G.R. No. 164195, December 4, 2009
APO FRUITS CORPORATION and HIJO PLANTATION, INC., Petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Apo Fruits Corporation (AFC) and Hijo Plantation, Inc. (HPI) voluntarily offered to sell their lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) fixed the just compensation, which petitioners rejected. Land Bank deposited initial valuations, which petitioners withdrew. Petitioners filed complaints for determination of just compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) and, after no action, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) acting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC). The RTC fixed the just compensation at ₱1,383,179,000.00 and awarded interest, commissioners’ fees, and attorney’s fees. Upon Land Bank’s motion, the RTC modified its decision, changing the interest rate to 12% per annum from the filing of the complaint. Land Bank attempted to appeal via notice of appeal, but the RTC denied it, citing an improper mode. Land Bank then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted it and nullified the RTC’s orders. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. The Third Division initially ruled in favor of petitioners but, upon Land Bank’s motion for reconsideration, modified its decision by deleting the awards of interest and attorney’s fees. Petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration regarding the denial of legal interest and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the awards of legal interest and attorney’s fees, which were deleted by the Third Division’s modification of its decision, should be reinstated.

RULING

The Supreme Court, in this Resolution, denied petitioners’ second motion for reconsideration. The Court upheld the Third Division’s deletion of the awards of interest and attorney’s fees. The concurring opinion of Justice Abad emphasized that the Third Division had found Land Bank not guilty of delay in payment, making an award of interest unreasonable. Furthermore, the judgment had become final and executory, Land Bank had already complied with the payment, and reopening the case was not warranted as it involved no extreme public interest issue but only additional financial cost, which would ultimately be borne by the farmers. The awards were not reinstated.