G.R. No. 178431; November 12, 2012
V.C. PONCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF PARAÑAQUE and SAMPAGUITA HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondents.

FACTS

The Municipality of Parañaque filed a complaint in 1987 to expropriate a property owned by V.C. Ponce Company, Inc. (VCP) for a socialized housing project. The trial court sustained the municipality’s right to expropriate and, in an August 2002 Order, declared that just compensation should be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. Commissioners were appointed and submitted a 2004 appraisal report valuing the land at P1,150 per square meter, which the trial court initially admitted after both parties manifested no objection. However, in a March 2005 Decision, the trial court rejected the commissioners’ report for using property data from 1996-2003, which was inconsistent with the 1987 reckoning date. The court independently fixed just compensation at P75 per square meter based on a 1987 market value certification.
VCP received the Order denying its motion for reconsideration on August 24, 2005. Instead of appealing, VCP filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on November 7, 2005, after securing an extension. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that certiorari was an improper remedy. VCP then filed motions for extension to file a motion for reconsideration of the CA’s dismissal, which were denied for being filed out of time.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed VCP’s Petition for Certiorari and subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. On the procedural aspect, VCP erroneously availed of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. A petition for certiorari is only proper when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, an ordinary appeal via a petition for review under Rule 41 from the trial court’s final Decision fixing just compensation was the proper remedy. The trial court’s act of rejecting the commissioners’ report and making an independent determination of value was an exercise of its adjudicatory power, not a ministerial duty. Any error committed was an error of judgment, correctible by appeal, not an act performed without or in excess of jurisdiction amounting to grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. VCP’s loss of the right to appeal was due to its own mistaken choice of procedure.
Furthermore, the CA correctly denied VCP’s Motion for Reconsideration for belated filing. The reglementary period to file such a motion is fixed and non-extendible. VCP’s successive motions for extension of time to file its motion for reconsideration were void, as the period is non-extendible. Consequently, the CA Resolution denying these motions and dismissing the belated Motion for Reconsideration was proper. The Supreme Court emphasized that relief will not be granted to a party whose loss of a legal remedy stems from its own negligence or a mistaken mode of procedure.