Share

APEC Form no. 4 Adjudicator Performance Evaluation Card - Rating System (Secretariat)

DAR APEC evaluation form to evaluate performance of regional adjudicator to be filled up by the secretariat

Your Browser Doesn't Support Canvas. Showing the Text Content of the PDF Instead: APEC Form No. 4 (to be filled up by the Secretariat)

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

YEAR:

CRITERIA

RATING

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

Resolution of Cases/Caseload Management ( 30%)
1.
No. of cases decided/disposed
a. Adversarial
b. Non-adversarial
2.
Percentage of disposed cases vis-a-vis caseload
3.
No. of cases subjected to ADR
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.

III.

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

V.

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

VI.

Integrity (5%)
No. of pending administrative cases (with formal charge )*
1.
2.
No. of adverse audit results/findings of IAS, COA or DARAB Secretariat

BEHAVIORAL (15%) (V and VI)

SCALE:
Grading Rate

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

Equivalent Adjectival Rating

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