SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202753. March 4, 2013.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY, petitioner, vs. HENRY L. SY and CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 March 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 202753 (LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY, petitioner, v. HENRY L. SY and CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, respondents). — Before us is the motion for reconsideration 1 of the Court's November 14, 2012 Resolution 2 denying the Local Government of Quezon City's (petitioner) petition for review on certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court for failure to show any reversible error in the assailed decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction. TECIaH
Petitioner argues that the CA gravely erred when it held that the petitioner is liable to pay respondent Henry L. Sy (Sy) exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
The petitioner failed to raise substantial and/or new arguments that would merit a reconsideration of our November 14, 2012 Resolution. The issues and discussions raised in the motion are mere rehashes of the arguments that were already raised and considered in our Resolution on the petition for review on certiorari.
Republic Act No. 8974 or "An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes" requires the government to make immediate payment to the property owner upon the filing of the complaint before a writ of possession may be issued; Section 19 of the Local Government Code also has the same requisite. In the present case, the petitioner was already in possession of the property as early as 1986. It was only in 1994 when the ordinance was approved; and in 1996, the complaint was filed.
The petitioner differentiates this case from the case of Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez. 4 The delay in the present case was only for 10 years, while the delay in the case of Manila International Airport Authority was for more than 20 years. The difference in the length of possession, however, is immaterial. What are essential in the award of exemplary damages in expropriation proceedings are the presence of the expropriator's wanton acts and the need for correction after the expropriator occupied the lot without the benefit of expropriation proceedings or negotiations with the property owners — the exact circumstances present in this case.
On the award of attorney's fees, since there is an award of exemplary damages, then it must necessarily follow. EaHIDC
WHEREFORE, the Court Resolves to DENY with FINALITY petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Court's resolution dated November 14, 2012 for lack of merit.
No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 72-80.
2. Id. at 70-71.
3. Id. at 44-64; dated January 20, 2012. Penned by Justice Romeo F. Barza, and concurred in by Justices Noel G. Tijam and Edwin D. Sorongon.
4. 518 Phil. 750 (2006).