Stradcom vs. Judge Laqui

7/31/2019 Stradcom vs. Judge Laqui

1/44

CASE 2012-0041: STRADCOM CORPORATION VS. HONORABLE HILARIO L. LAQUI AS ACTING PRESIDING

JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 97 AND DTECH MANAGEMENT,

INC., (G.R. NO. 172712, MARCH 21, 2012, PEREZ, J.) SUBJECT/S: MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASES;

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASES (BRIEF TITLE: STRADCOM VS.

JUDGE LAQUI)

Filed under:LATEST SUPREME COURT CASESLeave a comment

April 6, 2012

CASE 2012-0041: STRADCOM CORPORATION VS. HONORABLE HILARIO L. LAQUI AS ACTING PRESIDING

JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 97 AND DTECH MANAGEMENT,

INC., (G.R. NO. 172712, MARCH 21, 2012, PEREZ,J.)SUBJECT/S: MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASES;

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASES (BRIEF TITLE: STRADCOM VS. JUDGE

LAQUI)

===============

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for having been rendered moot andacademic.

SO ORDERED.

===============

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
http://jabbulao.com/category/latest-supreme-court-cases/http://jabbulao.com/category/latest-supreme-court-cases/http://jabbulao.com/category/latest-supreme-court-cases/http://jabbulao.com/2012/04/06/case-2012-0041-stradcom-corporation-vs-honorable-hilario-l-laqui-as-acting-presiding-judge-of-the-regional-trial-court-of-quezon-city-branch-97-and-dtech-management-inc-g-r-no-172712-march/#respondhttp://jabbulao.com/2012/04/06/case-2012-0041-stradcom-corporation-vs-honorable-hilario-l-laqui-as-acting-presiding-judge-of-the-regional-trial-court-of-quezon-city-branch-97-and-dtech-management-inc-g-r-no-172712-march/#respondhttp://jabbulao.com/2012/04/06/case-2012-0041-stradcom-corporation-vs-honorable-hilario-l-laqui-as-acting-presiding-judge-of-the-regional-trial-court-of-quezon-city-branch-97-and-dtech-management-inc-g-r-no-172712-march/#respondhttp://jabbulao.com/2012/04/06/case-2012-0041-stradcom-corporation-vs-honorable-hilario-l-laqui-as-acting-presiding-judge-of-the-regional-trial-court-of-quezon-city-branch-97-and-dtech-management-inc-g-r-no-172712-march/#respondhttp://jabbulao.com/category/latest-supreme-court-cases/


2/44

WHEN DOES A CASE BECOMES MOOT AND ACADEMIC?

WHEN WHEN, BY VIRTUE OF SUPERVENING EVENTS,[1][23]THERE IS NO MORE ACTUAL CONTROVERSY

BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND NO USEFUL PURPOSE CAN BE SERVED IN PASSING UPON THE MERITS .[2][24]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHEN A MOOT CASE IS FILED WITH THE COURT WHAT WILL THE COURT DO?

AS A GENERAL RULE, THE COURT WILL DECLINE JURISDICTION ON GROUND OF MOOTNESS.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHY WILL THE COURT DECLINE JURISDICTION ON GROUND OF MOOTNESS?

BECAUSE COURTS ARE CONSTITUTED TO PASS UPON SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS AND THUS COURTS WILL

NOT CONSIDER QUESTIONS WHERE NO ACTUAL INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED.

Where a case has become moot and academic, there is no more justiceable controversy, so that a

declaration thereon would be of no practical value.[3][22]

A case becomes moot and academic when, byvirtue of supervening events,

[4][23]there is no more actual controversy between the parties and no useful

purpose can be served in passing upon the merits.[5][24]

Since they are constituted to pass upon

substantial rights, courts of justice will not consider questions where no actual interests are

involved.[6][25] As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such cases or dismiss them on the ground of

mootness.[7][26]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn1http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn1http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn1http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn2http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn2http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn2http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn2http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn1


3/44

RTC ISSUED A TRO RESTRAINING LTO TO TERMINATE DETECHS SERVICES. LATER DETECHS CONTRACT

WITH LTO EXPIRED. DESPITE SUCH EXPIRATION, STADCOM STILL PURSUED ITS CASE AGAINST RTC

ALLEDGING GRAVE ABUSE OF DECISION WHEN RTC ISSUED THE TRO. CA DENIED THE PETITION OF

STADCOM ON GROUND OF MOOTNESS. WAS CAS DECISION CORRECT?

YES. THE MAIN CASE OF DTECH HAS BEEN MOOTED BY EXPIRATION OF ITS CONTRACT WITH LTO. A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS A PROVISIONAL REMEDY, AN ADJUNCT TO THE MAIN CASE SUBJECT TO

THE LATTERS OUTCOME.[8][31]

IT IS RESORTED TO BY A LITIGANT FOR THE PRESERVATION OR

PROTECTION OF HIS RIGHTS OR INTEREST AND FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE DURING THE PENDENCY OF

THE PRINCIPAL ACTION.[9][32]

Our perusal of the record shows that STRADCOMs petition assailing the CAs decision which upheld

the validity of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC had been rendered moot andacademic. It is beyond dispute, after all, that DTECH commenced its main action for injunction for no

other purpose than to restrain the LTO from putting into effect its termination of the 1 July 2002 MOA

and, with it, DTECHs services as sole IT provider of the verification aspect of the COCAS. In its 6 June

2003 complaint, DTECH specifically sought the following reliefs:

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that:

(a) immediately upon receipt of this complaint, a temporary restraining order be issued

restraining [LTO] and all other agencies, parties or persons acting for and in his behalf and under its

authority from terminating and/or otherwise giving effect and implementing the termination of the

[MOA] dated July 01, 2002 and the COCAS and/or the services of [DTECH] as IT service provider of the

verification aspect of the COC Authentication System; allowing any other IT service provider or party to

perform the function of [DTECH] as the sole IT service provider for the verification of Certificates of

