Case Summary (G.R. No. 185491)
Applicable Law and Legal Framework
The applicable law in this case is Presidential Decree No. 957, which regulates the sale of subdivision lots and condominium units, particularly focusing on the requirement of having a license to sell before engaging in such transactions.
Facts of the Case
On October 26, 2000, Ms. Bernardo expressed her intent to purchase a condominium unit in the Paseo Parkview Suites Tower II project developed by Megaworld. Despite making an initial reservation deposit of P19,571.90 and agreeing to purchase the unit for P2,935,785.00, she learned that the necessary licenses for the project were not obtained until June 7, 2001. After a series of payment issues and a notice of cancellation from Megaworld due to alleged default on her part, Ms. Bernardo filed a complaint against the respondents for violations of P.D. 957 and for estafa through fraud.
Procedural History
The City Prosecutor initially dismissed Ms. Bernardo's complaint, which led her to seek a review from the Secretary of Justice. The Secretary ordered the filing of Informations against the respondents for alleged violations of Sections 5, 17, and 20 of P.D. 957. Following a motion to withdraw the Informations by the respondents, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) allowed the withdrawal, leading to a series of appeals and motions that eventually reached the Court of Appeals, which upheld the RTC’s decision.
Legal Issue Presented
The primary legal issue presented before the court was whether there was probable cause to indict the respondents for violations of Sections 5, 17, and 20 of P.D. 957.
Analysis and Discussion
The court reiterated that it is the prerogative of prosecutors to assess probable cause. Prosecutors must evaluate whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant criminal prosecution. The withdrawal of the Informations by the RTC was initially upheld due to findings of insufficient cause related to the charges of failure to register and deliver the condominium unit. However, the Supreme Court identified grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s interpretation of P.D. 957, especially concerning the clarity of the law regarding the requirement of licenses to sell and the nature of sales transactions.
Findings on Specific Violations
Violation of Section 5
The court found there to be probable cause for indicting the respondents for a violation of Section 5 of P.D. 957. This section prohibits the sale of condominium units without a license to sell. The expansive interpretation of "sale" under the decree encompassed not only formal sales contracts but also negotiations and agreements that facilitate the sale process, including reservation agreements.
Violation of Section 17
The court upheld the dismissal of the charge regarding Section 17, concerning the failure to register the Reservation Agreement. The court concluded that since the Reservation Agreement was still held by Ms. Bernardo and ha
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 185491)
Background of the Case
- This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Julieta E. Bernardo against several respondents, including Andrew L. Tan and others, regarding the Court of Appeals' decision on November 24, 2008.
- The controversy arose from orders issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on June 29, 2006, and September 8, 2006, that permitted the withdrawal of Informations against the respondents for violations under Presidential Decree No. 957.
Facts of the Case
- On October 26, 2000, Julieta E. Bernardo (the petitioner) agreed to purchase a condominium unit (Unit E) from Megaworld Corporation at a price of P2,935,785.00.
- She paid a reservation deposit of P19,571.90, and a Contract to Buy and Sell was provided, stipulating delivery by July 31, 2003, with a grace period of six months.
- By October 22, 2003, she had paid P901,728.40 of the total price.
- A conflict arose when Megaworld sent a notice of cancellation on August 9, 2004, citing Ms. Bernardo's failure to make necessary payments.
- Ms. Bernardo discovered that the Certificate of Registration and License to Sell for the condominium project were issued only on June 7, 2001, after her reservation.
- On August 12, 2004, she filed a complaint against the respondents for violations of P.D. 957 and for estafa.
- The City Prosecutor initially dismissed her complaint, but this dismissal was later reversed by the Secretary of Justice, leading