Crisostomo vs. Rudex

8/13/2019 Crisostomo vs. Rudex

1/15

Contracts

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

heirs of rodolfo crisostomo (euprocinia,

royce and irish crisostomo),

Petitioners,

- versus-

Rudex international development

corporation,

Respondent.

G.R. No. !"#$

Present:

CORON, C.J.,

Chairperson,

!"ONR#O-#" C$%RO,

&"R$'N,

#"! C$%!!O, and

!!R',*R.,JJ.

Promul+ated:


2/15

u+ust , //

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

D % C I S I O N

&%ON'RDO(D% C'STRO)J.*

%his Petition for Re+ie, on Certiorari/0/1 see2s to reverse and set aside the

Octo3er 4, 401 and *anuary 5, 67071 Resolutionsof the Court of 'ppeals

inC'(G.R. SP No. $-$#, 8hich dismissed outri+ht the petitioners9 Petition for

/0/1 /6 Rules of Court, Rule 5.

01 Rollo, pp. 5-4; penned 3y ssociate *ustice Celia C. !i3rea-!ea+o+o 8ith

ssociate *ustices Rodri+o . Cosico and "d+ardo


3/15

Revie8 dated $eptem3er /7, 4 for 3ein+ filed one day 3eyond the /5-day

extended period +ranted 3y the Court of ppeals.

Petitioners "uprocinia, Royce, and rish, are the 8ife and children,

respectively, of the late complainant, Rodolfo Crisostomo, 8ho died durin+ the

pendency of the case. 01

%he respondent, Rudex nternational #evelopment Corporation, is a

domestic corporation en+a+ed in the real estate 3usiness.5051

On #ecem3er /6, /, the Crisostomo spouses 8ere offered a house and

lot at Patricia $outh illa, a su3division developed 3y the respondent in na3u -

ations on the property. %he Crisostomos 8ere then +iven a ?ey

cceptance, @al2 %hrou+h, and


4/15

On ations.6061

On 'ay 6, , Rodolfo filed a Complaint=0=1 for violation of

Presidential #ecree Nos. /7 and 56, and &oard Resolution No. 56 of /5,

3efore the Bousin+ and !and se Re+ulatory &oard (B!R&).

n vie8 of respondent9s failure to ans8er the Complaint, it 8as declared in

default on Novem3er 4, 7.01

%he B!R& conducted an ocular inspection in Patricia $outh illa on

'arch /, 7 and found Rodolfo9s alle+ations to 3e supported 3y its findin+s.

%he B!R& held that under $ection of Presidential #ecree No. 56, its

findin+s Dustified the ri+ht of Rodolfo to demand rescission of his contract 8ith the

6061 d. at 7-5.

=0=1 d. at 57-4.

01 d. at 45-44.


5/15

respondent. %hus, on *uly 6, 7, the /&0R1issued its 2u34ment b5 Default,/

0/1 the dispositive portion of 8hich reads:

6/%R%FOR%, premises considered, Dud+ment is here3y rendereddeclarin+ the rescission of the contract to sell as valid and orderin+ the respondent

to refund the total payments in the amount of P6/,45. 8ith interest at /E per

annum from the filin+ of the complaint until full payment.

fter full payment, complainant is directed to peacefully surrender the

su3Dect property in favor of the respondent.

ations on

the property. On 'u4ust !) #7, the /&0R1 rendered a Decision/70/71 on

respondent9s Petition for Revie8, to 8it:

@herefore, the decision of the office 3elo8 is here3y modified to read as

follo8s:

@herefore premises considered, Dud+ment is here3y rescindin+ the

reservation a+reement of parties and su3Dect to le+al compensation or offsettin+,orderin+ respondent to refund the total payments in the amount of P6/,45.

/0/1 d. at 7-6.

//0//1 d. at 6.

/0/1 d. at =-//.

/70/71 d. at /=5-/==.


6/15

8ith interest at le+al interest from the time of the filin+ of the complaint; orderin+

complainant to turn over possession of the unit to the respondent and orderin+

complainant to pay respondent reasona3le compensation for the use of the unit inthe amount of P,. per month until possession of the unit is turned over to

the respondent.


7/15

%he respondent as2ed for a reconsideration/=0/=1 of this decision and on

'ay , 4, the Office of the President +ranted respondent9s motion and

reinstate3 the 'u4ust !) #7 3ecision of the /&0R1./0/1

%he Office of the President, in resolvin+ the issue of 8hether it properly

deleted the previous a8ard of rentals 3y the B!R&, held that FP.#. 0No.1 56

does not authori>e oppression of perceived unscrupulous su3division developers,

each time a home 3uyer cries foul or alle+es any infirmity on the former.G01

+reein+ 8ith the respondent that the deletion of the a8ard of rentals 8ould result

in unduly enrichin+ the petitioners, the Office of the President held:

&y stayin+ at the Auestioned premises for free and 8ithout compensation,to the preDudice of 0respondent1, it is clear that 0petitioners1 unduly enriched

themselves at the expense of another.

Rental payments are le+ally supported 3y virtue of the doctrine of unDustenrichment. "venthou+h the same is not prayed for 3y herein appellee, it could

still 3e reco+ni>ed and a8arded 3y our Office considerin+ that said issue, or

a8ard thereof, is inextrica3ly lin2ed to the issues involved as 8ell as the factsproven in the case, and it is necessary for a Dust and eAuita3le determination of the

case./0/1

/=0/=1 d. at 6-=.

/0/1 d. at -7.

01 d. at /.

/0/1 d. at .


8/15

%he petitioners sou+ht for a reconsideration01 of this Order,7071 3ut this

8as denied 3y the Office of the President on u+ust , 4.

On $eptem3er /5, 4, the petitioners filed their Petition for Revie8 3efore

the Court of ppeals. Bo8ever, this 8as dismissed outri+ht in a Resolution01

for 3ein+ filed out of time, the deadline 3ein+ $eptem3er /, 4. %he Court of

ppeals said that the petitioners 8ere already +ranted a /5-day extension and yet

no Dustification or reason 8as +iven to explain 8hy they still filed 3eyond the

extended period. %he Court of ppeals held:

@e have no more Durisdiction to entertain the Petition much less to alter theDud+ment 8hich has 3ecome final and executory. @e only have the po8er to

dismiss the appeal in the a3sence of exceptional circumstances to 8arrant such

delay.5051

%he petitioners sou+ht reconsideration of this dismissal 3ut the Court of

ppeals found their motion to 3e F3ereft of merit.G4041

01 d. at -7.

7071 d. at 7/6.

01 d. at 5-4.

5051 d.

4041 d. at .


9/15

%he petitioners are no8 3efore us, see2in+ not only that 8e +ive their

petition due consideration, 3ut also that 8e declare the B!R& u+ust /6,

#ecision as null and void. %hey su3mit the follo8in+ issues for our resolution:

5./. N PP"! $ N "$$"N%! PR% O< OR *#C!

$H$%"' N# %B" COR%$ $BO!# PROC""# @%B C%ON, $O $

NO% %O #"PR" %B" P"%%ON"R$ O< %B" RIB% %O PP"!,PR%C!R!H, < %B" PP"! $ '"R%ORO$.

5.. %B" B!R& PP"! &OR# B$ NO *R$#C%ON

'O#


10/15

intent to delay the administration of Dustice. %he petitioners explained that their

petition 8as ready as early as $eptem3er /7, 4, 8ith only the annexes to 3e

attached. %heir counsel assi+ned her secretary to arran+e and attach these annexes

3ut 8ithout their counsel9s 2no8led+e, the secretary did this in a vacant room

outside their office. %he follo8in+ day, the secretary, a sin+le mother of t8o small

children, failed to report for 8or2 3ecause she had to ta2e her 2ids to a doctor as

they had 3een sic2 since she found them home, a3andoned 3y their nanny, the

ni+ht 3efore. t 8as only late in the afternoon that the secretary remem3ered that

she for+ot to leave instructions a3out the petition in their office.=0=1

%he petitioners are as2in+ that this Court exercise its eAuity Durisdiction

since their delay 8as neither intended nor preDudicial to respondent.01

Ruling of this Court

@e +rant the petition.

