PHILIPPINES: An Introduction to Dispute Resolution

The Philippines is at the forefront of developments and initiatives aimed at optimising access to justice through innovations in its rules of practice, use of relevant technology, and inclusive policies.

Among the relevant developments from the Philippine Supreme Court and Congress are updated rules, law and jurisprudence on the following:

• electronic service and filings of pleadings and other submissions to lower courts;
• rules on unified legal aid service;
• rules on summary investigation and expedited preliminary investigation;
• use of chat logs and videos as evidence in criminal cases;
• application of rules on substitute parental authority under the Family Code; and
• recognition of foreign divorce based on administrative process.

Electronic Service Filings of Pleadings and Other Submissions to Lower Courts

The Supreme Court recently issued AM No 19-10-20-SC (Re: 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), which mandated the amendment of Rule 13 of the 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure to provide for mandatory electronic filing and service for civil cases only in the first- and second-level courts.

According to Rule 13 of the 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure, the filing of complaints and other initiatory pleadings must be done by:

• submitting personally the original paper, plainly indicated as such, to the court;
• sending the paper by registered mail; or
• sending the paper by accredited courier.

After the complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed through any of these three modes, the filing party must subsequently email the complaint or initiatory pleading in digital file format to the court. The electronic transmittal of the complaint or initiatory pleading and the accompanying documents must be made within 24 hours from the completeness of the primary mode of the complaint or initiatory pleading’s filing.

Under the same rule, the filing and service of non-initiatory pleadings, written motion, notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment, or similar papers can only be made by transmitting them in digital file format through email. The date of the electronic mailing will be considered as the date of filing and service. Digital copies of the additional accompanying documents of non-initiatory pleadings, written motion, notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment, or similar papers ‒ such as annexes, appendices, or exhibits ‒ must likewise be filed and served through email. Non-initiatory pleadings, written motion, notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment, and other similar papers not emailed to the court will be deemed not filed and those not emailed to the party or their counsel will be deemed not served.

Rules on Unified Legal Aid Service

In an effort to maximise access to justice and enforce a readily available, effective and efficient legal aid service, the Supreme Court has issued the Rules on Unified Legal Aid Service (the “ULAS Rules”), which are set to take effect on 3 February 2025.

Covered lawyers are mandated to render at least 60 hours of pro bono legal aid services every three years beginning 1 January 2025 to qualified beneficiaries, or those to whom a counsel de officio has been appointed, who are determined to be an indigent party or litigant or who have no sufficient means to afford adequate legal services.

Pro bono legal aid service refers to:

• the representation in courts in civil and criminal cases and in quasi-judicial bodies in administrative cases, including the drafting and filing of pleadings and written submissions in such cases;
• legal counselling, including assisting in contract negotiations and drafting of legal documents, which may cover policy work, legal research, and advocacy;
• developmental legal assistance, which may cover capacity-building and training in basic human rights;
• participation in Accredited Legal Outreach Programmes and Legal Missions; and
• such other legal services as may be defined by the Supreme Court.

The ULAS Rules also allow covered lawyers to make a financial contribution to the ULAS Fund in lieu of rendering legal services, which may cover up to 50% of the minimum hours required. Lawyers who complete 40% of the minimum hours required before the end of the first year of the compliance period may make a financial contribution corresponding to the remaining 60%. Finally, Philippine lawyers based abroad may make a financial contribution to cover 100% of the minimum hours required

Rules on Summary Investigation and Expedited Preliminary Investigation

The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on Summary Investigation and Expedited Preliminary Investigation (the “SIEPI Rules”), which govern the conduct of investigation of crimes where the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment for one day to six years, a fine regardless of the amount, or both. The SIEPI Rules are meant to institutionalise the DOJ’s policy of filing information in court only when prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction has been established.

The SIEPI Rules apply, depending on the penalty prescribed, for the purpose of ascertaining based on the evidence provided whether the quantum of evidence has been met. In both instances, the SIEPI Rules provide a short period within which the investigating prosecutor must act on the complaint-affidavit. Notably, for cases covered by summary investigation, the investigating prosecutor must immediately resolve the same upon receipt of the entire case records. Moreover, motions for reconsideration of the resolution must be filed no later than ten days from receipt of the resolution and are permitted only in cases covered by expedited preliminary investigation.

Use of Chat Logs and Videos as Evidence in Criminal Cases

In the case of People of the Philippines v Eul Vincent O Rodriguez, GR No 263603 (9 October 2023) published on 3 December 2024, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ‒ through the Honourable Associate Justice Mario V Lopez ‒ ruled that online chat logs and videos may be used as evidence in criminal cases without violating Republic Act (RA) No 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (the “Data Privacy Act”).

The accused Eul Vincent O Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) argued that the prosecution cannot rely on the chat logs and videos between him and one of the witnesses as they are inadmissible for being violative of his right to privacy under the Constitution and RA No 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Act.

The Supreme Court notes that Sections 13 and 19 of the Data Privacy Act allow the processing of sensitive personal information when it relates to the determination of criminal liability of a data subject and when necessary for the protection of lawful rights and interests of persons in court proceedings. In this case, the communications, photos and videos were submitted in evidence to prosecute the accused Rodriguez for violation of qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6 of RA No 9208 as amended by RA No 10364 (the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”), and to establish the victim’s legal claims. Hence, there is no violation of Rodriguez’s right to privacy.

Application of Rules on Substitute Parental Authority Under the Family Code

When parental authority of a child is granted solely to their mother, the substitute parental authority shall be exercised by the child’s grandparents or by the other persons specified in Executive Order No 209 or the Family Code of the Philippines, as amended by RA No 8533 (the “Family Code”).

Under Article 209 of the Family Code, parental authority and responsibility includes the caring for and rearing of their children for civic consciousness and efficiency, as well as the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being. It stems from the natural right and duty of parents over the person and property of their unemancipated children. Generally, parental authority is jointly exercised by the father and the mother. However, the law provides that parental authority may be given to only one parent in the following cases:

• absence or death of either parent;
• separation of the parents; and
• illegitimate children.

As for illegitimate children, Article 176 of the Family Code is specific in granting sole parental authority to the child’s mother.

The Family Code likewise recognises substitute parental authority in cases where both parents are dead, absent or unsuitable. In such cases, the surviving grandparent shall exercise parental authority over the child. In the absence of a surviving grandparent, substitute parental authority shall be exercised by a fit and qualified oldest brother or sister over 21 years of age or by a fit and qualified actual custodian of the child, in that particular order. In situations where only one parent dies, is absent, or is found unsuitable, the rules on substitute parental authority do not apply.

However, in Spouses Gabun v Winston Clark Stolk, Sr, GR No 234660 (26 June 2023) published on 25 June 2024, the Supreme Court clarified that the rules on substitute parental authority still apply even in cases where only one parent dies, is absent, or is found unsuitable, when sole parental authority is granted to said parent. In such cases, substitute parental authority shall be exercised by the surviving grandparent or by the other persons as specified earlier.

Recognition of Foreign Divorce based on Administrative Process

In the case of Republic v Ng, GR No 249238 (27 February 2024), the Supreme Court held that foreign divorce decrees do not require judicial proceedings abroad to be recognised in the Philippines. In the said case, a Filipino citizen married a Japanese national and ‒ after years of living together ‒ the couple secured a “divorce decree by mutual agreement” in Japan. The divorce was evidenced by a divorce certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines. The Filipino citizen filed for a petition for the judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and for the declaration of her capacity to remarry before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted the petition, but the Office of the Solicitor General questioned the RTC decision before the Supreme Court by stating that only foreign divorce decrees issued by a court can be recognised in the Philippines.

To resolve the issue, the Supreme Court ruled that Philippine courts can recognise divorces obtained abroad, whether through legal or administrative process or by mutual agreement. The Supreme Court further reiterated its ruling in Republic v Manalo, GR No 221029 (2018) by stating that Article 26(2) of the Family Code applies to mixed marriages where the divorce decree is:

• obtained by the foreign spouse;
• obtained jointly by the Filipino and foreign spouse; and
• obtained solely by the Filipino spouse.

Lastly, the Supreme Court further stated that if a divorce decree is valid according to the national law of the foreign spouse, the legal effects thereof may be recognised in the Philippines. Considering that the dissolution of their marriage under the laws of Japan capacitated the alien spouse to remarry, the court found no reason to deprive the Filipino spouse of her legal capacity to remarry under the laws of the Philippines.