Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corp. v. Mampising CARP Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 198329. November 8, 2017.]

LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (DULY SUBSTITUTED BY TORTUGA VALLEY PLANTATION, INC., Petitioner,vs. MAMPISING CARP BENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE, INC., respondent.

[G.R. No. 230882. November 8, 2017.]

TORTUGA VALLEY PLANTATION, INC., petitioner,vs. NOEL R. CONDEZ, DARAB PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR FOR COMPOSTELA VALLEY PROVINCE; MAMPISING CARP BENEFICIARIES MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC. (MCB-MPC), FORMERLY MAMPISING CARP BENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE, INC. (MCBCI); MAMPISING FARMERS MARKETING COOPERATIVE (MFMC), OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ALINIABON GROUP REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/LEADER MR. VICTORIANO ALINIABON, AND ALL ITS MEMBERS, FOLLOWERS, DEPENDENTS, SUPPORTERS AND AGENTS ACTING UNDER THE CONTROL AND INSTRUCTION OF THE SAID ENTITY/GROUP, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 8, 2017, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 198329 (LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (DULY SUBSTITUTED BY TORTUGA VALLEY PLANTATION, INC., Petitioner, v. MAMPISING CARP BENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent.) andG.R. No. 230882 (TORTUGA VALLEY PLANTATION, INC., Petitioner, v. NOEL R. CONDEZ, DARAB PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR FOR COMPOSTELA VALLEY PROVINCE; MAMPISING CARP BENEFICIARIES MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC. (MCB-MPC), FORMERLY MAMPISING CARP BENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE, INC. (MCBCI); MAMPISING FARMERS MARKETING COOPERATIVE (MFMC), OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ALINIABON GROUP REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/LEADER MR. VICTORIANO ALINIABON, AND ALL ITS MEMBERS, FOLLOWERS, DEPENDENTS, SUPPORTERS AND AGENTS ACTING UNDER THE CONTROL AND INSTRUCTION OF THE SAID ENTITY/GROUP, Respondents.) — The Court GRANTS petitioner's very urgent motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition in G.R. No. 230882, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.

In G.R. No. 230882, the petitioners seek relief through certiorari and prohibition 1 from the orders issued in DARAB Case No. 11944 (Reg. Case No. XI-0292-DN-2001) by Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator Noel R. Condez (PARAD Condez) of Compostela Valley Province. 2

The assailed orders of PARAD Condez are the following:

1. The order dated December 29, 2016 granting the respondents' application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO); 3

2. The order dated January 10, 2017 denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration assailing the December 29, 2016 order; 4 and

3. The order dated January 18, 2017 issuing the writ of preliminary injunction against the petitioner. 5

On June 5, 2017, the Court consolidated G.R. No. 230882 with G.R. No. 198329. 6

Antecedents

This case traces its roots in the resolution the Court promulgated on August 8, 2016 in G.R. No. 198329. There, the Court disposed:

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolutions promulgated on November 30, 2010 and August 3, 2011; REMANDS this case to the Regional Adjudication Board of the Department of Agrarian Reform with jurisdiction over Compostela Valley FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, including conducting a hearing to receive evidence and determine whether or not the issues raised by the 160 members-beneficiaries of respondent Mampising CARP Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc. against the Memorandum of Agreement and the Exclusive Option to Purchase Bananas Agreement entered into by the parties and submitted with the Joint Omnibus Motion to Admit and Approve Compromise Agreement (By Way of a Memorandum of Agreement) and to Dismiss the Case were genuine and authentic, and FOR RENDERING ITS RULING THEREON thereafter as the established facts and the pertinent laws shall warrant. 7

The resolution of August 8, 2016 attained finality, and entry of judgment was made on November 2, 2016. 8

PARAD Condez submitted his compliance dated October 29, 2016, informing the Court that he would conduct further proceedings and set the reception of evidence, and then render a ruling as directed in the resolution of August 8, 2016.

The petitioner, substituted by Tortuga Valley Plantation, Inc., filed its comments and observations on PARAD Condez's compliance, and prayed for the Court to direct PARAD Condez to desist from assuming jurisdiction over the matter because it was the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) whom the Court had directed to conduct further proceedings.

Despite the petitioner's filing of its Motion to Suspend Proceedings (based on the pending issue assailing the PARAD's assumption of jurisdiction, and the Very Urgent Motion for Resetting in deference to the possible settlement between the parties), PARAD Condez continued his proceedings. 9

On December 23, 2016, the petitioner received an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation with Motion for Immediate Issuance of Status Quo Order from respondent Mampising CARP Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc. (MCBCI). 10

PARAD Condez granted the motion, and issued the TRO on December 29, 2016, whereby he directed as follows:

(1) That the members of the MCBCI/MFMC, specifically the 92 coop-members aforementioned whose names are annotated in the CLOA of MCBCI, should be respected in their peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective lots of cultivation and to deal separately from MCBMPC-Cagumbay group, in the selling of bananas.

(2) That security of tenure of the said 92 coop-members shall be respected and shall be free from harassment in any manner by Unifrutti's Security Guards, or the members of MCBMPC-Cagumbay group or by any other persons acting for and in their behalf.

(3) That MCBCI-MFMC members-Aliniabon group shall continue to harvest and sell the bananas which shall be effective within the duration of the TRO or subsequent orders by this Adjudication Office and to sell the same to interested buyers at a fair and prevailing price in the bananas export market.

(4) That in the delivery of the bananas to buyer, the MCBCI-MFMC shall be assisted and accompanied by the PNP or Army elements nearest to the area as they are hereby deputized, through their commanders, pursuant to the DILG-AFP-DOJ-DAR Memorandum of Agreement. To effectuate this TRO, the commanders of the PNP/AFP unit or detachment nearest the area are hereby deputized and ordered to render effective police assistance to the officers and members of MCBCI-MFMC in the harvest, processing, sale and safe delivery of bananas to purchasers/importers and of maintaining peace and order in the area.

(5) That the MCBCI officers and members shall be given free access to the packing house, holding pond and other facilities for banana processing particularly in Farmlot No. 2.

(6) The security guards, or any other company guards of Unifruitti/Lapanday are hereby ordered to refrain and to ceased (sic) and desist from committing any act of harassment and of preventing the MCBCI-MFMC-Aliniabon group member free access to said facilities.

(7) The Municipal Police Officers, through their Station Commanders where their area of jurisdiction and control the delivery of bananas by MCBCI-MFMC to the purchaser/importer will pass, are likewise ordered to extend effective police assistance to safeguard and ensure that the bananas are transported properly and free from harassment from any individual or group.

(8) That in the implementation of this TRO, the Regional Sheriff of Region XI and the Provincial Sheriff of Compostela Valley are hereby ordered to execute the same and guide the police/army agency providing assistance in the implementation thereof.

(9) That this Adjudication Office is not requiring the posting of the bond, from the movants, they being farmer-beneficiaries and invokes their rights as pauper litigant.

Let a hearing for the determination of lifting the TRO or of issuing preliminary or permanent injunction or status order be scheduled on January 9 and 10, 2017, without further extension.

SO ORDERED. 11

On January 10, 2017, PARAD Condez issued the next assailed order to deny the petitioner's motion for reconsideration vis-à-vis the TRO issued on December 29, 2016. 12

On January 18, 2017, PARAD Condez issued the writ of preliminary injunction at the behest of the private respondents, to wit:

(1) That the 92-coop members of MCBCI-MFMC-Aliniabon group as identified in the T.R.O. and annotated in the MCBCI Titles, should be maintained in the possession and cultivation of their landholding, free from any kind of harassment from the opposing parties.

(2) That the Security Guards of MCBMPC/UNIFRUTTI are not allowed to post and enter Farm No. 2 to avoid confrontation with the Security Guards of MFMC.

(3) That the Security of MFMC shall man the main guard house of Farm No. 2 and its immediate vicinity.

(4) That MFMC shall allow the 32 coop members identified with MCBMPC-Cagumbay group whose landholdings are found in Farm No. 2 to harvest the bananas and to use their facilities in Farm Lot No. 2 without hindrance or any form of harassment.

(5) That the MCBCI-MFMC- Aliniabon Group shall continue to harvest and sell the bananas to any interested buyer offering fair and prevailing price in the market.

(6) That the Security Guards or any other person acting for and in behalf of MCBMPC-Cagumbay Group and Unifrutti are ordered not to close/padlock or create obstacle in the use of the packing house and other facilities in Farm No. 2 by the 92 coop-members for Aliniabon group and the 32 coop-members of the Cagumbay group whose landholdings are found in Farm No. 2.

(7) That the security guards or any person acting for and in behalf of MCBMPC-Cagumbay group is prohibited and should not padlock/close or create obstacle for the use of the packing house and other facilities in Farm No. 1 of the MCBCI-MFMC- Aliniabon group and allow the nine (9) coop members from the MCBCI-MFMC- Aliniabon group to use such facilities in Farm No. 1.

(8) That the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Philippine Army (PA), or the nearest para-military are hereby ordered to prevent the security guards of MCBMPC-Cagumbay group/UNIFRUTTI from invading Farm No. 2 and the security guards of MCBCI-MFMC- Aliniabon group invading Farm No. 1. The PNP and Philippine Army are hereby directed to assist the Regional Sheriff and the Provincial Sheriff of DAR Compostela Valley to eject all the security guards belonging to MCBMPC-Cagumbay group/UNIFRUTTI from Farm No. 2 and install all the guards of MCBCI-MFMC- Aliniabon group in Farm No. 2.

(9) That the Regional Sheriff and Provincial Sheriff of Compostela Valley are hereby ordered to execute this Preliminary Injunction and guide the PNP/Army/Paramilitary Unit in the peaceful implementation thereof pursuant to DAR/PNP-DILG/DOJ Memorandum Agreement.

(10) That the PNP Station Commander, pursuant to DAR/PNP-DILG/DOH Memorandum Agreement are hereby ordered to provide assistance in the safe and unhampered delivery of bananas of MCBCI-MFMC-Aliniabon group from the packing house to the buying station/bodega of buyers.

(11) No bond is required for the movant being a pauper litigant.

SO ORDERED. 13

Aggrieved, the petitioner has commenced G.R. No. 230882 by petition for certiorari and prohibition, and is submitting the following as the issues for consideration and determination, namely:

a. Whether or not Public Respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order dated December 29, 2016 and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated January 18, 2017;

b. Whether or not a writ of prohibition should be issued on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or manifest partiality and obstinate abuse of authority;

c. Whether or not Petitioners' prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order, writ of preliminary injunction and/or other equitable remedies should be granted. 14

In other words, the issues may be expressed in the following queries: (1) Could PARAD Condez assume jurisdiction to conduct the further proceedings directed in the resolution promulgated on August 8, 2016 in G.R. No. 198329?; and (2) Did PARAD Condez commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed orders dated December 29, 2016, January 8, 2017 and January 18, 2017?

Ruling of the Court

The petition is dismissed.

The petitioner mainly contends that it was the RARAD, not the PARAD, whom the resolution promulgated on August 8, 2016 specifically directed to conduct further proceedings to receive evidence and to determine whether or not the issues raised by the 160 members-beneficiaries of respondent Mampising CARP Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc. against the Memorandum of Agreement and the Exclusive Option to Purchase Bananas Agreement were genuine and authentic.

The Court cannot sustain the contention, and holds that PARAD Condez did not gravely abuse his discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the proceedings.

Under Section 5 (c), Rule II of the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure, the RARAD hears the following cases:

1. Those cases that cannot be handled by the PARAD on account of inhibition, disqualification or when there is no PARAD designated in the locality;

2. Those matters of such complexity and sensitivity that the decision thereof would constitute an important precedent affecting regional interest as may be recommended by the concerned PARAD and approved by the Board; and

3. Preliminary determination of just compensation within the jurisdictional limits as stated in Rule XIX, Sec. 2 hereof; and

4. Hear application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order and such other cases which the Board may assign. (bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)

The foregoing rule allows the PARAD to handle a case if there is a PARAD available in the locality. PARAD Condez of Compostela Valley Province was available; hence, he properly assumed authority over the conduct of the proceedings required by the August 8, 2016 resolution.

