ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. 02-2-05-SC.February 12, 2002]
RE:ZERO BACKLOG PROJ. OF THE CA
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 12 2002.
A.M. No. 02-2-05-SC (Re:Zero Backlog Project of the Court of Appeals.)
The Court resolved to:
(a) NOTE the First Indorsement dated 30 January 2002 of Presiding Justice Ma. Alicia Austria Martinez, Court of Appeals, referring the procedure agreed upon by the Justices of said court in its Executive Session on 20 December 2001 regarding the Zero Backlog Project of the Court of Appeals; and
(b) APPROVE said procedure effective immediately, to wit:
1. Cases submitted for decision as of "1997 and earlier" shall be distributed equally, by raffle, among the 17 justices with the least number of caseloads henceforth referred to as Group I.The members of Group I shall be determined by the Presiding Justice on the basis of the monthly report of the Justices as of December 31, 2001.
2. The rest of the Justices (henceforth referred to as Group II) commit themselves to decide all cases submitted for decision as of "1998 and upwards".
3. The presiding Justice shall require all the private secretaries of the Justices to submit their respective lists of cases submitted for decision as of "1997 and earlier" to be unloaded to Group I as well as the "1998 cases and upwards" to be unloaded to Group II so that the exact number of cases to be re-raffled to Groups I and II may be ascertained by the Presiding Justice and the cases properly re-raffled by the Raffle Committee.
4. Each member of Group I will unload to Group II "1998 cases and upwards" in a number equivalent to what each member of Group I shall have received out of the "1997 and earlier" unloaded from Group II.
5. The "1998 cases and upwards" unloaded by Group I will be re-raffled to the members of Group II.Each member of Group II shall be assigned by raffle "1998 cases and upwards" in a number of equivalent to the number of "1997 and earlier" that he/she had referred to Group I; i.e., if a member of Group II referred thirty (30) "1997 and earlier" to Group I, then thirty (30) "1998 cases and upwards" unloaded by members of Group I shall be raffled to said member of Group II.
6. If any of the member of Group I has "1997 and earlier", the same will be retained by him/her to be deducted from the number of "1997 and earlier" that otherwise should have been re-raffled to such member of Group I; that is, if one hundred (100) "1997 and earlier" are raffled to each member of Group I, and a member thereof has thirty (30) "1997 and earlier" in his original caseload, then he will retain the thirty (30) but will be assigned by raffle seventy (70) "1997 earlier" to complete the One Hundred (100) cases that each member of Group I should work on.
7. Daily raffle of civil, criminal and special cases will continue.
8. Members of Group I whose regular caseload is less than the number distributed to each member thereof will be allowed to unload whatever submitted civil and criminal cases are subsequently raffled to them until they shall have unloaded the same number of the "1997 and earlier" received by them.For this purpose, the Justice concerned shall submit the list of cases to the Presiding Justice for proper raffle thereof to members of Group II pursuant to paragraph 5 above.
9. Each member of the Court commits to decide/dispose of a minimum of twelve (12) cases a month.
10. The Monthly Performance Report will be modified accordingly.It will have two (2) parts.Part I will show the regular caseload of an individual Justice concerning civil, criminal and special cases submitted for decision.It will also indicate under the columns of CV and CR cases the members of Group I (see sample, Annex "A").Part II will only involve members of Group I.It will show the number "1997 and earlier" civil and criminal cases assigned to each member of Group I; the dispositions and the balance of the "1997 and earlier cases" to be decided * (see sample Annex "B").
11. At the end of six (6) months, the backlog situation will be re-assessed to determine the advisability of continuing or modifying the same procedure relative to the remaining backlog cases.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
* Not submitted together with the procedure
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
