The Philippine Experience in Case Management by Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. Supreme Court of the Philippines

Transcription

1 by Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. Supreme Court of the Philippines My colleagues in the bench, legal luminaries, friends. One of the principal goals of the ASEAN Charter is the enhancement of trade and economic development in the region. This worthy objective would, however, perhaps be an illusive dream without a complementary judicial system that provides not only an efficient and effective dispensation of justice, but one that is expeditiously delivered. Without doubt, VEXATIOUS DELAY in case disposition is anathema to a genuine justice environment. While different jurisdiction may have differing ideas of what constitute delay of that nature, I am almost certain that the courts of each ASEAN countries frown upon any practice that tolerates oppressive delaying tactics in whatever form. While the wheels of justice might be expected to grind slowly, we ought not to lose sight of the oft-repeated maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. As a measure to provide predictable, transparent and swift justice, the Philippine Supreme Court has since April

2 put into operation the CASE FLOW MANAGEMENT (CFM) approach in selected courts. By next year, it is expected that the CFM strategy will be rolled out in all the trial courts. The CFM concept, an innovation of the American Bar Association, drives home the point that: From the commencement of litigation to its resolution, whether by trial or by settlement, any elapsed time other than reasonably required for pleadings, discovery, and court events, is unacceptable and should be eliminated to enable just and efficient resolution of cases. The court, not the lawyers or litigants, should control the pace of litigation. A strong judicial commitment is essential to reducing delay and, once achieved, maintaining a current docket. CFM intends to solve delays through the following correlated strategies: l. DELAY REDUCTION how to prune the time actually devoted to each case event; and

3 3 2. DELAY PREVENTION how to steer clear of unreasonable delay. As laid down by the United States Center for State Courts (NCSC), the CFM shall have the following eleven (11) fundamental elements, to wit: 1. Judicial Commitment and Leadership CFM project requires full commitment from the judge and a strong leadership to ensure compliance; 2. Court consultation with the Bar A judge shall conduct dialogues with lawyers and other stakeholders for clearer understanding of CFM; 3. Court supervision of case progress A judge should seize early control of case and shall mainly be accountable for case development; 4. Standards and Goals A judge should define the purpose of CFM, its overall framework and the groundwork program evaluation; 5. Monitoring and information systems A judge should adopt a tested CFM software for accurate recording

4 4 and monitoring of case schedules and movement. It provides management information and baseline data of case events; 6. Case assignment systems A judge should utilize Differentiated (DCM) and prescribe a tracking system for each case; 7. Early court intervention and early disposition A judge should immediately take corrective action to address situations of undue delay; 8. Setting firm trial dates A judge should lay down firm schedules for each stage and set hearing dates for each witness; 9. Controlling postponements/continuances and avoiding backlogs A judge should adopt a strict nopostponement policy, unless justified, such as but not limited to illness of witness. He should adopt the One-day Examination of Witness Rule; 10. Systems approach and vision A judge should adopt a vision and mission statement relating to the CFM project; and

5 5 11. Attention to detail A judge and CFM staff should always focus on deadlines and causes of delay to meet the expectation of the parties that case events will occur as scheduled. To my mind, the most important elements of CFM are: l) close case management and supervision by the judge; and 2) effective use of a CFM software. In this regard, a magistrate should not only be a competent case adjudicator; he must be a conscientious and effective case manager as well. Understandably, a given case will not reach the decision phase at the expected time if there are still many uncompleted stages in the case. It thus falls on the shoulders of the judge to adopt the appropriate tracking system for each case, then map out the appropriate case flow chart which contains the number of days needed to undertake each phase. It is only when all the vents are completed within the prescribed timeframes will the case be decided within its corresponding assigned disposition period. Secondly, in order to monitor each case with ease, a CFM software has to be utilized to capture the filing of the pleadings and the issuance of orders. A CFM encoder under the supervision of the Branch Clerk of Court (designated as

6 6 the Track Coordinator) encodes said incidents in the case file in the software. Since he is assigned several cases in his docket, it would be most difficult for a judge to effectively monitor all his cases by poring over the case records from time to time. The use of the CFM program will pave the way for the easy monitoring by the judge of the status of each case. All he has to do is simply open the case file he wants to review and scan the events or incidents recorded therein. The software used in the Philippines even emits a warning through blinking light or color indication that the case is off-track or behind schedule. If off-track, then the judge can undertake measures to put the case on track. In order to make the CFM strategy successful, one must use the Differentiated (DCM) approach. It is premised on the fact that not all cases are the same, each usually having different periods of processing and levels of intervention and supervision by the judge. Thus, DCM makes use of tracking systems with differing procedural requirements and timeframes for different categories of cases. The CFM tracking systems cover the following:

7 7 l. Fast Track Cases cases simple in nature with very little judicial intervention, such as collection suits for a sum of money and cases covered by the rules on Summary Procedure. Normally, the disposition period does not exceed 6 months. 2. Complex Track Cases those that require extensive court intervention and time owing to the number of parties and claims/causes of action and defenses, and complexity of the legal and factual issues involved. The nullification of titles or recovery of property or possession involving numerous parties may be cited as examples. Disposition period should not exceed l8 months. 3. Standard Track Cases cases that do not fall under either the fast or complex track group. Disposition period does not go beyond l2 months. 4. Holding Track Cases those that cannot be subjected to specific time tables due to the nature of the issues or certain legal or procedural requirements, like intestate or estate proceedings and corporate rehabilitation. Disposition period ranges from 2 years and beyond.

8 8 follows: The steps in CFM strategy may be summed up as l. The Branch Clerk of Court shall recommend to the judge the suitable tracking system based on the Case Information Statements of the parties. The judge will then decide to which track the case shall be assigned, after which he issues an Order of Track Assignment. The parties are bound to follow strictly the timeframes in said tract. 2. The CFM chart corresponding to the assigned tract shall be entered into the software, each stage having its own timeframe. Upon discovery that the timeframe for a particular stage has been exceeded, the judge may issue appropriate orders and take such measures to address the causes of delay and expedite proceedings to bring the case on track. 3. From pre-trial up to submission of the case for decision, the CFM encoder must encode all pleadings, orders and important proceedings held in each vent of the case. 4. The judge and the Branch Clerk of Court shall monitor daily the encoding of all said pertinent data,

9 9 particularly the timeframes and deadlines assigned to as well as the events set for the case. 5. The monitoring efforts will assist the judge in determining if deadlines are met; if not, he can identify operational problems and take corrective measures for the purpose of bringing the case on track. The ultimate goal at any event is to have the case decided within the prescribed disposition period. Hereunder are samples of a CFM chart for cases covered by Fast Track and Standard Track, respectively: FAST TRACK

10 10 STANDARD TRACK

11 11 Shown hereunder, on the other hand, is a sample of a page in a case file in the CFM software pertaining to pretrial: Our experience has so far shown that the successful implementation CFM strategy hinges on the trial judge carrying a manageable case docket which should not exceed 300 cases at any given time. Beyond that number, the court calendar would not plausibly permit the holding of sufficient number of hearings required by a tracking system. Moreover, procedural law or rules should prescribe a disposition period for each category of cases, non-

12 12 compliance of which would subject the erring judge to sanctions. In the ultimate analysis, the success or failure of the CFM strategy lies at the door step of the judge. Thank you.