Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SGMC REALTY CORPORATION v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 159520 2006-09-19	FELISA L. PEÑA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Decision of the HLURB Regional Office dated 20 December 1995 had become final and executory for failure of respondent to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period in the manner provided for in the HLURB Rules. Hence, the said Decision became immutable; it can no longer be amended nor altered by the Office of the President. Accordingly, inasmuch as the timely perfection of an appeal is a jurisdictional requisite, the Office of the President had no more authority to entertain the appeal of the respondent. Otherwise, any amendment or alteration made which substantially affects the final and executory judgment would be null and void for lack of jurisdiction.[37]
	GR NO. 154684 2005-09-08	FRANCEL REALTY CORPORATION v. RICARDO T. SYCIP PANGANIBAN, ACTING CJ
"SECTION 23. Non-Forfeiture of Payments. No installment payment made by a buyer in a subdivision or condominium project for the lot or unit he contracted to buy shall be forfeited in favor of the owner or developer when the buyer, after due notice to the owner or developer, desists from further payment due to the failure of the owner or developer to develop the subdivision or condominium project according to the approved plans and within the time limit for complying with the same. Such buyer may, at his option, be reimbursed the total amount paid including amortization interests but excluding [delinquency] interests, with interest thereon at the legal rate." (Italics supplied) To be valid, an administrative rule or regulation must conform, not contradict, the provisions of the enabling law.[34] An implementing rule or regulation cannot modify, expand, or subtract from the law it is intended to implement. Any rule that is not consistent with the statute itself is null and void.[35] Thus, the Court in People v. Maceren[36] explained as follows: "Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself cannot be extended. x x x.
	GR No. 158917 2004-03-01	EVELYN T. PARADERO v. ALBERT B. ABRAGAN YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Moreover, even assuming that petitioner's recourse to certiorari is correct, the same is still dismissible for disregarding the hierarchy of courts. While we have concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari, this concurrence is not to be taken as an unrestrained freedom of choice as to which court the application for the writ will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these extraordinary writs is allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.[26] Petitioner failed to show that such special and important reasons obtain in this case.
	GR No. 136492 2004-02-13	MAXIMA REALTY MANAGEMENT v. PARKWAY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In SGMC Realty Corporation v. Office of the President[20] it was settled that the period within which to appeal the decision of the Board of Commissioners of HLURB to the Office of the President is fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed decision, pursuant to Section 15[21] of Presidential Decree No. 957 (otherwise known as the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's Protection Decree) and Section 2[22] of Presidential Decree No. 1344.[23] The Court ruled that the thirty (30) day period to appeal to the Office of the President from decisions of the Board as provided in Section 27 of the 1994 HLURB Rules of Procedure,[24] is not applicable, because special laws providing for the remedy of appeal to the Office of the President, such as Presidential Decree No. 597 and Presidential Decree No. 1344, must prevail over the HLURB Rules of Procedure. Thus:…[W]e find petitioner's contention bereft of merit, because of its reliance on a literal reading of cited rules without correlating them to current laws as well as presidential decrees on the matter.