2-B

Bonifacio St., Baguio City 2600

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

COMPARISON OF THE OLD AND
PROPOSED RULES ON CAM AND JDR
Myreel Baquiran
Lourdes Theresa Buaquen
Clifford Cubian
Dennise Mae Denna
Francess Louise Gener
Rico Lagazo
Jing Jing Leonar
Ronald Lizardo
Johanne Margarette Macob
Korina Marawis
Harry Dave Pagaoa
Kurdel Johansen Paroy
Gani Ronn Puddong
Yeto Tiw-an
Prince Jan Ronald Wacnang
Contributors

Judge Glenda Ortiz-Soriano, Ll.M.

Faculty Adviser

FEBRUARY 2018
 COMPARISON OF THE OLD AND PROPOSED RULES ON CAM AND JDR
Myreel Baquiran, Lourdes Theresa Buaquen, Clifford Cubian, Dennise Mae Denna,
Francess Louise Gener, Rico Lagazo, Jing Jing Leonar, Ronald Lizardo,
Johanne Margarette Macob, Korina Marawis, Harry Dave Pagaoa, Kurdel Johansen Paroy,
Gani Ronn Puddong, Yeto Tiw-an, and Prince Jan Ronald Wacnang*

Contents
I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................2
II. APPLICABILITY ...............................................................................................................................................3
III. DURATION OF PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................................................8
IV. REFERRAL AND FAILURE OF CAM AND NECESSITY OF JDR ...................................................9
V. SANCTIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 10
VI. CODIFICATION OF COUNSEL’S GUIDELINES ................................................................................ 11
VII. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................. 13
x x x

I. INTRODUCTION

Referral of pending cases to Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and to the Judicial

Dispute Resolution (JDR) is intended to decongest court dockets by empowering the
parties to resolve their own disputes. This is in line with the declared State policy stated in
Republic Act No. 9285 (Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004) which promotes party
autonomy in the resolution of disputes and encourages the use of Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR). The ultimate goal is 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.1 In the process, the Constitutional
ideal of speedy and impartial justice may also be realized.

R.A. No. 9285 did not limit the power of the Supreme Court to adopt any ADR
system, such as mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or any combination thereof as a means
of achieving speedy and efficient means of resolving cases pending before all courts in the
Philippines.2 ADR is governed by the rules that are approved by the Supreme Court.
Currently, the governing rule is A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA (Consolidated and Revised

* Bachelor of Laws II, Saint Louis University School of Law, Baguio City. Submitted to Judge Glenda Ortiz-
Soriano, Ll. M., Faculty for Alternative Dispute Resolution, on 8 February 2018.
1 1.2., Part One, A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA.
2 §2, R.A. No. 9285.

2
Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and
Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR))3 which compose of six parts. This rule is about to be
replaced with the advent of the proposed 2017 Revised Rules on CAM and JDR4 which
compose of 20 sections and including its Administrative Guidelines which compose of 12
sections and two appendices.

The subject of this paper is to compare these two rules and discuss its implications.

II. APPLICABILITY

The old rule lists ten cases that are mandatorily covered by CAM whether they
pertain to civil cases, civil aspect of criminal cases, or those covered by special rules. The
proposed rule makes a separate list for civil cases and criminal cases and further lists the
specific criminal cases whose civil aspect may be settled. The coverage of both rules are
compared in the table below.

Proposed Rule Counter-part in the Old Rule

Civil Cases and Special Proceedings
ALL civil cases, except those which by law (1) All civil cases covered by the Rule on
may not be compromised. (Art. 2035, NCC) Summary Procedure
(2) All civil cases filed with a certificate to
file action issued by the Punong
Barangay or the Pangkat ng
Tagapagkasundo under the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law
(3) 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
(4) 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
(5) Civil cases which by law cannot be
compromised (Article 2035, New Civil

3 Referred to as the “old rule” in this paper.

4 Referred to as “proposed rule” in this paper.

3
 Code) are not referred to CAM
All Special Civil Actions, except under Rules
63, 64, 65, 66, and 71 of the Rules of Court,
unless both parties request in writing, or
manifest in open court, to refer their dispute
to CAM
Special proceedings for settlement of estate (1) Special proceedings for the settlement of
where the dispute involves claims against estates
the estate, or the distribution or partition of (2) All civil cases and probate proceedings,
estate in either testate or intestate testate and intestate, brought on appeal
proceedings from the exclusive and original
jurisdiction granted to the first level
courts under Section 33, par. (1) of the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
Civil Aspect of Criminal Cases 5

