art. 8 sec. 4 fortich v. corona

Section 4 FORTICH V. CORONA DOCTRINE A careful reading of Article VIII, Section 4 3) of the Constitution 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 “redden do singula singulis”. This is true not only in the interpretation of the above - quoted Article VIII, Section 4(3), but also of the other provisions of the Constitution where these words appear. FACTS The case concerns the MR of the Court’s resolution dated November 17, 199 8 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 court en 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 vote s justifies the referral of the case to the court en banc (NO) HELD 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 do es not apply where as in this case the require d three vote s is not obtained in the resolution of a motion for reconsider ation. Hence, the second sentence of the aforequoted provision speaks only of “case– and not “matter. – The reason is simple. The above quoted 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 fil es a motion for reconsideration, 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 reconsi deration is lost. The assailed decision is not reconsidered and must therefore be deeme d affirmed. Such was the ruling of this Court in the Resolution of November 17, 1998.

Upload: jennilyn-tugelida

Post on 11-Oct-2015

14 views

Category:

Documents

2 download

Report

Download

Embed Size (px):

DESCRIPTION

digest

TRANSCRIPT

5/21/2018 Art. 8 Sec. 4 Fortich v. Corona

1/2

Section 4

FORTICH V. CORONA

DOCTRINE

A careful reading of Article VIII, Section 4 3) of the Constitution reveals the intention of the frame rs to draw a

distinction between cases, on the one hand, and matters, on the other hand, such that case s are decided

while matters which include motions are resolved.Otherwise put, the word decidedmust refer to cases;while the word resolvedmust refer to matters, applying the rule of reddendo singula singulis. This istrue not only in the interpretation of the above- quoted Article VIII, Section 4(3), but also of the other provisionsof the Constitution where these words appear.

FACTS

The case concerns the MR of the Courts resolution dated November 17, 1998 and motion to refer the case to theCourt en banc. In previous case, the Court voted two-two on the separate motions for reconsideration, as aresult of which the decision was affirmed.

The Court noted in a resolution dated January 27, 1999 that the movants have no legal personality to seekredress before the Court as their motion to intervene was already denied and that the motion to refer the case tothe 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 court en banc inasmuchas their earlier MR was resolved by a vote of two-two, the required number to carry a decision under theConstitution (3 votes) was not met.

ISSUE

WON failure to meet the three votes justifies the referral of the case to the court en banc (NO)

HELD

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 motion for reconsideration. Hence, the second sentence of the aforequotedprovision speaks only of caseand not matter. The reason is simple. The above quoted Article VIII, Section4(3) pertains to the disposition of cases by a division. If there is a tie in the voting, there is no decision. The onlyway to dispose of the case then is to refer it to the Court en banc. On the other hand, if a case has already beendecided by the division and the losing party files a motion for reconsideration, the failure of the division toresolve the motion because of a tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided. There is still the decisionwhich must stand in view of the failure of the members of the division to muster the necessary vote for itsreconsideration. Quite plainly, if the voting results in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is lost. The assaileddecision is not reconsidered and must therefore be deemed affirmed. Such was the ruling of this Court in the

Resolution of November 17, 1998.
5/21/2018 Art. 8 Sec. 4 Fortich v. Corona

2/2