Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > July 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 178361 : July 10, 2007] WIKA NG KULTURA AT AGHAM, INC. [WIKA], REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ISAGANI R. CRUZ, BEVERLY SIY, ET AL, VS. PRES. GLORIA MACAPAGAL -ARROYO, ET AL. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated July 10, 2007

G.R. No. 178361 - Wika ng Kultura at Agham, Inc. [WIKA], represented by its President, Isagani R. Cruz, Beverly Siy, et al, vs. Pres. Gloria Macapagal -Arroyo, et al.

For resolution is the instant petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Wika ng Kultura at Agham Inc. (WIKA), et al., questioning the constitutionality of Executive Order 210 dated May 17, 2003, entitled "Establishing the Policy to Strengthen English as a Second Language in the Educational System," and the implementing Department of Education (DepEd) Memorandum Order No. 36, series of 2006.

At the outset, the Court notes that this is not the first time petitioners filed a petition of this nature. In G.R. No. 177398, a petition for certiorari; and in G.R. No. 177702, a petition for prohibition with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, petitioners raised as issue the constitutionality of EO 210 and DepEd MO 36 for alleged violation of Article XIV of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, these two previous petitions were both dismissed by the Court for being procedurally flawed.

G.R. No. 177398 was dismissed in the en banc Resolution dated May 3, 2007:

The Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for non-submission of proof of service (e.g., a written admission of the party served / an affidavit of the party serving / registry receipts) of the petition on the adverse parties as required by Rule 56, Section 2 (c), Rule 46, Section 3 (3^rd par.) in relation to Rule 56, Section 2 (1^st par.), and Rule 13, Section 13.

G.R. No. 177702 was dismissed in the en banc Resolution dated June 5, 2007:

The Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order for defective or insufficient verification and certification against forum shopping, in that it was signed by Isagani R. Cruz, President of WIKA, one of the petitioners, without proof of authority to sign for and in behalf of WIKA, as well as the other petitioners."

Although contained in minute resolutions, the Court's dismissal action of the respective petitions in G.R. No. 177398 and G.R. No. 177702 is definitely a disposition of the merits of said cases and constitutes, as to the petitioners, a bar to a relitigation of the issues raised therein, under the doctrine of res judicata.

In Bernarte v. Court of Appeals,^[1] we declared:

The petition in G.R. No. 100663 was dismissed for noncompliance with Circular No. 1-88. Contrary to petitioners� contention, however, such a dismissal through a minute resolution was one on the merits of the petition. Thus, where a first petition for certiorari was dismissed for noncompliance with paragraph 4 of Circular No. 1 -88 and another petition, complying with said circular and basically reiterating the same issues raised in the first petition was filed a year later, the Court dismissed the second petition and severely censured counsel for petitioner for refiling the same petition. In a Resolution, the Court stated as follows:

"...(I)t is equally axiomatic that minute resolutions of this Court, denying due course to petitions, or dismissing cases summarily � for failure to comply with the formal or substantial requirements laid down therefor by the law � are actually dispositions on the merits, constituting res judicata."

Hence, even though the Court did not explicitly resolve G.R. No. 100663 on the merits, its dismissal on the ground of noncompliance with Circular No. I-88 had the effect of resolving the issues raised therein. While it may be argued that said circular is merely a remedial measure which should not unduly affect the substantive aspects of a case, its force and effect must be at all times be upheld for, after all, it was designed for the orderly administration of justice.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] G.R. No. 107741, 18 October 1996, 263 SCRA 323.