Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
*
G.R.No.142628.February6,2007.
_______________
*THIRDDIVISION.
327
VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 327
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
that the RTC had the authority to annul final judgments, such authority
pertained only to final judgments rendered by inferior courts and quasi
judicialbodiesofequalrankingwithsuchinferiorcourts.
328
328 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
petitionforannulmentoftheDARABjudgmentcouldbebroughttotheCA.
As previously noted, Section 9(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 vested in the CA the
exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments, but
only those rendered by the RTCs. It does not expressly give the CA the
power to annul judgments of quasijudicial bodies. Thus, in Elcee Farms,
Inc. v. Semillano, 413 SCRA 669 (2003), the Court affirmed the ruling of
the CA that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for annulment of a
final and executory judgment of the NLRC, citing Section 9 of B.P. Blg.
129, as amended, which only vests in the CA exclusive jurisdiction over
actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts. This was
reiteratedinGalangv.CourtofAppeals,472SCRA259(2005),wherethe
Court ruled that the CA is without jurisdiction to entertain a petition for
annulment of judgment of a final decision of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
329
VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 329
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
SameThecourt,asarule,willnotentertaindirectresorttoitunless
the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and
exceptionalandcompellingcircumstances,suchascasesofnationalinterest
andofseriousimplication,justifytheavailmentoftheextraordinaryremedy
ofwritofcertiorari,prohibition,ormandamuscallingfortheexerciseofits
primaryjurisdiction.It must be stressed at this point that the Court, as a
rule,willnotentertaindirectresorttoitunlesstheredressdesiredcannotbe
obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling
circumstances,suchascasesofnationalinterestandofseriousimplications,
justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari,
prohibition,ormandamuscallingfortheexerciseofitsprimaryjurisdiction.
The Court finds no compelling circumstances in this case to warrant a
relaxationoftheforegoingrule.TheFortichcaseisnotanalogouswiththe
present case such that the Court is not bound to abandon all rules, take
primary jurisdiction, and resolve the merits of petitioners application for a
writofprohibition.
ProceduralRulesandTechnicalitiesActionsItisanavowedpolicyof
the courts that cases should be determined on the merits, after full
opportunitytoallpartiesforventilationoftheircausesanddefenses,rather
than on technicality or some procedural imperfections.The Court notes
thattheCA,indeed,failedtoresolvepetitionersprayerfortheissuanceof
thewritofprohibition,which,significantly,focusesontheallegednullityof
the DARAB Decision dated October 5, 1995. On this score, the CA found
thattheapplicationfortheissuanceofthewritofprohibitionwasactuallya
collateral attack on the validity of the DARAB decision. But, a final and
executory judgment may be set aside in three ways and a collateral attack,
wherebyinanactiontoobtainadifferentrelief,anattackonthejudgmentis
neverthelessmadeasanincidentthereof,isoneofthese.Thistenetisbased
upon a courts inherent authority to expunge void acts from its records.
Despiterecognizingtheneedto
330
330 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
Appeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
ConstantinoG.JaraulaandFrancisSaturninoC.SanJuan
forpetitioners.
MarilouRavanesAresforprivaterespondents.
EvangelineT.Carrascococounselforprivaterespondents.
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:
BeforetheCourtisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45
oftheRulesofCourt.Theprincipalissuepresentedforresolutionis
whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction to annul
finaljudgmentoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReformAdjudication
Board(DARAB).
Theantecedentfacts:
PetraCapistranoPiitpreviouslyownedLotNo.2291locatedin
CagayandeOroCitywhichmeasured123,408squaremetersunder
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T62623.SpringfieldDevelopment
Corporation,Inc.(Springfield)boughtLotNo.2291Cwithanarea
of68,732squaremeters,andLotNo.2291Dwithanareaof49,778
1
square meters. Springfield developed these properties
2
into a
subdivisionprojectcalledMegaHeightsSubdivision.
On May 4, 1990, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),
throughitsMunicipalAgrarianReformOfficer,issued
_______________
1Leavingout4,898squaremeters.
2Rollo,pp.5758,CADecisiondatedJuly16,1998.
