July 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > July 2007 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. 06-5-05-0 : July 31, 2007] RE: LETTER OF MAYOR JEJOMAR C. BINAY RELATIVE TO THE DISPARITY OF ALLOWANCES OF JUDGES AND THE ROLE OF LOCAL EXECUTIVES IN THE MEDIATION OF DISPUTES :
[A.M. No. 06-5-05-0 : July 31, 2007]
RE: LETTER OF MAYOR JEJOMAR C. BINAY RELATIVE TO THE DISPARITY OF ALLOWANCES OF JUDGES AND THE ROLE OF LOCAL EXECUTIVES IN THE MEDIATION OF DISPUTES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated July 31, 2007.
A.M. No. 06-5-05-0 (Re: Letter of Mayor Jejomar C. Binay Relative to the Disparity of Allowances of Judges and the Role of Local Executives in the Mediation of Disputes)
For consideration is a Letter-Proposal[1] dated 3 May 2006 of the Honorable Jejomar C. Binay, Mayor of the City of Makati, proposing solutions to issues respecting the 1) alleged disparity of allowances of judges; and 2) role of local executives in the mediation of legal disputes. Pertinent parts of Mayor Binay's letter reads:
In compliance with the above Resolution, the PHILJA articulated its comment in a memorandum[3] dated 4 July 2006, which is hereinbelow quoted:
In a memorandum[6] received on 1 September 2006, the OCA opined that the proposals of Mayor Binay require legislative intervention. In particular, it cites the need to amend Sections 458 and 468 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991," which provide that when finances of the particular local government unit (LGU) allows, the latter shall provide additional allowances and other benefits only to judges and other national government officials stationed in or assigned to the LGU granting the same. To effect the pooling of the contributions of LGUs into a common fund to be handled by the Judiciary for equal distribution among all judges nationwide, regardless of station or location of assignment, would essentially require the amendment of Sections 458 and 468 of the Local Government Code of 1991.
Anent the proposal that local chief executives be deputized to mediate cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC in their respective localities, the OCA enunciated that it is likewise the Local Government Code which defines the jurisdiction of the Katarungang Pambarangay; and that "there are no provisions in the Local Government Code which give other local chief executives authority to mediate disputes."[7] To address the seeming gap in the law, the OCA equally suggests the amendment of the Local Government Code of 1991.
On 5 September 2006, the Court En Banc resolved to refer the matter back to the PHILJA for further study and to file a report thereon.[8]
On 11 October 2006, in compliance with the foregoing Resolution, the PHILJA filed its report[9] on the restudy it had undertaken on the subject of the proposals of Mayor Binay. Despite having taken a second look on the proposals, the PHILJA still remained resolute in its stance and reiterated the following: 1) on the matter of judicial allowances, the proposal should be submitted to Congress for its consideration; and 2) on the matter of the role of local executives in the mediation of disputes, (i) Mayor Binay should be commended "for his concern on the problem of clogged court dockets x x x";[10] (ii) it should be clarified that "the authority to mediate disputes not filed in court is vested upon Barangay Officials (Lupong Tagapamayapa) by express provision of Presidential Decree No. 1508, as amended by the Local Government Code-Republic Act No. 7160";[11] moreover, that the "Supreme Court has no power to 'deputize' any government official to mediate such disputes that are not pending before the courts";[12] and (iii) with respect to the "Court Annexed Mediation of cases already filed in court, the local chief executive must undergo the required process of mediation training, internship and Supreme Court accreditation."[13]
This Court finds no basis for the proposals.
We highly appreciate Mayor Binay's concern respecting the modest and humble plight of our judges and his recognition of the undeniable reality that the unclogging of court dockets for the efficient and complete administration of justice is not solely the responsibility of the Judiciary. Be that as it may, it is with deep lamentation that we deny his proposals for reasons hereinafter discussed.
Mayor Binay's first proposal concerns the disparity in the allowances given by LGUs to judges of Metropolitan (as well as Municipal) and Regional Trial Courts in the former's jurisdiction. He theorizes that the alleged disparity "has resulted in undue competition for assignments x x x in select localities."[14] To deal with the inequality, Mayor Binay suggests that "a system be devised wherein the amount allocated for allowances be pooled, and distributed based on the number of courts in each locality."[15] In other words, he is advocating the equal distribution of allowances to all judges regardless of jurisdiction or locality where their salas are located.
Prefatorily, the power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges has long been recognized. Letter of Instruction No. 1418[16] dated 18 July 1984, issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, was the first to allow LGUs to accord allowances to judges stationed in their respective territories. Presently, the grant is unequivocally embodied in the wordings of Sections 447, 458 and 468 of Republic Act No. 7160, more popularly known as the Local Government Code of 1991. A reading of the particular provisions will reveal that such authority is not an unfettered permission as it is only applicable to judges stationed in the particular territory of the grantor. Particularly, Section 447(a)(l)(xi) reads:
The fact that the law does not carry a prohibition on the proposed pooling of contribution of LGUs to a common fund cannot be interpreted to mean acquiescence. To allow the same would not only violate the law but also disregard the wisdom behind such qualification, specifically, to recompense the beneficiary who has rendered invaluable service and contributed to the enhancement of the lives of the inhabitants of a particular LGU.
Simply put, parity in rank or station does not automatically mean parity in allowances or benefits where the latter are granted by a law which specifically provides or identifies that the recipient must be "stationed in or assigned to" the territory of the grantor.
While this Court cannot grant Mayor Binay's suggestion to pool the contributions of LGUs into a common fund to be handled by the Judiciary for equal distribution among all judges nationwide; this Court, nonetheless, is amenable to devising a system in which the allowance fund for judges of a particular LGU, namely Makati City (represented herein by Mayor Binay), may be turned over and handled by this Court for equal distribution to all judges within said city. Such a system will not violate the Local Government Code since there would be no pooling of the allowance fund from Makati City with those from other LGUs; and the allowance fund from Makati City shall be equally distributed exclusively to judges stationed in or assigned to Makati City. The details governing the operation and implementation of such a system, however, must first be determined and laid down in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to be executed between this Court and the Makati City government. For this purpose, this Court authorizes the OCA to appoint representatives for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of the MOA with the appointed representatives from Makati City.
Apropos the second proposal on the subject of local executives being deputized to mediate cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the RTCs, Mayor Binay is of the view that the authority given to barangay officials to mediate cases falling under the jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) needs to be replicated at a higher level. He suggests that local chief executives be similarly deputized to mediate cases falling under the jurisdiction of the RTCs.
A point of clarification is in order, however, as the immediately preceding proposal appears to be anchored on an inaccurate postulation, i.e., that it is the Court which deputizes barangay officials to mediate disputes. The truth of the matter is, as earlier expressed by the PHILJA, the Supreme Court has no power to deputize any government official to mediate disputes that have not been actually filed or pending in any court of law.
Presidential Decree No. 1508,[17] as amended by the Local Government Code of 1991, only expressly authorizes Barangay Officials, or the Lupong Tagapamayapa, to conduct mediation services in disputes cognizable by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, which fall under the jurisdiction of the MTCs but have not actually been filed. And the authority of the Barangay Officials is not only to conciliate/mediate, but also to arbitrate. Mediation is meant to eventually unclog the court dockets. Ultimately, by screening the cases, the Lupong Tagapamayapa is helping mediatable cases from being filed in courts. This is done in two ways: 1) by helping the parties resolve their dispute amongst themselves without the intervention of the court; and 2) absent a certification that the particular dispute underwent conciliation proceedings, the dispute cannot be filed in any court of law.
If, on the other hand, Mayor Binay's proposal for local chief executives to be deputized pertain to court-referred, court-related mediation cases and other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms espoused by the Court-Annexed Mediation Program of this Court relating to disputes that have already been filed in a court of law, he, or any other local chief executive for that matter, desirous of being "deputized," must undergo the required qualifying process of training and internship with the PHILJA. And only after such painstaking and meticulous preparation will the local chief executive receive accreditation from this Court.
In fine, though Mayor Binay's proposals are noble in thought, regrettably, our hands are tied. Absent legislative amendment to effectuate the suggested remedies, we cannot but demur to his propositions. At the most, what we can do is to render assistance to Makati City in handling and distributing the allowance it shall allot exclusively for the judges stationed in or assigned to the said city.
IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE ABOVE, NOW, THEREFORE, this Court resolves to:
1) DENY the proposals presented by the Honorable Jejomar C. Binay, Mayor of the City of Makati, to a) pool the contributions of local government units into a common fund to be handled by the Judiciary for equal distribution among all judges nationwide; and b) deputize local executives to mediate cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, for lack of the necessary and concomitant legislation to effectuate the same; and
2) ALLOW the City of Makati to turn over its allotted funds for the allowance of judges to this Court for equal distribution exclusively to the judges stationed in or assigned to the said city; and for this purpose, DIRECT the Office of the Court Administrator and the City of Makati to appoint their respective representatives for the purpose of negotiating and drafting a Memorandum of Agreement to govern the system of allowance fund turn-over and distribution, and to submit to this Court for approval the final draft of the Memorandum of Agreement by 1 October 2007.
