Land Bank of the Philippines v. Severino Listana, Sr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Severino Listana, Sr. voluntarily offered to sell his land to the government under R.A. 6657. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) valued the property at P5,871,689.03, which was rejected by the respondent. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) of Sorsogon commenced summary administrative proceedings and rendered a Decision on October 14, 1998, setting aside the Land Bank's valuation and fixing the just compensation at P10,956,963.25. A Writ of Execution was issued directing Land Bank to pay this amount. Procedural History: Respondent filed a Motion for Contempt against Land Bank for failure to comply with the Writ of Execution. Meanwhile, Land Bank filed a petition with the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) for the determination of just compensation. The PARAD granted the Motion for Contempt and ordered the imprisonment of Land Bank Manager Alex A. Lorayes until compliance. Land Bank's motion for reconsideration was denied, and its notice of appeal was denied due course. The SAC dismissed Land Bank's petition for determination of just compensation. Land Bank filed a petition for injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon, Branch 51, to restrain the PARAD from issuing an arrest order against its manager. The RTC issued an injunction order. Respondent filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which annulled the RTC's injunction orders. The Petition: The Land Bank of the Philippines filed a petition for review of the Court of Appeals' decision, questioning the propriety of the certiorari action and the annulment of the RTC's injunction order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in entertaining the respondent's special civil action for certiorari to question the final order of the RTC which was allegedly appealable. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling and setting aside the RTC's final order of injunction, considering alleged jurisdictional defects in the PARAD's contempt proceedings and order of arrest.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 51, dated January 29, 2001, which enjoined the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB from enforcing its order of arrest against Mr. Alex A. Lorayes pending the final termination of the case before the Special Agrarian Court, is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the certiorari action: The Court held that the petitioner's submission that the injunction order was a final order subject to appeal was untenable. Injunction is generally a preservative remedy and not a cause of action in itself, making an order granting a writ of preliminary injunction an interlocutory order. Interlocutory orders are not appealable. Therefore, the special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was the correct remedy, as certiorari is available where there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court emphasized that while an ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment in the main case is the usual recourse, a petition for certiorari may be filed when the assailed order is patently erroneous and appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. On the validity of the PARAD's contempt order and arrest: The Court found that the contempt proceedings initiated by an unverified "Motion for Contempt" were invalid. Rule 71 of the Rules of Court requires that indirect contempt proceedings, unless initiated motu proprio by the court, must be commenced by a verified petition. Furthermore, quasi-judicial agencies like the PARAD and DARAB do not have the jurisdiction to decide indirect contempt cases. Such jurisdiction lies with the Regional Trial Court. The Court cited Section 12 of Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which clarifies that contempt charges against quasi-judicial entities shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court. Therefore, the PARAD's issuance of a warrant of arrest against Mr. Lorayes was beyond its power, rendering the contempt proceedings and the subsequent orders null and void.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that an order granting a writ of preliminary injunction is interlocutory and thus unappealable. A special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy when such an order is patently erroneous and appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. Furthermore, contempt proceedings against quasi-judicial entities must be initiated in the Regional Trial Court, and such entities cannot decide contempt cases themselves.