Sebastian vs. Morales

A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a petition for review under Rule 43 when appealing final orders of quasi-judicial agencies like the DAR, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction and absent a compelling justification for the procedural lapse.

Private respondents, heirs of the late Guillermo Sarenas, owned several agricultural landholdings in Cabanatuan City and Nueva Ecija, some of which were tenanted by petitioners and others who had been issued emancipation patents under P.D. No. 27. Respondents filed an application with the DAR for retention of over five hectares of these landholdings under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657. The DAR Regional Office initially granted retention over specific lots, but upon reconsideration, the DAR Regional Director modified the order to allow retention of a different parcel. On appeal by respondents, the DAR Secretary set aside the Regional Director's order, granting retention over a portion of another lot and affirming the coverage of the rest, while maintaining the affected tenants as leaseholders.

• The Sarenas Landholdings: Private respondents are the heirs of Guillermo Sarenas, who died intestate in 1986. He owned several agricultural lots in Cabanatuan City (covered by TCT Nos. NT-8607, NT-8608, NT-8609) and Talavera, Nueva Ecija (covered by TCT No. NT-143564). The tenants on the Cabanatuan lots, including petitioner Damaso Sebastian, had been issued emancipation patents under P.D. No. 27.
• Application for Retention: On July 14, 1993, respondents filed an application for retention of over five hectares under R.A. No. 6657, seeking to retain the lots covered by TCT Nos. NT-8608 and NT-8609.
• DAR Regional Office Ruling: On June 6, 1997, the DAR Regional Office granted the application, directing the heirs to coordinate for segregation of the retained area and maintaining the tenants as lessees.
• Regional Director's Reversal: Petitioner Sebastian moved for reconsideration. The DAR Regional Director found the initial order contrary to law and issued a new order on October 23, 1997, granting retention over the Talavera lot (TCT No. NT-143564) instead.
• DAR Secretary's Ruling: Respondents appealed to the DAR Secretary. On June 18, 1998, the DAR Secretary set aside the Regional Director's order, granting respondents the right to retain 2.8032 hectares of the lot covered by TCT No. 8608, affirming the coverage of the other lots, and maintaining tenants as leaseholders. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on January 26, 1999. The Secretary also noted that petitioners appeared to have waived their rights and allowed unlawful cultivation by non-tenants.
• Court of Appeals Dismissal: Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the petition on March 9, 1999, citing the wrong mode of appeal and failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed order. The motion for reconsideration was denied on December 10, 1999.

• Liberal Construction of Rules: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals should have treated their special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 as a petition for review under Rule 43, since the pleading contained all the features required for the latter. Dismissals based on technicalities are frowned upon, and procedural rules should be liberally construed to effect substantial justice.
• Excusable Error: Petitioners admitted error in the remedy resorted to but insisted that their reliance on Section 54 of R.A. No. 6657 was an honest mistake or excusable error, justifying the liberal treatment of their petition.

• Strict Observance of Procedural Rules: Respondents countered that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing the petition, as it simply applied the mandate that a petition shall be dismissed if the wrong remedy is availed of. While liberal construction is allowed, strict observance of the Rules is indispensable for the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.

• Propriety of Dismissal: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the special civil action for certiorari on the ground of wrong mode of appeal.
• Treatment as Petition for Review: Whether the Court of Appeals should have treated the Rule 65 petition as a Rule 43 petition for review.
• Review of Factual Findings: Whether the factual findings of the DAR Secretary are reviewable via a petition for certiorari.

• Propriety of Dismissal: The dismissal was proper. The correct remedy from a final order of the DAR Secretary is a petition for review under Rule 43, not certiorari under Rule 65. Section 54 of R.A. No. 6657 must be read in relation to Section 60, which provides for appeals via petition for review, and Section 61, which mandates that judicial review of DAR orders is governed by the Rules of Court. With the enactment of R.A. No. 7902 and Supreme Court Circular No. 1-95, appeals from quasi-judicial bodies to the Court of Appeals must be taken by petition for review. Pursuant to Circular No. 2-90, an appeal taken by the wrong mode shall be dismissed.
• Treatment as Petition for Review: The Court of Appeals correctly refused to treat the Rule 65 petition as a Rule 43 petition. A petition for review corrects errors of judgment, while certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction; the two are distinct, mutually exclusive, and antithetical. Petitioners failed to show grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by the DAR Secretary. Furthermore, petitioners persistently and stoutly insisted that certiorari was the correct remedy before the appellate court, only belatedly asking for the petition to be treated as one for review. No compelling reason was shown to justify relaxing the procedural rules.
• Review of Factual Findings: Factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. Moreover, the factual findings of administrative agencies like the DAR, which are supported by substantial evidence and made by reason of their official expertise, are accorded respect and finality and ought not to be altered.

