Fortich vs Corona

Date: August 19, 1999

Ponente: Ynares Santiago

Facts: Concerns the MR of the court’s resolution dated November 17, 1998 and motion to refer the case to
the Court en banc. In previous case, the Court voted two-two on the separate motions for reconsideration,
as a result of which the decision was affirmed.
The Court noted in a resolution dated January 27, 1999 that the movants have no legal personality
to seek redress before the Court as their motion to intervene was already denied and that the motion to
refer the case to the Court en banc is akin to a second MR which is prohibited.
In this motion, both respondents and intervenors prayed that the case be referred to the case in
banc inasmuch as their earlier MR was resolved by a vote of two-two, the required number to carry a
decision under the Constitution (3 votes) was not met.

Issue: WON failure to meet the three votes justifies the referral of the case to the court en banc

Held: No

Ratio: A careful reading of the constitutional provision reveals the intention of the framers to draw a
distinction between cases, on the one hand, and matters, on the other hand, such that cases are “decided”
while matters, which include motions, are “resolved”. Otherwise put, the word “decided” must refer to
“cases”; while the word “resolved” must refer to “matters”, applying the rule of reddendo singula singulis.
With this interpretation, it is clear that only cases are referred to the Court en banc for decision
whenever the required number of votes is not obtained. Conversely, the rule does not apply where, as in
this case, the required three votes is not obtained in the resolution of a MR. Hence, the second sentence
of the provision speaks only of “case” and not “matter”. The reason is simple. Article VIII, Section 4(3)
pertains to the disposition of cases by a division. If there is a tie in the voting, there is no decision. The
only way to dispose of the case then is to refer it to the Court en banc. On the other hand, if a case has
already been decided by the division and the losing party files a MR, the failure of the division to resolve
the motion because of a tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided. There is still the decision
which must stand in view of the failure of the members of the division to muster the necessary vote for its
reconsideration. Quite plainly, if the voting results in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is lost. The
assailed decision is not reconsidered and must therefore be deemed affirmed. Such was the ruling of this
Court in the Resolution of November 17, 1998.

Issue: WON the referral to the court en banc is justified on the ground that the issues are of first
impression

Held: No

Ratio: The issues presented before us by the movants are matters of no extraordinary import to merit the
attention of the Court en banc. The issue of whether or not the power of the local government units to
reclassify lands is subject to the approval of the DAR is no longer novel, this having been decided by this
Court in the case of Province of Camarines Sur, et al. vs. Court of Appeals wherein we held that local
government units need not obtain the approval of the DAR to convert or reclassify lands from agricultural
to non-agricultural use.
Moreover, the Decision sought to be reconsidered was arrived at by a unanimous vote of all five (5)
members of the Second Division of this Court. Stated otherwise, this Second Division is of the opinion that
the matters raised by movants are nothing new and do not deserve the consideration of the Court en
banc. Thus, the participation of the full Court in the resolution of movants’ motions for reconsideration
would be inappropriate.

Issue: WON the referral to the court en banc partakes of the nature of a second MR

Held: Yes

Ratio: The contention, therefore, that our Resolution of November 17, 1998 did not dispose of the earlier
MR of the Decision dated April 24, 1998 is flawed. Consequently, the present MR necessarily partakes of
the nature of a second motion for reconsideration which, according to the clear and unambiguous
language of Rule 56, Section 4, in relation to Rule 52, Section 2, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is
prohibited.
True, there are exceptional cases when this Court may entertain a second motion for
reconsideration, such as where there are extraordinarily persuasive reasons. Even then, we have ruled
that such second MRs must be filed with express leave of court first obtained. In this case, not only did
movants fail to ask for prior leave of court, but more importantly, they have been unable to show that
there are exceptional reasons for us to give due course to their second motions for reconsideration.
Stripped of the arguments for referral of this incident to the Court en banc, the motions subject of this
resolution are nothing more but rehashes of the motions for reconsideration which have been denied in
the Resolution of November 17, 1998. To be sure, the allegations contained therein have already been
raised before and passed upon by this Court in the said Resolution.

