GR 151973; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151973; July 23, 2009
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES LORENZO L. LAOHOO and VISITACION LIM-LAOHOO; and LUZ LOMUNTAD-MIEL, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) filed two complaints for expropriation to acquire an easement of right-of-way over respondents’ properties in Samar for a power transmission project. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a writ of possession upon NAPOCOR’s deposit of provisional values. Commissioners recommended compensation, and the RTC, after hearings, fixed just compensation at ₱2,000 per square meter. NAPOCOR filed motions for reconsideration, which the RTC denied. NAPOCOR then filed notices of appeal.
The RTC dismissed the appeals as filed out of time. It found that while NAPOCOR’s counsel received the denial order on October 20, 1997, the notices of appeal were filed only on November 5, 1997, exceeding the 15-day reglementary period. NAPOCOR argued that its lead counsel received the order only on October 27, 1997, making the appeal timely. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal, holding that service upon any collaborating counsel is valid and binds the client. The appellate court also noted NAPOCOR’s failure to pay appellate docket fees, constituting another ground for dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of NAPOCOR’s appeal for being filed out of time and for non-payment of docket fees.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. On procedural grounds, the Court upheld that service of the RTC’s order denying reconsideration upon NAPOCOR’s collaborating counsel on October 20, 1997, was valid and effective. Service upon any counsel of record is binding on the client. Therefore, the 15-day period to appeal commenced on October 20, 1997, and expired on November 4, 1997. The notices of appeal filed on November 5, 1997, were indisputably late. The Court also sustained the finding that NAPOCOR failed to pay the required docket fees for the appeal, a mandatory requirement for perfecting an appeal.
On the substantive issue of just compensation, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The determination was based on the commissioners’ report, supported by evidence, and followed the mandated procedure. The valuation considered the properties’ nature, location, and market values. The Court emphasized that in expropriation cases, the trial court’s determination of just compensation, being a factual issue, is generally accorded respect, especially when affirmed by the appellate court. No compelling reason was shown to deviate from these findings.