Best way to unclog dockets

Trial courts are the dispensers of justice closest to the poor. This is why I am glad trial judges responded to my two columns, “Speeding up quality justice” (12/24/17 and 12/31/17).

Amicable settlement. Judge Soliman M. Santos Jr. of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City opined that the best way to unclog the dockets of the 2,400-odd trial courts (which collectively have 980,000 pending cases) is amicable settlement.

I think this proposal is welcome, though not new or novel. Already, the Constitution mandates courts “to settle actual controversies.” “To settle” means either (1) to decide after a long trial that is reviewable by appellate courts, or (2) to mediate an amicable settlement or compromise that is no longer appealable. (Of course, a few cases like plunder “by law cannot be compromised.”)

Republic Act No. 9285, the Civil Code, the Rules of Court and various Supreme Court circulars encourage amicable and mediated settlements that deliver justice more briskly, even if it is “negotiated” rather than litigated or adjudicated justice.

Negotiated justice, actively promoted by judges and heavily sanctioned by a decision approving it, resolves not just the current court case but, more importantly, the root causes underlying the dispute.

IQ, EQ and LQ needed. If the proposal is neither new nor novel, why then has it not unclogged dockets? Santos, citing Court of Appeals Justice and former Quezon City RTC judge Maria Filomena D. Singh, explains that forging an amicable settlement “involves attitude, knowledge and skills.”

Knowledge and skills, one can learn from seminars and books. But attitude is acquired from experience and, if I may add, from EQ or emotional intelligence and LQ or “love intelligence.”

The judge should keenly observe the body language of the parties and their lawyers, as well as their pretrial briefs. Many times, counsels simply state “no possibility” on the issue of settlement. Or sometimes, say “willing to consider an amicable settlement on acceptable terms and conditions.” Or rarely, spell out fair and specific terms and conditions which show a sincere intention to negotiate in good faith. A patient judge with IQ, EQ and LQ can sense how to go about these various scenarios.

The early case of Jesalva vs Bautista (March 24, 1959) ruled that a compromise may be effected any time, even after judgment has been rendered and even on appeal. Thus, a judge could seize any eureka moment to finally end a dispute and its roots.

Fear factor. Makati RTC Judge Selma P. Alaras, on the other hand, observed that many magistrates go through the pretrial quite “perfunctorily” for fear, among other reasons, that the parties may perceive—wrongly and woefully—that the judge is biased in insisting on an amicable settlement.

This may lead a litigant to ask for the disqualification of the judge or, worse, to file administrative charges. Disqualification will delay, instead of hasten, the proceedings. And an administrative charge could be very risky. Even if eventually cleared, the judge would have serious difficulty getting a promotion while the charge is pending.

To obviate this fear factor, I think the Office of the Court Administrator should formulate immediate relief from inhibitions and harassments to judges who sincerely promote settlements.

Tribute to two jurists. In my limited space, may I pay tribute to Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero who passed recently. To me, she was a model of humility in excellence. Though her firepower and wisdom were awesome, she was never arrogant or boastful. As a senior when I joined the Court in 1995, she was incredibly generous in sharing some lessons I could not have learned from school or from books. A real blessing, indeed.

In his eulogy during her wake, retired CJ Hilario G. Davide Jr. said it all by lauding her as “an outstanding and brilliant jurist of proven integrity, competence, independence and courage.”

May I also extol Justice Justo P. Torres who died during the Christmas holidays while I was abroad. Though we have disagreed a few times, we were never disagreeable, never unfriendly, always greeting each other with a hearty “Kaibigan!”

Comments to [email protected]