You are on page 1of 1

SC Clarifies Definition of ‘Resolution’ http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/publications/benchmark/2009/04/040927.

php

THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY

HISTORY OF THE SC

TOUR THE SC

pon Publication of Internal Rules


COURT OF APPEALS SANDIGANBAYAN COURT OF TAX APPEALS PHILJA JBC APJR/PMO E-LIBRARY JRN21

HOME > PUBLICATIONS > BENCHMARK > APRIL2009

SEARCH
Benchmark Online April 2009

BENCHMARK SC Clarifies Definition of ‘Resolution’


COURTNEWS By Jen T. Tuazon

BOOKS
A minute resolution dismissing a petition for review on certiorari is an adjudication on the
merits of the controversy and is as valid and effective as a full-length decision.

Thus stressed the Supreme Court in a resolution issued in response to a petition filed by
Susana Joaquin-Agregado. The petition assailed an earlier resolution by the Court dismissing
Agregado’s petition for review on certiorari of a ruling of the Court of Appeals. She alleged
that the Court, in issuing the resolution dated September 22, 2008, had failed to comply with
sec. 13, Art. VIII of the Constitution which requires the certification of the Chief Justice in
cases submitted for decision en banc or in division.

The Court held that minute resolutions do not require the signature of the members of the
Court nor the certification of the Chief Justice as such requirements “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.”

The Court stressed that it has the discretion to decide whether a “minute resolution” should
be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case. Further, the Court explained
that the grant of due course to a petition for review is not a matter of right, but of sound
judicial discretion. When the Court fails to find any reversible error committed by the CA,
there is no need to fully explain the Court’s denial as it means that the Court agrees with or
adopts the findings and conclusions of the CA. “There is no point in reproducing or restating
in the resolution of denial the conclusions of the appellate court affirmed,” the Court said.

The court added that the constitutional requirement of sec. 14, Art. VIII of a clear presentation
of facts and laws applies to decisions, where the petition is given due course, but not where
the petition is denied due course, with the resolution stating the legal basis for the dismissal.
(Min. Res. GR No. 181107, Joaquin-Agregado v. Yama, March 20, 2009)

This site is maintained and updated by the SC Public Information Office

1 of 1 4/4/2011 12:57 PM