Justice for migrant workers.

REPUBLIC ACT No. 10022

AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995, AS AMENDED, FURTHER IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Paragraphs (a), (e), (g) and (h) of Section 2 of Republic Act. No. 8042, as amended, otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995," is hereby amended to read as follows:

"(a) In the pursuit of an independent foreign policy and while considering national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and the right to self-determination paramount in its relations with other states, the State shall, at all times, uphold the dignity of its citizens whether in country or overseas, in general, and Filipino migrant workers, in particular, continuously monitor international conventions, adopt/be signatory to and ratify those that guarantee protection to our migrant workers, and endeavor to enter into bilateral agreements with countries hosting overseas Filipino workers."

"(e) Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. In this regard, it is imperative that an effective mechanism be instituted to ensure that the rights and interest of distressed overseas Filipinos, in general, and Filipino migrant workers, in particular, whether regular/documented or irregular/undocumented, are adequately protected and safeguarded."

"(g) The State recognizes that the most effective tool for empowerment is the possession of skills by migrant workers. The government shall provide them free and accessible skills development and enhancement programs. Pursuant to this and as soon as practicable, the government shall deploy and/or allow the deployment only of skilled Filipino workers."

"(h) The State recognizes non-governmental organizations, trade unions, workers associations, stakeholders and their similar entities duly recognized as legitimate, are partners of the State in the protection of Filipino migrant workers and in the promotion of their welfare. The State shall cooperate with them in a spirit of trust and mutual respect. The significant contribution of recruitment and manning agencies shall from part this partnership."

Section 2. Section 3, paragraph (a) of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"(a) "Overseas Filipino worker" refers to a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a state of which he or she is not a citizen or on board a vessel navigating the foreign seas other than a government ship used for miliatry or non-commercial purposes or on an installation located offshore or on the high seas; to be used interchangeably with migrant worker."

Section 3. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to rerad as follows:

"SEC. 4. Deployment of Migrant Workers. - The State shall allow the deployment of overseas Filipino workers only in countries where the rights of Filipino migrant workers are protected. The government recognizes any of the following as a guarantee on the part of the receiving country for the protection of the rights of overseas Filipino workers:

"(a) It has existing labor and social laws protecting the rights of workers, including migrant workers;

"(b) It is a signatory to and/or a ratifier of multilateral conventions, declarations or resolutions relating to the protection of workers, including migrant workers; and

"(c) It has concluded a bilateral agreement or arrangement with the government on the protection of the rights of overseas Filipino Workers:

Provided, That the receiving country is taking positive, concrete measures to protect the rights of migrant workers in furtherance of any of the guarantees under subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) hereof.

"In the absence of a clear showing that any of the aforementioned guarantees exists in the country of destination of the migrant workers, no permit for deployment shall be issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

"The members of the POEA Governing Board who actually voted in favor of an order allowing the deployment of migrant workers without any of the aforementioned guarantees shall suffer the penalties of removal or dismissal from service with disqualification to hold any appointive public office for five (5) years, Further, the government official or employee responsible for the issuance of the permit or for allowing the deployment of migrant workers in violation of this section and in direct contravention of an order by the POEA Governing Board prohibiting deployment shall be meted the same penalties in this section.

"For this purpose, the Department of Foreign Affairs, through its foreign posts, shall issue a certification to the POEA, specifying therein the pertinent provisions of the receiving country's labor/social law, or the convention/declaration/resolution, or the bilateral agreement/arrangement which protect the rights of migrant workers.

"The State shall also allow the deployment of overseas Filipino workers to vessels navigating the foreign seas or to installations located offshore or on high seas whose owners/employers are compliant with international laws and standards that protect the rights of migrant workers.

"The State shall likewise allow the deployment of overseas Filipino workers to companies and contractors with international operations: Provided, That they are compliant with standards, conditions and requirements, as embodied in the employment contracts prescribed by the POEA and in accordance with internationally-accepted standards."

Section 4. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 5. Termination or Ban on Deployment. - Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4 hereof, in pursuit of the national interest or when public welfare so requires, the POEA Governing Board, after consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, may, at any time, terminate or impose a ban on the deployment of migrant workers."

Section 5. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:

"(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay or acknowledge any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;

"(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to recruitment or employment;

"(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority under the Labor Code, or for the purpose of documenting hired workers with the POEA, which include the act of reprocessing workers through a job order that pertains to nonexistent work, work different from the actual overseas work, or work with a different employer whether registered or not with the POEA;

"(d) To include or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment;

"(e) To influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ any worker who has not applied for employment through his agency or who has formed, joined or supported, or has contacted or is supported by any union or workers' organization;

"(f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health or morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines;

"(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement vacancies, remittance of foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs, departures and such other matters or information as may be required by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;

"(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment;

"(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged directly or indirectly in the management of travel agency;

"(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before departure for monetary or financial considerations, or for any other reasons, other than those authorized under the Labor Code and its implementing rules and regulations;

"(l) Failure to actually deploy a contracted worker without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment;

"(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage; and

"(n) To allow a non-Filipino citizen to head or manage a licensed recruitment/manning agency.

"Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

"In addition to the acts enumerated above, it shall also be unlawful for any person or entity to commit the following prohibited acts:

"(1) Grant a loan to an overseas Filipino worker with interest exceeding eight percent (8%) per annum, which will be used for payment of legal and allowable placement fees and make the migrant worker issue, either personally or through a guarantor or accommodation party, postdated checks in relation to the said loan;

"(2) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby an overseas Filipino worker is required to avail of a loan only from specifically designated institutions, entities or persons;

"(3) Refuse to condone or renegotiate a loan incurred by an overseas Filipino worker after the latter's employment contract has been prematurely terminated through no fault of his or her own;

"(4) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby an overseas Filipino worker is required to undergo health examinations only from specifically designated medical clinics, institutions, entities or persons, except in the case of a seafarer whose medical examination cost is shouldered by the principal/shipowner;

"(5) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby an overseas Filipino worker is required to undergo training, seminar, instruction or schooling of any kind only from specifically designated institutions, entities or persons, except fpr recommendatory trainings mandated by principals/shipowners where the latter shoulder the cost of such trainings;

"(6) For a suspended recruitment/manning agency to engage in any kind of recruitment activity including the processing of pending workers' applications; and

"(7) For a recruitment/manning agency or a foreign principal/employer to pass on the overseas Filipino worker or deduct from his or her salary the payment of the cost of insurance fees, premium or other insurance related charges, as provided under the compulsory worker's insurance coverage.

"The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having ownership, control, management or direction of their business who are responsible for the commission of the offense and the responsible employees/agents thereof shall be liable.

"In the filing of cases for illegal recruitment or any of the prohibited acts under this section, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the POEA Administrator or their duly authorized representatives, or any aggrieved person may initiate the corresponding criminal action with the appropriate office. For this purpose, the affidavits and testimonies of operatives or personnel from the Department of Labor and Employment, POEA and other law enforcement agencies who witnessed the acts constituting the offense shall be sufficient to prosecute the accused.

"In the prosecution of offenses punishable under this section, the public prosecutors of the Department of Justice shall collaborate with the anti-illegal recruitment branch of the POEA and, in certain cases, allow the POEA lawyers to take the lead in the prosecution. The POEA lawyers who act as prosecutors in such cases shall be entitled to receive additional allowances as may be determined by the POEA Administrator.

"The filing of an offense punishable under this Act shall be without prejudice to the filing of cases punishable under other existing laws, rules or regulations."1avvphi1

Section 6. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 7. Penalties. -

"(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day but not more than twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) nor more than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).

"(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) nor more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined therein.

"Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.

"(c) Any person found guilty of any of the prohibited acts shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).

"If the offender is an alien, he or she shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be deported without further proceedings.

"In every case, conviction shall cause and carry the automatic revocation of the license or registration of the recruitment/manning agency, lending institutions, training school or medical clinic."

Section 7. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 10. Money Claims. - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damage. Consistent with this mandate, the NLRC shall endeavor to update and keep abreast with the developments in the global services industry.

"The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The performance bond to de filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.

"Such liabilities shall continue during the entire period or duration of the employment contract and shall not be affected by any substitution, amendment or modification made locally or in a foreign country of the said contract.

"Any compromise/amicable settlement or voluntary agreement on money claims inclusive of damages under this section shall be paid within thirty (30) days from approval of the settlement by the appropriate authority.

"In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, or any unauthorized deductions from the migrant worker's salary, the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement if his placement fee and the deductions made with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

"In case of a final and executory judgement against a foreign employer/principal, it shall be automatically disqualified, without further proceedings, from participating in the Philippine Overseas Employment Program and from recruiting and hiring Filipino workers until and unless it fully satisfies the judgement award.

"Noncompliance with the mandatory periods for resolutions of case provided under this section shall subject the responsible officials to any or all of the following penalties:

"(a) The salary of any such official who fails to render his decision or resolution within the prescribed period shall be, or caused to be, withheld until the said official complies therewith;

"(b) Suspension for not more than ninety (90) days; or

"(c) Dismissal from the service with disqualification to hold any appointive public office for five (5) years.

"Provided, however, That the penalties herein provided shall be without prejudice to any liability which any such official may have incured under other existing laws or rules and regulations as a consequence of violating the provisions of this paragraph."

Section 8. The first paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 13. Free Legal Assistance; Preferential Entitlement Under the Witness Protection Program. - A mechanism for free legal assistance for victims of illegal recruitment shall be established in the anti-illegal recruitment branch of the POEA including its regional offices. Such mechanism shall include coordination and cooperation with the Department of Justice, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and other non-governmental organizations and volunteer groups."

Section 9. Section 16 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 16. Mandatory Repatriation of Underage Migrant Workers. - Upon discovery or being informed of the presence of migrant workers whose ages fall below the minimum age requirement for overseas deployment, the responsible officers in the foreign service shall without delay repatriate said workers and advise the Department of Foreign Affairs through the fastest means of communication available of such discovery and other relevant information. The license of a recruitment/manning agency which recruited or deployed an underage migrant worker shall be automatically revoked and shall be imposed a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (Php 500,000.00) but not more than One million pesos (Php 1,000,000.00). All fees pertinent to the processing of papers or documents in the recruitment or deployment shall be refunded in full by the responsible recruitment/manning agency, without need of notice, to the underage migrant worker or to his parents or guardian. The refund shall be independent of and in addition to the indemnification for the damages sustained by the underage migrant worker. The refund shall be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of the mandatory repatriation as provided for in this Act."

Section 10. Section 17 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 17. Establishment of National Reintegration Center for Overseas Filipino Workers. -A national reintegration center for overseas Filipino workers (NRCO) is hereby created in the Department of Labor and Employment for returning Filipino migrant workers which shall provide a mechanism for their reintegration into the Philippine society, serve as a promotion house for their local employment, and tap their skills and potentials for national development.

"The Department of Labor and Employment, the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA), and the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) shall, within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act, formulate a program that would motivate migrant workers to plan for productive options such as entry into highly technical jobs or undertakings, livelihood and entrepreneurial development, better wage employment, and investment of savings.

"For this purpose, the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), the Technology Livelihood Resource Center (TLRC), and other government agencies involved in training and livelihood development shall give priority to returnees who had been employed as domestic helpers and entertainers."

Section 11. Section 18 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 18. Functions of the National Reintegration Center for Overseas Filipino Workers. -The Center shall provide the following services:

"(a) Develop and support programs and projects for livelihood, entrepreneurship, savings, investments and financial literacy for returning Filipino migrant workers and their families in coordination with relevant stakeholders, service providers and international organizations;

"(b) Coordinate with appropriate stakeholders, service providers and relevant international organizations for the promotion, development and the full utilization of overseas Filipino worker returnees and their potentials;

"(c) Institute, in cooperation with other government agencies concerned, a computer-based information system on returning Filipino migrant workers shall be accessible to all local recruitment agencies and employers, both public and private;

"(d) Proved a periodic study and assessment of job opportunities for returning Filipino migrant workers;

"(e) Develop and implement other appropriate programs to promote the welfare of returning Filipino migrant workers;

"(f) Maintain an internet-based communication system for on-line registration and interaction with clients, and maintain and upgrade computer-based service capabilities of the NRCO;

"(g) Develop capacity-building programs for returning overseas Filipino workers and their families, implementers, service providers, and stakeholders; and

"(h) Conduct research for policy recommendations and program development."

Section 12. The second paragraph of Section 19 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"The establishment and operations of the Center shall be a joint undertaking of the various government agencies. The Center shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours daily including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and shall be staffed by Foreign Service personnel, service attaches or officers who represent other Philippine government agencies abroad and, if available, individual volunteers and bona fide non-government organizations from the host countries. In countries categorized as highly problematic by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Labor and Employment and where there is a concentration of Filipino migrant workers, the government must provide a Sharia or human rights lawyer, a psychologist and a social worker for the Center. In addition to these personnel, the government must also hire within the receiving country, in such number as may be needed by the post, public relation officers or case officers who are conversant, orally and in writing, with the local language, laws, customs and practices. The Labor Attache shall coordinate the operation of the Center and shall keep the Chief of Mission informed and updated on all matters affecting it."

Section 13. Section 20 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 20. Establishment of a Shared Government Information System for Migration. - An interagency committee composed of the Department of Foreign Affairs and its attached agency, the Commission on Filipinos Overseas, the Department of Labor and Employment and its attached concerned agencies, the Department of Tourism, the Department of Justice the Bureau of Immigration, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the National Telecommunications Commission, the Commission on Information and Communications Technology, the National Computer Center, the National Statistical and Coordination Board, the National Statistics Office and other government agencies concerned with overseas employment shall be established to implement a shared government information system for migration. The interagency committee shall initially make available to itself the information contained in existing data bases/files. The second phase shall involve linkaging of computer facilities on order to allow free-flow data exchanges and sharing among concerned agencies.

"The inter-agency committee shall be co-chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Labor and Employment. The National Computer Center shall provide the necessary technical assistance and shall set the appropriate information and communications technology standards to facilitate the sharing of information among the member agencies.

"The inter-agency committee shall meet regularly to ensure the immediate and full implementation of this section and shall explore the possibility setting up a central storage facility for the data on migration. The progress of the implementation of this section shall be include in the report to Congress of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Labor and Employment under Section 33.

"The inter-agency committee shall convene to identify existing data bases which shall be declassified and shared among member agencies. These shared data bases shall initially include, but not be limited to, the following information:

"(a) Masterlists of Filipino migrant workers/overseas Filipino classified according to occupation/job category, civil status, by country/state of destination including visa classification;

"(b) Inventory of pending legal cases involving Filipino migrant workers and other Filipino nationals, including those serving prison terms;

"(c) Masterlists of departing/arriving Filipinos;

"(d) Statistical profile on Filipino migrant workers/overseas Filipinos/tourists;

"(e) Blacklisted foreigners/undesirable aliens;

"(f) Basic data on legal systems, immigration policies, marriage laws and civil and criminal codes in receiving countries particularly those with large numbers of Filipinos;

"(g) List of Labor and other human rights instruments where receiving countries are signatories;

"(h) A tracking system of past and present gender disaggregated cases involving male and female migrant workers, including minors; and

"(i) Listing of overseas posts which may render assistance to overseas Filipinos, in general, and migrant workers, in particular."

Section 14. Subparagraph (b.1) of paragraph (b) of Section 23 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"(b.1) Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. - The Administration shall regulate private sector participation in the recruitment and overseas placement of workers by setting up a licensing and registration system. It shall also formulate and implement, in coordination with appropriate entities concerned, when necessary, a system for promoting and monitoring the overseas employment of Filipino workers taking into consideration their welfare and the domestic manpower requirements. It shall be responsible for the regulation and management of overseas employment from the pre-employment stage, securing the best possible employment terms and conditions for overseas Filipino workers, and taking into consideration the needs of vulnerable sectors and the peculiarities of sea-based and land-based workers. In appropriate cases, the Administration shall allow the lifting of suspension of erring recruitment/manning agencies upon the payment of fine of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) for every month of suspension.

"in addition to its powers and functions, the Administration shall inform migrant workers not only of their rights as workers but also of their rights as human beings, instruct and guide the workers how to assert their rights and provide the available mechanism to redress violation of their rights. It shall also be responsible for the implementation, in partnership with other law-enforcement agencies, of an intensified program against illegal recruitment activities. For this purpose, the POEA shall provide comprehensive Pre-Employment Orientation Seminars (PEOS) that will discuss topics such as prevention of illegal recruitment and gender-sensitivity.

"The Administration shall not engage in the recruitment and placement of overseas workers except on a government-to-government arrangement only.

"In the recruitment and placement of workers to service the requirements for trained and competent Filipino workers of foreign governments and their instrumentalitys, and such other employers as public interests may require, the Administration shall deploy only to countries where the Philippine has conclude bilateral labor agreements or arrangements: Provided, That such countries shall guarantee to protect the rights of Filipino migrant workers; and Provided, further, That such countries shall observe and/or comply with the international laws and standards for migrant workers."

Section 15. Sub-paragraph (b.2) of Paragraph (b) of Section 23 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"(b.2) Overseas Workers Welfare Administration. - The Welfare officer of in his absence, the coordinating officer shall provide the Filipino migrant worker and his family all the assistance they may need in the enforcement of contractual obligations by agencies or entities and/or by their principals. In the performance of this function, he shall make representation and may call on the agencies or entities concerned to conferences or conciliation meetings for the purpose of settling the compliance or problems brought to his attention. The OWWA shall likewise formulate and implement welfare programs for overseas Filipino workers and their families while they are abroad and upon their return. It shall ensure the awareness by the overseas Filipino workers and their families of these programs and other related governmental programs.

"In the repatriation of workers to be undertaken by OWWA, the latter shall be authorized to pay repatriation-related expenses, such as fines or penalties, subject to such guidelines as the OWWA Board of Trustees may prescribe."

Section 16. Under Section 23 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, add new paragraphs (c) and (d) with their corresponding subparagraphs to read as follows:

"(c) Department of Health. - The Department of Health (DOH) shall regulate the activities and operations of all clinics which conduct medical, physical, optical, dental, psychological and other similar examinations, hereinafter referred to as health examinations, on Filipino migrant workers as requirement for their overseas employment. Pursuant to this, the DOH shall ensure that:

" (c.1) The fees for the health examinations are regulated, regularly monitored and duly published to ensure that the said fees are reasonable and not exorbitant;

" (c.2) The Filipino migrant worker shall only be required to undergo health examinations when there is reasonable certainty that he or she will be hired and deployed to the jobsite and only those health examinations which are absolutely necessary for the type of job applied for or those specifically required by the foreign employer shall be conducted;

" (c.3) No group or groups of medical clinics shall have a monopoly of exclusively conducting health examinations on migrant workers for certain receiving countries;

" (c.4) Every Filipino migrant worker shall have the freedom to choose any of the DOH-accredited or DOH-operated clinics that will conduct his/her health examinations and that his or her rights as a patient are respected. The decking practice, which requires an overseas Filipino worker to go first to an office for registration and then farmed out to a medical clinic located elsewhere, shall not be allowed;

" (c.5) Within a period of three (3) years from the effectivity of this Act, all DOH regional and/or provincial hospitals shall establish and operate clinics that can be serve the health examination requirements of Filipino migrant workers to provide them easy access to such clinics all over the country and lessen their transportation and lodging expenses and

" (c.6) All DOH-accredited medical clinics, including the DOH-operated clinics, conducting health examinations for Filipino migrant workers shall observe the same standard operating procedures and shall comply with internationally-accepted standards in their operations to conform with the requirements of receiving countries or of foreign employers/principals.

"Any Foreign employer who does not honor the results of valid health examinations conducted by a DOH-accredited or DOH-operated clinic shall be temporarily disqualified from the participating in the overseas employment program, pursuant to POEA rules and regulations.

"In case an overseas Filipino worker is found to be not medically fit upon his/her immediate arrival in the country of destination, the medical clinic that conducted the health examination/s of such overseas Filipino worker shall pay for his or her repatriation back to the Philippines and the cost of deployment of such worker.

"Any government official or employee who violates any provision of this subsection shall be removed or dismissed from service with disqualification to hold any appointive public office for five(5) years. Such penalty is without prejudice to any other liability which he or she may have incurred under existing laws, rules or regulations.

"(d) Local Government Units. - In the fight against illegal recruitment, the local government units (LGUs), in partnership with the POEA, other concerned government agencies , and non-government organizations advocating the rights and welfare of overseas Filipino workers, shall take a proactive stance by being primarily responsible for the dissemination of information to their constituents on all aspects of overseas employment. To carry out this task, the following shall be undertaken by the LGUs:

"(d.1) Provide a venue for the POEA, other concerned government agencies and non-government organizations to conduct PEOS to their constituents on a regular basis;

"(d.2) Establish overseas Filipino worker help desk or kiosk in their localities with the objective of providing current information to their constituents on all the processes aspects of overseas employment. Such desk or kiosk shall, as be linked to the database of all concerned government agencies, particularly the POEA for its updated lists of overseas job orders and licensed recruitment agencies in good standing."

Section 17. Subparagraph ( c ) of Section of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"( c ) To tap the assistance of reputable law firms, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, other bar associations and other government legal experts on overseas Filipino worker laws to complement the government's efforts to provide legal assistance to our migrant workers;"

Section 18. Section 25 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 25. Legal Assistance Fund. - There is herby established a legal assistance fund for migrant workers, hereinafter referred to as the Legal Assistance Fund, in the amount of one hundred million pesos (P100,000,000.00) to be constituted from the following sources.

"Fifty million pesos (50,000,000.00) from the Contingency Fund of the President;

"Thirty million pesos (30,000,000.00) from the Contingency Fund of the President Social Fund;

"Twenty million pesos (20,000,000.00) from the Welfare Fund for Overseas Workers established under Letter of Instructions No. 537 as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 1694 and 1809; and

"An amount appropriated in the annual General Appropriations Act (GAA) which shall not be less than Thirty million pesos (30,000,000.00) per year: Provided, that the balance of the Legal Assistance Fund (LAF) including the amount appropriated for the year shall not be less than One hundred million pesos (P100,000,000.00) : Provided, further, That the fund shall be treated as a special fund in the National Treasury and its balance, including the amount appropriated in the GAA, which shall form part of the Fund, shall not revert to the General Fund.

" Any balances of existing funds which have been set aside by the government specifically as legal assistance or defense fund to help migrant workers shall upon effectivity of this Act, be turned over to, and form part of, the Fund created under this Act."

Section 19. Section 26 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 26. Uses of the Legal Assistance Fund. - The Legal Assistance Fund created under the preceding section shall be used exclusively6 to provide legal services to migrant workers and overseas Filipinos in distress in accordance with the guidelines, criteria and procedures promulgated in accordance with Section 24 ( a ) herof. The expenditures to be charged against the Fund shall include the fees for the foreign lawyers to be hired by the Legal Assistant for Migrant Workers Affairs to represent migrant workers facing charges or in filing cases against erring or abusive employers abroad, bail bonds to secure the temporary releases and other litigation expenses: Provided, That at the end of every year, the Department of Foreign Affairs shall include in its report to Congress, as provided for under Section 33 of this Act, the status of the Legal Assistance Fund, including the expenditures from the said fund duly audited by the Commission on Audit (COA): Provided, further, That the hiring of foreign legal counsels, when circumstances warrant urgent action, shall be exempt from the coverage of Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Act."

Section 20. Section 32 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 32. POEA, OWWA and other Boards; Additional Memberships. - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the respective Boards of the POEA and the OWWA shall, in addition to their present composition, have three (3) members each who shall come from the women, sea-based and land-based sectors respectively, to be selected and nominated openly by the general membership of the sector being represented.

