MANGELEN vs.

CA
Docket Number: GR 88954 Date: Oct. 29, 1992 Ponente: DAVIDE, JR., J.
Topic: RULE 36 Created by: Lance
Petitioners Respondents
DATU SAMAD MANGELEN CA, PEDRO HABALAYUS, and HABALAYUS ENTERPRISES, INC.
Facts of the Case
 Datu Samad Mangelen has a logging concession consisting of 3,000 hectares, under O.T.L. No. 463123165
located somewhere in Datalblao, Columbia, Sultan Kudarat. This logging concession of the plaintiff appears to
be included in the logging concession located on same general vicinity under T.L.A. 229 with an aggregate area
of 50,000 hectares, more or less, supposedly granted defendants Habalayus Enterprises, Inc.
 On 2 November 1981, Mangelen wrote to the president of the Philippines requesting for the land under his
concession to be separated from that awarded to Habalayus. As a result of this, Mangelen and Habalayus
entered into a Compromise Agreement where they agreed that Mangelen will relinquish his rights over the land
in consideration of the payment of a total of P600,000.00 from Habaluyas.
 Despite the Compromise Agreement, Habaluyas refused to issue the checks for payment, prompting Mangelen
to file a complaint at the Bureau of Office Development. In response, the said office ordered Habaluyas to pay
the agreed amount and to refrain with its logging operations inside the area complained of by Mangelen.
 As a consequence, Habaluyas issued two post-dated checks which were dishonored by banks for lack of
sufficient funds. Mangelen sent demand letters to Habaluyas but to no avail. Thus, Mangelen was constrained
to file a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against Habaluyas and his company.
 Aside from the criminal case, Mangelen also filed an action to recover the entire amount of money amounting
to P600,000.00 as stipulated in their Compromise Agreement. In response, Habalayus filed motions to dismiss
for wrong venue and a supplemental motion to dismiss for in view of the other pending case related to this one.
The RTC also declared the defendant in default and allowed Mengelen to present evidence ex parte.
Subsequently, the trial court dismissed all of the defendant’s motions.
 On 24 July 1984, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the order of default and to hold the proceeding in
abeyance in view of the petition for certiorari it has filed in the Court of Appeals.
 On 27 July 1984, the RTC denied Habalayus’ motions and rendered a decision in favor of Mangelen.
 Not satisfied with the final disposition of RTC, Habalayus appealed at the RTC. During the pendency of this
appeal the 4th Division of CA dismissed the first petition of the defendant. The defendant’s petition for review
and motion for reconsideration at the SC were likewise denied.
 Thus, the defendant filed a petition imputing errors in the decision of the trial court to the CA. In turn, the CA
rendered a decision which practically adopted the findings of the trial court and explicitly declared that it has
disposed the case in accordance with the Rules of Court.
 Habalayus filed a motion for reconsideration based on substantive and procedural errors. This time, the CA
rendered a decision reversing its former decision claiming that Habalayus has “good and valid defense.”
 Hence, prompting the Mengelens to file this petition.
Issues Ruling
 W/N Courts may render a decision reversing its former judgment without elaborating the facts and
NO
law on which it was based on
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
 Courts must lay down the facts and laws on which it has based its decisions.
 The challenged decision leaves much to be desired. What was filed before the public respondent was an
ordinary appeal from a judgment by default. This necessitated a fullblown decision taking into account the five
(5) assigned errors which touch on both substantive and procedural matters. Accordingly, public respondent
promulgated its 30 January 1989 decision following a meticulous review of the proceedings had before the trial
court and careful reappraisal of the evidence adduced before it. Thus, that decision faithfully complied with
Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution which provides that no decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts of the law on which it is based. Now, if such decision
had to be completely overturned or set aside, upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration, in a
subsequent action via a resolution or modified decision, such resolution or decision should likewise state
the factual and legal foundation relied upon. The reason is obvious: aside from being required by the
Constitution, the court should be able to justify such a sudden change of course; it must be able to
convincingly explain the taking back of its solemn conclusions and pronouncements in the earlier decision.
 In the instant case, the public respondent miserably failed to do so; this is reflected in the quoted resolution of
12 July 1989 which leaves in limbo the trial court's challenged decision because it is not the latter which is
reserved but rather the public respondent's own decision of 30 January 1989. Public respondent simply restore
the parties to the status quo obtaining prior to 30 January 1989. Clearly, therefore, an amended decision on the
appeal proper or on the merits of the decision of the trial court would be in order.
Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The resolution of public respondent of 12 July 1989 in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 04585 is
SET ASIDE and its Decision of 30 January 1989 is hereby REINSTATED, subject to the modifications above discussed. As
modified, the Decision of the trial court of 15 August 1984 in Civil Case No. 84-22306 is affirmed in all respects except
that the portion holding private respondent Pedro Habaluyas jointly and severally liable with private respondent
Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. and awarding, moral and exemplary damages, is hereby DELETED and SET ASIDE.
Furthermore, the award of attorney's fees is hereby reduced to P25.000.00.