Case Digest (G.R. No. 140138)
Facts:
Sps. Angel L. Sadang and Maritoni A. Sadang v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Cathay Land, Inc., G.R. No. 140138, October 11, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Spouses Angel L. Sadang and Maritoni A. Sadang (petitioners) filed Civil Case No. 66375 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 160, on July 21, 1997, seeking damages and the annulment or revocation of development and related permits that allegedly authorized the construction of the 35‑storey Astoria Plaza condominium by private respondent Cathay Land, Inc. The complaint named as defendants Cathay, its contractor William Golangco Construction Corp., and various public officers who issued or certified the permits (HLURB regional director, barangay captain, city planning officer, and MMDA official). The complaint prayed for a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunctions, nullification of the development permit, locational clearance, city certification to construct, MMDA certification, and damages including moral and attorney’s fees.
Cathay moved to dismiss the complaint in the RTC; the trial court denied the motion and likewise denied Cathay’s motion for reconsideration. Cathay then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking annulment of the RTC orders and a writ of preliminary injunction or TRO. The CA (CA G.R. No. 46952) granted the petition: it held that the issues over the development permit were already the subject of an administrative complaint before the HLURB (HLURB No. REM‑A‑960603) filed by petitioner Angel Sadang and others, pending appeal to the Office of the President, invoking the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the need for exhaustion of administrative remedies; it also found that Angel Sadang had signed a certificate of non‑forum shopping while a similar administrative proceeding was pending, thus violating Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The CA set aside the RTC orders and dismissed Civil Case No. 66375 without prejudice.
Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Ru...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC lack jurisdiction to entertain petitioners’ action because the controversy over the development permit was under the primary jurisdiction of the HLURB and administrative remedies had not been exhausted?
- Did petitioners violate the rule against forum shopping by failing to disclose the pending HLURB proceeding in their certificate of non‑forum ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)