Crimes where payment may prevent (1) Civil liability of criminal cases covered by
criminal prosecution or may extinguish
criminal liability, namely:
(1) Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22);
(2) Social Security Law (RA 1161, as
amended by RA 8282); and
(3) Pag-IBIG Fund Law of 2009 (RA
9679)6
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) All 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

5 Except for those mentioned, criminal cases subject to the Rule on Summary Procedure shall not be referred
to mediation (§6, Proposed 2017 Revised Rules on CAM and JDR).
6 §6(a), Proposed 2017 Revised Rules on CAM and JDR. The classes of criminal cases that are referable to CAM

are copied from the list of mediatable criminal cases enumerated under the Revised Guidelines for
Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (“CT Guidelines”), A.M. 15-06-10, which took effect on 01 September 2017.
However, while the categories of mediatable cases in the CT Guidelines was not meant to be exclusive --- as in
fact the CT Guidelines used the phrase “such as” to indicate that the listed cases were merely illustrative ---
the Working Group (which included judges heavily involved in JDR) noted the significant possibility that
courts would be overwhelmed by a deluge of requests from parties requesting CAM referral under sub
paragraph (a) even in serious criminal cases involving rape, homicide, murder, etc., in a situation where the
accused has expressed willingness to pay the victim. A similar concern was expressed that the denial of these
requests for CAM referral would then trigger a host of certiorari petitions on this issue and thus create the
very delay that the CT Guidelines was intended to avert.
Moreover, the classification in sub paragraph (a) only lists as examples crimes that are punished
under special laws, which may also create a similar confusion as to whether crimes falling under the Revised
Penal Code but are arguably covered under this category are likewise referable to mediation, or whether it
was the intention of the Supreme Court to limit the mediatable case under sub paragraph (a) to offenses
punishable under special laws. Because of these concerns, the Working Group felt that until such time that the
Supreme Court clarifies this issue by enumerating all the crimes / offenses that are referable to CAM, the
prudent approach would be to consider the enumeration in the CT Guidelines as exclusive (Footnote 1 for §6,
Proposed 2017 Revised Rules on CAM and JDR).
These cases may be referred by the Judge to CAM upon joint written motion or manifestation in open
court by the parties, subject to the payment of mediation fees.

4
Crimes against property under Title 10 of (1) The civil aspect of estafa and theft
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), where the (2) The civil aspect of less grave felonies
obligation may be civil in nature, namely: punishable by correctional penalties not
(1) Theft under Art. 308, RPC, cognizable exceeding 6 years imprisonment, where
by the First Level Courts; the offended party is a private person
(2) Estafa under Art. 315 (1), RPC, except
estafa under Art. 315 (2) and (3);
(3) Other forms of Swindling under Art.
316, RPC;
(4) Swindling a Minor under Art. 317,
RPC;
(5) Other deceits under Art. 318, RPC;
and
(6) Malicious Mischief under Art. 327,
RPC;7
Crimes against honor under Title 13, RPC, (1) The civil aspect of libel
where the liability may be civil in nature, (2) The civil aspect of less grave felonies
namely: punishable by correctional penalties not
(1) Libel by means of writings or similar exceeding 6 years imprisonment, where
means under Art. 355, RPC; the offended party is a private person
(2) Threatening to publish and offer to
present such publication for a
compensation under Art. 356, RPC;
(3) Prohibited publication of acts
referred to in the course of official
proceedings under Art. 357, RPC;
(4) Grave Slander (Grave Oral
Defamation) - of serious and
insulting nature under Art. 358, par.
1, RPC;
(5) Simple Slander (Oral Defamation) -
not of a serious and insulting nature
under Art. 358, par. 2, RPC;
(6) Grave Slander by Deed - of a serious
nature under Art. 359, par. 1, RPC;
(7) Simple Slander by Deed - not of a
serious nature under Art. 359, par. 2,
RPC;
(8) Incriminating innocent person under
Art. 363, RPC; and
(9) Intriguing against honor under Art.
364, RPC.8

7 These cases may be referred by the Judge to CAM upon joint written motion or manifestation in open court
by the parties, subject to the payment of mediation fees.
8 Id.

5
Libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act (1) The civil aspect of libel
of 2012 (RA 10175) (2) The civil aspect of less grave felonies
punishable by correctional penalties not
exceeding 6 years imprisonment, where
the offended party is a private person
Criminal negligence under Title 14, RPC, The civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under
where the liability may be civil in nature Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code
Intellectual property rights cases where the
liability may be civil in nature

The proposed Guidelines substantially expanded the mandatory coverage for CAM
and JDR in civil and criminal cases. It even provided for permissive referral to mediation
and resolution if the actions or proceedings to be undertaken are not prohibited by law to
avail compromise and when there is a significant likelihood of settlement. In this case, the
parties may, by oral manifestation or written motion during the pre-trial/preliminary
conference or in any stage of the proceedings, request the court to refer their dispute to
CAM and/or JDR.9

As to cases not covered by CAM and JDR, the following comparisons between the old
and the proposed rules are observed.

Proposed Rule Old Rule

(1) Civil cases which by law cannot be (1) Civil cases which by law cannot be
compromised (Article 2035, New Civil Code) compromised (Article 2035, New Civil Code)
(2) The civil liability arising from other (2) Other criminal cases not covered under
criminal cases not covered under Section 6 Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law
of the Proposed Rule10 and those offenses other than estafa, theft
and libel
(3) The civil liability arising from criminal (3) Habeas Corpus petitions
cases under Section 6 where the accused is
under detention, unless specifically
requested by the accused 11

9 §5, Proposed 2017 Revised Rules on CAM and JDR.

10 Since the Continuous Trial Guidelines only allow referral to CAM of those criminal cases specifically
enumerated therein, this provision clarifies that those criminal cases not covered by §6 (which copied the
enumeration contained in the CT Guidelines) are not referable to CAM. At the same time, this provision
emphasizes that for covered criminal cases, referral to CAM is mandatory even where the parties are
reluctant (or even if they refuse) to enter into mediation. This is in line with the general principle in CAM and
JDR requiring mandatory referral to ADR, but preserving the right of the parties – consistent with the
principle of party autonomy in ADR (see §2, ADR Act) --- to negotiate and agree on the terms of any
settlement proposal, or even to reject settlement altogether, provided that they attend the mediation
proceedings in order to give settlement discussions a chance to succeed (Footnote 2 for §7, Proposed 2017
Revised Rules on CAM and JDR).
11 In the case of detained accused, referral to CAM is not made mandatory both for legal and practical reasons,

as their right to a speedy trial carries with it the right to reject referral to ADR and to opt for

6
 (4) All cases under Republic Act No. 9262
(Violence against Women and Children)
(5) Cases with pending application for
Restraining Orders/Preliminary Injunctions

Under the old rule, cases covered by item nos. 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. No such qualification exists under the proposed rule. However, Section
5 of the Proposed Rules provide for permissive referral for cases not contrary to law which
essentially would have the same effect as the old rule with an expansion as to what cases
may be referred.

Under the old rule, it is mentioned that petitions for Habeas Corpus are not covered
by CAM and JDR except those 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. There is no
mention of Habeas Corpus cases under the Proposed Rule. It is submitted that this is also
covered by Section 5 on permissive referral as long as it complies with the requirement
thereof and Section 8 which provides for the mandatory coverage under the JDR on Appeal
(JDRA).

JDRA is not a new concept under the Proposed Rule. Its manifestation can be seen
under the old rule as regards cases for habeas corpus decided by the first level courts in the
absence of the Regional Trial Court judge as discussed above. JDRA is a JDR process
conducted by the Regional Trial Court in cases involving appeals from decisions of first
level courts.12 Under the Proposed Rule, JDRA is expanded to mandatorily cover:

(1) All civil cases, including the civil aspect of criminal cases where the accused was
acquitted; and

(2) All special civil actions for interpleader, partition, unlawful detainer and forcible
entry.

immediate trial. Moreover, many of the crimes falling under the scope of §6 are economic in nature (e.g., BP
22, estafa, violations of SSS and PAG-IBIG laws, etc.), where the liability is either civil in character or where
payment may extinguish the offense. Thus, if the detained accused is unable to offer any financial settlement
proposals, referral to ADR would probably be illusory and would just delay the final outcome of the
corresponding criminal case. However, for these types of cases, a detained accused is still allowed to seek
referral to mediation if he wishes to avail himself of that option (Footnote 3 for §7, Proposed 2017 Revised
Rules on CAM and JDR).
12 §3(e), Proposed 2017 Revised Rules on CAM and JDR.

7
 To summarize the foregoing analysis, the Proposed Rule not only expanded the
cases covered by the different modes of ADR by providing catch-all provisions for
mandatory coverage and providing for permissive referral but it also rationalized those
cases that are covered. Theoretically, with the expanded coverage alone, it may lessen the
cases that need extensive trial and would effectively unclog the dockets of the courts.
Moreover, it would afford people the speedy disposition of their cases.

