Case Digest (G.R. No. 130118)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Pedro M. Sunga, Jr., and Tetro Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 130118, July 09, 1998, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court (Regalado, (Chairman), Puno, and Martinez, JJ., concur; Melo, J., no part).On February 10, 1992, private respondent Tetro Enterprises, Inc. filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Regional Director of DPWH Region III. The case was assigned to Branch 41 of the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga, presided over by Judge Pedro M. Sunga, Jr. Tetro alleged ownership by TCT No. 283205-R of a 12,643 sq.m. lot, and that the government in 1974 had constructed part of the Olongapo–Gapan Road on the property without expropriation or negotiated sale; it sought return of the land, removal of the road, actual damages, monthly rentals and attorneys’ fees.
The parties agreed to have a board of commissioners determine the property’s actual value. By Order dated November 25, 1994, the RTC constituted a three-man board: Eller V. Garcia (real estate broker) for private respondent, Abraham Sison (Provincial Assessor of Pampanga) representing the government, and Juan P. Limpin, Jr. as chairman. The board’s December 8, 1995 report recommended a just price between P4,000 and P6,000 per square meter, noting the lot’s conversion from sugarcane to commercial use after the road’s construction.
Relying on the board’s report, the RTC fixed compensation at P6,000 per sq.m. (total P75,858,000) in a decision dated September 2, 1996. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) received a copy on September 9, 1996 and filed a motion for reconsideration on September 17, 1996 that did not include proof of service as required by Rule 15, Sec. 6 (1964 Rules of Civil Procedure). The RTC denied the motion on October 3, 1996 as meritless and a “mere scrap of paper” for lack of proof of service; the OSG received that order on December 6, 1996.
Private respondent moved for execution on December 3, 1996; the RTC granted it on December 23, 1996. Although petitioner filed a notice of appeal on December 13, 1996, the RTC denied the notice on January 7, 1997 as untimely because the decision had become final. Petitioner then sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals to set aside the RTC’s October 3, December 23, 1996 and January 7, 1997 orders. The Court of Appeals (decision per Justice Cancio C. Garcia, concurred in by Justices Agcaoili and Tuquero) dismissed the petition on June 9, 1997 and denied reconsideration on August 6, 1997, holding that the absence of proof of service rendered the motion ineffective and did not toll the appeal period.
Petitioner brought this Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals rigidly applied procedural rules, causing a miscarriage of justice; it asserted substantial compliance because a registry return card showed a copy of the motion was mailed to private respondent’s counsel on September 18, 1996 and received on September 24, 1996, and that ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals rightly affirm the RTC’s refusal to give effect to petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on the ground that it lacked proof of service, thereby causing the RTC decision to become final and executory?
- Should the Court require that the appeal be given due course so the substantive question—whether compensation should be based on value at the time of taking i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)