Cover of motor vehicles for registration and in any way disrupting the function of [DTECH] as such,

either directly or indirectly, by terminating the MOA and/or rendering the rights of the parties

emanating therefrom to become ineffective, moot and academic;

(b) after due notice and hearing, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued in the same tenor as

that of the temporary restraining order herein prayed for; and
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn8http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn8http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn8http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn9http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn9http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn9http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn9http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn8


4/44

(c) thereafter, making the injunction permanent within the period of effectivity of the [MOA] by

and among the LTO, IC, ISAP and [DTECH] dated July 01, 2002.[10][27]

(underscoring supplied)

As may be gleaned from the MOA, however, the engagement of DTECH as exclusive IT service provider

for the verification aspect of the COCAS was only for a limited period of five years. In specifying the

term of the agreement, Section 2 of the MOA provides that, (t)he engagement of *DTECH+ by ISAP as

the sole IT service provider for the verification of COCs shall be five (5) years commencing on July 24,

2002 until July 24, 2007, renewable for the same period of time under such terms and conditions

mutually acceptable, subject to the provisions of sections 7[11][28]

and 8[12][29]

hereof.[13][30]

Having been

prompted by LTOs supposed wrongful pre-termination of the MOA on 26 May 2003, it cannot,

therefore, be gainsaid that DTECHs cause of action for injunction had been mooted by the supervening

expiration of the term agreed upon by the parties.

Considering that DTECHs main case has been already mooted, it stands to reason that the issue of the

validity of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC had likewise been mooted. Indeed, a

preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latters

outcome.[14][31]

It is resorted to by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interest

and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.[15][32]

Under the above-discussed

factual milieu, we find no more reason to determine whether or not the RTCs grant of the writ of

preliminary injunction sought by DTECH amounted to grave abuse of discretion.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOT AND ACADEMIC PRINCIPLE?

YES. A COURT WILL DECIDE A CASE, OTHERWISE MOOT AND ACADEMIC, IF IT FINDS THAT: (A) THERE

IS A GRAVE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION; (B) THE SITUATION IS OF EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER

AND PARAMOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST IS INVOLVED; (C) THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE RAISED REQUIRES

FORMULATION OF CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE BENCH, THE BAR, AND THE PUBLIC; AND(D) THE CASE IS CAPABLE OF REPETITION YET EVADING REVIEW.

[16][34]

While courts should abstain from expressing its opinion where no legal relief is needed or called

for,[17][33]we are well aware of the fact that the moot and academic principle is not a magical formula

that should automatically dissuade courts from resolving a case. Accordingly, it has been held that a
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn10http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn10http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn10http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn16http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn16http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn16http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn17http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn17http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn17http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn17http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn16http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn10


5/44

court will decide a case, otherwise moot and academic, if it finds that: (a) there is a grave violation of

the Constitution; (b) the situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is involved;

(c) the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the

bar, and the public; and (d) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.[18][34] None of these

exceptions is, however, present in this case.

===============

SECOND DIVISION

STRADCOM

CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

- versus -

G.R. No. 172712

Present:

CARPIO,J.,

Chairperson,

BRION,

PEREZ,

SERENO, and
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn18http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn18http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn18http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn18


6/44

HONORABLE HILARIO L. LAQUI as Acting

Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Courtof Quezon City, Branch 97 and DTECH

MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Respondents.

REYES,JJ.

Promulgated:

March 21, 2012

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

D E C I S I O N

PEREZ,J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorarifiled pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure is the Decision dated 8 May 2006[19][1]

rendered by the Fourteenth Division of the Court of

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 87233, dismissing for lack of merit the petition for certiorariand

prohibition filed by petitioner Stradcom Corporation (STRADCOM) which sought the nullification of the

Resolutions dated 3 March 2004 and 16 August 2004 in turn issued in Civil Case No. Q03-49859 by public

respondent, the Hon. Hilario Laqui, as Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch

97, Quezon City.[20][2]
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn19http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn19http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn19http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn20http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn20http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn20http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn20http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn19


7/44

On 19 June 2003, respondent DTech Management Incorporated (DTECH), filed a complaint for

injunction, with prayer for Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order against

the Land Transportation Office (LTO), represented by Assistant Secretary Robert T. Lastimoso. Docketed

as Civil Case No. Q03-49859 before the RTC,[21][3] the complaint alleged that, in May 2001, DTECH

submitted to the LTO a proposal to remedy problems relating to Compulsory Third Party Liability (CTPL)

insurance of motor vehicles, specifically the proliferation of fake or duplicate CTPL insurance policies or

Certificates of Cover (COC) which resulted in non-payment of claims thereon and loss of government

revenues. To determine the viability of the proposal which entailed the computerization of all CTPL

insurance transactions, the LTO conducted consultations with the Insurance Commission (IC), the

Insurance and Surety Association of the Philippines, Inc. (ISAP) and DTECH. An acceptable information

technology (IT) solution denominated as the COC Authentication System (COCAS) was eventually

approved whereby COCs issued by insurance companies would undergo authentication and verification

by IT service providers chosen by ISAP. Through its own selection and bidding process, ISAP hired

DTECH to undertake the COC verification process while SQL Wizard, Inc. (SQL) likewise engaged to

handle the COC authentication process.[22][4]

DTECH further averred that, on 1 July 2002, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed

by the LTO, IC and ISAP which affirmed, among other matters, DTECHs accreditation and qualification

as an entity that could effectively and efficiently provide the required IT services in the verification end

of the COCAS. Consistent with the MOU, the LTO, IC, ISAP and DTECH also executed a Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) on the same date, specifying the terms and conditions of DTECHs engagement as

the sole IT service provider for the verification of COC for a term of five (5) years commencing on July

24, 2002 until July 24, 2007. Under the MOA, verification was defined as the act of having an

authenticated COC validated through the process of the on-line verification via the internet, SMS andother present day information technology and telecommunications applications. For each and every

verification, DTECH was allowed to charge a fee of P20.00, exclusive of VAT, payable by the insurance

company concerned within thirty (30) days from receipt of the billing therefor. After purportedly

investing millions of pesos and exerting diligent effort to comply with its obligations under the MOA,

