HEIRS OF PEDRO CABALAG, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. ROXAS Y CIA., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Heirs of Pedro Cabalag versus Roxas y Cia

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the heirs of Pedro Cabalag, a former farm tenant, against Roxas y Cia, its administrator and overseer, and the incumbent tenant, Bonifacio Martinez. The heirs sought recognition as farm tenants of a parcel of land within a hacienda in Nasugbu, Batangas. The case matters far less for the tenancy claim itself than for what it teaches about perfecting an appeal from the Court of Agrarian Relations: the Supreme Court never reached the merits, because the petitioners failed to file a notice of appeal with the agrarian court, and that omission proved fatal.

Procedural History

The heirs filed their action for recognition as farm tenants before the Court of Agrarian Relations, Fifth Regional District, sitting in San Pablo City. The agrarian court rendered a decision dismissing their claim, and the heirs received a copy of that decision on May 9, 1962. On May 21, 1962, they moved for reconsideration, which the agrarian court denied in an order dated June 4, 1962, received by the heirs on June 7, 1962.

On June 8, 1962, the heirs asked the Supreme Court for leave to appeal as pauper and for an extension of thirty days from June 10, 1962 within which to file their petition for review. The Supreme Court granted both requests. On July 10, 1962, the heirs filed their petition for certiorari, naming the Court of Agrarian Relations as one of the respondents, but they never filed a notice of appeal with the agrarian court. The respondents moved to dismiss the petition on that ground, and the Supreme Court deferred action on the motion until it could decide the case on the merits. The case thus reached the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Pedro Cabalag had been a tenant of Lot 105-A of Hacienda Palico, situated in barrio Palico, Nasugbu, Batangas. Roxas y Cia owned the hacienda, Antonio Chuidian was its administrator, and Teodulo Caisip was its overseer. Bonifacio Martinez was the incumbent tenant of the lot.

On December 2, 1958, the heirs of Pedro Cabalag, in their capacity as such heirs, brought an action against the owners, the administrator, the overseer, and the incumbent tenant to press their claim for recognition as farm tenants of Lot 105-A.

The agrarian court dismissed their claim. The heirs moved for reconsideration and were rebuffed. They then came to the Supreme Court for relief, but without ever filing the notice of appeal that the agrarian court required. The respondents, learning of this gap, promptly moved to dismiss.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioners perfected their appeal from the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations despite their failure to file a notice of appeal with that court.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court may acquire jurisdiction over the case and review the merits of the agrarian court's decision when no appeal was perfected.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, as quoted in the decision, governs how an appeal by certiorari is perfected:

SECTION 1. HOW TO PERFECT AN APPEAL.—An appeal by certiorari from an award, order or decision of the Court of Industrial Relations (or Workmen's Compensation Commission), shall be perfected by filing with SAID COURT, (or Commission) a notice of appeal and with the Supreme Court a petition within ten (10) days from notice of the award, order or decision appealed from (As Amended by C.A. No. 559.)

This provision bears directly on the case because the same rule was made applicable to appeals from the Court of Agrarian Relations, so that the notice of appeal had to be filed with the agrarian court itself, not merely with the Supreme Court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioners did not perfect their appeal. Under the rule, the petition for review must be filed with the Supreme Court and the notice of appeal with the commission or court a quo within ten days from receipt of the decision sought to be reviewed. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in the Pabores case, where a notice of appeal filed five days late was held to be an error fatal to the action, and on the Ammen Transportation case, where a favorable decision was set aside precisely because no notice of appeal had been filed with the commission. The Court noted that the rule for appeals from the Court of Industrial Relations was made applicable to appeals from the Court of Agrarian Relations by Supreme Court resolution of January 5, 1956, so that failure to file the notice of appeal with the agrarian court perforce results in no appeal being taken.

On the second issue, the Court held that because no appeal was perfected, the decision sought to be reviewed became final and executory, precluding the Supreme Court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. The Court acknowledged the hardship but stressed that the requirement of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, and that a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel in the conduct of a case.

Doctrine

An appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations is perfected only by filing a notice of appeal with the agrarian court and a petition for review with the Supreme Court within the reglementary period. The notice of appeal is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement; its omission renders the decision final and executory and deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to review the merits. A client is bound by the procedural mistakes of counsel.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review for failure to perfect the appeal as required, without costs. The respondents prevailed.

Remember This

No notice of appeal filed with the agrarian court means no appeal at all, and the decision becomes final and executory. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the notice of appeal and the rule that a client is bound by counsel's procedural errors.