The power to issue writs of certiorari is an incident of judicial review. Thus, administrative agencies may not issue writs of certiorari to annul acts of officers or state organs even when they exercise supervisory authority over these officers or organs. This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure praying that the assailed July 23, Decision and January 9, Resolution of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside. Zoleta, Venancio Q. Zoleta, and Milagros Q.
|Published (Last):||16 June 2016|
|PDF File Size:||16.71 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The power to issue writs of certiorari is an incident of judicial review. Thus, administrative agencies may not issue writs of certiorari to annul acts of officers or state organs even when they exercise supervisory authority over these officers or organs. This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure praying that the assailed July 23, Decision and January 9, Resolution of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside.
Zoleta, Venancio Q. Zoleta, and Milagros Q. Zoleta-Garcia petitioners. Zoleta, voluntarily offered for sale to the government, under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. This lot was located in Barangay Casay, San Francisco, Quezon and had an area of approximately hectares.
This was unsuccessfully opposed by Landbank. The writ of execution, however, was returned unsatisfied. Lubrica concerned a controversy over the amount of just compensation due to a landowner, which was initially brought before RARAD.
RARAD decided in favor of the landowner and ordered Landbank to pay an amount that was greater than its initial valuation. In doing so, this Court emphasized that jurisdiction over the subject matter must be provided by law.
It is settled that the authority to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus involves the exercise of original jurisdiction which must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law.
It is never derived by implication. Indeed, while the power to issue the writ of certiorari is in some instance conferred on all courts by constitutional or statutory provisions, ordinarily, the particular courts which have such power are expressly designated. In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial powers which an administrative agency may exercise is defined in the enabling act of such agency.
In other words, the extent to which an administrative entity may exercise such powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of the statute creating or empowering such agency.
The grant of original jurisdiction on a quasi-judicial agency is not implied. In conferring adjudicatory powers and functions on the DAR, the legislature could not have intended to create a regular court of justice out of the DARAB, equipped with all the vast powers inherent in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
The DARAB is only a quasi-judicial body, whose limited jurisdiction does not include authority over petitions for certiorari, in the absence of an express grant in R. As an administrative agency exercising quasi-judicial but not consummate judicial power, DARAB is inherently incapable of issuing writs of certiorari. The writ of certiorari was a prerogative writ "issued by the King by virtue of his position as fountain of justice and supreme head of the whole judicial administration. Its members were later on referred to as "justices" with a select member being referred to as the "justitiar" or chief justice.
This was called as such because its members were to sit "in banco. The errors were of such a nature that, if allowed to stand, they would result in a substantial injury to the petitioner to whom no other remedy was available. If the inferior court acted without authority, the record was then revised and corrected in matters of law. The writ of certiorari was limited to cases in which the inferior court was said to be exceeding its jurisdiction or was not proceeding according to essential requirements of law and would lie only to review judicial or quasi-judicial acts.
Final Proceedings in Certiorari. As Spouses Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company further explained: The concept of the remedy of certiorari in our judicial system remains much the same as it has been in the common law. In this jurisdiction, however, the exercise of the power to issue the writ of certiorari is largely regulated by laying down the instances or situations in the Rules of Court in which a superior court may issue the writ of certiorari to an inferior court or officer.
First is "the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. Petition for certiorari. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule The requisites for the issuance of a writ of certiorari are settled: a the petition must be directed against a tribunal, Board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; b the tribunal, Board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and c there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. Grave abuse of discretion refers not merely to palpable errors of jurisdiction; or to violations of the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence.
It refers also to cases in which, for various reasons, there has been a gross misapprehension of facts. The first is a mode of appeal; the latter is an extraordinary remedy used to correct errors of jurisdiction.
It is through the latter that a writ of certiorari is issued. Precisely, for the writ to issue, there must be "no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy" available. Thus, judicial power includes the power of the courts to declare the acts of the executive and legislative branches of the government void, when they act beyond the powers conferred to them by law.
The first dimension of judicial power under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution delimits the subject of judicial inquiry, that is, to "actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd. A judicial question is raised when the determination of the question involves the exercise of a judicial function; that is, the question involves the determination of what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to the matter in controversy.
It may, in some instances, involve questions of fact especially with regard to the determination of the circumstances of the execution of the contracts. But the resolution of the validity or voidness of the contracts remains a legal or judicial question as it requires the exercise of judicial function. It requires the ascertainment of what laws are applicable to the dispute, the interpretation and application of those laws, and the rendering of a judgment based thereon.
Clearly, the dispute is not a mining conflict. It is essentially judicial. The complaint was not merely for the determination of rights under the mining contracts since the very validity of those contracts is put in issue. Under Republic Act No. In Pearson v. Intermediate Appellate Court, this Court observed that the trend has been to make the adjudication of mining cases a purely administrative matter.
Decisions of the Supreme Court on mining disputes have recognized a distinction between 1 the primary powers granted by pertinent provisions of law to the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the bureau directors of an executive or administrative nature, such as granting of license, permits, lease and contracts, or approving, rejecting, reinstating or canceling applications, or deciding conflicting applications, and 2 controversies or disagreements of civil or contractual nature between litigants which are questions of a judicial nature that may be adjudicated only by the courts of justice.
The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially executive or administrative in nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. The three 3 branches of our government—the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches—are superior in their respective spheres.
Subject to our system of checks and balances, one 1 branch cannot encroach on the duties and prerogatives of another. The Legislative branch is tasked with enacting laws; the Executive is responsible for the implementation of laws; and the Judiciary interprets the Constitution and laws. It is an exercise in legal interpretation. It is an exercise that only courts, and not administrative agencies, are competent to engage in.
IV Presidential Proclamation No. Executive Order Nos. Executive Order No. It also specified an appeal mechanism for decisions rendered by this Department: Section The DAR shall have powers to punish for contempt arid to issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecum and writs to enforce its orders or decisions.
The decisions of the DAR may, in proper cases, be appealed to the Regional Trial Courts but shall be immediately executory notwithstanding such appeal. Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.
The Board shall be composed of the Secretary as Chairman, two 2 Undersecretaries as may be designated by the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs, and three 3 others to be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary as members. A Secretariat shall be constituted to support the Board.
The Board shall assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases under Executive Order No. These powers and functions may be delegated to the regional offices of the Department in accordance with rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Board. Republic Act No. It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case.
Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding before it.
It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require submission of reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers to interrogatories and issue subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum, and enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers.
It shall likewise have the power to punish direct and indirect contempts [sic] in the same manner and subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court. Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR: Provided, however, That when there are two or more representatives for any individual or group, the representatives should choose only one among themselves to represent such party or group before any DAR proceedings.
Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be immediately executory. Pursuant to its power to "adopt a uniform, rule of procedure" under Republic Act No. Totality of Case Assigned.
The order or resolution of the Adjudicators on any issue, question, matter or incident raised before them shall be valid and effective until the hearing shall have been terminated and the case is decided on the merits, unless modified and reversed by the Board upon a verified petition for review on certiorari. Such interlocutory orders shall not be the subject of an appeal. In , the Department of Agrarian reform adopted new rules of procedure.
The order or resolution of the Adjudicator on any issue, question, matter or incident raised before them shall be valid and effective until the hearing shall have been terminated and the case is decided on the merits, unless modified and reversed by the Board upon a verified petition for certiorari which cannot be entertained without filing a motion for reconsideration with the Adjudicator a quo within five 5 days from receipt of the order, subject of the petition.
Such interlocutory order shall not be the subject of an appeal. In the Department of Agrarian Reform adopted new rules of procedure the Rules and again in the Rules. Instead, they merely stated that, in pursuit of its appellate jurisdiction, the Board has the power to "review, reverse, modify, alter, or affirm resolutions, orders and decisions of the Adjudicators. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court observed, based on the provisions aforecited, that Lubrica, DARAB similarly pleaded its authority over and supervision of RARADs as crafting an exception to the need for an express constitutional or statutory grant of jurisdiction.
This Court is not persuaded. The function of a writ of certiorari is to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
By its own admission, DARAB took upon itself the power to correct errors of jurisdiction which is ordinarily lodged with the regular courts by virtue of express constitutional grant or legislative enactments. In the event that the RARADs or PARADs act beyond its adjudicatory functions, nothing prevents the aggrieved party from availing of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which is ordinarily within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
That the statutes allowed the DARAB to adopt its own rules of procedure does not permit it with unbridled discretion to grant itself jurisdiction ordinarily conferred only by the Constitution or by law. Procedure, as distinguished from jurisdiction, is the means by which the power or authority of a court to hear and decide a class of cases is put into action. Rules of procedure are remedial in nature and not substantive.
Philippines’ Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Rules of Procedure
Meztirr Indeed, Executive Order No. Obviously, these factors involve factual matters which can be established only during a hearing wherein the contending parties present their respective evidence. On January 30,however, the Court denied Suntays motion for reconsideration. This new development, however, was not raised by the parties in their memoranda before the Court.
2009 DARAB RULES OF PROCEDURE PDF
Welcome to the namati. We may modify the Terms at any time without notice to you by posting revised versions of the Terms on our Site. If you do not agree to the Terms, do not use this website. To register, you must be 18 years or older, have the requisite power and authority to enter into the Terms, truthfully and accurately provide all required information, including a legitimate email address, and obtain a unique username and password. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your account and password, and you agree to accept responsibility for all activities that occur under your account or password.
2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure