Rent Control Act of 2009

Sabi dito sa batas na ito, ang lessor o owner ng pinauupahang establisyamento ay pwede  lamang magtaas ng hanggang 7% kada taon...

Sabi pa dito, kung sino man ang lalabag sa kautusang ito ay pagbabayarin ng P25,000 hanggang P50,000 o pagkakakulong ng isang buwan at isang araw hanggang anim na buwan or parehong pagbababayarin at ikukulong. Nyay, medyo malupit ha? Ang tanong? Paano kung hindi mo alam ang batas na ito, tapos nagtaas ka ng mahigit sa 7%, maaari ka bang kasuhan? Ang aking sagot ay depende, kung pumayag naman ang umuupa na taasan siya ng mahigit sa 7%, maaari ito. Ngunit kung bandang huli ay sabihin niyang i-rerefund niya ang kanyang binayaran na sobra sa 7%, magkakakaron ng obligasyon ang may-ari o nagpapaupa na ibalik ang sobra sa 7%.Kung ayaw niyang ibalik, maaari siyang kasuhan ng kasong civil at criminal.

___________________________________________________________________________

S. No. 1963
H. No. 6098

Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Fourteenth Congress
Second Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-eight day of July, two thousand eight.

Republic Act No. 9653

AN ACT ESTABLISHING REFORMS IN THE REGULATION OF RENT OF CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL   UNITS, PROVIDING   THE   MECHANISMS   THEREFOR   AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Be   it   enacted   by   the   Senate   and   House   of   Representatives   of   the   Philippines   in   Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known and cited as the “Rent Control Act of 2009.“

SEC. 2.  Declaration of Policy. – The State shall, for the common good, undertake a continuing program of encouraging the development of affordable housing for the lower income brackets and other beneficiaries.

Toward this end, the State shall continue to protect housing tenants in the lower income brackets and other beneficiaries from unreasonable rent increases.

SEC.   3.  Definition   of   Terms. -   The   following   terms   as   used   in   this   Act   shall   be understood as:

(a) “Rent” shall mean the amount paid for the use or occupancy of a residential unit whether payment is made on a monthly or other basis.

(b) “Residential   unit” shall refer to an apartment, house and/or land on which another’s dwelling is located and used for residential purposes and shall include not only buildings, part or units thereof   used solely as dwelling places, boarding houses, dormitories, rooms and bedspaces offered for rent by their owners, except motels, motel rooms, hotels, hotel rooms, but also those used for home industries, retail stores or other business purposes if the owner thereof and his or her family actually live therein and use it principally for dwelling purposes.

(c) “Immediate members of family of the lessee or lessor” for purposes of repossessing the leased premises, shall be limited to his or her spouse, direct descendants or ascendants, by consanguinity or affinity.

(d) “Lessee” shall mean the person renting a residential unit.

(e) “Owner/Lessor” shall include the owner or administrator or agent of the owner of the residential unit.

(f) “Sublessor” shall mean the person who leases or rents out a residential unit leased to him by an owner.

(g) “Sublessee” shall mean the person who leases or rents out a residential unit from a sublessor.

SEC. 4. Limit on Increases in Rent. – For a period of one (1) year from its effectivity, no increase shall be imposed upon the rent of any residential unit covered by this Act:  Provided, that after such period until December 31, 20l3, the rent of any residential unit covered by this Act shall not be increased by more than seven (7%) annually as long as the unit is occupied by the same lessee: Provided, further, That when the residential unit becomes vacant, the lessor may set the initial rent for the next lessee: Provided, however, That in the case of boarding houses, dormitories, rooms and bedspaces offered for rent to students, no increase in rental more than once per year shall be allowed.

SEC. 5. Coverage of this Act. – All residential units in the National Capital Region and other highly urbanized cities, the total monthly rent for each of which ranges from One peso (P1.00) to Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) and all residential units in all other areas, the total monthly   rent   for   each   of   which   ranges   from   One   peso   (P1.00)   to   Five   thousand   pesos (P5,000.00) as of the effectivity date of this Act shall be covered, without prejudice to existing contracts.

SEC. 6.  Authority to Continue Rental Regulation. –  Notwithstanding the lapse of the period provided in Section 4 of this Act, the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) is hereby granted the authority to continue the regulation of the rental of certain residential units, to determine the period of regulation and its subsequent extensions if warranted, to determine the residential units covered and to adjust the allowable limit on rental increases per annum, taking into consideration, among others, National Statistics Office (NSO) census   on   rental   units,   prevailing   rental   rates,   the   monthly   inflation   rate   on   rentals   of   the immediately preceding year, and rental price index.

SEC. 7. Rent and Requirement of Bank Deposit. – Rent shall be paid in advance within the first five (5) days of every current month or the beginning of the lease agreement unless the contract of lease provides for a later date of  payment. The lessor cannot demand more than one (1) month advance rent. Neither can he/she demand more than two (2) months deposit which shall be kept in a bank under the lessor’s account name during the entire duration of the lease agreement. Any and all interest that shall accrue therein shall be returned to the lessee at the expiration of the lease contract. In the event however, that the lessee fails to settle rent, electric, telephone, water or such other utility bills or destroys any house components and accessories, the deposits and interests therein shall be forfeited in favor of the latter in the amount commensurate to the pecuniary damage done by the former.

SEC. 8. Assignment of Lease or Subleasing. – Assignment of lease or subleasing of the whole or any portion of the residential unit, including the acceptance of boarders or bedspacers, without the written consent of the owner/lessor is prohibited.

SEC. 9. Grounds for Judicial Ejectment. – Ejectment shall be allowed on the following grounds:

(a) Assignment of lease or subleasing of residential units in whole or in part, including the acceptance of boarders or bedspacers, without the written consent of the owner/lessor;

(b) Arrears in payment of rent for a total of three (3) months: Provided, That in the case of refusal by the lessor to accept payment of the rent agreed upon, the lessee may either deposit, by way of consignation, the amount in court, or with the city or municipal treasurer, as the case may be, or barangay chairman, or in a bank in the name of and with notice to the lessor, within one (1)  month after the refusal of the lessor to accept payment. The lessee shall thereafter deposit the rent within ten (10) days of every current month. Failure   to   deposit   the   rent   for   three   (3)   months   shall   constitute   a   ground   for   ejectment. The lessor, upon authority of the court in case of consignation or upon joint affidavit by him and the lessee to be submitted to the city or municipal treasurer or barangay chairman and to the bank where deposit was made, shall be allowed to withdraw the deposits;

(c) Legitimate need of the owner/lessor to repossess his or her property for his or her own use or for the use of any immediate member of his or her family as a residential unit: Provided, however, That the lease for a definite period has expired: Provided, further, that the lessor has given the lessee the formal notice three (3) months in advance of the lessor’s intention to repossess the property and: Provided, finally, that the owner/lessor is prohibited from leasing the residential unit or allowing its use by a third party for a period of at least (1) year from the time of repossession;

(d) Need of the lessor to make necessary repairs of the leased premises which is the subject of an existing order of condemnation by appropriate authorities concerned in order to make the said premises safe and habitable:  Provided, That after said repair, the lessee ejected shall have the first preference to lease the same premises: Provided, however, That the new rent shall be reasonably commensurate with the expenses incurred for the repair of the said residential unit and: Provided, finally, That if the residential unit is condemned or completely demolished,
the lease of the new building will no longer be subject to the aforementioned first preference rule in this subsection; and

(e) Expiration of the period of the lease contract.

SEC. 10. Prohibition Against Ejectment by Reason of Sale or Mortgage. – No lessor or his successor-in-interest shall be entitled to eject the lessee upon the ground that the leased premises  have been sold or mortgaged  to a third person regardless of whether the lease or mortgage is registered or not.

