G.R. No. L-29784 May 21, 1969
SILVESTRE MASA, petitioner, vs. HON. JUAN A. BAES, Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, 7th Regional District, Branch I, Los Baños Laguna. The Provincial Sheriff or his Deputy, Biñan, Laguna, JOSE TAN KAPOE, respondents.

FACTS

In 1963, Judge Pastor de Guzman of the Court of Agrarian Relations rendered a decision dismissing two cases (Nos. 923 & 926) and, in Case No. 959, authorizing landholder Jose Tan Kapoe to eject tenant Silvestre Masa. Masa filed a motion for reconsideration dated May 8, 1963. For lack of proof of service, Judge Artemio Macalino, on November 20, 1963, directed the clerk of court to furnish a copy to Tan Kapoe’s counsel. On February 20, 1964, Judge Macalino issued a resolution reconsidering and setting aside Judge de Guzman’s decision, denying ejectment, ordering Masa’s maintenance, and declaring a leasehold system. Tan Kapoe’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 9, 1964. He filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 1964, but took no further steps, causing the appeal to lapse. Three and a half years later, on March 4, 1968, the court rendered a supplemental decision upon Masa’s motion to specify rentals and return deposits. Tan Kapoe moved for reconsideration of this supplemental decision and the 1964 Macalino resolution, arguing the original 1963 decision had become final. On June 11, 1968, Judge Juan A. Baes granted Tan Kapoe’s motion, ruling that Masa’s 1963 motion for reconsideration did not arrest the finality of the 1963 decision due to lack of proof of service as required by court rules, and ordered execution of the 1963 decision. Masa petitioned for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations (Judge Baes) acted with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the 1964 resolution of Judge Macalino and reviving the 1963 decision of Judge de Guzman, on the ground that the tenant’s motion for reconsideration did not toll the period for finality due to lack of proof of service.

RULING

Yes, the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the orders of Judge Baes, and reinstated the decisions of Judge Macalino. The Court held: (1) The record, including a registry receipt and return card, belied the assumption that Tan Kapoe’s counsel was not served a copy of the tenant’s 1963 motion for reconsideration. (2) Tan Kapoe was estopped from denying receipt due to his failure to raise the issue before Judge Macalino, his receipt without protest of the court-furnished copy, his failure to include this claim in his 1964 motion for reconsideration, his failure to perfect his appeal, and his inaction for almost four years. (3) Respondent Judge ignored Section 155 of the Land Reform Act (Republic Act No. 3844), which provides that the Court of Agrarian Relations shall not be bound strictly by technical rules of evidence and procedure. The case of Esquivel-Cabatit vs. Court of Agrarian Relations was distinguished, as there the motion was served on the wrong attorney, whereas here it was sent to the counsel of record and receipt was established. Therefore, Judge Macalino acted within his powers, his 1964 decision became final, and is the law of the case. The case was remanded to restore Masa’s possession and for further proceedings.