EN BANC

G.R. No. 164195 -- Apo Fruits Corp. and Huo Plantation, Inc., Petitioners, v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Land Bank of the Philippines, Respondents.

Promulgated:

December 4, 2009

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

CONCURRING OPINION

ABAD, J.:

I fully concur with Justice Lucas P. Bersamin’s ponencia but wish to add a few of my own thoughts.

First. The Third Division of the Court that originally decided the case purposely deleted the lower court’s award of interest because of a finding that respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) was not guilty of delay in trying to come to a settlement with petitioners Apo Fruits Corp. and Huo Plantation, Inc. on the compensation due the latter. Courts have invariably adjusted or deleted the interest on the judgment debt as the circumstances and equity dictates.

Here, the Third Division consciously deleted the award of interest for a stated reason. The delay in payment, the Third Division found, was not Land Bank’s fault. It would, therefore, be unreasonable to restore such award of interest in a second motion for reconsideration, after entry of judgment had been made, when there is no showing that the Third Division’s factual findings are incorrect.

Second. Not only has the judgment of this Court become final and executory and an entry of judgment made, Land Bank already complied with the same by paying the judgment amounts. Of course, on occasions, the Court has resorted to the extreme measure of reopening final and executory judgments. But those are extreme cases where the issues have a telling impact on jurisprudence or the public interest. The one before the Court is not an extreme case. It involves no life or liberty, only the respondent companies’ pockets. What is more, the farmers will ultimately shoulder this huge and fantastic additional cost. Yet, like Land Bank, they did nothing to delay payment.

ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice