A notable line of Mahatma Gandhi depicts what compromise is, which a vital

component of ADR and may contribute to a successful outturn of mediation which

says, All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on
fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.
Court dockets clog and cases piled up, not solely because judges are lazy and lame but rather the
citizens abuses the auspices of the judiciary institution. People, thru their pride, even pitiful things
turn to the mercy of the judges for issues that can be readily solve by mediation.
To begin with, mediation had been defined under Section 3 of Republic Act 9285 as a voluntary
process in which a mediator, selected by the disputing parties, facilitates communication and
negotiation, and assist the parties in reaching a voluntary agreement regarding a dispute. In lieu with
this the term Mediation Arbiter had been introduced as well by the same Act.
The purposes of CAM and JDR is to put an end to pending litigation through compromise
agreement of 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 and give
practical effect to the State Policy expressly stated in the ADR Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9285), to wit:
to actively promote party autonomy in the resolution of disputes or the freedom of the parties to
make their own arrangement to resolve disputes. Towards this end, the State shall encourage and
actively promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as an important means to achieve
speedy and impartial justice and de-clog court dockets.
In 2000, Mediation had been implement in different parts of the country and had achieved favorable
feedback thru its implementation. Hence, this process of mediation was born and had been used
nationwide.

OBSERVATION:
The Philippine Mediation Center is located in the 3rd Floor of the Hall of Justice. As new and fresh
students of the law, I was very eager with my friends to witness the mediation. We were led into a
room in the third floor, where four mediators are situated closely to each other. We have noticed that
even the slightest sound can be heard by the neighboring mediator the issues being resolved in the
nearby table.
On that day, we are lucky to have observed at least four mediations. Out of this 4 mediations, 3 were
successfully resolved and persuaded by the mediator which we are observing and one was a failure
as they say because it was not settled at the end of the day.
Base on my observation, during the period in which the cases where being reconciled and parties
made to enter into a ssound and rationale agreement, the mediator maintains his composure and is
very professional in his quest for helping the parties resolve their conflicts.
From time to time, the mediator persuade the party not to enter into litigation by giving them the
realities of what they will encounter. Some see this as unethical, however, on my own point of view I
see this as beneficial to the party. The mediator was only being honest to the parties of the things
that may encounter along the way and prepare them financially and emotionally.
Furthermore, I have noticed that some of the mediators where from Manila and concluded that
maybe they were relocated or reassigned from one place to another. Nevertheless, the mediator was

very helpful to the parties in ssolving the case. There was no hint of aggression, anger or irritation in
his voice while he was trying to resolve the case which if find very amazing. You can really tell that
he is trying his best that the issue will be resolved and will not undergo a blown litigation.
As to the clients side, what I had observe as I had mentioned earlier was that, 3 out of four had
come into terms and had settled their differences. Let me tackle first with the first three issues, why
they had come into a successful; mediation. The common denominator among them I guess is that
both parties were very understanding and never can you feel an air of arrogance from them.
Certainly, they had come to court because one way or another they had been wronged. However,
admission of the defendant of his mistakes melt their hearts and led to a favorable compromise for
both of them.
You can very well see that even the complainants, had the compassion and in fact they are the ones
who are providing the best possible and realistic agreements to the parties.
On the other hand, the anger of a father when his daughter is aggrieved or anger of another person
towards another as well, can sometimes blind reality and may blind and deafen them from reason. I
guess, such anger and vengeance prevents them from reaching a certain agreement because both
has pride to protect and dignity to uphold.
CONCLUSION:
The question now lies, whether mediation was helpful or not. The answer to this vital question is yes.
Aside from decreasing the cases being filed in courts of justice and minimizing the clogging of
dockets, it avoids the hassle it can bring to parties that will be going to litigation.
The success or the failure of litigation is not solely attributable to the capacity of the mediator
himself, but to the parties as well. I am not saying that the mediator has no role or he can be omitted
from the picture, but rather, before a party comes into mediation they may already have a decision in
mind. In part now, the mediator will play a vital role, either to tilt the decision in the minds of the party
involve by putting the issues on the table and have them choose the most beneficial path for them.
To wrap it up, different views can be perceived from this, but the continuous use of mediation may be
a life changing avenue in the Philippine judicial system. I know that it is still young in its
implementation, but seeing from how it goes success wont be far and people will get acquainted
with it.