Case Digest (G.R. No. 165675)
Facts:
Spouses Eduardo Sobrejuanite and Fidela Sobrejuanite v. ASB Development Corporation, G.R. No. 165675, September 30, 2005, Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.
On March 7, 2001, petitioners Spouses Eduardo and Fidela Sobrejuanite filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) (docketed HLURB Case No. REM‑030701‑11433) against ASB Development Corporation (ASBDC) for rescission of a Contract to Sell (a condominium unit and parking space in BSA Twin Tower‑B), refund of payments (P2,674,637.10), and damages, alleging total payment except for a P50,000 retention and failure of ASBDC to deliver the property by the agreed December 1999 date.
ASBDC moved to dismiss or suspend the HLURB proceedings, citing the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) April 26, 2001 approval of a rehabilitation plan for the ASB Group of Companies and the appointment of a rehabilitation receiver. The HLURB arbiter denied the motion to suspend and, after trial, ordered rescission of the contracts and awarded monetary relief (refund with interest, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses). The HLURB Board of Commissioners affirmed the arbiter’s decision but noted that any monetary awards could be filed as claims before the rehabilitation receiver.
ASBDC appealed to the Office of the President (O.P.) (O.P. Case No. 03‑C‑119), which dismissed its appeal for lack of merit. ASBDC then filed a petition under Section 1, Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 79420). On June 29, 2004 the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the O.P. decision, holding that the SEC’s approval of the rehabilitation plan and appointment of a receiver suspended HLURB proceedings because the Sobrejuanites’ complaint asserted pecuniary claims within the contemplation of Presidential Decree No. 902‑A and the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation; the CA also accepted ASBDC’s contention that its financial reverses justified extending the delivery date under t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in holding that the SEC, and not the HLURB, had jurisdiction over the Sobrejuanites’ complaint because it constituted a “claim” under PD No. 902‑A and the Interim Rules?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in ruling that the SEC’s approval of the rehabilitation plan and appointment of a receiver suspended the HLURB proceedings, precluding the HLURB’s monetary award from being enforced outside the rehabilitation process?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that ASBDC was justified in extending the agreed date of delivery...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)