Dazon v. Yap
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Kenneth Y. Yap served as president of Primetown Property Group, Inc., the developer of the Kiener Hills Mactan Condominium, a low-rise project. In November 1996, petitioner Ma. Luisa G. Dazon entered into a contract to purchase Unit No. C-108, making a downpayment followed by installment payments totaling P1,114,274.30. Primetown failed to complete the project according to approved plans and timelines. On March 22, 1999, petitioner demanded a refund from Primetown under PD 957, Sec. 23 (Non-Forfeiture of Payments), which entitles buyers to reimbursement of payments plus legal interest (excluding delinquency interest) when developers fail to develop as promised after due notice. Primetown did not comply with the refund demand, prompting petitioner to pursue criminal liability against Yap as corporate head. Procedural History: On October 26, 2000, petitioner filed a criminal complaint for violation of PD 957, Sec. 23 in relation to Sec. 39 with the Lapu-Lapu City Prosecutor's Office. The prosecutor found probable cause and filed an Information on docketed Criminal Case No. 015331-L before RTC Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City. Yap petitioned the DOJ for review; on June 14, 2002, DOJ resolved to order withdrawal of the Information, erroneously holding HLURB had exclusive jurisdiction per prior SC cases on civil matters (e.g., Solid Homes v. Payawal). Prosecutor moved to withdraw; RTC granted via Order dated October 2, 2002, archiving the case back to the prosecutor's office. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on January 13, 2003. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, arguing RTC has jurisdiction over PD 957 criminal actions as no law vests exclusive jurisdiction in HLURB, which is limited to regulation. Respondent countered no jurisdictional error, assailed direct SC resort bypassing CA hierarchy, and claimed DOJ withdrawal was due to lack of probable cause (though DOJ cited HLURB jurisdiction). OSG and respondent eventually conceded regular courts' jurisdiction but disputed DOJ's basis.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over criminal actions arising from violations of PD 957, considering the HLURB's regulatory authority over real estate trade and the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed RTC Orders dated October 2, 2002 and January 13, 2003 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The RTC is DIRECTED to proceed with arraignment of respondent Yap and hear the case with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over criminal actions arising from violations of PD 957, considering the HLURB's regulatory authority over real estate trade and the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.: Jurisdiction is conferred by law, determined by complaint averments and relief sought; HLURB's scope under PD 957, Sec. 3 (regulation of real estate trade) and PD 1344, Sec. 1 is explicitly limited to unsound practices, refund claims, and specific performance—enumerations excluding criminal cases per expressio unius est exclusio alterius (Delfino v. St. James Hospital; PSBDA v. De Jesus). HLURB's quasi-judicial powers are incidental to administrative duties, not extending to criminal conviction/punishment (Miller v. Mardo), as Sec. 38 limits it to administrative fines ≤P10,000, while Sec. 39 criminal penalties (fine ≤P20,000/imprisonment ≤10 years, upon conviction) imply judicial imposition, holding corporate presidents liable. Prior cases (Solid Homes v. Payawal; Raet v. CA) affirm HLURB's exclusive civil jurisdiction but do not cover criminal aspect, necessitating this ruling. BP 129, Sec. 20 vests RTCs with exclusive original jurisdiction over such criminal cases. Here, prosecutor's probable cause finding stands unreversed by DOJ on merits; DOJ's withdrawal directive erred in deferring to HLURB, voiding RTC's grant of motion.
Main Doctrine
The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), formerly NHA, has exclusive jurisdiction under PD 957, Sec. 3 and PD 1344, Sec. 1 over regulatory functions and adjudication of civil cases involving unsound real estate practices, refund claims by buyers against developers, and specific performance of obligations. However, this jurisdiction does not extend to criminal actions for violations of PD 957, as criminal cases are not enumerated in PD 1344's grant of powers, invoking the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. HLURB's authority is limited to imposing administrative fines not exceeding P10,000 under Sec. 38, but Sec. 39 penalties (fine up to P20,000 and/or imprisonment up to 10 years, upon conviction) are imposed by regular courts, with corporate presidents held criminally liable. Regular courts, specifically Regional Trial Courts under BP 129, Sec. 20, exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over such criminal cases not within specialized tribunals. DOJ cannot direct withdrawal of informations based on erroneous HLURB jurisdiction; prosecutorial probable cause findings control absent merits-based reversal.