interests, skills and intellectual pursuits, cultural activities, etc.

On the contrary, the dichotomy of interests, the dissimilarity in the nature of

the work and duties as well seem obvious that teachers would find very little
in common with the University clerks and other non- declare the strike illegal with prayer
for damages against the Union, NLU and its

2. The initial was illegal and directing NLU to pay damages, absolving Atty. Lerum.
the petition for certification election. local union remained the basic unit of the association, free to
serve the common interest of all

certification election. local union remained the basic unit of the association, free to serve the common
interest of all

evidence. Thus, as provided in Art. 221 of the Labor Code, proceedings

before the National (CAM) AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION (JDR)
Ministry of Labor and Employment, a petition to
As it been held in a long line of cases, a certification proceeding is not a
litigation in the non- adversarial character. It is not covered by the technical for
the illegal strike staged by the Union. NO

RULING:
Petition is DISMISSED, and the Decision of the NLRC is AFFIRMED.

RATIO:
The mother union, acting for and in behalf

Labor Relations Commission are not covered by the technical rules of

evidence and procedure. The court hasalready construed Art. 221 of the
Labor Code in favor of allowing the NLRC or the labor arbiter to decide the
case on the basis of position papers and other documents submitted without
resorting to technical rules of evidence as observed in regular courts of
justice.[12] Indeed, the technical rules of evidence do not apply if the decision to
grant the
(1) The first state is the Court-Annexed Mediation or CAM. CAM is where the
judge remands the issue to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) in order for
the parties to undergo mediation with the help of highly-trained and
accredited mediators.

(2) Upon failing to secure settlement of the dispute during this stage,
another attempt, a second one. This second attempt is the Judicial Dispute
Resolution of JDR. It is in JDR where judges become
mediators/conciliators/early neutral evaluators. This is so in order to push
forward a continuing effort to secure settlement. The aim, remember, is
settlement.

What if the second attempt fails? The mediator-judge is required to turn over
the case to another judge. This means that the case is to be raffled or passed
to the nearest or pair judge. The successor-judge will CONSOLIDATED AND
REVISED GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENT THE EXPANDED COVERAGE OF COURT-

rules of the unsettled case. Here, the trial judge shall continue with the pre-
trial proper and, thereafter, proceed to try and decide the case.

(3) Comes now the third stage. This is during the appeal where covered
cases are referred to the PMC-Appeals Court Mediation (ACM) unit for another
attempt to mediate.

It is worth noting at this point that the Katarungang Pambarangay Law and
the CAM eye on the same aim: the restoration of the role of the judiciary as
the forum of last recourse. You see, it is an undying principle that the courts
should only be resorted to after all prior earnest efforts to arrive at private
accommodation and resolution of disputes have failed.

In the subject guidelines, the Court did not fail to make mention and notice of
Article 2034 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. This Article reads, "There
may be a compromise upon the civil liability arising from the offense, but
such compromise shall not extinguish the public action for the imposition of
the legal penalty." This provision of the law means that there can be an
agreement between the parties as regards the amount of indemnification by
the offender. However, when it comes to the prison time and fine imposed
upon the convict, parties are not free to stipulate because it is only the State
which can enter into a compromise for such matters. Therefore, the allowed
compromise of civil liability can be applied to all crimes, subject only to the
policy considerations of deterrence variables arising from the celerity,
certainty and severity of the punishment actually imposed.
At this juncture, the reader must be made aware that around 85% of cases
filed before courts are civil in nature. The rest are civil cases and the few
others are special proceedings.

The expanded coverage of CAM and JDR also provides that from the
promulgation of the guidelines, the following cases shall be referred to CAM
and deemed subject to JDR:

(1) All civil cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure

(2) All civil liability of criminal cases covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure

(3) Civil liability for violation of BP 22

(4) Special proceedings for the settlement of estates

(5) All civil and criminal cases filed with a certificate to file action issued by
the Punong Barangay or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo under the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law

(6) All criminal cases filed with a certificate to file action issued by the
Punong Barangay or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo under the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law

(7) The civil aspect of quasi-offenses under Title 14 of the RPC

(8) The civil aspect of grave felonies punishable by correctional penalties not
exceeding 6 years imprisonment, where the offended party is a private
person

(9) The civil aspect of estafa

(10) The civil aspect of theft

(11) The civil aspect of libel

(12) All civil cases brought on appeal from the exclusive and original
jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 33, par. (1) of the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980

(13) All probate proceedings, testate or intestate, brought on appeal from the
exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under
Section 33, par. (1) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980

(14) All cases of forcible entry brought on appeal from the exclusive and
original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 33, par. (2)
of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980

(15) All cases of unlawful detainer brought on appeal from the exclusive and
original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 33, par. (2)
of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980

(16) All civil cases involving title a real property brought on appeal from the
exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under
Section 33, par.(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980

(17) All civil cases involving possession of a real property brought on appeal
from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts
under Section 33, par.(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980

(18) All civil cases involving any interest in a real property brought on appeal
from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts
under Section 33, par.(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980

(19) All habeas corpus cases decided by the first level courts in the absence
of the Regional Trial Court judge, that are brought up on appeal from the
special jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 35 of the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.

The guidelines to the implementation of the expanded coverage of CAM and

JDR also provide a list of cases which cannot be referred to or made subject
to CAM or JDR:

(1) The civil status of persons (Article 2035, New Civil Code)

(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation (Article 2035, New Civil
Code)

(3) Any ground for legal separation (Article 2035, New Civil Code)

(4) Future support (Article 2035, New Civil Code)

(5) The jurisdiction of courts (Article 2035, New Civil Code)

(6) Future legitime (Article 2035, New Civil Code)

(7) All criminal cases not covered by the enumeration above

(8) Habeas Corpus petitions, except those decided by the first level courts in
the absence of the Regional Trial Court judge, that are brought up on appeal
from the special jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 35
of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980

(9) All cases under Republic Act No. 9262

(10) Cases with pending application for Restraining Orders

(11) Cases with pending application for Preliminary Injunctions

What are the exceptions?

It is of utmost importance, however, to point out that in cases falling under

(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (9), (10) and (11), the parties may inform the court
that they have agreed to undergo mediation on some aspects thereof.
Examples of these "some aspects" are custody of minor children, separation
of property, support pendente lite and other small matters that are not
considered to be imbued with "the highest public interest" due to lack of
imminent danger.

What if the last pleading has already been filed?

After the filing of the last pleading, the judge is required to issue an order
mandating the parties to appear as soon as possible, without delay, before
the concerned Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) Unit staff to start the
process for the settlement of their dispute through mediation. On the same
day, the court shall give to the PMC a copy of such order of mediation.

Appearance, Representation and Substitution

Individual parties are required to appear in person for the mediation
proceeding. If it so happens that they cannot so appear, they are permitted
to send their representatives who must be fully authorized to appear,
negotiate and enter into a compromise on and in their behalf. This
authorization to appear, negotiate and enter into a compromise agreement
must be through a Special Power of Attorney.

In cases where one or both of the parties are corporations, partnership or

other juridical entities, representation by a ranking corporate officer fully
authorized by a Board Resolution to offer, negotiate, accept, decide and
enter into a compromise agreement is enough without need of further
approval by or notification to the authorizing party.

[What if the CEO/President appeared in behalf of the corporation without a

Board Resolution? It is humbly submitted that there is no need for a Board
Resolution in such cases.]

More on the Order of Mediation Issued by the Judge

The Order issued shall include a clear warning that sanctions may be
imposed upon a party for failure to comply therewith, in accordance with the
Section below on sanctions.

