Case Digest (G.R. No. 166836)
Facts:
San Miguel Properties, Inc. v. Sec. Hernando B. Perez, et al., G.R. No. 166836, September 04, 2013, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner San Miguel Properties, Inc. (San Miguel Properties) purchased 130 residential lots in BF Homes Parañaque from BF Homes, Inc. through three deeds of sale executed in 1992, 1993 and April 1993 for an aggregate price of P106,248,000.00. The transfer certificates of title (TCTs) for the lots covered by the first two deeds were delivered, but 20 TCTs for parcels bought under the third deed (paid in full for P39,122,627.00) were not delivered.
When demands for the 20 TCTs were refused, San Miguel Properties filed (a) a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas (I.S. No. 00-2256) on August 15, 2000 charging the BF Homes directors and officers with violation of Section 25, in relation to Section 39, of Presidential Decree No. 957 (PD 957), and (b) an administrative complaint for specific performance with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) (HLURB Case No. REM-082400-11183) seeking compelled delivery of the TCTs.
Respondents (BF Homes directors/officers) answered that (a) Atty. Florencio B. Orendain, who purportedly represented BF Homes in the sales, lacked authority because the SEC had replaced him as rehabilitation receiver in 1989; (b) the deeds were irregular (undated, unnotarized); (c) HLURB/SEC jurisdictional issues arose from receivership; and (d) the lots were under custodia legis. San Miguel Properties moved to suspend the prosecutorial proceedings citing the receivership, but the SEC had terminated the receivership on September 12, 2000; San Miguel Properties then withdrew the suspension motion.
The City Prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint (October 23, 2000), finding, inter alia, that (i) actions against a receiver required leave of the SEC, (ii) HLURB had exclusive implementation authority under PD 957, and (iii) a prejudicial question existed that warranted suspension. The City Prosecutor’s denial of reconsideration was affirmed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary on October 15, 2001, which held that the HLURB’s pending specific-performance case raised the issue of the validity of the sales and Orendain’s authority and, therefore, the criminal prosecution could not proceed.
San Miguel Properties sought certiorari and mandamus relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 73008, arguing grave abuse in the DOJ’s refusal to indict. The CA denied the petition on February 24, 2004, upholding the application of the prejudicial-question doctrine because the HLURB proceedings were “closely intertwined” with the criminal liability for non-delivery of TCTs. San Miguel Properties’ motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied on January 18, 2005.
Separately, the HLURB initially suspended its proceedings pending the SEC’s determination on Orendain’s authority; the Office of the President (OP) reversed that suspension on January 27, 2004 and directed HLURB to decide the merits. BF Homes appealed the OP ruling to the CA (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 83631), and the CA held that HLURB had jurisdiction and remanded the case to HLURB for further proceedings pursuant to the doctrine of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Secretary of Justice commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal of San Miguel Properties’ criminal complaint for violation of Section 25 of PD 957?
- Can an administrative action for specific performance pending with the HLURB constitute a prejudicial question sufficient to suspend criminal proceedings under Section 25 of PD 957?
- Does the doctrine of primary jurisdiction apply so as to require suspension of the crimin...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)