Part II: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): How

Out-of-Court Systems Are Used as Dispute

Resolution Mechanism

Rowena Daroy Morales

I. Overview of ADR: Types and Functions

1. Brief History

Dispute resolution is one of the functions of a sound political system. Dispute

resolution machinery already existed in the earliest communities in the Philippines
even before the advent of the Spanish and American colonization. Disputes arising
from the daily affairs of the communities were brought before the elders of such
communities in a conversational fashion for the purpose of threshing out the issues
and resolving them along the principles of justice and fairness. Outside of this forum,
no other dispute-resolving forum existed.
During the Spanish and American regimes, dispute resolution mechanisms
were made more rational through the inclusion of the said function in the local
governmental systems. Gradually, the originally conversational mode of resolving
disputes became more and more adversarial as the western-style judicial systems took
over their functions. However, the values and traditions that were the heart of the
early dispute-resolving systems were not lost.
The enactment of the Arbitration Law in 1953 supports this fact. The
professed goal of this law was to re-establish the non-judicial forum for dispute
resolution in the country, hence the concept of “alternative dispute resolution” or
ADR. The word “alternative” was used to emphasize that recourse to the regular
judicial courts shall still be considered as primary and arbitration only as secondary or
voluntary.
In 1978, President Marcos decreed the formation of the Katarungang

−15−
Pambaranggay (Community-based justice system, or Barangay Justice System) by
virtue of Presidential Decree 1508. This law provided for the compulsory use in the
barangay, the smallest unit of local government, of mediation, conciliation and
arbitration in certain types of disputes. The system was later integrated into the Local
Government Code, since its direction and supervision were entrusted to the
Department of Interior and Local Government.
In 1997, the Supreme Court included in the New Rules of Civil Procedure
provisions for the possible use of alternative modes of dispute resolution. (For example,
Rules 18 on Pre-Trial, and Rule 70 on Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer) The Rules,
however, do not provide that ADR be mandatory and judges, lawyers and litigants
have not made much use of these alternative modes.
At present, studies are being undertaken with a view of developing alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms in order to make justice more accessible to the people
and to unclog the dockets of the courts. These studies, whether publicly funded or not,
gave back much attention to the various modes of alternative dispute resolution which
have been underutilized for so long.
There are at least twelve agencies that use alternative dispute resolution at
present. Ten of the agencies are administrative agencies with quasi-judicial functions,
one is the barangay, a local government unit, and one is a private agency. The
different agencies use different modes of alternative dispute mechanisms.
It should be observed that the court system is one of the main forums for
resolving disputes. However, due to lack of resources to respond to this increasing
number of cases filed, court dockets are clogged, making court processes protracted
and expensive. When disputes fester into open and sometimes violent conflicts, the
situation becomes not only detrimental to growth and development, it also erodes the
country’s social fabric” (Supreme Court of the Philippines, Action Plan for Judicial
Reform). Because of this observation, the use of alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms was therefore not only justified, but is also found to be necessary.
In the Philippine context, alternative dispute resolution or ADR refers to
several formal or informal processes for settlement of conflicts, outside of or in the
periphery of institutional judicial process. It is another option to the structured
adversarial approach adopted in court litigation. While ADR may be viewed as an
intervention to the court’s burdened dockets, it must be considered on its own merits

−16−
as an effective system of resolving disputes. It is less expensive, more swift and
efficient, less or non-adversarial, thus generating results that can be more satisfying
and enduring.” (op cit.)

2. Types of ADR

There are three types of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms:

conciliation, mediation and arbitration.
Although conciliation and mediation are two different modes, in the
Philippines the two are used interchangeably. Thus, mediation or conciliation is a
process whereby a third party facilitates a negotiation between two or more parties in
dispute. In facilitating the negotiation, the third party assists the conflicting parties to
come up with mutually acceptable and beneficial solutions to their dispute. To achieve
this kind of agreement, the mediator helps the concerned parties express their
perspectives to the situation, understand each other’s problems, and reach mutually
acceptable settlements. The primary principle of the mediator’s role is: The success of
negotiation rests upon the conflicting parties because the results of the negotiation lie
in their hands. The main task of the mediator is to ensure that the negotiation process
is systematic, effective and just.
Arbitration is different from mediation/conciliation. In arbitration, the third
party, based on the information presented to him/her by the disputants and based on
his/her own investigation of the case, makes the final decision on how to resolve the
conflict. In many instances, s/he passes a judgment on who among the disputants is
right. In mediation, on the other hand, the third party serves only as a facilitator of the
negotiation process. The decision on how to resolve the conflict or the final solution
to the issues in dispute rests on the negotiators or disputants.

II. Current Situation Regarding the Use of ADR

As earlier mentioned, there are twelve agencies that use ADR in the
Philippines today.

1. The Katarungang Pambaranggay

Under the law that mandates the KP (Presidential Decree 1508, signed on June 11,

−17−
1978, later integrated into the Local Government Code (RA 7160), amicable settlement of
certain disputes are to be employed using the traditional Filipino values (e.g.
community harmony, hiya, utang na loob, amor propio and palabra de honor) that governed
the early dispute resolution systems in the country. The goal of this law is (1) to
obtain a just, speedy and inexpensive settlement of disputes at the barangay level; (2)
to preserve Filipino culture and tradition concerning amicably settling disputes; and
(3) to help unclog court dockets.
Under this framework, a dispute is a controversy between parties that are ripe
for judicial determination. The Lupon, which is the body tasked to undertake the
process of dispute resolution, has jurisdiction over all disputes except:
(i) where the government is a party to the dispute;
(ii) where a public officer or employee is a party and the dispute relates to
the performance of his official functions;
(iii) criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than 30 days or
a fine exceeding P200.00 are involved;
(iv) offenses where there is no private offended party, such as littering,
jaywalking, prostitution, etc;
(v) disputes involving real properties situated in different cities and
municipalities.
The resolution process of any dispute within the KP’s jurisdiction is begun by
an oral or written complaint given to the Barangay Chairman. The facility in the
referral system of the KP is remarkably important as it allows even illiterates to gain
access to the justice system of the local government. The next working day, the
alleged offender is given the chance to answer the complaint, again either orally or in
writing. A meeting is held for the purpose of bringing together the complainant and
the respondent, along with their witnesses, in order to define the issues. Then
Barangay Chairman determines whether or not the dispute falls within the resolutely
power of the KP.
The primary conciliatory-body in the KP is a group of volunteers called the
Lupong Tagapamayapa (Lupon), led by the Barangay Chairman. The members of the
Lupon are nominated by the residents and appointed by the Barangay Chairman, after
his determination that they have characteristics like optimism, flexibility, moral
probity and ascendancy. Out of this pool of conciliators-mediators is constituted the

−18−
Pangkat Tagapagkasundo (Pangkat).
The KP uses mediation and conciliation as the primary technique in settling
disputes. These two techniques are not treated as exclusive of each other but instead
are mere contingent stages of the entire process of dispute resolution. Mediation, as
the initial stage, involves the face-to-face confrontation of the parties, with the
Barangay Chairman (an elected official) who acts as the mediator and assists the
parties in negotiating some possible solution. If this fails, conciliation is resorted.
Conciliation differs from mediation only in the limited sense that a panel of persons
called the Pangkat Tagapagkasundo conducts the former.
When an amicable settlement (in mediation) or arbitral award (conciliation) it
reached, it becomes final in ten days and has the force and effect of a court judgment.
However, any party may repudiate the said settlement or award on grounds of fraud,
violence, intimidation, or any factor, which vitiate consent. If no such repudiation is
requested, the parties are given five days to comply with the agreement; and in the
absence of compliance, the Barangay Chairman is empowered to take sufficient
personal property from the respondent and sell the same, the proceeds of which is
applied for the satisfaction of the award.

2. The Cooperative Development Authority

The Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) was created by virtue of
Republic Act 6939, for the purpose of promoting the viability and growth of
cooperatives as instruments of equity, social justice, and economic development.”
Because of the nature of this agency, law granted it quasi-judicial power to adjudicate
disputes concerning cooperatives and their activities. Disputes between natural
persons who are members of cooperative, federation or union that arise from issues
like mismanagement, election protests, violations of the Cooperative Law,
misdemeanors of members and fraud are exclusively within CDA’s jurisdiction.
Dispute is brought before the CDA either by a written complaint; by a referral
from another government agency; by the Cooperative Development Council; by a
federation or union; or by the court. A Legal Officer is appointed by the CDA to
undertake the resolution process. Written pleadings are then required of the
complainants and the respondents. A conference is then held by the hearing officer to
determine whether the case is within its power to resolve using ADR. If mediation is

−19−
used, the case should be resolved within a period not exceeding three months. If no
agreement is reached by the parties, a Certificate of Non-Resolution is issued and the
entire process will be arbitrated.
All resolutions or agreements become final and executory within fifteen days
from the receipt of the parties of a copy of the resolution and if no appeal or motion
for reconsideration is filed within the prescribed period. The enforcement of the award
is either done by the court sheriff or the police.

3. The Philippine Construction Industry Arbitration Commission

The Philippine Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) was

created by Executive Order No. 1008, on February 4, 1985, for the specific purpose of
resolving the rising number of litigation cases involving contractual claims within the
industry. It was in reaction to the fact that disputes involving these contracts usually
took more than ten years to be resolved that this agency was mandated to exist. The
goal of the CIAC is to promote honest, fair, and just relationships by providing speedy
and fair resolution of construction disputes outside of court so as to encourage and
preserve harmony and friendly association.
The CIAC is imbued with exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of
contracts involving the construction industry, like delays in payment or completion of
jobs, claims for liquidated damages, requests payment of progress billings, retention,
workmanship issues and breaches. Disputes involving any of these cases are brought
before the CIAC through a written request for arbitration, which must comply with a
prescribed form. Some disputes are also referred by the regular courts to the CIAC
when it is found that an arbitration clause is provided for in the contract between the
disputing parties.
Although the CIAC’s rules provide for the use of arbitration only, mediation
also plays a major role in resolving disputes before it, as when the parties agree to
resolve rather than go into arbitration. The CIAC’s jurisdiction is determined either by
the presence of an arbitration clause in the contract or by a subsequent agreement
between the parties to submit their dispute for arbitration. The arbitrators, who may
act alone or as a panel, should be at least forty years old, with integrity and experience
in the construction industry.
After hearing the parties, an arbitral award is issued, which will become final

−20−
upon the lapse of fifteen days from receipt of the notice of award and no appeal has
been filed. A writ of execution may be issued by the arbitral body to compel
compliance by the parties.

4. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board

The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) is an

office connected with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), which was created
by virtue of the 1987 Constitution and Executive Order No. 129-A. The DARAB is
mandated to provide a forum for the settlement of agrarian disputes, with the Regional
Director as the designated hearing officer. Later on, adjudicators were trained and
appointed specifically for the purpose. The DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over
disputes arising from agrarian relationships and other land related issues between
landlord and tenants, or among cooperatives and tenants them.
Cases cognizable by the DARAB are filed either by written or oral complaint.
The courts are also empowered to refer agrarian cases to the DARAB. The disputes
are resolved via mediation and arbitration, before the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC), which is composed of ten members representing the DAR, the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Land Bank and other
agricultural organizations. The Chairman of the BARC is initially tasked to mediate
the dispute. When mediation fails, the case is brought before the Provincial
Adjudicator for arbitration.
After hearing the parties, an agreement or arbitral award is entered as an Order
by the DARAB. An Award issued by the PARAD may be appealed to the DARAB
Board, which is composed of the DAR Secretary, two Undersecretaries and one
Assistant Secretary. Further appeal may be brought to the Court of Appeals. If no
appeal is filed, the order becomes final and executory and enforceable by the sheriff
or the police deputed for the purpose.

5. The Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc.

The Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. is a private non-stock, non-

profit corporation organized in 1996 for the purpose of promoting and encouraging
the use of arbitration, conciliation, mediation and other modes of non-judicial dispute

−21−
resolution for the settlement of domestic and international disputes in the Philippines.
Its services are open to the public at large, especially to those engaged in business. Its
services include commercial arbitration, organizing seminars, trainings and
accreditation in the field of commercial arbitration, referral and information
dissemination.
The PDRCI primarily uses arbitration to resolve disputes arising from
contracts, especially in the fields of commerce and trade, intellectual property rights,
securities, insurance domestic relations and claims, among others. The resolution
process is commenced by the filing of a written complaint with the PDRCI. In order
for the PDRCI to assume arbitral power, the parties must agree that their dispute be
submitted before it for arbitration. In some instances, courts have referred certain
cases to the PDRCI, after finding that an arbitration clause is provided for in the
contract between the parties.
The parties may agree that the arbitrators in their dispute come from the pool
of accredited arbitrators of the PDRCI. They may also agree to select other arbitrators
of their choice, provided that they are familiar with the rules and procedures of the
PDRCI. Hearings will be conducted, after which an arbitral award is issued. Under the
PDRCI rules, the parties must give their prior consent to resolve their dispute swiftly
and abide by the award without delay. They are also asked to waive their rights to any
form of appeal. Because of this, all awards by the PDRCI are immediately final and
executory. However, delay in the compliance of the award is subject to the
jurisdiction of the regular courts.

6. The National Conciliation and Mediation Board

The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) was created in 1987
by virtue of Executive Order 126, and is an agency under the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE). Its function is to resolve certain labor disputes involving
unionized workers, especially involving issues related to the filing of a notice of strike
or lockout, deadlock in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, unfair labor practice
and interpretation of company policies involving the personnel.
The resolution process before the NCMB is set into motion when, after the
parties have failed to negotiate among themselves, a request for a conference is filed
with the NCMB. Such conference should commence within ten days after its filing. If

−22−
the dispute is still unsettled, the NCMB, upon request by either party or on its own
initiative, immediately calls for conciliation meetings. If both fail, voluntary
arbitration is encouraged. If the latter is not resorted to, the case becomes ripe for
adjudication by the National Labor Relations Commission.
The NCMB enforces its award by a writ of execution after voluntary
compliance by the parties is breached. However, since the NCMB has no mechanism
to compel compliance, it may never fully enforce its award.

7. The National Labor Relations Commission

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is an agency under the

Department of Labor and Employment, which was given quasi-judicial powers by law.
Its mandate is to settle or adjudicate labor disputes involving unfair labor practice,
termination, breach of labor standards with claim for reinstatement, legality of strikes
and lockouts, money claims arising from employer-employee relationship exceeding
P5,000.00 and other claims for damages arising from such relationship, and the likes.
Cases cognizable by the NLRC are brought before it in the following manner:
(i) Filing of complaint with the NLRC or its Regional Arbitration Branch;
(ii) The Arbiter summons the parties to a conference for the purpose of
amicably settling the dispute through a fair compromise; for the
determination of the real parties, the issues, and including the entering
of admissions or stipulations of relevant facts and other preliminary
matters necessary to thresh out the relevant matters;
(iii) At this point, if a written amicable settlement is had, the arbiter signs
the same and it will become final and executory;
(iv) In the absence of an agreement, the parties are required to submit
position papers and other documents for the adjudication of the issues
on the merits. Adjudication is the process that converts the process
from mediation to arbitration. Hearings may be held if necessary;
(v) Presentation of evidence and examination of witnesses may be
conducted. However, the law provides that at any point of the
arbitration stage, conciliation may still be resorted to;
(vi) After the hearings, the Arbitrator issues an arbitral award based on the
facts and the law applicable to the case;

−23−
 (vii) The awards of the NLRC are enforced by a stringent mechanism put in
place by law, like the power to issue writs of execution and the power
to impose administrative fines. The NLRC also has at its disposal
sheriffs to execute its orders.
The judgments by the NLRC may be brought to the Court of Appeals and to
the Supreme Court by certiorari.

8. Bureau of Labor Relations

Like the NLRC, the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) is another agency under
the DOLE concerned with settling labor disputes. However, the BLR’s mandate is
limited to resolving inter-union and intra-union disputes, disputes arising from
conflicts in union representation, cancellation of union registration, administration of
union funds, petition for election of union officers, and the violation of rights of union
members.
Cases are brought before the BLR through requests made by the parties; by
referral of other agencies; by referral of the court; or on its own initiative. Disputes
before it are resolved by the use of conciliation, mediation and voluntary arbitration
methods, as well as the use of other mechanisms like union internal settlement
mechanism, labor-management council, and grievance machinery system. However,
because of the nature of the cases the BLR is mandated to resolve, it sometimes shares
its responsibility with the NCMB.
The BLR has the power to subpoena and to legitimize or cancel union
registration, as incident to its power to enforce its awards. Compromise agreements
reached before the BLR are binding. Cases resolved by the BLR may not be appealed
to the NLRC, except in cases of non-compliance with the compromise agreements
reached before it.

9. The Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems

The Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) is an agency

under the Department of Justice (DOJ), which was created on September 21, 1979 by
President Marcos through Executive Order 561. It was neglected for so long that there
was a plan to abolish it. In 1996, quite a number of land disputes were referred to the

−24−
Commission such that the government decided not to dissolve it.
COSLAP, as a quasi-judicial body, is mandated to settle all types of dispute
involving land, whether urban or rural, involving occupants/squatters and pasture
lease holders and timber concessionaires; occupants/squatters and government
reservation guarantees; occupants/squatters and public land claimants; petition for
classification, release and subdivision of lands of the public domain; and other similar
land problems of grave importance, like demolition, etc.
The resolution process begins upon filing of a complaint. The defendant is
required to answer before the issues are joined. Once the issues are joined, the dispute
is referred to a “mediation committee,” which is composed of representatives from
different government agencies. Upon failure of mediation, trial ensues for the purpose
of arbitrating the dispute. The COSLAP is not strictly governed by the rules of
procedure and evidence, and therefore allows a great window for stipulations and
agreements that hasten the resolution process.
COSLAP decisions are binding on the parties and all government agencies
involved in the land in issue. COSLAP also has the power to issue subpoenas and
writs of execution, accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment, once a decision
has become final and executory. Enforcement of the award is usually done by the
court sheriff or the police. Non-compliance to the order of the COSLAP is a ground to
be cited for contempt. However, there is relative difficulty in the implementation of its
decisions because other government agencies have their own procedures for
investigating a dispute and do not allow for an automatic execution of a COSLAP
order.

