Salto, Dianne D.

Atty. Oliver Reyes

JD4201

Civil Cases Hearing

In civil cases I have attended last March 16, 2016, I have witnessed the real world of
being a lawyer, a judge, an aggrieved party and a defendant. On that day, there are four (4)
civil case hearing under Hon. Dorothy Grace Inciong, presiding judge of Metropolitan Trial
Court Branch 52, Caloocan City. I was able to catch the second civil case hearing. In Civil
Case No. 01-26337 entitled Carmel Development Inc. Rep. by Manolito Baoilan vs. Renato
Borbon for Ejectment (Unlawful Detainer), the defendants Counsel Atty. Ero was directed
to submit a verified medical certificate within 5 days from the date he received the Order for
failure to attend the last hearing. The Court warned Atty. Ero should he fail to appear on the
next scheduled hearing, the plaintiff shall be allowed to present its evidence ex-parte.
Evidence ex-parte refers to the benefit of one party to a controversy. Like in this case, if Atty.
Ero failed to appear on the next scheduled hearing, the plaintiff shall be allowed to present its
evidence ex parte. On the date of the next scheduled hearing, Atty. Ero was not able to attend
the hearing and the plaintiffs evidence ex-parte was submitted to the Court. The Court then
decided to reset again the hearing.
The third Civil Case No. 05-28094 entitled Foxchit Business Solutions, Inc. Rep. by
Atty. Anna Santiago vs. Proluck Enterprises and Renato Ong for Collection of Sum of
Money, the plaintiff submitted its first rebuttal evidence to the court. Rebuttal evidence refers
to testimony or evidence which shows that the evidence that was presented by the opposing
party is not true. The defendants submitted Judicial Affidavits and a Supplemental Judicial
Affidavits. After the reception of the 1st rebuttal witness, the court move to set the hearing on
April 13, 2016.
The third was Civil Case No. 12-30528 entitled Corazon Matre vs. Samahan
Bayanihan Village Association Rep. by Jean Bojorcelo and/or Elvie Rocha for Recovery of
Possession of Real Property and Damages. This was the most exciting Civil Case I have
attended because of the counsels of each party. The plaintiff was able to cross-examine by her
counsel Atty. Isagani Gonzales and the defendants counsel Atty. Anselmo Mangalindan. The
first counsel to cross-examine the plaintiff was Atty. Mangalindan. The hearing was on going.
Everyone is focus on what will Corazon response to every questions thrown at her. She was
stumbling as she finds very intimidated by the way Atty. Mangalindan questions her. Judge
Inciong was kind of pissed off to by the actions of Atty. Mangalindan and even forced to
bring order in the court for several times. The hearing was a bit funny because we thought
that the counsels were just a stranger happened to fight in the street. Proper conduct in the
court was not observed by both parties. The problem with the plaintiff and plaintiffs counsel
is that they were not prepared for the cross-examination and even the counsel was not able to
provide the court the documents of the case. As a counsel, he must be prepared all the time
and must bring all the necessary documents related to the hearing. I am glad that I was able to
witness and observed those three civil cases for that day

Salto, Dianne D.

Atty. Oliver Reyes

JD4201

Judicial Dispute Resolution:

Unlike the civil cases we have attended last March 16, 2016, Judicial Dispute
Resolution is different from Civil Cases hearing wherein Civil Cases involves a formal
procedure from the court and the judge will hear, try and decide the case. In Judicial Dispute
Resolution, when court-annexed mediation fails, the case is brought to the judge who then
acts as a conciliator, a neutral evaluator and a mediator. The judge will try to mediate the
case. If the judges intervention as a mediator succeeds, the case is concluded with a
judgment based on a compromise. If the dispute is still unresolved, then the case is referred to
another judge for trial. Both parties must now be prepared for litigation.
Civil Case No. C-23976 entitled Emmanuel D. Cruz vs. Lilia M. Ong et al. for
Annulment/Cancellation/Revocation of the Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgaged, Sale, Registration of Sale. Only Lilia Ong and her counsel were present.
Emmanuel Cruz was not able to attend and asked for her mother to appear to the court in
behalf of him. According to Judge Remigio Escalada of Branch 123 Regional Trial Court,
even in the mediation set he failed to appear. Judge Esacalada informed his mother that if he
failed to appear again on the pre-trial scheduled, the case will be dismissed. The mother of
Emmanuel Cruz brought a letter made by her son. The reason for not appearing several times
was that he was still suffering from an illness and he even cant walk or move. Judge
Escalada was not convinced because the medical certificate presented by the mother was
dated back in 2006. He explained that by this time, Emmanuel Cruz should attend to the order
of the court, otherwise, the case will be dismissed. His mother also was not authorized in
behalf of him to attend to the court. Judge advised the mother and his son to atleast execute a
Special Power of Attorney to grant her the power to attend to the court and represent his son
if he cannot attend to the court hearing due to his illness.
After we have attended this Judicial Dispute Resolution, I was able to spot the
important procedure in the court with regard to filing of a civil case. Before JDR, mediation
should takes place first. Mediation is a process of settling disputes with the assistance of an
acceptable, impartial and neutral third party called a mediator. The mediator helps parties
identify issues and develop proposals to resolve their disputes. Once the parties have arrived
at a mutually acceptable arrangement, the agreement becomes the basis for the courts
decision on the case. However, if it fails JDR now will take place and the judge will try to
mediate the case.
Judicial Dispute Resolution is very important in every civil cases when the Court
finds that the case can be mediated. This is to propose a win-win situation for both parties.
The judge then will conclude judgment based on a compromise.