Courts in the country, except the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), will observe a four-day on-site work Monday to Thursday and one-day work-from-home (WFH) on Friday starting Monday, March 9.

The directive was contained in Memorandum Circular No. 02-2026 issued on Sunday, March 8, by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

Covered by the four-day on-site work and Friday WFH, aside from the SC, are the Court of Appeals, and the lower courts – regional trial courts, metropolitan trial courts, metropolitan trial courts in cities, municipal trial courts, and municipal circuit trial courts nationwide.

The SC declared that work arrangements should not be a ground for the cancellation or postponement of any scheduled hearings which should proceed as set by the court.

On the WFH day, the SC said that at least 25 percent of the employees in each office or division should report onsite every Friday, as determined by the head of office or division, to ensure continuity of operations.

It also said that personnel on WFH should remain reachable during office hours through official communication channels, and should attend required meetings, hearings, conferences, or onsite work when directed.

The SC pointed out that the WFH arrangement should not be used to justify delay, inaccessibility, neglect of duty, or failure to meet required outputs.

The Office of the Chief Justice, the Office of the Senior Associate Justice, the Offices of the Associate Justices, the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division of the Fiscal Management and Budget Office, the Docket-Receiving Section of the Judicial Records Office, the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) with respect to its essential staff, and the Office of the Judiciary Marshals are excluded and should maintain the regular work arrangements.

The Sandiganbayan and the CTA will continue to observe a full five-day on-site work without special work arrangement, the SC said.

The SC said that the CA, the Sandiganbayan, the CTA and the trial courts may conduct hearings through videoconferencing.

In criminal cases when the hearing specifically involves the confrontation of witnesses, an informed written waiver of the right to meet witnesses face to face must be secured from the accused before videoconferencing may be resorted to, it said.

It also said: “No hearing shall be cancelled on the ground that any of the parties, counsels, or concerned court personnel cannot participate in the videoconferencing. In such instances, the court shall direct the conduct of in-person proceedings, as scheduled.”

Night courts are maintained to address urgent issues like bail for nighttime arrests and cases involving tourists.

The SC said that personnel scheduled for Saturday, Sunday, holiday, or special day duty may still be required to report for such duty even if they were on remote work on the preceding Friday.

Among the many citations in its memorandum, the SC cited President Marcos’ Memorandum Circular No. 114, dated March 6, 2026, which directed the strict adoption of energy conservation protocols and flexible work arrangements in government in light of continuing volatility in global energy markets and the resulting rise in fuel costs that affect the national economy;

Thus, the SC said the judiciary has to align its internal operations with the national policy on energy conservation, “insofar as such alignment is consistent with the uninterrupted administration of justice.”

The SC said that heads of offices, presiding justices, executive judges, clerks of court, and other station heads are directly responsible for faithful compliance with this Memorandum Circular No. 02-2026.

“Unjustified failure to implement or observe the measures herein prescribed, submission of false or misleading reports, unauthorized absence masked as remote work, unauthorized cancellation or resetting of hearings, and unnecessary travel or vehicle use shall constitute grounds for appropriate administrative action under existing laws, rules, and Court issuances,” it also said.

It added that court personnel should submit a monthly detailed accomplishment report on their WFH arrangement.

“Failure to submit the required report shall be construed as absence from work, for which an application for leave must be filed. Otherwise, the absence shall be considered unauthorized,” the SC stressed.

Full text of Memorandum Circular No. 02-2026 can be accessed through the SC’s website – sc.judiciary.gov.ph.