G.R. No. 59606. January 08, 1987
EDMUNDO ROMERO, FELIZA F. ROMERO, JOSE ADORABLE AND GERONIMO CASAES, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH DIVISION, THE HONORABLE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, …
FERIA, J.:
In this petition for review on certiorari of the decision
promulgated on January 26, 1982 by the Ninth Division of respondent
Court of Appeals affirming in full the decision rendered on August 31, 1981 by
Branch II of respondent Court of Agrarian Relations, Tenth Regional
District, Naga City, petitioners allege violation of
their constitutional rights to due process and the equal protection
of the laws.
The pertinent facts are as follows.
On March 8, 1979 private respondent filed with the Court of
Agrarian Relations an action for reinstatement with damages against petitioners
which was docketed therein as CAR Case No. 5524 CS’79.
The agrarian court found and the parties agree that the main
issue raised in said case was factual in character — whether or not private
respondent was the bona-fide agricultural tenant-farmer (now
agricultural lessee) on the two parcels of agricultural land subject-matter of
the complaint. As a matter of fact, this is the crucial issue
because the resolution of all the other issues depends upon its
resolution.
In its aforementioned decision rendered on August 31, 1981,
the agrarian court also found “that the greater preponderance of evidence
sustains plaintiff’s (private respondent’s) claim that he is the
bona-fide tenant-farmer, now agricultural lessee, of the two (2)
parcels of land in question.” The decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations
consisted of thirteen pages, single space.
Pursuant to Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 946, an
appeal was taken by the petitioners from the decision of the Court of Agrarian
Relations to respondent Court of Appeals and was docketed therein as CA-G.R. No.
13522-CAR. Section 18 of P.D. No. 946 reads:
“SECTION 18. Appeals. — An appeal may be taken to the Court
of Appeals by giving an oral or written notice of appeal with the trial court
within the period of fifteen (15) days from notice of order or decision.
A copy of the written notice of appeal shall be served within the same
period upon the adverse party. In case the notice of appeal is
orally made, the clerk of court shall reduce the same to writing, which shall be
signed by the appellant and a copy thereof served within the same period by the
clerk of court to the adverse party.
“In case a motion for reconsideration is filed within that period of
fifteen (15) days, the notice of appeal shall be filed within ten (10) days from
notice of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.
Only one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed a
party.
“The Court of Appeals shall affirm the decision or order or the
portions thereof appealed from if the findings of fact in the said
decision or order are supported by substantial evidence as basis thereof, and
the conclusions stated therein are not clearly against the law and
jurisprudence. The Court of Appeals shall not be precluded from
taking into consideration any issue, question or incident, even if not raised,
if resolution thereof is necessary for a complete and just disposition of the
case.
“The Court of Agrarian Relations shall forward to the Court of
Appeals the complete records of the case within a non-extendible period of
fifteen (15) days from receipt of a notice of appeal, if no motions for
reconsideration are filed. In the event that motions for
reconsideration are filed, the records shall be forwarded to the appellate court
within a like period from receipt by the party concerned of the denial of the
last motion for reconsideration.
“Appeal shall not stay the decision or order except where the ejectment of a tenant-farmer, agricultural lessee or tiller,
settler, or amortizing owner-cultivator is directed.
“Upon receipt of the records of the case from the Court of
Agrarian Relations, the Court of Appeals may, if it deems necessary, require the
parties to file simultaneous memoranda within a non-extendible period of fifteen
(15) days from notice; the appellate court shall decide the case within thirty
(30) days from receipt of said records or memoranda.
“No motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be allowed in
the court of Appeals.
“All cases of the Court of Agrarian Relations now pending before the
Court of Appeals shall remain in the Division to which they have
been assigned, and shall be decided within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Decree; Provided, however,
That if the decision or order be an affirmance in toto of the dispositive conclusion of the
judgment appealed from, then the Court of Appeals may, instead of rendering an
extended opinion, indicate clearly the trial court’s findings of fact and
pronouncements of law which have been adopted as basis for the
affirmance.
“Upon the effectivity of this Decree, the
Court of Appeals shall designate at least two (2) of its Divisions to which all
appealed agrarian cases shall be assigned, and these cases shall have priority
over other cases.
“The decisions or orders of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to
the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari only on questions
of law, within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt by the
appellant of a copy of the decision or order.” (Emphasis supplied).
No notice of the receipt of the records from the Court of
Agrarian Relations was issued by respondent Court of
Appeals.
Neither was any notice issued by respondent Court of Appeals
that it was dispensing “with the usual practice of requiring the parties to
submit to Us their memoranda in lieu of briefs.” (p. 4,
Decision)
On January 26, 1982 respondent Court of
Appeals promulgated the aforementioned decision which
reads:
“‘WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
- Declaring the plaintiff as the bona-fide tenant-farmer, now
agricultural lessee, of the two (2) parcels of land in question, more
particularly bounded and described as follows:
and
the defendant Jose Adorable as the present landholder-owner who acquired said
parcels of land hereinabove-described by purchase from its previous owners, the
defendants-spouses Edmundo Romero and Felisa F. Romero.
- Ordering the defendants or any person or persons acting for and in their
behalf to vacate the landholdings in question hereinabove-described and to
deliver the possession thereof to the plaintiff and, thereafter, to maintain the
plaintiff in the peaceful possession and cultivation thereof as agricultural
lessee thereon, with all the other rights granted and obligations imposed under
existing tenancy laws, Presidential Decrees, Orders, Instructions, Rules and
Regulations issued in pursuance of the agrarian reform program of the
government. - Ordering the defendants-spouses Edmundo Romero and
Felisa F. Romero and defendant Jose Adorable, jointly
and severally, to indemnify the plaintiff as actual damages on account of
illegal ejectment 162 cavans
of palay at 46 kilos per cavan or their equivalent money value based on the
prevailing government support price for palay,
representing what the plaintiff would have received from the produce on the two
(2) parcels of land in question for the past three (3) first croppings but have already taken place on the landholding in
total of 81 cavans of palay
at the rate of 27 cavans of palay every first cropping season, and the total of 81 cavans of palay for the past four
(4) second cropping seasons that have already taken place on the two (2) parcels
of land in question at the rate of 20.25 cavans of
palay per second cropping
season. - Ordering the present landholder owner, defendant Jose Adorable, to pay the
plaintiff 27 cavans of palay
for every first cropping thereafter, starting this first cropping of 1981
covering the period from June, 1981 to December, 1981, 27 cavans of palay and 20.25 cavans of palay for every second
cropping starting during the second cropping of 1982, covering the period from
January, 1982 to May, 1982, until the plaintiff is finally reinstated on his
landholdings in question. - Ordering the plaintiff and the defendant Jose Adorable as the
present landholder-owner of the two (2) parcels of land in question to desist
and refrain from further adopting the sharing system, but should observe
leasehold. - Dismissing plaintiff’s other claims for insufficiency of
evidence. - Dismissing defendant’s counterclaim for lack of merit.
- Ordering the defendants Edmundo
Romero, Felisa F. Romero and Jose Adorable to pay the
costs of this suit.
SO ORDERED.’
“This is the judgment rendered by His Honor, Judge Juan B. Llaguno, presiding judge, Branch II, Court of Agrarian
Relations, Tenth Regional District, with station at Naga City, which is now brought to Us for review in this appeal.
“After a perusal of the records of the case, We find the issues
definitely and clearly set out by the pleadings and that the evidences adduced
by the parties are adequately complete as to give Us no room for vacillation on
the correct and just resolution of the issues. This persuades
Us to dispense with the usual practice of requiring the
parties to submit to Us their memoranda, in lieu of briefs. The
simplicity of the factual and legal issues involved makes it more desirable to
dispose of this case at the earliest possible time. And as appeals
of this nature and of such kind of cases merely require the appellate finding of
whether or not the decision is supported by substantial evidence and that it is
not contrary to law and jurisprudence, then all that We have to do is to make a
review of the evidence adduced by the parties and to pass upon the trial court’s
conclusions of law and of fact in the light of the evidence
adduced.
“We have, therefore, carefully reviewed the evidence and made a
re-assessment of the same, and We are persuaded, nay
compelled, to affirm the correctness of the trial court’s factual findings and
the soundness of its conclusion. For judicial convenience and
expediency, therefore, We hereby adopt, by way of
reference, the findings of facts and conclusions of the court a quo
spread in its decision, as integral part of this Our decision.
“The exhaustive and intelligent dissertation of the issues in the
appealed decision renders it unnecessary for Us to make
further disquisition. The well-written decision of the lower court
does not need any improvement.
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the judgment appealed
from, being supported by substantial evidence and being in conformity with the
applicable law and jurisprudence, is hereby AFFIRMED in full.
“With costs against
appellants.
“SO ORDERED.
“Judgment AFFIRMED.”
Hence, the present petition.
In addition to alleging violation of their constitutional rights
to due process and to equal protection of the laws, petitioners contend that the
findings of fact in the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, as affirmed
in toto by respondent Court of Appeals, are not supported by
substantial evidence and the conclusions stated therein are clearly against the
law. Petitioners claim that had respondent Court of Appeals not
dispensed with the usual practice of requiring the parties to submit
simultaneous memoranda in lieu of appeal briefs they could have
pointed out to respondent Court of Appeals which findings of fact in the
decision of the lower court are not supported by substantial evidence and which
conclusions stated therein are clearly against the law.
The petition is meritorious.
In the case of Molino vs. Court of Appeals, a division of
this Court held that “one of the important reasons for the promulgation of P.D.
No. 946 is expressed in the preambular words:
‘x x x to streamline their (Courts
of Agrarian Relations) procedures to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive
disposition of agrarian cases,'” and that “the aforestated purpose of the statute is desirable and the
means provided to accomplish it are reasonable.” (July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 801,
802)
It is significant to note that under Section 19 of The Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Courts of Agrarian Relations were integrated
into the Regional Trial Courts and their former jurisdiction was vested in the
latter courts. However, it was also provided in Section 24 of said
law that whenever a Regional Trial Court takes cognizance of juvenile and
domestic relations cases and/or agrarian cases, the special rules of procedure
applicable to such cases under the laws then in force shall continue to be
applied, unless subsequently amended by law or by rules of court promulgated by
the Supreme Court. Although not expressly provided in said law,
the procedure on appeal provided by P.D. No. 946 is still applicable until
amended as above stated.
Although Section 18 of P.D. No. 946, in the interest of the
expeditious administration of justice, empowers the Court of Appeals to
dispense with memoranda in deciding agrarian cases, a division of this Court has
held as follows:
“Nothwithstanding the foregoing, we hold
that, as a matter of orderly procedure and to dispel the impression that a
litigant in an agrarian case has been denied due process or was not accorded
a hearing in the Court of Appeals, it is advisable that if the
Appellate Court finds that memoranda are not necessary, it should at least issue
a notice to the parties that the case is submitted for decision without any
memoranda.” (Ty vs. Elale, July 5,
1982, 115 SCRA 29, 33)
We reiterate this ruling.
In the case at bar, no notice was given to the parties, and
particularly to petitioners, that the case was submitted for decision without
any memoranda. The former Solicitor General, in his
brief for the public respondents (no brief was filed by private
respondent), argued that due process was not violated because petitioners could
have submitted their memorandum any time between perfecting the appeal and the
forwarding of the complete records to the Court of Appeals, and they could also
have done so after receipt by the Court of Appeals of the records of the case,
before a decision had been made. However, there is no provision in
P.D. No. 946 that authorizes the appellant to file a memorandum any time after
the perfection of the appeal and before the forwarding of the complete record to
the Court of Appeals. Moreover, the records show that no notice of
the receipt of the records from the lower court was issued by respondent Court
of Appeals, and petitioners did not know that said appellate court had dispensed
with the usual practice of requiring the parties to submit their memoranda until
they were notified of its decision.
Procedural due process contemplates notice and opportunity to be
heard before judgment is rendered. (See the cases cited in
Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs. Panaguiton, 84 SCRA 148, 153.) If the
appellate court had notified the parties that the case would be submitted for
decision without any memoranda, petitioners would have had the opportunity
before the case was decided to submit a brief or memorandum pointing out the
errors of fact or law committed by the agrarian court.
As it is, petitioners assign in their brief filed
with this Court four errors allegedly committed by the agrarian court in
its findings of fact and two errors of law.
The errors of fact assigned by petitioners are as
follows:
I
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
“THE GREATER PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE SUSTAIN PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM THAT HE IS THE
BONAFIDE TENANT-FARMER, NOW AGRICULTURAL LESSEE, OF THE TWO PARCELS OF LAND IN
QUESTION.”
II
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
“ASIDE FROM REINSTATEMENT, PLAINTIFF IS ALSO ENTITLED TO BE INDEMNIFIED FOR THE
DAMAGES HE SUSTAINED BY REASON OF HIS EJECTMENT, FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANTS
EDMUNDO ROMERO, FELIZA ROMERO AND JOSE ADORABLE, WHO ARE DIRECTLY AND LEGALLY
RESPONSIBLE THEREFOR MUST BE HELD LIABLE, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY.”
III
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS ERRED IN “ORDERING THE
PETITIONERS EDMUNDO ROMERO, FELIZA ROMERO AND JOSE ADORABLE, JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY, TO INDEMNIFY THE RESPONDENT, AS ACTUAL DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF ILLEGAL
EJECTMENT, 162 CAVANS OF PALAY, AT 46 KILOS PER CAVAN
OR THEIR EQUIVALENT MONEY VALUE BASED ON THE PREVAILING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PRICE
FOR PALAY, REPRESENTING WHAT THE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE PRODUCE
OF THE (2) PARCELS OF LAND IN QUESTION FOR THE PAST THREE (3) FIRST CROPPINGS
THAT HAVE ALREADY TAKEN PLACE ON THE LANDHOLDING, THE TOTAL OF 81
CAVANS OF PALAY FOR THE PAST FOUR (4) SECOND CROPPING SEASONS THAT HAVE
ALREADY TAKEN PLACE ON THE TWO PARCELS OF LAND IN QUESTION AT THE RATE OF
20.25% CAVANS OF PALAY PER SECOND CROPPING SEASON.”
IV
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS ERRED IN
“ORDERING THE PRESENT LANDHOLDER-OWNER, PETITIONER JOSE ADORABLE, TO PAY
THE PLAINTIFF 27 CAVANS OF PALAY FOR EVERY FIRST CROPPING
THEREAFTER, STARTING THIS FIRST CROPPING OF 1981, COVERING THE
PERIOD FROM JUNE, 1981 TO DECEMBER, 1981, 27 CAVANS OF
PALAY FOR EVERY SECOND CROPPING STARTING DURING THE SECOND CROPPING OF
1982, COVERING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY,
1982 TO MAY, 1982, UNTIL THE PLAINTIFF IS FINALLY REINSTATED ON HIS
LANDHOLDINGS IN QUESTION.”
Petitioners maintain that private respondent Ibarra, who claimed
tenancy of the two parcels of land with areas of .50 and .60 hectares owned by
them, was himself a landowner.
In their first assignment of error, they cite numerous
inconsistencies in the testimony of the private respondent which, if taken into
consideration, would be sufficient to warrant a reversal of the decision of the
Court of Agrarian Relations as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The Solicitor General’s brief attempts to refute this
assignment of error by quoting from the transcript of stenographic notes and to
rebut the other alleged errors of fact by quoting from the decision of the Court
of Agrarian Relations. This Court should not be burdened
with the task of deciding these questions of fact, a task which properly
pertains to respondent Court of Appeals.
Section 18 of P.D. No. 946 provides that “if the decision or order
be an affirmance in toto of the dispositive conclusion of the judgment appealed from, then
the Court of Appeals may, instead of rendering an extended decision, indicate
clearly the trial court’s findings of fact and pronouncements of law which have
been adopted as basis for the affirmance.”
This requirement seeks to insure compliance with the mandate of
Section 9, Article X of the 1973 Constitution that “Every decision of a
court of record shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on
which it is based,” which mandate is also found in Section 12, Article VIII of
the 1935 Constitution.
