|
ROMULO R. PERALTA, Petitioner, |
G.R. No. 187978
|
|
- versus - HON. RAUL
E. DE LEON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 258,
HON. ARBITER DUNSTAN SAN VICENTE, in his capacity as Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Arbiter and LUCAS ELOSO EJE, in his capacity as Sheriff, Regional
Trial Court, Parañaque City and CONCEPTS AND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT INC., as
represented by its CHAIRMAN KASUO NORO,
Respondents. |
Present: CORONA,
C. J., Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PERALTA,* and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: November 24, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PEREZ, J.:
This is a Petition for Review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 98922 dated 29 May 2008 denying the
Petition filed by petitioner Romulo R. Peralta, which sought to set aside the
Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 258, Parañaque City in Civil
Case No. 07-0141, dismissing the Complaint filed by petitioner against
respondent Concepts and System Development Inc. (CSDI) on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction and forum shopping.
Likewise assailed is the Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals dated 11 May 2009 denying Petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration.
The facts are:
Respondent CSDI is the developer and owner of the condominium project called
the Elysium in a three and a half (3½) hectare lot in P5 Million Pesos.
Petitioner and CSDI agreed on the following scheme of payment:[3]
NAME OF BUYER: MR.
ROMULO R. PERALTA
DISCRIPTION OF UNIT: BLOCK 03/UNIT 10 ALPHA
THE ELYSIUM PH. II
PURCHASE PRICE: P5,000,000.00
50% DOWNPAYMENT: P2,500,000.00 April 22, 1997
50% BALANCE: P1,250,000.00 October 23, 1997
P1,250,000.00 April 23, 1998
The subject property was completed in 1996 and issued a Condominium
Certificate of Title No. 6132 on 9 October 1996. On its due date, petitioner failed to pay in full
in accordance with the Contract to Sell despite the delivery, acceptance, and
his possession and enjoyment of the condominium unit in November 1997.
On 16 September 1999, CSDI filed a complaint for collection of sum of
money/specific performance against petitioner with the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) which was docketed as HLURB Case No. REM-091699-10646
(HLURB Case No. REM-AO991214-0275).
Meanwhile, on 5 May 2000, the petitioner together with the other unit
owners filed a case against CSDI before the HLURB for Cancellation of
Certificate of Registration, License to Sell, Declaration of Nullity of HLURB
Case No. REM-051500-10995, Cancellation of Title, Specific Performance and
Damages, entitled Ferdinand V. Aragon, et
al. v. CSDI, et al., docketed as HLURB Case No. REM-051500-10995.
On 14 October 2000, respondent HLURB Arbiter Dunstan San Vicente (HLURB
Arbiter San Vicente) rendered a decision in HLURB Case No. REM-091699-10646,
filed by CSDI against petitioner, requiring the latter to pay Three Million
Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos (P3,022,000.00) plus interest with the
alternative remedy of rescission of contract to sell plus forfeiture of
payments. The HLURB held:
WHEREFORE, a judgment (sic) is hereby rendered:
1.
Ordering respondent to pay complainant the
amount of THREE MILLION TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P3,022,000.00) plus
3% interest per month from June 2000 until the full amount is paid and
satisfied.
2.
Ordering
respondent to pay complainant liquidated damages equivalent to ½ of all sums
paid upon the purchase price.
3.
Ordering
respondent to pay complainant attorney’s
fees in the amount of P20,000.00; and
4.
Ordering
respondent to pay complainant the cost of suit.
In the event that respondent
would fail or refuse, or continue to fail or refuse, to pay his monetary
obligations, the subject Contract to Sell is hereby rescinded/cancelled and the
total amount paid by respondent be forfeited in favor of the complainant. In that same event, the respondent is hereby
ordered to turn-over and cede peacefully the possession of or vacate the
Condominium unit, Block 3, Unit 10, Phase II of the Elysium Community
Condominium, to the complainant.
All compulsory counterclaims of respondent are hereby
denied.[4]
Petitioner filed an appeal to the Office of the President which was docketed
as O.P. Case No. 02-C-072. The appeal
was dismissed by the Office of the President. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was
denied with finality by the same office in an Order dated 4 May 2005.[5]
Meanwhile, on 29 October 2002, respondent HLURB Arbiter San Vicente rendered
a decision against CSDI in the complaint docketed as HLURB Case No.
REM-051500-10995 for Cancellation of Certificate of Registration, License to
Sell, Declaration of Nullity of REM-051500-10995, Cancellation of Title,
Specific Performance and Damages.[6] The dispositive portion of the HLURB decision
states:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing
premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Ordering
respondent Concepts and Systems Development, Inc. to accelerate the completion or
full development of The Elysium Condominium project, consisting of its Phase I,
II, and III; and to continue maintaining properly the common areas embraced in
the whole condominium project, save those that the ECC Corporation have begun
to manage or deliver services for the benefit of its members.
2. Return to
the Elysium Community Condominium Corporation the percentage or fraction of the
aggregate assessment fees it cumulatively collected from the unit buyers and
credited to the cost of its maintenance of the Elysium project reckoned from
organization of the ECC Corporation on 25 October 1990 up to 20 July 2000;
3. Turn-over to the ECC Corporation the accumulated
membership fees paid by all corporation members starting from the ECC
Corporation’s date of organization in October 25, 1990 up to July 20, 2000, the
date that management of the corporation was relinquished to the members;
4. Cease and
desist from collecting maintenance fees from the unit owners, except when the
same is demanded by the ECC Corporation in furtherance of its management of the
project after the turn-over of the common areas thereto;
5. Pay the ECC
Corporation the cost of this suit and the reasonable amount of P50,000.00 as
damages by way of developmental charges for its alteration of the project
without the consent of the majority of registered owners of the project, or its
unit owners;
6. Pay and
settle (its) loan obligations, or redeem the encumbrance of titles, to RCBC and
the Land Bank of the
7. The
complaint against the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, the Land Bank of
the
All other claims and counter-claims are denied for
lack of merit. [7]
On 12 December 2005, pursuant to the decision dated 14 October 2000 in
HLURB Case No. REM 091699-10646, a Writ of Execution was issued by HLURB
Regional Director Jesse A. Obligacion resulting in the garnishment of
petitioner’s cash deposit with Bank of the Philippine Islands.[8]
Petitioner filed repeated motions to quash the Writ of Execution citing
the 29 October 2002 decision of the HLURB in Case No. REM-051500-10995. Unmoved, HLURB Arbiter San Vicente issued on
30 April 2007 an Order to break open and to force the ejectment of petitioner
from said condominium unit in HLURB Case No. REM-091699-10646.
HLURB Arbiter San Vicente stood firm in his position that the decision of
the HLURB in HLURB Case No. REM-051500-10995 cannot stay the execution of the
decision in HLURB Case No. REM-091699-10646.
The HLURB held:
In this case, the subject
matter was the unpaid condominium unit purchased by respondent and the
uncollected sums of amortizations in favor of complainant. Neither are the causes of action in both
cases identical. In the former case, the cause of action involves
non-development of the entire project, non-redemption of the encumbered title/s
that embrace the whole project, failure to turn over the project to ECCC. In the instant case, the cause of action
involved is the unjust failure of respondent to pay the price of the
condominium unit he bought. The alleged
same pieces of evidence adduced in both actions would not sustain the causes of
action raised in each of them.
To the extent that our
disposition on the facts and issues embodied in this case is now final and
executory, our ruling based thereon is now the law herein. Our decision is already conclusive as to the
matters actually and directly controverted or determined in this case. The enforcement of the decision cannot be
varied nor may it be barred by conclusions drawn from another case regardless
of how both may possibly relate to each case.
Even respondent’s allusion to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the ‘Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied
Banking Corporation’ will not save his day.
As we have stressed, the
subject matters in this case and in the Ferdinand
Aragon case are not identical. In
that case, the subject involved is the whole condominium project and its
development, turn-over of condominium facilities as well as encumbrance of the
titles of the project. In this case, the
subject matter is the unpaid condominium unit purchased by respondent and the
uncollected sums of amortizations in favor of complainant.
WHEREFORE, the respondent’s
motion to quash the Writ of Execution dated December 12, 2005 is hereby DENIED.
In view of the plain and
manifest refusal of respondent to obey the judgment and writ which ordered him
to pay his accumulated installments in this case, let the alternative remedy of
cancellation of the contract of the parties as well as forfeiture of the
payments of respondent take effect immediately.
Consequently, the Office of the Ex-Officio Sheriff is hereby directed to
compel respondent Peralta to turn-over and cede peacefully his possession of
the condominium unit, Block 3, Unit 10, Phase II of the Elysium Community
Condominium, to the complainant; and, should respondent continue to defy or
disobey this Order, to break open and enter the premises of the said
condominium unit, inventory and take possession of the personal belongings of
respondent in the premises of his unit and deliver or turn-over them to the
respondent; or in case of his refusal, to entrust or deposit the same in a secure and enclosed area within
the compound of the condominium project, and finally to place complainant in
peaceful possession of the unit.[9]
On 7 May 2007, petitioner filed a Complaint for Injunction and Damages before
the RTC Branch 258 of Parañaque City docketed as Civil Case No. 07-0141
entitled Romulo R. Peralta v. Concepts
and Systems Development Inc.[10]
The RTC Branch 258 dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. 07-0141 on
the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and forum shopping through its Order dated
11 May 2007.
Petitioner sought recourse before the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. On 29 May 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered
the assailed Decision, which affirmed the RTC’s Order dismissing the case for
injunction and damages in Civil Case No.
07-0141 on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and forum shopping.
The Court of Appeals explained:
The fact that the petition or
complaint before the public respondent prays also for damages suffered by the
petitioner in the implementation of the writ of execution has no controlling
significance. The bottom line is that it
was connected with, or arose out of, the implementation of the writ of
execution issued by the HLURB. Under
Presidential Decree Nos. 957 and 1344, the Regional Trial Court cannot encroach
into the domain of said quasi-judicial agency.
The petitioner cited the case
of Suntay v. Gocolay, [G.R. No.
144892, September 23, 2005] but it is clearly not applicable. In said case, the issue was jurisdiction over
issues regarding title or ownership of a condominium unit. Supreme Court held that the HLURB has no
jurisdiction to rule on such issues.
As to forum shopping, the
non-disclosure of other cases in the courts of law or quasi judicial agency is
a ground for dismissal. Section 5 of
Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure specifies that:
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The
plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other
initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not
theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in
any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge,
no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn
that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
For failure to disclose the
cases cited by the public respondent in the subject order, the petitioner
risked his case being, as it was, dismissed.
In the case of Sadang v. Court of
Appeals [G.R. No. 140138, October 11, 2006], the Supreme Court ruled that there was a violation of the rule
on forum shopping by the non-disclosure of the filing with an administrative
agency, the HLURB, of a complaint raising the same issues as those brought
before the Regional Trial Court.[11]
In the end, the Court of Appeals decreed:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.[12]
Assiduous, petitioner is now before this Court via the present recourse raising the single issue of whether or not
the Court of Appeals is correct in affirming the lack of jurisdiction of the
RTC to enjoin the implementation of the HLURB decision that was allegedly rendered
contrary to Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1344.[13]
We affirm the Court of Appeals.
Generally, the extent to which an administrative agency may exercise its
powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of the statute
creating or empowering such agency.
Presidential Decree No. 1344, “Empowering the National Housing Authority
to Issue Writ of Execution in the Enforcement of its Decision under
Presidential Decree No. 957,” clarifies and spells out the quasi-judicial
dimensions of the grant of jurisdiction to the HLURB in the following specific
terms:
Sec 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate
real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in
Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have the
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature.
A.
Unsound real
estate business practices;
B.
Claims involving
refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer
against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
C.
Cases involving
specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers
of subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, broker
or salesman.[14]
It is noteworthy that the HLURB in HLURB Case No. REM-091699-10646,
rendered a decision against petitioner ordering him to pay CSDI the unpaid
amount due from his purchase of a condominium unit or in the alternative, the
rescission of contract with forfeiture of payments made by petitioner. A writ of execution was issued against
petitioner and his appeal was dismissed by the Office of the President. Petitioner no longer assailed this dismissal,
thus the same became final and executory. Unable to obtain relief before the Office of
the President, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 07-0141 before the RTC of
Parañaque City. As adverted to earlier,
the RTC concluded that the jurisdiction over petitioner’s complaint falls on
the HLURB. This was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.
It is a settled rule that the jurisdiction of the HLURB to hear and
decide cases is determined by the nature of the cause of action, the subject
matter or property involved and the parties.[15]
In Civil Case No. 07-0141, petitioner prayed for the issuance of
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to restrain respondent
CSDI from cancelling the Contract to Sell, forfeiting the amortization payment,
foreclosing petitioner’s condominium units, and garnishing his bank
deposits. Specifically, petitioner asked
that the RTC, Branch 258:
1. Immediately upon receipt of
this petition, a temporary restraining Order be issued and/or a Preliminary
Injunction, pending the determination of the merits of the case, by way of restraining
defendants from forfeiting the amortization payments, foreclosure of
plaintiff’s condominium unit, its break opening, and garnishment of plaintiff’s
bank deposits at Bank of Philippine Islands, Forbes Park branch, Makati City.
2. To order the final and permanent injunction.
3. And to order
defendant-developer to pay plaintiff the actual damages of his hospitalization
amounting to Php 60,000.00 including the interest until fully paid, caused by
the unlawful and damaging acts of defendants as above shown;
4. To order defendant
developer to pay P300,000.00 as moral damages to plaintiff;
5. Another payment of P300,000.00
as exemplary damages to plaintiff;
6. To pay Attorneys fees of P50,000.00
and costs of suit;
7. Ordering defendants to adhere to the License
to Sell and all its strict compliance thereto imposed on defendant developer.[16]
We have to agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that
jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the petitioner is with the HLURB.
Maria Luisa Park Association, Inc. v.
Almendras,[17] finds
application in this case. The Court
ruled:
The provisions of P.D. No. 957 were intended to
encompass all questions regarding subdivisions and condominiums. The intention was aimed at providing for an
appropriate government agency, the HLURB, to which all parties aggrieved in the
implementation of provisions and the enforcement of contractual rights with
respect to said category of real estate may take recourse. The business of
developing subdivisions and corporations being imbued with public interest and
welfare, any question arising from the exercise of that prerogative should be
brought to the HLURB which has the technical know-how on the matter. In the
exercise of its powers, the HLURB must commonly interpret and apply contracts
and determine the rights of private parties under such contracts. This
ancillary power is no longer a uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by
the regular courts.[18]
This Court was equally explicit in Chua v. Ang,[19] when
it pronounced that:
x x x The law recognized, too, that subdivision and
condominium development involves public interest and welfare and should be
brought to a body, like the HLURB, that has technical expertise. In the exercise of its powers, the HLURB, on
the other hand, is empowered to interpret and apply contracts, and determine
the rights of private parties under these contracts. This ancillary power, generally judicial, is
now no longer with the regular courts to the extent that the pertinent HLURB
laws provide.
