volume x, issue no. 39 july-september 2008

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJuly - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

July to September 2008 Volume X, Issue No. 39

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

EEEEExxxxxccccceeeeelllllllllleeeeennnnnccccceeeee

iiiiinnnnn

ttttthhhhheeeee

JJJJJuuuuudddddiiiiiccccciiiiiaaaaarrrrryyyyy

SUPREME COURT

RE

PU

BLIC

OF THE PHILIP

PI N

ES

BATAS AT BAYAN

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS2

RJCEP (Level 5)

Date conducted: July 1 to 3, 2008Venue: Hotel Supreme, Baguio CityParticipants: 128 Regional Trial Court and First LevelTrial Court judges of the First Judicial Region

Access to Justice and Code of Conduct for Court

PersonnelDevelopment Partners: European Commission; DSWD;DOJ; DILG; ALG

Batches 1 and 2Dates conducted: July 2, 2008; July 3, 2008Venue: Legend International Resorts, Subic,ZambalesParticipants: 127 and 118 court personnelBatches 3 and 4Dates conducted: July 9, 2008; July 10, 2008Venue: Bethel Guest House, Dumaguete CityParticipants: 87 and 127 court personnelBatches 5 and 6Dates conducted: July 30, 2008; July 31, 2008Venue: Casablanca Hotel, Legazpi CityParticipants: 117 and 119 court personnel

53rd Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly

Appointed JudgesDate conducted: July 8 to 17, 2008Venue: College of Saint Benilde Hotel, Malate, ManilaParticipants: 26 judges

A. NEW APPOINTMENTS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Hon. Celso Raymundo L. Magsino, Jr.RTC Br. 74, Malabon CityHon. Nancy R. PalmonesRTC Br. 172, Valenzuela City

REGION IIIHon. Virgilita B. CastilloRTC Br. 12, Malolos, Bulacan

REGION IVHon. Wilfredo P. CastilloRTC Br. 85, Lipa City, Batangas

REGION VIHon. Alejandro S. Bahonsua, Jr.RTC Br. 46, Larena, Siquijor

REGION XIHon. Ridgway M. TanjiliRTC Br. 15, Davao City, Davao del Sur

B. PROMOTED


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Hon. Dinnah Aguila-TopacioRTC Br. 42, ManilaHon. Gina M. Bibat-PalamosRTC Br. 64, Makati CityHon. Rowena De Juan-QuinagoranRTC Br. 166, Pasig City

REGION IHon.Victor O. ConcepcionRTC Br. 66, San Fernando, La Union

REGION IVHon. Carolina F. De JesusRTC Br. 9, Balayan, BatangasHon. Noel M. LindogRTC Br. 13, Lipa City, BatangasHon. Romeo L. VillanuevaRTC Br. 60, Lucena City, Quezon

REGION XIHon. Jose Emmanuel M. CastilloRTC Br. 10, Davao City, Davao del Sur

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS

Hon. Rosalia I. Hipolito-BunaganMeTC Br. 29, ManilaHon. Emily L. San Gaspar-GitoMeTC Br. 20, ManilaHon. Joy N. Casihan-DumlaoMeTC Br. 72, Pasig CityHon. Arthur O. MalabaguioMeTC Caloocan CityHon. Ma. Ofelia S. Contreras-SorianoMeTC Br. 55, Malabon CityHon. Restituto V. Mangalindan, Jr.MeTC Br. 46, Pasay City

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

REGION IIIHon. Mary Jane B. Dacara-BuenaventuraMTCC Br. 2, San Fernando City, Pampanga

REGION XHon. Dennis B. CastillaMTCC Br. 1, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIIHon. Myrna S. LagrosaMTC Balagtas, Bulacan

REGION IVHon. Nilo P. ExchaureMTC Sto. Tomas, BatangasHon. Cornelio A. SyMTC San Jose, Mindoro Occidental

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

REGION IHon. Cristeta C. Flores9th MCTC Tayug-San Nicolas, Pangasinan

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSJuly - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008 3

Study Program on the Judicial Help-Book on R.A.

No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking Persons Act of 2003)Development Partners: USAID; ROLEDate conducted: July 10 to 11, 2008Venue: Montevista Villas, Mimosa Golf and CountryClub, PampangaParticipants: 26 judges

Multi-Sectoral Consultative Workshop on the

Manual and Training Design for Green CourtsDevelopment Partners: ASOG; US-DOI; USAID; AECEN;PTFCFDate conducted: July 16 to 18, 2008Venue: The Pearl Manila Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 34 comprising Court of Appeals Justices,Environmental Court judges, prosecutors,Environmental Law practitioners, and representativesfrom OSG, DENR, BFAD and PNP.

RJCEP (Level 5)

Date conducted: July 22 to 24, 2008Venue: Crown Regency Hotel, Fuente Osmena, Cebu CityParticipants: 123 Regional Trial Court and First LevelTrial Court Judges of Region VII

Personal Security Training for Judges

Development Partners: OCA; NBIDate conducted: July 24 to 26, 2008Venue: Waterfront Insular Hotel, Davao CityParticipants: 45 judges

15. Noel Darren Cenit Damian16. Aileen Liza Mamasabulod David17. Ma. Wengel Lou S. Dimalig18. May FlorV. Duka19. Don Ada Dupio20. Ramon Eduardo C. Elesteria21. Marie Liza Chagas Fallorin22. Gloria G. Futalan23. Maria Corazon Calimbayan Gadugdug24. Philger Noel Inovejas25. Alejandro D. Jovellar26. Bienvenido B. Llanes, Jr.27. Julito N. Lumusad

16th Pre-Judicature Program

Date conducted: August 4 to 14, 2008Venue: Plaza Maria Luisa Suites Inn, Dumaguete CityParticipants: 46 lawyers

1. Edwin B. Abil2. Juditho J. Agan3. Thelma C. Aguilar-Barot4. Maria Angelita B. Alcoran5. Ulysses C. Andora6. Alvin A. Aseniero7. Nerio Narciso B. Bulado8. Maria Antonia L. Bulado9. Biena Marieta C. Cabusao10. Ellen A. Calingacion11. Beth-Nectarine G. Catacutan-Andora12. Lalaine E. Cimafranca13. Martin Gerard S. Cornelio14. Angela Charina M. Cortes

(Continued on NEXT page)


28. Leonardo E. Mandajoyan29. Allan C. Martinez30. Amelia Lourdes U. Mendoza31. Jose Ramon M. Nakao32. Leah M. Nazareno33. Joel C. Obar34. Eva Fel C. Pacurib35. John Iggy G. Pallera36. Ma. Anna Priscila M. Pareja37. Rolando A. Piñero38. Eugene D. Salon39. Leo L. Señires40. Christopher Tomaneng Singson41. Whelma F. Siton-Yap42. Ronald R. Tenaja43. Tabitha E. Tinagan44. Ernesto Leonardo G. Valencia45. Edna S. Villamil46. Ernesto S. Yee

Seminar-Workshop on Managing Environmental

CasesDevelopment Partners: USEPA; USAID; AECENDate conducted: August 4 to 6, 2008Venue: Traders Hotel, Pasay CityParticipants: 25 comprising Environmental Courtjudges, prosecutors and representatives from DENR

Multi-Sectoral and Skills-Building Seminar-

Workshop on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killingsand Enforced DisappearancesDevelopment Partners: CHR; USAID; TAFDate conducted: August 7 to 8, 2008Venue: Marco Polo Plaza, Cebu CityParticipants: 61 comprising judges, public attorneys,prosecutors and others stakeholders of Region VII

(Batch 1)

Fourth Distinguished Lecture, Series of 2008

Topic: Customary International Humanitarian law:(ILHL): Issues on State Responsibility and CommandResponsibilityLecturer: Dr. Jean-Marie Henckaerts, Head ofCustomary International Humanitarian Law Projectof the International Committee of the Red CrossDevelopment Partner: ICRCDate conducted: August 13, 2008Venue: Court of Appeals AuditoriumParticipants: members of the Judiciary, members of thediplomatic corps, Supreme Court officials, PHILJAofficials and Corps of Professors, court attorneys,lawyers, law professors and law students

Roundtable Discussion on Public and Private

International Law Issues for the Philippine JudiciaryDevelopment Partners: Ateneo Law School, Center forInternational Economic Law; British EmbassyDate conducted: August 14, 2008Venue: Pan Pacific Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 34 comprising members of the Judiciaryand PHILJA Training Team


FIRST LEVEL TRIAL COURTS

REGION IIMs. Karen L. OlerianaMCTC, Amulung-Iguig, Cagayan

REGION VIMs. Rosalinda C. CaduhadaMCTC, Isabela-Moises Padilla, Negros Occidental

REGION IXMr. Abraham M. HakimMTCC OCC, Zamboanga City

RJCEP (Level 5)

Date conducted: August 26 to 28, 2008Venue: Waterfront Insular Hotel, Davao CityParticipants: 72 Regional Trial Court and First LevelTrial Court Judges of the 11th Judicial Region

Personal Security Training for Judges

Development Partners: OCA; NBIDate conducted: August 27 to 29, 2008Venue: Hotel Veniz, Baguio CityParticipants: 25 judges

Multi-Sectoral and Skills-Building Seminar-

Workshop on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killingsand Enforced DisappearancesDevelopment Partners: CHR; USAID; TAFDate conducted: August 28 to 29, 2008Venue: MetroCentre Hotel and Convention Center, BoholParticipants: 45 comprising judges, public attorneys,prosecutors and others stakeholders of Region VII(Batch 2)

10th Convention-Seminar of the Metropolitan Trial

Court Judges (METCJAP)Theme: Strong Judiciary: Facing the Challenges of theTimesDate conducted: September 1 to 5, 2008Venue: Bacolod Pavilion Hotel, Bacolod CityParticipants: 128 metropolitan trial court judges

Seminar-Workshop on CEDAW and Gender

Sensitivity for Sandiganbayan EmployeesDevelopment Partners: CGRJ; Sandiganbayan; AHRCDate conducted: September 11, 2008Venue: Sandiganbayan, Quezon CityParticipants: 49 Sandiganbayan personnel

12th Orientation Seminar-Workshop for Newly

Appointed Clerks of CourtDate conducted: August 19 to 22, 2008Venue: Hotel Fortuna, Cebu CityParticipants: 22 newly appointed clerks of court


REGION VIAtty. Jena Esther G. AgustinRTC Br. 56, Himamaylan, Negros OccidentalAtty. Raincelle D. OmayaoRTC OCC, Iloilo City

REGION VIIAtty. Alfredo Y. Arreza, Jr.RTC Br. 50, Laoay, BoholAtty. Hazel A. BetcoRTC Br. 1, Tagbilaran City, BoholAtty. Joan S. CalipesRTC Br. 16, Cebu CityAtty. Christine D. DollerRTC Br. 6, Cebu CityAtty. Bienvenido B. Llanes, Jr.RTC Br. 35, Dumaguete City, Negros OrientalAtty. Ruben Jay G. MedinaRTC Br. 2, Tagbilaran City, BoholAtty. Maria Cristina P. TecsonRTC Br. 47, Tagbilaran City, Bohol

REGION VIIIAtty. Shirley Joyce O. BoholRTC OCC, Calbayog City, SamarAtty. Phenalyn P. Brazil-AbellarRTC Br. 13, Carigara, LeyteAtty. Rona Pecayo-DiongzonRTC Br. 16, Naval, BiliranAtty. Michelle Marie P. Polo-TesoreroRTC Br. 14, Baybay, Leyte

REGION XAtty. Claudine Ann L. CaloRTC OCC, Butuan CityAtty. Glerma C. Catotal-CabreraRTC Br. 23, Cagayan de Oro CityAtty. Galerie Gee Y. FloresRTC Br. 14, Oroquieta City, Misamis OccidentalAtty. Gregory A. MacoyRTC Br. 12, Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental

REGION XIAtty. Jimmy B. BocoRTC Br. 30, Tagum City, Davao del NorteAtty. Catherine M. GuerzoRTC Br. 8, Davao City, Davao del Sur


Roundtable Discussion of Women Leaders in

Biodiversity ConservationPresenters: H.E. Kristie A. Kenney, US Embassy;Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez; UndersecretaryMary Ann Lucille L. Sering, DENR; Senior Justice PortiaAliño Hormachuelos, Court of Appeals; ChancellorAmeurfina A. Melencio Herrera, PHILJA; GovernorMaria Gracia Cielo Padaca, Isabela; Governor VilmaSantos-Recto, Batangas; Director Theresa Mundita S.Lim, PAWB; and Director Rosa F. Macas, BFARDevelopment Partners: USAID; US-DOIDate conducted: September 16, 2008Venue: Pan Pacific Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 65 comprising selected Metro Manilajudges, representatives of NGOs, and representativesof government agencies and local government units

International Conference on the International

Criminal CourtDevelopment Partner: Italian Embassy in ManilaDate conducted: September 25 to 26, 2008Venue: Renaissance Makati City Hotel, Makati CityParticipants: 374 comprising members of the Judiciary,representatives from the Office of the President, Senate,House of Representatives, CHR, DFA, DOJ, DND, DILG,AFP, NBI, IBP, and faculty and students from differentuniversities.

Seminar-Workshop on the Rule of Procedure for

Small ClaimsDevelopment Partners: OCA; USAID; ABA-ROLIDate conducted: September 29, 2008Venue: Manila Pavilion Hotel, ManilaParticipants: 110 judges

MEDIATION

Advanced Course for Mediators

La Union Mediation ProgramDate conducted: July 3, 2008Venue: Hotel Ariana, La Union

Cebu Mediation ProgramDate conducted: July 17, 2008Venue: Hotel Fortuna, Cebu City

Leyte Mediation ProgramDate conducted: July 31, 2008Venue: Hotel Alejandro, Tacloban City

Bulacan Mediation Program and ProgramAssessment on Court-Annexed AdvancedCourts for MediatorsDate conducted: August 5, 2008Venue: Justice’s Lounge, Supreme Court,Manila

Davao Mediation ProgramDate conducted: August 13, 2008Venue: Waterfront Hotel, Davao City

Cagayan Mediation ProgramDate conducted: August 27, 2008Venue: Villa Blanca Hotel, Tuguegarao City

Program Assessment on Court-Annexed

Mediation with Judges, Clerks of Court, BranchClerks of Court, and Selected Stakeholders

La Union Mediation ProgramDate conducted: July 4, 2008Venue: Hotel Ariana, La Union

Cebu Mediation ProgramDate conducted: July 18, 2008Venue: Hotel Fortuna, Cebu City

Leyte Mediation ProgramDate conducted: August 1, 2008Venue: Hotel Alejandro, Tacloban City

Davao Mediation ProgramDate conducted: August 14, 2008Venue: Waterfront Hotel, Davao City

Orientation Conference with Stakeholders on

Court-Annexed Mediation

Pangasinan Mediation ProgramDate conducted: July 9, 2008Venue: Pangasinan Regency Hotel,Pangasinan


Oath-Taking of Tuguegarao Mediators and

Program Assessment on Court-Annexed Mediationwith Judges, Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Courtand Selected Stakeholders

Cagayan Mediation ProgramDate conducted: August 26, 2008Venue: Hall of Justice and Villa Blanca Hotel,Tuguegarao City

Basic Mediation Course

Pangasinan Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 9 to 12, 2008Venue: Hotel Consuelo Resort and ChineseRestaurant, Pangasinan

Pre-Settlement Period Orientation with Judge,

Clerks of Court, Branch Clerks of Court andMediators

La Union Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 15, 2008Venue: Hotel Ariana, Bauang, La Union

Benguet Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 16, 2008Venue: Hotel Veniz, Baguio City

Bulacan Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 17, 2008Venue: Barcie International Center, Bulacan

Pampanga Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 17, 2008Venue: Oasis Hotel, Pampanga

Manila Mediation ProgramBatch 1Date conducted: September 18, 2008Venue: Trader’s Hotel, Pasay CityBatch 2Date conducted: September 23, 2008Venue: Golden Apple Seafood Restaurant,Caloocan CityBatch 3Date conducted: September 29, 2008Venue: Bayview Park Hotel, ManilaBatch 4Date conducted: September 29, 2008Venue: Camelot Hotel, Quezon City

Batangas Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 18, 2008Venue: Batangas Country Club,Batangas City

Negros Occidental Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 19, 2008Venue: Bacolod Pavilion Resort HotelRestaurant, Bacolod City

JUSTICE AMEURFINA A. MELENCIO HERRERA

Chancellor, Philippine Judicial Academy

PROFESSOR SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA

Editor-in-Chief

ARMIDA M. SALAZAR

Assistant Editor

ATTY. ORLANDO B. CARIÑO

JOCELYN D. BONDOC

CHRISTINE A. FERRER

MA. INA D. MACARIOLA

JENIFFER P. SISON

Editorial Staff

SARAH JANE S.SALAZAR

Circulation

EDMUNDO M. MOREDO

LETICIA G. JAVIER

Printing Services

Cebu Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 22, 2008Venue: Montebello Villa Hotel, Cebu City

Leyte Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 22, 2008Venue: Tacloban Celebrity Plaza,Tacloban City

Misamis Oriental Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 24, 2008Venue: Dynasty Court Hotel, Cagayan de OroCity

South Cotabato Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 24, 2008Venue: Casa Luisa Restaurant, GeneralSantos City

Davao Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 26, 2008Venue: Grand Menseng Hotel, Davao City

Zamboanga Mediation ProgramDate conducted: September 29, 2008Venue: Grand Astoria Hotel and Restaurant,Zamboanga City

The PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin is published quarterly by theResearch, Publications, and Linkages Office of thePhilippine Judicial Academy, with office at the 3rd

Floor of the Supreme Court Centennial Building,Padre Faura Street cor. Taft Avenue, Manila.

Telephone No. 552-9524; Telefax No. 552-9621E-mail address: [email protected] address:http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURNEW RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURTTTTT8

POLITICAL LAWOnly Congress can create provinces and cities

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 19, ArticleVI of R.A. No. 9054, insofar as it grants to the ARMMRegional Assembly the power to create provinces andcities, is void for being contrary to Section 5 of ArticleVI and Section 20 of Article X of the Constitution, aswell as Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to theConstitution. Only Congress can create provincesand cities because the creation of provinces and citiesnecessarily includes the creation of legislativedistricts, a power only Congress can exercise underSection 5, Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. TheARMM Regional Assembly cannot create a provincewithout a legislative district because the Constitutionmandates that every province shall have a legislativedistrict. Moreover, the ARMM Regional Assemblycannot enact a law creating a national office like theoffice of a district representative of Congress becausethe legislative powers of the ARMM RegionalAssembly operate only within its territorialjurisdiction as provided in Section 20, Article X of theConstitution. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled thatMMA Act 201, enacted by the ARMM RegionalAssembly and creating the Province of ShariffKabunsuan, is void.

Carpio, J., Bai Sandra S.A. Sema, petitioner, v.Commission on Elections and Didagen P. Dilangalen,G.R. No. 177597 and 178628, July 16, 2008.)

ELECTION LAWCondition before a Filipino of dual citizenship canqualify to run for an elective office

R.A. No. 9225 expressly provides for the conditionsbefore those who re-acquired Filipino citizenship mayrun for a public office in the Philippines. Section 5 ofthe said law states:

Section 5. Civil and Political Rights andLiabilities. -- Those who retain or re-acquirePhilippine citizenship under this Act shallenjoy full civil and political rights and besubject to all attendant liabilities andresponsibilities under existing laws of thePhilippines and the following conditions:

x x x x

(2) Those seeking elective public office in thePhilippines shall meet the qualification forholding such public office as required by theConstitution and existing laws and, at the time

of the filing of the certificate of candidacy,make a personal and sworn renunciation ofany and all foreign citizenship before anypublic officer authorized to administer anoath. (Emphasis added)

Petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenshipunder the cited law. This new law explicitly providesthat should one seek elective public office, he shouldfirst “make a personal and sworn renunciation of anyand all foreign citizenship before any public officerauthorized to administer an oath.”

Petitioner failed to comply with this requirement.We quote with approval the COMELEC observationon this point:

While respondent was able to regain hisFilipino Citizenship by virtue of the DualCitizenship Law when he took his oath ofallegiance before the Vice Consul of thePhilippine Consulate General’s Office in LosAngeles, California, the same is not enough toallow him to run for a public office. The above-quoted provision of law mandates that acandidate with dual citizenship must make apersonal and sworn renunciation of any andall foreign citizenship before any public officerauthorized to administer an oath. There is noevidence presented that will show thatrespondent complied with the provision ofR.A. No. 9225. Absent such proof we cannotallow respondent to run for BarangayChairman of Barangay Bagacay.

For the renunciation to be valid, it must becontained in an affidavit duly executed beforean officer of law who is authorized toadminister an oath. The affiant must state inclear and unequivocal terms that he isrenouncing all foreign citizenship for it to beeffective. In the instant case, respondentLopez’s failure to renounce his Americancitizenship as proven by the absence of anaffidavit that will prove the contrary leads thisCommission to believe that he failed tocomply with the positive mandate of law. Forfailure of respondent to prove that heabandoned his allegiance to the United States,this Commission holds him disqualified fromrunning for an elective position in thePhilippines. (Emphasis added)

(Reyes, R.T., J., Eusebio Eugenio K. Lopez v. Commissionon Elections and Tessie P. Villanueva, G.R. No. 182701,July 23, 2008.)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSJuly - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008 9

CIVIL LAWContract of Sale and Contract to Sell distinguished

The difference between contracts of sale andcontracts to sell is relevant. In a contract of sale, thetitle to the property passes to the vendee upon thedelivery of the thing sold; in a contract to sell,ownership is, by agreement, reserved in the vendorand is not to pass to the vendee until full payment ofthe purchase price. Otherwise stated, in a contract ofsale, the vendor loses ownership over the propertyand cannot recover it until and unless the contract isresolved or rescinded; whereas in a contract to sell,title is retained by the vendor until full payment ofthe price. In the latter contract, payment of the price isa positive suspensive condition, failure of which is nota breach but an event that prevents the obligation ofthe vendor to convey title from becoming effective.

A careful reading of the stipulations in the Deed ofConditional Sale conveys the intent of the parties to enterinto a contract to sell. The fourth paragraph of thecontract explicitly states that only when full paymentof the purchase price is made shall Antonio executethe deed of absolute sale transferring and conveyinghis shares in the subject properties. Clearly, the intentis to reserve ownership in the seller, Antonio, untilthe buyer, Titan, pays in full the purchase price. Thefull payment of the purchase price does notautomatically vest ownership in Titan. A deed ofabsolute sale still has to be executed by Antonio.

(Tinga, J., Heirs of Antonio F. Bernabe (namely: EvelynC. Vda. De Bernabe and Jose III, Shirley Ann, Gregory,Alexander, and Michael, all surnamed Bernabe) v.Court of Appeals and Titan Construction Corporation,G.R. No. 154402, July 21, 2008.)

MERCANTILE LAWWarsaw Convention; its applicability and limitations

The Warsaw Convention applies to “allinternational transportation of persons, baggage orgoods performed by any aircraft for hire.” It seeks toaccommodate or balance the interests of passengersseeking recovery for personal injuries and theinterests of air carriers seeking to limit potentialliability. It employs a scheme of strict liability favoringpassengers and imposing damage caps to benefit aircarriers. The cardinal purpose of the WarsawConvention is to provide uniformity of rules governingclaims arising from international air travel; thus, itprecludes a passenger from maintaining an action forpersonal injury damages under local law when his orher claim does not satisfy the conditions of liabilityunder the Convention.

Article 19 of the Warsaw Convention providesfor liability on the part of a carrier for “damagesoccasioned by delay in the transportation by air ofpassengers, baggage or goods.” Article 24 excludesother remedies by further providing that “(1) in thecases covered by Articles 18 and 19, any action fordamages, however founded, can only be broughtsubject to the conditions and limits set out in thisconvention.” Therefore, a claim covered by theWarsaw Convention can no longer be recovered underlocal law, if the statute of limitations of two years hasalready lapsed.

Nevertheless, the Court notes that jurisprudencein the Philippines and the United States alsorecognizes that the Warsaw Convention does not“exclusively regulate” the relationship betweenpassenger and carrier on an international flight. TheCourt finds that the present case is substantiallysimilar to cases in which the damages sought wereconsidered to be outside the coverage of the WarsawConvention.

In United Airlines v. Uy, the Court distinguishedbetween the (1) damage to the passenger’s baggageand (2) humiliation he suffered at the hands of theairline’s employees. The first cause of action wascovered by the Warsaw Convention which prescribesin two years, while the second was covered by theprovisions of the Civil Code on torts, which prescribesin four years.

Similar distinctions were made in Americanjurisprudence. In Mahaney v. Air France, a passengerwas denied access to an airline flight between NewYork and Mexico, despite the fact that she held aconfirmed reservation. The court therein ruled that ifthe plaintiff were to claim damages based solely onthe delay she experienced – for instance, the costs ofrenting a van, which she had to arrange on her ownas a consequence of the delay – the complaint wouldbe barred by the two-year statute of limitations.However, where the plaintiff alleged that the airlinessubjected her to unjust discrimination or undue orunreasonable preference or disadvantage, an actpunishable under the United States laws, then theplaintiff may claim purely nominal compensatorydamages for humiliation and hurt feelings, which arenot provided for by the Warsaw Convention. Inanother case, Wolgel v. Mexicana Airlines, the courtpronounced that actions for damages for the“bumping off” itself, rather than the incidentaldamages due to the delay, fall outside the WarsawConvention and do not prescribe in two years.

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERSDOCTRINAL REMINDERS10

MERCANTILE LAW (continued)

REMEDIAL LAWRequirement of Notice and hearing in motions filed

As the Court declared in New Japan Motors, Inc. v.Perucho:

Under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules ofCourt, x x x a motion is required to be accompaniedby a notice of hearing which must be served bythe applicant on all parties concerned at leastthree days before the hearing thereof. Section 6of the same rule commands that ‘(n)o motion shallbe acted upon by the Court, without proof ofservice of the notice thereof x x x.’ It is thereforepatent that the motion for reconsideration inquestion is fatally defective for it did not containany notice of hearing. We have alreadyconsistently held in a number of cases that therequirements of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 ofthe Rules of Court are mandatory and that failure

to comply with the same is fatal to movant’s cause.

Since the assailed motion of the respondent failedto comply with Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of theRevised Rules of Court, the MTC, therefore, had nojurisdiction to act upon it. Such motion is nothing buta piece of paper unworthy of judicial cognizance.Hence, the MTC, in receiving and granting such motion,committed patent errors that must accordingly berectified. Thus, the Orders dated 22 October 1997, 23October 1997, and 10 August 1998 issued by the MTCare null and void and must be set aside.

(Chico-Nazario, J., Solar Resources, Inc. v. InlandTrailways, Inc., G.R. No. 173566, July 4, 2008.)

In the Petition at bar, private respondent’sComplaint alleged that both PAL and SingaporeAirlines were guilty of gross negligence, whichresulted in his being subjected to “humiliation,embarrassment, mental anguish, serious anxiety, fearand distress.” The emotional harm suffered by theprivate respondent as a result of having beenunreasonably and unjustly prevented from boardingthe plane should be distinguished from the actualdamages which resulted from the same incident.Under the Civil Code provisions on tort, suchemotional harm gives rise to compensation wheregross negligence or malice is proven.

The instant case is comparable to the case ofLathigra v. British Airways.

(Chico-Nazario, J. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Hon.Adriano Savillo, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 30,Iloilo City, and Simplicio Griño, G.R. No. 149547, July4, 2008.)

Submission of Memorandum

In Enriquez v. Court of Appeals, the Court furtherelucidated on the meaning and consequence of theprovisions of Section 7(b), Rule 40 of the Rules of Court,to wit:

Rule 40, Section 7 (b) provides that, “it shall bethe duty of the appellant to submit amemorandum” and failure to do so “shall be aground for dismissal of the appeal.” The use ofthe word “shall” in a statute or rule expresseswhat is mandatory and compulsory. Further, theRule imposes upon an appellant the “duty” tosubmit his memorandum. A duty is a “legal ormoral obligation, mandatory act, responsibility,charge, requirement, trust, chore, function,commission, debt, liability, assignment, role,pledge, dictate, office, (and) engagement.” Thus,under the express mandate of said Rule, theappellant is duty-bound to submit hismemorandum on appeal. Such submission is nota matter of discretion on his part. His failure tocomply with this mandate or to perform said dutywill compel the RTC to dismiss his appeal.

In rules of procedure, an act which isjurisdictional, or of the essence of theproceedings, or is prescribed for the protectionor benefit of the party affected is mandatory. Asprivate respondent points out, in appeals frominferior courts to the RTC, the appellant’s brief ismandatory for the assignment of errors is vitalto the decision of the appeal on the merits. This isbecause on appeal only errors specificallyassigned and properly argued in the brief ormemorandum will be considered, except thoseaffecting jurisdiction over the subject matter aswell as plain and clerical errors. Otherwise stated,an appellate court has no power to resolve anunassigned error, which does not affect thecourt’s jurisdiction over the subject matter, savefor a plain or clerical error.

It is true that the Rules should be interpreted soas to give litigants ample opportunity to provetheir respective claims and that a possible denialof substantial justice due to legal technicalitiesshould be avoided. But it is equally true that anappeal being a purely statutory right, anappealing party must strictly comply with therequisites laid down in the Rules of Court. Inother words, he who seeks to avail of the right toappeal must play by the rules. This the petitionerfailed to do when she did not submit hermemorandum of appeal in Civil Case No. 12044as required by Rule 40, Section 7 of the 1997 Rulesof Civil Procedure. That she lost her case is notthe trial court’s fault but her own.


REMEDIAL LAW (continued)

The aforequoted ruling of the Court was reiteratedin the more recent case of Gonzales v. Gonzales, G.R. No.151376, February 22, 2006, 483, SCRA 57, 66-69.

(Austria-Martinez, J., Dr. Lorna Villa v. Heirs of EnriqueAltavas, namely: Enrique Altavas II, Erlinda Liboroand Maria A. de Jesus, G.R. No. 162028, July 14, 2008.)

Issue of jurisdiction cannot be waived

The general rule should, however, be, as it hasalways been, that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised atany stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost bywaiver or by estoppel. Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant fromasserting the court’s absence or lack of jurisdiction, onlysupervenes in exceptional cases similar to the factual milieu ofTijam v. Sibonghanoy. Indeed, the fact that a personattempts to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of acourt does not estop him from thereafter challengingits jurisdiction over the subject matter, since suchjurisdiction must arise by law and not by mere consentof the parties. This is especially true where the personseeking to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of the courtdoes not thereby secure any advantage or the adverseparty does not suffer any harm.

Applying the said doctrine to the instant case, thepetitioner is in no way estopped by laches in assailingthe jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that he raisedthe lack thereof in his appeal before the appellate court.At that time, no considerable period had yet elapsedfor laches to attach. True, delay alone, thoughunreasonable, will not sustain the defense of “estoppelby laches” unless it further appears that the party, knowinghis rights, has not sought to enforce them until the condition ofthe party pleading laches has in good faith become so changedthat he cannot be restored to his former state, if the rights bethen enforced, due to loss of evidence, change of title,intervention of equities, and other causes. In applying theprinciple of estoppel by laches in the exceptional caseof Sibonghanoy, the Court therein considered the patentand revolting inequity and unfairness of having thejudgment creditors go up their Calvary once more aftermore or less 15 years. The same, however, does notobtain in the instant case.

We note at this point that estoppel, being in thenature of a forfeiture, is not favored by law. It is to beapplied rarely—only from necessity, and only inextraordinary circumstances. The doctrine must beapplied with great care and the equity must be strongin its favor. When misapplied, the doctrine of estoppelmay be a most effective weapon for theaccomplishment of injustice. Moreover, a judgmentrendered without jurisdiction over the subject matteris void. Hence, the Revised Rules of Court provides for

remedies in attacking judgments rendered by courtsor tribunals that have no jurisdiction over theconcerned cases. No laches will even attach when thejudgment is null and void for want of jurisdiction. Aswe have stated in Heirs of Julian Dela Cruz and LeonoraTalaro v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz,

It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal,including a quasi-judicial officer or governmentagency, over the nature and subject matter of apetition or complaint is determined by thematerial allegations therein and the character ofthe relief prayed for, irrespective of whether thepetitioner or complainant is entitled to any or allsuch reliefs. Jurisdiction over the nature and subjectmatter of an action is conferred by the Constitutionand the law, and not by the consent or waiver of theparties where the court otherwise would have nojurisdiction over the nature or subject matter of theaction. Nor can it be acquired through, or waived by,any act or omission of the parties. Moreover, estoppeldoes not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal thathas none over the cause of action.x x x

Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal isnot affected by the defenses or theories set upby the defendant or respondent in his answer ormotion to dismiss. Jurisdiction should bedetermined by considering not only the status orthe relationship of the parties but also the natureof the issues or questions that is the subject ofthe controversy. x x x The proceedings before a courtor tribunal without jurisdiction, including its decision,are null and void, hence, susceptible to direct and

collateral attacks .

(Nachura, J., Venancio Figueroa y Cervantes v. Peopleof the Philippines, G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008.)

Actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer;similarities and dissimilarities

The actions for forcible entry and unlawfuldetainer are similar because they are both summaryactions where the issue is purely physical possession.Other than these commonalities, however, theypossess dissimilarities that are clear, distinct, and wellestablished in law.

In forcible entry, (1) the plaintiff must prove thathe was in prior physical possession of the propertyuntil he was deprived of possession by the defendant;(2) the defendant secures possession of the disputedproperty from the plaintiff by means of force,intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; hence, hispossession is unlawful from the beginning; (3) the lawdoes not require a previous demand by the plaintifffor the defendant to vacate the premises; and (4) the




action can be brought only within one-year from thedate the defendant actually and illegally entered theproperty.

In marked contrast, unlawful detainer is attendedby the following features: (1) prior possession of theproperty by the plaintiff is not necessary; (2)possession of the property by the defendant at the startis legal but the possession becomes illegal by reasonof the termination of his right to possession based onhis or her contract or other arrangement with theplaintiff; (3) the plaintiff is required by law to make ademand as a jurisdictional requirement; and (4) theone-year period to bring the complaint is counted fromthe date of the plaintiff’s last demand on the defendant.

(Brion, J. Sps. Narciso Barnachea and Julita Barnachea(now heirs of deceased Julita Barnachea), petitioners,v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Oscar C. Herrera, Jr.,Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 20, Malolos, Bulacan,Hon. Horacio . Viola, Presiding Judge, MTC Pulilan,Bulacan, and Sps. Avelino and Priscilla Ignacio,respondents, G.R. No. 150025, July 23, 2008.)

Nunc pro tunc – jugments; definition and characteristicof

Nunc pro tunc judgments have been defined andcharacterized by the Court in the following manner:

The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not therendering of a new judgment and theascertainment and determination of new rights, butis one placing in proper form on the record, thejudgment that had been previously rendered, tomake it speak the truth, so as to make it show whatthe judicial action really was, not to correct judicialerrors, such as to render a judgment which the courtought to have rendered, in place of the one it diderroneously render, nor to supply nonaction bythe court, however erroneous the judgment mayhave been. (Wilmerding v. Corbin Banking Co., 28South., 640, 641; 126 Ala., 268.)

A nunc pro tunc entry in practice is an entry madenow of something which was actually previouslydone, to have effect as of the former date. Itsoffice is not to supply omitted action by the court,but to supply an omission in the record of actionreally had, but omitted through inadvertence ormistake. (Perkins v. Haywood, 31 N. E., 670, 672.)

Unquestionably, respondent and Azur wereadjudged by the RTC jointly and severally liable foractual damages. But the fallo of the RTC decision didnot indicate how the amount of the actual damagesaward should be determined. While the decisionstated that the award of actual damages in the amountof P2,000 per Sunday was to be computed from August

2, 1992, there is nothing in the fallo suggesting at thevery least when the P2,000 per Sunday liability willend.

In accordance with the exception for modificationof a final judgment, there is a need to amend thedecision of the RTC pursuant to the nunc pro tunc rulewhich, we hasten to add, will cause no prejudice toany party. In this regard, justice and equity dictatethat respondent and Azur should be held solidarilyliable for actual damages in the amount of P2,000 forevery actual illegal cockfight held, regardless of thestaging date, in Azur’s cockpit in Caibiran, Biliran,reckoned from August 2, 1992 to June 22, 2001 whenthe finality of the RTC Decision dated February 17,1995 set in.

(Velasco, Jr., J., Dominador A. Mocorro, Jr. v. RoditoRamirez, G.R. No. 178366, July 28, 2008.)

Probable Cause; definition of; an executive function

Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminalinformation, has been defined as such facts as aresufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crimehas been committed and that respondent is probablyguilty thereof. The term does not mean “actual andpositive cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry intowhether there is sufficient evidence to procure aconviction. It is enough that it is believed that the actor omission complained of constitutes the offensecharged.

A finding of probable cause needs only to rest onevidence showing that more likely than not a crimehas been committed by the suspects. It need not bebased on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, noton evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonabledoubt, and definitely not on evidence establishingabsolute certainty of guilt. In determining probablecause, the average man weighs facts andcircumstances without resorting to the calibrationsof the rules of evidence of which he has no technicalknowledge. He relies on common sense. What isdetermined is whether there is sufficient ground toengender a well-founded belief that a crime has beencommitted, and that the accused is probably guiltythereof and should be held for trial. It does not requirean inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidenceto secure a conviction.

These findings of probable cause fall within thejurisdiction of the prosecutor or fiscal in the exerciseof executive power, which the courts do not interfere



with unless there is grave abuse of discretion. Thedetermination of its existence lies within thediscretion of the prosecuting officers after conductinga preliminary investigation upon complaint of anoffended party. Thus, the decision whether to dismissa complaint or not is dependent upon the sounddiscretion of the prosecuting fiscal. He may dismissthe complaint forthwith, if he finds the chargeinsufficient in form or substance or without anyground. Or he may proceed with the investigation ifthe complaint in his view is sufficient and in properform. To emphasize, the determination of probablecause for the filing of information in court is anexecutive function, one that properly pertains at thefirst instance to the public prosecutor and, ultimately,to the Secretary of Justice, who may direct the filingof the corresponding information or move for thedismissal of the case. Ultimately, whether or not acomplaint will be dismissed is dependent on the sounddiscretion of the Secretary of Justice. And unless madewith grave abuse of discretion, findings of theSecretary of Justice are not subject to review.

For this reason, the Court considers it soundjudicial policy to refrain from interfering in theconduct of preliminary investigations and to leavethe Department of Justice ample latitude of discretionin the determination of what constitutes sufficientevidence to establish probable cause for theprosecution of supposed offenders. Consistent withthis policy, courts do not reverse the Secretary ofJustice’s findings and conclusions on the matter ofprobable cause except in clear cases of grave abuse ofdiscretion.

(Chico-Nazario, J. Anthony T. Reyes v. PearlbankSecurities, Inc., G.R. No. 171435, July 30, 2008.)

Prejudicial question; its concept

Our concept of prejudicial question was liftedfrom Spain, where civil cases are tried exclusively bycivil courts, while criminal cases are tried exclusivelyin criminal courts. Each kind of court isjurisdictionally distinct from and independent of theother. In the Philippines, however, courts areinvariably tribunals of general jurisdiction. Thismeans that courts here exercise jurisdiction over bothcivil and criminal cases. Thus, it is not impossible thatthe criminal case, as well as the civil case in which aprejudicial question may rise, may be both pendingin the same court. For this reason, the elements ofprejudicial question have been modified in such a waythat the phrase “pendency of the civil case in adifferent tribunal” has been eliminated.

The rule is that there is prejudicial question when(a) the previously instituted civil action involves anissue similar or intimately related to the issue raisedin the subsequent criminal action, and (b) theresolution of such issue determines whether or notthe criminal action may proceed. It comes into playgenerally in a situation where a civil action and acriminal action are both pending and there exists inthe former an issue which must be preemptivelyresolved before the criminal action may proceed. Thisis so because howsoever the issue raised in the civilaction is resolved would be determinative juris et dejure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in thecriminal case.

Here, no prejudicial question exists because thereis no pending criminal case. The consolidated NLRCcases cannot be considered as “previously institutedcivil action.” In Berbari v. Concepcion, it was held that aprejudicial question is understood in law to be thatwhich must precede the criminal action, that whichrequires a decision with which said question is closelyrelated.

Neither can the doctrine of prejudicial questionbe applied by analogy . The issue in the case filed byDr. Climaco with the SSC involves the question ofwhether or not he is an employee of Coca-Cola Bottlers(Phils.), Inc. and subject to the compulsory coverageof the Social Security System. On the contrary, thecases filed by Dr. Climaco before the NLRC involveddifferent issues. In his first complaint, Dr. Climacosought recognition as a regular employee of thecompany and demanded payment of his 13th monthpay, cost of living allowance, holiday pay, serviceincentive leave pay, Christmas bonus and all otherbenefits. The second complaint was for illegaldismissal, with prayer for reinstatement to his formerposition as company physician of the company’sBacolod Plant, without loss of seniority rights, withfull payment of backwages, other unpaid benefits, andfor payment of damages. Thus, the issues in the NLRCcases are not determinative of whether or not the SSCshould proceed. It is settled that the question claimedto be prejudicial in nature must be determinative ofthe case before the court.

(Reyes, RT., J., Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. and EricMontinola v. Social Security Commission and Dr. DeanClimaco, G.R. No. 159323, July 31, 2008.)


AGRARIAN LAWJurisdiction of the DARAB; DARAB has no criminaljurisdiction

In Bautista v. Mag-isa Vda. de Villena, the SupremeCourt outlined the jurisdiction of the DARAB, to wit:

For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vestedin the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR);more specifically, in the Department of AgrarianReform Adjudication Board (DARAB).

Executive Order 229 vested the DAR with (1)quasi-judicial powers to determine andadjudicate agrarian reform matters; and (2)jurisdiction over all matters involving theimplementation of agrarian reform, except thosefalling under the exclusive original jurisdictionof the Department of Agriculture and theDepartment of Environment and NaturalResources. This law divested the regional trialcourts of their general jurisdiction to try agrarianreform matters.

Under Republic Act No. 6657, the DAR retainsjurisdiction over all agrarian reform matters. The

pertinent provision reads:

SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.— The DAR is hereby vested with theprimary jurisdiction to determine andadjudicate agrarian reform matters andshall have exclusive original jurisdictionover all matters involving theimplementation of agrarian reform,except those falling under the exclusivejurisdiction of the Department ofAgriculture and the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources.

It shall not be bound by technical rulesof procedure and evidence but shallproceed to hear and decide all cases,disputes or controversies in a mostexpeditious manner, employing allreasonable means to ascertain the factsof every case in accordance with justiceand equity and the merits of the case.Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniformrule of procedure to achieve a just,expeditious and inexpensivedetermination of every action orproceeding before it.

x x x x

Subsequently, in the process ofreorganizing and strengthening theDAR, Executive Order No. 129-A wasissued; it created the DARAB to assumethe adjudicatory powers and functionsof the DAR. Pertinent provisions of Rule

II of the DARAB 2003 Rules of Procedureread:

SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive OriginalJurisdiction. — The Adjudicator shallhave primary and exclusive originaljurisdiction to determine and adjudicatethe following cases:

1.1. The rights and obligations ofpersons, whether natural orjuridical, engaged in themanagement, cultivation, and use ofall agricultural lands covered byRepublic Act (RA) No. 6657,otherwise known as theComprehensive Agrarian ReformLaw (CARL), and other relatedagrarian laws;

x x x x

1.4. Those cases involving the ejectmentand dispossession of tenants and/or leaseholders;

x x x x

Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657, or the CARL, definesan “agrarian dispute” over which the DARAB hasexclusive original jurisdiction as:

(d) x x x refer[ing] to any controversy relating totenurial arrangements, whether leasehold,tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, overlands devoted to agriculture, includingdisputes concerning farmworkersassociations or representation of persons innegotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing orseeking to arrange terms or conditions ofsuch tenurial arrangements including anycontroversy relating to compensation oflands acquired under this Act and otherterms and conditions of transfer ofownership from landowners to farmworkers,tenants and other agrarian reformbeneficiaries, whether the disputants standin the proximate relation of farm operatorand beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or

lessor and lessee.

