United Overseas Bank v. Ching
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Siony Ching purchased a condominium unit from Towntec Realty & Development Corp. (Towntec) and paid the full purchase price. However, Towntec failed to deliver the condominium certificate of title because the land was mortgaged to United Overseas Bank Philippines, Inc. (UOBP). Ching filed a complaint seeking the annulment of the mortgage between Towntec and UOBP, alleging it was executed without the prior written approval of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in violation of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 957. 2. Procedural History: The Housing and Land Use (HLU) Arbiter ruled in favor of Ching, declaring the mortgage null and void and ordering the delivery of the title and payment of damages. UOBP appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, which affirmed the Arbiter's decision. UOBP's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. UOBP then appealed to the Office of the President, which dismissed the appeal as filed out of time. UOBP's motion for reconsideration with the Office of the President was also denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Orders of the Office of the President and denied UOBP's motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for review on certiorari filed by UOBP, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. UOBP's sole argument is that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that its appeal to the Office of the President was not timely filed. UOBP contends that the appeal period should be 30 days, citing Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987, and not the 15-day period applied by the lower tribunals, which relied on Section 15 of PD No. 957 and Section 2 of PD No. 1344, as interpreted in prior Supreme Court rulings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the appeal to the Office of the President was not timely filed because the period of appeal from the HLURB Board of Commissioners to the Office of the President is 15 days as provided by special law. Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by UOBP effectively suspended the running of the appeal period, and if the appeal to the Office of the President was filed within the remaining period after the motion for reconsideration was denied.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that the appeal to the Office of the President was not timely filed. The September 14, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the September 10, 2003 and December 2, 2003 Orders of the Office of the President, and the November 22, 2005 Resolution denying reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the appeal to the Office of the President: The Court reiterated that the period of appeal from the decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners to the Office of the President is fifteen (15) days. This period is established by special laws, specifically Section 15 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 957 and Section 29 of PD No. 1344. These special laws provide an exception to the general rule of a thirty-day appeal period stipulated in Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987. The principle that special laws prevail over general laws in statutory construction is thus applied. The Court emphasized that administrative rules and regulations must conform to, and not contradict, the provisions of the enabling law. The regulatory functions of the National Housing Authority (NHA), to which these decrees originally applied, were transferred to the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, now known as HLURB, making these periods applicable to HLURB cases. On the effect of a motion for reconsideration: The Court clarified that the filing of a motion for reconsideration merely suspends the running of the appeal period. In this case, UOBP received the HLURB Board's decision on January 15, 2003, giving it 15 days to appeal. UOBP filed a motion for reconsideration on January 29, 2003, which was within the initial appeal period. However, this motion was denied by the HLURB Board in a Resolution dated March 28, 2003, which UOBP received on April 9, 2003. Consequently, UOBP had only one day left from the receipt of the resolution, or until April 10, 2003, to file its appeal to the Office of the President. UOBP filed its appeal on April 24, 2003, which was 14 days late. Therefore, the appeal was filed out of time, and the Office of the President correctly dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction to entertain a belated appeal. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is a jurisdictional requirement.
Main Doctrine
The period of appeal from the decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners to the Office of the President is fifteen (15) days, as provided by special laws such as PD No. 957 and PD No. 1344, which prevail over the general thirty-day period stated in Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987. The filing of a motion for reconsideration suspends the running of the appeal period.