Judicial dispute resolution (JDR)

In En Banc A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-PhilJA, August 29, 2006, “Re: PhiLJA Resolution
No. 06-22, re: Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of an Enhanced Pre-Trial
Proceeding under the JURIS Project, as Amended”, the Philippine Supreme Court
adopted the rules of the new judicial dispute resolution (JDR) system of the
Philippines (described as an “enhanced pre-trial proceeding”) under its on-going
JURIS Project.

The Court has piloted the new concept in selected trial courts in the Philippines
which are called “JURIS model courts”.

As an explanatory note, the Court noted that despite the priority given by Rule
18 of the Rules of Court (“pre-trial”), as amended, for the amicable settlement of
cases, “most trial judges go through the function of exploring settlement
perfunctorily for various reasons, including fear of being disquali9ed if he goes
into the process more intensively”.

In general, the concept is that “mediatable cases” are referred to Court-Annex

Mediation (CAM) for mediation under accredited mediators in the Philippine
Mediation Center (PMC) and subsequently referred to Judicial Dispute Resolution
(JDR) “for further mediation by the judges” if it is not resolved under CAM. If the
case is still not settled in JDR, “the case is transferred to the pairing court to
proceed with trial”.

The judge conducting the JDR is called the JDR judge instead of pre-trial judge
because under the revised guidelines, pre-trial proper is resumed after JDR, but
this time, to be conducted by the trial judge instead of the judge who conducted
JDR.

A case may be referred to JDR “even after conclusion of the pre-trial and during
the trial itself”.

The JDR judge “may preside over the trial proceedings upon joint request of both
parties”.

A limited period is imposed for settlement of JDR cases, i.e., thirty (30) days for
9rst level courts and sixty (60) days for regional trial courts. These periods may
be extended upon the discretion of the JDR judge.

Where settlement on the civil aspect has been reached in criminal cases covered
by mediation but the period of payment in accordance with the terms of
settlement exceeds one (1) year, the case may be archived upon motion of the
prosecution with concurrence of the private complainant and approval by the
judge.
The civil aspect of theft, under Art. 308 of the Revised Penal Code, is now part of
the cases for referral to mediation.

The concept is that the JDR judge acts as “the mediator, the conciliator, early
neutral evaluator, or a combination of any of the above”.

As a mediator and conciliator, the judge facilitates the settlement discussions

between parties and tries to reconcile their di<erences.

As a neutral evaluator, the judge assesses the relative strengths and weaknesses
of each party's case and makes a non-binding and impartial evaluation of the
chances of each party's success in the case.

On the basis of his neutral evaluation, the judge persuades the parties to
reconsider their prior reluctance to settle their case amicably.

Judicial proceedings shall be divided into two stages: (1) from the 9ling of a
complaint, to the conduct of CAM and JDR during the pre-trial stage, and (2) pre-
trial proper to trial and judgment.

The judge to whom the case has been originally ra@ed shall preside over the
9rst stage. He shall be called the JDR judge.

The concept is that the parties will be “more spontaneous once they are assured
that the JDR judge will not be the one to try the case”.

As such, the general rule is that “the JDR Judge shall not preside over the trial of
the same case when mediation did not succeed”.

In multiple sala courts, if the case is not resolved during JDR, it shall be ra@ed to
another branch, where the rest of the judicial proceedings up to judgment shall
be held. The judge for that stage shall be called the trial judge.

Any incidents or motions 9led during the 9rst stage shall be dealt with by the JDR
judge at his discretion.

In single sala courts, the case shall be transferred for mediation to the nearest
court (or pair court, if any), since “only mediation is involved”.

Whatever the result of the mediation may be, the case is always returned to the
originating court for appropriate action - either for the approval of the
compromise agreement or for trial, as the case may be.
In Family Courts, due to the special nature of a family dispute for which
specialized family courts have been designated, parties may 9le a joint motion
requesting that the case be tried by said special court despite the judge thereon
having been the JDR judge.

However, if there is another family court in the same JURIS site, “the trial judge
shall be that of the family court which did not conduct JDR proceedings”.

In Commercial Courts, the JDR shall be conducted by the pair judge of the
commercial court.

Where JDR does not succeed, “the judge of the commercial court shall be the
trial judge”.

Cases may be referred to JDR even during the trial stage upon joint motion of the
parties.

If the motion is granted, the JDR shall be conducted by the pairing judge in
multiple sala courts, or in single sala courts, by the nearest court (or pair court, if
any).

Whatever the result of the JDR may be, the case is “always returned to the
originating court for appropriate action - either for the approval of the
compromise agreement or for trial, as the case may be”.

To safeguard the con9dentiality of mediation proceedings, the JDR judge shall not
pass on any information obtained in the course of conciliation, early neutral
evaluation, or mediation to the trial judge or to any other person.

All JDR conferences shall be conducted in private.

The JDR judge may, however, “confer in con9dence with the mediator who
previously mediated the case, merely for the purpose of determining unresolved
issues”.

The pilot-test shall apply to the following cases:

(1) All civil cases, settlement of estates, and cases covered by the Rule on
Summary Procedure, except those which by law may not be compromised;
(2) Cases cognizable by the Lupong Tagapamayapa and those cases that may be
referred to it by the judge under Section 408. Chapter VII of the Republic Act No.
7160, otherwise known as the 1991 Local Government Code;

(3) The civil aspect of BP 22 cases;

(4) The civil aspect of quasi-o<enses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code;
and

(5) The civil aspect of Estafa, Libel, and Theft.

A party who fails to appear for mediation or JDR conference may be imposed the
appropriate sanctions as provided for in Rule 18 of the Rules of Court and the
relevant issuances of the Supreme Court.

A recommendation to impose sanctions shall be made to the JDR judge by the

mediator before whom the absence took place, upon the request of the present
party.

If all parties are absent despite due notice, the mediator shall motu proprio
recommend the imposition of proper sanctions upon all of them, including
dismissal of the case.

Among others, the JDR judge may require the non-appearing party to reimburse
the appearing party his costs, including attorney's fees for that day, up to treble
the amount incurred payable on or before the next mediation session.

A party who appears without the required authorization may be similarly

sanctioned

If settlement is reached, the parties, with assistance of their counsel, shall draft
the compromise agreement for approval of the court by judgment upon a
compromise.

Where compliance with the compromise agreement is forthwith made or the

claim is otherwise settled, the parties shall instead submit a satisfaction of
claims or mutual withdrawal of the complaint and counterclaim upon which the
Court shall enter an order dismissing the case.

By:

Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.

http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2008/05/judicial-dispute-resolution-jdr.html

Expanded coverage of mediation and judicial dispute resolution

The Supreme Court has issued A·M. No, 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA, January 11, 2011,
entitled “CONSOLIDATED AND REVISED GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENT THE
EXPANDED COVERAGE OF COURTANNEXED MEDIATION (CAM) AND JUDICIAL
DISPUTE RESOLUTION (JDR)”. I wish to summarize its salient points for the
information of my readers.

The subject matters of the new guidelines are the Court‐Annexed Mediation
(CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR).

The purposes of CAM and JDR is “to put an end to pending litigation through
compromise agreement of the parties and thereby help solve the ever-pressing
problem of court docket congestion”. It is also intended “to empower the parties
to resolve their own disputes and give practical e<ect to the State Policy
expressly stated in the ADR Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9285)”, to wit: “to actively
promote party autonomy in the resolution of disputes or the freedom of the
parties to make their own arrangement to resolve disputes. Towards this end, the
State shall encourage and actively promote the use of Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) as an important means to achieve speedy and impartial justice
and de-clog court dockets.”

Court diversion is a “three-stage process”. The 9rst stage is the CAM “where the
judge refers the parties to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) for the
mediation of their dispute by trained and accredited mediators”. Upon failing to
secure a settlement of the dispute during the 9rst stage, “a second attempt is
made at the JDR stage”, where the JDR judge becomes a “mediator-conciliator-
early neutral evaluator in a continuing e<ort to secure a settlement”. Still failing
that second attempt, “the mediator-judge must turn over the case to another
judge (a new one by ra@e or nearest/pair judge) who will try the unsettled case”.
The trial judge “shall continue with the pre-trial proper and, thereafter, proceed
to try and decide the case. The third stage is during the appeal where covered
cases are referred to the PMC-Appeals Court Mediation (ACM) unit for mediation”.

