Effects of unsigned resolutions of the Supreme Court…
In G.R. No. 258524, April 8, 2026, which decided the motion for reconsiderations filed by both the Office of the Solicitor General and Bertini Causing, in the main case of G.R. No. 258524,, one of the issues raised by the OSG was that the Tolentino case, an unsigned Resolution decided by the Court, laid down a doctrine or principle on cyberlibel’s prescription that may be modified or reversed by the Court en banc pursuant to Article VIII, Section 4 (3) of the Constitution. The Court is therefore left to resolve the efficacy of an unsigned Resolution of the Supreme Court. And the Court in resolving thus said so:
“Firs, textually, Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the 1987 Constitution pertains to a doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in a division. To be clear, Tolentino was decided through an unsigned resolution, and not by way of a decision.
Second, it is a basic rule in statutory construction that ‘“every part of the [statute] must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e. that every part of the [statute] must be interpreted together with other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enacment. Further, “[t’he particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statutes must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts in order to produce a harmonious whole.”
Thus, the provision in Article VIII, Section 4 (3) of the Constitution should not be read in isolation but instead be interpreted together with the first sentence thereof, which refers to th cases decided “writhe the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in case, without the concurrence of at least three such Members.” Taking together the first and second sentence s of Article VIII, Section 4 (3), the Court stresses that the “decision” contemplated by the Constitution, wherein a doctrine or principle of law is laid down, refers to cases decided by the Court that shows the concurrence of the majority of the Members who took part in the deliberations on the case and voted thereon.”
In relation thereto, Rule 13, Section 6 of A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, or the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, provides the manner by which the Court adjudicates a case before it. The rule distinguishes among a “decision,” a “signed resolution,” and an “unsigned resolution”:
SECTION 6. Manner of adjudication. – The Court shall adjudicate cases as follows:
(a)
By decision, when the Court disposes of the case on its merits and its rulings have significant doctrinal values; resolve novel issues; or impact on the social, political, and economic life of the nation. The decision shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. It shall bear the signatures of the Members who took part in the deliberation.
(b)
By signed resolution, when the Court comprehensively resolves the motion for reconsideration filed in the case or when a dissenting opinion is registered against such resolution. The signed resolution shall no longer discuss issues resolved in the decision and need not repeat the facts and the law stated in it. It shall also bear the signatures of the Members who took part in the deliberation.
(c)
By unsigned resolution[,] when the Court disposes of the case on the merits, but its ruling is essentially meaningful only to the parties; has no significant doctrinal value; or is of minimal interest to the law profession, the academe, or the public. The resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
Likewise, in Circular No. 2-89 dated February 7, 1989, providing Guidelines and Rules in the Referral to the Court en banc of Cases Assigned to a Division, the Court identified which decisions or resolutions of a division may be considered for referral to the Court En Banc pursuant to Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution, to wit:
2. 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, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members, is a decision or resolution of the Supreme Court (Section 4[3], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution). (Emphasis supplied)
In view of Rule 13, Section 6 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court and paragraph 2 of Circular No. 2-89, it is apparent that a doctrine or principle of law may be laid down by the Court, sitting en banc or in a division, only via a decision or a signed resolution, as only such dispositions expressly show the concurrence of a majority of the Members who took part in the deliberations and voted thereon.
Third, Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the 1987 Constitution refers to the doctrine of stare decisis, which dictates that “for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different.” By the principle of stare decisis, the Court’s ruling is deemed final even as to “parties who are strangers to the original proceeding and not bound by the judgment under the res judicata doctrine,” and all points of law therein decided must generally be followed by all courts of lower rank in subsequent cases where the same legal issue is raised.
The doctrine of stare decisis is entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code, which states that “[j]udicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.”Although judicial decisions are not laws themselves, they constitute evidence of what the law means; hence, as a rule, the application or interpretation that the Court places upon a law becomes a part of it as of the date of the enactment.
Thus, judicial decisions assume the same authority as the laws themselves and, “until authoritatively abandoned, necessarily become, to the extent that they are applicable, the criteria which must control the actuations not only of those called upon to abide thereby but also of those in duty bound to enforce obedience thereto] Otherwise said, all persons are duty-bound to respect and observe the Court’s judicial pronouncements that have become part of the law of the land.
Relevantly, all final judgments, orders, or resolutions of the Court are served upon the parties concerned.However, under Rule 14, Section 7 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, only decisions and signed resolutions of the Court shall be published in the Philippine Reports:
SECTION 7. Publication of decisions and resolutions. – A decision and signed resolution of the Court shall be published in the Philippine Reports, with the synopsis and syllabus prepared by the Office of the Reporter. Other decisions and signed resolutions not so published may also be published in the Philippine Reports in the form of memoranda prepared by the Office of the Reporter. The Public Information Office (PIO) may choose and submit significant decisions and resolutions for publication in the Official Gazette. (Italics and underscoring supplied)
Thus, only the pronouncements in decisions and signed resolutions may be considered as known to non-parties and all other persons. Perforce, only decisions and signed resolutions may be considered as doctrinal and binding on third persons and strangers to a case. It would certainly be unfair to hold that the Court’s disposition of a case should be taken as a doctrine or principle of law, which is binding on all persons, if the ruling is furnished only to the parties concerned but not to the rest of the populace who cannot be expected to take notice of its contents.
Considering that Tolentino is an unsigned and unreported Resolution that does not indicate the concurrence of the Members who took part in the deliberations and voted on the disposition of the case, the ruling therein as regards the prescription of cyber libel cannot be considered as a doctrine or principle of law under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution. While the unsigned Resolution in Tolentino is binding on the parties thereto, any statement made therein by the Court cannot be considered as doctrinal or a binding principle of law as against third parties” (Citations omitted).
Resolution, G.R. No. 258534, April 8, 2026, BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 93, OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY, AND REPRESENTATIVE FERDINAND LEDESMA HERNANDEZ OF THE SECOND DISTRICT OF SOUTH COTABATO, RESPONDENTS