ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 164046.� September 21, 2004]
DE LEON vs. THIRD DIVISION OF SUPREME COURT
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 21 2004 .
G.R. No. 164046 (Spouses Cesar and Agnes de Leon vs. The Hon. Third Division of the Supreme Court, and Ernest Cuna.)
The Court, in its Resolution dated July 20, 2004, required petitioners and their counsel to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court for filing the instant Petition for Certiorari in violation of the rule against forum-shopping.
On August 19, 2004, petitioners and their counsel filed their Compliance and Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 20 July 2004. Petitioners contend that they filed the present petition in good faith. They assert that Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court grants them the remedy to assail the decision of any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions via a petition for certiorari, implying thereby that even a decision of this Court may be the subject of such special civil action.
Petitioners further argue that the filing of the present petition does not constitute forum-shopping because it was filed also before this Court where their Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 1603531 was earlier filed, and because the present petition is a special civil action assailing the errors of jurisdiction committed by the Court's Third Division. They also assert that it was not their intention to file the present petition before the Court En Banc since they honestly believed that it would be raffled to a Division of the Court.
The Court is not convinced.
As previously explained by the Court in its July 20, 2004 Resolution, petitioners' Petition for Review in G.R. No. 160353 was denied for lack of proper verification and for failure to show that a reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in rendering the decision assailed therein.
Contrary to petitioners' erroneous perception, the dismissal of petition in G.R. No. 160353 by a minute resolution of this Court does not violate the constitutional mandate that no petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of a court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor,2 for this requirement applies only to decisions.3 The Court is under no obligation to render signed Decisions in every case filed before it. It has ample discretion to formulate Decisions and/or minute resolutions, provided a legal basis is given, depending on its evaluation of a case.4 As succinctly explained in Borromeo v. Court of Appeals 5-
The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigants that it disposes of the bulk of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees them as final and executory, as where a case is patently without merit, where issues raised are factual in nature, where the decision appealed from is supported by substantial evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and the applicable laws, where it is clear from the records that the petition is filed merely to forestall the early execution of the judgment for non-compliance with the rules. The resolution denying due course or dismissing the petition always gives the legal basis.... This is the only way whereby it can act on all cases filed before it and, accordingly, discharge its constitutional functions. The Court ordinarily acts on the incidents or basic merits of thee hundred (300) to four hundred (400) cases through its Divisions every Monday and Wednesday when the Divisions meet and on one hundred (100) to one hundred twenty (120) cases every Tuesday and Thursday that it meets en banc or around one thousand (1,000) cases a week.
...[M]inute resolutions of this Court denying or dismissing unmeritorious petitions...are the result of a thorough deliberation among the members of this Court...When a petition is denied or dismissed by this Court, this Court sustains the challenged decision or order together with its findings of fact and legal conclusions.6 (Italics in the original.)
The Resolution dated January 12, 2004 of the Court in G.R. No. 160353 expressly stated that the petition therein was dismissed for improper verification and for lack of reversible error on the part of the appellate court in issuing the assailed decision. The Court is not required to restate the decision of the Court of Appeals which it affirmed and which therefore also contains the factual and legal bases for the Court's denial or dismissal of the petition.
Equally erroneous is petitioners' insistence that the filing of the present petition challenging the denial of their petition for review in G.R. No. 160353 does not constitute forum-shopping since both petitions were filed with this Court. Forum-shopping likewise exists when a party files multiple petitions in the same tribunal or agency.7 In determining whether forum shopping exists, what is truly important to consider is the vexation caused the courts and the litigants by a party who repetitively asks different the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions.8
The grounds raised in the instant petition are as follows:
The alleged in perfection in the verification of the petitioners' petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 160353) is illusory, whimsical and capricious. Even if the alleged imperfection is real, the same cannot fairly or properly be used by respondent Court to deny/deprive the petitioners of their right to appeal or to bar them from vindicating their legitimate grievance against the respondent CUNA for the unconscionable wrong he has done and continues to do to them.9
. . .
The respondent Court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied out of hand the petitioners' petition for review on the basis alone of the said Court's bare and unsubstantiated allegation that even if the petition's verification complied with the requirements of Section 4, Rule 7 "the petition would still be denied, as petitioners failed to show that a reversible error had been committed by the court." 10
. . .
The dismissal of the petitioners' petition for review on the basis of unsubstantiated and illusory or whimsical grounds is a manifest injustice, especially as the said petition, for special and important reasons, cry out for a full review of the case and the exercise by the Honorable Supreme Court of its power of supervision[.]11
. . .
The petition for review invites attention to two (2) important questions of law not heretofore decided by the Honorable Supreme Court.� Both questions pertain to the "notice of lis pendens".12
Further, in the prayer, petitioners ask the Court to resolve their Petition for Review in G.R. No. 160353 and cancel the notices of lis pendens and adverse claims on TCT Nos. 119328-119335. The aforementioned arguments and the prayer leave no doubt that the instant petition is being used as substitute for an appeal.
The Court cannot allow petitioners to trifle with judicial processes, especially since they previously availed of the opportunity to present their arguments before the Court regarding the same facts and issues in G.R. No. 160353. For petitioners' benefit, the Court reiterates its observation in its July 20, 2004 Resolution:
The Court, through its Third Division, already considered the arguments in their Petition for Review and ruled that the no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in denying their appeal. The Court again looked into the matter in resolving petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and Cancellation of the Notice of Lis Pendens and Adverse Claim. Unfortunately for petitioners, the Court found that said motion "merely reiterates the same arguments earlier raised [in their Petition for Review] and does not present any substantial reason not previously invoked nor any matter not already considered and passed upon by the Court". The motion was thus denied for lack of merit and the denial of the Petition for Review was made final. 13
The Court further notes that petitioners' motion for reconsideration in the present case merely reiterates the arguments raised in their petition and does not present any substantial reason not previously invoked nor any matter already considered and passed upon by the Court.
Although the filing of the present petition constitutes forum-shopping, the Court finds that such filing was not made deliberately, i.e., there was no malicious intent to subvert procedural rules.14 They are, however, warned and admonished not to repeat the same, otherwise, a penalty more severe shall be imposed upon them in the future.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to DENY petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. This denial is FINAL.
Petitioners Cesar and Agnes De Leon and their counsel Atty. Nelia A. Luntao are ADMONISHED to refrain from engaging in forum-shopping and WARNED that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely.
No FURTHER PLEADINGS will be entertained.
Chico- Nazario, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 The case was entitled � Spouses Cesar and Agnes de Leon, petitioners, vs. Ernest Cuna, respondent." The petition for review was denied on the ground that the Verification attached to the petition did not conform to the requirements of Section 4, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, and for failure to show that a reversible error had been committed by the Court of Appeals.
2 CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 14, par. 2.
3 Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 82273, June 1, 1990, 186 SCRA 1, Tayamura v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 76355, May 21, 1987.
4 In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, March 12, 1987, 148 SCRA 382.
5 G.R. No. 82273, June 1, 1990, 186 SCRA 1.
6 Id. at 5-6.
7 A' Prime Security Services v. Drilon, 316 Phil. 534 (1995), Silahis International Hotel, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 104513, August 4, 1993, 225 SCRA 94.
8 See Tantoy, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141427, April 20, 2001, 357 SCRA 329.
9 Rollo , p. 17.
10 lbid. at 20.
11 Id. at 22.
12 I d . at 25
13 Id. at 55.
14 Southern Cross Cement Corporation v. The Philippine Cement Manufacturers Corp., et al., G.R. No. 158540, July 8, 2004.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
