SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240902. November 5, 2018.]
RICARDO A. GACULA, petitioner, vs.SPOUSES ADRIANO SALISE 1 AND NATIVIDAD PAGUDAR, SPOUSES TEODORO VIRTUDAZO AND NECITAS SALISE, AND JEROME G. DIOLANTE, ET AL., 2respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 November 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240902 (Ricardo A. Gacula v. Spouses Adriano Salise and Natividad Pagudar, Spouses Teodoro Virtudazo and Necitas Salise, and Jerome G. Diolante, et al.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 3 and AFFIRM the March 23, 2018 Decision 4 and the July 26, 2018 Resolution 5 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 04425-MIN for failure of petitioner Ricardo A. Gacula (Gacula) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in reversing and setting aside the April 26, 2011 6 and August 1, 2011 7 Resolutions of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in UDK 0001-04, and remanding the case to the agency a quo for judgment on the merits.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the DARAB should have treated the urgent motion filed by respondents Spouses Adriano Salise and Natividad Pagudar, Spouses Teodoro Virtudazo and Necitas Salise, and Jerome G. Diolante, et al. (respondents) as an appeal because the issues raised therein are essentially error in the conclusions of law which is a ground for appeal under Rule XIII 8 of the 1994 DARAB New Rules of Procedure 9 (1994 DARAB Rules) 10 — the rules applicable at the time Gacula filed his petition for annulment and/or cancellation in 1996 11 — as well as under Rule XIV of either the 2003 or 2009 DARAB Rules. 12 Moreover, respondents' urgent motion was filed well within the period of appeal, 13 and the same did not even assert grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, as required in a certiorari petition. In any event, the 1994 DARAB Rules expressly provides that grave abuse of discretion on the Adjudicator's part is a ground for appeal. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. "Adrinao Salise" in some parts of the rollo.
2. The other respondents are Spouses Eulalio D. Damasing and Potenciana Labia, Spouses Francisco and Simplicia Babayaon, Spouses Rufino Butihin and Cecilia Cagno, Spouses Efitacio G. Pamisa and Vegilia Virtudazo, Delfin B. Saarinas, Spouses Felipe C. Virtudazo, Jr. and Grace Tulo, Spouses Angel Barbosa and Florencia Salise, Spouses Franklin and Leonora Pamisa, Spouses Marcelo Manique and Cecilia Carbon, Larry Pamisa, Spouses Enrique Carbon and Erlinda Somo, Spouses Wilfredo A. Juanilo and Minda Villarmia, Spouses Felix B. Reguarme and Cerina Salvo, Spouses Carlito Fabe and Emelita Manggana, Luiben Magto, Spouses Serafin and Lilia Surigao, Spouses Hilario Bacabis and Retificacion Dablo, Spouses Reynaldo S. Salucot and Anecita Descallar, Spouses Hagenio Paug and Evelita Virtudazo, Spouses Maximo Borres and Vilma Salise, Spouses Felimon V. Salvo, Jr. and Eva Macatol, and Rita V. Salvo. See id. at 13.
3.Id. at 11-24.
4.Id. at 27-37. Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja with Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
5.Id. at 39-43.
6.Id. at 79-85. Signed by Board Members Gerundio C. Madueño, Jim G. Coleto, Ma. Patricia Rualo-Bello, and Arnold C. Arrieta.
7.Id. at 87-89.
8. Section 2 (a) of Rule XIII of the 1994 DARAB Rules provides:
Section 2. Grounds. — The aggrieved party may appeal to the Board from a final order, resolution or decision of the Adjudicator on any of the following grounds:
a) That errors in the findings of facts or conclusions of laws were committed which, if not corrected, would cause grave and irreparable damage or injury to the appellant[.] (Emphasis supplied)
9. Entitled "THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE" (June 22, 1994).
10. See rollo, pp. 32-34.
11. Section 1, paragraph 1 of Rule XXIV of both the DARAB 2003 Rules of Procedure (adopted on January 17, 2003) and 2009 DARAB Rules of procedure (approved on September 1, 2009) provide:
Section 1. Transitory Provisions. — These Rules shall govern all cases filed on or after its effectivity. All cases pending with the Board and the Adjudicators, prior to the date of effectivity of these Rules, shall be governed by the DARAB Rules prevailing at the time of their filing. (Emphasis supplied)
12. Section 2 of Rule XIV of the 2003 and 2009 DARAB Rules are similarly worded, which read:
Section 2. Grounds. — The aggrieved party may appeal to the Board from a final order, resolution or decision of the Adjudicator on any of the following grounds that:
a. Errors in the findings of fact or conclusions of law were committed which if not corrected, would cause grave and irreparable damage or injury to the appellant; or
b. The order, resolution or decision was obtained through fraud or coercion. (2009 DARAB Rules)
13. Section 1 of Rule XIII of the 1994 DARAB Rules provides:
Section 1. Appeal to the Board. — a) An appeal may be taken from an order, resolution or decision of the Adjudicator to the Board by either of the parties or both, orally or in writing, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the order, resolution or decision appealed from, and serving a copy thereof on the adverse party, if the appeal is in writing.
xxx xxx xxx