Article VIII. Section 14.
FRANCISCO V. PERMSKUL Decision expressing clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based; Sufficient -
(Memorandum decision)
FACTS: complainant and holding that the repainting was not
The petitioner leased his apartment in Makati to the chargeable to him
private respondent for a period of one year for the Defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff amount of P7750
stipulated ranteal of P3000 a month representing balance of the deposit after deduction the
Pursuant to the lease contract, private respondent water and electricity charges
deposited with the petitioner P9000 to answer for unpaid Plaintiff was also awarded the sum of P1250 as attorney’s
rentals or any damage to leased premises except when fees plus Costs
caused by reasonable wear and tear Decision was appealed to the RTC of Makati and was
Private respondent vacated property affirmed by Judge de la Rama done in a memorandum
Requested refund of deposit minus P1000 representing decision
rental for additional 10 days of occupancy after lease Question presented to the court: validity of the
Petitioner rejected request memorandum decision authorized under Sec.40 BP129
Petitioner claims lessee still owed him for other charges,
including the electricity and water bills and a sum of
P2500 for repainting the leased premises to restore to the
original condition ISSUE:
Private respondent sued in the MTC of Makati Whether the memorandum decision was properly
After submission of position papers by the parties, a promulgated YES
summary judgment was rendered sustaining the
A reading of its own decision will show that it dealt
extensively with the memorandum decision and
discussed it at some length
HELD:
There is no question that purpose of law in authorizing
the memorandum decision is to expedite the
termination of litigations for the benefit of the parties In reviewing the decision of the MTC, the CA was actually
as well as the courts themselves reviewing the decision of the RTC
The courts of justice are really hard put at coping with the Judge De La Rama availed himself of the convenience
tremendous number of cases in their dockets which offered by Section 40 of BP Blg. 129 he was only
continue to grown by the day acting in accordance with the ruling announced in
Viewed in the light of these practical consideration the Romero permitting the use of memorandum decision
memorandum decision can be welcomed indeed as an The law does not define the memorandum decision and
acceptable method of dealing expeditiously with the case simply suggests that the court may adopt by reference
load of the courts of justice, expediency alone, no matter the findings of fact and the conclusions of the law stated
how compelling cannot excuse non-compliance with the in the decision, order or resolution on appeal before it
Constitution Where the decision of the appellate court actually
The judgment was made by the MTC in compliance with reproduces the findings of fact or the conclusions of the
the rule on summary procedure (3 typewritten pages, court below, it is not a memorandum decision
single spaced, stated clearly and distinctly the facts and Distinctive features of memorandum decision
the law on which it was based) 1. Rendered by an appellate court
It is not really correct to say that the CA did not review 2. It incorporates by reference the findings of fact or
the memorandum decision of the RTC which was the the conclusions of law contained in the decision,
subject of the petition for review order or ruling under review
