ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

MOLDEX REALTY, INC. vs. HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD et. al.
G.R. No. 149719, June 21, 2007, TINGA, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

When an administrative regulation is attacked for being unconstitutional or invalid,
a party may raise its unconstitutionality or invalidity on every occasion that the
regulation is being enforced. The requisite for judicial review that the party assailing
the regulation must show that the question of constitutionality has been raised at
the earliest opportunity should not be taken to mean that the question of
constitutionality must be raised immediately after the execution of the state action
complained of—a contrary rule would mean that a law, otherwise unconstitutional,
would lapse into constitutionality by the mere failure of the proper party to
promptly file a case to challenge the same.

FACTS
Petitioner, as owner-developer of Metrogate Complex Phase I, has been
subsidizing the electric bill for its streetlights since 1988. In 2000, he decided to
stop and advised respondent association Metrogate Complex Village Homeowners’
Association to assume the same. Respondent association’s refusal led to
discontinuance of the service, prompting it to apply for a preliminary injunction and
preliminary mandatory injunction with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) against petitioner. The HLURB granted respondent association’s
application for injunction based on Housing and Urban Development Coordinating
Council (HUDCC) Resolution No. R-562, series of 1994. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration but was rebuffed, and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
was granted to respondent association thereafter. Petitioner then filed a Petition for
Prohibition and Certiorari with the Court of Appeals for the reversal of the HLURB
decision and to assail the constitutionality of the Resolution. The Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition on the ground that the constitutionality issue should have
been raised directly to the Supreme Court. Petitioner thus instituted an action for
certiorari and prohibition with the same prayers at the Supreme Court which is
anchored on the unconstitutionality of the HUDCC resolution for being a void
exercise of legislative power, grave abuse of discretion by the HLURB in issuing the
mandatory injunction, and not commanding the respondent association to shoulder
the electricity bill. HLURB commented that said petition was filed beyond the 60-
day reglementary period but petitioner maintains otherwise.

ISSUE
1. Whether or not the petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed within the 60-
day reglementary period.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that
the constitutionality issue may be brought only to the Supreme Court.

RULING
1. Yes. When an administrative regulation is attacked for being unconstitutional or
invalid, a party may raise its unconstitutionality or invalidity on every occasion
that the regulation is being enforced. For the Court to exercise its power of
judicial review, the party assailing the regulation must show that the question of
constitutionality has been raised at the earliest opportunity. This requisite should
not be taken to mean that the question of constitutionality must be raised
immediately after the execution of the state action complained of. That the
question of constitutionality has not been raised before is not a valid reason for
refusing to allow it to be raised later. A contrary rule would mean that a law,
otherwise unconstitutional, would lapse into constitutionality by the mere failure
of the proper party to promptly file a case to challenge the same. Petitioner had
already raised the question of constitutionality in its petition filed with the Court
of Appeals. The alleged injury caused to petitioner as a result of the
implementation of the HUDCC Resolution is continuous in nature in that as long
as the assailed resolution is effective, petitioner is obliged to pay for the
electricity cost of the streetlights. For every occasion that petitioner is directed to
comply with the assailed resolution, a new cause of action to question its validity
accrues in favor of petitioner. Thus, the instant petition is not time-barred.

2. Yes. It must be emphasized that the Supreme Court does not have
exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions assailing the constitutionality of a
law or an administrative regulation, the lower courts also have jurisdiction at the
first instance. The general rule is that the Supreme Court shall exercise only
appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the constitutionality of a statute, treaty
or regulation, except in circumstances where the Court believes that resolving the
issue of constitutionality of a law or regulation at the first instance is of
paramount importance and immediately affects the social, economic and moral
well being of the people. Ultimately, the Court is called upon to resolve the
question of who bears the obligation of paying electricity cost, a question that the
lower courts undoubtedly have the competence to resolve.