EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-29352. February 19, 1986.]
EMERITO M. RAMOS, ET AL., Petitioners, v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
The Court Resolved to DENY the ‘Motion for Leave to File and to Admit Attached Motion for Clarificatory Ruling and/or Third Motion for Reconsideration’ and the thereto attached ‘Motion for Clarificatory Ruling and/or Third Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolutions dated October 19, 1982. July 22, 1985 and January 21, 1986’ both filed by respondent Central Bank on February 4, 1986, entry of judgment of the Court’s Resolution of October 19, 1982 having been made on January 30, 1986. Third motions for reconsideration are not permitted and there is nothing to clarify. The Court’s per curiam Resolution of October 19, 1982 had been approved by the full Court then composed of fourteen (14) members, six (6) of whom have since retired from the Court (namely, Fernando, C.J. and Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro, Vasquez and Relova, JJ.,) and respondent Central Bank’s first and second motions for reconsideration thereof were denied for lack of necessary votes, per the Court’s Resolutions of July 22, 1985 and January 21, 1986. Aquino, C.J., dissented.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
I dissent. I vote for the granting of the Central Bank’s third motion for reconsideration, following the precedent laid down in Vir-jen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 125 SCRA 577 where a third motion for reconsideration was entertained.
The Vir-jen case was decided on July 20, 1982, 115 SCRA 347. The first motion for reconsideration was denied in the resolution of September 29, 1982 (p. 478, Vol. I, Rollo). The second motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the resolution dated December 20, 1982. The denial was final (p. 551, Vol. I, Rollo).
A third motion was admitted and later granted in the resolution of November 18, 1983 (p. 732, Vol. II, Rollo).chanrobles law library : red
I incorporate in this dissent as Annex 1 the Central Bank’s third motion for reconsideration.
ANNEX "1"
Separate Opinions
AQUINO, C.J., dissenting:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw libraryI dissent. I vote for the granting of the Central Bank’s third motion for reconsideration, following the precedent laid down in Vir-jen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 125 SCRA 577 where a third motion for reconsideration was entertained.
The Vir-jen case was decided on July 20, 1982, 115 SCRA 347. The first motion for reconsideration was denied in the resolution of September 29, 1982 (p. 478, Vol. I, Rollo). The second motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the resolution dated December 20, 1982. The denial was final (p. 551, Vol. I, Rollo).
A third motion was admitted and later granted in the resolution of November 18, 1983 (p. 732, Vol. II, Rollo).chanrobles law library : red
I incorporate in this dissent as Annex 1 the Central Bank’s third motion for reconsideration.
ANNEX "1"
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
EN BANC
EMERITO M. RAMOS, Et Al.,
Petitioners,
— versus — G.R. No. L-29352
CENTRAL BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF
MANILA,
Intervenor.
x — — — — — — — — — x
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATORY
RULING AND/OR THIRD MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS
DATED OCTOBER 19, 1982, JULY 22, 1985 AND JANUARY 21, 1986
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
EN BANC
EMERITO M. RAMOS, Et Al.,
Petitioners,
— versus — G.R. No. L-29352
CENTRAL BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF
MANILA,
Intervenor.
x — — — — — — — — — x
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATORY
RULING AND/OR THIRD MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS
DATED OCTOBER 19, 1982, JULY 22, 1985 AND JANUARY 21, 1986
COMES NOW respondent Central Bank of the Philippines, through undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court respectfully moves for a clarificatory ruling and/or for reconsideration of resolutions dated October 19, 1982, July 22, 1985 and January 21, 1986.
1. At stake in this case is the amount of forty-seven (47) million pesos representing interest on Central Bank loans and advances to Overseas Bank of Manila, now COMBANK.
2. In a per curiam resolution (signed merely by the Clerk of Court), dated October 19, 1982, the motion for clarificatory ruling filed by Intervenor Combank was granted and a ruling made that "the bank is not liable for interest on the Central Bank loans and advances during the period of its closure from August 2, 1968 to January 8, 1981."
3. In the resolution of July 22, 1985 on Central Bank’s first motion for reconsideration, five (5) Justices voted in favor of the motion for reconsideration while an equal number of five (5) voted to deny it. Three (3) Justices took no part. The Honorable Vicente Abad Santos was then on leave.
