commissioner's fee

Finally, on the issue on commissioners’ fees. We held in Lee v. Land Bank of the Philippines⁴⁷ that while the provisions of the Rules of Court apply to SAC proceedings, it is clear that, unlike in expropriation proceedings under the Rules of Court, the appointment of a commissioner or commissioners is discretionary on the part of the court or upon the instance of one of the parties. Section 58 of R.A. No. 6657 provides:

SEC. 58. Appointment of Commissioners. — The Special Agrarian Courts, upon their own initiative or at the instance of any of the parties, may appoint one or more commissioners to examine, investigate and ascertain facts relevant to the dispute, including the valuation of properties, and to file a written report thereof with the court.

Here, both parties did not object to the appointment of commissioners. Our ruling in Apo Fruits⁴⁸ is instructive:

The relevant law is found in Rule 67, Section 12 of the Rules of Court:

"SEC. 12. Costs, by whom paid. — The fees of the commissioners shall be taxed as a part of the costs of the proceedings. All costs, except those of rival claimants litigating their claims, shall be paid by the plaintiff, unless an appeal is taken by the owner of the property and the judgment is affirmed, in which event the costs of the appeal shall be paid by the owner."

Rule 141, Section 16 of the Rules of Court, provides that:

"SEC. 16. Fees of commissioners in eminent domain proceedings. — The commissioners appointed to appraise land sought to be condemned for public uses in accordance with these rules shall each receive a compensation to be fixed by the court of NOT LESS THAN THREE HUNDRED (P300.00) PESOS per day for the time actually and necessarily employed in the performance of their duties and in making their report to the court, which fees shall be taxed as a part of the costs of the proceedings."

From the afore-quoted provision, the award made by the RTC is way beyond that allowed under Rule 141, Section 16; thus, the award is excessive and without justification. Records show that the commissioners were constituted on 26 May 2000 and they submitted their appraisal report on 21 May 2001, when the old schedule of legal fees was in effect. The amendment in Rule 141 introduced by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, which took effect on 16 August 2004, increased the commissioner’s fees from P100.00 to P300.00 per day. Assuming they devoted all the 360 days from the time they were constituted until the time they submitted the appraisal report in the performance of their duties, and applying the old rate for commissioner’s fees, they would only receive P38,000.00. Moreover, even if the new rate is applied, each commissioner would receive only P108,000.00. The rule above-quoted is very clear on the amount of commissioner’s fees. The award made by the RTC in the amount of 2½% of the total amount of just compensation, i.e., 2 1/2% of P1,383,179,000.00, which translates to P34,579,475.00, is certainly unjustified and excessive. x x x⁴⁹

Accordingly, remand of the case for the determination of the proper amount of commissioners’ fees is in order, pursuant to the aforecited provision of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence. The SAC shall particularly determine the number of days which the Board actually devoted to the performance of its duties. Since the Board in this case was constituted on March 3, 2000, and it rendered its Report on July 28, 2000, or prior to the increase in the rate of commissioner's fees, the old rate of P100.00 per day shall be applied.

x x x x

In sum, we find LBP’s valuation sufficiently substantiated and in accordance with Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998.⁴²

We also cannot subscribe to respondent’s postulation that interest should be imposed in this case.

It is established that in expropriation cases, interest is due the landowner if there was delay in payment. The imposition of interest is in the nature of damages for the delay in payment, which in effect makes the obligation on the part of the government one of forbearance. It follows that the interest in the form of damages cannot be applied where there was prompt and valid payment of just compensation.⁴³ Records show that LBP fully paid respondent in the amount of P150,795.51 with dispatch, and he himself acknowledged the receipt thereof. Moreover, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Kumassie Plantation Company, Incorporated,⁴⁴ we held that the mere fact that LBP appealed the decisions of the SAC and the CA does not mean that LBP deliberately delayed the payment of just compensation to the landowner. Having only exercised its right to appeal, LBP cannot be penalized by making it pay for interest.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs.ATTY. RICARDO D. GONZALEZ, Respondent.FIRST DIVISION(G.R. No. 185821 , June 13, 2013)