" The selection and nomination of the additional members from the women, sea-based and land-based sectors shall be governed by the following guidelines:

"(a) The POEA and the OWWA shall launch a massive information campaign on the selection of nominees and provide for a system of consultative sessions for the certified leaders or representatives of the concerned sectors, at least three (3) times, within ninety (90) days before the boards shall be convened, for purposes of selection. The process shall be open, democratic and transparent;

"(b) Only non-government organizations that protect and promote the rights and welfare of overseas Filipino workers, duly registered with the appropriate Philippine government agency and in good standing as such, and in existence for at least three (3) years prior to the nomination shall be qualified to nominate a representative for each sector to the Board;

"(c) The nominee must be at least twenty-five (25) years of age, able to read and write, and a migrant worker at the time of his or her nomination or was a migrant worker with at least three (3) years experience as such; and

"(d) A final list of all the nominees selected by the OWWA/POEA governing boards, which shall consist of three(3) names for each sector to be represented, shall be submitted to the President and published in a newspaper of general circulation;

"Within thirty (30) days from the submission of the list, the President shall select and appoint from the list, the representatives to the POEA/OWWA governing boards.

"The additional members shall have a term of three (3) years and shall be eligible for reappointment for another three (3) years. In case of vacancy, the President shall in accordance with the provisions of this Act, appoint a replacement who shall serve the unexpired term of his or her predecessor.

"Any executive issuances or orders issued that contravene the provisions of this section shall have no force and effect.

"All other government agencies and government-owned or controlled corporations which require at least one (1) representative from the overseas workers sector to their respective boards shall follow all the applicable provisions of this section."

Section 21. The first and last paragraph of Section 33 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 33. Report to Congress. - In order to inform the Philippine Congress on the implementation of the policy enunciated in Section 4 hereof, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Labor and Employment shall submit separately to the said body a semi-annual report of Philippine foreign posts located in countries hosting Filipino migrant workers. The mid-year report covering the period January to June shall be submitted not later than October 31 of the same year while the year-end report covering the period July to December shall be submitted not later than May 31 of the following year. The report shall include, but shall not limited to, the following information:

" x x x

" Any officer of the government who fails to submit the report as stated in this section shall be subject to an administrative penalty of dismissal from the service with disqualification to hold any appointive public office for five (5) years."

Section 22. Section 35 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 35. Exemption from Travel Tax Documentary Stamp and Airport Fee. - All laws to the contrary notwithstanding, the migrant workers shall be exempt from the payment of travel tax and airport-fee upon proper showing of proof entitlement by the POEA.

"The remittances of all overseas Filipino workers, upon showing of the same proof of entitlement by the overseas Filipino worker's beneficiary or recipient, shall be exempt from the payment of documentary stamp tax.

Section 23. A new Section 37-A. of Replublic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby added to read as follows:

"SEC. 37-A. Compulsory Insurance Coverage for Agency-Hired Workers. - In addition to the performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/manning agency under Section 10, each migrant worker deployed by a recruitment/manning agency shall be covered by a compulsory insurance policy which shall be secured at no cost to the said worker. Such insurance policy shall be effective for the duration of the migrant worker's employment and shall cover, at the minimum:

"(a) Accidental death, with at least Fifteen thousand United States dollars (US$10,000.00) survivor's benefit payable to the migrant worker's beneficiaries;

"(c) Permanent total disablement, with at least Seven thousand five hundred United States dollars (US$7,500.00) disability benefit payable to the migrant worker. The following disabilities shall be deemed permanent: total, complete loss of sight of both eyes; loss of two(2) limbs at or above the ankles or wrists; permanent complete paralysis of two (2) limbs; brain injury resulting to incurable imbecility or insanity;

"(d) Repatriation cost of the worker when his/her employment is terminated without any valid cause, including the transport of his or her personal belongings. In case of death, the insurance provider shall arrange and pay for the repatriation or return of the worker's remains. The insurance provider shall also render any assistance necessary in the transport including, but not limited to, locating a local licensed funeral home, mortuary or direct disposition facility to prepare the body for transport, completing all documentation, obtaining legal clearances, procuring consular services, providing necessary casket or air transport container, as well as transporting the remains including retrieval from site of death and delivery to the receiving funeral home;

"(e) Subsistence allowance benefit, with at least One hundred United States dollars (US$100.00) Per month for a maximum of six (6) months for a migrant worker who is involved in a case or litigation for the protection of his/her rights in the receiving country;

"(f) Money claims arising from employer's liability which may be awarded or given to the worker in a judgment or settlement of his or her case in the NLRC. The insurance coverage for money claims shall be equivalent to at least three (3) months for every year of the migrant worker's employment contract;

"In addition to the above coverage, the insurance policy shall also include:

"(g) Compassionate visit. When a migrant worker is hospitalized and has been confined for at least seven (7) consecutive days, he shall be entitled to a compassionate visit by one (1) family member or a requested individual. The insurance company shall pay for the transportation cost of the family member or requested individual to the major airport closest to the place of hospitalization of the worker. It is, however, the responsibility of the family member or requested individual to meet all visa and travel document requirements;

"(h) Medical evacuation. When an adequate medical facility is not available proximate to the migrant worker, as determined by the insurance company's physician and/or a consulting physician, evacuation under appropriate medical supervision by the mode of transport necessary shall be undertaken by the insurance provider; and

"(i) Medical repatriation. When medically necessary as determined by the attending physician, repatriation under medical supervision to the migrant worker's residence shall be undertaken by the insurance provider at such time that the migrant worker is medically cleared for travel by commercial carrier. If the period to receive medical clearance to travel exceeds fourteen (14) days from the date of discharge from the hospital, an alternative appropriate mode of transportation, such as air ambulance, may be arranged. Medical and non-medical escorts may be provided when necessary.

"Only reputable private insurance companies duly registered with the Insurance Commission (IC) , which are in existence and operational for at least Five hundred million pesos (P500,000,000.00) to be determined by the IC, and with a current year certificate of authority shall be qualified to provide for the worker's insurance coverage. Insurance companies who have directors, partners, officers, employees or agents with relatives, within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, who work or have interest in any of the licensed recruitment/manning agencies or in any of the government agencies involved in the overseas employment program shall be disqualified from providing this workers' insurance coverage.

"The recruitment/manning agency shall have the right to choose from any of the qualified insurance providers the company that will insure the migrant worker it will deploy. After procuring such insurance policy, the recruitment/manning agency shall provide an authenticated copy thereof to the migrant worker. It shall then submit the certificate of insurance coverage of the migrant worker to POEA as a requirement for the issuance of an Overseas Employment Certificate (OEC) to the migrant worker. In the case of seafarers who are insured under policies issued by foreign insurance companies, the POEA shall accept certificates or other proofs of cover from recruitment/manning agencies: Provided, That the minimum coverage under sub-paragraphs (a) to (i) are included therein.

"Any person having a claim upon the policy issued pursuant to subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this section shall present to the insurance company concerned a written notice of claim together with pertinent supporting documents. The insurance company shall forthwith ascertain the truth and extent of the claim and make payment within ten (10) days from the filing of the notice of claim.

"Any claim arising from accidental death, natural death or disablement under this section shall be paid by the insurance company without any contest and without the necessity of providing fault or negligence of any kind on the part of the insured migrant worker: Provided, That the following documents, duly authenticated by the Philippine foreign posts, shall be sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim:

"(1) Death Certificate - In case of natural or accidental death;

"(2) Police or Accident Report - In case of accidental death; and

"(3) Medical Certificate - In case of permanent disablement;

"For repatriation under subparagraph (d) hereof, a certification which states the reason/s for the termination of the migrant worker's employment and the need for his or her repatriation shall be issued by the Philippine foreign post or the Philippine Overseas Labor Office (POLO) located in the receiving country.

"For subsistence allowance benefit under subparagraph (e), the concerned labor attaché or, in his absence, the embassy or consular official shall issue a certification which states the name of the case, the names of the parties and the nature of the cause of action of the migrant worker.

"For the payment of money claims under subparagraph (f), the following rules shall govern:

"(1) After a decision has become final and executor or a settlement/compromise agreement has been reached between the parties at the NLRC, an order shall be released mandating the respondent recruitment/manning agency to pay the amount adjudged or agreed upon within thirty (30) days;

"(2) The recruitment/manning agency shall then immediately file a notice of claim with its insurance provider for the amount of liability insured, attaching therewith a copy of the decision or compromise agreement;

"(3) Within ten (10) days from the filing of notice of claim, the insurance company shall make payment to the recruitment/manning agency the amount adjudged or agreed upon, or the amount of liability insured, whichever is lower. After receiving the insurance payment, the recruitment/manning agency shall immediately pay the migrant worker's claim in full, taking into account that in case the amount of insurance coverage is insufficient to satisfy the amount adjudged or agreed upon, it is liable to pay the balance thereof;

"(4) In case the insurance company fails to make payment within ten (10) days from the filing of the claim, the recruitment/ manning agency shall pay the amount adjudged or agreed upon within the remaining days of the thirty (30)-day period, as provided in the first subparagraph hereof;

"(5) If the worker's claim was not settled within the aforesaid thirty (30)-day period, the recruitment/manning agency's performance bond or escrow deposit shall be forthwith garnished to satisfy the migrant worker's claim;

"(6) The provision of compulsory worker's insurance under this section shall not affect the joint and solidary liability of the foreign employer and the recruitment/manning agency under Section 10;

"(7) Lawyers for the insurance companies, unless the latter is impleaded, shall be prohibited to appear before the NLRC in money claims cases under this section.

"Any question or dispute in the enforcement of any insurance policy issued under this section shall be brought before the IC for mediation or adjudication.

"In case it is shown by substantial evidence before the POEA that the migrant worker who was deployed by a licensed recruitment/manning agency has paid for the premium or the cost of the insurance coverage or that the said insurance coverage was used as basis by the recruitment/manning agency to claim any additional fee from the migrant worker, the said licensed recruitment/manning agency shall lose its license and all its directors, partners, proprietors, officers and employees shall be perpetually disqualified from engaging in the business of recruitment of overseas workers. Such penalty is without prejudice to any other liability which such persons may have incurred under existing laws, rules or regulations.

"For migrant workers recruited by the POEA on a government-to-government arrangement, the POEA shall establish a foreign employers guarantee fund which shall be answerable to the workers' monetary claims arising from breach of contractual obligations. For migrant workers classified as rehires, name hires or direct hires, they may opt to be covered by this insurance coverage by requesting their foreign employers to pay for the cost of the insurance coverage or they may pay for the premium themselves. To protect the rights of these workers, the POEA shall provide them adequate legal assistance, including conciliation and mediation services, whether at home or abroad.

"At the end of every year, the Department of Labor and Employment and the IC shall jointly make an assessment of the performance of all insurance providers, based upon the report of the NLRC and the POEA on their respective interactions and experiences with the insurance companies, and they shall have the authority to ban or blacklist such insurance companies which are known to be evasive or not responsive to the legitimate claims of migrant workers. The Department of Labor and Employment shall include such assessment in its year-end report to Congress.

"For purposes of this section, the Department of Labor and Employment, IC, NLRC and the POEA, in consultation with the recruitment/manning agencies and legitimate non-government organizations advocating the rights and welfare of overseas Filipino workers, shall formulate the necessary implementing rules and regulations.

"The foregoing provisions on compulsory insurance coverage shall be subject to automatic review through the Congressional Oversight Committee immediately after three (3) years from the effectivity of this Act in order to determine its efficacy in favor of the covered overseas Filipino workers and the compliance by recruitment/manning agencies and insurance companies, without prejudice to an earlier review if necessary and warranted for the purpose of modifying, amending and/or repealing these subject provisions.

Section 24. A new Section 37-B of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby added to read as follows:

"Sec. 37-B. Congressional Oversight Committee. - There is hereby created a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee composed of five (5) Senators and five (5) Representatives to be appointed by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, respectively. The Oversight Committee shall be co-chaired by the chairpersons of the Senate Committee on Labor and Employment and the House of Representatives Committee on Overseas Workers Affairs. The Oversight Committee shall have the following duties and functions:

"(a) To set the guidelines and overall framework to monitor and ensure the proper implementation of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, as well as all programs, projects and activities related to overseas employment;

"(b) To ensure transparency and require the submission of reports from concerned government agencies on the conduct of programs, projects and policies relating to the implementation of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended;

"(c) To approve the budget for the programs of the Oversight Committee and all disbursements therefrom, including compensation of all personnel;

"(d) To submit periodic reports to the President of the Philippines and Congress on the implementation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended;

"(e) To determine weaknesses in the law and recommend the necessary remedial legislation or executive measures; and

"(f) To perform such other duties, functions and responsibilities as may be necessary to attain its objectives.

