TORRES, BRENT CHRISTIAN T.
ADR
LLB-2A
REACTION PAPER:
COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION: SUMMING UP THE PAST
AND CHARTING THE FUTURE
In the past, it was evident that there is a need of improving the justice system in
the Philippines. One of the problems is the slow disposition of cases which eventually
result in a collection of cases that were not resolved. Hence clogging court dockets. Our
Courts however were able to solve this problem by adopting Alternative Dispute
Resolution, of which Court-Annexed Mediation is a kind, because they observe that the
cases that were frequently filed were cases which are capable of resolving through
amicable settlement.
One of the objectives of Court-Annexed Mediation is to provide a speedy and
impartial justice and declog court dockets. Since Court-Annexed Mediation was adopted
by our judicial system to resolve disputes other than going to litigation, it has become
popular and widely used throughout the country. The disputing parties eventually realized
its positive impact in a speedy and inexpensive resolution of their disputes.
However, aside from the positive impact of CAM in the judicial system, it also faced
challenges. This article mentioned the attitude of the stakeholders which greatly affected
the positive outcome of CAM. Lawyers who were trained to go through adversarial
proceedings faced a paradigm shift. Moreover, it was also a question of livelihood
because they saw mediation as threat to their compensations as a lawyer representing a
client in litigation. But, we must not treat this profession as a business but we must treat
it as a noble profession – a vocation or a calling to help the people in need of our services
as lawyers of the country. Another challenge is the issue on minimum referrals of Judges
to the Philippine Mediation Center. The Judges thought that if the case on their docket is
settled rather than adjudicated in the course of normal litigation, they might be ridiculed
by the public as a lazy or incompetent judge. Furthermore, the challenge on funding and
monitoring were also discussed that is imposes a problem to the success of CAM because
of the limited manpower and financing of mediation processes. Hence they addressed
this problem by raising funds through the imposition of mediation fees as part of the filing
fee. The issue on specialization was also brought in this article because the need of
mediators who have special set of skill in the mediation proceedings is a must. However,
the court was able to address this issue. One of this is the creation of a family mediator
to facilitate the resolution of disputes involving cases under the Family Code.
Our world is constantly changing and by looking at the past, we cannot but avoid
to think of the future. Hence, the court must also see to it that CAM can cope up with the
constant changes in relation to dispute resolution. The advancement and adoption of
technology has become a trend to facilitate communication. Thus, they must also provide
plans for the future by utilizing the benefits of technology.
TORRES, BRENT CHRISTIAN T. ADR
LLB-2A
REACTION PAPER:
COLLABORATIVE LAW AND THE RULES ON
COURT-ANNEXED FAMILY MEDIATION
The State recognizes the family as a basic social institution. Hence, our law
provides rights and protections for families to prosper. However, family disputes are
undeniable to exist. Some of these family-related disputes involves the custody of
children, support, and visitation to name a few and most of these disputes implores the
aid of the court to settle these disputes. However, when these disputes are to be resolve
through litigation, it normally takes months and even years to settle. The negative effects
of a lenghty and winding court processes are especially felt in family disputes. Families
are one of the victims of the slow disposition of cases when in fact their rights should be
protected by the State for they are the basic social institution. Thus, there is a need to
resort to alternative dispute resolution to address this issues. Thus, the Court were able
to recognize this problem. Hence, they were able to provide us the Rules on Court-
Annexed Family Mediation (RCAFM), and with the enactment of family court-annexed
mediation, there have been improvements as to the disposal and settlements of family-
related disputes.
In this article, the author introduces the possibility of Collaborative Law to be
adopted in the Philippines as another method of mediation in relation to family disputes.
By its nature, Collaborative Law is flexible, providing parties an opportunity to formulate
a brand of negotiations which suits them best. Just like any other form of mediation, the
objective is to come up with a settlement, especially in family-related disputes. However,
this kind of mediation does not assure the parties that it would be cost-efficient because
of the rule that when the mediation fails it requires automatic withdrawal of the lawyers if
the parties involved from proceeding with handling the case. Unlike RCAFM wherein the
parties have the freedom to choose their mediator and encourage them to settle the
dispute and to participate in good faith and openness.
However, having these kinds of alternatives in resolving disputes is significant in
the administration of justice. But just like any other kind of ADR, these kinds of alternatives
were also criticized by many. The settlement reached in RCAFM might be
disadvantageous to the other party and it may result in an unauthorized practice of law
since it is facilitated by a non-lawyer mediator, while in Collaborative Law, it might cost
more financially since there is a need for a new counsel should mediation fails.
But nonetheless, we can reconcile RCAFM and Collaborative Law with the benefits
it can give to the families involve in a dispute especially the impact of the dispute to the
children affected. The dispute creates anxiety and stress among the children affected.
Since both have the objective to resolve the dispute speedily and impartially, it would still
be on its advantage towards the proper administration of justice. What is important are
the positive effects in our judicial system.
TORRES, BRENT CHRISTIAN T. ADR
LLB-2A
REACTION PAPER:
JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION (JDR)
AS AN INNOVATIVE MODE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) is a process by which a judge attempts to
facilitate settlement between parties undergoing litigation after a similar effort by a court-
appointed mediator has failed. Simply, the rule on JDR is that cases that are not settled
by CAM are then referred back to the judge to whom the case had originally been
assigned, for a second attempt at mediation, which is called JDR. If this second attempt
at settlement is still unsuccessful, the case is then re-raffled to a different judge for pre-
trial and trial.
The concept of JDR as a method of alternative dispute resolution is still alien to
some citizens seeking for the speedy resolution of their disputes. However, when JDR
was introduced to some parts of the country, not all litigants, lawyers and judges
expressed their satisfaction. Based on the surveys conducted by the author of this article,
there were uneven reactions as to the effectiveness of JDR in their localities particularly
on the effectiveness, efficiency, stakeholder satisfaction, program organization, service
delivery, and program quality. There were positive responses to the implementation and
use of JDR in most places. However, there were negative responses in some places
wherein there is need to address some problems and issues, one which is that the
partiality of some judges in the second phase of JDR. It is perceived to be time and cost-
efficient as it successfully reduced the court’s caseload and JDR has also improved
relationships.
It also observed that JDR is working well in the first level of courts compared to the
second level of courts. Mainly because of the limitation of the award, which is more cost-
efficient, that the first level can render. Moreover, there is also a need to create a
specialized JDR courts because the resolution of complex disputes requires the set of
specialized skills. The respondents in the survey also prefers that JDR should come first
before JDR. The rationale behind it is the payment of CAM fees in contrast with JDR
where there are no required fees.
The author then suggests, based on the survey conducted that there is a need to
monitor the continued usage of JDR as a mode of settling disputes without going to
litigation. As a law student, I strongly agree to this proposition by the author because we
cannot but agree that everything in the world is constantly changing. There is a need to
cope up with the changes that our judicial system faces. Hence, there should be a stable
foundation for the implementation of JDR in a constantly changing world. Even though it
is evident that JDR is an effective way of settling disputes, there are still rooms for
improvements. Our courts need to maintain and improve the standards of JDR to attain
the highest possible outcome. Furthermore, there is also a need to address the
shortcomings of implementing JDR for the proper administration of justice.
