Fortich, et al. vs. Corona, et al.

Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution draws a distinction between "cases," which are "decided," and "matters," which are "resolved"; only "cases" are automatically referred to the Court en banc when a division fails to obtain the required three-vote majority, whereas a tie vote on a motion for reconsideration results in the motion's defeat and the affirmation of the original decision.

The case originated from a dispute involving the "Win-Win" Resolution issued by the Office of the President on November 7, 1997, which modified a prior decision dated March 29, 1996 regarding land conversion and agrarian reform matters in Bukidnon. The controversy involved the Provincial Governor of Bukidnon, the Municipal Mayor of Sumilao, NQSR Management and Development Corporation, the Department of Agrarian Reform, and potential agrarian reform beneficiaries who were issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) under the challenged resolution.

• The Office of the President rendered a Decision on March 29, 1996, which had become final and executory prior to the filing of a motion for reconsideration that became the basis of the subsequent "Win-Win" Resolution dated November 7, 1997.
• The "Win-Win" Resolution was issued by the Office of the President to modify the March 29, 1996 Decision, ostensibly to balance the interests of the landowner and agrarian reform beneficiaries.
• On April 24, 1998, the Supreme Court Second Division rendered a Decision nullifying the "Win-Win" Resolution on the ground that it was issued after the March 29, 1996 Decision had become final.
• Respondents and intervenors filed motions for reconsideration of the April 24, 1998 Decision.
• On November 17, 1998, the Second Division voted 2-2 on the motions for reconsideration, resulting in the denial of said motions and the affirmation of the April 24, 1998 Decision.
• Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, and intervenors filed separate motions for reconsideration of the November 17, 1998 Resolution, contending that the 2-2 tie vote required automatic referral to the Court en banc under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution.
• Intervenors are seasonal farmworkers who were issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) under the "Win-Win" Resolution and were identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform as qualified beneficiaries.
• The Court had previously denied intervenors' motion for leave to intervene in the April 24, 1998 Decision, a ruling that was affirmed in the November 17, 1998 Resolution.

• The motions for reconsideration filed by respondents and intervenors constitute prohibited second motions for reconsideration under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as they seek to reconsider a resolution that had already affirmed the original decision.
• The intervenors lack legal personality to seek redress before the Court because their motion to intervene was denied in the April 24, 1998 Decision, and their subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.
• The "Win-Win" Resolution is void and of no legal effect because the March 29, 1996 Decision of the Office of the President had already become final and executory, and the winning party has a correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case.
• Intervenors, as seasonal farmworkers, have no legal or actual interest over the subject land because they have no right to own the land under the Constitution; their rights are limited only to a just share of the fruits of the land.

• The November 17, 1998 Resolution did not effectively resolve the motions for reconsideration because the 2-2 tie vote meant the required three votes to carry a decision was not obtained, necessitating referral to the Court en banc under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution.
• The issues presented, particularly the interpretation of the constitutional provision regarding tie votes and the validity of the "Win-Win" Resolution, are of first impression and of extraordinary import that merit the attention of the Court en banc.
• The intervenors are real parties in interest because they have been issued CLOAs and have been identified by the DAR as qualified beneficiaries of the property, giving them a substantial interest in the outcome of the case.
• The "Win-Win" Resolution is valid and the allegations regarding the finality of the March 29, 1996 Decision are technicalities that should not override the substantive rights of the beneficiaries.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether a tie vote (2-2) in a division's resolution of a motion for reconsideration requires automatic referral to the Court en banc under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution.
  • Whether the motions for reconsideration of the November 17, 1998 Resolution constitute prohibited second motions for reconsideration.
  • Whether intervenors have legal standing to file the instant motions after their motion to intervene was previously denied.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the "Win-Win" Resolution is void for having been issued after the Office of the President's decision became final and executory.
  • Whether intervenors, as seasonal farmworkers issued CLOAs under the void "Win-Win" Resolution, have a legal interest sufficient to grant them standing in the case.