A provision similar to the above-quoted provision in Section 18 of
P.D. No. 946 is found in Section 40 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (effective on
August 14, 1981, although the reorganization of the courts took effect on
January 17, 1983) which provides as follows:
“SEC. 40. Form of decision in
appealed cases. — Every decision or final resolution of a court in
appealed cases shall clearly and distinctly state the findings of
fact and the conclusions of law on which it is based, which may be contained in
the decision or final resolution itself, or adopted by reference from those set
forth in the decision, order, or resolution appealed from.”
This provision modified the penultimate paragraph of Section 33 of
the Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended which read: “Every decision
of the Court of Appeals shall contain complete findings of fact on all issues
properly raised before it.”
The above-quoted provisions in Section 18 of P.D. No. 946 and
Section 40 of B.P. No. 129 are of particular importance with respect to the
Court of Appeals because its findings of fact are generally final and
conclusive. (A summary of the exceptions to this
rule is made in Sacay vs.
Sandiganbayan, July 10, 1986, 142 SCRA 593.)
As previously stated, the decision of the Court of Agrarian
Relations consisted of thirteen pages, single space. The
above-quoted decision of the respondent Court of Appeals consists of four pages,
three of which contains verbatim the dispositive
portion of the decision appealed from. The remaining page is
devoted to an explanation of why “for judicial convenience and expediency,
therefore, We hereby adopt, by way of reference, the findings of facts
and conclusions of the court a quo spread in its decision, as
integral part of this Our decision.” The said decision may be considered as
substantial compliance with the above-quoted provisions in Section 18 of P.D.
No. 946 and Section 40 of B.P. No. 129. However, the authority
given the appellate court to adopt by reference the findings of fact and
conclusions of law from those set forth in the appealed decisions should be
exercised with caution and prudence, because the tendency would be to follow the
line of least resistance by just adopting the findings and conclusions of the
lower court without thoroughly studying the appealed case.
In the case at bar, considering that, as above shown, petitioners
were not given the opportunity to submit to the appellate court the errors
allegedly committed by the agrarian court, we deem it necessary in the interest
of justice to remand the case to the Court of Appeals.
Under our present judicial system, a party is generally allowed
one appeal as a matter of right and a second appeal as a matter of
discretion. Hence it is that an appeal may be taken as a matter of
right from the decision of a metropolitan or municipal trial court to the
regional trial court; but the appeal from the decision of the regional trial
court in such a case is a matter of discretion, whether the appeal be to the
Court of Appeals on both questions of fact and law through a petition for review
(Section 22 of B.P. No. 129 and Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules), or to this
Court on questions of law only through a petition for review on
certiorari (Rule 45 and Section 25 of the Interim Rules).
From the decision of a regional trial court in an action originally filed
with it, an appeal may be taken as a matter of right
to the Court of Appeals on both questions of fact and law; but the appeal on
questions of law only from the decision of the Court of Appeals to this Court in
such a case through a petition of review on certiorari is a matter of
discretion. (See Lacsamana vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et
al., G.R. No. L-73146-53, August 26, 1986.)
In the case at bar, petitioners had the right to appeal from
the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations to the Court of
Appeals. And since Section 18 of P.D. No. 946 provides, following
the general rule, that “the decisions or orders of the Court of Appeals may be
appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorari only on questions of law,” petitioners should be given
the opportunity to correct errors in the findings of fact made by the trial
court. And this is particularly necessary in agrarian cases where
no motion for rehearing or reconsideration is allowed in the Court of Appeals
(Section 18, Ibid.).
It cannot be too strongly emphasized that just as important
as the intrinsic validity of a decision is the perception by the
parties-litigants that they have been accorded a fair opportunity to be heard by
a fair and responsible magistrate before judgment is rendered. It
is this perception, coupled with a clear conscience, which enables the members
of the judiciary to discharge the awesome responsibility of sitting in judgment
on their fellowmen.
WHEREFORE, the decision promulgated by respondent Court of
Appeals affirming in full the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations is set
aside and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals to enable the parties to
file simultaneous memoranda within a non-extendible period of fifteen days from
notice, after which respondent Court shall render a decision upon the points
raised and discussed in said memoranda that were not touched upon in the
decision of the agrarian court which was adopted by the appellate court as basis
for its original judgment of affirmance.
No costs.
SO
ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, and
Feliciano, JJ., concur.
Yap, J., on
leave