You are on page 1of 4

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-82273 June 1, 1990
JOAQUIN T. ORROMEO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O! APPEALS "n# SAMSON LAO, respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N

PER CURIAM$
In a complaint for damages filed ith the Regional !rial Court of Cebu, Branch " doc#eted as Civil
Case No. CEB$"%&', petitioner (oa)uin !. Borromeo charges Att*s. (ulieta +. Carreon and Alfredo P.
Marasigan, ,ivision Cler# of Court and Asst. ,ivision Cler# of Court, respectivel*, of the !hird
,ivision, and Att*. (ose I. Ilustre, Chief of the (udicial Records -ffice of this Court, ith usurpation of
.udicial functions, for allegedl* /maliciousl* and deviousl* issuing biased, fa#e, baseless and
unconstitutional 0Resolution0 and 0Entr* of (udgment0 in 1.R. No. "22&3.
4ummons ere issued b* the loer court re)uiring the respondents to anser the complaint ithin
fifteen 5678 da*s from receipt thereof. 4ince the summons arose from a complaint against a
resolution of the !hird ,ivision and the complaint is against personnel of the !hird ,ivision acting in
their official capacit* upon orders issued to them b* the !hird ,ivision, the summons ere initiall*
referred, to the !hird ,ivision. In a resolution dated April 27, 6''9, the summons ere referred b*
the !hird ,ivision to the Court En Banc.
!his is not the first time that Mr. Borromeo has filed charges:complaints against officials of the Court.
In several letter$complaints filed ith the courts and the -mbudsman
1
Borromeo had repeatedl*
alleged that he /suffered in.ustices,/ because of the disposition of the four 5;8 cases he separatel*
appealed to this Court hich ere resolved b* minute resolutions, allegedl* in violation of 4ections ;
538,63 and 6; of Article <III of the 6'"& Constitution .
2
=is invariable complaint is that the resolutions
hich disposed of his cases do not bear the signatures of the (ustices ho participated in the
deliberations and resolutions and do not sho that the* voted therein. =e li#eise complained that
the resolutions bear no certification of the Chief (ustice and that the* did not state the facts and the
la on hich the* ere based and ere signed onl* b* the Cler#s of Court and therefore
/unconstitutional, null and void./
In the present case for$damages filed ith the Regional !rial Court of Cebu, Mr. Borromeo charges
that Att*s. Carreon, Marasigan and Ilustre usurped .udicial functions b* issuing a /supposed/
resolution of the !hird ,ivision of the Court in 1.R. No. "22&3, and further alleges that, /the anton,
malicious and deceitful acts of defendants in impeding, obstructing, and defeating the$proper
administration of .ustice b* depriving plaintiff of due process, e)ual protection of the las, and his
cardinal primar* rights through said illegal, un.ust and fa#e 0resolutions0 and 0Entr* of (udgment,0 has
caused plaintiff grave moral shoc#, mental anguish, sleepless nights, severe embarrassment and
endless orr*, for hich the former must be condemned to pa* M-RA> ,AMA1E4 in the amount of
not less than P79,999.99./
!he 4eptember 63, 6'"' resolution of the 4upreme Court through its !hird ,ivision hich disposed
of Borromeo0s petition is a four$page resolution hich more than ade)uatel* complies ith the
constitutional re)uirements governing resolutions refusing to give due course to petitions for revie.
!he petition and its incidents ere discussed and deliberated upon b* the (ustices of the !hird
,ivision during the April 63, 6'"" session? the 4eptember 2",6'"" session? the November 2",6'""
session? the (anuar* 27, 6'"' session? and the April 62, 6'"' session before the issuance of the
4eptember 63, 6'"' resolution. -n November 2&, 6'"', a motion for reconsideration, hich as
received b* the Court more than a month after a cop* of the 4eptember 63, 6'"' resolution den*ing
the petition as served on the petitioner, as noted ithout action as the Court found that the motion
merel* reiterated the same arguments earlier raised in the petition and alread* passed upon b* the
Court and as, therefore ithout merit.
!he Court reminds all loer courts, la*ers, and litigants that it disposes of the bul# of its cases b*
minute resolutions and decrees them as final and e@ecutor*, as here a case is patentl* ithout
merits here the issues raised are factual in nature, here the decision appealed from is supported
b*A substantial evidence and, is in accord ith the facts of the case and the applicable las, here it
is clear from the records that the petition is filed merel* to forestall the earl* e@ecution of .udgment
and for non$compliance ith the rules. !he resolution den*ing due course or dismissing the petition
ala*s gives the legal basis. As emphasiBed in In Re: Wenceslao Laureta56;" 4CRA 3"2,;6&
C6'"&D, /C!Dhe Court is not 0dut* bound0 to render signed ,ecisions all the time. It has ample
discretion to formulate ,ecisions and:or Minute Resolutions, provided a legal basis is given,
depending on its evaluation of a case/ 5Italics supplied8. !his is the onl* a* hereb* it can act on
all cases filed before it and, accordingl*, discharge its constitutional functions. !he Court ordinaril*
acts on the incidents or basic merits of three hundred 53998 to four hundred 5;998 cases through its
,ivisions ever* Monda* and Eednesda* hen the ,ivisions meet and on one hundred 56998 to one
hundred tent* 56298 cases ever* !uesda* and !hursda* that it meets en banc or around one
thousand 56,9998 cases a ee#. It is onl* on Frida*s? and ee#$ends that the members of the Court
or# in their separate chambers or at home because the Court does not meet in session$$either in
,ivisions or En Banc.
For a prompt dispatch of actions of the Court, minute resolutions are promulgated b* the Court
through the Cler# of Court, ho ta#es charge of sending copies thereof to the parties concerned b*
)uoting verbatim the resolution issued on a particular case. It is the Cler# of Court0s dut* to inform
the parties of the action ta#en on their cases b* )uoting the resolution adopted b* the court. !he
Cler# of Court never participates in the deliberations of case. All decisions and resolutions are
actions of the Court. !he Cler# of Court merel* transmits the Court0s action. !his as e@plained in
the caseG1.R. No. 7%2"9, /Rhine Marketing Corp. v. Felix Gravante, et al./, here, in a resolution
dated (ul* %, 6'"6, the Court saidG/CMDinute resolutions of this Court den*ing or dismissing
unmeritorious petitions li#e the petition in the case at bar, are the result of a thorough deliberation
among the members of this Court, hich does not and cannot delegate the e@ercise of its .udicial
functions to its Cler# of Court or an* of its subalterns, hich should be #non to counsel. Ehen a
petition is denied or dismissed b* this Court, this Court sustains the challenged decision or order
together ith its findings of facts and legal conclusions./
In 1.R. No. &%377, Macario a!a"ura, et al. v. Inter"ediate #ppellate Court, et al. 5Ma* 26, 6'"&8,
the Court clarified the constitutional re)uirement that a decision must e@press clearl* and distinctl*
the facts and la on hich it is based as referring onl* to decisions. Resolutions disposing of
petitions fall under the constitutional provision hich states that, /No petition for revie ... shall be
refused due course ...ithout stating the legal basis therefor/ 54ection 6;, Article <III, Constitution8.
Ehen the Court, after deliberating on a petition and an* subse)uent pleadings, manifestations,
comments, or motions decides to den* due course to the petition and states that the )uestions
raised are factual or no reversible error in the respondent court0s decision is shon or for some other
legal basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient complianceith the constitutional re)uirement.
Minute resolutions need not be signed b* the members of the Court ho too# part in the
deliberations of a case nor do the* re)uire the certification of the Chief (ustice. For to re)uire
members of the court to sign all resolutions issued ould not onl* undul* dela* the issuance of its
resolutions but a great amount of their time ould be spent on functions more properl* performed b*
the Cler# of court and hich time could be more profitabl* used in the anal*sis of cases and the
formulation of decisions and orders of important nature and character. Even ith the use of this
procedure, the Court is still struggling to ipe out the bac#logs accumulated over the *ears and meet
the ever increasing number of cases coming to it. Remedial$legislation to meet this problem is also
pending in Congress.
In discharging its constitutional duties, the Court needs the fun time and attention of its Cler#s of
Court and other #e* officials. Its officers do not have the time to anser frivolous complaints filed b*
disgruntled litigants )uestioning decisions and resolutions of the Court and involving cases
deliberated upon and resolved b* the Court itself. As earlier stated, all resolutions and decisions are
actions of the Court, not its subordinate personnel. !he Court assumes full responsibilit*A for all its
acts. Its personnel cannot anser and should not be made to anser for acts of the Court.
IN <IEE -F !=E F-RE1-IN1, all private la practitioners, government, la*ers, government
prosecutors, and (udges of trial courts are -R,ERE, to themselves ith the above procedures and
to refrain from filing, ta#ing cogniBance of, and otherise ta#ing part in harassment suits against
officers of the 4upreme Court insofar as the latter are sought to be held liable for decisions,
resolutions, and other actions of the 4upreme Court and:or its (ustices. Instead, all such complaints
against resolutions, decisions, and other actions of the 4upreme Court must be forarded to the
Court itself for remedial or other appropriate action. An* violation of this order b* a member of the
Bar or the .udiciar* shos gross ignorance of the la and shall constitute a ground for appropriate
proceedings. In this particular case, (udge Rafael R. +baHeB, Presiding (udge of the Regional !rial
Court of Cebu, Branch 6", is hereb* -R,ERE, to IJA4= the summons issued and to ,I4MI44
Civil Case No. CEB$"%&'. =e is further ,IREC!E, not to issue summons or otherise entertain
cases of similar nature hich ma* in the future be filed in his court.
4- -R,ERE,.
Fernan $C.%.&, 'arvasa, Melencio()errera, Gutierre*, %r., Cru*, +aras, Ganca!co, +adilla, ,idin,
-ar"iento, Medialdea and Regalado, %%, concur.
Feliciano, Cortes and Gri.o(#/uino, %%., is on leave.
!oo%no%e&
6 a8 Civil Case No. CEB$"6&%$for ,amages, ith the Regional !rial Court of Cebu,
Branch 67, against the (ustices of the First ,ivision and Att*. Estrella Pagtanac, then
Cler# of Court, Att*. Marissa <illarama, Assistant Cler# of Court, respectivel*, of the
First ,ivision.
b8 Case No. -MB$<I4$'9$99;6"$of the -ffice of the -mbudsman 5<isa*as8 filed Att*.
(ulieta Carreon, et al.
c8 >etter$Complaint against the Cler# of Court ,aniel MartineB, hich as referred to
the -ffice of the -mbudsman for disposition.
<arious letters$complaints attached to the records of the folloing R. Nos. &&2;",
"339% and ";97;.
2 !he Court has received a letter$complaint from Mr. Borromeo dated Ma* 69, 6''9,
addressed to Att*s. Fermin 1arma and !omasita ,ias, Cler# of Court and Assistant
Cler# of Court, respectivel* of the 4econd ,ivision, threatening them that the* ill be
facing various charges and damage suits as *our colleagues Carreon and Marasigan
are facing,0 in connection ith a resolution issued in 1.R. No. '6939.
!he >aphil Pro.ect $ Arellano >a Foundation