Supreme Court Approves Guidelines on Electronic Submission of Pleadings in Lower Courts
April 5, 2024To address docket congestion and court delay, the primary filing of all pleadings and other court submissions in civil proceedings in lower courts shall be through electronic transmittal starting April 5, 2024.
This follows the approval by the Supreme Court En Banc of the Guidelines on Submission of Electronic Copies of Pleadings and Other Court Submissions Being Filed Before the Lower Courts Pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (Guidelines).
The Guidelines govern the electronic transmittal of copies in Portable Document Format (PDF) of pleadings and other court submissions and their additional accompanying documents, such as annexes and exhibits, for filing in all cases covered by the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before the following courts: Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, and first- and second-level courts (“lower courts”).
The approval of the Guidelines is in line with the goal of the Supreme Court to digitally transform the courts under the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations for 2022-2027, which lays down the reform initiatives necessary toward achieving a technology-driven Judiciary.
Manner of Transmittal
Under the Guidelines, PDF copies of court submissions must be transmitted by litigants and court users to the official e-mail address of the court where the case is pending. Official court e-mail addresses may be accessed at the Supreme Court website at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/court-locator/.
The PDF copy may be electronically generated from a word-processing or PDF creation program, or be scanned images of the document compiled in a PDF file, or a combination of both methods. In all cases, the contents must be completely legible.
The filer must also ensure that the receiving court’s official e-mail address service will not reject or block a transmittal e-mail due to the file size of an attachment.
Date and Time of Filing
For cases where the primary manner of filing is through personal filing, by registered mail, or by accredited courier under Rule 13 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the PDF copies must be transmitted within 24 hours from the filing of the paper copy. The date and time of filing of the paper copy shall be considered the date and time of filing.
For cases where the primary manner of filing is through electronic transmittal under Section 3(d), Rule 13 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, subsequent submission of a paper copy is no longer necessary. The date and time of the electronic transmittal shall be considered the date and time of filing.
However, the court must first grant express permission for the primary filing through electronic transmittal of: initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings; accompanying documents not readily amendable to digitization to PDF; and sealed and confidential documents or records.
All filings by electronic transmittal must be made with any of the e-mail addresses of record of the filing party or counsel. Otherwise, the entire transmittal shall be deemed as not filed.
Counsels on record are required to use their professional e-mail accounts as their e-mail address of record. To preserve confidentiality, the Guidelines discourage the use by lawyers of personal, nonprofessional e-mail accounts as their e-mail addresses of record.
Counsels must also regularly and diligently monitor the inboxes of their e-mail address of record. They shall be subjected to disciplinary action should, to the detriment of the cause of their client, they neglect to check the inbox of their e-mail address of record or fail to notify the court of changes to their e-mail address of record under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Guidelines also provide rules on the manner of attachment of files, the prescribed filename for documents, the transmittal e-mail format, and the contents of the verified declaration, among others.
Effectivity
The Guidelines shall take effect two weeks after publication in two newspapers of general circulation.
The Guidelines complement previous efforts of the Court to simplify and expedite court procedures. In 2019, the Supreme Court approved amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which introduced e-mail and other electronic means of service and filing of court submissions. Just last year, on February 22, 2022, the Court also approved the Revised Guidelines on Submission of Electronic Copies of Supreme Court-Bound Papers Pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule.
For a full text of the Guidelines, visit the Supreme Court website at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/10-3-7-sc-11-9-4-sc-guidelines-on-submission-of-electronic-copies-of-pleadings-and-other-court-submissions-being-filed-before-the-lower-courts-pursuant-to-the-efficient-use-of-paper-rule/
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reiterated that the consent of the adopter’s legitimate children aged at least 10 years old is required in adoptions.
In a 10-page decision, the SC Third Division denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Nena Bagcat-Gullas challenging the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA), which in turn affirmed a decision of a regional trial court (RTC) that set aside an adoption decree granted to her.
The adoption decree was for a child who used to live with her biological mother at the house of Bagcat-Gullas and her husband, Jose.
According to the SC, after the child was abandoned by her mother, Bagcat-Gullas and Jose provided for the child’s needs.
In May 2016, Bagcat-Gullas and Jose filed a petition for the child’s adoption and correction of entries in the child’s birth record before an RTC.
Though the RTC initially granted the petition for adoption, it set the ruling aside after the legitimate children of Jose claimed they were indispensable parties.
This led the RTC to reinstate the case and issue summons to Bagcat-Gullas and her husband, a move that they opposed.
The RTC and the CA both denied their motion, leading Bagcat-Gullas to file the present petition before the SC.
However, in dismissing the petition, the SC stressed that Section 9(c) of Republic Act 8552 or the Domestic Act of 1998 states that written consent of legitimate children aged at least 10 years old is required for adoption.
“In the case of the respondents, it is undisputed that they were all over 10 years old at the time of the adoption proceedings. Their written consent, therefore, was necessary for the adoption to be valid,” it said.
Due to this, the SC said the judgment previously rendered by the RTC is void.
“The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, as such, the court has no authority to act not only as to the absent party but also as to those present,” it said
Source: SC: Consent of adopter’s children required in adoption petitions (msn.com)
Less than a month from now, bar exam takers will know if they will become lawyers this year.
The results of the bar exams will be released on December 5, 2023, Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando announced.
The results will be publicly announced at the Supreme Court courtyard in Manila, and the tribunal will install LED walls in the area to display the list of successful examinees until 6 p.m., said Hernando, the 2023 bar exams chair.
The results will also be posted on the Supreme Court website and its official social media pages.
The gates of the Supreme Court main building will be open from 12 noon to 6 p.m.
There will be a strict dress code imposed. All those who wish to enter must be in proper and decent attire and would have to be subjected to security inspection.
Prohibited are footwear with exposed toes and heels, bottoms that are ripped or cut above the knee, and sleeveless, cropped, and see through tops.
The Supreme Court also said one’s presence in the courtyard during the release of the results and the use of the official hashtags on social media would be taken
as consent to be photographed, filmed, or recorded by the court in its publicity materials and live stream.
It reminded the bar exam takers to only rely on official communication channels for accurate or verified information.
The oath-taking and signing of the roll for successful examinees will be on December 22 at the SMX Convention Center in Manila.
They will have to pay an admission and certification fee of P5,190.
Supreme Court: A legitimate child may establish that another man is her biological father
October 30, 2023A couple’s legitimate child may seek action to establish that another man is actually her biological father
This was according to the Supreme Court, which said that while the law declares who are legitimate children, it cannot alter blood relationships.
The court said that legitimacy is different from filiation, and children considered legitimate, or born to a married couple, should be allowed to show that they were fathered by another man.
It issued this ruling as it denied the petition of James Cua Ko that questioned the lower court’s denial of his plea seeking judicial approval of his voluntary recognition of a minor as his natural child.
The child, Jamie Shaye, was born in 2004 to Shalimar Abellera while the latter was in the process of seeking the nullity of her marriage to another man, Kerwin Cruz Par. In the child’s birth certificate, she named Ko as the father.
In 2006, Abellera and Par’s marriage was voided, and two years later, the Office of the Civil Registrar of Muntinlupa City changed Jamie Shaye’s surname in her birth certificate to “Ko.”
Ko then filed a petition before the regional trial court seeking judicial approval of voluntary recognition of a minor natural child.
The RTC denied his petition, and this ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which said Jamie Shaye is a legitimate child since she was born during the valid marriage of Abellera and Par, and this status was more favorable to her.
Ko elevated the issue to the Supreme Court, which upheld the CA ruling.
In its April 12, 2023 decision, the SC said Jamie Shaye is the legitimate child of Abellera and Par under the Family Code, which states that children conceived or born during the marriage are legitimate.
It said Jamie Shaye retains her legitimate status despite the entries in her birth certificate and the declaration of her mother.
It also said direct action is needed to challenge the child’s legitimacy, and only the husband or his heirs could file this. Not even the mother could do it, it said.
Since Ko was not the husband when Jamie Shaye was born, he has no standing to question her legitimacy.
But the Supreme Court also said Jamie Shaye should be allowed to establish her filiation to Ko, should she wish to do so.
“However, it must be emphasized that the choice to do so would be hers and hers alone. After all, it is her interests that would be affected by such action,” it said.
The child should be the one to decide what she considers to be in her best interest, it said.
“Some may agree that having more property and successional rights are in their best interest. For others, establishing their true identity matters more than anything in the world. When the latter case is true, they should be allowed to establish their filiation, regardless of any presumption or legal fiction to the contrary,” it said.
Supreme Court says best interest of a child can’t justify cruel, humiliating punishment
September 1, 2023Claiming the best interest of the child is not an excuse to humiliate, belittle, or threaten the child, according to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Second Division made the pronouncement in a decision that found spouses liable for damages for publicly humiliating, harassing and degrading their son’s 14-year-old girlfriend.
“The best interest of a child cannot justify forms of cruel or degrading punishment which conflict with a child’s human dignity, including ‘punishment which belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares, or ridicules a child,’” it said in its April 26, 2023 ruling.
It affirmed the findings of the regional trial court and of the Court of Appeals on the liability of the spouses for their actions toward their son’s girlfriend, which had exposed her to public ridicule that caused her “mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and social humiliation.”
“Here, publicly calling an impressionable 14-year-old with defamatory words such as ‘makati ang laman,’ malandi,’ and ‘hindi matino’ in front of her peers, teachers, and parents is undoubtedly a harsh, degrading, and humiliating experience to which no child should ever be subjected,” it said.
This action is contrary to the constitutional mandate to defend the right of children, and public policies to protect their best interest through measures complying with international standards on children’s protection, it said.
While parents and legal guardians have the right to provide direction to a child, a child must still be accorded equal and inalienable rights “consistent with the evolving capacities of the child,” it said.
Evolving capacities should not be seen as an excuse for authoritarian practices, but as a “positive and enabling process,” it added.
But in this case, the Supreme Court said the parents of the boyfriend could not justify their abusive acts under the pretext of exercising parental authority over their son’s 14-year-old girlfriend, as they are not her parents or guardians.
“In any case, resorting to harsh and degrading methods of discipline cannot be countenanced by this Court as it is contrary to public policy,” it added.
The Supreme Court ordered the liable spouses to pay P30,000 in moral damages, P20,000 in exemplary damages, and P30,000 in attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, with legal interest of six percent per annum.
Source: https://abogado.com.ph/sc-says-best-interest-of-a-child-cant-justify-cruel-humiliating-punishment/
| Dear Heavenly Father, |
| Today, I come before You with an open heart, ready to delight in Your presence. Thank You for Your endless love and faithfulness. Lord, I ask that You help me to align my desires with Yours. Let my heart yearn for the things You value – righteousness, peace, love, and faith. |
| I pray that as I seek You first in all I do, my joy in You will deepen, and the desires of my heart will be shaped by Your will. Help me to always prioritize my relationship with You, valuing Your presence above all earthly treasures. |
| Thank you, Lord, for the promise that as I take delight in You, You will give me the desires of my heart. I trust in Your perfect timing and Your loving kindness. As I navigate my life, guide my steps and let my heart continually find its joy in You. |
| In Jesus’ name, I pray. Amen. |
……..not just property; it is a sanctuary, a realized dream. If for justifiable causes it must be seized, courts must ensure that the same is in accordance with law and upon observance of the requisites of due process.
SPOUSES WILFREDO AND DOMINICA ROSARIO, PETITIONERS, VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, RESPONDENT. (G.R. No. 200991, March 18, 2021)
Pinayagan na po ang retroactive application ng nasabing batas.
Kaya yung mga non-marital child na ipinanganak po mula 03 August 1988 hanggang 18 March 2004 ay maaari nang gamitin ang apelyido ng kanilang tatay kahit pa hindi na mag-file ng petisyon sa korte.
Dalhin lamang po ang PSA copy ng Certificate of Live Birth ni child, Affidavit of Acknowledgment of Paternity and Filiation ni Father, at Affidavit to Use Surname of Father ni child only (if 18 and above na si child), child with attestation of mother (if 7-17 yrs old si child), or mother only (if minor si child) sa LCR kung saan nakarehistro yung Certificate of Live Birth ni child.
Sugod na sa mga paboritong Coffee Shops para sa mga sumusunod na coffee deals…..
Oh My Kwento!!!! 