Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 582 views

    Landbank v. Listana

    Uploaded by

    Neil Mayor
    The PARAD found LANDBANK in indirect contempt for failing to comply with a writ of execution ordering it to pay just compensation to Listana for his land. However, the Supreme Court found the PARAD's contempt order invalid for two reasons: 1) Indirect contempt charges must be filed through a verified petition in the Regional Trial Court, which did not occur. 2) Neither the PARAD nor DARAB have jurisdiction to decide contempt charges. Only Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over indirect contempt. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the PARAD's contempt order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Landbank v. Listana

    Uploaded by

    Neil Mayor
    582 views2 pages
    The PARAD found LANDBANK in indirect contempt for failing to comply with a writ of execution ordering it to pay just compensation to Listana for his land. However, the Supreme Court found the PARAD's contempt order invalid for two reasons: 1) Indirect contempt charges must be filed through a verified petition in the Regional Trial Court, which did not occur. 2) Neither the PARAD nor DARAB have jurisdiction to decide contempt charges. Only Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over indirect contempt. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the PARAD's contempt order.

    Original Description:

    Landbank v. Listana Labor Relations Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The PARAD found LANDBANK in indirect contempt for failing to comply with a writ of execution ordering it to pay just compensation to Listana for his land. However, the Supreme Court found the PARAD's contempt order invalid for two reasons: 1) Indirect contempt charges must be filed through a verified petition in the Regional Trial Court, which did not occur. 2) Neither the PARAD nor DARAB have jurisdiction to decide contempt charges. Only Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over indirect contempt. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the PARAD's contempt order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    582 views2 pages

    Landbank v. Listana

    Uploaded by

    Neil Mayor
    The PARAD found LANDBANK in indirect contempt for failing to comply with a writ of execution ordering it to pay just compensation to Listana for his land. However, the Supreme Court found the PARAD's contempt order invalid for two reasons: 1) Indirect contempt charges must be filed through a verified petition in the Regional Trial Court, which did not occur. 2) Neither the PARAD nor DARAB have jurisdiction to decide contempt charges. Only Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over indirect contempt. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the PARAD's contempt order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE TITLE: Landbank v.

    Listana
    GR NO.: G.R. No. 152611
    DATE: August 5, 2003
    PETITIONER: Landbank of the Philippines
    RESPONDENT: Severino Listana
    FACTS:
    Respondent Listana offered to sell his land(246.0561 ha.) in Sorsogon to the
    government, through the DAR under the CARL. DAR valued the property at
    P5,871,689.03 but Listana refused to sell at that price. An administrative proceeding
    under the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) determined
    the just compensation of the land at P10,956,963 and ordered Petitioner LANDBANK
    to pay the same to Listana. A writ of execution was issued by PARAD(Prov. Agrarian
    Reform Adjuticator) to which LANDBANK did not comply. A Motion for Contempt was
    filed by Listana with the PARAD against petitioner LANDBANK. PARAD granted the
    Motion for Contempt citing for indirect contempt and ordering the arrest of ALEX A.
    LORAYES, the Manager of LBP. LBP obtained a preliminary injunction from the
    Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon to restrain DARAB from issuing the order of arrest.
    Listana filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. CA nullified
    the order of the RTC. Petitioner LBP then filed a petition for review with the Supreme
    Court.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the PARADs order of contempt was invalid.
    HELD:
    Yes. It was invalid for the following reasons:
    a.) the Rules of Court clearly require the filing of a verified petition with the Regional
    Trial Court, which was not complied with in this case. The charge was not initiated
    by the PARAD motu proprio; rather, it was by a motion filed by respondent.
    b.) neither the PARAD nor the DARAB have jurisdiction to decide the contempt
    charge filed by the respondent. The issuance of a warrant of arrest was beyond the
    power of the PARAD and the DARAB.
    Quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite persons for indirect
    contempt pursuant to Rule 71 of the Rules of Court can only do so by initiating
    them in the proper Regional Trial Court. It is not within their jurisdiction and
    competence to decide the indirect contempt cases. These matters are still within
    the province of the Regional Trial Courts. In the present case, the indirect contempt
    charge was filed, not with the Regional Trial Court, but with the PARAD, and it was
    the PARAD that cited Mr. Lorayes with indirect contempt.
    Thus, the order was REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petition granted.

    You might also like