Cl 1/\ P'I El< 7

Tl IE IJEUSION

A "dt·ci:,ion" is I.he ,1djud ica lion or ~e tllemenl of a contro versy

by a courl of l;:iw . II goes into the roots of the controversy,
makes a
!->L'J rchi ng exami natio n of the facts and the issues of the case,
applie s the
l,1w i\nd consid ers the evid ence prese nted, and dete rmines the
righ ts of
th~ pa rtics. 1 This is di stin gui shed from a "judg ment"
which is a
detc>rm i11.:i tion by lhc court that the acc used is gu il ty or not guilty
of the
offe11'·W charged, and the impo sition of the prope
r penalty and civil
lia bility prov ided fo r by law on the accused . It is usuall y the
dispo sitive
porl ion of a decisi.on, but may be used interchan geabl
y with the term
decibi on itsel f.?

CONSTITU TIO NA L M A N D ATE

To be vali d, decis ions should comp ly with the fo rm,

pron·du rl', .ind :,ubslan t.ive requi re ments la id ou l in the
Const itutio n,
th(' Ru lc:s of Cuurl , ;ind the circul ars and orders of the Sup
reme Court.'
/\rtid,· VII I, S(•clion 1'1 of th e Cons titu ti on provides lhal:

No <.Jt.cii:.;ion ~h,l ll be rende red by any court without

<· xrn•i;:,ini ~ thc n•in rle<1 rly ,ind cl isli n, ll y tht· fac ts ,md
th(' l" w on whirh it iH basl'd .

No pl'li l ion for n·v il'W or mo tion for reconsideration

of ,1 d vr ii.io n of th,· ro 11 rt l'l h ,1 II be rrf11sl·d d ue course
u r de 11 1l'd wilho 11I sl l1 lin g the lvgc1 I basis therefor.

1
!'1 111 ll' l 'I N I I 11
\ >H I A I A< A ll i MY 1-\ It.J I lAMl ' N I /II ()[• t )11("1 <, ION W il l I IN(' H l l{
) LJ l)l' I ',
'
Hi (2009).
l,t .t i 7 J '
' \I, l.1 r,l, . v ,
1
' '1 1. d Ju •,111 ,. '.,n, ll'ly , ( ;,1<. Nu . l'i 1/'"1'/, i\ t1d l 7K, •WM
 17 6 f L EG4L M ETHOD ESSENT IALS 3 .0

Consi stent wi th this. consti tution al mand ate, Seerton l of R

. . .
es: u1~
36 of the Rules of Court o n Civil Proce dure s11rnla rly provid

Sec. 1. Rendition of judgments rznd fi11nl orders. _ A

judgm ent or final order determ ining the merits of the
case shall be in writin g perso nally and directl y
prepa red by the judge , sta ting clea rly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by
him and filed ,,v ith the clerk of court.

In the same vein, Sectio n 2 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court on

Crimi nal Proce dure reads as follow s:
Sec. 2. Form and con tents of judgments. - The judgment
must be writte n in the official langu age, personally
and d irectly prepa red by the judge and signed by him
an d shall contai n clearl y and distin ctly a statem ent of
the facts prove d or admit ted by the accus ed and the
law u pon which the judgm ent is based .
Pu rsuan t to the Const itutio n, the Supre me Court also issued
judges
Admi nistra tive Circu lar No. 1 on Janua ry 28, 1988, promp ting ail
e
"to make comp lete findin gs of facts in their decisi ons, and scrutiniz
evidena:
closely the legal aspec ts of the case in the light of the
form
presen ted ... They shoul d avoid the tende ncy to genera lize and
sions are
conclu sions w ithout detail ing the facts from which such conclu
deduc ed ."~

The Const itutio n and the Rules of Court identi fy two essential
parts of a judgm ent: the body an d the decreta l portion. Altho ugh
the latter
where thc
is the con trollin g part, the forme r is impo rtant becau se it is
law on
court clearl y and distin ctly states its findin gs of fact and of
which the decisi on is based . 5 Accor ding to the Supre me Court:

The term find ings of fact tha t must be found in the

body of the d ecisio n re fers to s ta temen ts of fact, not to

citing People v. J\ lvero, ~1~

' Yao v. Cou rt of Appeals, C.R. No. 132426, Octobe r 24 ' 2000' L-65,,••
N 0 695 64 G.R. No.
· , Janua ry 29, 1988 an d Pengso n v. Interm ediate Appe lla te Court,
June 29, 198-1 .
23, 20 12.
' Univer~ ity of the Ph ili ppine~ v. Dizon, G.R No. 1711 82, August
►

f HF D 1:c1s10N I t 77

e
conc lusio ns of law. Unli ke in p leadi ngs wher
the
ultim ate facts alon e need to be sta led,
only
Cons tituti on and the Rule s of Cour t requ ire not
also
that a decis ion shou ld state the ultim ate facts but
facts,
that it shou ld specify the supp ortin g evid entia ry
for they are wha t are calle d the findi ngs of fact.6
ce of the
The Supr eme Cou rt has discu ssed the significan
constitutional prov ision in this way:
14,
Faithful adhe renc e to the requ irem ents of Section
a
Article VIlI of the Cons tituti on is indis puta bly
It
para mou nt com pone nt of due proc ess and fair play.
of the
is likew ise dem ande d by the due proc ess claus e
be
Cons tituti on. The parti es to a litiga tion shou ld
n
infor med of how it was decid ed, with an expla natio
the
of the factu al and legal reaso ns that led to
say
conc lusio ns of the cour t. The cour t cann ot simp ly
st Y
that judg men t is rend ered in favo r of X and again
n
and just leave it at that with out any justificatio
led
what soev er for its actio n. The losin g party is entit
er
to know why he lost, so he may appe al to the high
n
court, if perm itted , shou ld he believe that the d ecisio
ly
shou ld be reve rsed. A decis ion that does not clear
h it is
and disti nctly state the facts and the law on whic
was
based leaves the parti es in the dark as to how it
g
reach ed and is preci sely preju dicia l to the losin
s of
party, who is unab le to pinp oint the poss ible error
than
the cour t for revie w by a high er tribu nal. More
es
that, the requ irem ent is an assu ranc e to the parti
gh
tha t, in reach ing judg men t, the judg e did so throu
a
the proc esses of legal reaso ning . It is, thus,
e,
safeg uard agai nst the impe tuos ity of the judg
d
p reventing him from deci ding ipse dixit. Vouc hsafe
on
neith er the swor d nor the purs e by the Cons tituti
e
but none thele ss veste d with the sove reign prero gativ

'Id
178 I LEGAL METHOD E SSENTI ALS 3.0

of passing judgm en_t on the life, li~e rty or pro perty of

his fellow men, the Judge mu st ultim ately depen d on
the powe r of reaso n for s ustain ed publi c confidence
7
in the justne ss of his decis ion.

Due proce ss dema nds that the partie s be given inform at·ion on
the fact 1
how the case was decid ed, as well as an expla natio n of ua and
the court. 8 Thus - d
legal reaso ns that led to the concl usion s of 1U ges I

to ensur e that their decisi ons presen t a

shoul d exert effort
finding s that
comp rehen sive analy sis or accou nt of the factua l and legal
9
substantially addre ss the issues raised by the partie s.

Altho ugh Sectio n 14, Articl e VIII of the 1987 Constitution need
dings and
not apply to decisi ons rende red in admin istrat ive procee
10
s, the Court
applie s only to decisi ons rende red in judici al proce eding
n by labor
has ruled that this requi remen t exten ds to decisi ons writte
Relations
arbite rs. The failur e of a labor arbite r and the Natio nal Labor
n of their
Comm ission to expre ss the basis for their decis ions is an evasio
11
const itutio nal duty that const itutes grave abuse of discretion.
or
This mand ate applie s in cases "subm itted for decision,"
and/or other
given due cours e after the filing of briefs or memo randa
an order or
plead ings, as the case may be. It is not applic able to
rari.12 The
resolu tion refusi ng due cours e to a Petiti on for Certio
state tht>
const itutio nal mand ate only requi res that the decisi on should
adopting lht>
facts on which it is based . It does not prohi bit court s from
the parties,
narrat ion of facts made in the briefs or memo randa of
instea d of rewri ting the same in their own word s.
13

<\I 'l' I\), (, K

Y· C ci/i,w Pl•ople " · ' ' L C\.~- ,- , ,
ao v. ourt of Appea ls, C.R. No. 132426 O ctober 24 2000
7
I I "-'
'
te Appell .ite Court, C.R. No- ·
N o. 69564 , Janu ary 29, 1988 and Pengso n v. Interm ed ia
June 29, 1984 . ., _!\'l1pk ,·
• N' . 88709, Februa ry l I, 199 L , R 1111 ui1'
icos lndu s t nal Corp. v. Co u rt of Appea ls, C.R . No.
ino v. Nationa l L,it>or i' •
Judge Bdlaflo r, C .R. No. 103275, Jun e 15, 1994; An
Commission, C.R. No. 123226 May 21 1998 .
'•Md· ' '
10
S al'~id v . Court of Appea ls, C .R. No. ] 30683, May J I, 2000.
I fume~, Jn c. v. La serna, C .R. No. 16605 1 Af1 ril 8 ' 2008.
0 1
.
" Miguel v JCTG,roup, Inc., C .R. N o. 157752, Marrh '
N , · 16, 2005.
12
unal v . Cornrni s~ion on Appoin tmenti. , C.R . No. 78648, Ja nuary 24, 198 9.
11 .
He rnand ez' v · Co urt 0 f A ppeals, C .R N o. 104874, Occt•m bt•r 14, 1993.
 foe Dec,•,,oN I 17')

ORlES OF DECISIONS
REPOs]T
A· S)'stem that adheres lo binding precedent req .
. . u1 res the
. tion of reported cases. The offio al repository of Su pre C
I
pubJCa .. . ,. • • me ourt
14
. ·ons is the Pluhppme Re ports. Unofficial reporters · 1 d
dec1s1 inc u e
Su reme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA), which is published b
Ce~tral Books15 and whid1 is also available online.16 Supreme Cou~
decisions available from SCRA begin from 1901 to the present. Another
unofficial repository, CD Tedmologies Asia, makes the complete text of
Supreme Court decisions available on DVD and online. ' 7

The Supreme Court' s decisions and resolutions are available

online.1~ The Court issued a Resolution holding in abeyance the
uploading of unsigned extended resolutions and unsigned resolutions
\,ith opinions to the Supreme Court Website. Pursuant to Rule 14 of the
Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, the Court resolved that the
following resolutions be uploaded to the Supreme Court Website:

(a) Unsigned Extended Resolution which disposes a case after

the filing of the comment; and

(b) Unsigned Resolution, whether Extended or Minute, with

separate, concurring, or dissenting opinions." 19

PERSONAL OPINIONS OF JUDGES

The Supreme Court frowns upon the inclusion of personal

views in court decisions. The decision of a court should contain only
opinion that is relevant to the question before the court for decision.
After all, courts are not concerned with the wisdom or morality of law s,
but only in the interpretation and application of the li!w . Judges should
refrain from exp ressing irrelevant opinions in their d ecision which m,1Y

' C!-una /\." 1·

S.1·htt ·/ir in~i, v· Chiok, G·11, . No. 152122, July 30,
. 2003.
Srr h .
P- /central .com.ph/centralbooks/.
ttp //cent J
Stehti . ra .com.ph/escra/.
P-//ivww tl ·
· St1 http·// . ._c a:,iaonline.com/.
. In r,, D · .:,c .Jud ic1ary
· .gov .ph/.
)) ~ :,1ons/R , t . ,, 7 1 SC (N,,tic<:-), Juli'
~ 2014 c:,o uti ons for Uploading to SC Websi!I.', A.M. N,,. l.. · - ,
 THOD E SSENTIALS 3.0
180 I L EGAL ME

favorably upon their competence and the p .

only re fl ect un ropric:ty
. . d' . ctuations.20 Intemperate speech detracts f f>f
their JU icia 1 a rorn
. ·t d ,·udiciousness that should be the consta nt hall th~
equarnn11 Y ai1 · mark~l)f
· · 21 ~
dispenser o f 1ust1ce.

FORM OF DECISIONS
The Constitution does not prescribe a form for decisions
although certain guidelines shoul~ be observed by judges.22 Brevity i~
writing decisions is desirable but 1t should not be used as a substitute
for substance.23 A judge must make an effort to explain his or her
opinion and to support it with law or jurisprudence.24

In writing a decision, judges are not required to adopt a florid

and dramatic style. The Supreme Court has said that "the decision
[should] be lucidly crafted, complete in all its vital details, to enable the
parties involved to understand how the judge arrived at his
conclusions." 25 Judges must write decisions and resolutions with due
care, and make certain that they accurately reflect their conclusions and
final dispositions. 26 Judges should prepare concise but complete, as well
as correct and dear decisions, orders, and resolutions. 27

The Supreme Court in Velarde v. Social Justice Societf

suggested the following as essential parts of a good decision: (1)
statement of the case; (2) statement of facts; (3) issues or assignment ot

]!) Director of Prisons v. Ang Cho Kio, C.R. No. L-30001, June 23, 1970.
21
Balagtas v. Sarmiento, Jr., A.M . No. MTJ-01-1377, June 17, 2004.
12
Fo~ an excellent piece on opinion writing sec Gerald Lebovitz, et al., Eth ical Judicial Opm,.-~
Wnting, 21 GEO. J. LEG . ETHICS 237-309 (2008). See also Ruth C. Vance, Judicial Opirri,m Wnt,ni
An Annotated Bibliography 17 J. LEG. WRJTJ NG I NST. 197-231 (201 1).
D Yao v. Court of Appeals, C .R. No. 132428, October 24 2000. .
2
' People F . ·. . ' ..
d . . v . rnncisco, C.R. No. 106097, July 21, 1994. The Constitut ionc1 I provisi,)n «Pf -~
,u~,1•'
Necisioru; of the Natio na I La bor 1~, elations
. Commission. See Miguel v. JCT (C roup, I11d v
, o. 157752, March 16, 2()()5.
.} Peo le v c
lJ, • p · era), C.R. No. 145731 Ju ne 26 2003 .
Lim v. Cha11 GR N 0 . ' . ' . . . En1pll'Y'"~
Asso -. 0. ' '· · · !23891, l·ebruary 28 200 ci titw Caltex Refinery C GR
na on v. Brill ' • NLR , ·
0
Nos. 102 _ antcS, C.R. No. 123782, Sl!ptembcr 16, 1997 and Saball,i ' ·
v .
472 84, August 22, 1996.
Off Ke of the Court Ad . . Ii 2004
~ G.R N mini st ra tor v. Espanol, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1872, October 1 '
. o. 159357, April 28, 2004.
 THE D tc1~1or, 1 18 1

