CASE DIGEST : ATTY. ROBERTO F. DE LEON VS. LOURDES S. ASOMBRADO-LLACUNA G.R. No. 246127 GAERLAN

 FACTS : The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Atty. Roberto F. De Leon seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ (CA) October 15, 2018 Decision and March 12, 2019 Resolution in Lourdes S. Asombrado-Llacuna v. Atty. Roberto De Leon and Provident Savings Bank (CA-G.R. SP No. 149981), which set aside the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Board of Commissioners’ June 16, 2016 Decision. The dispute concerns Lot 39, Block 4, Provident Village, Marikina City, originally owned by Eusebio L. Lopez, Jr., sold to Lourdes S. Asombrado-Llacuna (Lourdes) by Provident Securities Corporation (Prosecor) in 1983, and fully paid for, yet the title remained with Lopez. PSB, represented by Atty. De Leon, later executed an Assignment of Mortgage covering the property in favor of J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. In 2012, Lourdes discovered the annotation of this Assignment on TCT No. 186004 and sent demand letters to Atty. De Leon for the title’s delivery, which went unanswered, prompting her to file a complaint with the HLURB. The HLURB Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling PSB was not the developer or seller and had not shown it was Prosecor’s successor. Lourdes’ appeal to the HLURB Board of Commissioners was denied. On CA review, the appellate court set aside the HLURB decision, remanding the case to include Prosecor as an indispensable party and for further proceedings, holding that the failure to implead Prosecor affected the case’s proper adjudication

ISSUE : WON The Court of Appeals decided the case in a way not in accord with law or with applicable jurisprudence

HELD : The Court resolved that Atty. Roberto F. De Leon’s Petition for Review on Certiorari is partly meritorious and granted it. The Court affirmed that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies allows for exceptions, particularly when the issue is purely legal, as in Lourdes S. Asombrado-Llacuna’s challenge regarding the failure to implead an indispensable party. While the CA correctly held that non-joinder of indispensable parties does not automatically warrant dismissal, the Court found that remanding the case was futile because Prosecor, the alleged indispensable party, had been dissolved and could no longer be impleaded, and there was no evidence that PSB was Prosecor’s successor-in-interest. Consequently, Lourdes had no cause of action against PSB or Atty. De Leon, who cannot be personally liable for corporate obligations. Accordingly, the Court reinstated the HLURB Board of Commissioners’ June 16, 2016 Decision dismissing Lourdes’ complaint against Atty. De Leon and PSB.