Regional Agrarian Reform Adj. Board v. CA GR No. 165155

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618 11/13/23, 2:54 AM
*
G.R. No. 165155. April 13, 2010.
REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION
BOARD, Office of the Regional Adjudicator, San Fernando,
Pampanga, CECILIA MANIEGO, JOSE BAUTISTA,
ELIZA PACHECO, JUANITO FAJARDO, MARIO
PACHECO, MARIANO MANANGHAYA as heir of Antonio
Mananghaya, MARCIANO NATIVIDAD, ROBERTO
BERNARDO in his personal capacity and as heir of Pedro
Bernardo, EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD, as heir of Ismael
Natividad, JEFFREY DIAZ as heir of Jovita R. Diaz,
RODOLFO DIMAAPI, ALBERTO ENRIQUEZ, BENIGNO
CABINGAO, MARIO GALVEZ, DELFIN SACDALAN, as
heir of Avelino Santos, petitioners,1 vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, VERONICA R. GONZALES, DEOGRACIAS
REYES, LEONARDO REYES, ISABELITA BALATBAT,
MANUELA REYES, WILHELMINA ALMERO, ARTURO
REYES, EPIFANIO REYES, GLORIA REYES, MARIO
REYES, TERESITA BALATBAT, LYDIA BALATBAT,
FERNANDO BALATBAT, VICENTE BALATBAT,
GILBERTO REYES, RENE REYES, EMILIA DUNGO,
BRENDA CANCIO, VICTOR REYES, and EDGARDO
REYES, represented by VERONICA R. GONZALES, for
herself and as attorney-in-fact, respondents.
Civil Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Procedural Rules and

Technicalities; Pleadings as well as procedural rules should be
construed liberally.·There is nothing sacred about the forms of
pleadings or processes, their sole purpose being to facilitate the
application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties.
Hence, pleadings as well as procedural rules should be construed
liberally. Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is
frowned upon because rules of procedure should not be applied to
override substantial justice. Courts must proceed with caution so as
not to deprive a party of statutory appeal; they must ensure that all
litigants are
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018bc4e2d84119a96733000d00d40059004a/p/ATB705/?username=Guest Page 1 of 30
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
1 Only the signatories to the Petition for Certiorari submitted themselves

to the jurisdiction of this Court as petitioners.
182
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of

Appeals
granted the amplest opportunity for the proper and just ventilation
of their causes, free from technical constraints. If the foregoing
tenets are followed in a civil case, their application is made more
imperative in an agrarian case where the rules themselves provide
for liberal construction.
Agrarian Reform Law; Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB); Jurisdiction; Section 8, Rule XIII of
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
Rules states that the Board (not the Regional Adjudicator) has the
power to impose reasonable penalties, including fine or censure, on
parties who file frivolous or dilatory appeals.·The Regional
Adjudicator is also correct when she ruled that she has no power to
determine if the appeal is frivolous and intended merely for delay.
Such matters are for the appellate body to determine after it has
studied the appellantÊs brief or the appeal memorandum. The body
which rendered the appealed decision should not pass upon the
question of whether the appeal was taken manifestly for delay
because such determination belongs to the appellate body. For the
lower body to do so would constitute a review of its own judgment
and a mockery of the appellate process. This principle is applicable
to agrarian disputes by virtue of Section 8, Rule XIII of the DARAB
Rules which states that the Board (not the Regional Adjudicator)
has the power to impose reasonable penalties, including fine or
censure, on parties who file frivolous or dilatory appeals. The
implication is that since the Board is the one which has the power
to punish, it is also the one which has the power to decide if there
has been a violation. The Regional Adjudicator has no such power.
She must allow the appeal if it is timely and compliant with the
reglementary requirements. It has been held that when an appeal is

filed on time, the approval of a notice of appeal is a ministerial duty
of the court or tribunal which rendered the decision.
Civil Procedure; Parties; „Real Party in Interest,‰ Defined;
Words and Phrases.·A real party in interest is defined as „the
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of a suit.‰ The real parties in
interest, at the time the complaint was filed, were no longer the
decedents Avelino and Pedro, but rather their respective heirs who
are entitled to succeed to their rights (whether as agricultural
lessees or as farmers-beneficiaries) under our agrarian laws. They
are the ones who, as heirs of the decedents and actual tillers, stand
to be removed from
183
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 183

Appeals
the landholding and made to pay back rentals to respondents if the

complaint is sustained.
Same; Same; Formal substitution of parties is not necessary
when the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared, participated, and
presented evidence during the proceedings.·Since respondents
failed to correct their error (they did not amend the erroneous
caption of their complaint to include the real parties-in-interest),
they cannot be insulated from the confusion which it engendered in
the proceedings below. But at any rate, notwithstanding the
erroneous caption and the absence of a formal substitution of
parties, jurisdiction was acquired over the heirs of Avelino and
Pedro who voluntarily participated in the proceedings below. This
Court has ruled that formal substitution of parties is not necessary
when the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared, participated, and
presented evidence during the proceedings.
Criminal Law; Falsification of Public Documents; In cases of
falsification of public documents, such as documents introduced in
judicial proceedings, the change in the public document must be
such as to affect the integrity of the same or change the effects which
it would otherwise produce.·In cases of falsification of public
documents, such as documents introduced in judicial proceedings,

„the change in the public document must be such as to affect the
integrity of the same or change the effects which it would otherwise
produce; for, unless that happens, there could not exist the essential
element of the intent to commit the crime, which is required by
Article 3 of the Penal Code.‰
Agrarian Reform Law; Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB); Jurisdiction; Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies; An aggrieved party can only resort to
judicial review after it has invoked the authority of the Board·
Section 1, Rule II provides that the Board has primary and
exclusive, original and appellate jurisdiction over agrarian disputes
involving agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations.·Respondents failed to exhaust administrative
remedies when they filed their petition for certiorari before the CA,
instead of the Board. An aggrieved party can only resort to judicial
review after it has invoked the authority of the Board. Judicial
review is not provided for orders, rulings, and decisions of
adjudicators. It is stated in Section 1, Rule II that the Board has
primary and exclusive, original and appellate jurisdiction over
184

Appeals
agrarian disputes involving agrarian laws and their implementing

rules and regulations. If respondents were strict adherents to
procedural rules, they should have followed Section 2(b) of Rule XIII
which provides for an appeal to the Board on the ground of grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the adjudicator.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Chief, Litigation Division for public petitioner.
Anselmo M. Carlos for private petitioners.
Venancio C. Reyes, Jr. for respondents.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Rules of procedure are tools to facilitate a fair and

orderly conduct of proceedings. Strict adherence thereto
must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice. So
long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no violation of
due process and fair play takes place, the rules should be
liberally construed, especially in agrarian cases.
This Petition for Certiorari2 assails the June 9, 2004
Decision3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
79304 which granted the Petition for Certiorari of
respondents and held that petitionersÊ notices of appeal are
mere scrap of paper for failure to specify the ground for the
appeal; and for being forged. Also assailed is the August 31,
2004 Resolution4
_______________
2 Rollo, pp. 12-28. In the resolution dated August 31, 2005, the instant
„Petition for Certiorari‰ was given due course notwithstanding
procedural infirmities so as not to deny petitioners of their last
opportunity to ventilate their cause; id., at pp. 263-265.
3 Id., at pp. 30-39; penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr.
and concurred in by Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia and Associate
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin.
4 Id., at p. 49.
185
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 185

Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court
of Appeals
denying petitionersÊ motion for reconsideration. The

assailed Decision disposed as follows:
„WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED

and the Notices of Appeal filed by the private respondents before
the public respondent are hereby decreed without legal effect.
SO ORDERED.‰5
Factual Antecedents
Respondents are co-owners of several parcels of land
primarily devoted to rice production consisting of 58.8448
hectares, located at Sta. Barbara, Baliuag, Bulacan and

covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-
158564, T-215772, T-215776, T-215777, T 215775.
Petitioners are in actual possession of the said land as
tillers thereof. According to respondents, petitioners are
agricultural lessees with the obligation to pay annual lease
rentals. On the other hand, petitioners aver that they are
farmer-beneficiaries under Presidential Decree 27, who
have been granted Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and
(unregistered) emancipation patents (EPs).
On March 6, 2002, respondents filed a complaint for
ejectment against petitioners for non-payment of rentals
before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB), Office of the Regional Adjudicator, San
Fernando, Pampanga. They alleged that petitioners failed
to pay and remit the agreed lease rentals to respondents
since 1994, or for a period of eight years. The case was
docketed as DARAB Case No. R-03-02-0213-BulÊ02.
Among the named defendants were Avelino Santos
(Avelino) and Pedro Bernardo (Pedro), who were already
deceased at the time of the filing of the complaint. Per the
death certificates presented before the Regional
Adjudicator,
_______________
5 Id., at p. 39.
186

of Appeals
Avelino died on December 29, 1997, while Pedro passed

away on July 25, 1999. Thus, when the complaint for
ejectment was filed in 2002, the actual tillers on the land
were already the successors-in-interest of Avelino and
Pedro, namely Delfin Sacdalan (Delfin) and Roberto
Bernardo (Roberto), respectively. Despite such disclosure,
no amendment to implead the real parties-in-interest was
made to the complaint. Instead on May 9, 2002, the
Regional Adjudicator ordered the respective legal heirs to

substitute the named decedents in the case. For some
reason, no formal substitution of party litigants took place
either. However, it is clear from the records, and neither
party disputes, that notwithstanding the non-amendment
of the complaint and the absence of a formal substitution,
the heirs of Avelino and Pedro appeared and participated in
the proceedings below. The position papers of respondents6
as well as petitioners7 both named Delfin and Roberto as
the heirs of the two decedents and parties to the case.8
Thus, the records support a conclusion that the
respondents acquiesced to the participation of the said
heirs as the real parties-in-interest.
Rulings of the Regional Adjudicator
a) Decision dated January 23, 2003
After the submission of the partiesÊ respective position
papers, Regional Adjudicator Fe Arche Manalang
(Manalang) issued a Decision9 dated January 23, 2003 in
favor of respondents, the dispositive portion of which
states:
_______________
6 DARAB records, pp. 139-138.

7 Id., at pp. 228-227.
8 Roberto Bernardo was impleaded as a defendant in his own right.
After the order for substitution of parties, he was also recognized by both
parties in their respective position papers as the representative of the
deceased Pedro Bernardo.
9 Rollo, pp. 71-79.
187
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 187

of Appeals
„WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Severing and extinguishing the existing tenancy/agricultural
leasehold relationship existing between the plaintiffs-landowners
and the defendants over the landholdings described in paragraph

2 of the complaint.
2. Directing the defendants and all persons claiming rights under
them to:
a. Vacate the landholdings in question and peacefully
surrender possession thereof to the plaintiffs;
b. Remove at their own expense all structures and other
improvements introduced thereon if any;
c. Continue to pay to the plaintiffs the annual leasehold rentals
due thereon until the latter are fully restored to the
premises in question.
3. Directing the said defendants to pay to the plaintiffs, jointly and
severally the amount of P300,000.00 as and by way of liquidated
damages;
4. Denying all other claims for lack of basis; and
Without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.‰
The Decision explained that with the exemption of the

subject properties from the coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), as evidenced by the
December 18, 1992 Order issued by Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Director Antonio M.
Nuesa (which also directed the cancellation of the issued
CLTs/EPs in the proper forum), petitioners could only
retain their status as agricultural lessees if they complied
with their statutory obligations to pay the required
leasehold rentals when they fell due. Since all the
petitioners failed to prove that they complied with their
rental obligations to respondents since 1994, the Regional
Adjudicator held that they could no longer invoke their
right to security of tenure.
Aggrieved by the adverse Decision, petitioners filed two
separate notices of appeal; one was filed on February 28,
188

of Appeals
200310 by petitioners Marciano Natividad, Alberto
Enriquez, Benigno Cabingao, and Rodolfo Dimaapi (first

group); while the other was filed on March 5, 2003 by
petitioners Cecilia Maniego, Jose Bautista, Eliza Pacheco,
Roberto Bernardo, Ismael Natividad,11 Juanito Fajardo,
Antonio Mananghaya,12 Jovita R. Diaz,13 Mario Pacheco,
Emilio Peralta, Mario Galvez, and the two decedents Pedro
and Avelino (second group).14 Both notices of appeal were
similarly worded thus:
„DEFENDANTS, unto this Honorable Board, hereby serve notice

that they are appealing the decision rendered in the above-entitled
case, which was received on February 18, 2003 to the DARAB,
Central Office at Diliman, Quezon City on the grounds of question
of law and fact.‰
Unlike their previous pleadings, which were all signed

by Atty. Jaime G. Mena (Atty. Mena), petitionersÊ notices of
appeal were not signed by a lawyer.
On March 6, 2003, respondents filed a motion to dismiss
the appeal15 and an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a
writ of execution and/or partial implementation of the
decision against non-appealing defendants.16 They
presented three grounds for the dismissal of the appeal:
first, the two notices did not state the grounds relied upon
for the appeal; second, the March 5, 2003 Notice of Appeal
was filed beyond the reglementary period; third, the March
5, 2003 Notice of Appeal contained the forged signatures of
the deceased defendants Avelino and Pedro.
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 80-81.

11 Now deceased and substituted by Edilberto Natividad.
12 Now deceased and substituted by Mariano Mananghaya.
13 Now deceased and substituted by Jeffrey Diaz.
14 Rollo, pp. 82-83.
15 Id., at pp. 84-86.
16 Id., at pp. 89-91.
189
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 189

of Appeals
b) May 6, 2003 Order

On May 6, 2003, the Regional Adjudicator issued an
Order17 giving due course to the appeal, except with respect
to the decedents Avelino and Pedro, whose signatures were
held to be falsified. Thus, a writ of execution was issued
against the non-appealing defendants and the deceased
defendants.
The petitioners received the above Order only on May 8,
2003, together with the writ of execution,18 which was
promptly implemented on the same day and on May 10,
2003.19
Dissatisfied with the May 6, 2003 Order of the Regional
Adjudicator, both the respondents and the petitioners
whose appeal was disallowed, moved for reconsideration of
the order. Respondents reiterated20 that the Regional
Adjudicator should not have given due course to the appeal
because it did not adhere strictly with Section 2, Rule XIII
of the DARAB Rules of Procedure; and that it was a
dilatory or frivolous appeal that deserved outright
dismissal.
On the other hand, the petitioners who were included in
the writ of execution, including the heirs of Avelino and
Pedro, now represented by the DAR-Legal Counsel Atty.
Dauphine B. Go,21 argued that the May 6, 2003 Order was
hastily executed, without giving them an opportunity to
question its correctness. They pointed out that PedroÊs
signature was not forged, since what appears thereon is
actually the name of his widow, Pilar Bernardo (Pilar).22 As
for the signa-
_______________
17 Id., at pp. 93-94.

18 Implementation Report dated May 12, 2003, DARAB records, pp.
429-427.
19 Id., at p. 439.
20 PlaintiffsÊ Motion for Reconsideration dated May 13, 2003, id., at
pp. 424-423.
21 A motion relieving Atty. Jaime G. Mena of his legal services and the
entry of appearance of DAR-Legal Officer Atty. Dauphine B. Go were

filed on March 13, 2003, id., at pp. 367-361.
22 Id., at pp. 483 and 480.
190

of Appeals
ture of Avelino, which was executed by his widow, Jovita

Santos (Jovita), the same was an innocent error since she
did not know which name to write, having been unaided by
counsel. Jovita maintained that she simply thought that
writing her deceased husbandÊs name on the Notice of
Appeal would relay the intention of the heirs to appeal the
adverse decision.23
A hearing was conducted on July 3, 2003,24 where the
heirs of Avelino and Pedro personally appeared to explain
the alleged falsification of signatures. Pilar, the widow of
Pedro, explained that she did not sign the Notice of Appeal
herself, but that she allowed her son Roberto to sign it for
her. Roberto confirmed his motherÊs testimony and
admitted that he personally signed all documents and
pleadings on behalf of his mother, Pilar. Their testimonies
are verified by the records. As for Jovita, widow of Avelino,
she admits signing her deceased husbandÊs name in all
pleadings. All of them explained that their only intention
was to sign the pleadings on behalf of their deceased
relatives so as to be able to participate in the proceedings.
c) August 5, 2003 Order
Based on these testimonies, Regional Adjudicator
Manalang allowed the appeal of the heirs of the two
decedents and nullified the writ of execution as regards
them in an Order dated August 5, 2003.25 It resolved the
two motions in this wise:
„Plaintiffs in their first-cited motion lightly brushed off the

defendantsÊ Notice of Appeal as a mere scrap of paper but [do] not
elaborate how they arrived at this conclusion, apart from a general
statement that the same [do] not assign any specific errors in the
_______________
23 Id., at pp. 482 and 479.

