NICOS vs.

CA 206 SCRA 127 Facts: NICOS Industrial Corporation obtained a loan from UCPB and to secure payment thereof executed a real estate mortgage on t o parcels of land! "he mortgage as foreclosed for non#payment of the loan! $ sheriff%s sale as held ithout re#publication of the re&uired notices after the original date for auction as changed ithout the 'no ledge or consent of the mortgagor! UCPB as the highest and lone bidder and the mortgaged lands ere sold to it! UCPB sold all its rights to the properties to pri(ate respondent )anuel Co! "he latter transfer said rights to *olden Star Industrial Corporation+ another pri(ate respondent+ and a rit of possession as issued! NICOS and other petitioners filed their action for annulment of sheriff%s sale+ reco(ery of possession+ and damages+ ith prayer for the issuance of a preliminary prohibitory and mandatory in,unction! *olde Star filed a -#page demurrer to the e(idence here they argued that the action as a deri(ati(e suit that came under the ,urisdiction of the S.C/ that the mortgage had been (alidly foreclosed/ that the sheriff%s sale as in accordance ith $ct 0102/ that the notices had been duly published in a ne spaper of general circulation/ and that the opposition to the rit of possession as not filed on time! No opposition to the demurrer ha(ing been submitted despite notice to the parties+ 3udge Nestor 4antes considered it submitted for resolution! Petitioners claim that it is not a reasoned decision and does not clearly and distinctly explain ho it as reached by the trial court! "hey also stress that the sheriff%s sale as irregular because the notices thereof ere published in a ne spaper that did not ha(e general circulation and that the original date of the sheriff%s sale had been changed ithout its consent+ the same ha(ing been allegedly gi(en by a person not authori5ed to represent NICOS!

Issue: 6hether or not the &uestioned order (iolates $rt! 7II+ Sec! 18 of the Constitution!

9eld: :.S! It is a re&uirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed of ho it as decided+ ith an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court! "he losing party is entitled to 'no hy he lost+ so he may appeal to a higher court+ if permitted+ should he belie(e that the decision should be re(ersed! $ decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the la on

hich it is based lea(es the parties in the dar' as to ho it as reached and is especially pre,udicial to the losing party+ ho is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for re(ie by a higher tribunal!

Borromeo vs. CA 186 SCRA 1 Facts: In a complaint for damages filed ith the ;"C of Cebu+ 3oa&uin Borromeo charges the 4i(ision Cler' of Court+ $ssistant 4i(ision Cler' of Court of the "hird 4i(ision and the Chief of the 3udicial ;ecords Office of ;"C Cebu ith usurpation of ,udicial functions for allegedly maliciously and de(iously issuing biased+ fa'e+ baseless and unconstitutional ;esolution and .ntry of 3udgment in *!;! No! <==-0! "his is not the first time that )r! Borromeo has filed charges>complaints against officials of the court! In se(eral letters#complaints filed ith the court and the Ombudsman+ Borromeo had repeatedly alleged that he suffered in,ustices because of the disposition of the four ?8@ cases he separately appealed to the SC hich ere resol(ed by minute resolutions allegedly in (iolation of Section 8+10 and 18 of $rt! 7III of the 1A<- Constitution! 9is in(ariable complaint is that the resolutions hich disposed of his cases do not bear the signatures of the 3ustices ho participated in the deliberations and resolution and do not sho that they (oted therein! 9e li'e ise complained that the resolutions bear no certification of the Chief 3ustice and that they did not state the facts and the la on hich they ere based and signed only by the cler's of court and therefore null and (oid! Issue: 6hether or not $rt! 18 of the Constitution as (iolated! 9eld: No! ;esolution disposing of petitions fall under the constitutional pro(ision hich states that+ BNo petition for re(ie !!!shall be refused due course!!! ithout stating the legal basis thereforC ?Sec! 18+ $rt! 7III+ Constitution@! 6hen the court+ after deliberating on a petition and any subse&uent pleadings+ manifestations+ comments+ or motions decides to deny due course to the petition and states that the &uestions raised are factual or no re(ersible error in the respondent court%s decision is sho n or for some other legal basis stated in the resolution+ there is sufficient compliance ith the constitutional re&uirements! )inute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the court ho too' part in the deliberations of a case nor do they re&uire the certification of the chief ,ustice! For to re&uire members of the court to sign all resolutions issued ould not only unduly delay the issuance of its resolutions nut a great amount of their time ould be spent on

functions more properly performed by the cler' of court and hich time could be more profitably used in the analysis of cases and the formulation of decisions and orders of important nature and character!

Francisco vs. Permskul 17 SCRA 2! Facts: Petitioner leased his apartment to pri(ate respondent for a period of one year for the stipulated amount of P0+DDD!DD a month! Pri(ate respondent deposited PA+DDD!DD to ans er for unpaid rentals or any damage to the leased premises! $fter one year+ pri(ate respondent (acated the property and re&uested the refund of his deposit minus the sum ofP1+DDD!Do+ representing the rental for the additional ten days of his occupancy after the expiration of lease! Petitioner re,ected his re&uest and claimed that the lessee still o ed him for other charges+ including electricity and ater bills and the repainting of the leased premises! Pri(ate respondent sued in the )"C of )a'ati! $ summary ,udgment as rendered sustaining the complainant! "he defendant as ordered to pay the plaintiff the balance of the deposit after deducting the ater and electicity charges! "he decision as appealed to the ;"C of )a'ati hich affirmed the same! "his as done in a memorandum decision hich states that: B$fter a careful and thorough perusal+ e(aluation and study of the records of this case+ this Court hereby adopts by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of la contained in the decision of the )etropolitan "rial Court of )a'ati+ )etro )anila+ Branch E0 and finds that there is no cogent reason to disturb the same! 69.;.FO;.+ ,udgment appealed from is affirmed in toto!C 4efendant appealed to the C$ but his petition for re(ie as denied and so as his motion for reconsideration! Issue: 6heter or not the memorandum decisions (iolate $rt! 7III+ Sec! 18 of the Constitution! 9eld: NO! "here is no &uestion that the purpose of the la in authori5ing the memorandum decision is to expedite the termination of litigations for the benefit of the parties as ell as the courts themsel(es!

"elar#e vs.Social $us%ice Socie%& '.R.No. 1() (7 A*ril 200) Facts: "he petition prayed for the resolution of the &uestion B hether or not the act of a religious leader+ li'e any of herein respondents+ in endorsing the candidacy of a candidate for electi(e office or in urging or re&uiring the members of his floc' to (ote for a specified candidate is (iolati(e of the letter or spirit of constitutional pro(isions! "hey alleged that the &uestioned decision did not contain a statement of facts and a dispositi(e portion! Issue: 6hat is the standard form of a decisionF 4id the challenged decision comply ith the aforesaid formF 9eld: "he decision shall be in riting+ personally+ and directly prepared by yhe ,udge+ stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the la on hich it is based+ signed by the issuing magistrate+ and filed ith the cler' of court! In general+ the essential parts of a good decision consist of the follo ing: ?1@ statement of the case/ ?=@ statement of the facts/ ?0@ issues or assignments of errors/ ?8@ court ruling+ in hich each issue is+ as a rule+ separately considered and resol(ed/ and finally+ ?2@ dispositi(e portion! "he ponente may also opt to include an introduction or a prologue as ell as an epilogue+ especially in cases in hich contro(ersial issues are in(ol(ed! No! "he assailed decision as rendered in clear (iolation of the Constitutuion+ because it made no findings of facts and final disposition!