Marinduque Mining v. National Power Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) filed a complaint for expropriation against petitioners Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation and Industrial Enterprises, Inc. for the construction of a transmission line project, seeking to expropriate 7,875 square meters of petitioners' property. Petitioners alleged that the expropriation should cover the entire parcel, as the remaining portion would be rendered valueless. Procedural History: The trial court fixed the fair market value of the 7,875-square meter lot and directed commissioners to determine the value of the "dangling area" (58,484 square meters) affected by the transmission lines. The trial court later declared the "dangling area" to be 48,848.87 square meters, fixed its fair market value at P65 per square meter, and awarded consequential damages, ruling that NAPOCOR's expropriation impaired the value and use of the "dangling area." NAPOCOR filed a notice of appeal of this supplemental decision. Petitioners moved to strike out the notice of appeal, arguing that NAPOCOR violated the Rules of Court by filing and serving it via registered mail instead of personal service, given NAPOCOR's alleged capacity for personal service. NAPOCOR opposed, citing a severely undermanned legal office and its consistent use of registered mail since the case's inception. The trial court granted petitioners' motion, declared the supplemental decision final and executory, and denied NAPOCOR's motion for reconsideration. NAPOCOR filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. The Petition: The Court of Appeals set aside the trial court's orders, giving due course to NAPOCOR's appeal, and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Petitioners now seek reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court's issuance of the 15 May 2002 and 24 June 2002 Orders was attended with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, specifically regarding NAPOCOR's compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the 19 March 2002 Supplemental Decision is not final and executory, specifically regarding the necessity of filing a record on appeal.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of NAPOCOR's failure to comply with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court: The Court held that NAPOCOR complied with the Rules of Court regarding service and filing by registered mail. The notice of appeal sufficiently explained the reason for not resorting to personal service, citing lack of manpower, which was deemed an acceptable justification demonstrating why personal service was not practicable. The Court of Appeals correctly considered the importance of the issue involved, particularly the substantial amount of public funds at stake. Therefore, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the notice of appeal solely on the ground of non-personal service. The Court reiterated the principle that personal service is the general rule, but resort to other modes is permissible with a written explanation, and the plausibility of such explanation should be considered along with the importance of the subject matter. The Court also noted that petitioners were estopped from questioning the mode of service, as NAPOCOR had consistently used registered mail throughout the proceedings without prior objection. On the issue of NAPOCOR's failure to file a record on appeal: The Court ruled that a record on appeal was not necessary in this case. The general rule is that no record on appeal is required except in special proceedings or cases of multiple or separate appeals. In expropriation cases, there are two stages: determination of the authority to exercise eminent domain and propriety of its exercise, and determination of just compensation. While an order of expropriation may be appealed via a record on appeal, and a separate appeal may be taken from the order fixing just compensation, in this instance, the trial court had fully and finally resolved all conceivable issues in the complaint for expropriation. Since the 19 March 2002 Supplemental Decision fully disposed of the case, there was no longer any need for the original records to remain with the trial court, making a record on appeal superfluous. Furthermore, petitioners failed to raise this issue before the trial court, and it is settled that issues not raised at the trial level cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the notice of appeal solely on the ground of non-personal service, especially when the explanation for resort to registered mail was plausible and the case involved substantial public funds. Furthermore, a record on appeal is not necessary when the trial court has fully and finally resolved all issues in an expropriation case.