%his Court has explained that the purpose in limitin+ the period of appeal is

to forestall or avoid an unreasona3le delay in the administration of Dustice and to

put an end to controversies. @here no element of intent to delay the administration

=0=1 d. at 4-6.

01 d. at 6.


11/15

of Dustice could 3e attri3uted to petitioners, a one-day delay does not Dustify their

petition9s dismissal.7071

nDepartment of Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzales v. ennisi,7/07/1 this

Court elucidated on the rules on re+lementary periods, to 8it:

%he +eneral rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and

8ithin the period prescri3ed 3y la8 is, not only mandatory, 3ut Durisdictional, and

failure to conform to the rules 8ill render the Dud+ment sou+ht to 3e revie8edfinal and unappeala3le. &y 8ay of exception, unintended lapses are disre+arded

so as to +ive due course to appeals filed 3eyond the re+lementary period on the3asis of stron+ and compellin+ reasons, such as servin+ the ends of Dustice and

preventin+ a +rave miscarria+e thereof. %he purpose 3ehind the limitation of theperiod of appeal is to avoid an unreasona3le delay in the administration of Dustice

and to put an end to controversies.7071

n Samala v. Court of !ppeals,770771 8e said:

%he rules of procedure are mere tools desi+ned to facilitate the attainment

of Dustice. %heir strict and ri+id application especially on technical matters, 8hich

tends to frustrate rather than promote su3stantial Dustice, must 3e avoided. "ven

the Revised Rules of Court envision this li3erality. %echnicality, 8hen it desertsits proper office as an aid to Dustice and 3ecomes its +reat hindrance and chief

enemy, deserves scant consideration from the courts.7071

7 071 "ilippine !musement an# Gamin$ Corporation v. !n$ara, 5// Phil. =4, =(5).

7/07/1 I.R. No. /45=, 'arch 5, /, 4/ $CR .

7071 d. at 7/.

770771 /4 Phil. / (/).

7071 d. at =.


12/15

n this case, the last day for filin+ the petition for revie8 8as on $eptem3er

/7, 4. %he petitioners entrusted the draftin+ of their petition 8ith their counsel,

8ho in turn entrusted the attachin+ of the reAuired annexes to the petition 8ith her

secretary. %he secretary resi+ned from her Do3 sometime later to avoid +ivin+ her

employer Fpro3lems for unexpected a3sences in the future.G750751 side from this,

the petitioners also su3mitted an ffidavit740741 from the secretary, 8ho narrated

her ordeal that day and 8hy she 8as not a3le to inform her employer of the

8herea3outs of the petition. certification from the doctor of one of the

secretary9s children 8as also su3mitted to prove that the secretary indeed 3rou+ht

her children to the doctor on $eptem3er /, 4, the deadline for filin+ the

petition for revie8 8ith the Court of ppeals.

n li+ht of the fore+oin+, 8e are inclined to +ive the same consideration in

this case pursuant to the rules on Dustice, eAuity, and fair play.

6/%R%FOR%) the petition is GR'NT%D. %he Octo3er 4, 4 and

*anuary 5, 6 Resolutions of the Court of ppeals in C-I.R. $P No. 5 are

here3y R%V%RS%D and S%T 'SID%. C-I.R. $P No. 5 is orderedR%INST'T%D and R%M'ND%D to the Court of ppeals for further

proceedin+s.

750751 Rollo, p. 5/, Resi+nation !etter.

740741 d. at =-.


13/15

SO ORD%R%D.

T%R%SIT' 2. &%ON'RDO(

D% C'STRO

ssociate *ustice

@" CONCR:


14/15


15/15

Pursuant to $ection /7, rticle of the Constitution, certify that the

conclusions in the a3ove #ecision had 3een reached in consultation 3efore the case

8as assi+ned to the 8riter of the opinion of the Court9s #ivision.

R%N'TO C. CORON' Chief *ustice

Crisostomo vs. Rudex

Documents

Transcript of Crisostomo vs. Rudex