ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 137849. June 9, 1999]
SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS vs. CA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 9, 1999.
G.R. No. 137849 (Secretary of Public Works & Highways vs. CA, et al.)
On appeal before this Court is the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 28, 1998, which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and pursuant to the Commissioner's Report executed by the RTC Clerk of Court, Atty. Neferteri S. Cristobal, dated September 6, 1995 and by virtue of the existing preponderance of evidence, the Court hereby enter a judgment (sic) in favor of plaintiffs Manuel F. Celdran, et al, against defendant Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), to wit:
a) Ordering defendant, his agents or representatives to vacate the said premises by removing the building constructed thereon;
b) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff P10,000.00 for attorney's fees;
c) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiffs P5,000.00 monthly representing the reasonable value of the use and occupation of said land, plus legal interest, to commence from February 20, 1985 until defendant shall have vacated the land.
SO ORDERED.1 [Rollo, p. 16.]
This case stems from a complaint for publiciana and damages filed by Manuel, Pedro, Antonio, Jesus, Vicente, all surnamed Celdran (hereinafter referred to as the private respondents) claiming that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land situated in San Miguel, Iligan City, containing an area of 11,539 square meters, more or less, and covered by TCT No. T-36,557; that in 1970, the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) took possession of about 2,000 square meters of the subject parcel of land and constructed a one-storey building thereon with a floor area of 364 sq. m. which is used as the Highway District Engineer's Office in Iligan City; that the said possession and construction were made without the benefit of expropriation proceedings; that on February 25, 1985, District Engineer Mitmug, in reply to the demand to vacate the premises made by the Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Norte, expressed his willingness to rent the same, to which proposal private respondents disagreed; and, that despite repeated demands petitioner failed and refused to vacate the premises.2 [Id., at 16.]
Petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, it being a suit against the State and as such the doctrine of non-suability applies; and, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause docketed as Civil Case No. (92 33 AF) I-383 of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch I, Iligan City.3 [Ibid.]
Petitioner's motion to dismiss having been denied, he filed an answer asserting that the property on which the DPWH Compound is located is government property; that the State has not given its consent to be sued; that DPWH took possession thereof by virtue of the State's power of eminent domain; that the complaint states no cause of action; and, that the complaint contains no certification of non-forum shopping.4 [Id., at 16-17.]
Issues having been joined, the Regional Trial Court in its Order of June 5, 1995, required the parties to submit their respective pre-trial briefs and set the pre-trial on June 14, 1995. Only private respondents filed a pre-trial brief.5 [Ibid.]
Upon petitioner's motion, the Regional Trial Court reset the pre-trial to August 16, 1995. Petitioner failed to appear despite notice. Consequently, the Regional Trial Court, upon private respondents' motion, declared petitioner as in default and authorized the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Cristobal, to receive evidence ex-parte.6 [Ibid.]
On September 6, 1995, Commissioner Cristobal submitted his report recommending that the reliefs prayed for in the complaint be granted.7 [Ibid.]
On September 8, 1995, Legal Officer Paruc Maruhon of DPWH, Region XII, filed a verified motion to lift order of default, which motion was denied by the Regional Trial Court in its order dated October 9, 1995.8 [Ibid.]
On January 15, 1996, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of herein private respondents. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed said decision to the Court of Appeals which, as aforestated, affirmed in toto the lower court's decision.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari wherein petitioner raises the following issues:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS MISAPPRECIATED FACTS, AND VIOLATED DUE PROCESS, RENDERING ITS DECISION VOID.
II
THE DECISION IS VOID BECAUSE IT VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-SUABILITY OF THE STATE WITHOUT ITS CONSENT.
III
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DID NOT DISMISS CIVIL CASE 2818 ON GROUND OF PENDENCY OF AN EJECTMENT SUIT INVOLGING THE SAME PARTIES, PROPERTY AND ISSUE OF FACTUAL POSSESSION.
IV
IF GIVEN HIS DAY IN COURT PETITIONER HAS MERITORIOUS DEFENSES TO OVERCOME RESPONDENTS' CAUSES OF ACTION.9 [Id., at 4.]
Petitioner contends that his failure to file pre-trial brief was not unjustified. He alleges that there was insufficient time given to the DPWH's legal division to enter appearance and file pre-trial brief since the endorsement of the Office of the Solicitor General, who initially handled the case, was sent to the central office, and the local counsel got hold of the documents endorsed only after the default order was issued. A motion for reconsideration was immediately filed on September 8, 1995. Petitioner alleges that he was separately notified of the pre-trial settings on June 14, 1995, and August 16, 1995.10 [Id., at 6.]
Petitioner further contends that the principle of non-suability of the state without its consent is applicable to the present case inasmuch as: a) the property subject of the case is a government building; b) the case seeks for damages against the coffers of the government, and recover government property; and, c) the defendant (herein petitioner) is a Department Secretary and is the adjunct of the Chief Executive.11 [Id., at 7.]
Petitioner asseverates that all the elements of litis pendentia are present in this case: Civil Case No. (92 33 AF) I-383 for ejectment was still pending in the Municipal Court when Civil Case No. 2818 was filed by private respondents with the RTC Branch 02, Lanao del Norte; and the issues raised, and the reliefs sought are the same in both cases.
The petition is devoid of merit. We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals.
Records show that despite receipt of notice of the pre-trial conference, the Office of the Solicitor General failed to file a pre-trial at least three (3) days before the date set therefor. Petitioner having unjustifiably failed to file pre-trial brief within a reasonable period, the Regional Trial Court committed no error in issuing the order of default.12 [Id., at 18.]
Petitioner's contention that the complaint is a suit against the State without its consent deserves scant consideration.13 [Ibid.]
It is settled that consent need not be express. It can be implied. It is implied when the government, ordinarily benefited by the taking of the land, failed to institute the necessary condemnation proceedings.14 [Santiago v. Republic, 87 SCRA 294, cited in CA Decision, Rollo, p. 18.]
The Court of Appeals further found that the subject parcel of land was donated to the Province of Lanao del Norte on the condition that the same shall be used as the site of the Provincial Capitol and the ownership thereof shall revert to the private respondents in the event that it ceases to be used as such. When the Provincial Capitol was transferred to Tubod, Lanao del Norte, private respondents filed a complaint for the recovery of the land. In 1984, by virtue of a Compromise Agreement entered into between the private respondents and the Province of Lanao del Norte, part of the property was redonated for the site of the judiciary building. As it is, the DPWH's one-storey building was part of the lot that reverted to private respondents. Engineer Mitmug's willingness to rent the premises bolters private respondents' claim that the government took possession of the subject lot sans the requisite expropriation proceedings.15 [Id., at 18.]
It is not disputed that the government received benefits from the use of the private respondents' property. Under the circumstances, the fundamental postulate of non-suability cannot stand in the way. The doctrine of government immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen.16 [Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of Cebu, 40 SCRA 464, cited in CA Decision, Id., at 19.]
With regard to petitioner's claim that the complaint is dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia, the Court of Appeals found that the alleged ejectment case (Civil Case No, I-383) was archived during the pendency of the case at bench.17 [Rollo, p. 19.]
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition for review is hereby DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
