Scribd
Upload
641 views2 pages

Komatsu Industries Vs CA

The petitioner challenged the validity of the Supreme Court issuing minute resolutions to deny petitions for review under Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, which requires decisions to express "clearly and distinctly the facts and the law" on which they are based. The Supreme Court held that (1) resolutions are not "decisions" that require expressing facts and law, as they merely hold that the petition should not be entertained; and (2) there is no need to fully explain the denial of a petition for review since the facts and law are in the Court of Appeals decision, and the petition is not a matter of right but of discretion. The constitutional mandate only applies to cases submitted for decision after briefing, not where the petition is

Uploaded by

Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
641 views2 pages

Komatsu Industries Vs CA

The petitioner challenged the validity of the Supreme Court issuing minute resolutions to deny petitions for review under Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, which requires decisions to express "clearly and distinctly the facts and the law" on which they are based. The Supreme Court held that (1) resolutions are not "decisions" that require expressing facts and law, as they merely hold that the petition should not be entertained; and (2) there is no need to fully explain the denial of a petition for review since the facts and law are in the Court of Appeals decision, and the petition is not a matter of right but of discretion. The constitutional mandate only applies to cases submitted for decision after briefing, not where the petition is

Uploaded by

Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Consti 1 - Judiciary

Komatsu Industries Phils. Inc. vs. CA; PNB, respondents


G.R. No. 127682 April 24, 1998
Regalado, J.
FACTS:
(Short Background)
National Investment and Development Corp. (NIDC) granted Komatsu
Industries (Phils.), Inc. (KIPI) a direct loan of P8,000,000 and a
P2,000,000guarantee to secure PNB. As security thereof, a Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage was executed by KIPI in favour of NIDC covering a parcel of
land with all its improvements embraced in TCT No. 469737. KIPI then
executed an Amendment of Mortgage Deed covering the same parcel of land
regarding letters of credit by PNB in favour of KIPI with foreign suppliers
worth US$1,564,826. Upon full payment of KIPIs account with NIDC and the
2,000,000credit line with PNB, NIDC executed a Deed of Release and
Cancellation of Mortgage. By virtue of this release, NIDC returned the
owners copy of the TCT to KIPI and registered the Deed of Release with the
Registry of Deed. However, PNB requested the return of the TCT due to
unsettled accounts based on the subsequent amendment of the mortgage.
The return was made but after a year, PNB filed for extrajudicial foreclosure
of the property. KIPI contests the foreclosure saying that the release by NIDC
had the effect of releasing the real estate mortgage.

(Relevant Facts)
Petitioner KIPI filed a petition for review on certiorari of the adverse
decision of respondent CA. However, it was denied by this Court for failure to
sufficiently show that respondent court had committed any reversible error in
its questioned judgement (see above). Hence, in its second motion for
reconsideration, petitioner tried a different approach by assailing the minute
resolutions are in violation of the constitution.

ISSUE/S:
1. W/N the issuance of Minute Resolutions is valid under Section 14,
Article VIII of the Constitution.

No decision shall be rendered by any court without


expressingtherein clearlyand distinctly the factsand the law on
which it is based.
HELD:
1. Yes. Resolutions are not decisions within the above constitutional
requirements; they merely hold that the petition for review should not
be entertained. And the petition to review the decision of the Court of
Appeals is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, hence
there is no need to fully explain the Courts denial since, for one thing,
the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals
decision.
The constitutional mandate is applicable only in cases
submitted for decision, i.e., given due course and after the filing of
briefs or memoranda and/or other pleadings, but not where the
petition is refused due course, with the resolution therefor stating the
legal basis thereof. Thus, when the Supreme Court, after deliberating
on a petition and subsequent pleadings, decides to deny due course to
the petition and states that the questions raised are factual or there is
no reversible error in the respondent courts decision, there is sufficient
compliance with the constitutional requirement.

Notes:
1. Overall decision of the case (Petition hereby granted/denied/remanded/etc)
2. Laws cited in the case; and their description
3. Other notes

You might also like