G.R. No. 166051 - SOLID HOMES, INC., VS. EVELINA LASERNA AND GLORIA CAJIPE, REPRESENTED BY PROCESO F. CRUZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the [D]ecision of [HLURB] Arbiter Gerardo Dean dated 07 October 1992 is hereby MODIFIED to read as follows: [Herein respondent] [12] is hereby directed to pay the balance of P11,585.41 within the (sic) thirty (30) days from finality of this [D]ecision. [Herein petitioner] is hereby directed to execute the necessary deed of sale and deliver the TCT over the subject property immediately upon full payment . [Petitioner] is hereby directed to cease and desist from charging and/or collecting fees other than those authorized by P.D. 957 and other related laws. [13] (Emphasis supplied). Petitioner remained unsatisfied with the Decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners, thus, it appealed the same before the Office of the President, wherein it was docketed as O.P. Case No. 5919. After evaluating the established facts and pieces of evidence on record, the Office of the President rendered a Decision [14] dated 10 June 2003, affirming in toto the 10 August 1994 Decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners. In rendering its Decision, the Office of the President merely adopted by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the Decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners. Resultantly, petitioner moved for the reconsideration [15] of the 10 June 2003 Decision of the Office of the President. However, in an Order [16] dated 9 December 2003, the Office of the President denied the same. The petitioner thereafter elevated its case to the Court of Appeals by way of Petition for Review under Rule 43 [17] of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82153, raising the following issues, to wit: (1) the Honorable Office of the President seriously erred in merely adopting by reference the findings and conclusions of the HLURB Board of Commissioners in arriving at the questioned [D]ecision; and (2) the Honorable Office of the President seriously erred in not dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action. [18] On 21 July 2004, the appellate court rendered a Decision denying due course and dismissing the petitioners Petition for Review for lack of merit, thus affirming the Decision of the Office of the President dated 10 June 2003, viz : WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the instant [P]etition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of merit. [19] (Emphasis supplied). Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision but, it was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 10 November 2004. Hence, this Petition. Petitioner raises the following issues for this Courts resolution: WHETHER OR NOT THE [HONORABLE] COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WHICH MERELY ADOPTS BY REFERENCE THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE [HLURB], IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANDATE OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE DECISION SHOULD BE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND LAW TO ARRIVE AT A