January 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > January 2009 Resolutions >
Name[G.R. No. 184493 : January 19, 2009] LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. PAMINTUAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT :
[G.R. No. 184493 : January 19, 2009]
LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. PAMINTUAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 19 January 2009:
G.R. No. 184493 - LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, versus PAMINTUAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.
The present petition originated from a decision rendered by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) pegging the total value of the land [value of the land, interest/s and lease rental award][1] subject of agrarian reform at P58,237,30l.68. Aggrieved, the Landbank of the Philippines (Landbank) filed a notice of appeal which the PARAD denied for lack of authority to sign on the part of Landbank's counsel. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed [via a decision on a petition for certiorari that Landbank subsequently filed] the denial of the notice of appeal. We however reversed the CA and directed the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), as the appellate body for decisions rendered by the PARAD, to hear Landbank's appeal.
In the interim, Landbank and the respondent Pamintuan Development Corporation (PAMDEVCO) appears to have agreed on a revaluation of the land and submitted to the PARAD a Joint Manifestation and Formal Acceptance and Revaluation. In this manifestation, Landbank and PAMDEVCO agreed that the value of the land is P21,107,614.03, with PAMDEVCO acknowledging receipt of this amount. A significant portion of the Manifestation that Landbank sidestepped and avoided in pleading its case with the CA, and now with us, is paragraph 5 of the Joint Manifestation that reads:
The PARAD approved the Joint Manifestation.
Pursuant to our ruling, the DARAB proceeded to hear Landbank's appeal but later dismissed it, thereby effectively affirming the PARAD's decision in all respects. Landbank questioned the DARAB's decision through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, essentially arguing that the DARAB committed grave abuse of discretion when it proceeded to hear the case despite the compromise agreement the PARAD had approved. The CA dismissed Landbank's Rule 65 petition for being a wrong remedy.
Landbank appealed to us via a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari. As hinted above, the cornerstone of Landbank's petition is the compromise agreement that it argues should have foreclosed any DARAB ruling on the merits of the petition. Landbank essentially asked us to reverse the CA for its failure to rule on its CA certiorari petition despite DARAB's clear grave abuse of its discretion.
We denied the petition via a Minute Resolution dated October 8, 2008 for Landbank's failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error in its ruling.
Landbank is again before us to seek the reconsideration of our Resolution dismissing its petition. It argues that the compromise agreement has the effect of res judicata and that the CA's award of interest and back lease rentals is wrong and/or tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
We once again rule that Landbank has failed to sufficiently show any reversible error in the CA's decision. The correct remedy from a decision rendered by the DARAB is a Rule 43 petition for review, not a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. As a Rule 43 appeal is available, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may not be availed of pursuant to the express provision of the Rules of Court. Additionally, the issue of whether interest and lease rentals could be properly awarded is more an error of judgment rather than one of jurisdiction which makes Landbank's certiorari petition before the CA utterly wanting in merit. It is on these bases that the CA's dismissal of Landbank's petition for certiorari is correct and carries no reversible error.
Landbank, too, can no longer assail the DARAB's jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the PARAD decision at this point. We note that the DARAB decided the case based on our ruling in the earlier cited case involving the issue of whether Landbank's notice of appeal should be given due course. As Landbank effectively invoked the DARAB's appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the PARAD, it should now be considered barred by estoppel from asserting DARAB's alleged lack of jurisdiction.
Finally, we are perplexed by Landbank's insistence on its interpretation of the agreement with PAMDEVCO. Landbank repeatedly referred to the agreement as a compromise agreement that fully settled the dispute on the amount to be paid to PAMDEVCO. A plain and holistic reading though of the whole agreement (submitted to the PARAD as a Joint Manifestation and Formal Acceptance and Revaluation [Rollo, pp. 379-380]) shows that PAMDEVCO's acceptance of the amount of P21,107,614.03 was not intended to put an end to the dispute. The cited paragraph 5 of the Joint Manifestation clearly shows the agreement's true import. Why Landbank refuses to accept the unambiguous terms of the compromise agreement and why it insists on its skewed interpretation of PAMDEVCO's receipt of the agreed amount escapes us.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY Landbank's motion for reconsideration, no substantial arguments having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought.
No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 184493 - LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, versus PAMINTUAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.
