July 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 141820 - Jose Luis Haurie, Jose R. Ebro, Jr. & Treasure Land Developers Inc. v. Meridien Resources Inc, Century Properties, Inc. Pio Martin Lauengco & Le Grand Condominium Corp.
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 141820 : July 9, 2008]
JOSE LUIS HAURIE, JOSE R. EBRO, JR., and TREASURE LAND DEVELOPERS, INC., Petitioners, v. MERIDIEN RESOURCES, INC., CENTURY PROPERTIES, INC., PIO MARTIN T. LAUENGCO, and LE GRAND CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Resolutions dated September 6, 19991 and January 31, 2000,2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52471. The appellate court had dismissed petitioners' appeal from the Decision3 dated April 6, 1999, of the Office of the President.
The pertinent facts are as follows:
Respondent Meridien Resources, Inc. (MRI) is the owner-developer of a condominium project known as the Le Grand Condominium located at No. 126 Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City. Under the Master Deed with Declaration of Restrictions, the condominium project was described as an 11-storey building with a total of 49 residential units and two commercial/office units.
Before selling the units, MRI decided to convert the administration office into a commercial unit and the maintenance room into an administration office. On December 16, 1987, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) issued an Alteration of Plan Approval4 approving the conversion. In the meantime, petitioner Jose Luis Haurie bought two units in the condominium project.
On December 23, 1987, MRI amended the master deed which increased the commercial/office units from two to three. The new commercial unit was identified as Unit No. 103.
In 1988, MRI executed a Deed of Absolute Sale5 in favor of Haurie. Haurie in turn sold one of his units to petitioner Treasure Land Developers, Inc. (TLDI). On later dates, petitioner Jose R. Ebro, Jr. bought a unit while respondent Pio Martin T. Lauengco acquired Unit No. 103.
On December 22, 1989, petitioners and respondent Le Grand Condominium Corporation (LGCC) filed a complaint with the Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA)-HLURB for the cancellation of the Amended Master Deed with Declaration of Restrictions and the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Lauengco. They contended that the conversion of the administration office into a commercial unit was void since it was made without their consent.
On April 1, 1993, the OAALA-HLURB dismissed the complaint, as follows:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING this case for lack of cause of action. Accordingly, respondent Pio Martin Lauengco is hereby declared as the lawful owner of Condominium Unit No. 103 of Le Grand Condominium Project.
On the counterclaim, judgment is hereby rendered ORDERING complainants to pay [respondents] Century Properties, Inc. and Pio Martin Lauengco jointly and severally the sum of P100,000.00 as and for moral and exemplary damages and the sum of P50,000.00 as and for attorney's [fees].6
Petitioners appealed to the Board of Commissioners-HLURB which affirmed the Decision of the OAALA-HLURB:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Meridien Resources, Inc. [MRI] is hereby pronounced as entitled to the award of damages and attorney's fees, all other aspects of the decision of the Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs dated 01 April 1993 are hereby AFFIRMED.7
Upon elevation of the case to the Office of the President, the decision was also affirmed. The Office of the President noted that there were still no unit owners at the time MRI decided to alter the plans of the condominium project. Furthermore, the amended master deed was in consonance with the Alteration of Plan Approval issued by the HLURB. Absent any proof to the contrary, such approval is presumed to have been regularly issued and to be valid.
Haurie, Ebro, and TLDI filed a petition docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 52471 with the Court of Appeals where they impleaded LGCC as one of the respondents. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for failure of petitioners to attach certified true copies of the following documents: (1) verified complaint; (2) respondents' answers thereto; (3) decision of the OAALA-HLURB; (4) decision of the Board of Commissioners-HLURB; and (5) petitioners' appeal memorandum and respondents' reply memorandum in the Office of the President.
Petitioners filed an Alternative Motion for Reconsideration or Motion for Time to File Required Papers or Motion for Transmittal or Elevation of Originals of Required Papers or Entire Record of Proceedings8 dated October 13, 1999. Said motion was also denied by the appellate court. Hence, this petition.
During the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 52471, Haurie, Ebro, TLDI, and LGCC filed another petition docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 53254 which the Court of Appeals dismissed. The appellate court upheld the legality of the conversion and sale of the administration office since (1) there were still no unit owners at the time MRI decided to alter the plans of the condominium project; (2) the amended master deed, stating that there were 3 commercial/office units in the ground floor, was annotated in LGCC's title; (3) the amended master deed was in consonance with the Alteration of Plan Approval issued by the HLURB.9
Reconsideration having been denied, petitioners filed a petition docketed as G.R. No. 164999 with this Court. On December 1, 2004, the Court denied the petition since: (1) only one of the petitioners signed the verification; and (2) the petitioners failed to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the appealed decision.10
In this petition filed on March 22, 2000, petitioners raise the following issues:
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN DECIDING ON A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT, WHEN IT HELD THAT THE FAILURE TO ATTACH CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF THE COMPLAINT, THE ANSWERS THERETO, THE DECISIONS OF THE HOUSING AND LAND USE ARBITER AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, PETITIONERS' APPEAL MEMORANDUM AND RESPONDENTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT CONSTITUTED SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN DISMISSING PETITIONERS' APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT BASED ON PURE TECHNICALITY, IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE NOT TO BE APPLIED IN SUCH A RIGID OR TECHNICAL SENSE AS TO FRUSTRATE AND DEFEAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.11
Simply put, the issue is: Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition based on technicality?cralawred
The Court of Appeals, in our view, did not err in dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 52471. Petitioners' failure to attach to their petition the required various documents in support of their allegations violates Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 6. Contents of the petition. - The Petition for Review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein. (Emphasis supplied.)chanrobles virtual law library
Pursuant to Section 7 of the same Rule, failure to comply with the requirements under Section 6 warrants the dismissal of the petition, thus:
SEC. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. - The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis supplied.)
We observe that the only attachment to the petition was a certified true copy of the April 6, 1999 Decision of the Office of the President from which the appeal had been made.12 Yet, petitioners precisely disputed the factual findings and legal conclusions made by the Office of the President. More specifically, they alleged that said office erred:
I.
'IN DISREGARDING COMPLETELY THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ON DECEMBER 19, 1987, RESPONDENT MRI, THROUGH RESPONDENT CPI, AS EXCLUSIVE MARKETING [MANAGER], SOLD UNIT 1001 AND UNIT 1102, TOGETHER WITH THEIR CORRESPONDING .0354925 AND .032946 UNDIVIDED INTERESTS IN THE COMMON AREAS OF LE GRAND CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, TO PETITIONER JOSE LUIS HAURIE.
II.
'IN REFUSING TO DECLARE THE AMENDMENT BY RESPONDENT MRI OF THE ORIGINAL MASTER DEED WITH DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS OF LE GRAND CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AS ILLEGAL AND FRAUDULENT.
III.
'IN REFUSING TO FIND AND HOLD RESPONDENT MRI GUILTY OF FRAUD IN CONVERTING THE ADMINISTRATION ROOM, WHICH FORMS PART OF THE COMMON AREAS OF LE GRAND CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, INTO ANOTHER COMMERCIAL UNIT, AND IN SECURING CONDOMINIUM CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 12041 FOR SAID ADMINISTRATION ROOM AND THEREAFTER SELLING THE SAME TO RESPONDENT PIO MARTIN T. LAUENGCO.
IV.
'IN REFUSING AND FAILING TO FIND AND HOLD RESPONDENTS CPI AND PIO MARTIN T. LAUENGCO EQUALLY GUILTY OF FRAUD IN EFFECTING THE SALE OF THE ADMINISTRATION ROOM (CONVERTED TO CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 103) TO RESPONDENT PIO MARTIN T. LAUENGCO.
V.
'IN REFUSING TO HOLD RESPONDENT MRI LIABLE TO DELIVER WHAT ITS AGENTS PROMISED AND REPRESENTED IN ITS SALES BROCHURES AND OTHER PROPAGANDA AS PART OF THE AMENITIES AND FACILITIES OF LE GRAND CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, EVEN ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT ITS CONVERSION OF THE ADMINISTRATION ROOM WAS MADE LEGALLY AND REGULARLY.
VI.
'IN SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF HOUSING AND LAND USE ARBITER [ABRAHAM N. VERMUDEZ] DATED APRIL 1, 1993 WHICH HELD THAT THE PRESENT ACTION WAS INSTITUTED IN THE WRONG VENUE, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME DECLARING RESPONDENT PIO MARTIN T. LAUENGCO THE LAWFUL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION.
VII.
'IN REFUSING TO SET ASIDE OR NULLIFY THE DECISION DATED APRIL 1, 1993 OF HOUSING AND LAND USE ARBITER ABRAHAM N. VERMUDEZ, DESPITE HIS FAILURE TO DISMISS OR STRIKE OUT RESPONDENTS' ANSWERS TO THE COMPLAINT, OR HIS FAILURE TO LIMIT THE FILING OF POSITION PAPERS TO PETITIONERS ONLY, OR HIS FAILURE TO SET THE CASE FOR HEARING FOR THE RECEPTION OF PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THEIR PROOF OF DAMAGES, IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
VIII.
'IN REFUSING TO REVERSE OR SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE APPEAL OF RESPONDENT MRI FROM THE DECISION DATED APRIL 1, 1993 OF HOUSING AND LAND USE ARBITER ABRAHAM N. VERMUDEZ, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER SAID APPEAL DUE TO RESPONDENT MRI'S FAILURE TO PAY THE REQUIRED APPEAL OR REVIEW FEE WITHIN THE PERIOD FIXED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
IX.
'IN AFFIRMING THE AWARD OF MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES TO RESPONDENTS CPI AND PIO MARTIN T. LAUENGCO, AND IN PRONOUNCING THAT RESPONDENT MRI IS ENTITLED "TO THE AWARD OF DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES," DESPITE LACK OF ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL BASIS.13
Without doubt, these issues made it necessary for the appellate court to evaluate other documents, i.e., (1) verified complaint; (2) respondents' answers thereto; (3) decision of the OAALA-HLURB; (4) decision of the Board of Commissioners-HLURB; and (5) petitioners' appeal memorandum and respondents' reply memorandum in the Office of the President, on which to base the disposition of this case.
Indeed, the Court had allowed liberal construction of the Rules of Court in the following cases: (1) where a rigid application will result in manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, especially if a party successfully shows that the alleged defect in the questioned final and executory judgment is not apparent on its face or from the recitals contained therein; (2) where the interest of substantial justice will be served; (3) where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion of the court; and (4) where the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.14 Here, petitioners have not shown any cogent reason for a less stringent interpretation of the rules.
Even assuming that the procedural errors may be overlooked, the issues raised by petitioners on the merits of its appeal are questions that have been addressed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53254 which we have affirmed with finality in G.R. No. 164999.15 We do not see any compelling reason to allow the same issues to be opened anew in the instant petition. A decision that has become final and executory can no longer be disturbed.16
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated September 6, 1999 and January 31, 2000, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52471 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, p. 42. Penned by Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (now a retired member of this Court), with Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner and Martin S. Villarama, Jr. concurring.
2 Id. at 44-45.
3 CA rollo, pp. 94-105.
4 Rollo, p. 199.
5 Id. at 513-515.
6 CA rollo, pp. 98-99.
7 Id. at 94.
8 Id. at 128-143.
9 Rollo, pp. 345-352.
10 Id. at 342.
11 Id. at 19-20.
12 Supra note 3.
13 Id. at 33-35.
14 Manila Hotel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143574, July 11, 2002, 384 SCRA 520, 524.
15 Rollo, pp. 481-485.
16 Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157194, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 452, 463.
