A recent court hearing involving an expropriation case provided an important and revealing glimpse into the realities of litigation appraisal and the role of commissioners under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. The proceeding highlighted not only the technical demands of valuation in expropriation cases, but also the constitutional importance of independence and competence among commissioners appointed to assist the court.
In the hearing, one of the commissioners nominated by the plaintiff, the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP), was placed on the witness stand and subjected to cross-examination. The commissioner testified that she had served for around thirty years with Napocor and NGCP and had appeared in more than 300 expropriation proceedings as commissioner. On the surface, the credentials appeared extensive and impressive.
However, as the testimony progressed, serious questions emerged regarding the valuation approach and the commissioner’s understanding of her role under Rule 67.
Under Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 67, commissioners occupy a unique position in expropriation proceedings. They are not ordinary witnesses, nor are they advocates for the parties who nominated them. Commissioners are auxiliaries of the court — technical aides tasked to assist the judge in determining just compensation. Because expropriation involves the constitutional taking of private property, the Rules expressly require commissioners to be “competent and disinterested.”
The hearing illustrated why these qualifications are indispensable.
Although the commissioner presented three comparable sales in her report, she ultimately anchored her conclusion on the BIR zonal value and treated it as the basis for just compensation. Defense counsel immediately challenged this methodology, correctly arguing that BIR zonal values are primarily intended for taxation purposes and are not, by themselves, determinative of market value in expropriation proceedings.
Even the trial judge appeared unconvinced and questioned why the valuation could not exceed the zonal value despite the comparable market indicators presented in the report. The commissioner’s response — “makatapal mi ana, Judge” — became a telling moment during the hearing.
At that point, the issue ceased to be merely methodological. It became a question of competence, independence, and fidelity to the commissioner’s duty under Rule 67.
The situation became even more significant when defense counsel asked whether, as an NGCP engineer, the commissioner was protecting the interests of the company. The commissioner answered in the affirmative.
That admission goes directly to the heart of the Rules of Court. A commissioner is not appointed to protect the interests of either the expropriating agency or the landowner. The commissioner’s duty is owed to the court. The obligation is to provide an independent, objective, and professionally defensible opinion to assist the judge in arriving at just compensation. Once a commissioner openly identifies with the interests of one party, the requirement that the commissioner be “disinterested” is placed into serious question.
The hearing likewise provides valuable lessons for new appraisers and those planning to enter litigation appraisal practice.
Courtroom valuation is fundamentally different from ordinary appraisal assignments conducted for banks, internal corporate use, or taxation purposes. In litigation, every assumption, adjustment, methodology, comparable sale, and conclusion may be subjected to intense scrutiny through cross-examination and judicial evaluation. A report is not judged merely by how it is written, but by whether it can withstand legal and technical examination under oath.
More importantly, litigation appraisal is not simply about arriving at a value. It is about demonstrating professional independence, analytical rigor, credibility, and ethical discipline. An appraiser who enters the courtroom without a strong grasp of valuation principles, legal standards, evidentiary requirements, and the constitutional framework governing just compensation risks not only discrediting the report, but also undermining the court’s search for fairness.
The hearing also reflects a broader concern within expropriation practice. There remains a tendency among some commissioners and agency appraisers to treat zonal values as ceilings rather than mere tax benchmarks. Others become overly aligned with institutional interests. But the constitutional standard is neither convenience nor accommodation. The constitutional standard is just compensation.
At the final analysis, the courtroom remains the ultimate testing ground of appraisal practice. Reports must not only be prepared — they must be defensible. Opinions must not only be asserted — they must be supported by evidence, methodology, and independent reasoning. Above all, the appraiser must remember that the duty is not to produce a value desired by a party, but to assist the court in the fair and impartial determination of value.
Real LexEcon 