Case Facts
Firestone The cases at bar involve a vast
Ceramics, tract of land 99 hectares
Inc. v CA presumed to belong to the
Republic of the Philippines, w/c
was adjudicated to private
individuals by a court alleged to
be without jurisdiction.
The validity of the disposition of
the land to private persons is
what is in question in this case.
since the validity of the decision
(the original certificate of title +
transfer certificates of title) issued
pursuant to the decision hinges
on the classification of the subject
area at the time it was
adjudicated.
However, the assailed decision
does not indicate the
classification of the land in
question, when private
respondents obtained their
decree of registration.
Issue Relevant Laws
WoN cases can SC Circular No. 2-89 (what are
be referred to the considered en banc cases):
Court En Banc 1.Cases in w/c the constitutionality/
pending a Motion validity of a treaty, int’l or exec
for agreement, law, EO, PD, PO, instruction,
Reconsideration in ordinance, or regulation is in question
one of its Divisions
[YES] 2.Crim cases in w/c the appealed
decision imposes death penalty
3.Cases raising novel questions of law
4.Cases affecting ambassadors/ other
public ministers + consuls
5.Cases involving decision, resolutions,
or orders of the CSC, comm. On
elections, and comm. On audit
6.Cases where the penalty to be imposed
is dismissal of a judge, officer, or
employee of the judiciary, disbarment of a
lawyer, or suspension of any of them for
a period of more than 1 yr/ fine exceeding
Php10k or both
7.Cases where a doctrine/ principle laid
down by the court en banc or in division
may be modified or reversed
8.Cases assigned to a division w/c in
the opinion of at least 3 members,
merit the attention to the court en banc
9.All other cases as the court en banc (by
majority of its actual membership) may
deem of sufficient importance to merit its
attention
Holding
Yes, cases can be referred to the Court en banc pending a
motion for reconsideration in one of its divisions.
In this case, there was submitted to the Court en consulta
petitioners’ Motion to Refer to the Court En Banc these
consolidated cases for the consideration of the Court. A
pleading was presented but when the same was first brought
to its attention, the Court held that since the third Division had
not yet acted on subject motions to refer the cases to the Banc,
it was premature for the Court to resolve the consulta.
However, the Court cautioned that the action of the Third
Division on the matter would still be tentative.
Considering that paragraph 9 of the Resolution of this Court
has been cited to support the majority opinion, it is decisively
clear that these consolidated cases have been found to be
of sufficient enough importance to merit the attention and
disposition of the entire Court en banc and therefore, the
prayer of the Republic of the Philippines and the private
petitioners for the Court en banc to hear and resolve their
pending motion for reconsideration is meritorious.
The finding by the Court is a reason that is compelling enough
to warrant the majority ruling that the Court En Banc has to act
upon and decide petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
This does not mean that if a Court were to entertain a case en
banc that it implies the previous division of the Court is
incapable of rendering fair justice, but simply that that the
nature of the cases calls for en banc attention and
consideration.
Taking into account the importance of these cases and the
issues raised as well as the enormous value of the area
claimed to be government property, there is merit in the
prayer of petitioners that their pending motions for
reconsideration should instead be resolved by the Court En
Banc.