Issue: WON the Win-Win Resolution was valid

Held: No

Ratio: This refers to the resolution “by authority of the President” modifying the Decision dated 29 March
1996 of the OP through Executive Secretary Ruben Torres. NQSRMDC’s (Norberto Quisumbing) Application
for Conversion is approved only with respect to 44 hectares as recommended by the DA. The remaining
100 hectares found to be suitable for agriculture shall be distributed to qualified farmer beneficiaries (FBs)
in accordance with RA 6657
The resolution is void and of no legal effect considering that the March 29, 1996 decision of the
Office of the President had already become final and executory even prior to the filing of the MR which
became the basis of the said “Win-Win” Resolution. While it may be true that on its face the nullification of
the “Win-Win” Resolution was grounded on a procedural rule pertaining to the reglementary period to
appeal or move for reconsideration, the underlying consideration therefor was the protection of the
substantive rights of petitioners. “Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the
prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of
his/her case.”
In other words, the finality of the March 29, 1996 OP Decision accordingly vested appurtenant
rights to the land in dispute on petitioners as well as on the people of Bukidnon and other parts of the
country who stand to be benefited by the development of the property.
Before finally disposing of these pending matters, we feel it necessary to rule once and for all on
the legal standing of intervenors in this case. In their present motions, intervenors insist that they are real
parties in interest inasmuch as they have already been issued certificates of land ownership award, or
CLOAs, and that while they are seasonal farmworkers at the plantation, they have been identified by the
DAR as qualified beneficiaries of the property. These arguments are, however, nothing new as in fact they
have already been raised in intervenors’ earlier motion for reconsideration of our April 24, 1998 Decision.
Again as expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Martinez, intervenors, who are admittedly not regular but
seasonal farmworkers, have no legal or actual and substantive interest over the subject land inasmuch as
they have no right to own the land. Rather, their right is limited only to a just share of the fruits of the
land. Moreover, the “Win-Win” Resolution itself states that the qualified beneficiaries have yet to be
carefully and meticulously determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform. Absent any definitive
finding of the DAR, intervenors cannot as yet be deemed vested with sufficient interest in the controversy
as to be qualified to intervene in this case. Likewise, the issuance of the CLOA's to them does not grant
them the requisite standing in view of the nullity of the “Win-Win” Resolution. No legal rights can emanate
from a resolution that is null and void.

Melo:
By mandate of the Constitution, cases heard by a division when the required majority of at least 3 votes in
the division is not obtained are to be heard and decided by the Court En Banc.
The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission disclose that if the case is not decided in a
division by a majority vote, it goes to the Court En Banc and not to a larger division
In a situation where a division of 5 has only 4 members, the 5th member having inhibited himself or is
otherwise not in a position to participate, or has retired, a minimum of 3 votes would still be required
before there can be any valid decision or resolution by that division. There may, then, be instances when
a deadlock may occur, i.e., the votes tied at 2-2. It is my humble view that under the clear and
unequivocal provisions of the 1986 Constitution, if the required majority is not reached in a division, the
case should automatically go to Court En Banc.
I submit that the requirement of 3 votes equally applies to motions for reconsideration because the
provision contemplates “cases” or “matters” (which for me has no material distinction insofar as divisions
are concerned) heard by a division, and a motion for reconsideration cannot be divorced from the decision
in a case that it seeks to be reconsidered. Consequently, if the required minimum majority of 3 votes is
not met, the matter of the motion for reconsideration has to be heard by the Court En Banc, as mandated
by the Constitution (par. 3, Sec. 4, Art. VIII). To say that the motion is lost in the division on a 2-2 vote, is
to construe something which cannot be sustained by a reading of the Constitution. To argue that a motion
for reconsideration is not a “case” but only a “matter” which does not concern a case, so that, even
though the vote thereon in the division is 2-2, the matter or issue is not required to elevated to the Court
En Banc, is to engage in a lot of unfounded hairsplitting.