• Procedural:
  • Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution distinguishes between "cases," which are "decided," and "matters," which are "resolved." Applying the rule of reddendo singula singulis, only "cases" are referred to the Court en banc when the required majority of at least three votes is not obtained; "matters" such as motions for reconsideration are not referred to the en banc.
  • When a motion for reconsideration results in a tie vote in a division, the motion is lost, and the decision subject thereof stands affirmed; there is no need for referral to the Court en banc because the case has already been decided.
  • The instant motions constitute prohibited second motions for reconsideration under Section 2, Rule 52 in relation to Section 4, Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. No prior leave of court was obtained, and no exceptionally persuasive reasons were shown to justify the relaxation of the rules.
  • Intervenors lack legal standing because their motion for leave to intervene was denied in the April 24, 1998 Decision, and their motion for reconsideration was denied in the November 17, 1998 Resolution. Their subsequent motion is a forbidden second motion for reconsideration.
• Substantive:
  • The "Win-Win" Resolution is void and of no legal effect because the March 29, 1996 Decision of the Office of the President had already become final and executory prior to the filing of the motion for reconsideration that became its basis. The finality of the decision vested rights in the winning party that cannot be disturbed.
  • Intervenors, being seasonal farmworkers rather than regular farmworkers, have no legal or actual interest over the subject land. Under Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution, their right is limited to a just share of the fruits of the land, not ownership. The issuance of CLOAs to them does not grant standing because no legal rights can emanate from a void resolution.

• Reddendo singula singulis — A rule of construction providing that when a sentence contains words of different nature or import, they should be applied distributively to subjects of a corresponding nature. Applied to interpret Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution to mean that "cases" are "decided" while "matters" are "resolved," limiting the en banc referral requirement to cases only.
• Finality of judgments — Once a decision becomes final and executory, it vests rights in the winning party that are correlative to the losing party's right to appeal, and such finality cannot be disturbed by subsequent motions or resolutions.
• Standing of agrarian reform beneficiaries — Seasonal farmworkers, as distinguished from regular farmworkers, have no right to own land under the agrarian reform program; their constitutional right is limited to a just share of the fruits of the land, and they lack standing to intervene in disputes over land ownership.

• "Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case."
• "Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members."
• "No legal rights can emanate from a resolution that is null and void."
• "To argue that a motion for reconsideration is not a 'case' but only a 'matter' which does not concern a case, so that, even though the vote thereon in the division is 2-2, the matter or issue is not required to elevated to the Court En Banc, is to engage in a lot of unfounded hairsplitting." (Justice Melo, Separate Opinion)

• Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals — Cited to demonstrate that the issue of whether local government units need DAR approval to reclassify lands is no longer novel; the Court previously held that such approval is not required.
• Ortigas and Company Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Tirso Velasco — Cited for the procedural rule that second motions for reconsideration must be filed with express leave of court first obtained.
• Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that the winning party has a correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case.

• Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the 1987 Constitution — Provision requiring at least three votes in a division and automatic referral to the Court en banc when the required number is not obtained; interpreted to apply only to "cases" and not to "matters" such as motions for reconsideration.
• Article XIII, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution — Provision stating that the State shall undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless to own directly or collectively the lands they till; cited to distinguish the rights of regular farmworkers from seasonal farmworkers.
• Section 2, Rule 52 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provision prohibiting second motions for reconsideration.
• Section 4, Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provision stating that no second motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

• Justice Melo — Concurred in the result (denial of the motions) but expressed reservations regarding the majority's interpretation of Article VIII, Section 4(3). He argued that the constitutional provision should apply to both "cases" and "matters," and that a tie vote in a division on any issue, including motions for reconsideration, should automatically result in referral to the Court en banc. He characterized the majority's distinction between "cases" and "matters" as "unfounded hairsplitting" and contrary to the explicit requirement of the Constitution that at least three members must concur in any case or matter heard by a division.

• Justice Puno — Maintained his original position that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.