UPDATES IN REMEDIAL LAW

Career Enhancement Program For Clerks of Courts of the RTC and Lawyers of
The First Level Courts
Justice Pablito A. Perez
November 5 and 10, 2021
GOOD MORNING EVERYONE!
First thing I did to prepare for this lecture:

“CLERK OF COURT”. Press Enter.

RESULTS?

5000 hits
Of the first 200 hits, only four were case decisions.
The remaining 196 hits were either AM or AC.

I gave up.
WHO IS THE C of C? WHAT DOES HE/ SHE DO?
“She is an essential officer in any judicial system.
Her office is the nucleus of activities, adjudicative
and administrative.” [ A.M. No. 05- 10-299-MTC,
December 14. 2005]
Rule 141

Section 4 : Clerks of the Supreme Court, Court

of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax
Appeals

Section 7 : Clerks of the Regional Trial Court

Section 8 : Clerks of the First Level Courts

WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF THE C of C?
Core of the administrative (non-judicial) functions of the court:

1. receive filings
2. maintain, preserve, organize records
3. transmit records
4. keep court calendars
5. receive evidence
6. service of writs, processes, judgments etc.
7. prepares minutes and resolutions
8. promulgation, release and service
9. issue certification
10. collate circulars, memoranda etc.
11. recommend actions to judge
12. bring urgent matters to judge's attention
13. receive, record, remit account payments and collections
14. prepare administrative reports
15. supervise administrative personnel
16. ETC. ( meaning, I do not know the others, and I am sure there are more!)
Objectives of Lecture:

1. To update knowledge on current rules and principles relevant to your functions as

clerks of court and improve the performance of your duties

2. To enhance working relationship with the presiding judge and non- judicial
personnel under your immediate supervision through a better understanding of
your roles and, thus meet the expectations of the public we serve.
Manner of presentation:

1. Brief Introduction & Preliminary Considerations

2. Highlights of the 2019 Amendments of the Rules in Civil Procedure and the Rules on
Evidence, with emphasis on the major changes that have an impact on the duties of Clerks
of Court and Court Attorneys.

3. Special Rules Recently Promulgated by the Supreme Court

4. Conclusion
TWO PRELIMINARY
CONSIDERATIONs
SC En Banc and by Division

Article VIII, Section 4 (1) - It may sit en banc or in its

discretion, in division of three, five or seven members.
xxx

Article VIII, Section 3 – xxx Provided, that no doctrine or

principle of law laid down by the court in a decision
rendered en banc or in division may be modified or
reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
SC Circular No. 2- 89 ( February 7, 1989)

xxx
2. A decision or resolution of a Division of the Court, when concurred
in by a majority of its Members who actually took part in
deliberations on the issues in a case and voted thereon, and in no
case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members, is
a decision or resolution of the Supreme Court. ( Section 4[3], Article
VIII, 1987 Constitution.

3. The Court en banc is not an Appellate Court to which decisions or

resolutions of a Division may be appealed.
The “ Declaratory Theory”:

An interpretative regulation is no more than an interpretation

of an existing law, thus the common law courts have long held
the view that original interpretative regulations or
amendments to existing interpretative regulations may be
retroactive to the date of the original legislation. ( Ohio State
Law Journal, Vol. 48 :773).
Tan v CA, infra, quoting Prof. Agpalo, on exceptions to rule on retroactivity of
procedural laws:

The rule that procedural laws are applicable to pending actions or

proceedings admits certain exceptions. The rule does not apply where
the statute itself expressly or by necessary implication provides that
pending actions are excepted from its operation, or where to apply it to
pending proceedings would impair vested rights. Under appropriate
circumstances, courts may deny the retroactive application of
procedural laws in the event that to do so would not be feasible or
would work injustice. Nor may procedural laws be applied retroactively
to pending actions if to do so would involve intricate problems of due
process or impair the independence of the courts
Tan Jr. v. Hon. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 136368,
January 16, 2002 ( 1997 amendments to Civil Rules of
Procedure not applied because to do so “so will defeat
the right of redemption of the petitioner which is already
vested.”)
Sps. De los Santos v. Mangubat et al., G.R. No. 149508, October
10, 2007 ( “fresh period” or “Neypes rule” not applied in a
pending case)

Procedural law refers to the adjective law which prescribes

rules and forms of procedure in order that courts may be able
to administer justice. Procedural laws do not come within the
legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule
against the retroactive operation of statues - they may be given
retroactive effect on actions pending and undetermined at the
time of their passage and this will not violate any right of a
person who may feel that he is adversely affected, in so much
as there are no vested rights in rules of procedure.
Rule 144 of the 2019 Amendments:

“The 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

shall govern all cases filed after their effectivity on May 1, 2020, and also
all pending proceedings, except to the extent that in the opinion of the
court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in
which case the procedure under which the causes were filed shall
govern.”
Colmenar v. Colmenar, G.R. No. 252467, June 21, 2021 (Per J. Lazaro-Javier, 2nd Div.)

Rule 45, RTC direct to SC, pure question of law

action to annul extrajudicial settlement of estate, deeds of sale, cancellation of title, damages; filed
Sept 11, 2018, RTC Trece Martires

defendants – affirmative defenses – lack of cause of action and failure to state cause of action
other defendants – motion to dismiss – failed to state cause of action, buyers in good faith

motion to set case for hearing on affirmative defense but deferred ruling on motion to dismiss,
granted by judge now CA justice, assisting judge submitted all motions submitted for decision

Omnibus Order on Feb 12, 2020: On motion to dismiss – issues are complex, evidentiary, for trial on
merits; on affirmative defenses – in exercise of discretion under Section 1, Rule 16, denied motion for
hearing – complex issues and better threshed out in trial

On MR, RTC applied Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments [eff. May 1, 2020] and DISMISSED
the complaint, but “ [Preceding any progression of this case”, ordered plaintiff to file summary of
witnesses, judicial affidavit etc and set case for marking of exhibits etc
Held:

Section 12, Rule 8 allows the trial court to motu proprio resolve 5 specific affirmative defenses (which
includes failure to state a cause of action) within 30 days from the filing of the Answer. In this case
however, the May 22, 2020 Order was issued well past that thirty-day period, the latest of the
defendants’ answers was on February 27, 2020. Thus, the application of Section 12, Rule 8 was, at
the time, no longer feasible.

Moreover, the RTC had in fact already resolved the same affirmative defense in its omnibus order
dated February 12, 2020, which were at the time subject of pending motions for reconsideration.
Thus, the RTC should have just resolved the motions for reconsideration.

Finally, the RTC ignored the injustice caused by the erroneous application of the amended rules. Had
the RTC resolved the pending motions for reconsideration in the defendants’ favor instead, then
under the 1997 Rules of Procedure, the plaintiff (petitioner) would have been entitled to seek
reconsideration of the RTC’s decision to dismiss the complaint as against some of the defendants.
However, in applying the amended rules, the plaintiff was barred from filing a motion for
reconsideration under the amended Section 12, Rule 15. Thus, the application of the amended rules
denied the plaintiff an important procedural remedy.
II. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2019 AMENDMENTS
Goal of the 2019 Amendments:

… “improving the flow of court proceedings and

avoiding delay”. (Primer on the 2019 Amendments
To The 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure)
2.1 Rule 7 : Parts And Contents Of A Pleading
Section 6 Contents ( of a pleading)

Every pleading (complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, third- party complaint and complaint in
intervention, answer and reply, if allowed) shall allege:

(1) the causes of action and defenses alleged in paragraphs and with the required headings, reliefs
and date, must allege and,

(2) submit the evidentiary evidence supporting the claim or defense, whether testimonial,
documentary or object.

If the evidence is not at hand, pleader should warrant the existence of the evidentiary basis of the
claim or defense and that the same is discoverable.

Under Section 2, Rule 23, matters discoverable include all relevant matters not privileged, including
books, documents, other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge
of relevant facts.
Consequences on clerks of court:

(1) Since all the evidentiary matters have been submitted with the complaint, the
judge may now render “judgment granting the claimant such relief as his or her
pleading may warrant” under the rule on default in Section 3, Rule 9.

I do not believe that the phrase in the same rule “ unless the court in its
discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence”, in which case, “[S]uch reception
of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court.” will still have any practical effect.
To the court attorney:

1) Upon the filing of the last pleading, make a preliminary

determination if the initiatory pleading is sufficient, or the action is
dismissible or without basis, and make a recommendation to the
judge.

2) If the case is not dismissed, he/she is able to prepare for pre-trial

and trial, if necessary.
Section 4 Verification (and the required attestations.)

A pleading required to be verified and lacking a proper verification is considered an

unsigned pleading”. ( Senator de Lima v. Hon. Guerrero et al., G.R, No, 229781,
October 18, 2017, en banc).

Every law student is taught that an unsigned pleading creates no legal effect, such
that the party may be deemed not to have filed a pleading at all. ( Gimena v. Atty.
Sabio, A.C. No. 7178, August 23, 2016, en b
anc)
In the context of the above rulings, what is the effect of the
following amendments:
[DELETED ] SEC. 3. Signature and address.