"The Oversight Committee shall adopt its internal rules of procedure, conduct hearings and receive testimonies, reports, and technical advice, invite or summon by subpoena ad testificandum any public official or private citizen to testify before it, or require any person by subpoena duces tecum documents or other materials as it may require consistent with the provisions of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended.

"The Oversight Committee shall organize its staff and technical panel, and appoint such personnel, whether on secondment from the Senate and the House of Representatives or on temporary, contractual, or on consultancy, and determine their compensation subject to applicable civil service laws, rules and regulations with a view to ensuring a competent and efficient secretariat.

"The members of the Oversight Committee shall not receive additional compensation, allowances or emoluments for services rendered thereto except traveling, extraordinary and other necessary expenses to attain its goals and objectives.

"The Oversight Committee shall exist for a period of ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act and may be extended by a joint concurrent resolution."

Section 25. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The departments and agencies charged with carrying out the provisions of this Act, except as otherwise provided herein, in consultation with the Senate Committee on Labor and Employment and the House of Representatives Committee on Overseas Workers Affairs, shall, within sixty (60) days after the effectivity of this Act, formulate the necessary rules and regulations for its effective implementation.

Section 26. Funding. - The departments, agencies, instrumentalities, bureaus, offices and government-owned and controlled corporations charged with carrying out the provisions of this Act shall include in their respective programs the implementation of this Act, the funding of which shall be included in the General Appropriations Act. The Congressional Oversight Committee on Overseas Workers Affairs shall have the sum of Twenty-five million pesos (P25,000,000.00), half of which shall be charged against the current appropriations of the Senate while the other half shall be charged against the current appropriations of the House of Representatives, to carry out its powers and functions for its initial operations and for fiscal years wherein the General Appropriations Act is reenacted and no provision for its continued operation is included in such Act. Thereafter, such amount necessary for its continued operations shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

Section 27. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason, may portion of this Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the other provisions not affected thereby.

Section 28. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders, issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 29. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,

(Sgd.) PROSPERO C. NOGRALES
Speaker of the House of Representatives

(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE
President of the Senate

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 5649 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on January 18, 2010 and December 18, 2009, respectively.

(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP
Secretary General
House of Represenatives


(Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYES
Secretary of Senate

Approved: March 8, 2010

(Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
President of the Philippines

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Small claims courts; basic info.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A. M. No. 08-8-7-SC February 16, 2010

(Re: RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES.) - The Court Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Technical Working Group on the Small Claims Courts Pilot Project, to APPROVE the –

R E S O L U T I O N

(a) Amendment of Section 8(d), Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, with the addition of the following provision as regards filing fees for frequent filers in small claims cases:

For small claims cases, only those fees set forth in this Rule, as amended, shall be collected. If more than ten (10) small claims are filed by one party in the court station within the calendar year, an additional filing fee of P500.00 shall be paid for every claim filed after the tenth (10th) claim, and an additional P100.00 or a total of P600.00 for every claim filed after the twentieth (20th) claim, and another P100.00 or a total of P700.00 for every claim filed after the thirtieth (30th) claim, and another P100.00 for every tenth additional case thereafter, progressively and cumulatively, but the total filing fees shall not exceed P20, 000.00. In no case shall a party pay filing fees of more than P20, 000.00 per claim in a calendar year.

Each party filing a claim shall declare in the Statement of Claim the number of small claims cases that party filed in the court station within the calendar year.

(b) Addition of the following statement in the Statement of Claim (Form SCC),particularly between Nos. 6 and 7 thereof:

6-A. In this court station, how many small claims cases have you filed within this year prior to this present cases? _________________
(Sa court station na ito, pang ilang kaso na itong isinampa mo sa loob ng kasalukuyang taon? _________________ )

(c) Two (2) Forms on Information for the Plaintiff (Form I-SCC-Info and Information for the Defendant (Form 3-SCC-Info), to wit:

INFORMATION FOR THE PALINTIFF
(the person filing the claim)
(Kaalaman para sa Naghahabla)

1.

"SMALL CLAIMS RULE" – is a special procedure where money claims for P100,00.00 or less are heard. The process is quick and inexpensive; the procedure is simple and informal.
(TUNTUNIN SA PAGSINGIL NG MALILIIT NA HALAGA - ay natatanging pamamaraan sa pagdinig kung saan ang halagang salapi na sinisingil ay P100,000.00 o mas mababa. Ang proseso ay simple at hindi pormal.)
2.

You are the plaintiff. The person you are filing the case against is the defendant.
(Ikaw ang Naghahabla. Ang taong siyang sinampahan ng kaso ang Hinabla.
3.

Before you fill up this Form, read these Instructions to know your rights. Or, you may inquire about your rights and the Small Claims Procedure with the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the place where you intend to file your claim.
(Bago mo sagutin ang form na ito basahin muna ang mga tagubilin upang malaman ang iyong mga karapatan. Maari ka ring magtanong, tungkol sa iyong mga karapatan sa Office of the Clerk of Court [OCC] ng lugar kung saan mo nais maghain ng reklamo ukol sa pagsingil ng maliit na hlaga.)
4.

If your case falls under the Small Claims Rule, theses are the things you can do at home or in the barangay:
(Kung ang iyong kaso ay nasasaklaw ng Tuntunin sa Pagsingil ng Maliliit ng Halaga, ang mga bagay na ito ang maaari mong gawin sa bahay o sa barangay:)

a. GATHER ALL DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE PERTINENT TO THE CLAIM.
(TIPUNIN ANG LAHAT NG DOKUMENTO AT MGA KATIBAYANG SSUSUPORTA SA IYONG PAGSINGIL.)

Examples are: (Mga Halimbawa nito:)

- Contract/Agreement
(kontrata/Kasunduan)

- Promissory Note / Receipts / Affidavit of Witness/es /Other Important documents such as Check/s or Picture/s
(Katibayan ng Pagkakautang / Resibo / Sinumpaang Salaysay ng mga Saksi / Testigo / iba pang dokumento tulad ng Tseke at larawan.)

b. LATEST DEMAND LETTER (if ANY). ITS PROOF OF SERVICE AND PROOF OF RECEIPT
(PINAKAHULING LIHAM NG PANININGIL [KUNG MERON], KATIBAYAN NG PAGPADALA AT PAGKATANGGAP NITO.)

c. CERTIFICATE TO FILE ACTION FROM THE BARANGAY, IF NECESSARY
(KATUNAYAN NG PAGSASAMPA NG KASO SA HUKUMAN GALING SA BARANGAY, KUNG KINAKAILANGAN.)

d. SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IN CASE PALINTIFF HEARING.
(NATATANGING GAWAD-KAPANGYARIHAN o "SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY" KUNG ANG NAGHAHABLA AY HINDI MAKADALO SA PAGDINIG.)

e. SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE OR BOARD RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING YOU TO FILE THE CASE, IF YOU ARE REPRESENTING A CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, COOPERATIVE OR ASSOCIATION.
(PATUNAY NG KALIHIM O RESOLUSYON NG LUPON NA NAGPAPAHINTULOT SA IYONG KUMATAWAN SA LUPON SA PAG SAMPA NG KASO.)

f. if you are unable to pay the filing fees because you have no adequate financial means, you may file the case as an indigent by getting FORM 6-SCC AND ATTACHING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:

Affidavit of indigency
Barangay Certificate of indigency
City or Municipal Assessor’s Certificate
City or Municipal Treasurer’s Office Certificate
Affidavit of 2 disinterested persons

(Kung hindi mo mabayaran ang filing fees dahil wala kang sapat na kakayahang pinansyal, maari kang magsampa ng kaso bilang isang taong walang sapat na kabuhayan sa pamamagitan ng pagsagot ng Form 6-SCC KALAKIPANG MGA SUMUSUNOD NA DOKUMENTO:

Sinumpaang Salaysay na Walang Sapat ng Kabuhayan
Patunay ng Barangay na Walang Sapat na Kabuhayan
Patunay ng Panglungsod na Tagatasa (assessor)
Patunay ng Tanggapan ng Panglungsod na Ingat-Yaman
Sinumpaang Salaysay ng 2 Taong Hindi Interesado)
#

Fill up Form 1-SCC. Attach to the Form your supporting documents and affidavits of witnesses.
(Punuan ang Form 1-SCC. Ilakip sa Form ang iyong mga dokumento at sinumpaang salaysay ng mga testigo / saksi.)

1.

Make copies of ALL pages of this form and your supporting documents (file the original in court, make a copy for each plaintiff or defendant named in the case and an extra copy for yourself).
(Gumawa nng lahat ng pahina ng Form na ito at ng iyong mga dokumento [ihain ang orihinal sa hukuman, gumawa ng kopya para sa bawat Naghahabla o Hinahabla sa kaso at karagdagang kopya para sa iyo.])
2.

If the original documents consist of records that could not be separated, you can photocopy the pertinent document and have it certified by the Clerk of Court in the OCC as a faithful reproduction of the original.
(Kung ang orihinal na dokumento ay di maihiwalay, maari mong ipakopya ito at ipacertify sa Clerk of Court ng OCC na ang dokumento ay totoo at tapat na kopya ng orihinal)

#

Have the form and all your supporting documents, especially the Verification form, notarized by the Clerk of Court in the OCC.
(Kailangan ang Form at lahat ng kalakip na dokumento, lalong higit ang Form ng Patotoo ay pinatunayan / ninotaryo ng Clerk of Court [OCC] o Branch Clerk of Court.)
#

Pay the filing fee. (except if your motion to sue as an indigent has been granted)
(Magbayad ng bayarin sa pagtala [maliban kung ang iyong kahilingan na makapagsampa ng kaso bilang isang taong walang sapat na kabuhayan ay napagtibay na.])
#

Get the date and time of your hearing from the court to which your case was assigned.
[Alamin ang araw at oras ng pagdinig sa hukuman kung saan ang iyong kaso ay nakahabilin.]
#

GO TO THE COURT ON YOUR HEARING DATE. Bring the originals of all certified documentary evidence attached to your Form 1-SCC to prove your case.
[PUMUNTA SA HUKUMAN SA PETSA AT ARAW NG PAGDINIG. Dalhin ang mga orihinal ng lahat ng dokumento ng katibayan, higit lalo yaong kalakip sa iyong Form 1-SCC para patunayan ang iyong kaso.]
#

YOU CANNOT HAVE A LAWYER AT THE HEARING. You may consult a lawyer before or after the hearing but the lawyer cannot appear for or with you at the hearing.
(HUWAG KANG MAGSAMA NG ABOGADO SA PAGDINIG. Maari kang makipag-usap o kumonsulta sa abogado bago o pagkatapos ng pagdinig pero ang abogado ay hindi pinahihintulutang dumalo para sa iyo sa pagdinig.)

1.

If you are representing a corporation, partnership, cooperative or association, you must bring your original written authority to appear at the hearing and to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents.
(Kung iyong kinakatawan ay korporasyon, bakasan, kooperatiba o asosayon / Samahan, kinakailangang magdala ka ng orihinal na gawad-kapangyarihan na dumalo sa pagdinig at para sa mapayapang pag-aayos, sumailalim sa alternatibong paraan ng pag-aayos o gumawa ng pag-amin o makipagyari sa mga pangyayari at dokumento.)

#

You must be aware that upon the filing of this case, the judge may dismiss your claim if she or he finds legal grounds for dismissal such as lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, improper venue, etc. as enumerated in Section 1 of Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Binibigyan ka ng babala na sa pagsampa ng kaso, maaring maipawalang-saysay ng hukuman ang iyong kaso kung nakita niya na mayroong legal na batayan para maipawalang-saysay ito, tulad ng kawalan ng kapangyarihan sa bagay ng kaso, hindi wasto ang lugar na pinagsampahan ng kaso, etc. na isinasaad sa Section 1, Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.)

INFORMATION FOR THE DEFENDANT
(the person against whom the case is filed)
(Kaalaman para sa Hinahabla)

1.

"SMALL CLAIMS RULE" – is a special procedure where money claims for P100,000.00 or less are heard. The process is quick and inexpensive; the procedure is simple & informal.
(TUNTUNIN SA PAGSINGIL NG MALILIIT NA HALAGA – ay natatanging pamamaraan sa pagdinig kung saan ang halaga ng salapi na sinisingil ay P100,000.00 o mas mababa. Ang proseso ay simple at hindi pormal)
2.

You are the defendant - the person against whom the case is filed. The person who is filing the case is the plaintiff.
(Ikaw ang Hinahabla, ang taong sinampahan ng kaso. Ang taong nagsampa ng kaso ay ang Naghahabla.)
3.

Read this form & all pages attached to understand the claim against you & to protect your rights.
(Basahin ang Form na ito at ang lahat ng pahina na kalakip upang maunawaan ang kaso laban sa iyo at upang mapangalagaan ang iyong mga karapatan.)
4.

You must file your Response & attend the hearing on the date indicated in the Notice of Hearing. If you do not go to court, you may lose the case.
(Ikaw ay kinakailangang magsumite ng iyong Sagot at pumunta sa korte sa petsa ng pagdinig na nakasulat sa Abiso sa Pagdinig. Kung hindi ka makakapunta sa korte maari kang matalo sa kaso.)
5.

Make copies of the Response & all its pages & attached documents (file the original in court & serve one copy on each plaintiff & keep an extra copy for yourself)
(Gumawa ng mga kopya ng Sagot at lahat ng mga pahina nito at ilakip ang mga dokumento [ihain ang orihinal sa hukuman at bigyan ng kopya ang Naghahabla at mag-iwan ng kopya para sa iyo]).
6.

Do I need a lawyer?
(Kailangan ko ba ang abogado?)

You may consult a lawyer but YOU CANNOT HAVE A LAWYER WITH YOU AT THE HEARING.
(Maaari kang komunsulta sa abogado pero HINDI KA MAAARING MAGSAMA NG ABOGADO SA PAGDINIG.)
7.

What if I don’t speak English well?
(Paano kung hindi ako makagsalitang mabuti ng Ingles?)

The judge will speak in Filipino or the local dialect. A court-provided interpreter shall also be available on the hearing day.
(Ang hukom ay magsasalita sa Filipino o sa lokal na diyalekto. Ang panghukumang tagasalin ay maaaring magamit sa araw ng pagdinig.)
8.

How do I get ready for court?
(Paano ako makapaghahanda sa hukuman?)

Fill up the form entitled "Response" and file it in court within ten (10) calendar days from your receipt of the form. If you have questions regarding the Form, you can inquire with the court that served you the summons & the Response. The telephone no. of the court is written on the Summons.
(Punuan ang Form na "Sagot" at ihain ito sa hukuman sa loob ng sampung (10) araw simula sa pagtanggap ng Form. Kung ikaw ay mayroong mga tanong tungkol sa Form, maaari kang magtanong sa korte na nagpadala ng Patawag at ng Sagot. Ang numero ng telepono ng hukuman ay nakasulat sa Patawag.)
9.

What happen if I don’t file the Response and appear at the hearing?
(Anong mangyayari kung hindi ako naghain ng Sagot at hindi dumalo sa pagdinig?)

The court shall proceed with the hearing and, if you are absent, the court shall make a judgment as may be warranted by the facts.
(Ang korte ay magpapatuloy sa pagdinig at, kung ikaw ay hindi dumalo, ay magpapasiya at magbibigay ng desisyon ayon sa nararapat.)
10.

What happens at the hearing?
(Anong mangyayari sa pagdinig?)

If you & the plaintiff will appear at the hearing, the judge will listen to both of you. The judge shall conduct mediation and encourage you & the plaintiff to settle your case. If you don’t settle, the judge shall render a decision on the day of hearing itself. You cannot appeal this decision.
(Kung ikaw at ang naghahabla ay dadalo sa pagdinig, ang hukom ay makikinig sa inyong dalawa. Ang hukom ay hihikayat sa inyong magka-ayos at magkasundo at lutasin ang inyong di pagkakaunawaan. Kung hindi kayo magkakasundo, ang hukom ay gagawa ng desisyon sa araw mismo ng pagdinig. Hindi ka na maaaring mag-apela sa desisyon ng korte.)
11.

Do I have options?
(Meron ba akong pagpipilian?)

Yes. If you are the defendant, you can do any of the following:
(Oo. Kung ikaw ang Hinahabla, maaari mong gawin ang alinman sa mga sumusunod.)
1.

Settle your case before the hearing. If you and the plaintiff agree on how to settle the case, both of you must notify the court. Ask the OCC or Branch Clerk of Court for help.
(Ayusin mo ang usapin bago pa dumating ang pagdinig. Kung ikaw at ang Naghahabla ay nagkaayos kung paano pagkasunduan ang kaso, pareho ninyong ipaalam sa hukuman. Humingi ng tulong sa Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) o sa Branch Clerk of Court.)
2.

File the Response. Appear at the hearing. Bring the affidavits of witnesses, receipts and any evidence you need to prove your case.
(Maghain ng Sagot. Dumalo sa pagdinig. Dalhin ang mga sinumpaang salaysay ng mga testigo, mga resibo at anumang katibayang iyong kailangan upang patunayan ang iyong usapin.)
3.

Agree with the plaintiff’s claim & pay the money. Or, if you can’t pay the money now go to the hearing and say you want to make payments by installment.
(Sumang-ayon sa halagang sinisingil ng Naghahabla at bayaran ito. O, kung hindi mabayaran ang sinisingil ngayon, dumalo ka sa pagdinig at sabihin sa korte na gusto mong magbayad ng hulugan.)
4.

Let the case proceed without you. If you don’t settle & do not go to the hearing, the judge may give the plaintiff what he or she is asking for plus court costs. If this happens, the court may order that your money or property be taken to pay the judgment.
(Magpapatuloy ang kaso kahit wala ka. Kung hindi ka nakipag-ayos at hindi ka dumalo sa pagdinig, maaaring ipagkaloob ng hukom ang anumang hinihingi ng Naghahabla, pati na ang gastos sa paghain ng kasong ito. Kung ito ay mangyari, ang korte ay maaaring mag-utos na ang iyong pera o ari-arian ay kuhanin para bayaran ang nakasaad sa desisyon ng korte.)

(c) Administrative Guidelines for (a) Judges and (b) Executive Judges, Clerk of Courts in multi-sala stations and in single-sala stations and Branch Clerks of Courts, to wit:


ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES

To aid in achieving a uniform and systematic implementation of the Rule by all courts concerned, the TWG recommends the issuance of Administrative Guidelines specifically addressing the concerns of not only the Judges, but also of the court personnel involved in the application of the Rule on Small Claims.

A. Guidelines for Judges

1.

Upon receipt of a case, determine if it is a small claim.

1.1. It must involve a pure money claim the principal amount of which does not exceed P100,000.00.

1.2. If the principal claim exceeds P100,000.00, there must be a waiver of the excess embodied in the Statement of Claim.

1.3. With regard to B.P. Blg. 22 cases, the court may only entertain the civil aspect as a small claim if no complaint for the offense has yet been filed before the Office of the Prosecutor. This fact must be stated under oath by the plaintiff in the Statement of Claim, and there should be an express waiver of such criminal action in the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.

1.4. If a case is determined by a judge to be not a "small claim" within the meaning of the Rule, but it still falls within the jurisdiction of the First Level Courts, the case should not be dismissed, and the judge should instead declare it governed by the appropriate procedure (Regular Procedure or Summary Procedure). The case should then be re-docketed but no re-assignment (by raffle in a multi-sala court) is necessary. This will prevent the forfeiture of the filing fees already paid by the party, and the case can be immediately acted upon by the same court.
2.

Determine if there is a ground for outright dismissal.

The submission of a Certificate to File Action from the barangay is a pre-requisite in Small Claims covered by the barangay justice system.

Under Rule 16 par. (j) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, non-compliance with a condition precedent is a ground for dismissal of a complaint. Chapter VII (Section 399-422) of R.A. No. 7160, the Local Government Code, now embodies the rules for mandatory conciliation proceedings before the barangay in covered cases. Although the Rule on Small Claims Cases does not expressly refer to such requirement, it is still mandatory as it is required by law. Non-compliance, therefore, with the barangay requirement is still a ground for dismissal pursuant to Rule 16 of the regular rules, which apply suppletorily according to Section 25 of the Rule.
3.

If there is no ground for outright dismissal, issue summons AND notice hearing

3.1. The summons and notice of hearing, which are required to be issued "within the same day of receipt of the Statement of Claim" under Section 10, must be issued within 24 hors from such receipt, the phrase "same day" to be construed as "within one day".

3.2. Do not wait for summons to be served before setting the case for hearing.

3.3. The hearing should be set within thirty (30) days from receipt of the case. In case the defendant resides outside the judicial region, the hearing may be set not later than 60 days from date of receipt of the case.

3.4. Failure of the plaintiff to cause service of summons within two (2) months from receipt of Sheriff’s Return shall cause the dismissal of the claim for failure to prosecute (Rule 17, Section 3, Rules of Court). This is not a ground to archive the case.

3.5. Any party who appears at any time after the Court’s receipt of the case should be notified immediately of the date set for hearing.

3.6. There should be, at least, one (1) hearing day every week devoted to Small Claims, with a minimum of five (5) cases scheduled per hearing day. Cases with the same party-plaintiff may all be set on the same date for facility in the preparation of notices and judgments. The Court should post a notice of its small claims hearing day conspicuously at the Branch and at the Office of the Clerk Court.

3.7. Judges must approve an Estimate of Expenses submitted by their Sheriff/Process Server within 24 hours from filing before any release from the STF is allowed.
4.

On the date of the hearing

4.1. Make an opening statement (Section 20; see also Form 6A-SCC) explaining to the parties the object of the Rule and the procedure for hearing the case. Ensure that the parties understand the proceedings and actively participate therein.

4.2. Conduct settlement discussions in strict confidentiality. Try to explain to the parties why an amicable settlement will be mutually beneficial.

4.3. The drafting of a comprise agreement should be part of the hearing conducted by the judge. This will ensure that an agreement will be forged within the day of the hearing to pave the way for its approval by way of the required judgment, to be issued also within the same day. It will also reduce the incidence of inclusion of terms which are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order.

4.4. Have a template of a Compromise Agreement ready. The parties may be referred to the Branch Clerk of Court or the Clerk-in-Charge for assistance in filing up the template, whether before or after the case is called in open court.

4.5. In all instances, review the terms of the Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties. Do not approve terms which are unconscionable and excessive, especially those relating to interest rates and surcharges. In the latter instance, in your judgment approve the agreement in part, substitute and impose a provision which is reasonable, to replace those you have disapproved for being excessive and unconscionable.

4.6. In case a non-answering defendant appears at the hearing, recognize his appearance only if he is willing to enter into discussions of settlement, but guard against coercing the defendant to enter into one.

4.7. If a non-answering defendant appears at the hearing and agrees to discuss a settlement but pleads partial payments, which the plaintiff admits, but no settlement is ultimately reached, render judgment based on the Statement of Claim. If the plaintiff waives in writing (even in the Minutes of Hearing only) the confidentiality of the settlement discussion, you may consider the admission of partial payments in rendering your decision.

4.8. If at anytime before or at the hearing, a Compromise Agreement is submitted signed by both parties but only one or neither party appears to confirm it, issue an order to the non-appearing party to confirm it within 3 days, otherwise it shall be deemed confirmed. Then issue a judgment based on the agreement.

4.9. If no settlement is reached and the parties do not wish to have another judge hear the case, proceed to the hearing proper in an informal manner and terminate and decide it within the same day.
5.

Decision and execution

5.1. Whether based on an amicable settlement or on the merits, judgment must be issued on the same date of the hearing, except when there is a motion by any party under Section 22 to have another judge hear the case.

5.2. Upon issuance of the decision, have copies served on all parties present to avoid mailing them.

5.3. A decision under the Rule is immediately final and executor. It must be recorded in the Book of Judgments on the same date it is rendered.

5.4. There is no appeal and, hence, no period to appeal to wait for.

5.5. On the same day the decision is rendered, the winning party may move for its execution.

B. Guidelines for Executive Judges, Clerks of Courts (COCs) in multi sala stations and in single sala stations and Branch Clerks of Court (BCCs)

1.

The Clerks of Court and the Branch Clerks of Court (even non-lawyers) may administer the oath to litigants for the forms to be used under the Rule. No fee shall be collected for this purpose.
2.

The Clerks of Court should not accept mere photocopies of documentary annexes submitted by the parties but should monitor strict compliance with Sections 5 and 11 of the Rule.
3.

The Clerks of Court should have a separate docket for Small Claims Cases with independent numbering. Should a case, originally docketed as a Small Claim, be ordered re-docketed, i.e., it is governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure or regular procedure, this should be recorded in the appropriate docket and a new number given to the case. However, the case should not be re-raffled but should immediately be sent back to the original court after re-docketing.
4.

The Clerks of Court should only ask for 2 copies of the pleadings and all their annexes: 1 for the court and 1 for the defendant. If there is more than 1 defendant, that is the only time the OCC may require additional copies, 1 for each additional defendant.
5.

The Clerks of Court can only certify photocopies of documents if the originals are presented to them by the party who does not want to leave the same with the court. In that instance, the COC can certify that the document is a faithful reproduction of the original exhibited by the party. No fee shall be charged for this certification.
6.

If, despite advice to the contrary, a litigant insists on the filing of a vase as a Small Claim, the COC should reiterate the previous advice given in a respectful manner and then docket the case.
7.

Even despite insistence, COCs should not accept a Statement of Claim signed by a lawyer unless the lawyer himself is the plaintiff, not even if he signs it as an attorney-in-fact of the named plaintiff.
8.

Requests for advances for transportation expenses from the Sheriff’s Trust Fund should be acted upon within 24 hours from receipt of the approved Statement of Estimated Expenses.
9.

The Clerks of Court should ensure that the full names and addresses of the parties are indicated in the Statement of Claim, as well as alternative contact information (such as telephone numbers), when possible.
10.

The Monthly Docket Inventory Report should reflect the date when a case is decided or disposed of vis-à-vis the date of filing so that the timeless of court action may be assessed. The date when summons was issued and the date of hearing should also be indicated. Finally, the execution and satisfaction of judgments rendered under the Rule should also be part of the Monthly Report to determine the Rule’s efficacy.1
11.

The rule on inhibition in regular cases shall apply to Small Claims Courts.
12.

An additional fee of P500.00 should be assessed any litigant for the 10th small claim filed, and for every 5th additional case thereafter. The fee is justified by the service availed of which requires extra time and effort on the part of the courts. The volume of cases filed evidences the capacity of the litigant to pay the fees.
13.

On the same day of filing/raffling of the Statement of Claim, the Clerk of Court shall transmit the record of the case to the branch assigned. The Branch Clerk of Court (BCOC) shall forthwith inform the plaintiff of the date of hearing of the case.
14.

Upon receipt of a newly filed/raffled small claim, in case the Presiding Judge is on leave, the BCOC shall immediately refer the case to the Pairing Judge for appropriate action in accordance with existing Rules.
15.

Sheriffs and Process Servers shall serve the summons and notice of hearing within 5 days from issuance, unless the distance justifies a longer period, but in no case shall service be effected beyond 30 days from date of issuance. Within 5 days from such service, the Officer’s Return shall be filed with the court with a copy furnished to the plaintiff at the given address/es of record.

and

(d) Nationwide implementation/roll-out of the Rule on Procedure for Small Claims Cases, as amended, to all first level courts, except the Shari’a Circuit Court, effective thirty (30) days from date hereof.

Let this resolution be published in a newspaper of general circulation." (adv102)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1 Monthly Docket Inventory Report of Small Claims Cases is hereto attached as Annex "H"
Source: PDI e-3, February 23, 2010
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Priority measure: Freedom of Information.

Priority measure - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

Freedom of info bill is dead. Blame the laziness of Congress.

Freedom of info bill is dead–Nograles - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

Noynoy: 15th Phil. president. At last, corruption queen Arroyo is out.

Congress final count: It’s Aquino-Binay - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

The party list in Congress: to be or not to be.

The party list in Congress - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

Lawyer abandons client; disbarred.

In the case of TORBEN B. OVERGAARD vs. ATTY. GODWIN R. VALDEZ, Per Curiam, En Banc, A.C. No. 7902, March 31, 2009, at bar was a Motion for Reconsideration, dated, October 21, 2008 filed by respondent Godwin R. Valdez, praying that the September 30, 2008 decision of this Court disbarring him from the practice of law be reconsidered by remanding the records of the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. He further prays that the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline be directed to receive his Answer, evidence and Position Paper and thereafter, that he be absolved of the charges against him and that his name be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys.

In the said case, the Philippine Supreme Court made the following doctrinal pronouncements, thus:


1. The complainant, Torben Overgaard (Overgaard) engaged the services of respondent Valdez as his legal counsel in two cases filed by him and two cases filed against him. Despite the receipt of the full amount of legal fees of P900,000.00 as stipulated in a Retainer Agreement, the respondent refused to perform any of his obligations under their contract for legal services, ignored the complainant’s request for a report of the status of the cases entrusted to his care, and rejected the complainant’s demands for the return of the money paid to him.

2. Complainant Overgaard filed a complaint for disbarment against Valdez before the IBP. During the investigation, respondent Valdez did not participate despite due notice. He was declared in default for failure to submit an answer and attend the mandatory conference. He did not submit a position paper or attend the hearing.

3. On September 30, 2008, this Court held that respondent Valdez committed multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The dispositive portion of this Decision states:

IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Atty. Godwin R. Valdez is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is ORDERED to immediately return to Torben B. Overgaard the amount of $16,854.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of actual payment, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from November 27, 2006, the date of extra-judicial demand. A twelve percent (12%) interest per annum, in lieu of six percent (6%), shall be imposed on such amount from the date of promulgation of this decision until the payment thereof. He is further ORDERED to immediately return all papers and documents received from the complainant.

4. On the first issue raised in the motion for reconsideration, the respondent argues that the IBP has no jurisdiction over him since proof of service of the initiatory pleading to the defendant is a jurisidictional requirement. He states in his Motion for Reconsideration that “he had no inkling whatsoever of the existence of the disbarment case filed by the complainant.” He asserts that, in September 2006, he “abruptly abandoned his office at Suite 402 Pacific Irvine Bldg., 2746 Zenaida St., at Makati City following persistent and serious threats to his physical safety and security x x x.” On the advice of his close friends and clients to “lie low” and “make himself ‘scarce,’” he stayed for a few days in his residence at Imus, Cavite then relocated to Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. He has been holding office and residing in Bukidnon since then, and he only found out about the decision from a colleague in Bukidnon who read the decision from the Court’s website.

5. We hold that respondent was given reasonable notice of the complaint for disbarment against him.

A copy of the Complaint as well as the Order to answer the Complaint was sent by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to the respondent’s Makati office address, and it was duly received by the respondent. The Registry Return Receipt shows that it was also received by one “RRJ,” whose signature appears on the space for the signature of the addressee’s agent. The respondent cannot claim lack of knowledge of the complaint for disbarment against him when the Complaint and the Order for him to submit an Answer were duly received by his agent at his Makati law office. Succeeding notices in connection with the disbarment proceedings were also sent to the respondent’s Makati law office. He cannot escape liability for his misdeeds by feigning ignorance of the disbarment case, since the notices in connection with the proceedings were sent to his office address made known to the public and properly received by his agent.

6. Respondent Valdez was given full opportunity, upon reasonable notice, to answer the charges against him and to present evidence on his behalf. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline was correct in proceeding with the investigation ex parte, because it was due to the respondent’s own fault and negligence that he was not able to submit an answer to the Complaint and participate in the investigation. Rule 138, Section 30 provides that an attorney should be heard before he is removed or suspended; but if, upon reasonable notice, an attorney fails to appear and answer the accusations against him, the matter may be dealt with ex parte. Rule 138, Section 30 states:

SECTION 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. — No attorney shall be removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte. (Emphasis supplied.)

7. The respondent’s feeble excuse that he was no longer holding office at his Makati office address at the time the Order of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline was sent to him is unacceptable. Ordinary prudence would have guarded against his alleged failure to receive the notices. All notices to the respondent were sent to his Makati office address, which was the address made known to the public and to the complainant. This is even the address printed on the letterhead of the Retainer Agreement between the complainant and the respondent. And although the respondent claims that he had to “make himself ‘scarce’” due to threats to his life and safety, this does not mean that he avoids the responsibility of taking account of his mail. The respondent owes it to himself and to his clients to adopt a system whereby he would be able to receive mail sent to his law office during his absence. Assuming that circumstances would justify the respondent’s abrupt abandonment of his Makati office, it absolutely does not give him the license to abandon his clients as well.


8. In abruptly abandoning his law office without advising his client and without making sure that the cases he was handling for his client were properly attended to during his absence, and without making arrangements whereby he would receive important mail, the respondent is clearly guilty of gross negligence. A lawyer cannot simply disappear and abandon his clients and then rely on the convenient excuse that there were threats to his safety. Even assuming that there were serious threats to his person, this did not give him the permission to desert his client and leave the cases entrusted to his care hanging. He should have at least exercised reasonable and ordinary care and diligence by taking steps to ensure that the cases he was handling were attended to and that his client’s interest was safeguarded. If it was not possible for him to handle the cases entrusted to his care, he should have informed the complainant of his predicament and asked that he be allowed to withdraw from the case to enable the client to engage the services of another counsel who could properly represent him. Deplorably, the respondent just disappeared, deserted his client and forgot about the cases entrusted to his care, to the complainant’s damage and prejudice.


9. The respondent’s disbarment is not anchored on his failure to do anything in relation the cases entrusted to his care, but on his abandonment of his client. He will not be absolved from liability on the basis alone of these inconsequential acts which he claims to have accomplished because the glaring fact remains that he has failed to perform his essential obligations to his client, to the courts and to society. As the complainant’s lawyer, the respondent is expected to serve his client with competence and diligence. This includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care and giving the complainant sound legal advice, but also properly representing his client in court, attending scheduled hearings, preparing and filing required pleadings, prosecuting the cases entrusted to his care with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for his client or the court to prod him to do so. He should not idly sit by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty.

10. The respondent’s acts and omissions were not just a case of inaction, but they amount to deceitful conduct and are contrary to good morals. After assuring the complainant that he would protect the latter’s interest and attend to the cases included in the Retainer Agreement, he abandoned his client. It was only after the complainant’s own inquiry that he discovered that the respondent never appeared in court to represent the complainant in the cases filed against him, so much so that he had no knowledge that warrants of arrest were already issued against him. The respondent also failed to enter his appearance in the civil case for Mandamus, Injunction and Damages that the complainant filed. After receiving the complete amount of legal fees, giving the complainant initial legal advice, and interviewing some witnesses, the respondent just disappeared and the complainant never heard from him despite his continued efforts to contact the respondent.

11. The complainant put his trust in the respondent with full faith that the latter would exert his best effort and ability in the prosecution and defense of his client’s cause. But instead of devotion to his client’s cause, the respondent grossly neglected his duties to his client. After all the representations he made to the complainant and after receipt of the full amount of the legal fees, he absconded from his responsibilities and betrayed his client’s trust. There is no excuse for this, and his gross negligence and appalling indifference is unforgiveable.

12. If the respondent had indeed returned the documents sometime in the middle of July 2006, he would have presented a receipt to prove such turnover of documents. And if the respondent had indeed rendered an accounting of the money that was paid to him, he would have attached a received copy of the accounting to his Motion for Reconsideration. But he failed to do both. There was no proof presented. We cannot rely on his bare allegation, especially when the complainant demanded the return of the documents months after they were allegedly returned.


13. It is a lawyer’s duty to properly account for the money he received from the client. If indeed the respondent told the client that he would pay P300,000.00 to two intelligence operatives, as he claims in his Motion for Reconsideration, he should have held this money in trust, and he was under an obligation to make an accounting. It was his duty to secure a receipt for the payment of this amount on behalf of his client. But he failed to present any receipt or certification from Collado that the payment was received. Since the respondent was not able either to present an accounting of the P900,000.00 paid to him upon the complainant’s demand, or to provide a sufficient and plausible explanation for where such amount was spent, he must immediately return the same.


14. We must emphasize that the right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise, and it may be extended or withheld by this Court in the exercise of its sound discretion. As guardian of the legal profession, this Court has ultimate disciplinary power over members of the Bar in order to ensure that the highest standards of competence and of honesty and fair dealing are maintained. We find that the respondent has fallen below such exacting standard and is unworthy of the privilege to practice law.

Honest mistakes

The case of WEN MING W CHEN vs. ATTY. F.D. NICOLAS B. PICHAY, A.C. No. 7910, September 18, 2009, gives Filipino lawyers a tinge of hope in the face of baseless administrative suits commenced by losing litigants to harass them as legal professionals. In the said case, the Philippine Supreme Court expressly held, thus:

“Even assuming that the cases filed were civil actions for damages, the same does not merit respondent’s disbarment or suspension. There is nothing on record to show that the filing of the cases was done for the purpose of harassment. The conclusion that the filing of the DOJ complaints was to harass complainant has no basis. If at all, it was an error of judgment sans bad faith. It has been held that not all mistakes of members of the Bar justify the imposition of disciplinary actions. An attorney-at-law is not expected to know all the law. For an honest mistake or error, an attorney is not liable. The alleged errors are not of such nature which would warrant the imposition of the penalty of suspension for one year.”

Deceitful lawyer

In the case of KELD STEMMERIK vs. ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS, Per Curiam, En Banc, A.C. No. 8010, June 16, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court disbarred the respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas and ordered him to return to complainant Keld Stemmerik the total amount of P4.2 million with interest at 12% per annum. The Court ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to locate Atty. Mas and to file the appropriate criminal charges against him. In the said administrative case, the Court made the following doctrinal pronouncements, thus:

SUFFICIENCY OF NOTICE OF
THE DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS


We shall first address a threshold issue: was respondent properly given notice of the disbarment proceedings against him? Yes.

The respondent did not file any answer or position paper, nor did he appear during the scheduled mandatory conference. Respondent in fact abandoned his last known address, his law office in Olongapo City, after he committed the embezzlement.

Respondent should not be allowed to benefit from his disappearing act. He can neither defeat this Court’s jurisdiction over him as a member of the bar nor evade administrative liability by the mere ruse of concealing his whereabouts. Thus, service of the complaint and other orders and processes on respondent’s office was sufficient notice to him.

Indeed, since he himself rendered the service of notice on him impossible, the notice requirement cannot apply to him and he is thus considered to have waived it. The law does not require that the impossible be done. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile. The law obliges no one to perform an impossibility. Laws and rules must be interpreted in a way that they are in accordance with logic, common sense, reason and practicality.

In this connection, lawyers must update their records with the IBP by informing the IBP National Office or their respective chapters of any change in office or residential address and other contact details. In case such change is not duly updated, service of notice on the office or residential address appearing in the records of the IBP National Office shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for purposes of administrative proceedings against him.


RESPONDENT’S ADMINISTRATIVE INFRACTIONS
AND HIS LIABILITY THEREFOR

Lawyers, as members of a noble profession, have the duty to promote respect for the law and uphold the integrity of the bar. As men and women entrusted with the law, they must ensure that the law functions to protect liberty and not as an instrument of oppression or deception.

Respondent has been weighed by the exacting standards of the legal profession and has been found wanting.

Respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. He is also guilty of culpable violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the code of ethics of the legal profession.

All lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution, to obey the laws and to do no falsehood. That oath is neither mere formal ceremony nor hollow words. It is a sacred trust that should be upheld and kept inviolable at all times.

Lawyers are servants of the law and the law is their master. They should not simply obey the laws, they should also inspire respect for and obedience thereto by serving as exemplars worthy of emulation. Indeed, that is the first precept of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.


Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution provides:

SEC. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

This Court has interpreted this provision, as early as the 1947 case Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, to mean that “under the Constitution, aliens may not acquire private or agricultural lands, including residential lands.” The provision is a declaration of imperative constitutional policy.

Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy, showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal.

By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to complainant and that de Mesa thereafter sold the property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in behalf of complainant, he falsified public documents and knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Law.

Respondent’s misconduct did not end there. By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client. He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant. Instead, he deceived complainant and misled him into parting with P400,000 for services that were both illegal and unprofessional. Moreover, by pocketing and misappropriating the P3.8 million given by complainant for the purchase of the property, respondent committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in nature.

Respondent spun an intricate web of lies. In the process, he committed unethical act after unethical act, wantonly violating laws and professional standards.

For all this, respondent violated not only the lawyer’s oath and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He also transgressed the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01. – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02. – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.

CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. (emphasis supplied)

A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes to circumvent the law and uses his legal knowledge to further his selfish ends to the great prejudice of others, poses a clear and present danger to the rule of law and to the legal system. He does not only tarnish the image of the bar and degrade the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, he also betrays everything that the legal profession stands for.

It is respondent and his kind that give lawyering a bad name and make laymen support Dick the Butcher’s call, “Kill all lawyers!” A disgrace to their professional brethren, they must be purged from the bar.

Lawyer-client communication

In the case of CARLITO P. CARANDANG vs. ATTY. GILBERT S. OBMINA, A.C. No. 7813, April 21, 2009, the respondent Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina was found GUILTY of violation of Canon 18 and of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Philippine Supreme Court suspended Atty. Obmina from the practice of law for one year, and warned him that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.



The administrative complaint was filed by Carlito P. Carandang against Atty. Obmina, who was was counsel for Carandang in Civil Case No. B-5109 entitled “Sps. Emilia A. Carandang and Carlito Carandang v. Ernesto Alzona.” Carandang administratively sued Atty. Obmina for his failure to inform the former of the adverse decision in Civil Case No. B-5109 and for his failure to appeal the decision.

In a Report dated 2 October 2007, IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline Jose I. De La Rama, Jr. found that Atty. Obmina was still counsel of record for complainant at the time the decision was rendered and up to the time of the issuance of the writ of execution. Atty. Obmina received the Decision dated 28 January 2000 on 1 March 2000. Atty. Carmencita Obmina-Muaña manifested in Court that her father has been living in the United States of America since 2001. There was nothing on record that would show that Atty. Obmina notified complainant in any manner about the decision.

Although Commissioner De La Rama observed that complainant was partly to blame for his loss for failure to maintain contact with Atty. Obmina and to inform himself of the progress of his case, Commissioner De La Rama nonetheless underscored the duty of Atty. Obmina to notify his client as to what happened to his case.

The Commissioner stated that the respondent who had in his possession the complete files and address of the complainant, should have exerted efforts to even notify Mr. Carandang as to what happened to his case. Whether the decision was adverse [to] or in favor of his client, respondent was duty bound to notify the clients pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics which provides that “a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.” Further under Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” Lastly, under Rule 18.04, “a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to client’s request for information.”

The Commissioner cited the case of Mijares vs. Romana 425 SCRA 577, where the Supreme Court held that “as an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever information he may have acquired which it is important that the client should have knowledge of.” The “respondent’s failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility” (Cheng vs. Agravante, 426 SCRA 42).

In a Resolution dated 19 October 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner De La Rama.

The Supreme Court sustained the findings of the IBP and adopted its recommendations. It held that Atty. Obmina had violated Canon 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.


Canon 18 states that “[a] lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.” Rules 18.03 and 18.04 provide that “[a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable” and “[a] lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.”

The Court added that Atty. Obmina’s futile efforts of shifting the blame on Carandang only served to emphasize his failure to notify Carandang that the trial court already promulgated a decision in Civil Case No. B-5109 that was adverse to Carandang’s interests. Atty. Obmina could not overlook the fact that Carandang learned about the promulgation of the decision not through Atty. Obmina himself, but through a chance visit to the trial court. Instead of letting Carandang know of the adverse decision himself, Atty. Obmina should have immediately contacted Carandang, explained the decision to him, and advised them on further steps that could be taken. It was obvious that Carandang lost his right to file an appeal because of Atty. Obmina’s inaction. Notwithstanding Atty. Obmina’s subsequent withdrawal as Carandang’s lawyer, Atty. Obmina was still counsel of record at the time the trial court promulgated the decision in Civil Case No. B-5109.

The Court held that as an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform her client of whatever information she may have acquired which it is important that the client should have knowledge of. She should notify her client of any adverse decision to enable her client to decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding and [loss] of trust and confidence in the attorney.

The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the lawyer to inform timely and adequately the client of important developments affecting the client’s case. The lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is defending the client’s interests.

Lawyer disbarred: multiple violations.

In the case of CONRADO QUE vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR., Per Curiam, En Banc, A.C. No. 7054, December 4, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court disbarred from the practice of law for professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and Sections 20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

In a complaint for disbarment, Conrado Que (complainant) accused Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP Committee on Bar Discipline or CBD) of committing the following violations of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

(1) The respondent’s abuse of court remedies and processes by filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for annulment of title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for annulment of judgment before the RTC and lastly, a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC (collectively, subject cases) to assail and overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and RTC in the unlawful detainer case rendered against the respondent’s clients. The respondent in this regard, repeatedly raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC knowing fully-well that these courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. The respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainant’s and his siblings’ titles over the property subject of the unlawful detainer case;

(2) The respondent’s commission of forum-shopping by filing the subject cases in order to impede, obstruct, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his own personal gain and to defeat the right of the complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case;

(3) The respondent’s lack of candor and respect towards his adversary and the courts by resorting to falsehood and deception to misguide, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice. The respondent asserted falsehood in the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment by fabricating an imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in open court which allegedly denied the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the said case. The complainant alleged that the respondent did this to cover up his lack of preparation; the respondent also deceived his clients (who were all squatters) in supporting the above falsehood.

(4) The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico), the previous counsel of the respondent’s clients.

(5) The respondent’s deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in court in the petition for annulment of judgment for 15 litigants, three of whom are already deceased;

(6) The respondent’s willful and fraudulent appearance in the second petition for annulment of title as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines without being authorized to do so.


Additionally, the complaint accused the respondent of representing fifty-two (52) litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 when no such authority was ever given to him.

The CBD required the respondent to answer the complaint.


Except for the last charge of unauthorized appearance on behalf of 52 litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762, Investigating Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan (Investigating Commissioner Cunanan) found all the charges against the respondent meritorious. In his Report and Recommendation, he stated:

While an attorney admittedly has the solemn duty to defend and protect the cause and rights of his client with all the fervor and energy within his command, yet, it is equally true that it is the primary duty of the lawyer to defend the dignity, authority and majesty of the law and the courts which enforce it. A lawyer is not at liberty to maintain and defend the cause of his clients thru means, inconsistent with truth and honor. He may not and must not encourage multiplicity of suits or brazenly engage in forum-shopping.

The case posed to the Supreme Court core issues of whether the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and professional misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions should carry.

The Court took take judicial notice that this disbarment complaint is not the only one so far filed involving the respondent; another complaint invoking similar grounds has previously been filed. In Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia v. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. , the Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for his willful and intentional falsehood before the court; for misuse of court procedures and processes to delay the execution of a judgment; and for collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law.


First, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 53892) with prayer for the issuance of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to question the final judgments of the MeTC and RTC for lack of jurisdiction. In dismissing the respondent’s petition, the CA held:

Even for the sake of argument considering that the petition case be the proper remedy, still it must be rejected for failure of petitioners to satisfactorily demonstrate lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City over the ejectment case.

