View full case

MA. LUISA G. DAZON v. KENNETH Y. YAP

FACTS:

The petitioner entered into a contract with Primetown Property Group, Inc. to purchase a unit in a condominium project. The petitioner made payments, but the project was not completed. The petitioner demanded a refund, but Primetown did not comply. As a result, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint against Kenneth Y. Yap, the president of Primetown, for violation of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 957. The RTC found probable cause and the information was filed, but Yap filed a petition for review with the DOJ, which ordered the withdrawal of the information. The RTC granted the motion to withdraw the information and ordered it to be transmitted back to the City Prosecutor's Office. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.

The primary issue raised in the petition is whether the RTC has jurisdiction over a criminal action arising from a violation of Presidential Decree No. 957. The petitioner argues that jurisdiction is conferred by law and that there is no law expressly vesting exclusive jurisdiction over such criminal actions to the HLURB. The respondent argues that there is no error of law and that the real issue is the existence of probable cause, as determined by the Secretary of Justice.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the regular courts or the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) have jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of PD 957.

  2. What is the basis of the directive of the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the withdrawal of the Information?

  3. Whether the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has jurisdiction over criminal actions arising from violations of Presidential Decree (PD) 957.

RULING:

  1. The regular courts have jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of PD 957. The DOJ Resolution withdrew the Information on the basis of the finding that the HLURB, and not the regular court, has jurisdiction over the case.

  2. The basis of the directive of the DOJ for the withdrawal of the Information was the lack of jurisdiction of the RTC, not the lack of probable cause.

  3. The HLURB does not have jurisdiction over criminal actions arising from violations of PD 957. It is the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that has jurisdiction over such cases. The HLURB is only granted the power to prescribe and impose fines not exceeding ten thousand pesos for violations of PD 957 or any rule or regulation thereunder. The power to impose penalties for criminal cases, including fines above ten thousand pesos and/or imprisonment, was not conferred to the HLURB. On the other hand, the BP Big. 129 states that RTCs have exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or body.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving real estate business and practices under PD 957.

  • Jurisdiction over criminal actions arising from violations of PD 957 is vested in the regular courts.

  • Jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the material averments in the complaint as well as the character of the relief sought.

  • The scope and limitation of the jurisdiction of the HLURB are well-defined.

  • The express mention of one thing in the law means the exclusion of others not expressly mentioned (expressio unius est exclusio alterius). The enumeration of cases within the jurisdiction of the HLURB does not include criminal cases.

  • Administrative agencies have limited jurisdiction and can only wield powers specifically granted to them by their enabling statutes.

  • Quasi-judicial prerogatives of administrative agencies must be limited and incidental to or in connection with the performance of administrative duties, and not confer jurisdiction over a matter exclusively vested in the courts.

  • The HLURB has the power to impose administrative fines for violations of PD 957, but not the power to impose penalties for criminal cases arising from the same violations.

  • The RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or body.