GR 149719; (June, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149719 June 21, 2007
MOLDEX REALTY, INC., petitioner, vs. HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, OFFICE OF APPEALS, ADJUDICATION AND LEGAL AFFAIRS, EDITHA U. BARRAMEDA in her capacity as Regional Officer and METROGATE COMPLEX VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Moldex Realty, Inc., the developer of Metrogate Complex Phase I, ceased paying the electric bills for the subdivision’s streetlights in 2000 and directed the respondent homeowners’ association to assume the obligation. The association refused, leading to a discontinuation of service by Meralco. The association then filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). The HLURB Regional Officer, citing HUDCC Resolution No. R-562, s. 1994—which mandates developers to maintain and pay for streetlights until turnover to the local government—issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering Moldex to resume payments. Moldex challenged this order and the HUDCC Resolution itself before the Court of Appeals, arguing the Resolution was an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that the constitutional issue should have been raised directly with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can take cognizance of the petition assailing the HLURB’s orders and the constitutionality of HUDCC Resolution No. R-562, s. 1994.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds. First, the petition was filed out of time. The reglementary 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to assail the HLURB’s final Order dated May 28, 2001, was not tolled by the prior filing of a petition with the Court of Appeals. The period lapsed before the instant petition was filed with the Supreme Court. Second, the petition violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Direct recourse to the Supreme Court is allowed only for special and compelling reasons, such as when the issue is purely legal or of transcendental importance. While the petition raised a constitutional question, it also involved factual determinations on the developer’s obligations, which the HLURB, as a specialized quasi-judicial body, was competent to resolve initially. Finally, the petition was fatally defective for non-joinder of an indispensable party. The Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), the agency that issued the challenged Resolution, was not impleaded. The absence of an indispensable party renders the court without jurisdiction to render a valid judgment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.