Second, notwithstanding the CA’s dismissal of the petition for certiorari, the respondent again questioned the MeTC’s and the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case in a petition for annulment of judgment (docketed as Civil Case No. Q-01-45556) before the RTC with an ancillary prayer for the grant of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The RTC dismissed this petition on the basis of the motion to dismiss filed.

Third, the respondent successively filed two petitions (docketed as Civil Case No. Q-99-38780 and Civil Case No. Q-02-46885) for annulment of the complainant’s title to the property involved in the unlawful detainer case. The records show that these petitions were both dismissed “for lack of legal personality on the part of the plaintiffs” to file the petition.

Fourth, after the dismissals of the petition for annulment of judgment and the petitions for annulment of title, the respondent this time filed a petition for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the complainant and his siblings from exercising their rights over the same property subject of the unlawful detainer case. The respondent based the petition on the alleged nullity of the complainant’s title because the property is a part of forest land.

Fifth, the persistent applications by the respondent for injunctive relief in the four petitions he had filed in several courts – the petition for certiorari, the petition for annulment of judgment, the second petition for annulment of complainant’s title and the petition for declaratory relief – reveal the respondent’s persistence in preventing and avoiding the execution of the final decisions of the MeTC and RTC against his clients in the unlawful detainer case.

Under the circumstances, the respondent’s repeated attempts go beyond the legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interests of his client. These are already uncalled for measures to avoid the enforcement of final judgments of the MeTC and RTC. In these attempts, the respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a lawyer to “observe the rules of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.” By his actions, the respondent used procedural rules to thwart and obstruct the speedy and efficient administration of justice, resulting in prejudice to the winning parties in that case.


The Court added that the respondent likewise violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the rule against forum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple actions to attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes; they tend to degrade the administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure; and add to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.

It stated that while the filing of a petition for certiorari to question the lower courts’ jurisdiction may be a procedurally legitimate (but substantively erroneous) move, the respondent’s subsequent petitions involving the same property and the same parties not only demonstrate his attempts to secure favorable ruling using different fora, but his obvious objective as well of preventing the execution of the MeTC and RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case against his clients. This intent is most obvious with respect to the petitions for annulment of judgment and declaratory relief, both geared towards preventing the execution of the unlawful detainer decision, long after this decision had become final.


The records also revealed that the respondent committed willful,
intentional and deliberate falsehood in the pleadings he filed with the lower courts.

First, in the petition for annulment of judgment filed before the RTC, Branch 101, Quezon City, the respondent cited extrinsic fraud as one of the grounds for the annulment sought. The extrinsic fraud was alleged in the last paragraph of the petition, as follows:

In here, counsel for the petitioners (defendants therein), deliberately neglected to file the proper remedy then available after receipt of the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration … thus corruptly sold out the interest of the petitioners (defendants therein) by keeping them away to the Court and in complete ignorance of the suit by a false pretense of compromise and fraudulent acts of alleging representing them when in truth and in fact, have connived with the attorney of the prevailing party at his defeat to the prejudice of the petitioner (defendants therein) …

Yet, in paragraph 35 of the same petition, the respondent alleged that no second motion for reconsideration or for new trial, or no other petition with the CA had been filed, as he believed “that the decisions rendered both by the MeTC and the RTC are null and void.” These conflicting claims, no doubt, involve a fabrication made for the purpose of supporting the petition for annulment. Worse, it involved a direct and unsubstantiated attack on the reputation of a law office colleague, another violation we shall separately discuss below.

Second, the respondent employed another obvious subterfuge when he filed his second petition for annulment of title, which was an unsuccessful attempt to circumvent the rule that only the Solicitor General may commence reversion proceedings of public lands on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. This second petition, filed by a private party and not by the Republic, showed that: (a) the respondent and his clients requested that they be represented by the Solicitor General in the proceedings; (b) the Republic of the Philippines was simply impleaded in the amended petition without its consent as a plaintiff; and (c) the respondent signed the amended petition where he alone stood as counsel for the “plaintiffs.” In this underhanded manner, the respondent sought to compel the Republic to litigate and waste its resources on an unauthorized and unwanted suit.

Third, the respondent also committed falsehood in his motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his petition for annulment of judgment where he misrepresented to the court and his clients what actually transpired in the hearing of June 28, 2002 in this wise:

Likewise, the proceedings on said date of hearing (June 28, 2002) show, that after both counsel have argued on the aforesaid pending incident, the Honorable Presiding Judge, in open court, and in the presence and within the hearing distance of all the plaintiffs and their counsel as well as the counsel of the defendants resolved: TO DENY THE MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AND DIRECTED DEFENDANTS COUNSEL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN THE REMAINING PERIOD. [Underscoring and emphasis theirs]


The records, however, disclose that the scheduled hearing for June 28, 2002 was actually for the respondent’s application for temporary restraining order and was not a hearing on the adverse party’s motion to dismiss. The records also show that RTC-Branch 101 held in abeyance the respondent’s application for injunctive relief pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss filed by the adverse party. As stated in the order of the Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 101:

Browsing over the records of this case specifically the transcripts of stenographic notes as transcribed by the Stenographer, the same will indicate that the allegations in the Motion for Reconsideration are not true.

… how can this Court make a ruling on the matter even without stating the factual and legal bases as required/mandated by the Rules. Moreover, there are no indications or iota of irregularity in the preparation by Stenographer of the transcripts, and by the Court interpreter of the Minutes of the open Court session.[Underscoring theirs]

The records further disclose that despite knowledge of the falsity of his allegations, the respondent took advantage of his position and the trust reposed in him by his clients (who are all squatters) to convince them to support, through their affidavits, his false claims on what allegedly transpired in the June 28, 2002 hearing.

The Court found the respondent liable under Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 the Code of Professional Responsibility for violating the lawyer’s duty to observe candor and fairness in his dealings with the court. This provision states:

CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT

Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be mislead by an artifice.

Likewise, the respondent violated his duty as an attorney and his oath as a lawyer “never to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” The respondent failed to remember that his duty as an officer of the court makes him an indispensable participant in the administration of justice, and that he is expected to act candidly, fairly and truthfully in his work. His duty as a lawyer obligates him not to conceal the truth from the court, or to mislead the court in any manner, no matter how demanding his duties to his clients may be. In case of conflict, his duties to his client yield to his duty to deal candidly with the court.

In defending his clients’ interest, the respondent also failed to observe Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which reads:

CANON 19 – A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW

Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his clients x x x


This Canon obligates a lawyer, in defending his client, to employ only such means as are consistent with truth and honor. He should not prosecute patently frivolous and meritless appeals or institute clearly groundless actions. The recital of what the respondent did to prevent the execution of the judgment against his clients shows that he actually committed what the above rule expressly prohibits.


The Court added that “good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking unconscientious advantage of another. Accordingly, in University of the East v. Jader we said that "[g]ood faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking undue advantage of another, even though the forms and technicalities of law, together with the absence of all information or belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious." Bad faith, on the other hand, is a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest, ill will or for an ulterior purpose. As both concepts are states of mind, they may be deduced from the attendant circumstances and, more particularly, from the acts and statements of the person whose state of mind is the subject of inquiry.

In this case, the Court found that the respondent acted in bad faith in defending the interests of his clients. It drew this conclusion from the misrepresentations and the dubious recourses he made, all obviously geared towards forestalling the execution of the final judgments of the MeTC and RTC. That he took advantage of his legal knowledge and experience and misread the Rules immeasurably strengthen the presence of bad faith.

The Court added that while a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law. He must give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of his client’s case with the end in view of promoting respect for the law and legal processes, and counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. He must always remind himself of the oath he took upon admission to the Bar that he ‘will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same’; and that he ‘will conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients.’ Needless to state, the lawyer’s fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and the administration of justice, and it must be done within the bounds of reason and common sense. A lawyer’s responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party.

The Court further stated that the sui generis nature of a disbarment case renders the underlying motives of the complainants unimportant and with very little relevance. The purpose of a disbarment proceeding is mainly to determine the fitness of a lawyer to continue acting as an officer of the court and a participant in the dispensation of justice – an issue where the complainant’s personal motives have little relevance. For this reason, disbarment proceedings may be initiated by the Court motu proprio upon information of an alleged wrongdoing. As we also explained in the case In re: Almacen:

. . .disciplinary proceedings like the present are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not - and does not involve - a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.

x x x

It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of-the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.

Hence, we give little or no weight to the alleged personal motivation that drove the complainant Que and his counsel to file the present disbarment case.

In fine, the Court said that given the respondent’s multiple violations, his past record as previously discussed, and the nature of these violations which shows the readiness to disregard court rules and to gloss over concerns for the orderly administration of justice, we believe and so hold that the appropriate action of this Court is to disbar the respondent to keep him away from the law profession and from any significant role in the administration of justice which he has disgraced. He is a continuing risk, too, to the public that the legal profession serves. Not even his ardor and overzealousness in defending the interests of his client can save him. Such traits at the expense of everything else, particularly the integrity of the profession and the orderly administration of justice, this Court cannot accept nor tolerate.

Notarial violations

In the case of JUDGE LILY LYDIA LAQUINDANUM vs. ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA, En Banc, A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court revoked the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years, and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a warning that a repetition of a similar violation would be dealt with even more severely.

The administrative case against Atty. Quintana stemmed from a letter addressed to the Court filed by Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed on him for performing notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission, and for allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his absence.

In her letter, Judge Laquindanum alleged that pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, executive judges are required to closely monitor the activities of notaries public within the territorial bounds of their jurisdiction and to see to it that notaries public shall not extend notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority. Hence, she wrote a letter to Atty. Quintana directing him to stop notarizing documents within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato (which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao) since certain documents notarized by him had been reaching her office.

In its Report and Recommendation, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) of the Supreme Court recommended that Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being appointed as a notary public for two (2) years; and that if his notarial commission still exists, the same should be revoked for two (2) years. The OBC found the defenses and arguments raised by Atty. Quintana to be without merit.

The OBC cited Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus:

“Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning court is made, unless earlier revoked [or] the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

The OBC stated that under the rule, respondent may perform his notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning Executive Judge Concha, which was in Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao only. But definitely he could not extend his commission as notary public in Midsayap or Kabacan and in any place of the province of Cotabato as he was not commissioned thereat to do such act. Midsayap and Kabacan were not part of either Cotabato City or Province of Maguindanao but part of the province of North Cotabato. Thus, the claim of respondent that he could exercise his notarial commission in Midsayap, Cotabato because Cotabato City was part of the province of Cotabato was absolutely devoid of merit.

Further, per the OBC, evidence on record also showed that there were several documents which the respondent’s wife had herself notarized. Respondent justified that he could not be blamed for the act of his wife as he did not authorize the latter to notarize documents in his absence. According to him, he even scolded and told his wife not to do it anymore as it would affect his profession.

The OBC cited the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No. 5377, June 15, 2006 where the Court held, thus:

“A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register; He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to (his) secretaries”

The OBC stated that a person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wife’s act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is personally accountable for the activities in his office as well as the acts of his personnel including his wife, who acts as his secretary.

The OBC stressed further that Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus[:]

“A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document (1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.”


The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the OBC. However, it found the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months and revocation and suspension of Atty. Quintana's notarial commission for two (2) years more appropriate considering the gravity and number of his offenses.

The Court held that after a careful review of the records and evidence, there was no doubt that Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he committed the following acts: (1) he notarized documents outside the area of his commission as a notary public; (2) he performed notarial acts with an expired commission; (3) he let his wife notarize documents in his absence; and (4) he notarized a document where one of the signatories therein was already dead at that time.

The act of notarizing documents outside one’s area of commission is not to be taken lightly, the Court stated. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. Notarizing documents with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes. Notarizing documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the lawyer’s oath which unconditionally requires lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood, the Court added. Finally, the Court stressed that Atty. Quintana was personally accountable for the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by passing the blame to his wife, said the Court. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law, it concluded.

The Court furthermore held that a notarial commission should not be treated as a money-making venture. It is a privilege granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general. It must be underscored that notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof, the Court stated.

‘Judges stipends won’t cross COA rules’ - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

‘Judges stipends won’t cross COA rules’ - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos