You are on page 1of 5

Cruz vs DENR Issue: What happens when votes of the Justices are tied? Facts: 1.

The petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. 2. Deliberation of the Supreme Court Justices a. 7 voted to dismiss the case upholding the validity of the said law Chief Justice Davide; Justices Kapunan, Belosillo, Quisumbing, Santiago, Puno, and Mendoza (with separate opinions but nonetheless voted to sustain the law) b. 7 voted to give due to the case and grant the petition of declaring the law invalid Justices Panganiban, Vitug, Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon 3. After the deliberation and reached a 7-7 vote, the Justices redeliberated and obtained same the votes Ruling: the petition is dismissed for it failed to garner the majority of the votes to declare the law unconstitutional Ratio: 1. Pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition was dismissed. Sec. 7. Procedure if opinion is equally divided. Where the Court en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall again be deliberated on, and if after such deliberation no decision is reached, the original action commenced in the Court shall be dismissed; in appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.

Villadolid vs. Inciong Issue: does the constitutional provision requiring the statement of the facts and the conclusions of law in the decisions of the court cover NLRC, an administrative body? Facts: 1. Villadolid is an employee of Copacabana Apartment- Hotel dismissed for the reason that he communicated confidential matters to their competitor, Tropicana Hotel. He took several sick leaves when the management knew of the said offenses. 2. He was served the notice of dismissal while the clearance from the Ministry of Labor was still pending 3. The Ministry of Labor ruled in favour of Villadolid ordering that he be reinstated in his position without backwages. 4. Villadolid then, appealed that he be given his backwages to which the Deputy Minister dismissed such appeal for the reason that there was no sufficient justification of valid reason to alter, modify, much less reverse the Order appealed from. 5. Thus the case at bar. Ruling: petition is denied. Ratio: the prescription of Section 9, Art. X of the Constitution applies only to decisions of Courts of record 1. Ministry of Labor is an administrative body with quasi-judicial functions and is therefore not part of the courts identified in the mandatory prescription 2. The NLRC is non-litigous and summary in nature without regard to legal technicalities a. The deputy was with full accord with the findings of fact b. Conclusions of law drawn from those facts by the Regional director c. There was no necessity of discussing anew the issues raised therein.

Nunal vs Commission on Audit Issue: Is it mandatory that facts and the law to which it was based be expressly stated in a resolution similar to decisions of the court? Facts: 1. Petitioner was dismissed in 1981 as Municipal Administrator of Isabela, Basilan, for lack of confidence of the Municipal Mayor. Upon denial of the petitioners motion for reconsideration, he filed once again to be reinstated and be paid their backwages. 2. During the pendency of the case, the Sangguniang Bayan of Isabela abolished the position the petitioner was holding (to which separation pay is ought to be paid). 3. They entered into a Compromise Agreement where it was stipulated that he be paid back all of his emoluments and backwages. He also was considered to be retired upon receipt of monetary considerations. There were no stipulations regarding the retirement benefits. 4. As he tried to claim them, the COA denied his petition. 5. The Court issued a resolution upholding the decision of COA and dismissed the petition. Ruling: the claim for separation fees as well as the retirement fees is denied. Ratio: 1. Resolution was not a Decision falling within the meaning of the Constitutional requirement. The mandate is only applicable in cases submitted for decision. 2. Moreover, the assailed resolution does state the legal basis for the dismissal of the Petition.

People vs. Bugarin Issue: Did the trial court err in giving a decision without clearly and distinctly expressing the facts and the law on which they are based? Facts: 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Regional trial court which was written in a two page decision of the trial court finding Bugarin guilty of four counts of consummated rape and one count of attempted rape of his daughter, Maryjane. - After giving a summary of the testimonies of the complainant and accused-appellant, the decision focused solely on the credibility of the victim in finding the truth of the crime. Ruling: With this Courts review of the facts (since the decision of the lower court needed to be supported), the decision is modified: he is guilty of the 4 counts of consummated rape, acquitted in 1, and guilty of 1 count of Acts of Lasciviousness. Ratio: the decision of the lower court falls short of the requirements in the prescription of facts and the law to which the decision was based. 1. Requirements a. Legal qualification of the offense; aggravating or mitigating circumstances b. Participation of the accused in the offense whether as principal, accomplice or accessory c. Penalty imposed d. Civil liability or damages to be recovered from the accused 2. The decision lacks in these aspects: a. Does not contain the evaluation of evidence of the parties and discussion of legal questions b. Did not explain why the testimony of the child victim is credible c. Though there were 6 informations filed, accused was guilty of only 4 counts of rape and 1 count of attempted i. Without telling if the accused was acquitted in one of the informations ii. Without telling how the licking of the private parts of the victim qualified to an attempted rape.

Hernandez vs Court of Appeals Issue: can the courts adopt the narration of facts made in the brief or memoranda of the parties in relation to the requirement on prescription of decisions? Facts: 1. This is a petition for the review of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals 2. The said decision affirmed the conviction of the appellant as guilty of the violation of BP Blg. 22 and acquitted him of the crime of Estafa a. He issued several cheques which bounced to some De Leon for his purchase of Jewelries 3. The CA quoted in full the statement of facts of the Solicitor General for the reason that they were supported by evidence. Ruling: the decision of the CA is affirmed and the petition is denied. Ratio: the constitutional mandate of prescription only requires that the decision should state the facts on which it is based. There is no prescription against the courts adoption of the narration of facts made in the briefs or memoranda of the parties, instead of rewriting the same in its own words. There was still a basis on the denial of the reconsideration: the CA did not find any cogent reason that could justify a modification or reversal of the decision sought to be reconsidered.

You might also like