10. The Insurance Commission

The Insurance Commission is an independent quasi-judicial body, tasked with

resolving disputes in the insurance industry.
The Insurance Commission has jurisdiction in the settlement of claims and
other types of disputes related to the insurance industry, provided the amount of the
claim does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), exclusive of
damages.
Initially, the Commission uses mediation and conciliation as the primary
methods of dispute resolution. Upon the failure of these two methods, the

−25−
Commission resorts to arbitration. After hearing the opposing sides, the Arbitrator
hands down a decision using facts and applicable law. The decision shall then be
executed by the sheriffs of the court where the domicile of a party is located.

11. The Bureau of Trade regulation and Consumer Protection

The Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection (BTRCP) is a

quasi-judicial agency under the Department of Trade and Industry created to
investigate, arbitrate, and resolve complaints from consumers involving violations of
Republic Act. 7394, otherwise known as the Consumer Act of the Philippines. Other
laws, like Executive Order 913 and Joint Department of Trade and Industry-
Department of Health-Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 1, series
of 1993 also govern the Bureau in the exercise of its power.
Disputes involving untrue, deceptive or misleading advertisements; sale of
paints and paint materials; fraudulent advertising, mislabeling and misbranding;
monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade; importation and disposition of
falsely marked articles; price tags; and product standards are under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Bureau.
The Bureau uses mediation and arbitration as the modes of settling disputes
that are brought before it by means of consumer complaint. The enforcement of its
orders and decisions are done by means of writs of execution, which deputize the
police and other law enforcement agencies.

12. The Court-Annexed Pilot Mediation Project

The Supreme Court allowed the use of ADR in the 1977 Rules of Civil
Procedure. However, people did not know how to avail themselves of the system such
that the trial courts were authorized to refer certain cases to mediation/conciliation, in
order to minimize court workload.
The cities of Mandaluyong and Valenzuela were named as pilot-test areas for
the project. Lawyers and non-lawyers selected by the trial courts in these cities were
trained in pursuance of its goals. On November 17, 1999, the Supreme Court issued a
Resolution adopting Implementing Guidelines for the project, which provide that (1)
judges shall encourage litigants at the pre-trial stage to submit their dispute to

−26−
mediation/conciliation; (2) court proceedings shall be suspended for a maximum of 60
days to enable the parties to mediate; (3) all admissions, statements, or other evidence
cited in mediation proceedings shall be kept confidential; (4) any agreement reached
in mediation shall be the basis of the court decision. The cases referred by the courts
for this purpose consisted of cases involving inter-personal relation and neighborhood
disputes; collection cases based on credit-debtor relationship; claims for damages;
disputes arising out of landlord-tenant relationship; and settlement of estate.
The agreement reached through mediation is reduced into writing and
submitted to the court where the case is pending. If the agreement is not contrary to
law, moral and public policy, it is approved by the court and becomes final and
executory. If a party violates the agreement, the other can ask the court for a writ of
execution.

III. Incidence of Cases before ADR Institutions

Any study on the ADR on the Philippines faces an inherent limitation because
of the lack of monitoring and data recording in almost all institutions concerned in
ADR. This fact was perhaps more eloquently expressed by the Supreme Court
Judicial Reform Project team itself when, in its report draft, it stated:
Another problem is the lack of data because detailed monitoring,
evaluation and documentation of ADR experience are not widely
practiced. Many, for example, could not provide data on the cost of
disputes, durability of mediation agreement and arbitral awards and
quantify the effectiveness of their mode of dispute resolution. (Supreme
Court of the Philippines Judicial Reform Project, Assessment of the Alternative
Dispute Resolution Programs in the Philippines and Recommendations for the
Future, p. 9.)

