BROTHER MARIANO “MIKE” Z. VELARDE VS.

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY

G.R. No. 159357
April 28, 2004

FACTS:

On January 28, 2003, Social Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party,
filed a petition for Declaratory Relief** before the RTC Manila against Velarde and other
significant religious leaders. The former sought the interpretation of several
constitutional provisions, specifically on the separation of church and state; and a
declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the acts of religious leaders endorsing a
candidate for an elective office or urging or requiring the members of their flock to vote
for a specified candidate.

The subsequent proceedings were recounted in the challenged Decision in these

words:

“x x x. Bro. Eddie Villanueva submitted, within the original period [to file an
Answer], a Motion to Dismiss. Subsequently, Executive Minister Eraño Manalo and Bro.
Mike Velarde, filed their Motions to Dismiss. While His Eminence Jaime Cardinal L. Sin,
filed a Comment and Bro. Eli Soriano, filed an Answer within the extended period and
similarly prayed for the dismissal of the Petition. All sought the dismissal of the Petition
on the common grounds that it does not state a cause of action** and that there is no
justiciable controversy**. They were ordered to submit a pleading by way of
advisement, which was closely followed by another Order denying all the Motions to
Dismiss. Bro. Mike Velarde, Bro. Eddie Villanueva and Executive Minister Eraño
Manalo moved to reconsider the denial. His Eminence Jaime Cardinal L. Sin, asked for
extension to file memorandum. Only Bro. Eli Soriano complied with the first Order by
submitting his Memorandum. x x x”

“x x x .The Court denied the Motions to Dismiss, and the Motions for Reconsideration
filed by Velarde, Villanueva and Manalo, which raised no new arguments other than
those already considered in the motions to dismiss.x x x”

The trial court said that it had jurisdiction over the Petition, because “in praying
for a determination as to whether the actions imputed to the respondents are violative of
Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution, [the Petition] has raised only a question of
law.” It then proceeded to a lengthy discussion of the issue raised in the Petition – the
separation of church and state – even tracing, to some extent, the historical background
of the principle. Through its discourse, the court a quo opined at some point that the
“endorsement of specific candidates in an election to any public office is a clear violation
of the separation clause.”

After its essay on the legal issue, however, the trial court failed to include a
dispositive portion in its assailed Decision. Thus, Velarde and Soriano filed separate
Motions for Reconsideration which, as mentioned earlier, were denied by the lower
court.

ISSUE:

(1) What is the standard form of a Decision?

(2) Whether or not the challenged Decision comply with the aforesaid form.

RULING:

(2) No. The challenged Decision did not comply with the proper form of a Decision.

(1) In general, the essential parts of a good decision consist of the following:

(1) statement of the case; (2) statement of facts; (3) issues or assignment of errors; (4)
court ruling, in which each issue is, as a rule, separately considered and resolved; and,
finally, (5) dispositive portion. The ponentemay also opt to include an introduction or a
prologue as well as an epilogue, especially in cases in which controversial or novel
issues are involved.

Indeed, the assailed Decision was rendered in clear violation of the Constitution,
because it made no findings of facts and final disposition. Hence, it is void and deemed
legally inexistent. Consequently, there is nothing for this Court to review, affirm, reverse
or even just modify.

Failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Decisions or orders issued in careless
disregard of the constitutional mandate are a patent nullity and must be struck down as
void. Indeed, the RTC’s Decision cannot be upheld for its failure to express clearly and
distinctly the facts on which it was based. Thus, the trial court clearly transgressed the
constitutional directive.

______________________________________________________________________

** Declaratory Relief
- A special civil action brought by a person interested under a deed, will, contract or
written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or
regulation, or ordinance, before breach or violation thereof, to determine any
question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or statute and for a
declaration of his rights or duties thereunder- Section 1, Rule 64, Rules of Court-
Requisites for action: (1)there must be justiciable controversy;(2) controversy must
be between persons whose interests areadverse; (3) party seeking declaratory relief
must have legal interest in the controversy; (4) issue involved must be ripe
for justiciable determination

** Justiciable Controversy
- One involving an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right onone side and
a denial thereof on the other concerning a real and not a mere theoretical question or
issue

** Cause of Action
- An act or omission of one party in violation of legal rights orrights of another, causing
injury to the latter-Essential elements: (1) right in favor of petitioner; (2) anobligation
on the part of the named defendant to respect or notto violate such right; (3) act or
omission that is violative of theright of petitioner or constituting a breach of obligation
ofdefendant to petitioner
MANALANG VS. RICKARDS (Tenant Ejectment Case)
GR L-11986
JULY 31, 1958

FACTS:

Elvira Vidal Tuason de Rickards is the owner of private subdivision located at

Sampaloc, Manila. The lots therein were leased to various tenants among whom were
respondents Bernardo Manalang, Vicente de Leon and Salvador de Leon. As the City of
Manila allegedly increased the assessment of said land, the administrator thereof
notified the tenants of the corresponding increase of the rentals of the lots therein, such
that the rental for the lot occupied by the respondents.The latter, however, insisted on
paying the former rate of the lots, and as the landowner refused to accept the same, the
former consigned them in court.This prompted respondent to file ejectment cases
against the 3 tenants in the Municipal Court of Manila.

Petitioner and others filed separate motions to dismiss invoking the provisions of
RA 1162. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss and suspends the proceedings
to 2 years or until further order from the court. When the judge then issued an order to
set a date for hearing of the case, petitioners tried to secure a reconsideration of the
hearing order but it was denied. They filed then a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with the CFI against Respondent – since the Petitioner group did not want the case to be
heard. Respondent in defense argued that the order, which ordered the case to be
suspended for 2 years or until further notice, is merely an interlocutory order thus it
cannot be reviewed by a petition for certiorari. They argue that the case must be
heard. CFI dismissed the petition, grounded on the finding the lower court’s order was
interlocutory and that the case must be heard. CFI held that actions for ejectment were
filed before the enactment of RA1162. General principle of Laws can only be enforced
prospectively. Municipal Judge saw it fit to suspend the proceedings with the
expectation that the question of the constitutionality of RA1162 will be discussed.

ISSUE:

Whether the order of the inferior court is interlocutory** or not; and if the lower
court made a mistake in dismissing the petition for certiorari** and prohibition.
HELD:

YES. It was interlocutory since the dispositive portion of the order did not provide
a definite resolution to the case; instead it suspended the hearing of the case. But, the
Supreme Court affirms the order of the lower court dismissing the appellants petition for
certiorari and prohibition. Also, the lower court is given the power to reopen
the trial to finally determine the rights of the parties involved –to give
resolution to the case.

______________________________________________________________________

** interlocutory - is a legal term which can refer to an order, sentence, decree, or judgment,
given in an intermediate stage between the commencement and termination of a cause of
action, used to provide a temporary or provisional decision on an issue.

** certiorari - a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or

administrative agency.
PHILIPPINE HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORP. VS. HON. ERICTA
GR L-40675
AUGUST 17, 1983

FACTS:

Private respondent has filed an action for specific performance and prayed that
petitioner to issue a deed of absolute sale of property in pursuant to RA 3802 wherein
there is sale at cost to registered tenants, just like respondent, and that past rentals
would be applied to the purchase price. The lower court decided in favor of private
respondent and its decision became final and executory. Nonetheless, petitioner failed
to execute the deed of absolute sale, despite the two writs of execution ordered by the
trial court. The private respondent asked the court to execute the deed in behalf of
petitioner. Petitioner contested this, saying that the decision that should be executed is
the one found in the dispositive or decretal portion. Nothing can be read in this portion
of the purchase price of the subject land.

ISSUE:

Whether or not judgment can only be found in the decretal portion?

RULING:

No, the petitioner’s contention is bereft of merit. The resolution of the case is
ordinarily embodied in the dispositive portion of the case. Nonetheless, there are
instances that the resolution or ruling is embodied in other parts of the case. Style in
decision-making and preparation is personal to the writer. As long as it doesn’t violate
Article 7, Section 12 of the Constitution and Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, there is no
compelling reason to establish a stringent rule where the judgment must be placed.