March 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > March 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181107 : March 29, 2009] SUSANA JOAQUIN-AGREGADO V. REBECCA B. YAMAT :
[G.R. No. 181107 : March 29, 2009]
SUSANA JOAQUIN-AGREGADO V. REBECCA B. YAMAT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 30 March 2009:
G.R. No. 181107 (Susana Joaquin-Agregado v. Rebecca B. Yamat). - This addresses the "Motion/Appeal for Faithful Adherence to Section 13, Article VI11 of the Constitution for the Sake of Justice and Equity"[1] that was filed by petitioner on February 9, 2009.
The aforesaid motion is taken by this Court as a second motion for reconsideration. The first Motion[2] was filed by petitioner on November 7, 2008, questioning the Minute Resolution[3] issued by the Court on September 22, 2008, the pertinent portion of the resolution reads:
In the instant motion, petitioner assails the resolution of the Court for allegedly failing to comply with Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, viz.:
Petitioner's stance is without merit.
Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court who took part in the deliberations of a case nor do they require the certification of the Chief Justice. For to require members of the Court to sign all resolutions issued would not only unduly delay the issuance of its resolutions but a great amount of their time would be spent on functions more properly performed by the Clerk of Court, and which time could be more profitably used in the analysis of cases and the formulation of decisions and orders of important nature and character[5]
The Supreme Court is not compelled to adopt a definite and stringent rule on how its judgment shall be framed. It has long been settled that this Court has the discretion to decide whether a "minute resolution" should be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case. A minute resolution dismissing a petition for review on certiorari is an adjudication on the merits of the controversy, and is as valid and effective as a full-length decision.[6]
The grant of due course to a petition for review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion. Thus, when the Court denies due course to a petition because it fails to show any reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals (CA), there is no need to fully explain the Court's denial. For one thing, the facts and law are already discussed in the CA's opinion. A minute resolution denying a petition for review of a decision of the CA can only mean that the Supreme Court agrees with or adopts the findings and conclusions of the CA, and deems the CA decision as correct.[7]
We reiterate that a "resolution" is not a "decision" within the constitutional requirement of Section 14, Article VIII.[8] The constitutional mandate is applicable only in cases "submitted for decision," i.e., where the petition is given due course and after the filing of briefs or memoranda and/or other pleadings, but not where the petition is denied due course, with the resolution stating the legal basis thereof.[9]
In Candelaria v. CA,[10] we held that a resolution denying a petition for review on certiorari actually states the legal basis therefor, which is that the petition failed to sufficiently show that the appellate court committed any-reversible error in the challenged decision. The patent significance of such ground for denial is that the allegations of the petition aimed at proving errors in the challenged decision failed to persuade the Supreme Court that the imputed errors had been committed and; thus, there was no cause to reverse or modify the conclusions set forth in the decision. In such case, there is no point m reproducing or restating in the resolution of denial the conclusions of the appellate court thereby affirmed.
WHEREFORE, in lieu of the foregoing, petitioner's second Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
(Ynares-Santiago, J., Chairperson; Carpio Morales, J., additional member per Special Order No. 602 dated March 20, 2009; Chico-Nazario, Nachura, and Peralta, JJ.)
G.R. No. 181107 (Susana Joaquin-Agregado v. Rebecca B. Yamat). - This addresses the "Motion/Appeal for Faithful Adherence to Section 13, Article VI11 of the Constitution for the Sake of Justice and Equity"[1] that was filed by petitioner on February 9, 2009.
The aforesaid motion is taken by this Court as a second motion for reconsideration. The first Motion[2] was filed by petitioner on November 7, 2008, questioning the Minute Resolution[3] issued by the Court on September 22, 2008, the pertinent portion of the resolution reads:
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari as well as the comment of the respondent thereon and the reply of petitioner to said comment, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the appellate court commuted any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.[4]
In the instant motion, petitioner assails the resolution of the Court for allegedly failing to comply with Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, viz.:
Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Members who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution, must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.
Petitioner's stance is without merit.
Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court who took part in the deliberations of a case nor do they require the certification of the Chief Justice. For to require members of the Court to sign all resolutions issued would not only unduly delay the issuance of its resolutions but a great amount of their time would be spent on functions more properly performed by the Clerk of Court, and which time could be more profitably used in the analysis of cases and the formulation of decisions and orders of important nature and character[5]
The Supreme Court is not compelled to adopt a definite and stringent rule on how its judgment shall be framed. It has long been settled that this Court has the discretion to decide whether a "minute resolution" should be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case. A minute resolution dismissing a petition for review on certiorari is an adjudication on the merits of the controversy, and is as valid and effective as a full-length decision.[6]
The grant of due course to a petition for review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion. Thus, when the Court denies due course to a petition because it fails to show any reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals (CA), there is no need to fully explain the Court's denial. For one thing, the facts and law are already discussed in the CA's opinion. A minute resolution denying a petition for review of a decision of the CA can only mean that the Supreme Court agrees with or adopts the findings and conclusions of the CA, and deems the CA decision as correct.[7]
We reiterate that a "resolution" is not a "decision" within the constitutional requirement of Section 14, Article VIII.[8] The constitutional mandate is applicable only in cases "submitted for decision," i.e., where the petition is given due course and after the filing of briefs or memoranda and/or other pleadings, but not where the petition is denied due course, with the resolution stating the legal basis thereof.[9]
In Candelaria v. CA,[10] we held that a resolution denying a petition for review on certiorari actually states the legal basis therefor, which is that the petition failed to sufficiently show that the appellate court committed any-reversible error in the challenged decision. The patent significance of such ground for denial is that the allegations of the petition aimed at proving errors in the challenged decision failed to persuade the Supreme Court that the imputed errors had been committed and; thus, there was no cause to reverse or modify the conclusions set forth in the decision. In such case, there is no point m reproducing or restating in the resolution of denial the conclusions of the appellate court thereby affirmed.
WHEREFORE, in lieu of the foregoing, petitioner's second Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
(Ynares-Santiago, J., Chairperson; Carpio Morales, J., additional member per Special Order No. 602 dated March 20, 2009; Chico-Nazario, Nachura, and Peralta, JJ.)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 174-178.
[2] Id. at 152-158.
[3] Id. at 151.
[4] Id.
[5] Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82273, June 1, 1990; 186 SCRA 6.
[6] Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 352 Phil. 440 (1998); Smith Bell & Co. (Phil), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 274 Phil. 472 (1991).
[7] Id.
[8] Novino v. Court of Appeals, 118 Phil. 282 (1963), cued in In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970) and Mendoza v. CFI, 51 SCRA 369 (1973). See also Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., 175 Phil. 274 (1978).
[9] Munal v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 78648, January 24. 1939, 169 SCRA 356: One v. People, G R. Nos. L-75217-18, September 21, 1987, 154 SCRA 160.
[10] G R. No, 93685, Minute Resolution (First Division), August 20; 1990.
