Fortich vs CoronaDate: August 19, 1999Petitioners: Hon. Carlos Fortich, Hon Rey Baula, et alRespondents: Hon.

Renato Corona, Hon. Ernesto Garilao, et al Ponente: Ynares Santiago Facts: Concerns the MR of the courts resolution dated November 17, 1998 and motion to refer the case tothe 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 personalityto seek redress before the Court as their motion to intervene was already denied and that the motion torefer 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 inbanc inasmuch as their earlier MR was resolved by a vote of two-two, the required number to carry adecision 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 H e l d : N o Ratio:A careful reading of the constitutional provision reveals the intention of the framers to draw adistinction between cases, on the one hand, and matters, on the other hand, such that cases are decidedwhile matters, which include motions, are resolved. Otherwise put, the word decided must refer tocases; 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 decisionwhenever the required number of votes is not obtained. Conversely, the rule does not apply where, as inthis case, the required three votes is not obtained in the resolution of a MR. Hence, the second sentenceof 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. Theonly way to dispose of the case then is to refer it to the Court en banc . On the other hand, if a case hasalready been decided by the division and the losing party files a MR, the failure of the division to resolvethe 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. Theassailed decision is not reconsidered and must therefore be deemed affirmed. Such was the ruling of thisCourt 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 firstimpressionH e l d : N o Ratio: The issues presented before us by the movants are matters of no extraordinary import to merit theattention of the Court en banc

. The issue of whether or not the power of the local government units toreclassify lands is subject to the approval of the DAR is no longer novel, this having been decided by thisCourt in the case of Province of Camarines Sur, et al. vs. Court of Appeals wherein we held that localgovernment units need not obtain the approval of the DAR to convert or reclassify lands from agriculturalto 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 thatthe matters raised by movants are nothing new and do not deserve the consideration of the Court enbanc. Thus, the participation of the full Court in the resolution of movants motions for reconsiderationwould be inappropriate.Issue:WON the referral to the court en banc partakes of the nature of a second MRH e l d : Y e s Ratio: The contention, therefore, that our Resolution of November 17, 1998 did not dispose of the earlierMR 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 unambiguouslanguage of Rule 56, Section 4, in relation to Rule 52, Section 2, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, isprohibited. True, there are exceptional cases when this Court may entertain a second motion forreconsideration, such as where there are extraordinarily persuasive reasons. Even then, we have ruledthat such second MRs must be filed with express leave of court first obtained. In this case, not only didmovants fail to ask for prior leave of court, but more importantly, they have been unable to show thatthere 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 thisresolution are nothing more but rehashes of the motions for reconsideration which have been denied inthe Resolution of November 17, 1998. To be sure, the allegations contained therein have already beenraised before and passed upon by this Court in the said Resolution.Issue:WON the Win-Win Resolution was validH e l d : N o Ratio: This refers to the resolution by authority of the President modifying the Decision dated 29 March1996 of the OP through Executive Secretary Ruben Torres. NQSRMDCs (Norberto Quisumbing) Applicationfor Conversion is approved only with respect to 44 hectares as recommended by the DA. The remaining100 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 theOffice of the President had already become final and executory even prior to the filing of the MR whichbecame 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 toappeal or move for reconsideration, the underlying consideration therefor was the protection of thesubstantive rights of petitioners. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within theprescribed 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 appurtenantrights to the land in dispute on petitioners as well as on the people of Bukidnon and other parts of thecountry 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 onthe legal standing of intervenors in this case. In their present motions, intervenors insist that they are realparties in interest inasmuch as they have already been issued certificates of land ownership award, orCLOAs, and that while they are seasonal farmworkers at the plantation, they have been identified by theDAR as qualified beneficiaries of the property. These arguments are, however, nothing new as in fact theyhave 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 butseasonal farmworkers, have no legal or actual and substantive interest over the subject land inasmuch asthey have no right to own the land. Rather, their right is limited only to a just share of the fruits of theland. Moreover, the Win-Win Resolution itself states that the qualified beneficiaries have yet to becarefully and meticulously determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform. Absent any definitivefinding of the DAR, intervenors cannot as yet be deemed vested with sufficient interest in the controversyas to be qualified to intervene in this case. Likewise, the issuance of the CLOA's to them does not grantthem the requisite standing in view of the nullity of the Win-Win Resolution. No legal rights can emanatefrom 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 inthe 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 adivision by a majority vote, it goes to the Court En Banc and not to a larger divisionIn a situation where a division of 5 has only 4 members, the 5th member having inhibited himself or isotherwise not in a position to participate, or has retired, a minimum of 3 votes would still be requiredbefore there can be any valid decision or resolution by that division. There may, then, be instances whena deadlock may occur, i.e., the votes tied at 2-2. It is my humble view that under the clear andunequivocal provisions of the 1986 Constitution, if the required majority is not reached in a division, thecase should automatically go to Court En Banc.