ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 135244. September 15, 1999]

YALE LAND DEV'T CORP. vs. CARAGAO, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 15 1999.

G.R. No. 135244 (Yale Land Development Corporation vs. Caragao, et al.)

On October 16, 1998, petitioner Yale Land Development Corporation filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Court. The same was denied by the Second Division in a Resolution dated October 21, 1998. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, this time, by the First Division, on January 18, 1999.

Petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, arguing that in accordance with the Court's En Banc Resolution No. 98-12-05-SC dated December 21, 1998, the First Division was not the proper division to act on the first motion for reconsideration, the petition having been originally denied, not by the First Division, but by the Second Division.

The First Division rejected this contention, the resolution due course to the petition not being a signed resolution. As to the question, however, of whether to admit or deny petitioner's second motion for reconsideration, the vote was tied at two-two, with the fifth member, not having participated in the deliberations of the case, abstaining.

Petitioner's motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration was thus deemed denied, in line with the Court's En Banc Resolution No. 91-1-01-SC dated January 20, 1999, providing that if voting results in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is deemed denied.

Paragraph 3, Section 4, Article VIII of the Constitution provides, however, that "[c]lasses 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. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc."

The functions of the Court being of vital and far reaching significance to the nation and to the body politic, it is imperative that the actions of the Court in the administration of justice be viewed as decisive and definitive. Moreover, public interest requires that the constitutional question involved be given a careful and conscientious review by the Court.

Given the deadlock vote on the issue of whether to grant petitioner's second motion for reconsideration, and without necessarily giving due course to petitioner's second motion for reconsideration, the Court deems it wise to require the parties to submit their arguments on the issue of whether or not a two-two vote on a motion for reconsideration in a division should be referred to the Court en banc.

ACCORDINGLY, the parties are given a non-extendible period of ten (10) days within which to file their respective position papers on the sole issue of whether or not a motion for reconsideration decided by a two-two vote by a division should be referred to the Court En Banc for resolution.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE