EN
BANC
G.R. No.
164195 -- Apo Fruits Corp. and Hijo
Plantation, Inc., Petitioners, versus The Honorable Court of Appeals and Land Bank of the
Philippines,
Respondents.
Promulgated:
April 5, 2011
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DISSENTING
OPINION
ABAD, J.:
I am unable to agree with the ponencia of Mr. Justice Arturo D. Brion
that the respondent Land Bank of the
Brief Factual Background
On October 12, 1995 AFC-HPI voluntarily offered to
sell their lands[1] to the
government under Republic Act 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Land Bank
valued the properties at P165,484.47 per hectare, but AFC-HPI rejected
the offer of that amount. Consequently,
on instruction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Land Bank deposited
partial payments in AFC-HPI’s bank accounts. Land Bank deposited for AFC and
HPI P26,409,549.86 and P45,481,706.76, respectively, or a total
of P71,891,256.62.
Upon revaluation of the expropriated properties, Land
Bank eventually made additional deposits, placing the total amount paid at P411,769,168.32
(P71,891,256.62 + P339,877,911.70), an increase of nearly five
times. Both AFC-HPI withdrew the
amounts. Still, they filed separate
complaints for just compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). But due to DARAB’s inaction, they later filed
complaints for determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of
On September 25, 2001 the RTC ruled in
favor of AFC-HPI, fixing the just compensation for P1,383,179,000.00 (P411,769,168.32 + P971,409,831.68),
more than double the previous estimated value, and ordering the payment of 12%
interest per annum from the time of taking until the finality of the decision
plus attorney’s fees.
The Third Division of this Court affirmed the RTC
decision in its February 6, 2007 Decision.
But, on motion for reconsideration, the Third Division deleted the award
of interest and attorney’s fees in its December 19, 2007 resolution. Upon finality of this resolution, entry of
judgment was issued on May 16, 2008.
Undaunted, AFC-HPI filed a second motion for reconsideration with
respect to the denial of the award of legal interest and attorney’s fees and a motion
to refer the second motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc. The Third Division subsequently
referred the case to the En Banc. The Court En Banc accepted the referral but on December 4, 2009 it denied
with finality AFC-HPI’s second motion for reconsideration. An entry of its
finality was duly recorded.
Still AFC-HPI filed a third motion for reconsideration on the issue of legal
interest. On October 12, 2010 the En Banc granted AFC-HPI’s motion for
reconsideration and restored the additional award of 12% legal interest in
their favor equivalent to P1.331 billion. The Court held that although Land Bank’s
deposits might have been sufficient for the purpose of immediate taking of the
properties, the deposits were insufficient to excuse Land Bank from the payment
of interest on the unpaid balance. It
found Land Bank to have grossly undervalued AFC-HPI’s properties, thus
resulting in a prolonged suit. On the
issue of immutability of judgment, the Court said that the matter was of
transcendental importance since it involved agrarian reform.
The Court voted 8-3-1 to issue the above
resolution. Associate Justice Arturo D.
Brion wrote it; Associate Justices Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbitero J.
Velasco, Jr., Mariano C. Del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal
Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, and Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno concurred. Associate
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin dissented along with Chief Justice Renato C. Corona
and Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura. Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De
Castro maintained her previous vote for a reduced interest of P400
million. Associate Justice Antonio T.
Carpio took no part. Associate Justices
Roberto A. Abad and Diosdado M. Peralta who earlier voted to deny the motion
for reconsideration were on leave when the voting took place.
Land Bank moved for reconsideration of this
turn-around resolution but the En Banc
resolved to deny the same on November 23, 2010 under the same vote. Consequently, Land Bank filed another motion
asking for the deletion of the award of legal interest.
The Issues Presented
Two issues emerged during the
deliberation in this case:
1. Whether or
not respondent Land Bank has been guilty of delay and, therefore, should be
made to pay AFC-HPI P1.331 billion in interest;
2. Whether or
not it was error for the En Banc to
have issued the October 12, 2010 resolution ordering payment of such interest,
given that AFC-HPI’s third motion for reconsideration was absolutely prohibited
and, even if it were to be treated as a second motion for reconsideration, the En Banc violated its Internal Rules
which require a vote of two-thirds of its actual membership (10 votes) to
entertain such a motion.
Discussion
First. The ponencia
blames Land Bank for the twelve-year delay in the payment of compensation
to AFC-HPI, claiming that had the government not grossly undervalued the
expropriated properties and thus betrayed lack of good faith, it could have
prevented the lengthy legal proceedings in the case.
But the fact that Land Bank did not
readily agree with AFC-HPI regarding the value of the lands should not mean
that Land Bank acted in bad faith or deliberately delayed payment of
compensation. The records show that Land
Bank valued the lands, using the compensation formula that Section 17 of
Republic Act 6657 and the DAR’s implementing rules provide. Can that be malicious or in bad faith?
Granted that Land Bank appealed the RTC decision,
which awarded a compensation of P1,383,179,000.00 to AFC-HPI (more than
double what the CARL formula provided) plus 12% interest per annum until the
finality of its decision, such appeal can hardly be regarded as dilatory and
baseless. Indeed, although the Court
affirmed the principal amount that the RTC fixed, it ordered deleted the
grossly excessive interest of 12% counted from the date of taking or a period
of about 12 years. Even if the Court
changed its mind on a third motion for reconsideration and after the finality
of its judgment, it cannot be said, therefore, that Land Bank’s appeal was
malicious or in bad faith.
The Court’s ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Wycoco[2] is
clear. Interest on just compensation is
due only in case of delay in payment, a fact which must be adequately proved.
If, for instance, property is taken for public use before compensation is given
or deposited in favor of the landowner, then there is delay and the final
compensation must include an award of interest.
Here, there is no evidence to prove that Land Bank was
in delay. On the contrary, pertinent
amounts were deposited, specifically P26,409,549.86 for AFC and P45,481,706.76
for HPI, within fourteen months after AFC-HPI filed the complaint for just
compensation before the RTC. Notably,
Land Bank made the deposits prior to AFC-HPI’s titles being cancelled. The bank afterwards made additional payments
based on upgraded values, swelling its total payments to P411,769,168.32
even before the RTC case was filed.
The ponencia points
out that Land Bank paid only a trifling of the actual value of properties as
later determined by the Court. But I do
not think that P411,769,168.32, a third of the RTC award and paid even
before the suit was filed, can be regarded as trifling. AFC-HPI did not linger long to withdraw the
deposits, negating any notion that it suffered long with nothing to assuage its
feelings about the compensation.
Likewise, Land Bank could not have foreseen that it
would take twelve years for the case to be resolved. AFC-HPI themselves erroneously filed their complaints
with the DARAB instead of directly seeking recourse with the courts. The ponencia
is requiring Land Bank to pay for that error and the delays rooted in it.
To iterate, Land Bank had every right to defend an
initial position dictated by law and not risk sending bank officers to jail for
giving undue benefit to others in violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Land Bank should not be
penalized for taking such cautious position with respect to money belonging to
the government. The Court should not, by
its present ruling, encourage government agencies to pay more than what the law
or the rules prescribe unless directed differently by superior orders. Notably,
when the Third Division of this Court handed down its December 19, 2007
resolution, Land Bank immediately settled its unpaid balance of P971,409,831.68
even before entry of judgment was issued in the case.
The ponencia states that a second motion for reconsideration is
prohibited. But, it must be remembered
that the October 12, 2010 resolution which Land Bank assails itself resulted
from the grant of a third motion for reconsideration filed by AFC-HPI. By then, the February 6, 2007 Decision and
December 19, 2007 Resolution of this Court had already become final and executory,
and Land Bank had already complied with the same by paying the judgment
amounts. By the rule that the ponencia invokes, the Court should not
have reopened the case in the first place.
The immutability doctrine admits exceptions such as:
a) the correction of clerical errors; b) the nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party; c) void
judgments; and d) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the
decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. This case does not fall under any of the
exceptions, nor does it involve life or liberty—only money.
Second. The Court
must recall its October 12, 2010 resolution granting AFC-HPI’s motion for
reconsideration for having been voted on by the Justices present without an
inkling or awareness that it was actually a third motion for reconsideration.
It was not only a prohibited motion like second motions for
reconsideration but, evidently a motion in the category of the not-filed, beyond
judicial cognizance, or non-existent.
The Court unwittingly made a mistake in acting on a “nothing” motion. Consequently, it must rectify this mistake by
immediately recalling such resolution.
And, even if AFC-HPI’s motion can be treated as
another second motion for
reconsideration, which it is not, the Court En Banc violated Section 3,
Rule 15, of its Internal Rules which provides that it cannot entertain a second
motion for reconsideration except upon a vote of two-thirds of its actual
membership in the highest interest of justice.
Thus:
SEC. 3.
Second motion for reconsideration. – The Court shall not entertain a
second motion for reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be
granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of
at least two-thirds of its actual membership.
xxx
Justice Brion of course points out that since twelve
Justices took part in acting on AFC-HPI’s motion for reconsideration, it may be
assumed that such number agreed to entertain the same. But this assumption will not do since the
rules require the taking of “a vote”
on whether to entertain such a motion or not.
An assumption of concurrence is not the equivalent of the taking of a
vote. Moreover, in truth, those who
voted to approve the October 12, 2010 resolution simply forgot to vote before
hand on whether or not to entertain AFC-HPI’s motion for reconsideration.
Notably, it is inevitable that the procedure for
entertaining second motions for reconsideration should follow the two-step
procedure observed when a Division wants to refer a case to the En Banc for its consideration. This requires the En Banc to first accept the referral before acting to decide the
referred case. This was not done in the
present case. The Minutes do not show
that the En Banc voted by at least
two-thirds of its actual membership to entertain the motion for reconsideration
before approving the draft resolution for release.
The omission is fatal to the resolution because the
requirement of a two-thirds vote of the En
Banc’s actual membership is a specially difficult bar that the Justices precisely
adopted unanimously to solve the problem of endless motions for reconsideration
that undermine the stability of the judgments of courts. If the En
Banc ignores this rule to accommodate an award of P1.331 billion in interest
to AFC-HPI, the public who will pay for it would probably not be able to
understand the En Banc’s reason for
making such an exception.
For the above reasons, I vote to RECALL the Court’s Resolution dated October 12, 2010 and REINSTATE the Resolution dated December
4, 2009. This would render moot and
academic the question of whether or not to give due course to respondent Land
Bank’s motion for reconsideration.
ROBERTO
A. ABAD
Associate Justice