Administrative Circular No. 39-2020, Re: Modified Enhanced Community Quarantine in Certain Areas until 31 May 2020

Photo by Mark Z. Saludes/Rappler 

On May 14, 2020, the Supreme Court through Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta issued Administrative Circular No 39-2020 to all litigants, Judges and Court Personnel of the Judiciary, and Members of the Bar, pertaining to the Modified Enhanced Community Quarantine in Certain Areas until 31 May, 2020.

Salient points of the said Circular are as follows:

1. All the courts in the areas under MECQ shall remain physically closed to all court users until 31 May 2020, and may initially reached only through their respective hotline numbers, email addresses and/or Facebook accounts as posted on the website of the Supreme Court. All inquiries on cases or transactions, including requests for documents and services, shall be coursed and acted upon only through the said number, addresses, and accounts of the concerned court, or through the Judiciary Public Assistance Section of the Supreme Court in accordance with A.C. 28-2020. No walk-in requests shall be entertained on any of the offices of the courts in the said areas.

2. While all courts in areas under MECQ shall remain physically closed to all court users, these courts shall continue to operate from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday to Friday until 29 May 2020. All electronic communication, however, must be transmitted to and received by these courts from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for these transactions to be acted upon on the same day.

3. The raffle of cases in all courts in areas under MECQ shall proceed either electronically or through videoconferencing. Accordingly, the judge/justices-on-duty arrangement, together with their respective skeleton-staff, pursuant to A.C. 31-2020 and A.C. 32-2020, is hereby discontinued. However, in the exigency of the service, justices, judges, and court officials, together with their respective skeleton-staff, may go to their respective courts.

4. The filing of petitions, appeals, complaints, motions, pleadings and other submissions that fall due up to 31 May 2020 before the courts in areas under MECQ is extended for 30 calendar days, counted from 1 June 2020, but pleadings and other court submissions may still be filed by the parties within the reglementary period on or before 31 May 2020 through electronic means, if preferred and able. In the same manner, the periods for court actions with prescribed periods of courts in areas under MECQ are likewise extended for 30 calendar days counted from 1 June 2020.

5. Civil weddings may be solemnized, provided the parties, witnesses and guests shall not exceed five (5), as provided in the Guidelines on the Phased Transition from ECQ to GCQ and health hygiene protocols and other public medical standards, e.g. wearing of face masks and face shields, subjecting everyone to no-contact thermal scanning, and observance of social distancing, shall be strictly observed during the ceremony.

6. All official meetings, seminars, trainings, and other functions in the judiciary within the MECQ areas, unless conducted through videoconferencing, are deferred until after 31 May 2020, except those that may be called or authorized by the Chief Executive by the judiciary Task Force on COVID-19.

7. Flag raising and retreat ceremonies in area under the MECQ shall remain suspended until 31 May 2020.

SUPREME COURT

8. The Supreme Court shall continue to receive petitions and pleadings electronically, and in accordance with herein paragraphs 1 and 2, and processes the same in accordance with the Internal Rules of Court.

9. The decision-writing period of the Court is hereby extended until 31 May 2020. The Court may however, hold special en banc and division sessions anytime it may deem fit, either in-person or through videoconferencing.

x x x x x

COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS

11. The Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals shall likewise continue to receive petitions and pleadings electronically, and in accordance with herein paragraphs 1 and 2, and process the same pursuant to their respective internal rules.

12. The Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals shall likewise continue to resolve and decide cases pending before them. Regular hearings shall be conducted through videoconferencing. Considering that Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals are likewise trial courts, they shall adopt the procedures herein provided in paragraphs 17 and 18, in so far as they are applicable.

x x x x x

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, FAMILY COURTS, AND FIRST LEVEL COURTS

16. ALL initiatory pleadings, in both civil and criminal cases, including criminal complaints, informations, and applications for bail (pursuant to A.C. 33-2020 dated 31 March 2020, supplemented by OCA Circular No. 89-2020, dated 3 April 2020), together with all the required documents in relation thereto may be filed electronically and shall be received by the Regional Trial Courts, Family Courts, and First Level Courts through their respective official email addresses, as posted on the website of the Supreme Court. Pleadings and other court submissions on pending cases may be electronically filed directly with the branch where the case is pending, if the said branch has an official email address. Otherwise, the pleadings and other court submissions on pending cases may be filed electronically with the Office of the Clerk of Court, which shall forward the said transmissions to the branches where the cases are pending.

17. ALL courts initially authorized to hear through videoconferencing only urgent matters in criminal cases involving Persons Deprived of Liberty are now herein authorized to hear through videoconferencing ALL matters pending before them, in both criminal and civil cases, whether newly-filed or pending regardless of the stage of trial. The videoconferencing hearings in both criminal and civil cases shall be upon joint motion of the parties, or upon orders of the court, which shall schedule the said videoconferencing hearings.

Under exceptional circumstances, in-court hearings may likewise be conducted by courts authorized to conduct hearings through videoconferencing.

For courts which are not authorized to conduct hearings through videoconferencing, in-court hearings conducted by the presiding judge, assisted by the skeleton-staff, shall be limited to urgent matter and other concerns to expedite the proceedings, both in criminal and civil cases. The judges shall see to it that the counsels and parties are duly notified of the in-court hearings to ensure their attendance.

In all in-court heatings, health hygiene protocols and other public medical standards, e.g. wearing of face masks and face shields, subjecting everyone to no-contact thermal scanning, observance of social distancing, shall be strictly observed.

18. The taking of the testimony of a witness in a place other than where the court is, through videoconferencing, is akin to the taking of a deposition upon oral examination, pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 23, as amended, and shall be allowed. If the witness will be testifying on (i) duly subscribed written statements given to law enforcement or peace officers, or (ii) affidavits or counter-affidavits submitted before the investigating prosecutor, or (iii) judicial affidavits, subject to additional direct and cross-examination questions, the said documents and affidavits must be received by the court and the parties through electronic transmission in accordance with the Rules on Electronic Evidence, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled videoconferencing hearing.

19. Night courts and Saturday courts in areas under MECQ shall remain suspended until 31 May 2020.

20. All judges presiding in courts in MECQ areas shall continue to draft decisions and orders in their respective residences until 31 May 2020, which decisions may be promulgated or issued once the courts are fully operations, except decisions and order or urgent matter which shall be promulgated or issued during the MECQ period.

All previously issued circulars and their respective provisions which are not inconsistent herewith shall remain valid and in effect.

for ready reference, see full-text of the Circular below:

SC Circular 39-2020 (Page 1)

SC Circular 39-202 (Page 2)

SC Circular 39-2020 (Page 3)

SC Circular 39-2020 (Page 4)

SC Circular 39-2020 (Page 5)

Civil Law; Contracts; when there is a close, proximate, and causal connection between the broker’s efforts and the principal’s sale of his property—or joint venture agreement, in this case—the broker is entitled to a commission

Photo from Web

ROBERTO R. IGNACIO and TERESA R. IGNACIO doing business under the name and style TERESA R. IGNACIO ENTERPRISES vs. MYRNA P. RAGASA and AZUCENA B. ROA,

G.R. No. 227896, Jan. 29. 2020, Justice Peralta

FACTS:

On January 11, 2000, petitioners (Ignacio) engaged, on an exclusive basis, the services of the respondents, who are both licenses real estate brokers, to look for and negotiate with a person or entity for a joint venture project involving petitioners’ undeveloped lands in Mindanao Avenue, Quezon City and the developed subdivision sites in Las Piñas City, Parañaque City, and Bacoor. The contract was embodied in the Authority to Look and Negotiate for a Joint Venture Partner, effective six months from January 10, 2000, or until July 10, 2000. The said Authority provided that the petitioners will pay the respondents a commission equivalent to five percent (5%) of the price of the properties.

