REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. INES V. GARCIA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, ALEJANDRO A. MARQUEZ, COMMISSIONER-APPELLEE.

In an expropriation case, Alejandro A. Marquez was appointed
commissioner of the court, together with Jose C. Sumangil, Jr. and J. Antonio
Leviste as commissioners for the parties. The commissioners met five times or on August 13, 25 and 29 and
September 7 and 14, 1964.

On October 22, 1964 they submitted their report where in they
indicated that the fair market value of the land of Ines V. Garcia, with an
area of 552 square meters, located at Makati, Rizal, was P77,280, the amount
stated in the compromise agree­ment of the parties. The appraisal was approved by the court. (Civil Case No. 7891, Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch I).

On November 10, 1964 Atty. Marquez filed a motion praying that
his commissioner’s fee be fixed at P3,864 or five percent (5%) of P77,280. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the
motion. It contended that the
commissioner is entitled to a compensation of five pesos per meeting and, therefore,
the fee of Marquez should be fixed at twenty-five pesos.

The lower court held that the fee of five pesos fixed in eminent
domain proceedings by section 13, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court is merely the
minimum and that it has discretion to provide for a bigger amount of
compensation. The court fixed the
commissioner’s fee at five hundred pesos (P500), considering that Marquez is a
lawyer and that he spent time and effort during the five hearings. The court ordered that one-half of the fee
is chargeable against the government and the other half against Ines V. Garcia.

The Republic of the Philippines appealed. Presumably, its appeal involves only a
question of law since the facts are undisputed (Cunanan vs. Lazatin, 74 Phil.
719).

The issue is whether the Republic of the Philippines is liable to
pay one-half of the fee of Atty. Marquez as commissioner in a condemnation
proceeding. The Rules of Court provide:

“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 and the judgment is affirmed, in which event the costs of
the appeal shall be paid by the owner.” (Rule 67 on Eminent Domain).

“SEC. 13. 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 of five 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.”
(Rule 141).

“SEC. 16. Government
exempt. – The Republic of the
Philippines is exempt from paying the legal fees provided in this rule.”
(Rule 141).

We hold that the Republic’s appeal is meritorious because section
16 of Rule 141 unmistakably provides that the State is exempt from paying legal
fees. Section 1, Rule 142 of the Rules
of Court complements Rule 141 by providing that “no costs shall be allowed
against the Republic of the Philippines unless otherwise provided by law.”
There is no law requiring the Republic to pay costs in emi­nent domain
proceedings. The commissioners’ fees in
expropria­tion cases are taxed as part of the costs and the government is not
liable for costs.

The Solicitor General observes that since Ines V. Garcia did not
appeal, it may be assumed that she had already paid the sum of P250 as the fee
of Atty. Marquez. (He did not submit
any appel­lee’s brief).

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s order is modified. The Republic of the Philippines is hereby
adjudged to be exempt from the payment of the commissioner’s fee of Atty.
Marquez. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.