SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233589. November 20, 2017.]
SPOUSES HABNER AND OFELIA RIVAREZ, petitioners,vs. ENGR. ROMULO A. BRITANICO, HON. ROMER M. MONTALES, OCTAVIOS SL. BOMBASE, PSUPT. JOEL P. ADAN, ROMEO C. DOMIQUEL, JOSEFINA L. DOMIQUEL, RODOLFO E. LATONERO, RUBEN EXCIJA, FRANKIE CABALLERO, REBECCA TORRES, ANTONIO LATONERO, JR., GENER M. EXCIJA, AND ESTELITA N. DIOQUINO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated20 November 2017which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 233589 (Spouses Habner and Ofelia Rivarez v. Engr. Romulo A. Britanico, Hon. Romer M. Montales, Octavios SL. Bombase, PSupt. Joel P. Adan, Romeo C. Domiquel, Josefina L. Domiquel, Rodolfo E. Latonero, Ruben Excija, Frankie Caballero, Rebecca Torres, Antonio Latonero, Jr., Gener M. Excija, and Estelita N. Dioquino)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the April 7, 2017 1 and July 20, 2017 2 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 150059 for failure of petitioners Spouses Habner and Ofelia Rivarez (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing the certiorari petition filed by petitioners against respondents Engr. Romulo A. Britanico, Hon. Romer M. Montales, Octavios SL. Bombase, PSupt. Joel P. Adan, Romeo C. Domiquel, Josefina L. Domiquel, Rodolfo E. Latonero, Ruben Excija, Frankie Caballero, Rebecca Torres, Antonio Latonero, Jr., Gener M. Excija, and Estelita N. Dioquino (respondents) for being the wrong remedy.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the March 9, 2017 Order issued by the Regional Trial Court of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Branch 56 (RTC) dismissing petitioners' certiorari petition is a final order, hence, the proper remedy was to file a notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the said Order. It is well-settled that the special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available, as in this case.
In any event, even if a certiorari petition may be allowed against such final order, the same would still be dismissible pursuant to Sections 55 3 and 68 4 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, as amended, which prohibit courts, except this Court, from issuing any restraining order or injunctive writ in cases arising from or in connection with the implementation and enforcement of the applicable agrarian laws, not falling within the exception provided under Section 50-A 5 of RA 6657, as amended, i.e., petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners and the prosecution of criminal offenses. Consequently, the RTC correctly refrained from taking cognizance of the complaint for injunction for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, JR., J., on official leave)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 33-35. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
2.Id. at 327-328.
3. Section 55. No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. — Except for the Supreme Court, no court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the PARC, the DAR, or any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform. (Emphasis supplied)
4. Section 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference. — In cases falling within their jurisdiction, no injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the regional trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts, and metropolitan trial courts.
5. SEC. 50-A of RA 6657 pertinently provides:
SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. — No court or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except those provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farm worker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, That from the determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial court and the prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial court, and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals. (Emphasis supplied)
In relation thereto, Section 57 of the same law provides:
SEC. 57. Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act.
The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision. (Emphasis supplied)