The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of three men involved in the 2005 Valentine's Day bus bombing in Makati City carried out by the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding of guilt, agreeing that evidence including testimony from a witness established a conspiracy between the men to bomb public areas in Metro Manila. It also denied the tax refund claim of mining firm Atlas amounting to over PhP842 million, agreeing with lower courts that Atlas failed to prove it was entitled to the refund.
Original Description:
BenchMark JAN 2011 issue, Supreme Court of the Philippines
Original Title
BenchMark JAN 2011, Supreme Court of the Philippines
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of three men involved in the 2005 Valentine's Day bus bombing in Makati City carried out by the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding of guilt, agreeing that evidence including testimony from a witness established a conspiracy between the men to bomb public areas in Metro Manila. It also denied the tax refund claim of mining firm Atlas amounting to over PhP842 million, agreeing with lower courts that Atlas failed to prove it was entitled to the refund.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of three men involved in the 2005 Valentine's Day bus bombing in Makati City carried out by the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding of guilt, agreeing that evidence including testimony from a witness established a conspiracy between the men to bomb public areas in Metro Manila. It also denied the tax refund claim of mining firm Atlas amounting to over PhP842 million, agreeing with lower courts that Atlas failed to prove it was entitled to the refund.
posed by the social media revolution to the courts in
his lecture delivered before a spillover audience which included his Philippine counterpart, Chief Justice Corona, and other jurists; law practitioners; and developmental aid partners at the Supreme Court En Banc Session Hall. Also participating in the proceedings through video conferencing were the judges at Waterfront Hotel, Cebu City and Pearlmont Hotel, Cagayan de Oro City. The 51-year-old Chief Justice, a Juris Doctor graduate of Harvard Law, described how the social media revolution, where the method of accessing information has been transformed by the 24-hour internet and social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube), has impacted on judicial ethics and dissemination of court information. For instance, he cited the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committees prohibition against judges adding the lawyers who appear before them as friends in social networking sites. On the flip side, he pointed out how social networking sites can be used to improve accessibility to court information as in the case of the Tennessee court system which has 900 followers on Twitter. For court spokespersons and media/community relations officers specifically, he gave general guidelines for media interviews (e.g., respond promptly to media inquiries) and tips for crisis communication (e.g., establish a crisis communication plan). Through it all, Chief Justice Torres highlighted the responsibility of the court representatives to reach out and interact with all aspects of the community to enhance and reinforce the public perception of and trust in the system of justice. Composing the panel of reactors to Chief Justice Torres lecture were Supreme Court Public Information Office (PIO) Chief Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and noted journalist and STAR columnist Jose Manuel Babe Romualdez. Court Administrator Marquez pointed out that while the Court is fully cognizant of the need to be By Gleo Sp. Guerra T he Chief Justice Renato C. Corona Distinguished Lecture Series had a successful start last January 13 with the well-attended lecture on Media and the Courts of Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Jr. of the Supreme Court of Guam. more transparent and accessible, the best way for it to serve the public is to ensure that it fulfills its primary responsibility to see to it that justice is served and served swiftly. He declared that the media will always hold sway in the court of public opinion but in our courts, the sword of lady justice is mightier than the journalists pen. For his part, Romualdez stressed the responsibility of the media in ensuring the impartial administration of justice by simply reporting the facts of an ongoing trial without sensationalism or partisanship. Afterwards, Chief Justice Corona, Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna, along with Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, presented plaques of appreciation to the speakers. Justice Jose P. Perez acted as Master of Ceremonies. The event was held under the auspices of the Supreme Court, the PHILJA, and the SC Program Management Office. Kasama ng aking pamilya, malugod kong binabati ang sambayanang Pilipino ng isang masaganang bagong taon! The dawning of a new year marks a fresh start for all of us. Thus, we welcome it with great hope and renewed confidence as we look ahead Hon. Renato C. Corona CHIEF JUSTICE to new beginnings that we as a people will embark on in 2011. We have witnessed a number of significant milestones this past year capped by a change in leadership in all three great departments of government. As we take stock of the things that transpired in the previous year and examine and draw lessons from them, we likewise look at the start of the new year as a welcome opportunity to harness our collective spirit for our journey as a nation, knowing that we successfully endured the challenges that confronted us the past year. FROM THE BENCH As the New Year begins, another chapter of our nations history unfolds. Let us therefore be united in our efforts and prayers and arm ourselves with a sense of patriotism and faith to realize the promise of a better life for our countrymen. May we all have a happy, peaceful, and prosperous New Year! FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA DISTINGUISHED LECTURE. Guam Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Jr. (2nd from left) receives a plaque of appreciation from Philippine Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (3rd from left) after delivering the first lecture in the Chief Justice Renato C. Corona Distinguished Lecture Series last January 13 at the SC En Banc Session Hall. With them in the front row are (from left) Mary Torres, Chief Justice Torres wife; Philippine Supreme Court Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro and Lucas P. Bersamin; Philippine Judicial Academy Chancellor (retired Philippine Supreme Court Justice) Adolfo S. Azcuna; and Maria Cenzon, Director of Policy Planning and Community Relations of the Unified Courts of Guam. Behind the rostrum is Master of Ceremonies Philippine Supreme Court Justice Jose Portugal Perez. Chief Justice Torres spoke on, among others, the challenges posed by the social media revolution to the courts.The event was held under the auspices of the Supreme Court, the Philippine Judicial Academy, the SC educational and training arm, and the SC Program Management Office. New Year Message Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011 2 22 22 Reports The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of three men involved in the Valentines Day bus bombing in Makati five years ago which was owned by the Abu Sayyaf group. In a 19-page decision penned by Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, the Court affirmed the Makati City Regional Trial Courts conviction of Gamal B. Baharan a.k.a. Tapay, Angelo Trinidad a.k.a. Abu Khalil, and Rohmat Abdurrohim a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky of the complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. It also upheld the modification by the Court of Appeals of their sentence from death to reclusion perpetua as required by RA 9346, Act Abolishing the Imposition of Death Penalty. The Court deemed it unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the searching inquiry into the accused Baharan and Trinidads plea of guilt as it was not the sole basis of the condemnatory judgment under consideration. SC Upholds Conviction of Valentines Day Bus Bombers By Gleo Sp. Guerra It uphel d the fi ndi ng of gui l t agai nst Rohmat as a pri nci pal by inducement in light of testimonial evidence of the training he gave on how to make bombs coupled with his participation in the planning and persi stent attempts to bomb different areas in Metro Manila and hi s confi rmati on that Tri ni dad would be getting TNT as part of their mission. The Court al so affi rmed the fi ndi ngs of the exi stence of a conspiracy among the three based on, among others, the cl ear and categorical testimony of the state witness Gappal Bannah Asali, a.k.a Maidan or Negro, who was among those originally charged. On February 14, 2005, an explosion occurred in an RRCG bus at the stoplight at the corner of Ayala Avenue and EDSA, causing multiple i nj uri es and deaths to the bus passengers. (GR No. 188314, People v. Janjalani, January 10, 2011) The Supreme Court recently upheld the denial by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) of the tax refund claim of petitioner Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (Atlas) amounting to PhP842,336,291.60. In a decision penned by Justice Diosdado Peralta, the Court held that the CTA and the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the CTA ruling, based on their appreciation of the evidence presented, committed no error when they declared that petitioner Atlas failed to prove that it is entitled to a tax refund. The Court stressed that when claiming tax refund/credit, the Value Added Tax (VAT)-registered taxpayer must be able to establish that it does have refundable or creditable input VAT, and the same has not been applied against its output VAT liabilities information which are supposed to be reflected in the taxpayers VAT returns. In this case, both the CTA and CA had found that Atlas failed to present SC Upholds Denial of Atlas PhP842M Tax Refund Claim By Gleo Sp. Guerra photocopies of its export documents that would show that the purchase invoice/receipts submitted by it as proof of its input taxes are directly attributable to the goods so exported. On the issue of prescription, wherein Atlas questions the ruling of the CA that the formers claim for refund has prescribed, disregarding the failure of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the CTA to raise the said issue in their answer and original decision, respectively, the Court held the same moot and academic. Under Section 100 of the Tax Code of the Philippines, Atlas is a zero-rated VAT person for being an exporter of copper concentrates. According to Atlas, on January 20, 1994, it filed its VAT return for the fourth quarter of 1993, showing a total input tax of PhP863,556,963.74 and an excess VAT credit of PhP842,336,291.60 for which it claimed a refund. (GR No. 159471, Atlas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Janaury 26, 2011) The Supreme Court has effectively upheld the dismissal of falsification charges against the officials of Creative Play Corner School (CPCS), a childrens learning school operating in the posh Dasmarias Village, Makati City. This after the High Court affirmed the resolutions dated July 21, 2005 and September 29, 2005 of the Court of Appeals. The first resolution denied the motion of Barangay Dasmarias, through its Barangay Captain Ma. Encarnacion Legaspi, for a second extension of time to file a petition for review, while the second resolution denied the former s motion for reconsideration In 2004, Legaspi charged CPCS and its owners for allegedly falsifying and using the Barangay Clearance and Official Receipt purportedly issued in CPCSs name by Legaspis barangay office. The charges, however, were dismissed due to lack of probable cause by the assistant city prosecutor. On review, the DOJ dismissed the petition after it found no error to justify reversal of assailed resolution and ruled that the petition was filed late. Legaspi raised the matter to the appellate court. But before she did, she SC Upholds Dismissal of Cases Against Makati School Officials By J ay B. Rempillo first sought for extension of time of 15 days or until May 28, 2005 which the CA had granted. Subsequently, Legaspi asked for another extension of five days or until June 2. However, the petition was filed by mail only on June 7, 2005, five days late from the extension sought. Subsequently, the CA denied the second motion for extension of time to file petition for review and dismissed the said petition for having been filed beyond the period allowed by the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Legaspi then filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA also denied. The Court held that the CA only followed sec. 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court when it dismissed Legaspis motions after it found the reason for the second extension not compelling. From the above, it is clear that the CA, after it has already allowed petitioner an extension of 15 days within which to file a petition for review, may only grant a further extension when presented with the most compelling reason but the same is limited only to a period of 15 days, declared the Court. As to Legaspis invocation of liberal application of the rules, the Court held that the present case is not attended by such an imperative that justifies relaxation of the rules. (GR No. 169942, Barangas Dasmarias v. Creative Play Corner School, January 24, 2011) The Supreme Court has freed the Aquinas School of any liability for damages to a grade three pupil who was shoved and kicked by his nun religion teacher in 1998. In a six-page decision penned by Justice Roberto A. Abad, the Court granted Aquinass petition to set aside the August 4, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had found the school and Sister Margarita Yamyamin solidarily liable to student Jose Luis Inton. The Court said that the CA erred in holding Aquinas solidarily liable with Yamyamin. It gave weight to the testimony of the school directress that per Aquinass agreement with a congregation of sisters, it was Yamyamins religious congregation that chose her to teach catechism at Aquinas. The Intons had not refuted the school directress testimony in this regard. The Court noted that Aquinas acted promptly to relieve Yamyamin of her assignment as soon as the school learned of the incident and that her transcript of records, certificates, and diplomas showed that she was a SC Clears Aquinas School, Holds Nun Solely Liable for Kicking Pupil By J ay B. Rempillo qualified religion teacher. Likewise, Yamyamin was given a copy of the schools Administrative Faculty Staff Manual that set the standards for handling students and was required to attend a teaching orientation. Records showed that on July 14, 1998, while Yamyamin was teaching religion to the grade three class, Jose Luis left his assigned seat to play a joke on a classmate. Yamyamin ordered Jose Luis back to his seat. When the pupil again left his seat, Yamyamin, unable to tolerate the childs behavior, approached him and kicked him on the legs several times, as well as pulled and shoved his head on his classmates seat. The parents of Jose Luis filed in their sons behalf an action for damages against Yamyamin and Aquinas before the Pasig City Regional Trial Court which ruled in the Intons favor. A separate criminal action for violation of RA 7610 was filed against Yamyamin, to which she pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly. The Intons elevated the case to the appellate court to increase the award of damages and hold Aquinas solidarily liable with the nun. (GR No. 184202, Aquinas School v. Inton, January 26, 2011) Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011 3 The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of both the appellate and lower courts finding six Chinese guilty of illegal possession of drugs. The Court, through Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., sentenced Ng Yik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng, Chang Chaun Shi, Chua Shilou Hwan, Kan Shun Min and Raymond S. Tan, to reclusion perpetua with a fine of PhP5 million for each for violating sec. 16, Art. III of RA 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. In sustaining the conviction, the Court held that the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the illegal drugs were valid even without an arrest warrant as the arrest was made during the commission of a crime. Under sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a warrantless arrest is lawful when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, also referred to as arrest in flagrante SC Upholds Conviction of Six Chinese Drug Traffickers By J en T. Tuazon delicto. The Court held that the police had probable cause to suspect that the accused were loading and transporting contraband more so when Hwan, upon being accosted, readily mentioned that they were loading shabu as well as pointed to Tan as their leader. The Court added that all the elements of illegal possession of drugs were present: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug Further, the accused were positively identified in court as the individuals caught loading and possessing prohibited drugs without proof that they were duly authorized by law to possess them. The accused were also unable to show proof to support their allegation of a frame-up in rebutting the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Court noted. (GR No. 18045, People v. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals conviction of a large- scale illegal recruiter, sentencing the latter with life imprisonment and a fine of PhP500,000. In a decision penned by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., the High Courts Third Division upheld the rulings of the appellate and lower courts which had found Teresita Tessie Laogo guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. In addition to the said penalties, Laogo was also ordered by the Court to indemnify the offended parties for actual damages totaling PhP109,000. To prove illegal recruitment, the Court held, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by law, gave the offended parties the distinct impression that the former had the power or ability to send the latter abroad for work such that the offended parties were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. The Court also stressed that there must be at least a promise or offer of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad. Laogo, working with Susan Navarro who remains at large, promised each of the five complainants to be sent abroad as cooks and assistant Life Imprisonment for Large-Scale Illegal Recruiter By J en T. Tuazon cooks, with the follow-up transactions done in Laogo Travel Consultancy, Laogos travel agency. All receipts of payment also bore the logo of the travel agency, two of such receipts being personally signed by Laogo herself. The Court thus found that Laogo, together with Navarro, made the offended parties believe that they were transacting with a legitimate recruitment agency and that Laogo Travel Consultancy had the authority to recruit them and send them abroad for work when in fact such agency had none as certified by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency. Under Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority are deemed illegal and punishable by law. And when the illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it is deemed committed in large-scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a form of economic sabotage. Section 7 of the Migrant Workers Act provides a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than PhP500,000 nor more than PhP1 million if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. (GR No. 176264, People v. Laogo, January 18, 2011) FEBRUARY 10-11 Mediation Course for Lawyers of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Pasay City FEBRUARY 15 Seminar Workshop on the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases for Region 2 Manila FEBRUARY 17-18 Information Dissemination Campaign on Small Claims and Anti-Trafficking Laoag City COURT CALENDAR THIS MONTH IN HISTORY JANUARY 2 Japanese forces occupy the City of Manila in 1942 JANUARY 3 The Japanese Military Administration in the Philippines is established in 1942 JANUARY 12 Abdulwahid A. Bidin is the first Muslim appointed Justice of the Supreme Court in 1987 JANUARY 13 The Supreme Court is honored as Filipino of the Year by the Philippine Daily Inquirer in 2002 JANUARY 17 President Ferdinand E. Marcos lifts Martial Law in 1981 JANUARY 20 The Japanese Congress grants Independence to the Philippines in 1942 JANUARY 24 A royal order confirms the royal decree of May 29, 1885 separating judicial and executive powers in 1887 JANUARY 30 The Audiencia Territorial de Manila with Cayetano S. Arellano as President replaces the Real Audiencia in 1899 The first national elections since the proclamation of Martial Law are held in 1980 The Supreme Court recently dismissed for lack of merit the petition filed by election lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal assailing the validity of the constitution of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). Atty. Macalintal had questioned the creation of a purportedly separate tribunal with a budget allocation, a seal, and a set of personnel and confidential employees. In a 32-page En Banc decision penned by Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, the Court held that the PET is not a separate and distinct entity from it even though the PET has functions peculiar only to it. It declared that the PET was constituted in implementation of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, and it faithfully complies not unlawfully defies the constitutional directive. The adoption of a separate seal, as well as the change in the nomenclature of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices into Chairman and Members of the Tribunal, respectively, was designed simply to highlight the singularity and exclusivity of the Tribunals functions as a special electoral court. Article VII, sec. 4 provides: The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. [T]he PET, as intended by the framers of the Constitution, is to be an institution independent, but not separate, from the judicial department, i.e., the Supreme Court. McCulloch v. State of Maryland proclaimed that [a] power without the means to use it is a nullity. The vehicle for the exercise of this power, as intended by the Constitution and specifically mentioned by the Constitutional Commissioners during the discussions on the grant of power to this Court, is the PET, stressed the Court. As to petitioners claim that the PET exercises quasi-judicial functions in contravention of Article VIII, sec. 12 of the Constitution, which provides that The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions, the Court held that the expanded definition of judicial power found in Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the present Constitution has allocated to the Supreme Court, in conjunction with latters exercise of judicial power inherent in all courts, the task of deciding presidential and vice-presidential election contests, with full authority in the exercise thereof. The power wielded by PET is a derivative of the plenary judicial power allocated to courts of law, expressly provided in the Constitution, the Court explained; otherwise its members sitting in the Senate and House Electoral Tribunals would violate the said constitutional prohibition. On a final note, the Court cautioned against the filing of baseless petitions which only clog the Courts docket. The petition in the instant case belongs to that classification. (GR No.191618, Macalintal v. PET, November 23, 2010) SC Dimisses Petition vs. PET By Gleo Sp. Guerra 4 Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011 Chief Justice Renato C. Corona led the launching of Judgment Day, a pilot project and an off-shoot of the Supreme Courts Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) program, at the Las Pias City Hall of Justice on January 21, 2011.
An initiative of the Las Pias City j udges and government offi ci al s i n coordination with the Supreme Court, Judgment Day i nvol ves the simultaneous disposition of cases in one day. This pilot project replicates the EJOW program to further speed up the administration of justice. It is similar to the EJOW except that the bus, which serves as the mobile court, is no longer present. Li ke EJOW, Judgment Day participating judges heard and decided cases, which resulted in the provisional release of five inmates, acquittal of 46 accused, and conviction of eight others in criminal cases. Thirty-one civil cases Chief Justice Corona Leads Judgment Day Launch By J ay B. Rempillo were also decided, while a total of 70 inmates were served by the 20-member medical and dental team from the Las Pias City Health Office.
Aside from Chief Justice Corona, also present were SC Public Information Office Chief and Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, Assistant Court Administrator Jenny Lind A. Delorino, Las Pias Congressman Mark Villar, Las Pias Vice- Mayor Louie Bustamante, city councilors, members of the Las Pias Bar Association, and the Las Pias City Judges Association. Those who participated in the Judgment Day are Judge Erlinda Nicolas-Alvaro (RTC, 198), Judge Leopoldo Baraquia (RTC, Branch 200), Judge Ismael Duldulao (RTC, Branch 197), Judge Bonifacio Maceda (RTC, Branch 275), Judge Salvador Timbang, Jr. (RTC, Branch 253), Judge Joselito Vibandor (RTC, Branch 199), Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray, (RTC, Branch 255), and Judge Pio Pasia (Municipal Trial Court, Branch 79).
In his speech, the Chief Justice said that the launching of Judgment Day will demonstrate that the successes of the EJOW project can be duplicated in key areas even without the appeal of a mobile court. This undertaking will make use of the existing resources and infrastructure of the Judiciary, with the acti ve i nvol vement of the l ocal government uni ts, to promote awareness of the justice system and speedy administration of justice.
Chief Justice Corona underscored that the Judgment Day will allow the Supreme Court to depl oy i ts ei ght roving buses to distant provinces or to areas without regular courthouses, for which these buses were initially intended. As such, all possible means of accessing the justice system be it through the traditional way of going to regular courts, or through the EJOW and Judgment Day will be utilized. What will transpire here today will, hopefully, serve as the blueprint for future opportuni ti es to take ful l advantage of the courts avai l abl e means to provide fast, free resolution of confl i cts through adj udi cati on, mediation, or conciliation, he said.
Under the EJOW, a total of 5,157 inmates have been either released or had their cases terminated so far, while 12,590 cases have been successfully mediated. In addition, 10,073 inmates have al so been gi ven medi cal and dental or legal assistance while 14,980 barangay officials have benefitted from legal information dissemination.
Chief Justice Corona said that the EJOW figures prove that in spite of the perennial problems of congested dockets of courts and vacancies the Judiciary has achieved significant victories in the battle to provide people with access to justice. He expressed optimism that EJOWs feat will also be duplicated by the Judgment Day project. (With report from Annie A. Laborte) 5 Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011 Thirty-nine year old Julius Ocampo has been languishing in jail for six years for charges of illegal drug use. Twenty-seven year old Nino Polo, on the other hand, has been doing time for four years for murder charges. January 21, 2011would prove to be a red-letter day for both of them for on that very day, both were finally acquitted due to the prosecutions failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Forty-four other inmates were also acquitted that same day on the very first Judgment Day, an off-shoot of the Supreme Courts Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) program launched at the Las Pias City Hall of Justice. The still single Ocampo was fetched by his 62-year old mother Zosima Ocampo who unabashedly hugged him after he told her of his acquittal by Judge Leopoldo Baraquia of the Las Pinas Regional Trial Court, Branch 200. Masayang masaya ako. Pangako ko sa sarili na ipapagpatuloy ko ang magandang pagbabago ngayong malaya na ako (I am very happy. I promised myself I will not waste this new beginning now that I am free), says Ocampo. Ocampo says he is excited about his re-integration to the society and hopes to have a fresh start with his own vulcanizing shop, a By J ay B. Rempillo business he was engaged in prior to his incarceration. His mother Zosima was ecstatic that her son is now free, having always maintained his innocence. Polo was similarly elated and grateful for his acquittal. He was all smiles when judgment of the same was handed by Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray of the Las Pinas RTC, Branch 255. His co-accused Jerson Dasmarinas, however, was not as fortunate as Judge Guray found the latter guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for shooting to death a cop in front of a beer joint in Naga Road. Dasmarinas admitted in court that he had met Polo only during the trial of their case. A Roman Catholic, Polo says that prison life has reinvigorated his religious life as became more prayerful. Naging malapit ako sa Diyos (I have become closer to God), he says. Polo, who could not wait to be reunited with his seven-year old son, however, has to wait for he is still being held for another charge. Aside from the acquittal of 46 accused, the first Judgment Day also resulted in the provisional release of five inmates and the conviction of eight others in criminal cases. A total of 31 civil cases have also been decided. 6 Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011 COURT WATCH Two trial judges, including the one who handled the Golden Buddha case, and three court personnel who committed various offenses have been dismissed as part of continuing efforts of the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, to weed the Judiciary of its misfits. In a per curiam decision, the Court dismissed Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan of the Baguio City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3 for gross ignorance of the law. His dismissal was spawned by the complaint filed by Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos who accused Judge Pamintuan committed gross ignorance when he, motu propio, reversed the final and executory order dated May 30, 1996 of then Acting Presiding Judge Antonio Reyes. In the said order, Judge Reyes dismissed the civil case and ordered the immediate release of the Buddha Statuette in the courts custody to the children of the late Rogelio Roxas. On August 15, 2006, Judge Pamintuan issued an order awarding to the estate of Rogelio Roxas the Buddha Statuette, which however, shall be under the court custody until final settlement of the Roxas estate. The same order ruled that the Buddha in its custody is a fake one or a mere replica of the original Golden Buddha, which has been missing since 1971. The Court found inexcusable Judge Pamintuans overlooking the basic legal principle that when a judgment is final and executor, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It held that Judge Pamintuan made a serious error in making pronouncements that the Buddha in its custody was a fake or a mere replica, which may be his opinion or the litigants during the hearing. It stressed that Judge Pamintuan should have realized that the trial court did not rule on that point in its May 30, 1996 order. It noted that this was not Judge Pamintuans first and sole administrative case. The Court finds Judge Pamintuan accountable for gross ignorance of the law. He could have simply been suspended and fined, but the Court cannot take his previous infractions lightly. His violations are serious in character. Having been previously warned and punished for various infractions, Judge Pamintuan now deserves the ultimate administrative penalty dismissal from service, the Court said. In another per curiam decision, the Court dismissed Judge Oscar E. Dinopol of the Koronadal City RTC, Branch 24 for gross misconduct when he obtained commodity loans from complainant litigant Victoriano Sy in the form of building materials from the construction of his house in SC Dismisses Erring Judges, Personnel By J ay B. Rempillo Koronadal City, which was evidenced by receipts. Judge Dinopol violated Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct when he received accommodations from Sy, thus compromising his position as a judge. Likewise, the Court found he had violated Canon 1, Canon 2, and Canon 4 of the said Code, which highlights the judges independence, promotes a judges integrity, and mandates a judge to observe and maintain proper decorum and its appearance in his public office. Likewise, the Court found Judge Dinopol committed impropriety in talking with litigants outside court proceedings. In another per curiam decision, the Court dismissed Carlos A. Salvador, Sheriff IV of Angeles City RTC, Branch 58 for grave misconduct and suspended Binangonan, Rizal RTC OIC Branch Clerk of Court Babe SJ. Ramirez for one year without pay for conduct prejudicial to the service. Salvador was found liable for grave misconduct for his refusal to implement the writ of execution in the civil case and for interposing obstacles in the enforcement of the writ on the grounds not within the scope of his duty. On the other hand, Ramirez was sanction for the delay in issuing the writ, which was not done at her initiative but at the insistence of the complainants. Ramirez compounded the problem by issuing a writ that was, on its face, defective, thus creating additional enforcement difficulties. The Court also dismissed Clerk of Court II Marissa U. Angeles of the Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, Municipal Trial Court for dishonesty and grave misconduct. It held that Angeles failed to dispute or disprove the charges against her. She was found liable for her failure to immediately account for the excess in the cash bond she receive; failure to issue appropriate receipts; failure to safekeep monies received; and, failure to remit/ deposit cash bonds in the government depository upon receipt. These infractions constituted dishonesty and grave misconduct for which she deserves to be dismissed from the service. Likewise, the Court dismissed Jose M. Ramano, Deputy Sheriff of Makati City RTC, Branch 140 for gross misconduct. The Court established that Ramano had been negligent in implementing the subject writ due to the complainants refusal to give in to his demand that he be given 35% share of whatever may be collected from the implementation of the writ on a civil case. (AM No. RTJ-07-2062, Marcos v. Judge Pamintuan; AM No. RTJ-09- 2189, Sy v. Judge Dinopol; AM No. P-03-1730, Judge Iturralde v. Ramirez; AM No. P-11-2887, OCA v. Angeles; AM No. P-10-2880, Judge Aldea-Arocena v. Angeles, January 18, 2011; AM P-90-488, OCA v. Ramano, January 25, 2011) The more than PhP4.8 billion deposit of the Judiciarys Fiduciary Funds and all subsequent collections of trust and other receipts with the Bureau of Treasury has no legal basis, and the remittance of interests of the Fiduciary Funds to the national government is erroneous and must be discontinued. Thus said the Supreme Court as it ruled that Fiduciary Funds in custodia legis shall remain under the custody and control of the courts, to be deposited and disposed of as the courts may direct in the exercise of their judicial functions, while Fiduciary Funds deposited with the Court in its administrative capacity, and not in custodia legis, shall be remitted to the National Treasury. In its 2008 Annual Audit Report, the COA recommended that the Court deposit the amount of PhP4,838,976,011.86 and all subsequent collections of trust and other receipts with the Bureau of Treasury in conformity with Executive Order 338 (EO 338), Sections 7 and 8 of the General Provisions of the General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (2008 GAA), and COA-DOF-DBM Joint Circular No. 1-97. EO 338 directs government offices and agencies to immediately transfer all public monies deposited with depository banks and other institutions to the Bureau of Treasury, regardless of income source, while the 2008 GAA directs government agencies to book trust and other receipts which have been received as guaranty for the fulfillment of an obligation with the National Treasury. Joint Circular No. 1-97, on the other hand, requires that all National Government cash balances be deposited with the National Treasury. The Court, however, held that while funds that properly accrue to the General Fund must be turned over to the Bureau of Treasury, which is under the Executive branch, the custody and disposition of any fund of whatever nature that is in custodia legis (custody of the law) is under the exclusive control of the courts in the exercise of their judicial functions. The control of funds in custodia legis is an exercise of judicial power, and under the Constitution, [T]he judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law, said the Court. Neither the Executive nor Legislative branch can encroach on the power of the courts to control custody or disposition of funds in custodia legis, adding that upon termination of the case, or earlier as the courts may direct, the funds in custodia legis will be returned to their rightful owners, subject to a service fee of 10% per annum of the interests earned, which shall accrue to the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). The High Court said that while Batas Pambansa Blg. 325 provides that, unless otherwise provided, all collections from fees and charges of government agencies, including the Supreme Court, shall accrue to the General Fund of the National Government, an exemption is provided under Presidential Decree No. 1949 (PD 1949), which established the JDF for the benefit of the members and personnel of