Civil disputes 

are private cases in which a party is seeking recompense or remedy for

scenarios outside of criminal law. Civil disputes are governed by The Civil Procedure Rules
(CPR). They are the framework for all civil claims and provide the rules that are used to pass
judgement in these types of cases.

Civil disputes are disagreements between private individuals or a between a private

individual and an organisation. The types of civil disputes we often help with are:

 Wills, trust or probate disputes

 Land, boundary or property disputes

 Landlord, tenant or housing disputes

 Unfair dismissal or employment disputes

 Financial mis-selling disputes

 Breach of contract or contractual disputes

 Neighbour disputes

 Disputes with social services or the NHS

 Professional negligence – poor work carried out by builders, surveyors or other

professionals

 Disputes over money

 Defamation of character

Civil dispute resolution options

1. Alternative Dispute Resolution
Wherever possible, we recommend using a method of Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) before taking the matter to court. There are several alternative dispute resolution
methods that can be used, including round table negotiation, mediation, conciliation,
and arbitration.
If you can prevent a lengthy and complex trial proceeding or save yourself the hassle of
filling out the court forms needed to commence a civil suit, that is always preferable –
and will save you time and money.

2. Civil litigation
If ADR is not possible or is unsuccessful, we may have to bring a civil claim through the
court system to resolve the dispute. The litigation process isn’t quick or straightforward,
but contrary to popular belief, not all cases end up at trial.

Alternative dispute resolution system

1. Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism By Dr. Deepa Praveen Patil Asst. Prof. Ismailsaheb Mulla
Law college, Satara

2. Dispute resolution system  Court as a means of dispute resolution Litigation has its own strength,
weakness & limitations Voltaire once said “ I was ruined twice in my life, once when I lost a law suit and
once when I won a law suit !.” Panchayat system at villages Alternative dispute resolution creates win –win
situation Formal dispute resolution system Non-formal justice delivery system

3. Adversarial system  Canada and most countries that derive their legal systems from the English model
use what is called the adversarial legal system.The two great systems of law, the common law and the civil
law systems, both have differing procedures when a case goes to trial.The two approaches are either
adversarial or inquisitorial.  The Adversarial System  Our system of justice is based on the adversarial
model.The adversarial system implies that two parties assume opposite positions in debating the guilt or
innocence of an individual. In this scenario, the judge is required to be neutral at the contest unfolding
before him or her.The role of the judge in this arrangement is to ensure the trial proceeds according to the
procedural rules of trial or due process of law and that evidence entered is done so according to
established rules and guidelines.  The advantages of the adversarial system include.  the judge reserves
comment until all evidence from both parties are heard.  this makes the judge appear more neutral since
judgement must be reserved until all the evidence is heard  The disadvantages of the adversarial system
include  the finding of evidence rests on the resources of the two parties which may be unequal  parties
only provide evidence favourable to their arguments

4. Inquisitorial Legal Systems  The inquisitorial system is the common procedural approach in most civil
law jurisdictions.  In an inquisitorial system, a judge is involved in the preparation of evidence along with
the police and in how the various parties are to present their case at the trial.The judge questions witnesses
in depth and can even call witnesses to appear while prosecution and defense parties can ask follow up
questions.The judge plays the central role in finding the truth and all the evidence that either proves the
innocence or guilt of the accused before the court.The judge takes on the role of prosecutor and judge in
the inquisitorial system. Some other major distinctions is that there are no jury trials in an inquisitorial
system and a judge can compel an accused to make statements and answer questions.This differs
dramatically from the common law and adversarial right not to take the stand in one's own defence.
5. Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) System  ADR is defined as any process or procedure other than
adjudication by a presiding judge in court – litigation, in which a neutral third party participates to assist in
the resolution of issues in controversy.  ADR is not a new concept it was in existence from the ancient
period in India what is new is the extensive promotion & proliferation of ADR models  Expansion of
commercialization & Industrialization  21st century era of Globalization, clogged court houses – people
inclined either to avoid litigation or to start resorting to extra judicial remedies  Presently ADR become sine
quo non for justice delivery system.  ADR not as alternative dispute resolution, but appropriate dispute
resolution

6. CHARACTERISTICS OF ADR PROCESSES  1) Informality:- Most fundamentally ADR processes are

less formal than judicial processes.The rules of procedure are flexible, without formal pleadings, extensive
written documentation or rules of evidence. It is important for reducing the cost and delay in dispute
resolution.  2) Application of equality:- ADR mechanisms are instruments for the application of equity,
rather than rule of law. Each case is decided by a third party or negotiated between disputants themselves,
based on principles &terms those seem equitable in the particular case, rather than on uniformly applied
legal standards.ADR system tends to achieve efficient settlements at the expense of consistent & uniform
justice.  3) Law is relevant in ADR:-Alternative to court redressal system do not deviate completely from
law & legal process. Legality is a necessary requirement, while the myriad forms of solutions could be
invented beyond the law & reach of enforcement regulators. Thus the need to resort to alternatives has
emerged from, the problems arising out of litigation such as inordinate delay, escalating costs of litigation,
mounting arrears, pervasive corruption, and inequities in system.  4) Direct participation and
communication between disputants:- In ADR systems, there is more direct participation by the disputants in
the process and in designing settlements, more direct dialogue & opportunity for reconciliation, between
disputants with higher level of confidentiality since public records are not typically kept, also more flexibility
in designing creative settlements.

7. Huge pendency of litigations in 2010 Supreme court* 45,887 cases High Courts * 4,060,709 cases Lower
Courts* 27,275,953 cases

8. Ratio of Judges to Population Country Ratio of judges to population (per 10 Lac population)  USA 107
Judges  Canada 75 Judges  Australia 57.7 Judges  England 50.9 Judges  India 10.5 Judges

9. Government is the largest litigator  According to rough estimate, 70% of all cases are either agitated by
the State or appealed by it.  The State fights cases against citizens at the cost of citizens.

10. Ability of Courts to disposal off the Cases has become doubtful Complicated and burdensome
procedural details which are inherently very slow proving. Filing of the plaint, serving the process filing the
written statements, Time irresponsibly taken and given, the discovery procedure, recording of depositions,
Ineffective court management, Fragmented and discontinuous trial unattractive alternatives to trial and 
Indifferent attitudes of legal actors, namely lawyers, judges and litigants have resulted into vicious cycles of
backlogs and delays.
11. Choice of ADR Mechanisms Arbitration is a legal techniques for the resolution of disputes outside the
courts, where in the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the “arbitrators”, ”arbiters” or
“arbitral tribunal”.) by whose decision (the award) they agree to be bound. (The Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996) Conciliation is a non-binding procedure in which an impartial third party, the conciliator, assists
the parties to a dispute in reaching a mutually agreed Settlement of the disputes.(Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, ) Arbitration Conciliation

12. Choice of ADR Mechanism Mediation Mediation a private informal dispute resolution process in which a
neutral third party, the mediator helps disputing parties to reach an agreement the mediator has no power
to impose a decision on the parties.(Section 89 CPC and “Civil Procedure ADR and Mediation Rules,
2006”) Lok Adalat: The word Lok Adalat means peoples court. If the pending suit is not complicated and
disputes in that suit is easily settled by applying clear legal principles Lok Adalat will be a preferred choice.
(The Legal Services Authorities Act,1987)

13. Some Examples for use of ADR Processes Two brothers fighting over an orange Ad-judication – cut
into 2 and give each ½ share Mediation -One Brother may want the orange, the other may want the cover.
Two children fighting for a larger piece of a cake. Both demand, they be allowed to cut and have the cake
first. Mediator – One cuts and the other gets the choice for picking up the piece first.

14. Disputes suitable for ADR processes : (i) All cases relating to trade, commerce and contracts, including
- disputes arising out of contracts (including all money claims); - disputes relating to specific performance;
disputes between suppliers and customers; disputes between bankers and customers; disputes between
developers/builders and customers; - disputes between landlords and tenants/licensor and licensees; -
disputes between insurer and insured; (ii) All cases arising from strained or soured relationships, including -
disputes relating to matrimonial causes, maintenance, custody of children; disputes relating to
partition/division among family members/co- parceners/co owners; and disputes relating to partnership
among partners. (iii) All cases where there is a need for continuation of the pre-existing relationship in spite
of the disputes, including disputes between neighbors (relating to easementary rights, encroachments,
nuisance etc.) disputes between employers and employees; disputes among members of
societies/associations/Apartment owners Associations; (iv)All cases relating to tortious liability including -
claims for compensation in motor accidents/other accidents; and (v) All consumer disputes (vi)
Compoundable offences Plea bargaining

15. Cases not suitable for ADR process (i) Representative suits under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC which involve
public interest or interest or numerous persons who are not parties before the court (In fact, even a
compromise in such a suit is a difficult process requiring notice to the persons interested in the suit, before
its acceptance). (ii) Disputes relating to election to public offices ( as contrasted from disputes between two
groups trying to get control over the management of societies, clubs, association etc). (iii) Cases involving
grant of authority by the court after enquiry, as for example, suits for grant of probate or letters of
administration. (iv) Cases involving serious and specific allegations of fraud, fabrication of documents,
forgery, impersonation, coercion etc. (iii) Cases requiring protection of courts, as for example, claims
against minors, deities and mentally challenged and suits for declaration of title against government. (v)
Cases involving prosecution for non-compunding criminal offences.

16. Advantages of ADR mechanism  ADR system can reduce delay in the resolution of disputes  Less
Expensive  ADR can increase satisfaction of disputants with outcomes  Participation of parties  Win-Win
situation  No external control  Informal procedure  ADR system can increase access to justice for
disadvantaged groups  Failed ADR proceeding is never a waste  Finality of decision

17. Limitations of ADR mechanism  ADR programs do not set precedent, refine legal norms or establish
broad community or national standards, nor do they promote a consistent application of legal rules  ADR
programs cannot correct systematic injustice, discrimination or violations of human rights  ADR programs
do not work well in the context of extreme power imbalance between parties  ADR settlements do not have
any educational, punitive or deterrent effect on the population  ADR is inappropriate in disputes of
multiparty cases in which some of the parties of not participate  ADR may undermine judicial reform efforts
 The settlement through ADR might not result in a binding solution  Consensus is the basis of jurisdiction
of ADR program  ADR programs can not resolve non-compoundable offences

18. A Famous quote by - Mahatma Gandhi Mahatma Gandhi,An Autobiography:The Story of my

experiments with Truth, 134 (6th ed. 1965) “I had learnt the practice of law. I had learnt to find out the better
side of human nature, and to enter men’s hearts. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite
parties driven a sunder….. ..I lost nothing thereby- not even money, certainty not my soul.”

19. Conclusion  Indian Judiciary is overburdened with huge backlog of cases.  Globalization has also
created a great stimulation in the process of universalizing and simplifying the process of dispute resolution
in different countries across the globe.  Indian judiciary has also played a substantial role in up gradation of
ADR mechanism.  ADR aimed at settling disputes in peaceful manner and cost effective, speedy, simple,
convenient to both the parties  It aims at providing justice that not only resolves dispute but also
harmonizes the relation of the parties.

20. Thank you

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), or external dispute resolution (EDR), typically denotes a

wide range of dispute resolution processes and techniques that act as a means for disagreeing
parties to come to an agreement short of litigation: a collective term for the ways that parties can
settle disputes, with the help of a third party.[1] However, ADR is also increasingly being adopted as a
tool to help settle disputes alongside the court system itself.[2][3]
Despite historic resistance to ADR by many popular parties and their advocates, ADR has gained
widespread acceptance among both the general public and the legal profession in recent years. In
fact, some courts now require some parties to resort to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before
permitting the parties' cases to be tried (indeed the European Mediation Directive (2008) expressly
contemplates so-called "compulsory" mediation; this means that attendance is compulsory, not that
settlement must be reached through mediation).[4] Additionally, parties to merger and
acquisition transactions are increasingly turning to ADR to resolve post-acquisition disputes.[5]
The rising popularity of ADR can be explained by the increasing caseload of traditional courts, the
perception that ADR imposes fewer costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the
desire of some parties to have greater control over the selection of the individual or individuals who
will decide their dispute.[6] Some of the senior judiciary in certain jurisdictions (of which England and
Wales is one) are strongly in favour of this (ADR) use of mediation to settle disputes.[7] Since the
1990s many American courts have also increasingly advocated for the use of ADR to settle disputes.
[8]
 However, it is not clear as to whether litigants can properly identify and then use the ADR
programmes available to them, thereby potentially limiting their effectiveness.[9]

Salient features[edit]
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is generally classified into at least four
types: negotiation, mediation, collaborative law, and arbitration. Sometimes, conciliation is included
as a fifth category, but for simplicity may be regarded as a form of mediation. ADR can be used
alongside existing legal systems such as Sharia courts within common law jurisdictions, such as the
UK.
ADR traditions vary somewhat by country and culture. There are significant common elements which
justify a main topic, and each country or region's difference should be delegated to sub-pages.
ADR is of two historic types. First, methods for resolving disputes outside of the official judicial
mechanisms. Second, informal methods attached to or pendant to official judicial mechanisms.
There are in addition free-standing and or independent methods, such as mediation programs and
ombuds offices within organizations. The methods are similar, whether or not they are pendant, and
generally use similar tool or skill sets, which are basically sub-sets of the skills of negotiation.
ADR includes informal tribunals, informal mediative processes, formal tribunals and formal mediative
processes. The classic formal tribunal forms of ADR are arbitration (both binding and advisory or
non-binding) and private judges (either sitting alone, on panels or over summary jury trials). The
classic formal mediative process is referral for mediation before a court-appointed mediator or
mediation panel. Structured transformative mediation as used by the U.S. Postal Service is a formal
process. Classic informal methods include social processes, referrals to non-formal authorities (such
as a respected member of a trade or social group) and intercession. The major differences between
formal and informal processes are (a) pendency to a court procedure and (b) the possession or lack
of a formal structure for the application of the procedure.
For example, freeform negotiation is merely the use of the tools without any process. Negotiation
within a labor arbitration setting is the use of the tools within a highly formalized and controlled
setting.
Calling upon an organizational ombudsman's office is never, by itself, a formal procedure. (Calling
upon an organizational ombudsman is always voluntary; by the International Ombudsman
Association Standards of Practice, no one can be compelled to use an ombuds office.)
Organizational ombuds offices refer people to all conflict management options in the organization:
formal and informal, rights-based and interest-based. But, in addition, in part because they have no
decision-making authority, ombuds offices can, themselves, offer a wide spectrum of informal
options.
This spectrum is often overlooked in contemporary discussions of "ADR". "ADR" often refers to
external conflict management options that are important, but used only occasionally. An
organizational ombuds office typically offers many internal options that are used in hundreds of
cases a year. These options include:

 delivering respect, for example, affirming the feelings of a visitor, while staying explicitly
neutral on the facts of a case,
 active listening, serving as a sounding board,
 providing and explaining information, one-on-one, for example, about policies and rules, and
about the context of a concern,
 receiving vital information, one-on-one, for example, from those reporting unacceptable or
illegal behavior,
 reframing issues,
 helping to develop and evaluate new options for the issues at hand,
 offering the option of referrals to other resources, to "key people" in the relevant department,
and to managers and compliance offices,
 helping people help themselves to use a direct approach, for example, helping people collect
and analyze their own information, helping people to draft a letter about their issues, coaching
and role-playing,
 offering shuttle diplomacy, for example, helping employees and managers to think through
proposals that may resolve a dispute, facilitating discussions,
 offering mediation inside the organization,
 "looking into" a problem informally,
 facilitating a generic approach to an individual problem, for example instigating or offering
training on a given issue, finding ways to promulgate an existing policy,
 identifying and communicating throughout the organization about "new issues",
 identifying and communicating about patterns of issues,
 working for systems change, for example, suggesting new policies, or procedures,
 following up with a visitor, following up on a system change recommendation. (See Rowe,
Mary, Informality – The Fourth Standard of Practice, in JIOA, vol 5, no 1, (2012) pp 8–17.)
Informal referral to a co-worker known to help people work out issues is an informal procedure. Co-
worker interventions are usually informal.
Conceptualizing ADR in this way makes it easy to avoid confusing tools and methods (does
negotiation once a lawsuit is filed cease to be ADR? If it is a tool, then the question is the wrong
question) (is mediation ADR unless a court orders it? If you look at court orders and similar things as
formalism, then the answer is clear: court-annexed mediation is merely a formal ADR process).
Dividing lines in ADR processes are often provider-driven rather than consumer-driven. Educated
consumers will often choose to use many different options depending on the needs and
circumstances that they face.
Finally, it is important to realize that conflict resolution is one major goal of all the ADR processes. If
a process leads to resolution, it is a dispute resolution process.[10]
The salient features of each type are as follows:

1. In negotiation, participation is voluntary and there is no third party who facilitates the
resolution process or imposes a resolution. (NB – a third party like a chaplain or
organizational ombudsperson or social worker or a skilled friend may be coaching one or
both of the parties behind the scene, a process called "Helping People Help Themselves" –
see Helping People Help Themselves, in Negotiation Journal July 1990, pp. 239–248, which
includes a section on helping someone draft a letter to someone who is perceived to have
wronged them.)
2. In mediation, there is a third party, a mediator, who facilitates the resolution process (and
may even suggest a resolution, typically known as a "mediator's proposal"), but
does not impose a resolution on the parties. In some countries (for example, the United
Kingdom), ADR is synonymous with what is generally referred to as mediation in other
countries.
 3. In collaborative law or collaborative divorce, each party has an attorney who facilitates the
resolution process within specifically contracted terms. The parties reach an agreement with
the support of the attorneys (who are trained in the process) and mutually agreed experts.
No one imposes a resolution on the parties.
4. In arbitration, participation is typically voluntary, and there is a third party who, as a private
judge, imposes a resolution. Arbitrations often occur because parties to contracts agree that
any future dispute concerning the agreement will be resolved by arbitration. This is known
as a 'Scott Avery Clause'.[11] In recent years, the enforceability of arbitration clauses,
particularly in the context of consumer agreements (e.g., credit card agreements), has
drawn scrutiny from courts.[12] Although parties may appeal arbitration outcomes to courts,
such appeals face an exacting standard of review.[13]
Beyond the basic types of alternative dispute resolutions there are other different forms of ADR:

 Case evaluation: a non-binding process in which parties present the facts and the issues to a
neutral case evaluator who advises the parties on the strengths and weaknesses of their
respective positions, and assesses how the dispute is likely to be decided by a jury or other
adjudicator.
 Early neutral evaluation: a process that takes place soon after a case has been filed in court.
The case is referred to an expert who is asked to provide a balanced and neutral evaluation of
the dispute. The evaluation of the expert can assist the parties in assessing their case and may
influence them towards a settlement.
 Family group conference: a meeting between members of a family and members of their
extended related group. At this meeting (or often a series of meetings) the family becomes
involved in learning skills for interaction and in making a plan to stop the abuse or other ill-
treatment between its members.
 Neutral fact-finding: a process where a neutral third party, selected either by the disputing
parties or by the court, investigates an issue and reports or testifies in court. The neutral fact-
finding process is particularly useful for resolving complex scientific and factual disputes.
 Ombuds: third party selected by an institution – for example a university, hospital,
corporation or government agency – to deal with complaints by employees, clients or
constituents.
An organizational ombudsman works within the institution to look into complaints independently and
impartially.[14]
"Alternative" dispute resolution is usually considered to be alternative to litigation. For example,
corporate dispute resolution can involve a customer service department handling disputes about its
own products; addressing concerns between consumers and independent, third-party sellers; and
participating in a reputation-based enforcement mechanism.[15]  It also can be used as
a colloquialism for allowing a dispute to drop or as an alternative to violence.
In recent years there has been more discussion about taking a systems approach in order to offer
different kinds of options to people who are in conflict, and to foster "appropriate" dispute resolution.
[16]

That is, some cases and some complaints, in fact, ought to go to a formal grievance, to a court, to
the police, to a compliance officer, or to a government IG. Other conflicts could be settled by the
parties if they had enough support and coaching, and yet other cases need mediation or arbitration.
Thus "alternative" dispute resolution usually means a method that is not the courts. "Appropriate"
dispute resolution considers all the possible responsible options for conflict resolution that are
relevant for a given issue.[17]
ADR can increasingly be conducted online, which is known as online dispute resolution (ODR, which
is mostly a buzzword and an attempt to create a distinctive product). It should be noted, however,
that ODR services can be provided by government entities, and as such may form part of the
litigation process. Moreover, they can be provided on a global scale, where no effective domestic
remedies are available to disputing parties, as in the case of the UDRP and domain name disputes.
In this respect, ODR might not satisfy the "alternative" element of ADR.

Advantage and disadvantages of ADR

 Suitable for multi-party disputes
 Lower costs, in many cases it's free when involving consumers
 Likelihood and speed of settlements
 Flexibility of process
 Parties' control of process
 Parties' choice of forum
 Practical solutions
 Wider range of issues can be considered
 Shared future interests may be protected
 Confidentiality
 Risk management
 Generally no need for lawyers
 Can be a less confrontational alternative to the court system
However, ADR is less suitable than litigation when there is:

 A need for precedent

 A need for court orders
 A need for interim orders
 A need for evidential rules
 A need for enforcement
 Power imbalance between parties
 Quasi-criminal allegations
 Complexity in the case
 The need for live evidence or analysis of complex evidence
 The need for expert evidence
Modern era[edit]
Traditional people's mediation has always involved the parties remaining in contact for most or all of
the mediation session. The innovation of separating the parties after (or sometimes before) a joint
session and conducting the rest of the process without the parties in the same area was a major
innovation and one that dramatically improved mediation's success rate.
Traditional arbitration involved heads of trade guilds or other dominant authorities settling disputes.
The modern innovation was to have commercial vendors of arbitrators, often ones with little or no
social or political dominance over the parties. The advantage was that such persons are much more
readily available. The disadvantage is that it does not involve the community of the parties. When
wool contract arbitration was conducted by senior guild officials, the arbitrator combined a seasoned
expert on the subject matter with a socially dominant individual whose patronage, goodwill and
opinion were important.
Private judges and summary jury trials are cost- and time-saving processes that have had limited
penetration due to the alternatives becoming more robust and accepted.
Country-specific examples[edit]
Canada[edit]
In the 1980s and 1990s Canada saw the beginning of a "cultural shift" in their experience with ADR
practices.[18] During this time, the need was recognized for an alternative to the more adversarial
approach to dispute settlement that is typical in traditional court proceedings. This growth continued
over the coming decades, with ADR now being widely recognized as a legitimate and effective
approach to dispute resolution. In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Hryniak v
Mauldin that "meaningful access to justice is now the greatest challenge to the rule of law in Canada
today… [The] balance between procedure and access struck by our justice system must reflect
modern reality and recognize that new models of adjudication can be fair and just." [19] However, in the
decades leading up to this declaration there had already been a number of experiments in ADR
practices across the provinces.
One of the first and most notable ADR initiatives in Canada began on 4 January 1999, with the
creation of the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program.[20] This program included the implementation
of Rule 24.1, which established mandatory mediation for non-family civil case-managed actions.
[21]
 Beginning in a selection of courts across Ontario and Ottawa in 1999, the program would be
expanded in 2002 to cover Windsor, Ontario's third-largest judicial area.[22] Until this point, opposition
to mandatory mediation in place of traditional litigation had been grounded in the idea that mediation
practices are effective when disputing parties voluntarily embrace the process.[18] However, reports
analyzing the effectiveness of Ontario's experiment concluded that overall mandatory mediation as a
form of ADR was able to reduce both the cost and time delay of finding a dispute resolution,
compared to a control group. In addition to this, 2/3's of the parties surveyed from this study outlined
the benefits to mandatory mediation, these included:
"(i) providing one or more parties with new information they considered relevant;
(ii) identifying matters important to one or more of the parties;
(iii) setting priorities among issues;
(iv) facilitating discussion of new settlement offers;
(v) achieving better awareness of the potential monetary savings from settling earlier in the litigation
process;
(vi) at least one of the parties gaining a better understanding of his ADR in Administrative Litigation
157 or her own case; and
(vii) at least one of the parties gaining a better understanding of his or her opponent's case."[21]
In other provinces, the need for ADR to at least be examined as an alternative to traditional court
proceedings has also been expressed. For instance, in 2015 Quebec implemented the New Code,
which mandated that parties must at least consider mediation before moving to settle a dispute in
court. The New Code also codified the role of the mediator in the courtroom, outlining that mediators
must remain impartial and cannot give evidence on either party's behalf should the dispute progress
to a judicial proceeding.[23] In 2009, a report showed that Manitoba's experience with their Judicially
Assisted Dispute Resolution program, an ADR initiative where the court appoints a judge to act as a
mediator between two disputing parties who both voluntarily wish to pursue JADR.[24]
One of the main arguments for ADR practices in Canada cites the over clogged judicial system. This
is one of the main arguments for ADR across many regions; however, Alberta, in particular, suffers
from this issue. With a rising population, in 2018 Alberta had the highest ratio for the population to
Superior Court Justices, 63,000:1. The national average on the other hand is nearly half that, with
one Justice being counted for every 35,000 Canadians.[25]
To become qualified as a mediator in Canada, it is possible to gain mediation training through
certain private organizations or post-secondary institutions. The ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC), is
the preeminent ADR training organization in Canada.[26] Through ADRIC you can receive either a
Qualified Mediation or the more advanced Chartered Mediation certificate. To gain these, classes
can be taken at one of the seven regional affiliates of ADRIC located across Canada. These include:

 ADR Institute of British Columbia (ADR BC)

 ADR Institute of Ontario (ADRIO)
 ADR Institute of Saskatchewan (ADR SK)
 ADR Atlantic Institute (ADRAI)
 ADR Institute of Manitoba (ADRIM)
 ADR Institute of Alberta (ADRIA)
 Institut de médiation et d'arbitrage du Québec (IMAQ)
Iceland[edit]
Njáls saga is an Icelandic story of a mediator who was so successful that he eventually threatened
the local power structure. It ends in tragedy with the unlawful burning of Njal alive in his home, the
escape of a friend of the family, a mini-war and the eventual ending of the dispute by the
intermarriage of the two strongest survivors. It illustrates that mediation was a powerful process in
Iceland.

India[edit]
Alternative dispute resolution in India is not new and it was in existence even under the previous
Arbitration Act, 1940. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been enacted to accommodate
the harmonisation mandates of UNCITRAL Model. To streamline the Indian legal system the
traditional civil law known as Code of Civil Procedure, (CPC) 1908 has also been amended and
section 89 has been introduced. Section 89 (1) of CPC provides an option for the settlement of
disputes outside the court. It provides that where it appears to the court that there exist elements,
which may be acceptable to the parties, the court may formulate the terms of a possible settlement
and refer the same for arbitration, conciliation, mediation or judicial settlement.
Due to the extremely slow judicial process, there has been a large emphasis on Alternate Dispute
Resolution mechanisms in India. While the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 is a fairly
standard Western approach towards ADR, the Lok Adalat system constituted under the National
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 is a uniquely Indian approach.
A study on commercial dispute resolution in south India has been done by a think tank organization
based in Kochi, Centre for Public Policy Research. The study reveals that the Court-annexed
Mediation Centre in Bangalore has a success rate of 64%, while its counterpart in Kerala has an
average success rate of 27.7%. Furthermore, amongst the three southern states (Karnataka, Tamil
Nadu, and Kerala), Tamil Nadu is said to have the highest adoption of dispute resolution, Kerala the
least.[27]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[edit]
Part I of this act formalizes the process of Arbitration and Part III formalizes the process of
Conciliation. (Part II is about Enforcement of Foreign Awards under New York and Geneva
Conventions.)
Arbitration[edit]
The process of arbitration can start only if there exists a valid Arbitration Agreement between the
parties prior to the emergence of the dispute. As per Section 7, such an agreement must be in
writing. The contract regarding which the dispute exists, must either contain an arbitration clause or
must refer to a separate document signed by the parties containing the arbitration agreement. The
existence of an arbitration agreement can also be inferred by written correspondence such as
letters, telex, or telegrams which provide a record of an agreement. An exchange of statement of
claim and defence in which the existence of an arbitration agreement is alleged by one party and not
denied by other is also considered as a valid written arbitration agreement.
Any party to the dispute can start the process of appointing an arbitrator and if the other party does
not cooperate, the party can approach the office of Chief Justice for the appointment of an arbitrator.
There are only two grounds upon which a party can challenge the appointment of an arbitrator –
reasonable doubt in the impartiality of the arbitrator and the lack of proper qualification of the
arbitrator as required by the arbitration agreement. A sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators so
appointed constitute the Arbitration Tribunal.
Except for some interim measures, there is very little scope for judicial intervention in the arbitration
process. The arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction over its own jurisdiction. Thus, if a party wants to
challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal, it can do so only before the tribunal itself. If the
tribunal rejects the request, there is little the party can do except to approach a court after the
tribunal makes an award. Section 34 provides certain grounds upon which a party can appeal to the
principal civil court of original jurisdiction for setting aside the award.
The period for filing an appeal for setting aside an award is over, or if such an appeal is rejected, the
award is binding on the parties and is considered as a decree of the court.
Conciliation[edit]
Conciliation is a less formal form of arbitration. This process does not require the existence of any
prior agreement. Any party can request the other party to appoint a conciliator. One conciliator is
preferred but two or three are also allowed. In the case of multiple conciliators, all must act jointly. If
a party rejects an offer to conciliate, there can be no conciliation.
Parties may submit statements to the conciliator describing the general nature of the dispute and the
points at issue. Each party sends a copy of the statement to the other. The conciliator may request
further details, may ask to meet the parties, or communicate with the parties orally or in writing.
Parties may even submit suggestions for the settlement of the dispute to the conciliator.
When it appears to the conciliator that elements of settlement exist, he may draw up the terms of the
settlement and send it to the parties for their acceptance. If both the parties sign the settlement
document, it shall be final and binding on both.
This process is similar to the US practice of mediation. However, in India, mediation is different from
conciliation and is a completely informal type of ADR mechanism.
Lok Adalat[edit]
Etymologically, Lok Adalat means "people's court". India has had a long history of resolving disputes
through the mediation of village elders. The current system of Lok Adalats is an improvement on that
and is based on Gandhian principles. This is a non-adversarial system, whereby mock courts (called
Lok Adalats) are held by the State Authority, District Authority, Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee, High Court Legal Services Committee, or Taluk Legal Services Committee, periodically
for exercising such jurisdiction as they think fit. These are usually presided by a retired judge, social
activists, or members of the legal profession. It does not have jurisdiction on matters related to non-
compoundable offences.
While in regular suits, the plaintiff is required to pay the prescribed court fee, in Lok Adalat, there is
no court fee and no rigid procedural requirement (i.e. no need to follow the process given by [Indian]
Civil Procedure Code or Indian Evidence Act), which makes the process very fast. Parties can
directly interact with the judge, which is not possible in regular courts.
Cases that are pending in regular courts can be transferred to a Lok Adalat if both the parties agree.
A case can also be transferred to a Lok Adalat if one party applies to the court and the court sees
some chance of settlement after giving an opportunity of being heard to the other party.
The focus in Lok Adalats is on compromise. When no compromise is reached, the matter goes back
to the court. However, if a compromise is reached, an award is made and is binding on the parties. It
is enforced as a decree of a civil court. An important aspect is that the award is final and cannot be
appealed, not even under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [which empowers the litigants to file
Writ Petition before High Courts] because it is a judgement by consent.
All proceedings of a Lok Adalat are deemed to be judicial proceedings and every Lok Adalat is
deemed to be a Civil Court.

Pakistan[edit]
The relevant laws (or parlour provisions) dealing with the ADR are summarized as under:

1. S.89-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Indian but amended in 2002) read with Order X
Rule 1-A (deals with alternative dispute resolution methods).
2. The Small Claims and Minor Offences Courts Ordinance, 2002.
3. Sections 102–106 of the Local Government Ordinance, 2001.
4. Sections 10 and 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1964.
5. Chapter XXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (summary trial provisions).
6. The Arbitration Act, 1940 (Indian).
7. Articles 153–154 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Council of Common Interest)
8. Article 156 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (National Economic Council)
9. Article 160 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (National Finance Commission)
10. Article 184 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Original Jurisdiction when federal or
provincial governments are at dispute with one another)
11. Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act, 2011
12. Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act,
2011
13. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act. 2017
Somalia[edit]
Somalia has a cultural and historic mediation and justice system known as ADR (Alternative Dispute
Resolution), which is an informal justice system. It is a kind of justice system in which the arbiter
listens to both sides of a dispute and then concludes a solution that both sides will accept

Sub-Saharan Africa[edit]
Before modern state law was introduced under colonialism, African customary legal systems mainly
relied on mediation and conciliation. In many countries, these traditional mechanisms have been
integrated into the official legal system. In Benin, specialised tribunaux de conciliation hear cases on
a broad range of civil law matters. Results are then transmitted to the court of the first instance
where either a successful conciliation is confirmed or jurisdiction is assumed by the higher court.
Similar tribunals also operate, in varying modes, in other francophone African countries.[28]

United Kingdom[edit]
In the United Kingdom, ADR is encouraged as a mean of resolving taxpayers' disputes with Her
Majesty's Revenue and Customs.[29]
In the regulated sectors, finance, telecoms and energy ADR providers exist. Outside of the regulated
areas, there are schemes in many sectors which provide schemes for voluntary membership. Two
sets of regulations, in March and June 2015, were laid in Parliament to implement the European
Directive on alternative dispute resolution in the UK.
Alternative Dispute Resolution is now widely used in the UK across many sectors. In the
communications, energy, Finance and Legal sectors, it is compulsory for traders to signpost to
approved ADR schemes when they are unable to resolve disputes with consumers. In the aviation
sector there is a quasi-compulsory ADR landscape, where airlines have an obligation to signpost to
either an approved ADR scheme or PACT - which is operated by the Civil Aviation Authority.[30]
On 1 October 2015 the UK adopted The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes
(Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015[31] into law, which set out rules in relation
to ADR and put measures into place to widen the use and application of ADR.

United States[edit]
U.S. Navy[edit]
SECNAVINST 5800.13A established the DON ADR Program Office with the following missions:

 Coordinate ADR policy and initiatives;

 Assist activities in securing or creating cost-effective ADR techniques or local programs;
 Promote the use of ADR, and provide training in negotiation and ADR methods;
 Serve as legal counsel for in-house neutrals used on ADR matters; and,
 For matters that do not use in-house neutrals, the program assists DON attorneys and other
representatives concerning issues in controversy that are amenable to using ADR.
The ADR Office also serves as the point of contact for questions regarding the use of ADR. The
Assistant General Counsel (ADR) serves as the "Dispute Resolution Specialist" for the DON, as
required by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996. Members of the office represent the
DON's interests on a variety of DoD and interagency working groups that promote the use of ADR
within the Federal Government.
Structured Negotiation[edit]
Structured negotiation is a type of collaborative and solution-driven alternative dispute resolution that
differs from traditional ADR options in that it does not rely on a third-party mediator and is not
initiated by a legal complaint. The process is often implemented in cases in which a party or parties
seek injunctive relief.[32] Structured negotiation has been used to arrange agreements that typically
arise from would-be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) legal complaints. The technique can be
contrasted with certain types of lawsuits often referred to as "drive-by lawsuits" where a long strings
of lawsuits about the ADA are filed publicly by a single lawyer and settled quickly and confidentially,
a practice which can undermine the struggle to adopt more inclusive accessibility practices.[33]
Structured negotiation was first used in 1999 to settle the first legal agreement in the United States
in which Citibank agreed to install Talking ATMs, and was quickly followed by similar agreements
with several other financial institutions, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo. The Bank of
America agreement in structured negotiation in 2000 was the first settlement in the United States to
reference the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Subsequently, structured negotiation
has been used to settle various digital disability access and disability rights agreements with a
variety of American businesses, universities, and local governments. Structured negotiation has also
been used in other civil rights resolutions to alter business practices, including a policy by
the Lyft ride-sharing service regarding the acceptance of LGBTQ passengers.[34]
What Is Dispute Resolution?
Dispute resolution is a term that refers to a number of processes that can be used to resolve a
conflict, dispute or claim. Dispute resolution may also be referred to as alternative dispute
resolution, appropriate dispute resolution, or ADR for short.

Dispute resolution processes are alternatives to having a court (state or federal judge or jury)
decide the dispute in a trial or other institutions decide the resolution of the case or contract.
Dispute resolution processes can be used to resolve any type of dispute including family,
neighborhood, employment, business, housing, personal injury, consumer, and environmental
disputes.

In addition, the United States Federal Government utilizes dispute resolution processes to assist
government employees and private citizens resolve complaints and disputes in many areas
including workplace, employment, and contracting matters.

Why Use Dispute Resolution?

Dispute resolution processes have several advantages. For instance, many dispute resolution
processes are cheaper and faster than the traditional legal process. Certain processes can provide
the parties involved with greater participation in reaching a solution, as well as more control over
the outcome of the dispute. In addition, dispute resolution processes are less formal and have
more flexible rules than the trial court.

Do I Need an Attorney to Participate in Dispute Resolution?

In many processes, you are not required to have an attorney to participate. In cases where the
court or judge has referred the case to a dispute resolution process, attorneys often participate.
The role of an attorney in a dispute resolution process varies depending upon the nature of the
dispute and the type of dispute resolution process. In many dispute resolution processes,
attorneys accompany their clients and participate either as counselors or as advocates.

What Are the Different Types of Dispute Resolution Processes?

Dispute resolution takes a number of different forms. Here are brief descriptions of the most
common dispute resolution processes:

Arbitration

Arbitration
Share:

   
Arbitration is a private process where disputing parties agree that one or several individuals can
make a decision about the dispute after receiving evidence and hearing arguments.

Arbitration is different from mediation because the neutral arbitrator has the authority to make a
decision about the dispute.

The arbitration process is similar to a trial in that the parties make opening statements and
present evidence to the arbitrator. Compared to traditional trials, arbitration can usually be
completed more quickly and is less formal. For example, often the parties do not have to follow
state or federal rules of evidence and, in some cases, the arbitrator is not required to apply the
governing law.

After the hearing, the arbitrator issues an award. Some awards simply announce the decision (a
"bare bones" award), and others give reasons (a "reasoned" award).

The arbitration process may be either binding or non-binding. When arbitration is binding, the
decision is final, can be enforced by a court, and can only be appealed on very narrow grounds.
When arbitration is non-binding, the arbitrator's award is advisory and can be final only if
accepted by the parties.

Case Evaluation

Case evaluation is a non-binding process in which parties to a dispute present the facts
and the issues to be determined to an experienced neutral case evaluator. The case
evaluator advises the parties on the strengths and weaknesses of their respective
positions, and assesses how the dispute is likely to be decided by a jury or other
adjudicator. The parties may then use this feedback to help reach a mutually agreeable
resolution.