DTECH maintained that, without any burden on public coffers, its initial operations yielded dramatic

improvements and huge benefits to the government and the public.[23][5]

Despite the foregoing factual antecedents, however, DTECH claimed that, on 17 January 2003, LTO

wrote ISAP, suggesting the termination of DTECHs services in view of its supposed failure to

interconnect with the LTO IT Motor Vehicle Registration System (LTO IT MVRS) owned and operated by

STRADCOM under a Build Operate and Own (BOO) contract with the Department of Transportation and

Communication (DOTC)/LTO. LTO further issued a Memorandum Circular directing that all COCs must

be registered and verified under the LTO IT MVRS and that only COCs thus authenticated and verified

would be thereafter accepted. The strict implementation of the foregoing directive was required in the

10 March 2003 Memorandum Circular issued by LTO, in blatant disregard of the meetings conducted by
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn21http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn21http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn21http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn22http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn22http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn22http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn23http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn23http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn23http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn23http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn22http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn21


8/44

the parties to discuss the recall and/or postponement of the implementation thereof. Although the

implementation of the directive was briefly suspended, the LTO went on to issue yet another

Memorandum Circular on 28 April 2003, instructing all its officials and employees to accept COCs that

have been verified and authenticated on-line, real time either by [STRADCOMs] CTPL COC

Authentication Facility or ISAP-[SQL]-[DTECH]. On 26 May 2003, the LTO notified the IC, ISAP and

DTECH of its termination of the 1 July 2002 MOA, in view of the latters failure to integrate the COCAS

with the existing workflow of the LTO and its offices nationwide.[24][6]

DTECH maintained that LTOs termination of its services and cancellation of the COCAS is violative

of its contractual rights, the law as well as principles of fairness and due process. Since it was never a

part of the parties agreement, DTECHs alleged failure to interconnect with LTO MVRS is neither a valid

ground for the termination of its services nor a reason to give undue advantage to STRADCOM.

Emphasizing its considerable investments in the setting up the IT infrastructure required nationwide for

the COCAS as well as its hiring of hundreds of personnel, installation of facilities and entry into service

contracts required by the endeavor, DTECH argued that the pre-termination of the five-year term for

which it was designated the sole IT provider for the verification of COCs and/or the performance of its

functions by another private IT service would not only cause injustice and irreparable damage but would

also engender confusion in the insurance industry and to the general public.[25][7]

Over the opposition interposed by the LTO, the RTC issued the 25 June 2003 order granting DTECHs

application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the termination of the

implementation of the parties 1 July 2002 MOA.[26][8]

Contending that the complaint was fatally

defective and failed to state a cause of action, LTO filed an urgent motion to dismiss dated 8 July 2003,with opposition to DTECHs application for a writ of preliminary injunction for lack of showing of a

right in esse and the resultant irreparable injury from the act complained against.[27][9] On 1 August

2003, the RTC issued two (2) resolutions, denying LTOs motion to dismiss[28][10]

and granting DTECHs

application for a writ of preliminary injunction which was deemed necessary pending the determination

of the validity of the MOAs termination at the trial of the case on the merits.[29][11]

Upon DTECHs

posting of the bond which was fixed at P1,500,000.00, the RTC went on to issue the corresponding writ

of preliminary prohibitory injunction dated 4 August 2003, restraining LTO from implementing the

termination of the MOA.[30][12]

On 6 August 2003, STRADCOM filed a motion for leave to admit its answer-in-intervention, manifesting

its legal interest in the matter in litigation and its intent to unite with LTO in resisting the complaint. In

its attached answer-in-intervention, STRADCOM averred that, on 26 March 1998, it executed with the

DOTC a BOO Agreement for the implementation of infrastructure facilities in accordance with Republic

Act (R.A.) No. 6957, as amended by R.A. 7718. Having been authorized to design, construct and operate

the IT system for the DOTC/ LTO, STRADCOM argued that the 1 July 2002 MOU and MOA breached the
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn24http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn24http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn24http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn25http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn25http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn25http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn26http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn26http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn26http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn27http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn27http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn27http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn28http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn28http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn28http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn29http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn29http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn29http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn30http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn30http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn30http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn30http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn29http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn28http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn27http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn26http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn25http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn24


9/44

BOO Agreement which included the verification of COCs granted to DTECH without the requisite public

bidding. With the latters failure to comply with its contractual undertakings despite repeated warnings,

STRADCOM claimed that LTO validly terminated the MOA on 26 May 2003 and effectively mooted

DTECHs cause of action for injunction. STRADCOM likewise called attention to the prohibition against

the issuance of a TRO and/or preliminary injunction against national infrastructure[31][13] projects like

those Covered by R.A. Nos. 6957[32][14] and 7718.[33][15]

On 21 August 2003, LTO moved for the reconsideration of the RTCs 1 August 2003 Resolution.[34][16]

With the admission of its answer-in-intervention, STRADCOM, in turn, filed its 15 October 2003 motion

for the dissolution of the preliminary injunction issued in the case.[35][17]

On 3 March 2004, the RTC

issued a resolution, denying the motions filed by LTO and STRADCOM upon the following findings and

conclusions: (a) the pleadings so far filed required factual issues which can only be determined after trial

of the case on the merits; (b) as LTOs agents insofar as the COCAS is concerned, the IC and ISAP are not

indispensable parties to the case; (c) in the absence of government capital investment thereon, the

COCAS do not come within the purview of the prohibition against injunctive orders and writs under R.A.

8975; (d) there is no adequate showing that the verification of the COCs is included in the BOO

Agreement between DOTC/LTO and STRADCOM which even participated in the bidding ISAP conducted

for the COCAS; and, (e) DTECH was able to demonstrate that the damage it would suffer as a

consequence of the pre-termination of the MOA went beyond monetary injury.[36][18]

STRADCOMs

motion for reconsideration of the foregoing resolution was denied for lack of merit in the RTCs

Resolution dated 16 August 2004.[37][19]

Aggrieved, STRADCOM filed the Rule 65 petition for certiorariand prohibition which, docketed beforethe CA as CA-G.R. SP No. 87233, was dismissed for lack of merit in the herein assailed Decision dated 8

May 2006. In affirming the RTCs Resolutions dated 3 March 2004 and 16 August 2004, the CAs then

Fourteenth Division ruled that the writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction issueda quowas directed

against the pre-termination of the 1 July 2002 MOA and not STRADCOMs BOO Agreement with the

LTO. Finding that the scope of the BOO Agreement had yet to be threshed out in the trial of the case on

the merits, the CA discounted the grave abuse of discretion STRADCOM imputed against the RTC which,

in issuing the injunctive writ, was found to be exercising a discretionary act outside the ambit of a writ of

prohibition. Absent showing of manifest abuse, the CA desisted from interfering with the RTCs exercise

of its discretion in issuing the injunctive writ as it involved determination of factual issues which is not

the function of appellate courts.[38][20]

Unfazed, STRADCOM filed the petition at bench, urging the reversal of the CAs 8 May 2006 Decision

on the following grounds:
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn31http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn31http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn32http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn32http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn33http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn33http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn33http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn34http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn34http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn34http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn35http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn35http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn35http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn36http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn36http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn36http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn37http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn37http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn37http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn38http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn38http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn38http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn38http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn37http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn36http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn35http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn34http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn33http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn32http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn31


10/44

A.

THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING RESPONDENT JUDGE HILARIO

L. LAQUIS PATENT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF

JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT THE COCAS SUBJECT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT IS

NOT A GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE LAW

PARTICULARLY COVERED BY THE BAN ON COURTS FROM ISSUING TRO/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

CONTEMPLATED BY P.D. 1818 AS AMENDED BY R.A. 8975 AND ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 07-99

DATED JUNE 25, 1999, BY NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE BUILD-OWN-AND-OPERATE AGREEMENT

EXECUTED BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION (DOTC/LTO) AND PETITIONER STRADCOM CORPORATION

COVERED BY R.A. 6957, AS AMENDED BY R.A. 7718.

B.

THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING RESPONDENT JUDGE

HILARIO L. LAQUIS OBVIOUS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF

JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT PETITIONER STRADCOM IS IN ESTOPPEL FOR HAVING PARTICIPATED IN

THE BIDDING CONDUCTED BY ISAP FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHOOSING THE INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY (IT) SERVICE PROVIDER FOR THE COCAS WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE BOO

AGREEMENT.

C.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING RESPONDENT JUDGE HILARIO

L. LAQUIS PATENT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF

JURISDICTION IN ISSUING A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST AN ACCOMPLISHED ACT,

AN ACT IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE RULE ON FAIT ACOMPLI.

D.


11/44

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING RESPONDENT JUDGE HILARIO

L. LAQUIS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN

ISSUING THE ASSAILED WRIT OF INJUNCTION DESPITE CLEAR AND SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF

RESPONDENT DTECH WHO COME TO COURT OF EQUITY WITH UNCLEAN HANDS.[39][21]

We find the denial of STRADCOMs petition in order.

Where a case has become moot and academic, there is no more justiceable controversy, so that a

declaration thereon would be of no practical value.[40][22] A case becomes moot and academic when, by

virtue of supervening events,[41][23] there is no more actual controversy between the parties and no

useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits.[42][24]

Since they are constituted to pass upon

substantial rights, courts of justice will not consider questions where no actual interests are

involved.[43][25]

As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such cases or dismiss them on the ground of

mootness.[44][26]

Our perusal of the record shows that STRADCOMs petition assailing the CAs decision which upheld

the validity of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC had been rendered moot and

academic. It is beyond dispute, after all, that DTECH commenced its main action for injunction for no

other purpose than to restrain the LTO from putting into effect its termination of the 1 July 2002 MOA

and, with it, DTECHs services as sole IT provider of the verification aspect of the COCAS. In its 6 June

2003 complaint, DTECH specifically sought the following reliefs:

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that:

(d) immediately upon receipt of this complaint, a temporary restraining order be issued

restraining [LTO] and all other agencies, parties or persons acting for and in his behalf and under its

authority from terminating and/or otherwise giving effect and implementing the termination of the

[MOA] dated July 01, 2002 and the COCAS and/or the services of [DTECH] as IT service provider of the

verification aspect of the COC Authentication System; allowing any other IT service provider or party to

perform the function of [DTECH] as the sole IT service provider for the verification of Certificates of

Cover of motor vehicles for registration and in any way disrupting the function of [DTECH] as such,
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn39http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn39http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn39http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn40http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn40http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn40http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn41http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn41http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn41http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn42http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn42http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn42http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn43http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn43http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn43http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn44http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn44http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn44http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn44http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn43http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn42http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn41http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn40http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn39


12/44

either directly or indirectly, by terminating the MOA and/or rendering the rights of the parties

emanating therefrom to become ineffective, moot and academic;

(e) after due notice and hearing, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued in the same tenor as

that of the temporary restraining order herein prayed for; and

(f) thereafter, making the injunction permanent within the period of effectivity of the [MOA] by

and among the LTO, IC, ISAP and [DTECH] dated July 01, 2002.[45][27]

(underscoring supplied)

As may be gleaned from the MOA, however, the engagement of DTECH as exclusive IT service providerfor the verification aspect of the COCAS was only for a limited period of five years. In specifying the

term of the agreement, Section 2 of the MOA provides that, (t)he engagement of *DTECH] by ISAP as

the sole IT service provider for the verification of COCs shall be five (5) years commencing on July 24,

2002 until July 24, 2007, renewable for the same period of time under such terms and conditions

mutually acceptable, subject to the provisions of sections 7[46][28] and 8[47][29]hereof.[48][30] Having been

prompted by LTOs supposed wrongful pre-termination of the MOA on 26 May 2003, it cannot,

therefore, be gainsaid that DTECHs cause of action for injunction had been mooted by the supervening

expiration of the term agreed upon by the parties.

