This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| HLI would deny real party-in-interest status to the purported leaders of the Supervisory Group and AMBALA, i.e., Julio Suniga, Windsor Andaya, and Rene Galang, who filed the revocatory petitions before the DAR. As HLI would have it, Galang, the self-styled head of AMBALA, gained HLI employment in June 1990 and, thus, could not have been a party to the SDOA executed a year earlier. [85] As regards the Supervisory Group, HLI alleges that supervisors are not regular farmworkers, but the company nonetheless considered them FWBs under the SDOA as a mere concession to enable them to enjoy the same benefits given qualified regular farmworkers. However, if the SDOA would be canceled and land distribution effected, so HLI claims, citing Fortich v. Corona, [86] the supervisors would be excluded from receiving lands as farmworkers other than the regular farmworkers who are merely entitled to the "fruits of the land." [87] | |||||
|
2011-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The application, according to HLI, had the backing of 5,000 or so FWBs, including respondent Rene Galang, and Jose Julio Suniga, as evidenced by the Manifesto of Support they signed and which was submitted to the DAR. [44] After the usual processing, the DAR, thru then Sec. Ernesto Garilao, approved the application on August 14, 1996, per DAR Conversion Order No. 030601074-764-(95), Series of 1996, [45] subject to payment of three percent (3%) of the gross selling price to the FWBs and to HLI's continued compliance with its undertakings under the SDP, among other conditions. | |||||
|
2007-03-22 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| More importantly, petitioner is not a real party-in-interest in this case. According to Sec. 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, a real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. We stand by the ruling in Fortich v. Corona[18] that farmer-beneficiaries, who are not approved awardees of CARP, are not real parties-in-interest. In Fortich, the farmers who intervened in the case were mere recommendees. We stated in said case that:The rule in this jurisdiction is that a real party in interest is a party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment or is the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Real interest means a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest. Undoubtedly, movants' interest over the land in question is a mere expectancy. Ergo, they are not real parties in interest.[19] | |||||