G.R. No. 221571 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF SPOUSES JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA BALDOZA, NAMELY: VINCENT BALDOZA, JUAN BALDOZA, CATHERINE BALDOZA, JOAN BALDOZA* AND GIRLIE BALDOZA,**.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Court finds for the Petitioners, and hereby DIRECTS the Respondent Land Bank to pay the following: (1) the remaining balance of the just compensation to the Petitioners in the amount of Two Million One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Five and 64/100 Pesos ([PhP]2,001,995.64) with legal interest of 12% per annum, reckoned from August 18, 2009 up to the time when the whole amount is actually paid; and (2) its share in the Commissioners' fees in the amount of [PhP]30,000.00. Finally, Petitioners are likewise directed to pay its share in the Commissioners' fees in the same amount. SO ORDERED . [16] The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied in an Order [17] dated July 22, 2011. In a petition for review filed before the CA, petitioner impugned the RTC-SAC's ruling on the valuation of the property, the imposition of legal interest, and payment of commissioners' fees. [18] Resolving the issues in favor of the petitioner, the CA granted the petition and affirmed the previous order of the DARAB in a Decision [19] dated February 18, 2015. The CA likewise deleted the imposition of interest but retained the liability of the respondent to pay commissioners' fees. The CA took note of the difference in valuation in the Capitalized Net Income (CNI) of the subject lots. To properly valuate said lots, the CA instead, used the average of the latest available 12-month selling price, which is in accordance with Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 5 of the DAR. Moreover, the CA deleted the 12% interest on the amount of just compensation in the absence of delay on the part of petitioner. Finally, as to the payment of commissioners' fees, the CA remanded the case to the RTC-SAC as the records are devoid of proof as to the actual number of days that the Commissioners spent in relation to the case. The fallo thereof provides: WHEREFORE , the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED . The Decision of the RTC-SAC dated June 29, 2011 in Civil Case No. 2010-14518 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE . A new one is entered as follows: 1. AFFIRM the Order of the DARAB dated February 27, 2009 in DARAB CASE NO. VII-LV407-NO-09 and DARAB CASE NO. VII-LV- 408-NO-09; 2. DELETE the imposed twelve percent (12%) interest on just compensation determined; 3. REMAND the instant case to the Regional Trial Court for the determination of the Commissioners' fees in compliance with prescribed rules. SO ORDERED . [20] In a Resolution [21] dated October 29, 2015, the CA denied the separate Motions for Reconsideration, respectively, filed by the parties. Seeking to find relief from this Court, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari , contending its liability to pay commissioners' fees. The Issue The sole issue in this case is whether or not petitioner, an entity performing a governmental function, is liable to pay commissioners' fees in an agrarian expropriation proceeding. The Court's Ruling Generally, "fees" is defined as charge fixed by law or b