Share

APEC Form No. 6 Adjudicator Performance Evaluation Card - Rating System

DAR APEC evaluation form to evaluate performance of provincial adjudicator

Your Browser Doesn't Support Canvas. Showing the Text Content of the PDF Instead: APEC Form No. 6 (to be filled up by the PARAD)

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
Adjudicator Performance Evaluation Card - Rating System
Criteria and Weighted Points to Evaluate Performance of Provincial Adjudicator
SEMESTER:
NAME:
POSITION:
Provincial Adjudicator
PLACE OF ASSIGNMENT:

YEAR:

CRITERIA

RATING

OPERATIONAL (55%) (I and II)
I.

Resolution of Cases/Caseload Management ( 30%)
No. of cases decided/disposed
1.
a. Adversarial
b. Non-adversarial
Percentage of disposed cases vis-a-vis caseload
2.
No. of cases subjected to ADR
3.
No. of MRs resolved/decided
4.
No. of writs of execution issued
5.
Accomplishment on monthly targets
6.
Accomplishment on semestral targets
7.
Length of time of pending cases
8.
Percentage of reduction of ageing cases
9.

II.

Quality of Decisions /Social Impact of the Decisions (25%)
Decision with Social Impact
1.
Quality of written work (legal reasoning, legal basis, use of updated jurisprudence, writing style, grammar, etc. )
2.

III.

Administrative Work (15%)
LCMS encoding/usage
1.
DAR-LIS usage
2.
Budget preparation (completeness and timeliness )
3.
Timely submission of reports
4.
Monitoring of Sheriff/Clerk of the Adjudicator re the execution of final decision
5.
Prompt submission of Score Card/s
6.

IV.

Support to Operations/Others (15%)
Attendance during oath/affirmation day
1.
Attendance at meetings initiated by the RD/PARO
2.
No. of completed case build up (Cancellation of EP/CLOA per AO No. 6, Series of 2011 )
3.
Percentage of transmitted cancellation case folders vis-a-vis case build up load
4.
Duration of time to complete cancellation case build up
5.

ADMINISTRATIVE (30%) (III and IV)

BEHAVIORAL (15%) (V and VI)
V.

Cooperation, Professionalism and Initiative (10%)
Attendance at meetings initiated by the Board/Secretariat/RARAD
1.
Compliance with DAR/DARAB Memos and SOs
2.
Attendance at DAR seminars/workshops
3.
Adoption of effective system for caseload reduction
4.
Advisories/observations/reports re DARAB PINCs
5.
Requests for clarification on DARAB issues
6.
Solutions proposed on DARAB PINCs
7.

VI.

Integrity (5%)
1.
2.

No. of pending administrative cases (with formal charge )*
No. of adverse audit results/findings of IAS, COA or DARAB Secretariat

SCALE:
Grading Rate

Equivalent Adjectival Rating

100%
95% - 99%
90% - 94%
85% - 89%
80% -84%
75% - 79%
70% - 74%

Exceptional
Commendable
Good Solid Performance
Above Average
Average
Below Average
Unacceptable

* Per definition of the revised URAC, for a pending administrative case to exist, there must be a Formal Charge issued
to the respondent.
Evaluator
Name (L,F,MI):
Position:
Employee Number:
 
Page of
Share