GR 140138; (October, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140138 ; October 11, 2006
SPS. ANGEL L. SADANG and MARITONI A. SADANG, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and CATHAY LAND, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, spouses Sadang, are homeowners in San Antonio Village, Pasig City. They filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig against respondent Cathay Land, Inc. and other government officials. The complaint sought damages and the annulment of various permits and certifications (development permit, barangay certification, MMDA certification) that allowed Cathay to construct a 35-storey condominium adjacent to their residence. Petitioners alleged the permits were issued in violation of zoning ordinances, as the area was designated for low-intensity residential use or, at most, commercial use with a height limit.
Cathay moved to dismiss the complaint. The RTC denied the motion. Cathay then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the RTC case.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioners before the Regional Trial Court.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, finding that petitioners violated the rule against forum-shopping and that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applied.
The legal logic is twofold. First, petitioner Angel Sadang had previously filed a complaint before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeking the nullification of the same development permit, which was decided against him and appealed to the Office of the President. His failure to disclose this pending administrative case in his certification against forum shopping filed with the RTC was a clear violation of the rules, warranting dismissal of the judicial complaint.
Second, the core issue involved the validity of administrative issuances concerning zoning classifications and building permits—matters requiring the technical expertise of the HLURB. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction mandates that such specialized administrative questions be resolved first by the concerned agency before courts may exercise judicial review. By pursuing simultaneous actions in the HLURB and the RTC on the identical fundamental issue, petitioners improperly circumvented this doctrine. The RTC should have deferred to the ongoing administrative process. Consequently, the dismissal of the civil case without prejudice was proper.