A.M. No. 06-5-05-0 (Re: Letter of Mayor Jejomar C. Binay Relative to the Disparity of Allowances of Judges and the Role of Local Executives in the Mediation of Disputes)
For consideration is a Letter-Proposal[1] dated 3 May 2006 of the Honorable Jejomar C. Binay, Mayor of the City of Makati, proposing solutions to issues respecting the 1) alleged disparity of allowances of judges; and 2) role of local executives in the mediation of legal disputes. Pertinent parts of Mayor Binay's letter reads:
The first issue is about the apparent disparity in the allowances of judges of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC) and Regional Trial Courts (RTC). This disparity, to my mind, has resulted in undue competition for assignments as judges in select localities. To address this matter, I would like to suggest that a system be devised wherein the amount allocated for allowances be pooled, and distributed based on the number of courts in each locality.On 13 June 2006, the Supreme Court En Banc, acting on Mayor Binay's letter and then Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban's 1st Indorsement of said correspondence, resolved to refer them to the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) and the Program Management Office (PMO) for their respective comments thereon.[2]
The second issue is about the role of local executives in the mediation of disputes. At present, barangays are authorized to mediate cases which fall under the jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs). Admittedly, the set up has helped unclog the dockets of our courts. I believe it would further ease the workload of our judges if local chief executives are similarly deputized to mediate cases that fall under the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts (RTCs).
In compliance with the above Resolution, the PHILJA articulated its comment in a memorandum[3] dated 4 July 2006, which is hereinbelow quoted:
In compliance with the Resolution of the Court En Bane dated June 13, 2006 in A.M. No. 06-5-05-0, Re: Letter of Mayor Jejomar Binay dated May 3, 2006 relative to the Disparity of Allowances of Judges and the Role of Local Chief Executive in the Mediation of Disputes, we submit the following comments, to wit:For its part, the PMO submitted a memorandum[4] dated 18 July 2006 containing the following observations, to wit:
(1) With respect to the issue on disparity of allowances of MTC and RTC judges, the Academy referred the same to the Office of the Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock. The Academy believes that it is the Office that is in a better position to address the matter.
(2) Relative to the issue about the Role of Local Executives in the Mediation of Disputes, we submit the following comments and observations to wit;(sic)
2.1 It is true that at present, barangays through the Lupon Tagapamayapa conduct mediation services in disputes under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, which cases mostly fall under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts.
2.2 The mediation process in the barangays is a mandatory requirement to be followed before parties can file any action in court in any of those cases covered by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law (P.D. 1508, as amended by R.A. 7160).
The barangay justice mediation mechanism is a process under the responsibility of local government bodies, the barangay, the local chief executives, under the jurisdiction of the Executive Department and more specifically, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).
2.3 The proposition of the Honorable Mayor Binay for local chief executives to be deputized to mediate in cases cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts, analogous to the authority given the barangay to mediate those cases cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court is not feasible an account of the following:
2.3.1 The authority to mediate given the barangays is mandated by express provision of P.D. 1508, amended by R.A. 7160. The process must be complied with before the filing of any case covered by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.
2.3.2 It appears, however, there is no law or court issuance that requires the mediation process as a condition precedent to the filing of any action falling within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. The
proposal under consideration although well-meaning may have no legal basis considering the state of the law at present.
2.3.4 (sic)The mediation mechanism being implemented is a court-annexed mediation, which connotes a mediation process conducted under the auspices of the court. The cases subject of the ADR processes are already filed and within the jurisdiction of the court.
2.3.5 Admittedly, the mediation process is a part of Pre-Trial.
Consequently, only mediators accredited by the Supreme Court after undergoing a rigid training-orientation conducted by PHILJA are qualified to mediate in Court-Annexed Mediation proceedings.
Unless, (sic) local chief executives undergo such training and orientation for accreditation, they cannot qualify to mediate in Court-Annexed Mediation Program as legally mandated.
2.3.6 It must be noted, however that local chief executives without necessarily performing personal mediation services, can assist and upgrade the Court-Annexed Mediation Program in their localities by pursuing the following:
- Providing trial courts with suitable spaces/offices for the mediation center units;
- Leading local executive officials in helping and encouraging their constituents to avail the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms e.g. Mediation in resolving disputes and thereby bring about peace with justice.
1. This refers to the letter of Mayor Jejomar Binay regarding the disparity of allowances given to judges x x x. Applicants to judge positions prefer to apply for vacant positions in areas where LGUs have a high income and thus (sic) tend to provide higher allowances to judges than LGUs with lower income.On 26 July 2006, in a Resolution[5] of the same date, the Court En Banc resolved to refer Mayor Binay's letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for comment thereon within ten days from notice,
2. The ADBTA Revised Final Report includes proposed reform measures pertaining to the judicial remuneration system and the contribution of local government units to judiciary financing. These measures assume that:3. The Revised Final Report proposes the determination of LGU contribution based on an objective and quantifiable formula and will be deposited in the proposed Judiciary Trust Fund within the National Treasury. The Judiciary Trust Fund will house all financial resources of the Judiciary.
- All contributions from LGUs will be in the form of funding
- The funding contributions of LGUs will be in the form of a one-line-item budget allocated to the judiciary and reflected in the LGU annual expenditure program
4. The LGU contribution will form part of the pool of the Judiciary's financial resources that will be subject of a Judiciary financial management program, including a judicial remuneration system which will5. Consultation-dialogues with local government units have been proposed in the past to facilitate the implementation of these reform measures. Consultations were conducted with the local government officials of Cebu, Cagayan de Oro City and Tagbiliran City. Further consultations were proposed with the Leagues of local government officials. Mayor Binay, as a potential champion of these reform measures, could initiate further discussions with the Leagues and other local government units.
- Ensure internal equity in pay by valuing judge positions, considering accountability and competency requirements
- Consider prevailing market rates by designing Judicial Total Annual Cash Compensation (TACC) to be adequate enough to shield them from corruption and bribery and to make remuneration levels appropriate to the stature of judges in the community
- Differentiate the level of "competency" of incumbents by providing graduated TACC for corresponding competency levels within a job grade
- Provide a mechanism for rewarding group performance or level of service, and
- Provide adequate benefits and amenities appropriate to the stature of judges in the community
In a memorandum[6] received on 1 September 2006, the OCA opined that the proposals of Mayor Binay require legislative intervention. In particular, it cites the need to amend Sections 458 and 468 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991," which provide that when finances of the particular local government unit (LGU) allows, the latter shall provide additional allowances and other benefits only to judges and other national government officials stationed in or assigned to the LGU granting the same. To effect the pooling of the contributions of LGUs into a common fund to be handled by the Judiciary for equal distribution among all judges nationwide, regardless of station or location of assignment, would essentially require the amendment of Sections 458 and 468 of the Local Government Code of 1991.
Anent the proposal that local chief executives be deputized to mediate cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC in their respective localities, the OCA enunciated that it is likewise the Local Government Code which defines the jurisdiction of the Katarungang Pambarangay; and that "there are no provisions in the Local Government Code which give other local chief executives authority to mediate disputes."[7] To address the seeming gap in the law, the OCA equally suggests the amendment of the Local Government Code of 1991.
On 5 September 2006, the Court En Banc resolved to refer the matter back to the PHILJA for further study and to file a report thereon.[8]
On 11 October 2006, in compliance with the foregoing Resolution, the PHILJA filed its report[9] on the restudy it had undertaken on the subject of the proposals of Mayor Binay. Despite having taken a second look on the proposals, the PHILJA still remained resolute in its stance and reiterated the following: 1) on the matter of judicial allowances, the proposal should be submitted to Congress for its consideration; and 2) on the matter of the role of local executives in the mediation of disputes, (i) Mayor Binay should be commended "for his concern on the problem of clogged court dockets x x x";[10] (ii) it should be clarified that "the authority to mediate disputes not filed in court is vested upon Barangay Officials (Lupong Tagapamayapa) by express provision of Presidential Decree No. 1508, as amended by the Local Government Code-Republic Act No. 7160";[11] moreover, that the "Supreme Court has no power to 'deputize' any government official to mediate such disputes that are not pending before the courts";[12] and (iii) with respect to the "Court Annexed Mediation of cases already filed in court, the local chief executive must undergo the required process of mediation training, internship and Supreme Court accreditation."[13]
This Court finds no basis for the proposals.
We highly appreciate Mayor Binay's concern respecting the modest and humble plight of our judges and his recognition of the undeniable reality that the unclogging of court dockets for the efficient and complete administration of justice is not solely the responsibility of the Judiciary. Be that as it may, it is with deep lamentation that we deny his proposals for reasons hereinafter discussed.
Mayor Binay's first proposal concerns the disparity in the allowances given by LGUs to judges of Metropolitan (as well as Municipal) and Regional Trial Courts in the former's jurisdiction. He theorizes that the alleged disparity "has resulted in undue competition for assignments x x x in select localities."[14] To deal with the inequality, Mayor Binay suggests that "a system be devised wherein the amount allocated for allowances be pooled, and distributed based on the number of courts in each locality."[15] In other words, he is advocating the equal distribution of allowances to all judges regardless of jurisdiction or locality where their salas are located.
Prefatorily, the power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges has long been recognized. Letter of Instruction No. 1418[16] dated 18 July 1984, issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, was the first to allow LGUs to accord allowances to judges stationed in their respective territories. Presently, the grant is unequivocally embodied in the wordings of Sections 447, 458 and 468 of Republic Act No. 7160, more popularly known as the Local Government Code of 1991. A reading of the particular provisions will reveal that such authority is not an unfettered permission as it is only applicable to judges stationed in the particular territory of the grantor. Particularly, Section 447(a)(l)(xi) reads:
SEC. 447. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation (of the Sangguniang Bayan). (a) The sangguniang bayan, as the legislative body of the municipality, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants x x x, and shall:Section 458(a)(l)(xi) similarly provides:(1) Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective municipal government, and in this connection shall:
x x x x
(xi) When the finances of the municipal government allow, provide for additional allowances and other benefits to judges, prosecutors, public elementary and high school teachers, and other national government officials stationed in or assigned to the municipality; (Emphasis supplied.)
SEC. 458. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation (of the Sangguniang Panlungsod). (a) The sangguniang panlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants x x x, and shall:And Section 468(a)(l)(xi) in the same way expressly states that:(1) Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective city government and, in this connection, shall:
x x x x
(xi) When the finances of the city government allow, provide for additional allowances and other benefits to judges, prosecutors, public elementary and high school teachers, and other national government officials stationed or assigned to the city; (Emphasis supplied.)
SEC. 468. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation (of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan). (a) The sangguniang panlalawigan, as the legislative body of the province, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the province and its inhabitants x x x, and shall:From a reading of the above-quoted provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991, it is readily apparent that when a particular LGU gives an allowance, the recipient must be "stationed in or assigned to" its territory. The phrase "stationed in or assigned to the Municipality/City/Province" is an express requirement or qualification of the recipient in order to be entitled to the benefit of an additional allowance. Mayor Binay's proposed solution to the disparity, that is, the pooling of the contributions of LGUs into a common fund to be handled by the Judiciary for equal distribution among all judges nationwide regardless of jurisdiction or territory of assignment, would fundamentally go beyond the power or authority provided by the relevant law - the Local Government Code of 1991. To allow the contribution of highly prosperous LGUs to augment the input of less abounding ones would directly contravene the express language of the code.(1) Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective provincial government and, in this connection, shall:
x x x x
(xi) When the finances of the provincial government allow, provide for additional allowances and other benefits to judges, prosecutors, public elementary and high school teachers, and other national government officials stationed or assigned to the province, (Emphasis supplied.)
The fact that the law does not carry a prohibition on the proposed pooling of contribution of LGUs to a common fund cannot be interpreted to mean acquiescence. To allow the same would not only violate the law but also disregard the wisdom behind such qualification, specifically, to recompense the beneficiary who has rendered invaluable service and contributed to the enhancement of the lives of the inhabitants of a particular LGU.
Simply put, parity in rank or station does not automatically mean parity in allowances or benefits where the latter are granted by a law which specifically provides or identifies that the recipient must be "stationed in or assigned to" the territory of the grantor.
While this Court cannot grant Mayor Binay's suggestion to pool the contributions of LGUs into a common fund to be handled by the Judiciary for equal distribution among all judges nationwide; this Court, nonetheless, is amenable to devising a system in which the allowance fund for judges of a particular LGU, namely Makati City (represented herein by Mayor Binay), may be turned over and handled by this Court for equal distribution to all judges within said city. Such a system will not violate the Local Government Code since there would be no pooling of the allowance fund from Makati City with those from other LGUs; and the allowance fund from Makati City shall be equally distributed exclusively to judges stationed in or assigned to Makati City. The details governing the operation and implementation of such a system, however, must first be determined and laid down in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to be executed between this Court and the Makati City government. For this purpose, this Court authorizes the OCA to appoint representatives for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of the MOA with the appointed representatives from Makati City.
