Borromeo v. CA

Borromeo v. CA

G.R. No. L-82273 June 1, 1990

Per Curiam

Facts:

                Mr. Borromeo charges that Attys. Carreon, Marasigan and Ilustre usurped judicial functions by issuing a “supposed” resolution of the Third Division of the Court in G.R. No. 82273, and further alleges that, “the wanton, malicious and deceitful acts of defendants in impeding, obstructing, and defeating the-proper administration of justice by depriving plaintiff of due process, equal protection of the laws, and his cardinal primary rights through said illegal, unjust and fake ‘resolutions’ and ‘Entry of Judgment,’ has caused plaintiff grave moral shock, mental anguish, sleepless nights, severe embarrassment and endless worry, for which the former must be condemned to pay MORAL DAMAGES in the amount of not less than P50,000.00.”

                The September 13, 1989 resolution of the Supreme Court through its Third Division which disposed of Borromeo’s petition is a four-page resolution which more than adequately complies with the constitutional requirements governing resolutions refusing to give due course to petitions for review. The petition and its incidents were discussed and deliberated upon by the Justices of the Third Division during the April 13, 1988 session; the September 28,1988 session; the November 28,1988 session; the January 25, 1989 session; and the April 12, 1989 session before the issuance of the September 13, 1989 resolution. On November 27, 1989, a motion for reconsideration, which was received by the Court more than a month after a copy of the September 13, 1989 resolution denying the petition was served on the petitioner, was noted without action as the Court found that the motion merely reiterated the same arguments earlier raised in the petition and already passed upon by the Court and was, therefore without merit.

Issue:

                whether or not the Minute Resolution issued by the Supreme Court offends the constitutional provision requiring that no decision shall be rendered by any court of record without stating clearly and distinctly the law and the facts on which it is based

Held:

                No. The Supreme Court disposes of the bulk of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees them as final and executory, as where a case is patently without merits where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decision appealed from is supported by: substantial evidence and, is in accord with the facts of the case and the applicable laws, where it is clear from the records that the petition is filed merely to forestall the early execution of judgment and for non-compliance with the rules. The resolution denying due course or dismissing the petition always gives the legal basis. The Supreme Court is not ‘duty bound’ to render signed Decisions all the time. It has ample discretion to formulate Decisions and/or Minute Resolutions, provided a legal basis is given, depending on its evaluation of a case”. This is the only way whereby it can act on all cases filed before it and, accordingly, discharge its constitutional functions. The Court ordinarily acts on the incidents or basic merits of three hundred (300) to four hundred (400) cases through its Divisions every Monday and Wednesday when the Divisions meet and on one hundred (100) to one hundred twenty (120) cases every Tuesday and Thursday that it meets en banc or around one thousand (1,000) cases a week. It is only on Fridays; and week-ends that the members of the Court work in their separate chambers or at home because the Court does not meet in session--either in Divisions or En Banc.

For a prompt dispatch of actions of the Court, minute resolutions are promulgated by the Supreme Court through the Clerk of Court, who takes charge of sending copies thereof to the parties concerned by quoting verbatim the resolution issued on a particular case. It is the Clerk of Court’s duty to inform the parties of the action taken on their cases by quoting the resolution adopted by the court. The Clerk of Court never participates in the deliberations of case. All decisions and resolutions are actions of the Supreme Court. The Clerk of Court merely transmits the Supreme Court’s action. Minute resolutions of the Supreme Court denying or dismissing unmeritorious petitions like the petition in the case at bar, are the result of a thorough deliberation among the members of the Supreme Court, which does not and cannot delegate the exercise of its judicial functions to its Clerk of Court or any of its subalterns, which should be known to counsel. When a petition is denied or dismissed by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court sustains the challenged decision or order together with its findings of facts and legal conclusions.

Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court who took part in the deliberations of a case nor do they require the certification of the Chief Justice. For to require members of the court to sign all resolutions issued would not only unduly delay the issuance of its resolutions but a great amount of their time would be spent on functions more properly performed by the Clerk of court and which time could be more profitably used in the analysis of cases and the formulation of decisions and orders of important nature and character. Even with the use of this procedure, the Court is still struggling to wipe out the backlogs accumulated over the years and meet the ever increasing number of cases coming to it. Remedial-legislation to meet this problem is also pending in Congress.