ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 151301.
ST. LOUIS REALTY CORP vs. ZAMORA
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 21 2003.
G.R. No. 151301.( St. Louis Realty Corporation vs. Ronaldo B. Zamora, In His Capacity As The Executive Secretary, Office Of The President; Dunstan T. Vicente, In His Capacity As Arbiter, Housing And Land Use Regulatory Board; Alejandro Loquinario, In His Capacity As Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, And Brookside Hills Residents' Association, Inc.)
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner St. Louis Realty Corporation assailing the February 13, 2001 Decision [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals which in turn upheld the January 8, 1999 and April 22, 1999 Orders of the Office of the President. These two Orders respectively (1) granted private respondent Brookside Residents Association, Inc.'s motion for the remand of the records of the case to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLRUB) for the issuance of a writ of execution and (2) denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The present controversy stems from a complaint for incomplete development of Brookside Hills Subdivision filed by private respondent against petitioner before the HLURB docketed as HLURB Case No. REM-A-012794-5778.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent St. Louis Realty Corporation within six months, as follows:
1.� To provide at all times adequate water supply by rehabilitating/repairing all water pumps and tanks;
2.� Provide adequate lighting facilities by the immediate installation, restoration of lacking/existing streetlights;
3.� Refund to the Homeowners Association all paid electric bills on the street lights;
4.� Repair and maintain all existing streets, and provide the same with sidewalks, curbs and gutters;
5.� Construct and maintain an efficient drainage system;
6.� Construct rip-raps along creeks and brooks;
7.� Clear all unsold vacant lots of tall grasses; and
8.� Construct a perimeter fence along the subdivision boundaries.
For violation of Section(s) 19 and 20 of P. D. 957, an administrative fine of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) is hereby imposed upon the respondent payable to this Board. [2] cralaw
On
Petitioner appealed the HLURB Board decision to the Office of the
President. But, on
On
However, private respondent, invoking the final and executory
decision of the Office of the President dated
On
On
Unfazed, petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
In its decision dated
Petitioner insists that the Court of Appeals committed reversible
error when it declared that the
The petition has no merit.
Petitioner claims that the subject
However, the records reveal that a certified true copy of the
subject decision was sent to petitioner's counsel by registered mail on
September 29, 1998. Under Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, service on
petitioner's counsel is deemed complete after the lapse of five days from the
date the registered mail is delivered to the given address. Thus, on
With respect to the second assigned error the question of whether or not petitioner was guilty of breach of the Compromise Agreement is one of fact. Time and again, this Court has ruled that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in appeals filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to a review of errors of law only. [3] cralaw
Finally, petitioner itself admitted the finality of the
Accordingly, the Court finds no reversible error committed by the
Court of Appeals in the assailed
WHEREFORE , the petition is hereby denied.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.)LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Asst. Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Mabutas Jr. and Roberto A. Barrios of the sixth Division.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 222-223.
[3] cralaw Industrial Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Bondad, 330 SCRA 706 [2000]
[4] cralaw Rollo, p. 173.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