Collaborative Law

Collaborative Law of Collaborative Practice is an out-of-court settlement process

where parties and their lawyers try to reach an agreement satisfying the needs of all
parties and any children involved.  The parties agree to provide all relevant
information.  If the parties engage in contested litigation, their Collaborative lawyers
cannot represent them in court.  The process typically involves “four-way meetings”
with the parties and lawyers and possibly other professionals such as neutral financial
specialists, communications coaches, child specialists, or appraisers.

Cooperative Practice
In Cooperative Practice, the parties and their lawyers begin the case with a common
commitment of creatively settling all issues.  They go to court only if they cannot
reach a reasonable settlement.  They use an agreement describing how the negotiation
process will work. If the parties do not settle, the lawyers can continue to represent
them. The process is very flexible and can be as formal or informal as desired.  For
example, the cooperative negotiation agreement may be oral or in writing.  The
process typically involves “four-way meetings” with the parties and lawyers, though
some negotiation may be directly between the lawyers or parties when appropriate.
The agreement may provide for a “cooling off” period before the parties could go to
court (except in an emergency).  If parties and lawyers have a hard time reaching
agreement, they may hire a mediator to help resolve disagreements.  The process may
take place before a case is filed in court or while a court case is pending. In some
places, the court may support the process.

Divorce Coaching

Divorce coaching is a flexible, goal-oriented process designed to support, motivate,

and guide people going through divorce to help them make the best possible decisions
for their future, based on their particular interests, needs, and concerns. Divorce
coaches have different professional backgrounds and are selected based on the
specific needs of the clients.  For example, some divorce coaches are financial
planners, mental health professionals, lawyers, or mediators who have experience
dealing with divorcing clients.

Early Neutral Evaluation

Early neutral evaluation is a process that may take place soon after a case has been filed in court.
The case is referred to an expert, usually an attorney, who is asked to provide a balanced and
unbiased evaluation of the dispute. The parties either submit written comments or meet in person
with the expert. The expert identifies each side's strengths and weaknesses and provides an
evaluation of the likely outcome of a trial. This evaluation can assist the parties in assessing their
case and may propel them towards a settlement.

Facilitation

Facilitation is a process in which a trained individual assists a group of two or more

people to discuss issues to be addressed by the group. This may include assistance in
defining and analyzing issues, developing alternatives and executing the agreed upon
solutions. A facilitator can help to enhance communication, consensus building and
decision making among individuals in a variety of settings, including community,
corporate, educational and family groups.

Family Group Conference

Family Group Conference is a meeting between members of a family and members of

their extended kinship group. At this meeting, the family becomes involved in making
a plan to stop the abuse or other ill-treatment between its members. Family Group
Conferencing involves family and friends in resolving the abuse rather than leaving
the decision-making entirely in the hands of the legal authorities and service
providers.  All participants are given a great deal of preparation, support and
protection so that all family members can be both safe and informed in having a say in
the decision-making.  

Litigation

Mediation

Mini-Trial

Multi-Door Program

Negotiation

Neutral Fact-Finding

Ombuds

Parenting Coordinator

Pro Tem Trial

Private Judging

Settlement Conferences

Special Master

Summary Jury Trial

Unbundled Legal Services

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Primary tabs
Definition
Any method of resolving disputes without litigation. Abbreviated as ADR.
Public courts may be asked to review the validity of ADR methods, but they
will rarely overturn ADR decisions and awards if the disputing parties formed
a valid contract to abide by them. Arbitration and mediation are the two
major forms of ADR.

Overview
Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") refers to any means of settling
disputes outside of the courtroom. ADR typically includes early neutral
evaluation, negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration. As
burgeoning court queues, rising costs of litigation, and time delays continue
to plague litigants, more states have begun experimenting with ADR
programs. Some of these programs are voluntary; others are mandatory.
While the two most common forms of ADR are arbitration and mediation,
negotiation is almost always attempted first to resolve a dispute. It is the
preeminent mode of dispute resolution. Negotiation allows the parties to
meet in order to settle a dispute. The main advantage of this form of dispute
settlement is that it allows the parties themselves to control the process and
the solution.
Mediation is also an informal alternative to litigation. Mediators are
individuals trained in negotiations, who bring opposing parties together and
attempt to work out a settlement or agreement that both parties accept or
reject. Mediation is not binding. Mediation is used for a wide gamut of case-
types ranging from juvenile felonies to federal government negotiations with
Native American Indian tribes. Mediation has also become a significant
method for resolving disputes between investors and their stock brokers.
See Securities Dispute Resolution.
Arbitration is more formal than Mediation and resembles a simplified version
of a trial involving limited discovery and simplified rules of evidence
(ex.hearsay is usually admissible in arbitration). Prior to the dispute
occurring, parties usually enter into a binding arbitration agreement or any
other form of agreement with an arbitration clause, that allows them to lay
out major terms for the arbitration process (number of arbitrators,
arbitration forum; arbitration rules; fees etc.). If parties still have disputes
about certain terms before entering into an arbitration they can petition to a
court to resolve a dispute. Arbitration can be held ad hoc or with the
administrative support from one of the institutional providers like American
Arbitration Association (AAA) or JAMS. The arbitration is headed and decided
by an arbitral panel or a single arbitrator, depending on the agreement of
the parties. Arbitrators do not have to be lawyers, parties can select
arbitrators from other fields that they consider more suitable for the
resolution of the dispute. For example, parties can choose an arbitrator with
an engineering background to arbitrate a construction dispute. To comprise
a panel, either both sides agree on one arbitrator, or each side selects one
arbitrator and the two arbitrators elect the third. Arbitration hearings usually
last between a few days to a week, and the panel only meets for a few hours
per day. The panel or a single arbitrator then deliberates and issues a
written binding decision or arbitral award. Opinions are not public record.
Arbitration has long been used in labor, construction, and securities
regulation, but is now gaining popularity in other business disputes. Title 9
of the U.S. Code establishes federal law supporting arbitration. It is based on
Congress's plenary power over interstate commerce. Where Title 9 applies,
its terms prevail over state law. There are, however, numerous state laws on
ADR. Forty-nine states have adopted the 1956 version of the Uniform
Arbitration Act as state law. The act was revised in 2000 and subsequently
adopted by twelve states. The arbitration agreement and award is now
enforceable under both state and federal law.
In 1958, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Arbitral Awards, or the "New York Convention", was drafted to aid in the
enforcement in domestic courts of awards granted in foreign countries. In
1970, the United States joined and, as of June 2017, there are 157
countries participating in the convention.
Litigation
Primary tabs
Overview
Litigation refers to the process of resolving disputes by filing or answering
a complaint through the public court system.  
In federal courts, litigation is governed by a number of federal rules: the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence.  These are supplemented by
the local rules of each court and the standing orders of judges.

Major Steps in a Civil Case

1. Plaintiff commences civil action by filing a complaint with the clerk of

the court.
2. Personal jurisdiction is obtained over the defendant (e.g. by means
of service of process).
3. The parties meet and confer with one another in order to identify
issues, discuss the possibility of settlement, and prepare a plan
for discovery and disclosure.
4. The court conducts an early pretrial conference (scheduling
conference) or else issues a pretrial scheduling order.
5. Defendant may file motions. Some motions must be filed in the first
responsive pleading of the defendant.  Other motions may be filed
later.
6. Defendant files an answer.
7. Parties disclose documents and the discovery process moves forward.
8. Either party may file any additional motions.
9. The court holds the final pre-trial conference.
10. The court conducts trial.
11. The court render, signs, and files the judgment.
12. Post-trial proceedings may or may not occur.
13. Appeal may be taken. Depending on the situation, judgment may or
may not be stayed.
14. Appeal is considered based on either briefs or after oral argument.
15. Judgment is rendered on the appeal.
16. Supplementary proceedings may or may not occur.
17. Judgment is enforced.
Plaintiff
Primary tabs
In a civil matter, the party who initiates a lawsuit (against the defendant).

https://www.slideshare.net/DEEPRAVIN/alternative-dispute-resolution-system

https://www.slideshare.net/DEEPRAVIN/arbitration-233100268

https://www.slideshare.net/DEEPRAVIN/negotiation-ppt-231810961

https://www.slideshare.net/DEEPRAVIN/mediation-142072207

https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9285_2004.html

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/dispute_resolution/resources/DisputeResolutionProcesses/

Republic of the Philippines

Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila

Twelfth Congress
Third Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-eight day of July, two thousand three.

Republic Act No. 9285             April 2, 2004

AN ACT TO INSTITUTIONALIZE THE USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES AND TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE FOR ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippine Congress Assembled:

CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. Title. - This act shall be known as the "Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004."

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - it is hereby declared the policy of the State to actively promote
party autonomy in the resolution of disputes or the freedom of the party to make their own
arrangements to resolve their disputes. Towards this end, the State shall encourage and actively
promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as an important means to achieve speedy
and impartial justice and declog court dockets. As such, the State shall provide means for the use of
ADR as an efficient tool and an alternative procedure for the resolution of appropriate cases.
Likewise, the State shall enlist active private sector participation in the settlement of disputes
through ADR. This Act shall be without prejudice to the adoption by the Supreme Court of 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
which shall be governed by such rules as the Supreme Court may approve from time to time.

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the term:

(a) "Alternative Dispute Resolution System" means any process or procedure used to
resolve a dispute or controversy, other than by adjudication of a presiding judge of a court or
an officer of a government agency, as defined in this Act, in which a neutral third party
participates to assist in the resolution of issues, which includes arbitration, mediation,
conciliation, early neutral evaluation, mini-trial, or any combination thereof;

(b) "ADR Provider" means institutions or persons accredited as mediator, conciliator,

arbitrator, neutral evaluator, or any person exercising similar functions in any Alternative
Dispute Resolution system. This is without prejudice to the rights of the parties to choose
nonaccredited individuals to act as mediator, conciliator, arbitrator, or neutral evaluator of
their dispute.

Whenever reffered to in this Act, the term "ADR practitioners" shall refer to individuals acting
as mediator, conciliator, arbitrator or neutral evaluator;

(c) "Authenticate" means to sign, execute or adopt a symbol, or encrypt a record in whole or
in part, intended to identity the authenticating party and to adopt, accept or establish the
authenticity of a record or term;

(d) "Arbitration" means a voluntary dispute resolution process in which one or more
arbitrators, appointed in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or rules promulgated
pursuant to this Act, resolve a dispute by rendering an award;

(e) "Arbitrator" means the person appointed to render an award, alone or with others, in a
dispute that is the subject of an arbitration agreement;

(f) "Award" means any partial or final decision by an arbitrator in resolving the issue in a
controversy;

(g) "Commercial Arbitration" An arbitration is "commercial if it covers matter arising from all
relationships of a commercial nature, whether contractual or not;

(h) "Confidential information" means any information, relative to the subject of mediation or
arbitration, expressly intended by the source not to be disclosed, or obtained under
circumstances that would create a reasonable expectation on behalf of the source that the
information shall not be disclosed. It shall include (1) communication, oral or written, made in
a dispute resolution proceedings, including any memoranda, notes or work product of the
neutral party or non-party participant, as defined in this Act; (2) an oral or written statement
made or which occurs during mediation or for purposes of considering, conducting,
participating, initiating, continuing of reconvening mediation or retaining a mediator; and (3)
pleadings, motions manifestations, witness statements, reports filed or submitted in an
arbitration or for expert evaluation;

(i) "Convention Award" means a foreign arbitral award made in a Convention State;

(j) "Convention State" means a State that is a member of the New York Convention;

(k) "Court" as referred to in Article 6 of the Model Law shall mean a Regional Trial Court;

(l) "Court-Annexed Mediation" means any mediation process conducted under the auspices
of the court, after such court has acquired jurisdiction of the dispute;

(m) "Court-Referred Mediation" means mediation ordered by a court to be conducted in

accordance with the Agreement of the Parties when as action is prematurely commenced in
violation of such agreement;

(n) "Early Neutral Evaluation" means an ADR process wherein parties and their lawyers are
brought together early in a pre-trial phase to present summaries of their cases and receive a
nonbinding assessment by an experienced, neutral person, with expertise in the subject in
the substance of the dispute;

(o) "Government Agency" means any government entity, office or officer, other than a court,
that is vested by law with quasi-judicial power to resolve or adjudicate dispute involving the
government, its agencies and instrumentalities, or private persons;

(p) "International Party" shall mean an entity whose place of business is outside the
Philippines. It shall not include a domestic subsidiary of such international party or a
coventurer in a joint venture with a party which has its place of business in the Philippines.

The term foreigner arbitrator shall mean a person who is not a national of the Philippines.

(q) "Mediation" means a voluntary process in which a mediator, selected by the disputing
parties, facilitates communication and negotiation, and assist the parties in reaching a
voluntary agreement regarding a dispute.

(r) "Mediator" means a person who conducts mediation;

(s) "Mediation Party" means a person who participates in a mediation and whose consent is
necessary to resolve the dispute;

(t) "Mediation-Arbitration" or Med-Arb is a step dispute resolution process involving both

mediation and arbitration;

(u) "Mini-Trial" means a structured dispute resolution method in which the merits of a case
are argued before a panel comprising senior decision makers with or without the presence of
a neutral third person after which the parties seek a negotiated settlement;
 (v) "Model Law" means the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by
the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 21 June 1985;

(w) "New York Convention" means the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards approved in 1958 and ratified by the Philippine
Senate under Senate Resolution No. 71;

(x) "Non-Convention Award" means a foreign arbitral award made in a State which is not a
Convention State;

(y) "Non-Convention State" means a State that is not a member of the New York Convention.

(z) "Non-Party Participant" means a person, other than a party or mediator, who participates
in a mediation proceeding as a witness, resource person or expert;

(aa) "Proceeding" means a judicial, administrative, or other adjudicative process, including

related pre-hearing motions, conferences and discovery;

(bb) "Record" means an information written on a tangible medium or stored in an electronic

or other similar medium, retrievable form; and

(cc) "Roster" means a list of persons qualified to provide ADR services as neutrals or to
serve as arbitrators.

SEC. 4. Electronic Signatures in Global and E-Commerce Act. - The provisions of the Electronic
Signatures in Global and E-Commerce Act, and its implementing Rules and Regulations shall apply
to proceeding contemplated in this Act.

SEC. 5. Liability of ADR Provider and Practitioner. - The ADR providers and practitioners shall
have the same civil liability for the Acts done in the performance of then duties as that of public
officers as provided in Section 38 (1), Chapter 9, Book of the Administrative Code of 1987.

SEC. 6. Exception to the Application of this Act. - The provisions of this Act shall not apply to
resolution or settlement of the following: (a) labor disputes covered by Presidential Decree No. 442,
otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations; (b) the civil status of persons; (c) the validity of a marriage; (d) any ground for legal
separation; (e) the jurisdiction of courts; (f) future legitime; (g) criminal liability; and (h) those which
by law cannot be compromised.

CHAPTER 2 - MEDIATION

SEC. 7. Scope. - The provisions of this Chapter shall cover voluntary mediation, whether ad hoc or
institutional, other than court-annexed. The term "mediation' shall include conciliation.

SEC. 8. Application and Interpretation. - In applying construing the provisions of this Chapter,
consideration must be given to the need to promote candor or parties and mediators through
confidentiality of the mediation process, the policy of fostering prompt, economical, and amicable
resolution of disputes in accordance with the principles of integrity of determination by the parties,
and the policy that the decision-making authority in the mediation process rests with the parties.
SEC. 9. Confidentiality of Information. - Information obtained through mediation proceedings shall
be subject to the following principles and guidelines:

(a) Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential.

(b) A party, a mediator, or a nonparty participant may refuse to disclose and may prevent any
other person from disclosing a mediation communication.

(c) Confidential Information shall not be subject to discovery and shall be inadmissible if any
adversarial proceeding, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, However, evidence or information
that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does not become inadmissible or
protected from discovery solely by reason of its use in a mediation.

(d) In such an adversarial proceeding, the following persons involved or previously involved
in a mediation may not be compelled to disclose confidential information obtained during
mediation: (1) the parties to the dispute; (2) the mediator or mediators; (3) the counsel for the
parties; (4) the nonparty participants; (5) any persons hired or engaged in connection with
the mediation as secretary, stenographer, clerk or assistant; and (6) any other person who
obtains or possesses confidential information by reason of his/her profession.

(e) The protections of this Act shall continue to apply even of a mediator is found to have
failed to act impartially.

(f) a mediator may not be called to testify to provide information gathered in mediation. A
mediator who is wrongfully subpoenaed shall be reimbursed the full cost of his attorney's
fees and related expenses.

SEC. 10. Waiver of Confidentiality. - A privilege arising from the confidentiality of information may
be waived in a record, or orally during a proceeding by the mediator and the mediation parties.

A privilege arising from the confidentiality of information may likewise be waived by a nonparty
participant if the information is provided by such nonparty participant.

A person who discloses confidential information shall be precluded from asserting the privilege
under Section 9 of this Chapter to bar disclosure of the rest of the information necessary to a
complete understanding of the previously disclosed information. If a person suffers loss or damages
in a judicial proceeding against the person who made the disclosure.

A person who discloses or makes a representation about a mediation is preclude from asserting the
privilege under Section 9, to the extent that the communication prejudices another person in the
proceeding and it is necessary for the person prejudiced to respond to the representation of
disclosure.

SEC. 11. Exceptions to Privilege. -

(a) There is no privilege against disclosure under Section 9 if mediation communication is:

(1) in an agreement evidenced by a record authenticated by all parties to the

agreement;
 (2) available to the public or that is made during a session of a mediation which is
open, or is required by law to be open, to the public;

(3) a threat or statement of a plan to inflict bodily injury or commit a crime of violence;

(4) internationally used to plan a crime, attempt to commit, or commit a crime, or

conceal an ongoing crime or criminal activity;

(5) sought or offered to prove or disprove abuse, neglect, abandonment, or

exploitation in a proceeding in which a public agency is protecting the interest of an
individual protected by law; but this exception does not apply where a child protection
matter is referred to mediation by a court or a public agency participates in the child
protection mediation;

(6) sought or offered to prove or disprove a claim or complaint of professional

misconduct or malpractice filed against mediator in a proceeding; or

(7) sought or offered to prove or disprove a claim of complaint of professional

misconduct of malpractice filed against a party, nonparty participant, or
representative of a party based on conduct occurring during a mediation.

(b) There is no privilege under Section 9 if a court or administrative agency, finds, after a
hearing in camera, that the party seeking discovery of the proponent of the evidence has
shown that the evidence is not otherwise available, that there is a need for the evidence that
substantially outweighs the interest in protecting confidentiality, and the mediation
communication is sought or offered in:

(1) a court proceeding involving a crime or felony; or

(2) a proceeding to prove a claim or defense that under the law is sufficient to reform
or avoid a liability on a contract arising out of the mediation.

(c) A mediator may not be compelled to provide evidence of a mediation communication or

testify in such proceeding.

(d) If a mediation communication is not privileged under an exception in subsection (a) or (b),
only the portion of the communication necessary for the application of the exception for
nondisclosure may be admitted. The admission of particular evidence for the limited purpose
of an exception does not render that evidence, or any other mediation communication,
admissible for any other purpose.

SEC. 12. Prohibited Mediator Reports. - A mediator may not make a report, assessment,
evaluation, recommendation, finding, or other communication regarding a mediation to a court or
agency or other authority that make a ruling on a dispute that is the subject of a mediation, except:

(a) Where the mediation occurred or has terminated, or where a settlement was reached.

(b) As permitted to be disclosed under Section 13 of this Chapter.

SEC. 13. Mediator's Disclosure and Conflict of Interest. - The mediation shall be guided by the
following operative principles:
 (a) Before accepting a mediation, an individual who is requested to serve as a mediator
shall:

(1) make an inquiry that is reasonable under the circumstances to determinate

whether there are any known facts that a reasonable individual would consider likely
to affect the impartiality of the mediator, including a financial or personal interest in
the outcome of the mediation and any existing or past relationship with a party or
foreseeable participant in the mediation; and

(2) disclosure to the mediation parties any such fact known or learned as soon as is
practical before accepting a mediation.

(b) If a mediation learns any fact described in paragraph (a) (1) of this section after accepting
a mediation, the mediator shall disclose it as soon as practicable.

At the request of a mediation party, an individual who is requested to serve as mediator shall
disclose his/her qualifications to mediate a dispute.

This Act does not require that a mediator shall have special qualifications by background or
profession unless the special qualifications of a mediator are required in the mediation agreement or
by the mediation parties.

SEC. 14. Participation in Mediation. - Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a party may
designate a lawyer or any other person to provide assistance in the mediation. A lawyer of this right
shall be made in writing by the party waiving it. A waiver of participation or legal representation may
be rescinded at any time.

SEC. 15. Place of Mediation. - The parties are free to agree on the place of mediation. Failing such
agreement, the place of mediation shall be any place convenient and appropriate to all parties.

SEC. 16. Effect of Agreement to Submit Dispute to Mediation Under Institutional Rules. - An

agreement to submit a dispute to mediation by any institution shall include an agreement to be
bound by the internal mediation and administrative policies of such institution. Further, an agreement
to submit a dispute to mediation under international mediation rule shall be deemed to include an
agreement to have such rules govern the mediation of the dispute and for the mediator, the parties,
their respective counsel, and nonparty participants to abide by such rules.

In case of conflict between the institutional mediation rules and the provisions of this Act, the latter
shall prevail.

SEC. 17. Enforcement of Mediated Settlement Agreement. - The mediation shall be guided by

the following operative principles:

(a) A settlement agreement following successful mediation shall be prepared by the parties
with the assistance of their respective counsel, if any, and by the mediator.

The parties and their respective counsels shall endeavor to make the terms and condition
thereof complete and make adequate provisions for the contingency of breach to avoid
conflicting interpretations of the agreement.
 (b) The parties and their respective counsels, if any, shall sign the settlement agreement.
The mediator shall certify that he/she explained the contents of the settlement agreement to
the parties in a language known to them.

(c) If the parties so desire, they may deposit such settlement agreement with the appropriate
Clerk of a Regional Trial Court of the place where one of the parties resides. Where there is
a need to enforce the settlement agreement, a petition may be filed by any of the parties with
the same court, in which case, the court shall proceed summarily to hear the petition, in
accordance with such rules of procedure as may be promulgated by the Supreme Court.

(d) The parties may agree in the settlement agreement that the mediator shall become a sole
arbitrator for the dispute and shall treat the settlement agreement as an arbitral award which
shall be subject to enforcement under Republic Act No. 876, otherwise known as the
Arbitration Law, notwithstanding the provisions of Executive Order No. 1008 for mediated
dispute outside of the CIAC.

CHAPTER 3 - OTHER ADR FORMS

SEC. 18. Referral of Dispute to other ADR Forms. - The parties may agree to refer one or more or
all issues arising in a dispute or during its pendency to other forms of ADR such as but not limited to
(a) the evaluation of a third person or (b) a mini-trial, (c) mediation-arbitration, or a combination
thereof.

For purposes of this Act, the use of other ADR forms shall be governed by Chapter 2 of this Act
except where it is combined with arbitration in which case it shall likewise be governed by Chapter 5
of this Act.

CHAPTER 4 - INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

SEC. 19. Adoption of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. - International

commercial arbitration shall be governed by the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
(the "Model Law") adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on June
21, 1985 (United Nations Document A/40/17) and recommended approved on December 11, 1985,
copy of which is hereto attached as Appendix "A".

SEC. 20. Interpretation of Model Law. - In interpreting the Model Law, regard shall be had to its
international origin and to the need for uniformity in its interpretation and resort may be made to
the travaux preparatories and the report of the Secretary General of the United Nations Commission
on International Trade Law dated March 25, 1985 entitled, "International Commercial Arbitration:
Analytical Commentary on Draft Trade identified by reference number A/CN. 9/264."

SEC. 21. Commercial Arbitration. - An arbitration is "commercial" if it covers matters arising from

all relationships of a commercial nature, whether contractual or not. Relationships of a transactions:
any trade transaction for the supply or exchange of goods or services; distribution agreements;
construction of works; commercial representation or agency; factoring; leasing, consulting;
engineering; licensing; investment; financing; banking; insurance; joint venture and other forms of
industrial or business cooperation; carriage of goods or passengers by air, sea, rail or road.

SEC. 22. Legal Representation in International Arbitration. - In international arbitration

conducted in the Philippines, a party may be presented by any person of his choice. Provided, that
such representative, unless admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines, shall not be authorized
to appear as counsel in any Philippine court, or any other quasi-judicial body whether or not such
appearance is in relation to the arbitration in which he appears.

SEC. 23. Confidential of Arbitration Proceedings. - The arbitration proceedings, including the

records, evidence and the arbitral award, shall be considered confidential and shall not be published
except (1) with the consent of the parties, or (2) for the limited purpose of disclosing to the court of
relevant documents in cases where resort to the court is allowed herein. Provided, however, that the
court in which the action or the appeal is pending may issue a protective order to prevent or prohibit
disclosure of documents or information containing secret processes, developments, research and
other information where it is shown that the applicant shall be materially prejudiced by an authorized
disclosure thereof.

SEC. 24. Referral to Arbitration. - A court before which an action is brought in a matter which is the
subject matter of an arbitration agreement shall, if at least one party so requests not later that the
pre-trial conference, or upon the request of both parties thereafter, refer the parties to arbitration
unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being
performed.

SEC. 25. Interpretation of the Act. - In interpreting the Act, the court shall have due regard to the
policy of the law in favor of arbitration. Where action is commenced by or against multiple parties,
one or more of whom are parties who are bound by the arbitration agreement although the civil
action may continue as to those who are not bound by such arbitration agreement.

SEC. 26. Meaning of "Appointing Authority.". - "Appointing Authority" as used in the Model Law
shall mean the person or institution named in the arbitration agreement as the appointing authority;
or the regular arbitration arbitration institution under whose rules the arbitration is agreed to be
conducted. Where the parties have agreed to submit their dispute to institutional arbitration rules,
and unless they have agreed to a different procedure, they shall be deemed to have agreed to
procedure under such arbitration rules for the selection and appointment of arbitrators. In ad hoc
arbitration, the default appointment of an arbitrator shall be made by the National President of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) or his duly authorized representative.