Viewed
from this perspective, the HLURB’s jurisdiction over contractual rights and
obligations of parties under subdivision and condominium contracts comes out
very clearly.[20]
We are in accord with the RTC when it held:
First: On the matter of lack
of jurisdiction of this Court over this case – This Court is fully aware of the
cited decisions of respondents particularly those which pertain to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) as
provided for under pertinent laws to the exclusion of the regular courts and
this is one of them. It cannot be
gainsaid that while [plaintiff] harps on Arts. 20 and 21 of the New Civil Code
of the
The Court, therefore, hereby
adopts by reference the arguments of respondent CSDI relative to this Court’s
lack of jurisdiction to hear and decide this case which need no longer be
repeated herein as it will not serve any useful purpose.[21]
As observed
in C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. v.
Hibionada:[22]
The argument that only courts
of justice can adjudicate claims resoluble under the provisions of the Civil
Code is out of step with the fast-changing times. There are hundreds of
administrative bodies now performing this function by virtue of a valid
authorization from the legislature. This quasi-judicial function, as it is
called, is exercised by them as an incident of the principal power entrusted to
them of regulating certain activities falling under their particular expertise.
Finally, it must be emphasized that the
decision of the HLURB in HLURB Case No. REM-091699-10646, has already become
final and executory due to the failure of the petitioner to elevate the
dismissal of his appeal by the Office of the President to the Court of Appeals.
It is axiomatic that final and executory
judgments can no longer be attacked by any of the parties or be modified,
directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land.[23]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is DENIED
for lack of merit and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 May 2008 in
CA G.R. SP No. 98922 as well as its Resolution dated 11 May 2009 are AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: RENATO C.
CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
* Per Special Order No. 913, Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta is designated as additional member in place of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo who is on official leave.
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza (now a member of this Court) with
Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring. Rollo,
pp. 31-46.
[2]
[3] Records,
Vol. I, p. 22.
[4]
[5] The
Order of the Office of the President reads:
This refers to the motion of Romulo R. Peralta for reconsideration of
the Order of this Office dated February 10, 2005 declaring our earlier Order of
July 20, 2004 as final and executory and remanding the records of the case to
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board for its appropriate disposition.
In this recourse, movant
vehemently denied receiving a copy of the July 20, 2004 Order.
We deny reconsideration.
The registry return receipt on
file with the records of this Office clearly shows that movant, through his
counsel of record, received the July 20, 2004 Order on July 29, 2004. This single proof of evidence is enough to
repudiate the aforesaid claim of movant.
The excuse offered by movant’s counsel as reason for the non-receipt of
the said Order is, to our mind the most hackneyed and habitual subterfuge
employed by litigants and their counsels to prevent decisions from attaining
finality. It has been oft-repeated that
lawyers are required to be more circumspect with the cases they handle. As such, they are expected to devise an
efficient receiving and filing system in their office so that no disorderliness
can affect the smooth flow of the cases, particularly the receipt of notices of
decision from courts and administrative tribunals. Obviously, the records of movant’s counsel
are in complete disarray that he cannot find a single copy of the Order duly
delivered to him by the Postal Office on July 29, 2004. This neglect or omission on the part of
movant’s counsel will not stay the finality of the Order of this Office.
WHEREFORE,
the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED with finality.
SO
ORDERED.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Records, Vol. II, pp. 412-413.
[10] Records,
Vol. I, pp. 1-11.
[11] Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[12]
[13]
[14] Osea v. Ambrocio, G.R. 162774, 7 April
2006, 486 SCRA 599, 605-606.
[15] De los
[16] Records,
Vol. I, pp. 10-11.
[17] G.R.
No. 171763, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 663.
[18]
[19] G.R. No.
156164, 4 September 2009, 598 SCRA 229.
[20]
[21]
[22] G.R.
No. 80916, 9 November 1990, 191 SCRA 268, 272.
[23] Peña v. Government Service Insurance System,
G.R. No. 159520, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 383, 396-397 citing Teodoro v. Court of Appeals, 437 Phil.
336, 346 (2002).