ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 1 [1988]
TO:
THE
COURT OF APPEALS, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN
CITIES,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND SHARI'A DISTRICT
COURTS
AND SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURTS
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMENTATION
OF SEC. 12, ART. XVIII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
Pursuant to
Sec.
12, Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution mandating the adoption of a
systematic
plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending
in the Supreme Court and the lower courts prior to the effectivity of
the
Constitution on February 2, 1987, the following directives must be
complied
with strictly by all concerned.
1. Effective
Docket
Control:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1.1. All
presiding
judges of trial courts must, upon assumption of office, and every
semester
thereafter, on June 30th and December 31st of every year, conduct a
physical
inventory of their dockets for the purpose of determining the actual
number
of cases pending in their salas.
1.2. An
inventory
shall be prepared to indicate the cases pending trial, the cases
submitted
for decision and the cases that have been archived. Copy of such
inventory
shall be submitted to the Supreme Court through the Court Administrator
within thirty [30] days from receipt of this Circular and the Inventory
Form.
1.3. The
Presiding
Judge and the Clerk of Court shall initial the Records or Rollos of
each
case to indicate the date of actual inventory. The inventory shall
include
a list of cases submitted for decision indicating the title and case
number
and the date of filing of said case. An updated inventory be submitted
to the Supreme Court every six [6] months thereafter as required in
Paragraph
1.1 hereof.
1.4. Preference
in Disposition. - All cases or matters submitted for decision or
resolution
before the effectivity of the Constitution shall be given preference by
the Presiding Judge in his disposition of his docket.cralaw:red 2. Maximum
Use of
Judge's Time and Effective Court Management:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2.1. All
Presiding
Judges are directed to comply strictly with the guidelines established
in Circular No. 13, July 1, 1987, on punctuality and observance of
office
hours, effective use of pre-trial and discovery procedures, effective
management
of trials, the availment of annual conferences.
2.2. A
strict policy
on postponement should be observed to avoid unnecessary delays in court
proceedings. Faithful adherence to Secs. 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 22, Rules
of
Court should be observed.
2.3. The
preparation
of the court calendar should not be left entirely in the hands of the
Clerk
of Court and must be closely supervised by the Presiding Judge. A
rational
calendar plan should be followed so that each case in the calendar is
assured
of a hearing on the scheduled day of trial.
2.4. The
Presiding
Judge must have a calendar of cases submitted for decision, noting the
exact day, month and year when the 90-day period is to expire. As soon
as a case is submitted for decision, this must be noted in the calendar
of the Judge, the records duly collated with the Exhibits and trial
notes
of the judge and placed in the Judge's chambers.cralaw:red 3. Prompt
Action
on Dilatory Petitions to Delay Enforcement of Executory Judgments:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
3.1. It
has become
a common practice for litigants to file dilatory petitions for
certiorari
and prohibition with prayer for a restraining order or writ of
preliminary
injunction in order to delay or thwart enforcement of final and
executory
judgments of both the Regional Trial Court or of other inferior trial
Courts.
3.2. Where
such petitions
are filed, the Court concerned should exercise the greatest restraint
to
avoid delay in the enforcement of final and executory judgments.
Attention
is called to Sec. 6, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which provides that
such petition may be given due course only if "sufficient in form and
substance."
Hence, summons should not immediately be issued until the Court finds
the
petition sufficient in form and substance. Only then should the order
issue
requiring defendant or defendants to answer. Restraining orders or
preliminary
injunction should not be issued without prior notice and hearing and
showing
of a clear right thereto.cralaw:red 4. Redistribution
of Pending Cases in Multi-Sala Station:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
4.1. In
multi-sala
stations where former incumbents have either retired or were promoted
leaving
undecided pending cases such volume that the present incumbent finds
extreme
difficulty in attending thereto, the Executive Judge should promptly
make
a report and recommendation on the equitable redistribution of these
cases
to the other salas.
4.2. As
much as practicable,
the incumbent judges should arrive at an agreement on the matter;
otherwise,
the matter should be brought to the attention of the Court
Administrator
for prompt action.cralaw:red 5. Decision-Writing
5.1. All
Presiding
Judges must observe scrupulously the periods prescribed in Art. VIII,
Sec.
15 of the Constitution.
5.2. All
Judges are
reminded that the Supreme Court has applied the "Res Ipsa Loquitur"
rule in the removal of judges even without any formal investigation
whenever
a decision, on its face, indicates gross incompetence or gross
ignorance
of the law or gross misconduct. [See People vs. Valenzuela, 135 SCRA
712;
Cathay Pacific Airways vs. Romillo, Jr., 142 SCRA 262; In re Laureta,
149
SCRA 570].
5.3. Judges
should
make complete findings of facts in their decision and scrutinize
closely
the legal aspects of the case in the light of the evidence presented.
They
should avoid the tendency to "generalize and to form conclusion without
detailing the facts from which such conclusions are deduced." [See
People vs. Alvero, G.R. No. 69564, Jan. 29, 1988; Pengson vs.
IAC,
130 SCRA 289].cralaw:red 6. Motions
and Other
Interlocutory Matters:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
6.1. All
Presiding
Judges must endeavor to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory
matters
pending before their courts.
6.2. Unless
authorized
by the Rule, and only in situations of extreme urgency, no motions or
other
applications for relief should be acted upon ex parte. Delays
in
court proceedings have often times been due to such ex parte
applications,
resulting in the aggrieved party having to seek relief from higher
Courts.
6.3. All
Courts from
the Court of Appeals down are reminded of the injunction in Habaluyas
vs.
Judge Japzon, and subsequent cases, G.R. No. 70895, May 30, 1986, 142
SCRA
209 [reiterated in Circular No. 10, August 28, 1986] that no motion for
extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration of
judgment or final order shall be allowed. The granting of such
prohibited
motion for extension shall not preserve the judgment or order from
becoming
final and executory for lapse of the period to appeal. Such motions for
extension may be filed only in the Supreme Court which reserves the
right
in its discretion to grant or deny the same.cralaw:red 7. Inhibitions
and
Disqualifications:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
7.1. All
judges
are reminded that as already pointed out in Circular No. 7, dated
November
10, 1980, inhibitions and disqualifications are judicial actions which
do not require prior administrative approval.
7.2.
Administrative
intervention is necessary only when the inhibitions is by a judge of a
single sala court, and the case has to be transferred to another judge
of another station.
7.3.
Administrative
intervention is also warranted in case of conflict of opinions among
the
judges as to the proprietary of the inhibition.cralaw:red 8. Raffle
of Cases:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
8.1.
Raffle of
cases should be done in open session in the presence of lawyers and
spectators,
immediately after the Court opens its sessions:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
8.2. The
minutes
of the raffle should be distributed within 24 hours after completion
thereof
to the Judges of the other salas, and a copy sent to the Office of the
Court Administrator.
8.3.
Special raffles
should not be permitted except on verified application of the
interested
party who seeks issuance of a provisional remedy and only upon a
finding
by the Executive Judge that unless the special raffle is conducted,
irreparable
damage shall be suffered by the applicant. The special raffle shall be
conducted by at least two Judges in a multiple-sala station.
8.4. There
must be
strict compliance with Administrative Order No. 6 dated June 30, 1975
and
Circular No. 7 dated September 23, 1974 requiring that no case may be
assigned
in multi-sala Courts without raffle; a raffle committee composed of the
Executive Judge and two other Judges shall be constituted where
practicable,
raffle proceedings should be stenographically recorded, and the results
signed by the Judges or their representatives and the Clerk of Court,
and
the branch assignment shall be recorded in words and figures on the
rollo. 9. Bar
Relations:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
9.1. All
Executive
Judges shall conduct dialogues and conferences at least once every
semester
with the officers of the Integrated Bar Chapter in their respective
jurisdictional
areas.
9.2. At
this conference,
the Executive Judge shall discuss with the IBP Officers problems
confronting
the lawyers, and examine approaches and solutions to enable both the
Court
and the bar to assist each other in the speedy resolution of pending
cases.cralaw:red 10. Maintaining
Public
Confidence in the Courts:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
10.1. All
judicial
efforts should be addressed towards maintaining public confidence in
the
Courts.
10.2. As we
enjoined
in Circular No. 13, dated July 1, 1987, "all trial judges should
endeavor
to conduct themselves strictly in accordance with the mandate of
existing
laws and the Code of Judicial Ethics that they be exemplars in their
communities
and the living personification of justice and the Rule of Law."
10.3. The
reduction
of case loads would be an efficacious design to strengthen public
confidence
in the Courts. All efforts should be exerted so that case disposals
should
exceed case inputs. Whenever obstacles present themselves which delay
case
disposition, the Presiding Judge should immediately call the attention
of the Supreme Court through the Court Administrator when the situation
requires remedies beyond the control or capability of the Judges.cralaw:red 11. Deadlines
for
Decisions for all Cases filed after February 2, 1987.
11.1. All
Courts
are reminded of the mandatory provisions of Article VIII, Section 15 of
the Constitution setting deadlines for determination and adjudication
of
cases filed thereunder and for issuance of a certification by the
Presiding
Judge stating the reason why a decision or resolution has not been
rendered
or issued within the deadline period. The provisions are here in below
reproduced for ready reference:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"SEC. 15
(1) All
cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must
be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of
submission
for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve
months for all lower collegiate Courts, and three months for all other
lower Courts.
"(2) A case or
matter
should be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing
of
the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court
or by the court itself.
"(3) Upon the
expiration
of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by
the
Chief Justice or the Presiding Judge shall forthwith be issued and a
copy
thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon
the
parties. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has
not been rendered or issued within said period.
"(4) Despite
the expiration
of the applicable mandatory period, the Court, without prejudice to
such
responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall
decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for
determination,
without further delay."12. Publication:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
12.1. Let
the Clerk
of Court distribute this Circular among all Courts and the Integrated
Bar
of the Philippines and cause the publication thereof in the Official
Gazette
as well as distribute copies thereof to the media for their
dissemination. January 28,
1988.
[Sgd.]
CLAUDIO
TEEHANKEEChief
Justice |