Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

Petitioner,

– versus – G.R. NO.

Respondents.
x-------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Of the 16 March 2016 Resolution)

Petitioner
by counsel, respectfully moves for the reconsideration of this
Honorable Court’s Resolution dated 16 March 2016. The said Resolution
denied the Petition for Review dated 23 December 2015
assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 14 May 2015 in
CA-G.R. CV No. . The dismissal was made on the ground that the
said Petition was filed out of time and that there was no showing that the
CA committed any reversible error in its 14 May 2015 Decision. The
anchors the present Motion for Reconsideration on the following
grounds:

The s Petition for

Review was timely filed.
The received a copy of the assailed CA Decision on 17 June
2015. On 29 June 2015, it filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the
said Decision. A copy of the Resolution dated 26 October 2015 denying
the said Motion was received by the on 12 November 2015. On
25 November 2015, the filed a Motion for Extension of thirty (30)
days from 27 November 2015 or until 27 December 2015 to file a Petition
 Page 2 of 6
G.R. No.

for Review. On 28 December 2015, the sent the present Petition

for Review by registered mail.

In relation to this, Rule 22, Section 1 of the Rules of Court reads:

Section 1. How to compute time. 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.

In this case, the last day of the requested period for extension, 27
December 2015, fell on a Sunday. Hence, the had until 28
December 2015, the next working day, to file its Petition for Review.

With regard to this, Rule 13, Section 3 of the Rules of Court reads:
Section 3. Manner of filing. The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions,
notices, orders, judgments and all other papers shall be made by presenting the
original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such, personally to the clerk of court
or by sending them by registered mail. In the first case, the clerk of court shall
endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second case, the date
of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits,
as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be
considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope
shall be attached to the record of the case.

In the present case, the sent its Petition for Review by

registered mail on 28 December 2015. Accordingly, the said Petition was
filed before the expiration of the extended period.

Special and important reasons

exist warranting this
Honorable Court’s exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.
Rule 45, Section 6 of the Rules of Court reads:
Section 6. Review discretionary. A review is not a matter of right, but of sound
judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important
reasons therefor. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the
court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:
(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not
theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a
way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions
of the Supreme Court; or
(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual
course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by
a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.

The present case involves parcels of land to be used in the

construction of an electrical substation, which is an essential part of an
 Page 3 of 6
G.R. No.

electrical generation, transmission, and distribution system. Hence, it

involves a public utility. In the case of Republic v. Manila Electric Company 1,
the Supreme Court declared:

The business and operations of a public utility are imbued with public
interest. In a very real sense, a public utility is engaged in public service-- providing basic
commodities and services indispensable to the interest of the general public.

Moreover, being one for expropriation, the present case necessarily

involves the expenditure of public funds. Evidently, important and special
reasons exist warranting this Honorable Court’s exercise of appellate
jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the assailed Decision of the CA is not in accord with

existing laws and jurisprudence and has so far sanctioned a departure by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.

First, as pointed out by the o in its Petition for Review, the CA

affirmed the RTC’s Decision dated 09 October 2012 which granted the
Respondents relief which they asked for through a mere manifestation and
without affording the the benefit of a hearing. Hence, the said
RTC Decision was rendered in violation of the s right to due
process should have been struck down as void.

Second, the CA should not have given credence to the

Commissioner’s Report in determining the fair market value (FMV) of the
properties subject of the present case. The said report, as stated by the
in its Petition for Review, is unsupported by documentary
evidence and consequently, runs afoul of the doctrine laid down in the case
of National Power Corporation v. YCLA Sugar Development Corporation 2 that such
a report must be supported by pertinent documents which can aid the
Court in fixing the amount of just compensation.

Moreover, as the had indicated in its Petition for Review, the

CA, in ascertaining the FMV of the subject properties, disregarded the
guidelines set forth under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 89743 reproduced
below:
Section 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of
Expropriation Proceedings or Negotiated Sale. - In order to facilitate the determination
of just compensation, the court may consider, among other well-established
factors, the following relevant standards:
(a) The classification and use for which the property is suited;

1
G.R. No. 141314, 09 April 2003.
2
G.R. No. 193936, 11 December 2013.
3
An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location for National Government
Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes.
 Page 4 of 6
G.R. No.
(b) The developmental costs for improving the land;
(c) The value declared by the owners;
(d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity;
(e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or
demolition of certain improvement on the land and for the value of
improvements thereon;
(f) This size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of
the land;
(g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as
well as documentary evidence presented; and
(h) Such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to
have sufficient funds to acquire similarly-situated lands of
approximate areas as those required from them by the government,
and thereby rehabilitate themselves as early as possible.

Accordingly, the CA should have remanded the case to the RTC for
the proper determination of the just compensation, instead of relying solely
upon the Commissioner’s Report.

Third, as asserted by the Petitioner in its Petition for Review, the CA

violated the well-established principle of immutability of judgments when
it modified the 04 May 2012 Decision of the RTC after it has attained
finality. Moreover, the said decision was not even the subject matter of the
appeal. Consequently, such actions by the CA clearly merit review.

Finally, as raised by the in its Petition for Review, the CA

reviewed, for the first time on appeal, the issue of real estate taxes, which
was never tackled before the RTC. This plainly violates the doctrine laid
down in the case of Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement v. Pulgar 4 that,
“points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to
the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be
considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play,
justice and due process” [Citations omitted].

In sum, the ’s Petition for Review was timely filed. Moreover,

because this case is clearly imbued with public interest, and because the
assailed Decision is contrary to prevailing laws and jurisprudence, and has
so far sanctioned a departure by a lower court from the accepted and usual
course of judicial proceedings, the exercise of this Honorable Court’s
exercise of appellate jurisdiction is warranted.

For the above reasons, the maintains that its arguments in

support of its Petition for Review deserve a second hard look by this
Honorable Court.

4
G.R. No. 169227, 5 July 2010.
 Page 5 of 6
G.R. No.

ACCORDINGLY, the respectfully asks this Honorable

Court that its 16 March 2016 Resolution be RECONSIDERED and a
new one be issued GRANTING Petitioners’ Petition for Review.

Other equitable reliefs are likewise asked for.

Quezon City for the City of Manila, 10 May 2016.

Counsel for the Petitioner

IBP Lifetime Member Roll No.

Roll of Attorneys No.
MCLE Exemption No.

IBP O.R. No.

Roll of Attorneys No.
MCLE Exemption No.

IBP Lifetime Member Roll No.

Roll of Attorneys No.
MCLE Exemption No.
 Page 6 of 6
G.R. No.

IBP Lifetime Member Roll No.

Roll of Attorneys No.
MCLE Exemption No.