Considering that the purpose of the directive under the August 8, 2016 resolution was only to conduct the fact-finding hearing in order to determine whether or not the Memorandum of Agreement and the EOPBA had been genuine and authentic, the Court specifically directed the RARAD to conduct the hearing and to render a ruling thereon on the assumption that the RARAD could perform such task. It turns out, however, that the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure also recognizes the PARAD's equal competence to perform the task, if he was available, and this recognition was obviously practical. There would have been no difference had the Court tasked the PARAD in the area instead.

Accordingly, we uphold PARAD Condez's conduct of the proceedings directed by the August 8, 2016 resolution promulgated in G.R. No. 198329.

Anent the issuance by PARAD Condez of the assailed orders dated December 29, 2016, January 10, 2017 and January 18, 2017, the records show that the petitioner immediately came to the Court without first seeking relief from such orders in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). The latter recourse was in accord with Section 2, Rule II of the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure, to wit:

SECTION 2. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Board. — The Board shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review, reverse, modify, alter, or affirm resolutions, orders and decisions of the Adjudicators.

No order of the Adjudicators on any issue, question, matter, or incident raised before them shall be elevated to the Board until the hearing shall have been terminated and the case decided on the merits.

Under the circumstances, the petitioner did not exhaust its administrative remedies; hence, the filing of the petition for certiorari and prohibition directly in this Court was premature.

The petitioner did not also observe the principle of hierarchy of courts. It ought to remember that a direct resort to the Court is the exception, not the rule. Any direct resort is permitted only when an exceptional circumstance justifies the resort. Among the exceptional circumstances are the following, namely: (a) when there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) when the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) when there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) when the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) when the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) when judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted act violated due process; (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) where strong public interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings. 15

None of the exceptional circumstances applies herein.

The policy on the hierarchy of courts cannot be ignored without serious consequences. The Court has stressed in Bañez, Jr. v. Concepcion16 that the policy "is designed to shield the Court from having to deal with causes that are also well within the competence of the lower courts, and thus leave time to the Court to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it." The policy emphatically reminds all litigants that the Court is a court of last resort, and "must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition" that it "cannot and should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance." 17

The petitioner has not averred in its petition any special or compelling reasons to justify its direct resort to the Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the dismissal of the petition should follow.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for certiorari and prohibition in G.R. No. 230882; DIRECTS the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator for Compostela Valley Province to continue the proceedings conducted conformably with the resolution promulgated on August 8, 2016 in G.R. No. 198329, including receiving evidence on whether or not the issues raised by the 160 members-beneficiaries of respondent Mampising CARP Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc. against the Memorandum of Agreement and the Exclusive Option to Purchase Bananas Agreement entered into by the parties and submitted with the Joint Omnibus Motion to Admit and Approve Compromise Agreement (By Way of a Memorandum of Agreement) and to Dismiss the Case were genuine and authentic, and thereafter ruling thereon as the established facts and the pertinent laws warrant; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo (G.R. No. 230882), pp. 18-100.

2.Id. at 111-114.

3.Id. at 103-108.

4.Id. at 109-110.

5.Id. at 111-114.

6.Id. at 245.

7.Rollo (G.R. No. 198329), pp. 942-943.

8.Id. at 963-964.

9.Rollo (G.R. No. 230882), pp. 26-27.

10.Id. at 28-31.

11.Id. at 107-108.

12.Id. at 109-110.

13.Id. at 113-114.

14.Id. at 59.

15.Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255; Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 194024, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 461, 480-481.

16. G.R. No. 159508, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 237, 250.

17.Id., citing Vergara, Sr. v. Suelto, No. L-74766, December 21, 1987, 156 SCRA 753, 766.