Apropos the second proposal on the subject of local executives being deputized to mediate cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the RTCs, Mayor Binay is of the view that the authority given to barangay officials to mediate cases falling under the jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) needs to be replicated at a higher level. He suggests that local chief executives be similarly deputized to mediate cases falling under the jurisdiction of the RTCs.
A point of clarification is in order, however, as the immediately preceding proposal appears to be anchored on an inaccurate postulation, i.e., that it is the Court which deputizes barangay officials to mediate disputes. The truth of the matter is, as earlier expressed by the PHILJA, the Supreme Court has no power to deputize any government official to mediate disputes that have not been actually filed or pending in any court of law.
Presidential Decree No. 1508,[17] as amended by the Local Government Code of 1991, only expressly authorizes Barangay Officials, or the Lupong Tagapamayapa, to conduct mediation services in disputes cognizable by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, which fall under the jurisdiction of the MTCs but have not actually been filed. And the authority of the Barangay Officials is not only to conciliate/mediate, but also to arbitrate. Mediation is meant to eventually unclog the court dockets. Ultimately, by screening the cases, the Lupong Tagapamayapa is helping mediatable cases from being filed in courts. This is done in two ways: 1) by helping the parties resolve their dispute amongst themselves without the intervention of the court; and 2) absent a certification that the particular dispute underwent conciliation proceedings, the dispute cannot be filed in any court of law.
If, on the other hand, Mayor Binay's proposal for local chief executives to be deputized pertain to court-referred, court-related mediation cases and other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms espoused by the Court-Annexed Mediation Program of this Court relating to disputes that have already been filed in a court of law, he, or any other local chief executive for that matter, desirous of being "deputized," must undergo the required qualifying process of training and internship with the PHILJA. And only after such painstaking and meticulous preparation will the local chief executive receive accreditation from this Court.
In fine, though Mayor Binay's proposals are noble in thought, regrettably, our hands are tied. Absent legislative amendment to effectuate the suggested remedies, we cannot but demur to his propositions. At the most, what we can do is to render assistance to Makati City in handling and distributing the allowance it shall allot exclusively for the judges stationed in or assigned to the said city.
IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE ABOVE, NOW, THEREFORE, this Court resolves to:
1) DENY the proposals presented by the Honorable Jejomar C. Binay, Mayor of the City of Makati, to a) pool the contributions of local government units into a common fund to be handled by the Judiciary for equal distribution among all judges nationwide; and b) deputize local executives to mediate cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, for lack of the necessary and concomitant legislation to effectuate the same; and
2) ALLOW the City of Makati to turn over its allotted funds for the allowance of judges to this Court for equal distribution exclusively to the judges stationed in or assigned to the said city; and for this purpose, DIRECT the Office of the Court Administrator and the City of Makati to appoint their respective representatives for the purpose of negotiating and drafting a Memorandum of Agreement to govern the system of allowance fund turn-over and distribution, and to submit to this Court for approval the final draft of the Memorandum of Agreement by 1 October 2007.
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) FELIPA BORLONGAN-ANAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) FELIPA BORLONGAN-ANAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p.2
[2] Id. at 4
[3] Id. at 8-10
[4] Id. at 20-21.
[5] Id. at 28.
[6] Id. at 29-32
[7] Id. at 32.
[8] Id. at 33.
[9] Id at 35-37.
[10] Id. at 36.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id. at 37.
[14] Id. at 2.
[15] Id.
[16] Letter of Instruction No. 1418 states that: xxx.
WHEREAS, the State is cognizant of the need to maintain the independence of the Judiciary;
WHEREAS, the budgetary allotment for the Judiciary constitutes only a small percentage of the national budget;
WHEREAS, present economic conditions adversely affected the livelihood of the members of the Judiciary;
WHEREAS, some local government units are ready, willing and able to pay additional allowances to Judges of the various courts within their respective territorial jurisdiction;
NOW, THEREFORE, I FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, do hereby direct:
1. Section 3 of Letter of Implementation No. 96 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"3 The allowances provided in this letter shall be borne exclusively by the National Government. However, provincial, city and municipal governments may pay additional allowances to the members and personnel of the Judiciary assigned in their respective areas out of available local funds but not to exceed P1,500; Provided, that in Metropolitan Manila, the city and municipal governments therein may pay additional allowances not exceeding P3,000."
[17] Entitled "Establishing a System of Amicably Settling Disputes at the Barangay Level."
