G.R. No. 146031 ; February 19, 2008
Delta Development & Management Services, Inc., (Delta) By: Ricardo S. De Leon, Sr., petitioner, vs. The Housing and Land Regulatory Board, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Delta Development & Management Services, Inc. is a real estate developer of Delta Homes in Cavite. Several lot buyers filed separate complaints against Delta before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for alleged violations of housing laws. An HLURB Arbiter rendered a decision in one case, ordering Delta to deliver a title and pay damages. Subsequently, petitioner alleged that an HLURB employee, Jun Labapi, had prepared the complaints and related documents for the buyers. Petitioner claimed this demonstrated HLURB’s partiality, rendering the proceedings a sham and depriving Delta of due process.
Instead of raising this issue of alleged partiality before the HLURB Arbiter or through the HLURB’s appellate procedures, petitioner filed a Petition for Prohibition with the Court of Appeals. It sought to enjoin the HLURB from further hearing the complaints, arguing the proceedings were void from the start due to bias. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, citing petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies and its failure to implead the complainants.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Prohibition based on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the appellate court’s resolutions. The writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioner had an adequate administrative remedy which it failed to utilize. The 1996 HLURB Rules of Procedure provided a specific mechanism for addressing allegations of arbiter partiality through a motion for inhibition or disqualification under its rules.
Petitioner’s failure to first bring its allegations of the HLURB employee’s misconduct to the attention of the concerned Arbiter was fatal. It deprived the Arbiter of the opportunity to rule on the jurisdictional objection and correct any irregularity. The Court found no basis to conclude that the entire HLURB machinery was incapable of providing an impartial hearing, especially as it was not shown that the employee Labapi worked for the specific Arbiter handling Delta’s cases. Petitioner’s leap to file a prohibition case constituted a premature judicial intrusion. The alleged denial of due process was speculative, as petitioner bypassed the administrative forum designed to hear such grievances. Conversely, granting the injunction would unjustly deny the complainants their right to be heard on their meritorious claims.