lawphil

G.R. No. 104209 November 16, 1993 PHILNABANK EMPLOYEES ASSO IA!ION "PEMA#, $BP EMPLOYEES %NION "$BPE%#, LBP EMPLOYEES ASSO IA!ION "LBPEA#, ALER! AN$ ON ERNE$ EMPLOYEES &OR BE!!ER SSS "A ESS#, '() KAPA!IRAN NG MANGGAGA*A SA GSIS "KMG#, '++ ,()er -.e ('me '() /-0+e o1 KAPA!IRAN NG MGA MANGGAGA*A SA G&I, petitioners, vs. HON. 2ES%S P. ES!ANISLAO, 3( .3/ 4'5'43-0 '/ Se4re-'r0 o1 -.e $e5'r-me(- o1 &3('(4e '() HON. R%BEN $. !ORRES, 3( .3/ 4'5'43-0 '/ Se4re-'r0 o1 -.e $e5'r-me(- o1 L'bor '() Em5+o0me(-, respondents . RESOLUTION 6I!%G, J.: Assailed in this petition for certiorari is a provision of the Supplemental Rules Implementing Repu li! A!t No. "#$1 %&rodu!tivit' In!entives A!t of 1##(), *ointl' promulgated ' the Se!retar' of the +epartment of ,inan!e and the Se!retar' of the +epartment of La or and Emplo'ment, e-!luding from the !overage of said A!t the emplo'ees of the &hilippine National .an/ %0&N.0), +evelopment .an/ of the &hilippines %0+.&0), Land .an/ of the &hilippines %0L.&0), So!ial Se!urit' S'stem %0SSS0) and 1overnment Servi!e and Insuran!e S'stem %01SIS0). &arentheti!all', !ertain ran/ and file emplo'ees of the &u li! Estates Authorit' filed a motion for intervention to *oin the petitioners 1 2hi!h the' later 2ithdre2, nonetheless, asserting that 0an' resolution in the instant petition 2ould li/e2ise appl' to them. 2 Repu li! A!t No. "#$1 2as signed into la2 on 33 Novem er 1##( ' then &resident 4ora5on 4. A6uino. It too/ effe!t on # +e!em er 1##( %fifteen da's after its pu li!ation in t2o ne2spapers of general !ir!ulation). Se!tion 7 of the la2 states8 Se!. 7. Coverage.9 This A!t shall appl' to all usiness enterprises 2ith or 2ithout, e-isting and dul' re!ogni5ed or !ertified la or organi5ations, in!luding government o2ned and !ontrolled !orporations performing proprietar' fun!tions. It shall !over emplo'ees and 2or/ers in!luding !asual, regular, supervisor' and managerial emplo'ees. The same A!t empo2ers the Se!retar' of La or and Emplo'ment and the Se!retar' of ,inan!e, 0after due noti!e and hearing0 to 0*ointl' promulgate and issue 2ithin si- %") months from the effe!tivit' of %the) A!t su!h rules and regulations as are ne!essar' to !arr' out %its) provisions0 %Se!. ", R.A. "#$1) On :une (7, 1##1, the then La or Se!retar' Ru en +. Torres and ,inan!e Se!retar' :esus &. Estanislao promulgated the Rules Implementing Repu li! A!t. No. "#$1. The Rules too/ effe!t on 1; :une 1##1 follo2ing the re6uired pu li!ation thereof in a national ne2spaper of general !ir!ulation. Se!tion 1, Rule II, of the aforesaid Rules provides8 Se!. 1. Coverage. These Rules shall appl' to8 %a) All usiness enterprises 2it or 2ithout e-isting dul' re!ogni5ed or !ertified la or organi5ations, in!luding government<o2ned and !ontrolled !orporations performing proprietar' fun!tions. % ) All emplo'ees and 2or/ers in!luding !asual, regular, ran/<and<file, supervisor' and managerial emplo'ees. ,orth2ith, petitioner organi5ations re6uested their respe!tive emplo'ers to !onstitute and !onvene a La or<=anagement 4ommittee %L=4) to dis!uss and adopt a &rodu!tivit' In!entives &rogram %&I&). In the meantime, produ!tivit' onuses 2ere distri uted ' the &N., +.&, L.&, SSS and 1SIS. 3 On 3> +e!em er 1##1, Se!retar' Estanislao sent the follo2ing memorandum to all heads of government finan!ial institutions %1,I?s)8 To 8 1,I @eads ,rom 8 :esus &. Estanislao On 8 &rodu!tivit' In!entive A2ard

1. The &resident has as/ed me to remind all the 1,I heads a out our agreement to desist from ma/ing an' further pa'mentsAmoves regarding produ!tivit' in!entives until su!h time as +OLEA+O, !an issue !larifi!ator' guidelines.

7G.R. No. 131489. A5r3+ 24, 199:;

HON.

ARLOS O. &OR!I H, PRO6IN IAL GO6ERNOR O& B%KI$NON, HON. REY B. BA%LA, M%NI IPAL MAYOR O& S%MILAO, B%KI$NON, N<SR MANAGEMEN! AN$ $E6ELOPMEN! ORPORA!ION, petitioners, vs. HON. RENA!O . ORONA, $EP%!Y E=E %!I6E SE RE!ARY, HON. ERNES!O $. GARILAO, SE RE!ARY O& !HE $EPAR!MEN! O& AGRARIAN RE&ORM, respondents.

$E
MAR!INE>, J.?

ISION

The dramati! and 2ell<pu li!i5ed hunger stri/e staged ' some alleged farmer< enefi!iaries in front of the +epartment of Agrarian Reform !ompound in Bue5on 4it' on O!to er #, 1##$ !ommanded nation2ide attention that even !hur!h leaders and some presidential !andidates tried to intervene for the stri/ersC D!ause.E The stri/ers protested the =ar!h 3#, 1##" +e!ision of the Offi!e of the &resident %O&), issued through then E-e!utive Se!retar' Ru en +. Torres in O& 4ase No. #"<4< ">3>, 2hi!h approved the !onversion of a one hundred fort'<four %1>>)<he!tare land from agri!ultural to agro<industrialAinstitutional area. This led the Offi!e of the &resident, through then +eput' E-e!utive Se!retar' Renato 4. 4orona, to issue the so<!alled DHin<HinE Resolution on Novem er $, 1##$, su stantiall' mo)3103(@ its earlier +e!ision '1-er 3- .') '+re')0 be4ome 13('+ '() eAe4,-or0 . The said Resolution modified the approval of the land !onversion to agro<industrial area onl' to the e-tent of fort'<four %>>) he!tares, and ordered the remaining one hundred %1(() he!tares to e distri uted to 6ualified farmer< enefi!iaries.
F1G F3G

.ut, did the DHin<HinE Resolution !ulminate in vi!tor' for all the !ontending partiesI The a ove<named petitioners !ried foul. The' have !ome to this 4ourt urging us to annul and set aside the DHin<HinE Resolution and to en*oin respondent Se!retar' Ernesto +. 1arilao of the +epartment of Agrarian Reform from implementing the said Resolution. Thus, the !ru!ial issue to e resolved in this !ase is8 Hhat is the legal effe!t of the DHin<HinE Resolution issued ' the Offi!e of the &resident on its earlier +e!ision involving the same su *e!t matter, 2hi!h had alread' e!ome final and e-e!utor'I The ante!edent fa!ts of this !ontrovers', as !ulled from the pleadings, ma' stated as follo2s8 e

1. This !ase involves a 1>><he!tare land lo!ated at San Ji!ente, Sumilao, .u/idnon, o2ned ' the Nor erto Buisum ing, Sr. =anagement and +evelopment 4orporation %NBSR=+4), one of the petitioners. The propert' is !overed ' a Transfer 4ertifi!ate of Title No. 1>7$1 of the Registr' of +eeds of the &rovin!e of .u/idnon.
F7G

3. In 1#;>, the land 2as leased as a pineapple plantation to the &hilippine &a!/ing 4orporation, no2 +el =onte &hilippines, In!. %+=&I), a multinational !orporation, for a
3

period of ten %1() 'ears under the 4rop &rodu!er and 1ro2erCs Agreement dul' annotated in the !ertifi!ate of title. The lease e-pired in April, 1##>. 7. In O!to er, 1##1, during the e-isten!e of the lease, the +epartment of Agrarian Reform %+AR) pla!ed the entire 1>><he!tare propert' under !ompulsor' a!6uisition and assessed the land value at &3.7; million.
F>G

>. NBSR=+4 resisted the +ARCs a!tion. In ,e ruar', 1##3, it sought and 2as granted ' the +AR Ad*udi!ation .oard %+ARA.), through its &rovin!ial Agrarian Reform Ad*udi!ator %&ARA+) in +ARA. 4ase No. K<L$", a 2rit of prohi ition 2ith preliminar' in*un!tion 2hi!h ordered the +AR Region K +ire!tor, the &rovin!ial Agrarian Reform Offi!er %&ARO) of .u/idnon, the =uni!ipal Agrarian Reform Offi!e %=ARO) of Sumilao, .u/idnon, the Land .an/ of the &hilippines %Land .an/), and their authori5ed representatives Dto desist from pursuing an' a!tivit' or a!tivitiesE !on!erning the su *e!t land Duntil further orders.E
FLG

L. +espite the +ARA. order of =ar!h 71, 1##3, the +AR Regional +ire!tor issued a memorandum, dated =a' 31, 1##3, dire!ting the Land .an/ to open a trust a!!ount for &3.7; million in the name of NBSR=+4 and to !ondu!t summar' pro!eedings to determine the *ust !ompensation of the su *e!t propert'. NBSR=+4 o *e!ted to these moves and filed on :une #, 1##3 an Omni us =otion to enfor!e the +ARA. order of =ar!h 71, 1##3 and to nullif' the summar' pro!eedings underta/en ' the +AR Regional +ire!tor and Land .an/ on the valuation of the su *e!t propert'. ". The +ARA., on O!to er 33, 1##3, a!ted favora l' on the Omni us =otion ' %a) ordering the +AR Regional +ire!tor and Land .an/ Dto seriousl' !ompl' 2ith the terms of the order dated =ar!h 71, 1##3ME % ) nullif'ing the +AR Regional +ire!torCs memorandum, dated =a' 31, 1##3, and the summar' pro!eedings !ondu!ted pursuant theretoM and %!) dire!ting the Land .an/ Dto return the !laim folder of &etitioner NBSR=+4Cs su *e!t propert' to the +AR until further orders.E
F"G

$. The Land .an/ !omplied 2ith the +ARA. order and !an!elled the trust a!!ount it opened in the name of petitioner NBSR=+4.
F$G

;. In the meantime, the &rovin!ial +evelopment 4oun!il %&+4) of .u/idnon, headed ' 1overnor 4arlos O. ,orti!h, passed Resolution No. ", dated :anuar' $, 1##7, designating !ertain areas along .u/idnon<Sa're @igh2a' as part of the .u/idnon Agro< Industrial Nones 2here the su *e!t propert' is situated.
F;G

#. Hhat happened thereafter is 2ell<narrated in the O& %TORRES) +e!ision of =ar!h 3#, 1##", pertinent portions of 2hi!h 2e 6uote8

D&ursuant to Se!tion 3( of R.A. No. $1"(, other2ise /no2n as the Lo!al 1overnment 4ode, the Sangguniang .a'an of Sumilao, .u/idnon, on =ar!h >, 1##7, ena!ted Ordinan!e No. 3> !onverting or re<!lassif'ing 1>> he!tares of land in .g'. San Ji!ente, said =uni!ipalit', from agri!ultural to industrialAinstitutional 2ith a vie2 of providing an opportunit' to attra!t investors 2ho !an in*e!t ne2 e!onomi! vitalit', provide more *o s and raise the in!ome of its people.
7

D&arentheti!all', under said se!tion, >th to Lth !lass muni!ipalities ma' authori5e the !lassifi!ation of five per!ent %LO) of their agri!ultural land area and provide for the manner of their utili5ation or disposition. DOn 13 O!to er 1##7, the .u/idnon &rovin!ial Land Use 4ommittee approved the said Ordinan!e. A!!ordingl', on 11 +e!em er 1##7, the instant appli!ation for !onversion 2as filed ' =r. 1auden!io .edu'a in ehalf of NBSR=+4A.AI+A %.u/idnon Agro<Industrial +evelopment Asso!iation). DE-pressing support for the proposed pro*e!t, the .u/idnon &rovin!ial .oard, on the asis of a :oint 4ommittee Report su mitted ' its 4ommittee on La2s, 4ommittee on Agrarian Reform and So!io<E!onomi! 4ommittee approved, on 1 ,e ruar' 1##>, the said Ordinan!e no2 do!/eted as Resolution No. #><#L. The said industrial area, as !on!eived ' NBSR=+4 %pro*e!t proponent) is supposed to have the follo2ing !omponents8 D1. The +evelopment A!adem' of =indanao 2hi!h !onstitutes the follo2ing8 Institute for 4ontinuing @igher Edu!ationM Institute for Livelihood S!ien!e %Jo!ational and Te!hni!al S!hool)M Institute for Agri usiness Resear!hM =useum, Li rar', 4ultural 4enter, and =indanao Sports +evelopment 4omple- 2hi!h !overs an area of 3> he!taresM D3. .u/idnon Agro<Industrial &ar/ 2hi!h !onsists of !orn pro!essing for !orn oil, !orn star!h, various !orn produ!tsM ri!e pro!essing for 2ine, ri!e< ased sna!/s, e-porta le ri!eM !assava pro!essing for star!h, al!ohol and food deli!a!iesM pro!essing plants, fruits and fruit produ!ts su!h as *ui!esM pro!essing plants for vegeta les pro!essed and prepared for mar/etM !old storage and i!e plantM !anner' s'stemM !ommer!ial storesM pu li! mar/etM and a attoir needing a out "$ he!taresM D7. ,orest development 2hi!h in!ludes open spa!es and par/s for re!reation, horse< a!/ riding, memorial and mini<5oo estimated to !over 77 he!taresM and D>. Support fa!ilities 2hi!h !omprise the !onstru!tion of a 7"(<room hotel, restaurants, dormitories and a housing pro*e!t !overing an area of 3( he!tares. DThe said NBSR=+4 &roposal 2as, per 4ertifi!ation dated :anuar' >, 1##L, adopted ' the +epartment of Trade and Industr', .u/idnon &rovin!ial Offi!e, as one of its flagship pro*e!ts. The same 2as li/e2ise favora l' re!ommended ' the &rovin!ial +evelopment 4oun!il of .u/idnonM the muni!ipal, provin!ial and regional offi!e of the +ARM the Regional Offi!e %Region K) of the +ENR %2hi!h issued an Environmental 4omplian!e
>

4ertifi!ate on :une L, 1##L)M the E-e!utive +ire!tor, signing P.' Authorit' of &AUL 1. +O=IN1UEN,C Offi!e of the &resident Q =indanaoM the Se!retar' of +IL1M and Underse!retar' of +E4S Hilfredo +. 4lemente. DIn the same vein, the National Irrigation Administration, &rovin!ial Irrigation Offi!e, .agontaas Jalen!ia, .u/idnon, thru =r. :ulius S. =a6uiling, 4hief, &rovin!ial Irrigation Offi!e, interposed NO O.:E4TION to the proposed !onversion Pas long as the development !ost of the irrigation s'stems thereat 2hi!h is &3,7$$.(( per he!tare e replenished ' the developer - - -.C Also, the Risolon<San Ji!ente Irrigators =ulti &urpose 4ooperative, San Ji!ente, Sumilao, .u/idnon, interposed no o *e!tion to the proposed !onversion of the land in 6uestion Pas it 2ill provide more e!onomi! enefits to the !ommunit' in terms of outside investments that 2ill !ome and emplo'ment opportunities that 2ill e generated ' the pro*e!ts to e put up - - -.C DOn the same s!ore, it is represented that during the pu li! !onsultation held at the Risolan Elementar' S!hool on 1; =ar!h 1##L 2ith +ire!tor :ose =a!alindong of +AR 4entral Offi!e and +E4S Underse!retar' 4lemente, the people of the affe!ted aranga' rallied ehind their respe!tive offi!ials in endorsing the pro*e!t. DNot2ithstanding the foregoing favora le re!ommendation, ho2ever, on Novem er 1>, 1##>, the +AR, thru Se!retar' 1arilao, invo/ing its po2ers to approve !onversion of lands under Se!tion "L of R.A. No. ""L$, issued an Order den'ing the instant appli!ation for the !onversion of the su *e!t land from agri!ultural to agro<industrial and, instead, pla!ed the same under the !ompulsor' !overage of 4AR& and dire!ted the distri ution thereof to all 6ualified enefi!iaries on the follo2ing grounds8 D1. The area is !onsidered as a prime agri!ultural land 2ith irrigation fa!ilit'M D3. The land has long een !overed ' a Noti!e of 4ompulsor' A!6uisition %N4A)M D7. The e-isting poli!' on 2ithdra2al or lifting on areas !overed ' N4A is not appli!a leM D>. There is no !lear and tangi le !ompensation pa!/age arrangements for the enefi!iariesM DL. The pro!edures on ho2 the area 2as identified and re!lassified for agro< industrial pro*e!t has no referen!e to =emo 4ir!ular No. L>, Series of 1##7, E.O. No. $3, Series of 1##7, and E.O. No. 13>, Series of 1##7.
L

DA =otion for Re!onsideration of the aforesaid Order 2as filed on :anuar' #, 1##L ' appli!ant ut the same 2as denied %in an Order dated :une $, 1##L).E
F#G

1(. Thus, the +AR Se!retar' ordered the +AR Regional +ire!tor Dto pro!eed 2ith the !ompulsor' a!6uisition and distri ution of the propert'.E
F1(G

11. 1overnor 4arlos O. ,orti!h of .u/idnon appealed the order of denial to the Offi!e of the &resident and pra'ed for the !onversionAre!lassifi!ation of the su *e!t land as the same 2ould e more enefi!ial to the people of .u/idnon.
F11G

13. To prevent the enfor!ement of the +AR Se!retar'Cs order, NBSR=+4, on :une 3#, 1##L, filed 2ith the 4ourt of Appeals a petition for !ertiorari, prohi ition 2ith preliminar' in*un!tion, do!/eted as 4A<1.R. S& No. 7$"1>.
F13G

17. =ean2hile, on :ul' 3L, 1##L, the @onora le &aul 1. +omingue5, then &residential Assistant for =indanao, after !ondu!ting an evaluation of the proposed pro*e!t, sent a memorandum to the &resident favora l' endorsing the pro*e!t 2ith a re!ommendation that the +AR Se!retar' re!onsider his de!ision in den'ing the appli!ation of the provin!e for the !onversion of the land.
F17G

1>. Also, in a memorandum to the &resident dated August 37, 1##L, the @onora le Rafael Alunan III, then Se!retar' of the +epartment of the Interior and Lo!al 1overnment %+IL1), re!ommended the !onversion of the su *e!t land to industrialAinstitutional use 2ith a re6uest that the &resident Dhold the implementation of the +AR order to distri ute the land in 6uestion.E
F1>G

1L. On O!to er 37, 1##L, the 4ourt of Appeals, in 4A<1.R. S& No. 7$"1>, issued a Resolution ordering the parties to o serve status 6uo pending resolution of the petition. At the hearing held in said !ase on O!to er L, 1##L, the +AR, through the Soli!itor 1eneral, manifested efore the said !ourt that the +AR 2as merel' Din the pro!essing stage of the appli!ations of farmers<!laimantsE and has agreed to respe!t status 6uo pending the resolution of the petition.
F1LG F1"G

1". In resolving the appeal, the Offi!e of the &resident, through then E-e!utive Se!retar' Ru en +. Torres, issued a +e!ision in O& 4ase No. #"<4<">3>, dated =ar!h 3#, 1##", reversing the +AR Se!retar'Cs de!ision, the pertinent portions of 2hi!h read8

DAfter a !areful evaluation of the petition vis<S<vis the grounds upon 2hi!h the denial thereof ' Se!retar' 1arilao 2as ased, 2e find that the instant appli!ation for !onversion ' the =uni!ipalit' of Sumilao, .u/idnon is impressed 2ith merit. To e sure, !onverting the land in 6uestion from agri!ultural to agro<industrial 2ould open great opportunities for emplo'ment and ring a out real development in the area to2ards a sustained e!onomi! gro2th of the muni!ipalit'. On the other hand, distri uting the land to 2ould< e enefi!iaries %2ho are not even tenants, as there are none) does not guarantee su!h enefits.

"

DNevertheless, on the issue that the land is !onsidered a prime agri!ultural land 2ith irrigation fa!ilit' it ma' e appropriate to mention that, as !laimed ' petitioner, 2hile it is true that there is, indeed, an irrigation fa!ilit' in the area, the same merel' passes thru the propert' %as a right of 2a') to provide 2ater to the ri!elands lo!ated on the lo2er portion thereof. The land itself, su *e!t of the instant petition, is not irrigated as the same 2as, for several 'ears, planted 2ith pineapple ' the &hilippine &a!/ing 4orporation. DOn the issue that the land has long een !overed ' a Noti!e of 4ompulsor' A!6uisition %N4A) and that the e-isting poli!' on 2ithdra2al or lifting on areas !overed ' N4A is not appli!a le, suffi!e it to state that the said N4A 2as de!lared null and void ' the +epartment of Agrarian Reform Ad*udi!ation .oard %+ARA.) as earl' as =ar!h 1, 1##3. +e!iding in favor of NBSR=+4, the +ARA. !orre!tl' pointed out that under Se!tion ; of R.A. No. ""L$, the su *e!t propert' !ould not validl' e the su *e!t of !ompulsor' a!6uisition until after the e-piration of the lease !ontra!t 2ith +el =onte &hilippines, a =ulti< National 4ompan', or until April 1##>, and ordered the +AR Regional Offi!e and the Land .an/ of the &hilippines, oth in .utuan 4it', to Tdesist from pursuing an' a!tivit' or a!tivities !overing petitionerCs land. DOn this s!ore, 2e ta/e spe!ial noti!e of the fa!t that the Buisum ing famil' has alread' !ontri uted su stantiall' to the land reform program of the government, as follo2s8 7(( he!tares of ri!e land in Nueva E!i*a in the $(Cs and another >(( he!tares in the near ' =uni!ipalit' of Impasugong, .u/idnon, ten %1() 'ears ago, for 2hi!h the' have not re!eived P*ust !ompensationC up to this time. DNeither !an the assertion that Pthere is no !lear and tangi le !ompensation pa!/age arrangements for the enefi!iariesC hold 2ater as, in the first pla!e, there are no enefi!iaries to spea/ a out, for the land is not tenanted as alread' stated. DNor !an pro!edural lapses in the manner of identif'ingAre!lassif'ing the su *e!t propert' for agro<industrial purposes e allo2ed to defeat the ver' purpose of the la2 granting autonom' to lo!al government units in the management of their lo!al affairs. Stated more simpl', the language of Se!tion 3( of R.A. No. $1"(, supra, is !lear and affords no room for an' other interpretation. .' une6uivo!al legal mandate, it grants lo!al government units autonom' in their lo!al affairs in!luding the po2er to !onvert portions of their agri!ultural lands and provide for the manner of their utili5ation and disposition to ena le them to attain their fullest development as self<reliant !ommunities.

DH@ERE,ORE, in pursuan!e of the spirit and intent of the said legal mandate and in vie2 of the favora le re!ommendations of the various government agen!ies a ovementioned, the su *e!t Order, dated Novem er 1>, 1##> of the @on. Se!retar', +epartment of Agrarian Reform, is here ' SET ASI+E and the instant appli!ation of NBSR=+4A.AI+A is here ' A&&ROJE+.E
F1$G

1$.On =a' 3(, 1##", +AR filed a motion for re!onsideration of the O& de!ision. 1; On Septem er 11, 1##", in !omplian!e 2ith the O& de!ision of =ar!h 3#, 1##", NBSR=+4 and the +epartment of Edu!ation, 4ulture and Sports %+E4S) e-e!uted a =emorandum of Agreement 2here ' the former donated four %>) he!tares from the su *e!t land to +E4S for the esta lishment of the NBSR @igh S!hool.
F1;G

Hhen NBSR=+4 2as a out to transfer the title over the ><he!tare donated to +E4S, it dis!overed that the title over the su *e!t propert' 2as no longer in its name. It soon found out that during the penden!' of oth the &etition for 4ertiorari, &rohi ition, 2ith &reliminar' In*un!tion it filed against +AR in the 4ourt of Appeals and the appeal to the &resident filed ' 1overnor 4arlos O. ,orti!h, the +AR, 2ithout giving *ust !ompensation, !aused the !an!ellation of NBSR=+4Cs title on August 11, 1##L and had it transferred in the name of the Repu li! of the &hilippines under T4T No. T< L(3"> of the Registr' of +eeds of .u/idnon. Thereafter, on Septem er 3L, 1##L, +AR !aused the issuan!e of 4ertifi!ates of Land O2nership A2ard %4LOA) No. ((3>(33$ and had it registered in the name of 17$ farmer< enefi!iaries under T4T No. AT< 7L7" of the Registr' of +eeds of .u/idnon.
F1#G F3(G

1#. Thus, on April 1(, 1##$, NBSR=+4 filed a !omplaint 2ith the Regional Trial 4ourt %RT4) of =ala' ala', .u/idnon %.ran!h #), do!/eted as 4ivil 4ase No. 3";$<#$, for annulment and !an!ellation of title, damages and in*un!tion against +AR and 1>1 others. The RT4 then issued a Temporar' Restraining Order on April 7(, 1##$ and a Hrit of &reliminar' In*un!tion on =a' 1#, 1##$ , restraining the +AR and 1>1 others from entering, o!!up'ing andAor 2resting from NBSR=+4 the possession of the su *e!t land.
F31G F33G F37G

3(. =ean2hile, on :une 37, 1##$, an Order 2as issued ' then E-e!utive Se!retar' Ru en +. Torres den'ing +ARCs motion for re!onsideration for having een filed e'ond the reglementar' period of fifteen %1L) da's. The said order further de!lared that the =ar!h 3#, 1##" O& de!ision had alread' e!ome 13('+ and eAe4,-or0.
F3>G

31. The +AR filed on :ul' 11, 1##$ a /e4o() motion for re!onsideration of the :une 37, 1##$ Order of the &resident. 33. On August 13, 1##$, the said 2rit of preliminar' in*un!tion issued ' the RT4 2as !hallenged ' some alleged farmers efore the 4ourt of Appeals through a petition for !ertiorari and prohi ition, do!/eted as 4A<1.R. S& No. >>#(L, pra'ing for the lifting of the in*un!tion and for the issuan!e of a 2rit of prohi ition from further tr'ing the RT4 !ase. 37. On O!to er #, 1##$, some alleged farmer< enefi!iaries egan their hunger stri/e in front of the +AR 4ompound in Bue5on 4it' to protest the O& +e!ision of
;

=ar!h 3#, 1##". On O!to er 1(, 1##$, some persons !laiming to e farmer< enefi!iaries of the NBSR=+4 propert' filed a motion for intervention %st'led as =emorandum In Intervention) in O.&. 4ase No. #"<4<">3>, as/ing that the O& +e!ision allo2ing the !onversion of the entire 1>><he!tare propert' e set aside.
F3LG

3>. &resident ,idel J. Ramos then held a dialogue 2ith the stri/ers and promised to resolve their grievan!e 2ithin the frame2or/ of the la2. @e !reated an eight %;)<man ,a!t ,inding Tas/ ,or!e %,,T,) !haired ' Agri!ulture Se!retar' Salvador Es!udero to loo/ into the !ontrovers' and re!ommend possi le solutions to the pro lem.
F3"G

3L. On Novem er $, 1##$, the Offi!e of the &resident resolved the stri/ersC protest ' issuing the so<!alled DHinAHinE Resolution penned ' then +eput' E-e!utive Se!retar' Renato 4. 4orona, the dispositive portion of 2hi!h reads8

DH@ERE,ORE, premises !onsidered, the de!ision of the Offi!e of the &resident, through E-e!utive Se!retar' Ru en Torres, dated =ar!h 3#, 1##", is here ' =O+I,IE+ as follo2s8 D1. NBSR=+4Cs appli!ation for !onversion is A&&ROJE+ onl' 2ith respe!t to the appro-imatel' fort'<four %>>) he!tare portion of the land ad*a!ent to the high2a', as re!ommended ' the +epartment of Agri!ulture. D3. The remaining appro-imatel' one hundred %1(() he!tares traversed ' an irrigation !anal and found to e suita le for agri!ulture shall e distri uted to 6ualified farmer< enefi!iaries in a!!ordan!e 2ith RA ""L$ or the 4omprehensive Agrarian Reform La2 2ith a right of 2a' to said portion from the high2a' provided in the portion fronting the high2a'. ,or this purpose, the +AR and other !on!erned government agen!ies are dire!ted to immediatel' !ondu!t the segregation surve' of the area, valuation of the propert' and generation of titles in the name of the identified farmer< enefi!iaries. D7. The +epartment of Agrarian Reform is here ' dire!ted to !arefull' and meti!ulousl' determine 2ho among the !laimants are 6ualified farmer< enefi!iaries. D>. The +epartment of Agrarian Reform is here ' further dire!ted to e-pedite pa'ment of *ust !ompensation to NBSR=+4 for the portion of the land to e !overed ' the 4AR&, in!luding other lands previousl' surrendered ' NBSR=+4 for 4AR& !overage.

DL. The &hilippine National &oli!e is here ' dire!ted to render full assistan!e to the +epartment of Agrarian Reform in the implementation of this Order. DHe ta/e note of the =emorandum in Intervention filed ' 117 farmers on O!to er 1(, 1##$ 2ithout ruling on the propriet' or merits thereof sin!e it is unne!essar' to pass upon it at this time. DSO OR+ERE+.E
F3$G

A !op' of the DHin<HinE Resolution 2as re!eived ' 1overnor 4arlos O. ,orti!h of .u/idnon, =a'or Re' .. .aula of Sumilao, .u/idnon, and NBSR=+4 on Novem er 3>, 1##$ and, on +e!em er >, 1##$, the' filed the present petition for !ertiorari, prohi ition %under Rule "L of the Revised Rules of 4ourt) and in*un!tion 2ith urgent pra'er for a temporar' restraining order andAor 2rit of preliminar' in*un!tion %under Rule L;,ibid.), against then +eput' E-e!utive Se!retar' Renato 4. 4orona and +AR Se!retar' Ernesto +. 1arilao.
F3;G

On +e!em er 13, 1##$, a =otion ,or Leave To Intervene 2as filed ' alleged farmer< enefi!iaries, through !ounsel, !laiming that the' are real parties in interest as the' 2ere Dpreviousl' identified ' respondent +AR as agrarian reform enefi!iaries on the 1>><he!tareE propert' su *e!t of this !ase. The motion 2as vehementl' opposed ' the petitioners.
F3#G F7(G

In see/ing the nullifi!ation of the DHin<HinE Resolution, the petitioners !laim that the Offi!e of the &resident 2as prompted to issue the said resolution Dafter a ver' 2ell< managed hunger stri/e led ' fa/e farmer< enefi!iar' Linda Ligmon su!!eeded in pressuring andAor politi!all' la!/mailing the Offi!e of the &resident to !ome up 2ith this purel' politi!al de!ision to appease the Pfarmers,C ' reviving and modif'ing the +e!ision of 3# =ar!h 1##" B.34. .'/ bee( )e4+'re) 13('+ '() eAe4,-or0 3( '( Or)er o1 23 2,(e 1999C.D Thus, petitioners further allege, respondent then +eput' E-e!utive Se!retar' Renato 4. 4orona D!ommitted grave a use of dis!retion and a!ted e'ond his *urisdi!tion 2hen he issued the 6uestioned Resolution of $ Novem er 1##$U.E The' availed of this e-traordinar' 2rit of !ertiorari D e!ause there is no other plain, speed' and ade6uate remed' in the ordinar' !ourse of la2.E The' never filed a motion for re!onsideration of the su *e!t Resolution D e!ause %it) is patentl' illegal or !ontrar' to la2 and it 2ould e a futile e-er!ise to see/ a re!onsideration U.E
F71G F73G F77G F7>G

The respondents, through the Soli!itor 1eneral, opposed the petition and pra'ed that it e dismissed outright on the follo2ing grounds8 %1) The proper remed' of petitioners should have een to file a petition for revie2 dire!tl' 2ith the 4ourt of Appeals in a!!ordan!e 2ith Rule >7 of the Revised Rules of 4ourtM %3) The petitioners failed to file a motion for re!onsideration of the assailed DHin< HinE Resolution efore filing the present petitionM and %7) &etitioner NBSR=+4 is guilt' of forum<shopping.
1(

These are the preliminar' issues 2hi!h must first e resolved, in!luding the in!ident on the motion for intervention filed ' the alleged farmer< enefi!iaries. Anent the first issue, in order to determine 2hether the re!ourse of petitioners is proper or not, it is ne!essar' to dra2 a line et2een an error of *udgment and an error of *urisdi!tion. An error o1 E,)@me(- is one 2hi!h the !ourt ma' !ommit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and 2hi!h error is revie2a le onl' ' an appeal. On the other hand, an error o1 E,r3/)34-3o( is one 2here the a!t !omplained of 2as issued ' the !ourt, offi!er or a 6uasi<*udi!ial od' without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction . This error is !orre!ta le onl' ' the e-traordinar' 2rit of !ertiorari.
F7LG F7"G F7$G

It is true that under Rule >7, appeals from a2ards, *udgments, final orders or resolutions of an' 6uasi<*udi!ial agen!' e-er!ising 6uasi<*udi!ial fun!tions, 3(4+,)3(@ -.e O1134e o1 -.e Pre/3)e(- , ma' e ta/en to the 4ourt of Appeals ' filing a verified petition for revie2 2ithin fifteen %1L) da's from noti!e of the said *udgment, final order or resolution, 2hether the appeal involves 6uestions of fa!t, of la2, or mi-ed 6uestions of fa!t and la2.
F7;G F7#G F>(G F>1G F>3G