4. In the resolution of January 21, 1986 on Central Bank’s motion for leave to file second motion for reconsideration, motion to admit second motion for reconsideration and second motion for reconsideration, four (4) Justices voted for denial of said motions as against five (5), including the present Chief Justice, who voted for the granting of said motions. Three (3) Justices took no part.
ISSUE
In the light of the voting on the first motion for reconsideration and on the motion for leave to file second motion for reconsideration, motion to admit second motion for reconsideration and motion for reconsideration, was the per curiam resolution of October 19, 1982 supported by the "concurrence of at least eight members" as required in Section 2, Article X of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines?chanrobles.com : virtual law library
Per curiam resolution of
October 19, 1982 unmasked
The resolution of October 19, 1982, granting the motion for clarificatory ruling filed by Intervenor Combank and ruling that Overseas Bank of Manila, now COMBANK, is not liable for interest on the Central Bank loans and advances during the period of its closure from August 2, 1968 to January 8, 1981, it will be recalled, was a per curiam resolution, defined in 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 72, page 436, as "an opinion of the Court in which the Judges are all of one mind and the question involved is so clear that it is not necessary to elaborate it by an extended discussion." But in its resolution of July 22, 1985 denying the first motion for reconsideration, the Honorable Court was severely split down the middle: five (5) voted in favor of the motion for reconsideration and five (5) voted to deny it. Three (3) Justices took no part while the Honorable Vicente Abad Santos was then on leave. Then in the resolution of January 21, 1986 on the separate motions filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of the Central Bank a) for leave to file second motion for reconsideration b)motion to admit second motion for reconsideration and c) second motion for reconsideration, only four (4) voted for denial of said motions, while five (5) voted for the granting of said motions. Three (3) Justices did not take part.
Resolution denying intervenor COMBANK’s motion
for clarificatory ruling the more proper
The gloss or veneer given to the per curiam resolution of October 19, 1982, of the members of the Court being "all of one mind", has thus been exposed as not true. The per curiam resolution it turned out was not at all the result of a unanimous vote nor is it supported by the votes of at least eight (8) members of the Court.
In the light of the voting on the first motion for reconsideration and on the motion for leave too file second motion for reconsideration, motion to admit second motion for reconsideration and second motion for reconsideration, as against the per curiam resolution of October 19, 1982, which was signed merely by the Clerk of Court, it is respectfully submitted that instead of the first and second motions for reconsideration being denied, this Honorable Court should rule and clarify that the motion for clarificatory ruling filed by intervenor COMBANK is deemed denied for lack of necessary votes, It should be intervenor COMBANK who should obtain the required eight (8) votes.chanrobles law library
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the resolutions of October 19, 1982, July 22, 1985 and January 21, 1986 be set aside and a ruling be rendered that the motion for clarificatory ruling filed by intervenor COMBANK is deemed denied for lack of necessary votes.
Makati, for Manila, February 3, 1986.
(SGD.) ESTELITO P. MENDOZA
Solicitor General
IBP O.R. No. 188102
6-28-85
(SGD.) EDUARDO G. MONTENEGRO
Assistant Solicitor General
IBP O.R. No. 204517
8-30-85
COPY FURNISHED:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Atty. Emmanuel Pelaez
Counsel for Petitioner E. Ramos
8th Floor, Padilla Building
Emerald Ave., Ortigas
Commercial Center
Pasig, Metro Manila.
Hon. Manuel M. Lazaro
Govt. Counsel of the COMBANK of Manila
Mabini cor. Arquiza Sts.
Ermita, Manila.
Atty. Arturo M. de Castro
Atty. Gregorio M. Batiller, Jr.
Deputy General Counsel for COMBANK
4th Floor, Combank Building
6764 Ayala Ave., Makati
Metro Manila
ANTECEDENT FACTS
1. At stake in this case is the amount of forty-seven (47) million pesos representing interest on Central Bank loans and advances to Overseas Bank of Manila, now COMBANK.
2. In a per curiam resolution (signed merely by the Clerk of Court), dated October 19, 1982, the motion for clarificatory ruling filed by Intervenor Combank was granted and a ruling made that "the bank is not liable for interest on the Central Bank loans and advances during the period of its closure from August 2, 1968 to January 8, 1981."
3. In the resolution of July 22, 1985 on Central Bank’s first motion for reconsideration, five (5) Justices voted in favor of the motion for reconsideration while an equal number of five (5) voted to deny it. Three (3) Justices took no part. The Honorable Vicente Abad Santos was then on leave.
4. In the resolution of January 21, 1986 on Central Bank’s motion for leave to file second motion for reconsideration, motion to admit second motion for reconsideration and second motion for reconsideration, four (4) Justices voted for denial of said motions as against five (5), including the present Chief Justice, who voted for the granting of said motions. Three (3) Justices took no part.
ISSUE
In the light of the voting on the first motion for reconsideration and on the motion for leave to file second motion for reconsideration, motion to admit second motion for reconsideration and motion for reconsideration, was the per curiam resolution of October 19, 1982 supported by the "concurrence of at least eight members" as required in Section 2, Article X of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines?chanrobles.com : virtual law library
ARGUMENTS
Per curiam resolution of
October 19, 1982 unmasked
The resolution of October 19, 1982, granting the motion for clarificatory ruling filed by Intervenor Combank and ruling that Overseas Bank of Manila, now COMBANK, is not liable for interest on the Central Bank loans and advances during the period of its closure from August 2, 1968 to January 8, 1981, it will be recalled, was a per curiam resolution, defined in 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 72, page 436, as "an opinion of the Court in which the Judges are all of one mind and the question involved is so clear that it is not necessary to elaborate it by an extended discussion." But in its resolution of July 22, 1985 denying the first motion for reconsideration, the Honorable Court was severely split down the middle: five (5) voted in favor of the motion for reconsideration and five (5) voted to deny it. Three (3) Justices took no part while the Honorable Vicente Abad Santos was then on leave. Then in the resolution of January 21, 1986 on the separate motions filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of the Central Bank a) for leave to file second motion for reconsideration b)motion to admit second motion for reconsideration and c) second motion for reconsideration, only four (4) voted for denial of said motions, while five (5) voted for the granting of said motions. Three (3) Justices did not take part.
Resolution denying intervenor COMBANK’s motion
for clarificatory ruling the more proper
The gloss or veneer given to the per curiam resolution of October 19, 1982, of the members of the Court being "all of one mind", has thus been exposed as not true. The per curiam resolution it turned out was not at all the result of a unanimous vote nor is it supported by the votes of at least eight (8) members of the Court.
In the light of the voting on the first motion for reconsideration and on the motion for leave too file second motion for reconsideration, motion to admit second motion for reconsideration and second motion for reconsideration, as against the per curiam resolution of October 19, 1982, which was signed merely by the Clerk of Court, it is respectfully submitted that instead of the first and second motions for reconsideration being denied, this Honorable Court should rule and clarify that the motion for clarificatory ruling filed by intervenor COMBANK is deemed denied for lack of necessary votes, It should be intervenor COMBANK who should obtain the required eight (8) votes.chanrobles law library
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the resolutions of October 19, 1982, July 22, 1985 and January 21, 1986 be set aside and a ruling be rendered that the motion for clarificatory ruling filed by intervenor COMBANK is deemed denied for lack of necessary votes.
Makati, for Manila, February 3, 1986.
(SGD.) ESTELITO P. MENDOZA
Solicitor General
IBP O.R. No. 188102
6-28-85
(SGD.) EDUARDO G. MONTENEGRO
Assistant Solicitor General
IBP O.R. No. 204517
8-30-85
COPY FURNISHED:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Atty. Emmanuel Pelaez
Counsel for Petitioner E. Ramos
8th Floor, Padilla Building
Emerald Ave., Ortigas
Commercial Center
Pasig, Metro Manila.
Hon. Manuel M. Lazaro
Govt. Counsel of the COMBANK of Manila
Mabini cor. Arquiza Sts.
Ermita, Manila.
Atty. Arturo M. de Castro
Atty. Gregorio M. Batiller, Jr.
Deputy General Counsel for COMBANK
4th Floor, Combank Building
6764 Ayala Ave., Makati
Metro Manila
