G.R. No. 213314 - Yaphockun vs. Professional Regulation Commission

On June 29, 2009, Republic Act No. 9646 (Real Estate Service Act or RESA) was enacted to professionalize the real estate service sector by regulating real estate service practitioners (RESPs), including brokers, appraisers, assessors, consultants, and salespersons.
Prior to RESA, supervision of RESPs was under the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The authority was transferred to the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and the Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service (PRBRES) under RESA.
Section 34 of RESA mandates the integration of all real estate service associations into one national organization, the Accredited and Integrated Professional Organization (AIPO), automatically including all duly registered practitioners. Membership in the AIPO is not exclusive; practitioners can join other associations as well.
On July 21, 2010, PRC and PRBRES issued the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), defining AIPO as the national integrated organization of natural persons duly registered and licensed as RESPs, subject to PRC and Board approval.
Pending accreditation, the Federation of Real Estate Service Associations (FRESA) was recognized as Interim AIPO. Later, two organizations sought permanent AIPO status: FRESA and the Philippine Institute of Real Estate Service Practitioners, Inc. (PHILRES).
On October 21, 2011, PRBRES accredited PHILRES as the AIPO.

A dispute arose over the proper composition of the AIPO — whether it should be an integration of natural persons (individual practitioners) or associations (juridical entities).
Former Congressman Rodolfo G. Valencia, principal author of RESA, asserted that the AIPO should be an umbrella organization composed of associations with juridical personality.
PRC maintained that the AIPO should be composed of individual RESPs, not associations. This position gained support from the House of Representatives through Resolution No. 299 (October 17, 2012).
PRC issued a memorandum requiring applicants for registration to submit a Certificate of Membership in PHILRES.
On July 28, 2014, Allan Du Yaphockun and several real estate associations filed a petition (G.R. No. 213314) challenging the validity of Sec. 3(h), Rule I of the IRR on the AIPO’s composition.
On October 15, 2014, other associations and individuals filed a similar petition (G.R. No. 214432). These petitions were consolidated.

Petitioners in G.R. No. 213314 argue that the IRR’s provision deviates from Sec. 34 of RESA as the law mandates integration of associations, not individuals. They called for revocation of PHILRES’ accreditation.
They emphasize legislative intent from the bicameral report and Congressman Valencia’s interpretation supporting integration of associations.
Petitioners in G.R. No. 214432 argue that Sec. 3(h) of the IRR is void as it ignores the statutory mandate requiring integration of real estate service associations.
They also challenge discriminatory provisions in PHILRES By-Laws aimed at sidelining other associations and contest PHILRES’ legitimacy.

Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, contend the petitions are improper remedies as IRR issuance is a quasi-legislative act, not subject to certiorari.
They assert Sec. 3(h) of the IRR does not contravene Sec. 34 of RESA but facilitates better regulation since individual practitioners, not associations, are the subjects of licensure and discipline.
They note consistency with other professional regulatory laws where AIPOs are composed of practitioners, not associations.

Whether the petitions should be dismissed for being improper remedies and for violating the hierarchy of courts rule.

Whether Section 3(h), Rule I of the IRR issued by PRC and PRBRES contravenes Section 34 of Republic Act No. 9646 by mandating that the AIPO be composed of individual natural persons rather than integrated associations of real estate service practitioners.