G.R. No. 131457 , August 19, 1999
Case Parties:

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 is a Separate Opinion by Justice Melo in the above-captioned case. The main procedural issue addressed is the effect of an even (2-2) vote within a Division of the Supreme Court on a motion for reconsideration. Justice Melo notes that, while bound by the Court En Banc’s Resolution No. 99-109-SC dated January 2, 1999 (which settled the issue of an even vote in a division), he maintains his vote with Justice Puno that the case should have been referred to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. The majority resolution focused on procedural points due to the filing of a second motion for reconsideration, which is generally proscribed. Justice Melo expresses his reservations about the majority’s position on the 2-2 vote and outlines his constitutional arguments for the record.

ISSUE

Whether, under Paragraph 3, Section 4, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution , a motion for reconsideration in a Division of the Supreme Court that results in an even (2-2) vote should be automatically elevated to the Court En Banc for resolution.

RULING

Justice Melo, in his Separate Opinion, argues that the motion for reconsideration should be elevated to the Court En Banc. His reasoning is based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution:
1. Constitutional Mandate: Paragraph 3, Section 4, Article VIII requires that cases or matters heard by a division be decided with the concurrence of at least three members. If this required number is not obtained, “the case shall be decided en banc.”
2. Automatic Elevation: The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission indicate that elevation to the Court En Banc is automatic when the required three-vote majority in a division is not met.
3. No Valid Distinction Between “Cases” and “Matters”: Justice Melo disagrees with the majority view that distinguishes between “cases” (decided at first instance) and “matters” (such as motions for reconsideration). He submits that a motion for reconsideration is intrinsically linked to the case it seeks to reconsider and cannot be divorced from it. Therefore, the constitutional requirement of at least three concurring votes applies equally to motions for reconsideration.
4. Recourse to a Higher Body: Unlike in the Court of Appeals (which has no En Banc that acts on judicial matters) or a legislative body, an even vote in a Supreme Court Division has a recourse: the Court En Banc. Since the Constitution expressly provides for this recourse, the matter should be decided there.
5. Conclusion on the Vote: Consequently, Justice Melo believes that a 2-2 vote on a motion for reconsideration in a Division does not result in the motion being “lost.” Instead, the required majority not having been obtained, the matter must be heard by the Court En Banc as constitutionally mandated.
*Note: This digest summarizes only the Separate Opinion of Justice Melo as provided in the text. It reflects his personal views on the constitutional issue, which he expresses for the record while stating he is constrained to vote with the majority due to the existing En Banc resolution.*