The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered all trial courts to revive archived criminal and civil cases, many of which have been pending for more than 15 years, to finally render justice to litigants “guided by the principle of timely and fair justice.”
There are more than 455,800 criminal cases and over 13,500 civil cases that have been archived for more than 10 years as of Jan. 31, 2023.
“Although not part of the courts’ inventory of pending cases, these archived cases are still in actuality with the courts and, as a rule, should eventually be disposed,” the SC said.
In a memorandum issued to trial court judges by Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva, the SC said: “This measure of reviving ageing archived cases not only brings justice to the litigants, but also brings an end to the long idle cases.”
The SC emphasized that the revival of archived cases and their final resolution “is guided by the principle of Timely and Fair Justice under the Court’s Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027….”
The country has more than 2,700 trial courts -- regional trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts, municipal trial courts in cities, metropolitan trial courts, and Shari’ah district and circuit courts.
A criminal case is archived by the court if, after the issuance of an arrest order, the accused remains at large.
Archiving a criminal case can also be ordered in instances when the accused is suffering from a mental condition that needs hospitalization; when a prejudicial question is invoked; and when an incident on the case is challenged before a higher court.
Among other grounds, a civil case before the trial court may be archived if the parties in the case are in the process of settlement or the proceedings suspended if there is an injunction or restraining order issued by a higher court.
The SC said the “archiving of cases is a procedural measure designed to temporarily defer the hearing of cases in which no immediate action is expected, but where no grounds exist for their outright dismissal.”
“Under this scheme, an inactive case is kept alive but held in abeyance until the situation obtains in which action thereon can be taken,” it said.
“In other words, when there is no reason for a case to continuously be placed on archive and a ground for dismissal is already apparent, the same should be revived,” it also said.
In reviving archived cases, trial court judges were ordered to direct parties to file a manifestation and if no manifestation is filed despite due notice, civil cases may be dismissed with prejudice while criminal cases may be dismissed provisionally for failure to prosecute.
Under the memorandum, trial court judges were ordered to prioritize the revival of cases which have already been in the archives for more than 15 years.
In reviving archived criminal cases, trial court judges should consider “if the prosecution is still willing or able to prosecute the cases taking into account the witnesses who can and still testify; the law enforcement officers/agents are capable of apprehending the accused and/or are still willing or available to testify if they are listed as witnesses; and the private complainants/ offended parties if they are still interested in pursuing the cases; and if the proceedings in the revived cases can still be continued or needs to be re-archived then the appropriate order should be issued.”
For civil cases, judges are also ordered to prioritize cases which have been archived for more than 15 years and “to issue the necessary orders, such as but not limited to dismissing the case for lack of interest.”
Trial court judges are also directed “to make a periodic review of the archived cases and are not precluded from reviving an archived case and resolve the same applying its present circumstances to prevailing laws, rules, and jurisprudence.”