PDRCI approved a new schedule of administrative fees and arbitrators’ honoraria effective as of May 1, 2011.
The new administrative fee ranges from P30,000.00 to P2,500,000.00 depending on the sum in dispute (SID). The SID is the total monetary claim of the claimant against the respondent or the amount of the respondent’s counterclaim.
Upon filing of its claim, the claimant is required to pay a minimum administrative fee of P30,000.00, which will be adjusted after the = preliminary conference based on the SID.
The administrative fee is shared equally between the claimant and respondent and covers clerking and secretarial services. PDRCI may increase the administrative fee in exceptional circumstances that result in extraordinary additional cost for such services.
On the other hand, the new honorarium rates for arbitrators starts with a minimum base amount of = P62,500.00, subject to adjustment factors such as the complexity of the dispute, number of disputants and number of arbitrators. PDCRI may further adjust the total honoraria payable based on the ability of the parties to pay the fee and the qualifications of the arbitrators.
The complete schedule of PDRCI fees is provided in www.pdrci.org.
PDRCI as a partner in the administration of justice
When your President pleasantly surprised me with the invitation to witness the inauguration of the Center, it came with a note that a “short talk will do.” That was honor upon honor. For I sincerely thought that the message was: just be there. Your presence is enough.
For making me feel big, thank you, ladies and gentlemen of he Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. (PDRCI). Truly, I cannot pretend to know as much as you do about the art and science of arbitration. I cannot last longer than five minutes in a discussion of the wherefore, much more the ways, of arbitration, especially among you whose dedication to the cause is precisely the reason why the PDRCI came to be.
I am here, though, for a reason which I think will earn the concurrence of my colleagues. From this member of the Supreme Court, please accept our deepest gratitude for institutionalizing arbitration in the country. You have provided the Judiciary with a reliable, responsible and respectable partner in the administration of justice in the Philippines.
At the same time, you have given those in our industries the free and true choice of the means and manner of resolving differences. You have, in sum, unburdened the courts with assignments that, because of possible unfamiliarity with the issues, can take more than the usual time and effort in their disposal.
Engr. Castro and Atty. Panga, the Salvadors in your Board of Trustees, knew how much appreciated by the trial courts and litigants alike is mediation, a close kin of arbitration, as an alternative
resolution of conflicts.
As a former Court Administrator, and even earlier as Deputy Court Administrator, I was part of the mediation orientation group, together with Engr. Castro and Atty. Panga, which introduce court-annexed mediation to all those who have interest in the efficiency and effectiveness of the trial courts in the various judicial regions. There was immediate interest in the community of litigants because of the flash cards of people empowerment and access to justice for the poor.
The idea of opportunity and ability to themselves decide their dispute with and within the authority of the court was a sure draw. The judges, though, were a different audience. The first impulse among them was doubt if not outright rejection. The judges were of the mind that they would lose control over the case and specially over litigants. The practicing lawyers too had initial, and until now a residual, resistance to program. There was, it was thought, a resulting loss of clients and retainer’s fee.
It took sometime, it is still taking time, for the full delivery of the message that for the judge, a mediated case is one case off their dockets and off the system itself because a compromise agreement is final and executor. All these without the not-so-easy task of writing a full-length decision and without spending for the services of the court clerk, researcher, stenographer and interpreter.
For the lawyer, the message was instantaneous material and spiritual gratification, translated as prompt payment of lawyer’s fees at present and not devalued future rates, to the satisfaction of both parties and resulting peace in the neighborhood.
As already mentioned, the closest kin to mediation is arbitration, which is aimed at the goal of advised and, therefore, correct and participatory as well as final and accepted resolution of disputes, the nobler and bigger attainment being the efficient and effective administration of justice. The assistance in the load of the courts, if not unburdening of the load, of resolving issues that need special study and technical intelligence is simply doing justice. That, ladies and gentlemen is the essential mandate you have owned on your own.
The Supreme Court on the other hand, fully realizes the importance and nobility of your purpose. And so, the special rule which says that courts shall not refuse to refer parties to arbitration for reason including, but not limited to, the following – “the referral tends to oust a court of jurisdiction; that the court is in better position to resolve the dispute subject of arbitration; or that one or more of the issues are legal and one or more of the arbitrators are not lawyers” – these were exactly the reasons why judges initially opposed mediation. What we before had to labor
for to weaken the position to mediation, the Supreme Court has by rule mandated and thereby removed the bumps in the way of arbitration.
As a true partner, PDRCI took care of possible similar resistance from practicing lawyers, by the simple solution of making them fellow program pioneers. So long as PDRCI’s lawyers members are able to prove that arbitration is an idea whose time has come, then those still outside the fold will come in and join.
Beyond question, we must move forward and away from the past, which was to paraphrase Justice Moreland when lawsuits were “duels won by the rapier’s thrust; when litigations were games of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and positions entraps and destroy the other.”
The injunction to move onward must be repeated, even if it is quite late in the day, or precisely because it is quite late in the day, for the reason that the lure towards technicality for technicality’s sake still beckons strongly: it pays, or is allowed to pay.
Thus, the continuing reminder in the cases that continue to reach the Supreme Court that “Rules of procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of justice and the protection of substantive rights and extra-judicial proceedings” so that rules must be strictly followed only for the purpose of maintaining order in the proceedings. Correspondingly, and by explicit mandate, the rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote the objectives of just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of actions. To constrict the field of debate between the liberal and strict implementation of the rules, the emerging trend is the simplification of the rules.
I see that the Supreme Court went one step further for the sake of the institutionalization of arbitration in the judicial process. According to the rules governing arbitral proceedings, the parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed in the conduct of arbitration. This complements the proscription against refusal by the courts to refer parties to arbitration and the allowance of arbitral tribunals to initially rule on their own jurisdiction.
It is most welcome that PDRCI has repaid the favor by evolving into what it is now: an organization of and for arbitration, pushing its boundaries to include specialized fields and forging connections with foreign arbitration centers, all these while providing continuing training for and accreditation of arbitrators.
PDRCI is doing for arbitration what the Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO) is doing for mediation. The PMCO is an office in the Supreme Court for governmental, specifically judiciary, purposes which is efficient administration of justice. The PDRCI is a private organization. It is assisting in the achievement of the very same purposes. That makes obvious why PDRCI must be recognized and highly regarded.
Thank you once more and warmest congratulations on the inauguration of the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center. May your tribe increase.