SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218679. April 18, 2016.]
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 April 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218679: EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR. v. PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY
This resolves petitioner Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr.'s Motion to Vacate 1 the Resolution 2 dated November 23, 2015 for having been issued allegedly in violation of the second paragraph of Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution. 3 In the alternative, petitioner prays that this Court reconsider its Resolution dated November 23, 2015. 4
The November 23, 2015 Resolution is a minute resolution denying the Petition for Review on Certiorari5 for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the Orders dated February 20, 2015 6 and June 22, 2015 7 of Branch 100 of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City. 8 The Resolution states:
G.R. No. 218679 (Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Philippine Coconut Authority). — Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari assailing the Orders dated 20 February 2015 and 22 June 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 100, in Civil Case No. 14-08987, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case. 9 (Emphasis in the original)
Contrary to petitioner's claim, the issuance of minute resolutions such as the November 23, 2015 Resolution does not violate the Constitution. All that Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution requires is that a court, when refusing due course or denying a petition for review, provide the legal basis therefor:
SECTION 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. (Emphasis supplied)
The first paragraph of Article VIII, Section 14 does not apply because it refers to "decisions," not to resolutions disposing of petitions for review. 10
Consistent with the constitutional requirement, the November 23, 2015 Resolution provides the legal basis for denying petitioner's Petition for Review on Certiorari. Petitioner failed to show any reversible error in the Orders dated February 20, 2015 and June 22, 2015 of Branch 100 of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City. This means that this Court agrees and adopts the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and that the Orders dated February 20, 2015 and June 22, 2015 are correct. 11
This Court reminds petitioner that a review on certiorari "is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor." 12 This Court, on its own initiative, may deny a petition for review if it is "without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration." 13
We are "not 'duty bound' to render signed Decisions all the time." 14 This Court promulgates minute resolutions to save time that "could be more profitably used in [analyzing] cases and [formulating] decisions and orders of important nature and character." 15 "[T]o require members of [this] Court to sign all resolutions issued would . . . only unduly delay the issuance of its resolutions[.]" 16
Therefore, the argument that the November 23, 2015 Resolution was issued in violation of Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution is without merit.
At any rate, the Motion to Vacate is in the nature of a motion for reconsideration, where petitioner reiterates the arguments he has made in his Petition for Review on Certiorari. EATCcI
WHEREFORE, we TREAT the Motion to Vacate as petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. After considering the arguments of petitioner Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., we DENY WITH FINALITY the Motion for Reconsideration for failure to raise any substantial argument. Consequently, no further pleadings shall be filed and entry of judgment must be made in due course.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 277-316. The Motion was entitled Motion to Vacate "Resolution" of November 23, 2015 as Void for Failure to Comply with Sec. 14 (Par. 2), Article VIII of the Constitution; Assuming not Vacated, for Reconsideration of the "Resolution" for being Contrary to Law.
2. Id. at 276.
3. CONST., art. VIII, sec. 14, par. 2 provides:
SECTION 14. . . .
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
4. Rollo, p. 314, Motion to Vacate.
5. Id. at 14-59.
6. Id. at 249-250. The Order was issued by Acting Presiding Judge Genie G. Gapas-Agbada.
7. Id. at 251-252. The Order was issued by Presiding Judge Editha G. Miña-Aguba.
8. Id. at 276, Supreme Court Resolution dated November 23, 2015.
9. Id.
10. Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, 264 Phil. 388, 394 (1990) [Per Curiam, En Banc], citing Tayamura v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 76355, May 21, 1987.
11. See Agoy v. Araneta Center, Inc., 685 Phil. 246, 251 (2012) [Per J. Abad, Third Division].
12. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 6.
13. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 5.
14. Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, 264 Phil. 388, 393 (1990) [Per Curiam, En Banc], citing In the Matter of Proceedings for Disciplinary Action against Atty. Wenceslao Laureta, etc., 232 Phil. 353, 384 (1987) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
15. Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, 264 Phil., 388, 394 (1990) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
16. Id.