G.R. No. 169008 Case Digest

G.R. No. 169008, July 31, 2008

Landbank of the Philippines

vs Raymunda Martinez

Ponente: Nachura

Facts:

The land owned by Martinez was compulsory acquired by DAR for the purpose of CARP, of which the LBP offered P1,955,485.60 as just compensation. Convinced that the amount was just and confiscatory, Martinez rejected it. Thus, PARAD conducted a summary administrative proceedings for the preliminary determination of the just compensation.

PARAD marked some inconsistencies in the figures and factors used by LBP in its computation, so they rendered an amount of P12,179,492.50 as just compensation.

LBP however, filed at the RTC-Romblon that the ruling of the DARAB on the just compensation has become final after the lapse of 15 days. Martinez opposed the motion. Later on, LBP instituted a petition for certiorari against PARAD, assailing that PARAD gravely abuse its discretion when it issued the order for the 12m just compensation despite the pending petition in the RTC.  CA, finding LBP guilty of forum-shopping dismissed the petition, Hence, this petition.

Issue:

(1) whether or not petitioner could file its appeal solely through its legal department; (2) whether or not petitioner committed forum shopping; and (3) whether or not the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) gravely abused his discretion when he issued a writ of execution despite the pendency of LBP’s petition for fixing of just compensation with the Special Agrarian Court (SAC).

Ruling:

The Court went on to rule that the petition for review on certiorari could not be filed without the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) entering its appearance as the principal legal counsel of the bank or without the OGCC giving its conformity to the LBP Legal Department’s filing of the petition. The Court also found petitioner to have forum-shopped when it moved to quash the PARAD resolutions and at the same time petitioned for their annulment via certiorari under Rule 65. Most importantly, the Court ruled that petitioner was not entitled to the issuance of a writ of certiorari by the appellate court because the Office of the PARAD did not gravely abuse its discretion when it undertook to execute the September 4, 2002 decision on land valuation. The said adjudicator’s decision attained finality after the lapse of the 15-day period stated in Rule XIII, Section 11 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Rules of Procedure.

On the supposedly conflicting pronouncements in the cited decisions, the Court reiterates its ruling in this case that the agrarian reform adjudicator’s decision on land valuation attains finality after the lapse of the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules. The petition for the fixing of just compensation should therefore, following the law and settled jurisprudence, be filed with the SAC within the said period. Following settled doctrine, we ruled in this case that the PARAD’s decision had already attained finality because of LBP’s failure to file the petition for the fixing of just compensation within the 15-day period.