24 Id., at pp. 545-543.
25 Id., at pp. 624-621.
191
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 191

of Appeals
findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the decision

being challenged.
While this may be so, it is not for this Office to pass on the merits of
the appeal. All that it is called upon to do is to determine whether the
same was seasonably filed and perfected by the appellants within the
prescribed reglementary period. With an affirmative finding on this
aspect, nothing more remains to be done except to allow the appeal to
run its full course.
xxxx
Evaluating the partiesÊ conflicting claims x x x this Office finds for the
plaintiffs x x x. However, with the voluntary confessions of Pilar
Bernardo and Jovita Santos x x x who are the widows of the deceased
tenants Pedro Bernardo and Avelino Santos that they really mean to
appeal the adverse decision affecting their late spousesÊ farmholdings,
any perceived legal defect in the manner of affixing their signatures on
the questioned Notices of Appeal must give way to the greater demands
of justice and equity. x x x
xxxx
FOREGOING premises considered, Order is hereby issued:
1. Denying the plaintiffsÊ Motion for Reconsideration filed on May 13,
2003;
2. Noting without action the same plaintiffsÊ Motion for Execution
Pending Appeal filed on May 14, 2003;
3. Giving due course to the Motion for Reconsideration (from the
Order of May 6, 2003 and Writ of Execution dated May 8, 2003)
filed by the Heirs of Pedro Bernardo, Heirs of Avelino Santos, and
of Ismael Natividad26 and thereby allowing their appeal to the
exclusion of the other defendants-movants;
4. Motu proprio quashing the Writ of Execution issued on May 8, 2003
directed against aforenamed defendants and thereby nullifying all
proceedings undertaken in connection therewith.
_______________
26 The order admitted its error in the May 6, 2003 Decision which
included Ismael Natividad among the deceased parties.
192

of Appeals
xxxx
SO ORDERED.‰
Respondents moved for another reconsideration on

August 14, 2003.27 This was denied in the November 13,
2003 Order,28 which also ordered the sheriff to restore the
farmholdings of the heirs of Avelino and Pedro in view of
the quashal of the writ of execution as to the said
individuals. Respondents sought another reconsideration,29
which was again denied on January 9, 2004.30
Respondents thus filed a petition for certiorari before the
CA. They argued that the DARAB no longer had any
jurisdiction to reverse the portion of its Decision, which had
already been duly executed upon the authority of a writ
issued on May 6, 2003. They also insisted that both notices
of appeal were infirm for failure to state the grounds for an
appeal and for containing forged signatures.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The appellate court found merit in respondentsÊ petition.
It held that the Notice of Appeal of the second group
bearing the signatures of deceased Avelino and Pedro was a
product of forgery, and thus had no legal effect. The
appellate court brushed aside the heirsÊ explanations that
they merely signed the decedentsÊ names to show their
intention to appeal the Regional AdjudicatorÊs decision. It
found their intentions immaterial and irrelevant to the
nullity of a forged instrument.
Further, it found the two Notices of Appeal lodged by the
first and second groups to be mere scraps of paper as they
_______________

28 Id., at pp. 682-680.
29 Id., at pp. 702-700.
30 Id., at pp. 730-728.
193
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 193

of Appeals
failed to comply with the mandate of Section 2, Rule XIII of

the „1997 DARAB New Rules of Procedure‰ (actually, it
should have been the 1994 DARAB New Rules of
Procedure.31) According to the CA, the Notices of Appeal
failed to specifically allege the grounds relied upon for the
appeal. The statement that they are appealing on
„questions of fact and law‰ was held to be insufficient
because an appeal, being a mere statutory privilege, must
be exercised in the manner prescribed by the provisions of
law authorizing it.
PetitionersÊ Motion for Reconsideration32 was denied.
Hence, this petition seeking a review of the Decision dated
June 9, 2004 of the CA.
Issue
The issues raised by both parties are as follows:

(1) Whether the Notices of Appeal dated February 28,
2003 and March 3, 2003 are „mere scraps of paper‰ for
failure to state the grounds relied upon for an appeal;
and
(2) Whether the Notice of Appeal dated March 3, 2003 is
null and void for containing two falsified signatures.
_______________
31 There is no 1997 DARAB Rules of Procedure. The only previous

and existing versions are the 1989, 1994, 2003 and 2009 DARAB Rules of
Procedure. The complaint in the instant case was filed on March 6, 2002,
during the effectivity of the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure, thus it is
the latter which is applicable in this case. This is further reinforced by

the fact that the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, which became
effective when the subject notices of appeal were filed, expressly provides
in Section 1, Rule XXIV (Miscellaneous Provisions) thereof that „all cases
pending with the Board and the Adjudicators, prior to the date of
effectivity of these Rules, shall be governed by the DARAB Rules
prevailing at the time of their filing.‰
32 Rollo, pp. 40-47.
194

of Appeals
PetitionersÊ Arguments
Petitioners pray that their Notices of Appeal to the
DARAB be given due course on the ground that they have
substantially complied with the rules as set forth in Section
2, Rule XIII of the 1994 DARAB New Rules of Procedure.
They posit that their appeal on „questions of fact and law‰
should suffice, even if they omitted the phrase „which if not
corrected would cause grave irreparable damage and injury
to them.‰ They argue that the stringent application of the
rules denied them substantial justice.
Petitioners also argue that the complaint itself was filed
against their deceased predecessors-in-interest. Hence, if
technicality is to be followed, the complaint should have
been dismissed as to the deceased defendants. But the case
continued and they, as heirs, participated in the
proceedings. Thus when they signed the Notice of Appeal,
their intent was not to defraud but only to continue their
quest for justice.
RespondentsÊ Arguments
Respondents reiterate that the notices of appeal are
„mere scraps of paper‰ for failure to state the grounds
relied upon for the appeal and for containing forged
signatures. They insist that giving effect to the Notice of
Appeal would countenance an act which is criminal in
nature. Respondents maintain that there should be strict
adherence to the technical rules of procedure because the
DARAB rules frown upon frivolous and dilatory appeals.
Our Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The defects found in the two

notices of appeal are not of such nature that would cause a
denial of the right to appeal. Placed in their proper factual
context, the defects are not only excusable but also
inconsequential.
195
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 195

of Appeals
Alleged failure to specify grounds for appeal

There is nothing sacred about the forms of pleadings or
processes, their sole purpose being to facilitate the
application of justice to the rival claims of contending
parties. Hence, pleadings as well as procedural rules
should be construed liberally. Dismissal of appeals purely
on technical grounds is frowned upon because rules of
procedure should not be applied to override substantial
justice. Courts must proceed with caution so as not to
deprive a party of statutory appeal; they must ensure that
all litigants are granted the amplest opportunity for the
proper and just ventilation of their causes, free from
technical constraints.33 If the foregoing tenets are followed
in a civil case, their application is made more imperative in
an agrarian case where the rules themselves provide for
liberal construction, thus:
Rule I
General Provisions
Section 2. Construction.·These Rules shall be liberally
construed to carry out the objectives of the agrarian reform program
and to promote just, expeditious, and inexpensive adjudication and
settlement of agrarian cases, disputes or controversies.
xxxx
Section 3. Technical Rules Not Applicable.·The Board and its
Regional and Provincial Adjudicators shall not be bound by

technical rules of procedure and evidence as prescribed in the Rules
of Court, but shall proceed to hear and decide all agrarian cases,
disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing
all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in
accordance with justice and equity.
_______________
33 See Remulla v. Manlongat, 484 Phil. 832, 841; 442 SCRA 226, 236 (2004);
Magsaysay Lines Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 310, 322-323; 260 SCRA
513, 524 (1996); Piglas-Kamao (Sari-Sari Chapter) v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 409 Phil. 735, 744-745; 357 SCRA 640, 648-649 (2001).
196

Appeals
xxxx
Rule VIII
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ADJUDICATORS
AND THE BOARD
Section 1. Nature of Proceedings.·The proceedings before the
Board or its Adjudicators shall be non-litigious in nature. Subject to
the essential requirements of due process, the technicalities of law
and procedure and the rules governing the admissibility and
sufficiency of evidence obtained in the courts of law shall not apply.
x x x34
Guided by the foregoing principles, we find that the

Notices of Appeal substantially complied with all that is
required under the 1994 DARAB Rules. The following
provisions are instructive in making this conclusion:
Rule XIII
APPEALS
Section 1. Appeal to the Board.·a) An appeal may be taken from an
order, resolution or decision of the Adjudicator to the Board by either of
the parties or both, orally or in writing, within a period of fifteen (15)
days from the receipt of the order, resolution or decision appealed from,
and serving a copy thereof on the adverse party, if the appeal is in

writing.
b) An oral appeal shall be reduced into writing by the Adjudicator to
be signed by the appellant, and a copy thereof shall be served upon the
adverse party within ten (10) days from the taking of the oral appeal.
Section 2. Grounds.·The aggrieved party may appeal to the Board
from a final order, resolution or decision of the Adjudicator on any of the
following grounds:
a) That errors in the findings of fact or conclusions of laws were
committed which, if not corrected, would cause
_______________
34 1994 DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD RULES OF
PROCEDURE.
197
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 197

of Appeals
grave and irreparable damage and injury to the appellant;

b) That there is a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Adjudicator; or
c) That the order, resolution or decision is obtained through fraud or
coercion.
xxxx
Section 5. Requisites and Perfection of the Appeal.·a) The Notice of
Appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided for in
Section 1 of this Rule. It shall state the date when the appellant received
the order or judgment appealed from and the proof of service of the notice
to the adverse party; and
b) An appeal fee of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) shall be paid by the
appellant within the reglementary period to the DAR Cashier where the
Office of the Adjudicators is situated. x x x
Non-compliance with the above-mentioned requisites shall be a
ground for dismissal of the appeal.‰
Both Notices of Appeal stated that the petitioners were

appealing the decision „on the grounds of questions of fact
and of law,‰ which we find sufficient statement of the
ground for appeal under Section 2(a), Rule XIII of the

DARAB Rules. While the notices omitted to state that „the
decision would cause grave and irreparable damage and
injury to the appellant,‰ we find such punctilious fidelity to
the language of the DARAB Rules unnecessary. Surely by
appealing the Decision of the Regional Adjudicator, the
petitioners were already manifesting that they will be
damaged by the assailed decision. Requiring a literal
application of the rules when its purpose has already been
served is oppressive superfluity.
It must be stressed that the purpose of the notice of
appeal is not to detail oneÊs objections regarding the
appealed decision; that is the purpose of the appellantsÊ
memorandum.35In
_______________
35 Section 6. Appeal Memorandum.·Upon perfection of the appeal,

the Adjudicator shall issue an order requiring the appellant to file an
appeal memorandum within ten (10) days from receipt of
198

of Appeals
the context of a DARAB case, the notice of appeal serves

only to inform the tribunal or officer that rendered the
appealed decision (i.e., the Regional Adjudicator) of the
timeliness of the appeal and of the general reason for the
appeal, and to prepare the records thereof for transmission
to the appellate body (i.e., the DARAB). PetitionersÊ Notices
of Appeal contain everything that is necessary to serve
these purposes.
Another important consideration is the fact that
petitioners were obviously not assisted by counsel in the
filing of the Notices of Appeal. Only the parties were
signatories thereto; Atty. MenaÊs signature was missing,
which gives credence to petitionersÊ assertion that they had
already terminated the services of their counsel at that
time. Their new counsel, Atty. Dauphine B. Go, DAR-Legal
Counsel, entered her appearance only on March 13, 2003,

or several days after the Notices of Appeal were filed.36
The Regional Adjudicator is also correct when she ruled
that she has no power to determine if the appeal is
frivolous and intended merely for delay. Such matters are
for the appellate body to determine after it has studied the
appellantÊs brief or the appeal memorandum. The body
which rendered the appealed decision should not pass upon
the question of whether the appeal was taken manifestly
for delay because such determination belongs to the
appellate body.37 For the
_______________
such order, furnishing a copy thereof to the appellee and his counsel who
may reply thereto if he so desires, within the same period of time. The
parties may also submit a draft decision desired. After the filing of their
respective appeal memoranda or lapse of the period within which to file
them, the entire records of the case shall be elevated on appeal to the
Board within five (5) days therefrom.
x x x (Rule XII, 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure)

37 See Dasalla v. Hon. Judge Caluag, 118 Phil. 663, 666; 8 SCRA 644,
647 (1963); ITT Philippines, Inc, v. Court of Appeals, 160-A Phil. 582,
588; 67 SCRA 435, 441 (1975); Ortigas & Company
199
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 199

of Appeals
lower body to do so would constitute a review of its own

judgment and a mockery of the appellate process. This
principle is applicable to agrarian disputes by virtue of
Section 8, Rule XIII of the DARAB Rules which states that
the Board (not the Regional Adjudicator) has the power to
impose reasonable penalties, including fine or censure, on
parties who file frivolous or dilatory appeals. The
implication is that since the Board is the one which has the
power to punish, it is also the one which has the power to
decide if there has been a violation. The Regional

Adjudicator has no such power. She must allow the appeal
if it is timely and compliant with the reglementary
requirements. It has been held that when an appeal is filed
on time, the approval of a notice of appeal is a ministerial
duty of the court or tribunal which rendered the decision.38
Effect of „forgery‰ on the March 5,
2003 Notice of Appeal
Respondents claim, and the CA has ruled, that the
March 5, 2003 Notice of Appeal (filed by the second group)
was a „forgery‰ and thus void, because it bore signatures
above the names of the deceased Avelino and Pedro, which
were obviously not written by the decedents themselves.
First of all, we have to point out that the confusion in
this case was brought about by respondents themselves
when they included in their complaint two defendants who
were already dead. Instead of impleading the decedentÊs
heirs and current occupants of the landholding,
respondents filed their complaint against the decedents,
contrary to the following provision of the 1994 DARAB
Rules of Procedure:
_______________
Limited Partnership v. Velasco, G.R. No. 109645, July 25, 1994, 234
SCRA 455, 495.
38 See Oro v. Judge Diaz, 413 Phil. 419, 426; 361 SCRA 108, 116
(2001).
200

of Appeals
RULE V
PARTIES, CAPTION AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
SECTION 1. Parties in Interest.·Every agrarian case must
be initiated and defended in the name of the real party in interest. x
xx
A real party in interest is defined as „the party who

stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of a suit.‰39 The real
parties in interest, at the time the complaint was filed,
were no longer the decedents Avelino and Pedro, but rather
their respective heirs who are entitled to succeed to their
rights (whether as agricultural lessees or as farmers-
beneficiaries) under our agrarian laws.40 They are the ones
who, as heirs of the decedents and actual tillers, stand to
be removed from the landholding and made to pay back
rentals to respondents if the complaint is sustained.
Since respondents failed to correct their error (they did
not amend the erroneous caption of their complaint to
include the real parties-in-interest), they cannot be
insulated from the confusion which it engendered in the
proceedings below. But at any rate, notwithstanding the
erroneous caption and the absence of a formal substitution
of parties, jurisdiction was acquired over the heirs of
Avelino and Pedro who voluntarily
_______________
39 RULES OF COURT, Rule III, Section 2. The DARAB Rules itself does
not define a real party-in-interest.
40 Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended (the Code of
Agrarian Reform), provides that in case of the death of the agricultural
lessee, the leasehold continues between the lessor and the deceased
lesseeÊs heirs in the order specified therein. Similarly, per Presidential
Decree No. 27 (Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants), which is invoked
by petitioners, title to land acquired thereunder is transferable by
hereditary succession in accordance with the Code of Agrarian Reform,
among other laws. Even Republic Act No. 6657, as amended
(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), also recognizes the right of the
heirs to succeed to the rights of their predecessor-farmer-beneficiary
(Section 27).
201
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 201

of Appeals
participated in the proceedings below. This Court has ruled

that formal substitution of parties is not necessary when
the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared, participated,
and presented evidence during the proceedings.41
Going now to the alleged „forgery‰, it is clear from the
records that there was never an instant when the
respondents (and the Regional Adjudicator) were deceived
or made to believe that Avelino and Pedro were still alive
and participating in the proceedings below. In fact,
respondents were clearly aware that the two were already
deceased such that they even indicated the names of the
respective heirs in their position paper before the Regional
Adjudicator:
„Plaintiffs are the agricultural lessors of the following tenant-

lessees in the subject landholding primarily devoted to rice
production, namely: x x x Pedro Bernardo (deceased), substituted by
Roberto Bernardo, Antonio Mananghaya (deceased) substituted by
Mariano, Faustino, and Tranquilino all surnamed Mananghaya, x x
x Avelino Santos (deceased) substituted by Delfin Sacdalan x x x.‰42
Respondents also never questioned the appearance and

participation of the heirs·Roberto and Delfin·in the
proceedings below. The parties, as well as the Regional
Adjudicator, were all aware of the death of Avelino and
Pedro, and of the fact that the complaint (and its
corresponding prayer for ejectment) is now directed against
their heirs.
Therefore, it is unquestionable that when the heirs of
Avelino and Pedro signed the Notice of Appeal, they did not
intend, and could not have intended, to visit fraud upon the
proceedings. Indeed, any intention to mislead is simply
negated by their ready admission and participation in the
proceedings as heirs of Avelino and Pedro. Thus, there can
be no
_______________
41 Torres, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 344 Phil. 348, 366-367; 278 SCRA
793, 812 (1997), citing Vda. de Salazar v. Court of Appeals, 320 Phil. 373,
377-380; 250 SCRA 305, 309 (1995).
42 Plaintiff Ês Position Paper, DARAB records, p. 162.
202

of Appeals
deception or prejudice, as there were prior repeated

disclosures that the named defendants were already dead.
Respondents insist that allowing the appeal would
condone an act which is criminal in nature. We do not
agree. Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides
that malice or criminal intent (dolo) is an essential
requisite of all crimes and offenses defined therein.43 The
circumstances narrated above do not indicate the presence
of dolo. In this regard, it should be noted that the heirs who
signed the Notice of Appeal are lay persons unfamiliar with
the technical requirements of procedure and pleadings.
This unfamiliarity, compounded by the absence of legal
counsel, appears to have caused the imperfections in their
signing of the Notice of Appeal. We do not see any criminal
intent motivating them.
Moreover, in cases of falsification of public documents,
such as documents introduced in judicial proceedings, „the
change in the public document must be such as to affect the
integrity of the same or change the effects which it would
otherwise produce; for, unless that happens, there could not
exist the essential element of the intent to commit the
crime, which is required by Article 3 of the Penal Code.‰44
In the instant case, given the heirsÊ admissions contained
in several pleadings that Avelino and Pedro are already
deceased and their submission to the jurisdiction of the
Regional Adjudicator as the successors-in-interest of the
decedents, the effect would be the same if the heirs did not
sign the decedentsÊ names but their own names on the
appeal. As the recognized real parties in interest, the case
actually proceeded against the heirs and the judgment
rendered was executed against them. It was thus
_______________
43 Except in those cases where the element required is negligence or

culpa.
44 Beradio v. Court of Appeals, 191 Phil. 153, 168; 103 SCRA 567, 583
(1981). See also People v. Pacana, 47 Phil. 48, 55-56 (1924); Lecaroz v.
Sandiganbayan, 364 Phil. 890, 904-905; 305 SCRA 396, 408 (1999);
Luague v. Court of Appeals, 197 Phil. 784, 788; 112 SCRA 97, 100 (1982).
203
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 203

of Appeals
unnecessary for the heirs to sign the decedentsÊ names

when their own names, as the real parties in interest,
would have served the same purpose just as effectively.
Given the foregoing circumstances, we conclude that the
unfortunate matter of signing the decedentsÊ names in the
Notice of Appeal is an innocent and harmless error on the
part of the heirs.
RespondentsÊ own procedural errors
At this juncture, we must point out that while
respondents bewail petitionersÊ lack of strict adherence to
procedural rules, they also failed to observe some rules. It
is evident from the records that respondents filed two
motions for reconsideration after the August 5, 2003 Order
of the Regional Adjudicator. This is prohibited under
Section 12, Rule VIII of DARAB Rules, which provides that
only one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed.
Moreover, respondents failed to exhaust administrative
remedies45 when they filed their petition for certiorari
before the CA, instead of the Board.46 The DARAB Rules
state that:
Rule XIV
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Section 1. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals.·Any decision,
order, resolution, award or ruling of the Board on any agrarian
dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application,
implementation, enforcement, interpretation of agrarian reform
laws or rules and
_______________
45 What could have been a fatal error in its petition for certiorari before the
appellate court was entirely ignored because petitioners herein did not raise it
as an issue. It is doctrinal that non-exhaustion of administrative remedies can
be waived (see Rosario v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89554, July 10, 1992, 211
SCRA 384, 387).
46 Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals,
334 Phil. 369, 381-382; 266 SCRA 404, 417 (1997).
204

Appeals
regulations promulgated thereunder, may be brought within fifteen

(15) days from receipt of a copy thereof, to the Court of Appeals by
certiorari.
An aggrieved party can only resort to judicial review

after it has invoked the authority of the Board. Judicial
review is not provided for orders, rulings, and decisions of
adjudicators. It is stated in Section 1, Rule II that the
Board has primary and exclusive, original and appellate
jurisdiction over agrarian disputes involving agrarian laws
and their implementing rules and regulations. If
respondents were strict adherents to procedural rules, they
should have followed Section 2(b) of Rule XIII which
provides for an appeal to the Board on the ground of grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the adjudicator.
These matters, while not raised by the parties, are
important considerations in resolving the case where one
party laments that she is prejudiced by the leniency that is
afforded to the other party. It should be made clear that
there was no partiality or undue advantage given to
petitioners that had not likewise been enjoyed by
respondents.
Allegation that the basis for the Regional
AdjudicatorÊs Decision is an utter fabrication
Petitioners also raise for the first time in the entire
proceedings of this case that respondents had presented to
the Regional Adjudicator an entirely spurious and
fabricated DAR Order exempting respondentsÊ

landholdings from the coverage of CARP. It will be recalled
that the Regional AdjudicatorÊs decision below is based on
the assumption that respondentsÊ landholdings are exempt
from CARP coverage, hence the obligation on the part of
petitioners to pay lease rentals.
Petitioners maintain that they only discovered the
spurious nature of the exemption order during the
pendency of their appeal to this Court. They presented
several certificates from various DAR offices stating that
the latter have no record of
205
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 205

of Appeals
the said exemption order in favor of respondents. If such

exemption order is indeed fabricated, their possession of
CLTs and EPs should be respected, thus they should be
held under no obligation to pay rentals to respondents.
Thus, they seek the nullification of the exemption order on
the ground that it is counterfeit.
On the other hand, respondents assert that the validity
of the exemption order had already been settled in the
annulment case filed by petitioners against respondents in
1994, docketed as DARAB Case No. 602-B-94. They
likewise maintain that the issue involves factual matters
which are not within the province of the Supreme Court.
DARAB Case No. 602-B Ê94 is a complaint for
annulment of the regional directorÊs order, which granted
respondentsÊ petition for the exemption of their
landholdings from the coverage of the CARP. In that case,
petitioners assailed the validity of the order on the ground
that they were not given an opportunity to present
controverting evidence and that the title of petitioners to
the land was not registered within the period prescribed by
law.
Their complaint was dismissed on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. The provincial adjudicator, as later affirmed
by the DARAB47 and the CA,48 ruled that only the
Agrarian Reform Secretary has appellate jurisdiction over

the exemption orders issued by a regional director.49
Petitioners filed a petition for review before this Court but
it was not timely filed. Hence, a resolution was issued
where the case was deemed closed and terminated. Entry
of judgment was made on September 6, 2002.
Contrary to respondentsÊ arguments, there was never
any ruling regarding the validity or authenticity of the
exemption order. What was ruled upon, and became final,
was that the
_______________
47 Rollo, pp. 469-475.

