Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 27 2005.

G.R. No. 165155 (Hon. Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, et al. vs. Veronica R. Gonzales, et al.)

Before us are the: 1) Ex-Parte Motion to Declare the Above-entitled Case Closed and Terminated and Issuance of Entry of Judgment, filed by the respondents; 2) letter (in the vernacular) dated February 25, 2005 of the petitioners; and 3) Manifestation of Atty. Susan T. Villanueva, Chief, Litigation Division of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, Department of Agrarian Reform.

In the Resolution dated October 13, 2004, the Court denied petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time, filed by Atty. Dennis R. Babaran within which to file a petition for review on certiorari for their failure to show that they have not lost the fifteen-day reglementary period within which to appeal since the stated date of receipt, that is, August 9, 2004, of the Court of Appeals Resolution of August 31, 2004 denying their Motion for Reconsideration is questionable as the date of receipt precedes the date of issuance of the resolution.

In a Resolution dated January 17, 2005, the petition for "Certiorari" dated October 29, 2004 filed by the petitioners themselves was dismissed for late filing due to the denial of the motion for extension, and for petitioners' failure to: a) properly verify the petition; b) submit a valid affidavit of service of copy of the petition, the attached affidavit of service having been executed and notarized on October 29, 2004 prior to actual posting of a copy of the petition on November 4, 2004 as shown by the attached postal registry receipts; and c) submit a verified statement of the material date of filing of motion for reconsideration of the assailed judgment. In the same Resolution, the Court deferred action on the Withdrawal of Appearance for "respondents Veronica Gonzales, et al." filed by Atty. Babaran on October 29, 2004 and required him to explain as to why he appears to be acting as counsel for both petitioners and respondents.

On February 11, 2005, respondents filed an "Ex-Parte Motion to Declare the Above-entitled Case Closed and Terminated and Issuance of Entry of Judgment" on the ground that petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated October 13, 2004 denying their Motion for Extension of Time (to file the petition) for a period of four months which is past the reglementary period of fifteen days to file a Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioners, in a letter dated February 25, 2005, pray that the Court heed their plea to stay on the land they till and lament the fact that they are unaware of the Resolution of October 13, 2004 owing to their lack of understanding of the law and their full trust and hope on the lawyer, Atty. Jaime Mena provided for them by the Kagawaran ng Repormang Pansakahan, who allegedly did not furnish them a copy of the resolution; that they too were unaware that Atty. Mena was at the same time the lawyer of the owner of the land, respondent Veronica Gonzales, in a similar case (Heirs of Agapita T. Tiongson represented by Veronica Gonzales vs. DAR Adjudication Board, CA-GR SP 81122) for which reason they were not fully represented; and that they are contesting the authenticity of the Order dated December 18, 1992 of then Regional Director, Antonio M. Nuesa, of DAR Region III exempting the subject land from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

In a Manifestation dated February 21, 2005, in compliance with the Resolution of January 17, 2005, Atty. Susan Villanueva, Chief of Litigation Division of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, Department of Agrarian Reform, avers that Atty. Babaran is no longer connected with the DAR having transferred to the Commission on Audit effective January 10, 2005 and that Atty. Babaran's representation in this case is pursuant to Bureau Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 1996.

It appears from the records that petitioners are not duly represented by a counsel. While they are represented by one Atty. Jaime Mena in the DARAB level as borne by the records, and initially, in this Court, by Atty. Babaran of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of the DAR as appearing in their Motion for Extension of Time to file a petition, Atty. Babaran filed his Motion of Withdrawal of Appearance on October 29, 2004, albeit erroneously referring to himself as counsel for the respondents which prompted the Court to require him to explain why he appears to be acting as counsel for both parties. On November 4, 2004, or several days after filing the said motion, Atty. Babaran received the resolution dated October 13, 2004 denying petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time to File a petition for review on certiorari. With the Manifestation of Atty. Susan Villanueva that Atty. Babaran has transferred to the Commission on Audit effective January 10, 2005, the Court has no recourse but to grant the Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Atty. Babaran. Thus, the petition subsequently filed by the petitioners having been prepared by petitioners themselves suffers from legal infirmities enumerated in the Resolution dated January 17, 2005 as aforestated.

Contrary to the allegation of petitioners in the subject letter that their counsel in the DARAB level, Atty. Jaime Mena, represented also respondents Veronica Gonzales, et al. in a similar case, records show that one Atty. Venancio C. Reyes represented the said respondents at the DARAB level.

It is also noted that respondents are not represented by a counsel in the present case.

Considering the importance of the issues involved in this case, the Court Resolves to:

1) DENY the Ex-parte Manifestation to Declare This Case Closed and Terminated and Issuance of Entry of Judgment;

2) NOTE the Manifestation filed by Atty. Susan Villanueva;

3) DISPENSE with the explanation of Atty. Dennis R. Babaran as required in the Resolution dated January 17, 2005;

4) GRANT the Motion of Withdrawal of Appearance of Atty. Dennis R. Babaran;

5) DIRECT Atty. Susan T. Villanueva, Chief, Litigation Division, Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, Department of Agrarian Reform, to cause entry of appearance of a new counsel for petitioners and file a formal Motion for Reconsideration to the Resolutions dated October 13, 2004 and January 17, 2005, within twenty days from notice.

6) DIRECT respondents to cause the entry of appearance of their counsel, ten days from notice.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court