G.R. No.

131457 April 24, 1998

Fortich vs. Corona

The case involves a 144 hectare land owned by Norberto Quisumbing Sr. Management and
Development Corporation (NQSRMDC). In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation
to the Philippine Packing Corporation (now Del Monte Philippines Inc.) 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 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 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). Fortich
appealed the said order to OP and prayed for the conversion or classification of the subjected
property as the same would be favorable to the people of Bukidnon.

NQSRDMC filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the preliminary injunction. 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. NQSRMDC
filed a complaint with the RTC of Bukidnon for the annulment and cancellation of the title,
damages and injunction against DAR and others. The RTC issued a TRO and a writ of preliminary
injunction restraining DAR and others from entering, occupying and wresting from NQSRMDC
the possession of the subjected property.

The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC was challenged by some farmers before the
CA 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.

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.

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. They also allege that
respondent committed grave abuse of discretion and acted beyond his jurisdiction when he
drafted the questioned resolution.

Issue: WoN the proper remedy of petitioners should have been to file a petition for review
directly with the Court of Appeals in accordance with Rule 43

Ruling: No. In order to determine whether the recourse of petitioners is proper or not, it is
necessary to draw a line between an error of judgment and an error of jurisdiction. An error of
judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is
reviewable only by an appeal. On the other hand, an error of jurisdiction is one where the act
complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction. This error is correctable only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

It is true that under Rule 43, appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of any
quasi-judicial agency exercising quasi-judicial functions, including the Office of the President,
may be taken to the Court of Appeals by filing a verified petition for review within fifteen (15)
days from notice of the said judgment, final order or resolution, whether the appeal involves
questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.

However, we hold that, in this particular case, the remedy prescribed in Rule 43 is inapplicable
considering that the present petition contains an allegation that the challenged resolution is
"patently illegal" and was issued with "grave abuse of discretion" and "beyond his (respondent
Secretary Renato C. Corona's) jurisdiction" when said resolution substantially modified the
earlier OP Decision of March 29, 1996 which had long become final and executory. In other
words, the crucial issue raised here involves an error of jurisdiction, not an error of judgment
which is reviewable by an appeal under Rule 43. Thus, the appropriate remedy to annul and set
aside the assailed resolution is an original special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, as what
the petitioners have correctly done.