G.R. No. L-2083 - People vs. Malig

The case originated from a dam constructed by the plaintiff, Luis Toribio, at the intersection of the Iwahig and Binabaye Rivers in Sierra-Bullones, Bohol.
An administrative decision was rendered on February 2, 1921, by the Director of Public Works, which was subsequently approved by the Secretary of Commerce and Communications. This decision favored the defendants.
The trial court, upon hearing the appeal, confirmed the administrative decision and ordered:

The plaintiff to pay the defendants a total of ₱6,450.00 as damages, itemized among various defendants.
The ordering of destruction of the plaintiff’s dam designated as No. 1 in Exhibit 1.
The imposition of costs on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff contended that he was denied due notice and a fair hearing during the administrative proceedings.
He argued that the decision of the Director of Public Works (later confirmed by the Secretary of Commerce and Communications) should be declared null and void due to procedural lapses.
The plaintiff further assigned error by asserting that:

The dam was constructed before the passage of the Irrigation Act in 1912, implying long standing existence.
The dam adversely injured the lands of the defendants, justifying the awarded damages.

While the case was pending before the appellate court, the plaintiff moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
The new evidence comprised documents and witness testimonies indicating:

Feliciano Litub’s death on November 5, 1917, thus challenging his participation as a witness.
Transactions in subsequent years where lands of certain defendants were sold, suggesting that those defendants might not have suffered any crop damage or continued possession of the lands during the trial.

The defendants objected to the motion on the ground that the new witnesses and evidence were already known or should have been discovered earlier, especially given the interruption of the trial for over a year.

The appellate court noted that the evidence intended to be presented was available during the original trial, and its late presentation did not justify a new trial.
The error assignments related to the alleged lack of due notice and the subsequent reversal of the administrative decision were critically examined.
The court pointed out that the plaintiff, by not requesting the annulment of the administrative decision and instead merely seeking its reversal, implicitly admitted the decision's validity.
The change of theory on appeal, particularly regarding the construction date of the dam, was not permissible since the matter could have been addressed at the trial level.

Whether the plaintiff was denied a fair chance to present evidence and to receive due notice and hearing in the administrative proceedings leading to the decision of the Director of Public Works.
Whether the plaintiff’s failure to object at the initial stage (i.e., failing to seek the annulment of the administrative decision) limits his ability to challenge it on appeal.

Whether the dam was indeed constructed in 1914, after the enactment of Act No. 2152, rendering its construction an illegal diversion of river waters.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that the dam caused injury to the lands of the defendants, thereby justifying the award of damages.

Whether the newly presented evidence could have been discovered and presented during the original trial period.
Whether the motion for a new trial based on the fresh evidence was properly justified and should be granted.