The Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Rules on Civil Procedure (“Sub-Committee” for brevity) of the Supreme Court, chaired by Justice Roberto Abad, the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar Examinations, recently comes up with the PROPOSED RULES FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATING DISPUTES (“Proposed Rules” for brevity).
Just like the innovations finally introduced in the 2011 Bar Examinations – i.e., having Multiple Choice Questions just like the other government licensure examinations, with the traditional essay questions being replaced with Memorandum/Opinion-writing – which if maintained will significantly alter how Law students prepare for the Bar examinations, the foregoing Proposed Rules, if adopted, will radically re-shape the way Philippine litigation is conducted in the future.
With some fine-tuning from inputs from the concerned stakeholders, especially practicing members of the Bar, these Proposed Rules might after all make the administration of justice faster and more efficient that it is at the moment.
In the Explanatory Note of the Proposed Rules, the Sub-Committee offered the following explanation for this innovation:
“The dockets of first and second level courts (lower courts, collectively) remain heavily congested especially in big cities where most people live. Cases are postponed because judges are unable to hear the thirty to sixty cases on their calendars each day. These delays cause parties to simply give up and forego their remedies. Forty percent of persons accused of crimes walk away free because complainants and witnesses stop coming after too many postponements.
“The Supreme Court has introduced important changes like mediation and small claims courts but these have not been enough. The case congestions and delays have prompted the Sub-Committee to examine the existing system for hearing and adjudicating disputes that we have inherited from Americans a hundred years ago. It proved good in the horse and buggy era when people and transactions were few but it is a huge burden today in our bustling cities that teem with people and goods.
“The proposed rules establish a new model for hearing and adjudicating claims. This is new to us but it is already being practiced by most countries with minor variations to suit their respective cultures. These rules seek to limit hearings in run-of-the-mill disputes, which constitute about eighty percent of all cases, to only two hearings: a preliminary conference and an adjudication hearing.
“1. The preliminary conference will identify the factual and legal issues and ensure the submission of the judicial affidavits of the parties and their witnesses, including documentary evidence.
“2. The adjudication hearing, on the other hand, will assemble all the parties and their witnesses and examine them based on their affidavits in a free-flowing fashion but strictly in the order in which the issues have been identified. After the examination of witnesses by both judge and counsels have [sic] been exhausted, the court will announce its findings face-to-face and release its written decision within fifteen days. Appeal in the case of the first level courts will be a one-hearing affair with adjudication at the end of the hearing.
xxx xxx xxx”
We were informed through an e-mail forwarded by a colleague at the University of Cebu-College of Law that the IBP Committee on Administration of Justice will hold a public hearing on the Proposed Rules on November 11, 2011, 2:00 PM, at the IBP National Office, Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center.
It would be impractical for us to attend this public hearing, what with the distance and costs involved; but we certainly hope that our brothers and sisters in the legal profession who will be attending will be able to introduce refinements to the Proposed Rules. Surely, litigation attorneys among our ranks will have much to say on this matter. This way, the ultimate objective of these Proposed Rules – speedy and effective disposition of cases – will be better achieved.
No comments:
Post a Comment