20150203 Cates v NBDC Summary

8/9/2019 20150203 Cates v NBDC Summary

1/7

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

MALACAÑAN

MANILA

ABIGAIL ADVINCULA-CATES,Complainant-Appellee,

- versus -OP CASE NO.14-A-029

(HLURB Appeal Case No.REM-A-121115-01726

NEST BUILDERS DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION,Respondent-Appellant.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

SUMMARY

A.UNDISPUTED FACTS:

• Respondent-appellant is the developer of Bell

Mansion Hometel located at No. 62 Road 13, Pag-

asa, Quezon City.

• Complainant-appellee purchased on installment

Units 1113 and 1114 to be combined into one (1)

whole unit for a total floor area of forty-nine (49

sqm) square meters.1

• The resulting configuration for the combined unit

included, among others, two (2) bedrooms and one

(1) toilet and bath, the same configuration as the aclose relative of the complainant-appellee, Ms.

Nenita D. Carig (Auntie Nenita).2

1 Contract to Sell, Annex “A” of the complaint2 Annexes “D-Appeal” and “E-Appeal” of the respondent-appellant’s Appeal-Memorandum

with the BOARD.

1


2/7

• The initial total consideration for the combined

units is sixty thousand nine hundred thirty-three

and 02/100 (US$ 60,933.02) US dollars payable asfollows:3

o ten (10%) percent downpayment in the amount

of US$ 6,093.31 payable in seven (7) monthly

installments of US$ 870.48 starting from

October 2006 to April 2007; and

o the balance of US$ 54,839.71 payable inmonthly amortizations of US$ 761.67 until

fully paid.

• In 2008, complainant-appellee was informed that

the total floor area of the combined units increased

from 49 square meters to 51.6 square meters

causing an adjustment in the purchase price.4

• Pursuant thereto, the complainant-appellee issued

four post-dated checks for the total amount of US$

1,932.00 to cover the adjustment.

• In 2010, complainant-appellee raised concerns

regarding alleged changes in the floor plan and

complained about the denial of her request for a

lower amortization interest rate which her AuntieNenita was getting.5

• Respondent-appellant replied that the standard

technical specifications of the unit, the rate of

interest, and the miscellaneous expenses were

consistent with their agreement.6

• Complainant-appellee, through counsel, sent a

demand letter rescinding the Contract to Sell and

demanding reimbursement in the amount of thirty-

3 Annex “C” of the Complaint4 Annex “F” of the Complaint5 Annex “B-Appeal” of the respondent-appellant’s Appeal-Memorandum with the BOARD.6 Annex “H” of the Complaint

2


3/7

three thousand five hundred sixty-five and 40/100

(US$ 33,565.40) US dollars.7

• Respondent-appellant denied the unilateralrescission of the Contract to Sell as well as the

demand for reimbursement of payments made.8

• Complainant-appellee filed the instant complaint

with the HLURB.

B.OPPOSING VIEWS:

• Complainant-appellee insists that the original

agreement was for a combined unit with two (2)

bedrooms and two (2) toilet and bath.

• Respondent-appellant argues that the configuration

of complainant-appellee’s combined unit was the

same as the latter’s Auntie Nenita and included two

(2) bedrooms and one (1) toilet and bath.

C.DECISIONS OF THE HLU ARBITER AND BOARD:

• HLU Arbiter favored the complainant-appellee and

ruled that the combined units should have two (2)

bedrooms and two (2) toilet and bath. He declared

the Contract to Sell rescinded and ordered the

respondents-appellees to reimburse the totalamount of US$33,565.40 with 6% interest from the

date of filing of the complaint, which shall thereafter

earn 12% interest after finality thereof, until fully

paid, as well as to pay P50,000.00 attorney’s fees,

P25,000.00 moral and P25,000.00 exemplary

damages.

•

The Board dismissed the appeal of the respondents-appellants ruling that the same was filed out of

time.

7 Annex “I” of the Complaint8 Annex “C-Appeal” of the respondent-appellant’s Appeal-Memorandum with the BOARD.

3


4/7

D.THE INSTANT APPEAL:

• Respondent-appellant filed the instant appeal on

______________________.

• The complainant-appellee did not file any

Comment/Opposition.

E.ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT-APPELLANT IN

THE INSTANT APPEAL:

• The Appeal before the HLURB Board was not filedout of time.

o The respondent-appellant received a copy of

the Decision of the HLU Arbiter only on August

17, 2012 and filed its Appeal by registered mail

on September 3, 2012 considering that

September 1, 2012 is a Saturday.

o Section 3 Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Civil

Procedure provides that in case of filing by

registered mail, the date of mailing is

considered as the date of filing.

o It was erroneous for the Board to declare that

the Appeal was filed on September 12, 2012

which was the date of its receipt.

o Likewise, reliance by the Board on alleged

proof of receipt of respondent-appellee’s

counsel, i.e. alleged letter from letter-carrier

Jerry Domagco, is erroneous considering that

a certification must be issued by the

Postmaster himself for the same to merit the

presumption of regularity.9

o It was likewise erroneous for the Board to

disregard the Affidavit10 of Atty. Victor S. Leal,

the previous counsel for respondent-appellant,9 Barrameda vs. Castillo, G.R. No. L-27211, July 6, 1977

4


5/7

who swore under oath that he did not receive a

copy of the subject Decision of the HLU Arbiter

on the alleged date.

o Administrative bodies are not bound by the

technical niceties of law and procedure and the

rules obtaining in courts of law. In

administrative proceedings, technical rules of

procedure and evidence are not strictly applied

and administrative due process cannot be fully

equated with due process in its strict judicial

sense.11

o It is well to remember at this point that rules

of procedure are but mere tools designed to

facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict

and rigid application that would result in

technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than

promote substantial justice must always be

avoided. Applied to the instant case, this notonly assures that it would be resolved based

on real facts, but would also aid in the speedy

disposition of the case by utilizing the best

evidence possible to determine the rights and

obligations of the party- litigants.12

• The Board effectively altered the terms and

conditions of the Agreement between the parties,contrary to prevailing jurisprudence.

o The complainant-appellee insisted on the same

terms and conditions as her Auntie Nenita. As

such, the configuration of their respective

combined units should also be the same.

o A contract is the law between the parties, and

courts have no choice but to enforce such

contract so long as it is not contrary to law,10 Affidavit of Atty. Victor S. Leal; Annex “2” of respondent-appellant’s

Comment/Opposition to the Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution;11 Pontejos vs. Desierto et al, G.R. No. 148600, July 7, 200912 Tiu et al vs. Phil Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 151932, August 19, 2009

5


6/7

morals, good customs or public policy.

Otherwise, courts would be interfering with

the freedom of contract of the parties.

Simply put,courts cannot stipulate for theparties or amend the latter's agreement, for

to do so would be to alter the real intention

of the contracting parties when the

contrary function of courts is to give force

and effect to the intention of the parties.13

•

The complainant-appellee’s claim that the combinedunits should have 2 toilet and bath was a mere

afterthought.

o The records show that the complainant-

appellee filed the complaint after her request

for a lower amortization interest rate was

denied.

o The complainant-appellee rejected the offer of

the respondent-appellant to construct an

additional toilet and bath during the

mediation.

• Rescission is not available in a Contract to Sell

except where the developer failed to complete the

project within the period stipulated.

o Emiliano Rillo vs. Court of Appeals et al;14

o Albert R. Padilla vs. Spouse Floresco Paredes

and Adelina Paredes et al;15

o G.G. Sportswear Mfg. Corp vs. World Class

Properties Inc.;16

13 Norton Resources and Development Corporation vs. All Asia Bank Corporation, G.R. No.

162523, November 25, 200914 Rillo vs. Court of Appeals et al, G.R. No. 125347, June 19, 199715 Padilla vs. Spouses Paredes et al, G.R. No. 124874, March 17, 200016 G.G. Sportswear Mfg. Corp vs. World Class Properties Inc., G.R. No. 182720, March 2,

2010

6


7/7

• Assuming that the complaiant-appellee is entitled to

reimbursement, it should only be 50% of payments

made in accordance with the Maceda Law.

• Complainant-appellee should not be entitled to

moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

7

20150203 Cates v NBDC Summary

Documents

Transcript of 20150203 Cates v NBDC Summary