Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Listana

An order granting a writ of preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order, not a final order, and is therefore not subject to ordinary appeal but may be assailed via certiorari. Furthermore, quasi-judicial agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, such as the DARAB and its PARADs, do not have the jurisdiction or competence to decide indirect contempt cases or issue warrants of arrest; such proceedings must be initiated by verified petition in the Regional Trial Court of the place where the contempt was committed, or motu proprio by the RTC itself.

The case arose from a dispute over the just compensation for a parcel of agricultural land owned by Severino Listana, Sr., which he voluntarily offered to sell to the government under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (R.A. 6657). After the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the landowner failed to agree on the valuation, the DARAB fixed the compensation at over ten million pesos and ordered the Land Bank of the Philippines to pay. When the Land Bank failed to immediately comply, the landowner initiated contempt proceedings before the PARAD, which cited the bank's manager for indirect contempt and ordered his arrest and imprisonment.

• Severino Listana, Sr. is the registered owner of a 246.0561-hectare parcel of land located in Inlagadian, Casiguran, Sorsogon, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-20193.
• The landowner voluntarily offered to sell the land to the government through the Department of Agrarian Reform under Section 20 of R.A. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
• The DAR valued the property at P5,871,689.03, which the landowner rejected, prompting the DARAB to commence summary administrative proceedings to determine just compensation.
• On October 14, 1998, the DARAB rendered a Decision setting aside the Land Bank's valuation and fixing the just compensation at P10,956,963.25 for 240.9066 hectares.
• A Writ of Execution was issued on June 18, 1999, directing the Land Bank to pay the adjudged amount.
• On September 2, 1999, the landowner filed a Motion for Contempt with the PARAD, alleging the Land Bank's failure to comply with the writ of execution.
• On September 6, 1999, the Land Bank filed a separate petition with the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 52, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, for the determination of just compensation under Section 16(f) of the CARL.
• On August 20, 2000, the PARAD granted the Motion for Contempt, citing Alex A. Lorayes, the Land Bank Manager, for indirect contempt and ordering his imprisonment until he complies with the DARAB decision.
• The Land Bank's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on September 20, 2000.
• On November 27, 2000, the PARAD denied due course to the Land Bank's Notice of Appeal and ordered the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution.
• On January 3, 2001, the PARAD directed the issuance of an arrest order against Manager Alex A. Lorayes.
• The Land Bank filed a petition for injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 51, with an application for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the PARAD from enforcing the arrest order.
• On January 29, 2001, the RTC Branch 51 issued an Order enjoining the PARAD from enforcing the arrest order against the bank manager pending the final termination of the case before RTC Branch 52.
• The landowner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC on April 2, 2001.

• The Court of Appeals departed from the accepted course of judicial proceedings in entertaining the special civil action for certiorari to question the final order of the RTC, which was subject to appeal under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• The Court of Appeals decided not in accord with law and substantial justice in annulling the RTC injunction order because:
  • The PARAD did not acquire competent jurisdiction over the contempt proceedings inasmuch as it was initiated by mere Motion for Contempt and not by verified petition, in violation of Section 2, Rule XI of the New DARAB Rules of Procedure and Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court.
  • The PARAD contempt order cannot be considered final and executory because the PARAD itself disallowed the petitioner's appeal to the DARAB Central Office, in disregard of the basic rule that the appellate tribunal determines the merits of the appeal.
  • The PARAD order of arrest against the LBP Manager was in gross and patent violation of his personal, constitutional, and civil rights against unjust arrest and imprisonment, inasmuch as, under the 1987 Constitution, only judges can issue warrants of arrest, and the proper subject of the contempt proceeding was the petitioner itself and not the manager.
  • The PARAD order of contempt was patently null and void as it attempted to enforce compliance with the PARAD decision that was admittedly not final and executory, as the matter of just compensation before the Special Agrarian Court was on appeal with the Court of Appeals.

• N/A (The decision does not explicitly detail the respondent's arguments, though the procedural posture indicates the respondent sought to enforce the DARAB's contempt orders and challenged the RTC's injunction via certiorari).

