Mito v. Flores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In an administrative transfer action initiated in May 1985, the Gapan-Penaranda Agrarian Reform Team Office No. 077 cancelled a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) previously issued to Leonardo Flores. The CLT was subsequently re-issued to petitioner Roberto G. Mito. Private respondent Victorino Flores, Leonardo's brother, lodged a complaint with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Region III, asserting ownership over the land and alleging the transfer to Mito was unlawful. Procedural History: The Regional Director of DAR Region III, in an Order dated January 4, 1990, ruled in favor of petitioner Mito, dismissing private respondent Flores' claim and directing the issuance of a CLT or Emancipation Patent to Mito. Private respondent appealed this decision to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), citing grave abuse of discretion and errors in fact and law. On October 12, 1994, the DARAB reversed the Regional Director's order, directing Mito to vacate the land and deliver it to Flores, and ordering the issuance of an Emancipation Patent to Flores. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the DARAB on June 1, 1995. The Petition: Aggrieved by the DARAB's denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. However, the Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated August 21, 1995, denied due course and dismissed the petition, citing non-compliance with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1-95. Specifically, the court noted that the correct remedy was a petition for review, not certiorari, and that petitioner failed to submit the required number of copies, impleaded the agency a quo, and provided certified true copies of material portions of the record. Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied on August 20, 1996. The present appeal raises the issue of whether the Regional Director's initial order was supported by substantial evidence, but the Supreme Court notes that this issue was not resolved by the appellate court due to petitioner's failure to perfect his appeal in accordance with the governing rules.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying due course to the petition for certiorari. Whether the order dated January 4, 1990, of the Regional Director of DAR is supported by substantial evidence.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The resolutions dated August 21, 1995, and August 20, 1996, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37574, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying due course to the petition for certiorari: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition. It noted that at the time of the DARAB decision, appeals from quasi-judicial agencies were governed by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1-95. This circular clearly stipulated that the proper remedy was a petition for review, not a petition for certiorari. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to comply with the procedural requirements outlined in Circular No. 1-95, such as filing the petition in the correct number of copies, impleading the agency a quo, and submitting certified true copies of material portions of the record. The Court emphasized that failure to comply with these requirements for perfecting an appeal is sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court reiterated that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal, as an appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised strictly in accordance with the manner provided by law. On the issue of whether the order dated January 4, 1990, of the Regional Director of DAR is supported by substantial evidence: The Supreme Court did not resolve this issue on its merits. The Court explained that the petitioner's failure to perfect his appeal before the Court of Appeals on technical grounds meant that the substantive issue was never properly brought before the appellate court for resolution. Since the petition before the Supreme Court was essentially an attempt to circumvent the procedural rules and have the merits of the case decided after the remedy of appeal was lost, the Court declined to delve into the evidentiary support for the Regional Director's order. The focus remained on the procedural infirmities that led to the dismissal of the petition at the appellate level.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari cannot be resorted to as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal due to non-compliance with procedural requirements for perfecting an appeal.