VICTORINO C. FRANCISCO vs.

WINAI PERMSKUL AND CA

GR. NO. 81006, MAY 12, 1989
CRUZ, J.

FACTS:
Permskul, lessee of an apartment, deposited Php 9,000 to lessor
Francisco. After a year, and 10 days he vacated the property and requested
the refund of his deposit minus Php 1,000 for the 10 days occupancy after
the expiration of the lease. Francisco refused and alleged that Permskul still
owed him for electricity and water bills and Php 2,500 for the repainting of
the leased premises. After a summary of judgement, METTC ordered
Francisco to return Php 7,750 after deducting only the water and electricity
bills. RTC affirmed this by a memorandum decision reading in full as follows:
“After a careful and thorough perusal, evaluation and study of the records of
this case, this Court hereby adopts by reference the findings of facts and
conclusions of law in the decision of METTC of Makati, Br. 63 and finds that
there is no cogent reason to disturb the same. Wherefore the judgment
appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto.” Francisco challenged the
constitutionality of memorandum decisions.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the memorandum decisions are valid.
2. Whether the incorporation by reference was a valid act that effectively
elevated the decision of METTC for examination by the CA.

HELD:
1. YES. The purpose by the Constitution in requiring that decisions
shall express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it
is based, is to inform the person reading the decision especially the
parties of how it was reached by the court after consideration of the
pertinent facts and examination of the applicable laws. It will also
give the losing party an opportunity to analyze the decision, then
appeal or be persuaded to accept the decision. Third, it will serve as
precedent in the resolution of future controversies and to expedite
the termination of litigations for the benefit of the parties as well as
the courts.

2. YES. Though merely incorporated by reference in the memorandum

decision of the RTC, RTC judge’s decision was available to the CA. It
is this circumstance that spared this case from constitutional
infirmity. The same circumstance moved the SC to lay down a
requirement as a condition for the proper application of Sec. 40,
which is: “The memo decision to be valid, cannot incorporate the
findings of facts and conclusions of law of the lower court only by
remote (challenged decision not immediately available to the
person reading the memo decision) reference. Incorporation by
reference must provide for direct access to the facts and the law
being adopted, which must be contained in the statement attached
to the said decision.