FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226562. November 21, 2018.]
AE INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and BRYAN ONG, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES JOHN K. NIEUWENDAAL and JUNNAH VIVIAN NIEUWENDAAL, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 21, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226562 (AE INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and BRYAN ONG, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES JOHN K. NIEUWENDAAL and JUNNAH VIVIAN NIEUWENDAAL, Respondents.) — The petitioners seek the review and reversal of the decision promulgated on May 13, 2016, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) vacated the decision rendered on October 28, 2011 by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in HLURB Case No. REM-A-111003-01537, 2 and reinstated the ruling dated August 31, 2011 of the HLURB Arbiter 3 on the ground that said ruling had already attained finality upon the failure of the petitioners to perfect their appeal within the reglementary period.
Antecedents
The CA summarized the relevant antecedents in this manner:
The spouses Nieuwendaal filed a Complaint for specific performance dated 13 January 2010 against private respondents AE International Construction and Development Corp. and Bryan Ong, which was docketed as HLURB Case No. REM-CVR-011711-0657. They alleged that private respondents failed to properly provide them with the basic necessities that they promised. The spouses Nieuwendaal asserted that private respondents charged exorbitant water bills, provided limited security services and failed to address the subdivision's concerns on sanitation. Moreover, the spouses Nieuwendaal averred that private respondents prevented the subdivision residents from forming their own homeowner's association as required under Section 30 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 957 or a decree Regulating the Sale of Subdivision Lots and Condominiums, Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof. CAIHTE
On 31 August 2011, Arbiter Ultimo C. Servande of the HLURB-Central Visayas Regional Field Office rendered a Decision against private respondents who failed to file an Answer and controvert the allegations of the spouses Nieuwendaal. The dispositive portion of the ruling reads:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondents AE INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, the President and its General Manager BRYAN ONG, are declared jointly and severally liable to herein complainants and thus ordered to:
1. To turn over all the documents, records, monies and administration of the Homeowners Association of Villa Lucita Subdivision to the real homeowners/unit buyers as soon as possible or within ten (10) days from receipt of the decision.
2. To assist in the conduct of election among the homeowners/members of the association as soon as possible.
3. To desist from further selling saleable lots to new buyers, other than the present contracted buyers commencing from September 1, 2011, until the order Nos. 1 and 2 will be shown complied with.
4. To cease and desist from collecting exorbitant water fees for residential water services and cease and desist from interfering with the guard's duty to extend services in the opening of the gate for the ingress and egress of the complainant's family, their visitors and other homeowners to and from their houses of Villa Lucita Subdivision.
5. To pay the penalty on TEN THOUSAND (Php10,000.00) PESOS as Administrative fine to this Board for violating Sections 27 and 30 of P.D. 957 and its implementing rules and regulations.
Complainant on the other hand is ordered to post a cash or surety bond in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (Php50,000.00) PESOS from accredited bonding company of this Board to answer for whatever damages that respondent's (sic) will suffer in the future, in relation to the case at bar.
Aggrieved, private respondents filed an Appeal Memorandum before the HLURB Board of Commissioners, Fourth Division, which partly granted the appeal and modified the decision of Arbiter Servande, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, appeal is GRANTED IN PART. Accordingly, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED as follows:
1. Respondents AE International Construction and Development Corporation and its President and General Manager Bryan Ong, jointly and severally, are ordered:
a. In their capacity as board members of the homeowners of the Villa Lucita Homeowners Association, to call an election for the board members of the association, including the residents as voting members pursuant to the Deed of Restrictions within thirty (30) days from the receipt hereof; and
b. To direct the security guards of the project to open and close the subdivision gate for complainants, their family and their visitors.
2. Complainants are ordered to pay to the respondents/homeowners association the security fees assessed.
3. The Writ of Execution, dated September 26, 2011 is hereby QUASHED. DETACa
4. The CDO bond posted by complainants in the amount of P50,000.00 is hereby ordered released and the supersedeas bond posted by respondents is hereby ordered cancelled.
SO ORDERED.
The HLURB Board of Commissioners found that private respondents were not guilty of violating Sections 27 and 30 of P.D. No. 957. Private respondents were justified in initiating the organization of a homeowner's association during the initial stages of the subdivision project. Thus, the HLURB Board of Commissioners ruled that the homeowner's association organized by the developer was valid but must eventually be turned over to the homeowners once they reach a sufficient number that would render the association viable for administration. In fine, since the homeowner's association organized by private respondents was valid, the collection of subdivision residents fees was warranted. Consequently, the spouses Nieuwendaal are obligated to pay said fees including the assessed fees for the security services. The HLURB Board of Commissioners also found it proper to quash the Writ of Execution issued by Arbiter Servande as the directives in the dispositive portion of his 31 August 2011 Decision were vague and disposed of the main issues of the case. Likewise, the HLURB Board of Commissioners noted that the Arbiter did not observe the rules relative to the proper procedure in issuing a Cease and Desist Order pursuant to Section 1 of Rule XI of Board of Resolution 851, series of 2009 (Adopting the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board). 4
The respondents, seeking to assail and set aside the HLURB's decision, brought a petition for certiorari in the CA, which treated the petition as a petition for review brought under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court in the interest of justice.
As stated, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB, and reinstated the ruling of the HLURB Arbiter because the ruling had already attained finality and immutability upon finding that the appeal memorandum had been filed only on September 23, 2011, which was four days after September 19, 2011, the last day of the reglementary period within which to file the appeal. The CA noted that the petitioners had also not perfected their appeal by not filing the appeal bond simultaneously with its appeal memorandum; hence, the non-compliance with the rules of procedure did not stop the running of the reglementary period, letting the ruling of the HLURB Arbiter to lapse into finality and to become immutable. The disposition reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the petition is GRANTED. The 28 October 2011 Decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners, Fourth Division, is VACATED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered DISMISSING the belated appeal filed in HLURB Case No. REM-A-111003-01537. Accordingly, the 31 August 2011 Decision of the HLURB Regional Office is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED. 5
The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on July 19, 2016. 6
Hence, this appeal.
The petitioners argue that the CA erred in ruling that the appealed decision of the HLURB Arbiter had become final and executory. They pointed to the fact that based on the rubber stamp, the appeal memorandum dated September 16, 2011 was received by the HLURB on September 16, 2011 at 4:45 in the afternoon, or within the reglementary period to file the appeal. They further argue that the posting of the appeal bond was not required during the filing of the appeal memorandum itself, positing that what Section 56, Rule 15 of the 2011 Revised Rules of Procedure of the HLURB penalized was the failure to post the appeal bond; that the rules nowhere required the posting of the bond simultaneously with the filing of the appeal memorandum; and that even if such simultaneous posting was required, the highest interest of justice would justify the relaxation of the rules of procedure to enable them to obtain complete relief. aDSIHc
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
At the onset, it must be stressed that appeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege. The party who seeks to exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost. While the policy of liberal construction of the rules of procedure has at times been applied, such liberality may be invoked only in situations where there is some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, but not where its application subverts the essence of the proceeding or results in the utter disregard of the Rules of Court. 7
A review of the records reveals that while they filed their appeal memorandum on September 16, 2011, the petitioners did not post the appeal bond within the same period. Failure to do so meant that the appeal was not perfected. The requirement that the appeal bond be posted at the same time as the filing of the appeal memorandum is clear in the 2011 Revised Rules of Procedure of the HLURB, thus:
Rule 14
APPEAL MEMORANDUM AND COUNTER-
Section 49. Allowed Pleadings. — The only pleadings allowed on appeal are the Appeal Memorandum and the Counter-Memorandum. Unless otherwise directed by the Board of Commissioners, no other pleadings shall be allowed and the filing thereof does not toll the period for the resolution of the appeal.
Section 50. Appeal Memorandum. — An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Arbiter on any legal ground and upon payment of the appeal fee, by filing with the Regional Field Office a verified appeal memorandum in three (3) copies within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed decision.
Within five (5) days from receipt of the appeal memorandum, the Regional Field Office shall elevate the records of the case to the Board of Commissioners together with the summary of proceedings.
Section 51. Contents of Appeal Memorandum. —
(a) Title and Caption. — The heading shall state that the case is filed under the jurisdiction of the HLURB. The caption shall be the same as that stated in the original case but the party appealing shall be additionally designated as the "Appellant" and the party against whom the appeal is made as the "Appellee";
(b) Statement of Date of Receipt of Appealed Decision. — The statement of the date when the appellant received a copy of the appealed decision;
(c) Statement of the Facts and Incidents. — The summary of the facts leading to the filing of the case, or giving rise to the omission or commission of the acts constituting the cause of action or defense, and the proceedings conducted, inclusive of the material dates;
(d) Statement of the Issues. — The issues to be resolved in the appeal; ETHIDa
(e) Statement of the Grounds for the Appeal. — The grounds upon which the appeal is based;
(f) Reliefs. — The ultimate claims of the parties;
(g) Verification. — The verification which shall be in accordance with Section 15 (e) of this Rules;
(h) Affidavit of Service to the Other Party. — An affidavit stating the date of service of the appeal memorandum upon the other party and a copy of the registry return receipt which shall be attached thereto; and,
(i) Appeal Bond. — In case of money judgment, an appeal bond in cash or manager's check posted with the Board or surety bond in accordance with the succeeding section, equivalent to the amount of the award and actual damages, excluding interests, other damages, and attorney's fees. [Bold emphasis supplied].
The HLURB imposed monetary liability against the petitioners; hence, the filing of the appeal bond was necessary pursuant to Section 51 (j) of Rule 14, supra. Clearly, the petitioners' argument about the filing of the appeal bond after the filing of the appeal memorandum had no basis.
With the petitioners' failure to comply with the requirements of the law to perfect the appeal, the adverse ruling of the HLURB Arbiter lapsed to finality, and became immutable as not to be any more subject to reversal or modification. Their invocation of the policy on liberal construction of the rules of procedure is rejected. Not even under the guise of serving the "highest interest of justice" can the Court extend liberality towards them for doing so would be to ignore their palpable neglect about the procedural requirements. Before liberality can be extended, they must show that their neglect was excusable. Yet, they did not make such showing because they did not advance any good and acceptable justification for their neglect.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 7-14; penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Executive Justice Gabriel T. Ingles and Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap.
2.Id. at 63-69.
3.Id. at 51-53.
4.Id. at 8-10.
5.Id. at 13.
6.Id. at 17-18.
7.BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Pryce Gases, Inc., G.R. No. 188365, June 29, 2011, 653 SCRA 42.