Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Conrad L. Leviste filed a collection case against Philippine Smelter Corporation (PSC). PSC was declared in default, and judgment was rendered in favor of Leviste. Upon finality, a writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy and auction sale of two parcels of land owned by PSC. Vines Realty Corporation (Vines Realty) emerged as the highest bidder. Subsequently, Vines Realty moved for and was granted a writ of possession. The writ of possession was served on petitioner, Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CANORECO), as owner of power lines on the subject property. Vines Realty then filed an amended motion for demolition and removal of improvements, including CANORECO's power lines and electric posts. Procedural History: CANORECO opposed the motion, asserting it was not a party to the case and had subsisting right-of-way agreements. The trial court initially set hearings but did not conduct them. The case was re-raffled. On November 27, 1992, the trial court proceeded with the hearing despite CANORECO's counsel withdrawing his appearance, and only Vines Realty presented evidence. The trial court issued a writ of demolition. CANORECO filed a petition for prohibition with restraining order and preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals (CA). Despite the CA issuing a restraining order, the trial court issued a writ of demolition, which was implemented by sheriff Eduardo de los Reyes. The trial court also ordered the National Power Corporation to shut off power lines. Vines Realty proceeded to cut down CANORECO's electric posts. CANORECO filed an urgent motion for reconsideration and a supplemental petition, which were denied by the CA. The CA dismissed CANORECO's petition, stating the restraining order had a limited life of twenty days. The CA denied CANORECO's motion for reconsideration and supplemental petition. CANORECO reconstructed its power lines, but Vines Realty objected, claiming ownership of the roadside. CANORECO asserted its right-of-way granted by the DPWH. The Petition: CANORECO filed a petition for review on certiorari, questioning the CA's decision and resolution, and seeking to set aside the trial court's orders and writs of demolition.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner was denied due process and whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of demolition. Whether a writ of demolition can prevail over an easement of a right-of-way falling within the power of eminent domain.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on January 19, 1993, and the resolution adopted on March 15, 1993, are SET ASIDE. The orders of the trial court dated November 27, 1992, December 10, 1992, January 18, 1993, and January 25, 1993, and the writs of demolition issued on December 11, 1992, and January 26, 1993, are ANNULLED. Private respondents are ordered to restore or restitute petitioner’s electric posts and power lines or otherwise indemnify petitioner for the cost of the restoration thereof. Private respondents are permanently enjoined or prohibited from disturbing or interfering with the operation and maintenance of the business of petitioner. Costs against private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denial of due process and grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court found that petitioner was denied due process. The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard, and a court denies a party due process if it renders orders without giving that party an opportunity to present its evidence. The trial court failed to reset the hearing despite the circumstances and proceeded with the trial and issued an order of demolition on the same day, denying CANORECO the opportunity to present its evidence. It was incumbent upon the trial court to receive evidence on CANORECO's right over the property to be demolished. The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard or to explain one's side. The trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in hastily ordering the removal of the electric posts, knowing that destroying them would cause overwhelming losses and great inconvenience to many people and businesses. The Court emphasized that the trial court could have shown more liberality to ensure the ends of justice, especially for a public utility serving the people. On whether a writ of demolition can prevail over an easement of a right-of-way: The Supreme Court ruled that a court's writ of demolition cannot prevail over an easement of a right-of-way which falls within the power of eminent domain. Electric cooperatives, like CANORECO, are vested with the power of eminent domain, which includes the power to construct, maintain, and operate electric transmission and distribution lines along public thoroughfares. The acquisition of an easement of a right-of-way falls within the purview of eminent domain. While a simple right-of-way easement transmits no rights except the easement itself and does not deprive the owner of title and possession, it is not acquired gratis. The limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period due to the installation of power lines entitle the landowner to just compensation. However, this does not grant a writ of demolition to override the established easement of a public utility.
Main Doctrine
A court's writ of demolition cannot prevail over an easement of a right-of-way which falls within the power of eminent domain, and public utilities are entitled to due process, including an opportunity to be heard regarding their rights over property where their facilities are located.