On the date set in the Order, the parties are required to proceed in the
selection of a mutually acceptable mediator from the pool of accredited
mediators provided by the Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution, PMC or
other recognized mediation and arbitration organizations. If there appears to
be no chance for agreement, the PMC Unit Staff shall, in the presence of the
parties and the mediators, choose by lot the one who will mediate the
dispute from among the mediators inside the Unit, seeing to it that there is
fair and equal distribution of cases. This shall take place, provided that in
exceptional circumstances where specially qualified mediators are required
to intervene and moderate due to the technicality or sensitivity of the issues
at hand, the parties shall be given an opportunity to fish out from the entire
roll of accredited mediators.

The Mediator

The mediator from the time he was selected shall be deemed an officer of
the court while performing his duties as such and in connection therewith.
This means that wrongs done to him in the performance of his duties, on
occasion thereof, in connection therewith or by reason thereof, shall be, as
provided by law deemed qualified or qualified, as the case may be, in the
same way as persons in authority or agents of persons in authority.

An explanation by the mediator is required at the initial conference regarding

the mediation process, stressing the benefits of an early settlement of their
dispute based on serving their mutual interests, rather than the legal
positions that may be taken by them. This shall be explained to both parties.

It can be that, with their consent, the parties undergo separate caucuses
with the mediator for the latter to determine their respective real interests in
the dispute. After that, another conference where both parties must join may
be held for the consideration of various option that may resolve the dispute.
This must be done through reciprocal concessions and on terms that are
mutually beneficial to both parties.

The mediator is prohibited to record in any manner the proceedings of the

joint conferences or of the separate caucuses. It is also proscribed to take
transcripts or minutes thereof. Personal notes for guidance may be taken but
are to be shredded and destroyed later on. Anything obtained in violation of
these prohibitions shall not be validly admitted as evidence in any other
proceedings.
If these steps were taken and efforts were exerted to reach agreement, to no
avail, the mediator is required to return the case to the referring judge.

Recommendation of the Mediator, Sanctions

Imposition of sanctions upon any party who fails to appear before the PMC
Unit as directed by the referring judge, or upon any person who engages in
abusive conduct during mediation proceedings may be decreed by the court,
as provided for in the Rules of Court as part of the Pre-Trial and other
issuances of the Supreme Court, including, but not limited to:

(1) Censure

(2) Reprimand

(3) Contempt

(4) Payment of reimbursement by the absent party in favor of the appearing

party for the latter's costs, including attorneys fees for that day up to treble
such costs, payable on or before the date of the re-scheduled setting.

Sanctions may also be imposed by the referring judge upon his own initiative
or upon motion of the interested party.

[Remedial Law: Sanction to an erring party may be imposed by the court

motu proprio or ex parte.]

Motion for Reconsideration

Justifiable causes duly proved in the hearing by motion to reconsider with the
concurrence of the mediator may give way to the lifting or setting aside of
sanctions imposed, subject to the sound discretion of the referring judge.
[Remedial Law: Sanction imposed may be moved for reconsideration.
Requisites: (1) Justifiable causes duly proved, (2) Concurrence of the
mediator and (3) discretion of the referring judge.]

Within 30 days, the mediator is expected by law to complete the mediation

process. Such period of time shall be computed from the date when the
parties first appeared for the initial conference as stated in the Order to
appear. Nevertheless, this 30-day completion period may be extended. The
motion to extend the 30-day completion period may only be filed or moved
by the mediator, with the conformity of the parties.

[Remedial Law: When shall the 30-day completion period commence?

Remember the first-appearance rule. What may be used as reference? The
Order to appear.]

The period during which the case is undergoing mediation shall be excluded
from the regular and mandatory periods for trial and rendition of judgment in
ordinary cases and in cases under summary proceedings.

Parties Reaching a Full Settlement

In cases when full settlement of the issues of the dispute has been achieved,
the drafting of the compromise agreement shall commence. This drafting
shall be made by the parties with the assistance of their respective counsels.
Thereafter, the parties are required to petition the court to judge upon the
compromise or render other appropriate actions.

Compliance with the above shall result in the dismissal of the case. The
referring judge shall issue an order of dismissal after the parties submit a
certificate of satisfaction of claims or a mutual withdrawal of the case.
Partial Resolution

If, however, only partial settlement is reached, the parties are still required to
submit the terms of the agreement for the appropriate action of the court.
This shall be done with the assistance of counsel and without waiting for the
resolution of the unsettled parts.

The unsettled part shall be submitted to a JDR proceeding.

Judicial Dispute Resolution

Unless otherwise directed by the Supreme Court, all judges who have
undergone orientation in JDR procedures and completed their training in
mediation, conciliation and neutral evaluation, are authorized to conduct JDR
proceedings in accordance with these guidelines for the settlement of
disputes pending in their courts, after the parties failed to settle their
disputes during Court Annexed Mediation at the Philippine Mediation Center
Units (PMCU).

[JDR comes in after the failure of CAM.]

There are two stages in judicial proceedings:

(1) The first stage: from the filing of a complaint to the conduct of CAM and
JDR during the pre-trial stage

(2) The second stage: from pre-trial proper to trial and judgment

The JDR Judge

The judge to whom the case has been originally raffled, who shall be called
the JDR Judge, shall preside over the first stage. The judge, who shall be
called the trial judge, shall preside over the second stage.

[Two different judges shall preside over two different stages.]

At the initial stage of the pre-trial conference, there has to be a briefing

made by the JDR judge in order that the parties and counsels understand the
CAM and JDR processes. After that, he is required to issue an Order referring
the case to CAM and directing the parties and their counsels to proceed to
the PMCY

At the initial stage of the pre-trial conference, the JDR judge briefs the parties
and counsels of the CAM and JDR processes. Thereafter, he issues an Order
of Referral of the case to CAM and directs the parties and their counsels to
proceed to the PMCU bringing with them a copy of the Order of Referral. The
JDR judge shall include in said Order, or in another Order, the pre-setting of
the case for JDR not earlier than forty-five (45) days from the time the parties
first personally appear at the PMCU so that JDR will be conducted
immediately if the parties do not settle at CAM.

All incidents or motions filed during the first stage shall be dealt with by the
JDR judge. If JDR is not conducted because of the failure of the parties to
appear, the JDR judge may impose the appropriate sanctions and shall
continue with the proceedings of the case.

If there is failure to achieve settlement regardings parties' disputes at CAM,

the parties and their counsels shall appear at the preset date before the JDR
judge. This JDR judge is the one who will conduct the JDR process as:

(1) Mediator
(2) Neutral evaluator and/or

(3) Conciliator.

This is done in order to actively assist and facilitate negotiations among the
parties for them to settle their dispute. As mediator and conciliator, the
judge facilitates the settlement discussions between the parties and tries to
reconcile their differences. As a neutral evaluator, the judge assesses the
relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's case and makes a non-
binding and impartial evaluation of the chances of each party's success in
the case.

REMEMBER THE FOLLOWING:

(1) The non-binding and impartial neutral evaluation shall be made the basis
of persuading the parties to a fair and mutually acceptable settlement of
their dispute.

(2) The JDR judge shall not preside over the trial of the case when the parties
do not intend to have their differences settled at JDR.

(3) If the case in not resolved during JDR, raffling to another branch for pre-
trial proper up to judgment shall be made in circumstances involving multiple
sala courts.

(4) If restraining orders or preliminary injunctions are praye for in the case
pending, the judge in whose sala the case was raffled is required to rule on
said applications.

(5) During the pre-trial stage, the judge is given the power to refer the case
to CAM. However, if the parties do not attain settlement at CAM, the case will
be raffled to another branch for JDR.

(6) If the parties, again, have not reached mutual agreement at JDR, the case
will be returned to the branch which granted or denied the restraining orders
or preliminary injunctions for the pre-trial proper and up to judgment.

(7) In single sala courts, the JDR proceedings will be conducted by the judge
of the pair court, if any. If there is none, it shall be conducted by the judge of
the nearest court as determined by the concerned Executive Judge. This,
however, applies only if there is no agreement to the contrary.

(8) The JDR proceedings are required to be conducted at the station where
the originaly case was filed.

(9) The result of the JDR proceedings shall be referred to the court of origin
for appropriate action. This means that the court of origin shall issue an
approval of the compromise agreement, trial, et cetera.

Notwithstanding the above-enumerated rules, before the commencement of

the JDR proceedings, the parties may file a joint written motion requesting
that the court of origin conduct the JDR proceedings and trial.

In Family Courts

Unless otherwise agreed upon, the JDR proceedings in areas where only one
court is designated as a family court shall be conducted by a judge of
another branch through raffle. However, if there is another family court in
the same area, the family court to whom the case was originally raffled shall
conduct JDR proceedings and if not settlement is reached, the other family
court shall conduct the pre-trial proper and trial.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, before commencement of the JDR

proceedings, the parties may file a joint written motion requesting that the
family court to which the case was originally raffled shall conduct the JDR
proceedings and trial.

[Remember: General rule states that if there has been no settlement in the
original court, the case shall be tried by another court by raffle. This is unless
the parties file a joint written motion to request the original court to proceed
and set aside raffle.]
There are principal cases like annulment of marriage and others which are
non-mediatable in nature. Nevertheless, lesser issues attached to these
principal cases may be referred to CAM and JDR to limit issues for trial. These
mediatable lesser issues include, among others:

(1) Custody of children

(2) Support

(3) Visitation

(4) Property relations

(5) Guardianship

Commercial, Intellectual Property and Environmental Courts (Special Courts)

In Special Courts, the JDR proceedings in areas where only a sole court has
been designated as such court shall be conducted by another judge through
raffle and not by the judge assigned in that special court. Where settlement
is not reached, the judge of the special court shall be the trial judge. Any
incident or motion filed before the pretrial stage shall be dealt with by the
special court that shall refer the case to CAM.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, before commencement of the JDR

proceedings, the parties may file a joint written motion requesting that the
special courts to which the case was originally raffled shall conduct the JDR
proceedings and trial.

After CAM failure, may the case still be referred to JDR even during trial
stage?

Yes! This can be done upon written motion of one or both parties indicating
willingness to discuss a possible compromise. If the motion is granted, the
trial shall be suspended and the case referred to JDR. This shall be conducted
by another judge through raffle in multiple sala courts.

[What if the case involves a single sala court? Nearest court.]

Approval or disapproval of the compromise agreement are appropriate

actions that may be taken by the JDR court if settlement is reached during
this stage. If settlement is not reached at JDR, the case shall be returned to
the referring court for continuation of trial.

In single sala courts, the JDR shall be conducted by the nearest court (or pair
court, if any) regardless of the level of the latter court. The result of the JDR
proceedings shall be referred to the court of origin for appropriate action,
e.g. approval of the compromise agreement, trial, etc.

The parties may, by joint written motion, despite confidential information

that may be divulged during JDR proceedings, file a request that their case
be not transferred to other courts for JDR and that they agree to have the
trial judge continue the trial should the case not be settled through JDR.

[This means that parties are free to agree on whether or not to submit the
next stage of the proceeding to another court. They may request that the
original court sustain its cognizance of the case.]

A party who fails to appear on the date set for JDR conference, may forthwith
be imposed the appropriate sanction as provided in Rule 18 of the Revised
Rules of Court and relevant issuances of the Supreme Court including, but
not limited to censure, reprimand, contempt, and requiring the absent party
to reimburse the appearing party his costs, including attorneys fees for that
day up to treble such costs, payable on or before the date of the re-
scheduled setting. Sanctions may be imposed by the JDR judge upon motion
of the appearing party or motu proprio.
Upon justifiable cause duly proved in the hearing of the motion to reconsider
filed by the absent party, the sanctions imposed may be lifted, set aside or
modified in the sound discretion of the JDR judge.

A representative who appears on behalf of an individual or corporate party

without the required authorization by special power of attorney or board
resolution, respectively, may similarly be imposed appropriate sanctions.

