G.R. No. 131457. April 24, 1998. * HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF BUKIDNON, HON. REY B. BAULA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SUMILAO, BUKIDNON, NQSR MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON. RENATO C. CORONA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ERNESTO D. GARILAO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondents.

Thus, the crucial issue to be resolved in this case is: What is the legal effect of the “Win-Win” Resolution issued by the Office of the President on its earlier Decision involving the same subject matter, which had already become final and executory?

Their hunger strike attracted national attention that even church leaders and some presidential candidates tried to intervene for the strikers’ cause.

The strikers protested the March 29, 1996 decision of the Office of the President, issued through then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, which approved the conversion of a 144-hectare land from agricultural to agro-industrial/institutional area.

This led the Office of the President, through then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona, to issue the so-called “Win-Win” Resolution on November 7, 1997.

The resolution modified the approval of the land conversion to agro-industrial area only to the extent of 44 hectares, and ordered the remaining 100 hectares to be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.

However, their victory was short-lived when the Supreme Court reinstated in 1998 the Torres decision on the land conversion.

 The above-named petitioners cried foul.  They have come to this Court urging us to annul and set aside the “Win-Win” Resolution and to enjoin respondent Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao of the Department of Agrarian Reform from implementing the said Resolution.

Thus, the crucial issue to be resolved in this case is: What is the legal effect of the “Win-Win” Resolution issued by the Office of the President on its earlier Decision involving the same subject matter, which had already become final and executory?

The antecedent facts of this controversy, as culled from the pleadings, may be stated as follows:

1. This case involves a 144-hectare land located at San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, owned by the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC), one of the petitioners. The property is covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14371[3] of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Bukidnon.

2. In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the Philippine Packing Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI), a multinational corporation, for a period of ten (10) years under the Crop Producer and Grower’s Agreement duly annotated in the certificate of title.  The lease expired in April, 1994.

3. In October, 1991, during the existence of the lease, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare property under compulsory acquisition and assessed the land value at P2.38 million.[4]

4. NQSRMDC resisted the DAR’s action.  In February, 1992, it sought and was granted by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through its Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in DARAB Case No. X-576, a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction which ordered the DAR Region X Director, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Bukidnon, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Sumilao, Bukidnon, the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank), and their authorized representatives “to desist from pursuing any activity or activities” concerning the subject land “until further orders.”[5]

5. Despite the DARAB order of March 31, 1992, the DAR Regional Director issued a memorandum, dated May 21, 1992, directing the Land Bank to open a trust account for P2.38 million in the name of NQSRMDC and to conduct summary proceedings to determine the just compensation of the subject property.   NQSRMDC objected to these moves and filed on June 9, 1992 an Omnibus Motion to enforce the DARAB order of March 31, 1992 and to nullify the summary proceedings undertaken by the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank on the valuation of the subject property. 

6. The DARAB, on October 22, 1992, acted favorably on the Omnibus Motion by (a) ordering the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank “to seriously comply with the terms of the order dated March 31, 1992;” (b) nullifying  the DAR Regional Director’s memorandum, dated May 21, 1992, and the summary proceedings conducted pursuant thereto; and  (c) directing the Land Bank “to return the claim folder of Petitioner NQSRMDC’s subject property to the DAR until further orders.”[6]

7. The Land Bank complied with the DARAB order and cancelled the trust account it opened in the name of petitioner NQSRMDC.[7]

8. In the meantime, the Provincial Development Council (PDC) of Bukidnon, headed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6,[8] dated January 7, 1993, designating certain areas along Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones where the subject property is situated.

9. What happened thereafter is well-narrated in the OP (TORRES) Decision of March 29, 1996, pertinent portions of which we quote:

Same; Same; Same; Same; The remedy prescribed in Rule 43 is inapplicable where the petition contains an allegation that the challenged resolution is “patently illegal” and was issued with “grave abuse of discretion” and “beyond the public respondent’s jurisdiction” when said resolution substantially modified the earlier decision which had long become final and executory.—It is true that under Rule 43, appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency exercising quasijudicial functions, including the Office of the President, may be taken to the Court of Appeals by filing a verified petition for review within fifteen (15) days from notice of the said judgment, final order or resolution, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. However, we hold that, in this particular case, the remedy prescribed in Rule 43 is inapplicable considering that the present petition contains an allegation that the challenged resolution is “patently illegal” and was issued with “grave abuse of discretion” and “beyond his (respondent Secretary Renato C. Corona’s) jurisdiction” when said resolution substantially modified the earlier OP Decision of March 29, 1996 which had long become final and executory. In other words, the crucial issue raised here involves an error of jurisdiction, not an error of judgment which is reviewable by an appeal under Rule 43. Thus, the appropriate remedy to annul and set aside the assailed resolution is an original special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, as what the petitioners have correctly done. x x x The office of a writ of certiorari is restricted to truly extraordinary cases—cases in which the act of the lower court or quasijudicial body is wholly void.

An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reviewable only by an appeal. On the other hand, an error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. This error is correctable only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition.

The strikers protested the March 29, 1996 Decision 1 of the Office of the President (OP),   approved the conversion of a one hundred forty-four (144)hectare land from agricultural to agroindustrial/institutional area

Court urging us to annul and set aside the “WinWin” Resolution and to enjoin respondent Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao of the Department of Agrarian Reform from implementing the said Resolution. 

 In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the Philippine Packing Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI), a multinational corporation, for a period of ten (10) years under the Crop Producer and Grower’s Agreement duly annotated in the certificate of title. The lease expired in April, 1994

A copy of the “Win-Win” Resolution was received by Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon, Mayor Rey B. Baula of Sumilao, Bukidnon, and NQSRMDC on November 24, 1997 2 8 and, on December 4, 1997, they filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition (under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court) and injunction with urgent prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction (under Rule 58, ibid.), against then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona and DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao. On December 12, 1997, a Motion For Leave To Intervene 2 9 was filed by alleged farmer-beneficiaries, through counsel, claiming that they are real parties in interest as they were “previously identified by respondent DAR as agrarian reform beneficiaries on the 144-hectare” property subject of this case. The motion was vehemently opposed 3 0 by the petitioners. In seeking the nullification of the “Win-Win” Resolution, the petitioners claim that the Office of the President was prompted to issue the said resolution “after a very wellmanaged hunger strike led by fake farmer-beneficiary Linda Ligmon succeeded in pressuring and/or politically blackmailing the Office of the President to come up with this purely political decision to appease the ‘farmers,’ by reviving and modifying the Decision of 29 March 1996 which has been declared final and executory in an Order of 23 June 1997 . . . .” 3 1 Thus, petitioners further allege, respondent then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona “committed grave abuse of discretion and acted beyond his jurisdiction when he issued the questioned Resolution of 7 November 1997 . . . .” 3 2 They availed of this extraordinary writ of certiorari “because there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”

respondent OSG prayed to dismiss The proper remedy of petitioners should have been to file a petition for review directly with the Court of Appeals in accordance with Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court;

Therefore, the assailed “Win-Win” Resolution which substantially modified the Decision of March 29, 1996 after it has attained finality, is utterly void. Such void resolution, as aptly stressed by Justice Thomas A. Street 6 2 in a 1918 case, 6 3 is “a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.”

P ursuant to said judicial policy, we resolve to take primary jurisdiction over the present petition in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations so as to promptly put an end to the present controversy which, as correctly observed by petitioners, has sparked national interest because of the magnitude of the problem created by the issuance of the assailed resolution. Moreover, .. the resolution is wholly void and requiring the petitioners to file their petition first with CA would only result in waste of time and money.