|
THE
Supreme Court has affirmed with finality its decision
requiring the government to pay Davao del Norte land
owners P1 billion in a case arising from the insistence
of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to value lands
volunteered to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) only at P416.6 million, believed too low by the
owners.
A
decision written for the Third Division by Associate
Justice Minita Chico-Nazario dismissed the motion for
reconsideration filed by the LBP, for being a second
motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited
pleading.
The
decision affirmed was the Court’s December 19, 2007
resolution upholding the Special Agrarian Court’s
valuation for the 1,388.6 hectares owned by Apo Fruits
Corporation (AFC) and Hijo Plantation, Inc. (HPI) at
P1.38 billion.
“The
omnibus motion of LBP, to the extent that it seeks
reconsideration of the amount of just compensation which
the court affirmed in its decision dated February 6,
2008, is a second motion for reconsideration, because
the Court already denied an identical prayer in its
previous resolution dated December 19, 2007. Thus, the
prayer of LBP for leave to file a second motion for
reconsideration must be denied for a second motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading.”
The
Third Division also denied for having no basis the
prayer of LBP to refer the case to the Supreme Court en
banc. “The Supreme Court sitting en banc is not an
appellate court vis-à-vis its Divisions, and it
exercises no appellate jurisdiction over the latter.
Each division of the Court is considered not a body
inferior to the Court en banc, and sits veritably as the
Court en banc itself.”
The
Court also assailed the DAR Adjudication Board (Darab),
an agency of the DAR tasked to determine just
compensation for lands acquired under Republic Act 6657,
or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, for sitting on
the complaints for determination of just compensation
filed by AFC and HPI.
On AFC
and HPI’s motion for partial reconsideration seeking the
Court’s reimposition of the 12-percent interest on the
balance of P95.2 million, representing the difference
between the judgment award of P1.38 billion and the
amount already paid for the subject properties, the
Court said:
“The
Court has already thoroughly discussed in its December
19, 2007, resolution the reasons for reversing its award
to AFC and HPI of interest and attorney’s fees. It has
duly considered all matters attendant to these issues in
its assailed December 19, 2007 resolution, and since AFC
and HPI failed to present any new arguments thereon,
there is no reason for the Court to delve further on the
same.” |
