ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 135074. September 15, 2003]

RETELCOM HOLDINGS, INC. vs. CA

Special FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 15 2003.

G.R. No. 135074.(Republic Telecommunications Holdings, Inc., et. al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.)

This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration of private respondents Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corp (PT&T) and Philippine Wireless, Inc. (PWI) seeking to set aside our Decision dated January 29, 1999, anchored on the following arguments:

I

THE DECISION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THAT IT FAILS TO EXPRESS CLEARLY AND DISTINCLY THE FACTS AND THE LAW ON WHICH IT IS BASED.

II

THE DECISION CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF RESPONDENTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW.

III

THE PETITION AT BAR HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC WITH THE EXPIRATION OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.

After a thorough review of the arguments raised in the Motion for Reconsideration, we find the same bereft of merit.

In Bernabe v. Geraldez, [1] cralaw it was held:

The standard expected of the judiciary is that the decision rendered makes clear why either party prevailed under the applicable law to the facts as established. Nor is there any rigid formula as to the language to be employed to satisfy the requirement of clarity and distinctness. The discretion of the particular judge in this respect, while not unlimited, is necessarily broad. There is no sacramental form of words which he must use upon pain of being considered as having failed to abide by what the Constitution directs. [2] cralaw

The constitutional prescription of stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which the decision is based does not require blind adherence from courts and judges in arriving with their decisions. Rather, judges are given wider latitude in framing their own decisions for so long as the conclusion reached is amply justified in law on the basis of the evidence on record. In short, what is of primordial consideration is that the decision states with clarity why either party prevailed under the law as applied to the established facts.

In the case at bar, the assailed Decision, in fact, categorically found that the assailed resolution of the Court of Appeals was "baseless". [3] cralaw It struck down the temporary restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals since private respondents failed to show a clear positive right that must be protected. It also stated that petitioner Retelcom was able to show that the implementation of the questioned board resolutions, if not enjoined, would work injustice and irreparable damage to it. Hence, it basically stated the legal basis for setting aside the assailed resolution of the appellate court and directing the SICD to resolve with dispatch SEC Case No. 03-98-5926. In so doing, the Court in effect declared that the appellate court gravely abused its discretion. As such, any authority that emanated from the appellate court's resolution dated August 27, 1998 was rendered without force and effect.

There is likewise no merit in the contention of private respondents that the Decision had the effect of judging the merits of the case. The Decision related only to the propriety of the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. Thus, the dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution dated August 27, 1998 of the Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE. The SICD is directed to resolve with dispatch SEC Case No. 03-98-5926 finding that the assailed Court of Appeals resolution dated August 27, 1998 to be without basis and the resolution of the SEC En Banc dated July 7, 1998 to be valid.

The fact that the Decision did not discuss the other arguments raised by private respondents did not amount to a denial of due process. Due process only requires that a party be given an opportunity to adduce his evidence to support his side of the case and that the evidence should be considered in the adjudication of the case. [4] cralaw Due process does not necessarily require conducting an actual hearing but simply giving the party concerned due notice and affording an opportunity or right to be heard. [5] cralaw The records show that private respondents were given ample chance to be heard by filing their respective pleadings. [6] cralaw In Air France v. Carrascoso, [7] cralaw it was held:

A court of justice is not hidebound to write in its decision every bit and piece of evidence presented by one party and the other upon the issues raised. Neither is it to be burdened with the obligation "to specify in the sentence the facts" which a party "considered as proved." This is but a part of the mental process from which the Court draws the essential ultimate facts. A decision is not to be so clogged with details such that prolixity, if not confusion may result. So long as the decision of the Court of Appeals contains the necessary facts to warrant its conclusions, it is no error for said court to withhold therefrom "any specific finding of facts with respect to the evidence for the defense." Because, as this Court well observed, "there is no law that so requires." Indeed, "the mere failure to specify (in the decision) the contentions of the appellant and the reasons for refusing to believe them is not sufficient to hold the same contrary to the requirements of law and the Constitution." It is in this setting that in Manigque, it was held that the mere fact that the findings "were based entirely on the evidence for the prosecution without taking into consideration or even mentioning the appellant's side in the controversy as shown by his testimony," would not vitiate the judgment. If the court did not recite in the decision the testimony of each witness for, or each item of evidence presented by, the defeated party, it does not mean that the court has overlooked such testimony or such item of evidence. At any rate, the legal presumptions are that official duty has been regularly performed, and that all the matter within an issue in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it.

ACCORDINGLY, in view of all the foregoing, the motion for reconsideration filed by private respondents Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation and Philippine Wireless, Inc. is DENIED for lack of merit. This denial is FINAL. No further pleadings will be entertained.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw G.R. No. L-39721, 15 July 1975, 65 SCRA 96.

[2] cralaw Bernabe v. Geraldez, supra, pp. 98-99.

[3] cralaw Rollo , pp. 897-905; SC Decision, p. 7.

[4] cralaw Sandoval v. COMELEC, 380 Phil. 375, 392 (2000).

[5] cralaw Ramoran v. Jardine CMG Life Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 131943, 22 February 2000, 326 SCRA 208.

[6] cralaw See note 12 & 13; Rollo, pp. 432-433, 443-471, 907-908, 923-932, 1038-1039, 1048-1052, 1059-1071, 1077-1084, and 1130-1131.

[7] cralaw 124 Phil. 722, 727-728 (1966).


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com