October 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > October 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 178340 : October 06, 2008] EDUARDO AZORES V. ALVARO BARADI, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FRANCISCO SERAFICA AND PEDRO MARZAN :
[G.R. No. 178340 : October 06, 2008]
EDUARDO AZORES V. ALVARO BARADI, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FRANCISCO SERAFICA AND PEDRO MARZAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 06 October 2008:
G.R. No. 178340 (Eduardo Azores v. Alvaro Baradi, represented by Attorney-in-Fact Francisco Serafica and Pedro Marzan). - This addresses the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner of the resolution of this Court denying the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Decision dated June 14, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 97298.
On June 30, 2008, the Court issued a Minute Resolution,[1] the pertinent portion of which reads:
On September 8, 2008, petitioner posted a Motion for Reconsideration[3] questioning the resolution of the Court alleging that the aforesaid resolution did not state the legal basis for the denial of the petition, in violation of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution.
Petitioner's challenge must be denied.
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.[4]
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 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. [5]
We reiterate that a "resolution" is not a "decision" within the constitutional requirement of Section 14, Article VIII.[6] 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.[7]
In Candelaria v. CA[8] 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 in reproducing or restating in the resolution of denial the conclusions of the appellate court thereby affirmed.
WHEREFORE, in lieu of the foregoing, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO-ORDERED.
G.R. No. 178340 (Eduardo Azores v. Alvaro Baradi, represented by Attorney-in-Fact Francisco Serafica and Pedro Marzan). - This addresses the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner of the resolution of this Court denying the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Decision dated June 14, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 97298.
On June 30, 2008, the Court issued a Minute Resolution,[1] the pertinent portion of which 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 farther resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the appellate court committed any reversible error in the challenged decision as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.[2]
On September 8, 2008, petitioner posted a Motion for Reconsideration[3] questioning the resolution of the Court alleging that the aforesaid resolution did not state the legal basis for the denial of the petition, in violation of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution.
Petitioner's challenge must be denied.
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.[4]
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 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. [5]
We reiterate that a "resolution" is not a "decision" within the constitutional requirement of Section 14, Article VIII.[6] 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.[7]
In Candelaria v. CA[8] 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 in reproducing or restating in the resolution of denial the conclusions of the appellate court thereby affirmed.
WHEREFORE, in lieu of the foregoing, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO-ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Asst. Clerk of Court
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 201.
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at 202-204.
[4] 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)
[5] Id.
[6] Novino v. Court of Appeals, 118 Phil. 282 (1963, cited in In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970) and Mendoza v. CFI, 51 SCRA 369 (1973). See also Commercial Union Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Lepantoo Consolidated Mining Co.175 Phil. 274 (1978).
[7] Munal v. Commision on Audit, G.R. No. 78648, January 24, 1989, 169 SCRA 356; Que v. People, G.R. Nos. L-75217-18, September 21, 1987, 154 SCRA 160.
[8] G.R. No. 93685, Minute Resolution (First Division), August 20, 1990.
