Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    1 Go v. Distinction Properties Development

    Uploaded by

    Rap Santos
    1. Petitioners filed a complaint against the respondent construction company alleging misrepresentation in marketing materials and failure to comply with development regulations for a condominium project. 2. The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals overturned, finding that the regulatory agency (HLURB) did not have jurisdiction over the complaint. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that (1) based on the allegations, the issues fell outside HLURB's authority; and (2) the condominium owners' association (PHCC) was an indispensable party that was not included in the case, rendering any decision made in its absence null and void.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    1 Go v. Distinction Properties Development

    Uploaded by

    Rap Santos
    2K views2 pages
    1. Petitioners filed a complaint against the respondent construction company alleging misrepresentation in marketing materials and failure to comply with development regulations for a condominium project. 2. The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals overturned, finding that the regulatory agency (HLURB) did not have jurisdiction over the complaint. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that (1) based on the allegations, the issues fell outside HLURB's authority; and (2) the condominium owners' association (PHCC) was an indispensable party that was not included in the case, rendering any decision made in its absence null and void.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Petitioners filed a complaint against the respondent construction company alleging misrepresentation in marketing materials and failure to comply with development regulations for a condominium project. 2. The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals overturned, finding that the regulatory agency (HLURB) did not have jurisdiction over the complaint. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that (1) based on the allegations, the issues fell outside HLURB's authority; and (2) the condominium owners' association (PHCC) was an indispensable party that was not included in the case, rendering any decision made in its absence null and void.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    1 Go v. Distinction Properties Development

    Uploaded by

    Rap Santos
    1. Petitioners filed a complaint against the respondent construction company alleging misrepresentation in marketing materials and failure to comply with development regulations for a condominium project. 2. The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals overturned, finding that the regulatory agency (HLURB) did not have jurisdiction over the complaint. 3. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that (1) based on the allegations, the issues fell outside HLURB's authority; and (2) the condominium owners' association (PHCC) was an indispensable party that was not included in the case, rendering any decision made in its absence null and void.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc. G.R. No. 194024 FACTS Philip L. Go, Pacifico Q.

    Lim and Andrew Q. Lim (petitioners) are registered individual owners of condominium units in Phoenix Heights Condominium developed by the respondent. In August 2008, petitioners, as condominium unit-owners, filed a complaint before the HLURB against DPDCI for unsound business practices and violation of the MDDR, alleging that DPDCI committed misrepresentation in their circulated flyers and brochures as to the facilities or amenities that would be available in the condominium and failed to perform its obligation to comply with the MDDR. In defense, DPDCI alleged that the brochure attached to the complaint was a mere preparatory draft. HLURB rendered its decision in favor of petitioners. DPDCI filed with the CA its Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition on the ground that HLURB acted without or beyond its jurisdiction. The CA ruled that the HLURB had no jurisdiction over the complaint filed by petitioners as the controversy did not fall within the scope of the administrative agencys authority. ISSUES: 1. Whether the HLURB has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the petitioners 2. Whether PHCC is an indispensable party HELD: 1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. Thus, it was ruled that the jurisdiction of the HLURB to hear and decide cases is determined by the nature of the cause of action, the subject matter or property involved and the parties. In this case, the complaint filed by petitioners alleged causes of action that apparently are not cognizable by the HLURB considering the nature of the action and the reliefs sought. 2. An indispensable party is defined as one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest. It is "precisely when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) an action should be dismissed. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those present. The purpose of the rules on joinder of

    indispensable parties is a complete determination of all issues not only between the parties themselves, but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment. PHCC is an indispensable party and should have been impleaded, as it would be directly and adversely affected by any determination therein. Evidently, the cause of action rightfully pertains to PHCC.

    You might also like