FOURTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 23202. December 26, 1995.]
MELITON LOSABIO, JR., plaintiff-appellant, vs. NEMESIO M. HERRERA, defendant-appellee.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ, J p:
Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 80, Tanay, Rizal, in Civil Case No. 123-T, "Meliton C. Losabio, Jr., plaintiff, vs. Nemecio M. Herrera, defendant," for Enforcement of Tenant's Rights under Presidential Decree Nos. 1038 and 1583 with application for writ of a preliminary prohibitory or mandatory injunction.
The facts are undisputed:
Nemecio Herrera is the registered owner of three parcels of land located at Sitio Halang na Gubat, Barangay Plaza-Aldea, Tanay, Rizal with a total area of 22,001 square meters, covered by T.C.T. Nos M-5565, M-5786 and M-6907 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal. The area was primarily devoted to fruit bearing trees, except one-half (½) hectare which was planted to corn, cassava and other short-term crops.
To take care of and cultivate the landholding, Herrera hired Meliton Losabio on July 25, 1981. He was paid a monthly wage of P250.00 and as additional incentives, his family was allowed to live in a small house constructed on the land without paying for rents, water and electricity. Likewise, Herrera provided him with farming implements, including a carabao, and a share in the harvest of fruits and other crops.
On December 14, 1984, Herrera sent a letter to Losabio terminating his services due to their disagreement in the sharing of the proceeds from the fruits harvested. However, Losabio refused to vacate the land, prompting Herrera to seek the assistance of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform-Team (MAR) Office in Tanay, Rizal. As a result, both signed an agreement on January 18, 1985 known as "KASUNDUAN SA MGA HALAMAN AT LUPA", wherein they stipulated as follows:
"1. Na si Meliton Losabio Jr. ay aalis sa aking bahay sa loob ng tatlong buwan at ito ay magsisimula sa Enero 1 at matatapos sa ika-31 ng Marso 1985."
"2. Na, ako bilang may-ari ng lupa ay pumapayag at kusang loob na ang mga halaman ni Ginoong Meliton Losabio ay kaniyang maaani ang lahat ng kanyang mga halaman tulad ng Kamoteng kahoy, gabi at iba pang mga malalambot na halaman na nakatanim sa aking lupa mula Enero 1985 hanggang Agosto 31, 1985."
For failure of Losabio to comply with their agreement, Herrera referred the matter to the barangay which issued a certification to file an action when they failed to reach a settlement.
Thereafter, Herrera filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Tanay, Rizal, Civil Case No. 610 for illegal detainer against Losabio. The latter maintained that he was a planter in good faith, entitled to the benefits provided by Article 448 of the New Civil Code.
On December 5, 1985, during the pendency of the ejectment case, Losabio lodged with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages and allowances against Herrera. Losabio averred that he is an agricultural worker within the scope of the Labor Code. Claiming that this labor case involves a prejudicial question which should first be resolved, he filed with the MTC a motion to suspend the proceedings in the illegal detainer case.
On April 16, 1986, Labor Arbiter Bienvenido Hernandez rendered a decision dismissing the complaint of Losabio on the ground that he is not an agricultural worker.
Losabio appealed to the NLRC. In his comment, Herrera averred that Labor Arbiter Hernandez did not commit an error and that Losabio is engaged in "forum shopping".
Subsequently, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
Again Losabio filed a motion with the MTC to defer the proceedings in the illegal detainer case for lack of a certification from the MAR that a landlord-tenant relationship exists between the parties and that the case is proper for trial.
Pursuant to the order of the MTC, the MAR Region IV Team Office issued a certification to the effect that the case for unlawful detainer is proper for trial in view of the absence of a tenancy relationship between the parties.
Whereupon, Losabio interposed an appeal to the MAR but it was dismissed. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Failing to obtain favorable judgments both from the NLRC and the MAR, Losabio filed with the court a quo the instant complaint for "Enforcement of Tenant's Rights under Presidential Decree Nos. 1038 and 1583," alleging that he is a share tenant of Nemecio Herrera and praying that he be maintained in peaceful and continued possession of the landholding.
In his answer, Herrera asserts that Losabio is a mere hired caretaker and not a farm tenant; and that the issue of tenancy has already been settled as shown by the certification issued by the MAR Region IV Team Office.
After hearing, the lower court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court renders judgment in favor of the defendant as against plaintiff thereby orders the plaintiff to vacate the premises and to peacefully surrender immediately possession of the subject property; and to pay costs of suit. However, plaintiff is allowed to harvest the fruits of the remaining crops if any, as is stipulated in his agreement with the defendant within one month after receipt of this Decision.
"SO ORDERED."
Hence, this appeal.
Appellant Losabio contends that the lower court erred in not declaring him a tenant.
For his part, the appellee insists that the appellant is merely his caretaker and is guilty of "forum-shopping".
We cannot see Our way clear why the lower court assumed jurisdiction over the case at bench. It should have dismissed the complaint outright for lack of jurisdiction and for "forum-shopping."
Section 17 of Executive Order No. 229 issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino on July 22, 1987 provides in part:
"SEC. 17. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR and the Department of Agriculture (DA).
xxx xxx xxx
"The decisions of the DAR may, in proper cases, be appealed to the Regional Trial Courts but shall be immediately executory notwithstanding such appeal."
Appellant's complaint was filed on December 9, 1987 and at that time, Executive Order No. 229 was already enforced. The main issue raised by the appellant is clearly within the jurisdiction of the DAR. It bears emphasis that the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court was confined over appeals from the decisions of the DAR; and that said Section 17 of Executive Order No. 229 divested the Regional Trial Court of its general jurisdiction over agrarian cases conferred by Section 19(7) of B.P. Blg. 129. 1
Aside from the fact that the lower court has no jurisdiction over the case at bench, records indicate that herein appellant resorted to "forum shopping."
The Supreme Court defined "forum shopping" as the institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. 2
We are utterly dismayed by appellant's actuation of jumping from one tribunal to another (the NLRC, the DAR and the lower court), hoping that one would render a favorable disposition and that the ejectment proceedings would be delayed. Appellant's acts constitute "forum-shopping" which is anathema to the speedy administration of justice and does havoc to the rule on orderly procedure. Thus, under Supreme Court Revised Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94, "forum-shopping" is a ground for summary dismissal of a petition or complaint.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby SET ASIDE. Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Paras and Vasquez Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Tiongson vs. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 197; Quismundo vs. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 609.
2 Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco, 234 SCRA 455, 500.