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, …

Romero versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Edmundo Romero, Feliza Romero, Jose Adorable, and Geronimo Casaes against the Court of Appeals, Ninth Division, and the Court of Agrarian Relations, Tenth Regional District, Naga City. The private respondent, a farmer named Ibarra, had sued the petitioners for reinstatement with damages, claiming to be the bona fide tenant-farmer, now agricultural lessee, of two parcels of agricultural land. The case matters because it fixes the procedural boundaries of agrarian appeals: how far the Court of Appeals may go in dispensing with memoranda, and what notice it owes the parties before it does so.

Procedural History

The private respondent filed an action for reinstatement with damages before Branch II of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Tenth Regional District, Naga City. On August 31, 1981, the agrarian court rendered a thirteen-page decision finding that the greater preponderance of evidence sustained the private respondent's claim that he was the bona fide tenant-farmer, now agricultural lessee, of the two parcels of land. It ordered reinstatement, damages, and the observance of leasehold instead of the sharing system.

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals under Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 946. Without issuing notice of receipt of the records and without notifying the parties that it was dispensing with memoranda, the Court of Appeals, on January 26, 1982, affirmed the agrarian court's decision in full, adopting its findings of fact and conclusions of law by reference. Petitioners then filed the present petition for review on certiorari, alleging violation of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws.

Facts

On March 8, 1979, the private respondent filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations an action for reinstatement with damages against the petitioners. The central issue was factual: whether the private respondent was the bona fide agricultural tenant-farmer, now agricultural lessee, of the two parcels of land. The agrarian court resolved this issue in his favor and rendered judgment on August 31, 1981.

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court did not issue a notice of receipt of the records from the agrarian court. Neither did it issue any notice that it was dispensing with the usual practice of requiring the parties to submit memoranda in lieu of briefs. It simply rendered its decision on January 26, 1982, affirming the appealed judgment in full and adopting the trial court's findings by reference.

Petitioners learned of the dispensation only upon notification of the decision. They then filed this petition, assigning four errors of fact and two errors of law against the agrarian court's decision, and arguing that had they been given the opportunity to file memoranda, they could have pointed out which findings were unsupported by substantial evidence and which conclusions were contrary to law.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals violated the petitioners' right to procedural due process when it dispensed with memoranda and decided the appeal without giving them notice that the case was submitted for decision without memoranda.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals' decision, which adopted by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the agrarian court, substantially complied with the requirement that every decision clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based.
• Whether or not the case should be remanded to the Court of Appeals to allow the parties to file simultaneous memoranda.

Applicable Provisions

Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 946 provides:

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.

This provision governs the appeal from the agrarian court to the Court of Appeals and is the source of the appellate court's authority to require or dispense with memoranda.

Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 946 further provides:

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.

This clause is the basis for the appellate court's discretion to call for memoranda, which the Court of Appeals exercised by dispensing with them.

Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 946 also 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 opinion, indicate clearly the trial court's findings of fact and pronouncements of law which have been adopted as basis for the affirmance.

This clause authorized the Court of Appeals to adopt the trial court's findings by reference, which is the practice challenged in this case.

Section 40 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides:

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, which took effect on August 14, 1981, sets the standard for the form of decisions in appealed cases and permits adoption by reference.

Section 9, Article X of the 1973 Constitution provides:

Every decision of a court of record shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based.

This constitutional mandate underlies the requirement that decisions state their factual and legal bases, and the Court used it to measure the appellate court's decision.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that procedural due process contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. While Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 946 empowers the Court of Appeals to dispense with memoranda, the Court reiterated its ruling in Ty versus Elale that, as a matter of orderly procedure and to dispel the impression that a litigant has been denied due process, the appellate court should at least issue a notice to the parties that the case is submitted for decision without any memoranda. Here, no such notice was given, and no notice of receipt of the records was issued. The Court rejected the Solicitor General's argument that petitioners could have filed a memorandum at any time, because no provision of the decree authorizes such filing, and petitioners did not know of the dispensation until they were notified of the decision.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appellate court's decision, consisting of four pages, three of which contained verbatim the dispositive portion of the appealed decision, may be considered substantial compliance with Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 946 and Section 40 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. However, the Court cautioned that the authority to adopt findings by reference should be exercised with caution and prudence, because the tendency would be to follow the line of least resistance without thoroughly studying the appealed case.

On the third issue, the Court held that, considering that petitioners were not given the opportunity to submit to the appellate court the errors allegedly committed by the agrarian court, it was necessary in the interest of justice to remand the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that a party is generally allowed one appeal as a matter of right and a second appeal as a matter of discretion, and that since the decision of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court only on questions of law, petitioners should be given the opportunity to correct errors in the findings of fact made by the trial court. This is particularly necessary in agrarian cases where no motion for rehearing or reconsideration is allowed in the Court of Appeals.

Doctrine

Procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. While Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 946 allows the Court of Appeals to dispense with memoranda in agrarian appeals, the appellate court must at least issue a notice to the parties that the case is submitted for decision without memoranda, to dispel any impression of denial of due process.

The authority of the Court of Appeals to adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the appealed decision, under Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 946 and Section 40 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, must be exercised with caution and prudence, because the tendency is to follow the line of least resistance without thoroughly studying the case.

A party is generally allowed one appeal as a matter of right and a second appeal as a matter of discretion. Where the Court of Appeals' decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court only on questions of law, the party must be given the opportunity to correct errors in the findings of fact made by the trial court, especially in agrarian cases where no motion for reconsideration is allowed in the Court of Appeals.

Disposition

The Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to it to enable the parties to file simultaneous memoranda within a non-extendible period of fifteen days from notice, after which the appellate 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 as basis for its original judgment of affirmance. No costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: while the Court of Appeals may dispense with memoranda in agrarian appeals, it must at least notify the parties that the case is submitted for decision without memoranda, because procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. Examiners like to use this case to test the limits of the Court of Appeals' authority to adopt findings by reference and the requirements of procedural due process in agrarian appeals.