FORTICH VS CORONA

Facts:

The office of the president approved the conversion of a one hundred fourty-four ( 144 ) hectare land
from agricultural to agro- industrial/ institutional area in land located at San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon
through issued OP Case No. 96-C-6424. The DAR, denied the order and invoke the RA 6657 (CARP) and
the distribution thereof to all qualified farmer- beneficiaries. The latter went on hunger strike. On the
other hand, The local government unit of Bukidnon prayed for the conversion/reclassification of the
subject land as the same would be more beneficial to the people.

The office of the president through Deputy Executive Secretary Renato Corona provided the win-win
resolution to settle both parties; 100h subject to CARP and 44 hectares for reclassification. However,
Governor Fortich opposed and appealed to such order.

In seeking the nullification of the "Win-Win" Resolution, the petitioners claim that the Office of the
President was prompted to issue the said resolution "after a very well-managed hunger strike led by
fake farmer-beneficiary Linda Ligmon succeeded in pressuring and/or politically blackmailing the Office
of the President to come up with this purely political decision to appease the 'farmers,' by reviving and
modifying the Decision of 29 March 1996 which has been declared final and executory in an Order of 23
June 1997.

The respondents, through the Solicitor General, opposed the petition and prayed that it be dismissed
outright.

ISSUE:

WON the proper remedy of petitioners should have been to file a petition for review directly with the
Court of Appeals in accordance with Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court

WON the proper remedy is rule 45 or Rule 65

DECISION: No In this particular case, the remedy prescribed in Rule 43 is inapplicable considering that
the present petition contains an allegation that the challenged resolution is "patently illegal" 43 and was
issued with "grave abuse of discretion" and "beyond his (respondent Secretary Renato C. Corona's)
jurisdiction" 44 when said resolution substantially modified the earlier OP Decision of March 29, 1996
which had long become final and executory. In other words, the crucial issue raised here involves an
error of jurisdiction, not an error of judgment which is reviewable by an appeal under Rule 43. Thus, the
appropriate remedy to annul and set aside the assailed resolution is an original special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65. Wherefore, petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged Resolution dated
November 7, 1997, issued by the Office of the President in OP Case No. 96-C-6424, is hereby NULLIFIED
and SET ASIDE
Fortich v. Corona

Carlos Fortich was then provincial governor or Bukidnon and Renato Corona was the Executive Secretary
of then President Macapagal-Arroyo. Garilao was then Agrarian Reform Secretary.

Facts:

On November 1994, then Agrarian Reform Secretary Garilao denied the application for conversation of
hectares of land from agricultural to agro-industrial use and ordered its distribution to qualified landless
farmers. BAIDA (Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Development Association) and NQSR Management and
Development Corporation filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied. Thereafter, then
Bukidnon Governor Carlos Fortich sent a letter to then President Ramos requesting him to suspend the
Garilao Order and to confirm the ordinance enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao converting
the subject land from agricultural to industrial/institutional land. Acting on the letter, then Executive
Secretary Torres reversed the Garilao Order and upheld the power of local government units to convert
portions of their agricultural lands into industrial areas. Subsequently, Garilao filed a motion for
reconsideration. Admittedly tardy, which was denied by then Executive Secretary Torres on the ground
that the decision had already become final and executory (in view of the lapse of the fifteen-day period
for filing a motion for reconsideration)? A second motion for reconsideration was filed during the
pendency of which President Ramos constituted the Presidential Fact-Finding Task Force. On November
1997, then Deputy Executive Secretary Corona issued the herein-assailed "win-win" resolution which,
pursuant to the recommendations of the task force, substantially modified the Torres decision by
awarding one hundred (100) hectares of the Sumilao property to the qualified farmer beneficiaries and
allocating only forty four (44) hectares for the establishment of an industrial and commercial zone.

Motions for reconsideration were filed and a resolution was promulgated regarding this case on April
1998 affirming the assailed Corona decision. In a November 1998 resolution, the Supreme Court voted
two-two which affirmed the April 1998 resolution, again on separate motions for reconsideration filed
by the respondents. Now, respondents argue that the November 1998 resolution did not effectively
resolve the matter inasmuch as the matter should have been referred to the Supreme Court sitting en
banc, pursuant to Section 4(3), Article 8 of the Constitution.

Issue:

Whether or not the matter should have been brought to the Supreme Court, sitting en banc.
Held:

A careful reading of Section 4(3), Article 8 of the Constitution reveals the intention to draw a distinction
between cases and matters such that cases are “decided” while matters, which include motions, are
“resolved”. Otherwise put, the word “decided” must refer to “cases”; while the word “resolved” must
refer to “matters”, applying the rule of reddendo singula singulis. This is true not only in the
interpretation of the concerned provision but also of the other provisions of the Constitution where
these words appear.

With the aforesaid rule of construction in mind, it is clear that only cases are referred to the Court en
banc for decision whenever the required number of votes is not obtained. Conversely, the rule does not
apply where, as in this case, the required three votes is not obtained in the resolution of a motion for
reconsideration. Hence, the second sentence of the provision speaks only of “case” and not “matter”.
The reason is simple. The above-quoted Section 4(3), Article 8 pertains to the 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. On the other hand, if a case has already been decided by the division and
the losing party files a motion for reconsideration, the failure of the division to resolve the motion
because of a tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided. There is still the decision which must
stand in view of the failure of the members of the division to muster the necessary vote for its
reconsideration. Quite plainly, if the voting results in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is lost. The
assailed decision is not reconsidered and must therefore be deemed affirmed. Such was the ruling of
this Court in the Resolution of November 17, 1998.