• Procedural: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in entertaining the special civil action for certiorari to question the RTC's order of injunction, which the petitioner claimed was a final order subject to ordinary appeal.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the PARAD acquired competent jurisdiction over the contempt proceedings initiated by mere motion rather than verified petition.
  • Whether the PARAD had the authority to issue an order of arrest against the bank manager for indirect contempt.
  • Whether the PARAD could validly enforce its decision while the determination of just compensation was pending before the Special Agrarian Court.

• Procedural: The Supreme Court held that an order granting a writ of preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order, not a final order. As an interlocutory order does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something more to be adjudicated upon, it is not appealable. Therefore, the special civil action for certiorari filed by the respondent was the correct remedy under the circumstances, as certiorari is available where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
• Substantive: The Supreme Court ruled that:
  • Under Rule 71, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, proceedings for indirect contempt must be commenced either motu proprio by the court or by a verified petition with supporting particulars. The requirement of a verified petition is mandatory.
  • Under Rule 71, Section 12, the Regional Trial Court of the place wherein the contempt has been committed has jurisdiction over charges for indirect contempt committed against quasi-judicial entities.
  • Quasi-judicial agencies like the PARAD and DARAB do not have the jurisdiction and competence to decide indirect contempt cases or to issue warrants of arrest. These matters are within the exclusive province of the Regional Trial Courts.
  • The contempt proceedings were invalid because they were initiated by an unverified motion, not by the PARAD motu proprio, and neither the PARAD nor the DARAB had jurisdiction to decide the contempt charge or issue the warrant of arrest.
  • Consequently, the PARAD orders dated August 20, 2000 and January 3, 2001, for the arrest of the bank manager are null and void.

• Interlocutory vs. Final Orders — An interlocutory order does not dispose of the subject matter in its entirety or terminate a particular proceeding, leaving something more to be adjudicated upon, whereas a final order disposes of the case completely. An order granting a writ of preliminary injunction is interlocutory and unappealable; the proper remedy to assail it is certiorari if it is patently erroneous.
• Indirect Contempt before Quasi-Judicial Bodies — Quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite persons for indirect contempt can only do so by initiating proceedings in the proper Regional Trial Court via verified petition or through the RTC's motu proprio action. These agencies lack jurisdiction to decide contempt cases or issue warrants of arrest themselves.
• Certiorari as Remedy — Certiorari is available where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and may be resorted to when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.

• "Generally, injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's substantive right or interest. It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit."
• "As distinguished from a final order which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court, an interlocutory order does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be adjudicated upon."
• "The requirement of a verified petition is mandatory."
• "Evidently, quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite persons for indirect contempt pursuant to Rule 71 of the Rules of Court can only do so by initiating them in the proper Regional Trial Court. It is not within their jurisdiction and competence to decide the indirect contempt cases."

• Concepcion v. CA, G.R. No. 137936, August 10, 2001 — Cited for the distinction between interlocutory and final orders, and the holding that an order granting a writ of preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order.
• Oro Cam Enterprises v. CA, 377 Phil. 469 (1999) — Cited for the rule that certiorari is available where there is no appeal or adequate remedy, and may be filed where the assailed order is patently erroneous.

• Section 20 of R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) — Governs the voluntary offer to sell land to the government.
• Section 16(f) of R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) — Provides for the jurisdiction of Special Agrarian Courts to determine just compensation.
• Rule 65, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs the remedy of certiorari.
• Rule 71, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Mandates that indirect contempt proceedings be commenced by verified petition or motu proprio by the court.
• Rule 71, Section 12 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Grants the Regional Trial Court jurisdiction over indirect contempt charges against quasi-judicial entities.
• Section 2, Rule XI of the 2003 DARAB Rules — Provides that the Board or Adjudicator may cite persons for indirect contempt in the manner prescribed under Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court.

• N/A (Chief Justice Davide, Jr., and Associate Justices Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna concurred in the decision without writing separate opinions).