Both the Katarungang Pambarangay Law and CAM aim “to restore the role of the
judiciary as the forum of last recourse to be resorted to only after all prior
earnest e<orts to arrive at private accommodation and resolution of disputes
have failed.”

The Court noted that Article 2034 of the Civil Code provides that: “There may be
a compromise upon the civil liability arising from the o<ense, but such
compromise shall not extinguish the public action for the imposition of the legal
penalty.” The provision “does not restrict the crime mentioned to the gravity of
the imposable penalty as a condition for allowing a compromise agreement to be
reached on the civil liability arising from the crime”. The allowed compromise of
civil liability “applies to all crimes, subject only to the policy considerations of
deterrence variables arising from the celerity, certainty and severity of
punishment actually imposed”.

It noted that civil cases constitute 16% of all cases 9led in court while special
proceedings constitute 7.6%. The rest is made up of criminal cases.
Henceforth, under the expanded coverage, the following cases shall be referred
to CAM and be the subject of JDR proceedings:

“(1) All civil cases and the civil liability of criminal cases covered by the Rule on
Summary Procedure, including the civil liability for violation of B.P. 22, except
those which by law may not be compromised;

(2) Special proceedings for the settlement of estates;

(3) All civil and criminal cases 9led with a certi9cate to 9le action issued by the
Punong Barangay or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo under the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law

(4) The civil aspect of Quasi-O<enses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code;

(5) The civil aspect of less grave felonies punishable by correctional penalties not
exceeding 6 years imprisonment, where the o<ended party is a private person;

(6) The civil aspect of estafa, theft and libel;

(7) All civil cases and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, brought on
appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the 9rst level courts
under Section 33, par. (1) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980;

(8) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer brought on appeal from the
exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the 9rst level courts under Section
33, par. (2) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980;

(9) All civil cases involving title to or possession of real property or an interest
therein brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to
the 9rst level courts under Section 33, par.(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act
of 1980; 13 and

(10) All habeas corpus cases decided by the 9rst level courts in the absence of
the Regional Trial Court judge, that are brought up on appeal from the special
jurisdiction granted to the 9rst level courts under Section 35 of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980.”

The following cases shall not be referred to CAM and JDR:

“1. Civil cases which by law cannot be compromised (Article 2035, New Civil
Code);

2. Other criminal cases not covered under paragraphs 3 to 6 above;

3. Habeas Corpus petitions;

4. All cases under Republic Act No. 9262 (Violence against Women and Children);
and

5. Cases with pending application for Restraining Orders/Preliminary Injunctions.

However, in cases covered under 1, 4 and 5 where the parties inform the court
that they have agreed to undergo mediation on some aspects thereof, e.g.,
custody of minor children, separation of property, or support pendente lite, the
court shall refer them to mediation.”

After the last pleading has been 9led, the judge shall issue an order requiring the
parties to forthwith appear before the concerned Philippine Mediation Center
(PMC) Unit sta< to start the process for the settlement of their dispute through
mediation. On the same date, the court shall give to the PMC a copy of the Order
for
mediation.

Individual parties are required to personally appear for mediation. In the event
they cannot do so, they can send their representatives who must be fully
authorized to appear, negotiate and enter into a compromise, through a Special
Power of Attorney.

Corporations, partnerships, or other juridical entities shall be represented by a

ranking corporate oOcer fully authorized by a Board Resolution to o<er,
negotiate, accept, decide and enter into a compromise agreement, without need
of further approval by or noti9cation to the authorizing party.

The Order issued shall include a clear warning that sanctions may be imposed
upon a party for failure to comply therewith, in accordance with the Section
below on sanctions.

On the date set in the Order, the parties shall proceed to select a mutually
acceptable mediator from among the list of accredited mediators. If no
agreement is reached, the PMC Unit Sta< shall, in the presence of the parties and
the Mediators, choose by lot the one who will mediate the dispute from among
the Mediators inside the Unit, ensuring a fair and equal distribution of cases:
Provided, however, that in exceptional circumstances where special quali9cations
are required of the mediator, the parties shall be given an opportunity to select
from the entire list of accredited mediators.

The Mediator shall be considered an oOcer of the court while performing his
duties as such or in connection therewith.

At the initial conference, the Mediator shall explain to both parties the mediation
process, stressing the bene9ts of an early settlement of their dispute based on
serving their mutual interests, rather than the legal positions taken by them.

With the consent of both parties, the Mediator may hold separate caucuses with
each party to determine their respective real interests in the dispute. Thereafter,
another joint conference may be held to consider various options that may
resolve the dispute through reciprocal concessions and on terms that are
mutually bene9cial to both the parties.

The Mediator shall not record in any manner the proceedings of the joint
conferences or of the separate caucuses. No transcript or minutes of mediation
proceedings shall be taken. If personal notes are taken for guidance, the notes
shall be shredded and destroyed. Should such record exists, they shall not be
admissible as evidence in any other proceedings.
If no settlement has been reached at the end of the period given, the case must
be returned to the referring judge.

The court, upon recommendation of the Mediator, may impose sanctions upon a
party who fails to appear before the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) Unit as
directed by the referring judge, or upon any person who engages in abusive
conduct during mediation proceedings, as provided for in the Rules of Court as
part of the Pre-Trial and other issuances of the Supreme Court, including, but not
limited to censure, reprimand, contempt, requiring the absent party to reimburse
the appearing party his costs, including attorney’s fees for that day up to treble
such costs, payable on or before the date of the re-scheduled setting. Sanctions
may also be imposed by the referring judge upon his own initiative or upon
motion of the interested party.

Upon justi9able cause duly proved in the hearing called on the motion to
reconsider 9led by the absent party, concurred in by the concerned mediator, the
sanctions imposed may be lifted or set aside in the sound discretion of the
referring judge.

The Mediator shall have a period of not exceeding thirty (30) days to complete
the mediation process. Such period shall be computed from the date when the
parties 9rst appeared for the initial conference as stated in the Order to appear.
An extended period of another thirty (30) days may be granted by the court,
upon motion 9led by the Mediator, with the conformity of the parties.

The period during which the case is undergoing mediation shall be excluded from
the regular and mandatory periods for trial and rendition of judgment in ordinary
cases and in cases under summary proceedings.

If full settlement of the dispute is reached, the parties, assisted by their

respective counsels, shall draft the compromise agreement which shall be
submitted to the court for judgment upon compromise or other appropriate
action.

Where compliance is forthwith made, the parties shall instead submit a

satisfaction of claims or a mutual withdrawal of the case and, thereafter, the
court shall enter an order dismissing the case.

If partial settlement is reached, the parties shall, with the assistance of counsel,
submit the terms thereof for the appropriate action of the court, without waiting
for resolution of the unsettled part.

In relation to the unsettled part of the dispute, the court shall proceed to conduct
JDR proceedings.

Unless otherwise directed by the Supreme Court, all judges who have undergone
orientation in JDR procedures and completed their training in mediation,
conciliation and neutral evaluation, are authorized to conduct JDR proceedings in
accordance with these guidelines for the settlement of disputes pending in their
courts, after the parties failed to settle their disputes during Court Annexed
Mediation at the Philippine Mediation Center Units (PMCU).

Judicial proceedings shall be divided into two stages:

(1) from the 9ling of a complaint to the conduct of CAM and JDR during the pre-
trial stage, and

(2) pre-trial proper to trial and judgment.

The judge to whom the case has been originally ra@ed, who shall be called the
JDR Judge, shall preside over the 9rst stage. The judge, who shall be called the
trial judge, shall preside over the second stage.

At the initial stage of the pre-trial conference, the JDR judge briefs the parties
and counsels of the CAM and JDR processes. Thereafter, he issues an Order of
Referral of the case to CAM and directs the parties and their counsels to proceed
to the PMCU bringing with them a copy of the Order of Referral. The JDR judge
shall include in said Order, or in another Order, the pre-setting of the case for JDR
not earlier than forty-9ve (45) days from the time the parties 9rst personally
appear at the PMCU so that JDR will be conducted immediately if the parties do
not settle at CAM.

All incidents or motions 9led during the 9rst stage shall be dealt with by the JDR
judge. If JDR is not conducted because of the failure of the parties to appear, the
JDR judge may impose the appropriate sanctions and shall continue with the
proceedings of the case.

If the parties do not settle their dispute at CAM, the parties and their counsels
shall appear at the preset date before the JDR judge, who will then conduct the
JDR process as mediator, neutral evaluator and/or conciliator in order to actively
assist and facilitate negotiations among the parties for them to settle their
dispute. As mediator and conciliator, the judge facilitates the settlement
discussions between the parties and tries to reconcile their di<erences. As a
neutral evaluator, the judge assesses the relative strengths and weaknesses of
each party's case and makes a non-binding and impartial evaluation of the
chances of each party's success in the case.

On the basis of such neutral evaluation, the judge persuades the parties to a fair
and mutually acceptable settlement of their dispute.

The JDR judge shall not preside over the trial of the case when the parties did not
settle their dispute at JDR.

In multiple sala court, if the case is not resolved during JDR, it shall be ra@ed to
another branch for the pre trial proper up to judgment.

For cases with pending applications for restraining orders/preliminary injunctions,

the judge to whom the case was ra@ed shall rule on the said applications. During
the pre-trial stage, the judge refers the case to CAM, but if the parties do not
settle at CAM, the case will be ra@ed to another branch for JDR. If the parties do
not settle at JDR, the case will be returned to the branch that ruled on the
applications for the pre-trial proper and up to judgment.

In single sala court, unless otherwise agreed, the JDR proceedings will be
conducted by the judge of the pair court, if any, otherwise, by the judge of the
nearest court as determined by the concerned Executive Judge. The JDR
proceedings shall be conducted at the station where the case was originally 9led.
The result of the JDR proceedings shall be referred to the court of origin for
appropriate action, e.g. approval of the compromise agreement, trial, etc.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, before the commencement of the JDR

proceedings, the parties may 9le a joint written motion requesting that the court
of origin conduct the JDR proceedings and trial.

In Family Courts, unless otherwise agreed upon, the JDR proceedings in areas
where only one court is designated as a family court, shall be conducted by a
judge of another branch through ra@e. However, if there is another family court
in the same area, the family court to whom the case was originally ra@ed shall
conduct JDR proceedings and if no settlement is reached, the other family court
shall conduct the pre-trial proper and trial.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, before commencement of the JDR proceedings,

the parties may 9le a joint written motion requesting that the family court to
which the case was originally ra@ed shall conduct the JDR proceedings and trial.

Despite the non-mediatable nature of the principal case, like annulment of

marriage, other issues such as custody of children, support, visitation, property
relations and guardianship, may be referred to CAM and JDR to limit the issues
for trial.

In Commercial, Intellectual Property, and Environmental Courts, unless otherwise

agreed upon as provided below, the JDR proceedings in areas where only one
court is designated as commercial/intellectual property/environmental court,
hereafter referred to as special court, shall be conducted by another judge
through ra@e and not by the judge of the special court. Where settlement is not
reached, the judge of the special court shall be the trial judge. Any incident or
motion 9led before the pre-trial stage shall be dealt with by the special court that
shall refer the case to CAM.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, before commencement of the JDR proceedings,

the parties may 9le a joint written motion requesting that the special courts to
which the case was originally ra@ed shall conduct the JDR proceedings and trial.

Cases may be referred to JDR even during the trial stage upon written motion of
one or both parties indicating willingness to discuss a possible compromise. If the
motion is granted, the trial shall be suspended and the case referred to JDR,
which shall be conducted by another judge through ra@e in multiple sala courts.

If settlement is reached during JDR, the JDR court shall take appropriate action
thereon, i.e. approval/disapproval of the compromise agreement. If settlement is
not reached at JDR, the case shall be returned to the referring court for
continuation of trial.

In single sala courts, the JDR shall be conducted by the nearest court (or pair
court, if any) regardless of the level of the latter court. The result of the JDR
proceedings shall be referred to the court of origin for appropriate action, e.g.
approval of the compromise agreement, trial, etc.

The parties may, by joint written motion, despite con9dential information that
may be divulged during JDR proceedings, 9le a request that their case be not
transferred to other courts for JDR and that they agree to have the trial judge
continue the trial should the case not be settled through JDR.

A party who fails to appear on the date set for JDR conference, may forthwith be
imposed the appropriate sanction as provided in Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of
Court and relevant issuances of the Supreme Court including, but not limited to
censure, reprimand, contempt, and requiring the absent party to reimburse the
appearing party his costs, including attorney’s fees for that day up to treble such
costs, payable on or before the date of the re-scheduled setting. Sanctions may
be imposed by the JDR judge upon motion of the appearing party or motu
proprio.

