FACTS:

This case involves pending incidents, namely motions for reconsideration and motions to refer the case to the Court en banc, filed by respondents and intervenors. They argue that the Resolution dated November 17, 1998, which affirmed a previous Decision of April 24, 1998, did not effectively resolve the motions for reconsideration and should have been referred to the Court en banc. They also assail a subsequent Resolution dated January 27, 1999, which noted without action an intervenor's motion for reconsideration and referred to it as a second motion for reconsideration, which is forbidden. Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed their own motion for reconsideration and referral to the Court en banc on December 3, 1998. Both respondents and intervenors pray for the case to be referred to the Court en banc, arguing that the required number of votes was not met in the resolution of the motions for reconsideration. They rely on a constitutional provision that cases heard by a division shall be decided with the concurrence of at least three members and, if the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc. The Court, however, explains that the provision distinguishes between cases and matters, where cases are "decided" while matters, including motions, are "resolved". It clarifies that only cases are referred to the Court en banc, while the failure to resolve a motion for reconsideration due to a tie in voting does not leave the case undecided. In this case, the Resolution dated November 17, 1998, affirmed the Decision and the motions for reconsideration were lost, deeming the Decision affirmed. Respondents and intervenors also argue that the issues raised in their motions for reconsideration are of first impression, but the Court states that the issues are not of extraordinary importance to merit the attention of the Court en banc.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the case should be referred to the Court en banc, considering that the motions for reconsideration were resolved by a tie in voting.

RULING:

1. The case does not need to be referred to the Court en banc. The failure of the division to resolve the motion for reconsideration due to a tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided. The decision must stand in view of the failure to muster the necessary vote for its reconsideration. Therefore, the decision is deemed affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

• Cases and matters are distinguished wherein cases are "decided" while matters, which include motions, are "resolved".

• Only cases are referred to the Court en banc for decision whenever the required number of votes is not obtained.

• If a case has already been decided by a division and the losing party files a motion for reconsideration, the failure of the division to resolve the motion because of a tie in the voting does not leave the case undecided. The decision must stand in view of the failure to muster the necessary vote for its reconsideration.