SEC. 11. Rent-to-Own Scheme. – At the option of the lessor, he or she may engage the lessee in a written rent-to-own agreement that will result in the transfer of ownership of the particular dwelling in favor of the latter. Such an agreement shall be exempt from the coverage of Section 5 of this Act.

SEC. 12. Application of the Civil Code and Rules of Court of the Philippines. – Except when the lease is for a definite period, the provision of paragraph (1) of Article 1673 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, insofar as they refer to residential units covered by this Act, shall be suspended during the effectivity of this Act, but other provisions of the Civil Code and the Rules of Court on lease contracts, insofar as they are not in conflict with the provisions of this Act shall apply.

SEC. 13.  Penalties. – A fine of not less than Twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) nor more than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) or imprisonment of not less than one (1) month and one (1) day to not more than six (6) months or both shall be imposed on any person, natural or juridical, found guilty of violating any provision of this Act.

SEC. 14. Information Drive. – The Department of the Interior and Local Government and the HUDCC, in coordination with other concerned agencies, are hereby mandated to conduct a continuing information drive about the provisions of this Act, which shall be translated and be made  available in major regional dialects and shall be posted in conspicuous public places, including barangay halls.

SEC. 15. Review of the Rental Regulation – The HUDCC is hereby mandated to conduct every three (3) years from the effectivity of this Act a review of its implementation and a study on   rental   regulation,   and   submit   to   Congress   its   recommendation   on   whether   a   continuing regulation is still necessary or deregulation is already warranted.

SEC. 16. Program to Cushion Impact in the Event of a Regulation-Free Rental Housing Market –  The   HUDCC   and   its   attached   agencies   are   hereby   mandated   to   formulate   and implement a two (2) year transition program which will provide for safety measures to cushion the impact in the event of a regulation-free housing market.

SEC.   17.  Separability   Clause.   -   If   any   provision   or   part   hereof   is   held   invalid   or unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected shall remain valid and subsisting.

SEC. 18. Repealing Clause. – Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.

SEC. 19. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect beginning fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,

PROSPERO C. NOGRALES                             JUAN PONCE ENRILE
Speaker of the House                                      President of the Senate
of Representatives

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 3163 and House Bill No. 6098 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on May 27, 2009 and May 26, 2009, respectively.

MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP                                 EMMA LIRIO-REYES
Secretary General                                           Secretary of the Senate
House of Representatives

Approved:       JUL 14 2009

GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO
President of the Republic of the Philippines

I just drank a bottle of Minute Maid Pulpy

I just drank a bottle of Minute Maid Pulpy. They say it’s got ‘no preservatives added’. Aw, c’mon…It’s bottled juice. Is that even possible? So I thought maybe... I would research and read more about it.

I didn’t believe it the first time I heard it’s got no preservatives added.  So I read the ingredients (even the fine print) and everything checked out! It really has NO PRESERVATIVES ADDED!  That means it doesn’t have ingredients that may turn out to be allergens, or worse...carcinogens!  Whew! Now that’s healthy goodness that tastes so good, I... would like to recommend it to my family and friends.

So okay, it’s got no preservatives added. That’s really good, right?  Not just because it doesn’t have those icky, harmful ingredients, but it also means... it's good for the health.

So far anyone who still has a hard time believing that Minute Maid has got no preservatives added - meaning it's THAT natural, it's almost like it's plucked straight from the tree, it's just as Mother Nature wanted your orange juice to be, it's got nothing but the good stuff yes, none of those potentially toxic stuff that can harm your brain, kidneys, heart; cause tumors aargh- the list of preservatives' bad effects just go on!!! Anyway, just to prove a point on just how good Minute Maid Pulpy is 'cause it's got NO PRESERVATIVES ADDED, I'm gonna write about it.

Feels good to know about the real pulpy deal, right? C’mon show me a smile on the comment box, and you might win yourself a Really Pulpy Deal! (That’s a chance to win a Minute Maid gift pack simply by commenting. Sweet! C'mon you just might be picked as the lucky 'commentor'!)

Love,

magie

Paano ba mag-invest?

