G.R. No. 194702 - San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Inc. vs. Bayang

Case Summary (G.R. No. 194702)

Factual Background

On April 15, 2000, San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Inc. (then Violago Builders, Inc.) as seller and Ma. Cristina F. Bayang as buyer executed a contract to sell a sixty-square-meter lot in Violago Homes Parkwoods Subdivision, Barangay Payatas, Quezon City. After respondent fully paid the monthly amortizations, she demanded execution of the deed of absolute sale and delivery of the certificate of title, which the petitioners failed to deliver. Consequently, respondent filed a complaint for specific performance and damages before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.

HLURB Proceedings

The Housing and Land Use Arbiter, Atty. Joselito F. Melchor, rendered a decision dated February 16, 2004 ordering the petitioners to execute the deed of absolute sale and deliver the title free from liens and encumbrances, or in the alternative to reimburse respondent the amount of P324,865.16 with legal interest of twelve percent per annum from November 4, 2002 until fully paid; and to pay moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and an administrative fine for violation of Section 18 in relation to Section 38 of PD 957. The petitioners appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, which affirmed the arbiter’s decision in a June 27, 2005 decision and denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a March 30, 2006 resolution.

Appeal to the Office of the President

The petitioners elevated the matter to the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 06-D-160. The Office of the President, in a resolution dated November 17, 2006, dismissed the petitioners’ appeal as filed out of time. The OP found that the HLURB Board decision was received by the petitioners on July 27, 2005; petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on August 10, 2005, by which time fourteen days of the fifteen-day appeal period had elapsed; the resolution denying the motion was received on April 17, 2006; and the petitioners filed their appeal to the OP only on April 27, 2006, nine days late. The OP denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated July 26, 2007, holding that the fresh period rule of Domingo Neypes, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. applies only to judicial appeals and not to administrative appeals.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 43, Rules of Court to the Court of Appeals. In the appealed decision dated July 23, 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the OP’s dismissal of the appeal as untimely. The Court of Appeals denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated December 2, 2010, prompting the petitioners to file the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issue Presented

The dispositive issue was whether the fresh period rule articulated in Domingo Neypes, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. should apply to administrative appeals, specifically an appeal from a decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners to the Office of the President.

Parties’ Contentions

The petitioners argued that the fresh period rule should apply and thus they were entitled to a new fifteen-day period to perfect their appeal following the denial of their motion for reconsideration. The Office of the President and respondent countered that Neypes governs judicial appeal periods under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and does not extend to administrative appeals, which are governed by agency-specific rules and by Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987 and HLURB Resolution No. 765, series of 2004 setting the remainder-only rule for appeals after denial of a motion for reconsideration.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision dated July 23, 2010 and resolution dated December 2, 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 100332. The Court held that the petitioners’ appeal to the Office of the President was filed out of time and that the OP correctly dismissed it.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed that the fresh period rule enunciated in Domingo Neypes, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. applies to judicial proceedings governed by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically the enumerated rules on appeals. The Court observed that Neypes aimed to standardize appeal periods in judicial practice by allowing a fresh fifteen-day period counted from receipt of the order denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. The Court relied on Panolino v. Tajala to reiterate that Neypes does not cover administrative appeals. The Court further noted that appeals from the HLURB Board to the Office of the President are administrative and are governed by Section 2, Rule XXI of HLURB Resolution No. 765, series of 2004, in relation to Paragraph 2, Section 1 of Administra

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 194702)

Parties and Procedural Posture

San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Inc. and Oscar Violago were the petitioners before the Supreme Court.
Ma. Cristina F. Bayang was the respondent and original complainant before the HLURB.
The petition was a petition for review on certiorari assailing the July 23, 2010 decision and the December 2, 2010 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100332.
The Court of Appeals had affirmed the Office of the President’s resolutions dated November 17, 2006 and July 26, 2007 that dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for being filed out of time.
The Supreme Court decision was penned by Justice Brion with Justices Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen concurring.

Key Factual Allegations

The parties executed a contract to sell on April 15, 2000 covering a sixty-square meter lot in Violago Homes Parkwoods Subdivision in Quezon City.
The complainant alleged full payment of monthly amortizations and demanded execution of the deed of absolute sale and issuance of the certificate of title, which the petitioners failed to deliver.
The complainant filed a complaint for specific performance and damages with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) on November 4, 2002.
The HLURB Arbiter rendered a decision on February 16, 2004 ordering specific performance or, alternatively, reimbursement of P324,865.16 with legal interest of twelve percent per annum, plus awards of P5,000 moral damages, P5,000 exemplary damages, P5,000 attorney’s fees, and an administrative fine of P10,000 for violation of Section 18 in relation to Section 38 of PD 957.
The petitioners appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, which dismissed the appeal in a decision dated June 27, 2005 and denied a motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated March 30, 2006.

Administrative Appeals and Deadlines

Section 2, Rule XXI of HLURB Resolution No. 765, series of 2004 prescribes a 15-day period to appeal a Board decision to the Office of the President, in accordance with P.D. No. 1344 and A.O. No. 18, series of 1987.
The pendency of a motion for reconsideration suspends the running of the period of appeal to the Office of the President under the HLURB rules.
Paragraph 2, Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987 provides that if a motion for reconsideration is denied, the aggrieved party has the remaining balance of the prescriptive period to appeal, reckoned from receipt of the resolution denying the motion.

Appellate Chronology

The HLURB decision affirming the Arbiter’s ruling was received by the petitioners on July 27, 2005, which started the 15-day appeal period to the Office of the President.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on August 10, 2005, after fourteen days of the appeal period had elapsed.
The petitioners received the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration on April 17, 2006, leaving only one day of the appeal period remaining,