the Judiciary to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the Judiciary. Fiduciary Funds Shall Remain With Court By Anna Katrina M. Martinez PD 1949 provides that the Chief Justice shall administer and allocate the JDF and shall have the sole exclusive power and duty to approve the authorized disbursement and expenditures of the Fund. Thus, the JDF, although derived from legal fees and charges, does not accrue to the General Fund by express provision of PD 1949, said the Court. The High Court added that Fiduciary Funds also do not accrue to the General Fund as these are not collections from fees and charges but are funds that are deposited in court which are held in trust for the parties and litigants. The Court also ruled that its own practice of remitting the interests of the Fiduciary Funds to the national government is erroneous and must be discontinued. Following the right of accession conferred on the owner of the property under Article 440 of the Civil Code, the interests on these fiduciary funds also belong to the parties who own the principal amount. Upon termination of the case, the interests should be returned to the parties together with the principal. The interests should not accrue to the General Fund because it is tantamount to taking private property for public use without just compensation, the Court held. It added that interests on deposits of the JDF accrue to the JDF for the benefit of the members and personnel of the Judiciary. The Court, however, ruled that forfeited cash deposits made to guarantee undertakings in favor of the government, and the interests thereon, are income of the government and shall be remitted to the National Treasury and that unclaimed fiduciary funds of private parties, including interests, shall remain with the courts until a law is passed authorizing the escheat or forfeiture of such unclaimed funds in favor of the State. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the amounts it previously remitted to the National Treasury representing interest earned on the Fiduciary Fund and forfeited/ confiscated bonds covering the period from 2004 to 2007, under the staggered payments proposed by retired Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno to the COA in 2009, shall be credited to whatever amounts the Court is required to remit to the National Treasury. (Min. Res., AM No. 05-3-35-SC, Re: Audit Observation Memorandum; Min. Res., AM No. 10-8-3- SC, Re: Fiduciary Fund Deposits Not Remitted to the Bureau of Treasury, January 18, 2011) Chief Justice Renato C. Corona has granted the release of Fringe Benefit and the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) for December 2010 as additional benefits to qualified court officials and personnel. In Memorandum Order No. 03-2011, signed on January 21, 2011, Chief Justice Corona authorized the release of an additional allowance of PhP10,000 to all court employees and shall be received in its full amount by those who are still in the service, as of November 30, 2010. The Chief Justice also approved the release of an Additional Cost of Living Allowance under the JDF to qualified Court personnel in amounts ranging from PhP2,300 to PhP2,500 depending on the employees salary grade as per the CJ Corona Grants the Release of Fringe Benefit, JDF By Sheena Mae T. Dagum January 7, 2011 Memorandum Order No. 01-2011. The JDF and Fringe benefits are granted to all qualified officials and employees of the Supreme Court, the three collegiate courts, and the lower courts, pursuant to and by virtue of the authority vested upon the Chief Justice by Joint Resolution No. 96 of the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group, and PD 1949, respectively. The PhP 10,000 fringe benefit is taken from the savings from appropriations in the Fiscal Autonomy (FA) account, while the Additional Cost of Living Allowance comes from the eighty per centum (80%) allotted for the purpose from the income of the JDF from December 1 to 31, 2010. 7 Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011 For the purposes of determining administrative culpability, the only quantum of evidence required is substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Thus said the Supreme Court as it dismissed Claudio M. Lopez, a Process Server of the Municipal Trial Court of Sudipen, La Union, for having been found guilty of possession of marijuana. The Court held that evidence to support a conviction in a criminal case is not necessary, and the dismissal of the criminal case against the respondent in an administrative case is not a ground for the dismissal of the administrative case. Although the respondent alleged that the evidence obtained were inadmissible due to the illegality of the issuance of the search warrant as well as the conduct of the search, the Court ruled that these issues should be threshed out in the criminal case and not in the instant administrative case. Lopez claimed that the authorities required the presence of witnesses in accordance with Rule 126 of the Rules of Court when they searched his room and recovered the one block of dried La Union Process Server Dismissed for Possession of Marijuana By J oachim Florencio Q. Corsiga marijuana fruiting tops weighing 790.6 grams wrapped in a newspaper and plastic bag. He also alleged that the search warrant was illegally issued because presiding judge who issued the search warrant had no territorial jurisdiction over Sudipen, La Union, the place where it was enforced. The Court once more stressed that from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants in an office dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be in accordance with the law and court regulations. No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office in the judiciary. Court employees should be models of uprightness, fairness and honesty to maintain the peoples respect and faith in the judiciary. (AM No. P-10-2788, OCA v. Lopez, January 2011) Supreme Court officials and employees can continue to avail of the health care plan services of Fortune Medicare Inc. until the end of April this year with certain exceptions. During the extension period, health care services such as executive check- ups, annual physical examinations, reimbursement of out-patient medicines, cauterization of warts and sclerotherapy, and vaccinations will not be covered by the Fortune Care card. In its January 11, 2011 resolution, the Court En Banc approved the extension to give the Committee on Bids ample time to complete the procurement process. Dr. Prudencio P. Banzon, Jr., Chief of SC Medical and Dental Services, and Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan (SCHWP) member said that employees can still use their Fortune Fortune Care Health Care Services Extended Till April 30 By Helen D. Santos Care card for doctor consultations and other health care services in any Fortune Care-accredited hospital during the extension period. On February 1, 2011, the Court authorized SCHWPC Working Chairperson and Clerk of Court En Banc Atty. Enriqueta E. Vidal to signify the Courts conformity to the terms and conditions of the extension coverage. JUDGE JOSELITO VIBANDOR: The Family Court Judge as Head of the Family Think of yourself as the head of the family that you are there not only to conduct trial but to find ways for the parties to settle. relates to nullity of marriages, child abuse, violence against women and children, he reveals. Additional Family Courts would also seek to equalize our case loads with regular courts who are assigned cases on a 1 is to 3 ratio. Judge Joey urges Congress to look into the implementation of the [RA 8369] Family Courts Act of 1997 which has become moribund by appropriating funds therefore. These funds, once appropriated, translates to additional personnel in family courts, such as court social workers, guardian ad litems and other support persons; facilities, such as the holding or preparation areas for children and the live links, and special trainings for the family court judges and their staff, he adds. SPEARHEADING PROJECTS Judge Joey has always been concerned of the plight of inmates of Las Pias City jail who have been beneficiaries of his establishment of the first city jail library in the country. This library is equipped with a computer, law books, reference books as well as childrens books. He has also been celebrating his birthday with the Las Pias City inmates since 2001. He is also an advocate of barangay education where as President of the Las Pias City Judges Association, he has spearheaded lectures on basic law at the grassroots level. In his own sala, Judge Joey has introduced innovations to better manage the flow of cases. Inmates who have pending cases in his sala are provided individually with index card so as to appraise the inmates of their next trial dates, the penalty imposable as well as the recommended bail and the status of their cases. For this and other efforts to contribute to the justice system, Judge Joey was named Special Awardee of the Year in 2006 by the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology; and one of the outstanding professors by the Arellano School of Law. The San Beda Law Alumni Association during its 2008 Alumni Homecoming named him one of the Bedans who are of Great Service to the Filipino People. Judge Joey was also a delegate to the Hague Forum for International Criminal Law for Justices and Judges in the Netherlands in 2008. But above all the foregoing accolades, serving the country while settling family disputes and touching lives as a family court j udge has made me a better person, says Judge Joey. A FAMILY COURT JUDGE For Judge Joselito Joey de Jesus Vibandor, Presiding Judge of Las Pias City, Regional Trial Court, Branch 199, being a family court judge is like being in a specialized field of law. Family court judges hear cases for annulment of marriages, custody, support, violence against women and children, child abuse and neglect, among others. Think of yourself as the head of the family that you are there not only to conduct trial but to find ways for the parties to settle, Judge Joey shares. A family court judge should give the family every opportunity to resolve their own disputes by themselves and within the bounds of the law acceptable to them, he advises. A family court judge for a decade now, Judge Joey says that the best attribute of a family court judge is his listening heart and that as a judge, he should also have the right attitude and the ability to change the lives of parents and their children. He also says that a family court judge should address family-related issues by keeping in mind each of the family member s rights and obligations and the best interest of family in relation to other families in the community. Born on July 7, 1954 in a mine camp in Acoje Mines, Sta. Cruz, Zambales, Judge Joey recalls, My late father Cristino Milla Vibandor, a stowaway from Bula, Camarines Sur, was an intermediate graduate who did odd jobs in Manila but later rose through the ranks to be the mining companys electrical superintendent. His late mother Victoria de Jesus Vibandor, a native of Navotas, Metro Manila, was a loving mother to Judge Joey and his five other siblings who all became successful in their respective fields. Judge Joey is an alumnus of San Beda College, where he obtained his Political Science degree in 1976, and law degree in 1980. After passing the Bar the following year, he worked as Legislative Assistant at the Office of Budget and Management, Legislative Service in Malacaang for a year. From 1982 to 1987, he was a Corporate Attorney in the Philippine Tourism Authority. In mid-80s, he was designated as Boracay Island Tourism Administrator. In 1988, he joined the Department of Justice as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor for the province of Nueva Ecija, and was later transferred to Pasay, where he was awarded in 1994 as one of the outstanding prosecutors. In September 2001, Judge Joey joined the Judiciary when he was appointed to the Regional Trial Court of Las Pias, Branch 100. He was designated Executive Judge of Las Pias City for two terms, concurrently serving as Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 254, another family court. At present, Judge Joey is also the Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 4, Manila, the only land registration court in Manila. Judge Joey hopes for the designation of additional family courts not only in Las Pias but in other stations as well to address the high number of family court cases. The bulk of these cases Be prepared and not entirely dependent on your counsel. Be familiar with the facts of the case as well as the documents to be identified in open court. Observe proper court decorum. Avoid creating scenes fit only for a movie and wear appropriate clothes. Dont be late. Judges frown upon litigants and lawyers who come in late. Turn your cellphone off or in silent mode. Dont exaggerate. This will reflect negatively on you. Judges are trained to know when a witness is lying. Relax, speak the truth clearly and distinctly. If you do not understand the question, call the attention of the court interpreter. There are questions answerable only by yes or no. Rules of a Family Court Judge for Litigants By J udge J oselito Vibandor By Annie A. Laborte Photos by Doranne I. Lim, Francisco S. Gutierrez, Cesar Tito P. Royeras, and Randy R. Samonte Captions by Arcie M. Sercado PIO ZOOM LENS EF 28-80m m 1 : 3 . 5 - 5 . 6 I I 5 8 m m P u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n O f f i c e Snap Judgments 8 STAFFBOX GLEO SP. GUERRA EDITORINCHIEF | JAY B. REMPILLO ASSOCIATEEDITOR | ANNA KATRINA M. MARTINEZ NEWSEDITOR| ANNIE A. LABORTE FEATURESEDITOR| RONALD C. NAPOLITANO ART/LAYOUTEDITOR| JAMES C. BITANGA ERIKA T. DY JOACHIM FLORENCIO Q. CORSIGA HELEN GRACE D. SANTOS ARCIE M. SERCADO JEN T. TUAZON SHEENA MAE T. DAGUM CONTRIBUTINGEDITORS| RENATO T. BOCAR RUTH MILO-FERRER SANDRA PERALTA- CALUGAY SANDIGANBAYANCORRESPONDENTS | ELSIE R. TIAUZON-FORTEZA CTACORRESPONDENT | DORANNE I. LIM CHIEFPHOTOGRAPHER| FRANCISCO S. GUTIERREZ CESAR P. ROYERAS RANDY R. SAMONTE PHOTOGRAPHERS | MARVIE S. IGNACIO MELODY L. SY EDITORIALASSISTANTS | LEIZEL C. HABANA CIRCULATIONMANAGER | EDMUNDO M. MOREDO PRODUCTIONCOORDINATOR | RAYMUND P. FLORES BENCHMARKONLINEADMINISTRATOR| JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ ADVISER PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE: 3/F New SC Bldg. Annex Padre Faura St., Ermita 1000 Manila, Philippines | Telephone Numbers: (02) 522-5090, 92, 93, 94 | Telefax (02) 526-8129 | sc.judiciary.gov.ph | BENCHMARK can also be viewed online at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/publications/benchmark. The views and opinions presented in BENCHMARK are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Supreme Court. To notify BENCHMARK of any change or correction in your mailing address, e-mail us at pio@sc.judiciary.gov.ph or write to The Editor in Chief at the above address. Contributions in the form of articles and photos of court-related subjects are welcome and will be published subject to the editors descreation. Volume XII Number 01 JANUARY 2011 NEWLY APPOINTED EMPLOYEES List provided by the Office of Administrative Services as of J anuary 31, 2011 MARI A CRI STI NA M. ATENDI DO, Court Attorney VI , OAJ Sereno, Transfer from CA GI LBERTH D. BALDERAMA, Court Attorney I V, OAJ Perez, Reappointment TRI CI A NI COLE Q. VELASCO-CATERA, J udicial Staff Head, OAJ Velasco, Promotion RONALD BRI AN G. EVANGELI STA, Executive Assistant V, OAJ Brion, Reemployment J AY-R C. I PAC, Court AttorneY I V, OAJ Brion, Transfer from HRET DONATO B. J AVI NAR, Court Attorney I V, OAJ Del Castillo, Reappointment J ANI CE C. LEE, Court Attorney I V, OAJ Sereno, Original Appointment CONSTANTI NO U. MANLANGI T, PET Chief J udicial Staff Officer, OAJ Perez, Transfer from SC NORELI ZA R. MORAA, Court Attorney VI , OAJ Perez, Transfer from PET ANNA NERI SSA B. PAZ- PEREZ, Court Attorney VI , OAJ Del Castillo, Promotion ANNA LOREM R. RAMOS, Court Attorney I V, OAJ Sereno, Original Appointment Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (seated, center, 3rd row) poses for posterity with New Bilibid Prison inmates, who are members of the College Guild of the University of Perpetual Help System Delta Extension School, which operates within the NBP Medium Security Compound in Muntinlupa City. Also in photo are Supreme Court Public Information Office Chief and Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (seated right next to Chief Justice Corona), and officials of the Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prisons, and the UPHSD. His January 21, 2011 visit is a homecoming of sorts for the Chief Justice since he did volunteer work in the Prison Ministry in his earlier years. He also served as the head of the Malacaang legal office from 1992 to 1998 during the administration of then President Fidel V. Ramos, which processes the applications for pardon and parole of inmates. During his speech, he reminded inmates that their incarceration is only temporary and that they should change for the better and make use of their God-given talents upon their release in the future. Former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno is conferred the degree of Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, by the University of the Philippines (UP) in celebration of the centennial of the UP College of Law at the Malcolm Theatre, Malcolm Hall, UP Diliman on January 11, 2011. Assisting the Chief Justice in donning the velvet robes is Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Chairperson Dr. Patricia Licuanan (far left), and his daughter, Ruth (far right). During the conferment, UP President Emerlinda R. Roman cited Chief Justice Punos term in the Supreme Court as one which showed fidelity to the Constitution, a deep concern for the deaths of activist victims, high principles, and a liberal judicial activism. Chief Justice Renato C. Corona answers a question posed by one of the members of the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines during the FOCAPs 2011 Prospects Forum: Six Years of Possibilities held at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Makati, Manila on January 20, 2011. Chief Justice Corona, who keynoted the FOCAP event, is joined on the panel by (from left) National Economic and Development Authority Director General Cayetano W. Paderanga, Jr., Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., and JG Summit Holdings President Lance Y. Gokongwei. FOCAP is an association of journalists who work for the different foreign wire and news service organizations operating in the country. Atty. Sixto Brillantes, Jr. takes his oath as the new Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chair before his former law firm partner Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura at the Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila on January 16, 2011. Atty. Brillantes is a veteran election lawyer, Bar topnotcher, and son of a former COMELEC Commissioner. Public Information Office Chief Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez exchanges thoughts with Quezon City Vice-Mayor Ma. Josefina G. Belmonte at the Proposed Practice Guidelines for Quezon City Courts: A Consultation with Stakeholders held at the Bulwagang Amoranto, Quezon City Hall, QCon January 12, 2011. Theproject, supportedby theSupremeCourt, Officeof theCourt Administrator, United States Agency for International Development, American Bar AssociationRule of Law Initiative, Department of Justice, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, aims to modernize Quezon Citys judicial system. The consultation gathered representatives from the Bar, Judiciary, prosecution, and public defenders offices to gauge their reactions to the proposed modifications to the present litigation practice guidelines. Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, Jr. prepares for a drive against Public Information Chief Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez during the first friendship game between Supreme Court Philippines and Guam at the The Zone, Bel Air, Makati City on January 13, 2011. The basketball friendship games were part of the visit of Chief Justice Torres to the Philippines. Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa C. Vilches makes a presentation of the current state of the Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) Programs fleet of buses and complement at the Orientation on the EJOW Programheld at theTraining Room, Ground Floor, Centennial Building, Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila on January 7, 2011. The orientation was due to the change in the process of deployment of the EJOW buses, which will now be delegated to the three Deputy Court Administrators (DCAs) and two Assistant Court Administrators (ACAs) who will be tasked to propose venues, taking into consideration the judicial needs of every area or locality under their jurisdiction, and take care of the implementation in their respective regions.
A.M. No. 01-1-04-SC-PHILJA FURTHER CLARIFYING AND STRENGTHENING THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SET-UP OF THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY