Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15065)
Facts:
Cesar D. Militar v. Ventura Torcillero and Hon. Ramon Blanco, G.R. No. L-15065, April 28, 1961, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.The underlying dispute began in CIR Tenancy Case No. 182–Iloilo, where on August 31, 1956 the Court of Industrial Relations (later transferred to the Court of Agrarian Relations) held that Ventura Torcillero had been unlawfully ejected from his landholding and ordered his reinstatement; the judgment also expressly “reserved to the petitioner the right to file an action for recovery of damages under Section 19 of Act No. 4054.” The landlord in that litigation was Cesar D. Militar, who did not appeal the reinstatement judgment and thus that part became final and executory.
On June 21, 1957 Torcillero filed a separate petition in the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR Case No. 490–Iloilo) claiming damages for crops lost during successive agricultural years (290 cavanes of palay and 37 cavanes of mongo in specified years) plus P1,000 for counsel fees, alleging these damages resulted from his unlawful dispossession by Militar. On July 6, 1957 Militar moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for improper splitting of causes of action, arguing that the damages claim should have been litigated in CIR Tenancy Case No. 182; the CAR denied the motion on July 20, 1957.
The parties then filed pleadings and counterclaims; Militar renewed a jurisdictional motion on February 25, 1958 contending the damages remedy under Section 19, Act No. 4054 did not fall within the CAR’s competence. On September 3, 1958 the Court of Agrarian Relations found Militar liable and ordered payment of damages (135 cavanes of palay at P10 per cavan with 10% interest) and P250 attorney’s fees, and dismissed Militar’s counterclaim. Militar filed motions for reconsideration which were denied; the CAR directed memoranda on the effect of Militar’s failure to appeal the reservation in the earlier reinstatement judgment. Militar then filed a notice of appeal on February 7, 1959 and a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (rece...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for review properly treated as a petition for certiorari by the Supreme Court, given the petitioner’s simultaneous notice of appeal and the absence of the record required for review under Section 13, R.A. No. 1267?
- Did the Court of Agrarian Relations have jurisdiction to entertain Torcillero’s claim for damages arising from unlawful dismissal or dispossession, and did Militar’s failure to appeal the prior reinstatement judgment bar his later challenge (i.e., was the CAR’s adjudication...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)