G.R. No. L-14502. June 30, 1961. FEDERICO PINEDA, petitioner, vs. DOMINGO CABANGON, Associate Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, and MARCELINO TIAMZON, respondents.
FACTS

Petitioner Federico Pineda, a landholder, filed two complaints in the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) seeking authority to dispossess his tenant, respondent Marcelino Tiamzon. The first complaint (Case No. 182-Tarlac) alleged Tiamzon’s refusal to adopt the “Masagana System” of rice planting and later amended to claim abandonment and neglect of the landholding, resulting in crop damage. The second complaint (Case No. 190-Tarlac) sought ejectment based on Tiamzon’s cultivation of another landholding without Pineda’s knowledge and consent, allegedly violating Section 24 of Republic Act No. 1199 . The CAR consolidated the cases.
After proceedings, including an ocular inspection by a JAGO officer whose report noted weed infestation, pest attack, and poor maintenance of the field, the CAR Commissioner recommended ejectment. However, the CAR, in its judgment dated July 23, 1958, dismissed Pineda’s petitions. The court found the instructions on the Masagana System insufficient, attributed the low yield to plant pests, and concluded the grounds for ejectment were not substantiated. Pineda’s motion for reconsideration was denied on September 18, 1958.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can grant the petition for certiorari to annul the CAR judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court clarified that the proper remedy from a final judgment of the CAR was an appeal by petition for review to the Supreme Court within fifteen days from notice of the judgment, as provided under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 1267 , as amended. A writ of certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and is only available when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The petitioner failed to utilize this statutory appeal.
The petition itself did not state the dates when Pineda received notices of the CAR judgment and the order denying reconsideration. This omission prevented the Court from verifying if a timely appeal was still possible. Even assuming receipt dates that allowed for an appeal within the reglementary period, the filing of this certiorari petition on October 9, 1958, was deemed beyond the fifteen-day period for appeal. Consequently, since the petitioner could have appealed but did not, and the petition for certiorari was filed out of time, the extraordinary writ could not be granted. The Court also noted it could not treat the petition as a belated appeal due to the failure to show timeliness. The decision of the CAR was therefore left undisturbed.