Joaquin Borromeo vs CA

G.R. No. L-82273 June 1, 1990

Facts: Petitioner Joaquin T. Borromeo filed a complaint for damages with RTC of Cebu and
charged Attys. Julieta Y. Carreon and Alfredo P. Marasigan, Division Clerk of Court and
Asst. Division Clerk of Court, respectively, of the Third Division, and Atty. Jose I. Ilustre,
Chief of the Judicial Records Office of this Court, with usurpation of judicial functions, for
allegedly "maliciously and deviously issuing biased, fake, baseless and unconstitutional
'Resolution' and 'Entry of Judgment' in G.R. No. 82273. This is not the first time that
petitioner has filed charges/complaints against officials of the Court. In several lettercomplaints filed with the courts and the Ombudsman, Borromeo had repeatedly alleged
that he "suffered injustices," because of the disposition of the four (4) cases he
separately appealed to this Court which were resolved by minute resolutions, allegedly in
violation of Sections 4 (3),13 and 14 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution . His
invariable complaint is that the resolutions which disposed of his cases do not bear the
signatures of the Justices who participated in the deliberations and resolutions and do
not show that they voted therein. He likewise complained that the resolutions bear no
certification of the Chief Justice and that they did not state the facts and the law on
which they were based and were signed only by the Clerks of Court and therefore
"unconstitutional, null and void."
Issue: whether or not the Minute Resolution issued by the Supreme Court offends the
constitutional provision stated in sec. 14 Art. 8 of the Constitution.
Ruling: No. The resolution dated Sept. 13, 1989 of the Supreme Court through its Third
Division which disposed of Borromeo's petition is a four-page resolution which more than
adequately complies with the constitutional requirements governing resolutions refusing
to give due course to petitions for review. The petition and its incidents were discussed
and deliberated upon by the Justices of the Third Division during their sessions. On
November 27, 1989, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was noted
without action as the Court found that the motion merely reiterated the same arguments
earlier raised in the petition and already passed upon by the Court and was, therefore
without merit.
In Tayamura v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Court clarified the constitutional
requirement that a decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and law on
which it is based as referring only to decisions. Resolutions disposing of petitions fall
under the constitutional provision which states that, "No petition for review ... shall be
refused due course ...without stating the legal basis therefor" (Section 14, Article VIII,
Constitution). When the Court, after deliberating on a petition and any subsequent
pleadings, manifestations, comments, or motions decides to deny due course to the
petition and states that the questions raised are factual or no reversible error in the
respondent court's decision is shown or for some other legal basis stated in the
resolution, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement.