LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner , vs. SEVERINO LISTANA, SR. [G.R. No. 152611. August 5, 200!
Do"t#$%&' A#t$"(& 21) F*"ts' Severino Listana: -
)*+ -
-
owner of a parcel parcel of land land containi containing ng an area area of 246.05 246.0561 61 hectares hectares,, located located in Inlagadia Inlagadian, n, asig!ran, Sorsogon, covered "# $ransfer ertificate of $itle %o. $-201&'. vol!ntari vol!ntaril# l# offere offered d to sell sell the the said said land land to the the govern(en govern(ent, t, thro!g thro!gh h )*+ !nder !nder Section Section 20 of +.*. 665, also nown as the o(prehensive *grarian *grarian +efor( Law of 1 & /*+L.
val!ed val!ed the the prope propert# rt# at at 5,1 5,1,6 ,6&.0 &.0', ', which which List Listana anas s reect reected. ed. )epart(ent of *grarian +efor( *d!dication 3oard /)*+*3 of Sorsogon co((enced s!((ar# ad(inistrative proceedings to deter(ine the !st co(pensation of the land. )ecision: o +78+, taing into consideration the foregoing co(p!tation, the prior val!ation (ade "# the Land 3an of the hilippines is here"# set aside and a new val!ation val!ation in the a(o!nt of $% 9ILLI8% 9ILLI8% %I% %)+) %)+) 7I7$; 7I7$; SI< $8S*% $8S*%) ) %I% %)+) %)+) SI<$; SI<$; $+ $+ S8S S8S *%) *%) 25 %$* %$*= =8S /10,&56,&6'.25 for the ac>!ired area of 240.&066 hectares. $he Land 3an of the hilippines is here"# ordered to pa# the sa(e to the landowner in the (anner provided for "# law. S8 8+)+).
)epart(ent of *grari *grarian an +efor( *d!dication 3oard /)*+*3 In an ad ad(i (ini nist stra rati tive ve pr proc ocee eedi ding ng de dete ter( r(iine ned d th the e ! !st st co co(p (pen ensa sati tion on of th the e la land nd at 10,&56,&6'.25 and ordered the Land 3an of the hilippines to pa# the sa(e to Listana. - * writ writ of e?ec!tion was was iss!ed "# *+*) *+*) to that effect effect "!t it was was apparentl# not co(plied co(plied with wi th "# L3 L3 so, Lis Listan tana a wi with th the *+ *+*) *) aga again inst st pet petiti itione onerr L3 filed filed a 9ot 9otion ion for onte(pt. *+*) granted the 9otion for onte(pt and cited for indirect conte(pt and ordered the arrest of *L< *. L8+*;S, the 9anager of L3. Land 3an of the hilippines o"tain o"t ained ed a pre preli( li(ina inar# r# in!nc in!ncti tion on fro( the +egio +egional nal $rial $rial o!rt o!rt of Sorsog Sorsogon on enoini enoining ng )*+*3 fro( enforcing the arrest order against Lora#es. Listana filed a special civil action for certiorari with the o!rt of *ppeals. * -
* n!l n!lli lifi fied ed th the e ord order er of th the e +$ +$.. onse>!ent ons e>!entl# l#,, petiti petitioner oner L3 L3 file filed d a petitio petition n for revi review ew with with the the S!pre(e S!pre(e o!rt. o!rt.
Issu&' hether or not the order for the arrest of 9r. *le? *le? Lora#es "# the *+*) *+*) is valid H&(+' 8n the s!"stantive iss!e of whether the order for the arrest of petitioners (anager, 9r. *le?
Lora#es "# the *+*), was valid, +!le <=III of the 200' )*+*3 +!les reads, in pertinent part: S$I8% 2. Indirect Contempt. $he 3oard or an# of its (e("ers or its *d!dicator (a# also cite and p!nish an# person for indirect conte(pt on an# of the gro!nds and in the (anner prescri"ed !nder +!le 1 of the +evised +!les of o!rt. In this connection, +!le 1, Section 4 of the 1&& +!les of ivil roced!re, which deals with the co((ence(ent of indirect conte(pt p roceedings, provides: Sec. 4. How proceedings commenced. roceedings for indirect conte(pt (a# "e initiated motu proprio "# the co!rt against which the conte(pt was co((itted "# an order or an# other for(al charge re>!iring the respondent to show ca!se wh# he sho!ld not "e p!nished for conte(pt. In all other cases, charges for indirect conte(pt shall "e co((enced "# a verified petition with s!pporting partic!lars and certified tr!e copies of doc!(ents or papers involved therein, and !pon f!ll co(pliance with the re>!ire(ents for filing initiator# pleadings for civil actions in the co!rt concerned. If the conte(pt charges arose o!t of or are related to a principal action pending in the co!rt, the petition for conte(pt shall allege that fact "!t said petition shall "e doceted, heard and decided separatel#, !nless the co!rt in its discretion orders the consolidation of the conte(pt charge and the principal action for oint hearing and decision. videntl#, >!asi-!dicial agencies that have the power to cite persons for indirect conte(pt p!rs!ant to +!le 1 of the +!les of o!rt can onl# do so "# initiating the( in the proper +egional $rial o!rt. It is not within their !risdiction and co(petence to decide the indirect conte(pt cases. $hese (atters are still within the province of the +egional $rial o!rts. In the present case, the indirect conte(pt charge was filed, not with the +egional $rial o!rt, "!t with the *+*), and it was the *+*) that cited 9r. Lora#es with indirect conte(pt. ence, the conte(pt proceedings initiated thro!gh an !nverified 9otion for onte(pt filed "# the respondent with the *+*) were $%*($+ for the following reasons: First, the +!les of o!rt clearl# re>!ire the filing of a verified petition with the +egional $rial o!rt, which was not co(plied with in this case. $he charge was not initiated "# the *+*) motu proprio; rather, it was "# a (otion filed "# respondent. Second, neither the *+*) nor the )*+*3 have !risdiction to decide the conte(pt charge filed "# the respondent. $he iss!ance of a warrant of arrest was "e#ond the power of the *+*) and the )*+*3. onse>!entl#, all the proceedings that ste((ed fro( respondents 9otion for onte(pt, specificall# the 8rders of the *+*) dated *!g!st 20, 2000 and @an!ar# ', 2001 for the arrest of *le? *. Lora#es, are n!ll and void. •
•
