Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 5, 2006

G.R. No. 168384 (Charles Bernard H. Reyes, etc. v. Antonio Yulo Balde II, et al.)

This resolves the referral of the instant case to the Court en banc.

Under Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89, where such referral is made, the Court en banc may either accept the case or return the same to the Division, depending upon the factual and legal backdrop of the controversy. In the Resolution of the Court dated November 18, 1993, the following cases are considered as "en banc cases," or those that may be referred to the Court en banc:

1. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;

2. Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty;

3. Cases raising novel questions of law;

4. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;

5. Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, and Commission on Audit;

6. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000.00 or both;

7. Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the Court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed;

8. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the Court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the court en banc; and

9. All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention.

In the present case, petitioner raises four issues in support of its motion to refer the case to the court en banc, to wit: (1) that the judgment rendered on July 29, 2005 by the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203 in Civil Case No. 03-110 is "final and beyond judicial review;" (2) that the Court has no authority to issue a temporary restraining order against the Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203; (3) that private respondents violated the rule on forum shopping when they simultaneously sought for an injunctive relief from the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals; and (4) that the Supreme Court has no authority to take cognizance of issues not raised before it.

Obviously, the foregoing issues do not fall under any of the categories which may be considered as "en banc cases." Neither are they of transcendental importance as to merit referral to the court en banc. They do not present novel questions of law nor call for reversal or modification of age old doctrines. Indeed, nothing can be more established than the rule that a void judgment, like the July 29, 2005 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City in Civil Case No. 03-110, can never acquire finality.[1] As such, it cannot have the effect of res judicata or give rise to a violation of the rule on forum shopping;[2] and the Court may annul the same and issue injuctive orders to undo its effects.[3] Equally settled is the doctrine that the Court is clothed with authority to address these matters even if not assigned as errors because their resolution is necessary to arrive at a just decision and to completely dispose of the case.[4] Simply put, the resolution of the issues posed by petitioner involves nothing more than the application of basic legal precepts and established doctrines.

Moreover, the matters pointed out by petitioner had already been exhaustively addressed in the Decision of the First Division dated August 7, 2006. The proceedings therein are regular and require no intervention of the Court en banc. A decision or resolution of a Division of the Court, when concurred in by a majority of its Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in a case and voted thereon, represent the decisions of the Supreme Court itself. The full Court is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed.[5] To accept the referral of this case to the Court en banc would be to entertain an appeal from decision of the First Division. This, we cannot allow.

Atty. Francisco I. Chavez, petitioner's counsel, is advised to be more circumspect with his allegations and to conduct his dealings with the Court in a manner befitting an officer of the Court. He is likewise reminded that as part of the machinery in the administration of justice, he is expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the fundamental legal precepts and to refrain from wasting the precious time of this Court with unfounded allegations and baseless motions.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant case is RETURNED to the First Division.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Clerk of Court

[1] Barde v. Posiquit, G.R. No. L-29445, August 15, 1998, 164 SCRA 304, 311; Metropolitan Waterworks & Sewerage System v. Sison, No. L-40309, August 31, 1983, 124 SCRA 394, 404.

[2] Ayala Land, Inc. v. Valisno, 381 Phil. 518, 527-528 (2000).

[3] David v. Velasco, G.R. No. 126592, October 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 360, 369. See also Rivero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141273, May 17, 2005, 458 SCRA 714, 740.

[4] J.LT. Agro, Inc. v. Balansag, G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005, 453 SCRA 211, 234.

[5] See Circular No. 2-89, effective March 1, 1989.