G.R. No. 166429 December 19, 2005
Republic of the Philippines, DOTC, and MIAA vs. Hon. Henrick F. Gingoyon and PIATCO

FACTS

The case involves the expropriation of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal III (NAIA 3), which was constructed by respondent Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO). In a prior case, Agan v. PIATCO, the Supreme Court nullified the Build-Operate-and-Transfer agreements between the government and PIATCO for being contrary to law and public policy. However, recognizing that the government would take over the nearly completed terminal, the Court ruled that PIATCO must be paid just compensation to prevent unjust enrichment. Subsequently, the government filed a complaint for expropriation before the Pasay City RTC, Branch 117, presided by Judge Henrick F. Gingoyon, and deposited ₱3 Billion, representing the facility’s assessed value for taxation, to obtain a writ of possession.
The RTC issued the writ but later issued a supplemental order requiring the government to: (1) deposit an additional amount equivalent to the terminal’s “current market value” to be determined by commissioners, and (2) pay PIATCO an initial ₱500 Million from the initial deposit for “necessary and indispensable expenses.” The government petitioners challenged this order, arguing it contravened the rules on expropriation and the Court’s directives in Agan.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its supplemental order imposing conditions for the expropriation of NAIA 3 beyond those provided under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that while the government properly acquired possession via the writ upon depositing the assessed value, the determination of just compensation must strictly follow the procedure in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. The trial court cannot pre-empt the commissioners’ court-appointed task to determine the property’s current fair market value and order the deposit of an unspecified amount based on that standard. Furthermore, the immediate release of ₱500 Million to PIATCO was improper as Rule 67 only allows the withdrawal of the provisional deposit by the property owner after the court has fixed the just compensation. The RTC’s orders effectively altered the statutory framework and the Supreme Court’s final ruling in Agan, which mandated payment of just compensation but did not authorize advance payments or deviations from established expropriation procedure. The Court emphasized that expropriation proceedings must balance the government’s need for immediate possession with the constitutional guarantee of just compensation, adhering to the specific legal process designed to protect both interests.