Bulaong v. Benedicto

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 209124. September 14, 2021.]

AVELINO BULAONG, petitioner, vs.BIENVENIDO BENEDICTO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 209124 (Avelino Bulaong v. Bienvenido Benedicto) — The resolution of this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court hinges upon the propriety of relaxing the technical rules of procedure of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). The petition challenges the Decision 2 dated October 15, 2012 and Resolution 3 dated September 13, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 121604, which set aside the Decision 4 dated February 11, 2011 of the Office of the President (OP).

ANTECEDENTS

The controversy arose from the opposing claims of petitioner Avelino Bulaong (Avelino) and respondent Bienvenido Benedicto (Bienvenido) to be the rightful beneficiary of Lots F and G, originally owned by Pedro G. Lazaro (Pedro), located in Barangay Binang, Bocaue, Bulacan. Bienvenido used to be Pedro's tenant-lessee until he abandoned the subject lots in 1954. In 1976, Avelino began to occupy and till the property without opposition from any person. More than 20 years thereafter, or in 1997, Bienvenido sought to reclaim possession of the lots upon learning that they were placed under the DAR's Operation Land Transfer as part of its agrarian reform efforts. Avelino discovered that Emancipation Patents (EP) over the lots were issued in Bienvenido's name, which prompted him to file a protest and petition for cancellation of EPs on November 11, 1997 before the Region III-Regional Director against Bienvenido. Avelino's cases were, however, held in abeyance on September 21, 1998 upon the Regional Director's finding that an action involving the same lots was pending between Pedro's children and Bienvenido with several others before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), docketed as DARAB Case No. R-03-02-0152'B'96. 5

Meanwhile, on February 1, 2000, Avelino filed a Petition for Perpetual Disqualification of Bienvenido as a beneficiary of the agrarian reform program, grounded upon Bienvenido's abandonment of the land in 1954. Avelino, later on, found out that Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer Fe Jacinto (MARO Fe) tampered with the original survey plan for the subject lots by deleting his name as a qualified beneficiary and inserting Bienvenido's name instead. He then filed a complaint against MARO Fe for the fraudulent alteration of the approved survey plan. In an Order dated December 15, 2003, the DAR Undersecretary for Policy, Planning, and Legal Affairs found MARO Fe guilty of the charge, and thus imposed the penalty of suspension from service for two months without pay. 6 CAIHTE

On July 26, 2004, upon learning that DARAB Case No. R-03-02-0152'B'96 was decided in Bienvenido's favor, Avelino moved to reopen his petitions for perpetual disqualification and cancellation of EPs against Bienvenido. 7 Pending revival of these petitions, however, Bienvenido registered his EPs with the Land Registration Authority (LRA). 8 Consequently, in its Order9dated March 31, 2005, the Regional Director ruled that, pursuant to the [DARAB] 2003 Rules of Procedure, 10 it is the DARAB which has the primary and exclusive jurisdiction to decide cases involving the cancellation of registered EPs, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, an ORDER is hereby issued DISMISSING the above Petition of [Avelino] against [Bienvenido] for the latter's perpetual disqualification and cancellation of [EPs] already registered and distributed to the latter involving Lots F and G of Psd-03-089923 (AR) with areas of 2,725 square meters and 452 square meters, respectively, situated at Binang 2nd, Bocaue, Bulacan, for utter want of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED. 11 (Emphases in the original.)

Avelino's counsel received this Order on April 8, 2005, and moved for reconsideration on April 21, 2005, but was denied in an Order12dated August 24, 2005. He then received the notice of denial on September 5, 200513 and filed a Notice of Appeal on September 13, 2005. In an Order 14 dated October 14, 2005, the Regional Director dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, an ORDER is hereby issued DISMISSING the Notice of Appeal filed by [Avelino], through counsel, for not having been perfected, and DECLARING the Order dated March 31, 2005 final and executory.

SO ORDERED. 15

Undaunted by another setback, Avelino filed a petition for review 16 with the DAR Secretary. While the case was pending, Bienvenido ejected Avelino from Lot F, and enclosed the premises with a perimeter fence made of galvanized iron. Bienvenido also forcefully took possession of Lot G, where Avelino used to reside, and used it as the office and barracks of security guards under his employ. 17

On November 24, 2008, the DAR Secretary granted Avelino's petition for review, ruling that the Regional Director's strict adherence to technicalities defeated the purpose of carrying out the objectives of agrarian reform, and unduly benefited Bienvenido, who is actually unqualified to become a beneficiary by reason of his abandonment. The DAR Secretary disposed, 18 thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order dated October 14, 2005, issued by the Regional Director, which dismissed [Avelino's] Notice of Appeal and declared his Order dated March 31, 2005 final and executory is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE[,] and a new one is issued declaring that:

1. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Office concerned is hereby DIRECTED to cause the cancellation of the Emancipation Patents issued in the name of [Bienvenido] before the proper forum for being erroneously issued;

2. The Regional Director of Region III is directed to ensure the reinstatement of [Avelino] on subject Lots F and G, and to generate new [EPs] in his name covering the said lots; and

3. [Bienvenido] and all persons claiming rights for and in his behalf, including security guards employed thereon, are directed to remove the perimeter fence constructed on Lot F and to vacate land/or turnover peacefully both Lots F and G to [Avelino].

SO ORDERED. 19 (Emphases in the original.)

Bienvenido sought reconsideration, but was denied in the DAR Secretary's Resolution 20 dated March 25, 2009. He appealed to the OP, 21 but his appeal was dismissed in the OP Decision 22 dated February 11, 2011. The OP affirmed the DAR Secretary's jurisdiction over petitions for perpetual disqualification and cancellation of EPs, and also pointed out Bienvenido's failure to furnish Avelino with a copy of the appeal in violation of the OP's order, which renders the appeal dismissible, thus:

WHEREFORE, viewed in the light of the foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the assailed Order issued by the DAR Secretary dated 24 November 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. 23 (Emphases in the original.)

Bienvenido's motion for reconsideration was denied in the OP's Resolution 24 dated September 12, 2011. He then sought recourse from the CA through a petition for review. 25

In its assailed Decision 26 dated October 15, 2012, the CA ruled that the DAR Secretary acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of Avelino's petition for review, when the Regional Director's Order dated March 31, 2005 had already attained finality due to Avelino's failure to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the [OP] dated February 11, 2011 is SET ASIDE and the March 31, 2005 Order of the [DAR] Regional Director Narciso B. Nieto is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED. 27 (Emphases in the original.)

Aggrieved, Avelino moved for reconsideration, 28 but was denied in the CA Resolution 29 dated September 13, 2013. Hence, this petition. Avelino argues that the CA erred in disregarding the merits of the case and deciding it based on mere technicalities. He insists that the factual milieu of the case serves as a compelling reason to relax the application of the reglementary period on appeals before an administrative and/or quasi-judicial body. DETACa

ISSUE

Did the CA commit reversible error in affirming the dismissal of Avelino's Notice of Appeal before the Regional Director solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary period?

THE RULING OF THE COURT

We answer in the affirmative.

Section 23 of DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 03-03 30 dated January 16, 2003 or the "2003 Rules of Procedure for [Agrarian Law Implementation] ALI Cases," the governing rule at the time of Avelino's appeal, provides:

SEC. 23. Motion for Reconsideration. — A party may file only one (1) motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Regional Director, and may do so only within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of the decision, furnishing a copy of the motion to all other parties. The filing of the motion interrupts the running of the reglementary period within which to appeal. x x x

23.1 If the motion for reconsideration is denied, the movant may perfect an appeal before the Secretary within only the remainder of said non-extendible period of fifteen (15) calendar days but not less than five (5) calendar days.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphases supplied.)

Here, Avelino's counsel received the Regional Director's Order dated March 31, 2005 on April 8, 2005, giving him until April 23, 2005 to seek reconsideration. Avelino filed a motion for reconsideration on April 21, 2005 or on the 13th day of the 15-day reglementary period. His motion was denied in the Regional Director's Order dated August 24, 2005, which he received on September 5, 2005. Pursuant to the above-cited procedural rules, he had five (5) days or until September 10, 2005 to perfect an appeal to the DAR Secretary. September 10, 2005 fell on a Saturday, hence, he had until the next business day or September 12, 2005 to file the appeal. Avelino, however, filed his appeal on September 13, 2005, which is one (1) day later than the last day of filing.

Nonetheless, we find no error on the part of the DAR Secretary when he gave due course to Avelino's appeal despite procedural infirmity after finding it meritorious. Time and again, we have held that technical rules of procedure imposed in judicial proceedings are unavailing in cases before administrative bodies. Procedural rules are, as a matter of course, not to be applied in a very rigid and technical manner as they are used only to help secure and not to override substantial justice. 31 It is every courts' avowed policy to determine cases on their merits, after giving all parties full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. 32 This principle holds especially true in cases involving the implementation of the government's agrarian reform programs, consistent with the declared policies of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 33 in giving high consideration to the welfare of landless farmers and farmworkers, 34 who are qualified to benefit from the programs. Section 50 of RA No. 6657, as amended by RA No. 9700, 35 expressly states:

SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the DENR.

It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding before it.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphases supplied.)

On this score, Section 4 of DAR AO No. 03-03 further authorized the liberal interpretation of procedural and evidentiary rules:

SEC. 4. Construction. — In accordance with Section 50 of RA 6657, the DAR shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice, equity, and the merits of the case. In case of doubt, the deciding authority shall liberally construe or interpret these Rules in favor of carrying out the objectives of agrarian reform, to promote a just, expeditious, and inexpensive determination of agrarian cases. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, in several instances, the Court has sustained the DAR's liberality in the application of procedural rules. 36 In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Samson, 37 we found no error on the part of the DAR in entertaining the farmers' meritorious appeal which was filed more than a year after the reglementary period. In Natividad v. Mariano, 38 the Court sustained the DARAB's grant of an appeal filed 10 months beyond the reglementary period, the reopening of an otherwise immutable judgment, and the disposition of the case based on its merits. The Court ratiocinated that "[t]he broader interests of justice and equity demand that [procedural rules be set aside] as they are, after all, intended to promote rather than defeat substantial justice." 39

We rule, therefore, that the CA committed reversible error in sustaining the dismissal of Avelino's appeal solely on the ground that it was belatedly filed. Towards the end that the objectives of agrarian reform and the interests of justice are achieved, the merits of this case should prevail over the technical niceties of procedure.

At this juncture, instead of remanding the case to the CA for its disposition on the merits, the Court shall proceed to discuss the merits of the appeal in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency. 40 After all, there is nothing left to do but to defer to the undisputed factual findings below, affirmed in the ordinary course by both the DAR Secretary and the OP and as such, are no longer bound to be re-evaluated by the CA or this Court. It is settled that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts because of the availability of evidence presented before them, as well as their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction. 41 aDSIHc

As established in the proceedings a quo, it was proven that Bienvenido abandoned the subject lots in 1954, while Avelino physically possessed them since 1976. It is also noteworthy that Bienvenido proffered no evidence, aside from his EPs, to establish his claim over the contested lots. These EPs cannot be relied upon as they were proved to be obtained through fraudulent means. Recall that in the administrative proceedings against MARO Fe, it was proven that she fraudulently altered the approved survey plan by deleting Avelino's name as a qualified beneficiary, and inserting Bienvenido's name regardless of his disqualification. Thus, the records clearly substantiate the DAR Secretary and OP's affirmance of Avelino's entitlement over the lots. Aptly, the OP held:

The ruling of the Regional Director dismissing [Avelino's] Notice of Appeal x x x was based on pure technicality. Taking into consideration the undisputed facts of the case, substantial justice demands that there is compelling reason for the DAR to decide who between [Avelino and Bienvenido] is qualified to become the beneficiary of the landholding upon the finding that the latter has abandoned the subject property in 1954.

Undisputed are the evidence submitted by [Avelino] such as [the] Certification of then MARO Rodolfo M. Bueno, Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mario P. Lapena, former MARO assigned in said Municipality, Pagpapatunay of BARC Chairman Rodolfo Legaspi, Joint Affidavits of the adjoining tenants, Certification of Samahang Nayon President Gel Del Rosario[,] and the Report and Recommendation dated 15 October 1998 of Engineer Ricardo A. Camageg, Chief, Land Surveys Section, all pointing to [the fact of Avelino's possession] of [the] subject lots (Lots F and G) since 1976. The deletion of the name of [Avelino] and [insertion] of the name of [Bienvenido] in the Approved Survey Plan became the basis of the suspension of MARO Fe Jacinto from Office. Despite the same, the Regional Office proceeded with the generation of [EPs] in favor of Bienvenido. 42

All told, the Court cannot sustain the injustice caused to the qualified beneficiary of the agrarian reform program, and the undue benefit accorded to the unqualified, by sheer blind adherence to the technicalities of procedural rules.

FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 15, 2012 and Resolution dated September 13, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 121604 are REVERSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated February 11, 2011 of the Office of the President is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-32.

2.Id. at 34-37; Penned by Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with the concurrence of Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ramon R. Garcia.

3.Id. at 56-58.

4.Id. at 145-151.

5.Id. at 103-104.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 78-82.

8.Id. at 36.

9.Id. at 83-85.

10. Entitled "THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) 2003 RULES OF PROCEDURE," dated January 17, 2003, Rule II, SEC. 1.6.

11.Rollo, pp. 83-85.

12.Id. at 36.

13.Id. at 90.

14.Id. at 88-90.

15.Id.

16.Id. at 91-101.

17.Id. at 103.

18.Id. at 102-110.

19.Id. at 109.

20.Id. at 111-115.

21.Id. at 116-117.

22.Id. at 145-151.

23.Id. at 151.

24.Id. at 166-169.

25.Id. at 170-185.

26.Id. at 34-37.

27.Id. at 37.

28.Id. at 48-54.

29.Id. at 56-58.

30. Entitled "2003 RULES FOR AGRARIAN REFORM LAW IMPLEMENTATION CASES," dated January 16, 2003.

31.Department of Agrarian Reform v. Samson, 577 Phil. 370 (2008).

32.Springfield Development Corporation, Inc. v. Presiding Judge of RTC, Misamis Oriental, Br. 40, 554 Phil. 298 (2007).

33. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 10, 1988.

34.Department of Agrarian Reform v. Samson, supra note 31.

35. Entitled "AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (CARP), EXTENDING THE ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALL AGRICULTURAL LANDS, INSTITUTING NECESSARY REFORMS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988, AS AMENDED, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR," approved on August 7, 2009.

36. See Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank v. Cabrera, 494 Phil. 735 (2005); Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Matias, 497 Phil. 476 (2005).

37.Department of Agrarian Reform v. Samson, supra note 31.

38. 710 Phil. 57 (2013).

39.Id.

40.Chiquita Brands, Inc. v. Omelio, 810 Phil. 497 (2017); See also Velasquez, Jr. v. Lisondra Land, Incorporated, G.R. No. 231290, August 27, 2020.

41.Villaran v. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, 683 Phil. 536 (2012).

42.Rollo, pp. 148-149.