G.R. No. 156164 ; September 4, 2009
SPS. LEONARDO AND MILAGROS CHUA, Petitioners, vs. HON. JACINTO G. ANG, DENNIS R. PASTRANA, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CITY AND ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR OF PASIG, RESPECTIVELY, FERDINAND T. SANTOS, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the spouses Chua, entered into a Contract to Sell for a condominium unit with Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI) on February 11, 1999. After three years, FEPI failed to construct and deliver the unit. Consequently, the petitioners filed a criminal complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig against the private respondents, who were officers and directors of FEPI, for alleged violations of Sections 17 (non-registration of the contract) and 20 (failure to complete the project within the stipulated time) of Presidential Decree No. 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree), in relation to its penal provision, Section 39.
The City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint, ruling it was premature. The dismissal was based on the finding that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) possesses exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving real estate business and practices under P.D. No. 957. The prosecutors concluded that a prior administrative determination by the HLURB of a violation was necessary before criminal prosecution could proceed.

ISSUE

Whether the City Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint for violation of P.D. No. 957 on the ground of prematurity, asserting that the HLURB has exclusive primary jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes, the City Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the assailed Resolution, and remanded the case for preliminary investigation. The legal logic is clear: the jurisdiction of the HLURB under P.D. No. 957 is not exclusive over criminal aspects. P.D. No. 957 explicitly provides for criminal penalties in Section 39. The enforcement of these penal sanctions falls within the authority of the regular courts, not an administrative body like the HLURB. The HLURB’s jurisdiction, as delineated by P.D. No. 1344, is limited to cases involving specific real estate trade issues like unsound business practices and claims for refund, which are civil or administrative in nature.
There is no legal requirement for a prior HLURB finding of violation as a condition precedent to the filing of a criminal complaint. The City Prosecutor’s duty to conduct a preliminary investigation for alleged violations of penal laws is ministerial. By dismissing the complaint based on a perceived lack of jurisdiction, the prosecutors effectively abdicated this duty. Their interpretation that the HLURB must first act was a misapplication of the law, constituting grave abuse of discretion. The preliminary investigation should proceed to determine probable cause based on the evidence for the alleged criminal acts defined under P.D. No. 957.