THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 214902, January 22, 2020
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. HEIRS OF BARTOLOME J. SANCHEZ, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
CARANDANG, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules), assailing the Decision2 dated September 16, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 03926-MIN, filed by petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).
IN VIEW THEREOF, the foregoing manifestation is hereby noted. The defendants in the above-captioned case are hereby directed to deposit with the office or the Clerk of Court-RTC, Butuan City the following amount, to wit:LBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration,8 which was denied in a Resolution9 dated September 9, 2010.10 LBP filed a petition for certiorari in the CA.
1. Chairman - Board of Commissioners - P 40,000.002. Member -do- P 30,000.003. Member -do- P 30,000.004. Technical Assistant -do- P 10,000.005. Secretary-Encoder -do- P 10,000.00 ---------TOTAL P120,000.00
Thereafter, the above-mentioned amount may be withdrawn only by the persons concerned upon order of this Court.
SO ORDERED.7 (Emphasis in the original)
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition for certiorari is DENIED.The assailed Order and Resolution are sustained as to the award of commissioners' fees, but the respondent court is DIRECTED to make a detailed computation of the commissioners' fees based on the time actually and necessarily employed by each of the commissioners in the performance of their duties, consistent with Rule 141, Section 16 of the Rules of Court.In denying LBP's petition for certiorari, the CA held that it failed to substantiate that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the SAC in ordering the payment of commissioners' fees.13 the CA found that the issues raised by LBP do not involve errors of jurisdiction but merely errors in judgment that cannot be corrected by certiorari.14 the CA pointed out that the "plaintiff" referred to in Section 12 of Rule 67 of the Rules, who shall shoulder the costs of the suit, including commissioners' fees, is the DAR, through LBP.15
SO ORDERED.12
Sec. 12. Costs, by whom paid. - The fees of the commissioners shall be taxed as a part of the costs of the proceedings. All costs, except those of rival claimants litigating their claims, shall be paid by the plaintiff, unless an appeal is taken by the owner of the property and the judgment is affirmed, in which event the costs of the appeal shall be paid by the owner.It must also be pointed out that the conclusion of the CA that the "plaintiff" referred to in Section 12 of Rule 67 of the Rules is the DAR, through LBP, is erroneous.
x x x [I]n agrarian expropriation cases, the owner of the property may voluntarily offer to sell his land as sanctioned in DAR A.O. No. 03, series of 1989. Appropriately, the initial case filed with the RTC-SAC is not for the determination of the propriety of the exercise of the power of eminent domain, but for the resolution of the proper valuation of the property if the landowner disagrees with the findings of the DAR[.]30 (Emphasis supplied.)In this case, the "plaintiff," who initiated the complaint for the determination of just compensation, is not the Republic, but the Heirs of Sanchez, who found the valuation of the property made by DAR unacceptable. Therefore, even applying Section 12, Rule 67 of the Rules to the agrarian reform proceeding, the conclusion remains the same. LBP is not liable to pay commissioners' fees.
Sec. 16. Fees of commissioners in eminent domain proceedings. - The commissioners appointed to appraise land sought to be condemned for public uses in accordance with these rules shall each receive a compensation to be fixed by the court of NOT LESS THAN [THREE HUNDRED] (P300.00) [PESOS] per day for the time actually and necessarily employed in the performance of their duties and in making their report to the court, which fees shall be taxed as a part of the costs of the proceedings. (Emphasis supplied.)In this case, a declaration that the amount of P120,000.00 commissioners' fees is legally justified, at this stage of the proceedings, would be premature, and requires the remand of the case to the SAC. As pointed out by LBP, the case is still in the trial stage. Moreover, the commissioners have not submitted their report up to now, since the other commissioners have not taken their oath yet. The proper amount of commissioners' fees to be paid by the Heirs of Sanchez must be based on time actually spent by the commissioners in performing their duties and in making their report, as stated in Section 16, Rule 141 of the Rules.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 26-49.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello, with Associate Justices Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court) and Pablito A. Perez, concurring; id. at 55-61.
3 Id. at 165.
4 Id. at 166.
5 Id. at 124.
6 Penned by Presiding Judge Augustus L. Calo; id. at 123-124.
7 Id. at 124.
8 Id. at 125-129.
9 Penned by Presiding Judge Augustus L. Calo; id. at 130-131.
10 Id. at 131.
11 Supra note 2.
12Rollo, pp. 60-61.
13 Id. at 57.
14 Id. at 59-60.
15 Id. at 58.
16 Id. at 60-61 .
17 Id. at 34-43.
18 Id. at 43-44.
19 Id. at 44.
20 Id. at 145-147.
21 Id. at 112-113.
22 Id. at 146.
23Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rivera, 649 Phil. 575, 589 (2010).
24 711 Phil. 98 (2013).
25 747 Phil. 691 (2014).
26 G.R. No. 221571, July 29, 2019.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id.