GR 141820; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141820; July 9, 2008
JOSE LUIS HAURIE, JOSE R. EBRO, JR., and TREASURE LAND DEVELOPERS, INC., Petitioners, vs. MERIDIEN RESOURCES, INC., CENTURY PROPERTIES, INC., PIO MARTIN T. LAUENGCO, and LE GRAND CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Meridien Resources, Inc. (MRI) is the owner-developer of the Le Grand Condominium. Before selling any units, MRI decided to convert the project’s administration office into a commercial unit, securing an Alteration of Plan Approval from the HLURB on December 16, 1987. It subsequently amended the master deed to reflect three commercial units instead of two. Petitioner Jose Luis Haurie later purchased units, and other petitioners also acquired interests. Respondent Pio Martin T. Lauengco purchased the converted unit, Unit No. 103.
Petitioners, along with respondent Le Grand Condominium Corporation (LGCC), filed a complaint with the HLURB seeking to cancel the amended master deed and the sale to Lauengco, arguing the conversion required their consent. The HLURB dismissed the complaint, a decision affirmed by the HLURB Board of Commissioners and the Office of the President. The Office of the President ruled the conversion was valid as there were no unit owners at the time of alteration and it complied with HLURB approval.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioners’ appeal (CA-G.R. SP No. 52471) based on a procedural technicality?
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The dismissal was procedurally sound. Petitioners failed to attach certified true copies of essential documents to their petition for review before the Court of Appeals, as mandatorily required under Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. These documents included the verified complaint, answers, decisions of the HLURB bodies, and the appeal memoranda filed with the Office of the President. This failure deprived the appellate court of a complete record upon which to base a reasoned disposition of the case.
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that petitioners presented no cogent reason to justify a liberal application of the procedural rules in their favor. Moreover, the Court noted that the substantive merits of the case—the validity of the conversion and sale—had already been conclusively resolved in a separate, related proceeding (CA-G.R. SP No. 53254, affirmed with finality in G.R. No. 164999). In that final decision, the Court upheld the conversion’s legality, noting it occurred before any unit ownership vested and was duly approved by the HLURB. Therefore, even overlooking the procedural lapse, reopening the settled substantive issues was impermissible. A final and executory decision cannot be disturbed.