FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 152611. August 5, 2003]

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE, petitioner, vs. E!ERINO
LITANA, R., respondent.
D E " I I O N
#NARE$ANTIAGO, J.%
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR
S! No "#$%" dated Dece&'er (() $**()
(
which annulled the Orders dated
+anuar, $-) $**( and April $) $**( of the Re.ional Trial Court of Sorso.on)
Sorso.on) /ranch #(
$
Respondent Severino 0istana is the owner of a parcel of land containin. an
area of $1"*#"( hectares) located in Inla.adian) Casi.uran) Sorso.on) covered
', Transfer Certificate of Title No T-$*(-2 3e voluntaril, offered to sell the said
land to the .overn&ent) throu.h the Depart&ent of A.rarian Refor& 4DAR5)
2
under Section $* of RA ""#%) also 6nown as the Co&prehensive A.rarian
Refor& 0aw of (-77 4CAR05 The DAR valued the propert, at !#)7%()"7-*2)
which was however re8ected ', the respondent 3ence) the Depart&ent of
A.rarian Refor& Ad8udication /oard 4DARA/5 of Sorso.on co&&enced
su&&ar, ad&inistrative proceedin.s to deter&ine the 8ust co&pensation of the
land
On Octo'er (1) (--7) the DARA/ rendered a Decision) the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows9
:3;R;FOR;) ta6in. into consideration the fore.oin. co&putation) the
prior valuation &ade ', the 0and /an6 of the !hilippines is here', set aside
and a new valuation in the a&ount of T;N <I00ION NIN; 3=NDR;D FIFT>
SI? T3O=SAND NIN; 3=NDR;D SI?T> T3R;; !;SOS AND $# C;NTAVOS
4!(*)-#")-"2$#5 for the ac@uired area of $1*-*"" hectares The 0and /an6
of the !hilippines is here', ordered to pa, the sa&e to the landowner in the
&anner provided for ', law
SO ORD;R;D
1
Thereafter) a :rit of ;Aecution was issued ', the !ARAD directin. the
&ana.er of 0and /an6 to pa, the respondent the aforesaid a&ount as 8ust
co&pensation in the &anner provided ', law
#
On Septe&'er $) (---) respondent filed a <otion for Conte&pt with the
!ARAD) alle.in. that petitioner 0and /an6 failed to co&pl, with the :rit of
;Aecution issued on +une (7) (--- 3e ar.ued that such failure of the petitioner
to co&pl, with the writ of eAecution constitutes conte&pt of the DARA/
(
CA Rollo) pp (""-(%7B penned ', Associate +ustice <artin S Villara&a) +r) concurred
in ', Associate +ustices Conchita Carpio <orales and Ser.io 0 !estaCo
$
Rollo) pp $-%-2**) 2*$B penned ', +ud.e +ose 0 <adrid
2
Id) pp $(*-$((
1
Records) p (**
#
Id) p ($(
<eanwhile) on Septe&'er ") (---) petitioner 0and /an6 filed a petition with
the Re.ional Trial Court of Sorso.on) /ranch #$) sittin. as a Special A.rarian
Court 4SAC5) for the deter&ination of 8ust co&pensation) as provided for in
Section (" 4f5 of the CAR0
"

On Au.ust $*) $***) the !ARAD issued an Order .rantin. the <otion for
Conte&pt) as follows9
:3;R;FOR;) pre&ises considered) the &otion for conte&pt is here',
GRANT;D) thus A0;? A 0ORA>;S) as <ana.er of respondent 0AND /AND)
is cited for indirect conte&pt and here', ordered to 'e i&prisoned until he
co&plies with the Decision of the case dated Octo'er (1) (--7
SO ORD;R;D
%
!etitioner 0and /an6 filed a <otion for Reconsideration of the afore@uoted
Order)
7
which was however denied ', the !ARAD on Septe&'er $*) $***
-
Thus) petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the !ARAD) &anifestin. its intention
to appeal the decision to the DARA/ Central) pursuant to Rule ?I) Section 2 of
the (--1 DARA/ New Rules of !rocedure
(*

On the other hand) the Special A.rarian Court dis&issed the petition for the
deter&ination of 8ust co&pensation filed ', petitioner 0and /an6 in an Order
dated Octo'er $#) $*** !etitionerEs <otion for Reconsideration of said
dis&issal was li6ewise denied
In a Resolution dated Nove&'er $%) $***) !ARAD Capellan denied due
course to petitionerEs Notice of Appeal and ordered the issuance of an Alias :rit
of ;Aecution for the pa,&ent of the ad8ud.ed a&ount of 8ust co&pensation to
respondent
((
On +anuar, 2) $**() he directed the issuance of an arrest order
a.ainst <ana.er AleA A 0ora,es
($
!etitioner 0and /an6 filed a petition for in8unction 'efore the Re.ional Trial
Court of Sorso.on) Sorso.on) with application for the issuance of a writ of
preli&inar, in8unction to restrain !ARAD Capellan fro& issuin. the order of
arrest
(2
The case was raffled to /ranch #( of said court On +anuar, $-) $**()
the trial court issued an Order) the dispositive portion of which reads9
:3;R;FOR;) pre&ises considered) the respondent !rovincial Ad8udicator
of the DARA/ or an,one actin. in its stead is en8oined as it is here', en8oined
fro& enforcin. its order of arrest a.ainst <r AleA A 0ora,es pendin. the final
ter&ination of the case 'efore RTC /ranch #$) Sorso.on upon the postin. of a
cash 'ond ', the 0and /an6
SO ORD;R;D
(1
Respondent filed a <otion for Reconsideration of the trial courtEs order) which
was denied in an Order dated April $) $**(
(#
"
Records) p (*
%
Id) p "7
7
Id) p (*"
-
Rollo) p 2$-
(*
Records) p "#
((
Id) p %$
($
Id) p 22
(2
Id) p #
(1
Id) p ($"
(#
Id) p (27
Thus) respondent filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals)
("
doc6eted as CA-GR S! No "#$%" On Dece&'er (() $**() the
Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision which nullified the Orders of the
Re.ional Trial Court of Sorso.on) Sorso.on) /ranch #(
3ence) the instant petition for review on the followin. issues9
I :3;T3;R OR NOT T3; CA D;!ART;D FRO< T3; ACC;!T;D
CO=RS; OF +=DICIA0 !ROC;;DINGS IN ;NT;RTAINING T3;
R;S!OND;NTES S!;CIA0 CIVI0 ACTION FOR C;RTIORARI TO
F=;STION T3; FINA0 ORD;R OF T3; RTC :3IC3) 3O:;V;R) :AS
S=/+;CT TO A!!;A0 =ND;R T3; (--% R=0;S OF CIVI0 !ROC;D=R;
II :3;T3;R OR NOT T3; CA D;CID;D IN A :A> NOT IN ACCORD :IT3
0A: AND S=/STANTIA0 +=STIC; IN ANN=00ING AND S;TTING ASID;
T3; RTC FINA0 ORD;R OF IN+=NCTION) CONSID;RING T3AT9
A T3; !ARAD DID NOT ACF=IR; CO<!;T;NT +=RISDICTION
OV;R T3; CONT;<!T !ROC;;DINGS INAS<=C3 AS IT :AS INITIAT;D
/> <;R; <OTION FOR CONT;<!T AND NOT /> V;RIFI;D !;TITION) IN
VIO0ATION OF S;CTION $) R=0; ?I OF T3; N;: DARA/ R=0;S OF
!ROC;D=R; AND OF R=0; %( OF T3; R;VIS;D R=0;S OF CO=RT
/ T3; !ARAD CONT;<!T ORD;R CANNOT /; CONSID;R;D
FINA0 AND ;?;C=TOR>) /;CA=S; T3; !ARAD ITS;0F DISA00O:;D
T3; !;TITION;RES A!!;A0 TO T3; DARA/ C;NTRA0 OFFIC;) IN
DISR;GARD OF T3; /ASIC R=0; T3AT T3; A!!;00AT; TRI/=NA0
D;T;R<IN;S T3; <;RITS OF T3; A!!;A0
C T3; !ARAD ORD;R OF ARR;ST AGAINST 0/! <ANAG;R A0;?