SEC. 27. What Functions May be Performed by Appointing Authority. - The functions referred to
in Articles 11(3), 11(4), 13(3) and 14(1) of the Model Law shall be performed by the Appointing
Authority, unless the latter shall fail or refuse to act within thirty (30) days from receipt of the request
in which case the applicant may renew the application with the Court.

SEC. 28. Grant of Interim Measure of Protection. -

(a) It is not incompatible with an arbitration agreement for a party to request, before
constitution of the tribunal, from a Court an interim measure of protection and for the Court to
grant such measure. After constitution of the arbitral tribunal and during arbitral proceedings,
a request for an interim measure of protection or modification thereof, may be made with the
arbitral tribunal or to the extent that the arbitral tribunal has no power to act or is unable to
act effectively, the request may be made with the Court. The arbitral tribunal is deemed
constituted when the sole arbitrator or the third arbitrator who has been nominated, has
accepted the nomination and written communication of said nomination and acceptance has
been received by the party making request.

(b) The following rules on interim or provisional relief shall be observed:

(1) Any party may request that provision relief be granted against the adverse party:
 (2) Such relief may be granted:

(i) to prevent irreparable loss or injury:

(ii) to provide security for the performance of any obligation;

(iii) to produce or preserve any evidence; or

(iv) to compel any other appropriate act or omission.

(3) The order granting provisional relief may be conditioned upon the provision of
security or any act or omission specified in the order.

(4) Interim or provisional relief is requested by written application transmitted by

reasonable means to the Court or arbitral tribunal as the case may be and the party
against whom the relief is sought, describing in appropriate detail the precise relief,
the party against whom the relief is requested, the grounds for the relief, and
evidence supporting the request.

(5) The order shall be binding upon the parties.

(6) Either party may apply with the Court for assistance in Implementing or enforcing
an interim measure ordered by an arbitral tribunal.

(7) A party who does not comply with the order shall be liable for all damages
resulting from noncompliance, including all expenses, and reasonable attorney's
fees, paid in obtaining the order's judicial enforcement.

SEC. 29. Further Authority for Arbitrator to Grant Interim Measure of Protection. - Unless
otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, order any party to
take such interim measures of protection as the arbitral tribunal may consider necessary in respect
of the subject matter of the dispute following the rules in Section 28, paragraph 2. Such interim
measures may include but shall not be limited to preliminary injuction directed against a party,
appointment of receivers or detention, preservation, inspection of property that is the subject of the
dispute in arbitration. Either party may apply with the Court for assistance in implementing or
enforcing an interim measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal.

SEC. 30. Place of Arbitration. - The parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration. Failing
such agreement, the place of arbitration shall be in Metro Manila, unless the arbitral tribunal, having
regard to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the parties shall decide on a
different place of arbitration.

The arbitral tribunal may, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, meet at any place it considers
appropriate for consultation among its members, for hearing witnesses, experts, or the parties, or for
inspection of goods, other property or documents.

SEC. 31. Language of the Arbitration. - The parties are free to agree on the language or
languages to be used in the arbitral proceedings. Failing such agreement, the language to be used
shall be English in international arbitration, and English or Filipino for domestic arbitration, unless the
arbitral tribunal shall determine a different or another language or languages to be used in the
proceedings. This agreement or determination, unless otherwise specified therein, shall apply to any
written statement by a party, any hearing and any award, decision or other communication by the
arbitral tribunal.

The arbitral tribunal may order that any documentary evidence shall be accompanied by a
translation into the language or languages agreed upon by the parties or determined in accordance
with paragraph 1 of this section.

CHAPTER 5 - DOMESTIC ARBITRATION

SEC. 32. Law Governing Domestic Arbitration. - Domestic arbitration shall continue to be

governed by Republic Act No. 876, otherwise known as "The Arbitration Law" as amended by this
Chapter. The term "domestic arbitration" as used herein shall mean an arbitration that is not
international as defined in Article (3) of the Model Law.

SEC. 33. Applicability to Domestic Arbitration. - Article 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 and 29 to
32 of the Model Law and Section 22 to 31 of the preceding Chapter 4 shall apply to domestic
arbitration.

CHAPTER 6 - ARBITRATION OF CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES

SEC. 34. Arbitration of Construction Disputes: Governing Law. - The arbitration of construction

disputes shall be governed by Executive Order No. 1008, otherwise known as the Constitution
Industry Arbitration Law.

SEC. 35. Coverage of the Law. - Construction disputes which fall within the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (the "Commission") shall include
those between or among parties to, or who are otherwise bound by, an arbitration agreement,
directly or by reference whether such parties are project owner, contractor, subcontractor, quantity
surveyor, bondsman or issuer of an insurance policy in a construction project.

The Commission shall continue to exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction over construction
disputes although the arbitration is "commercial" pursuant to Section 21 of this Act.

SEC. 36. Authority to Act as Mediator or Arbitrator. - By written agreement of the parties to a

dispute, an arbitrator may act as mediator and a mediator may act as arbitrator. The parties may
also agree in writing that, following a successful mediation, the mediator shall issue the settlement
agreement in the form of an arbitral award.

SEC. 37. Appointment of Foreign Arbitrator. - The Construction Industry Arbitration Commission

(CIAC) shall promulgate rules to allow for the appointment of a foreign arbitrator or coarbitrator or
chairman of a tribunal a person who has not been previously accredited by CIAC: Provided, That:

(a) the dispute is a construction dispute in which one party is an international party

(b) the person to be appointed agreed to abide by the arbitration rules and policies of CIAC;

(c) he/she is either coarbitrator upon the nomination of the international party; or he/she is
the common choice of the two CIAC-accredited arbitrators first appointed one of whom was
nominated by the international party; and

(d) the foreign arbitrator shall be of different nationality from the international party.
SEC. 38. Applicability to Construction Arbitration. - The provisions of Sections 17 (d) of Chapter
2, and Section 28 and 29 of this Act shall apply to arbitration of construction disputes covered by this
Chapter.

SEC. 39. Court to Dismiss Case Involving a Construction Dispute. - A regional trial court which
a construction dispute is filed shall, upon becoming aware, not later than the pretrial conference, that
the parties had entered into an arbitration to be conducted by the CIAC, unless both parties, assisted
by their respective counsel, shall submit to the regional trial court a written agreement exclusive for
the Court, rather than the CIAC, to resolve the dispute.

CHAPTER 7 - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARBITRAL AWARDS

A. DOMESTIC AWARDS

SEC. 40. Confirmation of Award. - The confirmation of a domestic arbitral award shall be governed
by Section 23 of R.A. 876.

A domestic arbitral award when confirmed shall be enforced in the same manner as final and
executory decisions of the Regional Trial Court.

The confirmation of a domestic award shall be made by the regional trial court in accordance with
the Rules of Procedure to be promulgated by the Supreme Court.

A CIAC arbitral award need not be confirmed by the regional trial court to be executory as provided
under E.O. No. 1008.

SEC. 41. Vacation Award. - A party to a domestic arbitration may question the arbitral award with
the appropriate regional trial court in accordance with the rules of procedure to be promulgated by
the Supreme Court only on those grounds enumerated in Section 25 of Republic Act No. 876. Any
other ground raised against a domestic arbitral award shall be disregarded by the regional trial court.

B. FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS

SEC. 42. Application of the New York Convention. - The New York Convention shall govern the
recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards covered by the said Convention.

The recognition and enforcement of such arbitral awards shall be filled with regional trial court in
accordance with the rules of procedure to be promulgated by the Supreme Court. Said procedural
rules shall provide that the party relying on the award or applying for its enforcement shall file with
the court the original or authenticated copy of the award and the arbitration agreement. If the award
or agreement is not made in any of the official languages, the party shall supply a duly certified
translation thereof into any of such languages.

The applicant shall establish that the country in which foreign arbitration award was made is a party
to the New York Convention.

If the application for rejection or suspension of enforcement of an award has been made, the
regional trial court may, if it considers it proper, vacate its decision and may also, on the application
of the party claiming recognition or enforcement of the award, order the party to provide appropriate
security.
SEC. 43. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Not Covered by the New
York Convention. - The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards not covered by the
New York Convention shall be done in accordance with procedural rules to be promulgated by the
Supreme Court. The Court may, grounds of comity and reciprocity, recognize and enforce a
nonconvention award as a convention award.

SEC. 44. Foreign Arbitral Award Not Foreign Judgment. - A foreign arbitral award when
confirmed by a court of a foreign country, shall be recognized and enforced as a foreign arbitral
award and not a judgment of a foreign court.

A foreign arbitral award, when confirmed by the regional trial court, shall be enforced as a foreign
arbitral award and not as a judgment of a foreign court.

A foreign arbitral award, when confirmed by the regional trial court, shall be enforced in the same
manner as final and executory decisions of courts of law of the Philippines.

SEC. 45. Rejection of a Foreign Arbitral Award. - A party to a foreign arbitration proceeding may
oppose an application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in accordance with the
procedural rules to be promulgated by the Supreme Court only on those grounds enumerated under
Article V of the New York Convention. Any other ground raised shall be disregarded by the regional
trial court.

SEC. 46. Appeal from Court Decisions on Arbitral Awards. - A decision of the regional trial court
confirming, vacating, setting aside, modifying or correcting an arbitral award may be appealed to the
Court of Appeals in accordance with the rules of procedure to be promulgated by the Supreme
Court.

The losing party who appeals from the judgment of the court confirming an arbitral award shall
required by the appealant court to post counterbond executed in favor of the prevailing party equal to
the amount of the award in accordance with the rules to be promulgated by the Supreme Court.

SEC. 47. Venue and Jurisdiction. - Proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitration
agreement or for vacation, setting aside, correction or modification of an arbitral award, and any
application with a court for arbitration assistance and supervision shall be deemed as special
proceedings and shall be filled with the regional trial court (i) where arbitration proceedings are
conducted; (ii) where the asset to be attached or levied upon, or the act to be enjoined is located; (iii)
where any of the parties to the dispute resides or has his place of business; or (iv) in the National
Judicial Capital Region, at the option of the applicant.

SEC. 48. Notice of Proceeding to Parties. - In a special proceeding for recognition and

enforcement of an arbitral award, the Court shall send notice to the parties at their address of record
in the arbitration, or if any party cannot be served notice at such address, at such party's last known
address. The notice shall be sent at least fifteen (15) days before the date set for the initial hearing
of the application.

CHAPTER 8 - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 49. Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution. - There is hereby established the Office for
Alternative Dispute Resolution as an attached agency to the Department of Justice (DOJ) which
shall have a Secretariat to be headed by an executive director. The executive director shall be
appointed by the President of the Philippines.
The objective of the office are:

(a) to promote, develop and expand the use of ADR in the private and public sectors; and

To assist the government to monitor, study and evaluate the use by the public and the private sector
of ADR, and recommend to Congress needful statutory changes to develop. Strengthen and improve
ADR practices in accordance with world standards.

SEC. 50. Powers and Functions of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution. - The Office
for Alternative Dispute Resolution shall have the following powers and functions:

(a) To formulate standards for the training of the ADR practitioners and service providers;

(b) To certify that such ADR practitioners and ADR service providers have undergone the
professional training provided by the office;

(c) To coordinate the development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of

government ADR programs;

(d) To charge fees for their services; and

(e) To perform such acts as may be necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 51. Appropriations. - The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be
included in the General Appropriations Act of the year following its enactment into law and
thereafter.

SEC. 52. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). - Within one (1) month after the approval of
this Act, the secretary of justice shall convene a committee that shall formulate the appropriate rules
and regulations necessary for the implementation of this Act. The committee, composed of
representatives from:

(a) the Department of Justice;

(b) the Department of Trade and Industry;

(c) the Department of the Interior and Local Government;

(d) the president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines;

(e) A representative from the arbitration profession; and

(f) A representative from the mediation profession; and

(g) A representative from the ADR organizations

shall within three (3) months after convening, submit the IRR to the Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee for review and approval. The Oversight Committee shall be composed of the chairman of
the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights, chairman of the House Committee on Justice,
and one (1) member each from the majority and minority of both Houses.
The Joint Oversight Committee shall become functus officio upon approval of the IRR.

SEC. 53. Applicability of the Katarungan Pambarangay. - This Act shall not be interpreted to
repeal, amend or modify the jurisdiction of the Katarungan Pambarangay under Republic Act No.
7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.

SEC. 54. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations which are
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

SEC. 55. Separability Clause. - If for any reason or reasons, any portion or provision of this Act
shall be held unconstitutional or invalid, all other parts or provisions not affected shall thereby
continue to remain in full force and effect.

SEC. 56. Effectivity. - This act shall take effect fifteen days (15) after its publication in at least two
(2) national newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,

FRANKLIN DRILON JOSE DE VENECIA JR.

President of the Senate Speaker of the House of
Representatives

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2671 and House Bill No. 5654 was finally passed
by the Senate and the House of Representatives on February 4, 2004.