Considering that DTECHs main case has been already mooted, it stands to reason that the issue of the

validity of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC had likewise been mooted. Indeed, a

preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latters

outcome.[49][31] It is resorted to by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interest

and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.[50][32] Under the above-discussed

factual milieu, we find no more reason to determine whether or not the RTCs grant of the writ of

preliminary injunction sought by DTECH amounted to grave abuse of discretion.

While courts should abstain from expressing its opinion where no legal relief is needed or called

for,[51][33]

we are well aware of the fact that the moot and academic principle is not a magical formula

that should automatically dissuade courts from resolving a case. Accordingly, it has been held that a

court will decide a case, otherwise moot and academic, if it finds that: (a) there is a grave violation of

the Constitution; (b) the situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is involved;

(c) the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn45http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn45http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn45http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn46http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn46http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn46http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn47http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn47http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn48http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn48http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn48http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn49http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn49http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn49http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn50http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn50http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn50http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn51http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn51http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn51http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn51http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn50http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn49http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn48http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn47http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn46http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn45


13/44

bar, and the public; and (d) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.[52][34]

None of these

exceptions is, however, present in this case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for having been rendered moot and

academic.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

Chairperson


14/44

ARTURO D. BRION MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was

assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice


15/44

Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it

is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the

case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

[1][23] Vilando v. House of Representative Electoral Tribunal,G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, 23

August 2011.

[2][24] Samson v. Caterpillar, Inc.,G.R. No. 169882, 12 September 2007, 533 SCRA 88, 96.

[3][22] Paloma v. Court of Appeals, 461 Phil. 269, 276 (2003).

[4][23] Vilando v. House of Representative Electoral Tribunal,G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, 23August 2011.


[6][25] Huibonhoa v. Concepcion,G.R. No. 153785, 3 August 2006, 497 SCRA 562, 572.

[7][26] Mendoza v. Villas,G.R. Nos. 187256, 23 February 2011, 644 SCRA 347, 357.
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref1http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref1http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref2http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref2http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref2http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref1


16/44

[8][31] Bustamante v. Court of Appeals,430 Phil. 797, 808 (2002).

[9][32] Toyota Motor Phils. Corporation Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. Court of Appeals,458

Phil. 661, 682 (2003).

[10][27] Records, Vol. I, Civil Case No. Q03-49859, pp. 29-30

[11][28] On the Responsibilities of *the+ IC

[12][29] On the Pre-Termination of [the] Agreement

[13][30] Records, Vol. I, Civil Case No. Q03-49859, p. 49



Phil. 661, 682 (2003).

[16][34] Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel

on Ancestral Domain (GRP), G.R. Nos. 183591, 183752, 183893, 183951, 183962, 14 October 2008, 568

SCRA 402, 460.

[17][33] Korea Exchange Bank v. Hon. Rogelio C. Gonzales,G.R. No. 139460, 31 March 2006, 486 SCRA

166, 176.



SCRA 402, 460.

[19][1] Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and concurred in by Associate

Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Sesinando E. Villon.

[20][2] CA rollo, CA-G.R. SP No. 87233, 8 May 2006 Decision, pp 486-502.

[21][3] Records, Vol. I, Civil Case No. Q03-49859, DTECHs 6 June 2003 Complaint, pp. 1-32.

[22][4] Id. at 1-5.

[23][5] Id. at 6-10.

[24][6] Id. at 11-21.

[25][7] Id. at 22-29.

[26][8] RTCs 25 June 2003 Order, id. at 84.

[27][9] LTOs 8 July 2003 Urgent Motion to Dismiss, id. at 87-100.

[28][10] RTCs 1 August 2003 Resolution, id. at 121-123.
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref8http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref8http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref9http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref9http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref10http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref10http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref16http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref16http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref17http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref17http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref18http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref18http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref19http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref19http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref20http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref20http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref21http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref21http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref22http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref22http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref23http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref23http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref24http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref24http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref25http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref25http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref26http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref26http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref27http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref27http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref28http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref28http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref28http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref27http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref26http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref25http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref24http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref23http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref22http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref21http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref20http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref19http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref18http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref17http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref16http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref10http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref9http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref8


17/44


[30][12] RTCs 4 August 2003 Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction, id. at 150-151.

[31][13] STRADCOMs 6 August 2003 Answer-In-Intervention, id. at 154-162.

[32][14] An Act Authorizing the Financing, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of

Infrastructure Projects by the Private Sector, and for Other Purposes.

[33][15] An Act Amending Certain Sections of Republic Act No. 6957, Entitled An Act Authorizing the

Financing, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects by the Private Sector, and

for Other Purposes.

[34][16] Records, Vol. I, Civil Case No. Q03-49859, LTOs 19 August 2003 Motion for

Reconsideration, pp. 200-214.

[35][17] STRADCOMs 15 October 2003 Motion to Dissolve Writ of Preliminary Injunction, id. at 255-

261.

[36][18] RTCs 3 March 2004 Resolution, id. at 308-315.


[38][20] CA rollo, CA-G.R. SP No. 87233, 8 May 2006 Decision, pp. 486-502.

[39][21] Rollo, p. 11.

[40][22] Paloma v. Court of Appeals, 461 Phil. 269, 276 (2003).

[41][23] Vilando v. House of Representative Electoral Tribunal,G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, 23

August 2011.


[43][25] Huibonhoa v. Concepcion,G.R. No. 153785, 3 August 2006, 497 SCRA 562, 572.

[44][26] Mendoza v. Villas,G.R. Nos. 187256, 23 February 2011, 644 SCRA 347, 357.

[45][27] Records, Vol. I, Civil Case No. Q03-49859, pp. 29-30

[46][28] On the Responsibilities of *the+ IC

[47][29] On the Pre-Termination of *the+ Agreement

[48][30] Records, Vol. I, Civil Case No. Q03-49859, p. 49

http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref29http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref29http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref30http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref30http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref31http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref31http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref32http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref32http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref33http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref33http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref34http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref34http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref35http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref35http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref36http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref36http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref37http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref37http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref38http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref38http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref39http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref39http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref40http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref40http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref41http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref41http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref42http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref42http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref43http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref43http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref44http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref44http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref45http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref45http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref46http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref46http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref47http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref47http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref48http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref48http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref49http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref49http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref49http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref48http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref47http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref46http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref45http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref44http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref43http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref42http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref41http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref40http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref39http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref38http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref37http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref36http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref35http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref34http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref33http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref32http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref31http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref30http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref29


18/44


Phil. 661, 682 (2003).

[51][33] Korea Exchange Bank v. Hon. Rogelio C. Gonzales,G.R. No. 139460, 31 March 2006, 486 SCRA

166, 176.



SCRA 402, 460.

LEGAL NOTE 0119: LEGALITY OF SC MINUTE RESOLUTIONS.

Filed under:LEGAL NOTESLeave a comment

April 6, 2012

LEGAL NOTE 0119: LEGALITY OF SC MINUTE RESOLUTIONS.

SOURCE: JANDY J. AGOY VS. ARANETA CENTER, INC. (G.R. NO. 196358, MARCH 21, 2012,ABAD,J.)

SUBJECT/S: LEGALITY OF SC MINUTE RESOLUTIONS (BRIEF TITLE: AGOY VS. ARANETA CENTER)

=====================

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIESpetitioner Jandy J. Agoys motion to rescind dated December 21, 2011

and the Motion for Clarification and to Resolve Pending Incidents dated January 31, 2012 for lack of

merit.

The Court shall not entertain further pleadings or motions in this case. Let entry of judgment be issued.

SO ORDERED.
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref50http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref50http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref51http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref51http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref52http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref52http://jabbulao.com/category/legal-notes/http://jabbulao.com/category/legal-notes/http://jabbulao.com/category/legal-notes/http://jabbulao.com/2012/04/06/legal-note-0119-legality-of-sc-minute-resolutions/#respondhttp://jabbulao.com/2012/04/06/legal-note-0119-legality-of-sc-minute-resolutions/#respondhttp://jabbulao.com/2012/04/06/legal-note-0119-legality-of-sc-minute-resolutions/#respondhttp://jabbulao.com/2012/04/06/legal-note-0119-legality-of-sc-minute-resolutions/#respondhttp://jabbulao.com/category/legal-notes/http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref52http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref51http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref50


19/44

=====================

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST

AGOY FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW. THE SC DENIED IT BY A MINUTE RESOLUTION. IS AN SC MINUTE

RESOLUTION VALID?

YES. IT IS AN EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND CONSTITUTES SOUND AND VALID JUDICIAL

PRACTICE.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MINUTE RESOLUTIONS?

FOR PROMPT DISPATCH OF THE ACTIONS OF THE COURT.


20/44

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHAT IS ITS BASIS?

SECTION 7 OF THE SC INTERNAL RULES.

Minute resolutions are issued for the prompt dispatch of the actions of the Court. While they are the

results of the deliberations by the Justices of the Court, they are promulgated by the Clerk of Court or

his assistants whose duty is to inform the parties of the action taken on their cases by quoting verbatim

the resolutions adopted by the Court.[1][1]

Neither the Clerk of Court nor his assistants take part in the

deliberations of the case. They merely transmit the Courts action in the form prescribed by its Internal

Rules:

Sec. 7. Form of notice of a minute resolution.A notice of minute resolution shall be embodied in a

letter of the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court notifying the parties of the action or actions

taken in their case. In the absence of or whenever so deputized by the Clerk of Court or the Division

Clerk of Court, the Assistant Clerk of Court or Assistant Division Clerk of Court may likewise sign the

letter which shall be in the following form:

(SUPREME COURT Seal)

REPUBLIC OF THEPHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

Manila


21/44

EN BANC/____ DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc/___ Division issued a Resolution dated _____, which

reads as follows:

G.R./UDK/A.M./A.C. No. ____ (TITLE).(QUOTE RESOLUTION)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)

CLERK OF COURT/Division Clerk of Court

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

IS IT NECESSARY THAT THE JUSTICES SIGN MINUTE RESOLUTIONS?

NO. THERE IS NO LAW OR RULE REQUIRING THEM TO SIGN MINUTE RESOLUTIONS. TO REQUIRE THE

JUSTICES TO SIGN ALL ITS RESOLUTIONS RESPECTING ITS ACTION ON NEW CASES WOULD BE

UNREASONABLE AND UNNECESSARY.


22/44

As the Court explained in Borromeo v. Court of Appeals,[2][2]

no law or rule requires its members to sign

minute resolutions that deny due course to actions filed before it or the Chief Justice to enter his

certification on the same. The notices quote the Courts actual resolutions denying due course to the

subject actions and these already state the required legal basis for such denial. To require the Justices

to sign all its resolutions respecting its action on new cases would be unreasonable and unnecessary.

Based on last years figures, the Court docketed a total of 5,864 new cases, judicial and administrative.

The United States Supreme Court probably receives lesser new cases since it does not have

administrative supervision of all courts. Yet, it gives due course to and decides only about 100 cases per

year. Agoys demand that this Court give due course to and decide all cases filed with it on the merits,

including his case, is simply unthinkable and shows a lack of discernment of reality.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

AGOY ARGUES THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES EVERY COURT TO STATE IN ITS DECISION CLEARLYAND DISTINCTLY THE FACT AND THE LAW ON WHICH IT IS BASED AND THEREFORE MINUTE

RESOLUTION WHICH DOES NOT DISCUSS THE LAW AND THE FACTS IS ILLEGAL. IS HIS ARGUMENT

CORRECT?

NO. THE CONSTITUTION ALSO STATES THAT DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW MAY ONLY STATE THE

LEGAL BASIS FOR SUCH DENIAL. THE SC MINUTE RESOLUTION STATES THE LEGAL BASIS FOR ITS

DENIAL.


23/44

Two. While the Constitution requires every court to state in its decision clearly and distinctly the fact

and the law on which it is based, the Constitution requires the court, in denying due course to a petition

for review, merely to state the legal basis for such denial.

Sec. 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 a

decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis

therefor.[3][3] (Emphasis supplied)

With the promulgation of its Internal Rules, the Court itself has defined the instances when cases

are to be adjudicated by decision, signed resolution, unsigned resolution or minute resolution.[4][4]

Among those instances when a minute resolution shall issue is when the Court denies a petition filed

under Rule 45 of the [Rules of Court], citing as legal basis the absence of reversible error committed inthe challenged decision, resolution, or order ofthe court below.

[5][5]The minute resolutions in this case

complied with this requirement.

XXXXXXXXXXX

WHEN SC STATES IT DOES NOT FIND ANY REVERSIBLE ERROR IN THE DECISION OF THE CA, SHOULD

THE SC STILL FULLY EXPLAIN ITS DENIAL?

NO NEED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE REDUNDANT. ITS DENIAL MEANS THAT SC ADOPTS THE FINDINGS

AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CA.

The Court has repeatedly said that minute resolutions dismissing the actions filed before it constitute

actual adjudications on the merits.[6][6] They are the result of thorough deliberation among the

members of the Court.[7][7] When the Court does not find any reversible error in the decision of the CA

and denies the petition, there is no need for the Court to fully explain its denial, since it already means

that it agrees with and adopts the findings and conclusions of the CA. The decision sought to be
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn3


24/44

reviewed and set aside is correct.[8][8]

It would be an exercise in redundancy for the Court to reproduce

or restate in the minute resolution denying the petition the conclusions that the CA reached.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

AGOY SAID HIS MOTION WAS TO RESCIND THE MINUTE RESOLUTION. SC WAS WRONG WHEN IT

CONSIDERED HIS MOTION AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

SC WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE AGOY IN HIS MOTION TO RESCIND WAS ASKING SC TO REVIEW THE

MERITS OF HIS CASE AGAIN.

Agoy questions the Courts act of treating his motion to rescind as a motion for reconsideration, arguing

that it had no basis for doing so. But the Court was justified in its action since his motion to rescind

asked the Court to review the merits of his case again.

======================

THIRD DIVISION

JANDY J. AGOY, G.R. No. 196358

Petitioner,


25/44

Present:

VELASCO, JR.,J., Chairperson,

versus - PERALTA,

ABAD,

MENDOZA, and

PERLAS-BERNABE,JJ.

ARANETA CENTER, INC.,

Respondents. Promulgated:

March 21, 2012

x x

RESOLUTION

ABAD,J.:

This case reiterates the Courts ruling that the adjudication of a case by minute resolution is an

exercise of judicial discretion and constitutes sound and valid judicial practice.

The Facts and the Case

On June 15, 2011 the Court denied petitioner Jandy J. Agoys petition for review through a minute

resolution that reads:


26/44

G.R. No. 196358(Jandy J. Agoy vs. Araneta Center, Inc.).- The Court resolves

toGRANTpetitioners motion for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary

period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari.

The court further resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision

dated 19 October 2010 and Resolution dated 29 March 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Manila, in CA-

G.R. SP No. 108234 for failure to show that the CA committed reversible error when it affirmed the

dismissal of petitioner Jandy J. Agoy. Petitioners repeated delays in remitting the excess cash advances

and admission that he spent them for other purposes constitute serious misconduct and dishonesty

which rendered him unworthy of the trust and confidence reposed in him by respondent Araneta

Center, Inc.

Apparently, however, Agoy doubted the authenticity of the copy of the above minute resolution that hereceived through counsel since he promptly filed a motion to rescind the same and to have his case

resolved on its merits via a regular resolution or decision signed by the Justices who took part in the

deliberation. In a related development, someone claiming to be Agoys attorney-in-fact requested an

investigation of the issuance of the resolution of June 15, 2011.

On September 21, 2011 the Court denied Agoys motion to rescind the subject minute resolution and

confirmed the authenticity of the copy of the June 15, 2011 resolution. It also treated his motion to

rescind as a motion for reconsideration and denied the same with finality.

Upon receipt ofthe Courts September 21, 2011 resolution, Agoy filed a motion to rescind the same or

have his case resolved by the Court En Banc pursuant to Section 13 in relation to Sec. 4(3), Article VIII of

the 1987 Constitution. Agoy reiterated his view that the Court cannot decide his petition by a minute

resolution. He thus prayed that it rescind its June 15 and September 21, 2011 resolutions, determine

whether it was proper for the Court to resolve his petition through a minute resolution, and submit the

case to the Court en banc for proper disposition through a signed resolution or decision.

Questions Presented


27/44

At the heart of petitioners motions are the following questions:

1. Whether or not the copies of the minute resolutions dated June 15, 2011 and September 21, 2011

that Agoy received are authentic; and

2. Whether or not it was proper for the Court to deny his petition through a minute resolution.

The Courts Rulings

One. The notices of the minute resolutions of June 15 and September 21, 2011 sent to Agoy, bearing

the signatures of Assistant Clerk of Court Teresita Aquino Tuazon and Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Wilfredo V. Lapitan, both printed on pink paper and duly received by counsel for petitioner as evidenced

by the registry return cards, are authentic and original copies of the resolutions. The Court has given

Tuazon and Lapitan the authority to inform the parties under their respective signatures of the Courts

actions on the incidents in the cases.

