Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. Nos. 154211-12 : March 16, 2010] SPOUSES CURATA, ET AL. V. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY [G.R. NO. 158252] PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY V. REMEDIOS ROSALES-BONDOC, ET AL. [G.R. NO. 166200] PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY V. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS [SPECIAL SIXTEENTH DIVISION], ET AL. [G.R. NO. 168272] ROSALINDA BUENAFE AND MELENCIO CASTILLO V. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY< [G.R. NO. 170683] PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY V. CAROLINE B. ACOSTA, ABIGAIL B. ACOSTA, NEMESIO D. BALINA AND ERLINDA D. BALINA [G.R. NO. 173392] PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY V. REMEDIOS ROSALES-BONDOC, ET AL.:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 16, 2010

"G.R. Nos. 154211-12 (Spouses Curata, et al. v. Philippine Ports Authority)

G.R. No. 158252 (Philippine Ports Authority v. Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al.)

G.R. No. 166200 (Philippine Ports Authority v. Honorable Court of Appeals [Special Sixteenth Division], et al.)

G.R. No. 168272 (Rosalinda Buenafe and Melencio Castillo v. Philippine Ports Authority)

G.R. No. 170683 (Philippine Ports Authority v. Caroline B. Acosta, Abigail B. Acosta, Nemesio D. Balina and Erlinda D. Balina)

G.R. No. 173392 (Philippine Ports Authority v. Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al.)"

R E S O L U T I O N

Before the Court are: (1) various Motions for Reconsideration filed by the lot owners; (2) Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) praying for the application of 6% interest instead of 12% on the award of just compensation; and (3) Manifestation and Urgent Motion filed by Atty. Dimayacyac, Sr. for the payment of attorney's fees.

In its June 22, 2009 Decision, the Court set the just compensation for subject properties at PhP 425 per square meter by amending the July 10, 2000 and August 15, 2000 Regional Trial Court (RTC) Orders, which granted just compensation at an extraordinarily high level of PhP 5,500 per square meter.

The motions for reconsideration are bereft of merit.

Therein, the lot owners raise, among others, the issue that the subject lots cannot be correctly considered as agricultural lots at the time of the taking but have the classification of industrial and/or commercial. Essentially, the arguments raised and the citations in support thereof are but a mere rehash and repetition of their previous positions presented in their respective comments and/or petitions, which have been amply and extensively discussed in our disquisition in the assailed decision. We will not stress or reiterate them over again. Suffice it to say that the assailed July 10, 2000 and August 15, 2000 RTC Orders granting an extraordinarily high level of just compensation were not duly supported by evidence on record. We scrutinized at length the records and pieces of evidence presented vis-a-vis the applicable laws, jurisprudence, and administrative issuances bearing on the subject properties. And we found that the trial court either omitted or glossed over several pieces of evidence that must be given evidentiary weight and that would indeed change the outcome of the determination of just compensation. We, perforce, considered those pieces of evidence as proper basis of our Decision for the determination of just compensation.

In his "Manifestation and Urgent Motion to Allow Filing of Attorney's Lien upon the Related Decision/Judgment Issued by This Honorable Court, in the Above-Entitled Cases, Promulgated on June 22, 2009, Copy of which has been Received by the Undersigned Law Firm on July 6, 2009, in the Best Interest of Law and Justice and Protection of the Officers of this Honorable Court who have Provided Legal Services to Ungrateful Clients for more than Nine (9) years on Contingent Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Who [Deserve] and Being Entitled to Legal Protection as Provided for under Rule 138, Section 37 of the Revised Rules of Court," dated July 20, 2009, Atty. Dimayacyac, Sr. alleges the ungratefulness of some of his clients who are reneging on their obligation to pay him for his legal services of over nine years. While Atty. Dimayacyac, Sr. is entitled to his just and proper attorney's fees, the issue, however, is best resolved squarely by the trial court and not by this Court.

In its Motion for Partial Reconsideration (To Set Final Doctrine on Legal Interest), dated July 20, 2009, PPA prays for a re-examination of the legal interest applicable to expropriation proceedings and for it to be pegged at the rate of 6% instead of 12%. This issue has been amply addressed in the assailed decision, and there is no cogent reason to revisit the same. Suffice it to say that the 12% interest, when proper, is the rate applicable to expropriation cases where there is delay in the payment of just compensation, for then it becomes an effective forbearance and should help eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value of the currency over time.^[1] While setting the 12% interest in expropriation cases, the Court, however, has also consistently held that where there is no delay in the payment of just compensation on the part of the Government or its agency, an award of interest in the concept of damages is unwarranted.^[2]

In the assailed decision, the Court found that PPA did incur delay in the payment of just compensation with respect to the payment of just compensation to some of the lot owners, waiTanting the imposition of 12% interest on the just compensation from the date of PPA's entry into the subject lots on September 11, 2001. Some of the owners sold their lots to PPA during the pendency of the consolidated cases, while others received payments as a result of the enforcement of the writs of execution of the RTC. In sum, the payment of the 12% interest per annum reckoned from the date of PPA's entry to the expropriated lots on September 11, 2001 applies to lots whose owners have not received any partial payment from PPA. For those who received partial payments, only the remaining balance shall earn interest at 12% per annum from September 11, 2001. Lot owners who voluntarily sold their lots to PPA are not entitled to the 12% per annum interest. Lot owners who were paid in excess of what is due them as just compensation shall refund the same to PPA.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to:

(1) DENY with FINALITY the Motions for Reconsideration filed by the lot owners (in G.R. Nos. 154211-12, 158252, 166200, 168272, 170683 and 173392) for lack of merit;

(2) REFER the Manifestation and Motion on the payment of attorney's fees filed by Atty. Dimayacyac, Sr. to the RTC, Branch 84 in Batangas City for its resolution; and

(3) DENY with FINALITY the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by PPA for lack of merit.

No further pleadings shall be entertained.

Let an Entry of Judgment be issued upon receipt of this Resolution by all parties." Villarama, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Reyes v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 147511, January 20, 2003, 395 SCRA 494, 505, applying Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA 611, which cited Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78 and US v. Klamath and Moadoc Tribes, 304 US 119, 82 L Ed 1219, 58 S Ct 799. See also National Housing Authority v. Heirs of Guivelondo, G.R. No. 166518, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 213; Apo Fruits Corp. and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164195, December 19, 2007, 541 SCRA 117; Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147245, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 516; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, G.R. No. 140160, January 13, 2004, 419 SCRA 67.

^[2] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Kumassie Plantation Company, Inc., G.R. No. 178097, June 25, 2009,591 SCRA 1; Land Bank ofthe Philippines v. Chico, G.R. No. 168453, March 13,2009,581 SCRA 226; Apo Fruits Corp. and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, supra.