G.R. No. 202690 - HENRY L. SY, VS. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it held that the fair market value of P5,500.00 per sq. m., or P5,500,000.00 in total, for the 1,000 sq. m. subject property arrived at by Commissioners Ostaco and Alcantara was more than fair and reasonable. [21] The CA also denied Sys assertion that he should be entitled to damages on account of the purported shelving of his housing project, finding no sufficient evidence to support the same. Likewise, it observed that the expropriation would not leave the rest of Sys properties useless as they would still be accessible through a certain Lot 8 based on the Property Identification Map. [22] Nonetheless, citing the case of Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez (MIAA), [23] it awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P200,000.00 and attorneys fees equivalent to one percent (1%) of the amount due because of the Citys taking of the subject property without even initiating expropriation proceedings. [24] It, however, denied Sys claim of back rentals considering that the RTC had already granted legal interest in his favor. [25] Aggrieved, Sy moved for reconsideration which was denied in the Resolution dated July 16, 2012 [26] for being filed out of time. [27] The City also filed a motion for reconsideration which was equally denied for lack of merit. [28] Hence, this petition. Issues Before The Court The present controversy revolves around the issue of whether the CA correctly: (a) dismissed Sys motion for reconsideration for being filed out of time; (b) upheld the amount of just compensation as determined by the RTC as well as its grant of six percent (6%) legal interest; and (c) awarded exemplary damages and attorneys fees. The Courts Ruling The petition is partly meritorious. A. Failure to seasonably move for reconsideration; excusable negligence; relaxation of procedural rules At the outset, the Court observes that Sys motion for reconsideration was filed out of time and thus, was properly dismissed by the CA. Records show that, as per the Postmasters Certification, the CAs January 20, 2012 Decision was received by Sy on January 26, 2012 and as such, any motion for reconsideration therefrom should have been filed not later than fifteen (15) days from receipt, [29] or on February 10, 2012. [30] However, Sy filed his motion for reconsideration (subject motion) a day late , or on February 13, 2012, [31] which thus, renders the CA decision final and executory. [32] In this regard, it is apt to mention that Sys counsel, Atty. Tranquilino F. Meris (Atty. Meris), claims that his secretarys inadvertent placing of the date January 27, 2012, instead of January 26, 2012, on the Notice of Decision [33] constitutes excusable negligence which should therefore, justify a relaxation of the rules. The assertion is untenable. A claim of excusable negligence does not loosely warrant a relaxation of the rules. Verily, the party invoking such should be able to show that the procedural oversight or lapse is attended by a genuin