On January 13, 2000, respondents met with Mr. Porfirio Yusingbo, Jr. (Yusingbo), the General Manager of Woodridge Properties, Inc. (Woodridge), and they presented him the different subdivisions and project sites available for investment. After inspecting the properties, Yusingbo expressed Woodridge’s interest in acquiring and developing the Krause Park and Teresa Park properties.

As a result, Woodridge sent respondents a formal proposal dated January 21, 2000 for a joint venture agreement with the petitioners covering the Teresa Park. The proposal was sent by the respondents to the petitioners via facsimile. On January 25, 2000, the petitioners met with the representative of Woodridge to discuss the prices of the properties, and Woodridge likwise intimated that it would develop both the Krause Park and the Teresa Park.

On February 4, 2000, respondents met again with Yusingbo and Mr. Elmer Loredo (Loredo), Woodridge’s broker, to discuss Woodridge’s proposal for bulk puchase covering the Teresa Park, including the terms of payment. On February 9, 2000, respondents presented Woodridge’s offer to petitioner Robert Ignacio. They discussed the projected cash inflows and the advantages of the scheme. Petitioner Ignacio said he wanted to sell the lots in batches at a lower volume, instead of in bulk. Respondents communicated the offer to Woodridge and the latter intimated that it will make a revised offer. On March 9, 2000, Woodridge, however, changed its offer from direct acquisition to joint venture, covering 200 lots in Teresa Park, and sent the proposal to the respondents, who, in turn, relayed it to the petitioners. In a meeting on March 13, 2000, petitioners and respondents discussed the proposal for joint venture. Petitioners commented that Woodridge’s offer was too low, but respondents reassured them that the could negotiate for a better price. After this March 13, 2000 meeting, however, petitioners stopped communicating with the respondents. Several attempts were made by the respondents to contact the petitioners to follow-up on the proposal of Woodridge, but to no avail.

Sometime thereafter, respondents learned that the petitioners continued to negotiate with Woodridge, and this led to the execution of two joint venture agreements between the petitioners and Woodridge, covering the Krause Park. The two joint venture agreements were notarized on March 7,, 2000 and October 16, 2000.

For the Teresa Park, four joint venture agreements were executed between the petitioners and Woodridge, and these were notarized on December 6, 2000, March 12, 2001, September 25, 2001, and October 1, 2002. Aside from the joint venture agreements, several deeds of sale were also executed between the petitioners and Woodridge, and these are dated September 24, 2001 and August 25, 2003.

Per respondent’s estimate, petitioners earned Php 26,068,000.00 and Php 22,497,000.00 for the sale of the Krause Park and Teresa Park projects, respectively. Respondents demanded payment of their commission from the petitioners, contending that the joint venture agreements and the sales over the Krause and Teresa Park were products of their successful negotiation with Woodridge. Petitioners, however, refused to pay despite demand. Thus, respondents filed a complaint for sum of money, damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City.

In their Answer, petitioners denied that they have an obligation to pay the respondents. Petitioners contend that the respondents offered their services as exclusive real estate brokers, but they were never engaged. Petitioners further state that they were not looking for an exclusive agency and they entertained brokers on a “first come, first served” basis. Petitioners, likewise, contend that they were not agreeable with the respondent’s proposal to sell the lots below the prevailing market value with no escalation clause, and that the sale of the Krause Park and the Teresa Park was made through the joint efforts of their Consultants, Engr. Julius Aragon and Florence Cabansang. No sales transaction was realized on account of the respondents.

RULING:

In Medrano v. Court of Appeals, it was held that “when there is a close, proximate, and causal connection between the broker’s efforts and the principal’s sale of his property—or joint venture agreement, in this case—the broker is entitled to a commission.”

Here, as aptly ruled by the CA, the proximity in time between the meetings held by the respondents and Woodridge and the subsequent execution of the joint venture agreements leads to a logical conclusion that it was the respondents who brokered it. Likewise, it is inconsequential that the authority of the respondents as brokers had already expired when the joint venture agreements over the subject properties were executed. The negotiation for these transactions began during the effectivity of the authority of the respondents, and these were carried out through their efforts. Thus, the respondents are entitled to a commission.

Link: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/10666/