G.R. No. 176129 ; August 24, 2011
Heirs of Rodolfo Crisostomo (Euprocinia, Royce and Irish Crisostomo), Petitioners, vs. Rudex International Development Corporation, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners are the wife and children of the late Rodolfo Crisostomo. Respondent is a domestic corporation engaged in real estate. On December 17, 2001, the Crisostomo spouses agreed to buy a house and lot from respondent in its Patricia South Villa subdivision in Imus, Cavite, for ₱833,000.00 on installment. They paid a ₱10,000.00 down payment and signed a Reservation Agreement. On December 21, 2001, they paid an additional ₱50,000.00, executed a promissory note, issued 36 postdated checks for monthly amortizations, and were given a Key Acceptance, Walk Through, and Final Turnover Certificate. They moved into the house on February 10, 2002, but soon noticed construction defects and inadequate subdivision facilities. Consequently, on May 17, 2002, Rodolfo Crisostomo delivered a letter to respondent rescinding the Contract to Sell, demanding a refund of all payments, and stating he would cease monthly amortizations. On May 27, 2002, he filed a Complaint before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for violation of Presidential Decree Nos. 1344 and 957, and Board Resolution No. 579 of 1995.
The HLURB declared respondent in default for failure to answer. An ocular inspection on March 12, 2003 supported Rodolfo’s allegations. On July 7, 2003, the HLURB rendered a Judgment by Default, declaring the rescission valid, ordering respondent to refund ₱71,650.00 with 12% interest per annum from the filing of the complaint, directing petitioners to surrender the property after full payment, and ordering respondent to pay ₱5,000.00 attorney’s fees and a ₱10,000.00 administrative fine.
Respondent filed a Petition for Review with the HLURB. On August 17, 2004, the HLURB modified its decision, rescinding the reservation agreement, ordering a refund of ₱71,650.00 with legal interest, directing petitioners to turn over possession of the unit, and ordering petitioners to pay respondent ₱4,000.00 per month as reasonable compensation for use of the unit until possession is turned over. It also affirmed the attorney’s fees and administrative fine.
Petitioners, having substituted Rodolfo upon his death, appealed to the Office of the President (OP). On November 18, 2005, the OP reversed the HLURB decision, declaring the contract rescinded, ordering possession turned over to respondent, ordering respondent to refund ₱71,650.00 with 12% interest, and awarding moral damages (₱25,000.00), exemplary damages (₱25,000.00), attorney’s fees (₱5,000.00), and an administrative fine (₱10,000.00). Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. On May 9, 2006, the OP granted the motion, reinstating the HLURB’s August 17, 2004 decision (including the award of monthly compensation to respondent). The OP held that deleting the award of rentals would result in petitioners’ unjust enrichment at respondent’s expense. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the OP on August 2, 2006.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals (CA) on September 15, 2006. The CA dismissed it outright in a Resolution dated October 6, 2006, for being filed one day beyond the 15-day extended period granted, the deadline being September 14, 2006. The CA stated it had no more jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on January 5, 2007.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on the ground that it was filed one day late.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing and setting aside the CA Resolutions and remanding the case to the CA for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court found the petitioners’ one-day delay in filing their CA petition constituted excusable negligence. Petitioners explained their counsel had prepared the petition by September 13, 2006, with only annexes to be attached. Counsel assigned her secretary to arrange and attach the annexes in a vacant room outside the office. Unbeknownst to counsel, the secretary, a single mother of two small children, failed to report for work on the filing deadline of September 14, 2006, because she had to take her sick children to the doctor after finding them abandoned by their nanny the night before. The Court, applying rules of justice, equity, and fair play, considered this circumstance sufficient to excuse the one-day delay. Therefore, the CA should not have dismissed the petition outright and should have proceeded to adjudicate the case on its merits. The core substantive issues raised by petitioners (regarding the HLURB Appeal Board’s jurisdiction to modify a default judgment and grant relief not prayed for, and the OP’s affirmance) were not ruled upon, as the Supreme Court’s decision was limited to reinstating the appeal on procedural grounds.