Businessworld - IN HER first speech as Chief Magistrate,
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno emphasized the need of the
Judiciary to cope with the developments in technology to hasten the
delivery of justice. Consistent with her proposed reforms for the
Judiciary, the Supreme Court issued A. M. No. 11-9-4-SC, otherwise known
as the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (the “Rule”), on Nov. 13, 2012,
which applies to all courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the
administrative supervision of the Supreme Court. The Rule took effect on
Jan. 1. 2013.
Lawyers and members of the Judiciary,
therefore, had to adjust to the Rule upon the start of the year. The
Rule specified a required format, style and margin that must be followed
in all pleadings, motions and similar papers to be filed before the
courts, as well as in the decisions, resolutions, and orders to be
issued by the courts and quasi-judicial bodies. The Rule likewise
reduced the number of copies to be filed before the courts.
From a technological aspect, what is most ground breaking about the Rule
is the provision allowing parties to file their pleadings with the
Supreme Court by the submission of soft copies, including its annexes in
Portable Document Format (PDF), either by email or by compact disc
(CD), in preparation for the eventual establishment of an “e-filing
paperless system” in the Judiciary (e-filing). As such, parties could
now file their pleadings before the Supreme Court by emailing their
documents to efile@sc.judiciary.gov.ph.
This new method of filing may be done on a voluntary basis for the first
six months following the effectivity of the Rule. After this six-month
period, E-Filing (or the submission of pleadings by email or in a CD)
with the Supreme Court will be compulsory, unless otherwise extended.
It is no secret in the legal profession that the printing of pleadings,
compilation of knee-high annexes, and the reproduction of each set to
meet the required number of copies to be filed, is a time-consuming and
expensive exercise. In the process, several reams of bond paper are
consumed for the initial printing and the photocopying of the documents.
The subsequent hauling of these documents to the courts for filing, or
the filing of these documents personally or even by registered mail
translates to higher costs which are shouldered by the parties. The
courts receiving these piles of documents then have to physically file
these papers in their depleting storage rooms and cabinets. In that
sense, the court dockets are literally congested.
By reason of technology, it is commonplace to send documents by the
click of a button, and the recipient could store the electronic copy in
their computer or any compatible device. As such, e-filing in the
Philippines has its advantages. For example, a lawyer who holds office
outside Manila could instantly file a pleading with the Supreme Court in
Manila, just by emailing it to the designated email address. Costs of
mailing the pleading and additional delay due to this traditional mode
of filing are avoided.
In reality, the Philippines is lagging behind other countries in terms
of the application of technology in the judicial system. E-filing is
already the common practice in select jurisdictions in the United
States, and in some countries in Europe. In Asia, Singapore applied its
e-filing system as early as 1997, which was implemented in phases and
became fully operational by 2006.
Is the Philippines ready for e-filing? There are still several aspects
of e-filing that have to be addressed. At the onset, it cannot be
emphasized enough that the legal profession is very traditional. In the
Philippines, lawyers still have a tendency to strongly question the
authenticity of electronic documents, despite the passage of the Rules
on Electronic Evidence allowing for its admission.
It is likewise a question of whether the Supreme Court has the
information technology (IT) infrastructure and security to handle large
amounts of data that it will be receiving from litigants once e-filing
is made compulsory. Valuable files could be lost and could no longer be
retrieved by reason of a crash in the Supreme Court database. Worse,
files could even be corrupted or stolen by an experienced hacker who may
not even be physically located in the Philippines.
Although it is expected that traditional lawyers would resist the change
in the method of filing their documents, it is known that Filipinos are
slowly embracing, and realizing the benefits of, technology. In fact,
it is a normal sight in courtrooms nowadays for lawyers to make use of
their electronic devices in preparing and reading their notes, doing a
quick research on relevant jurisprudence, and organizing their
schedules.
The issuance of the Rule and the eventual establishment of an e-filing
system are indeed commendable. However, there lies the need to ensure
that our Supreme Court has the infrastructure and corresponding security
measures and that our lawyers have the technological know-how. Thus, it
is also essential to orient all practitioners in the country on the
technical aspects of this system to ensure its successful
implementation. Once successfully implemented, the e-filing system may
then be applied in the lower appellate courts and first level courts,
thereby allowing lawyers all over the Philippines to file and serve
their court-bound documents electronically. The success of this system
may pave the way to other IT innovations in the judicial system, such as
a unified online case management system/database accessible to lawyers,
the electronic sending of court orders and notices via e-mail, and the
holding of a virtual courtroom attended by parties through video
conferencing, among others.
What must be realized is that technology could serve as a useful tool to
enhance and improve the delivery of justice. On this regard, the strong
will of our Chief Justice could be indicative of the eventual
successful implementation of these IT innovations in the judiciary.
Perhaps, the achievement of a paperless judiciary is possible, after
all.
(Darren M. De Jesus is an associate of Angara Abello Concepcion
Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW). He can be contacted at Tel.
No. 830-8000 or email address: dmdejesus@accralaw.com)
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
SC: Failure to Explain Service By Registered Mail Not Automatically Subject to Sanction
The Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for
automatic sanction should a party fail to submit the required
explanation for resorting to service by registered mail rather than
personal service.
In a six-page decision penned by Justice Roberto A. Abad,
the Court's Third Division unanimously held that both the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan (Branch 37) and the Court of
Appeals did not gravely abuse their discretion when both courts ruled
against the striking out of the motion for judgment by default filed by
private respondent Roberto and Arabela Arcinue (Arcinues) against
petitioner Natividad Lim (Lim) for failure of the Arcinues to submit
the aforesaid required explanation.
The Court pointed out Rule 13, Section 11 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
“does not provide for automatic sanction should a party fail to submit
the required explanation. It merely provides for that possibility
considering its use of the term ‘may.’” Moreover, the same “does not
altogether prohibit service by registered mail when such service, when
adopted, ensures as in this case receipt by the adverse party.” It
noted that Lim’s counsel in fact even admitted to receiving a copy of
the Arcinues’ motion 10 days before the scheduled hearing on the said
motion. The Court thus directed the RTC to proceed with the hearing and
adjudication of the case.
National Power Corporation (NPC) filed an expropriation suit
against petitioner Lim for its Coal-Fired Thermal Power Project.
Private respondents Arcinue spouses filed a motion for leave to admit
their complaint-in-intervention, alleging that they owned and were in
possession of one of the lots subject of the expropriation. The RTC
granted the Arcinues’ motion and required both NPC and Lim to answer the
complaint-in-intervention within 10 days from receipt of its order.
Because NPC and Lim failed to file their respective answers, the
Arcinues filed a motion for judgment by default. Lim then sought to
expunge the motion for lack of the requisite explanation why the
Arcinues resorted to service by registered mail rather than personal
service. Both the RTC and the CA ruled against this, prompting her to
file a petition with the Court. (GR No. 178789, Lim v. NPC, November 14, 2012)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)