G.R. No. 194167 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MAGDALENA QUILIT AND MAURICIO LAOYAN.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, this Board is constrained to refrain from taking further action in the present petition except to dismiss the same for lack of jurisdiction. [25] Petitioner thus filed a motion for reconsideration [26] which was, however, denied by the DARAB in its April 10, 2008 Resolution. [27] Ruling of the Court of Appeals: Petitioner, in its Petition for Review [28] filed with the CA, averred, among others, that the RARAD acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it denied its Notice of Appeal. LBP likewise claimed that the DARAB committed an error in judgment when it dismissed its May 2, 2000 Petition for Certiorari for lack of jurisdiction. On October 19, 2010, the CA rendered its assailed Decision [29] denying LBP's petition for review. Applying the ruling in Lubrica , the appellate court held, among others, that the DARAB is only a quasi-judicial agency whose limited jurisdiction "does not include authority over petitions for certiorari, in the absence of an express grant in R.A. No. 6657, E.O. No. 229 and E.O. No. 129-A." [30] The CA explained further that even if the 1994 DARAB New Rules of Procedure permitted the filing of a petition for certiorari with the DARAB, the DARAB may dismiss the same considering the petitioner's failure to file the requisite motion for reconsideration with the RARAD within the five-day reglementary period provided for by the rules. Hence the instant petition. Issues Petitioner raised the following assignment of errors in its petition: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR FOR NOT RESOLVING; LIKE THE DARAB, THE MERIT OF THE CASE INSPITE OF SHOWING BY PETITIONER LANDBANK THAT THE DECISION OF THE RARAD IT HAD ORIGINALLY CHALLENGED BY CERTIORARI WAS PATENTLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW. II. WHETHER OR NOT THE RULE THAT CERTIORARI IS NOT COGNIZABLE BY DAR ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), AS LAID DOWN IN DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, ET AL. VS. JOSEFINA LUBRICA [G.R. NO. 159145, APRIL 29, 2005], SHALL APPLY TO PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI FILED WITH DARAB IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE THEN IN FORCE AND PRIOR TO SAID LUBRICA DECISION THUS WARRANT DISMISSAL THEREOF TO THE PREJUDICE OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES WHO AVAILED OF SAID REMEDY. [31] Our Ruling We deny the Petition. Preliminary Matters. At the outset, we find that the CA committed no reversible error when it did not categorically rule on the substantive merits of petitioner's September 1, 2008 petition for review [32] and merely resolved to rule on the propriety of the DARAB's decision to dismiss petitioner's May 2, 2000 petition for certiorari [33] for lack of jurisdiction. Having found that the remedy of certiorari is not cognizable by the DARAB, it would be futile on its part to still pass upon the other assignments of error of petitioner which, we note, essentially involve a review of the December 17, 1999 Decision [34] of the RARAD. On this point, it bears emphasis that findings of facts of quasi-judicial agenci