THIRD DIVISION
|
APO FRUITS
CORPORATION and HIJO PLANTATION, INC., Petitioners, - versus - THE HON.
COURT OF APPEALS and LAND BANK OF THE Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 164195 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ. Promulgated: April
30, 2008 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
While the Decision, dated 12 February 2004, and Resolution, dated 21 June
2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76222, giving due course to
LBP’s appeal, are hereby AFFIRMED, this Court, nonetheless, RESOLVES,
in consideration of public interest, the speedy administration of justice, and
the peculiar circumstances of the case, to give DUE COURSE to the
present Petition and decide the same on its merits. Thus, the Decision,
dated
The
fallo of the affirmed Decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Agrarian Cases No. 54-2000 and No. 55-2000, as it
was originally promulgated on
WHEREFORE, consistent with all the foregoing
premises, judgment is hereby rendered by this Special Agrarian Court where it
has determined judiciously and now hereby fixed the just compensation for the
1,388.6027 hectares of lands and its improvements owned by the
plaintiffs:
First – Hereby ordering after having determined and fixed the fair,
reasonable and just compensation of the 1,338.6027 hectares of land and
standing crops owned by plaintiffs – APO FRUITS CORPORATION and HIJO
PLANTATION, INC., based at only P103.33 per sq. meter, ONE BILLION THREE
HUNDRED EIGHTY-THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE THOUSAND PESOS
(P1,383,179,000.00), Philippine Currency, under the current value of
the Philippine Peso, to be paid jointly and severally to the herein PLAINTIFFS
by the Defendants-Department of Agrarian Reform and its financial intermediary
and co-defendant Land Bank of the Philippines, thru its Land Valuation Office;
Second – Hereby ordering Defendants – DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM and/or LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru its Land Valuation
Office, to pay plaintiffs-APO FRUITS CORPORATION and HIJO PLANTATION, INC.,
interests on the above-fixed amount of fair, reasonable and just compensation
equivalent to the market interest rates aligned with 91-day Treasury Bills,
from the date of the taking in December 9, 1996, until fully paid, deducting
the amount of the previous payment which plaintiffs received as/and from the
initial valuation;
Third – Hereby ordering Defendants – DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru its Land Valuation Office, to pay jointly
and severally the Commissioners’ fees herein taxed as part of the costs
pursuant to Section 12, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
equivalent to, and computed at Two and One-Half (2 ˝) percent of the determined
and fixed amount as the fair, reasonable and just compensation of plaintiffs’
land and standing crops plus interest equivalent to the interest of the 91-Day
Treasury Bills from date of taking until full payment;
Fourth - Hereby ordering Defendants – DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru its Land Valuation Office, to pay jointly
and severally the attorney’s fees to plaintiffs equivalent to, and computed at
ten (10%) Percent of the determined and fixed amount as the fair, reasonable
and just compensation of plaintiffs’ land and standing crops, plus interest
equivalent to the 91-Day Treasury Bills from date of taking until the full
amount is fully paid;
Fifth - Hereby ordering Defendants – DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru its Land Valuation Office to deduct from the
total amount fixed as fair, reasonable and just compensation of plaintiffs’
properties the initial payment paid to the plaintiffs;
Sixth - Hereby ordering Defendants – DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
and/or LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru its Land Valuation Office, to pay the
costs of the suit; and
Seventh - Hereby ordering Defendants – DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru its Land Valuation
Office, to pay all the aforementioned amounts thru The Clerk of Court of this
Court, in order that said Court Officer could collect for payment any docket
fee deficiency, should there be any, from the plaintiffs.[2]
It
was subsequently modified, as follows, by the RTC in an Order dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the following modifications as they are hereby made on the
dispositive portion of this Court’s consolidated decision be made and entered
in the following manner, to wit:
On the Second Paragraph of the Dispositive Portion which now reads as follows,
as modified:
Second - Hereby ordering Defendants –
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru its
Land Valuation Office, to pay plaintiffs-APO FRUITS CORPORATION and HIJO
PLANTATION, INC., interest at the rate of Twelve (12%) Percent per annum on the
above-fixed amount of fair, reasonable and just compensation computed from the
time the complaint was filed until the finality of this decision. After
this decision becomes final and executory, the rate of TWELVE (12%) PERCENT per
annum shall be additionally imposed on the total obligation until payment
thereof is satisfied, deducting the amounts of the previous payments by
Defendant-LBP received as initial valuation;
On the Third Paragraph of the Dispositive Portion which Now Reads As Follows,
As Modified:
Third - Hereby ordering Defendants –
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru its
Land Valuation Office, to pay jointly and severally the Commissioners’ fees
herein taxed as part of the costs pursuant to Section 12, Rule 67 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, equivalent to, and computed at Two and One-Half (2 ˝)
percent of the determined and fixed amount as the fair, reasonable and just
compensation of plaintiffs’ land and standing crops and improvements;
On the Fourth Paragraph of the Dispositive Portion which Now Reads As follows,
As Modified:
Fourth - Hereby ordering Defendants –
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru its
Land Valuation Office, to pay jointly and severally the attorney’s fees to
plaintiffs equivalent to, and computed at ten (10%) Percent of the determined
and fixed amount as the fair, reasonable and just compensation of plaintiffs’
land and standing crops and improvements.
Except for the above-stated
modifications, the consolidated decision stands and shall remain in full force
and effect in all other respects thereof.[3]
From the
In its
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED as
follows:
(1) The
award of 12% interest rate per annum in the total amount of just compensation
is DELETED.
(2) This
case is ordered REMANDED to the RTC for further hearing on the amount of
Commissioners’ Fees.
(3) The
award of attorney’s fees is DELETED.
(4)
The Motion for Referral of the case to the Supreme
Court sitting En Banc and the request or setting of the Omnibus Motion for Oral
Arguments are all DENIED for lack of merit.
In all other respects, our Decision dated
Consequently, all the parties sought
reconsideration of the afore-quoted Resolution.
LBP
filed another Omnibus Motion seeking (a) reconsideration of the Resolution dated 19 December 2007 of the Third
Division denying LBP’s motion to refer the case to the Supreme Court en banc; and (b) leave of court to file
a second Motion for Reconsideration[6] on the issue of just compensation for
the subject properties. LBP thus prays –
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it
is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court (Third Division), TO REFER this
case to the Honorable Court sitting En Banc, and upon referral thereof, for
this Honorable Court sitting En Banc to rule as follows:
1. ALLOW
respondent LBP to file a Second Motion for Reconsideration on the issue of just
compensation for subject properties, and ADMIT and CONSIDER the said motion in
the resolution of the instant case;
2. RECONSIDER
the Resolution dated 19 December 2007 which affirmed the Special Agrarian
Court’s valuation for subject properties amounting to One Billion Three Hundred
Eighty Three Million One Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand Pesos
(Php1,383,179,000.00) which is almost TRIPLE the landowner-petitioners’ offered
sum of only Four Hundred Sixty Eight Million Pesos (Php468,000,000.00) as just
compensation for subject properties under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS)
Scheme;
3.
AFFIRM in toto respondent LBP’s revaluation for subject
properties amounting to Four Hundred Eleven Million Seven Hundred Sixty Nine
Thousand One Hundred Sixty Eight Pesos & 32/100 (Php411,769,168.32) as just
compensation.[7]
On the other hand, AFC and HPI filed
their Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Resolution dated
I.
PETITIONERS
RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE HONORABLE COURT MAY HAVE OVERLOOKED MATERIAL FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT:
a.
PETITIONERS’ RECOURSE TO THE DARAB, AFTER REJECTING THE
INITIAL VALUATIONS OF RESPONDENT LBP, IS WARRANTED UNDER EXISTING LAWS AND
JURISPRUDENCE WHEN THE TWO COMPLAINTS FOR DETERMINATION OF THE JUST
COMPENSATION WERE FILED ON
b.
AT THE VERY LEAST, LBP SHOULD BE MADE TO PAY TWELVE
PERCENT (12%) INTEREST ON THE BALANCE OF P975,223,885.21 (REPRESENTING
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT AWARD OF P1,383,179,000.00 AND THE
AMOUNT ALREADY PAID FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TOTALING P407,955,114.79.
II.
RESPONDENT LBP
DELIBERATELY DELAYED THE PROCEEDINGS, THUS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE A PROMPT AND FULL PAYMENT OF JUST
COMPENSATION; THIS FACT ALONE SHOULD WARRANT THE AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES.[8]
While
all the foregoing motions were still pending resolution, the LPB filed on
a)
ISSUE a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ
of Preliminary Injunction, to enjoin during the pendency of the proceedings and
until the issue raised on appeal and the amount of just compensation of subject
property are finally resolved, Hon. Justino G. Aventurado, Judge, Regional
Trial Court of Tagum City, Davao del Norte, Branch 2, Sheriffs and/or all
persons acting on his behalf, from executing the Partial Writ of Execution
implementing the Resolution dated 19 December 2007.
b) QUASH
or INVALIDATE the Notices of Garnishment dated 27 February 2008 and similar
notices covering “goods, effects, interests, credits, monies, stocks, shares,
any interests in shares and stocks, and any other personal properties” in the
name of respondent LBP which are in the possession of the Treasurer of the
Philippines, Deutsche Bank, and other financial institutions.[9]
On
[E]njoining Hon.
Justino G. aventurado, Judge, Regional Trial Court of Tagum City, Davao del
Norte, Branch 2, Sheriffs and all persons acting on his behalf from implementing
the Partial Writ of Execution dated 26 February 2008 effective immediately and
to DIRECT the parties and all concerned to MAINTAIN the STATUS QUO prior to the
issuance of the notice of Garnishment to different financial institutions or
entities dated 27 February 2008 until further orders from this Court.[10]
The
Court shall now resolve the pending motions of LBP, AFC and HPI.
As
to LBP’s Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 19 December
2007 denying its Motion for the referral of the case to the Supreme Court en banc, LBP argues that the reversal of
the Supreme Court’s rulings in Land Bank
of the Philippines v. Sps. Banal,[11] Land
Bank of the Philippines v. Celada[12]
and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[13] constitute
a clear and significant constitutional issue that should be passed upon by this
Court sitting en banc pursuant to
Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the 1987 Constitution mandating that “no doctrine
or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified
or reversed except by the court sitting en
banc.”
The
argument of LBP is without basis.
The
Third Division has explained at length in its
[I]t is abundantly
clear that this case does not in any way modify or reverse our holdings in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal
and Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Celada. To reiterate, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,
the RTC acting as SAC arrived at the determination of just compensation based
only on one single factor, namely, its observation that there was a patent
disparity between the price given to the landowner as compared to the other
landowners in that case. This is not
true in the present case as we have repeatedly held that the RTC acting as SAC
considered all material and relevant factors to arrive at a correct and proper
determination of just compensation. On
the other hand, in Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Banal, the valuation of the RTC acting as SAC was set aside
for the reason that the same was arrived at without a hearing and based only on
the memoranda of the parties. In this case, the trial court conducted several
hearings and ocular inspections before it rendered its decision.[14]
Similarly,
the Resolution dated
The
Third Division is not evading the prescription in Lim. As is stark in the
assailed ponencia, the Court affirmed
the due consideration given by the RTC of the factors specified in Section 17,
Republic Act No. 6657. Again, the proper
valuation of the subject premises was reached with clear regard for the
acquisition cost of the land, current market value of the properties, its
nature, actual use and income, inter alia
– factors that are material and relevant in determining just compensation. These are the very same factors laid down in
a formula by DAR A.O. No. 5. Due regard
was thus given by the RTC to Republic Act No. 6657, DAR A.O. No. 5 and
prevailing jurisprudence when it arrived at the value of just compensation due
to AFC and HPI in this case.
Moreover, the Court en banc in Luz Lim found that the RTC erred
in determining the just compensation due therein respondents, by simply
adopting the price previously paid by therein petitioner LBP for the land of respondents’
brother, absolutely disregarding the mandatory factors in the appropriate
administrative orders. While the RTC
therein did refer to other factors which it supposedly considered, ultimately,
it only made use of the same value paid by the LBP for the land of respondents’
brother. The same is not true in this
case. It cannot be said herein that the
RTC anchored its determination of just compensation for the
Given the differences in the factual background
of the case at bar and those cited by LBP, it cannot be said that the Third
Division is reversing any doctrine or principle laid down by jurisprudence. There is therefore no basis for the prayer of
LBP to refer the case to the Supreme Court en
banc. The Supreme Court sitting En Banc is not an appellate court vis-ŕ-vis its Divisions, and it
exercises no appellate jurisdiction over the latter. Each division of the Court
is considered not a body inferior to the Court en banc, and sits veritably as the Court en banc itself.[16]
It bears to stress further that a resolution of the Division denying a
party’s motion for referral to the Court en
banc of any Division case, shall be final and not appealable to the Court en banc.[17] Since, at this point, the Third Division
already twice denied the
motion of LBP to refer the present Petition to the Supreme Court en banc, the same must already be deemed
final for no more appeal of its denial thereof is available to LBP.
In addition, the Omnibus Motion of
LBP, to the extent that it seeks reconsideration of the amount of just
compensation which the Court affirmed in its Decision dated 6 February 2007, is
a second motion for reconsideration, because the Court already denied an
identical prayer in its previous Resolution dated 19 December 2007. Thus, the prayer of LBP for leave to file a
second motion for reconsideration must be denied for a second motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Rule 52, Section 2 of the Rules
of Court, which provides that, “No second motion for reconsideration of a
judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.”
Anent
AFC and HPI’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration praying for the reinstatement
of the award of interest and attorney’s fees, the Court finds the same to be devoid
of merit.
The
Court has already thoroughly discussed in its
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Court hereby DENIES WITH FINALITY
the following:
1. The Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration of Land Bank of the
2. The Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc., for being
without merit.
Necessarily, the Court LIFTS the Temporary Restraining Order it
issued dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Resolution were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO S.PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 439-440.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Dated
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Rollo, p. 1159.
[11] 478 Phil. 701 (2004).
[12] G.R. No. 164876,
[13] G.R. No. 171941,
[14] Rollo,
pp. 619-620.
[15] Note that the Decision in Lim was promulgated on
[16] Firestone
Ceramics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 389 Phil. 810, 818 (2000). In accordance with Supreme Court Circular No.
2-89, providing “Guidelines and Rules in
the Referral to the Court En Banc of Cases Assigned to A Division.”
[17] Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89, paragraph 5.