Completion of the JDR Process

A period not exceeding 30 days is given to judges of First Level Courts in

order to effect the completion of the JDR process. For Second Level Courts,
the period is twice as long (60 days). A longer period, however, may be
granted upon the discretion of the JDR judge if there is a high probability of
settlement and upon joint written motion of the parties. Both periods shall be
computed from the date when the parties first appeared for JDR proceedings
as directed in the respective Orders issued by the judge.

As far as practicable, JDR conferences shall be set not more than two (2)
weeks apart so as to afford the parties ample time to negotiate meaningfully
for settlement.

Criminal Cases Covered by CAM

In criminal cases covered by CAM and JDR, where settlement on the civil
aspect has been reached but the period of payment in accordance with the
terms of settlement exceeds one (1) year, the case may be archived upon
motion of the prosecution, with notice to the private complainant and
approval by the judge.

The period during which the case undergoing JDR proceedings shall be
excluded from the regular and mandatory periods for trial and rendition of
judgment in ordinary cases and in cases under summary proceedings.
Civil Cases Covered by CAM

In civil cases, if full settlement of the dispute is reached, the parties, assisted
by their respective counsels, shall draft the compromise agreement which
shall be submitted to the court for a judgment upon compromise,
enforceable by execution. Where full compliance with the terms of the
compromise is forthwith made, the parties, instead of submitting a
compromise agreement, shall submit a satisfaction of claims or a mutual
withdrawal of the parties respective claims and counterclaims. Thereafter,
the court shall enter an order dismissing the case.

If partial settlement is reached, the parties shall, with the assistance of

counsel, submit the terms thereof for the courts approval and rendition of a
judgment upon partial compromise, which may be enforced by execution
without waiting for resolution of the unsettled part.

In relation to the unsettled part of the dispute, the court shall proceed to
conduct trial on the merits of the case should the parties file a joint motion
for him to do so, despite confidential information that may have been
divulged during the conciliation/mediation stage of the proceedings.
Otherwise, the JDR Judge shall turn over the case to a new judge by re-raffle
in multiple sala courts or to the originating court in single sala courts, for the
conduct of pre-trial proper and trial.

In criminal cases, if settlement is reached on the civil aspect of the criminal

case, the parties, assisted by their respective counsels, shall draft the
compromise agreement which shall be submitted to the court for appropriate
action. Action on the criminal aspect of the case will be determined by the
Public Prosecutor, subject to the appropriate action of the court.

If settlement is not reached by the parties on the civil aspect of the criminal
case, the JDR judge shall proceed to conduct the trial on the merits of the
case should the parties file a joint written motion for him to do so, despite
confidential information that may have been divulged during the JDR
proceedings. Otherwise, the JDR Judge shall turn over the case to a new
judge by re-raffle in multiple sala courts or to the originating court in single
sala courts, for the conduct of pretrial proper and trial.

Where no settlement or only a partial settlement was reached, and there

being no joint written motion submitted by the parties, the JDR judge shall
turn over the case to the trial judge, determined by re-raffle in multiple sala
courts or to the originating court in single sala courts, as the case may be, to
conduct pre-trial proper, as mandated by Rules 18 and 118 of the Rules of
Court.

The trial judge to whom the case was turned over, shall expeditiously
proceed to trial, after the pre-trial and, thereafter, render judgment in
accordance with the established facts, evidence, and the applicable laws.

Privileged and Confidential Communication

Any and all matters discussed or communications made, including requests

for mediation, and documents presented during the mediation proceedings
before the Philippine Mediation Center or the JDR proceedings before the trial
judge, shall be privileged and confidential, and the same shall be
inadmissible as evidence for any purpose in any other proceedings. However,
evidence or information that is otherwise admissible does not become
inadmissible solely by reason of its use in mediation or conciliation.

Further, the JDR judge shall not pass any information obtained in the course
of conciliation and early neutral evaluation to the trial judge or to any other
person. This prohibition shall include all court personnel or any other person
present during such proceedings. All JDR conferences shall be conducted in
private.

