Fortrich v Corona
Content
Fortrich v Corona Facts:
SC voted 2-2 in a Resolution dated Nov. 17, 1998 on separate MR’s filed by respondents and intervenors for a Decision made on April 24, 19 98 -> which results to the affirmation of the said Decision
Resolution solution did not effectively resolve the MR’s Respondents and intervenors argue that the SC’s Re and the Court should have referred them to the Court en banc pursuant to Art. 8 Sec. 4(3) of the Constitution o
"Cases 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: Provided that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the Court sitting en banc."
Issue: W/N the MR’s should be referred to the Court en banc because they were resolved without the concurrence of a majority? Court says:
Framers intended to draw a distinction between “cases” on the other hand and “matters” on the other.
reddendo singula singulis: o
“cases” refer to “decided” while “matters” refer to “resolved”
Only cases are referred to the Court en banc for decision whenever the required number of nd
votes is not obtained. The 2 sentence of the provision speaks of cases only and not matters.
Reason: o
Article VIII, Section 4(3) pertains to t he disposition of cases by a division. If there is a tie in the voting, there is no decision. The only way to dispose of the case then is to refer it to the Court en banc.
o
on the other hand, if a case is already decided by a division, and the losing party files a MR, the failure of the division to resolve the MR does not leave the case undecided.
o
tie = no MR -> the assailed decision was not reconsidered, therefore the decision is deemed affirmed.
Other issues: 1.
Movants argue: that the issues submitted in t heir MR’s are of first impression a.
Court: NO. The issue of whether or not the power of the local government units to reclassify lands is subject to the approval of the DAR is no longer novel decided in the case of Province of CAMSUR v CA where it held that LGU’s don’t need approval.
2.
the Resolution didn’t dispose of the earlier MR’s a.
Court: the present MR’s necessarily partake the nature of second MR’s which is prohibited under the Rule 56, Section 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure nd
b. movants failed to show exceptional reasons for the Court to accept their 2 MR’s
Hold: the MR’s are denied with FINALITY Justice Melo’s Separate opinion
Case should be referred to the CA for further proceedings
when the required number of votes is not acquired, it is AUTOMATICALLY referred to the Court en banc
At least 3 members must concur in any case or matter heard by a division even when the Division only has 4 members because 1 inhibited himself.
Distinction given by the majority is not true all the time.
it is my view that, in all instances, whether it be in the deliberations of a case at first instance or on a motion for reconsideration, a division having a 2-2 vote cannot pass action.
But in the situation now facing us, the e ven vote is in a division, and there being recourse to the Court En Banc, and more so, this being expressly directed by the Constitution, the matter of the motion for reconsideration should, by all means, be decided by the Court En Banc.
SC voted 2-2 in a Resolution dated Nov. 17, 1998 on separate MR’s filed by respondents and intervenors for a Decision made on April 24, 19 98 -> which results to the affirmation of the said Decision
Resolution solution did not effectively resolve the MR’s Respondents and intervenors argue that the SC’s Re and the Court should have referred them to the Court en banc pursuant to Art. 8 Sec. 4(3) of the Constitution o
"Cases 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: Provided that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the Court sitting en banc."
Issue: W/N the MR’s should be referred to the Court en banc because they were resolved without the concurrence of a majority? Court says:
Framers intended to draw a distinction between “cases” on the other hand and “matters” on the other.
reddendo singula singulis: o
“cases” refer to “decided” while “matters” refer to “resolved”
Only cases are referred to the Court en banc for decision whenever the required number of nd
votes is not obtained. The 2 sentence of the provision speaks of cases only and not matters.
Reason: o
Article VIII, Section 4(3) pertains to t he disposition of cases by a division. If there is a tie in the voting, there is no decision. The only way to dispose of the case then is to refer it to the Court en banc.
o
on the other hand, if a case is already decided by a division, and the losing party files a MR, the failure of the division to resolve the MR does not leave the case undecided.
o
tie = no MR -> the assailed decision was not reconsidered, therefore the decision is deemed affirmed.
Other issues: 1.
Movants argue: that the issues submitted in t heir MR’s are of first impression a.
Court: NO. The issue of whether or not the power of the local government units to reclassify lands is subject to the approval of the DAR is no longer novel decided in the case of Province of CAMSUR v CA where it held that LGU’s don’t need approval.
2.
the Resolution didn’t dispose of the earlier MR’s a.
Court: the present MR’s necessarily partake the nature of second MR’s which is prohibited under the Rule 56, Section 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure nd
b. movants failed to show exceptional reasons for the Court to accept their 2 MR’s
Hold: the MR’s are denied with FINALITY Justice Melo’s Separate opinion
Case should be referred to the CA for further proceedings
when the required number of votes is not acquired, it is AUTOMATICALLY referred to the Court en banc
At least 3 members must concur in any case or matter heard by a division even when the Division only has 4 members because 1 inhibited himself.
Distinction given by the majority is not true all the time.
it is my view that, in all instances, whether it be in the deliberations of a case at first instance or on a motion for reconsideration, a division having a 2-2 vote cannot pass action.
But in the situation now facing us, the e ven vote is in a division, and there being recourse to the Court En Banc, and more so, this being expressly directed by the Constitution, the matter of the motion for reconsideration should, by all means, be decided by the Court En Banc.
