Mayon Estate Corp. v. Beltran
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case stems from two separate complaints filed by respondent Lualhati Beltran against petitioners Mayon Estate Corporation and Earthland Developers Corporation before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). The first complaint, HLURB Case No. REM-071597-9831, concerned the incomplete development of the Peñafrañcia Hills Subdivision and the alleged illegal dispossession of lots. The second complaint, HLURB Case No. REM-051702-11905, involved the sale of a lot by NBC-Agro and its president to a third party, Carmelita Cruz, who then mortgaged it, leading to a dispute over ownership and possession. 2. Procedural History: In the first case, HLURB Arbiter Balasolla ruled in favor of Beltran, ordering the completion of development, surrender of lots, cessation of harassment, and payment of damages. However, the petitioners' subsequent petition for review was denied for failing to attach a verified certification against forum shopping. This led to a motion for execution, which was initially granted but later set aside by the HLURB Board of Commissioners. In the second case, Arbiter Balasolla declared the sale of a lot void and ordered restoration of possession and payment of damages. Separate petitions for review by NBC-Agro, Insular, and Cruz were consolidated with the first case's appeal. The HLURB Board of Commissioners modified the decisions of the Arbiter. Beltran then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which annulled the HLURB Board's orders and decisions, declaring the Arbiter's original decisions final and executory. The Office of the President affirmed this, and Cruz's subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals and petition for review to the Supreme Court were also denied. 3. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari, filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assails the Court of Appeals' decision which annulled the HLURB Board of Commissioners' orders and declared the HLURB Arbiter's original decisions final and executory. The petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred in its findings. However, the Supreme Court notes that a related petition filed by Carmelita Cruz (G.R. No. 177543) had already been denied by the Court's Third Division, affirming the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the Arbiter's decisions were final and executory due to the petitioners' failure to perfect their appeal by not submitting the required verified certification against forum shopping. Therefore, the Court finds the present petition moot.
Issue(s)
Whether the 25 January 2002 Decision of the HLURB Arbiter in HLURB Case No. REM-071597-9831 became final and executory. Whether the 21 February 2002 Decision of the HLURB Arbiter in HLURB Case No. REM-051702 became final and executory.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The 25 January 2002 Decision of the HLURB Arbiter in HLURB Case No. REM-071597-9831 and the 21 February 2002 Decision in HLURB Case No. REM-051702 are declared final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the finality of the 25 January 2002 Decision: The Court held that petitioners failed to perfect their appeal from the 25 January 2002 Decision of Arbiter Balasolla. This failure stemmed from their non-compliance with Section 3(b), Rule XII of the HLURB Rules of Procedure, which mandates the attachment of a verified certification against forum shopping jointly executed by the petitioner and counsel. The absence of this certification is a ground for the dismissal of the petition for review, as per Section 1, Rule XIV of the same rules. Consequently, the petition for review was correctly dismissed by the Arbiter for non-compliance, rendering the 25 January 2002 Decision final and executory. The Court noted that a prior petition for review filed by Carmelita Cruz (G.R. No. 177543) concerning related matters was also denied by the Court's Third Division, which affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding of finality. This prior resolution, having become final and executory, binds the present case. On the finality of the 21 February 2002 Decision: The Court reiterated the reasoning applied to the first decision. The failure to perfect the appeal from the 25 January 2002 Decision, due to the lack of a verified certification against forum shopping, also implies that the related decision of 21 February 2002, which was consolidated and reviewed by the HLURB Board and subsequently by the Court of Appeals, also became final and executory. The Court of Appeals' declaration that both decisions were final and executory was upheld. The Office of the President correctly relied on this declaration when it set aside the HLURB Board's decisions and reinstated the Arbiter's original rulings. The Court emphasized that judgments must become final at some definite time, and allowing a party to escape the legal effects of a final judgment simply because they were not a direct party to the initial case would lead to endless litigation. The Court's prior resolution in G.R. No. 177543, which affirmed the finality of these decisions, further solidified this conclusion, rendering the present petition moot.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review before the HLURB Board of Commissioners is deemed not perfected if it fails to comply with the mandatory requirement of attaching a verified certification against forum shopping jointly executed by the petitioner and counsel, as provided under Section 3(b), Rule XII of the HLURB Rules of Procedure. Such non-compliance results in the dismissal of the petition and renders the appealed decision final and executory.