This study is not exempt from this limitation. For instance, there had been a
difficulty in knowing, with relative certainty, the quantity of ADR cases resolved in
each of the concerned agencies cited in this study. However, it is important to note
that it is not the case that there are data on ADR that are just difficult to locate. The
fact of the matter is that there is just no information on certain matters regarding ADR
being kept anywhere at all. This is a very sad fact to contemplate because data
evaluation is indispensable for the success of this undertaking. It is with regard to this
limitation, therefore, that this study should be appraised.

−27−
1. The Katarungang Pambarangay (KP)

Since its institution in 1980 up to 1999, the Katarungang Pambaranggay

(Lupon) has received an average of 147,341 cases per year. Around 128,416 , or
roughly 87% of these had been settled through mediation or arbitration. However, the
number of cases which did not prosper (e.g. dismissed or withdrawn) have not been
recorded.
Below is a diagram showing the number of cases referred to the KP for the period
1980-1999.

Agency/ Caseload Per Number Settled Average Settlement

Organizations Year Duration
Katarungang 147,341 128,416 1-30 days depending
Pambarangay cases/yr cases/year (87%) on case complexity

Diagram 1: The Katarungang Pambarangay (Supreme Court of the Philippines Judicial Reform
Project, Assessment of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs in the Philippines and
Recommendations for the Future, p. 13)

The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) estimated that
every case takes about 1-30 days to be resolved. There is also no way of determining
whether or not compromise agreements arrived by mediation or arbitration has been
properly complied with.

2. The Cooperative Development Authority

For the year 1997, the estimated number of cases filed before the CDA was
pegged at 279. Around 230, or 82% of these, were resolved using mediation and/or
conciliation and 49, or around 18% were adjudicated through arbitration. Among
those cases that were mediated, 155 or 67% were resolved. Of those adjudicated, 35
or 71% were resolved by arbitration. The remainder is either pending, archived and
unaccounted for, referred to other agencies or on appeal.
For the year 1998, 264 cases were filed. Of which, 224 or 85% were given due
course (mediated); while 25 or 12% were adjudicated. Around 131 or 58% of the 224
mediated cases actually resolved; and 17 or 8% of those adjudicated were resolved.
The remaining cases are pending, archived or unaccounted for, referred to other
agencies, on appeal or unresolved.

−28−
 Below is a diagram showing the number of cases referred to the CDA for the
period 1997-1998.

Agency/ Caseload Number Settled Average

Organizations Per Year Settlement
Duration
Cooperative 1997 1998 1997 1998 3 to 4 months
Development 297 264 Mediation: 155 224
Authority Arbitration: 35 40
Diagram 2: The Cooperative Development Authority (Supreme Court of the Philippines Judicial
Reform Project, Assessment of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs in the Philippines and
Recommendations for the Future, p. 19.)

It takes an average of 3-4 months for the CDA to resolve a case either through
mediation or adjudication. There is no data on the cost of the resolution processes;
amount saved because of the use of ADR or the faithfulness of the parties to the
settlement agreements.

3. Philippine Construction Industry Arbitration Commission

From the time of its establishment until February of 1998, the estimated
number of cases resolved or settled by the CIAC is 95 or 67% of the total of 141 cases
instituted. Of this, 40 cases involve government contracts and 55 involve private
projects. Of the141 cases filed, 22 were dismissed, 12 opted to settle their differences
even before arbitration was commenced, and 10 were dismissed because of want of
jurisdiction. Around 20 cases were still pending at the end of the period.
As of January 2000, a total of 235 cases were brought before the CIAC; 58 or
25% were brought on appeal. However, of the cases appealed to the regular courts,
only 2 reversals and 3 modifications were made. Compliance with the awards is not
tracked.
Below is a diagram showing the number of cases referred to the CIAC from the
moment it was established up to February of 1998.

Agency/Organizations Caseload Per Year Number Average

Settled Settlement
Duration
Construction Industries 141 cases over 10 95 over 10 11 mos. & 12
Arbitration Commission years years days
(CIAC)
Diagram 3: The Construction Industries Arbitration Commission (Loc Cit , p. 24.)

−29−
4. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB)

The DARAB gave due course to a total of 167,525 cases during the period of
1988 to 1999. Out of this number, 153,674 cases, or 92% were resolved. The
remaining 13,851 cases represent cases that were either withdrawn, dismissed or are
still pending.
Depending on the level of difficulty of the issues in each case, it is estimated that most
cases took 60-70 days to be resolved. The DARAB does not keep track of the
durability of the arbitral awards or agreements, as well as the progress of each case
beyond its jurisdiction.
Below is a diagram showing the number of cases referred to the DARAB from
1988 up to 1999.

Agency/Organizations Caseload Per Year Number Average

Settled Settlement
Duration
Department of Agrarian
Reform and Adjudication 167,525 per year 153,674 60 to 70 days
(DARAB) (92%)
Diagram 4: The Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication (Loc Cit , p. 29)

5. The Philippine Dispute Resolution Center Inc (PDRCI)

The PDRCI, which was created in 1998, has presided over only 11 cases. The
only case filed before it in 1998 was settled/resolved through arbitration. The
following year, 10 cases were brought to the PDRCI and as of the latest record (1999),
all of them are still pending. Cases withdrawn or dismissed by this body were not
tracked anymore.
Below is a diagram showing the number of cases referred to the PDRCI from
1988 up to 1999.

−30−
 Agency/Organizations Caseload Per Number Settled Average
Year Settlement
Duration
Philippine Dispute Resolution 1998 1 1998 1 6 months
Center, Inc (PDRCI- arbitration (100%)
arm of the Philippine Chamber
of Commerce & Industries) 1999 11 1999 0

Diagram 5: The Philippines Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. (Loc Cit , p. 34.)

6. The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)

Between the years 1996 and 1999, the NCMB recorded an average of 400
cases; about 34 or 8.5% of this were settled yearly. The small number of cases
handled by the NCMB may be explained by the fact that it only entertains cases filed
by organized workers. Since only 15% of the country’s labor force is unionized, a
sizeable portion of the labor force have no access to the NCMB’s services at all.
Some of them turn to the NLRC. On the average, it takes the NCMB approximately
34 days to resolve disputes.
Below is a diagram showing the number of cases referred to the NCMB from
1996 to 1999.
Agency/Organizations Caseload Per Year Number Average
Settled Settlement
Duration
The National Conciliation 1999 323 1999 17 34 days
and Mediation Board 1998 407 1998 31
1997 431 1997 33
1996 438 1996 55
Diagram 6: The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (Loc Cit , p. 40.)

7. The National Labor Relations Commission

Of all the institutions so far cited as engaging in ADR, perhaps the NLRC is
the most active and the most burdened. An estimated 35-40,000 cases were filed in
1999 alone. Twenty-nine thousand (29,000) of the cases were resolved or adjudicated
through arbitration. Around 31.6% were resolved through mediation or conciliation.
No figures are available on the number of cases dismissed or withdrawn. Cases before
the NLRC take about 5-6 months to resolve.

−31−
 Below is a diagram showing the number of cases brought before the NLRC for
the year 1999.

Agency/Organizations Caseload Per Number Settled Average

Year Settlement
Duration
The National Labor 40,000 cases Mediation 9,280 Approximately 5-
Relations Commission (1999) Arbitration 18,850 6 months
(NLRC) Pending 11,870
Diagram 7: The National Labor Relations Commission (Loc Cit , p. 47.)

8. Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)

For the year 1999, the BLR handled a total of 13 cases involving inter and
intra-union disputes. Of these, 8 were settled through mediation and arbitration, while
5 were pending by the end of the year.
The number of cases appealed to BLR from its regional offices for 1999
totaled 117. 79 or 68% of which were settled, and 38 remained unresolved by the end
of the year. The length of time for an average case to be resolved by the BLR
averages at about 30-60 days.
Below is a diagram showing the number of cases brought before to the BLR
for the year 1999.

Agency/ Caseload Per Year Number Settled Average

Organizations Settlement
Duration
Bureau of Labor 13 cases 8 (by Mediation/ 30 – 60 days
Relations – 117 appealed Arbitration)
(1999) 79 (of appealed cases)
(1999)
Diagram 8: The Bureau of Labor Relations (Loc Cit , p. 53)

9. The Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP)

The number of cases referred to the COSLAP has gradually increased since
1996 when its existence was allowed to continue. In 1996, it only handled 76 cases;
but this steadily increased to 222, 364, and 538 in 1997, 1998 and 1999 respectively.
Subsequently, the number of cases resolved also grew to 36 (16.2%), 105 (28.8%) and
106 (2%) in 1997, 1998 and 1999. An estimated 80% of the cases brought before

−32−
COSLAP were settled through mediation-conciliation; while the remainder were
arbitrated. Cases before the COSLAP usually take approximately 3 months to 1 year
to be resolved. COSLAP has no record of the number of cases withdrawn nor the
number of cases dismissed nor the compliance to its awards.
Below is a diagram showing the number of cases brought before to the
COSLAP for the years 1996 to 1999.