@o2ever, 2e hold that, in this parti!ular !ase, the remed' pres!ri ed in Rule >7 is inappli!a le !onsidering that the present petition !ontains an allegation that the !hallenged resolution is Dpatentl' illegalE and 2as issued 2ith Dgrave a use of dis!retionE and D e'ond his %respondent Se!retar' Renato 4. 4oronaCs) *urisdi!tionE 2hen said resolution su stantiall' modified the earlier O& +e!ision of =ar!h 3#, 1##" 2hi!h had long e!ome final and e-e!utor'. In other 2ords, the !ru!ial issue raised here involves an error of *urisdi!tion, not an error of *udgment 2hi!h is revie2a le ' an appeal under Rule >7. Thus, the appropriate remed' to annul and set aside the assailed resolution is an original spe!ial !ivil a!tion for !ertiorari under Rule "L, as 2hat the petitioners have !orre!tl' done. The pertinent portion of Se!tion 1 thereof provides8
F>7G F>>G

DSE4TION 1. Petition for certiorari. Q Hhen an' tri unal, oard or offi!er e-er!ising *udi!ial or 6uasi<*udi!ial fun!tions has a!ted 2ithout or in e-!ess of its or his *urisdi!tion, or 2ith grave a use of dis!retion amounting to la!/ or e-!ess of *urisdi!tion, and there is no appeal, or an' plain, speed', and ade6uate remed' in the ordinar' !ourse of la2, a person aggrieved there ' ma' file a verified petition in the proper !ourt, alleging the fa!ts 2ith !ertaint' and pra'ing that *udgment e rendered annulling or modif'ing the pro!eedings of su!h tri unal, oard or offi!er, and granting su!h in!idental reliefs as la2 and *usti!e ma' re6uire.
----F>LG

- - -.E

The offi!e of a 2rit of !ertiorari is restri!ted to trul' e-traordinar' !ases Q !ases in 2hi!h the a!t of the lo2er !ourt or 6uasi<*udi!ial od' is 2holl' void. The afore6uoted Se!tion 1 of Rule "L mandates that the person aggrieved ' the assailed illegal a!t Dma' file a verified petition %for !ertiorari) in the 5ro5er 4o,r-.E The
11

proper !ourt 2here the petition must e filed is stated in Se!tion > of the same Rule "L 2hi!h reads8

DSE4. >. Where petition filed.< The petition ma' e filed not later than si-t' %"() da's from noti!e of the *udgment, order or resolution sought to e assailed in the Supreme 4ourt or, if it relates to the a!ts or omissions of a lo2er !ourt or of a !orporation, oard, offi!er or person, in the Regional Trial 4ourt e-er!ising *urisdi!tion over the territorial area as defined ' the Supreme 4ourt. It ma' also e filed in the 4ourt of Appeals 2hether or not the same is in aid of its appellate *urisdi!tion, or in the Sandigan a'an if it is in aid of its *urisdi!tion. If it involves the a!ts or omissions of a 6uasi<*udi!ial agen!', and unless other2ise provided ' la2 or these Rules, the petition shall e filed in and !ogni5a le onl' ' the 4ourt of Appeals. %>a)E
Under the a ove<6uoted Se!tion >, the Supreme 4ourt, 4ourt of Appeals and Regional Trial 4ourt have original !on!urrent *urisdi!tion to issue a 2rit of !ertiorari, prohi ition and mandamus. .ut the *urisdi!tion of these three %7) !ourts are also delineated in that, if the !hallenged a!t relates to a!ts or omissions of a lo2er !ourt or of a !orporation, oard, offi!er or person, the petition must e filed 2ith the Regional Trial 4ourt 2hi!h e-er!ises *urisdi!tion over the territorial area as defined ' the Supreme 4ourt. And if it involves the a!t or omission of a 6uasi<*udi!ial agen!', the petition shall e filed onl' 2ith the 4ourt of Appeals, unless other2ise provided ' la2 or the Rules of 4ourt. He have !learl' dis!ussed this matter of !on!urren!e of *urisdi!tion in People vs. Cuaresma, et. al., through no2 4hief :usti!e Andres R. Narvasa, thus8
F>"G F>$G F>;G F>#G

D- - -. This 4ourtCs original *urisdi!tion to issue 2rits of certiorari %as 2ell as prohi ition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and in*un!tion) is not e-!lusive. It is shared ' this 4ourt 2ith Regional Trial 4ourts %formerl' 4ourts of ,irst Instan!e), 2hi!h ma' issue the 2rit, enfor!ea le in an' part of their respe!tive regions. It is also shared ' this 4ourt, and ' the Regional Trial 4ourt, 2ith the 4ourt of Appeals %formerl', Intermediate Appellate 4ourt), although prior to the effe!tivit' of Batas Pambansa Bilang 13# on August 1>, 1#;1, the latterCs !ompeten!e to issue the e-traordinar' 2rits 2as restri!ted to those Pin aid of its appellate *urisdi!tion.C This !on!urren!e of *urisdi!tion is not, ho2ever, to e ta/en as a!!ording to parties see/ing an' of the 2rits an a solute, unrestrained freedom of !hoi!e of the !ourt to 2hi!h appli!ation therefor 2ill e dire!ted. There is after all a hierar!h' of !ourts. That hierar!h' is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the e-traordinar' 2rits. A e!oming regard for that *udi!ial hierar!h' most !ertainl' indi!ates that petitions for the issuan!e of e-traordinar' 2rits against first level %PinferiorC) !ourts should e filed 2ith the Regional Trial 4ourt, and those against the latter, 2ith the 4ourt of Appeals.E %4itations omitted)
13

.ut the Supreme 4ourt has the full dis!retionar' po2er to ta/e !ogni5an!e of the petition filed dire!tl' to it if !ompelling reasons, or the nature and importan!e of the issues raised, 2arrant. This has een the *udi!ial poli!' to e o served and 2hi!h has een reiterated in su se6uent !ases, namel'8 ! vs. Contreras, et. al., "orres vs. #rran$, Bercero vs. %e &u$man, and #dvincula vs. 'egaspi, et. al. As 2e have further stated in Cuaresma8
FL(G FL1G FL3G FL7G FL>G

D- - -. A dire!t invo!ation of the Supreme 4ourtCs original *urisdi!tion to issue these 2rits should e allo2ed onl' 2hen there are spe!ial and important reasons therefor, !learl' and spe!ifi!all' set out in the petition. This is esta lished poli!'. It is a poli!' that is ne!essar' to prevent inordinate demands upon the 4ourtCs time and attention 2hi!h are etter devoted to those matters 2ithin its e-!lusive *urisdi!tion, and to prevent further over< !ro2ding of the 4ourtCs do!/et.E
&ursuant to said *udi!ial poli!', 2e resolve to ta/e primar' *urisdi!tion over the present petition in the interest of speed' *usti!e and to avoid future litigations so as to promptl' put an end to the present !ontrovers' 2hi!h, as !orre!tl' o served ' petitioners, has spar/ed national interest e!ause of the magnitude of the pro lem !reated ' the issuan!e of the assailed resolution. =oreover, as 2ill e dis!ussed later, 2e find the assailed resolution 2holl' void and re6uiring the petitioners to file their petition first 2ith the 4ourt of Appeals 2ould onl' result in a 2aste of time and mone'.
FLLG

That the 4ourt has the po2er to set aside its o2n rules in the higher interests of *usti!e is 2ell<entren!hed in our *urispruden!e. He reiterate 2hat 2e said in Pic$on vs. Court of #ppeals8
FL"G

D.e it remem ered that rules of pro!edure are ut mere tools designed to fa!ilitate the attainment of *usti!e. Their stri!t and rigid appli!ation, 2hi!h 2ould result in te!hni!alities that tend to frustrate rather than promote su stantial *usti!e, must al2a's e avoided. Time and again, this 4ourt has suspended its o2n rules and e-!epted a parti!ular !ase from their operation 2henever the higher interests of *usti!e so re6uire. In the instant petition, 2e forego a length' dis6uisition of the proper pro!edure that should have een ta/en ' the parties involved and pro!eed dire!tl' to the merits of the !ase.0
As to the se!ond issue of 2hether the petitioners !ommitted a fatal pro!edural lapse 2hen the' failed to file a motion for re!onsideration of the assailed resolution efore see/ing *udi!ial re!ourse, suffi!e it to state that the said motion is not ne!essar' 2hen the 6uestioned resolution is a patent nullit', as 2ill e ta/en up later.
FL$G

Hith respe!t to the third issue, the respondents !laim that the filing ' the petitioners of8 %a) a petition for !ertiorari, prohi ition 2ith preliminar' in*un!tion %4A<1.R. S& No. 7$"1>) 2ith the 4ourt of AppealsM % ) a !omplaint for annulment and !an!ellation of title, damages and in*un!tion against +AR and 1>1 others %4ivil 4ase No. 3";$<#$) 2ith the Regional Trial 4ourt of =ala' ala', .u/idnonM and %!) the present petition, !onstitute forum shopping.
17

He disagree. The rule is that8

DThere is forum<shopping 2henever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a part' see/s a favora le opinion %other than ' appeal or !ertiorari) in another. The prin!iple applies not onl' 2ith respe!t to suits filed in the !ourts ut also in !onne!tion 2ith litigation !ommen!ed in the !ourts 2hile an administrative pro!eeding is pending, as in this !ase, in order to defeat administrative pro!esses and in anti!ipation of an unfavora le administrative ruling and a favora le !ourt ruling. This spe!iall' so, as in this !ase, 2here the !ourt in 2hi!h the se!ond suit 2as rought, has no *urisdi!tion %!itations omitted). DThe test for determining 2hether a part' violated the rule against forum shopping has een laid do2n in the 1#;" !ase of Buan vs. 'ope$ %1>L S4RA 7>), - - - and that is, 1or,m /.o553(@ eA3/-/ B.ere -.e e+eme(-/ o1 litis pendentia 're 5re/e(- or B.ere ' 13('+ E,)@me(- 3( o(e 4'/e B3++ 'mo,(-o res judicata 3( -.e o-.er, as follo2s8 PThere thus e-ists et2een the a!tion efore this 4ourt and RT4 4ase No. ;"< 7"L"7 identit' of parties, or at least su!h parties as represent the same interests in oth a!tions, as 2ell as 3)e(-3-0 o1 r3@.-/ '//er-e) '() re+3e1 5r'0e) 1or, the relief eing founded on the same fa!ts, and the identit' on the t2o pre!eding parti!ulars is su!h that '(0 E,)@me(- re()ere) 3( -.e o-.er '4-3o(, B3++, re@'r)+e// o1 B.34. 5'r-0 3/ /,44e//1,+, 'mo,(- -o res adjudicata 3( -.e '4-3o( ,()er 4o(/3)er'-3o(8 all the re6uisites, in fine, of auter action pendant.?E
FL;G

It is !lear from the a ove<6uoted rule that the petitioners are not guilt' of forum shopping. The test for determining 2hether a part' has violated the rule against forum shopping is 2here a final *udgment in one !ase 2ill amount to res adjudicata in the a!tion under !onsideration. A !ursor' e-amination of the !ases filed ' the petitioners does not sho2 that the said !ases are similar 2ith ea!h other. The petition for !ertiorari in the 4ourt of Appeals sought the nullifi!ation of the +AR Se!retar'Cs order to pro!eed 2ith the !ompulsor' a!6uisition and distri ution of the su *e!t propert'. On the other hand, the !ivil !ase in RT4 of =ala' ala', .u/idnon for the annulment and !an!ellation of title issued in the name of the Repu li! of the &hilippines, 2ith damages, 2as ased on the follo2ing grounds8 %1) the +AR, in appl'ing for !an!ellation of petitioner NBSR=+4Cs title, used do!uments 2hi!h 2ere earlier de!lared null and void ' the +ARA.M %3) the !an!ellation of NBSR=+4Cs title 2as made 2ithout pa'ment of *ust !ompensationM and %7) 2ithout noti!e to NBSR=+4 for the surrender of its title. The present petition is entirel' different from the said t2o !ases as it see/s the nullifi!ation of the assailed DHin<HinE Resolution of the Offi!e of the &resident dated Novem er $, 1##$, 2hi!h resolution 2as issued long after the previous t2o !ases 2ere instituted.
1>

The fourth and final preliminar' issue to e resolved is the motion for intervention filed ' alleged farmer< enefi!iaries, 2hi!h 2e have to den' for la!/ of merit. In their motion, movants !ontend that the' are the farmer< enefi!iaries of the land in 6uestion, hen!e, are real parties in interest. To prove this, the' atta!hed as Anne- DIE in their motion a =aster List of ,armer<.enefi!iaries. Apparentl', the alleged master list 2as made pursuant to the dire!tive in the dispositive portion of the assailed DHin<HinE Resolution 2hi!h dire!ts the +AR Dto !arefull' and meti!ulousl' determine 2ho among the !laimants are 6ualified farmer< enefi!iaries.E @o2ever, a perusal of the said do!ument reveals that movants are those purportedl' D,ound Bualified and Re!ommended for Approval.E In other 2ords, movants are merel' re4omme()ee farmer< enefi!iaries. The rule in this *urisdi!tion is that a re'+ 5'r-0 3( 3(-ere/- is a part' 2ho 2ould e enefited or in*ured ' the *udgment or is the part' entitled to the avails of the suit. Re'+ 3(-ere/- means a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere e-pe!tan!' or a future, !ontingent, su ordinate or !onse6uential interest. Undou tedl', movantsC interest over the land in 6uestion is a mere e-pe!tan!'. Ergo, the' are not real parties in interest.
FL#G

,urthermore, the !hallenged resolution upon 2hi!h movants ased their motion is, as intimated earlier, null and void. @en!e, their motion for intervention has no leg to stand on. No2 to the main issue of 2hether the final and e-e!utor' +e!ision dated =ar!h 3#,1##" !an still e su stantiall' modified ' the DHin<HinE Resolution. He rule in the negative. The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Offi!e of the &resident of the &hilippines are em odied in Administrative Order No. 1;. Se!tion $ thereof provides8

DSE4. $. +e!isionsAresolutionsAorders of the Offi!e of the &resident shall, e-!ept as other2ise provided for ' spe!ial la2s, be4ome 13('+ '1-er -.e +'5/e o1 131-ee( "18# )'0/ 1rom re4e35- o1 ' 4o50 -.ereo1 ' the parties, ,(+e// ' mo-3o( 1or re4o(/3)er'-3o( -.ereo1 3/ 13+e) B3-.3( /,4. 5er3o). DO(+0 o(e mo-3o( 1or re4o(/3)er'-3o( b0 '(0 o(e 5'r-0 /.'++ be '++oBe) and entertained, save in e-!eptionall' meritorious !ases.E %Emphasis ours)
It is further provided for in Se!tion # that DThe Rules of 4ourt shall appl' in a suppletor' !hara!ter 2henever pra!ti!a le.E Hhen the Offi!e of the &resident issued the Order dated :une 37,1##$ de!laring the +e!ision of =ar!h 3#, 1##" final and e-e!utor', as no one has seasona l' filed a motion for re!onsideration thereto, the said Offi!e had lost its *urisdi!tion to re<open the !ase, more so modif' its +e!ision. @aving lost its *urisdi!tion, the Offi!e of the &resident has no more authorit' to entertain the /e4o() motion for re!onsideration filed '
1L

respondent +AR Se!retar', 2hi!h se!ond motion e!ame the asis of the assailed DHin<HinE Resolution. Se!tion $ of Administrative Order No. 1; and Se!tion >, Rule >7 of the Revised Rules of 4ourt mandate that onl' o(e %1) motion for re!onsideration is allo2ed to e ta/en from the +e!ision of =ar!h 3#, 1##". And even if a se!ond motion for re!onsideration 2as permitted to e filed in De-!eptionall' meritorious !ases,E as provided in the se!ond paragraph of Se!tion $ of AO 1;, still the said motion should not have een entertained !onsidering that the first motion for re!onsideration 2as not seasona l' filed, there ' allo2ing the +e!ision of =ar!h 3#, 1##" to lapse into finalit'. Thus, the a!t of the Offi!e of the &resident in re<opening the !ase and su stantiall' modif'ing its =ar!h 3#,1##" +e!ision 2hi!h had alread' e!ome final and e-e!utor', 2as in gross disregard of the rules and asi! legal pre!ept that a!!ord 13('+3-0 to administrative determinations. In (an 'uis, et al. vs. Court of #ppeals, et al. 2e held8
F"(G

DSin!e the de!isions of oth the 4ivil Servi!e 4ommission and the Offi!e of the &resident had long e!ome final and e-e!utor', the same !an no longer e revie2ed ' the !ourts. It is 2ell<esta lished in our *urispruden!e that the de!isions and orders of administrative agen!ies, rendered pursuant to their 6uasi<*udi!ial authorit', have upon their finalit', the for!e and inding effe!t of a final *udgment 2ithin the purvie2 of the do!trine of res judicata F.rillantes v. 4astro, ## &hil. >#$ %1#L"), Ipe/di*na =er!handi5ing 4o., In!. v. 4ourt of TaAppeals, 1.R. No. L<1L>7(, Septem er 7(, 1#"7, # S4RA $3.G The rule of res judicata 2hi!h for ids the reopening of a matter on!e *udi!iall' determined ' !ompetent authorit' applies as 2ell to the *udi!ial and 6uasi<*udi!ial a!ts of pu li!, e-e!utive or administrative offi!ers and oards a!ting 2ithin their *urisdi!tion as to the *udgments of !ourts having general *udi!ial po2ers F.rillantes v. 4astro, supra at L(7G.E
The orderl' administration of *usti!e re6uires that the *udgmentsAresolutions of a !ourt or 6uasi<*udi!ial od' must rea!h a point of finalit' set ' the la2, rules and regulations. The no le purpose is to 2rite finis to disputes on!e and for all. This is a fundamental prin!iple in our *usti!e s'stem, 2ithout 2hi!h there 2ould e no end to litigations. Utmost respe!t and adheren!e to this prin!iple must al2a's e maintained ' those 2ho 2ield the po2er of ad*udi!ation. An' a!t 2hi!h violates su!h prin!iple must immediatel' e stru!/ do2n.
F"1G

Therefore, the assailed DHin<HinE Resolution 2hi!h su stantiall' modified the +e!ision of =ar!h 3#, 1##" after it has attained finalit', is utterl' void. Su!h void resolution, as aptl' stressed ' :usti!e Thomas A. Street in a 1#1; !ase, is Da la2less thing, 2hi!h !an e treated as an outla2 and slain at sight, or ignored 2herever and 2henever it e-hi its its head.E
F"3G F"7G F">G

*HERE&ORE, the present petition is here ' 1RANTE+. The !hallenged Resolution dated Novem er $, 1##$, issued ' the Offi!e of the &resident in O& 4ase No. #"<4<">3>, is here ' NULLI,IE+ and SET ASI+E. The =otion ,or Leave To Intervene filed ' alleged farmer< enefi!iaries is here ' +ENIE+.
1"

No pronoun!ement as to !osts. SO OR$ERE$.

G.R. No. LF43:28 M'0 9, 19:: ON!INEN!AL MARBLE ORP. '() &ELIPE $A6I$, petitioner, vs. NA!IONAL LABOR RELA!IONS OMMISSION "NLR #G ARBI!RA!OR 2OSE !. NASAYAO, respondents. PA$ILLA, J.: In this petition for mandamus, prohi ition and !ertiorari 2ith preliminar' in*un!tion, petitioners see/ to annul and set aside the de!ision rendered ' the respondent Ar itrator :ose T. 4ollado, dated 3# +e!em er 1#$L, in NLR4 4ase No. LR<"1L1, entitled8 0Rodito Nasa'ao, !omplainant, versus 4ontinental =ar le 4orp. and ,elipe +avid, respondents,0 and the resolution issued ' the respondent 4ommission, dated $ =a' 1#$", 2hi!h dismissed herein petitioners? appeal from said de!ision. In his !omplaint efore the NLR4, herein private respondent Rodito Nasa'ao !laimed that sometime in =a' 1#$>, he 2as appointed plant manager of the petitioner !orporation, 2ith an alleged !ompensation of &7,(((.((, a month, or 3LO of the monthl' net in!ome of the !ompan', 2hi!hever is greater, and 2hen the !ompan' failed to pa' his salar' for the months of =a', :une, and :ul' 1#$>, Rodito Nasa'ao filed a !omplaint 2ith the National La or Relations 4ommission, .ran!h IJ, for the re!over' of said unpaid varies. The !ase 2as do!/eted therein as NLR4 4ase No. LR<"1L1. Ans2ering, the herein petitioners denied that Rodito Nasa'ao 2as emplo'ed in the !ompan' as plant manager 2ith a fi-ed monthl' salar' of &7,(((.((. The' !laimed that the underta/ing agreed upon ' the parties 2as a *oint venture, a sort of partnership, 2herein Rodito Nasa'ao 2as to /eep the ma!hiner' in good 2or/ing !ondition and, in return, he 2ould get the !ontra!ts from end<users for the installation of mar le produ!ts, in 2hi!h the !ompan' 2ould not interfere. In addition, private respondent Nasa'ao 2as to re!eive an amount e6uivalent to 3LO of the net profits that the petitioner !orporation 2ould reali5e, should there e an'. &etitioners alleged that sin!e there had een no profits during said period, private respondent 2as not entitled to an' amount. The !ase 2as su mitted for voluntar' ar itration and the parties sele!ted the herein respondent :ose T. 4ollado as voluntar' ar itrator. In the !ourse of the pro!eedings, ho2ever, the herein petitioners !hallenged the ar itrator?s !apa!it' to tr' and de!ide the !ase fairl' and *udi!iousl' and as/ed him to desist from further hearing the !ase. .ut, the respondent ar itrator refused. In due time, or on 3# +e!em er 1#$L, he rendered *udgment in favor of the !omplainant, ordering the herein petitioners to pa' Rodito Nasa'ao the amount of &#,(((.((, 2ithin 1( da's from noti!e. 1 Upon re!eipt of the de!ision, the herein petitioners appealed to the National La or Relations 4ommission on grounds that the la or ar iter gravel' a used his dis!retion in persisting to hear and de!ide the !ase not2ithstanding petitioners? re6uest for him to desist therefrom8 and that the appealed de!ision is not supported ' eviden!e. 2 On 1; =ar!h 1#$", Rodito Nasa'ao filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the de!ision of the voluntar' ar itrator is final, unappeala le, and immediatel' e-e!utor'M 3 and, on 37 =ar!h 1#$", he filed a motion for the issuan!e of a 2rit of e-e!ution. 4 A!ting on the motions, the respondent 4ommission, in a resolution dated $ =a' 1#$", dismissed the appeal on the ground that the de!ision appealed from is final, unappeala le and immediatel' e-e!utor', and ordered the

OLLA$O '() RO$I!O

1$

herein petitioners to !ompl' 2ith the de!ision of the voluntar' ar itrator 2ithin 1( da's from re!eipt of the resolution. 8 The petitioners are efore the 4ourt in the present re!ourse. As pra'ed for, the 4ourt issued a temporar' restraining order, restraining herein respondents from enfor!ing andAor !arr'ing out the 6uestioned de!ision and resolution. 6 The issue for resolution is 2hether or not the private respondent Rodito Nasa'ao 2as emplo'ed as plant manager of petitioner 4ontinental =ar le 4orporation 2ith a monthl' salar' of &7,(((.(( or 3LO of its monthl' in!ome, 2hi!hever is greater, as !laimed ' said respondent, or entitled to re!eive onl' an amount e6uivalent to 3LO of net profits, if an', that the !ompan' 2ould reali5e, as !ontended ' the petitioners. The respondent ar itrator found that the agreement et2een the parties 2as for the petitioner !ompan' to pa' the private respondent, Rodito Nasa'ao, a monthl' salar' of &7,(((.((, and, !onse6uentl', ordered the !ompan' to pa' Rodito Nasa'ao the amount of &#,(((.(( !overing a period of three %7) months, that is, =a', :une and :ul' 1#$>. The respondent Rodito Nasa'ao no2 !ontends that the *udgment or a2ard of the voluntar' ar itrator is final, unappeala le and immediatel' e-e!utor', and ma' not e revie2ed ' the 4ourt. @is !ontention is ased upon the provisions of Art. 3"3 of the La or 4ode, as amended. The petitioners, upon the other hand, maintain that 02here there is patent and manifest a use of dis!retion, the rule on unappeala ilit' of a2ards of a voluntar' ar itrator e!omes fle-i le and it is the inherent po2er of the 4ourts to maintain the people?s faith in the administration of *usti!e.0 The 6uestion of the finalit' and unappeala ilit' of a de!ision andAor a2ard of a voluntar' ar itrator had een laid to rest in )ceanic Bic %ivision *++W, vs. -omero, 9 and reiterated in .antrade +..C %ivision /mplo!ees and Workers nion vs. Bacungan. :The 4ourt therein ruled that it !an revie2 the de!isions of voluntar' ar itrators, thus< He agree 2ith the petitioner that the de!isions of voluntar' ar itrators must e given the highest respe!t and as a general rule must e a!!orded a !ertain measure of finalit'. This is espe!iall' true 2here the ar itrator !hosen ' the parties en*o's the first rate !redentials of &rofessor ,lerida Ruth &ineda Romero, +ire!tor of the U.&. La2 4enter and an a!ademi!ian of un6uestioned e-pertise in the field of La or La2. It is not !orre!t, ho2ever, that this respe!t pre!ludes the e-er!ise of *udi!ial revie2 over their de!isions. Arti!le 3"3 of the La or 4ode ma/ing voluntar' ar itration a2ards final, inappeala le, and e-e!utor' e-!ept 2here the mone' !laims e-!eed & l ((,(((.(( or >(O of paid<up !apital of the emplo'er or 2here there is a use of dis!retion or gross in!ompeten!e refers to appeals to the National La or Relations 4ommission and not to *udi!ial revie2. Inspite of statutor' provisions ma/ing ?final? the de!isions of !ertain administrative agen!ies, 2e have ta/en !ogni5an!e of petitions 6uestioning these de!isions 2here 2ant of *urisdi!tion, grave a use of dis!retion, violation of due pro!ess, denial of su stantial *usti!e, or erroneous interpretation of the la2 2ere rought to our attention. There is no provision for appeal in the statute !reating the Sandigan a'an ut this has not pre!luded us from e-amining de!isions of this spe!ial !ourt rought to us in proper petitions. ... The 4ourt further said8 A voluntar' ar itrator ' the nature of her fu!ntions a!ts in 6uasi<*udi!ial !apa!it'. There is no reason 2h' herde!isions involving interpretation of la2 should e e'ond this 4ourt?s revie2. Administrative offi!ials are presumed to a!t in a!!ordan!e 2ith la2 and 'et 2e do hesitate to pass upon their 2or/ 2here a 6uestion of la2 is involved or 2here a sho2ing of a use of authorit' or dis!retion in their offi!ial a!ts is properl' raised in petitions for !ertiorari. The foregoing pronoun!ements find support in Se!tion 3# of Repu li! A!t No. ;$", other2ise /no2n as the Ar itration La2, 2hi!h provides8

1;

Se!. 3#. #ppeals 0 An appeal ma' e ta/en from an order made in a pro!eeding under this A!t, or from a *udgment entered upon an a2ard through !ertiorari pro!eedings, ut su!h appeals shall e limited to 6uestions of la2. The pro!eedings upon su!h an appeal, in!luding the *udgment thereon shall e governed ' the Rules of 4ourt in so far as the' are appli!a le. The private respondent, Rodito Nasa'ao, in his Ans2er to the petition, 9 also !laims that the !ase is premature for non<e-haustion of administrative remedies. @e !ontends that the de!ision of the respondent 4ommission should have een first appealed ' petitioners to the Se!retar' of La or, and, if the' are not satisfied 2ith his de!ision, to appeal to the &resident of the &hilippines, efore resort is made to the 4ourt. The !ontention is 2ithout merit. The do!trine of e-haustion of administrative remedies !annot e invo/ed in this !ase, as !ontended. In the re!ent !ase of 1ohn Clement Consultants, 2nc. versus 3ational 'abor -elations Commission, 10 the 4ourt said8 As is 2ell /no2n, no la2 provides for an appeal from de!isions of the National La or Relations 4ommissionM hen!e, there !an e no revie2 and reversal on appeal ' higher authorit' of its fa!tual or legal !on!lusions. Hhen, ho2ever, it de!ides a !ase 2ithout or in e-!ess of its *urisdi!tion, or 2ith grave a use of dis!retion, the part' there ' adversel' affe!ted ma' o tain a revie2 and nullifi!ation of that de!ision ' this 4ourt through the e-traordinar' 2rit of !ertiorari. Sin!e, in this !ase, it appears that the 4ommission has indeed a!ted 2ithout *urisdi!tion and 2ith grave a use of dis!retion in ta/ing !ogni5an!e of a elated appeal sought to e ta/en from a de!ision of La or Ar iter and thereafter reversing it, the 2rit of !ertiorari 2ill issue to undo those a!ts, and do *usti!e to the aggrieved part'. He also find no merit in the !ontention of Rodito Nasa'ao that onl' 6uestions of la2, and not findings of fa!t of a voluntar' ar itrator ma' e revie2ed ' the 4ourt, sin!e the findings of fa!t of the voluntar' ar itrator are !on!lusive upon the 4ourt. Hhile the 4ourt has a!!orded great respe!t for, and finalit' to, findings of fa!t of a voluntar' ar itrator 11 and administrative agen!ies 2hi!h have a!6uired e-pertise in their respe!tive fields, li/e the La or +epartment and the National La or Relations 4ommission, 12 their findings of fa!t and the !on!lusions dra2n therefrom have to e supported ' su stantial eviden!e. ln that instant !ase, the finding of the voluntar' ar itrator that Rodito Nasa'ao 2as an emplo'ee of the petitioner !orporation is not supported ' the eviden!e or ' the la2. On the other hand, 2e find the version of the petitioners to e more plausi le and in a!!ord 2ith human nature and the ordinar' !ourse of things. As pointed out ' the petitioners, it 2as illogi!al for them to hire the private respondent Rodito Nasa'ao as plant manager 2ith a monthl' salar' of &7,(((.((, an amount 2hi!h the' !ould ill<afford to pa', !onsidering that the usiness 2as losing, at the time he 2as hired, and that the' 2ere a out to !lose shop in a fe2 months? time. .esides, there is nothing in the re!ord 2hi!h 2ould support the !laim of Rodito Nasa'ao that he 2as an emplo'ee of the petitioner !orporation. @e 2as not in!luded in the !ompan' pa'roll, nor in the list of !ompan' emplo'ees furnished the So!ial Se!urit' S'stem. =ost of all, the element of !ontrol is la!/ing. In Brotherhood 'abor nit! .ovement in the Philippines vs. 4amora,13 the 4ourt enumerated the fa!tors in determining 2hether or not an emplo'er<emplo'ee relationship e-ists, to 2it8 In determining the e-isten!e of an emplo'er<emplo'ee relationship, the elements that are generall' !onsidered are the follo2ing8 %a) the sele!tion and engagement of the emplo'eeM % ) the pa'ment of 2agesM %!) the po2er of dismissalM and %d) the emplo'er?s po2er to !ontrol the emplo'ee 2ith respe!t to the means and methods ' 2hi!h the 2or/ is to e a!!omplished. It is the so<!alled 0!ontrol test0 that is the most important element %Investment &lanning 4orp. of the &hils. vs. The So!ial Se!urit' S'stem, 31 S4RA #3>M =afin!o Trading 4orp. v. Ople, supra, and Rosario .rothers, In!. v. Ople, 171 S4RA $3).
56re77an89:;w<

In the instant !ase, it appears that the petitioners had no !ontrol over the !ondu!t of Rodito Nasa'ao in the performan!e of his 2or/. @e de!ided for himself on 2hat 2as to e done and 2or/ed at his o2n pleasure. @e

1#

2as not su *e!t to definite hours or !onditions of 2or/ and, in turn, 2as !ompensated a!!ording to the results of his o2n effort. @e had a free hand in running the !ompan' and its usiness, so mu!h so, that the petitioner ,elipe +avid did not /no2, until ver' mu!h later, that Rodito Nasa'ao had !olle!ted old a!!ounts re!eiva les, not !overed ' their agreement, 2hi!h he !onverted to his o2n personal use. It 2as onl' after Rodito Nasa'ao had a andoned the plant follo2ing dis!over' of his 2rong< doings, that ,elipe +avid assumed management of the plant. A sent the po2er to !ontrol the emplo'ee 2ith respe!t to the means and methods ' 2hi!h his 2or/ 2as to e a!!omplished, there 2as no emplo'er<emplo'ee relationship et2een the parties. @en!e, there is no asis for an a2ard of unpaid salaries or 2ages to Rodito Nasa'ao. H@ERE,ORE, the de!ision rendered ' the respondent :ose T. 4ollado in NLR4 4ase No. LR<"1L1, entitled8 0Rodito Nasa'ao, !omplainant, versus 4ontinental =ar le 4orp. and ,elipe +avid, respondents,0 on 3# +e!em er 1#$L, and the resolution issued ' the respondent National La or Relations 4ommission in said !ase on $ =a' 1#$", are REJERSE+ and SET ASI+E and another one entered +IS=ISSIN1 private respondent?s !omplaints. The temporar' restraning order heretofore isued ' the 4ourt is made permanent. Hithout !osts. SO OR+ERE+

3(

CESAR T. VILLANUEVA, PEDRO S. SANTOS, and ROY C. SORIANO, Pet!t!oners,

G.R. No. 165125 Present Pan"an!#an, J., C$a!r%an, Sando&a'(G)t!erre*,+ Corona, Car,!o -ora'es, and Gar.!a, JJ

( &ers)s (

-AYOR /ELI0 V. OPLE and VICE(-AYOR 1OSE/INA R. Pro%)'"ated CONTRERAS, Res,ondents. No&e%#er 12, 2335 4 (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( 4 DECISION PANGANI5AN, J.:

his Courts review powers over resolutions and orders of the Office of the T Ombudsman is restricted only to determining whether grave abuse of discretion, that is, capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, has been committed. The

