Expanded mediation, 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)”.

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.

Court diversion is a “three-stage process”. The first 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 first stage, “a second attempt is made at the JDR stage”, where the JDR judge becomes a “mediator-conciliator-early neutral evaluator in a continuing effort to secure a settlement”. Still failing that second attempt, “the mediator-judge must turn over the case to another judge (a new one by raffle 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 efforts to arrive at private accommodation and resolution of disputes have failed.”

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 filed with a certificate to file action issued by the Punong Barangay or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo under the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law

(4) The civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses 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 offended 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 first 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 first 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 first level courts under Section 33, par.(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; 13 and

(10) All habeas corpus cases decided by the first level courts in the absence of the Regional Trial Court judge, that are brought up on appeal from the special jurisdiction granted to the first 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.”


Judicial proceedings shall be divided into two stages:

(1) from the filing 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 raffled, who shall be called the JDR Judge, shall preside over the first 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-five (45) days from the time the parties first personally appear at the PMCU so that JDR will be conducted immediately if the parties do not settle at CAM.

All incidents or motions filed during the first 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 differences. 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 raffled 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 raffled 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 raffled 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 filed. 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 file a joint written motion requesting that the court of origin conduct the JDR proceedings and trial.

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 justifiable cause duly proved in the hearing of the motion to reconsider filed by the absent party, the sanctions imposed may be lifted, set aside or modified 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 first 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 afford 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 file a joint motion for him to do so, despite confidential 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-raffle 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 file a joint written motion for him to do so, despite confidential 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-raffle 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-raffle 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 confidential, 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 benefits 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.


Atty. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
March 12, 2011