ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
EDMUNDO
ROMERO, FELIZA F. ROMERO,
G. R. No. L-59606 January 8, 1987 -versus-HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH DIVISION,
FERIA, J.: In this
Petition for Review on Certiorari of
the Decision promulgated on January 26, 1982 by the Ninth Division of
respondent
Court of Appeals, affirming in full the Decision rendered on August 31,
1981 by Branch II of respondent Court of Agrarian Relations, Tenth
Regional
District, Naga City, petitioners allege violation of their
constitutional
rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws.
On March 8, 1979 private respondent filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations an action for reinstatement with damages against petitioners which was docketed therein as CAR Case No. 5524 CS '79.cralaw:red The agrarian
court found, and the parties agree,
that the main issue raised in said case was factual in character:
whether or not private respondent was the bona-fide agricultural
tenant-farmer
[now agricultural lessee] on the two parcels of agricultural land
subject
matter of the complaint. As a matter of fact, this is the crucial issue
because the resolution of all the other issues depends upon its
resolution.
Pursuant to Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 946, an appeal was taken by the petitioners from the Decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations to respondent Court of Appeals and was docketed therein as CA-G. R. No. 13522-CAR. Section 18 of P. D. No. 946 reads:
On January 26, 1982 respondent Court of Appeals promulgated the aforementioned decision which reads:
1. Declaring the plaintiff as the bona fide tenant-farmer, now agricultural lessee, of the two [2] parcels of land in question, more particularly bounded and described as follows: xxx xxx xxx and the defendant Jose Adorable as the present landholder-owner who acquired said parcels of land hereinabove-described by purchase from its previous owners, the defendants-spouses Edmundo Romero and Felisa F. Romero. 2. Ordering the defendants or any person or persons acting for and in their behalf, to vacate the landholdings in question hereinabove-described and to deliver the possession thereof to the plaintiff and, thereafter, to maintain the plaintiff in the peaceful possession and cultivation thereof as agricultural lessee thereon, with all the other rights granted and obligations imposed under existing tenancy laws, Presidential Decrees, Orders, Instructions, Rules and Regulations issued in pursuance of the Agrarian Reform Program of the government. 3. Ordering the defendants-spouses Edmundo Romero and Felisa F. Romero and defendant Jose Adorable, jointly and severally, to indemnify the plaintiff as actual damages on account of illegal ejectment, 162 cavans of palay at 46 kilos per cavan or their equivalent money value based on the prevailing government support price for palay, representing what the plaintiff would have received from the produce on the two [2] parcels of land in question for the past three [3] first croppings but have already taken place on the landholding in total of 81 cavans of palay at the rate of 27 cavans of palay every first cropping season, and the total of 81 cavans of palay for the past four [4] second cropping seasons that have already taken place on the two [2] parcels of land in question at the rate of 20.25 cavans of palay per second cropping season. 4. Ordering the present landholder-owner, defendant Jose Adorable, to pay the plaintiff 27 cavans of palay for every first cropping thereafter, starting this first cropping of 1981 covering the period from June, 1981 to December, 1981; 27 cavans of palay and 20.25 cavans of palay for every second cropping starting during the second cropping of 1982, covering the period from January, 1982 to May, 1982, until the plaintiff is finally reinstated on his landholdings in question. 5. Ordering the plaintiff and the defendant Jose Adorable as the present landholder-owner of the two [2] parcels of land in question, to desist and refrain from further adopting the sharing system, but should observe leasehold. 6. Dismissing plaintiff's other claims for insufficiency of evidence. 7. Dismissing defendant's counterclaim for lack of merit. 8. Ordering the defendants Edmundo Romero, Felisa F. Romero and Jose Adorable to pay the costs of this suit. SO ORDERED. This is the judgment rendered by His Honor, Judge Juan B. Llaguno, Presiding Judge, Branch 11, Court of Agrarian Relations, Tenth Regional District, with station at Naga City, which is now brought to Us for review in this appeal.
We have, therefore, carefully reviewed the evidence and made a re-assessment of the same, and We are persuaded, nay, compelled, to affirm the correctness of the trial court's factual findings and the soundness of its conclusion. For judicial convenience and expediency, therefore, We hereby adopt, by way of reference, the findings of facts and conclusions of the court a quo spread in its decision, as integral part of this, Our decision. The exhaustive and intelligent dissertation of the issues in the appealed decision renders it unnecessary for Us to make further disquisition. The well-written decision of the lower court does not need any improvement. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the judgment appealed from, being supported by substantial evidence and being in conformity with the applicable law and jurisprudence, is hereby AFFIRMED in full. With costs against appellants. SO ORDERED. Judgment AFFIRMED. Hence, the present petition. In addition to alleging violation of their constitutional rights to due process and to equal protection of the laws, petitioners contend that the findings of fact in the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, as affirmed in toto by respondent Court of Appeals, are not supported by substantial evidence and the conclusions stated therein are clearly against the law. Petitioners claim that had respondent Court of Appeals not dispensed with the usual practice of requiring the parties to submit simultaneous memoranda or appeal briefs, they could have pointed out to respondent Court of Appeals which findings of fact in the decision of the lower court are not supported by substantial evidence and which conclusions stated therein are clearly against the law.cralaw:red The petition is meritorious.cralaw:red In the case of Molino vs. Court of Appeals, a Division of this Court held that "one of the important reasons for the promulgation of P. D. No. 946 is expressed in the preambular words: "to streamline their [Courts of Agrarian Relations] procedures to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive disposition of agrarian cases", and that "the aforestated purpose of the statute is desirable and the means provided to accomplish it are reasonable." [July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 801, 802].cralaw:red It is significant to note that under Section 19 of The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Courts of Agrarian Relations were integrated into the Regional Trial Courts and their former jurisdiction was vested in the latter courts. However, it was also provided in Section 24 of said law that whenever a Regional Trial Court takes cognizance of juvenile and domestic relations cases and/or agrarian cases, the special rules of procedure applicable to such cases under the laws then in force, shall continue to be applied, unless subsequently amended by law or by rules of court promulgated by the Supreme Court. Although not expressly provided in said law, the procedure on appeal provided by P. D. No. 946 is still applicable until amended as above stated.cralaw:red Although Section 18 of P. D. No. 946, in the interest of the expeditious administration of justice, empowers the Court of Appeals to dispense with memoranda in deciding agrarian cases, a division of this Court has held as follows:
In the case at bar, no notice was given to the parties and particularly to petitioners, that the case was submitted for decision without any memoranda. The former Solicitor General, in his brief for the public respondents [no brief was filed by private respondent], argued that due process was not violated because petitioners could have submitted their memorandum any time between perfecting the appeal and the forwarding of the complete records to the Court of Appeals, and they could also have done so after receipt by the Court of Appeals of the records of the case, before a decision had been made. However, there is no provision in P. D. No. 946 that authorizes the appellant to file a memorandum any time after the perfection of the appeal and before the forwarding of the complete record to the Court of Appeals. Moreover, the records show that no notice of receipt of the records from the lower court was issued by respondent Court of Appeals, and petitioners did not know that said appellate court had dispensed with the usual practice of requiring the parties to submit their memoranda until they were notified of its decision.cralaw:red Procedural due process contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. [See the cases cited in Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs. Panaguiton, 84 SCRA 148, 153]. If the appellate court had notified the parties that the case would be submitted for decision without any memoranda, petitioners would have had the opportunity before the case was decided to submit a brief or memorandum pointing out the errors of fact or law committed by the agrarian court. As it is, petitioners assigned in their brief filed with this Court four errors allegedly committed by the agrarian court in its findings of fact and two errors of law.cralaw:red The errors of
fact assigned by petitioners are
as follows:
Petitioners maintain that private respondent lbarra, who claimed tenancy of the two parcels of land with areas of .50 and 60 hectares owned by them, was himself a landowner. In their first assignment of error, they cite numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the private respondent which, if taken into consideration, would be sufficient to warrant a reversal of the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Solicitor General's brief attempts to refute this assignment of error by quoting from the transcript of stenographic notes and to rebut the other alleged errors of fact by quoting from the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations. This Court should not be burdened with the task of deciding these questions of fact, a task which properly pertains to respondent Court of Appeals.cralaw:red Section 18 of P. D. No. 946 provides that "if the decision or order be an affirmance in toto of the dispositive conclusion of the judgment appealed from, then the Court of Appeals may, instead of rendering an extended decision, indicate clearly the trial court's findings of fact and pronouncements of law which have been adopted as basis for the affirmance." This requirement seeks to insure compliance with the mandate of Section 9, Article X of the 1973 Constitution that "every decision of a court of record shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based," which mandate is also found in Section 12, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution.cralaw:red A provision similar to the above-quoted provision in Section 18 of P. D. No. 946 is found in Section 40 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [effective on August 14, 1981, although the reorganization of the courts took effect on January 17, 1983] which provides as follows:
This provision modified the penultimate paragraph of Section 33 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended which reads: "every decision of the Court of Appeals shall contain complete findings of fact on all issues properly raised before it." The above-quoted provisions in Section 18 of P. D. No. 946 and Section 40 of B. P. No. 129 are of particular importance with respect to the Court of Appeals because its findings of fact are generally final and conclusive. [A summary of the exceptions to this rule is made in Sacay vs. Sandiganbayan, July 10, 1986,142 SCRA 593].cralaw:red As previously stated, the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations consisted of thirteen pages, single space. The abovequoted decision of the respondent Court of Appeals consists of four pages, three of which contains verbatim the dispositive portion of the decision appealed from. The remaining page is devoted to an explanation of why "for judicial convenience and expediency, therefore, We hereby adopt, by way of reference, the findings of facts and conclusions of the court a quo spread in its decision, as integral part of this, Our decision." The said decision may be considered as substantial compliance with the above-quoted provisions in Section 18 of P. D. No. 946 and Section 40 of B. P. No. 129. However, the authority given the appellate court to adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law from those set forth in the appealed decisions should be exercised with caution and prudence, because the tendency would be to follow the line of least resistance by just adopting the findings and conclusions of the lower court without thoroughly studying the appealed case.cralaw:red In the case at bar, considering that, as above shown, petitioners were not given the opportunity to submit to the appellate court the errors allegedly committed by the agrarian court, We deem it necessary, in the interest of justice, to remand the case to the Court of Appeals. Under our present judicial system, a party is generally allowed one appeal as a matter of right and a second appeal as a matter of discretion. Hence, it is that an appeal may be taken as a matter of right from the decision of a metropolitan or municipal trial court to the regional trial court; but the appeal from the decision of the regional trial court in such a case is a matter of discretion, whether the appeal be to the Court of Appeals on both questions of fact and law through a petition for review [Section 22 of B. P. No. 129 and Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules], or to this Court on questions of law only through a petition for review on certiorari [Rule 45 and Section 25 of the Interim Rules]. From the decision of a regional trial court in an action originally filed with it, an appeal may be taken as a matter of right to the Court of Appeals on both questions of fact and law; but the appeal on questions of law only from the decision of the Court of Appeals to this Court in such a case through a petition of review on certiorari is a matter of discretion. [See Lacsamana vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. L-73146-53, August 26, 1986].cralaw:red In the case at bar, petitioners had the right to appeal from the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations to the Court of Appeals. And since Section 18 of P. D. No. 946 provides following the general rule, that "the decisions or orders of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari only on questions of law", petitioners should be given the opportunity to correct errors in the findings of fact made by the trial court. And this is particularly necessary in agrarian cases where no motion for rehearing or reconsideration is allowed in the Court of Appeals. [Section 18, Ibid.].cralaw:red It cannot be too strongly emphasized that just as important as the intrinsic validity of a decision is the perception by the parties-litigants that they have been accorded a fair opportunity to be heard by a fair and responsible magistrate before judgment is rendered. It is this perception, coupled with a clear conscience, which enables the members of the judiciary to dispassionately charge the awesome responsibility of sitting in judgment on their fellowmen.cralaw:red WHEREFORE, the Decision promulgated by respondent Court of Appeals affirming in full the Decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations is set aside and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals to enable the parties to file simultaneous memoranda within a non-extendible period of fifteen [15] days from notice, after which, respondent Court shall render a Decision upon the points raised and discussed in said memoranda that were not touched upon in the Decision of the agrarian court which was adopted by the appellate court as basis for its original judgment of affirmance. No costs.cralaw:red SO ORDERED. Teehankee, C.J.,
Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera,
Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, and Feliciano, JJ.,
concur.
|
|