Environment Friendly, SC Admin Matter

A.M.  No. 11-9-4-SC
EFFICIENT USE OF PAPER RULE
Whereas,  to produce 500 reams o~ paper, twenty trees are cut and
100,000  liters  of  water  are  used,  water  that  is  no  longer  reusable
because  it  is  laden  with  chemicals  and  is  just  released  to  the
environment to poison our rivers and seas;
Whereas,  there  is  a  need  to  cut  the  judicial  system's  use  of
excessive  quantities  of costly  paper,  save  our forests,  avoid  landslides,
and  mitigate  the  worsening  effects  of climate  change  that  the  world  is
expenenc1ng;
Whereas,  the  judiciary  can  play  a  big  part  in  sav1ng  our  trees,
conserving precious water,  and helping mother earth;
NOW,  THEREFORE,  the Supreme  Court  En  Bane  hereby  issues
and promulgates the following:
Sec.  1.  Title  of the  Rule.  - This rule  shall  be  known  and  cited  as
the Efficient Use of Paper Rule.
Sec.  2.  Applicability. -This rule shall apply to all  courts and quasijudicial  bodies  under  the  administrative  supervision  of  the  Supreme
Court.
Sec.  3.  Format and Style.  - a) All  pleadings, motions,  and  similar
papers intended for the court and quasi-judicial body's consideration and
action  (court-bound  papers) shall  be written  in  single space with  a oneand-a-half  space  between  paragraphs,  using  an  easily  readable  font
style of the  party's choice,  of 14-size font,  and  on  a  13-inch by  8.5-inch
white bond paper; and
b)  All  decisions,  resolutions,  and  orders  issued  by  courts  and
by  quasi-judicial  bodies  under  the  administrative  supervision  of  the
Supreme Court shall  comply with  these requirements.  Similarly covered
are  the  reports  submitted  to  the  courts  and  transcripts  of stenographic
notes. Efficient Use (~f Paper Rule  2
Sec.  4.  Margins  and  Prints.  - The  parties  shall  maintain  the
following  margins  on  all  court-bound  papers:  a  left  hand  margin  of 1.5
inches  from  the  edge;  an  upper margin  of 1.2  inches from  the  edge;  a
right  hand  margin  of 1.0 inch  from  the  edge;  and  a  lower margin  of 1.0
inch from the edge.  Every page must be consecutively numbered.
Sec.  5.  Copies  to  be  Filed.  - Unless  otherwise  directed  by  the
court,  the  number  of  court~bound  papers  that  a  party  is  required  or
desires to file shall be as follows:
a.  In  the  Supreme  Court,  one  original  (properly  marked)  and
four  copies,  unless the  case  is  referred  to  the  Court En  Bane,  in  which
event,  the  parties  shall  file  ten  additional  copies.  For the  En  Bane,  the
parties  need  to  submit  only  two  sets  of  annexes,  one  attached  to  the
original  and  an  extra  copy.  For the  Division,  the  parties  need  to  submit
also two sets of annexes,  one attached to the original and an  extra copy.
All  members of the Court shall  share the extra  copies of annexes in  the
interest of economy of paper.
Parties to cases before the Supreme Court are further required,  on
voluntary  basis  for  the  first  six  months  following  the  effectivity  of  this
Rule  and  compulsorily  afterwards  unless  the  period  is  extended,  to
submit,  simultaneously with  their court-bound  papers,  soft copies  of the
same and their annexes (the latter in  PDF format) either by email to the
Court's e-mail  address or by compact disc (CD).  This requirement is  in
preparation  for  the  eventual  establishment  of  an  e-filing  paperless
system in the judiciary.
b.  In  the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, one original
(properly marked) and two copies with their annexes;
c.  In  the  Court  of Tax Appeals,  one  original  (properly marked)
and  two  copies  with  annexes.  On  appeal  to  the  En  Bane,  one  original
(properly marked) and eight copies with annexes; and
d.  In  other  courts,  one  original  (properly  marked)  with  the
stated annexes attached to it.
Sec.  6.  Annexes Served on Adverse Party.  - A  party required  by
the rules to  serve a copy of his court-bound  paper on  the adverse party
need  not  enclose  copies  of those  annexes that  based  on  the  record  of
the  court  such  party already has in  his  possession ..  In  the event a party
I
requests a set of the annexes actually filed with the court,  the party who
filed  the  paper  shall  comply  with  the  request  within  five  days  from
receipt. Efficient Use  of Paper Rule  3
Sec.  7.  Date of Effectivity.  -This rule shall take effect on  January
1,  2013  after publication  in  two  newspa.pers  of general  circulation  in  the
Philippines.
Manila,  November 13, 2012.

SC Reinstates Remorseful Lawyer Dismissed for Immorality

The Supreme Court recently granted the petition (for extraordinary mercy) of a lawyer dismissed for immorality in 2004 to be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys after the same “has sufficiently atoned for his transgressions.”

In a six-page resolution penned by Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, the Court En Banc ordered the reinstatement in the Roll of Edmundo L. Macarubbo who, at 58 years of age, “still has productive years ahead of him that could significantly contribute to the upliftment of the law profession and the betterment of society.” It added that while the Court was mindful of its duty to discipline and even remove its errant officers, it also has a duty to show compassion to those who have reformed their ways as in Macarubbo’s case.

In 2004, Macarubbo was disbarred for having contracted a bigamous marriage with complainant Florence Teves and a third marriage with one Josephine Constantino while his first marriage to Helen Esparza was still subsisting, which acts constituted gross immoral conduct in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Court held that Macarubbo “has sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledged his indiscretion in the legal profession and in his personal life” and has since asked forgiveness from his children by complainant Teves and maintained a cordial relationship with them as proved by his photo evidence. It noted that following his disbarment, Macarubbo has returned to his hometown in Enrile, Cagayan and devoted his time tending an orchard and taking care of his ailing mother until her death in 2008. He also worked for the local government of Enrile, Cagayan, as well as taught part-time instructor at the University of Cagayan Valley and F.L. Vargas College and took an active part in socio-civic activities.

Macarubbo’s plea for reinstatement, the Court noted, was also duly supported by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Cagayan Chapter and his parish priest Rev. Fr. Camilo Castillejos, Jr., among others. Furthermore, records reveal that he has already settled his previous marital squabbles and sends regular support to his children. (Macarubbo v. Macarubbo, AC No. 6148, January 22, 2013)

SC Clarifies "Three-Term Limit" Rule, Proclaims Abundo Winner of 2010 Mayoral Elections in Viga, Catanduanes

In the Court’s 35-page decision, written by Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., it unanimously held that Abundo did not serve three consecutive terms as Mayor of Viga, Catanduanes due to an actual involuntary interruption during the 2004-2007 term. This was because he assumed the mayoralty post only on May 9, 2006 and served a little over one year and one month only. Thus, “the two-year period which his opponent, Torres, was serving as mayor should be considered as an interruption, which effectively removed Abundo’s case from the ambit of the three-term limit rule,” ruled the Court.
Justice Brion agreed that the Aldovino ruling relied upon by COMELEC “cannot be used as a basis for the conclusion that there had been no interruption in the case of Abundo - the eventual winner who is so recognized only after winning his protest case. Notably in Aldovino, while preventive suspension is an involuntary imposition, what it affects is merely the authority to discharge the functions of an office that the suspended local official continues to hold… the local elective official continues to possess title to his office while under preventive suspension, so that no interruption of his term ensues.” (GR No. 201716, Abundo v. Commission on Elections, January 8, 2013)

Judicial Conduct

Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or a standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct,  the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be established.