deadlines and periods set by law will encourage readiness for pre-trial and trial.
There are four tracks under the court case flow management pilot project: Fast Track – for cases that can be easily disposed of and require minimum court supervision; Standard Track – for cases that require regular supervision by the court; Complex Track – for cases that require significant and intensive court supervision; and Holding Track – for cases that need extended case disposition time.
It starts with an inventory of cases which should describe the nature, age and status thereof, the number of cases filed and disposed of, and the age of cases at disposition time.
The judge and lawyers shall develop a caseflow chart for each track by identifying each key event in the life of a case under the track, and the maximum time prescribed by law or procedural rule between the events; ensure that the time limits are strictly observed by designating a "track coordinator" preferably, the branch clerk; and eliminate unnecessary case events and/or add necessary events consistent with timely disposition of the case.
Once case processing and procedures have been formulated through a tracking system, the judge and branch clerk must screen each case immediately after filing, and assign it to its appropriate track. The court must ensure that each scheduled case event substantially contributes to case preparation and disposition. The court must ensure that case events occur as scheduled. The court must be able to identify through its monitoring system those cases that are in danger of exceeding deadlines. Postponements or extensions must be sparingly granted and only on exceptional grounds. These must be closely monitored to determine whether a modification in the tracking system of time frames or events is necessary. Sanctions should be imposed by the court for non-compliance with established deadlines.
Another concern is records management. Records management involves the proper maintenance, preservation and accessibility of court records at the least cost and effort. The basic court records are the Dockets (Civil, Criminal, Land Registration, Search Warrants, Judgments, Entries Book -Execution Book, Reconstituted cases) and Transcripts of Stenographic Notes. The Clerk of Court shall keep a General Docket with numbered pages where all cases are recorded in numerical sequence, together with a description of the case events that have so far occurred in each case so that its particular case history can be readily seen.
Section 14, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court prohibits the taking of any court record without the authority of the court. Court records are confidential documents which may not be taken out of the court unless authorized and with the necessary safeguards.
Section 2, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court recognizes that the records of courts of justice are public documents and may be inspected during business hours. However, there are certain records which may not be open to the public. Strict confidentiality is thus observed in the following instances:
a. The Investigation Report and Supervision History of a probationer (Section 17 of the Probation Law);
b. Cases under Art. 200, of Presidential Decree No. 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code);
c. Violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972;
d. Proceedings against members of the Philippine Bar except the final judgment; and
e. Proceedings against members of the Bench; however, a copy of the decision or resolution of the Supreme Court shall be spread in the records of the judge at the Office of the Court Administrator.
Pre-trial plays an important part in the efficiency of the Justice System. It is a procedure consisting of conferences between attorneys for the parties to a lawsuit and a judge of the court. Its chief purpose is to prepare the case for an effective trial by formulating the issues, not in abstract terms but with specific facts of the particular case in mind, and stating them in the pre-trial order which then, in effect, becomes the chart for pre-trial. See Rule 18 and Rule 118, Rules of Court.
There are two stages in the pre-trial of a civil case: the negotiation stage and pre-trial proper. In both stages, the judge is the 'principal actor' and as such must actively wield his legal and moral authority in the proceeding. While there are no hard and fast rules in the conduct of a settlement, the following
techniques may be considered:
1. As soon as the parties receive each other’s pleadings, their lawyers should get in touch with one another to explore the avenues for settlement, or failing this, to determine what facts and evidence, documentary and otherwise, can be admitted during the conference. On the day of pre-trial but before the case is called, counsels for both parties may appear before the branch clerk of court for marking of their exhibits. This saves pre-trial time and effort.
2. The ideal venue for pre-trial is the courtroom itself with the judge at the bench and the parties seated across each other at the lawyers’ table. The judge, however, can be less formal and may sit with the parties and counsel. For cases involving confidential matters where pre-trial in the courtroom is not advisable, the conference may be held in chambers.
3. If held in chambers, the judge should require the presence of his branch clerk of court, interpreter and stenographer to prevent suspicion of any irregularity. The discussions should be amiable and cordial to create an atmosphere of understanding and goodwill between the parties.
4. The judge should endeavor to bring the parties to a settlement range. If the parties cannot settle, s/he should determine the reason therefor.
5. He asks plaintiff and defendant separately what possible concessions they can offer to settle the case.
6. He should take care not to appear to have pre-judged the case. He may premise his statements on assumptions. Thus, s/he may say: 'Assuming that the allegations of defendant (or plaintiff) in the pleadings are true, can you present more superior evidence?'
7. The judge must be able to highlight the 'soft spots' in the versions of both parties and exploit these to attain a just and fair pre-trial settlement.
8. The judge should remain from asking either side to name specific figures or a range of figures, i.e., 'best figure, ''highest offer, ''rock bottom figure' or 'irreducible minimum,' because the use of absolutes tend to end negotiation rather than encourage it.
9. In case of failure of settlement, pre-trial proper follows. The following are suggested techniques:
a) The judge asks plaintiff’s counsel if there are proposals for stipulation or admission of facts. The contents of exhibits already marked may be adduced by the lawyer at this point. The defendant is thereafter asked what s/he admits and if admission is refused, the reason therefor. When plaintiff is through with his/her proposals, the defendant takes his/her turn to propose admissions. The same process is observed.
b) Formulation and simplification of issues comes next. This consists of developing a complete statement of all of the actual contentions of the parties as to the law and the facts which have not been eliminated during the admission process. Any issue not raised during pre-trial and therefore not stated in the pre-trial order cannot be tried during trial on the merits. It is also at this stage that the number of witnesses and the nature of their testimonies are determined.
c) Once the issues have been defined, the judge and counsels next agree on trial dates. Whenever possible, the judge should schedule continuous trials to comply with the rule on mandatory continuous trials.
In criminal cases, the admissions of the accused cannot be used against him unless these are signed by him/her and counsel. The best time for signing is immediately after pretrial since both accused and counsel are still in court. The stenographer brings the typewriter to the courtroom. The judge then formulates and consolidates the stipulations of facts and issues as proposed by the parties. Once typed, the order is read by the lawyers and the parties who may immediately propose corrections. The signing thereafter takes place.
A pre-trial order, or, as described in the Rules, the 'record of pre-trial results' is an order which recites the action taken at the conference, the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements made by the parties as to any of the matters considered. It describes and limits the issues for trial to those not disposed of by admissions or agreements during the pre-trial and cannot anymore be altered; when entered, it controls the course of the trial.
