Case Digest (G.R. No. L-52178)
Facts:
Demetrio Ernesto, et al. v. The Court of Appeals, San Carlos Milling Co., et al., G.R. No. 52178, September 28, 1982, Supreme Court En Banc, Barredo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Demetrio Ernesto and other laborers (over 1,000 similarly situated) employed by planters in the San Carlos Milling district who sued seeking payment of their 60% share under the Sugar Act of 1952 (R.A. 809) of any contractual increase in the planters' share of sugarcane proceeds for the crop years 1958–59 through 1967–68 and subsequent crop years. The trial forum was the Court of Agrarian Relations, Branch III, City of San Carlos, which dismissed the laborers' complaint.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-08166-R affirmed the Court of Agrarian Relations' dismissal. After the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, petitioners' counsel filed two motions for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals erroneously entertained and granted; respondents later argued that under P.D. No. 946, Sec. 18 no motion for rehearing is allowed and appeals to the Supreme Court must be taken within a non-extendible 30-day period, so the Court of Appeals' acting on extensions rendered its decision final and executory.
Petitioners filed a petition for review (seeking Supreme Court relief). The Supreme Court initially confronted the procedural obstacle of the Court of Appeals' error and respondents' contention of finality. The Court of Appeals itself later said its action on the extensions was without prejudice to petitioners appealing to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court gave due course to the petition on June 25, 1980. Respondents moved to dismiss before the Supreme Court; that motion and a later motion for reconsideration were denied (decisions of October 7 and November 18, 1981), and the Court proceeded to consider the merits.
On the merits the dispositive factual and legal dispute concerned whether so-called “emergency,” “non-quota,” “non-district,” or “accommodation” planters (who began to be allowed to mill after about 1954–55) should be counted in determining the “majority” of planters in a mill district who have written milling contracts with the central — a factual determination controlling whether Section 1 (prescribed percentage shares) of R.A. 809 applied, and whether Section 9 required planters to remit 6...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to entertain the petition despite the Court of Appeals' grant of extensions and respondents' contention that the Court of Appeals' decision had become final under P.D. No. 946, Sec. 18?
- Should “emergency,” “non-quota,” “non-district,” or “accommodation” planters be counted in determining the “majority of planters with written milling contracts” for the application of Section 1 of R.A. 809?
- If Section 1 applies, what is the legal liability and relief owing to planters and laborers (including the applicati...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)