[O.P. Case No. 95-J-6299. March 4, 1997.]
BALINTAWAK CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CORPORATION, petitioner-appellant, vs. HERMINIGILDO BERON, respondent-appellee.
R E S O L U T I O N
This refers to the motion filed by respondent-appellee seeking reconsideration of the 06 September 1996 Resolution of this Office, the decretal portion of which reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order dated 05 December 1994 of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform affirming the Order dated 22 March 1994 of the DAR Regional Director of Region IV and the Order dated 29 August 1995 which denied petitioner-appellant's motion for reconsideration are hereby SET ASIDE. The Certificate of Land Transfer dated 11 September 1973 supposedly issued in favor of respondent-appellee is hereby CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN and the subject landholding declared EXEMPT from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer of the Department of Agrarian Reform."
Respondent cites seven grounds in his motion, namely:
"1. The Honorable Executive Secretary has no jurisdiction or authority to review, modify or reverse the findings, orders or decisions rendered by the Department of Agrarian Reform exercising its quasi-judicial functions;
2. The Honorable Executive Secretary erred in ignoring the fact that no legal (or legitimate) appeal was ever filed with the Office of the President. This Honorable Office never acquired jurisdiction over the case;
3. The Honorable Executive Secretary erred in relying on the report of MARO Mr. Villalba that San Pedro, Laguna was not covered by Operation Land Transfer;
4. The Honorable Executive Secretary erred in giving the right of retention to petitioner corporation over the. subject farmholders despite the fact that the petitioner-appellant has residential, commercial and industrial land which were income-producing;
5. The Honorable Executive Secretary erred in saying that the Registry of Deeds had nothing to do with agrarian reform, making him, (the Honorable Executive Secretary) doubt the authenticity of CLT No. 120169 in the records of the Laguna Registry of Deeds;
6. The Honorable Secretary erred in disqualifying the respondent-farmer as beneficiary of the subject farmholding for being 70 years old and erred also in holding that the existence of a certain "KASUNDUAN" terminates the former's rights as beneficiary of the subject landholding; and
7. The Executive Secretary erred in failing to interpret the provisions of the Agrarian Reform Law liberally to benefit the actual farmer and erred in not resolving the doubts he had in favor of the tenant-farmer and the authenticity of an official deed or act."
After a careful analysis, we find the above-cited assigned errors bereft of merit.
The first two contentions that this Office has no jurisdiction or authority to review, modify or reverse the findings of the Agrarian Reform Secretary exercising his quasi-judicial functions and that no legitimate appeal was ever filed, do not hold water.
There is a clear delineation of powers, function and duties being exercised by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform as administrative head of department and as Chairman of the Department of Agrarian Reform Board (DARAB).
Matters involving purely administrative concerns or the administrative implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and DAR rules and regulations fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Office of the DAR Secretary, pursuant to last paragraph of Section 1 (g) of the DARAB New Rules and Procedure, which states:
"Matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL} of 1988 and other agrarian laws, as enunciated by pertinent rules shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR."
A similar provision is found in Section 12 of paragraph 6 (b) of P.D. 946. The same section also vested the DAR Secretary with the authority to determine the right of retention by the landowner. It is pursuant to these rules that, in no occasion, did the respondent bring his case before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (PARAD) of Laguna, the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (RARAD) or the DARAB The signatures of the said officials, as appearing in the subject orders, were pursuant to their respective positions and not as chairmen of the PARAD, RARAD or DARAB, as the case may be.
On the authority of the Executive Secretary to take action on the appealed case, it must be emphasized that the President exercises the power of control over all the executive department, bureaus and offices and that a Cabinet member is an alter ego of the President whose acts may be affirmed, modified or reversed by the latter in his discretion. This authority of the President can be exercised by him through the Executive Secretary. It is precisely "by authority of the President" that this Office signed the resolution reversing the decision of the DAR Secretary. The Supreme Court in the case of Lacson-Magallanes vs. Paño (21 SCRA 895), resolving a similar issue, declared that:
"But the plaintiff underscores the fact that the executive Secretary is equal in rank to the other department heads, no higher than anyone among them. From this, plaintiff carves the argument that one department, on the pretext that he is an alter ego of the President cannot intrude into the zone of action allocated to another department secretary. This argument betrays lack of appreciation of the fact that where, as in this case, the Executive Secretary acts "by authority of the President" his decision is that of the President's. Such decision is to be given full faith and credit by our courts. The assumed authority of the Executive Secretary is to be accepted. For, only the President may rightfully say that the Executive Secretary is not authorized to do so. Therefore, unless the action taken is disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, that remains the act of the Chief Executive, and cannot be successfully assailed."
We now come to the other grounds relied upon for reconsideration.
The accuracy and veracity of MARO Villalba's report stating that subject landholding has not been placed under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer and that there was no initial documentation nor preparation of Landowner's Compensation Folder pursuant to the policy guidelines and procedures under EO 228 is entitled to great weight and respect as she alone could have first hand information and knowledge of the factual situation in the area.
Furthermore, her findings are collaborated by the 02 March 1995 certification issued by the MARO for San Pedro, Biñan and Sta. Rosa, Laguna, to wit:
"This is to certify that as per verification from records on file at DAR San Pedro, Laguna, there were no records whatsoever with regards to the CLT allegedly generated in favor of HERMIGILDO BERON of San Pedro, Laguna. Also tried to locate the CLT Documentation folder of Landaya, San Pedro, where the property is located, for us to know whether or not Beron was recommended for OLT but inspite exerted effort we could not find the above Documentation Folder."
Also, the Chief of the Land Transfer Documentation Division, BLAD, Department of Agrarian Reform, Head Office certified that per verification from their records, the subject CLT issued in the name of Berron is not existing in their files.
Movant invoked the application of social justice in his favor. The paucity of any legal or factual basis of movant's claim, as borne by the records of the case, however, does not warrant the application of the principle. As aptly stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Gelos vs. CA (May 8, 1992):
"This Court has stressed more than once that social justice — or any justice for that matter — is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of reasonable doubt, we are called upon to tilt the balance in favor of the poor, to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is it justified to prefer the poor simply because they are poor, or to reject the rich because they are rich, for justice must always be served, for poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law."
Anent the other grounds raised by the movant, this Office observes that the arguments set forth were the very same issues exhaustively discussed and considered in the resolution sought to be reconsidered and requires no further deliberation.
Accordingly, in the absence of any justification to warrant the reversal or modification of our 06 September 1996 Resolution, the instant motion for reconsideration filed by movant-appellee Hermigildo Berron is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED
Manila, Philippines.
By authority of the President:
(SGD.) RUBEN D. TORRES
Executive Secretary