G.R. No. 119602 - Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) initiated the Kirahon-Maramag 230 KV Transmission Line Project to improve its transmission system and meet increasing electricity demands.
The project required the acquisition of a 1,314-square meter property owned by Clara C. Bautista, which is located in Brgy. North Poblacion, Maramag, Bukidnon and registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-76986.

Pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9511, NGCP filed a Complaint for Expropriation against respondent, alleging a BIR zonal valuation of P10.00 per sq. m. (totaling P13,140.00) and a cost of improvement amounting to P40,679.36, resulting in a total valuation of P53,819.36.
Respondent contested that the BIR zonal valuation was below the property’s fair market value, arguing that although the property was classified as agricultural, its actual use was residential and adjacent lots were industrial in character.
After a provisional deposit, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay issued a Writ of Possession in favor of petitioner.
The RTC appointed a panel of Commissioners to determine the fair market value, which included:

Commissioner Evelyn A. Lantong (Municipal Assessor – Chairperson),
Commissioner Francisco Y. Cipriano, Jr. (Municipal Planning and Development Office – Member), and
Commissioner Engr. Gilbert Polloso (from petitioner’s office – Member).

Two of the commissioners (Lantong and Cipriano) submitted a report valuing the land at P3,000.00 per sq. m. based on current average sales, highest and best use considerations, and direct comparisons with similar transactions.
Commissioner Polloso, however, submitted a different report recommending a valuation of only P25.00 per sq. m., considering factors such as tax declaration classification and municipal zoning as “agricultural protection.”

On August 20, 2015, the RTC rendered a Judgment awarding NGCP a just compensation of P600.00 per sq. m. (totaling P788,400.00) along with interest and commissary fees, while also addressing the issues raised regarding differing valuation reports.
The RTC found the P25.00 per sq. m. valuation too low and the P3,000.00 per sq. m. valuation too high/speculative, opting instead for an intermediate valuation based on comparable cases and actual property use.
Following NGCP’s Motion for Reconsideration and subsequent modifications (notably the deletion of suit costs), petitioner appealed the RTC decision.

The CA declared that, despite the receipt of a Notice to File Brief, NGCP failed to file the required Appellant’s Brief within the reglementary period.
Based on Section 7, Rule 44 and Section 1(e) of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, the CA ruled that this failure constituted abandonment of the appeal, thus dismissing it.
Petitioner’s subsequent Urgent Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration Cum Clarification was denied, reaffirming that NGCP’s counsel had timely received the requisite Notice and that no sufficient explanation was provided for the lapse.

Whether the failure to file an Appellant’s Brief should mandatorily result in the dismissal of the appeal or if the rules afford the court liberal discretion to allow a belated filing.
Whether overriding public interest factors justify exercising discretion liberally to prevent dismissal.

Whether the RTC erred in basing the valuation on an industrial characterization of the property despite its agricultural classification in tax declarations and municipal zoning ordinances.
Whether the reliance on the BIR zonal valuation at P10.00 per sq. m. by petitioner is correct or if it should be supplemented by other comparative indices such as actual use and adjacent property developments.

Whether petitioner effectively refuted the presumption of regularity by showing that the failure to file the required brief was excusable given the circumstances (e.g., issues with proper notification of counsel).
Whether petitioner’s reliance on prior jurisprudence (e.g., Aguam v. Court of Appeals) is applicable in circumstances where no change of counsel was evidenced.