National Power Corporation v. Laohoo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR), a government-owned and controlled corporation, initiated expropriation proceedings to acquire an easement of right-of-way over properties belonging to respondents Spouses Lorenzo L. Laohoo and Visitacion Lim-Laohoo, and Spouses Ernesto Miel and Luz Lomuntad-Miel. These properties were needed for NAPOCOR's 350 KV LEYTE-LUZON HVDC POWER TL PROJECT. NAPOCOR filed separate complaints before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catbalogan, Samar, seeking to expropriate portions of these properties, specifically 3,258 square meters from the Spouses Laohoo and 4,738 square meters from the Spouses Miel. Procedural History: The RTC, after the parties agreed to reduced provisional deposits, allowed NAPOCOR to take possession of the properties. Commissioners were appointed to determine just compensation, recommending P1,900.00 per square meter. The RTC eventually fixed the just compensation at P2,000.00 per square meter, totaling P6,616,000.00 for the Spouses Laohoo and P9,476,000.00 for the Spouses Miel. NAPOCOR filed motions for reconsideration and subsequently notices of appeal, which the RTC dismissed for being filed out of time. The RTC then issued orders for the execution of its judgment, leading to the garnishment of NAPOCOR's accounts. NAPOCOR filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Preliminary Injunction with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition for being filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. The Petition: NAPOCOR filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the CA's decision that dismissed its petition for being filed out of time. NAPOCOR argued that the CA's dismissal was based on a mere technicality and that the determination of just compensation by the RTC was speculative and arbitrary. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the CA's decision, finding that NAPOCOR failed to perfect its appeal within the reglementary period, did not pay appellate court docket fees on time, and that its chosen remedy of certiorari was improper as a substitute for a lost appeal. The Court also noted that the RTC's judgment had become final and executory and had already been fully executed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing NAPOCOR's petition for certiorari on the ground of late filing. Whether the determination of the amount of just compensation by the Regional Trial Court was speculative, arbitrary, and devoid of any factual or legal basis. Whether the dismissal of NAPOCOR's notice of appeal by the Regional Trial Court was a grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing NAPOCOR's petition for certiorari. The Court held that NAPOCOR failed to perfect its appeal within the reglementary period, rendering the trial court's order fixing just compensation final and executory. Consequently, the issuance of the writ of execution was proper, and the petition for certiorari was an improper remedy for a lost appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition for certiorari on the ground of late filing: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's dismissal, holding that NAPOCOR's petition for certiorari was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure. NAPOCOR received the RTC's order dismissing its notice of appeal on December 23, 1997, but filed its petition for certiorari only on October 27, 1998, more than ten months later. This failure to file within the prescribed period was fatal to its recourse. Furthermore, the Supreme Court reiterated that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Since NAPOCOR had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by way of appeal, which it failed to perfect, certiorari was not the proper recourse. The Court emphasized that remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive. On the issue of the determination of just compensation: The Supreme Court noted that this issue was raised for the first time in the petition for review before the Supreme Court, which is a court of law and not a trier of facts. Furthermore, the issue of just compensation had already attained finality due to NAPOCOR's failure to perfect its appeal on time. Therefore, it was too late for NAPOCOR to question the amount of just compensation. On the issue of the Regional Trial Court's dismissal of the notice of appeal: The Supreme Court found that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing NAPOCOR's notice of appeal. The RTC correctly determined that the notice of appeal was filed six days beyond the reglementary period. NAPOCOR's counsel, Atty. Neon Cinco, received the order denying the motion for reconsideration on October 15, 1997, giving NAPOCOR until October 23, 1997, to file its appeal. The notice of appeal was filed on October 30, 1997. The Court emphasized that the timeliness of an appeal is a jurisdictional caveat and that failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders the judgment final and executory. The Court reiterated the general rule that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of their counsel. NAPOCOR's argument that it should not be bound by its counsel's failure to file the appeal on time was rejected. The Court stated that such failure does not constitute gross, reckless, or inexcusable negligence that would deprive the client of their day in court. The failure of Atty. Cinco to file the notice of appeal on time binds NAPOCOR, as service of court orders upon one of the counsels of record is sufficient notice to the client.
Main Doctrine
The failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality but a jurisdictional defect that deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable, and its execution is a matter of right.