0ORA>;S :AS IN GROSS AND !AT;NT VIO0ATION OF 3IS !;RSONA0)
CONSTIT=TIONA0 AND CIVI0 RIG3TS AGAINST =N+=ST ARR;ST AND
I<!RISON<;NT) INAS<=C3 AS) =ND;R T3; (-7% CONSTIT=TION) ON0>
+=DG;S CAN ISS=; :ARRANTS OF ARR;ST AGAINST CITIG;NS) AND
T3; !RO!;R S=/+;CT OF T3; CONT;<!T !ROC;;DING :AS T3;
!;TITION;R ITS;0F AND NOT T3; 0/! <ANAG;R) AND >;T T3;
CONT;<!T ORD;R :AS AGAINST T3; 0/! <ANAG;R
D T3; !ARAD ORD;R OF CONT;<!T :AS !AT;NT0> N=00 AND
VOID) AS IT ATT;<!T;D TO ;NFORC; CO<!0IANC; :IT3 T3; !ARAD
D;CISION T3AT :AS AD<ITT;D0> NOT FINA0 AND ;?;C=TOR>) AS T3;
<ATT;R OF +=ST CO<!;NSATION /;FOR; T3; S!;CIA0 AGRARIAN
CO=RT :AS ON A!!;A0 :IT3 T3; CO=RT OF A!!;A0S
(%
As re.ards the first issue) petitioner su'&its that the special civil action for
certiorari filed ', respondent 'efore the Court of Appeals to nullif, the in8unction
issued ', the trial court was i&proper) considerin. that the preli&inar, in8unction
issued ', the trial court was a final order which is appeala'le to the Court of
Appeals via a notice of appeal
(7
!etitionerEs su'&ission is untena'le Generall,) in8unction is a preservative
re&ed, for the protection of oneEs su'stantive ri.ht or interest It is not a cause
of action in itself 'ut &erel, a provisional re&ed,) an ad8unct to a &ain suit
Thus) it has 'een held that an order .rantin. a writ of preli&inar, in8unction is an
interlocutor, order As distin.uished fro& a final order which disposes of the
su'8ect &atter in its entiret, or ter&inates a particular proceedin. or action)
leavin. nothin. else to 'e done 'ut to enforce ', eAecution what has 'een
deter&ined ', the court) an interlocutor, order does not dispose of a case
("
CA Rollo) p (*
(%
Rollo) pp $(%-$(7
(7
Id) pp $(--$$*
co&pletel,) 'ut leaves so&ethin. &ore to 'e ad8udicated upon
(-
Clearl,) the .rant of a writ of preli&inar, in8unction is in the nature of an
interlocutor, order) hence) unappeala'le Therefore) respondentEs special civil
action for certiorari 'efore the Court of Appeals was the correct re&ed, under the
circu&stances Certiorari is availa'le where there is no appeal) or an, plain)
speed,) and ade@uate re&ed, in the ordinar, course of law
$*

The order .rantin. a writ of preli&inar, in8unction is an interlocutor, orderB
as such) it cannot ', itself 'e su'8ect of an appeal or a petition for review on
certiorari The proper re&ed, of a part, a..rieved ', such an order is to 'rin.
an ordinar, appeal fro& an adverse 8ud.&ent in the &ain case) citin. therein
the .rounds for assailin. the interlocutor, order 3owever) the part, concerned
&a, file a petition for certiorari where the assailed order is patentl, erroneous
and appeal would not afford ade@uate and eApeditious relief
$(
On the su'stantive issue of whether the order for the arrest of petitionerEs
&ana.er) <r AleA 0ora,es ', the !ARAD) was valid) Rule ?VIII of the $**2
DARA/ Rules reads) in pertinent part9
S;CTION $ Indirect Contempt. H The /oard or an, of its &e&'ers or its
Ad8udicator &a, also cite and punish an, person for indirect conte&pt on an, of
the .rounds and in the &anner prescri'ed under Rule %( of the Revised Rules
of Court
In this connection) Rule %() Section 1 of the (--% Rules of Civil !rocedure)
which deals with the co&&ence&ent of indirect conte&pt proceedin.s) provides9
Sec 1 How proceedings commenced. I !roceedin.s for indirect
conte&pt &a, 'e initiated motu proprio ', the court a.ainst which the conte&pt
was co&&itted ', an order or an, other for&al char.e re@uirin. the respondent
to show cause wh, he should not 'e punished for conte&pt
In all other cases) char.es for indirect conte&pt shall 'e co&&enced ', a
verified petition with supportin. particulars and certified true copies of
docu&ents or papers involved therein) and upon full co&pliance with the
re@uire&ents for filin. initiator, pleadin.s for civil actions in the court
concerned If the conte&pt char.es arose out of or are related to a principal
action pendin. in the court) the petition for conte&pt shall alle.e that fact 'ut
said petition shall 'e doc6eted) heard and decided separatel,) unless the court
in its discretion orders the consolidation of the conte&pt char.e and the
principal action for 8oint hearin. and decision
A A A A A A A A A
The re@uire&ent of a verified petition is &andator, +ustice FlorenJ D
Re.alado) Vice-Chair&an of the Revision of the Rules of Court Co&&ittee that
drafted the (--% Rules of Civil !rocedure eAplains this re@uire&ent9
( This new provision clarifies with a re.ulator, nor& the proper
procedure for co&&encin. conte&pt proceedin.s :hile such proceedin. has
'een classified as a special civil action under the for&er Rules) the
hetero.eneous practice) tolerated ', the courts) has 'een for an, part, to file a
&ere &otion without pa,in. an, doc6et or lawful fees therefor and without
co&pl,in. with the re@uire&ents for initiator, pleadin.s) which is now re@uired
in the second para.raph of this a&ended section
A A A A A A A A A
3enceforth) eAcept for indirect conte&pt proceedin.s initiated motu proprio
', order of or a for&al char.e ', the offended court) all char.es shall 'e
(-
Concepcion v CA) GR No (2%-2") (* Au.ust $**( 4citations o&itted5
$*
(--% R=0;S OF CIVI0 !ROC;D=R;) Rule "#) Section (
$(
Oro Ca& ;nterprises v CA) 2%% !hil 1"- 4(---5 4citations o&itted5
co&&enced ', a verified petition with full co&pliance with the re@uire&ents
therefor and shall 'e disposed of in accordance with the second para.raph of
this section
$$
Therefore) there are onl, two wa,s a person can 'e char.ed with indirect
conte&pt) na&el,) 4(5 throu.h a verified petitionB and 4$5 ', order or for&al
char.e initiated ', the court motu proprio
In the case at 'ar) neither of these &odes was adopted in char.in. <r
0ora,es with indirect conte&pt
<ore specificall,) Rule %() Section ($ of the (--% Rules of Civil !rocedure)
referrin. to indirect conte&pt a.ainst @uasi-8udicial entities) provides9
Sec ($ Contempt against quasi-judicial entities. I =nless otherwise
provided ', law) this Rule shall appl, to conte&pt co&&itted a.ainst persons)
entities) 'odies or a.encies eAercisin. @uasi-8udicial functions) or shall have
suppletor, effect to such rules as the, &a, have adopted pursuant to authorit,
.ranted to the& ', law to punish for conte&pt The Regional Trial Court of
the place wherein the conte&pt has 'een co&&itted shall have 8urisdiction over
such char.es as &a, 'e filed therefore 4e&phasis supplied5
The fore.oin. a&ended provision puts to rest once and for all the @uestions
re.ardin. the applica'ilit, of these rules to @uasi-8udicial 'odies) to wit9
( This new section was necessitated ', the holdin.s that the for&er
Rule %( applied onl, to superior and inferior courts and did not co&prehend
conte&pt co&&itted a.ainst ad&inistrative or @uasi-8udicial officials or 'odies)
unless said conte&pt is clearl, considered and eApressl, defined as conte&pt
of court) as is done in the second para.raph of Sec #7*) Revised
Ad&inistrative Code The provision referred to conte&plates the situation
where a person) without lawful eAcuse) fails to appear) &a6e oath) .ive
testi&on, or produce docu&ents when re@uired to do so ', the official or 'od,
eAercisin. such powers For such violation) said person shall 'e su'8ect to
discipline) as in the case of conte&pt of court) upon application of the official or
'od, with the Re.ional Trial Court for the correspondin. sanctions
$2
4e&phasis
in the ori.inal5
;videntl,) @uasi-8udicial a.encies that have the power to cite persons for
indirect conte&pt pursuant to Rule %( of the Rules of Court can onl, do so ',
initiatin. the& in the proper Re.ional Trial Court It is not within their 8urisdiction
and co&petence to decide the indirect conte&pt cases These &atters are still
within the province of the Re.ional Trial Courts In the present case) the indirect
conte&pt char.e was filed) not with the Re.ional Trial Court) 'ut with the !ARAD)
and it was the !ARAD that cited <r 0ora,es with indirect conte&pt
3ence) the conte&pt proceedin.s initiated throu.h an unverified K<otion for
Conte&ptL filed ', the respondent with the !ARAD were invalid for the followin.
reasons9
$1
First, the Rules of Court clearl, re@uire the filin. of a verified petition
with the Re.ional Trial Court) which was not co&plied with in this case The
char.e was not initiated ', the !ARAD motu proprio; rather) it was ', a &otion
filed ', respondent Second, neither the !ARAD nor the DARA/ have
8urisdiction to decide the conte&pt char.e filed ', the respondent The issuance
of a warrant of arrest was 'e,ond the power of the !ARAD and the DARA/
Conse@uentl,) all the proceedin.s that ste&&ed fro& respondentEs K<otion for
Conte&pt)L specificall, the Orders of the !ARAD dated Au.ust $*) $*** and
+anuar, 2) $**( for the arrest of AleA A 0ora,es) are null and void
&HEREFORE, in view of the fore.oin.) the petition for review is GRANT;D
$$
I R;GA0ADO) R;<;DIA0 0A: CO<!;NDI=< 7*7 4%
th
revised ed (---5
$2
Id) at 7(2
$1
Rollo) p 2*-
The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR S! No "#$%") dated Dece&'er
(() $**() is R;V;RS;D and S;T ASID; The Order of the Re.ional Trial Court
of Sorso.on) Sorso.on) /ranch #() dated +anuar, $-) $**() which en8oined the
!rovincial Ad8udicator of the DARA/ or an,one actin. in its stead fro& enforcin.
its order of arrest a.ainst <r AleA A 0ora,es pendin. the final ter&ination of the
case 'efore Re.ional Trial Court of Sorso.on) Sorso.on) /ranch #$) is
R;INSTAT;D
O ORDERED.
Davide, r., C.., !itug, Carpio and "#cuna, ., concur