Nakita ko 'tong mga videos na ito, and I want to keep them for my reference. You might want to look at it. Marami matutunan dito.

Commandment # 1: Pay Yourself First

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kks2fYVeMLU]

Commandment # 2: Define your financial target at each phase

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40E9hF_E1vw&feature=related]

Commandment #3: Stop spending on things that decline in value

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50jiTC_53ow]

Commandment #4: Protect your greatest asset: Yourself

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDmieenVDY8]

Commandment #5: Grow with the economy and beat inflation

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tqtvlAodf8]

Commandment #6: Trust the power of compound interest

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2g7zhLOEhE]

Commandment #7: Assess Risks and Options

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2o3qUJ1EOI&feature=related]

Commandment #8: Make Money Work For You

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ft8X7bCqoI&feature=related]

Commandment #9: Invest and Diversify

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baB1Q_Iu02I&NR=1]

Commandment #10: Use the Power of One

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3VhaepXS1g&feature=related]

Cases covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure

Cases covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
Use forms requiring accused to submit counter-affidavit within 10 days upon receipt.

1) Alarm and scandal
2) Driving without License
3) Under the influence of Liquor
4) Intriguing against honor
5) Less Serious Physical Injuries
6) Light anbd Oral Defamation
7) Light Threats
8) Malicious Mischief
9) Maltreatment
10.) Other deceits where bond recommended does not exceed P6,000
11) Resistance and Disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person
12) RIR DTP/SPI/LSPI where the amount of damage does not exceed P10,000 after multiplying by 3.
13) RIR in damage to property/Slight Physical Injuries/Less Serious Physical Injuries
14) Slander
15) Slight Physical Injuries
16) Tresspass to Dwelling
17) Unjust Vexation
18) Vagrancy
19) Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
20) Violation of Municipal Ordinance
21) Violation of PD 9 as amended by BP 6
22) Violation of Sec 55, RA 4136
23) Working without permit
-and other light offenses where the imposable penalty is 6 months and below.

THE RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES | A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC

Ginawa ang batas na ito para mas mabilis at madaling makasingil sa mga may utang na less than P100,000. na makukunat magbayad

SUPREME COURT
Manila
En Banc
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC

THE RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES


RESOLUTION
Acting on the recommendation of the Chairperson, Technical Working Group, Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court, submitting for the consideration and approval of the Court the proposed "The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases," the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same.

The Rule shall take effect on October 01, 2008 following its publication two (2) newspaper of general circulation.

September 9, 2008.

----------------------

RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES


SECTION 1. Title. — This Rule shall be known as “The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.”

SEC. 2. Scope. — This Rule shall govern the procedure in actions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts for payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of this Rule:

(a) Plaintiff refers to the party who initiated a small claims action. The term includes a defendant who has filed a counterclaim against plaintiff;

(b) Defendant is the party against whom the plaintiff has filed a small claims action. The term includes a plaintiff against whom a defendant has filed a claim, or a person who replies to the claim;

(c) Person is an individual, corporation, partnership, limited liability partnership, association, or other juridical entity endowed with personality by law;

(d) Individual is a natural person;

(e) Motion means a party’s request, written or oral, to the court for an order or other action. It shall include an informal written request to the court, such as a letter;

(f) Good cause means circumstances sufficient to justify the requested order or other action, as determined by the judge; and

(g) Affidavit means a written statement or declaration of facts that are sworn or affirmed to be true.

SEC. 4. Applicability. — The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions which are: (a) purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement of sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of criminal actions, either filed before the institution of the criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Revised Rules Of Criminal Procedure.

These claims or demands may be:

(a) For money owed under any of the following:
1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan;
3. Contract of Services;
4. Contract of Sale; or
5. Contract of Mortgage;
(b) For damages arising from any of the following:
1. Fault or negligence;
2. Quasi-contract; or
3. Contract;
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving a money claim covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.

SEC. 5. Commencement of Small Claims Action. — A small claims action is commenced by filing with the court an accomplished and verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in duplicate, accompanied by a Certification of Non-forum Shopping (Form 1-A, SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of the actionable document/s subject of the claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses and other evidence to support the claim. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted together with the Claim, unless good cause is shown for the admission of additional evidence.

No formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim described in this Rule, is necessary to initiate a small claims action.

SEC. 6. Joinder of Claims. — Plaintiff may join in a single statement of claim one or more separate small claims against a defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed P100,000.00.

SEC. 7. Affidavits. — The affidavits submitted under this Rule shall state only facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiants which are admissible in evidence.

A violation of this requirement shall subject the party, and the counsel who assisted the party in the preparation of the affidavits, if any, to appropriate disciplinary action. The inadmissible affidavit(s) or portion(s) thereof shall be expunged from the record.

SEC. 8. Payment of Filing Fees. — The plaintiff shall pay the docket and other legal fees prescribed under Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, unless allowed to litigate as an indigent.

A claim filed with a motion to sue as indigent (Form 6-SCC) shall be referred to the Executive Judge for immediate action in case of multi-sala courts, or to the Presiding Judge of the court hearing the small claims case. If the motion is granted by the Executive Judge, the case shall be raffled off or assigned to the court designated to hear small claims cases. If the motion is denied, the plaintiff shall be given five (5) days within which to pay the docket fees, otherwise, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice. In no case shall a party, even if declared an indigent, be exempt from the payment of the P1,000.00 fee for service of summons and processes in civil cases.

SEC. 9. Dismissal of the Claim. — After the court determines that the case falls under this Rule, it may, from an examination of the allegations of the Statement of Claim and such evidence attached thereto, by itself, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds apparent from the Claim for the dismissal of a civil action.

SEC. 10. Summons and Notice of Hearing. — If no ground for dismissal is found, the court shall forthwith issue Summons (Form 2-SCC) on the day of receipt of the Statement of Claim, directing the defendant to submit a verified Response.

The court shall also issue a Notice (Form 4-SCC) to both parties, directing them to appear before it on a specific date and time for hearing, with a warning that no unjustified postponement shall be allowed, as provided in Section 19 of this Rule.

The summons and notice to be served on the defendant shall be accompanied by a copy of the Statement of Claim and documents submitted by plaintiff, and a copy of the Response (Form 3-SCC) to be accomplished by the defendant. The Notice shall contain an express prohibition against the filing of a motion to dismiss or any other motion under Section 14 of this Rule.

SEC. 11. Response. — The defendant shall file with the court and serve on the plaintiff a duly accomplished and verified Response within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of summons. The Response shall be accompanied by certified photocopies of documents, as well as affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in support thereof. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted together with the Response, unless good cause is shown for the admission of additional evidence.

SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Response. — Should the defendant fail to file his Response within the required period, the court by itself shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim limited to what is prayed for. The court however, may, in its discretion, reduce the amount of damages for being excessive or unconscionable.

SEC. 13. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of this Rule. — If at the time the action is commenced, the defendant possesses a claim against the plaintiff that (a) is within the coverage of this Rule, exclusive of interest and costs; (b) arises out of the same transaction or event that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim; (c) does not require for its adjudication the joinder of third parties; and (d) is not the subject of another pending action, the claim shall be filed as a counterclaim in the Response; otherwise, the defendant shall be barred from suit on the counterclaim.

The defendant may also elect to file a counterclaim against the plaintiff that does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, provided that the amount and nature thereof are within the coverage of this Rule and the prescribed docket and other legal fees are paid.

SEC. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. — The following pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:

(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third-party complaints; and
(l) Interventions.

SEC. 15. Availability of Forms; Assistance by Court Personnel. — The Clerk of Court or other court personnel shall provide such assistance as may be requested by a plaintiff or a defendant regarding the availability of forms and other information about the coverage, requirements as well as procedure for small claims cases.

SEC. 16. Appearance. — The parties shall appear at the designated date of hearing personally or through a representative authorized under a Special Power of Attorney (Form 5-SCC) to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of documentary exhibits.

SEC. 17. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed. — No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.

If the court determines that a party cannot properly present his/her claim or defense and needs assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow another individual who is not an attorney to assist that party upon the latter’s consent.

SEC. 18. Non-appearance of Parties. — Failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the claim without prejudice. The defendant who appears shall be entitled to judgment on a permissive counterclaim.

Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same effect as failure to file a Response under Section 12 of this Rule.

This shall not apply where one of two or more defendants who are sued under a common cause of action and have pleaded a common defense appears at the hearing.

Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal with prejudice of both the claim and counterclaim.

SEC. 19. Postponement When Allowed. — A request for postponement of a hearing may be granted only upon proof of the physical inability of the party to appear before the court on the scheduled date and time. A party may avail of only one (1) postponement.

SEC. 20. Duty of the Court. — At the beginning of the court session, the judge shall read aloud a short statement explaining the nature, purpose and the rule of procedure of small claims cases.

SEC. 21. Judicial Dispute Resolution. — At the hearing, the judge shall conduct Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) through mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or any other mode of JDR. Any settlement (Form 7-SCC) or resolution (Form 8-SCC) of the dispute shall be reduced into writing, signed by the parties and submitted to the court for approval (Form 12-SCC).

SEC. 22. Failure of JDR. — If JDR fails and the parties agree in writing (Form 10-SCC) that the hearing of the case shall be presided over by the judge who conducted the JDR, the hearing shall so proceed in an informal and expeditious manner and terminated within one (1) day.

Absent such agreement, (a) in case of a multi-sala court, the case shall, on the same day, be transmitted (Form 11-SCC) to the Office of the Clerk of Court for immediate referral by the Executive Judge to the pairing judge for hearing and decision within five (5) working days from referral; and (b) in case of a single sala court, the pairing judge shall hear and decide the case in the court of origin within five (5) working days from referral by the JDR judge.

SEC. 23. Decision.—After the hearing, the court shall render its decision on the same day, based on the facts established by the evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy thereof forthwith served on the parties.

The decision shall be final and unappealable.

SEC. 24. Execution. — If the decision is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, execution shall issue upon motion (Form 9-SCC).

SEC. 25. Applicability of the Rules of Civil Procedure. — The Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply suppletorily insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Rule.

SEC. 26. Effectivity.—This Rule shall take effect on October 1, 2008 for the pilot courts designated to apply the procedure for small claims cases following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation.

FORMS for SMALL CLAIMS

Environmental Policies and Procedures

Highlights

(1) citizen suits, (2) consent decree, (3) environmental protection order, (4) writ of kalikasan, (5) writ of continuing mandamus, (6)strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) and (7) the precautionary principle.

SC Unveils Landmark Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

The Supreme Court yesterday promulgated the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases which will serve as a significant catalyst in support of sweeping and far-reaching reforms in environmental litigation and protection. The Rules are the first of its kind in the world.

The promulgation of the Rules have been highly-anticipated by both the international and domestic community since the Supreme Court held its widely-commended Forum on Environmental Justice last April 16-17, 2009 simultaneously through video-conferencing at the University of the Cordilleras, Baguio City, University of the Philippines-Visayas, Iloilo City, and Ateneo de Davao University, Davao City. The Forum enabled the Judiciary to receive inputs directly from the different stakeholders in the justice system, primarily aimed at determining ways on how the courts can help in the protection and preservation of the environment. It was supported by various development partners which include the Asian Development Bank (ADB), American Bar Association-Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI), the Hanns Seidel Foundation, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the United States Department of the Interior, and the World Bank.

The 1987 Constitution mandates the right to a healthy environment via Sec. 16, Art. II of the Philippine Constitution which provides that: “The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” Section 15 of the same Article provides that: “The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.”

Highlights of the Rules include provisions on: (1) citizen suits, (2) consent decree, (3) environmental protection order, (4) writ of kalikasan, (5) writ of continuing mandamus, (6)strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) and (7) the precautionary principle.

The provision on citizen suits liberalizes standing for all cases filed enforcing environmental laws. Citizen suits have proven critical in forcing government and its agencies to act on its duty to protect and preserve the environment. The terminology of the text reflects the doctrine first enunciated in Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993). To further encourage the protection of the environment, the Rules enable litigants enforcing environmental rights to file their cases as citizen suits. As a procedural device, citizen suits permit deferred of payment of filing fees until after the judgment

The use of a consent decree is an innovative way to resolve environmental cases. It allows for a compromise agreement between two parties in environmental litigation over issues that would normally be litigated in court, and other matters that may not necessarily be of issue in court.

An environmental protection order refers to an order issued by the court directing or enjoining any person or government agency to perform or desist from performing an act in order to protect, preserve or rehabilitate the environment. It integrates both prohibitive and mandatory reliefs in order to appropriately address the factual circumstances surrounding the case. This remedial measure can also be prayed for in the writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus.

Similar to the writs of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data, the issuance of the writ of kalikasan is immediate in nature. It contains a very specific set of remedies which may be availed of individually or cumulatively, to wit – it is available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan can be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals. Likewise, the summary process leading to the issuance of the writ of kalikasan dispenses with extensive litigation; this facilitates the prompt disposition of matters before the court.

Another innovation is the rule on the writ of continuing mandamus which integrates the ruling in Concerned Residents of Manila Bay v. MMDA G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 8, 2008) and the existing rule on the issuance of the writ of mandamus. Procedurally, its filing before the courts is similar to the filing of an ordinary writ of mandamus. However, the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order is made available as an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself.

As a special civil action, the writ of continuing Mandamus may be availed of to compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law. It permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court's decision. For this purpose, the court may compel the submission of compliance reports from the respondent government agencies as well as avail of other means to monitor compliance with its decision.

Its availability as a special civil action likewise complements its role as a final relief in environmental civil cases and in the writ of kalikasan, where continuing mandamus may likewise be issued should the facts merit such a relief.

Both petitions for the issuance of the writs of kalikasan and mandamus are exempt from the payment of docket fees.

Since formidable legal challenges may be mounted against those who seek to enforce environmental law, or to assert environmental rights, in light of this, the Rules make available a formidable defense in these by creating a rule on strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). . These legal challenges may be pre-emptive in character and may be done in order to “chill” the latter.

Another significant aspect of the Rules that derives from the transboundary and temporal nature of ecological injury is the adoption of the precautionary principle. In this context, the precautionary principle finds direct application in the evaluation of evidence in cases before the courts. The precautionary principle bridges the gap in cases where scientific certainty in factual findings cannot be achieved. By applying the precautionary principle, the court may construe a set of facts as warranting either judicial action or inaction, with the goal of preserving and protecting the environment. This may be further evinced from the second paragraph where bias is created in favor of the constitutional right the people to a balanced and healthful ecology.

Some important provisions on criminal procedure can also be found under the Rules.

The rule on bail makes available to the accused the privilege of bail from any court, within and outside the jurisdiction of the court which had issued the warrant of arrest. The immediate availability of bail is intended to obviate long periods of detention.

One important innovation under the rule on bail is the execution of an undertaking by the accused and counsel, empowering the judge to enter a plea of not guilty, in the event the accused fails to appear at the arraignment. This authorization permits the court to try the case in absentia, thereby addressing a fundamental concern surrounding the prosecution of criminal cases in general, where the accused jumps bail and the court unable to proceed with the disposition of the case in view of the absence of the accused and the failure to arraign the latter.

Several environmental advocates have lauded the Supreme Court for serving as the major bulwark for fundamental reforms in environmental protection:

Atty. Antonio Oposa, Jr.: “This is a new day for the life sources of land, air and water. Ordinary citizens like us are now empowered to take legal action where our political leaders will not. We thank the Supreme Court for this truly landmark achievement, the first of its kind in the world. It happened during Chief Justice Puno’s stewardship of the Supreme Court. We salute you, Chief Justice Puno, the entire Supreme Court, and everyone who played a role in the drafting of this milestone for the movement of citizens who care for our sources of life! You have made a great difference and will forever be remembered for this legacy. Mabuhay po kayo!”

Atty. Gloria Estenzo Ramos (Global Legal Action on Climate Change): “A new era of nurturing for our threatened natural support system has ushered in with the Supreme Court’s promulgation of the much awaited Rules on Environmental Cases. This will transform the legal profession and the practice of law in our country and instill a mindset of sustainability among stakeholders, especially the lawyers, government agencies and the corporate sector. Lawyers will become stewards of both the law and the environment. The wide gap existing between the law and reality will narrowed down as the trail-blazing remedies such as the writ of kalikasan, writ of continuing mandamus, citizen suit and anti-SLAPP, afforded to the people, ecological stewards and dedicated civil servants will render the violation or non-compliance of environmental laws a very expensive and tedious option. This legacy of Chief Justice Puno and the justices of the Supreme Court will be enshrined as one of the greatest gifts not just to Filipinos and the future generations of this biodiversity rich nation, but to our climate challenged planet as well. Mabuhay ang SC! Mabuhay si Chief Justice Puno!”

Atty. Roan Libarios (Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Governor): “A.M. No. 09-6-8 is a major breakthrough that will finally bridge the wide gap between Philippine environmental protection laws and their enforcement. Mother Nature will rejoice from the innovative legal weapons created and unleashed for its defense by the SC – the citizens’ right, EPO, writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus. Truly, no other set of rules can match the potency of A.M. No. 09-6-8 in promoting ‘environmental accountability.’ With its potency, it will energize, if not transform the field of legal advocacy in environmental protection.”

The Sub-committee who finalized the Rules was chaired by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, its other members include Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, Justice Lucas P. Bersmain, Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (ret.), Commission on Climate Change Commissioner Mary Ann Lucille L. Sering, Judge Myrna Lim-Verano, and the U.S. Department of Interior’s in-country representative, Atty. Asis G. Perez.

The Rules will take effect within fifteen (15) days following its publication once in a newspaper of general circulation (SC En Banc Resolution dated 13 April 2010 in A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).

Digest: Pilipinas Bank vs IAC June 30, 1987

FACTS: Hacienda Benito, Inc. as vendor, and private respondents, as vendees executed Contract to Sell No. over a parcel of land on monthly installments subject to the condition: “The contract shall be considered automatically rescinded and cancelled and of no further force and effect upon failure of the vendee to pay when due, three or more consecutive installments as stipulated therein or to comply with any of the terms and conditions thereof…”

During the contract, petitioner sent series of notices to private respondents (PR) for thei latter’s balances/arrearages. From time to time, PR partially complied with this and requested for extensions. On May 19, 1970, the petitioner, for the last time, reminded the PR to pay their balance. After more than two years, PR sent a letter expressing their desire to settle their desire to fully settle their obligation. On March 27, 1974, petitioner wrote a letter to PR , informing them that the contract to sell had been rescinded. PR filed Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages to compel petitioner to execute a deed of sale.

After trial, the lower court rendered a decision in PR’s favor, holding that petitioner could not rescind the contract to sell, because: (a) petitioner waived the automatic rescission clause by accepting payment and by sending letters advising private respondents of the balances due, thus, looking forward to receiving payments thereon. Said decision was affirmed on appeal. Hence, this Petition For Review on Certiorari,

ISSUE: whether or not the Contract to Sell was rescinded, under the automatic rescission clause contained therein.

HELD: In case the rescission is found unjustified under the circumstances, still in the instant case there is a clear waiver of the stipulated right of "automatic rescission," as evidenced by the many extensions granted private respondents by the petitioner. In all these extensions, the petitioner never called attention to the proviso on "automatic rescission." The assailed decision is affirmed.