Palisoc v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Teodora V. Palisoc was convicted of estafa by the Court of First Instance of Manila and appealed to the Court of Appeals. Her case was initially assigned to the Sixth Division. Procedural History: Justice Peña of the Sixth Division died on April 20, 1961. Subsequently, the case was reassigned to the Fifth Division. On April 25, 1961, the accused's counsel expressed a desire to orally argue the case anew before the division to which it might be reassigned. The Fifth Division rendered a decision on May 25, 1963, affirming the lower court's judgment without a prior hearing. The accused received the decision on June 4, 1963, and filed a motion to set aside the decision and calendar the case for hearing, alleging deprivation of her day in court. This motion was denied. A motion for reconsideration was also denied, prompting the accused to file the present action for certiorari. The Petition: The accused filed a petition for certiorari, questioning the validity of the decision rendered by the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Justices who rendered the decision were not present during the oral argument and were not the original members of the division to which the case was submitted.
Issue(s)
Whether the Justices of the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals could render a valid decision on the case although they were not present during its hearing and were not the original members of the Division to which the case was submitted for decision. Whether the denial of the accused's prayer for a second hearing constituted a deprivation of her right to due process.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the validity of the decision rendered by the Fifth Division: The Court held that Section 1 of Rule 53 of the Old Rules of Court clearly states that all matters submitted to the court for consideration and adjudication can be considered and adjudicated by any and all of the justices who are members of the court at the time such matters are taken up, regardless of whether they were members at the time of submission or were present during the submission. The only exception is when, at the date of submission, a written manifestation is filed by any party expressing a desire that only those justices present during the oral argument should participate in the consideration and adjudication. In this case, no such manifestation was filed by the accused. Therefore, the Justices of the Fifth Division, who were members of the Court of Appeals at the time the case was taken up for consideration and adjudication, could validly render the decision. The accused's counsel merely expressed a desire to argue the case anew, not that only the original members present during the first oral argument should decide it. On the issue of deprivation of due process: The Court ruled that the denial of the accused's prayer for a second hearing did not constitute a deprivation of her right to due process. Firstly, she had already been afforded the right to argue her case orally through counsel in an appropriate hearing, after which the case was submitted for decision. Secondly, there is no statutory provision in Commonwealth Act No. 3, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 259, creating the Court of Appeals, that defines a hearing which must be granted to parties in appealed cases submitted to the Court of Appeals for decision. Therefore, she could not claim a statutory right to a second hearing. The Court reiterated its holding in Domingo vs. David, 68 Phil. 134, that the denial of a motion for a second oral argument does not constitute a denial of due process.
Main Doctrine
The Justices of the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals could validly render a decision on a case although they were not present during its hearing and were not the original members of the Division to which the case was submitted for decision, absent a written manifestation filed at the date of submission that only those Justices present during the oral argument should participate.