SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

DISSENTING OPINION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

With due respect, I dissent from the majority's Resolution.

Very briefly, these are the relevant antecedents. On September 2, 1999, the Court through the Third Division unanimously promulgated its Decision denying the Petitions in these cases. Thereafter, both the government and private petitioners filed separate (1) Motions for Reconsideration and (2) Motions to Refer the Cases to the Court en Banc.

By vote of 4-1,¹ the Third Division rejected the Motions to Refer the Cases to the full Court because the movants had utterly failed to adduce any legal reason for such referral. Subsequently, Justice Fidel P. Purisima, the lone dissenter, asked the Court en banc to yank the case out of and against the will of the said Division, and to empower the banc to resolve the pending Motions for Reconsideration. By the instant Resolution, the majority has agreed with Justice Purisima.

With due respect, I say that the majority has not given any cogent or compelling reason for this unprecedented action. Its Resolution, penned by Justice Purisima, simply pontificates that "these consolidated cases are of sufficient importance to merit the attention and disposition of the entire Court," without stating why. The majority simply used its sheer voting strength to bulldoze the earlier 4-1 action of the Third Division. If at all, the lame excuse given that the "subject Decision [promulgated by the Third Division] does not clearly indicate the classification of said land" is merely an argument why the pending Motions for Reconsideration should be granted, not why the banc should take over this case.

I fully agree with the well-reasoned Dissent of Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, the ponente of the Third Division's unanimous Decision. I write, however, to stress one point. In the celebrated Sumilao farmers' case,² a similar motion to refer to the full Court was turned down by the Second Division by a vote of 3-1. Arguing that the Division's earlier vote of 2-2 on the Motion for Reconsideration was not decisive, Justice Jose A. R. Melo (who was then a member of the Second Division) subsequently asked the banc to take over the case. Justice Melo argued that under Article VIII, Section 4 (3) of the Constitution, "[c]ases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such members." Since the Motion for Reconsideration did not obtain the required three votes in the Division, he added that the banc should thus take over and resolve the impasse. In other words, Justice Melo presented a genuine "question of sufficient importance" --- which the Second Division was not in a position to resolve to justify a take-over by the banc. Yet, the full Court turned down his proposal. Only Justice Vitug and I supported Justice Melo.

I therefore cannot understand why the banc is now taking over this case against the wishes of the Third Division. It turned down the poor farmers' plea and the Melo proposal. Why then should the banc grant the not-so-poor private petitioners' prayer here? Why then should it approvethe groundless Purisima proposal? At the very least, if it should take over this case, then it should likewise assume jurisdiction over the farmer's suit. After all, the vote in the Motion for Reconsideration in that case was two in favor and two against, while in the present case, the Third Division has not even voted on the plea for reconsideration. In other words, there was sufficient reason for the banc to take over the Sumilao problem because of the 2-2 vote of the Division. Here, no cogent reason whatsoever -- other than the motherhood peroration that the case was "of sufficient importance" -- is given by the majority.

Parenthetically, I should add that the Third Division is not averse to hearing the petitioners' Motions for Reconsideration. As a matter of fact, if the banc did not take over this case, it would have scheduled the said Motions for oral argument. Simply stated, the Third Division is not incapable of rendering objective and fair justice in this case and to rule on the issue of "classification of said land."

Having taken over this case, the banc -- in the name of equal justice -- should also take over the Sumilao farmers' Petition. But having rejected their case, then it should also turn down this one. Sauce for the poor goose should be the same sauce for the rich gander. That is simple, equal justice for all.

¹ JJ Jose A.R. Melo, Jose C. Vitug, Artemio V. Panganiban and Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes voted to deny said Motions, while J. Fidel P. Purisima voted to grant them.

² Fortich v. Corona, GR No. 131457, April 24, 1998, November 17, 1998 and August 19, 1999.