Case Digest (G.R. No. 212689)
Facts:
ECE Realty and Development, Inc. v. Haydyn Hernandez, G.R. No. 212689, August 06, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.On September 7, 2006, Haydyn Hernandez (respondent) filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Expanded National Capital Region Field Office (HLURB‑Regional Office) against Emir Realty and Development Corporation (EMIR) and ECE Realty and Development, Inc. (ECE) for specific performance with damages. Hernandez alleged that EMIR (the marketer) and ECE (the developer) had sold him Unit 808, Building B, Phase 1 of Harrison Mansion, a 30‑sq. m. condominium unit; he paid a reservation fee on July 22, 1997 (P35,000.00) and completed downpayment on August 2, 1997 (P104,063.65), ultimately paying P452,551.65. The parties’ Contract to Sell dated November 5, 1997 fixed delivery by December 31, 1999.
ECE and EMIR failed to deliver Unit 808 by the agreed date, and Hernandez also discovered the unit measured only 26 sq. m., not the contracted 30 sq. m.; he sought a corresponding price reduction of P120,000.00 but was instead pressured to settle alleged arrears. Sometime in 2005 Hernandez learned the unit had been sold to a third party. In his HLURB complaint he alternatively prayed for rescission and reimbursement (P452,551.65 plus legal interest) if the unit was no longer available, and claimed moral, actual and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees.
The HLURB‑Regional Office on May 12, 2008 ordered EMIR and ECE to reimburse Hernandez P452,551.65 plus legal interest and awarded P50,000.00 each for moral damages, attorneys’ fees, and exemplary damages. The HLURB Board of Commissioners, in its January 23, 2009 Decision, affirmed the Regional Office but dropped EMIR as a defendant. ECE appealed to the Office of the President (OP), which dismissed ECE’s appeal in a Decision dated January 10, 2011; a motion for reconsideration was denied on July 5, 2011.
ECE filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). In CA‑G.R. SP No. 120738 the CA, in a Decision dated November 4, 2013, affirmed the OP’s decision but modified the award: it sustained reimbursement of P452,551.65, ordered interest at 6% per annum from September 7, 2006, and imposed 12% per annum from finali...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly affirm the Office of the President’s and HLURB’s rulings ordering rescission/refund of payments and awarding attorneys’ fees while deleting moral and exemplary damages?
- What rate of interest should apply: 6% per annum throughout, or 6% until finality and 12% per annum from fina...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)