HLI v. PARC Case Digest.docx - CASE BRIEF HACIENDA LUISITA INCORPORATED(HLI vs PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL(PARC G.R No 171101 July 5 2011 THE

HLI v. PARC Case Digest.docx - CASE BRIEF HACIENDA LUISITA...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 6 pages.

CASE BRIEF HACIENDA LUISITA, INCORPORATED (HLI) vs. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL (PARC) G.R. No. 171101 July 5, 2011 THE CASE In this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 with prayer for preliminary injunctive relief, petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI) assails and 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, as well as the implementing Notice of Coverage dated January 2, 2006 (Notice of Coverage). THE ISSUES I. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPERVISORY GROUP AND AMBALA AND THEIR RESPECTIVE LEADERS (FARMWORKERS) ARE REAL PARTIES-IN- INTEREST TO FILE THE PETITIONS TO NULLIFY, RECALL, REVOKE OR RESCIND THE STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION AGREEMENT (SDOA). II. WHETHER OR NOT PARC HAS JURISDICTION, POWER AND/OR AUTHORITY TO NULLIFY, RECALL, REVOKE OR RESCIND THE STOCK DISTRIBUTION PLAN. (SDP). III. WHETHER OR NOT SEC. 31 OF RA 6657 OR THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IV. WHETHER OR NOT PARC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REVOKING OR RECALLING THE SUBJECT SDP AND PLACING THE HACIENDA UNDER CARP’S COMPULSORY ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION SCHEME. V. WHETHER OR NOT PORTIONS OF THE CONVERTED LAND WITHIN HACIENDA LUISITA THAT RCBC AND LIPCO ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE ASSAILED PARC RESOLUTION. RULING SUPERVISORY GROUP, AMBALA AND THEIR
Image of page 1
RESPECTIVE LEADERS ARE REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST Rene Galang, the self-styled head of AMBALA, per HLI’s own admission, is employed by HLI, and is, thus, a qualified beneficiary of the SDP; he comes within the definition of a real party-in-interest under Sec. 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, meaning, one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or is the party entitled to the avails of the suit. The same holds true with respect to the Supervisory Group whose members were admittedly employed by HLI and whose names and signatures even appeared in the annex of the SDOA. Being qualified beneficiaries of the SDP, Julio Suniga and the other 61 supervisors are certainly parties who would benefit or be prejudiced by the judgment recalling the SDP or replacing it with some other modality to comply with RA 6657. Clearly, the respective leaders of the Supervisory Group and AMBALA are contextually real parties-in-interest allowed by law to file a petition before the DAR or PARC. PARC’S AUTHORITY TO REVOKE A STOCK DISTRIBUTION PLAN (SDP) Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10, the authority to approve the plan for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs to PARC. However, contrary to petitioner HLI’s posture, PARC also has the power to revoke the SDP which it previously approved. It may be, as urged, that RA 6657 or other executive issuances on agrarian reform do not explicitly vest the PARC with the power to revoke/recall an approved SDP.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture