THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224621. April 18, 2018.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. SPOUSES MANUEL AND ANGELICA LIM, FAITH HOPE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SPOUSES PAZ LIM and CHIO TONG BEN, BENITO ANTIGUA POULTRY CORPORATION, and GRAND LAND, INC., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 18, 2018, which reads as follows: CAacTH
"G.R. No. 224621 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES MANUEL AND ANGELICA LIM, FAITH HOPE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SPOUSES PAZ LIM and CHIO TONG BEN, BENITO ANTIGUA POULTRY CORPORATION, and GRAND LAND, INC., Respondents.) — The Republic of the Philippines appeals the decision promulgated on November 23, 2015, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed its petition for certiorari filed to assail the order issued in Civil Case No. CEB-25019 on February 11, 2014 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City.
The CA recalled the following factual and procedural antecedents:
Petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Case CEB-25019 for Expropriation filed against private respondents and other co-defendants before respondent court.
On December 13, 2001, respondent court rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered directing plaintiff to pay the following sums to the following defendants with legal interest from the time of taking:
(1) Sps. Manuel and Angelica Lim — P675,000.00
(2) Philippine National Oil Company — 3,855,000.00
(3) Faith Hope Development Corp. — 8,021,250.00
(4) Sps. Paz Lim and Chio Tong Ben — 270,000.00
(5) Sps. Carlos and Susana Co — 825,000.00
(6) Benito Antigua Poultry Corp. — P3,420,000.00
(7) Samantabhadra Educational Institute — 3,315,000.00
(8) Grand Land, Inc. — 840,000.00
and the just compensation/fair market value.
The fees of the commissioners shall be taxed as part of the cost of the proceedings, to be paid by the plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.'
The above-quoted Decision became final and executory, per Certificate of Finality issued on June 29, 2009. 2
In view of the finality of the decision, the respondents separately moved for the release of payment, and prayed for interest to be imposed.
After due proceedings, the RTC issued several orders acting on the different motions filed by the respondents. Resolving respondent Faith Hope Development Corporation's motion for approval of current computation, the RTC issued its order dated January 31, 2013 3 imposing the interest rate at 6% per annum, disposing thusly: IAETDc
WHEREFORE, the current computation of plaintiff's obligations as of September 30, 2012 totalling to (sic) P12,484,283.35 and the monthly interest of P114,534.71 for the year 2012 and the monthly interest of P128,278.87 for the year 2013 is hereby approved.
The formula used in arriving [at] such amount will then be used in computing the obligation of plaintiff for the years to come until the obligation is fully paid.
As manifested by the office of the Solicitor General, the interest should be computed as 6% per annum
SO ORDERED. 4
On reconsideration, the RTC increased the interest rate imposed on the obligation from 6% per annum to 12% per annum; and granted the respective motions of respondents Benito Antigua Poultry Corporation and Grand Land, Inc. to release the amounts awarded to them and imposed interest of 3% per month. The RTC decreed in its resolution dated July 8, 2013 as follows: 5
WHEREFORE, Faith Hope Development Corporation's partial motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED.
The last proviso of the order dated January 31, 2013 now reads as 'interest at 12% per annum.'
Benito Antigua Poultry Corporation's motion to release payment with prayer for interest is hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiff Republic/DPWH is directed to release the awarded amounts to defendant Benito Antigua Poultry Corporation plus its corresponding interest at three (3) percent per month from the time the decision was rendered up to the time of its release:
|
Principal |
Interest |
Total Amount |
|
P3,420,000.00 |
P12,004,200.00 |
P15,424,200.00 |
Defendant Republic/DPWH is ordered to release the awarded amounts to defendant Grand Land, Inc., plus corresponding interest at three (3) percent per month from the time the decision was rendered up to the time of its release:
|
Principal |
Interest |
Total Amount |
|
P840,00.00 |
P2,948,400.00 |
P3,788,400.00 |
SO ORDERED. 6
The motion for reconsideration of the petitioner was denied by the RTC on February 21, 2014, 7 to wit:
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Motion for Reconsideration of the court's Order dated July 8, 2013 should be, as it is hereby denied for lack of basis.
SO ORDERED. 8
Meanwhile, the RTC issued another order on February 11, 2014, 9 granting the motions of respondents Spouses Manuel and Angelica Lim and Spouses Ma. Paz Lim and Chio Tong Ben to release payment with the imposition of interest, and ordering the petitioner to pay the amount due with interest of 3% per month, as follows:
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that the total amount of THREE MILLION FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (Php3,044,250.00) PESOS be release (sic) to Sps. Manuel T. Lim and Angelica S.J. Lim (representing principal and interest) and the total amount of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED (Php1,217,700) PESOS to Sps. Paz Lim and Chio Tong Ben (representing principal and interest). DcHSEa
SO ORDERED. 10
The petitioner challenged on certiorari in the CA the three latter issuances of the RTC, specifically: the resolution dated July 8, 2013; the order dated February 21, 2014; and the order dated February 11, 2014.
Although siding with the petitioner and modifying the interest rate imposed in the RTC's resolution dated July 8, 2013, the CA dismissed the petitioner's certiorari challenge against the RTC's February 11, 2014 order for being premature because the petitioner had not filed any motion for reconsideration before filing the petition for certiorari. The CA ruled:
Consequently, the Petition for Certiorari against the February 11, 2014 Order is DISMISSED. The succeeding parts of this Decision pertains [sic] only to the assailed Resolution of July 8, 2013 and the assailed Order of February 21, 2014.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Resolution dated July 8, 2013 is MODIFIED in that the rate of interest on the just compensation payable by petitioner private respondents Faith Hope Development Corporation, Benito Antigua Poultry Corporation and Grand Land, Inc., shall be twelve (12%) per annum until June 30, 2013 and six (6%) percent per annum beginning July 1, 2013 until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.11
The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion on April 29, 2016. 12
Hence, this appeal, wherein the petitioner submits that the CA erred in dismissing its certiorari challenge against the RTC's order dated February 11, 2014; that although the general rule is that the motion for reconsideration is necessary before a party can avail itself of a petition for certiorari, its case fell under a recognized exception; 13 that the RTC's order dated February 11, 2014 was null and void for having no legal basis; and that the reversal of the CA's order of dismissal and the modification of the interest rate should follow. 14
Did the CA err in dismissing the certiorari challenge against the order dated February 11, 2014 of the RTC?
Ruling of the Court
The petition for review on certiorari is denied for being filed out of time and for lack of merit.
First of all, the Court notes that the petition for review on certiorari, being filed on July 15, 2016, was brought beyond the reglementary period. The petitioner received on May 30, 2016 the CA's resolution dated April 29, 2016 denying the motion for reconsideration. 15 Thereafter, the petitioner requested a 30-day extension counted from the expiration of the original period, or from June 14, 2016. The petitioner erroneously pegged the 30th day at July 15, 2016 in its motion for extension of time despite the 30th day being really July 14, 2016. 16
In the resolution promulgated on September 21, 2016, 17 the Court granted the petitioner's motion for the 30-day extension, but did not agree with the petitioner's erroneous fixing of the last day. Hence, the petitioner's reliance on its erroneous computation led to the order attaining finality. SCaITA
It is doctrinal that the perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and that the failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision of the trial court final and executory. This rule is founded upon the principle that the right to appeal is not part of the guarantee of due process of law but a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. 18
Equally important is that a decision that has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. 19
It is true that there are instances in which the Court extends liberality in order to allow appeals despite their being filed out of time. Yet, such instances have been premised on the existence of extraordinary circumstances that warrant excusing the erring litigants from their misstep. 20 Here, the Court cannot find any justifiable explanation why the petitioner miscounted the period for filing the petition for review.
Nonetheless, even if the Court was to turn a blind eye on the petitioner's misstep, the Court sees nothing wrong in the CA's dismissal of the certiorari petition assailing the February 11, 2014 order of the RTC. In Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, 21 the Court explained the requirements and nature of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, thus:
Certiorari is a writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court of record, or other tribunal or officer, exercising a judicial function, requiring the certification and return to the former of some proceeding then pending, or the record and proceedings in some cause already terminated, in cases where the procedure is not according to the course of the common law. The remedy is brought against a lower court, board, or officer rendering a judgment or order and seeks the annulment or modification of the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and the granting of such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. It is available when the following indispensable elements concur, to wit:
1. That it is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
2. That such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and
3. That there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Certiorari being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the same must strictly observe the rules laid down by law. [Emphasis Supplied]
It is clear from the third indispensable element, supra, that a motion for reconsideration be first filed before bringing the petition for certiorari. Such motion for reconsideration was an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 22 The raison d'etre of the requirement is to give the tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function an opportunity to rectify errors or mistakes it may have committed. 23
While the petitioner insists that its case came under the exceptions to the rule, inasmuch as the order dated February 11, 2014 was void for having no legal basis to stand on, the Court considers this justification an afterthought that was unworthy of serious consideration. The records reveal that the petitioner's petition for certiorari filed in the CA did not show and even justify why a motion for reconsideration for the order dated February 11, 2014 was being dispensed with. It was only when the CA castigated the petitioner for its shortcomings did it insist on its case not requiring a prior motion for reconsideration.
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the CA's rulings should stand.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the cost of the suit. aTHCSE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 41-47; penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurred in by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi.
2.Id. at 43-44.
3.Id. at 89-90.
4.Id. at 90.
5.Id. at 136-139.
6.Id. at 139.
7.Id. at 107-110.
8.Id. at 110.
9.Id. at 140-143.
10.Id. at 143.
11.Id. at 43-47.
12.Id. at 58-61; penned by Associate Justice Legaspi, and concurred in by Associate Justice Abella Maxino and Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig.
13.Id. at 25.
14. Id. at 26.
15. Id. at 16.
16. See Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court, thus: In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of performance included. If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day.
17. Rollo, pp. 348-349.
18. Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129846, January 18, 2000, 322 SCRA 81, 87-88.
19. FGU Insurance Corporation v. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66, G.R. No. 161282, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 50, 56.
20. See Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129846, January 18, 2000, 322 SCRA 81, 88.
21. G.R. No. 156358, August 17, 2011, 655 SCRA 553, 568-569.
22. Delos Reyes v. Flores, G.R. No. 168726, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 270, 277.
23. Republic v. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI), G.R. No. 178593, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 199, 205.