GR 131457; (August, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131457 , August 19, 1999
HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF BUKIDNON, HON. REY B. BAULA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SUMILAO, BUKIDNON, NQSR MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON. RENATO C. CORONA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ERNESTO D. GARILAO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondents.
FACTS
This case resolves pending incidents, specifically the separate motions for reconsideration filed by respondents and intervenors of the Court’s Resolution dated November 17, 1998, as well as their motions to refer the case to the Court En Banc. The November 17, 1998 Resolution resulted in a two-two vote on the separate motions for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier Decision dated April 24, 1998, which, pursuant to the rules, meant the motions were lost and the Decision was deemed affirmed. Respondents and intervenors argue that this tie vote meant the required majority was not obtained, and thus, under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution, the case should have been referred to the Court En Banc for decision. They also assail a subsequent Resolution dated January 27, 1999, which noted without action the intervenors’ motion for reconsideration, primarily on the grounds that the intervenors lacked legal personality (their motion for leave to intervene having been denied in the April 24, 1998 Decision) and that the motion was a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
1. Whether the failure of a Division of the Supreme Court to obtain a majority vote (resulting in a tie) on a motion for reconsideration of a Decision requires the referral of the case to the Court En Banc under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the motions for reconsideration of the November 17, 1998 Resolution are permissible or are prohibited second motions for reconsideration.
RULING
1. No, referral to the Court En Banc is not required. The Court, applying the rule of reddendo singula singulis, distinguished between “cases” and “matters” in Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution. The provision states that “cases” heard by a division shall be “decided” and “matters” shall be “resolved” with the concurrence of a majority. The clause “When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc” refers specifically to the decision of a case, not the resolution of a motion (such as a motion for reconsideration). When a division fails to muster the necessary votes to grant a motion for reconsideration due to a tie, the motion is lost, and the assailed decision stands affirmed. The case is not left undecided; the original decision remains in force. Therefore, the tie vote on the motions for reconsideration did not necessitate referral to the Court En Banc.
2. The motions are prohibited second motions for reconsideration. The Court’s Resolution dated November 17, 1998 effectively denied the first motions for reconsideration of the April 24, 1998 Decision. Consequently, the present motions seeking reconsideration of the November 17, 1998 Resolution are second motions for reconsideration, which are generally prohibited under Section 4, Rule 56 in relation to Section 2, Rule 52 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The movants failed to obtain prior express leave of court and did not show any extraordinarily persuasive reasons to justify an exception to the rule. Furthermore, the issues raised (including the request for En Banc referral) were mere rehashes of arguments already passed upon.
The Court also upheld its earlier rulings that the “Win-Win” Resolution dated November 7, 1997 was void, as the March 29, 1996 decision of the Office of the President had already become final and executory. It reiterated that the intervenors lacked legal personality to intervene, and the issuance of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to them conferred no rights due to the nullity of the “Win-Win” Resolution.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The motions for reconsideration and related motions filed by respondents and intervenors were DENIED with FINALITY. No further motions, pleadings, or papers would be entertained.