Borromeo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Joaquin T. Borromeo filed a complaint for damages against Attys. Julieta Y. Carreon, Alfredo P. Marasigan, and Jose I. Ilustre. He alleged that these court personnel usurped judicial functions by issuing a biased, fake, baseless, and unconstitutional 'Resolution' and 'Entry of Judgment' in G.R. No. 82273. Borromeo claimed these actions deprived him of due process and equal protection, causing him grave moral shock, mental anguish, and other damages. 2. Procedural History: The complaint for damages was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 8, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-8679. Summons were issued to the respondents, who were court personnel acting in their official capacity. The summons were initially referred to the Third Division of the Supreme Court, which then referred them to the Court En Banc. This case is one of several instances where Borromeo has filed charges against court officials, alleging injustices due to the disposition of his appealed cases through minute resolutions. 3. The Petition: This resolution addresses the referral of a civil case filed against Supreme Court personnel to the En Banc. The Court clarifies that minute resolutions, which dispose of the bulk of cases, are a necessary procedural tool to manage its caseload and comply with constitutional functions. It emphasizes that such resolutions, when providing a legal basis, are sufficient and need not be signed by Justices or certified by the Chief Justice. The Court orders the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 18, to quash the summons and dismiss Civil Case No. CEB-8679, and to refrain from entertaining similar harassment suits against Supreme Court officers for actions taken by the Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the issuance of a 'Resolution' and 'Entry of Judgment' by Supreme Court personnel, acting upon orders of a Division, constitutes usurpation of judicial functions. Whether minute resolutions issued by the Supreme Court must bear the signatures of the Justices and a certification from the Chief Justice, and state the facts and law on which they are based. Whether the issuance of minute resolutions by the Supreme Court, without the detailed requisites of a full decision, violates constitutional provisions regarding due process and equal protection. Whether the filing of a damage suit against Supreme Court officers for actions taken in their official capacity concerning Supreme Court resolutions constitutes a valid cause of action or is a form of harassment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ordered the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 18, to quash the summons issued and dismiss Civil Case No. CEB-8679. It further directed the said RTC not to issue summons or entertain similar cases in the future. The Court also ordered all private law practitioners, government lawyers, prosecutors, and judges of trial courts to familiarize themselves with the Court's procedures and refrain from filing harassment suits against Supreme Court officers for actions taken in their official capacity. Such complaints should be forwarded to the Supreme Court itself.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of usurpation of judicial functions and the nature of minute resolutions: The Court reiterated that it disposes of the bulk of its cases by minute resolutions, which are final and executory when a case is patently without merit, raises factual issues, or when the decision appealed from is supported by substantial evidence. These resolutions provide a legal basis, complying with constitutional requirements. The Court emphasized that it is not duty-bound to render signed decisions all the time and has discretion to issue minute resolutions, provided a legal basis is given, to manage its caseload. The Clerk of Court's role is merely to transmit the Court's action by quoting verbatim the resolution issued, and they do not participate in the deliberations. The Court assumes full responsibility for all its acts, and its personnel cannot be made to answer for them. On the constitutional requirements for resolutions: The Court clarified that the constitutional requirement to clearly and distinctly state the facts and law on which a decision is based refers only to "decisions." Resolutions disposing of petitions fall under the provision stating that "No petition for review... shall be refused due course... without stating the legal basis therefor." When the Court denies due course and states the legal basis, such as "questions raised are factual" or "no reversible error," it sufficiently complies with the constitutional mandate. Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court or require the Chief Justice's certification, as this would unduly delay the issuance of resolutions and divert the Justices' time from more substantive work. On the alleged deprivation of due process and equal protection: The Court found that the petitioner's claims of deprivation of due process and equal protection were baseless. The resolution denying his petition in G.R. No. 82273 was a four-page document that adequately addressed the constitutional requirements for resolutions refusing due course to petitions for review. The case had undergone extensive deliberations by the Justices of the Third Division before the resolution was issued. The subsequent motion for reconsideration was noted without action as it merely reiterated previously raised and denied arguments. On harassment suits against court officers: The Court strongly condemned the filing of harassment suits against its officers for actions taken in their official capacity. It stated that such suits are an impediment to the proper administration of justice and constitute gross ignorance of the law. The Court stressed that all resolutions and decisions are actions of the Court itself, and its personnel are merely transmitting these actions. Therefore, they cannot and should not be held liable for the Court's official acts. The Court issued a directive to all lower courts and legal practitioners to refrain from entertaining such suits and to forward any complaints regarding Supreme Court actions directly to the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court, through its Divisions, may issue minute resolutions that comply with constitutional requirements, and the Clerk of Court merely transmits the Court's action without participating in deliberations. Harassment suits against court officers for actions taken in their official capacity based on Supreme Court resolutions are prohibited and constitute gross ignorance of the law.