331
VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 331
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
3
a Notice of Coverage, placing the property under the coverage of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988. There being an opposition from the heirs of
Petra Piit, the case was docketed as DARAB Case No. X305. On
August27,1991,DARABProvincialAdjudicatorAbetoA.Salcedo,
Jr. rendered a decision declaring the nature 4
of the property as
residential and not suitable for agriculture. The Regional Director
filedanoticeofappeal,whichtheProvincialAdjudicatordisallowed
5
forbeingpro
6
forma and frivolous. The decision became final
7
and
executory andSpringfieldproceededtodeveloptheproperty.
TheDARRegionalDirectorthenfiledapetitionforrelieffrom
judgmentoftheDARABDecision,docketedasDARABCaseNo.
0555. In its Decision dated October 5, 1995, the DARAB granted
thepetitionandgaveduecoursetotheNoticeofCoverage.Italso
directedtheMunicipalAgrarianReformOfficetoproceedwiththe
documentation, acquisition, and 8
distribution of the property to the
trueandlawfulbeneficiaries.
TheDARABalsoissuedanOrderdatedMay22,1997,ordering
the heirs of Piit and Springfield to pay the farmerbeneficiaries the
amount of Twelve Million, Three Hundred Forty Thousand, Eight
HundredPesos(P12,340,800.00),correspondingtothevalueofthe
property since the property has already been developed into a
subdivision.
On June13,1997,Springfield and the heirs of Piit (petitioners)
filedwiththeRTCofCagayandeOroCity,Branch40,apetitionfor
annulmentoftheDARABDecisiondatedOctober5,1995andallits
subsequentproceedings.Petition
_______________
3Records,p.42.
4Id.,atpp.1316.
5Id.,atpp.3233.
6Id.,atp.81.
7Rollo,p.58.
8Id.,atpp.134142.
332
332 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
ers contend that the DARAB decision 9 was rendered without
affordingpetitionersanynoticeandhearing.
On motion filed by the farmerbeneficiaries, the RTC issued an
Order dated 10
June 25, 1997, dismissing the case for lack of
jurisdiction.
OnJuly2,1997,petitionersfiledwiththeCourtofAppeals(CA)
aspecialcivilactionforcertiorari,mandamus,andprohibitionwith
prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and/or11
temporary restraining order, docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 44563.
PetitionersallegedthattheRTCcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretion
when it ruled that the annulment of judgment filed before it is
actually an action for certiorari in a different color. According to
petitioners, what it sought before the RTC is an annulment of the
DARAB Decision and not certiorari, as the DARAB Decision 12is
voidabinitioforhavingbeenrenderedwithoutdueprocessoflaw.
13
IntheassailedDecision datedJuly16,1998,theCAdismissed
the petition for lack of merit, ruling that the RTC does not have
jurisdictiontoannul
14
the DARAB Decision because it is a coequal
body.
However,onJanuary12,1999,theCAorderedtheelevationof
theDARABrecordsbeforeit,declaringthatitoverlookedthefact
thatpetitionerslikewiseappliedforawritofprohibitionagainstthe
enforcement of 15
the DARAB decision which they claim to be
patently void. Forwarded to the CA were the records of the
originalcasefiledwiththeDARAB
_______________
9Id.,atpp.9099.
10Id.,atpp.8789.
11CARollo,p.2.
12Rollo,pp.7483.
JusticesMinervaP.GonzagaReyes(nowretiredMemberoftheSupremeCourt)and
OmanU.Amin(nowretired),concurring.
14Rollo,pp.6064.
15Id.,atpp.6869.
333
VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 333
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
RegionX,anditappearingthatthepetitionforrelieffromjudgment
and its pertinent records were forwarded to the DARAB Central16
Office, the CA issued another Resolution on December 20, 1999,
requiring the DARAB Central Office to forward the records of the
case. But after receipt of the records, the CA simply17 denied
petitioners motion for reconsideration per Resolution dated
February 23, 2000 without specifically resolving the issues raised
concerningtheprayerforawritofprohibition.
Hence,thepresentpetitiononthefollowinggrounds:
THECOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTEDACLEARERROROFLAW
IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY TO
JUSTIFY ITS CONCLUSION DIVESTING THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION VESTED BY LAW OVER CASES
WHERE THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WAS NOT EXPRESSLY
GRANTED TO ANY OTHER COURTS [SIC] OR TRIBUNAL, IN
EFFECT,MODIFYINGTHEAPPLICABLELAWONTHEMATTER.
II
III
_______________
16Id.,atpp.7173.
17PennedbyAssociateJusticeAdefuinDelaCruz(viceretiredJusticeHofilea),
with Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola (now deceased, vice Justice Gonzaga
Reyes)andEduardoP.Cruz(newmember),concurringCARollo,p.298.
334
334 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
_______________
18Rollo,pp.3233.
19Id.,atp.34.
335
VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 335
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
Note must be made that the petition for annulment of the DARAB
decisionwasfiledwiththeRTConJune13,1997,beforetheadvent
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on July 1,
1997. Thus, the applicable law is B.P. Blg. 129 or the Judiciary
ReorganizationActof1980,enactedonAugust10,1981.
It is also worthy of note that before the effectivity of B.P. Blg.
129, a court of first instance has the authority to annul a final and
executoryjudgmentrenderedbyanothercourtoffirstinstanceorby
another branch of the same20 court. This was the Courts 21
ruling in
Dulap v. Court of Appeals. Yet, in subsequent cases, the Court
held that the better policy, as a matter of comity or courteous
interactionbetweencourtsoffirstinstanceandthebranchesthereof,
is for the annulment cases to be tried by the same court or branch
whichheardthemainaction.
The
22
foregoing doctrines were modified in Ngo Bun Tiong v.
Sayo, where the Court expressed that pursuant to the policy of
judicial stability, the doctrine of noninterference between
concurrent and coordinate courts should be regarded as highly
importantintheadministrationofjusticewherebythejudgmentofa
court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or
vacatedbyanycourtofconcurrentjurisdiction.
_______________
20149Phil.636,64742SCRA537,545(1971).
Aquino,G.R.Nos.L332356,July29,1976,72SCRA140,145.
22G.R. No. L45825, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 237, 243 Mercado v. Ubay,G.R.
No.35830,July24,1990,187SCRA719,724.
336
336 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
23
With the introduction of B.P. Blg. 129, the rule on annulment of
judgmentswasspecificallyprovidedinSection9(2),whichvestedin
the then Intermediate Appellate Court (now the CA) the exclusive
original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of
RTCs.Sec.9(3)ofB.P.Blg.129alsovestedtheCAwithexclusive
appellatejurisdictionoverallfinaljudgments,decisions,resolutions,
orders, or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasijudicial
agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, except those
falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
accordancewiththeConstitution,theprovisionsofthisAct,andof
subparagraph(1)ofthethirdparagraphandsubparagraph(4)ofthe
fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. As
provided in paragraph 16 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines
implementing B.P. Blg. 129, the quasijudicial bodies whose
decisions are exclusively appealable
24
to the CA are those, which
underthelaw,R.A.No.5434, oritsenablingacts,arespecifically
appealabletotheCA.
Significantly,B.P.Blg.129doesnotspecificallyprovideforany
power of the RTC to annul judgments of quasijudicial bodies.
However, in BF Northwest25 Homeowners Association, Inc. v.
IntermediateAppellateCourt, theCourtruledthatthe
_______________
23 Under the repealing clause of B.P. Blg. 129 (Section 47), the inconsistent
provisionsof:R.A.No.296ortheJudiciaryActof1948R.A.No.5179,asamended,
or the 1964 Rules of Court and all other statutes and letters of instructions and
generalorders,wererepealedoraccordinglymodified.
24EntitledAnActtoProvideaUniformProcedureforAppealsfromtheCourtof
AgrarianRelations,theSecretaryofLaborunderSection7ofRepublicActNumbered
SixHundredTwo,alsoknownasTheMinimumWageLaw,theDepartmentofLabor
underSection23ofRepublicActNumberedEightHundredSeventyFive,alsoknown
asTheIndustrialPeaceAct,theLandRegistrationCommission,theSecuritiesand
Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Civil Aeronautics
Board, the Patent Office, and the Agricultural Inventions Board, and for other
purposes.