OSCAR G. YABES ROBERTO P. NAZARENO

Secretary of Senate Secretary General
House of Represenatives

Approved: April 2, 2004

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
President of the Philippines

CIVIL DISPUTE RESOLUTION

At the end of the lesson the learners are able to:

1. Identify Civil Dispute resolution

2. List and explain the various stages of a civil proceeding.
3. Compare and contrast litigation, arbitration, conciliation and mediation.
One of the primary functions of law is to provide for the peaceful resolution of disputes. Accordingly, our
legal system has established an elaborate set of government mechanism to settle disputes. The most
prominent of these is judicial dispute resolution, called litigation. Judicial resolution of civil disputes is
governed by the rules of civil procedure.

As an alternative to government dispute resolution, several nongovernmental methods of dispute

resolution, such as arbitration, have developed.

CIVIL PROCEDURE

A civil dispute that enters the judicial system must follow the rules of civil procedure. These rules are
designed to resolve the dispute justly, promptly, and inexpensively.

To acquaint you with civil procedure, we will carry a hypothetical action through the trial court to the highest
court of review in the state. Although there are technical differences in trial and appellate procedure among
the states and the federal courts, the following illustration will give you a general understanding of the trial
and appeal of cases. Assume that Pam Pederson, a pedestrian, is struck while crossing a street in Chicago
by an automobile driven by David Dryden. Pederson suffers serious personal injuries, incurs heavy medical
and hospital expenses, and is unable to work for several months. She desires that Dryden pay her for the
loss and damages she sustained. After attempts at settlement fail, Pederson brings an action at law against
Dryden. Thus, Pederson is the plaintiff and Dryden the defendant. Each party is represented by a lawyer.
Let us follow the progress of the case.

The Pleadings

The pleadings are a series of responsive, formal, written statements in which each side to a lawsuit states
its claims and defenses. The purpose of pleadings is to give notice and to establish the issues of fact and
law the parties dispute. An "issue of fact" is a dispute between the parties regarding the events that gave
rise to the lawsuit. In contrast, an "issue of law" is a dispute between the parties as to what legal rules apply
to these facts. Issues of fact are decided by the jury, or by the judge when there is no jury, whereas issues
of law are decided by the judge.

Complaint and Summons A lawsuit begins when Pederson, the plaintiff, files with the clerk of the trial court
a complaint against Dryden that contains (1) a statement of the claim and supporting facts showing that she
is entitled to relief and (2) a demand for that relief. Pederson’s complaint alleges that while exercising due
and reasonable care for her safety, she was struck by Dryden’s automobile, which was being driven
negligently by Dryden causing her personal injuries and damages of $50,000, for which Pederson request
judgment.

Once the plaintiff has filed a complaint, the clerk issues a summons to be served upon the defendant to
notify him that a suit has been brought against him. If the defendant has contacts with the state sufficient to
show that the state’s assertion of jurisdiction over the defendant is constitutional, proper service of the
summons establishes the court’s jurisdiction over the persons of the defendant. The country sheriff or a
deputy sheriff serves a summons and copy of the complaint on Dryden, the defendant, commanding him to
file his appearance and answer with the clerk of the court within a specific time, usually thirty days from the
date.

Responses to Complaint At this point, Dryden has several options. If he fails to respond at all, a default
judgment will be entered against him. He may make pretrial motions contesting the court's jurisdicti0n over
him or asserting that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, which requires suits to be brought
within a specified time. Dryden also may move, or request, that the complaint be made more definite and
certain, or he may instead move that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. Such a motion is sometimes called a demurrer; it essentially asserts that even if all of
Pederson's allegations were true, she still would not be entitled to the relief she seeks and that therefore
there is no need for a trial of the facts. The court rules on this motion as a matter of law. If it rules in favor of
the defendant, the plaintiff may appeal the ruling.

If he does not make any pretrial motions, or if they are denied, Dryden will respond to the complaint by filing
an answer, which may contain denials, admissions, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims. Dryden might
answer the complaint by denying its allegations of negligence and stating that he was driving his car at a
low speed and with reasonable care (a denial) when his car struck Pederson (an admission), who had
dashed across the street in front of his car without looking in any direction to see whether cars or other
vehicles were approaching; that, accordingly, Pederson's injuries were caused by her own negligence ( an
affirmative defense); and that, therefore, she should not be permitted to recover any damages. Dryden
might further state that Pederson caused damage to his car and request a judgment for $2,000 ( a
counterclaim). These pleadings create an Issue of fact regarding whether Dryden or Pederson, or both,
failed to exercise due and reasonable care under the circumstances and were thus negligent and liable for
their carelessness.
If the defendant counterclaims, the plaintiff must respond through a reply, which also may contain
admissions, denials, and affirmative defenses.

Pretrial Procedure

Judgment on the Pleadings After the pleadings, either party may move for judgment on the pleadings,
which requests the Judge to rule as a matter of law whether the facts as alleged in the pleadings of the
nonmoving party are sufficient to warrant granting the requested relief.

Discovery In preparation for trial and even before completion of the pleadings stage each party has the
right to obtain relevant evidence or information that may lead to evidence, from the other party, This
procedure, known as discovery, includes (1) pretrial depositions consisting of sworn testimony, taken out of
court, of the opposing party or other witnesses; (2) sworn answers by the opposing party to written
interrogatories or questions; (3) production of documents and physical objects in the possession of the
opposing party or, by a court-ordered subpoena, in the possession of nonparties; (4) court-ordered
examination by a physician of the opposing party, as needed; and (5) admissions of facts obtained by a
request for admissions submitted to the opposing party. By using discovery properly, each party may
become fully informed of relevant evidence and avoid surprise at trial. Another purpose of this procedure is
to facilitate settlements by giving both parties as much relevant information as possible.

Pretrial Conference Also furthering these objectives is the pretrial conference between the judge and the
attorneys representing the parties. The basic purposes of the pretrial conference are (1) to simplify the
issues in dispute by amending the pleadings, admitting or stipulating facts, and identifying witnesses and
documents to be presented at trial and (2) to encourage settlement of the dispute without trial. (More than
90 percent of all cases are settled before going to trial.) If no Settlement occurs, the judge will enter a
pretrial order containing all of the amendments, stipulations, admissions, and other matters agreed to
during the pretrial conference. The order supersedes the pleadings and controls the remainder of the trial.

Summary Judgment The evidence disclosed by discovery may be so clear that a trial to determine the facts
becomes unnecessary. If this is so, either party may move for a summary judgment, which requests the
judge to rule that, because there are no issues of fact to be determined by trial, the party thus moving
should prevail as a matter of law. A summary judgment is a final binding determination on the merits made
by the judge before a trial.

Trial

In all federal civil cases at common law involving more than $20.00, the U.S. Constitution guarantees the
right to a jury trial. In addition, nearly every state constitution provides a similar right. In addition, federal
and state statutes may authorize jury trials in cases not within the constitutional guarantees. Under federal
law and in almost all states, jury trials are not available in equity cases. Even in cases in which a jury trial is
available, the parties may waive (choose not to have) a trial by jury. When a trial is conducted without a
jury, the judge serves as the fact finder and will make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law.
When a trial is conducted with a jury, the judge determines issues of law and the jury determines questions
of fact.

Jury Selection Assuming a timely demand for a jury has been made, the trial begins with the selection of a
jury. The jury selection process involves a voir dire, an examination by the parties' attorneys (or in some
courts by the judge) of the potential jurors. Each party has an unlimited number of challenges for cause,
which allow the party to prevent a prospective juror from serving if the juror is biased or cannot be fair and
impartial. In addition, each party has a limited number of peremptory challenges for which no cause is
required to disqualify a prospective juror. The Supreme Court has held that the U.S. Constitution prohibits
discrimination in jury selection on the basis of race or gender.

Conduct of Trial After the jury has been selected, both attorneys make an opening statement about the
facts that they expect to prove in the trial. The plaintiff and plaintiff's witnesses then testify on direct
examination by the plaintiff's attorney. Each is subject to cross-examination by the defendant's attorney.
Pederson and her witnesses testify that the traffic light at the street intersection where she was struck was
green for traffic in the direction in which she was crossing but changed to yellow when she was about one-
third of the way across the street.

During the trial, the judge rules on the admission and exclusion of evidence on the basis of its relevance
and reliability. If the judge does not allow certain evidence to be introduced or certain testimony to be given,
the attorney must make an offer of proof to preserve for review on appeal the questions of its admissibility.
The offer of proof consists of oral statements of counsel or witnesses showing for the record the evidence
that the judge has ruled inadmissible; it is not regarded as evidence and is not heard by the jury.

After cross-examination, followed by redirect examination of each of her witnesses, Pederson rests her
case. At this time, Dryden may move for a directed verdict in his favor. A directed verdict is a final binding
determination on the merits made by the judge after a trial has begun but before the jury renders a verdict.
If the judge concludes that the evidence introduced by Pederson, which is for the purposes of the to be not
be sufficient for the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff, then the judge will grant the directed verdict in favor
of the defendant. In some states, the judge will deny the motion for a directed verdict if there is any
evidence on which the jury might possibly render a verdict for the plaintiff.

If the judge denies the motion for a directed verdict, however, the defendant then has the opportunity to
present evidence. Dryden and his witnesses testify that he was driving his car at a low speed when it struck
Pederson and that Dryden at the time had the green light at the intersection. After the defendant has
present his evidence, the plaintiff and the defendant may be permitted to introduce rebuttal evidence. Once
both parties have rested (concluded), then either party may move for a directed verdict. By this motion, the
party contends that the evidence is so clear that reasonable persons could not differ about the outcome of
the case. If the judge grants the motion for a directed verdict, he takes the case away from the jury and
enters a judgment for the party making the motion.

If these motions are denied, then Pederson's attorney makes a closing argument to the jury, reviewing the
evidence and urging a verdict in favor of Pederson. Then Dryden's attorney makes a closing argument,
summarizing the evidence and urging a verdict in favor of Dryden. Pederson's attorney is permitted to
make a short argument in rebuttal.

Jury Instructions The attorneys previously have given possible written jury instructions on the applicable
law to the trial judge, who gives to the jury those instructions that he approves and denies those that he
considers incorrect. The judge also may give the jury instructions of his own. Jury instructions (called
"charges" in some states) advise the jury of the particular rules of law that apply to the facts the jury
determines from the evidence.

Verdict The jury then retires to the jury room to deliberate and to reach its verdict in favor of one party or
the other. If the jury finds the issues in favor of Dryden, its verdict is that he is not liable. If, however, it finds
the issues for Pederson and against Dryden, its verdict will be that the defendant is liable and will specify
the amount of the plaintiff's damages. In this case, the jury found that Pederson's damages were $35,000.
On returning to the jury box, the foreperson either announces the verdict or hands it in written form to 'the
clerk to give to the judge, who reads the verdict in open court. In some jurisdictions, a special verdict, by
which the jury makes specific written findings on each factual issue, is used. The judge then applies the law
to these findings and renders a judgment. In the United States the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled
to collect attorneys' fees from the losing party, unless otherwise provided by statute or an enforceable
contract allocating attorneys' fees.

Motions Challenging Verdict The unsuccessful party may then file a written motion for a new trial or for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A motion for a new trial may be granted if (1) the judge committed
prejudicial error during the trial, (2) the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, (3) the damages are
excessive, or (4) the trial was not fair. The judge has the discretion to grant a motion for a new trial (on
grounds 1, 3, or 4) even if the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. On the other hand, the motion
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (also called a judgment n.o.v.) must be denied if any substantial
evidence supports the verdict. This motion is similar to a motion for a directed verdict, only it is made after
the jury's verdict. To grant the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the judge must decide that
the evidence is so clear that reasonable people could not differ as to the outcome of the case. If a judgment
n.o.ve is reversed on appeal, a new trial is not necessary, and the jury's verdict is entered. If the judge
denies the motions for a new trial and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, he enters judgment on
the verdict for $35,000 in favor of the plaintiff. Appeal [3-5dl

Appeal

The purpose of an appeal is to determine whether the trial court committed prejudicial error. Most
jurisdictions permit an appeal only from a final judgment. As a general rule, only errors of law are reviewed
by an appellate court. Errors of law include the judge's decisions to admit or exclude evidence; the judge's
instructions to the jury; and the judge's actions in denying or granting a motion for a demurrer, a summary
judgment, a directed verdict, or a judgment n.o.v. Appellate courts review errors of law de novo. Errors of
fact will be reversed only if they are so clearly erroneous that they are considered to be an error of law.

Let us assume that Dryden directs his attorney to appeal. The attorney files a notice of appeal with the clerk
of the trial court within the prescribed time. Later, Dryden, as appellant, files in the reviewing court the
record on appeal, which contains the pleadings, a transcript of the testimony, rulings by the judge on
motions made by the parties, arguments of counsel, jury instructions, the verdict, post-trial motions, and the
judgment from which the appeal is taken. In states having an intermediate court of appeals, such court
usually will be the reviewing court. In states having no intermediate court of appeal, a party may appeal
directly from the trial court to the state supreme court.

Dryden, as appellant, is required to prepare a condensation of the record, known as abstract or pertinent
excerpts from the record, which he files with the reviewing court together with a brief and argument. His
brief contains a statement of the facts, the issues, the rulings by the trial court that Dryden contends are
erroneous and prejudicial, grounds for reversal of the judgment, a statement of the applicable law, and
arguments on his behalf. Pederson, the appellee, files an answering brief and argument. Dryden may, but
is not required to, file a reply brief. The case is now ready to be considered by the reviewing court.
The appellate court does not hear any evidence; rather, it decides the case on the record, abstracts, and
briefs. After oral argument by the attorneys, if the court elects to hear one, the court takes the case under
advisement, or begins deliberations. Then, having made a decision based on majority rule, the appellate
court prepares a written opinion containing the reasons for its decision, the rules of law that apply, and its
judgment. The judgment may affirm the judgment of the trial the court or if the appellate court finds that the
reversible error was committed, the judgment may be reversed or returned to the lower court (remanded)
for a new trial. In some Instances the appellate court will affirm the lower court's decision in part and will
reverse it in part. The losing party may file a petition for rehearing, which is usually denied.

If the reviewing court is an intermediate appellate court, the party losing in that court may decide to seek a
reversal of its judgment by filing within a prescribed time a notice of appeal, if the appeal is by right, or a
petition for leave to appeal to the state supreme court, if the appeal is by discretion. This petition
corresponds to a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. The party winning in the
appellate court may file an answer to the petition for leave to appeal. If the petition is granted, or if the
appeal is by right, the record is certified to the Supreme Court, where each party files a new brief and
argument. The Supreme Court may hear oral argument or simply review the record; it then takes the case
under advisement. If the Supreme court concludes that the judgment of the appellate court is correct, it
affirms. If it decides otherwise, it reverses the judgment of the appellate court and enters a reversal or an
order of remand. The unsuccessful party may again file a petition for a rehearing, which is likely to be
denied. Barring the remote possibility of an application for still further review by the U.S. Supreme Court,
the case either has reached its termination or, on remand, is about to start its second journey through the
courts, beginning, as it did originally, in the trial court.

Enforcement

If Dryden does not appeal, or if the reviewing court affirms the judgment if he does appeal and Dryden does
not pay the judgment, the task of enforcement will remain. Pederson must request the clerk to issue a writ
of execution demanding payment of the judgment, which is served by the sheriff on the defendant. If the
writ is returned "unsatisfied," that is, if Dryden still does not pay, Pederson may post bond or other security
and order a levy on and sale of specific nonexempt property belonging to the defendant, which is then
seized by the sheriff, advertised for sale, and sold at a public sale under the writ of execution. If the sale
does not produce enough money to pay the judgment, Pederson's attorney may begin another proceeding
in an attempt to locate money or other property belonging to Dryden. In an attempt to collect the judgment,
Pederson's attorney may also proceed by garnishment against Dryden's employer to collect from his wages
or against a bank in which he has an account.

If Pederson cannot satisfy the judgment with Dryden's property located within Illinois (the state where the
judgment was obtained), Pederson will have to bring an action on the original judgment in other states
where Dryden owns property. Because the U.S. Constitution requires each state to accord judgments of
other states full faith and credit, Pederson will be able to obtain a local judgment that may be enforced by
the methods described previously.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE

RESOLUTION

Litigation is complex, time consuming, and expensive. Furthermore, court adjudications involve long delays,
lack special expertise in substantive areas, and provide only a limited range of remedies. Additionally,
litigation is structured so that one party takes all with little opportunity for compromise and often causes
animosity between the disputants. Consequently, in an attempt to overcome some of the disadvantages of
litigation, several nonjudicial methods of dealing with disputes have developed. The most important of
these alternatives to litigation is arbitration. Others include conciliation, mediation, and "mini-trials."

The various techniques differ in a number of ways, including (1) whether the process is voluntary, (2)
whether the process is binding, (3) whether the disputants represent themselves or are represented by
attorneys, (4) whether the decision is made by the disputants or by a third party, (5) whether the procedure
used is formal or informal, and (6) whether the basis for the decision is law or some other criterion.

Which method of civil dispute resolution—litigation or one of the nongovernmental methods—is better for a
particular dispute depends on several factors, including the financial circumstances of the disputants, the of
the relationship (commercial or personal ongoing or limited) between them, and the urgency of a quick
resolution. Alternative dispute resolution methods are especially suitable in cases which privacy, speed,
preservation of continuing relations, and control over the process—including the flexibility to compromise—
are important to the parties. Nevertheless, the disadvantages of using alternative dispute mechanisms may
make court adjudication more appropriate. For examples with the exception of arbitration, only courts can
compel participation and provide a binding resolution. In addition, only courts can establish precedents and
create public duties. Furthermore, the courts provide greater due process protections and uniformity of
outcome. Finally, the courts are independent of the parties and are publicly funded.

Arbitration

In arbitration, the parties select a neutral third person or persons—the arbitrator(s)—who render(s) a
binding decision after hearing arguments and reviewing evidence. Because the presentation of the case is
less formal and the rules of evidence are more relaxed, arbitration usually takes less time and costs less
than litigation. Moreover, in many arbitration cases, the parties are able to select an arbitrator with special
expertise concerning the subject of the dispute. Thus, the quality of the arbitrator's decision may be higher
than that available through the court system. In addition, arbitration normally is conducted in private, thus
avoiding unwanted publicity. Arbitration is commonly used in commercial and labor management disputes.

Types of Arbitration

There are two basic types of arbitration—consensual, which is by far the most common, and compulsory.
Consensual arbitration occurs whenever the parties to a dispute agree to submit the controversy to
arbitration. They may do this in advance by agreeing in their contract that disputes arising out of their
contract will be resolved by arbitration. Or they may do so after a dispute arises by then agreeing to submit
the dispute to arbitration. In either instance, such agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA) and state statutes. Forty-nine states have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA). (In 2000,
the Uniform Law Commission, also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws, promulgated the Revised UAA to provide state legislatures with a more up-to-date Statute to resolve
disputes through arbitration. To date, at least seventeen states have adopted the Revised UAA.) In
compulsory arbitration, which is relatively infrequent, a federal or state statute requires arbitration for
specific types of disputes, such as those involving public employees, including police officers, teachers, and
firefighters.

Procedure Usually the parties' agreement to arbitrate specifies how the arbitrator or arbitrators will be
chosen. If it does not, the FAA and state statutes provide methods for selecting arbitrators. Although the
requirements for arbitration hearings vary from state to state, they generally consist of opening statements,
case presentation, and closing statements. Case presentations may include witnesses, documentation, and
site inspections. The parties may cross-examine witnesses and may be represented by attorneys.

The decision of the arbitrator, called an award, is binding on the parties. Nevertheless, it is subject to very
limited judicial review. Under the FAA and the Revised UAA these include (1) the award was procured by
corruption, fraud, or other undue means; (2) the arbitrators were partial or corrupt; (3) the arbitrators were
guilty of misconduct prejudicing the rights of a party to ne the arbitration proceeding; and (4) the arbitrators
exceeded their powers. Historically, the courts were as unfriendly to arbitration; however, they have
dramatically changed their attitude and now favor arbitration.

Court-Annexed Arbitration A growing number of federal and state courts have adopted court-annexed
arbitration in civil cases in which the parties seek limited amounts of damages. The arbitrators are usually
attorneys. Appeal from this type of nonbinding arbitration is by trial de novo. Many states have S enacted
statutes requiring the arbitration of medical malpractice disputes.

Conciliation

Conciliation is a nonbinding, informal process which a third party (the conciliator) selected by the disputing
parties attempts to help them reach a mutually acceptable agreement. The duties of the conciliator include
improving communications, explaining issues, scheduling meetings, discussing differences of opinion, and
serving as an intermediary between the parties when they are unwilling to meet.

Mediation

Mediation is a process in which a third party (the mediator) selected by the disputants helps them to reach
a voluntary agreement resolving their disagreement. In addition to employing conciliation techniques to
improve communications, the mediator, unlike the conciliator, proposes possible solutions for the parties to
consider. Like the conciliator, the mediator does not have the power to render a binding decision. Because
it is a voluntary process and has lower costs than a formal legal proceeding or arbitration, mediation has
become one of the most widespread forms of dispute resolution in the United States. Mediation commonly
is used by the judicial system in such tribunals as small claims courts, housing courts, family courts, and
neighborhood justice centers. In 2001, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated the Uniform Mediation
Act, which was amended in 2003. The Act establishes a privilege of confidentiality for mediators and
participants. To date at least eleven states have adopted it.

Sometimes the techniques of arbitration and mediation are combined in a procedure called "med-arb." In
med-arb, the neutral third party serves first as a mediator and, if all issues are not resolved through such
mediation, then serves as an arbitrator authorized to render a binding decision on the remaining issues.

Mini-Trial

A mini-trial is a structured settlement process that combines elements of negotiation, mediation, and trials.
Mini-trials are most commonly used when both disputants are corporations. In a mini-trial, attorneys for the
two corporations conduct limited discovery and then present evidence to a panel consisting of managers
from each company, as well as to a neutral third party, who may be a retired judge or other attorney. After
the lawyers complete their presentations, the managers try to negotiate a settlement without the attorneys.
The managers may consult the third party on how a court might resolve the issues in dispute.

Summary Jury Trial

A summary jury trial is a mock trial in which the parties present their case to a jury. Though not binding, the
jury's verdict does influence the negotiations in which the parties must participate following the mock trial. If
the parties do not reach a settlement, they may have a full trial de novo.

Negotiation

Negotiation is a consensual bargaining process in which the parties attempt to reach an agreement
resolving their dispute. Negotiation differs from other methods of alternate dispute resolution in that no third
parties are involved.

Questions and Answers

 1. 
The process of resolving private disputes through the court system.

o A. 

Civil Litigation

o B. 

Civil Procedure
 o C. 

Civil Law

o D. 

Procedural Law
 

 2. 
The process of deciding a case, which occurs if the dispute is not resolved by
pleadings, pretrial motions, or settlement. Usually takes place in open court, and
may be followed by a judgment, an appeal, and so on. 

o A. 

Civil Litigation

o B. 

Civil Procedure

o C. 

Trial

o D. 

Criminal Law
 

 3. 
The basic law of rights and duties as opposed to procedural law.

o A. 

Criminal Law

o B. 

Substantive Law

o C. 

Procedural Law

o D. 
 Civil Law
 

 4. 
The rules of carrying on a civil lawsuit or a criminal case as opposed to
substantive law.

o A. 

Substantive Law

o B. 

Criminal Law

o C. 

Civil Law

o D. 

Procedural Law
 

 5. 
Having to do with the law of crimes and illegal conduct.

o A. 

Civil Law

o B. 

Criminal Procedure

o C. 

Criminal Law

o D. 

Substantive Law
 

 6. 
The procedure by which a person accused of a crime is brought to trial and
given punishment.
 o A. 

Criminal Procedure

o B. 

Civil Law

o C. 

Criminal Law

o D. 

Procedural Law
 

 7. 
The law and rules that govern how noncriminal lawsuits are handled by the
individuals involved and by the court.

o A. 

Civil Law

o B. 

Civil Procedure

o C. 

Procedural Law

o D. 

Substantive Law
 

 8. 
Laws dealing with private disputes between parties.

o A. 

Civil Laws

o B. 
 Civil Procedure

o C. 

Substantive Law

o D. 

Procedural Law
 

 9. 
A person who brings a lawsuit against another person is called
_________________.
 

 10. 
The person against whom a legal action is brought. This legal action may  be
civil or criminal. This person is called the _____________.
 

 11. 
The first main paper filed in civil lawsuit.

o A. 

Complaint

o B. 

Petition

o C. 

Answer

o D. 

Default
 

 12. 
A written request to a court asking that it take a particular action is called a
________________.
 

 13. 
 The first pleading by the defendant in a lawsuit is called a _____________.
 

 14. 
Failure to take a required step in a lawsuit.

o A. 

Judgment

o B. 

Discovery

o C. 

Default

o D. 

Motion
 

 15. 
The formal and informal exchange of information between two sides in a lawsuit.
Two types are interrogatories and depositions.

o A. 

Motion

o B. 

Discovery

o C. 

Judgment

o D. 

Writ of Execution
 

 16. 
A request that a judge make a ruling or take some other action, granted or
denied by a judge is called ____________.
  

 17. 
A judge's order requiring that something be done outside the courtroom or
authorizing it to be done.

o A. 

Writ of execution

o B. 

ADR

o C. 

Motion

o D. 

Judgment
 

 18. 
Forms of ADR (Alternative dispute resolution).

o A. 

Negotiation

o B. 

Settlement

o C. 

Mediation

o D. 

Arbitration

o E. 

All the above

 

 19. 
 The  person who helps settle a dispute is called _______________.
 

 20. 
An out-of-court process in which a neutral party, known as an ____________,
hears both sides of the dispute and then makes a decision.
 

 21. 
Books that contain the actual law is called _____________.
 

 22. 
Persuassive authority is called ____________________.
 

 23. 
Rules that are adopted by individual courts and applies in all court systems are
called local rules of court. 

o A. 

True

o B. 

False
 

 24. 
Books containg samples forms for legal professionals to follow in preparing
pleadings and other documents. This is it called _______________.
 

 25. 
The circuit court has ______jurisdiction in cases appealed from the lower district
courts

o A. 

Appellate

o B. 

Original