Clearly, the law and the DARAB Rules aredeafeningly silent on the conferment of any criminaljurisdiction in favor of the DARAB. It is worth stressingthat even the jurisdiction over the prosecution ofcriminal offenses in violation of R.A. No. 6657 per se islodged with the SACs and not with the DARAB.

(Nachura, J., People of the Philippines v. Samuel andLoreta Valenzuela, G.R. No. 178266, July 21, 2008.)

PHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSJuly - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008July - September 2008 15

SUPREME COURTRESOLUTION of the COURT En Banc datedSeptember 16, 2008, on A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA

Acting on the letter of the Presiding Justice, Courtof Tax Appeals, submitting for the consideration andapproval of the Court the “Proposed Amendments tothe Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals,” theCourt Resolved to APPROVE the same,

The Rule shall take effect on October 15, 2008following its publication in two newspapers of generalcirculation in the Philippines.

September 16, 2008.

(Sgd.) PUNO, CJ, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIOMORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, REYES, LEONARDO-DECASTRO, BRION, JJ.

AMENDMENTS TO THE 2005 RULESOF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

Pursuant to the promulgation of Republic Act No.9503, An Act Enlarging the Organization Structure of theCourt of Tax Appeals, Amending for the Purpose CertainSections of the Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, and forOther Purposes” on June 12, 2008, the 2005 Revised Rulesof the Court of Tax Appeals which was approved bythe Supreme Court on November 22, 2005, should nowbe amended.

SECTION I. – Section 1, 3, 4, 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 7 and 8 of Rule2 are hereby amended to read:

RULE 2THE COURT, ITS ORGANIZATION

AND FUNCTIONS

SECTION 1. Composition of the Court. – The Courtis composed of a presiding justice and eightassociate justices appointed by the President ofthe Philippines. In appropriate cases, the Courtshall sit en banc, or in three Divisions of threejustices each, including the presiding justice, whoshall be the Chairperson of the First Division andthe two most Senior Associate Justices shallserve as Chairpersons of the Second and ThirdDivisions respectively. (a)

x x x x

SEC. 3. Court En Banc; quorum and voting. – Thepresiding justice or, if absent, the most seniorjustice in attendance shall preside over thesessions of the Court En Banc. The attendance offive justices of the Court shall constitute a quorumfor its session en banc. The presence at thedeliberation and the affirmative vote of five

members of the Court En Banc shall be necessaryto reverse a decision of a decision of a Divisionbut only a simple majority of the justices presentto promulgate a resolution or decision in all othercases. Where the necessary majority votecannot be had, the petition shall be dismissed; inappealed cases, the judgment or order appealedfrom shall stand affirmed; and on all incidentalmatters, the petition or motion shall be denied. (a)

SEC. 4. The Court in Division; quorum and voting.– The Chairperson of the Division or, if absent,the most senior member shall preside over thesessions of the Court in Divisions. The attendanceof at least two justices of the Court shall benecessary to constitute a quorum for its sessionsin Divisions. The presence at the deliberationand the affirmative vote of at least two justicesshall be required for the pronouncement of ajudgment or final resolution of the Court inDivisions. (a)

SEC. 6. Disqualification of justices. –

(a) Mandatory. – No justice or other officer oremployee of the Court shall intervene, directlyor indirectly, in the management or control ofany private enterprise which in any way maybe affected by the functions of the Court.Justices of the Court shall be disqualified fromsitting in any case on the same groundsprovided under the first paragraph, Section 1,Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. No person whohas once served in the Court either aspresiding justice or as associate justice shallbe qualified to practice as counsel before theCourt for a period of one year from thatperson’s retirement or resignation as such. (a)

(b) Disclosure and consent of parties and lawyers. – Ajustice disqualified under the first paragraph,Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court,may, instead of withdrawing from a case ofproceeding, disclose on the records the basisof the disqualification. If, based on suchdisclosure, the parties and lawyers,independently of the justice’s participation, allagree in writing that the reason for theinhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, thejustice may participate in the action orproceeding. The agreement, assigned by allparties and lawyers, shall be incorporated inthe record of the action or proceeding.

(c) Voluntary. – A justice of the Court may, in theexercise of sound discretion, disqualifyvoluntarily from sitting in a case orproceeding, for just or valid reasons otherthan those mentioned above.

A justice of the Court who inhibits from sitting


PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARSRESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND CIRCULARS16

RESOLUTION, dated September 16, 2008on A.M. No. 05-11-07 CTA (continued)

in a case or proceeding shall immediately notifyin writing the presiding justice and the membersof the Division where the said justice belongs. (a)

SEC. 7. Motion to inhibit a justice. – When a motionfor inhibition of a justice is filed, the Court EnBanc or in Division, shall act upon the motion.However, if the motion for inhibition is based ona discretionary ground, the Court shall refer themotion to the justice involved for appropriateaction. (a)

SEC. 8. Disqualification of clerk of court or assistantclerk of court or division clerk of court or assistantdivision clerk of court. – The disqualification underthe first paragraph, Section 1, Rule 137 of theRules of Court shall likewise apply to the Clerk ofCourt or Assistant Division Clerk of Court of thisCourt insofar as it is relevant to them in theperformance of their respective functions andduties.

Such person must immediately notify inwriting the Presiding Justice and the members ofthe Court En Banc, or the Chairperson and theMembers of the Division, whichever is applicable,stating the grounds and the reasons for inhibitionand further indicate the case number and title.The Presiding Justice or the Chairperson of theDivision may approve the request for inhibitionand in such event appoint a temporary Clerk of

Court to hear and handle the case. (n)

SEC. 2. – Section 3(a)(5) of Rule 4 is hereby amended toread:

RULE 4JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Courtin Divisions. –

(a) Exclusive original over or appellate jurisdiction toreview by appeal the following:

x x x x

(5) Decisions of the Secretary of Finance oncustoms cases elevated for automaticreview from decisions of theCommissioner of Customs adverse tothe Government under Section 2315 of

the Tariff and customs Code; and (a)

SEC. 3. – Sections 4(a), 5(b) and 6 or Rule 6 are herebyamended to read:

RULE 6PLEADINGS FILLED WITH THE COURT

SEC. 4. Bill of Particulars. –

(a) Requirement for bill of particulars. – The Court,on its own initiative or upon motion of either

party filed before responding to a pleadingor, if no responsive pleading is permitted bythese Rules, within ten days after service ofthe pleading, may order a party to submit adetailed statement of the nature of the claimor defense or of any matter stated in anypleading, which is not averred with sufficientdefiniteness or particularity. Such order ormotion shall point out the defects complainedof and the details desired. After service ofthe bill of particulars or of a more definitepleading, the moving or adverse party mayfile a responsive pleading within ten days.

x x x x

SEC. 5. Answer. –

x x x x

(b) Transmittal of records. – The respondentCommissioner of Internal Revenue,Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary ofFinance, the Secretary of Agriculture, or theSecretary of Trade and Industry, within tendays after filing an answer, the Chairpersonof the Central Board of Assessment Appealsand the presiding judges of the Regional TrialCourts, within ten days from receipt of notice,shall certify and forward to the Court all therecords of the case in their possession, withthe pages duly numbered, and, if the recordsare in separate folders, then the folders willalso be numbered. If there are no records,such fact shall be manifested too the Courtwithin the same period of ten days. The Courtmay, on motion, and for good cause shown,grant an extension of time within which tosubmit the aforesaid records of the case.Failure to transmit the records within the timeprescribed herein or within the time allowedby the Court may constitute indirectcontempt of court. (a)

SEC. 6. Entry of appearance. – An attorney mayenter an appearance by signing the initialpleading. An attorney may later enter anappearance only by filing an entry ofappearance with the written conformity ofthe client.

The initial pleading or entry of appearancemust contain the following:

(1) The attorney’s specific address, whichmust not be a Post Office Box number;

(2) The Roll of Attorney’s Number;(3) The date and number of current

membership due in the Integrated Barof the Philippines (IBP) per OfficialReceipt, or Lifetime Member Number;

(4) The Current Professional Tax Receipt(PTR) number together with date and


place of issuance; and(5) The MCLE certificate number and date

of issue, unless exempt.

The attorney or party entering anappearance shall serve a copy of the entry ofappearance upon the opposing party. Anattorney who appears in open court withoutpreviously having filed a written appearance mustgive the said counsel’s business address to theClerk of Court and file a written appearance within48 hours from such open court appearance. Anattorney of party who has filed an appearanceand who changes address of record shall notifythe Clerk of Court and the adverse party of suchchange o address, and a separate notice of suchchange of address shall be filed for each

additional case. (a)

SEC. 4. – Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 of Rule 9 are herebyamended to read:

RULE 9PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES

SEC. 4. Warrant of arrest. – Within ten days fromthe filing of the information, the Division of theCourt to which the case was raffled shall evaluatethe resolution of the public prosecutor and itssupporting evidence. The Division mayimmediately dismiss the case if it finds that theevidence on record clearly fails to establishprobable cause. If the Division finds probablecause, it shall issue a warrant of arrest signed bythe Chairperson of the Division. In case of doubton the existence of probable cause, the Divisionmay order the prosecutor to present additionalevidence, ex parte, within five days from notice.(a)

SEC. 5. When search warrant may issue. – TheDivision may issue a search warrant signed by itsChairperson following the requirements of Rule126 of the Rules of Court. (a)

SEC. 6. Bail, how amount fixed; approval. – Theamount of bail to be posted in a case filed with theCourt shall be fixed and approved by the Divisionto which the case is raffled: Provide, however, thatwhere the accused is arrested, detained orotherwise placed in custody outside theMetropolitan Manila area, any judge of theRegional Trial Court of the place where the arrestis made may accept and approve the bail forrelease of the accused and appearance beforethe Division to which the case is assigned. Thejudge who accepted the bail and released theaccused shall inform the Division that issued theorder of arrest of the action and forward to it thepapers relative to the case. (a)

SEC. 7. Conditions of the bail. – The conditions of

the bail are that the accused shall appear andanswer the complaint or information in theDivision of the Court to which it I raffled ortransferred for trial and submit the same to itsorders and processes. If convicted, and the caseis appealed to the Court En Banc or to the SupremeCourt, the accused will surrender for theexecution of such judgment as the Court En Bancor the Supreme Court may render; or that, in theevent the case is to be tried anew or remandedfor a new trial, the same shall appear before theDivision to which it may be remanded and submitto its orders and processes. (a)

SEC. 10. Solicitor General as counsel for the Peopleand government officials sued in their officialcapacity. – The Solicitor General shall representthe People of the Philippines and governmentofficials sued in their official capacity in all casesbrought to the Court in the exercise of itsappellate jurisdiction. The former may deputizethe legal officers of the Bureau of InternalRevenue in cases brought under the NationalInternal Revenue Code or other laws enforcedby the Bureau of Internal Revenue, or the legalofficers of the Bureau of Customs in casesbrought under the Tariff and Customs Code ofthe Philippines or other laws enforced by theBureau of Customs, to appear in behalf of theofficials of said agencies sued in their officialcapacity: Provided, however, such duly deputizedlegal officers shall remain at all times under thedirect control and supervision of the Solicitor

General. (a)

SEC. 5. – Section 1 of Rule 10 is hereby amended toread:

RULE 10SUSPENSION OF COLLECTION OF TAX

SECTION 1. No suspension of collection of tax, exceptas herein prescribed. – No appeal taken to theCourt shall suspend the payment, levy, distraint,or sale of any property of the taxpayer for thesatisfaction of tax liability as provided underexisting laws, except as hereinafter prescribed.

(a)

SEC. 6. – Sections 3 and 6(c) of Rule 11 are herebyamended to read:

RULE 11PRE-TRIAL

SEC. 3. Setting for an earlier date. – Where, due tothe urgency of the case, either party desires thatthe pre-trial be set on an earlier date, such partyshall so statre in the pleading, in which event theClerk of Court shall set the pre-trial on the firstavailable date immediately after the filing of theanswer. (a) (Continued on NEXT page)



x x x x

SEC. 6. Procedure in criminal cases. –

x x x x

(c) During the pre-trial conference

x x x x

The Court may impose appropriatesanctions or penalties on the accused or counselor the prosecutor who does not appear at thepre-trial conference and does not offer anacceptable excuse for the said person’s absenceand lack of cooperation. (a)

SEC. 7. – Sections 3, 4, and 5(a) of Rule 12 are herebyamendedto read:

RULE 12TRIAL

SEC. 3. Taking of evidence by a justice. – The Courtmay, motu proprio or upon proper motion, directthat a case, or any issue therein, be assigned toone of its members for the taking of evidence,when the determination of a question of fact arisesat any stage of the proceedings, or when thetaking of an account is necessary, or when thedetermination of an issue of fact requires theexamination of a long account. The hearingbefore such justice shall proceed in all respectsas though the same had been made before theCourt. (a)

Upon the completion of such hearing, thejustice concerned shall promptly submit to theCourt a written report thereon, stating thereinthe findings and conclusions. Thereafter, theCourt shall render its decision on the case,adopting, modifying, or rejecting the report inwhole or in part, or, the Court may, in itsdiscretion, recommit it to the justice withinstructions, or receive further evidence. (a)

SEC. 4. Taking of evidence by Court official. – Indefault or ex parte hearings, or in any case wherethe parties agree in writing, the Court maydelegate the reception of evidence to the Clerkof Court, the Division Clerks of Court, theirassistants who are members of the Philippine bar,or any Court attorney. The reception ofdocumentary evidence by a Court official shallbe for the sole purpose of marking, comparisonwith the original, and identification by witnessesof such documentary evidence. The Court officialshall have no power to rule on objections to anyquestion or to the admission of exhibits, whichobjections shall be resolved by the Court uponsubmission of the report and the transcripts withinten days from termination of the hearing. (a)

SEC. 5. Presentation of voluminous documents orlong accounts. – In the interest of speedyadministration of justice, the following rules shallgovern the presentation of voluminousdocuments or long accounts, such as receipts,invoices and vouchers, as evidence to establishcertain facts:

(a) Summary and CPA certification. –

x x x x

The name of the Certified Public Accountantor partner of a professional partnership ofcertified public accountants in charge must bestated in the motion. The Court shall issue acommission authorizing the independent CPA toconduct an audit and, thereafter, testify relative

to such summary and certification.

SEC. 8. – Section 5 of Rule 14 is hereby amended toread:

RULE 14JUDGMENT, ITS ENTRY AND EXECUTION

Sec. 5. Promulgation and notice of decision andresolution. – The Clerk of Court or Deputy Clerkof Court shall have the direct responsibility forthe promulgation of the decision and resolutionof the Court and shall see to it that such decisionand resolution are properly signed by theconcurring and dissenting justices and therequired certification is duly accomplished.

Promulgation consists of the filing of thedecision or resolution with the Clerk of Court orDivision Clerk of Court, who shall forthwithannotate the date and time of receipt and attestto it by signing thereon. The Clerk of Court orDivision Clerk of Court shall serve notice of suchdecision or resolution upon the parties or theircounsel, furnishing them with certified true copiesthereof.

In criminal cases originally filed with anddecided by the Court in Division, the Chairpersonshall cause the decision or resolution to be filedwith the Division Clerk of Court in a sealedenvelope, who shall schedule its promulgation,giving notice to the prosecution, the accusedpersonally or through bondsman or warden, andcounsel requiring their presence at thepromulgation.

The promulgation shall consist of the readingby the Division Clerk of Court of the dispositiveportion of the decision or resolution in thepresence of the accused and a justice of theDivision that rendered the same. If the accusedis detained, the warden shall produce such personbefore the Court. However, if the accused isdetained outside Metro Manila, the Court may



authorize the executive judge of the Regional TrialCourt having territorial jurisdiction over the placeof detention to promulgate the decision or

resolution at such place. (a)

SEC. 9. – Sections 1, 2, and 5(a), 5(b) of Rule 15 are herebyamended to read:

RULE 15MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OR NEW TRIAL

SECTION 1. Who may and when to file motion. – Anyaggrieved party may seek a reconsideration ornew trial of any decision, resolution or order ofthe Court by filing a motion for reconsideration ornew trial within 15 days from the date of receipt ofnotice of the decision, resolution or order of theCourt in question. (a)

SEC. 2. Opposiiton. – The adverse party may filean opposition to the motion for reconsiderationor new trial within 10 days after receipt of a copyof the motion for reconsideration or new trial of adecision, resolution or order of the Court. (a)

SEC. 5. Grounds of motion for new trial. – xxx

(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusablenegligence which ordinary prudence could nothave guarded against and by reason of whichthe rights of such aggrieved party hasprobably been impaired; or

(b) Newly discovered evidence, which the partycould not, with reasonable diligence, havediscovered and produced at the trial and,which, if presented, would probably alter theresult.

x x x x

SEC. 10. Effectivity Clause. – These Rules shall becomeeffective on October 15, 2008 after publication in twonewspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.(n)

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 141-2008

RE: DESIGNATION OF PILOT COURTS FORSMALL CLAIMS CASES

WHEREAS, the Court En Banc in its Resolutiondated September 9, 2008 in A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC haspromulgated the “Rule of Procedure for Small ClaimsCases” governing the procedure in actions before theMetropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts inCities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal CircuitTrial Courts for payment of money where the value ofthe claim does not exceed One Hundred ThousandPesos (P100,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs; (Continued on NEXT page)


WHEREAS, to determine the necessity andefficacy of the Rule as a tool for declogging docket orfor better access to justice, a pilot project will belaunched in selected first level courts where the Ruleshall be applied;

NOW, THEREFORE, the following first levelcourts are hereby designated as Pilot Courts for smallclaims cases, to wit:

Station/Branch: MeTC, Branch 23, ManilaName of Judge: Hon. Maria Zorayda Z. Tuazon

Station/Branch: MeTC, Branch 34, Quezon CityName of Judge: Hon. Caridad W. Lutero

Station/Branch: MeTC, Branch 48, Pasay CityName of Judge: Hon. Catherine P. Manodon

Station/Branch: MeTC, Branch 66, Makati CityName of Judge: Hon. Josefino A. Subia

Station/Branch: MeTC, Branch 49, Caloocan CityName of Judge: Hon. Glenda C. Marin

Station/Branch: MeTC, Branch 72, Pasig CityName of Judge: Hon. Joy Nerves Casihan-Dumlao

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 2, Baguio CityName of Judge: Hon. Cleto R. Villacorta III

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 3, Angeles CityName of Judge: Hon. Gemma Theresa H. Logronio

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 2, City of SanFernando,Pampanga

Name of Judge: Hon. Mary Jane Dacara-Buenaventura

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 2, Cabanatuan CityName of Judge: Hon. Wenceslao Trese

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 2, Malolos CityName of Judge: Hon. Nemesio V. Manlangit

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 2, San Pablo CityName of Judge: Hon. Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 1, Legazpi CityName of Judge: Hon. Arlinda G. Resari

Station/Branch: MTC, Bacoor, CaviteName of Judge: Hon. Manolito Y. Gumarang

(Assisting Judge)

Station/Branch: MTCC, Antipolo CityName of Judge: Hon. Ma. Consuelo M. Gengos-Ignalaga

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 1, Bacolod CityName of Judge: Hon. Jose Paolo G. Ariola

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 4, Iloilo CityName of Judge: Hon. Mary Yvette D. Go

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 7, Cebu CityName of Judge: Hon. Francisco A. Seville


Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 1, Zamboanga CityName of Judge: Hon. Nancy Cuaresma

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 3, Cagayan de Oro CityName of Judge: Hon. Romualdo E. Galarita

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 2, Davao CityName of Judge: Hon. Alltonina B. Escovilla

Station/Branch: MTCC, Branch 3, Gen. Santos City

Name of Judge: Hon. Alejandro Ramon C. Alano

The Pilot Courts herein designated shall hear anddecide the small claims cases in accordance with TheRule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No.08-8-7-SC dated September 9, 2008).

Upon effectivity of this Order, all small claims casesfiled in the station of these Pilot Courts shall beassigned immediately to the said courts. The PilotCourts herein designated shall continue to be includedin the raffle of cases, criminal and civil, provided thatthe small claims cases assigned to them shall beconsidered as raffled to them for equal distribution ofcases.

The Pilot Courts shall fix at least one day of theweek in their court calendar for the hearing of smallclaims cases which shall be posted in threeconspicuous places in their respective station at theentrance of the Hall of Justice, entrance of thecourtroom and entrance of the Office of the Clerk ofCourt.

The Pilot Courts thus designated shall continue toperform their functions as such within the purview ofthis Administrative Order even after the retirement,promotion, transfer or detail of the judges appointed/designated to preside over them. Their successors,whether permanent or temporary, shall act asPresiding Judges of these Pilot Courts unless theSupreme Court otherwise directs.

Three months after the implementation of the Rule,an initial assessment shall be undertaken by theTechnical Working Group on Small Claims Courts PilotProject, and six months thereafter a final assessmentand project review shall be submitted to recommendthe feasibility of applying the Rule to all small claimscases in all first level courts.

The Clerks of Court of these Pilot Courts shallsubmit a monthly inventory report on small claimscases on or before the 10th day of the succeeding monthto the: The Secretariat, Technical Working Group(TWG) on Small Claims Courts Pilot Project, Officeof the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, PadreFaura Street Manila.

The following presiding judges of the pairingcourts of the Pilot Courts shall hear and decide thesmall claims cases pursuant to Section 22 of the Rule,to wit:

Pilot Court: MeTC, Branch 23, ManilaPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MeTC, Br. 24, Manila

Hon. Jesusa P. Maningas

Pilot Court: MeTC, Branch 34, Quezon CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MeTC, Br. 33, Quezon City

Hon. Alfredo D. Ampuan

Pilot Court: MeTC, Branch 48, Pasay CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MeTC, Br. 45, Pasay City

Hon. Bibiano G. Colasito

Pilot Court: MeTC, Branch 66, Makati CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MeTC, Br. 65, Makati City

Hon. Henry A. Laron

Pilot Court: MeTC, Branch 49, Caloocan CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MeTC, Br. 50, Caloocan City

Hon. Norma Z. Go

Pilot Court: MeTC, Branch 72, Pasig CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MeTC, Br. 71, Pasig City

Hon. Maria GraciaCasaclang

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 2, Baguio CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 1, Baguio City

Hon. Roberto R. Mabalot

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 3, Angeles CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 1,Angeles City

Hon. Irineo P. Pangilinan

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 2, City of San Fernando,Pampanga

Pairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 1, City of SanFernando, PampangaHon. Ma. Lourdes F.Tolentino

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 2, Cabanatuan CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 1,

Cabanatuan CityHon. Renato D. Pinlac

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 2, Malolos CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 1, Malolos City

Hon. Mario B. CapeIIan

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 2, San Pablo CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 1, San Pablo City

Hon. Priscilla U. Acedera

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 1, Legazpi CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 2,Legazpi City

Hon. Raymund M. Jacob

Pilot Court: MTC, Bacoor, CavitePairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTC, Imus Cavite

Hon. Emily A. Geluz

A.O. No. 141-2008 (continued)


ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR No. 66-2008

RE: GUIDELINES ON THE PROCEDURE FOR THERELEASE OF RETIREMENT GRATUITY ANDTERMINAL LEAVE BENEFITS OF DECEASEDMEMBERS, OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THEJUDICIARY

The following guidelines are hereby adopted forthe release of retirement gratuity and terminal leavebenefits of deceased members, officials and employeesof the judiciary.

A. COVERAGE

These guidelines shall apply to all heirs,beneficiaries and claimants of the deceased membersand officials of the judiciary and all other officials andemployees thereof who are entitled to receiveretirement gratuity benefits under Republic Act No.910, as amended, and Republic Act No. 1616,respectively, and termina1 leave benefits.

B. PURPOSE

To establish the parameters that shall beuniformly observed and for expediency and properprocedure regarding the release of retirement gratuityand terminal leave benefits of deceased members,officials and employees of the judiciary.

C. REQUIREMENTS

For RETIREMENT GRATUITY BENEFITS

1. Duly accomplished application form forretirement accompanied by the followingdocuments:

a. Complete Service Record includingService Record from other governmentoffices, if any, duly certified by the officialconcerned and with proper notation ofLeave of Absence with or without pay;

b. Updated Sworn Statement of Assets andLiabilities;

c. Copy of last appointment; and

d. Certification of regular monthly salaryand other emoluments (for justices andother officials with judicial ranking);

2. General clearance to be issued by the Clerk ofCourt, Office of the Clerk of Court of theSupreme Court, Court of Appeals (CA),Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals (CTA),as the case maybe, or by the Office of the Court

A.O. No. 141-2008 (continued)

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 2, Antipolo CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. I, Antipolo City

Hon. Antonio MurilloOlivete

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 1, Bacolod CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 2,Bacolod City

Hon. Ma. Lorna P.Demonteverde

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 4, Iloilo CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 3, Iloilo City

Hon. Alexis A. Zerrudo

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 7, Cebu CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 8, Cebu City

Hon. Edgemelo C. Rosales

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 1, Zamboanga CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 2,

Zamboanga CityHon. Ivan C. Mendoza, Jr.

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 3, Cagayan de Oro CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 4 , Cagayan de

Oro CityHon. Vincent Filomeno B.Rosales

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 2, Davao CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 1, Davao City

Hon. Evalyn A. Morales(APJ)

Pilot Court: MTCC, Branch 3, General Santos CityPairing Court/Presiding Judge: MTCC, Br. 1, General

Santos CityHon. Marie Ellengrid S.

Baliguat

The Presiding Judges of the Pilot Courts as well asthe paired courts and their clerks of court shallundergo a one day orientation seminar.

This Administrative Order shall take effectOctober 1, 2008

September 29, 2008.

(Sgd.) REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

(Sgd.) LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

(Sgd.) CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice

Chairperson, Third Division



7. Such other documents as may be required.

For TERMINAL LEAVE BENEFITS

1. Duly accomplished/approved applicationfor terminal leave with required supportingdocuments; and

2. All requirements for Retirement GratuityBenefits.

D. PROCEDURES

1. Claimants shall inform the respectiveRetirement and Welfare Division, OAS of thedeath of the Court official/employee and shallsecure the forms therefrom.

2. Claimants shall file their claims with therespective Retirement and Welfare Division,OAS for the retirement gratuity andterminal1eave benefits if any.

3. The offices concerned shall process the claimsfor completeness and sufficiency of therequirements and shall refer the same to theCourt for approval. Upon approval, adisbursement voucher shall be prepared bythe Finance/ Accounting/Cashier Division ofthe respective offices.

4. The Budget Division of the Fiscal Managementand Budget Office shall request theDepartment of Budget and Management forthe release of a Special Allotment ReleaseOrder (SARO) with corresponding Notice ofCash Allocation (NCA).

5. Upon receipt of the SARO, the voucher shallbe prepared and processed and thecorresponding check payable to the claimants/heirs shall be issued.

6. Upon presentation of two valid IDs, the checkshall be released to the claimants.

7. In case claimants cannot personally claim thecheck, a special power of attorney dulynotarized by a notary public commissionedin accordance with A.M. No. 02-8-l3-SCpromulgated on July 6, 2004 shall bepresented by the authorized representative.

E. DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS OF NETPROCEEDS

1. Deceased is married:

Administrator (OCA), for the lower courts,supported by the following clearances:

a. For all officials and employees, exceptmembers of the judiciary, clearance as tono pending administrative case from theconcerned regional office of theOmbudsman;

b. Clearance issued by the Clerk of Court,Office of the Clerk of Court of theconcerned lower court and duly noted bythe Provincial/City/Municipal Treasureras to no MONEY and PROPERTYaccountabilities and as to no pendingcriminal and administrative case;

c. GSIS Clearance (Leave Division, OAS toissue request);

d. For stenographers, clearance from theconcerned office of the respective courtsas to no untranscribed stenographicnotes;

3. The following records of the deceased dulycertified by the National Statistics Office(NSO):

a. Birth certificate and, in the absence of abirth certificate, affidavit of twodisinterested persons attesting as to thedate of birth and certificate of loss ofrecords from the Local Civil Registrar(LCR);

b. Marriage contract and, in case deceasedis single, marriage contract of the parents.In case both parents ate deceased, birthcertificates of surviving legal heirs dulycertified by the NSO are to be submitted;and

c. Death certificate;

4. Proofs of Surviving Legal Heirs duly notarizedwith supporting documents as may berequired;

5. Certification to be issued by the Clerk of Court,RTC, which has jurisdiction over the lastresidence of the deceased at the time of death,as to no Testate or Intestate proceedings onthe estate of the deceased;

6. Special power of attorney of the recipient ofthe benefits authorizing the claimant/s toreceive the benefits, if applicable; and

A.C. No. 66-2008 (continued)


OCA CIRCULAR NO. 65-2008

TO: ALL TRIAL JUDGES

SUBJECT: TERMINATION OF THE PROBATION INCASES WHERE THE SUPERVISION OVER THEPROBATIONER IS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHERCOURT

For the information and guidance of all concerned,quoted hereunder is a portion of the Resolution of theCourt En Banc dated July 1, 2008, in A.M. No. 08-6-316-RTC- Re: Query of Executive Judge Aurora V.Maqueda-Roman, RTC-Gumaca, Quezon on theTermination of the Probation in Cases where theSupervision over the Probationer is Transferred toAnother Court, to wit:

(b) ADVISE the Executive Judges of the RegionalTrial Courts that the Probation Law of 1976,which provides that “[t]hereafter, the ExecutiveJudge to whom jurisdiction over the probationeris transferred shall have the power with respectto him that was previously possessed by thecourt which granted the probation” (emphasissupplied), includes the power to issue anorder terminating the probation and finallydischarging the probationer;

(c) REQUIRE the court to which the probationcase has been transferred to furnish thecourt, which originally granted the probationand which is in custody of the completerecords of the case concerned, a copy of theOrder of termination, revocation ormodification of the probation, so that thelatter may be apprised of the date and mode

by which the probation case was closed.

For strict compliance.

July 22, 2008.

(Sgd.) JOSE P. PEREZ Court Administrator

1.1. If legitimate family shall claim, thefollowing distribution shall be observed,after deducting all debts, charges andobligations:

Retirement Gratuity Benefits:

a. ½ for the surviving spouse;b. ½ for the children and surviving

spouse.

Terminal Leave Benefits shall be dividedequally among the surviving spouse and thechildren in accordance with resolution of theCourt dated October 18, 1990 in A.M. No.90-6-015-SC Re: Request of Atty. Bernardo Zialcita.

1.2. If other than legitimate family shall claim,the matter may be referred to the Office ofChief Attorney, Supreme Court, forMembers of the Supreme Court, itsofficials and employees, or to concernedoffices of CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA or OCAfor the lower court for study andrecommendation to be submitted to theCourt for approval, as the case maybe.

2. Deceased is single:

2.1. If deceased is survived by both legitimateparents, the benefits shall be dividedbetween them equally. If one of the parentsshould have died, the whole amount shallbe given to the survivor.

2.2. The pertinent provisions of the New CivilCode of the Philippines, as amended, andother jurisprudence on succession shallapply in case the above provisions are notapplicable.

F. OTHER APPLICABLE RULES

All existing rules and regulations shall be appliedto these guidelines.

G. EFFECTIVITY

These guidelines shall take effect immediately.

Issued this 1st day of July, 2008.

(Sgd.) REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR



TO: THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN,COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIALCOURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS,METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPALTRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIALCOURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS,SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS, THE OFFICE OF THESTATE PROSECUTOR, PUBLIC ATTORNEY’SOFFICE AND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THEPHILIPPINES

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR MCLE COMPLIANCEOF NEW LAWYERS IN VIEW OF BAR MATTER NO.1922, S. 2008

The MCLE Governing board in its meeting ofFebruary 6, 2008 laid down the guidelines forcompliance by new lawyers with the MCLErequirements under Section 3 (a) of Bar Matter No. 850,as follows:

Where four months or less remain of currentcompliance period upon admission or readmissionto the Bar, the member is not required to complywith the MCLE program requirement for the said

compliance period.

Thus, lawyers who pass the Bar when only fourmonths or less remain of the compliance period, areexempted from complying with the MCLE requirementfor the said compliance period. They shall comply withMCLE requirement for the next compliance period.

However, lawyers who are admitted to the Bareither one year after the start of the current complianceperiod, or two years after the start of the saidcompliance period, are required to comply with theMCLE requirements in accordance with the MCLEGoverning Board Resolution dated October 20, 2004,i.e. those admitted one year after the start of the currentcompliance period must comply with two-thirds ofthe credit units required (24 c.u.) for that period; whilethose admitted two years after the start of complianceperiod should comply with one-third of the requiredcredit units (12 c.u.).

LAWYERS ADMITTED TO THE BARONE YEAR AFTER THE START OF THE

COMPLIANCE PERIOD*

MCLE Subject: Updates on Substantive andProcedural Laws and JurisprudenceNumber of Units/Hours Required: 6

MCLE Subject: MCLE Committee Prescribed SubjectsNumber of Units/Hours Required: 4


TO: THE COURT OF APPEALS,SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS,REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICTCOURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPALCIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A CIRCUITCOURTS, THE OFFICE OF THE STATEPROSECUTOR, PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICEAND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THEPHILIPPINES

SUBJECT: ALL PRACTICING MEMBERS OF THEBAR TO INDICATE IN ALL PLEADINGS FILEDBEFORE THE COURTS OR QUASI-JUDICIALBODIES THE NUMBER AND DATE OF ISSUE OFTHEIR MCLE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ORCERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION

For the information and guidance of allconcerned, quoted hereunder is the Resolution of theCourt En Banc dated June 3, 2008, Bar Matter No. 1922,to wit:

x x x x

The Court further Resolved, uponrecommendation of the Committee on LegalEducation and Bar Matters, to REQUIREpracticing members of the Bar to INDICATE inall pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue oftheir MCLE Certificate of Compliance orCertificate of Exemption, as may be applicable,for the immediately preceding complianceperiod. Failure to disclose the requiredinformation would cause the dismissal of the caseand the expunction of the pleadings from therecords.

The New Rule shall take effect 60 days after itspublication in a newspaper of general

circulation.

The New Rule was published in the June 26, 2008issue of the Manila Bulletin.

July 22, 2008.



OCA Circular No. 67-2008 (continued)

MCLE Subject: Legal EthicsNumber of Units /Hours Required: 4

MCLE Subject: Alternative Dispute ResolutionNumber of Units/Hours Required: 3

MCLE Subject: Legal Writing and Oral AdvocacyNumber of Units/Hours Required: 3

MCLE Subject: Trial and Pre-Trial SkillsNumber of Units/Hours Required: 3

MCLE Subject: International Law and InternationalConventionsNumber of Units/Hours Required: 1

Total: 24 Credit Units

*This is the MCLE compliance of 2002 and 2005 lawyers

LAWYERS ADMITTED TO THE BARTWO YEARS AFTER THE START OF THE

COMPLIANCE PERIOD

MCLE Subject: Updates on Substantive andProcedural Laws and JurisprudenceNumber of Units/Hours Required: 0

MCLE Subject: MCLE Committee Prescribed SubjectsNumber of Units/Hours Required: 3

MCLE Subject: Legal EthicsNumber of Units /Hours Required: 2

MCLE Subject: Alternative Dispute ResolutionNumber of Units/Hours Required: 4

MCLE Subject: Legal Writing and Oral AdvocacyNumber of Units/Hours Required: 0

MCLE Subject: Trial and Pre-Trial SkillsNumber of Units/Hours Required: 3

MCLE Subject: International Law and InternationalConventionsNumber of Units/Hours Required: 0

Total: 12 Credit Units

Lawyers who have complied with the MCLErequirement may secure an MCLE Certificate ofCompliance the number and date of issue of which shallbe indicated under their signature in all pleadings filedby them before the courts and quasi-judicial bodiespursuant to Bar Matter No. 1922, s. 2008.

For your information.

July 22, 2008.



TO: ALL EXECUTIVE JUDGES OF REGIONALTRIAL COURTS, PRESIDING JUDGES ANDCLERKS OF COURT/BRANCH CLERKS OF COURTOF REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS HANDLINGDRUGS CASES

SUBJECT: EXEMPTION OF THE PHILIPPINEDRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA) FROMPAYMENT OF FEES FOR COPIES OF TRANSCRIPTOF STENOGRAPHIC NOTES (TSN)

WHEREAS, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules ofCourt, provides that:

SEC. 11. Stenographers. – Stenographers shall givecertified transcript of notes taken by them toevery person requesting the same uponpayment to the Clerk of Court of (a) TEN PESOS(P10.00) for each page of not less than 250 wordsbefore the appeal is taken and (b) FIVE PESOS(P5.00) for the same page, after the filing of theappeal, provided, however, that one-third of thetotal charges shall accrue to the JudiciaryDevelopment Fund (JDF) and the remaining two-

thirds to the stenographer concerned.

WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the CourtEn Banc dated June 3, 2008 in A.M. No. 08-4-9-SC, theCourt resolved to “NOTE and GRANT the request of(Ret.) General Dionisio R. Santiago, SeniorUndersecretary/Director General, Philippine DrugEnforcement Agency (PDEA) to allow the PDEA toacquire copies of Transcripts of Stenographic Notes(TSN) free of charge from Drug Courts.”

NOW, THEREFORE, the Philippine DrugEnforcement Agency (PDEA) is now exempted fromthe provisions of Sec. 11, Rule 141 of the Revised Rulesof Court and is, henceforth, allowed to secure copiesof the Transcript of Stenographic Notes taken duringthe proceedings of drugs cases free of charge.

August 13, 2008




TO: ALL JUDGES, CLERKS OF COURT, BRANCHCLERKS OF COURT AND OFFICERS-IN-CHARGEOF THE LOWER COURTS

SUBJECT: MAILING OF CORRESPONDENCE

In line with the directive enunciated in OCACircular No. 151-2003 dated October 23, 2003, allJudges, Clerks of Court and Branch Clerks of Courtare hereby directed to: (a) include only one (1) reportand/or matter in each envelope to be submitted to theOffice of the Court Administrator; and (b) specify inthe mailing envelope the appropriate office of theOffice of the Court Administrator for which thecommunication is intended.

Judges and Clerks of Court/Officers-in-Charge arehereby reminded to strictly comply with this directivein order to expedite action on all communicationsreceived by the Office of the Court Administrator.

August 13, 2008.



TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THEFIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURT

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THESOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGE BY THEMEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY

The Supreme Court En Banc in its Resolution datedAugust 12, 2008 in A.M. No. 08-7-429-RTC, Re: Queriesand Comments of Judges on Administrative Order No.125-2007 [Guidelines on the Solemnization ofMarriage by the Members of the Judiciary.– The CourtResolved, among others upon the recommendation ofthe Court Administrator, to

x x x x

(c) DIRECT the Judges of multiple sala courtsto strictly observe the raffling of requestsfor solemnization of marriage because ofnumerous anomalies discovered in thesolemnization of marriage during variousjudicial audits in the lower court. Unless forvalid reasons, the refusal of a judge toparticipate in the raffle of request forsolemnization of marriage shall be construedas shirking from judicial duty;

(d) DISALLOW special raffle in thesolemnization of marriage except in veryremote cases i.e. the judge to whom therequest was raffled cannot perform the


TO: FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURT JUDGES

SUBJECT: AMENDED GUIDELINES ON THEHANDGUN ACQUISITION PROGRAM FORJUDGES

The Supreme Court En Banc in its Resolution datedJune 17, 2008 in A.M. No. 08-3-13-SC, Re: ProposedGuidelines on the Handgun Acquisition Program forJudges, Resolved among others, upon therecommendation of the Supreme Court Motorcycle andComputer Acquisition Program (SC-MCAP)Committee with the recommending approval of CourtAdministrator Zenaida N. Elepano, to

(1) AMEND the Guidelines on the HandgunAcquisition Program to (a) include judges ofthe Shari’a District Court and Circuit Courts;(b) increase the minimum leave creditsrequirement from 30 days to 60 days; (c)delete the sixth paragraph of Section A (Re:Filing and Processing of Applications,Delivery and Payment, to wit: it is understoodthe gun shall remain the property of theSupreme Court until the judge-borrowersatisfies in full his/her obligation to the court;

and (d) rename the Supreme CourtMotorcycle and Computer AcquisitionProgram (SC-MCAP) as Supreme CourtMotorcycle, Computer and HandgunAcquisition Program or SC-MCHAP;

(2) CHARGE the allocation of Ten Million Pesos(P10 million) for the Handgun AcquisitionProgram to the Judiciary Development Fund;

(3) APPROVE the Official Application Form forthe Handgun Acquisition Program;

(4)

x x x x

For your information and guidance.

August 29, 2008




TO: ALL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THEREGIONAL TRIAL COURT

SUBJECT: REQUEST OF THE DANGEROUS DRUGSBOARD TO BE FURNISHED COPIES OFSUBPOENAS AND/OR SHOW CAUSE ORDERS

In a letter dated August 11, 2008, UndersecretaryEdgar C. Galvante, Secretary of the Board, DangerousDrugs Board (DDB) requests that the Board be furnishedcopies of subpoenas and/or show cause orders that areissued to police witnesses so that it can effectivelymonitor the progress of drug-related cases.

Thus, you are DIRECTED to furnish copies of courtnotices of cases pending in the National Capital Regionto the Dangerous Drugs Board, 3F, DDB-PDEA Building,NIA Road, National Government Center, East Triangle,Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines while, copies ofcourt notices of drug-related cases that are pending inthe provinces shall be forwarded to the respectiveRegional Offices of the DDB.


September 17,2008


marriage due to any fortuitous event orunavoidable circumstances. Likewise,assigning individual request to a certain judgeis disallowed so as not to defeat the purposeof the issuance of the abovementioned Order;and

(e) REQUIRE all request for solemnization ofmarriage in instances where the offices of thefirst and second level courts (multiple sala ornot) are located in the same Hall of Justice, tobe filed with the Office of the Clerk of Courtof the Regional Trial Court of said area. Therequests would then be raffled and equallydistributed among the first and second level

court judges thereat.


September 8, 2008


FFFFFrom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’rom the Chancellor’s Desks Desks Desks Desks Desk

(Continued from page 1)

In the same breath, and with equal zeal,PHILJA gathered for a roundtable discussion ofwomen leaders known for their respectiveimplementation of environmental policy in theirown areas. Likewise, we got togetherenvironmental court judges in a Seminar-Workshop on Managing Environmental Cases,whose active participation in the open forumsreflected their leadership and wise counsel. Theseactivities were the result of the request of the USEnvironmental Protection Agency for ourcomments and inputs on the draft environmentalprogram for judges that they had earlier crafted.

Our continuing programs for newlyappointed judges and clerks of court facilitatedtheir acquisition of knowledge and skills thatwould help them successfully assume office andeffectively discharge their duties.

The 16th Pre-Judicature Program, offeringcomplete compliance with MCLE requirements,was the most well-attended, with 46 lawyer-aspirants for judicial posts.

Described in greater detail in the succeedingpages are the 62 seminar-workshops held in thisvery busy quarter, for an average of 20 seminarsper month or practically one seminar a day.

As we look forward to a less hectic pace inthe next quarter and the onset of the holidayseason, we close with a message of fulfillmentand gratitude to all who continue to support usin our constant search for new directions thatwill propel our goals for an independent, upright,credible and excellent judiciary.

Ameurfina A. Melencio HerreraChancellor

PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWSPHILJA NEWS

3rd Floor, Supreme Court Centennial BuildingPadre Faura St. cor. Taft Ave., Manila, Philippines1000

PRIVATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE TO AVOIDPAYMENT OF POSTAGE IS PENALIZED BY FINE ORIMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.PHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA BulletinPHILJA Bulletin

2008 Upcoming PHILJA Events2008 Upcoming PHILJA Events2008 Upcoming PHILJA Events2008 Upcoming PHILJA Events2008 Upcoming PHILJA Events2008 Upcoming PHILJA Events2008 Upcoming PHILJA Events2008 Upcoming PHILJA Events2008 Upcoming PHILJA Events2008 Upcoming PHILJA Events

volume x, issue no. 39 july-september 2008

Documents