Article VIII. Section 14.
FRANCISCO V. PERMSKUL
FACTS:
 The petitioner leased his apartment in Makati to the
private respondent for a period of one year for the
stipulated ranteal of P3000 a month
 Pursuant to the lease contract, private respondent
deposited with the petitioner P9000 to answer for unpaid
rentals or any damage to leased premises except when
caused by reasonable wear and tear
 Private respondent vacated property
 Requested refund of deposit minus P1000 representing
rental for additional 10 days of occupancy after lease
 Petitioner rejected request
 Petitioner claims lessee still owed him for other charges,
including the electricity and water bills and a sum of
P2500 for repainting the leased premises to restore to the
original condition
 Private respondent sued in the MTC of Makati
 After submission of position papers by the parties, a
summary judgment was rendered sustaining the
Decision expressing clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based; Sufficient -
(Memorandum decision)
complainant and holding that the repainting was not
chargeable to him
 Defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff amount of P7750
representing balance of the deposit after deduction the
water and electricity charges
 Plaintiff was also awarded the sum of P1250 as attorney’s
fees plus Costs
 Decision was appealed to the RTC of Makati and was
affirmed by Judge de la Rama  done in a memorandum
decision
 Question presented to the court: validity of the
memorandum decision authorized under Sec.40 BP129
ISSUE:
Whether the memorandum decision was properly
promulgated  YES

HELD:
 There is no question that purpose of law in authorizing
the memorandum decision is to expedite the
termination of litigations for the benefit of the parties
as well as the courts themselves
 The courts of justice are really hard put at coping with the
tremendous number of cases in their dockets which
continue to grown by the day
 Viewed in the light of these practical consideration  the
memorandum decision can be welcomed indeed as an
acceptable method of dealing expeditiously with the case
load of the courts of justice, expediency alone, no matter
how compelling cannot excuse non-compliance with the
Constitution
 The judgment was made by the MTC in compliance with
the rule on summary procedure (3 typewritten pages,
single spaced, stated clearly and distinctly the facts and
the law on which it was based)
 It is not really correct to say that the CA did not review
the memorandum decision of the RTC which was the
subject of the petition for review
 A reading of its own decision will show that it dealt
extensively with the memorandum decision and
discussed it at some length
 In reviewing the decision of the MTC, the CA was actually
reviewing the decision of the RTC
 Judge De La Rama availed himself of the convenience
offered by Section 40 of BP Blg. 129  he was only
acting in accordance with the ruling announced in
Romero permitting the use of memorandum decision
 The law does not define the memorandum decision and
simply suggests that the court may adopt by reference
the findings of fact and the conclusions of the law stated
in the decision, order or resolution on appeal before it
 Where the decision of the appellate court actually
reproduces the findings of fact or the conclusions of the
court below, it is not a memorandum decision
 Distinctive features of memorandum decision
1. Rendered by an appellate court
2. It incorporates by reference the findings of fact or
the conclusions of law contained in the decision,
order or ruling under review