. (4) cou rt ruli ng, in whi ch eac(5) h issu e is, as a rule, sep arate! y
··
I d d fi II a d.1spos1hve por tion .2~
.d d and reso ve ; an , na y,
<'rrors,
t-ons1 ere
iety, a regi ster ed political
Jn that case, the Social Justice Soc
Relief aga. ins t several reJi g1·0 us
_ filed a Pet itio n for Dec lara tory .
,
Part) . which it alleged to be end ors ing the can did acy of can did ates for
. . .
It
lea der!> to vot e for spec1f1ed can did ates.
elective office or urg ing me mb ers
ged acts of end ors em ent or urg ing
_ u ht to clarify wh eth erI the se . alle
. h ·
:,o g · · on t e sep ara hon of chu rch and
viola te the Con sht uho na pro v1s10n it
isio n nar rati ng pro cee din gs before
state . The trial cou rt ren der ed a dec
sep ara tion clau se.
and discussing the leg al issu e on the
cou rt's dec isio n con tain ed no
The Cou rt obs erv ed tha t the tria l
me nt ther eof . The dec isio n clearly
statement of facts nor any ass ess
Mo reo ver , the cou rt a quo did not
violated the con stit utio nal dire ctiv e.
is imp orta nt bec aus e the disp osit ive
include a disp osit ive por tion wh ich
trol ling fac tor tha t det erm ine s and
part of the decision or ord er is the con
que stio ns pre sen ted ther ein. The
settles the rights of the par ties and the g
n ind eed fail ed to dec ide any thin
Court ruled tha t the ass aile d dec isio It
and hav ing a disp osit ive por tion .
for not mak ing a stat em ent of fac ts
arly the facts and the law on whi ch
stated that dec isio ns mu st exp res s cle ure
they are based, as req uire d by the
Con stit utio n, the Rul es of Pro ced
Jud icia ry. It like wis e cite d a line of
and an adm inis trat ive circ ula r of the ns.
cases emp has izin g the ma nda te
of ma kin g pro per and val id dec isio
e Co urt dis mis sed a jud ge
In Sebastian Jr. v. Reyes, the Sup rem
30
ting ,
after it was sho wn tha t she fail
ed to put her jud gm ent into wri
en
rea d it fro m the com put er scre
merely req uiri ng the acc use d to
Co urt dis mis sed Jud ge Rey es from
without assistan ce of cou nse l. The

ion or prol ogue, tlilci

., The-re are other non-esse ntia l parts
of a d ecis ion s uch as an intro duct . ' S an'
. l or nov t,J .i::.su<
tp,logue' wh·ich may b e used espe ciall y in case s whe re cont rovers1<1 . .· . t,
111 volved A . rt, a n intr odu ctio n may cons ist of a conu::.e ut
c · ccord mg to the Cou ·
- . In sOJm 'cas es -
• e/s o f t I1e case
. l fac tua l or lega l 1ssu
. cipa • ·
vnipr c-hensive sta Ieme nt of the pnn . , · J .. · •ntific
. lnlt ma , sot '
Particuldrly those concernm . lic inte rest or invo l ving com plicated C<)ll
lt·chn ·
g pub •
· f orm ,
· ders with
orhe rwi~ · r are s ubje ct m a tters - a long er intr odu ctio n may 111 n ii
ical ur. ·1 1n t)' be a
1ht 5 ogue
J)eCJ/ic natu re O f the cont rove rsy and the issu es in volv ed . An epi '
sun, . . ·. . Of P
aram uun t
rnation of th e imp· . . lutw n of the issu es
public · orta nt prin cipl es app lied to the reso . ·1 h)' of l,1w or
st
l.nlere . or s · , 'f• ce. It m ay a lso lay dow n an end urin g P 111 osop
guiding igm ican 2 2004 -
' A -~. it:;;. 1
~- Vela rde v. Socia l Jus tice
Soci ety, C.R. No. 159357, April 8,
J 06- 1638, Sept emb er 18, 2009.
 ESS ENTIALS 3.0
182 I LCO /ll METHOD

. It found that the verbal judgment she render ed was in .

servi ce. . v1ola!i
·i·tution . It prono unced that a verbal Judgm ent is . ()n
of t I1e Cons t ineffecr 1
•t does not respect the right of the losing party to know thve
beca use I
. f r hi's/lier loss for purpo ses of appea l to a higher court· w·Jtho e
reason o · ·
. ,, s the party would be .unable to point to the possible error\ ut
t I, cse re<,5011 ,
whi ch the higher tribun al may review .
Studen ts of law should read the Velard e decision for guide!i
. d . . 31 V an d evelde32 lists nesth
on variou s parts of a well-w ntten ec1s1on.
fo llowin g compo nents of a decisio n which have been reduced to th:
ba rest outline here:

1. Facts
An opinion usuall y begins with a descri ption of facts. It is a
narration of events that gave rise to the disput e submitted for
the court's resolution.

2. Procedural Histor y
This portion describes the events that occurr ed in the trial or
lower appell ate court during the course of the litigation
beginn ing with the filing of a compl aint.
3. Question Presen ted

These are the questions that appellant is asking the court to decide.
4. Rule of Law

To receive the issues raised, courts annou nce rules of law.

These are the princip les that apply to the case before the court.
5. Application of Law to the Fact

This is the part of the decisio n that determ ines whethe r each
elemen t of each rule apply to the fac ts befo re it.
6. Holdin g

)1 Sl't: a/so Reynato S p ..

ll K EN NETt-t J VANO : uno, Dec1sw11 Writi ng, 4: 14 1' 1111.J A )U RIOICA L JO URN 1\ L 1-28 (2002)._ •1~u
R~,,5()1'
. EVELD E, T HI NK! ' I ..
27 -32 ('I 99 8). N C , IK!o A L A WY ER: AN INT RO DUCTION ro L EGA L
 THL Drc,1010►1 1103

n,is is the decision of the cour t with respect to a question

presented.

7. Disposition
TiliS is essentially a procedu ra l d irective of some kind that
, d . . :n
gives effect tot h e court s ec1s1on. -

The following is a short example that shows parts of a

Sllpreme
Court decision. (Citations are o mitted in the reproduction)

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

------
KARLO ANGELO G.R. No. 193960
DABALOS y SAN DIEGO, Each case is
Petitioner, assigned a
Present: docket
number
CARPIO,/., when filed .
Chairperson,
BRION,
- versus - DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ and
PERLAS-BERNABE,//.
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 59, Promulgated:
ANGELES CITY January 7, 2013 - - - - This is the
(PAMPANGA), d ate the
REPRESENTED BY ITS decision was
PRESIDING JUDGE MA. promulgated.
ANGELICA T. PARAS-

., Id.
 -
ltOD £ S!11 N li AI S 30
184 I L r oAL M l, l -

QU IAMB AO; T H E
OFFIC E OF Tl I E C ITY
PROSECUTOR,
ANGEL ES CITY
(P/\M PANG A); AND
A BC,
Respo ndent.

DEC TSIO N

PERLAS-BERNABE,/ .: The surna me~ th

Justice who wrote P
TJ, e Cour t will not read into Repu blic Act (RA) No. the decision or th e
9262 a provi sion that woul d rende r it tooth less in th e
II
ponente" is
pursu it of the decla red policy of the State to prote ct written here.
wom en and child ren from violence and threa ts to
their personal safety and secur ity.

Before the Cour t is a petiti on for certiorari and

This is the
prohi bition assail ing the Orde rs dated Septe mber 13, / statement of
2010 and Octob er 5, 2010 of the Regio nal Trial Cour t the case. It
(RTC) of Ange les City, Branch 59 in Crim inal Case explains the
No. 09-5210 which denie d petiti oner' s Moti on for nature of this
Judicial Deter mina tion of Proba ble Caus e with case.
Motio n to Quas h the Infor matio n.

The Facts

Petitioner was charg ed with viol · n of Secti on 5 (a)

of RA 9262 before the RTC of Ange les
These are
59, in an Infor matio n whic h states : the facts of
the case.
That on or abou t the 13th d ay of
July, 2009, in the City of Ange les,
Philip pines, and withi n the
jurisd iction of this Hono ra ble
Court, the above-nam ed accus ed
being then the boyfr iend of th~
 the n an d
co rnp l;,i na nt, . . . d id
fu ll y an d
ihe ,e \•/rlf ull y, un l aw
a l v io le n c1::
f(-lo ni o u '> ly u s e p e rs o n
ion ] the co mp l~i na nt,
by ~ u Jii ng
mp la in an t' s
her h air , pu n ch m g co
le ft ey e,
bac k, sh ou lde r an d
thereb y d e me a ni ng an d
d eg rad ing
the com pla ina nt' s int rin
sic wo rth
and dignity as a hu ma n be ing, in
of th e
vi olation of Section S(a)
Republic Ac t 9262.

After exa mining the su pp

or tin g ev ide nce, the RTC
d co ns eq u ently, iss ue
d a
fou nd probab le cau se an
tit ion er on No ve mb er 19,
i~'arrant of arrest ag ain st pe
bo nd for his pro vi sional
Z009. TJ;c lat ter po sted a ca sh
2010, filed a Mo tio n for
)Jlw rty and on Au gu st 12,
Pr ob ab le Ca us e wi th
Judicial Deter mi na tio n of ed
Motion to Quash the Inf
orm ati on . Pe tit ion er av err
ed inc ide nt on July 13,
that at the tim e of the all eg
2U09, he wa s no lon ge r in
a da tin g rel ati on sh ip wi th
pri va te respo nd en t; he nc e,
RA 9262 wa s ina pp lic ab le.

t he r
In hn affid avit, pri va te
res po nd en t ad mi tte d tha
d en de d pr ior to the
er ha
rr •)i1 tionship with pe tit ion 9,
•,ubJl!C f incid ent. She na rra
ted tha t on Ju ly 13, 200
mo ne y sh e ha d len t to
·,IH' .,uught paym en t of the
uld no t pa y. Sh e the n
JJd il io11 er but the latter co
inquirl'd from pe titi on er
if he wa s res po ns ibl e for
r wh ich he ad mi tte d.
,prl'.Jc.ling ru mo rs a bo ut he
en t sla pp ed pe tit ion er
Ti,(• reupo n, priv;,ifL, res po nd . I. . .
,J thl' IJlt (\r Io m
••ll.h ll1ll . tel on Iier tI, e p I1ys1ca m1un es
. fl'
,dl1•1> j ''11 1Iw Jnforn,atio n.
I
r,ll
 Th< RTC Ruli:-,g

TI-.,2 RTC der:se<l petiuoner"s m o tion. H d:d r:o~

( Jf15:ufl
,_,,- c·"",faJ ch.: faG that the parties· d atin g
W l Gl - • C

" c-L• p had

, "'uiJns,u
rc,a - cea::--e<l prio r to the inadent.
ratiocinating fuat since the parties h ad admitted a
prior dating relationship, the infli~on of sli_ght
physical injuries constituted an act of v10lence agamst
,rnmen and their children as defined in Sec. 3 (a) of
RA 9262.

Issues
The Court
identifies
Hence, the instant petition raismg the following the issues or
issues: 1) whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the assignment
offense; 2) whether RA 9262 should be construed in a of errors.
manner that v.rill favor the accused; and 3) whether
the Information alleging a fact contrary to what has
been admitted should be quashed.

The Court
The Court's Ruling ------- makes a
ruling and
then proceeds
The petition has no merit. to explain it
in the "ratio"
of the case.
Petiti:oner insists that the act which resulted in
physical injuries to private respondent is not covered
by RA 9262 because 1·t ·
. s proximate cause was not their
dating relationship J st. d -
ff - · n ea , he claims that the
o ense committed was I .
under the R . d on Y slight physical injuries
ev1se Penal C0 d:, h' h
jurisdiction of th M . . e w IC falls under the
e umc1pal Trial Court.
 THr o•C1•,10111 I 187

fl,C Co urt is not persuaded.

Sec. 3 (a) of RA 9262 reads:

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms . - As

used in this Act,

(a)"Violence against women and their

children" refers to any act or a series
of acts committed by any person
against a woman who is his wife,
former wife, or against a woman
with whom the person has or had a
sexual or dating relationship, or
with whom he has a common child,
or against her child whether
legitimate or illegitimate, within or
without the family abode, which
result in or is likely to result in
physical, sexual, psychological
harm or suffering, or economic
abuse including threats of such
acts, battery, assault, coercion,
harassment or arbitrary deprivation
of liberty ....

11,e law is broad in scope but specifies two limiting

quaUfications for any act or series of acts to be
considered as a crime of violence against women
through
physical harm, namely: 1) it is committed
against u.,. woman or her child · the
and the woman 1s
uffende ' . ·
r s wife, former wife, or with whom he has or
had sex I ·
h ua or datmg relationship or with whom h e
a:i a common child; and 2) it results in or is likely to
result in h .
P Ys1 cal harm or suffering.
- -
188 I L EGAL METHOD ES SENTIAL S 3 .0

In Ang v. Court of A11pcnls, the Cour t en u merdtcd th e

clem ents of the crime of violence agains t wome n
throu gh haras sment, to wit:

I. The offen der has or had a

sexua l or datin g relati onshi p
with the offen ded wom an;

2. The offen der, by hims elf or

throu gh anoth er, comm its an
act or serie s of acts of
haras smen t again st the
wom an; and

3. The haras smen t alarm s or

cause s subst antia l emot ional or
psych ologi cal distre ss to her.

Nota bly, while it is requi red that the offen der has
or
had a sexua l or datin g relat ionsh ip with the offen ded
wom an, for RA 9262 to be appli cable , it is not
a
indis pens able that the act of viole nce be
conse quen ce of such relati onsh ip. Now here in the
law can such limit ation be infer red. Henc e, apply ing
the rule on statu tory cons truct ion that when the law
does not distin guish , neith er shou ld the court s, then,
dearl y, the puni shab le acts refer to all acts of viole nce
a
again st wom en with whom the offen der has or had
sexual or datin g relat ionsh ip. As corre ctly ruled by
ip
the RTC, it is imma teria l whet her the relat ionsh
had cease d for as long as there is suffi cient evide nce
show ing the past or prese nt exist ence of such
relati onsh ip betw een the offen der and the victim
when the phys ical harm was comm itted .
the
Cons eque ntly, the Cou rt cann ot depa rt from
's
paral lelism in Ang and give cred e nce to petit ioner
the
asser tion that the act of viole n ce shou ld be due to
sexua l or datin g relati onsh ip.
 I H1 Dr ( ,1•. ..,,, 11~';/

~ ... n the Court co ns tru e the s ta tu te in f"v f

N~ither L,, . ... or 0
. . ,er u sing the rule of lc n1ty beca use th ere i"-
w tif 10 1 ., no
I . ,·ty in RA 9262 lhat woul d necess ita te ,
;in1b1gu . . 3 cJny
construction. Whtie th~ d egree o f physical h.:irm
l 1'
,.,A 9262 and Article 266 of the Revised Pe 1
uncer • • • na
Code are the same, there 1s sufhc1enl justification for
·cribing a higher penally for the former. Clearl y
pres . . . . . ,
the legislative intent 1s to purposely impose a more
severe sanction on the offende rs whose violent act/s
h ,sically harm women with whom they have or had
p )
,, sexual · re 1ahons
or datmg . h 1p,
' an d/or their children
,vith the end in view of promoting the protection of
women and children.

Accordingly, the Information having su fficiently

alleged the necessary elements of the crime, such as: a
dating relationship between the petitioner and the
private respondent; the act of violence committed by
the petitioner; and the resulting physical harm to
private respondent, the offense is covered by RA 9262
which falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC in
accordance with Sec. 7 of the said law which reads:

SEC. 7. Venue. - The Regional Trial

Court designated as a Family Court
shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over cases of violence
against women and their children
under this law. In the absence of
such court in the place where the
offense was committed, the case
shall be filed in the Regional Trial
Court where the crime or any of its
elements w as committed at the
option o f the complainant.
 190 f L EGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0

Finally, the Court finds the Order of the RTC, giving

the prosecutor a period of two (2) days to amend the
Infom1ation to reflect the cessation of the d ating
relationship beh-veen the petitioner and the offended
party, to be in accord with Sec. 4 of Rule 117 of the
Rules of Court, to wit:

SEC. 4. Amendment of complaint or

i11.fonnation. - If the motion to
quash is based on an alleged defect
of the complaint or information
which can be cured by amendment,
the court shall order that an
amendment be made.

Furthermore, Sec. 14 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court

provides that an information may be amended, in
form or in substance, without leave of court, at any
time before the accused enters his plea. In the present
case, the accused petitioner has not yet been
arraigned, hence, the RTC was correct in directing the
amendment of the Information and in denying the
In a civil ca.~
motion to quash the same.
the dispositi'1e
portion shot:::
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The state whethtr
Orders dated September 13, 2010 and October 5, 2010 the complai'.':
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City or petition 15
Branch 59 in Criminal Case No. 09-5210 are granted N
AFFIRMED . The Temporary Restraining Order denied, th~
specific ~i:·!
issued by the Court is LIFTED and the RTC is
granted 3r.u
directed to contin ue wi th the proceedings in Criminal the c0St:--
Case No. 09-5210.

SO ORDERED.
. · ·stratil'r
Tl1eoret1cally, every decision of a lower court or adn 11 n1
b0 d Y can come up to the Supreme Court for review. A revie · w vf '1

criminal conviction wo uld typically look like the following case.

 1111 Dr ,
r:1,l')t1 I 19 I

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R . No. 181184

MEL DIMAT,
· Petitioner,

Present:
Criminal cases
VELASCO, JR., J are brought by
the People of
Chairperso
the Philippines
PERA
- versus - because the
State is the
EREZ and offended party
PEOPLE OF THE PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. when crimes
are committed.
PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. Promulgated:
January 25, 2012

Justice Abad is
DECISION the ponente or
author of this
Decision.
ABAD, J.:

Cases
This case is about the need to prove in the crime of sometimes
"fencing' tha t the accused knew or ought to have begin by
kn0wn th.at the thing he bought or sold was the fru it providing the
r,f theft or robbery.
reader with an
idea of what
the case is
about.
 192 I LEGAL M ElliOD ESSENTIALS 3 .0

The Facts and the Case

The governm ent charged the accused Mel"'-

Dimat with violation of the Anti-Fen cing La w before
r.fhe~
110
the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 03, in the faq._,i
1
Criminal Case 02-202338. th
1 e ca"' ·
Samson Delgado , togethe r w ith Jose
Mantequ illa and police officers Danilo Ramirez and
Ruben Familara , testified in substanc e that in
Decemb er 2000 Delgado 's wife, Sonia, bought from
accused Di.mat a 1997 Nissan Safari bearing plate
number W AH-569 for !2850,000.00. The deed of sale
gave the vehicle's engine number as TD42-1 26134 and
its chassis number as CRGY60-YO3553.

On March 7, 2001 PO Ramirez and fellow

officers of the Traffic Manage ment Group (TMG)
spotted the Nissan Safari on E. Rodrigu ez A venue,
Quezon City, bearing a susp1c10us plate
number. After stopping and inspectin g the vehicle,
they discover ed that its engine number was actually
TD42-119136 and its chassis number CRGY60-
YO31J I. They also found the particula r Nissan Safari
on their list of stolen vehicles. They brought it to their
Camp Crarne office and there further learned that it
had been stolen from its registere d owner, Jose
Mantequ illa.

Mantequ illa affirmed that he owned a 1997

Nissan Safari that carried plate number JHM-818,
which he mortgag ed to Rizal Commer cial Banking
Corpora tion. The vehicle was ca rn apped on May 25,
1998 at· Robinso ns Ga lleria's p arking area. He
reported the carnapp ing to the TMG.

For his parl, Dima t claimed that h~i-d r:ot

--
The evidl'n.:t>
in favor oi th~
~now Man ~equilla. f_·fr bought th:)297- N.:Sa n Safari defense 1.~ a·1~(\
in good ta1t-f, and for value .J-mrn a certa in Manue l ex,1111in~d bi
Tolentin o under a d eed of ~nle tha t gave its engine courts.
number as TD42-126134 and its ch nss is numbe r as
 icle to
~cYoO-Y03553. Di~a t later sold the veh
an
C do He J lso claimed that, a lthou gh th e Niss
d d 1
o dg,1 . sold to Delg a o an t 1e one wh ich the police
.h
s,Jfan e e pla te num ber
···~r'- took into cust ody had the snm
• ,
0 ttJ1.."- -
. re not acn1 ally the sam e vehi cle.
t11eY '' e
On July 20, 2005 the RTC found Dim at g uil ty
ced
. . Iation of the Anti -Fen cing Law and se nten
ot V!O
him to an imprison men t of 10 year s, 8 mon ths, and 1
dav of prisio11 mayor to 20 year s of reclu
sion
' oral · TI1e cour t also orde red him to pay
temp 0 as
µsS0,000.00 as actual dam ages and PS0,000.0
exemplary dam ages, as well as the costs of suit.
On Octo ber 26, 2007 the Cou rt of Appeals These
RTc /"
(CA) affir med in CA- G.R. CR 29794[2] the paragraphs
t of
decis ion but mod ified the pena lty to impr ison men explain the
s vears and 1 day of prision mayor in its med ium decisions of the
day trial cour t and
period, as mini mum , to 17 year s, 4 mon ths, and 1
d, as the Court of
of reclusion temporal in its max imu m perio
Appeals.
maximum, thus, the pres ent appe al.

The Issu e Pres ente d

The sole issu e pres ente d in this case is

sed
wheth er or not the CA corr ectly rule d that accu
the
Dimat knowingly sold to Soni a Delg ado for gain
Nissan Safari that was earli er carn appe d from
Manteguilla.

To d etermme
.7
The Ruli ng of the Cou rt liability for the I
crime of
The elem ents of "fen cin " fencing, all the
th the accu sed, who took no elements of
eft has been com mitt ,
. , possesses,
part in the ro bb ery or theft , "buy s, rece ives the crime must
keeps . be present.
' acquires, conc eals, sells or disp oses , or. buys
and sells ·
. ' or in any man ner deal s in any artic le or
06Ject hike " d · h
n urm g that robb ery or theft ; (3) t e
IIM 11., OAI M, TIii >11 r nn, Nll/11 ii ::,,0

. , I I 'il"\.V " 01· •qho11ld hnVl' know n !hr.i i lltl' thin he,
,l CC'lt:<l I\ • • ,,

d ,: riVl'1..I froll\ lhal cri llll'; und (4) he l11l1·11ds by

tl-w
di:-.11 lw makes lo gn in f1>r h intSl'l f ur for o nollw r.

l frre, si>llll'(Hle carna ppcd Mnn lc:quil l n's Nis...,,u,

S.,f.,ri on May 25, ·t998. T wo years la ter in Decem be r
2()00, O irn nt sold it lo Delgil do fo r

}J.850,0 00.00. O ima t's ddens e i_s thnl the Nissa n Safari
lw b,)Ught from Tolen tino and later sold to Delga do
h:1d engine numb er TD42-126134 and chass is numb er
CRGY60-YO3553 as evide nced by the d eeds of sale
cover ing those transa ctions . The Nissa n Safari s tolen
from Mante quilla , on the other hand, had engin e
numb er TD42-119136 and chassi s numb er CRGY60-
YO311 l.
The Court
But Dima t's defen se is flawe d. Firs explains
Nissa n Safari Delga do bough t fr·~-, ~=1m , when why it is not
stopped on the road and inspec ted by the police, persuaded
turned out to have the engin e and chassi s numb ers of by the
the Nissa n Safari stolen from Mante quilla . This mean s defendant's
that the deeds of sale did not reflec t the correc t arguments.
numb ers of the vehicl e's engin e and chassi s.

Secon d. Dima t claim s lack of crimin al intent

as his main defens e. But Presid ential Decre e 1612 is a
special law and, theref ore, its violat ion is regard ed as
ma/um prohibitum, requir ing no proof of crimin al
intent . Of course , U1e prose cution must still prove that
Dima t knew or shoul d have know n that the Nissa n
Safari he acqui red a nd la te r sold to Delga do was
derive d from theft or robbe ry and tha t he inte nded to
obtain some gain out of his acts.

Di.mat testifi ed tha t he met Tolen tino nt the

Holid ay Inn Casin o where the latter gave the Nissa n
Safari to him as colla teral for a loan . Tole ntino
suppo sedly showe d hi1n the o ld ce rtifica te of
regist ration dnd official receip t uf the vehicl e .md e ven
promi sed to give him a new certifi c.ite of regis lril lion
 THE Decm10N J 195

. . r •ceipt already in his name. But Tolentino

d offic1a1 c
.,n •d on this promise. Dimat insists that
rl'negl.. , failure to deliver the documents should
r0Jcnt1t10 5 . .
c'ttdice him 111 rlt1Y way. Delgado himself could
not pr J ice :rny certi·f·,cate o f reg1.s t ration
. or official
not prod \ •
",ceipt.
----,
Based on the above, evi~ . . , Oiroat kRew-- The Court
that the Nissan Safari he bought w as not properly makes its
docun1ented. He said that Tolentino showed him its conclusions '
,,Id certificate of registration and official receipt. But based on its
this certainly could not be true because, the vehicle examination
of the
having bL>en carnapped, Tolentino had no documents
evidence.
show. That Tolentino was unable to make good on
10
his promise to produce new documents undoubtedly
confirmed to Dimat that the Nissan Safari came from
an iUicit source. Still, Dimat sold the same to Sonia
Delgado who apparently made no effort to check the
papers covering her purchase. That she might herself
be liable for fencing is of no moment since she did not
stand accused in the case.
The Court
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the
I upheld the
decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 26, conviction.
2007 in CA-G.R. CR 29794.

SO ORDERED.
Designated as additional member in lieu of
Associate Ju stice Jose Catral Mendoza, per Raffle
dated August 8, 2011.

THE DISPOSITJON O R DISPOSITIVE PORTION

inu!>t b· To g~t the true intent and meaning of a decision, the same
,1nJ uo,t considere d m· its
· entirety.
· ·
H e nce, a resolution or ru 1·mg· may
'=S appear in other parts of the d ecision and not m erely in the fa/lo
 1961 LEGAL M ETHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0

thereof.:14 Whatever may be found in the body of the decision can Ont,
.
be considered as part of the reasons or conclus1ons of the court and,
. .
while they may serve as gmde or enlightenment to deter mine the ,
1
decidendi what is controlling is what a ppears in the .dispositive Part'" of'J
' . . .
the decision.35 The resolution of the court m a given issue _ embodi
in thefilllo or dispositive part of a decision or order - is the contr 11 .ed
. . . . 0 ing
factor in resolvmg the issues m a case. The Jallo embodies the courts
decisive action on the issues posed, and is the part of the decision thai
must be enforced during execution. The other parts of the decision onl·,
contain the ratio decide11di (or reason for the decision) and, in this~-
assume a lesser role in carrying into effect the tribunal's disposition of
the case. 36

If there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or the f:i!l.;

and the body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on lhc
theory that the Jallo is the final order while the opinion in the body~
merely a statement ordering nothing. However, where the inevitable
conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that the.--e
was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision wt'.
prevail.37

The Supreme Court has departed from the general rule "to r'2
able to do justice and equity to all concerned." In Republic of i..~!
Philippines v. de los Angeles,38 the Court explained that " the provision oi
the Constitution of the Philippines regarding the form of judgmen'.:
constitutes the conclusion and findings of facts and law of the court~
integral parts of the judgment, so tha t the judgment must be :n
accordance therewith, hence it can be said that there is constitutior.J.'.

·" Republ ic oi tht.' Phihppint..'S v. de los Angdes, G.R. ~o. L-2o 112 Cktot><'r -l lq-i
" Tropic-al Homes, Inc. v. Fortun, G.R. N,,. 51554 J.1m 1an' 13, 1Cl89. _ ~
.. So v. FooJ Fest Land, Inc , C.R. Nu. 183o2S ft'bm-.1~ 9, 201 I. In ,m1.1.th<'r ,J:.-c. tJ-,,, l ,'-·
l'\plained UtJ t whil,• lht' bo1.i v 01 the de,:1s1on order or r~!ution nllgh! en'<!!<' :--C:
.1mbwu1ty '
in the m.i11 ner th l' court • . • · h · ~= n'<' f' ;t·,,
0 !- rt' ,ts,inmg prt..'p1.)11derate:.. 11 LS t e 1.11.:,~~- • • ..__
· I11
that fina lly invi:>st.:.- ng , . tr):,< r :.. ·
. :. upon tht..' p,irllcs ,-,?t:, cond1twn::: k1r tht' t..''<' fO...-< 1'· . 1. _ , \
.ind •mpo~>s• the corr,~~pon J 1·ng dutit.>:- 1.,r ,>blt~anon:-. Florentin-<> ~ RIH••-.1, I..··'
s......,
lb79o8 January 2.J, 2006 '
: Gonz.:ib ,. Solid Ci?nwnt Corpora tion. G R. "\o. Iqs.e.l 0.:-w~r !J. 201 :'..
G.R No. L-2611::!, CA."tober ~. 19:;-1_
 T1-1F DEc,s,oN 1
197

examine the other parts of a decisio n whenev .t

an t to . . . er 1 15.
,,· 31-r determin e the mearung of tls dispositi ve part"
nt?(.--e.s..,<:a ry to .
The general rule applies when the dispositi ve part of a fina l
. order is definite, clear, and unequiv ocal and can be .
dt'09 on or . . . ' given
-• ..,..t wholly without need of mterpre tahon or construc tion_ 39 The
elk'-
. ns where the d.1spos1·ti ve part o f th e JU
. d gment does
not alway
e\Ll:'ptlO
S
.. ,·er the body of the opinion are as follows:
p,e\al1o
(a) where there is ambigui ty or uncertai nty , the body
of the opinion may be referred to for purposes of
construi ng the judgmen t because the dispositive
part of a decision must find su pport from the
decision' s ratio decidendi; 40

(b) where extensiv e and explicit discussio n and

settleme nt of the issue is found in the body of the
decision. 41

(c) where the inevitab le conclusi on from the body of

the decision is so clear as to show that there was
a mistake in the disposit ive portion, the body of
the decision will prevail. 42

lf there is ambigui ty caused by an omission or mistake in the

dispositive portion of a decision , the court may clarify such ambigui ty
oy an amendme nt even after the judgme nt had become final, and for
his purpose it may resort to the pleading s filed by the parties and the

'J(lr 5
, . • v pou~~ Badua, C. R. No. 149125, August 9, 2007.
Ll')f /'rurn, t 11 .
14
r .!' Y oldings, Inc. v. Diesel constructi on Co., Inc., C .R. No. 200250, Augu 5t 6•
th
, . In h ca'><:, the Court held that in ca~e of ambiguity or uncertaint
;,n,,in ,if d d · · y in the dispositive
tmirm, the br,dy of the decision ma y be scanned for guidance in construing· h
I c
1j
' ?,fril'lll_
, v· I
•• -"H, On, < h · . ·
LH ~. 2,Jl'JO.g ing K,a11 Ch ung v. Director of the Na tional 31502
Library, C.R . No. 1 '
I·
''•Pie I
' 0 1th~ b,.,d .acli,,yan, C .lt No. 125006, A ugu s t 3 1, 2000. In one Cilse, the Court held
, 'J Y c,f d · •
'·, f1,rr,i,. , d l T t&i <m prevaib over the fa llo when " the inevi table cone 1u 5 ·ion f om
r
J,. ',, th.i t ther . . . .
1r,r, 1</II
1 '= W <1 i, tJgla ring e rror in th e la tte r, 1n w h1c h caste
, 'th body of the
c
' prevd d " 5,.
1 , . . . .
·•·r11h1-, -,
2 ' f fl Credit Co rpora tion v . Court o f Appeilb, G.R· N0 · 109648,
' , ,00 1
 198 I L EGAL M ETHOD E SSENTIALS 3.0

court's findings of facts and conclusions o f law as exp ressed in th

of the decision. 43 e bc)dy
Where a doubt or 1111cerfainty exists between the dis . .
. . positive
and the body of the dec1s1on, the Court mu st ha rmonize the forrne P3rt
the latter to give effect to the decision's intention pu
, rposer With
substantive terms. As the Court explained, " [d ]oubtful or arnb· and
1
judgments are to have a reasonable mtendment to do justice and guou,
•
av .
wrong. When a judgment is susceptible of two in terpretations th t oid
, a W11!
be adopted which renders it the more reasonable, effective, and
conclusive, and which makes the judgment ha rmonize with the facts
and law of the case and be such as sought to have been rendered.4-1

Where there are inaccuracies in the dispositive portion, a court

is not precluded from issuing a writ of execution with the correct
address of the subject property. This act falls within a court's inherent
power "to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them
conformable to law and justice." 45

The court is also not precluded from resolving inaccuracies by

resorting to the body of the decision. While the general rule is that the
dispositive portion of a decision becomes the subject of execution, the
body of the decision becomes controlling when there is ambiguity or
uncertainty in the dispositive portion or when there is extensive and
explicit discussion and settlement of the issue found in the body.46

Thus, although the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals

ruled that "although the prayer for dismissal of the complaint in Manila
may be pursued before said court during the proceedings," the trial

n G alan g v. Court of Appeals, C.R. No . 139448, October 11, 2005.

" Jo rdan v. G rand e ur Security & Services, Inc., C .R. No. 206716, June 18, 2014.
.
' Monte bon v. Court of Ap peals, C .R. N o. 180568, July 13, 2009. In this .:Jsc, the r•<•ionJI
5 tnJ1
l " .
.
co urt already assu m ed jurisdiction over the case. As su ch, the Metropoht;in n, T ·al Court 11 .1>
lutl'
no longer in a position to correct the e rror conta ined in the dispositive portion. Th? \ ;
d evolved upon the Reg ional Trial Court before w h ich the a ppc•al w,is pelll:r111& ,s· to( fl"-
1
.
kriol
the error contained in the dispositive po rtion o f the judg men t sou gh t to be execu tl'd-. .. ,J bi
. . .
error or amb1g u1 ty in the dispositive portion of a judg men t may be rect,·f·,cd or d..,1nh•
f · · . prev,·ously !tle11·
re erence pnma n·1y to the bod y of the d ecisio n itself a nd the plendmgt. · . S02 Jun,'
"' w 1·1son 0 ng Cl1mg
· ·
Klan Chung v. Directo r of the Na tio na l L1br;i r
ry, C · ' · No · !JI '
8,2000.
pz
r11 r Or C1 'l10N I 1~CJ

tw ·th .
. , foi ling to res olv e the mo ti on to dis miss. No 1 '> lan din g
ti t' rt'l'l l 11 •
Co urt uf Ap pea. ls d ecis ion S('P mcd to
,, ,
11 J ' _ ,itiv e por tion of the
. . .
,;t:-f -' 0 ·· . . th b d
11 tht' t . ., cou rt d1scret1on m res olv mg the said mo tion, e o y of
rh, 1
r tht' n.. rt sho uld di·s m ·1ss t he
~r.in , ·i,iu
J t:\. n dea rly hel d tha t the trial cou
..:;in1~ -
for um sho ppi ng.~1
r1,c · ' h, , rou nds of liti~ f'C11dcntia and
-1 ..:t't' l1 t l g
l• .

TY OF FIN AL JUD GM EN TS
THE l"'R! NClPL E OF IMM UT AB ILI
A {in.-il jud gm ent ma y no lon
ger be alte red , am end ed, or
t to
nHxl ified even if the alte rati on, am
end me nt, or mo difi cat ion is mea n
law •
•1 wha t is per cei ved to be
a n err one ous con clu sio n of fact or
pla ted
, or add ma tter s not clea rly con tem
(\"lfft'l
.\rw attempt to ins ert, cha nge
uta bili ty of
in 'thcc> disp osit ive por
tion vio late s the rul e on imm
bec om e fina l and exe cut ory is
iudgmentsY A jud gm ent tha t has
y no lon ger be mo difi ed in any
imm utable and una lter abl e, and ma
tion is atte mp ted to be ma de
respect regardless of wh eth er the mo dif ica
hig hes t Co urt of the lan d.49 The
br the court ren der ing it or by the on
of qua si-j udi cia l age nci es mu st,
rudgment of cou rts and the aw ard of
bec om e fina l eve n at the risk
somt' defi nite dat e fixe d by law ,
50
occasional errors.
(a) to avo id del ay in the
This doc trin e has two pur pos es:
pro ced ura lly, to ma ke ord erly the
adm inis tration of jus tice and thu s, l
(b) to p ut an end to jud icia
discharge of jud icia l bus ine ss; and why
ona l err ors , wh ich is pre cise ly
controve rsies, at the risk of occ asi
courts exis t. s1
cal ity to be eas ily bru she d
The d oct rine is not a me re tec hni
le
as we ll as a tim e-h ono red prin cip
aside, but a ma tter of p ubl ic pol icy
ot procedural law .

l,;n I li\.1R l'hils ~ 2014.

t'r11I 111.Js t C ' Inc., G.R No. 2014 83, Aug ust 4,
No 17 1897 Oct obe r 14, 2015 .
\ Jtn 1dad "M o. v. Spo uses Roxas, G.R . . ,
.
'-<;,i;gu,ua · anan o, C.R. No. 179643,
Jun e 3, 2013 . 162226
I . . App hca .
. ltun f IJNOC' G ·R. No.
ng
;, ~XJIutiunJ 5(, BJra nga) ' E it o
v . ·xp oral ion Perm
· ·ptem ber 2, 2013.
 200 I LEOAl. M EH-10 0 E SSEN Tl/\1 S 3.0

There are exceptions to the rul e on the immu tab·i· I I l y (J f f

. , . .
1
judgments, which are (I) the 1.:o rrecl1on of cleri ca l e r ro r <, ,, ( na '
. h. h . d. ' 2) th.-, .
c.1 lled n1111r prv lun e en t rr es w rc cause no preJu ice to an Y party )')...
(3) void judg ments. 51 ' df'd

Another recognized exception is the existence of a '> u pervenin

cause o r event which renders the enforcement of a fi nal and execu ~
decision unju s t and inequitable .54 The principle of imm utab·i· tor/
I Hy of
•
judgments allows courts, as an exception, to recognize circurnstan
that transpire afte r the finality of the decision which would render 5 :s
execution unju st and inequi table and act accordingly.ss

THE SYLLABUS
The syllabus of cases in official or unofficial reports of
Supreme Court d ecisions or resolutions is not the work of the Court, nor
does it sta te the Court's decision. The syllabus is the work of the
reporter who gives his understandin g of the decision. The reporter
writes the syllabus for the convenience of lawyers in reading the
reports. A syllabus is not a part of the Court's decision. According to the

" TI1e Su p reme Court is n ot precluded from rectifying errors of judgment if blind and
s tubbo rn adherence to the doctrine of immutability of final judgments" would involve the
sacrifice of justice for technicality." See FGU Insurance Corp. v. Regional Trial Court oi
Maka ti City, Branch 66, C.R. No. 161282, February 23, 2011.
" SM Land, Inc. v. Bases Conversion and Development Authority, G.R. No. 203655
(Resolution), September 7, 2015. Clerical e rrors cover all e rrors, mistakes, or omissiofu th.it
result in the record's failure to correctly represent the court's d ecis ion. Courts Jr<' mJt
11
authorized to add terms it never adjudged, nor enter orders it never made, Jlthoubh
s ho uJd ha ve made s uch addi ti ons o r entered su ch orders. To be cle rical, the error or mi, IJk<'
th
mus t be plainly du e to inadvertence or negligence. An example of a clcrir:il enw is •'
interch ange of the words "mortgagor" and " m ortgagee'." N 1111c p ro t11 11c is L:itin fur n,ii,· ll1f
th
then." Its purpose is to put on record an a ct which the co urt pe rformed, but omittt-d fr,,m <'
record ~hrough inadvert en ce or mis take. It is 11<>t intend ed to rt>rnkr a new judp n<'nt ,H
' . . I . d ' l)l' Jk th~
s upp IY th e co urt s rnactr on. A 111111c prv /1111c e ntry may be used to ma ke t w n•cor ~, 1 11·J
truth, but n ot to m ake it speak wh a t it Jid not !>peak bu t o ug ht lo hJVl' sp,ik<•n. t\ '
. :I ri••hb c,1n
JU d gment or order has no lega l and binding effect. It does n ot divest rig hts ,rn, IHI
0

. ·d d . . . . . t t fl.' e,1u,1lll
b e o b ta rn<. : un er rt; a ll proceeJrngs founded u pon a void iudgrm 11 '
worthless. Set' Co v. Echavez, C. R. No. 174542, Augus t 3, 20 15.
" Libongcogon v. l' I IIMCO Indus tri es, Inc., C. R. No. 203332, June 18, 20 1-1.
>J J>hil. Ail'lincs, Inc. v. Uich,ua, C. R. No. 213729, SPptember 2, 201 5.
 --
THr Drc,,,llO N120 t

ce of th
·ou nse l sh ou ld no t cite a sy lla bu s ,n pin e carl'fu lly
a L • • f
Co u rt. Ru le Jo o2 f C
. o a no n IO of
C11urt, d t·ex t in the de c1 sto n o . the ..
,,~idt>re on al Re sp on s1 bd 1ty rn an da t es !hi a lt1' wy er sha ll not
l t
l·o · Pr ofe ssi . , .. .
J {
. . • •. ision f
hC' Coue o mi.sq u ote o r. mr s re prcs cn t lh<: tex. t of ;i d ec . o r <1utho n ty.
t . ly
~ 110,,nng
. . . f , co u rt. to cite th e rulin gs a 11 d d ec1.. s1on s
du l)' of all off rce rs o the ·
51
11 is the rcm e Co ur t ac cu rn te ly. '
ot the Sup ote de cis ions of the
ers an d liti ga nts are ma nd ate d to qu
La wy strictly a 6 .d.
ur t ac cu rat ely . Ju dg es s ho u ld do no les s by I mg
, t::~ Co gm en ts an d
suprcn
e n the y qu ote ca se s tha~ ~u pp or t the ir jud
b)' thi s rule wh t en,·oi ns the m to
Ca no n 3 of the Co de of Jud1 cta l Co nd uc
. ·on s
Jcc1st · fu l to the law an d
m off icia l du tie s dil ige ntl y by be ing fai!-h
rerfor 57

int ain ing the ir pr ofe ssi on a l co mp ete nc e.

ma
er
nki11g Co rpo rat ion v. Co ur t of Appea/s,58 La bo r Ar bit
In Allied Ba Dosch v.
d fro m the Su pr em e Co ur t's de cis ion in
Ahnirante qu ote lud ed the
lat ion s Co mm isi on . 59
Th e La bo r Ar bit er inc
Nat ional Labor Re co ns ide red
al to ob ey a tra ~s fer or de r ca nn ot be
phrase "/r]ef us id ref us al, su ch as
tio n wh ere em pl oy ee cit ed rea son for sa
insubordina de cis ion , wh ich ,
aw ay fro m th e fam ily " as pa rt of the qu ote d
that being t Re po rts An no tat ed
ity is a he ad no te fro m th e Su pr em e Co ur
in actual bit er for mi sq uo tin g
us. Th e Co ur t th us ad mo ni sh ed the La bo r Ar
syllab fo un d in
ing tex t fro m the s yll ab us oth erw ise no t
its decisio n by inc lud rk of the
pl ain ed th at the sy lla bu s is no t the wo
the decisio n its elf. It ex

dia, G.R . No. 144412,

rat ion v. Co urt of Appeals ,md Galan
Allied Banking Co rpo pea ls, G.R. No.
nd1 Oil Mi ll Ma chi ner y Co ., Inc. v. Co urt of Ap
11:owmbc r 18, 2003 citing Fre Co ., Ltd., Employees Ass
0cialion-
km ber 11, 199 8, and Ins ula r Life Assurance .
1264n, Scp l, Janua ry 30, l 97l
Co., Ltd., C.R. No. L-2529
NJtu v. fn~utar Life Ass ura nce since that (\ISL' w,1s not
. No . 152 122 , Jul y 30, 2003. HowL•vcr,
lliind Airlines v . Ch iok , G.R
ld not rule on lhc Co urt
,if Appe,1ls Ju st ices'
, the Su pre me Co urt cou
,idmini 5lralive in nature ·dings, tlw
urt po int ed o ut tha t in ,tdmini str.iti w pwet.•i
Co
Jdmini~trative liabilit y. The before s.inctio ns c;m bl' imp
osl'd.
mu st firs t be giv en .in op po rlu nit y to be hea rd 0n ,llld w.t s nut
c,·ipoocienls pc,1ls ' Dc cisi
11 e at bar wa s an ap pe al from the Co urt of Ap - 'd ti ~, "ltj hes e two
addi•d lha t the cas •· C . 11
. lhe ma gis trn tcs con cer ned . llw ou1t 5• "
in lhe s.i nw
Jn adm inis ra1JVe cas(• ag;un s
•1 - l I b, 1ixt •d
,1111I c.in no t: n i · Oll
- .
d tc fro m eac h olh cr lllll l'
0 115 ind c,pen ent of and sep,1rn f i) ' dl'l 1'fl
'
, Ml' sc, lhl ' Co urt cou c c>f
J lO(l't?din,•s" w· I r ad mi nis tra ti ve c,1 l'f , tlw Co urt
t o· · JI 1 00 1 any pro pe 1) ·
1
•1tthw th(' P rror in . on wo uld bl' suf fic icnl lo revl'rse or llll ll
A, >, , quo lali
' r I t dk D,·n~ion.
i e, r<. No 1444 12, Novembe r 18, 2003.
' (. I( No ·

I l -'i lJ8 2, July 5, 1983.

I
 202 I LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0

Court and is therefore not part of the Court's decisio

.
cited in place of carefully consider ed text .in the decision
n. It ca
b nl"\<Jt bt
merely the work of a reporter who gives his/her own u decausl' it i~
of the decision . n ersta .
nd1ng

THE CERT1FICA TION

Article VIII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution provid

es that:
The conclusi ons of the Supreme Court in any case
submitte d to it for decision en bane or in division shall
be reached in consulta tion before the case is assigned
to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the
Court. A certificat ion to this effect signed by the Chief
Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to
the record of the case and served upon the parties.
Any Member who took no part, or dissented , or
abstaine d from a decision or resolutio n must state the
reason therefor. All lower collegiat e courts shall
observe the same requirem ents.

The certificat ion requirem ent is a new provision introduced by

the 1987 Constitu tion. It is meant to ensure the implementation of the
constitut ional requirem ent that decision s of the Supreme Court and
lower collegiat e courts are reached after consulta tion with members of
the court sitting en bane or in a di vision before the case is assigned to a
member thereof for decision -writing. The decision is thus rendered by
the court as a body and not merely by a member thereof. This is in
keeping with the very nature of a collegial body that arrives at its
decision s only after delibera tion, the exchang e of views and ideas, and
the concurre nce of the required majority vote. 60

The absence of the certifica tion, however, does not necessarily

mean that the case submitte d fo r decision was not reached in
. .
consulta tion before bemg · · of the
assigned to one member for the wnting ._
· · o f the court, since
the regular perform ance o f o ff'ICial· dut\'' ~
1
opm10n

IAJ Consing v. Court of Appeals, C.R. No. 78272, Augui;t 29, 1989.
 r11r Drr.,•,irm 1 :>o:i

of certificn tion serves as ev idence of fail ur(• t

, ·n,c Iack · , .
·(· ation requirement and may be br1s1s for holding the
0
n1cJ .
,,;t1
prt•· the cerlr ,c . .
Such absence of
~er,•e .1_ 1 for the om1ss1on lo account therefor.
1)b• 0 nsw e . . .
flid~I resp ot have the effect of mvn hd at rng the decision/ti
o . does n
•fi ciltJOI1
c-rrh ything promulgated by the Supreme Court requires
Nol ever . . .. .
. The certificahon requiremen t refers to dec1s1ons rn judicial,
1011 · ·
ccrt1·fjcat . .· tive cases . ·'.From th e very b egmnmg, resol utions or
d011n1stra , . . .
not a f the Court in admm1strat1ve cases have not been
O
dccr •sions ·cd by any form a J cert,•f'1cahon. · In fact, sueI1 a certification
3ccornpa:' a superfluity in administrative cases, which by their very
v.
,ould bhave to be de 11·berate d upon cons1.d enng . the collegiate
nature,. . of the Supreme Court. But even if such a certification were
rnpos111on
co . d the signatures of the members who actually took part in the
require ' h f h th e conclusions of the
. t· ns and voted attest to t e act t at
dehbera 10
arrived at after consultation and deliberation.62
Court were
A per curiam decision - one where there is no ponente - does
63
not requi re formal certification.
The Supreme Court has also held that a minute resolution need
not be signed by the members of the Court who took part in the
deliberations of a case nor does it require a certification of the Chief
Justice. To require members of the Court to sign all resolutions would
delay the issuance of its resolutions and a great amount of their time
would be spent on functions more properly performed by the Clerk of
Court and which time could be more profitably used in the analysis of
cases and the formulation of decisions and orders of important nature
and character. 64

When a decision is promulgated by a Division of the

Supreme Court, the Division Chair attests to the fact that the
decision was reached in consulta tion before it w as assigned to the
writer of the opinion. Therea fter, the Chie f Justice certifies that " the
co nclusions in the above d ecision were reached in consultation

" Id
,. p
nidential Uank
" IJ v. Castro, A.C. No. 2756, M..irch 15, 1988.
" Bo11nrn 1
t-<: v, Court of A t
ppea s, C.R. No. 82273, ) une I, 1990.
204 I LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0

before the case was assigned to the

wri ter of the
Co urt' s Division." For example: Opinion of
the

ATTESTATION

attest that the conclusions in the

above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARJJIO
Associate Jus tice
Chairperson

CERTI FICATlON

Pursuant lo Sec tion 13, Article Vlll

of th1~ Con stitu tion , and the
Division Chairperso n's All lista lion,
l ce rlify lhM t:hl· conclus ions in th~
;1h11vc Dc,isiun h;:id bee n reoc hl'd in
(Ol1 tiU1lotiv 11 l.,e(orc lhl ' GlSC
W,\S
;1sslg1wd tu the writer of the
npinion of thc Cou1•t'1-; nlv ii-io11.

J,ENATO C. COl{ONA
Cliil'f )w, ticc
 Tm Drc.1'11n~, 1205

in l~cc;olution<, o (
. .. r·on is also mad e by lhe Chief Justice
Crrlit1 c;1 ,
.. 1 r 1ec1or;i l Trib unnl."s
)n'~f
•Jcnl1,1 -
t/1t' l ''

' J\NDUM DECISIO N .

MF~~oi-: .. ado pt by reference
·andum dec1s1ons. ;ire those whi ch . .
Mc111or
. . ,s of f:icl and conclus ions of lnw of infe ri or tribunals. The
f d . . . f d . . of the
th(
. f,11d 111g.
i... _. for this type o ec1s1on 1s oun 111 section 40
rory 5
·. I-ion ;\ct of 1981' (,(, thus:
11,1s1
~1,1111
. _. , Rcorga niza .
/ud1l 1,lr)
SL'C- 40. Form of decision in appealed
cases. - Every
app eale d
decision of final reso luti on of a cou rt in
findi ngs
cases sha ll clearly and dist inct ly sta te the
whi ch it is
of fact and the con clus ions of law on
decisio n or
base d, which may be con tain ed in the
renc e from
final resolution itself, or ado pted by refe
reso luti on
those set forth in the dec isio n, ord er, or
appea led from .
the constitu tional
Memoran dum decisions do not violate
state the facts and the law
regui rerne nl mandating that decisions sho uld
wou ld be more pru den t for
on which the deci sion is based. How eve r, it
but
mem oran dum deci sion not to be limited to the dispositive portion
3
10 stale IJ1e nature of the case, sum
mar ize the facts with references to the
the applicable laws and
rl'cord, and contain a stat eme nt of
and conclusions on the
jurisprudence and the trib una l's asse ssm ents
rt to mak e an app rop riate
me. This practice wou ld bett er ena ble a cou
tion of the judg ment sought
considerati on of whe ther the dispositive por
of fact and conclus ions of
lo br enforced is cons isten t with the find ings
decision. This is particul arly
law made by the tribunal that rend ered the
ons cam e from a cou rt in
lrue where the decision s, ord ers, or reso luti
ent of the dec ision s would
another jurisdictfon. Otherwise, the enfo rcem

'<T l\1;.• V M 002, Mil rrh 29, 2005, and Lrga rda v. o~,
Ca,tru I' [ · J(;Jp,igal-Arroyo, P.E.T. C 1se No.
I':~~
• R.H.: Ca~e No. 003, March J I, 2005 .
l ,1nsa Big. 129 (1981).
 200 I u c1 A1 M• llfOn Eofl1 Nr 1A1. .'.I 3.0

. ,.
be u,ls·r d on fJr<'su mpti ons .thnl. lnws in o lhe r jurisdiction 'i.
, llw eXJJen se o f JUSll c c basl'd on the merit s 1,7 are c;·1 .
llll r I[I W."
, , r11 rn1lar 1,
• I

Tnco rpo ra tion by refere nce is a ll owe d to avoid the

. . ( h I curnber'><J
,·c,, rodu clion of the d ecision o t e ower court s, or portion h rn~
·
the decis ion of t.hc hi g her co urt. 'fh 1' s ,s · parl,c· u larly tru es t ereof
, 1n
d ecisio n soug ht Jo be .mcor po rnte d is.· I
a eng thy and thorough diWh1:n th1:
of the fo cts and concl us,on. . d t 61!
s arnve a . SCU5~10
n
The Supre me Cour t has sanct ioned mem orand um de .
. .
the g round s of exped iency, pract1.cal,ty .. . c1s1ons on
, conve nienc e, and dock t
~ . e status
of our courl s.6'1 In l· ranc1sco v. Pennskul,7° the Cour t
laid down
condi ti ons fo r the va l1.d.1ty o f mcm oran d um d ec1s1o
. . ns: lhe

The memo randu m d e cision , to be valid, canno t

inco rpo rate the findin gs of fact and the concl usions of
law of the lower court only by remo te reference,
which is to say that the challe nged d ecisio n is not
easily and imme diate ly availa ble to the perso n
readi ng the mem orand um decis ion. For the
incor porat ion by refere nce to be allow ed, it must
provi de for direc t acces s to the facts and the law being
adopt ed, which must be conta ined in a statem ent
attach ed to the said decis ion. In other word s, the
mem orand um decis ion autho rized unde r Section 40
of B.P. Blg. 129 shoul d actua lly embo dy the findings
of fact and concl usion s of law of the lowe r court in an
annex attach ed to and made an indis pensa ble part of
the decis ion.

It is expec ted that this requi reme nt will allay the

suspi cion that no study was made of the decisi on of
the lowe r court and that its decis ion was merely
affirm ed witho ut a prop er exam inatio n of the facts
and the law on whic h it is based . The p roxim ity at

67
Oil and Natura l Gas Comm ission v. Court of Ap peals, C.R.
Oil and Natura l Gas Comm ission v. Court of Appea ls, C. R.
!
No. l 14323, Septcni bt•r 28• 999·
No. 114323, July 23• 1998·
i.a

b9 Yao v. Court of Appeals, C.H. No.

10
132428 , Octobe r 24, 2000.
C.R. No. 81006, May 12, 1989.
 111( 0E c1<;10N \ 207

len:.- t of the an ne xe d st at em en t sh ou ld
·'-Ui,g cs t ll-ia t
-\, an e, am in al lo n o ,
SU L has been un d er take
"'° also un de rs to n ll .
(\) tl , ~- e, od th. at th e dccisi·o· n IS, of
.~Jopted sh ou ld , to . be1. ng
be gin w ith, co m pl y
Vlll, Se...:ti0n l 4 as with Article
no am ou nt of inco
ador tio n w ill re ct ify rporation or
its violation .
The Co ur t fin ds ne
ce ss ar y to em ph as
mem or andu m de ci iz e th at the
si on sh ou ld be sp
k ::t it be co m e an ad ar in gl y us ed
di ct iv e excu se for
It is an ad di tio na l ju di cia l slot h.
co nd iti on for th e
this ki nd of de ci si va lid ity th at
on m ay be re so rt ed
cases , ..,h er e th e fa to only in
cts ar e in th e m ai
bo th pa rt ie s an d ea n ac ce pt ed by
si ly de te rm in ab le
and th er e ar e no do by th e ju dg e
ct ri na l co m pl ic at io
that w ill re qu ir e an ns invo lv ed
ex te nd ed di sc us si on
involved. Th e m em of th e la w s
or an du m de ci si on
em pl oy ed in si m m ay be
pl e lit ig at io ns on
ordi na ry co lle ct io n ly , su ch as
ca se s, w he re th e
obviou sly gr ou nd le ap pe al is
ss an d de se rv es no
th e time ne ed ed to m or e th an
di sm is s it. ...
Henceforth, all m em
or an du m de ci si on s
with the re qu ire m en shall comply
ts he re in se t fo rth bo
fo rm prescribed an d th as to the
th e oc ca si on s w he n
rendered. A ny de vi th ey m ay be
at io n w ill su m m on
enforcem en t of A the strict
rticle Vlll, Sectio
Constitution an d st rik n 14 of the
e do w n th e fla w ed
a law less di so be di en ju dg m en t as
ce .
In Yao v. Court of Ap
peals,71 th e C ou rt st ru
a regional trial co ur t be ck do w n a decision
ca us e it w as "s ta rk of
vacuous in its conten ly [s ]h al lo w , otiosely written,
t an d tri te in its fo
attempte d at nothing, rm . It ac hi ev ed no th in g an d
no t ev en at a si m pl
could easily be do ne e su m m at io n of facts which
." Su ch a d ecis io n
w as no t ev en cons
idered a

C.R. N0
' · 132428, Oc
tober 24, 2000.
 2081 LEGAL M ETHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0

memorandum decision bernuse it merely c1 ffirm ecJ

.1 ;i low
decision without saying more. er rriuri

PER CURIAM OPINIONS

A per curin111 resolution is defined us "an opinion of th

in which the judges are all of one mind and the question in e Coun
. . . vo IVed is
clear that 1t 1s not necessary to elaborate on 1t by "n so
discussion. "n '' extended

Per curinm opinions are unsigned and decided by "the

. court."
In the fed eral appellate courts of the United States, per curinm op· .
1n10 115
are reserved for cases deemed routine and squarely controlled
6
precedent or for cases in which the court wants to control the resuit
without writing to explain why.73 True per curiam opinions are more
authoritative than signed opinions when they contain no reservations or
exceptions. However, the authority extends only to the result, not to the
reasoning. On the other hand, per curiam opinions are less authoritative
than signed opinions, when the court uses them to decide mundane
questions. Per curiarn opinions are the most authoritative opinions of all
when the court wants to make a politically important decision issued by
a unanimous court, not from an individual judge appointed by J
particular appointing authority. An example of this form of pa rnri11111
opinion is Bush v. Gore. 74

The Supreme Court usually resorts to per curia111 decisions for

cases involving the imposition of the death penalty75 or srvrre
administrative penalties. 76 According to Section 14 of the Suprl'nll'
Court's internal rules, unless otherwise requested by the M(?mb~r
assigned to write the opinion of the Court, the decision or rcsolutilln
shall be rendered per curiam:

n Ramos v. Central 13ank of the Phili ppines, G.R. No. L-29J52, F1•b n1M)' l'J, 19~0-
1
n Gerald Lebovits, Tcch11iq11e: Lei,:11/ M,•thotl to thl' M11i/11,·ss, 75-JUN N.Y. Sr. U. ). t>•t (~lKl.)
74
531 U.S. 98 (2000).
75
People v. Ebio, G. R No. 147750, September 29, 2004.
" Dantes v. Dantes, A.C. No. 6486, Septembe r 22, 2O0-I.
 T11r 01 c1s1c>r1 I 2Qq

wh ere the pc nn lly im po

se d is di smi'>'>t1 I
fro m ser vic e, dis ba rm
en t, or ind efi n ite
su s pe ns ion in Jd mi ni slr
ati v e cas es; o r
(b) in ,,n y ot he r ( as c b y
ag ree me nt of the
m ajo rit y of the Me
mb ers or u po n
req ue s t of a Membe r.

~,\\N lll E HESO LUTION S

Tb e Su pr em e Co ur t is no
t bo un d to ren de r sig ne
. ,, rnd ha s dis cre tio n to d de cis ion s all
tbt' l1n ,l ' fo rm ula te de cis ion s
. . or
mi•nu te
r<'so\utiNiS, pro vid ed a leg .
al ba sis 1s _g ive n, de pe nd
l,t J '":: ~.: - tt disposes of the in g on its ev alu ati on
bu lk of 1ts ca se s by mi
. ,. tlwm .1s final an d ex nu te res olu tio ns an d
l \l'CJ l'I. :- ec uto ry , wh ere :
\. 3 case is pa ten tly wi th ou
t me rit ;
, I.he iss ue s rai se d are fac
tua l in na tur e;
3. the decis ion ap pe ale d
fro m is su pp or ted by
evide nce an d is in ac co su bs tan tia l
rd wi th the fac ts of the
applicable law s; or case an d the

t ii is d ea r fro m the rec or

ds tha t the pe tit ion is
forestall the ea rly ex ec filed me rel y to
uti on of jud gm en t an
com plian ce wi th the ru les 78 d for no n-
.
The use of mi nu te res olu
tio ns he lps the co ur t in
heJvy docket .79 If the Co ur all ev iat ing its
t we re to be ob lig ate d
to wr ite a full op ini on
:
1
Jddress all w ho se ek its
aid , it wo ul d be un ab
1:ltt'ctivl'ly the bu rd en pla ce le to ca rry ou t
d up on it by the Co ns tit
uti on .llO

- I1
· fi 1 \\'t:110.:,,lao Liu reta , G.R
p . No. L-68635, March 12,
l'TUmni "· Court of Ap pea ls, 1987.
G. R. No. 82273, Jun e 1, 199
knm ~ro J\ Union As~ 0.
urancc Co mp any Limited
.TJ,,,, Comp.my Lim ited v. Lep and No rth British & Me
ant o Co nsolid ated Minin rcanti k
I:' ~ •• 3.'I, 1978. g Co mp any, G.R. No . L-D 3
-n,
•"':-:.,. Re~utsi tor Copic!> of Lhe
1 Sta tement of Ass ets, Lia
--~• . or curnculum Vit
• '-'l-:t•..-t bilities an J Ne t Worth .md
Person,\\
ae of the Justices of the
' ·_,,..._, "f tht> ludinary, A.M Su pre me Co urt ,m d Off' · rs l nd
. No . 09-8-6-SC, et al. Au l lt' · •
gus t 26, 2014.

J
 210 I LEGAL M ETHOD E SSENTIALS 3.0

No law requires the Justices of th e Supreme C

minute resolutio ns that deny due course to actions fil ed be;urt .10 5igr
1
. certt'f' .
Chief Justice to enter h 1s 1cahon on the same T oreitor th~
· o reg ·
Justices to sign all its resolutio ns res pecting its action on new
uire the
would be unreason able and unnecess ary.81 ca~
With the promulg ation of its Internal Rules, the Co .
the instances when cases are to be adjudica ted by decision urt defin d
. e
. .
resolutio n, unsigne d reso Iution or mmute resolution . Amon, signedt
instances w hen a mmute . I t· h II ·
reso u 10n s a issue is when the Co g hose
"denies a petition filed under Rule 45 of the [Rules of Court], citin urt
legal basis the absence of reversibl e error committe d in the challeng:
decision, resolutio n, or order of the court below." 82 g
Minute resolutio ns are promulg ated by the Court through the
Clerk of Court, who sends copies to the parties concerned by quotin
verbatim the resolutio n issued on a particula r case. The Clerk of Cou~
informs the parties of the action taken on their cases by quoting the
resolutio n adopted by the Court, although she never participates in the
deliberat ions of a case. She merely transmits the Court's action to the
parties. Minute resolutio ns are the result of a thorough deliberation
among the members of the Supreme Court but it does not delegate the
exercise of its judicial functions to its Clerk of Court or any of its
subaltern s. When a petition is denied or dismisse d by the Court, it
sustains the challenge d decision or order together with its findings of
facts and legal conclusio ns. 83 The Court needs the full time and attention
of its Clerks of Court and other key officials. Its officers do not have the
time to answer frivolous complain ts filed by disgruntl ed litigant:5
question ing decisions and resolutio ns of the Court and involving cascS
already deliberated upon and resolved by the Court itseli. All
resolutio ns and d ecisions a re actions of the Court, not its subordin,ite
personne l. The Court assumes full responsib ility for all its acts. Its

' ' At;oy v. Ar.111e tc1 Cl'nler, Inc. C .I{. No. 196'.\58 . Ma rch 21, 2012.
,J Id.

~• Rhiiw Markl'ling Corp. v. Fl'lix Crnv,mte, C.R. No. 56280, July 6, I9ill .

• I A➔
 T11c Dr
C1 <;10N\ ? 11
,~on c,\ c a n n o t a n s w e r a n d
\?1.: - nrt sh o u ld n o l
thC (O U .
~4 b e rn a d e l
o a n sw e r fo
M in u te re so r act<, o f
lu ti o n s a re n
t "d "
e c is io n s w · h" o t c o n sl it u ti o n a l\ y in
ilre no ,t m t l:\e m fo
. . h. tional
m a n d a te ,s . e a n in g o f th e C rn b eca u <;
c0n~t1 i 1·
a p p 1ca b le . e th
..
JeCl~·,o n' ,, o r th o se th a t a re g iv . o n ly in ca o n st tt u ti.o n I\~ ey
e n d u e c o u rs se s ,, b . Th
· e
or rne 1n o ra n d a a n d /o r o th e . e a n d a fte r th s u m1tte
f. . d f
__., , ,d d u e c o r p le a d in g s, b u t n o t or
w h e ree th, in g of b ri efs
~ y~ u rse , w it . 1
h th e re s o lu . ..
ther 00 f· W h e n th e C o u rt ,
ti o n th e re fo re
a ft e r d e li b e
•
• st a ti n g the p e titi on is
pk a dings, d ~ c ra tm g o n a p
id e s to d e n y e ti ti o n a de 1e g ~ b a ~.s
d u e c o u rs e to n su bse q u e
que:·t , ions raised a re fa c tu a l o the_ p e ti ti o n
a n d st a te s th nt
re$pon d ~ t c o , . . r w h e re th e
re 1s n o a t th e
u rt s _d e a s 1 o . . . re v e rs ible e
constitutional nS:, th e re 1s rr o r m .
re q m re m e n t. s~ ff ic_1e n t c the
decision m ust T h e c o n st it u ti o m p l_
ia n ce w it h th e
e x p re ss c le a o na l re q u ir
it is base d refe rl y a n d d is ti e m e n t th a t
rs o n ly to d n c tl y th e fact s a a
fall unde r th e c is io n s. R e so n d la w o n w hic
e se c o n d p lu ti o n s d is p h
Constitution, a ra g ra p h o o si n g o f p e ti
w h ic h p ro v f A rt ic le V ti o ns
id e s th a t " ln ll l, S e c ti o n
fN reconsid e ra 1 o p e ti ti o n 1 4 o f th e
ti o n o f a d e c for re v ie w o
or denied w it h is io n o f th e c o u r m o ti o n
o u t s ta ti n g th rt sh a ll b e re
e le g a l b a s is fu se d d u e c o
th e re fo r. " s1 u rs e
The fo ll o w in
g a re s u b s ta
resolution an d n ti a l d is ti n
a d e c is io n : c ti o ns b e tw
ee n a m in u te
l. A rticle
V ll l, S e c ti o
n 1 4 o f th e
fa ct s a n d th C o n st it u ti o n
e la w o n w , re q u ir in g
exp re ss e d c le h ic h th e ju d g m th a t th e
a rl y a n d d is e n t is b a se d m
to m in u te re ti n c tl y , a p p u st b e
so lu ti o n s. li e s o n ly to
d e c is io ns, n o
t
2. A m in u te
re s o lu ti o n is
au th o ri ty o f s ig n e d o n ly
th e Ju st ic e s b y th e C le rk
. o f C o u rt b y
3. A m in u te
re s o lu ti o n d
o e s n o t re q
Chie f Ju s tic e . u ir e th e c e rt
if ic a ti o n o f
th e

"ll~fl(Jm n, v. C
ou rt of A ppea
:,.;\wino ' · Cou rt ls . C .R . N o .
t,2 27 3, Ju ne
Y.11 r11~t, l d o l A p pe a ls, C .R . N I, 1990.
I lud , u n u~ . ll . L-2 10')8,
tn .:s (Phi ls.) May 3 1, 1% '.3.
I.' )u.iv,l· MaL11 , In c. v. C o
u rt o f A p p ca 1_ C [' N
\ L, y0 mura I id v. De.ilc,,, A .C . N o . 74 s , · ' · L1· 127682, A pn-1 24 \998;
v, nt t•rm ed 74, S cp le m b '
ia t0 A p p d \. ,t cr 9, 20 14 ·
e C o u rt, C .R.
. N o . 70' .•~
""15 M ·1 1'> l
, 1987.
') - '

b-lQ&n
 21 2 I L EGAL M ETHOD E SSENTIALS 3.0

4. Minute reso lutions are not publis hed in the Phil" .

ipp1ne Rep
Ori\
5. Finally, as a rule, the Supreme Court lays down d .
. h . octnne
Principles of law whtC cons t1h1te binding precedent ·s or
decision duly signed by the m embers of the Court a d in a
n certif1
by the Chief Justice. 88 ed

Minute resolutions dismissing the actions filed 6 f

. . . . e Ore ,1
constitute actual adJud1ca t10ns on the ments. Th ese Resolutions are the
product of thorough deliberation among the m embers of the Cour
When the Court does not find any reversible error in the decision of th:
Court of Appeals, there is no need for the Court to fully explain its
d enial, since it already means that it agrees with and adopts the
findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals.89 Minute resolutions
deny ing due course to petitions or dismissing cases summarily for
failure to comply with the formal or substantial requirements laid down
by law, are dispositions on the merits. 90

The application of the rule of res judicata depends on whether a

minute resolution of the Supreme Court is an adjudication on the merits
of the petition. 91 In one case, the Supreme Court explained that a minut€
resolution, while not a precedent relative to strangers to an action,
nonetheless binds the parties therein, and calls for the application of rr~
judicata.92

Minute resolutions are typically short as the follow ing

example shows:

'l
"" Na tionwide St:'curily and Allied Servic1.:•s, Inc. v. V,ddt>ram,1, G.R. Nl,. 11\c,t,I ~ Ft'lmiJr1' -
20 11.
" Agoy v. Ara neta Cente r, Inc., C X Nu. 196358, Mar~·h 2 1, 20 12 .
.., Republi c of the Philippines v. Cou rt oi Appcc1ls, C. R. No. 103-111, F,•bru,1n ' J, 20t.l0. . nllk
'II C
ommercia . I union. A~s11- rance Cornp.iny L1m1kd' . ;iml. North Bn"t"1~·h & ~kr-J c· rt ,,1
1 · • . . . . J the L'll
ns urance Company L1m1ted v. Lepanto Cnnsolid;itcd I\ Imm~ Cump<1ll_l Jn , • In,
A I· , . rf\•1·1,1'r.-
ppea s, C.R. No. L--13342, October JO, 1978. Sc,· al, o Philippint• f kJlth <....m
• ') ·)()q
v · Co mmiss,oner
· · o f Interna l Revenue, C. R. No. 167330, Sepll'llttwr Iii, . ( ·
91
Philippine N a tiona l Ban k v. Lim, C .R. No. 17 1677, ),muarv Jl), 2lllJ.
 THr Dr c ,s,o N 12 13

s
'·li' c of the Ph ili pp ine
J\epuu
SUPREME CO UR T
Manila

EN BANC

RE SO LU TI ON

s,rs/Mesda nies:

iss ued a
t c11 bn. /lC
1/(Jticc that the Co ur
P/(, N'ff/M
1..
a /
winch rea ds 1 The petitioners
. 1u1It·111 dated JULY 17, 2012, argue that the
R1~r
Judicial and
t,1//(J.t'.•:
Ho mo bo no A. Adaza, Bar Coun cil
G.K No. 202263 (Citi ze ns G. should desist
AIJn p,1guia, Herman
Tiu Laurel an d Uriel
III from selecting
Borja v. President Benig
no Simeon C. Aq ui no a Chief Justice.
ion
Jnd Judicial and Bar Co
uncil). - This is a Petit
the
tor Crrtiorari and Prohibi
tion rm de r Rule 65 of
ar y
Rules of Co urt with
a Pr ay er for Te mp or
ry
Re5 trai nin g Order an d/
or W rit of Pr eli mi na
io ne rs Ho m ob on o A.
Injunction filed by pe tit d
rm an Tiu La ur el an
Adaza, Ala n Paguia, He t
re sp on de nt s Pr es id en
Uriel G. Borja ag ain st l
no Ill an d th e Ju di cia
8migno Simeon C. Aq ui
JBC's
<l nd Bar Cou11ciJ (JB
C) qu es tio ni ng th e
e
t of no m in ee s for th
~,liL>n in go ing ov er a lis They cite
:n,ef )~~tice of the Co ~r
t ba se d on th e fo ~
n th e three
~
i;ro und.,. (1) the~ re as on s as
th e JBC to en te rta in
Con ~tilu tto ,i autl1orizing th e bases of
th e
~nn,mt>es for the positio
n of Ch ie f Ju sti ce of their
~uprenw courl an d lo su bm it a lis t to th
e
ar gu me nt .
)
11l'~ldC' nt · (2) in th e
C . ' there is no pr ov isi on
011.\t1tu tio11 . . t to ap po in t
J C. aut1ionzmg the Pres id en
h1e f Just. ap po in t th e
n11' 111 b ice as he ca n on ly
l"rs of tl11.~ ev en if 1·he ]BC ha s
tht, µ ::s Co urt; an d (3) . .
.
Oll't' r to r
eco niinend no min ees tor the Ch ie f
- --

Ju ~tia · an J th<• Pre sid ent c.an

Ju stic'.:, thr: y cann<Jf do MJ unt il
appoin t a Ch if:f
the Cl') tl rt rc;r 1/ve ~
-
que'>tion ing tf: .
fhe petitio ns filed bef ore it
lm p€a chr n t:-r
j1;rn ,dic t10- n o f the Sen ate in th~
o ( Chi ef Ju ~tk c Ren ato Co
roniJ.

We (ind n o me rit in the p ('titicm.

The firs t and sec ond g rou nds

reli ed upo n by -- --=----
fhe first t-1,1
arg um r.,~
lve d by the
petitioners are the: ver y issues reso have bt:er,
l and Bar Cou ncil
Cou rt in Fame/a R. Dul ay v. Judicia reso/vt{J b·,
and Paq uit.o N. Ochoa, fr., as Executive Secretary. Ln the Court ;n
ion in acc ept ing
said case, we uph eld the JBC 's act an earlier
the p osi tion of case.
app lica tion s and nom in atio ns for
well as the
Chief Jus tice of this Co urt as
one , as the
Presid ent 's pow er to app oin t
'' use d in the
"m em bers of the Sup rem e Co urt
the Presid ent 's
1987 Co nst itut ion wh o are wit hin
appoin ting pow er refe r not onl
y to the fou rtee n
also to the
Associa te Jus tices of the Co urt but
Ch ief Jus tice. Thus, we app ly the
sam e conclu sion
On the thira
n. ~
and , conseq uen tly, dis mis s the pet itio argumen t,
t fo r / the Court
As to the thir d issue, suffice it to sta te tha cites two
res pec te the
Ch ief Jus tice Co ron a him sel f I reasons wh_1
I

ent Co urt and

decisio n of the Sen ate Imp eac hm the JBC
url Th us, sai d
did not bri ng the ma tter to this Co should be
per for min g
pe titions sho uld not bar the JBC from allo wed to
for the vac ant proceed.
its dut y of selecting the nom ine es
ma kin g the
pos t, and the Presid ent fro m
pha size at this
app oin tme nt. We wo uld like to em
oses on the
poi nt tha t the Con stit utio n imp
to m ake the
Presid ent the imp era b ve dut y
app oin tment o f a Me mb er o f the
wit hin 90 day s from the occ
Sup re me Co u rt
urrence of the
I
vac ancy. The fail ure by the Pre sid
e nt to d o so wi ll
nst itut ion . Thj s
be a d ear dis obe d ien ce to the Co
90- day lim itation fi xed in Sec
tion 4(1 ), Article
vacancy, w as
VIII, for th e Pre sid ent to fill the
to establish a
und oub ted ly a spe cial pro vis ion
 11 1r Dr
'- l ')IC)1'f I ~ 1',

f ite n, an da te for th e Pr es id en
de 1" . power, t as th e
ooint111g an d ca nn ot be d
apr- efea te d by th e
,ndcncy 0 f the case s re fe rr e d to b y pe ti ti
on er s.
fC H£.REfORE, th e
pe ti ti on is 01
\ v,J . Vela sco, Jr
(carpro, ., Leon
S~ lSSED ."
ardo -De Castro, 13rro
11 , Abad
d Scrcn 0, 11 · no pa rt , pera Ila ,
1
an ] ., pr es id in g
.
sr r.;att1111, Del Castillo , Villarama, ,
fr ., Pere z
Me·n doz.a, Reyes, Perlas- Bernabe, /1 ., pr es en t) '

V e ry tr ul y yo ur
s,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUET
A E. V ID A L C le rk of
C ou rt
\
I Some m in ut e re
so lu ti on s, ho w
substantive issu es as ev er , ta ke time
sh ow n by th e ne to di scuss
xt ex am pl e:

Republic of th e Ph
il ip pi ne s
SUPREME COUR
T
M an il a

EN BANC
RESOLUTION

Th is is an
ol de r
~ntle men:
Resolution
Quoted here under, for th at does
your information, is no t reflect
lheCour t En Banc da a resolution of
te d February 1, 2005 ge nd er
.

\ C.R. No. 127882 (L

a B ug al B 'la an T
~ta\. vs . Ra mos, et al
.)
ri ba l A ss oc ia tio
n,
sensitive
la ng ua ge .
~
Be fore the Co ur t
_ _ _ __ _,
is pe ti ti on er s' 38
Recons iderat -p ag e M o~
io n pr ay in g fo T he title of
r th e re ve rs al
Cour~ s Re solution of th is th e case is
pr om ul ga te d on
4
lW , on the followin D ec em be r l,
g gr ou nd s: fo un d in the
bo dy of the
Resolution.
2 1 6 j L EGAL M ETHOD E SSE NTIAL S 3.0

,, I

The assumption thnt Filipino-

owned corporations cannot put
up the capital and that fore ign-
owned corporations are n ot~
willing to provide large amounts ' Several gr - -
of financial assistance are belied ounct\
were raised b,
by the very facts of this case. the peti·tionern
· I
. ~IT
"II as k ing the
1
Su preme Court
The interpretation of paragraph to reverse its
four, section 2, article XU of the December 2004
Constitution practically negates Resolution.
the operation of the first
paragraph, section 2, article XII
of the Constitution.
"III
The interpretation in the
Decision violates the
constitutional requirement of
equitable sharing.
"IV
The 'control test' in the Decision
is not in consonance with the
requirement of 'full control and
supervision' required of the state
considering that the kind of
service contracts during Martial
Law has been reestablished and
reinstated.

"V
The alleged transfer of the FT AA
to TMRC is null and v oid
beca use it violates the fourth
paragraph, sect-ion 2, c1 rtick XII
of the Con stitution .
y
r

"Vl

The provisions of 1:he FTJ\A

which were invaliJ ~1ted by the
Decision dated Dccl'mbe r I , 201)4
~re nut separc1blc and i\J'l'
intrinsic to the agreements.

" Vil

The ' closing out theory' of

inte rpre tation is no t valid."
The incl11 ..,1un o f
A dose perusal of the above issu es ;:ind the
tlw number of
discussions the reof shows th at they .:i re " m ere p.igl'S d evolt-J
rehash of arguments and positions a lrendy ra ised lo the Court',,
and discussed exten sively in the 246-pagc Resolution Decembe r t
of December 1, 2004, penned by Justice Artemi o v. 2004 l-{l'SOh./1 illn
p3 ngJniban; as well as in the 125-page Dissenting inJicatt•s that
the C ourt ii-.
Opinion of Justice Antonio T . Carpio, the lO0-page
dis inclined tu
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Conchita Carpio ad dress the
Morales, the 29-page Separate Opinion of Justice m atter f urlher .
Dante 0 . Tinga, and the 10-page Concurring Opinion
of Justice Mini ta V. Chico-Naza rio.

Further di scussion of th ese issues would not

~~rve any u seful purpose, as it would 1nc re ly
repea l the sa m e justifications a nd reason s a lrea dy
ta ken up in the foregoing Opinions, which
tackled p recisely those matters a nd e ve n more;
,1ny further e lu ci dations, disquisitions and
Ji~pu tatio ns would m e re ly re itera te the sa nw
point.., alrea dy passed up o n. In ,1 Minu ll'

In regard lo the p rC'senl Di ssenting O pinion of J11s tic1•

I Rvs11luli1111,
tlw ~11p1\'t1ll'
C.irpio, which in the main attncks RA 7942 (tlw ( \111rt is rn 1 t
·"li ning Law), DAO 56-99 a nd the s ubject· FTAJ\ fnr prt•1' lu1kd
fn1111
,illegedl y limiting '' the cquitabk s hare ot the Stnk
,1dd r,•s..; i11M
froP1• llw 01111mg
. . p ro f.its of the fore1gn
. con
. I1,H
. ·tP•·" (n
r · sulist,,nt iv,·
·U,J, ~uffict' it to rl'i te r..tll' th.11 "the d evelu prnen t pf till'
n11 ninvr, lnd u.., I ry .is l th e r1~s pons1billl-y
· · ·
nt· ti ll' pP
· 1·1ti1' ':\I
1
 2 rn I Lrn~, Mt moo [:>$ f N 11•" " J.O

1,randw.-: ul bo vcmm ent. And kt not !hi <, Court

intt.'rict~ inord inately ,rnd unnec essarily." The issue
of h~1w m t11.:h ''prof it" the n ation shoul d or could
dcriH ' f n"m the 1:'xploration, devel opme nt and
u tili z.:ttion l)f the cou ntry's miner al resou rces is a
policy m,1tter, owr which we "mus t allow the
Pft:'sident and Cong ress maxim um d iscret ion in
using the resou rces of our count ry and in securi ng
the assistance of foreig n group s to eradic ate the
grind ing pover ty of our peopl e and answ er their cry
for viable emplo ymen t oppor tuniti es in the count ry,"
(pp. 240-241, Resol ution dated Decem ber 1, 2004).
That the afore menti oned law, execu tive issuan ce and
contr act had been decla red const itutio nal will not
preve nt Cong ress or the Presi dent or the partie s to
,_____
This is
the FTAA from amen ding or modi fying them, if another
indee d, in their opini on they are unwi se or wanti n indication
in any respe ct. , that the
Court is no
In any event , after a thoro ugh delibe ration on the longer
Motio n, none of the memb ers of this Cour t have inclined to
chang ed their opini ons or votes . Indee d, all the address the
conce ivable aspec ts of this litiga tion - factual, issues again.
const itutio nal, legal, philo sophi cal, techn ical,
financ ial, ecolo gical, envir onme ntal and \ Justices
techn ologi cal - have all been exten sively taken ~ I Carpio .mJ
and addre ssed durin g the Cour t's lengt hy and Carpio-
purposeful d ebates and delibe ration s. Morales
wrote
WHEREFORE, the Motio n is DENIEQ w ith finality . separa te
The praye r for oral argum ent is Jikew ise DENIED. dissents ti)
(Ynar es-Sa nti ago, Ca rpio, Mora les, and Cc1lle jo Sr., JI, this Minutr
, Resolution
maint ain their dissen ts; Azcu na, J, no part).

The Supre me Cou rt also uses minu te resolu ttom

• , , 1
t: \ t
'11 ll'hl' ll

the issues ra ised in a case are not insub s tantia l.

Jn a cc1se wher e the ex te nt of the powe rs of the Ju di.c i.c1. l Jnd B.n
hJ
Co uncil were ra isrd, the Cour t sc1w it fit to dismi ss the th
casr rtiug
 T HE D EC l!'IION \ 21 9

. , facl that the iss u es th a t w ere ruised w e re

dl'"p1te
... t 11 ~
I .c,ll
. rcs<'h1 , .. Below are exce rpts:
,,111lt . i11·11c,1n t .
tl J -. t i'.
' .,,] ,1Jll l •· O
11•"

EN BAN C

43, July 03, 20121

[G-~ N,). 2021

_ R DULA y V. JUDICIA L AND BAR

FAME\~ A.ND PAQUIT O N. OCHOA, JR., AS
cciu NC EXECUTIVE SECRET ARY .

D/ · •, ( /0k( II
.. . nticc tlrat t11c Co11 rt en bane issu ed a
• , ,.. . 1 tcd JULY 3 2012, wl,ic/1 reads as follows:
~1•~11l11 hOJI II
11 1

GJ No. '.202143 (Famela R. Dulay v. Judicial and'-....

n ( )uncil and Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., as Executiv e The title and
1hlf l
Se-:rd arv .). This is a Petition for Certiorari and the nature of
;>rohibition, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the case are
with Prayer for the Issuance of a Tempora ry
expresse d in
the first
R~straining Order, filed by petitione r Famela R.
paragrap h.
[)u!Jy abainst the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)
.ind hecutjve Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.,
'"Jbing the following issues:

.\. Whether the respond ent Honorab le JBC

ca.n legitimately, validly and
constituti on ally accepts (sic) applicat ion
fo r nomination and interview of nominee s
fo r th'-' position o f a Chief Justice9 ~ The petition
Honorabl e Cou rt nnd, therea fter, submits raises
(Sic) short list of nominees to the Presiden t substant ive
th
:f
: Repub lic o f the Philippi nes for the issues that
have never
ppointmt'nt of a Chief Ju stice of the
Honorable Court· been
I
addresse d by
the Suprem e
Court before.
 220 I L EGAL M ETHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0

B. Whether the President of the Republic of

the Philippines may legitimately, validly
and constitutionally appoint a Chief
Justice of the Honorable Court, in
replacement of the removed and
impeached Honorable Renato C. Corona;

C. Whether the respondent Honorable JBC

can constitutionally be headed by a retired
Associate Justice of the Honorable Court,
instead of an incumbent Chief Justice of
the Honorable Court.

Petitioner claims that the President of the Republic

of the Philippines cannot legitimately, validly, and
constitutionally appoint the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, because the 1987 Constitution only
empowers him to appoint members or Justices but
not the Chief Justice. She adds that the Chief Justice
should be replaced and designated exclusively
from among their peers. Petitioner also contends
that the JBC cannot be validly, legally and
constitutionally headed by a retired Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court, because the
Constitution specifically provides that it be headed
by the incumbent Chief Justice and no other.

We dismiss the petition ... .

(The Court ruled that the petitioner did no t have

standing to file the Petition. That discussion has
been omitted .)

Even if we ignore the technical defect and we look

into the merits of the case, the petition is still bound
to be dismissed.
 ,flfioiwr ;Jr•, 1<,; lhc rt'fj( llut,,,n uf
1

.,1,11ecl, p c I . . h
11 ;ly
1 . •""U('h ' (I) w 1<•111f'1 or 11ot t ,,
',JI r,tJVI' J'ic, • '
,.,a.J i,t1b-~tnf thi• Philippin e•,.., h ,1!i tlw co11,,lilul irJnal
1 0
rre~1J1·111 int tlw Chic( Ju ,,;lke o( the Supri·rM
I'd!
pt1W1'
•
1 Id ,ippO ) wh1.?thl:r or not th t' JI'( ) c:11 1 vn I y
2 . b<•nt
·1· ~11d (
l 01 11 •' pc•rr;on other l h ;Jll 1I,,. ,ncum
J ,d by J
l11' /11•,lll l Thie, ;., the
Chid 111 ~1ic1'.
Court's
. . tlw nffirmatiw lo both qu e1,tiorn,. ruling.
\\It' ,, 11 ~1vcr 1n

;\rticle VIII of the Conslilution, provides

<,i•t'f Jtll l 9, , .
·ntment of Justices and Judges, to w,t:
wihr JPP0 1 The Court
identifies the
St'cfion 9. The Members of the pertinent
Sriprt'//t l' Cn11rl Jnd judges of cons titutional
lower court s shall be appointe d provision s.
by the President from a !isl of at
_J
least three nominees prepared by
the Judicia l and Bar Council for
every vacancy. Such
appointments need no
confirmation . x x x (Emphasis
supplied)

In interpretin g the above-sta ted constitutional

provi~ion, petitioner considers only the Associate
/thlires r1s the "member s of the Supreme Court"
llwn:'by L'Xcluding the Chief Justice from the
Pre,ide11t'::, appointing power. Sa id interpretation is
b.isdrss.

. of ti
A I 11· 1 n•a,!1111 · · · · s on _
I provrsJon
Pa ' n, 1e cons llf·ut1ona This is the
lhl' Judicial D .
l . cparhncnf in Article VIII of the l987 Co urt's
nn,t1tu1ion ,1, interpretation
M c e:arly shows that the phrase
, L"rnbrrs < f ti1 S of the
·M, ' J '-' 'upremc Court" and the words
LrnbL"r:," ~nd "M provision.
rd~r 1 ' ernber" are repeatedly used lo
.
u lhe Just-ic ' - of l I1<• Supreme Court without
' es
222 I LEGAL METHOD ESS ENTIALS 3.0

distinction whether he be the Chief Justice or any of

the Associate Justices or all fifteen Justices.

Section 4 (1), Article VIIl thereof defines the

composition of the Supreme Court, n amely, "a
Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices" who
may sit en bane or, in its discretion, in divisions of
three, five, or seven Members; Section 4 (2) and
(3) describe the manner of conducting business in
the Court whether it be En Banc or in division;
Section 7 (1) enumerates the qualifications of the
Members of the Court and the other members of
the Judiciary; Section 11 provides for the security of
tenure in the Judiciary; Section 12 states the
prohibition on non-judicial assignments of the
Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts;
and Section 13 lays down the process of decision-
making. In all of these provisions, the phrase
"Members of the Supreme Court" was repeatedly
used to refer not only to the Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court but includes the Chief Justice.
Thus, in Section 9 of the same Article VIII on the
appointment of Justices and Judges, the phrase
"Members of the Supreme Court" clearly refers to
the fifteen Justices of the Court - one Chief Justice
and fourteen (14) Associate Justices - who are
within the appointing power of the President.
Although decided under a different Constitution,
we reitera te the Court's pronounceme nt in Vargas u.
Rilloraza that "there can be no doubt that the Chief
Justice and Associate Justices required x x x to
compose the Supreme Court are the regular
members of the Court."

We, likewise, do not ag ree with petitioner that the

JBC can only be headed by the incumbent Chief
Ju stice and no other. Petitioner, in effect, argues
that the JBC canno t perform its task without an
,,~Ill
TH F 0 [(,J'31QN I~ J

ic
t • ( Jus tice . To follow thi s log.
cn t C1 11 e
..•1.1rnb . d to ,Hl eve ntuality wh ere a va can cy m
ri
·
. not be filled j( a vac anc
y occ urs
r,' 0;1ld lea 11
d. ary w1 m thi s
we 111 10 We can likewisetheinfCherieffro Justice is
iP t),e JBCh. 1 if the Office
of
.
rncn t t a
the same will not be filled
be cau se the re
,i;f:1-l
Justice" to act as
;-acated , "incumbent Chief
idl be no
(bi!l rn,an cif th e JBC.

. ·iely cannot sustain these

arg um en ts. The
.
\iC' de fin1 1s to rec om me nd
. . J fu nction of the JBC
p•!JlClpa every vacancy, the
· ' • tees to the Judicia. ry. For .
Jppoin
il !> to the Presid•ent a 11s
t of at least thr•ee
b[ll
/B C SU . . •
y no t ap po mt
· ces 11.11d the President ma
nomin · ' . An y vacancy in the
Jnybody who is not in the list
the Co nst itu tio n to
Suprrme Court is required by
m the occ urr enc e
b!' filled within 90 days fro
uwreof. This 90-day period
is ma nd ato ry. It cannot,
on ly bec aus e the
therefore, be compromised
n cou ld no t sit in
,1n1s ti tulionillly -narned Ch air ma
the }BC. All'hough it wo uld
be pre fer ab le if the
plete, the JBC can
m£•mber1ihip of t·he ]BC is com
ma nd ate d task of
,till opcrJ te to perform its
to the Pre sid en t
\1Jbrr,itti ng tJie list of no mi ne es
1·v(•n if the consti tut ion all y-n am ed ex-
in the JBC. Th is
ojjiuu Cha irm an does not sit'
ch an ge s am on g the
mtt> ntio n is evident from the ex
lib era tio ns of the
(umu,i%i()II Prs during the de
Co,1.~lilutional Commiss ion of
1986, viz. :
--- Th e Co urt relies
on the
I
MR Dl.: CASTRO. ~ nd ers
tan d d e lib era tio ns of
lhJ t our jus tice s no w
in the the
wi th Co nst itu tio na l
SuprelJle Court, tog eth e r
Co mm iss ion to
tlw Chief Jus tice, are on ly ·1l.
dc ter mj ne the
int en t of the
MR. C'O NCEPC!O N . Ye s.
fra me rs of the
Co ns titu tio n.
:•;>4 I l 1 !\A l Ml· II H) I) I !ltl l N 111\L!I :J 0

MK 1)1\ CASTRO. And llic

s,·cond l'll:'nl cn cc of thi s
subscrtitm rcn d f; : "A ny vn can cy
slicill be fi ll ed within nine ty days
from the occu rrence the reof."

M R CONCEPCION. 'n1at is right.

MR. OE CASTRO. Is this now a

mand nte to the executive to fi ll
the vacancy?

MR. CONCEPCION. That is

right. That is borne out of the fact
that in the past 30 years, seldom
has the Court had a complete
complement.

MR. DE CASTRO. By that time,

upon ratification of this
Constitution, the Judicial and Bar
Council shall be in operation.

MR. CONCEPCION. We hope so.

MR. DE CASTRO. And one of

the members thereof is a Member
of Congress.

MR CONCEPCION. That is right.

MR. DE CASTRO. An ex
officio member. By the time th is is
rati fied, Congress is not yet
convened and there will s till be
an election; so there will still be a
delay of mo re th an 90 d ays.
 ~ --/
THr D e:c,s ,oN I 225

the .·ac anc ies occ ur

....._., L...-. ►,, re
\1 - ~L"C U'~: l~l

· '·. c;u pre me Co urt, the y w iU

- trr -
~~ ti::~ up by the Pre sid en t.
'- .

o,,[R CO.';CEPCJO'...: Th at is JJOOSlble.

, it
\.~ Df CASTRO. The ref ore
tak e rw rha ps un til
1,,.'! r-
bef ore
\;o,;cmber or De cem be r
~',e fou r o the r jus tice s
wi ll be
the
-"'){) ·nte d , if \Ve fol low
-,.-!-'r - 1
can
Judicia l and Bar Co un cil . Or
I
j
un cil
I t:1e Jud icia l an d Ba r Co
fu:1 ction wi thout the pre sen
ce ye t
I
I
I
0-i a mem ber of Co ng res s w h
o is

l a!1ex-of icio me mb er?

i \ 1R CO NC EP CI ON . It can
ici o
I operate wi tho ut the ex- off
ity
member bec aus e a ma jor

I would be eno ugh, alt ho ug

v:ould be pre fer ab le if it
complete.
h it
we re

I ~vfR. DE CASTRO. So tha t

up on
ratifica tion of this Cons titutio n,
it

I is possible, an d the Pre sid

may do it by ap po int ing
members of the Jud icial an d
en t
the
Ba r
Cuuncil withou t- first a
represe nta tive fro m Co ng res s.

MR CONCEPO •
· ON. Tha t is co rrect.

\.1R. OE CASTRO .
e,.j •
irnm tcly fi ll · So tha t w e ca n
:\.JJa
v,1c,111 ci . u P the fou r
es in the Su pre me Co ur t.
 zcu ~

226 1L EG AL MErnoo EssENl tALS 3.0

MR. CONCEPCION. That is correct.

MR. DE CASTRO. I am asking

this just for the record, that the
vacancies in the Supreme Court
be immediate ly filled up so that
our backlog of cases can be
immediate ly attended to ....

Considering, however, that complete membership

in the JBC is preferable and pursuant to its
supervisor y power over the JBC, this Court should
not be deprived of representat ion. The most Senior
Justice of this Court who is not an applicant for the
position of Chief Justice should participate in the
deliberatio ns for the selection of nominees for the
sa id vacant post and preside over the proceeding s
in the absence of the constitutio nally-name d Ex-
Officio Chairman, pursuant to Section 12 of
Republic Act No. 296, or the Judiciary Act of 1948,
to wit:

Section 12. Vacancy in office of

Chief Ju stice. - In case of vacancy
in the office of the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, or of his
inability to perform the duties
and powers of his office, they
shall devolve upon the Associate
Ju stice w ho is first in precedence,
until such disability is removed,
or another Chief Justice is
appoin ted Jnd duly qualified .
This provision shall apply to
ew ry Associi.1 te ju stice who
succeeds to the office of Chief
Justice. (Emph asis supp lied .)
 TttE D ECISION I 2 27

•\At OF TH E FO REGOING, we D ISMISS the

11N .Vlh Y',, (Ct rpiv, Velasco,
1
Jr., Lt·a 1111rdo- D1• Castro,
I,c•l1!10
. 1'• /\t"'" 11 ,rd S,:rct10, If., n o part, Peralta, J.,
flr1011,
. Ji , l3cr:;"111i11, O,!l Cast,'//o, V 1.·11aramn, Jr., Perez,
I, f\•~W
i _ Rel'r~, Pcrlas-Brnwhe, J/., p resent)
tl!),
~1011111. 11. y

Ve ry truly yours,

(Sgd .) ENRIQ UETA E. VIDAL

C lerk of Court