The main methods of resolving disputes in the Philippine Jurisdiction are court litigation and alternative dispute resolution, which includes mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. Arbitration is becoming an increasingly more popular method of dispute resolution with arbitration clauses being common stipulations found in commercial contracts, particularly in sectors such as construction, infrastructure and cross-border trade.

Court litigation in the Philippine Jurisdiction is primarily governed by the Rules of Court, as promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. In recent years, the Supreme Court has introduced significant amendments to streamline and modernize litigation, foremost of which is the requirement that a complaint must already be accompanied by the evidence which the plaintiff intends to present, such as the judicial affidavits of witnesses and documentary exhibits. Several motions that previously contributed to delay, such as motions for extension of time to file pleadings or motions to suspend proceedings without an injunction issued by a higher court, have been expressly prohibited or significantly limited. Furthermore, pre-trial is now conducted directly by the judge, eliminating the prior practice of a preliminary conference before the branch clerk of court. The revised rules also mandate that the initial presentation of evidence shall take place no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the termination of pre-trial.

In addition, Republic Act (“RA”) No. 11576, enacted in 2021, expanded the jurisdiction of first level courts, i.e. the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts in cities, municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts. Notably, these first level courts now have jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, both testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two Million Pesos (PhP2,000,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs. The said courts also have jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or any interest therein does not exceed Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP400,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs. Jurisdiction over cases exceeding these thresholds rests with the regional trial courts.

As to arbitration and other forms of alternative dispute resolution, the procedural framework is established under various statutes. RA No. 876 originally governed domestic arbitration in the Philippines. This was later supplemented and expanded by RA No. 9285, or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (ADR Act), which covers international commercial arbitration and institutionalizes ADR mechanisms in the country. On the other hand, Executive Order No. 1008 (EO 1008) was enacted to cover the arbitration of construction disputes. The Supreme Court has likewise issued A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC or the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (Special ADR Rules) covering judicial reliefs in aid of, or in relation to, arbitration, enforcement of arbitral awards and applications for interim measures of protection.

Parties to an arbitration agreement are generally free to stipulate on the applicability of the rules of private arbitration institutions or to define their own rules of procedure.

There are four levels of courts in the Philippine Jurisdiction: municipal or metropolitan trial courts, regional trial courts, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal.

Generally, in observance of the hierarchy of courts, cases are initially decided by the municipal or metropolitan trial courts or the regional trial courts, depending on which court has the appropriate original jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals functions as the appellate court, while the Supreme Court serves as the court of last resort.

Notably, certain regional trial courts have been designated by the Supreme Court to sit as Special Commercial Courts, with the authority to hear and decide commercial cases within their respective territorial jurisdictions. However, in the event that a Special Commercial Court is not designated in the territorial jurisdiction concerned, then the case will be assigned to a regional trial court, acting as a court of general jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of Special Commercial Courts has since then been expanded to include cases involving violations of intellectual property, cybercrime and competition laws.

With the amendments introduced to the Rules of Court, proceedings in the Philippines are expected to reach trial within approximately six (6) months to one (1) year from the commencement of the action. This timeframe assumes compliance with procedural requirements and the absence of dilatory motions. In cases where the pleadings are promptly filed and the court’s docket permits, it is possible for trial to commence as early as three (3) months from the commencement of the action.

Court proceedings are open to the public, but any court may, in its discretion, exclude the public when the evidence to be adduced is of such nature as to require their exclusion in the interest of morality or decency.

Similarly, court records are considered public records and may be inspected by any interested person, at all proper business hours, under the supervision of the clerk of court having custody of such records. Nonetheless, the court may, in exceptional cases, order that access to certain records be restricted or that proceedings be held in closed session, where public disclosure would be contrary to public morals, involve sensitive or privileged information, or otherwise compromise the integrity of the proceedings.

As a general rule, arbitration proceedings are confidential and cannot be published except: (a) with consent of the parties; or (b) for the limited purpose of disclosing to the court relevant documents where resort to the court is allowed.

Prescriptive periods for instituting actions are generally governed by substantive law, and usually range from one (1) year to thirty (30) years reckoned from the time the cause of action accrues.  Below are some of the key prescriptive periods under the Civil Code of the Philippines:

1. For actions based on negligence or tort, four (4) years from the time the right of action accrues.
2. For actions based on an oral contract or upon a quasi-contract, six (6) years from the time the right of action accrues.
3. For actions to recover a movable property, unless the possessor has acquired ownership by prescription for a lesser period, eight (8) years from the time possession is lost.
4. For actions based on a mortgage, upon a written contract, upon an obligation created by law, or upon a judgment, ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues.
5. For real actions over immovable property, thirty (30) years from the time the right of action accrues.
6. For actions whose periods are not fixed by law, five (5) years from the time the right of action accrues.

Other prescriptive periods for specific circumstances are found in special laws.

Philippine laws and rules of procedure recognize certain conditions precedent that must be fulfilled before the commencement of specific kinds of action. Non-compliance with these renders an action dismissible. An example of a condition precedent is the prior referral of a dispute to the Barangay Lupon, wherein a counsel of a Barangay (a local government unit) has authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes, subject to certain exceptions.

Proceedings are generally commenced by the filing of a complaint with the appropriate court. Service of summons is generally necessary for a court to acquire the jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. By default, summons is served by the court sheriff. By way of exception, summons may be served by the plaintiff in the event that either the sheriff fails to serve summons, or if the summons is to be served outside the judicial region of the court where the case is pending.

A court determines whether it has jurisdiction over a claim based on the allegations in the complaint in connection with the relevant laws on court jurisdiction. The relevant laws that outline the jurisdiction of various courts are: Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 129 as amended by RA Nos. 7691 and 11576, and RA No. 8799.

In other words, if the allegations show that the matter falls within the court’s jurisdiction as defined by law, then the court is deemed to have jurisdiction over the claims.

The determination of the governing law over a claim shall be dependent on the issue involved in the case. In matters relating to family law, i.e. family rights and duties, or the status, condition and legal capacity of persons, Philippine courts adhere to the nationality principle or lex nationalii. For questions involving real and personal property, Philippine courts apply lex rei sitae, or the law of the place where the property is situated. In the case of marriages celebrated abroad, the governing law is determined by the law of the place of celebration, or lex loci celebrationis. For contracts, Philippine courts give effect to the choice-of-law agreed upon by the parties, and in the absence thereof, the place with the most reasonable connection to the contract or transaction. However, Philippine courts may opt to apply Philippine Law, despite any stipulation to the contrary, if the same involves a matter of public policy.

In the Philippine Jurisdiction, claims may generally be disposed of without a full trial if a party moves for a judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment.

A judgment on the pleadings is rendered based on the submissions of the parties before the trial, and if the answer of the defendant fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party. On the other hand, summary judgment is issued upon motion by a defending party if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.

Under the amended rules, the court may motu proprio include in the pre-trial order that the case shall be submitted for summary judgment or for judgment on the pleadings, without need of position papers or memoranda if it determines, after pre-trial, that there are no more controverted facts, or no more genuine issue as to any material fact, or an absence of any issue, or should the answer fail to tender an issue. In such cases, judgment shall be rendered within ninety (90) calendar days from termination of the pre-trial.

Other circumstances where claims may be resolved without trial include: failure of a defendant to file an answer within the reglementary period, which will allow the court to render judgment and grant such relief as the plaintiff’s pleading may warrant; failure of the plaintiff to attend the pre-trial; and proceedings governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure and the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims which are designed to expedite litigation in civil and criminal cases involving lower-value claims or minor offenses.

Courts are likewise mandated to refer parties to mediation proceedings before trial is commenced, in order to give the parties an opportunity to amicably settle disputes. If it appears during mediation proceedings that the parties are willing to settle the dispute amicably, however the parties need more time to come into agreement, the case may be referred by the court to judicial dispute resolution which is akin to mediation.

In court litigation, the following provisional remedies may be availed of:

1. Preliminary Attachment – where in specific circumstances, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment.
2. Temporary Restraining Order – which is an order issued by the court in the event that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter involving the application for preliminary injunction can be heard on notice which is effective for a maximum period of twenty (20) days. If the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single sala court may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance. In no case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order be extended beyond twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two hours (72) hours provided herein.
3. Preliminary Injunction – which is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the performance of a particular act or acts.
4. Receivership – which is when one or more receivers of the property subject of the action or proceeding may be appointed by the court where the action is pending to preserve and administer the property during the pendency of the case.
5. Replevin – which is an order for the delivery of personal property applied for by a party praying for the recovery of possession of such property.

These remedies are governed primarily by the Rules of Court and may be availed of either at the commencement of the action or at any time before final judgment.

In intra-corporate disputes, courts may appoint a management committee for a corporation, partnership or association when there is imminent danger of dissipation, loss, wastage or destruction of assets or other properties and paralyzation of its business operations which may be prejudicial to the interest of the minority stockholders, parties-litigants or the general public.

In arbitration, courts may issue interim protective measures before, during, or pending the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, or whenever the arbitral tribunal has no power to act or is unable to act effectively. Arbitral tribunals themselves are empowered to grant interim measures of protection including preliminary injunctions directed against a party, appointment of receivers, or orders for the detention, preservation, inspection of property subject to arbitration. Further, any such provisional or interim relief may be granted for the following purposes: (a) to prevent irreparable loss or injury; (b) to provide security for the performance of an obligation; (c) to produce or preserve evidence; or (d) to compel the performance or restraint of specific acts necessary to protect the rights of the parties.

It is also worth noting that certain Philippines laws provide for specific forms of provisional relief such as, among others, the issuance of barangay protection orders, temporary protection orders and permanent protection orders for violations of RA No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act, or temporary environmental protection orders as found in A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.

When a claim has been commenced through the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff must allege the ultimate facts along with the evidence necessary to support such allegations.

Once a complaint is filed, the defendant is generally granted a period of at least thirty (30) days to file an Answer. This may be extended once for a maximum period of thirty (30) additional days for meritorious reasons.

The complaint and the answer must already be accompanied by the evidence which the parties intend to present, such as the judicial affidavits of witnesses and copies of their documentary exhibits. Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are attached to the pleadings shall be presented by the parties during trial, unless additional witnesses are allowed by the court upon presentation of meritorious reasons.

An answer may only be responded to by a Reply when said answer includes an actionable document, or written instrument which an action or defense is grounded upon. In response thereto, the other party may file a Rejoinder.

The case will then be scheduled for pre-trial. At least three (3) days before pre-trial, the parties are required to submit their respective pre-trial briefs, containing a summary of the parties’ claims, the issues of the case, the parties’ evidence, the summary of witness testimonies, and the reliefs prayed for. Every after presentation of a party’s evidence, the said party shall formally offer its evidence either orally in open court, or written. In the case of a written offer, the court shall provide for a period to file the same and for the other party to comment. The comment to the evidence formally offered shall follow how the offer was made, i.e. written or oral.

After trial, although not provided under the Rules of Court, the parties may submit memoranda summarizing their arguments and evidence as may be directed by the court, within thirty (30) days from notice of the court’s order.

While parties generally have wide discretion to submit documents and evidence in support of their claims or defenses, a party may also seek to compel the production or inspection of documents in the possession of the adverse party through a motion for production or inspection of documents. Such resort to discovery must be supported by a showing of good cause, meaning that the documents sought are material and relevant to any matter involved in the action, and that they are described with reasonable particularity. Upon such showing, the court may grant the motion and order the opposing party to produce the documents and permit the inspection and copying of the specified documents within a prescribed period and under just terms and conditions.

The right to compel disclosure, however, is not absolute and may be limited by exceptions based on privilege, statutory confidentiality, and public interest considerations. Communications subject to legal privilege are protected from disclosure under prevailing rules of evidence. Certain documents are also shielded by statutory provisions, including bank records under the Bank Secrecy Law, records involving minors under the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, and personal data governed by the Data Privacy Act. In exceptional instances, courts may restrict disclosure to protect matters of overriding public interest such as those involving national security or diplomatic relations.

In the Philippines, direct testimonies of witnesses are generally presented in written form through judicial affidavits, in accordance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. These affidavits contain a question-and-answer format that would ordinarily be elicited during oral direct examination, and include references to and attachments of relevant documentary evidence. During trial, the witness merely affirms the contents of the judicial affidavit and identifies the attached exhibits, significantly reducing the need for protracted oral testimony.

Cross-examination of witnesses is done in open court, and is a matter of right for the adverse party, who is allowed wide latitude in asking cross-questions. A recent amendment to the rules of evidence allows cross-examination on any relevant matter, instead of being limited solely to the matters stated in the direct examination. Re-direct and re-cross examinations are also permitted before the witness’ testimony is terminated.

The Supreme Court has also promulgated guidelines for the conduct of proceedings through videoconferencing, including the testimony of witnesses, even including witnesses from abroad. Parties may now move for videoconference hearings upon showing that the videoconferencing would be beneficial to the fair, speedy, and efficient administration of justice, as, for example, due to acts of God which limit physical access to courts, the inability of a witness or litigant to appear in court due to health concerns or security risks, among others. Further, any litigant or witness who are outside the Philippines may only participate from an embassy or consulate of the Philippines, who must allow the use of their facilities for videoconferencing.

With regard to depositions, the Rules of Court allow for depositions while an action is pending, before an action is filed, or pending appeal. Depositions may be taken upon oral examination or written interrogatories. They are admissible and may be used against a party who was present at the taking of the deposition and thus had an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent.

Expert evidence is allowed as an exception to the general rule prohibiting the admissibility of opinions of witnesses. The opinions of experts are allowed on matters requiring special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, which must be demonstrated and proven before the courts allow the testimony as expert testimony. Generally, the parties will offer the testimony of their chosen experts, but the courts may also engage the services of experts should they deem fit.

There are no specific or unique duties that expert witnesses owe that distinguish them from regular witnesses. Notably, however, recent amendments to the rules on evidence lay down the factors to be considered by courts in appreciating the weight given to expert testimony, such as whether the opinion of the expert is based upon sufficient facts or data, whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods which have been applied properly, and other factors which the court may deem necessary.

For final judgments and decisions of courts, the rules allow for appeals to be interposed. Generally, appeals are filed before the next higher court, pursuant to the four-level structure described above, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the order being appealed, with some limited exceptions where the appeal may be filed with an even higher court.

Interim or interlocutory orders are not subject to appeal, as they do not constitute final judgments of the court.

However, the Rules of Court provide for a mechanism by which these interim orders may be annulled, upon fulfilling the strict standard of showing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the court, through a petition for certiorari. Notably, this standard is much higher than the standard for regular appeals, as a showing of mere errors in judgment does not suffice. As a prerequisite, the aggrieved party must first file a motion for reconsideration within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the questioned order. If denied, the petition for certiorari must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the denial.

The Rules of Court specifically provide for the effects of foreign judgments. Where it is shown that a tribunal of a foreign country, with proper jurisdiction over the matter, renders a judgment or final order, the same may be applied and recognized in the Philippines. In case the judgment relates to a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing, whereas when the judgment is against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right between the parties involved in the case.

Philippine law also allows foreign judgments to be “repelled” or not recognized should it be shown, through evidence, that the foreign tribunal did not have jurisdiction, there was no notice to the adverse party, or there exists collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Jurisprudence has also carved out a “public policy” exception to resist enforcement, by which a litigant may claim that the judgment sought to be enforced is contrary to public policy.

While attorneys’ fees are allowed to be imposed as a form of damages or as an award in a case upon showing of factual, legal, and equitable justifications therefor, jurisprudence has held that the winning party is not always entitled to full recovery of the amounts devoted to legal services for the litigation unless it is shown that due to the act or omission of the adverse party, the party who filed the case was compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect its interest. This seeks to avoid a situation where a “premium” would be placed on the right to litigate.

For arbitration, the costs of arbitration shall in principle be borne by the unsuccessful party. However, the arbitral tribunal may apportion each of such costs between the parties if it determines that apportionment is appropriate, taking into account the circumstances of the case. Attorney’s fees may likewise be awarded in arbitration upon a showing of bad faith on the part of one party, which compelled the other to arbitrate or incur legal expenses to protect their rights.

The Rules of Court provide for a class suit where the subject matter of the controversy is of common or general interest to enough persons as to make it impracticable to join all of them as parties. In these cases, the court may decide to implead a number of such persons that it deems as sufficient to protect the interests of all concerned. This, however, is without prejudice to the right of any individual party in interest to intervene in the case in order to protect his or her individual interest in the matter.

Collective redress is also recognized under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which allow the filing of a citizen’s suit. Under this mechanism, any Filipino citizen may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws on behalf of others, including minors and future generations.

While not classified as a class suit and not expressly provided for under the Revised Corporation Code, jurisprudence has also recognized the right of shareholders to file derivative suits on behalf of the corporation to protect or vindicate corporate rights, whenever the officials of said corporation refuse to sue, or are the ones to be sued, or hold the control of the corporation.

Parties may be added by the court at its discretion or upon motion, following the principle that all parties whose presence is necessary to have a complete and final determination of the controversy must be impleaded in the action. A misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties is not a ground for the dismissal of a case.

The Rules of Court further allow a person who has a legal interest in the matter being litigated, or in the success of either party or an interest against both, or one who may be adversely affected by the disposition of property to be made in a case, to intervene in the same upon a determination that the intervention would not delay or prejudice the adjudication of rights as between the original parties, as well as after a determination of whether the intervenor’s rights could be fully protected in a separate proceeding.

Similarly, parties to the case who possess a claim of contribution, indemnity, subrogation or other relief, may file a third-party complaint against a person not party to the action, such claim then being heard in the same proceeding.

With regard to consolidation, courts may consolidate or jointly hear cases where such involve a common question of law or fact, in order to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

The Rules of Court are silent as to third party funders in Philippine cases, as the Rules are focused on properly impleading parties who are involved in the controversy or cause of action. However, jurisprudence explicitly states that champertous contracts, which are essentially agreements that a third person shall pay the expenses of the proceedings in favor of one of the parties, is void for being against public policy.

At its height, the COVID-19 pandemic severely hampered litigation proceedings in the Philippines. Before the pandemic, litigation processes still heavily revolved around in-person hearings and proceedings, without much latitude or flexibility with regard to remote hearings. However, during the pandemic, Philippine courts made adjustments and provisions for litigants to attend hearings via videoconferencing. Further, courts also enhanced accessibility through the use of hotlines and official email addresses, allowing inquiries, communications, as well as court submissions to be done remotely.

These adaptations have since become institutionalized. Even after the easing of pandemic-related restrictions, Philippine courts have continued to use videoconferencing and digital communication tools to expedite proceedings. Notably, the Supreme Court directed all courts to accommodate, as far as practicable, requests from lawyers to to conduct hearings for legal aid cases via videoconferencing.

More recently, the Supreme Court has made significant strides in digitizing the Philippine judiciary through the issuance of A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC and A.M. 11-9-4-SC dated 11 April 2023 which promote paperless service and filing of court submissions before the lower courts. Under these guidelines, the primary mode of service and filing shall be through electronic transmittal and the subsequent submission of physical copies will no longer be required. This initiative aligns with the Supreme Court’s objective to digitally transform Philippine courts, through enhanced accessibility to court documents and submissions, and the long-term preservation of judicial records.

Starting 1 July 2025, the Supreme Court will begin transitioning to electronic filing for certain petitions and motions through the Philippine Judiciary Platform (PJP), pursuant to A.M. No. 25-05-16-SC, or the Guidelines on the Transition to Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court. By October 1, 2025, electronic filing and service through the PJP will be mandatory for covered pleadings filed by lawyers.

Despite these advancements, however, challenges persist, particularly in remote areas with limited internet infrastructure. As such, in-person appearances and proceedings are still preferred, save for instances where the courts find that the conduct of videoconferencing will be beneficial to the fair, speedy, and efficient administration of justice.

The Rules of Court are designed to afford each party ample opportunity to effectively and fully present its case. This is reflected in the relaxed treatment of authentication of documents and the requirements for original copies, as well as the provisions for discovery measures. Further, the thrust of court proceedings in the Philippines is to arrive at a judgment based on the substantive merits of the case as fully presented, rather than on a rigid application of procedural technicalities.

In other words, Philippine litigation has a degree of flexibility which allows for an effective and full presentation of evidence in order to establish a party’s claim.

However, and even with the growing acceptance of technology and its application to streamlining the process of litigation, cases before Philippine courts are still susceptible to being delayed, due to, among others, the sheer volume of cases in court dockets, the lack of effective internet infrastructure in some locations, and the vulnerabilities of the system to prolonged lockdowns and closures brought about by events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the recent years, there has been a shift in asset planning among families in the country who have resorted to placing their assets or holdings within corporations that they own and operate rather than merely distributing these family assets amongst themselves. This increase in the number of family corporations has led to a rise in intra-corporate and succession disputes, particularly involving control, share ownership, dividend policy, and management rights.

Likewise, the continuing development of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms represents a likely growth area for commercial disputes in the Philippines. While still a relatively young field in Philippine law, arbitration and alternative dispute resolution remain to be a flourishing area particularly in specialized sectors. Institutions such as the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines, the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act, and the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission have implemented their own arbitration frameworks. Notably, the Supreme Court has recently affirmed and strengthened CIAC’s jurisdiction over construction disputes.

Further, institutions specifically geared towards the conduct of arbitration have become more prominent in commercial litigation, such as the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. (PDRCI) and the Philippine International Center for Conflict Resolution (PICCR). These institutions provide avenues and resources for the conduct of arbitration in the Philippines, as well as providing for rules and procedures which parties may choose to avail of in the construction of their contracts and agreements.

Over the next five years, technology is expected to play an increasingly transformative role in commercial litigation in the Philippines. Accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the judiciary has adopted various technological innovations to ensure continuity and accessibility of legal proceedings. As mentioned above, videoconference hearings are now normal and widely used. Further, recent amendments to the Rules of Court allow pleadings and other submissions to be filed and served through electronic mail, in addition to personal and postal options.

In addition to these, the rules on evidence have been recently amended to relax the requirements for original documents and to allow the admission of duplicates (including electronic copies) of documentary evidence, unless there is a genuine question about the original’s authenticity or if it would be unfair to the opposing party. These amendments reflect a broader recognition of electronic evidence, in light of the increasing use of electronic communications in both personal and commercial transactions. Recently, the Supreme Court issued Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 13-2023 which directed all courts to accommodate the requests of lawyers to schedule, as far as practicable, the hearings of their legal aid cases via videoconferencing.

Further, there has been a recent movement by the Supreme Court towards paperless service and filing as evidenced by its issuance of A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC and A.M. 11-9-4-SC dated 11 April 2023 or the Guidelines on Submission of Electronic Copies of Pleadings and Other Court Submissions Being Filed Before the Lower Courts Pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule. Under the said guidelines, the primary service and filing of pleadings and court submissions before the lower courts shall be through electronic transmittal, eliminating the requirement for subsequent submission of physical paper copies.

Beginning 1 July 2025, the Supreme Court will initiate the transition to electronic filing for certain petitions and motions before the Supreme Court through the Philippine Judiciary Platform, pursuant to A.M. No. 25-05-16-SC, or the Guidelines on the  Transition to Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court. By October 1, 2025, electronic filing and service through the PJP will be mandatory for all covered pleadings filed by lawyers. These initiatives align with the Supreme Court’s broader goal of digitally transforming the Philippine judiciary.

All in all, it is reasonable to expect that the legal system in the Philippines will be more receptive and adaptive to changes brought about by technology. To illustrate the attitude of the Supreme Court towards these developments, it is notable that the bar exam, which was traditionally a written exam held in one venue, has been transformed to a digital format, with the use of an examination software and decentralized testing centers to leverage modern technology. Further, the Supreme Court has recently issued rules applying remote technologies to fundamental processes such as notarization and filing of documents.