OCA CIRCULAR NO. 23-2004, February 13, 2004

Reports have been received by this Office on the rampant issuances
of restraining orders, injunctions, prohibitions and/or mandamus which
tends to create conflict of jurisdiction over cases covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law in disregard of Sections 55 and 68
thereof and the pertinent issuances of ttie court.

Irt Administrative Circular No. 29-2002 dated 01 July 2002 re: Avoidance of conflict of Jurisdiction over cases under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998,
this Court reminded ail trial judges of the need for a careful and
judicious application of Republic Act No. 6657, also known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. it stressed the need
to avoid conflict of jurisdiction with the Department of Agrarian Reform
(CAR) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resot rces (DENR).
It likewise exhorted judges to avoid delays in the resolution of
Agrarian cases and cited the pertinent provisions of R.A 6657, to wit:

“Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. – The DAR is ‘ hereby
vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform,
except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department
of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (OENR) ‘

“Section 55. No restraining Order or Preliminary injunction. – No Court in the Philippines, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining
order or writ of preliminary injunction against the PARC or any of its
duly authorized or designated agci -ies 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.”

In the same Administrative Circular, trial court judges were further directed “to take note of the decisions of the r :preme Court of 3 December 1990 in Vda. de’ Tangub vs. Court of Appeals (1£. SCRA 885), and of 13 September 1991 in Quismundovs. Court of Appeals (201 SCRA 609).”

In Administrative Circular 38-2002 dated 28 August 2002 re: Implementation of Section 68 of RA. No. 6G57,
this Court, in the furtherance of the Courts policy expedite the
resolution of cases involving agrarian disputes, reminded all trial
judges to strictly observe Section 68 R.A. No. 6657, which provides as
follows:

“Section 68. – Immunity of Government Agencies
from Undue Inteference- No injunction restrainign order, prohibition or
mandamus shall be issued by the lower courts against the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program.

In OCA Circular No. 79-2003 dated 12 June 2003 re: Reminding judges
exercise utmost caution, prudence and judiclousness in issuance of
temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunctions, the
Office of the Court Administrator once again cautioned all trial judges
on the improvement or irregular issuance of TRO of the grant of writs of
preliminary injunction, and were reminded to be aware of the cases
where they may not issue TROs or preliminary injunctions which include
“dispute or controversy arising from or in connection with application,
implementation, enforcement or interpretation of the laws on agrarian
reform.”

for guidance and strict compliance.

__13__ February 2004.