You are on page 1of 32

1

JDR
Judicial Dispute Resolution
as an Innovative Mode of
Dispute Resolution

Salvador S. Panga, Jr.


2

1.
JDR
What is Judicial Dispute Resolution?
3

JUDICAIL DISPUTE RESOLUTION

A process by which a judge


attempts to facilitate settlement
between parties undergoing
litigation after a similar effort by a
court appointed mediator has
failed.

Recasting the role of judges from


magistrates to mediators
4

Goals

▸ Value Creation
▸ Problem Solving
▸ Option Generation
▸ Improvement of relationship
between parties

*more than ascertainment of the


rights of the parties
5

2.
JDR
The Process of JDR
6

Stages Judicial proceedings

Stage 1 Stage 2
Filing of complaint Pretrial
CAM Trial
JDR Judgment
7

Process

CAM JDR
All civil and criminal actions If the case is not settled
Trial
falling under the category of through CAM, they are
mediatable cases are first referred back to the judge to If it is still unsuccessful,
referred to a court whom the case was the case will be re-raffled
appointed mediator who is originally been assigned for to a different judge for
given 30 days to facilitate a a second attempt of trial
settlement mediation and that is JDR
8

Rules

The JDR judge is not


permitted to preside over the trial if
the mediation does not succeed

Exception:
If specifically asked by the
parties to continue as trial judge
9

Rules

In JDR, the judge is free to


adopt any approach or settlement
techniques as he may deem proper:

Mediation
Conciliation
Neutral evaluation
Or a combination of any of these
techniques
10

3.
JDR
History
11

History

The JURIS PROJECT


JDR was introduced in 2004 under
the JURIS PROJECT as an adjunct to Court
Annexed Mediation.
It was initially introduced and pilot
tested in 1st and 2nd level courts in:

• Pampanga,
• Bacolod,
• Baguio/Benguet,
• Cagayan De Oro,
• San Fernando La Union
12

History

The JURIS PROJECT


By 2007, the program was in
place in 156 trial courts.
Since then approximately
5000 cases underwent Judicial Dispute
Resolution.
In 2008 it was introduced in
Metro Manila.
13

4.
JDR
The Research Project
14

The Research Project

The Research Project Goals Methods

In 2007 JURIS  Identify the factors that Qualitative and Quantitative


PROJECT commissioned a would make the program
research team to evaluate the
current state of the JDR 
more effective
 Survey
program.
Ascertain the effectiveness
of the program  KI
 Determine the possibility of  FGD
extending the program to
other areas
 Field Observation
 Determine the rate of
approval or disapproval of
the end users in terms of
value, fairness and
acceptability of the program.
15

Research Questions

Indicators Used

 Efficiency
 Effectiveness
 Satisfaction of stakeholders
 Program organization
 Service delivery
 Program quality
16

5.
JDR
The Findings
17

Case Disposition

Case Disposition Rate


It is uneven among the pilot
Is it good or bad?
areas but the overall rate is 47%.

In the 3500 cases which


went through ADR almost half were
successfully settled.

JDR involves more difficult


and complex disputes
18

Satisfaction of stakeholders

Who are the stakeholders? Satisfaction in JDR in terms of:

 Judges  Usefulness of in resolving court

 Lawyers

disputes

 Litigants

Role of Judges
Fairness of the Process
 Outcomes
 Improved Relationships
 Time and Cost efficiency
19

Results

Judges Lawyers Litigants

Usefulness in
Perceived as useful in 1st level courts
resolving court
disputes
but not so much in 2nd level courts
20

Results

Judges Lawyers Litigants

Judges can be mediators


Role of Judges
Some believe that the precious time of Judges should be spent in
deciding cases not in mediation
21

Results

Judges Lawyers Litigants

 It is fair for both parties

 The judges are able to


explain the mechanics of
Fairness of the the JDR
Process  The judges are helpful in
the process of reaching a
settlement (using their
own standard of
fairness)
22

The Research Project

Can a judge use his own standard of fairness in


helping the parties reach a settlement?

▸ 61% of the judges said that the parties should


be given a free had in deciding the terms of the
settlement.

▸ Some judges from Pampanga believe that it is


appropriate for judges to tell a party what he thinks
the result will be if the case went through tial, in order
to encourage the parties o settle.
23

Results
Judges Lawyers Litigants

85%

However a significant portion


of the litigants in Baguio and
Satisfaction with Bacolod expressed their
96% 88% dissatisfaction.
the outcomes
Popular Reasons:
 Mistrust with the courts
 Pragmatism
 Unfavorable decision
 Rights based
expectations
24

Results

Judges Lawyers Litigants

Improved
Relationships
25

Results

Judges Lawyers Litigants

Time and cost It frees up court


JDR involves no fees
efficiency resources
Reduction of lawyer’s
fees as occasioned by the
early settlement of cases.
They are pointing out to
adjustments of the fee
structure.
26

Program Organization

Comments on Program Organization However

The respondents generally However the respondents


agreed that the program is well from Bacolod and Pampanga expressed
designed with its adequate standards their disagreement, stating that there
and that it has achieved its most are sufficient existing procedures in
important goal of reducing the court’s place to guide the participants in
case loads. reaching settlement. Also some
respondents believe that the program
still needs further modifications.
27

Qualities of Lawyers

Comments
Many judges are not
convinced that lawyers are able to
reach out to the other party in a
manner that encouraged the latter to
reciprocate and be reasonable.
28

6.
JDR
Program Observations and Recommendations
29

Observations and Recommendations

1. JDR generated positive 2. The trainings will require 3. Reversal of the order of CAM
outcomes in so far as first level considerable financial and JDR
courts are concerned. However, investment
the impact of JDR before the 2nd
level courts is still unclear. Reasons
To avoid the filing of CAM
Problems
Reasons
Limited amount of judicial Weaknesses of CAM
Parties have much greater
resources
incentive to settle early
Recommendations  The CAM program has been losing its good


Recommendations mediators by reason of low compensation;
Creation of Specialized JDR CAM mediators lack the authority and moral
Futher training of judges courts ascendancy of a judge which is helpful in
especially 2nd level court judges

facilitating settlement;

Many CAM mediators are not lawyers and


this hinders their understanding of disputes;
and (iv) non-lawyer mediators cannot
command the respect of lawyers and
litigants.
30

Observations and Recommendations

4. The possibility of expanding 5. Clarification of the judges’ 6. Enhance awareness of


the coverage of JDR should be role in JDR lawyers and litigants on JDR
studied.

Reasons Reasons
Reasons Stakeholder preference for a Many lawyers are not fully aware
The coverage will likely increase judge who actively guides the of the role they ought to play
JDR case disposals parties towards settlement during JDR
Recommendations Recommendations
Judges can combine facilitative Introduction to ADR concepts
and evaluative techniques. should be done as early as law
(i) Facilitative mediation that incorporates the school
use evaluative and fact-finding techniques such
as evaluation and mini-trial;
(ii) storytelling as a condition precedent to
option generation; and
(iii) issues pertaining to power imbalance
identification and correction.
31

Observations and Recommendations

7. Litigants should be informed


of the nature and purpose of
JDR before conducting JDR
hearings
Reasons
to allow them to craft settlement
proposals, with the assistance
of their lawyers, to bring to the
JDR hearings.
Recommendations
Inform the parties of their rights
to settle or not to settle

Invitations not subpoenas


32

Conclusion

JDR experiment has clearly yielded extremely


encouraging results

Modifications are in order

The success of the experiment is due mainly to the


readiness of the judges themselves to take on the
role of dispute facilitators

You might also like