Land Bank of the Philippines vs Severino Listana, Sr.

A summary of a decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines

Although this appears to be an agrarian reform related case but it is actually one that rules on the power, or lack of it, of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) to issue contempt orders and consequently order the arrest of persons cited for contempt, as provided for in R.A. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)

Here is the case:

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
SEVERINO LISTANA, SR., respondent.

G.R. No. 152611 August 5, 2003


Facts of the case:

Private respondent Listana voluntarily offered to sell his land of 246.0561 ha. in Sorsogon to the government, through the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). DAR valued the property at P5,871,689.03 but Listana refused to sell at that price, so the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), in an administrative proceeding determined the just compensation of the land at P10,956,963.25 and ordered the Land Bank of the Philippines to pay the same to Listana. A writ of execution was issued by PARAD to that effect but it was apparently not complied with by LBP so a Motion for Contempt was filed by Listana with the PARAD against petitioner LBP. PARAD granted the Motion for Contempt and cited for indirect contempt and ordered the arrest of ALEX A. LORAYES, the Manager of LBP. LBP obtained a preliminary injunction from the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon enjoining DARAB from enforcing the arrest order against Lorayes. Listana filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. CA nullified the order of the RTC. Consequently, petitioner LBP filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.


Issue:

Whether the order for the arrest of petitioner's manager, Mr. Alex Lorayes by the PARAD, was valid.

Ruling:


The arrest order issued by PARAD against Lorayes was not valid because the contempt proceedings initiated through an unverified "Motion for Contempt" filed by the respondent with the PARAD were themselves invalid. Said proceedings were invalid for the following reasons:

First, the Rules of Court clearly require the filing of a verified petition with the Regional Trial Court, which was not complied with in this case. The charge was not initiated by the PARAD motu proprio; rather, it was by a motion filed by respondent.

Second, neither the PARAD nor the DARAB have jurisdiction to decide the contempt charge filed by the respondent. The issuance of a warrant of arrest was beyond the power of the PARAD and the DARAB. Consequently, all the proceedings that stemmed from respondent?s "Motion for Contempt," specifically the Orders of the PARAD dated August 20, 2000 and January 3, 2001 for the arrest of Alex A. Lorayes, are null and void.



Angel Locsin (res ipsa loquitor)