Lawyers may attend mediation proceedings in the role of adviser and

consultant to their clients, dropping their combative role in the adjudicative
process, and giving up their dominant role in judicial trials. They must accept
a less directive role in order to allow the parties more opportunities to craft
their own agreement.

Functions of Lawyers in Mediation Proceedings

(1) Assist their clients to grasp the basics and rudiments of the mediation
process and its benefits.

(2) Facilitate their clients' assumption of greater personal responsibility in

making decisions for the success of mediation in resolving the dispute.

(3) Discuss with their clients the substantive issues involved in the dispute.

(4) Discuss with their clients prioritization of resolution in terms of

importance to client.

(5) Discuss with their clients understanding of the position of the other side
and the underlying fears, concerns and needs underneath that position.

(6) Discuss with their clients the need for more information or facts to be
gathered or exchanged with the other side for informed decision making.

(7) Discuss possible bargaining options with their clients but stressing the
need to be openminded about other possibilities.

(8) Discuss the best, worst and most likely alternatives to a negotiated
agreement.

(9) Assist in the preparation and drafting of a compromise agreement that is

not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. This
must be done is such a way that it may be approved by the court, paying
particular attention to issues of voluntary compliance of what have been
agreed upon, or otherwise to issues of enforcement in case of breach.

(10) Assist, wherever applicable, in the preparation of a manifestation of

satisfaction of claims and mutual withdrawal of complaint and counterclaim
as basis for the court to issue an order of dismissal.

Mediation Fees
The Mediation Fees collected and collectible, pursuant to Section 9, Rule 141,
as amended, of the Rules of Court, and all income therefrom shall constitute
a special fund, to be known as the SC-PHILJA-PMC Mediation Trust Fund,
which shall be administered and disbursed in accordance with guidelines set
by court issuances, for purposes enumerated in Section 9, Rule 141 of the
Revised Rules of Court.

The Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Courts and the First-Level Courts
shall collect the amount of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) upon the filing of
the following:

(1) Complaint or an Answer with a mediatable permissive counterclaim or

cross-claim, complaint-in-intervention, third-party complaint, fourth-party
complaint, etc., in civil cases, a Petition, an Opposition, and a Creditors
Claim in Special Proceedings;

(2) Complaint/Information for offenses with maximum imposable penalty

ofprision correccional in its maximum period or six years imprisonment,
except where the civil liability is reserved or is subject of a separate action;

(3) Complaint/Information for estafa, theft, and libel cases, except where the
civil

liability is reserved or is subject of a separate action;

(4) Complaint/Information for Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised

Penal Code;

(5) Intellectual Property cases;

(6) Commercial or corporate cases; and

(7) Environmental cases

The Clerks of Court of the First Level Courts shall collect the amount of FIVE
HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) upon the filing of a Notice of Appeal with the
Regional Trial Court.
The Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Court shall collect the amount of
ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) upon the filing of a Notice of Appeal with
the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan.

The Clerks of Court of the Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals shall
collect the amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) upon the filing of a
mediatable case, petition, special civil action, a comment/answer to the
petition or action, and the appellees brief. The Clerk of Court of the Court of
Tax Appeals shall also collect the amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS
(P1,000.00) for the appeal from the decision of a CTA Division to the CTA En
Banc.

A pauper litigant shall be exempt from contributing to the Mediation Fund.

Despite

such exemption, the court shall provide that the unpaid contribution to the
Mediation Fund shall be considered a lien on any monetary award in a
judgment favorable to the pauper litigant.

An accused-appellant shall also be exempt from contributing to the

Mediation Fund.The Fund shall be utilized for the promotion of courtannexed
mediation and other relevant modes of alternative dispute resolution (ADR),
training of mediators, payment of mediators fees, and operating expenses
for technical assistance and organizations/individuals,
transportation/communication expenses, photocopying, supplies and
equipment, expense allowance, and miscellaneous expenses, whenever
necessary, subject to auditing rules and regulations. In view thereof, the
mediation fees shall not form part of the Judicial Development Fund (JDF)
under P.D. No. 1949 nor of the special allowances granted to justices and
judges under Republic Act No. 9227.