• Distinction between Petition for Review and Certiorari — A petition for review under Rule 43 is a mode of appeal that seeks to correct errors of judgment committed by a quasi-judicial agency. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary process to correct errors of jurisdiction, specifically when the tribunal acted without or in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The two remedies are distinct, mutually exclusive, and antithetical.
• Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules — While procedural rules are to be liberally construed to promote substantial justice and litigations decided on the merits, this principle does not permit the ignoring or disdaining of procedural rules at will. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules is an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to explain the failure to abide by the rules. Absent a compelling reason or justification for the procedural lapse, strict application of the rules is warranted.
• Finality of Administrative Findings of Fact — Factual findings of administrative agencies, such as the DAR Secretary, are accorded respect and even finality if supported by substantial evidence, owing to the specialized expertise acquired by reason of their official position.

• "Litigation is not a game of technicalities, but every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure so that issues may be properly presented and justly resolved. Hence, rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules."
• "A petition for review is a mode of appeal, while a special civil action for certiorari is an extraordinary process for the correction of errors of jurisdiction. It is basic remedial law that the two remedies are distinct, mutually exclusive, and antithetical."

• Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Court of Appeals, 334 SCRA 305 (2000) — Cited for the proposition that concomitant to a liberal application of procedural rules is an effort on the part of the invoking party to explain the failure to abide by the rules.
• Ligon v. Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA 73 (1998) — Cited for the principle that a petition for review and a special civil action for certiorari are distinct, mutually exclusive, and antithetical remedies.
• Suntay v. Cojuangco-Suntay, 300 SCRA 760 (1998) — Cited for the definition of certiorari as an extraordinary remedy proper only when a tribunal acts without or in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
• Cara v. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 471 (2000) — Cited for the rule that errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari.
• Abalos v. Court of Appeals, 317 SCRA 14 (1999) — Cited for the doctrine that factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.
• Litonjua v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 136 (1998) — Cited for the principle that factual findings of administrative agencies supported by substantial evidence are accorded respect and finality.

• Section 6, R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) — Governs retention limits for landowners. Applied as the substantive basis for the DAR Secretary's order granting retention rights to the respondents.
• Section 54, R.A. No. 6657 — Provides that DAR decisions on agrarian disputes may be brought to the Court of Appeals by certiorari. Interpreted in relation to Sections 60 and 61; reliance solely on this section was held to be an erroneous basis for availing of certiorari given subsequent laws and rules.
• Section 60, R.A. No. 6657 — Provides that appeals from DAR decisions shall be by petition for review with the Supreme Court (and by extension, the Court of Appeals under R.A. No. 7902). Read in conjunction with Section 54 to determine the proper mode of appeal.
• Section 61, R.A. No. 6657 — Mandates that review by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall be governed by the Rules of Court. Applied to justify the application of Rule 43 over Rule 65.
• Section 1, R.A. No. 7902 — Expanded the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to include final judgments of quasi-judicial agencies. Applied to establish that appeals from the DAR Secretary fall under the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals via petition for review.
• Rule 43, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs appeals from judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies, including the DAR. Applied as the correct and mandatory mode of appeal from the DAR Secretary's final order.
• Rule 46, Section 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires the attachment of a certified true copy or duplicate original of the assailed judgment. Applied as an additional ground for dismissal due to petitioners' failure to comply.
• Supreme Court Circular No. 1-95 — Governs appeals from quasi-judicial bodies to the Court of Appeals by petition for review. Applied to reinforce the mandatory nature of Rule 43.
• Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 — Provides that an appeal taken to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. Applied as the direct basis for affirming the dismissal of the petition.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr.