CHERRY BEPITEL

Facts: Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) submitted an unsolicited proposal to the Government –
through the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and the Manila International
Airport Authority (MIAA) – for the construction and development of the NAIA-IPT III under a build-operate-
and-transfer (BOT) arrangement.

On the other hand, Paircargo Consortium – composed of People’s Air Cargo and Warehousing Co., Inc.
(Paircargo), Philippine Air and Grounds Services, Inc. (PAGS), and Security Bank Corporation (Security
Bank) – submitted its competitive proposal to the Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee
(PBAC).Paircargo Consortium offered to pay the Government a total of P17.75 billion as guaranteed
payment for 27 years while AEDC offered to pay the Government a total of P135 million for the same period.
Hence, DOTC awarded the project to Paircargo Consortium (that later organized itself as PIATCO).
A Concession Agreement with PIATCO for the construction, development, and operation of the NAIA-IPT
III under a build-operate-transfer scheme was made to authorized PIATCO to build, operate, and
maintain the NAIA-IPT III during the concession period of twenty-five (25) years.

On March 31, 2000, PIATCO engaged the services of Takenaka and Asahikosan to aid in constructing
the project. However, PIATCO defaulted on its obligation to pay Takenaka and Asahikosan pursuant
to their respective contracts. Takenaka and Asahikosan agreed to defer PIATCO’s payments until June
2003. In 2002, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declared in her speech that the Government would not
honor the PIATCO contracts. On the same day, Takenaka and Asahikosan notified PIATCO that they
were suspending the construction of the NAIA-IPT III for PIATCO’s failure to provide adequate security.
September 17, 2002, petitioners Demosthenes Agan, et al., asked the Court to nullify the PIATCO
contracts, and to prohibit the DOTC and the MIAA from implementing these contracts for being contrary to
law. The case, entitled Agan v. PIATCO, was docketed as G.R. No. 15500.

May 5, 2003, the Court nullified the PIATCO contracts after finding that Paircargo Consortium (that later
incorporated into PIATCO) was not a duly pre-qualified bidder for failure to meet the minimum equity
requirements for the NAIA-IPT III project.

Security Bank (member of the Paircargo Consortium) invested its entire net worth in a single undertaking
or enterprise in gross violation of Section 21-B of the General Banking Act (which limits a commercial
bank’s equity investment, whether allied or non-allied, to fifteen percent (15%) of its net worth).

PIATCO contracts contained provisions that substantially departed from the draft Concession
Agreement

December 21, 2004, the Government filed a complaint for expropriation of the NAIA-IPT III before the
RTC of Pasay, Branch 11

RTC issued a writ of possession in favor of the Government. Citing City of Manila v. Serrano,23 the RTC
held that that it had the ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession upon: (1) the filing of the complaint for
expropriation sufficient in form and substance, and (2) the Government’s deposit of the amount equivalent
to the property’s assessed value, pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court

January 4, 2005, the RTC modified its December 21, 2004 order and directed: (1) the Land Bank to
immediately release to PIATCO the amount of US$62,343,175.7725cralawred that would be deducted from
the just compensation; (2) the Government to submit to the RTC a Certificate of Availability of Funds for
the payment of just compensation; and (3) the Government to maintain and preserve the NAIA-IPT III
pending the expropriation proceedings and the full payment of just compensation. The RTC likewise
prohibited the Government from performing acts of ownership over the NAIA-IPT III such as awarding
concessions or leasing any part of the NAIA-IPT III to other parties

RTC appointed three Commissioners28 to determine just compensation without consulting the
Government and PIATCO. Government, et al., filed a petition for certiorari with the Court assailing the
validity of the January 4, 7, and 10, 2005 orders of the RTC in the expropriation case
CHERRY BEPITEL

The Court did not recognize the London awards in favor of Takenaka and Asahikosan. Under Section 48,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a foreign judgment would not bind Philippine courts unless the judgment is
recognized and enforced in this jurisdiction. Philippine courts may annul a foreign judgment for lack of
jurisdiction, lack of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, clear mistake of law or fact, or when the foreign
judgment is contrary to public policy

PIATCO, as builder of the NAIA-IPT III, must first receive just compensation in accordance with law
and equity before the Government may take over the NAIA-IPT

Government should not pay for the portions of the NAIA-IPT III that were defective – as per rtc

 (a) failed structural elements in the NAIA-IPT III;

(b) inferior quality of material works;
(c) constructed areas that are unnecessary to the use of an international airport terminal;
(d) cost of seismic and gravity load structural retrofits for the failed elements;
(e) cost of completing the items listed in the JAC project status summary report of Feb. 28, 2003;
(f) cost of seismic and gravity load structural retrofits for the failed elements in the elevated
roadway structures.

RTC stated that just compensation is limited to the value of the improvement at the time of the filing of the
expropriation complaint. The payment of just compensation does not include the right to be compensated
of the franchise to operate the airport, and the increased value of improvements due to inflation rate.

PIATCO, Takenaka, and Asahikosan sought to nullify the RTC decision for alleged violation of their right to
due process. They complained that they were only furnished copies of the BOC Final Report only after the
promulgation of the May 23, 2011 decision.103 They averred that the RTC violated Sections 7 and 8, Rule
67 of the Rules of Court which provide that the clerk of court shall serve copies of the commissioners’ report
on all interested parties, with notice that they be allowed ten days within which to file objections to the
findings of the report, if they so desire. The offer to pay through an escrow account is not equivalent to
direct payment. PIATCO further denied the Government’s allegations that there were several claimants on
the just compensation

RTC ruled that it has residual jurisdiction to adjudicate the Government’s Manifestation and Motion
considering that the motion was filed prior to the parties’ filing of the Notice of Appeal. The RTC opined that
the Manifestation and Motion was akin to a motion for execution pending appeal. The Manifestation and
Motion showed the Government’s intent to voluntarily comply with the May 23, 2011 decision which was
pending appeal before the CA. Under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the RTC has the residual
power to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the parties’ rights, and to order the execution
of a decision pending appeal. Furthermore, Section 6, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court provides that courts
have incidental power to issue orders that are necessary to effectuate their judgments.

The CA Rulings: CA upheld the validity of the RTC’s May 23, 2011 decision. The CA ruled that the parties
did not need to be furnished the BOC Final Report since RA 8974 is silent on the appointment of the BOC,
as held in Gingoyon. However, the CA modified the RTC rulings and arrived at its own formula of the NAIA-
IPT III’s replacement cost

ISSUE: Whether the RTC’s May 23, 2011 decision is null and void for violation of PIATCO, Takenaka
and Asahikosan’s right to procedural due process.
RULING: NO. The parties were afforded procedural due process despite their non-receipt of the
BOC Final Report prior to the promulgation of the RTC’s May 23, 2011 Decision.
CHERRY BEPITEL

Before ruling on the substantive issues posed, we first resolve the issue of whether the CA erred
in ruling that the RTC’s May 23, 2011 decision is valid.
PIATCO, Takenaka and Asahikosan challenge the validity of the RTC’s decision for alleged
violation of their right to due process. They point out that the RTC promulgated its decision in Civil
Case No. 04-0876 on May 23, 2011, immediately after the release of the BOC’s Final Report on
March 31, 2011. They complain that since the RTC’s clerk of court did not furnish the parties
copies of the Final Report, the trial court violated Sections 7 and 8, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court
as they failed to object to the Final Report’s contents.
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides that the clerk of court shall serve copies of the
commissioners’ final report on all interested parties upon the filing of the report. Each party shall
have ten days within which to file their objections to the report’s findings.170cralawrednad

Upon the expiration of the ten-day period or after all the parties have filed their objections and
after hearing, the trial court may: (a) accept the report and render judgment in accordance
therewith; (b) for cause shown, recommit the report to the commissioners for further report of
facts; (c) set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; (d) partially accept the report; and
(e) make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential
to the exercise of his right of expropriation; and to the defendant, the just compensation for the
property so taken.171cralawrednad
We rule that the parties’ failure to receive the Final Report did not render the May 23, 2011
Decision null and void.
The essence of procedural due process is the right to be heard.172 The procedural due
process requirements in an eminent domain case are satisfied if the parties are given the
opportunity to present their evidence before the commissioners whose findings (together with the
pleadings, evidence of the parties, and the entire record of the case) are reviewed and considered
by the expropriation court. It is the parties’ total failure to present evidence on just compensation
that renders the trial court’s ruling void. The opportunity to present evidence during the trial
remains to be the vital requirement in the observance of due process.173cralawrednad
The record will show that the parties exhaustively discussed their positions in this case before the
BOC, the trial court, the appellate court, and this Court. They had ample opportunity to refute and
respond to each other’s positions with the aid of their own appraisers and experts. Each party, in
fact, submitted countervailing evidence on the valuation of the NAIA-IPT III. They also filed
numerous and voluminous pleadings and motions before the lower courts and before this Court.

The mere failure of the RTC’s clerk of court to send the parties copies of the BOC Final Report is
not substantial enough under the attendant circumstances to affect and nullify the whole
proceedings. Litigation is not a game of technicalities. Strong public interests require that this
Court judiciously and decisively settle the amount of just compensation in the expropriation of the
NAIA-IPT III. We cannot further delay this more-than-a-decade case and let interests accrue on
just compensation by remanding the case once more to the trial court.