Agency/ Caseload Per Year Number Settled Average Settlement

Organizations Duration
Commission on An increasing Settlement rate No exact data but
Settlement of Land number of land is on a decline. approximately 3
Problems (COSLAP) disputes were 1997 – 36 months
referred to the (16.2%) to 1 year
Commission since 1998 – 105
1996; (28.8%)
1996 – 76; 1999 – 106 (2%)
1997 – 222;
1998 – 364;
1999 - 538
Diagram 9: The Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (Loc Cit, op. p. 59.)

10. The Insurance Commission

The Insurance Commission has no record of the number of cases it handles per
year, but an estimated average of five formal complaints are filed each month.
Reportedly, sixty to seventy (60-70%) of the cases filed before the Commission, most
of which last about 6 months, are settled amicably. The rest are resolved through
arbitration.
Below is a diagram showing the number of cases brought before the
Commission yearly.

Agency/ Caseload Per Number Settled Average Settlement

Organizations Year Duration
The Insurance 60 cases / 60 to 70% are Variably 6 mos.
Commission year settled amicably depending on case
complexity
Diagram 10: The Insurance Commission (Loc Cit , p. 64.)

11. Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection

During the year 1999, the Bureau handled cases involving piracy and

−33−
counterfeiting (55), product quality and safety (2,518), hoarding and profiteering (36),
weighs and measures (130), labeling and packaging (114), consumer products and
service warranties (2,818), advertising and sales promo (131), service and repair shop
(204), liability for product and service (237), deceptive, unfair and unconscionable
sales act (250), price tag (5,496) and others (5,496); or a total of 12,139 cases. Out of
this, 11,177 (92%) were resolved, either through mediation or arbitration. The balance
represents pending cases.
Depending on the difficulties in the issues of a particular case, the duration of
mediation and/or arbitration range from two days to three months.
Below is a diagram showing the number of cases brought before the Bureau.

Agency/ Caseload Per Number Settled Average Settlement

Organizations Year Duration
Bureau of Trade 12,139 11,177/year (1,421 or Depending on
Regulation cases/year 69% by DTI/9,756 or complexity
97% by business of case, two days to
establishments, three months
balance of 962
endorsed to other
agencies or in
process)
Diagram 11: The Bureau of Trade Regulation (Loc cit., p. 67)

12. The Court Annexed Pilot Mediation Project

About 100 cases were referred by the courts to 20 mediators from January 3 to
February 29, 2000. As of January 25, out of the 25 cases referred, 8 were did not
prosper because of the inapplicability of mediation. Of the 17 cases mediated, 8 (47%)
reached an agreement. Cases were settled in about 3 one-hour sessions. (A more
complete data is yet to be released by the Supreme Court.)
Below is a diagram showing the number of cases brought before the Bureau.

Agency/ Caseload Per Number Settled Average

Organizations Year Settlement
Duration
The Court Annexed 25 cases 8 – not mediated 3 sessions of 1
Pilot Mediation (Jan 3-25) 8 – settled (47%) Jan 3 hour each
Project – 25
Diagram 12: The Court Annexed Pilot Mediation Project (Loc cit., p. 72)

−34−
IV. Conclusion

Access to justice is not confined to access to the judicial system. The

availability of means other than judicial, i.e. conciliation, mediation, arbitration and,
even negotiation, collectively called alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms
are a testimony to this reality. ADR is provided by law although the manner by which
the means are employed may be more cultural than law-based. This is particularly
manifest in the barangay where various cultural values provide the backdrop for
conflict resolution.
Not many Filipinos are aware of, much less familiar with, ADR. It is
popularly thought that the only means by which justice is attained is through the
courts. This belief leads to clogged dockets, which in turn affect the speed and
efficiency with which cases are resolved by courts.
While law-mandated, ADR mechanisms do not enjoy the trust of the ordinary
citizen who believes that only the judicial court can dispense justice. Evidently, there
is a need to inform the citizenry, and more importantly the lawyers of this alternative
avenue of attaining justice. The Supreme Court acknowledges the effect upon the
judicial system of an effective ADR system. In fact, it has incorporated in its judicial
reform program support for ADR systems.
ADR as a means of conflict resolution must be given importance in law
education. Law schools must incorporate ADR in their curricula. In the right direction
is the inclusion of ADR in the Supreme Court mandated Continuing Legal Education
for members of the bar.
The use of ADR is foreseen to be more extensive and popular in the coming
years. This should pave the way for a more secure feeling of justice amongst the
citizenry as well as amongst those engaged in business in the country.
Currently, the legislature has commenced efforts to enact into law the
institutionalization of ADR. The ADR future looks rosy.

−35−