Submitted by: Arvy L.

Agustin
2JD-A
Civil Procedure

Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc., Petitioner vs. Court of Appeals, et.al., Respondents
G.R. No. 127682 April 24, 1998

FACTS:

The National Investment and Development Corp. (NIDC) granted Komatsu Industries
(Phils.), Inc. (KIPI) a direct loan of P8,000,000 and a P2,000,000 guarantee to secure the
Philippine National Bank. As security thereof, a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was executed by
KIPI in favour of NIDC covering a parcel of land with all its improvements. KIPI then executed
an Amendment of Mortgage Deed covering the same parcel of land. Upon full payment of
KIPI’s account with NIDC and the 2,000,000 credit line with PNB, NIDC executed a Deed of
Release and Cancellation of Mortgage. By virtue of this release, NIDC returned the owner’s
copy of the TCT to KIPI and registered the Deed of Release with the Registry of Deed.

PNB requested the return of the TCT due to unsettled accounts based on the subsequent
amendment of the mortgage. The return was made but after a year, PNB filed for extrajudicial
foreclosure of the property. KIPI contests the foreclosure saying that the release by NIDC had
the effect of releasing the real estate mortgage.

Due to the adverse decision of respondent Court of Appeals, KIPI filed a petition for
review on certiorari which was denied by this Court for failure to sufficiently show that Court of
Appeals had committed any reversible error in its questioned judgement. Hence, in its second
motion for reconsideration, KIPI tried a different approach by assailing the minute resolutions
are in violation of the constitution, particularly of Section 14, Art. VIII.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the issuance of Minute Resolutions is valid under Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution. (YES)

HELD:

The decision sought to be reviewed and set aside is correct. The Court has discretion to
decide whether a “minute resolution” should be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any
particular case. A minute resolution of dismissal of a petition for review on certiorari constitutes
an adjudication on the merits of the controversy or subject matter.

Thus, the constitutional mandate is applicable only in cases “submitted for decision”, but
not where the petition is refused due course, with the resolution therefor stating the legal basis
thereof. Thus, when the Supreme Court, after deliberating on a petition and subsequent
pleadings, decides to deny due course to the petition and states that the questions raised are
factual or there is no reversible error in the respondent court’s decision, there is sufficient
compliance with the constitutional requirement.

Section 6, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court states that “a review is not a matter of right,
but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important
reasons thereof” ; and so there is no need to fully explain the Court’s denial.

A minute resolution denying a petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals
can only mean that the Supreme Court agrees with or adopts the findings and conclusions of the
Court of Appeals.