48 Id., at pp. 476-482.
49 Id., at pp. 461-468.
206

of Appeals
exemption order cannot be reviewed by the provincial

adjudicator or DARAB since exclusive appellate
jurisdiction rests in the Office of the DAR Secretary. Thus,
it appears that petitionersÊ right to question the
authenticity of the exemption order in the proper forum has
not yet been foreclosed.
The instant case, however, is not the proper place to
bring the issue of authenticity.
Exemption from the comprehensive agrarian reform law
is an administrative matter the primary jurisdiction over
which has been lodged with the DAR Secretary.50 Moreover,
the issue of authenticity is entirely factual.51 Since this was
never raised below, we have no basis on record to rule on
the authenticity of the exemption order.
A final note. After the decision was rendered by the CA,
the record shows that several withdrawals of appeal were
allegedly filed with the Office of the Regional Agrarian
Reform Adjudicator. This new development, however, was
not raised by the parties in their memoranda before the
Court. For this reason and because of the necessity of

verifying the authenticity, voluntariness, and the
personalities of the parties that signed the withdrawals of
appeal, the Court deems it prudent to leave the matter for
the Board that would hear the appeal.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and
the assailed June 9, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-
_______________
50 Section 13 of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, series of 2003

(2003 Rules and Procedures Governing Landowner Retention Rights)
provides for appeals from the decisions of the Regional Director
regarding retention applications to the Secretary. The procedure for such
appeals is provided in DAR Administrative Order No. 3, series of 2003
(2003 Rules of Agrarian Law Implementation Cases), which also provides
in Section 10 thereof that, „The Secretary shall exercise appellate
jurisdiction over all cases, and may delegate the resolution of appeals to
any Undersecretary.‰
51 See Guevarra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100894, January 26,
1993, 217 SCRA 550, 553.
207
VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 207

of Appeals
G.R. SP No. 79304, which gave no legal effect to petitionersÊ

Notices of Appeal, is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
The August 5, 2003 Order of the Regional Adjudicator
giving due course to the two Notices of Appeal is
REINSTATED. Let the records of the case be transmitted
forthwith to the Adjudication Board which is DIRECTED
to proceed to dispose of the appeal with deliberate dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Abad and Perez, JJ.,

concur.
Petition granted, judgment annulled and set aside.
Notes.·Referral of a land dispute case to the

Department of Agrarian Reform for the preliminary
determination of the existence of agricultural tenancy
relationship is no longer necessary·Presidential Decrees
Nos. 316 and 1038 have been repealed by Section 76 of
Republic Act No. 6657 in 1988. (Gutierrez vs. Cabrera, 452
SCRA 521 [2005)
An ordinance converting agricultural lands into
residential or light industrial should be given prospective
application only, and should not change the nature of
existing agricultural lands in the area or the legal
relationships existing over such lands. (Sta. Rosa Realty
Development Corporation vs. Amante, 453 SCRA 432
[2005])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Regional Agrarian Reform Adj. Board v. CA GR No. 165155

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Agrarian Reform Adj. Board v. CA GR No. 165155

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Agrarian Reform Adj. Board v. CA GR No. 165155

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 618 11/13/23, 2:54 AM

Civil Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Procedural Rules and

1 Only the signatories to the Petition for Certiorari submitted themselves

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of

reglementary requirements. It has been held that when an appeal is

VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 183

Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of

the landholding and made to pay back rentals to respondents if the

documents, such as documents introduced in judicial proceedings,

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of

agrarian disputes involving agrarian laws and their implementing

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Rules of procedure are tools to facilitate a fair and

VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 185

denying petitionersÊ motion for reconsideration. The

„WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED

hectares, located at Sta. Barbara, Baliuag, Bulacan and

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Avelino died on December 29, 1997, while Pedro passed

Regional Adjudicator ordered the respective legal heirs to

6 DARAB records, pp. 139-138.

VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 187

„WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

and the defendants over the landholdings described in paragraph

The Decision explained that with the exemption of the

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

200310 by petitioners Marciano Natividad, Alberto

Enriquez, Benigno Cabingao, and Rodolfo Dimaapi (first

„DEFENDANTS, unto this Honorable Board, hereby serve notice

Unlike their previous pleadings, which were all signed

10 Id., at pp. 80-81.

VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 189

b) May 6, 2003 Order

17 Id., at pp. 93-94.

entry of appearance of DAR-Legal Officer Atty. Dauphine B. Go were

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ture of Avelino, which was executed by his widow, Jovita

„Plaintiffs in their first-cited motion lightly brushed off the

23 Id., at pp. 482 and 479.

VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 191

findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the decision

proceedings undertaken in connection therewith.

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Respondents moved for another reconsideration on

27 DARAB records, pp. 650-647.

VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 193

failed to comply with the mandate of Section 2, Rule XIII of

The issues raised by both parties are as follows:

31 There is no 1997 DARAB Rules of Procedure. The only previous

the latter which is applicable in this case. This is further reinforced by

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

DARAB rules frown upon frivolous and dilatory appeals.

The petition is meritorious. The defects found in the two

VOL. 618, APRIL 13, 2010 195

Alleged failure to specify grounds for appeal

Regional and Provincial Adjudicators shall not be bound by