Court is not authorized to correct every error or mista e allegedly committed by

31

that constitutionally independent government agency. Thus, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, we have consistently sustained its determination of the existence or the nonexistence of probable cause. T$e Case !efore us is a "etition for #eview$%& under #ule '( of the #ules of Court, assailing the )pril *%, *++' #esolution$*& and the )ugust *,, *++' Order$-& of the deputy ombudsman for .uzon in O/!0.0C0+-0%((+0.. #esolution disposed as follows1 D*HERE&ORE, in vie2 of the foregoing, it is respe!tfull' re!ommended that the present !ase lodged against respondents ,eli- J. Ople and :osefina R. 4ontreras, =a'or and Ji!e =a'or, respe!tivel' of the =uni!ipalit' of @agono', .ula!an, e +IS=ISSE+ for la!/ of pro a le !ause.E F>G The challenged

The assailed #esolution denied petitioners /otion for #econsideration. T$e /a.ts On 2ecember 3, *++-, "etitioners Cesar T. 4illanueva, "edro 5. 5antos, and #oy C. 5oriano filed a 6oint )ffidavit0Complaint $(& before the Office of the Ombudsman. They charged incumbent /ayor 7elix 4. Ople and 4ice0/ayor 6osefina #. Contreras of 8agonoy, !ulacan, of violation of 5ection -9e: $;& of #) <o. -+%= or the >)nti0?raft and Corrupt "ractices )ct,@ $,& in relation to 5ections -+(09a:,$3& -%3$=& and -(%$%+& of the .ocal ?overnment Code 9.?C:. "etitioners alleged that the annual budget for 7iscal Aear 97A: *++- of the /unicipality of 8agonoy had been submitted by /ayor Ople 00 through 4ice0
33

/ayor Contreras 00 to the 5angguniang !ayan of 8agonoy, only on 6une %%, *++-, instead of on October %; of the preceding year, as mandated by 5ection -%3, paragraph * of !oo BB, Title 4, Chapter BBB of the .?C. They added that 4ice0 /ayor Contreras had failed to refer the budget to the chief legal counsel of the municipalityC and that, together with the other incumbent members of the 5angguniang !ayan, she had instead sought the approval of the alleged >Bllegal )nnual !udget for *++-.@$%%& On the theory that no enabling resolution had been enacted authorizing expenditures of the municipality to be based on the annual budget for the preceding year, petitioners claimed that the disbursement of public funds during the period 6anuary %, *++- to 6uly %%, *++-$%*& andDor )ugust *,, *++-$%-& had been illegal. They therefore prayed that respondents be held liable for the illegal disbursements done in the discharge of official functions, through evident bad faith andDor gross negligence that had caused undue injury to the /unicipality of 8agonoy, !ulacan.
$%'&

#espondents filed their respective Counter0)ffidavits, both dated 7ebruary *,, *++', and practically identical in form and substance. $%(& They stated that the proposed budget had actually been submitted on 6une *;, *++-, and not 6une %%, *++-. Bt was submitted only on that date, because Commission on )udit 9CO): Circular <o. *++*0*++-, otherwise nown as the ><ew ?overnment )ccounting 5ystem,@ had mandated the revision of accounting procedures. $%;& Bn compliance with that Circular, the municipality had to review and modify almost all of its financial transactions beginning 6anuary %, *++*. Bn order to prepare a feasible budget, they allegedly had to now the localitys financial position for the prior year, data on which had to come from the accounting department.$%,&

37

)ccording to respondents, the 5angguniang !ayan of 8agonoy and the 5angguniang "anlalawigan of !ulacan eventually passed and approved the proposed budget, whose effectivity date was 6anuary %, *++-.$%3& They averred that the .ocal ?overnment Code had not reEuired the vice0mayor to submit the budget to the legal officer of the municipality for review.$%=& 7inally, respondents claimed that the disbursements of public funds during the absence of an approved budget were legal under 5ection -*- $*+& of #) ,%;+ or the .?C.$*%& Bn their #eply and 5upplemental #eply, petitioners reiterated their allegations in their 6oint )ffidavit0Complaint, in which they stressed that 5ection -*- of the .?C had reEuired the mayor to submit the budget for the coming fiscal year not later than October %; of the current 7A.$**& R)'!n" o6 t$e De,)t7 O%#)ds%an The Office of the 2eputy Ombudsman for .uzon 9O/!0.uzon: found no probable cause against respondents.$*-& Bt noted that the charge was premised on allegedly illegal disbursements that had caused undue injury to the government. Aet, petitioners failed to specify which disbursements had been made illegally. !esides, there was no proof that the expenditures unduly benefited certain individuals or were made pursuant to the regular operations of the municipality.$*'& The O/!0.uzon also held that 5ection -*- of the .?C had authorized the reenactment of the budget for the preceding year to allow the municipal government to function and carry out its mandate.$*(& 8ence, the disbursements

3>

made during the Euestioned period when the new budget had not yet been approved could not have been illegal.$*;& Bn denying petitioners /otion for #econsideration, the O/!0.uzon pointed out that the alleged undue injury should have been specified, Euantified, and proven to the point of moral certainty.$*,& Bt found no reason to set the case for clarificatory hearings or to issue subpoenas.$*3& 8ence, this "etition.$*=& T$e Iss)es "etitioners state the issues in this wise1 D%A) Hhether or not Respondent =a'or aided and a etted R. 4ontreras, has 737 of the L14. the admitted flagrant violation of ,eli- J. Ople of Se!tion 71;, L14, ' !o<respondent Ji!e =a'or :osefina een and !an e validated ' Se!tion

D%.)

Hhether or not there is an' spe!ifi! L14 FprovisionG 2hi!h !ould e !laimed as the legal remed' in validating Respondent =a'or ,eli- J. OpleCs admitted flagrant violation of Se!tion 71;, L14. Hhether or not at the National 1overnment level there are !ompara le !onstitutional mandator' provisions %a) that no mone' shall e paid out of the treasur' e-!ept in pursuan!e of an appropriation made ' la2M % ) 2hen the pre!eding 'earCs udget is deemed reena!tedM and %!) deadline of &residentCs !onstitutional dut' to su mit proposed udget. Hhether or not dis ursements of muni!ipal mone' out of the muni!ipal treasur' even in the a sen!e of legall'
3L

D%4)

D%+)

adopted annual udget !annot Pundue in*ur'C e!ause8

e !hara!teri5ed as

PIt is illogi!al, if not a surd, to assume that a muni!ipal government no longer has the !apa!it' to fun!tion and !arr' out its mandate onl' e!ause its annual udget has not een approved.C

D%E)

Hhether or not 2hen FpetitionersG, in see/ing preliminar' investigation in O=.<L<4<(7<1LL(<L, are pre!luded at the same time from see/ing O=.Cs road fa!t<finding investigator' po2er, fun!tion and dut' to find the truth of the e-a!t amount of illegal dis ursements of muni!ipal funds during the fis!al 'ear 3((7 2hen there 2as no legall' ena!ted 3((7 annual udget pursuant to8
P%E.1) Se!tions 13 and 17, Arti!le KI of the 1#;$ 4onstitutionM

P%E.3) Se!tion 17, 1L, 37, 3" and 71 of the O=. A!t of 1#;#M and P%E.7) Rule II, Se!tions 1, 3, 7, ><%f) and Rule III, A+O<$, Rules of &ro!edure of the O=., April 1(, 1##(.

D%,)

Hhether or not !lear and serious legal error is !ommitted ' the O=. in den'ing !larifi!ator' hearing to as!ertain material fa!ts to find the true and e-a!t amount of illegal dis ursements of muni!ipal mone' during the fis!al 'ear 3((7 2hen there 2as no legall' ena!ted 3((7 annual udget pursuant to O=.Cs road investigative po2er, fun!tion and dut'. Hhether or not it is !lear and serious legal error for O=.< Lu5on in den'ing issuan!e of su poena to the 3 muni!ipal offi!ials, listed ' the FpetitionersG in their P:oint 4omplaint< AffidavitC as 2itnesses to e su poenaed in the investigation, to !ertif' or affirm the e-a!t amount of dis ursements during the fis!al 'ear 3((7 2hen there 2as no legall' ena!ted annual udget, on the ground that issuan!e of the su poena 2ould ma/e O=.<Lu5on engage in Pfishing e-pedition.CEF7(G

D%1)

3"

T$e Co)rt8s R)'!n" The "etition is bereft of merit.

Pre'!%!nar7 -atter Wrong Remedy Instituted

The proper remedies in Euestioning decisions and resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman 9O/!: have already been settled in a catena of cases. Fabian v. Desierto$-%& held that appeals from the orders, directives, or decisions of the O/! in administrative disciplinary cases were cognizable by the Court of )ppeals. Tirol v. Del Rosario$-*& clarified that, in non0administrative cases in which the O/! had acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac or excess of jurisdiction, a petition for certiorari under #ule ;( may be filed directly with this Court. )ccordingly, Kuizon v. Desierto$--& held that this Court had jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari Euestioning the resolutions or orders of the ombudsman in criminal cases. Thus, petitioners committed a procedural error in resorting to a "etition for #eview under #ule '( of the #ules of Court. To challenge the dismissal of their Complaint and to reEuire the O/! to file an information, petitioners should have resorted to a petition for certiorari under #ule ;( of the #ules of Court. The only ground upon which this Court may entertain a review of the O/!s resolution is grave abuse of discretion,$-'& not reversible errors. -a!n Iss)e
3$

No Grave Abuse of Discretion ) special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy when a government officer has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac or excess of jurisdictionC and there is no plain, speedy, and adeEuate remedy in the ordinary course of law.$-(& !ut even assuming that the present "etition may be treated as one for certiorari, the case must nevertheless be dismissed. ?rave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lac or excess of jurisdiction.$-;& The exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary or a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. Bt must have been so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.$-,& Bn the present case, petitioners do not even allege that the O/! gravely abused its discretion in issuing its Euestioned #esolution. ) perusal of the issues they submitted reveals that the crux of the controversy revolves around the finding of the deputy ombudsman that there was no probable cause against respondents.

3;

They allege that he committed legal errors in arriving at his findings and conclusions and had in fact no basis for dismissing their Complaint. The O/!s judgment may or may not have been erroneous, but it has not been shown to be tainted with arbitrariness, despotism or capriciousness amounting to lac or excess of jurisdiction. Sufficient Basis Bn any event, the Court finds no grave abuse in the manner in which the deputy ombudsman exercised his discretion. Fvidently, he had sufficient bases for his finding that there was no probable cause. First, the mere failure of the local government to enact a budget did not ma e all its disbursements illegal. 5ection -*- of the .?C provides for the automatic reenactment of the budget of the preceding year, in case the 5anggunian fails to enact one within the first =+ days of the fiscal year. 8ence, the contention in the present case that money was paid out of the local treasury without any valid appropriation must necessarily fail. Second, 5ection -*- states that only the annual appropriations for salaries and wages, statutory and contractual obligations, and essential operating expenses are deemed reenacted. "etitioner failed to identify disbursements that had gone beyond this coverage. Third, petitioners failed to substantiate their allegations that the government had suffered undue injury. They concluded that there had been undue injury simply on the basis of their unsubstantiated claims of illegal disbursements. 8aving failed to prove any unlawful expenditure, the claim of undue injury must necessarily fail.
3#

Fourth, petitioners relied solely on 5ection -%3 of the .?C, which allegedly exposed the mayor to criminal liability for delay in submitting a budget proposal. The pertinent provision reads1 DSe!. 71;. Preparation of the Budget b! the 'ocal Chief /xecutive. 9 Upon re!eipt of the statements of in!ome and e-penditures from the treasurer, the udget proposals of the heads of departments and offi!es, and the estimates of in!ome and udgetar' !eilings from the lo!al finan!e !ommittee, the lo!al !hief e-e!utive shall prepare the e-e!utive udget for the ensuing fis!al 'ear in a!!ordan!e 2ith the provisions of this Title. DThe lo!al !hief e-e!utive shall su mit the said e-e!utive udget to the sanggunian !on!erned not later than the si-teenth %1"th) of O!to er of the !urrent fis!al 'ear. ,ailure to su mit su!h udget on the date pres!ri ed herein shall su *e!t the lo!al !hief e-e!utive to su!h !riminal and administrative penalties as provided for under this 4ode and other appli!a le la2s.E

Gnder the above .?C provision, criminal liability for delay in submitting the budget is Eualified by various circumstances. 7or instance, the mayor must first receive the necessary financial documents from other city officials in order to be able to prepare the budget. Bn addition, criminal liability must conform to the provisions of the .?C and other applicable laws. <oteworthy is the fact that petitioners failed to present evidence that would fulfill these Eualifications stated in the law. He stress that the present case proceeds from an accusation that a crime was committed. ) criminal case reEuires the filing of an information that will be the
7(

basis for the trial of the accused.$-3& ) preliminary investigation should then be conducted to determine whether a probable cause exists to warrant the filing of the information against the accused.$-=&

71

robab!e "ause Probable cause is defined as the existence of facts and circumstances that engender a well0founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty of that crime and should be held for trial. $'+& This term was explained in Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan,$'%& as follows1 D&ro a le !ause is a reasona le ground of presumption that a matter is, or ma' e, 2ell founded, su!h a state of fa!ts in the mind of the prose!utor as 2ould lead a person of ordinar' !aution and pruden!e to elieve, or entertain an honest or strong suspi!ion, that a thing is so. %Hords and &hrases, &ro a le 4ause, v. 7>, p. 13) The term does not mean Pa!tual and positive !auseC nor does it import a solute !ertaint'. It is merel' ased on opinion and reasona le elief. Thus a finding of pro a le !ause does not re6uire an in6uir' into 2hether there is suffi!ient eviden!e to pro!ure a !onvi!tion. It is enough that it is elieved that the a!t or omission !omplained of !onstitutes the offense !harged. &re!isel', there is a trial for the re!eption of eviden!e of the prose!ution in support of the !harge.EF>3G #unction of t$e Government rosecutor The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is a function of the government prosecutor, who in this case is the ombudsman. $'-& )s a rule, the Court does not interfere in the ombudsmans exercise of discretion in determining probable cause, unless there are compelling reasons.$''& This policy is based on constitutional, statutory and practical considerations.
$'(&

To insulate the O/! from outside pressure and improper influence, the

Constitution and #) ;,,+$';& 9the Ombudsman )ct of %=3=: grant it a wide latitude
73

of investigatory and prosecutorial powers virtually free from executive, legislative or judicial intervention.$',& 5uch initiative and independence must be inherent in the ombudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of public service.$'3& Otherwise, the courts would be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the O/! with regard to complaints filed before it.$'=& This effect would be the same as the further clogging of already clogged doc ets of courts, should they be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of prosecuting attorneys each time an information is filed or a complaint dismissed.$(+& <onetheless, the Court may exercise its certiorari power when the government prosecutor unreasonably refuses to file an information even if clearly warranted by the evidence. This certiorari power was recognized in Socrates v. Sandiganbayan,$(%& which enumerated the remedies of the offended party or complainant, as follows1 9%: to file an action for mandamus in case of grave abuse of discretionC$(*&

77

9*: to lodge a new complaint against the offenders before the ombudsman and reEuest the conduct of a new examination as reEuired by lawC 9-: to institute administrative charges against the erring prosecutor, a criminal complaint under )rticle *+3 of the #evised "enal Code, or a civil action for damages under )rticle *, of the Civil CodeC 9': to secure the appointment of another prosecutorC or 9(: to institute another criminal action if no double jeopardy is involved.$(-& No rima #acie %vidence

Gnder the present factual milieu, petitioners clearly failed to establish the following elements of a violation of 5ection -9e: of the )nti0?raft and Corrupt "ractices )ct1 D1. The a!!used is a pu li! offi!er or a private person !harged in !onspira!' 2ith formerM D3. That he or she !auses undue in*ur' to an' part', 2hether the government or a private part'M D7. That said pu li! offi!er !ommits the prohi ited a!ts during the performan!e of his or her offi!ial duties or in relation to his or her pu li! positionsM D>. Su!h undue in*ur' is !aused ' giving un2arranted enefits, advantage or preferen!e to su!h partiesM and DL. That the pu li! offi!er has a!ted 2ith manifest partialit', evident ad faith, or gross ine-!usa le negligen!e.E FL>G ) preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of a case. The complainant must adduce sufficient proof of guilt as basis for a criminal charge in court. )s discussed earlier, the present petitioners did not submit any proof in support of their accusations against respondents.
7>

8ence, the Court is bound to respect the deputy ombudsmans professional judgment in finding the case dismissible, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion.$((& ?overnment resources and the time and effort of public officials would be needlessly wasted if the courts allow unmeritorious cases to be filed and given due course. Bt would be better to dismiss a case, li e the present one in which the circumstances blatantly show that the act complained of does not constitute the offense charged. Ot$er Iss)e rayer for Sub&oenas

This "etition includes a prayer for subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum. This prayer, including a reEuest for a clarificatory hearing, was initially made before the O/! in petitioners #eply to respondents Opposition to the /otion for #econsideration of the assailed #esolution.$(;& "etitioners sought the testimonies of the municipal accountant and treasurer, who could purportedly identify the disbursements for 7A *++-.$(,& The deputy ombudsman found this reEuest tantamount to a >fishing expedition,@ which was not appropriate in a preliminary investigation.$(3& Hithout having to go through a preliminary investigation, the O/! has the power to dismiss a complaint outright for being completely without merit. $(=& Bt necessarily follows that conducting a preliminary investigation and determining if any of the modes of discovery should be used are within the ambit of its discretion. The Court cannot compel the testimonies of witnesses and the production of documents if, in the ombudsmans sound judgment, these pieces of evidence are not necessary to establish probable cause.$;+&

7L

H8F#F7O#F, the "etition is hereby D%NI%D, and the assailed #esolution and Order are A##IR'%D. Costs against petitioners. 5O O#2F#F2.

7"

ELMER &. ER6AN!ES, "etitioner,

1.R. No. 1""$LL "resent1

< versus <

2avide, 6r., .!. 9Chairman:, Buisum ing, Vnares<Santiago, 4arpio, and A5!una, 11.

!HE HONORABLE

O%R! O&

APPEALS, HON. NORMA . PERELLO, in her !apa!it' as the &residing :udge of the Regional Trial 4ourt of =untinlupa 4it', .ran!h 3$", and PILAR S. AN!ONIO %formerl' PILAR A. ER6AN!ES#, Respondents. Novem er 1;, 3((L &romulgated8

- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< -

DECISION

YNARESFSAN!IAGO, J.8

7$

This petition under Rule >L of the Rules of 4ourt assails the Novem er 33, 3((> ResolutionF1G of the 4ourt of Appeals in 4A<1.R. S& No. ;$77( outrightl' dismissing petitionerCs petition for !ertiorari for insuffi!ien!' in form and su stan!eM and the :anuar' 17, 3((L ResolutionF3G den'ing the motion for re!onsideration.

On +e!em er ", 1##L, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of marriage and !ustod' of minor !hildren efore the Regional Trial 4ourt of =untinlupa 4it', .ran!h 3$", do!/eted as 4ivil 4ase No. #L<1#>.F7G

On +e!em er 17, 1##", the trial !ourt resolved to grant the annulment of the marriage ased on private respondentCs ps'!hologi!al in!apa!it', a2ard to petitioner the !ustod' of the minor !hildren, and order the li6uidation of the !on*ugal properties. F>G

&rivate respondent filed a =otion for Re!onsiderationANe2 Trial and to Admit Ans2er 2hi!h the trial !ourt granted in an order dated ,e ruar' 13, 1##$. In addition, private respondent 2as a2arded visitation rights over the minor !hildren. FLG

&etitioner moved to re!onsider the ,e ruar' 13, 1##$ Order 2hi!h 2as granted

' the trial !ourt in the Order of O!to er 1(, 1##$. The trial !ourt set aside the ,e ruar' 13, 1##$ Order and affirmed the +e!em er 17, 1##" Resolution granting the annulment of the marriage and dire!ted the parties to su mit an inventor' of their !on*ugal assets. F"G

Thereafter, private respondent su mitted an inventor' of !on*ugal assets 2hi!h in!luded their A'ala Ala ang Jillage house and lot. &etitioner manifested that the !on*ugal a ode e ad*udi!ated in his favor !onsidering that he 2as a2arded the !ustod' of the !hildren 2hile private respondent 2as ad*udged to e the part' in ad faith. F$G

On August >, 1###, the trial !ourt ordered that the !on*ugal properties 2hi!h in!lude the !on*ugal a ode, !ertifi!ate of sto!/ and motor vehi!le, should e sold and the pro!eeds thereof e divided e6uall' et2een the parties.F;G
7;

On O!to er 3(, 1###, respondent filed a motion for e-e!ution of the August >, 1### resolution,F#G 2hile on Novem er 1;, 1###, petitioner pra'ed for its re!onsideration. On =ar!h 1L, 3(((, the trial !ourt de!lared that the August >, 1### resolution has e!ome final. A 2rit of e-e!ution 2as a!!ordingl' issued on =ar!h 1$, 3(((.F1(G

&etitioner thus filed a petition for !ertiorari efore the 4ourt of Appeals see/ing to annul the August >, 1### Resolution and the =ar!h 1$, 3((( Hrit of E-e!ution.F11G

The 4ourt of Appeals dismissed the petition and held that the August >, 1### Resolution of the trial !ourt had long e!ome final and e-e!utor' for failure of petitioner to file a timel' motion for re!onsideration or appeal. It also denied petitionerCs motion for re!onsideration. F13G

&etitioner then elevated the !ase to the Supreme 4ourt, 2hi!h 2as do!/eted as 1.R. No. 1>>;1(. @o2ever, in a Resolution dated :une #, 3((7, the Third +ivision of the Supreme 4ourt denied the petition for la!/ of merit.F17G

On Septem er 33, 3((7, petitioner filed a motion for the forfeiture of the share of the private respondent in the net profits of the !on*ugal properties in favor of the !ommon !hildren and to ad*udi!ate the A'ala Ala ang residen!e to him pursuant to Arti!les >(, >7 %3), L( and 13# %#) of the ,amil' 4ode,F1>G 2hi!h the trial !ourt denied in an Order dated August 3, 3((>.F1LG It held that the order dated August >, 1### dire!ting the e6ual division of the !on*ugal properties !annot e superseded inasmu!h as the same had alread' e!ome final, affirmed ' the 4ourt of Appeals, and the Supreme 4ourt, 2ithout violating the fundamental rules of pro!edure. F1"G

Thereafter, petitioner filed a =anifestation and =otion !larif'ing that 2hat he filed on Septem er 33, 3((7 2as a motion to forfeit the share of the private respondent in the net profits of the !on*ugal properties and not a
7#

motion to amend an order, and pra'ing that the same motion e resolved ' the trial !ourt.F1$G

On August 3$, 3((>, the trial !ourt resolved petitionerCs manifestation and motion as follo2s8

This is a =ANI,ESTATION AN+ =OTION, 2hi!h is unopposed.

Evaluating the same, the 4ourt did not find merit on the motion, !onsidering that the +E4ISION ' this 4ourt has long e!ame final and e-e!utor', and this 4ourt has lost *urisdi!tion over the !ase. If it is the intention of the movant to forfeit the de!lared share of the &laintiff in the !on*ugal assets, he should file a ne2 !omplaint for that purpose.

To grant the re6uested forfeiture thru this motion 2ould in effe!t reopen the !ase and the +E4ISION, 2hi!h has long e!ame final and e-e!utor'.

Therefore, the motion is denied.

It is SO OR+ERE+.F1;G

Instead of filing a motion for re!onsideration, petitioner filed a petition for !ertiorari 2ith the 4ourt of Appeals 2hi!h rendered the assailed Novem er 33, 3((> Resolution, to 2it8

No motion for re!onsideration to the assailed August 3$, 3((> Order 2as filed ' petitioner efore resorting to this petition. ,urthermore, no e-planation had een alleged to sho2 that the assailed August 3$, 3((> Order is a final order as opposed to a mere interlo!utor' order. There is no allegation and *ustifi!ation on 2h' the filing of a motion for re!onsideration 2as dispensed 2ith.

>(

H@ERE,ORE, premises !onsidered, eing insuffi!ient in form and su stan!e, this petition is here ' +IS=ISSE+ outright.

SO OR+ERE+.F1#G

&etitionerCs motion for re!onsideration 2as denied, hen!e, this petition for revie2.

&etitioner !ontends that filing a motion for re!onsideration efore re!ourse to the spe!ial !ivil a!tion of !ertiorari 2ould e futile e!ause the trial !ourt had alread' ordered the e-e!ution of the *udgment, !iting the !ase of &uevarra v. Court of #ppeals.F3(G @e !laims that the trial !ourt 2as ampl' given opportunit' to !orre!t itself 2hen he filed the =anifestation and =otion !larif'ing the August 3, 3((> Order.

The petition la!/s merit.

Se!tion 1, Rule "L of the Rules of 4ourt provides8

SE4TION 1. Petition for certiorari. Q Hhen an' tri unal, oard or offi!er e-er!ising *udi!ial or 6uasi<*udi!ial fun!tions has a!ted 2ithout or in e-!ess of its or his *urisdi!tion, or 2ith grave a use of dis!retion amounting to la!/ or e-!ess of *urisdi!tion, and -.ere 3/ (o '55e'+, (or '(0 5+'3(, /5ee)0, '() ')eH,'-e reme)0 3( -.e or)3('r0 4o,r/e o1 +'B , a person aggrieved there ' ma' file a verified petition in the proper !ourt, alleging the fa!ts 2ith !ertaint' and pra'ing that *udgment e rendered annulling or modif'ing the pro!eedings of su!h tri unal, oard or offi!er, and granting su!h in!idental reliefs as la2 and *usti!e ma' re6uire.

The petition shall e a!!ompanied ' a !ertified true !op' of the *udgment, order or resolution su *e!t thereof, !opies of all pleadings and do!uments relevant and pertinent thereto, and a s2orn !ertifi!ation of non<forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Se!tion 7, Rule >". %Emphasis supplied) >1

As held in +lores v. (angguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga , the I5+'3(D and I')eH,'-e reme)0D referred to in the foregoing Rule is a mo-3o( 1or re4o(/3)er'-3o( of the assailed Order or Resolution, the filing of 2hi!h is an indispensa le !ondition to the filing of a spe!ial !ivil a!tion for !ertiorari,F33G su *e!t to !ertain e-!eptions, to 2it8
F31G

%a)

2here the order is a patent nullit', as 2here the !ourt a quo has no *urisdi!tionM

% )

2here the 6uestions raised in the !ertiorari pro!eedings have een dul' raised and passed upon ' the lo2er !ourt, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lo2er !ourtM

%!)

2here there is an urgent ne!essit' for the resolution of the 6uestion and an' further dela' 2ould pre*udi!e the interests of the 1overnment or of the petitioner or the su *e!t matter of the a!tion is perisha leM

%d)

2here, under the !ir!umstan!es, a motion for re!onsideration 2ould e uselessM

%e)

2here petitioner 2as deprived of due pro!ess and there is e-treme urgen!' for reliefM

%f)

2here, in a !riminal !ase, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of su!h relief ' the trial !ourt is impro a leM

%g)

2here the pro!eedings in the lo2er !ourt are a nullit' for la!/ of due pro!essM

%h)

2here the pro!eedings 2as ex parte or in 2hi!h the petitioner had no opportunit' to o *e!tM and >3

%i)

2here the issue raised is one purel' of la2 or pu li! interest is involved.
F37G

An e-amination of the re!ords, spe!ifi!all' the petition for !ertiorari filed 2ith the 4ourt of Appeals, reveals that petitioner not onl' failed to e-plain his failure to file a motion for re!onsideration of the August 3$, 3((> Order of the trial !ourtM he also failed to sho2 suffi!ient *ustifi!ation for dispensing 2ith the re6uirement. Neither did he sho2 that the !ase falls under an' of the a ove e-!eptions. It 2as onl' in the motion for re!onsideration of the Novem er 33, 3((> Resolution of the 4ourt of Appeals and in the instant petition that he e-plained 2h' he dispensed 2ith the filing of prior motion for re!onsideration.

It must e emphasi5ed that a 2rit of !ertiorari is a prerogative 2rit, never demanda le as a matter of right, never issued e-!ept in the e-er!ise of *udi!ial dis!retion. @en!e, he 2ho see/s a 2rit of !ertiorari must appl' for it onl' in the manner and stri!tl' in a!!ordan!e 2ith the provisions of the la2 and the Rules.F3>G &etitioner ma' not arrogate to himself the determination of 2hether a motion for re!onsideration is ne!essar' or not. To dispense 2ith the re6uirement of filing a motion for re!onsideration, petitioner must sho2 a !on!rete, !ompelling, and valid reason for doing so, F3LG 2hi!h petitioner failed to do. Thus, the 4ourt of Appeals !orre!tl' dismissed the petition.

=oreover, petitionerCs relian!e in the !ase of &uevarra v. Court of #ppealsF3"G to *ustif' the failure to file a motion for re!onsideration is mispla!ed. Although 2e held in &uevarra that a motion for re!onsideration ma' e dispensed 2ith in !ases of urgen!' li/e 2hen the trial !ourt had ordered the e-e!ution of the *udgment, this !ir!umstan!e must e !learl' sho2n ' the petitioner as a !on!rete, !ompelling and valid reason, and not *ust leave it for the !ourts to as!ertain.

Even assuming that the petition for !ertiorari ma' e given due !ourse ' the 4ourt of Appeals despite failure to file a prior motion for
>7

re!onsideration, still it is dismissi le !onsidering the de!ision of the trial !ourt has long e!ome final and e-e!utor'. As !orre!tl' ruled ' the trial !ourt, the manifestation and motion to forfeit the share of the private respondent filed ' the petitioner has the ultimate effe!t of modif'ing the de!ision in regard to the li6uidation of the !on*ugal properties.

Nothing is more settled in la2 than that 2hen a final *udgment is e-e!utor', it there ' e!omes immuta le and unaltera le. The *udgment ma' no longer e modified in an' respe!t, even if the modifi!ation is meant to !orre!t 2hat is per!eived to e an erroneous !on!lusion of fa!t or la2, and regardless of 2hether the modifi!ation is attempted to e made ' the !ourt rendering it or ' the highest 4ourt of the land. The do!trine is founded on !onsiderations of pu li! poli!' and sound pra!ti!e that, at the ris/ of o!!asional errors, *udgments must e!ome final at some definite point in time. The onl' re!ogni5ed e-!eptions are the !orre!tions of !leri!al errors or the ma/ing of the so<!alled nunc pro tunc entries, in 2hi!h !ase no pre*udi!e to an' part', and, of !ourse, 2here the *udgment is void, F3$G none of 2hi!h is present in this !ase.

*HERE&ORE, the petition is $ENIE$. The Novem er 33, 3((> and :anuar' 17, 3((L Resolutions of the 4ourt of Appeals in 4A<1.R. S& No. ;$77(, are A&&IRME$.

SO OR$ERE$.

>>

9EIRS O/ SPOUSES TEO/ILO -. RETERTA and ELISA RETERTA, na%e'7 EDUARDO -. RETERTA, CONSUELO -. RETERTA, and AVELINA -. RETERTA, "etitioners, 0 versus 0

G.R. No. 15;;<1 "resent1 CO#O<), .!., hairperson, .FO<)#2O02F C)5T#O, !F#5)/B<, 2F. C)5TB..O, and 4B..)#)/), 6#., !!. "romulgated1

SPOUSES LOREN:O -ORES )ugust %,, *+%% and VIRGINIA LOPE:, #espondents. "#########################################################################################" DECISION 5ERSA-IN, J. The original and exclusive jurisdiction over a complaint for Euieting of title and reconveyance involving friar land belongs to either the #egional Trial Court 9#TC: or the /unicipal Trial Court 9/TC:. 8ence, the dismissal of such a complaint on the ground of lac of jurisdiction due to the land in litis being friar land under the exclusive jurisdiction of the .and /anagement !ureau 9./!:amounts to manifest grave abuse of discretion that can be corrected through certiorari. The petitioners, whose complaint for Euieting of title and reconveyance the #TC had dismissed, had challenged the dismissal by petition for certiorari, but the Court of )ppeals 9C): dismissed their petition on the ground that certiorari was not a substitute for an appeal, the proper recourse against the dismissal. They now appeal that ruling of the C) promulgated on )pril *(, *++-.$%& Ante.edents
>L

On /ay *, *+++, the petitioners commenced an action for Euieting of title and reconveyance in the #TC in Trece /artires City 9Civil Case <o. T/0=3-:, $*& averring that they were the true and real owners of the parcel of land 9the land: situated in Trez Cruzes, Tanza, Cavite, containing an area of ',,,+3 sEuare meters, having inherited the land from their father who had died on 6uly %%, %=3-C that their late father had been the grantee of the land by virtue of his occupation and cultivationC that their late father and his predecessors in interest had been in open, exclusive, notorious, and continuous possession of the land for more than -+ yearsC that they had discovered in %=== an affidavit dated /arch %, %=;; that their father had purportedly executed whereby he had waived his rights, interests, and participation in the landC that by virtue of the affidavit, 5ales Certificate <o. 40,;= had been issued in favor of respondent .orenzo /ores by the then 2epartment of )griculture and <atural #esourcesC and that Transfer Certificate of Title <o. T0 ;'+,% had later issued to the respondents. On )ugust %, *+++, the respondents, as defendants, filed a motion to dismiss, insisting that the #TC had no jurisdiction to ta e cognizance of Civil Case <o. T/0=3- due to the land being friar land, and that the petitioners had no legal personality to commence Civil Case <o. T/0=3-. On October *=, *++%, the #TC granted the motion to dismiss, holding1$-&
Considering that plaintiffs in this case sought the review of the propriety of the grant of lot *=-3 of the 5ta. Cruz de /alabon 7riar .ands Fstate by the .ands /anagement !ureau of the defendant .orenzo /ores through the use of the forged )ffidavit and 5ales Certificate <o. 40,;= which eventually led to the issuance of T.C.T. <o. T0;'+,% to defendant .orenzo /ores and wife 4irginia /ores, and considering further that the land subject of this case is a friar land and not land of the public domain, conseEuently )ct <o. %%*+ is the law prevailing on the matter which givesto the 2irector of .ands the exclusive administration and disposition of 7riar .ands. /ore so, the determination whether or not fraud had been committed in the procurement of the sales certificate rests to the exclusive power of the 2irector of .ands. 8ence this Court is of the opinion that it has no jurisdiction over the nature of this action. On the second ground relied upon by the defendants in their /otion To 2ismiss, suffice it to state that the Court deemed not to discuss the same. B< 4BFH O7 T8F 7O#F?OB<?, let this instant case be dismissed as it is hereby dismissed. 5O O#2F#F2.

>"

The petitioners then timely filed a motion for reconsideration, but the #TC denied their motion for reconsideration on 7ebruary *%, *++*.$'& On /ay %(, *++*, therefore, the petitioners assailed the dismissal via petition for certiorari, but the C) dismissed the petition on )pril *(, *++-, holding1 $(&
Thus, the basic reEuisite for the special civil action of certiorari to lie is that there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adeEuate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Bn the case at bench, when the court rendered the assailed decision, the remedy of the petitioners was to have appealed the same to this Court. !ut petitioners did not. Bnstead they filed the present special civil action for certiorari on /ay %(, *++* after the decision of the court a $uohas become final. The Order dismissing the case was issued by the court a $uo on *= October *++%, which Order was received by the petitioners on <ovember %;, *++%. "etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration dated <ovember *;, *++% but the same was denied by the court a $uo on *% 7ebruary *++*. The Order denying the motion for reconsideration was received by the petitioners on *+ /arch *++*. "etitioners filed this petition for certiorari on /ay %(, *++*. Certiorari, however cannot be used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. Bn %ernardo vs. the following to say1 ourt of &ppeals, *,( 5C#) '*-, the 5upreme Court had

>He have time and again reminded members of the bench and bar that a special civil action for certiorari under #ule ;( lies only when >there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adeEuate remedy in the ordinary course of law.@ ertiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for lost appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.@ H8F#F7O#F, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby 2B5/B55F2. 5O O#2F#F2.

On 5eptember =, *++-, the C) denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration.$;&

>$

8ence, this appeal. Iss)es The petitioners submit that1

B. BT B5 #F4F#5B!.F F##O# O7 T8F 8O<O#)!.F COG#T O7 )""F).5 TO 2B5#F?)#2 T8F "#O4B5BO<5 O7 5FCTBO< %, #G.F '%, 5FCO<2 ")#)?#)"8, 5G!")#)?#)"8 9a:, )<2 5FCTBO< =, #G.F -,, %==, #G.F5 O7 COG#TC BB. BT B5 #F4F#5B!.F F##O# 7O# T8F 8O<O#)!.F COG#T O7 )""F).5 TO )"".A T8F #G.B<? B< T8F C)5F O7 #O5FTF vs. COG#T O7 )""F).5, --= 5C#) %=-, %==, <OTHBT85T)<2B<? T8F 7)CT T8)T T8F %==, #G.F5 O7 CB4B. "#OCF2G#F ).#F)2A TOOI F77FCT O< 6G.A %, %==,.

BBB. BT B5 #F4F#5B!.F F##O# 7O# T8F 8O<O#)!.F COG#T O7 )""F).5 B< <OT 7B<2B<? T8)T T8F T#B). 6G2?F ?#)4F.A )!G5F2 BT5 2B5C#FTBO< H8F< BT 2B5/B55F2 T8F CO/".)B<T #G.B<? T8)T BT 8)5 <O 6G#B52BCTBO< O4F# T8F <)TG#F O7 T8F )CTBO<, )<2 B< <OT 7B<2B<? T8)T T8F T#B). 6G2?F 8)5 6G#B52BCTBO< O4F# T8F 5)/F.$,&

!riefly stated, the issue is whether or not the C) erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari. R)'!n" The appeal is meritorious. 1. Pro,r!et7 o6 certiorari as re%ed7 a"a!nst d!s%!ssa' o6 t$e a.t!on The C) seems to be correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari, considering that the order granting the respondentsmotion to dismiss was a final,
>;

as distinguished from an interlocutory, order against which the proper remedy was an appeal in due course. ertiorari, as an extraordinary remedy, is not substitute for appeal due to its being availed of only when there is no appeal, or plain, speedy and adeEuate remedy in the ordinary course of law.$3& <onetheless, the petitioners posit that a special civil action for certiorari was their proper remedy to assail the order of dismissal in light of certain rules of procedure, specifically pointing out that the second paragraph of 5ection % of #ule -, of the #ules of Court 9>&n order denying a motion for ne' trial or reconsideration is not appealable, the remedy being an appeal from the (udgment or final order@: prohibited an appeal of a denial of the motion for reconsideration, and that the second paragraph of 5ection % of #ule '% of the #ules of Court 9 >)o appeal may be ta*en from+ """ &n order denying a motion for ne' trial or reconsideration@: expressly declared that an order denying a motion for reconsideration was not appealable. They remind that the third paragraph of 5ection % of #ule '% expressly provided that in the instances >where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under #ule ;(.@ The petitioners position has no basis. 7or one, the order that the petitioners really wanted to obtain relief from was the order granting the respondents motion to dismiss, not the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The fact that the order granting the motion to dismiss was a final order for thereby completely disposing of the case, leaving nothing more for the trial court to do in the action, truly called for an appeal, instead of certiorari, as the correct remedy. The fundamental distinction between a final judgment or order, on one hand, and an interlocutory order, on the other hand, has been outlined in ,nvestments, ,nc. v. ourt of &ppeals,$=& viz1
The concept of Jfinal judgment, as distinguished from one which has Jbecome final 9or Jexecutory as of right $final and executory&:, is definite and settled. A =6!na'8 >)d"%ent or order !s one t$at 6!na''7 d!s,oses o6 a .ase, 'ea&!n" not$!n" %ore to #e done #7 t$e Co)rt !n res,e.t t$ereto, e.g., an ad>)d!.at!on on t$e %er!ts ?$!.$, on t$e #as!s o6 t$e e&!den.e ,resented at t$e tr!a' de.'ares .ate"or!.a''7 ?$at t$e r!"$ts and o#'!"at!ons o6 t$e ,art!es are and ?$!.$ ,art7 !s !n t$e r!"$t@ or a >)d"%ent or order t$at d!s%!sses an a.t!on on t$e "ro)nd, 6or !nstan.e, o6 res (udicata or ,res.r!,t!on. On.e rendered, t$e tasA o6 t$e Co)rt !s ended, as 6ar as de.!d!n" t$e .ontro&ers7 or deter%!n!n" t$e r!"$ts and '!a#!'!t!es o6 t$e '!t!"ants !s .on.erned. Not$!n"
>#

%ore re%a!ns to #e done #7 t$e Co)rt except to await the parties next move 9which among others, may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or the ta ing of an appeal: and ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes Jfinal or, to use the established and more distinctive term, Jfinal and executory. xxx Conversely, an order t$at does not 6!na''7 d!s,ose o6 t$e .ase, and does not end t$e Co)rt8s tasA o6 ad>)d!.at!n" t$e ,art!es8 .ontent!ons and deter%!n!n" t$e!r r!"$ts and '!a#!'!t!es as re"ards ea.$ ot$er, #)t o#&!o)s'7 !nd!.ates t$at ot$er t$!n"s re%a!n to #e done #7 t$e Co)rt, !s =!nter'o.)tor7,8 e.g., an order denying a motion to dismiss under #ule %; of the #ules, or granting a motion for extension of time to file a pleading, or authorizing amendment thereof, or granting or denying applications for postponement, or production or inspection of documents or things, etc. Un'!Ae a =6!na'8 >)d"%ent or order, ?$!.$ !s a,,ea'a#'e, as a#o&e ,o!nted o)t, an =!nter'o.)tor78 order %a7 not #e B)est!oned on a,,ea' e4.e,t on'7 as ,art o6 an a,,ea' t$at %a7 e&ent)a''7 #e taAen 6ro% t$e 6!na' >)d"%ent rendered !n t$e .ase.

/oreover, even 5ection = of #ule -, of the #ules of Court, cited by the petitioners, indicates that the proper remedy against the denial of the petitioners motion for reconsideration was an appeal from the final order dismissing the action upon the respondents motion to dismiss. The said rule explicitly states thusly1
5ection =. Remedy against order denying a motion for ne' trial or reconsideration. K )n order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration is not appealable, t$e re%ed7 #e!n" an a,,ea' 6ro% t$e >)d"%ent or 6!na' order.

The restriction against an appeal of a denial of a motion for reconsideration independently of a judgment or final order is logical and reasonable. ) motion for reconsideration is not putting forward a new issue, or presenting new evidence, or changing the theory of the case, but is only see ing a reconsideration of the judgment or final order based on the same issues, contentions, and evidence either because1 9a: the damages awarded are excessiveC or 9b: the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final orderC or 9 c: the decision or final order is contrary to law.$%+& !y denying a motion for reconsideration, or by granting it only partially, therefore, a trial court finds no reason either to reverse or to modify its judgment or final order, and leaves the judgment or final order to stand. The remedy from the denial is to assail the denial in the course of an appeal of the judgment or final order itself.

L(

The enumeration of the orders that were not appealable made in the %==, version of 5ection %, #ule '% of the Rules of ourtK the version in force at the time when the C) rendered its assailed decision on /ay %(, *++* K included an order denying a motion for ne' trial or motion for reconsideration, to wit1
5ection %. 5ub(ect of appeal. L )n appeal may be ta en from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these #ules to be appealable. <o appeal may be ta en from1 CaD An order den7!n" a %ot!on 6or ne? tr!a' or re.ons!derat!on@ 9b: )n order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion see ing relief from judgmentC 9c: )n interlocutory orderC 9d: )n order disallowing or dismissing an appealC 9e: )n order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mista e or duress, or any other ground vitiating consentC 9f: )n order of executionC 9g: ) judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross0claims and third0party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefromC and 9h: )n order dismissing an action without prejudice. Bn all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under #ule ;(. 9n:

Bt is true that )dministrative /atter <o. +,0,0%*05C, effective 2ecember *,, *++,, has since amended 5ection %, #ule '%, supra, by deleting an order denying a motion for ne' trial or motion for reconsideration from the enumeration of non0 appealable orders, and that such a revision of a procedural rule may be retroactively applied. 8owever, to reverse the C) on that basis would not be right and proper, simply because the C) correctly applied the rule of procedure in force at the time when it issued its assailed final order.
L1

2. RTC or -TC $as >)r!sd!.t!on o&er t$e a.t!on The settled rule precluding certiorari as a remedy against the final order when appeal is available notwithstanding, the Court rules that the C) should have given due course to and granted the petition for certiorari for two exceptional reasons, namely1 9a: the broader interest of justice demanded that certiorari be given due course to avoid the undeserved grossly unjust result that would befall the petitioners otherwiseC and 9b- the order of the #TC granting the motion to dismiss on ground of lac of jurisdiction over the subject matter evidently constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. On occasion, the Court has considered certiorari as the proper remedy despite the availability of appeal, or other remedy in the ordinary course of law. Bn Francisco .otors orporation v. ourt of &ppeals,$%%& the Court has declared that the reEuirement that there must be no appeal, or any plain speedy and adeEuate remedy in the ordinary course of law admits of exceptions, such as1 9 a: when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a partyC 9 b: where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgmentC 9c: where there may be danger of a failure of justiceC 9d: where an appeal would be slow, inadeEuate, and insufficientC 9e: where the issue raised is one purely of lawC 9 f: where public interest is involvedC and 9g: in case of urgency. 5pecifically, the Court has held that the availability of appeal as a remedy does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent or preclude a party from ma ing use of certiorari if appeal is not an adeEuate remedy, or an eEually beneficial, or speedy remedy. Bt is inadeEuacy, not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ, that must usually determine the propriety of certiorari.$%*& ) remedy is plain, speedy and adeEuate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment, order, or resolution of the lower court or agency.$%-& Bt is understood, then, that a litigant need not mar time by resorting to the less speedy remedy of appeal in order to have an order annulled and set aside for being patently void for failure of the trial court to comply with the Rules of ourt.$%'& <or should the petitioner be denied the recourse despite certiorari not being available as a proper remedy against an assailed order, because it is better on balance to loo beyond procedural reEuirements and to overcome the ordinary disinclination to exercise supervisory powers in order that a void order of a lower court may be controlled to ma e it conformable to law and justice. $%(&4erily, the
L3

instances in which certiorari will issue cannot be defined, because to do so is to destroy the comprehensiveness and usefulness of the extraordinary writ. The wide breadth and range of the discretion of the court are such that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus, and that in the exercise of superintending control over inferior courts, a superior court is to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular case >as the ends of justice may reEuire.@ Thus, the writ will be granted 'henever necessary to prevent a substantial 'rong or to do substantial (ustice.$%;& The petitioners complaint K self0styled as being for the > $uieting of title and reconveyance, declaration of nullity of affidavit / Sales ertificate, reconveyance and damages@ K would challenge the efficacy of the respondents certificate of title under thetheory that there had been no valid transfer or assignment from the petitioners predecessor in interest to the respondents of the rights or interests in the land due to the affidavit assigning such rights and interests being a forgery and procured by fraud. The petitioners cause of action for reconveyance has support in jurisprudence bearing upon the manner by which to establish a right in a piece of friar land. )ccording to &rayata v. !oya,$%,& in order that a transfer of the rights of a holder of a certificate of sale of friar lands may be legally effective, it is necessary that a formal certificate of transfer be drawn up and submitted to the Chief of the !ureau of "ublic .ands for his approval and registration. The law authorizes no other way of transferring the rights of a holder of a certificate of sale of friar lands. Bn other words, where a person considered as a grantee of a piece of friar land transfers his rights thereon, such transfer must conform to certain reEuirements of the law. Gnder Director of 0ands v. Rizal,$%3& the purchaser in the sale of friar lands under )ct <o. %%*+ is already treated by law as the actual owner of the lot purchased even before the payment of the full payment price and before the e"ecution of the final deed of conveyance, subject to the obligation to pay in full the purchase price, the role or position of the ?overnment becoming that of a mere lien holder or mortgagee.$%=& Thus, pursuant to 5ection %; of )ct <o. %%*+, $*+& had grantee Teofilo #eterta perfected his title, the petitioners as his heirs would have succeeded him and ta en title from him upon his death. !y law, therefore, should the execution of the deed in favor of the respondents be held invalid, the interests of Teofilo #eterta should descend to the petitioners and the deed should issue in their favor. )dding significance to the petitioners claim was their allegation in the complaint that they were in possession of the land. /oreover, as alleged in the
L7

petitioners opposition to the motion to dismiss of the respondents, Teofilo #eterta had partially paid the price of the land.$*%& ?iven the foregoing, the petitioners complaint made out a good case for reconveyance or reversion, and its allegations, if duly established, might well warrant the reconveyance of the land from the respondents to the petitioners. Bt did not matter that the respondents already held a certificate of title in their names. Bn essence, an action for reconveyance respects the incontrovertibility of the decree of registration but see s the transfer of the property to its rightful and legal owner on the ground of its having been fraudulently or mista enly registered in another persons name. There is no special ground for an action for reconveyance, for it is enough that the aggrieved party asserts a legal claim in the property superior to the claim of the registered owner, and that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.$**& On this score, it is also worthy to stress that the titleof a piece of a friar land obtained by a grantee from the ?overnment without conforming with the reEuirements set by the law may be assailed and nullified. Has the petitioners action for reconveyance within the jurisdiction of the regular courtM He answer the Euery in the affirmative. The law governing jurisdiction is 5ection %= 9*: of %atas Pambansa %lg. %*=, as amended by #epublic )ct <o. ,;=%,$*'&which provides1
$*-&

5ection %=. !urisdiction in ivil ases. L Re"!ona' Tr!a' Co)rts shall exercise e4.')s!&e or!"!na' >)r!sd!.t!on1 xxx xxx 9*: Bn all .!&!' a.t!ons ?$!.$ !n&o'&e t$e t!t'e to, or ,ossess!on o6, rea' ,ro,ert7, or an7 !nterest t$ere!n, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos 9"*+,+++.++: or for civil actions in /etro /anila, where such value exceeds 7ifty thousand pesos 9"(+,+++.++: except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the /etropolitan Trial Courts, /unicipal Trial Courts, and /unicipal Circuit Trial CourtsC xxx

Conformably with the provision, because an action for reconveyance or to remove a cloud on ones title involves the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, exclusive original jurisdiction over such action pertained to the #TC, unless the assessed value of the property did not exceed "*+,+++.++ 9in
L>

which instance the /TC having territorial jurisdiction would have exclusive original jurisdiction:. 2eterminative of which regular court had jurisdiction would be the allegations of the complaint 9on the assessed value of the property: and the principal relief thereby sought.$*(& The respondents reliance on 5ection %* and 5ection %3 of )ct <o. %%*+ to sustain their position that the !ureau of "ublic .ands 9now ./!: instead had exclusive jurisdiction was without basis. The provisions read1
5ection %*. xxx the Chief of the !ureau of "ublic .ands shall give the said settler and occupant a certificate which shall set forth in detail that the ?overnment has agreed to sell to such settler and occupant the amount of land so held by him, at the price so fixed, payable as provided in this )ct at the office of the Chief of !ureau of "ublic .ands xxx and that upon the payment of the final installment together with all accrued interest the ?overnment will convey to such settler and occupant the said land so held by him by proper instrument of conveyance, which shall be issued and become effective in the manner provided in section one hundred and twenty0two of the .and #egistration )ct xxx. 5ection %3. <o lease or sale made by Chief of the !ureau of "ublic .ands under the provisions of this )ct shall be valid until approved by the 5ecretary of the Bnterior.

)s the provisions indicate, the authority of ./! under )ct <o. %%*+, being limited to the administration and disposition of friar lands, did not include the petitioners action for reconveyance. ./! ceases to have jurisdiction once the friar land is disposed of in favor of a private person and title duly issues in the latters name. !y ignoring the petitioners showing of its plain error indismissing Civil Case <o. T/0=3-, and by disregarding the allegations of the complaint, the #TC acted whimsically and capriciously. ?iven all the foregoing, the #TC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac of jurisdiction. The term grave abuse of discretion connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is eEuivalent to excess, or lac of jurisdiction.$*;& The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.$*,& The dismissal of Civil Case <o. T/0=3-, unless undone, would leave the petitioners bereft of any remedy to protect their substantial rights or interests in the
LL

land. )s such, they would suffer grave injustice and irreparable damage. Bn that situation, the #TCs dismissal should be annulled through certiorari, for the tas of the remedy was to do justice to the unjustly aggrieved.$*3& E9ERE/ORE, the Court grants the petition for certiorariC sets aside the decision the Court of )ppeals promulgated on )pril *(, *++-C and directs !ranch *- of the #egional Trial Court in Trece /artires City to resume the proceedings in Civil Case <o. T/0=3- with dispatch. The respondents shall pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED.

L"

7G.R. No. 122683. $e4ember 12, 1999;

P%RE &OO$S ORPORA!ON, petitioner, vs. NA!IONAL LABOR RELA!IONS OMMISSION, RO$OL&O OR$O6A, 6IOLE!A R%SIS, ET AL., respondents.
*

$E
$A6I$E, 2R., J.?

ISION

The !ru- of this petition for certiorari is the issue of 2hether emplo'ees hired for a definite period and 2hose servi!es are ne!essar' and desira le in the usual usiness or trade of the emplo'er are regular emplo'ees. The private respondents %num ering #(") 2ere hired ' petitioner &ure ,oods 4orporation to 2or/ for a fi-ed period of five months at its tuna !anner' plant in Tam ler, 1eneral Santos 4it'. After the e-piration of their respe!tive !ontra!ts of emplo'ment in :une and :ul' 1##1, their servi!es 2ere terminated. The' forth2ith e-e!uted a DRelease and Buit!laimE stating that the' had no !laim 2hatsoever against the petitioner. On 3# :ul' 1##1, the private respondents filed efore the National La or Relations 4ommission %NLR4) Su <Regional Ar itration .ran!h No. KI, 1eneral Santos 4it', a !omplaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner and its plant manager, =ar!iano Aganon. This !ase 2as do!/eted as RA.<11<(;<L(3;><#1.
F1G

On 37 +e!em er 1##3, La or Ar iter Arturo &. Aponesto handed do2n a de!ision dismissing the !omplaint on the ground that the private respondents 2ere mere !ontra!tual 2or/ers, and not regular emplo'eesM hen!e, the' !ould not avail of the la2 on se!urit' of tenure. The termination of their servi!es ' reason of the e-piration of their !ontra!ts of emplo'ment 2as, therefore, *ustified. @e pointed out that earlier he had dismissed a !ase entitled DLa/as ng Ana/<&a2is< NOH= v. &ure ,oods 4orp.E %4ase No. RA.<11<(3<(((;;<;;) e!ause the !omplainants therein 2ere not regular emplo'ees of &ure ,oods, as their !ontra!ts of emplo'ment 2ere for a fi-ed period of five months. =oreover, in another !ase involving the same !ontra!tual 2or/ers of &ure ,oods %4ase No. R<1#"<ROKI< =E+< UR<LL<;#), then Se!retar' of La or Ru en Torres held, in a Resolution dated 7( April 1##(, that the said !ontra!tual 2or/ers 2ere not regular emplo'ees.
F3G

The La or Ar iter also o served that an order for private respondentsC reinstatement 2ould result in the reemplo'ment of more than 1(,((( former !ontra!tual emplo'ees of the petitioner. .esides, ' e-e!uting a DRelease and Buit!laim,E the private respondents had 2aived and relin6uished 2hatever right the' might have against the petitioner.
L$

The private respondents appealed from the de!ision to the National La or Relations 4ommission %NLR4), ,ifth +ivision, in 4aga'an de Oro 4it', 2hi!h do!/eted the !ase as NLR4 4A No. =<((1737<#7. On 3; O!to er 1##>, the NLR4 affirmed the La or Ar iter?s de!ision. @o2ever, on private respondentsC motion for re!onsideration, the NLR4 rendered another de!ision on 7( :anuar' 1##L va!ating and setting aside its de!ision of 3; O!to er 1##> and holding that the private respondents and their !o<!omplainants 2ere regular emplo'ees. It de!lared that the !ontra!t of emplo'ment for five months 2as a D!landestine s!heme emplo'ed ' Fthe petitionerG to stifle Fprivate respondentsCG right to se!urit' of tenureE and should therefore e stru!/ do2n and disregarded for eing !ontrar' to la2, pu li! poli!', and morals. @en!e, their dismissal on a!!ount of the e-piration of their respe!tive !ontra!ts 2as illegal.
F7G F>G

A!!ordingl', the NLR4 ordered the petitioner to reinstate the private respondents to their former position 2ithout loss of seniorit' rights and other privileges, 2ith full a!/ 2agesM and in !ase their reinstatement 2ould no longer e feasi le, the petitioner should pa' them separation pa' e6uivalent to one<month pa' or one<half<month pa' for ever' 'ear of servi!e, 2hi!hever is higher, 2ith a!/ 2ages and 1(O of the monetar' a2ard as attorne'Cs fees. Its motion for re!onsideration having een denied, the petitioner !ame to this 4ourt !ontending that respondent NLR4 !ommitted grave a use of dis!retion amounting to la!/ of *urisdi!tion in reversing the de!ision of the La or Ar iter.
FLG

The petitioner su mits that the private respondents are no2 estopped from 6uestioning their separation from petitionerCs emplo' in vie2 of their e-press !onformit' 2ith the five<month duration of their emplo'ment !ontra!ts. .esides, the' fell 2ithin the e-!eption provided in Arti!le 3;( of the La or 4ode 2hi!h reads8 DFEG-!ept 2here the emplo'ment has een fi-ed for a spe!ifi! pro*e!t or underta/ing the !ompletion or termination of 2hi!h has een determined at the time of the engagement of the emplo'ee.E =oreover, the first paragraph of the said arti!le must e read and interpreted in !on*un!tion 2ith the proviso in the se!ond paragraph, 2hi!h reads8 D&rovided that an' emplo'ee 2ho has rendered at least one 'ear of servi!e, 2hether su!h servi!e is !ontinuous or ro/en, shall e !onsidered a regular emplo'ee 2ith respe!t to the a!tivit' in 2hi!h he is emplo'ed....E In the instant !ase, the private respondents 2ere emplo'ed for a period of five months onl'. In an' event, private respondents? pra'er for reinstatement is 2ell 2ithin the purvie2 of the DRelease and Buit!laimE the' had e-e!uted 2herein the' un!onditionall' released the petitioner from an' and all other !laims 2hi!h might have arisen from their past emplo'ment 2ith the petitioner. In its 4omment, the Offi!e of the Soli!itor 1eneral %OS1) advan!es the argument that the private respondents 2ere regular emplo'ees, sin!e the' performed a!tivities ne!essar' and desira le in the usiness or trade of the petitioner. The period of emplo'ment stipulated in the !ontra!ts of emplo'ment 2as null and void for eing !ontrar' to la2 and pu li! poli!', as its purpose 2as to !ir!umvent the la2 on se!urit' of tenure. The e-piration of the !ontra!t did not, therefore, *ustif' the termination of their emplo'ment.
L;

The OS1 further maintains that the ruling of the then Se!retar' of La or and Emplo'ment in LA&<NOH= v. &ure ,oods 4orporation is not inding on this 4ourtM neither is that ruling !ontrolling, as the said !ase involved !ertifi!ation ele!tion and not the issue of the nature of private respondentsC emplo'ment. It also !onsiders private respondentsC 6uit!laim as ineffe!tive to ar the enfor!ement for the full measure of their legal rights. The private respondents, on the other hand, argue that !ontra!ts 2ith a spe!ifi! period of emplo'ment ma' e given legal effe!t provided, ho2ever, that the' are not intended to !ir!umvent the !onstitutional guarantee on se!urit' of tenure. The' su mit that the pra!ti!e of the petitioner in hiring 2or/ers to 2or/ for a fi-ed duration of five months onl' to repla!e them 2ith other 2or/ers of the same emplo'ment duration 2as apparentl' to prevent the regulari5ation of these so<!alled D!asuals,E 2hi!h is a !lear !ir!umvention of the la2 on se!urit' of tenure. He find the petition devoid of merit. Arti!le 3;( of the La or 4ode defines regular and !asual emplo'ment as follo2s8

)#T. *3+. Regular and asual 1mployment.00 The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral argument of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or underta ing the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the wor or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. )n employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraphC "rovided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or bro en, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
Thus, the t2o /inds of regular emplo'ees are %1) those 2ho are engaged to perform a!tivities 2hi!h are ne!essar' or desira le in the usual usiness or trade of the emplo'erM and %3) those !asual emplo'ees 2ho have rendered at least one 'ear of servi!e, 2hether !ontinuous or ro/en, 2ith respe!t to the a!tivit' in 2hi!h the' are emplo'ed.
F"G

In the instant !ase, the private respondentsC a!tivities !onsisted in the re!eiving, s/inning, loining, pa!/ing, and !asing<up of tuna fish 2hi!h 2ere then e-ported ' the petitioner. Indisputa l', the' 2ere performing a!tivities 2hi!h 2ere ne!essar' and desira le in petitionerCs usiness or trade. 4ontrar' to petitioner?s su mission, the private respondents !ould not e regarded as having een hired for a spe!ifi! pro*e!t or underta/ing. The term Dspe!ifi! pro*e!t or underta/ingE under Arti!le 3;( of the La or 4ode !ontemplates an a!tivit' 2hi!h is not
L#

!ommonl' or ha ituall' performed or su!h t'pe of 2or/ 2hi!h is not done on a dail' asis ut onl' for a spe!ifi! duration of time or until !ompletionM the servi!es emplo'ed are then ne!essar' and desira le in the emplo'erCs usual usiness onl' for the period of time it ta/es to !omplete the pro*e!t.
F$G

The fa!t that the petitioner repeatedl' and !ontinuousl' hired 2or/ers to do the same /ind of 2or/ as that performed ' those 2hose !ontra!ts had e-pired negates petitionerCs !ontention that those 2or/ers 2ere hired for a spe!ifi! pro*e!t or underta/ing onl'. No2 on the validit' of private respondents? five<month !ontra!ts of emplo'ment. In the leading !ase of .rent S!hool, In!. v. Namora, 2hi!h 2as reaffirmed in numerous su se6uent !ases, this 4ourt has upheld the legalit' of fi-ed<term emplo'ment. It ruled that the de!isive determinant in term emplo'ment should not e the a!tivities that the emplo'ee is !alled upon to perform ut the da' !ertain agreed upon ' the parties for the !ommen!ement and termination of their emplo'ment relationship. .ut, this 4ourt 2ent on to sa' that 2here from the !ir!umstan!es it is apparent that the periods have een imposed to pre!lude a!6uisition of tenurial se!urit' ' the emplo'ee, the' should e stru!/ do2n or disregarded as !ontrar' to pu li! poli!' and morals.
F;G F#G

Brent also laid do2n the !riteria under 2hi!h term emplo'ment !annot e said to e in !ir!umvention of the la2 on se!urit' of tenure8

%: The fixed period of employment was nowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consentC or *: Bt satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less eEual terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter.
None of these !riteria had een met in the present !ase. As pointed out ' the private respondents8

$B&t could not be supposed that private respondents and all other so0called >casual@ wor ers of $the petitioner& I<OHB<?.A and 4O.G<T)#B.A agreed to the (0 month employment contract. Cannery wor ers are never on eEual terms with their employers. )lmost always, they agree to any terms of an employment contract just to get employed considering that it is difficult to find wor given their ordinary Eualifications. Their freedom to contract is empty and hollow because theirs is the freedom to starve if they refuse to wor as casual or contractual wor ers. Bndeed, to the unemployed, security of tenure has no value. Bt could not then be said that petitioner and private respondents Ndealt with each other on more or less eEual terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter.
$%+&

The petitioner does not den' or re ut private respondents? averments %1) that the main ul/ of its 2or/for!e !onsisted of its so<!alled D!asualE emplo'eesM %3) that as of
"(

:ul' 1##1, D!asualE 2or/ers num ered 1,;7LM and regular emplo'ees, 3"7M %7) that the !ompan' hired D!asualE ever' month for the duration of five months, after 2hi!h their servi!es 2ere terminated and the' 2ere repla!ed ' other D!asualE emplo'ees on the same five<month durationM and %>) that these D!asualE emplo'ees 2ere a!tuall' doing 2or/ that 2ere ne!essar' and desira le in petitionerCs usual usiness. As a matter of fa!t, the petitioner even stated in its position paper su mitted to the La or Ar iter that, a!!ording to its re!ords, the previous emplo'ees of the !ompan' hired on a five<month asis num ered a out 1(,((( as of :ul' 1##(. This !onfirms private respondentsC allegation that it 2as reall' the pra!ti!e of the !ompan' to hire 2or/ers on a uniforml' fi-ed !ontra!t asis and repla!e them upon the e-piration of their !ontra!ts 2ith other 2or/ers on the same emplo'ment duration. This s!heme of the petitioner 2as apparentl' designed to prevent the private respondents and the other D!asualE emplo'ees from attaining the status of a regular emplo'ee. It 2as a !lear !ir!umvention of the emplo'eesC right to se!urit' of tenure and to other enefits li/e minimum 2age, !ost<of<living allo2an!e, si!/ leave, holida' pa', and 17th month pa'. Indeed, the petitioner su!!eeded in evading the appli!ation of la or la2s. Also, it saved itself from the trou le or urden of esta lishing a *ust !ause for terminating emplo'ees ' the simple e-pedient of refusing to rene2 the emplo'ment !ontra!ts.
F11G

The five<month period spe!ified in private respondentsC emplo'ment !ontra!ts having een imposed pre!isel' to !ir!umvent the !onstitutional guarantee on se!urit' of tenure should, therefore, e stru!/ do2n or disregarded as !ontrar' to pu li! poli!' or morals. To uphold the !ontra!tual arrangement et2een the petitioner and the private respondents 2ould, in effe!t, permit the former to avoid hiring permanent or regular emplo'ees ' simpl' hiring them on a temporar' or !asual asis, there ' violating the emplo'eesC se!urit' of tenure in their *o s.
F13G F17G

The e-e!ution ' the private respondents of a DRelease and Buit!laimE did not pre!lude them from 6uestioning the termination of their servi!es. 1enerall', 6uit!laims ' la orers are fro2ned upon as !ontrar' to pu li! poli!' and are held to e ineffe!tive to ar re!over' for the full measure of the 2or/ersC rights. The reason for the rule is that the emplo'er and the emplo'ee do not stand on the same footing.
F1>G F1LG

Nota l', the private respondents lost no time in filing a !omplaint for illegal dismissal. This a!t is hardl' e-pe!ted from emplo'ees 2ho voluntaril' and freel' !onsented to their dismissal.
F1"G

The NLR4 2as, thus, !orre!t in finding that the private respondents 2ere regular emplo'ees and that the' 2ere illegall' dismissed from their *o s. Under Arti!le 3$# of the La or 4ode and the re!ent *urispruden!e, the legal !onse6uen!e of illegal dismissal is reinstatement 2ithout loss of seniorit' rights and other privileges, 2ith full a!/ 2ages !omputed from the time of dismissal up to the time of a!tual reinstatement, 2ithout dedu!ting the earnings derived else2here pending the resolution of the !ase.
F1$G

@o2ever, sin!e reinstatement is no longer possi le e!ause the petitioner?s tuna !anner' plant had, admittedl', een !losed in Novem er 1##>, the proper a2ard is separation pa' e6uivalent to one month pa' or one<half month pa' for ever' 'ear of servi!e, 2hi!hever is higher, to e !omputed from the !ommen!ement of their
F1;G

"1

emplo'ment up to the !losure of the tuna !anner' plant. The amount of a!/ 2ages must e !omputed from the time the private respondents 2ere dismissed until the time petitioner?s !anner' plant !eased operation.
F1#G

*HERE&ORE, for la!/ of merit, the instant petition is +IS=ISSE+ and the !hallenged de!ision of 7( :anuar' 1##L of the National La or Relations 4ommission in NLR4 4A No. =<((1737<#7 is here ' A,,IR=E+ su *e!t to the a ove modifi!ation on the !omputation of the separation pa' and a!/ 2ages . SO OR$ERE$.

"3