CASE BRIEFHACIENDA LUISITA, INCORPORATED (HLI) vs. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL (PARC)G.R. No. 171101July 5, 2011THE CASEIn this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 with prayer forpreliminary injunctive relief, petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI) assailsand seeks to set aside PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01 and Resolution No.2006-34-01 issued on December 22, 2005 and May 3, 2006, respectively, aswell as the implementing Notice of Coverage dated January 2, 2006 (Noticeof Coverage).THE ISSUESI.WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPERVISORY GROUP AND AMBALA ANDTHEIR RESPECTIVE LEADERS (FARMWORKERS) ARE REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST TO FILE THE PETITIONS TO NULLIFY, RECALL, REVOKE ORRESCIND THE STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION AGREEMENT (SDOA).II.WHETHER OR NOT PARC HAS JURISDICTION, POWER AND/ORAUTHORITY TO NULLIFY, RECALL, REVOKE OR RESCIND THE STOCKDISTRIBUTION PLAN. (SDP).III.WHETHER OR NOT SEC. 31 OF RA 6657 OR THE COMPREHENSIVEAGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.IV. WHETHER OR NOT PARC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION INREVOKING OR RECALLING THE SUBJECT SDP AND PLACING THEHACIENDA UNDER CARP’S COMPULSORY ACQUISITION ANDDISTRIBUTION SCHEME.V.WHETHER OR NOT PORTIONS OF THE CONVERTED LAND WITHINHACIENDA LUISITA THAT RCBC AND LIPCO ACQUIRED BY PURCHASEBE EXCLUDED FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE ASSAILED PARCRESOLUTION.RULINGSUPERVISORYGROUP,AMBALAANDTHEIR
RESPECTIVE LEADERS AREREAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST Rene Galang, the self-styled head of AMBALA, per HLI’s own admission, isemployed by HLI, and is, thus, a qualified beneficiary of the SDP; he comeswithin the definition of a real party-in-interest under Sec. 2, Rule 3of the Rules of Court, meaning, one who stands to be benefited orinjured by the judgment in the suit or is the party entitled to theavails of the suit.The same holds true with respect to the SupervisoryGroup whose members were admittedly employed by HLI and whose namesand signatures even appeared in the annex of the SDOA. Being qualifiedbeneficiaries of the SDP, Julio Suniga and the other 61 supervisors arecertainly parties who would benefit or be prejudiced by the judgmentrecalling the SDP or replacing it with some other modality to comply withRA 6657.Clearly, the respective leaders of the Supervisory Group and AMBALA arecontextually real parties-in-interest allowed by law to file a petition beforethe DAR or PARC.PARC’SAUTHORITYTOREVOKEASTOCKDISTRIBUTION PLAN (SDP)Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10, the authority toapprove the plan for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongsto PARC. However, contrary to petitioner HLI’s posture, PARC also has thepower to revoke the SDP which it previously approved.It may be, asurged, that RA 6657 or other executive issuances on agrarian reform do notexplicitly vest the PARC with the power to revoke/recall an approved SDP.