Upon justi9able cause duly proved in the hearing of the motion to reconsider
9led by the absent party, the sanctions imposed may be lifted, set aside or
modi9ed in the sound discretion of the JDR judge.

A representative who appears on behalf of an individual or corporate party

without the required authorization by special power of attorney or board
resolution, respectively, may similarly be imposed appropriate sanctions.

To complete the JDR process, judges of the First Level Courts shall have a period
of not exceeding thirty (30) days, while judges of the Second Level Courts shall
have a period of not exceeding sixty (60) days. A longer period, however, may be
granted upon the discretion of the JDR judge if there is a high probability of
settlement and upon joint written motion of the parties. Both periods shall be
computed from the date when the parties 9rst appeared for JDR proceedings as
directed in the respective Orders issued by the judge. As far as practicable, JDR
conferences shall be set not more than two (2) weeks apart so as to a<ord the
parties ample time to negotiate meaningfully for settlement.

In criminal cases covered by CAM and JDR, where settlement on the civil aspect
has been reached but the period of payment in accordance with the terms of
settlement exceeds one (1) year, the case may be archived upon motion of the
prosecution, with notice to the private complainant and approval by the judge.

The period during which the case undergoing JDR proceedings shall be excluded
from the regular and mandatory periods for trial and rendition of judgment in
ordinary cases and in cases under summary proceedings.

In civil cases, if full settlement of the dispute is reached, the parties, assisted by
their respective counsels, shall draft the compromise agreement which shall be
submitted to the court for a judgment upon compromise, enforceable by
execution. Where full compliance with the terms of the compromise is forthwith
made, the parties, instead of submitting a compromise agreement, shall submit
a satisfaction of claims or a mutual withdrawal of the parties’ respective claims
and counterclaims. Thereafter, the court shall enter an order dismissing the case.

If partial settlement is reached, the parties shall, with the assistance of counsel,
submit the terms thereof for the court’s approval and rendition of a judgment
upon partial compromise, which may be enforced by execution without waiting
for resolution of the unsettled part.

In relation to the unsettled part of the dispute, the court shall proceed to conduct
trial on the merits of the case should the parties 9le a joint motion for him to do
so, despite con9dential information that may have been divulged during the
conciliation/mediation stage of the proceedings. Otherwise, the JDR Judge shall
turn over the case to a new judge by re-ra@e in multiple sala courts or to the
originating court in single sala courts, for the conduct of pre-trial proper and trial.

In criminal cases, if settlement is reached on the civil aspect of the criminal case,
the parties, assisted by their respective counsels, shall draft the compromise
agreement which shall be submitted to the court for appropriate action. Action
on the criminal aspect of the case will be determined by the Public Prosecutor,
subject to the appropriate action of the court.

If settlement is not reached by the parties on the civil aspect of the criminal
case, the JDR judge shall proceed to conduct the trial on the merits of the case
should the parties 9le a joint written motion for him to do so, despite con9dential
information that may have been divulged during the JDR proceedings. Otherwise,
the JDR Judge shall turn over the case to a new judge by re-ra@e in multiple sala
courts or to the originating court in single sala courts, for the conduct of pretrial
proper and trial.

Where no settlement or only a partial settlement was reached, and there being
no joint written motion submitted by the parties, the JDR judge shall turn over
the case to the trial judge, determined by re-ra@e in multiple sala courts or to
the originating court in single sala courts, as the case may be, to conduct pre-
trial proper, as mandated by Rules 18 and 118 of the Rules of Court.

The trial judge to whom the case was turned over, shall expeditiously proceed to
trial, after the pre-trial and, thereafter, render judgment in accordance with the
established facts, evidence, and the applicable laws.

Any and all matters discussed or communications made, including requests for
mediation, and documents presented during the mediation proceedings before
the Philippine Mediation Center or the JDR proceedings before the trial judge,
shall be privileged and con9dential, and the same shall be inadmissible as
evidence for any purpose in any other proceedings. However, evidence or
information that is otherwise admissible does not become inadmissible solely by
reason of its use in mediation or conciliation.

Further, the JDR judge shall not pass any information obtained in the course of
conciliation and early neutral evaluation to the trial judge or to any other person.
This prohibition shall include all court personnel or any other person present
during such proceedings. All JDR conferences shall be conducted in private.

Lawyers may attend mediation proceedings in the role of adviser and consultant
to their clients, dropping their combative role in the adjudicative process, and
giving up their dominant role in judicial trials. They must accept a less directive
role in order to allow the parties more opportunities to craft their own
agreement.

In particular, they shall perform the following functions:

1. Help their clients comprehend the mediation process and its bene9ts and
allow them to assume greater personal responsibility in making decisions for the
success of mediation in resolving the dispute.
2. Discuss with their clients the following:

*The substantive issues involved in the dispute.

*Prioritization of resolution in terms of importance to client.
*Understanding the position of the other side and the underlying fears, concerns,
and needs underneath that position.
*Need for more information or facts to be gathered or exchanged with the other
side for informed decision making.
*Possible bargaining options but stressing the need to be open-minded about
other possibilities.
*The best, worst, and most likely alternatives to a negotiated agreement.

3. Assist in preparing a compromise agreement that is not contrary to law,

morals, good customs, public order, or public policy so that the same may be
approved by the court, paying particular attention to issues of voluntary
compliance of what have been agreed upon, or otherwise to issues of
enforcement in case of breach.

4. Assist, wherever applicable, in the preparation of a manifestation of

satisfaction of claims and mutual withdrawal of complaint and counterclaim as
basis for the court to issue an order of dismissal.

The Mediation Fees collected and collectible, pursuant to Section 9, Rule 141, as
amended, of the Rules of Court, and all income therefrom shall constitute a
special fund, to be known as the SC-PHILJA-PMC Mediation Trust Fund, which shall
be administered and disbursed in accordance with guidelines set by court
issuances, for purposes enumerated in Section 9, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules
of Court.

The Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Courts and the First-Level Courts shall
collect the amount of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) upon the 9ling of the
following:

(1) Complaint or an Answer with a mediatable permissive counterclaim or cross-

claim, complaint-in-intervention, third-party complaint, fourth-party complaint,
etc., in civil cases, a Petition, an Opposition, and a Creditors’ Claim in Special
Proceedings;

(2) Complaint/Information for o<enses with maximum imposable penalty of

prision correccional in its maximum period or six years imprisonment, except
where the civil liability is reserved or is subject of a separate action;

(3) Complaint/Information for estafa, theft, and libel cases, except where the civil
liability is reserved or is subject of a separate action;

(4) Complaint/Information for Quasi-O<enses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal

Code;

(5) Intellectual Property cases;

(6) Commercial or corporate cases; and

(7) Environmental cases

The Clerks of Court of the First Level Courts shall collect the amount of FIVE
HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) upon the 9ling of a Notice of Appeal with the
Regional Trial Court.

The Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Court shall collect the amount of ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) upon the 9ling of a Notice of Appeal with the
Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan.

The Clerks of Court of the Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals shall collect
the amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) upon the 9ling of a
mediatable case, petition, special civil action, a comment/answer to the petition
or action, and the appellee’s brief. The Clerk of Court of the Court of Tax Appeals
shall also collect the amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) for the
appeal from the decision of a CTA Division to the CTA En Banc.

A pauper litigant shall be exempt from contributing to the Mediation Fund.

Despite
such exemption, the court shall provide that the unpaid contribution to the
Mediation Fund shall be considered a lien on any monetary award in a judgment
favorable to the pauper litigant.

An accused-appellant shall also be exempt from contributing to the Mediation

Fund.

The Fund shall be utilized for the promotion of courtannexed mediation and other
relevant modes of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), training of mediators,
payment of mediator’s fees, and operating expenses for technical assistance and
organizations/individuals, transportation/communication expenses,
photocopying, supplies and equipment, expense allowance, and miscellaneous
expenses, whenever necessary, subject to auditing rules and regulations. In view
thereof, the mediation fees shall not form part of the Judicial Development Fund
(JDF) under P.D. No. 1949 nor of the special allowances granted to justices and
judges under Republic Act No. 9227.
http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2011/03/expanded-coverage-of-mediation-
and.html