GR 164195; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164195 ; April 30, 2008
APO FRUITS CORPORATION and HIJO PLANTATION, INC., petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
This case involves the determination of just compensation for lands owned by Apo Fruits Corporation (AFC) and Hijo Plantation, Inc. (HPI) taken under the agrarian reform program. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), acting as a Special Agrarian Court, fixed the compensation at P1,383,179,000.00, with awards for interest, attorney’s fees, and commissioners’ fees. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated February 6, 2007, partially granted the petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the RTC’s valuation of the land. However, in a subsequent Resolution dated December 19, 2007, the Supreme Court reversed itself and deleted the awards for interest and attorney’s fees, citing the ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim.
Following this December 19, 2007 Resolution, both parties filed motions. Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration, essentially seeking a second reconsideration of the Court’s February 6, 2007 Decision. AFC and HPI, for their part, filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, praying for the reinstatement of the interest and attorney’s fees that had been deleted by the December 19, 2007 Resolution.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) Whether LBP’s Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration should be granted; and (2) Whether AFC and HPI’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration, seeking reinstatement of interest and attorney’s fees, had merit.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied both motions. The Court ruled that LBP’s Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration was a prohibited pleading. It constituted a second motion for reconsideration of the Court’s final February 6, 2007 Decision, which is expressly barred under Rule 52, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the December 19, 2007 Resolution, which modified the dispositive portion, was a resolution of the first motion for reconsideration filed by LBP. Therefore, the subsequent Omnibus Motion was a second motion, filed by the same party, and could not be entertained.
Regarding AFC and HPI’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration, the Court found it devoid of merit. The Court held that it had already thoroughly discussed and resolved the issues concerning the deletion of interest and attorney’s fees in its December 19, 2007 Resolution. In that Resolution, the Court applied its ruling in the Lim case, which established that interest in just compensation cases is due only if there is a delay in payment, and that attorney’s fees are not recoverable as a matter of right in eminent domain. Since AFC and HPI failed to present any substantial new arguments to warrant a reversal, the Court saw no reason to revisit its prior ruling. Consequently, both motions were denied with finality.