KOMATSU INDUSTRIES

PHILS. INC. VS. CA

G.R. No. 127682
April 24, 1998
 FACTS:

NATIONAL INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. (NIDC) GRANTED KOMATSU

INDUSTRIES (PHILS.), INC. (KIPI) A DIRECT LOAN OF P8,000,000 AND A
P2,000,000 GUARANTEE TO SECURE PNB. AS SECURITY THEREOF, A DEED OF REAL
ESTATE MORTGAGE WAS EXECUTED BY KIPI IN FAVOUR OF NIDC COVERING A PARCEL OF
LAND WITH ALL ITS IMPROVEMENTS EMBRACED IN TCT NO. 469737. KIPI THEN
EXECUTED AN AMENDMENT OF MORTGAGE DEED COVERING THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND
REGARDING LETTERS OF CREDIT BY PNB IN FAVOUR OF KIPI WITH FOREIGN SUPPLIERS
WORTH US$1,564,826. UPON FULL PAYMENT OF KIPI’S ACCOUNT WITH NIDC AND THE
2,000,000CREDIT LINE WITH PNB, NIDC EXECUTED A DEED OF RELEASE AND
CANCELLATION OF MORTGAGE. BY VIRTUE OF THIS RELEASE, NIDC RETURNED THE
OWNER’S COPY OF THE TCT TO KIPI AND REGISTERED THE DEED OF RELEASE WITH THE
REGISTRY OF DEED. HOWEVER, PNB REQUESTED THE RETURN OF THE TCT DUE TO
UNSETTLED ACCOUNTS BASED ON THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT OF THE MORTGAGE.
THE RETURN WAS MADE BUT AFTER A YEAR, PNB FILED FOR EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE
OF THE PROPERTY. KIPI CONTESTS THE FORECLOSURE SAYING THAT THE RELEASE BY NIDC
HAD THE EFFECT OF RELEASING THE REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE.
 FACTS:

PETITIONER KIPI FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON

CERTIORARI OF THE ADVERSE DECISION OF RESPONDENT CA.
HOWEVER, IT WAS DENIED BY THIS COURT FOR FAILURE TO
SUFFICIENTLY SHOW THAT RESPONDENT COURT HAD
COMMITTED ANY REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
ITS QUESTIONED JUDGEMENT . IN ITS SECOND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, PETITIONER TRIED A DIFFERENT APPROACH
BY ASSAILING THE MINUTE RESOLUTIONS ARE IN VIOLATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION.
 ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUANCE

OF MINUTE RESOLUTIONS IS VALID
UNDER SECTION 14,
ARTICLE VIII OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
 RULING:
YES. “RESOLUTIONS” ARE NOT “DECISIONS” WITHIN THE ABOVE
CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS; THEY MERELY HOLD THAT THE PETITION FOR REVIEW SHOULD
NOT
BE ENTERTAINED. AND THE PETITION TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE COURT
OF
APPEALS IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT OF SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION,
HENCE
THERE IS NO NEED TO FULLY EXPLAIN THE COURT’S DENIAL SINCE, FOR ONE
THING,
THE FACTS AND THE LAW ARE ALREADY MENTIONED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS’
DECISION. THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN CASES
“SUBMITTED FOR DECISION,” , GIVEN DUE COURSE AND AFTER THE FILING OF
BRIEFS OR MEMORANDA AND OTHER PLEADINGS, BUT NOT WHERE THE
PETITION IS REFUSED DUE COURSE, WITH THE RESOLUTION THEREFORE
STATING THE
LEGAL BASIS THEREOF. WHEN THE SUPREME COURT, AFTER DELIBERATING
ON A PETITION AND SUBSEQUENT PLEADINGS, DECIDES TO DENY DUE COURSE TO
THE PETITION AND STATES THAT THE QUESTIONS RAISED ARE FACTUAL OR
THERE IS
NO REVERSIBLE ERROR IN THE RESPONDENT COURT’S DECISION BECAUSE
THERE IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT.