579 Phil. 621
QUISUMBING, J.:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING this case for lack of cause of action. Accordingly, respondent Pio Martin Lauengco is hereby declared as the lawful owner of Condominium Unit No. 103 of Le Grand Condominium Project.Petitioners appealed to the Board of Commissioners-HLURB which affirmed the Decision of the OAALA-HLURB:
On the counterclaim, judgment is hereby rendered ORDERING complainants to pay [respondents] Century Properties, Inc. and Pio Martin Lauengco jointly and severally the sum of P100,000.00 as and for moral and exemplary damages and the sum of P50,000.00 as and for attorney's [fees] .[6]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Meridien Resources, Inc. [MRI] is hereby pronounced as entitled to the award of damages and attorney's fees, all other aspects of the decision of the Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs dated 01 April 1993 are hereby AFFIRMED.[7]Upon elevation of the case to the Office of the President, the decision was also affirmed. The Office of the President noted that there were still no unit owners at the time MRI decided to alter the plans of the condominium project. Furthermore, the amended master deed was in consonance with the Alteration of Plan Approval issued by the HLURB. Absent any proof to the contrary, such approval is presumed to have been regularly issued and to be valid.
Simply put, the issue is: Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition based on technicality?I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN DECIDING ON A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT, WHEN IT HELD THAT THE FAILURE TO ATTACH CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF THE COMPLAINT, THE ANSWERS THERETO, THE DECISIONS OF THE HOUSING AND LAND USE ARBITER AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, PETITIONERS' APPEAL MEMORANDUM AND RESPONDENTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT CONSTITUTED SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW.II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN DISMISSING PETITIONERS' APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT BASED ON PURE TECHNICALITY, IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE NOT TO BE APPLIED IN SUCH A RIGID OR TECHNICAL SENSE AS TO FRUSTRATE AND DEFEAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.[11]
SEC. 6. Contents of the petition. -- The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers ; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein. (Emphasis supplied.)Pursuant to Section 7 of the same Rule, failure to comply with the requirements under Section 6 warrants the dismissal of the petition, thus:
SEC. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. - The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis supplied.)We observe that the only attachment to the petition was a certified true copy of the April 6, 1999 Decision of the Office of the President from which the appeal had been made. [12] Yet, petitioners precisely disputed the factual findings and legal conclusions made by the Office of the President. More specifically, they alleged that said office erred:
Without doubt, these issues made it necessary for the appellate court to evaluate other documents, i.e., (1) verified complaint; (2) respondents' answers thereto; (3) decision of the OAALA-HLURB; (4) decision of the Board of Commissioners-HLURB; and (5) petitioners' appeal memorandum and respondents' reply memorandum in the Office of the President, on which to base the disposition of this case.I.
...IN DISREGARDING COMPLETELY THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ON DECEMBER 19, 1987, RESPONDENT MRI, THROUGH RESPONDENT CPI, AS EXCLUSIVE MARKETING [MANAGER], SOLD UNIT 1001 AND UNIT 1102, TOGETHER WITH THEIR CORRESPONDING .0354925 AND .032946 UNDIVIDED INTERESTS IN THE COMMON AREAS OF LE GRAND CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, TO PETITIONER JOSE LUIS HAURIE.II.
...IN REFUSING TO DECLARE THE AMENDMENT BY RESPONDENT MRI OF THE ORIGINAL MASTER DEED WITH DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS OF LE GRAND CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AS ILLEGAL AND FRAUDULENT.III.
... IN REFUSING TO FIND AND HOLD RESPONDENT MRI GUILTY OF FRAUD IN CONVERTING THE ADMINISTRATION ROOM, WHICH FORMS PART OF THE COMMON AREAS OF LE GRAND CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, INTO ANOTHER COMMERCIAL UNIT, AND IN SECURING CONDOMINIUM CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 12041 FOR SAID ADMINISTRATION ROOM AND THEREAFTER SELLING THE SAME TO RESPONDENT PIO MARTIN T. LAUENGCO.IV.
...IN REFUSING AND FAILING TO FIND AND HOLD RESPONDENTS CPI AND PIO MARTIN T. LAUENGCO EQUALLY GUILTY OF FRAUD IN EFFECTING THE SALE OF THE ADMINISTRATION ROOM (CONVERTED TO CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 103) TO RESPONDENT PIO MARTIN T. LAUENGCO.V.
...IN REFUSING TO HOLD RESPONDENT MRI LIABLE TO DELIVER WHAT ITS AGENTS PROMISED AND REPRESENTED IN ITS SALES BROCHURES AND OTHER PROPAGANDA AS PART OF THE AMENITIES AND FACILITIES OF LE GRAND CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, EVEN ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT ITS CONVERSION OF THE ADMINISTRATION ROOM WAS MADE LEGALLY AND REGULARLY.VI.
...IN SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF HOUSING AND LAND USE ARBITER [ABRAHAM N. VERMUDEZ] DATED APRIL 1, 1993 WHICH HELD THAT THE PRESENT ACTION WAS INSTITUTED IN THE WRONG VENUE, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME DECLARING RESPONDENT PIO MARTIN T. LAUENGCO THE LAWFUL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION.VII.
...IN REFUSING TO SET ASIDE OR NULLIFY THE DECISION DATED APRIL 1, 1993 OF HOUSING AND LAND USE ARBITER ABRAHAM N. VERMUDEZ, DESPITE HIS FAILURE TO DISMISS OR STRIKE OUT RESPONDENTS' ANSWERS TO THE COMPLAINT, OR HIS FAILURE TO LIMIT THE FILING OF POSITION PAPERS TO PETITIONERS ONLY, OR HIS FAILURE TO SET THE CASE FOR HEARING FOR THE RECEPTION OF PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THEIR PROOF OF DAMAGES, IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.VIII.
...IN REFUSING TO REVERSE OR SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE APPEAL OF RESPONDENT MRI FROM THE DECISION DATED APRIL 1, 1993 OF HOUSING AND LAND USE ARBITER ABRAHAM N. VERMUDEZ, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER SAID APPEAL DUE TO RESPONDENT MRI'S FAILURE TO PAY THE REQUIRED APPEAL OR REVIEW FEE WITHIN THE PERIOD FIXED FOR THAT PURPOSE.IX.
...IN AFFIRMING THE AWARD OF MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES TO RESPONDENTS CPI AND PIO MARTIN T. LAUENGCO, AND IN PRONOUNCING THAT RESPONDENT MRI IS ENTITLED "TO THE AWARD OF DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES," DESPITE LACK OF ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL BASIS. [13]