Scribd
Upload
74 views1 page

Limketkai Sons Milling Inc. v. CA Et Al., September 5, 1996

The Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision in favor of the petitioner. Following the retirement of a justice, the divisions underwent reorganization and the case was reconsidered by the new Third Division chaired by CJ Narvasa, which reversed the previous decision. The petitioner argued the case should be referred to the full court, challenging the reorganization. The Court held that reorganizations are internal matters that parties have no right to challenge.

Uploaded by

April Valencia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
74 views1 page

Limketkai Sons Milling Inc. v. CA Et Al., September 5, 1996

The Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision in favor of the petitioner. Following the retirement of a justice, the divisions underwent reorganization and the case was reconsidered by the new Third Division chaired by CJ Narvasa, which reversed the previous decision. The petitioner argued the case should be referred to the full court, challenging the reorganization. The Court held that reorganizations are internal matters that parties have no right to challenge.

Uploaded by

April Valencia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Case: Limketkai Sons Milling Inc. v. CA et al.

Date: September 5, 1996


Ponente: J. Francisco

DOCTRINE
“Reorganizations in the Supreme Court’s Divisions are purely an internal matter to
which parties have no business at all.”

FACTS:
After the Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision in favor of the Petitioner, the
Divisions of the Court underwent reorganization following the retirement of one of the Associate
Justices. The Private Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was deliberated upon
by the newly reorganized Third Division chaired by C.J. Narvasa. The previous decision was
reversed by a majority vote. Petitioner now argues the case should be referred to the Court en
banc alleging certain doctrines have been modified or reversed and challenging the present
composition of the Third Division. It is asserted that the First Division should have been chaired
by C.J. Narvasa, the Second by the next senior Justice and the Third by the third most senior
Justice.

ISSUE:
WON the Petitioner may validly challenge the reorganization of the Supreme Court?

HELD:
No. Reorganizations in the Supreme Court’s Divisions are purely an internal matter to
which parties have no business at all.

You might also like