Samaniego vs Aguila
2
SAMANIEGO vs AGUILA GR No. 125567 FACTS: A land with an aggregate area of approximately 10.4496 hectares, more or less, in Patul (now Malvar), Santiago, Isabela was to be awarded to petitioners, Samaniego, et. al. who were then tenants and recipients of the Operation Land Transfer Program under PD No. 27. A part of the identified land belonged to the private respondent Aguila, who upon knowledge thereof, seek exemption from PD No. 27 to the Regional Director. On Aug 21 1991, the Regional Director granted th e application of exemption which prompted the petitioners to appeal the decision to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). However, DAR affirmed the decision of th e Regional Director. Upon motion of petitioners, the former reversed its decision and denied private respondent’s application for exemption. Private respondents then appealed the Department of Agrarian Reform’s decision to the Office of the President which reversed the DAR’s latter decision and affirming its former decision and that private respondents are exempted from PD 27. Petitioner’s raised the issue to the appellate court. The Appellate court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners failed to implead the Office of the President. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: 1. Whether t he Cour t of App eals er red in di smis sing the c ase on t he gro und that petitioners’ failure to implead the Office of the President; 2. Whether t he Offic e of the Pr esiden t is an ind ispens able pa rty in a n appea l from its decision. HELD: 1. YES. The Court erred in dismissing the case. The procedure governing appeals to said court from quasi-judicial agencies was embodied in Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, which provides in relevant parts: TO: COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, ALL MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT PROSECUTION SERVICE, AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES. SUBJECT:....RULES GOVERNING APPEALS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND QUASI- JUDICIAL AGENCIES. 1. Scope.- These rules shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Office of the President, Civil Aeronautics Board, etc. . . . .
-
Upload
desiree-pompeyo -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Samaniego vs Aguila
SAMANIEGO vs AGUILA
GR No. 125567
FACTS:
A land with an aggregate area of approximately 10.4496 hectares, more or less,in Patul (now Malvar), Santiago, Isabela was to be awarded to petitioners, Samaniego,et. al. who were then tenants and recipients of the Operation Land Transfer Programunder PD No. 27. A part of the identified land belonged to the private respondentAguila, who upon knowledge thereof, seek exemption from PD No. 27 to the RegionalDirector. On Aug 21 1991, the Regional Director granted the application of exemptionwhich prompted the petitioners to appeal the decision to the Department of AgrarianReform (DAR). However, DAR affirmed the decision of the Regional Director. Uponmotion of petitioners, the former reversed its decision and denied privaterespondent’s application for exemption.
Private respondents then appealed the Department of Agrarian Reform’sdecision to the Office of the President which reversed the DAR’s latter decision andaffirming its former decision and that private respondents are exempted from PD 27.
Petitioner’s raised the issue to the appellate court. The Appellate courtdismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners failed to implead the Officeof the President. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case on the groundthat petitioners’ failure to implead the Office of the President;
2. Whether the Office of the President is an indispensable party in an appealfrom its decision.
HELD:
1. YES. The Court erred in dismissing the case. The procedure governing appeals tosaid court from quasi-judicial agencies was embodied in Revised AdministrativeCircular No. 1-95, which provides in relevant parts:
TO: COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL,THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, ALL MEMBERS OF THEGOVERNMENT PROSECUTION SERVICE, AND ALL MEMBERS OF THEINTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.SUBJECT:....RULES GOVERNING APPEALS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FROMJUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES.
1. Scope.- These rules shall apply to appeals from judgments or final ordersof the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders orresolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil ServiceCommission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and ExchangeCommission, Land Registration Authority, Social SecurityCommission, Office of the President, Civil Aeronautics Board, etc.. . . .
6. Contents of petition. .- The petition for review shall (a) state the fullnames of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencieseither as petitioners or respondents…. (Emphasis added).
Thus, it is clear that petitioners’ failure to implead the Office of the President doesnot warrant the dismissal of the case as it is in accordance with this circular
2. NO. The Office of the President is not an indispensable party to the case. Anindispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final determination can behad of an action without that party being impleaded. Indispensable parties are thosewith such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affecttheir rights, so that the court cannot proceed without their presence. "Interest",within the meaning of this rule, should be material, directly in issue and to beaffected by the decree, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in thequestion involved. On the other hand, a nominal or pro forma party is one who isjoined as a plaintiff or defendant, not because such party has any real interest in thesubject matter or because any relief is demanded, but merely because the technicalrules of pleadings require the presence of such party on the record.
In the case at bar, even assuming that the Office of the President should havebeen impleaded by petitioner, it is clear that the Office of the President is merelya pro forma party, in the same way that a respondent court is a pro forma party inspecial civil actions for certiorari.
