ADR Short Examination (JOEL T ELUNA)
ADR Short Examination (JOEL T ELUNA)
I.
1. Discuss the importance of ADR vis-à -vis our judicial setting.
Answer:
ADR is plays a very important rule in our judicial setting because it gives
parties in disputes the opportunity to work through disputed issues with the
help of a neutral third party and settle it in a less hassle way. ADR is generally
faster and less expensive than going to court which also lessen the file up of
cases in courts.
II. Essay
1. Explain the factors that make the system of arbitration and negotiation
difficult in the Philippine setting. (10 pts.)
Answer:
Lack of credibility in the judicial system- This is due to allegations of
corruption and an inadequate number of courts, leading to notoriously slow
proceedings, which take many years to reach completion.
The final decision of an arbitrator is difficult to overturn even if erroneous
with respect to the merits – means that even if the decision of the arbitrator
is erroneous, the aggrieve party has no way to counter the arbitrator
decision. Pieces of evidences which are, under the Rules of Court, that are
obviously inadmissible, can be admitted and considered by the arbitral
tribunal. The weight placed on evidence by the tribunal may not be very clear
to the parties and third party joinder is limited or may even be prohibited.
Answer:
Yes, Y is correct in contending that Lupon has no jurisdiction over the case. Is
this instant case, their dispute my start when Y terminated X or a land
dispute may arise by the allegation of X to Y have encroaching his property
by 2 square meters, the Lupon has no jurisdiction over the cases involving
labor dispute and land dispute thus; Y contention is correct.
4. Jorge and Henry filed a complaint against Joyce with the Municipal Trial
Court for collection of a sum of money amounting only to P10,000. Joyce
argued that the Court has no jurisdiction over the case since no prior
proceeding was made before the Lupon Tagapamayapa. The former argued
that Joyce never attended any of the hearings when summoned by the
barangay, thus prompting them to directly seek remedy before the regular
courts. Decide the case. (10 pts.)
Answer:
Jorge and Henry’s action is valid. In this case, Joyce was summoned many
times by the barangay to attend a proceedings but failed to show up herself
thus prompting the aggrieve party to seek remedy to the higher court. Failure
of Joyce to attend a hearing at the barangay level means that she is not
interested in amicable settlement thus the action of Jorge and Henry is
reasonable.
5. Michelle filed a complaint against Gigi for verbal abuse and destruction of
personal property before the Grievance committee of the school. The
committee after investigation rendered a decision suspending Gigi for the
commission of the acts complained of. Gigi elevated the matter to the court
questioning the validity of the decision and its binding effect. She further
argued that the committee concern is not clothed with judicial authority to
render valid judgment depriving a person her right to property. Decide the
case. (10 pts.)
Answer:
Yes, Gigi is correct in elevating this matter to the court. The offense
committed by Gigi against Michelle is an offense that does not fall under the
jurisdiction of the school grievance committee thus, his action is reasonable
against the decision done by the school grievance committee.