25G.R.No.L72370,May29,1987,150SCRA543,552.
337
VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 337
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
RTCshavejurisdictionoveractionsforannulmentofthedecisions
of the National Water Resources Council, which is a quasijudicial
bodyrankedwithinferiorcourts,pursuanttoitsoriginaljurisdiction
toissuewritsofcertiorari, prohibition, and mandamus,underSec.
21(1)ofB.P.Blg.129,inrelationtoactsoromissionsofaninferior
court. This led to the conclusion that despite the absence of any
provision in B.P. Blg. 129, the RTC had the power to entertain
petitions for annulment of judgments of inferior courts and
administrative or quasijudicial bodies of equal ranking. This is
also in harmony with the preB.P. Blg. 129 rulings of the Court
recognizing the power 26of a trial court (court of first instance) to
annul final judgments. Hence, while it is true, as petitioners
contend, that the RTC had the authority to annul final judgments,
suchauthoritypertainedonlytofinaljudgmentsrenderedbyinferior
courts and quasijudicial bodies of equal ranking with such
inferiorcourts.
Theforegoingstatementsbegthenextquestion,i.e.,whetherthe
DARABisaquasijudicialbodywiththerankofaninferiorcourt
such that the RTC may take cognizance of an action for the
annulmentsofitsjudgments.Theanswerisno.
TheDARABisaquasijudicialbodycreatedbyExecutiveOrder
Nos. 229 and 129A. R.A. No. 6657 delineated its adjudicatory
powers and functions. The DARAB 27
Revised Rules of Procedure
adopted on December 26, 1988 specifically provides for the
mannerofjudicialreviewofitsdecisions,orders,rulings,orawards.
RuleXIV,Section1states:
SECTION 1. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals.Any decision, order,
awardorrulingbytheBoardoritsAdjudicatorsonanyagrariandisputeor
onanymatterpertainingtotheapplication,
_______________
26SeeDulapv.CourtofAppeals,supranote20,etseq.
27TheDARABRevisedRulesofProceduretookeffectonFebruary6,1989,fifteen
(15) days after its publication in The Manila Standard and The Philippine Daily
Inquirer.
338
338 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
Further,theprevailing1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended,
expresslyprovidesforanappealfromtheDARABdecisionstothe
28
CA.
The rule is that where legislation provides for an appeal from
decisions of certain administrative bodies to the CA, it means that
suchbodiesarecoequalwiththeRTC,intermsofrankandstature,
29
andlogically,beyondthecontrolofthelatter.
Given that DARAB decisions are appealable to the CA, the
inevitableconclusionisthatthe DARAB is a coequal body with
theRTCanditsdecisionsarebeyondtheRTCscontrol.TheCA
was therefore correct in sustaining the RTCs dismissal of the
petition for annulment of the DARAB Decision dated October 5,
1995, as the RTC does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the
same.
This brings to fore the issue of whether the petition for
annulmentoftheDARABjudgmentcouldbebroughttotheCA.As
previouslynoted,Section9(2)ofB.P.Blg.129vestedintheCAthe
exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgments, but only those rendered by the RTCs. It does not
expressly give the CA the power to annul judgments 30
of quasi
judicialbodies.Thus,inElceeFarms,Inc.v.Semillano, theCourt
affirmedtherulingoftheCAthatithasnojurisdictiontoentertaina
petitionforannulmentofafinal
_______________
28Rule43.
29BoardofCommissionersv.DelaRosa,274Phil.1156,1191197SCRA853,873
(1991).
30G.R.No.150286,October17,2003,413SCRA669,676.
339
VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 339
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
andexecutoryjudgmentoftheNLRC,citingSection9ofB.P.Blg.
129,asamended,whichonlyvestsintheCAexclusivejurisdiction
overactionsforannulmentofjudgmentsofRegionalTrialCourts.
31
ThiswasreiteratedinGalangv.CourtofAppeals, wheretheCourt
ruled that the CA is without jurisdiction to entertain a petition for
annulment of judgment of a final decision of the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Recent rulings on similar cases involving
annulments of judgments of quasijudicial bodies are also quite
instructiveonthismatter. 32
In Cole v. Court of Appeals, involving an annulment of the
judgment of the HLURB Arbiter and the Office of the President
(OP),filedwiththeCA,theCourtstatedthat,(U)nderRule47of
the Rules of Court, the remedy of annulment of judgment is
confined to decisions of the Regional Trial Court on the ground of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction x x x. The Court further
ruled,viz.:
Although the grounds set forth in the petition for annulment of judgment
arefraudandlackofjurisdiction,saidpetitioncannotprosperforthesimple
reasonthatthe decision sought to be annulled was not rendered by the
Regional Trial Court but by an administrative agency (HLU Arbiter
and Office of the President), hence, not within the jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals. There is no such remedy as annulment of judgment
oftheHLURBortheOfficeofthePresident.Assumingarguendothatthe
annulment petition can be treated as a petition for review under Rule 43 of
the1997RulesofCivilProcedure,thesameshouldhavebeendismissedby
the Court of Appeals, because no error of judgment was imputed to the
HLURB and the Office of the President. Fraud and lack of jurisdiction are
beyondtheprovinceofpetitionsunderRule43oftheRulesofCourt,asit
coversonlyerrorsofjudgment.Apetitionforannulmentofjudgmentisan
initiatory remedy, hence no error of judgment can be the subject thereof.
Besides,theArbiterandtheOfficeofthePresidentindisputablyhave
_______________
31G.R.No.139448,October11,2005,472SCRA259,269.
32401Phil.920348SCRA692(2000).
340
340 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
jurisdiction over the cases brought before them in line with our ruling in
FranciscoSycip,Jr.vs.CourtofAppeals,promulgatedonMarch17,2000,
where the aggrieved townhouse buyers may seek protection from the
HLURB under Presidential Decree No. 957, otherwise33 known as
Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree. (Emphasis
supplied)
34
InMacalalagv.Ombudsman, the Court ruled that Rule 47 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on annulment of judgments or final
ordersandresolutionscoversannulmentbytheCourtofAppealsof
judgmentsorfinalordersandresolutionsincivilactionsofRegional
Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petitionforreliefor other appropriate remedies could no longer be
availed of through no fault of the petitioner. Thus, the Court
concluded that judgments or final orders and resolutions of the
OmbudsmaninadministrativecasescannotbeannulledbytheCA,
more so, since The Ombudsman Act specifically deals with the
remedyofanaggrievedpartyfromorders,directivesanddecisions
oftheOmbudsmaninadministrativedisciplinarycasesonly,andthe
right to appeal is not to be considered granted to parties aggrieved
by orders and decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non
administrativecases.
While these cases involve annulments of judgments under the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, still, they still find
applicationinthepresentcase,astheprovisionsofB.P.Blg.129and
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, on annulment of
judgmentsareidentical.
Consequently,thesilenceofB.P.Blg.129onthejurisdictionof
theCAtoannuljudgmentsorfinalordersandresolutionsofquasi
judicialbodiesliketheDARABindicatesitslackofsuchauthority.
Further,petitionersarealsoaskingtheCourttotakecognizance
oftheirprayerfortheissuanceofawritofprohibi
_______________
33Id.,atpp.931932pp.701702.
34G.R.No.147995,March4,2004,424SCRA741,745.
341
VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 341
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
_______________
35352Phil.461289SCRA624(1998).
342
342 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
resolution on November 7, 1997, modifying the decision in that
NQSRMDCs application for conversion is approved only with
respecttotheapproximately44hectareportionofthelandadjacent
tothehighway,asrecommendedbytheDepartmentofAgriculture,
while the remaining approximately 100 hectares traversed by an
irrigation canal and found to be suitable for agriculture shall be
distributedtoqualifiedfarmerbeneficiaries.
A petition for certiorari
36
and prohibition under Rule 65 of the
RevisedRulesofCourt was then filed with the Court, which was
contestedbytheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralonthegroundthat
the proper remedy should have been to file a petition for review
directly with the CA in accordance with Rule 43 of the Revised
RulesofCourt.
In resolving the issue, the Court recognized the rule that the
Supreme Court, CA and RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction
to issueawritofcertiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. However,
duetocompellingreasonsandintheinterestofspeedyjustice,the
Court resolved to take primary jurisdiction over the petition in the
interestofspeedyjustice,afterwhichtheCourtnullifiedtheactof
theOPinreopeningthecaseandsubstantiallymodifyingitsMarch
29,1996Decisionwhichhadalreadybecomefinalandexecutory,as
it was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that
accordfinalitytoadministrativedeterminations.
ItmustbestressedatthispointthattheCourt,asarule,willnot
entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling
circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious
implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of
writofcertiorari,prohibition,ormandamuscallingfortheexercise
ofitsprimaryjurisdic
_______________
36DocketedasG.R.No.131457.
343
VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 343
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
37
tion. The Court finds no compelling circumstances in this case to
warrant a relaxation of the foregoing rule. The Fortich case is not
analogouswiththepresentcasesuchthattheCourtisnotboundto
abandonallrules,takeprimaryjurisdiction,andresolvethemeritsof
petitioners'applicationforawritofprohibition.
Inthepresentcase,theassailedDARABDecisiondatedOctober
5,1995grantingthepetitionforrelieffromjudgmentandgivingdue
coursetotheNoticeofCoveragewasmadepursuanttoapetitionfor
relief from judgment filed by the DAR, albeit petitioners are
contestingthevalidityoftheproceedingsheldthereon.Ontheother
hand,inFortich,theOPsWin/WinresolutiondatedNovember7,
1997wasmademotuproprio,asaresultofthehungerstrikestaged
bythefarmerbeneficiaries.
Further,theOPsWin/WinResolutiondatedNovember7,1997
intheFortichcaseisapatentlyvoidjudgmentsinceitwasevident
thattherewasalreadyanexistingfinalandexecutoryOPDecision
dated March 29, 1996. In this case, the assailed DARAB Decision
datedOctober5,1995appearstoberegularonitsface,andforits
allegednullitytoberesolved,theCourtmustdelveintotherecords
ofthecaseinordertodeterminethevalidityofpetitionersargument
oflackofdueprocess,absentnoticeandhearing.
Moreover, the principle of hierarchy of courts applies generally
tocasesinvolvingfactualquestions.Asitisnotatrieroffacts,the
38
Courtcannotentertaincasesinvolvingfactualissues. Thequestion
ofwhethertheDARABDecisiondatedOctober5,1995isnulland
void and enforceable against petitioners for having been rendered
withoutaffordingpetitioners
_______________
37Mangaliagv.CatubigPastoral,G.R.No.143951,October25,2005,474 SCRA
153,161.
38 Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 433 Phil. 506, 524 384 SCRA 152, 179
(2002).
344
344 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
_______________
39First,apetitionforrelieffromjudgmentunderRule38oftheRulesofCourton
groundsoffraud,accident,mistakeandexcusablenegligencefiledwithinsixty(60)
daysfromthetimepetitionerlearnsofthejudgmentbutnotmorethansix(6)months
fromtheentrythereofsecond,adirectactiontoannulthejudgmentonthegroundof
extrinsicfraudandthird,adirectactionforcertiorariorcollateralattacktoannula
judgmentthatisvoiduponitsfaceorvoidbyvirtueofitsownrecitals.Arcelonav.
CourtofAppeals,345Phil.250,263280SCRA20,33(1997).
40Mallilin,Jr.v.Castillo,389Phil.153,165333SCRA628,640(2000).
345
VOL.514,FEBRUARY6,2007 345
SpringfieldDevelopmentCorporation,Inc.vs.Presiding
Judge,RTC,MisamisOriental,Br.40,CagayandeOroCity
_______________
43Supranote16.
44Jarov.CourtofAppeals,427Phil.532,548377SCRA282,298(2002).
346
346 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
MetropolitanBankandTrustCompany,Inc.vs.NationalWagesand
ProductivityCommission
SOORDERED.
Petitionpartlygranted,caseremandedtoCourtofAppeals.
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.