Eastland Construction & Development Corp. v. Mortel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 1996, Eastland Construction & Development Corporation (Eastland) marketed a subdivision project in Mabini, Batangas, known as 'Evergreen Anilao Estate.' Benedicta Mortel (Mortel) entered into a contract to purchase Lot 9, Block 2 for P168,750.00. Mortel completed full payment by July 10, 1998. However, Eastland failed to deliver the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). Mortel later discovered that Eastland had mortgaged the entire property (TCT No. T-82217) to Orient Commercial Banking Corporation (Orient Bank) in 1994 to secure a P2,000,000.00 loan, without informing the buyers. Orient Bank was subsequently closed and placed under the receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). Eastland argued the title was merely 'pledged' and that it could not deliver the title because the owner's duplicate was in the possession of PDIC. Procedural History: Mortel filed a complaint for Specific Performance, Delivery of Title, and Damages with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). On November 21, 2002, the HLURB Arbiter ruled in favor of Mortel, nullifying the mortgage as to her lot and ordering Eastland and PDIC to deliver the title and pay damages. PDIC and Orient Bank appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners and then to the Office of the President (OP), both of which affirmed the Arbiter's decision. Notably, Eastland did NOT appeal the Arbiter's decision. However, after the OP rendered its decision, Eastland filed a motion for reconsideration and subsequently a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed Eastland's petition for review because it failed to append material portions of the record and, crucially, failed to include a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. Eastland's motion for reconsideration, which included the missing documents, was denied. Eastland then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing the case on technical grounds and that Mortel had constructive notice of the mortgage because it was registered.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for review due to the absence of a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. Whether the decision of the HLURB Arbiter had already become final and executory as against Eastland due to its failure to appeal the same.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory and its non-compliance is generally not excusable. Under Section 7, Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to comply with the requirements regarding the contents of the petition, including the sworn certification against forum shopping, constitutes sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. The Court emphasized that the certification is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party, providing an assurance that no other pending cases involve the same parties and issues. While the Court has, in exceptional cases, relaxed this rule for 'compelling reasons,' it found no such reason in this instance. The subsequent submission of the certificate in a motion for reconsideration does not automatically cure the defect, as the rule is intended to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. On Issue 2: The Court identified a more fundamental reason for the dismissal: the decision of the HLURB Arbiter had already become final and executory as to Eastland. Under the 1996 HLURB Rules of Procedure, a decision becomes final and executory after 30 days if no petition for review is filed. While PDIC and Orient Bank appealed the decision, Eastland did not. Consequently, the Arbiter's judgment became immutable and unalterable as to Eastland. The Court noted that Eastland 'tried to pull a fast one' by attempting to appeal the Office of the President's decision when it had already lost the right to challenge the merits of the case by failing to appeal the Arbiter's ruling. Once a judgment is final, it cannot be modified even to correct perceived errors of fact or law, as grounded on public policy and sound practice.
Main Doctrine
The doctrine of immutability of final judgments dictates that once a decision becomes final and executory, it is removed from the power of the court to alter or amend, except for clerical errors or nunc pro tunc entries. In the context of administrative proceedings before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), the failure of a party to appeal the Arbiter's decision within the reglementary period renders that decision final as to that party, regardless of whether other parties pursued an appeal. Additionally, procedural requirements for a Petition for Review under Rule 43, specifically the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, are mandatory and personal to the party, and non-compliance warrants dismissal to ensure the orderly administration of justice.