CASE TITLE: Landbank v. ListanaGR NO.: G.R. No. 152611DATE: August 5, 2003

PETITIONER: Landbank of the PhilippinesRESPONDENT: Severino Listana

FACTS: Respondent Listana offered to sell his land(246.0561 ha.) in Sorsogon to the government, through the DAR under the CARL. DAR valued the property at P5,871,689.03 but Listana refused to sell at that price. An administrative proceeding under the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) determined the just compensation of the land at P10,956,963 and ordered Petitioner LANDBANK to pay the same to Listana. A writ of execution was issued by PARAD(Prov. Agrarian Reform Adjuticator) to which LANDBANK did not comply. A Motion for Contempt was filed by Listana with the PARAD against petitioner LANDBANK. PARAD granted the Motion for Contempt citing for indirect contempt and ordering the arrest of ALEX A. LORAYES, the Manager of LBP. LBP obtained a preliminary injunction from the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon to restrain DARAB from issuing the order of arrest. Listana filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. CA nullified the order of the RTC. Petitioner LBP then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:Whether or not the PARADs order of contempt was invalid.

HELD:Yes. It was invalid for the following reasons:a.) the Rules of Court clearly require the filing of a verified petition with the Regional Trial Court, which was not complied with in this case. The charge was not initiated by the PARAD motu proprio; rather, it was by a motion filed by respondent.b.) neither the PARAD nor the DARAB have jurisdiction to decide the contempt charge filed by the respondent. The issuance of a warrant of arrest was beyond the power of the PARAD and the DARAB.

Quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite persons for indirect contempt pursuant to Rule 71 of the Rules of Court can only do so by initiating them in the proper Regional Trial Court. It is not within their jurisdiction and competence to decide the indirect contempt cases. These matters are still within the province of the Regional Trial Courts. In the present case, the indirect contempt charge was filed, not with the Regional Trial Court, but with the PARAD, and it was the PARAD that cited Mr. Lorayes with indirect contempt.Thus, the order was REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petition granted.