GR 139791; (December, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139791; December 12, 2003
MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. EDDY NG KOK WEI, respondent.
FACTS
Eddy Ng Kok Wei, a Singaporean investor, entered into a Contract to Sell with Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation for a condominium unit. The contract stipulated that the unit would be substantially completed and delivered within fifteen months from February 8, 1989, with a penalty clause of 1% of the total amount paid by the buyer for any failure to deliver on the specified date. Respondent paid over 90% of the purchase price. Petitioner failed to deliver a habitable unit by the agreed date of May 8, 1990, issuing successive notices resetting the turnover and citing external factors like coup attempts and material shortages. Respondent made multiple trips to the Philippines, finding the unit consistently uninhabitable due to lack of basic utilities.
Exasperated by the delays, respondent sent a formal demand for damages, which petitioner ignored, prompting the filing of a complaint for specific performance and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). During the pendency of the case, respondent eventually accepted and occupied the unit in April 1991, thereby limiting his claim to damages. The RTC ruled in favor of respondent, awarding the contractual penalty, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint; and (2) whether petitioner incurred delay in performance, making it liable for damages.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. On jurisdiction, the Court acknowledged that under Presidential Decree No. 1344, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) possesses exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving specific performance of contractual obligations filed by condominium buyers against developers. However, the Court applied the principle of estoppel. Petitioner actively participated in the RTC proceedings, submitting its case for decision without raising the jurisdictional issue at any stage before the trial or appellate courts. By doing so, petitioner ratified the RTC’s authority and was thus barred from belatedly challenging it.
On the matter of delay, the Court treated this as a factual question. It reiterated the settled rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court in a petition for review under Rule 45, which is limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this rule, as the lower courts’ findings that petitioner incurred unreasonable delay were supported by the evidence on record. Consequently, the awards for damages, including the stipulated penalty, were upheld.