APPROPRIATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
De La Salle University College of Law
FINAL EXAMINATIONS
6 June 2020, 2:00 p.m - 4:00 p.m.
Atty. Brenda Jay Angeles Mendoza
[email protected]
INSTRUCTIONS: The final examination is integrative. Referring to your notes is allowed,
but not encouraged. It is important that I receive your answers on time. I must receive your
legible handwritten answers in PDF format on June 6, 2020, by 4:30 p.m. at the latest,1
using the file name format: ADR_Section_FamilyName_Finals2020. Late submissions
and failure to follow instructions will have corresponding deductions. Enjoy!
I. ADR PRINCIPLES
Identify the principle of ADR that is highlighted, adhered to, or violated in each of the
following case scenario. Explain your answer in less than five sentences. Cite relevant
laws or rules, if necessary. (30 points)
1. Judge Dely Quado and Judge Paz Saway are colleagues and friends. They
recently met in a Zoom meeting of PHILJA professorial lecturers. Judge Saway was
the JDR judge in a controversial case that is now being tried by Judge Quado. In
their private chat, Judge Saway mentioned her thoughts about the case and
warned her colleague of the abusive conduct of the respondent.
2. In a reckless imprudence case that is being mediated by a retired judge, now court-
annexed mediator in Makati City, the parties agreed to discuss the issues of car
repair and hospital expenses arising from the collision of their vehicles. After
listening to the respondent during the mediation process, the complainant
demonstrated his understanding of the situation then stated his willingness to
accept the amount being offered by the respondent to settle the case. However, the
complainant’s counsel, who was quiet but noticeably uneasy during the entire time,
suddenly objected to the settlement amount. The writing of the compromise
agreement was then suspended and another mediation session was set due to his
prodding. It was later revealed that the settlement amount agreed by the parties did
not consider his attorney’s fees.
3. Several community members, the local church, and an environmental NGO
petitioned to stop the operation of a municipality-operated dumpsite in their area on
1Technically, the exam is until 4:00 p.m. only. The extra 30 minutes is for you to be able to take
photos of your work, convert the same into pdf format, and send your answers by e-mail.
1 of 5
the ground that it has endangered their lives, their health, and the environment
(citing a recent trash slide that killed six children who were scavenging the site).
After weeks of multi-party mediation, the parties finally agreed to close the
dumpsite and to instead build a sanitary landfill. In addition, each of the parties
vowed to help the municipality to look for funds to build and maintain the landfill,
promote proper waste segregation and disposal among the citizens, and initiate
tree-planting and sustainable livelihood activities. They then formed a task force
that will work towards a Zero-Waste lifestyle — https://selfeco.com/blogs/selfeco-
blog/100-ways-to-live-trash-free-adopt-a-zero-waste-lifestyle.
4. Before the commencement of an arbitration session, the chair of the panel of
arbitrators informed the parties that Attorney Dominique Beltran, counsel of one of
the parties, is a batchmate in law school and a sorority sister. Nonetheless, she
assured them that her expertise in public-private partnership issues (the case at
hand) as well as her skills in arbitration will not affect the arbitration process.
5. As there were ongoing renovations in the Hall of Justice, where the Philippine
Mediation Center (PMC) unit office is located, and the weather was humid that day,
the mediator agreed to the request of the parties to transfer and hold the mediation
conference in a popular coffee shop just across the building. The parties agreed to
split the payment for the mediator’s favorite Caffè Latte.
6. The counsels for the parties in a mediatable civil case received a Notice of Pre-
Trial, setting dates respectively for pre-trial, court-annexed mediation, and possible
judicial dispute resolution. The notice stated that non-appearance of the parties and
counsel at any of the foregoing settings shall be deemed as non-appearance at the
pre-trial and shall merit sanctions under the rules. After pre-trial and after joining the
issues, the judge then referred the parties to mandatory court-annexed mediation.
II. CONFLICT ANALYSIS (30 points)
Spouses Rico and Rica Aquinto filed an ejectment suit before the Metropolitan Trial Court
against their aunt and uncle (Spouses Lito and Lita Aquiñan) on the ground that the latter
vehemently refused to leave the house that Rico allegedly owns as an inherited property
from his parents.
The property subject of the dispute is a two-storey house made of semi-concrete materials
that is built on a 30-square meter lot in a sub-urban community. The lot was apparently
bought by Rico’s deceased father in the late 1990s as part of the government’s community
home mortgage program. In 2006, a year after his mother passed away, Rico, the only
son, left for Dubai to work as a welder.
2 of 5
When Rico’s father started to get sick in 2012, his uncle Lito and aunt Lita took care of his
father. When his father passed away in 2014, Lito and Lita moved to the subject property
and lived in that house up to the present.
Just a few months before the COVID19 outbreak, Rico returned to the Philippines with his
wife Rica, and asked his relatives Lito and Lita to vacate the property as his family will now
stay in the country for good. Lito and Lita, however, refused to leave the house and
padlocked the same whenever they are away. Efforts to settle in the barangay failed.
It appears that while Rico Aquinto holds official receipts of payments made by his father to
the government, the spouses Lito and Lita Aquiñan also hold documents to prove that they
made certain payments to the government, including property taxes, especially after the
father died. They also claimed to have introduced certain improvements on the house.
While Rico constantly sent money during that time, this was allegedly not enough to pay
for the father’s medical expenses, utilities, and other household expenses.
When the case reached the Metropolitan Trial Court, Judge Vida A. Kho issued a Notice of
Pre-Trial, which included respective dates for pre-trial, court-annexed mediation, and
possible judicial dispute resolution. The case was later referred to the Philippine Mediation
Center unit for court-annexed mediation, and you were selected by the parties to mediate
the case.
The Aquinto Spouses’ perspective
The spouses Aquinto want to recover possession of the property and demand that their
Uncle Lito and Aunt Lita Aquinan immediately vacate the house because they firmly
believe that Rico is its legal and rightful owner as the sole heir of his deceased parents.
The house also has a sentimental value for Rico. He grew up in that place and has many
fond memories of his childhood with his beloved parents and neighbors.
Rico feels that his relatives cheated him on the money that he remits for the upkeep of the
house and for the medical expenses of his father. Rico is aware that the Aquiñan couple
was heavily indebted to his parents, which he suspects was the only reason why they took
care of his father when the latter got sick. The spouses do not believe that they have the
capacity to make payments for the property and to buy medicines for Rico’s father, as
they know that their Uncle Lito did not really have a stable job and was only intermittently
called as a reliever conductor in a local bus company.
They are also not in favor of the “improvements” that they made on the property because
they did not inform Rico that they have turned the front area of the house into a sari-sari
store and converted the living room space into a messy stock room of junk food, soda, and
beer bottles. For the spouses, the house must be retained as a dwelling place, not a place
for what he regards as crappy business.
Finally, the spouses are angered and insulted by the fact that they refused to leave upon
repeated demands, acted as if they own the place, and, worse, they even padlocked the
house. Rico could have probably considered them to stay in the house as a tenant, or
3 of 5
perhaps even for free as a token of gratitude to relatives who took care of his father or out
of sheer respect for their age, if only they were more humble.
The Aquinian Spouses’ perspective
The Aquinian spouses are angry because their nephew and his wife brought them into a
scandalous situation in the barangay and this time in court. They believe that they are in
lawful possession of the subject property because it was somehow “donated” to Lito and
his wife Lita by his brother-in-law (Rico’s father) in consideration of their goodness as
caretaker/caregiver, especially when the latter was sick and dying.
When Rico’s father was still alive, Rico would regularly send money from Dubai to
continue paying for the house and some of his medical expenses. As it was not enough,
they would often find ways, like borrowing money from a Bumbay or from the barangay
captain, to be able to attend to his father’s medical needs. They note that Rico stopped
sending any amount after his father died. He likewise did not respond to their text
messages. So the spouses moved to the house, lived there, and started to improve it by
renovating the front area of the house into a sari-sari store. That way, they were able to
make some payments to the government for the house, including real property taxes due.
The spouses are hurt and feel offended that Rico and Rica are now blaming them for so
many things, accusing them of a lot of lies. They feel the young spouses were so
disrespectful and had no “utang na loob” after all that they did for his father. Rico was gone
for a long, long time, so his return came as a surprise. He disrupted the peace in their
home.
Deep in their heart, although they will not readily admit it in the mediation session, the
spouses concede that Rico’s legal claim may have more basis. They have no clear
document to show that the property was donated to them. Yet, they feel they deserve to be
compensated for taking care of his father, for advancing payment for some of his medical
expenses and other house bills, and for paying the property dues.
Lastly, they are fuming mad at the unnecessary haste in their demands for them to
immediately move out and vacate the property. They wished that the couple could have at
least considered their past deeds and their good faith. They feel they deserve to stay in the
property forever, or at least, to stay there much longer.
1. One of the initial skills of a mediator is conflict analysis. Imagine listening to the parties
in this case in a mediation scenario. What are the causes of their conflict? Use Moore’s
Circle of Conflict model in analyzing the conflict. (10 points)
2. We have repeatedly discussed in class that Positions are different from the Interests of
the parties. (a) What is the difference between positions and interests? (b) What are
the respective positions and underlying interests of the parties in this case? (c) Are
there any common interests between them? If yes, identify the common interests. If
none, explain the reason/s for a completely different set of interests. (5 points)
4 of 5
3. Assuming you have reached the Narrowing Stage of the mediation process, where the
parties are jointly negotiating their interests and identifying their options for a possible
agreement. Note that a party’s Options refer to a range of ideas that are developed as
specific proposals for one another. List all the possible options for each of the parties.
(5 points)
4. Evaluate the options that you have generated. Which of these options do you think will
result to a Win-Win situation or, at least, a mutually satisfactory outcome? Explain your
answer. (5 points)
5. Assuming the parties are not able to reach any agreement, what do you think are the
alternatives of the parties to a negotiated settlement? Alternatives refer to ideas or
actions that parties consider when they walk away from the negotiations table or when
the parties fail to reach an agreement. Note that alternatives do not always involve
judicial actions.(5 points)
III. ADR LAW AND RELEVANT RULES (40 points)
1. The De La Salle University College of Law, in partnership with the Singapore Mediation
Centre and the Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution, will hold an online international
conference on ADR in July 2020. You have been invited to speak briefly about ADR
laws and the role of lawyers in the Philippines. Within the allotted 10 minutes for your
session, what would be the main points of your presentation? What key messages
would you impart to your audience? (20 points)
2. What are the major changes that the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure and the 2017 Revised Continuous Trial Guidelines introduced as regards
the implementation of court-annexed mediation (CAM) and judicial dispute resolution
(JDR) in civil cases and the civil aspects of criminal cases, respectively? How did
these affect the relevant provisions of the 2011 CAM and JDR Guidelines? Enumerate
and discuss briefly. (20 points)
3. Optional/Bonus Questions:
a. Given the pandemic situation, how can ADR continue to be relevant in the
country? What measures should be in place to ensure continued observance
of the basic principles of ADR? (5 points)
b. Explain this quote in relation to ADR. (5 points)
“Be selective in your battles. Sometimes peace is better than being right.”
— Anonymous
-bjam2020-
5 of 5
