G.R. No. 196358 ; March 21, 2012
JANDY J. AGOY, Petitioner, vs. ARANETA CENTER, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jandy J. Agoy filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution which affirmed his dismissal by respondent Araneta Center, Inc. for serious misconduct and dishonesty due to repeated delays in remitting excess cash advances and his admission of spending them for other purposes. On June 15, 2011, the Supreme Court (Third Division) denied the petition through a minute resolution, stating it was denied for failure to show that the CA committed reversible error. Petitioner, doubting the authenticity of the received copy of this minute resolution, filed a motion to rescind it and requested that his case be resolved on the merits via a regular signed resolution or decision. Subsequently, on September 21, 2011, the Court denied this motion to rescind, confirmed the authenticity of the June 15, 2011 resolution, and treated the motion as a motion for reconsideration, denying it with finality. Petitioner then filed another motion to rescind the September 21, 2011 resolution, reiterating his objection to the use of a minute resolution and praying for the case to be submitted to the Court En Banc for proper disposition through a signed resolution or decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the copies of the minute resolutions dated June 15, 2011 and September 21, 2011 received by petitioner are authentic.
2. Whether it was proper for the Supreme Court to deny petitioner’s petition through a minute resolution.

RULING

1. Yes, the minute resolutions are authentic. The notices of the minute resolutions sent to petitioner, bearing the signatures of Assistant Clerk of Court Teresita Aquino Tuazon and Deputy Division Clerk of Court Wilfredo V. Lapitan on pink paper and duly received by counsel as evidenced by registry return cards, are authentic and original copies. The Clerk of Court and assistants are authorized to inform parties of the Court’s actions by quoting verbatim the resolutions adopted by the Court, as prescribed by the Supreme Court’s Internal Rules. They do not take part in deliberations but merely transmit the Court’s action. No law or rule requires the Justices to sign minute resolutions that deny due course to petitions.
2. Yes, it was proper for the Supreme Court to deny the petition through a minute resolution. The Constitution (Article VIII, Section 14) requires that a petition for review or motion for reconsideration shall not be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis. The minute resolution in this case complied by citing the absence of reversible error in the challenged CA decision as the legal basis. The Supreme Court’s Internal Rules (Rule 13, Section 6) provide that a minute resolution shall issue when the Court denies a petition under Rule 45, citing as legal basis the absence of reversible error. Minute resolutions dismissing actions constitute actual adjudications on the merits, resulting from thorough deliberation among the Justices. When the Court finds no reversible error in the CA decision, it adopts the CA’s findings, and fully explaining the denial would be redundant. The Court was also justified in treating petitioner’s motion to rescind as a motion for reconsideration since it asked for a review of the merits.
The Court denied petitioner’s subsequent motions for lack of merit and directed that no further pleadings be entertained.