SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 173226. January 31, 2018.]
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. MANUEL O. GALLEGO, JR., ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated31 January, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 173226 (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Manuel O. Gallego, Jr., et al.). — For the consideration of the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2013 filed by petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) assailing our Resolution dated July 29, 2013 1 in the instant case. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of these considerations, we collectively hereby award respondents Manuel O. Gallego, Jr., Joseph L. Gallego, and Christopher L. Gallego the sum of Fifty-Two Million, Four Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand, Sixty-Three Pesos and 89/100 (P52,432,063.89) as just compensation for the property covered by G.R. No. 173226, Land Bank of the Philippines v. Manuel O. Gallego, Jr., et al., with interests at twelve percent (12%) on the outstanding principal. In light of the initial payments of P1,179,027.00 (per the May 13, 2002 Regional Trial Court-Special Agrarian Court order), P2,000,000.00 (per the November 5, 2004 Court of Appeals resolution), and P26,359,793.38 (per the May 26, 2010 letter of the respondents' counsel), corresponding deductions should be made from the total principal due in reckoning the interests and the total amount still due as final payment under this Resolution. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
In the instant motion, the LBP raises the following issues:
I
GROUNDS
A
THE VALUATION FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO PHP FIFTY TWO MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND SIXTY THREE PESOS & 89/100 (PHP52,432,063.89) DOES NOT STRICTLY CONFORM TO DAR A.O. NO. 05, SERIES OF 1998.
B
THE AWARD OF INTEREST IS HIGHLY IMPROPER IN THE ABSENCE OF A FINDING OF UNDUE DELAY ON THE PART OF PETITIONER LBP.
C
GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS PROPER, INTEREST FOR AN OBLIGATION DEEMED AS FORBEARANCE OF MONEY IS ONLY SIX (6%) PERCENT PER ANNUM AS THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS DECREED IN A NEW CIRCULAR THAT TOOK EFFECT ON 01 JULY 2013. 2
The motion must be denied.
Anent the first issue, the LBP argues that:
2.16. To recall, the earlier Decision of the High Court directed the computation of the just compensation for subject property strictly in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 05, Series of 1998. Petitioner LBP resorted to a strict adherence to the foregoing Administrative Order in arriving at PhP24,665,749.99 as just compensation.
2.17. Consequently, it is respectfully submitted that the Court of Appeals' justification for using "x x x all three factors of CNI, CS and MV" as "relevant and applicable" is diametrically opposed to the Supreme Court's explicit directive that DAR A.O. No. 05, Series of 1998, must be strictly followed.
2.18. Substantial compliance, as previously shown, does not meet the requirement of strict compliance which the Supreme Court earlier decreed in the instant case. 3
While in the second issue, the LBP contends that:
2.24. If the resulting valuation is not substantial as respondent-landowners expected, this alleged inability to meet what is expected cannot be attributed to petitioner LBP as it only determined the just compensation based on the factors enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657. 4
An examination of these allegations of the LBP shows that they are merely rehashed issues that the Court already passed upon in its Resolution dated July 29, 2013. As such, the same need no longer be discussed. The Court explained this principle in Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers v. Lim: 5
The grounds relied on being mere reiterations of the issues already passed upon by the Court, there is no need to "cut and paste" pertinent portions of the Decision or re-write the ponencia in accordance with the outline of the instant motion.
As succinctly put by then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa in Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco on the effect and disposition of a motion for reconsideration: aScITE
The filing of a motion for reconsideration, authorized by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, does not impose on the Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor, in much the same way that the Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised and submitted for decision. This would be a useless formality or ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be a needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being, as above stated, deemed waived because not asserted at the first opportunity. It suffices for the Court to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a legal ground for its denial (Sec. 14, Art. VIII, Constitution); i.e., the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its judgment, or the basic issues have already been passed upon, or the motion discloses no substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant reconsideration or modification of the judgment or final order; or the arguments in the motion are too unsubstantial to require consideration, etc.
Nevertheless, as to the third issue, regarding the application of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, series of 2013 dated July 1, 2013 to the instant case, the LBP's contention is well taken. In Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 6 the Court recognized the application of the circular to the rate of legal interest for loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments thereby reducing the rate from 12% per annum to 6% per annum. The Court further ruled therein that such rate should be applied prospectively from July 1, 2013. Thus, the Resolution of the Court must be modified accordingly.
WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2013 is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Resolution dated July 29, 2013 is hereby MODIFIED decreasing the legal interest on the outstanding capital from 12% to 6% starting July 1, 2013.
As modified, our Resolution dated July 29, 2013 shall read as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of these considerations, we collectively hereby award respondents Manuel O. Gallego, Jr., Joseph L. Gallego, and Christopher L. Gallego the sum of Fifty-Two Million, Four Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand, Sixty-Three Pesos and 89/100 (P52,432,063.89) as just compensation for the property covered by G.R. No. 173226, Land Bank of the Philippines v. Manuel O. Gallego, Jr., et al., with interests at twelve percent (12%) on the outstanding principal from January 1, 1973 to June 30, 2013 and six percent (6%) on the outstanding principal from July 1, 2013 until full payment. In light of the initial payments of P1,179,027.00 (per the May 13, 2002 Regional Trial Court-Special Agrarian Court order), P2,000,000.00 (per the November 5, 2004 Court of Appeals resolution), and P26,359,793.38 (per the May 26, 2010 letter of the respondents' counsel), corresponding deductions should be made from the total principal due in reckoning the interests and the total amount still due as final payment under this Resolution. No costs.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. G.R. No. 173226, July 29, 2013, 702 SCRA 377.
2.Rollo, pp. 911-912.
3.Id. at 915.
4.Id. at 916.
5. G.R. No. 187836, March 10, 2015, 752 SCRA 215, 221.
6. G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013.