John Mark S.

Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

Key Points Notes

1. Judicial Affidavit Rule Introduction to Judicial Affidavit Rule

On 4 September 2012, the Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC [full text], approving
the JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE. The Rule, which is intended to expedite court proceedings, is
new and far from complete, necessitating an extensive discussion to thresh out various
issues. Lawyers could keep their observations to themselves and hope that the other party
commits a mistake, most likely gaining an edge by reason of technicality. Still, considering
that the unstated purpose of the Rule is to ferret out the truth in coming out with a decision
based on the merits, and not on mere technicality, it would be helpful to start an open
discussion to pick the brains of the legal-minded crowd.

I prepared a summary and an initial discussion of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, posted here.
Each topic is contained in a separate post for better presentation/organization. Lumping all
topics in a single post would lead to confusion because it would take more effort to correlate
a comment to the particular portion of the whole discussion. A single-topic post would mean
that all comments pertain only to that specific topic. You are most welcome to disagree with
fellow participants in the discussion, but express the disagreement with the requisite degree
of respect that befits a fellow member of the profession.

1. Judicial Affidavit Rule

A. [Effectivity and Purpose of Judicial Affidavit Rule]
The Judicial Affidavit Rule requires that direct examination of a witness,
which is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting
him on the facts relevant to the issue, shall be in the form of judicial
affidavits, subject to the usual mode of cross-examination.

 When is the Rule Effective?

The Rule took effect on 1 January 2013. However, in criminal
cases without private prosecutors, the Supreme Court allowed
public prosecutors in first- and second-level courts until the
end of 2013 to utilize the affidavits of the complainant and his
witnesses prepared and submitted in connection with the
investigation and filing of the Information in court. Public
prosecutors are required to fully comply with the Rule by 1
January 2014.

During the one-year period when the concession is in effect,

the attending public prosecutor, upon presenting the witness,
shall require the witness to affirm what the sworn statement
contains and may only ask the witness additional direct
examination questions that have not been amply covered by
the sworn statement.

The concession does not apply in criminal cases where the

private complainant is represented by a duly empowered
private prosecutor, who has the obligation to comply with the
Rule.
Summary:
John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

Key Points Notes

 The reasons for the issuance of the Rule

Case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given
the huge volume of cases filed each year and the slow and
cumbersome adversarial system that the judiciary has in place.
About 40% of criminal cases are dismissed annually owing to
the fact that complainants simply give up coming to court after
repeated postponements. Few foreign businessmen make long-
term investments in the Philippines because its courts are
unable to provide ample and speedy protection to their
investments, keeping its people poor.

In order to reduce the time needed for completing the

testimonies of witnesses in cases under litigation, on 21
February 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial
courts in Quezon City the compulsory use of judicial affidavits
in place of the direct testimonies of witnesses. It is reported
that such piloting has quickly resulted in reducing by about
two-thirds the time used for presenting the testimonies of
witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and adjudication of
cases. The adoption of the Rule hopes to replicate nationwide
the success of the Quezon City experience in the use of judicial
affidavits.

These reasons for the issuance of the Judicial Affidavit Rule are
contained in the “whereas” clauses of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC.
John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

Key Points Notes

B. [Scope of Application of Judicial Affidavit Rule]

 What is the scope of application of this rule?
The applicability of this rule may refer to:
(a) the courts where the rule will apply;
(b) the kinds of cases or proceedings where the rule will apply;
(c) the stage of the proceeding.

 Type of cases
This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents
requiring the reception of evidence. However, the Rule shall
not apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC.

The Rule may apply to criminal cases in three situations, as

follows:
(1) The maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six
years;
(2) Regardless of the penalty involved, with respect to the civil
aspect of the actions, or where the accused agrees to the use
of the Rule.

 Courts where the Rule are applicable

1. The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts.
2. Shari’a Circuit Courts, Shari’a District Courts and the Shari’a
Appellate Courts.
3. Regional Trial Courts.
4. Sandiganbayan.
5. Court of Tax Appeals.
6. Court of Appeals.
7. Investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme
Court to receive evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the
Philippine (IBP).
8. Special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of
procedure are subject to disapproval of the Supreme Court,
insofar as their existing rules of procedure contravene the
provisions of this Rule.
John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

Key Points Notes

C. [Service and Filing of the Judicial Affidavit]

The parties shall serve on the adverse party and file with the court
not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or
the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents.

This Rule amends the existing minimum period, which is three days,
for the service and filing of the pre-trial brief. Under the new Rule,
considering that the judicial affidavit must be attached to the pre-
trial brief, the latter must be served and filed within five days.

 Service and filing of the judicial affidavit in criminal cases

This is the only portion of the Rule that provides a separate

provision for criminal cases, veering from the simultaneous
filing of judicial affidavits by the parties. The general rule is
reiterated, but this time applicable only to the prosecution, to
submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five
days before the pre-trial, serving copies of the same upon the
accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to
the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may
have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C and so on. No further
judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be
admitted at the trial.

If the accused, on the other hand, desires to be heard on his

defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the
prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial
affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court within
ten days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of
each on the public and private prosecutor, including his
documentary and object evidence previously marked as
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shall serve as direct
testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when they
appear before the court to testify.

It is interesting to note that only the paragraph applicable to

the prosecution contains the provision that: “No further
judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be
admitted at the trial.” Does this mean that the accused is
covered by the general rule, which allows the late filing of the
affidavit?
John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

Key Points Notes

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law

 How is the service/filing done?

The Rule specifies only two manners of service or filing of the

affidavit: by personal service or by licensed courier service. It is
interesting that there is no express mention of “registered
mail” and it is logical that the term “courier service” does not
refer to, and does not include, registered mail. The purpose of
the Rule is to expedite cases and there can be no reliance on
the presumptive receipt by reason of registered mail.

There is no overriding reason why registered mail should be

removed as a manner of service/filing. A party could send the
judicial affidavit way in advance by registered mail. It is the
party’s lookout if the other party or court indeed received the
judicial affidavit within the prescribed period.

Another minor issue is when is a courier service considered

licensed? The rule is not clear whether a separate license or
accreditation for courier service providers on top of the SEC
registration. It appears that other than the usual government
registration, there is no need for separate Supreme Court
accreditation.

These issues can be dispensed with by deleting the portion

providing for personal service or by courier. This is surplusage.
The intent of the Rule is to ENSURE receipt of the judicial
affidavit by the court and other party at least five days before
the pre-trial or hearing, and the Rule can simply so provide,
just like in pre-trial rules.

 Can you submit amended or supplemental affidavits?

There may be instances when it is necessary to execute a

supplemental or amended affidavit, like in the case of newly-
discovered evidence. Is this allowed and, if so, how should it be
done?

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

Key Points Notes

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law

D. [Required contents of Judicial Affidavit under Judicial Affidavit

Rule]
The judicial affidavit shall contain the following:

1. The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of

the witness;

2. The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises

the examination of the witness and the place where the
examination is being held;

3. A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of

him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may
face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;

4. Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers,

consecutively numbered, that:

(i) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired

the facts upon which he testifies;
(ii) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues
that the case presents; and
(iii) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence
and establish their authenticity in accordance with the
Rules of Court;

5. The signature of the witness over his printed name;

6. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers

the oath or an officer who is authorized by law to administer the
same.

7. Attestation of the lawyer.

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Key Points Notes

 What is a jurat?

A jurat, which is different from an “acknowledgment” as

defined under the Rules on Notarial Practice, refers to an act in
which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents

an instrument or document;

(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by

the notary public through competent evidence of identity
as defined by these Rules;

(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the

notary; and

(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to

such instrument or document. (Rule 2, Sec. 6 of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC)

It is important to note the strict requirement that, in the

execution of the jurat, the requisite competent evidence of
identity must include at least one current identification
document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph
and signature of the individual.

For purposes of comparison, “acknowledgment” refers to an

act in which an individual on a single occasion:

(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents

an integrally complete instrument or document;

(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or

identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by the notarial rules; and

(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the

instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for
the purposes stated in the instrument or document,
declares that he has executed the instrument or
document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if
he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has
the authority to sign in that capacity.

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Key Points Notes

 What is the sworn attestation of the lawyer?

One of the problems with the Rule is the fact that judges only
have limited opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses.

Moreover, even if lawyers briefed the witness, the oral answer

given by the witness during direct examination is almost wholly
dependent on the witness. This is no longer true under this
Rule because the lawyer prepares the judicial affidavit which
takes the place of the direct testimony.

Thus, it is now required that the judicial affidavit shall contain a

sworn attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer who
conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the
effect that:

1. He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the

questions he asked and the corresponding answers that the
witness gave; and

2. Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting

him coached the witness regarding the latter’s answers.

To put teeth to this prohibition, the Rule provides that a false

attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary
action, including disbarment. There is no requirement that the
lawyer who prepared the judicial affidavit must be the one to
present the witness in court.

What language should be used in the affidavit?

A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to

the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a
translation in English or Filipino.

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Key Points Notes

E. [Offer of testimony and objections under the Judicial Affidavit

Rule]

Under the Rules of Court, as regards the testimony of a witness, the

offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify (Rule
132, Sec. 34). The Rule, on the other hand, provides that party
presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness in place of direct
testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at the start of
the presentation of the witness. This provision, in relation to the
enumerated required contents of an affidavit, means that the
purpose is NOT required to be indicated in the judicial affidavit.
Some judges nevertheless require that the purpose be stated in the
judicial affidavit, a practice unilaterally resorted by some lawyers for
convenience.

 How does the opposing party make the objection?

Objection to a witness may take the form of:

(a) a disqualification from testifying; or

(b) to a specific question raised.

Under the Rules of Court, objection to a question propounded

in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be
made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably
apparent (Rule 132, Sec. 36).

The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to

strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on
ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the
motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded
answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an
authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of
excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court.

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Key Points Notes

F. [Documentary and Object Evidence under the Judicial Affidavit

Rule]

 How should the party presenting the witness identify and

mark documentary evidence?

The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall

be attached to the judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A,
B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff,
and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent
or the defendant.

 How can the party or witness keep the original of the

documentary or object evidence?

Litigants and witnesses, for good reasons, often prefer to keep

the original of the document that is to be presented in and
submitted to the court. The Rule provides for the following
procedure:

1. Attach the document or evidence to the judicial affidavit

of the witness/es.

This must be done obviously before the pre-trial

conference or the hearing. This is done by attaching the
photocopy of the document, or the reproduction or
photograph of the object evidence. The Rule provides
that should a party or a witness desire to keep the original
document or object evidence in his possession, he may,
after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and
authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit that the
copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful
copy or reproduction of that original.

2. Bring the original during the pre-trial or preliminary

conference.

This is required under pre-trial rules, so the document

may be preliminarily marked as evidence and compared
with the original, if needed. The Rule provides that the
party or witness shall bring the original document or
object evidence for comparison during the preliminary
conference with the attached copy, reproduction, or
pictures, failing which the latter shall not be admitted. As
provided under pre-trial rules and reiterated in the Rule,
evidence not pre-marked shall not be admissible as
evidence.
Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Key Points Notes

The Rule indicates that the pre-marking is done by the

parties themselves, not the clerk of court as provided in
the existing pre-trial rules. If so, the requirement of
preliminary conference under Circular No. A.M. No. 03-1-
09-SC (Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges
and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and use of
Deposition-Discovery Measures), which is conducted
before the pretrial conference for the purpose of pre-
marking documents before the clerk of court, should be
dispensed with and revised/deleted from the rules of
procedure to avoid surplusage.

Nevertheless, there may be an instance when a party would subsequently want to retain an
original previously attached to the judicial affidavit. The Rule does not provide for the
procedure in such case. It is recommended that if the party attached the original to the
judicial affidavit and would want to retain possession of that original document, the party
must, during the presentation of the witness, request that the copy be compared to the
original, request for a stipulation that the copy is a faithful reproduction of the original, and
request that the marking be transferred to the copy.

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Key Points Notes

G. [Cross Examination and Re-direct Examination under the Judicial

Affidavit Rule]

The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness
on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same.
The party who presents the witness may also examine him as on re-
direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining
the witness to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his
testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for resolving the
issues.

H. [Report to Subpoena under the Judicial Affidavit Rule]

There is no need for a judicial affidavit if the witness is called to

testify through a subpoena. If the government employee or official,
or the requested witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial
affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books,
documents, or other things under his control available for copying,
authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting
party may avail himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad
testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court.
The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in
this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except
that the taking of a judicial affidavit shall be understood to be ex
parte.

On the other hand, this provision expressly applies to requested

witnesses who are neither the witness of the adverse party nor a
hostile witness. What’s the reason for the exclusion? What rule
should apply?

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Key Points Notes

I. [Formal Offer of Evidence and Objections under the Judicial

Affidavit Rule]

The formal offer of documentary or object evidence shall be made

upon the termination of the testimony of a party’s last witness. This
obviously means that this is done when a party rests its case, and
not every time the testimony of each witness is terminated.

The formal offer is made orally in open court, which shows an

obvious intent to do away with the option of filing a written formal
offer of evidence allowed under existing rules. A party shall
immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or
object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating
the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.

After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state
the legal ground for his objection, if any, to its admission, and the
court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit.

Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial

affidavits that describe and authenticate them, it is sufficient that
such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offer of
evidence, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the
description of each exhibit.

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Key Points Notes

J. [Effects of Non-Compliance with Judicial Affidavit Rule]

There are different consequences in case of:

(1) failure to file the judicial affidavit;
(2) failure to comply with the prescribed requirements; or
(3) absence during the scheduled trial date.

 Failure to file judicial affidavit

A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and

exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission.
The Rule allows for an exception, provided the following
requirements are present:

a. It must be with leave of court. The court has the discretion

whether to allow it.

b. The delay must be for a valid reason. The Rule does not
indicate at what point the late submission is allowed. The
above-quoted provision, which applies to criminal cases, trial
starts with the presentation of the first witness (see Rule 30 of
the Rules of Court), which gives the impression that no
additional affidavits or evidence may be allowed upon
presentation of the first witness. If this so, will this also apply to
non-criminal cases?

c. It would not unduly prejudice the opposing party. This is quite

surprising considering that any additional evidence naturally
favors the presenting party and, therefore, prejudices the other
party.

d. The defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor
more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

e. It is availed only once.

This is the general provision and it is not clear whether the exception also applies to criminal
cases. The specific rule for criminal cases provide that: “No further judicial affidavit,
documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.” This gives the impression
that the exception applies only in criminal cases.

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Key Points Notes

 Failure to comply with required contents

The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do

not conform to the content requirements of Section 3 and the
attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may,
however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the
compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial
provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly
prejudice the opposing party and provided further, that public
or private counsel responsible for their preparation and
submission pays a fine of not less than Pl, 000.00 nor more
than P5, 000.00, at the discretion of the court.

 Absence during the scheduled trial date

The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who
fails to appear at the scheduled hearing of the case as required.
Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice
shall be deemed to have waived his client’s right to confront by
cross-examination the witnesses there present.

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Key Points Notes

2. Katarungan Pambarangay Katarungan Pambarangay Law – Jurisdiction

Law - Jurisdiction
1. Accepted Cases under Katarungan Pambarangay

All disputes, civil and criminal in nature where parties actually reside in the same
city or municipality are subjected to proceedings of amicable settlement. There are
cases that fall under our jurisdiction.

NOTE: IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT NO INDIVIDUAL CAN GO DIRECTLY TO

COURT OR ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR ADJUDICATION OF HIS/HER DISPUTE
WITH ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL ESPECIALLY IF THE MATTER IS WITHIN BARANGAY
JURISDICTION.

EXCEPTION: Except when the parties personally confronted each other and settle
their dispute. But if not, they should go through the conciliatory proceedings OR
ELSE THE COURTS CAN SIMPLY DISMISS FOR LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION OR
PREMATURITY.

1. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances (art. 154);

2. Alarms and scandals (art. 155);
3. Using false certificates (art. 175);
4. Using fictitious names and concealing true names (art. 178);
5. Illegal use of uniforms and insignias (art. 179);
6. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray (art. 252);
7. Giving assistance to consummated suicide (art. 253);
8. Responsibility of participants in a duel if only physical injuries are inflicted or
no physical injuries have been inflicted (art. 260);
9. Less serious physical injuries (art. 265);
10. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (art. 266);
11. Unlawful arrest (art. 269);
12. Inducing a minor to abandon his/her home (art. 271);
13. Abandonment of a person in danger and abandonment of one’s own victim
(art. 275);
14. Abandoning a minor (a child under seven [7] years old) (art. 276);
15. Abandonment of a minor by perons entrusted with his/her custody;
16. Indifference of parents (art. 277);
17. Qualified tresspass to dwelling (without the use of violence and intimidation).
(art. 280);
18. Other forms of tresspass (art. 281);
19. Light threats (art. 283);
20. Other light threats (art. 285);
21. Grave coercion (art. 286);
22. Light coercion (art. 287);
23. Other similar coercions (compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment of
wages by means of tokens). (art. 288);

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Key Points Notes

24. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor

through violence or threats (art. 289);
25. Discovering secrets through seizure and correspondence (art. 290);
26. Revealing secrets with abuse of authority (art. 291);
27. Theft (if the value of the property stolen does not exceed p50.00). (art. 309);
28. Qualified theft (if the amount does not exceed p500). (art. 310);
29. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property (art 312);
30. Altering boundaries or landmarks (art. 313);
31. Swindling or estafa (if the amount does not exceed p200.00). (art. 315);
32. Other forms of swindling (art. 316);
33. Swindling a minor (art. 317);
34. Other deceits (art. 318);
35. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property (art. 319);
36. Special cases of malicious mischief (if the value of the damaged property does
not exceed p1,000.00). (art 328);
37. Other mischiefs (if the value of the damaged property does not exceed
p1,000.00). (art. 329);
38. Simple seduction (art. 338);
39. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party (art 339);
40. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for compensation
(art. 356);
41. Prohibiting publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings
(art. 357);
42. Incriminating innocent persons (art. 363);
43. Intriguing against honor (art. 364);
44. Issuing checks without sufficient funds (bp 22);
45. Fencing of stolen properties if the property involved is not more than p50.00
(pd 1612).

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

Key Points Notes

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 14-93.

TO: ALL REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL

TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY CONCILIATION

PROCEDURE TO PREVENT CIRCUMVENTION OF THE REVISED KATARUNGANG
PAMBARANGAY LAW [SECTIONS 399-422, CHAPTER VII, TITLE I, BOOK III, R. A.
7160, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991].

The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law under R. A. 7160, otherwise known as

the Local Government Code of 1991, effective on January 1, 1992 and which
repealed P. D. 1508, introduced substantial changes not only in the authority
granted to the Lupong Tagapamayapa but also in the procedure to be observed in
the settlement of disputes within the authority of the Lupon.

In order that the laudable purpose of the law may not be subverted and its
effectiveness undermined by indiscriminate, improper and/or premature issuance
of certifications to file actions in court by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretaries,
attested by the Lupon/Pangkat Chairmen, respectively, the following guidelines are
hereby issued for the information of trial court judges in cases brought before
them coming from the Barangays:

I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised

Katarungang Pambarangay Law [formerly P. D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by
Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991], and prior recourse
thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any government
offices, except in the following disputes:chanrobles virtual law library

[1] Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality

thereof;

[2] Where one party is a public officer or employee and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;

[3] Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and
municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to
amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;

[4] Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical entities,

since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either
as complainants or respondents [Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules];

[5] Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties
thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate
Lupon;

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Key Points Notes
[6] Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment
exceeding one [1] year or a fine of over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);

[7] Offenses where there is no private offended party;

[8] Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being
committed or further continued, specifically the following:chanrobles virtual law
library

[a] Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention [See
Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law];

[b] Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful
custody over another or a person illegally deprived of or on acting in his
behalf;

[c] Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction,

attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of
the action; and cralaw

[d] Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.

[9] Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of
justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
[10] Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) [Secs. 46 & 47, R. A. 6657];

[11] Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations

[Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended,
which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of
disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the Department of Labor and
Employment];

[12] Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in
court [See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459].

II. Under the provisions of R. A. 7160 on Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation, as

implemented by the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules and Regulations promulgated
by the Secretary of Justice, the certification for filing a complaint in court or any
government office shall be issued by Barangay authorities only upon compliance
with the following requirements:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

[1] Issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested by the Lupon Chairman (Punong
Barangay), certifying that a confrontation of the parties has taken place and that a
conciliation settlement has been reached, but the same has been subsequently
repudiated (Sec. 412, Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec. 2[h], Rule III,
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

Key Points Notes

[2] Issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the Pangkat Chairman
certifying that:
[a] a confrontation of the parties took place but no conciliation/settlement has
been reached (Sec. 4[f], Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); or

[b] that no personal confrontation took place before the Pangkat through no
fault of the complainant (Sec. 4[f], Rule III, Katarungang pambarangay Rules).

