Facts:

Petitioner’s case for review on the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of his case on serious misconduct
and dishonesty, was denied by the Supreme through a minute resolution dated 15 June 2011. Petitioner’s
motion to rescind said minute resolution was again denied through the Court’s 21 September 2011
resolution. Upon receipt, Agoy filed a motion to rescind the same or have his case resolved by the Court
En Banc for proper disposition through a signed resolution or decision.

Issues:

Whether or not the copies of the minute resolutions dated 15 June 2011 and 21 September 2011
that Agoy received are authentic; and whether or not it was proper for the court to deny his petition
through a minute resolution.

Ruling:

Yes. The stated minute resolutions signed by the Assistant Clerk of Court and the Deputy Clerk of
Court are authentic. The signatories are duly authorized by the Court. As held in Borromeo vs. Court of
Appeals (264 SCRA 388), minute resolutions are the results of the deliberations by the Justices of the Court
but are promulgated by the Clerk of Court or his assistants to effect prompt dispatch of the actions of the
Court. Yes. It is proper for the Court to deny Agoy’s petition through a minute resolution. While the
Constitution requires every court to state in its decision clearly and distinctly the fact and the law on which
it is based, the Constitution requires the court, in denying due course to a petition for review, merely to
state the legal basis for such denial. Such legal basis is the absence of reversible error in the challenged
decision, resolution or order of the court. In addition, when there is no reversible error in the decision of
the CA and the Court denies the petition, there is no need for it to fully explain the denial, since it already
means that it agrees with and adopts the findings and conclusions of the CA.

The motion to rescind was denied for lack of merit.