An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, thecourt may, in its discretion,
allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned
pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent
matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be
subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

(5a) Instead, a new paragraph is added in Section 5(a) that if the court determines, on
motion or motu propio, and after notice and hearing, that the rule on the rquired verification
has been violated, it may impose an appropriate sanction or refer such violation to the
proper office for disciplinary action, on any attorney, law firm or party that violated the rule
… sanctions can include a non-monetary directive or sanction, penalty or restitution of
expenses and attorneys fees.
Rule 15 : MOTIONS

• Written or oral motions may be made or filed at any time during the
proceedings every time a party applies for a relief not by way of a
pleading ( Section 1, Rule 15)

• The hearing and resolution of motions, and the incidental litigation

when a motion is granted or denied, is a major cause of delay in the
resolution of cases.

• The 2019 Amendments introduced major amendments on Rule 15.

Section 4 : Hearing of motion ( and the 3-day notice rule) is
DELETED.
• Party no longer required to set a motion for hearing; neither can he
demand a hearing on his motion.

• In the exercise of the court's discretion, and if it deemed it necessary

for its resolution, call a hearing on the motion. ( Section 6, Rule 15)
By classifying motions, the court can act expeditiously on motions
depending on substance, merit and relief sought.

• Old rule : motions are either litigious or not litigious, depending on whether the motion
“prejudices the other party”. But all motions, including the most simple, can prejudice the other
party!

Motions are now classified as:

• a. Non-litigious motions ( Section 4, Rule 15; no hearing allowed and to be resolved within five (5)
days from receipt)

• b. Prohibited motions ( Section 12, Rule 15; not allowed, meaning to be denied outright, except
motions for postponements that are not accompanied by original receipt of payment of postpone
fee, which the clerk of court must not accept for filing)

• c) Litigious motions ( Section 6, Rule 15; can be set for hearing at the court's discretion)
Some motions or incidents are now made subject of mandatory
action within a fixed period, otherwise mad subject to Rule 15:

a) Affirmative defenses not on the non-waivable grounds ( Section 12, Rule

8; within 30 calendar days from filing of the answer; see Colmenares)

b) A demurrer to evidence, which is subject to the rule on motions ( Section

2, Rule 33)

c) Motion for judgment on the pleadings ( Section 2, Rule 34; may be

resolved by judge motu propio or on motion subject to the rule on motions)
Con’t:
d) Motion for summary judgment ( Section 3, Rule 35; may be resolved
forthwith unless the court orders the conduct of a hearing)

e) Motion to take deposition pending action ( Section 1, Rule 23)

f) Written interrogatories to parties ( Section 1, Rule 25)

Rule 20 : Calendar

Section 1 Calendar of cases.

The clerk of court, under the direct supervision of the judge,

shall keep a calendar of cases for (1) pre-trial,(2) for trial, (3) those
whose trials were adjourned or postponed, (4) those with motions to
set for hearing.
And more …
• a minute book ( Section 6, Rule 136)
• a general docket ( Section 8, Rule 136)
• a judgment and entries book ( Section 8, Rule 136)
• an execution book ( Section 8, Rule 136)
And not to forget … ( although not explicitly required)

• CAM calendar
• JDR calendar
( See Section 3, Rule 18)
How important are these records?

• Between an admission by a party and the transcript and court

calendar, the latter prevails because “ these court records directly
reflect as to what took place on the dates in question” ( Atty. De la
Cruz v. Atty, Diesmos, A.C. No. 6850, July 27, 2006)
Con’t:
• A decision not entered in the book of judgments is void and does not
become final and executory. ( Heirs of Borres et al. v. Hon. Abela et
al., G.R. No. 131023, July 17, 2007)
• Personal reason : my cursory survey of the first 200 cases out of
5,000 hits on a Google search of “Clerk of Court” discloses that the
most common grounds for disciplinary actions against Clerks of Court,
or their deputies, are:

• falsification of the court calendar

• failure to schedule a case for hearing despite inaction on the case for considerable
period
• failure to schedule the hearing on a motion
• missing records or failure to report loss of records to the judge
• dishonesty
The Court’s time is gold:

If courts are to achieve the goal of “improving the flow of cases in court
and avoid delay”, the Clerk of Court and his/her deputies should guard
and utilize the scarce time of the Court as if it were gold.
Rule 13 Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other
Papers

These are simple, clerical and non-controversial rules. Right? Let’s look
at one of these simple rules, as amended.
Section 7, Rule 15. Proof of service necessary.-

No written motion shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service
thereof, pursuant to Section 5(b) hereof. [ by personal service, accredited
private courier or registered mail, or electronic means]

A related rule is Section 17, Rule 13. Proof of Service.-

(a) by ordinary mail

(b) registered mail
(c) accredited courier service
(d) electronic mail
Question [not simple at all]

What should the Clerk of Court do since the Judge is forbidden to act
on the motion that is not compliant with the required proof of service?

When the rule says the Judge is “shall not act on the motion”, does the
rule really mean, “shall not act on the motion except to deny it”?

Or should the Judge order the offending motion expunged?

Aim of amendments to Rule 13
• Abate delay by reason of failure of service, ineffective
service and delayed service, all of which raises
procedural questions and petitions or the archiving or
suspension of the cases
Summary of amendments to Rule 13

• 1997 Rules 14 sections

• 2019 Rules 19 sections
• 6 new sections
• 1 section deleted
DELETED
Section 11 : Priorities in modes of service and filing.

• Any of the new modes of service and filing is as effective as any other.
No priority or preferred mode. No explanation needed why personal
service or filing not made.

[ Lawyers can now stop dissembling, which is what they do every time
they say :
“ … because of lack of personnel and the distance...” which really
means “... sorry, I finished this ______ just in time...”)
NEW SECTIONS

• Section 9, 11, 12, 14 and 18 are introduced to allow the new mode of service by electronic means
and facsimile.

Clerks of Courts are encouraged to study these rules very carefully and devise means how
court processes may be expedited by maximizing the use of electronic means of service.

[ I know. “ My computer still uses Windows 7. And the internet service at work is like water in the
faucet: “weak or none.”]

[ The second practical problem. “You cannot teach old dogs new tricks”
New rule on Presumptive Service

Section 10, Rule 13 Presumptive Service

The rule presumes service of a court setting ( e.g. notice of hearing, or

a trial date) within 20 or 30 calendar days from date of mailing,
depending on whether addressee is within the judicial region or not.
Most common mode of service and filing is by registered mail. The new
rule tries to address all the delay resulting in the following cases:

• a) wrong address or no notice of change of address filed

• b) cannot be located or found
• c) no one to receive or refuse to receive
• d) addressee unknown
• e) addressee is dead and did not leave a representative
• f) no return card or return card lost
• g) postmaster has not acted on tracer request
• h) lawyer or party denies actual receipt
• i) receipt made by unauthorized person such as maid or SG, or receipt by unknown person
• J) undated or illegible return card
• k) all or some of the above

The rule is unclear whether the presumption is conclusive. disputable or prima

facie.
RULE 14 SUMMONS

Major cause of delay and the incidental litigation arising from issues on
the proper mode, effectiveness and completeness of service has given
rise to the most number of incidental litigation by motion to dismiss
and Rule 65 and Rule 45 petitions.

The rule gives rise not only to procedural issues but to jurisdictional
and due process litigation.
Summary of amendments of Rule 14
• 1997 Rules 20 Sections
• 2019 Rules 23 Sections

• Deleted : 0
• Transposed : Section 4 to Section 20: Return
• Amended : All 20 old rules ( some major amendments, while
others involve mere renumbering or gender correction to “his/her”
• New : 3
Section 20 as expanded old Section 4 is practically new
New provisions
• Section 9 Service consistent with international conventions.

• Primarily, the Hague Convention, or the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of
Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters ( “Service Convention”).

• Entered into force in the Philippines October 1, 2020.

Service by State to State officers by defined channels or means.

SC Administrative Order No. 251-2020, Guidelines on the

Implementation in the Philippines of the Hague Service Convention on the
Service Abroad of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters,
September 16, 2020.
Con’t:
• As worded, the new rule is broad enough to allow service through
methods of service agreed by States in future treaties “ consistent
with established international conventions to which the Philippines is
a party.”
Section 11 Service upon spouses

• Settles the rule that when spouses are sued jointly, each should be
served summons separately (reversing rule in Villarama v, Guno et al.,
G.R. 197514, August 6, 2018)
Section 13 Duty of counsel of record

• This new rule effectively bans the so-called “special appearance” of

lawyers and parties solely to question ineffective summons. The
courts simply deputizes the appearing lawyer to receive summons for
the client.

• The use of the word “deputized” is deliberate to avoid issues about

representation. To deputize is to make an official designation while a
representative is an agent chosen by a principal. The court is
authorized to carry out its jurisdiction into effect by any suitable
process or mode ( Section 6, Rule 135)
Section 20 Return

• Not new but expansion of old Section 4, by –

a. Incorporating jurisprudence on what constitutes valid and effective

substituted service of summons.

b. Prescribes a mandatory period of 30 days from issuance of

summons for sheriff, process server or person so authorized to serve
summons to complete service.
Major amendments to existing provisions of Rule 14

Section 3. By whom served

• Anticipates failure of service and provides curative means by allowing plaintiff

to serve the summons without need of motion or leave.

