Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Land Bank V de Leon

    Uploaded by

    eechamp
    20 views10 pages
    This case discusses the proper mode of appealing decisions from Special Agrarian Courts. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) filed an ordinary appeal instead of a petition for review to appeal a decision from the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that a petition for review is the proper mode. The Supreme Court annulled the dismissal, finding that LBP should not be penalized considering the lack of clear jurisprudence on the issue and LBP's good faith reliance on a Court of Appeals ruling. While a petition for review is normally required, this new procedural rule would not be applied to a pending case like LBP's to prevent prejudice to substantive rights.

    Original Description:

    file

    Original Title

    2

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case discusses the proper mode of appealing decisions from Special Agrarian Courts. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) filed an ordinary appeal instead of a petition for review to appeal a decision from the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that a petition for review is the proper mode. The Supreme Court annulled the dismissal, finding that LBP should not be penalized considering the lack of clear jurisprudence on the issue and LBP's good faith reliance on a Court of Appeals ruling. While a petition for review is normally required, this new procedural rule would not be applied to a pending case like LBP's to prevent prejudice to substantive rights.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    20 views10 pages

    Land Bank V de Leon

    Uploaded by

    eechamp
    This case discusses the proper mode of appealing decisions from Special Agrarian Courts. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) filed an ordinary appeal instead of a petition for review to appeal a decision from the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that a petition for review is the proper mode. The Supreme Court annulled the dismissal, finding that LBP should not be penalized considering the lack of clear jurisprudence on the issue and LBP's good faith reliance on a Court of Appeals ruling. While a petition for review is normally required, this new procedural rule would not be applied to a pending case like LBP's to prevent prejudice to substantive rights.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 10

    Land Bank v De Leon Facts: Respondent spouses Arlene and Bernardo de Leon filed a petition to fix the just

    compensation of a parcel of land before the RTC of Tarlac acting as a Special Agrarian Court. n !ecember "#$ "##%$ the agrarian court rendered summar& judgment fixing the compensation of the subject propert&. The !AR and LB' both filed separate appeals using different modes. !AR filed a petition for re(ie) )hile LB' interposed an ordinar& appeal b& filing a notice of appeal. The appeal b& the !AR )as gi(en due course$ )hile that of the LB' )as dismissed on the ground that LB' a(ailed of the )rong mode of appeal. *ssue: +hether or not an ordinar& appeal )as the proper mode to appeal the decision of the RTC regarding just compensation ,eld: n account of the absence of jurisprudence interpreting Sections -. and -" of RA --/% regarding the proper )a& to appeal decisions of Special Agrarian Courts as )ell as the conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeals thereon$ LB' cannot be blamed for a(ailing of the )rong mode. Based on its o)n interpretation and reliance on a ruling of the CA regarding the same issue$ LB' acted on the mista0en belief that an

    ordinar& appeal is the appropriate manner to 1uestion decisions of Special Agrarian Courts. +hile the Court holds that petition for re(ie) is the proper mode of appeal from judgments of Special Agrarian Courts$ and such is a rule of procedure )hich affects substanti(e rights$ it should not be applied to the case of LB' since this case )as still pending )hen said doctrine )as decreed.

    1. Annulment of judgment; direct recourse to this remedy not allowed if other appropriate remedies are available. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court impose the conditions for the availment of the remedy of annulment of judgment, viz.: Section 1. Coverage. !his Rule shall govern the annulment "y the Court of #ppeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional !rial Courts for $hich the ordinary remedies of

    ne$ trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer availa"le through no fault of the petitioner. Section 2. Groundsfor annulment. % !he annulment may "e "ased only on the grounds of e&trinsic fraud and lac' of jurisdiction. (&trinsic fraud shall not "e a valid ground if it $as availed of, or could have "een availed of, in a motion for ne$ trial or petition for relief. Section 1, Rule 47 provides that it does not allo$ a direct recourse to a petition for annulment of judgment if other appropriate remedies are availa"le, such as a petition for ne$ trial, appeal or a petition for relief. )f petitioner fails to avail of these remedies $ithout sufficient justification, she cannot resort to the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47, for other$ise, she

    $ould "enefit negligence.

