Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40438:g-r-no-126999-august-30,-2000-sgmc-realty-corp-v-office-of-the-president-op-,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:44:53+00:00

Document:
SGMC REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (OP), RIDGEVIEW REALTY CORPORATION, SM INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, MULTI-REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP., HENRY SY SR., HENRY SY JR., HANS T. SY, MARY UY TY and VICTOR LIM, Respondents.
The records disclose that on March 29, 1994, petitioner filed before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) a complaint for breach of contract, violation of property rights and damages against private respondents. After the parties filed their pleadings and supporting documents, the arbiter rendered a decision dismissing petitioner’s complaint as well as private respondents’ counterclaim.
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for being filed out of time.
Petitioner contends that the period of appeal from the HLURB to the Office of the President is thirty (30) days from receipt by the aggrieved party of the decision appealed from in accordance with Section 27 of the 1994 Rules of Procedure of HLURB and Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987, of the Office of the President.
However, we find petitioner’s contention bereft of merit, because of its reliance on a literal reading of cited rules without correlating them to current laws as well as presidential decrees on the matter.
Thus, in this case public respondent cannot be faulted of grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the period of appeal is fifteen days and in forthrightly dismissing petitioner’s appeal as the same was clearly filed out of time.
7.	R. E. Agpalo. Statutory Construction (1995) p. 17.
8.	Executive Order No. 648 (7 February 1981) and Executive Order No. 90 (17 December 1986).
9.	GMCR Inc. v. Bell Telecommunication Phils., Inc., 338 Phil 507, 525 (1997).
10.	Navarro v. NLRC, GR-116464, March 1, 2000, p. 7.
11.	U.P. Law Center. 7 National Administrative Register 3, July-September 1996, pp. 590-596.
12.	Sycip v. Francel Realty Corp., OP Case No. 5810, June 28, 1995; Go vs Swire Realty Corp., OP Case No. 5590, July 10, 1995, Rollo, p. 23.
13.	Fortich v. Corona, 289 SCRA 624, 645 (1998); Executive Secretary v. Gordon, 29B SCRA 736, 742 (1998). In any case, under the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which took effect on July 1, 1997, petitions for certiorari seeking to review acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, like the Office of the President, are cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
14.	Malonzo v. Zamora, GR-137718, July 27, 1999, p. 10.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.