STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION FOR TWO LAWS/DECISIONS PASSED/PROMULGATED ON THE SAME ISSUE/SUBJECT MATTER

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ON THE DECEMBER 4, 2009 AND JUNE 22, 2011 SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF G.R. No.182645 - IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ vs. JAIME ROBLES:

          The June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision of SC-G.R. No. 182645 issued by the Special Third Division, in dismissing the petition for Certiorari filed by Supreme Court petitioner Rene Pascual, a non-party to the original case in RTC Branch 34, Iriga City, did not affect at all the finality and Immutability of the AMENDED DECISION dated August 13, 1999 of Special Proceedings in IR-1110.  Anent this, the Supreme Court December 4, 2009 Decision of the same case, issued by the former Regular Third Division and which was penned by now retired Hon. Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, and which was set aside by the December 15, 2010 Resolution of the Special Third Division, but the aforesaid late appeal PARTLY GRANTED and only meant to give SC Respondent Jaime Robles a chance to enter his plea and speak out as an indispensible party, but the aforesaid June 22, 2011 SC Decision NEVER PRONOUNCED AND RULED AGAINST the Iriga City AMENDED DECISION nor the December 4, 2009 SC DECISION, the latter already attaining FINALITY and became part of jurisprudence as borne by the annotated records in SCRA Vol. 607, p.770-777, and the same was never pronounced as having been reversed, nullified or vacated by the June 22, 2011 SC Special Third Division Decision.  It is constitutionally illegal for a (Special) DIVISION of the SUPREME COURT to nullify, reverse or vacate a Decision of another (Regular) DIVISION of the SUPREME COURT when the said Decision of the latter Division had already lapsed into finality; this was specified by the Constitutional provisions of our basic law but can only be done through an EN BANC ruling by the SUPREME COURT voting as one body by all fifteen (15) members of the Highest Magistrate.  The Constitutional provision in Article VIII, Section 4, last portion of paragraph 3 authoritatively directs the entire Judiciary Department of the country that in the presence of conflicting rulings, only an EN BANC decision by the highest Court shall have the final say, stating inter alia-

          “xxx Provided: THAT NO DOCTRINE OR PRINCIPLE OF LAW  LAID DOWN BY THE COURT IN A DECISION RENDERED EN BANC OR IN DIVISION MAY BE MODIFIED OR REVERSED EXCEPT BY THE COURT (SUPREME COURT) SITTING EN BANC. xxx.” 

        The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case SC-G.R. No. 182645, issued the following rulings in two Decisions, as follows:

I. THE DECEMBER 4, 2009 SC DECISION (SCRA 607, p.770-777)

GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION BEING MERITORIOUS, THE SUPREME COURT DISPOSITIVELY RULING IN REGARD TO THE CA RESOLUTION/DECISION AND, THE RTC AMENDED DECISION:

1) NULLIFIED the COURT OF APPEALS DECISION G.R. SP No. 57417 dated April 16, 2002, which had previously declared the RTC Branch 34 Iriga City AMENDED DECISION  a patent nullity. Relative to the CA Resolution nullification, the Supreme Court also NULLIFIED the February 21, 2007 RTC Iriga City Order which continued to implement the void CA Resolution; and

2) REINSTATED the RTC Iriga City AMENDED DECISION dated August 13, 1999 of aforesaid Special Proceedings No. IR-1110, the said RTC Decision having COMMITTED NO ERRORS. 

II. THE JUNE 22, 2011 SC DECISION

THE SUPREME COURT DISPOSITIVELY DISCUSSED TWO SEPARATE RULINGS:

1) Declared "IMMUTABLE" the LONG DECLARED FINAL & EXECUTORY RTC Branch 34 Iriga City AMENDED DECISION, the Supreme Court categorically discussed the following:

  xxx"The ONLY EXEMPTIONS TO THE RULE OF IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL JUDGMENTS ARE: (1)THE CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERRORS, (2)THE SO CALLED NUNC-PRO-TUNC ENTRIES WHICH CAUSE NO PREJUDICE TO ANY PARTY, AND (3)VOID JUDGMENTS.

     UNLIKE THE AMENDED DECISION, (which was found by the CA to be a complete nullity), THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE INSTANT CASE (Special Proceedings No. IR-1110) FALLS UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS ENUMERATED ABOVE."

2) Dismissed the Petition for Certiorari of Rene Pascual ON A TECHNICALITY, since RENE PASCUAL was NOT AN ORIGINAL PARTY TO THE RTC Iriga City SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE. 

       
   By way of STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, the two SUPREME COURT DECISIONS of December 4, 2009 and June 22, 2011, of SC G.R. No. 182645, not contradictory in their pronouncements, are both given equal weight and importance, and both rulings are applied by the Supreme Court without conflict.  On both Supreme Court Decisions, the RTC Branch 34 Iriga City AMENDED DECISION was upheld when it was REINSTATED, and, being a final and executory judgment a long time ago, having committed no errors, and was declared IMMUTABLE; as against the CA Resolution dated 16 April 2002 in CA G.R. SP No.57417, which CAN NEVER BECOME IMMUTABLE and was categorized as a VOID JUDGMENT, the said CA ruling NULLIFIED by the Supreme Court in the December 4, 2009 Decision of SC-G.R. No. 182645.

          The Supreme Court in the Decision dated December 4, 2009 and  then in the Decision dated June 22, 2011 in SC-G.R. No. 182645 have now both become final and executory, and the Supreme Court issued an Entry of Judgment on September 12, 2011 for the said case, and was duly transmitted by registered mail, as per records of the Supreme Court Judgment Division, to the Court of Appeals and RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City on December 9, 2011.

(As per research, Statutory Construction is a three(3) unit subject, in law schools.  This is usually the study and analysis of old and new decisions or laws passed covering the same issues or subject. - Credit to AE on his explanation on this - rbg54.)