G.R. No. 226912 , November 24, 2021
JOSEPH DELA LUNA, PETITIONER, VS. SWIRE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On September 14, 2002, Joseph Dela Luna and Swire Realty and Development Corporation entered into a Reservation Agreement for a condominium unit. Dela Luna paid a reservation fee and subsequent down payment and amortizations. He repeatedly requested official receipts from Swire Realty, which were not issued. Dela Luna also refused to sign a memorandum of agreement due to a typographical error in the unit number. After receiving a revised agreement and contract to sell, Dela Luna again requested official receipts. Swire Realty deposited a check against Dela Luna’s advice, prompting Dela Luna to send a demand letter for rescission and refund. Swire Realty refused, leading Dela Luna to file a Complaint for Rescission with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Regional Office. On November 8, 2006, the HLURB Regional Office ruled in favor of Swire Realty, declaring the agreement valid and ordering Dela Luna to pay the balance. Dela Luna learned of this decision only on October 30, 2007, 11 months later. On November 19, 2007, he filed a memorandum of appeal with the HLURB Board of Commissioners, which reversed the Regional Office and ordered a refund. Swire Realty filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the HLURB First Division granted, reinstating the Regional Office’s decision. Dela Luna appealed to the Office of the President, which ruled in his favor and ordered a refund. Swire Realty elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which granted its petition, ruling that Dela Luna’s appeal to the Board of Commissioners was filed out of time and failed to comply with formal requirements, making the Regional Office’s decision final and executory. The Court of Appeals set aside the Office of the President’s decision and reinstated the HLURB Regional Office’s 2006 decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Dela Luna’s appeal due to procedural lapses, specifically the late filing of his appeal with the HLURB Board of Commissioners.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that procedural rules must be strictly followed, and the negligence of counsel binds the client. Dela Luna’s appeal to the HLURB Board of Commissioners was filed beyond the reglementary period and lacked necessary formalities such as a verified certification, affidavit of service, and appeal bond. His claim of his previous lawyer’s negligence did not excuse the procedural lapse, as clients have a duty to monitor their cases. Consequently, the HLURB Regional Office’s November 8, 2006 Decision had become final and executory. Neither the HLURB Board of Commissioners nor the Office of the President had jurisdiction to review or reverse it. The Court emphasized that while it generally frowns upon strict adherence to technicalities, it will not relax procedural rules when the failure to comply is due to the litigant’s own negligence.