• Failure to serve by plaintiff or misrepresentation of the fact of service may

result in dismissal of initiatory pleading, and other sanctions in the latter case.
Con’t:
Section 6 Substituted service

Incorporates Manotoc v. Court of Appeals et al.( August 16, 2006) :

standard of three (3) attempts on two (2) different dates

New modes of substituted service added: [ in addition to service at

residence or office]

a) service with any officers of the homeowners' association or

condominium corporation, or the chief security officer in a
community or building

b) by electronic mail, if allowed by the court

Con’t”

Section 17 Extraterritorial service

Adds “ or as provided for in international conventions to which

the Philippines is a party”

See discussion above in new Section 9, Rule 14 and the Hague

Service Convention.
RULE 18 PRE-TRIAL

• On the face of Rule 18, the amendments do not appear as important

as the other amendments, such as in Rule 13 and Rule 14.

• If the amended Rule 18 is considered together with the other

amendments, it becomes apparent however that the success of the
2019 amendments will depend on how these improve the pre-trial
proceeding
Let us spend extra time on the new Rule 18 on Pre Trial, if only to
emphasize that together with the other amendments, there is no single
rule in the 2019 amendments that can declog courts better than pre-
trial.
The Pro-active Judge
• The 2019 Amendments envision a Judge in charge and in full control of his
court, thus a judge who alone:

a) decides whether a hearing on a motion is necessary or not

b) decides whether to render judgment without a trial if the legal situation

is such that no further proceedings are needed

c) personally handles the pre-trial

Dean Clark : the judge is the principal architect of the
adjudication process.
What is the role of the C of C, or the court
attorney, under Rule 18?

Under Rule 18, the Clerk of court :

1) sends notice of pre-trial ( Section 1, Rule 18; see form)

2) attest the pre-trial order ( See form)

IS THAT ALL ?
 “Pre” : a prefix that means ahead, before, in front
of

(a) in civil cases, stage of proceedings after issues are

joined but before the trial.

(b) in criminal cases, stage of the proceeding after

arraignment but before trial. 64
Pre-trial conference

◎ Etymology : Latin conferre meaning “to come together”

◎ A formal meeting that typically takes place over a number of days and
involves people with a shared interest

65
 PRE-TRIAL TRIAL
(Civil Actions)
within 60 Pre-Trial Section 10: CAM JDR Termination within 30
Last Judgement (30 Days) (15 Days) days
days: Brief Pre-Trial of Pre-Trial
Responsive 3 Days Proper Rule 34
Pleading Notice Before
Trial:
Rule 35 Day 1

Section 7,
Rule 30:
Judgment on
Stipulation

ADR (Is this the only way to resolve this?)

STIPULATIONS (Can we agree on anything?)

EVIDENCE (What do you have?)

DISCOVERY (You can’t hide anything from me)

COMMISSIONER (Let’s help the judge a bit)

ISSUES (What exactly are we fighting about?)

TRIAL PLAN (Let’s do this)

 PRE-TRIAL
(Criminal Case)
A.M. No. 15 – 06 – 10 – SC

Notice of
Arraignment and Pre- Arraignment Pre-trial Trial
Trial
10/30
Days

PLEA BARGAIN STIPULATIONS

MARKING OF EVIDENCE

MEDIATION (IN
MEDIATABLE CASES)

DISCOVERY

PROVISIONAL
EXAMINATION OF
WITNESSES (SECTION 12,
13, 15, RULE 119)
Origin of pre-trial : [Objectives of Pre-Trial Procedure, by Charles E. Clark, Vol
17, Ohio State Law Journal, 1956, pp. 163- 170]

1938 : adoption of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before that practiced in

several states

Phil. Rules of Court – Eff. January 1, 1964 (56 years in the rule book)

68
In Philippine courts : a long history of
frustration, and after so many years, pre-trial is
still an experiment and remains a work in
progress

69
No rule that has been the subject of more SC circulars than the pre-
trial rule.
These are:

• A.M. Circular No. 3-99: Enhance Pre-Trial Guidelines [January 15, 1999]
• A.M. Circular No. 1-10-5-SC-Philja : Designation of Philja as component unit of the Supreme
Court for mediation etc. [October 2001]
• A.M. Circular No. 04-1-12-SC: Enhanced Pre-Trial Proceeding through conciliation and neutral
evaluation [January 20, 2004]
• A.M. Circular No. 04-3-15-SC-Philja: IRR in Mediation in Trial Courts [March 23,2004]
• A.M. Circular No. 03-1-09-SC : Proposed Rule On Guidelines To Be Observed By Trial Court In
the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition – Discovery Measures [July 13, 2004]
• A.M. Circular No. 08-2-5-SC-Philja : Defines the Organization, Powers and Functions of PMCO
and Mediation Units [February 2, 2008]
• A.M. Circular No. 11-1-6-SC-Philja : Consolidated and Revised Guidelines [January 11, 2010]
• A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC: Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules On Civil Procedure

70
Even the notice rule in Rule 18 has evolved several times:

◎ Section 1, Rule 18 of 1997 Rule of Civil Procedure

After the last pleading has been served and filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte
that the case be set for pre-trial.
◎ A.M. Circular No. 3-99 (1999)
Within five (5) days after the last pleading joining the issues has been filed and served, the plaintiff must move
ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial conference.
◎ A.M. Circular No. 03-1-09-SC (2004) :
Within five (5) days from date of filing of the reply, theplaintiff must move ex parte that the case be set for pre-
trial conference. If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period, the Branch COC shall issue a
notice of pre-trial.

◎
71
Con’t
◎ A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-Philja (2010)
Thus, after the last pleading has been filed, the the judge shall issue an order requiring the parties to appear
for mediation before the PMC.

◎ Section 1, Rule 18, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC (2020)

After the last pleading has been served and filed, the branch clerk of court shall issue, within five (5) calendar
days from filing, a notice of pre-trial which shall be set not later than sixty(sixty) calendar days from the filing of
the last responsive pleading.

72
Notice of pre-trial in civil cases: the present rule as amended

After the last pleading has been served and filed, the branch clerk of
court shall issue, within five (5) calendar days from filing, a notice of pre-
trial which shall be set not later than sixty (60) calendar days from the
filing of the last responsive pleading. ( Section 1, Rule 18)

73
What is the 60-day period between the filing of the last pleading and the
pre-trial date dor?

◎ Should the Judge make a plan not only for pre-trial but also for trial for
the entire case? How does the Judge prepare?

◎ Do you invite someone to a conference or meeting to discuss a

common interest without preparation?

74
Con’t: a related issue -

◎ Should the judge read all the pleadings, make a preliminary assessment
of the evidence, make a plan of pre-trial before he calls for pre-trial
conference?

◎ By the time the pre-trial is set, the entire case is before the Judge – all
the required pleadings are filed and the testimonial, documentary and
object evidence submitted, except those which are discoverable?

75
Unlike in the 1997 Rules, the matters to be discussed under Section 2, Rule 18
will be discussed with a full knowledge of the parties’ claims , defenses and
proof:

1) Amicable settlement
2) Discovery
3) ADR
4) Reference to commissioner
5) Definition of issues
6) Judgment without trial

76
On AMICABLE SETTLEMENT:

A.M. Circular No. 03-1-09-SC (2004), pre-trial was suspended and case goes
to mediation and JDR.
A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-Philja (2010), to implement court diversion, after the last
pleading has been filed, the the judge shall issue an order requiring the
parties to appear for mediation before the PMC.
A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC (2020), the dates for CAM and JDR are already set in
the Pre-Trial Notice in civil cases; in mediatable criminal cases, follow A.M.
Circular No. 03-1-09-SC and refer case to PMC.

77
• A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, 2020 Guidelines For the Conduct of Court-
Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) in
Civil Cases, eff. March 1, 2021
Section 3, Rule 18 : The notice of pre-trial shall include the dates respectively
set for

a) Pre-Trial

b) Court-annexed Mediation

c) Judicial Dispute Resolution

An important amendment : CAM follows after pre-trial is complete.

An important amendment: the power to render judgment motu
propio
◎ The power to render judgment is the judge’s prerogative. But the rule
before assumes a trial is always indispensable to judgment unless a
party files a motion under Rule 34 or Rule 35.

80
 81

New rules enhance authority of trial courts to render

judgment after pre-trial in civil cases:

(New) Section 10, Rule 18: If there are no more

controverted facts, or no genuine issue as to any
material fact, or absent any issue, or answer fails to
tender an issue, the court shall motu propio include in
the pre-trial order that the case is submitted for summary
judgment or judgment on the pleadings.

This order is not subject to petition for certiorari or an

appeal.
 82

Courts may consider the pleadings and

attachments, admissions, stipulations,
depositions and evidence secured
through discovery, reports of
commissioner, and determine whether a
judgment can already be rendered
without a trial.
◎ The order submitting the case for decision to be stated in the pre-trial order
is not subject to appeal or certiorari.

◎ The remedy: appeal from the judgment.