III. DURATION OF PROCEEDINGS

There is a marked difference between the duration of settlement of cases under the
Old and the Proposed Rules. Under the Proposed Rule, there is now a difference between
civil and criminal cases. Thus:

Proposed Rule Old Rule

Duration of CAM in CIVIL CASES. 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
Duration of Mediation in the PMC. The
first appeared at the Philippine Mediation
Mediator shall have a period of not
Center Unit (PMCU) to commence the
exceeding thirty (30) days to complete the
process of mediation. An extended period
mediation process. Such period shall be
not exceeding sixty (60) days may be
computed from the date when the parties
granted by the court, upon motion filed by
first appeared for the initial conference as
the Mediator, with the conformity of the
stated in the Order to appear. An extended
parties.
period of another thirty (30) days may be
Duration of mediation in CAM in
granted by the court, upon motion filed by
CRIMINAL CASES. The mediation shall be
the Mediator, with the conformity of the
terminated within a non-extendible period
parties.
of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of
referral by the court to the PMCU. The
mediator shall ensure that the case is set for
CAM on at least two different dates, unless
the parties reached settlement earlier.

In the above, the settlement of civil cases can be extended up to 90 days from
referral to the PMCU (unlike in the old rule that only allows 30 days extension from the
expiration of the first 30 days). This would allow parties to have more time in ascertaining
a workable agreement in consideration of factors such as surveys, valuation, and the like
which usually takes more time. Consequently, such a carefully ascertained agreement
would have a better chance to be implemented. If implemented well, the less likely that
parties would go back to court and endure a long trial that usually happens in civil cases.

8
 The time to resolve criminal cases under ADR, on the other hand, is shortened. No
extension is allowed. This is in view of Article III, Section 14(2) of the Constitution, which
provides for the right of the accused of speedy disposition of criminal cases. The accused is
indeed entitled for a speedy trial and disposition of the case.

IV. REFERRAL AND FAILURE OF CAM AND NECESSITY OF JDR

Referral to CAM under the Old Rule is only “after the last pleading has been filed.” In
the Proposed Rule, such referral shall be done “after arraignment and pre-trial for criminal
cases, and during the initial pre-trial/preliminary conference for civil cases.”

In this aspect, the Proposed Rule serves the purpose of providing speedy and cost-
effective trial better, as the case is immediately referred to mediation. Unlike in the Old
Rule where pleadings are already filed, the new guideline seeks to have the case undergo
mediation first, saving the time and resources in the preparation of such pleadings. Besides,
if the case is resolved in the mediation, there will be no need for said pleadings, among
other pieces of evidence.

In case of the failure of CAM, the Old Rule provides that “in relation to the unsettled
part of the dispute, the court shall proceed to conduct JDR proceedings.”

On the other hand, the Proposed Rule provides the following procedure in case of
failure of CAM:

1. If settlement is not reached during CAM, the judge will no longer conduct JDR but
shall instead proceed to trial in accordance with the Revised Continuous Trial (CT)
Guidelines and, thereafter, render judgment in accordance with the established
facts, evidence, and the applicable laws.

2. The foregoing shall not prevent the parties from entering into an agreement at any
stage of the proceedings before promulgation of judgment.

For failure of CAM in Civil Cases:

1. Upon receipt of the Mediator’s Report stating failure of mediation proceedings in

CAM, the court shall proceed to conduct JDR proceedings where JDR is available.

2. In case of partial settlement, the court shall proceed to conduct JDR proceedings
regarding the unsettled part, where JDR is available.”

9
 As seen from the differences, in the Proposed Rule, JDR is not an automatic recourse
after CAM in criminal cases unlike in the old which does not qualify as to the nature of case
and allows the referral to JDR after failure in the CAM. However, it could not be said that
the Proposed Rule prohibits agreement after CAM as it provides that regardless of the
resumption of trial, an agreement may still be entered into by the parties. The Proposed
Rule seemingly would reduce cases referred to in JDR as the same, as the cases in court, are
handled by the judges.

V. SANCTIONS

PROPOSED RULE OLD RULE

Sec. 17. Imposition of Sanctions in CAM
a) Who may be sanctioned during CAM:
The court, upon recommendation of the
Mediator, or upon its own initiative, or upon
motion of the interested party, may impose
sanctions upon the following:
i. a party who fails to appear before the
PMCU as directed by the referring
judge; or
ii. any person who engages in abusive
conduct during mediation
proceedings.
A representative who appears on behalf of
an individual or corporate party without the
required authorization by special power of
attorney or board resolution/secretary
certificate, respectively, may similarly be
imposed appropriate sanctions. The
justifiable cause shall be limited to fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
The court, upon recommendation of the
Mediator, may impose sanctions upon a
party who fails to appear before the PMCU
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.

b) Sanctions to be imposed, in general:

The court may impose the appropriate

sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court
and other issuances of the Supreme Court,
including but not limited to:
i. censure;

10
 ii. reprimand;
iii. contempt; or
iv. Reimbursement by the absent party
of the costs of the appearing party,
including attorney’s fees for that day
up to treble such costs, payable on or
before the date of the re-scheduled
setting.
Sec. 18. Imposition of Sanctions in JDR: Sanctions in JDR:

a) A party who fails to appear on the date A party who fails to appear on the date set
set for JDR conference, or who exhibited for JDR conference, may forthwith be
any misconduct or misbehavior during imposed the appropriate sanction as
the JDR proceedings, may forthwith be provided in Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of
imposed the sanctions provided in the Court and relevant issuances of the Supreme
preceding Section of these Rules. Court including, but not limited to censure,
reprimand, contempt, and requiring the
b) A representative who appears on behalf absent party to reimburse the appearing
of an individual or corporate party party his costs, including attorney’s fees for
without the required authorization by that day up to treble such costs, payable on
special power of attorney or board or before the date of the re-scheduled
resolution/secretary certificate, setting.
respectively, may similarly be imposed
appropriate sanctions. Sanctions may be imposed by the JDR judge
upon motion of the appearing party or motu
c) Sanctions may be imposed by the JDR proprio.
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
d) Upon justifiable cause duly proved in the the absent party, the sanctions
hearing of the motion to reconsider filed imposed may be lifted, set aside or modified
by the absent party, the sanctions in the sound discretion of the JDR judge.
imposed may be lifted, set aside or
modified in the sound discretion of the A representative who appears on behalf of
JDR judge. an individual or corporate party without the
required authorization by special power of
attorney or board resolution, respectively,
may similarly be imposed appropriate
sanctions.

Sanctions under the Old and Proposed Rules did not significantly differ although it
may be pointed out that the Proposed Rules are more specific as to what may be penalized.

VI. CODIFICATION OF COUNSEL’S GUIDELINES

11
 Under the Proposed Rule, reiterating the Old Rule, the lawyers’ and legal counsels’
role in mediation proceedings are codified so as to clarify how they should conduct
themselves during mediation proceedings. Under Section 12 of the Administrative
Guidelines, 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:

a. The substantive issues involved in the dispute;
b. Prioritization of resolution in terms of importance to client;
c. Understanding the position of the other side and the underlying fears, concerns,
and needs underneath that position;
d. Need for more information or facts to be gathered or exchanged with the other
side for informed decision making;
e. Possible bargaining options but stressing the need to be open-minded about
other possibilities; and
f. 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 purpose of these rules where to enable the parties to make their own
compromises and craft their own arguments to achieve their desired result. In effect, it
would empower the parties and encourage party autonomy. In this case the purpose of
ADR was not lost in the Proposed Rule but incorporated the Addendum that while
providing assistance to their respective clients during the mediation proceedings, lawyers
are required to adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in A.M. No. 04-3-
05-SC (Guidelines for Parties’ Counsel in Court-Annexed Mediation Cases).

12
 All in all the Proposed Rule, apart from adding some duties and obligations of the
mediator and the courts, did not differ substantially from the Old Rule and is relatively
excellent although it could be admitted that it is vulnerable to some loopholes.

VII. CONCLUSION

As an overall assessment, it could be said that the Proposed Guideline offers a

substantial improvement on the Old Guidelines in at least two respects:

1. It expands the coverage of cases covered by CAM and JDR; and

2. It cuts certain unnecessary procedures provided in the Old Rule that would
lengthen the disposition of cases.

If the Proposed Rule will be implemented according to its objectives, it is submitted

that it will undoubtedly achieve its ultimate goals of empowering people to settle their
disputes efficiently and unclogging the dockets of the courts. At the end of the day, ADR
should not be viewed as an additional process to a trial rather it should be viewed by all
sectors of the society as a cost-effective process of settling disputes.

—oOo—

13