1. a. The stipulation is null and void.

Under RA 9285 which governs the Alternative

Dispute Resolutions in the Philippines, issues on validity of marriage such as legal
separation is one of the exception of stipulations which can be brought for compromise
agreement.

1. b. A compromise agreement on the separation of properties is valid. The enumerated

list of exceptions of stipulations which cannot undergo compromise agreement under
RA 9285 does not include separation of property. Hence, an agreement to settle the
separation of properties of the parties may validly be resolved amicably.

SEC. 6. Exception to the Application of this Act. - The provisions of this Act shall not apply to
resolution or settlement of the following:
(a) labor disputes covered by Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines, as amended and its Implementing Rules and Regulations;
(b) the civil status of persons;
(c) the validity of a marriage;
(d) any ground for legal separation;
(e) the jurisdiction of courts;
(f) future legitime;
(g) criminal liability; and
(h) those which by law cannot be compromised.

2. a. A compromise agreement entered into by party-litigants, when not contrary to law,

public order, public policy, morals, or good custom is a valid contract which is the law
between the parties themselves. It follows, therefore, that a compromise agreement,
not tainted with infirmity, irregularity, fraud or illegality, is the law between the parties
who are duty bound to abide by it and observe strictly its terms and conditions. What
was compromised was the civil aspect of the crime estafa and not the committed crime
itself. Under the law, payment of the civil aspect of estafa may validly be mutually
agreed on by the parties.

2. b. No. The case should not be dismissed. In the instant case, Wilson did not comply
with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Such non-compliance may be
construed as repudiation because it denotes that the respondent did not intend to be
bound by the terms thereof, thereby negating the very purpose for which it was
executed. The case will be returned to the branch that ruled on the applications for the
trial proper and up to judgment.

3. a. Alternative Dispute Resolution System means any process or procedure used to

resolve a dispute or controversy, other than by adjudication of a presiding judge of a
court or an officer of a government agency, in which a neutral third party participates to
assist in the resolution of issues, which includes arbitration, mediation, conciliation,
early neutral evaluation, mini-trial, or any combination thereof.

3. b. It means an ADR process wherein parties and their lawyers are brought together in
an early in a pre-trial phase to present summaries of their cases and receive a non-
binding assessment by an experienced, neutral person, with expertise
in the subject in the substance of the dispute.

4. a. Yes, Omar can be charged with conspiracy to commit rebellion. Under the law,
mediation communication which is internationally used to plan a crime, attempt to
commit, or commit a crime, or conceal an ongoing crime or criminal activity does not
merit a privilege against disclosure. As the admission of Omar reveals a plan to commit

1
 a crime during the mediation does not warrant a privilege against disclosure, the
Prosecutor may then charge Omar with conspiracy to commit rebellion.
CONDIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

Information obtained through mediation proceedings shall be subject to the following

principles and guidelines:
(a) Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential.
(b) A party, a mediator, or a nonparty participant may refuse to disclose and may prevent any
other person from disclosing a mediation communication.

Q: May the modes of discovery under the rules of court be availed of to obtain information
disclosed in mediation proceedings?
A: Confidential Information shall not be subject to discovery and shall be inadmissible if any
adversarial proceeding, whether judicial or quasijudicial, However, evidence or information
that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does not become inadmissible or
protected from discovery solely by reason of its use in a mediation.

EXCEPTIONS:

(a) There is no privilege against disclosure under Section 9 if mediation communication is:
a. in an agreement evidenced by a record authenticated by all parties to the agreement;
b. available to the public or that is made during a session of a mediation which is open, or is
required by law to be open, to the public;
c. a threat or statement of a plan to inflict bodily injury or commit a crime of violence;
d. internationally used to plan a crime, attempt to commit, or commit a crime, or conceal an
ongoing crime or criminal activity;
e. sought or offered to prove or disprove abuse, neglect, abandonment, or exploitation in a
proceeding in which a public agency is protecting the interest of an individual
protected by law;

XPN to the XPN: This exception does not apply where a child protection matter is referred to
mediation by a court or a public agency participates in the child protection mediation;

f. sought or offered to prove or disprove a claim or complaint of professional misconduct or

malpractice filed against mediator in a proceeding; or
g. sought or offered to prove or disprove a claim of complaint of professional misconduct of
malpractice filed against a party, nonparty participant, or representative of a party based
on conduct occurring during a mediation.

(b) There is no privilege if a court or administrative agency, finds, after a hearing in camera,
that the party seeking discovery of the proponent of the evidence has shown
that the evidence is not otherwise available, that there is a need for the evidence that
substantially outweighs the interest in protecting confidentiality, and the
mediation communication is sought or offered in:
a. a court proceeding involving a crime or felony; or
b. a proceeding to prove a claim or defense that under the law is sufficient to reform or
avoid a liability on a contract arising out of the mediation.

NOTE: A mediator may not be compelled to provide evidence of a mediation communication

or testify in such proceeding.

4. b. "Appointing Authority" as used in the Model Law shall mean the person or institution

2
 named in the arbitration agreement as the appointing authority; or the regular
arbitration arbitration institution under whose rules the arbitration is agreed to be
conducted. Where the parties have agreed to submit their dispute to institutional
arbitration rules, and unless they have agreed to a different procedure,
they shall be deemed to have agreed to procedure under such arbitration rules for the
selection and appointment of arbitrators. In ad hoc arbitration, the default appointment
of an arbitrator shall be made by the National President of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) or his duly authorized representative.

5. a. No. The admissions of Agapito alone that he is psychologically incapacitated

absence of proof and evidence is not sufficient ground to annul his marriage with Beth.
Under the law, psychological incapacity as ground for annulment of marriage should be
established by the totality of evidence presented during trial. Mere admissions will not
suffice.

5. b. No. Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and confidential. A

party, a mediator, or a nonparty participant may refuse to disclose and may prevent
any other person from disclosing a mediation communication. Confidential Information
shall not be subject to discovery and shall be inadmissible if any adversarial
proceeding, whether judicial or quasi-judicial.

Discuss the three (3) Stages of Court Diversion in connection with Alternative Dispute
Resolution. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The three stages of diversion are Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM),
Judicial Dispute Resolution, and Appeals Court Mediation (ACM). During CAM, the judge
refers the parties to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) for the mediation of their dispute
by trained and accredited mediators. If CAM fails, the JDR is undertaken by the JDR judge,
acting as a mediator-conciliator-early neutral evaluator. The third case is during appeal, where
covered cases are referred to ACM.