FEDERICO PINEDA, PETITIONER VS. DOMINGO CABAÑGON, ASSOCIATE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, AND MARCELINO TIAMZON RESPONDENTS.

Pineda versus Cabañgon

The Case

This is a special civil action for a writ of certiorari filed by Federico Pineda, a landholder, against Domingo Cabañgon, the Associate Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations who rendered the judgment complained of, and against Marcelino Tiamzon, his tenant. Pineda asked the Supreme Court to annul the judgment of the agrarian court that dismissed his petitions for authority to dispossess Tiamzon and ordered him instead to maintain Tiamzon as his tenant. The case matters because it fixes the correct mode of review of decisions of the Court of Agrarian Relations and reminds us that certiorari is not a substitute for the appeal that the law provides.

Procedural History

Pineda filed two complaints in the Court of Agrarian Relations, Third Regional District, sitting at Tarlac: one seeking to compel his tenants to plant by the Masagana System or be dispossessed, and another seeking authority to dispossess Tiamzon for taking on another landholding without his consent. After amendments, answers, and an ocular inspection conducted by a JAGO officer appointed by the court, the agrarian court rendered judgment dismissing the complaints, ordering Pineda to maintain Tiamzon as tenant, and denying Tiamzon's claim for attorney's fees. Pineda moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, claiming grave abuse of discretion and that there was no appeal. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition for lack of supporting papers, but on reconsideration ordered the respondents to answer. The agrarian court excused itself from answering, and Tiamzon answered, raising the objection that the proper remedy is a petition for review under the agrarian law.

Facts

On 27 July 1956, Pineda filed a complaint in the Court of Agrarian Relations against Tiamzon and several other tenants, praying that they be ordered to plant their palay by the Masagana System, the approved government method, and that failing this, he be authorized to dispossess them, with damages. On 2 August 1956, he filed a second complaint against Tiamzon alone, seeking his ejectment for failing to take good care of his landholding, because Tiamzon had taken on another landholding of about two and a half hectares owned by Agapito Ronquillo without Pineda's knowledge and consent.

The complaints were later amended, adding allegations that Tiamzon had abandoned his landholding, failed to cultivate and irrigate his plants, and neglected his palay because he was holding office daily at the Federation of Free Farmers in Concepcion, Tarlac. Tiamzon answered, denying the allegations and claiming that the complaints were filed out of vengeance and spite.

On Pineda's motion, the agrarian court directed a JAGO officer to conduct an ocular inspection. The officer reported that the rice plants were knee-high and a big portion had been attacked by stem borers, that the farm was abundant with weeds, that the pilapiles were not well-kept, and that there was no sign the field had been touched except two paddies. The commissioner recommended ejectment, but the agrarian court found that the small yield was due to the pest attack and not to the weeds, and dismissed the complaints.

Issues

• Whether or not a petition for a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to review a judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
• Whether or not the petition for certiorari was filed within the fifteen-day period fixed by law for a petition for review.
• Whether or not the facts alleged by the petitioner constitute grave abuse of discretion warranting the annulment of the judgment.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13 of Republic Act Numbered Twelve Hundred Sixty-Seven, as amended by Republic Act Numbered Fourteen Hundred Nine, provides:

Any party may appeal from an order or judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice of such order or judgment, to the Supreme Court, where only questions of law may be raised.

This provision fixes both the remedy and the period, and it is the ground on which the Court denies the petition.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the proper mode of appeal from decisions of the Court of Agrarian Relations is a petition for review under Section 13 of Republic Act Numbered Twelve Hundred Sixty-Seven, as amended, where only questions of law may be raised. Certiorari cannot be granted because the petitioner could have appealed from the judgment complained of.

On the second issue, the Court noted that the petition did not state the dates when the petitioner received notice of the judgment and of the order denying reconsideration, so the Court could not determine whether the petition was filed within the fifteen-day period. Allowing five days for notice of the order denying reconsideration, the Court found that the petition filed on 9 October 1958 was beyond the fifteen-day period. Considered as an appeal, the petition must be disallowed because it does not show that it was filed within the statutory period.

On the third issue, the Court held that the facts alleged in support of the prayer for certiorari raise issues of fact and cannot properly be deemed as proven or established facts in a special civil action or in a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain that the judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations is reviewed by a petition for review under Section 13 of Republic Act Numbered Twelve Hundred Sixty-Seven, as amended by Republic Act Numbered Fourteen Hundred Nine, filed within fifteen days from receipt of notice, and raising only questions of law. Certiorari is not a substitute for this appeal, and allegations of fact in a petition for certiorari are not deemed proven or established. The petition must state the dates of receipt of the judgment and of the order denying reconsideration to show timeliness.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the writ prayed for, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: the judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations is reviewed by a petition for review within fifteen days, raising only questions of law, and certiorari is not a substitute for that appeal. Examiners like to use this case to test the correct mode of review of agrarian court decisions and the strict fifteen-day period.