Governor Carlos O.
Fortich of Bukidnon appealed[11] the order of
HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF
BUKIDNON, HON. REY B. BAULA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF
SUMILAO, BUKIDNON, NQSR MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, petitioners,
vs.
HON. RENATO C. CORONA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON.
ERNESTO D. GARILAO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, respondents.
G.R. No. 131457
April 24, 1998
Point of the case: The Officer of the President rendered a decision.
Then a motion for reconsideration was filed by the DAR but
subsequently denied for being filed beyond the period. Then the
decision became FINAL AND EXECUTORY. However, by virtue of the
filing of a SECOND motion for reconsideration by the DAR, the
decision was effectively changed. Thus, the petitioners assailed the
validity of the 2nd decision of OP.
Facts:
This case involves a 144-hectare land located at San Vicente,
Sumilao, Bukidnon, owned by the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr.
Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC), one of
the petitioners. The land was leased as a pineapple plantation to
the Philippine Packing Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc.
for 10 years. during the existence of the lease, the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare property
under compulsory acquisition and assessed the land value at P2.38
million.
NQSRMDC resisted the DARs action. In February, 1992, it sought
and was granted by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) a writ of
prohibition with preliminary injunction.
Despite the DARAB order the DAR Regional Director issued a
memorandum, dated May 21, 1992, directing the Land Bank to
open a trust account for P2.38 million in the name of NQSRMDC
and to conduct summary proceedings to determine the just
compensation of the subject property.
NQSRMDC objected to these moves and filed a Motion to enforce
the DARAB order and to nullify the summary proceedings on the
valuation of the subject property. Which was granted.
In the meantime, the Provincial Development Council (PDC) of
Bukidnon, headed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, passed Resolution
No. 6, designating certain areas along Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as
part of the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones where the subject
property is situated.
Notwithstanding the foregoing favorable recommendation,
however, on November 14, 1994, the DAR, thru Secretary Garilao,
invoking its powers to approve conversion of lands under Section
65 of R.A. No. 6657, issued an Order denying the instant application
for the conversion of the subject land from agricultural to agro-
industrial and, instead, placed the same under the compulsory
coverage of CARP.
Thus, the DAR Secretary ordered the DAR Regional Director to
proceed with the compulsory acquisition and distribution of the
property.
denial to the Office of the President and prayed for the
conversion/reclassification of the subject land as the same would
be more beneficial to the people of Bukidnon.
In resolving the appeal, the Office of the President, through then
Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, issued a Decision in OP
reversing the DAR Secretarys decision we find that the instant
application for conversion by the Municipality of Sumilao,
Bukidnon is impressed with merit.
On May 20, 1996, DAR filed a motion for reconsideration of the OP
decision.
In compliance with the OP decision of, NQSRMDC and the DECS
executed a Memorandum of Agreement whereby the former
donated four (4) hectares from the subject land to DECS for the
establishment of the NQSR High School.
When NQSRMDC was about to transfer the title over the 4-hectare
donated to DECS, it discovered that the title over the subject
property was no longer in its name. It soon found out that during
the pendency of both the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, with
Preliminary Injunction it filed against DAR in the Court of Appeals
and the appeal to the President filed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich,
the DAR, without giving just compensation, caused the cancellation
of NQSRMDCs title on August 11, 1995 and had it transferred in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines. Thus, on April 10, 1997,
NQSRMDC filed a complaint[21] with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Malaybalay, Bukidnon
Meanwhile, on June 23, 1997, an Order[24] was issued by
then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres denying DARs motion for
reconsideration for having been filed beyond the reglementary
period of fifteen (15) days. The said order further declared that the
March 29, 1996 OP decision had already
become final and executory.
The DAR filed a second motion for reconsideration of the
Order of the President.
On October 9, 1997, some alleged farmer-beneficiaries
began their hunger strike in front of the DAR Compound in Quezon
City to protest the OP Decision.
On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President resolved the
strikers protest by issuing the so-called Win/Win Resolution
penned by then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona
stating that the decision of the Office of the President through
Executive Secretary Torres is modified approving the NQSRMDCs
application for conversion only to the extent of 44 hectares while
the rest is covered by CARP.
When the petitioners received the decision, they filed a petition for
certiorari, prohibition and injunction under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court.
Petitioners allege, respondent then Deputy Executive Secretary
Renato C. Corona committed grave abuse of discretion and acted
beyond his jurisdiction when he issued the questioned Resolution
of 7 November 1997.
Issue:
1. Whether the petitioners, should have availed of the
Ordinary Appeal under rule 43 than the remedy under
Rule 65.
2. Whether the final and executory Decision dated March
29,1996 can still be substantially modified by the Win-
Win Resolution
Ruling:
1st issue. Remedy under rule 65 was proper
Anent the first issue, 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.[35] 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.[36] This error is correctable only
by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.[37]
When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June
23,1997 declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and
executory, as no one has seasonably filed a motion for
reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to
re-open the case, more so modify its Decision. Having lost its
jurisdiction, the Office of the President has no more authority to
entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by
respondent DAR Secretary, which second motion became the basis
of the assailed Win-Win Resolution. Section 7 of Administrative
Order No. 18 and Section 4, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court
mandate that only one (1) motion for reconsideration is allowed to
be taken from the Decision of March 29, 1996. And even if a second
motion for reconsideration was permitted to be filed in
exceptionally meritorious cases, as provided in the second
paragraph of Section 7 of AO 18, still the said motion should not
have been entertained considering that the first motion for
reconsideration was not seasonably filed, thereby allowing the
Decision of March 29, 1996 to lapse into finality. Thus, the act of
the Office of the President in re-opening the case and substantially
modifying its March 29,1996 Decision which had already become
final and executory, was in gross disregard of the rules and basic
legal precept that accord finality to administrative determinations.

It is true that under Rule 43, appeals from awards, The orderly administration of justice requires that the
judgments, final orders or resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach
exercising quasi-judicial functions,[38] including the Office of the a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. The noble
President,[39] may be taken to the Court of Appeals by filing a purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all.[61] This is a
verified petition for review[40] within fifteen (15) days from notice fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there
of the said judgment, final order or resolution,[41] whether the would be no end to litigations.
appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact
and law.[42] Therefore, the assailed Win-Win Resolution which substantially
modified the Decision of March 29, 1996 after it has attained
However, we hold that, in this particular case, the remedy
finality, is utterly void.
prescribed in Rule 43 is inapplicable considering that the present
petition contains an allegation that the challenged resolution is
patently illegal[43] and was issued with grave abuse of discretion
and beyond his (respondent Secretary Renato C. Coronas)
jurisdiction[44] 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

2nd issue. The decision cannot be changed.

We rule in the negative.

The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of

the President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative
Order No. 18. Section 7 thereof provides:

SEC. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President

shall, except as otherwise provided for by special laws, become
final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy
thereof by the parties, unless a motion for reconsideration
thereof is filed within such period.

Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be

allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally meritorious cases.