83
The Pre Trial Order
• The importance of a plan
A pre-trial order is the plan of the entire adjudicative process
except judgment:

◎ from the filing of the last pleading joining the issues until the case is
submitted for decision

85
Trivia:

◎ In the Chauvin trial ( “Black Lives Matter”), the jury heard 45 witnesses
and watched dozens of videos over only 11 days

◎ In the OJ case, the jury heard 101 witnesses including a number of

experts over only 41 days.

86
THE CONTENTS OF A PRE-TRIAL ORDER:
1. Admitted facts
2. Minutes of the pre-trial conference
3. Legal and factual issues
4. Applicable law, rules and jurisprudence
5. Evidence as marked
6. Case Flowchart and Trial Dates
7. Statement that Most Important Witness and One-day Examination rules
apply
8. Order to submit case for summary judgment or judgment on the
pleadings motu propio or on agreement by parties

87
• The pre-trial order is the official record of all the admissions,
stipulations, and other matters taken up during the pre-trial
conference.

• The C of C must attest to the correctness, completeness and accurach

of the contents of the Pre Trial Order ( See Form)
Issue: should the pre-trial order be prepared immediately upon
end of pre-trial conference?

◎ Section 7, Rule 18: within ten (10) calendar days upon termination of
pre-trial

◎ Section 4, Rule 118: after the pre-trial conference

89
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE AMENDED RULES ON
EVIDENCE
RULE 130 RULE ON ADMISSIBILITY)
B. Documentary Evidence

• Section 2 Documentary evidence

“Document” now includes recordings and photographs.

Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored

images, x-ray films, motion pictures and videos.
Section 3 Original document must be produced; exceptions
Section 4 Original of document

• Now called the “Original Document Rule”. It replaces the “Best Evidence Rule”.

• Section 3 still distinguishes a document whose contents is the subject of

inquiry and those presented as an object.

• Pay attention to the definition of what is an “original” and “duplicate”,

which has a technical meaning.
C. Testimonial Evidence
Section 24 Disqualification by reason of privileged communication[s].

• the attorney-client privilege inheres between a client and a person

“reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to engage in the practice
of law”, subject to several exceptions
• between a patient and a doctor, psychotherapist or someone the patient
reasonably believed to be one
• between a penitent and a priest or minister, or one the penitent
reasonably believed to be one
• a public officer during or after his or her tenure on communications given
in official confidence, unless the court orders disclosure; privilege extends
to illegally obtained information
Section 26 Privilege relating to trade secrets

• Exceptions to privilege: if non-disclosure is to conceal fraud or will work

injustice, or the court directs disclosur

Q. What do you think about a non-disclosure agreement, which is

common in commercial contracts?
Section 28 Offer of compromise not admissible.

Deletes distinction between offers of compromise in civil and criminal

cases.

To promote compromise, unless the evidence is discoverable or offered

for another purpose such as to prove bias, fraud etc.
Section 37 Hearsay

Section 45 Records of regularly conducted business activity

• An amendment of old Section 43 [ Entries in the Ordinary Course of Business ]

• Expands to include a memorandum, report, record or data compilation made by writing, typing,
electronic optical or similar means, made at or near the time of transaction

1997 : entries made at or near the time of transaction by a person deceased or unable to
testify, in position to know, in his professional capacity, or in performance of duty and in
the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
Section 50 Residual exception

• Adopted Rule 807 of the US Federal Rules of Evidence

• The principle recognizes that the rules on hearsay cannot possibly cover and address all possible
exceptions and every type of hearsay evidence, and the peculiar facts and legal situation that a
proponent can argue for admissibility of the evidence.

So, something like a “catch all” hearsay exception rule.

Example:

A.M. No. 004-07-SC, Rule On Examination of a Child Witness

Section 28 (Hearsay Exception in Child Abuse Cases) which allows the prosecution to argue admissibility
of a statement made by a child ( say, to a teacher, a neighbor, a classmate etc) describing any act or
attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule)
RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND
PRESUMPTIONS

Section 1 Burden of proof and burden of evidence.

• Adds a second paragraph expressing the well- settled rule that burden of
proof never shifts; burden of evidence shifts from party to party as the case
develops.

[ Hopefully, the senators will no longer confuse the public in the

next impeachment case]
RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

Section 24 Proof of official record

• Application of the Apostille Convention on proof of official record kept in a country that is a
member of treaty or convention in which the Philippines is also a party.

If the record is kept in a foreign country not a party to such a treaty or convention, the
record still has to be consularized.

A foreign record authenticated in above manner may be presented in evidence without

further proof, and the certificate or its equivalent is prima facie proof of due execution and
genuineness.
SOME IMPORTANT NEW SC CIRCULARS
Rule on Disposal of Dangerous Drugs (A.M. No. 21-02-01-SC), eff. March
16,2021____________________________________
_____________
• Section 21 (4) of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, provides for destruction of seized
drugs and instruments, but only in instances where a criminal action has already been filed in
court.

• Reason: No rule on refers to drugs “seized” thus petitions and motions for ocular inspection and
destruction are being denied for lack of a rule.

• Basis of power to make rule: Section 5(5), Article VIII, as “ inherent power to prevent miscarriage
of justice” if circumstances warrant citing Garcia v. Sandiganbayan,G.R. No. 205904-06, October
17, 2018, authoring issuance of precautionary Hold Departure Order (PHDO).

• Petition or application for destruction:

a) court that issued the search warrant
b) court with territorial jurisdiction over the case and the place where the dangerous
drugs, substance, instrument etc were found and seized
Con’t:
• Actions to do:

• order ocular inspection if more than one(1) kilo, or if the siezed instrument or
equipment cannot physically be brought to court

• order for retention of representative sample, which shall be taken in presence of the
required insulating witnesses, seizing officer and forensic laboratory personnel and
kept in forensic laboratory of the operating unit

• order for destruction and delivery to PDEA, with same witnesses, photographs,
reports

Question: Is this the 5th link? Can “accused” or respondent in the PI object?
Rules on Body Worn Cameras (A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC), June 29,
2021
• Section 3, Rule 2 Use of Body-Worn Cameras During Arrest
• Section 3, Rule 3 Issuance of Warrant and Requirement to Use Body-
Worn Cameras

The arrest and search warrants to be issued under these Rules

must include “an order requiring the use of at least one body-
worn camera and one alternative recording device, or a
minimum of two devices, or such number as necessary to
capture and record the relevant incidents during its execution”.
Rule on Asset Preservation, Seizure, and Forfeiture in Criminal
Cases under AMLA (A.M. No. 21-03-13-SC) eff. May 31, 2021
Applies: to all criminal actions before any court involving criminal offenses defined as criminal
activity under Section 3(i), or money laundering offenses under Section 4, of R.A. No. 9160, as
amended.

• Asset preservation : hold and conserve

a) Asset Preservation Order
b) Appointment of a receiver

• Asset seizure : take or place in custodia legis, upon issuance of a search warrant or a valid
warrantless arrest
If property seized is in danger of dissipation, destruction or deterioration, apply ex parte
for APO with court issuing warrant or in case of warrantless arrest, with court having
territorial jurisdiction
Con’t:
Asset forfeiture: an accessory penalty upon final conviction, and
property is divested in favor of the State

a) Asset Forfeiture Order

b) As in execution, third party claim is allowed and accounting of

proceeds

Issuance of these orders require motion and hearing.

Rule on Action for Support and Petition for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Judgments on Support (A.M. No. 21-03-02-SC), eff. May 31, 2021

• Applies to
1) all actions for support under the Family Code

2) actions under other laws obliging an individual to provide

support to another person e.g Section 8 (g) of RA 9262 (VAWC),
as obligation in a protection order

3) actions for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

or decisions for support
Con’t:
• Does not preclude actions under:

a. Provisional support under Rule 61

b. Spousal and child support under Rules on Provisional Orders ( A,M. No. 02-11-12-SC,
March 4, 2003) [ in petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage,
annulment of voidable marriage, or for legal separation

• Objective : to provide for an expedited procedure in actions for support

and for recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions or judgments on
support.
“PARTING IS SUCH SWEET SORROW” ( Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet,
in an age where there was no PM, FB and Viber)

• A.M. No. 21-03-SC, Amendments to the Fines Provided under Rule 140, eff. May
31,2021_________________________________________

Amending Rule 140 ( Discipline of Judges of Regular and Special Courts and
Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeal, Shar-
Ah High Court, Court Administrator, Deputy Court Administrators and Assistant
Court Administrators, and Personnel of the Judiciary)

Purpose of increase in fines: “to harmonize the fine imposed with the
period of suspension from office, and considering the depreciation of the
Philippine peso”
Con’t:
• serious charge: more than P100,000.00 but not exceeding P
200,000.00
• less serious charge : not less than P35,000,00 but not more than
P100,000.00
• light charge: not less than P 1,000,00 but not more than P35,000.00

A.M. No, 18-01-05-SC, the Establishment of the Judicial Integrity Board,

October 2, 2018
CONCLUSION

• GIDEON’ S TRUMPET

“ Each era finds an improvement in law for the benefit

of mankind.”
THANK YOU! KEEP SAFE EVERY
ONE.