UNITED OVERSEAS BANK G.R. No. 170695
PHILIPPINES, INC.,
Petitioner, Present:
Panganiban, C.J.
(Chairperson),
- versus - Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
SIONY CHING and TOWNTEC
REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
Respondents. Promulgated:
April 7, 2006
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
This petition for review on
certiorari assails the September 14, 2005 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81156 affirming the September 10, 2003[2]
and the December 2, 2003[3] Orders of the Office of the President, and the
November 22, 2005 Resolution[4] denying
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The instant case arose from a
complaint for delivery of title and annulment of real estate mortgage with
damages filed by respondent Siony Ching (Ching) against petitioner United
Overseas Bank Philippines, Inc. (UOBP) and respondent Towntec Realty and
Development Corp. (Towntec) before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB). Ching claimed that sometime between December 1994 to January 1995, she
purchased Condominium Unit 2403 of
On
UOBP appealed to the HLURB Board of
Commissioners which affirmed the decision of the HLU Arbiter. Its motion for reconsideration having been
denied, UOBP filed an appeal with the Office of the President which dismissed the
same in an Order dated
On appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the orders of the Office of the President and denied UOBP’s motion for
reconsideration.
Hence, this petition for review on
the sole ground that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the appeal to
the Office of the President was not timely filed.
The petition is bereft of merit.
UOBP contends that the period within
which to perfect an appeal from the decision of the HLURB Board of
Commissioners to the Office of the President is 30 days and not 15 days citing Section
1 of Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987. It further asserts that the 1996 HLURB Rules
of Procedure, the Administrative Code of 1987, PD No. 957 and PD No. 1344,[5]
which were the legal bases of the Office of the President for holding that the
period of appeal is 15 days, are not special laws which would constitute an exception
to the 30-day appeal period provided for under Section 1 of Administrative Order
No. 18.
The contention is untenable.
As correctly pointed out by the
Office of the President, the period to appeal the decision of the HLURB Board
of Commissioners to the Office of the President has long been settled in the
case of SGMC Realty Corporation v. Office
of the President,[6] as
reiterated in Maxima Realty Management
and Development Corporation v. Parkway Real Estate Development Corporation,[7] where we ruled that the period of
appeal is 15 days from receipt thereof pursuant to Section 15[8] of
PD No. 957 and Section 2[9] of
PD No. 1344 which are special laws
that provide an exception to Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 18. Thus:
x x x Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987, issued by public respondent [Office of the President] reads:
“Section 1. Unless otherwise governed by special laws, an appeal to the Office of the President shall be taken within thirty (30) days from receipt by the aggrieved party of the decision/resolution/order complained of or appealed from.”
As pointed out by the public respondent, the aforecited administrative order allows aggrieved party to file its appeal with the Office of the President within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision complained of. Nonetheless, such thirty-day period is subject to the qualification that there are no other statutory periods of appeal applicable. If there are special laws governing particular cases which provide for a shorter or longer reglementary period, the same shall prevail over the thirty-day period provided for in the administrative order. This is in line with the rule in statutory construction that an administrative rule or regulation, in order to be valid, must not contradict but conform to the provisions of the enabling law.
We note that indeed there are special laws that mandate a shorter period of fifteen (15) days within which to appeal a case to public respondent. First, Section 15 of Presidential Decree No. 957 provides that the decisions of the National Housing Authority (NHA) shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the decision. Second, Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1344 states that decisions of the National Housing Authority shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the date of its receipt. The latter decree provides that the decisions of NHA is appealable only to the Office of the President. Further, we note that the regulatory functions of NHA relating to housing and land development has been transferred to Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, now known as HLURB. Thus, said presidential issuances providing for a reglementary period of appeal of fifteen days apply in this case.[10] (Emphasis supplied)
Consistent with this pronouncement, Section
2, Rule XVIII of the 1996 HLURB Rules of Procedure,[11] which
was the rule in force when UOBP appealed to the Office of the President,
provided that any party may upon notice to the HLURB and the other party,
appeal a decision rendered by the Board of Commissioners en banc or by one of its divisions to the Office of the President
within 15 calendar days from receipt thereof in accordance with PD No. 1344 and
Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987. This rule remains unchanged under Section 2,[12] Rule
XXI of the 2004 HLURB Rules of Procedure.[13]
In the case at bar, it is not
disputed that UOBP received a copy of the decision dated
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The September 14, 2005 Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81156 affirming the September 10, 2003 and
December 2, 2003 Orders of the Office of the President, as well as the November
22, 2005 Resolution denying reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 21-30. Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J.
Valdez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo and
Magdangal M. De Leon.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Empowering the National Housing Authority to Issue Writ of Execution in the
Enforcement of its Decisions Under Presidential Decree No. 957.
[6]
393 Phil. 697 (2000).
[7]
G.R. No. 136492,
[8] Section 15. Decision. — The case shall be decided
within thirty (30) days from the time the same is submitted for decision. The
Decision may order the revocation of the registration of the subdivision or
condominium project, the suspension, cancellation, or revocation of the license
to sell and/or forfeiture, in whole or in part, of the performance bond
mentioned in Section 6 hereof. In case forfeiture of the bond is ordered, the
Decision may direct the provincial or city engineer to undertake or cause the
construction of roads and of other requirements for the subdivision or
condominium as stipulated in the bond, chargeable to the amount forfeited. Such decision shall be immediately executory
and shall become final after the lapse of 15 days from the date of receipt of
the Decision. (Emphasis supplied)
[9] Section 2. The decision of the National Housing
Authority shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days
from the date of its receipt.
It is appealable only to the President of the
[10] SGMC Realty Corporation v. Office of the
President, supra note 6 at
703-704.
[11]
HLURB Resolution No. R-586, series of 1996, as amended by HLURB Resolution No.
R-660, series of 1999.
[12] Section 2. Appeal. — Any party may, upon notice to
the Board and the other party, appeal a decision rendered by the Board of
Commissioners to the Office of the President within fifteen (15) days from
receipt thereof, in accordance with P.D. No. 1344 and A.O. No. 18 Series of
1987 x x x.
[13]
HLURB Resolution No. 765, series of 2004.
[14] Section 1. x x x The
time during which a motion for reconsideration has been pending with the
Ministry/agency concerned shall be deducted from the period for appeal. But
where such a motion for reconsideration has been filed during office hours of
the last day of the period herein provided, the appeal must be made within the
day following receipt of the denial of said motion by the appealing party.
(Emphasis supplied)
[15] Section 2. Appeal. — x x x
The
pendency of the motion for reconsideration shall suspend the running of the
period to appeal to the Office of the President.
[16]
SGMC Realty Corporation v. Office of the President, supra note 6 at 704-705.