The present petition originated from a decision rendered by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) pegging the total value of the land [value of the land, interest/s and lease rental award][1] subject of agrarian reform at P58,237,30l.68. Aggrieved, the Landbank of the Philippines (Landbank) filed a notice of appeal which the PARAD denied for lack of authority to sign on the part of Landbank's counsel. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed [via a decision on a petition for certiorari that Landbank subsequently filed] the denial of the notice of appeal. We however reversed the CA and directed the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), as the appellate body for decisions rendered by the PARAD, to hear Landbank's appeal.
In the interim, Landbank and the respondent Pamintuan Development Corporation (PAMDEVCO) appears to have agreed on a revaluation of the land and submitted to the PARAD a Joint Manifestation and Formal Acceptance and Revaluation. In this manifestation, Landbank and PAMDEVCO agreed that the value of the land is P21,107,614.03, with PAMDEVCO acknowledging receipt of this amount. A significant portion of the Manifestation that Landbank sidestepped and avoided in pleading its case with the CA, and now with us, is paragraph 5 of the Joint Manifestation that reads:
5. With respect to the interest award of Pll,957,652.96 and the lease rental award of P21,367,871.14, these issues are sought to be resolved on appeal to the DARAB/Court of Appeals, hence, the payment thereof shall be subject to the resolution of the said issues on appeal.
The PARAD approved the Joint Manifestation.
Pursuant to our ruling, the DARAB proceeded to hear Landbank's appeal but later dismissed it, thereby effectively affirming the PARAD's decision in all respects. Landbank questioned the DARAB's decision through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, essentially arguing that the DARAB committed grave abuse of discretion when it proceeded to hear the case despite the compromise agreement the PARAD had approved. The CA dismissed Landbank's Rule 65 petition for being a wrong remedy.
Landbank appealed to us via a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari. As hinted above, the cornerstone of Landbank's petition is the compromise agreement that it argues should have foreclosed any DARAB ruling on the merits of the petition. Landbank essentially asked us to reverse the CA for its failure to rule on its CA certiorari petition despite DARAB's clear grave abuse of its discretion.
We denied the petition via a Minute Resolution dated October 8, 2008 for Landbank's failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error in its ruling.
Landbank is again before us to seek the reconsideration of our Resolution dismissing its petition. It argues that the compromise agreement has the effect of res judicata and that the CA's award of interest and back lease rentals is wrong and/or tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
We once again rule that Landbank has failed to sufficiently show any reversible error in the CA's decision. The correct remedy from a decision rendered by the DARAB is a Rule 43 petition for review, not a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. As a Rule 43 appeal is available, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may not be availed of pursuant to the express provision of the Rules of Court. Additionally, the issue of whether interest and lease rentals could be properly awarded is more an error of judgment rather than one of jurisdiction which makes Landbank's certiorari petition before the CA utterly wanting in merit. It is on these bases that the CA's dismissal of Landbank's petition for certiorari is correct and carries no reversible error.
Landbank, too, can no longer assail the DARAB's jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the PARAD decision at this point. We note that the DARAB decided the case based on our ruling in the earlier cited case involving the issue of whether Landbank's notice of appeal should be given due course. As Landbank effectively invoked the DARAB's appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the PARAD, it should now be considered barred by estoppel from asserting DARAB's alleged lack of jurisdiction.
Finally, we are perplexed by Landbank's insistence on its interpretation of the agreement with PAMDEVCO. Landbank repeatedly referred to the agreement as a compromise agreement that fully settled the dispute on the amount to be paid to PAMDEVCO. A plain and holistic reading though of the whole agreement (submitted to the PARAD as a Joint Manifestation and Formal Acceptance and Revaluation [Rollo, pp. 379-380]) shows that PAMDEVCO's acceptance of the amount of P21,107,614.03 was not intended to put an end to the dispute. The cited paragraph 5 of the Joint Manifestation clearly shows the agreement's true import. Why Landbank refuses to accept the unambiguous terms of the compromise agreement and why it insists on its skewed interpretation of PAMDEVCO's receipt of the agreed amount escapes us.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY Landbank's motion for reconsideration, no substantial arguments having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought.
No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] The breakdown of this amount is as follows: Land Value (LV) = P24.293.697.62, Total Accrued Interest = P11,957,652.96 and Total Income Lost = P21,637,871.14
