Fortich vs Corona
NQSRMDC filed a complaint with the RTC of
289 SCRA 624 | Doctrine of Res Judicata
Facts
On March 29, 1996, strikers went on protest concerning the decision
of the Office of the President issued through the executive secretary
Ruben Torres which approved the conversion of a 144 hectare of
agricultural land to an agro-industrial (institutional) area. That event led
to the issuance of the so-called “win-win” resolution made by the Office
of the President on November 7, 1997 through then Deputy Executive
Secretary, Renato Corona, which substantially modified its earlier
decision after it had become final and executory. The said resolution
modified the approval of the land conversion to agro-industrial area
only to the extent of 44 hectares and has ordered that the remainder
of 100 hectares to be distributed to the qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
The Case
The case involves a 144 hectare land owned by Norberto Quisumbing
Sr. Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC), one of
the petitioners. In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation
to the Philippine Packing Corporation (now Del Monte Philippines Inc.)
which is a multinational corporation for a period of 10 years under the
Crop Producer and Grower’s Agreement. The said lease had expired
in April 1994. In October 1991, in the existence of the lease, the
Department of Agrarian Reform placed the entire land under
compulsory acquisition. NQSRMDC resisted the action committed by
DAR; in February 1992, sought and was granted by DAR adjudication
board (DARAB), through its provincial agrarian reform adjudicator, a
writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction.
Despite the order from DARAB, the DAR regional director issued a
memorandum directing the Land Bank to open a trust account in the
name of NQSRMDC and conduct summary proceedings to determine
the just compensation of the subjected property. NQSRMDC objected
to these and filed an Omnibus Motion on June 9, 1992 to enforce the
DAR regional director and Land Bank on the valuation of the subjected
property.
DARAB acted favorably on the Omnibus Motion by ordering the DAR
regional director and Land Bank “to seriously comply with the terms of
the order dated nullifying the DAR regional director’s memorandum
and the summary proceedings conducted pursuant thereto; and
directing the Land Bank “to return the claim folder of petitioner
NQRSMDC’s subjected property to DAR until further orders.
Meanwhile, Governor Fortich passed Resolution No. 6 designating
particular areas along Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the
Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones where the subjected property is
located. On November 14, 1994, DAR (through its Secretary Garilao)
issued an order denying the instant application for the conversion of
the subjected property from agricultural to an agro-industrial and, in
lieu, placed it under compulsory coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP). The governor (Fortich) appealed the said
order to the Office of the President and prayed for the conversion or
classification of the subjected property as the same would be favorable
to the people of Bukidnon.
Appeal with the Court of Appeals
On June 29, 1995, an appeal was filed with the Court of Appeals; a
petition for certiorari and prohibition with the preliminary injunction. In
resolving this, the Office of the President, through then executive
secretary, Ruben Torres, issued a decision approving the application
of the petitioners. Subsequently, DAR filed a motion for
reconsideration.
Malaybalay, Bukidnon for the annulment and cancellation of the title,
damages and injunction against DAR and 141 others. The RTC issued
a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction restraining DAR and 141
others from entering, occupying and wresting from NQSRMDC the
possession of the subjected property.
An order was issued by then executive secretary on June 23, 1997
denying the motion for reconsideration having been filed by DAR
beyond the reglementary period of 15 days. The said order further
declared that the decision (by the Office of the President) on March
29, 1996 had become final and executory. DAR filed a second motion
for reconsideration on July 11, 1997 for the June 23, 1997 order of the
Office of the President.
On August 12, 1997, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the
RTC was challenged by some farmers before the CA (Court of
Appeals) through a petition (for certiorari and prohibition) praying for
the lifting of the injunction and for issuance of writ of prohibition from
further trying the RTC case. Some alleged farmer-beneficiaries went
on a hunger strike on October 9, 1997 in front of the DAR compound
in Quezon City protesting about the decision made by the Office of the
President on March 29, 1996. The Office of the President resolved the
strikers’ protest by issuing the so-called “win-win” resolution, which
was drafted by then deputy executive secretary Renato Corona, on
November 7, 1997.
Governor Fortich and NQSRMDC received a copy of the said “win-
win” resolution and filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition
and injunction with urgent prayer of TRO and/or writ of preliminary
injunction against then deputy secretary Renato Corona and DAR
secretary Ernesto Garilao. A motion for leave to intervene was filed by
alleged farmer-beneficiaries, through counsel, claiming that they are
real parties in interest.
In seeking the annulment of the “win-win” resolution, the petitioners
claim that the OP came up with a purely political decision to appease
the farmers by reviving and modifying the decision (made on March
29, 1996) which has been declared final and executory in an order
issued on June 23, 1997. They (petitioners) also allege that the
respondent (then deputy secretary) committed grave abuse of
discretion and acted beyond his jurisdiction when he drafted the
questioned resolution on November 7, 1997.
Issue: Whether or not the doctrine of Res Judicata applies in the case
at bar
Ruling:The Supreme Court ruled that the acts of the petitioner does
not constitute forum shopping, “that there is forum-shopping
whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party
seeks a favorable opinion other than by appeal or certiorari in another”.
The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts
but also in connection with litigation commenced in the courts while
administrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in order to defeat
administrative processes in anticipation of an favorable administrative
ruling and a favorable court ruling. This specially so, as in this case,
where the court in which the second suit was brought, has no
jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court has explained that the test for
determining whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping
is where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final
judgement in one case will amount to res judicata in the other, which
are absent in the case at bar.