Case Digest (G.R. No. 167886)
Facts:
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Pamintuan Development Co., G.R. No. 167886, October 25, 2005, the Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LANDBANK) sought review of the Court of Appeals' April 15, 2005 Decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 85843 which dismissed LANDBANK's certiorari petition and sustained the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board's (DARAB) August 2, 2004 Order denying due course to a Notice of Entry of Appearance and a Notice of Appeal filed by petitioner’s purported new counsel.DARAB had earlier in DARAB Case No. 1204‑0545‑2003 rendered a Decision dated April 27, 2004 fixing just compensation for respondent Pamintuan Development Company (PAMDEVCO) at P58,237,301.68. LANDBANK's motion for reconsideration was denied; the order denying reconsideration was received on June 11, 2004. At the time the firm Piczon, Beramo & Associates was of record as LANDBANK's counsel.
On June 4, 2004, Attorneys Engilberto F. Montarde and Felix F. Mesa filed a Notice of Entry of Appearance on behalf of LANDBANK, and on June 15, 2004 they filed a Notice of Appeal via registered mail accompanied by a Certification signed by Loreto B. Corotan, Head of LANDBANK's Agrarian Operations Center. Respondent opposed, contending the new counsel had not shown authorization. Montarde and Mesa produced a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Gilda E. Pico, Executive Vice‑President of LANDBANK, authorizing Loreto Corotan and designating the two attorneys, and later submitted two memoranda signed by Atty. Danilo B. Beramo confirming Montarde's authority.
On August 2, 2004, DARAB denied due course to the Notice of Entry of Appearance and Notice of Appeal for lack of authority and held the April 27, 2004 DARAB decision final and executory. LANDBANK's motion for reconsideration to DARAB was denied. LANDBANK then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals; the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, upholding DARAB's finding that Montarde and Mesa lacked authority to file the notice of appeal.
LANDBANK filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (Rule 45) and sought injunctive relief. The Court issued a temp...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did DARAB gravely abuse its discretion in denying due course to the Notice of Entry of Appearance and the Notice of Appeal filed by Attorneys Montarde and Mesa on behalf of LANDBANK?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing LANDBANK's petition and sustaining DARAB’s d...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)