FIRESTONE CERAMICS petitioners vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 127245. June 28, 2000
Ponente: PURISIMA, J.

Facts:
The consolidated cases involve a vast tract of land with an area of 99 hectares
presumably belonging to the republic of the Philippines which was adjudged to private
individuals by a court alleged to be without jurisdiction. The petitioners filed a Motion to refer to
the Court EN Banc the consolidated cases in which the Third Division of the court has decided.
Herein petitioners submitted to the Court en consulta, a motion to the Court En banc. A
pleading entitled, “FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT EN BANC, EN CONSULTA” was
presented but when the same was brought into attention on March 7, 2000, the Third Division
had not yet acted on the subject motions to refer the cases to the Banc. However, the court
warned the Third Division that their decision on the matterwould just be tentative.
One day later, the Third Division Voted 4-1 to deny the petitioners motion to transfer
the matter to En Banc. March 14, 2000, the court deliberated on the consulta and thereafter,
voted 9-5 to accept the cases for the en banc finding that the case entitled are of sufficient
importance to merit its attention. Evidently, the action of the court under the premises is an
exercise of Residual Power.
Untenable is the contention of Justice Panganiban that the Chief Justice and the 8
Associate Justices who voted to treat these consolidated cases as En banc have not yet
given any reason for such action. The only reason by the court is that it is decisively clear
that these consolidated cases have been found to be of sufficient importance to merit the
attention and disposition of the entire Court en banc.

Issue:

Whether or not the case should be decided en Banc.

The Court’s Ruling:

Supreme Court ruled in affirmative.

The action of the court simply means that the nature of the case calls for en banc
session
and consideration. It was merely guided by well-studied finding of the majority that
indeed, subject cases are of sufficient importance meriting the action and decision of the
whole court.
- The following cases can be treated as an en banc cases:
1. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question;
2. Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty;
3. Cases raising novel questions of law
4. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;
 5. Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil Service Commission,
Commission on Elections, and Commission on Audit
6. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or
employee of the judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of
them for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000.00 or both
7. Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may
be modified or reversed
8. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members
thereof merit the attention of the court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the
actual membership of the court en banc; and
9. All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem
of sufficient importance to merit its attention.

Reliance by Justice Panganiban on the Sumilao case where the Second Division voted 2-
2 is misplaced. The court ruled that the stalemate resulting from the said voting constituted a
denial for motion for reconsideration. And in the present case, the motions for reconsideration
of the petitioners are pending and unresolved. The case will be heard and oral arguments will
be heard.

Separate Opinions
Concurring:
 PUNO, J.:
In this case, Justice Puno believes that the result of the oral arguments will be a vital factor
to consider before the court en banc should finally decide over the case at bar. The issue or
resolution in the said Motion for Reconsideration concerns res judicata or a matter that is
already
judged. The issue at hand does not involve the question a question of law for beyond its
resolution will rest on some amorphous question of fact. Until these questions fact are
sharpened and given shape, the court en banc should assume jurisdiction over the case.

Dissenting:
 GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
According to Justice Gonzaga-Reyes, the fact alone that the property involved covers an
area of 99 hectares does not provide a cogent reason to elevate the cases to the Court en banc.
It is not a cogent reason. The value of the property was not stated. The court is not an
appellate court to which a decision or resolution may be appealed. The motion for
reconsideration is still pending in the 3rd division. The court does not have an appellate
jurisdiction over the court divisions. Only constraint is that any doctrine or principle of law laid
down by the court, may be overturned by the court sitting en banc. The prerogative to take out
a case from the division without the concurrence of a majority of its members should I at all be
used only for clearly compelling reasons.
 PANGANIBAN, J.:
The majority has not given any cogent or compelling reason for the unprecedented action
yanking the case out of and against the will of a division. –By vote of 4-1, the Third Division
rejected motions to refer the cases to the full court because the movants had utterly failed to
adduce any legal reason for such referral. The court just said that the consolidated cases are of
sufficient importance to merit the attention and disposition of the entire court without saying
why. Only one dissenter of the Third division, Justice Purisima, asked the court en banc to take
over the case.