Eastland Construction v. Mortel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eastland Construction and Development Corporation (Eastland) announced the development and sale of a subdivision in Mabini, Batangas, known as "Evergreen Anilao Estate," covered by TCT No. T-82217. Eastland marketed specific lots, including Lot No. 9, Block 2, to Benedicta Mortel (complainant). Complainant entered into a contract to sell with Eastland for a 125-square meter lot for P168,750.00, later adjusted to P162,000.00 for 120 square meters with an additional P6,750.00 for 5 extra square meters, totaling P183,679.00 paid by the complainant. Eastland represented that upon full payment, it would execute a Deed of Absolute Sale free from liens and encumbrances. Unbeknownst to the complainant, the TCT No. T-82217 was mortgaged by Eastland in favor of Bangko Silangan Development Bank (later Orient Commercial Banking Corporation) on September 8, 1994, to secure a P2,000,000.00 loan. This mortgage was annotated on the title. Eastland subdivided TCT No. T-82217 into 173 lots, including the subject lot, on October 14, 1994. The Evergreen Anilao Project was issued a Certificate of Registration and License to Sell (CR/LS) only on September 15, 1998, which stipulated a maximum selling price of P150,000.00 per lot. Orient Bank was closed and placed under receivership by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) on October 14, 1998. Complainant demanded the Deed of Sale and title but Eastland failed to comply, and complainant discovered the prior mortgage. Eastland claimed the title was merely pledged, not mortgaged, and that it could not deliver the title because the Owner's Duplicate Copy was with PDIC. Procedural History: Complainant Benedicta Mortel filed a complaint for Specific Performance, Delivery of Title, and Damages against Eastland and PDIC before the HLURB Regional Office. The HLURB Arbiter declared the mortgage void, ordered Eastland and PDIC to jointly and severally execute a Deed of Absolute Sale, deliver the title free from liens, and turn over possession. They were also ordered to pay damages, attorney's fees, and a penalty for violating PD 957 and BP 220. PDIC and Orient Bank appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, which affirmed the Arbiter's decision. PDIC and Orient Bank appealed to the Office of the President, which dismissed their appeal. Eastland then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it for failure to append material portions of the record, other supporting papers, and the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. Eastland's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Eastland filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the CA resolutions, arguing that the dismissal on technical grounds was erroneous and that the CA ignored the merits of the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on technical grounds, specifically the failure to append material portions of the record and the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ignoring the merits of the case, particularly Eastland's alleged lack of fraud and bad faith, and whether the decision of the Housing and Land Use Arbiter had long become final and executory as to Eastland.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing Eastland's petition for review and its subsequent motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal for failure to append material portions of the record and the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping: The Supreme Court reiterated that while procedural rules may be relaxed in certain instances to afford parties the opportunity to ventilate their cases on the merits, this liberality cannot be invoked if it results in the wanton disregard of the rules or causes needless delay. The Court emphasized that strict compliance is generally enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. In this case, the Court of Appeals dismissed Eastland's petition for review for failure to attach material portions of the record and other supporting papers, as well as the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. The Court stressed that the requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory and its failure to comply cannot be excused, as it is a personal responsibility of the party. The subsequent submission of the certificate on motion for reconsideration did not cure the defect. The Court cited Section 7 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that failure to comply with the requirements regarding supporting documents is sufficient ground for dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal by the Court of Appeals was proper. On the merits of the case and the finality of the HLURB Arbiter's decision: The Supreme Court found a compelling reason to affirm the dismissal of the petition, which was that the decision of the Housing and Land Use Arbiter had long become final and executory as to Eastland. The Court noted that Eastland did not appeal the decision of the HLURB Arbiter to the HLURB Board of Commissioners; only PDIC and Orient Bank did. According to Section 2, Rule XI of the 1996 HLRUB Rules of Procedure, a decision becomes final and executory after thirty calendar days from receipt if no petition for review is filed. Since Eastland failed to file a petition for review within the prescribed period, the Arbiter's decision became final and executory with respect to Eastland. The Court stated that a judgment that has become final and executory is immutable and unalterable. Eastland's attempt to appeal the decision of the Office of the President, which affirmed the HLURB Arbiter's decision, was an attempt to circumvent the finality of the earlier ruling. The Court also agreed with the findings of the HLURB Arbiter that Eastland failed to perform its obligation under the Contract to Sell, did not redeem and deliver the title within six months despite full payment, and violated its License to Sell and Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957. Furthermore, the Court found that Eastland acted fraudulently by concealing the mortgage from the respondent. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with law, and failure to comply with the rules results in the loss of this right.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review may be dismissed for failure to append material portions of the record and other supporting papers, including the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. The requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory and failure to comply cannot be excused, as it constitutes gross negligence. Furthermore, if a decision has become final and executory as to a party, it can no longer be altered or modified, even if the party subsequently attempts to appeal a decision that affirmed the earlier ruling.