FIRESTONE CERAMICS petitioners vs. COURT OF APPEALS Supreme Court July 28, 2000 G.R. No. 127022 FACTS:
-
-
-
-
The case is about the petitioners’ Motion to refer to the Court EN Banc the consolidated cases in which the Third Division of the court has decided. The cases involve a vast tract of land with an area of 99 hectares presumably belonging to the republic of the Philippines which was adjudged to private individuals by a court alleged to be without jurisdiction. The petitioners submitted to the Court en consulta, consulta, a motion to the Court En banc. A pleading entitled, “FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT EN BANC, EN CONSULTA” was presented but when the same was brought into attention on March 7, 2000, the Third Division had not yet acted on the subject motions to refer the cases to the Banc. However, the court warned the Third Division that their decision on the matter would just be tentative. March 8, 2000, the Third Division Voted 4-1 to deny the petitioners motion to transfer the matter to En Banc. March 14, 2000, the court deliberated on the consulta and thereafter, voted 9-5 to accept the cases for the en banc finding that the case entitled are of sufficient importance to merit its attention. Evidently, the action of the court under the premises is an exercise of Residual Power. Untenable is the contention of Justice Panganiban that the Chief Justice and the 8 Associate Justices who voted to treat these consolidated c ases as En banc have not yet given any reason for such action. The only reason by the court is that it is decisively clear that these consolidated cases have been found to be of sufficient importance to merit the attention and disposition of the entire Court en banc.
ISSUES: HELD:
W/N the court should treat the case at bar en banc.
YES
REASONING:
-
-
The action of the court cou rt simply means that the nature of the case calls for en banc session and consideration. It was merely guided by well studied finding of the majority that indeed, subject cases are of sufficient importance meriting the action and decision of the whole court. The following cases can be treated as an en banc cases: 1. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question; 2. Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty; 3. Cases raising novel questions of law 4. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; 5. Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, and Commission on Audit
6. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of m ore than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000.00 or both 7. Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed 8. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the court en banc; and 9. All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention.
-
-
Reliance by Justice Panganiban on the Sumilao case where the Second Division voted 22 is misplaced. The court ruled that the stalemate resulting from the said voting constituted a denial for motion for reconsideration. And in the present case, the motions for reconsideration of the petitioners are pending an d unresolved. The case will be heard and oral arguments will be heard.
SEPARATE OPINIONS: CONCURR
PUNO, J .: -
Justice Puno believes that the result of the oral arguments will be a vital factor to consider before the court en banc should finally decide over the case at bar. The issue or resolution in the said Motion for Reconsideration concerns res judicata or a matter that is already judged. - The issue at hand does not involve the question a question of law for beyond its resolution will rest on some amorphous question of fact. Until these questions fact are sharpened and given shape, the court en banc should assume jurisdiction over the case. DISSENT
GONZAGA-REYES, J .: - The fact alone that the property involved covers an area of 99 hectares does not provide a cogent reason to elevate the cases to the Court en banc. It is not a cogent reason. The value of the property was not stated. - The court is not an appellate court to which a decision or resolution may be appealed. rd The motion for reconsideration is still pending in the 3 division. The court does not have an appellate jurisdiction over the court divisions. Only constraint is that any doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court, may be overturned by the court sitting en banc. - The prerogative to take out a case from the division without the concurrence of a majority of its members should I at all be used only for clearly compelling reasons. PANGANIBAN, J .: - The majority has not given any cogent or compelling reason for the unprecedented action yanking the case out of and against the will of a division. –By vote of 4-1, the Third Division rejected motions to refer the cases to the full court because the movants had utterly failed to adduce any legal reason for such referral. The court just said that the consolidated cases are of sufficient importance to merit the attention and disposition of
the entire court without saying why. Only one dissenter of the Third division, Justice Purisima, asked the court en banc to take over the case.
