METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

Branch 14, Manila

Date of observation: July 28, 2014
Presiding Judge: Hon. Carolina J. Esguerra
Civil Case: Unlawful Detainer
SPS. RICARDO AND MARTINA ONG
vs
MS. ERLINDA D. CELIS
And all persons claiming rights under her

Our group observed the termination of the Judicial Dispute Resolution between
the parties. The counsel for the prosecution admitted that all means have already been exhausted
and there was no more possibility of settling the case. The parties established that they have
previously submitted themselves to mediation proceedings but to no avail. Moreover, the said
counsel claimed that they have even offered the defense the opportunity to raise money thru
lawful means to pay her rent, however, the latter refused and continue to stay in the premises.
The judge subsequently asked if the parties would want to re-raffle the case or let it be decided in
the same court. The parties decided that the case be not re-raffled. The judge then articulated to
the parties that at any time during trial, if they wish to settle the case, they may do so without any
impediment. The JDR was thereafter deemed terminated.
Before the proceedings have started, our group observed that the courtroom has a limited
space, so much so that some of the parties and their counsels were already standing up.
Fortunately, our group was able to acquire seats due to the fact that the staff in the court
willingly provided for us so that we may properly conduct an observation of the proceedings.
The said proceedings started early and on time as scheduled in the court calendar. Parties and
the counsels for each case were called, however, there were some who appeared to be late or
were indisposed as manifested by the parties they were representing. During recess, a plea
bargaining was initiated by the fiscal for criminal cases. However, our group observed that it was
done informally, thereby creating unnecessary noise in the court room. Evidently, it was done in
an unorganized manner as the fiscal merely shouted the parties name and did not even cast them
aside to work out mutually a satisfactory disposition. The fiscal let them settle in the same court
simultaneously with the other parties who were talking with each other so loudly, making them
unable to hear clearly what each has to say.
During trial, it appeared that the judge had things well under her control in the courtroom
and kept the proceedings moving forward efficiently. She spoke clearly and with authority so
that everyone in the courtroom could hear. She displayed judicial fairness and impartiality
towards all parties and acted in the interests of the parties without regard to personal prejudices.
It also appeared that she was in favor for the parties of each case to settle so she gave them the
opportunity and time to do so. In addition, she was understanding enough to allow the counsel
for the other party in one case to still come to court and not be declared in default, given a 10
minute leeway, due to the fact that the latter expressed through a text message that he was still
stuck in traffic. It is commendable as well that each of the court stenographers have their own
tape recorder so that they can formulate the courts minutes and Orders more accurately. As
compared to the other courts we have observed, it was the only time we have witnessed such. It
should be noted however that the interpreter for the case was not able to do his job well to the
extent that the judge was the one interpreting the gist of the answers of each party.
Furthermore, the defense attorneys and the prosecutors were all dressed appropriately
and their demeanor towards the judge and the court was laudable as well. It appeared that they
have high regard for the judge and respected her opinion and decision without any question. In
the case we observed, it is apparent that the counsels represented the interests of their clients
with zeal and within the bounds of law. They have shown competence and diligence and it was
evident that they have prepared for the case they were handling. All in all, we have observed that
although there were some irregularities in the procedure, as some were done informally, the case
was expeditiously and efficiently executed without any prejudice to any party.