    from

    her

    inaction

    or

    *e found no reversi"le error committed "y the C# in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment. !he Spouses #rcenas $ere declared non suited for failure to appear at the pre trial conference of Civil Case +o. ,72 ,7 2,,2 on +ovem"er 11, 2,,-, and respondent "an' $as allo$ed to present evidence on its counterclaim on .anuary /, 2,,4. Such 0rder $as received "y the secretary of petitioner1s counsel on +ovem"er 17, 2,,-. 2etitioner did not move to set aside the R!C1s order of non suit. *hile petitioner1s counsel claimed that he only learned of such 0rder of non suit on 3ecem"er 4, 2,,-, yet no motion to lift the order of non suit $as filed. +ota"ly, from 3ecem"er 4, 2,,- to the scheduled hearing on .anuary /, 2,,4, petitioner did not ta'e any remedial action to lift the order of non

    suit $hen she had the opportunity to do so. )n fact, petitioner and her counsel did not also appear on the scheduled .anuary /, 2,,4 hearing $herein respondent "an' presented evidence on its counterclaim and su"mitted the case for decision. )t $as only on .anuary 14, 2,,4 $hen petitioner and her hus"and filed a pleading captioned as 4anifestation and 4otion, $herein they prayed for the reconsideration of the 0rders dated +ovem"er 11, 2,,- and .anuary /, 2,,4 and for further pre trial conference. !he R!C denied such 4anifestation and 4otion in its 0rder dated 4arch 5, 2,,4, as the same $as filed "eyond the reglementary period, and such 0rder $as received "y petitioner on 4arch 12, 2,,4. 2etitioner then filed $ith the C# a 2etition for annulment of order of non suit under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court on the ground of e&trinsic fraud. !he C# denied the petition as petitioner failed to avail of the

    appropriate remedies provided "y the Rules to $hich $e agree. 666 666 666 2etitioner tries to justify her failure to avail of the appropriate remedies on a promise of settlement. 7o$ever, such promise $as not an e&cuse for petitioner1s counsel not to lift the order of non suit and to file a petition for relief. 2etitioner1s claim that she $as present $hen respondent "an'1s counsel moved for the issuance of the order of non suit against her $as not proven "y any evidence. !here $as indeed a failure to sho$, to our satisfaction, that petitioner could not have availed of the ordinary and appropriate remedies under the Rules. !hus, she cannot resort to the remedy under Rule 47 of the Rules8 other$ise, she $ould "enefit from her inaction or negligence. 2.

    Annulment of judgment; extrinsic fraud. 2etitioner argues that $hen respondent "an'1s counsel moved for the issuance of the 0rder of non suit against her and her hus"and during the +ovem"er 11, 2,,hearing, e&trinsic fraud $as committed on them since respondent "an'1s counsel concealed from the R!C that there $as a gentleman1s agreement for the settlement of the su"ject civil cases. *e are not persuaded. )t "ears stressing that $hen petitioner1s counsel filed the 4anifestation and 4otion as'ing for reconsideration of the 0rder declaring the Spouses #rcenas non suited, the reason stated $as honest mista'e or e&cusa"le negligence. !o sho$ such mista'e, he e&plained that since there $as a pending negotiation for settlement in Civil Case +os. 9 ,,: ,1 2,,2 and 9 ,72 ,7 2,,2, $hich $ere "oth pending in the same court, and the parties had to come up $ith a settlement for the hearing of Civil

    Case +o. 9 ,,: ,1 2,,2 scheduled on 3ecem"er 4, 2,,4, petitioner1s counsel then as'ed for the postponement of the scheduled +ovem"er 11, 2,,- hearing set for the pre trial conference of Civil Case +o. 9 ,72 ,7 2,,2 one day "efore the said date, "ecause of conflict of schedule and since he had in mind the 3ecem"er 4, 2,,deadline to su"mit the settlement. +ota"ly, petitioner1s counsel admitted that the date set for the su"mission of settlement in Civil Case +o. 9 ,72 ,7 2,,2 $as indeed +ovem"er 11, 2,,-8 and that his failure to attend the hearings and to file a motion for reconsideration of the declaration of petitioner as non suited $as "ecause of his mista'en "elief that respondent "an' $as earnestly see'ing a settlement. !here $as nothing in the 4anifestation and 4otion $hich alluded the commission of e&trinsic fraud to respondent "an'1s counsel. 4oreover, since petitioner claimed that there $as e&trinsic fraud committed "y

    respondent "an'1s counsel, she could have filed a petition for relief under Rule -/ $ithin the period provided for "y the Rules of Court, "ut she did not. Section 2, Rule 47 clearly states that e&trinsic fraud shall not "e a valid ground for annulment of order if it $as availed of, or could have "een availed of, in a motion for ne$ trial or petition for relief. !hus, e&trinsic fraud is effectively "arred if it could have "een raised as a ground in an availa"le remedial measure. -. Annulment of order of non-suit; no forum shopping where petitioner also files notice of appeal pertaining to decision on the merits. ;inally, $e find no merit in respondent "an'1s claim that petitioner committed forum shopping. !he issue "rought "efore us is $hether the C# correctly dismissed

    petitioner1s petition for annulment of the 0rder dated +ovem"er 11, 2,,- declaring her non suited for failure to appear at the pre trial conference of Civil Case +o. 9 ,72 ,7 2,,2. 0n the other hand, petitioner1s +otice of #ppeal in Civil Case +os. 9 ,,: ,1 2,,2 and 9 ,72 ,7 2,,2 pertained to the decision of the R!C rendered on the merits.

    You might also like