Case Digest (G.R. No. 137785)
Facts:
National Power Corporation v. Vine Development Corporation and Romonafe Corporation, G.R. No. 137785, September 04, 2000, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC) instituted an expropriation suit on July 12, 1995, against Vine Development Corporation and Romonafe Corporation for parcels in Dasmariñas, Cavite (Civil Case No. 1140-95, RTC Branch 21, Imus). The trial court issued a writ of possession on January 26, 1996 after NPC deposited the assessed value under P.D. 42 and the Court’s prior ruling in National Power Corporation v. Jocson. A commissioners’ panel recommended just compensation at P3,500.00 per square meter; the PAC earlier set lower valuations but later amended Romonafe’s valuation to P3,500.00 per square meter.
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment on September 5, 1997 declaring the parcels expropriated and ordering NPC to pay just compensation at P3,500.00 per square meter (total sums specified), plus legal interest; the decision was registered with the Registry of Deeds. NPC filed a direct appeal to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 57710).
While the appeal was pending, NPC and Romonafe negotiated and executed a Compromise Agreement under which NPC would acquire 75,397 sq. m. (the 48,103.12 sq. m. subject of the expropriation plus 27,293.88 sq. m.) at P3,500 per sq. m. with an agreed discount, resulting in a net purchase price of P280,000,000.00. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment (Aug. 18, 1998) seeking disapproval of the compromise and later a supplemental comment (filed Sept. 30, 1998) noting that the compromise was signed by NPC’s deputized counsels in alleged violation of their deputation. The CA set the case for oral argument on November 25, 1998; during the December 10, 1998 hearing the Solicitor General appeared and objected to the compromise as disadvantageous and argued that NPC’s deputized lawyers lacked authority to bind the Government. On December 11, 1998 the OSG filed a Manifestation clarifying that its deputized counsels have authority to file notices of appeal in lower courts but not to withdraw appeals, execute compromise agreements, or file pleadings before appellate courts without OSG review and approval.
By CA Resolution dated January 19, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, reasoning that NPC’s house lawyers had no authority to prosecute appeals in the CA and noting the Solicitor General’s alleged motion for dismissal at the hea...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly find that the Solicitor General personally moved for the dismissal of NPC’s appeal during the December 10, 1998 hearing?
- Were the OSG‑deputized lawyers of NPC authorized to file the notice of appeal and otherwise prosecute the appeal to the Court of Appeals?
- Were those deputized lawyers authorized to enter into the Compromise Agreement and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)