My experience shows that a case in the Philippines can last up to more than 13 years from the trial court up to the Supreme Court. The delay is further extended by the lengthy execution phase of the final judgment. Below is an example. I filed the civil case in 1997 before a Regional Trial Court in a town in Rizal province. It involved a huge tract of land in the province (which is now a resort). The judgment of the trial court was appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and later to the Supreme Court (SC). The high tribunal remanded it to the trial court to implement the execution phase of the final judgment. It is still pending (2010). The parties are still presenting evidence on the matter of the reimbursement of the value of the trees planted by the defendants, as mandated by the Art. 448, Civil Code (builder/planter in good faith doctrine).
Delay is an endemic institutional disease in most justice systems in the world, especially among developing states, for many reasons, e.g., lack of judges, court personnel and funds, laziness and incompetence, corruption, lack of court technology, lack of capacity building and training, archipelagic geography of the country, low salaries, poor telecoms, infrastructures, and transportation, and lack of societal vigilance and oversight over the justice system.
EX PARTE MOTION TO REVIVE THE TRIAL OF THE CASE FOR PURPOSES
OF COMPLYING WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
THE PLAINTIFFS, by counsel, respectfully state:
1. On February 28, 2002, in CA GR CV No. xxx, the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated a Decision affirming with modification the Decision, dated June 22, 1999, of this Honorable Court.
2. A certified true copy of the said Decision of the CA is attached as Annex “A” to the original of this ex parte Motion.
3. On November 25, 2009, in GR No. xxx, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution (a) granting the withdrawal by the herein plaintiffs of their petition for review on certiorari and (b) considering the said case terminated.
4. A certified true copy of the said Resolution of the Supreme Court is attached to the original of this ex part motion as Annex “B” hereof.
5. On January 14, 2010 the Supreme Court issued an Entry of Judgment in the aforecited Resolution in GR NO. xxx.
6. A certified true copy of the said Entry of Judgment of the Supreme Court is attached to the original of this ex parte motion as Annex “C” hereof.
7. On April 16, 2010, in CA GR CV No. xxx, the CA remanded/forwarded the case record of the instant case to this Honorable Court.
8. A certified true copy of the Transmittal Letter, dated April 16, 2010, of the CA addressed to this Honorable Court is attached to the original of this ex part emotion as Annex “D” hereof.
9. On May 21, 2010 the Judgment Division of the Supreme Court wrote a Letter to the undersigned counsel reporting on the status of the remand/transmittal of the record of the instant case from the SC to the CA with instructions to forthwith remand/transmit the same to this Honorable Court.
10. The original copy of the said Letter, dated May 21, 2010, of the Judgment Division of the Supreme Court is attached to the original of this ex parte motion as Annex “E” hereof.
11. The case record is now back in the possession of this Honorable Court, per a recent confirmation by the representative of the undersigned counsel with the concerned personnel of this Honorable Court on the status thereof.
12. The hearings of the instant case may now be revived by this Honorable Court to comply with the Decision, dated February 28, 2002, of the CA, affirming with modification the Decision, dated June 22, 1999, of this Honorable Court.
13. The CA decision tasks this Honorable Court “to conduct further proceedings in this case in order to ensure the proper and faithful implementation of Article 448 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.”
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that an ex parte order be issued reviving the instant case to comply with the aforementioned Decision, dated February 28, 2002, of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the Decision, dated June 22, 1999, of this Honorable Court, thus: “to conduct further proceedings in this case in order to ensure the proper and faithful implementation of Article 448 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.”
Las Pinas City, June 25, 2010.
MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
Roll No. 33640, 4/27/85
IBP Lifetime Member No. 1907
IBP PPLM Chapter
PTR, 9957969, 1/4/10, Las Pinas City
MCLE Compliance No. III-2280
NOTICE OF HEARING
Branch Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court
Branch xxx
xxx, Rizal
MABUHAY:
For the kind ex parte consideration/approval of the Honorable Court without further oral arguments, this motion not being litigious in nature.
Thank you.
Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
Cc :
Xxx LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Defendants
EXPLANATION
A copy of this ex parte motion is served on opposing counsel by registered mail due to the lack of field personnel of the undersigned counsel and the urgency of filing the same.
MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
Enclosed:
Annex “A” to Annex “E”, all certified true copies or originals, as the case may be.
