Title
Spouses Sadang vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 140138
Decision Date
Oct 11, 2006
Spouses Sadang opposed Cathay Land's condominium project, alleging zoning violations and seeking damages. SC upheld CA's dismissal, citing forum shopping and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
spouses sadang
court of appeals
azcuna

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140138)

Factual Background

Petitioners alleged that they were registered owners of a house and lot located at No. 2 Gen. Malvar Street, San Antonio Village, Pasig City. They claimed that Cathay had purchased four residential lots adjacent to petitioners’ residence in the same village and had announced plans to construct two 35-storey condominium buildings named Astoria Plaza.

Petitioners alleged that residents of San Antonio Village, through letters from the president of the San Antonio Village Association, Inc. (AVA), objected to the project. They further alleged that Cathay nevertheless proceeded with construction through its retained contractor, Golangco.

Petitioners narrated that the HLURB initially denied Cathay’s development permit due to an alleged inadvertent misprint of the zoning map, and that the denial was based on the finding that the properties were within a Light Intensity Residential Zone. Petitioners also alleged that even if the properties were within a commercial zone, the height of the structures could not exceed four storeys because they adjoined a residential area, in line with Sec. 10 of Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance series of 81-01. Petitioners averred that the development permit was later granted upon Cathay’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioners attributed alleged irregularities to local and administrative issuances. They alleged that the barangay captain granted a locational clearance through a certification dated September 11, 1995 which allegedly misrepresented that Barangay San Antonio had no objections. They alleged that the City Development and Planning Officer of Pasig City, Luisa S. Soriano, issued a certification dated September 5, 1995 that the lots were within a Medium Intensity Commercial Zone, and that the Acting Metro Manila Zoning Administrator or Metro Manila Authority issued a certification dated September 18, 1995 allowing the construction to proceed.

Based on these allegations, petitioners questioned Cathay’s continuing construction and the validity of the development permit and supporting certifications.

Initiation of the RTC Civil Action and Requested Relief

On July 21, 1997, petitioners filed their complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 160. The complaint was denominated “For Damages, Revocation/Annulment of Development Permit, Barangay Certification, MMDA Certification With Prayer For Temporary Restraining Order and Later Writ of Preliminary Injunction.” Petitioners’ prayers included (a) the issuance of a temporary restraining order or cease-and-desist order upon filing; (b) a writ of preliminary injunction after notice and hearing; and (c) after trial, the permanent injunction against further construction and the declaration of nullity of: (1) the development permit dated 1 December 1995 issued by Wilfredo I. Imperial; (2) the locational clearance dated 11 September 1995 issued by Gregorio B. Rupisan; (3) the certification to construct in a C-2 zone issued by Luisa S. Soriano; and (4) an MMDA Certification dated 18 September 1995 issued by Orlando Malabanan. Petitioners also sought damages and attorney’s fees in specified amounts.

Cathay moved to dismiss the complaint, but the trial court denied the motion. After denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, Cathay elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with further prayer for temporary injunctive relief.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Determination

The Court of Appeals held that the first cause of action in Cathay’s view involved the same subject matter as a prior case filed with the HLURB. It pointed out that petitioners had earlier invoked HLURB jurisdiction by filing an action for the nullification of the same development permit covering Astoria Plaza, and that the HLURB decision against them was appealed to the Office of the President. The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners could not seek annulment in the RTC without awaiting the outcome of the administrative appeal. It found this premature resort to the courts violative of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which calls for the resolution of administrative questions—often questions of fact—by administrative agencies rather than courts of justice. It emphasized that zoning classification issues and building certifications fall within the technical competence of the administrative agency.

The Court of Appeals further ruled that petitioners could not seek annulment of the other administrative issuances—the barangay locational clearance, the city certification to construct, and the MMDA certification—because, as pleaded and treated by the Court of Appeals, petitioners did not oppose those issuances at the agencies of origin. It also observed that petitioners did not file motions for reconsideration with the respective agencies prior to filing the RTC action, linking the analysis to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the requirement of administrative appeal to the highest level before judicial review.

Lastly, the Court of Appeals treated the case as involving forum shopping. It noted that the complaint’s first cause of action had been previously brought to HLURB, including by petitioner Angel L. Sadang, who also took the HLURB decision to the Office of the President. The Court of Appeals then focused on the non-forum shopping certification executed by petitioner Angel L. Sadang. It held that the certification was false or, at minimum, non-compliant because it stated under oath that no other action or proceeding involving the same issues was pending before any tribunal or agency. According to the Court of Appeals, at the time the RTC case was filed, the HLURB case was still pending on appeal. It ruled that the false certification or non-compliance could not be cured by mere amendment of the complaint, and that dismissal was required without prejudice, in line with the rules on forum shopping.

On these bases, the Court of Appeals set aside the RTC orders dated 12 December 1997 and 02 February 1998 and dismissed Civil Case No. 66375 without prejudice.

The Parties’ Contentions in the Supreme Court

Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. They contended that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the RTC action for damages and the annulment of development permits and certifications, together with injunctive relief. They also contended that the Court of Appeals erred in finding them guilty of forum shopping.

Petitioners prayed that the Court of Appeals decision and resolution be set aside and that the case be remanded to the RTC for continuation of trial on the merits.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court agreed fully with the Court of Appeals on the existence of a violation of the rule on forum shopping, grounded on non-disclosure of the HLURB filing in the non-forum shopping certification. The Court acknowledged that the decision of the HLURB might not necessarily constitute res judicata to bar the RTC suit. It likewise recognized that, strictly speaking, the HLURB proceeding was not automatically a lis pendens relative to the RTC action. However, the Court explained that the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms