Case Digest (G.R. No. 224973)
Facts:
Gina Lefebre, joined by her husband Donald Lefebre, v. A Brown Company, Inc., G.R. No. 224973, September 27, 2017, the Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. The petition challenges the Court of Appeals’ reinstatement of the HLU Arbiter’s decision and the CA’s resolution denying reconsideration.In 1998 Gina Lefebre reserved and later purchased a 1,107-square meter lot in Xavier Estates, developed by A Brown Company, Inc., after representations that a Manresa 18‑Hole All Weather Championship Golf Course would be built. The parties executed a Contract to Sell calling for a 30% down payment (including a P10,000 reservation fee) and balance amortized over 84 months. The golf course was never developed. Lefebre defaulted on payments and the developer cancelled the contract; Lefebre offered to settle within six months.
On September 1, 2009 Lefebre filed a complaint with the HLURB Regional Office No. X for misleading and deceptive advertisement, annulment of rescission of the Contract to Sell, damages and other relief, claiming she had paid about P8.1 million and owed only about P1.35 million. A Brown Company countered that Lefebre had been in arrears since 2001, that notices of cancellation were sent, and that the advertising misrepresentation was raised belatedly.
The HLU Arbiter (HLU Arbiter Gonzalo Ch. Tumulak) rendered a Decision dated January 5, 2011 holding that Lefebre’s misrepresentation claim was raised only after default and that she could not invoke Section 23 of PD 957 for nonforfeiture because she failed to give prior notice; nevertheless, the Arbiter held Lefebre was entitled to the cash surrender value under RA 6552, Sec. 3, and referred the advertising issue to monitoring for possible sanctions. Lefebre appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners.
The HLURB‑BOC, in a Decision dated May 10, 2011, set aside the Arbiter’s ruling, declared the Contract to Sell not validly cancelled because A Brown Company failed to tender the cash surrender value required by RA 6552, Sec. 3(b), and ordered respondent to refund P8.1 million with interest (less penalties), to pay P20,000 each for moral damages and attorney’s fees, costs, and an administrative fine of P10,000 for failure to provide the advertised amenity. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied on August 26, 2011.
Rather than appealing to the Office of the President as provided in the HLURB rules, respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (filed October 2011). The CA initially dismissed the petition on February 6, 2012 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; on reconsideration the CA vacated that dismissal (November 8, 2012) citing exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine and ultimately, in a Decision dated July 8, 2015, set aside the HLURB‑BOC Decision and reinstated the H...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent’s direct filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, instead of appealing the HLURB‑BOC decision to the Office of the President, violate the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and divest the CA of jurisdiction to grant relief?
- On the merits, was the HLURB‑BOC correct in ruling that the Contract to Sell remained valid because respondent failed to comply with the requirements for effective cancellation under RA 6552, and that pet...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)