COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION GUIDELINES

Background

In order to decongest court dockets and enhance access to justice, the Supreme Court, through
A.M. 01-10-05-SC approved the institutionalization of mediation in the Philippines through Court-
Annexed Mediation (“CAM”).1 Through this Circular, the Supreme Court established, among others, the
Philippine Mediation Center (“PMC”), and approved the Guidelines for the Implementation of Mediation
Proceedings (“Guidelines”).

CAM is defined as the mediation process conducted under the auspices of the court, and in
accordance with Supreme Court-approved guidelines, after such court has acquired jurisdiction over the
dispute.2 Because there are guidelines and institutions in place whereby CAM is to be implemented,
courts may not just indiscriminately refer any case for mediation.

When is CAM Proper?

The threshold question for the judge, in referring the case for CAM, is: “Is the case
mediatable?”

According to the Guidelines, the following cases shall be referred to CAM:

1. All civil cases, except those which by law may not be compromised;
2. Special proceedings for the settlement of estates;
3. 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;
4. The civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code;
5. The civil aspect of criminal cases where the imposable penalty does not exceed six
years imprisonment and the offended party is a private person; and
6. The civil aspect of theft (not qualified theft), estafa (not syndicated or large scale
estafa), and libel.
7. Civil cases and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, brought on appeal from the
exclusive jurisdiction of first-level courts;
8. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, brought on appeal from the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of first-level courts;
9. Civil cases involving title to or possession of real property or an interest therein,
brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction of first-level courts; and
10. Habeas corpus cases decided by the first-level courts, in the absence of RTC judges,
brought on appeal from their special jurisdiction.3

1
A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507, October 9, 2017.
2
DOJ Circular No. 98-2004, Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004,
Rule 2 art. 1.6, December 4, 2009.
3
Philippine Judicial Academy, Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of Court-
Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) at 7-9, available at
http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/files/pdf/pmc/RevisedGuidelines.pdf (last accessed February 2, 2019).

1
 The following cases shall not be referred to CAM (and JDR):

1. Civil cases, which by law, cannot be compromised;

The Guidelines, however, provide an exception to (1) civil cases which may not be
compromised, (2) VAWC case, and (3) cases with a pending application for Restraining
Orders/Preliminary Injunctions, where the case MAY STILL BE REFERRED TO CAM. This is when the
parties INFORM THE COURT that they have AGREED TO UNDERGO MEDIATION on SOME ASPECTS.

CAM is a part of pre-trial.5 Upon appearance of the parties during pre-trial, when the same is
mediatable, or even when the case is not subject to mediation, but the parties have agreed to undergo
mediation on some aspects, the judge shall immediately direct the parties to appear before the PMC
unit for the initial mediation conference. The following scenarios illustrate when the case may be
subject to mediation:

Scenario 1: X filed a case for the declaration of the nullity of her marriage to B, with a prayer for support
pendete lite over their minor children, C and D.

Note: This case falls within the cases which may not be referred to CAM (and JDR), in accordance with
Art. 2035 of the New Civil Code. As the declaration of nullity of marriage concerns the civil status of
persons, the case may not be referred to CAM.6 However, the incident on the aspect of support for C
and D may undergo mediation, subject to the agreement of A and B.

Scenario 2: X was in a bar somewhere in Makati City, where he got drunk and attempted started a brawl
with B, a patron of the same bar. As a result, X was charged with a violation of Art. 155 of the Revised
Penal Code (on Alarms and Scandals) by the Makati City Police.

Note: This case is subject to CAM, since alarms and scandal is a light felony with an imposable penalty of
arresto menor, and the offended party is B, a private individual.

Scenario 3: The Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Public Highways, filed a
complaint for expropriation in the RTC against X, seeking the acquisition of an easement of right of way
over a portion of X’s property.

4
Id. at 10.
5
A.C. No.20-2002, April 24, 2002.
6
Art. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:
(1) The civil status of persons;
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
(3) Any ground for legal separation;
(4) Future support;
(5) The jurisdiction of courts;
(6) Future legitime

2
Note: This case is not subject to CAM, since one party in the case is the Government, which places the
case outside the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law.

Scenario 4: X filed an action for collection of sum of money against B in the MTC of Makati City, to
recover the amount of PhP375,000 which he loaned to B. The RTC ruled against X.

Note: This case is subject to CAM. It is a civil case brought from appeal from the MTC.

Scenario 5: X Corporation filed a criminal action against B, its Vice President for Comptrollership, when
the latter failed to account for a large sum under his custody.

Note: This case is not mediatable. The crime committed is qualified theft, since the relationship of X
Company and the accused B, as the employee entrusted with overseeing the accounting and financial
operations of the company, is fiduciary and thus qualifying the crime. Qualified theft is expressly
excluded from the actions which may be referred to CAM.

Discussion on Cases with Pending Application for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction

The Guidelines provide that cases with a pending application for restraining orders or
preliminary injunctions shall not be referred to CAM.7 Reference must be had to Rule 58 of the Rules of
Court in order to determine at what stage may cases concerning preliminary injunctions may or may not
be referred to CAM.

According to the Rules of Court, before a preliminary injunction may be granted by the court, a
verified application and bond must be filed before the court where the main action is pending.8
Moreover, as a general proposition, there must be a summary hearing for the application where all
parties concerned are heard, before the same is granted or denied by the court,9 unless the case falls
under the instances when an ex-parte temporary restraining order may be granted.

Reading the Guidelines together with the Rules, it is submitted that, pending and up until the
summary hearing where the application for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction is had, the
case may not be referred to CAM. This is because until the court conducts such summary hearing, it can
be said that the application is “pending”, which places it within the cases which shall not be referred to
mediation.

Scenario 6: Several representatives of indigenous peoples in Baguio City filed an action questioning the
proceedings for the selection of the Ibaloi representative to the Baguio City Council, with a prayer for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, to prevent Councilman X from assuming office. The
Judge granted the petition for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.

7
Guidelines, supra note 20, at 10.
8
1997 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 58, §§ 3 and 4.
9
Id. at §4(d).

3
Note: This case may be referred to mediation. In this instance, the mediation will follow after Judge X
had granted the petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.10 Textually, the guidelines
for CAM provide that cases with pending application for preliminary injunctions shall not be referred to
CAM. In the above case, the provisional remedy being sought had already been granted before the
Judge referred the parties to mediation, which takes the case out of the instances when an action
should not be referred to CAM.

Scenario 7: X filed an action to recover the possession of a parcel of land against B, asking the court to
restrain B or his heirs from constructing his house over the premises during the pendency of the case.
The MTC ruled in favor of X. B filed an appeal with the RTC, with a corresponding prayer for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction, to stay the judgment of the MTC.

Note: This case may not be referred to mediation, unless X and B agree to submit the case for
mediation. While forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases appealed to the RTC may be referred to
CAM, in this case, the same is still pending an application for preliminary injunction. The RTC judge must
first hold a summary hearing deciding on B’s application, before referring the case to CAM.

10
Rimaliza A. Opina, Mediation Ordered for IPMR Dispute, BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, available at
http://www.baguiomidlandcourier.com.ph/front.asp?mode=archives/2018/february/2-11-2018/front4.txt (last
accessed February 4, 2019).