Maui Ramos

Firestone Ceramics v. Court of Appeals

Purisima, J.
G.R. No. 127022 – June 28, 2000
(Highest Court of the Land: The Supreme Court; En Banc and Division Cases)

The case is primarily about whether the Supreme Court exercised its due power to treat the case en banc even
after the Third Division voted to dismiss the motion to transfer en banc, 4-1.

FACTS
 The case at bar involves a vast track of land with an area of 99 hectares presumably belonging to the
State  which had been adjudicated to private individuals by a court alleged to be without
jurisdiction.
 The petitioners submitted a Motion to Refer to the Court En Banc.
 March 7, 2000 – The Court stated it was too premature to resolve the consulta because the Third
Division has not acted on the Motion to Refer to the Court En Banc.
 The Court however, warned the Third Division that their decision on the matter would just be
tentative.
 March 8, 2000 – With a vote of 4-1, the Third Division voted to deny the motion to Refer to the court
En Banc.
 March 14, 2000 – The Court deliberated on the consulta and voted (9-5) to accept the case En Banc on
the grounds that the case has merit and is of sufficient importance.

ISSUE/S

1. Was the Court correct in treating the case En Banc? (Yes)

HELD
1. Yes, the Court exercised its Judicial prerogative to take on the case En Banc.
a. Under the SC Circular 2-89 (Feb 7, 1989), amended by the Resolution of Nov. 18, 1993,
paragraph 9 states that the Court can take on a case En Banc if it deems it is of sufficient
importance through a majority vote from its membership.
b. On the grounds that the case is of importance, let alone the enourmous value of the area in
litigation.

CONCUR/DISSENT
Gonzaga-Reyes, J.,
- The fact alone that the property involved covers 99 hectares of land does not provide a cogent reason
to elevate the case on hand.
- The interpretation of Paragraph 9 is of doubtful validity and soundness.
o The Resolution was in context of an amendment to Section 15 and 16 , Rule 136 of Rules of
Court which deals with the form of unprinted and printed papers to be filed with this Court.
o IT was not intended to lay down new guidelines or rules for referral to the court en banc of
cases assigned to a Division.
- Article 8 Section 4 of Constitute expressly provides that when the required number is not obtained
(concurrence of at least 3 members of division), then the banc’s participation is not called for.

Panganiban, J.,
- The majority did not give a cogent or compelling reason to take the case out of the Third Division.
- “Sauce for the goose should be the same sauce for the rich gander”
o The banc – in the name of justice – should also take over Sumilao farmers’ Petition. But
having rejected their case, then it should also turn down this one.