Minute resolutions are issued for the prompt dispatch of the actions of the Court. While they are the

results of the deliberations by the Justices of the Court, they are promulgated by the Clerk of Court or

his assistants whose duty is to inform the parties of the action taken on their cases by quoting verbatimthe resolutions adopted by the Court.

[9][1]Neither the Clerk of Court nor his assistants take part in the

deliberations of the case. They merely transmit the Courts action in the form prescribed by its Internal

Rules:

Sec. 7. Form of notice of a minute resolution.A notice of minute resolution shall be embodied in a

letter of the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court notifying the parties of the action or actions

taken in their case. In the absence of or whenever so deputized by the Clerk of Court or the Division

Clerk of Court, the Assistant Clerk of Court or Assistant Division Clerk of Court may likewise sign the

letter which shall be in the following form:

(SUPREME COURT Seal)


28/44

REPUBLIC OF THEPHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC/____ DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc/___ Division issued a Resolution dated _____, which

reads as follows:

G.R./UDK/A.M./A.C. No. ____ (TITLE).(QUOTE RESOLUTION)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)

CLERK OF COURT/Division Clerk of Court

As the Court explained in Borromeo v. Court of Appeals,[10][2] no law or rule requires its members to sign

minute resolutions that deny due course to actions filed before it or the Chief Justice to enter his

certification on the same. The notices quote the Courts actual resolutions denying due course to thesubject actions and these already state the required legal basis for such denial. To require the Justices

to sign all its resolutions respecting its action on new cases would be unreasonable and unnecessary.

Based on last years figures, the Court docketed a total of 5,864 new cases, judicial and administrative.

The United States Supreme Court probably receives lesser new cases since it does not have


29/44

administrative supervision of all courts. Yet, it gives due course to and decides only about 100 cases per

year. Agoys demand that this Court give due course to and decide all cases filed with it on the merits,

including his case, is simply unthinkable and shows a lack of discernment of reality.

Two. While the Constitution requires every court to state in its decision clearly and distinctly the fact

and the law on which it is based, the Constitution requires the court, in denying due course to a petition

for review, merely to state the legal basis for such denial.

Sec. 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 a

decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis

therefor.[11][3]

(Emphasis supplied)

With the promulgation of its Internal Rules, the Court itself has defined the instances when cases

are to be adjudicated by decision, signed resolution, unsigned resolution or minute resolution.[12][4]

Among those instances when a minute resolution shall issue is when the Court denies a petition filed

under Rule 45 of the [Rules of Court], citing as legal basis the absence of reversible error committed in

the challenged decision, resolution, or order of the court below.[13][5] The minute resolutions in this

case complied with this requirement.

The Court has repeatedly said that minute resolutions dismissing the actions filed before it constitute

actual adjudications on the merits.[14][6]

They are the result of thorough deliberation among the

members of the Court.[15][7]

When the Court does not find any reversible error in the decision of the CA

and denies the petition, there is no need for the Court to fully explain its denial, since it already means

that it agrees with and adopts the findings and conclusions of the CA. The decision sought to be

reviewed and set aside is correct.[16][8]

It would be an exercise in redundancy for the Court to reproduce

or restate in the minute resolution denying the petition the conclusions that the CA reached.

Agoy questions the Courts act of treating his motion to rescind as a motion for reconsideration, arguingthat it had no basis for doing so. But the Court was justified in its action since his motion to rescind

asked the Court to review the merits of his case again.
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn16http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn16http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn16http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn16http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn15http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftn11


30/44

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIESpetitioner Jandy J. Agoys motion to rescind dated December 21, 2011

and the Motion for Clarification and to Resolve Pending Incidents dated January 31, 2012 for lack of

merit.

The Court shall not entertain further pleadings or motions in this case. Let entry of judgment be issued.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

Chairperson

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice Associate Justice


31/44

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case

was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

Chairperson, Third Division


32/44

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I

certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was

assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

[1][1] Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, 264 Phil. 388, 393 (1990).

[2][2] Id. at 394.

[3][3] Constitution (1987), Art. VIII, Sec. 14.

[4][4] See The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 13, Sec. 6.
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref1http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref1http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref2http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref2http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref4http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref3http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref2http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref1


33/44

[5][5] The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 13, Sec. 6(d).

[6][6] Smith Bell & Co. (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 274 Phil. 472, 479 (1991).

[7][7] See also The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 13, Sec. 3.

[8][8] Smith Bell & Co. (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 6, at 479-480.

[9][1] Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, 264 Phil. 388, 393 (1990).

[10][2] Id. at 394.

[11][3] Constitution (1987), Art. VIII, Sec. 14.

[12][4] See The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 13, Sec. 6.

[13][5] The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 13, Sec. 6(d).

[14][6] Smith Bell & Co. (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 274 Phil. 472, 479 (1991).

[15][7] See also The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 13, Sec. 3.

[16][8] Smith Bell & Co. (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 6, at 479-480.

Share this:

CASE 2012-0040: JANDY J. AGOY VS. ARANETA CENTER, INC. (G.R. NO. 196358, MARCH 21, 2012,

ABAD, J.) SUBJECT/S: LEGALITY OF SC MINUTE RESOLUTIONS (BRIEF TITLE: AGOY VS.

ARANETA CENTER)

Filed under:LATEST SUPREME COURT CASESLeave a comment

April 6, 2012

CASE 2012-0040: JANDY J. AGOY VS. ARANETA CENTER, INC. (G.R. NO. 196358, MARCH 21,

2012, ABAD,J.) SUBJECT/S: LEGALITY OF SC MINUTE RESOLUTIONS (BRIEF TITLE: AGOY VS. ARANETA

CENTER)

=====================

DISPOSITIVE:
http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref5http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref6http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref7http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref8http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref8http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref9http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref9http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref10http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref10http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref11http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref12http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref13http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref14http://jabbulao.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=post#_ftnref15http://j

Stradcom vs. Judge Laqui

Documents

Transcript of Stradcom vs. Judge Laqui