Case Summary (G.R. No. 131457)
Constitutional Provision on Division Decisions and En Banc Referral
Article VIII, Section 4(3) mandates that cases or matters heard by a division must be “decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part …, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc.” The Court interpreted “cases” (decided) and “matters” (resolved) as distinct: only undecided cases—i.e., those lacking the requisite three-member concurrence on the merits—automatically go en banc. A tied vote on a motion for reconsideration (a “matter”) does not unsettle an already rendered decision.
Division’s Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration Tie
The April 24, 1998 Decision denying leave to intervene and resolving substantive claims was followed by motions for reconsideration. On November 17, 1998, the Second Division voted 2–2 on those motions, thereby deeming them denied and affirming the Decision. Respondents and intervenors contended that a tie should trigger en banc referral. The Court held that the tie on a motion for reconsideration does not leave the case undecided—instead, the underlying Decision survives unchanged.
Prohibition of Second Motions for Reconsideration
Respondents and intervenors filed second post-resolution motions (December 2 and 3, 1998) seeking both reconsideration of the November 17 Resolution and en banc referral. Under Section 4, Rule 56 in relation to Section 2, Rule 52 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a second motion for reconsideration is prohibited absent express prior leave of court. No exceptional circumstances were shown to warrant departure from that rule. Hence, these successive motions were prohibited and properly denied.
Substantive Validity of the “Win-Win” Resolution
The contested Win-Win Resolution (November 7, 1997) was declared void because the Office of the President’s March 29, 1996 decision had already become final and executory before the Division’s reconsideration period expired. Finality confers vested rights in favor of petitioners and the public interest, superseding any subsequent procedural attempt to revive the prior resolution.
Standing of Intervenors
Intervenors, as seasonal farmworkers, have no right to own the disputed land; their interest is limited to a share in its fruits. Their purported CLOAs derive from a void resolution and are therefore of no legal effect. Absent a defini
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 131457)
Procedural History
- Petitioners:
- Hon. Carlos O. Fortich, Provincial Governor of Bukidnon
- Hon. Rey B. Baula, Municipal Mayor of Sumilao, Bukidnon
- NQSR Management and Development Corporation
- Respondents:
- Hon. Renato C. Corona, Deputy Executive Secretary
- Hon. Ernesto D. Garilao, Secretary, Department of Agrarian Reform
- April 24, 1998 Decision:
- Denied motion for leave to intervene by respondents and intervenors
- November 17, 1998 Resolution:
- Division voted 2–2 on separate motions for reconsideration of the April 24 Decision
- Tie vote deemed affirmation of the April 24 Decision
- December 2–3, 1998 Filings:
- Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration of the November 17 Resolution and for referral en banc
- Intervenors’ Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer to Refer the Matter en banc
- January 27, 1999 Resolution:
- Noted without action the intervenors’ December 3 motion as improper (second motion for reconsideration; lack of legal personality)
- March 2, 1999 Urgent Omnibus Motion by Intervenors:
- Sought annulment of January 27 Resolution and immediate resolution of May 28, 1998 motion for reconsideration
Issues Presented
- Whether a 2–2 tie vote on a motion for reconsideration by a division requires referral to the Supreme Court en banc under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the 1987 Constitution
- Whether the November 17, 1998 Resolution effectively resolved the first motions for reconsideration of the April 24, 1998 Decision
- Whether respondents’ and intervenors’ subsequent motions constitute prohibited second motions for reconsideration
- Whether intervenors possess the requisite legal standing to participate
Constitutional Provision at Stake
- Article VIII, Section 4(3), 1987 Constitution:
- “Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in