289
SCRA 624, April 24, 1998
TOPIC: Finality of Judgement; Administrative Law
DOCTRINE:
The orderly administration of justice requires that the
judgements/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a
point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations; a resolution
which substantially modifies a decision after it has attained
finality is utterly void. When an administrative agency's decision
becomes final and executory and no one has seasonably filed a motion
for reconsideration thereto,
the said agency has lost its jurisdiction
to re-open the case, more so modify its decision.
FACTS:
On
March 29, 1996, the Office of the President (OP) issued a decision
converting a large parcel of land from agricultural land to
agro-industrial/institutional area. Because of this, a group of
farmer-beneficiaries staged a hunger strike in front of the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Compound in Quezon City in
October 9, 1997. The strike generated a lot of publicity and even a
number of Presidential Candidates (for the upcoming 1998 elections)
intervened on behalf of the farmers.
Because
of this “blackmail”, the OP re-opened the case and through Deputy
Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona issued the so-called,
“politically motivated”, “win-win” resolution on November 7,
1997, substantially
modifying its 1996 decision after it had become final and executory.
ISSUE:
WON
the “win-win” resolution, issued after the original decision had
become final and executory, had any legal effect.
HELD:
No;
When
the OP issued the Order dated June 23,1997
declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no
one has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto, 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 quasi-judicial 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
No comments:
Post a Comment