HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF BUKIDNON, HON. REY B.

BAULA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SUMILAO, BUKIDNON, NQSR MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON. RENATO C. CORONA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ERNESTO D. GARILAO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondents. FACTS: 1. This case involves a 144-hectare land located at San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, owned by the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC). 2. In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the Philippine Packing Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMP, for a period of ten (10) years under the Crop Producer and Grower's Agreement. The lease expired on April 1994. 3. In October, 1991, during the existence of the lease, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare property under compulsory acquisition and assessed the land value at P2.38. The NQSRMDC resisted such order by the DAR. 4. In February, 1992, NQSRMDC sought a writ of prohibition w/preliminary injunction w/c ordered the DAR Reg. X Director, Provl. Agrarian Ref Reform Officer (PARO) of Bukidnon, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Sumilao, Bukidnon, the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank), and their authorized representatives "to desist from pursuing any activity or activities" concerning the subject land "until further orders." W/c was granted by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) 5. Despite the order of DARAB, the DAR Regional Director issued a memorandum, dated May 21, 1992, directing the Land Bank to open a trust account for P2.38 million in the name of NQSRMDC and to conduct summary proceedings to determine the just compensation of the subject property. 6. NQSRMDC objected to these moves and filed on June 9, 1992 an Omnibus Motion to enforce the DARAB order of March 31, 1992 and to nullify the summary proceedings undertaken by the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank on the valuation of the subject property. 7. The DARAB, on October 22, 1992, acted favorably on the Omnibus Motion by: a. ordering the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank "to seriously comply with the terms of the order dated March 31, 1992;" b. nullifying the DAR Regional Director's memorandum, dated May 21, 1992, and the summary proceedings conducted pursuant thereto; and c. directing the Land Bank "to return the claim folder of Petitioner NQSRMDC's subject property to the DAR u, until further orders."

8. The Land Bank complied with the DARAB order and cancelled the trust account it opened in the name of petitioner NQSRMDC. 9. In the meantime, the Provincial Development Council (PDC) of Bukidnon, headed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6, 8 dated January 7, 1993, designating certain areas along Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones where the subject property is situated.
10.

The Resolution was approved; however, the DAR, through its Secretary issued an Order denying the instant application for the conversion of the subject land from agricultural to agro-industrial and, instead, placed the same under the compulsory coverage of CARP and directed the distribution thereof to all qualified beneficiaries. An MR was filed, however, it was denied by the DAR.

11. Thus, the DAR Secretary ordered the DAR Regional Director "to proceed with the compulsory acquisition and distribution of the property." 12. Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon appealed 11 the order of denial to the Office of the President and prayed for the conversion/reclassification of the subject land as the same would be more beneficial to the people of Bukidnon. 13. On June 29, 1995, NQSRMDC filed w/ the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition w/ preliminary injunction the enforcement of DAR Secretarys order. 14. On October 23, 1995, the Court of Appeals, issued a Resolution ordering the parties to observe status quo pending resolution of the petition. 15. In resolving the appeal, the Office of the President, through then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, issued a Resolution, dated March 29, 1996, reversing the DAR Secretary's decision (the conversion of the said land into an agro-industrial land as per proposed and/or recommended by the Provl Council). 16. On May 20, 1996, DAR filed a motion for reconsideration of the OP decision. 17. Thus, on April 10, 1997, NQSRMDC filed a complaint 21 with the RTC of Bukidnon, for annulment and cancellation of title, damages and injunction against DAR. 18. The RTC then issued a Temporary Restraining Order on April 30, 1997 22 and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on May 19, 1997, 23 restraining the DAR from entering, occupying and/or wresting from NQSRMDC the possession of the subject land. 19. On June 23, 1997, an Order was issued by then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres denying DAR's motion for reconsideration for having been filed beyond the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days.

20. The said order further declared that the March 29, 1996 OP decision had already become final and executory. 21. The DAR filed on July 11, 1997 a second motion for reconsideration of the June 23, 1997 Order of the President. 22. On August 12, 1997, the said writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC was challenged by some alleged farmers before the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari and prohibition, praying for the lifting of the injunction and for the issuance of a writ of prohibition from further trying the RTC case. 23. On October 9, 1997, some alleged farmer-beneficiaries began their hunger strike in front of the DAR to protest the OP Decision of March 29, 1996. On October 10, 1997, some persons claiming to be farmer-beneficiaries of the NQSRMDC property filed a motion for intervention, asking that the OP Decision allowing the conversion of the entire 144-hectare property be set aside. 24. On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President resolved the strikers' protest by issuing the socalled "Win/Win" Resolution penned by then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona, substantially modifying its earlier Decision after it had already become final and executory. 25. The said Resolution modified the approval of the land conversion to agro-industrial area only to the extent of forty-four (44) hectares, and ordered the remaining one hundred (100) hectares to be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. 26. In seeking the nullification of the "Win-Win" Resolution, the petitioners claim that the Office of the President was prompted to issue the said resolution "after a very well-managed hunger strike led by fake farmer-beneficiary Linda Ligmon succeeded in pressuring and/or politically blackmailing the Office of the President to come up with this purely political decision to appease the 'farmers,' by reviving and modifying the Decision of 29 March 1996 which has been declared final and executory in an Order of 23 June 1997. ISSUE: WON the final and executory Decision dated March 29, 1996 can still be substantially modified by the "Win-Win" Resolution. RULING: We rule in the negative.

"Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally meritorious cases." When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23, 1997 declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of the President has no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary, which second motion became the basis of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution. Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 18 and Section 4, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court mandate that only one (1) motion for reconsideration is allowed to be taken from the Decision of March 29, 1996. And even if a second motion for reconsideration was permitted to be filed in "exceptionally meritorious cases," as provided in the second paragraph of Section 7 of AO 18, still the said motion should not have been entertained considering that the first motion for reconsideration was not seasonably filed, thereby allowing the Decision of March 29, 1996 to lapse into finality. Thus, the act of the Office of the President in re-opening the case and substantially modifying its March 29, 1996 Decision which had already become final and executory, was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to administrative determinations. The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutions of a court or quasijudicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all. 61 This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who wield the power of adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must immediately be struck down. Therefore, the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution which substantially modified the Decision of March 29, 1996 after it has attained finality, is utterly void. Such void resolution, as aptly stressed by Justice Thomas A. Street 62 in a 1918 case, 63 is "a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head."