CELEDONIO SANTOS, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Under date of February 8, 1952 Celedonio Santos Mariano Geronimo, Fabian
Geronimo, Domingo Valenzuela and Pantaleon Valenzuela, hereinafter to be
referredto as petitioners, filed a complaint (case No. 3625-R)In the Court of
Industrial Relations against Fidel Makapugay and Antonio Paulino, in substance
alleging that the petitioners have been for almost twenty-five years the tenante
of Fidel Makapugay on the latter’s rice land located in Tenejeros, Pulilan,
Bulacan; that they have been in peaceful possession and cultivation of said land
until February 1, 1952, when Antonio Paulino, allegedly acting as lessee of
Fidel Makapugay, tried and in fact was able to enter into the land; that the
petitioners cannot be summarily ejected in. the absence of any ground therefor
in accordance with the Tenancy Law. The petitioners prayed that Fidel Makapugay
and Antonio Paulino be ordered to respect their possession as tenants and that
an injunction be issued restraining Fidel Makapugay and Antonio Paulino from
entering the land in the meantime. On February 10,. 1952, Presiding Judge
Arsenio C. Roldan of the Court of Industrial Relations issued an order
prohibiting Fidel Makapugay and Antonio Paulino from interfering with the
possession of the petitioners pending final disposition of the cage on the
merits.

Under date February 14, 1952, Fidel Makapugay and Anionio Paulino filed an
answer in substance alleging that the petitioners were ejected from the land,
because they committed certain acts of unfaithfulness and breach of trust in
connection with their tenancy and failed to accomplish the necessary farm work
to insure a good harvest; and that the petitioners’ ejectment was in accordance
with the provisions of Act No. 4054 as amended.

Under date February 21, 1952, Fidel Makapugay filed a complaint (case No.
3715-R) in the Court Of Industrial Relations against the petitioners, alleging
in substance that the latter, who are tenants of Fidel Makapugay on the land
situated in Tenejeros, Pulilan, Bulacan, had committed certain misconduct and
willful disobedience to the lawful orders of Fidel Makapugay; that the
petitioners had failed to comply with their obligation, under Act No. 4054, as
amended, and under their contract of tenancy; that as a consequence the harvest
from the land was reduced to an unbelievable amount compared with the harvest
during previous agricultural years. Fidel Makapugay prayed that the case beheard
jointly with the complaint filed by the petitioners, case No. 3625-R, and that
after due hearing the petitioners be ordered ejected.

Under date of April 22, 1952, the petitioners filed an answer in case No.
3715-R, in substance alleging that they have no knowledge of any disobedience on
their part to lawful orders of Fidel Makapugay, or of any failure to comply with
their obligations as tenants under Act No. 4054, as amended; that if the harvest
was ever reduced, it was for reasons beyond petitioners’ control; and that the
parties in the two cases are not identical and the issues, though similar, are
not the same.

Under date of August 13, 1952, after a joint trial, Presiding Judge Arsenio
C. Roldan of the Court of Industrial Relations rendered the following
decision:

“In Case No. 3625-R, petitioners Celedonio Santos, Pantaleon Valenzuela,
Domingo Valenzuela, Mariano Geronimo, Fabian Geronimo claimed that they are
tenants of respondent Fidel Makapugay, and that they are being ejected without
just and reasonable cause, from their respective landholdings situated at
Tenejeros, Pulilan, Bulacan.

“The respondent in his answer alleged that, the petitioners are being ejected
due to the latters’ negligence and non-performance of their duties in connection
with the necessary farm work which will insure a good harvest.

“In Case No. 3715-E, landlord Fidel Makapugay averred that the hereinabove
tenants have committed acts of misconduct or willful disobedience to his lawful
orders and that said tenants failed to comply with their obligations in
accordance with Act 4054, as amended.

“On the other hand, the respondent tenants denied all the allegations in the
complaint and maintained that although the issues in both case are similar, they
are net the same.

“An interlocutory order was issued by this Court dated February 14, 1952.
maintaining the status quo of the litigating parties in the
landholdings in question pending the hearing and final disposition of the,case
on its merits.

“In view of the identity of the parties and subject matter, these cases were
heard jointly and presently consolidated for purposes of decision.

“From the evidence of record, we find fully established the following
facts:

“There exist tenancy relations between the landlord and the tenants; the
lands in question are irrigated first-class lands the crops have been scarce
considering that these lands are first-class and irrigated; the dikes were
broken and, at least, dilapidated and too low to hold water necessary for the
cultivation of the seedlings, which may also be the cause of the poor harvest
just mentioned; in the landholdings of Pantaleon Valenzuela, Mariano Geronimo
and Celedonio Santos, the said tenants constructed in their landholdings ponds
which they use for fishing purposes against the will of the landlord and in
disobedience to the latter’s order; in the landholdings of Mariano Geronimo,
Celedonio Santos, and Fabian Geronimo, portions thereof were not cultivated and
so were not planted with palay; Celedonio Santos and Mariano Geronimo do not own
carabaos and have to resort to ‘Palusong’ system in the cultivation of their
landholdings; the tenants planted also rice of the variety called ‘malagkit’ but
no share was given to the landlord.

“The question at issue is whether or not there is sufficient cause or causes
for landlord Fidel Makapugay to eject the herein tenants.

“Premises considered, the Court is of the opinion, and so holds, that the
herein tenants have been grossly negligent in the performance of their duties to
the prejudice of the harvest of the entire landholding in question and have
commited acts which constitute just cause for their ejectment, in accordance
with sub-paragraph 2 section 19, Act 4054 as amended.

“In view of the foregoing, landlord Fidel Makapugay is hereby authorized to
dispossess his tenants, Celedonio Santos, Pantaleon Valenzuela, Domingo
Valenzuela, Mariano Geronimo, and Fabian Geronimo from the landholdings situated
at Tenejeros, Pulilan, Bulacan, subject to the provisions of sections 21 and 22
of Act 4054 as amended.

“So ordered.”

On August 21, 1952, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration based
on the grounds that the decision was not supported by the evidence and is
contrary to law, and that irregularities were committed or took place during the
trial, prejudicial to petitioners’ rights. Before this motion for
reconsideration could be acted upon by the Court of Industrial Relations in
banc, a joint motion dated December 18, 1952, signed by Fidel Makapugay on
the one hand and lsmael Gali, attorney for petitioners, on the other, was flied
in the Court of Industrial Relations, praying that movants be allowed to
withdraw their respective suits, on the ground that, with respect to the harvest
during the 1952-1953 agricultural year, they arrived at the following
stipulations, “a. That the sharing shall be on the 70-30 basis;
b. That the landlord’s share of the seedlings sha11 be reimbursed or
returned; c. That the landlord shall have at his option his
representative in the liquidation of the harvest who shall take delivery of his
share; and d. That all the expenses in cultivation shall be in equity and for
the account of tenants in accordance with law.” In the motion it was also prayed
that the foregoing stipulations be sanctioned by the court. Under date of
January 8, 1953, Presiding Judge Roldan lssued a resolutlon providing that: “if
the intention of the parties is to withdraw all suits including the motion for
reconsideration, this Court has no objection and, therefore, approves the
withdrawal of the motion for reconsideration,”

Under date of, January 20, 1953, the petitioners filed a motion for
clarification, in essence alleging that it was the primary intention of the
parties in filing the joint motion of December 18, 1952, to have an amicable
settlement and to withdraw the two suits, namely, cases Nos. 3625-R.and 3715-R.
Upon the other hand, Fidel Makapugay filed a motion dated February 13, 1953,
alleging that he signed the joint motion in the belief that its only purpose was
to withdraw petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in return for the agreement
of Fidel Makapugay to divide the current harvest on a 70-30 sharing basis; that
he would have not signed the motion if the result would be the withdrawal of his
suit against the petitioners wherein he had already obtained a favorable
judgment; and praying that the parties be placed in status quo.

The, Presiding Judge Roldan issued a resolution dated March 27, 1958, the
dispositive part of which ‘reads as follows; “Evidently, the Court in approving
the resolution allowing the withdrawal of the motion for reconsideration of
August 20, 1952, which was pending hearing in the Court in banc, did so
without including the withdrawal of the suits because they had already been
decided by the said Court. If it is pretended that the joint motion includes the
withdrawal of the suits, this Court hereby denies said joint motion but sets
aside the resolution of January 8, 1953 and reinstates the motion for
reconsideration of August 20, 1952 in the calendar of the Court.” On October 24,
1953, the Court of Industrial Relations in banc promulgated a
resolution denying the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, on the ground
that after a careful perusal of the evidence as well as the oral and written
arguments of both parties, it failed to find sufficient justification for
altering or modifying the decision of Presiding Judge Roldan dated August 13,
1952. ‘Hence the petitioners instituted the present petition for review on
certiorari.

One of the grounds invoked by the petitioners herein is that the lower court
rendered its decision, based on the evidence presented by only one party, the
landlord, while petitioners’ evidence was not given weight. It is needless to
state that under the rules and repeated decisions of this Court, findings of
fact of the Court of Industrial Relations in an appeal by certiorari are
conclusive and cannot therefore be reviewed. While we are not insensitive to the
situation of the petitioners who have held the land in question for many years
under tenancy, we are constrained to accept the facts as found by the Court of
Industrial Relations, considering that we have to apply the law with impartial
uniformity.

The petitioners have pointed out certain irregularities
which allegedly prejudiced their rights. For instance they claim that (1) their
motion for a bill of particulars in case No. 3715-R Was denied; (2) the two
cases were tried and decided jointly although they are not identical, and the
decision was rendered after the trial of only one case; (3) without authority
from the Court of Industrial Relations Atty. Miguel Valera replaced Atty.
Sontuico as commissioner to hear the cases; (4) the Court of Industrial
Relations did not give due course to petitioners’ motion for ocular inspection;
(5) the hearing on petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by the court in bane
was suspended until the missing portions of the records were found; (6) the
court failed to approve the amicable settlement and withdrawal of two suits as
prayed for in the joint motion dated December 18, 1952; and (7) the petitioners
were not able to cross-examine one of the witnesses for the landlord because
commissioner Valera took over the hearing in the afternoon of June 20, 1952, and
prevented the petitioners from cross-examining said witness.

Even if these irregularities were actually committed, we are unable to hold
that petitioners’ substantial rights were prejudiced. It is noteworthy that in
the hearing held before commissioner Valera in the afternoon of June 20, 1952,
the parties, through their respective attorneys, entered into the following
stipulations:

“The Commissioner

“All right, we will now proceed.

“Attys. Lindayag and Gali jointly manifesting …

“In order to abbreviate the proceedings “of this case, counsel of both
parties have agreed on the following stipulations of facts, to wit:
“1. That
the petitioner is.intending to lease and/or sell the landholding in
question,
“2. The pilapiles are now repaired,
“3. That Pantaleon
Valenzuela and Celedonio Santos, if presented, would testify that they did not
plant malagkit in the last agricultural year, and
“4. That the balon
occupies a small portion of the landholding of Celedonio Santos and Pantaleon
Valenzuela and that it is customary to have this balons in that
place,
“5. That they would deny that a portion of their landholding were left
uncultivated.

“Atty. Gali

“I am submitting the map representing a rough sketch of the landholding in
question and I request that it be marked as Exh. ‘A’ for the tenants.

“The Commissioner

“Let that map be marked as Bxh. ‘A’ for the tenants.

“Special Deputy

“Mark the map as directed, Exh. ‘A’ for the tenants.

“Atty Gali

“I am manifesting that the lower portion of the landholding in question are
already planted and the seedling are already grown and ready for
transplanting.
“In this connection, I pray that the. Court would send a
Commissioner to verify this statement by going to the premises.

“The Commissioser

“The Court shall, if necessary so as to be guided accordingly in the proper
determination of the case, by moto proprio, send a representative to go to the
premises to verify that statement of counsel for the tenants.

“Atty. Gali

“With the presentation of Exh. ‘A’ for the tenants, I rest my case.

“The Commissioner

“Won’t counsels for parties file their respective memorandum?

“Attys. Gali and Lindayag jointly manifesting …

“We will file, Mr. Commissioner.

“The Commissioner

“All right, counsels are hereby given 5 days upon receipt of their copies of
the transcript of this case within which to file their respective memorandum
simultaneously.”

In view of said stipulations, the petitioners cannot now complain about most,
if not all, of the irregularities above mentioned, because proper reservations
or objections could and should have been made during the aforesaid hearing. At
any rate, under section 20. of Commonwealth Act No. 103, In the hearing,
investigation and determination of any question or controversy and in exercising
any duties and power under this Act, the Court shall act according to justice
and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities
or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence
but may inform its mind in’such manner as it may deem just and equitable.”

With reference to the joint motion dated December 18, 1952,.the motion for
clarification dated January 20, 1953, filed by for petitioners, and the motion
dated February 13, 1953, filed by attorney for Fidel Makapugay, we are of the
opinion that the action of the Court of Industrial Relations, first, in issuing
the resolution of January 8, 1953 and, secondly, in promulgating the resolution
March 27, 1953, is proper specially in view of the disavowal by Fidel Makapugay
of the recital or primary object of the joint motion.

The joint trial of and joint decision in the two cases are likewise
appropriate, since the mam issue in both suits same namely, whether the
petitioners are guilty of such acts or omissions as would be sufficient to
warrant their ejectment under Act No. 4054, as amended.

The suspension of the hearing on petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on
September 22, 1952, when it was discovered that a portion of the transcript was
missing, far from being criticized, was the most logical thing for the court to
do. Indeed, no sooner had the misplaced transcript been located than the
consideration of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was resumed on October
1, 1952, and court resolved the same on October 24, 1952.

Wherefore, the decision complained of is affirmed. So ordered without
costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo,
Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.