Camarines Mineral, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 231496. June 6, 2018.]

CAMARINES MINERAL, INC. [REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, JESUS PEDRO S. ADAN II] AND EDITHA J. TIBAY-STEVENS, petitioners, vs.DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM [DAR], SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, MIMAROPA REGION, CONRADO S. GUEVARRA [PARPO II], DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM PROVINCIAL OFFICE [DARPO], PROVINCE OF PALAWAN, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER [MARO], PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 June 2018which reads as follows: aICcHA

"G.R. No. 231496 (Camarines Mineral, Inc. [represented herein by its Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Jesus Pedro S. Adan II] and Editha J. Tibay-Stevens v. Department of Agrarian Reform [DAR], Secretary of Agrarian Reform, DAR Regional Director for Region IV, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Office of the Provincial Adjudicator, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, MIMAROPA Region, Conrado S. Guevarra [PARPO II], Department of Agrarian Reform Provincial Office [DARPO], Province of Palawan, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer [MARO], Puerto Princesa City, Land Bank of the Philippines, and the Registry of Deeds of Puerto Princesa City)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition and AFFIRM the May 31, 2016 and April 26, 2017 Resolutions 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 145436 for: (1) procedural defects, particularly, the failure: (a) to state the material dates when notice of the CA's May 31, 2016 Resolution was received and the motion for reconsideration therefrom was filed; and (b) to attach material portions of the record; 2 and (2) failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners Camarines Mineral, Inc. (represented herein by its Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Jesus Pedro S. Adan II) and Editha J. Tibay-Stevens (petitioners) due to procedural defects.

As correctly ruled by the CA, the failure to comply with the procedural requirements on the contents of and the attachments to a petition for certiorari and prohibition warrants the dismissal of the petition. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party, 3 let alone dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. 4 Moreover, as aptly pointed out by respondents the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), 5 the resort by petitioners to the special civil action for certiorari and prohibition was improper because there were available remedies within the DAR machinery that they could have pursued to challenge the complained acts.

SO ORDERED. (PERALTA, J., recused from the case as his spouse concurred in the assailed Court of Appeals decision and resolution. BERSAMIN, J., designated as additional member per Raffle dated November 20, 2017)"

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 408-410 and 52-54, respectively. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.

2. Such as the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed before the CA and the comments to the motion for reconsideration separately filed by the LBP and the DAR.

3. See Abadilla v. Spouses Obrero, 775 Phil. 419, 426 (2015).

4. See LBP v. CA, 789 Phil. 577, 583 (2016); Building Care Corporation/Leopard Security & Investigation Agency v. Macaraeg, 700 Phil. 749, 756 (2012); and Daikoku Electronics Philippines, Inc. v. Raza, 606 Phil. 796, 804 (2009).

5. See rollo, pp. 526 and 576-579.