G.R. No. 171101 July 2011 (Hacienda Luisita v Presidential Agrarian Reform Council) Flashcards
Who is the petitioner?
Hacienda Luisita Inc.
Who are the petitioners-in-intervention?
Luisita Industrial Park Corp.
and
RCBC
Who are the respondents?
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
Sec. Nasser Pangandaman, Department of Agrarian Reform
Alyansa ng Manggagawang Bukid ng Hacienda Luisita
Rene Galang
Noel Mallari
Julio Zuniga
Supervisory Group of the Hacienda Luisita
Windsor Andaya
According to the Agrarian Reform Law, what is the retention limit for land owners?
From 75 hectares, it was cut down to just 7 hectares.
What is the law in consideration?
RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, also known as CARL or the CARP Law
What is the petitioner’s request to the Court?
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 with prayer for preliminary injunctive relief
How big is Hacienda Luisita?
6,443-hectare mixed agricultural-industrial-residential expanse straddling several municipalities of Tarlac
Who initially owned Hacienda Luisita?
Compaia General de Tabacos de Filipinas (Tabacalera)
Who bought Tabacalera and the Central Azucarera de Tarlac (CAT) from its Spanish owners?
Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), then owned and/or controlled by the Jose Cojuangco, Sr. Group
When was a case first filed against Tadeco?
On May 7, 1980
Who filed the first suit against Tadeco?
the martial law administration
Where was the first suit filed?
Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC)
What was Tadeco’s response to the suit filed by the martial law administration?
Tadeco or its owners alleged that Hacienda Luisita does not have tenants, besides which sugar lands of which the hacienda consisted are not covered by existing agrarian reform legislations.
What was the Manila RTC’s decision?
The Manila RTC rendered judgment ordering Tadeco to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the MAR.
What was Tadeco’s response to the RTC’s decision?
Tadeco appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA)
What was the Court of Appeals’ decision on Hacienda Luisita?
The CA dismissed the case the Marcos government initially instituted.
The dismissal action was, however, made subject to the obtention by Tadeco of the PARCs approval of a stock distribution plan (SDP) that must initially be implemented after such approval shall have been secured.
What was the condition required by the Court of Appeals for Tadeco to do?
Have a Stock Distribution Plan approved by the PARC.
What is an alternative to land distribution?
Stock distribution, land-to-share ratio
Section 10 of EO 229
What laws provide options of land OR stock transfer?
EO 229 and RA 6657
How much time was given to Tadeco to implement the SDP?
Two (2) years from the approval of RA 6657
What is the penalty for not implementing the SDP?
The agricultural land of the corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the compulsory coverage of RA 6657.
Who were the incorporators of HLI?
Pedro Cojuangco, Josephine C. Reyes, Teresita C. Lopa, Jose Cojuangco, Jr., and Paz C. Teopaco
What was the purpose of having HLI?
To facilitate stock acquisition by the farmworkers
How much land was transferred to HLI from Tadeco?
4,915.75 hectares
How much was the appraised and approved capital stock of HLI?
PhP 355,531,462
When did the farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs) sign in a referendum of their acceptance of the proposed HLIs Stock Distribution Option Plan?
May 9, 1989
When was the Stock Distribution Option Agreement (SDOA) signed by all concerned parties?
May 11, 1989
How many were the qualified qualified FWBs?
5,848
Who attested the signing of the Stock Distribution Option Agreement (SDOA)?
DAR Secretary Philip Juico
How many were the initial number of shares offered by HLI to the FWB?
118,391,976.85 shares
Describe the SDP.
At the end of each fiscal year, for a period of 30 years, the SECOND PARTY shall arrange with the FIRST PARTY [Tadeco] the acquisition and distribution to the THIRD PARTY on the basis of number of days worked and at no cost to them of one-thirtieth (1/30) of 118,391,976.85 shares of the capital stock of the SECOND PARTY that are presently owned and held by the FIRST PARTY, until such time as the entire block of 118,391,976.85 shares shall have been completely acquired and distributed to the THIRD PARTY.
What were the benefits of the FWBs?
(a) production-sharing equivalent to three percent (3%) of gross sales from the production of the agricultural land payable to the FWBs in cash dividends or incentive bonus
(b) distribution of free homelots of not more than 240 square meters each to family-beneficiaries
Are the FWB-benefits payable irrespective of whether [HLI] makes money or not?
YES. The benefits do not partake the nature of dividends, as the term is ordinarily understood under corporation law.
After a review of the SDP, what did then DAR Secretary Miriam Defensor-Santiago do?
She addressed a letter dated November 6, 1989 to Pedro S. Cojuangco (Cojuangco), then Tadeco president, proposing that the SDP be revised.
Did Sec. Defensor-Santiago approve of the SDP for Tadeco/HLI?
YES. By Resolution No. 89-12-2[40] dated November 21, 1989.
What was HLI’s claim?
From 1989 to 2005, HLI claimed to have extended benefits to the FWBs.
How much land did HLI illegally sell?
300 hectares (given to Centennary) in exchange for 12 million shares of stock in HLI
200 hectares (given to Luisita Realty Corporation (LRC)
Who owns Centennary?
Wholly-owned by HLI, AND had the following incorporators: Pedro Cojuangco, Josephine C. Reyes, Teresita C. Lopa, Ernesto G. Teopaco, and Bernardo R. Lahoz
Where did the 300 hectares given to Centennary end up?
Centennary sold the entire 300 hectares to Luisita Industrial Park Corporation (LIPCO) for PhP 750 million.
Later on, in a Deed of Absolute Assignment dated November 25, 2004, LIPCO transferred the parcels to the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) by way of dacion en pago in payment of LIPCOs PhP 431,695,732.10 loan obligations. LIPCOs titles were canceled and new ones were issued to RCBC.
Who filed the first protest against HLI?
Respondents Jose Julio Suniga and Windsor Andaya, identifying themselves as head of the Supervisory Group of HLI (Supervisory Group), and 60 other supervisors
Why did the respondents file a case against HLI?
To revoke the SDOA, alleging that HLI had failed to give them their dividends and the one percent (1%) share in gross sales, as well as the thirty-three percent (33%) share in the proceeds of the sale of the converted 500 hectares of land. They further claimed that their lives have not improved contrary to the promise and rationale for the adoption of the SDOA. They also cited violations by HLI of the SDOAs terms.[58] They prayed for a renegotiation of the SDOA, or, in the alternative, its revocation.
Who filed the second petition against HLI?
Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid ng Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA), on December 4, 2003
As alleged, the petition was filed on behalf of AMBALAs members purportedly composing about 80% of the 5,339 FWBs of Hacienda Luisita.
What did DAR do upon learning of HLI’s conflicts with the FWBs?
DAR constituted a Special Task Force to attend to issues relating to the SDP of HLI.
What was the finding of the DAR’s Special Task Force?
HLI has not complied with its obligations under RA 6657 despite the implementation of the SDP.
What did DAR Sec. Pangandaman do upon knowing the report of the Special Task Force?
Sec. Pangandaman recommended to the PARC Executive Committee (Excom)
(a) the recall/revocation of PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2 dated November 21, 1989 approving HLIs SDP; and
(b) the acquisition of Hacienda Luisita through the compulsory acquisition scheme.
What did the PARC Validation Committee do upon knowing about the report by the Special Task Force?
PARC Validation Committee favorably endorsed the DAR Secretarys recommendation afore-stated.
RESOLVED, further, that the lands subject of the recalled/revoked TDC/HLI SDO plan be forthwith placed under the compulsory coverage or mandated land acquisition scheme of the [CARP].
What did HLI to when the PARC ExeComm revoked the SDO plan?
HLI, on January 2, 2006, sought reconsideration.
On the same day, the DAR Tarlac provincial office issued the Notice of Coverage which HLI received on January 4, 2006.
What did PARC do with HLI’s motion for reconsideration?
PARC would eventually deny HLIs motion for reconsideration via Resolution No. 2006-34-01 dated May 3, 2006.
What did the Court do with HLI’s motion for reconsideration?
By Resolution of June 14, 2006,[74] the Court, acting on HLIs motion, issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining the implementation of Resolution No. 2005-32-01 and the notice of coverage.
What happened in August 31, 2010?
The Court, in a bid to resolve the dispute through an amicable settlement, issued a Resolution[84] creating a Mediation Panel.
Despite persevering and painstaking efforts on the part of the panel, mediation had to be discontinued when no acceptable agreement could be reached.
