October 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 153653 - San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Association, Inc., etc. v. City of Mandaluyong, etc., et al.
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 153653 : October 2, 2009]
SAN MIGUEL BUKID HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., herein represented by its PRESIDENT, MR. EVELIO BARATA, Petitioner, v. THE CITY OF MANDALUYONG, represented by the HON. MAYOR BENJAMIN ABALOS, JR.; A.F. CALMA GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, represented by its President, ARMENGO F. CALMA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This resolves the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking nullification of the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated April 16, 20021 and May 14, 2002,2 in CA-G.R. SP No. 69827, dismissing the Petition for Certiorari filed by herein petitioner.
The undisputed facts are as follows.
Petitioner San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Association, Inc. (formerly known as Bukid Neighborhood Landless Association), an association of urban poor dwellers of San Miguel Bukid Compound, Plainview, Mandaluyong City, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City a Complaint3 for specific performance and damages against respondents City of Mandaluyong (City) and A.F. Calma General Construction (Calma). It is alleged therein that pursuant to the City's Land for the Landless Program, petitioner and the City entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), whereby the City purchased lots and then transferred the same to petitioner with a first real estate mortgage in favor of the City. Subsequently, the City and Calma entered into a Contract Agreement for the latter to construct row houses and medium-rise buildings on the aforementioned lots within 540 calendar days for the benefit of petitioner's members. In June 1995, Calma began construction, but in June 1996, work on the project was stopped. The period of 540 days elapsed sometime in November 1996, but the houses and buildings were not yet completed. Petitioner's letters sent to the Mayor of the City requesting an update on the project remained unanswered. Hence, petitioner filed the complaint praying that the City and Calma be ordered to perform their respective undertakings and obligations under the Contract Agreement and to pay petitioner attorney's fees, exemplary damages and litigation expenses.
The City filed an Answer4 within the extended period granted by the trial court. The City's main defense was that the MOA had already been abrogated due to petitioner's failure to secure a loan from the Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation, and that petitioner had no standing or personality to institute the action, as it was not a party to the Contract Agreement.
Calma did not file an Answer.
On September 12, 2000, petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default. It pointed out that the lawyer who signed the City's Answer was a private counsel, not the Office of the City Legal Officer which, according to petitioner, was the only office authorized under Section 248 of the Local Government Code to represent the local government unit in all civil actions. Thus, petitioner prayed that the City be declared in default on the ground that the City's Answer was a mere scrap of paper and should not be admitted in court for being an unsigned pleading, the same not having been signed and filed by a duly authorized representative of the City.
In its Order5 dated June 4, 2001, the RTC denied petitioner's motion, ruling that a party should only be declared in default in cases showing clear obstinate refusal or inordinate neglect in complying with the Orders of the court. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of said order was also denied per Order6 dated January 7, 2002.???�r?bl?