Pilar Development Corp. v. Samahan ng mga Magsasaka

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 237898. August 10, 2022.]

PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MARY LOU A. VASQUEZ, petitioner,vs. SAMAHAN NG MGA MAGSASAKA SA SITIO UDIONGAN, BRGY. MACABUD, RODRIGUEZ, RIZAL, REPRESENTED BY LOLITA RONQUILLO, HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND HON. DAR SECRETARY, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 10, 2022, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 237898 (Pilar Development Corporation, represented by Mary Lou A. Vasquez vs. Samahan ng mga Magsasaka sa Sitio Udiongan, Brgy. Macabud, Rodriguez, Rizal, represented by Lolita Ronquillo, Hon. Executive Secretary and Hon. DAR Secretary). — Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45, Rules of Court, assailing the 9 October 2017 Decision 2 and the 28 February 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the Petition for Review in CA-G.R. SP No. 133598 for containing an incorrect statement of facts and for failing to submit the correct documents relevant to OP Case No. 08-H-296 and to the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 174168, and denied the Motion for Reconsideration 4 dated 2 November 2017, respectively.

Petitioner Pilar Development Corporation (PDC), represented by Aurora Sicam (now represented by Mary Lou Vasquez), owns two parcels of land located at Barangay Macabud, Rodriguez, Rizal, covered by TCT Nos. 174168 and 174169, respectively. 5 On 21 January 1998, PDC filed an application for exemption of TCT No. 174168 from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) based on Section 10 (c), Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998. 6

In an Order 7 dated 11 September 2000, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) denied PDC's application for exemption on the ground that the subject property is moderately flat to rolling and is agriculturally developed based on a revalidation report submitted by the Department of Agriculture and a Memorandum issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 8 Consequently, on 18 October 2000, PDC filed a Motion for Reconsideration 9 which was denied by the DAR on 30 January 2001. 10

PDC filed an Appeal 11 and a Supplemental Appeal 12 at the Office of the DAR Secretary on 2 February 2001 and 20 March 2001, respectively. The appeal was denied by the DAR Secretary in his 30 June 2008 Order. 13 The DAR Secretary cited the findings of the Claims and Conflicts Division of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, which conducted an ocular inspection, finding that the subject property is planted with different kinds of fruit-bearing trees and crops. Further, the DAR Secretary ruled that "the subject property is agriculturally developed as of 15 June 1988, hence, within the ambit of CARP." 14

On 25 July 2008, PDC filed a Notice of Appeal 15 before the Office of the President (OP), docketed as OP Case No. 08-H-296. 16

In its 11 July 2013 Decision, 17 the OP dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the DAR Undersecretary and Secretary. 18 The OP relied on the doctrine that "factual findings of administrative bodies on technical matters within their area of expertise should be accorded not only respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence even if they are not overwhelming or preponderant." 19

PDC moved for reconsideration on 5 August 2013, 20 but the same was denied on 16 December 2013. 21

On 3 February 2014, PDC filed a Petition for Review 22 before the CA, docketed as C.A.-G.R. SP No. 133598. 23

In its Decision dated 9 October 2017, the CA dismissed the Petition for Review based on procedural technicality: HESIcT

The petition is devoid of merit.

At the outset, this Court finds that the petition contains an incorrect statement of facts and relevant proceedings. The petition alleges that the parcel of land subject of the petition at bench is covered by TCT No. T-174169. However, the subject of the OP's decision dated July 11, 2013, which is assailed in the petition at bench, is a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 174168. 24

Subsequently, on 3 November 2017, PDC filed a Motion for Reconsideration with prayer to admit the attached Amended Petition for Review, 25 which the CA denied in the assailed 28 February 2018 Resolution. The CA ruled that:

x x x More importantly, other than invoking the Court's liberality, petitioner failed to give in its motion for reconsideration any reason for its failure to comply with the Rules. Petitioner should be reminded that the bare invocation of the "interest of justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules, like all rules, are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons. Without a valid explanation, the Court cannot be expected to be liberal or indulgent. Hence, this Court finds no cogent reason to modify or reverse the assailed decision. 26

PDC filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari on 26 April 2018, raising the following issues:

1. Whether the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Review based on technicalities.

2. Whether there is a strong compelling reason for this Court to take cognizance of the Petition and decide the case on the merits to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Respondents filed their separate Comments 27 on the Petition. PDC filed a Compliance with Manifestation 28 stating that it would no longer file a reply to the separate Comments on the Petition for Review on Certiorari. 29

The Court finds no reason to reverse the CA.

PDC contends that it corrected the errors and informed the CA of the correct details of the property in its Reply 30 to Samahan ng mga Magsasaka sa Sitio Udiongan's Comment on the Petition. It adds that it amended its Petition when it filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 9 October 2017 Decision of the CA.

PDC further argues that, notwithstanding the transgression of the procedural rules, the greater interest of justice will be served by deciding the case on the merits considering that PDC showed its intention and willingness to comply with the procedural rules.

The arguments deserve scant consideration.

Sections 6 and 7, Rule 43, Rules of Court, provide the required contents of the petition and the effect of failure to comply with such requirements. Thus:

Section 6.  Contents of the petition. — The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein. (2a)

Section 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

In the instant case, PDC failed to present a concise statement of facts because it erroneously alleged that the property subject of the petition is TCT No. 174169 instead of TCT No. 174168 (the property subject of the 11 July 2013 OP Decision). PDC likewise failed to attach the correct and relevant documents to the petition. The CA found that Annexes "H," "I," "J," "K," "L," "M," "N," "O," "P," and Annex J of "P" pertain to OP Case No. 10-C-127 involving the property covered by TCT No. 174169. 31 Considering the foregoing, the CA correctly dismissed PDC's petition.

Moreover, as found by the CA, PDC acknowledged its mistake in its Reply 32 dated 30 March 2014 to the Comment and stated that it was "just an inadvertence." 33 However, PDC also failed to scrutinize the subsequent document it submitted, the Memorandum 34 dated 12 September 2014, and repeated the same mistake. The CA ruled that PDC merely copied in its Memorandum the wrong information stated in its Petition. 35 This clearly shows that PDC was negligent in complying with the procedural rules.

In the case of Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc. v. Raza, 36 the Supreme Court held that the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid reasons proffered for or underpinning it. To merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantive justice. PDC has not demonstrated any persuasive reason for liberality to apply.

Also, PDC wants this Court to resolve the main issue of whether the subject property (TCT No. 174168) is exempt from the coverage of CARP.

To resolve this, the Court needs to review the factual findings of the DAR Undersecretary and Secretary. It must be stressed that a review by certiorari under Rule 45 is a matter of discretion. Under this mode of review, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact. 37 In addition, it is settled that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. 38

In the present case, both findings of the DAR Undersecretary and Secretary, which are supported by substantial evidence, were affirmed by the OP. There is no reason to depart from such findings.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated 9 October 2017, and Resolution dated 28 February 2018, in CA-G.R. SP No. 133598, the petition is DENIED.

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. 12-33.

2. Id. at 35-45; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and concurred in by Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Pablito A. Perez.

3. Id. at 47-49; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and concurred in by Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza and Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez.

4. Id. at 247-257.

5. Id. at 35.

6. Id. at 57-58.

7. Id. at 59-62; issued by Department of Agrarian Reform Undersecretary Conrado S. Navarro.

8. Id.

9. Id. at 63-65.

10. Id. at 66-68; issued by Department of Agrarian Reform Undersecretary Conrado S. Navarro.

11. Id. at 70-72.

12 Id. at 73-78.

13 Id. at 122-127; issued by Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman.

14. Id. at 125-126.

15. Id. at 128-130.

16. Id.

17. Id. at 206-214; issued by Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., by authority of the President.

18. Id. at 213.

19. Id.

20. Id. at 215-222.

21. Id. at 223-224; issued by Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., by authority of the President.

22. Id. at 225-246.

23. Id.

24. Id. at 39; citations omitted; emphasis supplied.

25. Id. at 247-254.

26. Id. at 48; citations omitted.

27. Id. at 457-461, 473-495.

28. Id. at 610-614.

29. Id.

30. Id. at 559-566.

31. Id. at 43.

32. Id. at 559-566.

33. Id.

34. Id. at 574-588.

35. Id. at 43-44.

36. 606 Phil. 796, 803 (2009).

37. DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies v. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc., 516 Phil. 110, 117 (2006).

38. Sebastian v. Morales, 445 Phil. 595, 609 (2003).