108 OG No. 34, 4279 (August 20, 2012)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the rescission of the contract to sell as valid and ordering the respondent to refund the total payments in the amount of P71,650.00 with interest at 12% per annum from the filing of the complaint until full payment.On August 26, 2003, the respondent asked the HLURB to review[12] its July 7, 2003 Decision. It alleged that Rodolfo's allegations were concocted to get out of their contract because he could no longer pay his monthly amortizations on the property. On August 17, 2004, the HLURB rendered a Decision[13] on respondent's Petition for Review, to wit:
After full payment, complainant is directed to peacefully surrender the subject property in favor of the respondent.
Further, respondent is directed to pay complainant P5,000.00 as attorney's fees and to pay this Board P10,000.00 by way of administrative fine for violation of Section 20 in relation to Section 38 of P.D. 957.[11]
Wherefore, the decision of the office below is hereby modified to read as follows:This was appealed[15] by the petitioners, who substituted Rodolfo upon his death, to the Office of the President. On November 18, 2005, the Office of the President decided[16] in their favor, as follows:
Wherefore premises considered, judgment is hereby rescinding the reservation agreement of parties and subject to legal compensation or offsetting, ordering respondent to refund the total payments in the amount of P71,650.00 with interest at legal interest from the time of the filing of the complaint; ordering complainant to turn over possession of the unit to the respondent and ordering complainant to pay respondent reasonable compensation for the use of the unit in the amount of P4,000.00 per month until possession of the unit is turned over to the respondent.
Further, respondent is directed to pay complainant P5,000.00 as attorney's fees and to pay this board P10,000.00 by way of administrative fine for violation of section 20 in relation to section 38 of P.D. 957.[14]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners dated August 23, 2004 is hereby reversed and set aside. Judgment is hereby rendered:The respondent asked for a reconsideration[18] of this decision and on May 9, 2006, the Office of the President granted respondent's motion and reinstated the August 17, 2004 decision of the HLURB.[19]
- Declaring the contract of sale entered into between the parties as rescinded;
- Appellants are hereby ordered to turn over possession of the property to the Appellee;
- Appellee is hereby ordered of refund to the appellants the latter's total payment in the amount of P71,650.00 with interest at 12% per annum from June 10, 2002 (time of the filing of the complaint);
- Appellee is likewise ordered to pay appellants P25,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages;
- Appellee is ordered to pay appellants P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
- Appellee is ordered to pay administrative fine in the amount of P10,000.00.[17]
By staying at the questioned premises for free and without compensation, to the prejudice of [respondent], it is clear that [petitioners] unduly enriched themselves at the expense of another.The petitioners sought for a reconsideration[22] of this Order,[23] but this was denied by the Office of the President on August 2, 2006.
Rental payments are legally supported by virtue of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Eventhough the same is not prayed for by herein appellee, it could still be recognized and awarded by our Office considering that said issue, or award thereof, is inextricably linked to the issues involved as well as the facts proven in the case, and it is necessary for a just and equitable determination of the case.[21]
We have no more jurisdiction to entertain the Petition much less to alter the judgment which has become final and executory. We only have the power to dismiss the appeal in the absence of exceptional circumstances to warrant such delay.[25]The petitioners are now before us, seeking not only that we give their petition due consideration, but also that we declare the HLURB August 17, 2004 Decision as null and void. They submit the following issues for our resolution:
The petitioners sought reconsideration of this dismissal but the Court of Appeals found their motion to be "bereft of merit."[26]
5.1. AN APPEAL IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND THE COURTS SHOULD PROCEED WITH CAUTION, SO AS NOT TO DEPRIVE THE PETITIONERS OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL, PARTICULARLY, IF THE APPEAL IS MERITORIOUS.
5.2. THE HLURB APPEAL BOARD HAS NO JURISDICTION MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT OF HLURB PROPER GRANTING RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT PRAYED FOR ALLEGED IN THE PLEADINGS, AND NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED.
5.3. THE HLURB APPEAL BOARD HAS NO JURISDICTION WHEN IT MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT OF HLURB PROPER, AND THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, LIKEWISE HAS ACTED, IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT AFFIRMED EN TOTO THE DECISION OF THE HLURB APPEAL BOARD.[27]
The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is, not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable. By way of exception, unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof. The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies.[32]In Samala v. Court of Appeals,[33] we said:
The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application especially on technical matters, which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. Even the Revised Rules of Court envision this liberality. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from the courts.[34]In this case, the last day for filing the petition for review was on September 13, 2006. The petitioners entrusted the drafting of their petition with their counsel, who in turn entrusted the attaching of the required annexes to the petition with her secretary. The secretary resigned from her job sometime later to avoid giving her employer "problems for unexpected absences in the future."[35] Aside from this, the petitioners also submitted an Affidavit[36] from the secretary, who narrated her ordeal that day and why she was not able to inform her employer of the whereabouts of the petition. A certification from the doctor of one of the secretary's children was also submitted to prove that the secretary indeed brought her children to the doctor on September 14, 2006, the deadline for filing the petition for review with the Court of Appeals.