Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

FLOR CAÑAS-MANUEL G.R. No. 198751

Petitioner, For: PETITION FOR REVIEW
ON CERTIORARI
-versus-

ANDRES D. EGANO,
Respondent.

x-------------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION
TO THE PETITION FOR REVIEW

RESPONDENT, by counsel, unto this Honorable Supreme Court, by

way of comment/opposition to the petition for review furnished to the

respondent without any of the mentioned Annexes thereof, most

respectfully alleges;

1. With all due respect, respondent humbly submits that the instant

Petition deserves outright dismissal or must be denied due course, on the

following grounds, to wit:

1.1. That the instant petition is inappropriately filed.

1.2. That the petition is without merit or the questions raised therein
are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
 2

DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS

1.1 THE PETITION IS INAPPROPRIATELY FILED.

It is the humble submission of the respondent that the petition is in

fact not only fatally deficient in form, but is also inappropriately filed;

hence, it deserves to be dismissed/denied outright . Apart from the formal

deficiencies of the petition which were found and pointed out by the

Honorable Supreme Court, in its resolution dated 14 November 2011, the

copy of the petition furnished to herein respondent did not include any

and all of the Annexes mentioned in the petition, in violation of Sections 3

and 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This omission on the part of the

petitioner, whether intended or otherwise, is material as it violates

respondent’s right to due process. For how can petitioner defend his rights or

prepare an intelligent comment, if he is not adequately informed or furnished

the required verified petition including its Annexes. Significantly, the strict

compliance with and legal consequence on the failure to observe the afore-

mentioned rules, as in this case, is prescribed in Supreme Court Circular

No. 19-91, the pertinent portion of which , states:

“Effective September 15, 1991, henceforth, a petition or motion for

Extension filed before this Court shall be dismissed/denied outright if
There is no such proof of service in accordance with Sections 3 and 5
In relation to Section 10 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court attached
To the petition/motion when filed.”( italics supplied)

The mandatory and strict compliance by all members of the BAR, as

required by the aforecited Supreme Court Circular, is clear and categorical

which must be faithfully implemented and obeyed. Therefore, the petition

 3

having been filed not in accordance with Section 3 of Rule 45 of the Rules

of Court, as complemented by Supreme Court Circular 19-91, the same

deserves to be dismissed/denied outrightly, by this Honorable Supreme

Court..

1.2. THAT THE PETITION IS WITHOUT MERIT OR THE

QUESTIONS RAISED THEREIN ARE TOO
UNSUBSTANTIAL TO REQUIRE CONSIDERATION.

Respondent most respectfully submits that the petition is without merit, or

the questions raised therein deserve scant consideration. Petitioner’s first

issue, that the Order of the DAR Regional Director dated October 28,

2004, nullifying the CARP coverage over a portion of Lot No. 3595, has

been extensively and adequately discussed and resolved in the decision

dated February 17, 2006, rendered by Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD)

Wilfredo M. Navarra, in DARAB Case No. R-0805-0071-05. Said decision

was aptly reviewed and correctly sustained by the DAR Adjudication Board

(DARAB) Central Office, in its decision promulgated on May 29, 2007 in

DARAB Case No. 14579. That the same decision of the DARAB was

reviewed and correctly upheld by the Honorable Court of Appeals, in its

decision promulgated on February 18, 2011, practically in all these quasi-

judicial and judicial recourse, this particular issue was raised by the herein

petitioner, and was judiciously discussed and correctly resolved or decided..

Unfortunately, petitioner miserably failed to attach the Order dated October

28, 2004 of Regional Director Morales, as well as the decisions of PARAD

Wilfredo M. Navarra and the DARAB Central Office, to the instant Petition.

Such failure of the petitioner to submit/attach those material and vital

 4

public documents is also another ground warranting the outright

dismissal/denial of the petition.

Petitioner’s continuing argument that the Order of the DAR Regional

Director dated October 28, 2004 is null and void, is plainly baseless due to

lack of any factual circumstance to support such conclusion of fact.

Likewise, the petitioner’s contention that she was denied due process in the

proceedings before the Office of the DAR Regional Director, is

contradicted by the records. It must be stressed that, the essence of due

process is simply an opportunity to be heard or as applied to administrative

proceedings, an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling

complained of. In this case, petitioner was adequately afforded this

opportunity, having been furnished and received on November 12, 2004, a

copy of the Order dated October 28, 2004, but miserably failed to appeal

said Order.

Candidly, it was the Order dated October 28, 2004, issued by Regional

Director Morales, which declared null and void ab initio the identification

and award to the petitioner of the contested lot under the CARP, had in

fact already become final and executory, in view of petitioner’s failure to

appeal the same to the DAR Secretary. This finds support in the pertinent

applicable rule prescribed under Section 35 of DAR Adm. Order No. 3,

series of 2003, which provides, to wit;

Sec. 35. Finality- Final orders/ decisions/ resolutions shall become final
And executory after all parties have received an official copy thereof, after
The lapse of fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of receipt by the last
Recipient of the official copy thereof, and there is no motion for reconside-
Ration nor appeal therefrom.”
 5

In fact, the assailed Order of the DAR Regional Director Tiburcio

Morales, Jr., having long become final and executory, was the basis of

respondent in filing DARAB Case No. R-0805-0071-05, before the Office of

PARAD Navarra. Therefore, petitioner’s assertions that the Order dated

October 28, 2004, is a nullity, which was raised before the Office of the

PARAD and also in the DARAB Central, was misplaced and off tangent.

This conclusion finds support in the decision of PARAD Wilfredo Navarra,

stating in this wise;

Thus, the declaration of Dir. Tiburcio A. Morales, Jr., regarding

the disqualification of Flor Manuel Canas and Salome D. Canas
as farmer-beneficiaries, is an exercise of an authority of the DAR
Secretary that has been delegated to him. The cancellation of the
subject CLOA is a necessary consequence of that declaration
which binds this office, being an adjunct of the DAR.

The objections of the private Respondents to the cancellation

such as the alleged violation of their right to due process, the
irregularity of the certificate of finality issued by Atty. Geronimo
Q. Peque, the illegality of the sale of the land in dispute, etc…
cannot be entertained at this office because they are questions
related to the administrative implementation of the agrarian laws
which are beyond its jurisdiction. It must be emphasized that this
Office exercise no appellate jurisdiction over acts of the DAR
Regional Director. Thus, Respondents must address their
concerns to the DAR Secretary.

Therefore, respondent humbly submits that the alleged legal issues raised

by the petitioners, assailing the legality of the Order dated 28 October 2004,

is devoid of any merit, said Order having been issued in accordance with

existing rules and regulations implementing the Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Program (CARP) of the government, pursuant to R.A. No. 6657, as

amended.
 6

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, respondent most

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Supreme Court, that the instant

petition be dismissed/denied outright, for being devoid of merit.

Other relief and remedies just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

Tacloban City for Manila, Philippines. February 5, 2012.

Respectfully submitted:

LEO S. GIRON
Counsel for the Respondent
Roll of Attorneys No. 37379
IBP Lifetime No. 00733; 9-19-96; Leyte Chapter
PTR No. 7097670; 1-3-12; Tacloban City
253 Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City

COPY FURNISHED:

The Clerk of Court

Court of Appeals
6000 Cebu City
CA-G.R. SP No. 03230

Atty. Roger D. Cañas

Counsel for the Petitioner
Brgy. 110, Zone 1, Utap
Tacloban City

WRITTEN EXPLANATION
FOR SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

SERVICE of herein COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION

FOR REVIEW is made by way of registered mail with return card to the
above-named parties in lieu of personal service, which is not practicable due
to distance.

LEO S. GIRON
 7

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Tacloban ) SS

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, ANDRES D. EGANO, of legal age, Filipino citizen, married, a

resident of Brgy. Bunga, Cabucgayan, Biliran, after having been sworn in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and say: THAT---

I am the respondent in the above-entitled case; that I have caused the

preparation and filing of this Comment/Opposition to the Petition for
Review; that I have read and fully understood all the allegations therein
contained; and that the same are all true and correct according to my own
personal knowledge and belief, and based on genuine and authentic
documents; and further,

I CERTIFY that I have not commenced any action against the

petitioner for the same cause and over the same subject matter, nor is there
any case pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, court or any
agency or tribunal, judicial or administrative; that I undertake to inform this
Court of any action pending or otherwise over the same cause or subject
matter within five (5) days from date of knowledge.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 5

February 2012 at Tacloban City, Philippines.

ANDRES D. EGANO
Respondent/Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5 February 2012 at

Tacloban City, by ANDRES D. EGANO, personally known to me, and who
exhibited to me his competent evidence of identitiy which is his SSS ID No.
2051807-9 bearing his photograph and signature and CTC No. 05089235
issued on 10-20-11 at Cabucgayan, Biliran respectively, who is the same
person who personally signed before me the foregoing verification and
certificate of non-forum shopping and acknowledged that he executed the
same.

Doc. No. __
Page No. __
Book No. 62
SERIES OF 2012
 8

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Tacloban ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, MARWIN A. ASTORGA, Secretary of LEO S. GIRON LAW

OFFICE, Tacloban City, under oath state: THAT—

1. That on 6 February 2012, at the post office located at Tacloban

City, I mailed, through registered mail with return card, copies of a
COMMENT/OPPOSITION to the PETITION FOR REVIEW in G.R. No.
198751 to be filed with the SUPREME COURT, entitled, “Flor Cañas-
Manuel v. Andres D. Egano,” in separate envelopes, with instructions to the
post office to return the same if it was not received within ten (10) days from
notice by the following addressees:

Court of Appeals
6000 Cebu City
CA-G.R. SP No. 03230

Atty. Roger D. Cañas

Counsel for the Petitioner
Brgy. 110, Zone 1, Utap
Tacloban City

as shown by the attached registry receipts opposite their names.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6 February

2012 at Tacloban City, Philippines.

MARWIN A. ASTORGA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5 February 2012 at

Tacloban City, by MARWIN A. ASTORGA, personally known to me, and
who has satisfactorily proven to me his competent evidence of identity
through his government issued Postal ID No. 07185948 with picture and
signature, valid until October 2013, who is the same person who personally
signed before me the foregoing affidavit of service and acknowledged that
he executed the same.

Doc. No. ___

Page No. ___
Book No. 62
SERIES OF 2012