[3] Issued by the Punong Barangay as requested by the proper party on the ground
of failure of settlement where the dispute involves members of the same
indigenous cultural community, which shall be settled in accordance with the
customs and traditions of that particular cultural community, or where one or more
of the parties to the aforesaid dispute belong to the minority and the parties
mutually agreed to submit their dispute to the indigenous system of amicable
settlement, and there has been no settlement as certified by the datu or tribal
leader or elder to the Punong Barangay of place of settlement (Secs. 1,4 & 5, Rule
IX, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); and

[4] If mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong Barangay proved

unsuccessful, there having been no agreement to arbitrate (Sec. 410 [b], Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec. 1, c. (1), Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay
Rules), or where the respondent fails to appear at the mediation proceeding before
the Punong Barangay (3rd par. Sec. 8, a, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules),
the Punong Barangay shall not cause the issuance at this stage of a certification to
file action, because it is now mandatory for him to constitute the Pangkat before
whom mediation, conciliation, or arbitration proceedings shall be held.

III. All complaints and/or informations filed or raffled to your sala/branch of the
Regional Trial Court shall be carefully read and scrutinized to determine if there has
been compliance with prior Barangay conciliation procedure under the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations as a
pre-condition to judicial action, particularly whether the certification to file action
attached to the records of the case comply with the requirements hereinabove
enumerated in Par. II;
John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law

Summary:

June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

Key Points Notes

John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law

IV. A case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation which
is a pre-condition for formal adjudication (Sec. 412 [a] of the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law) may be dismissed upon motion of defendant/s, not for lack of
jurisdiction of the court but for failure to state a cause of action or prematurity
(Royales vs. IAC, 127 SCRA 470; Gonzales vs. CA, 151 SCRA 289), or the court may
suspend proceedings upon petition of any party under Sec. 1, Rule 21 of the Rules
of Court; and refer the case motu proprio to the appropriate Barangay authority
applying by analogy Sec. 408 [g], 2nd par., of the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law which reads as follows:

"The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of
the Lupon under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial, motu
proprio refer case to the Lupon concerned for amicable settlement.

Strict observance of these guidelines is enjoined. This Administrative Circular shall

be effective immediately.

Manila, Philippines; July 15, 1993.

Summary:
John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court 1

Key Points Notes

1. Lawyer’s Oath Lawyer’s Oath

2. Supreme Court Hymn
3. Ecumenical Prayer for “I JOHN MARK S. TOCALO, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to
the Courts the Republic of the Philippines,
I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of
the duly constituted authorities therein;
I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, or give aid nor consent to the same;
I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as
well to the courts as to my clients; and
I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion.

So help me God.”

Supreme Court Hymn

The Philippine Judiciary was born of liberty

A bulwark of democracy enshrined in history
The annals of the nation, trace our rightful, lofty place
Our institution is ablaze with glory, light, and praise

We pledge our all, our hearts and soul to seal our loyalty
We march as one, our task be done
In constant unity

The Philippine Judiciary endowed with majesty

With justice, law, and equity pursues its destiny.

Our voices rise in harmony to hail triumphantly

The honor, faith, and legacy of our judiciary
The honor, faith, and legacy of our judiciary

Summary:
John Mark S. Tocalo
Juris Doctor – Liceo de Cagayan University
College of Law
June 20, 2019 Cornell Notes – Practice Court

Key Points Notes

Ecumenical Prayer for the Courts

“Almighty God, we stand in Your Holy Presence as our Supreme Judge.

We humbly beseech You to bless and inspire us so that what we think,
say and do will be in accordance with Your will.
Enlighten our minds, strengthen our spirit and fill our hearts with fraternal
love,
wisdom and understanding, so that we can become effective channels of
truth, justice and peace.
In our proceedings today, guide us in the path of righteousness for the
fulfillment of Your greater glory.
Amen.”

Summary: