ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 165428.� January 17, 2005]
Land Bank vs. Panlilio-Luciano
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2005.
G.R. No. 165428 (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Teresita Panlilio-Luciano.)
Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) filed the present petition for review, assailing the Decision [1] cralaw of the Sixteenth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60263. The questioned ruling reversed a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac, Tarlac, Branch 63, [2] cralaw sitting as a Special Agrarian Court in Agrarian Case No. 152. The case involves a dispute between Land Bank and respondent Teresita Panlilio-Luciano as to the basis for just compensation for respondent's properties, which respondent had voluntarily offered for sale to the government pursuant to the voluntary offer scheme under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. [3] cralaw
Significantly, the petition was filed in behalf of the Land Bank by the law firm of Piczon Beramo and Associates, and signed by Attys. Danilo B. Beramo and Rafael L. Berba�o. [4] cralaw
The Land Bank is a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), established under the Agricultural Land Reform Code. [5] cralaw Under Section 10, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 3 of the Administrative Code of 1987, it is the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) which acts as the principal law office of all GOCCS, their subsidiaries, other corporate offsprings and government acquired asset corporations. Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 130, issued by then-President Ramos, required that all legal matters pertaining to GOCCs such as Land Bank "shall be exclusively referred to and handled by the [OGCC]." [6] cralaw The rule however admits of exceptions, as delineated in our recent holding in Phividec Industrial Authority vs. Capitol Steel Corporation: [7] cralaw
It was only with the enactment of Memorandum Circular No. 9 in 1998 that an exception to the general prohibition was allowed for the first time since P.D. No. 1415 was enacted in 1978. However, indispensable conditions precedent were imposed before any hiring of private lawyer could be effected. First, private counsel can be hired only in exceptional cases. Second, the GOCC must first secure the written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be, before any hiring can be done. And third, the written concurrence of the COA must also be secured prior to the hiring. [8] cralaw (emphasis supplied)
There is no showing as of yet that Land Bank, in filing the present petition through private lawyers, has complied with the above-stated requisites as clarified in our ruling in Phividec.
The Court hereby RESOLVES to:
a)� REQUIRE petitioner Land Bank to submit to this Court within TEN (10) DAYS from receipt of this Order proof of compliance with the conditions precedent for its representation by private counsel, in accordance with the Court's ruling in Phividec Industrial Authority v. Capitol Steel Corporation; and
b)� DEFER ACTION on the Petition pending submission by petitioner of the above-stated requirements.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Justice R.C. Dacudao, concurred in by Justices L.P. Bersamin and C.C. Librea-Leagogo.
[2] cralaw Presided by Judge A. Adriano.
[3] cralaw Rollo, p.54
[4] cralaw Id. at 49.
[5] cralaw Republic Act No. 3844.� "It is body corporate form to finance the acquisition by the Government of landed estates for division and resale to small landholders, as well as the purchase of the landholding by the agricultural lessee from the landowner." Id. at Section 74.
[6] cralaw See Phivide Industrial Authority vs. Capitol Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 155692, 23 October 2003, 414 SCRA, 327, 333.
[7] cralaw Ibid.
[8] cralaw Id. at 334.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
