RECENT DEVELOPMENTS in digital and
communications technology and the emergence of the information
superhighway have paved the way for the proliferation of paperless
transactions and activities undertaken in the virtual environment. The
enactment of Republic Act No. 8792, or the Electronic Commerce Act of
2000, provided a framework which sought to address legal concerns with
respect to electronic documents and transactions. For the judiciary’s
part, which is generally perceived as the more “conservative” or
“traditional” branch of government, the Philippine Supreme Court was
quick to embrace the challenges posed by the information superhighway
and promulgated, in August 2001, the Rules of Electronic Evidence. At
that time, the Philippines was considered by several reputable
international study groups and analysts as one of the more e-ready
countries in terms of providing secure legal framework for electronic or
paperless transactions.
To date, our Supreme Court continues to
actively seek and institute reforms in the judiciary, particularly in
the practice of law, not only to cope with our fast-paced borderless
world but to address other broader contemporary issues. On Nov. 13,
2012, the Supreme Court En Banc signed A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC, otherwise
known as the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (“EUPR”). The said rule took
effect on Jan. 1, 2013. As stated in the Whereas clauses of the EUPR,
the primary intention of the Supreme Court in promulgating this rule is
to reinforce the rule of the judiciary to save the environment by
minimizing the “judicial system’s use of excessive quantities of costly
paper, save our forests, avoid landslides, and mitigate the worsening
effects of climate change.” It is very rare that we see the foregoing
words in a procedural rule promulgated by none other that the country’s
highest judicial body actively advocating an environmental cause. This
notwithstanding, the underlying intent is to provide more efficient
services, as the EUPR is seen to contribute to a more speedy judicial
process.
The scope of application of the EUPR covers all courts and
quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervision of the
Supreme Court. Essentially, the EUPR prescribes the format, style, and
number of copies of pleadings/documents to be filed with the courts and
tribunals, as well as all documents issued by the latter (including
their reports and transcript of stenographic notes or TSNs). Now, all
pleadings/documents filed with the courts must be single-spaced, with
spacing of 1 space in between paragraphs, use a font size of 14, and
written on a long bond white paper (8.5” by 13”). The foregoing format
is also prescribed for all documents prepared and issued by the courts.
The EUPR also prescribes that the margins for court-bound documents must
be 1.5” on the side, 1.2” on the upper side, and 1.0” on both the right
and lower portions. With respect to the number of copies to be filed,
the rule provides the following:
(a) Supreme Court En Banc one original copy (properly marked as such)
and 10 additional copies, with two sets of annexes (one attached to the
original copy and the other as extra copy);
(b) Supreme Court Division -- one original copy (properly marked as
such) and four additional copies, with two sets of annexes (one attached
to the original copy and the other as extra copy);
(c) Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan -- one original copy (properly marked as such) and two additional copies with annexes;
(d) Court of Tax Appeals -- one original copy (properly marked as such)
and two additional copies with annexes. If filed with the Court of Tax
Appeals En Banc, one has to submit six more additional copies with
annexes on top of the foregoing requirement;
(e) Other courts -- one original copy (properly marked as such) with stated annexes attached to it.
The foregoing requirement on the number of copies significantly reduces
the volume of paper documents submitted. In addition to this and
recognizing the increasing role technology plays in streamlining
procedures and providing for more efficient means of doing things, the
EUPR requires that for respect to pleadings/documents filed with the
Supreme Court, parties must file soft copies of the pleading or motion
and their annexes (annexes required under the EUPR to be in a PDF
format) either by e-mail or CD. This additional submission requirement
is on a voluntary basis until 01 October 2013. After Oct. 1, 2013, it
will be compulsory.
For copies of pleadings/documents served by one party to an adverse
party, the serving party need not attach copies of annexes to the
pleadings which, based on the records of the court, the adverse party
already has in his possession. However, should the adverse party request
a set of annexes actually filed with the court, the party who filed the
paper should comply with the request within five days from receipt
thereof.
It is expected that the EUPR will change the landscape of legal practice
in the Philippines. It somehow paves the way towards a paperless system
of filing and serving court documents and pleadings in the judiciary.
Currently, there are initiatives in the Supreme Court to establish a
framework that will allow the electronic filing and service of pleadings
and other documents, similar to the current system in other
sophisticated jurisdictions such as Singapore. Moreover, there are
efforts to promulgate rules on electronic notarization to further
facilitate commercial and non-commercial transactions that utilize
paperless or electronic documents. Various committees and technical
working groups have been put in place to, among others, study the
feasibility and implementation of these projects, as well as crafting
procedures and rules that are responsive to the requirements of various
judicial institutions and stakeholders.
(The author is a partner of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala &
Cruz Law Offices. He can be contacted at 830-8000 or through jmgaba@accralaw.com.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the
author. This article is for general informational and educational
purposes only and not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or
legal opinion).
source: Businessworld
