Beyond Litigation: From Courtroom to Conference Table—A Brief Understanding of Court-Annexed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution in the Philippines

Clogged case court dockets have been a perennial problem in the Philippines. This is brought about by factors such as unfilled vacancies of the positions of judges, misuse of the due process and the abuse of legal technicalities, the intervention of political pressure in court
cases, the sheer weight of court litigations arising from development and growth, the dilatory  tactics of lawyers, neglect and laxity on the part of judges, and among others. Various initiatives and innovations were introduced by the different branches of our government to
remedy this situation. One of the most significant developments in this regard is the institution of “Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act,” which institutionalized the use of an alternative dispute resolution system in the Philippines. This is a process or procedure used
to resolve a dispute or controversy other than by adjudication of a presiding judge of a court or an officer of a government agency, in which a neutral third party participates to assist in the resolution of issues which includes arbitration, mediation, conciliation, early neutral
evaluation, mini-trial, or any combination thereof. Within this framework is the concept of court diversion of pending court cases through Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR), which aims to put an end to pending litigation through a
compromise agreement between the parties and thereby help solve the ever-pressing problem of court docket congestion. It is also intended to empower the parties to resolve their own disputes. Since then, these mechanisms serve as a progressive pathway that strengthens access
to justice, promotes efficiency, and facilitates amicable settlement.